RealGM

Which duo would you rather build around in todays league?

I don’t really see a strong argument for Kobe/KG here. They’re more durable, and the better defensive duo, but Shaq/Curry blow the other duo away offensively.

Curry/Shaq would literally be unstoppable.

Interesting that, like Curry on offense, KG is a cheat code on defense in today's league. Curry/Shaq for the question though.

My estimate for this poll was Curry/Shaq to be winning 90% of the votes.

I was close. It's pretty obvious to me that Curry and Shaqs gravity combined would win many chips together with a relatively weak supporting cast at that.

I'd sometimes picture KG and Kobes playstyles not always working together.

Curry and Shaq obviously would be ridiculous offensively but I feel it’s more theyre hella good individually than the synergy

Shaq's FT shooting is a major flaw in today's analytic environment. The 2022 Warriors shot .590 TS% in the 2022 playoffs. Shaq on his entire LA run shot .520 FT% in the playoffs. He would average 20 FTAs because he's going to be copiously hack-a-Shaqed every game.

Shaq's mobility is also a major flaw in today's environment. In the 4th a good smallball team could scorch Shaq's team while taking intentional fouls on Shaq on the other end for the last 6 minutes of the game thereby avoiding the destruction Shaq would cause on his mismatch offensively. It will be hard for Shaq's FT% to keep pace with the efficiency of a good modern smallball offense vs a defense that has Shaq. Not saying it will be this easy to take Shaq away but it will have an impact statistically.

I voted Curry/Shaq but changed my mind. The defensive gap in Kobe/KG's favor is too large and they don't have the hack-a-Shaq to muck them up. They're just going to grind opponents to dust on both ends of the court in the playoffs.

I do think KG is a plainly better player than Shaq in the current climate, and Kobe probably gets a fair bit better too.

But Curry/Shaq just sounds so outlandish and ridiculously good, man.

Matt15 wrote:Which duo would you rather build around in todays league?

You mentioned today's league but how often would Shaq get the rock down low in today's league?

JordansBulls wrote:

Matt15 wrote:Which duo would you rather build around in todays league?

You mentioned today's league but how often would Shaq get the rock down low in today's league?

A lot. Rookie Zion played a lot like Shaq would, relying on power post ups, sealing guys off early in transition, some PNR, and offensive rebounding to get points deep in the paint. He did it out of shape, and after missing half the season to the tune of 29.1 points per 36 on 58%. And he's 6'6 and not 7'1 with a monster wingspan and hands.

12 of Zion's 15 FGA per game were from PNRs, put backs, post ups, cutting to the basket, and transition scoring as an out of shape, 6'6 rookie version of Shaq.

Also, Joel Embiid works a crap ton out of the post, and he's not as big, strong, or as explosive as Shaq was. Shaq's a league altering talent. Teams are going to have to adjust how they approach the game of basketball more than vice versa if prime Shaq hits the floor.

NO-KG-AI wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:

Matt15 wrote:Which duo would you rather build around in todays league?

You mentioned today's league but how often would Shaq get the rock down low in today's league?

A lot. Rookie Zion played a lot like Shaq would, relying on power post ups, sealing guys off early in transition, some PNR, and offensive rebounding to get points deep in the paint. He did it out of shape, and after missing half the season to the tune of 29.1 points per 36 on 58%. And he's 6'6 and not 7'1 with a monster wingspan and hands.

12 of Zion's 15 FGA per game were from PNRs, put backs, post ups, cutting to the basket, and transition scoring as an out of shape, 6'6 rookie version of Shaq.

Also, Joel Embiid works a crap ton out of the post, and he's not as big, strong, or as explosive as Shaq was. Shaq's a league altering talent. Teams are going to have to adjust how they approach the game of basketball more than vice versa if prime Shaq hits the floor.

Yeah, I think the main concern for Shaq is his defense in this era, not offense. He'd be brutally effective with today's spacing and opened paint. He's smart enough to overcome zones after some times to adjust and you just can't front him successfully all game long.

On defense though, he'd have to change a lot of things. I am not that high on his defense in general, but now there are more teams that would be able to take advantage of it.

I think this is close. Curry-shaq is defense breaking to am absurd degree but shaq defensive weaknesses would be a much bigger deal today for teams to exploit whereas garnett skillset would translate seamlessly to modern era

Due to garnett the kobe/kg duo is much more balanced defensively while still being elite in offense which closes the offensive gap the shaq-curry duo has

NO-KG-AI wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:

Matt15 wrote:Which duo would you rather build around in todays league?

You mentioned today's league but how often would Shaq get the rock down low in today's league?

A lot. Rookie Zion played a lot like Shaq would, relying on power post ups, sealing guys off early in transition, some PNR, and offensive rebounding to get points deep in the paint. He did it out of shape, and after missing half the season to the tune of 29.1 points per 36 on 58%. And he's 6'6 and not 7'1 with a monster wingspan and hands.

12 of Zion's 15 FGA per game were from PNRs, put backs, post ups, cutting to the basket, and transition scoring as an out of shape, 6'6 rookie version of Shaq.

Also, Joel Embiid works a crap ton out of the post, and he's not as big, strong, or as explosive as Shaq was. Shaq's a league altering talent. Teams are going to have to adjust how they approach the game of basketball more than vice versa if prime Shaq hits the floor.

Box production =/ impact/goodness. It being easier to get points does not dictate that it would be easier to be impactful as the value of "points" drops when everyone is getting more points. "It's easier to score today" is always brought up in "time machine" discussions but doesn't mean anything inofitself. What matters is how everything compares relative to what your own teammates are doing and/or what the opposing team is doing.

Consequently "player x got y possessions" doesn't matter. What matters is what portion of the offense, or what the relative value of that offense is to everything else. Is post-play as big a part of the offense now as it was in the 2000's? I'd think not(though i'm open to being corrected). If it isn't, then shaq's value should drop offensively. This is compounded by shaq not being a paticularly gifted passer or ball-handler, which makes it harder for him to adapt and replace what is lost from the diminished utility of post scoring.

Production is not magic. Your box production improving after you go to a more "offense friendly" era doesn't make you a better player. And realistically, in modt cases, playing in a more talented league with more talented players will usually lead to you not standing out "as much"(aka gettinf worse).

Shaq IS a particularly gifted passer and ball handler, not in the sense of he's going to dribble drive from the perimeter, but in that he's not going to get stripped making his move and throw passes away. He's a fantastic passer from the post, which would be even more relevant with all these shooters today.

Offenses don't post up nearly as often as they did back then, but they SHOULDN'T have been doing it that heavily even back then, because the juice was not worth the squeeze... except with Shaq.

Shaq is a complete outlier in terms of how offenses should be built ETC. You make good points about the scoring environment, but I don't think anyone thinks Zion or Embiid aren't highly impactful as scorers right? I mean, is that in question, when they are on the floor?

Because Shaq is a better and more dominant scorer than both of them in any environment. And that's kind of my point. If these guys can have their way in the paint, an even bigger and more physically dominant player is going to do even worse damage to teams down low.

The only question with Shaq is going to be his effort in the pick and roll, which was a question even in his prime, but would be exacerbated right now. But I never felt that was a physical issue, because when he locked in, he finished second in DPOY.


So unless your argument is that guys like Embiid and Zion are all box production but not actually great scorers, I'm not sure what the argument is.

KG is the weak link. Curry Shaq


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

OhayoKD wrote:Box production =/ impact/goodness.

Hmmm.

Shaq led the league in OBPM 3 different times and was at 7+ in four straight seasons. Led the league in ESPN's oRAPM in 1998, 99, 2000, 01, 02. Was 2nd in 03 behind an epic year from McGrady. Has three seasons of +5.3 or better AuPM, strong MVP type seasons, 4 if you go to +5. 8 seasons with a ScoreVal of +2.1 or better.

There's lots of evidence to suggest that he had very high-end offensive impact.

Is there some hyperbole over the full extent thereof? Sure. Various people have claimed that he had offensive peaks that were higher than the defensive data has suggested, but he was very clearly a dominant offensive force. Shaq's peak OBPM mostly sits in the late top 50s to 60s... and there are 72 player-seasons of 60+ GP, 30+ mpg and 7+ OBPM, just for some context. Kind of undercuts the argument that he's right up at the upper-most impact, I guess. There's the eye test, of course, his impact in-era. At the time, those markers were very high, We've subsequently seen many seasons from Lebron, several from Jokic, Durant, Steph, Chris Paul, Dirk, James Harden, MVP Westbrook... to say nothing of Magic, Barkley, etc. So yeah, there's something to be said for Shaq's impact being worth examination... but in his era, he was actually a top-end offensive impact guy post Jordan. Perhaps that speaks to the weakness of the era, or perhaps to the changing nature of the game.

It becomes an interesting conversation, doesn't it?

Is post-play as big a part of the offense now as it was in the 2000's? I'd think not(though i'm open to being corrected). If it isn't, then shaq's value should drop offensively. This is compounded by shaq not being a paticularly gifted passer or ball-handler, which makes it harder for him to adapt and replace what is lost from the diminished utility of post scoring.

So, we have seen an INCREASE in post play of late, actually. You don't see lengthy isos like you used to from say, Barkley or Mark Jackson, but we have the 5-second rule to thank for that. Having said, it was mostly old Shaq, like 04 and later, who did a lot of that. A little more even in 03, of course, but when he was younger, he was very much about off-ball movement, offensive rebounding, and the quick move to the bucket. He was very good in transition, very good at moving to the spin, very quick about his decision-making once he did get the ball. With the kind of spacing we have now, he'd be fantastic. We see guys like Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic and a pile of others getting touch post, and even wings and such too. Shaq would have no trouble getting isos, but remember, he was also good at post/repost, and he was good about all the little things that allowed him to score even without isolations.

Phoenix Shaq was a 17.8 ppg player in 30.0 mpg in Phoenix in 2009, his final All-Star season. When he was 36 years old, injured and possessed of no remaining primacy. And he led the league in FG% at 60.9%. He'd be just fine in today's game.

And while NO-KG has already touched on this, it's inaccurate to critique Shaq's passing and ball-handling. He passed very well when he had spacing and a team with good ball movement. He was also a competent ball-handler, and possessed ability with the ball far beyond what he routinely showed. You saw it some in Orlando out on the break, and at All-Star games and such. There's no genesis for this idea that he wasn't a good ball-handler.

Sure, he couldn't do what, say, Giannis does. You don't ask him to advance the ball over the timeline, but that's not a requirement in any way, shape or form.

So unless your argument is that guys like Embiid and Zion are all box production but not actually great scorers,

Neither embid or zion are close to top 5 in offensive impact. So this doesn't actually do anything for you. Your claim was "shaq would be better than he was in 2000's" not, he would be embid/zion.

I'm not sure what the argument is.

Then try reading, this isn't hieroglyphics:

Box production =/ impact/goodness. It being easier to get points does not dictate that it would be easier to be impactful as the value of "points" drops when everyone is getting more points. "It's easier to score today" is always brought up in "time machine" discussions but doesn't mean anything inofitself. What matters is how everything compares relative to what your own teammates are doing and/or what the opposing team is doing.

This is the same trap you feel into when you were trying to use absolute shooting in the GOAT thread. Goodness is dictated by how you do compariatively with everyone else. Using embid as your bar is basically confirming shaq is a worse in 2022 than he is in 2000.

NO-KG-AI wrote:Shaq IS a particularly gifted passer and ball handler, not in the sense of he's going to dribble drive from the perimeter,but in that he's not going to get stripped making his move and throw passes away.

Not turning the ball over is not what constitutes "gifted". What you just described is a limited passer who is able to make do because his passing is utilized in a specfic context. And by your own admission...

Offenses don't post up nearly as often as they did back then, but they SHOULDN'T have been doing it that heavily even back then

...that context is less useful now.

The "field" benefits more from those "shooters" than shaq does, consequently, even on "stylistic " grounds Shaq is worse in 2022 than he was in 2000, setting aside that you stand out less when the field is more talented.

If these guys can have their way in the paint, an even bigger and more physically dominant player is going to do even worse damage to teams down low.

And "even more damage" does not get you to 2000 shaq impact, even if we pretend that Embid being a much better three point shooter, and a much better free throw shooter isn't a thing.



Your claim was that shaq is better in 2022, not that "he would be highly impactful". Your point, is not a point.

Look, I didn't say Shaq would necessarily be better today. I responded to people saying "Shaq can't play from the post, because no one can play from the post" or whatever, because players do play from the post, they do it very well, and none of them are close to on the level of Shaq at doing it.

And if you think Shaq isn't a gifted passer, you should watch him play basketball at some point in your life before commenting on him.

tsherkin wrote:
There's lots of evidence to suggest that he had very high-end offensive impact.

My post didn't ask if shaq was impactful in his own era. The op asked "how does shaq translate to 2022", or more specfically how does shaq's post game translate in value

So, we have seen an INCREASE in post play of late, actually. You don't see lengthy isos like you used to from say, Barkley or Mark Jackson, but we have the 5-second rule to thank for that.

We have seen an increase in the percentage of possessions in the post? The raw number doens't matter. Additionally, the amount of "time" is relevant too, rule-based or not.

Having said, it was mostly old Shaq, like 04 and later, who did a lot of that. A little more even in 03, of course, but when he was younger, he was very much about off-ball movement, offensive rebounding, and the quick move to the bucket. He was very good in transition, very good at moving to the spin, very quick about his decision-making once he did get the ball. With the kind of spacing we have now, he'd be fantastic.

Again...why would this spacing help shaq more than it helps the field? It doensn't matter that he can score more if everyone else's scoring boost off-sets it.

He passed very well when he had spacing and a team with good ball movement.

Exploiting gravity with competence does not make you a gifted passer. KG-AI's description describes shaq as a functional passer. Shaw was below average relative to superstars in attributes like accuracy, vision, and anticipation. Far closer to embid than he is to Jokic. The former who, even with much better shooting, is fringe top 10 in offensive impact.

He was also a competent ball-handler

Which translates to bad on superstar standards.

Sure, he couldn't do what, say, Giannis does. You don't ask him to advance the ball over the timeline, but that's not a requirement in any way, shape or form.

It is if he's going to mantain his value from the 2000's, yea.

NO-KG-AI wrote:Look, I didn't say Shaq would necessarily be better today. I responded to people saying "Shaq can't play from the post,

That was not what they said. You are right you didn't actually shaq would be better, You did say he would get a boost from "spacing" based on the idea his box production would go up.

And if you think Shaq isn't a gifted passer, you should watch him play basketball at some point in your life before commenting on him.

I used your own description of shaq's passing. "Doesn't make many mistakes" is a low bar. Nice ad-hom tho