Shaq vs new bigs

[ShaqAttac]

so shaq seems to look bad against historical bigs. how does he compares to new bigs like giannis brow and joel

[70sFan]

Shaq doesn't look bad against historical bigs, where did you get that from?

Id take Shaq over Embiid and Davis easily. For now, I prefer his peak over Giannis and Jokic as well, although I can see the case for these two.

[ShaqAttac]

Shaq doesn't look bad against historical bigs, where did you get that from?

Id take Shaq over Embiid and Davis easily. For now, I prefer his peak over Giannis and Jokic as well, although I can see the case for these two.

from the points ppl made in the shaq peak thread. giannis defends better right? how does shaq o compare

[70sFan]

Shaq doesn't look bad against historical bigs, where did you get that from?

Id take Shaq over Embiid and Davis easily. For now, I prefer his peak over Giannis and Jokic as well, although I can see the case for these two.

from the points ppl made in the shaq peak thread. giannis defends better right? how does shaq o compare

Yes, Giannis is clearly a better defender than Shaq. O'Neal is clearly better offensively in my opinion though.

[Dutchball97]

Even with the negative response to Shaq getting the 3rd best peak in the peaks project, he did still get voted as the 3rd best peak. Just because there is a vocal minority ranting about what they perceive as unjust rankings doesn't mean said player actually doesn't stack up as well as they claim.

[AEnigma]

Even with the negative response to Shaq getting the 3rd best peak in the peaks project, he did still get voted as the 3rd best peak. Just because there is a vocal minority ranting about what they perceive as unjust rankings doesn't mean said player actually doesn't stack up as well as they claim.

Maybe the perception is because that thread had several extremely high effort and thorough posts arguing against Shaq while the plurality for the most part (shout-out to Proxy) stuck with shorter write-ups referencing “dominance”.

[Dutchball97]

Even with the negative response to Shaq getting the 3rd best peak in the peaks project, he did still get voted as the 3rd best peak. Just because there is a vocal minority ranting about what they perceive as unjust rankings doesn't mean said player actually doesn't stack up as well as they claim.

Maybe the perception is because that thread had several extremely high effort and thorough posts arguing against Shaq while the plurality for the most part (shout-out to Proxy) stuck with shorter write-ups referencing “dominance”.

Maybe you should reread the thread then because I just did and that sounds like selective memory to me. There's arguments about Shaq's scoring (volume + relative TS%), foulbaiting, playmaking, defense, opposition faced (mainly through SRS) and importance to his team (on/off etc).

There are plenty of good arguments for guys like Kareem and Hakeem too in that thread but this view of "everyone I agree with has amazing analysis and everyone I disagree with puts in no effort" isn't that productive and honestly just not true.

[Gooner]

Shaq would destroy all the bigs today, it's as simple as that.

[AEnigma]

Even with the negative response to Shaq getting the 3rd best peak in the peaks project, he did still get voted as the 3rd best peak. Just because there is a vocal minority ranting about what they perceive as unjust rankings doesn't mean said player actually doesn't stack up as well as they claim.

Maybe the perception is because that thread had several extremely high effort and thorough posts arguing against Shaq while the plurality for the most part (shout-out to Proxy) stuck with shorter write-ups referencing “dominance”.

Maybe you should reread the thread then because I just did and that sounds like selective memory to me. There's arguments about Shaq's scoring (volume + relative TS%), foulbaiting, playmaking, defense, opposition faced (mainly through SRS) and importance to his team (on/off etc).

There are plenty of good arguments for guys like Kareem and Hakeem too in that thread but this view of "everyone I agree with has amazing analysis and everyone I disagree with puts in no effort" isn't that productive and honestly just not true.

I did not say that, I said the other arguments were much higher effort and went beyond abstracts like “dominance”. And as a matter of fact I made it a point to reread the entire thread immediately before making that post, but will do it again “live” so to speak:

- First high effort post is by Doc MJ talking about Hakeem, but that is tangential to my specific claim about Shaq. Other discussion branching off this and some conversation about other bigs as well.
- First vote made, for Shaq

Top 6 scoring peak to me. Probably a top 10 playmaking big peak (haven’t made a list but I’d imagine having the goat gravity and off ball movement from a big is enough to get him there) being extremely portable and a strong defender makes him hard to stop. He’s shooting almost 80% at the rim (if not in the 80s) in a league where the average rim FG% isn’t even in the 60s while constantly being doubled and tripled. Just an insane offensive peak

- Next three votes are similar lengths to or shorter than the Shaq vote, but prefer Kareem
- You talk about your “completeness” concerns with Kareem
- Next page, higher effort Hakeem post by OhayoKD
- DraymondGold high effort Curry post against Shaq and Hakeem (and others)
- Your vote:

Near unanimous MVP who went on a dominant play-off run capped off by arguably the most dominant finals performance ever. The Lakers were a pretty well rounded team but not incredibly stacked. Even Kobe wasn't quite at his peak either. What definitely works in Shaq's favor is their strength of competition in the post-season. They faced the 7th, 4th, 2nd and 6th highest SRS teams despite being the 1st seed, making this one of the hardest roads to a title by a top seed. I get that some people might have some other guys over him as a "better player" but when looking at the best seasons 2000 Shaq is most certainly up there with the best of them.

- 70sFan and you talk about Kareem, and 70sFan also criticised Hakeem’s offence at length
- Precursor to what will be a Shaq vote:

I'd need someone who's 20-40 years before Shaq to have a clearly more dominant peak for their era to vote them over him, otherwise I think I think doing it against more modern talent and strategy makes up the difference. I don't see that right now, you could argue Kareem for 77 or Wilt for 67 possibly could be better, but not by that much.

- A higher effort vote for Kareem over Shaq
- Next page, Proxy writes a treatise featuring in part that outlier Shaq explanation I mentioned
- Another Kareem > Shaq vote, again pretty typical paragraphs for each
- DraymondGold challenges you and Proxy on Shaq; either he thought you two would be the most easily swayed, or (imo more likely) he thought you two would contribute the best responses based on your level of participation in the thread thus far; Proxy responds
- Another Shaq vote, although their secondary Bill Russell vote is higher effort; to be clear, I am not calling anyone lazy, I am just specifically challenging your implication that Shaq won ergo his voters had better arguments.

Shaq should really have been number 2 in my opinion but I hope he gets in now. Easily the best offensive weapon at the Center spot ever imo. Unbelievable efficiency for the era on huge volume while attracting more defensive attention than any player ever including Curry. Absolutely devastates the backline of any team with foul trouble and that's even with what I would consider a generally unfavorable whistle (very rare for a superstar). What pushes this season over the edge is Shaq being able to anchor the best defense in the league and absolutely dominating the glass as well. Shaq with this type of motor is absolutely ridiculous.

- The first Tim Duncan vote, with a basic Shaq secondary vote
- A Kareem > Shaq vote which in line with the routine so far makes sure to refer to memories of Shaq’s “dominance”
- Some Curry talk, then OhayoKD posts a critical look against Shaq’s postseason “dominance”
- Another Doc MJ Hakeem post
- That precursor paragraph I posted leaves a simple Shaq vote in line with their earlier paragraph
- Next page, some more Curry talk
- DraymondGold on Wilt and Kareem
- Another Shaq vote:

I don't think I can deny Shaq's impact was higher at their respective bests. Just stupidly dominant, and on both ends. This was the one year Shaq really tried on both ends all year and the results were spectacular. He won the scoring title, was second in rebounds and third in blocks. Almost a unanimous MVP and 2nd in DPoY. 19, 16 and 11 game winning streaks. His effort in the Playoffs was mammoth, he was +22.9 On/Off and clearly did everything he could to get that team to a title, against a veritable murderer's row of opponents (played 4 of the other top 7 SRS teams somehow), and in the most important series he was often triple teamed by Scottie Pippen, Rasheed Wallace and the 7'3 300 lb Sabonis.

- Lengthy discussion on how Shaq’s reputation for drawing fouls was overstated, plus more Curry talk
- Lengthy vote for Wilt and Curry
- Next page, quick vote for Curry and Hakeem gesturing back at lengthy comments made throughout the thread
- Another Shaq vote:

This was Shaq at the peak of his powers offensively and defensively imo and unlike in 2001 and 2002, Kobe has not developed into a Super Star yet which made Shaq have to carry more of the load than he did in 01 and 02 which is why I would say 2000 was the peak of his career.

- Lengthy Kareem vote
- Shaq wins, beating 1977 Kareem 8-6

Like I said, clear patterns in the discourse, none of which seem particularly thorough compared to what was common for every other player…

[Dutchball97]

...

I never tried to imply Shaq won that vote because the arguments made for him were better than they were for everyone else. I've always been very open as well about my ideology that there is no right and wrong in these rankings, simply different opinions. Shaq being voted 3rd doesn't mean he is now officially, unquestionably the 3rd best peak ever, that's just the aggregate of what the average poster here thinks.

Even in the votes you listed though I can see why you don't view them as very deep analytical arguments but I still find just saying every Shaq voter only said he was "dominant" and called it a day diminuitive. Even then you yourself acknowledge Proxy's efforts as well in his case for Shaq and while you're not as impressed by the other Shaq voters, they all at least brought some arguments to the table as well. I could be wrong but your comments are giving off a vibe to me that you see everyone in favor of Shaq as some misguided casual who refuses to go beyond ppg and rings, which rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe through our unconcious biases I am more inclined to accept pro-Shaq arguments even without long form explanations, while you're on the other side of the aisle where you doubt this high valuation of Shaq and are going to be more critical of him and more receiving to arguments for others. I'm not sure how else to explain the large difference in how we perceive the respective quality of arguments for the contenders for that #3 spot.

[AEnigma]

I never tried to imply Shaq won that vote because the arguments made for him were better than they were for everyone else. I've always been very open as well about my ideology that there is no right and wrong in these rankings, simply different opinions. Shaq being voted 3rd doesn't mean he is now officially, unquestionably the 3rd best peak ever, that's just the aggregate of what the average poster here thinks.

Fair enough, but when you describe that group of us as “a vocal minority ranting about what they perceive as unjust rankings” and say that Shaq “stacks up” despite those rants, I think it is worth highlighting what exactly constituted that dynamic.

Even in the votes you listed though I can see why you don't view them as very deep analytical arguments but I still find just saying every Shaq voter only said he was "dominant" and called it a day diminuitive.

Perhaps, but it is a recurring trend. I am not even putting this specific project on blast. Go read the 2019 vote, it was so much less descriptive. My complaint is more about how the standard of analysis for Shaq has always seemed lower.

Even then you yourself acknowledge Proxy's efforts as well in his case for Shaq

Yep, Proxy has always been good at explaining his specific preferences and the methodology behind them. Elgee too. I can disagree with the conclusions while acknowledging the work. However, when there is a significant disparity in the explanation quality offered, I make note of that and hope others do as well.

and while you're not as impressed by the other Shaq voters, they all at least brought some arguments to the table as well.

Not really sure I would say that overall bloc engaged much with counter arguments though. I know, I know, no one is obliged to do anything, but it gets frustrating when an ostensibly comparative project just kind-of abandons that notion. I mean, I strongly disagree with your approach to the project, but to your credit you at least clearly have a comparative process in play.

I could be wrong but your comments are giving off a vibe to me that you see everyone in favor of Shaq as some misguided casual who refuses to go beyond ppg and rings, which rubs me the wrong way.

Not everyone, no. But I do think it matters that so many disproportionately think foremost of him averaging 35 points per game in the Finals across that threepeat, without much analysis of his in-conference scoring or how he held up on the other end against competent offences.

Maybe through our unconcious biases I am more inclined to accept pro-Shaq arguments even without long form explanations, while you're on the other side of the aisle where you doubt this high valuation of Shaq and are going to be more critical of him and more receiving to arguments for others. I'm not sure how else to explain the large difference in how we perceive the respective quality of arguments for the contenders for that #3 spot.

Sure. Again, I do not think the arguments were inherently poor so much as less rigorous, and while they were an improvement from the prior project, it is a common pattern in Shaq discourse — no matter how vocal us naysayers seem to get.

[70sFan]

I think what can be sometimes frustrating is that Shaq's dominance is taken for granted, while to make a case for someone like Kareem, you have to do a lot more work here. It's probably caused by the fact that most people have watched Shaq peak years, while Kareem is known mostly from 1980s Showtime Lakers games. Same thing with Wilt, he's also mostly known for his Lakers years.

Duncan/Russell/Hakeem are different, because their main case is on defensive end, which is always harder to quantify.

[Dutchball97]

One thing that I do think is a factor is that in general we're all more likely to argue an in depth case for someone we feel gets overlooked rather than for someone who is already getting properly rated in our eyes.

If people are just waving off arguments for Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt etc because they believe Shaq was better and no metrics can change their mind I'd agree though that gets frustrating.

[ShaqAttac]

Maybe the perception is because that thread had several extremely high effort and thorough posts arguing against Shaq while the plurality for the most part (shout-out to Proxy) stuck with shorter write-ups referencing “dominance”.

Maybe you should reread the thread then because I just did and that sounds like selective memory to me. There's arguments about Shaq's scoring (volume + relative TS%), foulbaiting, playmaking, defense, opposition faced (mainly through SRS) and importance to his team (on/off etc).

There are plenty of good arguments for guys like Kareem and Hakeem too in that thread but this view of "everyone I agree with has amazing analysis and everyone I disagree with puts in no effort" isn't that productive and honestly just not true.

I did not say that, I said the other arguments were much higher effort and went beyond abstracts like “dominance”. And as a matter of fact I made it a point to reread the entire thread immediately before making that post, but will do it again “live” so to speak:

- First high effort post is by Doc MJ talking about Hakeem, but that is tangential to my specific claim about Shaq. Other discussion branching off this and some conversation about other bigs as well.
- First vote made, for Shaq

Top 6 scoring peak to me. Probably a top 10 playmaking big peak (haven’t made a list but I’d imagine having the goat gravity and off ball movement from a big is enough to get him there) being extremely portable and a strong defender makes him hard to stop. He’s shooting almost 80% at the rim (if not in the 80s) in a league where the average rim FG% isn’t even in the 60s while constantly being doubled and tripled. Just an insane offensive peak

- Next three votes are similar lengths to or shorter than the Shaq vote, but prefer Kareem
- You talk about your “completeness” concerns with Kareem
- Next page, higher effort Hakeem post by OhayoKD
- DraymondGold high effort Curry post against Shaq and Hakeem (and others)
- Your vote:

Near unanimous MVP who went on a dominant play-off run capped off by arguably the most dominant finals performance ever. The Lakers were a pretty well rounded team but not incredibly stacked. Even Kobe wasn't quite at his peak either. What definitely works in Shaq's favor is their strength of competition in the post-season. They faced the 7th, 4th, 2nd and 6th highest SRS teams despite being the 1st seed, making this one of the hardest roads to a title by a top seed. I get that some people might have some other guys over him as a "better player" but when looking at the best seasons 2000 Shaq is most certainly up there with the best of them.

- 70sFan and you talk about Kareem, and 70sFan also criticised Hakeem’s offence at length
- Precursor to what will be a Shaq vote:

I'd need someone who's 20-40 years before Shaq to have a clearly more dominant peak for their era to vote them over him, otherwise I think I think doing it against more modern talent and strategy makes up the difference. I don't see that right now, you could argue Kareem for 77 or Wilt for 67 possibly could be better, but not by that much.

- A higher effort vote for Kareem over Shaq
- Next page, Proxy writes a treatise featuring in part that outlier Shaq explanation I mentioned
- Another Kareem > Shaq vote, again pretty typical paragraphs for each
- DraymondGold challenges you and Proxy on Shaq; either he thought you two would be the most easily swayed, or (imo more likely) he thought you two would contribute the best responses based on your level of participation in the thread thus far; Proxy responds
- Another Shaq vote, although their secondary Bill Russell vote is higher effort; to be clear, I am not calling anyone lazy, I am just specifically challenging your implication that Shaq won ergo his voters had better arguments.

Shaq should really have been number 2 in my opinion but I hope he gets in now. Easily the best offensive weapon at the Center spot ever imo. Unbelievable efficiency for the era on huge volume while attracting more defensive attention than any player ever including Curry. Absolutely devastates the backline of any team with foul trouble and that's even with what I would consider a generally unfavorable whistle (very rare for a superstar). What pushes this season over the edge is Shaq being able to anchor the best defense in the league and absolutely dominating the glass as well. Shaq with this type of motor is absolutely ridiculous.

- The first Tim Duncan vote, with a basic Shaq secondary vote
- A Kareem > Shaq vote which in line with the routine so far make sure to refer to memories of Shaq’s “dominance”
- Some Curry talk, then OhayoKD posts a critical look against Shaq’s postseason “dominance”
- Another Doc MJ Hakeem post
- That precursor paragraph I posted leaves a simple Shaq vote in line with their earlier paragraph
- Next page, some more Curry talk
- DraymondGold on Wilt and Kareem
- Another Shaq vote:

I don't think I can deny Shaq's impact was higher at their respective bests. Just stupidly dominant, and on both ends. This was the one year Shaq really tried on both ends all year and the results were spectacular. He won the scoring title, was second in rebounds and third in blocks. Almost a unanimous MVP and 2nd in DPoY. 19, 16 and 11 game winning streaks. His effort in the Playoffs was mammoth, he was +22.9 On/Off and clearly did everything he could to get that team to a title, against a veritable murderer's row of opponents (played 4 of the other top 7 SRS teams somehow), and in the most important series he was often triple teamed by Scottie Pippen, Rasheed Wallace and the 7'3 300 lb Sabonis.

- Lengthy discussion on how Shaq’s reputation for drawing fouls was was overstated, plus more Curry talk
- Lengthy vote for Wilt and Curry
- Next page, quick vote for Curry and Hakeem gesturing back at lengthy comments made throughout the thread
- Another Shaq vote:

This was Shaq at the peak of his powers offensively and defensively imo and unlike in 2001 and 2002, Kobe has not developed into a Super Star yet which made Shaq have to carry more of the load than he did in 01 and 02 which is why I would say 2000 was the peak of his career.

- Lengthy Kareem vote
- Shaq wins, beating 1977 Kareem 8-6

Like I said, clear patterns in the discourse, none of which seem particularly thorough compared to what was common for every other player…

dam. when u go, u go hard.

probs should have been more debate. I prob would vote shaq #1 2 weeks ago

[ShaqAttac]

...

I never tried to imply Shaq won that vote because the arguments made for him were better than they were for everyone else. I've always been very open as well about my ideology that there is no right and wrong in these rankings, simply different opinions. Shaq being voted 3rd doesn't mean he is now officially, unquestionably the 3rd best peak ever, that's just the aggregate of what the average poster here thinks.

Even in the votes you listed though I can see why you don't view them as very deep analytical arguments but I still find just saying every Shaq voter only said he was "dominant" and called it a day diminuitive. Even then you yourself acknowledge Proxy's efforts as well in his case for Shaq and while you're not as impressed by the other Shaq voters, they all at least brought some arguments to the table as well. I could be wrong but your comments are giving off a vibe to me that you see everyone in favor of Shaq as some misguided casual who refuses to go beyond ppg and rings, which rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe through our unconcious biases I am more inclined to accept pro-Shaq arguments even without long form explanations, while you're on the other side of the aisle where you doubt this high valuation of Shaq and are going to be more critical of him and more receiving to arguments for others. I'm not sure how else to explain the large difference in how we perceive the respective quality of arguments for the contenders for that #3 spot.

u said ppl against shaq were ranting...

[Dutchball97]

...

I never tried to imply Shaq won that vote because the arguments made for him were better than they were for everyone else. I've always been very open as well about my ideology that there is no right and wrong in these rankings, simply different opinions. Shaq being voted 3rd doesn't mean he is now officially, unquestionably the 3rd best peak ever, that's just the aggregate of what the average poster here thinks.

Even in the votes you listed though I can see why you don't view them as very deep analytical arguments but I still find just saying every Shaq voter only said he was "dominant" and called it a day diminuitive. Even then you yourself acknowledge Proxy's efforts as well in his case for Shaq and while you're not as impressed by the other Shaq voters, they all at least brought some arguments to the table as well. I could be wrong but your comments are giving off a vibe to me that you see everyone in favor of Shaq as some misguided casual who refuses to go beyond ppg and rings, which rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe through our unconcious biases I am more inclined to accept pro-Shaq arguments even without long form explanations, while you're on the other side of the aisle where you doubt this high valuation of Shaq and are going to be more critical of him and more receiving to arguments for others. I'm not sure how else to explain the large difference in how we perceive the respective quality of arguments for the contenders for that #3 spot.

u said ppl against shaq were ranting...

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Shaq got voted as the #3 best peak and some people have been vocal about how they disagree with that assessment for a while now. Ranting is just venting about something that is bothering you, we all do it and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up or how it even relates to what I said in the comment you're replying to.

[ShaqAttac]

I never tried to imply Shaq won that vote because the arguments made for him were better than they were for everyone else. I've always been very open as well about my ideology that there is no right and wrong in these rankings, simply different opinions. Shaq being voted 3rd doesn't mean he is now officially, unquestionably the 3rd best peak ever, that's just the aggregate of what the average poster here thinks.

Even in the votes you listed though I can see why you don't view them as very deep analytical arguments but I still find just saying every Shaq voter only said he was "dominant" and called it a day diminuitive. Even then you yourself acknowledge Proxy's efforts as well in his case for Shaq and while you're not as impressed by the other Shaq voters, they all at least brought some arguments to the table as well. I could be wrong but your comments are giving off a vibe to me that you see everyone in favor of Shaq as some misguided casual who refuses to go beyond ppg and rings, which rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe through our unconcious biases I am more inclined to accept pro-Shaq arguments even without long form explanations, while you're on the other side of the aisle where you doubt this high valuation of Shaq and are going to be more critical of him and more receiving to arguments for others. I'm not sure how else to explain the large difference in how we perceive the respective quality of arguments for the contenders for that #3 spot.

u said ppl against shaq were ranting...

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Shaq got voted as the #3 best peak and some people have been vocal about how they disagree with that assessment for a while now. Ranting is just venting about something that is bothering you, we all do it and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up or how it even relates to what I said in the comment you're replying to.

google says rant means ur angry and emotional. ur the one who seems emotional and angry

i also don't see u make points besides box n rings

[mysticOscar]

Maybe I'm just in the minority on this, but Shaq might get the same numbers today IF the coach decides to centre the system around him in the post (which is very much against the trend and optimal play by today's rules).

However I just think that the team won't be as successful. The rules have been sliced and diced to limit ppl like Shaqs impact (or more accurately enable the perimeter to have the same or exceed the impact as the post).

[ShaqAttac]

Maybe I'm just in the minority on this, but Shaq might get the same numbers today IF the coach decides to centre the system around him in the post (which is very much against the trend and optimal play by today's rules).

However I just think that the team won't be as successful. The rules have been sliced and diced to limit ppl like Shaqs impact (or more accurately enable the perimeter to have the same or exceed the impact as the post).

what about spacing?

[Dutchball97]

u said ppl against shaq were ranting...

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Shaq got voted as the #3 best peak and some people have been vocal about how they disagree with that assessment for a while now. Ranting is just venting about something that is bothering you, we all do it and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up or how it even relates to what I said in the comment you're replying to.

google says rant means ur angry and emotional. ur the one who seems emotional and angry

i also don't see u make points besides box n rings

70sFan and AEnigma already said they felt frustrated about the level of arguments made for Shaq. Being angry about something doesn't always mean you're having an irrational meltdown, it can also just be being a little annoyed like in this case. I'm not sure when showing a little emotion became such a bad thing, being a bit emotional also doesn't mean you're wrong so I have no idea why you're reading into this one word "rant" so much.

I also only see you reply with one or two sentences criticizing other posters and making sweeping statements like Michael Jordan having no GOAT case without bringing up anything substantial yourself yet.