RealGM

Where would 1995 Shaq todays overall in todays league?

1995 Shaq was a clear step below 2000 Shaq so I'd say top 5.

1995 Shaq would be around par with Giannis offensively but not as valuable defensively. He would however be the most valuable player in the league to have when facing Jokic or Embiid by a clear margin. Jokic can't even contain Embiid down low, Shaq would really punish him.

Top 5 without question, arguably even higher but the high offensive game we see now only benefits Shaq even more. Shaq is one of those rare ATG's where you can place him in any era that we've seen and he would still be at the top of the league. Basketball is a game of match-ups, and in my opinion, at peak, a match-up that almost no one had an answer for. That's what makes him so deadly.

MacGill wrote:Top 5 without question, arguably even higher but the high offensive game we see now only benefits Shaq even more. Shaq is one of those rare ATG's where you can place him in any era that we've seen and he would still be at the top of the league. Basketball is a game of match-ups, and in my opinion, at peak, a match-up that almost no one had an answer for. That's what makes him so deadly.

The main hindrance with Shaq are his total incompetence beyond 10 feet, especially from the FT line.

So in his actual career, he hit or surpassed 59% TS only three times prior to 2009 (his 3rd-last season).

And he was dunking on guys pretty routinely. He wouldn't be suddenly likely to shoot a lot better from 3-10, and it's hard for him to shoot much better from 0-3 than he did, so it isn't really that reasonable to expect a much higher raw FG% from him, which leaves some concerns about him gaining enough separation in terms of efficiency to be nearly as valuable as he was in his own era. And he sure as hell wouldn't start hitting 3s. So as like a +0.9 to +1.4% rTS kind of guy as a floor, that's a little rough. Increased tempo might help a little; the Magic were at 95.1 possessions per game that year and that was slower than the Knicks are right now (30th in the league at 96.0). And he did run well in transition, especially back then.

But it remains something which keeps me wondering.

tsherkin wrote:

MacGill wrote:Top 5 without question, arguably even higher but the high offensive game we see now only benefits Shaq even more. Shaq is one of those rare ATG's where you can place him in any era that we've seen and he would still be at the top of the league. Basketball is a game of match-ups, and in my opinion, at peak, a match-up that almost no one had an answer for. That's what makes him so deadly.

The main hindrance with Shaq are his total incompetence beyond 10 feet, especially from the FT line.

So in his actual career, he hit or surpassed 59% TS only three times prior to 2009 (his 3rd-last season).

And he was dunking on guys pretty routinely. He wouldn't be suddenly likely to shoot a lot better from 3-10, and it's hard for him to shoot much better from 0-3 than he did, so it isn't really that reasonable to expect a much higher raw FG% from him, which leaves some concerns about him gaining enough separation in terms of efficiency to be nearly as valuable as he was in his own era. And he sure as hell wouldn't start hitting 3s. So as like a +0.9 to +1.4% rTS kind of guy as a floor, that's a little rough. Increased tempo might help a little; the Magic were at 95.1 possessions per game that year and that was slower than the Knicks are right now (30th in the league at 96.0). And he did run well in transition, especially back then.

But it remains something which keeps me wondering.

The easiest comparison is Zion. Shaq actually shot more shots away from the rim than Zion. Shaq's average shot distance was higher than Zion's also. Zion for his career averaged 25 PPG on 60 FG%. Shaq could easily average 30 PPG on 65 FG% since he is 7 inches taller and 30 lbs bigger.

colts18 wrote:The easiest comparison is Zion. Shaq actually shot more shots away from the rim than Zion. Shaq's average shot distance was higher than Zion's also. Zion for his career averaged 25 PPG on 60 FG%. Shaq could easily average 30 PPG on 65 FG% since he is 7 inches taller and 30 lbs bigger.

Zion doesn't strike me as an awesome comparison. He's faster/more explosive from triple threat, and over half a foot shorter. Very large difference in how they attack. Shaq was pretty mobile for his size, but he wasn't like Giannis.

Djoker wrote:1995 Shaq was a clear step below 2000 Shaq so I'd say top 5.

So many things are missing here logic wise.

dygaction wrote:

Djoker wrote:1995 Shaq was a clear step below 2000 Shaq so I'd say top 5.

So many things are missing here logic wise.

Like what? Shaq was clearly worse in 1995 than in 2000.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

Djoker wrote:1995 Shaq was a clear step below 2000 Shaq so I'd say top 5.

So many things are missing here logic wise.

Like what? Shaq was clearly worse in 1995 than in 2000.

I think that the response was mostly "wtf does 2000 Shaq have to do with today's game or 95 Shaq" would be my starting point.

It doesn't matter than Shaq in his MVP year was better than he was in his 3rd season.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:
So many things are missing here logic wise.

Like what? Shaq was clearly worse in 1995 than in 2000.

I think that the response was mostly "wtf does 2000 Shaq have to do with today's game or 95 Shaq" would be my starting point.

It doesn't matter than Shaq in his MVP year was better than he was in his 3rd season.

95 shaq might be a better fit for today's game anyway.

OhayoKD wrote:95 shaq might be a better fit for today's game anyway.

I'm inclined to agree. He was younger, lighter, more athletic, more involved in transition. Hadn't overbulked yet. Was still absolutely demolishing the offensive glass. He was a monster.

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:95 shaq might be a better fit for today's game anyway.

I'm inclined to agree. He was younger, lighter, more athletic, more involved in transition. Hadn't overbulked yet. Was still absolutely demolishing the offensive glass. He was a monster.

He was also a better driver/ball-handler then which is important for a big today I think

OhayoKD wrote:He was also a better driver/ball-handler then which is important for a big today I think

If there was a period in his career where he might have been able to ape what Giannis does ITO dribble-attack, that was it, for sure.

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:95 shaq might be a better fit for today's game anyway.

I'm inclined to agree. He was younger, lighter, more athletic, more involved in transition. Hadn't overbulked yet. Was still absolutely demolishing the offensive glass. He was a monster.

I've been watching a ton of Orlando Shaq games recently so I can chime in on this.

The part about being more involved in transition is true and on offense he may be almost as good as 2000 Shaq. He still lacked a bit in terms of making passing reads and he rarely fought actively for position the way he did in later years. He also didn't attack the glass with the same ferocity. But if 2000 Shaq is a 10/10 on offense, 1995 Shaq is still a 9.5/10.

But...

1995 Shaq had awful tendencies on defense. He'd drift out to the perimeter and fail to recover when ball handlers drove to the rim. He also fouled incessantly dare I say stupidly even when in foul trouble. He had 4+ fouls in 21/36 playoff games for the Magic. I honestly have a very hard time seeing this version of Shaq as a positive defensively even in that era. In this era, teams would destroy him. While a big liability in the P&R and against shooting bigs, at least 2000 Shaq stayed in the paint, rebounded better, fouled less and was able to stay on the court. So at least he offered good verticality consistently. Shaq was actually tough to score on if you went right at him while he's standing near the rim.

All in all, I see 2000 Shaq as a being the best player in the league or tied with Jokic and I see 1995 Shaq as a top 5 player because he just had too many defensive deficiencies.

Djoker wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:95 shaq might be a better fit for today's game anyway.

I'm inclined to agree. He was younger, lighter, more athletic, more involved in transition. Hadn't overbulked yet. Was still absolutely demolishing the offensive glass. He was a monster.

I've been watching a ton of Orlando Shaq games recently so I can chime in on this.

The part about being more involved in transition is true and on offense he may be almost as good as 2000 Shaq. He still lacked a bit in passing and he rarely fought actively for position the way he did in later years. He also didn't attack the glass with the same ferocity. But if 2000 Shaq is a 10/10 on offense, 1995 Shaq is still a 9.5/10.

But...

1995 Shaq had awful tendencies on defense. He'd drift out to the perimeter and fail to recover when ball handlers drove to the rim. He also fouled incessantly dare I say stupidly even when in foul trouble. He had 4+ fouls in 21/36 playoff games for the Magic. I honestly I have a very hard time seeing this version of Shaq as a positive defensively even in that era. In this era, teams would destroy him. While a big liability in the P&R and against shooting bigs, at least 2000 Shaq stayed in the paint, rebounded better, fouled less and was able to stay on the court. So at least he offered good verticality consistently. Shaq was actually tough to score on if you went right at him while he's standing near the rim.

All in all, I see 2000 Shaq as a being the best player in the league or tied with Jokic and I see 1995 Shaq as a top 5 player because he just had too many defensive deficiencies.

do you have any defensive tracking for 95 shaq by any chance?

Top 5. Still a few years away from his prime.

Djoker wrote:I've been watching a ton of Orlando Shaq games recently so I can chime in on this.

Do you do some tracking work for the Magic games?

The part about being more involved in transition is true and on offense he may be almost as good as 2000 Shaq. He still lacked a bit in terms of making passing reads and he rarely fought actively for position the way he did in later years. He also didn't attack the glass with the same ferocity. But if 2000 Shaq is a 10/10 on offense, 1995 Shaq is still a 9.5/10.

I think Shaq became way more savvy with his positioning and off-ball movement later on. Passing is also a significant improvement.

I wonder if you have found any meaningful differences regarding his self-creation game from the post. Did he use different moves more often? Did he prefer one block over the other (Lakers Shaw used both sides at similar rate)?

But...

1995 Shaq had awful tendencies on defense. He'd drift out to the perimeter and fail to recover when ball handlers drove to the rim. He also fouled incessantly dare I say stupidly even when in foul trouble. He had 4+ fouls in 21/36 playoff games for the Magic. I honestly I have a very hard time seeing this version of Shaq as a positive defensively even in that era. In this era, teams would destroy him. While a big liability in the P&R and against shooting bigs, at least 2000 Shaq stayed in the paint, rebounded better, fouled less and was able to stay on the court. So at least he offered good verticality consistently. Shaq was actually tough to score on if you went right at him while he's standing near the rim.

All in all, I see 2000 Shaq as a being the best player in the league or tied with Jokic and I see 1995 Shaq as a top 5 player because he just had too many defensive deficiencies.

I think a lot of these problems still existed in LA. He didn't foul as much, but still was prone to silly fouls. I agree that him being less active was better for his defense, because he used his length and size instead of doing stupid rotations and not recovering or trying to block everything. Have you paid attention to his transition effort? He was often very late coming back from actions and Magic played faster pace than 2000s Lakers, so I wonder if that was an even bigger issue for him.

Shaq was at his best when he either was contesting drives standing straight or defending the post. Under right circumstances, these two things could turn him into a solid defender, but he always had a lot of issues.b

70sFan wrote:

Djoker wrote:I've been watching a ton of Orlando Shaq games recently so I can chime in on this.

Do you do some tracking work for the Magic games?

The part about being more involved in transition is true and on offense he may be almost as good as 2000 Shaq. He still lacked a bit in terms of making passing reads and he rarely fought actively for position the way he did in later years. He also didn't attack the glass with the same ferocity. But if 2000 Shaq is a 10/10 on offense, 1995 Shaq is still a 9.5/10.

I think Shaq became way more savvy with his positioning and off-ball movement later on. Passing is also a significant improvement.

I wonder if you have found any meaningful differences regarding his self-creation game from the post. Did he use different moves more often? Did he prefer one block over the other (Lakers Shaw used both sides at similar rate)?

But...

1995 Shaq had awful tendencies on defense. He'd drift out to the perimeter and fail to recover when ball handlers drove to the rim. He also fouled incessantly dare I say stupidly even when in foul trouble. He had 4+ fouls in 21/36 playoff games for the Magic. I honestly I have a very hard time seeing this version of Shaq as a positive defensively even in that era. In this era, teams would destroy him. While a big liability in the P&R and against shooting bigs, at least 2000 Shaq stayed in the paint, rebounded better, fouled less and was able to stay on the court. So at least he offered good verticality consistently. Shaq was actually tough to score on if you went right at him while he's standing near the rim.

All in all, I see 2000 Shaq as a being the best player in the league or tied with Jokic and I see 1995 Shaq as a top 5 player because he just had too many defensive deficiencies.

I think a lot of these problems still existed in LA. He didn't foul as much, but still was prone to silly fouls. I agree that him being less active was better for his defense, because he used his length and size instead of doing stupid rotations and not recovering or trying to block everything. Have you paid attention to his transition effort? He was often very late coming back from actions and Magic played faster pace than 2000s Lakers, so I wonder if that was an even bigger issue for him.

Shaq was at his best when he either was contesting drives standing straight or defending the post. Under right circumstances, these two things could turn him into a solid defender, but he always had a lot of issues.b

Jokic does okay defensively today despite being a similar "stay at home" who jumps worse. Otoh Jokic is also a much better decision maker.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

Djoker wrote:1995 Shaq was a clear step below 2000 Shaq so I'd say top 5.

So many things are missing here logic wise.

Like what? Shaq was clearly worse in 1995 than in 2000.

notice i said missing, not wrong. Like:
2013 Usain Bolt was clearly below 2008 Bolt, so he would be top 5 in this particular tournament.

missing: what would peak shaq rank today, how big his gap with current top 5, how big his gap with 95...