RealGM

Where would 2000 Shaq rank in todays league?

I'll say best, even with defensive issues. Teams really aren't equipped to stop him at all.

Neck and neck with Jokic.

TheGOATRises007 wrote:Neck and neck with Jokic.

Hard to see. Considerable difference in range, playmaking, and efficiency.

Shaq would still be a huge force today, but his inability to score outside of 8 feet and his total incompetence at the line would be major impediments to him challenging someone like Jokic, especially in this, of all seasons.

He'd be up there, though. I imagine, as with everyone else, his raw FG% in close would go up and he was a monster about drawing fouls. With the spacing we have in today's game, he'd certainly thrive. And the up-tempo environment, too. Shaq ran well in transition until fairly late in his career, even when he was a BIG BOI, which was always impressive.

tsherkin wrote:

TheGOATRises007 wrote:Neck and neck with Jokic.

Hard to see. Considerable difference in range, playmaking, and efficiency.

Shaq would still be a huge force today, but his inability to score outside of 8 feet and his total incompetence at the line would be major impediments to him challenging someone like Jokic, especially in this, of all seasons.

He'd be up there, though. I imagine, as with everyone else, his raw FG% in close would go up and he was a monster about drawing fouls. With the spacing we have in today's game, he'd certainly thrive. And the up-tempo environment, too. Shaq ran well in transition until fairly late in his career, even when he was a BIG BOI, which was always impressive.

Offensively Jokic can’t be topped but would Shaq be Gobert defensively? In 2000 he finished 2nd in DPOY and the Lakers were #1 in def rating. It was a different game I know.

Hook_Em wrote:Offensively Jokic can’t be topped but would Shaq be Gobert defensively?

Christ, no.

Shaq would be a decent rim protector, but they would be hunting him for PnR over and over and over again. He'd be a little better than Jokic on D if nothing else changed. Well, maybe a little better than that in 2000 specifically. He WAS trying and he was a good shot blocker when he wanted to be. But out in space, he'd have huge issues. He didn't have the lateral mobility to deal with contemporary offense all that effectively.

Shaq wouldn't touch Gobert's defensive impact in any era.

That said, he'd compete for the best player in the league to me. The league is full of great players though, so it's not a given

#2

For this era, Shaq was not as good as Jokic. Maybe he was for his own era but I'm far from sure of that. Jokic is just too good.

tsherkin wrote:

TheGOATRises007 wrote:Neck and neck with Jokic.

Hard to see. Considerable difference in range, playmaking, and efficiency.

Shaq would still be a huge force today, but his inability to score outside of 8 feet and his total incompetence at the line would be major impediments to him challenging someone like Jokic, especially in this, of all seasons.

He'd be up there, though. I imagine, as with everyone else, his raw FG% in close would go up and he was a monster about drawing fouls. With the spacing we have in today's game, he'd certainly thrive. And the up-tempo environment, too. Shaq ran well in transition until fairly late in his career, even when he was a BIG BOI, which was always impressive.

The media would rank him ahead of Jokic and perception in sports media is reality. Shaq had a very fan friendly game and personality to complement his actual skills and dominance. Jokic is sort of the opposite, like a present day Duncan.

D.Brasco wrote:The media would rank him ahead of Jokic and perception in sports media is reality. Shaq had a very fan friendly game and personality to complement his actual skills and dominance. Jokic is sort of the opposite, like a present day Duncan.

I mean, that wasn't the question I was answering. I don't really care what shmucks in the media think, I was thinking more about how we'd treat the two guys here in terms of their objective reality.

I love Joker, but Shaq would be #1 and I don’t think it’d be close. Just the thought of it is mind bending.

spree8 wrote:I love Joker, but Shaq would be #1 and I don’t think it’d be close. Just the thought of it is mind bending.

Why?

tsherkin wrote:

spree8 wrote:I love Joker, but Shaq would be #1 and I don’t think it’d be close. Just the thought of it is mind bending.

Why?

Because I remember quite clearly what he did that year (watching a guy with his freak size, strength, and skills hit another level should have a pretty profound impact on people), and I know I don’t see anything remotely close to that level of physical dominance right now.

Not hard to imagine what he did against tougher defenses and tougher frontcourt defenders, and how that would look in this current league.

spree8 wrote:Because I remember quite clearly what he did that year (watching a guy with his freak size, strength, and skills hit another level should have a pretty profound impact on people), and I know I don’t see anything remotely close to that level of physical dominance right now.

Not hard to imagine what he did against tougher defenses and tougher frontcourt defenders, and how that would look in this current league.

But what about what he can't do?

Like, yes. Shaq would be an excellent scorer in today's game. He moved well without the ball, ran well in transition, smashed the offensive boards, established dominant position inside, etc. If he caught the ball inside 6 feet, you were done. if he caught it even 8 feet from the basket, he was pretty good, too.

He had defensive flaws, even in 2000, especially with the types of offense we see today. He had no range. And there's a practical limit on his raw efficiency because he was useless at the foul line.

It isn't hard to extrapolate Shaq's production. You can assume something like 12 boards and 4 assists with any kind of spacing and reasonable offensive structure, right? He passed well when Phil arranged things around him and the tempo is a little faster today. Great. He took about 40% of his shots in the RA, about 50% from 3-10 and then about 10% out to 12 feet or so. In 2000, that was at a 77.6 / 44.8 / 39.4% split.

Let's call that 80/45/40 with the same proportions, at a similar 21 FGA/g, 0.500 FTr (he was a little under that in 2000), and his customarily-incompetent 52% at the line. So you're looking at 30 ppg at 58.6% TS (58.5% raw FG%), which right now is +1.2% rTS. If you push it a little further (so now more than +2.2% FG at the rim, we even it out at raw 60% FG and say it's era-related), then he goes to 30.7 ppg on 59.8% TS.

And of course significant foul pressure.

So it's kind of like a less-effective Giannis with notably worse defense.

Shaq's FT shooting is a huge, huge problem in a higher-efficiency environment. He provides value, but there isn't an unlimited increase in his ability to hit the same kinds of shots he was getting in his own career, especially when he had MORE ability to isolate against his low block defender with less help due to the illegal defense rules. He was still quite effective in the early and mid-2000s but the efficiency environment has changed. He'd have to shoot 60%+ at the line (as one generally sees with Giannis) to start exerting anything like comparable impact to what he managed in his own time, and Shaq only did that once in his career. In fact, he only shot above 55.7% three times in his entire career. It just wasn't a thing for Shaq. As you lower his raw volume, you start see him creeping closer to 60% FG and then he becomes a compelling secondary option, but that's not the same thing as MVP Shaq.

And of course he had none of Jokic's playmaking, nor his positional versatility due to range, and Jokic shoots about as well from 3-10 feet as Shaq did overall. There's a huge difference in his ability to exert offensive impact compared to O'neal due to dramatically superior skills.

Shaq's got a lot of pub, he had an insane PR team and talks about himself all the time as well. And he WAS quite good. But he had a lot of weaknesses and limitations. Comparing him to someone like Jokic, it isn't hard to see why he would lag behind some. Shaq's major impact in his time extended heavily from foul pressure, and being around +5% rTS over most of his career. And he wouldn't be in today's game, he'd be closer to like 103, 104 TS+ which, while solid, really isn't the same thing as what he was doing in his day. And that's with reasonably favorable looks at him.

Like for sure, Shaq would eat. 40% of his shots at the rim at 80% FG is insane. But because he was so useless at the line, he would be leaving so many points on the table that the actual impact of that offense would lag considerably in today's game.

tsherkin wrote:

spree8 wrote:Because I remember quite clearly what he did that year (watching a guy with his freak size, strength, and skills hit another level should have a pretty profound impact on people), and I know I don’t see anything remotely close to that level of physical dominance right now.

Not hard to imagine what he did against tougher defenses and tougher frontcourt defenders, and how that would look in this current league.

But what about what he can't do?

Like, yes. Shaq would be an excellent scorer in today's game. He moved well without the ball, ran well in transition, smashed the offensive boards, established dominant position inside, etc. If he caught the ball inside 6 feet, you were done. if he caught it even 8 feet from the basket, he was pretty good, too.

He had defensive flaws, even in 2000, especially with the types of offense we see today. He had no range. And there's a practical limit on his raw efficiency because he was useless at the foul line.

It isn't hard to extrapolate Shaq's production. You can assume something like 12 boards and 4 assists with any kind of spacing and reasonable offensive structure, right? He passed well when Phil arranged things around him and the tempo is a little faster today. Great. He took about 40% of his shots in the RA, about 50% from 3-10 and then about 10% out to 12 feet or so. In 2000, that was at a 77.6 / 44.8 / 39.4% split.

Let's call that 80/45/40 with the same proportions, at a similar 21 FGA/g, 0.500 FTr (he was a little under that in 2000), and his customarily-incompetent 52% at the line. So you're looking at 30 ppg at 58.6% TS (58.5% raw FG%), which right now is +1.2% rTS. If you push it a little further (so now more than +2.2% FG at the rim, we even it out at raw 60% FG and say it's era-related), then he goes to 30.7 ppg on 59.8% TS.

And of course significant foul pressure.

So it's kind of like a less-effective Giannis with notably worse defense.

Shaq's FT shooting is a huge, huge problem in a higher-efficiency environment. He provides value, but there isn't an unlimited increase in his ability to hit the same kinds of shots he was getting in his own career, especially when he had MORE ability to isolate against his low block defender with less help due to the illegal defense rules. He was still quite effective in the early and mid-2000s but the efficiency environment has changed. He'd have to shoot 60%+ at the line (as one generally sees with Giannis) to start exerting anything like comparable impact to what he managed in his own time, and Shaq only did that once in his career. In fact, he only shot above 55.7% three times in his entire career. It just wasn't a thing for Shaq. As you lower his raw volume, you start see him creeping closer to 60% FG and then he becomes a compelling secondary option, but that's not the same thing as MVP Shaq.

And of course he had none of Jokic's playmaking, nor his positional versatility due to range, and Jokic shoots about as well from 3-10 feet as Shaq did overall. There's a huge difference in his ability to exert offensive impact compared to O'neal due to dramatically superior skills.

Shaq's got a lot of pub, he had an insane PR team and talks about himself all the time as well. And he WAS quite good. But he had a lot of weaknesses and limitations. Comparing him to someone like Jokic, it isn't hard to see why he would lag behind some. Shaq's major impact in his time extended heavily from foul pressure, and being around +5% rTS over most of his career. And he wouldn't be in today's game, he'd be closer to like 103, 104 TS+ which, while solid, really isn't the same thing as what he was doing in his day. And that's with reasonably favorable looks at him.

Like for sure, Shaq would eat. 40% of his shots at the rim at 80% FG is insane. But because he was so useless at the line, he would be leaving so many points on the table that the actual impact of that offense would lag considerably in today's game.

I respect your effort, but I don’t think it’s possible to quantify the production he would have today. Also not sure your numbers really reflect how much of an easier time he’d have scoring against modern defenses and current players.

You really lost me when you said he’d be a less effective Giannis. I don’t know how anyone could come to that conclusion. We’re talking about the most dominant force to ever lace them up here.

spree8 wrote:
I respect your effort, but I don’t think it’s possible to quantify the production he would have today. Also not sure your numbers really reflect how much of an easier time he’d have scoring against modern defenses and current players.

Basically, in order for this to be a meaningful comment, you'd have to assume that he'd either be able to shoot over 90% at the rim, which isn't going to happen, or that he'd be able to dramatically increase his ability to GET to the rim... which is unlikely, even in today's game.

And then he'll still be as useless as tits on a bull at the foul line, which ultimately undercuts a lot in today's environment.

You really lost me when you said he’d be a less effective Giannis. I don’t know how anyone could come to that conclusion. We’re talking about the most dominant force to ever lace them up here.

No, we aren't. That's buzz BS from Shaq's own mouth, not reality.

tsherkin wrote:

spree8 wrote:
I respect your effort, but I don’t think it’s possible to quantify the production he would have today. Also not sure your numbers really reflect how much of an easier time he’d have scoring against modern defenses and current players.

Basically, in order for this to be a meaningful comment, you'd have to assume that he'd either be able to shoot over 90% at the rim, which isn't going to happen, or that he'd be able to dramatically increase his ability to GET to the rim... which is unlikely, even in today's game.

And then he'll still be as useless as tits on a bull at the foul line, which ultimately undercuts a lot in today's environment.

You really lost me when you said he’d be a less effective Giannis. I don’t know how anyone could come to that conclusion. We’re talking about the most dominant force to ever lace them up here.

No, we aren't. That's buzz BS from Shaq's own mouth, not reality.

Ook lol. Unfortunately I’m not as passionate about this topic as you are. But for the record, I’m not quoting Shaq, it’s an observation. He’s the most physically dominant force I’ve ever witnessed… so I guess that’s my reality lol.

Probably #1 though Jokic is on a crazy run

Hook_Em wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

TheGOATRises007 wrote:Neck and neck with Jokic.

Hard to see. Considerable difference in range, playmaking, and efficiency.

Shaq would still be a huge force today, but his inability to score outside of 8 feet and his total incompetence at the line would be major impediments to him challenging someone like Jokic, especially in this, of all seasons.

He'd be up there, though. I imagine, as with everyone else, his raw FG% in close would go up and he was a monster about drawing fouls. With the spacing we have in today's game, he'd certainly thrive. And the up-tempo environment, too. Shaq ran well in transition until fairly late in his career, even when he was a BIG BOI, which was always impressive.

Offensively Jokic can’t be topped but would Shaq be Gobert defensively? In 2000 he finished 2nd in DPOY and the Lakers were #1 in def rating. It was a different game I know.

how? are we talking about the real Shaq or some idealized version that never existed?

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

Hook_Em wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
Hard to see. Considerable difference in range, playmaking, and efficiency.

Shaq would still be a huge force today, but his inability to score outside of 8 feet and his total incompetence at the line would be major impediments to him challenging someone like Jokic, especially in this, of all seasons.

He'd be up there, though. I imagine, as with everyone else, his raw FG% in close would go up and he was a monster about drawing fouls. With the spacing we have in today's game, he'd certainly thrive. And the up-tempo environment, too. Shaq ran well in transition until fairly late in his career, even when he was a BIG BOI, which was always impressive.

Offensively Jokic can’t be topped but would Shaq be Gobert defensively? In 2000 he finished 2nd in DPOY and the Lakers were #1 in def rating. It was a different game I know.

how? are we talking about the real Shaq or some idealized version that never existed?

The one who dunked on defenders every time he was defended one on one, not the one who took like 10+ hook and fadeaway attempts.