RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #6

[AEnigma]

Voting will close sometime after 11:00AM EST on Thursday, July 31. I have no issue extending the time to vote so long as discussion is strong, but please try to vote within the first three days.

Official ballots must include 3 different player peaks (name + year) and at least one line of reasoning for each of them. Votes which fail to do this will not be counted. Keep in mind that the expectation is to generally try to offer more than the bare minimum: reasoning such as “GOAT player in his GOAT season,” absent any other engagement or commentary in the thread, contributes exceedingly little to the primary purpose of the project, which is the thought and discussion behind the comparisons rather than the vote results themselves. If you want to distinguish among the “top” candidates past your three-man ballot, you may do so — but please do not do so excessively, and if you are doing so, be clear that is what you are doing. Same holds true if you want to input a preference as to the peak season for “top” candidates past your three-man ballot.

Example #1
1. 2004 Andrei Kirilenko: Explanation
2. 2006 Shawn Marion: Explanation
3. 2004 Metta Artest: Explanation

You may also list alternate peak seasons from your three players. This is an optional step included to give clearer representation in the event that consensus is split on the choice of peak seasons. Do not list every good season a player has; the intent of this feature is to help settle disputes between specific seasons contending for selection as that player’s peak.

Example #2
1. 2004 Andrei Kirilenko: Explanation
2. 2006 Shawn Marion (> 2003 > 2007 = 2005): Explanation
3. 2004 Metta Artest (> 2003 > 2006): Explanation

Ballots need not follow this exact format, but I request you format your ballot in such a way that a) it is obvious that post is your voting post, b) a quick glance is sufficient for me to tally your vote, and c) the order of your alternate year preferences is clear. If you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same voting post rather than posting a new ballot (although you are encouraged to make separate posts about what changes you made and why).

Each thread will last at least 72 hours before I begin tallying. If there is no simple majority, then the winning player and that player’s winning season will be determined with a Condorcet tally. Players can be selected from the NBA, ABA, NBL, or BAA, with seasons from 1947-2025.

Below is the list of approved voters for this thread:

Spoiler:

Anyone may post on-topic thoughts in the thread, but only approved voters will have their ballots counted. Requests to join the project can be made on the general discussion thread; however, unless you were included on that initial notification list or otherwise have an established history voting in forum projects, you will need to wait until the next thread to be given consideration as an approved voter. Finally, meta commentary or questions should be restricted to the above-linked general thread to keep voting threads focused on discussing peaks.

#1 — 2013 LeBron James
#2 — 1974 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
#3 — 1991 Michael Jordan
#4 — 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
#5 — 2003 Tim Duncan
#6 — ???

[tsherkin]

Reiterating my previous work for the voting post. Still on that Russell train.

1) 1964 Bill Russell
2) 1987 Magic
3) 2023 Jokic

HM: 2000 Shaq, 16 Steph

Spoiler:

Voting Post

Reiterating my post for earlier spots and try to get more involved in the conversation. We've seen Lebron and Kareem go so far, but I still think these guys should be in the running.

The root idea here is that I think Russell's defensive impact is unprecedented stuff and that the dominance Boston exerted there with fairly weak offense (indeed, the WORST offense in the 64 regular season, among the 9 teams) is quite impressive to me. They killed the boards, they crushed it on D and they were really, really unremarkable on O. But it worked. Even if that strategy doesn't really work in the post-Russell eras, it did at the time, and that's vaguely insane. I feel like Jokic's inclusion is reasonably clear, even if one disagrees. That 2023 season was wild. With Magic, he was leading best-in-league-history kind of offenses and still crushing it with Old Kareem and without him. If not for the HIV situation, I feel like the first half of the 90s would have been very, very different, particularly as he developed his shot and his post game and was just putting people on an island and murdering them.

Obviously, decent amount of subjectivity involved in any of these things. The other nominees, guys like Duncan and Jordan and so forth, I can certainly see arguments for them (and there are some well-articulated defenses of their candidacy), but I wanted to generate some discussion about Russell's defensive impact and non-scorers, and then efficient-scoring playmakers and such.

Player #1: Bill Russell 1964

Best defense we've ever seen. Led the league in rebounding in the RS and then again in the PS (and went from like 25 to 27 rpg). Captained the team to a title with his dominant performance, after leading his team to the best record in the RS. We've never seen anything like Russell's era-relative impact defensively, nor anything like his team dominance. I don't subscribe to the idea that we should ignore earlier eras due to the differences between then and now, and Russell's run is the most dominant in league history, authored on the back of what he did as a rebounder and defender (and passer, at that).

Player #2: Magic Johnson 1990

Not quite Magic's scoring peak, but on top of his usual, he was bombing 3s, crushing it at the line, was a dominant playmaker, fully matured in his post game. One of his MVP seasons, and well-earned. An absolute unit leading another insane offense in his first season without Kareem.


Player #3: Nikola Jokic 2023

The wildest offensive RS we've ever seen, IMHO. A 25/12/10 season on 70% TS that turned into 30/14/10 still on 63% TS en route to a title and Finals MVP. Should have been the MVP. An insane mix of post game, shooting ability, court vision, rebounding and so forth.

HM: 2000 Shaq, 2016 Steph

Bolding my HMs to make AEnigma's life easier.

[FrodoBaggins]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

[tsherkin]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

Lots of stuff changes. Shaq also last played truly high-level basketball about 20 years ago. If you'd done a project like this in the 80s, you'd see very different results too.

[Gibson22]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

Yeah, I ask myself the same thing.

[falcolombardi]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

[tsherkin]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

If I'm not mistaken, he gave himself that moniker, no? I only really recall him ever actually saying that of himself.

[AEnigma]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

If I'm not mistaken, he gave himself that moniker, no? I only really recall him ever actually saying that of himself.

If you go in one of the prior Shaq peaks threads and do a search for “dominant” or “dominance”, then you will see how successfully the moniker was adopted by the public.

And there is plenty of truth to the moniker, but its value is limited. Wilt was much more physically “dominant” than Russell, yet Russell was still the era’s best player.

[tsherkin]

If you go in one of the prior Shaq peaks threads and do a search for “dominant” or “dominance”, then you will see how successfully the moniker was adopted by the public.

Oh, I'm well aware of how entrenched it was, but yeah, it's only so accurate, yeah.

[Peregrine01]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

[Samurai]

1. Bill Russell 1964. I could also see 1962 here, especially considering his still standing record of 189 rebounds in a 7-game series but I'll stick with 64. Particularly when taking era into account and the immense value a defensive big had on the overall impact on a game with no 3-point shot and the game played closer to the rim, I think this was the single greatest defensive season by any player in history. Also led the league in rebounds/game and rebounds/36 minutes despite vying with Wilt for those rebounding honors.

2. Shaq 2000. Not quite as high on Shaq overall as some others (I'd take Duncan and Hakeem over Shaq if this were a greatest player project), but since this is just for greatest peak, can't ignore what a monster year he had in the 99/00 season. Not only led the league in scoring and was MVP and Finals MVP, but he also finished second in DPOY voting.

3. Wilt 1964. Growing up I had heard so many times that 67 was his best season that I just accepted it as fact. But recent posts have convinced me to look at 64 more closely. His WS of 25.0 is his career best (and second highest ever behind only Kareem). And despite not being as focused on racking up assists as he was in 67, still managed to finish 6th in the league with 5 assists/game while averaging 28.7 FGA/game and nearl

[AEnigma]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

The 76ers traded for Dikembe in large part because Ratliff went out for the season, but generally speaking I agree. Shaq was probably the most dangerous at-basket scorer ever (although “healthy” Zion and Giannis make for interesting points of comparison by being superior drivers), and in the “right” matchup (e.g. the threepeat Finals) he could absolutely obliterate opponents. However, in the “wrong” matchup, he could be a minor liability on one end and/or significantly limited on the other. If series like the 2000 conference finals or 2002 conference semifinals had occurred in the Finals, I think public perception would change quite a bit. And while there is no real insight in saying that a player would be less well regarded if you replaced a highly viewed series where a player excelled with a less viewed series where they struggled, I think there are few players where the disparity is more pronounced than with threepeat Shaq averaging 36/15 on 59% efficiency in the Finals.

[falcolombardi]

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

The 76ers traded for Dikembe in large part because Ratliff went out for the season, but generally speaking I agree. Shaq was probably the most dangerous at-basket scorer ever (although “healthy” Zion and Giannis make for interesting points of comparison by being superior drivers), and in the “right” matchup (e.g. the threepeat Finals) he could absolutely obliterate opponents. However, in the “wrong” matchup, he could be a minor liability on one end and/or significantly limited on the other. If series like the 2000 conference finals or 2002 conference semifinals had occurred in the Finals, I think public perception would change quite a bit.

Kone notoriously used to have his best series pre finals or in conference finals and struggle a lot more in the actual finals

Didnt hurt his reputation all that tho so i dont think is just that as long as you are winning those finals

[One_and_Done]

Shaq will be my #1. However, with Duncan in I think it's definitely time for me to start voting for some guys like Curry, Jokic, Giannis and Kawhi. I'll need to mull over who to push for.

For now I'll go:

1. Shaq
2. Curry
3. Giannis/Jokic

HM: Kawhi, Bird, Magic, KG, D.Rob, Luka.

Reasons to follow.

[cupcakesnake]

Shaq used to be a lock for top 2-3 in these projects in the past. How things have changed!

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

To be fair to Larry Brown, he coached the 2004 Pistons to a much more optimal Shaq strategy (against an admittedly lesser version of Shaq), but those Pistons had an insane personnel compared to those Sixers.

Ratiliff was injured and traded, but also wasn't bulkier than Dikembe. He was listed at 235lbs and was drafted 10 pounds lighter than that. Dikembe was listed at 260lbs. that year. There's no real track record of bulky centers having success against Shaq, but it was something teams constantly tried. Todd McCullough played real minutes againt Shaq in 2 different finals for 2 different teams.

I agree with everything you're saying about more active defenses, but Shaq was uniquely good at sealing guys. Lakers did all kinds of things to make Shaq a less stationary target so defenses couldn't load up on him. Shaq was unusually good at sneaking and powering into seals under the rim, where he's then a huge target to pass to, and he had elite catching mits.

Even though today's defenses are way better at making post-ups less efficient, Shaq has advantages that no one else ever has. He'd be used in pick & roll way more today, but I think those Shaq ducks in work in any era (after the 1970s or whenever they started allowing more contact from the offensive player).

[ceoofkobefans]

just gonna copy paste since my ballot is the exact same. Will go into more depth if needed

Here's the ballot

1. 2000 Shaquille O'Neal

00 is the one year shaq combines his sub goat clear all time O with elite defense which is enough for him to be my 3rd highest peak


2. 1964 Wilt Chamberlain

One of the goat floor raising seasons. led a young and below average warriors team to a 48-34 record with a 54 win pace by SRS (+4.41) where he averaged 36.9 PPG (1st in the league by 5.5 points a game) 22.3 RPG (2nd only to bill russell) 5 apg (6th in the league) with a 53.7 TS% (+4.8 rTS% which was good for 7th in the league) and took said warriors to the finals where they lost in 5 to the boston celtics who had 3 all stars and 3 of the other 9 all nba members that season other than Wilt; Bill Russell, John Havlicek (All NBA but not all star), Sam Jones (All star and 9th in MVP voting but not all nba), and Tom Heinsohn. While they lost in 5 it wasn't some lost cause of a series despite the talent disparity (Only lost by an average of 4 points per game, won their only game by 24, and the last two games of the series were lost by 3 and 6 points). Wilt averaged 29/2/28 on 50.9 TS% (+4.7 rTS% based on the celtics estimated TS% allowed in the RS) and the warriors had a 40.3 TS% (-5.9 rTS%) outside of wilt (not to mention would be finals mvp sam jones averaged 21.2 ppg and 2.8 apg on 60 TS% which is absurd efficiency for 1964). The warriors had a below average offense which will be used against wilt but I think that says more about his help than the offensive ability of the leagues best scorer and offensive rebounder who averaged 5 assists on top of that, but I also don't think Wilt's offense is quite the level of the Offensive GOATs or the guys a tier or 2 below (we've seen guys like MJ LeBron Kobe etc lead above average and even high level offenses without help offensively) but he's still an elite Offensive player (somewhere in the top 50 all time) and a top 5 or so defender ever which is enough to be the 6th highest peak ever for me. Could see the argument for him over Duncan or Kareem (mayve shaq but it takes some convincing), but also could see the argument for hakeem over him (maybe steph jokic or kobe with some convincing)
Top

3. 2016 Steph Curry

Real tossup between steph and my next 4 players on this list but im gonna lean steph here. Its been talked about enough how legendary stephs 2016 regular season was but it is fair to say that part of why he performed so well was because the league hadn't caught up/adjusted to him yet and he does have the playoff drop but he was injured so not really gonna tax him for it. With Steph he has such a good mixture of on and off ball ability it's very easy to be high on him. while he's worse than kobe or magic or jokic on the ball he's so good off the ball it more than makes up for that gap. defensively hes pretty mid in 2016. He was still weak and was able to be pushed around on the ball but he's a good team defender and elite in passing lanes. Offensively he'd be the best player still on the board so how high or low you are on his defense vs kobe jokic magic and bird depends who goes where but i think he's a slight + defensively which is enough for me to put him just above everyone else in that tier

[Peregrine01]

The idea of shaq always has been a bit better than the reality of shaq and there was some lazyness imo involved (it was easy to just say he was "most dominant ever" without actually comparing him to peers in deptg)

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

To be fair to Larry Brown, he coached the 2004 Pistons to a much more optimal Shaq strategy (against an admittedly lesser version of Shaq), but those Pistons had an insane personnel compared to those Sixers.

Ratiliff was injured and traded, but also wasn't bulkier than Dikembe. He was listed at 235lbs and was drafted 10 pounds lighter than that. Dikembe was listed at 260lbs. that year. There's no real track record of bulky centers having success against Shaq, but it was something teams constantly tried. Todd McCullough played real minutes againt Shaq in 2 different finals for 2 different teams.

I agree with everything you're saying about more active defenses, but Shaq was uniquely good at sealing guys. Lakers did all kinds of things to make Shaq a less stationary target so defenses couldn't load up on him. Shaq was unusually good at sneaking and powering into seals under the rim, where he's then a huge target to pass to, and he had elite catching mits.

Even though today's defenses are way better at making post-ups less efficient, Shaq has advantages that no one else ever has. He'd be used in pick & roll way more today, but I think those Shaq ducks in work in any era (after the 1970s or whenever they started allowing more contact from the offensive player).

Shaq also went off in the 2004 finals when the Pistons mostly played him straight up with Ben Wallace. My guess is it was a macho thing to pit Brown's DPOY center against Shaq one-on-one which seemed to be a relic of the post-Jordan era.

Shaq was probably the best ever at sealing deep but you can still make a catch very hard especially if the paint was as crowded as it was then. An older Pippen wreaked havoc on the Lakers offense in that 2000 series by just being extremely aggressive with a soft double without actually triggering illegal defense. Shaq is Shaq of course and he'd still find a way but those monster Finals performances against those east teams probably overstates how good his offense was.

[tsherkin]

Shaq also went off in the 2004 finals when the Pistons mostly played him straight up with Ben Wallace. My guess is it was a macho thing to pit Brown's DPOY center against Shaq one-on-one which seemed to be a relic of the post-Jordan era.

Looked a lot like the strategy the Celtics used against Wilt: let the one guy go off and frustrate everyone else. Detroit is on-record talking about baiting Kobe into over-shooting, which certainly looked like what happened when watching the series.

Individual scoring goes only so far. This has always been a problem with conventional post players, even the ones who have been pretty decent passers.

EDIT: And they didn't have Horry to help space, and had no bench, etc, etc.

[cupcakesnake]

I must admit, when I was watching Shaq during my teen years and just watch him catch deep and dunk the ball again and again my first and deepest impression was: "this isn't fair". The visual of that was so strong that it overwhelmed a lot of his shortcomings on the court - namely his statuesque defense and inability to really do anything outside of 10 feet from the basket.

Defenses then look primitive to what they look like now and didn't really obstruct him much from operating within that 10 ft radius. I'll always remember the 2001 Finals when Shaq would obliterate Mutombo under the basket and dunk on him again and again. Yet Mutombo would still run down the court dutifully positioning himself behind Shaq and let him get sealed all over again. The Sixers were coached by Larry Brown no less and still had probably the worst strategy possible against Shaq.

There is just no way the defenses of today would let that happen. Instead, they'd put a beefier center like Ratliff on Shaq, having Mutombo roam on the weak side, and have a phalanx of wings denying the post entry. When Shaq had to face a much more active team defense like he did against the Blazers in 2000 or the late 90s Jazz, he had a lot more trouble implementing the "catch and dunk" strategy.

To be fair to Larry Brown, he coached the 2004 Pistons to a much more optimal Shaq strategy (against an admittedly lesser version of Shaq), but those Pistons had an insane personnel compared to those Sixers.

Ratiliff was injured and traded, but also wasn't bulkier than Dikembe. He was listed at 235lbs and was drafted 10 pounds lighter than that. Dikembe was listed at 260lbs. that year. There's no real track record of bulky centers having success against Shaq, but it was something teams constantly tried. Todd McCullough played real minutes againt Shaq in 2 different finals for 2 different teams.

I agree with everything you're saying about more active defenses, but Shaq was uniquely good at sealing guys. Lakers did all kinds of things to make Shaq a less stationary target so defenses couldn't load up on him. Shaq was unusually good at sneaking and powering into seals under the rim, where he's then a huge target to pass to, and he had elite catching mits.

Even though today's defenses are way better at making post-ups less efficient, Shaq has advantages that no one else ever has. He'd be used in pick & roll way more today, but I think those Shaq ducks in work in any era (after the 1970s or whenever they started allowing more contact from the offensive player).

Shaq also went off in the 2004 finals when the Pistons mostly played him straight up with Ben Wallace. My guess is it was a macho thing to pit Brown's DPOY center against Shaq one-on-one which seemed to be a relic of the post-Jordan era.

Shaq was probably the best ever at sealing deep but you can still make a catch very hard especially if the paint was as crowded as it was then. An older Pippen wreaked havoc on the Lakers offense in that 2000 series by just being extremely aggressive with a soft double without actually triggering illegal defense. Shaq is Shaq of course and he'd still find a way but those monster Finals performances against those east teams probably overstates how good his offense was.

With old man Pippen, that felt like the last part of his game that stayed elite. I'm not going off data here, just so many memories of a graying Pippen in baggy shorts getting those 7'3" arms everywhere in the playoffs.

Ben guarded Shaq a ton, and there were also some regular Elden Campbell minutes. Ben would do plenty of fronting, and they also weren't shy about bringing Ben up to the point of attack against screens for Kobe, while the other Pistons rotated behind the play and ignored shooters. Having Rasheed Wallace be able to step behind Shaq as a secondary rim protector was a hilarous luxury.

I remember a 2006 Suns regular season game against the Houston Rockets, where Boris Diaw and Shawn Marion ruined Yao Ming life for a night, just making impossible for him to get a clean catch. This is a few years later than prime Shaq, but I think defensively teams weren't conceding post touches lazily. Fronting the post and playing deny defense were basic fundamentals. Having the bodies to do it to Shaq was a different story.

[trelos6]

I’m asking a question of myself. Do I value Jokic defense more than Russell’s offence?

Because I think the defensive value Russell brought was on the same level as Jokic offensively.