Does shaq have the best peak before lebron?

[falcolombardi]

Would you argue individual offense > individual defense in wilt era? Cause i would have serious doubts

This is a tricky argument. Is the premise that because offense wasn't as good or sophisticated in that era that must mean defense > offense? Except, if offense wasn't very good, then was defense actually more important? At the end of the day, you still had to score more and we're talking about games that regularly got into the 120s. To me, this feels like a better argument for offensive impact via bigs.

The best rim protectors in the game maybe defend 20-25 shots per game, but only really contest 15.

Assuming this is the correct number for the more modern gsme

A) What about all the other possesions they dissuade or affect with the sheer intimidation/paint presence

B) what about all the rebounding possesions (more key in the 60's than any later era due to more missed shots + pace meaning an advantage in rebounding was more important)

C) what about the highest minutes played of wilt compared to jordan. Wilt just played significativelt mor

A) could make the same point about offensive players and all the possessions they impact just by manipulating the defense.

B) rebounding is definitely a key issue on both sides of the ball, and generally speaking, bigs have the advantage.

C) mins is a good point too though I believe it was more common back then to play more mins. Did Wilt play more mins than MJ in relation to their peers? If so, that's a good argument assuming his play didn't drop off.

Except, if offense wasn't very good, then was defense actually more important?

If offense was better and more sophisticated in jordan era does it mean offense was less important in the 90's?

These kind of rethoric arguments can always be argued towards both sides

you still had to score more and we're talking about games that regularly got into the 120s.

Because they played at breackneck paces, which means that the more possesions to defend or rebound,the more opportunity for elite centers to separatw themselves from the field in impact

could make the same point about offensive players and all the possessions they impact just by manipulating the defense

.

No, because your earlier point for arguing "offense>defense" was thst offensive players have more plays on the ball.

So by definition they have less plays to affect away from the ball that a defensive anchor who essentially impact every defensive play, specially in that era

rebounding is definitely a key issue on both sides of the ball, and generally speaking, bigs have the advantage.

Bigs have the advantage, no what ifs about that, snd wilt in particular has a big advantage over a guard lile jordan

Did Wilt play more mins than MJ in relation to their peers

Wilt literally had seasons where he averaged 48.5 mins per game, nobody in history has played as many minutes as wilt. He was a outlier even for the 60's

[NO-KG-AI]

About as good as it can be for a guard.

was he better than shaq on d then

I don't know.

I certainly think if they both played today, Jordan would be. As for how they were in their time which is a bit more relevant...it's more difficult to say.

Shaq was really bad when he was not close to the rim. Shaq was a fast sprinter when he was in shape, but his lateral movement wasn't good, and he was incredibly uncomfortable guarding anyone who could shoot.

But Shaq was a great a shotblocker and rebounder. Being a big body in the paint helped a lot in those days, and bigs who played on the perimeter were not that common, and high pick and roll was not used enough to punish players like Shaq. I'm not sure how to factor that in because Shaq's weaknesses were not pronounced for his era (I suppose you could say that for every all time great).

I'm starting to come around that Jordan might be a better defender than Shaq. Shaq was a good anchor but ultimately he had a lot of help on his better defensive teams and good coaching. Shaq has some holes you could exploit.

I think when you're comparing defense from guys playing two hugely different roles, you have to think about how replaceable the guy is with other guys all around the league. Shaq is hugely dominant inside the key, but does have some things that some teams might be able to exploit too. Like I think it's easier to craft and put together something like Michael Jordan and a Tyson Chandler type than it is to get Shaq and a Jordan equivalent on the wings, and I think it's just easier to find parts to make a strong defense around Jordan who is ridiculously good at multiple positions, very flexible, and an extreme outlier as a help defender at his position. Shaq is extremely dominant, and particularly in his peak year, just a monster inside, but it's a lot less of a flexible amount of things you can do with him.

[70sFan]

It's interesting how on one hand you're trying to narrow the argument to specifically how ONLY Walton did vs. Kareem (career high 5.8 apg in a playoff series btw), but then when it comes to Shaq it's all about how the team defense performed.

I'm not trying anything, that was your argument. Walton didn't have a career high in 1977 WCF, he had a higher average just a series before vs Denver.

Kareem has a long story of anchoring elite defenses in the playoffs throughout his prime. Shaq teams almost always underperformed defensively. I combine that with my observations from tracking their tendencies across 30+ games from their best seasons. Kareem was significantly more impactful defensive player and your arguments against that are very lazy.

We're talking about GOAT peaks here. Wilt wasn't really the engine of that Sixers offense that playoffs despite being so in the regular season.

He was, everything was run around and through Wilt. Wilt averaged 21 ppg and 9 apg in that postseason, how is that not the engine?

Again, no. It's about who was the main driver of the offense. If Wilt was averaging 10+ assists and the next guy was averaging 2-3 then you could more easily argue Wilt is the engine and it doesn't matter that he's shooting a little less.

Yeah, but instead Wilt averaged only 9 apg to Greer's 5 apg and that's just not enough.

You know, the best way to judge it is to watch games and Sixers offense was run around Wilt, not Greer.

[HeartBreakKid]

was he better than shaq on d then

I don't know.

I certainly think if they both played today, Jordan would be. As for how they were in their time which is a bit more relevant...it's more difficult to say.

Shaq was really bad when he was not close to the rim. Shaq was a fast sprinter when he was in shape, but his lateral movement wasn't good, and he was incredibly uncomfortable guarding anyone who could shoot.

But Shaq was a great a shotblocker and rebounder. Being a big body in the paint helped a lot in those days, and bigs who played on the perimeter were not that common, and high pick and roll was not used enough to punish players like Shaq. I'm not sure how to factor that in because Shaq's weaknesses were not pronounced for his era (I suppose you could say that for every all time great).

I'm starting to come around that Jordan might be a better defender than Shaq. Shaq was a good anchor but ultimately he had a lot of help on his better defensive teams and good coaching. Shaq has some holes you could exploit.

I think when you're comparing defense from guys playing two hugely different roles, you have to think about how replaceable the guy is with other guys all around the league. Shaq is hugely dominant inside the key, but does have some things that some teams might be able to exploit too. Like I think it's easier to craft and put together something like Michael Jordan and a Tyson Chandler type than it is to get Shaq and a Jordan equivalent on the wings, and I think it's just easier to find parts to make a strong defense around Jordan who is ridiculously good at multiple positions, very flexible, and an extreme outlier as a help defender at his position. Shaq is extremely dominant, and particularly in his peak year, just a monster inside, but it's a lot less of a flexible amount of things you can do with him.

Yes, I agree with that.

[OhayoKD]

seems like lebron has the best numbers but how does shaqs stuff look vs everyone else?

Eh... an important caveat to this is we don't have numbers for the likes of kareem and bill. And, unless we assume 69 was an outlier, it's probably close to impossible to argue Lebron had a better, relative to era, prime. If you were to wowy it lebron looks a bit better than kareem but its not a collosal gap and Kareem does actually have two sides which were all-time great in the regular season and postseason.

As for shaq, not that well tbh. Tim Duncan for example outright look better than shaq in both the playoffs and the regular season if you wanted to operate statistically.

[ShaqAttac]

About as good as it can be for a guard.

was he better than shaq on d then

I'd say so. It's all relative to your position.

He also takes on a bigger load offensively, which allows his teammates to focus more on defense. Jordans ability to score/handle/pass allowed him to play with great defenders while maintaining an elite offense.

Nothing against Shaq. I'd say he's second to Jordan as far as peak goes.

what is relative to position? also what does pass handle and score have to do with who is better at d

[ShaqAttac]

seems like lebron has the best numbers but how does shaqs stuff look vs everyone else?

Eh... an important caveat to this is we don't have numbers for the likes of kareem and bill. And, unless we assume 69 was an outlier, it's probably close to impossible to argue Lebron had a better, relative to era, prime. If you were to wowy it lebron looks a bit better than kareem but its not a collosal gap and Kareem does actually have two sides which were all-time great in the regular season and postseason.

As for shaq, not that well tbh. Tim Duncan for example outright look better than shaq in both the playoffs and the regular season if you wanted to operate statistically.

wats wowy

[ShaqAttac]

I don't know.

I certainly think if they both played today, Jordan would be. As for how they were in their time which is a bit more relevant...it's more difficult to say.

Shaq was really bad when he was not close to the rim. Shaq was a fast sprinter when he was in shape, but his lateral movement wasn't good, and he was incredibly uncomfortable guarding anyone who could shoot.

But Shaq was a great a shotblocker and rebounder. Being a big body in the paint helped a lot in those days, and bigs who played on the perimeter were not that common, and high pick and roll was not used enough to punish players like Shaq. I'm not sure how to factor that in because Shaq's weaknesses were not pronounced for his era (I suppose you could say that for every all time great).

I'm starting to come around that Jordan might be a better defender than Shaq. Shaq was a good anchor but ultimately he had a lot of help on his better defensive teams and good coaching. Shaq has some holes you could exploit.

did shaq or mj have more defensive help? realgm say shaq defense went away in the playoffs but realgm also says bullls d was fine with no mj

Jordan second three peat bulls were stacked defensively and the first three peat ones are probably still better defensive cast than any of prime shaq teams, so the answer here is likely jordan

how do you know whose teammates are better at d

[falcolombardi]

seems like lebron has the best numbers but how does shaqs stuff look vs everyone else?

Eh... an important caveat to this is we don't have numbers for the likes of kareem and bill. And, unless we assume 69 was an outlier, it's probably close to impossible to argue Lebron had a better, relative to era, prime. If you were to wowy it lebron looks a bit better than kareem but its not a collosal gap and Kareem does actually have two sides which were all-time great in the regular season and postseason.

As for shaq, not that well tbh. Tim Duncan for example outright look better than shaq in both the playoffs and the regular season if you wanted to operate statistically.

wats wowy

Wowy is essentially how good your team is with you and without you playing

[falcolombardi]

did shaq or mj have more defensive help? realgm say shaq defense went away in the playoffs but realgm also says bullls d was fine with no mj

Jordan second three peat bulls were stacked defensively and the first three peat ones are probably still better defensive cast than any of prime shaq teams, so the answer here is likely jordan

how do you know whose teammates are better at d

Partially by watching them directly but confirmed by how good their defensive results are without jordan playing

Rodman and harper for example had a histort of beibg high end defenders (specially rodman) wrll before going to the bulls

And pippen (with grant) kept the jordan-less bulls a strong defense.

[oaktownwarriors87]

was he better than shaq on d then

I'd say so. It's all relative to your position.

He also takes on a bigger load offensively, which allows his teammates to focus more on defense. Jordans ability to score/handle/pass allowed him to play with great defenders while maintaining an elite offense.

Nothing against Shaq. I'd say he's second to Jordan as far as peak goes.

what is relative to position? also what does pass handle and score have to do with who is better at d

Making offense easier and taking on a larger load will allow your teammates to play better defense.

Relative to position is comparing it to other players at the same position. Big men are inherently more valuable on defense, but it's a team sport so you can't really directly compare across different positions.

Jordan takes on such a heavy load offensively that he allows his big men to focus on defense and rebounding. He's allowing the players at the most valuable defensive positions to be even more valuable.

He also doesn't need a PG, so you can wipe away that undersized defensive liability. Guys like LeBron that choose to play with small point guards are erasing one of their major advantages on the court.

[rk2023]

Most certainly has a case to be. Colts18, as some of you probably do know, makes great points in this analysis.

viewtopic.php?t=1236093

To sum up, ATG scoring in the PS/RS (I would place his scoring apex like 5th all time if I was tasked with a firm answer), pretty stellar defense that season although with some drawbacks that were amplified in the playoffs - nothing holding his value back too much. I would say that Jordan, Chamberlain, and Abdul-Jabbar have formidable claims to have best seasons that rival this effort from a team impact standpoint as well as skillset/production. And of-course James.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'd say so. It's all relative to your position.

He also takes on a bigger load offensively, which allows his teammates to focus more on defense. Jordans ability to score/handle/pass allowed him to play with great defenders while maintaining an elite offense.

Nothing against Shaq. I'd say he's second to Jordan as far as peak goes.

what is relative to position? also what does pass handle and score have to do with who is better at d

Making offense easier and taking on a larger load will allow your teammates to play better defense.

Relative to position is comparing it to other players at the same position. Big men are inherently more valuable on defense, but it's a team sport so you can't really directly compare across different positions.

Jordan takes on such a heavy load offensively that he allows his big men to focus on defense and rebounding. He's allowing the players at the most valuable defensive positions to be even more valuable.

He also doesn't need a PG, so you can wipe away that undersized defensive liability. Guys like LeBron that choose to play with small point guards are erasing one of their major advantages on the court.

American Football is a team sport. Does that mean a quarterback and center are the same value?

As for the load argument, there isn't much proof of that. Also, you could just as easily say that players who play hard defense make it so players who play offense have more energy. Same exact logic.