Shaq vs new bigs

[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).

what about spacing?

It can work but the team has to give up a lot by centering there offense with Shaq in today's league.

More than likely Shaq would have to adapt or limit (compared to in the past) on how much the ball goes through him on offense

[ShaqAttac]

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.

i never see rant used as a compliment but ok

i mostly ask question. other people have do the substantial stuff. i just call it as i see it

[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?

It can work but the team has to give up a lot by centering there offense with Shaq in today's league.

More than likely Shaq would have to adapt or limit (compared to in the past) on how much the ball goes through him on offense

is it because shaq played post a lot

[DraymondGold]

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

Hiya ShaqAttac! I think you might be newer around here (?)... if so, welcome!
Just to answer this quickly, even if certain members of this board are slightly lower on peak Shaq than the other Top ~5 Bigs, other members of the board are still quite high on him (e.g. he ranked as having the 3rd best peak in the recent peak project: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2239885). Basically everyone has him still in the Top ~5ish bigs for peak / career. And Giannis / AD / Joel definitely aren't at that level, for either peak or career. Giannis is the best of those three modern players (over AD/Joel), but even he's usually considered a tier (or more) below Shaq. I'm looking forward to see how much he rises as the years go on though!

Like others have said, Shaq's defense isn't as good as Giannis (and you might argue AD/Embiid defensively too). But Shaq's lead offensively in his era is pretty wide. His scoring is clearly superior, and his interior gravity (which is great for team playmaking) and off-ball ability is all-time among other bigs.

And for what it's worth, of the new bigs, I'd take Jokic over AD/Joel and probably Giannis too

[OhayoKD]

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.

Okay, so I'll start with a note on the word "rant". Words often have a variety of definitions and ways they can be used. Simply looking at the definition that shows up at above a google search is not necessarily going to get you the most common definition. With that in mind, here are all the definitions(verb) I found on the first couple of links.

speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.

to speak, write or shout in a loud, uncontrolled, or angry way, often saying confused or silly things:

a long, angry, and confused speech:

: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

to talk loudly and wildly

to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:

to utter (something) in loud, violent, or bombastic tones

If you say that someone rants, you mean that they talk loudly or angrily, and exaggerate or say foolish things.

I cannot find a single definition which strikes me as positive and there's plenty of negative connotation here("violent, uncontrolled, confused, silly, ect"). I don't think anything on this thread really justifies the usage of "rant" and it's not hard to see why someone would take that negatively.


That being said, if you're going to claim a group of arguments are bad or weak, and another group of arguments are good or strong, I do feel it's not unfair for dutch to expect you to back that up to some degree. Enigma's post is actually close to a textbook example of how one would do this. My only quibble is that they did not quote the non-shaq arguments as reference.

Additionally, "box" is a bit reductive of what has been offered on MJ's behalf. Slashlines have been used extensively, but they've also used box-aggregates and box-plus-minus which, while probably not the bestevidence to use here, does, generally, potray mj and lebron as peers at the top.

There have been fairly comprehensive explanations on why this is a sub-optimal method of evaluation(that have largely just been ignored), but to characterize the mj and shaq side of things as simply "box" is unfair

[CharityStripe34]

Shaq would be just as dominant. It would just take adjusting to today's officiating tendencies. The second he bodies up a smaller player he's getting called for a charge. Smaller wings who get switched onto bigs always get the benefit of the doubt by refs.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Shaq would be great in any era, but I am not sure that he would be as great as he was in the 90s and 00s.
I am not positive that he would be better than Joel on either side and I would be quite comfortable saying he'd be a worse offensive player than Jokic while not being significantly better on defense.
On the other hand, we don't know if we would have developed differently had he been born 25 years later, the guys was an absolute freak.

[ShaqAttac]

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.

Okay, so I'll start with a note on the word "rant". Words often have a variety of definitions and ways they can be used. Simply looking at the definition that shows up at above a google search is not necessarily going to get you the most common definition. With that in mind, here are all the definitions(verb) I found on the first couple of links.

speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.

to speak, write or shout in a loud, uncontrolled, or angry way, often saying confused or silly things:

a long, angry, and confused speech:

: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

to talk loudly and wildly

to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:

to utter (something) in loud, violent, or bombastic tones

If you say that someone rants, you mean that they talk loudly or angrily, and exaggerate or say foolish things.

I cannot find a single definition which strikes me as positive and there's plenty of negative connotation here("violent, uncontrolled, confused, silly, ect"). I don't think anything on this thread really justifies the usage of "rant" and it's not hard to see why someone would take that negatively.


That being said, if you're going to claim a group of arguments are bad or weak, and another group of arguments are good or strong, I do feel it's not unfair for dutch to expect you to back that up to some degree. Enigma's post is actually close to a textbook example of how one would do this. My only quibble is that they did not quote the non-shaq arguments as reference.

Additionally, "box" is a bit reductive of what has been offered on MJ's behalf. Slashlines have been used extensively, but they've also used box-aggregates and box-plus-minus which, while probably not the bestevidence to use here, does, generally, potray mj and lebron as peers at the top.

There have been fairly comprehensive explanations on why this is a sub-optimal method of evaluation(that have largely just been ignored), but to characterize the mj and shaq side of things as simply "box" is unfair

okay sorry