Where would Peak Shaq rank today?

[Matt15]

Where would peak Shaq rank in todays league?

[colts18]

1st. We saw how Zion completely dominated the league physically to the point that he had a legit argument as the best player when he was fully healthy. He averaged 27 PPG on 61 FG% as a 20 year old. Imagine a league with Al Horford, Dwight Powell, and DeAndre Ayton as starting centers trying to guard him.

[OhayoKD]

1st. We saw how Zion completely dominated the league physically to the point that he had a legit argument as the best player when he was fully healthy. He averaged 27 PPG on 61 FG% as a 20 year old. Imagine a league with Al Horford, Dwight Powell, and DeAndre Ayton as starting centers trying to guard him.

I love how every one of these threads starts with you thinking a comparison to a fringe or not-top 10 player is a winning argument.

[eminence]

Peak Shaq in the league would be one of the most extreme offense/defense trade-off players ever. I could relatively easily see anywhere from #1 to #5 (Luka/Giannis/Steph/Embiid), bit tricky to see others out in front.

I split the difference and voted top 3.

[No-more-rings]

I mean it’s one thing if you believe Shaq has a bit less value, but it’s another thing entirely if we start acting like a top 10 player of all time who retired just 12 years ago would be like a caveman coming into the league. Great players adjust to their environment. He’d be battling for the best in the league, and find it unlikely anyone other than Jokic is better. Defensively he wouldn’t be any worse than Jokic, and offensively he’d abuse teams down low.

[No-more-rings]

1st. We saw how Zion completely dominated the league physically to the point that he had a legit argument as the best player when he was fully healthy. He averaged 27 PPG on 61 FG% as a 20 year old. Imagine a league with Al Horford, Dwight Powell, and DeAndre Ayton as starting centers trying to guard him.

I love how every one of these threads starts with you thinking a comparison to a fringe or not-top 10 player is a winning argument.

I don’t think he’s trying to say that Zion is a perfect Shaq comparison, just that a big strong post guy like that can be very dominant today. Shaq is obviously a different animal than Zion. Whether you think that translates to top 1, top 5 or whatever is your choice, but I think we’d all agree he’d be a force to be reckoned with regardless. I don’t really know how you’d effectively guard him, aside from just trying to keep the ball out of his hands which isn’t going to happen obviously.

[capfan33]

1st. We saw how Zion completely dominated the league physically to the point that he had a legit argument as the best player when he was fully healthy. He averaged 27 PPG on 61 FG% as a 20 year old. Imagine a league with Al Horford, Dwight Powell, and DeAndre Ayton as starting centers trying to guard him.

I love how every one of these threads starts with you thinking a comparison to a fringe or not-top 10 player is a winning argument.

I don’t think he’s trying to say that Zion is a perfect Shaq comparison, just that a big strong post guy like that can be very dominant today. Shaq is obviously a different animal than Zion. Whether you think that translates to top 1, top 5 or whatever is your choice, but I think we’d all agree he’d be a force to be reckoned with regardless. I don’t really know how you’d effectively guard him, aside from just trying to keep the ball out of his hands which isn’t going to happen obviously.

Analogies to past players are useful to contextualize these admittedly very hypothetical questions, and Zion is essentially baby Shaq. I think the comparison definitely has value.

And top-5 for me, I do think defense would be a pretty big issue but ofc he would feast on offense.

[JimmyFromNz]

Well to be blunt he does have one of the greatest peaks and is a top 10 player of all time. I think he'd be the best.

I'm sure there is a lot of over thinking around fit in today's league, the reality with a talent and physical force like Shaq is that inherently teams and the game adapt around them not the other way around.

Would there be a defensive learning curve? Yes, yet in the same breathe we are near voting Jokic as a consensus MVP despite a marginal impact on that end, and other the hand celebrating Brook Lopez as an all defensive player due to how the bucks have found an intelligent way to utilise him in a drop coverage. I would take Shaq's lateral quickness, foot speed and explosiveness as being just as transferable in that regard - that should not be misinterpreted as saying he would be 'as good'.

I see little reason to think that a peak (in its broadest sense) conditioned Shaq wouldn't have that impact even in today's spaced out game.

[Gregoire]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

[70sFan]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

[Dutchball97]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

As someone who has 2000 Shaq as 2nd best peak as well I think this comes down almost entirely to approach. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're more interested in what he could do, while my approach (and presumably Gregoire's) looks at what he did. The good old best "player" vs best "season" debate.

I can completely understand that making a comparison skill vs skill against other all-time greats isn't going to paint the most flattering picture of Shaq but looking at era-relative impact I don't think Shaq as the 2nd best peak is that much of a hot take. In the 99/00 season Shaq had one of the most dominant regular seasons ever. Topped all the box metrics, undeniably great raw stats too, led the league in +-, the Lakers had by far the best record and highest SRS and it resulted in Shaq being a stray Iverson vote away from getting unanimously voted MVP. Then the play-offs came around and Shaq showed up big in every single round, being the clear best player in every series. This is especially noticeable in the finals when Kobe kind of disappears and Shaq has his best showing of the entire post-season. Defensively it also looks like 2000 Shaq was actually pretty good unlike he was most of his career.

[MiamiBulls]

Peak Shaq is player very specific to the Deadball Era. Don't think Peak Shaq is a transferable player, carrying 350-360lbs. When someone says Peak Shaq they must mean the build of 1992-1993 Orlando Shaq.

Shaq likely would be in the mix for the best player in the league, maybe. Don't really think it's a given that he's the best because his Defensive motor and effort was always questionable especially in P&R Action and in today's NBA all teams run is high volume and variation of P&R Action.

Also Offensively would Shaq have the same relative impact? One thing that made Shaq so notably dominant and impactful was the fact that he played in a depreciated era of offensive basketball. It's easy to see his offensive impact in era where the league average in TS% was consistently hovering around 51% or 52%.

In an NBA that's now hyper efficient with All-Time Peak efficiency of 58% TS, where there's premium emphasis on shooting ability; can someone like Shaq really have the same relative scoring value that he had at his peak/prime?

Shaq couldn't shoot 3 pointers, couldn't shoot with consistent effectiveness outside 8FT from the basket and was a bad Free Throw shooter to the point where it chipped away at some value in his overall scoring efficiency.

Jump Shooting Bigs of '90s and '00s like Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, Ewing, Rasheed have more of transferable scoring game than someone like Shaq.

In 2023, do you think Shaq could have TS% of 63%-65% and maintain the same All-Time elite scoring volume while still being a 45%-60% FT shooter?

[SK21209]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

[SK21209]

Peak Shaq is player very specific to the Deadball Era. Don't think Peak Shaq is a transferable player, carrying 350-360lbs. When someone says Peak Shaq they must mean the build of 1992-1993 Orlando Shaq.

Shaq likely would be in the mix for the best player in the league, maybe. Don't really think it's a given that he's the best because his Defensive motor and effort was always questionable especially in P&R Action and in today's NBA all teams run is high volume and variation of P&R Action.

Also Offensively would Shaq have the same relative impact? One thing that made Shaq so notably dominant and impactful was the fact that he played in a depreciated era of offensive basketball. It's easy to see his offensive impact in era where the league average in TS% was consistently hovering around 51% or 52%.

In an NBA that's now hyper efficient with All-Time Peak efficiency of 58% TS, where there's premium emphasis on shooting ability; can someone like Shaq really have the same relative scoring value that he had at his peak/prime?

Shaq couldn't shoot 3 pointers, couldn't shoot with consistent effectiveness outside 8FT from the basket and was a bad Free Throw shooter to the point where it chipped away at some value in his overall scoring efficiency.

Jump Shooting Bigs of '90s and '00s like Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, Ewing, Rasheed have more of transferable scoring game than someone like Shaq.

In 2023, do you think Shaq could have TS% of 63%-65% and maintain the same All-Time elite scoring volume while still being a 45%-60% FT shooter?

There is no one in the league today that could guard him near the basket lol. Embiid maybe. Everyone else is getting stuffed through the rim. Giannis can't shoot at all and shooting efficiency isn't a concern for him.

[70sFan]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

[70sFan]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

As someone who has 2000 Shaq as 2nd best peak as well I think this comes down almost entirely to approach. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're more interested in what he could do, while my approach (and presumably Gregoire's) looks at what he did. The good old best "player" vs best "season" debate.

I can completely understand that making a comparison skill vs skill against other all-time greats isn't going to paint the most flattering picture of Shaq but looking at era-relative impact I don't think Shaq as the 2nd best peak is that much of a hot take. In the 99/00 season Shaq had one of the most dominant regular seasons ever. Topped all the box metrics, undeniably great raw stats too, led the league in +-, the Lakers had by far the best record and highest SRS and it resulted in Shaq being a stray Iverson vote away from getting unanimously voted MVP. Then the play-offs came around and Shaq showed up big in every single round, being the clear best player in every series. This is especially noticeable in the finals when Kobe kind of disappears and Shaq has his best showing of the entire post-season. Defensively it also looks like 2000 Shaq was actually pretty good unlike he was most of his career.

Is there any specific reason to call it a "better" season than the other candidates, like 1962 Russell, 1967 Wilt, 1971 Kareem or 2012 James though?

[Dutchball97]

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

As someone who has 2000 Shaq as 2nd best peak as well I think this comes down almost entirely to approach. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're more interested in what he could do, while my approach (and presumably Gregoire's) looks at what he did. The good old best "player" vs best "season" debate.

I can completely understand that making a comparison skill vs skill against other all-time greats isn't going to paint the most flattering picture of Shaq but looking at era-relative impact I don't think Shaq as the 2nd best peak is that much of a hot take. In the 99/00 season Shaq had one of the most dominant regular seasons ever. Topped all the box metrics, undeniably great raw stats too, led the league in +-, the Lakers had by far the best record and highest SRS and it resulted in Shaq being a stray Iverson vote away from getting unanimously voted MVP. Then the play-offs came around and Shaq showed up big in every single round, being the clear best player in every series. This is especially noticeable in the finals when Kobe kind of disappears and Shaq has his best showing of the entire post-season. Defensively it also looks like 2000 Shaq was actually pretty good unlike he was most of his career.

Is there any specific reason to call it a "better" season than the other candidates, like 1962 Russell, 1967 Wilt, 1971 Kareem or 2012 James though?

Not necessarily but at the same time I don't see a specific reason for 2000 Shaq to be "worse" than those other seasons either. The top peaks are close and I don't think it's unreasonable for Shaq to be as high up as #2.

[dygaction]

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

He had 29.7p, 13.6rpg and 3.0bpg, #1 in scoring, #2 in rebounding, and #3 in blocking shots, and Lakers had #1 defensive rating and #4 offensive rating with him at the center. Lakers also led the league with 67 win with second highest being 59 wins. Instead of tracking tendencies, I think you need to give reasons why you don't think he was good or how he was not the reason for their elite defense, because you are arguing with data and results.

[70sFan]

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

He had 29.7p, 13.6rpg and 3.0bpg, #1 in scoring, #2 in rebounding, and #3 in blocking shots, and Lakers had #1 defensive rating and #4 offensive rating with him at the center. Lakers also led the league with 67 win with second highest being 59 wins. Instead of tracking tendencies, I think you need to give reasons why you don't think he was good or how he was not the reason for their elite defense, because you are arguing with data and results.

Wait, so you think watching games and taking notes have no value?

I can back up my opinion, although not now as I don't have the time to make a comprehensive post. Keep in mind that all these RS results didn't translate to the playoffs. If you want to, I will try to make my case for that though.

I think we should focus more on actual abilities of discussed players, rather than limiting our evaluation to RS success.

[dygaction]

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

He had 29.7p, 13.6rpg and 3.0bpg, #1 in scoring, #2 in rebounding, and #3 in blocking shots, and Lakers had #1 defensive rating and #4 offensive rating with him at the center. Lakers also led the league with 67 win with second highest being 59 wins. Instead of tracking tendencies, I think you need to give reasons why you don't think he was good or how he was not the reason for their elite defense, because you are arguing with data and results.

Wait, so you think watching games and taking notes have no value?

I can back up my opinion, although not now as I don't have the time to make a comprehensive post. Keep in mind that all these RS results didn't translate to the playoffs. If you want to, I will try to make my case for that though.

I think we should focus more on actual abilities of discussed players, rather than limiting our evaluation to RS success.

Watching games and taking notes have value if you summarize and present them, which I have not seen yet. Why do you keep using RS success when Lakers also went all the way to the championships? Shaq's offensive value is not just scoring, but also getting other teams prepare rosters differently and their players in foul trouble. He did not have to have as significant defensive value to other all time greats to be ranked #2, there certainly other players can be argued, but him as #2 is not that controversial.