Peaks: Duncan vs Hakeem vs Jokic vs Shaq

[70sFan]

How impactful on offense was Shaq really? He destroyed the offensive boards and was like a black hole drawing defenders into the paint. But I don’t think the Lakers really capitalized on that gravity as well as they could’ve given the dogma of that era. So he was taking up a lot of space in the paint and really wasn’t as valuable for team spacing as he should’ve been.

Aside from 2001 when everyone was firing on all cylinders, the Lakers didn’t really have an outlier offensive playoffs worthy of the talent that they had.

I mean, they were +8.7 in 2000, how is that not an outlier? How is that below expectations?

Nash, Lebron, and Magic have all led multiple much better playoff offenses though I guess help is fair(do think Kobe's minutes jumping is an underrated factor). That said, even if you like the offensive stuff(and it does improve from the rs), the defensive drop-off outweighs the offensive improvement.

If we use sansterre's psrs, Lakers drop from +8.4 to +7.79 in the playoffs and that playoff-rating is probably inflated given a 10-point win over the suns after they beat the duncan-less spurs(something to consider for those under the impression duncan wasn't the best player in 1999 ). For reference, that is worse than all 4 of Lebron's championship winners(worst was 2013 Heat at +10), worse than all of Duncan's(worst was 2003 at +10), and worse than both the 08 Celtics and the 06 Heat(both at +8). It ranks 96th among playoff teams post-shotclock which is a pretty staggering fall considering that the Lakers rs-rating ranked 17th.

Certainly not anything close to a "historic outlier" among champions. 2001 is really the only time a Shaq team plays like a "historic outlier" on offense(2nd highest rating at +13!) and overall(1st at +20) and the main driver of that elevation is almost certainly Kobe

Peregrine01 specified that he was talking about Shaq-led offensive playoffs, so my question remains - were 2000 Lakers underwhelming offensively in that run? I certainly wouldn't say that. You know I am well aware of their defensive underperformance, but that's another matter.

If you want to say that Shaq didn't lead as good offenses as Nash/LeBron/Magic, that's fair but is anything below them is below expectations? Not to mention that Shaq consistently anchored elite offenses throughout his prime. You know I am not nearly as high on Shaq as some, but criticizing his postseason offensive success isn't a good way to get expected results.

[OhayoKD]

I mean, they were +8.7 in 2000, how is that not an outlier? How is that below expectations?

Nash, Lebron, and Magic have all led multiple much better playoff offenses though I guess help is fair(do think Kobe's minutes jumping is an underrated factor). That said, even if you like the offensive stuff(and it does improve from the rs), the defensive drop-off outweighs the offensive improvement.

If we use sansterre's psrs, Lakers drop from +8.4 to +7.79 in the playoffs and that playoff-rating is probably inflated given a 10-point win over the suns after they beat the duncan-less spurs(something to consider for those under the impression duncan wasn't the best player in 1999 ). For reference, that is worse than all 4 of Lebron's championship winners(worst was 2013 Heat at +10), worse than all of Duncan's(worst was 2003 at +10), and worse than both the 08 Celtics and the 06 Heat(both at +8). It ranks 96th among playoff teams post-shotclock which is a pretty staggering fall considering that the Lakers rs-rating ranked 17th.

Certainly not anything close to a "historic outlier" among champions. 2001 is really the only time a Shaq team plays like a "historic outlier" on offense(2nd highest rating at +13!) and overall(1st at +20) and the main driver of that elevation is almost certainly Kobe

Peregrine01 specified that he was talking about Shaq-led offensive playoffs, so my question remains - were 2000 Lakers underwhelming offensively in that run? I certainly wouldn't say that. You know I am well aware of their defensive underperformance, but that's another matter.

If you want to say that Shaq didn't lead as good offenses as Nash/LeBron/Magic, that's fair but is anything below them is below expectations? Not to mention that Shaq consistently anchored elite offenses throughout his prime. You know I am not nearly as high on Shaq as some, but criticizing his postseason offensive success isn't a good way to get expected results.

I would not characterize it as underwhelming but I also would not characterize it as an "outlier" when you have a whole batch of playoff runs(not an exhaustive list) with much higher offensive ratings. Could argued to be underwhelming for those who think of him as a goat-tier or sub-goat offensive force, but I'd have to look closer at the help for nash and magic(lebron probabaly was not advantaged on that front in cleveland but probably was in miami)

I bring up the overall performance because that's relevant to the thread topic.

[Peregrine01]

How impactful on offense was Shaq really? He destroyed the offensive boards and was like a black hole drawing defenders into the paint. But I don’t think the Lakers really capitalized on that gravity as well as they could’ve given the dogma of that era. So he was taking up a lot of space in the paint and really wasn’t as valuable for team spacing as he should’ve been.

Aside from 2001 when everyone was firing on all cylinders, the Lakers didn’t really have an outlier offensive playoffs worthy of the talent that they had.

I mean, they were +8.7 in 2000, how is that not an outlier? How is that below expectations?

I'm seeing the Lakers ORTG at +6 above the playoffs average in 2000 which is pretty good but not as eye-popping as the runs of some other teams when considering team talent. Anyway, my basic point was that Shaq was a monster inside but he also took away space in the most valuable scoring area on the court. And because teams of that era didn't properly utilize the threat of the 3, the Lakers' spacing can be very poor with Shaq on the court. Of course, spacing was a general issue throughout that whole era which made the Lakers' relative ORTGs look even less flattering.

For reference:

Magic:
1987 Lakers: +8

Nash:
2005 Suns: +10

Dirk:
2011 Mavs: +7

Bron:
2016 Cavs: +9

Curry:
2017 Warriors: +8

Jokic:
2023 Nuggets: +6

[Johnny Tomala]

Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Jokić

[70sFan]

How impactful on offense was Shaq really? He destroyed the offensive boards and was like a black hole drawing defenders into the paint. But I don’t think the Lakers really capitalized on that gravity as well as they could’ve given the dogma of that era. So he was taking up a lot of space in the paint and really wasn’t as valuable for team spacing as he should’ve been.

Aside from 2001 when everyone was firing on all cylinders, the Lakers didn’t really have an outlier offensive playoffs worthy of the talent that they had.

I mean, they were +8.7 in 2000, how is that not an outlier? How is that below expectations?

I'm seeing the Lakers ORTG at +6 above the playoffs average in 2000 which is pretty good but not as eye-popping as the runs of some other teams when considering team talent. Anyway, my basic point was that Shaq was a monster inside but he also took away space in the most valuable scoring area on the court. And because teams of that era didn't properly utilize the threat of the 3, the Lakers' spacing can be very poor with Shaq on the court. Of course, spacing was a general issue throughout that whole era which made the Lakers' relative ORTGs look even less flattering.

For reference:

Magic:
1987 Lakers: +8

Nash:
2005 Suns: +10

Dirk:
2011 Mavs: +7

Bron:
2016 Cavs: +9

Curry:
2017 Warriors: +8

Jokic:
2023 Nuggets: +6

Alright, here are the offensive results relative to opponents faced from all prime Shaq teams:


1994: -0.1 (one series)
1995: +7.5
1996: +9.3
1997: +5.2
1998: +9.5
1999: +4.5
2000: +8.7
2001: +12.2
2002: +5.5
2003: +5.3

I mean, these numbers are basically the best ever short of the top 3 offensive GOATs basically.

About spacing - I don't agree at all. Shaq created a lot of space for his teammates because teams put unusually high pressure on him (probably not 100% justified to be honest) and it gave them much more freedom to operate on perimeter. Shaq was also very active without the ball, which is why he actually didn't hurt slashers nearly as much as most post players would.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I mean, they were +8.7 in 2000, how is that not an outlier? How is that below expectations?

I'm seeing the Lakers ORTG at +6 above the playoffs average in 2000 which is pretty good but not as eye-popping as the runs of some other teams when considering team talent. Anyway, my basic point was that Shaq was a monster inside but he also took away space in the most valuable scoring area on the court. And because teams of that era didn't properly utilize the threat of the 3, the Lakers' spacing can be very poor with Shaq on the court. Of course, spacing was a general issue throughout that whole era which made the Lakers' relative ORTGs look even less flattering.

For reference:

Magic:
1987 Lakers: +8

Nash:
2005 Suns: +10

Dirk:
2011 Mavs: +7

Bron:
2016 Cavs: +9

Curry:
2017 Warriors: +8

Jokic:
2023 Nuggets: +6

Alright, here are the offensive results relative to opponents faced from all prime Shaq teams:


1994: -0.1 (one series)
1995: +7.5
1996: +9.3
1997: +5.2
1998: +9.5
1999: +4.5
2000: +8.7
2001: +12.2
2002: +5.5
2003: +5.3

I mean, these numbers are basically the best ever short of the top 3 offensive GOATs basically.

About spacing - I don't agree at all. Shaq created a lot of space for his teammates because teams put unusually high pressure on him (probably not 100% justified to be honest) and it gave them much more freedom to operate on perimeter. Shaq was also very active without the ball, which is why he actually didn't hurt slashers nearly as much as most post players would.

I mean I don’t really understand why everyone is comparing Shaw’s 2000 run to the best offensive runs of other teams, comparing it to their second best offensive run (team results wise) makes more sense, even if 01 was different because Kobe exploded

[OhayoKD]

I'm seeing the Lakers ORTG at +6 above the playoffs average in 2000 which is pretty good but not as eye-popping as the runs of some other teams when considering team talent. Anyway, my basic point was that Shaq was a monster inside but he also took away space in the most valuable scoring area on the court. And because teams of that era didn't properly utilize the threat of the 3, the Lakers' spacing can be very poor with Shaq on the court. Of course, spacing was a general issue throughout that whole era which made the Lakers' relative ORTGs look even less flattering.

For reference:

Magic:
1987 Lakers: +8

Nash:
2005 Suns: +10

Dirk:
2011 Mavs: +7

Bron:
2016 Cavs: +9

Curry:
2017 Warriors: +8

Jokic:
2023 Nuggets: +6

Alright, here are the offensive results relative to opponents faced from all prime Shaq teams:


1994: -0.1 (one series)
1995: +7.5
1996: +9.3
1997: +5.2
1998: +9.5
1999: +4.5
2000: +8.7
2001: +12.2
2002: +5.5
2003: +5.3

I mean, these numbers are basically the best ever short of the top 3 offensive GOATs basically.

About spacing - I don't agree at all. Shaq created a lot of space for his teammates because teams put unusually high pressure on him (probably not 100% justified to be honest) and it gave them much more freedom to operate on perimeter. Shaq was also very active without the ball, which is why he actually didn't hurt slashers nearly as much as most post players would.

I mean I don’t really understand why everyone is comparing Shaw’s 2000 run to the best offensive runs of other teams, comparing it to their second best offensive run (team results wise) makes more sense, even if 01 was different because Kobe exploded

Shaq loses that too though.

Also it was kobe's run

[Narigo]

Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
Jokic

[ShaqAttac]

man yall always be rippin shaq a new one. u prob aint wrong but it hurts