RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #4 — 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon

[70sFan]

I think the success of a worse, more injury limited player in Embiid shows us there's still plenty of room for Shaq to dominate. Jokic has survived with even less mobility I'd take him over Jokic today. Different players, and some differences in strengths and weaknesses, but both worthy of discussion in this list.

Embiid is one of the best shooters in the league among centers and scores the majority of his points from faceup position in midrange area. I can't find many volume scoring centers who are more different than Shaq.

I think Shaq is clearly a better player, but you are not helping your argumentation with this comparison...

I'm comparing him to Embiid for his size and mobility.

Embiid is still lighter and more mobile than Shaq though, besides Embiid has better defensive instincts.

It's funny because you'd never use such argument for someone like Wilt, even though Chamberlain is a more natural comparison to Embiid than Shaq from physical and athletic standpoint (though Wilt was bigger and superior athlete).

[One_and_Done]

Depends which version of each player we're talking about. Rookie Embiid and rookie Shaq were much more mobile than later versions. I don't think I'd describe the recent years of Embiid as particularly 'light on his feet'.

[70sFan]

Depends which version of each player we're talking about. Rookie Embiid and rookie Shaq were much more mobile than later versions. I don't think I'd describe the recent years of Embiid as particularly 'light on his feet'.

Rookie Shaq was much more mobile than, let's say, 2004 Shaq, but that doesn't make him look mobile in any sort of way. Shaq was never mobile and it only got worse. Unlike other players who managed to be good defenders despite that, Shaq had also weak fundamentals which made the things even worse. The idea that rookie Shaq was mobile enough to defend space successfully is a pure fantasy.

Embiid is not light on his feet in the recent years and it's true that he regressed in that regard, but:

1. Rookie Embiid was very mobile, much more so than any version of Shaq.
2. Current Embiid (at least the last healthy version we've got) is still more mobile than prime Shaq, quite clearly so.
3. I don't know if current Embiid is more mobile than rookie Shaq in a sense that he could be less explosive and slower, but current Embiid has significantly better defensive footwork and awareness than rookie Shaq, so you can't just compare the two.

As I said before, I don't think Shaq wouldn't be able to adjust for modern game, but it goes completely against your supposed criteria that doesn't allow any development in historical comparisons.

[FrodoBaggins]

Shaq was a vertical athlete; he came into the NBA at 303 lbs with a 36-inch vertical leap. I don't know what Embiid's vertical jump was, but he's never struck me as an above-the-rim aerial presence. O'Neal was more like Anthony Davis in this regard. Just with way more size, weight, strength, & power.

[70sFan]

Shaq was a vertical athlete; he came into the NBA at 303 lbs with a 36-inch vertical leap. I don't know what Embiid's vertical jump was, but he's never struck me as an above-the-rim aerial presence.

That is definitely true, Shaq was just more athletic than Embiid in general, but it never translated to the success on defensive end.

I mean, Shaq was still much better vertical athlete than Embiid even in 2001 when he already weighed around 350 lbs. At the same time though, he moved quite badly on defensive end even in 1992, carrying 50 lbs less.


Again, it's much easier to envision someone like Wilt adjusting to modern defensive schemes than Shaq.

[FrodoBaggins]

Shaq was a vertical athlete; he came into the NBA at 303 lbs with a 36-inch vertical leap. I don't know what Embiid's vertical jump was, but he's never struck me as an above-the-rim aerial presence.

That is definitely true, Shaq was just more athletic than Embiid in general, but it never translated to the success on defensive end.

I mean, Shaq was still much better vertical athlete than Embiid even in 2001 when he already weighed around 350 lbs. At the same time though, he moved quite badly on defensive end even in 1992, carrying 50 lbs less.


Again, it's much easier to envision someone like Wilt adjusting to modern defensive schemes than Shaq.

Of course. I meant it more so offensively with regard to the lobs, rolls, putbacks, and cuts.

[70sFan]

Shaq was a vertical athlete; he came into the NBA at 303 lbs with a 36-inch vertical leap. I don't know what Embiid's vertical jump was, but he's never struck me as an above-the-rim aerial presence.

That is definitely true, Shaq was just more athletic than Embiid in general, but it never translated to the success on defensive end.

I mean, Shaq was still much better vertical athlete than Embiid even in 2001 when he already weighed around 350 lbs. At the same time though, he moved quite badly on defensive end even in 1992, carrying 50 lbs less.


Again, it's much easier to envision someone like Wilt adjusting to modern defensive schemes than Shaq.

Of course. I meant it more so offensively with regard to the lobs, rolls, putbacks, and cuts.

That is why I find this comparison silly. Both players can do things the other one can't and they play much differently on both ends of the floor.

Projecting Shaq based on Embiid's success just because Embiid is the closest star in size to Shaq makes very little sense. At the same time, we can't project anyone ability to shoot the ball because of DeMar Derozan...

[FrodoBaggins]

That is definitely true, Shaq was just more athletic than Embiid in general, but it never translated to the success on defensive end.

I mean, Shaq was still much better vertical athlete than Embiid even in 2001 when he already weighed around 350 lbs. At the same time though, he moved quite badly on defensive end even in 1992, carrying 50 lbs less.


Again, it's much easier to envision someone like Wilt adjusting to modern defensive schemes than Shaq.

Of course. I meant it more so offensively with regard to the lobs, rolls, putbacks, and cuts.

That is why I find this comparison silly. Both players can do things the other one can't and they play much differently on both ends of the floor.

Projecting Shaq based on Embiid's success just because Embiid is the closest star in size to Shaq makes very little sense. At the same time, we can't project anyone ability to shoot the ball because of DeMar Derozan...

Yeah, Joel isn't who I'd compare Shaq with. The closest modern O'Neal comps to me are 2008-2012 Dwight in ORL and 2023-2024 Zach Edey at Purdue. About as close as you'll get considering how unique he was.

[Top10alltime]

I don't know, maybe I just like players who can stay healthy for at least one postseason and provide MVP-level play against quality competition.

I wonder what makes you think Embiid even approaches Robinson in terms of total season value.

Did robinson provide that when he faced quality competition?

MVP-level? Yes, I think he was that in 1995. Not his RS level of course, but 1995 Robinson clears any Embiid's postseason run.

Along with 2024, 2021 is clearing that run as well....

[70sFan]

Did robinson provide that when he faced quality competition?

MVP-level? Yes, I think he was that in 1995. Not his RS level of course, but 1995 Robinson clears any Embiid's postseason run.

Along with 2024, 2021 is clearing that run as well....

So now the standard for top 15 season is your performance against sub-40 team in the 1st round and sub-50 team in the second run? Are you really comparing what Joel did against Atlanta Hawks to Robinson facing the Rockets, Jazz, Blazers, Suns etc.?

[Djoker]

This very notion that for past legends to make this list, they would need to dominate the 2025 NBA is IMO absurd. Technically speaking, no one except players who are peaking right now have dominated the 2025 NBA and we have no way of proving how they would or wouldn't fare. It's just a poor criteria in my eyes because evolution in basketball or anything else isn't linear and depends on rules/tactics etc. so it's not like today's basketball is objectively better. And secondly, it's also completely unscientific. Instead of using metrics relative to era we're stuck with philosophising how player X would do in 2025.

[One_and_Done]

This very notion that for past legends to make this list, they would need to dominate the 2025 NBA is IMO absurd. Technically speaking, no one except players who are peaking right now have dominated the 2025 NBA and we have no way of proving how they would or wouldn't fare. It's just a poor criteria in my eyes because evolution in basketball or anything else isn't linear and depends on rules/tactics etc. so it's not like today's basketball is objectively better. And secondly, it's also completely unscientific. Instead of using metrics relative to era we're stuck with philosophising how player X would do in 2025.

Context is hard. Here, and in life generally. I prefer that to spamming numbers that can be just as wrong, and often are.

It's not entirely how they would play today, but I do think the first question is how they'd perform against the best competition, which is the modern era. It's about an objectively valuable skillset, but in most cases it's a skillset that would also be most useful over the majority of league history too, which is the second level of analysis.

[70sFan]

This very notion that for past legends to make this list, they would need to dominate the 2025 NBA is IMO absurd. Technically speaking, no one except players who are peaking right now have dominated the 2025 NBA and we have no way of proving how they would or wouldn't fare. It's just a poor criteria in my eyes because evolution in basketball or anything else isn't linear and depends on rules/tactics etc. so it's not like today's basketball is objectively better. And secondly, it's also completely unscientific. Instead of using metrics relative to era we're stuck with philosophising how player X would do in 2025.

Context is hard. Here, and in life generally. I prefer that to spamming numbers that can be just as wrong, and often are.

It's not entirely how they would play today, but I do think the first question is how they'd perform against the best competition, which is the modern era. It's about an objectively valuable skillset, but in most cases it's a skillset that would also be most useful over the majority of league history too, which is the second level of analysis.

That led you to having Shaq in top 5 peaks ever? What skills does Shaq has that are "objectively valuable" against the modern era competition? Shaq has all the flaws of the other great bigmen from the past exaggerated to ridiculous degree.

[Djoker]

This very notion that for past legends to make this list, they would need to dominate the 2025 NBA is IMO absurd. Technically speaking, no one except players who are peaking right now have dominated the 2025 NBA and we have no way of proving how they would or wouldn't fare. It's just a poor criteria in my eyes because evolution in basketball or anything else isn't linear and depends on rules/tactics etc. so it's not like today's basketball is objectively better. And secondly, it's also completely unscientific. Instead of using metrics relative to era we're stuck with philosophising how player X would do in 2025.

Context is hard. Here, and in life generally. I prefer that to spamming numbers that can be just as wrong, and often are.

It's not entirely how they would play today, but I do think the first question is how they'd perform against the best competition, which is the modern era. It's about an objectively valuable skillset, but in most cases it's a skillset that would also be most useful over the majority of league history too, which is the second level of analysis.

Today's competition is the best for this era's rules and setup. All players adapt to their era.

Numbers are never "wrong". They have their variances and can be inadequate (ex. small samples) but using metrics is the scientific approach to understanding the game. Discussing hypotheticals about how someone would do in the modern era is not just a bad criteria IMO but also completely unscientific. For instance, you think Jordan would be worse than Kawhi in today's NBA. I think he would be head and shoulders above every other player. None of us can prove or disprove these viewpoints. I find such discussions pointless. And that's assuming that it's a solid criteria to use which I strongly believe it isn't.

And I agree with 70sFan that your choice of Shaq is a bit bizarre. I think on the surface of it, he looks like he'd have massive defensive deficiencies in the modern NBA because of the space and his relative lack of mobility. Like he's literally the all-time big that may have the worst time adjusting. Though again we simply don't know but based on what we do know he looks like he would have trouble adjusting more than others...

[KembaWalker]

The thing about one_and_done is that he commits so hard to the schtick but doesn’t actually rate any modern players near the top, just a guy that peaked over a decade ago per this project. Where’s Shai, Jokic, Giannis, you know.. the guys that are actually dominating this supposedly by far greatest and most difficult era? Why am I seeing posts for Duncan or Hakeem

[homecourtloss]

You might disagree with One_and_Done, his philosophy of evaluation, etc., but he does post consistently and provides a list that can be scrutinized and debated whereas others just criticize his list (or the project) and don’t provide a list of their own that in turn can be scrutinized and debated.

[tsherkin]

I'm sticking with 64 Russell, 87 Magic and 2023 Jokic as my vote for this one, before I forget to record a voting post.

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, 91 Jordan, 2016 Steph, 03 Duncan.

[tsherkin]

That led you to having Shaq in top 5 peaks ever? What skills does Shaq has that are "objectively valuable" against the modern era competition? Shaq has all the flaws of the other great bigmen from the past exaggerated to ridiculous degree.

I loved watching Shaq in his prime. And at his peak, he was definitely more engaged on D than he was through most of his career. But particularly as he let himself (or even encouraged himself, per his autobigraphy) to get larger during that time frame, issues with his mobility are quite valid concerns for modern competition. I don't think there's any way that he'd be able to play at 350 in this league without getting burned BADLY on defense, over and over. And I think even at his rookie weight, he'd have to commit much more authentically to playing horizontal defense if he didn't want to be a problem. Now, there are guys who get away with it to one degree or another, and he had enough verticality and so forth to be a pretty solid rim protector in this era, but I doubt he hits an All-D team as he did in his own career. And it would be an issue to watch for him. Then it would be, as it is with several guys in the league, an issue of how much his O was valued versus his defensive weaknesses.

I wonder if Top 5 peak ever works for him, compared to some of the other stuff we've seen. I think it's tough for most bigs as offensive hubs, because they don't impact team offense nearly as much as guys who are more dynamic playmakers, generally speaking. Certainly in classical usage, even if they're still quite potent. And with Shaq's FT issues, he's already cutting down the ceiling of his own impact, particularly when league average efficiency is now his career average, where in his own time he was a 111 TS+ kind of guy. Obviously, I doubt he'd stay static at that rate, but there's a cap to how much he could raise his own efficiency due to his FT% and his total lack of proficiency beyond about 8 feet.

So yeah, translation to the modern game becomes an interesting one for him.

[tsherkin]

If you followed my posts more you wouldn't be.

Just because an era was weak, it doesn't mean every single player in it lacks merit. There are outliers, mostly big men due to the translatability of their skills.

I'd be interested in voting for Jokic, Giannis and Kawhi soon, but they don't have much traction right now. Once Duncan and Shaq get in I'll be more focussed on the modern guys.

What ability Shaq has to be better than Jokic? Who is the best player in modern Game.

If we use the Scalability and translatability as Criteria to evaluate player from each era by comparing with the modern era. Shaq defense which has major weakness in the early 2000s gonna get exposed even more due to the game being more Prerimeter focus and defender are required to defend in Space or against PnR regularly. Also his offense wouldn't be as prolific as the 2000 due to change is pace / system and he would get call for offensive Foul much easier.

I think the success of a worse, more injury limited player in Embiid shows us there's still plenty of room for Shaq to dominate. Jokic has survived with even less mobility I'd take him over Jokic today. Different players, and some differences in strengths and weaknesses, but both worthy of discussion in this list.

I think you need to take a step back and really look at the differences between Shaq and Embiid. They're really not that similar at all, beyond height. And there's a fair bit of underappreciation of Jokic's range and passing in the way you refer to him relative to Shaq.

It's kind of important to realize that Shaq's big deal in his own time was primarily rooted around volume scoring at well above league-average efficiency. He was a 111 TS+ guy, on his career and specifically from 93-03 (which were his volume-scoring years). As far as his shooting ability, we're really only missing his Orlando years in that regard, but from LA forward, he took over 90% of his shots inside 10 feet and shot a little worse than 44% from 3-10 feet. Huge foul pressure, excellent movement around the post (and, mostly, in transition as well), strong offensive rebounder. Good passer for a classical big. No range to speak of, ass at the foul line.

There'd be significant limitations without some large alterations to his game, which of course are invalidated for you because your entire platform is about denying older players development inside the modern context and evaluating them only on skills they developed in-era. So we can pretty safely say that it's unlikely that he would exert the same sort of offensive pressure in this era as he did then, and that he'd have some pretty noteworthy defensive issues as well.

Embiid's tall, lighter than Shaq, a very good FT shooter, has 3pt range, attacks a lot from face-up, and takes about 60% of his shots from beyond 10 feet. Nearly an inversion of Shaq's approach to the game. They aren't really that similar at all. And yeah, more mobility and better instincts on D. More effort on D, too, in general.

[falcolombardi]

In regards to the era bias debate, If anythingh, i feel it that if you actually believe in all eras being equal and everyone being judged relative to their compwtition and in-era impact signals comparision (which begs the question of which signals across eras when stats are so sparse the longer ago you go) we should see the likes of mikan in everyone's top 5 and russel as a near unarguable top 1 and questions about his offense or how much value his defense would lose with more spacing irrelevant

What actually seems to happem more often is a cut off point is set by everyone (usually around the merger or magic/bird/3 pt line arrival) which happens to coincide with the league growth in popularity and most alive and active fans of the league stsrting to watch basketball from this point in time

A lot more time has happened, more thinghs about the game have changed, the basketball height talent pool worldwide and in usa has grown more since the 80's generations that between the 60's to 80's but we keep "modern game" or "modern nba" perenially freezed as "from the 80's unto forever" amd everythingh before 80's (and its players achievements such as russel's or wilt's) arbitrary as lesser than those from the 80's/90's era right after

We admit the leap from the 50's to 60's, from the 60's to late 70's but rarely from the 80's to now