Shaq vs. Duncan: Better Peak and Better Career

[dhsilv2]

Paul is strong as hell dude. Yeah at 6'7 he'd be a faster more agile and just as strong leonard...without the claws obviously.

I mean, no. There's no guarantee that height alone would give him the same level of strength, nor the same level of mass. And there's no guarantee that he'd maintain that level of speed with that extra height and mass, either.

Meanwhile as a scorer, we're talking about a guy who's 6'0 with only one knee and can score 20+ in the NBA. Yeah making him 6'7 he becomes impossible to guard.

Again, no. There's nothing to suggest he'd be significantly better than Gervin or Jordan or Durant, etc. He'd certainly be up there if he showed enough aggression, which was something missing in his actual career, but again, hyperbole.

The difference in not making the NBA and being in the hall is without a doubt 7 inches.

For some players, sure. You need different skills at shorter heights, certainly. And there is a minimum threshold of height past which you lack the ability to defend. The few short guys who defend well generally have to be pretty doggish on that end, and tend to have pretty strong bases, which is its own particular physical profile. FVV, Kyle Lowry, etc. Or someone with both good base AND particularly long arms.

There's always some question on how someone will do with more height. Does it mess with coordination is the big one. But if we assume it doesn't mess that up. I don't see how even our most conservative guesses would leave CP3 anything short of being a legit undisputed GOAT.

I think you're just massively under playing how skilled and talented one has to be to play in the NBA at 6'0 vs 6'7. Every jumper becomes easier. Every drive gives you more choices. Every pass gets easier, you have better vision...

CP3's curl goes to a 50%++ instant bucket to the point you just have to foul him at the end of games.

[cupcakesnake]

I like how even your rec league excludes globally average height guys

I'm from Canada. I think our average is 5'10"!

So you just left off 35% of Canada if we're generous

It still just shows the bias here. And hey, I'm "hair under" 6'0...I swear I was 6'0 when I was 18 with a healthy back and head of hair. But I grew up playing with some friends who were a lot shorter. So I 100% got good at posting up. My whole game was in the post so I get it. It's a skill, but I'll never feel more skilled than my 5'4 best friend growing up crossing me over and getting jumpers off over me. But he was never making the NBA or past his middle school team. Meanwhile my post game doesn't translate to my high school where we had multiple guys over 6'6 and a good buddy of mine went on to play in europe listed at 6'9 (he was taller than some UK players who were listed at 6'10 and 6'11). And hey know I had better post moves than him! But what good are they? lol.[/quote]

I agree post moves don't scale up/translate. Generating post-scoring against a bigger, taller defender isn't likely to be great offense.

It's the backline rotations and paint defense that translate even when you lose the size advantage. When you know how to position yourself on defense, you can be a major horizontal obstacle, even when you lose some vertical advantage. I think this is a ridiculously valuable skill, and a lifelong guard rarely has a clue. We see more rim protecting guards in the NBA now, but for a long time, this was one of the rarest things. A strong backline defender turns a lot of opponent's easy buckets into tough attempts.

On offense, I think it's the screening and movement that lots of young bigs perfect that isn't as practiced for a guard. At lower levels, lots of guys just don't think to screen, and dont know where to move after a screen. A skilled intelligent big creates efficient 2-man actions with ball handlers, and unlocks a whole branch of decisions a guard just doesn't have attacking in iso. I think big man "skills" are super important for attacking zones too: being able to flash to the high post when it's the soft spot in a zone, or being comfortable lurking on the baseline to create dump off pass opportunities... you can't beat zones without that, and most guards just want to space and attack.

[dhsilv2]

I agree post moves don't scale up/translate. Generating post-scoring against a bigger, taller defender isn't likely to be great offense.

It's the backline rotations and paint defense that translate even when you lose the size advantage. When you know how to position yourself on defense, you can be a major horizontal obstacle, even when you lose some vertical advantage. I think this is a ridiculously valuable skill, and a lifelong guard rarely has a clue. We see more rim protecting guards in the NBA now, but for a long time, this was one of the rarest things. A strong backline defender turns a lot of opponent's easy buckets into tough attempts.

On offense, I think it's the screening and movement that lots of young bigs perfect that isn't as practiced for a guard. At lower levels, lots of guys just don't think to screen, and dont know where to move after a screen. A skilled intelligent big creates efficient 2-man actions with ball handlers, and unlocks a whole branch of decisions a guard just doesn't have attacking in iso. I think big man "skills" are super important for attacking zones too: being able to flash to the high post when it's the soft spot in a zone, or being comfortable lurking on the baseline to create dump off pass opportunities... you can't beat zones without that, and most guards just want to space and attack.

I don't disagree with you here. That said, a lot of this can be taught pretty quickly in the right situation. Case and point Anthony Davis was a guard before his senior year of high school and became the first pick in the draft as a big man just 2 years later. While late bloomers are hardly the norm, they do exist and they're almost always big men. You don't see sub 6'5 guys make the league out of nowhere or after first picking up a basketball at 16. Meanwhile, yeah there are some really skilled big men. But it wouldn't shock me at all if you found some 6'4-6'8 guys who more skill than a lot of NBA centers who just weren't big and strong enough to translate to the NBA. Meanwhile, there aren't guards who had the skill but miss the league if they were at least 6'0-6'2 (which is already a huge bias given that's already leave out most of the population). There's just massively more people 6'0-6'5 in the world competing to make the league than 6'10+. With it you see far more skill on the guys who had to beat out vastly more people for a spot.

[TheGeneral99]

Duncan a better career undoubtedly.

In terms of peaks I'll give Shaq the edge because 1999-2002 Shaq was arguably the most dominant player ever, but Duncan circa 2002-2004 was not that far off.

[Optms]

Duncan for both, you just need to look past ppg.

Peak Shaq had unparalleled gravity that has only been rivaled by peak Curry. And was an automatic bucket when given the ball within 10 feet. Had he been able to even been a 70 percent free throws shooter, you are looking at a near 40ppg player.

Duncan could never hold peak Shaq's jockstrap. Stop.