How good would peak Jermaine O'Neal be today?

[justinian]

if the peak prime JO play in today's league, where would rank? what about among centers?

[magicmerl]

He was always a bit overrated I think because he was an inefficient volume scorer. That's not the sort of player I value much.

[beach house]

he'd be great
everyone knows he was bad offensively. no polished back to basket game, poor finisher, and way too much confidence in a below mediocre midrange shot

he was otherworldly defensively
he was so fast at his size. one of the best in terms of defending both pf and center positions.
his quickness made him great at closing out on stretch 4's and his size and instincts let him hold his own on players who tried to back him down.

imo in his heyday around the mid 2000's he was the 3rd best defensive big behind duncan and kg. maybe can argue ben wallace over him. he was definitely better all around defender than camby (one of the most overrated defenders ever imo)

[tsherkin]

JO would be great on D, mediocre to OK on the boards and, as before, bawlz on offense.

[CaliBullsFan]

He would be a stud. There are fewer centers equipped to stopped him now then there were in 05.

[joedumars1]

He would be very good, he scored 20ppg from 00-06, one season with 24 ppg. That is pretty good offensively to me.

Average over 10 boards from 00-06 too, about 2 assist from 00-06, and about 2.5 blocks from 00-06.

He was a beast. I'm glad Artest went nuts and went into the palace crowd, that team looked scary good that year, like they were going to to be the Champions untill that happened.

[justinian]

Prime JO is around the level where Cousins with less offense and more defense

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Joao Saraiva]

He would be very good, he scored 20ppg from 00-06, one season with 24 ppg. That is pretty good offensively to me.

Average over 10 boards from 00-06 too, about 2 assist from 00-06, and about 2.5 blocks from 00-06.

He was a beast. I'm glad Artest went nuts and went into the palace crowd, that team looked scary good that year, like they were going to to be the Champions untill that happened.

Not every 20 PPG is good scoring. He never got above 55%ts, he got a season lower than 50%ts and that is atrocious. His OBPM is negative for almost all seasons (1 positive). So no, he was not a good scorer and he was not a great offensive player.

[Quotatious]

Not every 20 PPG is good scoring. He never got above 55%ts, he got a season lower than 50%ts and that is atrocious. His OBPM is negative for almost all seasons (1 positive). So no, he was not a good scorer and he was not a great offensive player.

While I think that JO had some offensive value (because he had some skills), he definitely wasn't a good (in terms of impact) offensive player. He was like Nate Thurmond/Elvin Hayes - great defensive anchor who looked like a good offensive player, at first glance, because of his high PPG numbers, but their efficiency was poor (although Hayes was better offensively than Thurmond/O'Neal, in my opinion).

Here's my post from recent thread "where would peak JO rank today" (I wrote it just about two weeks ago):

I would say his best season was 2003-04. He played only 44 games in the 2004-05 regular season (78 in 2003-04), and played very poorly in the 2005 playoffs.

In 2003-04, he co-anchored (along with Artest) the third best defense in the NBA, after San Antonio and Detroit, and they led Indiana to 61 wins (best record in the league), and then ECF, losing to the Pistons in 6 games (by the way - it was probably the ugliest playoff series I've ever seen - Pacers scored below 70 points in three of those six games, Pistons averaged 75.2 ppg, Pacers averaged 72.7 - on the other hand, you can say that both teams played incredible defense, and they were extremely physical - the only player who shot the ball well in that series was Rip Hamilton, who averaged 23.7 ppg on 54.5% TS - almost nobody else was able to shoot even 40% from the field...).

Anyway, getting back to JO that season - he was a very inefficient scorer (his 48.9% TS wasn't as bad in 2004 as it would be today, because league average was much lower - just 51.6%, compared to about 54% in 2014-15, but it was still clearly below average) - he loved to take a lot of tough, contested midrange jumpers, even fadeaway or turnaround, and he shot just about 39% on those, plus he was just about average as a passer. but still, he attracted a lot of defensive attention, and his offensive impact wasn't bad, as a result (+1.1 in NPI ORAPM, +0.9 in offensive xRAPM). You could also throw the ball to him on the block, and he could score, he had quite a few moves, he wasn't just a finisher (that's why he was able to average 20+ ppg).
That being said, his offense was much worse than guys' like Chris Webber or LaMarcus Aldridge, or even Al Jefferson, who are similarly inefficient in terms of TS%, but they have some other things that make them special on the offensive end - Webber was an outstanding passer and ballhandler for a bigman, Aldridge is a better shooter than O'Neal, and he has an insanely low turnover rate (that makes his offense better than his below average TS% would indicate, while Jefferson has great footwork and post moves, excellent strength (especially in his legs), and like LMA, he rarely turns the ball over.

However, offense wasn't JO's calling card. He was one of the best defensive anchors in the NBA. In the 2004 season, he was in the same class as Duncan, Garnett, and maybe even Ben Wallace, as a defender. Excellent shotblocker (2.6 bpg, 6th in the league), good athleticism and mobility, which allowed him to be an effective pick & roll defender, and a very good rebounder, especially on the defensive glass.

I think the DPOY voters definitely made a mistake, giving Artest all the votes, while O'Neal didn't receive a single vote...That's wrong, because even the best perimeter defenders (not even Artest, who was arguably the GOAT perimeter defender at his peak), don't have the same kind of impact as great defensive bigmen, and JO was more impactful than Artest. Top 4 in the DPOY voting that year should've been Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Jermaine O'Neal, in some order, then probably Artest and Bowen, but the bigs should be ahead of the wings.

JO was a top 10 player in 2004, for sure, and today, he'd be a borderline top 10 guy (roughly the same level as Aldridge, who I have at 9, right now). Arguably the second best PF after Davis, more or less even with LMA.

He ranked 5th in NPI RAPM, and 10th in xRAPM, which indicates that he had superstar impact (lower level superstar, but still).

Well, at least the MVP voters got it right - JO finished 3rd after Garnett and Duncan, while Artest didn't receive any votes.

[Joao Saraiva]

Not every 20 PPG is good scoring. He never got above 55%ts, he got a season lower than 50%ts and that is atrocious. His OBPM is negative for almost all seasons (1 positive). So no, he was not a good scorer and he was not a great offensive player.

While I think that JO had some offensive value (because he had some skills), he definitely wasn't a good (in terms of impact) offensive player. He was like Nate Thurmond/Elvin Hayes - great defensive anchor who looked like a good offensive player, at first glance, because of his high PPG numbers, but their efficiency was poor (although Hayes was better offensively than Thurmond/O'Neal, in my opinion).

Here's my post from recent thread "where would peak JO rank today" (I wrote it just about two weeks ago):

I would say his best season was 2003-04. He played only 44 games in the 2004-05 regular season (78 in 2003-04), and played very poorly in the 2005 playoffs.

In 2003-04, he co-anchored (along with Artest) the third best defense in the NBA, after San Antonio and Detroit, and they led Indiana to 61 wins (best record in the league), and then ECF, losing to the Pistons in 6 games (by the way - it was probably the ugliest playoff series I've ever seen - Pacers scored below 70 points in three of those six games, Pistons averaged 75.2 ppg, Pacers averaged 72.7 - on the other hand, you can say that both teams played incredible defense, and they were extremely physical - the only player who shot the ball well in that series was Rip Hamilton, who averaged 23.7 ppg on 54.5% TS - almost nobody else was able to shoot even 40% from the field...).

Anyway, getting back to JO that season - he was a very inefficient scorer (his 48.9% TS wasn't as bad in 2004 as it would be today, because league average was much lower - just 51.6%, compared to about 54% in 2014-15, but it was still clearly below average) - he loved to take a lot of tough, contested midrange jumpers, even fadeaway or turnaround, and he shot just about 39% on those, plus he was just about average as a passer. but still, he attracted a lot of defensive attention, and his offensive impact wasn't bad, as a result (+1.1 in NPI ORAPM, +0.9 in offensive xRAPM). You could also throw the ball to him on the block, and he could score, he had quite a few moves, he wasn't just a finisher (that's why he was able to average 20+ ppg).
That being said, his offense was much worse than guys' like Chris Webber or LaMarcus Aldridge, or even Al Jefferson, who are similarly inefficient in terms of TS%, but they have some other things that make them special on the offensive end - Webber was an outstanding passer and ballhandler for a bigman, Aldridge is a better shooter than O'Neal, and he has an insanely low turnover rate (that makes his offense better than his below average TS% would indicate, while Jefferson has great footwork and post moves, excellent strength (especially in his legs), and like LMA, he rarely turns the ball over.

However, offense wasn't JO's calling card. He was one of the best defensive anchors in the NBA. In the 2004 season, he was in the same class as Duncan, Garnett, and maybe even Ben Wallace, as a defender. Excellent shotblocker (2.6 bpg, 6th in the league), good athleticism and mobility, which allowed him to be an effective pick & roll defender, and a very good rebounder, especially on the defensive glass.

I think the DPOY voters definitely made a mistake, giving Artest all the votes, while O'Neal didn't receive a single vote...That's wrong, because even the best perimeter defenders (not even Artest, who was arguably the GOAT perimeter defender at his peak), don't have the same kind of impact as great defensive bigmen, and JO was more impactful than Artest. Top 4 in the DPOY voting that year should've been Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Jermaine O'Neal, in some order, then probably Artest and Bowen, but the bigs should be ahead of the wings.

JO was a top 10 player in 2004, for sure, and today, he'd be a borderline top 10 guy (roughly the same level as Aldridge, who I have at 9, right now). Arguably the second best PF after Davis, more or less even with LMA.

He ranked 5th in NPI RAPM, and 10th in xRAPM, which indicates that he had superstar impact (lower level superstar, but still).

Well, at least the MVP voters got it right - JO finished 3rd after Garnett and Duncan, while Artest didn't receive any votes.

Completely agree. I just said he wasn't a good scorer and not a great offensive player, I actually think he was decent on offense, just not spectacular.

On D he was one of the best in the NBA.