A watered down version of Shaq and Kobe is running the league

[jbsays]

Other than one being a big and the other being a perimeter player I don't understand the comparison at all. If you watched Jokic/Shaq and Murray/Kobe play they don't play similar at all.

[the sea duck]

something people overlook when talking about shaq being a liability is that in order to try to stop shaq you have to go back to playing guys that can't even get in the rotation right now... or don't play them and let shaq make layups and dunks at a rate that out-competes most efficient 3p performances that teams can reliably plan for (and/or get all your best guys in foul trouble, further decreasing your efficiency).

in shaq's time, big defenders who were otherwise liabilities were put in just to slow shaq down a little. they either do that or don't do that same thing today and both have consequences. your ability to play a modern style either takes a hit or you suck it up and try to shoot like 45% from three every time you play him.

You kind of face a similar problem with Jokic. He's gonna feast on smaller defenders. The extra layer of complexity with Jokic is his passing. Usually your biggest guy is your best rim protector. Put him on Jokic and you risk a lay up line at the rim. That's why the Lakers experimented with other guys on Jokic and letting AD roam. The ideal defense for Jokic would involve a big body to put on him and an additional elite shot blocker to protect the rim from his teammates

right. in many ways, jokic provides the same problems. the difference is he has a more complete game and so dominates by the diversity of his approach, whereas shaq dominated by just being unstoppable at a more limited set. you could throw some old time guys against jokic and take a little bit away from his post scoring game, but he would just adjust and dominate in different ways. today you could throw shaq in there and try to attack him on defense, but he's going to dominate even more in the post (via scoring and passing). it's a worthy strategy to try to tire shaq out. but you also risk him shooting 75% on high volume while getting your three best defenders in foul trouble and creating insane spacing for today's shooters.

[the sea duck]

Shaq was clearly a more dominant force, with his sheer inside presence. I really thinking we need to rewind all this to year 2000 and watch Shaq's dominance in action. Jokic is the best today but clearly not a Shaq.

And I think we need to understand that in between 2000 and 2024 we've seen an absolutely massive paradigm shift that has completely shifted how the game is played, and that it's simply unrealistic to imagine that 2000 era teams could be top 2024 teams.

correct. you can't play like a 2000 team and succeed in 2024 with any roster construction. part of the reason teams play differently is because they decided to play differently and then stacked their rosters accordingly. there are trade-offs to those roster constructions. just like in the 90s and 2000s rosters were filled with guys who were mostly just big and could defend the post, you now have a league full of guys less suited to deal with shaq himself. you either choose to alter your roster or hope that your modern strategy can still outpace his (assumed) increased efficiency. i think shaq would continue to be dominant for this reason. if you change your roster to beat shaq, you make it less suited to the modern game.

[Doctor MJ]

something people overlook when talking about shaq being a liability is that in order to try to stop shaq you have to go back to playing guys that can't even get in the rotation right now... or don't play them and let shaq make layups and dunks at a rate that out-competes most efficient 3p performances that teams can reliably plan for (and/or get all your best guys in foul trouble, further decreasing your efficiency).

in shaq's time, big defenders who were otherwise liabilities were put in just to slow shaq down a little. they either do that or don't do that same thing today and both have consequences. your ability to play a modern style either takes a hit or you suck it up and try to shoot like 45% from three every time you play him.

I understand why you think that, but here's the thing:

Trying to fight against Shaq by having a bunch of big stiffs on your roster was a losing strategy. You can't out-Shaq Shaq.
But you can flop - and it works better on the refs if you're smaller.
And you can run, and tire Shaq out.
And you can stretch the floor on offense which either leads to open 3's, or an even more tired Shaq.

Also re: "let shaq make layups and dunks at a rate that out-competes most efficient 3p performances". You assert this but you're not getting quantitative with it and you really need to to have any meaningful confidence in the statement.

Some perspective here:

Jokic's Nuggets are less of a 3-point shooting team than any other team in the league right now. They may well represent the end of a trend that led to more and more and more 3-point shooting. But that doesn't mean they've returned to how the game was played in Shaq's era.

The Nuggets have a 3-point attempt rate (3PAr) of 35.2%.

For comparison, the team who really kickstarted the pace & space era with extreme play that people mistook for a gimmick was the '04-05 Suns. Those Suns had a 3PAr of 28.9%.

Meanwhile the peak 3PAr of those Shaq championship teams was 21.0%.

This then to say that you're imagining a scenario where a Shaq-based team can just go back to what they were doing before and they'll score at a higher clip than modern strategy teams, but I see no evidence that this is a possibility.

i'm not getting too quantitative with it because it's impossible. it depends on what your strategy is. i'm not making the comparison between shaq's lakers and the modern era. i'm putting shaq in the modern era with a modern 3pa/3p% shooting teammates. if his team was even in the ball park of mediocre three point shooting, his impact is going to be more severe. because his inside presence needs to be addressed by the opposing team (via defensive strategy and roster construction). you either decrease your team's efficiency to try to limit shaq to a sub .600 fg% or you play your guys on offense and reasonably need to expect to increase your efficiency from 3. for the better teams they might need to increase their average 3p% from ~37 to ~43 on typical attempts (because they are less equipped to deal with shaq than the defenders during shaq's time). sure, that can happen. but it's not as easy as "shaq will get tired and won't be able to defend". people sometimes forget that the most efficient shots in the nba are either layups or threes. layups are tougher to get for obvious reasons. but what happens when you have a guy who can be your number one option on high volume and his best shots are layups? he's as impactful or more than the best three point shooters, especially if you surround him with three point shooters. shaq can't pass like jokic (who can?), but he was a good passer.

Okay, fair distinction to make. I'll point out a few things though:

1. Top offenses today are generally built around guys who can shoot the 3. If you go look at the top guy's on b-r's MVP Award Tracker, all of them shoot at least 1 3PG, and the guys on the list who are weak from 3 - Giannis, Sabonis, Davis - are being held back by it despite being better than Shaq could expect to be, and having related gifts that Shaq doesn't have: a) Giannis can drive from the perimeter, b) Sabonis is a great passer, c) Davis' agility makes him exceptionally dangerous as a lob threat.

2. Given that I'd expect you'd want to build your offense around Shaq it might be moot, but I just think it's worth noting that for the most part if you're an upcoming center who wants to play for a contender, you're expected to be able to shoot 3's.

3. Defense will be the big problem for Shaq. Stretching the floor is brutal for gigantic bigs. Now, the success of Jokic is encouraging here, but do keep in mind a) Jokic had to slim down a good deal to even be decent, and b) Jokic is helped immensely by being smarter than everyone else on the floor.

Re: Need to try to limit Shaq <60 FG%. You really don't though. When Shaq was a 60 FG% guy, he was still generally <60 TS%. This really isn't an outlier in the modern game.

Now I get you actually think Shaq would shoot a higher % today due to the spacing and that's reasonable, but realistically for Shaq to be hitting the kind of rTS that you would need to be the top scorer in the game, Shaq would have to be a much better free throw shooter, and I saw enough from Shaq's career that I'm pretty confident that this just wasn't possible for him.

[Doctor MJ]

Shaq was clearly a more dominant force, with his sheer inside presence. I really thinking we need to rewind all this to year 2000 and watch Shaq's dominance in action. Jokic is the best today but clearly not a Shaq.

And I think we need to understand that in between 2000 and 2024 we've seen an absolutely massive paradigm shift that has completely shifted how the game is played, and that it's simply unrealistic to imagine that 2000 era teams could be top 2024 teams.

correct. you can't play like a 2000 team and succeed in 2024 with any roster construction. part of the reason teams play differently is because they decided to play differently and then stacked their rosters accordingly. there are trade-offs to those roster constructions. just like in the 90s and 2000s rosters were filled with guys who were mostly just big and could defend the post, you now have a league full of guys less suited to deal with shaq himself. you either choose to alter your roster or hope that your modern strategy can still outpace his (assumed) increased efficiency. i think shaq would continue to be dominant for this reason. if you change your roster to beat shaq, you make it less suited to the modern game.

I appreciate you laying out your thoughts here, but I'd say you're still assuming that teams trying to beat Shaq will play a bunch of behemoths, and I just don't think they would. I think it's pretty clear the way to play against Shaq is:

a) don't stand your ground, flop. Even if you get called for a foul, Shaq still has to make free throws.
b) force him to guard guys who can run a lot and shoot 3's.

[Gregoire]

Joker>Shaq>Kobe>>Murray

[tsherkin]

related gifts that Shaq doesn't have:

c) Davis' agility makes him exceptionally dangerous as a lob threat.

Even fat Shaq was a lob threat. Remember the spin to B Shaw connection.

Re: Need to try to limit Shaq <60 FG%. You really don't though. When Shaq was a 60 FG% guy, he was still generally <60 TS%. This really isn't an outlier in the modern game.

Worth noting that he would likely be shooting better in close in today's game. That's sort of a benchmark all around the league, league average from 0-3 is up 10% or so from 2004.

It isn't totally impossible for him to be a 61-63% TS guy today with no improvement in his FT shooting and no addition of 3pt shooting.

EDIT: Brevity due to popcorn, forgive my ineloquence.

[kingr]

This thread is proof how overrated jokic is by rgm. The dude won only 1 title and won two possibly 3 mvps off extremely good circumstances of embiid being injured and is annointed as better than mj shaq and kobe lol

You always have to remember that rgm is just one small demographic. This same forum had a landslide vote that dirk was a better player than KG. If you ask similar questions somewhere else or around a different group of people, you are likely to receive different consensus views.

[One_and_Done]

Nuggets have a better starting 5 than those Lakers did.

[dhsilv2]

related gifts that Shaq doesn't have:

c) Davis' agility makes him exceptionally dangerous as a lob threat.

Even fat Shaq was a lob threat. Remember the spin to B Shaw connection.

I had the same thoughts. Though I will give AD vs Shaq...AD is able to shoot enough to make thoses cuts to the rim more effective because people have to guard him out further. But shaq was a monster lob threat...otherwise they'd just have fronted him out of the game.

[the sea duck]

And I think we need to understand that in between 2000 and 2024 we've seen an absolutely massive paradigm shift that has completely shifted how the game is played, and that it's simply unrealistic to imagine that 2000 era teams could be top 2024 teams.

correct. you can't play like a 2000 team and succeed in 2024 with any roster construction. part of the reason teams play differently is because they decided to play differently and then stacked their rosters accordingly. there are trade-offs to those roster constructions. just like in the 90s and 2000s rosters were filled with guys who were mostly just big and could defend the post, you now have a league full of guys less suited to deal with shaq himself. you either choose to alter your roster or hope that your modern strategy can still outpace his (assumed) increased efficiency. i think shaq would continue to be dominant for this reason. if you change your roster to beat shaq, you make it less suited to the modern game.

I appreciate you laying out your thoughts here, but I'd say you're still assuming that teams trying to beat Shaq will play a bunch of behemoths, and I just don't think they would. I think it's pretty clear the way to play against Shaq is:

a) don't stand your ground, flop. Even if you get called for a foul, Shaq still has to make free throws.
b) force him to guard guys who can run a lot and shoot 3's.

a) maybe. i don't know how flops would be called. pretty much every play in shaq's prime was a foul (either offensive or defensive or both). if he's a star player, does he still get the star calls? i'd argue yes. but now we're venturing into "how the game is called differently" territory and we don't know how the league would call shaq. he was so physical it was impossible to get his calls correct. no one today plays like he did so we have no evidence to turn to. if you look at embiid, you see a guy who tries to draw fouls. but shaq often just played through fouls. if they are not called, he's dunking. if he is fouled, he's going to the free throw line. hack-a-shaq would still exist to limit his efficiency but i'm not sure how it would play out. teams would be limited in how many team fouls they could commit before his teammates ended up shooting the fts at a higher clip. more possessions=bigger impact on using up team fouls quickly.
b) he probably needs to be in good shape (he was occasionally) and then does an adequate job. doesn't need to be an all world defender. probably no worse than jokic. sure, he'd look bad for a play here and there. i mean, really look at some of the guys that are out there today. the offense has the advantage against all of them. beating a guy by a step or a step and a half is still beating them. it's just how the league is now.

it's all hypothetical so it's impossible to say if we had 20 year old shaq, would he develop the same in today's league? i'm just taking the shaq we knew existed, as a star, and putting him on a decent modern team. he would be a net positive, in my opinion and it wouldn't be close.

[tsherkin]

I had the same thoughts. Though I will give AD vs Shaq...AD is able to shoot enough to make thoses cuts to the rim more effective because people have to guard him out further. But shaq was a monster lob threat...otherwise they'd just have fronted him out of the game.

Yeah, his range did help him out for sure, but Shaq still moved well in and around a fairly congested paint which would be more open for him in today's game.

[Doctor MJ]

related gifts that Shaq doesn't have:

c) Davis' agility makes him exceptionally dangerous as a lob threat.

Even fat Shaq was a lob threat. Remember the spin to B Shaw connection.

I had the same thoughts. Though I will give AD vs Shaq...AD is able to shoot enough to make thoses cuts to the rim more effective because people have to guard him out further. But shaq was a monster lob threat...otherwise they'd just have fronted him out of the game.

Well said. Shaq was certainly a lob threat, but he wasn't the same type of cutting lob threat.

[Zeno]

I'll take peak Jokic over peak Shaq. And I love Shaq.

I’ll take peak Jokic over Shaq in today’s game but I’d also take Shaq over Jokic in the period he played.
But if the question is who was more dominant playing under the rules and play style of their day, then I definitely think it is Shaq. And I hated Shaq. To me it was boring and hopeless to watch games with Shaq at his peak in them. He was to me the Pete Sampras of basketball. Unmistakably dominant but kind of ruined his sports entertainment value.

[the sea duck]

related gifts that Shaq doesn't have:

c) Davis' agility makes him exceptionally dangerous as a lob threat.

Even fat Shaq was a lob threat. Remember the spin to B Shaw connection.

Re: Need to try to limit Shaq <60 FG%. You really don't though. When Shaq was a 60 FG% guy, he was still generally <60 TS%. This really isn't an outlier in the modern game.

Worth noting that he would likely be shooting better in close in today's game. That's sort of a benchmark all around the league, league average from 0-3 is up 10% or so from 2004.

It isn't totally impossible for him to be a 61-63% TS guy today with no improvement in his FT shooting and no addition of 3pt shooting.

EDIT: Brevity due to popcorn, forgive my ineloquence.

correct. we're talking about a potentially high volume efficiency in my hypothetical scenario. so perhaps a leading scorer who is in the top 10-15 in ts% or so. i really don't think it's a stretch to say he could have a few years of something like that given what defenses he would be facing. on a competent team, that's an mvp candidate each year. i think that's certainly more likely than a guy who sits as the 14th guy because you can't play him.

[tsherkin]

Well said. Shaq was certainly a lob threat, but he wasn't the same type of cutting lob threat.

He was a little bit more of a threat when he was smaller and more mobile in Orlando and in his earliest LA forms, but certainly not when he was all huge in 2000 and later, for sure. Then, it was more that he spun off a good seal for the lob, not that he was darting around all over the place. Davis is considerably more mobile than Shaq in his 30s, unquestionably. And obviously a better shooter, which opened up other opportunities, including cuts and the like.

[tsherkin]

correct. we're talking about a potentially high volume efficiency in my hypothetical scenario. so perhaps a leading scorer who is in the top 10-15 in ts% or so. i really don't think it's a stretch to say he could have a few years of something like that given what defenses he would be facing. on a competent team, that's an mvp candidate each year. i think that's certainly more likely than a guy who sits as the 14th guy because you can't play him.

Yeah, I think it's more a case that his impact wouldn't be as strong and that he would be defensively exploitable than that he would be unplayable. I like to think of the Detroit series in 04 where he shot 63% from the floor and put like 27/11 on them, you know? Still only shooting 49% at the line. Not a horrid indicator of what might be possible. Granted, it's extrapolation based on era differences in finishing which support slashers more than bigs but Deandre Ayton had a couple seasons at 79-80% from 0-3 feet, Embiid shot almost 81% there last year, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Shaq could do quite well there.

[Doctor MJ]

correct. you can't play like a 2000 team and succeed in 2024 with any roster construction. part of the reason teams play differently is because they decided to play differently and then stacked their rosters accordingly. there are trade-offs to those roster constructions. just like in the 90s and 2000s rosters were filled with guys who were mostly just big and could defend the post, you now have a league full of guys less suited to deal with shaq himself. you either choose to alter your roster or hope that your modern strategy can still outpace his (assumed) increased efficiency. i think shaq would continue to be dominant for this reason. if you change your roster to beat shaq, you make it less suited to the modern game.

I appreciate you laying out your thoughts here, but I'd say you're still assuming that teams trying to beat Shaq will play a bunch of behemoths, and I just don't think they would. I think it's pretty clear the way to play against Shaq is:

a) don't stand your ground, flop. Even if you get called for a foul, Shaq still has to make free throws.
b) force him to guard guys who can run a lot and shoot 3's.

a) maybe. i don't know how flops would be called. pretty much every play in shaq's prime was a foul (either offensive or defensive or both). if he's a star player, does he still get the star calls? i'd argue yes. but now we're venturing into "how the game is called differently" territory and we don't know how the league would call shaq. he was so physical it was impossible to get his calls correct. no one today plays like he did so we have no evidence to turn to. if you look at embiid, you see a guy who tries to draw fouls. but shaq often just played through fouls. if they are not called, he's dunking. if he is fouled, he's going to the free throw line. hack-a-shaq would still exist to limit his efficiency but i'm not sure how it would play out. teams would be limited in how many team fouls they could commit before his teammates ended up shooting the fts at a higher clip. more possessions=bigger impact on using up team fouls quickly.
b) he probably needs to be in good shape (he was occasionally) and then does an adequate job. doesn't need to be an all world defender. probably no worse than jokic. sure, he'd look bad for a play here and there. i mean, really look at some of the guys that are out there today. the offense has the advantage against all of them. beating a guy by a step or a step and a half is still beating them. it's just how the league is now.

it's all hypothetical so it's impossible to say if we had 20 year old shaq, would he develop the same in today's league? i'm just taking the shaq we knew existed, as a star, and putting him on a decent modern team. he would be a net positive, in my opinion and it wouldn't be close.

a) So, in terms of the differences from today compared to back then, I think a lot of it is that player flops make it hard for refs not to make calls, and so a league with lots of flopping is going to lead to more calls involving Shaq. And that's bad for Shaq because it either leads to fouls on him, or him having to take free throws.

Of course it's good for you to get fouls called on your opposition, so there is some benefit there, but the benefit won't come from "fouling out all the big guys" because you don't need to guard Shaq exclusively with bigs if you're planning to flop on him. Rather the advantage comes from getting in the penalty, which lets you get to the line more...which means if you're Shaq's team, you want other players to have the ball so they can get to the line, which means de-emphasizing Shaq.

b) "the offense has the advantage against all of them". But the less agile they are, the bigger the problem, and the less aware focused they are, the bigger the problem.