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

[Fundamentals21]

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.

[TheGeneral99]

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.

Shaq was dominant as hell but Jokic is a monster inside the paint and has a far better offensive game all around.

Shaq > Jokic defensively for sure.

Jokic > Shaq offensively for sure.

[Alatan]

Jokic is NOTHING like Shaq.

Exactly, he is better, only Jordan himself is comparable to Jokic and that's being very conservative, Jokic will be the GOAT when all is said and done. I think it will be similar to Djokovic, he was great from the beginning but racking title after title in a weak era helped him have the numbers.

Djokovic played in a weak era? ahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, he only had to go through scrubs like Federer and Nadal for like 15 years.

[Duffman100]

What a strange thread...

[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.

[elchengue20]

Very dumb take.

Jokic is not a watered down version of Shaq.They are very different players. Jokic is dominating in his own way, like already sayed hes a 7 foot Larry Bird. Legit all time great, and could end up being as good as Shaq all time.

Murray is not Kobe but hes an absolute killer in the Playoffs.

Also basketball is a 5vs5 sport. Denver has elite role players in Aron Gordon, MPJ and KCP. They are a more complete team than those Lakers.

These Nuggets are more like the prime Spurs with Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Robert Horry, etc.

[tmorgan]

Kobe is more lauded from his peers fans and basketball pundits from the stand point of his skill level and plethora of flashy spectacular moments he had in his career. He had more frills in his game whereas jokic is very simplistic in his approach to the game of basketball which makes him very efficient. His impact is higher than kobe I would concede that.

I feel like you were actually trying to be magnanimous here, and yet you actually said the most inaccurate and insulting thing about Jokic that you possibly could have.

You called Joker’s game “simplistic in his approach”. That’s absolutely ridiculous. If you mean “un-athletic”, say it, although that’s not very accurate either. Jokic is insanely strong, insanely coordinated, and has really good stamina. Yeah, he’s slow and he can’t jump much. That’s not “simplistic” in any way.

He’s the most creative passer in the league, the best passing big ever, and one of the best passers ever. He has a huge bag of shots, post moves, leaners, fades, step throughs, pass fakes, shot fakes and so on. He sees the floor as well as anyone and picks teams apart as an offensive hub.

Simplistic in his approach. C’mon, man.

[Ice Man]

Obviously, Murray is a watered-down version of Kobe. As for Shaq & Jokic, let's do a fair offensive comparison by adjusting Shaq's numbers, because he played during a lower-placed, lower-scoring, less efficient era.

These are Shaq's adjusted per-game totals, with all figures multiplied by 2024 league average/2020 league average. That is, since per-game scoring was 17.1% higher in 2024 than in 2020, I multiplied Shaq's scoring by 1.171. And so forth with each of the other stats.

Shaq 2000 (adjusted) - 31.3/14.7/3.4, 63.5% TS%
Jokic 2024 - 27.4/12.8/9.3, 65.0%

I'd give the edge to Jokic, because he distributed A LOT more. Scored somewhat less, rebounded less, but slightly more efficient. His usage was also a bit lower, at 29.3% vs Shaq's 31.2%, so he gave a bit more room for his teammates.

But if you preferred Shaq, OK fine. They were both incredible. Not like the Kobe/Murray comparison, which of course was no comparison at all.

[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.

[1993Playoffs]

Jokic is a better scorer, rebounder, and defender than Shaq while also giving you Magic level passing. Murray isn’t really in the convo with the other 3 I agree, but Shaq and Kobe hardly belong in the convo with Jokic at this point

Damn really? Both Shaq and Kobe can be argued as top 10 of all time

[Cubbies2120]

I view it as Jokic is a souped up version of Shaq in terms of impact, and Murray is like Derek Anderson from the Spurs so a really, really poor impersonation of a 2nd option relative to Kobe.

[Alatan]

As some pointed out Shaq is nothing like Jokic in terms of play style. He would be more akin to a beeffier Giannis in todays league. He would be a dominant offensive force and would struggle a bit guarding on the perimeter but would surely be a perennial MVP candidate.

Does that mean that todays league is watered down? No, it just means that all time greats would be great in most if not all eras. I think Jokic would be even more impactful in the 90s when his lack of mobility would be less of a problem while his godly mid range touch and playmaking ability would terrorize the league. In that era it would be much easier playing Jokic next to a defensive big in a twin tower configuration witch would probably result in a championship or a couple.

[tsherkin]

Jokic is a better scorer, rebounder, and defender than Shaq while also giving you Magic level passing. Murray isn’t really in the convo with the other 3 I agree, but Shaq and Kobe hardly belong in the convo with Jokic at this point

Damn really? Both Shaq and Kobe can be argued as top 10 of all time

There isn't a particularly compelling pro-Kobe case for top 10 all-time, tbh. And Shaq's slipping these days as well as new blood makes more achievements. Diesel thrives more on single-season peak than anything else.

[nikster]

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

[dhsilv2]

Let's not detract from the Denver supporting cast, especially their other starters.

Look at what Porter jr and AG did in the first round.

Not many 3rd and 4th best players on a team put up those averages and efficiency in the playoffs.

Only guys on stacked teams like klay from kd warriors
Bosh heatles
Worthy lakers
Etc

That’s very true. Guys like Porter and AG would be a 2nd option on a team like the current Knicks

AG could be the better player...but no way he could be an actual second option. He doesn't really care his own shot.

[BelgradeNugget]

Obviously, Murray is a watered-down version of Kobe. As for Shaq & Jokic, let's do a fair offensive comparison by adjusting Shaq's numbers, because he played during a lower-placed, lower-scoring, less efficient era.

These are Shaq's adjusted per-game totals, with all figures multiplied by 2024 league average/2020 league average. That is, since per-game scoring was 17.1% higher in 2024 than in 2020, I multiplied Shaq's scoring by 1.171. And so forth with each of the other stats.

Shaq 2000 (adjusted) - 31.3/14.7/3.4, 63.5% TS%
Jokic 2024 - 27.4/12.8/9.3, 65.0%

I'd give the edge to Jokic, because he distributed A LOT more. Scored somewhat less, rebounded less, but slightly more efficient. His usage was also a bit lower, at 29.3% vs Shaq's 31.2%, so he gave a bit more room for his teammates.

But if you preferred Shaq, OK fine. They were both incredible. Not like the Kobe/Murray comparison, which of course was no comparison at all.

One more adjusment needed. Shaq in 1999-2000 played 40 minutes per game compared to Jokic 34.6. Can you give us per 36 adjused stats?

[ShootersShoot]

That's like saying Larry Bird is a watered down version of Shaq lol. Not many duos are as good as Shaq and Kobe. Basically any Big/wing combo could be labeled as a watered down version of those guys.

AG and MPJ were pretty much better than any of the role players the lakers had, including Horry and Rice. The versatility and size at the forward spots those two guys provide really helps cover for any weaknesses the Jokic/Murray duo has.

[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.

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.

[tsherkin]

Not many 3rd and 4th best players on a team put up those averages and efficiency in the playoffs.

It does happen.

Horry posted 18/10/4 in the 95 Finals, for example, and about 15/5/5 in the WCFs the year before. And Glen Rice was dope with the Lakers, particularly in 99. Then you have Duncan's Spurs with Manu or Parker as your #3 depending on how you want to look at it. Ho Grant dropped 15/10/3 or so in the 1990 during the first round. 12/12/2 in 92 ECFs. 18/11 on 65% shooting in 95 in the first round and he was a beast in 96 before he went down. Etc, etc, etc.

[MagicMatic]

sad cope thread