Best Duo Under 25?

[Covert Rain]

This is crazy talk

It is crazy talk.

how is it crazy to think that Shaq would struggle to defend centers that shoot from the outside?

His defense was pretty bad when he had to move his feet.

What centers are those? You make it sounds like there is a ton out there. There isn't a bunch of them out there shooting beyond 15 feet. There are not a bunch of that are lighting it up from 3 point land. Why would Shaq need to be so far outside the lane or further than the free throw line? The NBA can play zone. 9 feet or in is where the Centers in the NBA make their living.

• 25 to 29 Feet by far the best shooter was Brooke Lopez (139 shots made). Next was Karl Anthony Towns (93) with a big drop off it it goes down from there. There are only 9 centers in the entire NBA that made more than 50 shots all season long from this range.

• Karl Anthony-Towns was by far the best shooter in the 20-24 foot range. He only made 60 shots. The next best was Brooke Lopez at 40. There just isn't a consistent threat by center in the NBA with much range.

• Aldridge was by far the best at 15-19 range (105 shots) the next best person was Vucevic (65) and it was a huge drop off.

• 10-14 feet...again Aldridge (127) then a huge drop off to Vucevic again (62).

• 5 to 9 feet out the best were Vucevic (145), Anthony-Towns(127), Aldridge(108), Jokic (104) and again big drop off.

At the rim? Most centers in the NBA make their shots less than 5 feet from the basket. As much as people say this is more of a "shooters" league, at Center the game hasn't changed much.

• Drummond (486) was by far the best at the rim followed by Harrell (476), Gobert (659), Capela (447), Randle(392), Adams (371)...then drops off from there but with the bulk of Centers shots in the NBA coming from this range.

Who are all these players Shaq would have trouble with? Do you think Brooke Lopez or Anthony-Towns who appear to have the most range would worry Shaq??? They have to guard him on the other end too.

Honestly, Aldridge is the only person to me that could give Shaq fits. He has a solid jumper and seems to play more in that range verses at the rim. Even then he only faces him so many times a year.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Arvydas Sabonis (sp?) Would be better today.

 

[Sunburn]

Ya Shaq was totally a product of the rules back then. He'd really struggle today, along with a lot of the other all time greats. Russell, Wilt, Kareem.....all these guys would be nullified now.


Shaq didnt just dominate because he was bigger than everyone else. His agility was unbelievable. He'd have no problem checking Jokic, Embiid, or KAT out to the three point line.

 

[Mainstreet]

What centers are those? You make it sounds like there is a ton out there. There isn't a bunch of them out there shooting beyond 15 feet. No centers are lighting up from 3 point land.

Why would Shaq need to be anywhere outside the lane or further than the free throw line? The NBA can play zone.

It doesn't even have to be a center. It can be whoever Shaq is defending... even a power forward who can shoot.

Any criticism I have of Shaq's game is to point out how the NBA game has changed. Shaq would still be a super star but I don't think he would be as effective in today's game as yesteryear. He would still be a monster on offense and defense but teams would attack him by spreading the court and shooting.

Where Shaq would be most effective is the post season where the game slows down but it's always been that way since I can remember.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

It doesn't even have to be a center. It can be whoever Shaq is defending... even a power forward who can shoot.

Any criticism I have of Shaq's game is to point out how the NBA game has changed. Shaq would still be a super star but I don't think he would be as effective in today's game as yesteryear. He would still be a monster on offense and defense but teams would attack him by spreading the court and shooting.

Where Shaq would be most effective is the post season where the game slows down but it's always been that way since I can remember.

The problem with it being a PF or SF is that is the same player trying to guard Shaq on the other end. Teams back in the late 90s and early 00s would actually structure their roster's with Shaq in mind and would always have multiple big men to try and slow down Shaq even a little. If the biggest player you have on the court to guard Shaq is a 240-250 lb forwards than you are going to get annihilated inside by Shaq and like others have stated he is a good passer so if you try to cheat off your man to help than you will be leaving players wide open. I also assume that with the current way of the league Shaq would have never let himself get up to like 350 lbs like he did and that would have kept him plenty agile enough to guard the perimeter.

 

[Covert Rain]

It doesn't even have to be a center. It can be whoever Shaq is defending... even a power forward who can shoot.

Any criticism I have of Shaq's game is to point out how the NBA game has changed. Shaq would still be a super star but I don't think he would be as effective in today's game as yesteryear. He would still be a monster on offense and defense but teams would attack him by spreading the court and shooting.

Where Shaq would be most effective is the post season where the game slows down but it's always been that way since I can remember.

It's a two way street. Teams playing smaller type players against him especially using a PF would get dominated on the other end.

I pulled up the forward stats which would be a slightly better from some of those ranges. At quick glance outside of George, Ross, Ingles and Green most of the forwards also make their living from 9 feet in with the small forwards being better from the outside verses the power forwards. There are a couple exceptions.

Not surprisingly the Power Forwards stats look almost identical to the Centers in the NBA. They wouldn't be putting very many of those guys on Shaq especially because of what would happen on the defensive end. You are talking a couple guys in the league at the most.

Again, people keep calling this a shooters league mainly because of Curry, guards and some others that chuck up shots at an insane clip but the front courts in the NBA still make their living at the rim.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I really can't think of a modern superstar (starting with Wilt) that wouldn't be dominant in any era. Shaq would need to adapt but if they had changed the rules while he was still in college I suspect he would have developed the skills necessary to dominate. Obviously they didn't change the rules till much later but the Shaq that went fat under Phil's care would still have been a force in today's NBA even though the rules would have made him less of one IMO.

 

[Covert Rain]

I really can't think of a modern superstar (starting with Wilt) that wouldn't be dominant in any era. Shaq would need to adapt but if they had changed the rules while he was still in college I suspect he would have developed the skills necessary to dominate. Obviously they didn't change the rules till much later but the Shaq that went fat under Phil's care would still have been a force in today's NBA even though the rules would have made him less of one IMO.

Plus with the rules changes a few years back that basically nullified hack a Shaq, if he played in his prime today that is one tactic that would hurt teams down the stretch.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Ayton & Shaq
Book & Kobe

Both comparisons should be considered blasphemy. Neither Ayton or Book will be top 15 players of all time IMO. Even when I look at how young they are, so much growth and maturation would need to occur to get even close to top 30 players all-time.

Why Centers are no longer important to winning championships?

• Defensive rules will minimize impact of interior players that have low defensive instincts.
• Primary ball-handlers & ball-dominant shooters will rule the NBA for the foreseeable future.

A highly efficient center who doesn't shoot 3 pointers must shoot 70% from the field to overcome a highly efficient shooter who is 40% from behind the arc. Problem is, no one shoots 70% from the field. No one.

6-10 x 2 = 12 points - Have to be much more precise and can only fail on 4 of 10 possessions.
4-10 x 3 = 14 points - 6 possessions they could just throw the ball out of bounds after the clock runs out.

How many people shoot 70% from the field? 0. Only one is above 65%. Only 5 above 60%.
How many people shoot 40% from 3? 22 without rounding up. 27 if you round up. Almost 1 per team.

This is where the game has gone. It's why Ayton will never be a difference maker. Especially with such horrible defensive instincts. (notice I didn't say ability or skill, I said instincts.)

 

[SunnyBaller]

Another point to look at is if Shaq came into the league today would he have even bulked up as much or would he have stayed more around his rookie weight and kept more of his speed and agility, I just don't see anyway Shaq doesn't dominate in this era he was a freak by any generations standards

 

[Covert Rain]

Ayton & Shaq
Book & Kobe

Both comparisons should be considered blasphemy. Neither Ayton or Book will be top 15 players of all time IMO. Even when I look at how young they are, so much growth and maturation would need to occur to get even close to top 30 players all-time.

Why Centers are no longer important to winning championships?

• Defensive rules will minimize impact of interior players that have low defensive instincts.
• Primary ball-handlers & ball-dominant shooters will rule the NBA for the foreseeable future.

A highly efficient center who doesn't shoot 3 pointers must shoot 70% from the field to overcome a highly efficient shooter who is 40% from behind the arc. Problem is, no one shoots 70% from the field. No one.

6-10 x 2 = 12 points - Have to be much more precise and can only fail on 4 of 10 possessions.
4-10 x 3 = 14 points - 6 possessions they could just throw the ball out of bounds after the clock runs out.

How many people shoot 70% from the field? 0. Only one is above 65%. Only 5 above 60%.
How many people shoot 40% from 3? 22 without rounding up. 27 if you round up. Almost 1 per team.

This is where the game has gone. It's why Ayton will never be a difference maker. Especially with such horrible defensive instincts. (notice I didn't say ability or skill, I said instincts.)

Some interesting stats. There are only 2 players in the NBA that make at least 1 three per game from the left corner (Duval, Edwards). There are none from the right corner 3 (Tucker is the closest at .9). Above the break 3's, Harden, Curry, Hunter (all above 4 per game) and George and Walker (above 3). The rest of the league is under that.

So it's not just the FG% that matters it's how many per game that player averages as well. Not sure very many guys in the entire NBA would be in that criteria. If you have a generational center or pf it is still a big deal IMO.

Also, completely agree that you cannot compare Booker/Ayton to those two guys.

 

[Sunburn]

Ayton & Shaq
Book & Kobe

Both comparisons should be considered blasphemy. Neither Ayton or Book will be top 15 players of all time IMO. Even when I look at how young they are, so much growth and maturation would need to occur to get even close to top 30 players all-time.

Why Centers are no longer important to winning championships?

• Defensive rules will minimize impact of interior players that have low defensive instincts.
• Primary ball-handlers & ball-dominant shooters will rule the NBA for the foreseeable future.

A highly efficient center who doesn't shoot 3 pointers must shoot 70% from the field to overcome a highly efficient shooter who is 40% from behind the arc. Problem is, no one shoots 70% from the field. No one.

6-10 x 2 = 12 points - Have to be much more precise and can only fail on 4 of 10 possessions.
4-10 x 3 = 14 points - 6 possessions they could just throw the ball out of bounds after the clock runs out.

How many people shoot 70% from the field? 0. Only one is above 65%. Only 5 above 60%.
How many people shoot 40% from 3? 22 without rounding up. 27 if you round up. Almost 1 per team.

This is where the game has gone. It's why Ayton will never be a difference maker. Especially with such horrible defensive instincts. (notice I didn't say ability or skill, I said instincts.)

Your math is wrong. 60% from 2 is equivalent to 40% from 3.

6 x 2 = 12

4 x 3 = 12

 

[Hoop Head]

Ayton & Shaq
Book & Kobe

Both comparisons should be considered blasphemy. Neither Ayton or Book will be top 15 players of all time IMO. Even when I look at how young they are, so much growth and maturation would need to occur to get even close to top 30 players all-time.

Why Centers are no longer important to winning championships?

• Defensive rules will minimize impact of interior players that have low defensive instincts.
• Primary ball-handlers & ball-dominant shooters will rule the NBA for the foreseeable future.

A highly efficient center who doesn't shoot 3 pointers must shoot 70% from the field to overcome a highly efficient shooter who is 40% from behind the arc. Problem is, no one shoots 70% from the field. No one.

6-10 x 2 = 12 points - Have to be much more precise and can only fail on 4 of 10 possessions.
4-10 x 3 = 14 points - 6 possessions they could just throw the ball out of bounds after the clock runs out.

How many people shoot 70% from the field? 0. Only one is above 65%. Only 5 above 60%.
How many people shoot 40% from 3? 22 without rounding up. 27 if you round up. Almost 1 per team.

This is where the game has gone. It's why Ayton will never be a difference maker. Especially with such horrible defensive instincts. (notice I didn't say ability or skill, I said instincts.)

You're ignoring fouls entirely with your little theory. More fouls are drawn by taking shots in the paint than by shooting 3's. That gives those who shoot inside a better chance at converting And-1's. In addition to that, they'll get FT attempts on missed shots that don't actually count against their shooting percentage. Most importantly though, it can cause opponents to sit players because of foul trouble so they're not able to impact the game in any way. So yes, you can be less efficient shooting 3's and keep the game close but there is a reason teams don't only shoot 3's. There are many more aspects to the game than simply bombing 3's.

 

[Sunburn]

You're ignoring fouls entirely with your little theory. More fouls are drawn by taking shots in the paint than by shooting 3's. That gives those who shoot inside a better chance at converting And-1's. In addition to that, they'll get FT attempts on missed shots that don't actually count against their shooting percentage. Most importantly though, it can cause opponents to sit players because of foul trouble so they're not able to impact the game in any way. So yes, you can be less efficient shooting 3's and keep the game close but there is a reason teams don't only shoot 3's. There are many more aspects to the game than simply bombing 3's.

To build off this, unless you're Curry or Harden, a guarded 3 point attempt is much more difficult to get off than dumping the ball down to your big and telling him to go to work. Often, the other team will have to double, which leads to....an open 3 point attempt. The game is nuanced and any strategy can be countered. However, the closest thing I've witnessed to unstoppable is Shaq in the post. I've seen him dunk with the entire opposing team in the paint, carrying three of them on the way up. The single, funniest thing I've seen in basketball is the outcome of Chris Dudley attempting to guard Shaq down low one on one.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Great posts from everyone defending how good Shaq would be today or how centers are still very relevant today.

This is my opinion, and admittedly, I could be dead wrong....but I think that even with the rule changes, if a dominant center was playing today, he would still automatically be a top five player.

I just don't think that KAT and the other top centers are really all that good. Patrick Ewing was like the 5th best center of his generation and he would destroy the kids playing today. Rudy Gobert would be a nice, 7th best center back then.

That's why the Ayton pick wasn't just about who was the best player immediately, it's what Ayton can become. Put on about 20 lbs of muscle and learn to throw it around more, and the kid is going to be great.

Booker is being held back by his own offensive inefficiency, but the reason for that has largely been supporting cast. Booker can still play better, and I think we're going to see his best season yet this year.

 

[Mainstreet]

I really can't think of a modern superstar (starting with Wilt) that wouldn't be dominant in any era. Shaq would need to adapt but if they had changed the rules while he was still in college I suspect he would have developed the skills necessary to dominate. Obviously they didn't change the rules till much later but the Shaq that went fat under Phil's care would still have been a force in today's NBA even though the rules would have made him less of one IMO.

I'm not sure why I'm on the other side other except you can't fix shooting (an outside shot and free throws).

Shaq could be great in his own way but that does not take away that he had weaknesses in his game that could be exploited.

I do think Kareem could have adapted his game to the modern NBA.

 

[Mainstreet]

Great posts from everyone defending how good Shaq would be today or how centers are still very relevant today.

This is my opinion, and admittedly, I could be dead wrong....but I think that even with the rule changes, if a dominant center was playing today, he would still automatically be a top five player.

I just don't think that KAT and the other top centers are really all that good. Patrick Ewing was like the 5th best center of his generation and he would destroy the kids playing today. Rudy Gobert would be a nice, 7th best center back then.

That's why the Ayton pick wasn't just about who was the best player immediately, it's what Ayton can become. Put on about 20 lbs of muscle and learn to throw it around more, and the kid is going to be great.

Booker is being held back by his own offensive inefficiency, but the reason for that has largely been supporting cast. Booker can still play better, and I think we're going to see his best season yet this year.

Centers are relevant today. No one is saying they aren't.

However, centers that can shoot, defend, pass and rebound are even more valuable.

Hopefully that is what the Suns have in Ayton... a multifaceted center.

 

[Raindog]

I just don't think that KAT and the other top centers are really all that good. Patrick Ewing was like the 5th best center of his generation and he would destroy the kids playing today. Rudy Gobert would be a nice, 7th best center back then.

Honestly, I think Gobert would have been middle of the pack at best in that generation, or even a bit less than that. He compares mostly to Mutumbo, who granted is in the HOF, but was always considered something of a liability on offense during his playing days. And he was a much better rebounder than Gobert ever will be.

 

[Dr. Jones]

You're ignoring fouls entirely with your little theory. More fouls are drawn by taking shots in the paint than by shooting 3's. That gives those who shoot inside a better chance at converting And-1's. In addition to that, they'll get FT attempts on missed shots that don't actually count against their shooting percentage. Most importantly though, it can cause opponents to sit players because of foul trouble so they're not able to impact the game in any way. So yes, you can be less efficient shooting 3's and keep the game close but there is a reason teams don't only shoot 3's. There are many more aspects to the game than simply bombing 3's.

And most centers make them at a lesser rate than guards. And they take two free shots.

The game has changed my friends. Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Parrish, Shaq, Duncan, Jokic.

If you don't defend like at a masters level now, and shoot the rock with some accuracy from the arc, you will be looking at the guards on your squad and wondering why the coach is telling them not to pass it to you. And why they sub you out in the last 2 minutes of the game. You are a liability. Simple as that.

 

[Carolinacacti]

Hell I liked Camby and he was a pole. But he had talent both ways and would be great today

 

[Krangodnzr]

Honestly, I think Gobert would have been middle of the pack at best in that generation, or even a bit less than that. He compares mostly to Mutumbo, who granted is in the HOF, but was always considered something of a liability on offense during his playing days. And he was a much better rebounder than Gobert ever will be.

Mutombo was better than Gobert.

Gobert is a very limited player, but he is great on defense.

 

[Krangodnzr]

And most centers make them at a lesser rate than guards. And they take two free shots.

The game has changed my friends. Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Parrish, Shaq, Duncan, Jokic.

If you don't defend like at a masters level now, and shoot the rock with some accuracy from the arc, you will be looking at the guards on your squad and wondering why the coach is telling them not to pass it to you. And why they sub you out in the last 2 minutes of the game. You are a liability. Simple as that.

If you shot 65% at the rim, its statistical still the best shot.

The NBA became guard oriented because of rule changes AND a lack of center talent for about a decade.

My dream scenario is that Ayton becomes dominant and the Suns reverse some of the offensive trends we see.

 

[slinslin]

Another point to look at is if Shaq came into the league today would he have even bulked up as much or would he have stayed more around his rookie weight and kept more of his speed and agility, I just don't see anyway Shaq doesn't dominate in this era he was a freak by any generations standards

I mean he never bulked up that much intentionally.

 

[Mainstreet]

My dream for Ayton is can become a complete player who can play in any style of play, who can dominate inside, shoot from outside, rebound, hit his free throws and play defense. That's the whole point of dreaming.

 

[GatorAZ]

Problems with that list are as follows.

#1. Combine the ages because the best pairing should be the oldest.

Embid / Simmons =48
Jokic / Murray = 46
Porzingis / Doncic = 43
Ayton / Booker = 42

#2. Pairings should have actually played together at least in a single game

#3. Add their combined stats

Embid / Simmons = 44.4 PPG 22.4 RPG 11.4 APG 2.1 SPG 2.7 BPG

Jokic / Murray = 38.3 PPG 15 RPG 12.1 APG 2.3 SPG 1.1 BPG

Porzingis / Doncic = Do not qualify.

Ayton / Booker = 42.9 PPG 14.4 RPG 8.6 APG 1.8 SPG 1.1 BPG


So it's pretty clear that right now the rankings are

Embid / Simmons
Jokic / Murray
Ayton / Booker
Porzingis / Doncic

But Ayton and Booker have two years together to even get to Jokic / Murray's age. I also think they picked "25" just to get Embid in

Murray is still younger than Book by a few months and the age different doesn’t really affect my view of Ayton/Jokic... Jokic 3 years ago put up Ayton’s numbers with a higher TS% (Ayton’s efficiency is all ppl talk about) plus nearly 5 assists.

As for Murray I like him more as a #2 than I do Booker as a #1 but he’ll never be on Book’s level. Embiid’s injury history put the Nuggets at #1 comfortably and they have more young talent than just those two.