Time to end this debate: Best player in the 2000's: Duncan or Shaq

[Duncan21formvp]

Who was the best?

Duncan = 3 finals mvp's, 2 mvp's, 4 titles
Shaq = 3 finals mvp's, 1 mvp, 4 titles


These two are by far the best two players in the 2000's. Who was the best?

[Godfather]

Who was the best?

Duncan = 3 finals mvp's, 2 mvp's, 4 titles
Shaq = 3 finals mvp's, 1 mvp, 4 titles


These two are by far the best two players in the 2000's. Who was the best?

Prime Shaq>Prime Duncan.

No player outside of Jordan dominated modern era players like Shaq did.

[TakitoEspanoza]

shaq

[Kiddlovesnets]

Duncan is good but he's barely a top 10 player in NBA franchise history, while Shaq is arguably a top 5.

[dynasty1978]

Shaq Diesel.

[ZeN]

Shaqs dominance when he was in his prime (2001) is unmatched by TimmyD

[YAWN]

shaq

[KB42PAH]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq

[Kiddlovesnets]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[magic chiongson]

peak: shaq
entire decade: duncan

[Jordandunk23]

peak: shaq
entire decade: duncan

i would have to agree with that. prime shaq was unmatched by any player. the most dominant player since jordan. 3peat and 3 of those finals mvp. Through the decade i would have to give it to duncan, even with the rising of tony parker, duncan is still the centerpiece of the spurs.

[Kiddlovesnets]

i would have to agree with that. prime shaq was unmatched by any player. the most dominant player since jordan. 3peat and 3 of those finals mvp. Through the decade i would have to give it to duncan, even with the rising of tony parker, duncan is still the centerpiece of the spurs.

Well Manu is the second best player of SA Spurs, not Parker...

[spursdynasty420]

duncan is going to have a kareem like career. where as shaq who doesnt keep in shape as much will be deminishing like we have seen. prime shaq maybe over tim duncan BUT career wise im going with tim. he will have more championships.

[Showtime]

Duncan is good but he's barely a top 10 player in NBA franchise history, while Shaq is arguably a top 5.
That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.

[NBASTATMAN]

Who was the best?

Duncan = 3 finals mvp's, 2 mvp's, 4 titles
Shaq = 3 finals mvp's, 1 mvp, 4 titles


These two are by far the best two players in the 2000's. Who was the best?



SHAQ, The Spurs have won the last two because their were no other teams with their talent level. Shaq is by far the best player of the 2000's. With Duncan at two and kobe at three, kg at four...

[Showtime]

SHAQ, The Spurs have won the last two because their were no other teams with their talent level.

Oh? What finals teams did the Lakers beat that were at the same level? ZERO.


Shaq is by far the best player of the 2000's. With Duncan at two and kobe at three, kg at four...
I will disagree here.

[InspiredLebowski]

Travis Diener. Look at those per 36 numbers coupled with a postive +/- quintuplet of teammates on a 50+ win team on home games of an even numbered day!

/thread

[plowking]

That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.

Oscar? Please.
Russel? Didn't play both ends of the floor well.
Wilt? Championships? You are not dominant unless you can win.

Furthermore, Shaq is more dominant then Magic, Bird and KAJ, plus has had a bigger impact on the NBA.

Shaq is the 2nd greatest player ever.

[plowking]

peak: shaq
entire decade: duncan


Even career wise, it's Shaq. Look at their numbers at each age interval. Shaq has been better each time.

Tell me what Timmy D will be averaging when he is 37.

[godofgods]

Duncan. Shaq is overrated.

[spursdynasty420]

waching shaq get ownd by the celtics today was great. thats all that really matters. how hes doing now

[Showtime]

Oscar? Please.

People who played with him and against him, and those that saw him said he is in the GOAT discussion, and some contain he is the GOAT. He took Boston to game 7 and almost interrupted their streak. He was a top player on the Bucks when they won.


Russel? Didn't play both ends of the floor well.

Great passer. Was a second leading scorer on the team for a time. Was a player-coach at the same time. Best winner ever.


Wilt? Championships? You are not dominant unless you can win.

He did win championships.


Furthermore, Shaq is more dominant then Magic, Bird and KAJ, plus has had a bigger impact on the NBA.
More dominant in one of the weakest big men eras ever. He could put up stats in the 90's, but he got his ass swept by Dream who dominated him in the finals. Look at the teams he played against and his frontline competition in the finals. Shaq is a great player, but he had virtually no competition at his position in his prime, and two of his three championships were a shot or two away from never even getting there. Shaq's dominance is overrated.


Shaq is the 2nd greatest player ever.
:lol

[BA_God]

MVP of the decade: Tim Duncan ( slight edge over Shaq)
Defensive player of the decade : Tim Duncan ( sure edge over Ben)

the answer is Tim Duncan.

[plowking]

waching shaq get ownd by the celtics today was great. thats all that really matters. how hes doing now

Shaq>Duncan

[lolwut]

Timmy D.

[White Chocolate]

Shaq was better in his prime. Duncan has the edge in longevity. This is like comparing Barkley with Malone. Barkley had the better prime, but Malone has the edge in longevity.

[plowking]

People who played with him and against him, and those that saw him said he is in the GOAT discussion, and some contain he is the GOAT. He took Boston to game 7 and almost interrupted their streak. He was a top player on the Bucks when they won.

Good on him, great players find a way to win. He couldn't.


Great passer. Was a second leading scorer on the team for a time. Was a player-coach at the same time. Best winner ever.

Shaq is a passer as well. Though he can also carry the scoring load when needed and the defensive load when needed. Russel could not.


He did win championships.

When he was on a stacked team. That team is one of the greatest of all time, and that was the only way he could get it done. Give Shaq a solid wing player and you have a championship.


More dominant in one of the weakest big men eras ever. He could put up stats in the 90's, but he got his ass swept by Dream who dominated him in the finals. Look at the teams he played against and his frontline competition in the finals. Shaq is a great player, but he had virtually no competition at his position in his prime, and two of his three championships were a shot or two away from never even getting there. Shaq's dominance is overrated.

I bet you're to young to have even watched that. Futhermore, Shaq was on par with Hakeem if not better then him in that series. Hakeem shot below 50% and took something like 6 more shots in order to score 3 more points. As for era of weak big men, it was probably among the strongest.
Shaq played against:
Ewing
Robinson
Hakeem
Dikembe
Ben Wallace
Rasheed Wallace
Alonzo
Duncan
Sabonis
Mark Eaton



:lol

Really don't see how its laughable. He has the championships, accomplishments, individual stats. Where as the players I highlighted really don't have all that.


Do you think It's just chance that every organization Shaq has gone to (the three in his prime) have been to the finals at least, and in 2 cases winning the finals, once being a 3-peat? I don't think so.

That shows that he is a great teammate and a winner, because he is able to win everywhere no matter what the situation.

[amfirst]

Shaq for like only two years is better than Duncan. Duncan is better for the rest of the years. Imagine how much better would Duncan and Kobe be together than Shaq and Kobe.

[sunsfan1357]

Shaq was better in his prime. Duncan has the edge in longevity. This is like comparing Barkley with Malone. Barkley had the better prime, but Malone has the edge in longevity.

Of course Duncan would have better longevity through the decade seeing as how Shaq's in his 17th season and Duncan his 12th. Given that though Shaq has played at a level where people are saying he might earn a spot in the all-star game. That says something. Given the difference in age I think it might be unfair to ask the question of who has been better the whole decade. Shaq definitely had the better peak and up until 2 years ago was still putting up numbers comparable to Duncan.

Looking back it's a shame that Shaq only has 1 MVP in his name.

[InspiredLebowski]

I really don't understand why people are making it a career vs. career debate or calling the timeframe unfair when the entire basis of the thread is the 2000s. And there's some crazy ass Oscar Robertson debate. ISH for ya.

[plowking]

Shaq for like only two years is better than Duncan. Duncan is better for the rest of the years. Imagine how much better would Duncan and Kobe be together than Shaq and Kobe.

Worse.

Those talking about longevity, Shaq has had 13 season with at least 20 and 10, all of them being consecutive years. While Duncan has 10, with 2 years unable to achieve the 20 and 10 mark. As far as I see, Duncan has nothing over Shaq.

Who has the better career stats? Shaq.
Longevity? Shaq. (Still a dominant force)
Better prime? Shaq.
Peak stats? Shaq.

Furthermore everyone talks about Duncan's skill, yet he's shot below 50% as a 7 footer in 4 seasons. :confusedshrug:

Duncan is barely top 10, where as Shaq is top 5.

[w00terz]

Shaq by a mile.

[plowking]

I really don't understand why people are making it a career vs. career debate or calling the timeframe unfair when the entire basis of the thread is the 2000s. And there's some crazy ass Oscar Robertson debate. ISH for ya.

If we're going by this Decade only, then Duncan only has 3 championships, no?

Shaq has 4 championships, Duncan 3.

So Shaq has won more this decade, while putting up the best finals numbers ever.

[InspiredLebowski]

If we're going by this Decade only, then Duncan only has 3 championships, no?

Shaq has 4 championships, Duncan 3.

So Shaq has won more this decade, while putting up the best finals numbers ever.

I don't care. If that's your criteria fine. Just keep it within the decade.

[Number21]

If we're going by this Decade only, then Duncan only has 3 championships, no?

Shaq has 4 championships, Duncan 3.

So Shaq has won more this decade, while putting up the best finals numbers ever.

Shaq has 3 championships in this decade.

[White Chocolate]

Shaq has 3 championships in this decade.


2000-2002 and 2006.

[Number21]

2000-2002 and 2006.

1999-2000 season belongs to 90's.

[White Chocolate]

1999-2000 season belongs to 90's.


So that means 1999 had 2 champions? When they announce champions, they say the "2000 NBA Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers".

[snipes12]

so the top 5 ranking should be like this

1.tim
2.shaq
3.kobe
4.Kg
5.Dirk

[White Chocolate]

so the top 5 ranking should be like this

1.tim
2.shaq
3.kobe
4.Kg
5.Dirk


5 is questionable. It could go to Dirk or Jason Kidd.

[Mikaiel]

So that means 1999 had 2 champions? When they announce champions, they say the "2000 NBA Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers".

Yeah but the decade we're in started in 2001, so 2000 belongs in the 90's. For the same reason the 21st century/3rd millenium started in 2001, and not 2000.

[plowking]

Yeah but the decade we're in started in 2001, so 2000 belongs in the 90's. For the same reason the 21st century/3rd millenium started in 2001, and not 2000.

No. 10 years. 2000 to the last day of 2009.

[booonkers]

Duncan if we're talking about the 2000s. Check out which professional team has the winningest record in all major leagues in the US (Duncan era).

Prime Shaq though is a real beast. Most unstoppable force for sure.

[Mikaiel]

No. 10 years. 2000 to the last day of 2009.

Do you agree the 21st century started on January 1st 2001 ? It's the same thing, just apply it for decades instead of centuries. 10 decades in a century, so the last decade of the 20th century (the 90's) ended in 2000, not 1999.

[booonkers]

No. 10 years. 2000 to the last day of 2009.
I think it ends on the last day of 2010.

[Mikaiel]

Well actually I was wrong. I looked it up and the 1st decade was only 9 nine years long. So it doesn't work like centuries or milleniums. Kinda weird the 1st century lasted 100 years but the first decade only 9 years. Oh well who cares anyway :lol

[iamgine]

Gotta go with Duncan but ain't mad with either.

[rawimpact]

Why? Already sick of your current username?
How can anyone really question prime shaq vs prime duncan?

[shawbryant]

Shark

[Lebron23]

Shaquille O'Neal

[Duncan21formvp]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq


:roll: :roll:


If Kobe was good, he would have multiple finals mvp's.

[leijamoosa]

Every one should realize that tim doesn't have 4 rings in this decade, 1999 isn't 2000's you know... so that gives him 3 rings for the decade which is worse than shaqs 4 + shaq is better. I can't believe some of you say timmy. Remember, In the 2000's!

Looking what others have said about this is pretty f'd up. this decade started 1.1.2000 I don't know how anyone can think otherwise

[JellyBean]

The Shaqtus without a doubt.

[JJ81]

peak: shaq
entire decade: duncan

I pretty much agree. But for the entire decade, Kobe has been the best player in the league.

[chains5000]

You can't go wrong with any of them.

[Slam13]

Well actually I was wrong. I looked it up and the 1st decade was only 9 nine years long. So it doesn't work like centuries or milleniums. Kinda weird the 1st century lasted 100 years but the first decade only 9 years. Oh well who cares anyway :lol

no the first decade started in the year 0, not year 1, your life doesn't start at the age of one. the 21st century started in 1st january 2000, and shaq won his ring in 2000, so he has 4 rings this decade. considering the start of the millenium at the year of 2001 is ridiculous.

[Mikaiel]

no the first decade started in the year 0, not year 1, your life doesn't start at the age of one. the 21st century started in 1st january 2000, and shaq won his ring in 2000, so he has 4 rings this decade. considering the start of the millenium at the year of 2001 is ridiculous.

No, year 0 does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0s

It started at year 1, so the 2nd century started in 101. So the 21st started in 2001.


The 21st century is the current century of the Christian Era or Common Era in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001 and will end December 31, 2100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

But Shaq did win 4 rings this decade.

[ScolaFan]

:bowdown: Duncan

[AznTacoLover]

Shaq :banana:

[Tainted Sword]

I hate when people say Shaq doesn't have the longetivity that Duncan has. This man is 36 years old and is still considered to be one of the top centers in the league. Let

[VanillaThunder]

Oscar? Please.
Russel? Didn't play both ends of the floor well.
Wilt? Championships? You are not dominant unless you can win.

Furthermore, Shaq is more dominant then Magic, Bird and KAJ, plus has had a bigger impact on the NBA.

Shaq is the 2nd greatest player ever.

a bigger impact than Magic or Bird? You must be high. I'd rather build around Shaq than them but its hard to argue anyone had more of an impact than those 2.

[LebrickJames84']

Kobe was the best player in the 00's he did it for the whole decade

Shaq just did has for 4 years.

[ChrisKreager]

Shaq.

He was more dominant.

He had more 30-40 point games since 1999-2000 than Duncan has.

[dware94]

Kobe was the best player in the 00's he did it for the whole decade

Shaq just did has for 4 years.

you are an idiot if you think kobe was better than shaq in the 00's decade.. :violin:

[nbastatus]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq
do you have to bring your precious kobe on every thread?
get off his **** already. :hammertime:

[gigantes]

Who was the best?

Duncan = 3 finals mvp's, 2 mvp's, 4 titles
Shaq = 3 finals mvp's, 1 mvp, 4 titles


These two are by far the best two players in the 2000's. Who was the best?
duncan.

because he doesn't dominate the way a prime shaq does, but he's far more professional and consistent than shaq ever was, giving his team a chance to win every year and not just when he felt like it (ie, shaq).

[dware94]

duncan.

because he doesn't dominate the way a prime shaq does, but he's far more professional and consistent than shaq ever was, giving his team a chance to win every year and not just when he felt like it (ie, shaq).

well said.. i completely agree

[1987_Lakers]

2000-2002 Shaq > 2000-2002 Duncan

2003-2009 Shaq < 2003-2009 Duncan

Shaq was more dominant in his prime, but Duncan has been more consistent. As for Duncan vs Kobe?

2000-2005 Duncan > 2000-2005 Kobe

2006-2009 Duncan < 2006-2009 Kobe

If the Lakers win the championship this year, the top 3 players from the 00's will be...

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq

[Showtime]

Good on him, great players find a way to win. He couldn't.

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?


Shaq is a passer as well. Though he can also carry the scoring load when needed and the defensive load when needed. Russel could not.

Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.


When he was on a stacked team. That team is one of the greatest of all time, and that was the only way he could get it done. Give Shaq a solid wing player and you have a championship.

A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.


I bet you're to young to have even watched that. Futhermore, Shaq was on par with Hakeem if not better then him in that series.

No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.


As for era of weak big men, it was probably among the strongest.

Shaq played against:
Ewing
Robinson
Hakeem
Dikembe
Ben Wallace
Rasheed Wallace
Alonzo
Duncan
Sabonis
Mark Eaton

Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.


Really don't see how its laughable. He has the championships, accomplishments, individual stats. Where as the players I highlighted really don't have all that.

How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He demanded to be traded as a Buck, but he didn't quit on his team, fake injury, bash teammates and coaches, and make an ass out of himself on several occasions. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it. How has Shaq done MORE than Magic, Bird, and MJ? Those are 4 players right there.


Do you think It's just chance that every organization Shaq has gone to (the three in his prime) have been to the finals at least, and in 2 cases winning the finals, once being a 3-peat? I don't think so.

Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.


That shows that he is a great teammate and a winner, because he is able to win everywhere no matter what the situation.
If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.

[EvinWizzle]

2000-2002 Shaq > 2000-2002 Duncan

2003-2009 Shaq < 2003-2009 Duncan

Shaq was more dominant in his prime, but Duncan has been more consistent. As for Duncan vs Kobe?

2000-2005 Duncan > 2000-2005 Kobe

2006-2009 Duncan < 2006-2009 Kobe

If the Lakers win the championship this year, the top 3 players from the 00's will be...

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. allen iverson

[Odomize]

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?



Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.



A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.



No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.



Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.



How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it.



Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.


If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.
:applause: this is pwnage.

[shaoyut]

Shaq

[plowking]

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?



Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.



A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.



No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.



Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.



How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He demanded to be traded as a Buck, but he didn't quit on his team, fake injury, bash teammates and coaches, and make an ass out of himself on several occasions. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it. How has Shaq done MORE than Magic, Bird, and MJ? Those are 4 players right there.



Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.


If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.

So where was Duncan's competition? What did he face?

Furthermore if you are bringing up virtually unstoppable teams, what good are Magic and Kareem in the top 5. Kareem only started winning when paired with Johnson. Going by your own logic he is no better then Shaq.

Since when did his competition at his position get worse? He faced the only two guys to ever win the DPOY 4 times. How is that weak. Plus he faced a 7'3 beast in Sabonis who was near impossible to move.

Same can be said about Wilt and his competition.


Right. Shaq's dominance is overrated. That's why he is the only player to have a rule changed in the NBA in the modern era. Nice one. :rolleyes:

So you are saying it was Shaq's fault they didn't win a game in those finals? He averaged something like 30ppg, 13rpg and 4apg. He was slacking, it was his fault. :rolleyes:
And like I said, great players find a way to win, and Shaq did later in his career as "the man".

Your David Robinson comparison. His career would be greater if he had achieved that ring as the man. So it does take away from his legacy.


Every team Shaq has gone to bar Phoenix, he has taken to the finals. That is not just plain luck. That is an impact a player has. It's not like Duncan who has had the luxury of getting a team built around him over his 12 years in the league. Shaq has shown that he is able to adapt and be a team player on each team and bring success. I doubt any other player ever could do that bar Jordan.

[plowking]

a bigger impact than Magic or Bird? You must be high. I'd rather build around Shaq than them but its hard to argue anyone had more of an impact than those 2.

Shaq is one of the most celebrated athletes ever in the NBA. He was more popular then Jordan when he was around at one stage. That is really saying something.

Furthermore he, like Wilt before him had a rule change specifically to stop him. That is a iconic feat in modern day basketball.

[Showtime]

So where was Duncan's competition? What did he face?

I didn't say Duncan was the most dominating player and second best of all time. That's why I brought up those points, because people are overrating Shaq.



Furthermore if you are bringing up virtually unstoppable teams, what good are Magic and Kareem in the top 5. Kareem only started winning when paired with Johnson. Going by your own logic he is no better then Shaq.

KAJ won without Magic before he got to LA. Magic was the best player on a team that won several championships, and the best at his position of all time.


Since when did his competition at his position get worse? He faced the only two guys to ever win the DPOY 4 times. How is that weak. Plus he faced a 7'3 beast in Sabonis who was near impossible to move.

You just listed all the great frontline players he played against in a former post, but the best guys he beat during his 3 peat was Dikembe, Divac, and Sabonis. Not near the other greats like Dream, Robinson, and Ewing. Again, he barely got by the kings and blazers (despite his so called unstoppable domination), and then proceeded to eat up scrubs in the finals. There's no way Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Big Todd, and Aaron Williams are ANYTHING CLOSE to the level of players you listed.


Same can be said about Wilt and his competition.

What can be said?


Right. Shaq's dominance is overrated. That's why he is the only player to have a rule changed in the NBA in the modern era. Nice one. :rolleyes:

Looking at the comments you are making, yeah, he's becoming overrated.


So you are saying it was Shaq's fault they didn't win a game in those finals? He averaged something like 30ppg, 13rpg and 4apg. He was slacking, it was his fault. :rolleyes:

So how can he be as dominating as you say if he plays great and gets swept? You prove my point for me, thanks. He played great individual ball, but only won rings (barely getting there a couple times) against poorer competition at center.


And like I said, great players find a way to win, and Shaq did later in his career as "the man".

You said he would win a ring with any decent swingman. He was that good. Well, if he was as dominating as you say, he should have more rings. His dominance in relation to winning is getting overblown on this site, because he didn't always carry his teams to the top, and he only dominated record wise in one (SINGLE) postseason.


Your David Robinson comparison. His career would be greater if he had achieved that ring as the man. So it does take away from his legacy.

I asked if he was a lesser player, not about his legacy. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean he wasn't a top center in the game and all time. He was one of the best in the best era of big men. Does not winning mean Robertson wasn't one of the best players of all time? To you, yes. To me, no. John Stockton is a top PG of all time. Baylor is a top forward of all time. Just because they didn't get a ring doesn't mean they were lesser players, just like Robertson.


Every team Shaq has gone to bar Phoenix, he has taken to the finals. That is not just plain luck.

And I've never said it was luck. But you can't seem to acknowledge the talent around him, and how he was unable to win more if he was as good as you think he was.


That is an impact a player has. It's not like Duncan who has had the luxury of getting a team built around him over his 12 years in the league. Shaq has shown that he is able to adapt and be a team player on each team and bring success. I doubt any other player ever could do that bar Jordan.

Adapt? What has he adapted? He plays the same game. He's the same player. That also means he will quit when he's not happy, turn on teammates and coaches when he's not happy, take games off because he wants to, etc.

Is Shaq one of the best centers to ever play? Yeah. That doesn't make him the second best ever, when he isn't even definitively the best at his position. The bottom line is that if Shaq was as good as you think he was, judging by your own statements about his ability and impact, he should have won more. Period.

[VCMVP1551]

First of all I almost died laughing when I read someone say that Oscar was better than Shaq, but that's not the point of this thread.

From the 1999-2000 season(majority was in the year 2000) until now.

Shaq
4 Championships
3 Finals MVP's
5 Finals Appearances
1 MVP
1 Scoring Title
7 All-NBA Teams


Tim Duncan
3 Championships
2 Finals MVP's
3 Finals Appearances
9 All-NBA Teams

Shaq has 2 more finals appearances, 1 more championship, 1 more finals MVP and an additional scoring title.

Duncan has 2 more All-NBA finishes showing his consitency and Duncan has never failed to advance past the first round while Shaq has twice.

Duncan also has 1 more MVP but Shaq deserved the award in 2001 and 2005 so Shaq was deserving more years.

Shaq was better in from 2000-2002 and the 2003-2004/2004-2005/2005-2006 seasons are arguable. Duncan was better in 2003, 2006, 2008 and he's been better so far this season.

So pretty much neither has an advantage for who was better most seasons.

Now look at Shaq's peak.

Shaq during the 3peat

1999-2000
Regular Season- 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.0 bpg, 59.4 FG%
Playoffs- 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 56.6 FG%
Finals- 38.0 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.7 bpg, 61.1 FG%

2000-2001
Regular Season- 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg, 57.2 FG%
Playoffs- 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.5 bpg 55.5 FG%
Finals- 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

2001-2002
Regular Season- 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 57.9 FG%
Playoffs- 28.5 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.5 bpg, 52.9 FG%
Finals- 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.8 bpg, 59.5 FG%

3 seasons combined
Regular Season- 28.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.6 bpg, 57.5 FG%
Playoffs- 29.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.2 FG%
Finals- 35.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 59.5 FG%

And for those who use the Kobe argument.

Without Kobe 2000-2002 25-6 record
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%

Also look at the 2004 finals. He still dominated

26.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 1.6 apg, 0.6 bpg, 63.1 FG%

Nobody in this thread seems like they're going to argue that Shaq had the better peak. I already pointed out that longevity isn't a big deal because they were both better than the other in pretty much the same amount of seasons. Now in 2009 Duncan still isn't that much better than Shaq(although he was in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008).

Duncan certainly has the consistency argument, but that's not enough to eliminate everything else.

[Jordandunk23]

Well Manu is the second best player of SA Spurs, not Parker...

there's a reason ginobili only has one season with 30+mpg and there is a reason his career high is 31mpg. sorry, he is a talented guy i just dont like how people overrate him so much.

[plowking]

I didn't say Duncan was the most dominating player and second best of all time. That's why I brought up those points, because people are overrating Shaq.

No, Shaq is not overrated. He has as much a case as the other guys you listed for a top 5 position if not more.





KAJ won without Magic before he got to LA. Magic was the best player on a team that won several championships, and the best at his position of all time.

Yet you don't seem to put this against them where you do for Shaq. Shaq's team was no where near as stacked as Shaq's was, yet you seem not to negate Magic and Kareem in anyway.


You just listed all the great frontline players he played against in a former post, but the best guys he beat during his 3 peat was Dikembe, Divac, and Sabonis. Not near the other greats like Dream, Robinson, and Ewing. Again, he barely got by the kings and blazers (despite his so called unstoppable domination), and then proceeded to eat up scrubs in the finals. There's no way Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Big Todd, and Aaron Williams are ANYTHING CLOSE to the level of players you listed.


You said he never faced any good competition. You are clearly wrong. Lebron posted stats from basketball reference comparing Shaq in head to head matchups to all the recent great big men. This list included Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, etc. All of who Shaq got the better of in 1 on 1 matchups. So there goes your, Shaq's dominance was overrated, especially considering that many people consider Hakeem a top 10 player of all time.


What can be said?

That Wilt's competition at center was no tougher then Shaq's in his time.


Looking at the comments you are making, yeah, he's becoming overrated.

:rolleyes:

Nice come back. A rule change due to one single player says a lot.



So how can he be as dominating as you say if he plays great and gets swept? You prove my point for me, thanks. He played great individual ball, but only won rings (barely getting there a couple times) against poorer competition at center.

You and your double standards. Open your eyes. You obviously have something against Shaq or something. It's funny how you penalize Shaq for not being able to win or barely win championships, yet you place Oscar and Wilt above him despite them barely winning championships in their career. :rolleyes:




You said he would win a ring with any decent swingman. He was that good. Well, if he was as dominating as you say, he should have more rings. His dominance in relation to winning is getting overblown on this site, because he didn't always carry his teams to the top, and he only dominated record wise in one (SINGLE) postseason.

Yeah 4 championships isn't enough...

How about Wilt, Oscar, Bird... They should have more if you are able to place them so highly.




I asked if he was a lesser player, not about his legacy. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean he wasn't a top center in the game and all time. He was one of the best in the best era of big men. Does not winning mean Robertson wasn't one of the best players of all time? To you, yes. To me, no. John Stockton is a top PG of all time. Baylor is a top forward of all time. Just because they didn't get a ring doesn't mean they were lesser players, just like Robertson.

Never said they were. But the point of sports is to win. You are better if you are a winner and great individually. Shaq is both. Most dominant of all time and 4 rings. He is easily top 5.



And I've never said it was luck. But you can't seem to acknowledge the talent around him, and how he was unable to win more if he was as good as you think he was.

Remind me again how Bird, Magic and Kareem won their championships... Oh right, stacked teams. None of them would have had the impact on a team that Shaq would.


Adapt? What has he adapted? He plays the same game. He's the same player. That also means he will quit when he's not happy, turn on teammates and coaches when he's not happy, take games off because he wants to, etc.

No, he played a different role compared from Lakers and Orlando to Miami. In different offenses. With different teammates, coaches, personalities on the court.


Is Shaq one of the best centers to ever play? Yeah. That doesn't make him the second best ever, when he isn't even definitively the best at his position. The bottom line is that if Shaq was as good as you think he was, judging by your own statements about his ability and impact, he should have won more. Period.

This is hypocritical. Same can be said for the players you rank above him. How can they be one of the best or better then Shaq if they could not win more then him. Especially since most of the players you listed above played on more stacked teams then Shaq did in his career.

Shaq easily has the resume for a top 5 and could arguably be the second best.

[Showtime]

No, Shaq is not overrated. He has as much a case as the other guys you listed for a top 5 position if not more.

You said he was the second best ever, not has a case for top 5. There's a big difference. Stop changing up your post.


Yet you don't seem to put this against them where you do for Shaq. Shaq's team was no where near as stacked as Shaq's was, yet you seem not to negate Magic and Kareem in anyway.

What?


You said he never faced any good competition. You are clearly wrong.

I said he only won titles once the center position became a joke, which I am not wrong. His opponents in the finals were a joke compared to Shaq, with the exception of Dikembe, and the best he faced before the finals was an old and broken Sabonis and Vlade Divac. Again, with the exception of Dikembe, he only won titles when he had virtually no competition at his position.


Lebron posted stats from basketball reference comparing Shaq in head to head matchups to all the recent great big men. This list included Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, etc. All of who Shaq got the better of in 1 on 1 matchups. So there goes your, Shaq's dominance was overrated, especially considering that many people consider Hakeem a top 10 player of all time.

You can't seem to grasp this point: he never won a ring until those players you just listed were in decline or out of the league. Was he great against them? Yes, but he was UNABLE to win a championship until he had no competition at his position.


That Wilt's competition at center was no tougher then Shaq's in his time.

During Shaq's prime in LA, when did he face players that were on a comparable level? Wilt played against Russell, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, etc, all of which weren't pushovers. Shaq compared to Vlade, Smits, old Sabonis, etc isn't nearly as close.


:rolleyes:

Nice come back. A rule change due to one single player says a lot.

Please. How many rules did Mikan and Wilt influence? Tons more. So what? And the changes weren't just about Shaq.


You and your double standards. Open your eyes. You obviously have something against Shaq or something. It's funny how you penalize Shaq for not being able to win or barely win championships, yet you place Oscar and Wilt above him despite them barely winning championships in their career. :rolleyes:

Again, look at the context of my comments. They are in response to your dumbass comments. When did I ever say anything about Oscar like this: 'Shaq could take any team with a decent swingman and win a championship.' YOU are making exaggerated claims, so I am addressing those exaggerated statements. If Shaq was as good as your exaggerated claims, he would have done more.


Yeah 4 championships isn't enough...

Not for a guy who can apparently carry any team with a decent swingman to a ring, who can dominate everybody, and is the second best player ever.


How about Wilt, Oscar, Bird... They should have more if you are able to place them so highly.

Once again, there's a difference between placement all time, and making ridiculous claims as supporting evidence. I never said Oscar could carry any team to a ring, adapt to any situation, and win in any environment.


Never said they were. But the point of sports is to win. You are better if you are a winner and great individually. Shaq is both. Most dominant of all time and 4 rings. He is easily top 5.

LOL what an inherent contradiction. If to you, winning combined with being great individually means being the best, then how is Shaq second behind MJ? There are other players who have won MORE and dominated with great individual play.


Remind me again how Bird, Magic and Kareem won their championships... Oh right, stacked teams. None of them would have had the impact on a team that Shaq would.

Once again, I DIDN'T SAY BIRD COULD CARRY ANY TEAM TO A RING. YOU SAID THAT ABOUT SHAQ. So, with that CONTEXT in mind, if Shaq could take ANY team with a decent swingman to a championship, then why doesn't Shaq have 9+ titles? I'm responding to your ridiculous statements, so stop acting as if I'm making the same claims on the other end.


No, he played a different role compared from Lakers and Orlando to Miami. In different offenses. With different teammates, coaches, personalities on the court.

Center. Get position. Catch Pass. Make a move or draw double and kick. He's played the exact same role everywhere he went, only in varying degrees. The suns are a perfect example. They changed up the entire team and how they play when he's in the game to suit what he does.


This is hypocritical. Same can be said for the players you rank above him.

No, because I'm not making crazy statements about those other players.


How can they be one of the best or better then Shaq if they could not win more then him. Especially since most of the players you listed above played on more stacked teams then Shaq did in his career.

I've listed several players that won more than him. KAJ, Magic, MJ, Bird, all won more than Shaq.


Shaq easily has the resume for a top 5 and could arguably be the second best.

Oh, so now he went from second best to top 5, and arguably second best? Ok whatever. I get it, he helped get your heat a ring, so he's GOAT center blah.

[plowking]

You said he was the second best ever, not has a case for top 5. There's a big difference. Stop changing up your post.



What?



I said he only won titles once the center position became a joke, which I am not wrong. His opponents in the finals were a joke compared to Shaq, with the exception of Dikembe, and the best he faced before the finals was an old and broken Sabonis and Vlade Divac. Again, with the exception of Dikembe, he only won titles when he had virtually no competition at his position.



You can't seem to grasp this point: he never won a ring until those players you just listed were in decline or out of the league. Was he great against them? Yes, but he was UNABLE to win a championship until he had no competition at his position.



During Shaq's prime in LA, when did he face players that were on a comparable level? Wilt played against Russell, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, etc, all of which weren't pushovers. Shaq compared to Vlade, Smits, old Sabonis, etc isn't nearly as close.



Please. How many rules did Mikan and Wilt influence? Tons more. So what? And the changes weren't just about Shaq.



Again, look at the context of my comments. They are in response to your dumbass comments. When did I ever say anything about Oscar like this: 'Shaq could take any team with a decent swingman and win a championship.' YOU are making exaggerated claims, so I am addressing those exaggerated statements. If Shaq was as good as your exaggerated claims, he would have done more.



Not for a guy who can apparently carry any team with a decent swingman to a ring, who can dominate everybody, and is the second best player ever.



Once again, there's a difference between placement all time, and making ridiculous claims as supporting evidence. I never said Oscar could carry any team to a ring, adapt to any situation, and win in any environment.



LOL what an inherent contradiction. If to you, winning combined with being great individually means being the best, then how is Shaq second behind MJ? There are other players who have won MORE and dominated with great individual play.



Once again, I DIDN'T SAY BIRD COULD CARRY ANY TEAM TO A RING. YOU SAID THAT ABOUT SHAQ. So, with that CONTEXT in mind, if Shaq could take ANY team with a decent swingman to a championship, then why doesn't Shaq have 9+ titles? I'm responding to your ridiculous statements, so stop acting as if I'm making the same claims on the other end.



Center. Get position. Catch Pass. Make a move or draw double and kick. He's played the exact same role everywhere he went, only in varying degrees. The suns are a perfect example. They changed up the entire team and how they play when he's in the game to suit what he does.



No, because I'm not making crazy statements about those other players.



I've listed several players that won more than him. KAJ, Magic, MJ, Bird, all won more than Shaq.



Oh, so now he went from second best to top 5, and arguably second best? Ok whatever. I get it, he helped get your heat a ring, so he's GOAT center blah.


I said Shaq could take any swingman to the finals in his prime. Which he proved. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise seeing as he has done that everytime.

You list the competition Shaq went up against that he couldn't win against. Then you list the competiton that Wilt went up against. Guess what, Wilt couldn't win against his competition either. So again with the double standard.

It has nothing to do with winning a ring with the Heat. I said he easily has the resume for top 5. I never changed the story. He is top 2 in my opinion.

Bird didn't win more then Shaq.

I said, each team Shaq has gone to he has lifted them to the finals.

[gigantes]

I said, each team Shaq has gone to he has lifted them to the finals.
and sabotaged them into mediocrity when he's not in the mood.

have you calculated that into your precious formulas?

[plowking]

and sabotaged them into mediocrity when he's not in the mood.

have you calculated that into your precious formulas?

How has he sabotaged them?

What did he do to the Heat. Got them cap relief and Shawn Marion.

With the Lakers, it wasn't working anymore. It was time to move on.


Oh did you factor in, that the only reason they won was because of Shaq? No, didn't think so...

[Yung D-Will]

I'd actually pick Shaq for some unknown reason. But im waiting for someone to make a Kevin Garnett vs Tim Duncan thread since i end up arguing about it everyday at school.

[gigantes]

How has he sabotaged them?
hmm... gee... taken the entire half of seasons off while he rests himself from things he could have handled shortly after the season ended but was too reluctant to?

i guess you just started watching the NBA in january, otherwise you would know basic facts like these.
aw... sucks to be you.

[biisak]

I'd actually pick Shaq for some unknown reason. But im waiting for someone to make a Kevin Garnett vs Tim Duncan thread since i end up arguing about it everyday at school.

That

[VCMVP1551]

[QUOTE=biisak]That

[ronnymac]

Shaq was the more dominante player. duncan was the better two way player. but i would take a prime shaq.

[biisak]

Neither is this as I showed at the top of the page, but it still got a thread.

You didn

[Valliant13]

Shaq was better in his prime. Duncan has the edge in longevity. This is like comparing Barkley with Malone. Barkley had the better prime, but Malone has the edge in longevity.

Well said. If he Shaq had been dedicated enough to keep up his conditioning he'd be the GOAT period. As it was he had a six year stretch where the only thing you could do to slow him down was to foul him. Even double and tripple teams couldn't stop him from scoring.

Duncan has been a top 10 player since his rookie year...that is incredible.

[plowking]

Well said. If he Shaq had been dedicated enough to keep up his conditioning he'd be the GOAT period. As it was he had a six year stretch where the only thing you could do to slow him down was to foul him. Even double and tripple teams couldn't stop him from scoring.

Duncan has been a top 10 player since his rookie year...that is incredible.


Where is his edge in longevity when Shaq has played far more seasons at a higher level. Like I said Shaq had 13 consecutive seasons where he has averaged over 20 and 10, while Duncan has had seasons where he has averaged below 50% in shooting, and below 20 points.

[AllenIverson3]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq

Was Kobe even mentioned in this thread? :roll:

[biisak]

Where is his edge in longevity when Shaq has played far more seasons at a higher level. Like I said Shaq had 13 consecutive seasons where he has averaged over 20 and 10, while Duncan has had seasons where he has averaged below 50% in shooting, and below 20 points.

Stats are overrated. You

[plowking]

[QUOTE=biisak]Stats are overrated. You

[Younggrease]

[QUOTE=biisak]Stats are overrated. You

[Dizzle-2k7]

Both players collect championships.. but one player does it without all the dramatic highschool bullshlt. Give me Timmy.

[Shih508]

shaq is the most dominanted player in this era when he wants to... however he's been slacking off majority of time. On the other hand, Timmy brings it night in and night out.....so i'll give the slightly edge to timmy

[brandonislegend]

Duncan
Kobe
Shaq

[KB42PAH]

Kobe>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

[Showtime]

Kobe>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html
You = 11 years old in 2000.

[KB42PAH]

Duncan isn't self-sufficient

[gotbacon23]

Duncan isn't self-sufficient

you aren't self-sufficient. based on your posting history, you need to lick kobe's balls everyday in order to survive.

[Lebron23]

Shaquille O'Neal. Shaq always owned Tim Duncan and David Robinson in their head to head matchup. ( Playoffs and Regular Season).

[ExtremeHops]

Duncan has been consistently excellent throughout his career, and he is still a top 10 player today; Shaq was more dominant but his career has tailed off more dramatically.

Duncan > Shaq (whole career)
Shaq > Duncan (peak)

[Showtime]

Duncan isn't self-sufficient
What? Duncan is the most fundamentally sound big of this era. He can score in a variety of ways. Only idiots who don't understand him think he's not "self sufficient", because to you, that means scoring a lot of points. Duncan is a team oriented player which is something you can't understand because you have a warped sense of basketball.

[KB42PAH]

What? Duncan is the most fundamentally sound big of this era. He can score in a variety of ways. Only idiots who don't understand him think he's not "self sufficient", because to you, that means scoring a lot of points. Duncan is a team oriented player which is something you can't understand because you have a warped sense of basketball.

How can you be fundamentally sound if you can't make Free throws?

[rawimpact]

How can you be fundamentally sound if you can't make Free throws?

You are completely off man, Shaq in 2000 > Anyone in the league

[Mr Know It All]

Prime Shaq was the most dominant force since prime Wilt, and that's saying a whole hell of alot. Even though Shaq has been steadily declining since 2004, his dominance is enough to put him easily as the best player of this decade. And Timmy D is my favourite player.

[VCMVP1551]

[QUOTE=biisak]You didn

[kwajo]

How can you be fundamentally sound if you can't make Free throws?
Duncan has had seasons where he shot 76, 71, & 80% from the line, which is miles ahead of anything Shaq ever has.


Kobe>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

Your blog post makes my inner-child feel raped.

[Shep]

tim duncan.

kevin garnett is also better than o'neal.

[VCMVP1551]

tim duncan.

kevin garnett is also better than o'neal.

That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Amazing.............

[Shep]

That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Amazing.............
:roll: that was easily the funniest thing i've ever read on this board. congratulations........

[guy]

That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Amazing.............

Don't worry about it. According to him, Michael Jordan was never the best player in the league during the 90s.

[guy]

tim duncan.

kevin garnett is also better than o'neal.

Just out of curiosity, can you give us an explanation on how KG was better then O'Neal?

[VCMVP1551]

:roll: that was easily the funniest thing i've ever read on this board. congratulations........

To a delusional person like you I guess that would be funny.

[Shep]

Just out of curiosity, can you give us an explanation on how KG was better then O'Neal?
the top 10 players in the nba

garnett: '00 (2), '01 (5), '02 (4), '03 (2), '04 (1), '05 (1), '06 (did not feature), '07 (10), '08 (5)

o'neal: '00 (1), '01 (1), '02 (3), '04 (3), '05 (7), did not feature in '06, '07, '08, and will definately not feature in '09

To a delusional person like you I guess that would be funny.
anyone would laugh at someone saying facts are dumb

[VCMVP1551]

I can't believe I'm actually wasting my time debataing this but Shaq has 3 more championships this decade, 4 more finals appearances this decade and 3 more finals MVP's this decade as well as a scoring title. Garnett never dominated the NBA like Shaq did for the first half of the decade as well. Not even close.

[Shep]

shaq dominated half a decade, good for him. we're talking about a full decade here, not a half decade. shaq has been a role player for a half decade, garnett has been the best player on every team he has been on every year of this decade. both players were the best in the nba on 2 years, but garnett was in the top tier for an entire decade, whereas shaq was for a half decade.

[juju151111]

tim duncan.

kevin garnett is also better than o'neal.
:lol :oldlol: :roll:

[ZHAKIDD532]

Duncan only has 3 titles in the 2000s, he won his 1st in '99...

[Shep]

:lol :oldlol: :roll:
:sleeping

[guy]

the top 10 players in the nba

garnett: '00 (2), '01 (5), '02 (4), '03 (2), '04 (1), '05 (1), '06 (did not feature), '07 (10), '08 (5)

o'neal: '00 (1), '01 (1), '02 (3), '04 (3), '05 (7), did not feature in '06, '07, '08, and will definately not feature in '09

anyone would laugh at someone saying facts are dumb

Wow, I actually thought you would give some dumber reason. I still think its absolutely moronic to think KG has been better then Shaq this decade, but if you look at it that way its not as horrible. The way I look at it is by asking myself "who would most coaches/GMs prefer to have built around over the past decade knowing what we know now?" IMO the list would go 1. Shaq 2. Duncan 3. Kobe 4. KG

[juju151111]

:sleeping
KG is not better then Shaq.Maybe 36 year old shaq, but not prime shaq.I want to see wat KG will be putting up at 36.

[Shep]

Wow, I actually thought you would give some dumber reason. I still think its absolutely moronic to think KG has been better then Shaq this decade, but if you look at it that way its not as horrible. The way I look at it is by asking myself "who would most coaches/GMs prefer to have built around over the past decade knowing what we know now?" IMO the list would go 1. Shaq 2. Duncan 3. Kobe 4. KG
give me kg with shaq's teammates and i'll choose kg this decade anyday, as will any other smart person. if you want 3 championships and your salary cap eaten away for the majority of the rest of the decade while you strugge to make the playoffs, choose shaq. kg + kobe = championships. kg + wade = championships. plus there would be no chemistry issues, so great teams would not have to be broken up because your star player is a baby.

KG is not better then Shaq.Maybe 36 year old shaq, but not prime shaq.I want to see wat KG will be putting up at 36.
overall this decade (which is what we are talking about) yes, kg is better than shaq for reasons already outlined.

[plowking]

KG is not better then Shaq.Maybe 36 year old shaq, but not prime shaq.I want to see wat KG will be putting up at 36.

Shaq is putting up better numbers now then Garnett is.

[guy]

give me kg with shaq's teammates and i'll choose kg this decade anyday, as will any other smart person. if you want 3 championships and your salary cap eaten away for the majority of the rest of the decade while you strugge to make the playoffs, choose shaq. kg + kobe = championships. kg + wade = championships. plus there would be no chemistry issues, so great teams would not have to be broken up because your star player is a baby.


When did Shaq struggle to make the playoffs? And are we assuming Shaq takes the same path as KG? If so, I will agree with you that I would take KG with supporting casts that include Kobe and Wade over Shaq with a sh**** supporting cast in Minnesota, but that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean KG > Shaq. You're a moron if you think those Laker teams would've been more successful with KG then a prime Shaq during that time. Even with Shaq, the Lakers barely got past certain teams like the Blazers in 00 and the Kings in 02. With KG instead, they probably lose those years.

[EricForman]

That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.

Shaq ****s on Oscar every which way. it's an insult to compare Oscar, who won one title as the second best player, to Shaq, who won three as the undisputed #1 by far and then a 4th as the sidekick, aka as "The Oscar".

[juju151111]

give me kg with shaq's teammates and i'll choose kg this decade anyday, as will any other smart person. if you want 3 championships and your salary cap eaten away for the majority of the rest of the decade while you strugge to make the playoffs, choose shaq. kg + kobe = championships. kg + wade = championships. plus there would be no chemistry issues, so great teams would not have to be broken up because your star player is a baby.

overall this decade (which is what we are talking about) yes, kg is better than shaq for reasons already outlined.
I didn't now salaries and off court issues had anything to do with this.In 02 who was the 2 players better then shaq?LOL i guess shaq having 4 rings. in this decade doesn't matter.Show his 4 rings,show me the finals MVpS Oh wait. PP took it from him lmfao LOL SO ur saying When kome was choking in 00,01 finals KG would of put up shaq # which is up there with MJ finals stats.lmao KG would get the same double teams??lol stay off the crack.

[VCMVP1551]

shaq dominated half a decade, good for him. we're talking about a full decade here, not a half decade. shaq has been a role player for a half decade, garnett has been the best player on every team he has been on every year of this decade. both players were the best in the nba on 2 years, but garnett was in the top tier for an entire decade, whereas shaq was for a half decade.

Shaq accomplished more during the 3peat alone than Garnett has in the whole decade.

[Lebron23]

neither, the best player is kobe bean bryant.:rockon:


I think you are the most annoying poster in this forum.

Both Shaq and Duncan won Finals MVP as the best player of their respective teams, and they always puts up excellent numbers in the NBA Finals.

[JJ81]

This should answer your question: http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

[Godfather]

tim duncan.

kevin garnett is also better than o'neal.

You are perhaps a top ten terrible poster on ISH.

[Lebron23]

This should answer your question: http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html


1. How many Finals MVP did Kobe won while playing for the Los Angeles Lakers?

2. How many memorable Finals Performance?

3. What's the record of the Los Angeles Lakers after Shaq was traded to the Miami Heat?

I am not a fan of Tim Duncan, but he's a much better player than Kobe Bryant because he is one of the greatest playoffs performer of all time, and he never throw his teammates under the bus.

Kobe is the better scorer, but Duncan is the leader of the Spurs team that won 3 NBA Championships in this decade.

I'd take 3 NBA Finals MVP over his 81 points performance againts the Toronto Raptors.

[Shep]

When did Shaq struggle to make the playoffs?
you mentioned who would most coaches/GMs prefer to have built around over the past decade knowing what we know now? and i destroyed the shaq over kg argument accordingly. you will get superstar production and a few 'chips for the first half of the decade, but for the second half of the decade you will get decreased production, and salary cap problems, thus missing the playoffs becomes more than likely.

And are we assuming Shaq takes the same path as KG? If so, I will agree with you that I would take KG with supporting casts that include Kobe and Wade over Shaq with a sh**** supporting cast in Minnesota, but that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean KG > Shaq.
kg > shaq because of things already outlined, including time at the top of the league. we are talking about a decade of basketball here, not 3 years.

You're a moron if you think those Laker teams would've been more successful with KG then a prime Shaq during that time. Even with Shaq, the Lakers barely got past certain teams like the Blazers in 00 and the Kings in 02. With KG instead, they probably lose those years.
who knows how the lakers play with kevin garnett instead of shaquille o'neal? i know for a fact that he would've stayed longer instead of having chemistry issues, weight issues, and motivation issues every year, thus resulting in more opportunities to win championships.

I didn't now salaries and off court issues had anything to do with this
you obviously don't know much

In 02 who was the 2 players better then shaq?
tim duncan and chris webber

LOL i guess shaq having 4 rings. in this decade doesn't matter.
it comes into play, yes. sucking for a half decade also comes into play.

Show his 4 rings,show me the finals MVpS Oh wait. PP took it from him lmfao
garnett was definately more valuable than pierce that series

SO ur saying When kome was choking in 00,01 finals KG would of put up shaq # which is up there with MJ finals stats.lmao KG would get the same double teams??lol stay off the crack.
garnett was the second best player in the nba in '00, and a top 5 player in '01 so it is definately a real chance of happening.

Shaq accomplished more during the 3peat alone than Garnett has in the whole decade.
:roll: go and take shaq's combined production in 3 years and combine it to garnett's in 10 years then. this will be interesting :lol

You are perhaps a top ten terrible poster on ISH.
aw i'm a top 10 terrible poster :cry:

[VCMVP1551]

it comes into play, yes. sucking for a half decade also comes into play.

Sucking? He averaged atleast 20 and 9 for the first 7 seasons of this decade and he won his 4 championship in that seventh season. Even in 2007 he far from sucked. He carried that Miami team to a 19-7 record after Wade went down and he got them into the playoffs. This year he's averaging 18 and 9 in 30 mintues and he'll likely be an all-star.


garnett was the second best player in the nba in '00, and a top 5 player in '01 so it is definately a real chance of happening.

Look at Shaq's finals stats those years.

2000- 38.0 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.7 bpg, 61.1 FG%
2001- 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

KG has never been anywhere near that dominant so no he most likely wouldn't have been near that dominant in those finals.


:roll: go and take shaq's combined production in 3 years and combine it to garnett's in 10 years then. this will be interesting :lol


Shaq 3 seasons combined
Regular Season- 28.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.6 bpg, 57.5 FG%
Playoffs- 29.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.2 FG%
Finals- 35.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 59.5 FG%

3 Championships, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP(another one deserved in 2001), 1 scoring title, , 3-time leader in FG%, top 3 in scoring all time 3 seasons, top 3 in rebounding twice, top 4 in blocks twice,

Give me a list of accomplishments from Garnett this decade that compare to that resume.

Garnett in this entire decade has only played 3 more playoff games than Shaq played those 3 seasons. And that's with the extra games added to the first round in 2 of those seasons since the 3peat. :roll:

[the.powerhouse1]

What KG can't get no love? Imagine if he hadn't spent all those years with the T-Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!


:hammertime:

[BA_God]

What KG can't get no love? Imagine if he hadn't spent all those years with the T-Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!


:hammertime:

Truly great player need neither EXCUSE nor big IF.
that's why.

Garnett is definitely on everyone's top 5 list in this decade. but He is neither Duncan nor Oneal.

[kwajo]

What KG can't get no love? Imagine if he hadn't spent all those years with the T-Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!


:hammertime:
Who cares about hyptheticals? KG did play in Minnesota for a long time, he did miss the playoffs several times, he did fail to win a title there and he was always a step behind Shaq and Duncan in terms of dominance. End of story.

[the.powerhouse1]

KG didn't...

...have Kobe, D-Wade, Ginoboli, Robinson or anyone of that kind of caliber as a sidekick
...have any quality role players who could knock down shots under preasure when he was double teamed
...have an organisation that wanted to win

I could carry on here... but truth is with his intensity if he had been playing for the lakers or the spurs he would have more than 4 championships by now without a doubt.

Case closed:violin:

Hamertime! :hammertime:

[guy]

you mentioned who would most coaches/GMs prefer to have built around over the past decade knowing what we know now? and i destroyed the shaq over kg argument accordingly. you will get superstar production and a few 'chips for the first half of the decade, but for the second half of the decade you will get decreased production, and salary cap problems, thus missing the playoffs becomes more than likely.

How did you destroy the argument? Would most coaches/GMs prefer KG over Shaq? NO WAY. Most coaches will still take Shaq even with the decreased production and salary cap problems. And seriously, why are you even mentioning salary cap problems, when KG signed one of the biggest contracts ever in sports? And you act like Shaq missed the playoffs? Did he ever miss the playoffs? NO. He was on his way last year before he got traded, but he was also playing with Ricky Davis as his best teammate. Wade was an injured mess. On the other hand, KG missed it for 3 straight years. I can't really blame him too much for that, but to bring up playoff success as a way to say KG > Shaq is pretty ridiculous. Is this a joke?



kg > shaq because of things already outlined, including time at the top of the league. we are talking about a decade of basketball here, not 3 years.

Ok, KG has been more consistent, but that doesn't mean he's been better.



who knows how the lakers play with kevin garnett instead of shaquille o'neal? i know for a fact that he would've stayed longer instead of having chemistry issues, weight issues, and motivation issues every year, thus resulting in more opportunities to win championships.


How do you know that? If you can call that fact, then I can say KG not winning 3 titles with the Lakers is a fact too. I don't care about more opportunities to win championships. F** the opportunities, just ask the question is he winning more championships with Shaq's teams, and its probably a NO.

[VCMVP1551]

Knowing what we know now, I think GM's would take a guranteed 4 championships and 5 finals appearances.

[the.powerhouse1]

Problem with this thread is that it is very debatable if shaq and duncan were the best two players of the 2000s. I mean shaq's game had major flaws, playing him during the last 2 minutes of a game was always an issue. and although tim duncan's game has always been flawless I always thought he is coasting through his career. He has the championships to justify what he does, but I think the potential was there for him to have been even better and more spectacular. I recon if the best player of the 2000s has to have at least won a finals D-Wade and Garnett have to be taken into account. And D-Wade hasn't been around long enough, so best player in th 2000s has to be Garnett.

And again

Hammertime!

:hammertime:

[VCMVP1551]

Problem with this thread is that it is very debatable if shaq and duncan were the best two players of the 2000s. I mean shaq's game had major flaws, playing him during the last 2 minutes of a game was always an issue. and although tim duncan's game has always been flawless I always thought he is coasting through his career. He has the championships to justify what he does, but I think the potential was there for him to have been even better and more spectacular. I recon if the best player of the 2000s has to have at least won a finals D-Wade and Garnett have to be taken into account. And D-Wade hasn't been around long enough, so best player in th 2000s has to be Garnett.

And again

Hammertime!

:hammertime:

Almost no part of that post made sense.

[the.powerhouse1]

yea, the english language can be a challenge for some charles

[drza44]

This should answer your question: http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

That is one of the most flawed "articles" I've ever seen. The arguments were all very skewed, using metrics that Kobe is good at as the standards and either minimizing or ignoring the areas where Duncan is better. Every "double standard" and "myth" in the article has a clear, extremely easy to make rebuttal that isn't even considered (you HAVE to consider the counterarguments to have a legitimate analytical piece). Even a Kobe fan shouldn't feel good using that article as "evidence" of anything, as it has very little legitimate analysis in it.

Truthfully, it is hard to make comparisons between Duncan (and Shaq) and Bryant (and Garnett) because of the differences in team situations (and even position played, which makes a difference as well). Shaq and Duncan have enjoyed a much higher consistency of strong support than Bryant and Garnett, which means that any comp that includes team success (and almost all do) will end up being either skewed or full of hypotheticals...neither of which is optimal. It's much easier to compare Duncan and Shaq (as this thread seeks to) or Garnett and Bryant, as they've had more time with comparable teammate situations with which to form an argument.

If one feels the need to bring Kobe into this discussion, a Kobe/Duncan comp isn't one that Kobe can easily win. Both have championships on strong teams, but whereas Duncan was the best player on his championship teams Kobe was not. That really does make a difference. Kobe doesn't even have one championship yet as the best player on his team, and until he does that's a debate that is hard to win on message boards.

Duncan has the better individual accolades: 2 MVPs vs. 1, 3 Finals MVPs vs. 0, more appearances on the first team All NBA/All Defensive teams. There's again the caveat that those are all influenced by teammate caliber, but again it is hard to win a message board argument on that point (valid though it is) because most just don't care to look beyond the obvious.

Kobe has the advantage in individual stat titles (i.e. 2 scoring titles, 4 times most total points in league) whereas Duncan never won a stat title and only once led the league in total rebounds. However, I'm also big on advanced stats, and Duncan handles Kobe pretty easily in every advanced metric that I've seen (i.e. wins produced, win shares, PER, +/- (in the years I've seen), net off/def rating, Roland Rating (82games.com), etc.). Duncan has led the league 4 times in defensive win shares, 3 times in defensive rating, once in offensive win shares and once it total win shares. He has at least one year at the top of the on-court/off-court +/- ranking according to 82games.com. Kobe's never led the league in any advanced stat, as far as I know.

So if Duncan has clear advantages in team success (could be influenced by teammates), has clear advantages in INDIVIDUAL success as measured by both major accolades (also influenced by teammates) AND advanced stats (more about the individual)...it is hard for me to find the foundation for an argument that Kobe has been better this decade.

[drza44]

What KG can't get no love? Imagine if he hadn't spent all those years with the T-Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hammertime:

The Garnett argument vs. Duncan or Shaq also isn't one that can realistically be won on message boards right now, for many of the same reasons that I laid out for Kobe. Those that check my posting history probably realize that I personally believe Garnett deserves a place at that table. But I'm also realistic enough to know what wins message board arguments: easy-to-make arguments, no in-depth points or caveats, and in some cases overwhelming fandom.

IMO Garnett has a better argument for a seat at the table than Kobe does, if the standards are some combination of team success, individual success, and making the most of your situations:

Team success: Garnett does have a title now, which puts him into the top team accolades category. Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe all have leads here with multiple titles to Garnett's one. Garnett did win as the best player on his team, which gives him a leg-up on Kobe but the lack of the Finals MVP still leaves him far behind Shaq/Duncan on that front. Garnett has also had by-far the worst teammate support of this group over the decade, but that isn't really a point that wins much support in these types of discussions so I'll abandon it for now.

Garnett does have both an MVP and a DPoY award for prime individual accolades, putting him ahead of Shaq (1 MVP) and Kobe (1 MVP) and slightly behind Duncan's 2 MVPs. Garnett does trail the group in First team All NBA selections and trails Duncan in First team All Defensive NBA selections, but Garnett is still perennially on those teams and (as I pointed out with Kobe) there is also some teammate effect in these types of awards as well.

Garnett has the advantage in individual category titles (4 rebounding titles, 2 times most total rebounds, 1 time most total points) verses all of the others, as Shaq (2 scoring titles, 3 times most total points), Kobe (2 scoring titles, 4 times most total points) and Duncan (0 titles, 1 time most total rebounds) all trail Garnett in both total number and diversity of categories led.

Garnett also compares favorably in the advanced stats battle with the rest of the crew. Shaq leads in PER and total win shares while Duncan leads in defensive win shares and net ORTG/DRTG differential, but Garnett leads in wins produced, +/- (in the years I've seen calculated), and Roland Rating (82games.com, again in the years I've seen calculated). Kobe trails the other three just about across the board.

Bottom line: the areas where Garnett trails Shaq/Duncan can almost all be tied (to at least some extent) to teammate quality. KG holds his own or leads in many of the areas that are more fully determined by individual production. KG has also shown that when he does get team support that looks like what Shaq/Duncan have enjoyed, he enjoys similar team success.

All of that said, I still realize that arguing KG over Shaq or Duncan isn't a debate that can currently be won on a message board. It requires too much analysis, too many caveats, and requires the reader to do too many "what ifs?" to really work. Plus, KG doesn't have nearly the degree of fandom that Kobe does (and this year, in fact, KG's fan support is at an all time low around here) so he doesn't even have the "fans-simply-overwhelm-with-numbers" chance that Kobe does in this type of argument. So I know KG won't win on here, or even be seriously considered by most. That doesn't mean a good case for him can't be made, though, as hopefully I made a start at with this post.

[juju151111]

you mentioned who would most coaches/GMs prefer to have built around over the past decade knowing what we know now? and i destroyed the shaq over kg argument accordingly. you will get superstar production and a few 'chips for the first half of the decade, but for the second half of the decade you will get decreased production, and salary cap problems, thus missing the playoffs becomes more than likely.

kg > shaq because of things already outlined, including time at the top of the league. we are talking about a decade of basketball here, not 3 years.

who knows how the lakers play with kevin garnett instead of shaquille o'neal? i know for a fact that he would've stayed longer instead of having chemistry issues, weight issues, and motivation issues every year, thus resulting in more opportunities to win championships.

you obviously don't know much

tim duncan and chris webber

it comes into play, yes. sucking for a half decade also comes into play.

garnett was definately more valuable than pierce that series

garnett was the second best player in the nba in '00, and a top 5 player in '01 so it is definately a real chance of happening.

:roll: go and take shaq's combined production in 3 years and combine it to garnett's in 10 years then. this will be interesting :lol

aw i'm a top 10 terrible poster :cry:
Chirs webber and tim duncan???How the **** was Chris webber better then shaq in 02???Please explain urself and show stats and Facts.LMFAO Also timmy was not either.Show me the facts.Who was the finals MVP and dominated that year???LOL Sucking for half decade??Shaq only missed the playoffs like once this whole decade.WTF are u on??

[Shep]

Sucking? He averaged atleast 20 and 9 for the first 7 seasons of this decade and he won his 4 championship in that seventh season. Even in 2007 he far from sucked. He carried that Miami team to a 19-7 record after Wade went down and he got them into the playoffs. This year he's averaging 18 and 9 in 30 mintues and he'll likely be an all-star.
sucking in comparison with his play in the first half of the decade, and also in comparison with kevin garnett's play

Look at Shaq's finals stats those years.

2000- 38.0 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.7 bpg, 61.1 FG%
2001- 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

KG has never been anywhere near that dominant so no he most likely wouldn't have been near that dominant in those finals.
garnett played as good as if not better than o'neal did against portland in those playoffs so who knows what numbers he would've had in the finals. in 2001 kg wouldn't have to put up such numbers as it would've been a cakewalk over philly no matter how he played.

Shaq 3 seasons combined
Regular Season- 28.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.6 bpg, 57.5 FG%
Playoffs- 29.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.2 FG%
Finals- 35.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 59.5 FG%

3 Championships, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP(another one deserved in 2001), 1 scoring title, , 3-time leader in FG%, top 3 in scoring all time 3 seasons, top 3 in rebounding twice, top 4 in blocks twice,

Give me a list of accomplishments from Garnett this decade that compare to that resume.
combine meaning totals, go ahead and add up o'neal's totals in 3 years compared to garnett's for a decade.

then if you want you've got their 3 best season totals:
garnett: 5687 points, 3349 rebounds, 1370 assists, 345 steals, 419 blocks
o'neal: 6138 points , 2778 rebounds, 776 assists, 119 steals, 614 blocks

so o'neal has more points and blocks, while garnett has more rebounds, near double the assists, and near triple the steals.

shaq has also missed near on 20 games per season on average, while kg has missed just over 20 games total.

add the fact the garnett has never had a superstar teammate, while shaq has had one almost every year.

kg has been the better defender almost every year

garnett has been top 4 most valuable in 6 out of 9 seasons so far, o'neal 4 times

and as previously mentioned:
the top 10 players in the nba

garnett: '00 (2), '01 (5), '02 (4), '03 (2), '04 (1), '05 (1), '06 (did not feature), '07 (10), '08 (5)

o'neal: '00 (1), '01 (1), '02 (3), '04 (3), '05 (7), did not feature in '06, '07, '08, and will definately not feature in '09

Garnett in this entire decade has only played 3 more playoff games than Shaq played those 3 seasons. And that's with the extra games added to the first round in 2 of those seasons since the 3peat.
:lol you want to talk about playoff games? lets talk about coaches, systems, superstar teammates. then we'll talk about how long shaq would last with wally szczerbiak and ricky davis among your best players before he cried to management and demanded a trade :roll:

How did you destroy the argument? Would most coaches/GMs prefer KG over Shaq? NO WAY.
again, give them the same situation at the start of this decade at their respective ages, and all smart people will choose garnett over o'neal.

Most coaches will still take Shaq even with the decreased production and salary cap problems.
:lol

And seriously, why are you even mentioning salary cap problems, when KG signed one of the biggest contracts ever in sports?
because shaq was still getting payed 25 million when he was getting outplayed by dampier and diop, and manhandled by stackhouse :roll: . meanwhile garnett is getting payed, but he is still and will be still a top 5 player in this league until his contract has finished.

And you act like Shaq missed the playoffs? Did he ever miss the playoffs? NO. He was on his way last year before he got traded, but he was also playing with Ricky Davis as his best teammate. Wade was an injured mess.
i'm saying shaq would miss the playoffs in a situation where silly gm's chose him over garnett. 25 million on the cap, averaging 14 and 7, missing 30 games per season, can't sign anyone but trash. you will miss the playoffs.

On the other hand, KG missed it for 3 straight years. I can't really blame him too much for that, but to bring up playoff success as a way to say KG > Shaq is pretty ridiculous. Is this a joke?
when did i say kg's playoffs > shaq's playoffs? are you a joke?

Ok, KG has been more consistent, but that doesn't mean he's been better.
in terms of 10 years kg has been better overall

How do you know that? If you can call that fact, then I can say KG not winning 3 titles with the Lakers is a fact too. I don't care about more opportunities to win championships. F** the opportunities, just ask the question is he winning more championships with Shaq's teams, and its probably a NO.
you brought up hypotheticals, i'm only giving you an acurate description of what the most likely outcome would be under these circumstances, and now you're crying to me asking how do i know that? :roll: hilarity at its peak.

Knowing what we know now, I think GM's would take a guranteed 4 championships and 5 finals appearances.
how would that be guaranteed? the championships came on diferent teams, and you'd have to take o'neal for the whole decade. garnett is the obvious choice here.

Chirs webber and tim duncan???How the **** was Chris webber better then shaq in 02???Please explain urself and show stats and Facts.
first of all he was better statistically - with 24.5ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.8apg, 1.7spg, and 1.4bpg
then you've got the fact that he led the kings to the best record in the nba, and they were 42-12 with him in the line up

LMFAO Also timmy was not either.Show me the facts.
duncan was the best player in the nba and yes, better than o'neal. better statistically again, and won the same amount of games. duncan was an easy choice for mvp that season, was only a year away from his peak (and had his second best season ever), and was named to the first team all defense on top of averaging 25.5ppg, 12.7rpg, 3.7apg, .7spg, and 2.5bpg.

Who was the finals MVP and dominated that year???
duncan dominated that year, webber was the second best player that year. finals mvp? so parker was the best in the nba a few years back? :roll:

LOL Sucking for half decade??Shaq only missed the playoffs like once this whole decade.
sucking compared to his previous production and that of kevin garnett.

WTF are u on??
your moms bed

[Duncan21formvp]

Garnett made it out of round 1 one time before the Celtics how is he even close to Shaq who has 3 finals mvp's and 3 top 10 finals performances ever along with Duncan and MJ?

[juju151111]

sucking in comparison with his play in the first half of the decade, and also in comparison with kevin garnett's play

garnett played as good as if not better than o'neal did against portland in those playoffs so who knows what numbers he would've had in the finals. in 2001 kg wouldn't have to put up such numbers as it would've been a cakewalk over philly no matter how he played.

combine meaning totals, go ahead and add up o'neal's totals in 3 years compared to garnett's for a decade.

then if you want you've got their 3 best season totals:
garnett: 5687 points, 3349 rebounds, 1370 assists, 345 steals, 419 blocks
o'neal: 6138 points , 2778 rebounds, 776 assists, 119 steals, 614 blocks

so o'neal has more points and blocks, while garnett has more rebounds, near double the assists, and near triple the steals.

shaq has also missed near on 20 games per season on average, while kg has missed just over 20 games total.

add the fact the garnett has never had a superstar teammate, while shaq has had one almost every year.

kg has been the better defender almost every year

garnett has been top 4 most valuable in 6 out of 9 seasons so far, o'neal 4 times

and as previously mentioned:
the top 10 players in the nba

garnett: '00 (2), '01 (5), '02 (4), '03 (2), '04 (1), '05 (1), '06 (did not feature), '07 (10), '08 (5)

o'neal: '00 (1), '01 (1), '02 (3), '04 (3), '05 (7), did not feature in '06, '07, '08, and will definately not feature in '09

:lol you want to talk about playoff games? lets talk about coaches, systems, superstar teammates. then we'll talk about how long shaq would last with wally szczerbiak and ricky davis among your best players before he cried to management and demanded a trade :roll:

again, give them the same situation at the start of this decade at their respective ages, and all smart people will choose garnett over o'neal.

:lol

because shaq was still getting payed 25 million when he was getting outplayed by dampier and diop, and manhandled by stackhouse :roll: . meanwhile garnett is getting payed, but he is still and will be still a top 5 player in this league until his contract has finished.

i'm saying shaq would miss the playoffs in a situation where silly gm's chose him over garnett. 25 million on the cap, averaging 14 and 7, missing 30 games per season, can't sign anyone but trash. you will miss the playoffs.

when did i say kg's playoffs > shaq's playoffs? are you a joke?

in terms of 10 years kg has been better overall

you brought up hypotheticals, i'm only giving you an acurate description of what the most likely outcome would be under these circumstances, and now you're crying to me asking how do i know that? :roll: hilarity at its peak.

how would that be guaranteed? the championships came on diferent teams, and you'd have to take o'neal for the whole decade. garnett is the obvious choice here.

first of all he was better statistically - with 24.5ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.8apg, 1.7spg, and 1.4bpg
then you've got the fact that he led the kings to the best record in the nba, and they were 42-12 with him in the line up

duncan was the best player in the nba and yes, better than o'neal. better statistically again, and won the same amount of games. duncan was an easy choice for mvp that season, was only a year away from his peak (and had his second best season ever), and was named to the first team all defense on top of averaging 25.5ppg, 12.7rpg, 3.7apg, .7spg, and 2.5bpg.

duncan dominated that year, webber was the second best player that year. finals mvp? so parker was the best in the nba a few years back? :roll:

sucking compared to his previous production and that of kevin garnett.

your moms bed
:lol BS Shaq averged 27.2,10.7rebs,2blks,57%,on 36 mins while webber put those stats up in 38mins.LOL BS and it's arguement who was better that season.Webber stats isn't so greater then his stats at all.Shaq stats compare with Duncan too and shaq raped both in the playoffs that year and won finals MVP.Show me webber and Duncan using destroying shaq that year??BS LOl Why are u comparing parker to great players like shaq and Duncan.Noone is talking about 2nd fiddle players winning finals MVP, but the big names.Shaq Led his team to the finals.IYO webber and duncan was better, but thats just ur hating talking.

LOL KG has won 1 chip this year and will start to decline in about 2 years.I don't know wat GM would take 1 ring over four in the span of 10 years.LOL Now ur cliaming KG can put up Shaq 3rd best all-time finals stats.ROTFLMFAO KG can't dominate like Shaq in his Prime.Please don't make that cliam.I would like to see wat he would do in 00,01 with kobe choking.Also please name the 6 players bettter then shaq in 05.

[Shep]

BS Shaq averged 27.2,10.7rebs,2blks,57%,on 36 mins while webber put those stats up in 38mins
minutes does not come into the equation

LOL BS and it's arguement who was better that season
argue all you want, you'll just continue to get destroyed

Webber stats isn't so greater then his stats at all.
they weren't greater by a large margin, but they were greater

Shaq stats compare with Duncan too and shaq raped both in the playoffs that year and won finals MVP.
duncan's stats were better by a wider margin than webber's were in comparison to o'neal's. shaq didn't rape either of those guys in the playoffs that year either. he averaged a pitiful 21 ppg against duncan and the spurs, while duncan was simply outclassing o'neal in every single category and averaged 29ppg, 17rpg, 5apg, 1spg, and 3bpg. and he was atleast matched by webber's 24/11/6 in the kings series, and if it wasn't for the lakers having the officials win games 5 and 7 for them it would've been a five game series victory for sacramento.

Show me webber and Duncan using destroying shaq that year??BS LOl
destroyed

Why are u comparing parker to great players like shaq and Duncan.Noone is talking about 2nd fiddle players winning finals MVP, but the big names.Shaq Led his team to the finals.
you mentioned finals mvp while arguing who was the best player. i destroyed this with the parker argument.

IYO webber and duncan was better, but thats just ur hating talking.
no hating here. just plain facts.

LOL KG has won 1 chip this year and will start to decline in about 2 years.I don't know wat GM would take 1 ring over four in the span of 10 years.LOL Now ur cliaming KG can put up Shaq 3rd best all-time finals stats.ROTFLMFAO KG can't dominate like Shaq in his Prime.Please don't make that cliam.I would like to see wat he would do in 00,01 with kobe choking.
kobe bailed shaq out numerous times. he wouldn't make it past the second round without having another superstar who could hit outside shots and free throws on his team. the rest has been already destroyed by "garnett played as good as if not better than o'neal did against portland in those playoffs so who knows what numbers he would've had in the finals. in 2001 kg wouldn't have to put up such numbers as it would've been a cakewalk over philly no matter how he played."

Also please name the 6 players bettter then shaq in 05.
kevin garnett, dirk nowitzki, lebron james, tim duncan, shawn marion, and dwyane wade

[Tuvi]

Good comparrison Id say shaq by a bit.

[KB42PAH]

The Garnett argument vs. Duncan or Shaq also isn't one that can realistically be won on message boards right now, for many of the same reasons that I laid out for Kobe. Those that check my posting history probably realize that I personally believe Garnett deserves a place at that table. But I'm also realistic enough to know what wins message board arguments: easy-to-make arguments, no in-depth points or caveats, and in some cases overwhelming fandom.

IMO Garnett has a better argument for a seat at the table than Kobe does, if the standards are some combination of team success, individual success, and making the most of your situations:

Team success: Garnett does have a title now, which puts him into the top team accolades category. Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe all have leads here with multiple titles to Garnett's one. Garnett did win as the best player on his team, which gives him a leg-up on Kobe but the lack of the Finals MVP still leaves him far behind Shaq/Duncan on that front. Garnett has also had by-far the worst teammate support of this group over the decade, but that isn't really a point that wins much support in these types of discussions so I'll abandon it for now.

Garnett does have both an MVP and a DPoY award for prime individual accolades, putting him ahead of Shaq (1 MVP) and Kobe (1 MVP) and slightly behind Duncan's 2 MVPs. Garnett does trail the group in First team All NBA selections and trails Duncan in First team All Defensive NBA selections, but Garnett is still perennially on those teams and (as I pointed out with Kobe) there is also some teammate effect in these types of awards as well.

Garnett has the advantage in individual category titles (4 rebounding titles, 2 times most total rebounds, 1 time most total points) verses all of the others, as Shaq (2 scoring titles, 3 times most total points), Kobe (2 scoring titles, 4 times most total points) and Duncan (0 titles, 1 time most total rebounds) all trail Garnett in both total number and diversity of categories led.

Garnett also compares favorably in the advanced stats battle with the rest of the crew. Shaq leads in PER and total win shares while Duncan leads in defensive win shares and net ORTG/DRTG differential, but Garnett leads in wins produced, +/- (in the years I've seen calculated), and Roland Rating (82games.com, again in the years I've seen calculated). Kobe trails the other three just about across the board.

Bottom line: the areas where Garnett trails Shaq/Duncan can almost all be tied (to at least some extent) to teammate quality. KG holds his own or leads in many of the areas that are more fully determined by individual production. KG has also shown that when he does get team support that looks like what Shaq/Duncan have enjoyed, he enjoys similar team success.

All of that said, I still realize that arguing KG over Shaq or Duncan isn't a debate that can currently be won on a message board. It requires too much analysis, too many caveats, and requires the reader to do too many "what ifs?" to really work. Plus, KG doesn't have nearly the degree of fandom that Kobe does (and this year, in fact, KG's fan support is at an all time low around here) so he doesn't even have the "fans-simply-overwhelm-with-numbers" chance that Kobe does in this type of argument. So I know KG won't win on here, or even be seriously considered by most. That doesn't mean a good case for him can't be made, though, as hopefully I made a start at with this post.


Kobe vs Duncan, head to head in playoffs

Kobe :4 playoff series wins
Duncan: 2 playoff series wins

Nuff said

2008 Lakers 4 , Spurs 1

Kobe 53% FG
Duncan 43% FG

[VCMVP1551]

kevin garnett, dirk nowitzki, lebron james, tim duncan, shawn marion, and dwyane wade

Marion??????! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Most of your other choices are laughable over Shaq too but Marion over Shaq borders on retarded.


minutes does not come into the equation


Everything comes into the equation, but more importantly Shaq averaging 2.7 more ppg, 0.6 more rpg, 0.84 better FG% and 0.6 more bpg in 2.3 less mpg and 13 more games.

Shaq also drew far more double teams and made a larger defensive impact while averaging better stats in less minutes and playing 13 more games!

Duncan has an argument for regular season, but by the end of the year there was a reason why almost everyone agreed that O'Neal was the best player in the league. For regular season MVP, Duncan was deserving in 2002, but Shaq was the better player.

[Duncan21formvp]

Kobe vs Duncan, head to head in playoffs

Kobe :4 playoff series wins
Duncan: 2 playoff series wins

Nuff said

2008 Lakers 4 , Spurs 1

Kobe 53% FG
Duncan 43% FG

Duncan 3 finals MVP's
Kobe 0 finals mvp's

That's all that matters.

[MrEncinas]

Duncan is good but he's barely a top 10 player in NBA franchise history, while Shaq is arguably a top 5.
wait what?

[Shep]

Marion??????!

Most of your other choices are laughable over Shaq too but Marion over Shaq borders on retarded.
thats funny you mention retarded, because every post of yours doesn't just border on retarded, it exceeds retarded by levels i've never thought possible

Everything comes into the equation, but more importantly Shaq averaging 2.7 more ppg, 0.6 more rpg, 0.84 better FG% and 0.6 more bpg in 2.3 less mpg and 13 more games.
again, overall webber was statistically superior. minutes does not enter the argument because you play the minutes you are capable of playing, or what your coach believes you are best serving your team at.

Shaq also drew far more double teams and made a larger defensive impact while averaging better stats in less minutes and playing 13 more games!
again, stats? destroyed. minutes argument? destroyed. drawing double teams? congratulations, if you set up 5 feet away from the basket every offensive possession you will get double'd alot more than a player who has the ability to use the low post and use the high post.

Duncan has an argument for regular season, but by the end of the year there was a reason why almost everyone agreed that O'Neal was the best player in the league. For regular season MVP, Duncan was deserving in 2002, but Shaq was the better player.
duncan was easily the most valuable player in the regular season, and dominated o'neal on an individual basis in the playoffs. who's everyone? smart people would have duncan and webber over o'neal in 2002.

[VCMVP1551]

thats funny you mention retarded, because every post of yours doesn't just border on retarded, it exceeds retarded by levels i've never thought possible

Says the guy who thought Marion was better than Shaq in 2005. :roll:


again, overall webber was statistically superior. minutes does not enter the argument because you play the minutes you are capable of playing, or what your coach believes you are best serving your team at.

Minutes show what the player is producing when they're on the court. Again you can't just assume players only play the minutes they're capable of. Shaq played 39.5 mpg in 2000-2001 and 37.8 mpg in 2002-2003, so it's very likely he was capable of playing more than the 36.1 he played.

Regardless of minutes, Shaq's stats were better. 2.7 more ppg, 0.6 more rpg, 0.84 better FG% and 0.6 more bpg in 13 more games.


drawing double teams? congratulations, if you set up 5 feet away from the basket every offensive possession you will get double'd alot more than a player who has the ability to use the low post and use the high post.

The more double teams you draw, the more you help your team. Shaq's dominance in the low post was far more valuable. Shots from 5-8 feet and in are more reliable. O'Neal had the strength to get those at will(hence his better scoring average and much better FG%). Keep in mind teams double players according to how difficult they are to stop.

Also keep in mind that Shaq got to the line 4.4 more times per game despite taking 1.6 less FGA per game. I know he only shot 56% but the fouls O'Neal drew also helped the Lakers set up their defense and he got the opposing team's big men in foul trouble.


duncan was easily the most valuable player in the regular season, and dominated o'neal on an individual basis in the playoffs. who's everyone? smart people would have duncan and webber over o'neal in 2002.

I agreed that Duncan was the deserving MVP for the 2001-2002 season.

In the 2002 playoffs Shaq faced both Duncan and Robinson a lot, plus he had more help than Duncan so he didn't have to do as much.

Duncan forced up a ridiculous 22.6 FGA/12.4 and shot a poor 42.5% from the floor. Tim also averaged 4.6 turnovers a game which is equal to his assist total.

While Duncan's stats look much more impressive at first glance, remember that Shaq averaged far less turnovers, he shot a better % and he took far less shots than Duncan. Duncan dominated the ball and wasn't efficient at all. Shaq faced more double teams and tougher defense and he played within the offense more.

By the way Duncan was at home while Shaq was dominating the Kings and then the Nets on his way to his 3rd straight Finals MVP and Championship. He averaged 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.8 bpg, 59.5 FG% in the finals.

Oh yeah, by the way as far as Shaq vs C-Webb.

Look at what each of them did in that Lakers vs Sacramento series.

Shaq- 30.3 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 1.6 apg, 2.4 bpg, 53.2 FG%, 63.8 FT%

C-Webb 24.3 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1.4 bpg, 51.3 FG%, 45.7 FT%

Shaq scored 6 more points per game, grabbed nearly 3 more rebounds per game, blocked an extra shot per game, shot a higher % from the floor and he shot a MUCH better % from the line. The ONLY argument C-Webb has is assists, but that doesn't NEARLY make up for EVERYTHING else, including the fact that C-Webb's team lost in 7 games.

[Shep]

Says the guy who thought Marion was better than Shaq in 2005.
yes? whats your point here? :confusedshrug:

Minutes show what the player is producing when they're on the court. Again you can't just assume players only play the minutes they're capable of. Shaq played 39.5 mpg in 2000-2001 and 37.8 mpg in 2002-2003, so it's very likely he was capable of playing more than the 36.1 he played.
phil jackson didn't think so, so no, he wasn't capable of playing any more than that, or any more time wouldn't be beneficial to the team.

Regardless of minutes, Shaq's stats were better. 2.7 more ppg, 0.6 more rpg, 0.84 better FG% and 0.6 more bpg in 13 more games.
games played does not matter when discussing who is better individually. and webber's stats were better. 20% better from the free throw line, 26% better from the three point line, 1.8 more apg, and 1.1 more spg

The more double teams you draw, the more you help your team. Shaq's dominance in the low post was far more valuable. Shots from 5-8 feet and in are more reliable. O'Neal had the strength to get those at will(hence his better scoring average and much better FG%). Keep in mind teams double players according to how difficult they are to stop.
wrong. teams double team in accordance to how close people are to the hoop. yes shaq had the fat to be able to offensive foul his way his man until he was 2 feet from the basket, webber had the ability and skill to spread the floor to allow other players to post up while playing the high post, and could make the entry pass, or could make difficult passes to cutting guards better than any big man in the nba.

In the 2002 playoffs Shaq faced both Duncan and Robinson a lot, plus he had more help than Duncan so he didn't have to do as much.
robinson only played in the last 3 games and was clearly still affected by his injury when he came back. shaq didn't have to do as much eh. he didn't have to do anything in the finals, kobe would've beaten new jersey by himself in 6 games yet he still averaged those numbers :oldlol:

Duncan forced up a ridiculous 22.6 FGA/12.4 and shot a poor 42.5% from the floor. Tim also averaged 4.6 turnovers a game which is equal to his assist total.
why is it duncan's fault that shaq couldn't get up a shot in the series? duncan's low field goal percent and high turnovers were a product of the spurs having no other offensive option so duncan had to force things/do it all himself. his second best player didn't play the first 2 games, and played injured in the last 3, and the only other player worth anything on the spurs roster was 19 year old rookie tony parker. you can't fault duncan in these circumstances, and there is no doubt he outplayed o'neal

While Duncan's stats look much more impressive at first glance, remember that Shaq averaged far less turnovers, he shot a better % and he took far less shots than Duncan. Duncan dominated the ball and wasn't efficient at all. Shaq faced more double teams and tougher defense and he played within the offense more.
you seem to be reaching. did you watch this series? have you watched it since it happened?

By the way Duncan was at home while Shaq was dominating the Kings and then the Nets on his way to his 3rd straight Finals MVP and Championship. He averaged 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.8 bpg, 59.5 FG% in the finals.
you already destroyed your own argument by saying "plus he had more help than Duncan"

Shaq scored 6 more points per game, grabbed nearly 3 more rebounds per game, blocked an extra shot per game, shot a higher % from the floor and he shot a MUCH better % from the line. The ONLY argument C-Webb has is assists, but that doesn't NEARLY make up for EVERYTHING else, including the fact that C-Webb's team lost in 7 games.

chris webber: 24.3ppg, 10.9rpg, 6.3apg, 1spg, 1.43bpg, 3topg
shaquille o'neal: 30.3ppg, 13.6rpg, 1.6apg, 0.5spg, 2.43bpg, 3.57topg

webber's line is clearly better. nearly 4 times the number of assists, double the steals, and alot less turnovers.

[Burgz]

2000's aren't over yet hahaha
i say shaq
duncan is and has been the ultimate team player, but shaq in his prime was more dominant than anyone in this decade

[VCMVP1551]

yes? whats your point here? :confusedshrug:

That you're a complete moron who talks out of his ass.


phil jackson didn't think so, so no, he wasn't capable of playing any more than that, or any more time wouldn't be beneficial to the team.

Maybe they didn't need him to play more? How do you know that Webber wasn't playing those extra two or two and a half minutes in blowouts? It's possible that Jackson didn't play players as much as Adelman when games are out of hand and that Jackson liked to sit players earlier. Kobe after all played less than a minute more than Peja Stojakovic. There's no way to know, so to assume he couldn't have played more and it wouldn't have benefitted the team is ignorant.


games played does not matter when discussing who is better individually. and webber's stats were better. 20% better from the free throw line, 26% better from the three point line, 1.8 more apg, and 1.1 more spg

Of course you consider games played and minutes when evaluating the stats. :oldlol: The more minutes you play, the better your stats will look and the more games you play, the more likely your stats are to fall off.


wrong. teams double team in accordance to how close people are to the hoop. yes shaq had the fat to be able to offensive foul his way his man until he was 2 feet from the basket, webber had the ability and skill to spread the floor to allow other players to post up while playing the high post, and could make the entry pass, or could make difficult passes to cutting guards better than any big man in the nba.

You're as dumb as a rock, Shaq's style of play was more unstoppable, period. That's why they doubled him more. It was more unstoppable because he was bigger and stronger and he could get closer to the basket, but regardless it was more unstoppable.

Mid 90's Hakeem played farther away from the basket than mid 80's Kareem, who do you think got doubled more? Players get doubled based on how difficult they are to stop, that's not rocket science, it's common sense.


robinson only played in the last 3 games and was clearly still affected by his injury when he came back.

3 games, that's more than half of the series. Plus he faced more double teams than Duncan regardless.


shaq didn't have to do as much eh. he didn't have to do anything in the finals, kobe would've beaten new jersey by himself in 6 games yet he still averaged those numbers :oldlol:

I meant he didn't have to do as much as Duncan in their series, that's irrelevant to the New Jersey series. Also New Jersey won by an average of 9.3 points per game. Shaq averaged 9.1 points above his career average, so no Kobe probably wouldn't have beaten New Jersey by himself.


why is it duncan's fault that shaq couldn't get up a shot in the series? duncan's low field goal percent and high turnovers were a product of the spurs having no other offensive option so duncan had to force things/do it all himself. his second best player didn't play the first 2 games, and played injured in the last 3, and the only other player worth anything on the spurs roster was 19 year old rookie tony parker. you can't fault duncan in these circumstances, and there is no doubt he outplayed o'neal

Duncan's stats were just inflated because he had to force things so much and he had the ball so much. That doesn't mean he was a lot better than O'Neal.

If you gave Shaq the same amount of FG/FT as Duncan in that series then he would have averaged 28.8 ppg, which would be scoring at pretty much the same rate as Duncan who averaged 29.0 ppg. Pretty much the guy who needed to do more in either situation was going to lose that series but average better stats. Just like the KG vs Duncan comparison earlier this decade.



you seem to be reaching. did you watch this series? have you watched it since it happened?

Yes I did watch it, I watched almost every series Shaq played. I was a huge fan when he was a Laker.


chris webber: 24.3ppg, 10.9rpg, 6.3apg, 1spg, 1.43bpg, 3topg
shaquille o'neal: 30.3ppg, 13.6rpg, 1.6apg, 0.5spg, 2.43bpg, 3.57topg

webber's line is clearly better. nearly 4 times the number of assists, double the steals, and alot less turnovers.

And you think that minor sh*t makes up for Shaq average 6 more points, almost 3 more rebounds, an extra block, a better FG% and a MUCH better FT%? You're hopeless.

[Shep]

That you're a complete moron who talks out of his ass.
again, you're not making any sense. i'm a moron who talks out of his ass because i tell facts?

Maybe they didn't need him to play more? How do you know that Webber wasn't playing those extra two or two and a half minutes in blowouts? It's possible that Jackson didn't play players as much as Adelman when games are out of hand and that Jackson liked to sit players earlier. Kobe after all played less than a minute more than Peja Stojakovic. There's no way to know, so to assume he couldn't have played more and it wouldn't have benefitted the team is ignorant.
no, assuming a player could average the exact same numbers per minute given any situation is pathetic. players play the minutes they play for a reason, that reason being that they are not needed for the remaining time, or that the coach does not want them on the floor for a number of possible reasons. i used to use the per40 argument, then i woke up, its time for you to do the same.

Of course you consider games played and minutes when evaluating the stats. The more minutes you play, the better your stats will look and the more games you play, the more likely your stats are to fall off.
the more minutes you play, the more deserving you are of court time. the more games you play, the more time you have to get comfortable with the system/players, and the more likely you will play better

You're as dumb as a rock, Shaq's style of play was more unstoppable, period. That's why they doubled him more. It was more unstoppable because he was bigger and stronger and he could get closer to the basket, but regardless it was more unstoppable.
that was shaq's style of play. he had his style, webber had his style. webber excelled at his style more. shaq's style was to set up 10 ft out, so he got doubled alot more, its simple logic.

Mid 90's Hakeem played farther away from the basket than mid 80's Kareem, who do you think got doubled more?
nope. both played low post almost every set.

3 games, that's more than half of the series. Plus he faced more double teams than Duncan regardless.
shut the **** up. who cares if it was over half the ****in series you dumb ****. he played hurt and he played a total of 74 minutes out of a possible 240. and you need to shut the **** up about double teams too, you pathetic insignificant midget.

I meant he didn't have to do as much as Duncan in their series, that's irrelevant to the New Jersey series.
you missed the point

Also New Jersey won by an average of 9.3 points per game. Shaq averaged 9.1 points above his career average, so no Kobe probably wouldn't have beaten New Jersey by himself.
i wasn't being serious when i said that. and you're making up a pathetic argument in that 9.3-9.1 bull****. omg! this must mean that nj would've won every game by .2! :hammerhead:

Duncan's stats were just inflated because he had to force things so much and he had the ball so much. That doesn't mean he was a lot better than O'Neal.
i'm not sayin he was a lot better, i'm just saying he was better

If you gave Shaq the same amount of FG/FT as Duncan in that series then he would have averaged 28.8 ppg, which would be scoring at pretty much the same rate as Duncan who averaged 29.0 ppg.
i've already destroyed this "if he got these minutes he would've done this" ****

Pretty much the guy who needed to do more in either situation was going to lose that series but average better stats. Just like the KG vs Duncan comparison earlier this decade.
pretty much the guy who had most help was going to win the series, and o'neal had a lot more help. kobe bryant was the mvp

Yes I did watch it, I watched almost every series Shaq played. I was a huge fan when he was a Laker.
it was 7 years ago, time to re watch a few games going by your "arguments"

And you think that minor sh*t makes up for Shaq average 6 more points, almost 3 more rebounds, an extra block, a better FG% and a MUCH better FT%? You're hopeless.
did shaq outscore webber by 4x? did shaq out rebound him by 4x? this is too huge a margin for shaq to make up for, along with double the steals, and less turnovers. webber's line is much more complete, and overall clearly better.

[juju151111]

minutes does not come into the equation

argue all you want, you'll just continue to get destroyed

they weren't greater by a large margin, but they were greater

duncan's stats were better by a wider margin than webber's were in comparison to o'neal's. shaq didn't rape either of those guys in the playoffs that year either. he averaged a pitiful 21 ppg against duncan and the spurs, while duncan was simply outclassing o'neal in every single category and averaged 29ppg, 17rpg, 5apg, 1spg, and 3bpg. and he was atleast matched by webber's 24/11/6 in the kings series, and if it wasn't for the lakers having the officials win games 5 and 7 for them it would've been a five game series victory for sacramento.

destroyed

you mentioned finals mvp while arguing who was the best player. i destroyed this with the parker argument.

no hating here. just plain facts.

kobe bailed shaq out numerous times. he wouldn't make it past the second round without having another superstar who could hit outside shots and free throws on his team. the rest has been already destroyed by "garnett played as good as if not better than o'neal did against portland in those playoffs so who knows what numbers he would've had in the finals. in 2001 kg wouldn't have to put up such numbers as it would've been a cakewalk over philly no matter how he played."

kevin garnett, dirk nowitzki, lebron james, tim duncan, shawn marion, and dwyane wade
LOL Please KG is not has dominate has Shaq.Ur claim is BS.Shaq=Top 3 finals performance shaq=Most dominate big man.Hpw were webber stats better??The stats were even at best.Same with duncan.LOL at ur dumbass claim.Shaq shot a high percentage and didn't take alot of shots while kobe was going nuts in the spurs series.He was shooting 50% for almost all the gms while kobe wass the one taking 20+ shots a gm.KG is dominating like shaq stop ur BS.
LMFAO Shawn marion(Showing ur hate again i won't even respond to this),Dirk (LMAO stay off the crack in 05 dirk toook it to the basket less then now and was soft and his stats were similar to shaq not greater.),Lebron james (I agree),Wade(I agree),Tim duncan(??? this wasn't one of his best seasons and his stats says other things.Shaq and duncan stats were similar another BS cliam),KG(I agree)

[VCMVP1551]

that was shaq's style of play. he had his style, webber had his style. webber excelled at his style more. shaq's style was to set up 10 ft out, so he got doubled alot more, its simple logic.

And he was more unstoppable setting up 10 feet away hence his much higher FG%, scoring average and more double teams.


nope. both played low post almost every set.

Hakeem played farther from the basket than Kareem during those periods mentioned.


shut the **** up. who cares if it was over half the ****in series you dumb ****. he played hurt and he played a total of 74 minutes out of a possible 240. and you need to shut the **** up about double teams too, you pathetic insignificant midget.

So then I guess Kobe shouldn't count when talking about the 2000 Finals? He missed 1 full game, missed all but 9 minutes in another and played injured. Yet when I've brought that up in the past you say "but he was the second best player in the series". :oldlol: Yet Kobe only played 176 out of a possible 293 minutes in that series and shot a pathetic 36.7%.

Double teams are imporant as well, and a midget is under 4'10", I'm 5'8". So not even close.


you missed the point

Because there was none.


i'm not sayin he was a lot better, i'm just saying he was better

Fair enough, that series it's not a stretch to call Duncan better, but put O'Neal in his situation and the same thing likely happens. Shaq ends up with the better stats and the series loss. That was my point though, it was virtually even between the 2 at the time. Shaq gets the title of best player that season because of his historically dominant finals performance, dominant series vs Sacramento and championship. That's the tiebreaker.


i've already destroyed this "if he got these minutes he would've done this" ****

I wasn't talking about minutes, I was talking about shot attempts and touches.


pretty much the guy who had most help was going to win the series, and o'neal had a lot more help. kobe bryant was the mvp

Yes, so that sounds like the 2 players were pretty even at the time.


did shaq outscore webber by 4x? did shaq out rebound him by 4x? this is too huge a margin for shaq to make up for, along with double the steals, and less turnovers. webber's line is much more complete, and overall clearly better.

Pathetic. Look at how many more points Shaq scored, how much more efficient he was from the floor AND the line, how many more rebounds he grabbed, how many more shots he blocked and which team won. Ask anyone else on this board who had the better line that series.

I'm done arguing with you, you're hopeless.

[power works]

DUNCAN!

Best player in the post-Jordan era. :rockon:

[Shep]

juju151111
i'm not replying to any of your ****. learn how to type coherent sentences and i'll gladly destroy you.

And he was more unstoppable setting up 10 feet away hence his much higher FG%, scoring average and more double teams.
webber was more effective due to his passing ability, and his ability to play low and high.

Hakeem played farther from the basket than Kareem during those periods mentioned.
nope.

So then I guess Kobe shouldn't count when talking about the 2000 Finals? He missed 1 full game, missed all but 9 minutes in another and played injured. Yet when I've brought that up in the past you say "but he was the second best player in the series". Yet Kobe only played 176 out of a possible 293 minutes in that series and shot a pathetic 36.7%.
kobe missed 1 game out of a 6 game series, robinson missed 2 out of 5. and kobe was easily the second best player in that series - shutting down the most dangerous player on the opposing team, and averaging 19ppg, 5.5rpg, 4.3apg, 1.25spg, and 1.5bpg. not to mention taking over and dominating when o'neal fouled out of pivotal game game 4 - which pretty much ended indiana's chances in the series.

Double teams are imporant as well, and a midget is under 4'10", I'm 5'8". So not even close.
you're 5-7

Because there was none.
you must've mis-read what i said

Fair enough, that series it's not a stretch to call Duncan better
:rockon:

I wasn't talking about minutes, I was talking about shot attempts and touches.
its the same principle

Yes, so that sounds like the 2 players were pretty even at the time.
they were close, but duncan was better

Pathetic. Look at how many more points Shaq scored, how much more efficient he was from the floor AND the line, how many more rebounds he grabbed, how many more shots he blocked and which team won. Ask anyone else on this board who had the better line that series.
i've looked, and webber has the better line overall. which team won? i'm not comparing teams i'm comparing individuals over a 7 game span. i'm not going to ask anybody else, there is no point when you already know the answer.

I'm done arguing with you
you call it arguing? i call it taking a e-beating. but its definately in your best interest not to respond as it just makes you look more and more pathetic with each reply

[VCMVP1551]

webber was more effective due to his passing ability, and his ability to play low and high.

I couldn't resist responding again. This is a very funny thread.

Shaq was more effective due to his ability to put the ball in the basket at a higher rate, grab more rebounds, block more shots and draw more double teams. That destroys your crappy argument for C-Webb over Shaq.


kobe missed 1 game out of a 6 game series, robinson missed 2 out of 5. and kobe was easily the second best player in that series - shutting down the most dangerous player on the opposing team, and averaging 19ppg, 5.5rpg, 4.3apg, 1.25spg, and 1.5bpg. not to mention taking over and dominating when o'neal fouled out of pivotal game game 4 - which pretty much ended indiana's chances in the series.

Kobe played only 9 games in another game so he pretty much missed 2. He also averaged 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1.0 spg, 36.7 FG% and not the stats you mentioned. Kobe shot 2 for 10 on 3's but he was 10 for 11 on free throws. Still Miller's 45 for 46 on free throws is far more impressive.

Miller by the way averaged 24.3 ppg on 41.3% from the floor, 37.5 on 3's and 97.8% from the line. Keep in mind the Miller took 40 three's and 46 free throws which makes those shooting numbers more impressive. Miller also took 123 shots from the floor.

Miller was better than Kobe that series.


you're 5-7

I forgot, you've met me in person and measured me? :oldlol:


they were close, but duncan was better

Close enough that I can see why you are mistaken.


i've looked, and webber has the better line overall. which team won? i'm not comparing teams i'm comparing individuals over a 7 game span. i'm not going to ask anybody else, there is no point when you already know the answer.


You're just wrong there. Your statement that Webber was better that series is so idiotic that it's ridiculous. I can't believe you even said that and tried to justify it.

[Shep]

I couldn't resist responding again.
i'm not surprised :oldlol:

This is a very funny thread.
agreed. as soon as you posted in here the laughs began, and haven't stopped since.

Shaq was more effective due to his ability to put the ball in the basket at a higher rate, grab more rebounds, block more shots and draw more double teams. That destroys your crappy argument for C-Webb over Shaq.
first of all don't use "destroy", or any word derived from that. second of all shaq's advantage in ppg, rpg, and bpg wasn't enough of a difference to make up for webber's advantage in apg, spg, and topg, not to mention the ability to let other people play low by playing high, and the ability to control the offense like no other big.

Kobe played only 9 games in another game so he pretty much missed 2. He also averaged 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1.0 spg, 36.7 FG% and not the stats you mentioned.
yeh, he pretty much missed 2, meaning taking averages over a 6 game period when he only played 9 minutes in 1 of those 6 games due to injury is not warranted, so my averages stand.

Kobe shot 2 for 10 on 3's but he was 10 for 11 on free throws. Still Miller's 45 for 46 on free throws is far more impressive.
making a living at the line is not impressive at all

Miller by the way averaged 24.3 ppg on 41.3% from the floor, 37.5 on 3's and 97.8% from the line. Keep in mind the Miller took 40 three's and 46 free throws which makes those shooting numbers more impressive. Miller also took 123 shots from the floor.
miller shot 8-32 in games 1 and 2 combined while being guarded by kobe bryant, and as you would know, he contributes very little else if he isn't scoring. kobe shut him down completely, as a 21 year old. with kobe out of game 3 miller scored 33 points, and carried this momentum onto game 4 with 35 - without kobe's injury this would never have happened. also in game 4 kobe comes up huge in the clutch, playing with an injury, and carries the lakers overtime to a victory and hits huge shot after huge shot, all while the fat guy is fouled out. game 5 is the only game miller outplays bryant. in game 6 bryant outplays everyone not named o'neal, and forces miller into a 2-10 night from three point.

Miller was better than Kobe that series.
destroyed

I forgot, you've met me in person and measured me?
no need for that. you've told me you're 5-7

Close enough that I can see why you are mistaken.
i'm never mistaken

You're just wrong there. Your statement that Webber was better that series is so idiotic that it's ridiculous. I can't believe you even said that and tried to justify it.
i really shouldn't have to justify anything. if you saw the series you shouldn't have to be persuaded into thinking webber was better.

[Drew12]

The stats don't even begin to tell the whole story. Its the classic Wilt vs. Bill.

It is consensus by anyone that knows basketball that Shaq is more dominant than Tim, physically, statistically, and egocentrically. Same for Wilt vs. Bill.

Does that make a player the best of his decade? In a 1 on 1 competition it does.

Fact is, Tim's teams won 4 titles, and Tim was the centerpiece. He had less to work with than Shaq, and, many years, his teams were not in the top 3rd talent-wise in the league.

He's taken more players to a title than any other player in history, Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt, West, Russell, Bird, Shaq, all won their rings with a core around them that stayed much the same. Tim is the only player left from his first championship. His 2007 title team had no players left over from 1999. In 2005, only he and Malik rose were left over from the first title. In 2003 Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were far from stardom, with Manu's erratic play taking a back seat to Stephen Jackson, and Parker losing playoff minutes to Speedy Claxton. Those now core players were then role players.

I think that is the biggest indicator. He's done it all with the same team, never 1 blockbuster trade, never 1 lottery pick, with very little consistency in teammates over the years.

Shaq's dominance got him the MVP he clearly deserved, and he has 4 rings to show for his efforts. His accomplishments are great but they end there. Tim has all those accolades and more, and the intangibles he brings are far greater, though his physical stature is not.

[biisak]

The stats don't even begin to tell the whole story. Its the classic Wilt vs. Bill.

It is consensus by anyone that knows basketball that Shaq is more dominant than Tim, physically, statistically, and egocentrically. Same for Wilt vs. Bill.

Does that make a player the best of his decade? In a 1 on 1 competition it does.

Fact is, Tim's teams won 4 titles, and Tim was the centerpiece. He had less to work with than Shaq, and, many years, his teams were not in the top 3rd talent-wise in the league.

He's taken more players to a title than any other player in history, Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt, West, Russell, Bird, Shaq, all won their rings with a core around them that stayed much the same. Tim is the only player left from his first championship. His 2007 title team had no players left over from 1999. In 2005, only he and Malik rose were left over from the first title. In 2003 Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were far from stardom, with Manu's erratic play taking a back seat to Stephen Jackson, and Parker losing playoff minutes to Speedy Claxton. Those now core players were then role players.

I think that is the biggest indicator. He's done it all with the same team, never 1 blockbuster trade, never 1 lottery pick, with very little consistency in teammates over the years.

Shaq's dominance got him the MVP he clearly deserved, and he has 4 rings to show for his efforts. His accomplishments are great but they end there. Tim has all those accolades and more, and the intangibles he brings are far greater, though his physical stature is not.

Great post, I tried something similar in the beginning of the thread, but stats and numbers reign supreme for so many on this board..

[VCMVP1551]

first of all don't use "destroy", or any word derived from that. second of all shaq's advantage in ppg, rpg, and bpg wasn't enough of a difference to make up for webber's advantage in apg, spg, and topg, not to mention the ability to let other people play low by playing high, and the ability to control the offense like no other big.

That's just ridiculous. I'll look for ppg, rpg, bpg and FG% from my big men, Shaq was superior in all areas and more unstoppable. Shaq didn't need another player playing low because nobody could stop him there, that's why the Lakers won the championship. You couldn't ask for more than a championship.


yeh, he pretty much missed 2, meaning taking averages over a 6 game period when he only played 9 minutes in 1 of those 6 games due to injury is not warranted, so my averages stand.

His actual averages were the ones I posted, and I noticed you left out FG%. :oldlol:


making a living at the line is not impressive at all

Yes it is, especially since that helped Miller score nearly 10 more ppg than Kobe.


miller shot 8-32 in games 1 and 2 combined while being guarded by kobe bryant, and as you would know, he contributes very little else if he isn't scoring. kobe shut him down completely, as a 21 year old. with kobe out of game 3 miller scored 33 points, and carried this momentum onto game 4 with 35 - without kobe's injury this would never have happened. also in game 4 kobe comes up huge in the clutch, playing with an injury, and carries the lakers overtime to a victory and hits huge shot after huge shot, all while the fat guy is fouled out. game 5 is the only game miller outplays bryant. in game 6 bryant outplays everyone not named o'neal, and forces miller into a 2-10 night from three point.

How the hell could you possibly say Miller would have never caught fire? As you said Miller contributes very little other than scoring, and that's because he's a jump shooter. All voume jump shooters are streaky like Miller, some nights they can't hit anything and other nights they can't miss.

Kobe did do well on him defensively in game 1 and game 6, but you can't assume that he never would have got going.

Kobe was pretty much a good role player in game 1, an all-star level player in game 4, horrendous in game 5 and an inefficient chucker in game 6. Not exactly a great series. He had a great game 4 and a solid game 1, that's it.


destroyed

Not even close.


no need for that. you've told me you're 5-7

Nope, I always say I'm 5'8" which is about average.


i'm never mistaken

Mistaken again. :oldlol:


i really shouldn't have to justify anything. if you saw the series you shouldn't have to be persuaded into thinking webber was better.

I saw the series when it happened and I've seen replays of most of the games many times since. Shaq was much better.

[rmt]

The stats don't even begin to tell the whole story. Its the classic Wilt vs. Bill.

It is consensus by anyone that knows basketball that Shaq is more dominant than Tim, physically, statistically, and egocentrically. Same for Wilt vs. Bill.

Does that make a player the best of his decade? In a 1 on 1 competition it does.

Fact is, Tim's teams won 4 titles, and Tim was the centerpiece. He had less to work with than Shaq, and, many years, his teams were not in the top 3rd talent-wise in the league.

He's taken more players to a title than any other player in history, Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt, West, Russell, Bird, Shaq, all won their rings with a core around them that stayed much the same. Tim is the only player left from his first championship. His 2007 title team had no players left over from 1999. In 2005, only he and Malik rose were left over from the first title. In 2003 Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were far from stardom, with Manu's erratic play taking a back seat to Stephen Jackson, and Parker losing playoff minutes to Speedy Claxton. Those now core players were then role players.

I think that is the biggest indicator. He's done it all with the same team, never 1 blockbuster trade, never 1 lottery pick, with very little consistency in teammates over the years.

Shaq's dominance got him the MVP he clearly deserved, and he has 4 rings to show for his efforts. His accomplishments are great but they end there. Tim has all those accolades and more, and the intangibles he brings are far greater, though his physical stature is not.

Totally agree with this post except, I think in 2005, Malik Rose was traded midseason for Nazr Mohammed. So the 2005 championship team also had no other player left over from the first title.

[aj242]

The stats don't even begin to tell the whole story. Its the classic Wilt vs. Bill.

It is consensus by anyone that knows basketball that Shaq is more dominant than Tim, physically, statistically, and egocentrically. Same for Wilt vs. Bill.

Does that make a player the best of his decade? In a 1 on 1 competition it does.

Fact is, Tim's teams won 4 titles, and Tim was the centerpiece. He had less to work with than Shaq, and, many years, his teams were not in the top 3rd talent-wise in the league.

He's taken more players to a title than any other player in history, Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt, West, Russell, Bird, Shaq, all won their rings with a core around them that stayed much the same. Tim is the only player left from his first championship. His 2007 title team had no players left over from 1999. In 2005, only he and Malik rose were left over from the first title. In 2003 Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were far from stardom, with Manu's erratic play taking a back seat to Stephen Jackson, and Parker losing playoff minutes to Speedy Claxton. Those now core players were then role players.

I think that is the biggest indicator. He's done it all with the same team, never 1 blockbuster trade, never 1 lottery pick, with very little consistency in teammates over the years.

Shaq's dominance got him the MVP he clearly deserved, and he has 4 rings to show for his efforts. His accomplishments are great but they end there. Tim has all those accolades and more, and the intangibles he brings are far greater, though his physical stature is not.

nice argument but this actually helps Shaq. Duncan will have the better career but Shaq is the better player.

Russell had the better career but Wilt is almost universally accepted as the better player.

With all due respect to the greatest winner in team sports.

[Shep]

That's just ridiculous. I'll look for ppg, rpg, bpg and FG% from my big men, Shaq was superior in all areas and more unstoppable. Shaq didn't need another player playing low because nobody could stop him there, that's why the Lakers won the championship. You couldn't ask for more than a championship.
i'll look for domination across all areas of the game. webber was the definition of this. the lakers won the championship because of alot more reasons other than o'neal doing what he did, like having a top 7 player who compliments him perfectly, like having one of the greatest coaches of all time, like having perfect role players who would continually hit clutch shots, and like playing in a perfect system. if shaq didn't have 1 of these things he is not winning a championship in 2002.

His actual averages were the ones I posted, and I noticed you left out FG%.
yeh, but he pretty much missed 2, like you said. so obviously you'd take 4 full games instead of 4 games and 1 quarter to get a better assessment of what he did during the series.

Yes it is, especially since that helped Miller score nearly 10 more ppg than Kobe.
no it isn't, and miller didn't average anywhere near 28ppg

How the hell could you possibly say Miller would have never caught fire? As you said Miller contributes very little other than scoring, and that's because he's a jump shooter. All voume jump shooters are streaky like Miller, some nights they can't hit anything and other nights they can't miss.
because game 1 and 2 showed miller clearly affected by the attention he was getting by bryant, who was one of the best, if not the best perimeter defender in the nba.

Kobe did do well on him defensively in game 1 and game 6, but you can't assume that he never would have got going.
kobe sitting out game 3 is what got him going, there is no way in hell he would've been able to do the same things he did in that game with kobe guarding him, its common sense

Kobe was pretty much a good role player in game 1, an all-star level player in game 4, horrendous in game 5 and an inefficient chucker in game 6. Not exactly a great series. He had a great game 4 and a solid game 1, that's it.
he had a legendary game 4 that killed off any chance indiana had in the series, and a superstar like game 6. he played 9 minutes in 1, and sat out another. his other two games weren't much to write home about, but his impact was on the defensive end where he shut down miller continuously, and in the clutch. because of this he was easily the second best player in the series.

Not even close.
and again destroyed

Nope, I always say I'm 5'8" which is about average.
nah you said you were 5-7, and this is clearly under average, as is 5-8.

Mistaken again.
you must've got your words mixed. i said i'm never mistaken.

I saw the series when it happened and I've seen replays of most of the games many times since. Shaq was much better.
well. if the games are right in front of you and you've watched them over and over and still can't get it right..god help you.

[VCMVP1551]

i'll look for domination across all areas of the game. webber was the definition of this. the lakers won the championship because of alot more reasons other than o'neal doing what he did, like having a top 7 player who compliments him perfectly, like having one of the greatest coaches of all time, like having perfect role players who would continually hit clutch shots, and like playing in a perfect system. if shaq didn't have 1 of these things he is not winning a championship in 2002.

Hmm domination, you mean like a player averaging far more ppg, rpg, bpg and a much better FG%? Hell he even had a much better FT% in their 7 game series.


yeh, but he pretty much missed 2, like you said. so obviously you'd take 4 full games instead of 4 games and 1 quarter to get a better assessment of what he did during the series.

Fair enough, but if you include the FG% then that extra 4 ppg doesn't make much of a difference, it was on pretty much the same awful %.


because game 1 and 2 showed miller clearly affected by the attention he was getting by bryant, who was one of the best, if not the best perimeter defender in the nba.

But once again players who rely on jumpshots will always be streaky, look at Ray Allen last year.


kobe sitting out game 3 is what got him going, there is no way in hell he would've been able to do the same things he did in that game with kobe guarding him, its common sense

No, but common knowledge is that even the best jump shooters who rely on their jumpers are streaky. This was true of Miller throughout his career.


he had a legendary game 4 that killed off any chance indiana had in the series, and a superstar like game 6. he played 9 minutes in 1, and sat out another. his other two games weren't much to write home about, but his impact was on the defensive end where he shut down miller continuously, and in the clutch. because of this he was easily the second best player in the series.

His game 6 was not superstar like.

Kobe Bryant- 26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 8-27 FG, 2-6 3's

The 10 rebounds were very impressive, but the 4 assists weren't that special. The 26 points would have been impressive if it didn't take him 27 field goal attempts, 6 three point attempts and 9 free throw attempts to get those 26 points. That's the opposite of efficient.

He didn't shut down Miller either. Reggie had 25 points on 19 field goal attempts.


and again destroyed

Destroyed


nah you said you were 5-7, and this is clearly under average, as is 5-8.

Nope, I've always claimed to be around 5'8". Only 3 inches shorter than you/ You're slightly above average and I'm slightly under but most people you'll see walking down the street are pretty close to our height. The average height is 5'9" so you won't get pointed out as tall, just as I don't get pointed out as short.


well. if the games are right in front of you and you've watched them over and over and still can't get it right..god help you.

I did get it right.

[Shep]

Hmm domination, you mean like a player averaging far more ppg, rpg, bpg and a much better FG%? Hell he even had a much better FT% in their 7 game series.
no, i mean dominating in every aspect of the game, not just 2 or 3

Fair enough, but if you include the FG% then that extra 4 ppg doesn't make much of a difference, it was on pretty much the same awful %.

bryant's impact was much more than field goal percentage, as already outlined.

But once again players who rely on jumpshots will always be streaky, look at Ray Allen last year.
ray allen was not guarded by kobe bryant

No, but common knowledge is that even the best jump shooters who rely on their jumpers are streaky. This was true of Miller throughout his career.
miller was almost never guarded by a player of bryant's caliber.

His game 6 was not superstar like.
26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, only 1 tunover. superstar.

The 10 rebounds were very impressive, but the 4 assists weren't that special. The 26 points would have been impressive if it didn't take him 27 field goal attempts, 6 three point attempts and 9 free throw attempts to get those 26 points. That's the opposite of efficient.
lol you mention 27fga, then 6 3pa? that would make 33 fga. which just isn't true at all. i'd rather have my second best player and superstar shooting guard shoot the ball 27 times than 15 times in a deciding game of a playoff series, moreso an nba finals

He didn't shut down Miller either. Reggie had 25 points on 19 field goal attempts.
miller never took over the game and kobe held him to a 8-19 night, including 2-10 from long range.

Destroyed
demolished

Nope, I've always claimed to be around 5'8".
exactly. around 5-8. 5-7 is around 5-8, you have said you were 5-7. rounding up is for dwarfs who want to find excuses to gain an extra inch to their height.

I did get it right.
so far in this thread you haven't.

[ConanRulesNBC]

I don't think you can really even debate this fairly. Shaq is older and started playing earlier than Tim Duncan. Sure Shaq started winning championships in 2000 but, IMO, if he had Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant and the talent that those Lakers teams had back then in say 1996 or 1997 then he might have won back then. I'm going to say overall that Shaq from 1992-2002 > Tim Duncan.

[DC Zephyrs]

Shaq is the more dominant player, but if I had to build a franchise around anyone in the league, it would be Tim Duncan. He's not only the most skilled big man since Hakeem, but he's also the perfect team player. Duncan is never going to ask for more touches, or force trades, or cause off the court distractions. He's just going to win.

If I wanted to win a few rings in a hurry and possibly sacrifice the future of my team (Miami, LA), I would take Shaq. However. If I wanted sustained success over a decade or more, I would take Timothy Duncan.

[VCMVP1551]

no, i mean dominating in every aspect of the game, not just 2 or 3


bryant's impact was much more than field goal percentage, as already outlined.

Overall he was nothing more than a role player that series, a role player who had 1 superstar type game.


ray allen was not guarded by kobe bryant

It's an example.


26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, only 1 tunover. superstar.

27 shot attempts, 33% shooting. pathetic.


lol you mention 27fga, then 6 3pa? that would make 33 fga. which just isn't true at all. i'd rather have my second best player and superstar shooting guard shoot the ball 27 times than 15 times in a deciding game of a playoff series, moreso an nba finals

Kobe was no superstar yet.


miller never took over the game and kobe held him to a 8-19 night, including 2-10 from long range.

And yet he still got his 25 points on a respectable number of shots.


exactly. around 5-8. 5-7 is around 5-8, you have said you were 5-7. rounding up is for dwarfs who want to find excuses to gain an extra inch to their height.

I don't round up an inch. I round up a quarter inch, should I go around saying I'm 5-7 3/4 when asked? No, almost everyone rounds to the closest number.

[rzp]

Shaq is the more dominant player, but if I had to build a franchise around anyone in the league, it would be Tim Duncan. He's not only the most skilled big man since Hakeem, but he's also the perfect team player. Duncan is never going to ask for more touches, or force trades, or cause off the court distractions. He's just going to win.

If I wanted to win a few rings in a hurry and possibly sacrifice the future of my team (Miami, LA), I would take Shaq. However. If I wanted sustained success over a decade or more, I would take Timothy Duncan.

Shaq played 8 freakin years (PRIME years) on the same team , thats almost "a decade" , looks pretty solid to me ; dnt act like he is a Chauncey Billups

[gigantes]

Shaq played 8 freakin years (PRIME years) on the same team , thats almost "a decade" , looks pretty solid to me ; dnt act like he is a Chauncey Billups
yea, i guess if your definition of "prime" is frequently getting badly out of shape during the offseason, frequently needing the first half of the season to get into playing shape, frequently obtaining nagging injuries because of his weight, frequently getting into messy squabbles with the team's other star... the list goes on.

give me a less-talented but more reliable guy with a good head on his shoulders every time.

[VCMVP1551]

yea, i guess if your definition of "prime" is frequently getting badly out of shape during the offseason, frequently needing the first half of the season to get into playing shape, frequently obtaining nagging injuries because of his weight, frequently getting into messy squabbles with the team's other star... the list goes on.

give me a less-talented but more reliable guy with a good head on his shoulders every time.

No, prime meaning 3 straight championships and finals MVP's, an MVP(deserved it in 2001 as well), a scoring title, league leader in FG% pretty much every year, top 3-5 in blocks/rebounding, 4 finals appearances, multiple 60 win seasons, 50 wins every season, out of the first round every season ect.

[gigantes]

No, prime meaning 3 straight championships and finals MVP's, an MVP(deserved it in 2001 as well), a scoring title, league leader in FG% pretty much every year, top 3-5 in blocks/rebounding, 4 finals appearances, multiple 60 win seasons, 50 wins every season, out of the first round every season ect.
one, that's all very well but doesn't negate any of the points i made.

two, i thought we were talking about individual achievements.
so now this has become a lakers versus spurs comparison?

[juju151111]

yea, i guess if your definition of "prime" is frequently getting badly out of shape during the offseason, frequently needing the first half of the season to get into playing shape, frequently obtaining nagging injuries because of his weight, frequently getting into messy squabbles with the team's other star... the list goes on.

give me a less-talented but more reliable guy with a good head on his shoulders every time.
How many rings does shaq have this decade?How many does duncan??

[DC Zephyrs]

Shaq played 8 freakin years (PRIME years) on the same team , thats almost "a decade" , looks pretty solid to me ; dnt act like he is a Chauncey Billups
That doesn't excuse him for forcing himself out of two very good situations (LA and Miami). As dominant as he was, he's always been a bit of a headcase. On the other hand, Duncan has been a coach's dream since the day he entered the league. He's totally committed to his team, and he's one of basketball's greatest winners. He has 4 rings (all with the Spurs), and still has a good chance to win another one.

[gigantes]

How much rings does shaq have this decade?How much does duncan??
no, how many.

[VCMVP1551]

one, that's all very well but doesn't negate any of the points i made.

two, i thought we were talking about individual achievements.
so now this has become a lakers versus spurs comparison?

He mentioned his 8 prime years in Los Angeles before you made your asinine comment to wich I replied about those 8 prime years.

If we're talking this decade overall then tack on another ring and finals appearances to the other totals as well as another deserved MVP(2005).

[gigantes]

He mentioned his 8 prime years in Los Angeles before you made your asinine comment to wich I replied about those 8 prime years.

If we're talking this decade overall then tack on another ring and finals appearances to the other totals as well as another deserved MVP(2005).
and i questioned just how prime they were, to which you replied with your own asinine retort.

MVP of 2005?
heh... yea, sure. and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

and so you lean on your stats and awards as if that was the issue i was talking about. (it wasn't) especially since duncan has his own stats and awards, too.

[VCMVP1551]

and i questioned just how prime they were, to which you replied with your own asinine retort.

MVP of 2005?
heh... yea, sure. and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

and so you lean on your stats and awards as if that was the issue i was talking about. (it wasn't) especially since duncan has his own stats and awards, too.

I was talking about the results dumbass. The results this decade have been 3 finals mvps, 5 finals appearances, 1 mvp(2 more deserved), a scoring title, top 1-5 in scoring, blocks and rebounding multiple times ect.

You made it sound like he wasn't worth it, but most teams would give anything for 4 championships.

[big baller]

That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.



:roll: :roll: :roll:


To answer the OP, Shaq.

[gigantes]

I was talking about the results dumbass. The results this decade have been 3 finals mvps, 5 finals appearances, 1 mvp(2 more deserved), a scoring title, top 1-5 in scoring, blocks and rebounding multiple times ect.
you are allowed to talk about whatever subject you want, dumbass. even if it has nothing to do with the points i made.


You made it sound like he wasn't worth it, but most teams would give anything for 4 championships.
i never said he wasn't worth it, and by your logic most teams would therefore give anything for tim duncan.

[VCMVP1551]

you are allowed to talk about whatever subject you want, dumbass. even if it has nothing to do with the points i made.

Points? What points? I'm the one making points, not you.



i never said he wasn't worth it, and by your logic most teams would therefore give anything for tim duncan.

Actually most would, but I'd bet that most teams would take prime Shaq over prime Tim Duncan anyday.

[DC Zephyrs]

I was talking about the results dumbass. The results this decade have been 3 finals mvps, 5 finals appearances, 1 mvp(2 more deserved), a scoring title, top 1-5 in scoring, blocks and rebounding multiple times ect.

You made it sound like he wasn't worth it, but most teams would give anything for 4 championships.

Enough with these bull**** "deserved" MVPs. He didn't win them, so they don't count. I personally think Chris Paul should have won the MVP last year, but he didn't, so it doesn't count.

[gigantes]

Points? What points? I'm the one making points, not you.
wow, channelling your six-year old there?

these were my points:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2620352&postcount=182


Actually most would, but I'd bet that most teams would take prime Shaq over prime Tim Duncan anyday.
as if your opinion is a newsflash for anyone who missed all your other shaq-love posts. :rolleyes:

[JJ81]

http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

[VCMVP1551]

wow, channelling your six-year old there?

these were my points:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2620352&postcount=182

Not one point there kid. In fact that post just proved your hate for Shaq and how your opinion on him can't be valued. You tried to act like his prime wasn't great. I've got news for you Shaq's prime is widely considered to be one of the 5 greatest primes ever.



as if your opinion is a newsflash for anyone who missed all your other shaq-love posts. :rolleyes:

I need to post the facts everytime you post your biased crap.

[DC Zephyrs]

http://ko8e.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-player-of-decade-not-tim-duncan.html

That is such a a stupid and childish set of "points". By that criteria, Allen Iverson is probably a top 5 player of all time. Tim Duncan is the anchor to 4 championships and the winningest team in modern professional sports. Kobe is a great player, but he does not belong in this debate.

[gigantes]

Not one point there kid.
look who's talking, kid.


In fact that post just proved your hate for Shaq and how your opinion on him can't be valued.
my points are all well-known, with a world of evidence to back them up.
if you were unaware of them then i suggest you remove yourself from your cardboard box domicile.


You tried to act like his prime wasn't great.
i didn't "try to act" any particular way. i was rebutting another poster's conception of shaq's prime when you interjected yourself into my conversation.

the fact is you have no idea what my feeling on shaq is.
all you did is see some negatives, lost your cool and started throwing insults around. i never said that shaq isn't a great player, but your paranoia has run away with itself here.

[VCMVP1551]

look who's talking, kid.

You're 16 max so there's not many people you can call kid on this site, and if you're any older than that, may god help you.


my points are all well-known, with a world of evidence to back them up.
if you were unaware of them then i suggest you remove yourself from your cardboard box domicile.

It's well known that Shaq played himself into shape, but the results speak for themselves. If you don't think that any team in the league would kill for 4 championships then you're out of your mind. So don't try to diminish his accomplishments. His weight was only a problem in 2003 when we're talking about his time in Los Angeles. He was overweight in 2002, but the team ended up with the championship so no harm, no foul.


i didn't "try to act" any particular way. i was rebutting another poster's conception of shaq's prime when you interjected yourself into my conversation.

His conception of Shaq's prime was correct.


the fact is you have no idea what my feeling on shaq is.
all you did is see some negatives, lost your cool and started throwing insults around. i never said that shaq isn't a great player, but your paranoia has run away with itself here.

No the fact is that you always make asinine comments about Shaq. You tried to make his prime not sound great and you failed miserably.

[DC Zephyrs]

You're 16 max so there's not many people you can call kid on this site, and if you're any older than that, may god help you.



It's well known that Shaq played himself into shape, but the results speak for themselves. If you don't think that any team in the league would kill for 4 championships then you're out of your mind. So don't try to diminish his accomplishments. His weight was only a problem in 2003 when we're talking about his time in Los Angeles. He was overweight in 2002, but the team ended up with the championship so no harm, no foul.



His conception of Shaq's prime was correct.



No the fact is that you always make asinine comments about Shaq. You tried to make his prime not sound great and you failed miserably.
I don't think anyone in this thread has denied Shaq's dominance in his prime. The problem is you, taking offense to any knock on Shaq at all. Shaq has had his share of blemishes during his career, and they're worth pointing out.

[rzp]

That doesn't excuse him for forcing himself out of two very good situations (LA and Miami). As dominant as he was, he's always been a bit of a headcase. On the other hand, Duncan has been a coach's dream since the day he entered the league. He's totally committed to his team, and he's one of basketball's greatest winners. He has 4 rings (all with the Spurs), and still has a good chance to win another one.

winning 4 rings on the same team doesnt really makes him better , actually , bring three sh!tty teams (Magic - piece of sh!t , Lakers - piece of sh!t on the way to 20 years without a title , Heat - piece of sh!t even with Wade they werent going to anywhere ) to the glory looks mutch more impressive ; TD started to play on one of the best franchises , with the BEST coach possible , with an easy 50+ win team , and no Kobe's , Rice's , Exel's neither big ass Nick aka "missing 4 fts" Arderson to piss him off ;
Of course Shaq has a mutch bigger ego , but TD started in a mutch better situation .

[gigantes]

You're 16 max so there's not many people you can call kid on this site, and if you're any older than that, may god help you.
same to you.


It's well known that Shaq played himself into shape, but the results speak for themselves. ... His weight was only a problem in 2003 when we're talking about his time in Los Angeles. He was overweight in 2002, but the team ended up with the championship so no harm, no foul.
his weight in the offseason was a problem almost every year around that timeframe. i don't care if he played himself into shape during the season and it worked some years, because in other years it didn't. either way it's still unprofessional IMO and furthermore put wear and tear on his joints which cut down on his career potential.


No the fact is that you always make asinine comments about Shaq. You tried to make his prime not sound great and you failed miserably.
nothing but paranoia talking.

as far as i'm concerned the choice between shaq and duncan is purely subjective. if you think shaq is better then good for you-- i'm not going to waste my time trying to change your mind. however, i stand behind my criticisms of the man... and you trotting out your typical kneejerk statistics to try to challenge that is and always will be irrelevant.

[DC Zephyrs]

winning 4 rings on the same team doesnt really makes him better , actually , bring three sh!tty teams (Magic - piece of sh!t , Lakers - piece of sh!t on the way to 20 years without a title , Heat - piece of sh!t even with Wade they werent going to anywhere ) to the glory looks mutch more impressive ; TD started to play on one of the best franchises , with the BEST coach possible , with an easy 50+ win team , and no Kobe's , Rice's , Exel's neither big ass Nick aka "missing 4 fts" Arderson to piss him off ;
Of course Shaq has a mutch bigger ego , but TD started in a mutch better situation .

Weren't the Spurs a last place team before he arrived? And didn't they set the record for the greatest single season turnaround ever? Great players bring immediate results no matter where they go. The reason I brought that up is because it shows that Duncan is completely devoted to his team. He's not going to let himself get overweight, he's not going to complain about sharing the ball, he isn't going to take games off, and he isn't going to force himself out of a certain situation. That, to me, gives Tim Duncan the edge.

And BTW, the only common theme among the Spurs 4 championships is Duncan. Tony Parker and Manu haven't always been there. Timmy has.

[rzp]

Weren't the Spurs a last place team before he arrived? And didn't they set the record for the greatest single season turnaround ever? Great players bring immediate results no matter where they go. The reason I brought that up is because it shows that Duncan is completely devoted to his team. He's not going to let himself get overweight, he's not going to complain about sharing the ball, he isn't going to take games off, and he isn't going to force himself out of a certain situation. That, to me, gives Tim Duncan the edge.

And BTW, the only common theme among the Spurs 4 championships is Duncan. Tony Parker and Manu haven't always been there. Timmy has.

LOL LOL LOL
Yap...that was a tank season and they rested DROB, result : 1st pick , everybody knows that .Im just saying...he will never complain about sharing the ball , but he also never played with egomaniacs like Kobe , Rice , Exel , even PJ .

About Tony and Gino , yes they haven't always been there , but they gave to the spurs a new life , Lakers just raped Spurs the two years before them . And u missed Popovic , and the whole spurs stuff , always there ...(didnt Shaq played almost a full season without a coach or something like that ? :lol )

[VCMVP1551]

same to you.

Nope, unlike you I've celebrated my 21st birthday.



his weight in the offseason was a problem almost every year around that timeframe. i don't care if he played himself into shape during the season and it worked some years, because in other years it didn't. either way it's still unprofessional IMO and furthermore put wear and tear on his joints which cut down on his career potential.

It worked most years. He wasn't really overweight until 2002, but they won the championship anyway. He still played great the following season despite being overweight, but that's the one season he was a problem with the "hurt on company time, heal on company time" crap. That was the only time when Shaq's antics cost his team the championship. Other years they didn't win, it wasn't because of anything Shaq did.

Hmm, cut down his career potential. Yet at 37 years old he's still an all-star averaging over 18 and 9 on 59% shooting. :oldlol:


nothing but paranoia talking.

Paranoia? :roll: What would I be paranoid about?


as far as i'm concerned the choice between shaq and duncan is purely subjective. if you think shaq is better then good for you-- i'm not going to waste my time trying to change your mind. however, i stand behind my criticisms of the man... and you trotting out your typical kneejerk statistics to try to challenge that is and always will be irrelevant.

The people who honestly think Duncan was better than Shaq didn't watch Shaq in his prime period. If you want to end this here then be my guest, but if you keep replying, so will I.

[Scott Pippen]

That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.

:roll: :roll: :roll:


To answer the OP, Shaq.


What is so funny? Bill Russell is very easily a top 7 player of all time. But I would also disagree with Showtime. I believe Shaq is #7 or #8 all time.

[gigantes]

Nope, unlike you I've celebrated my 21st birthday.
then congratulations- my youngest brother is teaching kids your age in college.


It worked most years. He wasn't really overweight until 2002, but they won the championship anyway. He still played great the following season despite being overweight, but that's the one season he was a problem with the "hurt on company time, heal on company time" crap. That was the only time when Shaq's antics cost his team the championship. Other years they didn't win, it wasn't because of anything Shaq did.
you can see it however you like, but i disagree with your facts and remembrances.


Hmm, cut down his career potential. Yet at 37 years old he's still an all-star averaging over 18 and 9 on 59% shooting. :oldlol:
as if he didn't have soft tissue problems multiple times with lower body parts causing him to miss PT.


The people who honestly think Duncan was better than Shaq didn't watch Shaq in his prime period.
not necessarily. plenty of people watched both men in their primes and prefer duncan.

[VCMVP1551]

then congratulations- my youngest brother is teaching kids your age in college.

Well then your youngest brother must be a hell of a lot older than you. I've worked fulltime for half a decade, when I started you most likely weren't even in junior high.


you can see it however you like, but i disagree with your facts and remembrances.

well disagreeing with facts isn't very smart.


as if he didn't have soft tissue problems multiple times with lower body parts causing him to miss PT.

He could have had those same injuries if he stayed at 340 pounds, which is a lot of weight for anyones knees. Shaq in shape was about 340 pounds, that's what he played at during his best season in 2000. Plus the fact that he played a very physical style of basketball which also could ahve contributed to injuries, as well as the fact that 7 foot 1 is not a normal size for a human. Men that size will be prone to injuries.


not necessarily. plenty of people watched both men in their primes and prefer duncan.

Not many of those people reside outside of San Antonio.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

If I was starting a team from scratch, I would take Shaq.
Even though I don't view him as being a great team leader nor a true professional (unlike Duncan in both cases).

However, Shaq's most unusual size/ability are virtually irreplaceable.

EDIT: My bad, I didn't realize this was just for the 2000's.
So therefore, it may well be TD, as Shaq began his decline by, what, 2003? 2004?

[gigantes]

Well then your youngest brother must be a hell of a lot older than you. I've worked fulltime for half a decade, when I started you most likely weren't even in junior high.
lol... you worked fulltime for half a decade, as if that's meant to impress anyone.

but i do suggest you look into intermediate math and basic english since you're struggling with the concept of the word "younger".


Not many of those people reside outside of San Antonio.
sure, whatever.
that's why this thread has gone on so long- because everyone who prefers duncan must be a homer.

i'll tell you what- i'll leave you to your shaq worship and head back to the nets forum where i don't have to put up with your tiresome presence.

[VCMVP1551]

lol... you worked fulltime for half a decade, as if that's meant to impress anyone.

I was pointing that out because you assumed I was a college kid.


yes, i suggest you look into intermediate math and basic english since you're struggling with the concept of the word "younger".

:roll: You said youngest not younger. You could have a few older brothers, and you could use the youngest of those as an example. he could still be your youngest brother, it doesn't mean he has to be younger than you.

Despite implying that you're an adult, I still don't buy it. You seem like some 15 year old punk to me.


sure, whatever.
that's why this thread has gone on so long- because everyone who prefers duncan must be a homer.

It's funny that you're being sarcastic, yet if you weren't you'd actually be right for once.


i'll tell you what- i'll leave you to your shaq worship and head back to the nets forum where i don't have to put up with your tiresome presence.

That sounds like a smart idea, go run and hide. You're getting your ass handed to you in this thread so that sounds like a good idea for you.

[ILLsmak]

Yeah, don't forget Shaq had already been in the league like 8 years in 2000. So, that's not a fair comparison. People also sleep on Shaq's defense. The only place Shaq fails at defense, is the pick and roll... but that's only if the big can shoot jumpers.

People have gone at Duncan. Remember Amare going at Duncan. Nobody ever went at Shaq. Why? Because he would knock them down. Shaq might not be as skilled of a defender, but even today you can see the amount of intimidation people have when driving on him. He turns most into jump shooters and treats the rest like Stuckey.

-Smak

[rzp]

Yeah, don't forget Shaq had already been in the league like 8 years in 2000. So, that's not a fair comparison. People also sleep on Shaq's defense. The only place Shaq fails at defense, is the pick and roll... but that's only if the big can shoot jumpers.

People have gone at Duncan. Remember Amare going at Duncan. Nobody ever went at Shaq. Why? Because he would knock them down. Shaq might not be as skilled of a defender, but even today you can see the amount of intimidation people have when driving on him. He turns most into jump shooters and treats the rest like Stuckey.

-Smak

well said ... Shaq is underated defensively as mutch as TD is overrated ...i also remember some VC and Lebron sick dunks on TD :lol . Also i believe Shaqs dominance and intimidation turned many bigs that would be naturally centers into soft-panzies-7foot-pf-jump-shooters like KG , Sheed , Dirk ...just my opinion anyway :cheers:

[Shep]

Overall he was nothing more than a role player that series, a role player who had 1 superstar type game.
some role. kobe's role was to minimize the impact of the opposing teams most dangerous offensive option, and to come up huge in series defining moments, so i guess if you want to call him a role player then go ahead, just recognise his role was greater than anyone on the lakers team not named o'neal, and that he was the second most valuable player of that series.

It's an example
which has become a destroyed example

27 shot attempts, 33% shooting. pathetic.
pathetic? you tell me a "role player" who wouldn't be happy with 26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, and 2 blocks, with only 1 turnover and holding his man to 2-10 shooting from long range.

Kobe was no superstar yet.
yes, this was kobe's first year as a superstar

And yet he still got his 25 points on a respectable number of shots.
but he didn't take over the game, and he didn't do enough to get his team a victory

I don't round up an inch. I round up a quarter inch, should I go around saying I'm 5-7 3/4 when asked? No, almost everyone rounds to the closest number.
no, you should say 5-7. are you 5-8? no, you're not 5-8, so you'd be lying. are you 5-7? yes, you are 5-7

[VCMVP1551]

some role. kobe's role was to minimize the impact of the opposing teams most dangerous offensive option, and to come up huge in series defining moments, so i guess if you want to call him a role player then go ahead, just recognise his role was greater than anyone on the lakers team not named o'neal, and that he was the second most valuable player of that series.

Of course his role was much greater than anyone on the Lakers not named Shaq. Kobe was still an all-star/borderline star that year, but in the series he didn't produce quite at that rate. He excelled in his defensive role and was a streaky scorer.


pathetic? you tell me a "role player" who wouldn't be happy with 26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, and 2 blocks, with only 1 turnover and holding his man to 2-10 shooting from long range.

Name me a coach who would be happy with a player shooting 33% and scoring 26 points on 27 shots? They won the championship so it didn't turn out to be a big deal, but they won more because of Shaq's 41/12/4 game.


yes, this was kobe's first year as a superstar

I can't agree with you there, however Kobe was easily a superstar the next season.


but he didn't take over the game, and he didn't do enough to get his team a victory

Yeah, but it wasn't a shutdown defensive effort by Kobe. Miller got his points, just not enough to counter Shaq's dominant game. Indiana was just overmatched, their best 2 players were Miller and Jalen Rose while the Lakers had Shaq and Kobe. There really was almost no chance of Indiana winning that series. Kobe's injury gave them a shot because you can't win with 1 player(O'Neal) but once Kobe was back in reality we both know Indiana wasn't going to win unless Miller went off for 35+ per game which he' was not capable of doing at that point.


no, you should say 5-7. are you 5-8? no, you're not 5-8, so you'd be lying. are you 5-7? yes, you are 5-7

I can say almost 5-8. :D

[Shep]

Of course his role was much greater than anyone on the Lakers not named Shaq. Kobe was still an all-star/borderline star that year, but in the series he didn't produce quite at that rate. He excelled in his defensive role and was a streaky scorer.
he didn't produce at that rate most likely due to the injury he had in game 2, but numbers aside his impact was still there

Name me a coach who would be happy with a player shooting 33% and scoring 26 points on 27 shots? They won the championship so it didn't turn out to be a big deal, but they won more because of Shaq's 41/12/4 game.
the lakers won, and they wouldn't have without bryant's contributions

I can't agree with you there, however Kobe was easily a superstar the next season.
oh well, disagreeing with me means you're wrong

Yeah, but it wasn't a shutdown defensive effort by Kobe. Miller got his points, just not enough to counter Shaq's dominant game. Indiana was just overmatched, their best 2 players were Miller and Jalen Rose while the Lakers had Shaq and Kobe. There really was almost no chance of Indiana winning that series. Kobe's injury gave them a shot because you can't win with 1 player(O'Neal) but once Kobe was back in reality we both know Indiana wasn't going to win unless Miller went off for 35+ per game which he' was not capable of doing at that point.
indiana had a very good chance of winning that series. they had huge chances in game 2 and game 4, which would give them 2 more wins and the championship. kobe also guarded mark jackson, who made 3 field goals, including a hook shot from half court. i believe doug collins said it best when he said something along the lines of "kobe's impact is much more than his field goal makes and attempts when you look at his ability to break down defenses, make passes, defend, and create lanes from nothing"

I can say almost 5-8.
no you can't :lol