Who has the better Career, Tim Duncan vs Shaq

[RocketGreatness]

Gotta go with Duncan.

[jlauber]

In MY all-time top-10 (for whatever that is worth), I have them TIED at #6 (with Kobe at #8 BTW.) IMHO, Shaq, at his PEAK was among the top 3-4 of all-time. BUT, Duncan's value went beyond pure stats. He carried completely different rosters to titles, and has been on a 50 win team every season he has played. H2H, I think Shaq was more dominant. But, Duncan could elevate his team's.

I KNOW that there will be posters here who will praise their favorite, and bash the other guy...which is completely ridiculous. They were/are BOTH GREAT. And even I have been guilty of assuming that Kobe will get another ring and surpass them on the all-time lists. However, with Shaq going to Boston, and Duncan still playing well, and with a solid team...who knows. Either of those guys might get another ring before Kobe. Then these debates will really get interesting....

[Disaprine]

shaq easily.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq, both have 4 rings, Duncan has one more as "the man", but Shaq had 3 legendary finals performances and playoff runs while Duncan only had 1 that sticks out like that(2003) despite his other runs being excellent. Shaq also has 5 more years in the league and has accumulated much better career totals while still having career averages more impressive, hell Shaq is 5th all time on the scoring list and approaching 30,000 points and Shaq's peak('00 and '01) has to be factored in because Shaq at that point was playing at a level only a select few have reached(Jordan, Kareem, Wilt in '67 and maybe Bird)

[west]

Shaq easily.

[MasterDurant24]

Uhh, about the same. However, Shaq is playing too far out of his prime. Duncan is still producing All-Star numbers. But Shaq had such a great prime.

[Bigsmoke]

Shaq

[SCdac]

I'd probably go with Duncan's career. Alot less moving of all my belongings from year to year, a lot less drama seeping out of the locker room, and he didn't pollute our televisions with crap like Kazaam and Steel... For real though, why not just bump one of the multiple threads on this subject?

[RocketGreatness]

2003 Duncan did something Shaq never did: win without a star wing player. Parker and Manu were both relatively young and inexperienced at that point, Parker especially. Manu had his moments, especially against the Lakers, but neither was a star at that point.

As far as having the better career, Duncan was the best player on 4 title teams, Shaq 3. That, plus the fact that I don't think you can build a franchise long-term with a star player personality like Shaq...and Duncan has the better career IMO.

[DuMa]

Right now Shaq very easily but because hes had a few more years than Timmy (by 5 years) to operate his HOF career. Duncan still has a few more years left to change that. The book is not closed yet on these two.

[RocketGreatness]

Right now Shaq very easily
rofl. :roll:

[RocketGreatness]

I'd probably go with Duncan's career. Alot less moving of all my belongings from year to year, a lot less drama seeping out of the locker room, and he didn't pollute our televisions with crap like Kazaam and Steel... For real though, why not just bump one of the multiple threads on this subject?
What you think of my post nukka?

[ShaqAttack3234]

2003 Duncan did something Shaq never did: win without a star wing player. Parker and Manu were both relatively young and inexperienced at that point, Parker especially. Manu had his moments, especially against the Lakers, but neither was a star at that point.

So? What an arbitrary thing to give him as an advantage.

First of all, Duncan's cast had more depth than Shaq's, particularly in 2000. Duncan played alongside much better big men, even Robinson in his last year was clearly a better player than an old AC Green or Robert Horry(who did little things well and was a good role player, but not as good as D Rob) and Malik Rose was also a very good big man to have coming off the bench.

Tony Parker even at that point was a much better player than an old Ron Harper was. Harper was a smart palyer and a solid who provided defense, but he wasn't much of a scoring threat. Parker could penetrate and have big nights even at that point. In fact, people were saying he outplayed Jason Kidd through the first few games of the finals.

Duncan's two shooting guards were inconsistent, but already proving to be very talented and because he had 2 talented shooting guards, they usually got a lot of production from that position because while either could go for 20+ or score in single figures on any given night, but chances were either one of them would have a good game or they'd combine for a very productive night from the position.

And Bruce Bowen was a much more valuable player than Glen Rice was in the playoffs that year. Rice was a one-dimensional scorer/shooter who was way passed his prime. Bowen was the best perimeter defender at the time and his defense on Kobe in the WCSF was a huge reason why the Spurs went as far as they did, and actually, Bowen shot 3s better than Rice did in terms of makes and % in the playoffs while only scoring 4 fewer ppg despite that not being his role.

I'm not taking away anything from Duncan's '03 run which is one of the best I've ever seen, but while Shaq's number 2 guy was much better than anyone on Duncan's team, Duncan had more depth which makes up for it.

And don't forget that while 2000 Kobe was an all-star and one of the better perimeter players, he wasn't the superstar/franchise-caliber player he'd become and the Lakers won the finals despite Kobe missing virtually 2 games and only having 1 good game the entire series.

Supporting casts shouldn't come into play much because both had good championship-caliber casts, but both were still required to carry a very heavy load.


As far as having the better career, Duncan was the best player on 4 title teams, Shaq 3. That, plus the fact that I don't think you can build a franchise long-term with a star player personality like Shaq...and Duncan has the better career IMO.

8 years isn't a long time? The Lakers had Shaq for 8 seasons and were a title contender every year.

[jlauber]

Right now Shaq very easily but because hes had a few more years than Timmy (by 5 years) to operate his HOF career. Duncan still has a few more years left to change that. The book is not closed yet on these two.

I agree. I find it fascinating when I read someone who says that Duncan has had a better CAREER. My god, Shaq was the best player in the league from '98-'04. And, he was probably top-3-4 in every other season, except perhaps from about '06 to current. That means that Shaq was among the best players in the league, if not THE best, in about 14 seasons.

I am not diminishing Duncan's CAREER with the above statement, but clearly, Shaq HAS had the better CAREER, at least so far.

Still, IMHO, Duncan's impact has gone beyond stats (much like Russell and Magic.) He made his TEAMMATES better. If you were to rank contributions, I really think that Rusell, Magic, and Duncan have been three players who made the sum of the whole, greater, greater than the sum of the parts.

Once again...I have them deadlocked. I wouldn't argue with either side, except to say that, at his PEAK, Shaq was arguably a top-3 or 4 player, all-time. The same could not be said for Duncan.

[SCdac]

What you think of my post nukka?

which one, the most recent? I generally agree. Particularly the part about Shaq's personality, which is a significant reason I prefer Duncan's career. On one hand I could I could be one of the most dominant players ever, with probably an a ego as big or bigger than his frame, but on the other hand I could become the clear face to a franchise and bring a championship to a city and team for the first time ever, and the only championship for a Texas team since Hakeem's Rockets. Just personally, that's the kind of career and path I hold in high regard. Eh, it's easy to argue for both of them, but I'll take Tim "Groundhog Day" Duncan for his consistent effort, all-defensive type game, and his leadership and good teammate qualities, no question. Tim Duncan could have easily bolted from SA, but he chose not to, sometimes taking less money (yeah, it's still millions, but it's still less than he could have gotten).

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree. I find it fascinating when I read someone who says that Duncan has had a better CAREER. My god, Shaq was the best player in the league from '98-'04. And, he was probably top-3-4 in every other season, except perhaps from about '06 to current. That means that Shaq was among the best players in the league, if not THE best, in about 14 seasons.

I am not diminishing Duncan's CAREER with the above statement, but clearly, Shaq HAS had the better CAREER, at least so far.

Still, IMHO, Duncan's impact has gone beyond stats (much like Russell and Magic.) He made his TEAMMATES better. If you were to rank contributions, I really think that Rusell, Magic, and Duncan have been three players who made the sum of the whole, greater, greater than the sum of the parts.

Once again...I have them deadlocked. I wouldn't argue with either side, except to say that, at his PEAK, Shaq was arguably a top-3 or 4 player, all-time. The same could not be said for Duncan.

I think Shaq's impact went well beyond stats as well from his intimidation in the paint(how often did you see players try to dunk on Shaq?) to the double teams he drew and the foul trouble he caused teams as well which got them into the penalty early, often had their starting centers on the bench and helped Shaq's teams set their defense as well as wearing down their frontlines physically.

Shaq doesn't get enough impact for his defensive impact either. I saw quotes from Robert Horry and Rick Fox(2 good defensive players and winners in their own right) talking about how having Shaq behind them made them better defensively.

As amazing as Shaq's numbers were(27.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 2.8 apg and 2.6 bpg on 57.7% shooting from 1992-2003 and better in the playoffs) they don't begin to do justice to his impact. In fact, here's a quote from Chuck Daly about even an older Shaq circa 2006.

[QUOTE]"It's amusing to me," Hall of Fame coach Chuck Daly said, adding that O'Neal remains one of the top five players in the league regardless of his stats. "Every night, people are playing him with two, 2

[BallinSinceBirf]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.

[RocketGreatness]

So? What an arbitrary thing to give him as an advantage.

First of all, Duncan's cast had more depth than Shaq's, particularly in 2000. Duncan played alongside much better big men, even Robinson in his last year was clearly a better player than an old AC Green or Robert Horry(who did little things well and was a good role player, but not as good as D Rob) and Malik Rose was also a very good big man to have coming off the bench.

Tony Parker even at that point was a much better player than an old Ron Harper was. Harper was a smart palyer and a solid who provided defense, but he wasn't much of a scoring threat. Parker could penetrate and have big nights even at that point. In fact, people were saying he outplayed Jason Kidd through the first few games of the finals.

Duncan's two shooting guards were inconsistent, but already proving to be very talented and because he had 2 talented shooting guards, they usually got a lot of production from that position because while either could go for 20+ or score in single figures on any given night, but chances were either one of them would have a good game or they'd combine for a very productive night from the position.

And Bruce Bowen was a much more valuable player than Glen Rice was in the playoffs that year. Rice was a one-dimensional scorer/shooter who was way passed his prime. Bowen was the best perimeter defender at the time and his defense on Kobe in the WCSF was a huge reason why the Spurs went as far as they did, and actually, Bowen shot 3s better than Rice did in terms of makes and % in the playoffs while only scoring 4 fewer ppg despite that not being his role.

I'm not taking away anything from Duncan's '03 run which is one of the best I've ever seen, but while Shaq's number 2 guy was much better than anyone on Duncan's team, Duncan had more depth which makes up for it.

And don't forget that while 2000 Kobe was an all-star and one of the better perimeter players, he wasn't the superstar/franchise-caliber player he'd become and the Lakers won the finals despite Kobe missing virtually 2 games and only having 1 good game the entire series.

Supporting casts shouldn't come into play much because both had good championship-caliber casts, but both were still required to carry a very heavy load.



8 years isn't a long time? The Lakers had Shaq for 8 seasons and were a title contender every year.
ROFL, nice job trying to deflect how good Duncan's 03 season was. What Duncan did in 03 separates himself from Shaq. Shaq has never won without a star wing player like Duncan. I'm not sure how much simplier I can put this.

[rzp]

ROFL, nice job trying to deflect how good Duncan's 03 season was. What Duncan did in 03 separates himself from Shaq. Shaq has never won without a star wing player like Duncan. I'm not sure how much simplier I can put this.

1999/2000? do u believe that a 20-year-old-ballhog-chuker-40%fg-Kobe-Bryant-wanna-be-the-alpha-dog-right-now was that mutch better than Parker and Manu combined?:oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

ROFL, nice job trying to deflect how good Duncan's 03 season was. What Duncan did in 03 separates himself from Shaq. Shaq has never won without a star wing player like Duncan. I'm not sure how much simplier I can put this.

Except you're WAY too stupid or biased to realize that simply having a better 2nd option doesn't mean you had more help.

If you look at what their casts did in the 2000 and 2003 playoffs respectively

Parker>Harper/Shaw
Kobe>Ginobili/Jackson
Bowen>Rice
Robinson/Rose>Green/Horry

[spursdynasty420]

if you asked each of shaq and duncans teamates who is the better teamate and player to play with. it will be duncan hands down. duncan has the better career the better attitude overall

[spursdynasty420]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.

truth right here....

imagine shaq with duncan or ginobilis heart or with kobes work ethic he would be the greatest of all time hands down. instead hes not hes a ring chaser a dominant one but still a ring chaser. duncan has done things the right way and taken pay cuts for his team something shaq NEVER did

[Rose]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.

That's why I would choose Duncan. Duncan's game shouldn't have worked as well as it did in this Era of basketball. Plus I think Duncan's intangibles far out weigh Shaq's.

[chazzy]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.

Regardless of what you think about his work ethic/potential, it doesn't take anything away from what he actually did.

[rzp]

truth right here....

imagine shaq with duncan or ginobilis heart or with kobes work ethic he would be the greatest of all time hands down. instead hes not hes a ring chaser a dominant one but still a ring chaser. duncan has done things the right way and taken pay cuts for his team something shaq NEVER did

What a BS...do you know Shaq started ring chasing after 36 right? he is broken down, washed up, he isnt on LeDecision mode, so who the fvck cares? he just want to play on a competitive team and have some fun. You cant count this as a legacy since he isnt even relevant (would be relevant Shaq winning another ring now with the Celtics?no , so why is relevant his ring chasing style at this point?:rolleyes: )

[rmt]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.

I agree with this. Shaq could have been the greatest ever but didn't maximize his potential by combining his unique size and athleticism with hard work. He also hasn't had the major injuries that the other elite bigs (KG, Duncan) have had.

Duncan has done more with less - size, athleticism, team mates, owner, coach, small market. He's in decline now but still top 5 in PER (only Lebron, Wade, Durant and Bosh ahead of him). Not bad for a 34 year old with bad knees. If I'm a GM, I'd pick Duncan.

[TheLogo]

They have equal careers but Shaq probably drops out of the top 10.

[rzp]

They have equal careers but Shaq probably drops out of the top 10.

Ya probly he lost his spot to Kobe...

:rolleyes:

[jlauber]

I KNEW this topic would be reduced to absudity...

Look, once again, if you want to argue for either Duncan, or Shaq, above the other, fine. Just don't feed me an BS about one of them being considerably worse than the other. They are BOTH solidly in the top-10, all-time. Anyone claiming otherwise has a clear agenda.

[spursdynasty420]

I KNEW this topic would be reduced to absudity...

Look, once again, if you want to argue for either Duncan, or Shaq, above the other, fine. Just don't feed me an BS about one of them being considerably worse than the other. They are BOTH solidly in the top-10, all-time. Anyone claiming otherwise has a clear agenda.

i totally agree with them both being top 10. we are just sayin he could be GOAT with duncans mind and heart ;p

[creepingdeath]

They have equal careers but Shaq probably drops out of the top 10.
SMH... TheLogo at his best. :banghead:

As a person, this is no contest: Duncan is modest, down-to-earth, a great teammate und respectful to peers and rivals alike. Yet this has nothing to do with whom one should rate higher, something people sometimes tend to forget. It doesn't matter if he's become somewhat of a ringchaser, that doesn't take away the slightest bit from his various triumphs.

Personally, I think that Duncan accomplished tantamount team achievements with less, but on the other hand, Shaq's peak was so friggin' darn dominant, stat-wise and on the court as well, that it's really hard for me to decide. Let's just wait until both of those guys retire before we decide.

[SCdac]

Basketball is not a video game, and it's not all about individual statistics. It'd be foolish to deny the human aspect of the sport. Surely, personality, attitude, loyalty, work ethic, leadership, willingness to defer, and things of that nature play a part in the argument, at least imo, OP didn't exactly give us any requirements or guidelines etc.

[TheLogo]

Basketball is not a video game, and it's not all about individual statistics. It'd be foolish to deny the human aspect of the sport. Surely, personality, attitude, loyalty, work ethic, leadership, willingness to defer, and things of that nature play a part in the argument, at least imo, OP didn't exactly give us any requirements or guidelines etc.

I agree completely but these kids on this site, who barely started watching can only look at the stat book.

[JellyBean]

Shaq, without a doubt.

[KingBeasley08]

I'd say Duncan but Shaq had the better peak

[TheLogo]

Duncan didn't have the luxury to play with a top 5 GOAT player and Duncan's team want him while Shaq is on loan.

[rmt]

Duncan didn't have the luxury to play with a top 5 GOAT player and Duncan's team want him while Shaq is on loan.

I respectfully disagree that Kobe is a top 5 GOAT player. Winning 1 MVP and 2 championships as the best player on one's team does not match up with the other top 8-9 GOAT candidates' resumes.

[creepingdeath]

Duncan didn't have the luxury to play with a top 5 GOAT player
:roll:
Kobe being a top 5 player ever = :banghead:

[KoRn]

1999/2000? do u believe that a 20-year-old-ballhog-chuker-40%fg-Kobe-Bryant-wanna-be-the-alpha-dog-right-now was that mutch better than Parker and Manu combined?:oldlol:

40% chucker? regular season 46.8 % playoffs 44%. stop making up stats and look them up. game 4 in overtime, shaq fouls out and kobe took over. 28 points on 14 of 27 with 4 rebounds and 5 assists.

[RocketGreatness]

Except you're WAY too stupid or biased to realize that simply having a better 2nd option doesn't mean you had more help.

If you look at what their casts did in the 2000 and 2003 playoffs respectively

Parker>Harper/Shaw
Kobe>Ginobili/Jackson
Bowen>Rice
Robinson/Rose>Green/Horry
Um, Kobe>That Entires Spurs roster minus Duncan. Like I said, Duncan won a championship with not just zero stars on his team, but zero all-stars. Shaq has always had a star wing player on his team, like Kobe, Wade, Penny, etc. I mean really, get this through your thick skull or take Shaq's fat balls out of your mouth.

If you honestly think 2000 Lakers minus Shaq <<<< 2003 Spurs Minus Duncan, you are only fooling yourself.

[RocketGreatness]

Regardless of what you think about his work ethic/potential, it doesn't take anything away from what he actually did.
Hm let me guess, your answer is Shaq? :lol

[Micku]

I think Duncan has more awards than Shaq. With that said, people will remember Shaq more than Duncan. Shaq is more famous, and had a better impact off the floor as well as in. Shaq also had a better prime.

Basically, I think Shaq had more impact on the NBA than Duncan did. But Duncan was more consistent in his success and have more rewards in a shorter time than Shaq.

[Carbine]

It's always funny to me that basketball is literally the only sport where "prime" is so heavily considered in rankings. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.

[jlauber]

It's always funny to me that basketball is literally the only sport where "prime" is so heavily considered in rankings. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.

I mentioned it in another thread, but does anyone hold MJ's last two seasons against him?

Look, Shaq had at LEAST 14 seasons in which he was a top-3-4 player in the league, and arguably around 6-7 as THE best. You would be hard-pressed to find too many other HOFers who played anywhere near as well, for as long.

[MasterDurant24]

Except you're WAY too stupid or biased to realize that simply having a better 2nd option doesn't mean you had more help.

If you look at what their casts did in the 2000 and 2003 playoffs respectively

Parker>Harper/Shaw
Kobe>Ginobili/Jackson
Bowen>Rice
Robinson/Rose>Green/Horry
Bowen better than Rice? Don't know about that one....

[Big#50]

KAJ/Jordan
Duncan/Shaq
Bird
Hakeem
Magic
Kobe
Wilt
Russell
I usually flip flopMagic and Kobe.
Now on to Shaq and Duncan. Duncan played far superior D. Shaq was a beast on offense. Duncan had several monster games in the playoffs that compare to Shaq's best games. Despite not being 7'1 330. What Duncan did in 03 tops any of Shaq's championship runs. Shaq was a bit lazier and many would say he had the greatest sidekick of all time. Duncan had a good core around him as well. It is so even I couldn't care what anyone says. I wish Shaq was 28 again. I wish Tim was 26 again. **** you father time.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Shaq

He was more dominant at his peak, he was also more celebrated and more visible. Duncan is a great player but he's boring. I doubt that many people outside of San Antonio know who he is and give a damn about the guy.

[Rendezvous32]

Except you're WAY too stupid or biased to realize that simply having a better 2nd option doesn't mean you had more help.

If you look at what their casts did in the 2000 and 2003 playoffs respectively

Parker>Harper/Shaw
Kobe>Ginobili/Jackson
Bowen>Rice
Robinson/Rose>Green/Horry
Um, Aren't you forgetting about Derek Fisher? Kobe Bryant's presence as the second key guy on the team is what makes that team better than the 2003 Spurs.

[Nash]

Shaq changed the game and his position.

[Snoop_Cat]

Bowen better than Rice? Don't know about that one....

Rice averaged like 12 points on 40-ish% shooting. He was alright during the regular season but 00 playoff Rice was a total shell of his former great self.

[Big#50]

Shaq

He was more dominant at his peak, he was also more celebrated and more visible. Duncan is a great player but he's boring. I doubt that many people outside of San Antonio know who he is and give a damn about the guy.
Tim is funny as ****. Boring? How? Because he didn't celebrate after dunking on someone? Because he didn't scream like an idiot after a good block? How is Duncan boring. Watch highlights of Tim from before 05. Boring is a dumb word to describe Tim. Boring wins 4 rings? Boring makes you a top 3 defensive player of all time? Boring makes you one of the most clutch players ever? Kobe fans are idiots.

[Sarcastic]

Shaq's prime > Duncan's prime
Shaq's peak > Duncan's peak

Not really even close either.
A few of Duncan's titles were rather opportunistic too. They had more to do with Shaq's teams losing than with Duncan's teams winning.

[stickfigure87]

shaq's contributions had a greater impact on the nba. duncan however, had the better career imo. people consider him the greatest guy to ever play the four spot, not many people say that about shaq at the center.

[beermonsteroo]

Duncan ist the most overrated player in history.

Who will remeber him in 15 years? No one!

You will remeber Shaq? Every one!

End thread!

[rmt]

Here is Kareem Abdul Jabbar's opinion:

Kareem: The big man that I think has been the best of this generation is Tim Duncan. He gets the job done, night in and night out. He's versatile, totally able to do the things his team needs him to do to win. Tim is the leader for the Spurs. He's consistent. He does a number of different things, offensively and defensively. He's a good rebounder. He's also consistent offensively to be a go-to guy -- nothing is lacking in his game. He's very well rounded and very, very consistent.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/03/10/kareem.20090310/index.html
Posted Mar 10 2009

Duncan is still very consistent and efficient - #5 in PER (09-10).

[RocketGreatness]

Here is Kareem Abdul Jabbar's opinion:

Kareem: The big man that I think has been the best of this generation is Tim Duncan. He gets the job done, night in and night out. He's versatile, totally able to do the things his team needs him to do to win. Tim is the leader for the Spurs. He's consistent. He does a number of different things, offensively and defensively. He's a good rebounder. He's also consistent offensively to be a go-to guy -- nothing is lacking in his game. He's very well rounded and very, very consistent.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/03/10/kareem.20090310/index.html
Posted Mar 10 2009

Duncan is still very consistent and efficient - #5 in PER (09-10).
Nice find bro.

[SCdac]

Duncan even pulled down a career high in rebounds last season, not at 23 years of age, but at 33. He's still top-tier big man no matter how you slice it (not just because of that game). Those who are talking about who will be "remembered the most", are you guys inferring that'll you'll personally forget about Tim Duncan in 10+ years? Maybe many of you are really young or something, idk. Popularity is great for a franchise and player (it's somewhat of a factor), but hardly the deciding factor IMO, not if it means that player will eventually pack up his bags when the going gets tough, leave on a bad note, and just bring his popularity somewhere else. And certainly people know who Duncan is in the basketball world, was he in "Scary Movie 48694" no, but who cares movie sucked anyways. Brook Lopez has talked about watching him, Kevin Love too, even the Brazilian Tiago Splitter said he grew up watching Duncan (and wore #21 because Tim was his favorite).

[SCdac]

Shaq's prime > Duncan's prime
Shaq's peak > Duncan's peak

Not really even close either.
A few of Duncan's titles were rather opportunistic too. They had more to do with Shaq's teams losing than with Duncan's teams winning.

Hey, if you want to talk about opportunistic, it's not like Shaq was the one who hit that ridiculous 0.4 shot in May of 2004 to give the Spurs one of the worst "bad beats" ever. And it's not like Duncan ever got to play with Kobe Bryant, the dude who lead the Lakers with 26 points the very next game to knock the defending champion Spurs out of the playoffs. Opportunistic, lol. Duncan hasn't quite played with a player as good as Dwayne Wade either.

[amfirst]

Duncan prob has more winning shots, so Duncan in the end. Shaq needs to play with the top perimeter to make up for his big weaknesses free throws, and clutchness.

[rmt]

Brook Lopez has talked about watching him, Kevin Love too, even the Brazilian Tiago Splitter said he grew up watching Duncan (and wore #21 because Tim was his favorite).

Nice to hear about the up and coming big men watching Duncan - they can learn a thing or two. Gosh he's getting old.

Funny you don't hear the same about Shaq as no one has been blessed with that size and can imitate him.

[KenneBell]

I'm going with Duncan. Shaq might have had the higher peak but as a whole Duncan's career is better IMO.

[KnowledgeWithin]

Duncan's career as far as awards and winning goes, as far as a player it is a toss up. Shaq had GOAT like numbers during the 3peat then became a mortal after. Duncan has been a 20pt 11rb player for majority of his career but as far as getting the job done I'd give him the nod. Presence wise Shaq for sure.

[SinJackal]

Right now Shaq very easily but because hes had a few more years than Timmy (by 5 years) to operate his HOF career. Duncan still has a few more years left to change that. The book is not closed yet on these two.

I 100% disagree that Shaq has easily had the better career. It's not far apart at all.

Though I can understandably see why you'd think Shaq had a better one. It's just not all far apart or anything.



I mentioned it in another thread, but does anyone hold MJ's last two seasons against him?

Look, Shaq had at LEAST 14 seasons in which he was a top-3-4 player in the league, and arguably around 6-7 as THE best. You would be hard-pressed to find too many other HOFers who played anywhere near as well, for as long.

Just about everyone holds those against MJ, and they do count against his career totals. And yet, even with them, his career totals smash every other SG ever by far. His "prime" was also over a decade long, nearly his entire career, and not the span of 3-5 years.

I also disagree that Shaq was the best player in the NBA for 6-7 years. He was arguably the best from '99-'03. He was not the best at any point when MJ was in the league, and during his first retirement, Robinson and Hakeem were better than Shaq anyway, so he cannot be considered better that early. They were putting up similar offensive numbers only were better defensively and not by a slim margin.

Shaq was not instantly the best player when MJ left, since the season he had was actually not that impressive by Shaq standards. LA also went nowhere that year, getting swept out of the playoffs by SA. Shaq, outplayed by none other than Tim Duncan (in his second season no less).



Bowen better than Rice? Don't know about that one....

Don't forget, Bowen's overrated as hell when it comes to talking about him individually, but is vastly underrated when we're talking about Duncan's career. Bowen was the best player on the floor besides Duncan!

-_-

/end sarcasim



Shaq

He was more dominant at his peak, he was also more celebrated and more visible. Duncan is a great player but he's boring. I doubt that many people outside of San Antonio know who he is and give a damn about the guy.

Can't fault a player for not getting enough coverage. You also can't give extra points to a player for being more popular. Popularity has nothing to do with skill, accomplishments, and overall game impact.



Shaq changed the game and his position.

How exactly? Back up your claim rather than make a lonely statement.



Tim is funny as ****. Boring? How? Because he didn't celebrate after dunking on someone? Because he didn't scream like an idiot after a good block? How is Duncan boring. Watch highlights of Tim from before 05. Boring is a dumb word to describe Tim. Boring wins 4 rings? Boring makes you a top 3 defensive player of all time? Boring makes you one of the most clutch players ever? Kobe fans are idiots.

They heard some butthurt analyst on ESPN say the Spurs/Duncan were boring one time, so they keep repeating it without having even watched any of their games.

They think the entire Spurs team is boring, including Parker and Ginobili.







So anyway. . .both are great players, and at least at this point, should be at least within 1-2 spaces of eachother on the all time list, regardless of who has who ranked higher.

I just want to point out that Shaq was very dominant. . .offensively. However, was he a more dominant rebounder? I can't say that he was. Was he a more dominant shot blocker? I can't say that he was. Was he a better passer? Well Duncan has more APG, never averaging less than 2.4 per game, something Shaq has done 9 times. Duncan also gets more steals, turns the ball over less, and fouls less.

Duncan is a better team defender, but Shaq is a better low post defender (bigger body, bit more length). However, Duncan is considered the best overall big man defender this decade.

Shaq has been a bigger offensive threat, with his excellent set of moves, size, and power.

In the end, I don't view Shaq as superior to Duncan besides his scoring. Everything else about basketball, Duncan is either just as good as Shaq (or VERY close), or better than Shaq.

Duncan also has better intangibles than Shaq.

I like both players, but I would personally rather have Duncan if I were to be making a team, but prime Shaq if I needed to win a game 7.

In any case, it's ludicrous to say either player is way better than the other, because they aren't. They're both great. Everyone has their opinion, but don't pass it off like the other sucks.

[Desperado]

Has already been discussed before numerous times. They are pretty much on the same level career wise but prime Shaq > prime Duncan, peak Shaq >> peak Duncan.

Most unbiased basketball fans agree with this. The only ones that didn't agree were Spurs homers.

[Replay32]

Shaq

[KoRn]

I 100% disagree that Shaq has easily had the better career. It's not far apart at all.

Though I can understandably see why you'd think Shaq had a better one. It's just not all far apart or anything.




Just about everyone holds those against MJ, and they do count against his career totals. And yet, even with them, his career totals smash every other SG ever by far. His "prime" was also over a decade long, nearly his entire career, and not the span of 3-5 years.

I also disagree that Shaq was the best player in the NBA for 6-7 years. He was arguably the best from '99-'03. He was not the best at any point when MJ was in the league, and during his first retirement, Robinson and Hakeem were better than Shaq anyway, so he cannot be considered better that early. They were putting up similar offensive numbers only were better defensively and not by a slim margin.

Shaq was not instantly the best player when MJ left, since the season he had was actually not that impressive by Shaq standards. LA also went nowhere that year, getting swept out of the playoffs by SA. Shaq, outplayed by none other than Tim Duncan (in his second season no less).




Don't forget, Bowen's overrated as hell when it comes to talking about him individually, but is vastly underrated when we're talking about Duncan's career. Bowen was the best player on the floor besides Duncan!

-_-

/end sarcasim




Can't fault a player for not getting enough coverage. You also can't give extra points to a player for being more popular. Popularity has nothing to do with skill, accomplishments, and overall game impact.




How exactly? Back up your claim rather than make a lonely statement.




They heard some butthurt analyst on ESPN say the Spurs/Duncan were boring one time, so they keep repeating it without having even watched any of their games.

They think the entire Spurs team is boring, including Parker and Ginobili.







So anyway. . .both are great players, and at least at this point, should be at least within 1-2 spaces of eachother on the all time list, regardless of who has who ranked higher.

I just want to point out that Shaq was very dominant. . .offensively. However, was he a more dominant rebounder? I can't say that he was. Was he a more dominant shot blocker? I can't say that he was. Was he a better passer? Well Duncan has more APG, never averaging less than 2.4 per game, something Shaq has done 9 times. Duncan also gets more steals, turns the ball over less, and fouls less.

Duncan is a better team defender, but Shaq is a better low post defender (bigger body, bit more length). However, Duncan is considered the best overall big man defender this decade.

Shaq has been a bigger offensive threat, with his excellent set of moves, size, and power.

In the end, I don't view Shaq as superior to Duncan besides his scoring. Everything else about basketball, Duncan is either just as good as Shaq (or VERY close), or better than Shaq.

Duncan also has better intangibles than Shaq.

I like both players, but I would personally rather have Duncan if I were to be making a team, but prime Shaq if I needed to win a game 7.

In any case, it's ludicrous to say either player is way better than the other, because they aren't. They're both great. Everyone has their opinion, but don't pass it off like the other sucks.

this. anyone that says easily better don't know basketball. they are very close. if shaq was so much better, then why didn't he win more championship in his prime?

[whatever666]

Shaq, just simply superior upside, he has been more impactfull, more dominant.

But dont get me wrong, its ridicilously close considering what Duncan has achieved/accomplished.

[Pearleojam]

Tim is funny as ****. Boring? How? Because he didn't celebrate after dunking on someone? Because he didn't scream like an idiot after a good block? How is Duncan boring. Watch highlights of Tim from before 05. Boring is a dumb word to describe Tim. Boring wins 4 rings? Boring makes you a top 3 defensive player of all time? Boring makes you one of the most clutch players ever? Kobe fans are idiots.

100% Agree!

Duncan IMO

[KoRn]

Shaq, just simply superior upside, he has been more impactfull, more dominant.

But dont get me wrong, its ridicilously close considering what Duncan has achieved/accomplished.

superior upside? yeah if shaq had reached his potential. but he didn't. if he had a work ethic like many other greats, he would have easily been the GOAT. he didn't work hard on his game , was out of shape and didn't improve his free throws. it's funny when the game is close, the coaches take him out of the game for fear he'll miss free throws. so in close games, he needs kobe or wade to finish off the other team.

[MasterDurant24]

Has already been discussed before numerous times. They are pretty much on the same level career wise but prime Shaq > prime Duncan, peak Shaq >> peak Duncan.

Most unbiased basketball fans agree with this. The only ones that didn't agree were Spurs homers.
Their primes are better than their peaks? What?

[Papaya Petee]

Shaq, similar accomplishments, but Shaq's stats > Duncan's stats Shaq's Prime> Duncan's Prime, Shaq's dominance > Duncan's dominance, and Shaq's longetivity ( for now ) > Duncans.

[Papaya Petee]

Oh btw, I'm sorry, but some of you posters are really stupid.

You're going, yeah if Shaq had half the work-ethic Duncan had he would be the GOAT. Cool, he doesn't, yet he still is one of the most dominant of all time, and much more dominant then Duncan.

In 1999-2000 Shaq did something that Duncan even in 2003 didn't do.

[RazorBaLade]

duncan by far

[Rendezvous32]

In 1999-2000 Shaq did something that Duncan even in 2003 didn't do.
And what was that?

[RocketGreatness]

And what was that?
The guy has no credibility, don't even bother with him.

[Big#50]

Upon further review id like to say that Duncan was better than Shaq in 01,02,03. He had two mvp's to Shaq's one. He took a sorry ass squad to 58 wins in in 01 and 02 and won a ring in 03 with a weak cast. Shaq in 2000 was a beast but the only reason he won two more rings was because Kobe became the goat sidekick ever. Shaq was pretty weak defensively and was picked on by the Kings every time they played despite his sick offensive output. Give Duncan a Kobe caliber sidekick in 01 and 02 and he wins those rings as well. Sure Shaq had the sick numbers in the finals but he had plenty of help except in 2000. Duncan's defense is so underrated. Duncan> Shaq by the tiniest margin. So all the people saying Shaq was the best player in the league from 99 to 03 are mistaken. Shaq was just a beast in the paint. Duncan was better all around.
99 spurs win ring
2000 Shaq goes ape shit wins MVP and Duncan is injured for the playoffs.
2001 Lakers win again Duncan takes the Spurs to to 58 wins only to lose to the lakers much better team.
2002 Lakers win again Duncan reg season MVP after taking a sorry cast to 58 wins only to lose to lakers much better squad.
2003 spurs win ring another MVP for Duncan with a weak cast.

[jlauber]

Amazing...the same guys who were ripping Kobe in the Kobe-Duncan threads, are now praising him as a GOAT sidekick, and minimizing Shaq's rings now. What next? I guess Shaq and Kobe didn't deserve ANY rings.

[JustinJDW]

Both Timmy and Shaq have had amazing careers, and I'm sure everyone would agree with that. However, I don't agree with anyone that says that its "Tim easily" or "Shaq and its not even close", because it is very close. Their careers are basically parallel and identical to each other. Haha, didn't they even win an All-Star Game MVP together?

Now obviously I would say I am a bit biased because I am a without a doubt a die-hard Spurs fan, but I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that in my opinon, Tim Duncan has had the slightly better career. And I believe this simple because Tim Duncan has had the same amount of success, if not more, than Shaq but with significantly less talent.

Tim Duncan has never, EVER, had a teammate EVEN CLOSE to the talent or caliber of 00-04 Kobe Bryant or 05-07 D-Wade. Tim Duncan's Championship run in 03 was beyond amazing, its not even funny. In fact, the best talent Timmy has ever played with was either David Robinson when he was past his prime and entering his mid 30's, or Tony Parker in 07 and as of late in the past couple years as he is entering his prime.

But it really is kind of a joke when you compare that talent to what Kobe and D-Wade bring to the table. And do I really need to get into that team Shaq had in 04? Seriously, imagine if Timmy had a team like that.

In my opinion, when you consider that Shaq has never won or even made it to the Finals without having an absolute Star Wingman, (Kobe, D-Wade, Hardaway) and Timmy did it in 03 with a sophmore point guard and a 38 year old David Robinson, and that he was the absolute leader and #1 option in all his Championships, while their is literally a debate about whether Shaq or Kobe was the #1 option during the 3-peat, and the fact that Timmy remains to be undefeated in the Finals, I think the slight edge goes to Timmy.

Now if anyone thinks I'm being unfair here, please speak up. I have no problem with anyone with a different opinion and you can totally make a case for both players. I'm just telling you why I think Timmy.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Prime: Shaq
Career: Duncan

Why I give the edge to Duncan in career:

1) Has more moves than shaq, dominates more aspects of the game
2) Loyalty to his franchise
3) Hard worker
4) Not so physically dependant as shaq
5) Has stayed in an all star level for almost his entire career

[jlauber]

Anyone care to post Shaq's stats for his first 13 years, and compare them with Duncan's 13 years?

[SinJackal]

Amazing...the same guys who were ripping Kobe in the Kobe-Duncan threads, are now praising him as a GOAT sidekick, and minimizing Shaq's rings now. What next? I guess Shaq and Kobe didn't deserve ANY rings.

http://www.pingceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kobe-bryant-and-shaquille-oneal.jpg

[Desperado]

http://www.pingceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kobe-bryant-and-shaquille-oneal.jpg


Is that supposed to mean anything?


http://www.nba.com/media/040715_shaq_hakeem.jpg

[Desperado]

(2001)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkvpnmAk2xU

(2008) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv_wKwanldc&NR=1&feature=fvwp

(2002) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWPWvJ2wr44

(2002) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V1-UraQAs

(2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjr2kNQVbXg

(2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTLN_gxC7h8

[rmt]

http://www.pingceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kobe-bryant-and-shaquille-oneal.jpg

Maybe it means that most teams are extremely fortunate to even have one top 10 GOAT candidate - much less 4 (Magic/Abdul-Jabbar & Shaq/Kobe) and how lucky these players were to have each other.

[Desperado]

:oldlol:

Where's SinJackal?

[Rendezvous32]

Prime: Shaq
Career: Duncan

Why I give the edge to Duncan in career:

1) Has more moves than shaq, dominates more aspects of the game
2) Loyalty to his franchise
3) Hard worker
4) Not so physically dependant as shaq
5) Has stayed in an all star level for almost his entire career
:facepalm The only one that made sense was reason number 2.

[RocketGreatness]

Is that supposed to mean anything?


http://www.nba.com/media/040715_shaq_hakeem.jpg
Get your mouth out of Kobe's balls ******.

[game3524]

Duncan has had a better overall career, but Shaq had a better peak.

[BallinSinceBirf]

I think we can all agree that Shaq and Duncan are pretty damn close when it comes to individual greatness, but the intangibles are what set them apart.

If I were a GM putting together a team with the ability to choose either prime Shaq or prime Duncan I would ask myself "Who is going to be a better FOR THE TEAM? Who are the other guys going to respond better to and play harder for?"

The answer to that question is clear. It's the reason Duncan is beloved in SA and would be welcome anywhere, whereas Shaq has to lobby teams all around the NBA just to take him for the veteran minimum.

Duncan makes TEAMS better whereas Shaq is an attention vacuum that ruins teams with his ego and personality. History proves it.

And BTW, this is coming from a Lakers/Shaq fan, so it's not like I'm biased against the guy.

[Desperado]

Get your mouth out of Kobe's balls ******.


http://media.funlol.com/content/img/lol-why-you-mad-tho.jpg

[Fatal9]

Couple of things about the '03 team and the LA vs. Spurs matchups...

People continue to underrate Duncan's 2003 team. Guessing many didn't watch them play. All playoff long, everyone was commending the Spurs for building a perfect team around him. And if you watch them play, you never felt like the team had a weakness. They could flat out lock you down, could stifle guards on the perimeter with Bowen, throw bangers who were good post defenders like Rose and give you beastly interior D with Duncan/D-Rob. If you look at the team as a whole, or watch them play, they weren't as weak as people are making them out to be after looking at just stats. Would have been even more dominant if they had a 20+ ppg secondary scorer, but the team wasn't really lacking anything.

Interior defense: Duncan, Robinson
Rebounding: Duncan, Rose, Robinson
Perimeter defense: Bowen (think if Antonio Daniels was defending Kobe again, Spurs are beating the Lakers?)
Outside shooting: Ginobili, Bowen, Stephen Jackson
Playmaking off the dribble: Ginobili, Parker
Guard scoring: Parker, Ginobili, Jackson (inconsistent but two out three would usually step up in basically every game to give you 30-40 pts combined)
Bench: Ginobili, Rose, Claxton
Coaching: Popovich

Add in some lucky breaks like Horry going something like 0/20 on three pointers in the series and missing a buzzer beating 3 that would have shifted the series in LA's favor, weak finals matchup against a team that didn't even win 50 games, avoiding a series with Kings (who matched up better against Spurs) because Webber tore his knee against the Mavs (Mavs had horrible interior D) and teammates stepping up at right moments like Parker in last two wins vs. LA, Jackson vs. Mavs, Bowen hitting 7 threes and shutting down Kobe in one of the wins vs. LA etc etc, and it's not this groundbreaking accomplishment people are making it out to be. Duncan should rightly get a ton of credit, he played like a god but just because there wasn't a strong "#2" doesn't mean the team sucked. That said, Duncan stepped up at all the right moments, closed out Lakers with a 37/16/4 game, won back home court against Mavs with a 34/24/6/6 game, and destroyed the Nets in the finals.

And if the LA series is the only one that matters, do we really want to look into '01 and '02? In '01 Shaq dominated Duncan/Robinson, and in '02 he locked down Duncan. Duncan in '02 led fourth quarter collapse after fourth quarter collapse because offensively he could not take over (that changed in '03 though). That was the story of the entire series...Spurs choking in the fourth (and Kobe's clutch play). I like Duncan way more than Shaq, I've always said Kobe, Nash and Duncan are the three players I will miss most from the 00s, but it's outrageous to think Duncan was as good as Shaq.

[SCdac]

Duncan should rightly get a ton of credit, he played like a god but just because there wasn't a strong "#2" doesn't mean the team sucked.

Agreed. Duncan in 2003 was a beast. No doubt the supporting cast was deep, and well-suited for him, but it's not like they'd have gone anywhere without Timmy, he played over 40 minutes in nearly every game of the playoffs and averaged about 44 mpg in the Finals. Duncan ripped the Mavs apart. Some things to keep in mind though, Robinson was about to retire, Parker at the time was actually the youngest point guard in the league, Ginobili was a rookie who didn't shoot all that well efficiency-wise, and the rest of the cast while good were just role players. Tim Duncan won the MVP, Kobe came in 3rd in MVP voting, and Shaq came in 5th that season. The fact that he lead the team in assists in the 2003 playoffs (5.3 apg), something Kobe was doing for LA, speaks volumes about his impact for the Spurs.

[Rendezvous32]

it's outrageous to think Duncan was as good as Shaq.
Not at all......he may not have dominated the league in the same fashion as Shaq. But Duncan was every bit as good. I really cannot find a weakness for Duncan, FT shooting is the closest thing. Shaq had simple weaknesses like Pick n Roll Defense and FT shooting. Duncan was a very consistent pick n roll defender. And for the record, I have not made a choice between these two, but I am however playing some Devil's Advocate.

[RocketGreatness]

In 1999-2000 Shaq did something that Duncan even in 2003 didn't do.
And what would that be? You cHeat homer.

[RocketGreatness]

2000 Lakers Supporting Cast > 2003 Spurs Supporting Cast easily.

[KevinDurant4MVP]

From a career standpoint its Duncan and its not even close
4 titles as the best player on his team- Shaq 3
2 Mvps- Shaq 1
8x All-Defensive first team - Shaq ZERO times

Duncan accomplished all this with half the talent. Duncan never played with anyone remotely good as Kobe or even Wade

[Rendezvous32]

Shaq = Greatness through physical gifts
Duncan = Greatness through hard work

Duncan maxed himself out and you have to respect that. If Shaq had half the work ethic and dedication that Duncan has he would be hands down the greatest player to ever play the game.
I don't get this, what could Shaq have really improved during his prime years? It's not as if he never worked on his FTs, it's just natural for him to miss FTs since his hands are monstrously huge, it's like shooting a baseball to him probably. His pick n roll defense was a weakness because of his size, it had nothing to do with him being unathletic, unmobile, any of that.

Shaq had the ability to get away with being out of shape because of his playing style. A player like Duncan would not have had the ability to get away with playing out of shape like Shaq did during his prime.

[jlauber]

Shaq deservedly gets some criticism for coming into seasons out of shape, but I can't recall any post-seasons, at least thru 2004 where he was playing "winded." My god, at 325-350 lbs he was outrunning players that were a hundred pounds lighter. AND, he was playing 40-43 mpg in the post-seasons, too.

Look, I like a lot of qualities about Duncan. He was a great help defender (much better at defending the pick-and-roll than just about anybody), he was a solid passer out of double-teams, and he played smart. He was well respected by his coaches, teammates, and fans. And, he was "Mr. Fundamental."

But, the fact was, at his PEAK, Shaq was just about unstoppable. And, despite his less than stellar regular season rebounding numbers, he almsot always outrebounded his opposing center(s) in the post-season. And, his career was not a short one, either. He will be playing his 19th season this year.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread, and no one responded, but compare Shaq's first 13 seasons with Duncan's career (13 seasons), and then make a judgement. Shaq was among the top-3 players in the league in his first 13 years, and arguably THE best for about 6-7 years.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan. Like I said, Duncan won a championship with not just zero stars on his team, but zero all-stars. Shaq has always had a star wing player on his team, like Kobe, Wade, Penny, etc. I mean really, get this through your thick skull or take Shaq's fat balls out of your mouth.

If you honestly think 2000 Lakers minus Shaq <<<< 2003 Spurs Minus Duncan, you are only fooling yourself.

You're an idiot with an agenda. Kobe in 2000 was good, but not THAT good. He wasn't at superstar level or MVP caliber level yet and they won the finals while not getting much from him.

Game 1- 14 points, 3 rebounds, 5 assists, 6/13 shooting, scored like 2 or 4 points after the 1st quarter
Game 2- Got injured and never returned after the first 9 minutes. Had just 2 points, 1 rebound and 4 assists on 1/3 shooting
Game 3- Didn't play
Game 4- 28 points, 4 rebounds, 5 assists, 14/27 shooting. He did have the clutch OT performance, but this was his lone good performance in the finals
Game 5- An embarrassing game. 8 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 4/20 shooting. Actually the entire team outside of Shaq embarrassed themselves in this game.
Game 6- 26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 8/27 shooting. Decent game outside of the poor shooting.

This isn't a knock on Kobe, he was already a very good defender and he was clutch throughout the playoffs, but 2000 Kobe was nowhere near the player he is now or even the player he was during the second championship. He was only 21 and still growing a lot as a player.

And one very good number 2 guy doesn't make a cast better. Duncan's team was definitely deeper. I mean Parker was a far bigger threat already than a 36 year old Ron Harper, the big men alongside Duncan were obviously better and Bowen had a bigger impact than Rice who was a one-dimensional shooter/scorer who didn't even do that particularly well in the playoffs. As Doug Collins was saying that year, the Lakers probably won't bring him back because they seem to win regardless of what he does, whether he has a good game or bad game. Bowen's defense was far more important.


Bowen better than Rice? Don't know about that one....

In the playoffs in those respective years? I'd take Rice over Bowen in a heartbeat. Rice scored an extra 4 ppg, but picture Rice holding 2003 Kobe to 43% shooting and forcing him into 4.5 turnovers per game compared to 3.7 assists in a playoff series.



Um, Aren't you forgetting about Derek Fisher? Kobe Bryant's presence as the second key guy on the team is what makes that team better than the 2003 Spurs.

Fisher was TRASH in 2000. He shot under 35% in the regular season and became LA's 4th guard in the playoffs. He was a non-factor that year.

Fisher is ridiculously overrated, he got hot in the 2001 playoffs after missing most of the regular season and then played like trash in the 2002 playoffs. He shot under 36%, got dominated by Kidd and torched by Mike Bibby and a rookie Tony Parker so his defense wasn't having a particularly big impact either.


Tim is funny as ****. Boring? How? Because he didn't celebrate after dunking on someone? Because he didn't scream like an idiot after a good block? How is Duncan boring. Watch highlights of Tim from before 05. Boring is a dumb word to describe Tim. Boring wins 4 rings? Boring makes you a top 3 defensive player of all time? Boring makes you one of the most clutch players ever? Kobe fans are idiots.

I agree, I loved watch Duncan school guys in the post, take bigger guys off the dribble, run the floor, dunk on guys(yes, for those of you too young to remember, Tim had some monster dunks) throw great passes from the post, block shots almost flat-footed because of his excellent timing and intelligence which prevented him from biting on fakes and he'd lead the break once in a while.

But as far as Duncan being better than Shaq in 2001? No chance. Shaq had the better WCF series, Shaq had far better numbers, he was in his prime still and still had most of his athleticism, he destroyed the DPOY and just produced offensively at a level Duncan wasn't capable of.

2002 was closer, Shaq had lost a step, but even an injured Shaq shut down Duncan defensively when he guarded him in the series. Duncan was dominating Horry and Samaki Walker, but Shaq played excellent defense on him.

Actually, Shaq's defense is underrated. He still does an excellent job on Dwight Howard, he basically shut down Duncan in those 2 games after the trade to Phoenix and in that Christmas game in 1999-2000, Shaq and Duncan went head to head most of the game and he held Duncan to 2/14 shooting when he guarded him.

And he was a huge presence in the paint with his intimidation and an elite shot blocker/rebounder.

[PaPaK]

I love Duncan, one of my favorite players and SA is one of the teams I like but Shaq was absolutely unstoppable in his prime, it was crazy. Probably the most dominant player ever.. would have loved to see prime Sabonis in the league tho, as far as centers ago.

Duncan is probably the best PF ever tho, cant really compare the two, different positions.

Duncans career might be longer, I mean he might have a longer stay at the top as his game isnt based on on physical attributes as much, but Shaq was just unstoppable in his prime and has the rings too back it up. Also I think that the teams the Lakers beat in their 3-peat could have easily been the champions at any other time, they were just unlucky to run into Shaq. Im talking about the Blazers and the Kings ofcourse.

So yeah I pick Shaq, 3 finals appearances with 3 diff teams, 4 rings, but the stats dont tell the whole story here

[PaPaK]

by the way with threads like these there should be like a tally on the last page showing how many picked each player.. like a poll, so we dont have to go through the whole thread to see what the general opinion is

[RocketGreatness]

You're an idiot with an agenda. Kobe in 2000 was good, but not THAT good. He wasn't at superstar level or MVP caliber level yet and they won the finals while not getting much from him.
Actually he kinda was and he kinda does make all the difference, but you continue slurpping on Shaq's balls.


And one very good number 2 guy doesn't make a cast better.You're the only moron that thinks that.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Actually he kinda was and he kinda does make all the difference, but you continue slurpping on Shaq's balls.

You're the only moron that thinks that.

No, read Fatal9's post. Unlike you, he actually watched the team's play. Neither Shaq in 2000 or Duncan in 2003 had noticeably more help than the other. They both had to carry a heavy load and they both had championship-caliber teams around them that were talented enough to beat the teams they played.

Duncan led the Spurs in scoring in 4 of their finals games, but just 1 of their first round games.

Duncan was the leading scorer in 14 of the Spurs 24 playoff games in 2003.
He was the 3rd leading scorer twice, the 5th leading scorer twice and tied for 2nd/3rd one more time.
In 16 of the Spurs 24 playoff games, Duncan had atleast one teammate score 20+
In 2 of those games, Duncan had two teammates score 20+

Shaq had a teammate score atleast 20 points in 14 out of 23 games, he had two teammates score 20+ in just one game. Shaq was the leaing scorer in 17 of the Lakers 23 playoff games.

So how exactly did Duncan carry his team so much more than Shaq? Shaq was the leading scorer in 17 of the Lakers 23 playoff games, he was never less than the 2nd leading scorer, he had a teammate score 20+ in fewer games than Duncan did and he had two teammates score 20+ in 1 game compared to Duncan's 2. Shaq was the leading scorer in every finals game.

And if you look at their numbers, Shaq averaged 31/15/3 with almost 2.5 bpg on 57% shooting for the playoffs, whil Duncan averaged 25/15/5/3 on 53% shooting, there's no case for Duncan carrying his team more than Shaq did.

The difference is, Kobe had a dozen 20+ point playoff games, Rice had 2 and Harper had one.

Parker had seven 20+ point playoff games, Jackson had six 20+ point playoff games, Rose had 2, Ginobili had 1 and Bowen had 1.

So as I've said all along, Shaq had a better number 2 guy and Duncan had a deeper cast. And if you want to get into competition. The 2000 Kings were a more talented team than the 2003 Suns, IMO. Of course the 2003 Lakers>the 2000 Suns as far as second round opponents. But the Spurs faced a Mavs team that didn't have Dirk for games 4-6 in the WCF and that Mavs team had beaten a Kings team in 7 that saw their best player, Chris Webber go down for the series in game 2. So the 2000 Blazers were obviously a tougher WCF opponent and the 2000 Pacers were a better finals team than the 2003 Nets.

Really, I fail to see how Duncan's 2003 title is more impressive than Shaq's 2000 title.

[RocketGreatness]

No, read Fatal9's post. Unlike you, he actually watched the team's play. Neither Shaq in 2000 or Duncan in 2003 had noticeably more help than the other. They both had to carry a heavy load and they both had championship-caliber teams around them that were talented enough to beat the teams they played.

A player who averaged 21/4/4 on 44% shooting in the playoffs(Kobe) is not better than a solid supporting cast with one of the fastest point guards, 2 talented and versatile shooting guards, the best perimeter defender in the league and also the league leader in 3P% and 2 solid big men in Robinson and Malik Rose.
.
Oh okay, so even though Parker, Manu, etc. acutally played like complete crap back then, that makes them better than Kobe. :oldlol:

Duncan>Shaq, u mad?

[SCdac]

The subtle diminishing of Tim Duncan, and what his game meant to a slower paced, low scoring, half-court, very much sharing team is sad. Both players are amazing, but it's not like Duncan had the deepest cast ever to the point where all he had to do was put up 20 points and that's it, Spurs won. Look at how he was playing in 2003, it was all-around effective. But it's a team game, and if Duncan or Shaq had to lead the game in scoring literally every time, chances are their teams wouldn't have been as good as they were, and maybe we wouldn't be talking about them as much. Both of them generally had high a high usage-percentage, and both of them could pass really well for big men, but they were different players (Shaq more dominant in low-post at C, Duncan a bit more versatile at PF). I wouldn't look entirely at a players cast (it is important, but not entirely) to quantify how good a player was to that team, both players won multiple championships with completely different rosters, so they're both doing something right. When it starts becoming "well this player went up against a better team, and that player went up against a worse team, yadda yadda"... in terms of playoff basketball, it starts to be more about agendas. Not every finals team is as good as the next, but it's still the finals.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The subtle diminishing of Tim Duncan, and what his game meant to a slower paced, low scoring, half-court, very much sharing team is sad. Both players are amazing, but it's not like Duncan had the deepest cast ever to the point where all he had to do was put up 20 points and that's it, Spurs won. Look at how he was playing in 2003, it was all-around effective. But it's a team game, and if Duncan or Shaq had to lead the game in scoring literally every time, chances are their teams wouldn't have been as good as they were, and maybe we wouldn't be talking about them as much. Both of them generally had high a high usage-percentage, and both of them could pass really well for big men, but they were different players (Shaq more dominant in low-post at C, Duncan a bit more versatile at PF). I wouldn't look entirely at a players cast (it is important, but not entirely) to quantify how good a player was to that team, both players won multiple championships with completely different rosters, so they're both doing something right. When it starts becoming "well this player went up against a better team, and that player went up against a worse team, yadda yadda"... in terms of playoff basketball, it starts to be more about agendas. Not every finals team is as good as the next, but it's still the finals.

If I diminished Duncan's 2003 title run, that wasn't my intent.

My response was to RocketGreatness for his asinine statement that holds Duncan's title over Shaq's, which is ridiculous. Both at incredible playoff runs and carried a huge load on their teams.

Neither were carrying scrubs, but neither had all-time great supporting casts.

[SCdac]

If I diminished Duncan's 2003 title run, that wasn't my intent.

My response was to RocketGreatness for his asinine statement that holds Duncan's title over Shaq's, which is ridiculous. Both at incredible playoff runs and carried a huge load on their teams.

Neither were carrying scrubs, but neither had all-time great supporting casts.

I agree with that. Any team with David Robinson (even at 35-37), and Gregg Popovich, is not full of scrubs. They won 60 games (in 03) for a reason. At the same time, take Duncan (or Shaq) away from those teams, and they'd be much worse. Surely players like younger Kobe and younger Tony Parker (especially back then) got a lot of open looks and stuff because of Tim and Shaq.

[laker24]

Their careers are pretty much the even. But I will give Tim the edge because Shaq won with Kobe and Wade.

[Desperado]

Career wise they are both probably even, but Shaq had a superior peak.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree with that. Any team with David Robinson (even at 35-37), and Gregg Popovich, is not full of scrubs. They won 60 games (in 03) for a reason. At the same time, take Duncan (or Shaq) away from those teams, and they'd be much worse. Surely players like younger Kobe and younger Tony Parker (especially back then) got a lot of open looks and stuff because of Tim and Shaq.

Yeah, to me, these titles in general should be viewed as similar accomplishments based on how much each player had to do. You can't carry scrubs to a title, anyone who calls any championship team a team of 1 star plus scrubs is misinformed.

[Lebron23]

Career wise they are both probably even, but Shaq had a superior peak.

This

[Rendezvous32]

I agree with that. Any team with David Robinson (even at 35-37), and Gregg Popovich, is not full of scrubs. They won 60 games (in 03) for a reason. At the same time, take Duncan (or Shaq) away from those teams, and they'd be much worse. Surely players like younger Kobe and younger Tony Parker (especially back then) got a lot of open looks and stuff because of Tim and Shaq.
You do realize David Robinson that season was basically a bench player with a bad back right? He started every game, but he basically played bench minutes. I believe he played around 23 mpg that season. It was probably like playing with a Raptors Hakeem Olajuwon.

[SCdac]

You do realize David Robinson that season was basically a bench player with a bad back right? He started every game, but he basically played bench minutes. I believe he played around 23 mpg that season. It was probably like playing with a Raptors Hakeem Olajuwon.

Yeah, I watched him, and the team, live. He was on his last legs as a ball player, and had some serious injuries, but you do realize David Robinson was arguably one of the most physically fit players ever right? How many players started at center at 37 years old? Last season, during a D-Rob HOF ceremony, Duncan jokingly asked him to join the team again, saying they'd take him back any time. It was obviously a joke, but also a poke at how Robinson barely looks any different than his playing days, and aged pretty well for all intensive purposes.

[Rendezvous32]

Yeah, I watched him, and the team, live. He was on his last legs as a ball player, and had some serious injuries, but you do realize David Robinson was arguably one of the most physically fit players ever right? How many players started at center at 37 years old? Last season, during a D-Rob HOF ceremony, Duncan jokingly asked him to join the team again, saying they'd take him back any time. It was obviously a joke, but also a poke at how Robinson barely looks any different than his playing days, and aged pretty well for all intensive purposes.
Yeah, but my point was how Robinson was on his last legs and that he was not even close to the David Robinson everybody loved and knew in the 90s. He was far, far, far away from an All-Star caliber player that season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, but my point was how Robinson was on his last legs and that he was not even close to the David Robinson everybody loved and knew in the 90s. He was far, far, far away from All-Star player that season.

He was still a solid role player at center. He could still rebound, block shots and defend, obviously his passing ability didn't go anywhere, he could still hit a mid-range jumper or 2 and convert on a dunk around the rim. He didn't have the stamina or durability to play big minutes or be relied on as a real featured player, but he was definitely a solid role player. He had some nice games in the playoffs, too.

Game 1 vs Phoenix- 18 points, 9 rebounds, 2 blocks, 8/8 FG, 31 minutes
Game 2 vs Phoenix- 8 points, 8 rebounds, 3/5 FG, 27 minutes
Game 5 vs Phoenix- 10 points, 9 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 blocks, 5/10 FG, 26 minutes
Game 6 vs Phoenix- 6 points, 12 rebounds, 3 steals, 24 minutes
Game 1 vs the Lakers- 14 points, 11 rebounds, 5/10 FG, 30 minutes
Game 1 vs New Jersey- 14 points, 6 rebounds, 4 blocks, 6/8 FG, 27 minutes
Game 2 vs New Jersey- 10 points, 8 rebounds, 2 steals, 2 blocks, 3/6 FG, 33 minutes
Game 4 vs New Jersey- 14 points, 7 rebounds, 4/5 FG, 24 minutes
Game 6 vs New Jersey- 13 points, 17 rebounds, 2 blocks, 6/8 FG, 31 minutes

Nobody is saying he was an all-star, but he was a solid and valuable role player with veteran/championship experience.

[magnax1]

This is one of the debates that makes very little sense to me. Shaq was just a much better player, and so far their career longevity has been pretty equal. Duncan never dominated teams like Shaq did during his championship runs.