Is Tim Duncan greater than Shaq? Top 5 All Time?

[k0kakw0rld]

Tim Duncan's Career:
4

[liquidrage]

Shaq was more dominant at his peak by a good amount, and for almost as long was a dominant player.

Just goes to show how moving Timmay to the PF on paper only is all about his place on all-time lists.

[shaq's--lakers]

Tim was drafted to the best front office ever playing with 3 Hall of Famers D/Rob-T.parker-Manu and the best defender of his generation Bruce Bowen

Plus always played for Pop

Replace Garnett with Duncan same result

Plus Timmy has never defended his title which the hardest thing to do in Pro-Sports

[SilkkTheShocker]

Tim was drafted to the best front office ever playing with 3 Hall of Famers D/Rob-T.parker-Manu and the best defender of his generation Bruce Bowen

Plus always played for Pop

Replace Garnett with Duncan same result
Plus Timmy has never defended his title which the hardest thing to do in Pro-Sports

The same KG that missed the playoffs 3 straight times in his prime? yea ok.

[twintowers]

Shaq was more dominant at his peak by a good amount, and for almost as long was a dominant player.

Just goes to show how moving Timmay to the PF on paper only is all about his place on all-time lists.

Every time when someone mentiones Tim Duncan to Shaq, Shaq is left speechless enough said

[shaq's--lakers]

The same KG that missed the playoffs 3 straight times in his prime? yea ok.

People underestimate how Awesome The Spurs Front-Office are.

Just look at the Thunder

[StateOfMind12]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal

That is my top 5 list, so no Duncan isn't greater than Shaq nor is he a top 5 player of all-time.

Duncan is like 9th or 10th in my all-time list and he isn't above Kobe.

[DMAVS41]

Shaq was more dominant at his peak by a good amount, and for almost as long was a dominant player.

Just goes to show how moving Timmay to the PF on paper only is all about his place on all-time lists.

It doesn't matter if Duncan was a center or pf....he'd still be one of the 8 best players of all time.

His position doesn't matter at all for GOAT player rankings. Why would it?

[linZoMourning]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal

That is my top 5 list, so no Duncan isn't greater than Shaq nor is he a top 5 player of all-time.

Duncan is like 9th or 10th in my all-time list and he isn't above Kobe.

good thing you are just a forum poster.

[Alamo]

Timmy is my favorite player of all time and the greatest PF ever. Even with my bias, I have to give it to Shaq. The Diesel is one or two places ahead of Timmy.

Both are 6-8 all time

[k0kakw0rld]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal

That is my top 5 list, so no Duncan isn't greater than Shaq nor is he a top 5 player of all-time.

Duncan is like 9th or 10th in my all-time list and he isn't above Kobe.

:roll: Yes he is above Kobe. Kobe has an overrated career

[linZoMourning]

shaq the most dominant player of all time. that does not equal the better player. there is alot of other things you have to factor in.

[SwooshReturns]

Timmy is my favorite player of all time and the greatest PF ever.
Disagreed.

And people need to come off it, guy has ALWAYS been a center.

Not a power forward.

[SCdac]

Not saying I'd pick Duncan just because of this... but, I bet alot of young casual fans don't even remember Duncan's team knocking out the Lakers in two Spurs championship runs, and then knocking out the Suns (with Shaq) in another championship run. It's not like Duncan was Shaq's bitch or anything - there was a good back and forth, and Duncan won 2 MVP's in the middle of Shaq's prime, which says alot IMO.

[k0kakw0rld]

shaq the most dominant player of all time. that does not equal the better player. there is alot of other things you have to factor in.
Is he the most dominant player of all time? I do not think so. Another overrated statement from the media.

[linZoMourning]

Is he the most dominant player of all time? I do not think so. Another overrated statement from the media.

well you gotta give him something because hes definately not better then duncan

[DMV2]

Very close but Shaq was slightly better in my opinion. the 3-peat and having a better peak gives the edge to Shaq.

14 years of dominance vs 13 years of excellence. Tough choice to pick only one.

Duncan was more skilled though. If somebody says Duncan is better because of that then I won't argue with it either.

[k0kakw0rld]

How is he the most dominant player of all time, never understood that and never will :facepalm

[linZoMourning]

Very close but Shaq was slightly better in my opinion. the 3-peat and having a better peak gives the edge to Shaq.

14 years of dominance vs 13 years of excellence. Tough choice to pick only one.

Duncan was more skilled though. If somebody says Duncan is better because of that then I won't argue with it either.

even shaq himself admits that duncan was more skilled on tnt. shaq just wants the dominance tag put on him. which he deserves. dominant does not = better player though.

[bdreason]

I have Shaq at #8 and Duncan at #9.

[linZoMourning]

How is he the most dominant player of all time, never understood that and never will :facepalm

well I never got to see wilt or kareem play besides old youtube clips but I just dont see how they were more dominant then a prime shaq. dude was a straight up bully in the paint Ive never seen anything like it

[k0kakw0rld]

Very close but Shaq was slightly better in my opinion. the 3-peat and having a better peak gives the edge to Shaq.

14 years of dominance vs 13 years of excellence. Tough choice to pick only one.

Duncan was more skilled though. If somebody says Duncan is better because of that then I won't argue with it either.
Really? :no:

[Alamo]

Disagreed.

And people need to come off it, guy has ALWAYS been a center.

Not a power forward.

He can play center. But throughout his entire nba career, he has played the power forward position. Kinda like how people call Derrick Rose a shooting guard that can pass well, but he plays the point guard position so he is a point guard.

[StateOfMind12]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

It doesn't matter if Duncan gives you a better record or seed in the regular season though because Shaq always showed up, turned it up, and dominated in the playoffs and he dominated far more than Duncan ever did.

What is the argument for Duncan?

[DMV2]

Really? :no:
1992 to 2006

Shaq didn't win a championship in Orlando but his team was the only team to defeat 90's Bulls during that era. ;) yeah, so what if Jordan was just returning from his short baseball stint.

And if you think Dwight's 19(borderline 20) PPG and 13 RPG is incredible, you should know that Shaq was putting up 26 and 13 in Orlando against some of the best centers.

[SCdac]

What is the argument for Duncan?

They both have the same amount of rings, Finals MVP's, and Duncan has 2 MVP's to Shaq's 1 :confusedshrug:

From an objective standpoint, you can't even see the argument? Open your eyes.

[DMV2]

What is the argument for Duncan?
Their numbers, accomplishments, etc are very similar.

And like I said earlier, you can made the case for Duncan being a more skilled player.

[linZoMourning]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

It doesn't matter if Duncan gives you a better record or seed in the regular season though because Shaq always showed up, turned it up, and dominated in the playoffs and he dominated far more than Duncan ever did.

What is the argument for Duncan?

duncan could of afforded to be lazy to. he didnt

duncan could of blasted his teamates and demanded a trade. he didnt

duncan could of not played defense when he didnt recieve the ball. he DID play defense when he didnt recieve the ball...

duncan could of become a journey man ring chaser. he didnt

lets take it even further. how many coaches has shaq run out of town compared to duncan??

how many teamates has shaq blasted?? how many of teamates hold resintment(sp?) towards shaq still??

all that selfishness and "dominance" came at a price. it affected his legacy like it or not. which is why duncan is the better player

[WeGetRing2012]

No all you had to do was watch them in the early 2000's.....

[StateOfMind12]

They both have the same amount of rings, Finals MVP's, and Duncan has 2 MVP's to Shaq's 1 :confusedshrug:

From an objective standpoint, you can't even see the argument? Open your eyes.
So because of one MVP? An award that is completely subjective.

Steve Nash also has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, yet we all know Nash isn't even close to those two. Heck, I still arguments between Kidd and Nash to this day and Kidd has no MVPs.

Moses Malone has 3 MVPs which is the same amount of MVPs as Bird and more MVPs than Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, yet Moses isn't above any of these guys.

MVPs is no tiebreaker especially when you could argue that Shaq should have 3 MVPs anyways (2000, 2001, 2005).

[guy]

dominant does not = better player though.

Yes it does. The point is to win the game. Give me someone thats more dominant but less skilled. Players like Patrick Ewing and Yao Ming have been more skilled then Shaq as well. No one in their right mind would say they were better players though.

[k0kakw0rld]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

It doesn't matter if Duncan gives you a better record or seed in the regular season though because Shaq always showed up, turned it up, and dominated in the playoffs and he dominated far more than Duncan ever did.

What is the argument for Duncan?

Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.

[linZoMourning]

Yes it does. The point is to win the game. Give me someone thats more dominant but less skilled. Players like Patrick Ewing and Yao Ming have been more skilled then Shaq as well. No one in their right mind would say they were better players though.

while parts of what you say is true ewing and yao were never as skilled as duncan or hakeem the two players most compared to shaq.

honestly duncan was the better defender and rebounder two of the main skills needed for a great big man. drop step dunk was shaqs main move. not that impressive only thing that impresses me was his size and agility

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

LOL. No ****ing way. Tim Duncan wasn't even in Shaqs league offensively. Duncan was a great player, but offensively Shaq was the most efficient and unstoppable player we've ever seen. 30-15 Finals series multiple times and required guys to either double him immedietly or foul him. Duncan had a nice touch in the post, but he was more prone to bad nights where Shaq got so many easy buckets just because of how much of a monster he was.

Shaq also had the most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History so anyone saying Duncan because of his consistency is a joke. They are merely a younger NBA fan who has no idea Shaq played before 2000.

Defensively Duncan is overrated as well. He was smart and didn't have a weakness like Shaq in the pick and roll, but in terms of protecting the paint and post defense? Shaq was just as good. One thing with Shaq is he gets brought up as some shitty defensive playe, and that's because he struggled heavily vs the pick and roll in his later years once he got slow and had to carry around all that weight. In his prime he was a great defensive player. Noone ever posts up Shaq. Even when he was old as ****. Brought an intimidation factor too that was unrivaled. Noone wanted to drive and take a Shaq body check.

Guy won everywhere he played too. Took a 20 win Orlando franchise to .500 his first year and to the Finals by Year 3. Made LA the new pereniel powerhouse in the post-jordan era, and then made the Eastern conference relevant again when he was traded to Miami.

Mostly the reason he is better is because just how dominant he was offensively. NBA bigmen would MUCH rather guard Tim Duncan than Shaq.

[k0kakw0rld]

So because of one MVP? An award that is completely subjective.

Steve Nash also has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, yet we all know Nash isn't even close to those two. Heck, I still arguments between Kidd and Nash to this day and Kidd has no MVPs.

Moses Malone has 3 MVPs which is the same amount of MVPs as Bird and more MVPs than Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, yet Moses isn't above any of these guys.

MVPs is no tiebreaker especially when you could argue that Shaq should have 3 MVPs anyways (2000, 2001, 2005).
Kidd > Nash. Kidd is the better point guard. He is also the better player. The better defender, the better all-round player.

Duncan > Shaq.

[linZoMourning]

LOL. No ****ing way. Tim Duncan wasn't even in Shaqs league offensively. Duncan was a great player, but offensively Shaq was the most efficient and unstoppable player we've ever seen. 30-15 Finals series multiple times and required guys to either double him immedietly or foul him. Duncan had a nice touch in the post, but he was more prone to bad nights where Shaq got so many easy buckets just because of how much of a monster he was.

Shaq also had the most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History so anyone saying Duncan because of his consistency is a joke. They are merely a younger NBA fan who has no idea Shaq played before 2000.

Defensively Duncan is overrated as well. He was smart and didn't have a weakness like Shaq in the pick and roll, but in terms of protecting the paint and post defense? Shaq was just as good. One thing with Shaq is he gets brought up as some shitty defensive playe, and that's because he struggled heavily vs the pick and roll in his later years once he got slow and had to carry around all that weight. In his prime he was a great defensive player. Noone ever posts up Shaq. Even when he was old as ****. Brought an intimidation factor too that was unrivaled. Noone wanted to drive and take a Shaq body check.

Guy won everywhere he played too. Took a 20 win Orlando franchise to .500 his first year and to the Finals by Year 3. Made LA the new pereniel powerhouse in the post-jordan era, and then made the Eastern conference relevant again when he was traded to Miami.

Mostly the reason he is better is because just how dominant he was offensively. NBA bigmen would MUCH rather guard Tim Duncan than Shaq.

stopped reading after you said duncan was overrated defensively. what a joke

one of the greatest big men defenders of ALL TIME

also what do you think about lakers players saying that shaq would stop playing defense when he would not recieve the ball?? do some research man

[ThaRegul8r]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

So what you're saying is that Shaq had a luxury Duncan did not, in having a teammate the caliber of a Kobe Bryant, who >> anyone else on the Spurs excluding Duncan.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

stopped reading after you said duncan was overrated defensively. what a joke

one of the greatest big men defenders of ALL TIME

also what do you think about lakers players saying that shaq would stop playing defense when he would not recieve the ball?? do some research man

What does Duncan do better defensively than a prime O'Neal other than pick and roll defense? Keep listening to general opinions and what the media shoves down your throat though kid. Shaq was the better post defender, and more athletic/better shot blocker.

Yeah Shaq had an ego, so what? It doesn't discredit him as a player. It was a good way of getting his teammates to stop taking dumb shots when they got THE MDE in the post with some inferior scrub on him. I'll take a Shaq post up over any other play.

[StateOfMind12]

So what you're saying is that Shaq had a luxury Duncan did not, in having a teammate the caliber of a Kobe Bryant, who >> anyone else on the Spurs excluding Duncan.
Shaq had a the better 2nd option than Duncan did but Duncan had better players from 3-9 from their rotation. Duncan had more depth, Shaq had more star power. Teammates shouldn't be an argument for either side because both of them had good teammates.

Duncan didn't have much star power before 2005 since Manu and Parker were young but he did have a very good role players who also performed and made big time plays and shots at the right time.


Kidd > Nash. Kidd is the better point guard. He is also the better player. The better defender, the better all-round player.

Duncan > Shaq.
That wouldn't make much sense since Kidd has less MVPs than Nash, isn't that the only argument for Duncan?


Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.
Shaq also dominated Duncan and the Spurs in the 2000s. What is your point? Unless you want to bring up the 2008 series when both of them were out of their primes and Shaq was playing on the inferior team.

[linZoMourning]

What does Duncan do better defensively than a prime O'Neal other than pick and roll defense? Keep listening to general opinions and what the media shoves down your throat though kid. Shaq was the better post defender, and more athletic/better shot blocker.

Yeah Shaq had an ego, so what? It doesn't discredit him as a player. It was a good way of getting his teammates to stop taking dumb shots when they got THE MDE in the post with some inferior scrub on him. I'll take a Shaq post up over any other play.

yah because the media has so many good things to say about duncans defense :wtf:

ask any coach in the nba who was the better defender and you will have a unanimous answer. duncan. better post defender better help defender better every category defender better defensive rebounder better offensive rebounder. you sound mighty butt hurt

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.

When did they beat the Lakers twice with Shaqin that decade?

Shaqs Lakers were 3-1 when they met up against Duncans spurs in the playoffs and easily could have been 4-0 had Horrys shot not gone out. Shaq with 3 Finals MVPs in that decade too btw. Feels good man.

[guy]

while parts of what you say is true ewing and yao were never as skilled as duncan or hakeem the two players most compared to shaq.

honestly duncan was the better defender and rebounder two of the main skills needed for a great big man. drop step dunk was shaqs main move. not that impressive only thing that impresses me was his size and agility

Okay, but you can use the same logic. You can't just ignore dominance when it comes to who's a better player. Whether a player dominates by skill or by sheer athleticism or strength, it shouldn't really matter as long as it gets the job done i.e. results in wins.

If a player can't pass, shoot, rebound, defend, but he can literally drive down the court every single play (as in 100% of the time) and dunk in everyone's face resulting in averages of 110 ppg on 100 FG% and 0 apg/0 rpg/0 bpg/0 spg, that would be the most dominant player ever and probably the GOAT. I could care less if he was far from the most skilled player ever.

[StateOfMind12]

What is with this skill argument? Are people really trying to insist that Shaq had no skill? Shaq couldn't shoot, sure, but to say he has no skills is just insulting and asinine.

Shaq has one of the greatest footwork of all-time and last I check, footwork is a method of skill. I find it hilarious how people act like Shaq had no moves and just backed down and overpowered people. He had plenty of moves to score with, they were just all in the paint because that was where his scoring was predicated around.

This skills argument is not bullshit because Shaq still produced, it's bullshit because Shaq had skills too.

You can argue Duncan being a better shooter, sure, but Duncan also struggled in the FT line like Shaq did.

[swi7ch]

I'd take him over Shaq just because he can hit his free throws. :confusedshrug:

[linZoMourning]

Okay, but you can use the same logic. You can't just ignore dominance when it comes to who's a better player. Whether a player dominates by skill or by sheer athleticism or strength, it shouldn't really matter as long as it gets the job done i.e. results in wins.

If a player can't pass, shoot, rebound, defend, but he can literally drive down the court every single play (as in 100% of the time) and dunk in everyone's face resulting in averages of 110 ppg on 100 FG% and 0 apg/0 rpg/0 bpg/0 spg, that would be the most dominant player ever and probably the GOAT. I could care less if he was far from the most skilled player ever.

I guess the point is we all value different things in our favorite players. Everybody is different with different opinions on what makes the better big man. Its a very close comparison shaq and duncan and im fine with that but anyone who says shaq is far and away better is just being a homer.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

yah because the media has so many good things to say about duncans defense :wtf:

ask any coach in the nba who was the better defender and you will have a unanimous answer. duncan. better post defender better help defender better every category defender better defensive rebounder better offensive rebounder. you sound mighty butt hurt

Better post defender? How do you manage? Have you ever actually seen someone successfully post up Shaq without a bullshit whistle getting called LOL? Shaq is literally an immovable object

Shaq was the better shot blocker and the stats indicate that. Duncan possessed average athletisicm for an NBA player, but Shaq was a ****ing monster. Even though he was heavy as shit the guy was a freak.

Shaq routinely aveaged 15+ RPG in the playoffs as did Duncan in his prime. There is no edge there to either one. Shaq was easily the better offensive rebounder though as he played much closer to the rim. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So basically you have nothing LOL. Just assuming something is right since you heard it from someone before.

Yeah you should be thanking Shaq. If it wasn't for him, Alonzo Mourning wouldn't even have a ring LOL

[linZoMourning]

Better post defender? How do you manage? Have you ever actually seen someone successfully post up Shaq without a bullshit whistle getting called LOL? Shaq is literally an immovable object

Shaq was the better shot blocker and the stats indicate that. Duncan possessed average athletisicm for an NBA player, but Shaq was a ****ing monster. Even though he was heavy as shit the guy was a freak.

Shaq routinely aveaged 15+ RPG in the playoffs as did Duncan in his prime. There is no edge there to either one. Shaq was easily the better offensive rebounder though as he played much closer to the rim. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So basically you have nothing LOL. Just assuming something is right since you heard it from someone before.

Yeah you should be thanking Shaq. If it wasn't for him, Alonzo Mourning wouldn't even have a ring LOL

leave LinZoMourning out of this.

we will have to agree to disagree I guess. shaq was definately not the better shot blocker lol....

im not a shaq hater im a heat fan but im also a realist.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Shaq is the 6th greatest player to ever play. Duncan is the 7th.

It seems at this point unlikely to move. Unless Duncan gets a fountain of youth during the playoffs and leads the Spurs to one more title it'll be tough to place him ahead of Shaq. If I could I'd put them even.

Shaq was the more dominant player. Duncan more skilled. Timmy is the better defender. Shaq more impressive on the offensive end (granted with the skill advantage Tim could DO more). It's really a matter of what you look for in a great player. But as far as that generation is concerned Shaq's early 2000 years were unmatched, not even by Duncan's.

But neither have done/did enough to move into the tier of MJ, KAJ, Magic, Wilt, or Russell.

[iDefend5]

But neither have done/did enough to move into the tier of MJ, KAJ, Magic, Wilt, or Russell.
No Bird?

[SCdac]

From this thread, you'd think prime Duncan was merely a Pau Gasol, 18-19 PPG, kind of scorer all those years :facepalm

In his second season, Duncan averaged 29 PPG (.51%) to sweep Shaq's Lakers out of the playoffs.

Dominance comes in different forms... Duncan was dominant.

[linZoMourning]

From this thread, you'd think prime Duncan was merely a Pau Gasol, 18-19 PPG, kind of scorer all those years :facepalm

In his second season, Duncan averaged 29 PPG (.51%) to sweep Shaq's Lakers out of the playoffs.

Dominance comes in different forms... Duncan was dominant.

just goes to show duncan really doesnt get the respect he deserves.

[Alamo]

From this thread, you'd think prime Duncan was merely a Pau Gasol, 18-19 PPG, kind of scorer all those years :facepalm

In his second season, Duncan averaged 29 PPG (.51%) to sweep Shaq's Lakers out of the playoffs.

Dominance comes in different forms... Duncan was dominant.

Most people just have the image of Timmy in his twilight years implanted in their heads :confusedshrug:

[k0kakw0rld]

That wouldn't make much sense since Kidd has less MVPs than Nash, isn't that the only argument for Duncan?


Shaq also dominated Duncan and the Spurs in the 2000s. What is your point? Unless you want to bring up the 2008 series when both of them were out of their primes and Shaq was playing on the inferior team.

I don't give a damn about the MVPs or FMVPs or All Nba team. But if i did care about it let's face it. Timmy had the better career. One thing i respect about Tim Duncan is that he works hard. He is a proven leader and an amazing teammate and person also. He has no ego what so ever we can't say the same thing for Shaq. He, just like Jordan made his team (Spurs) arguably the best team of the past decade. All time scoring leader of a dinasty team. :bowdown: Do i need to say more?

[SCdac]

Most people just have the image of Timmy in his twilight years implanted in their heads :confusedshrug:

Basically.

To those people - watch a ****ing youtube video or something. educate yourselves. Duncan isn't just some guy that became well known via the media and popularity and shit. No, if anything it was the opposite, his game, his effectiveness, his winning, etc, made him an all-time great.

[JMT]

just goes to show duncan really doesnt get the respect he deserves.

And that Shaq's career is somewhat overblown by a generation of viewers that cared only about his size, dunks and sound bites.

[twintowers]

He is greater than Shaq who unlike Duncan was not a complete player

end thread

[Lebron23]

Shaq was the better playoffs and finals performer.

[k0kakw0rld]

Shaq was the better playoffs and finals performer.
:facepalm You gotta do more than scoring and rebounding for me to say something like that. I disagree:no:

[linZoMourning]

And that Shaq's career is somewhat overblown by a generation of viewers that cared only about his size, dunks and sound bites.

well ill tell you this. 80% of the fans of the nba are fans of 1 player which makes them fans of that team. they care about dunks more then anything. so its easy to see why the casual(80%) fan would have shaq over duncan... it also seems like this forum has alot of casual fans on it.

[Timmy D for MVP]

No Bird?

I have recently moved Bird below Tim and Shaq. It's extremely close, like splitting hairs for me. But I will often times favor the bigs. And if you ask me tomorrow I may have him back ahead of both of them.

But the thing that I favor is when you have someone locking down the paint. It changes the whole game. Granted on the end of the floor Bird is more versatile and can have more impact.

See even now I can talk my self to take both sides of the argument.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

I don't give a damn about the MVPs or FMVPs or All Nba team. But if i did care about it let's face it. Timmy had the better career. One thing i respect about Tim Duncan is that he works hard. He is a proven leader and an amazing teammate and person also. He has no ego what so ever we can't say the same thing for Shaq. He, just like Jordan made his team (Spurs) arguably the best team of the past decade. All time scoring leader of a dinasty team. :bowdown: Do i need to say more?

How does one playing for one team an entire career make someone a better basketball player? If anything it just makes it easier since he never had to become accustomed to a new system/lifestyle. Duncan is a great player, its just that Shaq was better.


From this thread, you'd think prime Duncan was merely a Pau Gasol, 18-19 PPG, kind of scorer all those years :facepalm

In his second season, Duncan averaged 29 PPG (.51%) to sweep Shaq's Lakers out of the playoffs.

Dominance comes in different forms... Duncan was dominant.

Cool how about 2001 Shaq 27 PPG, 13 RPG on 54% in a sweep? From 98-04 Shaqs Lakers got to the Finals 4 times(won 3) as opposed to Duncans Spurs getting there twice and winning twice in that same time frame. Duncan was good, but Shaq was better. Both of them had their primes in the same timeframe.

Duncan also got lucky in 2005 when Shaq/Wade both got hurt in the playoffs or that Heat team would have destroyed them in the finals. It was much better than the 2006 Heat team that won the title.

[linZoMourning]

How does one playing for one team an entire career make someone a better basketball player? If anything it just makes it easier since he never had to become accustomed to a new system/lifestyle. Duncan is a great player, its just that Shaq was better.



Cool how about 2001 Shaq 27 PPG, 13 RPG on 54% in a sweep? From 98-04 Shaqs Lakers got to the Finals 4 times(won 3) as opposed to Duncans Spurs getting there twice and winning twice in that same time frame. Duncan was good, but Shaq was better. Both of them had their primes in the same timeframe.

Duncan also got lucky in 2005 when Shaq/Wade both got hurt in the playoffs or that Heat team would have destroyed them in the finals. It was much better than the 2006 Heat team that won the title.

good thing you can predict the future of events that never happened.

[Lebron23]

:facepalm You gotta do more than scoring and rebounding for me to say something like that. I disagree:no:


Shaq started his career in 1992. Shaq played againts the best Centers in NBA History. If Shaq and Duncan had both started their careers at the same time. I doubt Duncan would win more NBA titles than Shaq. 1990's Center position >>> 2000's PF/C position.

[Lebron23]

good thing you can predict the future of events that never happened.


How many accounts do you have RG?

[k0kakw0rld]

Shaq started his career in 1992. Shaq played againts the best Centers in NBA History. If Shaq and Duncan had both started their careers at the same time. I doubt Duncan would win more NBA titles than Shaq. 1990's Center position >>> 2000's PF/C position.

So Kobe > LeBron since he played against one of the greatest players of all time? :confusedshrug:

[Odinn]

Duncan can be ranked over Shaq. And Shaq can be ranked over Duncan as well.

Duncan: Better career accolades/accomplishments, better intangibles
Shaq: Better peak(prime)

In my goat list right now, both of them are 6th.
But Shaq has the stronger case to be ranked as top 5 ever. Because Shaq's peak is in the goat peak debate. Duncan also was a dominant force on the floor but his peak never will be in the goat peak debate and that's why top 5 would be too high for Duncan.

[Lebron23]

So Kobe > LeBron since he played against one of the greatest players of all time? :confusedshrug:


Nah

Kobe became a top 5 player in the NBA in the 2001 NBA Season.

[The Iron Fist]

Not saying I'd pick Duncan just because of this... but, I bet alot of young casual fans don't even remember Duncan's team knocking out the Lakers in two Spurs championship runs, and then knocking out the Suns (with Shaq) in another championship run. It's not like Duncan was Shaq's bitch or anything - there was a good back and forth, and Duncan won 2 MVP's in the middle of Shaq's prime, which says alot IMO.
One of those mvps belong to Kidd.

[Horatio33]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

It doesn't matter if Duncan gives you a better record or seed in the regular season though because Shaq always showed up, turned it up, and dominated in the playoffs and he dominated far more than Duncan ever did.

What is the argument for Duncan?

Shaq got sweep from the playoffs SIX times and missed them twice. Duncan's team swept them in 99.

[toxicxr6]

I want to pose a question for everyone to think about...

Who is nba history has achieved the same or more than duncan with equal or less talent around him?

I know he had parker and manu.. But u can't compare them to Kobe/wade/pippen..
I mean who has achieved more than him with similar talent? Nobody!!

[blablabla]

I want to pose a question for everyone to think about...

Who is nba history has achieved the same or more than duncan with equal or less talent around him?

I know he had parker and manu.. But u can't compare them to Kobe/wade/pippen..
I mean who has achieved more than him with similar talent? Nobody!!
hakeem won two titles

[toxicxr6]

hakeem won two titles


So winning 2 titles is achieving the same or more the winning 4 titles?:facepalm

[Timmy D for MVP]

So winning 2 titles is achieving the same or more the winning 4 titles?:facepalm

No he's saying that Duncan's cast vastly improved over time.

2005 and 2007 Duncan was the biggest part of a Big Three. In 1999 he had a still extremely productive D-Rob and some of the best pure role players in history. (Beautifully constructed team).

However in 2003 he may have led one of if not the weakest team to ever win a title.

[DMAVS41]

I want to pose a question for everyone to think about...

Who is nba history has achieved the same or more than duncan with equal or less talent around him?

I know he had parker and manu.. But u can't compare them to Kobe/wade/pippen..
I mean who has achieved more than him with similar talent? Nobody!!

Nobody has. 12 straight seasons over 50 wins (only been done by the 80's Lakers)...He has 4 titles without an all nba player (never been done before)....he has the 3rd highest win percentage of his era (only parker and manu have higher win percentages...LOL)

If its about doing the most with the least.....Duncan is arguably the GOAT or 2nd GOAT.

Look at the rest of the top ten of all time and compare the help:

MJ - more help....but not by a huge margin
Russell - far more help...not even close
Magic / Kareem - far more help...not even close
Wilt - similar amount of help
Bird - far more help
Kobe / Shaq - far more help
Hakeem - less help

Duncan was able to do historic things. His 03 championship run is one of the best ever. He is one of the best two way players ever. Great offensive player, great defensive player, and great rebounder. He was very clutch as well on both ends.

Really his only weakness has been his average ft shooting. He is historically under-rated in my opinion. You could definitely make a case that he's one of the 5 best players of all time.

[linZoMourning]

Nobody has. 12 straight seasons over 50 wins (only been done by the 80's Lakers)...He has 4 titles without an all nba player (never been done before)....he has the 3rd highest win percentage of his era (only parker and manu have higher win percentages...LOL)

If its about doing the most with the least.....Duncan is arguably the GOAT or 2nd GOAT.

Look at the rest of the top ten of all time and compare the help:

MJ - more help....but not by a huge margin
Russell - far more help...not even close
Magic / Kareem - far more help...not even close
Wilt - similar amount of help
Bird - far more help
Kobe / Shaq - far more help
Hakeem - less help

Duncan was able to do historic things. His 03 championship run is one of the best ever. He is one of the best two way players ever. Great offensive player, great defensive player, and great rebounder. He was very clutch as well on both ends.

Really his only weakness has been his average ft shooting. He is historically under-rated in my opinion. You could definitely make a case that he's one of the 5 best players of all time.

great post I completely agree :cheers:

[toxicxr6]

That's my point quite alot of ppl on this board rank him around the 9 or 10 mark which is insane.. With what little he has had to work with.. This has to be considered..

And your reference to being clutch defensively... Most ppl don't consider this... Duncan just stepped up on both ends when he had too.. Ppl jut look at ppg, rpg.. There is so much more..

Over here in Australia in our national sport we call the little impacts a player has in a game "1%ers"... These are things players do during a game they may influence the outcome but don't show up on the stat sheets..

Duncan would be miles ahead in this category if it existed in the nba

[caliman]

:facepalm You gotta do more than scoring and rebounding for me to say something like that. I disagree:no:

1995- 28/12/6/3
2000- 38/17/3/1
2001- 33/16/5/3
2002- 36/12/4/3
2006- 14/10/3/1


You're shortchanging Shaq by insinuating all he did was score and rebound.

[linZoMourning]

That's my point quite alot of ppl on this board rank him around the 9 or 10 mark which is insane.. With what little he has had to work with.. This has to be considered..

And your reference to being clutch defensively... Most ppl don't consider this... Duncan just stepped up on both ends when he had too.. Ppl jut look at ppg, rpg.. There is so much more..

Over here in Australia in our national sport we call the little impacts a player has in a game "1%ers"... These are things players do during a game they may influence the outcome but don't show up on the stat sheets..

Duncan would be miles ahead in this category if it existed in the nba

its good to know they respect thoes types of players in austrailia. in america we value scoring more. in all sports. not myself personally but the majority of fans. its why the mvp in football is always an offensive player.

[toxicxr6]

its good to know they respect thoes types of players in austrailia. in america we value scoring more. in all sports. not myself personally but the majority of fans. its why the mvp in football is always an offensive player.



Yes I have noticed that.. Here the players that do the dirty tough work that makes it easier for the rest of the team actually get alot of recognition from players/coaches and fans.... Quite often they become fan favorites here

[iDefend5]

Duncan's teammates are being underrated as usual.

[toxicxr6]

Duncan's teammates are being underrated as usual.

So u think Manu/Parker is comparable to Kobe/wade?

[Lebron23]

1995- 28/12/6/3
2000- 38/17/3/1
2001- 33/16/5/3
2002- 36/12/4/3
2006- 14/10/3/1


You're shortchanging Shaq by insinuating all he did was score and rebound.


DAMN!!!!

[iDefend5]

So u think Manu/Parker is comparable to Kobe/wade?
did kobe and wade play together?

[toxicxr6]

did kobe and wade play together?


Those lakers teams where stacked even after Kobe and shaq.. U know that.

[Doranku]

Shaq in his prime was just at a much higher level than Duncan ever was. Have to give it to the Diesel.

[iDefend5]

Those lakers teams where stacked even after Kobe and shaq.. U know that.
so were the spurs. weak argument is weak, dawg.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan's teammates are being underrated as usual.

If it was so easy to win without another superstar or an all nba player...more star players would have done it.

The formula for success in the NBA is not that hard. It almost always takes two great players, a good to great coach, a solid defense....and of course the main superstar.

Duncan has bucked those trends by winning all 4 of his titles without an all nba player. Something that no other superstar has come close to doing....ever.

Just look at the franchises that have won most of the titles.....its not hard to do.

[DMAVS41]

Shaq in his prime was just at a much higher level than Duncan ever was. Have to give it to the Diesel.

No...he wasn't.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was clearly the better offensive player, while Duncan was clearly the better defensive player. Shaq had the potential to be closer defensively than vice versa and did show it at times(had a good case for DPOY in 2000 anchoring the best defensive team in the league and the '01 Lakers also dominated the playoffs defensively while O'Neal's '97 and '02 Laker teams were significantly worse without him defensively). But the difference is that Shaq was often lazy defensively, while Duncan never was.

I also agree with StateOfMind that teams shouldn't really be brought up for either. Shaq certainly played with more star power in Kobe for 5 years as a premier player, Penny for 2 as a premier player and Wade for 2 when Shaq was still a premier player. But he's also right that Duncan's teams were deeper. Also, Duncan did immediately enter a strong team, as the Spurs were a very good team before that tank season and David Robinson returned very strongly in '98. Robinson's impact itself shouldn't be downplayed. He was probably a top 3-5 defender even through Duncan's first 4 years and most likely capable of 20/10 as a first option through Duncan's first 3 and by the Spurs last title, Duncan was playing with 2 all-star caliber players(something Shaq never had on one of his title teams). And Duncan's team generally faced pretty weak competition during their runs outside of '05. Both players faced weaker finals opponents with the exception of the '05 Pistons for Duncan and '00 Pacers for Shaq.

Ultimately, I choose Shaq, his prime and peak were both just better to me and he was a dominant for 13-14 seasons, longer than Duncan. He was the biggest mismatch 1 on 1 that I've ever seen, and I don't think any player has been tougher to gameplan against.

Shaq was generally regarded as a better player than Duncan when both were in their primes.

Here is a GM survey from late in the 2003 regular season when Shaq was still being chosen as the best player in the game. btw, I happen to disagree with their choice and think Duncan was the best that season.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_227/ai_98172075/?tag=content;col1

Shaq was also chosen as best player in a landslide during 2002.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/survey/2002-04-19-fan-insider-results.htm


Those lakers teams where stacked even after Kobe and shaq.. U know that.

What? :oldlol: No, not at all. Those Laker teams were great primarily because of Shaq, Kobe and Phil. They had a few role players who stepped up at the right times, but your statement is ridiculous.

The teams certainly had their flaws outside their duo, Phil Jackson stated that numerous times. The team often had 2 players on the court who weren't scoring threats, or shooting threats, they were typically a below average 3 point shooting team(one of the worst in the league in 2000) and they were typically a below average bench scoring team.

Shaq's "stacked teams" were the '95-'98 teams he played on with Orlando and LA.

[toxicxr6]

so were the spurs. weak argument is weak, dawg.

Yeah the spurs were stacked in 03?:facepalm dumb...


So u think manu/Parker collectively> Kobe... That's what u r saying right?

So u think that back 7 or 8 years ago lakers would trade Kobe for those two.. Even if they would know how the future 7 or 8 years would pan out?
Lakers still wouldn't. I'm sure the spurs would have.. I mean prime Duncan and prime Kobe togther.. In an organisation like SA... There would be alot more banners hanging from the rafters in San Antonio that's for sure

[NumberSix]

He can play center. But throughout his entire nba career, he has played the power forward position. Kinda like how people call Derrick Rose a shooting guard that can pass well, but he plays the point guard position so he is a point guard.
Yeah, and LeBron plays the 4 position every single game. Doesn't mean you're gonna rank him as a PF.

[Whoah10115]

Both bother me.



Shaq's one of the best ever, but I've never seen a guy get away with so much. I just saw him and MJ messing around before the 96 All-Star game...what a different player he was then. After he just bulked and bulked and got away with so many 9second violations and offensive fouls. Usually, players get away with stuff and they adjust when the refs do (Durant and the "swim move". But Shaq made a living off it.


His 01/02 season saw a massive drop-off...and yet, not really. There was quite a drop from that season to 02/03. It's one of those things where you look beyond stats, but the truth is that he got away with a lot. He was a much more interesting player in Orlando, yet he was so much more dominant later on. Yea, the competition was less and he added intangible things to his game, but it's such a difficult thing to rank him.



As well as Tim Duncan. With respect, the Spurs are the least impressive dynasty of all-time. I don't care about the lockout. Don't care about Webber and the Kings. But them having 4 titles is shocking to me. I called them going on a run and winning titles, even with Robinson retiring. But Pop, while a terrific coach, is way too highly rated. He has the big picture in mind, and that big picture is get a ring and that's with a period. Always seemed like they did the minimum to do it and it never felt like anything great to me. And that sounds terrible and like I'm hating, but it's a shame to see those teams with all those titles and with Timmy overmanaging his effort. He's got 4 rings while Barkley and Malone have none. KG has 1 and individually it isn't valued as highly as any one of Duncan's. And that's a shame, especially as I always dug the Spurs due to Robinson, and I love Tim Duncan.




So...I don't know, I haven't even answered the question.

[Alamo]

Yeah, and LeBron plays the 4 position every single game. Doesn't mean you're gonna rank him as a PF.

Does he? I've always seen Lebron listed as a SF, and Duncan as a PF. They both can play out of their position. Simple

But that has nothing to do with this argument. I was just stating that Tim Duncan was the greatest PF in my eyes, that has nothing to do with if he better than Shaq or not.

[linZoMourning]

Both bother me.



Shaq's one of the best ever, but I've never seen a guy get away with so much. I just saw him and MJ messing around before the 96 All-Star game...what a different player he was then. After he just bulked and bulked and got away with so many 9second violations and offensive fouls. Usually, players get away with stuff and they adjust when the refs do (Durant and the "swim move". But Shaq made a living off it.


His 01/02 season saw a massive drop-off...and yet, not really. There was quite a drop from that season to 02/03. It's one of those things where you look beyond stats, but the truth is that he got away with a lot. He was a much more interesting player in Orlando, yet he was so much more dominant later on. Yea, the competition was less and he added intangible things to his game, but it's such a difficult thing to rank him.



As well as Tim Duncan. With respect, the Spurs are the least impressive dynasty of all-time. I don't care about the lockout. Don't care about Webber and the Kings. But them having 4 titles is shocking to me. I called them going on a run and winning titles, even with Robinson retiring. But Pop, while a terrific coach, is way too highly rated. He has the big picture in mind, and that big picture is get a ring and that's with a period. Always seemed like they did the minimum to do it and it never felt like anything great to me. And that sounds terrible and like I'm hating, but it's a shame to see those teams with all those titles and with Timmy overmanaging his effort. He's got 4 rings while Barkley and Malone have none. KG has 1 and individually it isn't valued as highly as any one of Duncan's. And that's a shame, especially as I always dug the Spurs due to Robinson, and I love Tim Duncan.




So...I don't know, I haven't even answered the question.

this might be the worst post of all time. on any forum ever created.

[Whoah10115]

this might be the worst post of all time. on any forum ever created.

:blah :blah



Sure.


:blah :blah

[linZoMourning]

:blah :blah



Sure.


:blah :blah

you probably are one of those same people who thinks kg and malone were better then duncan

[jlauber]

If it was so easy to win without another superstar or an all nba player...more star players would have done it.

The formula for success in the NBA is not that hard. It almost always takes two great players, a good to great coach, a solid defense....and of course the main superstar.

Duncan has bucked those trends by winning all 4 of his titles without an all nba player. Something that no other superstar has come close to doing....ever.

Just look at the franchises that have won most of the titles.....its not hard to do.

I have Shaq and Duncan in a near dead-heat at #6 and #7 all-time. Shaq was the more dominant player, but Duncan made his team's better. In fact, Duncan, Russell, and Magic (and an argument could be made for Dirk, too) are the game's greatest "winners." Those guys have never sniffed a losing season, and most were 50+ win seasons.

[Round Mound]

LOL. No ****ing way. Tim Duncan wasn't even in Shaqs league offensively. Duncan was a great player, but offensively Shaq was the most efficient and unstoppable player we've ever seen. 30-15 Finals series multiple times and required guys to either double him immedietly or foul him. Duncan had a nice touch in the post, but he was more prone to bad nights where Shaq got so many easy buckets just because of how much of a monster he was.

Shaq also had the most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History so anyone saying Duncan because of his consistency is a joke. They are merely a younger NBA fan who has no idea Shaq played before 2000.

Defensively Duncan is overrated as well. He was smart and didn't have a weakness like Shaq in the pick and roll, but in terms of protecting the paint and post defense? Shaq was just as good. One thing with Shaq is he gets brought up as some shitty defensive playe, and that's because he struggled heavily vs the pick and roll in his later years once he got slow and had to carry around all that weight. In his prime he was a great defensive player. Noone ever posts up Shaq. Even when he was old as ****. Brought an intimidation factor too that was unrivaled. Noone wanted to drive and take a Shaq body check.

Guy won everywhere he played too. Took a 20 win Orlando franchise to .500 his first year and to the Finals by Year 3. Made LA the new pereniel powerhouse in the post-jordan era, and then made the Eastern conference relevant again when he was traded to Miami.

Mostly the reason he is better is because just how dominant he was offensively. NBA bigmen would MUCH rather guard Tim Duncan than Shaq.

This :applause:

[Whoah10115]

you probably are one of those same people who thinks kg and malone were better then duncan



You actually have no basis to say which kind of people I am. So just back up a step.

[TheBigVeto]

Tim >>>>>>>>>> Shaq.

[NumberSix]

Shaq is clearly a more valuable player than Duncan. If you wanna argue that Duncan was a more skilled player, then fine, But in their prime eras there's not a coach/team in the world that would have chose Duncan over Shaq.

[Big#50]

Tim was drafted to the best front office ever playing with 3 Hall of Famers D/Rob-T.parker-Manu and the best defender of his generation Bruce Bowen

Plus always played for Pop

Replace Garnett with Duncan same result

Plus Timmy has never defended his title which the hardest thing to do in Pro-Sports
LOL Bowen benefited from having TIM behind him. See the 07 finals for proof. Many and Parker are good not great. Never winning back to back means nothing. Shaq had prime Kobe/Wade. Shaq was an average and at times horrible defender. Duncan was way more clutch. It isn't even close in the clutch department. Timmy was a better passer and way better defender. It isn't even close on defense. Shaq had those extra 100lbs on everyone. He was allowed to use elbows and shoulder charges while the Lakers were winning titles. Once they started calling him for offensive fouls, he wasn't as great. He was allowed a whole shot clock in the paint as well. Shaq is overrated. By me included.
Timmy> Shaw

[Pointguard]

Keep in mind

Who played with:
PG: Steve Nash/Gary Payton/Penny Hardaway/Rajon Rondo
Nash, Rondo and Hardaway season that Shaq had played with them was far better than any Tony Parker season. Only Nash was an inferior defender.

Amazingly, even Gary Payton's season at that time, could mask as a Tony Parker season.

SG: Kobe Bryant/Dwyane Wade/Ray Allen/Eddie Jones/Scott
During the Championship runs. Kobe and Wade could double up on Ginobli's production numbers. And were far superior defenders. Gin's strength is his clutchness... however he is definitely not on their level.

Eddie Jones numbers were a little better and he was really about an equal player to Gin - tho not as clutch. Dennis Scott was usually more of a scorer than Gin as well, tho not the same player.

SF: LeBron James/Paul Pierce/Grant Hill/Glen Rice/Nick Anderson
Shaq was old here so I won't go there except for Glen Rice whose numbers in the championship run years, look exactly like Gin's. But Bowen was great defensively.

Nick Anderson was a superior scorer to anybody Duncan played with. Wasn't good in the clutch.

PF: Karl Malone/Kevin Garnett/Amare Stoudemire/Horace Grant/Rodman

Stoudamire's year was much greater than any of Robinson's with Duncan. Karl Malone one year is a little more productive than David Robinson's 4 year average with Duncan.

I believe Rodman's 11.2 rebounds were more than anybody got in SA with Duncan. Horace Grant was in his prime and had an all around game.

C: Alonzo Mourning/Jermaine O'Neal/Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Alonzo Mourning's year was as effective as D Rob's first championship run with Duncan.

[Whoah10115]

LOL Bowen benefited from having TIM behind him. See the 07 finals for proof. Many and Parker are good not great. Never winning back to back means nothing. Shaq had prime Kobe/Wade. Shaq was an average and at times horrible defender. Duncan was way more clutch. It isn't even close in the clutch department. Timmy was a better passer and way better defender. It isn't even close on defense. Shaq had those extra 100lbs on everyone. He was allowed to use elbows and shoulder charges while the Lakers were winning titles. Once they started calling him for offensive fouls, he wasn't as great. He was allowed a whole shot clock in the paint as well. Shaq is overrated. By me included.
Timmy> Shaw



Agree with most of this, but Bowen was a great defender because he was a great defender, and because he was allowed to drop kick you, Nina Turtle style.



And Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are both great players. They're great every year in the micro-managed regular seasons. In the playoffs, they show they're great players. In particular, Manu is one of the better SG's I've seen and it's just a shame that he plays like 9minutes a night. He's made two All-NBA Teams and Parker has made another one, with a couple just misses (Ray Allen has also only made 2).

[Pointguard]

These are the teams that demonstrated some of their supporting players.

95 team
Shaq, Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant

00 team
Shaq, Kobe, Rice, Harper, Fox, Horry, AC Green, Shaw,


01 team
Shaq, Kobe, Fox, H Grant, I Rider, Shaw, Horry, Harper

04 team
Kobe, Shaq, Payton, Malone,

vs.
05 Spurs
TD, Tony Parker, Ginobli, (Bruce Bowen, Barry, Malik Rose, Nazar, Horry nobody over 10ppg.) Parker and Gin together were only like 4ppg over Kobe in these comparative years.

Gin and Parker shouldn't make the HOF. Parker will be a 16 and 5 guy (there is no way we could imagine 15 of the current PG crop NOT averaging superior numbers) with Gin an often injured pedestrian 15, 4 and 4 guy.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

Keep in mind

Who played with:
PG: Steve Nash/Gary Payton/Penny Hardaway/Rajon Rondo
Nash, Rondo and Hardaway season that Shaq had played with them was far better than any Tony Parker season. Only Nash was an inferior defender.

Amazingly, even Gary Payton's season at that time, could mask as a Tony Parker season.

SG: Kobe Bryant/Dwyane Wade/Ray Allen/Eddie Jones/Scott
During the Championship runs. Kobe and Wade could double up on Ginobli's production numbers. And were far superior defenders. Gin's strength is his clutchness... however he is definitely not on their level.

Eddie Jones numbers were a little better and he was really about an equal player to Gin - tho not as clutch. Dennis Scott was usually more of a scorer than Gin as well, tho not the same player.

SF: LeBron James/Paul Pierce/Grant Hill/Glen Rice/Nick Anderson
Shaq was old here so I won't go there except for Glen Rice whose numbers in the championship run years, look exactly like Gin's. But Bowen was great defensively.

Nick Anderson was a superior scorer to anybody Duncan played with. Wasn't good in the clutch.

PF: Karl Malone/Kevin Garnett/Amare Stoudemire/Horace Grant/Rodman

Stoudamire's year was much greater than any of Robinson's with Duncan. Karl Malone one year is a little more productive than David Robinson's 4 years Duncan.

I believe Rodman's 11.2 rebounds were more than anybody got in SA with Duncan. Horace Grant was in his prime and had an all around game.

C: Alonzo Mourning/Jermaine O'Neal/Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Alonzo Mourning's year was as effective as D Rob's first championship run with Duncan.

Lol most of these guys were from Shaqs Boston/Phoenix/Cavs years when he was essentially done.

The only guys Shaq whose primes synchronized with Shaqs on that list are Penny, Kobe, Wade, Eddie Jones, Horace Grant. And at no point were more than two of them on his team at once.

40 year old Malones 13-8 injured in the playoffs year better than David Robinsons 4 years combined? LOL

Gary Payton(who was a huge FAIL in LA) equal to Tony Parker? LOL

This is a joke. Shaq always had the better 2nd option, Tim Duncans teams ALWAYS had more impressive depth and role players.

[Pointguard]

I have Shaq and Duncan in a near dead-heat at #6 and #7 all-time. Shaq was the more dominant player, but Duncan made his team's better. In fact, Duncan, Russell, and Magic (and an argument could be made for Dirk, too) are the game's greatest "winners." Those guys have never sniffed a losing season, and most were 50+ win seasons.

As far as winning it all I have Russell, Duncan, Magic and Jordan as the one's that deserve extra points for the dynasty label. Maybe seven others that get some points for winning in a lesser way (Kobe and Dirk are in that group). Outside of them I don't factor it in much into the who is better argument. Great guys usually get two. And then there are always exceptions.

Duncan is six in my rankings because he was an enigma. To me he did more with less than anybody. Had a silent domination thing going on.

[Pointguard]

Lol most of these guys were from Shaqs Boston/Phoenix/Cavs years when he was essentially done.
In every case I explained that - did I not? In Pheonix he ran up and down the court better than 80% of the centers today.



The only guys Shaq whose primes synchronized with Shaqs on that list are Penny, Kobe, Wade, Eddie Jones, Horace Grant. And at no point were more than two of them on his team at once.

95 team
Shaq, Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant

01 team
Shaq, Kobe, Fox, H Grant, I Rider, Shaw, Horry, Harper




40 year old Malones 13-8 injured in the playoffs year better than David Robinsons 4 years combined? LOL
4 year average. Its a little silly to compare 4 years cumulatively to one.



Gary Payton(who was a huge FAIL in LA) equal to Tony Parker? LOL

Exactly my point. GP's failure year is at a production level similar to Tony Parker's. And in the winning years TP is the second best player on Duncan's teams, 3 out of 4 years.

[QUIZZLE]

Is this thread a joke? I hope so.

No Tim Bankshot Duncan isn't better than Shaq and is certainly not top 5 gtfo.


HOF Bound? yes... your thread title.... I can hardly look at it.

[linZoMourning]

Is this thread a joke? I hope so.

No Tim Bankshot Duncan isn't better than Shaq and is certainly not top 5 gtfo.


HOF Bound? yes... your thread title.... I can hardly look at it.

looks to be about 50/50 on who people think is better. hardly a joke.

its very hard to compare duncan vs hakeem vs shaq

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

In every case I explained that - did I not? In Pheonix he ran up and down the court better than 80% of the centers today.



95 team
Shaq, Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant

01 team
Shaq, Kobe, Fox, H Grant, I Rider, Shaw, Horry, Harper


4 year average. Its a little silly to compare 4 years cumulatively to one.



Exactly my point. GP's failure year is at a production level similar to Tony Parker's. And in the winning years TP is the second best player on Duncan's teams, 3 out of 4 years.

Shaq was not Shaq anymore in Phoenix and it is unfair to consider those "his teams". He also benefited from the PHoenix stat padding offense, but I don't think he made the team better at all.

What is the point of listing the 2001 Lakers? Ok? Kobe and a bunch of below average role players, cool. Noone from your list other than Kobe/Grant is on that team anyway. Grant was just some 8 PPG 6 RPG guy at that point anyway.

No Gary Payton was not on Tony Parkers level at all in LA. Ask any Laker fan. He was an awful fit for the triangle offense and really offered very little to the team. Ended up averaging 8 PPG in the finals and The Glove looked more like the mitten getting dominated by Chauncy Billups.

David Robinson was still a capable 20-10 bigman in Duncans first few years if given the oppurtunities and a still force defensively. He was the one that would guard Shaq, not Duncan. When healthy Malone was the only player on that 04 Lakers team that really offered much other than Shaq/Kobe, and had he been healthy the Lakers may end up as the champions in the record books. Needless to say he was never as valuable as David Robinson was to those Spurs,ESPECIALLY in 99.

[Yanch856]

Not greater than Shaq... but maybe greater than Kobe when it's all said and done.

[Big#50]

Is this thread a joke? I hope so.

No Tim Bankshot Duncan isn't better than Shaq and is certainly not top 5 gtfo.


HOF Bound? yes... your thread title.... I can hardly look at it.
No Shaq NothingButDunks isn't better than Duncan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

In every case I explained that - did I not? In Pheonix he ran up and down the court better than 80% of the centers today

And he was in the second half of the 16th, and then the 17th season of his career. Duncan is only in his 15th right now, so why even compare?


95 team
Shaq, Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant

Nobody would dispute that's a really talented team, more talented than Duncan's teams or the ones Shaq actually won titles with. But I have a hard time seeing 3rd year Duncan beating Dream's Rockets either.


01 team
Shaq, Kobe, Fox, H Grant, I Rider, Shaw, Horry, Harper

Rider was left off the playoff roster after being little more than a distraction during the regular season. Harper was also done and barely played in the playoffs. So those guys didn't really factor into the playoffs at all.

With that being said, the guys who were the key role players did fill their roles extremely well and complemented Shaq/Kobe, and the result was 15-1.


4 year average. Its a little silly to compare 4 years cumulatively to one.

Malone played well when he was healthy for the 2004 team, but missed half the season and couldn't even move in the finals.

Robinson was significantly better from '98-'01 than Malone was even when healthy in '04. Robinson was a top 3-5 defender each of those first 4 seasons with Duncan and the 2 versatile seven footers gave the Spurs a huge luxury(similar to what people talk about with these recent Gasol/Bynum Laker teams only much better). Robinson was also probably a 20/10 caliber player during those first 3 seasons had he been the first option. He did average 20/10 during his first season with Duncan and even during his 3rd was at 18/10 as a 2nd option on a slow-paced team. Pretty much Pau Gasol numbers except in fewer minutes with much better defense.


Exactly my point. GP's failure year is at a production level similar to Tony Parker's. And in the winning years TP is the second best player on Duncan's teams, 3 out of 4 years.

Parker in his own 3rd season(2004) was better than Payton during that season with Lakers. Payton averaged 8/3/5 on 37% shooting for the playoffs and Billups outscored him 21 ppg to 4 ppg and outshot him 51% to 32% during the finals.

Parker was definitely not better than Manu in '05. Many thought Manu should've won finals MVP(I thought Duncan was deserving, btw).

But to put this into perspective, Manu averaged 21/6/4 on 51% shooting and 44% on 3s during the 2005 playoffs in just 34 mpg. 2000 Kobe averaged 21/5/4 on 44% shooting in 39 mpg during the playoffs. Kobe was a better player than Manu already, but Manu had a playoff run easily on par with Kobe's.

And regardless of who you think was the Spurs 2nd and 3rd best player between Manu and Parker in '05 and '07. Both were much bigger threats and better players than any of the 3rd options on the 3peat Laker teams.

By the way, as for you comparing Rice in 2000 to Manu..... :facepalm

Rice averaged 12/4/2 on 41% shooting in the 2000 playoffs and was benched late in games for being a defensive liability and not moving without the ball. He was a rapidly declining player at 32-33 post-elbow surgery as well as being one-dimensional and a poor fit in the triangle.

Here are some of Phil's quotes on Rice that season.


After the game I met with the media as always, and the L.A, writers were anxious about Glen Rice, who would be a free agent next year. They wanted to know why Glen hadn't played much. "Maybe he doesn't deserve to play," I told them. "He doesn't seem capable of playing without the ball, so he's just not doing the job."


Glen was still not comfortable moving without the ball. He also continued to vacate those spaces on the court where he'd historically scored his points.

You're over-simplifying things with numbers, and it's really ineffective when talking about the Spurs players considering the slow-pace of the team, and depth on the perimeter which usually resulted in Parker and Ginobili playing less minutes than other all-star caliber perimeter players.

Here's a comparison between Duncan's 2003 run when he had the "least help" and his best run vs Shaq's best run in 2000.

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.

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+

As you can see, Duncan was his team's leading scorer less frequently and had a teammate score 20+ more frequently.

Just pointing out how much you're disregarding the Spurs depth, massively underrating Ginobili, Parker and Robinson.

None of Duncan's Spurs teams were ever considered bad teams. Both Shaq and Duncan had good teams capable of contending throughout their primes. That's just reality, and something that just about every fan at the time thought as these things were actually happening. Both also had great coaches with Shaq having Phil from '00-'04 and Pat Riley in '06('07 and part of '08 as well technically), while Duncan has had Popovich his entire career.

[k0kakw0rld]

Not greater than Shaq... but maybe greater than Kobe when it's all said and done.
We all know he is greater than kobe which is why we trying to compare him with another player who is also greater than kobe, Shaq.

[rmt]

This is a joke. Shaq always had the better 2nd option, Tim Duncans teams ALWAYS had more impressive depth and role players.

There's a reason why superstars historically win in the NBA. There are only 5 players on the court, and the best players play massive minutes in the playoffs. I don't think that LA would have traded Kobe in 03 for 2nd year, 20 year old Parker, 2nd year SJax or rookie Manu and you're forgetting that LA had its share of great role and clutch players in Horry and Fisher.


David Robinson was still a capable 20-10 bigman in Duncans first few years if given the oppurtunities and a still force defensively.

DRob averaged 15.6 pts / 9.9 rebs in the '99 playoffs and 15.8 pts / 10 rebs in the 98-99 season.


Both also had great coaches with Shaq having Phil from '00-'04 and Pat Riley in '06('07 and part of '08 as well technically), while Duncan has had Popovich his entire career.

IMO, it is incorrect to refer to the 98-99 Popovich as a "great" coach and unfair to compare him to Phil Jackson (6 rings before 00) or Pat Riley (4 rings before 06). Popovich (before the 98-99 season) had coached a total of 146 NBA games for a 73-73 record - hardly what one would call great or in the league of coaches who had won a total of 10 championships between them.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Greg Popovich isnt a great coach, and the early 00 Lakers were "stacked" top to bottom.

Do you guys seriously don't remember the theme vs the Kings and Blazers that it was Shaq and Kobe vs 6-7 good players?

If the 3rd best player on your team is an average starting PG at best, your team isn't stacked.

[SCdac]

You're over-simplifying things with numbers, and it's really ineffective when talking about the Spurs players considering the slow-pace of the team, and depth on the perimeter which usually resulted in Parker and Ginobili playing less minutes than other all-star caliber perimeter players.

Here's a comparison between Duncan's 2003 run when he had the "least help" and his best run vs Shaq's best run in 2000.

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.

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+

As you can see, Duncan was his team's leading scorer less frequently and had a teammate score 20+ more frequently.

I find it very interesting, and convenient, how you didn't feel like mentioning that Tim Duncan (03) nearly doubled Shaquille O'Neals (00) assists in the playoffs. And how, naturally, that is going to have a variety of effects on the Spurs' scoring (ie. more balanced, TD scores 25 PPG, YET still facilitates more).

I think you oversimplify with numbers a bit too, kind of make it seem like a crutch sort of (TD relying on teammates scoring), if you watched Duncan, he had a role similar to a quarterback in those 2003 playoffs, to an extent Shaq had never come close to in a championship run. Duncan had 2 triple doubles, and nearly a handful others (counting a 7 assist game as 'getting close'). Shaq hit the 7 assist mark just once in his 2000 run

DUNCAN: 127 assists in 24 games (25.5 assist%, lead team)

SHAQ: 71 assists in 23 games (14.5 assist%, fifth ranked on team)

[JMT]

"Greater" ? Eh, who knows.

More physically dominant? Shaq

More high maintenance and difficult to deal with internally? Shaq

Better all-round basketball player? Duncan

More commitment to conditioning and performing at a high level all the time? Duncan

Shaq dominated a position that, aside from his first few seasons in the league, had a dearth of real talent.

Duncan dominated a position that saw more, varied types of quality players than any other of the era.

Shaq played with better players and didn't lead them any farther than Duncan did.

[StateOfMind12]

I find it very interesting, and convenient, how you didn't feel like mentioning that Tim Duncan (03) nearly doubled Shaquille O'Neals (00) assists in the playoffs. And how, naturally, that is going to have a variety of effects on the Spurs' scoring (ie. more balanced, TD scores 25 PPG, YET still facilitates more).

I think you oversimplify with numbers a bit too, kind of make it seem like a crutch sort of (TD relying on teammates scoring), if you watched Duncan, he had a role similar to a quarterback in those 2003 playoffs, to an extent Shaq had never come close to in a championship run. Duncan had 2 triple doubles, and nearly a handful others (counting a 7 assist game as 'getting close'). Shaq hit the 7 assist mark just once in his 2000 run

DUNCAN: 127 assists in 24 games (25.5 assist%, lead team)

SHAQ: 71 assists in 23 games (14.5 assist%, fifth ranked on team)
If you think assists shows and determines how great of a passer one is then I think you need to be the one to stop oversimplifying numbers.

Score is very cut and dry as possible, there are also various factors but Shaq was clearly the better scorer than Duncan and it isn't even close.

As for passing/playmaking though? It isn't very cut and dry and it far from determines who is the superior passer/playmaker. It might show you who has the ball more often and who the offense ran through more often though. However, it does not show you who is the better passer or playmaker especially since Shaq was also an all-time great passer at his position.

Either way, even if Duncan were the superior passer, it doesn't make him the better player or make up for the fact that he is an inferior scorer since scoring is worth far more than any other aspect.

[SCdac]

If you think assists shows and determines how great of a passer one is then I think you need to be the one to stop oversimplifying numbers.

So, who do you think had more of a facilitator role in those respective runs? The guy who handedly lead his team in assists, or the guy who was was third on his team in assists behind KOBE and Ron Harper? :confusedshrug:

Do you think dishing out more assists is going to help your teammates numbers?

Duncan jumped from 3.9 APG in the regular season to 5.3 in the playoffs, on top of his scoring improving.

[Pointguard]

Shaq was not Shaq anymore in Phoenix and it is unfair to consider those "his teams". He also benefited from the PHoenix stat padding offense, but I don't think he made the team better at all.

What is the point of listing the 2001 Lakers? Ok? Kobe and a bunch of below average role players, cool. Noone from your list other than Kobe/Grant is on that team anyway. Grant was just some 8 PPG 6 RPG guy at that point anyway.

Look at the experience of those teams. When was the last time an inexperienced team won the championship without Duncan leading them. You talk about Grant being and 8 and 6 guy... have you looked at SA's winning teams. There's TP and Gin everybody else - 8 and 6 would be good for everybody else.


No Gary Payton was not on Tony Parkers level at all in LA. Ask any Laker fan. He was an awful fit for the triangle offense and really offered very little to the team. Ended up averaging 8 PPG in the finals and The Glove looked more like the mitten getting dominated by Chauncy Billups. Actually Billups does that to a lot of people in the playoffs. But Parker isn't good defensively and the team runs thru Duncan as much as it does Parker. Payton was experienced but I will admit that he couldn't get triangle. Nonetheless, he could still put up Parker like numbers. If Payton was with Duncan I think he looks a lot better. That team lost because of Shaq warring with Kobe. SA teams win because of Duncan gelling with everybody and getting way more out of marginal players. Advantage Duncan.



David Robinson was still a capable 20-10 bigman in Duncans first few years if given the oppurtunities and a still force defensively. He was the one that would guard Shaq, not Duncan. When healthy Malone was the only player on that 04 Lakers team that really offered much other than Shaq/Kobe, and had he been healthy the Lakers may end up as the champions in the record books. Needless to say he was never as valuable as David Robinson was to those Spurs,ESPECIALLY in 99.
Well, Duncan was the PF not the center. He wasn't supposed to guard Shaq just like Shaq didn't guard him. Dallas beat Miami, LA et all, because of Dirk and experience. If you have talent, experience and a great coach you should be contending every year. Shaq had it way more than Duncan had it. If Duncan has Kobe Wade and Penny for nine good years its going to be more than 4 rings. Give Shaq, TP as his second best player, it really seems that he doesn't win at all. The only none duo dynasty in NBA history seems to be SA. Shaq had top 3 perimeter talent on his team in at least 5 non title runs. Duncan never had a top 5 perimeter talent and won 4 times. Shaq's '95 team was the best perimeter team in the league. There's an imbalance there.

[Yanch856]

Well for one thing Shaq's game was in-you-face dominant during the threepeat. Duncan's game? Patented bank shot is not quite the same viscerally.

Also, as great as the Spurs were, they never won back to back championships.

Duncan definitely not top 5 all time. Top 5?

But on the other hand I also think Duncan is underrated because he was low key.

[Pointguard]

And he was in the second half of the 16th, and then the 17th season of his career. Duncan is only in his 15th right now, so why even compare?
I brought that up because David Robinson was being thrown into the mix. D Rob wasn't himself when they won it all, I think Shaq on Pheonix looked as good as D Rob did. It wouldn't surprise people if SA won it this year. Duncan's game now doesn't look as good as Shaq's then. Duncan's influence a being a cog offensivley and defensively was always more than what meets the eye tho.



Nobody would dispute that's a really talented team, more talented than Duncan's teams or the ones Shaq actually won titles with. But I have a hard time seeing 3rd year Duncan beating Dream's Rockets either.

To be honest with you, I had a hard time seeing any of Duncan's team winning it all when Shaq had Kobe or Wade. Duncan is notorious for overachieving teams. Moreso than any other player Duncan was the guy you just don't see coming.



Rider was left off the playoff roster after being little more than a distraction during the regular season. Harper was also done and barely played in the playoffs. So those guys didn't really factor into the playoffs at all.

With that being said, the guys who were the key role players did fill their roles extremely well and complemented Shaq/Kobe, and the result was 15-1.

If you are bringing up distractions, sideshows, guys distructive to team harmony, undermining the coach, its a loosing argument - that was part of Shaq's package too. Duncan's post season harmony and ability to have guys around him step up is phenomenal. If you take JR Rider out of that equation because of playoff play then you must add Derek Fisher because of his ability to make key plays. Rick Fox's all around play. Horry, Horace and Shaw's experience helped big time. Ty Lue was also key in the run first as a spark plug and then later defensively.



Robinson was significantly better from '98-'01 than Malone was even when healthy in '04. Robinson was a top 3-5 defender each of those first 4 seasons with Duncan and the 2 versatile seven footers gave the Spurs a huge luxury(similar to what people talk about with these recent Gasol/Bynum Laker teams only much better). Robinson was also probably a 20/10 caliber player during those first 3 seasons had he been the first option. He did average 20/10 during his first season with Duncan and even during his 3rd was at 18/10 as a 2nd option on a slow-paced team. Pretty much Pau Gasol numbers except in fewer minutes with much better defense.

Robinson always had post season problems. This is not new. Malone was a skill guy that could get his. Malone did end up being hurt but the most costly thing during that playoff run was the Kobe and Shaq feud. LA lost to a none allstar team of cast aways that got out of the East because of injuries to the Nets and Pacers.

Why bother with 99 to 01 with the D Rob equation. If Duncan has Kobe it seems clear cut he wins all three years. Give Shaq a perimeter player equivalent to D Rob there is no reason to believe they would be great. He always had stellar talent next to him and didn't deliver. Sure it's guess work but I would bet on it without question.



Parker in his own 3rd season(2004) was better than Payton during that season with Lakers. Payton averaged 8/3/5 on 37% shooting for the playoffs and Billups outscored him 21 ppg to 4 ppg and outshot him 51% to 32% during the finals.

During the year Payton supposedly sucked. But he's obviously, at best the 4th best player on the team. Yet he put up TP type of numbers. TP wasn't playing defense, he's pretty much a straight up opportunity/drive player. He is very much what his stats say he is. Duncan did most of the setting up. Good defense happens and Payton, like Robinson in his later years wasn't responding well.


Parker was definitely not better than Manu in '05. Many thought Manu should've won finals MVP(I thought Duncan was deserving, btw).

Kobe and Fisher were still bigger in the playoffs during the three peat. And during the regular season Kobe was close to averaging what those two did combined. In the playoffs one extra super talent always seems to be better than balance.


But to put this into perspective, Manu averaged 21/6/4 on 51% shooting and 44% on 3s during the 2005 playoffs in just 34 mpg. 2000 Kobe averaged 21/5/4 on 44% shooting in 39 mpg during the playoffs. Kobe was a better player than Manu already, but Manu had a playoff run easily on par with Kobe's.
Kobe was a far superior defensive player. And I give it to Shaq that year. He was truely beasting - the next year too. Shaq beasted harder than Duncan. I admit that.



And regardless of who you think was the Spurs 2nd and 3rd best player between Manu and Parker in '05 and '07. Both were much bigger threats and better players than any of the 3rd options on the 3peat Laker teams.
Only because Duncan gave the space to shine. I question if they ever get noticed on a Shaq team. Honestly. I believe Kobe would have been a better player with Duncan. I believe Kobe's whole career would be much better if he had Duncan as his mentor. And Duncan would be much better for any franchise than Shaq as well. That's pretty much proven.
.

[Pointguard]

By the way, as for you comparing Rice in 2000 to Manu..... :facepalm

Rice averaged 12/4/2 on 41% shooting in the 2000 playoffs and was benched late in games for being a defensive liability and not moving without the ball. He was a rapidly declining player at 32-33 post-elbow surgery as well as being one-dimensional and a poor fit in the triangle.

Here are some of Phil's quotes on Rice that season.

:lol You could have really saved yourself the effort and just quoted me.
I made the statement clear and precise:

"Shaq was old here so I won't go there except for Glen Rice whose numbers in the championship run years, look exactly like Gin's."

The only comparison I made is the numbers. You went there and made the comparison as players - I didn't.


You're over-simplifying things with numbers, and it's really ineffective when talking about the Spurs players considering the slow-pace of the team, and depth on the perimeter which usually resulted in Parker and Ginobili playing less minutes than other all-star caliber perimeter players.

Here's a comparison between Duncan's 2003 run when he had the "least help" and his best run vs Shaq's best run in 2000.

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.

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+

As you can see, Duncan was his team's leading scorer less frequently and had a teammate score 20+ more frequently.

Just pointing out how much you're disregarding the Spurs depth, massively underrating Ginobili, Parker and Robinson.

Gin and Parker are very good players, step up players. I honestly don't think they are very good players with a guy like Shaq. They are part of the Duncan Phenom. Products of Duncan's ability to incorporate the team atmosphere. On a lot of other teams they would be frustrating players. You can't turn to them and expect them to hold up their part of the bargain for a whole year. They are often injured and not very consistent - each has like only one year in which they were stable the whole year. That's not a good trait to have as the second best player or the third. They are not allstars like you are suggesting. And neither was Robinson those years.

TP and Gin have a lot of subpar games per 82. They don't affect the regular season much at all. As two and three players on stellar teams they are below par over the course of the year. As a second player they are about average in the post season. Together they gain respect as a tandem. But I doubt if they can carry a team like Kobe can alone. I don't think the great dept you speak of can carry themselves. It's not the same.



None of Duncan's Spurs teams were ever considered bad teams. Both Shaq and Duncan had good teams capable of contending throughout their primes. That's just reality, and something that just about every fan at the time thought as these things were actually happening. Both also had great coaches with Shaq having Phil from '00-'04 and Pat Riley in '06('07 and part of '08 as well technically), while Duncan has had Popovich his entire career.
Pop wasn't considered great until Duncan came along. Well he hadn't coached. But even last year, SA had the best record tucked away until Duncan got hurt. Parker and Gin to carry the team now doesn't seem likely. Shaq on the other hand had the most respected championship coaches already. Guys that were running a near monopoly on championships.

None of SA teams were considered super talented teams and that's the difference. In general people say the league is too diluted. Two top ten players were rarely ever paired. Yet, Shaq had the second most talented guys on his teams several times and a top 5 TALENT on his team for like 10 years.

[HighFlyer23]

Duncan is the most overrated player on this board

He is #10 on my list and not a single rank above that

Shaq is a top 5 player in history, maybe the best C ever ... definitely BETTER than duncan

[ILLsmak]

Duncan is the most overrated player on this board

He is #10 on my list and not a single rank above that

Shaq is a top 5 player in history, maybe the best C ever ... definitely BETTER than duncan

Yeah, man. I have to come in here every week and read a TD vs Shaq or Hakeem vs Shaq thread. It's insulting to Shaq and you guys need to cut that shit out.

If you wanna start an argument do Hakeem vs Duncan.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

So, who do you think had more of a facilitator role in those respective runs? The guy who handedly lead his team in assists, or the guy who was was third on his team in assists behind KOBE and Ron Harper? :confusedshrug:

Do you think dishing out more assists is going to help your teammates numbers?

Duncan jumped from 3.9 APG in the regular season to 5.3 in the playoffs, on top of his scoring improving.

That's 1 assist a game. That's not a huge jump, man. That's like saying Shaq's rebounding jumped to 15.6. Is that really a gigantic difference or just a sexier stat?

-Smak

[Yanch856]

Duncan is the most overrated player on this board

He is #10 on my list and not a single rank above that

Shaq is a top 5 player in history, maybe the best C ever ... definitely BETTER than duncan

Wow that's a big call.

I tend to agree to an extent though. I mean, he did carry David Robinson to the ship in that lockout season, and the first Duncan era championship.

But the later championships? You could argue Manu and emerging Parker were the MVPs on those teams. Also NBA was boring as hell during those years, lowest playoff ratings ever. What's the point of winning the championship when hardly anyone cares? That's got to be a detriment to Duncan's all time argument. I mean, against Cleveland? A repeat against a washed up Pistons team?

Hate to say this but in my mind Dirk had a more impressive single playoff run last year than Duncan had if you analyse each of his 4 championship runs separately.

[Yanch856]

Yeah, man. I have to come in here every week and read a TD vs Shaq or Hakeem vs Shaq thread. It's insulting to Shaq and you guys need to cut that shit out.

If you wanna start an argument do Hakeem vs Duncan.

-Smak

No way, Dream is a cut above Duncan in my mind.

Can you visualise Duncan in 20years time coaching the future Kobes and Lebrons of the world on perfecting the bank shot?

Dream shake >>>> Bank shot :lol

Plus Dream's shot blocking and D was linsane.

[StateOfMind12]

So, who do you think had more of a facilitator role in those respective runs? The guy who handedly lead his team in assists, or the guy who was was third on his team in assists behind KOBE and Ron Harper? :confusedshrug:

Do you think dishing out more assists is going to help your teammates numbers?

Duncan jumped from 3.9 APG in the regular season to 5.3 in the playoffs, on top of his scoring improving.
Duncan was more of the facilitator, I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm just saying that assists don't tell the whole story and they don't make up for the advantage Shaq has over Duncan in terms of scoring.

One problem with assists is that it doesn't factor in the "hockey assist" which plenty of great low-post players have. Both Shaq and Duncan received a lot of doubles in their prime, but Shaq received far more so Shaq probably did dish out more hockey assists but we don't know for sure because the stat does not exist. Shaq's presence on the floor, his great passing, and composure while being doubled helped his teammates receive easy and open looks.

Another problem with assist is that it depends too much on your teammate. If Shaq were doubled, passed it to a dead open Derek Fisher or Robert Horry and they just bricked it completely, is it really Shaq's fault? I'm sure that happened a decent amount of times especially in the 2003 Lakers-Spurs series when Horry shot like 25% in that series. (memory is a bit fussy about the series)

Assists don't tell the whole story and even if they do, it still doesn't make up the advantage Shaq has over Duncan in terms of scoring and in terms of almost everything else.

[JMT]

Duncan is the most overrated player on this board

He is #10 on my list and not a single rank above that

Shaq is a top 5 player in history, maybe the best C ever ... definitely BETTER than duncan

:facepalm

Shaq may be a Top 5 center. Maybe.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think you oversimplify with numbers a bit too, kind of make it seem like a crutch sort of (TD relying on teammates scoring)

I was just pointing out that it's not as simple as looking at Shaq's biggest star teammate and concluding he had more help.

Both Shaq and Duncan got their help in different ways, and both had to dominate to win titles.



DRob averaged 15.6 pts / 9.9 rebs in the '99 playoffs and 15.8 pts / 10 rebs in the 98-99 season.

There's a difference between being able to do it and whether the team calls for you to do it.

The season before that, Robinson averaged 22/11/3/3. And as late as 2000, Robinson averaged 18/10/2/2, but he also averaged 22/9 in 8 games without Duncan in 2000 and led them in scoring during the second half of that season with 21 ppg and 9+ rpg.


I brought that up because David Robinson was being thrown into the mix. D Rob wasn't himself when they won it all, I think Shaq on Pheonix looked as good as D Rob did. It wouldn't surprise people if SA won it this year. Duncan's game now doesn't look as good as Shaq's then. Duncan's influence a being a cog offensivley and defensively was always more than what meets the eye tho.

Nobody said Robinson was the '90-'96 version. He was still one of the 3-5 best defenders in the entire league(MUCH better defensively than Phoenix Shaq).

Shaq may have been a better scorer in '09 than twin towers Robinson, but their overall impact wasn't close. Robinson actually led the Spurs in blocks in '98, '00 and '01 as well as leading them in steals in '99 and '00.


To be honest with you, I had a hard time seeing any of Duncan's team winning it all when Shaq had Kobe or Wade. Duncan is notorious for overachieving teams. Moreso than any other player Duncan was the guy you just don't see coming.

I just disagree here. I don't remember a year where I thought of the Spurs as the favorite, but I also always thought of them as one of the best teams in the league.


If you are bringing up distractions, sideshows, guys distructive to team harmony, undermining the coach, its a loosing argument - that was part of Shaq's package too. Duncan's post season harmony and ability to have guys around him step up is phenomenal. If you take JR Rider out of that equation because of playoff play then you must add Derek Fisher because of his ability to make key plays. Rick Fox's all around play. Horry, Horace and Shaw's experience helped big time. Ty Lue was also key in the run first as a spark plug and then later defensively.

Part of this actually is valid. It is an advantage to have a franchise player like Duncan who is more low key and won't cause distractions.

With that being said, it's not comparable to Rider, who simply didn't contribute much to that team, and was so expendable that he was left off the postseason roster and out of the league pretty much right after that.

As far as the other guys you mentioned. Yeah, Fisher was fantastic in his role during that 2001 run. He was shooting lights out and a good defensive PG back then. Grant helped with his post defense on Sheed, C-Webb and Duncan as well and Fox was a good all around role player. Horry was a solid team defender, good rebounder and passer who did hit a few big shots in some of the rare close games during that run.

Lue? Now that's grasping at straws a bit. He had his 15 minutes of fame vs Iverson.


Robinson always had post season problems. This is not new. Malone was a skill guy that could get his. Malone did end up being hurt but the most costly thing during that playoff run was the Kobe and Shaq feud. LA lost to a none allstar team of cast aways that got out of the East because of injuries to the Nets and Pacers.

Robinson's postseason problems were less apparent when he didn't have to be the man, and his elite defense and rebounding was a constant, particularly when he wasn't responsible for the offense.

I wouldn't discredit that Piston team either. I made the mistake at the time, but they proved to me that they weren't a fluke when they took San Antonio to 7 the next season.


Why bother with 99 to 01 with the D Rob equation. If Duncan has Kobe it seems clear cut he wins all three years. Give Shaq a perimeter player equivalent to D Rob there is no reason to believe they would be great. He always had stellar talent next to him and didn't deliver. Sure it's guess work but I would bet on it without question.

And swapping second best players with isn't swapping casts.

It is guess work, and that's the most important point, but I think that if Duncan follows Shaq's career path, is drafted to the same team, goes to LA in his 5th year, goes to Miami for years 13-15. I think he wins less titles than Shaq did, partially because those teams were built around Shaq.

And on the other end, I think Shaq wins less in Duncan's situation than Duncan did, partially for the same reason.


During the year Payton supposedly sucked. But he's obviously, at best the 4th best player on the team. Yet he put up TP type of numbers. TP wasn't playing defense, he's pretty much a straight up opportunity/drive player. He is very much what his stats say he is. Duncan did most of the setting up. Good defense happens and Payton, like Robinson in his later years wasn't responding well.

I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you on Payton. But Malone's injury took away that luxury of him being the 4th best player in the most important series that they ultimately lost.

It's also important above everything to fit into what the team does. Payton simply didn't and never grasped the triangle.


Kobe and Fisher were still bigger in the playoffs during the three peat. And during the regular season Kobe was close to averaging what those two did combined. In the playoffs one extra super talent always seems to be better than balance.

Fisher came up big in only 1 playoff out of the 3peat which was 2001. He sucked in 2002 and was a non-factor in 2000 as the team's 4th guard. He was also never a threat like Parker or Ginobili.


Kobe was a far superior defensive player. And I give it to Shaq that year. He was truely beasting - the next year too. Shaq beasted harder than Duncan. I admit that.

You're right, Kobe was a superior defensive player(best perimeter defender in the league in 2000, imo), which is why I stated that Kobe was still clearly the better player.


Only because Duncan gave the space to shine. I question if they ever get noticed on a Shaq team. Honestly. I believe Kobe would have been a better player with Duncan. I believe Kobe's whole career would be much better if he had Duncan as his mentor. And Duncan would be much better for any franchise than Shaq as well. That's pretty much proven.
.

I disagree with this. Duncan did make his teammates better(I think Shaq did too with the defensive attention he drew and the fact that Shaq was a good and willing passer himself).

But I don't think Duncan would be better for any franchise, just like I don't think Shaq would be. That all depends to me on who you put around them.



The only comparison I made is the numbers. You went there and made the comparison as players - I didn't.

And I felt that would deceive some people who didn't know about those teams themselves. I'm not saying that was your intent either. But a player comparison is a lot better than just a statistical comparison.

And Manu's numbers alone during his '05 and '07 runs are vastly superior to Rice's '00 playoff numbers.


They are not allstars like you are suggesting. And neither was Robinson those years.

I simply can't agree with you there. I see Ginobili and Parker's ability. Robinson was without question a top 15 player in the league to me from '98-'00 and arguably '01 as well.


TP and Gin have a lot of subpar games per 82. They don't affect the regular season much at all. As two and three players on stellar teams they are below par over the course of the year. As a second player they are about average in the post season. Together they gain respect as a tandem. But I doubt if they can carry a team like Kobe can alone. I don't think the great dept you speak of can carry themselves. It's not the same.

And I'd argue that some of the Spurs depth makes up for that. As good as Kobe was, the Lakers from 2000-2002 weren't making the playoffs without Shaq, particularly with Kobe missing 16 games in 2000 and 14 in 2001.

The Lakers were a .500 team without Shaq during the 3peat, typically what the Spurs were without Duncan and that wasn't going to get them anything other than a lottery pick in the West.


But even last year, SA had the best record tucked away until Duncan got hurt. Parker and Gin to carry the team now doesn't seem likely.

And I'd definitely argue that the Spurs record last year says a lot about Pop. Especially considering Duncan was just a solid player at that point.


None of SA teams were considered super talented teams and that's the difference. In general people say the league is too diluted. Two top ten players were rarely ever paired. Yet, Shaq had the second most talented guys on his teams several times and a top 5 TALENT on his team for like 10 years.

And Shaq won his titles on teams that weren't considered the most talented TEAM in the league.

The 2000 Blazers were widely considered the most talented team in the league and the 2002 Kings were as well. Some were predicting 70 wins for that Blazer team and they had the highest payroll in the league, iirc.

Granted, Shaq did have the most talented team before that in '98 and '95.

[kentatm]

if Duncan had played somewhere like New York, Chicago, LA, or even Houston, people would be trumpeting him as top 5 no doubt.

Being stuck in SA and not really being a media whore has somewhat hidden him from public consciousness.

[Punpun]

Neither. Nor Shaq or Duncan are top 5 all-times. Some don't even put Kobe that up. Think abou it for one sec.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Tim was drafted to the best front office ever playing with 3 Hall of Famers D/Rob-T.parker-Manu and the best defender of his generation Bruce Bowen

Plus always played for Pop

Replace Garnett with Duncan same result

Plus Timmy has never defended his title which the hardest thing to do in Pro-Sports
Shaq only had the player of the decade on his team..

[ninephive]

Shaq gets fouled intentionally to keep teams in games.

Duncan does this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmDiq9M6Sx8).

[Jotaro Durant]

:roll: :roll: have u looked at shaq play? duncans good for sure but shaq is other level. none of them are top 5

[DMAVS41]

if Duncan had played somewhere like New York, Chicago, LA, or even Houston, people would be trumpeting him as top 5 no doubt.

Being stuck in SA and not really being a media whore has somewhat hidden him from public consciousness.

Totally agree. Really good point. If Duncan did the exact same stuff but led the Knicks to 4 titles, the highest win percentage of the era, and the playoffs each year....He'd be pretty much a lock for top 5 or 6 all time without a doubt.

[iDefend5]

Duncan is the most overrated player on this board

He is #10 on my list and not a single rank above that

this

[linZoMourning]

:roll: :roll: have u looked at shaq play? duncans good for sure but shaq is other level. none of them are top 5
'

another level of offense maybe... tim had another level of defense shaq never tapped into

[Pointguard]

I just disagree here. I don't remember a year where I thought of the Spurs as the favorite, but I also always thought of them as one of the best teams in the league.

So in '03 you thought a team with second year PG Tony Parker as its the second best player and Stephen Jackson as its third best player was going to be a top contender when Pheonix, Sacramento, Dallas, Lakers and Utah all had more talent and experience? It just didn't make sense to think that unless you were convinced that Duncan was worth more than all the duo's, and triples, in that group. Parker was definitly an unproven number two.


I wouldn't discredit that Piston team either. I made the mistake at the time, but they proved to me that they weren't a fluke when they took San Antonio to 7 the next season.

No way do they make it out of the East that year without freak fluke injuries to Indiana and the Nets who still were close to beating them (but Kidd carried the Nets and he got hurt, Indiana lost their PG and center Oneal). But I give Pistons credit the next year. They were one of those teams of destiny - like Dallas last year.


And I felt that would deceive some people who didn't know about those teams themselves. I'm not saying that was your intent either. But a player comparison is a lot better than just a statistical comparison.
Tony Parker isn't a Jason Kidd. He isn't as big of an intangible as Gin is. Duncan had to deal with not getting a lot from number two. TP wasn't a guy to steal the ball, that was constantly penetrating or hitting the outside shot. He was a bad defender, he couldn't hit free throws or three pointers. He was fast and got fastbreak points. He wasn't a star or a legit number two guy in ''03. I will say that much. And you are trying to act like I'm overrating him. He could hit a floater and once a game he might break down the defense. There it is - you met Tony Parker. Shaq's number two was arguably the second best player in the league. The Lakers were champs so their role players knew their role. SA only had role players and TP was very close to being one. Bowen wasn't hitting that jumper then. Robinson was ok but on the way out, Gin hadn't gotten it together yet. Stephen Jackson was a good young player. '03 was Duncan and role players.



And Shaq won his titles on teams that weren't considered the most talented TEAM in the league.

Phil Jackson only coaches teams that he thinks have a chance at winning it all. Shaq was a reason why there was a lack of team perception. Shaq had issues every where he went. He had them with coaches and players. Duncan always has proven himself a model citizen, a cornerstone in a franchise that won as much as Shaq did and without the fanfare and distractions.

[Whoah10115]

You can rank Timmy wherever you want, but please don't start with this early attempt at revisionist history.




Tim Duncan would be locked into the top 5 of 6 if he played in New York? Tim Duncan is the most beloved superstar of all-time. You know how much it pains writers who don't vote him onto the All-NBA Team? He's not overrated, but let's not act as tho he's underrated because of his market. Market, who gives a shit?

[LamarOdom]

You can rank Timmy wherever you want, but please don't start with this early attempt at revisionist history.




Tim Duncan would be locked into the top 5 of 6 if he played in New York? Tim Duncan is the most beloved superstar of all-time. You know how much it pains writers who don't vote him onto the All-NBA Team? He's not overrated, but let's not act as tho he's underrated because of his market. Market, who gives a shit?

So you honestly belive the hype surrounding Lin right now would be as big if he was playing in SA, Toronto or some other small market city?

[StateOfMind12]

You can rank Timmy wherever you want, but please don't start with this early attempt at revisionist history.




Tim Duncan would be locked into the top 5 of 6 if he played in New York? Tim Duncan is the most beloved superstar of all-time. You know how much it pains writers who don't vote him onto the All-NBA Team? He's not overrated, but let's not act as tho he's underrated because of his market. Market, who gives a shit?
This....

Tim Duncan is not underrated, he just isn't talk about a lot and there is a difference between those two. Jason Kidd doesn't get talked about either but he gets overrated by everybody, the media, his peers, etc. I feel like Tim Duncan is pretty much the same way.

I find it funny how when people discuss about Duncan, they only discuss his success but never the failures he endured. We always discuss the failures Shaq and Kobe had though, so it balances out.

[Whoah10115]

So you honestly belive the hype surrounding Lin right now would be as big if he was playing in SA, Toronto or some other small market city?


Lin is a perfect storm. He's not going to sustain this kind of hype over a career. If he's this good forever then NY won't be a part of it the way that it is now. Right now, it's just a moment in time.




Jason Kidd doesn't get talked about either but he gets overrated by everybody,



This part just isn't true. Jason Kidd's actual game is completely glossed over and deemed overrated by a lot of people. To be fair, that has nothing to do with this thread, so I'll keep from derailing it. But Jason Kidd is not overrated at all.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So in '03 you thought a team with second year PG Tony Parker as its the second best player and Stephen Jackson as its third best player was going to be a top contender when Pheonix, Sacramento, Dallas, Lakers and Utah all had more talent and experience? It just didn't make sense to think that unless you were convinced that Duncan was worth more than all the duo's, and triples, in that group. Parker was definitly an unproven number two.

I thought they'd be around the 3rd best team in the West behind LA and Sacramento, Dallas was in the mix as well.

Ultimately, Sacramento was taken out of the equation with Webber done after game 2 vs Dallas as the Mavs got by them in 7, and Dallas was taken out after his injury in game 3 kept him out vs the Spurs.

And I guarantee that if you look up most predictions, they'll have the '03 Spurs as a top 3-4 team in the West. Nobody thought Phoenix or Utah would finish ahead of them.

The Spurs looked better than the team that had won 58 the previous season, particularly with Parker showing some talent vs the Lakers in the playoffs the previous season.

Phoenix didn't really have more experience than the Spurs either. Marbury had played in 2 first round series early in his career with Minnesota and no more playoffs prior to that. Amare was a rookie, Marion had played in the WCSF in '00 and the 1st round in '01. Joe Johnson had no experience. Really, only Penny and perhaps 1 or 2 more role players had significant experience.

The Spurs did have some young players, but also some veterans with several players still on the team from their '99 title. So I'm not sure Dallas was what I'd call more experienced either.


No way do they make it out of the East that year without freak fluke injuries to Indiana and the Nets who still were close to beating them (but Kidd carried the Nets and he got hurt, Indiana lost their PG and center Oneal). But I give Pistons credit the next year. They were one of those teams of destiny - like Dallas last year.

They still had an excellent starting 5 with chemistry, a strong bench and the best defense I've ever seen. I learned to respect them over the years, and they shut me up in '05 even after I was saying the same things you were back in '04.


Tony Parker isn't a Jason Kidd. He isn't as big of an intangible as Gin is. Duncan had to deal with not getting a lot from number two. TP wasn't a guy to steal the ball, that was constantly penetrating or hitting the outside shot. He was a bad defender, he couldn't hit free throws or three pointers. He was fast and got fastbreak points. He wasn't a star or a legit number two guy in ''03. I will say that much. And you are trying to act like I'm overrating him. He could hit a floater and once a game he might break down the defense. There it is - you met Tony Parker. Shaq's number two was arguably the second best player in the league. The Lakers were champs so their role players knew their role. SA only had role players and TP was very close to being one. Bowen wasn't hitting that jumper then. Robinson was ok but on the way out, Gin hadn't gotten it together yet. Stephen Jackson was a good young player. '03 was Duncan and role players.

I'm not saying that Parker was a star or a legit number 2 in '03. But he had games where he looked like it, remember when people were talking about him outplaying Kidd the first 2 games of the finals? I remember this was a big topic as some were speculating whether Kidd would leave in free agency to go to San Antonio. Parker was inconsistent, but had some big games throughout the playoffs and his speed did make him a real threat. In particular, he helped a lot vs the Lakers.

And this inconsistency was ok, given the depth and competition. Robinson was good for defending and rebounding for about 24 minutes, while Malik Rose could play the other 24 and give them energy and even guard Shaq for stretches. Both Robinson and Rose guarded him pretty well. Rose himself had a few big games during that run, I believe he had a couple of 20+ games which was good for a backup big man. He had also averaged 17/9 in 13 games as a starter in '03.

Jackson/Ginobili combined gave you more than enough production on average for the SG position. Neither were an all-star back then, but both were scoring threats and capable all around players that had to respected. Jackson had quite a few 20+ point games during that run and hit some big shots, and if he was off, they could go to Ginobili.

Bowen wasn't a scorer, but he led the league in 3P% by hitting those corner 3s so consistently, and did have that 27 point game vs the Lakers, plus being the best perimeter defender in the league was huge since they faced the Lakers and he did an excellent job on Kobe.

It simply wasn't a bad cast. Duncan was the constant, but they had multiple guys step up throughout the run even though it was often different guys throughout the run. It's not that different than how Dallas won last season.

Don't believe me? Look at it game by game.


Phil Jackson only coaches teams that he thinks have a chance at winning it all. Shaq was a reason why there was a lack of team perception. Shaq had issues every where he went. He had them with coaches and players. Duncan always has proven himself a model citizen, a cornerstone in a franchise that won as much as Shaq did and without the fanfare and distractions.

As I said, this is a valid argument and I'm well aware of this. With that being said, I do think that some of the issues with Shaq's "fueds" were overblown, regardless, I won't deny that many were legitimate and cause legitimate concerns.

[Odinn]

I know that thread title includes Timmy-Shaq debate but it is not something new. Duncan and O'Neal will stay comparable/debatable. Always... This thread shoul be ended after my first post.


Duncan can be ranked over Shaq. And Shaq can be ranked over Duncan as well.

Duncan: Better career accolades/accomplishments, better intangibles
Shaq: Better peak(prime)

In my goat list right now, both of them are 6th.
But Shaq has the stronger case to be ranked as top 5 ever. Because Shaq's peak is in the goat peak debate. Duncan also was a dominant force on the floor but his peak never will be in the goat peak debate and that's why top 5 would be too high for Duncan.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Duncan surely is above Kobe, but not close to top 5 all time. His most reasonable ranking is around 8-10.

[Pointguard]

I thought they'd be around the 3rd best team in the West behind LA and Sacramento, Dallas was in the mix as well.

Ultimately, Sacramento was taken out of the equation with Webber done after game 2 vs Dallas as the Mavs got by them in 7, and Dallas was taken out after his injury in game 3 kept him out vs the Spurs.

And I guarantee that if you look up most predictions, they'll have the '03 Spurs as a top 3-4 team in the West. Nobody thought Phoenix or Utah would finish ahead of them.

The Spurs looked better than the team that had won 58 the previous season, particularly with Parker showing some talent vs the Lakers in the playoffs the previous season.

Phoenix didn't really have more experience than the Spurs either. Marbury had played in 2 first round series early in his career with Minnesota and no more playoffs prior to that. Amare was a rookie, Marion had played in the WCSF in '00 and the 1st round in '01. Joe Johnson had no experience. Really, only Penny and perhaps 1 or 2 more role players had significant experience.

The Spurs did have some young players, but also some veterans with several players still on the team from their '99 title. So I'm not sure Dallas was what I'd call more experienced either.

They still had an excellent starting 5 with chemistry, a strong bench and the best defense I've ever seen. I learned to respect them over the years, and they shut me up in '05 even after I was saying the same things you were back in '04.



I'm not saying that Parker was a star or a legit number 2 in '03. But he had games where he looked like it, remember when people were talking about him outplaying Kidd the first 2 games of the finals? I remember this was a big topic as some were speculating whether Kidd would leave in free agency to go to San Antonio. Parker was inconsistent, but had some big games throughout the playoffs and his speed did make him a real threat. In particular, he helped a lot vs the Lakers.

And this inconsistency was ok, given the depth and competition. Robinson was good for defending and rebounding for about 24 minutes, while Malik Rose could play the other 24 and give them energy and even guard Shaq for stretches. Both Robinson and Rose guarded him pretty well. Rose himself had a few big games during that run, I believe he had a couple of 20+ games which was good for a backup big man. He had also averaged 17/9 in 13 games as a starter in '03.

Jackson/Ginobili combined gave you more than enough production on average for the SG position. Neither were an all-star back then, but both were scoring threats and capable all around players that had to respected. Jackson had quite a few 20+ point games during that run and hit some big shots, and if he was off, they could go to Ginobili.

Bowen wasn't a scorer, but he led the league in 3P% by hitting those corner 3s so consistently, and did have that 27 point game vs the Lakers, plus being the best perimeter defender in the league was huge since they faced the Lakers and he did an excellent job on Kobe.

It simply wasn't a bad cast. Duncan was the constant, but they had multiple guys step up throughout the run even though it was often different guys throughout the run. It's not that different than how Dallas won last season.

Don't believe me? Look at it game by game.

As I said, this is a valid argument and I'm well aware of this. With that being said, I do think that some of the issues with Shaq's "fueds" were overblown, regardless, I won't deny that many were legitimate and cause legitimate concerns.
:cheers: Good back and forth!

[AlexanderRight]

Yes it does. The point is to win the game. Give me someone thats more dominant but less skilled. Players like Patrick Ewing and Yao Ming have been more skilled then Shaq as well. No one in their right mind would say they were better players though.

...Those guys aren't Tim Duncan...

[Pointguard]

This....

Tim Duncan is not underrated, he just isn't talk about a lot and there is a difference between those two. Jason Kidd doesn't get talked about either but he gets overrated by everybody, the media, his peers, etc. I feel like Tim Duncan is pretty much the same way.

Jason Kidd took a Nets team that was 26 and 56 to the finals the next two years would have been three years if Kidd wasn't injured. Kidd had replaced a 24 and 8 allstar in Marbury. Nobody on Kidd's team scored 15 ppg or more in the first finals run. Nobody on the team averaged more than 7.5 rebounds. Nobody could even pass decently. Outside of Kidd nobody was close to any awards or in the top ten in some category. Most notable player was Kenyon Martain, a second year athletic player that could grab alley oops and defend quite well. A rookie Richard Jefferson could run with Martain/Kidd but he was under 10ppg. The other players were Todd McCoulough, Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles and Luscious Harris. Without Kidd they would probably be a 18 and 64 team. The defense of the team wasn't stellar. Miracously he took that team to the finals.

[Dbrog]

Wow that's a big call.

I tend to agree to an extent though. I mean, he did carry David Robinson to the ship in that lockout season, and the first Duncan era championship.

But the later championships? You could argue Manu and emerging Parker were the MVPs on those teams. Also NBA was boring as hell during those years, lowest playoff ratings ever. What's the point of winning the championship when hardly anyone cares? That's got to be a detriment to Duncan's all time argument. I mean, against Cleveland? A repeat against a washed up Pistons team?

Hate to say this but in my mind Dirk had a more impressive single playoff run last year than Duncan had if you analyse each of his 4 championship runs separately.

Almost no one at the time would argue Manu was MVP in 05 or Parker was MVP in 07. Duncan was the clear reason those teams won chips. The memorable Argentine connection game where Manu and Oberto took over isn't reason enough. The series where Parker torched the Cavs would've been won regardless. However, go back and look at the rest of that playoff run and you see Duncan propelled the Spurs through the difficult Western Conference.

Your next comment about there being no point of winning championships if it's boring is just :facepalm. I don't really know what else to say about that.

Also, against Cleveland? Everyone who watched basketball back then knew that the winner of the West would win the chip. As far as the "washed up" Pistons team (who were all 30 yrs old or younger btw), they were the DEFENDING CHAMPIONS when the Spurs beat them and virtually had the same team that beat the stacked Lakers squad the year before :facepalm :banghead: :hammerhead:

[rmt]

Also, against Cleveland? Everyone who watched basketball back then knew that the winner of the West would win the chip. As far as the "washed up" Pistons team (who were all 30 yrs old or younger btw), they were the DEFENDING CHAMPIONS when the Spurs beat them and virtually had the same team that beat the stacked Lakers squad the year before :facepalm :banghead: :hammerhead:

Agreed. Spurs were not going to lose vs CLE once Lebron was controlled (Bowen on the perimeter and Duncan in the paint). It was a foregone conclusion when they stopped Lebron from driving (and dishing to team mates) and forced him into contested jump shots no matter what Parker did. SA was just too experienced, too much firepower (3 good players vs 1), too good coaching against CLE's role players and Mike Brown (think about all the LA fans complaining about Brown now much less 5 years ago).

DET also added McDyess in 04-05. That front court of Dice, Rasheed and Ben Wallace was scary defensively. Yet, in game 7, it was Duncan forcing the double team and opening up the shooters that won it.

[Carbine]

The fact Shaq couldn't co-exist with other great players for a long period of time and burned bridges everywhere he went in or around his prime, takes away from him on a greatness scale.

Duncan is the complete opposite. We never hear anything negative about Duncan's relationship with established players on his team.

Shaq was a more dominant player. But Duncan would stay with you for 15 years and never cause any trouble, while Shaq would leave your team in 5 years on a bad note.

Duncan is "greater."

Shaq was better.

[Disaprine]

timmy is number 10 at best. shaq is in magic's and birds realm.

[RonySeikalyFTL]

If you were a GM and had to pick between these two guys as the cornerstone of your franchise, I have to laugh at anyone that would pick Shaq. He has a slight statistical advantage (career PER's are 26.4 and 24.7 respectively) but will inevitably instill a culture of laziness and immaturity to your team before leaving you in a mess. Oh and if you don't have a big market team with a couch who's already won multiple rings, forget it. This guy epitomizes everything that's wrong with athletes today. Lazy, entitled, childish, and disrespectful. :facepalm

Oh and at the end of the day, despite all of Shaq's suppposed "dominance"....

Rings:
TD 4, Shaq 4

MVP's:
TD 2, Shaq 1

So with all that switching between teams and ring chasing, TD still wins lol.

[DMAVS41]

If you were a GM and had to pick between these two guys as the cornerstone of your franchise, I have to laugh at anyone that would pick Shaq. He has a slight statistical advantage (career PER's are 26.4 and 24.7 respectively) but will inevitably instill a culture of laziness and immaturity to your team before leaving you in a mess. Oh and if you don't have a big market team with a couch who's already won multiple rings, forget it. This guy epitomizes everything that's wrong with athletes today. Lazy, entitled, childish, and disrespectful. :facepalm

Oh and at the end of the day, despite all of Shaq's suppposed "dominance"....

Rings:
TD 4, Shaq 4

MVP's:
TD 2, Shaq 1

So with all that switching between teams and ring chasing, TD still wins lol.

Yea...you also have to question whether or not Shaq could have ever won titles without an elite player by his side. Well, I guess Shaq did that in 00 because Kobe wasn't really Kobe yet.

The point is that Shaq played with more help throughout his career. Had more superstar help. Won his titles playing for proven championship coaches....2 of the best ever before Shaq played for them.

I do think its close, but its really hard not to lean towards Duncan....especially if you factor in attitude, loyalty, dedication, leadership...etc.

[guy]

...Those guys aren't Tim Duncan...

Same logic. Skills does not equal better player. Its how strong the players' skills are and utilized which is what results in dominance which determines who's a better player.