If Duncan wins #5, will people start rating his career above Shaq?

[konex]

On LG, someone started a thread about how Duncan getting #5 affects Kobe's legacy (Some crazy folks already rate him higher even though he has less rings and hasn't remained elite so I don't think anything changes lol)

I actually think a 5th ring for Timmy "hurts" Shaq more. Thoughts?

[It's A VC3!!!]

I think it's stupid when people believe that one players success translates to another players demise.

Tim Duncan will move up the rankings with number 5 and be remembered for the next century just the same way Shaq will. They will both be regarded as winners and dominant forces.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Duncan>>> both Shaq and Kobe and its not that close.

[stallionaire]

Duncan is already the best PF of all time.

If he wins another ring, he will be MILES ahead of Kobe. Lakers fans wouldn't dispute it either, only Kobe-stans.

[kingkong]

they shouldn't, Shaq was much more dominant (nothing on Tim but come on, Shaq might be the most dominant player...ever)

[francesco totti]

kobe has 2 as the man, shaq 3, duncan 4.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Quite a few already have him above Shaq. For me, it doesn't alter that much, it's more icing on the cake for Duncan at this stage of his career. Considering how they were regarded when they were in or near their primes at the same time, it's a stretch to me to say it's not or won't be debatable either way. Duncan was the considered the best player by most in the '99 lockout year after he won the title, then Shaq was considered the best with how he played in '00 and the the 3peat. He was considered the best until Duncan won in '03 and beat the Lakers. Though '03 was a transition year because many were arguing if it was Tim, Shaq, Kobe, T-Mac or KG. During the 3peat, Shaq was widely considered better, but Duncan got underrated to some degree during that time. Kobe seemed to be considered the 2nd best by most in '01 and '02, and Duncan actually finished tied for 3rd with Kobe when NBA "insiders" were polled in April 2002 for best player behind Shaq and actually T-Mac.

Another ring might get Duncan a bit more respect, though. It seems that in a lot of media/analyst lists, Duncan has been one of the 2 guys who commonly gets shortchanged out of the top 2 in favor of Oscar or West, along with Hakeem, unfortunately. Ring number 5 might change that, though for me, what Duncan did in the early/mid 00's speaks for itself and that's what I'll always judge Duncan by.

And no, it's not crazy to currently rank Duncan over Kobe. I have Duncan a bit ahead of Kobe right now.

[Droid101]

Tim Duncan hasn't been the reason they're winning. Tony Parker and outrageously over-performing role players and bench have been getting them wins.

Tim Duncan has been on the decline since he lost finals MVP to his point guard.

[SpecialQue]

If Duncan goes HAM in the finals and wins FMVP, ISH is going to explode, especially if it's against the Heat.

I do like the idea of having a second "revenge" finals in a row. Last year Dirk got his revenge on Wade. Maybe this year Lebron gets his revenge on the Spurs?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Tim Duncan hasn't been the reason they're winning. Tony Parker and outrageously over-performing role players and bench have been getting them wins.

Tim Duncan has been on the decline since he lost finals MVP to his point guard.

Tim was great in '07. He had a better season than he had in '06, and arguably '05 as well. Duncan was still the 2nd best player in the league in '07, Parker exploiting the Cavs slower backcourt in a series where the losing team was just overmatched doesn't change that. And Duncan's defense impact was still all over that series, even though I can understand Parker's finals MVP. Duncan would've hands down been the playoff MVP that year if that award existed.

Even though he didn't win in '08, Duncan was still among the best players in the league, top 5 or so, and got his team back to the WCF at 32 years old by the time of the playoffs. He remained top 10-15 range the next 2 seasons, not bad at all for his age, and to be a key contributor on some really good Spurs teams these last 2 years in his mid 30's is impressive.

Parker is the Spurs best player and they're a very deep, well-coached team, but Tim has also been very good for them and essential to their success. The Spurs wouldn't look like the best team in the NBA(by a good margin) if Tim wasn't clearly playing at an all-star level in the second half and playoffs.

[EricForman]

On LG, someone started a thread about how Duncan getting #5 affects Kobe's legacy (Some crazy folks already rate him higher even though he has less rings and hasn't remained elite so I don't think anything changes lol)

I actually think a 5th ring for Timmy "hurts" Shaq more. Thoughts?


Duncan has one fewer rings than Kobe and was never a distant second best player on his own team like Kobe was his first 5 years in the league.

As for Kobe being elite now while Duncan has dropped off? Well, Duncan became elite earlier. He was the best player on a title team in 1999. Top 5 player in the league by 2000, you know, the same year when Kobe averaged 15 on 37% in the finals and was outplayed by Bonzi Wells in the WCF.

[Big#50]

On LG, someone started a thread about how Duncan getting #5 affects Kobe's legacy (Some crazy folks already rate him higher even though he has less rings and hasn't remained elite so I don't think anything changes lol)

I actually think a 5th ring for Timmy "hurts" Shaq more. Thoughts?
Kobe Stans still have delusions about Kobe being up there with Shaq and Duncan?

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobe Stans still have delusions about Kobe being up there with Shaq and Duncan?


Kobe named player of the decade beats out Duncan.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/09/kobe-bryant-is-named-nba-player-of-the-decade.html

SportingNews.com voting
Bryant 55%
Duncan 45%

The best part of the story on The Sporting News' website is what Shaquille O'Neal says about Bryant:


The thing about Kobe is that, over the course of my career, I have never played with anyone who was as fierce as he is. By fierce I mean just having that extra killer instinct that you know when the game is on the line he is not going to shy away from the big shot, he is not going to make excuses. If we would go into the fourth quarter, playoffs or just some game in the season and we were within a little bit of the other team, Kobe was not going to shy away from the challenge of getting the win. He was going to take the shots.


- and that was the closest one....other poll's Kobe won by a landslide.


recap: Nearly all of the basketball community agrees Kobe is the best player of his generation.....no one agrees with your opinion.




next

[SpecialQue]

Kobe Stans still have delusions about Kobe being up there with Shaq and Duncan?

I'm astonished at how vastly overrated Shaq is on this forum. Was he really as important to Wade as Kobe was to him during his single Heat championship?

[guy]

Not sure it really does much for his career ranking. It's hard to say it would when he probably isn't even a top 10 player in the league. But I don't know. You can argue that while Shaq has the peak and dominance over him and Kobe has the longevity over him, it's Duncan's leadership and unselfishness that could put him above both since it's really been that has enabled pretty much all of his teammates to flourish with him way more then in the case of Shaq or Kobe. And maybe overall, that's been better for winning and winning is what matters. If anyone is the modern day Bill Russell, it's clearly him.

[konex]

Duncan has one fewer rings than Kobe and was never a distant second best player on his own team like Kobe was his first 5 years in the league.

As for Kobe being elite now while Duncan has dropped off? Well, Duncan became elite earlier. He was the best player on a title team in 1999. Top 5 player in the league by 2000, you know, the same year when Kobe averaged 15 on 37% in the finals and was outplayed by Bonzi Wells in the WCF.

LMAO. Didn't Kobe DESTROY Tim's Spurs in that SAME playoff run? :roll: :hammerhead: :confusedshrug:

[konex]

it's Duncan's leadership and unselfishness that could put him above both since it's really been that has enabled pretty much all of his teammates to flourish with him way more then in the case of Shaq or Kobe.

Or maybe he's just had better, deeper teams? :hammerhead:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm astonished at how vastly overrated Shaq is on this forum. Was he really as important to Wade as Kobe was to him during his single Heat championship?

At least as important.

Kobe by '01 and '02 was a top 3 player in the NBA while '06 Shaq was borderline top 10 like Kobe was in '00.

But Shaq led the Lakers to a 25-6 record without Kobe during the 3peat(12-3 in '00, 11-3 in '01 and 2-0 in '02). While Wade led Miami to just a 10-11 record without Shaq in '06, and that's with one of the better centers to step in and start(Mourning averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg as a starter in '06). In comparison, Miami was 42-17 with Shaq, and 10-13 overall without him. Shaq still had a huge impact on games and was extremely difficult to replace in '06. His impact went well beyond numbers, even '07 Shaq who had declined further led Miami to a 16-7 record without Wade with an old cast that had really declined from the previous season(particularly Walker and Payton).

Wade had a subpar series in the first round vs Chicago, though Shaq averaged 20/11/2/2 on 61% during that series including a 27/16/5 opening game and a 30/20/5 closeout game.

And Detroit played him mostly 1 on 1 during the ECF, but Shaq killed them averaging 22/11 with 2.3 bpg on 66% shooting while being more active defensively than unusual and making an impact at that end. Even though Shaq had a subpar finals and Wade really carried the team, Shaq was the primary focus of the Mavs defense, perhaps in response to his dominant ECF. They constantly doubled him, often right away on the catch throughout the series.

Wade was the second best player in '06, imo, so the gap between Wade and Shaq may have been larger individually than Shaq and Kobe in '01 and '02. But I have my doubts the '06 Heat even make the playoffs without Shaq, while I still think the 3peat Lakers are going to win 50+ without Kobe, except for maybe '02 when Shaq missed 12 games with injuries and 3 more due to a suspension(and they were just 7-8 without him so if Kobe hadn't played too, it's tough to see them doing any better than 1 or 2 wins during that stretch).


LMAO. Didn't Kobe DESTROY Tim's Spurs in that SAME playoff run? :roll: :hammerhead: :confusedshrug:

Wrong year. He's referring to 2000. Kobe destroyed the Spurs in '01 and '02. The Lakers didn't face them in '00, probably due to Duncan's injury.

[JMT]

They already should. He's a better basketball player.

[Odinn]

As for their primes and accomplishments;
http://b1205.hizliresim.com/x/q/6fc4s.jpg

As for longevity;

As for being best player in the L;
1998-99; Duncan was the best. Kobe wasn't top5.
1999-00; Duncan was the 2nd. Kobe wasn't top 5.
2000-01; Duncan was top3. Kobe was top3.
2001-02; Duncan was top2(Shaq or Duncan). Kobe was top5.
2002-03; Duncan was the best. Kobe was top5.
2003-04; Duncan was the 2nd. Kobe was top5.
2004-05; Duncan was the best. Kobe wasn't top5.
2005-06; Duncan was top5. Kobe was the best.
2006-07; Duncan was top2. Kobe was top2. (po; Duncan - rs; Kobe)
2007-08; Duncan was top5. Kobe was the best.
2008-09; Duncan wasn't top5. Kobe was top3(2nd or 3rd, depends on Wade).
2009-10; Duncan wasn't top5. Kobe was top3(depends on Wade&Durant).
2010-11; Both of them wasn't top 5.

How can Kobe have the edge on longevity "right now"?
Duncan was All-NBA and All-Defensive in his first 13 seasons and 2011/12 season is Kobe's 14th season as starter.

As for peak and prime; Duncan > Kobe. As for accomplishments/accolades; Duncan > Kobe. If Kobe gains the edge on longevity, still it'd remain debatable.
Addition; Kobe is top 5 player in current season. But if Spurs and Duncan keep their pace and dig deep in the playoffs, 11/12 season would be in favor of Duncan(because of his age).

Also I'd take 2003 Duncan over any version of Kobe. As for peaks;
It's playoffs vs. regular season.
Kobe averaged 35.4 - 5.3 - 4.5 - 1.8 - 0.4 in 2005-06 regular season. He made the playoffs with one of the weakest supporting cast for a playoff team.
Duncan averaged 24.7 - 15.4 - 5.3 - 0.6 - 3.3 in 2003 playoffs. He made one of the greatest title(playoff) runs ever. He won it all with one of the weakest supporting cast for a championship team.
If we extend span, to 3 years, I'd rather have '01-'03 Duncan over '06-'08 Kobe.

Lastly, Duncan has the edge on being a better playoff performer.

Those are the reasons why Duncan already ahead of Kobe with a clear (not huge) difference.

So. No. Unless you're a Kobestan, 5 rings > 4 rings does not work on Duncan-Bryant debates. It's completely retarded. Duncan has 1 more MVP and 1 FMVP while he "led" his team to the title 2 more times. OP is a fakkit we all know.

---

Also, if Duncan gets his 5th ring it will not make a major difference on Shaq-Duncan debates.

[Bigsmoke]

i dont think this title would make a differance.

If the Spurs win this year, it would be by committing and their team overall depth than it is to Duncan's dominance

[Odinn]

i dont think this title would make a differance.

If the Spurs win this year, it would be by committing and their team overall depth than it is to Duncan's dominance
Agreed. It'd be like Kareem's 1985 title.

[StateOfMind12]

I don't think it'll make much of a difference since Duncan is arguably not even the best player on his own team. Duncan winning a ring this season would be similar to Shaq winning a ring in '06.

I think the only way you can rank Duncan ahead of Shaq is if you already think Duncan should be higher or if you think it's literally dead close to you that a ring as a 2nd or 3rd option could make the difference.

I'm considering putting Duncan above Shaq myself these days even though Shaq had the stronger peak.

[2LeTTeRS]

In a strange way if Tim wins this year it may hurt his legacy in many people's eyes. We know this is a "what have you done for me lately" society and if you combine TP's Final's MVP with another championship team that was led by the perimeter players, I'd imagine that 10-15 years from now when people look back at the Spurs they won't think of the Spurs as "Tim Duncan's team," and instead will just see him as a member of a "Big 3."

[ShaqAttack3234]

Agreed. It'd be like Kareem's 1985 title.

Nah, Kareem was still the first option on that team offensively, and it was still "his team", even though Kareem and Magic were debatable as players starting in the '83-'84 season. Kareem had a phenomenal finals in '85 as well and won finals MVP. He was still probably one of the top offensive players, or overall players in the league.

[Odinn]

Tim was great in '07. He had a better season than he had in '06, and arguably '05 as well. Duncan was still the 2nd best player in the league in '07,
I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.

[Odinn]

Nah, Kareem was still the first option on that team offensively, and it was still "his team", even though Kareem and Magic were debatable as players starting in the '83-'84 season. Kareem had a phenomenal finals in '85 as well and won finals MVP. He was still probably one of the top offensive players, or overall players in the league.
IMO, it's 2 different things "being the best player" and "his team". Let's hear out Pop.

[StateOfMind12]

I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.
Tim Duncan was the best in 2005 because there wasn't much competition for the elite/dominant players, kind of like the way it is right now. He didn't have much going for him that year other than Shaq who suffered injuries in the post-season and wasn't even the best player on his team in the post-season. I really can't think of anyone else that was standing in Duncan's way for the best that season besides Shaq.

I think you could argue that Duncan was actually better in 2007 than he was in 2005 because of the injuries he suffered in 2005.

Kobe in 2007 was better than Duncan was in 2007 and 2005 in my opinion.

There are some people that even think that Kobe in 2005 was better than Duncan in 2005 as well but people tend to discredit Kobe out of the discussion because his team missed the playoffs that season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.

Yeah, but for the most part, he was not as effective throughout '06 due to plantar fasciitis. The Dallas series was incredible, but for the most part, his mobility didn't seem the same that year, even though to his credit, he didn't really miss any games.

I'd say he was better in '05, except for injuries, they caused him to miss a career high 16 games, and he wasn't 100% during the playoffs. He was a bit more athletic in general in '05 when he was healthy, but he was healthy throughout '07 unlike '05 and '06 and nearly shot a career high from the field at 54.6%, which was just behind his rookie percentage of 54.9%.


[QUOTE=Odinn]IMO, it's 2 different things "being the best player" and "his team". Let's hear out Pop.

[steve]

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate what Tim is doing and what he still means to his team(see my earlier post), and I'm aware of Pop's quotes, but I still consider Parker the best player on this team like most people do.
Parker's their best player, but Duncan's contributions would be more difficult for the Spurs to replace than Parker's.

[Odinn]

Yeah, but for the most part, he was not as effective throughout '06 due to plantar fasciitis. The Dallas series was incredible, but for the most part, his mobility didn't seem the same that year, even though to his credit, he didn't really miss any games.

I'd say he was better in '05, except for injuries, they caused him to miss a career high 16 games, and he wasn't 100% during the playoffs. He was a bit more athletic in general in '05 when he was healthy, but he was healthy throughout '07 unlike '05 and '06 and nearly shot a career high from the field at 54.6%, which was just behind his rookie percentage of 54.9%.
Actually I'm not standing against this line;
Tim was great in '07. He had a better season than he had in '06, and arguably '05 as well.

We had a discussion like this before in "the best player year-by-year" thread about 1999. Do you remember?
IMO, Duncan wasn't worse in 2006 compared to 2005 and 2007. He just had a worse season.

[Droid101]

As for their primes and accomplishments;



Your chart has so many statistical and numerical errors it's not even worth using.

[Da_Realist]

If anyone is the modern day Bill Russell, it's clearly him.

Duncan overlooked in search for next MJ (http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/05/24/12/Duncan-overlooked-in-search-for-next-MJ/msn_landing.html?blockID=734946&feedID=3581)

[Odinn]

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate what Tim is doing and what he still means to his team(see my earlier post), and I'm aware of Pop's quotes, but I still consider Parker the best player on this team like most people do.
I am not exactly saying Duncan is better then Parker. In regular season, it was Parker. In playoffs, it's a toss up. But that was not my point. It's similar to Kareem's 1985 season and playoffs. Do you think Kareem was the best Laker in 1984-85 season?..

[thelucifer69]

Tim Duncan hasn't been the reason they're winning. Tony Parker and outrageously over-performing role players and bench have been getting them wins.

Tim Duncan has been on the decline since he lost finals MVP to his point guard.

TD was way better than TP in 2007 Playoffs check stats:
TD: 27.4PER 22PPG 52.1%FG 11.5RPG 3.3AST
TP: 18.7PER 20.8PPG 48%FG 3.4RPG 5.8AST

In fact TD 2007 Playoffs stats even better than Kobe 2009, 2010 Playoffs

TP got MVP cause Cavs give him to much open court

[ShaqAttack3234]

I am not exactly saying Duncan is better then Parker. In regular season, it was Parker. In playoffs, it's a toss up. But that was not my point. It's similar to Kareem's 1985 season and playoffs. Do you think Kareem was the best Laker in 1984-85 season?..

Very close. Magic was adding the outside shot around '84 and '85, and Kareem had lost a bit defensively, but still remained the one Laker who drew double teams and easily their best scorer. I guess it was kind of 1.A/1.B with Kareem the man in the half court(and still more of a defensive presence than Magic), but Magic was the man with their trademark fastbreak.

I'd go with Kareem without hesitating through 1983, and Magic without hesitating from the '86-'87 season on, but those middle years are very tough.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Actually I'm not standing against this line;
Tim was great in '07. He had a better season than he had in '06, and arguably '05 as well.

We had a discussion like this before in "the best player year-by-year" thread about 1999. Do you remember?
IMO, Duncan wasn't worse in 2006 compared to 2005 and 2007. He just had a worse season.

Yeah, I vaguely remember. A healthy Duncan or Duncan by the playoffs was just as capable, I'm just saying that throughout the season, Duncan was limited so he wasn't always as capable in '06 because of that.


Parker's their best player, but Duncan's contributions would be more difficult for the Spurs to replace than Parker's.

That may be true because it's a point guards league, though the number of point guards who could replace Parker this season might be similar to the number of big men, I'd have to think. KG might be one, especially since he's proved capable of playing center, and Howard would be the other. Prior to the playoffs, I may have said Bynum, but his immaturity could kill the Spurs.

What point guards do you think could replace Parker in the Spurs system? I'd be hesitant to include Westbrook because the thing Pop really wanted this year was for Parker to be more of a facilitator.


I am not exactly saying Duncan is better then Parker. In regular season, it was Parker. In playoffs, it's a toss up. But that was not my point. It's similar to Kareem's 1985 season and playoffs. Do you think Kareem was the best Laker in 1984-85 season?..

Very close. Magic was adding the outside shot around '84 and '85, and Kareem had lost a bit defensively, but still remained the one Laker who drew double teams and easily their best scorer. I guess it was kind of 1.A/1.B with Kareem the man in the half court(and still more of a defensive presence than Magic), but Magic was the man with their trademark fastbreak.

I'd go with Kareem without hesitating through 1983, and Magic without hesitating from the '86-'87 season on, but those middle years are very tough.

And I can agree that it was clearly Parker in the regular season and the 1st round, but clearly Duncan in the 2nd round.

[Pointguard]

I have Kobe ahead of Wade on my GOAT ranking list.
I have Shaq as the most dominant player from '00-02.

However, I believe if Duncan had a player like Wade there would be no questions as to who was better between Duncan and Shaq. The ring count thing would be a dead issue. The only question would be between whose team was it in SA. Duncan was a much better team player than Kobe or Shaq and a more positive influence. He won like they won and never really had somebody offensively like they always had. Both Kobe and Shaq should have won more and Duncan should have won less. In the end winning percentages are about the same. And this is with Kobe and Shaq having had top position players on their team almost the entire '00 decade to help burden their record and playoffs.

[D-Wade316]

I rate his career over Shaq, but Shaq's peak is the reason why he's lower on the list for me. Winning a ring would put him over Shaq.

[rmt]

As currently constructed, Duncan is more important to the Spurs than Parker is because of the depth of the backcourt/perimeter players and the lack of quality big men. So even with Parker shooting 1-9 (7 points), SA beat LAC easily in their first game. Parker's points are replaceable but Duncan's defense/post game are not replaceable by Diaw, Bonner, Blair and to some extent Splitter (who is closest to replacing what Duncan does for the Spurs).

A 5th championship would be icing on the cake for Duncan at this stage of his career. His stats vs LAC:

34 minutes per game
21 points
59.4% from the field
80% at the line
9.3 rebounds
3.3 assists
2 blocks
1.3 turnovers
1.8 fouls
+69 plus/minus

Not bad for a 36 year old. I'd say he's been about even with Parker this playoffs.

[DJ Leon Smith]

TD had a better career, Shaq had a better peak. Most sane fans will agree.

Of course, Kobe fans will try to say that KB had a better career and peak. That's why they're Kobe fans. They suck on his balls like they're drowning and Kobe's balls are their only source of oxygen.

[comerb]

No. If you ever watched Shaq play in his prime you'd know this.

[Whoah10115]

I hate these threads.



He's already ahead of Shaq.


There.

[LBJMVP]

dont really understand why people knock kobe from being in the top 10...

besides the ISH community, most of the planet will have kobe in the top 5 a couple years after he retires.


as for duncan being higher than shaq... i dont think so.

[Big#50]

Duncan has been the Spurs best player since the break. He has been the most Important player in the playoffs. All Parker does is take more shots.

[Upgrayedd]

I would put Duncan ahead of Shaq. Duncan remained consistent his whole career so far where Shaq got incredibly lazy.

[guy]

Or maybe he's just had better, deeper teams? :hammerhead:

Deeper teams? Yes. Better teams? STFU. I swear the way Kobe fans talk, they make it seem like dude has been playing with scrubs his whole career instead of being one of the most privileged players in NBA history and easily the most privileged of his era.

[lbj23clutch]

I have them tied right now. So yes, I would rank him above Shaq if he wins another ring.

[caliman]

and was outplayed by Bonzi Wells in the WCF.


Why ruin a perfectly good point about Duncan by saying some dumb ass sh*t like that?

[PTB Fan]

I wouldn't see an issue for that, even with Duncan's current career.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

I don't think it matters anymore at this point. I mean Timmy is in his twilight years now, everything else that he wins would just be a nice icing on the cake. Same thing with Kobe. Kobe, Tim and Shaq are already past their primes now, and their legacy is mostly set in stone. Say Duncan does win this year, even not as the Spurs best player, it still adds one more to his resume. He's probably 2 spots ahead of Kobe now anyways, and it's likely not to change. Unless Kobe goes Ham next season but who knows

[305Baller]

I don't think it matters anymore at this point. I mean Timmy is in his twilight years now, everything else that he wins would just be a nice icing on the cake. Same thing with Kobe. Kobe, Tim and Shaq are already past their primes now, and their legacy is mostly set in stone. Say Duncan does win this year, even not as the Spurs best player, it still adds one more to his resume. He's probably 2 spots ahead of Kobe now anyways, and it's likely not to change. Unless Kobe goes Ham next season but who knows

Kobe already went HAM this season. You can't expect even more... can you?

[JMT]

I hate these threads.



He's already ahead of Shaq.




This

[Kurosawa0]

If Duncan gets #5 this year I think he solidifies himself as the best player since Jordan.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

I hate these threads.



He's already ahead of Shaq.


There.
Well no shit. We live in a world where 9 out of 10 fans think that Kobe and Shaq had a better career than Tim Duncan.

[Odinn]

Well no shit. We live in a world where 9 out of 10 fans think that Kobe and Shaq had a better career than Tim Duncan.
Let's put it a vote?..

[jlauber]

I have Shaq at #6 and Duncan at #7 on my all-time list. So, yes, a case could be made for Duncan to surpass Shaq, all-time, this season. Having said that, though, a peak Shaq was arguably among the greatest of all-time. But, Duncan's career has to rank alongside Russell and Magic's, as the greatest "winner" of all-time. Those three never came close to tasting a losing season, and they all won a ton of rings (especially if Tim wins one this year.) Think about this...with a variety of rosters, Duncan has won 50+ games in 14 of his 15 seasons. And in the year in which he did not, 98-99, it was a strike year, and his team went 37-13...or on pace for a 61-21 season.

You simply can't ignore Duncan's TEAM impact in these discussions.

[Roundball_Rock]

Possibly but only because Shaq usually is underrated. Shaq is top 5 all-time IMO. He had arguably the GOAT peak, good longevity, won a lot (4 rings, 6 NBA finals, 9 conference finals), took Orlando and Miami from mediocrity to championship contention and took the Lakers to three-peat dominance.

[ralph_i_el]

On LG, someone started a thread about how Duncan getting #5 affects Kobe's legacy (Some crazy folks already rate him higher even though he has less rings and hasn't remained elite so I don't think anything changes lol)

I actually think a 5th ring for Timmy "hurts" Shaq more. Thoughts?

plenty of sane people rank duncan higher than kobe. He won all his titles as the man.

plus duncan is still elite he just plays less minutes

[Meticode]

Tim Duncan hasn't been the reason they're winning. Tony Parker and outrageously over-performing role players and bench have been getting them wins.

Tim Duncan has been on the decline since he lost finals MVP to his point guard.
I agree about everything, but Duncan has stepped up in the playoffs and is a major reason they're dominating the playoffs so far...

He's shooting 54% from the field versus 49% in the regular season.
He's shooting 79% from the line versus 70% in the regular a season
He's scoring 17.6 versus 15.4 in the regular a season.
Also averaging 9.0 rebounds per game in the playoffs and 1.9 blocks.

He's really stepped his game up for the playoffs, all while doing this with only 32 minutes per game. If he was getting some of the minutes like some players are in the playoffs he could easily be averaging 20/10 like his former self.

[Big#50]

Duncan has to be ahead of Shaq and Kobe. Duncan didn't have the superstar wing for two of his titles. Shaq and Kobe benefited from playing together. Even for Shaq's first title Kobe was already a top ten player. Everyone saying a fifth title doesnt matter because Tim is old is full of shit. He is playing better than Shaq did for his fourth. Duncan should move ahead of Shaq with one more title, and way ahead of Kobe.
Give Tim a prime top five player to be his sidekick and we have the next Celtics. While Shaq was crushing the east in the finals, Duncan was wrecking everyone as well. He was regular season MVP in 02.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have Shaq at #6 and Duncan at #7 on my all-time list. So, yes, a case could be made for Duncan to surpass Shaq, all-time, this season. Having said that, though, a peak Shaq was arguably among the greatest of all-time. But, Duncan's career has to rank alongside Russell and Magic's, as the greatest "winner" of all-time. Those three never came close to tasting a losing season, and they all won a ton of rings (especially if Tim wins one this year.) Think about this...with a variety of rosters, Duncan has won 50+ games in 14 of his 15 seasons. And in the year in which he did not, 98-99, it was a strike year, and his team went 37-13...or on pace for a 61-21 season.

You simply can't ignore Duncan's TEAM impact in these discussions.

This is a reasonable post, but on the subject of Duncan's consecutive 50 win seasons, while he does surpass Shaq, Shaq was pretty close. With the exception of the lockout season(when Shaq's Lakers were on pace for 50+ wins, Shaq's teams won at least 50 games every season from '94-'06, which would be 13 consecutive seasons.


Possibly but only because Shaq usually is underrated. Shaq is top 5 all-time IMO. He had arguably the GOAT peak, good longevity, won a lot (4 rings, 6 NBA finals, 9 conference finals), took Orlando and Miami from mediocrity to championship contention and took the Lakers to three-peat dominance.

Good point about longevity. People act like Kobe is separate from Shaq and Duncan in longevity and that Duncan is separate from Shaq, but it's perception, not reality.

Shaq was a top 10 player as a rookie in '93 despite being raw and nowhere near his prime level, and he was arguably still a top 10 player as late as '06. So really, 14 seasons as a top 10 player. And he was widely considered top 5 from his second season until '05 when he lost in the closest MVP finish ever, iirc. Admittedly, he was raw and you could argue he wasn't top 5 in '94, though most considered him to be a top 5 player. So 12 seasons as a top 5 player.

Duncan was probably top 5 from his rookie season, and arguably as late as '08, which is 11 seasons, and perhaps also the period he was a top 10 player, though you could argue that extended through '09, which would be 12 seasons.

Kobe became arguably a top 10 player in '00, and is still one now so that's 13 seasons as a top 10 player. He became top 5 in '01, you could argue he's still one(though quite a few would argue he's still one the last 2 seasons), and he wasn't top 5 in '05. But even so, if I include the start of his time as a top 5 player through present when it can still be argued he is, it still puts him even with Shaq as top 5 for 12 seasons.

Shaq fell off greatly in his 15th season when he was 35, a lot of that had to do with injuries, he missed half the season, but he was still a very effective player, he led an old, washed up Miami cast to a 16-7 record when Wade was out with an injury in '07. And then as a 37 year old in his 17th season, he was an all-star/all-nba 3rd team player who averaged 18/8 on a league best 61 FG% in 30 mpg, as well as being 4th in TS% at 62%. His overall defense had fallen off greatly by this point, though he remained an excellent 1 on 1 low post defender. This season included big games such as 45/11 on 20/25 shooting vs Toronto, 35/8/3 on 14/19 shooting vs Milwaukee, 33/7/3 on 13/18 shooting vs Gasol and the Lakers, 29/11/4 on 12/16 shooting vs Milwaukee, 29/13/6 on 10/15 shooting vs Sacramento and 19/17 on 8/12 shooting vs Portland.

Shaq is known for his great prime from '98-'02, and his peak in '00(or even '01 for that matter), and the list of players with comparable peaks and primes is extremely short, but how many had a comparable extended prime to Shaq from '95-'03?


If he was getting some of the minutes like some players are in the playoffs he could easily be averaging 20/10 like his former self.

I agree that he's been really impressive, but the minutes argument doesn't really work for older players who aren't capable of playing a lot of minutes, particularly Duncan who has had his minutes limited every season since '04-'05.


Duncan has to be ahead of Shaq and Kobe. Duncan didn't have the superstar wing for two of his titles. Shaq and Kobe benefited from playing together. Even for Shaq's first title Kobe was already a top ten player. Everyone saying a fifth title doesnt matter because Tim is old is full of shit. He is playing better than Shaq did for his fourth. Duncan should move ahead of Shaq with one more title, and way ahead of Kobe.
Give Tim a prime top five player to be his sidekick and we have the next Celtics. While Shaq was crushing the east in the finals, Duncan was wrecking everyone as well. He was regular season MVP in 02.

I have no problem with those that prefer Duncan, but your statement that Tim HAS to be above Shaq is ridiculous. Anyone who acts like it isn't debatable is either too biased to discuss this, or wasn't tuned in to early 00's ball.

And I hate when people try to sum up supporting casts by listing their single best player. A cast is A LOT more than that. Which is why both the '00 Blazers and '02 Kings were considered more talented than the Lakers by everyone despite not having a player as good as either of the Lakers top 2 players, but 3-7 or 3-8, was lopsided.

Plus, a lot of teams have 3 all-star caliber players(the Spurs have since '06), none of Shaq's championship teams had the 3rd all-star caliber player. The 3peat Lakers had big flaws, the 2000 team was the 5th worst in 3P%, 5th lowest scoring bench and 3rd lowest bench FG% and two non scoring/non shooting threats in their starting lineup.

The '02 Lakers could be argued to have had 6 quality players with Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Horry, Fox and Lindsey hunter as their backup PG. But Fisher was terrible in the playoffs shooting under 36%, getting destroyed by opposing PG and shooting under 30% in the Lakers 2 toughest series vs the Spurs and Kings. And Lindsey Hunter was playing just 7 mpg in the playoffs so the Lakers won the '02 title with basically just 4 solid contributors in the playoffs. Horry stepped up with his best playoff run as a Laker and Fox played well too, but they still lacked a 3rd scoring option.

Both years that Shaq missed a significant amount of games during his championship years, his teams were under .500 at 7-8 in '02 and 10-13 in '06. And I doubt any of his championship teams make the playoffs without him, certainly not the 3peat Lakers.

In 2000, Kobe was borderline top 10, but during the Spurs '99 title, Robinson could also be argued as a borderline top 10 player, and in '05, Manu was borderline top 15, and Manu actually had a better playoff run in '05 than Kobe did in '00 even though he wasn't a better player.

Shaq having the better teammate is just one side of the argument. His teams also faced better competition to win the title. He benefited from weak Eeastern Conferences in '01 and '02, but Duncan did in 3 of his titles, and the Lakers faced much better competition on average through their 3 titles facing the best teams in each conference all 3 seasons without injuries playing a major role(except for perhaps Peja in '02).

The Spurs '99, '03 and '07 title runs are arguably the easiest. In '03, the Spurs didn't have to face the Kings because their best player went down in game 2 of the WCSF, and then in game 3 of the WCF, Dirk goes down with an injury. Not to take anything away from them, but that's a major factor. In '07, their was the upset that took one of the top 3 teams the Mavs out of it, and then they were having a very competitive series vs the Suns, which was made easier by 1 of the 2 most ridiculous suspensions in playoff history.

The won year Duncan won without an all-star was '03, and I give him credit for that and winning with a team featuring quite a few inexperienced players while being the one constant, though that was a deep Spurs team who ended up getting the necessary contributions from the cast each night, even if it was often a different player.

And outside of comparing their help, if you go through the hypothetical of Duncan starting his career in '92-'93 in place of Shaq and playing on Shaq's teams through his first 14-15 years, I don't see much of an argument for Duncan winning more considering the teams he'd have to face. If you disagree, then tell me what years you'd think Duncan would've won in place of Shaq from '93-'06 or '07? Keep in mind, you have to use 1st year Duncan in place of first year Shaq ect.

I'm not saying Shaq's titles should be valued more than Duncan's, but they shouldn't be valued less either, especially considering his level of play that won him those titles. Shaq did have more help on average(more in the years he didn't win actually), but the competition was better without question too which evens that out at the very least, imo.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

You would absolutely have to put Duncan ahead of Shaq.
Duncan always been a better leader than the class clown. Also better defensively.

[Big#50]

This is a reasonable post, but on the subject of Duncan's consecutive 50 win seasons, while he does surpass Shaq, Shaq was pretty close. With the exception of the lockout season(when Shaq's Lakers were on pace for 50+ wins, Shaq's teams won at least 50 games every season from '94-'06, which would be 13 consecutive seasons.



Good point about longevity. People act like Kobe is separate from Shaq and Duncan in longevity and that Duncan is separate from Shaq, but it's perception, not reality.

Shaq was a top 10 player as a rookie in '93 despite being raw and nowhere near his prime level, and he was arguably still a top 10 player as late as '06. So really, 14 seasons as a top 10 player. And he was widely considered top 5 from his second season until '05 when he lost in the closest MVP finish ever, iirc. Admittedly, he was raw and you could argue he wasn't top 5 in '94, though most considered him to be a top 5 player. So 12 seasons as a top 5 player.

Duncan was probably top 5 from his rookie season, and arguably as late as '08, which is 11 seasons, and perhaps also the period he was a top 10 player, though you could argue that extended through '09, which would be 12 seasons.

Kobe became arguably a top 10 player in '00, and is still one now so that's 13 seasons as a top 10 player. He became top 5 in '01, you could argue he's still one(though quite a few would argue he's still one the last 2 seasons), and he wasn't top 5 in '05. But even so, if I include the start of his time as a top 5 player through present when it can still be argued he is, it still puts him even with Shaq as top 5 for 12 seasons.

Shaq fell off greatly in his 15th season when he was 35, a lot of that had to do with injuries, he missed half the season, but he was still a very effective player, he led an old, washed up Miami cast to a 16-7 record when Wade was out with an injury in '07. And then as a 37 year old in his 17th season, he was an all-star/all-nba 3rd team player who averaged 18/8 on a league best 61 FG% in 30 mpg, as well as being 4th in TS% at 62%. His overall defense had fallen off greatly by this point, though he remained an excellent 1 on 1 low post defender. This season included big games such as 45/11 on 20/25 shooting vs Toronto, 35/8/3 on 14/19 shooting vs Milwaukee, 33/7/3 on 13/18 shooting vs Gasol and the Lakers, 29/11/4 on 12/16 shooting vs Milwaukee, 29/13/6 on 10/15 shooting vs Sacramento and 19/17 on 8/12 shooting vs Portland.

Shaq is known for his great prime from '98-'02, and his peak in '00(or even '01 for that matter), and the list of players with comparable peaks and primes is extremely short, but how many had a comparable extended prime to Shaq from '95-'03?



I agree that he's been really impressive, but the minutes argument doesn't really work for older players who aren't capable of playing a lot of minutes, particularly Duncan who has had his minutes limited every season since '04-'05.



I have no problem with those that prefer Duncan, but your statement that Tim HAS to be above Shaq is ridiculous. Anyone who acts like it isn't debatable is either too biased to discuss this, or wasn't tuned in to early 00's ball.

And I hate when people try to sum up supporting casts by listing their single best player. A cast is A LOT more than that. Which is why both the '00 Blazers and '02 Kings were considered more talented than the Lakers by everyone despite not having a player as good as either of the Lakers top 2 players, but 3-7 or 3-8, was lopsided.

Plus, a lot of teams have 3 all-star caliber players(the Spurs have since '06), none of Shaq's championship teams had the 3rd all-star caliber player. The 3peat Lakers had big flaws, the 2000 team was the 5th worst in 3P%, 5th lowest scoring bench and 3rd lowest bench FG% and two non scoring/non shooting threats in their starting lineup.

The '02 Lakers could be argued to have had 6 quality players with Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Horry, Fox and Lindsey hunter as their backup PG. But Fisher was terrible in the playoffs shooting under 36%, getting destroyed by opposing PG and shooting under 30% in the Lakers 2 toughest series vs the Spurs and Kings. And Lindsey Hunter was playing just 7 mpg in the playoffs so the Lakers won the '02 title with basically just 4 solid contributors in the playoffs. Horry stepped up with his best playoff run as a Laker and Fox played well too, but they still lacked a 3rd scoring option.

Both years that Shaq missed a significant amount of games during his championship years, his teams were under .500 at 7-8 in '02 and 10-13 in '06. And I doubt any of his championship teams make the playoffs without him, certainly not the 3peat Lakers.

In 2000, Kobe was borderline top 10, but during the Spurs '99 title, Robinson could also be argued as a borderline top 10 player, and in '05, Manu was borderline top 15, and Manu actually had a better playoff run in '05 than Kobe did in '00 even though he wasn't a better player.

Shaq having the better teammate is just one side of the argument. His teams also faced better competition to win the title. He benefited from weak Eeastern Conferences in '01 and '02, but Duncan did in 3 of his titles, and the Lakers faced much better competition on average through their 3 titles facing the best teams in each conference all 3 seasons without injuries playing a major role(except for perhaps Peja in '02).

The Spurs '99, '03 and '07 title runs are arguably the easiest. In '03, the Spurs didn't have to face the Kings because their best player went down in game 2 of the WCSF, and then in game 3 of the WCF, Dirk goes down with an injury. Not to take anything away from them, but that's a major factor. In '07, their was the upset that took one of the top 3 teams the Mavs out of it, and then they were having a very competitive series vs the Suns, which was made easier by 1 of the 2 most ridiculous suspensions in playoff history.

The won year Duncan won without an all-star was '03, and I give him credit for that and winning with a team featuring quite a few inexperienced players while being the one constant, though that was a deep Spurs team who ended up getting the necessary contributions from the cast each night, even if it was often a different player.

And outside of comparing their help, if you go through the hypothetical of Duncan starting his career in '92-'93 in place of Shaq and playing on Shaq's teams through his first 14-15 years, I don't see much of an argument for Duncan winning more considering the teams he'd have to face. If you disagree, then tell me what years you'd think Duncan would've won in place of Shaq from '93-'06 or '07? Keep in mind, you have to use 1st year Duncan in place of first year Shaq ect.

I'm not saying Shaq's titles should be valued more than Duncan's, but they shouldn't be valued less either, especially considering his level of play that won him those titles. Shaq did have more help on average(more in the years he didn't win actually), but the competition was better without question too which evens that out at the very least, imo.
You made a lot of excuses on why the Spurs won titles. Specially the Suns' suspensions. You're a better poster than that. I can say the Lakers won in 2000 because Tim didn't get to play in the playoffs. Lakers were gifted the series vs the Kings. Shaq only won his fourth title because Wade got a first class ticket to the line in 06.

[SCdac]

You made a lot of excuses on why the Spurs won titles.

same old, same old...

"The Spurs were great, but...."

^ seems like the premise to every talking point

[ShaqAttack3234]

You made a lot of excuses on why the Spurs won titles. Specially the Suns' suspensions. You're a better poster than that. I can say the Lakers won in 2000 because Tim didn't get to play in the playoffs. Lakers were gifted the series vs the Kings. Shaq only won his fourth title because Wade got a first class ticket to the line in 06.

Dude, as a Knick fan I know firsthand about ridiculous suspensions, I will NEVER get over '97. so why should I ignore it when it doesn't happen to my team?

I still think the Spurs were the best team in '07 and I think they would've beaten the Suns in 7. They were the best all around team to me with the best balance of post play, perimeter player, offense, defense, stars, coaching and unselfishness, but that was also a really good Sun team(the best of the Nash era, imo) and a big factor in the series.

Duncan was injured in '00, but the Lakers still faced the team widely considered as one of the top 2 teams, the Blazers, and the preseason favorites to win the title.

The conspiracy theories in '02 are taking things one step further, to me that's always sounded ridiculous. I can agree with those that say Peja missing some of the games and being less the 100% helped the Lakers, though.


same old, same old...

"The Spurs were great, but...."

^ seems like the premise to every talking point

:oldlol: You can't take ANYTHING remotely resembling criticism towards the Spurs, can you? I've always given the Spurs credit for being a phenomenal organization, have always admired Tim and been a fan, have called Pop one of the top 2 coaches of my time, and have admitted to Spurs fans that I initially underrated Manu.

But competition is a legitimate point when people start bringing up help. Are you going to say that the Kings losing their best player, then losing to Dallas in 7, and then Dallas losing their best player aren't significant factors worth mentioning?

Are you going to pretend that the competition in '07 wasn't unusually poor with an '07 Cavs team that rivals the '02 Nets for the worst finals team in recent years? Are you going to pretend that the Dallas/Golden State upset and the suspensions in a pivotal game of a then 2-2 series didn't also hurt the Suns chances? The Suns being the one team who could and did challenge the Spurs at all.

[Himan12]

I believe when its all said and done (duncan/kobe retire), people will look back on the 00s and realize how special it was to have 3 top 10 all time players one being the greatest pf, the other being the greatest center and one of the greatest scorers to all have played in the same era (and 2 of them together).

With that said if duncan wins #5 it will definitely be hard not to rank him over kobe and shaq imo.

My current rankings out of these 3 are:

Shaq (peak was too amazing)
Duncan
Kobe

[Big#50]

Dude, as a Knick fan I know firsthand about ridiculous suspensions, I will NEVER get over '97. so why should I ignore it when it doesn't happen to my team?

I still think the Spurs were the best team in '07 and I think they would've beaten the Suns in 7. They were the best all around team to me with the best balance of post play, perimeter player, offense, defense, stars, coaching and unselfishness, but that was also a really good Sun team(the best of the Nash era, imo) and a big factor in the series.

Duncan was injured in '00, but the Lakers still faced the team widely considered as one of the top 2 teams, the Blazers, and the preseason favorites to win the title.

The conspiracy theories in '02 are taking things one step further, to me that's always sounded ridiculous. I can agree with those that say Peja missing some of the games and being less the 100% helped the Lakers, though.



:oldlol: You can't take ANYTHING remotely resembling criticism towards the Spurs, can you? I've always given the Spurs credit for being a phenomenal organization, have always admired Tim and been a fan, have called Pop one of the top 2 coaches of my time, and have admitted to Spurs fans that I initially underrated Manu.

But competition is a legitimate point when people star bringing up help. Are you going to say that the Kings losing their best player, then losing to Dallas in 7, and then Dallas losing their best player aren't significant factors worth mentioning?

Are you going to pretend that the competition in '07 wasn't unusually poor with an '07 Cavs team that rivals the '02 Nets for the worst finals team in recent years? Are you going to pretend that the Dallas/Golden State upset and the suspensions in a pivotal game of a then 2-2 series didn't also hurt the Suns chances? The Suns being the one team who could and did challenge the Spurs at all.
If the Spurs win a fifth, I can already see you lining up with a million more excuses. Weird shit happens all the time. Has happened to every single team. Luck and unusual circumstances play a big part in winning. It always has. Why only talk about it when it benefits the Spurs? You want to bring up the Blazer series? That shit was as rigged as the Kings series. Yes, the Blazers choked. But the Lakers had the refs on their side that whole series. Just stop making excuses. Duncan should already be ahead of Shaq. Shaq won one title as the sidekick. Duncan was the Spurs best player by a big margin in all of their titles. One more title as the best playoff performer and there should be no more discussion. Tim has been the Spurs best player the last month and a half.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If the Spurs win a fifth, I can already see you lining up with a million more excuses. Weird shit happens all the time. Has happened to every single team. Luck and unusual circumstances play a big part in winning. It always has. Why only talk about it when it benefits the Spurs? You want to bring up the Blazer series? That shit was as rigged as the Kings series. Yes, the Blazers choked. But the Lakers had the refs on their side that whole series. Just stop making excuses. Duncan should already be ahead of Shaq. Shaq won one title as the sidekick. Duncan was the Spurs best player by a big margin in all of their titles. One more title as the best playoff performer and there should be no more discussion. Tim has been the Spurs best player the last month and a half.

You're talking about excuses and you're making claims of rigged series. :roll: At least with the Kings series there are a lot that believe it, but the Portland series? You're really grasping at straws. That wasn't even something many except for a select few on message boards have claimed. There were a couple of bad calls against the Blazers in the 4th, but the big reason for the comeback was that Shaq and Kobe had excellent 4th quarters with 9 points each(plus Shaq hit his free throws in the 4th, iirc) and the role players such as Brian Shaw hit huge shots to capitalize on double teams while Portland choked and couldn't guy a basket.

And you're going to tell me to stop making excuses when you're bringing your paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense into it, with one of the series being one that isn't even believed to be rigged except for by a select few.

That's less reasonable than if I discredited the Spurs first title because it was in a lockout year, which many do, but I don't agree with.

By the way, I don't need excuses, I have Shaq higher because I simply believe he was the better/more dominant player in their primes. I don't just add up rings or read accomplishments off a sheet of paper to rank players. That's why I have Hakeem ahead of Duncan, easily ahead of Kobe and about tied with Shaq(I go back and forth on those 2) despite Hakeem having just 2 rings. I can understand the point of view of those who value Duncan as a teammate and his work ethic.

You're the one who gets ridiculous with your biased nonsense, and that's exactly what thinking Shaq doesn't have a case over Duncan is.

I agree that luck plays a significant part in titles, and it did in the '00 Laker/Blazers series, they were lucky in a way that Portland choked, though they showed great mental toughness to capitalize and not give up down 15.

But if you don't want factors like the best competitions best players being out like the '03 Kings and Mavs then don't bring up help either(while doing a half-assed job of evaluating it I might add) because you can't discuss one without the other.

Personally, I believe that both players would probably win less than they did if they switch places from the start of their careers, partially because each team was built around their strengths.

[SCdac]

:oldlol: You can't take ANYTHING remotely resembling criticism towards the Spurs, can you? I've always given the Spurs credit for being a phenomenal organization, have always admired Tim and been a fan, have called Pop one of the top 2 coaches of my time, and have admitted to Spurs fans that I initially underrated Manu.

Oh please, I wouldn't be on here for years if I can't take criticism. Criticism is one thing. Subjective criticism being dressed up as some semblance of objectivity is another. Arguing "level of competition" and what "___ player would do with ____ roster" is highly subjective, and ends up turning into a "this championship shouldn't count as much as this championship counts" debate, which is basically what you said you're "not saying" in the last paragraph. Pretty see-through. Much of your points talking up the Spurs or Duncan are lined with subtle detractions on the tail end. Duncan won in 03 without an AS, "though he got alot of contributions from a deep team". In other words, it doesn't matter he had no AS teammate, his teammates collectively all basically amounted to one. Give me a break. It's not hard to be straight forward about something (or have convictions), rather than playing some fake middle ground for the sake of sounding complimenting. For somebody who knows so much about basketball, your neutrality (so to speak) just comes off as fake, when it's clear you have strong educated opinions of bball. You don't think Duncan would have done any more with Shaq's rosters in the 90's (not surprising), that's fair enough, doesn't mean Duncan can't be or won't be better in the long run. In just means you came up with some hypothetical.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Oh please, I wouldn't be on here for years if I can't take criticism. Criticism is one thing. Subjective criticism being dressed up as some semblance of objectivity is another. Arguing "level of competition" and what "___ player would do with ____ roster" is highly subjective, and ends up turning into a "this championship shouldn't count as much as this championship counts" debate, which is basically what you said you're "not saying" in the last paragraph. Pretty see-through. Much of your points talking up the Spurs or Duncan are lined with subtle detractions on the tail end. Duncan won in 03 without an AS, "though he got alot of contributions from a deep team". In other words, it doesn't matter he had no AS teammate, his teammates collectively all basically amounted to one. Give me a break. It's not hard to be straight forward about something (or have convictions), rather than playing some fake middle ground for the sake of sounding complimenting. For somebody who knows so much about basketball, your neutrality (so to speak) just comes off as fake, when it's clear you have strong educated opinions of bball. You don't think Duncan would have done any more with Shaq's rosters in the 90's (not surprising), that's fair enough, doesn't mean Duncan can't be or won't be better in the long run. In just means you came up with some hypothetical.

No, I've never seen you just accept a differing opinion about the Spurs that you interpret as criticism without reacting in the immature way you are right now.

In this post you're clearly trying to make my post out to be something it's not.

And yes, getting the necessary contributions from a variety of players should be brought up when talking about a player winning without an all-star because that's how it happened. Guys stepped up, Duncan was phenomenal and the one constant, but they had a ton of different guys giving them 20+ on different nights, and ended up having a second 20 ppg scorer more than not, that's a fact. That doesn't matter? You've talked about what Dirk's cast brought even though they didn't have a 2nd all-star, so why does it not apply here? In other words, you're bitching about me elaborating more on the Spurs '03 run rather than just summing it up in a simple-minded way that "Duncan won without a 2nd all-star", as if no other information is worth mentioning beyond that. :rolleyes:

So in other words you're saying I'm acting fake because I'm stating I can see the argument for Duncan while still having my own opinion to the contrary? Ok, so it'd be better if I was saying "No, Shaq is clearly better, you don't have an argument", which is essentially what the other side is saying. I've heard the arguments for Duncan, I know some are valid, and some have come from posters I respect, so why wouldn't I acknowledge that I see where you(and others) are coming from?

And for the final point, others can bring up Shaq's help(really just his second best teammate is all I'm hearing from them), and I can't bring up competition as a counter? Help is subjective too, but obviously I won't hear this from you. And I'd be more than willing to debate the competition and am extremely confident I could back up my argument. I'm fine with people who don't agree, but my opinions on competition aren't exactly a stretch.

And you know why I brought up Duncan in Shaq's place? It was in direct response to Big#50's comment about what Duncan would do with a "superstar wing", is that not a subjective hypothetical? I added in my last post that hypotheticals of what player's would do in each other's places don't prove anything because teams build around their franchise player's unique strengths(and also to your point, hypotheticals aren't proof).

If you can't see why I brought it up in response to Big#50 then you have no room to call ANYONE biased.

This has to be the most frustrating "debate" I have on this board in a long time, trying to have a reasonable discussion with people who can't breathe without acting like complete Spurs homers.

[Roundball_Rock]

This is a reasonable post, but on the subject of Duncan's consecutive 50 win seasons, while he does surpass Shaq, Shaq was pretty close. With the exception of the lockout season(when Shaq's Lakers were on pace for 50+ wins, Shaq's teams won at least 50 games every season from '94-'06, which would be 13 consecutive seasons.



Good point about longevity. People act like Kobe is separate from Shaq and Duncan in longevity and that Duncan is separate from Shaq, but it's perception, not reality.

Shaq was a top 10 player as a rookie in '93 despite being raw and nowhere near his prime level, and he was arguably still a top 10 player as late as '06. So really, 14 seasons as a top 10 player. And he was widely considered top 5 from his second season until '05 when he lost in the closest MVP finish ever, iirc. Admittedly, he was raw and you could argue he wasn't top 5 in '94, though most considered him to be a top 5 player. So 12 seasons as a top 5 player.

Duncan was probably top 5 from his rookie season, and arguably as late as '08, which is 11 seasons, and perhaps also the period he was a top 10 player, though you could argue that extended through '09, which would be 12 seasons.

Kobe became arguably a top 10 player in '00, and is still one now so that's 13 seasons as a top 10 player. He became top 5 in '01, you could argue he's still one(though quite a few would argue he's still one the last 2 seasons), and he wasn't top 5 in '05. But even so, if I include the start of his time as a top 5 player through present when it can still be argued he is, it still puts him even with Shaq as top 5 for 12 seasons.

Shaq fell off greatly in his 15th season when he was 35, a lot of that had to do with injuries, he missed half the season, but he was still a very effective player, he led an old, washed up Miami cast to a 16-7 record when Wade was out with an injury in '07. And then as a 37 year old in his 17th season, he was an all-star/all-nba 3rd team player who averaged 18/8 on a league best 61 FG% in 30 mpg, as well as being 4th in TS% at 62%. His overall defense had fallen off greatly by this point, though he remained an excellent 1 on 1 low post defender. This season included big games such as 45/11 on 20/25 shooting vs Toronto, 35/8/3 on 14/19 shooting vs Milwaukee, 33/7/3 on 13/18 shooting vs Gasol and the Lakers, 29/11/4 on 12/16 shooting vs Milwaukee, 29/13/6 on 10/15 shooting vs Sacramento and 19/17 on 8/12 shooting vs Portland.

Shaq is known for his great prime from '98-'02, and his peak in '00(or even '01 for that matter), and the list of players with comparable peaks and primes is extremely short, but how many had a comparable extended prime to Shaq from '95-'03?



I agree that he's been really impressive, but the minutes argument doesn't really work for older players who aren't capable of playing a lot of minutes, particularly Duncan who has had his minutes limited every season since '04-'05.



I have no problem with those that prefer Duncan, but your statement that Tim HAS to be above Shaq is ridiculous. Anyone who acts like it isn't debatable is either too biased to discuss this, or wasn't tuned in to early 00's ball.

And I hate when people try to sum up supporting casts by listing their single best player. A cast is A LOT more than that. Which is why both the '00 Blazers and '02 Kings were considered more talented than the Lakers by everyone despite not having a player as good as either of the Lakers top 2 players, but 3-7 or 3-8, was lopsided.

Plus, a lot of teams have 3 all-star caliber players(the Spurs have since '06), none of Shaq's championship teams had the 3rd all-star caliber player. The 3peat Lakers had big flaws, the 2000 team was the 5th worst in 3P%, 5th lowest scoring bench and 3rd lowest bench FG% and two non scoring/non shooting threats in their starting lineup.

The '02 Lakers could be argued to have had 6 quality players with Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Horry, Fox and Lindsey hunter as their backup PG. But Fisher was terrible in the playoffs shooting under 36%, getting destroyed by opposing PG and shooting under 30% in the Lakers 2 toughest series vs the Spurs and Kings. And Lindsey Hunter was playing just 7 mpg in the playoffs so the Lakers won the '02 title with basically just 4 solid contributors in the playoffs. Horry stepped up with his best playoff run as a Laker and Fox played well too, but they still lacked a 3rd scoring option.

Both years that Shaq missed a significant amount of games during his championship years, his teams were under .500 at 7-8 in '02 and 10-13 in '06. And I doubt any of his championship teams make the playoffs without him, certainly not the 3peat Lakers.

In 2000, Kobe was borderline top 10, but during the Spurs '99 title, Robinson could also be argued as a borderline top 10 player, and in '05, Manu was borderline top 15, and Manu actually had a better playoff run in '05 than Kobe did in '00 even though he wasn't a better player.

Shaq having the better teammate is just one side of the argument. His teams also faced better competition to win the title. He benefited from weak Eeastern Conferences in '01 and '02, but Duncan did in 3 of his titles, and the Lakers faced much better competition on average through their 3 titles facing the best teams in each conference all 3 seasons without injuries playing a major role(except for perhaps Peja in '02).

The Spurs '99, '03 and '07 title runs are arguably the easiest. In '03, the Spurs didn't have to face the Kings because their best player went down in game 2 of the WCSF, and then in game 3 of the WCF, Dirk goes down with an injury. Not to take anything away from them, but that's a major factor. In '07, their was the upset that took one of the top 3 teams the Mavs out of it, and then they were having a very competitive series vs the Suns, which was made easier by 1 of the 2 most ridiculous suspensions in playoff history.

The won year Duncan won without an all-star was '03, and I give him credit for that and winning with a team featuring quite a few inexperienced players while being the one constant, though that was a deep Spurs team who ended up getting the necessary contributions from the cast each night, even if it was often a different player.

And outside of comparing their help, if you go through the hypothetical of Duncan starting his career in '92-'93 in place of Shaq and playing on Shaq's teams through his first 14-15 years, I don't see much of an argument for Duncan winning more considering the teams he'd have to face. If you disagree, then tell me what years you'd think Duncan would've won in place of Shaq from '93-'06 or '07? Keep in mind, you have to use 1st year Duncan in place of first year Shaq ect.

I'm not saying Shaq's titles should be valued more than Duncan's, but they shouldn't be valued less either, especially considering his level of play that won him those titles. Shaq did have more help on average(more in the years he didn't win actually), but the competition was better without question too which evens that out at the very least, imo.

:bowdown:

Would anyone really draft Duncan over Shaq?

[Big#50]

You're talking about excuses and you're making claims of rigged series. :roll: At least with the Kings series there are a lot that believe it, but the Portland series? You're really grasping at straws. That wasn't even something many except for a select few on message boards have claimed. There were a couple of bad calls against the Blazers in the 4th, but the big reason for the comeback was that Shaq and Kobe had excellent 4th quarters with 9 points each(plus Shaq hit his free throws in the 4th, iirc) and the role players such as Brian Shaw hit huge shots to capitalize on double teams while Portland choked and couldn't guy a basket.

And you're going to tell me to stop making excuses when you're bringing your paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense into it, with one of the series being one that isn't even believed to be rigged except for by a select few.

That's less reasonable than if I discredited the Spurs first title because it was in a lockout year, which many do, but I don't agree with.

By the way, I don't need excuses, I have Shaq higher because I simply believe he was the better/more dominant player in their primes. I don't just add up rings or read accomplishments off a sheet of paper to rank players. That's why I have Hakeem ahead of Duncan, easily ahead of Kobe and about tied with Shaq(I go back and forth on those 2) despite Hakeem having just 2 rings. I can understand the point of view of those who value Duncan as a teammate and his work ethic.

You're the one who gets ridiculous with your biased nonsense, and that's exactly what thinking Shaq doesn't have a case over Duncan is.

I agree that luck plays a significant part in titles, and it did in the '00 Laker/Blazers series, they were lucky in a way that Portland choked, though they showed great mental toughness to capitalize and not give up down 15.

But if you don't want factors like the best competitions best players being out like the '03 Kings and Mavs then don't bring up help either(while doing a half-assed job of evaluating it I might add) because you can't discuss one without the other.

Personally, I believe that both players would probably win less than they did if they switch places from the start of their careers, partially because each team was built around their strengths.
I only brought all that shit up because of your post. I never bring it up. To me a ring is a ring. Everyone has to play the same game.
I have Tim ahead of Shaq because to me he was just a good offensive player. And a much better defensive player. He also won the same amount of rings without a fellow top 8 player. That Is all there is to it. Shaq's peak was great. But people overrated the **** out of it. Mostly because of the finals. But we seem to forget he had a top 3-5 player helping him out. If Tim Duncan wins a fifth ring I will not ever waste my time debating on Tim>Shaq>Kobe. It will not even be worth my time. It will be clear to anyone that isn't biased or a hater. Only because Tim is still the best player on the Spurs.

[SCdac]

This has to be the most frustrating "debate" I have on this board in a long time, trying to have a reasonable discussion with people who can't breathe without acting like complete Spurs homers.

Oh calm down shaqattack :rolleyes: ... If anybody can't take criticism, well, it's not me, apparently... I realize you were talking to Big#50 initially, but him noticing all the subtle excuses you make for the Spurs and/or Duncan being highly successful is interesting, and I agree with him in that it's basically bogus. I guess to you that makes me, and him, a "complete Spurs homer". Typical. I would say you're a Shaq homer but that's common knowledge, not exactly saying anything new. Point is, just because we disagree on something doesn't make either of us homers, idk why you're resorting to that. There's a difference between biases and being a downright homer, but that's another topic. Touching on the 03 Spurs, no, getting contributions does not ultimately equate to having a second AS. Doesn't seem like you were merely elaborating, you're basically saying why that "no second-AS" statement doesn't matter (without explicitly saying it). Personally, I don't buy it, but whatever. I can understand a "level of competition" debate if Shaq had overcome said competition in the 90's, but he didn't. Seems moot to me, but whatever... Either way, to be clear, I'm saying your stance seems fake because it's obvious that you think Duncan went up against worse competition on average, barely had a better cast (if at all), got lucky breaks, etc, etc, but you'll preface all that with "Duncan/Spurs are great...". IE. subtle back-handed detractions following complimenting comments. Just say what you want to say, you'd be a better poster IMO. Bring up whatever you want to counter whatever you want (I'm not trying to tell you how to debate), it's ultimately the answers that are telling. "I have Shaq higher because I simply believe he was the better/more dominant player in their primes" is probably the most 'real' comment you've made since I entered this thread. That direct comment I'd genuinely like to see you elaborate on (I respect your opinions on the game), comparing competition, lucky breaks, team-make up seems like indirect ways of expressing what's really worth expressing. I understand you're just responding, but does come off as excuses IMO.

[Big#50]

:bowdown:

Would anyone really draft Duncan over Shaq?
Let me see. Knowing what we know now.
They both won four rings.
Tim has one more regular season MVP. Is a much better defender. Not close to be honest. Tim is a better leader. More clutch. It Isnt close. Tim always played hard. Tim didn't cry or cause problems. Tim is the better teammate and brought out the best In the rest of the team. Tim is an excellent role model.
You're right. No GM would take Tim over Shaq.
You guys get blinded by Shaq's offensive dominance. The guy only won three rings as the main player. He won one as the sidekick. This guy didn't win ten titles in a row. That's how everyone makes it seem. Duncan won four rings as the man. And might even win another as the team's best player. You're right, a GM would never draft Tim over Shaq.

[SCdac]

as for the post, some people already put Duncan ahead, but surely another ring in current role would put him ahead of Shaq. Championships spanning from 1999 to 2012. How many modern players have been that successful for so long?

[D.J.]

First off, ShaqAttack is one of the most knowledgable and unbiased posters here. With that being said...


Even if Duncan wins #5, how can you rank him above Shaq? That would only give him 1 more title. Not only that, but can you seriously claim Duncan at his peak(2003) was better than Shaq at his peak(2000)? Can you seriously claim that Duncan in his prime(2002-2006) was better than Shaq in his prime(1999-2002)? Both answers are obviously no. Even with #5, Duncan is not above Shaq. I still wouldn't rank him above Olajuwon.

[Odinn]

First off, ShaqAttack is one of the most knowledgable and unbiased posters here. With that being said...


Even if Duncan wins #5, how can you rank him above Shaq? That would only give him 1 more title. Not only that, but can you seriously claim Duncan at his peak(2003) was better than Shaq at his peak(2000)? Can you seriously claim that Duncan in his prime(2002-2006) was better than Shaq in his prime(1999-2002)? Both answers are obviously no. Even with #5, Duncan is not above Shaq. I still wouldn't rank him above Olajuwon.
I think it's more debatable than saying just no.


Shaquille O'Neal; 2000-02
RS: 28.6ppg / 12.4rpg / 3.5apg / 0.6spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.575fg% / 0.529ft% / 0.580ts%
PO: 29.9ppg / 14.5rpg / 3.0apg / 0.5spg / 2.4bpg / 3.0tpg / 0.552fg% / 0.533ft% / 0.562ts%

Tim Duncan; 2001-03
RS: 23.6ppg / 12.6rpg / 3.5apg / 0.8spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.507fg% / 0.711ft% / 0.559ts%
PO: 25.2ppg / 14.9rpg / 4.8apg / 0.8spg / 3.3bpg / 3.5tpg / 0.501fg% / 0.699ft% / 0.558ts%

Rebounding almost equal. If we put some weight to rebound rate, Duncan was slightly better at rebounding. While Duncan was the better passer and defender (rim protector), Shaq was the better scorer and was more efficient. IMO, peak Shaq > peak Duncan but that's mainly "goat level offense + elite defense > elite level offense + goat level defense". I think difference between peak Shaq and peak Duncan is much more smaller than general consensus.

[D.J.]

I think it's more debatable than saying just no.


Shaquille O'Neal; 2000-02
RS: 28.6ppg / 12.4rpg / 3.5apg / 0.6spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.575fg% / 0.529ft% / 0.580ts%
PO: 29.9ppg / 14.5rpg / 3.0apg / 0.5spg / 2.4bpg / 3.0tpg / 0.552fg% / 0.533ft% / 0.562ts%

Tim Duncan; 2001-03
RS: 23.6ppg / 12.6rpg / 3.5apg / 0.8spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.507fg% / 0.711ft% / 0.559ts%
PO: 25.2ppg / 14.9rpg / 4.8apg / 0.8spg / 3.3bpg / 3.5tpg / 0.501fg% / 0.699ft% / 0.558ts%

Rebounding almost equal. If we put some weight to rebound rate, Duncan was slightly better at rebounding. While Duncan was the better passer and defender (rim protector), Shaq was the better scorer and was more efficient. IMO, peak Shaq > peak Duncan but that's mainly "goat level offense + elite defense > elite level offense + goat level defense". I think difference between peak Shaq and peak Duncan is much more smaller than general consensus.


Duncan didn't command the double and sometimes triple team coverage Shaq commanded. Duncan didn't have the presence that struck fear into opposing slashers that Shaq had. Peak Shaq is considered by many to be the most dominant and feared big man after Wilt. As great as Duncan was, he just wasn't that dominant or intimidating.

[Odinn]

Duncan didn't command the double and sometimes triple team coverage Shaq commanded.
Command? Duncan is better at making a diagonal pass with a considerable margin. But yes, Duncan didn't draw that much attention.


Duncan didn't have the presence that struck fear into opposing slashers that Shaq had.
That's mainly coz of Shaq's huge body. Big Ben didn't have the presence that Shaq had but that's not a logical thing to say.


Peak Shaq is considered by many to be the most dominant and feared big man after Wilt.
That's mainly because Shaq's physical advantage. And did I say peak Duncan > peak Shaq? I said, "I think difference between peak Shaq and peak Duncan is much more smaller than general consensus"


As great as Duncan was, he just wasn't that dominant or intimidating.
So wasn't Bird which one is in the goat peak debate.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Oh calm down shaqattack :rolleyes: ... If anybody can't take criticism, well, it's not me, apparently... I realize you were talking to Big#50 initially, but him noticing all the subtle excuses you make for the Spurs and/or Duncan being highly successful is interesting, and I agree with him in that it's basically bogus. I guess to you that makes me, and him, a "complete Spurs homer". Typical. I would say you're a Shaq homer but that's common knowledge, not exactly saying anything new. Point is, just because we disagree on something doesn't make either of us homers, idk why you're resorting to that. There's a difference between biases and being a downright homer, but that's another topic. Touching on the 03 Spurs, no, getting contributions does not ultimately equate to having a second AS. Doesn't seem like you were merely elaborating, you're basically saying why that "no second-AS" statement doesn't matter (without explicitly saying it). Personally, I don't buy it, but whatever. I can understand a "level of competition" debate if Shaq had overcome said competition in the 90's, but he didn't. Seems moot to me, but whatever... Either way, to be clear, I'm saying your stance seems fake because it's obvious that you think Duncan went up against worse competition on average, barely had a better cast (if at all), got lucky breaks, etc, etc, but you'll preface all that with "Duncan/Spurs are great...". IE. subtle back-handed detractions following complimenting comments. Just say what you want to say, you'd be a better poster IMO. Bring up whatever you want to counter whatever you want (I'm not trying to tell you how to debate), it's ultimately the answers that are telling. "I have Shaq higher because I simply believe he was the better/more dominant player in their primes" is probably the most 'real' comment you've made since I entered this thread. That direct comment I'd genuinely like to see you elaborate on (I respect your opinions on the game), comparing competition, lucky breaks, team-make up seems like indirect ways of expressing what's really worth expressing. I understand you're just responding, but does come off as excuses IMO.

You're mentioning Big#50 "noticing my subtle excuses for the Spurs/Duncan's success" yet in your typical one-sided way fail to go back and check a simple fact that he brought up help(in his half-assed evaluation of it) before I ever mentioned competition. That was in direct response to him, I didn't bring it up first, I knew it, and just checked the thread to make sure I didn't bring it up first.

These points aren't to discredit Duncan/the Spurs, they're in response to the statements of how "lucky" Shaq was and how much more Duncan supposedly had to do and overcome.

All I'm doing is acknowledging I can understand a point of view other than my own. I don't care if not doing that would make me a better poster to you, or would make me seem more "real" to you. I find that opinion confusing to say the least, and don't understand it in the least.

What I find insulting is you and Big#50 acting like I'm a Spurs hater/Duncan hater. It's flat out ridiculous to me, and I know it's far from the truth. I consider myself a Duncan fan(yes I'm a bigger Shaq fan, this statement is not meant to dispute that).

To me, level of competition doesn't have to take place in a separate era. I find it pretty obvious comparing the Lakers 3peat competition to the Spurs, '99, '03 and '07, '99 to a lesser extent than the other 2. If you disagree, that's cool, I won't say I see your argument on this one, because I don't, but I can still live with someone disagreeing.

And yes, I disagree with you on winning without a second all-star, it's worth mentioning, but not without details. And honestly, I'm tired of what I view to be revisionist history about the '03 Spurs. They were not considered as likely to win as the Lakers/Kings, but were not considered anything less than one of the top 3-4 teams and a contender in the West at the time. Not a rebuilding team, and not some massive underdog or that was viewed to be a 1 man team to the extent of Lebron's Cavs. And considering the Kings lost C-Webb and Dallas lost Dirk, if you said that at the beginning of the season, there's no doubt they'd be considered one of the top 2 teams most likely to win(many considered them better than Dallas regardless).

Again, I've seen you go into details about the '11 Mavs, even though they fall into the same category. To me, that's just being a hypocrite.

I'm not calling you homers because we disagree, it's your reactions and statements that I can't give the Spurs/Duncan credit. I interpreted it as you calling me biased before I ever called you or him biased. And I'm not going to try to convince either of you I'm unbiased in this argument. I don't believe my opinion was formed because of any bias, but I realize that would be a losing battle considering the username I chose, people will make up their minds on that if they want.

[D.J.]

Command? Duncan is better at making a diagonal pass with a considerable margin. But yes, Duncan didn't draw that much attention.


Umm, ok. And Duncan didn't draw that much attention. Certainly nothing like Shaq.



That's mainly coz of Shaq's huge body. Big Ben didn't have the presence that Shaq had but that's not a logical thing to say.


It's because of Shaq's ability to block shots and also put you on your ass. And you're really underestimating Wallace's presence. Guys weren't so quick to drive either with him under the hoop ready to send a floater 5 rows up.



That's mainly because Shaq's physical advantage. And did I say peak Duncan > peak Shaq? I said, "I think difference between peak Shaq and peak Duncan is much more smaller than general consensus"


The difference isn't smaller than most think. Peak Duncan and peak Shaq isn't close...at...all.



So wasn't Bird which one is in the goat peak debate.


You obviously didn't see Bird play. Bird had the ability to drain 3s even with 2 guys in his face, had the court vision of an elite PG, could pass like one, knew where everyone was at all times, knew had to maneuver his way to grab rebounds, and was arguably the clutchest player of all-time.

[Deuce Bigalow]

No. Duncan will always be the 3rd best player of this era.
A 3rd option ring is not going change that.

[Big#50]

You're mentioning Big#50 "noticing my subtle excuses for the Spurs/Duncan's success" yet in your typical one-sided way fail to go back and check a simple fact that he brought up help(in his half-assed evaluation of it) before I ever mentioned competition. That was in direct response to him, I didn't bring it up first, I knew it, and just checked the thread to make sure I didn't bring it up first.

These points aren't to discredit Duncan/the Spurs, they're in response to the statements of how "lucky" Shaq was and how much more Duncan supposedly had to do and overcome.

All I'm doing is acknowledging I can understand a point of view other than my own. I don't care if not doing that would make me a better poster to you, or would make me seem more "real" to you. I find that opinion confusing to say the least, and don't understand it in the least.

What I find insulting is you and Big#50 acting like I'm a Spurs hater/Duncan hater. It's flat out ridiculous to me, and I know it's far from the truth. I consider myself a Duncan fan(yes I'm a bigger Shaq fan, this statement is not meant to dispute that).

To me, level of competition doesn't have to take place in a separate era. I find it pretty obvious comparing the Lakers 3peat competition to the Spurs, '99, '03 and '07, '99 to a lesser extent than the other 2. If you disagree, that's cool, I won't say I see your argument on this one, because I don't, but I can still live with someone disagreeing.

And yes, I disagree with you on winning without a second all-star, it's worth mentioning, but not without details. And honestly, I'm tired of what I view to be revisionist history about the '03 Spurs. They were not considered as likely to win as the Lakers/Kings, but were not considered anything less than one of the top 3-4 teams and a contender in the West at the time. Not a rebuilding team, and not some massive underdog or that was viewed to be a 1 man team to the extent of Lebron's Cavs. And considering the Kings lost C-Webb and Dallas lost Dirk, if you said that at the beginning of the season, there's no doubt they'd be considered one of the top 2 teams most likely to win(many considered them better than Dallas regardless).

Again, I've seen you go into details about the '11 Mavs, even though they fall into the same category. To me, that's just being a hypocrite.

I'm not calling you homers because we disagree, it's your reactions and statements that I can't give the Spurs/Duncan credit. I interpreted it as you calling me biased before I ever called you or him biased. And I'm not going to try to convince either of you I'm unbiased in this argument. I don't believe my opinion was formed because of any bias, but I realize that would be a losing battle considering the username I chose, people will make up their minds on that if they want.
I never called you a Duncan hater. I am a huge Shaq fan. I just think it's crazy that people act like Shaq was this monster that won ten straight titles. I don't have a problem with Shaq being ranked higher. But I do have a problem when people say it isn't close. A lot of people have Tim ranked higher. I know a lot of people overrate Shaq just to bring Kobe down. Not saying you're one of them.

[Odinn]

Umm, ok. And Duncan didn't draw that much attention. Certainly nothing like Shaq.
The only thing we agree.


It's because of Shaq's ability to block shots and also put you on your ass. And you're really underestimating Wallace's presence. Guys weren't so quick to drive either with him under the hoop ready to send a floater 5 rows up.
If I'm underestimating Wallace, then you're underestimating Duncan's defensive presence in the paint and low-block.


The difference isn't smaller than most think. Peak Duncan and peak Shaq isn't close...at...all.
Oh, really?..:facepalm


You obviously didn't see Bird play. Bird had the ability to drain 3s even with 2 guys in his face, had the court vision of an elite PG, could pass like one, knew where everyone was at all times, knew had to maneuver his way to grab rebounds, and was arguably the clutchest player of all-time.
I saw Bird play. Your previous post was almost entirely based on Shaq's physical advantage. Bird wasn't a physical monster yet here are the praises.

Also would you like to take a look what happened in Game 7 of 2005 NBA Finals? 2005 Pistons was one of the top 5 defensive teams in the 00s and Duncan draw the entire team's attention. You remember Bird's games because he was one of the saviors of NBA and you do not remember Duncan's one because his under the radar style. You're underrating and underestimating Duncan.

[Big#50]

No. Duncan will always be the 3rd best player of this era.
A 3rd option ring is not going change that.
Someone please pay attention to the Kobestan.

[Odinn]

No. Duncan will always be the 3rd best player of this era.
A 3rd option ring is not going change that.
You clearly do not watch Spurs games. Why did you feel you had to post that shit?..:facepalm

[TMT]

No. Duncan will always be the 3rd best player of this era.
A 3rd option ring is not going change that.

Another Lakers fan who doesn't watch games but likes to make inaccurate statements. Duncan is averaging 17.6 ppg and 9 rpg shooting 54% in these playoffs. Parker is only averaging a point and a half more than him. Ginobili is the next leading scorer at 11 a game. That doesn't sound like a third option to me.

[Deuce Bigalow]

People think he's the best player on the Spurs right now? :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Another Lakers fan who doesn't watch games but likes to make inaccurate statements. Duncan is averaging 17.6 ppg and 9 rpg shooting 54% in these playoffs. Parker is only averaging a point and a half more than him. Ginobili is the next leading scorer at 11 a game. That doesn't sound like a third option to me.
Parker 7.1 APG

[SCdac]

Again, I've seen you go into details about the '11 Mavs, even though they fall into the same category. To me, that's just being a hypocrite.

I read your whole post, I did. but I've seen you mention this a couple of times among other things so I'll respond. I think you're confused on what I have said in the past about this. To me, the Mavs 11 and Spurs 2003 were not worlds apart in terms of strength. I'd take the more defense-oriented Spurs personally, they beat the duo of Shaq/Kobe, but I can understand taking either team. It's the individual runs of Duncan and Dirk that I feel are not as similar to each other. Duncan was the best offensive and defensive player on his team (Dirk wasn't), was the best playmaker on his team (Dirk wasn't), was the best shot blocker and rebounder on his team (Dirk wasn't), and he played more minutes per game in every series. Duncan played close to 48 minutes in some games, while Dirk didn't. Duncan played better in the Finals too. Either way, these two championship teams had different kinds of help, personally I think Dirk had more help -- I think the Mavs without Dirk would beat the Spurs without Duncan more often than not. Which is why I view Duncan's run differently than Dirks, despite neither team having a second All Star. But no, I don't think these casts on either team basically amounted to another all-star. They both had to step up in ways that the roster demanded (in order to succeed). For Duncan, that was more.

[TMT]

People think he's the best player on the Spurs right now? :oldlol:

You just made yourself look like a moron. Go ahead and try to laugh it off but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously you haven't watched any of the current best team in the league's games.

Everyone who watches the Spurs knows Duncan's performance is just as important as Parker's. We've also gone 8-0 with a less than average Ginobili this postseason. But sure Duncan is a third option. :rolleyes:


Parker 7.1 APG

Yeah, elite point guards distribute the ball at a high rate. Doesn't make Duncan's scoring contribution to this team any less important. What are you getting at? :confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

You just made yourself look like a moron. Go ahead and try to laugh it off but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously you haven't watched any of the current best team in the league's games.

Everyone who watches the Spurs knows Duncan's performance is just as important as Parker's. We've also gone 8-0 with a less than average Ginobili this postseason. But sure Duncan is a third option. :rolleyes:



Yeah, elite point guards distribute the ball at a high rate. Doesn't make Duncan's scoring contribution to this team any less important. What are you getting at? :confusedshrug:
Duncan gets easy baskets becasue of how good Parker and Manu are at passing, and the rest of the deep team.

[TMT]

Duncan gets easy baskets becasue of how good Parker and Manu are at passing, and the rest of the deep team.

Duncan still has one of the best back to the basket games in the league. His game isn't purely off assists from Manu and Tony, that comment is absurd. The team being deepest in the league is no reason to discredit Duncan's game. :facepalm He is slightly behind Tony Parker leading the team in scoring and leads the team in a huge margin in rebounding and blocks. You have just proved yourself to be a hater and an unknowledgeable basketball fan. Good job.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Duncan still has one of the best back to the basket games in the league. His game isn't purely off assists from Manu and Tony, that comment is absurd. The team being deepest in the league is no reason to discredit Duncan's game. :facepalm You have just proved yourself to be a hater and an unknowledgeable basketball fan. Good job.
No it's just people overrating him is all. As if he's the best player.

[TMT]

No it's just people overrating him is all.

:oldlol: If anything his play has been vastly underrated. Because he gets no time in the limelight fools like you assume he's a bum. He's looking the best he has looked in the last 3 or 4 years. Bottom line, the Spurs wouldn't be where they are now (SWEEPING the first two rounds) without Duncan's stellar play. Some kids on this forum are ridiculous, go watch a damn basketball game instead of catching the highlights on sportscenter. :facepalm

[ILLsmak]

I think it's more debatable than saying just no.


Shaquille O'Neal; 2000-02
RS: 28.6ppg / 12.4rpg / 3.5apg / 0.6spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.575fg% / 0.529ft% / 0.580ts%
PO: 29.9ppg / 14.5rpg / 3.0apg / 0.5spg / 2.4bpg / 3.0tpg / 0.552fg% / 0.533ft% / 0.562ts%

Tim Duncan; 2001-03
RS: 23.6ppg / 12.6rpg / 3.5apg / 0.8spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.507fg% / 0.711ft% / 0.559ts%
PO: 25.2ppg / 14.9rpg / 4.8apg / 0.8spg / 3.3bpg / 3.5tpg / 0.501fg% / 0.699ft% / 0.558ts%

Rebounding almost equal. If we put some weight to rebound rate, Duncan was slightly better at rebounding. While Duncan was the better passer and defender (rim protector), Shaq was the better scorer and was more efficient. IMO, peak Shaq > peak Duncan but that's mainly "goat level offense + elite defense > elite level offense + goat level defense". I think difference between peak Shaq and peak Duncan is much more smaller than general consensus.

Shaq could bang with any C in NBA history and psychologically dominate him. I think that's why people are so into rating Shaq highly.

There is a downside because if the refs wanted to call it tight, Shaq could be in foul trouble.

I also believe Shaq is a much better rim protector than Duncan. Although TD might be better at helping on screens or moving from one side of the paint to the other.

When Shaq is in the paint anywhere near where the ball is, a person's shooting percentage drops.

Imagine what Amare did to the Spurs. Shaq would have never got that. He'd kill Amare before he'd put 40 on him.

-Smak

[Big#50]

Why are you guys getting trolled by a Kobestan that knows nothing about basketball?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I never called you a Duncan hater. I am a huge Shaq fan. I just think it's crazy that people act like Shaq was this monster that won ten straight titles. I don't have a problem with Shaq being ranked higher. But I do have a problem when people say it isn't close. A lot of people have Tim ranked higher. I know a lot of people overrate Shaq just to bring Kobe down. Not saying you're one of them.

I wouldn't call you a Shaq hater, I've seen you're top 10 list and seen how high you have Shaq, it's higher than the vast majority of people. Though I did interpret this statement as you saying it wasn't debatable.


Duncan has to be ahead of Shaq


I read your whole post, I did. but I've seen you mention this a couple of times among other things so I'll respond. I think you're confused on what I have said in the past about this. To me, the Mavs 11 and Spurs 2003 were not worlds apart in terms of strength. I'd take the more defense-oriented Spurs personally, they beat the duo of Shaq/Kobe, but I can understand taking either team. It's the individual runs of Duncan and Dirk that I feel are not as similar to each other. Duncan was the best offensive and defensive player on his team (Dirk wasn't), was the best playmaker on his team (Dirk wasn't), was the best shot blocker and rebounder on his team (Dirk wasn't), and he played more minutes per game in every series. Duncan played close to 48 minutes in some games, while Dirk didn't. Duncan played better in the Finals too. Either way, these two championship teams had different kinds of help, personally I think Dirk had more help -- I think the Mavs without Dirk would beat the Spurs without Duncan more often than not. Which is why I view Duncan's run differently than Dirks, despite neither team having a second All Star. But no, I don't think these casts on either team basically amounted to another all-star. They both had to step up in ways that the roster demanded (in order to succeed). For Duncan, that was more.

I agree to some extent, and by that I mean that I agree Duncan's run was clearly ahead of Dirk's in quality of play. I gave the Mavs less of a chance of winning after Butler went down than I did the '03 Spurs though for whatever that's worth. So when something like that happens(and as highly as I think of Dirk and his '11 run, I don't view his performance as better than a number of past players) I feel like I have to take into account the other players stepping up to make that title possible, instead of just the superstar.

But I also don't think Duncan's level of play in '03 was higher than Shaq's in '00 and '01, in fact, I think Shaq was better(though I consider the gap between Shaq and Duncan in those years to be considerably smaller than Duncan and Dirk), he obviously had more help in '01, though it's not something I take away from him because unlike Duncan in '03, or Shaq himself in '00/'02, with that extra help, he cruised through the competition, while the other examples were in closer, more competitive series.

But the points I'm trying to make, or better yet, my point of view is simply that all of these players played at a high level, and got the necessary level of help because as well as someone plays, they need good help to win a title. Otherwise it won't matter, for example, I consider Lebron's '09 run to be at least in the discussion from an individual standpoint, and certainly Kareem's '77 run, but neither got the help that these other players did, whether it's Shaq, Duncan or Dirk. And same thing with Shaq in '98 compared to his '02 self. He was playing better in '98, imo, and had a more talented cast back then, but his teammates played much worse than in '02.

But because of examples like the '11 Mavs, or the '03 Spurs, I try to look more at who stepped up outside of just the superstar to make the team better than on paper, and I saw a lot of contributions from different guys, to me it's not all that different where it comes from if you get the help, though you'd rather know you have a guy or 2 you can count on, I'm also not convinced it's ideal to rely so much on the same 1 or 2 players.

I'll use the '01 Lakers too as examples of players stepping up. I don't consider Fisher to be that good of a player, but the way he was actually playing in those playoffs provided a good amount of help because he was on fire shooting the ball. And even though '01 Horace Grant was not a standout PF to me, I can't overlook the impact he ended up making in that run with his excellent post defense on Sheed, Webber and Duncan.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Why are you guys getting trolled by a Kobestan that knows nothing about basketball?
coming from you :oldlol:

Ranks Duncan #1 all-time LMAO

[bukowski81]

Man, i said it in another thread, is incredible how current Duncan is underrated. He is the best big left in the playoffs IMO

[TheBigVeto]

Anybody who ranks Kobe or Shaq higher than Duncan is either crazy, stupid or a combination of those two (in other words Fakerfans).

[Big#50]

coming from you :oldlol:

Ranks Duncan #1 all-time LMAO
Go slob on a Dick.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Go slob on a Dick.
did I get you mad?

[Big#50]

did I get you mad?
Slob on a ****.

[StateOfMind12]

I don't know why people believe it is so absurd to rank Duncan above Shaq.

Shaq clearly had a better peak than Duncan but Duncan has many other advantages over Shaq. These advantages include longevity, consistency, intangibles, less of a trouble maker, etc.

Duncan does have the longevity advantage even if Shaq put up better numbers than Duncan did for a longer period of time because how many times did Shaq play less than 70 games a season from his Magic days to his Heat days? Many times, and no I'm not counting the lockout season in '99.

Duncan was unbelievably consistent in his career and he constantly put up 20/10 from his rookie season to the end of his prime which was in like 2008 and he played 70+ games or close to it in all of the season.

Shaq coasted way too much in the regular season and was out of shape many times throughout his career and even in his prime. This is a black mark in Shaq's greatness and this gives Duncan an advantage over him.

You also have to factor in the intangibles. Duncan doesn't have as much of an ego as Shaq does. Duncan in my opinion would have played much better with Kobe than Shaq did mainly because Duncan doesn't have as much of an ego and he wouldn't have as much of a problem deferring to Kobe and letting him get his shots.

Duncan remained loyal and stayed with one franchise his entire career whereas Shaq caused severe damage to every team he played with when he was on his way out or when he left.

If you consider things outside of just pure basketball ability and pure production then I think you would probably already say Duncan was greater and better than Shaq and should be ranked ahead of him.

[LockoutOver11]

Quite a few already have him above Shaq. For me, it doesn't alter that much, it's more icing on the cake for Duncan at this stage of his career. Considering how they were regarded when they were in or near their primes at the same time, it's a stretch to me to say it's not or won't be debatable either way. Duncan was the considered the best player by most in the '99 lockout year after he won the title, then Shaq was considered the best with how he played in '00 and the the 3peat. He was considered the best until Duncan won in '03 and beat the Lakers. Though '03 was a transition year because many were arguing if it was Tim, Shaq, Kobe, T-Mac or KG. During the 3peat, Shaq was widely considered better, but Duncan got underrated to some degree during that time. Kobe seemed to be considered the 2nd best by most in '01 and '02, and Duncan actually finished tied for 3rd with Kobe when NBA "insiders" were polled in April 2002 for best player behind Shaq and actually T-Mac.

Another ring might get Duncan a bit more respect, though. It seems that in a lot of media/analyst lists, Duncan has been one of the 2 guys who commonly gets shortchanged out of the top 2 in favor of Oscar or West, along with Hakeem, unfortunately. Ring number 5 might change that, though for me, what Duncan did in the early/mid 00's speaks for itself and that's what I'll always judge Duncan by.

And no, it's not crazy to currently rank Duncan over Kobe. I have Duncan a bit ahead of Kobe right now.

I see this more with the younger guys,, even myself appreciating more what duncan can accomplish in a team atmosphere as an all around player and a leader.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't know why people believe it is so absurd to rank Duncan above Shaq.

Shaq clearly had a better peak than Duncan but Duncan has many other advantages over Shaq. These advantages include longevity, consistency, intangibles, less of a trouble maker, etc.

Duncan does have the longevity advantage even if Shaq put up better numbers than Duncan did for a longer period of time because how many times did Shaq play less than 70 games a season from his Magic days to his Heat days? Many times, and no I'm not counting the lockout season in '99.

Duncan was unbelievably consistent in his career and he constantly put up 20/10 from his rookie season to the end of his prime which was in like 2008 and he played 70+ games or close to it in all of the season.

Shaq coasted way too much in the regular season and was out of shape many times throughout his career and even in his prime. This is a black mark in Shaq's greatness and this gives Duncan an advantage over him.

You also have to factor in the intangibles. Duncan doesn't have as much of an ego as Shaq does. Duncan in my opinion would have played much better with Kobe than Shaq did mainly because Duncan doesn't have as much of an ego and he wouldn't have as much of a problem deferring to Kobe and letting him get his shots.

Duncan remained loyal and stayed with one franchise his entire career whereas Shaq caused severe damage to every team he played with when he was on his way out or when he left.

If you consider things outside of just pure basketball ability and pure production then I think you would probably already say Duncan was greater and better than Shaq and should be ranked ahead of him.

I was going to argue the longevity advantage until you explained Duncan playing more games as a reason, I personally disagree with that, I think that's durability which is a separate issue to me(though one that can be factored in when ranking players), but you gave your reasoning so I won't argue. He did miss 20+ games a few too many times in or near his prime such as '96-'98, and even past his prime in '06, though it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome of the season. Perhaps in '97 because LA had the best record in the West before he went down. Though he was always healthy by playoff time with the exception of '05, and '02 to some extent, though '02 obviously didn't matter.

The only issues I have with this post with this post are Duncan being more willing to defer to Kobe and Shaq causing severe damage to teams.

As far as deferring, Shaq was never a guy who forced shots selfishly, he called for the ball, but that was because for a good amount of time, he was the best offensive player in the league and the 1st option on his team. He always made the passes when he was doubled and played unselfishly when the ball went through him. I'm not sure what the point on Shaq not be willing to defer to Kobe really means. Phil had him as the 1st option too so he wasn't asked to defer. Kobe was actually specifically asked to defer to Shaq by Phil in the way Magic had with Kareem until Shaq started aging.

Plus, it would be more reasonable for Duncan to defer considering he wasn't near the scorer Shaq was. Though if Duncan was supposed to be the first option, I'm not sure he would be content with how Kobe was behaving early in the '00-'01 season for example.

And the serve damage part....how did he cause severe damage to Orlando(who he left in free agency), Miami(who needed to rebuild), Phoenix and Cleveland(who he also left in free agency)? With LA, he demanded a trade so I can see the criticism there, though the organization looked like a bit of a mess in the summer of '04 with Phil stepping down as well.

After leaving Orlando, he made some comments about Nick Anderson choking and the players not respecting Brian Hill, iirc, and he made some comments about "not having to play with guys like Chris Quinn and Ricky Davis" after leaving Miami, but if that's what you're referring to then I'd call "severe damage" an exaggeration.

[StateOfMind12]

I was going to argue the longevity advantage until you explained Duncan playing more games as a reason, I personally disagree with that, I think that's durability which is a separate issue to me(though one that can be factored in when ranking players), but you gave your reasoning so I won't argue. He did miss 20+ games a few too many times in or near his prime such as '96-'98, and even past his prime in '06, though it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome of the season. Perhaps in '97 because LA had the best record in the West before he went down. Though he was always healthy by playoff time with the exception of '05, and '02 to some extent, though '02 obviously didn't matter.
Shaq was someone that saved himself for the playoffs similar to Wade and Barkley in my opinion. I think the Shaq and Duncan comparison is somewhat similar to the LeBron and Wade comparison with Duncan being Lebron and Shaq being Wade.

Shaq was an incredibly potent player, arguably the most potent player ever. The problem was that he wasn't that consistent with it at least compared to someone like Duncan.

As I had already stated in the other post, Shaq was out of shape many times in the season and there were plenty of regular season games where he was out of shape and just working his way to being back in shape. That isn't the case with Duncan, Duncan is always in tip-top shape and ready to play basketball as soon as the regular season starts and as soon as the playoffs are around the corner.

LeBron and Wade are similar because Wade was someone that would coast a lot and even be out of shape in the regular season and work his way during the regular season to being back in shape. LeBron on the other hand is always ready to play and he shows up and plays hard night in and night out and gives his 100% for every game regardless of whether or not it is the regular season or the playoffs.

I think Wade like Shaq is very potent as well and if you watched the Pacers-Heat series, you would have saw how dominant Wade was in the last 3 games. Wade in my opinion is not just the best SG in the league when he plays like that and he is not just the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best player in the league when he plays like that, but he is the best player in the league and that includes his teammate LeBron James when he plays like that.

My point is that when Shaq and Wade are at the top of their game, they are better than their counterparts Duncan and LeBron. However, I don't necessarily think that makes them better because I also feel like Duncan and LeBron are more consistent than Shaq and Wade are and they play at the top of the game more often than those two do.

Shaq and Wade obviously have their differences though and so do Duncan and LeBron but I was just making an analogy about how that comparison is similar to this one.



As far as deferring, Shaq was never a guy who forced shots selfishly, he called for the ball, but that was because for a good amount of time, he was the best offensive player in the league and the 1st option on his team. He always made the passes when he was doubled and played unselfishly when the ball went through him. I'm not sure what the point on Shaq not be willing to defer to Kobe really means. Phil had him as the 1st option too so he wasn't asked to defer. Kobe was actually specifically asked to defer to Shaq by Phil in the way Magic had with Kareem until Shaq started aging.

Plus, it would be more reasonable for Duncan to defer considering he wasn't near the scorer Shaq was. Though if Duncan was supposed to be the first option, I'm not sure he would be content with how Kobe was behaving early in the '00-'01 season for example.
I think Duncan would have accepted Kobe's ego more but you are right that Duncan would have probably also deferred to Kobe more because Duncan wasn't as great of a scorer as Shaq was either. I think Duncan's ego is the biggest reason why he would defer though. I think Duncan could honestly work with any player in NBA history though although sometimes I wonder how much of it is actually Pop's influence instead.


And the serve damage part....how did he cause severe damage to Orlando(who he left in free agency), Miami(who needed to rebuild), Phoenix and Cleveland(who he also left in free agency)? With LA, he demanded a trade so I can see the criticism there, though the organization looked like a bit of a mess in the summer of '04 with Phil stepping down as well.

After leaving Orlando, he made some comments about Nick Anderson choking and the players not respecting Brian Hill, iirc, and he made some comments about "not having to play with guys like Chris Quinn and Ricky Davis" after leaving Miami, but if that's what you're referring to then I'd call "severe damage" an exaggeration.
Miami and LA were the ones I was thinking of. I don't think Miami needed to rebuild either. They just had an awful season together with Wade still being hurt, all the role players being older and terrible, etc. Shaq was just relatively immature on his way out in Miami and caused problems from what I could recall. He kind of just added fuel to the fire. That team was already a disaster and a disaster in the making and removing Shaq was a good and right move for Miami.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was someone that saved himself for the playoffs similar to Wade and Barkley in my opinion. I think the Shaq and Duncan comparison is somewhat similar to the LeBron and Wade comparison with Duncan being Lebron and Shaq being Wade

I agree that he often coasted or the term became "played himself into shape" for the playoffs. Though I don't see the Shaq/Duncan comparison as similar to Wade/Lebron. Lebron is the more dominant of the 2 between him and Wade, but has had problems choking, which wasn't really a problem for either Shaq or Duncan.

In general, a lot of players seem to save themselves for the playoffs when they reach a certain point in their careers. Duncan is actually an example himself, particularly from '05 to present, and Pop in general coaches his teams in a way that saves them for the playoffs by limiting his stars minutes, giving them days off in recent years and conceding losses others don't by pulling his stars earlier.


Shaq was an incredibly potent player, arguably the most potent player ever. The problem was that he wasn't that consistent with it at least compared to someone like Duncan.

Well, he was a consistently productive/dominant player, though his effort wasn't as consistent, particularly defensively, so I could agree that he was an inconsistent defensive player, though one of the most consistent offensive players ever.


As I had already stated in the other post, Shaq was out of shape many times in the season and there were plenty of regular season games where he was out of shape and just working his way to being back in shape. That isn't the case with Duncan, Duncan is always in tip-top shape and ready to play basketball as soon as the regular season starts and as soon as the playoffs are around the corner.

I agree, as I said, Shaq was known for "playing his way into shape" by about midway through his career, certainly by '02, and he seemed to do that to some extent in '01, though in '01 Phil had told him to take it easy in the summer after winning his first title. And in '01, he looked to be similar in weight and athleticism to '00, ended up with similar production(29/13/4/3, 57% vs 30/14/4/3, 57%) and outside of a little slower start was the same player and easily the best player in the league. I believe Shaq had the initial toe surgery in the summer of '01 which prevented him from working out which made him heavier in '02. This is a separate surgery from the one he delayed prior to '02-'03.


LeBron and Wade are similar because Wade was someone that would coast a lot and even be out of shape in the regular season and work his way during the regular season to being back in shape. LeBron on the other hand is always ready to play and he shows up and plays hard night in and night out and gives his 100% for every game regardless of whether or not it is the regular season or the playoffs.

In this sense, I can sort of see the analogy, Wade was out of shape early in '10(though his production also suffered far more than any of Shaq's prime seasons early in that year), though Wade has also given an inconsistent effort defensively at times, like Shaq, 2011 is an example when it was talked about a lot.


I think Wade like Shaq is very potent as well and if you watched the Pacers-Heat series, you would have saw how dominant Wade was in the last 3 games. Wade in my opinion is not just the best SG in the league when he plays like that and he is not just the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best player in the league when he plays like that, but he is the best player in the league and that includes his teammate LeBron James when he plays like that.

I did see the Heat/Pacers series, and I agree that Wade at his best is still probably the best SG, disagree on the best player comment because I don't think it's all effort holding back Wade at this point because he was having his difficulties before that in the playoffs. I think some of it just has to do with a decline which has made him a less consistent player and a less explosive player on most nights without the equal stamina.


My point is that when Shaq and Wade are at the top of their game, they are better than their counterparts Duncan and LeBron. However, I don't necessarily think that makes them better because I also feel like Duncan and LeBron are more consistent than Shaq and Wade are and they play at the top of the game more often than those two do.

Well, as I said, I don't think the analogy fits myself other than the effort thing to some degree, and perhaps conditioning(though it hasn't been a huge problem with Wade, 2010 was really the one year, not including '08 when he got heavier after the injury which many players do).


I think Duncan would have accepted Kobe's ego more but you are right that Duncan would have probably also deferred to Kobe more because Duncan wasn't as great of a scorer as Shaq was either. I think Duncan's ego is the biggest reason why he would defer though. I think Duncan could honestly work with any player in NBA history though although sometimes I wonder how much of it is actually Pop's influence instead.

It's difficult to say, Shaq didn't handle the Kobe feud well in general, both came off as childish over those years at various points. But deferring to Kobe wasn't something I thought Shaq should've done at that time(and Phil obviously didn't either), and I've always agreed with Shaq over why he was upset in '00-'01. Kobe went against the coaches orders probably because he admitted wanting the recognition VC, T-Mac and AI got. He felt slighted that he thought he had to play better than them to get the same recognition and also reportedly wanted the scoring title and MVP that Shaq had gotten in '00. Of course there were the famous quotes from that year like "Turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up" when Phil told him he wanted him to remain the 2nd option, and "the triangle is boring". As a result, the team was underachieving and paling in comparison to the '00 team until Kobe went down with an injury and the team went 11-3 which both Phil and Jerry West thought was the turning point.

I can fully understand Shaq taking exception to that, though he shouldn't have taken as many shots at Kobe as he did in the press, shouldn't have delayed the toe surgery in '02-'03 ect.

But considering I've never heard of a problem with Duncan and anyone else, or a problem with Duncan in general, I tend to agree that more likely than not, he's not going to have a problem with Kobe, or certainly less likely than Shaq. Then again, I can't remember Duncan playing with anyone with a big ego.


Miami and LA were the ones I was thinking of. I don't think Miami needed to rebuild either. They just had an awful season together with Wade still being hurt, all the role players being older and terrible, etc. Shaq was just relatively immature on his way out in Miami and caused problems from what I could recall. He kind of just added fuel to the fire. That team was already a disaster and a disaster in the making and removing Shaq was a good and right move for Miami.

What I read in to the Miami situation was that Shaq had declined and perhaps wasn't up to the task of being the number 2 guy anymore, the season was already lost with Wade far from 100%(and eventually shut down for the season), the team was tanking in hopes of the number 1 pick, which clearly indicates a rebuilding situation, and Shaq at that stage of his career just wanted to win now, like most veterans do, rather than lose 1 chance completely, and then likely wait 2-3 years for their draft pick to develop and add players to replace the old Miami core from '06(a lot of those players were gone by that point anyway).

I do think it would've been cool to see what '09 Wade and Shaq could've done together considering Wade had easily the best year of his career, and Shaq looked far better than he had since '06. Doesn't look like a title contender unless they made a few good offseason moves, but could've maybe made some noise in the East and could've been a fun team to watch.

[StateOfMind12]

I agree that he often coasted or the term became "played himself into shape" for the playoffs. Though I don't see the Shaq/Duncan comparison as similar to Wade/Lebron. Lebron is the more dominant of the 2 between him and Wade, but has had problems choking, which wasn't really a problem for either Shaq or Duncan.
The analogy of the two is simply their consistency and how they approach the game. I do think you can argue that Wade and Shaq approach the game "smart" but at the same time I value consistency and I think Wade and Shaq almost coast a little too much for their own good, Wade especially.


In general, a lot of players seem to save themselves for the playoffs when they reach a certain point in their careers. Duncan is actually an example himself, particularly from '05 to present, and Pop in general coaches his teams in a way that saves them for the playoffs by limiting his stars minutes, giving them days off in recent years and conceding losses others don't by pulling his stars earlier.
I agree, Duncan has never played 34 mpg or more since 2004 in the regular season and people don't realize how much rest is probably extending his career.


I did see the Heat/Pacers series, and I agree that Wade at his best is still probably the best SG, disagree on the best player comment because I don't think it's all effort holding back Wade at this point because he was having his difficulties before that in the playoffs. I think some of it just has to do with a decline which has made him a less consistent player and a less explosive player on most nights without the equal stamina.
I think that Wade is the best player in the league and better than LeBron but only for stretches which can range from 1 game to 1 playoff series. Wade at the top of his game is better than LeBron at the top of his but that doesn't necessarily make him better though because LeBron plays at the top of his game far more often than Wade does.

I don't think if we factor in the whole body of work that Wade is better than LeBron though, and I don't think it is close at all. Wade is just not as consistent than LeBron is which is why I think LeBron is better and not just better but much better.

Wade has shown that he can't really carry a team and play that great with a consistent amount of energy and effort for an entire season though and 2009 is the perfect example of that. Wade was tremendous in the regular season and some argue (mostly Heat fans obviously) that he was the real MVP that season. However, Wade ran out of gas in that post-season and struggled against the Hawks (shot like 44% from the field in that series) and he lost to the Hawks in 7 in the 1st round that season.

That season showed me that Wade can't carry a team on his back for both the regular season and the post-season. He is capable of doing one or the other but not both. This is different from Shaq because Shaq showed that he was capable of dominating and carrying his team for both RS and PS play and same with LeBron and Duncan but my analogy with Wade had nothing to do with this.

[Pointguard]

Shaq had the best scenario a big man could have most of his career: The greatest coach (the only active coach which had a monopoly of rings at that time) , the best wing players (two among the best ever), great defensive wing players, great experienced teams, great organization from top/down, and well experienced vetern role players. And while its not PC to say so, Shaq's teams had an incredible slant on calls - in fact, phenomenal slant in calls. Amazingly, when Shaq didn't have all of those ducks lined up in a row, we don't know if he could lead a team to the chip. In fact, he lost two or three years, in which he had all of this, in a diluted league and managed to not pull it off. One year his team lost really convincingly to a new jack team that got out of the Eastern Conference by injuries to two teams, that had NO allstars!

Shaq had 10 years with some of the best backcourt players in the game. Shaq had 8 years with two guys that could be among the top three shooting guards ever - one as the best finals player ever and the other with one of the best killer instincts ever - both type A type of players that had the biggest will power in the game. Only Kareem was Shaq's match among bigmen to have this type of backcourt greatness for many years. Duncan and Hakeem by contrast never had frontcout players that would be considered great - or even among the top of their positions. Both proved they win it on their legs and there is no need to wonder about it because they actually did it themselves.

Shaq was dominant and great. But he was supposed to win at least three and it took some luck to pull that off. Duncan was the best player for his four rings and was the key guy in all four. He turned a franchise around without the favorable situation Shaq had and even won it all with a young new team when Shaq had all those advantages listed above and with Kobe as one of the best players in the league.

Btw, I have Shaq at 7 Duncan at 6 on my GOAT list. So I have them very close.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq had the best scenario a big man could have most of his career: The greatest coach (the only active coach which had a monopoly of rings at that time) , the best wing players (two among the best ever), great defensive wing players, great experienced teams, great organization from top/down, and well experienced vetern role players. And while its not PC to say so, Shaq's teams had an incredible slant on calls - in fact, phenomenal slant in calls. Amazingly, when Shaq didn't have all of those ducks lined up in a row, we don't know if he could lead a team to the chip. In fact, he lost two or three years, in which he had all of this, in a diluted league and managed to not pull it off. One year his team lost really convincingly to a new jack team that got out of the Eastern Conference by injuries to two teams, that had NO allstars!

Shaq had 10 years with some of the best backcourt players in the game. Shaq had 8 years with two guys that could be among the top three shooting guards ever - one as the best finals player ever and the other with one of the best killer instincts ever - both type A type of players that had the biggest will power in the game. Only Kareem was Shaq's match among bigmen to have this type of backcourt greatness for many years. Duncan and Hakeem by contrast never had frontcout players that would be considered great - or even among the top of their positions. Both proved they win it on their legs and there is no need to wonder about it because they actually did it themselves.

Shaq was dominant and great. But he was supposed to win at least three and it took some luck to pull that off. Duncan was the best player for his four rings and was the key guy in all four. He turned a franchise around without the favorable situation Shaq had and even won it all with a young new team when Shaq had all those advantages listed above and with Kobe as one of the best players in the league.

Btw, I have Shaq at 7 Duncan at 6 on my GOAT list. So I have them very close.

Well, we aren't going to agree at all on the first part, so I'm going to save us both some time and not bother starting a debate on that. :oldlol:

But what I'll add is that Shaq's team wasn't the one "supposed to win" in 2000 when he won his first. Portland was the team everyone was talking about going into that year, and Rick Fox talked about how nice it'd be to surprise everyone the year that they weren't talking about them after the Lakers had been considered the most talented in the past and expected to win, but considered underachievers in the late 90's, while in 2000, they were no longer considered the most talented, but started the 3peat.

And also that it's very difficult to win a title, nobody wins every year, I'd say that 4 is pretty damn good, though he did arguably have the most talented team at times, and funny enough, if it was in years they didn't win. Some considered the '95 Magic the most talented team, though some also considered Seattle and Phoenix to be the most talented, and some would've still called the '96 Magic the most talented(though again Seattle, and perhaps Chicago, though Chicago struck me as a team that more or less won by achieving their max potential, not necessarily have the most talented top 8-9 players). And the 1998 Lakers were certainly the most talented team in the league.

Though the thing that I think has to be taken into consideration is how the teams actually performed in those 3 years when it mattered most, particularly '98, nobody is winning if their cast plays like Shaq's did in the '98 WCF, and beating the '96 Bulls is difficult enough, but simply not happening with Horace Grant basically out for the series(was injured entering the series, iirc, gave them 0 point and 1 rebound in game 1 injured himself further, didn't play in any other games), and both Nick Anderson and Brian Shaq going down with injuries during the series.

[Pointguard]

Well, we aren't going to agree at all on the first part, so I'm going to save us both some time and not bother starting a debate on that. :oldlol:
Please, name me the bigman that had it better than Shaq? Kareem, is a near equal but that's it. The Laker's weren't the best basketball organization from the top to bottom? Shaq didn't have the best guards around (ever) on his teams: And they weren't great defensively? The league wasn't diluted? Shaq got calls that Dawkins never got, that Lonnie Shelton never got, that Gilmore wasn't getting and they all could have had dominant careers if they got those calls? Detroit was lucky that year as they lose to Indiana and the Nets if key players weren't heavily compromised due to health. Were there other dynasty coaches on the level of Phil?

Seriously :confusedshrug: Help me out? Did I go off on a tangent?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Please, name me the bigman that had it better than Shaq? Kareem, is a near equal but that's it. The Laker's weren't the best basketball organization from the top to bottom? Shaq didn't have the best guards around (ever) on his teams: And they weren't great defensively? The league wasn't diluted? Shaq got calls that Dawkins never got, that Lonnie Shelton never got, that Gilmore wasn't getting and they all could have had dominant careers if they got those calls? Detroit was lucky that year as they lose to Indiana and the Nets if key players weren't heavily compromised due to health. Were there other dynasty coaches on the level of Phil?

Seriously :confusedshrug: Help me out? Did I go off on a tangent?

I told you, I'm not even debating that with you, we're not going to agree at all, it's not worth the time, we've literally had discussions that go on 5 or 6 posts back and forth(and this will inevitably go in that direction). And just to add one thing about Kareem, you overlook that Kareem had much of his prime wasted on teams that weren't true contenders, so I wouldn't call him that lucky. His rosters from '75-'79 when he was in his true prime weren't very good, or in some years, had no chance.

Don't get me started on the calls thing, because many tend to only view it from one side, ignoring that many fouls defenders committed on Shaq weren't called either because he didn't react the same way smaller players would, though it's contact all the same, and on the other end players flopped, and some of Shaq's charges looked exaggerated because of his strength. He got away with some too, so I think it evens out. But I do look at Shaq attempting just 10.4 FTA on 21.1 FGA in 2000 and seeing Durant get to the line at a higher rate in 2010 at 10.2 FTA on just 20.3 FGA, think of their playing styles and shake my head.

Of course Darryl Dawkins wasn't going to get the calls Shaq did, Shaq was in the NBA's elite, Dawkins wasn't. The elite players have always gotten the benefit of the doubt more than the guys who were all-stars. And sorry, but comments like Dawkins and Shelton being dominant if they were officiated like Shaq is exactly why I don't see much of a debate to be had here, or one I'm interested in getting into.

I do agree that Shaq was fortunate to have Phil as his coach, I think he got more out of Shaq, and I think that Shaq, Jordan, Pippen and Kobe were all more successful because of their coaches. Though some would also say the same about Magic/Kareem and Riley, as well as Duncan and Popovich. Hell, I think that even a coach like Rudy T got the best out of Hakeem by having the system built around him with the 1 in/4 out spread the floor system. Or a coach like D'Antoni with Nash, his system suited him perfectly and his play also went to another level. Same thing with Malone and Stockton in Jerry Sloan's system(another phenomenal coach, rings or not).

I don't take away from the players for benefiting from a great coach(D'Antoni doesn't belong there, the analogy was just Nash improving in that system).

Just to finish things off, replying to a previous comment, I wouldn't compare Hakeem's situation to Duncan's. Both Shaq and Duncan were fortunate in that their best years were spent almost entirely on title contenders and they had their opportunities to win, while Hakeem wasted almost all of his mid/late 20's on mediocre teams, he's more comparable to Barkley as far as their career situations. Both less fortunate than Shaq and Duncan. And KG was even less fortunate than Hakeem as far as situation during his prime. That's how I separate who the more fortunate players were.

[Da_Realist]

It's assumed that Duncan would co-exist more with young Kobe better than Shaq because he didn't have as big of an ego. I wonder if Tim had enough ego to keep Kobe in check. The way Kobe wanted to play ball would have nullified a lot of what made the Spurs special. Kobe needed to be reigned in a little to win. Would Duncan have done that or just quietly allowed Kobe to run the team into the ground?

LA had some advantages that San Antonio didn't.

1) Phil Jackson. Pop's confrontational style would have brought out the absolute worst in Kobe. PJ would needle him then back off, without challenging Kobe's fragile ego too much. Also, PJ coached Michael Jordan and that meant the world to Kobe.

2) It wasn't just Shaq. The Lakers had guys like Brian Shaw (who played with Kobe's father), Rick Fox and Robert Horry that wasn't afraid to step in and be the bad cop. Did San Antonio have a bad cop beside Pop? I wonder if Duncan or Robinson would have stepped up and really collared Kobe and made him adhere to the system.

3) The system. The triangle rewarded Kobe's creativity and provided him enough structure to not allow it to ruin team chemistry. Pop's system is "run through Tim Duncan". Not sure that Kobe would have happily co-existed in a system where he would have been given the scraps that Duncan left on the table.

Duncan's never played with anyone as headstrong as Kobe.

[PickernRoller]

So much blabbering...

At the end of the day we are all back where we started. Shaq > Ducan, Duncan > Shaq.

Kobe > Ducan and Shaq

2EZ

Next.

[Horatio33]

If I was starting a team today and Shaq and Tim were in the draft and I had the number one pick I'd take Duncan. Shaq was awesome at his best but had a way of throwing teams under the bus.

[Sandjo]

Duncan

Better player? Not in terms of overall impact on a game. Shaq in LA became the most dominant player since MJ, I doubt anyone who's followed their entire careers - including their head-to-head matchups - would dispute that. Duncan was always right behind though.

Better pure basketball skills? Yes

Better team player? Yes

Better longevity? Tough call. Shaq has been successful/dominant long enough not to be thrown under the bus on this one. Duncan plays in a great system, where he's still a force though he's far less dominant. If Duncan gets his 5th title, longevity will lean his way.

Overall rating vs. Shaq? It's a toss - some solid arguments both way.

[Big#50]

Duncan

Better player? Not in terms of overall impact on a game. Shaq in LA became the most dominant player since MJ, I doubt anyone who's followed their entire careers - including their head-to-head matchups - would dispute that. Duncan was always right behind though.

Better pure basketball skills? Yes

Better team player? Yes

Better longevity? Tough call. Shaq has been successful/dominant long enough not to be thrown under the bus on this one. Duncan plays in a great system, where he's still a force though he's far less dominant. If Duncan gets his 5th title, longevity will lean his way.

Overall rating vs. Shaq? It's a toss - some solid arguments both way.
Good shit.

[rmt]

If I was starting a team today and Shaq and Tim were in the draft and I had the number one pick I'd take Duncan. Shaq was awesome at his best but had a way of throwing teams under the bus.

Sure Shaq had his greater (offensive) peak, but pretty much everything else is in Duncan's favor. Who wants headaches? Instead, the GM gets hard work/effort every night, stability, a franchise player who seemingly gets along with everyone - just plug in the role players around him. I really think that the ability of players to grow and develop under Duncan is under rated and I'm so happy that he is aging gracefully. He just seems to do everything the "right" way and whatever it takes to win.

[Big#50]

Sure Shaq had his greater (offensive) peak, but pretty much everything else is in Duncan's favor. Who wants headaches? Instead, the GM gets hard work/effort every night, stability, a franchise player who seemingly gets along with everyone - just plug in the role players around him. I really think that the ability of players to grow and develop under Duncan is under rated and I'm so happy that he is aging gracefully.
I knew Tim would be this type of player in his later years. I think he plays till 40. His game is perfect for an old big man.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Duncan will NEVER move ahead of Shaq imo. One is a boring funadmental player yet effective, product of the SAS/Pop system, and the other is the most dominant force the NBA will ever see.

[TMT]

People saying Shaq was better than Duncan purely because of physical dominance, the same reasoning can be used to say LeBron is better than Jordan. :confusedshrug: Personally I don't think either of these things.

[Da_Realist]

People saying Shaq was better than Duncan purely because of physical dominance, the same reasoning can be used to say LeBron is better than Jordan. :confusedshrug: Personally I don't think either of these things.

Lebron has never been more physically dominant than Jordan. If, of course, you mean "physical dominant" = "unstoppable" like most people do when they refer to Shaq's peak.

[Pointguard]

Duncan didn't have the traditional aid that marked other dynasties. The formula that marked most other winners - Duncan didn't inherit:

1. A winning tradition. No.
2. A winning coach. No. Pop was 17 and 47 before Duncan
3. A great organization from top to bottom. No. But they got it together.
4. An all star second player. Kind of NOT. One could argue Dave Robinson and TP another year. Neither was great over the course of 90 games played.
5. A great rebounder or above average scorer to compliment. No
6. A great shooter or very dependable shooter. No.
7. A grit and grind type of worker. No. For the first two chips yes but not afterwards.
8. A great talent or top skilled or very gifted player in some way. No, but D Rob does qualify one year despite being past his prime.

I do think Duncan had great extra defenders in the years he won. He also had clutch players. But a lot is taken for granted about the Spurs. Even last year they had the best record in the league and really collapsed when Duncan had his injuries. Had Duncan been in a more dynastic situation he wins more than Shaq without question to me. Duncan had a way of being the dynasty while Shaq teams had the dynasty formula, talent and organization. Amazing when you think about it.

To me most great players win once or twice in an average setting. Very few win four. Shaq had more great settings than any modern player.

[Da_Realist]

Duncan didn't have the traditional aid that marked other dynasties. The formula that marked most other winners - Duncan didn't inherit:

1. A winning tradition. No.
2. A winning coach. No. Pop was 17 and 47 before Duncan
3. A great organization from top to bottom. No. But they got it together.
4. An all star second player. Kind of NOT. One could argue Dave Robinson and TP another year. Neither was great over the course of 90 games played.
5. A great rebounder or above average scorer to compliment. No
6. A great shooter or very dependable shooter. No.
7. A grit and grind type of worker. No. For the first two chips yes but not afterwards.
8. A great talent or top skilled or very gifted player in some way. No, but D Rob does qualify one year despite being past his prime.

I do think Duncan had great extra defenders in the years he won. He also had clutch players. But a lot is taken for granted about the Spurs. Even last year they had the best record in the league and really collapsed when Duncan had his injuries. Had Duncan been in a more dynastic situation he wins more than Shaq without question to me. Duncan had a way of being the dynasty while Shaq teams had the dynasty formula, talent and organization. Amazing when you think about it.

To me most great players win once or twice in an average setting. Very few win four. Shaq had more great settings than any modern player.

Good points, but the year Pop went 17-47 David Robinson only played 6 games.

[D.J.]

If I'm underestimating Wallace, then you're underestimating Duncan's defensive presence in the paint and low-block.


No I'm not. In the nearly 4 years I've been here, I've defended Duncan numerous times when getting the short end of the stick compared to other greats. As great and dominant as he was in his prime, his dominance is not even close to Shaq's...and I don't even like Shaq and I'm admitting this.



I saw Bird play. Your previous post was almost entirely based on Shaq's physical advantage. Bird wasn't a physical monster yet here are the praises.


And Shaq's dominance wasn't all about his freakish size and strength. He developed a nice hook shot, improved his patience, became a smarter player, and improved his footwork over time. Those have nothing to do with his size and strength.

And Bird gets the praises because of his abilities on the court. I've already listed what he did.



Also would you like to take a look what happened in Game 7 of 2005 NBA Finals? 2005 Pistons was one of the top 5 defensive teams in the 00s and Duncan draw the entire team's attention. You remember Bird's games because he was one of the saviors of NBA and you do not remember Duncan's one because his under the radar style. You're underrating and underestimating Duncan.


Now your homer side is starting to come out. I remember both their good games because I saw them both. Here's a Duncan game I remember; Game 6 against my Nets in '03. He put up a near quadruple double. Game 1 against the Nets(32/20/7/6)? How about Game 6 against the Lakers that same year(37/16/4/2)? Game 6 against the Lakers in '02 in a losing effort(34/25/4)? I most certainly remember his great games, whether in wins or losses. Think twice before you talk out of your ass.

And if you want to talk about the Pistons, you listed 1 game. Not good if you're trying to prove a point.

[Pointguard]

Good points, but the year Pop went 17-47 David Robinson only played 6 games.
And it was mid season as well... so the players weren't in his state of mind as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's assumed that Duncan would co-exist more with young Kobe better than Shaq because he didn't have as big of an ego. I wonder if Tim had enough ego to keep Kobe in check. The way Kobe wanted to play ball would have nullified a lot of what made the Spurs special. Kobe needed to be reigned in a little to win. Would Duncan have done that or just quietly allowed Kobe to run the team into the ground?

LA had some advantages that San Antonio didn't.

1) Phil Jackson. Pop's confrontational style would have brought out the absolute worst in Kobe. PJ would needle him then back off, without challenging Kobe's fragile ego too much. Also, PJ coached Michael Jordan and that meant the world to Kobe.

2) It wasn't just Shaq. The Lakers had guys like Brian Shaw (who played with Kobe's father), Rick Fox and Robert Horry that wasn't afraid to step in and be the bad cop. Did San Antonio have a bad cop beside Pop? I wonder if Duncan or Robinson would have stepped up and really collared Kobe and made him adhere to the system.

3) The system. The triangle rewarded Kobe's creativity and provided him enough structure to not allow it to ruin team chemistry. Pop's system is "run through Tim Duncan". Not sure that Kobe would have happily co-existed in a system where he would have been given the scraps that Duncan left on the table.

Duncan's never played with anyone as headstrong as Kobe.

Great points. People tend to forget looking at how well hypothetical pairings would mesh and assume seamless compatibility. I thought people would realize this after the Lebron-Wade pairing but you still see people here assuming scenarios like Jordan-Hakeem would work perfectly.

Shaq simply was a better player than Duncan. Peak Shaq is comparable--and arguably greater than--any peak in NBA history. Duncan was not on that level and peak Hakeem was probably superior to him. Duncan may wind up with a better resume than Shaq but if we are going to strictly go by resumes than the GOAT ranking should clearly be 1) Russell 2) Kareem 3) Jordan but as we know most people rank Jordan first and Russell often is placed behind Kareem and Wilt as well.

The idea that 5>4 and therefore Duncan>Shaq is strange to me. There are many factors that go into winning a championship. It isn't like we are comparing Duncan to a ringless Malone or Lebron type, or a 1x champ. For instance, if injuries did not occur Shaq may have won his 5th ring in 2005 and Duncan could be at 3 today. Would that really make Shaq that much better a player?

Duncan isn't the headache Shaq was at times but I don't buy the idea that Duncan has superior longevity. See ShaqAttack's post on this issue.

Shaq and Duncan's peaks/near peaks overlapped. How many GM's who had Shaq would trade him straight up for Duncan during that period? How many GM's with Duncan would have traded him for Shaq?