Will Duncan pass Shaq if he wins this year? That's the better question

[sammichoffate]

It's actually tough for me to decide, I would be inclined to lean towards Duncan slightly more if he gets the chip

[Relinquish]

It's actually tough for me to decide, I would lean toward Duncan slightly more but not by much. :(

Duncan is already ahead of Shaq. He was not as dominant, but he has more accolades.

[sammichoffate]

Duncan is already ahead of Shaq. He was not as dominant, but he has more accolades.He has one MVP ahead of him and his longevity. Also has way more spots on the All-Defensive team, but Shaq's stats blow Duncan's out of the water for certain years and he's way higher on the all-time scoring list. I'm still on the fence about it, but Duncan winning it all will cement it for me tbh

[HOoopCityJones]

You sound drunk, go home.

Love to act all high and mighty about ring counts not meaning shit and we're gonna act like Shaq wasn't the better player than I-can't-dunk on Shane Battier Duncan?

[Mr Feeny]

You sound drunk, go home.

Love to act all high and mighty about ring counts not meaning shit and we're gonna act like Shaq wasn't the better player than I-can't-dunk on Shane Battier Duncan?

Why do you just spouting pejoratives the moment you're stuck in an argument?
You ok?

[ArbitraryWater]

That actually IS the better question...

I kind of want to do it, but considering Shaq has the edge in peak/prime/dominance, AND was elite for damn near 14 years from 1992-2006?

I dont know... Timmy's had some meh years since 2010 as well... not sure.

If Timmy beasts, like really beasts, 20/10 on high percentages in a win? Why not..

[BuffaloBill]

Duncan is already ahead of Shaq. He was not as dominant, but he has more accolades.




thread should have ended right about here

[sammichoffate]

You sound drunk, go home.

Love to act all high and mighty about ring counts not meaning shit and we're gonna act like Shaq wasn't the better player than I-can't-dunk on Shane Battier Duncan?I would stop talking to the troll in that other thread, he's toxic af bro. Also, some of Duncan's years are only slightly inferior to peak Shaq. They're also tied for ring count and FMVP unless Duncan wins this year, which is why i'm not decided between either of them.

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq>Duncan.
Shaq>Kobe.

He was simply a substantially better player than those two. That Shaq is compared to them is indictive of how Shaq is underrated.

Duncan since 2011:

13/9
15/9
18/10
15/10

His longevity is overrated and not that much better than Shaq's.

Shaq through ages 34-37:

17/7
14/9
18/8
12/7

[HOoopCityJones]

I would stop talking to the troll in that other thread, he's toxic af bro. Also, some of Duncan's years are only slightly inferior to peak Shaq. They're also tied for ring count and FMVP unless Duncan wins this year, which is why i'm not decided between either of them.

Timmy only for longevity then I suppose, when you put it that way.

:cheers: Good shit tho bruh

[T_L_P]

Shaq played with more superstars than any other player in NBA history. Duncan has literally played with one superstar, and he's one of the worst in NBA history (still an incredible player, but let's not act like his 19 PPG Playoff average is anything to go crazy about).

Shaq has stats and peak. Duncan has winning on his side. He can be the cornerstone for your franchise for nearly two decades. Shaq will leave yours as soon as things get a little shaky. :confusedshrug:

[sammichoffate]

Timmy only for longevity then I suppose, when you put it that way.

:cheers: Good shit tho bruhNp :cheers:

[Dbrog]

Duncan already debatably higher. One more chip would make it overwhelming. He would have a case for top5

[Roundball_Rock]

Duncan has winning on his side.

Shaq's team success

Here are his team's performance with him from 1993-2009 (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games. That is a remarkable record of such a long period of time. His teams were 50 win caliber teams with him on the floor every year during that period; they were 55+ caliber 11 times; 60+ win caliber 7 times. These are amazing numbers.

Did he do this with great teams?

Shaq turning franchises around

Orlando before Shaq: 18, 31, 21 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 41, 50, 57 (NBA finals, #1 seed), 60 (ECF, #2 seed behind 72 win Bulls)
Orlando after Shaq: 45, 41, 54** (0 trips out the first round)

Los Angeles before Shaq: 33, 48 (WCSF), 53 (first round)
Los Angeles with Shaq: 56, 61 (WCF), 51**, 67, 56, 58 (champions) , 50, 56 (NBA finals)
Los Angeles post-Shaq: 34, 45, 42 (0 trips out the first round)

Miami before Shaq: 36, 25, 52
Miami with Shaq: 59 (ECF), 52 (champions), 44
Miami post-Shaq: 15, 43, 45 (projected)

Shaq in the playoffs

What did Shaq do when it counted?

Missed playoffs
First round
NBA finals
Conference finals

WCSF
Conference finals
WCSF
Champion
Champion
Champion
WCSF
NBA finals

Conference finals
Champion
First round

First round
Missed playoffs

When he was in or near his prime he had an extremely good playoff record: 4 championships, 6 NBA finals, and 9 conference finals appearances. This record is comparable to that of anyone not named Russell.

[inclinerator]

head to head duncan owns shaq

[Anaximandro1]

Shaq is in the same ballpark as Duncan, but Tim did a little bit more.

That said, I think both players are underrated. They dominated an entire era (8 titles and 6 FMVPs from 1999 to 2007) ... Pretty sure Duncan/Shaq were more dominant than Magic/Bird.



Duncan is already ahead of Shaq. He was not as dominant, but he has more accolades.

Defense ... Defense

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-40XVpVr2l9o/U4ty74y7cKI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/nr1lQIbCgDc/s1600/28.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iDTnux21GS4/U4ty72bDoJI/AAAAAAAAC5Q/Zy2BenuZk4w/s1600/27.jpg

[Dresta]

Shaq's team success

Here are his team's performance with him from 1993-2009 (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games. That is a remarkable record of such a long period of time. His teams were 50 win caliber teams with him on the floor every year during that period; they were 55+ caliber 11 times; 60+ win caliber 7 times. These are amazing numbers.

Did he do this with great teams?

Shaq turning franchises around

Orlando before Shaq: 18, 31, 21 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 41, 50, 57 (NBA finals, #1 seed), 60 (ECF, #2 seed behind 72 win Bulls)
Orlando after Shaq: 45, 41, 54** (0 trips out the first round)

Los Angeles before Shaq: 33, 48 (WCSF), 53 (first round)
Los Angeles with Shaq: 56, 61 (WCF), 51**, 67, 56, 58 (champions) , 50, 56 (NBA finals)
Los Angeles post-Shaq: 34, 45, 42 (0 trips out the first round)

Miami before Shaq: 36, 25, 52
Miami with Shaq: 59 (ECF), 52 (champions), 44
Miami post-Shaq: 15, 43, 45 (projected)

Shaq in the playoffs

What did Shaq do when it counted?

Missed playoffs
First round
NBA finals
Conference finals

WCSF
Conference finals
WCSF
Champion
Champion
Champion
WCSF
NBA finals

Conference finals
Champion
First round

First round
Missed playoffs

When he was in or near his prime he had an extremely good playoff record: 4 championships, 6 NBA finals, and 9 conference finals appearances. This record is comparable to that of anyone not named Russell.

Duncan is better because he's maintained HIS franchise as an elite team for so many seasons. Shaq just hung around when things were good, left each team he played for on rather acrimonious terms, and didn't give a shit about screwing over whoever he was playing for.

Bron gets shit for leaving one team, Shaq forced his way out of the only 3 he played for when he was any good.

Duncan > Shaq

[T_L_P]

Shaq's team success

Here are his team's performance with him from 1993-2009 (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games. That is a remarkable record of such a long period of time. His teams were 50 win caliber teams with him on the floor every year during that period; they were 55+ caliber 11 times; 60+ win caliber 7 times. These are amazing numbers.

Did he do this with great teams?

Shaq turning franchises around

Orlando before Shaq: 18, 31, 21 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 41, 50, 57 (NBA finals, #1 seed), 60 (ECF, #2 seed behind 72 win Bulls)
Orlando after Shaq: 45, 41, 54** (0 trips out the first round)

Los Angeles before Shaq: 33, 48 (WCSF), 53 (first round)
Los Angeles with Shaq: 56, 61 (WCF), 51**, 67, 56, 58 (champions) , 50, 56 (NBA finals)
Los Angeles post-Shaq: 34, 45, 42 (0 trips out the first round)

Miami before Shaq: 36, 25, 52
Miami with Shaq: 59 (ECF), 52 (champions), 44
Miami post-Shaq: 15, 43, 45 (projected)

Shaq in the playoffs

What did Shaq do when it counted?

Missed playoffs
First round
NBA finals
Conference finals

WCSF
Conference finals
WCSF
Champion
Champion
Champion
WCSF
NBA finals

Conference finals
Champion
First round

First round
Missed playoffs

When he was in or near his prime he had an extremely good playoff record: 4 championships, 6 NBA finals, and 9 conference finals appearances. This record is comparable to that of anyone not named Russell.

I obviously didn't mean Duncan is a winner and Shaq is not. I meant he is a bigger winner.

Duncan has the best win percentage in all of sports. Also, why are you neglected his years after 2008? We can't forget those just because he became a journeyman.

Here's what Duncan did when it mattered:

WCSF
Champion
DNP (team lost in first round)
WCF
WCSF
Champion
WCSF
Champion
WCSF
Champion
WCF
First Round
WCSF
First Round
WCF
Finals
Finals

[Relinquish]

He has one MVP ahead of him and his longevity. Also has way more spots on the All-Defensive team, but Shaq's stats blow Duncan's out of the water for certain years and he's way higher on the all-time scoring list. I'm still on the fence about it, but Duncan winning it all will cement it for me tbh

2 more all-nba first teams as well.

[lilgodfather1]

I absolutely think Duncan should be rated higher than Shaq with another FMVP. No FMVP, no rank improvement imo. Three players from the 90's (as in drafts) in the top 10 all time. 1 from the 2000's, and 0 from the 10's. Really is amazing when you think about how great Duncan and Shaq were, and Duncan still is.

[Carbine]

Shaq>Duncan.
Shaq>Kobe.

He was simply a substantially better player than those two. That Shaq is compared to them is indictive of how Shaq is underrated.

Duncan since 2011:

13/9
15/9
18/10
15/10

His longevity is overrated and not that much better than Shaq's.

Shaq through ages 34-37:

17/7
14/9
18/8
12/7

Cool stats. Perfect example of how they lie.

Shaq was a HUGE liability on defense when he got older. I remember the series the Spurs beat the Suns when he was there. I think that's when he did 18/8.....and he could not defend the pick and roll at all. It was laughable how easy the shots the Spurs were getting off the play.

He was the single biggest reason the Suns lost.

[Force]

Duncan doesn't really need to win to have a better career than Shaq.

What would have happened if Duncan was drafted by an EXPANSION team instead of one of the best teams in the West who tanked and got lucky to draft him. They were already a good team. Imagine if their draft scenario's were the other way around.

These are things that players can't control but need to be considered. Look at how bad the Cavs and Sonics/OKC were when they drafted Bron and Durant. While some players like Kobe are lucky enough to get drafted onto a team that spends money every year that also had 3 current all star selections (Shaq/Nick/Eddie) on the squad. Winning comes easier in better situations so you don't just look at rings won when comparing two multiple time champions like Duncan and Shaq.

Duncan's career will go down as being better than Shaq's, this I'm sure of. But Shaq is the most rare player we will ever see possible. Shaq at his best is better than Timmy, his peak was higher than everybody. Shaq for a solid 12 year period, it was completely unfair, the most dominant thing in basketball that even his monster numbers don't do justice because of the way he effected the game so much.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Shaq was ridiculous in my opinion post 2001 all star break until the end of the playoffs when they won the NBA finals. Yes, Kobe is often vaunted for his 31/7/6 against the WCF that year but Shaq really opened up space and was a better teammate, he let Kobe and the other role players get more touches in the last two games of the Kings to get their confidence up (I think because Phil Jackson told him to do so). However, even though Shaq was probably the best physical freak of nature the NBA has ever seen, Duncan was more fundamental and had a much better work ethic. To this day, I still dream what if Shaq had Kobe's work ethic but the same personality, Shaq was a lovable teammate. We can all agree Kobe has never been the best teammate in the world.

Duncan does whatever it takes to win. His performance in the 2003 NBA finals was phenomenal and he was a consistent stone for the Spurs for over 10 years. They have always been championship contenders. A lot of us can probably remember what Shaq was like post 2006. He was washed up and the Heat team was a lot worse the next two years. Shaq's numbers dipped during that time. Yes, his career was rejuvenated for awhile as a Suns but his last few years as a pro are forgettable. Duncan has a chance to retire after winning a championship and being probably the most consistent player since 1999 or so. Kobe is up there but his 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons during the post-rape trial definitely hindered his game. Took him until 2005-2006 to regain his old 2002-2003 self.

[tpols]

Shaq>Duncan.
Shaq>Kobe.

He was simply a substantially better player than those two. That Shaq is compared to them is indictive of how Shaq is underrated.

Duncan since 2011:

13/9
15/9
18/10
15/10

His longevity is overrated and not that much better than Shaq's.

Shaq through ages 34-37:

17/7
14/9
18/8
12/7

except shaq bounced from stacked team to stacked team making up different nicknames for himself as we went along like the clown he is, while Duncan stuck low key with his guys and is leading them deeper than old shaq ever did or could

[r0drig0lac]

Duncan is already up Shaq won >>> same number of rings with less help, had better stats in h2h against a prime shaq, consistency, defense, etc.

[Springsteen]

duncans work ethic > shaqs

[Dresta]

Cool stats. Perfect example of how they lie.

Shaq was a HUGE liability on defense when he got older. I remember the series the Spurs beat the Suns when he was there. I think that's when he did 18/8.....and he could not defend the pick and roll at all. It was laughable how easy the shots the Spurs were getting off the play.

He was the single biggest reason the Suns lost.
Yep. Shaq's pick and roll defense sucked even in 06.

[dreamwarrior]

Shaq was the most dominant player in the modern era (post 1980) but after he left L.A. it all went downhill. Even if he had stayed with the Lakers, it would've been him riding Kobe's coat tails.

In 04-05 he might have helped the Lakers get to the playoffs as the last seed but they're not going to get far either way

05-06 the Lakers might've beaten the Suns in the 1st round but would've surely lost to the higher scoring Clippers in the 2nd and no way do they get past the Mavs if they did beat the Clippers

In 06-07 the Suns were too much in the 1st. The Lakers didn't have a chance.

In 07-08 they had Pau Gasol. Replace Gasol with Shaq and I'm not even sure they make it to the finals. If they had both Gasol and Shaq that's entirely different, they beat the Celtics in 5 as they would've won 2 close games.

08-09 he was injured. Lakers actually would lose the ring they won unless they had Gasol for sure.

09-10 Lakers were dominant. Bynum was ready and would've been a great combo with a healthy Shaq. They might've won a ring even without Pau, though it totally depends on whether or not Shaq injures his thumb. If he still gets injured, the Lakers lose another ring, completely tarnishing Kobe Bryant's legacy down to Lebron's current level.

And 10-11 he was ineffective when he played. The Lakers got blanked by the Mavs in the 2nd round. I don't think Shaq could've done anything to help.

So there, the only reason Shaq has an extra ring was because he left L.A. If he had stayed there's no guarantee he gets another ring and Kobe likely loses 2 rings because Shaq would not have been a better player than Pau. The only way Kobe gets to keep those 2 rings with Shaq is if he has both Shaq and Pau and a very long shot to get 3 rings

[Kiddlovesnets]

I think its a close-call, no one comes close to prime shaq's level of dominance but Duncan's longevity overcomes this a bit. If he wins another FMVP Id say hes above Shaq, if he gets bailed out it will be a really tough choice instead.

[BigBoss]

Yes 100%

[T_L_P]

I think its a close-call, no one comes close to prime shaq's level of dominance but Duncan's longevity overcomes this a bit. If he wins another FMVP Id say hes above Shaq, if he gets bailed out it will be a really tough choice instead.

What exactly does that mean? Robinson at 38 could barely average 5/5. Hakeem and Shaq were complete shells of themselves. Magic and Bird were not even in the league.

[trabash]

Shaq is one of the very few players that belong in the MJ, LeBron Tier.

Duncan is absolutely great, no doubt about it, but it's a bit disrespectful to Shaq to mention them in the same breath.

[mehyaM24]

absolutely not. shaq has a better peak,prime and equal longevity.

duncan hasnt been the best player on his team since the 2007 playoffs(parker officially took over in those finals vs cleveland)

[NBAplayoffs2001]

absolutely not. shaq has a better peak,prime and equal longevity.

duncan hasnt been the best player on his team since the 2007 playoffs(parker officially took over in those finals vs cleveland)

explain :lol

[Mr Feeny]

explain :lolHe can't. He's clueless:lol

[T_L_P]

Shaq is one of the very few players that belong in the MJ, LeBron Tier.

Duncan is absolutely great, no doubt about it, but it's a bit disrespectful to Shaq to mention them in the same breath.

You've gotta be ****ing kidding me. Like I said above, if he's really on a different tier, how is it his team success and accolades are worse than Duncan's, even with the help of some of the greatest players in league history? Penny, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Garnett, Pierce, Nash, Amare vs. Robinson, Parker, Manu...and yet Duncan has won the same number of rings (more as the best player on his team).

I'm not saying you shouldn't take Shaq. His peak was absolutely unbelievable. But saying they don't deserve to be mentioned together is absurd. Shaq compares himself to Tim routinely.

[stephanieg]

Another thing to consider is that Duncan isn't a lazy head case that butts heads with other good players and his game doesn't revolve around elbowing defenders in the face and the refs looking the other way. And he can actually hit free throws.

[PickernRoller]

NO. Duncan was never as dominant and never repeated, much less 3-peated.

Duncan fans and trolls alike can say whatever they want. It's not the same winning a championship every 2-3 years in vulture mode vs. winning them back-to back-to-back. You can see how much it takes - the drain.

The consistency in high level of play is simply not there for Duncan.

Whatever makes the clowns sleep at night tho....

[T_L_P]

absolutely not. shaq has a better peak,prime and equal longevity.

duncan hasnt been the best player on his team since the 2007 playoffs(parker officially took over in those finals vs cleveland)

Duncan 08-present: 18 / 10.5 / 2.5 / 0.7 / 1.8 / 21.5 PER / 10.0 WS / 108 ORtg / 101 DRtg

Parker 08-present: 20.2 / 3.3 / 6.1 / 0.9 / 0.1 / 19.6 PER / 7.3 WS / 106 ORtg / 108 DRtg

Yes, Parker's been the clear-cut best player since the last ring. :rolleyes:

[Mr Feeny]

Another thing to consider is that Duncan isn't a lazy head case that butts heads with other good players and his game doesn't revolve around elbowing defenders in the face and the refs looking the other way. And he can actually hit free throws.

A little harsh on Shaq?

[mehyaM24]

explain :lol

elite from 1992-2008,including more years of dominance.

elementary stuff here, basketball casuals :oldlol:

[mehyaM24]

Duncan 08-present: 18 / 10.5 / 2.5 / 0.7 / 1.8 / 21.5 PER / 10.0 WS / 108 ORtg / 101 DRtg

Parker 08-present: 20.2 / 3.3 / 6.1 / 0.9 / 0.1 / 19.6 PER / 7.3 WS / 106 ORtg / 108 DRtg

Yes, Parker's been the clear-cut best player since the last ring. :rolleyes:

not clear cut, but better
what are their stats in the postseason?

[Mr Feeny]

elite from 1992-2008,including more years of dominance.

elementary stuff here, basketball casuals :oldlol:

Isn't it a bit generous to classify 2006-2008 Shaq as elite?

[mehyaM24]

Isn't it a bit generous to classify 2006-2008 Shaq as elite?

if we still consider duncan elite, than no. shaq was still REALLY good relative to the talent at his position.

[T_L_P]

not clear cut,but better
what are their stats in the postseason?

Those are the postseason stats.

The two have both been the best players since the last title. Parker runs the offense, Duncan anchors the defense. The slight difference here is Duncan was still the second option on offense for the majority of that time whilst Popovich goes out of his way to hide Parker defensively. :confusedshrug:

And besides, it's not like Shaq was ever the best player on his team after he left the Lakers (with the slight exception of '05, though that was very much like Tim and Tony).

[mehyaM24]

Those are the postseason stats.

The two have both been the best players since the last title. Parker runs the offense, Duncan anchors the defense. The slight difference here is Duncan was still the second option on offense for the majority of that time whilst Popovich goes out of his way to hide Parker defensively. :confusedshrug:

And besides, it's not like Shaq was ever the best player on his team after he left the Lakers (with the slight exception of '05, though that was very much like Tim and Tony).

thats fair. looking at their production, parker led the team in PER (playoffs) 4/6 years after 2007 (manu was amazing in one of those years and had more winshares and a higher PER than both duncan and parker). this is why i say, overall, he's been their best player.

shaq was definitely the heats best player in 2005 btw

[Roundball_Rock]

I obviously didn't mean Duncan is a winner and Shaq is not. I meant he is a bigger winner.

Duncan has the best win percentage in all of sports. Also, why are you neglected his years after 2008? We can't forget those just because he became a journeyman.

I agree. I just don't think Duncan's advantage in team success offsets Shaq's advantage in dominance.

That post stops in 2009, his final all-star season (when he was 36) because it comes for a paste of a thread I made late in 2009 arguing Shaq is top 5 all-time. I am not anti-Duncan or anti-Kobe but rather pro-Shaq.


Shaq was a HUGE liability on defense when he got older. I remember the series the Spurs beat the Suns when he was there. I think that's when he did 18/8.....and he could not defend the pick and roll at all. It was laughable how easy the shots the Spurs were getting off the play.

18/8 was the following year when the Suns missed the playoffs after Amare injured his eye.

Shaq was indeed a liability on defense at that point--but he also enabled Amare to play at a MVP caliber level that season. After the Shaq trade Amare averaged something like 28-29 ppg.


He was the single biggest reason the Suns lost.

They lost to the same team the previous year. The Spurs consistently had their number during the SSOL days.


, the most dominant thing in basketball that even his monster numbers don't do justice because of the way he effected the game so much.

:applause:


except shaq bounced from stacked team to stacked team making up different nicknames for himself as we went along like the clown he is

Orlando was a better situation for him than L.A. if he was looking solely at rosters. He went to L.A. for non-basketball reasons. He went to Miami because he was forced out of town...The Phoenix trade happened because he appeared washed up at that point and Miami was rebuilding. It is not as if Shaq orchestrated his way to these destinations.


Shaq was the most dominant player in the modern era (post 1980) but after he left L.A. it all went downhill. Even if he had stayed with the Lakers, it would've been him riding Kobe's coat tails.

Shaq was the runner-up to Nash for MVP in an extremely close race in 2005 and in 2006 he won a ring as the best center in the league and a top 10 overall player. He did decline gradually--but what player does not? He was past his prime by the time he left L.A.


but Duncan's longevity overcomes this a bit. If he wins another FMVP Id say hes above Shaq, if he gets bailed out it will be a really tough choice instead.

Duncan and Shaq posted similar stats at ages 34-37. Why are people giving Duncan so much credit for 15/10?


if we still consider duncan elite, than no. shaq was still REALLY good relative to the talent at his position.

Good point. If Duncan is going to get credit for even 13/9 (when Duncan was 34--the same age as 2007 Shaq) then Shaq should get credit for things like 17/10 in 2007 and 18/8 in 2009.

[mehyaM24]

Good point. If Duncan is going to get credit for even 13/9 (when Duncan was 34--the same age as 2007 Shaq) then Shaq should get credit for things like 17/10 in 2007 and 18/8 in 2009.
exactly

[PickernRoller]

exactly

Duncan fans have no case over Shaq...never will. They can all circle jerk on Spurstalk. Not going to change the facts and the truth.

[T_L_P]

Duncan fans have no case over Shaq...never will. They can all circle jerk on Spurstalk. Not going to change the facts and the truth.

So Shaq wins four rings with the greatest player since Jordan and a guy who had the greatest Finals since Jordan and Duncan wins four with a couple of star-tier Euros and a past-his-prime, broken down Center.

Nice. :cheers:

[Carbine]

I agree. I just don't think Duncan's advantage in team success offsets Shaq's advantage in dominance.

That post stops in 2009, his final all-star season (when he was 36) because it comes for a paste of a thread I made late in 2009 arguing Shaq is top 5 all-time. I am not anti-Duncan or anti-Kobe but rather pro-Shaq.



18/8 was the following year when the Suns missed the playoffs after Amare injured his eye.

Shaq was indeed a liability on defense at that point--but he also enabled Amare to play at a MVP caliber level that season. After the Shaq trade Amare averaged something like 28-29 ppg.



They lost to the same team the previous year. The Spurs consistently had their number during the SSOL days.



:applause:



Orlando was a better situation for him than L.A. if he was looking solely at rosters. He went to L.A. for non-basketball reasons. He went to Miami because he was forced out of town...The Phoenix trade happened because he appeared washed up at that point and Miami was rebuilding. It is not as if Shaq orchestrated his way to these destinations.



Shaq was the runner-up to Nash for MVP in an extremely close race in 2005 and in 2006 he won a ring as the best center in the league and a top 10 overall player. He did decline gradually--but what player does not? He was past his prime by the time he left L.A.



Duncan and Shaq posted similar stats at ages 34-37. Why are people giving Duncan so much credit for 15/10?



Good point. If Duncan is going to get credit for even 13/9 (when Duncan was 34--the same age as 2007 Shaq) then Shaq should get credit for things like 17/10 in 2007 and 18/8 in 2009.

DEFENSE.

Anyone who seen Shaq play when he was older knows he was a huge liability on defense. He would camp out in the paint ad let open jumper after open jumper rain down. Or he got burned if he stepped up too high.

Duncan is still playing defense at a high contributing level at 38 and was a legit DPOY candidate last year. Many thought he deserved it the most.

[mehyaM24]

So Shaq wins four rings with the greatest player since Jordan and a guy who had the greatest Finals since Jordan and Duncan wins four with a couple of star-tier Euros and a past-his-prime, broken down Center.

Nice. :cheers:

what the hell are you talking about? LMAO

[tpols]

People acting like old shaq is even on the same tier as old duncan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/TheDevil21/Funny/4622173.gif

[T_L_P]

what the hell are you talking about? LMAO

At the end of the day, all the truly matters is winning. Shaq won with more superstars than any other player perhaps in NBA history. Duncan won without another legitimate superstar, and even if you do consider Parker one, he's definitely not an all-time great on the level of prime Kobe or prime Wade or prime LeBron.

Like I said earlier: Shaq has peak and stats. Duncan has accomplishments, longevity (even though Shaq's is underrated), and all the intangibles of a real player. Shaq was a headcase and everybody knew it.

[Roundball_Rock]

So Shaq wins four rings with the greatest player since Jordan and a guy who had the greatest Finals since Jordan and Duncan wins four with a couple of star-tier Euros and a past-his-prime, broken down Center.

The Lakers were a 0.500 team from 2000-2002 during the games Shaq missed.

2000: 1-2.
2001: 5-3
2002: 7-8.
Total: 13-13.




DEFENSE.

Anyone who seen Shaq play when he was older knows he was a huge liability on defense.

Young Shaq>young Duncan.
Prime Shaq>prime Duncan.
Peak Shaq>>>peak Duncan.
Old Shaq<old Duncan.

Both are top 10 all-time so there is not a massive gap between them, outside of peak play. While defense does not show up easily in the stat sheets, neither does the impact Shaq had on opposing team's defenses during his prime, i.e. getting entire front lines in foul trouble.

[Carbine]

The Lakers were a 0.500 team from 2000-2002 during the games Shaq missed.

2000: 1-2.
2001: 5-3
2002: 7-8.
Total: 13-13.





Young Shaq>young Duncan.
Prime Shaq>prime Duncan.
Peak Shaq>>>peak Duncan.
Old Shaq<old Duncan.

Both are top 10 all-time so there is not a massive gap between them, outside of peak play. While defense does not show up easily in the stat sheets, neither does the impact Shaq had on opposing team's defenses during his prime, i.e. getting entire front lines in foul trouble.

:facepalm

I'm speaking directly about your proclamation of "Shaq put up similar stats when he was old."

What's the point about bringing up their entire careers? I never addressed you towards that.

[LAZERUSS]

A PEAK Shaq was simply a greater, and more dominant player.

Duncan will have an edge in career accolades, but he was never even close to the dominant player that a prime Shaq was.

[IllegalD]

So Shaq doesn't get penalized for needing the 2nd best SG of all time and the 3rd best shooting guard respectively to win his 4...? :confusedshrug:

ISH double-standards at their best.

Not to mention that Shaq will end up with less rings even though he tried to merc his way to more and played with every significant team/player post-Jordan. Penny on the Magic, Van Exel + Jones on the Lakers, Kobe, LeBron, Nash/Amare Suns, Big 4 Celtics.

[Roundball_Rock]

What's the point about bringing up their entire careers? I never addressed you towards that.

That was directed at TLP.


I'm speaking directly about your proclamation of "Shaq put up similar stats when he was old."

That is a factual statement. In recent years he has been a strong defensive presence who gives 9-10 boards and scores in the low to mid teens. Some people are acting as if Duncan's longevity is on par with Kareem or Malone's, who remained MVP caliber players at 38 and 36.


So Shaq doesn't get penalized for needing the 2nd best SG of all time and the 3rd best shooting guard respectively to win his 4...?

That depends. Do you also penalize Magic for needing Kareem? Magic never won a ring without Kareem.

[T_L_P]

A PEAK Shaq was simply a greater, and more dominant player.

Duncan will have an edge in career accolades, but he was never even close to the dominant player that a prime Shaq was.

I'll say it again: what good is that peak gonna get you unless the overwhelming help is there?

Shaq's peak guarantees you at least one title, because the '00 Lakers were not that great. But any years before or after that, you're gonna have to be willing to supplement Shaq with another top three player in the league. That can be a very, very hard thing to do (unless, of course, you bounce around to teams that already have great players).

The fact remains that Shaq won four titles, three as the man, with Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash, Amare, Garnett, Pierce, LeBron. If we want to take away some of them because Shaq was past his prime, that still leaves you two top fifteen players and another who was averaging 21/5/7. Duncan won four titles, all of them as the man, with a past-his-prime David Robinson, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Duncan doesn't bitch or moan or dictate how much defense he plays based on the number of offensive touches he gets: he just does what's best for his team. When the going got tough Shaq left. When the going got tough for Tim i.e. having to face the best and third best player in the league potentially every year, he didn't switch conferences and join another star (T-Mac); he stuck with it, trusted his team, and eventually won.

Shaq has a very real case over Duncan. But they're neck and neck, no matter how you spin it.

[IllegalD]

No, but I see everyone around here penalize Kobe for winning with Shaq and Gasol, so the only logical conclusion to draw was...

[Carbine]

A PEAK Shaq was simply a greater, and more dominant player.

Duncan will have an edge in career accolades, but he was never even close to the dominant player that a prime Shaq was.

Of course he was close. Shaq was better, but Duncan was very very close.

Duncan did average 25/15.5/5.3 and over 3 blocks.

Just to put that into perspective, we had a thread here today saying Noah had a top three passing season ever for a big man. He averaged 5.4 per game.

Peak Shaq did 31/15.5/3assists and 2.5 blocks.

Shaq just did it in a different way. People saw the power. When he backs down someone and throws it down in their face, that's going to have way more lasting effect on a persons memory than Tim shooting a bank shot.

[HurricaneKid]

Duncan is already a fair distance ahead of Shaq. Shaq was a juggernaut offensively. But Duncan might be the best defender in the history of the game (if you are willing to penalize Russell for the age he played, etc). And he was still a phenomenal offensive player.

Shaq was frequently the point of attack for the opposition. Putting him in PnRs, etc.

[pauk]

Duncan is becoming the most overrated player on ISH.

[T_L_P]

Duncan is becoming the most overrated player on ISH.

Why, because he's being compared to Shaq and Kobe? The nerve.

[Ne 1]

NO. Duncan was never as dominant and never repeated, much less 3-peated.

Duncan fans and trolls alike can say whatever they want. It's not the same winning a championship every 2-3 years in vulture mode vs. winning them back-to back-to-back. You can see how much it takes - the drain.

The consistency in high level of play is simply not there for Duncan.

Whatever makes the clowns sleep at night tho....
This. His Spurs teams always won scavenger titles. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a championship team got old and stopped. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a team got old and stopped winning.
*1999: Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart. Plus, shortened season. *
2003: Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart.
2005: Probably the most legit ring they won.
2007: Won on the heels of the champion Heat getting too old too fast. Not to mention extremely weak competition (Jazz in WCF? Cavs in Finals?) + had to get help from Stern (suspensions) to beat the only legit team standing in their way. (Truly disgusting what happened to the Suns, that was the championship deciding series too, the next 2 rounds were pretty much a mere formality) Also very lucky that the Warriors upset the Mavs in the 1st round, literally had a cakewalk to the championship that year.)

[T_L_P]

This. His Spurs teams always won scavenger titles. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a championship team got old and stopped. Always picking up the pieces when a true dynasty had already fallen apart or a team got old and stopped winning.
*1999: Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart. Plus, shortened season. *
2003: Won on the heels of a true dynasty falling apart.
2005: Probably the most legit ring they won.
2007: Won on the heels of the champion Heat getting too old too fast. Not to mention extremely weak competition (Jazz in WCF? Cavs in Finals?) + had to get help from Stern (suspensions) to beat the only legit team standing in their way. (Truly disgusting what happened to the Suns, that was the championship deciding series too, the next 2 rounds were pretty much a mere formality) Also very lucky that the Warriors upset the Mavs in the 1st round, literally had a cakewalk to the championship that year.)

I guess that's all a team can do when they've had one legitimate superstar this century. :confusedshrug:

Then again, I could just flip it like this:

2000: reigning champion's best player misses the postseason.
2001: legitimate championship.
2002: rigged WCF. Worst display of officiating in league history. Truly disgusting what the league did to that poor Kings team.

Also, the Spurs in '06 were better than the Heat, as they were in '05 and '07. Stop acting like they were clearly better than them.

[Ne 1]

Let's be honest, the 1999 title that the Spurs won is a DIFFRENT accomplishment than winning a full season. Now that's NOT EQUIVALENT to saying the Spurs couldn't have won the accomplishment of winning a full 82 game season that year. But like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins, the 1999 Spurs can't be ranked up there with title-holders from full seasons.

Teams build their rosters for 82 games seasons, then all of the sudden in 1 year you have a 50 game season and it changes which teams stand to benefit.

If all teams played lesser games every year in but in a more cramped schedule it would change how teams built their rosters. But obviously it would still be fair because it would be what all teams prepared for.

Fact is that 1999 was a rushed 50-game season in which too many players changed teams and nearly everyone was out of shape, leading to nagging injuries, shoddy basketball and an absolutely hateful season on every level. The rushed playoffs were such a joke that the 8th seeded Knicks ended up making the Finals before getting trounced by the Spurs...

The shortened season produced skewed playoff rankings. A lot of bizarre things happened in the playoffs that year, the 8th seed (without Patrick Ewing too) for example made it to the NBA Finals, you think this is a freak accident? The rankings and home-court was messed up. The Lakers in fact were probably hurt the most by that lockout as Shaq usually plays best near the end of the season (when he is finally in shape) and Kobe at that time was improving on a month by month basis (still young).

[houston]

Yea he will past him. Shaq later years had him team hopping like chasing a lost ring.

Both played with superstars etc.... so it a wash about the teammate thing.

[T_L_P]

Yea he will past him. Shaq later years had him team hopping like chasing a lost ring.

Both played with superstars etc.... so it a wash about the teammate thing.

Duncan played with one superstar, and he's among the weakest superstars I can think of. Shaq played with about half a dozen legit ones.

[Ne 1]

2002: rigged WCF. Worst display of officiating in league history. Truly disgusting what the league did to that poor Kings team.

:oldlol: at this unfounded conspiracy theory. Let me guess the series was rigged because game 6 was poorly officiated? Sorry, but playoff series aren't rigged and the officiating was actually poor throughout the series, especially game 5 not just Game 6. The Kings lost because they choked at the free throw line in Game 7 and Peja airballed a wide open 3. That's not comparable to 2007 where the direct action of the league helped decided the Suns series, when it was clearly in poor judgment to do so.

[Carbine]

Tony wasn't even a superstar (barely a star) when they won in 2005 and 2007, and was clearly not anywhere near a star in 2003 (he got benched for Speedy Claxton in the playoffs)

Tony became a low tier superstar, which has no question extended the Spurs window to compete....but they still haven't won a title.

Shaq played with Penny in Orlando, Kobe in LA, Wade in Miami and Nash/Amare in PHX..... you could make the argument all of those second options were better players than Parker.

[Ne 1]

Shaq played with Penny in Orlando, Kobe in LA, Wade in Miami and Nash/Amare in PHX..... you could make the argument all of those second options were better players than Parker.
The thing is basketball is played 5-on-5 not 2-on-2, and championship teams are going to have at least 8 guys in their rotation. Even if we're trying to compare which "#1 option" had the worst supporting cast, saying who had the weakest "#2 option" doesn't mean all that much.

I think the 2011 Finals for example showed us that a "team" is more than a collection of names, but rather how a group of players sync and play together/off of each other. Miami thought it would be easy to win a championship, and LeBron said he believed they could win up to 8 rings because of their names alone.

But, it's not all about the 1st, 2nd and 3rd scoring options, it's about the team dynamic.

[T_L_P]

Tony wasn't even a superstar (barely a star) when they won in 2005 and 2007, and was clearly not anywhere near a star in 2003 (he got benched for Speedy Claxton in the playoffs)

Tony became a low tier superstar, which has no question extended the Spurs window to compete....but they still haven't won a title.

Shaq played with Penny in Orlando, Kobe in LA, Wade in Miami and Nash/Amare in PHX..... you could make the argument all of those second options were better players than Parker.

Yep. If we're only counting the superstars the two played with in their prime (otherwise Shaq would have played with nearly a dozen), then Duncan did not play with another one. Robinson was one in '98, Manu was one in '05, and that's it. Like you said, Parker became a superstar (a very low tier one) from '08 onward, which was past Duncan's prime.

Penny 94-97: 22/5/7/2/1
Kobe 00-04: 26/5/5/2/1
Wade 05-07: 28/6/6/2/1

Parker has pretty much been a 20/3/5 player since Duncan's decline.

[Ne 1]

Also, Duncan's prime years were longer than Shaq's, but Shaq was just more dominant during his peak/prime. In terms of prime and dominance, I think only Kareem and Wilt maybe have a case against Shaq.

And although Shaq may have had superior running mates with Kobe and Wade to win his rings, but Duncan had deeper and more well rounded teams IMO.

[Micku]

Also, Duncan's prime years were longer than Shaq's, but Shaq was just more dominant during his peak/prime. In terms of prime and dominance, I think only Kareem and Wilt maybe have a case against Shaq.

And although Shaq may have had superior running mates with Kobe and Wade to win his rings, but Duncan had deeper and more well rounded teams IMO.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be Shaq's prime. Imo, you can argue Shaq's prime from 1993 when he averaged 29.3, 13.2 rbs, 2.9 blks, on 60% shooting.

From 1993-2005? That's like 12 years? 13 years if you include 2006, which he was also good.

What's Duncan prime years?

[RIP CITY]

Duncan is already ahead of Shaq. Adding another ring and/or Finals MVP just ends the discussion. Very, very few players had more help than Shaq. He played with the 3 greatest wing players of this generation Kobe/Wade/LeBron, not to mention Penny Hardway, Amare Stoudemire, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and some of the greatest roles players of All-Time in Robert Horry and Derek Fisher. He played on stacked team after stacked team after stacked team.

If the officials called the game fairly Shaquille O'Neal would not be considered half as great as he is now, he got away with things that no other player would ever be able to get away with. Half of his post moves were charges that the League dismissed because he was so beloved by the media and fans. He elbowed more people in the face than Hulk Hogan. He was a walking offensive foul and got away with it for years, they'd even go so far as to call a foul on the defender for getting hit in the face with a Shaq elbow, hundreds of times. He's also one of the most overrated defensive players of All-Time, even at his absolute peak he wasn't a good defender.

Tim Duncan's dominance is underrated because he was more dominant defensively, which is harder to quantify than the statistics for scoring. Duncan is one of the Top 5 defensive players of All-Time and was routinely robbed of Defensive Player of the Year. He should have ended his career as the all-time leader in DPOY's. He was that good, even one of my favorite Pistons of All-Time Ben Wallace stole a couple DPOY's that should have went to Duncan. The fact he never won a single DPOY is one of the biggest travesty's in NBA history.

People are just too mesmerized by how overpowering Shaq was to realize that Duncan had just as much of an impact on the entire floor game as Shaq did, because he was dominant on both ends of the floor, in the lockeroom and was a much better leader and teammate than Shaq. He was the better all-around player, even in Shaq's peak. I understand why so many people think otherwise, because of the sheer power and appearance of using other players as rag dolls in the paint but in terms of sheer impact on the entire game of basketball Duncan was every bit as dominant. Because there are two sides of the court and intangibles on and off the court as well. It's the reason why Duncan has been able to stay in one place and continue his teams dominance while Shaq had to go ring chasing at the end of his career because he forced his way out of LA, MIA, PHX and jumped on whatever bangwagon he could until he retired.

[fos]

Is this a joke? Duncan can win another 2-3 rings in the twilight of his career and it wouldn't matter. Shaq was so much more dominant than Duncan, it's not close IMO.

[tanner892]

Prime for prime it isn't close, but if u wanna talk about longevity and who had the better career as a whole, Duncan might have a case.

[Ne 1]

When will these Duncan/Spurs homers learn? :roll: Shaq had back to back 30+/15+ playoff runs, one of which came during a 15-1 post season run. Then in the Finals, he had 3 straight series of 38/17/3, 33/16/5/3(vs DPOY) and 36/12/4. 2 scoring titles, regualr 28-30 ppg scorer during his prime, 3 seasons over 13 rpg and 2 over 3 bpg(Duncan has never done either).

In fact Duncan has had 1 season over 25 ppg, Shaq topped Duncan's career high in scoring 10 straight times. And Duncan only topped Shaq's rookie scoring average once.

Look at how much Duncan had fallen off by his 13th season. Shaq nearly won an MVP in his 13th year and in his 14th year he was still a 20/9/2/2 guy on a championship team. In his 17th year he averaged 18/8 on 61% shooting and made the all-star team.

This isn't even debatable. Shaq was the leader of the best playoff run in history and the only non Jordan or Russell 3peat ever and he's one of just 4 players to win a scoring title and a title in the same year(Jordan, Mikan and Kareem are the other 3).

[T_L_P]

Is this a joke? Duncan can win another 2-3 rings in the twilight of his career and it wouldn't matter. Shaq was so much more dominant than Duncan, it's not close IMO.

And yet, same number of rings with more help? Curious one, that.

[MavsSuperFan]

Shaq played with more superstars than any other player in NBA history. Duncan has literally played with one superstar, and he's one of the worst in NBA history (still an incredible player, but let's not act like his 19 PPG Playoff average is anything to go crazy about).

Shaq has stats and peak. Duncan has winning on his side. He can be the cornerstone for your franchise for nearly two decades. Shaq will leave yours as soon as things get a little shaky. :confusedshrug:
Shaq's peak was much better, and i am a fan of duncan.

Also since 2008 duncan has been a very significant role player.

[T_L_P]

When will these Duncan/Spurs homers learn? :roll: Shaq had back to back 30+/15+ playoff runs, one of which came during a 15-1 post season run. Then in the Finals, he had 3 straight series of 38/17/3, 33/16/5/3(vs DPOY) and 36/12/4. 2 scoring titles, regualr 28-30 ppg scorer during his prime, 3 seasons over 13 rpg and 2 over 3 bpg(Duncan has never done either).

In fact Duncan has had 1 season over 25 ppg, Shaq topped Duncan's career high in scoring 10 straight times. And Duncan only topped Shaq's rookie scoring average once.

Look at how much Duncan had fallen off by his 13th season. Shaq nearly won an MVP in his 13th year and in his 14th year he was still a 20/9/2/2 guy on a championship team. In his 17th year he averaged 18/8 on 61% shooting and made the all-star team.

Right now, this isn't even debatable. Shaq was the leader of three 60 win teams, the best playoff run in history and the only non Jordan or Russell 3peat ever and he's one of just 4 players to win a scoring title and a title in the same year(Jordan, Mikan and Kareem are the other 3).

Answer this: if he was more dominant, how come he won the same number of rings as Duncan with more help?

You'll tell me Duncan had more rounded teams, but stars dominate this league.

[T_L_P]

Actually, I take back what I just said: Duncan '03 run is better than any of Shaq's.

[Ne 1]

You'll tell me Duncan had more rounded teams, but stars dominate this league.
He did have more well rounded teams. Shaq had a the better 2nd option than Duncan did but Duncan had better players from 3-9 from their rotation. Duncan had more depth, Shaq had more star power. Teammates shouldn't be an argument for either side because both of them had good teammates.

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

[T_L_P]

He did have more well rounded teams. Shaq had a the better 2nd option than Duncan did but Duncan had better players from 3-9 from their rotation. Duncan had more depth, Shaq had more star power. Teammates shouldn't be an argument for either side because both of them had good teammates.

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

Fisher in '01: 13 / 4 / 3 / .618 TS%

That's better than Duncan's second option in '03. :roll:

When you have two top three players on the same team, the best you can expect from everyone else is competence: that's exactly what Shaq got.

Duncan didn't have another star in the early 2000s and he got very good role players.

Shaq clearly had more help in his career. To suggest otherwise is asinine. You're trying to close this convo off because they both had help. Well, why even debate who had a better prime? They both had great primes, didn't they?

[Ne 1]

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

[Ne 1]

Teams shouldn't really be brought up for either. Shaq certainly played with more star power in Kobe for 5 years as a premier player, Penny for 2 as a premier player and Wade for 2 when Shaq was still a premier player. But Duncan's teams were deeper. Ultimately, I choose Shaq, his prime and peak were both just better to me and he was a dominant for 13-14 seasons, longer than Duncan. He was the biggest mismatch 1 on 1 that the league has ever seen, and I don't think any player has been tougher to gameplan against.

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

Here is a GM survey from late in the 2003 regular season when Shaq was still being chosen as the best player in the game. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_227/ai_98172075/?tag=content;col1. Shaq was also chosen as best player in a landslide during 2002.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/s...er-results.htm

[houston]

Duncan played with one superstar, and he's among the weakest superstars I can think of. Shaq played with about half a dozen legit ones.


Man Duncan played with all-nba/all-star level talent just like Shaq. David Robinson was MVP caliber talent. Parker been carrying the Spurs these recent years.

[Ne 1]

Fisher in '01: 13 / 4 / 3 / .618 TS%

You cherry pick the one year Fisher came up big in the playoffs. He sucked in 2002 and was a non-factor in 2000 as the team's 4th guard. He was also never a threat like Parker or Ginobili.

[IllegalD]

:roll: @ this Spurs fool trying to compare Fisher to having Manu or TP. Even a rookie TP gives you more than a prime Fisher has ever done. Only thing Fisher ever did better than TP was shoot 3-pointers. Wide open ones he got from playing with Shaq/Kobe/Gasol.

[Ne 1]

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

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

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

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

The 2003 Spurs simply weren't a bad cast. Duncan was the constant, but they had multiple guys step up throughout the run even though it was often different guys throughout the run. It's not that different than how Dallas won in 2011.

[GimmeThat]

career wise, yes. unless you want to say he is not a PF

name me the last PF who was capable of being the 1a/1b option on to 5 rings

[poido123]

He will pass him career wise, but not his peak.

[T_L_P]

Man Duncan played with all-nba/all-star level talent just like Shaq. David Robinson was MVP caliber talent. Parker been carrying the Spurs these recent years.

Robinson with Duncan: 14 / 10 / 2 / 2

Elite, yes. MVP caliber? No way.

Parker since '08: 20 / 3 / 6 / 1
Duncan since '08: 18 / 11 / 3 / 2

Parker is a superstar. But you're telling me that compares with prime Kobe or prime Wade? Like I said, Shaq played with at least half a dozen superstars in their prime. Duncan played with one, and if he was on a shitty team, getting knocked out of the first round every year, would we still consider TP one?

[stephanieg]

I wonder how effective Shaq would be nowadays with how soft they call the post. His go to move would be a borderline flagrant. I was laughing at some of the weak elbow calls they were calling in the Spurs-OKC series. Dwight gets treated like a rookie when he tries to use his strength to shove people out of the way. Basically the only guys who can post up however and get away with murder are LeBron and Kobe, and even they get soft calls against them. Would they make an exception for Shaq body blocking dudes into the front row?

[bizil]

For me, the top five GOAT are MJ, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, and Russell. After that, u can damn near rate Kobe, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, and Lebron interchangeably. So Duncan is already arguably ahead of Shaq now. If he won a ring, sure it make the logic even stronger because of Timmy's longevity being highly effective. There's no doubt about.

[KOBE143]

Duncan is the better player but Shaq will still rank higher than Duncan because Kobe made Shaq a winner and made him one of the most dominant player.. Kobe still better than both combine tho and its not even close.. If Kobe had Duncan as his 2nd option instead of Shaq, Kobe would win every year for sure because Duncan is already a proven winner/dominant player unlike Shaq who became a proven winner/dominant player because of Kobe..

Therefore Kobe>>>>>>>>>>>Shaq>Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ray Allen>>>Kwame Brown, Brian Scalabrine, LeBron James..

[annbafan]

No GM would take Duncan over Shaq at the beginning of their careers to his team and nor would i.

[T_L_P]

No GM would take Duncan over Shaq at the beginning of their careers to his team and nor would i.

That's really avoiding the question.

No GM would take Manu over Thabeet at the beginning of their careers. So does he rank higher?

[annbafan]

That's really avoiding the question.

No GM would take Manu over Thabeet at the beginning of their careers. So does he rank higher?

in addition to my previous post, i actually do think that Duncan will be higher on the all-time list.

I said that Shaq was better game/play-wise and would easily be taken over Duncan to start a team. and that to me is more important than a position in the all-time ranks.

[T_L_P]

in addition to my previous post, i actually do think that Duncan will be higher on the all-time list.

I said that Shaq was better game/play-wise and would easily be taken over Duncan to start a team. and that to me is more important than a position in the all-time ranks.

But looking back on their careers, no way is Shaq the easy pick to make a team.

You don't even know if he's gonna stay there for more than a few years. And you're gonna have to be willing to spend big to gain success. :confusedshrug:

[mehyaM24]

goat coach,two hof/best tandem of international players ever seen....yeah poor duncan :oldlol:

all you have to look at is their h2h matchups in the postseason (shaq as a laker)....duncan will never be better than shaq, no matter how many titles parker and manu carry him to.

[T_L_P]

goat coach,two hof/best tandem of international players ever seen....yeah poor duncan :oldlol:

all you have to look at is their h2h matchups in the postseason (shaq as a laker)....duncan will never be better than shaq, no matter how many titles parker and manu carry him to.

Duncan: 27 PPG / 13 RPG / 4.3 APG / 2.5 BPG / 56 TS%

Shaq: 24 PPG / 13 RPG / 2.6 APG / 2.3 BPG / 53.6 TS%

Totally outdid Tim.

[mehyaM24]

Duncan: 27 PPG / 13 RPG / 4.3 APG / 2.5 BPG / 56 TS%

Shaq: 24 PPG / 13 RPG / 2.6 APG / 2.3 BPG / 53.6 TS%

Totally outdid Tim.

*to=turnovers

duncan: 29ppg/10.8reb/3.3ast/2blk/4.5to .513%fg
shaq: 23ppg/13reb/0.5ast/1.8blk/2.3to on .493%fg

duncan: 23ppg/12.3reb/4.3ast/4.3blk/4.5to 47%fg
shaq: 25.7ppg/13.3reb/2.2ast/1.3blk/3.7to on .553%fg

duncan: 29ppg/17.2reb/4.6ast/3.2blk/4.6to on .425%fg
shaq: 21.4ppg/12.2reb/3.2ast/3blk/3to on .447%fg

duncan: 28ppg/11.8reb/4.8ast/1.3blk/2.2to on .529%fg
shaq: 25.3ppg/14.3reb/3.7ast/2.8blk/3.5to on .559%fg

duncan: 20.7ppg/12.2reb/3.3ast/1.7blk/4.7to on .473%fg
shaq: 22.5ppg/14.5reb/2.0ast/4.3blk/2.8to on .635%fg

^their 5 h2h's when shaq was a laker. shaq typically outrebounded, outshot (efficiency) and averaged less turnovers than duncan.

also keep in mind,shaq was going up against duncan AND robinson in most of those matchups.

shaq wins easily

[T_L_P]

*to=turnovers

duncan: 29ppg/10.8reb/3.3ast/2blk/4.5to .513%fg
shaq: 23ppg/13reb/0.5ast/1.8blk/2.3to on .493%fg

duncan: 23ppg/12.3reb/4.3ast/4.3blk/4.5to 47%fg
shaq: 25.7ppg/13.3reb/2.2ast/1.3blk/3.7to on .553%fg

duncan: 29ppg/17.2reb/4.6ast/3.2blk/4.6to on .425%fg
shaq: 21.4ppg/12.2reb/3.2ast/3blk/3to on .447%fg

duncan: 28ppg/11.8reb/4.8ast/1.3blk/2.2to on .529%fg
shaq: 25.3ppg/14.3reb/3.7ast/2.8blk/3.5to on .559%fg

duncan: 20.7ppg/12.2reb/3.3ast/1.7blk/4.7to on .473%fg
shaq: 22.5ppg/14.5reb/2.0ast/4.3blk/2.8to on .635%fg

^their 5 h2h's when shaq was a laker. shaq typically outrebounded, outshot (efficiency) and averaged less turnovers than duncan.

also keep in mind,shaq was going up against duncan AND robinson in most of those matchups.

shaq wins easily

Duncan outplayed Shaq in '99, '02 and 03. Shaq outplayed Duncan in '01 and '04.

Shaq wins easily?

[mehyaM24]

Duncan outplayed Shaq in '99, '02 and 03. Shaq outplayed Duncan in '01 and '04.

shaq also outplayed duncan in 03, kobe just took more shots away from him(as i pointed out earlier)


Shaq wins easily?

yes easily. shaq had to go thru 2 HOF bigs, where the lakers front court was....just shaq. shaq's numbers when you apply context are much more impressive, imo