Shaq vs. Duncan, who do you rank higher?

[illmaticone]

Before 2013 I would have definitely said Shaq was the better player and would definitely have him ranked higher on my top-10. I still believe that prime Shaq > prime Duncan, but when factoring in longevity and career accomplishments it begins to get tough.

When putting together your top-10 list, who would you guys rank higher.

[dubeta]

Definately Shaq, he has the higher career PER, the ultimate differentiator :applause:

[ISHGoat]

I think the standard answer is, shaq had the higher peak and impact but duncan has the longevity + accolades + rings

depends on what you value

[dubeta]

I think the standard answer is, shaq had the higher peak and impact but duncan has the longevity + accolades + rings

depends on what you value

Shaq won with 0 great players in 2000, I doubt Duncan would be able to do that.

[ClipperRevival]

Duncan.

And to me, it's not even close. Shaq obviously had a greater peak but give me old reliable for about 18 years of amazing offensive and defensive production at all time great levels. Their careers speak for themselves. When Shaq peaked, he got 3 straight. But Duncan was that constant, giving your team a legit chance to compete for a title for almost 2 decades. And to me, I like that better.

[navy]

Timmy for longevity reasons . I dont think he was that much a better better player if at all.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Duncan.

He's 5th for me, Shaq is 7th.

[SouBeachTalents]

Shaq won with 0 great players in 2000, I doubt Duncan would be able to do that.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html#all_per_game

[warriorfan]

Depends on your criteria for ranking a player. Most all time rankings are based more on career accolades and accomplishments and Duncan's second to none longevity helps him greatly in this aspect. Shaq did have the better peak but it was much shorter in comparison to Duncan. Some people also hate Shaq for leaving to LA, the drama in LA, conditioning problems, etc etc.

[dubeta]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html#all_per_game

What team are you showing me?? Looks like the Western All-Star team tbh :coleman:

[T_L_P]

Can't go wrong with either, but I'd draft Duncan because his presence can bring a winning culture, he's a proto-typical defensive anchor (something Shaq was only at his peak, and even then he wasn't on the level of prime Duncan), and I feel like he was a lot more effective after his prime (don't rate Shaq's play at all from 07 onward and he was slightly overrated in Miami).

Shaq has the longer prime and the better peak.

[ClipperRevival]

Depends on your criteria for ranking a player. Most all time rankings are based more on career accolades and accomplishments and Duncan's second to none longevity helps him greatly in this aspect. Shaq did have the better peak but it was much shorter in comparison to Duncan. Some people also hate Shaq for leaving to LA, the drama in LA, conditioning problems, etc etc.

Being objective, when you look at the entire body of work, it has to be Duncan. But I know some people put more value on peak, so they take Shaq. So it comes down to preference.

[plowking]

Depends on your criteria for ranking a player. Most all time rankings are based more on career accolades and accomplishments and Duncan's second to none longevity helps him greatly in this aspect. Shaq did have the better peak but it was much shorter in comparison to Duncan. Some people also hate Shaq for leaving to LA, the drama in LA, conditioning problems, etc etc.

He didn't have a shorter peak though.
Shaq came into the league in his peak. Dude was putting up 23/14 from the get go.

Shaq has 11 seasons of at least 26/10...
13 of at least 20/10.
14 of at least 20ppg.
8 first teams, 2 second teams, and 4 third teams.

Duncan has 13 seasons of double-doubles. Not 20/10, just double-doubles.
9 of 20/10...
10 first teams, 3 second teams and 2 third teams.

I agree that Duncan has some of the best longevity, but Shaq is really underrated in that regard. He isn't Karl Malone, Tim Duncan or KAJ, but he isn't far off.

[illmaticone]

He didn't have a shorter peak though.
Shaq came into the league in his peak. Dude was putting up 23/14 from the get go.

Shaq has 11 seasons of at least 26/10...
13 of at least 20/10.
14 of at least 20ppg.
8 first teams, 2 second teams, and 4 third teams.

Duncan has 13 seasons of double-doubles. Not 20/10, just double-doubles.
9 of 20/10...
10 first teams, 3 second teams and 2 third teams.

I agree that Duncan has some of the best longevity, but Shaq is really underrated in that regard. He isn't Karl Malone, Tim Duncan or KAJ, but he isn't far off.

Who would you rank higher then plowking, and where in your top-10 would you rank both of them?

[ClipperRevival]

He didn't have a shorter peak though.
Shaq came into the league in his peak. Dude was putting up 23/14 from the get go.

Shaq has 11 seasons of at least 26/10...
13 of at least 20/10.
14 of at least 20ppg.
8 first teams, 2 second teams, and 4 third teams.

Duncan has 13 seasons of double-doubles. Not 20/10, just double-doubles.
9 of 20/10...
10 first teams, 3 second teams and 2 third teams.

I agree that Duncan has some of the best longevity, but Shaq is really underrated in that regard. He isn't Karl Malone, Tim Duncan or KAJ, but he isn't far off.

Absolutely. Shaq's longevity is underrated. Like you said, he was great from the get go.

[plowking]

Who would you rank higher then plowking, and where in your top-10 would you rank both of them?

I dunno.

To me Shaq was clearly the better player at his peak. But then Duncan has made himself an effective and valuable player even to this day.
Despite putting up some not so bad stats after his 20/10 seasons, Shaq kinda dropped off in terms of on court value. You could see he didn't really have the impact on court anymore. Duncan still does.

They're both probably 5th or 6th for me. Just above Larry Bird.

[miles berg]

Shaq easily, much more dominant. My top 5 is Jordan, Wilt, Jabbar, LeBron, & Shaq.

[illmaticone]

I dunno.

To me Shaq was clearly the better player at his peak. But then Duncan has made himself an effective and valuable player even to this day.
Despite putting up some not so bad stats after his 20/10 seasons, Shaq kinda dropped off in terms of on court value. You could see he didn't really have the impact on court anymore. Duncan still does.

They're both probably 5th or 6th for me. Just above Larry Bird.

I have them just behind Bird. I'm assuming the other 4 ahead of them are Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, and Russell?

[kennethgriffin]

Definately Shaq, he has the higher career PER, the ultimate differentiator :applause:


chris paul has a higher career per than shaq

:lol

[dubeta]

chris paul has a higher career per than shaq

:lol

No he isnt

Shaquille O'Neal 26.43


Chris Paul 25.63

[TheBigVeto]

Duncan. Shaq needed David Stern to win his rings.

[T_L_P]

No he isnt

Shaquille O'Neal 26.43


Chris Paul 25.63

Chris Bosh 20.63

Tony Parker 18.91

:bowdown:

[dubeta]

Chris Bosh 20.63

Tony Parker 18.91

:bowdown:

:applause:

No excuses for 20 PER Bosh and Wade next season

[SouBeachTalents]

No he isnt

Shaquille O'Neal 26.43


Chris Paul 25.63

Wade: 25.02

Kareem: 24.58
Duncan: 24.47
Magic: 24.11
Hakeem: 23.59
Bird: 23.50
Oscar: 23.17

[dubeta]

Wade: 25.02

Kareem: 24.58
Duncan: 24.47
Magic: 24.11
Bird: 23.50
Oscar: 23.17

Wade statpadded while losing in the 1st round/missing the playoffs :confusedshrug:

[rmt]

What a conundrum for Kobe stans - can't vote for Shaq as that detracts from Kobe but can't vote for Duncan because it puts Kobe further behind in TD's rearview mirror.

GOAT rankings are usually based on achievements (not peak play) eg. if Djokovic wins a calendar Grand Slam this year that will surpass anything Federer has ever done in a 1 year period but he will not be considered higher ranked than Federer because of ENTIRE career achievements. My answer is Duncan.

[Cold soul]

Duncan better longevity, natural winner, better teammate, based on accomplishments alone he's above Shaq.

[warriorfan]

Being objective, when you look at the entire body of work, it has to be Duncan. But I know some people put more value on peak, so they take Shaq. So it comes down to preference.

Agreed.



He didn't have a shorter peak though.
Shaq came into the league in his peak. Dude was putting up 23/14 from the get go.

Shaq has 11 seasons of at least 26/10...
13 of at least 20/10.
14 of at least 20ppg.
8 first teams, 2 second teams, and 4 third teams.

Duncan has 13 seasons of double-doubles. Not 20/10, just double-doubles.
9 of 20/10...
10 first teams, 3 second teams and 2 third teams.

I agree that Duncan has some of the best longevity, but Shaq is really underrated in that regard. He isn't Karl Malone, Tim Duncan or KAJ, but he isn't far off.


You are right, it isn't fair to say Shaq had a much longer peak than Duncan but Duncan did have the longer peak. I would say you could consider Shaq had a peak from 1993 to 2007. I wouldn't call that peak but more like years he was relevant. For Duncan it has been from 1998 to 2015. I would say Duncan was better in his later years because of the defense he could still bring. Duncan has always been a better defender than Shaq (even though a lot of this did have to do with having less of an offensive responsibility).


I would go with Duncan over Shaq though. For strictly basketball purposes I like Duncan's longer and more consistent play. I think it's easier to build more titles around Duncan's career than Shaq's due to the longer peak and more consistent level of play in the twilight of his career. Then when you go into other aspects, keeping Shaq happy or he will leave, healing on company time, Shaq might still leave anyways...This stuff kind of makes it a no brainer that if you had a choice to start a team with one of the two you go with Duncan.

[JebronLames]

I have them both over Kobe

[Prime_Shaq]

Shaq

[plowking]

Agreed.





You are right, it isn't fair to say Shaq had a much longer peak than Duncan but Duncan did have the longer peak. I would say you could consider Shaq had a peak from 1993 to 2007. I wouldn't call that peak but more like years he was relevant. For Duncan it has been from 1998 to 2015. I would say Duncan was better in his later years because of the defense he could still bring. Duncan has always been a better defender than Shaq (even though a lot of this did have to do with having less of an offensive responsibility).


I would go with Duncan over Shaq though. For strictly basketball purposes I like Duncan's longer and more consistent play. I think it's easier to build more titles around Duncan's career than Shaq's due to the longer peak and more consistent level of play in the twilight of his career. Then when you go into other aspects, keeping Shaq happy or he will leave, healing on company time, Shaq might still leave anyways...This stuff kind of makes it a no brainer that if you had a choice to start a team with one of the two you go with Duncan.

I'd probably go with Duncan too, knowing what we know now, simply due to sustained excellence and a not so over the top personality.
I think Shaq makes you an instant contender in a way no one else could if you pick him, but just going by the San Antonio model, there is a lot to be appreciative of in terms of consistent greatness, and essentially never seeing your team struggle.

One thing I will say though, is that Shaq is in fact one of the best defenders ever, and better than Duncan at his peak, simply due to how much of a deterrent he was for opposing players. No one wanted to drive on Shaq when he was in the paint. One of the things that made Karl Malone and Bynum great defenders too. Intimidation is a big part, and Shaq was the best all time at that. He may not have been anywhere near as good technically and what not, but as far as me driving into the paint, I'd rather do it against Duncan than Shaq.

[T_L_P]

Agreed.





You are right, it isn't fair to say Shaq had a much longer peak than Duncan but Duncan did have the longer peak. I would say you could consider Shaq had a peak from 1993 to 2007. I wouldn't call that peak but more like years he was relevant. For Duncan it has been from 1998 to 2015. I would say Duncan was better in his later years because of the defense he could still bring. Duncan has always been a better defender than Shaq (even though a lot of this did have to do with having less of an offensive responsibility).


I would go with Duncan over Shaq though. For strictly basketball purposes I like Duncan's longer and more consistent play. I think it's easier to build more titles around Duncan's career than Shaq's due to the longer peak and more consistent level of play in the twilight of his career. Then when you go into other aspects, keeping Shaq happy or he will leave, healing on company time, Shaq might still leave anyways...This stuff kind of makes it a no brainer that if you had a choice to start a team with one of the two you go with Duncan.

I agree with everything you've said in this thread except this.

Duncan played his absolute best defense (2003) when he had an even larger offensive burden than Shaq ever did (abysmal offensive help, had to be both the primary scorer and playmaker on his team and Shaq was never that).

Duncan was simply a better defensive player because he was smarter, quicker, he knew how to use his length well and he had pitch-perfect positioning. I don't really think offensive responsibility had much to do with it. Maybe in 10-11 which is comparable in age to Shaq's 2nd and 3rd Heat years, but thats about it. :confusedshrug:

[Rocketswin2013]

Shaq. His longevity is somewhat underrated.

[T_L_P]

I'd probably go with Duncan too, knowing what we know now, simply due to sustained excellence and a not so over the top personality.
I think Shaq makes you an instant contender in a way no one else could if you pick him, but just going by the San Antonio model, there is a lot to be appreciative of in terms of consistent greatness, and essentially never seeing your team struggle.

One thing I will say though, is that Shaq is in fact one of the best defenders ever, and better than Duncan at his peak, simply due to how much of a deterrent he was for opposing players. No one wanted to drive on Shaq when he was in the paint. One of the things that made Karl Malone and Bynum great defenders too. Intimidation is a big part, and Shaq was the best all time at that. He may not have been anywhere near as good technically and what not, but as far as me driving into the paint, I'd rather do it against Duncan than Shaq.

Are you saying Shaq at his overall peak was a better player or that he was better defensively?

If it's the latter...:biggums:

The two great defensive Laker teams (2000 and 2002) lead the NBA in Opp FG% outside the paint (which Shaq had absolutely nothing to do with). He was a very good man defender when he wanted to be but your post is mostly hyperbole. The stats say you were much better going to the rim against Shaq than you were against Duncan (the Lakers' defensive schemes usually relied on the wing players keeping the ball outside for the majority of the shot clock, making the other team scramble to make a play at the end; the Spurs defensive scheme for more than a decade was to funnel players into Duncan and watch them miss shots).

I get that peak Shaq is > peak Duncan, but defensively? Come on. Maybe in your brain you'd rather drive against Duncan, but coaches who study for hours and hours wouldn't agree. Shaq turned into a foul machine when teams went at him. Duncan has all-time great positioning and timing which makes him one of the best help defenders in NBA history (iirc he's the only player to have more blocks than fouls in a season, mostly due to his incredible length which keeps his bod away from players while still staying relatively close to his man). Not to mention he didn't need to be fed the ball x amount of times per game in order for him to try on defense, which is all that needs to be said for their value on that end...

[Tainted Sword]

The only reason I would even consider taking Duncan over Shaq would be because of Shaq's attitude issues.

If Shaq were drafted to San Antonio in 97 instead of Duncan, how many titles would he have?

[rmt]

The only reason I would even consider taking Duncan over Shaq would be because of Shaq's attitude issues.

If Shaq were drafted to San Antonio in 97 instead of Duncan, how many titles would he have?

I fail to see why people don't see a player as an entirety - as if you can judge/assess the mental/psychological separate from the physical. It's all one person - you take one part with the other - the total package. Then it's a choice - one package vs another package.

Who knows what would happen? Would Shaq allow Pop to coach him? Would he allow Parker/Manu/Leonard to grow/develop and share offensively? Would he be content to be out of the limelight in sleepy San Antonio or wish for the bright lights of a big city? Would he stay?

[MEB2kDeez]

Shaq for me but I can definitely see why people have Duncan over him.

[inclinerator]

http://i.imgur.com/gw0e9n0.png

[Warners0]

The only reason I would even consider taking Duncan over Shaq would be because of Shaq's attitude issues.

If Shaq were drafted to San Antonio in 97 instead of Duncan, how many titles would he have?


If Shaq was drafted by San Antonio he would of ran Poppovich out of town.

[Warners0]

I don't understand why people are so caught up in the statistics with Duncan.

Did anyone watch Duncan in his prime and ever feel like he couldn't score when he wanted too?

Duncan plays a team style of game, he isn't going to force shots when he has a teammate open.

Thats just not how he plays.

When he had to score he scored, but when he could get other guys going, he would not stand in there way.

I've seen games where he scored 12 in a quarter or 20 in a half and then in the second half he didn't shoot nowhere as much because he had established already that if you leave him 1 on 1 he would punish you.

As far as I'm concerned no one in the history of the NBA has done more with less.

And I would take Duncan over anyone. And I'm not even a spurs fan.

[Harison]

I rank Shaq a bit higher because of his dominance, Duncan never reached such level. However I would draft Timmy over Shaq, because I get two-way elite big and no ego issues.

[rmt]

I don't understand why people are so caught up in the statistics with Duncan.

Did anyone watch Duncan in his prime and ever feel like he couldn't score when he wanted too?

Duncan plays a team style of game, he isn't going to force shots when he has a teammate open.

Thats just not how he plays.

When he had to score he scored, but when he could get other guys going, he would not stand in there way.

I've seen games where he scored 12 in a quarter or 20 in a half and then in the second half he didn't shoot nowhere as much because he had established already that if you leave him 1 on 1 he would punish you.

I think that Duncan has always understood that you need others and has been happy to do whatever is needed to win. When his team mates have it going, he's content to just play defense. When they are struggling, he steps it up offensively. And when everyone sees the superstar taking the coaching/criticism, putting in the hard work, happy that others are scoring, it sets a tone that permeates the team and makes the other players follow that example.


As far as I'm concerned no one in the history of the NBA has done more with less.

And I would take Duncan over anyone. And I'm not even a spurs fan.

High praise indeed.

[houston]

duncan of course

[aj1987]

Duncan.

And to me, it's not even close. Shaq obviously had a greater peak but give me old reliable for about 18 years of amazing offensive and defensive production at all time great levels. Their careers speak for themselves. When Shaq peaked, he got 3 straight. But Duncan was that constant, giving your team a legit chance to compete for a title for almost 2 decades. And to me, I like that better.
:facepalm

Are you actually being serious?

[IllegalD]

Let's compare their help throughout their careers.


Duncan's best help:

David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Sean Elliot, Robert Horry, Brent Barry.

Player Tally: 6 Allstar Players (4 Hall of Famers)

Result: 5 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's best help:

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Penny Hardaway, LeBron James, Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, Amare Stoudemire, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horrace Grant, Glenn Rice, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Mo Williams.

Player Tally: 17 Allstar Players (9 Hall of Famers) :eek:

*[Only counting Shaq's Allstar seasons: 11 Allstars (5 Hall of Famers)]

Result: 4 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's basically had the most help of any Top 10/GOAT candidate throughout his career.

[D-FENS]

Shaq was not as much of a factor on D

[3ball]

Shaq was not as much of a factor on D



But Shaq's prime at least compares to MJ's, whereas Duncan's is nowhere near:


Comparing MJ's Peak to Shaq's Peak (91-93' vs. 00'-02')


Rebounds and assists cancel each other out.. So do blocks and steals.. Also, Shaq has higher FG%, but MJ has much higher FT% - so we'll just use TS% and ORtg for efficiency.. Here are the relevant stats:


REGULAR SEASON

MJ..... 31.4 PPG, 58.2% TS, 122 ORtg, 0.288 WS/48, 3 All-Defense 1st Team, 2 MVP
Shaq.. 28.6 PPG, 58.0% TS, 115 ORtg, 0.264 WS/48, 2 All-Defense 2nd Team, 1 MVP


PLAYOFFS

MJ..... 33.7 PPG, 57.2% TS, 120 ORtg, 0.267 WS/48
Shaq.. 29.9 PPG, 56.2% TS, 113 ORtg, 0.238 WS/48


FINALS

MJ..... 36.3 PPG, 52.6% FG, 84.3% FT, played #5, #3, #9 defenses, beat Magic-Drexler-Barkley
Shaq.. 35.9 PPG, 59.5% FG, 50.6% FT, played #13, #5, #1 defenses, beat Miller-Iverson-Kidd

[pauk]

Shaq.

No doubt Duncan has the accolades and ofcourse i value that but i also value individual talent probably even higher... Duncan was no slouch even there... but Shaq may arguably be the greatest talent ever, most dominant at least ive seen (in his prime), he was pure ridicilousness....

So its no big gap however, i rank them next to eachother, but Shaq above.

[rzp]

Let's compare their help throughout their careers.


Duncan's best help:

David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Sean Elliot, Robert Horry, Brent Barry.

Player Tally: 6 Allstar Players (4 Hall of Famers)

Result: 5 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's best help:

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Penny Hardaway, LeBron James, Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, Amare Stoudemire, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horrace Grant, Glenn Rice, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Mo Williams.

Player Tally: 17 Allstar Players (9 Hall of Famers) :eek:

Result: 4 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's basically had the most help of any Top 10/GOAT candidate throughout his career.

Shaq was old as **** when played these bolded guys.

Played payton and malone for only one fkin year... both old as **** (and malone injuried)

TD played with TP and Gino for like 50 years, so ur counting its just ridiculous

Ur just another f@ggot shaq hater.

[IllegalD]

Shaq was old as **** when played these bolded guys.

Played payton and malone for only one fkin year... both old as **** (and malone injuried)

TD played with TP and Gino for like 50 years, so ur counting its just ridiculous

Ur just another f@ggot shaq hater.

In 2009 on the Suns Shaq was an 18 and 8 Allstar, on 62% FG shooting (highest FG of any of his allstar years)

Malone and Payton always gets counted as Kobe's "great help" throughout his career despite the reasons you mentioned, why should it be any different for Shaq, if not MORE SO (since everyone insists those were HIS teams)? :confusedshrug: ISH hypocrisy at its finest. :facepalm

Even if Shaq was old during the Celtic and Cavs years, he was still on good teams with GREAT players that gave him chances to win and pad his ring count. Had he made it far with any of those teams and done anything remotely impactful in any playoff game, people would count it towards his ring count.

[IllegalD]

Shaq was old as **** when played these bolded guys.

Played payton and malone for only one fkin year... both old as **** (and malone injuried)

TD played with TP and Gino for like 50 years, so ur counting its just ridiculous

Ur just another f@ggot shaq hater.

Even if I remove the Celtics and Cavs the final tally comes down to.

Shaq: 11 Allstars (5 Hall of Famers)

[IllegalD]

You made a lot of excuses for Shaq's help, but if that's the case then you also need to go back and mention that David Robinson was not in his prime, Parker and Ginobili were rookies/2nd year players for the 2003 ring, and I'm preemptively gifting Leonard a HOF admission which is not guaranteed to him. :confusedshrug:

[IllegalD]

Not to mention that no teammate that Duncan has had has been as good as Shaq's TWO best teammates (Kobe and Wade)

[raiderfan19]

Are you saying Shaq at his overall peak was a better player or that he was better defensively?

If it's the latter...:biggums:

The two great defensive Laker teams (2000 and 2002) lead the NBA in Opp FG% outside the paint (which Shaq had absolutely nothing to do with). He was a very good man defender when he wanted to be but your post is mostly hyperbole. The stats say you were much better going to the rim against Shaq than you were against Duncan (the Lakers' defensive schemes usually relied on the wing players keeping the ball outside for the majority of the shot clock, making the other team scramble to make a play at the end; the Spurs defensive scheme for more than a decade was to funnel players into Duncan and watch them miss shots).

I get that peak Shaq is > peak Duncan, but defensively? Come on. Maybe in your brain you'd rather drive against Duncan, but coaches who study for hours and hours wouldn't agree. Shaq turned into a foul machine when teams went at him. Duncan has all-time great positioning and timing which makes him one of the best help defenders in NBA history (iirc he's the only player to have more blocks than fouls in a season, mostly due to his incredible length which keeps his bod away from players while still staying relatively close to his man). Not to mention he didn't need to be fed the ball x amount of times per game in order for him to try on defense, which is all that needs to be said for their value on that end...
You can't mention the fouls thing without bringing up that Duncan has gotten away with more uncalled defensive fouls than any player in history. To be fair Shaq got away with a ton of offensive fouls too so it's nullified for this point but bringing up never fouling and not at least mentioning the fact that Duncan always(and to this day) got away with murder on that end is disingenuous.

As for the question, it really is a question of what you value. Peak vs sustained production(although both Shaqs longevity and Duncan's peak are getting disrespected to act like either is significantly higher than the other.)

One thing about this is that while Duncan could have scored more it's important to remember that he .... Didn't. It's an arbitrary cutoff point and one that hurts Duncan but he only had 5 22ppg seasons in his career. Shaq had 12. It's get up 9 for Duncan if you drop the requirement to 20 but also goes up to 14 for Shaq.

Rebounding is pretty much a wash. Shaq had 3 13 rebound a gam seasons and Duncan never had one but they both have 13 double figure years so it balances.

I value force of nature offense over all around value in terms of this type of decision but it's certainly a fair question and a legitimate stance to take duncan

[raiderfan19]

So on the list of people they played with if you are counting some of those guys you are counting for Shaq why wouldn't Jerome kersey, Michael Finley, Terry Porter, Tracy Mcgrady, damon stoudamire, Kevin Willis, and Richard Jefferson among others count for Duncan? Obviously they don't matter but a bunch of those guys don't matter for Shaq either.

[ArbitraryWater]

Shaq is a better, more destructive, dominant player, his top 5 seasons probably edge ony of Duncan's besides 2003. Not that close to me.

[keep-itreal]

5 rings > 4 rings

[Dragonyeuw]

Shaq's longevity is underrated. 92 to 06 is 14 years of 20+/10+. 20 and 10 being the barometer of a 'dominant big', that's pretty damn great to me. I think all things considered, Shaq with average talent is better off than Duncan with average talent, due to Shaq's overwhelming physical dominance and impact. Now if the argument is stability, aging gracefully, better teammate etc etc, that argument clearly goes to Duncan.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

5 rings > 4 rings

christian thompson

wind defenders

[tpols]

Shaq's longevity is underrated. 92 to 06 is 14 years of 20+/10+. 20 and 10 being the barometer of a 'dominant big', that's pretty damn great to me. I think all things considered, Shaq with average talent is better off than Duncan with average talent, due to Shaq's overwhelming physical dominance and impact. Now if the argument is stability, aging gracefully, better teammate etc etc, that argument clearly goes to Duncan.

It's not about the stats.. shaq was a poor leader in his old age, well any age really but especially in his old age. He was just a circus show of different nicknames and promises.. hopping from stacked team to stacked team but never really making a difference.

Can you imagine 13 or 14 duncan on the late 00 Cavs or celtics? They would've won rings.. duncan plays defense and does all the little stuff. He brings way more value in old age than shaq.. who was a liability defensively at the end.. duncan still scores as one of the best defenders in the league.

[La Frescobaldi]

I saw only like one or two posts about Shaq's days on the Magic?

dude was blasting the league like very very few in those days. He was really amazing

[Dragonyeuw]

It's not about the stats.. shaq was a poor leader in his old age, well any age really but especially in his old age. He was just a circus show of different nicknames and promises.. hopping from stacked team to stacked team but never really making a difference.

Can you imagine 13 or 14 duncan on the late 00 Cavs or celtics? They would've won rings.. duncan plays defense and does all the little stuff. He brings way more value in old age than shaq.. who was a liability defensively at the end.. duncan still scores as one of the best defenders in the league.

So out of interest, would you take prime Duncan over 1999-2002 Shaq? We all know who the better teammate was, and who was better in old age, that's not up for dispute. But knowing the kind of force Shaq was in that peak period, would you take Duncan over that version of him?

[tpols]

So out of interest, would you take prime Duncan over 1999-2002 Shaq? We all know who the better teammate was, and who was better in old age, that's not up for dispute. But knowing the kind of force Shaq was in that peak period, would you take Duncan over that version of him?

I would take peak shaq but these guys have 15+ year careers so what they do in a couple years shouldn't override the other 80% imo

[rzp]

Talking about loyalty... Shaq left Orlando also because they REFUSE to pay a max contract to him; obviously trying to disrespect and diminish him. I'd like to see any legendary player, in his absolute prime (including TD) not doing the same.

Can u imagine something like that these days? cats like Kevin Love, Chris Bosh, (maybe even TT?) asking for a max contract...

And about leaving the LAL, well, he played along side the ****ing Kobe-chucking-Bryant, one of the most narcisist/selfish players of all time, for freaking 8 years. That makes Shaq an hero, not a disloyal player.

[rmt]

Shaq was old as **** when played these bolded guys.

Played payton and malone for only one fkin year... both old as **** (and malone injuried)

TD played with TP and Gino for like 50 years, so ur counting its just ridiculous

Ur just another f@ggot shaq hater.

I agree that one cannot go by just "name" as players are in different stages of their career or had up/down years. How about this - Duncan won 4 championships without any all-nba (that year) team mates? I'm pretty sure Kobe and Wade were all-nba the years that Shaq won rings. DRob, Parker and Manu were not on any all-nba team in 99, 03, 05 or 07.

[rzp]

I agree that one cannot go by just "name" as players are in different stages of their career or had up/down years. How about this - Duncan won 4 championships without any all-nba (that year) team mates? I'm pretty sure Kobe and Wade were all-nba the years that Shaq won rings. DRob, Parker and Manu were not on any all-nba team in 99, 03, 05 or 07.

I'd bet that Shaq (and Phill) would switch Kobe for Parker and Manu in a heartbeat, if possible (desconsidering their ages diferences of course).

Shaq had help concentrated in a few players, while TD had the same relative help, but spread over into more players and with a better system, and that makes him looks better.

[NumberSix]

Shaq, and it's not close.

Shaq/Duncan is about as close as Jordan/Kobe.

[T_L_P]

I'd bet that Shaq (and Phill) would switch Kobe for Parker and Manu in a heartbeat, if possible (desconsidering their ages diferences of course).

Shaq had help concentrated in a few players, while TD had the same relative help, but spread over into more players and with a better system, and that makes him looks better.

Remember when Shaq had three other All-Star teammates, not to mention elite role players like Horry and Fox, and still ended up getting swept because he didn't have PJAX to instill a winning culture?

Yeah, that help was so not spread.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Shaq

[rzp]

Remember when Shaq had three other All-Star teammates, not to mention elite role players like Horry and Fox, and still ended up getting swept because he didn't have PJAX to instill a winning culture?

Yeah, that help was so not spread.

We all know Nick Van Exel or Glen Rice were Marbury-esque all star: 0 clutch, 0 teamwork, dumb as fvck, you know that (and all Shaq haters do), just won't admit it. They were nowhere close to Manu or Parker, as professionals.

[BigBoss]

Shaq. His peak was so dominant you can't overlook that.

[Lamar Odumbb]

I'd bet that Shaq (and Phill) would switch Kobe for Parker and Manu in a heartbeat, if possible (desconsidering their ages diferences of course).

Shaq had help concentrated in a few players, while TD had the same relative help, but spread over into more players and with a better system, and that makes him looks better.

Why couldnt Shaq win with Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe, Rick Fox, and Horry from 97-99 since that is better than Kobe, Fox, and Horry based on your logic of spread out vs best combo.

I mean Kobe the chucker is 4-2 vs Duncan and his spread out team playing basketball.

[Dragonyeuw]

I would take peak shaq but these guys have 15+ year careers so what they do in a couple years shouldn't override the other 80% imo

True but Shaq has more than a couple years. 92 to 2006 is one of the best runs I've seen out of a player, I don't think he did his legacy any favors by all the late career hopping but all things considered... I mean alot of these guys are ranked off what they did in a peak period. Hakeem for example wouldnt be in anyones top ten if he didnt have that 94 and 95 run. To me Duncan, Shaq and Kobe are in the same tier, where you'd rank them is subjective(then again, all these rankings are ultimately subjective).

[rmt]

I'd bet that Shaq (and Phill) would switch Kobe for Parker and Manu in a heartbeat, if possible (desconsidering their ages diferences of course).

Shaq had help concentrated in a few players, while TD had the same relative help, but spread over into more players and with a better system, and that makes him looks better.

Shaq and Phil would not have switched Kobe(not 00)/Wade for DRob in 99 or Parker/Manu in 03. Yes, in 05 and 07 but that's 2 people you are substituting for 1 and Spurs salary is usually < Lakers salary. I don't factor in 2014 because Duncan is 38 years old and not expected to be carrying such a load.

Kobe
00 playoffs 21.1 pts 4.5 rebs 4.4 asst 44.2%
01 playoffs 29.4 pts 7.3 rebs 6.1 asst 46.9%
02 playoffs 26.6 pts 5.8 rebs 4.6 asst 43.4%

Wade
06 playoffs 28.4 pts 5.9 rebs 5.7 asst 49.7%

DRob
99 playoffs 15.6 pts 9.9 rebs 2.5 asst 2.4 blks 48.3%

03 playoffs
Parker 14.7 pts 2.8 rebs 3.5 asst 40.3%
Manu 9.4 pts 3.8 rebs 2.9 asst 38.6%

Salary
1999 Spurs 43,681,143
2000 Lakers 55,018,533
2001 Lakers 58,968,213
2002 Lakers 54,262,017
2003 Spurs 53,182,559
2005 Spurs 47,504,133
2006 Heat 60,732,052
2007 Spurs 65,654,330
2014 Spurs 63,666,028

[IllegalD]

Not surprising that the only ones massively overrating Shaq in this thread ("it's not even close" :roll: ) are all the LeBron n*thuggers that have Kobe living rentfree in their heads. :rolleyes:

[JellyBean]

Shaq is ranked higher on my list.

[ArbitraryWater]

Not surprising that the only ones massively overrating Shaq in this thread ("it's not even close" :roll: ) are all the LeBron n*thuggers that have Kobe living rentfree in their heads. :rolleyes:

anddddddddddddd the next post of the thread is a Kobe fan saying he'll take Shaq.. nice try.

[Doranku]

Duncan pretty easily ranking wise.

Shaq at his peak though was (obviously) better than Duncan at his peak.

[aj1987]

Let's compare their help throughout their careers.


Duncan's best help:

David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Sean Elliot, Robert Horry, Brent Barry.

Player Tally: 6 Allstar Players (4 Hall of Famers)

Result: 5 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's best help:

Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Penny Hardaway, LeBron James, Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, Amare Stoudemire, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horrace Grant, Glenn Rice, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Mo Williams.

Player Tally: 17 Allstar Players (9 Hall of Famers) :eek:

*[Only counting Shaq's Allstar seasons: 11 Allstars (5 Hall of Famers)]

Result: 4 rings, 6 finals

Shaq's basically had the most help of any Top 10/GOAT candidate throughout his career.
Wait. Are you actually being serious with this post or is Chuckbe's *** blinding you? WOAT ISH post. That's saying a lot, considering the fact that the other "nominees" have a single digit IQ.

[rzp]

Why couldnt Shaq win with Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe, Rick Fox, and Horry from 97-99 since that is better than Kobe, Fox, and Horry based on your logic of spread out vs best combo.

I mean Kobe the chucker is 4-2 vs Duncan and his spread out team playing basketball.

See what i said above, Van Exel, Eddie Jones and Glen Rice are fake all-stars, no team work, low IQ b-bball, 0 clutch, born losers, but nice stats, typical NY players-like. Parker, Ginobili are EXACTLY the opposite (their real impact are more than their stats show).

Horry and Fox are great (and my favorite) role players, can't deny that.

Also, as far i remember, LAL had like what? 3 coaches in 98-99 season? WTF?

Seriously, after seeing how amazing are this Spurs staff, can't you guys just admit TD played in a better and stable situation in his whole career?

PS: Thx to remember me about Eddie Jones, another perennial loser, fkin hate him.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Shaq is the better player, but Duncan has the better resume.

How most rate players, Duncan would be somewhere in the 5-7 range. Shaq ~ 7-9 ...

[T_L_P]

See what i said above, Van Exel, Eddie Jones and Glen Rice are fake all-stars, no team work, low IQ b-bball, 0 clutch, born losers, but nice stats, typical NY players-like. Parker, Ginobili are exactly the opposite.

Horry and Fox are great (and my favorite) role players, can't deny that.

Also, as far i remember, LAL had like what? 3 coaches in 98-99 season? WTF?

Seriously, after seeing how amazing are this Spurs staff, can't you guys just admit TD played in a better and stable situation in his whole career?

PS: Thx to remember me about Eddie Jones, another perennial loser, fkin hate him.

Problem is, Duncan won a damn ring with a grossly inexperienced head coach who was nothing short of a train-wreck on offense (the highest level he coached before then was Division III Pomona).

Shaq was getting swept year-in, year-out until PJAX (the greatest coach ever who had already won 6 rings) came around and Kobe became a superstar, which goes against your idea that a 'balanced team' beats immediate superstar impact (the majority of NBA champions won using this model).

Duncan's situation was more stable, but that's 90% because he made it that way (he let Pop coach the way he did, if he really had problems with it Pop would be have been out very fast), and we all know how inflated Shaq's ego was. There were problems everywhere he went because of how lazy and egocentric he was (as opposed to Duncan, the ultimate team player). :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[rzp]

Shaq and Phil would not have switched Kobe(not 00)/Wade for DRob in 99 or Parker/Manu in 03. Yes, in 05 and 07 but that's 2 people you are substituting for 1 and Spurs salary is usually < Lakers salary. I don't factor in 2014 because Duncan is 38 years old and not expected to be carrying such a load.


Well i could put D-Fisher in that trade, no problem on that. :cheers:

And i wouldn't trade DWade for Drob too (i didn't said that, i was talking specially about Kobe, due to his chucking style and no team work, also Shaq played with him for a long time), Wade had an historic run and carried Shaq to his 4th.

[aj1987]

Shaq is the better player, but Duncan has the better resume.

How most rate players, Duncan would be somewhere in the 5-7 range. Shaq ~ 7-9 ...
There aren't 7 players better than Shaq. MJ, KAJ, Kobe, Duncan, and, Wilt are the only ones who have an argument over Shaq.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There aren't 7 players better than Shaq. MJ, KAJ, Kobe, Duncan, and, Wilt are the only ones who have an argument over Shaq.
There aren't. I agree.

Career resumes are different though. I don't think there's 15 players better than KG, but he's seldom in any Top 15 lists.

[ArbitraryWater]

There aren't. I agree.

Career resumes are different though. I don't think there's 15 players better than KG, but he's seldom in any Top 15 lists.

That list of yours doesn't make any sense then.. whats it good for when being better doesnt mean anything?

Not like KG had an injury or anything.. people just genuinely believe there were 15+ better payers.

[aj1987]

There aren't. I agree.

Career resumes are different though. I don't think there's 15 players better than KG, but he's seldom in any Top 15 lists.
There aren't 7 players with better accolades, stats, and whatever else than Shaq.

MJ, Kobe, Duncan, KAJ, are literally the only others I can think of when it comes to stats AND accolades.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That list of yours doesn't make any sense then.. whats it good for when being better doesnt mean anything?

Not like KG had an injury or anything.. people just genuinely believe there were 15+ better payers.
I take everything into account when ranking careers: accolades, honors, stats, championships etc.

Russell's in everyone's GOAT tier, right? But is he an actual better player than Shaq? Doubt it. A better winner to be sure, but not a better player.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There aren't 7 players with better accolades, stats, and whatever else than Shaq.

MJ, Kobe, Duncan, KAJ, are literally the only others I can think of when it comes to stats AND accolades.
Wilt, Russell, and Magic all have cases over Shaq.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

There aren't 7 players with better accolades, stats, and whatever else than Shaq.

MJ, Kobe, Duncan, KAJ, are literally the only others I can think of when it comes to stats AND accolades.

Shaq is 7th for me.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Shaq

[aj1987]

Wilt, Russell, Magic, all have cases over Shaq.
Wilt doesn't have the stats in the PO's, the rings and other accolades as well. Dude is/was a known choker.

Russell was playing on teams with essentially only HOF'ers.

Magic sorta has the accolades (worse defender), but he doesn't have have the stats.

Shaq literally had everything.


Shaq is 7th for me.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Shaq
These lists are subjective AF. Mine keeps changing from day to day. I LOVE Timmy, but he has been getting a bit overrated recently.

My current list:
1: MJ
2: KAJ
3: Shaq
4: Russell
5: Magic

People (not you) keep forgetting that Shaq used to be a MONSTER. Dude couldn't be stopped (inb4 Shaq vs Curry).

[ArbitraryWater]

I take everything into account when ranking careers: accolades, honors, stats, championships etc.

Russell's in everyone's GOAT tier, right? But is he an actual better player than Shaq? Doubt it. A better winner to be sure, but not a better player.

exactly.. thats why I have Shaq over Bill, honoring all those things, but also how those were created and what part they played... thats giving too much credence to team stuff on your end then imo :confusedshrug:

If you think Shaq is better than Russell, I see no reason why you shouldn't take him over Bill.. dont be ashamed of it.


Wilt doesn't have the stats in the PO's, the rings and other accolades as well. Dude is/was a known choker.

Russell was playing on teams with essentially only HOF'ers.

Magic sorta has the accolades (worse defender), but he doesn't have have the stats.

Shaq literally had everything.

Wilt has an easy case over Shaq

has a favorable case over everyone but MJ/Kareem imo

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't have a concrete list boys. I would much rather rank in tiers, tbh.


Wilt doesn't have the stats in the PO's, the rings and other accolades as well. Dude is/was a known choker.

Russell was playing on teams with essentially only HOF'ers.

Magic sorta has the accolades (worse defender), but he doesn't have have the stats.

Shaq literally had everything.
Wilt has the rebounds, blocks, steals, assists and defensive edge despite being a well known "choker". Postseason success is huge, but he's had multiple runs that were on par with Shaq's best, including his 1967 performance.

Russell is arguably the GOAT rebounder/defender in history, being the focal point (or best player) of basically every one of his championships.

Magic is the greatest playmaker of all-time, and certainly has the stats if assists and rebounds mean anything to you.

[Sarcastic]

Wilt doesn't have the stats in the PO's, the rings and other accolades as well. Dude is/was a known choker.




How is 22.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg not good stats in the POs? The only argument against Wilt is the rings, but the 2 he won were on top 10 all time great teams.

[aj1987]

Wilt has the rebounds, blocks, steals, assists and defensive edge despite being a well known choker. Postseason success is huge, but he's had multiple runs that were on par with Shaq's best, including his 1967 performance.
Pace? Dude played in the fastest paced era. Not to mention the level of competition. The lack of a 3pt line definitely helped him a LOT. Paint rules and what not as well. The NBA back then =/= the NBA today (or when Shaq played).

Sure, Wilt had 1 or 2 memorable runs, but Shaq's '00-'02 >>>>>> Whatever Wilt did in the PO's. EVER. 30/15/3/3 on 55% over 3 seasons (in the PO's)? That's ridiculous. Probably better than what MJ did during his first 3peat.



Russell is arguably the GOAT rebounder/defender in history, being the focal point (or best player) of basically every one of his championships.
Sure, he might be. Doesn't change the fact that be had like 3-4 HOF'ers on his teams EVER year. The guy couldn't score, BTW.


Magic is the greatest playmaker of all-time, and certainly has the stats if assists and rebounds mean anything to you.
Shaq's stats > Magic's. Weak ass competition in the WC, something which you keep harping about, when it comes to LeBron. His illness prevented him from having GOAT level longevity.


How is 22.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg not good stats in the POs? The only argument against Wilt is the rings, but the 2 he won were on top 10 all time great teams.
Playing against weak competition without modern defensive and offensive schemes. No 3pt line. Paint rules. I can keep going.

30 PPG in the RS to 22 in the PO's to 18 in the Finals. Shaq actually increased his production in the PO's. He didn't 'wilt' under pressure.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

These lists are subjective AF. Mine keeps changing from day to day. I LOVE Timmy, but he has been getting a bit overrated recently.

My current list:
1: MJ
2: KAJ
3: Shaq
4: Russell
5: Magic

People (not you) keep forgetting that Shaq used to be a MONSTER. Dude couldn't be stopped (inb4 Shaq vs Curry).

I've had Shaq at 6th before, Magic's edge isn't all that big imo, they've traded places a few times. Shaq is difficult to rank for me, if he had the intangibles of someone like Duncan he'd be a lock for top-5.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

IF you're going to straight up call the 60s/70s along with the 80's "weak", there's no point in having a debate.

You give credence to the modern players, and I acknowledge all of history's greats. Just a vast difference in opinions.

[aj1987]

IF you're going to straight up call the 60s/70s along with the 80's "weak", there's no point in having a debate.

You give credence to the modern players, and I acknowledge all of history's greats. Just a vast difference in opinions.
Ignore that.

Incredibly fast paced. Wouldn't you agree? That's a FACT, BTW. Again, Russell might've be a better rebounder and defender, but he was not even close to being the scorer that Shaq was. Shaq averaged 30/15/3/3 on 55% over 3 PO runs. How many others have done that?

Magic was a better passer and that's literally the only thing that he has over Shaq.

Wilt? Dude was a career choker. I'm picking Shaq over him in a heartbeat. Not to mention the 2 extra titles. Raising PPG and RPG in the PO's. Etc..

[SCdac]

Give me the GOAT PF who's stuck with his team through thick and thin and through 5 championships... Duncan at any age (let alone prime) paired with any of Penny Hardaway, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, or Lebron James would have been sick.

[Tainted Sword]

I don't think Shaq would've run Pop out of town if he were drafted in 97. Between Pop and David Robinson, Shaq would actually have had great mentors to learn from. He would probably be a completely different player.

[aj1987]

I don't think Shaq would've run Pop out of town if he were drafted in 97. Between Pop and David Robinson, Shaq would actually have had great mentors to learn from. He would probably be a completely different player.
He always had that chip on his shoulder though. I'm a HUGE Shaq fan (bigger fan of his than Wade's), but the guy wasn't (and he still isn't) someone who's easy to deal with.

[rmt]

I don't think Shaq would've run Pop out of town if he were drafted in 97. Between Pop and David Robinson, Shaq would actually have had great mentors to learn from. He would probably be a completely different player.

To me, it's not so much coach or team (although can you see Shaq fitting in with all those foreigners?) but the city. Would he be content in SA with no rap music, movies, big lights, etc?

[aj1987]

To me, it's not so much coach or team (although can you see Shaq fitting in with all those foreigners?) but the city. Would he be content in SA with no rap music, movies, big lights, etc?
Nah, Shaq always had a HUGE ****ing ego. He just needed players around him who were submissive (in a sense). Dude knew that he was going to be a superstar since he was in HS and he actually played like it.

The only complaint that I have against Shaq is his work ethic.

[SCdac]

I don't think Shaq would've run Pop out of town if he were drafted in 97. Between Pop and David Robinson, Shaq would actually have had great mentors to learn from. He would probably be a completely different player.

Except that Shaq at the time considered Robinson one of his biggest rivals (in interviews he's stated such, for those who don't remember). They definitely feuded in the 90's and Shaq was a very egotistic, selfish player. It's unlikely he would have turned around mentally - or become Duncan-esqe in terms of being a team player next to another great big man

[rzp]

Except that Shaq at the time considered Robinson one of his biggest rivals (in interviews he's stated such, for those who don't remember). They definitely feuded in the 90's and Shaq was a very egotistic, selfish player. It's unlikely he would have turned around mentally - or become Duncan-esqe in terms of being a team player next to another great big man

D-Rob was the one who refused to give an autograph to him :lol

Shaq punished him few years later. I think Shaq never considered him a rival (0 respect, totally trashed him in some plays). Actually TD is the only one who Shaq really respected in the paint.

[Cold soul]

Duncan pretty easily ranking wise.

Shaq at his peak though was (obviously) better than Duncan at his peak.

Yeah pretty much the only peaks I would take over Shaq are MJ and Wilt that's about it.

[ClipperRevival]

How is 22.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg not good stats in the POs? The only argument against Wilt is the rings, but the 2 he won were on top 10 all time great teams.

It's bad when you realize his regular season ppg avg was 30. All time greats should play at the same level or exceed their regular season numbers. Guys like MJ, Hakeem and Duncan elevated their numbers in the playoffs. Wilt's level of play dipped in the playoffs.

How many times did he lose to Russell in the finals? How many game 7 losses? That has to count for something (negatively) against Wilt. When you continue to lose to your arch rival when the chips are down. I realize Russell had the better teams but still.

[LAZERUSS]

It's bad when you realize his regular season ppg avg was 30. All time greats should play at the same level or exceed their regular season numbers. Guys like MJ, Hakeem and Duncan elevated their numbers in the playoffs. Wilt's level of play dipped in the playoffs.

How many times did he lose to Russell in the finals? How many game 7 losses? That has to count for something (negatively) against Wilt. When you continue to lose to your arch rival when the chips are down. I realize Russell had the better teams but still.

This has been covered a thousand times here.

Let me ask you this...

How come MJ's scoring and efficiency dropped dramatically in his first three post-season series against the Bad Boys? True, he finally overcame a Piston team that was in rapid decline in '91, but in his first three series against them, his numbers plummetted.

And how about Shaq's numbers against the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 thru '02? Huge drop.

And a PEAK Kareem faced Wilt and Thurmond in five playoff series in '71 thru '73, and his scoring dropped off the cliff, and his efficiency was downright putrid.

How come?

And yet Chamberlain faced the Celtic Dynasty in EIGHT playoff series, virtually all of them in his prime, and before shredding his knee. Go ahead and look up Boston's defensive ratings in the decade of the 60's. Only Wilt's teams could challenge them.

And a "scoring" Wilt RAISED his playoff scoring against Russell, from his regular season H2H's in '64, '65, '67, and '68...or HALF of his post-season series against the greatest defensive center in NBA history. And his '66 season was a virtual wash (28.3 ppg in the regular season H2H's, and 28.0 ppg in the EDF's...albeit he shot .473 in the regular season H2H's, and .509 in the EDF's.) And how could you blame Wilt in '60 and '62, when he averaged 30.5 ppg and 33.6 ppg respectively? Even is worst post-season series, the '69 Finals, were not that dramatic a decline, considering he averaged 16.0 ppg in his regular season H2H's against Russell, and his 11.7 ppg against him in the Finals.

Furthermore, Chamberlain shot a HIGHER FG% in his career post-season H2H's against Russell, than in his regular season H2H's. On top of all of that, guess what...Wilt held Russell to a FAR worse FG% disparity than Russell did to Wilt when compared to their play against each other and their other peers.
Overall, in their 143 career H2H's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28.7 ppg to 14.5 ppg, and outshot him by an overall mark of .497 to .382. And when you factor in that Wilt outrebounded Russell by an overwhelming, 28.7 rpg to 23.8 rpg, Chamberlain's dominance was staggering.

Think about the above for a moment. Wilt nearly averaged a 30-30 game EVERYTIME he stepped onto the court against Russell....and in 143 career H2H's.


In Wilt's "scoring" prime, from his rookie season in '59-60 thru his '65-66 season, Chamberlain played in 52 playoff games...30 of which were against RUSSELL and the greatest dynasty in the history of the NBA....or roughly 60% of his playoff games. And yet he STILL averaged 32.8 ppg, 26.7 rpg, and shot .505 in those 52 games (and that .505 is deceptive, since the post-season league average in that same span was .418...or Wilt shot nearly 10% over the league average.

In those 52 playoff games, Wilt had 11 games of 40+...or a little over 20% of the time...which included FOUR games of 50+ (and the ONLY THREE by a GOAT in "must-win" games.) He had post-seasons of 28.0 ppg, 29.3 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg in his six post-seasons in his "scoring prime" (and missed the playoffs in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg.) Included were post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg. And that 38.6 ppg series (in seven games) was interesting from the standpoint that it was the ONLY playoff series in his Western Conference seasons.

Why is that important?

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

Russell feasted on the Lakers in his first five post-seasons (all Finals) against LA teams from the 60's. The only time he did not....guess what, he faced Wilt. His numbers dropped to a puny 9.0 ppg on a .397 FG% in that series.

In any case...here we go...


Here were Russell's numbers against LA in those five series:

'62:

Russell averaged 18.9 ppg on a .457 FG% in his regular season against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 22.9 ppg on a .543 FG%. Which included a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

BTW, against Wilt in the '62 EDF's: 22.0 ppg on a .399 FG%


'63:

Russell averaged 16.8 ppg on a .432 FG% in his regular season.

Against LA in the Finals: 20 ppg on a .467 FG%


'65:

Russell averaged 14.1 ppg on a .438 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 17.8 ppg on a .702 FG% (yes, .702.)

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 15.6 ppg on a .447 FG%


'66:

Russell averaged 12.9 ppg on a .415 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 23.6 ppg on a .538 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 14.0 ppg on a .423 FG%


'68:

Russell averaged 12.5 ppg on a .425 FG% against the NBA

Against LA in the Finals: 17.3 ppg on a .430 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 13.7 ppg on a .440 FG%


Oh, and here were Russell's stats in the '69 Finals against Wilt:

Regular season against the NBA: 9.9 ppg on a .433 FG%

Against Wilt in the Finals: 9.0 ppg on a .397 FG%


Now how about Wilt in his regular season H2H's with those same Laker teams:


Again, had Wilt faced the Lakers in any of his nine seasons in the league from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own at least some, (if not a vast majority), playoff and perhaps Finals, scoring records (and perhaps FG% records, as well, since Russell shot .702 against LA in '65.)

And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

[LAZERUSS]

Again, Wilt's "scoring seasons" came in his first seven seasons (and again, he missed the playoffs in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg.)

However, in that span, he only played in 52 of his 160 post-season games...or about one-third. And again, 30 of those were against the greatest defensive player in NBA history, and the greatest dynasty in NBA history.

Furthermore, had Wilt had the "luxury" of being eliminated in the first round as often as Hakeem was, and here is some food for thought...


As examples, in Wilt's fist eight post-seasons, and in his first round, he averaged

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

38.6 ppg and on .559 shooting (in a post-season NBA of 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting)

27.8 ppg (and then 30.1 ppg, on .555 shooting, and against Russell)

28.0 ppg

28.0 ppg (and a great example of FG% at .617 in a post-season at .424, to go along with 27 rpg, and 11 apg.!))

25.5 ppg (and on .584 shooting, while his opposing center, Bellamy was at 20.0 on .421 shooting.)

Even in his 11th season, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a first round of 23.7 ppg., 20.3 rpg, and .549.

And, in his 71-72 post-season, he had a 14.5 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .629 first round series (and in an NBA post-season of .446.)


Furthermore, Wilt the "choker" in his 23 "must-win" playoff games...


Wilt's numbers in those 23 games...13 of which came against HOF starting centers.

12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

BTW, Wilt's 31.1 ppg in his "must-win" playoff games trails on Lebron's 31.8 ppg, and MJ's 31.3 ppg.

But let's carry it even further...


Wilt actually played in 37 "elimination games",...games where either his team faced elimination, or could have clinched the series:

1. W: 53-22-2, 24-42 FG/FGA

2. W: 50-35-2, 22-42

3. L: 26-24-0, 8-18

4. L: 33-23-1, 13-29

5. W: 56-35-1, 22-48

6. W: 32-21-1, 12-29

7. L: 22-22-3, 7-15

8. W: 39-30-?, 19-29

9. L: 30-27-2, 12-28

10. W: 38-26-5, 14-22, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

11. W: 30-26-4, 13-22, 13 blks (Triple-Double)

12. L: 30-32-2, 12-15

13. L: 46-34-?, 19-34

14. W: 18-27-9, 7-14

15. W: 29-36-13, 10-16, 7 blks (Triple-Double)

16. W: 24-23-4, 8-13

17. W: 25-27-3, 10-19

18. L: 28-30-7, 11-21

19. L: 20-27-8, 6-21

20. L: 14-34-5, 4-9

21. W: 11-25-1, 5-9

22. W: 16-29-3, 5-11, 16 blks (Triple-Double)

23. L: 8-18-4, 1-5

24. L: 18-27-3, 7-8

25. W: 36-14-3, 12-20

26. W: 12-26-11, 4-11, 11 blks (Quad-Double)

27. W: 30-27-6, 11-18, 11 blks (Triple-Double)

28. W: 45-27-3, 20-27

29. L: 21-24-4, 10-16

30. W: 25-19-9, 7-12

31. L: 23-12-4, 10-21

32. W: 8-31-8, 4-6

33. W: 20-24-2, 8-12, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

34. W: 24-29-4, 10-14, 8 blks

35. W: 21-28-4, 10-17, 8 blks

36. W: 5-22-7, 2-2

37. L: 23-21-3, 9-16


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

.546 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 on average in that span.)

Keep in mind that 24 of those 37 games came after his "scoring seasons" (59-60 thru 65-66)

[LeBird]

Shaq is the better player, but Duncan has the better resume.

How most rate players, Duncan would be somewhere in the 5-7 range. Shaq ~ 7-9 ...

This. But I think resume is heavily weighted to team dynamics. The only reason I'd be 50-50 on this is because if you're a franchise Shaq could be a bit of a risk - you'd still win titles though.

But he definitely was the more impactful player IMO.