Tim Duncan is greater than Shaq, and here are the numbers to PROVE it

i've said it before, i'll say it again: no, tim duncan is not greater than shaq, but he will be if he leads his team to another championship.

for people arguing shaq should have more mvp's, you're right, but only one more for '01. duncan on the other hand has won 2 mvp's but should have 4

The best part about both these players is that they have a trait that can't be described with numbers. They make whatever team they're on better and here you are, comparing them with numbers.

[QUOTE=ZHAKIDD532]exactly, Duncan never had that dominant mentality. Shaq is the all time better player. Duncan will sustain his production longer though I think, he's definitly in better shape. He can play and be productive until he's 40, Shaq is about 34 and he's on a big decline.[/QUOTE]

So Duncan should go on to be greater than Shaq right? Because if he sustains this level of play throughout his entire career, then he should be considered greater right? Plus there's a chance he'd win more rings in that period because that is another 9 years.

I suppose it comes down to how you want to build an alltime list. With 'greater' players, or with 'better players'. I prefer listing the 'better players' because I think that's what matters the most. The way I might make an all-time list is to see the list of every player who has ever played in the NBA, and choose who I would want to start a team with, for one year. Who's that one guy I would choose over everyone else, to lead me to a championship, if they're all in their primes.

Here's an extreme example.

[B]Player A[/B]
2 season played, 2 championships, 2 season MVP's, 2 Finals MVP, 1st team 2 times, 1st defensive team 2 times, 45/22/9/3/6 on 50%/80%

[B]Player B[/B]
14 seasons played, 6 championships, 3 season MVPs, 5 Finals MVP's, 1st team 8 times, 1st defensive team 5 times, 24/12/3/1/3 on 48%/75%

So Player A is just ridiculously dominant, but only played two years, He was forced to stop for whatever reason (motorcycle accident we'll say), but during the time he played, there was simply no one better. He is easily the 'better' player.

Player B on the other hand, has virtually every major accomplishment you can think of, and he has them in spades. Stats kind of look like Duncan's, but they pale in comparison to that of Player A's stats. He's definitely the 'greater' player, thanks to his awards, but certainly worse than Player B on an individual level.

I'm probably in the majority here, but I'd have Player A ranked higher on my alltime list. Despite missing out on longevity, he was quite simply the more dominating player over the time he played, and I would easily want him on my team over Player B.

That's my thinking anyways, Perhaps it's slightly scewed, but it's just my opinion. Thus, despite Duncan racking up more and more hardware (if he does), I'll always say Shaq was better, simply because during the time when both were at their best, the reality was that he was the better player. And he'll remain that way, despite Duncan's trophy case being (and constantly getting) fuller.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]I suppose it comes down to how you want to build an alltime list. With 'greater' players, or with 'better players'. I prefer listing the 'better players' because I think that's what matters the most. The way I might make an all-time list is to see the list of every player who has ever played in the NBA, and choose who I would want to start a team with, for one year. Who's that one guy I would choose over everyone else, to lead me to a championship, if they're all in their primes.

Here's an extreme example.

[B]Player A[/B]
2 season played, 2 championships, 2 season MVP's, 2 Finals MVP, 1st team 2 times, 1st defensive team 2 times, 45/22/9/3/6 on 50%/80%

[B]Player B[/B]
14 seasons played, 6 championships, 3 season MVPs, 5 Finals MVP's, 1st team 8 times, 1st defensive team 5 times, 24/12/3/1/3 on 48%/75%

So Player A is just ridiculously dominant, but only played two years, He was forced to stop for whatever reason (motorcycle accident we'll say), but during the time he played, there was simply no one better. He is easily the 'better' player.

Player B on the other hand, has virtually every major accomplishment you can think of, and he has them in spades. Stats kind of look like Duncan's, but they pale in comparison to that of Player A's stats. He's definitely the 'greater' player, thanks to his awards, but certainly worse than Player B on an individual level.

I'm probably in the majority here, but I'd have Player A ranked higher on my alltime list. Despite missing out on longevity, he was quite simply the more dominating player over the time he played, and I would easily want him on my team over Player B.

That's my thinking anyways, Perhaps it's slightly scewed, but it's just my opinion. Thus, despite Duncan racking up more and more hardware (if he does), I'll always say Shaq was better, simply because during the time when both were at their best, the reality was that he was the better player. And he'll remain that way, despite Duncan's trophy case being (and constantly getting) fuller.[/QUOTE]
so, just out of curiosity, would you rank a guy like walton over ewing / robinson / etc because his mvp season was so outstanding (according to all the old-timers he was head and shoulders above the competition that year)?

You can't PROVE anything with numbers, read the thread that someone posted a bit ago and then come back and argue your case, you can't just go on numbers.

I didn't see Walton play at all, and I only saw Ewing and Robinson at the but end of their careers. I don't have the knowledge to make that call.

However, just looking at stats, Bill's MVP year was hardly what I'd call 'dominating'. 19/15/5/2? Meh. Even if he was considered the best player in the league at the time, that line isn't any better than Robinson's 30/11/5/2/3 line, or Ewing's 29/11/2/4 line from their best years. So no, Walton's probably not better. Not to mention the fact that (I think -- you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) the center position was much better during the years Robinson and Ewing put up their numbers than it was when Walton was having the year of his life.

If I had've seen them play, and saw Walton dominating to the extent that Hakeem or Shaq might've been doing it, then yeah, I'd probably have Walton much higher. I didn't though, and that's why I've never actually made my own all-time list. I don't have enough information.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]I didn't see Walton play at all, and I only saw Ewing and Robinson at the but end of their careers. I don't have the knowledge to make that call.

However, just looking at stats, Bill's MVP year was hardly what I'd call 'dominating'. 19/15/5/2? Meh. Even if he was considered the best player in the league at the time, that line isn't any better than Robinson's 30/11/5/2/3 line, or Ewing's 29/11/2/4 line from their best years. So no, Walton's probably not better. Not to mention the fact that (I think -- you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) the center position was much better during the years Robinson and Ewing put up their numbers than it was when Walton was having the year of his life.

If I had've seen them play, and saw Walton dominating to the extent that Hakeem or Shaq might've been doing it, then yeah, I'd probably have Walton much higher. I didn't though, and that's why I've never actually made my own all-time list. I don't have enough information.[/QUOTE]

i didn't see him either, so i'm in the same boat. he gets a ton of love from people i respect though. anyway, i don't have a problem with this manner of gauging players. i think it's a little dumb to rank a guy like carter behind someone like sam jones who, while he was one of the greatest sgs of his era, couldn't defend vince with a step ladder and a taser. on the other hand you have to give guys their due for what they've accomplished in their time.

That's why I think two lists are needed. With one list, you don't really even have to have seen all the players play, because you can just go by stats, awards (while checking out their competition -- as we've seen in this thread must be done), championships, etc. That would be a list for the 'greatest' players.

The list for the 'better players' would have to be made by guys who have actually watched these players play though, because theat's the only way to accurately gauge just how good these guys were individually. You look at Nash, you see numbers that don't really make you 'wow' like you would with other great players, you look at his teammates, who're definitely quite good, and should get credit for a lot of the wins with the Phoenix team, and you can easily come to the conclusion that he's not [i]that[/i] good, and that he isn't worthy of any MVP's, let alone two. However, having watched him come into his own in Phoenix, I know that he's a tremendous player who does deserve his accolades.

Some things you just can't tell from stats and awards, regarding who was actually the better player between two guys, and that's why I think ranking two lists (better and greater) is just a more accurate way to do things.

Well there in lies the key, while one player may be better that donesn't make him greater. Because it's all about how you use your talent. Tim Duncan is a basketball genious, and he has the ability to put that basketball IQ to use. That's what makes him great.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]Well there in lies the key, while one player may be better that donesn't make him greater. Because it's all about how you use your talent. Tim Duncan is a basketball genious, and he has the ability to put that basketball IQ to use. That's what makes him great.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

:banana:

:pimp:

[QUOTE=ZHAKIDD532]exactly, Duncan never had that dominant mentality. Shaq is the all time better player. Duncan will sustain his production longer though I think, he's definitly in better shape. He can play and be productive until he's 40, Shaq is about 34 and he's on a big decline.[/QUOTE]

Duncan is already declining and is what? 30? 31? Shaq didn't start any kind of real decline until he was 32 or 33. I don't care about conditioning when you already can show a decline in level of play from Duncan.

I don't know about Duncan declining. He always shared the ball not caring about stats and was hurt last year. He seems pretty good to me this year, I don't really see a major change.

:hammerhead:

This thread is ridiculous. Shaq is clearly better than Duncan.

:pimp:

For ****s sake, stop bumping this stupid thread.

Ban this fool. Please.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]For ****s sake, stop bumping this stupid thread.

Ban this fool. Please.[/QUOTE]

agree come on bro us spurs peeps are better then this

:pimp:

i didn't go back and read every post. Did anyone talk about professionalism and leadership? cause Shaq was WEAK in both areas.

[QUOTE=bleedinpurple]i didn't go back and read every post. Did anyone talk about professionalism and leadership? cause Shaq was WEAK in both areas.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Here are Tim Duncan and Shaq's career numbers and accomplishments

Lets take it to the scorecard as it stands right NOW:

titles: Shaq 4, Duncan 3
finals mvps: Shaq 3, duncan 3
season mvps: Shaq 1, Duncan 2
1st team all nba: Shaq 7, Duncan 9
1st team all defense: Shaq 0, Duncan 7 (Shaq only has 3 2nd team all defense!)
Shaq career: 25.9ppg, 11.6 rpg, 2.8apg, 2.8bpg
Duncan Career: 21.8 ppg, 11.9rpg, 3.2apg, 2.4bpg

Now lets discuss the obvious. Shaq has been in the league 5 more years than Duncan, but only has one more title, both even in finals mvps, Duncan with one more season mvp at 2-1. Here is where it gets shocking: Shaq has been in the league over 14+ years, but only 7 first team all nba elections? That a mere 50%! Also, Shaq has never, not even once been voted first team all defense- with only 3, count it 3 total 2ND TEAM all defense selections! Wow! He's a bigger defensive liability than Steve Nash! Even with all this "dominant" scoring, career wise he leads Duncan by only four points in career average! It is obvious that all you who swear by Shaq's dominance have been utterly duped!

Anyone please look at these numbers and prove Shaq is better than Duncan! According to their career numbers and stats, Duncan is already ahead of Shaq, and its not even close! One more title and finals mvp will simply be icing on the cake.

don't get me wrong, I respect Shaq, but I always thought he should play harder at the defensive end. Interesting that he was NEVER All-D. Reminds me of when he said, "If you don't feed the Big Dog, the Big Dog don't play D"

:pimp:

Here are Tim Duncan and Shaq's career numbers and accomplishments

Lets take it to the scorecard as it stands right NOW:

titles: Shaq 4, Duncan 3
finals mvps: Shaq 3, duncan 3
season mvps: Shaq 1, Duncan 2
1st team all nba: Shaq 7, Duncan 9
1st team all defense: Shaq 0, Duncan 7 (Shaq only has 3 2nd team all defense!)
Shaq career: 25.9ppg, 11.6 rpg, 2.8apg, 2.8bpg
Duncan Career: 21.8 ppg, 11.9rpg, 3.2apg, 2.4bpg

Now lets discuss the obvious. Shaq has been in the league 5 more years than Duncan, but only has one more title, both even in finals mvps, Duncan with one more season mvp at 2-1. Here is where it gets shocking: Shaq has been in the league over 14+ years, but only 7 first team all nba elections? That a mere 50%! Also, Shaq has never, not even once been voted first team all defense- with only 3, count it 3 total 2ND TEAM all defense selections! Wow! He's a bigger defensive liability than Steve Nash! Even with all this "dominant" scoring, career wise he leads Duncan by only four points in career average! It is obvious that all you who swear by Shaq's dominance have been utterly duped!

Anyone please look at these numbers and prove Shaq is better than Duncan! According to their career numbers and stats, Duncan is already ahead of Shaq, and its not even close! One more title and finals mvp will simply be icing on the cake.

shaq's career average in points, despite the fact that his numbers have slipped dramatically as he's gotten older, is still higher than duncan's best season average. that means that the best duncan ever managed to do as an offensive weapon was an average season for shaq.

and that pretty much sums them up. duncan's been basically the same high level plateau player since he came into the league. shaq has had a definite peak and definite valleys. shaq's peak towered over duncan's consistant line. shaq's valley's plummet below duncan's consistant line, but overall he still has better numbers, more titles, a better head to head record, and a better head to head average. explain to me again how it's a cut and dry argument for duncan and anyone who believes otherwise is being duped.

your whole argument seems to hinge on awards that have been handed to duncan and the fact that duncan gets to make defensive teams and all-nba teams as a 4 instead of a five. if he had to compete against ben wallace, dikembe mutumbo, and alonzo mourning at the 5 spot (as he would if he'd been drafted by a team that didn't feature one of the ten best centers ever), his all-d teams would shrink. if he had to beat out shaq to make the all-nba 1st team, those would shrink too.

i'm not saying it's definitively shaq over duncan, just that your pro-duncan agenda is clouding your argument and causing you to skew all of your facts in duncan's favor and ignore things like duncan's best scoring season being 5 points lower than shaq's. shaq's peak blocks were better. his top rebounds were better. aren't those the stats that measure a big man? so shaq had better stats and won more... again, i fail to see duncan's insurmountable argument.

and just so you know, i'm not a shaq fan. i haven't liked shaq since he ditched an orlando team that was set to become a dynasty in order to make kazaam.

^ hurts my eyes to look at that post.

Ridonks posted that Duncan had the advantage of playing when the small forward postion was so weak that two PF would make it into the First team.

Now, if we were really only allowed to choose one PF for the First Team, that would make things interesting, I believe it would show that Garnett would be All D first team, Duncan 2nd team.

Also align that with the All NBA selections, and suddenly poets argument is in tatters.

That being said, its common knowledge that Shaq has Legend status, Duncan as great as he is, doesn't hold that greatness status, hard to explain, but its there.

[QUOTE=zebraheat]Ridonks posted that Duncan had the advantage of playing when the small forward postion was so weak that two PF would make it into the First team.

Now, if we were really only allowed to choose one PF for the First Team, that would make things interesting, I believe it would show that Garnett would be All D first team, Duncan 2nd team.

Also align that with the All NBA selections, and suddenly poets argument is in tatters.

That being said, its common knowledge that Shaq has Legend status, Duncan as great as he is, doesn't hold that greatness status, hard to explain, but its there.[/QUOTE]

Wow this thread came back to life!

First I think Timmy would still get All-Defensive first honors, for the same reason Dirk won MVP. Also, Duncan's legend status is actually there because he is widley considered the best PF to ever play the game, which means that he'll be the measuring stick for years to come.

[QUOTE=bleedinpurple]^ hurts my eyes to look at that post.[/QUOTE]

Yeah dude seriously, dejordan would it hurt to use the enter key every onece in a while?

[quote]no, tim duncan is not greater than shaq, but he will be if he leads his team to another championship.[/quote]
that is perhaps the dumbest statement I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=dejordan]so, just out of curiosity, would you rank a guy like walton over ewing / robinson / etc because his mvp season was so outstanding (according to all the old-timers he was head and shoulders above the competition that year)?[/QUOTE]
I rank Walton over Ewing because he was better. Period.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]Yeah dude seriously, dejordan would it hurt to use the enter key every onece in a while?[/QUOTE]
i didn't know what he was talking about. i'll edit so nobody needs an aspirin. :D

[QUOTE=dejordan]i didn't know what he was talking about. i'll edit so nobody needs an aspirin. :D[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Much better man, way easier to read.

something cool and enjoyable...

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUHBOMGbS-4&mode=related&search="]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUHBOMGbS-4&mode=related&search=[/URL]

Okay I didn't want to quote dejordan, because he likes to write novels, but I will say this, a re-occuring theme in that argument is the Shaq's peak numbers out shine Duncan's. And that's true, but Duncan's consitency is part of what makes him great. I mean he has what? Like 8-9 years left in him (barring serious injury I really think he can go that long). Imagine if he stays pretty consistent which he can do I believe. The fact that ever since he arrived, SAS has been in title contention speaks volumes about what this man can do.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]Okay I didn't want to quote dejordan, because he likes to write novels, but I will say this, a re-occuring theme in that argument is the Shaq's peak numbers out shine Duncan's. And that's true, but Duncan's consitency is part of what makes him great. I mean he has what? Like 8-9 years left in him (barring serious injury I really think he can go that long). Imagine if he stays pretty consistent which he can do I believe. The fact that ever since he arrived, SAS has been in title contention speaks volumes about what this man can do.[/QUOTE]
i think that's a good point. i also think you can argue that duncan never gets benched at the end of games because you can take him away from the rim and let him hit clutch js instead of worrying about him at the line. duncan has an argument. i just thought the thread starter was ignoring shaq's argument and it needed to be stated again. defensive versatility, clutch performance, and consistancy vs. total stats & total titles. definitely debatable imo, though for those of you who remember shaq circa 2001, the images of him annihilating dikembe in the finals are pretty hard to shake.

:pimp: