Time to end this debate: Best player in the 2000's: Duncan or Shaq

[Showtime]

SHAQ, The Spurs have won the last two because their were no other teams with their talent level.

Oh? What finals teams did the Lakers beat that were at the same level? ZERO.

Shaq is by far the best player of the 2000's. With Duncan at two and kobe at three, kg at four...

I will disagree here.

[InspiredLebowski]

Travis Diener. Look at those per 36 numbers coupled with a postive +/- quintuplet of teammates on a 50+ win team on home games of an even numbered day!

/thread

[plowking]

That's your opinion. MJ, Magic, Oscar, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell are top 7, and Shaq isn't near that discussion of top 5 IMO.

Oscar? Please.
Russel? Didn't play both ends of the floor well.
Wilt? Championships? You are not dominant unless you can win.

Furthermore, Shaq is more dominant then Magic, Bird and KAJ, plus has had a bigger impact on the NBA.

Shaq is the 2nd greatest player ever.

[plowking]

peak: shaq
entire decade: duncan

Even career wise, it's Shaq. Look at their numbers at each age interval. Shaq has been better each time.

Tell me what Timmy D will be averaging when he is 37.

[godofgods]

Duncan. Shaq is overrated.

[spursdynasty420]

waching shaq get ownd by the celtics today was great. thats all that really matters. how hes doing now

[Showtime]

Oscar? Please.

People who played with him and against him, and those that saw him said he is in the GOAT discussion, and some contain he is the GOAT. He took Boston to game 7 and almost interrupted their streak. He was a top player on the Bucks when they won.

Russel? Didn't play both ends of the floor well.

Great passer. Was a second leading scorer on the team for a time. Was a player-coach at the same time. Best winner ever.

Wilt? Championships? You are not dominant unless you can win.

He did win championships.

Furthermore, Shaq is more dominant then Magic, Bird and KAJ, plus has had a bigger impact on the NBA.

More dominant in one of the weakest big men eras ever. He could put up stats in the 90's, but he got his ass swept by Dream who dominated him in the finals. Look at the teams he played against and his frontline competition in the finals. Shaq is a great player, but he had virtually no competition at his position in his prime, and two of his three championships were a shot or two away from never even getting there. Shaq's dominance is overrated.

Shaq is the 2nd greatest player ever.

[BA_God]

MVP of the decade: Tim Duncan ( slight edge over Shaq)
Defensive player of the decade : Tim Duncan ( sure edge over Ben)

the answer is Tim Duncan.

[plowking]

waching shaq get ownd by the celtics today was great. thats all that really matters. how hes doing now

Shaq>Duncan

[lolwut]

Timmy D.

[White Chocolate]

Shaq was better in his prime. Duncan has the edge in longevity. This is like comparing Barkley with Malone. Barkley had the better prime, but Malone has the edge in longevity.

[plowking]

People who played with him and against him, and those that saw him said he is in the GOAT discussion, and some contain he is the GOAT. He took Boston to game 7 and almost interrupted their streak. He was a top player on the Bucks when they won.

Good on him, great players find a way to win. He couldn't.

Great passer. Was a second leading scorer on the team for a time. Was a player-coach at the same time. Best winner ever.

Shaq is a passer as well. Though he can also carry the scoring load when needed and the defensive load when needed. Russel could not.

He did win championships.

When he was on a stacked team. That team is one of the greatest of all time, and that was the only way he could get it done. Give Shaq a solid wing player and you have a championship.

More dominant in one of the weakest big men eras ever. He could put up stats in the 90's, but he got his ass swept by Dream who dominated him in the finals. Look at the teams he played against and his frontline competition in the finals. Shaq is a great player, but he had virtually no competition at his position in his prime, and two of his three championships were a shot or two away from never even getting there. Shaq's dominance is overrated.

I bet you're to young to have even watched that. Futhermore, Shaq was on par with Hakeem if not better then him in that series. Hakeem shot below 50% and took something like 6 more shots in order to score 3 more points. As for era of weak big men, it was probably among the strongest.
Shaq played against:
Ewing
Robinson
Hakeem
Dikembe
Ben Wallace
Rasheed Wallace
Alonzo
Duncan
Sabonis
Mark Eaton

Really don't see how its laughable. He has the championships, accomplishments, individual stats. Where as the players I highlighted really don't have all that.


Do you think It's just chance that every organization Shaq has gone to (the three in his prime) have been to the finals at least, and in 2 cases winning the finals, once being a 3-peat? I don't think so.

That shows that he is a great teammate and a winner, because he is able to win everywhere no matter what the situation.

[amfirst]

Shaq for like only two years is better than Duncan. Duncan is better for the rest of the years. Imagine how much better would Duncan and Kobe be together than Shaq and Kobe.

[sunsfan1357]

Shaq was better in his prime. Duncan has the edge in longevity. This is like comparing Barkley with Malone. Barkley had the better prime, but Malone has the edge in longevity.

Of course Duncan would have better longevity through the decade seeing as how Shaq's in his 17th season and Duncan his 12th. Given that though Shaq has played at a level where people are saying he might earn a spot in the all-star game. That says something. Given the difference in age I think it might be unfair to ask the question of who has been better the whole decade. Shaq definitely had the better peak and up until 2 years ago was still putting up numbers comparable to Duncan.

Looking back it's a shame that Shaq only has 1 MVP in his name.

[InspiredLebowski]

I really don't understand why people are making it a career vs. career debate or calling the timeframe unfair when the entire basis of the thread is the 2000s. And there's some crazy ass Oscar Robertson debate. ISH for ya.