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

[VanillaThunder]

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.

a bigger impact than Magic or Bird? You must be high. I'd rather build around Shaq than them but its hard to argue anyone had more of an impact than those 2.

[LebrickJames84']

Kobe was the best player in the 00's he did it for the whole decade

Shaq just did has for 4 years.

[ChrisKreager]

Shaq.

He was more dominant.

He had more 30-40 point games since 1999-2000 than Duncan has.

[dware94]

Kobe was the best player in the 00's he did it for the whole decade

Shaq just did has for 4 years.

you are an idiot if you think kobe was better than shaq in the 00's decade..

[nbastatus]

Kobe>>>>Duncan

2002-2002:Shaq>>Kobe
2002-2009: Kobe>>>Shaq

do you have to bring your precious kobe on every thread?
get off his **** already.

[gigantes]

Who was the best?

Duncan = 3 finals mvp's, 2 mvp's, 4 titles
Shaq = 3 finals mvp's, 1 mvp, 4 titles


These two are by far the best two players in the 2000's. Who was the best?

duncan.

because he doesn't dominate the way a prime shaq does, but he's far more professional and consistent than shaq ever was, giving his team a chance to win every year and not just when he felt like it (ie, shaq).

[dware94]

duncan.

because he doesn't dominate the way a prime shaq does, but he's far more professional and consistent than shaq ever was, giving his team a chance to win every year and not just when he felt like it (ie, shaq).

well said.. i completely agree

[1987_Lakers]

2000-2002 Shaq > 2000-2002 Duncan

2003-2009 Shaq < 2003-2009 Duncan

Shaq was more dominant in his prime, but Duncan has been more consistent. As for Duncan vs Kobe?

2000-2005 Duncan > 2000-2005 Kobe

2006-2009 Duncan < 2006-2009 Kobe

If the Lakers win the championship this year, the top 3 players from the 00's will be...

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq

[Showtime]

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

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?

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.

Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.

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.

A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.

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.

No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.

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

Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.

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.

How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He demanded to be traded as a Buck, but he didn't quit on his team, fake injury, bash teammates and coaches, and make an ass out of himself on several occasions. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it. How has Shaq done MORE than Magic, Bird, and MJ? Those are 4 players right there.

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.

Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.

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

If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.

[EvinWizzle]

2000-2002 Shaq > 2000-2002 Duncan

2003-2009 Shaq < 2003-2009 Duncan

Shaq was more dominant in his prime, but Duncan has been more consistent. As for Duncan vs Kobe?

2000-2005 Duncan > 2000-2005 Kobe

2006-2009 Duncan < 2006-2009 Kobe

If the Lakers win the championship this year, the top 3 players from the 00's will be...

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq

4. allen iverson

[Odomize]

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?



Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.



A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.



No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.



Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.



How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it.



Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.


If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.

this is pwnage.

[shaoyut]

Shaq

[plowking]

He did win as a top player, just not the best player. Does that mean David Robinson's career is meaningless because he didn't win as "the man"? Does that mean that Billups > Stockton because he won a ring? Is Barkley less of a player? Is Hakeem since he only won 2 rings?



Couldn't score when needed? He was never needed to score as the first option. Russell could not score, or did not? When you have firepower like Sam Jones, Hondo, Bob, and more, do you really need to take shots away from them? Oh, and once more: he was at one time the second leading scorer on the team, so he wasn't just a glorified Ben Wallace. His primary responsibility was to defend the post and play the role the team needed. They didn't need another scorer, because they had plenty of those already.



A stacked team where he was part of the "stacked". How can you say his play was diminished on that team because of the talent when he was the second or third best player on that team?

And for that last moronic comment: how many years did Shaq have an average or above average cast and fail to win it all? That's a very stupid comment, because Shaq didn't win until he had a fantastic team with virtually no competition at his position and barely squeaked by the blazers and kings. If what you just said was true, he'd have won almost every year he played.



No, I was around when that happened, but you can't seem the grasp my point. Shaq didn't even win one game in that series, and only won against bad competition at his position. I did see Shaq's career, and people are overrating him by calling him unstoppable. He was a great player, but his dominance didn't turn into titles until the competition slackened.



Read again: I said he didn't WIN championships until the competition was bad. He was an elite player individually, but the rings didn't start coming until Shaq had nobody to contend with at center. The only challenge he faced was Mutombo vs the Sixers. He wasn't going to stick around the east getting stopped by Chicago, so he left to go to LA.



How has Shaq accomplished more than a player like KAJ? KAJ has more championships, accomplishments, and individual stats. He was even a better player at advanced age, and wasn't a quitter when he didn't like his situation. He demanded to be traded as a Buck, but he didn't quit on his team, fake injury, bash teammates and coaches, and make an ass out of himself on several occasions. He also didn't take breaks off from the regular season for the hell of it. How has Shaq done MORE than Magic, Bird, and MJ? Those are 4 players right there.



Did I say he wasn't a great player? Being a great player and being the second greatest to ever play the game are two different things.


If he won no matter what the situation, he should have more rings.

So where was Duncan's competition? What did he face?

Furthermore if you are bringing up virtually unstoppable teams, what good are Magic and Kareem in the top 5. Kareem only started winning when paired with Johnson. Going by your own logic he is no better then Shaq.

Since when did his competition at his position get worse? He faced the only two guys to ever win the DPOY 4 times. How is that weak. Plus he faced a 7'3 beast in Sabonis who was near impossible to move.

Same can be said about Wilt and his competition.


Right. Shaq's dominance is overrated. That's why he is the only player to have a rule changed in the NBA in the modern era. Nice one.

So you are saying it was Shaq's fault they didn't win a game in those finals? He averaged something like 30ppg, 13rpg and 4apg. He was slacking, it was his fault.
And like I said, great players find a way to win, and Shaq did later in his career as "the man".

Your David Robinson comparison. His career would be greater if he had achieved that ring as the man. So it does take away from his legacy.


Every team Shaq has gone to bar Phoenix, he has taken to the finals. That is not just plain luck. That is an impact a player has. It's not like Duncan who has had the luxury of getting a team built around him over his 12 years in the league. Shaq has shown that he is able to adapt and be a team player on each team and bring success. I doubt any other player ever could do that bar Jordan.

[plowking]

a bigger impact than Magic or Bird? You must be high. I'd rather build around Shaq than them but its hard to argue anyone had more of an impact than those 2.

Shaq is one of the most celebrated athletes ever in the NBA. He was more popular then Jordan when he was around at one stage. That is really saying something.

Furthermore he, like Wilt before him had a rule change specifically to stop him. That is a iconic feat in modern day basketball.

[Showtime]

So where was Duncan's competition? What did he face?

I didn't say Duncan was the most dominating player and second best of all time. That's why I brought up those points, because people are overrating Shaq.

Furthermore if you are bringing up virtually unstoppable teams, what good are Magic and Kareem in the top 5. Kareem only started winning when paired with Johnson. Going by your own logic he is no better then Shaq.

KAJ won without Magic before he got to LA. Magic was the best player on a team that won several championships, and the best at his position of all time.

Since when did his competition at his position get worse? He faced the only two guys to ever win the DPOY 4 times. How is that weak. Plus he faced a 7'3 beast in Sabonis who was near impossible to move.

You just listed all the great frontline players he played against in a former post, but the best guys he beat during his 3 peat was Dikembe, Divac, and Sabonis. Not near the other greats like Dream, Robinson, and Ewing. Again, he barely got by the kings and blazers (despite his so called unstoppable domination), and then proceeded to eat up scrubs in the finals. There's no way Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Big Todd, and Aaron Williams are ANYTHING CLOSE to the level of players you listed.

Same can be said about Wilt and his competition.

What can be said?

Right. Shaq's dominance is overrated. That's why he is the only player to have a rule changed in the NBA in the modern era. Nice one.

Looking at the comments you are making, yeah, he's becoming overrated.

So you are saying it was Shaq's fault they didn't win a game in those finals? He averaged something like 30ppg, 13rpg and 4apg. He was slacking, it was his fault.

So how can he be as dominating as you say if he plays great and gets swept? You prove my point for me, thanks. He played great individual ball, but only won rings (barely getting there a couple times) against poorer competition at center.

And like I said, great players find a way to win, and Shaq did later in his career as "the man".

You said he would win a ring with any decent swingman. He was that good. Well, if he was as dominating as you say, he should have more rings. His dominance in relation to winning is getting overblown on this site, because he didn't always carry his teams to the top, and he only dominated record wise in one (SINGLE) postseason.

Your David Robinson comparison. His career would be greater if he had achieved that ring as the man. So it does take away from his legacy.

I asked if he was a lesser player, not about his legacy. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean he wasn't a top center in the game and all time. He was one of the best in the best era of big men. Does not winning mean Robertson wasn't one of the best players of all time? To you, yes. To me, no. John Stockton is a top PG of all time. Baylor is a top forward of all time. Just because they didn't get a ring doesn't mean they were lesser players, just like Robertson.

Every team Shaq has gone to bar Phoenix, he has taken to the finals. That is not just plain luck.

And I've never said it was luck. But you can't seem to acknowledge the talent around him, and how he was unable to win more if he was as good as you think he was.

That is an impact a player has. It's not like Duncan who has had the luxury of getting a team built around him over his 12 years in the league. Shaq has shown that he is able to adapt and be a team player on each team and bring success. I doubt any other player ever could do that bar Jordan.

Adapt? What has he adapted? He plays the same game. He's the same player. That also means he will quit when he's not happy, turn on teammates and coaches when he's not happy, take games off because he wants to, etc.

Is Shaq one of the best centers to ever play? Yeah. That doesn't make him the second best ever, when he isn't even definitively the best at his position. The bottom line is that if Shaq was as good as you think he was, judging by your own statements about his ability and impact, he should have won more. Period.