Duncan or Shaq - Who's career has been better so far?

[picc84]

Both have MVP's, both have finals MVP's, both were the premier bigmen of the decade.

Who's career has been better so far, and which one's career will be better when its all said and done.

[Double-Up]

Is this even a question? Shaq without a doubt.

[Muser]

Is this even a question? Shaq without a doubt.

You forgot to use blue text.

[Cane]

Duncan. He never had the stupid drama bullshit that Shaq had, always finished the season with at least 50 wins and made the playoffs, stuck with one organization, much more respected, etc. He's done this with guys like Matt god damn Bonner and an old and hobbled Antonio McDyess as starting bigs. FWIW Shaq's also played with more incredible individual teammates as well and most were in their prime like Bryant, Wade, LeBron, Amar'e, etc.

Shaq was the most dominant player the modern NBA has ever seen though, but Duncan's consistency and intangibles like staying with one organization, sacrificing some $$$, and not stirring up stupid shit are priceless qualities for superstars. Duncan's personality aged better in addition to his game which is based more around skill and IQ than being an insane beast like Shaq's game.

Shaq is more of a superstar off the court though and much more recognizable across the world. KAZAAM!

[HarlemHeat37]

Without analyzing right now, it depends on what you value more and how you make your all-time lists IMO..

If you value peak more, than you go with Shaq..his actual peak was one of the best ever in NBA history, where he was a completely unstoppable beast of a scorer, a great rebounder, and he was even a good defender for those years..

Duncan has the longevity factor and the more overall accolades..he obviously has the advantage in the intangibles/leadership/quality as a teammate categories..

It's close either way, so it depends on what you value the most..

[Muser]

Duncan has never appeared in a shitty film about a rapping Genie either.

[Strike]

Who cares?

[JamStone]

I think Shaq has marred his career with burning bridges at every stop, becoming a mercenary player trying to tag on rings by riding the coattails of other great players (mostly unsuccessfully), and his lack of desire to stay in great condition where he could have been even more dominant had he. If you look at pure numbers and accomplishments, it's close either way. But when you factor some of the less tangible things as I mentioned above, Duncan's overall career would appear to be greater and greater by a good (not great, but good) margin.

I would agree that peak dominance would go to Shaq. But I think Duncan has had the better career.

[TheKingOfMIA6]

Shaqtim Oduncan

[024]

even at their peaks, duncan was only a small margin behind shaq. duncan was the finesse player who scored, rebounded, and defended as well as shaq. shaq was more dominant in the sense that he could not be guarded physically. however, duncan was pretty much unstoppable on offense as well during his peak with his brilliant post moves. he just couldn't just muscle his way into the low post, do a right handed jump hook every time, and score at will. he used his variety of post moves and knowledge of the game to destroy his opponents.

of course, when taking into account the entire career, duncan wins.

[Giuseppe]

"If you are going to judge it based off of play you will have to go with Shaq...

Olympic Gold
4 Titles
3 Finals MVP's
3-peat

And Shaq has the bigger name than TD. The only thing TD has done that Shaq hasn't is stay on the same team and a bit more consistent. At the end of the day Shaq was bigger than TD, but TD was the better player. If TD had the co-stars as Shaq, (Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash, James) he'd have 8 titles."

^Luva, gettin' his magnanimous on.

[stretch]

Shaq was a more dominant force, but Timmy was the better player and leader.

IMO, Timmy is top 5 all time.

MJ
Kareem
Timmy
Kobe
Magic

[Ashy Larry]

Is this a rhetorical question?


Farley, take a lap ........






I have always said that it is a crime that Shaquille O'Neal only has one MVP to his name. It is also a crime that this dude never took his profession as serious as Jordan or Bryant.

You take the work ethic or Jordan and put it in Shaquille's body, you have the greatest player of all-time. Funny to think that the biggest man in the NBA has never led the league in blocked shots or rebounding. I'll say Shaquille's was better but not by much.

Duncan worked with what was given to him and ran with it. The Bank Shot is the easiest shot in the game and if you master it, you will do serious damage. Just love how this dude goes to work and handle's his shit.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq was a la 2000.

[Darrin]

Both have MVP's, both have finals MVP's, both were the premier bigmen of the decade.

Who's career has been better so far, and which one's career will be better when its all said and done.

I think O'Neal has been a more dominant force. We are talking about the last big man to lead the league in scoring. Duncan has been out-played in the NBA Finals. It was Robert Horry and Manu Ginobili in 2005 that got the Spurs wins and it was Tony Parker that shredded the Cavliers in 2007.

Duncan, for all his talent and skill, has not been dominant throughout a season. I prefer to watch Duncan operate, but he's much more a team player. Individually, I have to go with Shaq.

It's suprising how similar their resumes are and how differently they played the game.

[8FOR!3]

lol, Duncan is slowly getting old and starting to digress a little bit but he's still one of the best big men in the league, Shaq has fallen off a fucking cliff...

[Double-Up]

The better question would have been Hakeem vs Shaq on the real...

[peteee]

Shaq was a more dominant force, but Timmy was the better player and leader.

IMO, Timmy is top 5 all time.

MJ
Kareem
Timmy
Kobe
Magic
sodomites' views IMHO. Shaq is undeniably the better player than Tim Duncan. Both have loads of honours achieved as an individual or part of a great group, but Shaq had been the only dominant power for almost a decade at the position he played, while Duncan never dominated the position he played thanks to the existances of KG, Dirk, etc.... TD just got a little bit more luck than the likes of KG and Dirk, and he succeeded in converting the good luck into a buddle of personal honours which doesn't mean he's the better player than KG or Dirk.

The greatest of all time IMHO should be:

MJ
Magic
Chamberlain
Kareem
BR

Kobe once scored the 2nd highest point scored in a single game of NBA history, but it still doesn't change the fact he's just a little whining bitch who deserves to go nowhere.

[Ashy Larry]

breakdown the top centers/big men ...... the top three are set: Russell, Wilt, Cap in no particular order ......

the next three would probably be Dream, Shaquille and Duncan. Who's fourth? I would have to go with Shaquille. If you take their primes, Shaquille was just unstoppable .....

[Giuseppe]

Farley, take a lap ........

Set a 10.:lol

[Pero]

Duncan has been out-played in the NBA Finals.

Shaq says hi.

[Ashy Larry]

Set a 10.:lol

Just a great movie ...... :toast

[8FOR!3]

The better question would have been Hakeem vs Shaq on the real...

On the real huh??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ8AmN2XaIM

You crab crackaz know the deal.

[pad300]

Duncan has been out-played in the NBA Finals. It was Robert Horry and Manu Ginobili in 2005 that got the Spurs wins and it was Tony Parker that shredded the Cavliers in 2007.



A Piston's fan who doesn't know his own teams history? Where the hell did you come from? Compare what TD did to Ben and Sheed combined that finals.
In 285 minutes VS 509,
- TD put up 36 FTA vs their 25 (he was drawing more fouls),
- TD got 33 Oreb to 40, and 99 rebounds to 111 overall.
- TD got 15 Assists to 20.
- TD committed 16 PF to 49 for the Wallaces...
- TD scored 144 pts to 151.

He basically played the Pistons starting front line even by himself! In 60% of the minutes! That's being "outplayed"? :lol

As far as the Cavs series goes... That series was a joke. He was by far the best big man on floor. While Tony had a great series - the Cavs had no one who had a hope of covering him; I still thought the MVP was Duncan. Tony could have gone down injured, and we still would have won that series, because Lebron was not getting it done against our D. Who keys that D? Duncan and Bowen. And Bowen obviously had less value on the offensive end.

[Giuseppe]

........and that's the problem when you stay too long. Your legacy is tarnished. They've both loitered and they're both paying a price.

[Findog]

Is this even a question? Shaq without a doubt.

Are you nuts? Duncan. It's not even debatable.

Duncan has four titles as a #1 guy and never played with a guy as good as Kobe or Wade (although Parker/Manu is far from chopped liver). Shaq has three titles as a #1 guy and one title as a #2 guy. He was traded twice and his former teams were glad to see him go. Duncan will retire a Spur. Duncan could guard the p'n'r too, something Shaq couldn't do. Duncan got every last ounce out of his talent and was an unselfish team player; Shaq is a massive underachiever to only have four championships and never hesitated to quit and throw his teammates under the bus whenever he didn't get his way.

At their apex I would have to say Shaq was a better player than Duncan, but Duncan unquestionably has had the better career, and was better for longer. If I could choose one to build around for the bulk of their prime, it would be Duncan.

[dbreiden83080]

http://nbcsportsmedia.msnbc.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050623/050623_spurs_celebrate_vmed_10pm.widec.jpg

[Findog]

Duncan was never as dominant as Shaq was a la 2000.

No, but that's not the same as having a better career.

2000 Shaq > 2003 Duncan, but Duncan's career > Shaq's career.

[dbreiden83080]

2000 Shaq > 2003 Duncan, but Duncan's career > Shaq's career.

Totally disagree here. Duncan in 2003 was a defensive monster.. Look at the D he played in the finals that year. Shaq could never defend like Tim..

[Zelophehad]

I would go with Duncan for his superior defense. Duncan has 8 All defense first team selections and 5 second team selections to Shaq's 3 second team selections.

From watching games personally I would say he was superior defensively to Shaq. But also, tons of advanced stat guys such as Hollinger and some guys on apbr.org say Duncan was robbed of Defensive Player of the Year a few times.

[Findog]

Totally disagree here. Duncan in 2003 was a defensive monster.. Look at the D he played in the finals that year. Shaq could never defend like Tim..

Shaq could not be physically guarded. He was as unstoppable a force as you will ever see. We talk about 20/10 guys, Shaq at his peak was a 30/15 machine who wasn't a defensive liability like later on his career when he got fat and lazy. By the narrowest of margins, I'll take an apex Shaq over an apex Duncan.

[picc84]

Shaq was definitely a defensive force during his prime. He controlled the paint and controlled his man. Similarly to Tim, who defended the PnR better.

Shaq was better at blocking and altering shots in the paint
Tim was better at PnR defense
They were about equal on man defense IMO, both superb at it

Agree?

How do the two of them do if they switch teammates throughout the years?

[Janko]

Shaq but TD is definitely a better player

[xellos88330]

I say Duncan, no contest.

Even on the offensive end, I would still take Duncan. Duncan shot free throws better and didn't have a defensive tactic named after him.

Shaq was an unstoppable force until that tactic came out. There really isn't a tactic to use against Duncan. Just hope he screws up and/or misses. If you foul him, he can still knock down free throws at a decent enough clip.

[DesignatedT]

Duncan.

[SpursNextRomanEmpire]

Duncan

[ohmwrecker]

Duncan natch.

[TIMMYD!]

I would go with Duncan for his superior defense. Duncan has 8 All defense first team selections and 5 second team selections to Shaq's 3 second team selections.

From watching games personally I would say he was superior defensively to Shaq. But also, tons of advanced stat guys such as Hollinger and some guys on apbr.org say Duncan was robbed of Defensive Player of the Year a few times.

You don't need advanced stats to know Tim was a defensive beast.

[BUMP]

From 2000-2004 there was nobody better than The Diesel. However, if we're talking careers it's Duncan. Timmy has been dominant from day 1 and hasn't dropped off at all, while Shaq's career started to decline after he won the ship in Miami. Duncan has also won 4 as the #1, Shaq has 3. Any rings Shaq wins at this point in his career don't count.

The argument is still pretty close, because Shaq was averaging near 30 in his days with Orlando, but he didn't win a title til his 7th year so that number is a little diminished

[greyforest]

shaq's career has more accolades

tim is a better player

[Goran Dragic]

breakdown the top centers/big men ...... the top three are set: Russell, Wilt, Cap in no particular order ......

the next three would probably be Dream, Shaquille and Duncan. Who's fourth? I would have to go with Shaquille. If you take their primes, Shaquille was just unstoppable .....
Bill Russell would get worked by any of those other 5 big men. He's a rich man's Ben Wallace.

[pad300]

Shaq was definitely a defensive force during his prime. He controlled the paint and controlled his man. Similarly to Tim, who defended the PnR better.

Shaq was better at blocking and altering shots in the paint
Tim was better at PnR defense
They were about equal on man defense IMO, both superb at it

Agree?

How do the two of them do if they switch teammates throughout the years?

No, they were NEVER close defensively. Primarily because Shaq was never willing to commit to playing defense with effort. He had the tools and the skills, but he was NEVER willing to put the sweat in; that's why his PnR defense became so poor. He just wasn't willing to sweat defensively.

Offensively Shaq > Duncan
Defensively Duncan > Shaq
Picking between them to make a team, I pick Duncan for character and leadership reasons.

On your question, If the teammates were switched, I suspect that the Lakers would do better than they did. The clash of egos which always hampered (and finally killed) the Shaq-Kobe pairing would have been either eliminated or at least much reduced...
On talent that Lakers team should have had 5 or so; much like the current Heat has huge expectations. When you can put 2 of the top 5 players in the league on the floor at one time, you should just win... Also, there wouldn't have been an interregnum when Kobe didn't have a top 5 big to do the dirty, necessary, post work.

[Goran Dragic]

Totally disagree here. Duncan in 2003 was a defensive monster.. Look at the D he played in the finals that year. Shaq could never defend like Tim..
He played that D against the likes of Jason Collins and Kenyon Martin. Shaq was just as wet against the Nets a year earlier.

peak Shaq (2000) > peak Duncan (2003), but not nearly enough to make it so Shaq > Duncan career wise. Shaq could have maybe been the best player of all time if he stayed in shape and worked hard, but because he didn't he had a short lived prime from 2000-2003. We all saw he could even be a force in his mid 30's when he was in shape on the Suns, god only knows what he woulda been like if he was in that shape his entire career.

[BUMP]

He played that D against the likes of Jason Collins and Kenyon Martin. Shaq was just as wet against the Nets a year earlier.

peak Shaq (2000) > peak Duncan (2003), but not nearly enough to make it so Shaq > Duncan career wise. Shaq could have maybe been the best player of all time if he stayed in shape and worked hard, but because he didn't he had a short lived prime from 2000-2003. We all saw he could even be a force in his mid 30's when he was in shape on the Suns, god only knows what he woulda been like if he was in that shape his entire career.

+1

I've never seen anybody so unstoppable from 2000-2004. Unless you're name was Vlade Divac or Arvydas Sabonis you would literally have to double him or you're getting teabagged

[Goran Dragic]

+1

I've never seen anybody so unstoppable from 2000-2004. Unless you're name was Vlade Divac or Arvydas Sabonis you would literally have to double him or you're getting teabagged

God only knows how dominant he woulda been if he was in the kind of shape he was in Phoenix for his entire career. He put up 18 points at 60% shooting and 8 boards at age 36 because Phoenix's staff kept him healthy and in shape, he might have even had a season where he averaged close to 40 points if he was in that shape during his prime.

[Pelicans78]

Shaq has had a better career since he made more money in endorsements.

[BUMP]

God only knows how dominant he woulda been if he was in the kind of shape he was in Phoenix for his entire career. He put up 18 points at 60% shooting and 8 boards at age 36 because Phoenix's staff kept him healthy and in shape, he might have even had a season where he averaged close to 40 points if he was in that shape during his prime.

As a Suns fan i feel like you probably have a better understanding to the question more than others.

Was it more of Phoenix's staff keeping him in shape or him realizing that the end was near if he didn't start improving in that aspect?

I feel that the latter might be a little bit true because he took for granted his superior size advantage as evidenced by his ignorance to his poor free throw shooting. If he would've worked on that in the offseason he would've been truly unstoppable but instead he just scoffed the idea

[TinTin]

Was it more of Phoenix's staff keeping him in shape or him realizing that the end was near if he didn't start improving in that aspect?


I thought phoenix had an astounding medical staff. They rebuilt dice didnt they?

[SomeCallMeTim]

I give it to Duncan by a nose, mainly because he's been a much better citizen and teammate over his career -- their actual production has been pretty evenly matched, IMO. With the current trajectories of their careers, this margin should only widen over the next several years.

[Goran Dragic]

As a Suns fan i feel like you probably have a better understanding to the question more than others.

Was it more of Phoenix's staff keeping him in shape or him realizing that the end was near if he didn't start improving in that aspect?

I feel that the latter might be a little bit true because he took for granted his superior size advantage as evidenced by his ignorance to his poor free throw shooting. If he would've worked on that in the offseason he would've been truly unstoppable but instead he just scoffed the idea

Given how he immediately got fat and injury prone again once he went to Cleveland (in a contract year), I'd say it was Phoenix's training staff and the fact they produced such immediate results helping his conditioning that he was willing to work with a staff that obviously knew what it was doing.

He even said that supposedly he had extremely weak gluts for someone his size and Phoenix's training staff had him work on strengthening his gluts which led to taking pressure off his back and him being able to move a lot better.

[BUMP]

I give it to Duncan by a nose, mainly because he's been a much better citizen and teammate over his career -- their actual production has been pretty evenly matched, IMO. With the current trajectories of their careers, this margin should only widen over the next several years.

That's ultimately what swayed my opinion as well. All the small things that don't show up in boxscores go to Duncan. His character, work ethic, and unselfishness was never questioned. Shaquille O'Neal has burned a few bridges. Also, Shaq, while a great talent, never won a world title without a top 2 guard by his side. Tim Duncan has won with a lot of different pieces around him

[Darrin]

A Piston's fan who doesn't know his own teams history? Where the hell did you come from? Compare what TD did to Ben and Sheed combined that finals.
In 285 minutes VS 509,
- TD put up 36 FTA vs their 25 (he was drawing more fouls),
- TD got 33 Oreb to 40, and 99 rebounds to 111 overall.
- TD got 15 Assists to 20.
- TD committed 16 PF to 49 for the Wallaces...
- TD scored 144 pts to 151.

He basically played the Pistons starting front line even by himself! In 60% of the minutes! That's being "outplayed"? :lol

As far as the Cavs series goes... That series was a joke. He was by far the best big man on floor. While Tony had a great series - the Cavs had no one who had a hope of covering him; I still thought the MVP was Duncan. Tony could have gone down injured, and we still would have won that series, because Lebron was not getting it done against our D. Who keys that D? Duncan and Bowen. And Bowen obviously had less value on the offensive end.

He was out-played by his teammates, I wasn't comparing him to the Wallaces. Rasheed couldn't stay on the floor and it was a concern all series long. In that series, Tim Duncan had to be comforted on the bench by his coach. He missed free throws that would've iced game 5. He shot 10-32 (.313) in the first two games at the Palace. He shot 3-17 in game 7 before the third-and-fourth quarter runs. He wasn't dominant in that series.

Shaq put 34 and 11 on the Pistons in game one, 36 and 20 on the Pistons in game four of the series against the LA Lakers in 2004. Duncan's best game?

26 and 19 in game 5.

Let's review what I consider dominant. 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 2.8 bpg, in the four-game sweep of the New Jersey Nets. There was no question who the best player on the floor was.

[Pelicans78]

Who cares about the numbers or wins or whatever else. Shaq clearly made more money with endorsements off the court. Add that in with his 4 rings, Shaq clearly had a more successful career.

[admiralsnackbar]

Duncan and Shaq have very comparable laurels, but the difference for me is that Duncan made roughly as many All-NBA teams as Shaq, while also making as many All-Defensive teams. It's one thing to be an offensive force... quite another to play both sides of the court.

[Darrin]

Duncan and Shaq have very comparable laurels, but the difference for me is that Duncan made roughly as many All-NBA teams as Shaq, while also making as many All-Defensive teams. It's one thing to be an offensive force... quite another to play both sides of the court.

Shaq may have not been the consistent force that Duncan was, but there is no doubt that O'Neal played terrific defense. The Lakers wouldn't have won those titles if he didn't. He played on-ball, weak-side, at-the-rim. He was bigger, more powerful, and terribly athletic. The reason the Lakers stopped winning Championships was because Diesel got out of shape and that translated to less defense, not less offense. Shaq wasn't as creative or mobile offensively, but they would pitch it down to him after he pinned his man and he'd just score. It was when he was playing on-ball and got beat by his man, when he could no longer fly from the other end of the court to get a blocked shot that he became less dominant.

When he wanted to be, there is very little O'Neal couldn't do. Someone on here said that if he wanted to be and showed the commitment to it, he could've been the best ever. I whole-heartily agree with that. Better than Kareem. Better than Wilt. He was big, strong, mobile, he had a handle, and knew how to score around the rim. He could've won double the amount of rings that he has right now if he had just put it together every night. Duncan worked hard, Duncan had more range, Duncan was more consistent. But there is no question who was more talented. There is no question who I would take in their prime, when motivated. The only reason this is a discussion is because Shaq didn't play hard.

Given the choice to see Shaq play or Duncan, I choose Duncan. I have put my money where my mouth is. But this is completely different argument.

[TinTin]

Who cares about the numbers or wins or whatever else. Shaq clearly made more money with endorsements off the court. Add that in with his 4 rings, Shaq clearly had a more successful career.

what

[Nahtanoj]

If you value peak, I'd go with O'Neal. If you value longevity, I'd go with Duncan. But if you factor in leadership, defensive presence, clutchness, all that intangibles stuff, it is handsdown Tim Duncan.

The NBA clearly recognises both. Example: Bill Walton (peak) and Robert Parish (longevity) were named to the 50 greatest players in NBA history in 1996.

[admiralsnackbar]

Shaq may have not been the consistent force that Duncan was, but there is no doubt that O'Neal played terrific defense. The Lakers wouldn't have won those titles if he didn't. He played on-ball, weak-side, at-the-rim. He was bigger, more powerful, and terribly athletic. The reason the Lakers stopped winning Championships was because Diesel got out of shape and that translated to less defense, not less offense. Shaq wasn't as creative or mobile offensively, but they would pitch it down to him after he pinned his man and he'd just score. It was when he was playing on-ball and got beat by his man, when he could no longer fly from the other end of the court to get a blocked shot that he became less dominant.

When he wanted to be, there is very little O'Neal couldn't do. Someone on here said that if he wanted to be and showed the commitment to it, he could've been the best ever. I whole-heartily agree with that. Better than Kareem. Better than Wilt. He was big, strong, mobile, he had a handle, and knew how to score around the rim. He could've won double the amount of rings that he has right now if he had just put it together every night. Duncan worked hard, Duncan had more range, Duncan was more consistent. But there is no question who was more talented. There is no question who I would take in their prime, when motivated. The only reason this is a discussion is because Shaq didn't play hard.

Given the choice to see Shaq play or Duncan, I choose Duncan. I have put my money where my mouth is. But this is completely different argument.

I agree with most of what you say, but in the end it isn't how good Shaq could have been if he'd had more hunger for excellence, but how mediocre he became (despite his freakish, unstoppable physique) with too much hunger period.

[Killakobe81]

Without analyzing right now, it depends on what you value more and how you make your all-time lists IMO..

If you value peak more, than you go with Shaq..his actual peak was one of the best ever in NBA history, where he was a completely unstoppable beast of a scorer, a great rebounder, and he was even a good defender for those years..

Duncan has the longevity factor and the more overall accolades..he obviously has the advantage in the intangibles/leadership/quality as a teammate categories..

It's close either way, so it depends on what you value the most..

Disagree here, but glad many here try to be objective eveb when discussing their favorite player (duncan).

IF we ONLY count 2000 (whole season), and the playoffs/Finals of 2001 and 2002 I would say Shaq WITHOUT pause ...

BUT
Duncan though his "peak" numbers maybe less was more consistently dominant inthe playoffs ESPECIALLY when you factor both ends of the court.
Duncan was RARELY in foul trouble in key playoff games, (check the tape there were many key playoffhgames where Shaq picked up early fouls for charging in the lane) Had a more complete offensive post game and dominates Shaq anywhere outside the key.

Now, Shaq's spin baseline dunk was definitely more "dominant" or imtimidating then anything duncan had in his arsenal but I would take Duncan 10 out of 10 times overall over shaq.

And for those that dont agree Duncan/Kobe probably wins 5 titles minimum Shaq/Kobe stops at 3 and i dont think it was all ego either ...their games would of been better meshed. Duncan is like a stronger, more defensive minded Pau ...Pau maybe better passer and better with his left Duncan is better at everything else EXCEPT maybe FT's ...

[pad300]

He was out-played by his teammates, I wasn't comparing him to the Wallaces. Rasheed couldn't stay on the floor and it was a concern all series long. In that series, Tim Duncan had to be comforted on the bench by his coach. He missed free throws that would've iced game 5. He shot 10-32 (.313) in the first two games at the Palace. He shot 3-17 in game 7 before the third-and-fourth quarter runs. He wasn't dominant in that series.

Out played by his teammates? Are you saying Ginobili played say Rip and Tay combined pretty much even through that series? Pts are 168 to 131 for R&T, Rbs are 71 to 41 for R&T, Asts 36 to 28 for R&T, etc. It's not close. No other spurs player dominated their role like Duncan did, and this with Duncan being the defensive anchor, as usual... Not to mention, if your going to look for which players had down spots in that series, you can start with Ginobili's game 3: 6 TOVS, 7 PTS, 0 Asts, .333 FG%. Duncan was the single best player on the floor in that series by far; and this against what some commentators were calling the best defensive big man pair in history (yes, I thought they were exaggerating - but they did say it, and I would give them in the league that year).




Shaq put 34 and 11 on the Pistons in game one, 36 and 20 on the Pistons in game four of the series against the LA Lakers in 2004. Duncan's best game?

26 and 19 in game 5.


How many wins was that? 1 win, 4 losses? Compare Shaq's rebounding to Wallace + Wallace in the 03/04 final. The score is 107 to 54 in favor of the Wallaces...He does win the PPG match up, 133 to 119. But he doesn't dominate the FTA's 52 to 55 for Shaq, nor the PF's in the same scale as Duncan 22 to 34. Tim Duncan peaked at 3 PF's in one game in a 7 game series. Shaq gave up 4 or 5 PF's every game...Shaq got more points, but he didn't play the Wallaces even...



Let's review what I consider dominant. 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 2.8 bpg, in the four-game sweep of the New Jersey Nets. There was no question who the best player on the floor was.

Yep, Shaq put up stats. But there was no question who the best player on the floor was when SAS played against NJ either...
17 rpg
5.3 bpg
5.3 asts

less pts, 24.1 ppg I'll give you.

And Shaq went up against a Nets team whose best big was Todd Macculloch (PER of 14.4). Next best, Kenyon Martin, was in his 1st playoff appearance, putting up a playoff PER of 13.4.
In contrast the 2 best bigs when TD faced that team were Kenyon Martin, who in his 2nd playoff appearance put up a PER of 17.4. Aaron Williams put up a 15.7 PER...They also had Dikembe Mutombo.
Yeah, the Nets bigs were a lot better in their 2nd finals.

[HarlemHeat37]

That 5.3 BPG was an NBA Finals record too, arguably the most defensively dominant series of all-time IMO, when you consider the pace and the magnitude of those games(being in the Finals and all)..

[PDXSpursFan]

Duncan no doubt, Shaq is a journeyman

[JamStone]

pad300, Darrin is right about 2005.

You can bring up stats all you want. If you watched that series, Ginobili deserved the Finals MVP over Duncan. It was a weird series though. No one player on either team played consistently good, forget consistently great. Sure, Duncan put up some good numbers in a couple games. But Ginobili was the guy the Pistons couldn't handle, especially in the first two games and game 7. Robert Horry saved the Spurs in game 5, and not just because of that three pointer. He played great in the fourth quarter and overtime.

Duncan was contained for a lot of the series. Certainly not the entire series, but Duncan was not unstoppable like Shaq was in 2004. Rasheed and Ben both took turns defending Duncan adequately. Duncan probably had only 2 really good overall games in that 2005 Finals, especially for his standards.

I would have given the Finals MVP to Ginobili in 2005. I recall a lot of Spurs fans saying the same thing at the time.

[DAF86]

Career wise I don't know who to chose 'cause Duncan has been a lot more consistent than Shaq (I would have to look at the stats), but both at their primes Shaq > Duncan. Shaq is the most dominant player I've seen after MJ, Tim comes in second.

[DAF86]

Out played by his teammates? Are you saying Ginobili played say Rip and Tay combined pretty much even through that series? Pts are 168 to 131 for R&T, Rbs are 71 to 41 for R&T, Asts 36 to 28 for R&T, etc. It's not close. No other spurs player dominated their role like Duncan did, and this with Duncan being the defensive anchor, as usual... Not to mention, if your going to look for which players had down spots in that series, you can start with Ginobili's game 3: 6 TOVS, 7 PTS, 0 Asts, .333 FG%. Duncan was the single best player on the floor in that series by far; and this against what some commentators were calling the best defensive big man pair in history (yes, I thought they were exaggerating - but they did say it, and I would give them in the league that year).

I think no one else in this board would agree with you on this claim.

[Mr.Robinson]

:lol that's just about the dumbest top 5 all time list i've ever seen, it could have only gotten any better if you included dirk in there

stfu.

[da_suns_fan]

Shaq could not be physically guarded. He was as unstoppable a force as you will ever see. We talk about 20/10 guys, Shaq at his peak was a 30/15 machine who wasn't a defensive liability like later on his career when he got fat and lazy. By the narrowest of margins, I'll take an apex Shaq over an apex Duncan.

It wasnt even fair. I nearly gave up watching basketball because it was like watching an 8th grader playing amongst 3rd graders.

[admiralsnackbar]

It wasnt even fair. I nearly gave up watching basketball because it was like watching an 8th grader playing amongst 3rd graders.

If you can't sustain it, it doesn't mean that much to me. Why not say Len Bias was the GOAT? He was unstoppable except for the cocaine, right?

I have a lot of respect for Shaq, but he chose celebrity over athletic focus, and his legacy will always be that of a guy who could have owned the league for a decade but didn't. As a Spurs fan, I'm probably always going to pick Duncan, but Shaq could have made it harder on me if he'd tried.

[Zelophehad]

pad300, Darrin is right about 2005.

You can bring up stats all you want. If you watched that series, Ginobili deserved the Finals MVP over Duncan. It was a weird series though. No one player on either team played consistently good, forget consistently great. Sure, Duncan put up some good numbers in a couple games. But Ginobili was the guy the Pistons couldn't handle, especially in the first two games and game 7. Robert Horry saved the Spurs in game 5, and not just because of that three pointer. He played great in the fourth quarter and overtime.

Duncan was contained for a lot of the series. Certainly not the entire series, but Duncan was not unstoppable like Shaq was in 2004. Rasheed and Ben both took turns defending Duncan adequately. Duncan probably had only 2 really good overall games in that 2005 Finals, especially for his standards.

I would have given the Finals MVP to Ginobili in 2005. I recall a lot of Spurs fans saying the same thing at the time.

The difference is Duncan is an all world defender while Ginobili is merely average. His defensive contributions that series were undoubtedly way more than Manu's. Horry's 21 in the fourth and OT of game 5 can never be forgotten though.