People say that Tim is the Greatest PF of all-time but ...

[TheAfricanFan]

Most say that he is originally a Center. If he we considered him a center from the start, would he be the greatest of all-time to???

I think so... and you???

[Sense]

Most say that he is originally a Center. If he we considered him a center from the start, would he be the greatest of all-time to???

I think so... and you???


No...he wouldn't be the greatest center of all time.

[midgetonadonkey]

He might be a top 5 center of all-time, but nowhere close to 1.

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq (it pains me to say it)

[violentkitten]

he's pretty damn good. let's not try to trade him too.

[baseline bum]

Why is Shaq ahead of Duncan? Tim has 3 rings at a younger age than Shaq got his first. He's a way more versitale player, and he has a more complete game. Tell me when you've ever seen Shaq lead a break, hit from the three point line, or switch on a pick and roll. Shaq has never been anything close to the defender Tim is. Shaq also doesn't have the All-NBA awards Tim has. I know... there's 2 forward slots and only one center slot, but Duncan has been voted a top 2 forward each of his eight years in the league while Shaq was All-NBA 3rd team in 94, 96, and 97. Shaq had 3 in a row, but Tim has taken 3 with 3 completely different teams.

[violentkitten]

timmy d winning a title without david was huge when it comes to this ranking crap.

[Sense]

Maybe because Shaq has been to the finals more times than Duncan, and lost more times too..

I don't know..


The media...


one of the 50 greatest players of all time, early..


in between those.. I really don't agree with that, but ahh who cares we all know the truth.

[ALVAREZ6]

Shaq is unstoppable. That's why.

[Horry For 3!]

I don't think Timmy has ever started out playing the Center spot.

[NCaliSpurs]

Shaq is unstoppable which is why he has won the last three titles...

Or maybe he WAS unstoppabe 4 years ago and is now just a great player.

You can't worry about a player's legacy at age 29. Jesus. Jordan won his sixth at the age of what, 35?

Tim is a great player that persevered through two bad ankle injuries, a team with a rotating player rotation, and the most rugged frontline the nba has seen in the last 10 years.

Stick around, the best may be yet to come.

[Dre_7]

He might be a top 5 center of all-time, but nowhere close to 1.

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq (it pains me to say it)

You only have Russel as 3?

I think he is #1 with Wilt being 2nd.

[NCaliSpurs]

Besides, all of these guys essentially played in different eras. You can only really compare them to the competition of their day.

Shaq being the most dominant center of his day (post Robinson and Hakeem).

Hakeem being the greatest center of his day (with Robinson coming in later, and second).

[clubalien]

I always considered david robinson a PF that played center
and duncan a Center that played power forward

duncan could never perfrom good as a center, that is why we had to go out and get a center, and when mailk played center, and horry insted of TiM

there is no way tim could be the best center of all time

he can be the best PF comapred to comition
he is better than karl malone, better than rasheed which plays him the hardest in the nba,(besides ben wallace a center), and he is about even with Keven garnet, slightly above since he has won more, but KG sort of like a young david robinson pretty athletc, that new kid playing for the suns can improve too but right now tim is better than him

so if we look at current peopel Tim is best PF, comapred to old PFs, he is pretty high ranking, but Tim hats playing center because simple put he isn't as good at it.

[duncan_21]

I can't really make an opinion on kareem, wilt, russell cause I didn't see them play and they played with different rules and easier competition. If we put timmy in as a center I would rank my top 5 as:

1. hakeem
2. td
3. shaq/robinson
5. ewing

[polandprzem]

I HAVE NEVER been a Shaq fan. But U cannot honnestly say Wilt>>>>Shaq. Yes, Wilt was amazing with the 100 point game and averages tons of points and rebounds. But look at his opponents. If Shaq played when Wilt did, Shaq could have had 100 points every game.
Realy?

I thing that Dave would do so too and hakeem.
And what about the calls on Shaq's offesive fouls in 60 and 70 ?

Get real

[duncan_21]

Here's my problem with shaq. For about the last 5 years his offense had relied heavilly on shoving or pushing his defender out of the way. Which should be called as offensive fouls, which aren't called. Shaq when he was first in the league didn't have to do that. So snaq's numbers are a little skewed offensively because he gets away with more then any other player I've ever seen.

Shaq was a great defender for 5 or 6 years of his career. The rest he's been good or adequate. Let's give him the ref's help, what else can he do to score the last 5 years? Outside of 6 ft he's worthless.

td on the other hand has been a great defender for his entire career and on offense he can score from inside the 3 pt line.

[ICE3000]

No Duncan would rank below Robinson as a "pure" center but ahead of Ewing Id say 7th since I have dave at 6

1.Russell- NEVER SEEN EITHER PLAY BUT IM TRYIN TO BE OBJECTIVE
1a.WILT-

3.DREAM

4.KAREEM

5.SHAQ

6.ROBINSON

7.DUNCAN

[Mark in Austin]

I would have loved to see what an in his prime Hakeem would have done against Wallace, Wallace, and McDeyess.

A 95 Houston- 05 Detriot matchup would be pretty fantastic, imo.

[Samr]

Relating to this topic, "BiggDrew" made a fantastic Karl Malone/Tim Duncan comparrison (http://p074.ezboard.com/fnotmesutahjazzfrm57.showMessage?topicID=144.topic&index=38) on JazzHoops.net

[Jimcs50]

TD is a Power Forward....He played with DRob, he played with Rasho and with Nazr, none of whom are PFs. TD never jumps center at starts of games either, he is a PF, nuff said.

[E20]

:rolleyes
It goes:
1. Kareem
2. Russel
3. Wilt
4. Dream
5. Admiral

[Spursdaone]

As great as Duncan has been Malone in his prime is better. His stats prove it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Stats? Karl Malone didn't have anyone else on his team to score. Tim has Manu and Tony, and isn't even in his prime yet.

[E20]

What about Hornacek. That guy was sick.

**I'm not defending Malone**
I'm saying Hornacek is cool.

[Spursdaone]

That is what I am saying. Karl Malone had very little help on his team for most his career while Duncan does have help.

[mavsfan1000]

That is what I am saying. Karl Malone had very little help on his team for most his career while Duncan does have help.
By the way. Duncan has 3 rings and malone 0 :lol

[exstatic]

Tim 3-3
Karl 0-2

It's the only stat that matters when comparing great players.

[exstatic]

That is what I am saying. Karl Malone had very little help on his team for most his career while Duncan does have help.

BULLSHIT. He had another top 50 player, one of the best pure PGs of all time, spoonfeeding him assists in a system designed for the two of them..

[Spursdaone]

BULLSHIT. He had another top 50 player, one of the best pure PGs of all time, spoonfeeding him assists in a system designed for the two of them..
Like any team with Greg Osterfag as their starting center is going to get them a championship.

[Dre_7]

Like any team with Greg Osterfag as their starting center is going to get them a championship.

Like any team with Rasho as their center is going to............oh wait nevermind.

[Spursdaone]

At least Rasho has a jump shot. Osterfag had shit.

[baseline bum]

Tim 3-3
Karl 0-2

It's the only stat that matters when comparing great players.

Homeboy, the stat is:

Tim 3-3
Warm Karl 0-3

[50 & 21]

"A 95 Houston- 05 Detriot matchup would be pretty fantastic, imo."

What, a '95 Houston - '05 San Antonio sounds too shabby? :rolleyes

[Rummpd]

Those of you who think Wilt, Kareem and Russell played against "easier competition" have never watched them play against great, great players like Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Bill Walton (depending on era) and many others.

Comparably speaking most of the centers today are "stiffs". Wilt in particular would have had a field day - think of Amare with 3 more inches and even more athletism. (*Wilt was a world class high jumper, sprinter, and even seriously considered boxing Ali).

Wilt (and Kareem) by the way are so much better than Shaq it isn't funny.

Shaq is so, so over-rated - has never won a rebound or block title despite his huge size, has the most limited range of any "great center" ever, and has scored a great number of his points on what many consider an illegal move, i.e. drop the shoulder under the defenders head and bowl him over.

Real ranking of top centers:

1) Russell (its all about winning and was greatest player of century in vote of experts, review of films show that in some seasons he averaged > 8 blocks a game and > 20 boards a game)

2) Wilt - best offensively by far, hands down = Shaq not even in equation.

3) Kareem - most unstoppable shot, 5 titles, 6 MVPs and under-rated defensively.

4) Hakeem - in reality almost the perfect center, in todays game would eat up the league.

5) Robinson - when Shaq wins a title without Kobe or Jackson move him past David. Those of us who saw David play him in his prime saw him frequently school Shaq and David much, much better defensively = that is where games are won!

[Maribor Slovenia]

Most say that he is originally a Center. If he we considered him a center from the start, would he be the greatest of all-time to???

I think so... and you???

I am agree. Tim is a legend and it will be this for ever!

[toosmallshoes]

Bill Russel
Lew Alcindor
Wilt Chamberlain
Shaquille Oneal
Moses Malone

the best Centers in Order. Wilt would be higher, but he didn't start making his teammates better until late in his career, when he coincidentally started winning championships. The rest of those centers made their teammates better always.
Duncan makes his teammates better. And he is a power forward, not a center. If he was a center he wouldn't be nearly as effective. He needs to be out on the wing sometimes to hit that jumper off the glass. He needs a center to rotate with.
Leave him off that center list, because he's not a center. Instead he happens to be the best power forward that the game of basketball has ever seen.
It's a new era. David Robinson was a pf who played c. TD is a C who plays PF. KG is a pf who plays SF. Screw that. They're where they are in the lineup because that is their natural position.

and before i go... about RUMMPD's post just previous to mine... the best five centers?... if you need three lines of text to tell us why Dave was in the top five while no other center required more than two lines.... well.... that's a telling word count.
Here's my rebuttal:
"When Robinson wins a title without Timmy or Poppovich move him past Shaq. Those of us who saw Shaq play him in his prime saw him frequently school David. And Shaq much, much more enormous=3 championships in a row and five finals appearances."

Don't get me wrong, i love Dave, but let's not kid around with history.

[toosmallshoes]

That is what I am saying. Karl Malone had very little help on his team for most his career while Duncan does have help.

Nobody in the Spurs backcourt is as good as John Stockton was. Not even Ginobili. John Stockton was there for most of Malone's career. Everything you just posted is bullcrap.

[toosmallshoes]

oh by the way rummpd, everything you said before you wrote your list and up until you picked Drob at five... I thought it was fabulous.
but sorry. I can't put drob at five. top ten yes, but not top five.

[Solid D]

Tim plays both the 4 and 5, fairly interchangeably, all the time. Yes, he has jumped center (Jim, you have selective memory). When Rasho went down and Malik and Tony were the alternatives, Timmy jumped at center court.

Who was playing 5 during the 4th quarters of all the playoff games when Robert Horry was in there knocking down wing and corner threes?

Timmy isn't a pure center and he's not that great of a leaper. He's a great post player in a hub and spoke style of offense. He's also a great player out on the floor setting screens and knocking down jab step 16 foot bankers. Whenever All-Star teams or Team USA use Timmy, he's more often than not playing in the post at the 5 spot, especially if Shaq is not on the same team.

He's officially a 4, but let's be realistic, he plays 4 and 5 interchangeably and at HOF standards.

[5ToolMan]

Shaq is unstoppable. That's why.

The only year Shaq was "unstoppable" was 2001 ... period. He has and will continue to be a dominate force in the league. But unstoppable, please.

In 1995 the Dream gave Shaq nightmares before he quit on the Magic. From 1996 to 1998 Shaq could not get his Lakers past Malone and the Jazz. In 1999, 2nd year Duncan was the interior force in the Spurs sweep of Shaq and the Lakers. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 Duncan was overall more dominate in Spurs/Lakers playoff series. Shaq just had Kobe in 02, and .04 in 04 to bail him out. In 2004 and 2005 the Pistons played Shaq one on one, and had little trouble destroying Shaq's Lakers and demonstrating Wade was the MVP of the Heat.

[5ToolMan]

That is what I am saying. Karl Malone had very little help on his team for most his career while Duncan does have help.
Malone had Stockton, one of the best PGs in the history of the game, FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER! They also had many great support players who you disrespect with non thinking comments.

[Spursdaone]

Malone had Stockton, one of the best PGs in the history of the game, FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER! They also had many great support players who you disrespect with non thinking comments.
I'm not disrespecting your comment but Utah was a 2 man team. San Antonio had a defensive stopper in Bowen, most efficient guard in the league in Ginobili, a better than average center in Mohammad, and a solid point guard in Parker. Utah did have Stockton but I wouldn't call Russell or Shandon Anderson great players and Osterfag is as bad of a center as you can have to start a game.

[Samr]

Out of the Malone/Duncan vein.

Who would you rather build a team around, Duncan or Malone?

With Duncan as the only holdover from the 1999 championship team, the Spurs did just that. Malone jumped ship to LA, and the rest is history.

[Spursdaone]

Malone in his prime is the best Power Forward. He defines the word Power Forward and I hate Malone but have to give him his props.

[duncan_21]

Here's another topic to think about. What if duncan started his career with stockton? I think up to this point td would average 2-4 pts more per game in his career. I think duncan is better then malone because td is a better scorer in the post one on one.

Malone would post up flail his arms and prey for a foul. He was best with the pick and roll or moving w/out the ball waiting for stockton to dish to him. Utah had some talent other then stockton/malone, russell had some good years and hornacek was an all star. Jeff malone was also a very solid role player.

With d it's no competition between the 2. Duncan is much better because of his size. I take duncan by a little over malone.

[Spursdaone]

Malone at one point in his career was the most efficient player of all time counting fg% and ft% and he always averaged more than 10 rebounds. He had one year where he was averaging over 30 points. Just look at his stats from 89-95 and that was before Hornacek.

[ambchang]

Malone at one point in his career was the most efficient player of all time counting fg% and ft% and he always averaged more than 10 rebounds. He had one year where he was averaging over 30 points. Just look at his stats from 89-95 and that was before Hornacek.


Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey and Mark Eaton weren't that bad. Malone was a great PF, and definitely one of the top 5, but I won't call him the best PF with any sort of conviction. Barkley, McHale, Duncan and Hayes were all at least on the same scale. Then you have a guy called Elgin Baylor, man, that guy was good, and then another called Bob Pettite. The greatest PF of all time is not a one-horse race, arguments can be made with all of them.

[bobbyjoe]

Why is Shaq ahead of Duncan? Tim has 3 rings at a younger age than Shaq got his first. He's a way more versitale player, and he has a more complete game. Tell me when you've ever seen Shaq lead a break, hit from the three point line, or switch on a pick and roll. Shaq has never been anything close to the defender Tim is. Shaq also doesn't have the All-NBA awards Tim has. I know... there's 2 forward slots and only one center slot, but Duncan has been voted a top 2 forward each of his eight years in the league while Shaq was All-NBA 3rd team in 94, 96, and 97. Shaq had 3 in a row, but Tim has taken 3 with 3 completely different teams.

Shaq's Lakers beat the Spurs 3 out of 5 in the postseason. So Shaq edges Duncan when it counts.

Shaq's first trip to the Finals was in his only 3rd year. He faced Hakeem at his absolute peak and held his own. Duncan's first trip to the Finals was against Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas. Enough said.

Shaq has 5 Finals trips to Duncan's 3.

Duncan is the more complete player, yes. But overall Shaq at his peak just dominated the game in a way Duncan could not have. Duncan was not shut down, but contained by the Wallace's in the NBA FInals. HE scored 20 ppg and shot just 41% from FG. At his peak, you just could not ever expect to hold Shaq to these #'s even if you had a Robinson, Hakeem, or Mutombo guarding him. He was just that good.

I'd also take his post passing over Duncan's. Defensively, Ducnan is better but let's not make it out like it's David Robinson vs. Shaq. It's a close call. Duncan has never won a Defensive player of the yr award.

Shaq was competing against a top 5 center of all time and top 10 center of all time in the mid 90's for the all-nba awards while Duncan has 2 forward spots, so i'd put absoultely 0 stock in a stat like that.

Think of it this way: In Shaq's heyday, you heard talk of "is shaq better than wilt? is he the best center ever? is he better than mj?" You don't hear that about Tim Duncan, because he's great, but just not at that super elite level of a Shaq.

[Banks91]

hey bobby u get funnier and dumber by every post.

So wat if shaq made the finals in his 3rd season, duncan did it in his second.

And ur statement about it being against larry johnson and all that bullshit, he did
go through shaq and kobe before he got to the finals so dont be stupid.

But still, i do believe this duncan being better then shaq thing is to premature, he

is tied for my favourite player but even i wouldnt go too far.

But u gotta stop talkin all this shit, know wat ur talkin about when u post something

[DieMrBond]

In regards to the top centers of all time, from what ive read on most nba boards and things like that, there is generally a consensus as to who the top 5 are, but the order is always changing...

generally the top 5 is - wilt, russel, kareem, hakeem and moses malone / shaq...
with david robinson, walton and ewing coming next...

My personal opinion, trying to be unbiased to putting Drob #1 is...

1. Kareem - dominated for such a long time.
2. Russel - the rings speak a lot
3. Hakeem - unfortunately...
4. Wilt - just didnt win enough
5. Shaq - unfortunately again...
6. Moses malone - he was a beast
7. DRob - better than the rest, but not quite better than the above
8. Walton - if it wasnt for injuries, he probably would be higher
9. Ewing - when he wasnt injured, he was pretty damn good
10. ?

But then again, thats just my opinion...

[tophy7]

if tim was a "center" from the start.
it would be

1.bill russell
2.kareem abdul jabbar(6rings)
3.tim duncan and shaq(tied because of 3 each though tim has an edge because of the 3 different teams and 3 different times.) not to mention the refs have been a lot friendlier to LA than SA. and shaq has lost two.
4.wilt chamberlain(mainly because of the stats. he only has 2 rings)
5.hakeem olajuwan


tim would be #3 center and #1 power forward no doubt in my mind.

[Banks91]

rockets and pistons

[Timoha]

if tim was a "center" from the start.
it would be

1.bill russell
2.kareem abdul jabbar(6rings)
3.tim duncan and shaq(tied because of 3 each though tim has an edge because of the 3 different teams and 3 different times.) not to mention the refs have been a lot friendlier to LA than SA. and shaq has lost one.
4.wilt chamberlain(mainly because of the stats. he only has 2 rings)
5.hakeem olajuwan


tim would be #3 center and #1 power forward no doubt in my mind.

I've never seen him play, but from what I read, most people would put Kareem ahead of Tim at this point. Though Tim's career is far from over. And at age 29, they both had identical stats, but Tim's accomplishments greatly eclipsed Hakeem's.

[ambchang]

Shaq's Lakers beat the Spurs 3 out of 5 in the postseason. So Shaq edges Duncan when it counts.

Can't say that, by your logic, Isiah = Magic, Magic > Bird, Jordan > Magic (which I don't agree, but a whole lot of you do), Russell > Wilt, Reed > Wilt.


Shaq's first trip to the Finals was in his only 3rd year. He faced Hakeem at his absolute peak and held his own. Duncan's first trip to the Finals was against Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas. Enough said.

Hakeem burned Shaq with 33 ppg, with Grant doubling him. Hakeem KILLED Shaq in that series, it was 4-0. And Shaq, at least in terms of statistical production, was equivalent to his "peak" years. Having better teammates and a better system, for some reason, makes you look like you play better.



Shaq has 5 Finals trips to Duncan's 3.
Shaq also played since 92, that's an extra 5 years under his belt. Also, Shaq got swept in one of them, and lost 4-1 in the other one, where he was neutralized by a PF sized center.


Duncan is the more complete player, yes. But overall Shaq at his peak just dominated the game in a way Duncan could not have. Duncan was not shut down, but contained by the Wallace's in the NBA FInals. HE scored 20 ppg and shot just 41% from FG. At his peak, you just could not ever expect to hold Shaq to these #'s even if you had a Robinson, Hakeem, or Mutombo guarding him. He was just that good.

Duncan was playing on two bad ankles and was constantly doubled or even tripled. Watch Game 7 again, the whole Pistons team collapsed on Duncan when he put the ball on the floor, how else did you think Horry, Ginobili and Bowen got those wide open 3 pters? And Robinson, by singling Shaq, forced Shaq to average 22 ppg in 2002 (or was it 01?)
Besides, the other Wallace singled Shaq in 04.


I'd also take his post passing over Duncan's. Defensively, Ducnan is better but let's not make it out like it's David Robinson vs. Shaq. It's a close call. Duncan has never won a Defensive player of the yr award.

How about defensive first teams? Shaq ever been on any of those? Shaq has a very notable weakness in guarding the pick and roll, Duncan does not have anything like that. Shaq is a good help defender, not a good one-on-one defender. Duncan is superior in both aspects.
Shaq is a good passer, no question, and yes, Duncan is turnover prone in some situations, so I would have to go along with that.


Shaq was competing against a top 5 center of all time and top 10 center of all time in the mid 90's for the all-nba awards while Duncan has 2 forward spots, so i'd put absoultely 0 stock in a stat like that.
And that's why Shaq was a perennial THIRD team selection behind Hakeem and Robinson. Which means that he wouldn't make the 1st team even if there were two spots.
Later on in his career, when Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing got old, Shaq started getting those first team selection. But then again, who else could have gone there? Rik Smits? Mutombo?


Think of it this way: In Shaq's heyday, you heard talk of "is shaq better than wilt? is he the best center ever? is he better than mj?" You don't hear that about Tim Duncan, because he's great, but just not at that super elite level of a Shaq.
And any person who had any knowledge would know that Shaq was never even close to Wilt. And comparisons with MJ is the FIRST I have ever heard. Those who claim that Shaq is/was the best ever is just ignorant on the history of the game. Look up tapes, look up stats, Shaq does not measure up in any of them.
And in Tim Duncan's heyday, we KNOW that he IS better than Malone, better than Barkley, better than Baylor, better than Petitte, we KNOW that he is the best PF of all time. Shaq, at his best, is no better than 5th best in his position.

[bobbyjoe]

The vast majority of all-time NBA greats are Centers. Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem are all top 10 NBA players of all time.

So being #5 in that list, even if you have Shaq that low (which he is at worst #5), is arguably more impressive than being the best PF of all time when your best competition is Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, 2 very good players with 0 rings between them and who weren't exactly Michael Jordan or Robert Horry or Reggie Miller in the clutch.

Also, Shaq's performance against the Pistons in the 04 Finals was much, much better than what Duncan came up with this year against DET. Just look at the ppg and FG%, not even close. Shaq wasn't neutralized by Wallace in any respect. Kobe Bryant is the reason LA was hammered as Tayshaun Bowened him.

Not sure why Spurs fans think only there players are double teamed (same BS argument we hear in here about Hakeem-DRob 95 despite hakeem averaging 6.5 assists per gamed, spurs fans claim he was always single teamed). Tim DUncan absolutely has not gotten more defensive attention over his career than O'Neal. Teams have no way to prepare for Shaq. WIth Duncan, if you have the right personnel you can contain him by being physical and can hold him down. With O'Neal, you can't do that.

O'Neal averaged way more than 22 ppg against SA in 2001. Also, most of those games were such blowouts that Shaq didn't have to play 42 minutes a game. He flat out dominated the series.

Duncan NOW is better than Shaq now that Shaq has declined in his game. At his peak, Shaq was completely unstoppable.

[ambchang]

The vast majority of all-time NBA greats are Centers. Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem are all top 10 NBA players of all time.

So being #5 in that list, even if you have Shaq that low (which he is at worst #5), is arguably more impressive than being the best PF of all time when your best competition is Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, 2 very good players with 0 rings between them and who weren't exactly Michael Jordan or Robert Horry or Reggie Miller in the clutch.

No question centres are generally more dominating than PF, but does that mean that the best PF is not as good as the 5th best C? (I won't even rank Shaq #5) That's flawed logic.
Besides, you left out Baylor, Pettite and McHale, who are great PF and players in their own right.


Also, Shaq's performance against the Pistons in the 04 Finals was much, much better than what Duncan came up with this year against DET. Just look at the ppg and FG%, not even close. Shaq wasn't neutralized by Wallace in any respect. Kobe Bryant is the reason LA was hammered as Tayshaun Bowened him.

And the reason is because Wallace can single Shaq, while allowing the wing players to concentrate on Kobe. Do you actually think Ginobili is better than Kobe? Prince didn't Bowened Kobe, the whole Pistons defense did, they concentrated on Kobe rather than Shaq.


Not sure why Spurs fans think only there players are double teamed (same BS argument we hear in here about Hakeem-DRob 95 despite hakeem averaging 6.5 assists per gamed, spurs fans claim he was always single teamed).
I am surprised you asked. Because clearly, in that series, the Spurs were playing 4 on 5 on both ends of the floor. Rodman, on offense, was a non-factor, allowing the Houston front line to double, or even triple DR, while on defense, Rodman was hanging around the basket area, leaving Horry wide open for threes. This left other player scrambling to cover for Rodman's constant missed assignments, and left other players such as Smith for threes too. Besides, Olajuwon averaged 5 assists in that series, not 6.5, still significant and great numbers for a centre, just not as great as you proclaimed.


Tim DUncan absolutely has not gotten more defensive attention over his career than O'Neal. Teams have no way to prepare for Shaq. WIth Duncan, if you have the right personnel you can contain him by being physical and can hold him down. With O'Neal, you can't do that.
It's little question that O'Neal is a slightly better offensive player in that he is difficult to stop, and yet he has never averaged more than 30 ppg, and led the league in scoring only once. With all his scoring prowess, this stood out as a sore spot.
Besides, you probably just missed the playoffs, in which entire teams collapsed on Duncan in the playoffs, and Duncan, on two bad ankles, still managed to score 23.6ppg. He is not unstoppable, but he is great a creating opportunities when certain options are closed.


O'Neal averaged way more than 22 ppg against SA in 2001. Also, most of those games were such blowouts that Shaq didn't have to play 42 minutes a game. He flat out dominated the series.

Duncan NOW is better than Shaq now that Shaq has declined in his game. At his peak, Shaq was completely unstoppable.

Game 1: 86 -80 Lakers
Shaq - 35 minutes, 23 points, 2 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 26 points

Game 2: 88-85 Spurs
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 5 fouls
Duncan - 46 minutes, 27 points

Game 3: 99-89 Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 3 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 28 points

Game 4: 87-85, Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 5 fouls
Duncan - 42 minutes, 30 points

Game 5: 93-87, Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 21 points, 3 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 34 points.

Your memory has probably got the best of you. As you can see, none of them were blowouts (you can argue Game 3), and Shaq didn't play 42 minutes per not because he was not needed, but because he just doesn't play that long. 42 mpg is a lot of minutes, and Shaq usually average far less than that in the regular season and the playoffs. To pull out an arbitrarily high number and claim Shaq didn't play that high amount of minutes because he was so dominant that he destroyed the Spurs when he played was ludircrous. He still averaged 39 mpg, about on par with his average after factoring in foul trouble that kept him out of the floor. While Duncan, due to his team's struggles, have to average 44.6 mpg.
In terms of scoring, Shaq averaged 21.4, significantly lower than his regular season average, while Duncan got 29, markedly higher than his season average.
And as that series showed, Shaq, at his absolute prime, was not unstoppable. Kobe killed the Spurs, Shaq didn't.

[bobbyjoe]

Any particular reason you dug up the 2002 series #'s when the discussion is about the 2001 playoffs? Perhaps because 2000 and 2001 were Shaq's peak years and all the 2001 WCF games but 1 were massive blowouts and Shaq was just dominating while Duncan was getting neutralized by Horry? Also, Shaq's assignment of scoring on DRob was much tougher than Duncan's task of scoring on a weak Horry.

Not sure what crack you are smoking to suggest Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 or that the Pistons weren't doubling Shaq last year. Those guys got just as much if not more defensive attention than TD because both were more unstoppable scorers who both scored more and shot a higher percentage from the floor. The difference is that in Hakeem's case even if you double him he spins to the baseline and shoots a high percentage fallaway and in Shaq's case he goes through double teams to score.

Shaq killed the Spurs in both 2001 and 2004. In 2002 the series came down to some close games where Bryant took over in the clutch. Duncan's FT shooting sure didn't help the cause and the Spurs, Duncan included, could not hit clutch shots in the 4th Q of the games that series. In that series, the Lakers used Horry on Duncan for 3 quarters, then Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Quarter and Shaq completely shut down Tim in the 4th Quarter of every game.

[hussker]

I disagree...Charles BARRRRRRKKKLEEEEEEEYYYYYY (as Manu might say) is the Top PF...Malone is a hack

[mavsfan1000]

I think Duncan is overall a better player than Shaq even though Shaq is more dominant. If Shaq played the rest of the game as well like guarding his man, get back on defense quicker, and get more rebounds he could be the greatest ever but he didn't do that. Duncan is much quicker on defense so I think Duncan is better. Duncan never had a superstar to go with him like Shaq did also.

[ambchang]

Any particular reason you dug up the 2002 series #'s when the discussion is about the 2001 playoffs? Perhaps because 2000 and 2001 were Shaq's peak years and all the 2001 WCF games but 1 were massive blowouts and Shaq was just dominating while Duncan was getting neutralized by Horry? Also, Shaq's assignment of scoring on DRob was much tougher than Duncan's task of scoring on a weak Horry.

Because you brought out 22 ppg, and naturally assume you were talking about 2002, where "the unstoppable" Shaq was singled by Robinson and still only averaged 21.5 ppg.
But fine, if you want to talk about 2001, it's fine with me. Shaq averaged 38.5 mpg in that series, and the reason it was so low was because in Game 4, Shaq had 5 fouls.
He played 44, 44 35 and 31 minutes in four games.


Not sure what crack you are smoking to suggest Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 or that the Pistons weren't doubling Shaq last year. Those guys got just as much if not more defensive attention than TD because both were more unstoppable scorers who both scored more and shot a higher percentage from the floor. The difference is that in Hakeem's case even if you double him he spins to the baseline and shoots a high percentage fallaway and in Shaq's case he goes through double teams to score.
Sure, both players were amazing, but that doesn't change the fact that Bob Hill's refusal to put double teams on Hakeem cost the Spurs the series. It's not a surprise that Hill never had another head coaching gig in the league after he was fired.
Last year, Larry Brown took a conscious effort to not double-team Shaq, and since there is no point doing the he said/she said thing between us, I did a simple google search on the Pistons defensive scheme in that year's playoffs.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/061204/pro_20040612049.shtml
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_25_228/ai_n6126961

The Pistons left Wallace--at 6-9, 240 pounds--in mostly single coverage against Shaquille O'Neal, the 7-1,350-pound big fella who usually attracts a crowd of defenders whenever he touches the ball. The Pistons bucked that convention, though, and treated O'Neal like any other player.
It's possible all these writers smoked the same crack I did, but it's unlikely.
As for articles about the Spurs-Rockets series, I have trouble finding it due to the fact that it was a series that happened a decade ago.


Shaq killed the Spurs in both 2001 and 2004. In 2002 the series came down to some close games where Bryant took over in the clutch. Duncan's FT shooting sure didn't help the cause and the Spurs, Duncan included, could not hit clutch shots in the 4th Q of the games that series. In that series, the Lakers used Horry on Duncan for 3 quarters, then Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Quarter and Shaq completely shut down Tim in the 4th Quarter of every game.

You do mean Shaq plus the whole collapsing Lakers team. Shaq did cover Duncan in fourth quarters, but it was the constant attention from 4 other Lakers that stopped Duncan from driving to the basket. Shaq was too big for Duncan to post him, but not quick enough to guard him off the dribble, so Jackson put Shaq on Duncan to force Duncan to face up Shaq, then throw in 2 to 3 other guys to cut off his passing lanes.
The Spurs cannot collapse on Shaq because Bryant destroyed the Spurs.
In 2004, of course you realized how Karl Malone was the one who bothered Duncan. And Shaq, by averaging his 22.5 ppg, including the 21 ppg in the wins, sure did "kill" the Spurs.
And it's nice that you didn't even mention the 2003 playoffs, where Duncan destroyed the Lakers when he had a little help.

[bigbendbruisebrother]

Here's my problem with shaq. For about the last 5 years his offense had relied heavilly on shoving or pushing his defender out of the way. Which should be called as offensive fouls, which aren't called. Shaq when he was first in the league didn't have to do that. So snaq's numbers are a little skewed offensively because he gets away with more then any other player I've ever seen.


Last year, they cracked down on hand-checking perimeter players. Maybe someday, they'll crack down on Shaq's ass-fouling.

[bobbyjoe]

Sure, only Spurs like DRob and Duncan get double teams. Other teams are just plain stupid so they let more prolific scorers like Hakeem and Shaq get singled all the time.

Horry, Elie, K. Smith, Cassell, D. Fisher, B. Shaw always gets wide open 3's not because SHaq and Hakeem command so much attention but because they are just awesome at creating their own shots.

Hakeem averaged 5.5 assists in the 95 WCF (I looked up the correct # and it was indeed not 6.5), but still almost double his career average, but somehow we are to believe he was never double teamed. SImply amazing. Logic defying, but true apparently. Hakeem was great, but not exactly the Vlade Divac of passing big men, so when he got an assist it typically meant a double or triple followed by a pass out to an open spot up shooter. Why did DRob not get more assists than Hakeem if it really is true that he was doubled and tripled and hakeem was never doubled? That whole thing is a joke concocted by homer Spurs fans to avoid facing the blatant reality that Hakeem just dominated RObinson in every phase of the game that series. The whole reason Hakeem developed the turnaround jumper was to counteract double teams because he can spin to the baseline before the doubler can force him to give up the ball. DRob didn't have a game where he could do things like that.

Duncan was singled much of the time this year against DET but the defense of Rasheed and Ben affected him and caused him to shoot poorly. Manu was the true MVP of the series along with Horry. Duncan just did not play well and was terrible in the clutch at the FT line. Still funny how you won't look at Shaq's #'s in the 2001 WCF when he was at his peak. He killed the Spurs that year and Games 3 and 4 were such blowouts that he played less minutes as you saw yourself. Shaqs peak was 2000 and 2001; SPurs didnt play LA in 2000 so the only year of Shaqs peak vs. SA was 2001 and he was just too much and yes was unstoppable.

[ambchang]

Sure, only Spurs like DRob and Duncan get double teams. Other teams are just plain stupid so they let more prolific scorers like Hakeem and Shaq get singled all the time.

Horry, Elie, K. Smith, Cassell, D. Fisher, B. Shaw always gets wide open 3's not because SHaq and Hakeem command so much attention but because they are just awesome at creating their own shots.

Hakeem averaged 5.5 assists in the 95 WCF (I looked up the correct # and it was indeed not 6.5), but still almost double his career average, but somehow we are to believe he was never double teamed. SImply amazing. Logic defying, but true apparently. Hakeem was great, but not exactly the Vlade Divac of passing big men, so when he got an assist it typically meant a double or triple followed by a pass out to an open spot up shooter. Why did DRob not get more assists than Hakeem if it really is true that he was doubled and tripled and hakeem was never doubled? That whole thing is a joke concocted by homer Spurs fans to avoid facing the blatant reality that Hakeem just dominated RObinson in every phase of the game that series. The whole reason Hakeem developed the turnaround jumper was to counteract double teams because he can spin to the baseline before the doubler can force him to give up the ball. DRob didn't have a game where he could do things like that.

Nice of you to now only address the aspect of the argument where I couldn't find articles due to the fact that it was a decade old, while totally ignoring the Wallace on Shaq one-on-one after I found backing articles.
I can't argue with you, it's all a he said she said argument. I can't sit together with you and watch all the games together while arguing which one is a double team and which one is not, but Bob Hill was largely criticised that year for not doubling Hakeem, leading to teh Spurs demise. How else could he be fired a year after winning 62 games and never get another heading coaching gig again?


Duncan was singled much of the time this year against DET but the defense of Rasheed and Ben affected him and caused him to shoot poorly. Manu was the true MVP of the series along with Horry. Duncan just did not play well and was terrible in the clutch at the FT line. Still funny how you won't look at Shaq's #'s in the 2001 WCF when he was at his peak. He killed the Spurs that year and Games 3 and 4 were such blowouts that he played less minutes as you saw yourself. Shaqs peak was 2000 and 2001; SPurs didnt play LA in 2000 so the only year of Shaqs peak vs. SA was 2001 and he was just too much and yes was unstoppable.
Shaq played 31 minutes in Game 4 because of 5 fouls. First you said Shaq played minimal minutes in the series because of blowouts, now I have showed you how he played 38.5mpg, with 44/44/35/31 minutes, it was just the last two games that this happened. And it's just works out so well that Shaq has exactly TWO years of peak performance. It just so happens Duncan peaked at 99, went bad for a few years, then went back to his peak in 03! Want to compare those numbers? The very fact that Shaq only had TWO years of dominance in his 12 year career, while Duncan has been consistently good for 8 years should probably tell you who is better.
Duncan was unstoppable in 2003 vs. the Lakers too, want to talk about that?

[bobbyjoe]

Absurd. Shaq did not only have TWO years of dominance.

Do you not understand the very basic concept that a player's PEAK is defined as when he maximizes his play? For Jordan his peak was 92-93. This doesn't mean he only dominated for but 2 years. For hakeem it was 94-95. That doesn't mean he didn't dominate in 86 when he got past showtime and took the 86 Celts to 6 games.

As said earlier, Duncan had the much easier task in scoring on a weak defender like Horry where Shaq was going up against a top 5 defensive Center of all time in Big Dave. We saw what happened in 04 when Duncan had some real comp in a 39 year old Karl Malone. He struggled. He did play very well against LA in both 99 and 2003, but LA's weakness was the PF position, not so for SA at the C position.

Suggesting that Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 is just asinine. Dude averages 5.5 assists per game and you claim he wasn't double teamed? Man, that's just so crazy it's laughable. You can argue all day about Bob hill but it's common sense that if a Center averages 5.5 assists a game in a series and your team is killed by Horry, Elie, etc launching wide open 3's that there were sure as hell many double teams. You don't any articles. I can send you links for 100 articles from the national media which note the obvious: That David Robinson was just obliterated by Hakeem in 95 WCF; none will post this qualification about it being Bob Hill's fault. Bottomline is you shouldn't need any articles when Hakeem's assist total is so out of line with the rest of his career. He was just playing that well that it didnt matter how you defended him.

Explain to me how a Center averages 5.5 assists per game in a series without extensive double teams? It's just illogical.

Did you even watch Games 3 and 4 of the 2001 WCF? They were 30 and 40 point blowouts. Shaq and Kobe didn't play in the 4th Q's at all because it was extensive garbage time. You still don't want to address his stats that series because he torched SA. At his peak, he was clearly unstoppable. Duncan has always been very good, but when faced with quality defenders like a Ben Wallace, Rasheed, or even a 39 year old Karl Malone, he's certainly been slown off his game. That's really the difference between him and Shaq.

When Shaq was at his peak, he went right through Mutombo and David Robinson and Tim Duncan, not an easy task at all, but he went right through them.

Shaq has been good for much more than just 2 years. He got to the Finals very early in his career and held his own vs. a top 5 Center of all time. I'm sorry but if Duncan had to face Hakeem in his first Finals instead of Larry Johnson, he'd have had a tough time as well. Then in 96, Shaq lost to MJ and the 72 win Bulls team. Again, Tim DUncan would have fared no better. 97 and 98 Shaq lost to Malone and Stockton in his prime.

Shaq's early years were in a much touger era of bball than what DUncan has ever had to face. I don't think you'll find a soul outside of SA who truly believes that Duncan at his peak eclipses Shaq at his peak. Nothing to be ashamed of either as Shaq IMO is arguably the best big man of all time. I would rate DUncan the best PF of all time which is nothing to sneeze at. I know there's a lot of animosity towards O'Neal because of the way he's dissed SA and DRob at every opportunity but in terms of his dominance and ability, he doesn't take a back seat to Tim.

[ambchang]

Absurd. Shaq did not only have TWO years of dominance.

Do you not understand the very basic concept that a player's PEAK is defined as when he maximizes his play? For Jordan his peak was 92-93. This doesn't mean he only dominated for but 2 years. For hakeem it was 94-95. That doesn't mean he didn't dominate in 86 when he got past showtime and took the 86 Celts to 6 games.

As said earlier, Duncan had the much easier task in scoring on a weak defender like Horry where Shaq was going up against a top 5 defensive Center of all time in Big Dave. We saw what happened in 04 when Duncan had some real comp in a 39 year old Karl Malone. He struggled. He did play very well against LA in both 99 and 2003, but LA's weakness was the PF position, not so for SA at the C position.

So how would one explain Duncan's inability to play well in 2001 vs. the Lakers when LA had a weak defensive PF? By your own admission, it is absurd to single team a dominant post player, and yet you constantly bring out LA having weak defensive PFs as the reason for Duncan's dominance. So your rationale is that Duncan is so weak, LA elected to single cover him, and yet he STILL sucked in 2001 and 2004?
And alright, if you define peak and dominance seperately, it's fine with me, but I just find it very convenient to have Shaq had his two peak years where one year was when he didn't play the Spurs in the playoffs, while the next year is the only dominanting effort he pulled against the Spurs in the playoffs in 4 tries.


Suggesting that Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 is just asinine. Dude averages 5.5 assists per game and you claim he wasn't double teamed? Man, that's just so crazy it's laughable. You can argue all day about Bob hill but it's common sense that if a Center averages 5.5 assists a game in a series and your team is killed by Horry, Elie, etc launching wide open 3's that there were sure as hell many double teams. You don't any articles. I can send you links for 100 articles from the national media which note the obvious: That David Robinson was just obliterated by Hakeem in 95 WCF; none will post this qualification about it being Bob Hill's fault. Bottomline is you shouldn't need any articles when Hakeem's assist total is so out of line with the rest of his career. He was just playing that well that it didnt matter how you defended him.

Explain to me how a Center averages 5.5 assists per game in a series without extensive double teams? It's just illogical.

Yes, Olajuwon absolutely outplayed Robinson in 1995, no question about that, but the fact was Olajuwon was singled most of the series. As explained in previous posts, Rodman often left Horry wide open for jumpers while he was trying to hang around the basket, doing nothing and wait for a rebound. This left 3 Spurs defender trying to cover 4 Rockets perimeter players, and it constantly left the Rockets open for jumpers. This was not an isolated incident, Rodman had problems throughout the year.


Did you even watch Games 3 and 4 of the 2001 WCF? They were 30 and 40 point blowouts. Shaq and Kobe didn't play in the 4th Q's at all because it was extensive garbage time. You still don't want to address his stats that series because he torched SA. At his peak, he was clearly unstoppable. Duncan has always been very good, but when faced with quality defenders like a Ben Wallace, Rasheed, or even a 39 year old Karl Malone, he's certainly been slown off his game. That's really the difference between him and Shaq.

When Shaq was at his peak, he went right through Mutombo and David Robinson and Tim Duncan, not an easy task at all, but he went right through them.
Then maybe I can pull the Duncan is not at his peak argument in 2005 too (two twisted ankles probably did something). Why does it only apply to Shaq? Duncan killed Shaq in 2003, destroyed the Nets with Mutombo in 2003, and scored 21.1 ppg on 54.9% shooting vs Malone in the 1998 playoffs during his ROOKIE season.


Shaq has been good for much more than just 2 years. He got to the Finals very early in his career and held his own vs. a top 5 Center of all time. I'm sorry but if Duncan had to face Hakeem in his first Finals instead of Larry Johnson, he'd have had a tough time as well. Then in 96, Shaq lost to MJ and the 72 win Bulls team. Again, Tim DUncan would have fared no better. 97 and 98 Shaq lost to Malone and Stockton in his prime.
But of course, the Spurs played the Lakers to get to the finals, the defending champs Pistons in 2005.
You want to pull out weak competition in the Finals? How about the 6ers? Or the Pacers? Or the Nets (who the Spurs played the following year). Larry Johnson? Ever heard of Marcus Camby, who is at least a decent defender?
Saying that Shaq lost to MJ and Hakeem is OK, while totally dismissing Duncan losing to teams with TWO HoF (the Jazz, Lakers) at their peaks is hypocritical at best.


Shaq's early years were in a much touger era of bball than what DUncan has ever had to face. I don't think you'll find a soul outside of SA who truly believes that Duncan at his peak eclipses Shaq at his peak. Nothing to be ashamed of either as Shaq IMO is arguably the best big man of all time. I would rate DUncan the best PF of all time which is nothing to sneeze at. I know there's a lot of animosity towards O'Neal because of the way he's dissed SA and DRob at every opportunity but in terms of his dominance and ability, he doesn't take a back seat to Tim.

I have stated earlier that the years of Shaq dominance was brilliant, his stats were clearly better than Duncan, and nobody in the world will argue that. But longevity factors into my arguments. Bill Walton was brilliant until his foot problems, but I will never say that he is a top 5 centre because of his two years on top.
And I struggle to understand how you would call Shaq the best Big Man of all time, when under your own admission that Shaq had problems with Robinson (his best year was 2001, where he averaged 28.5 ppg, and he averaged 21.5 in 2002 and 22.5 in 2003), where Hakeem absolutely destroyed Robinson at his prime (1995 was Robinson's MVP year), scoring a 35 ppg in that series. Don't you value the "peak" years?