Is Shaq > Duncan?

[KB24]

Or is Duncan > Shaq?

What do you think?

[Burn531]

Is this a serious question?

[johnpaulwall21]

FUCK NO Fuck face

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r311/johnpaulwall/blockonshaq.jpg

[cornbread]

Yes, 330lbs>260lbs

[cheguevara]

Dwade >> Kobe

[mardigan]

Wade, Lebron, Ray Allen, Vince Carter>Kobe
Stupid ass question

[KB24]

Yes this is a serious question? Each player (Shaq or Duncan) have their great qualities but over all, who is Greater?

I would just like to know your opinion.

Like Kori said keep it clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mabber]

Or is Duncan > Shaq?

What do you think?

Duncan>Shaq now, but Shaq>Duncan in regards to their overall careers.

[Texas_Ranger]

No he's not.

[KB24]

Duncan>Shaq now, but Shaq>Duncan in regards to their overall careers.


I agree with you but since this is Spurs HOMERVILLE, I wanted to get some valid arguments. None Yet!!!!!

[dirk4mvp]

Now?

[Fillmoe]

shaq in his prime > duncan in his prime

and im a kings fan so you know i hate saying taht shit

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Duncan > Shaq.

For starters, for as great as Shaq has been I still think he squandered some potential. If he had ever bothered to take better care of himself he could have extended his prime by a year or two. Instead he got fat and his feet and knees have gone to shit faster than they should have. While Duncan isn't quite to his twilight years yet I'm willing to bet he'll age a lot better than Shaq has.

Duncan's game is better, well, because he actually has one. TD may very well have the most polished and complete offensive game of any bigman in history. Shaq's career has consisted of hitting a jackpot in the genetic lottery and getting away with three second calls and offensive fouls for a decade while never scoring a hoop from farther than about three feet from the basket. There's no excuse for being in the league for as long as he has and still shooting free throws like a six year old girl. Duncan's D is light years ahead of Shaq's as well.

And finally there's professionalism. How many cheap shots and punches has Duncan thrown? The worst offense you could find on his record is serving a suspension for accidentally running over a ref. How many of Shaq's old teammates have had bad stuff to say about him? And how many of Duncan's old teammates have had bad stuff to say about him? Chemistry is a key part of any team sport.

Bottom line, if I was starting a team with either one of these guys in their prime I'd take Duncan any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[mavs>spurs2]

Of course shaq > duncan if we are talking about in their primes. Shaq was probably the most dominant player ever just because of his size.

[mardigan]

Yes this is a serious question? Each player (Shaq or Duncan) have their great qualities but over all, who is Greater?

I would just like to know your opinion.

Like Kori said keep it clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
His scoring, rebounds, blocks, and minutes a game have decreased each of the last 4 years. Hes played more than 70 games in a season once since 01-01, he is slow, cant make more than 50% of his fts, never won anything without another top 50,(or future top 50) player on his squad, and his defense is falling apart by the second. With that said, who knows?

[mardigan]

Even in there primes I would take Duncan

[mavsfan1000]

I would take Shaq. Duncan is great in all aspects of the game but Shaq was definitely more dominant.

[Phenomanul]

I would take Shaq. Duncan is great in all aspects of the game but Shaq was definitely more dominant.

You realize that your comment is the prevalent opinion as overhyped by the media and nothing more.... it is highly subjective - Bill Waltonesque " He was the greatest "______" EVER!!!"

Duncan was equally 'dominant' in his prime... but he is and was a much better basketball player than Shaq...

(Better footwork) Duncan > Shaq
(Better defensive understanding of the game) Duncan > Shaq
(Better free throw shooter) Close... but still Duncan > Shaq
(Better shooting range) Duncan >>>> Shaq
(Shots around the basket) Duncan = Shaq
(Better teammates) Shaq
(Better coach) Shaq
(Greater mis-match) Shaq >= Duncan

Overall Duncan > Shaq.

Too bad the media will never report it as such...

[Findog]

At their peak, give me Shaq. For the balance of their career and longevity, give me Duncan.

[Medvedenko]

What would happen if TD had Penny, Kobe or Wade on his teams....

[mardigan]

What would happen if TD had Penny, Kobe or Wade on his teams....
Great point, and one could easily wonder how many titles Tim could have had with those players

[G-Money]

Ducan>Shaq..

[mabber]

I'd say it's about 50/50 on here, but this is a Spur's forum. I'd guess it would be closer to 80/20 in favor of Shaq on a NBA forum with no Spur's or Laker/Heat fans.

Both players have had great careers and will obviously go into the hall of fame, but Shaq made so much more of an impact on the game with his size and athletic ability (at that size). I always try to think what GM's & coaches around the league would do if given the choice between two players and I have a really hard time thinking that very many would choose Duncan over Shaq (when both were in their prime).

[Trainwreck2100]

WHO GIVES A SHIT????

They don't even play the same position

[KB24]

I'd say it's about 50/50 on here, but this is a Spur's forum. I'd guess it would be closer to 80/20 in favor of Shaq on a NBA forum with no Spur's or Laker/Heat fans.

Both players have had great careers and will obviously go into the hall of fame, but Shaq made so much more of an impact on the game with his size and athletic ability (at that size). I always try to think what GM's & coaches around the league would do if given the choice between two players and I have a really hard time thinking that very many would choose Duncan over Shaq (when both were in their prime).


Good point. I guess at the end of the day most people will measure greatness with Championships.

I truly think Duncan has done wonders in SA. Duncan has never had a KOBE or DWADE type of player next to him. If he did SA would have had a couple of more Riverwalk Parades.

[ABDENOUR POWER]

I find it a little humorous that so many people on here believe that, when in their primes, Duncan was better than Shaq. But I suppose thats to be expected on a Spurs board.

Many of you are trying to break down their games piece by piece, but it simply doesn't work that way. Did Duncan have better range? Yes. Was Duncan a better free throw shooter? Yes. Did Duncan have better agility and footwork? Yes. Was Duncan a better teammate? YES ALREADY. But does that mean that Duncan was the better player? NO!

Shaq was a freak of nature, plain and simple. The fact of the matter is that Shaq didn't need all of those skills that Duncan posessed to be successful. Look, I hate Shaq as much as the next guy, but his game cannot simply be ignored because of his immense size or cocky personality.

His numbers are flat out astounding. He led the NBA in field goal % for 9 seasons, including 5 in a row. He averaged at least 20 points and 10 rebounds per game for 13 straight seasons. In just his second season in the league, O'Neal recorded a game with 24 points, 28 rebounds, and 15 blocks. The man fetched a Finals MVP with 38 points and 16.7 rebounds per game, for goodness sakes.

Like him or not, there's simply no denying it - Shaq is one of the most dominating players in the history of the NBA. Tim Duncan was and still is a phenomenal player, but when the two were both in their primes, I think Shaq comes away the hands down winner.

[KB24]

WHO GIVES A SHIT????

They don't even play the same position


This is a better subject than the Trade a SPUR everytime they lose thread. Grow a nutsack and enjoy your SPURS while they are at the top.

[mardigan]

I find it a little humorous that so many people on here believe that, when in their primes, Duncan was better than Shaq. But I suppose thats to be expected on a Spurs board.

Many of you are trying to break down their games piece by piece, but it simply doesn't work that way. Did Duncan have better range? Yes. Was Duncan a better free throw shooter? Yes. Did Duncan have better agility and footwork? Yes. Was Duncan a better teammate? YES ALREADY. But does that mean that Duncan was the better player? NO!

Shaq was a freak of nature, plain and simple. The fact of the matter is that Shaq didn't need all of those skills that Duncan posessed to be successful. Look, I hate Shaq as much as the next guy, but his game cannot simply be ignored because of his immense size or cocky personality.

His numbers are flat out astounding. He led the NBA in field goal % for 9 seasons, including 5 in a row. He averaged at least 20 points and 10 rebounds per game for 13 straight seasons. In just his second season in the league, O'Neal recorded a game with 24 points, 28 rebounds, and 15 blocks. The man fetched a Finals MVP with 38 points and 16.7 rebounds per game, for goodness sakes.

Like him or not, there's simply no denying it - Shaq is one of the most dominating players in the history of the NBA. Tim Duncan was and still is a phenomenal player, but when the two were both in their primes, I think Shaq comes away the hands down winner.
This will be Tims 9th year with 20 and 10,and the one year he didnt get it, he averaged 19 and 11. And if I am not supposed to break it downn by games, why are you bringing up a individual game? If I wanted to bring up individual games, I could list the game in the finals where Tim had, 20 points, 20 boards, 10 assists, and 8 blocks, so that argument holds no weight. Like many have said, Shaq never won shit without Kobe or Wade. Duncan is just as likely to be double and triple teamed as Shaq, and you could never take Duncan out of a game by fouling him, like you can Shaq

[Holmes_Fans]

In their primes Shaq >>>> Duncan

Now, Duncan > Shaq

[Trainwreck2100]

This is a better subject than the Trade a SPUR everytime they lose thread. Grow a nutsack and enjoy your SPURS while they are at the top.


I never started a trade a spur thread, never even took part in the discussion. And I do enjoy watching them play when they play like they give a damn.

[Phenomanul]

What would happen if TD had Penny, Kobe or Wade on his teams....


If TD had the benefit of playing alongside Kobe there's no way he would have ever let his ego detract from a winning atmosphere. They would have been the next Malone/Stockton, Jordan/Pippen combo...

That combination of players would have managed to attain at least 5-6 NBA titles in the 1998-2006 timeframe.

[Trainwreck2100]

If TD had the benefit of playing alongside Kobe there's no way he would have ever let his ego detract from a winning atmosphere. They would have been the next Malone/Stockton, Jordan/Pippen combo...

That combination of players would have managed to attain at least 5-6 NBA titles in the 1998-2006 timeframe.


You do know Malone and Stockton never won the championship right?

[mardigan]

^^I agree completely, and hell they might have gotten more than that

[Ockham]

I'm a diehard Spurs fan, and am no fan of Shaq, but I have to say that this particular debate is about as even as "greater player" debates get. I think people have a tendency to get carried away and rank O'Neal as the far greater player because he was (in his prime) one of the greatest scorers ever (as shown by his scoring average and field goal percentage) and because he was so big, quick, and strong. In sum: because of his offensive prowess, O'Neal's game is easier to appreciate, and hence people often rank him much higher than Duncan.

But this is an odd way to rank players, when we [/I]know---we see it every year, especially in the playoffs---that defense matters. And although Duncan was never the offensive force that Shaq was in his prime, Shaq never contributed defensively the way Duncan did (and still does). It's extremely rare to find a player that is among the league's very best both offensively and defensively every year of their career---Jordan, Jerry West, Kareem, Hakeem, and Wilt Chamberlain are among the few that spring to mind. Duncan fits this mold: 8 times 1st team/1 time 2nd team All-NBA, [I]6 times 1st team/3 times 2nd team All-Defense, all in the span of 9 years. O'Neal does not: 8 times 1st team/2 times 2nd team/3 times 3rd team All-NBA, but only 3 times 2nd team All-Defense, in his 14 years.

O'Neal was one of the greatest offensive players of all time and only a sometime good defensive player, while Duncan has consistently been one one of the best offensive and defensive combination players since he arrived in the league. This makes it especially difficult to rank them, in my opinion. Add to this that their other accomplishments are very comparable---Duncan has 2 MVP's, 3 titles, 3 Finals MVP's, and a stellar winning percentage, and O'Neal has 1 MVP, 4 titles, 3 Finals MVP's and a stellar winning percentage---and I just don't think there's a clear cut answer here.

If you press me, I'd say Duncan: I'll take guaranteed offensive and defensive excellence over offensive dominance and mediocre defense. But I can understand someone wanting to go the other way on this.

[ABDENOUR POWER]

This will be Tims 9th year with 20 and 10,and the one year he didnt get it, he averaged 19 and 11. And if I am not supposed to break it downn by games, why are you bringing up a individual game? If I wanted to bring up individual games, I could list the game in the finals where Tim had, 20 points, 20 boards, 10 assists, and 8 blocks, so that argument holds no weight. Like many have said, Shaq never won shit without Kobe or Wade. Duncan is just as likely to be double and triple teamed as Shaq, and you could never take Duncan out of a game by fouling him, like you can Shaq

I was saying that you can't pick apart each aspect of their "game" as in their strengths, weaknesses, etc. And I know that you can't base everything off of one individual game, but I was trying to give an example of just how dominant he really was. Anybody who can snatch 28 boards and swat 15 shots in a game is a force. If you want to throw out that game its understandable, but then what about when he averaged 38 points and 16.7 rebounds during the NBA Finals? Are those stats invalid too?

Again, I'm not trying to bash Tim Duncan. He's a great player. I just think Shaq was better.

[Leetonidas]

Shaq will always be considered better because he sits around the rim and has no hesitation about dunking on anyone, and he is HUGE. Tim Duncan is probably the greatest PF of all time, has a better overall game on both sides of the floor, and a better team mate, but because Shaq could thrown down all over anyone at anytime, he will be considered better.

[dirk4mvp]

If Shaq is overrated and only good because of his size, yao ming is the most overrated pos in the leauge because he's 5-6 inches taller than his defender.

[mavsfan1000]

Alright I'm convinced Duncan is better. They're about equal but Duncan's defense and rebounding is where I give him the edge.

[z0sa]

Shaq is a better passer than Tim but a horrible defender. Shaq doesnt block shots, he changes them. Tim is much better at blocking, shooting, and its a wash rebounding. Hes also a much better teammate.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

but Shaq was definitely more dominant. especially in games missed per season for the last 5 years.

[resistanze]

If Shaq is overrated and only good because of his size, yao ming is the most overrated pos in the leauge because he's 5-6 inches taller than his defender.

I agree. After all, look at the dominance of future HOF Shawn Bradley. I mean, he was even dominant in the way he was bodyslammed by Mark Davis!

[AFBlue]

Duncan is the more skilled player, but Shaq was clearly more dominant. He had the size and the smarts to understand that he didn't need to waste time developing an outside shot...he worked like crazy on being the best player in history inside 5ft of the basket.

[LakeShow]

this one is easy,

Shaq > Duncan

[Bob Lanier]

Some of these people have exaggerated memories of what Shaquille O'Neal could do.

It's probably related to latent gnawing feelings of inferiority about the glamour of the city of Los Angeles.

Of course, given the way Spurs fans feel about David Robinson, another great but not transcendent seven-footer, it could just be penis envy.

[Shaolin-Style]

Duncan> Shaq

Shaq has had nothing but great teammates surrounding him his whole career. He'd still have ZERO championships if it wasn't for Kobe and DWade(the same is said for both of them however)

Duncan made mediocre and aged players still look like a million bucks, and much like atlas had this whole world up on his back.

[Trainwreck2100]

Shaq will be the best C of his era and Duncan would go down as the best PF of his era

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Some of these people have exaggerated memories of what Shaquille O'Neal could do.

It's probably related to latent gnawing feelings of inferiority about the glamour of the city of Los Angeles.

Of course, given the way Spurs fans feel about David Robinson, another great but not transcendent seven-footer, it could just be penis envy.
Wrong, people are having exaggerated notions that Shaq wasn't as completely dominant in the early 2000's. He was a beast and watching his game was crazy for opposing fans. It was great. It sucks that people like to forget how great Shaq was because of his big mouth and his media-clown personality. And his now declining body. He's too big. That's just how it goes.

Yeah he was dumb. He was unique to watch. And I hated the 3-peat lakers!

That said, Duncan will be considered greater overall. Because he 's such a complete player. He has an edge over Shaq, just because there are things that aren't so flashy. He's capable of putting up quiet 40 point games when hard pressed.

Just because Shaq and Duncan play different positions, they are both on the same stratosphere because they are both Franchise Big men, who have dominated the 2000's. So this isn't a bad comparison.

[JamStone]

What would happen if TD had Penny, Kobe or Wade on his teams....


What would happen if Shaq had David Robinson in his prime his first 6 seasons in the league?

[JamStone]

If Shaq is overrated and only good because of his size, yao ming is the most overrated pos in the leauge because he's 5-6 inches taller than his defender.


It was great how Stanley Roberts, Shawn Bradley, Manut Bol, Gheorge Muresan, Pavel Podkolzine, Slavko Vranes all dominated the NBA purely based on their size and/or height.

[Purple & Gold]

Dwade >> Kobe
You're an idiot.


Wade, Lebron, Ray Allen, Vince Carter>Kobe

You're even stupider.

[dbreiden83080]

Duncan>Shaq now, but Shaq>Duncan in regards to their overall careers.

Based on what Timmy has won 3 titles and did it in less time than Shaq and with far less around him. Shaq never won shit until Phil became his coach and Kobe became the best 2 guard in the league. Wade dominated that series against the Mavs and Shaq was basically a non factor. Timmy has one more MVP and is always on the all defensive team. A team which Shaq is not too familiar with.

[Purple & Gold]

Based on what Timmy has won 3 titles and did it in less time than Shaq and with far less around him. Shaq never won shit until Phil became his coach and Kobe became the best 2 guard in the league. Wade dominated that series against the Mavs and Shaq was basically a non factor. Timmy has one more MVP and is always on the all defensive team. A team which Shaq is not too familiar with.
Duncan had more around him when he won, then Shaq did when he won with the Lakers. The Lakers only had Shaq, Kobe, and Horry for last second shots. Everybody else was below average.

[dbreiden83080]

Duncan had more around him when he won, then Shaq did when he won with the Lakers. The Lakers only had Shaq, Kobe, and Horry for last second shots. Everybody else was below average.

LOL Timmy won his 2nd ring with a really young Parker an out of control inconsistant Manu and Robinson in his last year being a shell of what he once was. Do not try and argue this point, Kobe is a first ballot hall of famer. Timmy has never played with anyone like that and he won 3 rings.

[Purple & Gold]

LOL Timmy won his 2nd ring with a really young Parker an out of control inconsistant Manu and Robinson in his last year being a shell of what he once was. Do not try and argue this point, Kobe is a first ballot hall of famer. Timmy has never played with anyone like that and he won 3 rings.
Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker. :lol

Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.

[dbreiden83080]

Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker. :lol

Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.

It is frightening that you actually believe this i must say. How many hall of fame players has Duncan played with in their primes? The answer is 0. Shaq playing with Kobe made the game so much easier for him. He could own the paint for 3 qtrs and then in the 4th because he sucked so bad at FT's Kobe would totally take over the ballgame. Rarely in big moments was there any pressure on Shaq to do anything late in the game. Fisher was a very consistant PG and always played well for you guys in your title years. Rice played very well for the Lakers in that one year and was a key contributor to the first title. Fox was very much like Bowen a very good defender who would give you sparse moments on offense. Rose spent as much time going 15 rounds with Pop and getting benched as he did actually contributing on the court.

[Amare_32]

Shaq is the flashier player but I will take Duncan. Duncan has the better around game. They don't call him the Big Fundamental for nothing. While Shaq most likely will be gone in 2 years Duncan can likely play for another 5-6 years since he keeps himself in better shape than Shaq.

[resistanze]

^^ Well that would be correct, considering Shaq is 4 years older than TD :lol

[Purple & Gold]

It is frightening that you actually believe this i must say. How many hall of fame players has Duncan played with in their primes? The answer is 0. Shaq playing with Kobe made the game so much easier for him. He could own the paint for 3 qtrs and then in the 4th because he sucked so bad at FT's Kobe would totally take over the ballgame. Rarely in big moments was there any pressure on Shaq to do anything late in the game. Fisher was a very consistant PG and always played well for you guys in your title years. Rice played very well for the Lakers in that one year and was a key contributor to the first title. Fox was very much like Bowen a very good defender who would give you sparse moments on offense. Rose spent as much time going 15 rounds with Pop and getting benched as he did actually contributing on the court.
A whole team top to bottom (with one being a HOF) is better than a team with 2 HOF's and nobody else. The fact that Shaq and Kobe won with nobody else is what makes what they did so great. The question was who had a better team around them and the answer is Duncan. A whole team is better than a team with 2 top players.

Fisher sucked and was not consistent, his defense was horrible and he couldn't break anybody down. All he could do was shoot from the outside (inconsistently) and draw charges at the end of his Laker career. Rice did not play well for the Lakers. He was a huge bust. Fox was not even close to as good as Bowen was. Maybe a Fox/George SF lineup is equal to Bowen, but even then I say maybe. Rose would defend Shaq very well and he is a major reason you even had some success against the Lakers. Basketball is all about match ups and Rose matched up well with Shaq (as good as anybody could).

The Lakers had 2 superstars and nobody else (other than Horry's big shots). The Spurs had 1 superstar and a well built team around him. If you put Shaq with Manu, Tony, Robinson, Rose, Jackson, Bowen, etc. he wins 5 in a row.

[exstatic]

I think a lot of people, myself included, penalized Shaq because he reached about 70% of his potential. He was fat, lazy, and uninterested in defense or rebounding. At his size and agility, he should have been a Rodman class rebounder. I've been watching the NBA for ~ 25 years, and the only worse rebounder for size and agility that I've seen is Amare.

I don't think you could find anyone who didn't think that Tim hasn't wrung every ounce of game out of his limited athletic ability, in NBA terms. He plays smart and under control. His offensive game is more versatile, and on D, there is no comparison. He did miss 20/10 because of the PF last year, but if Pop keeps managing his minutes, he could easily extend this year's 20/10 for another 5 or 6 years with the support he now has in the scoring department. His game is very efficient and played close to the ground. Other than the PF and some cartilage removal almost 7 years ago, he's been healthy.

[dallasmavsnfuego214]

:lol @ the starter of the thread

its called Spurstalk.

but i'd take Duncan too, before he won his rings he played hungry and was a clutch player who would make the big shots. he still will make them, but he never seems to care if they lose anymore. lost the hunger, similar to Tom Brady

[baseline bum]

A pretty strong argument can be made for either side.

Shaq is a high percentage scorer, the likes of which this game has never seen. For his entire career as a Laker he faced a constant double or triple team every trip down the floor. He's been fouled more and harder than any player in NBA history. His athleticism is ridiculous, and for much of his career, if he gets the ball within 7 feet of the basket, all he has to do it spin and dunk it. He became a huge big-game player, and came 2 assists and 2 blocks from a quadruple double in a must win game 2 of the Finals.

He is also a terrible defender. Any team can run pick and roll with their big, and get a very high percentage shot since he refuses to guard it. Shaq's a so-so rebounder for his position, but awful for his size.

Duncan is more a jack of all trades. He can handle the ball on the break. His spin moves are equaled only by Olajuwon. He's a phenomenal rebounder, a great help defender, and a very good position defender. His range is pretty good, and he's just as effective facing his man up and taking him off the dribble as he is with his back to the basket on the left block. He came 2 blocks shy of a quadruple double, in leading his team from 9 down in the fourth of a title clinching game.

Still, Tim cannot score like Shaq. He presents less of a matchup-nightmare than Shaq does, as he's not going to power through a double team like Shaq could. Tim has never shot the kind of percentage that Shaq can do in his sleep.

Overall, it's a pretty tough call... it's like Magic or Bird. I'd go with Shaq, based on how ridiculous his 99-00 season and 01 playoffs were. Tim's had some ridiculous playoffs himself in 99 and 03, but the 67 win season Shaq had is impressive.

[baseline bum]

Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker. :lol

Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.

Duncan's played with some really lame supporting casts in his career also. Don't tell me his supporting cast was as good as LA's in 2001, back when Terry Porter, Antonio Daniels, and Danny Ferry were starting. Fox was playing Bowen-level defense that whole 2001 playoffs, although he was garbage by the next year. You can discount Rice, but his scoring in the post was a pretty big part of that game 7 comeback against Portland. Harper was always a big-game player. You can't write off that supporting cast, because it delivered big a lot of the time. The only season of the three-peat that ever really looked like the Shaq and Kobe show was 2002, when Fisher and Fox were crap, but you still had Horry.

[E20]

If you're talking about who's better at basketball it's Tim Duncan, if you're talking about whose body is built to dominate than it's Shaq.

[dbreiden83080]

A whole team top to bottom (with one being a HOF) is better than a team with 2 HOF's and nobody else. The fact that Shaq and Kobe won with nobody else is what makes what they did so great.

My man Kobe is one of the best players of all time not just an all star and Shaq played with him in his prime. You are vastly underating your supporting cast but this argument begins and ends with Kobe pure and simple. Take Jordan off the Bulls and what do they win with Pippen and that supporting cast? Basketball more than any other sport can be controlled by one or two players. Shaq got to dominate the paint and Kobe dominated the perimiter better than anybody in the NBA. Tim never had that luxory and he won just as much at a younger age than Shaq.

[Purple & Gold]

My man Kobe is one of the best players of all time not just an all star and Shaq played with him in his prime. You are vastly underating your supporting cast but this argument begins and ends with Kobe pure and simple. Take Jordan off the Bulls and what do they win with Pippen and that supporting cast? Basketball more than any other sport can be controlled by one or two players. Shaq got to dominate the paint and Kobe dominated the perimiter better than anybody in the NBA. Tim never had that luxory and he won just as much at a younger age than Shaq.
Kobe is one of the best players ever. Shaq was to. The rest of the team sucked. They were way below average. You guys vastly overrate them. They were all role players. It was Phil that made it work. But Kobe and Shaq were the best perimeter and post players. When MJ left Pippen and Phil were close to the Finals. Phil is the equalizer. Tim's luxury is having a complete team around him. A very good PG a very good SG a very good defensive SF and Robinson/Rose/assorted bums at C. Plus a bench, something the Lakers never had. Phil, Shaq, and Kobe were just better and wanted it more.

[Purple & Gold]

Duncan's played with some really lame supporting casts in his career also. Don't tell me his supporting cast was as good as LA's in 2001, back when Terry Porter, Antonio Daniels, and Danny Ferry were starting. Fox was playing Bowen-level defense that whole 2001 playoffs, although he was garbage by the next year. You can discount Rice, but his scoring in the post was a pretty big part of that game 7 comeback against Portland. Harper was always a big-game player. You can't write off that supporting cast, because it delivered big a lot of the time. The only season of the three-peat that ever really looked like the Shaq and Kobe show was 2002, when Fisher and Fox were crap, but you still had Horry.
Well in 2001 we were on fire :smokin That's the year we swept our way into the Finals. :clap :clap

But you guys drafted Parker and Manu very quick. And Robinson was still very good early on. That was one of your off years. In 2000 Pippen choked it away to us. Rice was gone after that and costed us Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell. Portland had a lot more complete team. It wasn't even close. And Sacramento also had a more complete team. Shaq and Kobe were just at their best. :clap :clap

[Bob Lanier]

's luxury is having a complete team around him.
And you don't think that he wouldn't trade all of those for Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson?

Yeah, laugh up the blatantly biased refereeing that allowed the Lakers to beat Portland and Sacramento, and Miami to beat Dallas.

[Purple & Gold]

Yeah, laugh up the blatantly biased refereeing that allowed the Lakers to beat Portland and Sacramento, and Miami to beat Dallas.
What are you talking about?? :frying: The referees never gave the Lakers anything. That one game against Sacramento was only to make up for all the previous bad calls against the Lakers in the series. And they still tried to hand it to Sacramento on the FT line, but they choked it away. Portland was up 15 in the 4th. The Lakers weren't handed anything.

Now as for Miami... I agree.

[kskonn]

A whole team top to bottom (with one being a HOF) is better than a team with 2 HOF's and nobody else. The fact that Shaq and Kobe won with nobody else is what makes what they did so great. The question was who had a better team around them and the answer is Duncan. A whole team is better than a team with 2 top players.

Fisher sucked and was not consistent, his defense was horrible and he couldn't break anybody down. All he could do was shoot from the outside (inconsistently) and draw charges at the end of his Laker career. Rice did not play well for the Lakers. He was a huge bust. Fox was not even close to as good as Bowen was. Maybe a Fox/George SF lineup is equal to Bowen, but even then I say maybe. Rose would defend Shaq very well and he is a major reason you even had some success against the Lakers. Basketball is all about match ups and Rose matched up well with Shaq (as good as anybody could).

The Lakers had 2 superstars and nobody else (other than Horry's big shots). The Spurs had 1 superstar and a well built team around him. If you put Shaq with Manu, Tony, Robinson, Rose, Jackson, Bowen, etc. he wins 5 in a row.

I can see your point and will follow up with my own point. One of the things that makes duncan so good is to get the best out of the players around him. A number of the guys you mentioned were not considered good players when they got to the spurs. This is more evident when you see how they perform once they move on from the spurs. S Jax would be a prime example.

[TheNextGen]

the real question is:

Is Shaq underachieving???? Tim has 3 rings....Shaq has 4 rings...if Shaq is soooooo dominant...shouldnt he have more?

[Bob Lanier]

Of course Shaq is an enormous underachiever. But that can hardly be measured by the number of championships he's won - Wilt Chamberlain, for instance, won two rings, and Shaq has never come close to the impact Wilt had on the court.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I think there's a tendency to overestimate Tim's supporting cast on that '03 squad because of how well some of those players turned out or were in there primes. Parker, Manu, and Jax were all new to their roles, largely inconsistent and prone to turnovers. Jackson and Gino in particular. People drool over SJax's clutch shooting, but he was usually the biggest reason the Spurs were in the holes he helping shoot them out of. Robinson did not have a great playoff run that year. I remember a stat shot that showed he did well in the Game 1's, coming off of enough time to rest his old body, but that his numbers faded fast as the series went on. And I've always felt that Malik's success was about 50% hustle and 50% due to the fact that Duncan drew so much focus from the opponents big men. And as others pointed out, he hasn't done shit since leaving.

The '99 squad wasn't much better. With the exception of Robinson the rest of the offense was mostly old men hitting wide open jumpers created by Duncan drawing double and triple teams. The '05 team was a pretty good one if you can look past our centers.

Head to head I'd say that on the basis of role players around Shaq and Duncan I'd say it's about even, but with a marginal edge towards Shaq because I think a rising Kobe Bryant was more impactful on those teams than a declining Robinson. Hell this discussion could be it's own thread.

EDIT: This also brings up a point that I haven't seen in this discussion yet. Is Shaq greater for managing three in a row or is Duncan greater for winning three with a rotating cast, even though he never repeated?

[kskonn]

EDIT: This also brings up a point that I haven't seen in this discussion yet. Is Shaq greater for managing three in a row or is Duncan greater for winning three with a rotating cast, even though he never repeated?


that to could also be its own thread--good question. Maybe that is a reflection of the rotating cast more than a reflection of the player.

[Purple & Gold]

the real question is:

Is Shaq underachieving???? Tim has 3 rings....Shaq has 4 rings...if Shaq is soooooo dominant...shouldnt he have more?
One of the biggest underachievers ever. He could have easily been GOAT.

[Purple & Gold]

I think there's a tendency to overestimate Tim's supporting cast on that '03 squad because of how well some of those players turned out or were in there primes. Parker, Manu, and Jax were all new to their roles, largely inconsistent and prone to turnovers. Jackson and Gino in particular. People drool over SJax's clutch shooting, but he was usually the biggest reason the Spurs were in the holes he helping shoot them out of. Robinson did not have a great playoff run that year. I remember a stat shot that showed he did well in the Game 1's, coming off of enough time to rest his old body, but that his numbers faded fast as the series went on. And I've always felt that Malik's success was about 50% hustle and 50% due to the fact that Duncan drew so much focus from the opponents big men. And as others pointed out, he hasn't done shit since leaving.
Parker was good since the get go. Manu and Jackson were both very good players, even in '03. Malik was a good matchup against Shaq. That's what made him so valuable to the Spurs, especially in the playoffs. I'm not arguing that Duncan did not make all of them better, I'm just saying Duncan did not win those titles alone. He had a very good team built around him. Lakers were Phil, Shaq, Kobe, and Horry in the clutch. That's it.

[Purple & Gold]

I can see your point and will follow up with my own point. One of the things that makes duncan so good is to get the best out of the players around him. A number of the guys you mentioned were not considered good players when they got to the spurs. This is more evident when you see how they perform once they move on from the spurs. S Jax would be a prime example.
I agree that Duncan made them better than they were and sped up their progress. Those players that I mentioned are still very good players. Jackson is no slouch on the court. Don't let his off court problems get in the way on what he did/does on the floor. Look at what he's doing in Golden State. Rose was valuable to your team in defending Shaq, something not very easy to do at all.

[cornbread]

One of the biggest underachievers ever.

I agree. Shaq could probably have more rings and accolades if a few things here and there went differently. His career is not over yet so who knows what could happen.

[dbreiden83080]

Parker was good since the get go. Manu and Jackson were both very good players, even in '03. Malik was a good matchup against Shaq. That's what made him so valuable to the Spurs, especially in the playoffs.

Parker was talented from the get go but raw as all hell and totally all over the place in 2003. Same goes for Manu at times Spurs fans wanted him out of the rotation altogether. Malik was a good matchup on Shaq sure that is why Shaq always put up monster stats against us in the playoffs. No one player can stop Shaq just like no one player can stop Duncan. What i am finding funny here is all these guys you keep bringing up i guarantee the Spurs would have traded in a heartbeat for Kobe. Come on in 2003 if the Lakers told the Spurs you can have Kobe for Parker, Manu and Rose you think the Spurs would honesty have said no?

[Purple & Gold]

What i am finding funny here is all these guys you keep bringing up i guarantee the Spurs would have traded in a heartbeat for Kobe. Come on in 2003 if the Lakers told the Spurs you can have Kobe for Parker, Manu and Rose you think the Spurs would honesty have said no?
I don't think that trade gets down to what we are arguing. The real trade would be Shaq for Duncan straight up. Who would win more rings? Shaq with your team, or Duncan with Kobe and the rest of the Lakers?