Reply With Quote
BS!!!! Flash vs. Substance. Typical. It doesn't take skill to push people around because you are fatter. I go Tim Duncan because he knows how to play the game better.
I didn't see this article posted yet. It's from a link on one of the Laker's site.
http://with-malice.com/2009020393/articles/nba/tvp.html
Tim vs Shaq: The Big Fundamental Aristotle Diesel Robot
Written by DL
Tuesday, 03 February 2009 19:54
In a few years time, when both Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal have retired, the question of which was the best big man of their generation is going to be one that is oft-discussed at bars all over the world.
So... why wait? I asked the following notable NBA bloggers out there for their thoughts, and this is what they had to say...
We got the analytical, socio-political, lyrical and even mythical!
Ryan McNeill of Hoops Addict, College Wolf of T-Wolves Blog, Jeff Sack of Slam Dunk Central and Le Basketbawl, David Friedman of 20 Second Time Out, Rock of Waiting for Next Year, Mookie of A Stern Warning, and yours truly have a go at this. So... here we go:
Ryan McNeill of Hoops Addict...
Everyone plays the game of basketball to win Championships, so in my mind the only number that matters is the number of rings a player earns in their career. If you want to look at individual numbers, that's where the All-Star game comes into consideration. So, considering that O'Neal has four rings while Duncan only has four as well, it's tough to say who had the biggest impact on the NBA.
Since they have the same amount of rings, I took a look at which player raised their games in the playoffs. Player A averaged 21.5 points, 11.8 rebounds, 50.8% from the field and 68.4% from the charity stripe. During the playoffs he's improved scoring to 23.4, rebounding to 12.7 and free throw percentage to 69.1%. The one small dip came in his field goal percentage which dropped to 50.1.
Player B, however, saw a minimal jump in scoring (25.0 to 25.2), a decent jump in rebounding (11.4 to 12.1) but drops in field goal percentage (58.1 to 56.4) and a drop in free throw percentage (52.0 to 50.1)
Which player stepped things up the most in the playoffs? Looking at the numbers it's clear Player A, which was Tim Duncan, stepped up his game in all four main statistical categories.
Throw in the fact that O'Neal missed nearly half of his free throw attempts and it's clear he cost Los Angeles a chance to win countless playoff games despite his other efforts.
If I were a general manager equipped with a time machine, I'd take Duncan over O'Neal. By a whisker.
-----
College Wolf of T-Wolves Blog...
I honestly don't think there is a clear cut "right answer" in this situation. You are probably looking at two of the greatest big men in the past 15 years; so all we are doing is trying to distinguish who is the best, and who is the besterest!
With that said, my choice goes to The Big Aristot... err, The Big Diesel..., err The Big Cactus. I don't think it's a stretch so that in his prime he was one of the best centers in NBA history, and should be included on most lists as one of the best overall players in NBA history as well. He was literally unstoppable, due to his extreme body size, and combination of dexterity and agility begetting a man half his size. Shaq had no business being able to move like he could, considering he has one of the biggest (mass-wise) and strongest (muskles-wise) bodies to ever grace the hardwood.
Tim Duncan is certainly great in his own right, but whom would you choose in their prime? I'd take Shaq due to the insane matchup problems he poses to defenders, as well as the fact that O'Neal was a superb defender in his heyday. Again, Duncan is certainly good, but he's no Shaq. The Diesel was made from a different mold. He's one of a kind; and of which will probably never be seen again in the NBA.
Lastly, and I know Shaq has played a few more seasons than Duncan, but he still beats him in almost every statistical category over the course of their careers:
- 6,000 more points
- 2,000 more rebounds
- 500 more blocks
- 100 more assists
- 4 more All-Star game appearances
- 1 more steal
Most importantly, they have the same number of Championship les, which is partly what makes this decision so dang hard in the first place.
-----
Jeff Sack of Slam Dunk Central and Le Basketbawl...
I agree with the premise that Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal have been the 2 dominant big men during their era in the NBA. However, I don't think you can compare their skill-sets any more than you could make the comparison between Kevin McHale and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, or Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon.
As both are getting to the latter stages of Hall Of Fame careers I am starting to wonder how both of these players will be perceived in lets say 30 years. Although both have accomplished every thing a player could hope to in a career they did it in incredibly different ways both on and off the hardwood.
Is there a better "role model" out their for our next generation than Tim Duncan? He is remarkably gifted, a true team player, humble, articulate, he has every quality you would want in the man your daughter would marry.
So, then why don't we see more Tim Duncan jerseys, posters, and other assorted sundries?
Because as talented as Duncan is, he does not have the charisma of some of professional sports "Bad Boys". Tim doesn't cause controversy, or problems, he is not a showboat, or a hotdog.
He's a Champion but he is looked at like Pete Sampras was in tennis, they evoke respect - but... passion?
The "Diesel" on the other hand has captivated the public since his days at LSU. Whether it was on the court, in his early attempts in movies or as a free-stylin rapper, Shaq has always been in the spotlight. His play and Championship rings will always give him a spot in the annals of NBA history. But what about the lack of compe ion? How will that effect him being judged against Russell, Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, and other Hall of Fame centers that had great rivalries?
In an age where the point guard now runs the game, the era of every good team having a quality center has long past. Just like Dwight Howard today is light years ahead of any other pure center in the Association, so was the "Big Cactus" in his. Unlike Russell having Chamberlain, or Kareem having Robert Parish or Moses Malone, there was nobody in O'Neal's time for him to be compared to.
Will it lessen his impact on the history of the Association?
Only time will tell.
-----
David Friedman of 20 Second Time Out...
After Shaquille O'Neal's 10th NBA season (2001-02), it did not look like he would have to share top billing with anyone in the post-Michael Jordan era: he had just led the L.A. Lakers to three straight championships, winning three Finals MVPs and one regular season MVP along the way. O'Neal had won two out of three playoff series versus Tim Duncan's San Antonio Spurs and Duncan only had one championship to his name, a le captured in the lockout shortened 1999 campaign.
It seemed perfectly reasonable to assume that the O'Neal-Kobe Bryant duo would win several more championships-but for want of a healthy toe, a dynasty crumbled: O'Neal injured his big toe but declared that since he got hurt "on company time" he was en led to get surgery and heal "on company time."
So he enjoyed himself during the summer of 2002, had the surgery late, missed 15 games and took his time getting back into shape. As a result, the Lakers did not have homecourt advantage in the playoffs and eventually fell to the Spurs in six games in the Western Conference semifinals.
O'Neal's conduct escalated his conflict with Bryant, who became the team's leading scorer; O'Neal declared that if the big dog is not fed (the ball) then he won't guard the house (play defense in the paint), to which Bryant pointedly retorted that O'Neal needed to get in shape so that he could run down the court, because Bryant had no intention of walking the ball up and waiting for him.
O'Neal and Bryant worked well enough together to lead the Lakers back to the Finals in 2004 but by then owner Jerry Buss had had enough of O'Neal's annual in-season vacations combined with O'Neal's very public
demands that Buss grant him a new contract for maximum years and maximum dollars; Buss decided to trade O'Neal and rebuild the Lakers around Bryant.
Duncan's Spurs filled the void created by the decline and fall of the Lakers; they won the 2003 championship after dethroning the Lakers and then they won les in 2005 and 2007 as well, meaning that "the Big Fundamental" now owns as many championship rings and Finals MVPs as "the Big Diesel.
In his prime, O'Neal was the more physically imposing and dominant player but Duncan always had a better all-around skill set: Duncan can post up, shoot the face up jumper, rebound, pass and defend. The defensive end of the court really separates Duncan from O'Neal; Duncan has annually been the anchor for great defensive teams, while O'Neal has only sporadically been a force at that end of the court and this is reflected in the fact that Duncan has earned eight All-Defensive First Team selections (plus three Second Team nods) while O'Neal has never made the All-Defensive First Team and only made the All-Defensive Second Team three times.
O'Neal's dominance is easier to see, punctuated by thunderous dunks that literally rattled backboards, but Duncan has more consistently maintained a high level of play at both ends of the court.
If I had to choose between O'Neal at his best and Duncan at his best for one game or one playoff series, then I would take O'Neal circa 2000.
However, if we are talking about evaluating their careers as a whole, I would say that they share the le of most dominant player of the post-Michael Jordan era - but if Duncan plays a key role on one more championship team then he will deserve top billing.
-----
Rock of Waiting for Next Year...
I'm not really sure the best way to answer this question. In some ways, comparing these two players reminds me a lot of the way people have begun comparing Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. The technician vs the free form artist. For anyone who has read Freedarko's "The Macrophenomenal Pro Basketball Almanac", you'll notice that when describing Kobe, they paint Shaq as Kobe's polar opposite, and if they compare Kobe to any player, it's Tim Duncan. And I guess that makes a lot of sense.
Tim Duncan was always about precision. He is and was perfection personified. His game often seemed without flaws, and when you watched him play, it was like watching a nuclear physicist conduct a routine lab demonstration.
Shaq, on the other hand, is a different animal. In the same way LeBron is akin to some kind of raw potential, so to was Shaq always more about being a freak of nature physical specimen than being the effortless pure player that others were. His game was pure power. But oh how dominant that style of play was.
So where do we draw any kind of meaningful variance between these two players?
Tim Duncan has 4 les. Shaq has 4 les, along with 2 other NBA Finals appearances. Shaq has a slight postseason head-to-head advantage with a 3-2 series edge over Duncan.
In the regular season, Shaq has a 17-13 edge, but their numbers against each other were incredibly even. Shaq averages 22.6 points, 11.1 rebounds, and 2.9 blocks per game against Duncan, while Duncan has put up 22.3 points, 12.2 rebounds, and 1.3 blocks in games against Shaq.
Duncan has 2 MVPs, Shaq has one. Each player has 3 Finals MVP awards. Each player was rookie of the year. Shaq was a first team All-NBA player 7 consecutive seasons. Duncan was on 8 straight. These two players are about as even as it gets.
To me, though, if I had to pick just one guy, I'm going with Shaq.
His raw power was just more dominant over the rest of the league for a longer period of time than Duncan's sheer precision and artistry. Shaq's teams have made the playoffs every year of his career except his rookie season. That's 15 straight playoff appearances. In the span of 12 NBA seasons from 1994 to 2006, Shaq appeared in the NBA Finals in half of them, winning 4 of those 6 Finals Appearances. Shaq is 8th all time in FGs, 2nd in FG%, 4th in FT attempts, 19th in rebounds, 8th in blocks, and 8th in points.
The Diesel has been the game's biggest body and the game's biggest personality for 16 incredible seasons. In his prime, Shaq had the ability to just physically abuse any player he wanted, including Tim Duncan. Nobody will ever question that Duncan was the more skilled player, the guy with the most natural abilities to play the game of basketball. But Shaq always seemed more dominating.
Shaq was always the game changer.
Shaq was the more electrifying.
Shaq was the best big man of his era.
-----
Mookie of A Stern Warning...
The Big Fundamental versus the Big Aristotle. Shaquille O'Neal has been a highlight reel since he entered the league, Tim Duncan has been the quiet achiever, winning les without fanfare. One is a quote a minute, the other, compared to a robot. There is no doubt that both have exemplified excellence in the pivot during their careers, but which one has been better?
This is a rare topic in basketball on which I can not give an immediate answer.
I've battled through many measures of a player's worth to try and come up with an answer. The conundrum is made all the harder by the fact that the Big Cactus is five years Duncan's senior. However, I have come to the conclusion that Shaq has been the more impactful player during his career. Here is why.
On a statistical basis, O'Neal has provided similar averages to Duncan, despite a decline in recent years. Over their careers to date, O'Neal has scored 25.0ppg, Duncan 21.5ppg. Rebounding and shot blocking numbers are almost even at around 11.5rpg and 2.4bpg each. Sure, Shaq has had his deficiencies at the free throw stripe, but he's also a more efficient scorer on field goals. O'Neal's PER is even slightly better, at 27.0 to Duncan's 25.1. One could argue that Duncan's Spurs teams have always played at a slower pace than others, so let's say that the stats are a wash.
Where O'Neal has the overall edge for me comes back to two things:
1. Both players have won four les, but O'Neal managed to win three straight with the Lakers (no easy task) and then go on to another team and be part of championship success in another club.
2. Impact on the game. Shaq has forged himself as a global icon, someone to be feared, respected, admired and entertained by. Duncan's key impact on the game has only been in the sphere of basketball purists. Shaq makes basketball fun -- on and off the court.
This last point is the only possible point of differentiation for me, as both of these men have been remarkably similar in their success on the court.
-----
Don of With Malice...
There have been a huge number of responses from people far better qualified to analyse the numbers than lil' ol' me... so I'm going to discuss what I know: perception.
Some time down the line, say... circa 2040 there will be two ol' guys sitting around talking about who was the best center of this era. It boils down to Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan.
Which of the two is more likely to be mythologised to the point of where he'd match up chin-to-chin with the best ever?
You betcha baby, Shaq-daddy.
Shaquille O'Neal has always been larger than life. When he arrived in '93 on the scene, he literally crashed the party. He was huge, a monster, a veritable force of nature. His first season he had backboards trembling at the very whisper that "Shaq's here"... and from that point on Shaquille O'Neal dominated the NBA.
Physically, literally and figuratively, Shaquille O'Neal's been the most imposing figure in the NBA since Jordan. Kobe came close, but his spat with O'Neal (real or invented) and his own off-court issues changed that. LeBron's probably going to surpass The Big Fella in terms of importance to the game, but even LeBron only wishes that he had the almost deity-like presence Shaq's achieved within the broader society.
LeBron's aiming to be a global icon?
Shaq's been one for years...
Tim Duncan's a fine player. Statistically speaking, and achievement-wise, he's par with O'Neal. Undoubtedly. But in any conversation that begins with the oft-spoken words "... the best ..." have to have at least a degree of whimsy involved. Yes, Tim Duncan's up there with the best big men of his generation. But O'Neal goes beyond that. He's moved to an entirely new pantheon.
Who are his neighbors?
Why, when all's said and done, Shaq'll be measured alongside Paul Bunyon, John Henry and Pecos Bill.
BS!!!! Flash vs. Substance. Typical. It doesn't take skill to push people around because you are fatter. I go Tim Duncan because he knows how to play the game better.
Actually, while most of the writers in the article pick Shaq, most of the comments were pro-Ducan. There's some pretty well thought out arguments in the comment section of the article.
In the end it all came down to who was the most fun to follow. Sure some great comments about Duncan, but "a flair for the dramatic" shouldn't signify who is the best.
I love it how only one guy brings up the fact that Duncan plays both ends of the court at such a high level. Shaq & Duncan are relatively equal on the offensive side of things (a slight edge to Shaq, perhaps) but Duncan wipes the floor with Shaq on the defensive side of the equation.
Timothy ing Duncan FTW.
Exactly my point!!!
David Friedman for the win. When you look at their respective careers, the offensive numbers are almost even. When you look further though, you see a more complete player in TD.
No only that, but Tim's career (hopefully) has a few more accolades coming. My guess is that by the time it's all said and done that Tim's career achievements in most areas will have exceeded Shaq.
I forgot that "entertainment value" is a basketball stat like rebounds, points and assists.
Shaq can dunk and play acceptable (at best) defense.
Duncan is a better passer, shooter and defender.
Shaq is the better drawing card.
TD is the better basketball player.
If/when Tim picks up a couple more rings before he hangs it up for good, this debate will be a no-brainer.
Yeah, people always underestimate two things when they consider the whole Duncan vs. Shaq argument. Duncan's huge edge on defense and his superior leadership. Teams game plan to attack Shaq's defensive deficiencies (on the pick and roll), something that they would never do with Duncan.
Also, Shaq needs a ton of coddling while Tim leads by example. Tim is the ultimate team guy, who basically does all the little things that help a team win but are hard to quantify. Shaq helped tear apart a championship caliber Lakers team, tanked his way out of Miami, and always seems the pettiest when his teams are struggling.
Lastly, two things struck me about the article. The comment about Shaq as a stat hound and the analogy of Duncan (technical excellence) vs. Shaq (physical dominance) with Kobe vs Lebron.
I do think it's really an interesting argument though. Shaq's peak was pretty dominant and I think that's what people remember the most.
Some of those guys talk about them like they're the same age and both are almost done.
Duncan's got 4 more years before he hits Shaq's current age, and given that he is more skilled (doesn't rely solely on athletic ability/strength) - it's quite likely that he will age better.
Doesn't that make his point (if it is a point, because stats used at such a superficial level are pointless; Zack Randolph could retire as a 20/10 player and still would be useless on any serious team) meaningless?
Good point; and I like that Pete-comparison - probably the best there ever was in his game ...
Offensively, Timmy was never the beast Shaq (in his best years and if he cared) was. But Duncan is great on the other side of the court, and he cares about that as well (which Shaq never did, though he could be a more than average defender and was at times - just due to his physical strength).
At the end of the day, I'm just glad that the Spurs have been blessed with such an exceptional player like Timmy - on both ends of the court, and off the court as well ...
in their respective primes, which didnt happen at the same time, SHAQ>> Duncan. he could not guard shaq in the prime. nobody could maybe except chamberlain but he was from another era
I think its too close to call even now. One point i found funny was the guy making a case for Shaq.
Where O'Neal has the overall edge for me comes back to two things:
1. Both players have won four les, but O'Neal managed to win three straight with the Lakers (no easy task) and then go on to another team and be part of championship success in another club
Does this guy forget Duncan actually won championships with 3 different teams? They might have all been with the same jersey, but he lead three different teams to the top of the mountain. In fact, i would argue Duncan's teams changed to a greater degree than Shaq moving to Miami.
1999 - Tim + Robinson. Two dominant big men.
2003 - Tim + Role Players. Only guy since Hakeem to win without another star. A team consisting strictly of role players.
2005 and 2007 - The Big 3 + Role Players.
Still, good points for both.
I think you maybe understimating how well Duncan plays Shaq defensively. I know in those early Spurs-Lakers series, Robinson was the primary defender on Shaq but I seem to remember Duncan doing a pretty admirable job guarding him. Duncan's strength in the post is understimated and he did a pretty good job of not letting Shaq back him down.
There's also probably some overlap in their respective primes. Duncan was probably at his best from 1999-2003, Shaq from 1997-2002?
I know Duncan outplayed him in the 1999 post season but don't know how the numbers looked in 2001.
For 2002, 2003, TDfan2007 posted these numbers on another thread.
"Tim's playoff numbers for those years:
2002: 27.6 ppg 14.4 rpg 5 apg 4.33 bpg
against Shaq and the Lakers his numbers were 29ppg 17.2 rpg 4.6 apg 3.2 bpg
2003: 24.7 ppg 15.4 rpg 5.3 apg 3.29 bpg
against Shaq and the Lakers: 28 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.33 bpg"
People tend to gloss over the flaws in Shaq's game and character. There were only brief mentions of his injury woes and what about the 50% FT shooting?
If Shaq was as awesome as some writers make him out to be, the question is why does he have 'only' 4 rings.
Shaq>>>>Duncan
If I'm starting a team, I'm taking Shaq...
and then I'm watching him leave via trade or free agency in three to five years.
The guy who writes for that blog has the logic of a small child...and he shows it in the comments section.
I hate how they always call Tim a robot. He just doesn't need his ego jerked off by the media every time he is out in public.
One sentence in there is a great one. Both in their primes you take Shaq for ONE game. You take Tim Duncan for the long run. There is simply no better Team Champion in the league.
No one could guard Shaq because he would clear you the out with one swing of his offensive elbow.
first of all, I think it's funny when people write "best big man of this generation"..sorry, but it's clearly, BEST PLAYER of this generation..Kobe doesn't come anywhere near Shaq and Timmy in terms of impact in this generation..
as for the question..
in his prime, I'd take Shaq..there aren't many guys better than a peak Shaq, possibly nobody..
for the long run, I go with Tim..he's going to last longer as an impact player, he has half the ego, he's much better defensively, much more committed, more loyal..
Did you remove your avatar so nobody would confuse you with gayem?
Ok, I love the fact that the second guy, college wolf says that he knows that shaq has played more years, but look how much more (statistically) he has accomplished. I mean, really?? Duncan has played 4 fewer seasons than Shaq, but has 1 fewer steal?? THE YOU SAY!!! That is just the worse argument i have heard. I guess I should have expected it, since the same guy said that shaq was a "great defender." Perhaps he should have specified what shaq was great at defending.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
