Duncan vs. Shaq (through the Nets)

[ambchang]

The finals are usually the time when the best of the best performed the best. It is no secret that Shaq's dominance was punctuated by the monstrous numbers he posted against the 76ers, Pacers and Nets. At the same time, Duncan's numbers against the Knicks, Nets, Pistons and the Cavs solidified him as one of the greatests.

I am going to attempt to look at the numbers of Shaq and Duncan vs. the Nets in the 02 and 03 Finals, respectively.

The fantastic thing is that the two Nets teams were very similar in their approach, and this came during back to back years. Shaq and Duncan were also at the absolute peak when they faced the Nets, giving us a good look at how each of the giants performed under similar cir stances.

At first glance, people will say "what is there to compare? Duncan posted monster numbers, but Shaq's numbers were better." And this has created a common view that Shaq's peak was simply much higher than Duncan's. I am here to attempt to answer whether this is true.

Shaq averaged 36.25 PTs on 59.5% FG, grabbed 12.25 RBs, handed 3.75 asts, 2.75 blks, and had 3.5 TO per game throughout the series

While Duncan avearged 24.17 PTs on 49.5%, 17 RBs, 5.3 ASTS, 5.3 BLKs, and 3.83 TO.

The numbers are there, Shaq was better offensively, Duncan was better defensively, and numbers-wise, Shaq has the edge. But this view generally fails to account for the difference in the style of play of either teams. The Lakers were a dominant offensive and avearge defensive squad, while the Spurs were a dominant defensive and poor offensive squad. The style either team plays have a significant impact on the final statistics of either player.

Offense

Shaq averaged more than 50% PTs than Duncan did. pretty cut and dry, right? While Shaq was obviously a better on offense than Duncan, the gap was not as much as anticipated.

In 2002, the Lakers averaged 106 PPG, while the Nets averaged 96.75 PPG.
In 2003, the Spurs avearged 87.3 PPG, while the Nets averaged 82 PPG. This means that Shaq scored 34.2% of the Lakers points, while Duncan scored 27.5% of the Spurs points, additionally, if we factor in the the Net's points, Shaq scored 17.9% of the total points scored in each game, while Duncan scored 14.2%. While the difference of 3.7% was still large, the pace factor showed that Shaq was scoring only about 25% or so better than Duncan when pace is factored in.

Another element that has always been dismissed were the assists. Duncan averaged about 1.58 more asst per game than Shaq did. This translates to 3.16 pts per game when these are all two pointers. (We know for a fact that many of the two big men's assists were on 3 pters, but for argument's sake, lets all assume they are 2 pters.) When assists are factored in, we can see that Duncan was directly responsible for 39.7% of his team's offense, while Shaq was at 41.3%. While there is a difference, it is really no where close to what people perceived to be.

Defense

Duncan averaged 17 RPG, Shaq averaged 12.25, Duncan is about 40% better. That is also misleading. Keep in mind that in a faster pace of the Lakers game, there would be more rebounds. I took the total rebounds available for each game, and found that Duncan grabbed 19.2% of the available rebounds, while Shaq had 15.6%, which means that Duncan was only about 24% better rebounder instead of 40%.

In terms of blks, Duncan averaged 94% more blks than Shaq per game, but again, the more shots there are, the more blk opportunities there are. So I expressed the blks/game to the Net's total FGA per game, and found that Duncan blocked 6.5% of the Net's FGA (think about it, that means for every 15 or so shots the Net's put up, Duncan sends one back, this is pretty incredible), while Shaq blocked 3.1% of the Net's FGAs. In other words, Duncan is actually 110% better at blks when playing against the Nets in the finals.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is no doubt Shaq is better than Duncan offensively, the difference was really minor, in fact, Shaq was only 1.6% more responsible for the Lakers offense than Duncan was for the Spurs.

On defense (well ... reboudning and blk shots anyways), Duncan was much better than Shaq.

In conclusion, the peak of both players, while compared against similar opponents under similar cir stances during their respective primes, are about the same, pretty much debunking the myth that Shaq's peak was much higher than Duncan's.

[HarlemHeat37]

Well even as a die-hard Spurs fan, I have to admit that Shaq was obviously the more dominant and unstoppable player..he was probably in the top 3 most "dominant" players in NBA history from an offensive standpoint..there was no gameplan for him in any way..you really had to throw 2 or 3 guys on him, and it also didn't help that he had the officials on his side most of the time(IMO)..

It's definitely overplayed in comparison to Timmy though..people seem to forget how completely dominant Duncan was in his prime, from his rookie year up until the mid-2000s..

Duncan was always the better teammate, was always the harder worker, the more determined winner, the better defensive player..he's been more consistent, and has never showed any signs of serious decline outside of serious injuries like last year's tendonisis and the PF during the regular season..Timmy always played through those series injuries, and never cared about the criticism, unlike Shaq, who is as sensitive as they come..

TBH, the overplaying simply comes from Shaq's lovable personality, and the fact that his major success came as a Laker, which tends to overhype anybody..as I always say..if Duncan played for the Lakers or another popular team, he would be extremely hyped, and he would have a lot more people in the media talking about his dominance..

Also..while Shaq was more difficult to gameplan against, he was also much easier to exploit in certain cir stances..the pick and roll defense, the lack of quickness, the free throw shooting..Duncan has never been exploited..his free throw shooting has been weak, but not weak enough for hack-a-Duncan..his defense has always been elite in every way..there's nothing that could have been done against a prime Duncan..really the only time he was held in check was when he was swarmed, and we had nobody to make the other team pay(see: Spurs of 2001 and 2002)..

[duncan228]

Thanks so much for the breakdown ambchang. Stats never tell the whole story but they can give us a good starting point. I've always preferred Duncan's game and character over Shaq's, but there's no denying how dominate Shaq was and I respect his game. It is nice to see some proof of how well Duncan held up during those years.

[z0sa]

Great breakdown. Shaq was truly a more dominant scorer than Tim, primes compared. But the reality is, Tim has always been at a higher level in just about everything else. Additionally, as Shaq's athleticism has gone down the drain, the flaws in his game have been very pronounced. Tim continues to evolve as a player even now, and I think even when he retires, he'll be a 20/10/2/2 guy on any given night.

[Galileo]

The finals are usually the time when the best of the best performed the best. It is no secret that Shaq's dominance was punctuated by the monstrous numbers he posted against the 76ers, Pacers and Nets. At the same time, Duncan's numbers against the Knicks, Nets, Pistons and the Cavs solidified him as one of the greatests.

I am going to attempt to look at the numbers of Shaq and Duncan vs. the Nets in the 02 and 03 Finals, respectively.

The fantastic thing is that the two Nets teams were very similar in their approach, and this came during back to back years. Shaq and Duncan were also at the absolute peak when they faced the Nets, giving us a good look at how each of the giants performed under similar cir stances.

At first glance, people will say "what is there to compare? Duncan posted monster numbers, but Shaq's numbers were better." And this has created a common view that Shaq's peak was simply much higher than Duncan's. I am here to attempt to answer whether this is true.

Shaq averaged 36.25 PTs on 59.5% FG, grabbed 12.25 RBs, handed 3.75 asts, 2.75 blks, and had 3.5 TO per game throughout the series

While Duncan avearged 24.17 PTs on 49.5%, 17 RBs, 5.3 ASTS, 5.3 BLKs, and 3.83 TO.

The numbers are there, Shaq was better offensively, Duncan was better defensively, and numbers-wise, Shaq has the edge. But this view generally fails to account for the difference in the style of play of either teams. The Lakers were a dominant offensive and avearge defensive squad, while the Spurs were a dominant defensive and poor offensive squad. The style either team plays have a significant impact on the final statistics of either player.

Offense

Shaq averaged more than 50% PTs than Duncan did. pretty cut and dry, right? While Shaq was obviously a better on offense than Duncan, the gap was not as much as anticipated.

In 2002, the Lakers averaged 106 PPG, while the Nets averaged 96.75 PPG.
In 2003, the Spurs avearged 87.3 PPG, while the Nets averaged 82 PPG. This means that Shaq scored 34.2% of the Lakers points, while Duncan scored 27.5% of the Spurs points, additionally, if we factor in the the Net's points, Shaq scored 17.9% of the total points scored in each game, while Duncan scored 14.2%. While the difference of 3.7% was still large, the pace factor showed that Shaq was scoring only about 25% or so better than Duncan when pace is factored in.

Another element that has always been dismissed were the assists. Duncan averaged about 1.58 more asst per game than Shaq did. This translates to 3.16 pts per game when these are all two pointers. (We know for a fact that many of the two big men's assists were on 3 pters, but for argument's sake, lets all assume they are 2 pters.) When assists are factored in, we can see that Duncan was directly responsible for 39.7% of his team's offense, while Shaq was at 41.3%. While there is a difference, it is really no where close to what people perceived to be.

Defense

Duncan averaged 17 RPG, Shaq averaged 12.25, Duncan is about 40% better. That is also misleading. Keep in mind that in a faster pace of the Lakers game, there would be more rebounds. I took the total rebounds available for each game, and found that Duncan grabbed 19.2% of the available rebounds, while Shaq had 15.6%, which means that Duncan was only about 24% better rebounder instead of 40%.

In terms of blks, Duncan averaged 94% more blks than Shaq per game, but again, the more shots there are, the more blk opportunities there are. So I expressed the blks/game to the Net's total FGA per game, and found that Duncan blocked 6.5% of the Net's FGA (think about it, that means for every 15 or so shots the Net's put up, Duncan sends one back, this is pretty incredible), while Shaq blocked 3.1% of the Net's FGAs. In other words, Duncan is actually 110% better at blks when playing against the Nets in the finals.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is no doubt Shaq is better than Duncan offensively, the difference was really minor, in fact, Shaq was only 1.6% more responsible for the Lakers offense than Duncan was for the Spurs.

On defense (well ... reboudning and blk shots anyways), Duncan was much better than Shaq.

In conclusion, the peak of both players, while compared against similar opponents under similar cir stances during their respective primes, are about the same, pretty much debunking the myth that Shaq's peak was much higher than Duncan's.

great post.

If you factor in that Duncan runs around all game setting picks, and Shaq doesn't, that makes Duncan better on offense.

Picks do not show up in the box score, yet they are a very important part of the game.

Oberto was very good at setting picks, that's why he was a starter on a championship team, despite mediocre stats. That's why we kept Oberto over Elston.

Wes Unseld was another great at setting picks, as was Bill Russell.

Basketball is a team game.

Running around and setting picks makes your offense go. I have never seen a player more active on offense at setting picks than Tim Duncan.

[anonoftheinternets]

wow great post ...

[duncan228]

For anyone that missed it, ambchang did a breakdown of the '03 Finals that's another great read. Goes well with this thread.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132753

[CubanMustGo]

Always good to see ambchang around. I remember him fighting the good fight in the early days on alt.sports.basketball.nba.sa-spurs.

[ambchang]

OMG! The days of the alt.sports! To be honest, I was mostly trolling in between classes back then, and it was hilarious that a simple post of "Shaq sucks" would get an enormous amount of response.

Wish I could get more data, but I don't think I could get that unless I work for real NBA teams, and even then, I doubt I would have the ability to share them.

[Nathan Explosion]

I should write an article. Here is is.

While everyone believes that Shaq was head and shoulders above Duncan, the numbers suggest that this isn't really true.

Admittedly, Shaq was nearly unstoppable in his prime, while Duncan could be bothered by just the right type of defender. However, when considering each player's all time greatness, one need to look at only one stat: winning percentage.

That being said, Duncan's winning percentage was higher in both the regular season and post season. And since the object of the game is to win, this one stat proves that Duncan has had a better career than Shaq.

End of article. Pretty convincing huh?

[johngateswhiteley]

does anyone have a problem with the sample size?

[duncan228]

does anyone have a problem with the sample size?

I don't. It was specifically those two years. A bigger sample size could produce different results, but I took it for what it is. Both players at a good point of their careers against the same team.

[mystargtr34]

I think the notion that Duncan's statistics have never been of the all-time dominant type is completely wrong - and ambchang proved why in his breakdown. GJ by the way.

Alot of the media uses the same take that Duncan is basically a 20-10 player, but does alot more than his statistics show. In other words, they are saying he isnt a statistically dominant player like say, a Shaq or a Olajuwon. Now, i know they go with this alot of the time as a positive to pump up Duncan's name and game, but that assertion is completely wrong. He's actually been on of the more statistically dominant players in the modern era, especially when you consider the pace of game the Spurs have always played. Having a crawl it up the floor type of offense, and such good transition defense for the past 10+ years obviously means less possessions, less shots, less points, less rebounds, less assists, less blocks etc... (again, all of which ambchang pointed out).

If you look at Duncan's raw numbers, they alone still make him one of the most dominant players in the modern era (statistically), but when you factor in the slower pace of game compared to teams that Shaq and Olajuwon played on in their primes, thats when you can get a really true guage of how dominant Duncan really was, especially in his MVP years, and more so the playoffs.

But either way, his game always has been, and still is alot more than numbers.

[Nathan Explosion]

I think the notion that Duncan's statistics have never been of the all-time dominant type is completely wrong - and ambchang proved why in his breakdown. GJ by the way.

Alot of the media uses the same take that Duncan is basically a 20-10 player, but does alot more than his statistics show. In other words, they are saying he isnt a statistically dominant player like say, a Shaq or a Olajuwon. Now, i know they go with this alot of the time as a positive to pump up Duncan's name and game, but that assertion is completely wrong. He's actually been on of the more statistically dominant players in the modern era, especially when you consider the pace of game the Spurs have always played. Having a crawl it up the floor type of offense, and such good transition defense for the past 10+ years obviously means less possessions, less shots, less points, less rebounds, less assists, less blocks etc... (again, all of which ambchang pointed out).

If you look at Duncan's raw numbers, they alone still make him one of the most dominant players in the modern era (statistically), but when you factor in the slower pace of game compared to teams that Shaq and Olajuwon played on in their primes, thats when you can get a really true guage of how dominant Duncan really was, especially in his MVP years, and more so the playoffs.

But either way, his game always has been, and still is alot more than numbers.

Or you could just say that he's one of the Top 15 all time winningest players in terms of winning percentage. That's pretty dominant statistically.

[Spurs da champs]

People gotta realize the only reason shaq was good was because he was 300 pounds that's the only reason he's really good on offense. He has no offensive skill whatsoever.

[mystargtr34]

Or you could just say that he's one of the Top 15 all time winningest players in terms of winning percentage. That's pretty dominant statistically.

So are Manu and TP, but you cant really compare them to Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan.

[K-State Spur]

does anyone have a problem with the sample size?

only if you extrapolate it out to say who was better overall.

for the purposes of this study, who was better against two similar nets teams in back-to-back finals, it works.

[Nathan Explosion]

So are Manu and TP, but you cant really compare them to Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan.

No you can't, as with Robert Horry. But everyone knows that Duncan belongs. Besides, Parker and Gino's stat directly correlate with Duncan's numbers.