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

[BUMP]

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

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

[Darrin]

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

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

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

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

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

26 and 19 in game 5.

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

[Pelicans78]

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

[admiralsnackbar]

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

[Darrin]

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

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

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

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

[TinTin]

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

what

[Nahtanoj]

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

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

[admiralsnackbar]

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

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pad300]

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

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

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

26 and 19 in game 5.

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

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

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

less pts, 24.1 ppg I'll give you.

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

[HarlemHeat37]

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

[PDXSpursFan]

Duncan no doubt, Shaq is a journeyman

[JamStone]

pad300, Darrin is right about 2005.

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

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

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

[DAF86]

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

[DAF86]

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

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

[Mr.Robinson]

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

stfu.

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

[admiralsnackbar]

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

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

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

[Zelophehad]

pad300, Darrin is right about 2005.

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

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

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

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