Shaq vs. Tim... link on forum blue and gold

[wijayas]

A true great player never gets traded by his own team. Look at MJ.

Shaq has been traded three times in his career.

Case closed.

[Manu-of-steel]

Committment, loyalty, leadership, basketball skills, and a high basketball IQ- these are the qualities i would look at if i were to start a team. who is this nba player who has these traits? Tim Duncan. Statistics-wise, they are almost equal. But TD does other things not shown in the box score- him being the defensive anchor, and the leader of his team. If i were an owner of a team, i know TD would never be a head ache,because he is very humble and level-headed. And he demanded lesser money for the sake of his team, and that's why other spurs players emulated him. If i have a son who is playing basketball, i would tell him to look at how TD played the game, and how he behaved on and off the court.

[Fernando TD21]

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.

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..

I have to agree with this. Shaq was more dominant in his prime. But in the long run, I believe that Duncan is the better option.

Skills wise, there is no comparison.

[gospursgojas]

Good thing is Tim has maybe 2...3 perhaps 4 more years to win a le(s).
Shaq doesn't and wont.

Timmy wins one or more... more, the debate is over

[m33p0]

if you're starting a franchise and you have no idea how both guys will perform throughout their careers, Shaq is the clear first pick.





... and then 10 to 15 years later, you'd be wishing you chose Tim.

[Yorae]

LOL, if you exchange their physical attributes then duncan would be so dominant the other team would just give up. And o'neal would not be an hall of famer. He relied very much on his bulk.

[Manufan909]

It's funny, I didn't think that marketing had to do with actual basketball skills.

[Shastafarian]

Shaq>>>>Duncan

Gimme a call when Shaq can make a jump shot. He was blessed with being a fatass who was allowed to push defenders around.

[Agloco]

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

That's nice and all, but a career is more than just about your prime. Your argument is the same one that people make for why the Lakers of the early 2000's were a better team than the Spurs of the entire 2000's. They peaked quickly and for a few years and were unstoppable. Then they went away almost as quickly as they came. The Spurs have been dominant for over a decade now and are still rolling.

These team trends mirror almost exactly how each players career has gone. Shaq is no longer capable of leading a team to the promised land (he already wasn't capable in 2006 when he rode D Wades coattails to another ring....). In 4 years Timmy will still be the anchor of this team, you can count on that.

[Agloco]

Gimme a call when Shaq can make a jump shot. He was blessed with being a fatass who was allowed to push defenders around.

Or a free throw for that matter. I've got an 8 year old god-child with better technique at the stripe than Shaq.

[Agloco]

if you're starting a franchise and you have no idea how both guys will perform throughout their careers, Shaq is the clear first pick.





... and then 10 to 15 years later, you'd be wishing you chose Tim.

Eh?

[m33p0]

Eh?

physical attributes. Snaq Diesel is clearly bigger.

[Thomas82]

if you're starting a franchise and you have no idea how both guys will perform throughout their careers, Shaq is the clear first pick.





... and then 10 to 15 years later, you'd be wishing you chose Tim.

That's a good way to put it.

[Thomas82]

That's nice and all, but a career is more than just about your prime. Your argument is the same one that people make for why the Lakers of the early 2000's were a better team than the Spurs of the entire 2000's. They peaked quickly and for a few years and were unstoppable. Then they went away almost as quickly as they came. The Spurs have been dominant for over a decade now and are still rolling.

These team trends mirror almost exactly how each players career has gone. Shaq is no longer capable of leading a team to the promised land (he already wasn't capable in 2006 when he rode D Wades coattails to another ring....). In 4 years Timmy will still be the anchor of this team, you can count on that.

Good post!!

[IronMexican]

Gimme a call when Shaq can make a jump shot. He was blessed with being a fatass who was allowed to push defenders around.

A fatass? Dude was super yoke when he was young. Shaq>>>>>>Duncan, and no way I believe different.

[Phenomanul]

Let's put it this way... If Duncan and Shaq had been traded for each other before the lockout-shortened season in '99... Duncan would have garnered about 7 or 8 NBA les and Shaq maybe one. Duncan would never have let his ego, greed, or his work ethic for that matter, breakup what could have been a decade long dynasty run. The pairing of Kobe-Duncan-Phil would have been one for the ages (fortunately for Spurs fans this is only a hypothetical). Furthermore, if Duncan had played out his career in a large market such as LA's he would have been hailed as the second coming.

Think about that for a second. That alone makes Duncan greater --- he isn't stupid enough to walk away from a winning formula.

[Manufan909]

A fatass? Dude was super yoke when he was young. Shaq>>>>>>Duncan, and no way I believe different.

In numbers of movies and nicknames, I'll give you that. Oh yeah, and putting the ball everywhere but thru the hoop when shooting freebies.

[ClingingMars]

A fatass? Dude was super yoke when he was young. Shaq>>>>>>Duncan, and no way I believe different.

[Ghazi]

The debate should end on account of the fact that Duncan deserves all 4 of his rings, whereas Shaq only deserves 3 of his rings.

[Shastafarian]

A fatass? Dude was super yoke when he was young. Shaq>>>>>>Duncan, and no way I believe different.

Shaq wasn't fat when he was with the Magic. After he left, he was a double-wide.

[Yorae]

Let's put it this way... If Duncan and Shaq had been traded for each other before the lockout-shortened season in '99... Duncan would have garnered about 7 or 8 NBA les and Shaq maybe one. Duncan would never have let his ego, greed, or his work ethic for that matter, breakup what could have been a decade long dynasty run. The pairing of Kobe-Duncan-Phil would have been one for the ages (fortunately for Spurs fans this is only a hypothetical). Furthermore, if Duncan had played out his career in a large market such as LA's he would have been hailed as the second coming.

Think about that for a second. That alone makes Duncan greater --- he isn't stupid enough to walk away from a winning formula.

[IronMexican]

Shaq wasn't fat when he was with the Magic. After he left, he was a double-wide.

He wasn't even fat in LA. And if Shaq was so lazy, he wouldn't have developed a solid post game.

[Galileo]

Duncan was already a lot better than Shaq by 1999.

[Thomas82]

bump