Reply With Quote
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 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 y 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 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.
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 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
In their primes Shaq >>>> Duncan
Now, Duncan > Shaq
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.
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 les in the 1998-2006 timeframe.
You do know Malone and Stockton never won the championship right?
^^I agree completely, and they might have gotten more than that
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[I]---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, 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 les, 3 Finals MVP's, and a stellar winning percentage, and O'Neal has 1 MVP, 4 les, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Alright I'm convinced Duncan is better. They're about equal but Duncan's defense and rebounding is where I give him the edge.
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.
especially in games missed per season for the last 5 years.
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!
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.
this one is easy,
Shaq > Duncan
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.
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.
Shaq will be the best C of his era and Duncan would go down as the best PF of his era
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.
What would happen if Shaq had David Robinson in his prime his first 6 seasons in the league?
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.
You're an idiot.
You're even stupider.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
