Tim's better because he is a Spur and didn't make Shaq Steel the movie...
Excellent post TwoHandJam, but I will disagree with you on one quote:
"However, if you look at the most important stat - the ability to win and elevate the game of the players around you, then I think Tim wins hands down."
Seeing what Shaq did this year in Miami, at least in my opinion, says otherwise. And when push came to shove, Shaq actually played better in that series against the Pistons, while Tim wiltered against the Pistons.
But like I said, an excellent post nonetheless.
I think another thing people credit Shaq for is that he played in an era with greater centers. Hakeem, Drob, Zo, Hakeem, Ewing.
The argument is always that Duncan didn't face those guys and Shaq did. But Shaq simply wasn't as solid back then as he was when he was winning les with Kobe. Or maybe he was, but had less talent?
But when I think about it, even guys like Ewing, Drob, Hakeem lost in the playoffs to teams that didn't have a dominant Center or Big man. So why should that 'lack of center argument' always resurface?
Shaq is the most dominant player in this generation. That is the truth. And no one can take away the fact that he won 3 Finals MVP and 3 NBA les.
Duncan, meanwhile, has done just as much in less time. And he never had Kobe Bryant on his team.
The career stats are almost equal but I think the most relevant issue is what those two players bring to their teams. Shaq, for all his dominance, is a liability in crunch time due to his FT%. Think of the NBA Finals that Shaq was in. How many times did he get the ball in the last couple of minutes? And we all saw what Duncan did in Game 7 when the Spurs really needed him to kick into another gear.
It's tough to compare the two, but who do you think would have done better in each other's teams? What if Duncan was in the Laker teams in 2000 and 2002, with Robert Horry, Kobe Bryant, Ron Harper, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Glen Rice, Horace Grant? And Shaq with Parker, Bowen, Kerr, Ginobili, Horry, Rose?
Thanks for the props adidas but if you're placing so much weight in your opinion on what Shaq did with Miami this year then you might want to rethink that.
Miami in '04, without Shaq lost 4-2 in the conference semifinals to a very tough Indiana team. They were already an established playoff team in the east before Shaq's arrival. All Shaq did was take that team, with a more experienced Wade, to the conference finals.
Considering Shaq benefitted from playing in the weak east where there is a dearth of centers, I don't find that such a great accomplishment. At least not one that would greatly change my opinion of Shaq's achievements, as you claim.
Sorry but I just don't see it.
Shaq was unbeatable only in 2001 - that's when he was THE man. in 2000 and 2002, Lakers were still weary and the result could've gone against them - He needed kobe and other sidekicks in those seasons.
But 1999,2003,2005 Duncan has grown each time and his contributions are significant - Of course, needed side-kicks but also he is lucky to not to have to deal with a 'nut' sidekick.
Timmy is better. PERIOD.
Winning 3 straight as your team's MVP is a huge accomplishment, no doubt about it.
But the two other players who accomplished that amazing feat (if there had been a finals MVP trophy in Russell's day, he'd have a shelf full of them) also won a bunch of other les as well. The Showtime Lakers didn't win 3 years in a row, but they won more les. Duncan's Spurs look set to contend for more les, and seem to have plenty of time.
What does it say about Shaq that he could only put it together to win les for those 3 years, with just the right pieces around him?
Fact that Pistons single covered Shaq with Big Ben, while doubled, or even tripled Duncan on a consistent basis in this years playoffs speaks volume.
Duncan never has had or ever will have a year approaching Shaq's 2000 season.... but Shaq's refusal to ever step out on the pick and roll has to knock him down some. I mean everyone has their faults, but that was just ridiculous. It was like a guaranteed basket everytime down the floor.
I think it's a very tough call. Offensively Shaq win in a landslide. He's as good as Duncan at passing out of the double team, he's way better in the post, he sets better screens (for the life of me I can't understand why LA ran so few pick and rolls... I remember how badly they devoured the Spurs in game 3 in 2003 with Shaq setting screens) but obviously can't pop the jumper the way Tim can off of them. Shaq definitely doesn't compare to Duncan in transition (no bigman in NBA history does IMO... I've never seen any PF/C lead the break and do it as well as consistently as Duncan does), but in the halfcourt he's clearly superior.
Defensively Duncan is way better. Duncan isn't Ben Wallace on the pick and roll, but he's quick enough to deny the open shot. He's far superior on the boards, and has developed into a far superior shot blocker. He also commits way fewer fouls than O'Neal and gets back in transition better.
I hate the fact that shaq spent all those years averaging like 10 boards a game, when he should have been cleaning up to the tune of at least 14-16 per. His laziness on the defensive end was his ONLY weakness. (other than the free throw thing)(and his mouth)(and his weight)(and the injuries)(and all the offensive fouls he got away with)(and his mouth)
Shaq, imo, is way overrated. Yes, he had the potential to be the greatest of all time, but he wasn't. How can the most dominant big man lead the league in ppg once in his career? No rebounding les, no blocked shot les? He devoured some teams in the playoffs, but it was strictly due to matchups. Shaq has always struggled vs. the Spurs (ppg way down), and made his name playing teams like the Pacers, 6ers and Nets in the finals.
People tend to forget the fact that when Shaq was at his prime along with Hakeem and Robinson, he was clearly a notch below the two, it wasn't till Hakeem and Robinson both got old that Shaq had his share. And Shaq has always have a very good sidekick. Sure you can make the argument that he makes his teammates better, but the year after Shaq left, Penny Hardaway was still dominating the league until he suffered injury after injury to his knees. Kobe did fine last year, and Wade was on the verge of s om in last year's playoffs anyways.
Duncan, on the other hand, carried his team time and time again, and lead them to 3 championships (same as Shaq) with no significant offensive help in two of them. Shaq was magnificent in 2000 and 01, but that was it, he had a higher peak, but the peak was very short due to his reluctance to take care of his own body. Duncan, on the other hand, had been consistently excellent throughout his career, and is more like a plateau.
I would love to say that Shaq is overrated but the truth is he is the most dominating big man off all time.
thats right, Tim Duncan is the best player in the NBA. He is so smart and bring good leadership. Shaq is just using his body weight, and he is getting slower which makes duncan the more complete player.
Duncan is the best
Sigh, pick and choose your battle. As a troll, you have to know when to let a topic go, and when to step on it. Continuously stating stupid statements is not trolling, it's just being stupid.
Man, you are the troll who never learns.
What is so shocking about that? No one can stop him and he overpowers everyone. I personally hate Shaq but I fear him even now but in his prime he won the championship almost by himself with a very young Kobe who took terrible shots at times.
Man, do I have to call you bull AGAIN? Do some research before you spew your crap man.
The 3 championships seasons, Kobe put up the following numbers:
(Season:pts/fg%/accomplishments)
99-00: 22.8/46.8/ All NBA 2nd team, all defensive 1st team
00-01: 28.5/46.4/ All NBA 2nd team.
01-02: 25.2/46.9/ All NBA 1st team, defensive 2nd team
The guy that nobody can stop never averaged more than 30ppg for an entire season.
And should I trust you on your hate Shaq claim, given that you have continuously lie about your secret man-love for Garnett?
I thought stats didn't mean anything. The proof is when Shaq left LAL and how well Miami is with Shaq. It alters the whole defense when Shaq is gone. He is the greatest Center of all time and you should know that. Olajuwon was probably the second and Wilt had no 3 second lane violation to worry about when he dominated. Shaq brought 3 championships and 2 finals to his team. Duncan doesn't alter the game as much.
If he's the most dominating big man of all time, why did it take him until Olajuwon and Robinson were over the hill to win a le? I seem to remember Shaq getting, well, dominated at times by both of them.
When did I said stats didn't meant something? It was YOU who said stats didn't mean anything in the Stockton argument. But then, of course, you later go on about how you look at stats to say Garnett is better than Duncan. Of course, stats doesn't mean everything, that's why I put in those all-nba teams and all-defensive teams accolades.
Wow, Shaq moved a team who went from a 2nd round team to a 3rd round team! Whoopie damn do! Such dominating force!
Duncan brought 3 championships to his team in less time, and never got swept out in anyone of them, unlike Shaq. And what exactly has Shaq altered in his time, any specific rule changes for him?
Wilt had no 3 second lane? Son, learn your history, you are embarrassing yourself. The 3 second lane was added in the days of George Mikan, who (in case you don't know) preceded Wilt. Wilt was so dominant, he required the NBA to widen the lane.
What about Russell and Jabbar? Any mention on those great players?
And just admit it, Shaq is the most dominating because he's the only one you ever saw.
I don't remember the past but athletes have improved as time went on. I don't think that same Chamberlin guy could pull off those stats now that he did back then. There are stronger and faster players these days than there were back then. You love Shaq or you hate him but all the attention he brought to other team was shear dominance when he was at his prime. We wouldn't be talking about him so much if he wasn't so dominant.
How will this debate go later in the decade, when we're talking about Duncan's legacy the way we're talking about Shaq's right now?
Contingent. The way the Spurs are constructed, with their front office and coaching staff, and assuming Duncan remains healthy... in the next 4-5 years San Antonio should be expected to be right there for the championship, with perhaps the next two the prime years (with possibles like Stoudamire and LeBron stepping into their early primes). An optimistic guess would be they win another two championships. Not the most optimistic guess, but a decent one.
I could see Shaq facing Duncan in the finals next year, but after that I don't see much chance for O'Neal to play in the Finals ever again. Under this projection, Duncan retires with 5 rings, Shaq with 3.
That's basically it. End of conversation. ESPN lovers will always say "Shaquille O'Neal was the most dominant big man of his generation, etc., but for a short period of time." That kind of thought will be easily silenced.
You gotta give Poppovich some credit for constructing this team to fit with Duncan perfectly. He is a great coach and could you imagine San Antonio's defense combined with Shaq on offense. That would be scary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
