Reply With Quote
Duncan had more around him when he won, then Shaq did when he won with the Lakers. The Lakers only had Shaq, Kobe, and Horry for last second shots. Everybody else was below average.
Based on what Timmy has won 3 les and did it in less time than Shaq and with far less around him. Shaq never won until Phil became his coach and Kobe became the best 2 guard in the league. Wade dominated that series against the Mavs and Shaq was basically a non factor. Timmy has one more MVP and is always on the all defensive team. A team which Shaq is not too familiar with.
Duncan had more around him when he won, then Shaq did when he won with the Lakers. The Lakers only had Shaq, Kobe, and Horry for last second shots. Everybody else was below average.
LOL Timmy won his 2nd ring with a really young Parker an out of control inconsistant Manu and Robinson in his last year being a s of what he once was. Do not try and argue this point, Kobe is a first ballot hall of famer. Timmy has never played with anyone like that and he won 3 rings.
Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker.
Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.
It is frightening that you actually believe this i must say. How many hall of fame players has Duncan played with in their primes? The answer is 0. Shaq playing with Kobe made the game so much easier for him. He could own the paint for 3 qtrs and then in the 4th because he sucked so bad at FT's Kobe would totally take over the ballgame. Rarely in big moments was there any pressure on Shaq to do anything late in the game. Fisher was a very consistant PG and always played well for you guys in your le years. Rice played very well for the Lakers in that one year and was a key contributor to the first le. Fox was very much like Bowen a very good defender who would give you sparse moments on offense. Rose spent as much time going 15 rounds with Pop and getting benched as he did actually contributing on the court.Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker.
Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.
Last edited by dbreiden83080; 02-10-2007 at 04:29 PM.
Shaq is the flashier player but I will take Duncan. Duncan has the better around game. They don't call him the Big Fundamental for nothing. While Shaq most likely will be gone in 2 years Duncan can likely play for another 5-6 years since he keeps himself in better shape than Shaq.
^^ Well that would be correct, considering Shaq is 4 years older than TD
A whole team top to bottom (with one being a HOF) is better than a team with 2 HOF's and nobody else. The fact that Shaq and Kobe won with nobody else is what makes what they did so great. The question was who had a better team around them and the answer is Duncan. A whole team is better than a team with 2 top players.
Fisher sucked and was not consistent, his defense was horrible and he couldn't break anybody down. All he could do was shoot from the outside (inconsistently) and draw charges at the end of his Laker career. Rice did not play well for the Lakers. He was a huge bust. Fox was not even close to as good as Bowen was. Maybe a Fox/George SF lineup is equal to Bowen, but even then I say maybe. Rose would defend Shaq very well and he is a major reason you even had some success against the Lakers. Basketball is all about match ups and Rose matched up well with Shaq (as good as anybody could).
The Lakers had 2 superstars and nobody else (other than Horry's big shots). The Spurs had 1 superstar and a well built team around him. If you put Shaq with Manu, Tony, Robinson, Rose, Jackson, Bowen, etc. he wins 5 in a row.
I think a lot of people, myself included, penalized Shaq because he reached about 70% of his potential. He was fat, lazy, and uninterested in defense or rebounding. At his size and agility, he should have been a Rodman class rebounder. I've been watching the NBA for ~ 25 years, and the only worse rebounder for size and agility that I've seen is Amare.
I don't think you could find anyone who didn't think that Tim hasn't wrung every ounce of game out of his limited athletic ability, in NBA terms. He plays smart and under control. His offensive game is more versatile, and on D, there is no comparison. He did miss 20/10 because of the PF last year, but if Pop keeps managing his minutes, he could easily extend this year's 20/10 for another 5 or 6 years with the support he now has in the scoring department. His game is very efficient and played close to the ground. Other than the PF and some cartilage removal almost 7 years ago, he's been healthy.
its called Spurstalk.
but i'd take Duncan too, before he won his rings he played hungry and was a clutch player who would make the big shots. he still will make them, but he never seems to care if they lose anymore. lost the hunger, similar to Tom Brady
A pretty strong argument can be made for either side.
Shaq is a high percentage scorer, the likes of which this game has never seen. For his entire career as a Laker he faced a constant double or triple team every trip down the floor. He's been fouled more and harder than any player in NBA history. His athleticism is ridiculous, and for much of his career, if he gets the ball within 7 feet of the basket, all he has to do it spin and dunk it. He became a huge big-game player, and came 2 assists and 2 blocks from a quadruple double in a must win game 2 of the Finals.
He is also a terrible defender. Any team can run pick and roll with their big, and get a very high percentage shot since he refuses to guard it. Shaq's a so-so rebounder for his position, but awful for his size.
Duncan is more a jack of all trades. He can handle the ball on the break. His spin moves are equaled only by Olajuwon. He's a phenomenal rebounder, a great help defender, and a very good position defender. His range is pretty good, and he's just as effective facing his man up and taking him off the dribble as he is with his back to the basket on the left block. He came 2 blocks shy of a quadruple double, in leading his team from 9 down in the fourth of a le clinching game.
Still, Tim cannot score like Shaq. He presents less of a matchup-nightmare than Shaq does, as he's not going to power through a double team like Shaq could. Tim has never shot the kind of percentage that Shaq can do in his sleep.
Overall, it's a pretty tough call... it's like Magic or Bird. I'd go with Shaq, based on how ridiculous his 99-00 season and 01 playoffs were. Tim's had some ridiculous playoffs himself in 99 and 03, but the 67 win season Shaq had is impressive.
Duncan's played with some really lame supporting casts in his career also. Don't tell me his supporting cast was as good as LA's in 2001, back when Terry Porter, Antonio Daniels, and Danny Ferry were starting. Fox was playing Bowen-level defense that whole 2001 playoffs, although he was garbage by the next year. You can discount Rice, but his scoring in the post was a pretty big part of that game 7 comeback against Portland. Harper was always a big-game player. You can't write off that supporting cast, because it delivered big a lot of the time. The only season of the three-peat that ever really looked like the Shaq and Kobe show was 2002, when Fisher and Fox were crap, but you still had Horry.Your team was so much better top to bottom it's not even funny. All we had was Shaq and Kobe (and Horry with his clutch shots). Do you even remember the Lakers roster? No bench, Fisher was our starting PG (he was way below average), Harper was good but he was old as dirt, Fox was not really that good, we did have Glen Rice for a year (but he was on the way out of the league by then), our starting power forwards were; an old AC Green, a just as old Horace Grant, and the best of them all Samaki Walker.
Duncan's supporting cast was way better. He also had players like Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Malik Rose was no slouch back then.
If you're talking about who's better at basketball it's Tim Duncan, if you're talking about whose body is built to dominate than it's Shaq.
My man Kobe is one of the best players of all time not just an all star and Shaq played with him in his prime. You are vastly underating your supporting cast but this argument begins and ends with Kobe pure and simple. Take Jordan off the Bulls and what do they win with Pippen and that supporting cast? Basketball more than any other sport can be controlled by one or two players. Shaq got to dominate the paint and Kobe dominated the perimiter better than anybody in the NBA. Tim never had that luxory and he won just as much at a younger age than Shaq.
Kobe is one of the best players ever. Shaq was to. The rest of the team sucked. They were way below average. You guys vastly overrate them. They were all role players. It was Phil that made it work. But Kobe and Shaq were the best perimeter and post players. When MJ left Pippen and Phil were close to the Finals. Phil is the equalizer. Tim's luxury is having a complete team around him. A very good PG a very good SG a very good defensive SF and Robinson/Rose/assorted bums at C. Plus a bench, something the Lakers never had. Phil, Shaq, and Kobe were just better and wanted it more.
Well in 2001 we were on fireThat's the year we swept our way into the Finals.
But you guys drafted Parker and Manu very quick. And Robinson was still very good early on. That was one of your off years. In 2000 Pippen choked it away to us. Rice was gone after that and costed us Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell. Portland had a lot more complete team. It wasn't even close. And Sacramento also had a more complete team. Shaq and Kobe were just at their best.
And you don't think that he wouldn't trade all of those for Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson?
Yeah, laugh up the blatantly biased refereeing that allowed the Lakers to beat Portland and Sacramento, and Miami to beat Dallas.
What are you talking about??The referees never gave the Lakers anything. That one game against Sacramento was only to make up for all the previous bad calls against the Lakers in the series. And they still tried to hand it to Sacramento on the FT line, but they choked it away. Portland was up 15 in the 4th. The Lakers weren't handed anything.
Now as for Miami... I agree.
I can see your point and will follow up with my own point. One of the things that makes duncan so good is to get the best out of the players around him. A number of the guys you mentioned were not considered good players when they got to the spurs. This is more evident when you see how they perform once they move on from the spurs. S Jax would be a prime example.
the real question is:
Is Shaq underachieving???? Tim has 3 rings....Shaq has 4 rings...if Shaq is soooooo dominant...shouldnt he have more?
Of course Shaq is an enormous underachiever. But that can hardly be measured by the number of championships he's won - Wilt Chamberlain, for instance, won two rings, and Shaq has never come close to the impact Wilt had on the court.
I think there's a tendency to overestimate Tim's supporting cast on that '03 squad because of how well some of those players turned out or were in there primes. Parker, Manu, and Jax were all new to their roles, largely inconsistent and prone to turnovers. Jackson and Gino in particular. People drool over SJax's clutch shooting, but he was usually the biggest reason the Spurs were in the holes he helping shoot them out of. Robinson did not have a great playoff run that year. I remember a stat shot that showed he did well in the Game 1's, coming off of enough time to rest his old body, but that his numbers faded fast as the series went on. And I've always felt that Malik's success was about 50% hustle and 50% due to the fact that Duncan drew so much focus from the opponents big men. And as others pointed out, he hasn't done since leaving.
The '99 squad wasn't much better. With the exception of Robinson the rest of the offense was mostly old men hitting wide open jumpers created by Duncan drawing double and triple teams. The '05 team was a pretty good one if you can look past our centers.
Head to head I'd say that on the basis of role players around Shaq and Duncan I'd say it's about even, but with a marginal edge towards Shaq because I think a rising Kobe Bryant was more impactful on those teams than a declining Robinson. this discussion could be it's own thread.
EDIT: This also brings up a point that I haven't seen in this discussion yet. Is Shaq greater for managing three in a row or is Duncan greater for winning three with a rotating cast, even though he never repeated?
Last edited by spurs_fan_in_exile; 02-12-2007 at 03:10 PM.
that to could also be its own thread--good question. Maybe that is a reflection of the rotating cast more than a reflection of the player.
One of the biggest underachievers ever. He could have easily been GOAT.
Parker was good since the get go. Manu and Jackson were both very good players, even in '03. Malik was a good matchup against Shaq. That's what made him so valuable to the Spurs, especially in the playoffs. I'm not arguing that Duncan did not make all of them better, I'm just saying Duncan did not win those les alone. He had a very good team built around him. Lakers were Phil, Shaq, Kobe, and Horry in the clutch. That's it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions