PDA

View Full Version : Would you draft Shaq or Duncan



Pages : [1] 2

Vampirate
08-11-2013, 09:58 AM
You are starting a franchise over and these 2 are still on the board.

You know exactly how their careers will end up, their skills, personalities and all the hardware, stats and accolades they would garnish.

If you were to start a franchise, which big man would you choose?

bloomis1307
08-11-2013, 10:09 AM
Shaq is clearly the better player, but Duncan has shown commitment to the same team throughout his career. Easy choice here for me.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 10:10 AM
Timmy.

ackar
08-11-2013, 10:42 AM
Shaq....basketball is still played inside out. Too physically dominant!

JordansBulls
08-11-2013, 10:54 AM
This is Duncan for sure. You get a guy almost as good as Shaq, but you get someone who will stick around for your franchise. Which is exactly what you want when you draft a player. You want that player to stay with your franchise and win and not leave in order to try to win.

JerseyPalahniuk
08-11-2013, 11:25 AM
Duncan for the team-oriented culture he brings.

JerseyPalahniuk
08-11-2013, 11:25 AM
This is Duncan for sure. You get a guy almost as good as Shaq, but you get someone who will stick around for your franchise. Which is exactly what you want when you draft a player. You want that player to stay with your franchise and win and not leave in order to try to win.

gotta love all your indirect jabs at lebron in every thread

Minimal
08-11-2013, 11:42 AM
Not taking commitment to a team, Shaq without a question, he was just too dominant.

ldawg
08-11-2013, 11:43 AM
The question is kind of weird. If i was the GM i was picking Shaq hands down. However looking back at their careers i would say Duncan. If Kobe played with Duncan i think they win more than 3 titles.

Jarvo
08-11-2013, 11:45 AM
Timmmaaaaa :jumpy:

JerseyPalahniuk
08-11-2013, 11:48 AM
Not taking commitment to a team, Shaq without a question, he was just too dominant.

I don't understand this. If you had to draft a player, you wouldn't want to keep him long-term? Duncan is the more committed player in that regard (and many others). That's what the thread is asking.

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 11:55 AM
I'm going Shaq, I love Tim, but Shaq was the most powerful and unstoppable force Ive seen. Forget Kobe and Tim. Give me Tim and Shaq. I'll win every year no question.

bagwell368
08-11-2013, 11:55 AM
Shaq is clearly the better player, but Duncan has shown commitment to the same team throughout his career. Easy choice here for me.

Can't see how. While Shaq was dominant scary when younger, his D was only a big factor for half of his career. He was ALWAYS vulnerable as his team was in very close games to getting pole-axed to the line where he could lose the game all by himself. Duncan had a longer period of being a top 10 NBA player than Shaq (9 years to 7 by my count - both twice being the best player), and of course he wins the teammate argument hands down. Duncan also has positional flexibility over Shaq.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 11:59 AM
Positional flexibility, loyalty, leadership on and off the court, just as good as Shaq if not better when you take into account his consistency over such a long period of time.

I take Duncan all day.

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 11:59 AM
Can't see how. While Shaq was dominant scary when younger, his D was only a big factor for half of his career. He was ALWAYS vulnerable as his team was in very close games to getting pole-axed to the line where he could lose the game all by himself. Duncan had a longer period of being a top 10 NBA player than Shaq (9 years to 7 by my count - both twice being the best player), and of course he wins the teammate argument hands down. Duncan also has positional flexibility over Shaq.

What? Seven years for Shaq? Shaq was a top 10 player as a RC all the way till his last year with LA easily.

His first 11 years were nothing short of dominant. Easily 11 years of being top 10. Ages 20-30 and at 30 that was his second to last year with L.A.

Minimal
08-11-2013, 12:02 PM
I don't understand this. If you had to draft a player, you wouldn't want to keep him long-term? Duncan is the more committed player in that regard (and many others). That's what the thread is asking.
Thats why I said not taking commitment to a team into account I would take Shaq. But if we take commitment and I know that Shaq will play on my team for only 4 years, the way Orlando ended up, I would obviously take Duncan. Commitment makes this thread pointless then.
16 Years of Shaq>16 Years of Duncan
16 Years of Duncan>4 Years of Shaq obviously.

MrfadeawayJB
08-11-2013, 12:03 PM
This is a tough question. I'll give a slight edge to Tim Duncan. His skill set is more vast, which is why his career has more longevity. Shaq is more dominant, no way around it. I also like the low maintenance attitude of Duncan and his ability to put the team over himself every time

bagwell368
08-11-2013, 12:21 PM
What? Seven years for Shaq? Shaq was a top 10 player as a RC all the way till his last year with LA easily.

That's flat wrong, he missed a ton of games in '96, '97, and '99 tough to be dominant when you are averaging 51.33 games out of 82 in average in those 3 years - that's 40% worth of missed games per season on average.

He had at best three good years by his earlier standards from 2003-04 onward, and they were no match for his earlier years. He wasn't top 10 in any of those years, and was a good deal lower in the other years than that.


His first 11 years were nothing short of dominant.

False. '93, '96, '97, '99 - easily not dominant.


Ages 20-30 and at 30 that was his second to last year with L.A.

4 out off 11 not dominant + none of his last 8 were dominant - with '05 being fairly close.

bloomis1307
08-11-2013, 12:45 PM
Duncan had his own injury problems in 98, 03, and 04......After Shaq left the Lakers (excluding that first year with the heat) his minutes were much less. Injuries aside though Shaq was dominate when he was on the court, while TD is amazing, the shear size of Shaq puts him in a class above TD in my eyes. He could muscle his way in the paint at will. Shaq had the better peak (hopefully you're not arguing that). His only real fault like you said was his freethrow% but with today's rules that is a moot point

Bruno
08-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Duncan convincingly.

Shaq may have peaked out higher on the dominance scale, but Duncan is the smarter, more loyal, less arrogant, more well rounded, more mentally grounded player who is more coachable. Duncan is also a harder worker and never showed up to camp out of shape, and he never made outrageous contract demands or disrespected ownership in front of the public.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-11-2013, 01:21 PM
IF shaq cared more about defense, IF he had a similar work ethic and IF he was a good teammate? I'd pick shaq all day every day..

But TD was a great leader of men, great work ethic and great defender and very loyal..Duncan all day.

But this isn't too slight shaq, His dominance for that 7-8 stretch was absolutely amazing and we may NEVER see another player like shaq...A 7 foot/300+ pound guy that can just back up and either dunk/little 2 foot hook for basically 30 points anytime he really wanted? It was deff a sight too see.

bagwell368
08-11-2013, 01:35 PM
Duncan had his own injury problems in 98, 03, and 04......After Shaq left the Lakers (excluding that first year with the heat) his minutes were much less. Injuries aside though Shaq was dominate when he was on the court, while TD is amazing, the shear size of Shaq puts him in a class above TD in my eyes. He could muscle his way in the paint at will. Shaq had the better peak (hopefully you're not arguing that). His only real fault like you said was his freethrow% but with today's rules that is a moot point

I don't dispute that TD missed time with in injury, but in his 3 years of injury he didn't miss as many games, and I don't count Duncan's years he wasn't a top 10 player regardless of injuries or not, unlike the poster that want to genuflect to Shaq even though he missed 40% per year of 3 years - TD 24.8% of his.

If the guy isn't on the floor, he's not helping, how can that be disputed?

Why is FT% a moot point?

Bostonjorge
08-11-2013, 02:07 PM
If we now nothing about them coming in its shaq every single time. Now if we know there future Duncan is pretty much who he is going to be. U can't really change nothing. Now with shaq we now he has commitment problems we just have to address it and keep him in shape and he becomes even more dominant for a longer period. Shaq over Duncan but can't say this about any other big since wilt and Kareem.

mrblisterdundee
08-11-2013, 02:21 PM
I'd have to go with Shaquille O'Neal here. Imagine if he had stayed in Los Angeles. He and Kobe Bryant could have had about six championships together, even with Tim Duncan and LeBron James in the league.
O'Neal's the most powerful, interior-dominating center in NBA history. While Duncan, who has rebounded and blocked as much as or more than O'Neal, represents the epitome of fundamentals and leadership, O'Neal would garner more success for his team over his career, as there was nobody who could stop him – including Duncan – until his mid-30s.

the avenger
08-11-2013, 02:26 PM
Shaq without a doubt

flea
08-11-2013, 02:36 PM
Duncan - much more versatile and has been consistently a top 3 post defender virtually every year of his career.

tkshy
08-11-2013, 02:48 PM
Shaquille with a trainer, dietician, and long term contract.

naps
08-11-2013, 02:53 PM
Shaq without a question. Matter of fact I would draft Shaq over anyone in the history of game not named probably Jordan. That as a GM I would make sure I create the perfect atmosphere for him to be able to stay in shape and have the right perimeter player as his sidekick who's not a chucker and selfish. If you could do that you possibly get the Shaq who could have easily challenged Jordan for the GOAT.

therealwd27
08-11-2013, 02:58 PM
gotta love all your indirect jabs at lebron in every thread

never ends lol smh

Hellcrooner
08-11-2013, 03:13 PM
Duncan in a lanslide.

More fundamently sound.
More team oriented.
Better defender.
Hard Worker.
Not a liability with Ft
A team leader.
Low profile.
Loyalty.

I have 0 doubts.

In fact i would pick Duncan over everybody not named Ervin, Larry , Lew or Michael.

Bruno
08-11-2013, 03:15 PM
Shaq without a question. Matter of fact I would draft Shaq over anyone in the history of game not named probably Jordan. That as a GM I would make sure I create the perfect atmosphere for him to be able to stay in shape and have the right perimeter player as his sidekick who's not a chucker and selfish. If you could do that you possibly get the Shaq who could have easily challenged Jordan for the GOAT.

totally. if wade didn't shoot 11/29 in games five and six of the 2005 ECF the heat could have given San Antonio a run for their money in the finals. ;)

but seriously- everyone else other than shaq is to blame for shaqs lack of work ethic and all the problems he created with management in los angeles and miami? he disrespected buss and pat, two of the greatest minds in league history, and it's somehow their fault :confused:

you're too busy taking digs at kobe to look at this rationally.

D-Leethal
08-11-2013, 03:16 PM
Either or, those two are right next to each other in my GOAT list anyway. But probably Shaq.

Bostonjorge
08-11-2013, 03:18 PM
Shaquille with a trainer, dietician, and long term contract.

Perfect

Raps18-19 Champ
08-11-2013, 03:21 PM
Duncan is a top 5 player of all time. So him.

Chronz
08-11-2013, 03:25 PM
Yea wat JB said. If you are the team that is drafting a star, you want that star to stick around.
Could you keep Shaq happy?

Bruno
08-11-2013, 04:03 PM
Yea wat JB said. If you are the team that is drafting a star, you want that star to stick around.
Could you keep Shaq happy?

if jerry buss and pat riley can't keep shaq happy then who will? some push-over gm or owner who wouldn't have the charisma to surround him with the star talent he needed to win? at some point this lands on shaq; as great as he was, he played on six teams for a reason.

IversonIsKrazy
08-11-2013, 04:59 PM
To me it comes to what you value more. Shaq was the better player in his prime, however Duncan played at a high-level FAR LOnger than SHaq. Shaq will give u 10 awesome years, with the first couple in development. But Timmy, he gives you 20 years of high-level basketball, not to mention in his prime he was pretty damn close to Shaq.

I'd take Duncan. But it all goes with what you value, the prime, or longevity.

Ebbs
08-11-2013, 05:03 PM
Shaq and it isn't close for me.

JordansBulls
08-11-2013, 05:11 PM
gotta love all your indirect jabs at lebron in every thread

How so? The thread is about Duncan and Shaq is it not? Did not Shaq leave the Magic to go to win with the Lakers? Why would I want to draft him over someone near his level who stays with my franchise to win?

Kyben36
08-11-2013, 05:47 PM
I would take duncan, I love shaq, and IMO, he is clearly the better player, but Id take duncan from a team factor as well, shaq has some issues off court, got into it with kobe, traded, Duncan is the picture perfect player IMO. KG is right there with him, and while most consider him a bully, from everything I hear,, he is a great teamate, but on court he takes it seriously.

LegendsNvrDie23
08-11-2013, 05:54 PM
Duncan based off longevity.

abe_froman
08-11-2013, 05:58 PM
timmy-shaq was a constant headache for coaches,management,other stars(beefs with kobe,penny,wade,ect.),so since timmy better attitude and teammate,will be a leader and set a good culture for my team,i wont ever have to worry about him;plus he has more well rounded game/never laxed on defense.the difference in dominance is slim enough that i'm going with him.

conway429
08-11-2013, 06:01 PM
I don't think longevity is such a huge factor... Shaq played for 5 years before Duncan was ever around. 5 years ago Shaq put up 18/8, which is pretty much what Duncan put up this year.
And the last time TD put up over 20 points per game was when he was 27 years old, while Shaq was doing it until he was 34.

That said, I do think Duncan is better than Shaq was at this point, I just don't think Shaq fell off the map like people seem to imply.

I'm taking Duncan because all you have to do is look at what happened to the two teams who actually did draft these guys in the first place. Shaq was gone before 300 games with 0 ships, while Duncan's close to 1200 games and still going with 4 titles. And obviously personality-wise Shaq is bit of a cancer and a sideshow while you couldn't ask for a better personality than TD.

LegendsNvrDie23
08-11-2013, 06:06 PM
timmy-shaq was a constant headache for coaches,management,other stars(beefs with kobe,penny,wade,ect.),so since timmy better attitude and teammate,will be a leader and set a good culture for my team,i wont ever have to worry about him;plus he has more well rounded game/never laxed on defense.i'm going with him.

Good post bro.

goku
08-11-2013, 06:09 PM
have to go with Timmy loyal better teammate and woulnt have to worry about freethrows as much and a better defender not taking anything away from shaq he was dominate but also a headcase at times I don't think Kobe and Duncan would have clashed like a shaq and kobe did

Mr_Jones
08-11-2013, 06:24 PM
Shaq is clearly the better player, but Duncan has shown commitment to the same team throughout his career. Easy choice here for me.

False. Duncan is a much better player. Shaq was more dominant, but Duncan could do so much more on the court.

3RDASYSTEM
08-11-2013, 07:09 PM
This is Duncan for sure. You get a guy almost as good as Shaq, but you get someone who will stick around for your franchise. Which is exactly what you want when you draft a player. You want that player to stay with your franchise and win and not leave in order to try to win.

then only to have your owner write a letter on how you are a coward once you leave after 7 trying years RILEY did it in 3 yrs

Owners and players have the same agenda in the end, self

of course you have guys who stick around to at least have that side in sports but if JORDAN is the so called GOAT and he played for WIZARDS then im not buying all that rah rah **** you trying to sell about a loyal player

there is no loyalty in 'business' or does nba not qualify as that?

Im taking SHAQ, of course its close when you talking about 2 of the best ever but SHAQ took 3 different teams to FINALS, that trumps only 1 and they both went to FINALS in like 2nd year in league

being a modern day WILT will give you that type of close edge

3RDASYSTEM
08-11-2013, 07:28 PM
False. Duncan is a much better player. Shaq was more dominant, but Duncan could do so much more on the court.

I'd take a dunk 10 out of 10x rather than using a bank shot 10ft jumper that DUNCAN has being that so much more on the court, are you kidding me? could DUNCAN shoot 3's at high clip both of them were avg from line, DUNCAN improved more and he was still considered improving

its a reason why 1 player got WILT rules in ncaa and triple teamed before crossing halfcourt with the ball in nba, SHAQ that is

Mr_Jones
08-11-2013, 07:51 PM
I'd take a dunk 10 out of 10x rather than using a bank shot 10ft jumper that DUNCAN has being that so much more on the court, are you kidding me? could DUNCAN shoot 3's at high clip both of them were avg from line, DUNCAN improved more and he was still considered improving

its a reason why 1 player got WILT rules in ncaa and triple teamed before crossing halfcourt with the ball in nba, SHAQ that is

The bold is all that I was able to decipher from those hieroglyphs that you just presented.

In reference to the bolded: No. Duncan was an average free throw shooter. Shaq, no. When the hell was he ever considered average?
Duncan could play multiple ways in an offense, and that's what I would want from a player I'm drafting. A versatile, smart player. Duncan is a better post player, better shooter, and doesn't demand the ball to be successful. Defensively, again, Duncan is better. Rebounding, Duncan wins again. Not to mention the team-based mentality Tim provides.

So, if you'd like, go ahead and send me another cryptic message in response.

LegendsNvrDie23
08-11-2013, 08:04 PM
False. Duncan is a much better player. Shaq was more dominant, but Duncan could do so much more on the court.

This is true.

jsthornton7
08-11-2013, 08:16 PM
If you swap Duncan out and put Shaq on SAS would he win more titles?

If you swap Shaq out and put Duncan on ORL/LAL/MIA would he win more titles?

amos1er
08-11-2013, 08:29 PM
Shaq by a small margin. Duncan has the better longevity and he was willing to play for less to keep a good team around him. Still, Shaq's dominance just puts him over the top.

amos1er
08-11-2013, 08:31 PM
Oh no, not 3RDASYSTEM again. Smh Let me guess... Kobe was a back up singer to Eddie Jones and Iverson is better because he was a starter right off the bat and Kobe came off the bench.

(Edit) That last part did not sound right. Lol

All-In
08-11-2013, 09:27 PM
Shaq had the better stretch of their careers by winning 3 straight finals MVPs and finals championships….Duncan has never won back to back…but Duncan has had the better overall career by reaching the finals at least 15 years apart(99-13)…I think only Abdul-Jabbar has done that(71-89)…offensively I’ll go with Shaq…Defense hands down Duncan…Shaq has the better career PER (26.4-24.7)…but if I wanted a cornerstone of my franchise for the next 20 years…..Duncan

TheMightyHumph
08-11-2013, 09:35 PM
From the vantage point of today, It has GOT TO be Timmy.

Except for the people that think my statement is incorrect

All-In
08-11-2013, 09:38 PM
Duncan is a top 5 player of all time. So him.

I respect your opinion but have to disagree…he’s probably top 10 but top 5….MJ….Magic…Russell…Wilt…Abdul-Jabbar might have something to say

Jint.
08-11-2013, 09:46 PM
I take Shaq

heyman321
08-11-2013, 09:48 PM
Duncan even though I hate him and love Shaq.

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 10:13 PM
That's flat wrong, he missed a ton of games in '96, '97, and '99 tough to be dominant when you are averaging 51.33 games out of 82 in average in those 3 years - that's 40% worth of missed games per season on average.

He had at best three good years by his earlier standards from 2003-04 onward, and they were no match for his earlier years. He wasn't top 10 in any of those years, and was a good deal lower in the other years than that.



False. '93, '96, '97, '99 - easily not dominant.



4 out off 11 not dominant + none of his last 8 were dominant - with '05 being fairly close.

Of his first 11 years his worst year was his rookie season where he averaged 23.5pts and 14rbs. The 3 seasons that he played an average of 50 games, he put up much better numbers than that, and played in the playoffs those years so yes if you play 50 games and average 27pts and 11 rebounds, you are just as good as if you played 82 if you finish the season and play in the playoffs. Anyway, even as a RC you cannot find ten guys that had better stats than Shaq, or made more of an impact. If you can't find 10 guys with better stats then your definately wrong for the next ten years because the stats only get better.

TrueFan420
08-11-2013, 10:16 PM
If I know I have them for their full career I'd take shaq cause of how dominant his peak was. But if they playout as they have then Duncan.

Bang Bros89
08-11-2013, 11:17 PM
False. Duncan is a much better player. Shaq was more dominant, but Duncan could do so much more on the court.

What exactly does this mean? Shaq was considered to be the most dominant basketball player, so in what regard is Duncan the better player? Duncan may be more skilled, but if Shaquille was more dominant, wouldn't that make him the better player?

I would take results, Shaq's dominance, over Duncan's skills any day.

Obviously Duncan's longevity/defense is appealing, but I would pick Shaq for his three-peat run alone.

Mr_Jones
08-11-2013, 11:31 PM
What exactly does this mean? Shaq was considered to be the most dominant basketball player, so in what regard is Duncan the better player? Duncan may be more skilled, but if Shaquille was more dominant, wouldn't that make him the better player?

I would take results, Shaq's dominance, over Duncan's skills any day.

Obviously Duncan's longevity/defense is appealing, but I would pick Shaq for his three-peat run alone.

Duncan was a smarter, more-skilled, more well-rounded basketball player than Shaq. Shaq was purely a physical player that relied on nothing more than the size and strength that he was given. Shaq could dunk the hell out of the ball and really push around smaller players than him, but that does not mean he was a better basketball player than Tim Duncan.

Hellcrooner
08-11-2013, 11:36 PM
think of it this way.

If you could transfer brains.

And you put Duncans behaviour and skills and fundamentals and etc into shaqs Juggernaut body
and put shaqs mind into duncans body.

who becomes the goat and who becomes merely an average allstar?


That should tell you who the best PLAYER is.

Bang Bros89
08-11-2013, 11:37 PM
Duncan was a smarter, more-skilled, more well-rounded basketball player than Shaq. Shaq was purely a physical player that relied on nothing more than the size and strength that he was given. Shaq could dunk the hell out of the ball and really push around smaller players than him, but that does not mean he was a better basketball player than Tim Duncan.

Doesn't Shaq's physical gifts attribute to the kind of player he was? He didn't need Duncan's intelligence, skill to be the most dominant big man the NBA. I'm talking purely production, Shaq should not be deducted any points because of how superior he was physically.

Obviously Duncan is more skilled, but its not fair to call him the better player. O' Neal's ability to dunk on anyone is an asset to any team.

UPRock
08-11-2013, 11:38 PM
Duncan without any doubts, he gives you 100% everytime, the same can't be said about Shaq.

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 11:39 PM
That's flat wrong, he missed a ton of games in '96, '97, and '99 tough to be dominant when you are averaging 51.33 games out of 82 in average in those 3 years - that's 40% worth of missed games per season on average.

He had at best three good years by his earlier standards from 2003-04 onward, and they were no match for his earlier years. He wasn't top 10 in any of those years, and was a good deal lower in the other years than that.



False. '93, '96, '97, '99 - easily not dominant.



4 out off 11 not dominant + none of his last 8 were dominant - with '05 being fairly close.

I'm only going to use 93 as an example since that is his worst year.

In 93 Shaq was
#8 pts per game in the league at 23.4pts
#2 in rebounds per game at 13.9
#2 in blocks per game with 3.5
#7 in PER

In what realm is that not a top ten player in the NBA. Rule of thumb, If your in the top 10 in points, and two other categories, then you are a top 10 player period.

Bang Bros89
08-11-2013, 11:40 PM
think of it this way.

If you could transfer brains.

And you put Duncans behaviour and skills and fundamentals and etc into shaqs Juggernaut body
and put shaqs mind into duncans body.

who becomes the goat and who becomes merely an average allstar?


That should tell you who the best PLAYER is.

Thats a terrible way to look at it! Shaq wouldn't be playing like Shaq outside his body, nor would Duncan play the same way if he was in Shaq's body. You have to look at the entire equation, not just the skills, its more than that. Shaq was able to dominate because he was a monster in the paint, Duncan was a more well rounded player because he wasn't as gifted physically.

Mr_Jones
08-11-2013, 11:41 PM
Doesn't Shaq's physical gifts attribute to the kind of player he was? He didn't need Duncan's intelligence, skill to be the most dominant big man the NBA. I'm talking purely production, Shaq should not be deducted any points because of how superior he was physically.

Obviously Duncan is more skilled, but its not fair to call him the better player. O' Neal's ability to dunk on anyone is an asset to any team.

But when that is your only asset, then you should be deducted. Versatility and variation to get the same thing done should be more respected, and in my opinion, shows me that they are a better player. Dunking the ball over and over shows that you are very good at one thing.

Bang Bros89
08-11-2013, 11:45 PM
But when that is your only asset, then you should be deducted. Versatility and variation to get the same thing done should be more respected, and in my opinion, shows me that they are a better player. Dunking the ball over and over shows that you are very good at one thing.

Last time I checked two points is two points, and a dunk will always be a higher percentage shot than any fallaway jumper, hook, or any other facet of Duncan's game. And to say Shaq was very good at only one thing is criminally underrating him. Shaq was the most dominant low post player in the NBA, even if he didn't have Duncan's skills.

Mr_Jones
08-11-2013, 11:49 PM
Last time I checked two points is two points, and a dunk will always be a higher percentage shot than any fallaway jumper, hook, or any other facet of Duncan's game. And to say Shaq was very good at only one thing is criminally underrating him. Shaq was the most dominant low post player in the NBA, even if he didn't have Duncan's skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwPovyR9HY

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 11:51 PM
think of it this way.

If you could transfer brains.

And you put Duncans behaviour and skills and fundamentals and etc into shaqs Juggernaut body
and put shaqs mind into duncans body.

who becomes the goat and who becomes merely an average allstar?


That should tell you who the best PLAYER is.

All this may be true, but at the end of the Day Shaq is the harder person to stop. Prime Shaq drops 40 on every center in history guarded 1 on 1 all game. He drops 40 every time. Duncan is awesome and yes he has more skills than Shaq, but the gifts from above are infinity in Shaq's favor. Shaq is the biggest beast in sports history.

IKnowHoops
08-11-2013, 11:51 PM
Noone can guard Shaq 1 on 1.

TrueFan420
08-12-2013, 04:29 AM
Noone can guard Shaq 1 on 1.

Well that's not technically true. Anyone can guard him 1 on 1 just not effectively.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 05:39 AM
As to the ridiculous conversation that just occurred.... No. Skill does not equal better player. Production does. Te guy who produces better is more valuable to my team winning games and, therefore the better player regardless of his limited skill set.

As to the OP:

As a GM, I have a lot of things to consider. As any GM in any for-profic company, my job is to assemble a staff of employees who will maximize the Owner's profit margins. Period.

So, how does one do that in the NBA?

(1) Win games
--- this speaks for itself. People will spend more money on merchandise and tickets, as well as sell out more games, when thy have a reasonable expectation that the team will win that game, or they will be respected for wearing that merchandise.

(2) Have a marketable (or multiple) star player.
--- even on bad teams a star player is able to draw merchandising and ticket sales that the bad team otherwise may not be able to generate. Likewise, the NBA foolishly protects owners with max contracts, making star players very cheap and thus, a huge return on investment, driving up profit margins.

(3) Gain (mostly) positive media publicity inside and outside your local media market
--- media publicity is able to create marketability for less marketable players while also attracting higher bids from local media, especially larger TV contracts.

(4) Win Championships
--- this clearly helps with #3, but more than that, a team that won a championship is able to charge higher ticket prices, boosting profit margins considerably. If this can be done towards the end of a TV or radio contract, it raises bids considerably.

So, how do the two players compare in accomplishing these goals?

Ultimately, Shaq is far more marketable both locally and outside of the local market and is worth a lot of value to my business as far as that goes. But it just isn't enough to make up the gap.

Duncan is worth more wins over hos career and per season according to WP than Shaq over a career and I get ALL of those wins. Not to mention, his ability to play both 4 and 5 at an elite level gives my organization more options in regards to building a team around him to win games.

Likewise, his willingness to play for less than max contracts makes my return on investment much higher and allows me more financial flexibility to pursue other players who will command high salaries. This makes #1 an easier task and makes finding a player who can accomplish 2 and 3 to a stronger extent than Timmy possible, which lessens Shaq's appeal in that regard.

Lastly, even ignoring the affect on production on the court, Shaq's propensity for injury and therefore missed work on a guaranteed contract (bad return on investment), the negative impact of this absence from work is compounded when we factor in lost revenue from fans choosing not to pay money for tickets when Shaq is not in the lineup and opting instead to watch the game on TV that night.

In any business model, Tim Duncan provides me a larger return on my investment than Shaquille O'Neal, so that is who I want if we assume to know the future.

If we are scouting them in the draft? The choice is easily the loud, charismatic 290 lb machine of a big man who can dominate his opponents as opposed to the 230 lb quiet kid with a nice bank shot. No questions asked, every time. Shaq, as a draft prospect, projects to make my business more money while likely being as good a player as Tim Duncan.

That's really the logical answer.

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 07:28 AM
Of his first 11 years his worst year was his rookie season where he averaged 23.5pts and 14rbs. The 3 seasons that he played an average of 50 games, he put up much better numbers than that, and played in the playoffs those years so yes if you play 50 games and average 27pts and 11 rebounds, you are just as good as if you played 82 if you finish the season and play in the playoffs.

Shaq missed 40% of those 3 seasons, while he was playing damn well when he played, he DIDN'T play 40% of those regular seasons. The fact that you don't account for that makes it clear that you are not attempting to be fair, just promoting your choice.


Anyway, even as a RC you cannot find ten guys that had better stats than Shaq, or made more of an impact. If you can't find 10 guys with better stats then your definately wrong for the next ten years because the stats only get better.

I can, and I did, each year I listed I found more than 10 guys that had better regular seasons than Shaq.

Shaq's stats did not get better as he aged. Outside of grabbing defensive rebounds where he stood, his defensive effort and results went to dirt after 2006-07.

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 07:34 AM
Noone can guard Shaq 1 on 1.

Take a look at what Hakeem did to Shaq through 1996 including the '95 playoffs before he got old.

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 07:40 AM
All this may be true, but at the end of the Day Shaq is the harder person to stop. Prime Shaq drops 40 on every center in history guarded 1 on 1 all game. He drops 40 every time. Duncan is awesome and yes he has more skills than Shaq, but the gifts from above are infinity in Shaq's favor. Shaq is the biggest beast in sports history.

It goes both ways. Shaq has to stop people too. How did he do against Centers with a strong inside/out game?

Wilt dominated his time more than Shaq dominated his, so I deny your claim that Shaq was the biggest beast in basketball history. Don't you think Russell is the best defensive Center ever? Well Wilt hung 28.7 PPG and 28.7 RPG on Russell in the ~145 games they faced each other. Shaq didn't hang those numbers on Hakeem when he was still in his prime, not even close, and Shaq couldn't stop Hakeem when he was in his prime.

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 07:53 AM
BTW head to head Duncan vs Shaq playoffs:

25.6/13.0/3.8
22.4/12.8/2.2

In 30 total playoffs games - Duncan dropped 37 and 40 on Shaq twice each - 3 of them between '99-'03 in Shaq's prime. The most Shaq ever had was 36 once vs Duncan (Duncan had 36 once vs Shaq too)

In the regular season match-ups, Shaq was only over 34 PPG vs TD once (36) in 32 games - I guess we found another guy that played good D vs. Shaq.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 07:57 AM
Shaq and it isn't remotely close

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 07:59 AM
Shaq and it isn't remotely close
Lol okay.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 08:05 AM
BTW head to head Duncan vs Shaq playoffs:

25.6/13.0/3.8
22.4/12.8/2.2

In 30 total playoffs games - Duncan dropped 37 and 40 on Shaq twice each - 3 of them between '99-'03 in Shaq's prime. The most Shaq ever had was 36 once vs Duncan (Duncan had 36 once vs Shaq too)

In the regular season match-ups, Shaq was only over 34 PPG vs TD once (36) in 32 games - I guess we found another guy that played good D vs. Shaq.
Shaq rarely guarded Duncan. Duncan guarded Shaq way more

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 08:07 AM
Lol okay.

Shaq was the most dominant player of the last decade it isn't close.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 08:11 AM
Shaq was the most dominant player of the last decade it isn't close.

You might argue Shaq had the most dominant stretch, but it was a very short one. He simply isn't as valuable in terms of winning games as Duncan is. When running a franchise, sustained success and consistent success is the most valuable thing. A team that wins 55 games a year for 10 years and no championships makes more money than a franchise that wins 55 games 3 times and two championships. Period.

And all owners are in the money-making business. Shaq is a high-high risk high reward investment while Tim is a low risk high reward investment. This is easy.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 08:21 AM
Shaq was the most dominant player of the last decade it isn't close.

I think what you mean is "when healthy, Shaq was more dominant than anyone else, for half the decade."

From 200-2005 he was worth 75 Wins Produced and won 3 championships.

Duncan? 88.5 WP and won 2 championships. After 2005? Shaq fell apart and Duncan has aged gracefully.

No, Shaq was note most dominant player of the last decade, not by a long shot. He pusses away his chance at that by having no discipline and no work ethic. He had the size and the skill to have an argument for most dominant player ever, and for best center ever... And he pissed it away by getting fat and not staying in shape.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 08:24 AM
You might argue Shaq had the most dominant stretch, but it was a very short one. He simply isn't as valuable in terms of winning games as Duncan is. When running a franchise, sustained success and consistent success is the most valuable thing. A team that wins 55 games a year for 10 years and no championships makes more money than a franchise that wins 55 games 3 times and two championships. Period.

And all owners are in the money-making business. Shaq is a high-high risk high reward investment while Tim is a low risk high reward investment. This is easy.
Yea very short. He just went to 5 finals in the span of 6 years and won 4 rings and was clearly the NBA's best player by a wide margin during that stretch and thats still leaving out a bunch of elite seasons. Thats your definition of short? NBA writers were actively avoiding giving him the MVP each season because he was just too dominant and they were actually coming out and saying this in their write ups. Timmy's best season wouldn't even be among Shaq's top-5 best years. Shaq is the first and only player I've ever seen draw triple teams consistently.

Yea but sure he pissed away all that talent with nothing to show for it LOL.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 08:46 AM
Shaq rarely guarded Duncan. Duncan guarded Shaq way more

I don't think Shaq had the mobility or quickness to guard Duncan for a whole game or the majority of games. Duncan seemed to have a good amount of success against him when he did defend him, which speaks to people bringing up Duncan's ability to defend the 4/5, and a more versatile player on both ends.

zedrix
08-12-2013, 08:46 AM
Shaq for being more dominant(basketball-wise) and more marketable(business-wise).

Shaq games would likely be televised than that of Timmy. Attract a big TV/Cable deal with Shaq and use the money to add multiple stars and acquire an elite coach(whom he respect). Televised games, dominant interior and money can easily attract all-star-level free agents.

Given the way Shaq plays(lots of banging), I won't expect him to have a long career. Monetize the talent and spend for more talents is the fastest way to build a contender IMHO. The faster I can build a contender, the more chances I get at the title.

A prime Shaq surrounded by right players and an elite coach can easily win championships. Three to six rings, at least one MVP and one to two finals MVP. All-stars MVP will depend on the era and conference. I do give the advantage to perimeter players in the all-stars, as they have control of the ball most of the time

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 09:03 AM
Shaq rarely guarded Duncan. Duncan guarded Shaq way more

Which means Shaq was less flexible defensively - shouldn't your best players play the best players on the other team in the same size/position range? So what teams did Shaq play for that had better big defenders? Or was it more like, every foot Shaq gets away from the basket, he become more ineffective? Ouch.

Of the 8 combined titles, TD won with (and lead) by the far the weakest of them - something Shaq's fans can't claim. Hmmmm...

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 09:09 AM
I think what you mean is "when healthy, Shaq was more dominant than anyone else, for half the decade."

From 200-2005 he was worth 75 Wins Produced and won 3 championships.

Duncan? 88.5 WP and won 2 championships. After 2005? Shaq fell apart and Duncan has aged gracefully.

No, Shaq was note most dominant player of the last decade, not by a long shot. He pusses away his chance at that by having no discipline and no work ethic. He had the size and the skill to have an argument for most dominant player ever, and for best center ever... And he pissed it away by getting fat and not staying in shape.

Not to mention he never fixed his FT shooting and never developed a lot of moves on O. It's very tempting to rely on a small set of shots when you are dominant. But if a more dominant player comes, or your age starts to put you in decline - lack of growth will show, as it did in his case.

Also, Shaq could never fit - long term - into any sort of up tempo offense. His scoring opportunities would dry up and he'd be on the floor less time. If I was coaching against him, I'd force as much of his energy onto the D as possible.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 09:16 AM
Which means Shaq was less flexible defensively - shouldn't your best players play the best players on the other team in the same size/position range? So what teams did Shaq play for that had better big defenders? Or was it more like, every foot Shaq gets away from the basket, he become more ineffective? Ouch.

Of the 8 combined titles, TD won with (and lead) by the far the weakest of them - something Shaq's fans can't claim. Hmmmm...

Duncan was a PF. Shaq guarded D-Rob and Rasho why it makes a difference to you I dont know. That has nothing to do with anything. When TD guarded prime Shaq he would pickup fouls by the minute. It would be revisionist history to say TD guarded Shaq for any significant time. The only times he would guard Shaq is when all the Spurs other bigs fouled out.

And I dont know what this talk of leading weak teams is. TD won his chips with 3 other HOF players.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Coming from a guy whose watched the entirety of both Shaq and Duncan's prime trust me when I say next to Shaq Tim Duncan looked like just a pretty good player. It's hard to describe but it's like comparing LeBron next to Paul George. Now there no doubt that TD has definitely had much more consistency and longevity to his career and overall he has much higher character but in terms of who was better that has no impact.

FYL_McVeezy
08-12-2013, 09:34 AM
If I'm a small market Team I draft Timmy D....

If I'm a large market team I draft Shaq and give him the keys to the franchise.....

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 09:38 AM
Duncan was a PF. Shaq guarded D-Rob and Rashowhy it makes a difference to you I dont know. That has nothing to do with anything. When TD guarded prime Shaq he would pickup fouls by the minute. It would be revisionist history to say TD guarded Shaq for any significant time. The only times he would guard Shaq is when all the Spurs other bigs fouled out.

And I dont know what this talk of leading weak teams is. TD won his chips with 3 other HOF players.

This is not entirely true though. Go back and watch their playoff matchups in the early 2000's. Shaq guarded Duncan in stretches and Duncan guarded Shaq even when D-Rob, or Malik Rose, or Kevin Willis were still able to play and defend him. Obviously not in long stretches, but he did defend him. When TD would having his way with Horry or Medvedenko, they decided to throw Shaq at him. Like I said it was mostly in stretches but he did guard him at times through out their series matchups. But I wouldn't exactly call the success rate high.

And Duncan did not pick up fouls by the minute guarding Shaq. That's actually one of the things that makes Duncan really great defensively, his ability to defend at an elite level without picking up fouls. (not gambling, reaching, biting on pump fakes, etc...)

You can watch from about the 6:33 mark when Shaq starts guarding Duncan (this is just from game 6) This is a small sample size but you can see the obvious trouble Shaq had guarding him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6AgYWdoBQ

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 09:39 AM
If I'm a small market Team I draft Timmy D....

If I'm a large market team I draft Shaq and give him the keys to the franchise.....

I also agree with this but Shaq had no beef playing in a small market. ORL lowballed Shaq with their original contract offer and the fans dissed him when they put up Billboards and Newpaper polls saying Penny Hardaway was their franchise player not Shaq. Shaq was very sensitive alot like Dwight. If that never happened I think Shaq would have stayed in ORL.

waveycrockett
08-12-2013, 09:44 AM
This is not entirely true though. Go back and watch their playoff matchups in the early 2000's. Shaq guarded Duncan in stretches and Duncan guarded Shaq even when D-Rob, or Malik Rose, or Kevin Willis were still able to play and defend him. Obviously not in long stretches, but he did defend him. When TD would having his way with Horry or Medvedenko, they decided to throw Shaq at him. Like I said it was mostly in stretches but he did guard him at times through out their series matchups. But I wouldn't exactly call the success rate high.

And Duncan did not pick up fouls by the minute guarding Shaq. That's actually one of the things that makes Duncan really great defensively, his ability to defend at an elite level without picking up fouls. (not gambling, reaching, biting on pump fakes, etc...)

You can watch from about the 6:33 mark when Shaq starts guarding Duncan (this is just from game 6) This is a small sample size but you can see the obvious trouble Shaq had guarding him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6AgYWdoBQ

In the NBA superstars rarely guard other superstars. Its why you never see Bron and Kobe defend each other or LBJ and Melo defend each other except for key possesions. Certainly you never put your best big man on Shaq in his prime unless you had no other choice that would have been stupidty. And Obviously Shaq had SOME trouble guarding TD they played different positions.

jaji10
08-12-2013, 10:03 AM
better question is if u are a GM and have the no.1 pick, who would you choose, shaq or duncan?? i'll probobly go with shaq..

All-In
08-12-2013, 10:29 AM
Shaq’s the type of guy who shows up fat to training camp, having to work his way back to shape during the reg season….that **** catches up with you….Duncan on the other hand reached the finals 15 years apart(99-13)…that’s hard work, dedication, sacrifice, the intangibles that aren’t measurable…..So if I want a player to be a cornerstone of my franchise for the next 20 years…Its Duncan…What did Shaq do after he turned 33..he ate a lot…look at Duncan’s past two years...I think its close though and the people who say it isn’t close are wrong

ziglur
08-12-2013, 10:36 AM
Positional flexibility, loyalty, leadership on and off the court, just as good as Shaq if not better when you take into account his consistency over such a long period of time.

I take Duncan all day.

Tim didnt finish in the championship series. Missed some very easy shots. He has declined or he is overrated. Or the games were fixed! I was one of his biggest fans but he didnt show much when people needed for him to perform. A superstar doesnt miss thoses easy shots when things get intense.

All-In
08-12-2013, 10:47 AM
Tim didnt finish in the championship series. Missed some very easy shots. He has declined or he is overrated. Or the games were fixed! I was one of his biggest fans but he didnt show much when people needed for him to perform. A superstar doesnt miss thoses easy shots when things get intense.

This is more bitter than factual…

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 10:59 AM
Shaq missed 40% of those 3 seasons, while he was playing damn well when he played, he DIDN'T play 40% of those regular seasons. The fact that you don't account for that makes it clear that you are not attempting to be fair, just promoting your choice.



I can, and I did, each year I listed I found more than 10 guys that had better regular seasons than Shaq.

Shaq's stats did not get better as he aged. Outside of grabbing defensive rebounds where he stood, his defensive effort and results went to dirt after 2006-07.


Originally Posted by IKnowHoops
I'm only going to use 93 as an example since that is his worst year.

In 93 Shaq was
#8 pts per game in the league at 23.4pts
#2 in rebounds per game at 13.9
#2 in blocks per game with 3.5
#7 in PER

In what realm is that not a top ten player in the NBA. Rule of thumb, If your in the top 10 in points, and two other categories, then you are a top 10 player period.

No you didn't. These stats make it impossible for you to find 10 people with better stats this year bro. Stop BSing. No coincidence you replied to every post I made except this one.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 11:03 AM
think of it this way.

If you could transfer brains.

And you put Duncans behaviour and skills and fundamentals and etc into shaqs Juggernaut body
and put shaqs mind into duncans body.

who becomes the goat and who becomes merely an average allstar?


That should tell you who the best PLAYER is.

LOL no that tells me you live in an alternate reality that doesn't apply to real life. The better basketball player is the guy that gives me the best chance of winning over the long haul. That can be either one, but it should be on the grounds they accomplished, not your opinion of what you think might happen.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 11:04 AM
Shaq missed 40% of those 3 seasons, while he was playing damn well when he played, he DIDN'T play 40% of those regular seasons. The fact that you don't account for that makes it clear that you are not attempting to be fair, just promoting your choice.



I can, and I did, each year I listed I found more than 10 guys that had better regular seasons than Shaq.

Shaq's stats did not get better as he aged. Outside of grabbing defensive rebounds where he stood, his defensive effort and results went to dirt after 2006-07.

Yeah buddy, he was a RC in 92-93 so 2007 was 15 years later. What are you talking about. From age 20 to 30 his stats where better every year than his RC season. And his RC season was a top 10 player as illustrated above. Again.

#8 Scoring
#2 Rebound
#2 Blcoking
#7 PER

Thats a top 10 player and closer to top 5. How you don't see this is crazy. How can you find 10 people with better stats when he is top 8 and top 2 in the major stats that matter. You are so full of crap dude. Its impossible not to be top 10 with these stats.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 11:13 AM
But when that is your only asset, then you should be deducted. Versatility and variation to get the same thing done should be more respected, and in my opinion, shows me that they are a better player. Dunking the ball over and over shows that you are very good at one thing.

It shows you are great at creating the highest% shot. Nobody gets extra credit for making tougher shots, you definitely dont get more PTS for a fadeaway than a dunk+1, so in terms of peak offensive ability, you would have to be utterly insane not to take Shaq.

Duncan makes it an argument with his defense, longevity and loyalty.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 11:20 AM
Tim didnt finish in the championship series. Missed some very easy shots. He has declined or he is overrated. Or the games were fixed! I was one of his biggest fans but he didnt show much when people needed for him to perform. A superstar doesnt miss thoses easy shots when things get intense.

30 points 17 rebounds in Game 6 61% from the field in game 6
24 points 12 rebounds in Game 7 44% from the field in game 7

at 37 years old, those numbers are just fine. To put either of those losses on him is just ridiculous. especially coming from a guy who has made big plays in plenty of big time plays in intense situations. To say he didn't show much is just crazy. His teammates (aside from Kawhi Leonard) unfortunately could not come up with key plays and at his age he can only do so much.

ArmLaker
08-12-2013, 11:27 AM
It's hard to pick shaq over td knowing their personalities, work ethic, and longevity.

I'll just leave it to a coin flip

3RDASYSTEM
08-12-2013, 11:32 AM
I'm only going to use 93 as an example since that is his worst year.

In 93 Shaq was
#8 pts per game in the league at 23.4pts
#2 in rebounds per game at 13.9
#2 in blocks per game with 3.5
#7 in PER

In what realm is that not a top ten player in the NBA. Rule of thumb, If your in the top 10 in points, and two other categories, then you are a top 10 player period.

and to further what you already said he got guarded by all 5 players at ncaa level tourney time

how is that not unreal dominant? pre NBA

Some how for unknown reasons on here people confuse individual dominance with team accomplishment(ring), SHAQ avg 29ppg his 2nd year and 8th basically 30ppg and was old with WADE and put up 20 and 10, you guys truly don't know **** about a dominant player

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 11:33 AM
I think this is a very decent debate; with lots of great points (and few bad ones) being made.
The main points seem to me to be:
1) Shaq's Peak dominates Timmy's (it's almost like Duncan didn't really have a peak - he's been that consistently great).
2) Timmy's "Ideal Team-Mate" Attitude is second to nobody in history - and it's almost impossible to over-rate a great attitude in a sport so reliant on team-work.
3) Shaq dominated BOTH Spurs Greats: Duncan & Robinson, and I mean DOMINATED. That's no small point.
4) IF Shaq had had even close to Timmy's attitude we wouldn't even be having this discussion; but instead just be awarding the GOAT to Shaq.
5) BUT Shaq USUALLY came into the Reg. Season Out-Of-Shape (yikes!) and was often a lousy team-mate attitude wise.
6) Timmy WAS/IS the more complete player especially defensively; BUT Shaq's offensive dominance pretty much equalizes this.
7) Due solely to the big gap in their attitudes, with Timmy you get all you could ever ask for; with Shaq you always were left feeling he could have given you more. This is a HUGE difference (imo it drove Kobe "crazy"). This means the Timmy we've seen is the very close to his max-possible. The Shaq we saw was NOT.

Overall, I think it could go either way. So, for me it comes down to:
IF I'm the GM BUT CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, it's a toss-up; but

IF I'm the GM and (knowing in advance what would otherwise happen) and CAN CHANGE SOME THINGS:
I'd have to take Shaq and then force him (with occasional benchings when necessary) to do what he didn't but could have done: stay in shape in the off-season; train lots harder; respect his team(s) and teammates much more by grasping his need for them to:
A) Provide better quality product for all NBA fans;
B) Win more Chips in L.A. (Timmy would have); and thus:
C) Hands-Down win the GOAT argument.

YoungOne
08-12-2013, 11:33 AM
shunqan!

Clippersfan86
08-12-2013, 11:38 AM
Shaq. Duncan has the longevity edge but Shaq has a MUCH greater, much more dominant peak. If he had more help in Orlando like say a healthy Penny, no doubt he wins 1 or 2 rings. Then still goes on to win a few more no matter where he ends up. Peak Shaq is the most dominant player in NBA history right there with Jordan. I'd rather have a 10 year title window with Shaq than a 15 year title window with the less dominant Duncan.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 11:50 AM
Our poll is a virtual-tie. The "experts" place both in (or at worst, almost-in) the All-Time Top 10 GOAT discussions. Conclusion: neither's career was WAY BETTER than the other's. This argues for each of us being as calm as possible; afterall, what a joy to be presented with TWO such MONSTER TALENTS and have the fun of debating who did better. No?

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 11:52 AM
btw "spastic" me can't seem to work the "see the Poll Results" thing. I got to see the results when I was NOT trying to, I was trying to vote then. Finally I got to vote; but now I can't see the poll results. Help?

Tony_Starks
08-12-2013, 11:59 AM
It's a good question. I'd have to roll with Duncan's longevity and commitment to the team over Shaqs dominance. When you have a superstar that won't jump ship that's a big deal....

I Rock Shaqs
08-12-2013, 12:01 PM
Shaq. Just because.

Clippersfan86
08-12-2013, 12:03 PM
It's a good question. I'd have to roll with Duncan's longevity and commitment to the team over Shaqs dominance. When you have a superstar that won't jump ship that's a big deal....

I missed the key part of "personality" in the OP so you bring up a great point. I was assuming you'd have them their entire career but Shaq isn't exactly a "loyal" or "team first" type guy so "jumping ship" as you said is a real possibility to weigh. If the OP doesn't mean have them their entire career, of course I switch my answer to Duncan who's far more level headed and loyal.

b@llhog24
08-12-2013, 12:11 PM
Shaq daddy.

MDD
08-12-2013, 12:12 PM
Most people that say Tim over Shaq must of not seen Shaq play from the start of his career he has unstoppable for even hall of fame centers.Tim entering the league was a center who could not hold his own at the c position so he moved to powerforward were he had the clear advantage over Garnett,Webber,Sheed,J O'neil, Brand, Randolph,walker and Gasal. Shaq could do everything except shoot but main thing that made Shaq so dominate was that At every opportunity to score was the basket and the foul . All while scoring he was putting your big men in foul trouble.

effen5
08-12-2013, 12:19 PM
Most people that say Tim over Shaq must of not seen Shaq play from the start of his career he has unstoppable for even hall of fame centers.Tim entering the league was a center who could not hold his own at the c position so he moved to powerforward were he had the clear advantage over Garnett,Webber,Sheed,J O'neil, Brand, Randolph,walker and Gasal. Shaq could do everything except shoot but main thing that made Shaq so dominate was that At every opportunity to score was the basket and the foul . All while he was score he was putting your big men in foul trouble.

True but I'd still take Hakeem over Shaq IMO.

I would also take Duncan over Shaq.

FYL_McVeezy
08-12-2013, 12:25 PM
I also agree with this but Shaq had no beef playing in a small market. ORL lowballed Shaq with their original contract offer and the fans dissed him when they put up Billboards and Newpaper polls saying Penny Hardaway was their franchise player not Shaq. Shaq was very sensitive alot like Dwight. If that never happened I think Shaq would have stayed in ORL.

Eh....they say that Orl lowballed Shaq....

there's also reports that LA sold Shaq on the idea coming to Hollywood before FA even started that year....

I'm gonna side with the fact that Shaq would have bolted for a large market eventually....I personally dont think he stays in Orlando for the bulk of his prime even if they didn't "lowball" him....

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 12:29 PM
And I dont know what this talk of leading weak teams is. TD won his chips with 3 other HOF players.

Wow... 2003 anyone? Robinson at 37 in his final year. Parker in his rookie year at age 20 who had a poor playoffs. Ginobii who was a good bench guy with the 7th most minutes played on the team. This is 3 other HOF players you are talking about? Shaq never won a title with such a weak cast.

effen5
08-12-2013, 12:33 PM
Wow... 2003 anyone? Robinson at 37 in his final year. Parker in his rookie year at age 20 who had a poor playoffs. Ginobii who was a good bench guy with the 7th most minutes played on the team. This is 3 other HOF players you are talking about? Shaq never won a title with such a weak cast.

That year was all TD. Ginobli didn't develop til later, and Tony Parker was still a huge question mark if I remember correctly.

Oh and Steve Kerr raining 3's on the Mavs in the playoffs ;)

Stinkyoutsider
08-12-2013, 12:40 PM
It's very close, but I take Shaq...

Anyone who takes Shaq has to have some sort of confidence in their ability to keep him happy and with the team IMO.

Tim is extremely loyal but I think I would take Shaq this time.

todu82
08-12-2013, 12:41 PM
Shaq. One of the more dominant players ever.

Monta is beast
08-12-2013, 12:43 PM
Shaq, no doubt

Federal Reserve
08-12-2013, 12:49 PM
Tim Duncan has no personality. Shaq is the better player and entertainer.

ManRam
08-12-2013, 12:54 PM
I depends. I don't care about this "loyalty" stuff. Duncan almost bolted, and I'm sure he would have if he wasn't surrounded by some of the league's best...be it players, coaches, owners and management. Duncan was loyal to a team that you'd have to be a fool not to be loyal to. People have a remarkable ability to completely ignore context with these sorts of things.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 12:56 PM
Tim Duncan has no personality. Shaq is the better player and entertainer.

Based off what he gives to the media? Sure... But all of his teammates will tell you that's not the case, so I'd have to say that's false.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 12:58 PM
That year was all TD. Ginobli didn't develop til later, and Tony Parker was still a huge question mark if I remember correctly.

Oh and Steve Kerr raining 3's on the Mavs in the playoffs ;)

That was such an awesome moment to see him go nuts like that, against Dallas.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 01:44 PM
Quote Originally Posted by effen5:

"That year was all TD. Ginobli didn't develop til later, and Tony Parker was still a huge question mark if I remember correctly.

Oh and Steve Kerr raining 3's on the Mavs in the playoffs "

Response Post:
"
That was such an awesome moment to see him go nuts like that, against Dallas.

Three thoughts:
1) Yeah, that yeah it was TD = #1 and there was NO #1b or even #2 to his #1; he was a one-man wrecking-crew.
2) It was a special joy to watch Kerr go off like that - who knew, beforehand, that he'd show his earlier Bulls sharp-shooting AND in spades? What a gorgeous example of "inside-out" team-ball!
3) This reminds me of "MJ's Bulls": while he may not have had teammates from the All-Time Top 25; he DID have a near "perfectly complimentary system of teammates" for his 6 titles. (Please don't let this encourage us to go off topic here).

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:28 PM
As impressive/dominant as TD was in 03, who did he really have to face? I'd argue the Spurs finest competitors were the Nets. The Kings lost C-Webb, the Mavs lost Dirk and the reigning champs were injured/spent from a historic 3-peat and the internal turmoil that destroyed what should have been the greatest 1-2 punch in NBA history. I know its still Shaq and Kobe, but some context shouldn't be lost. Im not saying the Lakers shouldn't have won against them, Im just saying its more forgiving when you consider what they had just accomplished and how bad things were festering in the locker room.

Those are the breaks, Timmy gets full credit for the chip, but when you compare the way chips have been won by other stars, Timmy's competition that year is abit on the low side.

JordansBulls
08-12-2013, 03:24 PM
I depends. I don't care about this "loyalty" stuff. Duncan almost bolted, and I'm sure he would have if he wasn't surrounded by some of the league's best...be it players, coaches, owners and management. Duncan was loyal to a team that you'd have to be a fool not to be loyal to. People have a remarkable ability to completely ignore context with these sorts of things.

Even if true that Duncan was going to bolt, he at least stayed long enough for the franchise to have won a title for them. Shaq left even when he had a great team still and didnt provide his original franchise in Orlando a title.

JordansBulls
08-12-2013, 03:28 PM
better question is if u are a GM and have the no.1 pick, who would you choose, shaq or duncan?? i'll probobly go with shaq..

That is essentially the question.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 03:59 PM
As impressive/dominant as TD was in 03, who did he really have to face? I'd argue the Spurs finest competitors were the Nets. The Kings lost C-Webb, the Mavs lost Dirk and the reigning champs were injured/spent from a historic 3-peat and the internal turmoil that destroyed what should have been the greatest 1-2 punch in NBA history. I know its still Shaq and Kobe, but some context shouldn't be lost. Im not saying the Lakers shouldn't have won against them, Im just saying its more forgiving when you consider what they had just accomplished and how bad things were festering in the locker room.

Those are the breaks, Timmy gets full credit for the chip, but when you compare the way chips have been won by other stars, Timmy's competition that year is abit on the low side.

High Horse,
Another fine example of how good you (usually) are at putting things into their proper context. Thanx for this reminder.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 04:10 PM
The final game against the nets, David robinson went for 14 and 17. The Spurs were down 10 all game long and then with like 4 minutes left steve Kerr came in and hit 5 threes in a row and won the game. It was not all Duncan. That 2003 team had one great player in Tim, but about 8 other very solid players and the best coach in the league. They had super chemistry as well. I'd give Duncan more credit in 99 when he won his first when he IMO just barely outplayed Shaq in the playoffs and the Spurs swept the Lakers. Tim was disgustingly awesome in that playoff against the lakers, and he played Shaq better than I have seen anyone else play against him.

ManRam
08-12-2013, 04:14 PM
Even if true that Duncan was going to bolt, he at least stayed long enough for the franchise to have won a title for them. Shaq left even when he had a great team still and didnt provide his original franchise in Orlando a title.

With Shaq I think it's legit. If I'm the Bobcats I'm taking Duncan over Shaq and PRAYING he stays. Luckily today you can control players longer than you could back then with restricted FA. I do think Shaq would be more inclined to stay but I also don't think Duncan being loyal to San Antonio is a huge deal. He'd be an idiot not to be.


You just say stuff like this all the time, probably a jab at LeBron most of the time, like it matters. It usually doesn't. Some franchises are worth being loyal to more than others. The Spurs over the last 15 years are that franchise above all others. "Loyalty" isn't a black-and-white thing...there's too much more to it. You use players leaving the team that drafted them as a negative thing when comparing players...that's dumb 9.9 times out of 10.

flea
08-12-2013, 04:29 PM
As impressive/dominant as TD was in 03, who did he really have to face? I'd argue the Spurs finest competitors were the Nets. The Kings lost C-Webb, the Mavs lost Dirk and the reigning champs were injured/spent from a historic 3-peat and the internal turmoil that destroyed what should have been the greatest 1-2 punch in NBA history. I know its still Shaq and Kobe, but some context shouldn't be lost. Im not saying the Lakers shouldn't have won against them, Im just saying its more forgiving when you consider what they had just accomplished and how bad things were festering in the locker room.

Those are the breaks, Timmy gets full credit for the chip, but when you compare the way chips have been won by other stars, Timmy's competition that year is abit on the low side.

Beating the best dynasty of the last 25 years (not counting Jordan) is on the low side of competition? By that measure, every title won in the last 10 years has been with low competition (save for maybe the Heat's run this year, even though most of their run was through the cupcake East).

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 04:32 PM
The final game against the nets, David robinson went for 14 and 17. The Spurs were down 10 all game long and then with like 4 minutes left steve Kerr came in and hit 5 threes in a row and won the game. It was not all Duncan. That 2003 team had one great player in Tim, but about 8 other very solid players and the best coach in the league. They had super chemistry as well. I'd give Duncan more credit in 99 when he won his first when he IMO just barely outplayed Shaq in the playoffs and the Spurs swept the Lakers. Tim was disgustingly awesome in that playoff against the lakers, and he played Shaq better than I have seen anyone else play against him.

You are thinking of the Spurs playoff game against Dallas. (same year, but not the finals) It was Stephen Jackson/Speedy Claxton/Manu Ginobili who got hot against the Nets in that final game. But guess who was drawing a ton of double teams to find the open shooters...? It's why he (TD) had himself a near quadruple double that game (21/20/10/8) he was doing it all. He didn't do it alone of course, but people tend to overrate his supporting cast for that year.

5ass
08-12-2013, 04:59 PM
voted for duncan. Duncan will always work hard, never complain, and doesnt get into it with teammates or coaches. He's also much less of a headache come FA. Shaq is the better player in his prime though.

QUESION:
Who was better Shaq's 1st full season with the Suns or Duncan last season? Both were 36. I'll go with Duncan.

Lake_Show2416
08-12-2013, 05:07 PM
Duncan may have the longevity but u cant compare to Shaqs dominance, Shaq needs less around him to win

Tony_Starks
08-12-2013, 05:09 PM
Eh....they say that Orl lowballed Shaq....

there's also reports that LA sold Shaq on the idea coming to Hollywood before FA even started that year....

I'm gonna side with the fact that Shaq would have bolted for a large market eventually....I personally dont think he stays in Orlando for the bulk of his prime even if they didn't "lowball" him....

When you take into account Shaq talked his way out of LA then eventually talked his way out of Miami, burning bridges with both after winning chips, it paints a total picture. You couldn't get better management than those two organizations at the time. As great as he was he only started being humble when his career was in decline....

Chronz
08-12-2013, 05:37 PM
Beating the best dynasty of the last 25 years (not counting Jordan) is on the low side of competition? By that measure, every title won in the last 10 years has been with low competition (save for maybe the Heat's run this year, even though most of their run was through the cupcake East).


Maybe, I dont know. Off the top of my head that doesn't sound right but I guess it could be true but that wouldn't be my measure because my measure was inclusive of many variables unique to the Lakers, highly doubt that holds true for your time period. Nobody wins 4 in a row in this day and age man, Kupcake let the roster West built up degrade badly. If we were just focusing on talent and ignoring chemistry and health, then yes, the Lakers should have won, prolly like they should have won just about every year Kobe and Shaq were dominant, but its unfair to expect absolute perfection, expecting the Lakers to run the table every year is unrealistic no matter how sexy its top 2 players look. Kobe and Shaq were just not meant to last forever, they couldn't put aside their differences even if it did cost them in the end.

But off the top of my head, Duncans championship against Detroit, while not as individually impressive, saw far greater competition. Its one of those things where you have to decide whether to value historic individuality against slaying a team that is unequivocally on your level. Again, not trying to degrade Duncan, every chip has some luck to it afterall. And part of being the champion is being the last man standing, if you burn out too soon or dont monitor your players minutes, you will pay.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 05:56 PM
QUESION:
Who was better Shaq's 1st full season with the Suns or Duncan last season? Both were 36. I'll go with Duncan.

Yea same here, I dont think its even in question but that doesn't mean its not close (if that makes sense).

And while Shaq was 36, he did enter the league a year earlier. I wonder if Duncan FINALLY regresses this year. Its a shame Shaq didn't stay healthy for his final 2 years, he was actually still very productive.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 06:33 PM
You are thinking of the Spurs playoff game against Dallas. (same year, but not the finals) It was Stephen Jackson/Speedy Claxton/Manu Ginobili who got hot against the Nets in that final game. But guess who was drawing a ton of double teams to find the open shooters...? It's why he (TD) had himself a near quadruple double that game (21/20/10/8) he was doing it all. He didn't do it alone of course, but people tend to overrate his supporting cast for that year.

Wow, I had to go back and double check that one. Can't believe I misplaced that game by Kerr. Shame on me. And yes TD was amazing, but as Spurs fans we expected everything that he did by that point and he just played like the best player in the league. The Spurs were always a great defensive team though and that is always a huge help when you don't have much star power besides your main star. And David, although a shell of his former self was still a headache every other game for a team who had Jason collins as there starting center.

abe_froman
08-12-2013, 06:35 PM
Shaq needs less around him to win
how so? shaq was only on good teams(same as duncan)

albertajaysfan
08-12-2013, 06:51 PM
gotta love all your indirect jabs at lebron in every thread

I feel very confident in saying that post had nothing in it to do with Lebron. Seems to me he was talking about Shaq and Tim. Referring to how Shaq bailed on Orlando to go to LA.

But hey thanks for bringing Lebron into the conversation. Apparently every NBA thread needs to have him brought up in it regardless of how irrelevant it is to the conversation.

I take Shaq hands down. His dominance overshadows Timmy's loyalty in my opinion.

Bishnoff
08-12-2013, 07:01 PM
I voted without reading the initial post.

Without knowing how their respective careers would pan out: Shaq (which is how I voted)

Knowing how their respective careers would pan out: Duncan

LAKERMANIA
08-12-2013, 07:36 PM
I'd take TD since his decline wasn't as bad as Shaq's.. And no ego

ManRam
08-12-2013, 07:39 PM
I feel very confident in saying that post had nothing in it to do with Lebron. Seems to me he was talking about Shaq and Tim. Referring to how Shaq bailed on Orlando to go to LA.

But hey thanks for bringing Lebron into the conversation. Apparently every NBA thread needs to have him brought up in it regardless of how irrelevant it is to the conversation.

I take Shaq hands down. His dominance overshadows Timmy's loyalty in my opinion.

It didn't in this case...but JB does bring that up all the time when speaking about LeBron. People have the right to be paranoid. I genuinely think he brings that up all the time because he got it in his head as a way to discredit LeBron. I never heard JB mention this sort of stuff before LBJ left.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 08:22 PM
Wow, I had to go back and double check that one. Can't believe I misplaced that game by Kerr. Shame on me. And yes TD was amazing, but as Spurs fans we expected everything that he did by that point and he just played like the best player in the league. The Spurs were always a great defensive team though and that is always a huge help when you don't have much star power besides your main star. And David, although a shell of his former self was still a headache every other game for a team who had Jason collins as there starting center.

Yea D-Rob did a really fine job in spurts throughout that run. They had the right guys for that team to be successful. I think Duncan's ability to be so dominant on both ends (in this case) for so long is what separates him from Shaq.

bagwell368
08-12-2013, 08:49 PM
The final game against the nets, David robinson went for 14 and 17. The Spurs were down 10 all game long and then with like 4 minutes left steve Kerr came in and hit 5 threes in a row and won the game. It was not all Duncan. That 2003 team had one great player in Tim, but about 8 other very solid players and the best coach in the league. They had super chemistry as well. I'd give Duncan more credit in 99 when he won his first when he IMO just barely outplayed Shaq in the playoffs and the Spurs swept the Lakers. Tim was disgustingly awesome in that playoff against the lakers, and he played Shaq better than I have seen anyone else play against him.

Never said it was all Duncan in '03. A poster (I think it was you) said TD won his titles with 3 HOF'ers at his side. So I went over the 3 HOF's and explained why in that year none of them were playing HOF hoops. AFAIK Kerr is no HOF'er, so he doesn't count as one of the 3 HOF'ers. So, it's TD and a bunch of guys, NONE of them functioning as HOF'er but TD.

Bruno
08-12-2013, 09:52 PM
It's very close, but I take Shaq...

Anyone who takes Shaq has to have some sort of confidence in their ability to keep him happy and with the team IMO.

Tim is extremely loyal but I think I would take Shaq this time.

Jerry Buss and Pat Riley couldn't keep him happy. it takes a lot of arrogance or faith to think that anyone with enough chutzpah to deal with his enormous ego could have also been enough of a push over to keep him happy.

Bruno
08-12-2013, 09:53 PM
I can't believe the guy who played for six teams is winning over the guy who has been with the small market san antonio spurs since 1998, had just as good a career or better, who was more coachable, a harder worker, who actually took a pay-cut to keep his team competitive.

this is such a no brainer. :facepalm:

Bruno
08-12-2013, 10:00 PM
Shaq. Duncan has the longevity edge but Shaq has a MUCH greater, much more dominant peak. If he had more help in Orlando like say a healthy Penny, no doubt he wins 1 or 2 rings. Then still goes on to win a few more no matter where he ends up. Peak Shaq is the most dominant player in NBA history right there with Jordan. I'd rather have a 10 year title window with Shaq than a 15 year title window with the less dominant Duncan.

no he didn't go check their advanced lines. shaq peaks out marginally higher, not MUCH higher.

Bruno
08-12-2013, 10:03 PM
If you swap Duncan out and put Shaq on SAS would he win more titles?

If you swap Shaq out and put Duncan on ORL/LAL/MIA would he win more titles?

Duncan and Kobe would have ran a train in the NBA for a decade. That my friends would have been the perfect pairing.

More perfect than Shaq and any other wing player not named LeBron.

asandhu23
08-12-2013, 10:05 PM
Duncan. Better team mate. Doesn't need to dominate the ball to win.

Bruno
08-12-2013, 10:05 PM
I depends. I don't care about this "loyalty" stuff. Duncan almost bolted, and I'm sure he would have if he wasn't surrounded by some of the league's best...be it players, coaches, owners and management. Duncan was loyal to a team that you'd have to be a fool not to be loyal to. People have a remarkable ability to completely ignore context with these sorts of things.
shaq did have the best talent and he still bolted, twice.

How on earth can we not consider the fact that Shaqs been on six teams when we talk about who you'd rather build on?? The guy who's gona stay, or the guy who will leave? of course that matters, you're out-smarting yourself here.

CELTICS4LYFE
08-12-2013, 10:15 PM
Shaq all day!

odiz
08-12-2013, 10:19 PM
Id take Duncan because hes not a headcase and doesnt have en ego that can get in the way (Shaq-Kobe situation). But not because he 'stuck around with his team' like some people are saying. Duncan literally fell into the best situation a lottery pick has ever landed in. He got to play for a team that was immediate contenders and have surrounded him with elite talent his entire career. Its not a hard situation to stay in. If Shaq was drafted into the same situation I wouldnt be surprised to see him spend his entire career in San Antonio. Plus lets not forget Duncan very nearly left the Spurs right after winning a championship in 2000. In a different situation he would do exactly what every other elite player does and thats go to where they can win.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 10:24 PM
no he didn't go check their advanced lines. shaq peaks out marginally higher, not MUCH higher.

Shaq lead the league in PER 5 years in a row. and had a six year average of a 30 PER. Duncan's peak six year average PER was 26. To me that is big enough to say much.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 11:36 PM
Shaq lead the league in PER 5 years in a row. and had a six year average of a 30 PER. Duncan's peak six year average PER was 26. To me that is big enough to say much.

But he played a lot less games. When projecting value over a period that large and you're using PER, you have to convert to EWA, or you lose the impact of Shaq's injuries.

TheMightyHumph
08-13-2013, 12:00 AM
Assuming that NBA scouts know something about NBA basketball AND college basketball, I would have to believe that Duncan is the obvious choice.

Bostonjorge
08-13-2013, 12:03 AM
Duncan 03 had Parker Robison Bowen Steve smith Captain jack Manu and Kerr. Captain jack led the team in scoring 5 times. Kerr had that awesome forth quarter game. Parker was born in that playoffs especially in the lakers series. He became a all star during those playoffs. Parker battled against strawberry bibby nash and kid. Looked good to. Parker had no jump shot but got to the basket with a quick first step. Duncan was awesome thou he lead the team all across the board. Duncan's leadership is what made Parker but he was only a question mark before the playoffs.

TheNumber37
08-13-2013, 12:38 AM
Shaq because you can win with him and he is a more marketable athlete. If I'm trying to get my fans excited, it's Shaq all the way. If I play in Utah, It's Timmy D.

IndiansFan337
08-13-2013, 12:59 AM
Duncan. Look at the durability, plus his has always been the ultimate teammate. During Shaq's prime in LAL he was, at times, a difficult personality to play with.

3RDASYSTEM
08-13-2013, 01:17 AM
I can't believe the guy who played for six teams is winning over the guy who has been with the small market san antonio spurs since 1998, had just as good a career or better, who was more coachable, a harder worker, who actually took a pay-cut to keep his team competitive.

this is such a no brainer. :facepalm:

It doesn't matter that he played for 6 teams, are you kidding yourself?

JORDAN played for the wizards so that should tell you something about SHAQ playing for other teams other than Orlando or Lakers(see WILT for proof)

and once and finally for all I want to kill that stupid façade of SA being a 'small market' team, how are they a small market team when you have to count the entire market of TX? you don't think all of TX wasn't pulling for SPURS to beat HEAT outside of the few LEBRON fans? but I was pulling for DUNCAN also so it didn't matter to me since I don't root for teams only players no matter what role, but I know the best from the in between to avg style player

but since I played I tend to root for the player, its a player thing

SHAQ was labeled a modern day WILT, does that not ring a bell against any big man not named ALCINDOR-DREAM? even DROB could creep in that discussion as well as a EWING type

imagine if YAO/WALTON don't get career decimated by injuries

if people take SHAQ in a landslide it would be no different than taking WILT over RUSSELL(DUNCAN can score at higher clip) in a landslide

imagine if SHAQ played with KIDD/IVERSON and not the wannabe JORDAN? he would have avg 35-40ppg regardless of his FT woes

3RDASYSTEM
08-13-2013, 01:21 AM
no he didn't go check their advanced lines. shaq peaks out marginally higher, not MUCH higher.

Just check the game film, of course its close because we are talking about 2 of the best to ever do it on the hardwood but both went to FINALS 2nd year and while 1 lost and 1 won SHAQ didn't fold against the DREAM he held his own quite well while DUNCAN won in like 5, but I have to give the edge to SHAQ because he went up against twin towers and still handled his business, as well open it up for bean big time to go 1 on 1, major hardwood impact from SHAQ

95' FINALS against DREAM he put up 28ppg and basically 13rpg and 6apg, outstanding numbers in a any series no matter how long

3RDASYSTEM
08-13-2013, 01:32 AM
Duncan. Look at the durability, plus his has always been the ultimate teammate. During Shaq's prime in LAL he was, at times, a difficult personality to play with.

SHAQ took a lot of punishment(unfair at times), its reason why he put on all that weight to take it and dish it back during his LA stint, he was much leaner and still mean in ORL and at LSU, go check the game film

everybody just gets caught up in his LA stint because of the stupid 3 peat, but it is what it is I could care less because I know how to judge a players game/impact fully on eye test, the numbers(PER/WS%/eFG) are cute though, it adds seasoning to the already pot of gumbo

if a guy goes from getting 5 guys guarding him to doubled to tripled team he is a major threat at 7'2'' and 380lbs of athletic freak of nature,skilled also(not at FT's)

3RDASYSTEM
08-13-2013, 01:34 AM
Shaq lead the league in PER 5 years in a row. and had a six year average of a 30 PER. Duncan's peak six year average PER was 26. To me that is big enough to say much.

True

if you look at it from just a small different angle that's equivalent to a player averaging 30ppg and the next player avg 26ppg, a big big big gap for scoring title at any time of the season, or a player avg 10apg and the next at 6apg, or boards 10 per and the next 6per, I didn't even need you to show that to feel that way but good info indeed, I appreciate my reflection

3RDASYSTEM
08-13-2013, 01:37 AM
Shaq because you can win with him and he is a more marketable athlete. If I'm trying to get my fans excited, it's Shaq all the way. If I play in Utah, It's Timmy D.

Had SHAQ been drafted in the STOCKTON/KARL era it would have been ugly scary, many FINALS app on top of the 2 already accomplished by the UTAH duo, with SHAQ add 3-5 more easily and a different outlook on the duo career perception

carlthack
08-13-2013, 01:47 AM
Common everyday sports fans go with Shaq because he is more popular. Real basketball fans go with Duncan because he is always healthy, more dependable, better outside shooter, better free throw shooter and yes, more fundamentally sound.

And this is coming from a Laker fan.

naps
08-13-2013, 01:49 AM
totally. if wade didn't shoot 11/29 in games five and six of the 2005 ECF the heat could have given San Antonio a run for their money in the finals. ;)

What?? Wade didn't even play in game 6. Wade suffered a strained rib muscle in Game 5 of the Conference Finals that prevented him from playing in the series' sixth game and limited him in the seventh. He was destroying the mighty pistons before that as he scored 42 and 36 points in Games 2 and 3 respectively despite playing with sinusitis, the flu, and a knee strain. Miami swept previous 2 rounds. Yeah, too bad Wade got injured or else...SG ranking would have been written differently for all we know.



but seriously- everyone else other than shaq is to blame for shaqs lack of work ethic and all the problems he created with management in los angeles and miami? he disrespected buss and pat, two of the greatest minds in league history, and it's somehow their fault :confused:

I already said as a GM I would make sure it doesn't happen. Isn't a hypothetical thread where I can be the GM? How do you know I can't do fine what I am supposed to do?


you're too busy taking digs at kobe to look at this rationally.


Tell that to all the players that never wanted to play with Kobe and hated him with all their guts. There is a reason why. I don't take digs, I state what I believe and what I have observed over many many years. Prime Shaq needs to be surrounded with a unselfish, not me-first, and efficient guard. FACT.

bagwell368
08-13-2013, 11:49 AM
Interesting change in the polling over time. When I first came, it was 19 Duncan to 3 for Shaq. I wonder if the popularity/diff teams (thus more homers) has overcome small market SAS.

Bruno
08-13-2013, 12:28 PM
Shaq lead the league in PER 5 years in a row. and had a six year average of a 30 PER. Duncan's peak six year average PER was 26. To me that is big enough to say much.

shaq always took more shots than Duncan, PER favors shooting.

Both Shaq and Duncan lead the NBA in win-shares twice. For Shaqs career, you can't put together a single five year run where Shaq totaled more win-shares than Duncan did from 2001-2005 (Shaq leads slightly here in WS/48 but he played less games than Duncan and thus totaled less win-shares. For the playoffs, the inverse is true. Duncans peak five year run (2002-2006) in WS/48 can not be topped by any five year run in Shaqs post-season career (respective to WS/48, yes including his run from 2000-2004), however Shaq leads in total peak five year run playoff win-shares because his teams needed more games to close out teams.

thats a marginal peak advantage for shaq at best. Duncan was extremely dominant.

Bruno
08-13-2013, 12:37 PM
What?? Wade didn't even play in game 6. Wade suffered a strained rib muscle in Game 5 of the Conference Finals that prevented him from playing in the series' sixth game and limited him in the seventh. He was destroying the mighty pistons before that as he scored 42 and 36 points in Games 2 and 3 respectively despite playing with sinusitis, the flu, and a knee strain. Miami swept previous 2 rounds. Yeah, too bad Wade got injured or else...SG ranking would have been written differently for all we know.

game five and *seven. you and me can talk wade/kobe in some other thread some other time.


I already said as a GM I would make sure it doesn't happen. Isn't a hypothetical thread where I can be the GM? How do you know I can't do fine what I am supposed to do?
I don't buy it. Hypotheticals should still be grounded in some sense of reality for the sake of a valuable discussion. if pat and buss aren't keeping shaq happy then neither are you naps.


Tell that to all the players that never wanted to play with Kobe and hated him with all their guts. There is a reason why. I don't take digs, I state what I believe and what I have observed over many many years. Prime Shaq needs to be surrounded with a unselfish, not me-first, and efficient guard. FACT.

you're acting like they didn't have success. prime shaq needed to be surrounded by a dominant wing, and that's what he had, and that's why he and the Lakers racked three rings in a row (something only a few teams in NBA history have ever done).

you are taking digs, this thread has NOTHING to do with Kobe yet you still found a way to bring him up. i'm guilty of bringing up wade, but you started it lol

Bruno
08-13-2013, 12:39 PM
It doesn't matter that he played for 6 teams, are you kidding yourself?

JORDAN played for the wizards so that should tell you something about SHAQ playing for other teams other than Orlando or Lakers(see WILT for proof)

and once and finally for all I want to kill that stupid façade of SA being a 'small market' team, how are they a small market team when you have to count the entire market of TX? you don't think all of TX wasn't pulling for SPURS to beat HEAT outside of the few LEBRON fans? but I was pulling for DUNCAN also so it didn't matter to me since I don't root for teams only players no matter what role, but I know the best from the in between to avg style player

but since I played I tend to root for the player, its a player thing

SHAQ was labeled a modern day WILT, does that not ring a bell against any big man not named ALCINDOR-DREAM? even DROB could creep in that discussion as well as a EWING type

imagine if YAO/WALTON don't get career decimated by injuries

if people take SHAQ in a landslide it would be no different than taking WILT over RUSSELL(DUNCAN can score at higher clip) in a landslide

imagine if SHAQ played with KIDD/IVERSON and not the wannabe JORDAN? he would have avg 35-40ppg regardless of his FT woes

of course it does.

Bruno
08-13-2013, 12:42 PM
Just check the game film, of course its close because we are talking about 2 of the best to ever do it on the hardwood but both went to FINALS 2nd year and while 1 lost and 1 won SHAQ didn't fold against the DREAM he held his own quite well while DUNCAN won in like 5, but I have to give the edge to SHAQ because he went up against twin towers and still handled his business, as well open it up for bean big time to go 1 on 1, major hardwood impact from SHAQ

95' FINALS against DREAM he put up 28ppg and basically 13rpg and 6apg, outstanding numbers in a any series no matter how long
...and Duncan went up against Shaq, Kobe, LeBron James, and Ben Wallace and still handled his business. so what, you're isolating too much.

Bruno
08-13-2013, 12:50 PM
last words:

Duncan is absolutely one of the most underrated superstars in NBA history. In a thread where we are discussing who is the better player, or who had the better career, I have zero issue with someone taking Shaq over Duncan. None, I might even pick Shaq myself. But in a thread about who you'd build your team around? Things like the ability to be a team player for 15 years, taking pay-cuts to keep your team competitive, being coachable and not starting **** with people from your own organization, steady work-ethic, and team loyalty absolutely matter and that's why the results of these polls are a bit ridiculous. Just because it's a hypothetical doesn't mean we throw out all the off the court realities of the players being discussed.

:cheers:

bigmac8675
08-13-2013, 01:56 PM
I would be ecstatic with both... but give me Timmy D because of his non-polarizing personality

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:10 PM
Duncan and Kobe would have ran a train in the NBA for a decade. That my friends would have been the perfect pairing.

More perfect than Shaq and any other wing player not named LeBron.

Shaq and Tmac.... they were actually friends, loved Florida too.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:14 PM
...and Duncan went up against Shaq, Kobe, LeBron James, and Ben Wallace and still handled his business. so what, you're isolating too much.
Shaq actually went up against the twin towers at the same time. Surely you understand the imposing presence two centers would have on the interior.

Like remember when Duncan was defended by Sheed and McDyess with Ben roaming on the weakside. The Pistons held Duncan down for much of the series, to a degree that we've never seen anyone hold down Shaq. Thats what hes getting at.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 02:21 PM
totally. if wade didn't shoot 11/29 in games five and six of the 2005 ECF the heat could have given San Antonio a run for their money in the finals. ;)

but seriously- everyone else other than shaq is to blame for shaqs lack of work ethic and all the problems he created with management in los angeles and miami? he disrespected buss and pat, two of the greatest minds in league history, and it's somehow their fault :confused:

you're too busy taking digs at kobe to look at this rationally.

You're giving Riley too much credit imo and ignoring the fact that he was more than a GM, he was also his coach. He was a totalitarian, believe me when I say nobody on the Heat wants Riley to ever come back as a coach.

Shaq has iffy(not poor) work ethic but he wasn't without reason. He tried doing things Riley's way, slimming down and attempting to go hard for a meaningless regular season, which at his age is indefensible, it wasn't surprising that Shaq couldn't take the hits the same way he used to. Upon losing all that weight, he said all the little knicks and dings would linger longer. So the next season he gos back to his own ways, bulks back up, paces himself during the regular season and wins the chip in the process.

Oh yeah and Wade was hurt as well

MagicBucsSox
08-13-2013, 02:34 PM
The Diesel

bagwell368
08-13-2013, 03:03 PM
Shaq lead the league in PER 5 years in a row. and had a six year average of a 30 PER. Duncan's peak six year average PER was 26. To me that is big enough to say much.

Too bad PER is almost fatally flawed (rewards players for simply taking more FG's - even if they miss????). It also is far more of an offensive stat than D. If we assume that's a reasonable number for both on the offensive side, what's a D oriented stat going to show? That Duncan is one of the 8 best defenders ever to play the 5 or the 4 combined, and that Shaq is not anywhere close.

naps
08-13-2013, 05:48 PM
game five and *seven. you and me can talk wade/kobe in some other thread some other time.

Anytime man.


I don't buy it. Hypotheticals should still be grounded in some sense of reality for the sake of a valuable discussion. if pat and buss aren't keeping shaq happy then neither are you naps.

Buss kept him happy. It was Kobe who was the primary problem. The divorce was inevitable at that point because of their egos and one's extreme jealous of the other racking up all the deserved finals MVPs, Buss had no other choice but to make the smarter choice of keeping the much younger 25 year old star guard and letting the 32 year old superman go. And I am not gonna blame 4 time champion Shaq for being lazy at 35. He was treated like a king that when he was in LA. He had historically been lazy so at that point Riley had nothing to do with keeping a 35 year old 4 time lazy superstar in perfect shape. I bet if Riley had him at younger age Shaq would be a much hard worker. And just because others couldn't do it, you can't assume someone else can't do it. That's just your blind assumption dude. There is always first time for something.


you're acting like they didn't have success. prime shaq needed to be surrounded by a dominant wing, and that's what he had, and that's why he and the Lakers racked three rings in a row (something only a few teams in NBA history have ever done).

Ofcourse, they had success; We wouldn't be talking about it here otherwise. But they underachieved IMO. They should have won more and lord knows if Kobe didn't run him out we would be talking about how many rings they each has had...


you are taking digs, this thread has NOTHING to do with Kobe yet you still found a way to bring him up. i'm guilty of bringing up wade, but you started it lol

i didn't bring up Kobe. I said I would pick Shaq and make sure he's surrounded by a non-chucking me-first perimeter player. Where did I bring up Kobe? Kobe might fit the description of a glorified chucker but I wasn't necessarily thinking about Kobe when I wrote that.

Sly Guy
08-13-2013, 05:59 PM
career wise, I'd give duncan a slight edge, but if this were a draft day choice, it'd be shaq, every time. Fundamentals can be taught, that size can't be.

Denverbronco007
08-13-2013, 06:28 PM
Shaq. Shaq was in his prime was the most dominant big man of all time. Forget the stats. He changed the way they made backboards.

Denverbronco007
08-13-2013, 06:29 PM
If Shaq caught the ball in the low post forget about it.

Hawkeye15
08-13-2013, 06:30 PM
Shaq makes it so much easier to build your team. Defenses did almost nothing but account for him, making the rest of the roster easier to piece together.

And I don't mean that as a slight to Timmy, he is a top 8 player ever.

JordansBulls
08-14-2013, 07:46 AM
If the players are close overall why would you take the player that is more likely to abandon your franchise high and dry to go elsewhere? Isn't the reason you are drafting the player because you want him to lead your franchise to a title?

Big Zo
08-14-2013, 10:19 AM
If the players are close overall why would you take the player that is more likely to abandon your franchise high and dry to go elsewhere? Isn't the reason you are drafting the player because you want him to lead your franchise to a title?

Who's to say Duncan wouldn't have left if he wasn't surrounded by a great team, and great coach?

SteBO
08-14-2013, 11:12 AM
I understand the Duncan vouchers, but I gotta go Shaq here. I still believe that he's the one guy in his prime, where you could've paired any top wing player with him and they'd win titles including the AI's and T-Mac's of the world. But there's something to be gained having a guy in Duncan with your franchise who'll do anything to win, and has refined skill set that doesn't necessarily rely power and prime athleticism (it's become so obvious that he's aged about as well as you can get in a sport where athleticism is important). You're kinda splitting hairs here, but in the end I'll take Shaq.....

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 01:13 PM
career wise, I'd give duncan a slight edge, but if this were a draft day choice, it'd be shaq, every time. Fundamentals can be taught, that size can't be.

Shaq didn't learn the fundamentals very well however.

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 01:14 PM
If Shaq caught the ball in the low post forget about it.

Unless you hacked him and put him on the line - a very serious flaw

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:04 PM
Unless you hacked him and put him on the line - a very serious flaw
Where he proceeds to hit 50%, which is still 1PPP

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 03:11 PM
Where he proceeds to hit 50%, which is still 1PPP

In the last 5 possessions in a tie game, say a random TOV or fumbled rebound and 4 1PPP is liable to lose you the game against a quality opponent in the 3PT era if the other team also has 5 possessions.

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:23 PM
In the last 5 possessions in a tie game, say a random TOV or fumbled rebound and 4 1PPP is liable to lose you the game against a quality opponent in the 3PT era if the other team also has 5 possessions.
Getting FT also allows your defense to get set so its also a defensive advantage on top of 1ppp, which isn't bad in the clutch.

I mean what do teams score in clutch situations? You really think they score at a higher rate than 1PPP? I HIGHLY doubt it. The only time its a "serious" weakness is when you need to come back from larger deficits with little time remaining. And people like to say Shaq makes them when it counts, which could be true but also sounds like a fairy tale to me. Shaq makes them at random because thats what he does IMO, sometimes hes hit big FT other times hes missed, thats the nature of the game IMO but whatever the case, its clearly not a HUGE weakness.. A serious weakness to me is something that takes hold for more than 1% of the game if the situation calls for it. Like say, Duncans inability to thoroughly dominate offensively. Shaq's defense is far closer to matching Duncan than Duncans offense can touch Shaq's, that gos double for KG, whos game was susceptible to shrinking come playoffs.

lukass
08-14-2013, 09:43 PM
I always hated on Shaq but id take him! He is the most dominant player of all time

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 10:15 PM
I always hated on Shaq but id take him! He is the most dominant player of all time

In their own time Wilt was way more dominant. More NBA rules were changed to make it harder for him than probably all other players combined all time.

Guys like Jordan actually had rules softened to make it easier for them.

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 10:24 PM
Getting FT also allows your defense to get set so its also a defensive advantage on top of 1ppp, which isn't bad in the clutch.

I mean what do teams score in clutch situations? You really think they score at a higher rate than 1PPP? I HIGHLY doubt it. The only time its a "serious" weakness is when you need to come back from larger deficits with little time remaining. And people like to say Shaq makes them when it counts, which could be true but also sounds like a fairy tale to me. Shaq makes them at random because thats what he does IMO, sometimes hes hit big FT other times hes missed, thats the nature of the game IMO but whatever the case, its clearly not a HUGE weakness.. A serious weakness to me is something that takes hold for more than 1% of the game if the situation calls for it. Like say, Duncans inability to thoroughly dominate offensively. Shaq's defense is far closer to matching Duncan than Duncans offense can touch Shaq's, that gos double for KG, whos game was susceptible to shrinking come playoffs.

Of course in 9 of Shaq's years in the playoffs he had FT% under .500, including:

.393 in 12 games
.429 in 22 games
.374 in 23 games

hmmmm....

lukass
08-14-2013, 10:38 PM
In their own time Wilt was way more dominant. More NBA rules were changed to make it harder for him than probably all other players combined all time.

Guys like Jordan actually had rules softened to make it easier for them.

well yeah look at the guys Wilt was going against. Shaq was going at some of the best centers of all time with exception of Kareem...Russell was a PF

Pablonovi
08-16-2013, 02:13 AM
well yeah look at the guys Wilt was going against. Shaq was going at some of the best centers of all time with exception of Kareem...Russell was a PF

What I'm seeing is (mostly) very serious and well-reasoned arguments for both players. AND, in most cases it seems to me, it is NOT driven by homer-ism. What this tells me is that the separation between the two must be small. Myself I go back and forth; I settled on Shaq because imo his peak was greater, his dominance (including of the Duncan-Robinson monster twin-towers was undeniable, AND I think HYPOTETHICALLY that he could have been forced to improve his conditioning (and some other things); while with Duncan, where the hell are you gonna improve - he's almost perfect?! Shaq just had more (way more) to work with.

Still, it was what it was (in Shaq's case) and is what it is (in Timmy's case); and, countering myself, I virtually ALWAYS go with the better teammate and Timmy wins that hands down.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So given that HINDSITE IS 20-20 VISION: This is what I (the great "me" hehe) as Shaq's (& Kobe's) team-owner would have done. I would have sat them both down, separately first and then together and spelled out "the law":

"Here's THE DEAL, GUYS. Both of you are going to play for my team, for OUR city, OUR fans and for the WORLD's NBA FANS, TOGETHER FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 YEARS. During that time, we will win a minimum of 8 or so Championships. Each of you will win 4+ fMVP's. (Probably the first 3-4 will go to you Shaq; then the next 3-4 will go to you Kobe.) IF we are in this 100% together, you each will achieve all your most cherished individual and TEAM goals (and I'll own my own GOAT BANK and you will be two of my wealthiest lifetime customers.). But each of you WILL FEEL that you got the better of the deal than I will; why? Because, again IF WE 3 ARE TRULY A TEAM, then there will never be a NBA GOAT discussion that you two both are NOT a part of. ...

"Now let me explain the other HALF of why this is an offer you can't refuse. Each of you has all of 5 minutes to agree with this deal by signing this little piece of paper. IF you DON'T, I'll David-Stern not one but both of you out of THE NBA AND any other league AND any other possible gainful employment FOR BOTH OF YOUR MISERABLE LIVES. Have I made myself clear?"

And "it would have come to pass" ...

bagwell368
08-16-2013, 09:55 AM
well yeah look at the guys Wilt was going against.

Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Kareem... yeah all HOF'ers, and all guys that would be Centers now. Also Bill Russell, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, and Wes Unseld all guys that would be PF's now and also in the HOF. Given that when Wilt started playing there were only 7 other teams - up to 16 shortly before he retired that's a pretty good list.

BTW sometimes now, 10 years ago, and 10 years before that PF covered C's and visa versa.


Shaq was going at some of the best centers of all time with exception of Kareem...Russell was a PF

Pablonovi
08-16-2013, 12:24 PM
Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Kareem... yeah all HOF'ers, and all guys that would be Centers now. Also Bill Russell, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, and Wes Unseld all guys that would be PF's now and also in the HOF. Given that when Wilt started playing there were only 7 other teams - up to 16 shortly before he retired that's a pretty good list.

BTW sometimes now, 10 years ago, and 10 years before that PF covered C's and visa versa.

I personally saw a great majority of Wilt's televised games (and when I wasn't quite old enough to fully appreciate them, my dad truly enlightened me (in the good sense of the word =he truly was an "anti-homer"; he didn't root for any team; he DID always root for great plays and great players playing great.)). Not one of them got into the HOF out of any backward sentiment (like sympathy for having been endlessly but unintentionally humiliated by their friend the Stilt). These were world-class athletes; completely capable of competing in other, later eras; heck, in our current era, they'd all be full-time starters and perennially All-Stars. Even Dwight Howard at his best would have gotten ZERO DOY awards (or any other ones). Although, just EXACTLY as "bags" says, some of them would be PFs. Heck, on offense, Cowens was a mini-stretch 4; and the Big "E" and Bellamy WERE fully STRETCH 4s before the term was even imagined.

I 100% attest to every single guy mentioned here by "bags" - the guy knows more than I've forgotten!

Oh, and another thing. Don't EVEN IMAGINE that Wilt was not a HUGE DEFENSIVE FORCE! Career-wise he out-rebounded Russell himself. My greatest NBA-viewing thrills (from the pre-Dr.J-KAJ-Magic-Bird-MJ period) MOSTLY involve Wilt: swatting a ball (and the attached player) out of the air like a fly; SKYING even to the top of the backboard! for rebounds; not to mention an offensive move or 10,000 (sweet and/or shockingly powerful). And My All-Time Favorite NBA MOMENT, BAR NONE, was the time Elgin went up for a one-handed monster slam; Wilt came up to monster-crush him, Elgin, somehow still hangin' and floatin', flipping the ball to his other hand AND DUNKING THE F_CK out of the thing! If I hadn't of seen it, I wouldn't have ever believed it possible!

Wilt ALTERED way more shots than did Big Bill; probably more shots than the rest of the League combined. The ONLY reason people don't go off about his incredible defense is two-fold:

a) His Offense was just not-of-this-planet awesome; AND
b) Russell specialized in precision-team defense - among several aspects was that an amazingly high percent of his blocks ended up (not accidentally) in the hands of one of his team's primary ball-handlers (and it was off to the races - a thing of sheer beauty).

Then there's something bagwell unintentionally left out: When there's fewer teams, you play each one of them more times; so with the plethora of quality Big Men in that Era Of Centers & Big Men, and particularly when there were 10 teams or even 8 teams, he was battling career-wise 46 minutes a night, REGULARLY, against these monster-talents (and who, except for him (mostly) tended to play a significant lesser amount of minutes, thus getting some relief from back-ups).

IKnowHoops
08-16-2013, 04:14 PM
shaq always took more shots than Duncan, PER favors shooting.

Both Shaq and Duncan lead the NBA in win-shares twice. For Shaqs career, you can't put together a single five year run where Shaq totaled more win-shares than Duncan did from 2001-2005 (Shaq leads slightly here in WS/48 but he played less games than Duncan and thus totaled less win-shares. For the playoffs, the inverse is true. Duncans peak five year run (2002-2006) in WS/48 can not be topped by any five year run in Shaqs post-season career (respective to WS/48, yes including his run from 2000-2004), however Shaq leads in total peak five year run playoff win-shares because his teams needed more games to close out teams.

thats a marginal peak advantage for shaq at best. Duncan was extremely dominant.

Its still about the totality of what they do. Carmelo took more shots than Lebron and out scored Lebron and still wasn't anywhere close to Lebron in PER so Shaq didn't beat out Duncan just because he shot more. He made more at a higher percentage too. Don't turn that into a slight on Shaq by saying he shot more. Terrible.

Bruno
08-16-2013, 04:25 PM
Its still about the totality of what they do. Carmelo took more shots than Lebron and out scored Lebron and still wasn't anywhere close to Lebron in PER so Shaq didn't beat out Duncan just because he shot more. He made more at a higher percentage too. Don't turn that into a slight on Shaq by saying he shot more. Terrible.

yes, yes it is. thats why Shaq doesn't have a single five year run that tops Duncan in win-shares. the only thing thats terrible is you comparing melo and lbj to make some kind of half point.

PER favors shot takers. that is a fact that isn't disputed. lets talk win-shares if you wana have a discussion on "totality".

Bruno
08-16-2013, 05:13 PM
IKnowHoops, youve been in here for 30 minutes I'm excepting a behemoth rebuttal :laugh2:

chronz and naps I saw you guys, ill get back in here when I get a minute.

Bravo95
08-16-2013, 05:18 PM
You could see early that Shaq loved the big stage, so if I'm running a mid/small market club, I already know he might be on the first thing smoking outta town when his rookie deal is up. If everything isn't in place to build a contender quickly, I'll take TD.

IKnowHoops
08-16-2013, 08:24 PM
yes, yes it is. thats why Shaq doesn't have a single five year run that tops Duncan in win-shares. the only thing thats terrible is you comparing melo and lbj to make some kind of half point.

PER favors shot takers. that is a fact that isn't disputed. lets talk win-shares if you wana have a discussion on "totality".

Shaq didn't beat out Duncan just because he shot more. He made more at a higher percentage too.

Iggz53
08-16-2013, 09:13 PM
I barely picked Duncan because of his superior ability to make other players around him better on both ends. But, the off-court factor can't be ignored. Duncan for sure.

bagwell368
08-16-2013, 09:14 PM
Shaq didn't beat out Duncan just because he shot more. He made more at a higher percentage too.

Yup. Too bad he frittered a lot of that away with his FT shooting. If Shaq shot FT as well as TD, he'd have 1863 more career points - oooooooooooof!

Also Duncan having a deeper range and a more varied palette of shots, and a better ability to pick out the right pass, he caused more trouble for the D besides 3' from the basket like Shaq, and created arguably more shots for his teammates.

Bozeman
08-16-2013, 10:17 PM
Check those 3 years in LA when they the rings. Duncan never had a dominant/consistent impact on the game like that ever. That is what tips the scales for me.

IKnowHoops
08-16-2013, 10:20 PM
Yup. Too bad he frittered a lot of that away with his FT shooting. If Shaq shot FT as well as TD, he'd have 1863 more career points - oooooooooooof!

Also Duncan having a deeper range and a more varied palette of shots, and a better ability to pick out the right pass, he caused more trouble for the D besides 3' from the basket like Shaq, and created arguably more shots for his teammates.

No player not named Wilt got as much attention from the Defense as Shaq. And Shaq's one dimesional game with misses from the free throw line included, still produced more points on a higher scoring efficiency.

IKnowHoops
08-16-2013, 10:24 PM
If you weren't able to watch Shaq, no stat alone will tell the story about his dominance. You must watch a few game film at the very least. Watch his second and third year in the league when he was at orlando.

Bozeman
08-16-2013, 10:37 PM
Shaq was dominant no doubt. I mean gameplans were designed to stop him in some way and nobody could figure it out. He was a force in the paint that could not be stopped.

Im not taking away from Duncan because he is great as well, but no way does he compare to shaq career wise and stat wise at all.

The better teammate thing is flawed as well. You know how many free shots on the perimeter shaq gave his team? You know how much space opened up for his teammates because he was constantly paid attention to and double teamed? Shaq didn't get along with one guy and that was kobe, other than him most everybody loved him as a teammate.

Reversed86Curse
08-17-2013, 08:20 AM
gotta love all your indirect jabs at lebron in every thread

JB's comment reeks of Shaq. Shaq was a ring chaser (by trade demands) before it was cool.

Reversed86Curse
08-17-2013, 08:41 AM
I take Duncan all day. Shaq was a one dimensional offensive player that relied on strength to be effective. Defense was limited to blocks and presence. Totally useless late in a close game.

Duncan on the other hand could space the floor, hit jumpers and had/still has a beautiful post game. Less points per game, but the stas speak for the self. http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=duncati01&y1=2013&p2=onealsh01&y2=2011

bagwell368
08-17-2013, 09:25 AM
No player not named Wilt got as much attention from the Defense as Shaq. And Shaq's one dimesional game with misses from the free throw line included, still produced more points on a higher scoring efficiency.

Scoring isn't the entirety of "offense". There is passing. There is longevity/lack of injuries. There is the ability to be multi-functional on O vs single pole. Even if Shaq wins the dominance argument on offense, he doesn't win the all around/longevity/team friendly aspects of TD's game.

Then on D? TD is probably the greatest defensive big of all time not named Russell and Hakeem, and Shaq isn't anywhere near that career wise. He had some big years early but his weight/effort turned him into a slow lumbering doesn't give a crap defender later on.

This thread is for all aspects of a player, not just offensive dominance inside of 3.5'.

Badluck33
08-17-2013, 09:59 AM
I think Shaq was the most dominant Center during an 8-10 year stretch which is very hard to find. Duncan was Great for 16 years and still is playing today.

So its basically asking would you rather have a Dominant guy for 8-10 years or a great player for 16.

They both won 4 titles so they both are proven winners.

I'd go with Duncan just so my team can be competitive for a longer period of time, which is what the San Antonio Spurs have done. After Shaq left Miami and did his stops around the country, he didn't play the same. Lakers Shaq was probably the most dominant Center we have seen in the past 25 years. Miami Shaq was still good but a few notches lower than during his time in LA. Both are awesome players in their own right, however, I give the slight edge to Duncan due to the fact that he has kept the Spurs so competitive for the past 16 years and won 4 titles.

IKnowHoops
08-17-2013, 01:33 PM
Scoring isn't the entirety of "offense". There is passing. There is longevity/lack of injuries. There is the ability to be multi-functional on O vs single pole. Even if Shaq wins the dominance argument on offense, he doesn't win the all around/longevity/team friendly aspects of TD's game.

Then on D? TD is probably the greatest defensive big of all time not named Russell and Hakeem, and Shaq isn't anywhere near that career wise. He had some big years early but his weight/effort turned him into a slow lumbering doesn't give a crap defender later on.

This thread is for all aspects of a player, not just offensive dominance inside of 3.5'.

Yes, Duncan did some things better than Shaq, shaq did some things better than duncan. At there best Shaq was better on Defense and Offense. Ive only seen Shaq get dunked on once in his prime. Duncan has been pounded on a lot. Noone protected the rim with more ferocity than Shaq did. Duncan was on a better defensive team. David Robinson was a better defensive player than Duncan. Look at there best seasons in blocks. I love Duncan but if David Robinson was able to come into the league like Tim did he would of won the same amount of rings as Tim if not more. Davids teams during his prime years were nothing compared to the teams Tim had.

flea
08-17-2013, 01:53 PM
Even at his best Shaq wasn't as good as Duncan defensively - and I'm not even taking into account that Duncan can guard 2 positions at a very high level. Please get out of here with that.

Catoblepas
08-17-2013, 02:21 PM
In todays NBA? Duncan. Only because how horrible the rules have changed to.
Shaq if you mean around their draft years.

The game these days is too offense focused. It pisses me off to see flops and weak *** calls. It's way too hard to play strong physical Defense.

Anyway, Shaq might have had better years in his last few if they didn't call every Elbow he threw.

Guys wouldn't be slicing through the lane unstoppable from half court if Hand checking wasn't so touchy.

bagwell368
08-17-2013, 03:07 PM
Yes, Duncan did some things better than Shaq, shaq did some things better than duncan. At there best Shaq was better on Defense and Offense. Ive only seen Shaq get dunked on once in his prime. Duncan has been pounded on a lot. Noone protected the rim with more ferocity than Shaq did. Duncan was on a better defensive team. David Robinson was a better defensive player than Duncan. Look at there best seasons in blocks. I love Duncan but if David Robinson was able to come into the league like Tim did he would of won the same amount of rings as Tim if not more. Davids teams during his prime years were nothing compared to the teams Tim had.

No, Shaq was never as good as Duncan defensively. He had some vignettes sure. But ever since Cowens Centers have to be guarded up to 18' from the hoop and Shaq had no mobility even in his prime to cover a Center who had an inside/outside game.

Blocks are like steals, they tell but a small story, BTW, don't they have the same career per game blocks numbers? I imagine Duncan has a lot more steals. Hakeem had more blocks than either, and more steals per game than Duncan I am almost sure and a pile more steals than Shaq. Yet that's just part of the story.

David Robinson is one of the 15 greatest players of all time, maybe higher. His chief flaw is that he had a face up game, but no low post back to the basket game. His career was short due to the Navy as well. Robinson was also a better defender than Shaq, and like the others was really no match for a prime Hakeem.

IKnowHoops
08-17-2013, 07:57 PM
No, Shaq was never as good as Duncan defensively. He had some vignettes sure. But ever since Cowens Centers have to be guarded up to 18' from the hoop and Shaq had no mobility even in his prime to cover a Center who had an inside/outside game.

Blocks are like steals, they tell but a small story, BTW, don't they have the same career per game blocks numbers? I imagine Duncan has a lot more steals. Hakeem had more blocks than either, and more steals per game than Duncan I am almost sure and a pile more steals than Shaq. Yet that's just part of the story.

David Robinson is one of the 15 greatest players of all time, maybe higher. His chief flaw is that he had a face up game, but no low post back to the basket game. His career was short due to the Navy as well. Robinson was also a better defender than Shaq, and like the others was really no match for a prime Hakeem.

See this is what makes me think Bagwell is not this 60 year old dude he claims to be. This right here is funny. Prime Shag is quicker, faster and more athletic than prime duncan. You would know that if you watched them play.

Pablonovi
08-18-2013, 12:26 AM
See this is what makes me think Bagwell is not this 60 year old dude he claims to be. This right here is funny. Prime Shag is quicker, faster and more athletic than prime duncan. You would know that if you watched them play.

Hey IKnowHoops,
This is kind of an amazing comment about bagwell's age. On the one hand, seeing as Shaq was sill in his Peak some 10 years ago, bags would have to be what age to NOT have watched him play???

On the other hand, he KNOWS the same sh__ I know; he remembers like I remember it. When he opens up his encyclopedia of a mind about those relatively early NBA days, I recognize it cause I lived it. I don't think there's enough video available from back then to have anybody be able to fake what he seems to know. It's settled, he's 60!

OceanSpray
08-18-2013, 03:40 AM
Duncan. Duncan can still play and has accomplished just about the same if not more.

Bruno
08-18-2013, 05:25 PM
No, Shaq was never as good as Duncan defensively. He had some vignettes sure. But ever since Cowens Centers have to be guarded up to 18' from the hoop and Shaq had no mobility even in his prime to cover a Center who had an inside/outside game.

Blocks are like steals, they tell but a small story, BTW, don't they have the same career per game blocks numbers? I imagine Duncan has a lot more steals. Hakeem had more blocks than either, and more steals per game than Duncan I am almost sure and a pile more steals than Shaq. Yet that's just part of the story.

David Robinson is one of the 15 greatest players of all time, maybe higher. His chief flaw is that he had a face up game, but no low post back to the basket game. His career was short due to the Navy as well. Robinson was also a better defender than Shaq, and like the others was really no match for a prime Hakeem.

Bags this where you could mention defensive win-shares to end the argument (but you've bashed the statistic in other threads). Duncan will be second in total defensive win-shares in NBA history behind Bill Russell twenty games into next season. He has almost 30 more defensive win-shares than Shaq for his career and he's still going. Players like Jason Kidd and Hondo have more career defensive win-shares than Shaq.

as you know, just because Shaq was a dominant physical presence doesn't mean he worked that hard on defense throughout his career, or was a versatile defender who was willing to go out to the top of the key to guard jump shooting bigs; he was very lazy about that amongst several other things "Dog doesn't get fed he doesn't defend the house" BS

Someone want to explain to me why Shaq is nearly 30 defensive win-shares behind Wilt, KAJ, Duncan, KG, Hakeem and of course Russell who's got him by about 60 defensive win-shares? Even Ewing, Karl Malone, and David Robinson top Shaq by considerable margins.

what we witnessed throughout his career is reflected in his defensive-win share, imo.

bagwell368
08-18-2013, 08:57 PM
See this is what makes me think Bagwell is not this 60 year old dude he claims to be. This right here is funny. Prime Shag is quicker, faster and more athletic than prime duncan. You would know that if you watched them play.

I never said Shaq wasn't a real good defensive player in his earlier days. But career wise Duncan blows him away, and even prime 5 years no order, it's questionable that Shaq is better than Duncan. As far as more athletic? Lay off the pipe...

bagwell368
08-18-2013, 09:07 PM
Bags this where you could mention defensive win-shares to end the argument (but you've bashed the statistic in other threads). Duncan will be second in total defensive win-shares in NBA history behind Bill Russell twenty games into next season. He has almost 30 more defensive win-shares than Shaq for his career and he's still going. Players like Jason Kidd and Hondo have more career defensive win-shares than Shaq.

as you know, just because Shaq was a dominant physical presence doesn't mean he worked that hard on defense throughout his career, or was a versatile defender who was willing to go out to the top of the key to guard jump shooting bigs; he was very lazy about that amongst several other things "Dog doesn't get fed he doesn't defend the house" BS

Someone want to explain to me why Shaq is nearly 30 defensive win-shares behind Wilt, KAJ, Duncan, KG, Hakeem and of course Russell who's got him by about 60 defensive win-shares? Even Ewing, Karl Malone, and David Robinson top Shaq by considerable margins.

what we witnessed throughout his career is reflected in his defensive-win share, imo.

Whoa. I've been very tough on Win Shares before the early 70's because the data available to figure it is so weak, the results are easy to overturn. Go check the way they figure it out, not very encouraging.

I like win shares - but - you have to be careful to look at the wins of the teams of players you are comparing - the amount of games the players played, and the minutes they played. If it's too far off then you have to work out the differences.

Bruno
08-18-2013, 09:26 PM
Whoa. I've been very tough on Win Shares before the early 70's because the data available to figure it is so weak, the results are easy to overturn. Go check the way they figure it out, not very encouraging.

I like win shares - but - you have to be careful to look at the wins of the teams of players you are comparing - the amount of games the players played, and the minutes they played. If it's too far off then you have to work out the differences.

i got ya.

SPURSFAN1
09-12-2013, 01:45 AM
TD was injured one time during the lakers 3peat. Shaq throwing out crazy numbers on bad teams. From 2003-2008 we had the ability to win a championship every year and just last 2 years we've been in the finals and conference finals. TD wins this hands down. Shaq couldn't guard TD. in TDs career he could have won between 4-8 championships. He put himself in those situations. TD top 5 player all time.

SPURSFAN1
09-12-2013, 01:46 AM
and we're a small market team that couldn't go over the salary cap many times while the lakers outspent everyone to have loaded rosters.

PurpleLynch
09-12-2013, 06:47 AM
I'd take Shaq,even if Duncan is the best Pf of all time Imo. We know him very well as a player and he was unstoppable at his peak,but you have to put on the table that he brings fans,sponsors,international fans and generally a lot of money. So Shaq imo is the way to go.

Heatcheck
09-12-2013, 02:04 PM
Duncans a soldier, quiet, leads by example and could stretch the floor better. I feel like I have more options with Duncan as far as gameplay and team chemistry.

Chronz
09-12-2013, 03:05 PM
and we're a small market team that couldn't go over the salary cap many times while the lakers outspent everyone to have loaded rosters.
Point? Spurs were still stocked too

SPURSFAN1
09-12-2013, 03:08 PM
Point? Spurs were still stocked too

all the players we had weren't amazing at their time. duncan carried everyone. we could have had way bigger names with more skill at the time.

SanAntonioSpurs23
09-12-2013, 03:46 PM
Duncan

/thread

Pablonovi
09-12-2013, 05:21 PM
Check those 3 years in LA when they the rings. Duncan never had a dominant/consistent impact on the game like that ever. That is what tips the scales for me.

When I think about Shaq (which is kind of often); I remember mostly his Awesome All-Time Top-5 PEAK; and in particular, his games/series against the Spurs Monster Twin Towers (Robinson-Duncan). NO ONE ever dominated either of those two like Shaq dominated BOTH of them simultaneous during his peak. They didn't slow him down at all - and they were two of the greatest players ever; and playing excellent ball during that period. What other player ever, dominated the next best TWO players at their position simultaneously?!

So, in response to the OP question:
I draft Shaq, keep him for his first 10 years then trade him for Duncan for his next 10. Win-Win All the way.

DallasTrilla23
09-12-2013, 06:59 PM
Shaq was probably the more dominant player but you look at Duncan's career and how he was able to remain relevant as he got older and you have to pick Tim.

Tim is also way more loyal. He would of never left the Orlando team that shaq left.

Chronz
09-12-2013, 07:06 PM
all the players we had weren't amazing at their time. duncan carried everyone. we could have had way bigger names with more skill at the time.
All the players? Of course all the players on your team werent amazing. Still stacked. You could have had bigger names, and you almost did add them, luckily for you guys they wound up on their teams and you guys continued with the winning formula.

smith&wesson
09-12-2013, 07:18 PM
shaq. fairly easily.

smith&wesson
09-12-2013, 07:20 PM
all the players we had weren't amazing at their time. duncan carried everyone. we could have had way bigger names with more skill at the time.

really ?

ya your right the spurs werent stacked at all :rolleyes: thats why they are reffered to as a dynasty. ive never heard of one single player being reffered to as a dynasty :laugh2:

if shaq was drafted by the spurs and spent his entire career playing for pops and with guys like robinson, parker, gino, bowan, etc. etc. he would probably have 6 rings or more..

SPURSFAN1
09-12-2013, 07:57 PM
really ?

ya your right the spurs werent stacked at all :rolleyes: thats why they are reffered to as a dynasty. ive never heard of one single player being reffered to as a dynasty :laugh2:

if shaq was drafted by the spurs and spent his entire career playing for pops and with guys like robinson, parker, gino, bowan, etc. etc. he would probably have 6 rings or more..

He did win 2 mvp's in 2002 and 2003. Those guys get it because they carry their teams beyond expectations. you act like it was mvp prime robinson, 2011 gino 2013 tony and well bowen averaged 6 points per game. they we're a dynasty because of tim duncan whether you like it or not. if we spend another 25 mil a year just think of how greater the team would be.

Pablonovi
09-12-2013, 08:14 PM
He did win 2 mvp's in 2002 and 2003. Those guys get it because they carry their teams beyond expectations. you act like it was mvp prime robinson, 2011 gino 2013 tony and well bowen averaged 6 points per game. they we're a dynasty because of tim duncan whether you like it or not. if we spend another 25 mil a year just think of how greater the team would be.

Hey SPURSFAN1,
That's the source of possible MOST of what Lakers' fans are hated for most: They "forget" that their team (my team for the past 55 years; but I have not tended to forget this key fact) has almost always out-spent all the other teams; and that's hard to beat, isn't it.

Pablonovi
09-12-2013, 08:27 PM
So given that the Poll doesn't allow for a Draft Shaq for 10 years then trade him for Duncan for Timmy's next 10; how should I vote? Pretty decent toss up.

In hind sight, if I was Papa Buss, I would have forced Shaq and Kobe to co-exist; and then this discussion would have been moot; because they would have won 8 Chips in 10 years, with each getting about 4 fMVPs, and 4 as 1b to the other.

What fools they all werer: Phil, Kobe (more so), Shaq (much more so), Buss (most of all so; afterall he had the (almost unlimited) money.

SPURSFAN1
09-12-2013, 08:27 PM
Hey SPURSFAN1,
That's the source of possible MOST of what Lakers' fans are hated for most: They "forget" that their team (my team for the past 55 years; but I have not tended to forget this key fact) has almost always out-spent all the other teams; and that's hard to beat, isn't it.

i know. they seem to forget that they outspend everyone while other teams get scraps and have to make tough decisions on who to keep. look at okc. if that team was in LA, i sure bet you harden stays and it wouldn't be that big of a deal. the spurs have been frugal throughtout those dynasty years while paying tim those big bucks.

Pablonovi
09-12-2013, 08:45 PM
i know. they seem to forget that they outspend everyone while other teams get scraps and have to make tough decisions on who to keep. look at okc. if that team was in LA, i sure bet you harden stays and it wouldn't be that big of a deal. the spurs have been frugal throughtout those dynasty years while paying tim those big bucks.

Hey SPURSFAN1,
Agree 100% about Harden. That just isn't fair. OKC built a decade-long powerhouse; they should have been able/allowed to keep that team together; would have been exciting as hell to see that young group grow up together, maturing, adjusting, exploding.

jam
09-12-2013, 09:20 PM
Shaq all the way.

Pablonovi
09-12-2013, 09:28 PM
Shaq all the way.

Hey jam,
You know, I can't really argue against this.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone can make a truly reasonable case that career-wise (NOT Peak-wise) that the gap between Shaq and Duncan (in whichever direction anyone might choose) is that big. They were/are both awesome; pretty much in EVERYBODY's All-Time GOAT Top 10.

ddt
09-13-2013, 02:09 AM
It's hard to say... If I had to choose my starting 5 roster of all time...

I think Timmy "The Big Fundamental," would be my starting PF. Shaq on the other hand has got some competition...

FlashBolt
09-13-2013, 02:31 AM
No wrong answer to this. It would honestly depend on your preference of the game. The "clearly" and "easily" needs to be excluded. These two are so similar that they each have a case. I have it 51% Shaq, 49% Tim. Shaq was the better player in his prime, but Tim's career was just far more impactful.

BRADfromOZ
09-13-2013, 04:31 AM
Duncan because Shaq will have moved on to another team before he we win. Timmy will be with out team till the day he retires.