PDA

View Full Version : PSD NBA All-Time Player Power Rankings: #5 TIEBREAKER



HandsOnTheWheel
09-29-2017, 03:31 PM
Take into account careers (Accolades/Rings/Awards/Accomplishments/Peak/Longevity) of each of the available players and take your pick

2 options here are Shaq and Duncan for the tiebreaker

kdspurman
09-29-2017, 07:01 PM
Timmah

Chronz
09-29-2017, 07:04 PM
3peat mvp

Go

More-Than-Most
09-29-2017, 07:44 PM
duncan

JAZZNC
09-29-2017, 08:43 PM
Duncan, I'm sorry but longevity absolutely matters in this type of discussion.

naps
09-30-2017, 02:04 AM
Love Tim Duncan but gimme Shaq here.

tredigs
09-30-2017, 07:56 AM
The '03 victor.

mrblisterdundee
09-30-2017, 10:51 AM
Shaq was more gifted. Duncan was more committed.

Heediot
09-30-2017, 12:58 PM
duncan

Chronz
09-30-2017, 06:56 PM
Duncan, I'm sorry but longevity absolutely matters in this type of discussion.

Malone doesn't get it from me in a conversion vs a superior player like Chuck.

Neither should Duncan.

Longevity?

I'd argue that Shaq was better for longer, he came in younger and his run of terror was only truly over after his runner up mvp finish. So from ages 20-32, we have the significantly more dominating player and its not like Shaq was chopped liver thereafter.

Having you guys tell it, its as if Duncan was this dominating player but the dude was done winning titles as a cornerstone just like old Shaq with Wade, both suffered embarrassing first round defeats too .
He was undoubtedly better during those stages but I fail to see why that should matter than how great they actually were during the most important phases of their careers.

mrblisterdundee
09-30-2017, 07:23 PM
I don't understand how this is even a tiebreaker situation. Duncan and O'Neal both played 19 seasons. Duncan has an additional:
Championship.
MVP award.
All-NBA team selection.
12 selections to the all-defensive team.
185 games played.
17 percent on on his free throw percentage.
2,000 rebounds, 1,200 assists and 300 blocks.

The potential of O'Neal was way higher. But Duncan was the better two-way big man.

Chronz
09-30-2017, 08:18 PM
I don't understand how this is even a tiebreaker situation. Duncan and O'Neal both played 19 seasons. Duncan has an additional:
Championship.
MVP award.
All-NBA team selection.
12 selections to the all-defensive team.
185 games played.
17 percent on on his free throw percentage.
2,000 rebounds, 1,200 assists and 300 blocks.

The potential of O'Neal was way higher. But Duncan was the better two-way big man.

Potential? You speak as if we don't have evidence of Shaqs actual historic production. What you offered is a pretty lazy summation of a career imo.

MVP awards and career tallies are basically indicative of health, help, competition and longevity. Shaq was less durable, in part because of the sheer force he played with but at his apex, he brought it come playoffs, so break it down year by year, point out which years Duncan was actually better. You'll find it's mostly the years he really didn't do anything himself.

mrblisterdundee
10-01-2017, 12:45 AM
Potential? You speak as if we don't have evidence of Shaqs actual historic production. What you offered is a pretty lazy summation of a career imo.
MVP awards and career tallies are basically indicative of health, help, competition and longevity. Shaq was less durable, in part because of the sheer force he played with but at his apex, he brought it come playoffs, so break it down year by year, point out which years Duncan was actually better. You'll find it's mostly the years he really didn't do anything himself.

"Take into account careers (Accolades/Rings/Awards/Accomplishments/Peak/Longevity) of each of the available players and take your pick," the original post says.
That's exactly what I did, and Duncan was clearly a superior, two-way big man with more longevity. Shaq had a higher peak, but he wasn't a consistently great defensive anchor. It's not a coincidence Duncan made 12 more all-NBA defensive teams.
Congratulations on using the "help" and "competition" arguments on a guy who played for the Lakers with Kobe, often going against the same teams as the Spurs in the playoffs. As far as health playing a factor: Duh.

More-Than-Most
10-01-2017, 01:47 AM
Potential? You speak as if we don't have evidence of Shaqs actual historic production. What you offered is a pretty lazy summation of a career imo.

MVP awards and career tallies are basically indicative of health, help, competition and longevity. Shaq was less durable, in part because of the sheer force he played with but at his apex, he brought it come playoffs, so break it down year by year, point out which years Duncan was actually better. You'll find it's mostly the years he really didn't do anything himself.

the thing with shaq and potential... shaq had more potential than anyone not named bron but Shaq got fat and lazy and relied soley on his size as his career went on... Had he worked his *** off and did his thing he could have been even more dominant and longer... its why kobe had hate for shaq and rightfully so.

FlashBolt
10-01-2017, 02:41 AM
Chronz defends Shaq+T-Mac like Wade03 defends Wade.. no point in arguing. Just state your case and move on.

Dade County
10-01-2017, 08:55 AM
Shaq

Chronz
10-01-2017, 04:51 PM
Chronz defends Shaq+T-Mac like Wade03 defends Wade.. no point in arguing. Just state your case and move on.

Lol nobody has been arguing. There is no point in any of this but you can pretend whatever you wish but running away solves nothing

Chronz
10-01-2017, 04:54 PM
the thing with shaq and potential... shaq had more potential than anyone not named bron but Shaq got fat and lazy and relied soley on his size as his career went on... Had he worked his *** off and did his thing he could have been even more dominant and longer... its why kobe had hate for shaq and rightfully so.

That's a gross misconception and Shaq knows his body better than anyone, Kobe included. Even if we pretend you have a point, unrealized potential doesn't matter one iota when the other player was still inferior in actuality. Bron never reached his potential either imo, prolly less skilled than Shaq for his position but that's for another debate

valade16
10-01-2017, 06:04 PM
Malone doesn't get it from me in a conversion vs a superior player like Chuck.

Neither should Duncan.

Longevity?

I'd argue that Shaq was better for longer, he came in younger and his run of terror was only truly over after his runner up mvp finish. So from ages 20-32, we have the significantly more dominating player and its not like Shaq was chopped liver thereafter.

Having you guys tell it, its as if Duncan was this dominating player but the dude was done winning titles as a cornerstone just like old Shaq with Wade, both suffered embarrassing first round defeats too .
He was undoubtedly better during those stages but I fail to see why that should matter than how great they actually were during the most important phases of their careers.

Shaq finished Top 10 in MVP votes for 13 seasons, Duncan for 12 (those Duncan's were 15 years apart).

But this is kind of the same as your argument of T-Mac/Vince right where T-Mac has more All-NBA 1st and 2nd teams in the same time period.

Duncan won 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1 while both were at their apex.

Chronz
10-01-2017, 06:13 PM
Shaq finished Top 10 in MVP votes for 13 seasons, Duncan for 12 (those Duncan's were 15 years apart).

But this is kind of the same as your argument of T-Mac/Vince right where T-Mac has more All-NBA 1st and 2nd teams in the same time period.

Duncan won 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1 while both were at their apex.
True but that's more a result of comp and durability, which factors in less with Tmac and vc considering their careers inter lapped whereas Shaq spent a good portion of his career before Duncan ever entered the league.

There's a glaring discrepancy between tmac and Vince, one seen by all measures, not so here. Tmac played like an all timer for a short while, entertaining my thought, tmac vs vc is like comparing a top 50 vs a top 100 player where as Shaq and Duncan are literally ranked right next to each other in my top 10.

Chronz
10-01-2017, 06:15 PM
To all the dieticians out there, which years was Shaq fat?

mrblisterdundee
10-01-2017, 11:59 PM
To all the dieticians out there, which years was Shaq fat?

Shaq purposely added weight his first year in Los Angeles to be more dominant in the post. But by the end of his stint there, he'd gone past 375 pounds. That was too much:

According to the LA Times, by 2002 Shaq was soaking his feet in a concoction of milk and ice after games to get rid of the burning sensation caused by capsaicin, a cream he rubbed on his feet each game to rid himself of the pain he'd started to experience on the court.
...
Shaq's fluctuating weight was a major factor in his departure from the Lakers in 2004. Lakers owner Jerry Buss said later that he had no regrets about trading Shaq to Miami because of his significant weight gain.
...
Beginning with the 2001-2002 season, Shaq played over 70 games in a season just twice, as foot injuries and other pains took their toll, partially because of his increased mass.
- Jordan Zirm, Stack.com (http://www.stack.com/a/remember-when-shaq-was-ripped-and-super-athletic-heres-how-he-put-on-so-much-weight)

Heediot
10-02-2017, 06:34 AM
To all the dieticians out there, which years was Shaq fat?

he's been fat for a while, you've seen him on tnt? I kid....

tredigs
10-02-2017, 09:16 AM
To all the dieticians out there, which years was Shaq fat?
04-10 -- don't be silly. Shaq was never top 5 or in the discussion. Revisionist history be damned.

KnicksorBust
10-02-2017, 11:34 AM
Question: Does Duncan get any credit for playing for the same team for his entire career and being a tremendous teammate and leader?

valade16
10-02-2017, 12:43 PM
True but that's more a result of comp and durability, which factors in less with Tmac and vc considering their careers inter lapped whereas Shaq spent a good portion of his career before Duncan ever entered the league.

There's a glaring discrepancy between tmac and Vince, one seen by all measures, not so here. Tmac played like an all timer for a short while, entertaining my thought, tmac vs vc is like comparing a top 50 vs a top 100 player where as Shaq and Duncan are literally ranked right next to each other in my top 10.

I agree that the disparity between T-Mac and Vince in terms of accomplishments (and ability) is more pronounced.

Here was their MVP award shares by year FWIW (Shaq/Duncan)

98: 4 | 5
99: 6 | 3
00: 1 | 5
01: 3 | 2
02: 3 | 1
03: 5 | 1
04: 6 | 2
05: 2 | 4

So it seems 5/8 times Duncan was voted higher and 3/8 Shaq voted higher. Now that was probably due to Shaq's inability to play a full season so we're sort of also getting into the debate of how much health should factor.

Just the perception of back then it seemed was everyone acknowledged Shaq when healthy and focused was the best player in the league, he just kept having issues with weight, motivation, injuries, Kobe, etc. that kept him from duplicating his 00 regular season, otherwise he likely would have won a lot more MVPs.

Heediot
10-02-2017, 01:43 PM
Question: Does Duncan get any credit for playing for the same team for his entire career and being a tremendous teammate and leader?

This. This is why I would take him on my team after Jordan.

FlashBolt
10-03-2017, 03:06 PM
Lol nobody has been arguing. There is no point in any of this but you can pretend whatever you wish but running away solves nothing

I think a certain few have already made valid arguments for Tim on this and the other thread. Most people just value longevity and dominance on both ends. As good as prime Shaq was, it was only for a handful amount of years in which he was truly unstoppable. That period was when his physical genes was enough to compensate for his laziness. He stopped being truly dominant and you could sense it starting from 03.

Duncan has been dominant his entire career. Offensively, he has been the focal point. Defensively, it was a crime that he has never had a DPOY award despite his impact. I wouldn't care if anyone put Shaq above Timmy but I believe that Timmy should get the nod.

Chronz
10-04-2017, 12:03 PM
Shaq purposely added weight his first year in Los Angeles to be more dominant in the post. But by the end of his stint there, he'd gone past 375 pounds. That was too much:

So 1 year. The year he suffered an injury and quite frankly should've been out for much longer than he chose to. That was the ONLY year in which he was "out of shape " with every other year being symptomatic. He shed that weight from 03 going into 04 and again into 05, by 06 he was sick of guys like Riley telling him what shape to be in and he won his final title on his terms. After that he had the coast year and got back into shape thereafter. In fact he shed so much weight in Cleveland his teammates were cracking jokes about slim fast Shaq. This notion that he was supremely heavy is spread by the laymen

Chronz
10-04-2017, 12:04 PM
04-10 -- don't be silly. Shaq was never top 5 or in the discussion. Revisionist history be damned.
You're bring ridiculous

Bring some facts to the table

Chronz
10-04-2017, 12:05 PM
I think a certain few have already made valid arguments for Tim on this and the other thread. Most people just value longevity and dominance on both ends. As good as prime Shaq was, it was only for a handful amount of years in which he was truly unstoppable. That period was when his physical genes was enough to compensate for his laziness. He stopped being truly dominant and you could sense it starting from 03.

Duncan has been dominant his entire career. Offensively, he has been the focal point. Defensively, it was a crime that he has never had a DPOY award despite his impact. I wouldn't care if anyone put Shaq above Timmy but I believe that Timmy should get the nod.
Nobody has argued.

Chronz
10-04-2017, 12:16 PM
Thanks for the recount fellas. Wasted time but I made my protest clear, Duncan can't hold Shaq jockstrap throughout their best days, but because Duncan had a few role player years he's better. Lmfao y'all are lost

FlashBolt
10-04-2017, 12:18 PM
Thanks for the recount fellas. Wasted time but I made my protest clear, Duncan can't hold Shaq jockstrap throughout their best days, but because Duncan had a few role player years he's better. Lmfao y'all are lost

You're bringing your KD hatred to every thread now. It's getting awfully annoying.

valade16
10-04-2017, 12:24 PM
Thanks for the recount fellas. Wasted time but I made my protest clear, Duncan can't hold Shaq jockstrap throughout their best days, but because Duncan had a few role player years he's better. Lmfao y'all are lost

I don't know where you're getting this from but when Shaq was dropping 30 PPG | 15 RPG | 3 APG | 2.5 BPG | 56 TS% in the playoffs Duncan was dropping 25 PPG | 15 RPG | 5 APG | 3.5 BPG | 57 TS%

Duncan's peak advanced stats are arguably better than Shaq's (certainly equal).

Even their playoff head to head favors Duncan (25 PPG to 22 and 13 RPG to 12.8). Heck, when facing each other Duncan has the 4 highest scoring days between them.

So what actual evidence do you have to provide that Shaq was unquestionably better during his peak than Duncan?

FlashBolt
10-04-2017, 12:55 PM
I don't know where you're getting this from but when Shaq was dropping 30 PPG | 15 RPG | 3 APG | 2.5 BPG | 56 TS% in the playoffs Duncan was dropping 25 PPG | 15 RPG | 5 APG | 3.5 BPG | 57 TS%

Duncan's peak advanced stats are arguably better than Shaq's (certainly equal).

Even their playoff head to head favors Duncan (25 PPG to 22 and 13 RPG to 12.8). Heck, when facing each other Duncan has the 4 highest scoring days between them.

So what actual evidence do you have to provide that Shaq was unquestionably better during his peak than Duncan?

You could make an argument that Tim actually outplayed Shaq in their h2h playoff history.. But that's besides the point. This isn't a Tim vs Shaq debate but a who had the better career...