Tim Duncan is greater than Shaq, and here are the numbers to PROVE it

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

If Duncan wins 2 more championships and Shaq doesn't win another championship then I don't see the problem with Duncan>Shaq.

BTW We should never compare MVP's. Shaq should without a doubt have at least 3 MVP's.

[2LeTTeRS KD]

Duncan is a great, but you can't deny he's had a relatively easy path to the finals annd did so with very few lasting memories (besides his 3 that was trumped by the Lakers 3 years back). Not discounting his greatness but he never had the type of impact of Shaq, putting up his numbers quietly and while always contributing rarely having a real dominance. No matter how many titles or MVPs he puts up I will never be able to look at him as a better or greater player than Shaq.

[poeticism707]

[poeticism707]

[ZHAKIDD532]

shaq was once the most dominant player on the planet....

exactly, Duncan never had that dominant mentality. Shaq is the all time better player. Duncan will sustain his production longer though I think, he's definitly in better shape. He can play and be productive until he's 40, Shaq is about 34 and he's on a big decline.

[Shep]

i've said it before, i'll say it again: no, tim duncan is not greater than shaq, but he will be if he leads his team to another championship.

for people arguing shaq should have more mvp's, you're right, but only one more for '01. duncan on the other hand has won 2 mvp's but should have 4

[funkylikemonkey]

The best part about both these players is that they have a trait that can't be described with numbers. They make whatever team they're on better and here you are, comparing them with numbers.

[Timmy D for MVP]

exactly, Duncan never had that dominant mentality. Shaq is the all time better player. Duncan will sustain his production longer though I think, he's definitly in better shape. He can play and be productive until he's 40, Shaq is about 34 and he's on a big decline.

So Duncan should go on to be greater than Shaq right? Because if he sustains this level of play throughout his entire career, then he should be considered greater right? Plus there's a chance he'd win more rings in that period because that is another 9 years.

[RidonKs]

I suppose it comes down to how you want to build an alltime list. With 'greater' players, or with 'better players'. I prefer listing the 'better players' because I think that's what matters the most. The way I might make an all-time list is to see the list of every player who has ever played in the NBA, and choose who I would want to start a team with, for one year. Who's that one guy I would choose over everyone else, to lead me to a championship, if they're all in their primes.

Here's an extreme example.

Player A
2 season played, 2 championships, 2 season MVP's, 2 Finals MVP, 1st team 2 times, 1st defensive team 2 times, 45/22/9/3/6 on 50%/80%

Player B
14 seasons played, 6 championships, 3 season MVPs, 5 Finals MVP's, 1st team 8 times, 1st defensive team 5 times, 24/12/3/1/3 on 48%/75%

So Player A is just ridiculously dominant, but only played two years, He was forced to stop for whatever reason (motorcycle accident we'll say), but during the time he played, there was simply no one better. He is easily the 'better' player.

Player B on the other hand, has virtually every major accomplishment you can think of, and he has them in spades. Stats kind of look like Duncan's, but they pale in comparison to that of Player A's stats. He's definitely the 'greater' player, thanks to his awards, but certainly worse than Player B on an individual level.

I'm probably in the majority here, but I'd have Player A ranked higher on my alltime list. Despite missing out on longevity, he was quite simply the more dominating player over the time he played, and I would easily want him on my team over Player B.

That's my thinking anyways, Perhaps it's slightly scewed, but it's just my opinion. Thus, despite Duncan racking up more and more hardware (if he does), I'll always say Shaq was better, simply because during the time when both were at their best, the reality was that he was the better player. And he'll remain that way, despite Duncan's trophy case being (and constantly getting) fuller.

[dejordan]

I suppose it comes down to how you want to build an alltime list. With 'greater' players, or with 'better players'. I prefer listing the 'better players' because I think that's what matters the most. The way I might make an all-time list is to see the list of every player who has ever played in the NBA, and choose who I would want to start a team with, for one year. Who's that one guy I would choose over everyone else, to lead me to a championship, if they're all in their primes.

Here's an extreme example.

Player A
2 season played, 2 championships, 2 season MVP's, 2 Finals MVP, 1st team 2 times, 1st defensive team 2 times, 45/22/9/3/6 on 50%/80%

Player B
14 seasons played, 6 championships, 3 season MVPs, 5 Finals MVP's, 1st team 8 times, 1st defensive team 5 times, 24/12/3/1/3 on 48%/75%

So Player A is just ridiculously dominant, but only played two years, He was forced to stop for whatever reason (motorcycle accident we'll say), but during the time he played, there was simply no one better. He is easily the 'better' player.

Player B on the other hand, has virtually every major accomplishment you can think of, and he has them in spades. Stats kind of look like Duncan's, but they pale in comparison to that of Player A's stats. He's definitely the 'greater' player, thanks to his awards, but certainly worse than Player B on an individual level.

I'm probably in the majority here, but I'd have Player A ranked higher on my alltime list. Despite missing out on longevity, he was quite simply the more dominating player over the time he played, and I would easily want him on my team over Player B.

That's my thinking anyways, Perhaps it's slightly scewed, but it's just my opinion. Thus, despite Duncan racking up more and more hardware (if he does), I'll always say Shaq was better, simply because during the time when both were at their best, the reality was that he was the better player. And he'll remain that way, despite Duncan's trophy case being (and constantly getting) fuller.

so, just out of curiosity, would you rank a guy like walton over ewing / robinson / etc because his mvp season was so outstanding (according to all the old-timers he was head and shoulders above the competition that year)?

[20 Dimes A Game]

You can't PROVE anything with numbers, read the thread that someone posted a bit ago and then come back and argue your case, you can't just go on numbers.

[RidonKs]

I didn't see Walton play at all, and I only saw Ewing and Robinson at the but end of their careers. I don't have the knowledge to make that call.

However, just looking at stats, Bill's MVP year was hardly what I'd call 'dominating'. 19/15/5/2? Meh. Even if he was considered the best player in the league at the time, that line isn't any better than Robinson's 30/11/5/2/3 line, or Ewing's 29/11/2/4 line from their best years. So no, Walton's probably not better. Not to mention the fact that (I think -- you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) the center position was much better during the years Robinson and Ewing put up their numbers than it was when Walton was having the year of his life.

If I had've seen them play, and saw Walton dominating to the extent that Hakeem or Shaq might've been doing it, then yeah, I'd probably have Walton much higher. I didn't though, and that's why I've never actually made my own all-time list. I don't have enough information.

[dejordan]

I didn't see Walton play at all, and I only saw Ewing and Robinson at the but end of their careers. I don't have the knowledge to make that call.

However, just looking at stats, Bill's MVP year was hardly what I'd call 'dominating'. 19/15/5/2? Meh. Even if he was considered the best player in the league at the time, that line isn't any better than Robinson's 30/11/5/2/3 line, or Ewing's 29/11/2/4 line from their best years. So no, Walton's probably not better. Not to mention the fact that (I think -- you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) the center position was much better during the years Robinson and Ewing put up their numbers than it was when Walton was having the year of his life.

If I had've seen them play, and saw Walton dominating to the extent that Hakeem or Shaq might've been doing it, then yeah, I'd probably have Walton much higher. I didn't though, and that's why I've never actually made my own all-time list. I don't have enough information.

i didn't see him either, so i'm in the same boat. he gets a ton of love from people i respect though. anyway, i don't have a problem with this manner of gauging players. i think it's a little dumb to rank a guy like carter behind someone like sam jones who, while he was one of the greatest sgs of his era, couldn't defend vince with a step ladder and a taser. on the other hand you have to give guys their due for what they've accomplished in their time.

[RidonKs]

That's why I think two lists are needed. With one list, you don't really even have to have seen all the players play, because you can just go by stats, awards (while checking out their competition -- as we've seen in this thread must be done), championships, etc. That would be a list for the 'greatest' players.

The list for the 'better players' would have to be made by guys who have actually watched these players play though, because theat's the only way to accurately gauge just how good these guys were individually. You look at Nash, you see numbers that don't really make you 'wow' like you would with other great players, you look at his teammates, who're definitely quite good, and should get credit for a lot of the wins with the Phoenix team, and you can easily come to the conclusion that he's not that good, and that he isn't worthy of any MVP's, let alone two. However, having watched him come into his own in Phoenix, I know that he's a tremendous player who does deserve his accolades.

Some things you just can't tell from stats and awards, regarding who was actually the better player between two guys, and that's why I think ranking two lists (better and greater) is just a more accurate way to do things.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Well there in lies the key, while one player may be better that donesn't make him greater. Because it's all about how you use your talent. Tim Duncan is a basketball genious, and he has the ability to put that basketball IQ to use. That's what makes him great.