If Duncan wins #5, will people start rating his career above Shaq?

[rmt]

If I was starting a team today and Shaq and Tim were in the draft and I had the number one pick I'd take Duncan. Shaq was awesome at his best but had a way of throwing teams under the bus.

Sure Shaq had his greater (offensive) peak, but pretty much everything else is in Duncan's favor. Who wants headaches? Instead, the GM gets hard work/effort every night, stability, a franchise player who seemingly gets along with everyone - just plug in the role players around him. I really think that the ability of players to grow and develop under Duncan is under rated and I'm so happy that he is aging gracefully. He just seems to do everything the "right" way and whatever it takes to win.

[Big#50]

Sure Shaq had his greater (offensive) peak, but pretty much everything else is in Duncan's favor. Who wants headaches? Instead, the GM gets hard work/effort every night, stability, a franchise player who seemingly gets along with everyone - just plug in the role players around him. I really think that the ability of players to grow and develop under Duncan is under rated and I'm so happy that he is aging gracefully.

I knew Tim would be this type of player in his later years. I think he plays till 40. His game is perfect for an old big man.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Duncan will NEVER move ahead of Shaq imo. One is a boring funadmental player yet effective, product of the SAS/Pop system, and the other is the most dominant force the NBA will ever see.

[TMT]

People saying Shaq was better than Duncan purely because of physical dominance, the same reasoning can be used to say LeBron is better than Jordan. Personally I don't think either of these things.

[Da_Realist]

People saying Shaq was better than Duncan purely because of physical dominance, the same reasoning can be used to say LeBron is better than Jordan. Personally I don't think either of these things.

Lebron has never been more physically dominant than Jordan. If, of course, you mean "physical dominant" = "unstoppable" like most people do when they refer to Shaq's peak.

[Pointguard]

Duncan didn't have the traditional aid that marked other dynasties. The formula that marked most other winners - Duncan didn't inherit:

1. A winning tradition. No.
2. A winning coach. No. Pop was 17 and 47 before Duncan
3. A great organization from top to bottom. No. But they got it together.
4. An all star second player. Kind of NOT. One could argue Dave Robinson and TP another year. Neither was great over the course of 90 games played.
5. A great rebounder or above average scorer to compliment. No
6. A great shooter or very dependable shooter. No.
7. A grit and grind type of worker. No. For the first two chips yes but not afterwards.
8. A great talent or top skilled or very gifted player in some way. No, but D Rob does qualify one year despite being past his prime.

I do think Duncan had great extra defenders in the years he won. He also had clutch players. But a lot is taken for granted about the Spurs. Even last year they had the best record in the league and really collapsed when Duncan had his injuries. Had Duncan been in a more dynastic situation he wins more than Shaq without question to me. Duncan had a way of being the dynasty while Shaq teams had the dynasty formula, talent and organization. Amazing when you think about it.

To me most great players win once or twice in an average setting. Very few win four. Shaq had more great settings than any modern player.

[Da_Realist]

Duncan didn't have the traditional aid that marked other dynasties. The formula that marked most other winners - Duncan didn't inherit:

1. A winning tradition. No.
2. A winning coach. No. Pop was 17 and 47 before Duncan
3. A great organization from top to bottom. No. But they got it together.
4. An all star second player. Kind of NOT. One could argue Dave Robinson and TP another year. Neither was great over the course of 90 games played.
5. A great rebounder or above average scorer to compliment. No
6. A great shooter or very dependable shooter. No.
7. A grit and grind type of worker. No. For the first two chips yes but not afterwards.
8. A great talent or top skilled or very gifted player in some way. No, but D Rob does qualify one year despite being past his prime.

I do think Duncan had great extra defenders in the years he won. He also had clutch players. But a lot is taken for granted about the Spurs. Even last year they had the best record in the league and really collapsed when Duncan had his injuries. Had Duncan been in a more dynastic situation he wins more than Shaq without question to me. Duncan had a way of being the dynasty while Shaq teams had the dynasty formula, talent and organization. Amazing when you think about it.

To me most great players win once or twice in an average setting. Very few win four. Shaq had more great settings than any modern player.

Good points, but the year Pop went 17-47 David Robinson only played 6 games.

[D.J.]

If I'm underestimating Wallace, then you're underestimating Duncan's defensive presence in the paint and low-block.

No I'm not. In the nearly 4 years I've been here, I've defended Duncan numerous times when getting the short end of the stick compared to other greats. As great and dominant as he was in his prime, his dominance is not even close to Shaq's...and I don't even like Shaq and I'm admitting this.

I saw Bird play. Your previous post was almost entirely based on Shaq's physical advantage. Bird wasn't a physical monster yet here are the praises.

And Shaq's dominance wasn't all about his freakish size and strength. He developed a nice hook shot, improved his patience, became a smarter player, and improved his footwork over time. Those have nothing to do with his size and strength.

And Bird gets the praises because of his abilities on the court. I've already listed what he did.

Also would you like to take a look what happened in Game 7 of 2005 NBA Finals? 2005 Pistons was one of the top 5 defensive teams in the 00s and Duncan draw the entire team's attention. You remember Bird's games because he was one of the saviors of NBA and you do not remember Duncan's one because his under the radar style. You're underrating and underestimating Duncan.

Now your homer side is starting to come out. I remember both their good games because I saw them both. Here's a Duncan game I remember; Game 6 against my Nets in '03. He put up a near quadruple double. Game 1 against the Nets(32/20/7/6)? How about Game 6 against the Lakers that same year(37/16/4/2)? Game 6 against the Lakers in '02 in a losing effort(34/25/4)? I most certainly remember his great games, whether in wins or losses. Think twice before you talk out of your ass.

And if you want to talk about the Pistons, you listed 1 game. Not good if you're trying to prove a point.

[Pointguard]

Good points, but the year Pop went 17-47 David Robinson only played 6 games.

And it was mid season as well... so the players weren't in his state of mind as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's assumed that Duncan would co-exist more with young Kobe better than Shaq because he didn't have as big of an ego. I wonder if Tim had enough ego to keep Kobe in check. The way Kobe wanted to play ball would have nullified a lot of what made the Spurs special. Kobe needed to be reigned in a little to win. Would Duncan have done that or just quietly allowed Kobe to run the team into the ground?

LA had some advantages that San Antonio didn't.

1) Phil Jackson. Pop's confrontational style would have brought out the absolute worst in Kobe. PJ would needle him then back off, without challenging Kobe's fragile ego too much. Also, PJ coached Michael Jordan and that meant the world to Kobe.

2) It wasn't just Shaq. The Lakers had guys like Brian Shaw (who played with Kobe's father), Rick Fox and Robert Horry that wasn't afraid to step in and be the bad cop. Did San Antonio have a bad cop beside Pop? I wonder if Duncan or Robinson would have stepped up and really collared Kobe and made him adhere to the system.

3) The system. The triangle rewarded Kobe's creativity and provided him enough structure to not allow it to ruin team chemistry. Pop's system is "run through Tim Duncan". Not sure that Kobe would have happily co-existed in a system where he would have been given the scraps that Duncan left on the table.

Duncan's never played with anyone as headstrong as Kobe.

Great points. People tend to forget looking at how well hypothetical pairings would mesh and assume seamless compatibility. I thought people would realize this after the Lebron-Wade pairing but you still see people here assuming scenarios like Jordan-Hakeem would work perfectly.

Shaq simply was a better player than Duncan. Peak Shaq is comparable--and arguably greater than--any peak in NBA history. Duncan was not on that level and peak Hakeem was probably superior to him. Duncan may wind up with a better resume than Shaq but if we are going to strictly go by resumes than the GOAT ranking should clearly be 1) Russell 2) Kareem 3) Jordan but as we know most people rank Jordan first and Russell often is placed behind Kareem and Wilt as well.

The idea that 5>4 and therefore Duncan>Shaq is strange to me. There are many factors that go into winning a championship. It isn't like we are comparing Duncan to a ringless Malone or Lebron type, or a 1x champ. For instance, if injuries did not occur Shaq may have won his 5th ring in 2005 and Duncan could be at 3 today. Would that really make Shaq that much better a player?

Duncan isn't the headache Shaq was at times but I don't buy the idea that Duncan has superior longevity. See ShaqAttack's post on this issue.

Shaq and Duncan's peaks/near peaks overlapped. How many GM's who had Shaq would trade him straight up for Duncan during that period? How many GM's with Duncan would have traded him for Shaq?