Is Tim Duncan greater than Shaq? Top 5 All Time?

[AlexanderRight]

Yes it does. The point is to win the game. Give me someone thats more dominant but less skilled. Players like Patrick Ewing and Yao Ming have been more skilled then Shaq as well. No one in their right mind would say they were better players though.

...Those guys aren't Tim Duncan...

[Pointguard]

This....

Tim Duncan is not underrated, he just isn't talk about a lot and there is a difference between those two. Jason Kidd doesn't get talked about either but he gets overrated by everybody, the media, his peers, etc. I feel like Tim Duncan is pretty much the same way.

Jason Kidd took a Nets team that was 26 and 56 to the finals the next two years would have been three years if Kidd wasn't injured. Kidd had replaced a 24 and 8 allstar in Marbury. Nobody on Kidd's team scored 15 ppg or more in the first finals run. Nobody on the team averaged more than 7.5 rebounds. Nobody could even pass decently. Outside of Kidd nobody was close to any awards or in the top ten in some category. Most notable player was Kenyon Martain, a second year athletic player that could grab alley oops and defend quite well. A rookie Richard Jefferson could run with Martain/Kidd but he was under 10ppg. The other players were Todd McCoulough, Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles and Luscious Harris. Without Kidd they would probably be a 18 and 64 team. The defense of the team wasn't stellar. Miracously he took that team to the finals.

[Dbrog]

Wow that's a big call.

I tend to agree to an extent though. I mean, he did carry David Robinson to the ship in that lockout season, and the first Duncan era championship.

But the later championships? You could argue Manu and emerging Parker were the MVPs on those teams. Also NBA was boring as hell during those years, lowest playoff ratings ever. What's the point of winning the championship when hardly anyone cares? That's got to be a detriment to Duncan's all time argument. I mean, against Cleveland? A repeat against a washed up Pistons team?

Hate to say this but in my mind Dirk had a more impressive single playoff run last year than Duncan had if you analyse each of his 4 championship runs separately.

Almost no one at the time would argue Manu was MVP in 05 or Parker was MVP in 07. Duncan was the clear reason those teams won chips. The memorable Argentine connection game where Manu and Oberto took over isn't reason enough. The series where Parker torched the Cavs would've been won regardless. However, go back and look at the rest of that playoff run and you see Duncan propelled the Spurs through the difficult Western Conference.

Your next comment about there being no point of winning championships if it's boring is just . I don't really know what else to say about that.

Also, against Cleveland? Everyone who watched basketball back then knew that the winner of the West would win the chip. As far as the "washed up" Pistons team (who were all 30 yrs old or younger btw), they were the DEFENDING CHAMPIONS when the Spurs beat them and virtually had the same team that beat the stacked Lakers squad the year before

[rmt]

Also, against Cleveland? Everyone who watched basketball back then knew that the winner of the West would win the chip. As far as the "washed up" Pistons team (who were all 30 yrs old or younger btw), they were the DEFENDING CHAMPIONS when the Spurs beat them and virtually had the same team that beat the stacked Lakers squad the year before

Agreed. Spurs were not going to lose vs CLE once Lebron was controlled (Bowen on the perimeter and Duncan in the paint). It was a foregone conclusion when they stopped Lebron from driving (and dishing to team mates) and forced him into contested jump shots no matter what Parker did. SA was just too experienced, too much firepower (3 good players vs 1), too good coaching against CLE's role players and Mike Brown (think about all the LA fans complaining about Brown now much less 5 years ago).

DET also added McDyess in 04-05. That front court of Dice, Rasheed and Ben Wallace was scary defensively. Yet, in game 7, it was Duncan forcing the double team and opening up the shooters that won it.

[Carbine]

The fact Shaq couldn't co-exist with other great players for a long period of time and burned bridges everywhere he went in or around his prime, takes away from him on a greatness scale.

Duncan is the complete opposite. We never hear anything negative about Duncan's relationship with established players on his team.

Shaq was a more dominant player. But Duncan would stay with you for 15 years and never cause any trouble, while Shaq would leave your team in 5 years on a bad note.

Duncan is "greater."

Shaq was better.

[Disaprine]

timmy is number 10 at best. shaq is in magic's and birds realm.

[RonySeikalyFTL]

If you were a GM and had to pick between these two guys as the cornerstone of your franchise, I have to laugh at anyone that would pick Shaq. He has a slight statistical advantage (career PER's are 26.4 and 24.7 respectively) but will inevitably instill a culture of laziness and immaturity to your team before leaving you in a mess. Oh and if you don't have a big market team with a couch who's already won multiple rings, forget it. This guy epitomizes everything that's wrong with athletes today. Lazy, entitled, childish, and disrespectful.

Oh and at the end of the day, despite all of Shaq's suppposed "dominance"....

Rings:
TD 4, Shaq 4

MVP's:
TD 2, Shaq 1

So with all that switching between teams and ring chasing, TD still wins lol.

[DMAVS41]

If you were a GM and had to pick between these two guys as the cornerstone of your franchise, I have to laugh at anyone that would pick Shaq. He has a slight statistical advantage (career PER's are 26.4 and 24.7 respectively) but will inevitably instill a culture of laziness and immaturity to your team before leaving you in a mess. Oh and if you don't have a big market team with a couch who's already won multiple rings, forget it. This guy epitomizes everything that's wrong with athletes today. Lazy, entitled, childish, and disrespectful.

Oh and at the end of the day, despite all of Shaq's suppposed "dominance"....

Rings:
TD 4, Shaq 4

MVP's:
TD 2, Shaq 1

So with all that switching between teams and ring chasing, TD still wins lol.

Yea...you also have to question whether or not Shaq could have ever won titles without an elite player by his side. Well, I guess Shaq did that in 00 because Kobe wasn't really Kobe yet.

The point is that Shaq played with more help throughout his career. Had more superstar help. Won his titles playing for proven championship coaches....2 of the best ever before Shaq played for them.

I do think its close, but its really hard not to lean towards Duncan....especially if you factor in attitude, loyalty, dedication, leadership...etc.

[guy]

...Those guys aren't Tim Duncan...

Same logic. Skills does not equal better player. Its how strong the players' skills are and utilized which is what results in dominance which determines who's a better player.