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

[guy]

dominant does not = better player though.

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.

[k0kakw0rld]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

It doesn't matter if Duncan gives you a better record or seed in the regular season though because Shaq always showed up, turned it up, and dominated in the playoffs and he dominated far more than Duncan ever did.

What is the argument for Duncan?

Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.

[linZoMourning]

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.

while parts of what you say is true ewing and yao were never as skilled as duncan or hakeem the two players most compared to shaq.

honestly duncan was the better defender and rebounder two of the main skills needed for a great big man. drop step dunk was shaqs main move. not that impressive only thing that impresses me was his size and agility

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

LOL. No ****ing way. Tim Duncan wasn't even in Shaqs league offensively. Duncan was a great player, but offensively Shaq was the most efficient and unstoppable player we've ever seen. 30-15 Finals series multiple times and required guys to either double him immedietly or foul him. Duncan had a nice touch in the post, but he was more prone to bad nights where Shaq got so many easy buckets just because of how much of a monster he was.

Shaq also had the most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History so anyone saying Duncan because of his consistency is a joke. They are merely a younger NBA fan who has no idea Shaq played before 2000.

Defensively Duncan is overrated as well. He was smart and didn't have a weakness like Shaq in the pick and roll, but in terms of protecting the paint and post defense? Shaq was just as good. One thing with Shaq is he gets brought up as some shitty defensive playe, and that's because he struggled heavily vs the pick and roll in his later years once he got slow and had to carry around all that weight. In his prime he was a great defensive player. Noone ever posts up Shaq. Even when he was old as ****. Brought an intimidation factor too that was unrivaled. Noone wanted to drive and take a Shaq body check.

Guy won everywhere he played too. Took a 20 win Orlando franchise to .500 his first year and to the Finals by Year 3. Made LA the new pereniel powerhouse in the post-jordan era, and then made the Eastern conference relevant again when he was traded to Miami.

Mostly the reason he is better is because just how dominant he was offensively. NBA bigmen would MUCH rather guard Tim Duncan than Shaq.

[k0kakw0rld]

So because of one MVP? An award that is completely subjective.

Steve Nash also has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, yet we all know Nash isn't even close to those two. Heck, I still arguments between Kidd and Nash to this day and Kidd has no MVPs.

Moses Malone has 3 MVPs which is the same amount of MVPs as Bird and more MVPs than Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, yet Moses isn't above any of these guys.

MVPs is no tiebreaker especially when you could argue that Shaq should have 3 MVPs anyways (2000, 2001, 2005).

Kidd > Nash. Kidd is the better point guard. He is also the better player. The better defender, the better all-round player.

Duncan > Shaq.

[linZoMourning]

LOL. No ****ing way. Tim Duncan wasn't even in Shaqs league offensively. Duncan was a great player, but offensively Shaq was the most efficient and unstoppable player we've ever seen. 30-15 Finals series multiple times and required guys to either double him immedietly or foul him. Duncan had a nice touch in the post, but he was more prone to bad nights where Shaq got so many easy buckets just because of how much of a monster he was.

Shaq also had the most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History so anyone saying Duncan because of his consistency is a joke. They are merely a younger NBA fan who has no idea Shaq played before 2000.

Defensively Duncan is overrated as well. He was smart and didn't have a weakness like Shaq in the pick and roll, but in terms of protecting the paint and post defense? Shaq was just as good. One thing with Shaq is he gets brought up as some shitty defensive playe, and that's because he struggled heavily vs the pick and roll in his later years once he got slow and had to carry around all that weight. In his prime he was a great defensive player. Noone ever posts up Shaq. Even when he was old as ****. Brought an intimidation factor too that was unrivaled. Noone wanted to drive and take a Shaq body check.

Guy won everywhere he played too. Took a 20 win Orlando franchise to .500 his first year and to the Finals by Year 3. Made LA the new pereniel powerhouse in the post-jordan era, and then made the Eastern conference relevant again when he was traded to Miami.

Mostly the reason he is better is because just how dominant he was offensively. NBA bigmen would MUCH rather guard Tim Duncan than Shaq.

stopped reading after you said duncan was overrated defensively. what a joke

one of the greatest big men defenders of ALL TIME

also what do you think about lakers players saying that shaq would stop playing defense when he would not recieve the ball?? do some research man

[ThaRegul8r]

What is the argument for Duncan? I'm assuming it would be some loyalty bullshit or something which has absolutely nothing to do with greatness or who was better. Shaq was lazy, sure, but he could also afford to be lazy because he didn't have anything he could physically improve in. He could have been in shape more often in the regular season but he could afford to sit out because he had Kobe.

So what you're saying is that Shaq had a luxury Duncan did not, in having a teammate the caliber of a Kobe Bryant, who >> anyone else on the Spurs excluding Duncan.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

stopped reading after you said duncan was overrated defensively. what a joke

one of the greatest big men defenders of ALL TIME

also what do you think about lakers players saying that shaq would stop playing defense when he would not recieve the ball?? do some research man

What does Duncan do better defensively than a prime O'Neal other than pick and roll defense? Keep listening to general opinions and what the media shoves down your throat though kid. Shaq was the better post defender, and more athletic/better shot blocker.

Yeah Shaq had an ego, so what? It doesn't discredit him as a player. It was a good way of getting his teammates to stop taking dumb shots when they got THE MDE in the post with some inferior scrub on him. I'll take a Shaq post up over any other play.

[StateOfMind12]

So what you're saying is that Shaq had a luxury Duncan did not, in having a teammate the caliber of a Kobe Bryant, who >> anyone else on the Spurs excluding Duncan.

Shaq had a the better 2nd option than Duncan did but Duncan had better players from 3-9 from their rotation. Duncan had more depth, Shaq had more star power. Teammates shouldn't be an argument for either side because both of them had good teammates.

Duncan didn't have much star power before 2005 since Manu and Parker were young but he did have a very good role players who also performed and made big time plays and shots at the right time.

Kidd > Nash. Kidd is the better point guard. He is also the better player. The better defender, the better all-round player.

Duncan > Shaq.

That wouldn't make much sense since Kidd has less MVPs than Nash, isn't that the only argument for Duncan?

Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.

Shaq also dominated Duncan and the Spurs in the 2000s. What is your point? Unless you want to bring up the 2008 series when both of them were out of their primes and Shaq was playing on the inferior team.

[linZoMourning]

What does Duncan do better defensively than a prime O'Neal other than pick and roll defense? Keep listening to general opinions and what the media shoves down your throat though kid. Shaq was the better post defender, and more athletic/better shot blocker.

Yeah Shaq had an ego, so what? It doesn't discredit him as a player. It was a good way of getting his teammates to stop taking dumb shots when they got THE MDE in the post with some inferior scrub on him. I'll take a Shaq post up over any other play.

yah because the media has so many good things to say about duncans defense

ask any coach in the nba who was the better defender and you will have a unanimous answer. duncan. better post defender better help defender better every category defender better defensive rebounder better offensive rebounder. you sound mighty butt hurt

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

Duncan dominated Shaq and the Fakers in the 2000's Destroyed the best team in the league (Fakers) twice and won 2 championships + 2 FMVP. He is a better defender than Shaq a better rebounder and also a better skilled player. Pretty much gave 2 rings to David Robinson Mr 71 points + He is the all time scoring leader for the Spurs. Tim Duncan top 5 Period.

When did they beat the Lakers twice with Shaqin that decade?

Shaqs Lakers were 3-1 when they met up against Duncans spurs in the playoffs and easily could have been 4-0 had Horrys shot not gone out. Shaq with 3 Finals MVPs in that decade too btw. Feels good man.

[guy]

while parts of what you say is true ewing and yao were never as skilled as duncan or hakeem the two players most compared to shaq.

honestly duncan was the better defender and rebounder two of the main skills needed for a great big man. drop step dunk was shaqs main move. not that impressive only thing that impresses me was his size and agility

Okay, but you can use the same logic. You can't just ignore dominance when it comes to who's a better player. Whether a player dominates by skill or by sheer athleticism or strength, it shouldn't really matter as long as it gets the job done i.e. results in wins.

If a player can't pass, shoot, rebound, defend, but he can literally drive down the court every single play (as in 100% of the time) and dunk in everyone's face resulting in averages of 110 ppg on 100 FG% and 0 apg/0 rpg/0 bpg/0 spg, that would be the most dominant player ever and probably the GOAT. I could care less if he was far from the most skilled player ever.

[StateOfMind12]

What is with this skill argument? Are people really trying to insist that Shaq had no skill? Shaq couldn't shoot, sure, but to say he has no skills is just insulting and asinine.

Shaq has one of the greatest footwork of all-time and last I check, footwork is a method of skill. I find it hilarious how people act like Shaq had no moves and just backed down and overpowered people. He had plenty of moves to score with, they were just all in the paint because that was where his scoring was predicated around.

This skills argument is not bullshit because Shaq still produced, it's bullshit because Shaq had skills too.

You can argue Duncan being a better shooter, sure, but Duncan also struggled in the FT line like Shaq did.

[swi7ch]

I'd take him over Shaq just because he can hit his free throws.

[linZoMourning]

Okay, but you can use the same logic. You can't just ignore dominance when it comes to who's a better player. Whether a player dominates by skill or by sheer athleticism or strength, it shouldn't really matter as long as it gets the job done i.e. results in wins.

If a player can't pass, shoot, rebound, defend, but he can literally drive down the court every single play (as in 100% of the time) and dunk in everyone's face resulting in averages of 110 ppg on 100 FG% and 0 apg/0 rpg/0 bpg/0 spg, that would be the most dominant player ever and probably the GOAT. I could care less if he was far from the most skilled player ever.

I guess the point is we all value different things in our favorite players. Everybody is different with different opinions on what makes the better big man. Its a very close comparison shaq and duncan and im fine with that but anyone who says shaq is far and away better is just being a homer.