Shaq or Tim Duncan?

[scrub]

In your opinion, who will go down as the better player once they've both retired. The two best big men of their era. Shaq has four rings and Duncan is probably on his way to his fourth. Who is your pick?

Duncan Career Stats & Acheivements
PPG 21.8
RPG 11.9
APG 3.2
BPG 2.4
FG% .509
FT% .680

Rookie of the Year '98
MVP (2002, 2003)
Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
NBA Titles (1999, 2003, 2005)
All-NBA (9 Times)
All-Defensive First-Team (7 Times)
All-Star (9 Times)


Shaq Career Stats & Achievements
PPG 25.9
RPG 11.6
APG 2.8
BPG 2.4
FG% .580
FT% .525

Rookie of the Year '93
MVP (2000)
Finals MVP (2000, 2001, 2002)
NBA Titles (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006)
All-NBA First-Team (8 Times)
All-Defensive First-Team (Never)
All-Star (14 Times)

[Matt]

what distinguishes Duncan is his all round dominant D......Shaq never had that, in fact he never really worked on his weaknesses throughout his career. Still, he should have at least 3 MVP's.

[debiler]

I still think that Shaq will get more recognition in the future. He was a freak of nature, while Duncan was 'just' some guy with a perfectly polished all around game. I think Shaq will be remembered because he has way more characteristic, 'great' moments and was a total showman, something that Duncan never was.

[magius]

shaq will go down as the wilt of his era
duncan will go down as the bill russel of his era

not exactly, but the closest comparison i can think of. which you prefer is up to personal preference really; i'd go with td because of his dominance on d, and the fact that its a little easier to build a system around him.

[Axel]

Shaq.

In the prime of his career, he was completely unstoppable. There was absolutely no one who could affect him. I remember watching playoff series after playoff series where teams were completely at his 7'2" mercy. No clutch shots like MJ, but he was so dominant all game long that he didn't need to be 'clutch' very often.

As for his defense... before the NBA altered its rules, he was no slouch. However.. in conjunction with his decreased mobility, Shaq is pretty hapless on the defensive end now.

[Sauru]

i can only imagine how good shaq could have been if he had the drive of the other legends.

[Its_asdf]

I think that if he kept himself in shape, Shaq could've easily strung together an average of 30 points and like 14 rebounds a game for multiple seasons.

[Jackie Kong]

I think Duncan is the best considering he took the team with lowest market to 3 championships. Moreover, his defense and offense make the perfect combination to build a team around.

[Andrew]

I think Duncan is the best considering he took the team with lowest market to 3 championships. Moreover, his defense and offense make the perfect combination to build a team around.

I don't disagree on the latter point, but I don't think taking a smaller market team to a championship is necessarily a sign of greatness. After all, one could argue that succeeding in a larger market in a bigger spotlight under greater media scrutiny and a long winning tradition to live up to is just as as impressive.

Ultimately Duncan will probably go down as the better player in terms of pure basketball ability. However, I think Shaq's dominance and the fact his teams produced a threepeat will probably see him ranked ahead of Duncan when it's all said and done.

[Jackie Kong]

I think having more money is always useful to build a team.
Also, one the main reasons why duncan is better than Shaq is because he always thought in terms of the team rather than personal stats. Duncan's unselfish personality not only helped him to get along well with his teammates but also in the court by giving more opportunities to players like Tony Parker who is now scoring and taking as many shots as he is.
Sometimes people tend to forget that Parker and Ginobili were picked very late in the draft, especially Ginobili.
I don't think the spurs would have won their last titles without this players as i don't think any of them could have shine as much in another team.

[1CenT]

I think Duncan is the best considering he took the team with lowest market to 3 championships. Moreover, his defense and offense make the perfect combination to build a team around.

I don't disagree on the latter point, but I don't think taking a smaller market team to a championship is necessarily a sign of greatness. After all, one could argue that succeeding in a larger market in a bigger spotlight under greater media scrutiny and a long winning tradition to live up to is just as as impressive.

Ultimately Duncan will probably go down as the better player in terms of pure basketball ability. However, I think Shaq's dominance and the fact his teams produced a threepeat will probably see him ranked ahead of Duncan when it's all said and done.

i agree with you completely...

When i read the topic, my first thought was.. Duncan's good.. but Shaq? Man Shaq is way better... How many times have we seen Shaq start a new series or start playoffs with something like a 40pt 20rebounds 5 blocks effort...

When he was with the Lakers.. you just hear Shaq talk... He is like, ya the playoffs is when he'll start playing, its for real now..

Shaq should have won more MVPs... He had to compete with Hakeem, David Robinson, Ewing and Mutombo for his MVP, all-nba 1st teams, all defensive team awards.. he was a huge factor on defence... He was such an intimidating force... No 1 got past him seriously.. he is so big and athletic...

Personal Achievements wise... Shaq was much more impresssive, supposingly, but Duncan got his All defensive teams, all nba teams, and MVPs cuz of the weak competition...

Shaq was a center, there was only 1 center on all nba first team... Hard to get picked when you haf Hakeem, David Robinson, Ewing as your competitors...

If there was only 1 forward on nba first team.. duncan would haf gotten a lot less, he would haf lost to malone early in his career, KG would haf gotten it over him once or twice, Dirk just recently ( this season )...

However.. you think about Duncan.. there were some great points made in some of the replies...

Duncan is an amazing teammate.. he doesn't overly demand the attention ( at all ) the ball or anything at all... He helped Parker and Ginobili become all-stars... He is a better defensive player than Shaq...(just b/c he is more consistent) I mean if you put Shaq vs Duncan in their prime... Shaq could probably nearly shut Duncan down with his size, athletism, agility and power..

But Duncan anchors your defense, and is always a great 1 on 1 defender.. So you can put the oppponents best big in his hands...

Duncan makes his teammates better.. Shaq does too... I bet Duncan would have an easier time with Kobe and vice versa compare to Shaq and Kobe....

Knowing both players.. i will take Duncan to lead my franchise.. He gives his all every game... Consistency.. and will never be a headache.. sure Shaq can win MVPs at will.... but nba is still a team game..

I think Duncan + Kobe will translate into Kobe being amazing.. winning the MVP year after year... and a team of Duncan + Kobe will beat Shaq + Kobe b/c.... The Kobe who played with DUncan will prob be better...

[scrub]

I think Duncan + Kobe will translate into Kobe being amazing.. winning the MVP year after year... and a team of Duncan + Kobe will beat Shaq + Kobe b/c.... The Kobe who played with DUncan will prob be better...

I agree that if Duncan was paired with Kobe, then the Lakers would still be a dominant force to this day.

[Cornerthree]

Well IMO, Duncan is really much more fundamental and has a lot more ways to score, or/and contribute to his team, not like Shaq. I mean O'Neal's game in his early days was really based on physical skills, not his basketball fundamentals(like Duncan) that's why Shaq isn't so good anymore, cause he lost his major physical skills and he can no longer dunk on anybody, and now he's trying to use his jumpshot and hook shots a lot more often, sometimes it work, but if it's a bad day for him he's scoreless. While Duncan stills nows how to use the glass, or score another way against an opponent, that's why I think It's Duncan...

[galvatron3000]

Shaq wouldn't have won more MVP's simply because he stayed injured. The year he won, he was dominate from start to finish and was pretty much injury free.

That being said Duncan's career shines a bit better but both careers are close. Shaq shined during those 3 peat years during the playoffs and Duncan shines and gets better all around every year since his rookie season.

You couldn't go wrong building a team around either. I'd personally take Tim because you can pair Tim with just about any other Big man but I wouldn't pair Shaq with any Big man.

Tim is a better passer (IMO) but Shaq is no passing Slouch. Tim is a better consistent defender over the course of their careers.

I personally give Tim a very slight edge but picking either is a win

[The X]

I'd take Tim Duncan who will go down as the greatest PF to ever play the game once his career is over....Shaq is in top 5 C's of all-time (with Wilt, Kareem, Russell & Olajuwon)....

Shaq had more talent than Duncan, but to see Duncan's ability to play through injuries, be a lot bigger force defensively than Shaq & be able to pull back his game a tad to let others develop, I'd take Duncan....Shaq might sell more tickets & entertain more people, but I'd put my money, trust & faith in Duncan over Shaq 100 times out of 100....

[Sauru]

being the 5th best center is probably better than being the best power forward of all time. the center position just has had alot of better players in it. its too bad that malone never won a ring, otherwise people who mark him as the greatest pf ever.

[The X]

being the 5th best center is probably better than being the best power forward of all time. the center position just has had alot of better players in it. its too bad that malone never won a ring, otherwise people who mark him as the greatest pf ever.

I was going to put an asterix next to best pf of all time as there has obviously been a lot better centres than pf's considering the top 5 pf's of all-time are Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Mchale & Petitt, before even contemplating the likes of Garnett & Nowitzki....

although in Duncan's defense, it's a lot harder to be the best pf in the league in the last 10 years than the best centre in the league in the last 10 years....

if I classed Duncan as a centre, I would have him in top 5 of all-time, just ahead of Shaq....I'm also expecting the next few years of play to solidify this soon-to-be fact....

even with one ring, I'd still put Duncan ahead of Malone....if you had of asked me 2-3 years ago, I would've said Malone....

[TomCat]

I choose Duncan, mainly for his defense.

[maes]

I'm just glad Duncan has solidified that Karl Malone is no longer the best PF of all time...that always made me hate the position.

[Andrew]

I think having more money is always useful to build a team.
Also, one the main reasons why duncan is better than Shaq is because he always thought in terms of the team rather than personal stats. Duncan's unselfish personality not only helped him to get along well with his teammates but also in the court by giving more opportunities to players like Tony Parker who is now scoring and taking as many shots as he is.
Sometimes people tend to forget that Parker and Ginobili were picked very late in the draft, especially Ginobili.
I don't think the spurs would have won their last titles without this players as i don't think any of them could have shine as much in another team.

It doesn't hurt but all teams are bound by the same salary cap so the wealthier teams don't have the same advantage they did prior to 1984. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with Parker and Ginobili being passed over by so many teams; that's a testament to the cunning of the Spurs' front office and their eye for talent rather than Duncan's abilities.