Good question. Kind of a wash really. Shaq was better on offense, but Duncan was much better on defense. I say Duncan for now, but we still don't know if Tim will have the same longevity as Shaq. Can't really call it until both their careers are over.
I'm somewhat surprised at how close the poll is. I think the answer is definitely Shaq. It should be close...but a dead heat? I'll give Duncan the edge on defense. And I don't want to understate this, because I think defense typically unduly understated. But Shaq wasn't exactly a defensive slouch compared to Duncan. Not nearly as good on pick and rolls, and didn't put in quite the same effort, but at their best Shaq and Duncan were pretty similar defensive rebounders but Shaq was the better shot blocker (5 seasons at 2.8 blocks per game to Timmy's 1), and neither is all that special at steals. Whereas Hakeem clearly blows both out of the water defensively (multiple seasons of 4+ bpg, multiple seasons of 2+ spg, one year with over 10 defensive rebounds per game - something neither Shaq or Duncan ever accomplished), I think Tim is onyl slightly better than Shaq defensively. But he is better there. But to me, ESPECIALLY through the same age in their career, Shaq was definitely the more dominant force overall. He was much more dominant offensively...and did so more efficiently than Duncan. Many have said Tim is more consistent. The statistics up till the same age, and just watching them over the years, don't prove that out. Shaq isn't as good any more...because he's old. Hakeem eventually became mediocre, too. Tim is getting old, and you will see him decline. Many have also said Tim is the best PF of all time, whereas Shaq is only the 4th or 5th best center. First, that's subjective - though I would probably agree, I do think it's odd how people consistently rank the old timers like Wilt and Russell ahead of modern centers, but for some reason have a harder time ranking the old time PF's ahead of the modern PF's. Bob Pettit averaged 28 points and 20 rebounds a game one year, had better career averages, was a two time MVP, won a championship, was a 10 time all-star, etc. Don't forget about Elvin Hayes. I get that Wilt had records that were just unbelievable and Russell had titles that were just unbelievable, and as such its easy to place them on a pedestal while not doing so for players like Pettit, or the Big O, etc. - not that they aren't considered some of the best of all time, but they get passed over by the modern generations whereas Wilt and Russell don't. Something seems incongruous there. Perhaps it's just the reverence in which history holds the NBA center position. Which leads to the next point, as others have noted....so? Wouldn't you take Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem over Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Pettit, Hayes, etc.? I know I would. To follow up on that point. Center rankings almost universally have the top five as Rusell, Kareem and Wilt as the top 3, in whatever order, and Shaq and Hakeem as 4 and 5, usually in that order. Again, usually Shaq is placed ahead of Hakeem - probably on 70% of the lists and arguments I've seen, outside of Houston. Being a Rockets fan, I would disagree, and being an NBA fan in general, I think there is enough evidence to disagree generally and make a compelling case, even if ultimately the public would agree otherwise. Basically, you can say either Hakeem and Shaq were even, or Shaq was slightly better than Hakeem. You and I might believe that Hakeem was actually a little better, but the public would generally disagree. I know I would take Hakeem over Duncan. Hakeem is more of a Duncan type player. More about solid post moves, a better outside shot, better defender. Just he was much better pretty much in every category. Much better in the post and offensively. A much better defender (see above). A better rebounder at his peak. Equal passers out of the post. Solid team and character guys. Both winners. Both MVPs, etc. If you agree that Hakeem is better than Duncan, and at least recognize that the world generally would argue that Shaq is better than Hakeem, isn't Shaq then better than Duncan, logically? A>B, C>A...so C>B
Who are the centers O'Neal had to contend with in his era? A young Yao Ming, Ben Wallace, Arvydas Sabonis, Zydrunus Igauskus, an old Alonzo Mourning, an even older Vlade Divac, and an older than freaking dirt Dikembe Mutombo??
Shaq came into the league in 1992. He averaged 29+ ppg by his second season. Patrick Ewing averaged 20/10 for six seasons following Shaq's debut. David Robinson had five 20/10 seasons since Shaq's debut. Dream had four, and of course Zo debuted the same year (lol at referring to him as "an old Alonzo Mourning"). Shaq was a dominant force at a time when many of the greatest centers to play the game were in their primes.
A young Shaq more than held his own against the Hakeems, Zos, Ewings, David Robinsons, and Dikembes in the early to mid 90s. And later on, it's not his fault his prime years coincided with many of their declines. He battled Duncan head-to-head in their respective primes and own his fair share as well. Shaq is an all-time great, no doubt about it.
Shaq is thought to be better than Hakeem b/c Shaq had more media coverage had better teammates, and because defense tends to be underappreciated. Imagine Hakeem instead of Shaq on those Laker teams, and just try to argue Dream wouldn't win the championship too. Not only that, but Dream would have shut down Duncan, while Shaq couldn't. With Dream for Shaq they prob win 5 championships instead of 3. Shaq was certainly more unstoppable than Duncan, but you could exploit Shaq's weaknesses: hack-a-Shaq, and force him to play pick and roll defense. Duncan may not have been as individually exciting, but he had no real weaknesses to exploit.
His era, 98-06 (his most dominant years); was literally one of the weakest ever for centers in the NBA. Nothing will change that. (Zo, who was probably the 2nd best center to Shaq in his era, may not have been "old", per say, but he spent the majority of Shaq's career off the court battling illness, so it's not like he contributed much to that competition unfortunately)
Shaq's prime coincided with one of the lamest center crops we've ever seen in the modern NBA, it may not be his fault, but it certainly taints his legacy since he achieved his greatest success against the weakest of competition.
Just going with the years he achieved the most success. Sure he was extremely productive even as a young guy, but would you say he played his best basketball as a 22 year old in Orlando, or a 28 year old in LA?
Does it matter? Measure him against his peers. He was just as good as everyone (actually better) but Hakeem as a 22-year-old in Orlando.
i would think it'd be inherently skewed against duncan for a similar reason. he was never a flashy player and many don't realize how truely great he was. the guy has 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 3 finals MVPs, and 9 first-team all-NBAs. shaq has the same number of rings, but he's been SWEPT out of the playoffs six times as well. he may have been a more dominant player for some of his years, but nobody has been as valuable to their team this past decade as tim duncan. now if we're talking overall career and not just nba career, then i give shaq props for kazaam and blue chips.
What metric are you using to judge that? If you're going pure stats, then he was better than Hakeem too. But, we all know how that turned out.
'Held his own' is quite a bit different than 'dominated' don't ya think? How many rings did Shaq win in the early to mid 90's?
Which would you like me to use? In Shaq's age-22 season, the only player who measures up statistically is David Robinson, in the midst of his MVP season. And what "metric" that isn't statistical do you want me to use? Didn't his team win 57 games, spank the Jordan Bulls and go to the NBA Finals? EDIT: What are you even arguing, actually? That he wouldn't have been as good later in his career if the great centers' primes coincided with his? Even though he was a dominant player as a 21 and 22-year-old, when those guys were still in their primes? Help me understand the point you're trying to make here.
prime shaq > prime duncan. what shaq did in those championship runs were unreal. 30+, 15+, 2.5+, 58%fg? ridiculous. duncan never came close to those #s. but it's close. i think shaq was the better player though. FYI: they matched up a lot and shaq always guarded duncan fairly well. on the other hand, duncan had no chance v. shaq
It's almost like he's arguing against himself. Shaq at a minimum held his own in his early years against some of the all time great centers of the game, as you clearly point out. If his prime was, as DonnyMost argues, later in his career, 98-06, one woudl generally think that he was even better in those years. So if Shaq held his own, or even to give Donny a little slack, played amazing statistically but for some reason you still wouldn't quite put him on the Hakeem/D-Rob pedestal (even though, again, as you note, he dominated statistically while also winning) against some of the greatest centers ever...and then only got better, even if it was against worse competition, one would think that would make Shaq's stats and career hold up pretty well against anyone. I'm not saying Shaq is better than Hakeem. I am saying the two are 4/5 on the all-time center list, however you want to rank them. And I am saying most relatively unbiased observers would typically rank Shaq 4 and then Hakeem 5. I personally disagree...but then I could be called out as biased. I think I'm just factoring in Hakeem's absolutely dominance defensively (he dominated defensively in the same way Shaq dominated offensively....yet Hakeem was also still dominant offensively)...but in either case, I still contend. Hakeem > Duncan Shaq > or = Hakeem...per public opinion therefore Shaq > Duncan
My point is that if you're arguing higher PPG/RPG = better player then you might as well put 22 year old Shaq as the best center (possibly player) in the NBA those years, and we all know that is *not* the case. You want to say 22 year old Shaq was a better basketball player than 28 year old Shaq? Go ahead, but not many people are going to follow you on that one. And once again, Shaq's "era" (his championships, MVP, all the things people remember him for basically, etc) all came during an extremely weak time for centers. Do you care to say that they didn't?
