Except you couldn't foul him the whole game, otherwise Shaq's teammates would be shooting freebies all game too and would foul your entire team out. And Shaq was so dominant he could run up a 20 point lead by the 4th quarter and it wouldn't matter if fouling him was break even for the other team by then.
But Parker + Ginobili at the same time is better than Kobe/Wade and no one else, no? And David Robinson and Sean Elliott? I voted for Shaq simply because whenever I watched him play he would foul out all the opposing team's big men by the 1st quarter and no one, NO ONE, in the league had a chance of stopping him. Duncan was the more versatile player but give me an Ace over a Jack of all trades any day.
If i had to pick 1, it would be shaq. I'm a duncan fan big time and appreciate what he brings, but shaq was unguardable for the most point. Also his defense is vastly underrated like yao. Those laker teams were good defensive teams because of shaq in the middle. If you go and watch when la rolled over san antonio, they would put shaq on duncan and duncan was thru. Shaq was dropping 28-12 on dream in his prime in the finals. This is probably the best poll we've had in awhile. Hell, shaq made players not want to play center against him. Duncan,webber,o'neal,rasheed,garnett are all centers, but because shaq was such a load, they changed positions.
tim duncan's consistency is one of the most ridiculously overrated things ever. so he was consistently worse than shaq. great, give me that guy because his numbers each year were really similar to the previous and subsequent year. people act like guys like hakeem and shaq had these few incredible years that were better than duncan's peak, but that the other years were bad enough to let duncan jump ahead. it's not like they averaged 30/12 one year and then 15/8 the next. hakeem and shaq kicked quite a bit of ass in their supposed non-primes. it's like hakeem gets punished because '92-'95 was so ridiculous and shaq gets punished for '00-'02. their other seasons were at least as good as, if not better than, duncan's "consistent" seasons. and then they had levels they went to that duncan couldn't go to. there's also this element of longevity that is implied by this whole consistency argument when duncan has not shown any sort of extraordinary longevity. the guy's been good his whole career. wow. guess no other all-time greats have ever been good for 12 or 13 years or so. no wait, they've pretty much all been. and it's not like he hasn't declined with age or something. his dominance has been declining for 3 or 4 years now. sure, he keeps the PER up there, but he can't play minutes like he used to and he certainly doesn't dominate playoff series any more. in 2008, he was only 32 at the start of the playoffs. he played a nice-sized sample of 17 games and yet shot a very poor 44.9% for the playoffs with single coverage from tyson chandler and pau gasol in the last 2 rounds. he certainly hasn't held his stats (regular season or otherwise) any more impressively than shaq. (side note: when hakeem was 32 he destroyed david robinson's career in the playoffs) and if we're going to bring up all of shaq's weaknesses, doesn't duncan have his as well? shaq wasn't exactly a go to guy at the end of the game because of his ft's but when was duncan ever a big crunch time scorer that carried the spurs at the end? he certainly wasn't automatic at the line in those situations (he was gagging away game 5 against the pistons at the line until horry put on his cape and saved the day) and it wasn't like you thought "oh no, i hope they don't go to duncan" in close 4th quarters. for years ginobili has been the far scarier option. and as much as shaq's defense isn't up there with duncan's, shouldn't the fairly large difference in how much they destroyed single coverage be factored in pretty hugely? when was the last time a team with somebody 6'10 or taller had to double team tim duncan? 2003? i've seen him struggle against shaq when the lakers would switch shaq onto duncan in 4th quarters in the early 2000's, i've seen the wallace boys torment him in that detroit series, i saw him shoot 41% in back to back series in 2008 while getting single coverage from tyson chandler and pau gasol. he didn't even dominate dampier this year. and the whole "there were no good centers" argument doesn't really mean than much with shaq and duncan as far as i can see. they were both going to be guarded by the best big man defender on the other team (except maybe garnett). it's not like there were a litany of great big men defenders that tim duncan had to go through that teams refused to put on shaq because they forgot to put "C" next to their name in the lineup. and whereas shaq at least caught the tail end of the primes of hakeem/robinson/ewing, duncan completely missed them. as good as he is, i just don't get how duncan gets all of this credit sometimes. how does he get "he was no weaknesses" credit if we're going to ignore how much stronger some other players' strengths were. if you had 2 wheels to spin, one for shaq and one for duncan, that would randomly give you the player at some point from the first 12 or 13 years of their career, give me the shaq wheel any day of the week.
In this argument Shaq should come out on top. There are many reasons. For one Tim Duncan was given a better team to begin with than Shaq. Before tanking to get the highest lottery position the Spurs had been a 54 win a year team since David Robinson was drafted. While Shaq inherited an expansion team worth 23 wins a year, signed with a Lakers team worth 43 wins a year since Magic’s retirement, and a Heat team worth 38 wins a year since Zo dropped off. He made them all into championship contenders while the Spurs had been contenders before Duncan got there. Additionally for the first four years of his career it could be argued that Duncan wasn’t even the best player on his own team. Former MVP and DPOY David Robinson averaged a 25.2 PER during this period while Duncan averaged a lesser 23.6 PER. People continually give Duncan all the credit for the success of the Spurs while Robinson goes unsung. While the Lakers fans have retconned their championship success to Kobe Bryant and made Shaq out to be a team sinking cancer ruining franchises wherever he goes despite Kobe never having a PER greater than Shaq in their careers as teammates. Shaq’s former teams also fell of quite significantly after his departures despite the Lakers and Heat replacing him with 20 million dollars worth of players, the Lakers only recovering after somehow trading Kwame Brown in for Pau Gasol. These factors combined with his superior career statistics despite having an 18 year career, already as long as the career of Hakeem Olajuwon and longer than Patrick Ewing’s, lead me to conclude that Shaq is the superior player. We should wait until Duncan’s career is pretty much over to really compare them. Shaq has already had his decline while Duncan’s is just beginning.
Shaq IMO was better. In their peaks when they matched up Shaq was more of a force. Further, Shaq also has much more dominant statistics. Given their other accolades (rings, playoff and regular season MVPs) are pretty even, I go with Shaq. Trying to be objective, I have a hard time putting Hakeem ahead of Shaq, though I won't contend that Hakeem might have been better as well. And I am 99% sure Hakeem in his prime would have torn up Duncan--who was like a less athleticly freaky version of Hakeem. The C/PF comparison is silly. 1) Duncan has played far more minutes at the C position than the PF over his career, and particular when the stakes were high. 2) probably 6 of the top 9 players of all time are centers. Pretty much nobody says Bird or Duncan are better than Kareem or Wilt or Russell--yet one of those 3 is at best the 3rd best center and the former players are overwhelmingly considered the best at their positions.
Hold up. Robinson was nothing close to his MVP form when Duncan came into the league. So MVP Robinson does not count. Duncan was a better defender than Shaq. But I remember the early 2000s rooting against the Lakers with teams like Portland, the Kings, and Sixers and the entire conversation was how to counter Shaq. No matter what anyone tried, Shaq got his way. There was no stopping him--although the Lakers did steal the Portland and Kings series. In the Sixers series, he just made Deke look small and completely outmatched. At his peak, there was simply no answer to him, so I give it to Shaq by a hair. But I like Duncan more--his dedication to the game and learning the pivot to perfection was unparalleled. I know people knock Duncan for being 'boring' but I've always liked watching him to learn really what playing the post to perfection is.
Great post. And I love the way you put Dream and Shaq on the same level because a lot of people here act as if Shaq wasn't even close to Dream.
A lot of people, myself included, don't give O'Neal much credit because he lacked basketball skill compared to other great bigs. Whereas he was moreso just a physical presence that used brute force and exploited a size advantage, which is really more biological accident than it is talent and hard work.
That may be true but does it really matter how you get the job done as long as the job gets done. No doubt Shaq didn't have the foot work like the rest of the all time greats but even with that he was still a monster in the paint.
Ok now let's look at the teams Duncan played against in the finals and before I list them I just want to say I'm not taking anything away from Duncan because a ring is a ring, but Shaq lost to better teams then Duncan beat in the finals. Duncan first ring came against New York while at the time New York was missing their best player. Second ring came against New Jersey pretty good team but nothing great. The only great player they had was J Kidd. Third ring I'll give you that one because at the time Detroit was a great team. Fouth I don't think I need to say anything. Now let's look at the teams Shaq lost to in the finals the rockets and detroit two great teams. So to say Duncan never lost in the finals is why he's better is wrong because he really only played one great team.
This discussion needs some visual aids. Shaquille O'neal <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YccKZhc9I5k&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YccKZhc9I5k&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b5ye_Zx6tsA&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b5ye_Zx6tsA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZgqoFTh2lZg&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZgqoFTh2lZg&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Tim Duncan <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uN9FQ3RGjX8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uN9FQ3RGjX8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wEbrUzWQlx8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wEbrUzWQlx8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
im coming in abit late. everything i want to say probably has been said by JayZ750 and more eloquently. i of course voted for shaq too. just wanted to add abit regarding magic shaq vs laker shaq. when shaq came into the league, he did more than 'just held his own' against the prime centers. watch some of his highlights, he was lean and strong and he flew in for dunks. the magic shaq in my opinion was better than dwight howard at every aspect of the game. lakers shaq started gaining weight and losing some of that leanness but he was more polished regarding finding his teammates for the assist. also phil jackson used him brilliantly than magic's brian hill. i agree with JayZ750 putting it that hakeem and shaq are close to each other in best center ranking and duncan below them as players. regarding the poll, i was kind of confused also. obviously duncan has the 'cleaner' career. stayed in one team, no controversies, always respected n loved by his fans. i assumed the poll meant who was the better player taking into account their whole career, and i voted shaq, but duncan certainly did the most with what he had throughout his career, whereas shaq, i think if given another go around, couldve done more if he put in more effort and really take the most dominant mantle.
The thing about Duncan's defense is that he always pussed out in regards to playing center. He never had to anchor a defense like a center normally does. He never patrolled the paint. He always had to go against other 4s for All-NBA honors.
If the question is who had the best career, then it is Shaq. If it means who is better, then it is Duncan.
Very, very tough. Duncan is arguably the greatest PF of all time. I still give a SLIGHT edge to Shaq.
Duncan, and if Kobe and been traded to the Spurs instead of the Lakers, they'd probably be working on championship seven or eight by now.
