I saw a thread discussing who the team of the century will be on the Lakers board (LA or SA). The thread brought up a Shaq/Duncan debate. Who will go down as the best player when it's all said and done (I voet for Timmy)? They both have gone through each other for 2 titles (Duncan was hurt during Shaq's first). Here is a take from someone on the Lakers board: I hate to burst everyone's bubble here but IMO only if you think any team will be remembered in the first decade of the 21st Century are just kidding yourselves. Not the Spurs, the Lakers but it will be remembered as the "Decade of Shaq" for one reason only. Marketing which is the engine that drives the NBA above all. Only some incredible scandal or implosion will change this perception. Not Duncan, not Kobe, not Yao, Wade, LBJ, etc. Watch the HOF class of Michael Jordan's induction, John Stockton who?, David Robinson who? and whoever else in reporting and coverage. Jordan deserves his acclaim as the others do as well but Jordan will be the only story as was the case Bird/Magic only were in the 80's. Just as the "90's was the Jordan Era. The same will apply to Shaq. The media will be jumping on his band wagon past, present and future. And since the subject of 'Team of the Decade' is way premature. These types of "decade" accolades are extremely media driven on the tube, radio and in print. Duncan shuns publicity like the plague. Kobe has way too many "love-hate" critics, just look at his own hometown paper, the Times as an example. Each has three rings but the media will crown the first decade of the 21st century as the "Shaq Decade". Watch the future media compilation and antholgies on the NBA. It's not undeserved either but IMO it will acclaimed over just as deserving atheletes who played as well or better over the length of their careers. In fact, I think I'm safe to say that it's a foregone conclusion already. So get ready for it. 4 rings on two teams, he's memorable, a character, quotable, very well known and marketable. Should Miami win another title which is a slim possibility, then the very best Duncan and Kobe can do is tie with 5 rings thus notable but little else and we all know who will win the media's choice of write-up stories. San Antonio is a small market thus automatically out on any marketable themes or acclaim. Barkley's moniker of "Groundhog Day" said it all. Great and predictibly so time and time again. Plenty of Honorable mentions. Like Kareem, Makin, Wilkins, Gervin, Malone (both), Dr. J., Hakeem-(short) et al and I suspect Kobe will be there as well as well, Super Legends, Top Tier, memorable etc. but on a lesser "marketing level" as time goes by. Shaq's rep will grow as time go by due to his nostalgia and the overriding profitable marketing. Los Angeles, Every 3-peat mention will lead with "led by Shaq" and Kobe will be as a "sidekick", "junior partner", or as an afterthought and second mention as times goes by. I'd make bet on it. I'm not slamming Kobe at all I just suspect that is the way it will be unless the Lakes run the table or the same for the Spurs...both highly doubtful. I'm not knocking Kobe or bashing Shaq. I do prefer Kobe over Shaq for his skills and work ethic. Don't kill the messenger but being 7 ft. tall and 320+ pounds had a lot to do with Shaq's sucess and his decline. And I concede my opinion is worth only .02 not am I attempting to start a flame war or be disrespectful. Just my perception on what will be remembered 10-20 years from now for this time notwithstanding an LBJ or Kobe or a Spud Webb doing three quadruple doubles in a row in an NBA Finals.
How so. Duncan only trails 4 rings to 3, and he has won with less help. His numbers are great and he has more MVP's.
After Shaq retires and the experts examine his game and try to locte his place in history they are going to find just how much he got away with and then his status as a great player will be changed into a loud mouthed bully who succeeded despite the rule book and professional Referees.!
There is little doubt Shaq will go down as better than TD. I like both players but Shaq was incredibly dominant for a long period of time. That fact he's over the hill now may hurt present day perceptions of him while TD is still a top 10 player. If you polled NBA GMs on this matter I think it would be very lopsided in favor of Shaq. I reeeeeally disliked Shaq when he was a Laker but the guy was just awesome, which is a word that doesn't quite apply to TD.
Um... Sheer size >>> the banked jumper crap that Duncan pulls. Shaq by a mile. He used his sheer size and strength in combination with his moves and quickness to completely own everyone. TD even at his best wasn't as good, and now TD is declining as well.
Shaq. I like Duncan, but Shaq in his prime wass just far more dominant and will be remembered accordingly. Of all the big men today, however, Duncan is still the best.
True, but having two all-world players gives you one heck of an advantage in basketball, especially when you are a center and the other one is a guard.
That was a pretty good post by that Laker fan. I am not a Shaq fan, although I have grown to like him since he left the Fakers. It is hard to argue with 6 NBA Finals appearances, 4 titles, 3 NBA Finals MVP, 1 Season MVP, Regular Season career averages: 26 PPG, 12 RBG, 2.5 BPG, Not sure what his Playoff career averages are but they are probably higher. Duncan is just as great but never has had that 2nd superstar like Shaq has had on 3 of his teams (penny, kobe, and now Wade). Like the laker poster said, Duncan is not a marketing engine like shaq so people often forget how great he is. In the end, I think it is unfair to say it is one player's era b/c that is doing an injustice to the greatness of the league and of all the other great players that played in the era. Sadly though, Duncan will probably end up like Dream, forgotten by most b/c after their careers are over, they dissappear from the scene unlike Shaq who will probably be around in some capacity.
Right now, this very minute, Shaq is a household name. Everyone knows who Shaq is. Everyone recognizes him. Not just here, but damn near all over the world. Tim Duncan however, is not even now, after three titles and two mvp's, a household name. He certainly won't be a household name in twenty years. That, in itself, is enough to make this an easy question. Shaq will be remembered as the better player. And, in my personal opinion, Shaq is a better player than Duncan. Yes, Duncan is more fundamentally sound, but Shaq is one of the most dominant players in the history of the league. They had to change rules because of Shaq. The strategy "hack-a-shaq" is now a common term in the basketball lexicon. Duncan has certainly been among the best players of his era, but honestly, I think you could make the case that Duncan is no better than Kevin Garnett - Garnett just happened to land in the wasteland of Minnesota while Duncan had the good fortune of landing in San Antonio during the Popovich era. No doubt, San Antonio among the most well-run franchises in basketball. I also disagree with the argument that Shaq has had more help. Certainly he was on a team loaded with talent in Miami, but the Lakers only had Kobe. The rest of that team was pretty mediocre. San Antonio may not have another true superstar, but guys like later era David Robinson, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and Michael Finley aren't exactly a bunch of scrubs. Make no mistake, San Antonio is now and has been loaded with above average players for the entire time Duncan has been with them. I honestly think that even without Duncan, the Spurs would still make the playoffs. That, of course, can't be proven - but it was proven that the Lakers couldn't make the playoffs the year Shaq left. But really, all of this is moot. Regardless of whether or not Shaq is actually better than Duncan, Kazaam is definitely going to be remembered as the better player.
Shaq is better, the man 3peated, thats the hardest feet to accomplish in this day and age. Oh yeah then there are the numbers, Shaqs numbers are just too sick to ignore.
Couldnt agree more, as great as Kobe is now we sometimes forget he was 21 years old when then Lakers 1st won. Nowhere near reaching his prime. And the Spurs have always had quality depth. You could also look at their numbers, The Spurs didnt rely on Duncan as much as the Lakers did on Shaq, the numbers prove this. To me when you win a title by putting up the best numbers in the league it proves you are the best. MJ did it, Shaq did it.
How did you react when a Laker fan back in the day gloated that Shaq eliminated Hakeem in the 1st round? You say he was too old right, well Shaq was too young back then. The age difference is too big, but a Prime Shaq wouldnt have gotten swept by Hakeem I gaurantee that.
They wouldn't have been swept ,but they still would of lost. The problem for Shaq that might hurt his legacy is his competition , which is very lack luster. Hakeem made shaq WORK.....after Hakeem,Shaq played against stiffs and he only performed on the offensive end. Hakeem played and dominated against Top 50 talent.
