When's the last time the Lakers made a great move to help their supporting cast? They got an underachieving Horace Grant for Glen Rice. They lost Grant for nothing. All they did last offseason was sign Samaki Walker, a player who wasn't even good enough for these same Spurs. The Spurs don't really need to use their exception unless it's for someone that is a dynamic player, because it would take away their ability to sign free agents next summer. Not many of those free agents you listed would sign for 4.5 million for one year. If you choose to think the Spurs are nowhere close to the Lakers, then I have nothing left to say. If they had one good perimeter player that could create, they very well might have swept that series. There's not a game in that series that they did not have a legit chance to win with six minutes to go in the fourth quarter. The final gap looked large, but if you watched closely it wasn't. Of course, the Spurs haters will never admit that, but it doesn't matter. When the Spurs do beat the Lakers, I can't wait to see what the new excuses are. People will anoint Duncan as the best player in the game, Parker as a "much improved point guard", etc... when the only difference is that there is a perimeter creator on the floor. Duncan's better than Shaq, but no one is ever going to admit it. People naturally hate Kobe because of the comparisons he draws to Jordan, and his cockiness, but he's the better player. I don't care how dominant you are; the best of the best deliver when the game is on the line. Kobe does; Shaq gives you 3.0 ppg on 19% shooting. Before Shaq can rise above the league MVP, he needs to become the best player on his team.
Outside of SA, Texas and a few delusional Laker haters like The Cat, it's universally accepted that Shaq is a better player than Tim Duncan. Shaq's playoff stats the past few years destroy Duncan's. As for your "Spurs were SOOOOOOOO close to beating LA," get a grip. Enough with the woulda, shoulda, coulda baloney. 1-8 in their last playoff games against LA is the bottomline. Oh I forgot though. That Euro stud Ginobilli is coming into town. Just put the trophy in SA right now, Shaq and Kobe are dead. If anyone's gonna take down LA, it's the Kings. The Ginobilli hype is just like the Ming hype. Prove it against NBA comp and we'll see who's the real deal.
So now the Lakers role players are no good either? So then Shaq must be better than Duncan, but it's all Kobe I guess, Shaq never matched Duncans 22ppg career average until he got Kobe to take the heat off of him. (somehow I feel a "Penny Hardaway used to be the best player in the NBA before he got hurt" response brewing.) Sure he was. 4-1 is not close. Sure, the games were close, but you can't get lucky 4 times in 5 games. The games might have been close, but the series was not. That's how you advance in the playoffs, by winning series'. Sacramento, by contrast, was close. They actually won 3 whole games. Pardon me? "New" excuses? Considering that the Lakers have smoked the Spurs 8-1 the last two years in the playoffs? What the hell are laker fans, or spurs haters making "old" excuses about? Losing that one game in 2 years? You, however, have recycled excuse after excuse: e.g. Last year's series was closer than it looked, the 2001 Lakers were an aberration, its all steve smith's fault bc I overestimated him, duncan has no help, Shaq hit duncan's arm, blah blah blah. YOu have had 3 years of excuses and by all indications you will have a couple more. Because it's not true? Or else there is some sort of anti Tim Duncan conspiracy? Go ahead and elaborate on that one.
I said that when the Spurs beat the Lakers, I want to see the excuses, because I know you won't give the Spurs credit as being the better team that year. Here, I'm not giving you excuses. The Lakers were the better team these last two years. Nothing unfair about it. However, there are reasons for every loss, and if those reasons are correctable, you have a shot to win the next time around. The Lakers weren't lucky. They capitalized on the Spurs major weaknesses, which was a perimeter creator to avoid fourth quarter droughts. I think this is correctable; you obviously don't. Let's just wait and see what happens. I already did elaborate on why I think Shaq gets as much credit as he did. You can read it several posts up. P.S. I don't particularly care what Shaq's playoff stats are compared to Duncan's. The one that matters the most is 3.0 points on 19% shooting. I'd prefer someone who can get it done when the game is on the line. If you don't think it's Duncan, that's fine. But it's definitely not Shaq either.
You mean where you said it was because he won 3 rings? Silly me, and here I was thinking that that was actually important. As for the 3.0 19% I am unsure where that is from. I am only guessing it is from this year against the spurs. Yes, that proves Duncan is better. I remember all of those clutch 4th quarter shots that he has hit in his career. Hell, if that is the only statistic that matters, then Robert Horry is a MUCH better player than Tim Duncan.
No, I meant where I said that Kobe got him those rings. Those 3.0 ppg, 19% shooting were from the Spurs series and the first six games of the Kings series, the biggest games of Shaq's season. The stat is only applicable when players are close in other aspects of the game. The gap between the stats of Shaq and TD is much, much less than the gap between TD and Horry. I'd take the player with slightly less overall stats that can produce in the fourth quarter.
But then you left out arguably the biggest game, game 7. And you left out the Finals (36ppg, MVP...again). And you also left out the fact that, except for his rookie season, Shaq's worst seasons (even before kobe) are statistically superior to Duncan's best season. And that he raised his ft % by about 10 points in the playoffs. And that Duncan isn't arguably Mr. Clutch either. Seriously, it is one thing to be a spurs fan, that is fine by me. It is another to make absurd claims and then claim to be the only one (along with other spurs fans) who knows the REAL truth, that Duncan is relly better than shaq. (But the writers agreed with me, he won MVP! Yeah, big deal, and Jordan lost out to Barkley and Malone a few times too, and Olajuwon lost to Robinson; who was better then?) If the conducted that voting in June I wonder who would win.
I left out game 7 because the NBC broadcast showed that statistic during the fourth quarter of game 7, when Shaq was struggling yet again. There's no statistic online for fourth quarter production, so all I have to go by is NBC's research. I do know, however, that he did not have a particularly productive Game 7 in the fourth quarter. And of course I left out the Finals; the Jazz, the Western Conference's 8th seed, would've probably beaten the Nets in four or five games. The Eastern Conference is just terrible... If opinions are automatically "absurd" just because they deviate from the normal, what's the point of having a BBS? If we're not allowed to deviate from the expected, every thread would just be "I agree". We just value different things in different orders. I am willing to put aside some overall statistics and production for better fourth quarter output. You obviously don't, and let's just leave it at that. There's not much point debating further, since you really can't prove the value of some statistics versus others... it's all a matter of opinion. Mine may be different from the normal, but it doesn't mean there's not an argument for it.
I didn't say your opinion was valueless, or else I wouldn't have bothered responding at all. I didn't say it was automatically "absurd" because it went against the grain either. However, when all you can back it up with is 3-19 or whatever against the relative mountain of empirical, anecdotal, and intuitive evidence that suggests otherwise, it begins to look as if spurs boosterism influences your argument. I make arguments for a living, good and bad, and I don't see yours as one that is particularly strong. Maybe one day you will be proven right and Tim Duncan will be shown to be better, beyond any doubt. Somehow, I think that if he weren't on the Spurs, we probably wouldnt be having this discussion.
Mav: that's not really the case. Kobe isn't on the Spurs-- he's on the Lakers, whom I hate-- and I give him all the respect in the world. The "mountain of evidence" is one that consists of a couple more points and rebounds in a game. That may be more important, in your opinion But, believe me, this isn't because Shaq plays on the Lakers, or because Duncan is on the Spurs. I genuinely have a hard time respecting players who shrink in pressure situations. I feel the same way about Chris Webber. It's possible that I might be overestimating the importance of those situations, but I can guarantee that it has little to do with the teams involved. I would rather have a player get me 25 points, 12 rebounds, shoot 80% from the line, and be a go-to option in the final minutes than a player averaging 29 points, 13 rebounds, shooting 50% from the line, and a small threat in the final minutes.
It's more than just a few ppg. (Although the gap is arguably more than just a few). It's also the totality of what Shaq has done in his career, including evaluations by his peers, coaches, etc, as well as the conventional wisdom. You aassume that it is proven that Shaq chokes, or at least fades, in the 4th quarter. I have never heard this theory until today. (while by contrast, a lot of people, on BBS, on TV, etc., have criticized webber in this regard) And I do believe that he gets enough exposure so that it would be well known if it happened frequently. Yes, his teammates make big shots in the 4th quarter. Michael Jordan passed off to Paxson to win against Phoenix, and to Kerr to win against Utah in the deciding game of the NBA finals. So? Similarly, I have yet to hear bout any of Duncan's 4th quarter exploits. All I remember is Jaren Jackson making a bunch of 3's in 1999 v. NY.
Webber receives that criticism because his team loses. Shaq has rarely received that criticism since the Lakers usually win the championship, and the media is looking to praise, not criticize, on those occasions. This is something that's been going on for a long while. Phil Jackson has actually pulled him in the final minutes of games before, because of the risk of the opposition fouling him instead of letting Kobe operate. Shaq does seem to tire a bit as the games go on, and he is tentative in the fourth quarter, because he knows that any big man not in foul trouble is going to wrap him up before they'll let him shoot. All that matters, though, is winning basketball games, and because he wins rings Shaq's not going to get much criticism. Jordan passed off to teammates, but he had hundreds of big shots of his own. I can't really say that for Shaq. Duncan's not a Kobe Bryant in the fourth quarter, but he's pretty damn good. In the Laker series in 1999, he repeatedly stalled Laker runs with a series of moves on the low block and a bank off the glass. Also, many of those threes that you refer to come off of his vision to pass out of double teams. Because Duncan can shoot free throws, the Spurs don't have to worry about giving him the ball the way the Lakers do Shaq. (in other words, it's not that Shaq can't pass, but that he is a liability to go to the line if he touches the ball) He also made the buzzer-beater against the Mavs this year in a game that effectively decided the division. He's a threat late in games.
Back in 99, JR Reid was LA's PF. That's why Duncan went off. Once LA improved their interior D by using Shaq on Duncan at times and putting Horry on him more and Ho Grant last year, Duncan hasn't delivered MVP type #'s against LA. The 2 most important games for LA this playoffs were game 6 and game 7 against SAC, facing elimination, it was really the first time their dynasty had been threatened. I believe Shaq averaged 38 and 18 those 2 games. His impact on the game is just significantly more than Duncan's IMO. Now I'll admit that a lot of it is due to his style of play which is borderline, if not flat out illegal, but as long as the game is called the way it is now, Shaq is a more valuable player than Duncan. To say that "Kobe got him 3 rings" is a flat out freakin joke. The first LA title run was almost all Shaq, Kobe wasn't even that great in 00. And Shaq is clearly option #1 on LA. No, he's not a bigtime clutch player in the 4th thanks to his FT's, but that argument's a total wash in this case because Duncan fizzles in the 4th every year in the playoffs too, except when he's playing creampuffs like the Ewingless Knicks or Seattle. I'd like to see someone take down LA. I just wouldn't put my money on the Spurs. I like the Kings to take down LA next year. They have the talent and probably should have beaten LA this year if not for the bizarre Game 6 deal.
What the hell are you people arging for?! Release the Hate and move on! The Cat is probably just as big a Spurs fan as a Rocket fan (yeah, I know its wrong. He'll go to hell for it) so he ain't stoppin' anytime soon. Boo-****ing-hoo. Damn straight. and I ain't gonna sit up here trying to explain sh*t. I hate your team. Love your city, but hate your ****ing pansy ass team. Thats all you need to know. And don't tell me about what the Rockets have done the past few seasons, I already know, and I'm still here, hating your sorry team and their dumbass announcers. Go figure. I don't have any notion of a ****ing rivalry! I have a notion of a stupid-ass team I can't stand! Just like the Kings, Jazz, Sonics, Knicks, and Mavs (actually I don't hate the Mavs much anymore. They have some cool fans.) I don't have to have a rivalry with any of those teams to know I can't stand them.
Duncan's a better regular season performer than Shaq is - not by a large margin, but by a slim one. For whatever reason, Shaq doesn't perform as well as he can during the regular season - whether to pace himself or simply because he doesn't need to. However, it's a different story during the postseason. Duncan doesn't have anyone to help him through the regular or postseason, and thus has less left in the tank than Shaq does. With Kobe alongside, Shaq can absolutely dominate in the playoffs - and right now, with a good complimentary player, that's where it matters. But you really can't compare the two players until they are on equal footing. If Duncan leaves for a place like Orlando, then you can compare them. If the Spurs get a key 2nd player alongside Duncan, you can compare them. But for now - these endless arguments about who is better can't really be solved.
No, not even close. When the Rockets play the Spurs, I am just as intense as I am when the Rockets play the Lakers. There's no difference. You can like another team without it affecting your love for the Rockets, believe it or not. Duncan doesn't fizzle in the fourth. Out of about the 15 playoff series Duncan has played in, about the only series you could make an argument to say that about is the last two against the Lakers. If you actually watch, it's because Duncan has no perimeter help, and is thus exposed to multiple double teams. Even if you don't accept that, it's two series out of 15. BTW, Kobe was that great in 2000. Remember in game 4 against the Pacers, when Shaq fouled out late in the fourth quarter? Kobe got that game to overtime and took over the game in overtime. If he doesn't do that, I think the Pacers might very well have won that series.
I'm a Lakers fan and a card-carrying Spurs hater, but I don't think Shaq's superiority to Duncan is at all obvious or beyond dispute. Duncan's still a very young man, don't forget.<p> Of course we won't know for sure until Duncan's contract expires and he signs with a team that is committed to winning--unlike the Spurs, who allowed the abominable-but-undeniably-great David Robinson to languish for years with no supporting cast, and whose coaches, with the exception of Larry Brown, have been non-entities.
A better regular season performer? Why? Because he blocks more shots? Gets more rebounds? Uh . . . no. Duncan's Career average is 22 PPG. Shaq has never scored lower than 23 ppg, which he did once in his rookie season. After that, he never scored fewer than 26, a number Duncan has never reached. His rebounding, blocks and assists are about the same. The only way you could make that claim would be if you factor in injuries, I suppose. But Shaq has a lot more miles on him than Duncan and has played twice as many seasons. Duncan has a slight advantage thus far based on his first few years with only a few missed games. If Duncan stays relatively injury free then he will have a definite advantage in this regard. You can't compare them until they get a second great player? Funny, that is the reverse kobe hater argument. "You can't judge how great Kobe is until he doesn't have to play with Shaq". That is just an excuse. Nobody ever said "Well, you can't judge Russell and Chamberlain because Russell has Bob Cousy " or "Kareem was not as good as Chamberlain and Russell because he won 4 of 5 championships with Magic" That is the Buddy Ryan Cris Carter line of reasoning. "All he does is catch touchdowns" Which is the object of the game. This argument would have credibility if Duncan scored more points, or had some other statistical superiority to Shaq that could be pointed to. If the only viable offensive option is Duncan, he should have more opportunities than Shaq does, who according to some, is not even the best player on his own team. But he still doesn't touch Shaq as a scorer. And most of you seem willfullly blind to the fact that Shaq is double teamed on pretty much every play, just like Duncan, and takes a physical pounding like no other player inthe league. While I admit that his game is not polished, pretty, or entertaining as Duncan's, it gets results that Duncan has simply not gotten.
Considering that at least $23 mil comes off the cap next summer in a deep free agent year I will take that "poor decisionmaking" anytime.
Before this thread get's locked for ludicresness on both sides. I don't get the venom of some of these Rocket's fans toward the Spurs. It is not like the Jazz or Sonics, the most important playoff games between the franchices the Rockets have won. If you look at Rose and Bowen's signings together they were the right thing for the Spurs to do at an OK price, because even if these guys shouldn't be starting for any high aspiring team in the league the Spurs are far better with tyhem than without them. That said, theCat and Mr Spur have been pretty pro-Spur biased over the last two years. Here are some of my observations: For my money Duncan is solidly the 2nd best player in the league. I actually think the gap between him and Kobe, McGrady or KG for the 2 spot is solid. However, the gap between Shaq and TD is equally solid. Look at career numbers, look at titles, playoff MVPs, etc. Furthermore, I hate to admit it, but Shaq is building a solid case that he is better than Hakeem, and Hakeem pretty much is a freakishly athletic (superior) version of TD. None of this is a knock on TD, to maybe be the best post player in last 20 years this side of Shaq and Hakeem puts him in fantastic company. The Spurs supporting cast is week and not competitive with the Lakers or Kings. Shaq has Kobe for pete' sake, not to mention some other well rounded players. Now take the Kings. I'll give you Duncan is better than Webber--though Webber is no slouch and can do his damage as well. But go at every other starting position plus 3-4 deep off the bench and the Kings are better, usually much better. There is no way TD can overcome the gaps everywhere else, Hakeem couldn't either until a better and well rounded group of players was put around him 92-97. In a nutshell, since 99 (when the Spurs got very solid all around production from DR and DA) the gap between the Kings and Lakers from the Spurs has gotten wider with no immediate sign for a turnaround. All the conjecture by Cat and MrSpur, can't change the fact this has been evident in the regular season and playoffs. It was no surprise two team went toe to toe last year and actually had chances at the ring while everyone else was just a spectator--including the Spurs. Couple more points. Shaq was hurting and the Lakers overall were not playing well as Cat admits yet they still won 4-1 against the Spurs. One thing that has been overlooked and overlooked by the Cat and others is that the Spurs defense is neither at the Lakers level, nor at the level of the 99 Spurs team. Since Elie left and the demise of skills in DR, AJ and SE the Spurs overall defense has gone down hill--especially last year by plaugging in Parker and Smith into starting roles. And unlike the Kings, the Spurs can't score enough ways against the Lakers to really threaten the latter late in the 4th when games are in the balance.
