It's hard to say who had a better career, but one thing I know is that both of these guys brought revolutionary elements to the game as far as big men go.
Lol - it's a hell of a lot easier to be the best PF of all time than it is to be a top 5 center. I'd take Wilt/KAJ/Russel/Hakeem before I took Duncan or Malone no questions asked. Shaq has had the better career IMO.
I don't get this "consistency" argument for Duncan. Duncan is age 33 right now. Through his age 33 season Shaq had never scored less than 20 ppg. Duncan has had 4 season of less than 20 ppg, including the last three.
Duncan has been more consistent throughout his career and hasn't lost as much since his prime. Shaq, however was more dominant and was the best player of the early 2000s. My vote was for Duncan, though.
Shaq. His peak was higher. -Shaq had EIGHT seasons with a PER above 28, including two above 30 and two above 29. -Duncan had two seasons with a PER above 28, and none above 29. Defensively, I'm not sure which was better.
This is a tough one but I have to go with Shaq dude was complete monster in his hey day. I still can't believe he only won one MVP that's a shame. I think its crazy that Nash has as many MVPs as Dream and Shaq put together.
I don't know what Duncan you been watching the last few years but dude has clearly lost a lot since his prime.
Nowadays maybe. 15 years ago, no. Shaq was a beast; you'd get a defensive foul called on you for being in the paint while he had the ball.
Not nearly as much as Shaq. As far as defense, Duncan 1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st) 2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) vs Shaq: 1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) 2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (2nd) This is a light version of the Chamberlain vs Russell debate. Shaq's a far more dominant individual offensive force, but Duncan is the more solid all-around player and makes his teammates better than Shaq does. And that's leaving out Shaq's prima donna locker room issues and his underachieving on defense and rebounding. Evan
Shaq has been more dominating offensively but also has much bigger flaws, namely his FT shooting and his complete lack of a jump shot. Duncan is really excellent in every area, except for his below avg FTs (still much better than Shaq though). I have to go with Duncan, though, because he is a much better defensive player than Shaq. His teams have consistently been at the top in defense, which stems from his shot blocking, mobility, high bb IQ, and 1v1 play. Duncan has done a better job of maximizing his abilities. Shaq has been awesome, of course, but if he had been more disciplined about fixing his flaws, he could have been, hands-down, the best center of all time.
Duncan has been recognized as the greatest baller ever to play his position. on the other hand, Shaq has been probably the 4th or 5th best center of all time (behind Chamberlain, Kareem, Russell and Hakeem) on that basis, I say Duncan has had a more productive career
Fair point, but under "consistency" I also include durability within a season. Shaq's commitment on the defensive end was also very erratic during his career (along with his weight) -- which makes a difference in wins and losses but does not reflect so much in PER.
I think you guys forgot how good Shaq was before he gained all the weight. He made Mutumbo look like his career was over years before he even played for the Rockets. Although we swept them in our second championship, Shaq averaged almost 28 points a game that series.
I'm a big-time Duncan fan but I give my vote to Shaq. IMO the difference between the two legends is: domination.
He was absolutely terrifying. Then he became more concerned with being a multimedia star, left for LA, and began a subtle but steady decline. People forget how incredibly good Penny was in his first few years...but no one would claim he had a better career than Kidd.
Shaq was the more prominent figure, but Duncan won more. Both had good supporting casts but Duncan never had anyone as good as Kobe/Wade. I've always called Duncan a C but when you start looking at all time it's true that Duncan tended to play with another C more than he played C himself. That makes him the best PF of all time. Shaq on the other hand is behind Kareem, Hakeem, Russell, and Wilt in my book. If you just compare their SKILLS, Duncan belongs in the group of aforementioned centers; Shaq doesn't even make the top ten in that regard. It all comes down to what you respect. If that's raw power, with enough mass to back into the paint like a Uhaul truck and slam it home with impugnity, then Shaq is your man. If instead that's post moves, footwork on offense and defense, and an overall respect for the game and desire to play it the way the previous greats had mastered it, then it's Duncan. My vote's to Duncan.
Penny was a dynamic player for three season whereas Shaq was one for 12 (and averaged 26+ PPG for 10 consecutive seasons). Given that Duncan's only played 13 years, I'm not sure your analogy works. Shaq's so-called decline as a player really didn't begin until he left LA.
