Once again, how many rings did he win in those years as a 21-22 year old when he was supposedly so dominant? Or does 'dominant' mean something totally different to you than it does to the rest of the world?
I'm not arguing against myself. Shaq put up big numbers in his early years, but achieved the most success in his late 20s-early 30s. What would you say was his "prime"? 92-98, or 98-04? You can argue this all you want, but the fact will always remain that the majority of O'Neal's career was spent in an era that was extremely weak and thin in centers. After 1998, who did he have left standing in his way? No one. That's who. And when did Shaq achieve the most success? After 1998. That's when. Coincidence? You decide.
If Shaq had Duncan's professionalism and dedication, he would have won more titles than Michael Jordan, and this debate would never had happened. Shaq has nobody to blame but himself for not being able to claim the GOAT hands down.
Speak for yourself. Dominant to me doesn't mean championships. I still consider Marino, Malone, Stockton, etc. as dominant players. Karl Malone is generally considered the 2nd best PF of all time. Of all time...in the history of the entire game. If being the second best at that position, of all time, doesn't define dominance, I don't know what does. No rings. Regardless, even if you require further classification as statistically dominant and leading his team to great success, but not ultimately the championship...if Shaq only went on to IMPROVE from that...um, that means he was awesome. And he was. Duh...of course its harder to win rings when there are more great players and teams in the league. I'm just saying if Shaq was dominant against some of the best of all time for significant overlapping stretches of their careers, even IF Shaq's prime and most dominant years came later...meaning he got better (ones prime usually means when one was at their best), wouldn't it then be fair to say he also clearly held his own against some of the best of all time. Moreover, pertinent to this argument, Duncan didn't start playing until the late 90s. Granted, PF's have remained strong, relative to centers, throughout that time - though you could argue the league as a whole got weaker at every position (really, other than KG, any other great PF's after Duncan joined the league? Webber - good, but great? Dirk - will end up having a great HOF career, but a Malone, or Barkley he is not). And, on top of that, though often playing with a center, and playing specifically at PF, Duncan's game is more interchangeable with C than pretty much any other great PF in history. You wouldn't play Malone at center or Barkley or KG for long stretches of time. You could with Duncan. And I'd agree with you, the center position was weak, meaning Duncan benefited from that, too.
your logic is just terrible. i guess jordan wasn't dominant when he put up 37, 8, 8 one year and din't get past the first round
There's a whole hell of a lot than PPG and RPG that suggest that Shaq was the second best center in basketball at that time, and the best scoring center. If you're saying that that Hakeem was a better center than Shaq, you'll get no arguments from me. But Shaq is generally regarded as an all-time great because of his offense. I'm not arguing that. But it's pretty close. And you're say his prime was from 1998-2006. How many people are going to agree with your logic that a 33-year-old Shaq in 2006 was better than a 22-year-old Shaq was in 1995? Or that Shaq from 2002-2006 was better than Shaq from 1993-97? And more importantly if you're going to consider 2006 to be one of his prime years, when he was 33, what's your opinion of Duncan's 2009-10 season? Because that was his age 33 season, and I doubt anyone's going to say that Duncan was a dominant player last year. I believe your argument hinges on a faulty premise, and will leave it at that.
Why is this even a question? Shaq has been given way more talent than Duncan but Duncan has done so much with what he has been given. Of course, a lot of that has to do with him lucking into the Spurs and Pops, but Duncan like Kobe has made the most of his good fortune. With the accomplishments, you forgot to list the ALL NBA first teams, and ALL NBA defensive teams, which Duncan has been in almost his entire career. FYI, If i had to choose between the two its Duncan 10 times out of 10. Shaq could have been the GOAT, but due to his own laziness he kinda' just coasted on his own ability over the years.
Good points, but Parker was top 5 pg in the league before and Ginobili was definitely a top 10 NBA player when they won the championship.
Duncan's career FT: 68.7% Shaq's career FT: 52.7% Duncan's not Ray Allen, but it's far superior to Shaq. For comparison, Houston's points per possession last year was 1.08. If you foul Shaq, he averaged 1.05 points per possession. So fouling him was right around break even for the other team, without them having to actually play defense or waste time on the clock. Duncan, on the other hand would have averaged 1.37, which would be obscenely high for any NBA offense.
Of course if Offense was all you cared about. Centers are supposed to also anchor the defense and rebound, not just score. Also, lets not forget Shaq is half the reason why the PHX and the Lakers teams imploded, and he did a "Lebron" before and left Orlando to go play in LA (not that there's anything wrong with that). Duncan otoh did a "Tom Brady" and signed for less than max money so the Spurs can sign other players.
Even though Shaq was and still is a horrible FT shooter its still amazing that his teams still won championships seeing how often he got fouled and missing the givemes.
does it matter? shaq was more dominant shaq's career: 24ppg, 11rpg, 2.3bpg, 58%fg duncan's career: 21ppg, 11.6rpg, 2.3bpg, 51%fg both won 4 with 3FMVP. both have their individual accolades. the NBA changed the rules for shaq for god sakes
Tim Duncan, but it's a close argument. Offensively Shaq was more dominant than Duncan, but Duncan did everything else better. Plus Duncan has never played with an elite player. Parker and Ginobilli are both great players, but they have nothing on Kobe, Wade, and Penny when he was healthy. Even though Duncan also had his FT struggles, the Spurs often went to him down the stretch. Shaq's wingmen always got the ball late. Duncan did things that don't show up in stats, PnR defense, rotation, ball movement, boxing out. And he could spread the floor a little if necessary.
they both won 4 rings, but shaq was swept out of the playoffs 6 other times! i don't define better career as who was more dominant. i look at it as, who had more overall accomplishments and had more of an impact on their team? and duncan is the answer hands down..
"Better career" is something different than "better player" to me. In a ranking of greatest players all time, Shaq may very well be ahead of Duncan. But, still, I think Duncan had the better career. Sticking to one team and being a great teammate should count for something. And no one ever accused Duncan of being lazy either.
hakeem, wilt, jabbar, russell. there is 4 that could easily be considered better than shaq without it being nonsense
This sort of goes along with the fact that, overall, Duncan was a better player over the course of his career. For one thing, that loyalty made him a better player because the consistency it made it at least a little easier for his team to build around him. Also, I would agree that Shaq at his best is better than Duncan at his best, but overall, Duncan has offered more to his team throughout the years than Shaq has.
