murksiderock
Superstar
Yep, all these factors count. We're in agreement on that one!
ESPN Got Shaq In His Feelings...Throws Shots at DunGawd After Being Ranked Below Him
- Thread starter VBM
- Start date
Yep, all these factors count. We're in agreement on that one!
You claim to be the same age as me and yet you seem to act like you didn't experience the same shyt the rest of us who were alive for the early 2000s experienced. I can entertain a Kobe vs LeBron debate. IMO LeBron is great enough where I can see people thinking he was better than Kobe. I will never understand how anybody who watched Shaq and Duncan play for their entire careers would think Duncan is even in the same class as Shaq let alone better.
If you had to win a game and your life depended on it and you had a Prime Shaq and Prime Duncan available, who you taking? To me this is the only way to ever get a true answer on who is better than who. I refuse to believe anybody who saw Shaq play in his prime would take Duncan over him.
its almost like teams spent all of their energy and game planning to neutralize Shaq/ stop the Lakers from shooting 3's, which gave an extremely gifted scorer like Kobe opportunities to work...
teams were throwing there best defenders at Kobe stop it
Y’all still with the dumbass arguments. You act like teams weren’t trying to neutralize TD or any other legendary player neither. But his scoring went up in the playoffs whereas Shaq scoring went down in the late 90s
But the West was strong as hell, y’all just really leave out the actual playoff runs and focus only on the finals
Oldschooler
All Star
No one was more dominant than Shaq except for maybe Wilt. The knock on Shaq was that he was lazy because things came so easy for him. It's also hard to make the argument that Duncan played with better players when compared to Shaq. So IMO I put Duncan over Shaq on the all time list.
murksiderock
Superstar
Go back and "watch the tape" since that's your thing hahahahaha....
This. Fukk the rings, awards, and stats. I was alive to watch these guys play big time series against one another. There was never a moment (even in 2003 when Duncan won) where I thought he was better than Shaq. Never once.
Also there was never a moment I thought Duncan was the best player in the league. The only guys I have watched and felt were the best in the NBA was Jordan in the 90s, Shaq and Kobe in the 2000s, LeBron and Durant in the 2010s. That's it. Nobody else has ever elevated to a level where I thought this was the best dude in the game.
Shaq's laziness only comes into question when a player of a similar level is put up against him (like Kobe or LeBron). Duncan is not in that group. He was a very good player who was in a great system with great players alongside him. You could have put many other PFs in his spot and they would have similar accomplishments.
I rank players based on their ability to play the game not their accomplishments (which are the products of circumstance). Tim Duncan simply doesn't play the game on the same level Shaq did. That is why they are not comparable. PERIOD.
Greenhornet
A God Among Kings
as a suns fan I remember years of seeing Amare giving Tim work
Not trying to hate, but I keep seeing people talk about accolades and comparing runs and all this extra shyt
the only thing I'm thinking in this convo is if you put Shaq against Tim ... prime for prime
you can bring up all the extra shyt but Shaq would absolutely hurt Tim Duncan
same with how Hakeem beat Shaq, and Shaq wanted to do HBO 1v1
Shaq would have hurt Hakeem and laughed about it on TV infront of the world
and I have no Bias ... I was a Blazers fan after Bulls and then Suns fan
Both dudes are legends ... team wise Tim gets the W ... but nah not 1on1 ... shaq would punish 95% of the big men of all time
you hear about Wilt not trying to hurt guys and all this shyt ... Shaq usually wanted to hurt you.... that nikka was different
Duncan did have the 3 ... knockdown every midrange jumper and perfect technical game, but I dont see him doing what he wants against shaq 1v1 especially not mad Shaq
Tim aint built or strong enough for all that.
yall are arguing the career aspect over the reality of Shaq saying he would drop him off... I can say with a straight face that if shaq wanted to shorten Duncan's career he could have, without breaking a sweat
but this is exactly why rings matter, people are only harping over the fact of how the career played out instead of the reality of the matchup. Not even mentioning they dont play the same position, even though a few cats tried to say they do.
Not trying to hate, but I keep seeing people talk about accolades and comparing runs and all this extra shyt
the only thing I'm thinking in this convo is if you put Shaq against Tim ... prime for prime
you can bring up all the extra shyt but Shaq would absolutely hurt Tim Duncan
same with how Hakeem beat Shaq, and Shaq wanted to do HBO 1v1
Shaq would have hurt Hakeem and laughed about it on TV infront of the world
and I have no Bias ... I was a Blazers fan after Bulls and then Suns fan
Both dudes are legends ... team wise Tim gets the W ... but nah not 1on1 ... shaq would punish 95% of the big men of all time
you hear about Wilt not trying to hurt guys and all this shyt ... Shaq usually wanted to hurt you.... that nikka was different
Duncan did have the 3 ... knockdown every midrange jumper and perfect technical game, but I dont see him doing what he wants against shaq 1v1 especially not mad Shaq
Tim aint built or strong enough for all that.
yall are arguing the career aspect over the reality of Shaq saying he would drop him off... I can say with a straight face that if shaq wanted to shorten Duncan's career he could have, without breaking a sweat
but this is exactly why rings matter, people are only harping over the fact of how the career played out instead of the reality of the matchup. Not even mentioning they dont play the same position, even though a few cats tried to say they do.
A lot of these brehs basketball knowledge is as bad as those filipino fan comments on Facebook NBA groups
I never got the concept of an asterick.
A whole lotta weird shyt happens on the way to a ring.
For one, Bron's 2016 title could've flipped had Draymond not decided to go nut hunting.
Injuries, suspensions, etc...
A whole lotta weird shyt happens on the way to a ring.
For one, Bron's 2016 title could've flipped had Draymond not decided to go nut hunting.
Injuries, suspensions, etc...
Nah, there literally isn't a "did they win a back-to-back?" category in any record book. You can't just make up stupid random criteria to push your agenda.
You're seriously saying that if Duncan had won in 2005, 2006, and 2007 he would be a legend, but because he won in 2003, 2005, and 2007 he's somehow diminished.
You're saying that 41-15-6 with 3 blocks isn't a dominant performance because Manu fouled Dirk.
You can look for ages and no one EVER used "didn't win a back-to-back" to diminish Larry Bird until the era where random idiots got to post verbal diarrhea on the internet without consequences.
They beat a bum ass Nuggets team an overrated Boozer/DWill Jazz team lol then were handed the WCF when Stat and Diaw were suspended lol
No im saying if he won in 2004-05-06 he would be in the top 5 and not 9 or 10.I never said he wasnt a top 10 player but not having ever def3ended once puts in exclusive company on that list...
41/15 is great but they lost the game and series.
ONE reason MJ,Magic,Kareem etc get thrown into these goat convos is because they have several championships and FMVPs and have done it in consecutive years which is hard to do and what separates the best from the everyone else...TD still got 5 and that puts him in elite company he is left out of the top 5 because he didnt reel off a string of titles together...
Birds a great player but i think we know generally speaking why the media always puts him in that top 5-10 discussion.I personally wouldnt have him in the top 10 and its because of that exact reason...When the stats and accomplishments are similar you have to look for things to separate the elite players and i think winning consecutively is one of things...
Alot of Jordans cache as #1 is he won 6 in 7 years and two 3 peats...if he won those 6 titles over 15-16 years it would diminish it to less than what it is.6 in 7 years is something youll probably never see again that why its revered and is a big reason nobody will go over him in public opinion...
Last edited: