RealGM

who the best big?

Good question. Shaq has raw dominance in his favor but Duncan had a significantly worse supporting cast. 2000 Kobe may not have been a full blown superstar yet but he was still better than anyone Duncan had in 2003. And Duncan was undoubtedly a better defender.

I'd say it's a toss up.

This is pretty obviously 00 Shaq, come on now. 00 Shaq is up there with any one that's ever played. 03 Duncan...not really.

therealbig3 wrote:This is pretty obviously 00 Shaq, come on now. 00 Shaq is up there with any one that's ever played. 03 Duncan...not really.

??

Duncan won 57 games in 02. Then he won 60 games with d-rob's corpse and then elevated his creation and scoring to win one of the handful of one-star titles in nba history.

Duncan also has the highest non-lebron apm via various methoologies, is #1 in 3 year playoff on/off and aupm and grades higher than shaq in playoff pipm.

What justifies treating shaq as a different calibre of player, especially considering that Shaq fell-off in the playoffs(largely due to defense) while Duncan elevated?

Hardly D-Rob's corpse since Robinson still had better defensive impact stats than Duncan. On the other hand, the twin towers thing has always been a difficult setup (see Minnesota this year) and Duncan made it work well so props on that account.

penbeast0 wrote:Hardly D-Rob's corpse since Robinson still had better defensive impact stats than Duncan. On the other hand, the twin towers thing has always been a difficult setup (see Minnesota this year) and Duncan made it work well so props on that account.

how good would you guess the spurs would have been without duncan those years?

Shaq. Just a better basketball player. Even with Duncan’s defense accounted for

This can go either way, I tend to give Shaq a small advantage because his offense/inside gravity made defenses look completely helpless that year. It also helps leading a 67 win 8+ SRS and the 1st ranked D, and finishing the season off with an historically dominant finals performance. Yeah he had a close series with the Blazers who were well equipped to defend him but he still dominated anyway.

Duncan’s floor raise deserves a lot of credit and is pretty close to Shaq, but Shaq faced better competition for the most part.

No-more-rings wrote:This can go either way, I tend to give Shaq a small advantage because his offense/inside gravity made defenses look completely helpless that year. It also helps leading a 67 win 8+ SRS and the 1st ranked D, and finishing the season off with an historically dominant finals performance. Yeah he had a close series with the Blazers who were well equipped to defend him but he still dominated anyway.

Duncan’s floor raise deserves a lot of credit and is pretty close to Shaq, but Shaq faced better competition for the most part.

That 1st ranked d collapsed in the postseason though

Duncan 03 > any version of Shaq.

As far as I'm concerned had Duncan not been injured before the '00 playoffs the Lakers wouldn't have even won it all that year.

Los Angeles were already being pushed to the brink of elimination by 2 teams who's best player were PFs (CWebb & Sheed) that weren't even top 10 all time PFs.

Duncan was all around more dominant. And the 03 Lakers that Duncan led the Spurs past were still a better team than anyone the '00 Lakers beat.

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:This can go either way, I tend to give Shaq a small advantage because his offense/inside gravity made defenses look completely helpless that year. It also helps leading a 67 win 8+ SRS and the 1st ranked D, and finishing the season off with an historically dominant finals performance. Yeah he had a close series with the Blazers who were well equipped to defend him but he still dominated anyway.

Duncan’s floor raise deserves a lot of credit and is pretty close to Shaq, but Shaq faced better competition for the most part.

That 1st ranked d collapsed in the postseason though

It still got the job done didn’t it?

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:This can go either way, I tend to give Shaq a small advantage because his offense/inside gravity made defenses look completely helpless that year. It also helps leading a 67 win 8+ SRS and the 1st ranked D, and finishing the season off with an historically dominant finals performance. Yeah he had a close series with the Blazers who were well equipped to defend him but he still dominated anyway.

Duncan’s floor raise deserves a lot of credit and is pretty close to Shaq, but Shaq faced better competition for the most part.

That 1st ranked d collapsed in the postseason though

It still got the job done didn’t it?

both players here "god the job done"...

you do understand how comparisons work, right?

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:That 1st ranked d collapsed in the postseason though

It still got the job done didn’t it?

both players here "god the job done"...

you do understand how comparisons work, right?

I looked at body of work from start to finish. If you want to dock Shaq for a “collapsing defense” in the postseason it would help if you provided evidence that it was due to his own performance, and that 23 games of a weaker defense somehow overrides an entire season of all time dominance.

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:It still got the job done didn’t it?

both players here "god the job done"...

you do understand how comparisons work, right?

I looked at body of work from start to finish. If you want to dock Shaq for a “collapsing defense”

So their team defense is relevant when you can use it to praise shaq, but not relevant when it offers a point of criticism? You did not look "from start to finish", you looked at the regular season, a single postseason series, and didn't really go much deeper than "the team won alot of games". You brought up the team's regular season defense as evidence and then ignored what happened in the postseason.

in the postseason it would help if you provided evidence that it was due to his own performance, and that 23 games of a weaker defense somehow overrides an entire season of all time dominance.

"Overrides"? The thread is titled shaq vs duncan, not "was shaq good". The only discernable point you've made to that end is that the lakers won more games than the spurs.

That's tough question, I think I will come back after I finish tracking 2003 Duncan games (just finished with 2002).

The thing is that Shaq has a clear edge on offense over Duncan, it is not close in fact. Is it enough to overcome the large gap on defense though? I don't know, I hope to come back with more educated answer.

Anyone who says Duncan doesn't have one of the best peaks ever is ridiculous though.

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:It still got the job done didn’t it?

both players here "god the job done"...

you do understand how comparisons work, right?

I looked at body of work from start to finish. If you want to dock Shaq for a “collapsing defense” in the postseason it would help if you provided evidence that it was due to his own performance, and that 23 games of a weaker defense somehow overrides an entire season of all time dominance.

Well, I watched almost all of 2000 Lakers games not so long ago and I can tell you that Shaq wasn't particularily effective defender in postseason. I don't mean he was poor, but he didn't impact the game on consistent basis and teams knew how to exploit his lack of mobility.

70sFan wrote:Well, I watched almost all of 2000 Lakers games not so long ago and I can tell you that Shaq wasn't particularily effective defender in postseason. I don't mean he was poor, but he didn't impact the game on consistent basis and teams knew how to exploit his lack of mobility.

Well the Lakers the next year had the best defense in the playoffs by far with the only main difference being Kobe hitting his prime. Was Shaq not the same player in the next postseason? If not what was so different? Shaq those Lakers years always graded fairly strong in DRAPM and such, so I'm not sure how much of the decline is attributed to him.

So even if we take that at face value...

OhayoKD wrote:
So their team defense is relevant when you can use it to praise shaq, but not relevant when it offers a point of criticism?

Well as said above when Shaq usually looked pretty good but regular season impact, it's fair to ask question of much of that fall in the postseason was due to Shaq. No one really showed why, other than he "didn't look effective", I'm willing to at least take 70s word for it for now, at least until I re-watch a few of those games.

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage".

I don't think it's that unfair to recognize that sometimes things don't shake out the same way, even if that players' performance remains mostly unchanged.

OhayoKD wrote:You did not look "from start to finish", you looked at the regular season, a single postseason series, and didn't really go much deeper than "the team won alot of games". You brought up the team's regular season defense as evidence and then ignored what happened in the postseason.

Ok let's talk about the postseason then.

1st round vs Kings(10th ranked defense, 3+SRS team), Lakers rocked a 114.3 ORTG(+12.1 offense), Shaq's individual production 29.4/17.4/2.8, 54.3 fg%, 53.4 ts%

2nd round vs Suns(3rd ranked defense, +5 SRS team), Lakers rocked a 109.6 ORTG(+10.6 offense), Shaq's individual production 30.2/16.2/2.6. 56 fg% 56 ts%

3rd round vs Blazers(5th ranked defense, 6+ SRS team), Lakers rocked a 107.3 ORTG(+6.5 offense), Shaq's individual production 25.9/12.4/4.3 54 fg% 55 ts%...and aside from maybe some of the Spurs teams this was an ideal defense to try to contain Shaq

The Finals: vs Pacers(13th ranked defense, 4+SRS team), Lakers rocked a 112.4 ORTG(+9 offense), Shaq's individual production 38/16.7/2.3, 61 fg% 58 ts%

So Shaq's argument aside from regular season performance, is that he led an historically dominant postseason offense relative to era and competition. And given that they still won the title fairly comfortably against strong competition, gives reason to believe Shaq's individual play didn't fall much if any despite any potential decline in defensive impact.

I already said I think Duncan is right there with him and has an argument too, if you take Duncan cool. If you're going to harp on the Lakers' postseason defense, maybe you should talk about the Spurs' offensive decline in the postseason.

No-more-rings wrote:

70sFan wrote:Well, I watched almost all of 2000 Lakers games not so long ago and I can tell you that Shaq wasn't particularily effective defender in postseason. I don't mean he was poor, but he didn't impact the game on consistent basis and teams knew how to exploit his lack of mobility.

Well the Lakers the next year had the best defense in the playoffs by far with the only main difference being Kobe hitting his prime.

Well, and three new starters.

Details, though.

Was Shaq not the same player in the next postseason? If not what was so different?

Matchups mostly. Horace Grant gave them a good man defender for all-NBA-level power forwards and let Horry function better as a versatile sixth man. Rick Fox was a much better defender than Glen Rice. The Kings did not have Bibby yet, and the Lakers generally did not face offence anywhere near as potent as Reggie’s Pacers.

Shaq those Lakers years always graded fairly strong in DRAPM and such, so I'm not sure how much of the decline is attributed to him.

I would attribute to him a struggle against offences that knew how to weaponise space against him, somewhat worsened by more limited perimetre support than in later years. Shaq was very strong in the post and a fair rim protector. He never handled teams like the Pacers of the Stockton/Malone Jazz well.

So even if we take that at face value...

OhayoKD wrote:So their team defense is relevant when you can use it to praise shaq, but not relevant when it offers a point of criticism?

Well as said above when Shaq usually looked pretty good but regular season impact, it's fair to ask question of much of that fall in the postseason was due to Shaq. No one really showed why, other than he "didn't look effective", I'm willing to at least take 70s word for it for now, at least until I re-watch a few of those games.

Legitimately amazed in all your years on this forum you have never come across more specific criticism of 2000 Shaq’s postseason defence.

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage".

Love that very specific and real criticism.

Yes, winning series with weaker support and then eventually losing to a much stronger team is very real “underperformance”, good contribution. I do not care that Shaq could not beat the Bulls in 1996, nor do I even really care that he could not beat the Rockets in 1995 (but then again, I think Hakeem was an outright better player so). I do not even care all that much that he could not mount any sort of challenge against the Spurs in 1999. But if you want to play this game where Shaq just suddenly figured out how to win in the postseason, well, some of us are going to be honest about what that looked like.

I don't think it's that unfair to recognize that sometimes things don't shake out the same way, even if that players' performance remains mostly unchanged.

Right but you are not doing that. You have no particular recollection of Shaq yet are still speaking authoritatively and comparing him to Lebron’s Finals runs.

OhayoKD wrote:You did not look "from start to finish", you looked at the regular season, a single postseason series, and didn't really go much deeper than "the team won alot of games". You brought up the team's regular season defense as evidence and then ignored what happened in the postseason.

Ok let's talk about the postseason then.

1st round vs Kings(10th ranked defense, 3+SRS team), Lakers rocked a 114.3 ORTG(+12.1 offense), Shaq's individual production 29.4/17.4/2.8, 54.3 fg%, 53.4 ts%

2nd round vs Suns(3rd ranked defense, +5 SRS team), Lakers rocked a 109.6 ORTG(+10.6 offense), Shaq's individual production 30.2/16.2/2.6. 56 fg% 56 ts%

3rd round vs Blazers(5th ranked defense, 6+ SRS team), Lakers rocked a 107.3 ORTG(+6.5 offense), Shaq's individual production 25.9/12.4/4.3 54 fg% 55 ts%...and aside from maybe some of the Spurs teams this was an ideal defense to try to contain Shaq

The Finals: vs Pacers(13th ranked defense, 4+SRS team), Lakers rocked a 112.4 ORTG(+9 offense), Shaq's individual production 38/16.7/2.3, 61 fg% 58 ts%

So Shaq's argument aside from regular season performance, is that he led an historically dominant postseason offense relative to era and competition. And given that they still won the title fairly comfortably against strong competition, gives reason to believe Shaq's individual play didn't fall much if any despite any potential decline in defensive impact.

See, that is a better argument. “Even if his defence declined, I think you could argue his offence elevated.” Especially because Ohayo is a big fan of that line of reasoning.

It is also 2000-specific, because this is really the only year in Shaq’s prime where you could argue he was successfully carrying a significant majority of the offensive load. Kobe was still good support, of course, but in any other deep contending run, Shaq was working with either a better Kobe or a better guard season.

If you're going to harp on the Lakers' postseason defense, maybe you should talk about the Spurs' offensive decline in the postseason.

Well that goes back into team-building meta and what is easier to “hide”. I would rather build an offence around Duncan than a defence around Shaq, especially if I wanted consistency.

00 shaq>> anybody but maybe Jordan and Wilt.

Duncan 03 wasn't all THAT efficient, how are folks clamoring to have him over peak most dominant ever Shaq?

Eagle4 wrote:00 shaq>> anybody but maybe Jordan and Wilt.

Duncan 03 wasn't all THAT efficient, how are folks clamoring to have him over peak most dominant ever Shaq?

Have you tried quoting some scoring numbers yet