Can you argue that Duncan peaked higher than Shaq?

[ceiling raiser]

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

[70sFan]

I think it's not that hard to argue to be honest, but I also understand Shaq's case.

Anyone who suggests that Duncan was never Shaq's peer is just wrong though.

[One_and_Done]

Yes. 2002 and 2003 are great points of comparison to 00 from Shaq.

[OhayoKD]

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

On the money. The better question is Shaq's argument vs Duncan

[therealbig3]

Their respective arguments are pretty clear when you break it down...Shaq was better offensively (clearly) and Duncan was better defensively (clearly).

Question is which gap is bigger. I think Shaq has a bigger advantage on offense than Duncan does on defense. A motivated Shaq was pretty dominant defensively within their era...yes, he had weaknesses that could be exploited, and he would have major issues defensively today imo...but "how would they do in 2023?" isn't really fair. Duncan himself would also have problems on defense in today's era, he would be targeted too, just not as much as Shaq. Within their era, when a big center that guarded the paint and didn't have to come out to the perimeter was pretty common, Shaq was a legitimate rim protector, post defender, and overall extremely intimidating presence inside. I think the difference on defense between peak Duncan and peak Shaq is quite small compared to the difference on offense between the two. Shaq is on the short list of greatest offensive players of all time, which is amazing for a big man that can't shoot. Duncan to me, when compared to the best big men of all time, is a little above average offensively, can definitely be slowed down quite a bit against a strong defense. Not that Shaq wasn't slowed down in multiple playoff runs, but it was much harder overall to stop Shaq than it was Duncan.

To be fair, Shaq consistently played with all-time great guards during his prime (Penny, Kobe, Wade). On the other hand, Duncan's teams provided him great help by committee...the combination of Manu and Parker along with some really solid role players more than made up for Kobe's presence imo, and Robinson in 02 and 03, despite being an older player, took a lot of defensive responsibility off Duncan. He was still one of the best defensive bigs in the league at the time, and was still a capable catch and finish player on offense, with a solid midrange jumper too.

At the end of the day, it's hard for me to see a good case for Duncan. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it's kinda weak. Now in terms of overall prime, and especially overall career? I'd go Duncan. Much more consistent overall player, Shaq's effort and conditioning waxed and waned, and he absolutely didn't bring the same focus to his career as he did in his Orlando years and his 00-02 run. And if it's about who I would draft overall? Forget about it, Duncan is a significantly better franchise cornerstone, that's obvious.

[therealbig3]

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

1. So does Shaq
2. So? And I'd argue that's only on defense. Duncan isn't a good enough offensive hub to have a modern offense run through him imo. The Spurs' best offensive seasons happened after Duncan became a role player on offense and ball/player movement and offense by committee became the focus. The best team during the Duncan era may very well be the 2014 team, the one where Duncan played by far the smallest role. Shaq is actually good enough that you could still have him as the anchor of a great offensive team today
3. Why is it Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, but Duncan's is getting cannibalized? Why isn't Duncan ALSO capturing Manu's/Parker's impact? Why isn't Kobe cannibalizing Shaq's impact? This is just semantics, both of them got the chance to play with great players that made their lives easier. And the combo of Manu and Parker more than makes up for the presence of Kobe imo. Kobe is better than either, but he's one player, while Duncan had the benefit of two really talented guards.
4. I agree with defense, that's obvious, but I strongly disagree with off ball scoring. Shaq was a monster off ball, and it's probably the main reason he's one of the greatest offensive players of all time. He was dominant as a 1 on 1 post scorer with the ball in his hands, true, but his movement, sealing, positioning, and offensive rebounding were GOAT-level too. Shaq's off ball game was harder to stop than his on ball game imo. Duncan didn't pressure defenses the same way with his off ball or on ball game.

[OhayoKD]

A motivated Shaq was pretty dominant defensively within their era...yes

Unless you're cherry-picking the 2000 regular season and mixing it with the 2001 playoffs(cough grant cough), I'm not sure how you get there. Over a larger sample the Lakers were actually worse defensively with him.

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

1. So does Shaq

1. Not as strong(or consistently strong) as Duncan no.

2. So? And I'd argue that's only on defense. Duncan isn't a good enough offensive hub to have a modern offense run through him imo. The Spurs' best offensive seasons happened after Duncan became a role player on offense and ball/player movement and offense by committee became the focus. The best team during the Duncan era may very well be the 2014 team, the one where Duncan played by far the smallest role. Shaq is actually good enough that you could still have him as the anchor of a great offensive team today

I guess if you disregard passing, shooting, ball-handling...

3. Why is it Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, but Duncan's is getting cannibalized? Why isn't Duncan ALSO capturing Manu's/Parker's impact? Why isn't Kobe cannibalizing Shaq's impact? This is just semantics, both of them got the chance to play with great players that made their lives easier. And the combo of Manu and Parker more than makes up for the presence of Kobe imo. Kobe is better than either, but he's one player, while Duncan had the benefit of two really talented guards.

Well depends on the year but

A. Kobe is better than Manu and Parker
B. At least for 2003, the Spurs were unaffected by rookie Many's absence over a decent sample. Duncan also literally won two rings without him. What has shaq done without all-time playmaking guards?

4. I agree with defense, that's obvious, but I strongly disagree with off ball scoring. Shaq was a monster off ball, and it's probably the main reason he's one of the greatest offensive players of all time. He was dominant as a 1 on 1 post scorer with the ball in his hands, true, but his movement, sealing, positioning, and offensive rebounding were GOAT-level too. Shaq's off ball game was harder to stop than his on ball game imo. Duncan didn't pressure defenses the same way with his off ball or on ball game.

That reads to me like "one of the greatest scorers of all-time". He still has massive deficits compared to proper offensive goats as a passer, facilitator, ball-handler, teammate ochrestrator...

Yeah, I don't think you've made a "good case" at all tbh.

[No-more-rings]

They’re around the same level for me, probably like 4-8 range somewhere. You can say Duncan never led a team as strong as 2000 Lakers(regular season), or 2001 Lakers(postseason), but Shaq never had a “carry job” like the 2003 Spurs either. I don’t care much for the ceiling raising vs floor raising thing, but it could be at least sort of real in this case. Both are strong enough in team results, box scores, impact stats etc that there isn’t wrong with taking either one. Shaq is obviously aesthetically more impressive, and that might be the reason why many just default to him being better. An equivalent guard comparison could be like Curry vs Wade or something like that.

[tsherkin]

I feel like "how would they do in 2023" is a stupid argument, because they played in their own time.

[ceoofkobefans]

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

Shaq also has a pretty dominant impact footprint

Don’t really value that when comparing players all time

Idk

Definitely not (Shaq one of the most portable players ever).

I don’t have TD too far behind Shaq peak for peak but I would have Shaq comfortably ahead

[FuShengTHEGreat]

When Duncan was running roughshod and leading SA past the Lakers he was the Spurs best player at both ends of the floor

Tim Duncan was so great that Shaq was forced to defer to Kobe Bryant to win in the playoffs or else LA would lose.

No version of peak Duncan would anchor a 21st ranked defense like peak Shaq did.

I'm taking 01-03 Duncan over any version of Shaq....simply the more dominant player.

[BDR263]

Reading some of the arguments in the GOAT threads, seems like this is a discussion that needs to be had.

(1) Duncan has a dominant impact footprint at his peak
(2) Duncan's game seems to translate better to 2023
(3) It's perhaps possible that part of Kobe's impact is captured by Shaq, and part of Duncan's impact is cannibalized by Manu/Parker
(4) Duncan's game is more portable (defense, off-ball scoring)

Thoughts? Is this a credible argument? Completely off-base?

I always feel like point 2 does not really matter in the GOAT-debate. As good as Giannis is now, he would've played totally different if it were 1999.

[rand]

Duncan was better. The defensive gap was bigger.

[Jaivl]

You most definitely can. 03 Duncan is an extremely strong season by any measure. I do think it's probably too far.

[1993Playoffs]

You definitely can argue it

But peak wise I have Duncan behind

Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem , and Wilt.

[Matt15]

You definitely can argue it

But peak wise I have Duncan behind

Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem , and Wilt.

I agree with this, Duncan has a case but I have him behind those 4 as well.

[ShaqAttac]

what is shaqs arg

[Texas Chuck]

so I'm known as a big Timmy guy. And I'm a big defense guy.

But I think this is still Shaq. I mean the entire league ran through him for 3 straight years. There was simply no answer for him. And I just don't think Kobe was significant enough here to suggest this wasn't really all about Shaq.

Now I have Duncan's prime and career clearly ahead of Shaq. But if we are just talking about best 2-3 years, I think I'm still going Shaq. No disrespect to Duncan of roughly that same time period. He was stupid good himself.

[OhayoKD]

what is shaqs arg

The word "dominance" more or less

[AdagioPace]

so I'm known as a big Timmy guy. And I'm a big defense guy.

But I think this is still Shaq. I mean the entire league ran through him for 3 straight years. There was simply no answer for him. And I just don't think Kobe was significant enough here to suggest this wasn't really all about Shaq.

Now I have Duncan's prime and career clearly ahead of Shaq. But if we are just talking about best 2-3 years, I think I'm still going Shaq. No disrespect to Duncan of roughly that same time period. He was stupid good himself.

to be fair, the league was helpless against the Lakers as a whole, while Duncan was hyperachieving in RS playing with... Derek Anderson and 35 y.o DRob. See for example Jokic last season.
If Shaq had stinkers in the PS there was Kobe and viceversa. If Duncan had stinkers.......see you in October.