fpliii wrote:1) Shaq doesn't lack consistency, I just feel Duncan was more consistent a defensive rebounder (though perhaps I'm undervaluing offensive rebounding, which closes the gap substantially). 2) It's difficult to reconcile that, and admittedly it's potentially a flawed bias. It's just very hard for me to look past a strong defensive advantage in a big man. It may be arbitrary, but my thinking is it's much more difficult to replace elite defensive contributions, which by and large come from bigs, than it is to replace elite offensive contributions. APM isn't exactly the same as RAPM, but it's hard for me to ignore the averages here:
I'm perhaps getting too bogged down in positional trends, and I wouldn't feel comfortable choosing one over the other without strong conviction (since again, I do feel the two are very close), but if I need to pick one in a runoff, Duncan would be my pick.
I will note though, that if 01 and 02 RAPM (once we have results from entire season, since J.E. noted that his first few reasons are incomplete) do paint Shaq as having complete outlier seasons (and Duncan not so much), it could change my mind here.
I think that a center that is a + on offense and a - on defense becomes a problem only when the defense is so terrible with the big that a team needs to put an all-time great defensive cast around said center. Shaq may be a very flawed defender, but for most of his prime I believe he was a positive influence to the defense. The Lakers and the Heat had a stack of good defenders(old Harp, young Fish, Fox, Horry, Haslem, Posey, old Mourning, etc.) but none that are really considered exceptional. It is not THAT difficult to build a decent enough defense for Shaq, and the way Shaq impacts the other end is rivaled by only a few. It was only when he was past his prime that his defense got so bad his declining offense was not enough to offset that deficiency. It is also why I don't view his '09 season in a good light. I felt that he simply took away better options for the Suns so he can score via post up, and his defense was hilariously bad by then. I think that the '10 Suns got better partly because of Shaq's departure.
Even for me who put a lot of value to longevity I have a tough time giving Duncan the nod here. Maybe he can surprise us and play at a DPOY level for several more years, but until then, if I favor Duncan here that would be implying 2012-2014 Duncan being better than 2008-2011 Shaq is the tip in the scale even though Shaq has a superior peak by a good margin, and I just can't agree with it.
For anyone curious, the vote was 13-13 Duncan/Shaq without preferences. With Jordanbulls, GG Pan and Fplii preferencing Duncan in the run off it's now 16-13 Duncan. Duncan needs 21 votes to have an unassailable majority, and I count 4-6 other voters who have basically said they'll be preferencing Duncan, so we might be able to move on to vote #6 soon. I'm looking forward to the Magic/Shaq discussion. I saw UBF post a video of Magic's passing earlier. For mine it does not do him justice. Check this one out: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Dm0lZTqCc[/youtube] Basically, Magic was doing this crazy stuff all the time.
Lots of people on this board talk about the carry jobs that 11 Dirk, 94 Hakeem, and 03 Duncan did, but no one talks about about the carry job that 2000 Shaq did while carrying a bad supporting cast. This post will compare his cast to those guys casts plus 04 KG's cast.
00 Shaq, 11 Dirk, 03 Duncan, 04 KG, 94 Hakeem. This is what their top 6 playoff minutes getter averaged in the playoffs:
I think Shaq had alot more to carry in 2000 than Duncan in 01-03, primarily because the NBA is a star game, and he had Kobe Bryant. That basically ends the discussion, unless Duncan had lots of really good players to counteract Kobe. Duncan didn't have even one player close to being an all-star quality guy. I won't get dragged into it though, because it's a discussion about 2000, or peak Shaq, and everyone agrees peak Shaq (for the 1-2 years he existed) was better. It's pretty obvious that's not why people are siding with Duncan.
I've already made my vote for Shaq and talked about why I favor him over Hakeem at this position, but I didn't really go in-depth talking about Duncan. And since this seems to be heading towards a Duncan vs. Shaq run-off I felt the need to post. I certainly see Duncan's argument, he has one of the most complete and flawless cases of anyone in NBA history.
Duncan's longevity certainly makes him special, but in his prime I don't think he was nearly as historically unique or irreplaceable as Shaq. And Shaq was a valuable player from '93-'09 (17 years), so I don't think longevity is enough of an edge for Duncan since Duncan only has 17 years in this league.
Duncan: We've seen his species before, he might not even be the best of his kind Hakeem Ewing Robinson Mourning Garnett
All of these post-3pt line era bigs had a very comparable impact and style to Duncan. Historically dominant DPOY-caliber Bigs who also doubled as 20 PPG offensive MVPs for their teams.
People might think Ewing and Mourning don't belong, but both of those players led 60 win Championship contenders when they were paired up with Pat Riley. It wasn't like those teams were absolutely loaded either, they were dominant defensively and led by a great coach (Spurs-like). Hakeem's game blossomed under Rudy T. and he led his teams to 2 straight titles at the ages of 31 and 32. At the age of 31, Garnett is finally on a team with real talent + smart coaching and he leads the '08 Celtics to a 66 win title season on the back of an all-time great defense. David Robinson was routinely winning 55+ games with poor talent around him and he finally won a ring once he was able to be paired up with Duncan and Pop.
Look, Duncan very well may be the best out of all of these players. But I think it's unquestionable that he enjoyed the best situation and environment of all of those guys. With the Spurs he was surrounded by a great team with a great coach day one.
We have people on this thread arguing for Prime Hakeem and Prime Garnett being better than Prime Duncan. We've had countless "what happens if Robinson and Duncan switch timeline" threads over the years. We've had "where does Ewing rank if he has a better 2nd scorer than John Starks in his prime" threads before.
I know a lot of what I wrote above is based on complete hypotheticals and impossible to say for sure. I get that, but the point of it all is to show how great of a situation Duncan has had with the Spurs compared with similar types of players as him.
Shaq: Historically Unique Style Since '80, there have been a handful of Bigs who impacted the game in a similar style as Duncan Since '80, there have been ZERO Bigs who impacted the game in a similar style as Shaq
A player who had an OPOY-caliber impact almost entirely from the low block. A player who was not a consistent DPOY-caliber defender but could flash DPOY ability during stretches and was generally a well-above average defensive anchor.
The only two Bigs in NBA history that were similar to Shaq were Wilt and Kareem. But Wilt played his entire career pre-3pt line and Kareem played 90% of his prime pre-3pt line. The 3pt line changed the game and made it more guard dependent. And even still, you could argue that Wilt was never as consistently dominant on offense as Shaq despite the giant volume numbers. So in reality you are talking about Kareem as the only plus defensive rim-protector who also doubled as a consistent OPOY candidate.
There is value in this uniqueness imo. It made Shaq much harder to gameplan for, he caused more coaching adjustments than any player since 1980. Since he couldn't be stopped one-on-one, he had to be guarded by entire teams. No one was doubled more in modern history.
I feel like Shaq's greatness and impact had less to do with his environment and situation than Duncan's. To me that is a valuable edge when everything else is so close.
Shaq vs. Duncan in the RAPM age I wanted to compare Prime Shaq with Prime Duncan. I'm going to compare their 7 best years. Why 7 years? Because Shaq only has 7 prime years in the RAPM era (1998-00, 02-05). By 2006, his production had taken a drop and I think we all know that atleast one of his pre-98 seasons or his 2001 season would've absolutely been better than his '06 in terms of RAPM. '06 wasn't his true prime despite the ring he won playing 2nd fiddle to Wade, so I didn't feel like using it in this study because it wasn't his real prime and it would unfairly bring down his averages.
*USING DOC MJ's SPREADSHEET Shaq vs. Duncan: Top 7 years RAPM --- O and D values (since 1998... no 2001) Player ---- Avg. RAPM --- Avg. ORAPM ---- Avg. DRAPM ---- *%GP Shaq -------- 9.81 ------------- 6.98 ------------- 2.83 --------- 85.2% Duncan ----- 8.88 ------------- 3.50 ------------- 5.38 --------- 93.4% *%GP = Player GP / Team GP....
Both guys come out looking extremely good in this measure, backing up their All-Time Great reputations with All-Time Great RAPM results. Shaq has the major edge offensively and Duncan has the major edge defensively. Shaq has the edge in value added per minute, Duncan has the edge in minutes and games played. I think all of that is what we expected. But I feel like Shaq's edges are more impressive.
Shaq's average ORAPM over his 7 best years comes out to 6.98 Duncan's average DRAPM over his 7 best years comes out to 5.38
- 8 Offensive Players have topped 6.98 ORAPM atleast twice (2 bigs... Dirk/Barkley) - 10 Defensive Players have topped 5.38 DRAPM atleast twice (1 wing... Jaren Jackson lolwut?)
Duncan's defensive dominance is quite impressive but there have been several Bigs (including those mentioned by me earlier in his comps section) who have had multiple defensive seasons that would rate as Prime Duncan-caliber. The only non-Big who scored a super-high DRAPM was Jaren Jackson, a 6'4" guard who played next to Duncan/Robinson during the '98-'99 seasons. I have been thoroughly impressed with the RAPM stat now that I've looked into it, but clearly it isn't a foolproof stat and the inclusion of Jaren Jackson is proof. But the point is that we've seen several great defensive bigs on Duncan's level as a defender post-80/3pt line.
The only comparable offensive bigs to Shaq since '80 according to RAPM are Dirk/Barkley and maybe Karl Malone. That's not surprising to hear, it's about what we expected. But Shaq is ahead of Dirk and probably ahead of Malone according to RAPM. Barkley is probably the only guy who may or may not truly be considered a better pure offensive big than Shaq. But Barkley was also an atrocious defender and that's the main reason why his name will likely not be called in the Top 15 of this project. Shaq still comes out as a very positive defender, with a +2.83 grade in his prime that's not that far off from Tim Duncan's +3.50 offensive grade. In terms of per minute production, Shaq's RAPM numbers are simply more impressive.
So Timmy's main edges according to this are his teams Games Played% and DRAPM. He played in roughly 93% of his teams regular season games while Shaq played in only 85% of his teams regular season games during these two 7 year prime runs. That comes out to 6-7 games played over the course of a season. That's nothing to sneeze at. Those games could matter when it comes to seeding. Shaq was also a good but far less valuable defender during this stretch.
But the problem with Duncan is that his games played edge completely disappears in the playoffs. Shaq played 110/112 playoff games during this 7 year run, with the only two games he missed coming in his final season of this run in 2005 with the Heat. So while those 6 regular season games per year matter, the "Durability Value" of Duncan is limited because Shaq was just as durable in the playoffs when the games were significantly more important.
And according to both Shaq's critics and Shaq's supporters, Shaq was a player who stepped up on defense when he tried. Guess what, he'd go hard on defense more often in the playoffs. I believe that Shaq's playoff DRAPM grade would clearly be higher than his +2.83 DRAPM regular season grade, simply based on what we all believe about Shaq's effort-level increase in important games.
So out of Duncan's 2 main edges over Shaq, durability and defense, durability was definitely NOT an edge in the playoffs and his defense was probably less of an edge in the playoffs due to Shaq's effort level picking up. While the durability thing is 100% true, the defensive edge in the playoffs is more of a question mark. But I do think Shaq played better on D in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.
Tl:dr Duncan may be more consistent, may be more complete, may be more dependable, may have maximized his legacy more... still doesn't make up for the fact that Shaq was a more dominant force with a singular skillset that could not be duplicated by another player in modern NBA history. Shaq's regular season RAPM numbers in his prime give him an edge over Duncan, despite the fact that we don't even have some of Shaq's best prime seasons ('94-97, '01... especially '01) and have all of Duncan's best prime seasons outside of '01. And those are regular season RAPM numbers. If what Shaq's critics say about his defense are true, chances are that his RAPM in the playoffs would actually increase and his lead over Duncan would grow.
Duncan is an amazing player but Shaq is more worthy of this spot.
Okay, I'm changing my vote to Tim Duncan in the run-off.
Shaq and Duncan are pretty damn close on my list - Duncan is 5th, Shaq 6th, so based on that, I have to give Timmy the edge.
Why? He now has clearly better longevity, was always a much better defender (except 2000 Shaq, which was admittedly DPOY worthy), better free throw shooter and a more balanced two-way player with less weaknesses (Shaq's pick & roll and perimeter defense was basically always poor, and made it harder for his teams to really have the top defense in the league - again, except 2000), and the last argument for TD are his intangibles. Even though I think that "intangibles" are very difficult to argue about, O'Neal and Duncan seem like polar opposites in terms of their attitude and professionalism. I think there's a really tangible benefit of having a leader like Tim Duncan, that you can count on to give maximum effort every single game, and who could seemingly play with anybody without personality clashes, thus is also a lot more likely to stay with your franchise. The discrepancy is bigger than between most of the others players, so it seemed worth mentioning.
I can certainly appreciate a lot of good pro-Shaq arguments though (better peak and prime, so basically a better player at their absolute best), and these two plus Hakeem are very close, in my opinion, but as of right now, I'm going with Duncan, ever so slightly. Wouldn't be mad if Shaq got the #5 spot, though, not at all.
I'm going with my votes as they were before the project has started (though I'm obviously going to argue for Olajuwon until he gets voted in), but there's a HUGE chance that I'll change my mind about a lot of players, when I'll read all these threads again, in the end. Great job guys.
To me this is a tossup, but i go with Duncan for some of the reasons mentioned; Better defender through his career, more consistency, Durability etc. It's worth noting that Duncan basically went toe to toe with Peak/Prime Shaq in playoff series and even outplayed him at times, Shaq was better in 2001 WCF but when they met the next year Duncan 29 17 5 52% TS, Shaq 21 12 3 49 TS%, and then outplayed him again in 03.
Longevity is definitely close, but Duncan gets the edge here. I don't agree with the "quality years" assessment that was mentioned for the 2, there's no way 2013 and 2014 Duncan aren't considered quality years he was a consistent 15-18 ppg 10 rpg with elite defense, while going to 2 straight finals and winning a ring. Those seasons at age 36 & 37 are certainly better than what Shaq threw together from 07 onward.
SHaq does have the edge in Peak and Prime and Duncan was still able to accomplish just as much and probably more, and he did it all with skill as opposed to brute strength like Shaq.
It's hard to pick against Shaq here, but i have to just on Duncan's excellence over a long period.
Shaq: 28-13-3, .590 TS%, 113 O rating, 28 PER Duncan: 21-13-3, .538 TS%, 109 O rating, 25 PER LeBron: 24-9-6, .546 TS%, 108 O rating, 24 PER Kobe: 25-6-5, .507 TS%, 104 O rating, 21 PER Hakeem: 27-11-3, .534 TS%, 108 O rating, 25 PER
Shaq is the best finals performer in this list. To put Shaq's PER into perspective, his finals PER is 28.5 while MJ's finals PER 29.0. Not much of a gap.
I've already made my vote for Shaq and talked about why I favor him over Hakeem at this position, but I didn't really go in-depth talking about Duncan. And since this seems to be heading towards a Duncan vs. Shaq run-off I felt the need to post. I certainly see Duncan's argument, he has one of the most complete and flawless cases of anyone in NBA history.
Duncan's longevity certainly makes him special, but in his prime I don't think he was nearly as historically unique or irreplaceable as Shaq. And Shaq was a valuable player from '93-'09 (17 years), so I don't think longevity is enough of an edge for Duncan since Duncan only has 17 years in this league.
Duncan: We've seen his species before, he might not even be the best of his kind Hakeem Ewing Robinson Mourning Garnett
All of these post-3pt line era bigs had a very comparable impact and style to Duncan. Historically dominant DPOY-caliber Bigs who also doubled as 20 PPG offensive MVPs for their teams.
People might think Ewing and Mourning don't belong, but both of those players led 60 win Championship contenders when they were paired up with Pat Riley. It wasn't like those teams were absolutely loaded either, they were dominant defensively and led by a great coach (Spurs-like). Hakeem's game blossomed under Rudy T. and he led his teams to 2 straight titles at the ages of 31 and 32. At the age of 31, Garnett is finally on a team with real talent + smart coaching and he leads the '08 Celtics to a 66 win title season on the back of an all-time great defense. David Robinson was routinely winning 55+ games with poor talent around him and he finally won a ring once he was able to be paired up with Duncan and Pop.
Look, Duncan very well may be the best out of all of these players. But I think it's unquestionable that he enjoyed the best situation and environment of all of those guys. With the Spurs he was surrounded by a great team with a great coach day one.
We have people on this thread arguing for Prime Hakeem and Prime Garnett being better than Prime Duncan. We've had countless "what happens if Robinson and Duncan switch timeline" threads over the years. We've had "where does Ewing rank if he has a better 2nd scorer than John Starks in his prime" threads before.
I know a lot of what I wrote above is based on complete hypotheticals and impossible to say for sure. I get that, but the point of it all is to show how great of a situation Duncan has had with the Spurs compared with similar types of players as him.
Shaq: Historically Unique Style Since '80, there have been a handful of Bigs who impacted the game in a similar style as Duncan Since '80, there have been ZERO Bigs who impacted the game in a similar style as Shaq
A player who had an OPOY-caliber impact almost entirely from the low block. A player who was not a consistent DPOY-caliber defender but could flash DPOY ability during stretches and was generally a well-above average defensive anchor.
The only two Bigs in NBA history that were similar to Shaq were Wilt and Kareem. But Wilt played his entire career pre-3pt line and Kareem played 90% of his prime pre-3pt line. The 3pt line changed the game and made it more guard dependent. And even still, you could argue that Wilt was never as consistently dominant on offense as Shaq despite the giant volume numbers. So in reality you are talking about Kareem as the only plus defensive rim-protector who also doubled as a consistent OPOY candidate.
There is value in this uniqueness imo. It made Shaq much harder to gameplan for, he caused more coaching adjustments than any player since 1980. Since he couldn't be stopped one-on-one, he had to be guarded by entire teams. No one was doubled more in modern history.
I feel like Shaq's greatness and impact had less to do with his environment and situation than Duncan's. To me that is a valuable edge when everything else is so close.
Shaq vs. Duncan in the RAPM age I wanted to compare Prime Shaq with Prime Duncan. I'm going to compare their 7 best years. Why 7 years? Because Shaq only has 7 prime years in the RAPM era (1998-00, 02-05). By 2006, his production had taken a drop and I think we all know that atleast one of his pre-98 seasons or his 2001 season would've absolutely been better than his '06 in terms of RAPM. '06 wasn't his true prime despite the ring he won playing 2nd fiddle to Wade, so I didn't feel like using it in this study because it wasn't his real prime and it would unfairly bring down his averages.
*USING DOC MJ's SPREADSHEET Shaq vs. Duncan: Top 7 years RAPM --- O and D values (since 1998... no 2001) Player ---- Avg. RAPM --- Avg. ORAPM ---- Avg. DRAPM ---- *%GP Shaq -------- 9.81 ------------- 6.98 ------------- 2.83 --------- 85.2% Duncan ----- 8.88 ------------- 3.50 ------------- 5.38 --------- 93.4% *%GP = Player GP / Team GP....
Both guys come out looking extremely good in this measure, backing up their All-Time Great reputations with All-Time Great RAPM results. Shaq has the major edge offensively and Duncan has the major edge defensively. Shaq has the edge in value added per minute, Duncan has the edge in minutes and games played. I think all of that is what we expected. But I feel like Shaq's edges are more impressive.
Shaq's average ORAPM over his 7 best years comes out to 6.98 Duncan's average DRAPM over his 7 best years comes out to 5.38
- 8 Offensive Players have topped 6.98 ORAPM atleast twice (2 bigs... Dirk/Barkley) - 10 Defensive Players have topped 5.38 DRAPM atleast twice (1 wing... Jaren Jackson lolwut?)
Duncan's defensive dominance is quite impressive but there have been several Bigs (including those mentioned by me earlier in his comps section) who have had multiple defensive seasons that would rate as Prime Duncan-caliber. The only non-Big who scored a super-high DRAPM was Jaren Jackson, a 6'4" guard who played next to Duncan/Robinson during the '98-'99 seasons. I have been thoroughly impressed with the RAPM stat now that I've looked into it, but clearly it isn't a foolproof stat and the inclusion of Jaren Jackson is proof. But the point is that we've seen several great defensive bigs on Duncan's level as a defender post-80/3pt line.
The only comparable offensive bigs to Shaq since '80 according to RAPM are Dirk/Barkley and maybe Karl Malone. That's not surprising to hear, it's about what we expected. But Shaq is ahead of Dirk and probably ahead of Malone according to RAPM. Barkley is probably the only guy who may or may not truly be considered a better pure offensive big than Shaq. But Barkley was also an atrocious defender and that's the main reason why his name will likely not be called in the Top 15 of this project. Shaq still comes out as a very positive defender, with a +2.83 grade in his prime that's not that far off from Tim Duncan's +3.50 offensive grade. In terms of per minute production, Shaq's RAPM numbers are simply more impressive.
So Timmy's main edges according to this are his teams Games Played% and DRAPM. He played in roughly 93% of his teams regular season games while Shaq played in only 85% of his teams regular season games during these two 7 year prime runs. That comes out to 6-7 games played over the course of a season. That's nothing to sneeze at. Those games could matter when it comes to seeding. Shaq was also a good but far less valuable defender during this stretch.
But the problem with Duncan is that his games played edge completely disappears in the playoffs. Shaq played 110/112 playoff games during this 7 year run, with the only two games he missed coming in his final season of this run in 2005 with the Heat. So while those 6 regular season games per year matter, the "Durability Value" of Duncan is limited because Shaq was just as durable in the playoffs when the games were significantly more important.
And according to both Shaq's critics and Shaq's supporters, Shaq was a player who stepped up on defense when he tried. Guess what, he'd go hard on defense more often in the playoffs. I believe that Shaq's playoff DRAPM grade would clearly be higher than his +2.83 DRAPM regular season grade, simply based on what we all believe about Shaq's effort-level increase in important games.
So out of Duncan's 2 main edges over Shaq, durability and defense, durability was definitely NOT an edge in the playoffs and his defense was probably less of an edge in the playoffs due to Shaq's effort level picking up. While the durability thing is 100% true, the defensive edge in the playoffs is more of a question mark. But I do think Shaq played better on D in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.
Tl:dr Duncan may be more consistent, may be more complete, may be more dependable, may have maximized his legacy more... still doesn't make up for the fact that Shaq was a more dominant force with a singular skillset that could not be duplicated by another player in modern NBA history. Shaq's regular season RAPM numbers in his prime give him an edge over Duncan, despite the fact that we don't even have some of Shaq's best prime seasons ('94-97, '01... especially '01) and have all of Duncan's best prime seasons outside of '01. And those are regular season RAPM numbers. If what Shaq's critics say about his defense are true, chances are that his RAPM in the playoffs would actually increase and his lead over Duncan would grow.
Duncan is an amazing player but Shaq is more worthy of this spot.
This was an excellent, well thought-out and well-supported post. I even gave it an "And1". The problem is...with me, it may have accomplished the exact opposite of what you intended.
Coming into the run-off I was unsure which way I would vote, but I was leaning Shaq. Through the years I always wondered whether Shaq was REALLY more dominant in impact than Duncan with both at their best, or if that was just the perception from the eye-test and the scoring feats while Duncan's defense and fundamental brilliance was just too subtle for acclaim. Over the years I have (at one time or another) raised just about every point mentioned on both sides of this debate in the thread, and was unable to really decide.
Then, in recent years, the +/- data started trickling in. Finally, there was some way to quantify some bit of a player's individual impact on the team's bottom line. The first +/- numbers to come out (that I knew of) were the on/off +/- on 82games.com. The problem was, their first available season was 2003 and they didn't have the playoffs until after that. By then it was slightly past Shaq's prime. KG was the dominant player of the early years of 82games.com, with Duncan a clear second. But Shaq's peak wasn't covered. Next, we started hearing about adjusted +/- ( APM) that cleaned up some of the issues with on/off +/-. Again, started with 2003, and the leaders were KG and Duncan. Then came multi-year APM starting from 2003...and it was still KG and Duncan. But by this time this young guy named LeBron was making his name, and seemed poised to take the mega impact baton from KG for the next generation. But still, we had nothing on Shaq. APM evolved into RAPM and Dirk also got his name near the top of the leaderboard, but the years stayed the same which meant no peak Shaq. Until recently.
Now, with prior-informed RAPM back to 1998 and playoffs on/off +/- back to 2001, we finally have some +/- information from Shaq's prime. Not his complete career, but at least from just before the time usually considered his peak. And the results were outstanding. In DocMJ's now oft-referenced spreadsheet, it shows a pretty convincing separation between the three players with the highest RAPM scores and even the next level down. Shaq, along with LeBron and KG, are in that top tier of scores. Duncan, along with Dirk, is in the next group down. It's not a huge difference, but it is convincing to me even knowing the questions about the accuracy of the stat in a given year. Part of the reason that it's convincing is that it keeps happening year after year.
Shaq's highest single season score is 1.4 higher than Duncan's highest Shaq's 2nd highest score is 1.5 higher than Duncan's 2nd highest Shaq's 3rd highest score is 0.5 higher than Duncan's 3rd highest Shaq's 4th highest is 1.0 higher than Duncan's 4th highest Shaq's 5th highest is 0.7 higher than Duncan's 5th highest
And this isn't even including 2001 (where Shaq would likely have another peak score) or the years pre-1998 where Shaq may also have scored very well. The reason that experimenters do repeated studies is to lower noise effects, and the fact that Shaq beats Duncan (by a small but clear margin) on a year-to-year basis is enough to finally help put to rest my question of whether Duncan was quietly matching peak Shaq's impact. Answer: he wasn't. In the face of the excellent reviews and cases we've read here for both players, this result was enough that, as I said, I was leaning towards voting Shaq in the run-off.
BUT.
In your post you emphasize the uniqueness of Shaq's skill set, and the fact that his primary area of influence is offensive. We also have a well documented history of Shaq preferring to play his preferred method...and for good reason, I might add, because it was so effective.
BUT.
One thing that I haven't read a lot about is Duncan's advantage in portability. And as I was reading your post, that kept coming more and more to the forefront of my thoughts. And I don't think it's a small concern.
I've argued before that defense is more portable than offense, and I believe that. Which means that just on general skillset, Duncan would be easier to integrate onto more teams than Shaq would. But it goes further than that.
Duncan also has position versatility. We saw with the Duncan/Robinson frontcourt that Duncan could interact with another outstanding center with a lot of skill overlap. Now, part of the reason that worked is because Admiral is one of the most unselfish superstars in NBA history and was willing to cede leadership to Duncan and work around him. But even so, Duncan had the position versatility to win acclaim as possibly the greatest power forward of all time. But, if instead of Robinson it'd have been Malone, Duncan could have also played center for his whole career and been hailed as one of the greatest. He'd have worked next to Russell, or next to Wilt. He'd have worked next to Olajuwon, or next to KG. Next to Kareem or next to Dirk. Now, some of those fits might have taken a bit of work (like the Robinson one did) and there would be some redundancy, but it would work.
Shaq? If you pair him next to any center, it's not working. He's a pure 5. Which again, isn't a bad thing, but it means that Duncan fits on more teams. But it goes further.
Duncan also has skill-set versatility. If the team was full of defensive talent, he could be your best offensive player and spend more energy there. If your team was full of offensive talent, he could be your best defensive player and spend more energy there. He often played some combination of both roles in his prime. And his impact would stay roughly similar across those roles.
Shaq? He demonstrated that he could be the lead dog next to high scorers like Penny and Kobe. But there was friction at both stops, because Shaq wanted things run through him (for good reason). As an older player he showed the ability to defer to Wade, but that was as an older player. If Shaq would have been on a team with Jordan or with LeBron...or if he and Wade would have been more similar in age...could Shaq really modify his game, maybe make himself into a defensive anchor so that both could maximize their impacts at the same time? It seems unlikely to me. Given the way that he had to be the big dog on offense in both Orlando and LA, I don't think he'd have been receptive or able to modify his game in that way, even if it were for the good of the team.
Shaq's dominance, offensive uniqueness and attitude made him one of the highest impact players of the modern generation. But they also make him only able to really reach his potential in one way. Now, that's enough when compared against 99.9% of the players in NBA history because Shaq really was just that outstanding. But against someone like Duncan, who was almost as impactful as Shaq at his best but who would fit so much better on just about any team...a player like Duncan that could not only have his max impact under a lot more situations, but also would allow his teammates to have their maximum impact under so many more situations...against someone like that, Shaq's dominance might not be enough for me.
I'm still willing to listen to cases so I'm not going to vote just yet. But suffice it to say that if I was leaning Shaq before I read your post, I'm leaning the other way at the moment.
The pros and cons of each player have been discussed ad nauseum. Yes, Shaq was better from 2000-2002 but the rest of the career matters as well. I think Duncan, who only really missed major time in 2004 and 2005, is more durable and consistent than Shaq, who was injured all over the place and never gave a consistent effort on defense outside of 2000 and 2001.
GC Pantalones wrote:Duncan has a way better late career.
That reallyyy isn't true though.
Duncan by 2010 had 12 quality years. Shaq by 2004 had 12 quality years.
Let us compare their last 3 quality years from those spans.
02-04 Shaq : 25 / 13 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57%TS --- (27.3 PER) 08-10 Tim : 20 / 12 / 3apg / 2bpg on 51%TS --- (22.0 PER)
Then Duncan had 2 more decent/good years from 12-13 but he wasn't better then Shaq from 05-06. Then Duncan has his 2014 season which isn't that much better then Shaq was in 07/09.
Either way the above facts show that Shaq was clearly a better performer down the stretch of his career. His 10th, 11th and 12th quality years were far better then Duncans and his 13th and 14th were better also. Duncan has a minor edge in 15th but that is nothing compared to the massive advantage Shaq has over the prior 5 years.
Hope you will consider my post.
Duncan's 12th year was 09. I'd say post 10 Duncan (four seasons) is way better than Shaq after 06.
drza wrote:One thing that I haven't read a lot about is Duncan's advantage in portability. And as I was reading your post, that kept coming more and more to the forefront of my thoughts. And I don't think it's a small concern.
I've argued before that defense is more portable than offense, and I believe that. Which means that just on general skillset, Duncan would be easier to integrate onto more teams than Shaq would. But it goes further than that.
Duncan also has position versatility. We saw with the Duncan/Robinson frontcourt that Duncan could interact with another outstanding center with a lot of skill overlap. Now, part of the reason that worked is because Admiral is one of the most unselfish superstars in NBA history and was willing to cede leadership to Duncan and work around him. But even so, Duncan had the position versatility to win acclaim as possibly the greatest power forward of all time. But, if instead of Robinson it'd have been Malone, Duncan could have also played center for his whole career and been hailed as one of the greatest. He'd have worked next to Russell, or next to Wilt. He'd have worked next to Olajuwon, or next to KG. Next to Kareem or next to Dirk. Now, some of those fits might have taken a bit of work (like the Robinson one did) and there would be some redundancy, but it would work.
Shaq? If you pair him next to any center, it's not working. He's a pure 5. Which again, isn't a bad thing, but it means that Duncan fits on more teams. But it goes further.
Duncan also has skill-set versatility. If the team was full of defensive talent, he could be your best offensive player and spend more energy there. If your team was full of offensive talent, he could be your best defensive player and spend more energy there. He often played some combination of both roles in his prime. And his impact would stay roughly similar across those roles.
Shaq? He demonstrated that he could be the lead dog next to high scorers like Penny and Kobe. But there was friction at both stops, because Shaq wanted things run through him (for good reason). As an older player he showed the ability to defer to Wade, but that was as an older player. If Shaq would have been on a team with Jordan or with LeBron...or if he and Wade would have been more similar in age...could Shaq really modify his game, maybe make himself into a defensive anchor so that both could maximize their impacts at the same time? It seems unlikely to me. Given the way that he had to be the big dog on offense in both Orlando and LA, I don't think he'd have been receptive or able to modify his game in that way, even if it were for the good of the team.
Shaq's dominance, offensive uniqueness and attitude made him one of the highest impact players of the modern generation. But they also make him only able to really reach his potential in one way. Now, that's enough when compared against 99.9% of the players in NBA history because Shaq really was just that outstanding. But against someone like Duncan, who was almost as impactful as Shaq at his best but who would fit so much better on just about any team...a player like Duncan that could not only have his max impact under a lot more situations, but also would allow his teammates to have their maximum impact under so many more situations...against someone like that, Shaq's dominance might not be enough for me.
I'm still voting Duncan but I have to disagree here. Yes Duncan is more versatile and he's a way better teammate but that doesn't make him more portable. Sure Duncan can fit better next to a true center with no skills but that's one situation. I'm hard pressed to think of any situation other than that where I'd take prime Duncan over prime Shaq. Even with all those centers you named Shaq could thrive next to all of them better than or as good as Duncan (sans Wilt and maybe Kareem).
Now yes Duncan could be the best offensive or defensive player on your team at any one time but Shaq was the best offensive and defensive player in the league one year (2000) or at least the second best defensive player. First off there's no reason you'd want Shaq to focus more on defense because no matter what he'll probably be your most consistent scorer and even while shouldering the load on offense he could still impact the defensive end like few others. Now this is a motivated Shaq I'm describing but he could easily be the best player on both ends for a team full of HOFers. Duncan couldn't pull that off.
If Shaq was on a team with Jordan or Lebron I'd want the offense run through Shaq just like the 01 Lakers were. There's no situation where I'd ever want Shaq to not be the focal point of my offense when it comes to scoring. He might not be the best scorer but no one bends a defense at will like Shaq did and Jordan/Lebron would benefit greatly from that just like Kobe and Penny (look at their numbers the season immediately after losing Shaq - they benefitted greatly from his presence as great as they still were without him).
Now I notice I sidestepped his personality issues and personally that's what is making me vote Duncan instead but if Shaq wanted to he'd fit with most teams better than Duncan.
O_6 wrote:Look, Duncan very well may be the best out of all of these players. But I think it's unquestionable that he enjoyed the best situation and environment of all of those guys. With the Spurs he was surrounded by a great team with a great coach day one. [...] Duncan is an amazing player but Shaq is more worthy of this spot.
I see a hole in your reasoning, actually, because while the bolded part is most likely true, I do not believe Duncan landed in a situation clearly better's than Shaq's who's his actual opponent for this spot. We know now that Pop's a great coach and the Spurs an amazing organization, but it was not necessarily the case when he arrived. They failed to surround Robinson with proper talent, the Rodman fiasco was not too distant and Pop was not an HOF coach at the time, he became such after 17 years spent with Duncan. My point is that all this was possible also because there was a very atypical superstar in Duncan, a silent leader guy so coachable that allowed to create the right team first culture, a culture in which player like Manu and Tony (who were both amazing talents) could blossom and all players coming there could fit, even some who had a "troubled" past. And you could create this thanks to the continuity of this situation, and Duncan could have easily left in 2000 and many people were expecting (and suggesting) him to. Might have Hakeem of Garnett done the same? Maybe, but that's not the topic now actually, what about Shaq? He arrived in an expansion team, sure, but a team that was lucky enough to land a second #1 pick the year after and put around him an very talented team expected to dominate. Then he decided to go to the Lakers, West did surround him with great talent but then, once again, you had serious locker room issues and Shaq openly disrespecting his coach. Yes, we might say Dellie was not the best coach ever, but if you remember the old Spurs there were serious questions about Pop's value as an offensive coach, I think the back to back losses in the PS to the Lakers could have created quite a turmoil if Shaq was there. Shaq was not making his coach's job any easier, then the rest is history, MDE, the rings, the MVPs, but all came with top3 guards next to him ans already proven HOF coaches on the bench, suggesting that a "normal" coach could not get Shaq's respect to easily. So, I have an hard time believing that Duncan was luckier than Shaq, as I feel he was personally responsible for his own fortune and Shaq had all the opportunities to play with very top teams and organizations as well, if not more actually.
Hence, I don't see how environment can be a reason to vote for Shaq, actually.
GC Pantalones wrote:I'm still voting Duncan but I have to disagree here. Yes Duncan is more versatile and he's a way better teammate but that doesn't make him more portable. Sure Duncan can fit better next to a true center with no skills but that's one situation. I'm hard pressed to think of any situation other than that where I'd take prime Duncan over prime Shaq. Even with all those centers you named Shaq could thrive next to all of them better than or as good as Duncan (sans Wilt and maybe Kareem).
Now yes Duncan could be the best offensive or defensive player on your team at any one time but Shaq was the best offensive and defensive player in the league one year (2000) or at least the second best defensive player. First off there's no reason you'd want Shaq to focus more on defense because no matter what he'll probably be your most consistent scorer and even while shouldering the load on offense he could still impact the defensive end like few others. Now this is a motivated Shaq I'm describing but he could easily be the best player on both ends for a team full of HOFers. Duncan couldn't pull that off.
If Shaq was on a team with Jordan or Lebron I'd want the offense run through Shaq just like the 01 Lakers were. There's no situation where I'd ever want Shaq to not be the focal point of my offense when it comes to scoring. He might not be the best scorer but no one bends a defense at will like Shaq did and Jordan/Lebron would benefit greatly from that just like Kobe and Penny (look at their numbers the season immediately after losing Shaq - they benefitted greatly from his presence as great as they still were without him).
Now I notice I sidestepped his personality issues and personally that's what is making me vote Duncan instead but if Shaq wanted to he'd fit with most teams better than Duncan.
Well, he'd fit in the sense he'd force his teammates to adapt to him and that would still be a great team. But if you have Shaq you MUST go to the post to him and he's going to be there with his man. You can do the same with Duncan, admittedly not as effectively, but then you can run offenses with him moving to the high post or playing him of the pick and roll, as I'm not even mentioning defense as you can pair him either to a bulky post defender or a lean mobile help defender.
My runoff vote is for Shaq. All the numbers have been beaten to death in this thread regarding the 2 run-off candidates. Once in a lifetime talent. Has his negatives in regards to help defense and burning bridges. I give prime and peak to Shaq while his longevity is still good. Some of the responses here make it sound like Shaq was largely a 1 way player while he was still a legit rim protector, good man defender, no one will get an and-1, doesn't go for fakes, but sucks against the PnR (big deal, I know). I remember reading some stat out there that I cannot find where he led some years in opponents not driving the lane against him. Probably only 3 or 4 guys in league history you can dump it in the post and get results. Excellent playoff performer. If all things equal in regards to coaching and teammates, due to his excellent offensive value and more serious attitude in the playoffs, he'd probably win more rings than anyone remaining on the list.
penbeast0 (or whoever is tallying votes for the runoff) - Please do NOT count my vote for Duncan in the runoff a few pages ago (I edited that post as well). I still might lean Timmy but I do not think there is enough separation that I feel comfortable casting a vote here. Thanks.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Baller2014 wrote:So you're not voting at all Fpliii? Or just not yet?
Just not voting, but I may change my mind before the deadline. I prefer Duncan but I don't think I can vote for him in a runoff where every vote counts.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
