<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jjdaman20 @ Jun 13 2007, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Punctuation helps out a lot when typing...please back up your statement with facts...here's one fact...Kobe has 3 rings, Jordan has 6...you tell me who's better...Kobe isnt winnin anymore rings unless he gets traded...</div>Punctuation? Look at the structure of that clusterfuck you just typed. I understand Kobe most likely won't match Jordan's 6, but at the same time my opinion is Kobe's raw game is as good if not better than Jordan's was. I think if you replace Jordan with Kobe, Bulls still win 6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jjdaman20 @ Jun 13 2007, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>ok so my definition of ultimate goal refers to the TEAM aspect I agree so can only winning refer to the player aspect?</div>What?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jjdaman20 @ Jun 13 2007, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why cant you judge a player on championships though? The ultimate goal in the NBA is to win championships right?</div>Basketball is a team game, when comparing ''INDIVIDUALS'' it isnt always relevent.
I think it has to be Duncan or Shaq. I'd give the edge to Duncan because He's still playing at an MVP level whereas Shaq has dropped off.
It depends when you are measuring from. I mean MJ only fully retired in 2003.If you are counting from 98 I would probably say Duncan or Bryant. Shaq had a lot of great years since then but also many good ones when Jordan was still around that don't count.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jjdaman20 @ Jun 13 2007, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Have to say Duncan....as much as I hate how soft he his, he's good...he has the rings to prove it, and is about to win another one now...</div>Did you just call Tim Duncan soft? :shok:
Tim Duncan on accomplishment standpoint and Kobe Bryant on talent.People who say Shaq, Shaq has gone to the NBA Finals 6 times, and only won 4...and the 4th he wasnt a major factor. Tim Duncan has one it everytime he has gone, and didnt/dont have the Hardaways, Bryants, or Wades.I was going to make a topic about it, but I thought it was maybe too obvious...Tim Duncan>Shaq
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Tim Duncan on accomplishment standpoint and Kobe Bryant on talent.People who say Shaq, Shaq has gone to the NBA Finals 6 times, and only won 4...and the 4th he wasnt a major factor. Tim Duncan has one it everytime he has gone, and didnt/dont have the Hardaways, Bryants, or Wades.I was going to make a topic about it, but I thought it was maybe too obvious...Tim Duncan>Shaq</div>So you're saying Magic, who lost the 89 (to detroit) and 91 (to the bulls) didn't win each time he was there. So in that regard, Tim>Magic?No knock on Tim, but Shaq is one of the most dominant players ever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People who say Shaq, Shaq has gone to the NBA Finals 6 times, and only won 4...and the 4th he wasnt a major factor. Tim Duncan has one it everytime he has gone, and didnt/dont have the Hardaways, Bryants, or Wades.I was going to make a topic about it, but I thought it was maybe too obvious...Tim Duncan>Shaq</div>You seem to forget that during the Lakers reign they bounced the Spurs each year they faced them. Shaq DOMINATED in the playoffs with amazing averages that trump even Duncan's best ever playoff series. The Lakers DOMINATED like the Spurs never have (15-1 in 2001 playoffs). So yes, while Shaq did have a lot of help in LA, they also dominated moreso than the Spurs and Shaq was more impressive than Duncan in those runs. And don't get things twisted...Duncan has had quite a bit of help throguhout the years as well; he hasn't done things alone.Give me Shaq of the 3 peat over Duncan anyday.
I doubt the Lakers wouldve dominated without Bryant...if Duncan had Bryant they would done the same to Shaq.And actually, I think you can make a pretty good case to say Duncan was better than Magic. Thats extremely hard to do though given they both play completely different positions.Duncan pretty much has 4 titles...and Shaq has 4 titles. Except Shaq wasnt as a major factor in his 4th title...so that makes Duncan better IMO.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I doubt the Lakers wouldve dominated without Bryant...if Duncan had Bryant they would done the same to Shaq.And actually, I think you can make a pretty good case to say Duncan was better than Magic. Thats extremely hard to do though given they both play completely different positions.Duncan pretty much has 4 titles...and Shaq has 4 titles. Except Shaq wasnt as a major factor in his 4th title...so that makes Duncan better IMO.</div>Of course they wouldn't have dominated like they did without Bryant, but the fact of the matter is they DID have Bryant and DID dominate in a way the Spurs never did. Therefor I think it is stupid to take away from Shaq because he had that sidekick by his side.I'll let valo take over that second part.Shaq also was drafted to an expansion team and not to a team that wouldn't have been in the lottery had their best player (D-Rob) not been injured the previous season like Duncan was. You can't expect such a young Magic team to take out the Bulls or a very experienced Rockets team. Outside of Shaq's last title, he absolutely dominated in each Finals' series he was ever in, win or lose. He dominated like Duncan never did. When 2 players are so even in accomplishments, you have to look past those things and look at the actual players and judge them as their talents, dominance and skill suggest. This is one of those cases....it isn't even much of a debate to me, Shaq wins it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Duncan pretty much has 4 titles...and Shaq has 4 titles. Except Shaq wasnt as a major factor in his 4th title...so that makes Duncan better IMO.</div>I don't think you can say Shaq wasn't a factor in that series. In 3 of the 4 games the Heat won, Shaq had a double-double with no less than 16 points. In Game 2, when the Heat got smoked by the Mavs, Shaq only scored 5 points with 6 rebounds. Also, in those games Shaq had a double-double, Wade scored 36, 42, and 43. In Game 2, when Shaq only had 5 points and 6 rebounds, Wade only had 23 points, well off from his Finals' average. Shaq was a factor. When he was playing good, he was more of a threat to the Mavs defense and they put more focus on him, opening up Wade to score a little more, as seen with the stats.
They were an expansion team, but they had my main man Penny Hardaway who was awesome. Not to mention a solid supporting cast. People say Duncan doesn't dominate, I think thats b/s. Theres a reason why the Spurs have won 3 titles in the past 9 seasons, and it just so happens its because of Duncan. You dont get 3 NBA Finals MVP, coming from a deep west, not being dominant. People are going to jump onto Shaq being better cause hes Shaq...Tim Duncan is absolutely the most underrated player in the NBA modern era. I guess people dont see it now, but I garuntee 20 yrs from now people will realize how truly great he is. Even more accomplished that Shaq.(not I said accomplished, Shaq was more talented, but talent doesn't always make you better).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GrizzFanTaylor @ Jun 13 2007, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think you can say Shaq wasn't a factor in that series. In 3 of the 4 games the Heat won, Shaq had a double-double with no less than 16 points. In Game 2, when the Heat got smoked by the Mavs, Shaq only scored 5 points with 6 rebounds. Also, in those games Shaq had a double-double, Wade scored 36, 42, and 43. In Game 2, when Shaq only had 5 points and 6 rebounds, Wade only had 23 points, well off from his Finals' average. Shaq was a factor. When he was playing good, he was more of a threat to the Mavs defense and they put more focus on him, opening up Wade to score a little more, as seen with the stats.</div>Oh I agree, he was a factor...but not a major factor as far as him taking the game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They were an expansion team, but they had my main man Penny Hardaway who was awesome. Not to mention a solid supporting cast. People say Duncan doesn't dominate, I think thats b/s. Theres a reason why the Spurs have won 3 titles in the past 9 seasons, and it just so happens its because of Duncan. You dont get 3 NBA Finals MVP, coming from a deep west, not being dominant. People are going to jump onto Shaq being better cause hes Shaq...Tim Duncan is absolutely the most underrated player in the NBA modern era. I guess people dont see it now, but I garuntee 20 yrs from now people will realize how truly great he is. Even more accomplished that Shaq.(not I said accomplished, Shaq was more talented, but talent doesn't always make you better).</div>Didn't Shaq win all the Finals MVPs with the Lakers?
Yeah, true but Duncan will probably end up getting 4 Finals MVPs(even though I believe Parker deserves it). But even if he doesn't get it this year, he was still a major factor in his 4th title, atleast more than Shaq was in his 4th title.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 13 2007, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They were an expansion team, but they had my main man Penny Hardaway who was awesome. Not to mention a solid supporting cast. People say Duncan doesn't dominate, I think thats b/s. Theres a reason why the Spurs have won 3 titles in the past 9 seasons, and it just so happens its because of Duncan. You dont get 3 NBA Finals MVP, coming from a deep west, not being dominant. People are going to jump onto Shaq being better cause hes Shaq...Tim Duncan is absolutely the most underrated player in the NBA modern era. I guess people dont see it now, but I garuntee 20 yrs from now people will realize how truly great he is. Even more accomplished that Shaq.(not I said accomplished, Shaq was more talented, but talent doesn't always make you better).</div>Penny Hardaway was good, but it isn't like he was Scottie Pippen or anything. They were a very young team that stood no chance vs the powerhouses of the '90's. I never meant to say Duncan isn't dominant, but not like Shaq was during the 3 peat. During the 3 peat Shaq was literally unstoppable. He scould score 30PPG+ whenever he wanted, he could grab 15-16RPG in any series he wanted, could dish out 5APG whenever he wanted, could block over 3 shots in any series he wanted....basically he did what he wanted and his dominance showed with 3 straight titles. Duncan is an incredible player, but Shaq was playing like the best big man since Wilt during the 3 peat.Ummm, most people are calling Duncan the greatest PF ever...he isn't underrated.
Yes, he is underrated when people think that he cant be better than Shaq...cause he certainly can.But im not saying Shaq wasnt dominant, cause he was. I agree pretty much with SunnyDs list, its either Shaq or Duncan. But in my opinion, Duncan has done just as much and if not more IMO as far as accomplishments. Like I said, Duncan is the best player as far as accomplishments, which I believe he has put himself above Shaq.
