<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 16 2007, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People say TD can easily put up 30 a game, but he cant anymore. Sure agaist a weak defense he can exploit it to occasional score points but he has signicantly slowed down after that injury next season. You can see it in him that he isnt the same guy who averaged 26 ppg anymore, and thats why Parker and Ginobli have had to step up and they went after scorers on the bench like Brent Barry and Michael Finley.</div>I disagree. Duncan's scoring is a direct reflection of how many shots he takes, and how many shots other players take. His FG% this year was at its highest since his rookie year. His minutes are down from just over 40 to 34, but that is not why he doesn't score 30 a night. He doesn't score 30-35 a night because he isn't that selfish; he puts the team first.Here are his career scoring averages:21.121.723.222.225.523.322.320.318.620.0This isn't that drastic a decline. It went up when his scoring was needed more (post David Robinson), and went back down when others stepped up and contributed more. What it really shows is something that is obvious from listening to him and watching him. He does what it takes for the TEAM to win, not what gives him personal glory.
You can say it over and over that he ''stepped down'' but it shows in everything from as far as his movement to his durability to his stamina. He plays less minutes because hes older and while still a great player right now he isnt the best pf in the nba anymore. If Duncan could easily score 25+ a night, I doubt any coach would say "stop scoring so we can put robert horry in''. The thing is if he had to score 25+ every night the wear and tear on his body would end his career much sooner(which I dont think he could do anymore anyway regardless.)
As of right now, I think you have to give it to Duncan. Although Shaq is the most dominant force in NBA history, Duncan has led his team to the best winning percentage over the past 10 years over any NBA team and over any professional team for that matter...and its not even close. Duncan will have a better chance of winning a ring within the next couple years, and if he does, he will be the clear choice to me.
To anyone who says Shaq, look at what he has done since MJ retired. He had a lot of great years that you seem to be taking into account when MJ was still around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 17 2007, 07:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can say it over and over that he ''stepped down'' but it shows in everything from as far as his movement to his durability to his stamina. He plays less minutes because hes older and while still a great player right now he isnt the best pf in the nba anymore. If Duncan could easily score 25+ a night, I doubt any coach would say "stop scoring so we can put robert horry in''. The thing is if he had to score 25+ every night the wear and tear on his body would end his career much sooner(which I dont think he could do anymore anyway regardless.)</div>He doesn't score 25PPG a night because he simply doesn't have to. They let him rest for the playoffs so he can be at optimal health for when it really matters. If his minutes increased to where they were and if he was taking as many shots as he used to, he would be averaging over 25PPG. In the playoffs the past 2 years he has shown he still has the abiltity to still play at that level when called upon. But taking a bit of a backseat allows a more balanced offensive attack and allows Duncan to put even more energy into defense/rebounding/passing.
This debate isnt going anywhere, just repeated opinions back and forth. Star Players dont lose minutes because they are getting better, I will never accept that logic. It only happens when a player hits 30+ and comes off injuries. Everyone will see in the next 2-3 years how Duncan declines steadily. Anyone who says he is in the same shape when he played the Nets in the finals needs to watch some game tape.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 17 2007, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This debate isnt going anywhere, just repeated opinions back and forth. Star Players dont lose minutes because they are getting better, I will never accept that logic. It only happens when a player hits 30+ and comes off injuries. Everyone will see in the next 2-3 years how Duncan declines steadily. Anyone who says he is in the same shape when he played the Nets in the finals needs to watch some game tape.</div>Star players DO lose minutes when their team doesn't need his 100% effort to win 60 games in a season. In 2003 they had no other all star caliber players...now they have 2, and a better, more veteran supporting cast, thus Duncan's production has dropped. You are right, he is older and not in the shape he was a few seasons ago, thus he can certainly use the extra time on the bench during the season to help aid him in the playoffs. He still has all the ability he ever had, and the past 2 seasons in the playoffs prove that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 17 2007, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To anyone who says Shaq, look at what he has done since MJ retired. He had a lot of great years that you seem to be taking into account when MJ was still around.</div>Whether MJ was still around or not is not really important. The first post was inaccurate in stating that Jordan was the best player for his 14 years played. Those years that Shaq dominated should be included when measuring him against others, because he was better than Jordan (and better than anyone else) for many of those years that would be excluded. And the question of importance is who has been the best player in the league in recent history.The only real knock on O'Neal during those years was time lost due to injury, and bad free throw shooting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jjdaman20 @ Jun 13 2007, 11:51 AM) <{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>Because some players are blessed with a better supporting cast then others...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jun 17 2007, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Whether MJ was still around or not is not really important. The first post was inaccurate in stating that Jordan was the best player for his 14 years played. Those years that Shaq dominated should be included when measuring him against others, because he was better than Jordan (and better than anyone else) for many of those years that would be excluded. And the question of importance is who has been the best player in the league in recent history.The only real knock on O'Neal during those years was time lost due to injury, and bad free throw shooting.</div>By majority, Jordan was the best player from the late '80's-his 2nd retirement. His peers acknowledged him as such and generally accepted by both players, analysts and fans. Moreso than any other player in a player's respective era, Jordan is considered the best player of his time. Thus, it is a correct topic to make.And at no time in Shaq's time during the MJ era would I consider him a better player than MJ. Though, during the Lakers 3 peat you can make a case for him being better than MJ in the 2nd 3 peat.As for Shaq's flaws, at all times in his career, he has been a fairly lazy defender, foul prone, and a liability at end of games due to FT shooting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jun 17 2007, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>By majority, Jordan was the best player from the late '80's-his 2nd retirement. His peers acknowledged him as such and generally accepted by both players, analysts and fans. Moreso than any other player in a player's respective era, Jordan is considered the best player of his time. Thus, it is a correct topic to make.And at no time in Shaq's time during the MJ era would I consider him a better player than MJ. Though, during the Lakers 3 peat you can make a case for him being better than MJ in the 2nd 3 peat.As for Shaq's flaws, at all times in his career, he has been a fairly lazy defender, foul prone, and a liability at end of games due to FT shooting.</div>The fact that Jordan was and is universally fawned over by the media does not mean that he was the best player throughout his career. He definitely was not the best player early in his career, and claiming he was the best player while on the Wizards doesn't justify an argument, it is so off base.Even if you ignore the Wizards comeback, it is still wrong. Bird and Magic won the MVP for 5 of Jordan's first 6 years, and that wasn't the wrong choice. Jordan finished 3rd in 93, behind Barkley and Olajuwon, and Hakeem should have won, based on who the best player was.Shaq does have his flaws, but he is still a fair choice, and he was certainly better than MJ during the Wizards years, and he was definitely better when Jordan's Bulls lost to the Magic in the playoffs in 95, and he was arguably better by the end of Jordan's second run with the Bulls in 98. The Bulls team was more successful, but that isn't the question.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jun 18 2007, 01:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Whether MJ was still around or not is not really important.</div>Yes it bloody does when the whole idea of the thread is about 'since MJ retired'!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 18 2007, 06:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes it bloody does when the whole idea of the thread is about 'since MJ retired'!</div>The first post further clarifies by stating that Jordan was the best player until he did retire, and implying that this point was beyond debate. That point was wrong, and so eliminating Shaq's earlier strong years is also wrong.If you accept the patently false premise that Jordan was the best player in the league for his entire career, then I have to vote for Tim Duncan over Shaq.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jun 18 2007, 03:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The fact that Jordan was and is universally fawned over by the media does not mean that he was the best player throughout his career. He definitely was not the best player early in his career, and claiming he was the best player while on the Wizards doesn't justify an argument, it is so off base.Even if you ignore the Wizards comeback, it is still wrong. Bird and Magic won the MVP for 5 of Jordan's first 6 years, and that wasn't the wrong choice. Jordan finished 3rd in 93, behind Barkley and Olajuwon, and Hakeem should have won, based on who the best player was.Shaq does have his flaws, but he is still a fair choice, and he was certainly better than MJ during the Wizards years, and he was definitely better when Jordan's Bulls lost to the Magic in the playoffs in 95, and he was arguably better by the end of Jordan's second run with the Bulls in 98. The Bulls team was more successful, but that isn't the question.</div>Your username makes your opinions sh*t. Clearly biased.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jun 18 2007, 02:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The fact that Jordan was and is universally fawned over by the media does not mean that he was the best player throughout his career. He definitely was not the best player early in his career, and claiming he was the best player while on the Wizards doesn't justify an argument, it is so off base.Even if you ignore the Wizards comeback, it is still wrong. Bird and Magic won the MVP for 5 of Jordan's first 6 years, and that wasn't the wrong choice. Jordan finished 3rd in 93, behind Barkley and Olajuwon, and Hakeem should have won, based on who the best player was.Shaq does have his flaws, but he is still a fair choice, and he was certainly better than MJ during the Wizards years, and he was definitely better when Jordan's Bulls lost to the Magic in the playoffs in 95, and he was arguably better by the end of Jordan's second run with the Bulls in 98. The Bulls team was more successful, but that isn't the question.</div>Take a look at the topic's question:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The NBA had its own best player for 14 years in MJ, since hes retired and since next year it will be a decade since he retired, who do you think has been the best over the post-bulls era?</div>So throw out the Wizards arguement as everyone knows MJ was not himself by that point in his career. he was also extremely rusty after only 17 games of playing after his first comeback, so that is a stupid point to make. Your point about the MVP's makes little difference as that has as much to do with team success as individual success. Larry Bird himself said that MJ was god in disguise, and I forget who, but someone said MJ is so special because he is not only the best offensive player in the league...but also best defensive. So even his peers called him the best player when he was at a young age.Whether you consider Hakeem better for 1 or 2 of MJ's years with the Bulls doesn't make a difference as when you look back at that era, and you had to choose one player as being the best of that era...it's easily Jordan. And that is where the topic's question stems from.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jun 18 2007, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Take a look at the topic's question:So throw out the Wizards arguement as everyone knows MJ was not himself by that point in his career. he was also extremely rusty after only 17 games of playing after his first comeback, so that is a stupid point to make. Your point about the MVP's makes little difference as that has as much to do with team success as individual success. Larry Bird himself said that MJ was god in disguise, and I forget who, but someone said MJ is so special because he is not only the best offensive player in the league...but also best defensive. So even his peers called him the best player when he was at a young age.Whether you consider Hakeem better for 1 or 2 of MJ's years with the Bulls doesn't make a difference as when you look back at that era, and you had to choose one player as being the best of that era...it's easily Jordan. And that is where the topic's question stems from.</div>To claim 14 years necessarily includes the Wizards years, and those were also the years being discounted for Shaq. It's akin to the difference between saying Kareem was the best player of his era and saying he was the best player for his entire career. The first is a good argument, and true in my opinion, the second is flat out wrong.If the question is 1999 on, Shaq has been the best overall.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pacers fan forever @ Jun 18 2007, 07:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1) Duncan2) Shaq3) Nash4) Kobe5) DunnoDon't try to argue with that</div>Shaq over Duncan, AI at 5th. I don't agree with that.
