PDA

View Full Version : Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise



JordansBulls
06-20-2014, 10:41 PM
Who do you take?

Deutsch Konig
06-20-2014, 11:06 PM
As much as I love and respect Timmy D, my answer is easily The Dream.

Best 2-way Center to ever pick up a basketball.

spurs4#5
06-20-2014, 11:13 PM
I'd have to go with Duncan. If you're looking at body of work, Duncan has been more consistent for his entire career while you saw a drastic decline in the Hakeem later in his career. If you're talking if both players are in the same draft class then that's just buyers choice you couldn't make a wrong choice

COOLbeans
06-20-2014, 11:34 PM
I'd go with Duncan. Though Olajuwan was a super player and right behind Duncan in terms of big man ranking.

In terms of pure skill and heart,

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem

Teufelshunde4
06-20-2014, 11:53 PM
Who do you take?

I love Duncan, but Olajuwon hands down....

Lets not forget that The Dream had very limited basketball experience when he entered the league. So he had to develop while being the man in Houston.. Duncan was a polished product entering the league and came to a good franchise..

jmaest
06-20-2014, 11:59 PM
The great thing about this comparison: both Hakeem & Duncan are gentlemen. Great leaders. Great teammates. Incredibly likable. Two guys that know how to play basketball and know the value of being decent human beings to other people.

Now that the mush stuff is out...I hate to disagree with some of you here but Hakeem's prime trumps Duncan's prime maybe twice over. Hakeem could do everything Duncan could do offensively--and some things better--AND the Dream was superior defensively.

I love Duncan as much as the next guy but how great a career do you think he would have had banging bodies with Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Rodman, Cartwright, Willis, Smits, and a whole slew of other very physical centers every night? I'm sure he'd still be great BUT we would have had to have seen it to be sure.

But Hakeem wasn't just great against those guys, he was dominant. That's just other worldly. I don't think that can be overlooked.

Also, let's be honest, one of the reasons Duncan has played so long and relatively injury free is definitely the lack of physical contact the modern game offers today. No other real 7 foot Center or Power Forward to bang bodies with every night definitely keeps you from having early back problems or bad knees.

I know everyone is in love with Duncan at the moment but don't forget Hakeem was the 2nd best player of a generation--2nd only to the consensus GOAT.

Head to head would have been a lot of fun to watch. I don't think there's a wrong answer here but I would bet most analysts who've watched both of their careers start to finish would probably put Hakeem slightly ahead. It's hard to ignore the dominance that Hakeem demonstrated and that Duncan never did.

Many of you are too young but go watch Rockets vs Orlando. I know Shaq was young but Hakeem just basically taught him how to play basketball. It was pretty awesome.

jmaest
06-21-2014, 12:02 AM
I'd go with Duncan. Though Olajuwan was a super player and right behind Duncan in terms of big man ranking.

In terms of pure skill and heart,

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem

I'm confused by your criteria. How do you measure the heart of those players? How do you put Shaq ahead of Hakeem using "skill" as a criteria? Or either Kareem or Wilt ahead of Russell if both "skill" & "heart" are criteria meant literally as sports adjectives?

Can you please define your criteria?

JasonJohnHorn
06-21-2014, 12:25 AM
If we are talking about the first ten years of their careers, then easily Hakeem...

But if we are talking about their full career, I have to do with Duncan. He aged much better than Hakeem, and that gives you a longer window to win.

One-on-one in their prime, no doubt Hakeem was better.

JasonJohnHorn
06-21-2014, 12:33 AM
The great thing about this comparison: both Hakeem & Duncan are gentlemen. Great leaders. Great teammates. Incredibly likable. Two guys that know how to play basketball and know the value of being decent human beings to other people.

Now that the mush stuff is out...I hate to disagree with some of you here but Hakeem's prime trumps Duncan's prime maybe twice over. Hakeem could do everything Duncan could do offensively--and some things better--AND the Dream was superior defensively.

I love Duncan as much as the next guy but how great a career do you think he would have had banging bodies with Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Rodman, Cartwright, Willis, Smits, and a whole slew of other very physical centers every night? I'm sure he'd still be great BUT we would have had to have seen it to be sure.

But Hakeem wasn't just great against those guys, he was dominant. That's just other worldly. I don't think that can be overlooked.

Also, let's be honest, one of the reasons Duncan has played so long and relatively injury free is definitely the lack of physical contact the modern game offers today. No other real 7 foot Center or Power Forward to bang bodies with every night definitely keeps you from having early back problems or bad knees.

I know everyone is in love with Duncan at the moment but don't forget Hakeem was the 2nd best player of a generation--2nd only to the consensus GOAT.

Head to head would have been a lot of fun to watch. I don't think there's a wrong answer here but I would bet most analysts who've watched both of their careers start to finish would probably put Hakeem slightly ahead. It's hard to ignore the dominance that Hakeem demonstrated and that Duncan never did.

Many of you are too young but go watch Rockets vs Orlando. I know Shaq was young but Hakeem just basically taught him how to play basketball. It was pretty awesome.

Great analysis. I agree with most of what you said. I'd go with Duncan because he aged better.

In their respective primes, I'd take Hakeem, but 35+ Duncan is better than 35+ Hakeem.

Also, Duncan had to work with the 3-seconds-with-your-back-to-the-basket rule... Hakeem didn't. And Pop didn't run as many plays through Tim as Hakeem's coaches ran through him.

Hakeem was just SO awesome!
I miss him.

amak316
06-21-2014, 12:41 AM
Hakeem vs Duncan is like MJ vs LeBron arguments. Hakeem was an artist like MJ and Duncan has surgical precision and efficiency like LeBron. Both are great players but I prefer the guy who is an innovator and brings great flair to the game. I take Hakeem here, but Duncan is certainly the man in his own right.

More-Than-Most
06-21-2014, 12:43 AM
I went Timmy but want to change my answer only because how dry the competition is from 2000 on at this position.

conway429
06-21-2014, 01:00 AM
I'd have to go with Duncan. If you're looking at body of work, Duncan has been more consistent for his entire career while you saw a drastic decline in the Hakeem later in his career. If you're talking if both players are in the same draft class then that's just buyers choice you couldn't make a wrong choice

it wasn't that drastic.... he was 19-10 with 2.5 blocks at the age of 36, and then his minutes got slashed to the low 20s per game for his last couple years... per 48 his numbers are pretty close to Duncan's at the same age, and 19-10-2.5 is pretty dam solid for a 36 year old...

I'd take Hakeem by a very slight margin. Obviously you can't go wrong either way, they're both top 10 players of all-time and arguably the best PF and C to ever play.
On top of that they're probably the two most likeable and professional of all of the elite all-time NBA players.

Hawkamania
06-21-2014, 01:06 AM
If we are talking about the first ten years of their careers, then easily Hakeem...

But if we are talking about their full career, I have to do with Duncan. He aged much better than Hakeem, and that gives you a longer window to win.

One-on-one in their prime, no doubt Hakeem was better.

I agree with the above post which shares some of the main reasons why I voted for Hakeem.

jerellh528
06-21-2014, 01:42 AM
Kinda a no brainier to go with Hakeem for me. The longevity is also kinda over exaggerated also. Hakeem was elite for 14 years, 1 more than Duncan IMO. Hakeem played well over 35 mpg from 22 til about 36. Duncan hasn't played over 35 mpg since he was 28 and plays 6th man minutes for a large portion of his career. He's be an equal part of a 3 headed monster for the spurs, the majority of his career with ginobli and Parker having an almost equal key to spurs sucess, and it's helped prolong Duncan's career drastically.

abe_froman
06-21-2014, 01:49 AM
timmy

i wont get quit the peak as i would with hakeem,but i also wont get the sudden and dramatic drop off.tmmy will still be good from 35 onwards

raiderposting
06-21-2014, 01:56 AM
Starting today? Hakeem. No player in the league can stop him today. He'll make everyone look like a ***** on the court.

IKnowHoops
06-21-2014, 02:01 AM
If we are talking about the first ten years of their careers, then easily Hakeem...

But if we are talking about their full career, I have to do with Duncan. He aged much better than Hakeem, and that gives you a longer window to win.

One-on-one in their prime, no doubt Hakeem was better.

This sums it up. Peak is no doubt Dream, even though its close, its still no doubt Dream. But with Duncan, I can literally have a top 3 pf/c in the league for 20 years straight. So at the end of the day, I'd probably go with Duncan just because he will be awesome for so much longer, giving me a larger window for success.

jerellh528
06-21-2014, 02:04 AM
You all act as if Hakeem had like a 9 yr career or something.
Hakeem was elite until about 36 years old, and I'd argue his prime was much longer than Duncan's. Duncan has been a glorified 6th man for years now, the minutes prove it.

FlashBolt
06-21-2014, 02:16 AM
Tough choice but gotta go with the Dream. Dude was an all around machine. Great offense, great defense, can rebound, can pass, can make steals, can block shots.. Dude was the perfect player in a sense.

Dade County
06-21-2014, 02:21 AM
The Dream...

Could you imagine him playing today; dear God.

raiderposting
06-21-2014, 02:32 AM
Playing today Hakeem will average around 35 and 15

IgglesFanInCO
06-21-2014, 02:41 AM
Timmy D is my favorite player of all time and its still a no contest decision to go with Hakeem here.

Like others have said, the gap between him and the best center in the league today would be so huge he would be putting up beyond insane numbers

COOLbeans
06-21-2014, 02:48 AM
I'm confused by your criteria. How do you measure the heart of those players? How do you put Shaq ahead of Hakeem using "skill" as a criteria? Or either Kareem or Wilt ahead of Russell if both "skill" & "heart" are criteria meant literally as sports adjectives?

Can you please define your criteria?

Well the numbers speak for themselves when mentioning the skill of Kareem, Wilt and Russell. Each of those guys are dominant numbers wise respectively. Shaq has more championships than the Dream and simply wanted to play longer than Hakeem. Duncan is still plowing along after 18 years and also has more championships than Hakeem.

I guess skills wise you can put Hakeem over Shaq, and definitely over Russell offensively. But Hakeem's drop off was significant once he began to decline and he didn't last too long once he dipped. Shaq, Duncan and Hakeem are close, but the championships and longevity speaks for themselves.

COOLbeans
06-21-2014, 02:52 AM
Im sorry, but if Duncan were in his prime today he'd also be averaging about 30 and 15. And from the 4 spot. Its a very debatable argument, I see no bad reason to not go with either player. Duncan's greatness can also be examined against all time greats. He battled Shaq, (debatably a top 3 center of all time). Yes Hakeem killed Shaq but Oneal wasn't even close to reaching his potential.

But like I said you can definitely go either way with the Hakeem, Duncan debate.

FlashBolt
06-21-2014, 03:09 AM
This is the 1a, 1b question that you can't get a wrong answer for. It is like saying who is better, Magic or Bird. I mean, you really can't go wrong with either one. Some say Bird because he's a better shooter and better defender but some say Magic because he is a great passer, rebounder, and can play "any" position. I'm only siding with Hakeem because I think his post moves would drive everyone crazy but it's rather silly to say "not even close, Hakeem over Timmy." Really? Timmy is a top 5-8 player of all time and some have him over Hakeem on their list. To say: clearly, not even close, easily - that is just absurd.

Jtirado16
06-21-2014, 03:10 AM
Duncan

Raps18-19 Champ
06-21-2014, 03:37 AM
Without knowing what they have already accomplished in the NBA, I'd go Duncan.

Shlumpledink
06-21-2014, 04:44 AM
Can you imagine Duncan playing for the coaches that Hakeem played with and that supporting cast? Does Duncan even compete with prime David Robinson the way Hakeem was able to?

If Ralph Sampson doesn't ruin his knees, we are talking about Hakeem as the greatest power forward of all time.

They are similar players in terms of their effectiveness as two-way players, but Hakeem is better at offense and defense. I can't take Duncan, I don't think he would be as effective in Hakeem's era, and Hakeem would be so much more dominant in this era if he played today. Hakeem against Bosh and birdman in the finals? It would be a cakewalk.

amos1er
06-21-2014, 04:54 AM
Got to go with Duncan. Better longevity which means more chances to win a ring.

amos1er
06-21-2014, 04:55 AM
Can you imagine Duncan playing for the coaches that Hakeem played with and that supporting cast? Does Duncan even compete with prime David Robinson the way Hakeem was able to?

If Ralph Sampson doesn't ruin his knees, we are talking about Hakeem as the greatest power forward of all time.

They are similar players in terms of their effectiveness as two-way players, but Hakeem is better at offense and defense. I can't take Duncan, I don't think he would be as effective in Hakeem's era, and Hakeem would be so much more dominant in this era if he played today. Hakeem against Bosh and birdman in the finals? It would be a cakewalk.

At age 38???

amos1er
06-21-2014, 04:56 AM
Playing today Hakeem will average around 35 and 15

How can you quantify any of this...

rockets-fan
06-21-2014, 06:22 AM
Can't go wrong, but Hakeem.

And for those with the longevity talk, insert the dream in Timmy's place, with Timmy's teammates, and coach. Hakeem would have IN MY OPINION the same longevity. Timmy's minutes have been reduced since he was like 29, smart on pops part but it contributed to how he can still play today. I think it's obvious if Hakeem's minutes were reduced at age 29 and on, he would have not dropped off drastically.


Offense: Hakeem (rather easily)

Defense: Hakeem (tougher but still rather easily)

Passer: ehhh, Timmy gets the edge here cause of pops system but Hakeem is close

Rebounder: gotta go Timmy here


All around Hakeem is the better player....all this rings talk is crap....you win as a team as the spurs just showed. Rings shouldn't solidify a player being better than the next, it's a team game and Hakeem never had the team and coach Timmy had, the teams that shaq had, or magic or Jordan. Hakeem had a good team don't get me wrong. But they weren't like these other teams.


Maybe I'm just bias tho haha just my opinions

JNA17
06-21-2014, 07:37 AM
Hakeem.

Duncan is awesome and the best PF of all time but Hakeem is one of the greatest big men of all time. He was also a center with practically no weakness. There was almost nothing he couldn't do on offense and defense. Best post offensive player of all time and arguably the best defensive post player of all time.

It's pretty close but I would rather have Hakeem.

waveycrockett
06-21-2014, 08:09 AM
It's Hakeem and I dont think it's very close. Timmy is great 2 way player that was extremely versatile and abused other PF's throughout his prime and also had a great mid-range game but he never was the dominant force that Hakeem was on BOTH ends of the court. Hakeem was the most dominant player in the NBA for a long stretch I can't that TIMMY ever was that. SHAQ was extremely dominant as well but he was never close to being the defensive player that Hakeem was.

torocan
06-21-2014, 08:52 AM
Duncan has been a glorified 6th man for years now, the minutes prove it.

One of the silliest statements I've read in this thread.

Duncan plays the 2nd most minutes per game on the Spurs (29.2 vs Parker's 29.4). The entire team is designed around innovative changes in minutes rotation.

Tony Parker at 31 doesn't play over 30mpg.

How cutting edge are the Spurs minutes rotation? Take a look at this...

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/06/20/stat-central-2013-14-spurs-redefined-nba-rotation/

TD doesn't play fewer minutes because he's a glorified 6th man, he plays fewer minutes because Pops has pioneered a rotation designed to maximize rest while maximizing player development and bench reps.

Per the OP, I don't fault anyone for picking either however I'd probably have to go with Hakeem.

Hakeem's peak was higher, and while his career wasn't as long it wasn't a HUGE difference in total career length... at least so far. 18 years in the NBA, 15 of those years playing as a starter is close enough to Duncan to basically consider the difference in longevity not big enough to offset the level of play.

Now, if Tim Duncan is still paying at the age of 40 at a high level, then that's a whole other discussion. 20 years of high level play as a starter vs 15? That's something that you really need to think hard about...

JasonJohnHorn
06-21-2014, 09:44 AM
You all act as if Hakeem had like a 9 yr career or something.
Hakeem was elite until about 36 years old, and I'd argue his prime was much longer than Duncan's. Duncan has been a glorified 6th man for years now, the minutes prove it.

Glorified 6th man? WOW!

Duncan is easily still the best player on that team, and the MVP votes this yer show just how important he is.

Pop reduces minutes, not because Duncan can't play them, but because there is no reason to leave your starters on when you are up by 15 with 6 minutes left to go in the 4th.

Pop has made a conscious choice to bring the bench out early whenever he can to get them in-game experience and prepare them for the playoffs, while allowing his straters to rest and reducing the wear and tear on their bodies over the years of playing.

As to Hakeem's decline, Hakeem stopped being a 'dominant' rebounder around the age of 32 (9+ boards per36 that year, and he averaged about that for the last 8 seasons of his career). Duncan is STILL a dominant rebounder. His per36 stats have him grabbing 12 boards a game THIS year at the age of 37, so the fact that a 37-year-old Duncan can out rebound a 32-year-old Hakeem in an era where there are fewer posessions.... clearly Duncan is the better rebounder in the post-30 days of their respective careers.

Defensively, both averaged over 2 blocks per36 until late in their careers, but the difference is Duncan gotmore blocks than fouls, which Hakeem can't say for himself.

In terms of assists, Duncan is averaging over 3 per36 since 30, Hakeem dropped to below 3 at 35 and as 2.5 ast per36 on his career to Duncan 3.2. AND Duncan got fewer turnovers.

At the age of 37 (this year for Duncan), Timmy was average over 18 points per36.... Hakeem didn't even break 16 at that age.


I will not argue with anybody who suggests that Hakeem was better in his prime, but Duncan has clearly aged better than Hakeem. Nobody is saying Hakeem was a chump at the age of 35, but we are talking about a player (Duncan) who had managed to maintain a level of play into his late 30's that may have never been achieved before (neither KAJ or KMalone were rebounding this well at Duncan's age).


Either pick is good... but Duncan has aged better than Hakeem.

ghettosean
06-21-2014, 09:48 AM
Kinda a no brainier to go with Hakeem for me. The longevity is also kinda over exaggerated also. Hakeem was elite for 14 years, 1 more than Duncan IMO. Hakeem played well over 35 mpg from 22 til about 36. Duncan hasn't played over 35 mpg since he was 28 and plays 6th man minutes for a large portion of his career. He's be an equal part of a 3 headed monster for the spurs, the majority of his career with ginobli and Parker having an almost equal key to spurs sucess, and it's helped prolong Duncan's career drastically.

This all of it!!!

c.c.
06-21-2014, 10:14 AM
Hakeem Olajuwon for sure but Duncan resume' is amazing

flea
06-21-2014, 10:22 AM
Until a few years ago I would have said Hakeem without much thought. Now I think it's really close. In fact, I think KAJ, Dream, and Duncan are in a virtual 3-way tie for best big man ever - with a strong nod to Shaq's peak. Splitting these guys is like splitting Brady/Manning/Montana or Ruth/Mays/Bonds, IMO. But I've been very impressed with Duncan's health and effectiveness since his '07 ring.

Most other guys chased rings, or had big stars coming to their teams late in their careers looking for rings. Duncan's Spurs biggest acquisition has been guys like Diaw, Patty Mills, and Tiago Splitter. Fine players, but decided role players. Quite different from joining Magic, or having Pippen/Barkley hop aboard, or joining Wade.

In response to people saying he didn't play in the golden age of big men - please. He had to deal with Shaq for most of his prime, and he played in the era of zone defenses. Not only did he play in it, he mastered it. He's had to deal with all the athletes that the 00's threw at us - and without the help of a wing defender being able to hack away. The whole Spurs defense that carried them to their first 4 titles and was a major part of this 5th is based around Duncan's superior basketball IQ. He doesn't miss rotations, his hands are up, he doesn't foul much, and he's always had great timing on blocks. He's beaten Lebron James twice in the playoffs now, so it's not like he was dancing around the new generation's all-time great. If he weren't such a dominant interior defender I might could understand the lack of other great bigs hurting him - but he's a major part of stopping slashing wings (all the game is nowadays).

waveycrockett
06-21-2014, 10:23 AM
How can you quantify any of this...

Well I think you can say he would certainly face a lot LESS resistance against this current generation of crappy centers. He put up monster numbers during the GOLDEN age of the center position.

One thing you have to factor in is that Hakeem was putting up those numbers during the toughest generation of NBA defenes and the best generation of centers. TD was facing A LOT less quality opposition and had ALOT more help than I think Hakeem did playing with 3 other Future HOF players

tr3ymill3r
06-21-2014, 10:36 AM
If anyone has been able to watch any of the Dream workouts with guys like LeBron or Dwight, you could argue that Hakeem would still have the best foot work in the league today.

FYL_McVeezy
06-21-2014, 10:47 AM
With all due respect to Timmy, I'm taking the dream.

Go_NUGGETS
06-21-2014, 10:55 AM
For me.....Hakeem, easily.

ManningToTyree
06-21-2014, 11:10 AM
Hakeem but no wrong answer

jmaest
06-21-2014, 11:23 AM
Great analysis. I agree with most of what you said. I'd go with Duncan because he aged better.

In their respective primes, I'd take Hakeem, but 35+ Duncan is better than 35+ Hakeem.

Also, Duncan had to work with the 3-seconds-with-your-back-to-the-basket rule... Hakeem didn't. And Pop didn't run as many plays through Tim as Hakeem's coaches ran through him.

Hakeem was just SO awesome!
I miss him.

Totally agree. I love this discussion. I don't think there's literally a bad or wrong choice here.

mjt20mik
06-21-2014, 11:25 AM
A lot of people haven't really read the question the OP is asking. He said start a franchise, who would you take. The main goal for a starting a franchise is creating a winning culture and longevity.

Hakeem hands down is the better player, but the way he played and minutes he consumed, he was pretty much done after he was 35. Timmy is still rocking at 38. So I'd pick Timmy.

Also an interesting read on the overall breakdowns so far of the Timmy and the Dream.

http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/d/tim_duncan_vs_hakeem_olajuwon.htm

RocketsWin2013
06-21-2014, 11:59 AM
You just can't go against Duncan's longevity.

ink
06-21-2014, 12:14 PM
You all act as if Hakeem had like a 9 yr career or something.
Hakeem was elite until about 36 years old, and I'd argue his prime was much longer than Duncan's. Duncan has been a glorified 6th man for years now, the minutes prove it.

If you're locked into that thinking about starters and bench. Pops clearly doesn't weigh things that way. You assume that managed minutes means washed up while for SA it's strategic.

Jeffy25
06-21-2014, 12:15 PM
Hakeem is far more dominating.

but Duncan is probably the easiest player to build around (for a big).....he can pass, he is selfless, he can defend, etc.


But I'd still rather have Hakeem on the court.

Bruno
06-21-2014, 12:27 PM
dare I say that hakeem has become slightly overrated and the lore of his footwork has surpassed his numbers?

waveycrockett
06-21-2014, 12:31 PM
dare I say that hakeem has become slightly overrated and the lore of his footwork has surpassed his numbers?

The lore of His footwork? Lol. You clearly never seen the guy play. He is the most complete post low post player in NBA history and the crazy thing is that his defense actually surpassed his offense.

jerellh528
06-21-2014, 12:39 PM
If you're locked into that thinking about starters and bench. Pops clearly doesn't weigh things that way. You assume that managed minutes means washed up while for SA it's strategic.

Op wasn't asking for coach and player combo, just player.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-21-2014, 02:42 PM
That is a great question. The main reason I would say Hakeem is Hakeem battled the bigger and or better players more in their primes (Jordan, Ewing, Shaq, Malone, Barkley, Drob). Duncan did want to play center for years. It is very close though. There is no wrong answer. I think Hakeems peak was higher but Duncan has had a longer prime.

jmaest
06-21-2014, 04:01 PM
dare I say that hakeem has become slightly overrated and the lore of his footwork has surpassed his numbers?

You can say it. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. In the grand scheme of things Hakeem may literally be the NBA's most underrated player ever.

That's what happens when you're a quiet superstar. Before this year, how underrated was Duncan? Think about it...

Hawkeye15
06-21-2014, 04:29 PM
Dream. At his peak, he was better for sure, and had 14 great seasons. He did not however get to play alongside the cast Duncan has, nor had the coach Duncan has, so his winning years were cut to just a handful, contender wise.

But in a box, Hakeem was the better player, with Duncan having the better career if that makes sense.

Hawkeye15
06-21-2014, 04:32 PM
dare I say that hakeem has become slightly overrated and the lore of his footwork has surpassed his numbers?

it wasn't just that. Hakeem could switch on a PnR and keep quick PG's out of the paint long enough for his teammate to recover, while still having the athleticism to get back to his own man on the drop. He was an exceptional passer after his first few years. His footwork was ahead of anyone's, even McHale. He was just a freak athlete who moved like a guard at 6'11".

Hakeem was a monster. Imagine if he had contender casts around him throughout his whole career, instead of just very early, and the one he drug to 2 championship later.

The ONLY arguments for Timmy here, are longevity, and team success.

Hawkeye15
06-21-2014, 04:35 PM
A lot of people haven't really read the question the OP is asking. He said start a franchise, who would you take. The main goal for a starting a franchise is creating a winning culture and longevity.

Hakeem hands down is the better player, but the way he played and minutes he consumed, he was pretty much done after he was 35. Timmy is still rocking at 38. So I'd pick Timmy.

Also an interesting read on the overall breakdowns so far of the Timmy and the Dream.

http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/d/tim_duncan_vs_hakeem_olajuwon.htm

your post contradicts itself a little. Hakeem NEEDED to play all those minutes. Does anyone really think Duncan would even still be in the league if he didn't have such a great roster/coach that allowed his minutes to be managed through his entire 30's?

Put Duncan on the Rockets in 84', and Dream on the Spurs in 96', and they probably have career reversals, because Duncan is playing 35-36 mpg forever, while Dream is playing 29 mpg and taking 15 games off a season to rest once he hits 30.

jmaest
06-21-2014, 04:36 PM
Dream. At his peak, he was better for sure, and had 14 great seasons. He did not however get to play alongside the cast Duncan has, nor had the coach Duncan has, so his winning years were cut to just a handful, contender wise.

But in a box, Hakeem was the better player, with Duncan having the better career if that makes sense.

It does.

Rudy Tomjanovich was a pretty decent Coach guys, let's not make it seem like Duncan played for Pop and Hakeem played for a slouch. That's not the case. Hakeem was a very unselfish player and wonderful passer. Remember, he quietly endured multiple seasons of Vernon Maxwell--the man who was once called "super chucker". Rudy T, I'm sure, had something to do with that.

The Rockets' system was a good one. It really was.

Hawkeye15
06-21-2014, 04:38 PM
It does.

Rudy Tomjanovich was a pretty decent Coach guys, let's not make it seem like Duncan played for Pop and Hakeem played for a slouch. That's not the case. Hakeem was a very unselfish player and wonderful passer. Remember, he quietly endured multiple seasons of Vernon Maxwell--the man who was once called "super chucker". Rudy T, I'm sure, had something to do with that.

The Rockets' system was a good one. It really was.

the system and talent Dream had, even in his early years with Sampson when they made the finals, was still not as good as the Spurs had. Not saying Dream played with girls his whole career, I am just saying he would be looked at differently had he been as lucky as Magic, Bird, Kobe, or Duncan, who had contending teams forever.

kdspurman
06-21-2014, 06:50 PM
Duncan did come into a nice situation, but the guys he came in with weren't exactly in their primes anymore. And even in the early 2000's he had a pretty young & experienced team that hadn't really proved much (aside from D-Rob and a couple other vets) I think it's easy to see Parker & Ginobili now, but they didn't come into the league playing the way they played in their respective primes. Especially Parker, he took a while to develop into a consistently good player, mainly due to the fact that he hadn't developed that mid range shot.

amos1er
06-21-2014, 06:57 PM
Well I think you can say he would certainly face a lot LESS resistance against this current generation of crappy centers. He put up monster numbers during the GOLDEN age of the center position.

One thing you have to factor in is that Hakeem was putting up those numbers during the toughest generation of NBA defenes and the best generation of centers. TD was facing A LOT less quality opposition and had ALOT more help than I think Hakeem did playing with 3 other Future HOF players

I see what your saying, but you have to factor in the fact that Hakeem did not do very well against zone defenses. Zones were a major weakness for him. Even Shaq (the most offensively dominant center of his generation and arguably ever) didn't put up an outrageous 35 and 15. There were also more possessions per game back then as well. With less possessions overall and the zone defense incorporated, I just don't see Hakeem out performing a prime Shaq and putting up 35 and 15.

amos1er
06-21-2014, 07:02 PM
Hakeem is far more dominating.

but Duncan is probably the easiest player to build around (for a big).....he can pass, he is selfless, he can defend, etc.


But I'd still rather have Hakeem on the court.

It's very close for sure. There are a lot of other factors I would have to consider before I made my choice for sure... Such as who the coach is, how big a franchise, style of play, and which era we are talking about.

amos1er
06-21-2014, 07:14 PM
Dream. At his peak, he was better for sure, and had 14 great seasons. He did not however get to play alongside the cast Duncan has, nor had the coach Duncan has, so his winning years were cut to just a handful, contender wise.

But in a box, Hakeem was the better player, with Duncan having the better career if that makes sense.

That was actually kind of what I was thinking. Duncan has for sure the better legacy and therefore deserves to be ranked higher on the all-time list. Hakeem was perhaps the most skilled big man offensively in the history of the game who also played top tier defense as well. It's a tough call for sure, but I think that Duncan has the better intangibles, such as leadership, mental toughness, clutch factor, was loved by his teammates like no other, greater work ethic, and greater drive. These things do matter to me, and do take a big part in determining overall greatness and success. For sure Hakeem has the Dream Shake and the offensive arsenal, but the defense is pretty much a wash between the two with perhaps a slight edge to Hakeem, while Duncan has the better intangibles and longevity. Though Hakeem does have the better peak for sure, but hard to say if that would translate into more championships for a franchise or not and if he could put of those same numbers playing better managed minutes under Pop with a more productive supporting cast. It's very very close, but I guess I'm just leaning towards Duncan on this one.

alexander_37
06-21-2014, 09:10 PM
Well the numbers speak for themselves when mentioning the skill of Kareem, Wilt and Russell. Each of those guys are dominant numbers wise respectively. Shaq has more championships than the Dream and simply wanted to play longer than Hakeem. Duncan is still plowing along after 18 years and also has more championships than Hakeem.

I guess skills wise you can put Hakeem over Shaq, and definitely over Russell offensively. But Hakeem's drop off was significant once he began to decline and he didn't last too long once he dipped. Shaq, Duncan and Hakeem are close, but the championships and longevity speaks for themselves.

You realize Hakeem also played vs Jordan, magic, and Bird.

In '86 they beat the Lakers in 5 where he scored 40, 35 and 30 points and Lost in 6 to Bird, Mchale, and Parrish.

Duncan has never faced a team like those let alone 2 in one run. Hakeem played with a washed up Clyde or Barkley he never had great teams. I doubt any Hakeem team without him would ever make the playoffs.

alexander_37
06-21-2014, 09:16 PM
Glorified 6th man? WOW!

Duncan is easily still the best player on that team, and the MVP votes this yer show just how important he is.

Pop reduces minutes, not because Duncan can't play them, but because there is no reason to leave your starters on when you are up by 15 with 6 minutes left to go in the 4th.

Pop has made a conscious choice to bring the bench out early whenever he can to get them in-game experience and prepare them for the playoffs, while allowing his straters to rest and reducing the wear and tear on their bodies over the years of playing.

As to Hakeem's decline, Hakeem stopped being a 'dominant' rebounder around the age of 32 (9+ boards per36 that year, and he averaged about that for the last 8 seasons of his career). Duncan is STILL a dominant rebounder. His per36 stats have him grabbing 12 boards a game THIS year at the age of 37, so the fact that a 37-year-old Duncan can out rebound a 32-year-old Hakeem in an era where there are fewer posessions.... clearly Duncan is the better rebounder in the post-30 days of their respective careers.

Defensively, both averaged over 2 blocks per36 until late in their careers, but the difference is Duncan gotmore blocks than fouls, which Hakeem can't say for himself.

In terms of assists, Duncan is averaging over 3 per36 since 30, Hakeem dropped to below 3 at 35 and as 2.5 ast per36 on his career to Duncan 3.2. AND Duncan got fewer turnovers.

At the age of 37 (this year for Duncan), Timmy was average over 18 points per36.... Hakeem didn't even break 16 at that age.


I will not argue with anybody who suggests that Hakeem was better in his prime, but Duncan has clearly aged better than Hakeem. Nobody is saying Hakeem was a chump at the age of 35, but we are talking about a player (Duncan) who had managed to maintain a level of play into his late 30's that may have never been achieved before (neither KAJ or KMalone were rebounding this well at Duncan's age).


Either pick is good... but Duncan has aged better than Hakeem.

Their rebounding averages are identical... Then you factor in the Hakeem played against David Robinson, Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaq, Barkley, and Rodman.....

ManRam
06-21-2014, 09:26 PM
It's kinda twisted and I hate that it works like this...but I think Duncan's legacy is better thus higher in the all-time rankings, but I'd take Hakeem over him if I'm starting a franchise. It's very close tho.

Verbal Christ
06-21-2014, 09:53 PM
I wonder how many more games/rings Dream would have won if he had 2 other HOF caliber players on his team during his prime?

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:14 PM
Duncan gets you 5 rings maybe 6 and contends for like 20 years. Easy pick.

alexander_37
06-21-2014, 11:22 PM
Duncan gets you 5 rings maybe 6 and contends for like 20 years. Easy pick.

He would have 0 rings on Hakeems teams vs. Jordan, Bird, and Magic...

kdspurman
06-21-2014, 11:23 PM
I wonder how many more games/rings Dream would have won if he had 2 other HOF caliber players on his team during his prime?

But Duncan didn't have those guys when they were in their primes or when he was in his prime. No one considered Parker/Ginobili HOF's when they came into the league. Robinson was the obvious one, but he was not himself when Duncan came aboard. I think people look at names/rosters and don't consider when they were on the same team. The first 2 titles, Duncan was the guy.

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:26 PM
He would have 0 rings on Hakeems teams vs. Jordan, Bird, and Magic...
Hakeem wished he was as good as Duncan.

effen5
06-21-2014, 11:26 PM
Hakeem this era would make every player his *****

kdspurman
06-21-2014, 11:28 PM
Hakeem wished he was as good as Duncan.

That's just nonsense man, come on

alexander_37
06-21-2014, 11:31 PM
Hakeem wished he was as good as Duncan.

You mean he wishes he scored less points, less efficiently, had less blocks, less steals, and all against better competition?

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:32 PM
That's just nonsense man, come on

Many other posters can make the same argument including Bill Simmons.

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:34 PM
You mean he wishes he scored less points, less efficiently, had less blocks, less steals, and all against better competition?

10 first round exits. Nice!! :laugh:

alexander_37
06-21-2014, 11:35 PM
10 first round exits. Nice!! :laugh:

It's a team game... That's like saying Fisher is better than Nash cuz rings doe.

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:40 PM
It's a team game... That's like saying Fisher is better than Nash cuz rings doe.

Matt Bonner = Lebron James

kdspurman
06-21-2014, 11:47 PM
Many other posters can make the same argument including Bill Simmons.

Hakeem was a beast. I don't necessarily agree with some of the comments against TD, but to say he wishes he was the player Duncan was, I just don't buy it. As a Spurs fan, you should know how good/dominant he was

SPURSFAN1
06-21-2014, 11:56 PM
Hakeem was a beast. I don't necessarily agree with some of the comments against TD, but to say he wishes he was the player Duncan was, I just don't buy it. As a Spurs fan, you should know how good/dominant he was

I know how great both players are, but some people are really undervaluing Tim Duncan like all he has is longevity.
2003 was one of the greatest GOAT runs of all time. Duncan wasn't some run of the mill superstar. His Prime is comparable to other superstars. 38 year old Tim Duncan just beat Lebron James in his prime. He wasn't a slouch in his prime either.

Bruno
06-21-2014, 11:57 PM
Duncan has the higher career PER, higher career WS (by a lot), higher career WS/48 (by a lot). Hakeem edges Duncan in playoff PER.

Out of the two players Duncan has the higher single season WS/48 (he has four individual season that peak Hakeems highest WS/48). Duncans top five peak WS/48 average surpasses Hakeems. Duncan has 13 total seasons with a WS/48 figure above 1.90, Hakeem has 4.

PER has them evenly matched.

I don't see where Hakeem has Duncan bested in peak, all the numbers favor Duncan at his peak. I see an argument where Duncan has him bested in team success, totals/longevity, accolades and peak. Obviously Hakeem is amazing but Duncan is being under valued heavily in this poll in favor of old nostalgia . It's been a decade since Duncan was as dominant as Hakeem ever was. we shouldn't forget that just because we have the luxury of watching him play well at 38 years old, he's still a shell of himself despite his recent resurgence, success and impact.

SPURSFAN1
06-22-2014, 12:00 AM
Duncan has the higher career PER, higher career WS (by a lot), higher career WS/48 (by a lot). Hakeem edges Duncan in playoff PER.

Out of the two players Duncan has the higher single season WS/48 (he has four individual season that peak Hakeems highest WS/48). Duncans top five peak WS/48 average surpasses Hakeems. Duncan has 13 total seasons with a WS/48 figure above 1.90, Hakeem has 4.

PER has them evenly matched.

I don't see where Hakeem has Duncan bested in peak, all the numbers favor Duncan at his peak. I see an argument where Duncan has him bested in team success, totals/longevity, accolades and peak. Obviously Hakeem is amazing but Duncan is being under valued heavily in this poll in favor of old nostalgia . It's been a decade since Duncan was as dominant as Hakeem ever was. we shouldn't forget that just because we have the luxury of watching him play well at 38 years old, he's still a shell of himself despite his recent resurgence, success and impact.

Completely agree.

Bruno
06-22-2014, 12:01 AM
You can say it. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. In the grand scheme of things Hakeem may literally be the NBA's most underrated player ever.

That's what happens when you're a quiet superstar. Before this year, how underrated was Duncan? Think about it...

imo, considerably. people put him behind Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic and Bird. five players I think he's bested.

Bruno
06-22-2014, 12:05 AM
The lore of His footwork? Lol. You clearly never seen the guy play. He is the most complete post low post player in NBA history and the crazy thing is that his defense actually surpassed his offense.

the same could be said for Duncan his defensive win-shares surpass his offensive win-shares, just like Hakeem. except timmy doesn't have a glaring gap between his total offensive win-shares and defensive-winshares like Hakeem does.

lore doesn't mean legend.

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 12:06 AM
I know how great both players are, but some people are really undervaluing Tim Duncan like all he has is longevity.
2003 was one of the greatest GOAT runs of all time. Duncan wasn't some run of the mill superstar. His Prime is comparable to other superstars. 38 year old Tim Duncan just beat Lebron James in his prime. He wasn't a slouch in his prime either.

That tends to happen whenever comparisons are made. Some over rate, some under rate. I think anyone who actually remembers Duncan in his prime (and not how he looks now) know how dominant he was in the league not only in his prime, but from the time he stepped on the court. He was NBA ready from Day 1, and had an immediate impact.

And about this recent run (against LBJ), be mindful it is a team game. I'm not making excuses or anything, just pointing that out. and I agree about his 2003 run. People have the impression when looking at Duncan early on that he had some stacked teams. Especially that 2003 run, he carried the team on both ends. It took time for Parker/Ginobili in particular to form into all star quality players.

PowerHouse
06-22-2014, 12:47 AM
This is actually a pretty easy choice. Its easily Hakeem Olajuwon.

Hakeem dominated an era absolutely loaded with superstar big men, Duncan shined in an era with very few. Olajuwon did things on a basketball court that nobody ever saw before or since. He was able to get over 200 steals, 200 blocks and lead the league in rebounding and score 25 ppg in the same season. Not only top 5 big man but top 5 player all-time in NBA history.

FlashBolt
06-22-2014, 12:52 AM
Really? Pretty easy choice.. Lol, Duncan is so underrated.

alexander_37
06-22-2014, 12:54 AM
This is actually a pretty easy choice. Its easily Hakeem Olajuwon.

Hakeem dominated an era absolutely loaded with superstar big men, Duncan shined in an era with very few. Olajuwon did things on a basketball court that nobody ever saw before or since. He was able to get over 200 steals, 200 blocks and lead the league in rebounding and score 25 ppg in the same season. Not only top 5 big man but top 5 player all-time in NBA history.

100%

SMH!
06-22-2014, 02:12 AM
This is actually a pretty easy choice. Its easily Hakeem Olajuwon.

Hakeem dominated an era absolutely loaded with superstar big men, Duncan shined in an era with very few. Olajuwon did things on a basketball court that nobody ever saw before or since. He was able to get over 200 steals, 200 blocks and lead the league in rebounding and score 25 ppg in the same season. Not only top 5 big man but top 5 player all-time in NBA history.
Yep

ewing
06-22-2014, 02:18 AM
i take Duncan in his prime. I just think he is more versatile player. Timmy can play like a guard.

ewing
06-22-2014, 02:20 AM
This is actually a pretty easy choice. Its easily Hakeem Olajuwon.

Hakeem dominated an era absolutely loaded with superstar big men, Duncan shined in an era with very few. Olajuwon did things on a basketball court that nobody ever saw before or since. He was able to get over 200 steals, 200 blocks and lead the league in rebounding and score 25 ppg in the same season. Not only top 5 big man but top 5 player all-time in NBA history.

i dont remember him dominating an era.

PowerHouse
06-22-2014, 02:36 AM
i dont remember him dominating an era.

Well, how old are you? If you dont recall him dominating David Robinson, Shaquille O'neal and Patrick Ewing (all in their primes) in the playoffs within a 2 year stretch then maybe youre either too young or you werent watching a lot of basketball in the 90s. Oh, and he did pretty damn well in the 80s too.

alexander_37
06-22-2014, 03:02 AM
i take Duncan in his prime. I just think he is more versatile player. Timmy can play like a guard.

:laugh:

R. Johnson#3
06-22-2014, 06:55 AM
No disrespect to Timmy but I have to go with Hakeem. They're both great of offense but Hakeem's D is what puts him ahead of Timmy.

JNA17
06-22-2014, 07:11 AM
i take Duncan in his prime. I just think he is more versatile player. Timmy can play like a guard.

I think you have the two names mixed up there.

Purch
06-22-2014, 08:26 AM
Kinda a no brainier to go with Hakeem for me. The longevity is also kinda over exaggerated also. Hakeem was elite for 14 years, 1 more than Duncan IMO. Hakeem played well over 35 mpg from 22 til about 36. Duncan hasn't played over 35 mpg since he was 28 and plays 6th man minutes for a large portion of his career. He's be an equal part of a 3 headed monster for the spurs, the majority of his career with ginobli and Parker having an almost equal key to spurs sucess, and it's helped prolong Duncan's career drastically.


When you guys talk about Duncan's longevity, you must also take into consideration that Duncan has played over two full 82 game seasons worth of playoff minutes.

He's played the most playoff minutes in Nba history at 8902

omdigga
06-22-2014, 08:56 AM
The great thing about this comparison: both Hakeem & Duncan are gentlemen. Great leaders. Great teammates. Incredibly likable. Two guys that know how to play basketball and know the value of being decent human beings to other people.

Now that the mush stuff is out...I hate to disagree with some of you here but Hakeem's prime trumps Duncan's prime maybe twice over. Hakeem could do everything Duncan could do offensively--and some things better--AND the Dream was superior defensively.

I love Duncan as much as the next guy but how great a career do you think he would have had banging bodies with Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Rodman, Cartwright, Willis, Smits, and a whole slew of other very physical centers every night? I'm sure he'd still be great BUT we would have had to have seen it to be sure.

But Hakeem wasn't just great against those guys, he was dominant. That's just other worldly. I don't think that can be overlooked.

Also, let's be honest, one of the reasons Duncan has played so long and relatively injury free is definitely the lack of physical contact the modern game offers today. No other real 7 foot Center or Power Forward to bang bodies with every night definitely keeps you from having early back problems or bad knees.

I know everyone is in love with Duncan at the moment but don't forget Hakeem was the 2nd best player of a generation--2nd only to the consensus GOAT.

Head to head would have been a lot of fun to watch. I don't think there's a wrong answer here but I would bet most analysts who've watched both of their careers start to finish would probably put Hakeem slightly ahead. It's hard to ignore the dominance that Hakeem demonstrated and that Duncan never did.

Many of you are too young but go watch Rockets vs Orlando. I know Shaq was young but Hakeem just basically taught him how to play basketball. It was pretty awesome.

Great reply.. nice to see some quality posts in the nba forum.

Verbal Christ
06-22-2014, 10:01 AM
But Duncan didn't have those guys when they were in their primes or when he was in his prime. No one considered Parker/Ginobili HOF's when they came into the league. Robinson was the obvious one, but he was not himself when Duncan came aboard. I think people look at names/rosters and don't consider when they were on the same team. The first 2 titles, Duncan was the guy.

So you are saying that Duncan carried the Spurs to championships and that Parker and Ginobili are just good role players???? REally? Duncan never had to throw the team on his shoulders like Dream did in 94. The following year was the first year in his career that he had a player of Drexler's caliber on his team, be that in the twilight of his career and what happened? They repeat. All I'm saying is that Dream never really had any ++ players during his run, certainly not like Parker and Ginobili.

ewing
06-22-2014, 10:25 AM
Well, how old are you? If you dont recall him dominating David Robinson, Shaquille O'neal and Patrick Ewing (all in their primes) in the playoffs within a 2 year stretch then maybe youre either too young or you werent watching a lot of basketball in the 90s. Oh, and he did pretty damn well in the 80s too.


I am 36. 2 years is not and era and he didn't dominate all those guys. You can make a good case for him being the best of them but saying he dominated them is BS

ewing
06-22-2014, 10:55 AM
I think you have the two names mixed up there.


no i don't Hakeem played almost exclusively out of the post. Timmy, leads the break off the bounce, is a play maker facing the basket with the pass, is the best outlet passer you can find, and i think he guards out on perimeter better then Dream ever did. Just b/c Dream was more explosive athletically doesn't mean he was more versatile.

Meaze_Gibson
06-22-2014, 10:59 AM
Glorified 6th man? WOW!

Duncan is easily still the best player on that team, and the MVP votes this yer show just how important he is.

Pop reduces minutes, not because Duncan can't play them, but because there is no reason to leave your starters on when you are up by 15 with 6 minutes left to go in the 4th.

Pop has made a conscious choice to bring the bench out early whenever he can to get them in-game experience and prepare them for the playoffs, while allowing his straters to rest and reducing the wear and tear on their bodies over the years of playing.

As to Hakeem's decline, Hakeem stopped being a 'dominant' rebounder around the age of 32 (9+ boards per36 that year, and he averaged about that for the last 8 seasons of his career). Duncan is STILL a dominant rebounder. His per36 stats have him grabbing 12 boards a game THIS year at the age of 37, so the fact that a 37-year-old Duncan can out rebound a 32-year-old Hakeem in an era where there are fewer posessions.... clearly Duncan is the better rebounder in the post-30 days of their respective careers.

Defensively, both averaged over 2 blocks per36 until late in their careers, but the difference is Duncan gotmore blocks than fouls, which Hakeem can't say for himself.

In terms of assists, Duncan is averaging over 3 per36 since 30, Hakeem dropped to below 3 at 35 and as 2.5 ast per36 on his career to Duncan 3.2. AND Duncan got fewer turnovers.

At the age of 37 (this year for Duncan), Timmy was average over 18 points per36.... Hakeem didn't even break 16 at that age.


I will not argue with anybody who suggests that Hakeem was better in his prime, but Duncan has clearly aged better than Hakeem. Nobody is saying Hakeem was a chump at the age of 35, but we are talking about a player (Duncan) who had managed to maintain a level of play into his late 30's that may have never been achieved before (neither KAJ or KMalone were rebounding this well at Duncan's age).


Either pick is good... but Duncan has aged better than Hakeem.

Think you forgot that Hakeem had old charles and clyde. An old charles barkley and an old clyde drexler are still better rebounders than anyone on duncans championship squads minus, arguably, the first one. He simply did not have to rebound the way he was earlier because other people could. If you put barkley and drex on Spurs, Duncans # would go down too. That doesnt mean he fell off rebounding.

Also, For the record, Hakeem was a better post defender in his decline years. You argued foul rate vs block rate which has nothing to do with each other. I don't like using stats for defense but Hakeem was a better rim protector and was still very quick with his hands averaging more steals at 36 than Duncan ever has in his career.

Also using per 36 stats are good for up and coming breakout players, not comparing legends. At most Tim Duncan has played two better years in his post peak seasons of which a lot is credited to great coaching strategies. He is no doubt the best pf of all time but if the coaches are an uncertainty, the players are an uncertainty, the management is an uncertainty and I get one choice, With no hesitation im choosing Hakeem as my franchise player.

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 11:01 AM
So you are saying that Duncan carried the Spurs to championships and that Parker and Ginobili are just good role players???? REally? Duncan never had to throw the team on his shoulders like Dream did in 94. The following year was the first year in his career that he had a player of Drexler's caliber on his team, be that in the twilight of his career and what happened? They repeat. All I'm saying is that Dream never really had any ++ players during his run, certainly not like Parker and Ginobili.

In 2003 in particular? Uh, yea. That's exactly what happened. They were just role players. Check the numbers from that team.

I would need to go back and look at the 99 numbers, but people really undervalue how he carried those Spurs teams early on. It took time for Parker/Ginobili to form into the players they are.

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 11:08 AM
:laugh:


I think you have the two names mixed up there.

I think you guys are forgetting how quick and versatile Duncan was early on in his career. How you can guy laugh or think it's crazy so outlandish to call him more versatile?

Here's his first playoff game highlights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB7XD8km7L0

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, in terms of comparison to Dream, but I think it's at the very least comparable/debatable.

I really don't know if people just don't remember rookie/prime TD or what.

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 11:14 AM
Any times 2 guys are compared, it's always tough. Especially 2 different positions. But things that never fail to happen.

1. 1 guy is over valued
2. 1 guys is under valued

FWIW, I have seen both ^ happen from both ends. IMO, I just don't think there's anything laughable or easy about this comparison.

It's also tough when 1 guy is retired and another is still playing (at 38 years old) so sometimes you see a guy on the floor moving in slow motion and think that's the guy you should be using for the comparison. And that's just crazy.

mightybosstone
06-22-2014, 11:23 AM
Duncan was the more efficient basketball player and he certainly has more hardware than Dream, but I'd still take Hakeem 100 times out of 100. Olajuwon had a superior offensive arsenal and was just a far more dominant scorer than Duncan. Couple that with Hakeem's superior defensive game, and I'd take Dream in a heartbeat. That being said, I'm obviously biased and I don't care.

Meaze_Gibson
06-22-2014, 11:28 AM
Duncan has the higher career PER, higher career WS (by a lot), higher career WS/48 (by a lot). Hakeem edges Duncan in playoff PER.

Out of the two players Duncan has the higher single season WS/48 (he has four individual season that peak Hakeems highest WS/48). Duncans top five peak WS/48 average surpasses Hakeems. Duncan has 13 total seasons with a WS/48 figure above 1.90, Hakeem has 4.

PER has them evenly matched.

I don't see where Hakeem has Duncan bested in peak, all the numbers favor Duncan at his peak. I see an argument where Duncan has him bested in team success, totals/longevity, accolades and peak. Obviously Hakeem is amazing but Duncan is being under valued heavily in this poll in favor of old nostalgia . It's been a decade since Duncan was as dominant as Hakeem ever was. we shouldn't forget that just because we have the luxury of watching him play well at 38 years old, he's still a shell of himself despite his recent resurgence, success and impact.

Timmy has the evenly matched per but against who though? Hell I personally saw kg give Duncan business in the playoffs as well as Shaq outperforming him. The "lore" of Hakeem was that in his prime years, he bested the best and left no questions of who was better. It's not old nostalgia it is just plain truth. In prime Hakeem was a better picknroll defender. Better rim protector. Better man to man defender. better scorer. Better playoff performer. These are the reasons why kobe, bron, carmelo go seek advice and direction from him, come back from his camp and play the best ball of their lives. No doubt Tim Duncan is super great. But hakeem is better and anone who saw the game and not look at winshares, per, etc will acknowledge it.

PowerHouse
06-22-2014, 03:24 PM
I am 36. 2 years is not and era and he didn't dominate all those guys. You can make a good case for him being the best of them but saying he dominated them is BS

2 years is not an era, you're right. I wasnt suggesting it is, but from the mid 80s to the mid 90s their is only one center who was clearly head and shoulders above the rest. If you have qualms with the word "dominate" then I will just say he was the best hands-down if that sounds better to you.

mightybosstone
06-22-2014, 06:06 PM
Duncan has the higher career PER, higher career WS (by a lot), higher career WS/48 (by a lot). Hakeem edges Duncan in playoff PER.

Out of the two players Duncan has the higher single season WS/48 (he has four individual season that peak Hakeems highest WS/48). Duncans top five peak WS/48 average surpasses Hakeems. Duncan has 13 total seasons with a WS/48 figure above 1.90, Hakeem has 4.

PER has them evenly matched.

I don't see where Hakeem has Duncan bested in peak, all the numbers favor Duncan at his peak. I see an argument where Duncan has him bested in team success, totals/longevity, accolades and peak. Obviously Hakeem is amazing but Duncan is being under valued heavily in this poll in favor of old nostalgia . It's been a decade since Duncan was as dominant as Hakeem ever was. we shouldn't forget that just because we have the luxury of watching him play well at 38 years old, he's still a shell of himself despite his recent resurgence, success and impact.

I'm not going to debate any of these numbers, because everything you say is accurate. But to play devil's advocate for a bit, Hakeem was unquestionably a more dominant offensive player than Duncan. Sure, Duncan was a more efficient overall basketball player, but Hakeem was the more spectacular one. Duncan topped 23 PPG three straight times in his career, but Dream did it nine times. Duncan topped 25 PPG in the postseason twice. Hakeem did it seven times.

And in terms of defense, Duncan was incredibly solid, but Dream was a 2x DPOY in an era crowded with elite defensive big men. Rebounding and passing? I'd take Duncan. Blocks and steals? Give me Hakeem. Mid-range jumper? I'll give Duncan a slight edge. Back to the basket in the post? Hakeem in a landslide.

Basically, you could take either guy and I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer. Duncan was a more solid, consistent player. Hakeem gave you more spectacular feats on a nightly basis. And sure, Duncan has more accolades. But if you look at their careers and there's no question Duncan had more help. Aside from the 2003 title, Duncan has played on some pretty stacked teams and Hakeem never had a coach of Pop's caliber (despite my love for Rudy T). Hakeem's awesome 80s teams were derailed by cocaine and Sampson's knees and while he admittedly got some help in the middle of that 94-95 season with the Drexler trade, he was already 32 by that time and only had 2-3 more years of his prime before he fell off.

Personally, I'll take Hakeem. Duncan has had a phenomenally solid NBA career, but I don't know that I'll ever see a player of Hakeem's size with his combination of skill, athleticism, ferocity and defensive tenacity ever again in the NBA.

BRADfromOZ
06-22-2014, 08:38 PM
Hakeem for the simple fact that more people would come to watch him play.

rocketfuel
06-22-2014, 09:23 PM
How is Duncan's footspeed in his prime and his athleticism? It's hard to tell since he's so effective and skilled... plus, memory fades over what he did in his prime.

While we're on the topic, how would we rank the speed and athleticism of the great big men: Hakeem, Duncan, Mutombo, Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, David Robinson, etc...

beliges
06-22-2014, 10:35 PM
How is Duncan's footspeed in his prime and his athleticism? It's hard to tell since he's so effective and skilled... plus, memory fades over what he did in his prime.

While we're on the topic, how would we rank the speed and athleticism of the great big men: Hakeem, Duncan, Mutombo, Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, David Robinson, etc...

LOL. Duncan all the way. The guy just kept winning and winning. Hakeem was great buy not on Duncan's level.

Shlumpledink
06-23-2014, 12:45 AM
How is Duncan's footspeed in his prime and his athleticism? It's hard to tell since he's so effective and skilled... plus, memory fades over what he did in his prime.

While we're on the topic, how would we rank the speed and athleticism of the great big men: Hakeem, Duncan, Mutombo, Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, David Robinson, etc...

Duncan had good footspeed, but he was more like Kareem Abdul Jabaar in terms of style of movement, not a Hakeem/DRob type of athlete. He was certainly faster than Shaq, and could beat him up and down the court, as Shaq wasn't keeping up with his fitness.

Never saw Wilt, but David Robinson was a gazelle, he was fast and fluid. He could jump really well as well. Hakeem is next best. Kevin Garnett was a special athlete in his prime, with a great combination of quickness/speed/leaping. Kareem was deceptively fast, but he was a good leaper with great footwork. Mutumbo moved well, and his height/reach covered for a lot of lapses defensively. Shaq of course was very agile for his size. Ewing I would put as being a little bit less athletic than Shaq, but ewing did have really good footwork and basketball skills, he was strong and had great hands however.

So it would go D-Rob-Hakeem-KG-Kareem-Mutumbo-Shaq-Ewing in my memory.

Hakeem on defense is more like prime KG. Played pick and roll well, had great on ball defense, while his help defense was second to none.

Prime Duncan was more like Kareem, who used his height amazingly well and always seemed to be in good position, and had more flat footed blocked shots than anyone ever (possible exception being Manute Bol.)

rocketfuel
06-23-2014, 12:51 AM
Duncan had good footspeed, but he was more like Kareem Abdul Jabaar in terms of style of movement, not a Hakeem/DRob type of athlete. He was certainly faster than Shaq, and could beat him up and down the court, as Shaq wasn't keeping up with his fitness.

Never saw Wilt, but David Robinson was a gazelle, he was fast and fluid. He could jump really well as well. Hakeem is next best. Kevin Garnett was a special athlete in his prime, with a great combination of quickness/speed/leaping. Kareem was deceptively fast, but he was a good leaper with great footwork. Mutumbo moved well, and his height/reach covered for a lot of lapses defensively. Shaq of course was very agile for his size. Ewing I would put as being a little bit less athletic than Shaq, but ewing did have really good footwork and basketball skills, he was strong and had great hands however.

So it would go D-Rob-Hakeem-KG-Kareem-Mutumbo-Shaq-Ewing in my memory.

Hakeem on defense is more like prime KG. Played pick and roll well, had great on ball defense, while his help defense was second to none.

Prime Duncan was more like Kareem, who used his height amazingly well and always seemed to be in good position, and had more flat footed blocked shots than anyone ever (possible exception being Manute Bol.)

Thanks for that. That was an interesting read.

Why do you think David Robinson isn't more highly rated as a center? When great centers are brought up, D. Rob is usually just an after thought.

How does a prime Shawn Kemp compare to Kevin Garnett?

alexander_37
06-23-2014, 01:31 AM
Thanks for that. That was an interesting read.

Why do you think David Robinson isn't more highly rated as a center? When great centers are brought up, D. Rob is usually just an after thought.

How does a prime Shawn Kemp compare to Kevin Garnett?

He has always been super underrated he is right up there.

No one compares to Kemp athletically, he was a once in a generation type athlete.

rocketfuel
06-23-2014, 01:35 AM
He has always been super underrated he is right up there.

No one compares to Kemp athletically, he was a once in a generation type athlete.

Yeah, I remember him jumping out of the gym before he got fat in Cleveland. What did you think of his defense?

alexander_37
06-23-2014, 01:38 AM
Yeah, I remember him jumping out of the gym before he got fat in Cleveland. What did you think of his defense?

Robinson or Kemp? Robinson was a defensive beast. Probably just under Russell Hakeem and WIlt most likely.

Kemp was pretty average in the post but he brought some versatility grabbing a bunch of steals and had the quickness to rotate and guard the wings.

TheMightyHumph
06-23-2014, 01:39 AM
Who do you take?

Hakeem was just an UNBELIEVABLY talented player, and if he had been a PF, would possibly been the best PF EVER.

But I have to go with Duncan for the simple fact that he may be the best that ever played, certainly one of the smartest, and he was both of those things because EVERY PART of his game was about the fundamentals of NBA basketball

alexander_37
06-23-2014, 01:40 AM
Hakeem was just an UNBELIEVABLY talented player, and if he had been a PF, would possibly been the best PF EVER.

But I have to go with Duncan for the simple fact that he may be the best that ever played, certainly one of the smartest, and he was both of those things because EVERY PART of his game was about the fundamentals of NBA basketball

You mean the best power forward ...

rocketfuel
06-23-2014, 01:42 AM
I meant Kemp, but it's good to know about Robinson also. With his all world athleticism, I would of thought Kemp would be better defensively a la Garnett. Why do you think Hakeem is considered the better center over Robinson...? Is it because of Hakeem's skill level over the slight edge Robinson had in athleticism?

KnicksorBust
06-23-2014, 01:28 PM
Duncan.

papipapsmanny
06-23-2014, 02:31 PM
Im going with Hakeem and I really don't think its too close. And I love Duncan, but Hakeem would dominate this era even more than the one he did.

JayW_1023
06-23-2014, 05:08 PM
I think people have forgotten how friggin' good Duncan was in his prime. I pick Duncan.

Bruno
06-23-2014, 06:53 PM
I'm not going to debate any of these numbers, because everything you say is accurate. But to play devil's advocate for a bit, Hakeem was unquestionably a more dominant offensive player than Duncan. Sure, Duncan was a more efficient overall basketball player, but Hakeem was the more spectacular one. Duncan topped 23 PPG three straight times in his career, but Dream did it nine times. Duncan topped 25 PPG in the postseason twice. Hakeem did it seven times.

And in terms of defense, Duncan was incredibly solid, but Dream was a 2x DPOY in an era crowded with elite defensive big men. Rebounding and passing? I'd take Duncan. Blocks and steals? Give me Hakeem. Mid-range jumper? I'll give Duncan a slight edge. Back to the basket in the post? Hakeem in a landslide.

Basically, you could take either guy and I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer. Duncan was a more solid, consistent player. Hakeem gave you more spectacular feats on a nightly basis. And sure, Duncan has more accolades. But if you look at their careers and there's no question Duncan had more help. Aside from the 2003 title, Duncan has played on some pretty stacked teams and Hakeem never had a coach of Pop's caliber (despite my love for Rudy T). Hakeem's awesome 80s teams were derailed by cocaine and Sampson's knees and while he admittedly got some help in the middle of that 94-95 season with the Drexler trade, he was already 32 by that time and only had 2-3 more years of his prime before he fell off.

Personally, I'll take Hakeem. Duncan has had a phenomenally solid NBA career, but I don't know that I'll ever see a player of Hakeem's size with his combination of skill, athleticism, ferocity and defensive tenacity ever again in the NBA.
if this is true then how did Duncan manage to rack up 25.2 more offensive win shares despite playing less total minutes than Hakeem?

25.2 win shares is A LOT of win-shares. Duncan ranks 23rd all time in regular season offensive win-shares (93.49 total), Hakeem is 53rd (68.30). thats a considerable gap for a guy who's 'unquestionably more dominant on offense', wouldn't you say?

Bruno
06-23-2014, 07:00 PM
Timmy has the evenly matched per but against who though?
The greatest PF crop in NBA history, the 2000's Pistons (top 3 defensive team ever), Miamis big three, the OKC Thunder, along with Shaquile Oneal who he bested on more than one occasion.



Hell I personally saw kg give Duncan business in the playoffs as well as Shaq outperforming him. The "lore" of Hakeem was that in his prime years, he bested the best and left no questions of who was better. It's not old nostalgia it is just plain truth. In prime Hakeem was a better picknroll defender. Better rim protector. Better man to man defender. better scorer. Better playoff performer. These are the reasons why kobe, bron, carmelo go seek advice and direction from him, come back from his camp and play the best ball of their lives. No doubt Tim Duncan is super great. But hakeem is better and anone who saw the game and not look at winshares, per, etc will acknowledge it.

Last time I checked Duncan has defeated Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Wallace, LBJ, Wade, Durant and Westbrook in the playoffs on at least one occasion each. Duncan has also bested his competitors, only team with a legitimate argument against him is the three-peak Lakers, and the only formidable championship level team he hasn't slayed at least once in the past 15 years are the 2008 Boston Celtics.

all of your talk of what he was specifically better at is your commentary until you support your claims, unfortunately.

SPURSFAN1
06-23-2014, 07:11 PM
The greatest PF crop in NBA history, the 2000's Pistons (top 3 defensive team ever), Miamis big three, the OKC Thunder, along with Shaquile Oneal who he bested on more than one occasion.




Last time I checked Duncan has defeated Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Wallace, LBJ, Wade, Durant and Westbrook in the playoffs on at least one occasion each. Duncan has also bested his competitors, only team with a legitimate argument against him is the three-peak Lakers, and the only formidable championship level team he hasn't slayed at least once in the past 15 years are the 2008 Boston Celtics.

all of your talk of what he was specifically better at is your commentary until you support your claims, unfortunately.

nash stoudemire jkidd carmelo cp3 dwight

mightybosstone
06-23-2014, 11:45 PM
if this is true then how did Duncan manage to rack up 25.2 more offensive win shares despite playing less total minutes than Hakeem?

25.2 win shares is A LOT of win-shares. Duncan ranks 23rd all time in regular season offensive win-shares (93.49 total), Hakeem is 53rd (68.30). thats a considerable gap for a guy who's 'unquestionably more dominant on offense', wouldn't you say?

Since when did OWS alone determine a player's overall worth on the offensive side of the ball? Hell... Reggie Miller is 7th in all-time OWS, but I certainly wouldn't call him one of the greatest offensive players of all time. Duncan boasted slightly more assists, slightly fewer turnovers and played on far better offensive basketball teams than Hakeem did. That doesn't make him as dominant as an offensive player. Hakeem still boasts a higher TS% despite superior point averages. Hakeem was just simply a more skilled offensive basketball player who was asked to do more throughout his career than Duncan was.

Bruno
06-24-2014, 12:02 AM
Since when did OWS alone determine a player's overall worth on the offensive side of the ball? Hell... Reggie Miller is 7th in all-time OWS, but I certainly wouldn't call him one of the greatest offensive players of all time. Duncan boasted slightly more assists, slightly fewer turnovers and played on far better offensive basketball teams than Hakeem did. That doesn't make him as dominant as an offensive player. Hakeem still boasts a higher TS% despite superior point averages. Hakeem was just simply a more skilled offensive basketball player who was asked to do more throughout his career than Duncan was.
it doesn't.

Kobe is more skilled than LeBron. does that make him a better offensive player than LeBron James?

slashsnake
06-24-2014, 12:37 AM
if this is true then how did Duncan manage to rack up 25.2 more offensive win shares despite playing less total minutes than Hakeem?

25.2 win shares is A LOT of win-shares. Duncan ranks 23rd all time in regular season offensive win-shares (93.49 total), Hakeem is 53rd (68.30). thats a considerable gap for a guy who's 'unquestionably more dominant on offense', wouldn't you say?

Tough stat to use. By that stat, Dwight Howard in less time has been a better offensive player than Patrick Ewing. And Sean Kemp can't compare to the offensive juggernaut that is Tyson Chandler. Forget Chris Webber, he had nothing on the offensive prowess of Dennis Rodman.

Maybe that stat isn't the best at judging big man offense





Could say that the centers of Hakeems era were a lot better than when Duncan moved to center.

Could also say that we should take with a grain of salt a stat which says Stockton is right there next to Jordan on offense, and Chauncey is one of the top 30 offensive players of all time (ahead of guys like Bird, Drexler, Wilkins) and that Steve Nash is better than Magic, or Ray Allen is better than Dr J MIGHT have a few issues as being an end all stat. Jose Calderon is a better offensive player than Isiah Thomas?

Remember that is the stat that Peja Stojakovic led the league in one year. Not Nash, not Shaq or Kobe, not Dirk, Garnett, or Tmac.. Peja was the greatest offensive player in the entire league in 2003/4. I loved watching Peja.. but no.

I'd say turn on the tape. I like Duncan more but no, he wasn't close to Hakeem offensively in what he could do, and I don't think Timmy could carry a team through the post-season like Hakeem did for so many years against the bigs the NBA had then.

jerellh528
06-24-2014, 12:51 AM
I think people have forgotten how friggin' good Duncan was in his prime. I pick Duncan.

You could say the same for Hakeem

ewing
06-24-2014, 12:59 AM
Sean Elliot or Kenny Smith?

firebryan!!
06-24-2014, 01:20 AM
only spurs fans would say duncan….

slashsnake
06-24-2014, 03:25 AM
The greatest PF crop in NBA history, the 2000's Pistons (top 3 defensive team ever), Miamis big three, the OKC Thunder, along with Shaquile Oneal who he bested on more than one occasion.

Last time I checked Duncan has defeated Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Wallace, LBJ, Wade, Durant and Westbrook in the playoffs on at least one occasion each. Duncan has also bested his competitors, only team with a legitimate argument against him is the three-peak Lakers, and the only formidable championship level team he hasn't slayed at least once in the past 15 years are the 2008 Boston Celtics.

all of your talk of what he was specifically better at is your commentary until you support your claims, unfortunately.

Well you can go the other way with Hakeem beating: Shaq, Ewing, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Drexler, Garnett, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Barkley, Magic Johnson, Vanderweghe, David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Penny, KJ, Rod Strickland, Cliff Robinson, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Gary Payton, Detlef Shremph, Shawn Kemp, Marbury, Alex English, Fat Lever..

But I just think that the other poster meant more man to man matchups.. or being the best player in a game. IE the spurs beat the Twolves, but Garnett had a better series than Duncan. Garnett didn't have a better roster and coaching staff though.

Whereas with Olajuwon, he was the better player more often in the post-season, not on the better team. ie. Olajuwon lost to a deep Mavericks team, but was by far the best player on the court when he averaged 37.5 points, 18 boards, 2.5 steals, 2.5 blocks per game in that series.

To me it wasn't just that he beat the Knicks, but how he dominated Patrick Ewing in that finals series on defense. Seriously, Ewing couldn't get anything going. Same with Robinson the next year. That one was amazing in the WCF. I remember watching that thinking Robinson was so talented, he could hold Hakeem and his team would dominate the rest of the Rockets. And Hakeem made one of the most skilled centers ever on both ends of the floor in an MVP season look like a kid playing against a grown man. I've rarely ever seen that kind of just flat out dominance against such a great player. Hakeem took Robinson apart.

I guess what amazed me most was Olajuwon faced Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson (the elite centers) 17 times in the playoffs. He outscored them... 17 times.

I would give Duncan's teammates the clear edge over Olajuwon's through his career. I would give Pop the edge over Tomjonovich, Chaney, and Fitch.

But I would give Olajuwon the edge over Duncan. We are talking two of the top 10 all time players here, and two guys that in my opinion join Shaq and Kareem as the best big men of the past 40 years. But to me Hakeem had similar skills to Duncan with better athleticism.

Shlumpledink
06-24-2014, 03:39 AM
Hakeem played in a big man's era, with less supporting talent, played for different mediocre coaches (Rudy T was okay, but didn't run much of an offense) so there was no real consistency of strategy.

Houston made a mistake in trading for an aging Barkley to play with Hakeem, they didn't complement each other well and Barkley was going to take rebounds away from Olajuwon. Having Pippen was nice, but I think they should have kept Horry and Cassel instead of trading them for Barkley.

Horry playing with Olajuwon could have been a great combination, as Horry was a good team defender with shot blocking who could hit threes and attack the basket, while Olajuwon could do everything else.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 04:27 AM
5rings>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2rings

slashsnake
06-24-2014, 05:53 AM
5rings>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2rings

7 rings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 rings...

Thus Robert Horry is a better forward than Tim Duncan...

mightybosstone
06-24-2014, 09:04 AM
Kobe is more skilled than LeBron. does that make him a better offensive player than LeBron James?

Except that he's not. Lebron's a superior shot creator, 3-point shooter and post scorer. I'd only give Kobe an edge in mid-range jump shooting.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 11:23 AM
Except that he's not. Lebron's a superior shot creator, 3-point shooter and post scorer. I'd only give Kobe an edge in mid-range jump shooting.

I would agree on all counts. One has to add that Lebron is also a superior defender as well.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 11:32 AM
if this is true then how did Duncan manage to rack up 25.2 more offensive win shares despite playing less total minutes than Hakeem?

25.2 win shares is A LOT of win-shares. Duncan ranks 23rd all time in regular season offensive win-shares (93.49 total), Hakeem is 53rd (68.30). thats a considerable gap for a guy who's 'unquestionably more dominant on offense', wouldn't you say?

Because Duncan's teams amassed greater win totals than Hakeem's.

Win Shares is unreliable when comparing different teams and even less reliable when comparing teams from different ERAs.

Win Shares, defensively, doesn't account for level of competition played against--which is a fatal flaw. Hakeem easily faced superior competition defensively than Duncan has had to. That number isn't accounted for within Win Shares.

Your counterpoint is not valid. You'd have to come up with something else. Advanced metrics don't usually translate across ERA's.

Sly Guy
06-24-2014, 11:44 AM
I'd have to go with Duncan. If you're looking at body of work, Duncan has been more consistent for his entire career while you saw a drastic decline in the Hakeem later in his career. If you're talking if both players are in the same draft class then that's just buyers choice you couldn't make a wrong choice

I agree. The peak of the dream was higher than duncan, but duncan has longevity on his side.

Tymathee
06-24-2014, 11:54 AM
Hakeem, easy.

I understand Timmy has 5 rings but that's more because of talent around him and coach, Hakeem has 2 and finally got talent at the end of of his career.

People dont' understand how great Hakeem was, that man was a beast. He was a CENTER who once averaged this in a season:

24 ppg, 14 rpg 4.6 bpg, 2.1 spg he was sick, he had a mid range game and he hit his free throws

these are his best, years, just awesome <3 he is what made me a houston fan, until he retired, then I became a die hard Lakers fan but maaaan I loved me some Hakeem.



Season _ Age Tm Lg Pos G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1984-85 ★ 22 HOU NBA C 82 82 35.5 8.3 15.3 .538 0.0 0.0 8.3 15.3 .538 4.1 6.7 .613 5.4 6.5 11.9 1.4 1.2 2.7 2.9 4.2 20.6
1985-86 ★ 23 HOU NBA C 68 68 36.3 9.2 17.5 .526 0.0 0.0 9.2 17.5 .526 5.1 7.9 .645 4.9 6.6 11.5 2.0 2.0 3.4 2.9 4.0 23.5
1986-87 ★ 24 HOU NBA C 75 75 36.8 9.0 17.8 .508 0.0 0.1 .200 9.0 17.7 .509 5.3 7.6 .702 4.2 7.2 11.4 2.9 1.9 3.4 3.0 3.9 23.4
1987-88 ★ 25 HOU NBA C 79 79 35.8 9.0 17.5 .514 0.0 0.1 .000 9.0 17.5 .516 4.8 6.9 .695 3.8 8.3 12.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 4.1 22.8
1988-89 ★ 26 HOU NBA C 82 82 36.9 9.6 19.0 .508 0.0 0.1 .000 9.6 18.9 .511 5.5 8.0 .696 4.1 9.4 13.5 1.8 2.6 3.4 3.4 4.0 24.8
1989-90 ★ 27 HOU NBA C 82 82 38.1 9.8 19.6 .501 0.0 0.1 .167 9.8 19.5 .502 4.7 6.5 .713 3.6 10.4 14.0 2.9 2.1 4.6 3.9 3.8 24.3
1990-91 _ 28 HOU NBA C 56 50 36.8 8.7 17.1 .508 0.0 0.1 .000 8.7 17.1 .510 3.8 4.9 .769 3.9 9.8 13.8 2.3 2.2 3.9 3.1 3.9 21.2
1991-92 ★ 29 HOU NBA C 70 69 37.7 8.4 16.8 .502 0.0 0.0 .000 8.4 16.8 .503 4.7 6.1 .766 3.5 8.6 12.1 2.2 1.8 4.3 2.7 3.8 21.6
1992-93 ★ 30 HOU NBA C 82 82 39.5 10.3 19.5 .529 0.0 0.1 .000 10.3 19.5 .532 5.4 7.0 .779 3.5 9.6 13.0 3.5 1.8 4.2 3.2 3.7 26.1
1993-94 ★ 31 HOU NBA C 80 80 41.0 11.2 21.2 .528 0.1 0.2 .421 11.1 20.9 .529 4.9 6.8 .716 2.9 9.1 11.9 3.6 1.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 27.3
1994-95 ★ 32 HOU NBA C 72 72 39.6 11.1 21.5 .517 0.0 0.2 .188 11.0 21.2 .520 5.6 7.5 .756 2.4 8.4 10.8 3.5 1.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 27.8
1995-96 ★ 33 HOU NBA C 72 72 38.8 10.7 20.8 .514 0.0 0.2 .214 10.6 20.6 .517 5.5 7.6 .724 2.4 8.4 10.9 3.6 1.6 2.9 3.4 3.4 26.9
1996-97 ★ 34 HOU NBA C 78 78 36.6 9.3 18.3 .510 0.1 0.2 .313 9.3 18.1 .512 4.5 5.7 .787 2.2 7.0 9.2 3.0 1.5 2.2 3.6 3.2 23.2

nickdymez
06-24-2014, 11:58 AM
Hakeem. Half of you people have never seen Hakeem play. It's ridiculously close though for me

Bruno
06-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Tough stat to use. By that stat, Dwight Howard in less time has been a better offensive player than Patrick Ewing. And Sean Kemp can't compare to the offensive juggernaut that is Tyson Chandler. Forget Chris Webber, he had nothing on the offensive prowess of Dennis Rodman.
remind me, who's in the top four?

Chris Webber has more OWS than Rodman.


Maybe that stat isn't the best at judging big man offense
you could make that argument.

MBT expressed that it the offensive impact weren't close. obviously it is very close, and that big of a gap should suggest at least an even ability despite team impact/influence. as if hakeem played with scrubs his entire career.

in terms of Shawn Kemp, kemps totals are below what you'd expect because he had a good six year run, thats it. totals rewards longevity, which both Hakeem and Duncan have. the reason they can be compared is because their total minutes played are almost identical.



Could say that the centers of Hakeems era were a lot better than when Duncan moved to center. why would we isolate their comparison only to when "Duncan moved to center". Duncan had already established a HOF career before that happened.


Could also say that we should take with a grain of salt a stat which says Stockton is right there next to Jordan on offense, and Chauncey is one of the top 30 offensive players of all time (ahead of guys like Bird, Drexler, Wilkins) and that Steve Nash is better than Magic, or Ray Allen is better than Dr J MIGHT have a few issues as being an end all stat. Jose Calderon is a better offensive player than Isiah Thomas?

Remember that is the stat that Peja Stojakovic led the league in one year. Not Nash, not Shaq or Kobe, not Dirk, Garnett, or Tmac.. Peja was the greatest offensive player in the entire league in 2003/4. I loved watching Peja.. but no.
so what am I suggesting?


I'd say turn on the tape. I like Duncan more but no, he wasn't close to Hakeem offensively in what he could do, and I don't think Timmy could carry a team through the post-season like Hakeem did for so many years against the bigs the NBA had then.
I have, you're knocking Duncan by assuming that I haven't watched Hakeem (as if the only reason you could take Duncan over Hakeem is if you haven't seen Hakeem).

did you not watch the 2003 post-season? I'd say turn on the tape. :)

head to head match ups are irrelevant. what Duncan did against team defensive schemes and box-zones is more impressive than Hakeem putting the spank on Patrick Ewing or David Robinson. Teams stop elite offensive players, not individual players.


only spurs fans would say duncan….
false.



Well you can go the other way with Hakeem beating: Shaq, Ewing, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Drexler, Garnett, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Barkley, Magic Johnson, Vanderweghe, David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Penny, KJ, Rod Strickland, Cliff Robinson, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Gary Payton, Detlef Shremph, Shawn Kemp, Marbury, Alex English, Fat Lever..
I've never demeaned Hakeems competition like you guys from the Hakeem camp have with Duncan. although I could have made a list as bloated as yours from Duncans era as well.


But I just think that the other poster meant more man to man matchups.. or being the best player in a game. IE the spurs beat the Twolves, but Garnett had a better series than Duncan. Garnett didn't have a better roster and coaching staff though.
i know, thats the problem.

so you're saying there's zero example of Duncan topping KG in a playoff series?


Whereas with Olajuwon, he was the better player more often in the post-season, not on the better team. ie. Olajuwon lost to a deep Mavericks team, but was by far the best player on the court when he averaged 37.5 points, 18 boards, 2.5 steals, 2.5 blocks per game in that series.
you're going to make the claim that "he was the better player more often" by citing a playoff run where he played four total games? The '88 Mavericks were in the bottom half of the league in defense, I'm not surprised that Hakeem put up legendary numbers over a four game series against them.



To me it wasn't just that he beat the Knicks, but how he dominated Patrick Ewing in that finals series on defense. Seriously, Ewing couldn't get anything going. Same with Robinson the next year. That one was amazing in the WCF. I remember watching that thinking Robinson was so talented, he could hold Hakeem and his team would dominate the rest of the Rockets. And Hakeem made one of the most skilled centers ever on both ends of the floor in an MVP season look like a kid playing against a grown man. I've rarely ever seen that kind of just flat out dominance against such a great player. Hakeem took Robinson apart.
no arguing here.


I guess what amazed me most was Olajuwon faced Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson (the elite centers) 17 times in the playoffs. He outscored them... 17 times. impressive but I'd like to see the whole picture and not just scoring. i also think that Duncan topping prime Shaq (as opposed to baby faced Shaq), Dirk, KG, Gasol and Amare is as impressive a list, if not far better. I know you can add flashy names like Kareem to Hakeems list but we both know he was close to being washed up by the 86 playoffs.


I would give Duncan's teammates the clear edge over Olajuwon's through his career. I would give Pop the edge over Tomjonovich, Chaney, and Fitch.
no arguing here.


But I would give Olajuwon the edge over Duncan. We are talking two of the top 10 all time players here, and two guys that in my opinion join Shaq and Kareem as the best big men of the past 40 years. But to me Hakeem had similar skills to Duncan with better athleticism.
Again, no arguing here.

the question is who would you start a franchise around. how many times did Hakeem take a massive pay cut well beneath his market value so that his team could spend its resources on helping him?


Except that he's not. Lebron's a superior shot creator, 3-point shooter and post scorer. I'd only give Kobe an edge in mid-range jump shooting.
that was a brilliant way to avoid the question MBT.


Win Shares is unreliable when comparing different teams and even less reliable when comparing teams from different ERAs. you exaggerate the "era" difference between Hakeem and Duncan because it compliments your point... or do you? see below.


Win Shares, defensively, doesn't account for level of competition played against--which is a fatal flaw. Hakeem easily faced superior competition defensively than Duncan has had to. That number isn't accounted for within Win Shares.
in a world where head to head match ups are the only things that matter, you might have a small argument. but you're failing to understand that team schemes and defensive zones of the 2000's have presented the most dominant defense the league has seen and that is far more difficult to be successful against a proper box-zone than it is one on one against any defender. you are operating out of a 90's mentality.


Your counterpoint is not valid. You'd have to come up with something else. Advanced metrics don't usually translate across ERA's.
even though most of them are adjusted to pace? please expand.

mightybosstone
06-24-2014, 03:32 PM
MBT expressed that it the offensive impact weren't close. obviously it is very close, and that big of a gap should suggest at least an even ability despite team impact/influence. as if hakeem played with scrubs his entire career.
I'm not saying that the offensive impact isn't close. If you balance overall skill with statistical dominance and efficiency, it's a very close argument. But I still think Hakeem was required to do more offensively for his respective Rockets teams than Duncan was for his respective Spurs teams. And I think Hakeem was capable of taking that load, while not quite so much in Duncan's case. When you couple that with the inferior supporting cast Hakeem had from the late 80s until midway through the 93-94 season, I think OWS is an unfair way to judge their offensive impacts.


that was a brilliant way to avoid the question MBT.
In my defense, you gave me a bad example, because Kobe is clearly not more skilled than Lebron. On the flip side, a poster earlier compared Rodman to Webber in terms of OWS and that's a great counter comparison. Rodman averaged 2.53 OWS per season while Webber averaged only 2.46. Based on your argument of using OWS as the sole barometer for offensive impact, Rodman was the better offensive player in his career.

The problem is that OWS cares more about efficiency per possession. If you turn the ball over too much, shoot a lower percentage or if you aren't making the most out of every possession, you're not going to post nearly as high an OWS as a guy who may be less important offensively but rarely makes mistakes. Tyson Chandler's another great example. The guy rarely takes a bad shot, makes the best of his baskets around the rim and plays well within his offensive schemes. Hell, he has more career OWS than guys like Randolph, Boozer, West and Odom, but I hardly think you'd argue that he's a better offensive player than those guys.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 04:38 PM
I've never demeaned Hakeems competition like you guys from the Hakeem camp have with Duncan. although I could have made a list as bloated as yours from Duncans era as well.

No you couldn't.


so you're saying there's zero example of Duncan topping KG in a playoff series?

This response may be out of context but KG is not on the level of any of the elite Centers in Hakeem's day.


impressive but I'd like to see the whole picture and not just scoring. i also think that Duncan topping prime Shaq (as opposed to baby faced Shaq), Dirk, KG, Gasol and Amare is as impressive a list, if not far better. I know you can add flashy names like Kareem to Hakeems list but we both know he was close to being washed up by the 86 playoffs.

None of those players are on the level of the players in Hakeem's day. 3 of them don't even play defense and one is completely undersized. The only player in your favor on that list is Shaq but Shaq was responsible for sweeping Duncan out of the post-season. Technically Duncan never actually beat a "prime" Shaq.


the question is who would you start a franchise around. how many times did Hakeem take a massive pay cut well beneath his market value so that his team could spend its resources on helping him?

Fair question to ask. But it also gives your youth away. In Hakeem's day there were fewer financial burdens so he also didn't have to worry so much about a cap and that structure. Hakeem did in fact sacrifice a lot to keep other players on the team as long as possible. He also gave up the ball as much as possible to help generate more scoring and bought into the 'team offense'. He has a lot more in common with Duncan on this point than you think he does.


you exaggerate the "era" difference between Hakeem and Duncan because it compliments your point... or do you? see below.

Not at all. There is a difference in ERA. It's unavoidable. You are trying to diminish it to strengthen yours and I'm not letting you.


in a world where head to head match ups are the only things that matter, you might have a small argument. but you're failing to understand that team schemes and defensive zones of the 2000's have presented the most dominant defense the league has seen and that is far more difficult to be successful against a proper box-zone than it is one on one against any defender. you are operating out of a 90's mentality.

Actually I'm not. And you're most definitely showing your youthfulness now. The Zone defense and the other rules that are favorable to offenses didn't exist in Hakeem's day. Since man-man was the defensive norm, it's absolutely appropriate to reference Hakeem's defensive competitors. It's also important to note that Hakeem did in fact face more double teams than the modern player does and was amazingly proficient at handling them. There is little reason to doubt that he wouldn't have abused the zone d of the modern game and ripped defenses apart. He certainly ripped defenses in his era apart and he faced defensively superior competition.


even though most of them are adjusted to pace? please expand.

I must have missed what this is about??

flea
06-24-2014, 04:47 PM
None of those players are on the level of the players in Hakeem's day. 3 of them don't even play defense and one is completely undersized. The only player in your favor on that list is Shaq but Shaq was responsible for sweeping Duncan out of the post-season. Technically Duncan never actually beat a "prime" Shaq.

So Shaq wasn't in his prime when he was 30 and averaging 27.5 points per game and 37 minutes on a team that had won the last 3 championships? Nor when he was 26 and got swept by Duncan's Spurs? So was Shaq only in his prime when he had his 3peat with the Lakers then? I don't understand.

SouthSideRookie
06-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Well you can go the other way with Hakeem beating: Shaq, Ewing, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Drexler, Garnett, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Barkley, Magic Johnson, Vanderweghe, David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Penny, KJ, Rod Strickland, Cliff Robinson, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Gary Payton, Detlef Shremph, Shawn Kemp, Marbury, Alex English, Fat Lever..

But I just think that the other poster meant more man to man matchups.. or being the best player in a game. IE the spurs beat the Twolves, but Garnett had a better series than Duncan. Garnett didn't have a better roster and coaching staff though.

Whereas with Olajuwon, he was the better player more often in the post-season, not on the better team. ie. Olajuwon lost to a deep Mavericks team, but was by far the best player on the court when he averaged 37.5 points, 18 boards, 2.5 steals, 2.5 blocks per game in that series.

To me it wasn't just that he beat the Knicks, but how he dominated Patrick Ewing in that finals series on defense. Seriously, Ewing couldn't get anything going. Same with Robinson the next year. That one was amazing in the WCF. I remember watching that thinking Robinson was so talented, he could hold Hakeem and his team would dominate the rest of the Rockets. And Hakeem made one of the most skilled centers ever on both ends of the floor in an MVP season look like a kid playing against a grown man. I've rarely ever seen that kind of just flat out dominance against such a great player. Hakeem took Robinson apart.

I guess what amazed me most was Olajuwon faced Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson (the elite centers) 17 times in the playoffs. He outscored them... 17 times.

I would give Duncan's teammates the clear edge over Olajuwon's through his career. I would give Pop the edge over Tomjonovich, Chaney, and Fitch.

But I would give Olajuwon the edge over Duncan. We are talking two of the top 10 all time players here, and two guys that in my opinion join Shaq and Kareem as the best big men of the past 40 years. But to me Hakeem had similar skills to Duncan with better athleticism.
+1


60-22
59-23
62-20
57-25

Those are the teams record Houston beat in route to their second title, a title they defended. They also managed to do it without having home court advantage in any of the series. Look up the duos that played for those teams if you need a reminder of the level of competition.


7 rings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 rings...

Thus Robert Horry is a better forward than Tim Duncan...
Going into the Spurs series in the 95 playoffs, not only did Olajuwon tell Kenny, Mario and Horry that they would beat the team with the best record that season, but he also told them he would embarrass David Robinson and show everyone who the real MVP was.

Ask Horry who's the best big he's played with.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 05:06 PM
Are we comparing Tim to DRob? lol
It's funny how Hakeem is this unstoppable force but kept flopping in the first round.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 05:31 PM
So Shaq wasn't in his prime when he was 30 and averaging 27.5 points per game and 37 minutes on a team that had won the last 3 championships? Nor when he was 26 and got swept by Duncan's Spurs? So was Shaq only in his prime when he had his 3peat with the Lakers then? I don't understand.

Good counter. Let me rephrase...

Did Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Shaq in his prime? The answer would be 'no'. It matters.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 05:33 PM
Are we comparing Tim to DRob? lol
It's funny how Hakeem is this unstoppable force but kept flopping in the first round.

"flopping" didn't exist back then.

Did you mean he kept losing in the first round? No one does it alone. It takes a team to get there. Hakeem didn't have a great team until about '92-93.

flea
06-24-2014, 05:44 PM
Good counter. Let me rephrase...

Did Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Shaq in his prime? The answer would be 'no'. It matters.

Did Shaq, without a top 10 wing, beat Duncan in his prime? That answer is also 'no.' What does this prove?

Plus, Robinson was 33 in 1999 and already on the downslope. Duncan was the minutes and points leader and did the heavy-lifting on that team - including checking Shaq for much of the time. All at the age of 22. At the very least, a young Kobe was way more impactful than a 33 year old Robinson. And by the time '03 rolled around Robinson was a 37 year old role player who struggled with injuries and loss of athleticism. It's not like he had a Duncan-esque late 30s (not a slight though because no one ever has, save for maybe KAJ).

mightybosstone
06-24-2014, 05:51 PM
Are we comparing Tim to DRob? lol
It's funny how Hakeem is this unstoppable force but kept flopping in the first round.
Have you seen his supporting cast from 87-94? I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure the only All-Star those Houston teams had for that entire 7-year stretch aside from Hakeem was a banged-up Ralph Sampson in 87 and Otis freaking Thorpe in 92. That's it. The large majority of his peak and prime was wasted on teams where he never had a legitimate No. 2. Meanwhile, Duncan played with three Hall of Famers for significant chunks of his career (Robinson, Parker, Manu) and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NBA. You put Duncan on those late 80s, early 90s Rockets teams and Houston is no more successful than Hakeem was.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 05:58 PM
Have you seen his supporting cast from 87-94? I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure the only All-Star those Houston teams had for that entire 7-year stretch aside from Hakeem was a banged-up Ralph Sampson in 87 and Otis freaking Thorpe in 92. That's it. The large majority of his peak and prime was wasted on teams where he never had a legitimate No. 2. Meanwhile, Duncan played with three Hall of Famers for significant chunks of his career (Robinson, Parker, Manu) and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NBA. You put Duncan on those late 80s, early 90s Rockets teams and Houston is no more successful than Hakeem was.

I disagree that Duncan wouldn't have been successful. I'm just throwing out facts. Not only do advance stats say he was individually better, he also has more hardware.


You actually lost this conversation when you said you'd play devil's advocate, meaning you were arguing from the unpopular or wrong side. You know Duncan is a better than Hakeem and you were forced to play devil's advocate.

Shlumpledink
06-24-2014, 05:59 PM
5rings>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2rings

Always love this argument. It never makes for intelligent debate.

Shlumpledink
06-24-2014, 06:01 PM
Because Duncan's teams amassed greater win totals than Hakeem's.

Win Shares is unreliable when comparing different teams and even less reliable when comparing teams from different ERAs.

Win Shares, defensively, doesn't account for level of competition played against--which is a fatal flaw. Hakeem easily faced superior competition defensively than Duncan has had to. That number isn't accounted for within Win Shares.

Your counterpoint is not valid. You'd have to come up with something else. Advanced metrics don't usually translate across ERA's.

Great points.

NBA_Starter
06-24-2014, 06:09 PM
I would take Timmeh every time.

mightybosstone
06-24-2014, 07:35 PM
I disagree that Duncan wouldn't have been successful. I'm just throwing out facts. Not only do advance stats say he was individually better, he also has more hardware.
Since when does hardware alone make a player better? Duncan had a superior team, and teams win titles, not individual players. As for MVPs, Hakeem probably should have won it in 95, the same year he absolutely abused the supposed MVP (Robinson) in the playoffs. And Duncan also didn't play in the same era as Michael freakin' Jordan.

Your're just spewing vague arguments without looking at the context of those arguments and piggybacking off of posters who are better at arguing than you are.


You actually lost this conversation when you said you'd play devil's advocate, meaning you were arguing from the unpopular or wrong side. You know Duncan is a better than Hakeem and you were forced to play devil's advocate.
lol.... I'm guessing you had to look up what "devil's advocate" means before you made that point. Also, you completely took what I said out of context. I said I was playing devil's advocate in reference to the stats Bruno brought up regarding Duncan, not regarding the Duncan vs. Hakeem argument itself. I was playing devil's advocate because I generally agree with those types numbers in these types of arguments, but you need context when you're examining these kinds of numbers and he wasn't providing it.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 08:04 PM
Since when does hardware alone make a player better? Duncan had a superior team, and teams win titles, not individual players. As for MVPs, Hakeem probably should have won it in 95, the same year he absolutely abused the supposed MVP (Robinson) in the playoffs. And Duncan also didn't play in the same era as Michael freakin' Jordan.

Your're just spewing vague arguments without looking at the context of those arguments and piggybacking off of posters who are better at arguing than you are.


lol.... I'm guessing you had to look up what "devil's advocate" means before you made that point. Also, you completely took what I said out of context. I said I was playing devil's advocate in reference to the stats Bruno brought up regarding Duncan, not regarding the Duncan vs. Hakeem argument itself. I was playing devil's advocate because I generally agree with those types numbers in these types of arguments, but you need context when you're examining these kinds of numbers and he wasn't providing it.

I already knew what it meant doofus. I knew you were going to twist it. Took you long enough.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 08:13 PM
Did Shaq, without a top 10 wing, beat Duncan in his prime? That answer is also 'no.' What does this prove?

Plus, Robinson was 33 in 1999 and already on the downslope. Duncan was the minutes and points leader and did the heavy-lifting on that team - including checking Shaq for much of the time. All at the age of 22. At the very least, a young Kobe was way more impactful than a 33 year old Robinson. And by the time '03 rolled around Robinson was a 37 year old role player who struggled with injuries and loss of athleticism. It's not like he had a Duncan-esque late 30s (not a slight though because no one ever has, save for maybe KAJ).

Your logic is severely flawed. In '99 Kobe wasn't "Kobe" just yet and David Robinson was in fact still David Robinson. The team also had Will Perdue and all three of them were able to guard Shaq at different times. By 2003 Shaq had taken a beating over the last few years of his career. Yes he was was only 30 BUT he's a very big 7 footer who had begun his decline. Look at Shaq's production drop off from '03 to '04. It's almost like falling off a cliff.

No one is taking anything away from Duncan but to say that because he was able to beat Shaq once in '03 he's now faced the same level of competition that Hakeem faced is completely and totally irresponsible.

mightybosstone
06-24-2014, 08:24 PM
I already knew what it meant doofus. I knew you were going to twist it. Took you long enough.

I'm not the one who twisted it. You were. You took a simple phrase made in the midst of a legitimate argument and made your entire reply based your own twisted interpretation of that phrase. How about arguing the actual point next time? You did exactly the same thing with this post. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "Took you long enough." Am I supposed to immediately respond to every word you say or am I allowed to live my life like an adult with **** to do?

flea
06-24-2014, 08:52 PM
Your logic is severely flawed. In '99 Kobe wasn't "Kobe" just yet and David Robinson was in fact still David Robinson. The team also had Will Perdue and all three of them were able to guard Shaq at different times. By 2003 Shaq had taken a beating over the last few years of his career. Yes he was was only 30 BUT he's a very big 7 footer who had begun his decline. Look at Shaq's production drop off from '03 to '04. It's almost like falling off a cliff.

No one is taking anything away from Duncan but to say that because he was able to beat Shaq once in '03 he's now faced the same level of competition that Hakeem faced is completely and totally irresponsible.

You can parse it however you want. The fact is that Duncan is the only man to take down the Shaq-led Lakers during that run of dominance. It took the best defensive team of all time to do it in the Finals (Pistons) and they're really the only other team that can say they took down the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. Not only that, but Duncan did it virtually by himself in '03, turning in one of 3-5 best playoff performances in NBA history.

kdspurman
06-24-2014, 10:12 PM
You can parse it however you want. The fact is that Duncan is the only man to take down the Shaq-led Lakers during that run of dominance. It took the best defensive team of all time to do it in the Finals (Pistons) and they're really the only other team that can say they took down the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. Not only that, but Duncan did it virtually by himself in '03, turning in one of 3-5 best playoff performances in NBA history.

I'm glad others see that. People look at the roster and see Manu/Parker and assume they were the players they were in their primes. He did a lot of the heavy lifting in 99 as well, to a lesser extent.

Shlumpledink
06-24-2014, 11:09 PM
You can parse it however you want. The fact is that Duncan is the only man to take down the Shaq-led Lakers during that run of dominance. It took the best defensive team of all time to do it in the Finals (Pistons) and they're really the only other team that can say they took down the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. Not only that, but Duncan did it virtually by himself in '03, turning in one of 3-5 best playoff performances in NBA history.

Crediting one player for that Laker team failing is intellectually dishonest with how much that topic has been debated on psd, and every other sports message board. That year was when Shaquille was dealing with an arthritic toe, after 3 straight finals his toe was nagging him. He waited all summer to finally get surgery a few days before training camp. He missed the first 12 games, and came back in terrible shape. He played himself into better shape, but he never really lost the weight he put on until he was traded to Miami.

Not to mention Robert Horry missed 18 3 pointers in a row in that series, one clutch 3 that could have won a game for the lakers (forget which game). Unprecedented when you consider his body of work, and reputation.

Duncan had a great series, but to say he was the main/only reason is ignoring the variables of the equation.

Lakers lost the following years against the pistons when they failed to have a legitimate option at power forward. Karl Malone, and Horace grant were both injured, Grant didn't even play, Karl was on one leg. Slava Medvedenko started and let the "best defensive team of all time" was able to pack the paint and ignore Slava/Rookie Brian Cook/Rookie Luke Walton. Effectively forcing LA into being a jump shooting team, which isn't what they were built for.

PowerHouse
06-24-2014, 11:15 PM
The results of the poll tell the tale. Can we shut the thread down now?

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 11:17 PM
The results of the poll tell the tale. Can we shut the thread down now?

that there are more houston fans than spurs fans?

alexander_37
06-24-2014, 11:18 PM
If you gave Hakeem Duncan's teams in Duncan's era they would have been even more dominant. Duncan on the Rockets I don't think they win one championship.

alexander_37
06-24-2014, 11:18 PM
that there are more houston fans than spurs fans?

I thought MBT was on the wrong/unpopular side.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 11:20 PM
You can parse it however you want. The fact is that Duncan is the only man to take down the Shaq-led Lakers during that run of dominance. It took the best defensive team of all time to do it in the Finals (Pistons) and they're really the only other team that can say they took down the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. Not only that, but Duncan did it virtually by himself in '03, turning in one of 3-5 best playoff performances in NBA history.

I agree, Duncan was very impressive. No one is denying that. This wouldn't be a discussion if Duncan wasn't an all-time great player.

The point made was that Hakeem had to play that way more often because the level of competition he faced was more difficult as a whole. Nothing said here has disproven that.

Also, that Pistons team was not the best defensive team of all-time. There were far better defensive teams historically than that bunch. They were just the first physically defensive team in a long while.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 11:23 PM
If you gave Hakeem Duncan's teams in Duncan's era they would have been even more dominant. Duncan on the Rockets I don't think they win one championship.

They win multiple championships. More than just 2 that's for sure. Matt Bonner level.

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 11:24 PM
I thought MBT was on the wrong/unpopular side.

Like bigger than just this forum.

alexander_37
06-24-2014, 11:25 PM
They win multiple championships. More than just 2 that's for sure. Matt Bonner level.

Yeah Hakeem would have for sure.

slashsnake
06-24-2014, 11:38 PM
I disagree that Duncan wouldn't have been successful. I'm just throwing out facts. Not only do advance stats say he was individually better, he also has more hardware.


You actually lost this conversation when you said you'd play devil's advocate, meaning you were arguing from the unpopular or wrong side. You know Duncan is a better than Hakeem and you were forced to play devil's advocate.

It would be interesting to see, it is all a guess. Advanced stats are interesting. Hakeem shot better rebounded, stole, blocked better according to his advanced stats. Duncan was better in the regular season, Hakeem had the edge in the playoffs in most everything else.

Of course we have to take into the effect of the team, era, and coaches. Advanced stats say Bosh's win shares are up in Miami, and that he's more effective there. Doesn't remotely pass the eye test though when you see the situational difference. Same with Kobe. He was doing ALL the heavy lifting when Shaq left, even though the advanced stats say he was at his worst then. You watched him play and it was of course a completely different story.

I don't know if Duncan could have won there. I mean if 37 and 18 and dominating your position by far can't get you out of the first round, is Duncan able to put up 45 and 25 for a series to get the win and move on? Because his 28-13 isn't coming close to getting it done. Lets face it, Hakeem had to win defensive MVP, regular season MVP, and Finals MVP in order to get a ring. That is a LOT of work there.

Verbal Christ
06-24-2014, 11:40 PM
Going into the Spurs series in the 95 playoffs, not only did Olajuwon tell Kenny, Mario and Horry that they would beat the team with the best record that season, but he also told them he would embarrass David Robinson and show everyone who the real MVP was.

Ask Horry who's the best big he's played with.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-9Z2LF4fI

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 11:44 PM
It would be interesting to see, it is all a guess. Advanced stats are interesting. Hakeem shot better rebounded, stole, blocked better according to his advanced stats. Duncan was better in the regular season, Hakeem had the edge in the playoffs in most everything else.

Of course we have to take into the effect of the team, era, and coaches. Advanced stats say Bosh's win shares are up in Miami, and that he's more effective there. Doesn't remotely pass the eye test though when you see the situational difference. Same with Kobe. He was doing ALL the heavy lifting when Shaq left, even though the advanced stats say he was at his worst then. You watched him play and it was of course a completely different story.

I don't know if Duncan could have won there. I mean if 37 and 18 and dominating your position by far can't get you out of the first round, is Duncan able to put up 45 and 25 for a series to get the win and move on? Because his 28-13 isn't coming close to getting it done. Lets face it, Hakeem had to win defensive MVP, regular season MVP, and Finals MVP in order to get a ring. That is a LOT of work there.

If you don't think a 5 time champ 3fmvp 2mvp doesn't win any ring's you must be delusional along with anyone else who believes that.

PowerHouse
06-24-2014, 11:44 PM
that there are more houston fans than spurs fans?

I hate Houston. Still had to make the right vote.

Its more like there are more educated fans than uneducated ones. (On this thread at least)

SPURSFAN1
06-24-2014, 11:45 PM
I hate Houston. Still had to make the right vote.

Its more like there are more educated fans than uneducated ones. (On this thread at least)

You don't think there are more houston fans than spurs fans?

alexander_37
06-24-2014, 11:48 PM
If you don't think a 5 time champ 3fmvp 2mvp doesn't win any ring's you must be delusional along with anyone else who believes that.

This is getting pathetic....


It would be interesting to see, it is all a guess. Advanced stats are interesting. Hakeem shot better rebounded, stole, blocked better according to his advanced stats. Duncan was better in the regular season, Hakeem had the edge in the playoffs in most everything else.

Of course we have to take into the effect of the team, era, and coaches. Advanced stats say Bosh's win shares are up in Miami, and that he's more effective there. Doesn't remotely pass the eye test though when you see the situational difference. Same with Kobe. He was doing ALL the heavy lifting when Shaq left, even though the advanced stats say he was at his worst then. You watched him play and it was of course a completely different story.

I don't know if Duncan could have won there. I mean if 37 and 18 and dominating your position by far can't get you out of the first round, is Duncan able to put up 45 and 25 for a series to get the win and move on? Because his 28-13 isn't coming close to getting it done. Lets face it, Hakeem had to win defensive MVP, regular season MVP, and Finals MVP in order to get a ring. That is a LOT of work there.

Bam.

PowerHouse
06-24-2014, 11:52 PM
You don't think there are more houston fans than spurs fans?

Im not really sure. Maybe not right now since they just beat the hated Heat. Lots of people jumping on the Spurs bandwagon.

slashsnake
06-25-2014, 12:03 AM
As for Duncan doing it virtually by himself in 03, well he outscored Shaq by about 3 points a game. Shaq beat him handily on the boards, and shot 57% against Duncan. This isn't Olajuwon holding Ewing to 36% shooting in the playoffs here. Or Olajuwon leading his team in points, boards, assists, blocks, FT%, 3pt%, minutes, FG%, dominating the league MVP, a prime David Robinson head to head. The Lakers were a 2 man team. They didn't have Bowen and Ginobili shooting 65% from downtown that series, Duncan did. They didn't have the talent to dominate games where Shaq was the 5th best scorer on their team like SA that series, heck, 20-20 games by Shaq wasn't enough in that series.

Now doing it by yourself is impossible. It always takes a team. But how many other players have won back to back championships as the only all star on their team? His first championship he gets to the finals and Maxwell, Horry, Kenny Smith, and Mario Elie all go ice cold. Those four shoot 34% for the series, and 28% from downtown. His outside shooters just disappeared on the biggest stage. Otis Thorpe was his best teammate that series. What does he do? Shuts down Ewing, 36% shooting and over 3 turnovers a game for the guy.

I just don't know if Duncan can do that to win a championship. If his shooters go cold, he doesn't have pop coaching him and they need him to shut down a hall of fame center and actually dominate him, can he do that? Maybe? Its a different situation though

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 12:07 AM
Duncan is going down as a top 5 player by the time he retires. Hakeem, not so much.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:11 AM
Hakeem vs. David Robinson in the playoffs during his MVP year 94/95

27 points 8 rebounds
41 points 16 rebounds
43 points 11 rebounds
20 points 14 rebounds
42 points 9 rebounds
39 points 17 rebounds

Then they swept the magic for the championship vs. a PRIME shaq who led the league in scoring, was 3rd in rebounding, and 6th in blocks. Ths is the second highest PPG Shaq ever put up in a season.

Hakeem vs. Shaq, Hakeem put up over 30 points in every game

In the 2003 playoffs when Duncan did the "heavy" lifting he put up 40 once in the entire playoffs.... Against the Mavs, Dirk, and Raef LaFrentz.

rocketfuel
06-25-2014, 12:12 AM
As far as the David Robinson v. Hakeem duel, was that a straight up mano a mano? Was there any defensive schemes, packing the paint, double teaming involved?

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 12:14 AM
Hakeem vs. David Robinson in the playoffs during his MVP year 94/95

27 points 8 rebounds
41 points 16 rebounds
43 points 11 rebounds
20 points 14 rebounds
42 points 9 rebounds
39 points 17 rebounds

Then they swept the magic for the championship vs. a PRIME shaq who led the league in scoring, was 3rd in rebounding, and 6th in blocks. Ths is the second highest PPG Shaq ever put up in a season.

Hakeem vs. Shaq, Hakeem put up over 30 points in every game

In the 2003 playoffs when Duncan did the "heavy" lifting he put up 40 once in the entire playoffs.... Against the Mavs, Dirk, and Raef LaFrentz.

Are you suggesting DROB or SHAQ are as good as TIM DUNCAN?

rocketfuel
06-25-2014, 12:16 AM
It's really hard to just use stats to justify one player is great than player B because they're are many variables involved. I don't care what stats you bring me about x player has better stats than Jordan, I saw him firsthand, witnessed the competition and the pressure and how he got around it. Or what stats some other running back had greater than Barry Sanders....I watched that guy do the amazing with a crap QB, an average coach, an entire team aimed to stop him and not exactly great blocking at times..... There are variables like teammates opening up opportunities for you, the level of competition, the x's and o's your coach has, if you were healthy and on a roll that year, etc.

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 12:16 AM
PPG is not the only measurement of a player. Winning is. He keeps winning. Going into the final round with FATHER TIME and he might just win.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:19 AM
Are you suggesting DROB or SHAQ are as good as TIM DUNCAN?
shaq is and robinson is arguably as good or better.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:19 AM
PPG is not the only measurement of a player. Winning is. He keeps winning. Going into the final round with FATHER TIME and he might just win.
TEAMS win.

slashsnake
06-25-2014, 12:19 AM
Are you suggesting DROB or SHAQ are as good as TIM DUNCAN?

Drob that year was league MVP. He didn't have the career of Duncan, but yeah, at that time he was as dominant as Duncan has ever been in a time when the position was tougher. Same with Shaq, young, but he was just destroying guys back then.

FlashBolt
06-25-2014, 12:20 AM
Are you suggesting DROB or SHAQ are as good as TIM DUNCAN?

Lol, Hakeem and Shaq are slightly better to say the least. Tim has won more but let's stop pretending that he was not surrounded by serious talent. Gino, arguably one of the greatest European players outside of Dirk? Tony Parker is an all time top 5-7 PG, Bruce Bowen was an amazing defender, Kuwai Leonard is also an amazing defender with so much upside, Greg Popovich? Arguably the greatest coach of not only his generation but ever? Though very much out of his prime, David Robinson was a mentor and still an impactful player to that squad. Tim Duncan is only part of the wonderful system that is orchestrated by Greg. Heck, one could make an argument that David Robinson in his prime was better than Duncan. I certainly won't go there but David was a beast.

slashsnake
06-25-2014, 12:22 AM
PPG is not the only measurement of a player. Winning is. He keeps winning. Going into the final round with FATHER TIME and he might just win.

lol. That is true, but winning is not an individual accomplishment, and I'd say the spurs are the perfect example of that. That's why we don't say Duncan isn't as good as Robert Horry.

nastynice
06-25-2014, 01:18 AM
Dream FOR SURE. I think he's one of the best players to ever play the game, straight up, to me he is a tier one player with jordan, magic, etc. The stuff he was able to do on the court, just ridiculous. That combination of length, versatility, power, and skill, just beyond ridiculous.

I'm actually surprised that the poll isn't even more lopsided, my guess is most people voting for duncan is too young to have watched the dream play. No disrespect to duncan, an amazing player in his own right, but dream is just completely head and shoulders better, they're just on different levels.

amos1er
06-25-2014, 01:19 AM
Duncan won chips with a myriad of different squads over a span of three decades. Something has to be said for that.

rocketfuel
06-25-2014, 01:32 AM
What are the Dream's and some of the big men's real heights. I see them standing next to each other and there's a disparity. I'm convinced that Dwight Howard is shorter than his listed height.

nastynice
06-25-2014, 01:50 AM
Duncan won chips with a myriad of different squads over a span of three decades. Something has to be said for that.

oh yea, I don't think anyone's trying to discredit what a great player duncan is. But to me the dream seems a clearly superior player, not because duncan isn't good, but because the dream is THAT good.

The dream's entire career he was the only superstar on his team. He always played with role players, nothing more. VERY GOOD role players, don't get me wrong, but nonetheless role players. The closest he got to anything more than that was when past their prime drexler and barkley came to town.

love watching these olajuwon vs shaq, robinson, ewing, mourning youtube vids. Such beastly centers at that time

FlashBolt
06-25-2014, 02:16 AM
Duncan played with pros since day one.. Never in his career was he ever put into a KG, Dirk, Malone, or Charles situation. Literally, since day one, this dude has never not had a team. Take that into consideration. Of course, Tim is the perfect fit for that wonderful system but c'mon, let's not overrate him to that extent. He isn't miles the best PF. IMO, I think KG if surrounded by a great team would have been barking up Tim as the best PF.

PowerHouse
06-25-2014, 02:22 AM
Duncan won chips with a myriad of different squads over a span of three decades. Something has to be said for that.

This is very inaccurate. 4 out of 5 titles were won with the same core group of Duncan/Parker/Ginobli.

slashsnake
06-25-2014, 06:26 AM
What are the Dream's and some of the big men's real heights. I see them standing next to each other and there's a disparity. I'm convinced that Dwight Howard is shorter than his listed height.

Olajuwon when he retired said he was 6'10, though he was listed at 7'. The NBA used to fudge those a fair bit (and college and high school). With the publicity of the combine it is harder to do today. But I remember seeing Barkley, listed at 6'8, stand next to Jordan who was 6'6" at best and Barkley was the shorter of the two.

The Miami Heat held their training camps at FAU when I went to college there. I remember running into Voshon Lenard after a practice, and was talking with him and kind of upset him by asking how tall he was, he was listed at 6'3 or 6'4 or something. I am a hair under 6'3 and had him by 3 inches easy.

slashsnake
06-25-2014, 06:32 AM
It's tough with KG. I think those two are close enough that Duncan's play in the post-season gives him the edge for me. I still have him as an elite all time big man. He played more center in his career than PF, so hard to call him the best PF, but if you want to call him that (he sure looks the part), then I'd rank him as my top PF.

Like I said earlier, saying Olajuwon isn't a knock on Duncan. I've got them both in that 6-10 range all time. But I would struggle to see Duncan doing what Olajuwon did in those years with that roster.

amos1er
06-25-2014, 07:48 AM
Duncan played with pros since day one.. Never in his career was he ever put into a KG, Dirk, Malone, or Charles situation. Literally, since day one, this dude has never not had a team. Take that into consideration. Of course, Tim is the perfect fit for that wonderful system but c'mon, let's not overrate him to that extent. He isn't miles the best PF. IMO, I think KG if surrounded by a great team would have been barking up Tim as the best PF.

I can see what you are saying, but just can't agree with that last sentence.

amos1er
06-25-2014, 07:51 AM
This is very inaccurate. 4 out of 5 titles were won with the same core group of Duncan/Parker/Ginobli.

Still, over three decades and the rest of the team being significantly different. That's pretty incredible. Nearly all of Duncan's years with the Spurs, they were contenders except for years due to injury or going up against truly great Laker squads.

amos1er
06-25-2014, 07:52 AM
oh yea, I don't think anyone's trying to discredit what a great player duncan is. But to me the dream seems a clearly superior player, not because duncan isn't good, but because the dream is THAT good.

The dream's entire career he was the only superstar on his team. He always played with role players, nothing more. VERY GOOD role players, don't get me wrong, but nonetheless role players. The closest he got to anything more than that was when past their prime drexler and barkley came to town.

love watching these olajuwon vs shaq, robinson, ewing, mourning youtube vids. Such beastly centers at that time

So tell me what superstars Duncan player with again...

AIRMAR72
06-25-2014, 08:59 AM
The great thing about this comparison: both Hakeem & Duncan are gentlemen. Great leaders. Great teammates. Incredibly likable. Two guys that know how to play basketball and know the value of being decent human beings to other people.

Now that the mush stuff is out...I hate to disagree with some of you here but Hakeem's prime trumps Duncan's prime maybe twice over. Hakeem could do everything Duncan could do offensively--and some things better--AND the Dream was superior defensively.

I love Duncan as much as the next guy but how great a career do you think he would have had banging bodies with Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Rodman, Cartwright, Willis, Smits, and a whole slew of other very physical centers every night? I'm sure he'd still be great BUT we would have had to have seen it to be sure.

But Hakeem wasn't just great against those guys, he was dominant. That's just other worldly. I don't think that can be overlooked.

Also, let's be honest, one of the reasons Duncan has played so long and relatively injury free is definitely the lack of physical contact the modern game offers today. No other real 7 foot Center or Power Forward to bang bodies with every night definitely keeps you from having early back problems or bad knees.

I know everyone is in love with Duncan at the moment but don't forget Hakeem was the 2nd best player of a generation--2nd only to the consensus GOAT.

Head to head would have been a lot of fun to watch. I don't think there's a wrong answer here but I would bet most analysts who've watched both of their careers start to finish would probably put Hakeem slightly ahead. It's hard to ignore the dominance that Hakeem demonstrated and that Duncan never did.

Many of you are too young but go watch Rockets vs Orlando. I know Shaq was young but Hakeem just basically taught him how to play basketball. It was pretty awesome.
Agreed. plus he was the MJ of centers, illmatic footwork array of Offensive moves GREAT defensive player and IQ younger Tim Duncan along with David Roberts had nightmare guarding the Dream the BEST bigman to ever play in the NBA

kdspurman
06-25-2014, 09:20 AM
shaq is and robinson is arguably as good or better.

That's just not true... Duncan was better defensively than Shaq and probably a better post player than Robinson. They did some stuff better than TD, but he was a better all around player than both. Just a different style.

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 09:54 AM
That's just not true... Duncan was better defensively than Shaq and probably a better post player than Robinson. They did some stuff better than TD, but he was a better all around player than both. Just a different style.

Tim Duncan was a better post player than David Robinson. David even admitted it earlier this past week when on First Take.

kdspurman
06-25-2014, 10:05 AM
Tim Duncan was a better post player than David Robinson. David even admitted it earlier this past week when on First Take.

Yea. Definitely better with his back to the basket.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:15 PM
Tim Duncan was a better post player than David Robinson. David even admitted it earlier this past week when on First Take.
than how come Robinson scored more against better competition?

kdspurman
06-25-2014, 12:16 PM
than how come Robinson scored more against better competition?

THey're different kinds of players. Malone scored a lot more than Duncan, but he is not better than Duncan. So many other things need to be factored in. Not just scoring.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:18 PM
THey're different kinds of players. Dirk scores more than Duncan, but Dirk is not better than Duncan. So many other things need to be factored in.
no **** dirk chucks 3's, Robinson doesn't that doesnt change the fact that robinson played against tougher competition.

kdspurman
06-25-2014, 12:21 PM
no **** dirk chucks 3's, Robinson doesn't that doesnt change the fact that robinson played against tougher competition.

I changed my comment from Dirk to Malone ha. But yea. Duncan played against some solid competition as well. Shaq/Sheed/KG/C-Webb/Camby/Ben etc... Still doesn't change the fact that scoring more doesn't equal better player. That was my point. And Robinson is my favorite player ever.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 12:24 PM
I changed my comment from Dirk to Malone ha. But yea. Duncan played against some solid competition as well. Shaq/Sheed/KG/C-Webb/Camby/Ben etc... Still doesn't change the fact that scoring more doesn't equal better player. That was my point. And Robinson is my favorite player ever.
im not saying he is better as a fact but it could be argued. my point is the guy acted like hakeem torching an all time great, one of the best post defenders ever, and was in his prime and mvp season that badly was nothing because it wasnt duncan.

kdspurman
06-25-2014, 12:32 PM
im not saying he is better as a fact but it could be argued. my point is the guy acted like hakeem torching an all time great, one of the best post defenders ever, and was in his prime and mvp season that badly was nothing because it wasnt duncan.

He is a notoriously huge homer, so you can't put much stock into that. D-Rob was a great defender, and Dream got the better of him that series. It happens, and I still hate watching it sometimes, but he was just incredible.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 01:20 PM
He is a notoriously huge homer, so you can't put much stock into that. D-Rob was a great defender, and Dream got the better of him that series. It happens, and I still hate watching it sometimes, but he was just incredible.
The way he carried that team againat 2 top 15 arguably top 12 players and absolutely worked them. I dont think ita ever been done by a post player.

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 01:46 PM
tim duncan has more double doubles than hakeem has playoff games.

SPURSFAN1
06-25-2014, 01:57 PM
Lost 9 first round playoffs and missed the playoffs in 92'. Made the conference finals 4 times. SO GREAT. Nowhere close to Tim Duncan. Anyone can put up big numbers and lose quick.

alexander_37
06-25-2014, 05:15 PM
Lost 9 first round playoffs and missed the playoffs in 92'. Made the conference finals 4 times. SO GREAT. Nowhere close to Tim Duncan. Anyone can put up big numbers and lose quick.
again with more pure team accomplishments.

nastynice
06-25-2014, 05:47 PM
Lost 9 first round playoffs and missed the playoffs in 92'. Made the conference finals 4 times. SO GREAT. Nowhere close to Tim Duncan. Anyone can put up big numbers and lose quick.

extreme.

Something tells me that if the dream wore a spurs jersey and duncan a rockets jersey, u'd be saying the opposite. Did you watch the dream in the 90's? If not, you should definitely check out some youtube videos of him, like hakeem vs shaq or robinson or ewing, etc. He's just got a truly beautiful game, so versatile on both ends of the floor. I think duncan is too, but imo everything duncan does, the dream did better.

The big man was truly a powerhouse building block of many teams back then, there's no comparing the way the game was played for bigs back then to now. They used to straight bang in the paint.

todu82
06-25-2014, 07:20 PM
Hakeem.

Shlumpledink
06-25-2014, 07:58 PM
Lost 9 first round playoffs and missed the playoffs in 92'. Made the conference finals 4 times. SO GREAT. Nowhere close to Tim Duncan. Anyone can put up big numbers and lose quick.

If you can't see how this has more to do with team success than individual ability, there is nothing more to be said to you.

I'm sure this all has to do with the fact that you're a Spurs fan, more than it is an objective opinion based on fact. This is an opinion based on team loyalty, and different facts have been emphasized, while others are being ignored to help back up your opinion.

Shlumpledink
06-25-2014, 08:01 PM
That's just not true... Duncan was better defensively than Shaq and probably a better post player than Robinson. They did some stuff better than TD, but he was a better all around player than both. Just a different style.

Definitely agree with this, good points. Duncan was a lot better defensively than O'neal, or maybe it just seemed that way because of the consistency of Duncan's effort on that end compared to O'neal's

amos1er
06-25-2014, 08:10 PM
This basically is coming down to better career vs. better stats. If I'm a GM starting a franchise, I'm going with what is proven and career is not even close... Duncan it is for me... Though you can't go wrong with Hakeem either.

amos1er
06-25-2014, 08:13 PM
Agreed. plus he was the MJ of centers, illmatic footwork array of Offensive moves GREAT defensive player and IQ younger Tim Duncan along with David Roberts had nightmare guarding the Dream the BEST bigman to ever play in the NBA

If I'm a GM starting a franchise, the most important thing to me is success. If all those flashy moves you are talking about don't necessarily translate into championships, than what do I really care. I am only looking at dollars and cents here.

No offense, but your looking at this too much from the perspective of a fan and not enough from the methodical mind of a businessman/GM.

Shlumpledink
06-25-2014, 10:34 PM
If I'm a GM starting a franchise, the most important thing to me is success. If all those flashy moves you are talking about don't necessarily translate into championships, than what do I really care. I am only looking at dollars and cents here.

No offense, but your looking at this too much from the perspective of a fan and not enough from the methodical mind of a businessman/GM.

It is the overall situation that determines final outcomes. It isn't just so simple as "player x = winning" the combination of the players, the scheme, and the opponents. You can be beat by a team that isn't necessarily a better team, but if you have the right player even slightly banged up it can be the difference in the series.

Losing a series can be because of a mismatch at a position that is a strength for the other team. Match ups are very important.

As I've watched basketball I've started to realize that the star players get the glory, but the role players are just as important collectively. Wilt Chamberlain, the babe ruth of basketball, only has two championships to his name. He didn't have the supporting cast of Boston to lift him up through his career, or else he would have had a lot more.

Putting a team together to win, all things being equal, you pick the players that complement each other the best, and have weaknesses that are the strengths of their supporting players.

Evaluating individual players for your team based on team statistics has a higher degree of uncertainty than bringing a player to your team based on ability. The problem with team statistics is you need the team, or type of team, to replicate those numbers. We see lots of players switch teams and have their stats changed because of this.


I have a great amount of respect for Duncan, I consider him to be a special player. I don't think he deserves all the credit for his teams, because I feel it is unfair to his team's brilliant offensive/defensive schemes, their great role players, the success of the international scouts, Tony Parker/Manu Ginobilli/David Robinson/ and should've been defensive player of the year at least once if the voters weren't ******** = Bruce Bowen, who actually was money with the corner 3.

mightybosstone
06-25-2014, 11:31 PM
tim duncan has more double doubles than hakeem has playoff games.
Who gives a ****? You're comparing two stats that have no relevance. Hakeem has nearly as many all-time double-doubles as Duncan and FAR more triple-doubles and quad-doubles. You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to kittens.

Lost 9 first round playoffs and missed the playoffs in 92'. Made the conference finals 4 times. SO GREAT. Nowhere close to Tim Duncan. Anyone can put up big numbers and lose quick.
Again, it's like you're completely ****ing blind to anyone else's take or any context whatsoever that might prove your point invalid. Hakeem's supporting cast from 88-94 was atrocious. It was arguably worse than any supporting cast that Duncan had in his entire career and it was during six years of his peak and prime. Also, you're just wrong. You said the guy had nine round exits when he had eight. Apparently it's not just enough to be incompetent. You have to be incompetent and lazy.

nastynice
06-26-2014, 07:01 PM
Who gives a ****? You're comparing two stats that have no relevance. Hakeem has nearly as many all-time double-doubles as Duncan and FAR more triple-doubles and quad-doubles. You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to kittens.

lol