Hakeem did miss the playoffs in 92, but he missed 12 games that year, and the Rockets finished 9th that year, missing out by one game. In the 12 games Hakeem missed, the Rockets were something like 2-10 or something like that. They would have made the playoffs if Hakeem played just one or two more games that year. But such is luck.
I give Hakeem a pass on this part because of that. Hakeem was rated about fairly during his days, but then people look back at what he did in 94 and 95, and then looked up his stats, and thought "guy was as good as 94 and 95 as he was in 88 to 96, he just didn't have a good team". But the truth is, he wasn't. He pouted openly, he was very much a ballhog who didn't trust his teammates all the way up to about 92. Allah helped him calm down, and Rudy T put a system around him to succeed.
Kareem missed two playoffs in his prime (75 with the Bucks and 76 with the Lakers), but it is sort of a little different.
In 75, the Bucks finished 38-44 that season, but Kareem only played 65 games. The Bucks started 2-14 in the first 16 games without Kareem, and really never recovered. The Bucks would have easily been 4th or 5th seed that season if Kareem played a few more games.
In 76, the Lakers actually had the forth best record in the West, and should have made the playoffs, but unfortunately, they were in the Pacific division and playoffs seeding was determined by top 2 teams in each division + 1 more based on better record in the conference (so max 3 per division), the Lakers missed it despite having a better record than the 2nd and 5th seed that year.
76 I can give him a pass, 75 is a little iffy.
Hakeem at his PEAK played with a bunch of nobodies, Kareem at his PEAK was missing the postseason playing w/a similar cast.
Karl Malone's individual accolades.You can list the accomplishments and accolades, and you'll see that Shaq and Duncan are significantly more decorated than Hakeem the Pedo..
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 08-19-2016 at 01:10 PM.
Stupid Spurs fans use team accomplishments vs individual accomplishments when it suits them.
Duncan doesnt have great individual numbers so they use team accomplishments. A player whose team never missed the playoffs must be better than a player whose team did miss the playoffs.
But by that logic it was DUNCAN who lost to an eighth seed. It was DUNCAN who lost to OKC with home court advantage TWICE. It was Duncan who never repeated.
The fact is Duncan was good but not great and at no point in his career was even close to the dominance of Shaq and Hakeem.
Duncan's best year: 25 points, 12.7 rebounds 3 blocks , 4 assists on 50% shooting playing 40 minutes a game.
If a player did that today we would be saying he's an all-star or all-nba but not greatest of all time.
Shaq's best year: 30 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3 blocks, 4 assists on 57% shooting playing 40 minutes a game.
If a player did that today we would be calling him the greatest ever etc.
These respective seasons were three years apart so you cant go with the "era" excuse.
30 points on 57% shooting. Thats ing ridiculous and you almost forget how at that time the rest of the league basically said " it...we just have to wait this out".
Again, you have to be the biggest ing homer to put Duncan ahead of Shaq or Hakeem. He wasnt on their level.
All of Shaq's shots were at the basket or three feet away at most. Duncan had a midrange and high post game. That accounts for the difference in FG%.
Play style affects stats more than you think.
Uh-huh...so why didnt Duncan just move closer to the basket then?
Oh..because he couldnt. He couldnt muscle his way inside like Shaq could. Thats what made Shaq so dominant.
Well yes, you have to play the way that is best suited to your physical stature. Duncan was still one of the strongest players in the league though. He played primarily out of the low post, but he was way more versatile on offense than Shaq. And stop brushing aside the defensive end. Duncan was the superior defensive player by Shaq's own admission. Therefore Duncan was a superior two-way player, i.e. the superior player in general.
Any advantage Duncan had on Shaq defensively hardly counters the ENORMOUS differences offensively. The thing about Duncan's best year (25ppg) was that it was an anomaly. The best he ever did besides that year was 23 a game.
Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE to stop teams from Hack-a-Shaq-ing in the final two minutes. Teams decided their only defense against Shaq was to foul at the start of every possession.
Duncan wasnt a good free throw shooter either (one year he averaged .599). Teams didnt need to foul because he could be guarded by individual player. You didnt need to send three guys to try and stop him if he got down low.
Shaq was just a different breed and its comical to watch Spurs fans desperately try to make a case for why Duncan was "better". Shaq was the most dominant player in probably any sport outside of maybe Barry Bonds.
Duncan ranks #6 in career win shares (above all PF except Karl Malone, above Shaq and Hakeem). 13th in ws/48 (Above Hakeem, Malone), 13th in PER(Above malone and Hakeem), 17th in rebounding % (above everyone you listed), #12 in BPM (Above everyone you listed), #7 in DBPM (Above everyone you listed), and #6 in VORP (Above Hakeem, Shaq).
He won b2b MVPs during Shaq's prime.
He won 3 FMVPs
He had comparable or higher per 100 possession stats than Hakeem and Shaq in their primes
He outscored, outrebounded and outblocked Shaq in their h2h
You mean the one where Shaqs fat ass was allowed to camp in the key for 7 seconds, catch the inlet pass, steamroll over a completely set defender and then have millions of Laker Phans jerk off as the ref remembered his orders from Stern?
Ya.
Watch a game Sparky.
And yet the general consensus is that Duncan > Shaq. You're in the minority, sorry. Most people see what you can't because they don't have an extreme bias against one of those two players, as you obviously do.
Any advantage Duncan had on Shaq defensively hardly counters the ENORMOUS differences offensively. The thing about Duncan's best year (25ppg) was that it was an anomaly. The best he ever did besides that year was 23 a game.
Lets not forget the league INVENTED A RULE to stop teams from Hack-a-Shaq-ing in the final two minutes. Teams decided their only defense against Shaq was to foul at the start of every possession.
Duncan wasnt a good free throw shooter either (one year he averaged .599). Teams didnt need to foul because he could be guarded by individual player. You didnt need to send three guys to try and stop him if he got down low.
Shaq was just a different breed and its comical to watch Spurs fans desperately try to make a case for why Duncan was "better". Shaq was the most dominant player in probably any sport outside of maybe Barry Bonds.
All you can really say is that Shaq was more "dominant," which is always ambiguous. If you use any other adjective, Duncan wins. More skilled? Duncan. Better career? Duncan. Better legacy? Duncan. Better teammate? Duncan. Better winner? Duncan.
Better basketball player? Duncan.
25 ppg was not an "anomaly." During his prime, an NBA scout once wrote, "Tim Duncan could average 35 ppg if he wanted to." This report was published in ESPN magazine; I remember reading it when I was a kid. Obviously it's just one guy's opinion, but his opinion means more to me than yours. Everyone knows Tim was, if anything, statistically limited by his coach and system. And he was an extremely team-oriented superstar. Stop conveniently forgetting things we all know to be true.
His FT% was all over the place, but at least Tim proved he was capable of shooting 80% from the line in two seasons, unlike Shaq who was just consistently bad.
Last edited by Arcadian; 08-19-2016 at 09:19 PM.
Tbh when comparing stats between players who played similar minutes/similar roles it's best to use per-100 possession stats if you want to look at statistical dominance. That's when Duncan's number really start to pop, because the Spurs were always the bottom 5 in pace throughout Duncan's first 10-12 years.
Per 100 possessions, Duncan's scoring was actually very similar to Hakeem's, given Hakeem's Rockets, like most teams in the late 80's and early 90's played at higher paces, which lead to slightly inflated stats.
Career points per 100 possessions
Hakeem - 30.3 (career high = 35.8)
Duncan - 29.7 (career high = 33.5)
Shaq - 35.2 (career high 40.1)
Career rebounds, assists, blocks per 100 poss.
Hakeem 15.5 REB, 3.4 AST, 4.3 BLK
Duncan 16.9 REB, 4.7 AST, 3.4 BLK
Shaq - 16.1 REB, 3.7 AST, 3.4 BLK
Peak
Hakeem 18.2 REB, 4.7 AST, 5.8 BLK
Duncan 18.3 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.5 BLK
Shaq 18.2 REB, 5.0 AST, 4.6 BLK
There's no doubt Shaq was a more dominant scorer than Duncan and Hakeem (by points scored anyway), but Duncan had both covered in rebounding and assists, while Hakeem was head and shoulders above in blocked shots.
Mvps?
Really?
As for the rest, your numbers make a great case for Duncan over Shaq and hakeem. Not a great one for top 5 or in some cases even a top 10 player tbh
Pace pace pace pace pace pace pace pace pace.....Duncan is not a shooting guard! ! .
Two....you can use team accomplishments for players who were clearly alpha. Jordan, Duncan, hakeem, Dirk, best players on their team.
Kg (celtics), Kobe, not exactly beta but not team alpha therefore team accomplishments aren't as good as evidence.
Shaq was so dominant he didnt need to shoot from anywhere else.
Gotdayum truth bombs. Oh and the fact that Duncan's teams were the best team no longer than 1 year at a time.
The crazy thing about just those numbers is it's not really factoring in how much better of a defender Tim was than Shaq and Hakeem.
Obviously Tim was amazing defensively, but people ignoring one whole side of the ball in these debates shows you just how great Tim was.
Normally, when you are literally one of the top 5 defenders of all time (Tim) you aren't supposed to have offensive numbers like Tim.
Hakeem's career high for defensive win shares in a season was 8.7, Tim's was 7.2...And their Drating's are nearly identical with Hakeem playing less games than Duncan.The crazy thing about just those numbers is it's not really factoring in how much better of a defender Tim was than Shaq and Hakeem.
Don't care to get into this, but no, Hakeem was not as good of a defender as TIm (especially factoring in longevity). It was probably not good to lump Hakeem in with Shaq (not the intent there) as Dream was obviously a fine defender, but Tim is literally a top 5 defensive player of all time. Hakeem is up there, but in my opinion he's not as good on the all-time defensive list as Tim.
Djohn: Not sure if you read this - but this gives some context to the all around numbers and defense for Tim that I found very interesting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...n-nba-history/
And on defense, Duncan was uniformly incredible throughout his career. He was named to 15 All-Defensive teams — the last of which came at age 38 — and led the league in defensive Win Shares five times, to go with nine other top-five finishes. In terms of suppressing offensive efficiency (relative to league average), Duncan’s Spurs were the NBA’s best defensive dynasty since Bill Russell’s Celtics. And even in the twilight of his career, Duncan consistently ranked among the league’s top five defensive players according to the plus/minus metrics. He’s undeniably on the shortlist of the best defenders in basketball history.
Who is your top 5?
Regarding the point about best defensive dynasty, Duncan did have damn good defenders around him.
Honestly, I struggle with lists like that. While it's subjective to some, there is so much bias and hard habits to break for most that I find it tough. I think advanced numbers give us a better picture and should be leaned on more, but at the same time for defense it's still hard to quantify (so you then run into the same old tired arguments and mindsets).
I would probably have Tim/Lebron/Jordan/Rodman/KG/Russell/Robinson/Hakeem in the core group of top (obviously it's debatable for others like Kareem/Payton/Pippen etc..
When your team is great for two decades and there is one constant it would be wise not to dismiss it especially when you grade out well individually every single year.
Duncan's individual advanced numbers are superior to Hakeem's, as I posted earlier..their 2-year peaks are similar, but Duncan's full prime was sustained longer, as the numbers will show..
Hakeem's absolute peak that everybody loves to cite:
1994 playoffs: 27.7 PER(#2), Win Shares 4.3(#1), Box Plus Minus 9.1(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 2.8(#1)
Duncan's absolute peak:
2003 playoffs: 28.4 PER(#2), Win Shares 5.9(#1), Box Plus Minus 11.6(#1), Value Over Replacement Player 3.5(#1)
Duncan's 2003 playoff run is matched by very few, tbh..similar peak, but Duncan has him destroyed in longevity..
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 08-20-2016 at 12:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote