Hakeem vs Duncan Part 2

[Double-Up]

I saw this thread posted before in the Spurs section but wanted to get the opinion of other fanbases. So which would you pick to be your franchise player? Please don't let this become another off topic bashing thread.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tim_duncan/career_stats.html (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tim_duncan/career_stats.html)

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/hakeem_olajuwon/index.html (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/hakeem_olajuwon/index.html)

[JoeTait75]

Got mad respect for Tim, but I'm going with Hakeem on this one.

[lefty]

I picked the 3rd answer....

[Many PackYao]

Hakeem would have done better than 2 titles if he had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker over the course of his career.

[IronMexican]

Hakeem by the slightest of margins.

[mavs>spurs2]

I got Hakeem. No one ever did it on both ends like he did

[IronMexican]

And it would be nice if more Rocketfans like Double-Up posted.

[Blake]

Hakeem would have done better than 2 titles if he had Robinson, Ginobili and Parker over the course of his career.

he had all stars Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley over the course of his career, moron.

How old are you? I bet you are too young to remember rocket games from the 90s.

lol, rocketfans.

[Blake]

lmao at all the "unbiased" non-spur fans going with Hakeem.

[BUMP]

Tim Duncan

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/1999/jordan_retires/news/1999/01/12/jordan_legacy/jordan_baseball.jpg

[Double-Up]

he had all stars Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley over the course of his career, moron.

How old are you? I bet you are too young to remember rocket games from the 90s.

lol, rocketfans.

He did but Ralph Sampson was taken out by injuries, the rest were all over 30 when we traded for them. Duncan had the FO surround him with young talented players during his prime.

[Blake]

He did but Ralph Sampson was taken out by injuries, the rest were all over 30 when we traded for them. Duncan had the FO surround him with young talented players during his prime.

and they were still allstars with the rockets.

and if the rockets players weren't that great around Hakeem, then he should have been able to win more MVPs.

It's why Tim won 2.

Fool.

[JamStone]

I think it's somewhat unfair to talk about Hakeem having only 1 League MVP compared to Duncan's 2 in so much as had the bulk of Duncan's career in his prime spanned over the careers of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, Duncan would have also been hard pressed to win multiple League MVPs. It would be a similar criticism to say Duncan is no where near Hakeem defensively, otherwise Duncan would have at least one DPOY. Hakeem has two.

Barkley put everything into his first year at Houston, but there's no denying that he was not the player he was even just a couple years before joining the Rockets. And, Drexler was the same way. Both still pretty good players, but not the superstar players they were earlier in their career. That said, except for maybe a couple seasons, David Robinson was very much in his decline as well for most of his time with Tim Duncan.

I think it's close. But for me, I would take Hakeem and not think twice about it. I think he was better at both ends of the court. Where Duncan probably beats Hakeem is his team play. Duncan to me is the better team player. Hakeem is the better individual player. But, you really can't go wrong either way.

[mavs>spurs2]

and they were still allstars with the rockets.

and if the rockets players weren't that great around Hakeem, then he should have been able to win more MVPs.

It's why Tim won 2.

Fool.

I'm going to go ahead and quote my post from another thread


Titles and MVP's only prove that Duncan has had a better supporting cast than Hakeem, if you know basketball you can just watch Hakeem in his prime and realize how special he is. He's the total package, no one ever dominated both sides of the ball like he did. Hakeem could run down a guard on the fast break and block it from behind, then dribble back the other way for the score or even assist. Hakeem was better than Duncan in every aspect of basketball. Stats, more moves, harder to guard, better defender, much more athletic, better shooter and dribbler, better passer, the list goes on.

[stretch]

give me Tim Duncan. he is one the greatest ever at making his teammates better. he truly knows how to use his presence to elevate his teammates level of play beyond what they would normally be capable of. he could have put up better stats than he did if he wanted to, but he always would put the team concept first and foremost, yet still knew when and how to take over games at the right time. he is arguably the best LEADER in NBA history.

[stretch]

Where Duncan probably beats Hakeem is his team play. Duncan to me is the better team player. Hakeem is the better individual player. But, you really can't go wrong either way.

:tu

although i personally would rather have Duncan.

[Blake]

I'm going to go ahead and quote my post from another thread

congratulations. you're wrong in both threads.

more mvps, more titles.

[Many PackYao]

Barkely was washed up when he went to Houston. Even he admited that. Hakeem and Sampson would have won multiple titles if Sampson had not hurt his back. That was the best twin tower duo in history, even much better than Duncan/Robinson. Even Drexler was at the end of his career when he played with Hakeem.
I've been telling this dumbass basically the same thing and he doesn't want to hear it. He's like a little kid that has his hands over his ears and stickin' his tongue out when he knows he's wrong.

[mavs>spurs2]

congratulations. you're wrong in both threads.

more mvps, more titles.

:lol You're always right because you say so!

[Double-Up]

give me Tim Duncan. he is one the greatest ever at making his teammates better. he truly knows how to use his presence to elevate his teammates level of play beyond what they would normally be capable of. he could have put up better stats than he did if he wanted to, but he always would put the team concept first and foremost, yet still knew when and how to take over games at the right time. he is arguably the best LEADER in NBA history.

I agree Duncan is the ultimate team player and that was the one knock on Hakeem early in his career.

[Many PackYao]

congratulations. you're wrong in both threads.

more mvps, more titles.
you got Jamstone, mavs>spurs, and lakaluva basically saying the same thing I said i favor of Hakeem.Good job looking like a moron.

[stretch]

lol blake

[Blake]

I think it's somewhat unfair to talk about Hakeem having only 1 League MVP compared to Duncan's 2 in so much as had the bulk of Duncan's career in his prime spanned over the careers of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, Duncan would have also been hard pressed to win multiple League MVPs.

so you are saying there have been no great players during Duncan's career.

Kobe, Shaq and Garnett among others would disagree.

[Tmac&Luther]

Only Spurs homers are going to say Tim is better. You replace Hakeem with Duncan and the talent he played with throughout his career and he would have atleast 5 rings by now. Hakeem was simply the better player....and that isn't a knock against Tim at all, Hakeem was just that good.

[robbie380]

he had all stars Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley over the course of his career, moron.

How old are you? I bet you are too young to remember rocket games from the 90s.

lol, rocketfans.

if akeem's original first finals team wouldn't have been ravaged by injuries and drugs he would have more championships. do you remember that team?

[Blake]

:lol You're always right because you say so!

I'm saying I'm right because it's simple math!

jeenyus.

[Blake]

if akeem's original first finals team wouldn't have been ravaged by injuries and drugs he would have more championships. do you remember that team?

If duncan wasn't injured in 2000, he would also have more championships.

Yippee.

[Blake]

I've been telling this dumbass basically the same thing and he doesn't want to hear it. He's like a little kid that has his hands over his ears and stickin' his tongue out when he knows he's wrong.

:lol

what the fock do you know about anything? You think slayer is a good band.

lol yao
lol rocketfan

[Trimble87]

I'm a life long Spurs fan and this is a complete toss up for me. I think Hakeem is a better all around player then Duncan, which is saying something considering how great Duncan is. But if I was making the decision as a GM today my love of Tim would more then likely sway my judgement.

One thing I will say about comparing championships/awards between the two: dont.

Its not even remotely the same when you consider that Hakeem played his career with the best players to ever play the game. Magic/Bird/Jordan/Robinson/Malone/Barkley/Ewing etc etc etc. As much as I love him, Duncan would not have 4 titles if his prime was in the 90s. The only reason Hakeem got his two was because Jordan was "retired" during the 93-94 season (and even then they had a hard won 7 game series against Ewing). And then in 94-95 the Magic took out the bulls before they got the the finals (a series where Jordan did not look like Jordan.)

In the end any GM would take either of them and thank god for their unbelievable luck.

[stretch]

Only Spurs homers are going to say Tim is better. You replace Hakeem with Duncan and the talent he played with throughout his career and he would have atleast 5 rings by now. Hakeem was simply the better player....and that isn't a knock against Tim at all, Hakeem was just that good.

thing is, personally, i dont think duncan played with that great of talent, other than robinson (at the end of his career though). i mean i think parker and ginobili are good, but there is no question that duncan has helped them immensly through their careers, and helped them to develop into the players they are today. the guy is an incredible team player and truly makes his teammates better, something that Hakeem didn't really do.

[Blake]

you got Jamstone, mavs>spurs, and lakaluva basically saying the same thing I said i favor of Hakeem.Good job looking like a moron.

then you got 4 of you that are wrong.

simple math.

2 MVP + 4 Rings > 1 MVP + 2 Rings

lol slayer
lol houston public schools
lol yao

[Blake]

thing is, personally, i dont think duncan played with that great of talent, other than robinson (at the end of his career though). i mean i think parker and ginobili are good, but there is no question that duncan has helped them immensly through their careers, and helped them to develop into the players they are today. the guy is an incredible team player and truly makes his teammates better, something that Hakeem didn't really do.

:tu

+1

[Many PackYao]

:lol

what the fock do you know about anything? You think slayer is a good band.

lol yao
lol rocketfan
All you have to hang on is your band smack. You know I told you this shit already in the Lubbock thread. Quit being a such a little bitch and move on.

[stretch]

2 MVP + 4 Rings > 1 MVP + 2 Rings

according to rocket fans, a repeat is equal to 5 rings.

[JamStone]

Championships are a team accomplishment.

You cannot give total credit of winning rings to one individual player.

[Blake]

Its not even remotely the same when you consider that Hakeem played his career with the best players to ever play the game. Magic/Bird/Jordan/Robinson/Malone/Barkley/Ewing etc etc etc. As much as I love him, Duncan would not have 4 titles if his prime was in the 90s. The only reason Hakeem got his two was because Jordan was "retired" during the 93-94 season (and even then they had a hard won 7 game series against Ewing). And then in 94-95 the Magic took out the bulls before they got the the finals (a series where Jordan did not look like Jordan.)


Duncan has had to go through Shaq among others almost his entire career.

[Double-Up]

I'm a life long Spurs fan and this is a complete toss up for me. I think Hakeem is a better all around player then Duncan, which is saying something considering how great Duncan is. But if I was making the decision as a GM today my love of Tim would more then likely sway my judgement.

One thing I will say about comparing championships/awards between the two: dont.

Its not even remotely the same when you consider that Hakeem played his career with the best players to ever play the game. Magic/Bird/Jordan/Robinson/Malone/Barkley/Ewing etc etc etc. As much as I love him, Duncan would not have 4 titles if his prime was in the 90s. The only reason Hakeem got his two was because Jordan was "retired" during the 93-94 season (and even then they had a hard won 7 game series against Ewing). And then in 94-95 the Magic took out the bulls before they got the the finals (a series where Jordan did not look like Jordan.)

In the end any GM would take either of them and thank god for their unbelievable luck.

1984-1998 Houston vs Chicago regular season:

17-13 in favor of Houston

It's not much to go by but we can determine that Houston vs Chicago in the finals would have been a great series without an overwhelming favorite.

[Artest93]

Duncan is great, but Hakeem was better...They at least made some noise during the Larry Bird, Magic years, and took the Celtics to 6 games twice in the finals..one time coming before Hakeem entered the league

[IronMexican]

If Shaq was a rookie in 98, I wonder how many rings he'd have by now.

[Tmac&Luther]

thing is, personally, i dont think duncan played with that great of talent, other than robinson (at the end of his career though). i mean i think parker and ginobili are good, but there is no question that duncan has helped them immensly through their careers, and helped them to develop into the players they are today. the guy is an incredible team player and truly makes his teammates better, something that Hakeem didn't really do.


Are you on crack? Almost every play was ran through Hakeem, he made every player on the court better. For christ sakes the guy won with Kenny Smith, Mario Elle, and Vernon Maxwell.....if that's not "making your teammates better" I don't know what is.

[Blake]

Championships are a team accomplishment.

You cannot give total credit of winning rings to one individual player.

you pretty much can win the best player has won 4 rings over 8 years with different teammates.

[Blake]

All you have to hang on is your band smack. You know I told you this shit already in the Lubbock thread. Quit being a such a little bitch and move on.

Yeah, this is the same stupid crap from that thread, and you are getting owned again, just like in that thread.

lol, rocketfan

[Artest93]

then it would be safe to say that the only reason duncan has four rings is because kobe and shaq didnt get along and eventually broke up leading to duncans 3 more rings.

+1

[Tmac&Luther]

Yeah, this is the same stupid crap from that thread, and you are getting owned again, just like in that thread.

lol, rocketfan

umm, the only one getting owned in here is you.

[JamStone]

1984-1998 Houston vs Chicago regular season:

17-13 in favor of Houston

It's not much to go by but we can determine that Houston vs Chicago in the finals would have been a great series without an overwhelming favorite.

The flaw in this logic is that during the two Chicago Bulls three peat championship runs, the Rockets didn't even make it to the NBA Finals.

[lefty]

NBA2k9 Yao Ming >>>>>>>> Duncan+Hakeem.


/Thread

[Blake]

Then it would be safe to say that the only reason Duncan has four rings is because Kobe and Shaq didnt get along and eventually broke up leading to Duncans 3 more rings.

wrong.

Tim beat down the Lakers in 2003.

funny how laker fan quickly forgets Kobe crying like a girl after it was over.

:lol

[JamStone]

Blake, rank the top 10 players in NBA history in your opinion please.

[Cry Havoc]

one time coming before Hakeem entered the league

This is the opposite of offering support for your argument. The Rockets were a pretty damn good team BEFORE Hakeem.

I think this is a toss up. If you need an individual scorer, a guy to go out and absolutely take over games night after night with a few role players around him, you go with Hakeem. If you're going to build a franchise based upon ball movement, fast rotation, and spot up shooters who can play defense, you pick Duncan.

[Many PackYao]

Yeah, this is the same stupid crap from that thread, and you are getting owned again, just like in that thread.

lol, rocketfan
Well, I guess not because obviously there's other people who feel the same way I do when it comes to Hakeem/Duncan. You're takin this way too serious. I'm sorry my opinion opposes yours Mr. Blake Almighty sir.:lol

[Artest93]

This is the opposite of offering support for your argument. The Rockets were a pretty damn good team BEFORE Hakeem.

I think this is a toss up. If you need an individual scorer, a guy to go out and absolutely take over games night after night with a few role players around him, you go with Hakeem. If you're going to build a franchise based upon ball movement, fast rotation, and spot up shooters who can play defense, you pick Duncan.

Spurs won the first title because of the efforts of Avery Johnson...dont forget that

[BlackSwordsMan]

everyone knows dirk>

[Artest93]

Hakeem carried the team to both championships

[Trimble87]

Then it would be safe to say that the only reason Duncan has four rings is because Kobe and Shaq didnt get along and eventually broke up leading to Duncans 3 more rings.

It wasnt meant as a knock on Hakeem, the rockets still had to go through Ewings Knicks which were a great team, not to mention the entire western conference (including the spurs.)

In fact, my point was that hakeem had a much greater level of competition, so the fact that he won two titles against that competition is a testament to what kind of player he was.

As for Duncan not winning any of the titles after 99... I wouldnt go that far. But if Kobe and Shaq werent such whiney bitches I think they would have 3 peated again by now for sure... luckily they are whiney bitches.

That being said Kobe is a top 5 SG of all time. And Shaq is a top 5 Center of all time. Neither Duncan or Hakeem have ever been partnered with someone on that level.

[stretch]

Manu would be an allstar without Duncan. Parker would be an allstar without Duncan. Your judgement is way off. Parker and Manu are players that dont need other players to excel. Notice how they both have monster games when Duncan is hurt. Guys like Avery, Sean and Mason are the types of players that benefit from Duncan.

I'm saying they developed into the players they are today because they had Tim Duncan with them early on, helping build their confidence, picking up their slack, and making things a lot easier for them by drawing so much defensive attention. A lot of players have incredible talent, but aren't developed well due to poor teammates/poor coaching, and dont reach their potential. Tim Duncan is the ultimate guy you want to have on your team to help develop young talent.

I honestly don't feel that they would have turned into the players they became today, without Tim Duncan helping them early in their careers, showing them what its like to win titles right out the gate.

[Trimble87]

And imo it all started with David Robinson. Duncan walked into a great situation where he got to be mentored by the classiest big man in the NBA. Duncans attitude work ethic and leadership on and off the court are what have kept the spurs in contention all these years imo.

[Artest93]

People have to remember that flopping was not part of the game in the 80's and 90's...Hand checks are no longer allowed, if you look at Lebron wrong you get a foul, there is no way Lebron could have lasted playing against Magic, Bird, Hakeem and so forth. The game is too easy today

[JamStone]

there is no way Lebron could have lasted playing against Magic, Bird, Hakeem and so forth. The game is too easy today

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The game may not be as rough as it was, but to say LeBron couldn't even have lasted then? Re-read what you wrote there.

[DPG21920]

thing is, personally, i dont think duncan played with that great of talent, other than robinson (at the end of his career though). i mean i think parker and ginobili are good, but there is no question that duncan has helped them immensly through their careers, and helped them to develop into the players they are today. the guy is an incredible team player and truly makes his teammates better, something that Hakeem didn't really do.

Truth. In all honesty, the Spurs have had some of the weakest rosters for championship teams when you look throughout history. Tim made Manu and Parker, not the other way around.

Even then, the supporting cast was not very good and if you were to go through the rosters, player for player, you would see the "played with more talent" argument is just not valid.

[IronMexican]

In fact, my point was that hakeem had a much greater level of competition, so the fact that he won two titles against that competition is a testament to what kind of player he was.

I wouldnt go that far. But if Kobe and Shaq werent such whiney bitches I think they would have 3 peated again by now for sure... luckily they are whiney bitches.


*sigh* I love Shaq, but I agree 100%

[Artest93]

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The game may not be as rough as it was, but to say LeBron couldn't even have lasted then? Re-read what you wrote there.

Somebody would have knocked him in his mouth and he starts crying....Prince James is more like it

[DPG21920]

Somebody would have knocked him in his mouth and he starts crying....Prince James is more like it

Ya.Right.

[Double-Up]

People have to remember that flopping was not part of the game in the 80's and 90's...Hand checks are no longer allowed, if you look at Lebron wrong you get a foul, there is no way Lebron could have lasted playing against Magic, Bird, Hakeem and so forth. The game is too easy today

Lebron is too big and quick to have been denied what he does best which is going to the rim even WITH handchecking. 6-8, 270, athletic is can be = beasty in ANY era.

[anonoftheinternets]

If Shaq was a rookie in 98, I wonder how many rings he'd have by now.

prob the same, or fewer coz lol imagine an "immature" shaq with kobe? We all saw how well the mature one did. :lol

[lil_penny]

This is a toss up for me, as a blazer fan I must choose sam bowie.. honestly though I can't pick between these two

[IronMexican]

prob the same, or fewer coz lol imagine an "immature" shaq with kobe? We all saw how well the mature one did. :lol

Yeah, I get you. It would be awesome to see Shaq paired with a guard who doesn't have much of an ego, like a Roy type player, who doesn't mind being second fiddle.

[Artest93]

Lebron is too big and quick to have been denied what he does best which is going to the rim even WITH handchecking. 6-8, 270, athletic is can be = beasty in ANY era.

Yeah, Ok....Even though it was more of a defensive game back then

FUyeyGZphJA

[Trimble87]

Shaq should arrange a buyout and come win his fifth championship alongside Duncan imo :downspin:

[anonoftheinternets]

Yeah, I get you. It would be awesome to see Shaq paired with a guard who doesn't have much of an ego, like a Roy type player, who doesn't mind being second fiddle.

+1, he did good with wade. Penny and Kobe not so much. Although I think hes become a little more mellow with age.

[Warlord23]

Better overall talent: Hakeem Olajuwon
Better overall player: Tim Duncan

You want to win 1-on-1 games, pick Olajuwon. You want to win team games, pick Duncan.

Olajuwon had about four superstar seasons. Apart from than that he was no different from Patrick Ewing. Duncan has been the franchise player of the most successful franchise in pro sports since he laced them up.

Duncan carried the weakest supporting cast of them all to a title in 2003 ... no other player is/was going to win an NBA title with S-Jax as his second best player. The Olajuwon Rockets OTOH had the best outside shooting supporting cast in memory.

Olajuwon led the Rockets to mediocrity in 91-92 (42 wins), 89-90 (41 wins), 88-89 (45 wins), 87-88 (46 wins), 86-87 (42 wins). In that span, the Rockets actually did better in the one season (52 wins in 90-91) when Olajuwon missed 25 games. Most of you kids remember the 93 to 95 Olajuwon who looked unstoppable. Till that point, he was considered good but not great.

Duncan on the other hand has been regarded as great from his rookie season onwards. He was already anointed the greatest at his position after only 6 years (98 to 2003) in this league! A healthy Duncan has led the Spurs to 56 games or more every year till this one, and has been contending for a ring every single year. SA has been the winningest franchise in all of sports in the Duncan era.

More rings (4 to 2), more MVPs (2 to 1), more Finals MVPs (3 to 2), more All-NBA 1st team selections (9 to 6), more All-Defensive 1st team selections (8 to 5), a vastly superior team winning % with different supporting casts.

Hakeem's prime > Duncan's prime
Duncan's overall body of work > Hakeem's overall body of work

[SpursFan67]

Has there ever been another player that didnt have another allstar playing with him that won a title?

What timmy did in 2003 was exactly what hakeem did in 1994,leading a group of role players to rhe title.But i think hakeem was nearly as good as duncan skillwise,but hold a significant advantages in term of athleticisim;gotta go with the Dream

[JoeTait75]

People have to remember that flopping was not part of the game in the 80's and 90's

I guess you never saw Bill Laimbeer play.

[Spursmania]

Timmy baby!

[poop]

Better overall talent: Hakeem Olajuwon
Better overall player: Tim Duncan

You want to win 1-on-1 games, pick Olajuwon. You want to win team games, pick Duncan.

Olajuwon had about four superstar seasons. Apart from than that he was no different from Patrick Ewing. Duncan has been the franchise player of the most successful franchise in pro sports since he laced them up.

Duncan carried the weakest supporting cast of them all to a title in 2003 ... no other player is/was going to win an NBA title with S-Jax as his second best player. The Olajuwon Rockets OTOH had the best outside shooting supporting cast in memory.

Olajuwon led the Rockets to mediocrity in 91-92 (42 wins), 89-90 (41 wins), 88-89 (45 wins), 87-88 (46 wins), 86-87 (42 wins). In that span, the Rockets actually did better in the one season (52 wins in 90-91) when Olajuwon missed 25 games. Most of you kids remember the 93 to 95 Olajuwon who looked unstoppable. Till that point, he was considered good but not great.

Duncan on the other hand has been regarded as great from his rookie season onwards. He was already anointed the greatest at his position after only 6 years (98 to 2003) in this league! A healthy Duncan has led the Spurs to 56 games or more every year till this one, and has been contending for a ring every single year. SA has been the winningest franchise in all of sports in the Duncan era.

More rings (4 to 2), more MVPs (2 to 1), more Finals MVPs (3 to 2), more All-NBA 1st team selections (9 to 6), more All-Defensive 1st team selections (8 to 5), a vastly superior team winning % with different supporting casts.

Hakeem's prime > Duncan's prime
Duncan's overall body of work > Hakeem's overall body of work

THIS. end thread

[stretch]

People have to remember that flopping was not part of the game in the 80's and 90's...Hand checks are no longer allowed, if you look at Lebron wrong you get a foul, there is no way Lebron could have lasted playing against Magic, Bird, Hakeem and so forth. The game is too easy today

You're clearly a fuckin idiot.

[resistanze]

Yeah, Ok....Even though it was more of a defensive game back then

FUyeyGZphJA
And Yao got blocked by Nate Robinson. So what?

[monosylab1k]

Duncan

[JamStone]

Duncan carried the weakest supporting cast of them all to a title in 2003 ... no other player is/was going to win an NBA title with S-Jax as his second best player. The Olajuwon Rockets OTOH had the best outside shooting supporting cast in memory.

The second best player on the 1993-94 Houston Rockets was either Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell. Take your pick. That team's 3PT shooting on the season was 33.4%. Their playoff 3PT shooting was 36.1%. By comparison, the 2006-07 Championship Spurs shot 38.1% from three point range in the regular season and 38.4% in the playoffs.

Hakeem's cast in 1993-94 was as weak a cast any superstar had on a championship team.

[timvp]

Hakeem from 1994 to 1996 was unbelievable. It's the best stretch of basketball I've ever seen from a bigman.

That said, he wasn't always a beast. His first finals, he got owned by Bill Walton on one leg. Then he went on to somehow have the Rockets miss the playoffs in an era in which the West was much, much weaker than it is right now. Then he entered into a phase that saw the Rockets consider trading him.

When he finally learned to pass the ball and the Rockets surrounded him with the best clutch shooters of the last 20 years, he was able to dominate like few ever have. But somehow the rest of his career is forgotten.

Take out 1994 to 1996 and he was more in the KG/Dirk realm of player. If Dirk would have finished off the Heat, I case could be made that Hakeem - 1994 - 1995 - 1996 < Dirk.

If Hakeem wouldn't have learned to pass or the Rockets wouldn't have surrounded him with the clutchest shooters in the game, he very well could have gone down like a better version of Amare Stoudemire.

Ranking wise, I really don't care. Saying Hakeem was better than Duncan isn't unreasonable. I'd personally give the edge to Duncan because A) no way he'd ever miss the playoffs when in his prime ... simply no way B) he too would have won a championship with those supporting casts Hakeem had C) I'm not sure Hakeem wins with the 2003 supporting cast.

[timvp]

Hakeem's cast in 1993-94 was as weak a cast any superstar had on a championship team.Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie ... those might be the five clutchest role-playing shooters of the past 20 years.

[Many PackYao]

The second best player on the 1993-94 Houston Rockets was either Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell. Take your pick. That team's 3PT shooting on the season was 33.4%. Their playoff 3PT shooting was 36.1%. By comparison, the 2006-07 Championship Spurs shot 38.1% from three point range in the regular season and 38.4% in the playoffs.

Hakeem's cast in 1993-94 was as weak a cast any superstar had on a championship team.
QFT
Maxwell was a low-percentage chucker like Alston. He made a alot of game winning shots though and sometimes he would off for 30-35 pts. Kenny Smith was a good shooter, but would get you 25 one night then 5 the next night. Otis Thorpe was the most consistent player behind Dream.

[JamStone]

I'm not convinced Tim Duncan wins a title in 1993-94 with that same Houston Rockets cast where Hakeem basically had to drop basically 30 a game just to give them a chance to win. Maybe Tim could have, but it's at least as much in question as Hakeem winning with the 2003 Spurs cast.

[Blake]

Better overall talent: Hakeem Olajuwon
Better overall player: Tim Duncan

You want to win 1-on-1 games, pick Olajuwon. You want to win team games, pick Duncan.

Olajuwon had about four superstar seasons. Apart from than that he was no different from Patrick Ewing. Duncan has been the franchise player of the most successful franchise in pro sports since he laced them up.

Duncan carried the weakest supporting cast of them all to a title in 2003 ... no other player is/was going to win an NBA title with S-Jax as his second best player. The Olajuwon Rockets OTOH had the best outside shooting supporting cast in memory.

Olajuwon led the Rockets to mediocrity in 91-92 (42 wins), 89-90 (41 wins), 88-89 (45 wins), 87-88 (46 wins), 86-87 (42 wins). In that span, the Rockets actually did better in the one season (52 wins in 90-91) when Olajuwon missed 25 games. Most of you kids remember the 93 to 95 Olajuwon who looked unstoppable. Till that point, he was considered good but not great.

Duncan on the other hand has been regarded as great from his rookie season onwards. He was already anointed the greatest at his position after only 6 years (98 to 2003) in this league! A healthy Duncan has led the Spurs to 56 games or more every year till this one, and has been contending for a ring every single year. SA has been the winningest franchise in all of sports in the Duncan era.

More rings (4 to 2), more MVPs (2 to 1), more Finals MVPs (3 to 2), more All-NBA 1st team selections (9 to 6), more All-Defensive 1st team selections (8 to 5), a vastly superior team winning % with different supporting casts.

Hakeem's prime > Duncan's prime
Duncan's overall body of work > Hakeem's overall body of work

:lobt2:

this post ftw

[Warlord23]

The second best player on the 1993-94 Houston Rockets was either Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell. Take your pick. That team's 3PT shooting on the season was 33.4%. Their playoff 3PT shooting was 36.1%. By comparison, the 2006-07 Championship Spurs shot 38.1% from three point range in the regular season and 38.4% in the playoffs.

Hakeem's cast in 1993-94 was as weak a cast any superstar had on a championship team.

Well, technically outside shooting is not just 3-point shooting. If you compare jump shooting threats, I'd take Elie/Horry/Maxwell/Kenny/Cassell over SJax/Bowen/2003 Manu and some rare appearances by 2003 Steve Smith and 2003 Steve Kerr. In 94-95 you add Drexler to that list and that makes the group even more deadly.

[timvp]

I'm not convinced Tim Duncan wins a title in 1993-94 with that same Houston Rockets cast where Hakeem basically had to drop basically 30 a game just to give them a chance to win. Maybe Tim could have, but it's at least as much in question as Hakeem winning with the 2003 Spurs cast.
Teams had to single-team Hakeem much of the time because they could put four deadly shooters around him. Duncan in his prime single-teamed? Uh yeah, that wouldn't have been pretty either.

[JamStone]

Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie ... those might be the five clutchest role-playing shooters of the past 20 years.

Hitting wide open jumpers because of Hakeem. They aren't even remotely in position to hit clutch jumpers without Hakeem carrying that offense for entire games. Again, the shooting numbers weren't even that impressive. And, I'd have to go back and watch those playoffs, but I'd want to re-visit them to see how often Maxwell and Kenny Smith hit clutch jumpers in that 1994 title run. Actually, I'd like to go back and see all of them because while Horry and Cassell and Elie have reputations of being clutch shooters, I'd really like to see how many each hit during that first title run. Not saying they didn't. I'm sure they hit some. But, legend sometimes skews past realities. Horry has built his clutch shooting reputation even more so with the Lakers and even the Spurs. How clutch was he with the Rockets? It's been a long time that I can't remember and say for sure. Having clutch shooters is important. Having great players that can also help carry the team throughout the game and not just at the end of games might be even more important. Hakeem averaged 28.9 ppg in the 1994 playoffs. The next highest average on the team was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg.

[Warlord23]

Hitting wide open jumpers because of Hakeem. They aren't even remotely in position to hit clutch jumpers without Hakeem carrying that offense for entire games. Again, the shooting numbers weren't even that impressive. And, I'd have to go back and watch those playoffs, but I'd want to re-visit them to see how often Maxwell and Kenny Smith hit clutch jumpers in that 1994 title run. Actually, I'd like to go back and see all of them because while Horry and Cassell and Elie have reputations of being clutch shooters, I'd really like to see how many each hit during that first title run. Not saying they didn't. I'm sure they hit some. But, legend sometimes skews past realities. Horry has built his clutch shooting reputation even more so with the Lakers and even the Spurs. How clutch was he with the Rockets? It's been a long time that I can't remember and say for sure. Having clutch shooters is important. Having great players that can also help carry the team throughout the game and not just at the end of games might be even more important. Hakeem averaged 28.9 ppg in the 1994 playoffs. The next highest average on the team was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg.

You think Steve Smith, Steve Kerr and Danny Ferry were creating their own shot? They were on the floor because of Duncan. In 2003, either Duncan embarrassed 1-on-1 coverage (see 37/16 vs L.A.) or dished it out to shooters (see near quadruple double vs NJ)

In the 2003 playoffs, Duncan lead the team in minutes played, points, rebounds, assists, blocks and was second in FG% behind DRob (the latter was reduced to taking high % shots near the rim).

And, if you compare the efficiency of 2003 playoff Duncan and 1994 playoff Hakeem, you need to adjust for both minutes and pace. So here's how they match up (all numbers for playoffs):

PER:
2003 Duncan: 28.4
1994 Hakeem: 27.7

True shooting %
2003 Duncan: 0.577
1994 Hakeem: 0.568

Effective FG%
2003 Duncan: 0.529
1994 Hakeem: 0.521

Total Rebounding %
2003 Duncan: 19.9%
1994 Hakeem: 14.5%

Assist %:
2003 Duncan: 25.5%
1994 Hakeem: 20.4%

Offensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 116
1994 Hakeem: 109

Defensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 92
1994 Hakeem: 97

Duncan comes out better overall, not by a crushing margin, but by a fair separation.

[lefty]

Hakeem's teammates in 94-95 were psychopaths

No conscience whatsoever, they would just shoot the damn ball ...and score

I loved it when Horry would take an offensive rebound, have an open 2 ,but dribble on purpose to go behind the 3 point line and score

That's just craziness....or major cojones

[IronMexican]

Hakeem's teammates in 94-95 were psychopaths

No conscience whatsoever, they would just shoot the damn ball ...and score

I loved it when Horry would take an offensive rebound, have an open 2 ,but dribble on purpose to go behind the 3 point line and score

That's just craziness....or major cojones

Horry did that shit ALL THE TIME with the Lakers. It pissed me off to no end, but paid off in the end when he made a huge one vs the Blazers in 2000.

[lefty]

Horry did that shit ALL THE TIME with the Lakers. It pissed me off to no end, but paid off in the end when he made a huge one vs the Blazers in 2000.

I remember that one, it was in game 7

He also did it once of the 1994 Finals games at MSG

[timvp]

Hitting wide open jumpers because of Hakeem. They aren't even remotely in position to hit clutch jumpers without Hakeem carrying that offense for entire games.Each of those players proved to be clutch in other situations that didn't involve Hakeem. Hakeem didn't make Maxwell, Horry, Elie and Cassell clutch. The only borderline clutch one of those five is Kenny Smith ... and last time I checked he's the all-time career three-point percentage leader in playoff history.

Props to the Rockets for locating clutch players but you can't give all that credit to Hakeem. He deserves props for learning how to pass but not for creating their clutchness.


Again, the shooting numbers weren't even that impressive. And, I'd have to go back and watch those playoffs, but I'd want to re-visit them to see how often Maxwell and Kenny Smith hit clutch jumpers in that 1994 title run. Actually, I'd like to go back and see all of them because while Horry and Cassell and Elie have reputations of being clutch shooters, I'd really like to see how many each hit during that first title run. Not saying they didn't. I'm sure they hit some. But, legend sometimes skews past realities.They were all damn clutch. I watched their whole playoff run at the time and it was just sick the amount of heart and clutchness that team had. Those five clutch players stepped up whenever the chips were down.


Horry has built his clutch shooting reputation even more so with the Lakers and even the Spurs. How clutch was he with the Rockets? It's been a long time that I can't remember and say for sure. He was damn clutch then, trust me :depressed

0-for-8 or whatever it was and then steps up and knocks down the game winner :pctoss



Hakeem averaged 28.9 ppg in the 1994 playoffs. The next highest average on the team was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg.Again, Hakeem was awesome in those two seasons. No bigman in the history of the NBA was going to slow him down.

But he had damn clutch shooters. That Rocket team you are talking about had five players averaging double-digits in the playoffs ... and that's not including Sam Cassell, who at times was the second best player on the team. Duncan never had that many double-digit scorers around him.

Of course there's no way to prove it but give Duncan in his prime Thorpe, Horry, Maxwell, Cassell, Smith and Elie that team rolls. No doubling Duncan with clutch shooters at every position? Yes, please.

[Cry Havoc]

If Hakeem's Rockets had won the West or at least challenged Malone's Jazz every year, I think you could successfully say that Hakeem was just unfortunate to play in the same era as the GOAT.

I shudder to think what Timmy would have averaged for his career if he hadn't demanded double-teams from everyone in the league.

I realize that it's not as impressive numbers-wise, but I still think one of the three greatest performances (and maybe one of the best performances in any sporting finale) was Duncan's Game 7 against the Pistons in 05. Hurt, hobbled, and being double-teamed, he STILL dominated two of the best post defenders in the League to the point where they were absolutely unable to stop him.

[JamStone]

You think Steve Smith, Steve Kerr and Danny Ferry were creating their own shot? They were on the floor because of Duncan. In 2003, either Duncan embarrassed 1-on-1 coverage (see 37/16 vs L.A.) or dished it out to shooters (see near quadruple double vs NJ)

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comments about the 1994 Rockets team.



In the 2003 playoffs, Duncan lead the team in minutes played, points, rebounds, assists, blocks and was second in FG% behind DRob (the latter was reduced to taking high % shots near the rim).[QUOTE]

That's great. Hakeem did the same for the Rockets in the 1994 playoffs, except he also led the team in steals.


[QUOTE]And, if you compare the efficiency of 2003 playoff Duncan and 1994 playoff Hakeem, you need to adjust for both minutes and pace. So here's how they match up (all numbers for playoffs):

PER:
2003 Duncan: 28.4
1994 Hakeem: 27.7

True shooting %
2003 Duncan: 0.577
1994 Hakeem: 0.568

Effective FG%
2003 Duncan: 0.529
1994 Hakeem: 0.521

Total Rebounding %
2003 Duncan: 19.9%
1994 Hakeem: 14.5%

Assist %:
2003 Duncan: 25.5%
1994 Hakeem: 20.4%

Offensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 116
1994 Hakeem: 109

Defensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 92
1994 Hakeem: 97

Duncan comes out better overall, not by a crushing margin, but by a fair separation.

That's great. But, again, I don't see the relevance to my comments.

I didn't take anything away from Duncan and what he did in 2003 leading the Spurs to a championship. I merely said I'm not sure Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship, where that team counted on Hakeem to score basically 30 ppg in order for them to win.

Duncan is a great player, one of the best ever. You are assuming I'm trying to blast on Duncan in order to build up Hakeem. I'm not. What Duncan did in 2003 was nothing short of spectacular with the cast he had around him. And, I would agree that it's not at all certain that Hakeem could have done the same with that cast. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. I simply suggested an opinion that I'm also not certain that Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship either. Duncan is a great scorer and certainly capable of big scoring games. I'm not sure if he would have been able to consistently have explosive scoring nights game after game in a playoff run. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. Point was to suggest it's as uncertain as Hakeem leading the 2003 Spurs to a title.

[Brazil]

Better overall talent: Hakeem Olajuwon
Better overall player: Tim Duncan

You want to win 1-on-1 games, pick Olajuwon. You want to win team games, pick Duncan.

Olajuwon had about four superstar seasons. Apart from than that he was no different from Patrick Ewing. Duncan has been the franchise player of the most successful franchise in pro sports since he laced them up.

Duncan carried the weakest supporting cast of them all to a title in 2003 ... no other player is/was going to win an NBA title with S-Jax as his second best player. The Olajuwon Rockets OTOH had the best outside shooting supporting cast in memory.

Olajuwon led the Rockets to mediocrity in 91-92 (42 wins), 89-90 (41 wins), 88-89 (45 wins), 87-88 (46 wins), 86-87 (42 wins). In that span, the Rockets actually did better in the one season (52 wins in 90-91) when Olajuwon missed 25 games. Most of you kids remember the 93 to 95 Olajuwon who looked unstoppable. Till that point, he was considered good but not great.

Duncan on the other hand has been regarded as great from his rookie season onwards. He was already anointed the greatest at his position after only 6 years (98 to 2003) in this league! A healthy Duncan has led the Spurs to 56 games or more every year till this one, and has been contending for a ring every single year. SA has been the winningest franchise in all of sports in the Duncan era.

More rings (4 to 2), more MVPs (2 to 1), more Finals MVPs (3 to 2), more All-NBA 1st team selections (9 to 6), more All-Defensive 1st team selections (8 to 5), a vastly superior team winning % with different supporting casts.

Hakeem's prime > Duncan's prime
Duncan's overall body of work > Hakeem's overall body of work


What he said.

end of the thread

[JamStone]

Each of those players proved to be clutch in other situations that didn't involve Hakeem. Hakeem didn't make Maxwell, Horry, Elie and Cassell clutch. The only borderline clutch one of those five is Kenny Smith ... and last time I checked he's the all-time career three-point percentage leader in playoff history.

Props to the Rockets for locating clutch players but you can't give all that credit to Hakeem. He deserves props for learning how to pass but not for creating their clutchness.

Are you also suggesting as another poster did that Duncan made Parker and Ginobili the players they are?

Are you also suggesting that the 2003 Spurs didn't have any clutch shot makers? S-Jax, Steve Kerr, Ginobili, Parker (not three point shooting back then, but you couldn't leave him alone). Bruce Bowen shot 35-for-80 in the 2003 playoffs from three point range. I think it's really splitting hairs to suggest the Rockets had all these clutch shooters and the Spurs were essentially completely reliant on Tim Duncan.



They were all damn clutch. I watched their whole playoff run at the time and it was just sick the amount of heart and clutchness that team had. Those five clutch players stepped up whenever the chips were down.

He was damn clutch then, trust me :depressed

0-for-8 or whatever it was and then steps up and knocks down the game winner :pctoss

Again, the team has to be in position to get those clutch shots. Hakeem had to carry that team to be in position for those jump shooter to hit big shots.



Again, Hakeem was awesome in those two seasons. No bigman in the history of the NBA was going to slow him down.

But he had damn clutch shooters. That Rocket team you are talking about had five players averaging double-digits in the playoffs ... and that's not including Sam Cassell, who at times was the second best player on the team. Duncan never had that many double-digit scorers around him.

The 2003 Spurs played at a much slower pace than the 1994 Rockets. That 2003 Spurs team had four players average 9.3 ppg or more in the 2003 playoffs. It's again splitting hairs, especially when you consider pace of the game. Bruce Bowen hit 35 for 80 three pointers in the 2003 playoffs. Steve Kerr went 5-for-6. S-Jax and Ginobili were more chuckers but also hit their share of big shots along the way. Parker was still a lightning blur defenders couldn't stay in front of. We can go back and forth on the supporting casts, but I don't think there's a huge difference either way. The 1994 Rockets supporting cast had more "clutch shooters." The 2003 Spurs supporting cast had better individual players that could help take over the game other than just the final minutes of the fourth quarter of close games.



Of course there's no way to prove it but give Duncan in his prime Thorpe, Horry, Maxwell, Cassell, Smith and Elie that team rolls. No doubling Duncan with clutch shooters at every position? Yes, please.

And, in an era where hacks like Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason were allowed to hand check and get away with it, use two elbows in the back and rarely get called, and no defensive three seconds, so even if there was no double, the lane could be clogged, it might not be the walk in the park you imagine. I think Duncan could easily play back in that era and help lead a team to great success. But, I'm not sure he could lead a team all the way to a title, just the same way you are skeptical that Hakeem could have led the 2003 Spurs to a title.

[Warlord23]

I didn't take anything away from Duncan and what he did in 2003 leading the Spurs to a championship. I merely said I'm not sure Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship, where that team counted on Hakeem to score basically 30 ppg in order for them to win.

Duncan is a great player, one of the best ever. You are assuming I'm trying to blast on Duncan in order to build up Hakeem. I'm not. What Duncan did in 2003 was nothing short of spectacular with the cast he had around him. And, I would agree that it's not at all certain that Hakeem could have done the same with that cast. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. I simply suggested an opinion that I'm also not certain that Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship either. Duncan is a great scorer and certainly capable of big scoring games. I'm not sure if he would have been able to consistently have explosive scoring nights game after game in a playoff run. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. Point was to suggest it's as uncertain as Hakeem leading the 2003 Spurs to a title.

On the contrary, the fact that Duncan in his best title run scored, redounded and passed better than Hakeem in his best run suggests that Duncan would have been able to do at least what Hakeem did, especially with more veteran clutch shooters around him.

I'm getting the feeling that Duncan's recent injury-induced decline has played a major part in people underrating him. In fact, I did a quick search on similar threads from a year back, and here is what you had to say about the matter then:



Tim Duncan, better overall player.

Hakeem Olajuwon, better individual talent.


Link to JamStone's post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2358760&postcount=8)

2009 Duncan has been painful to watch, but that doesn't detract from his legacy. Even before this year, he has played more consistently and won more consistently than Hakeem had. That, added to the fact that his best year actually compares pretty favorably with Hakeem's best year, just emphasizes that Timmy arguably has had the better career.

[Warlord23]

Hakeem was better than Duncan at every aspect of the game with the exception of passing. It would have been a total mismatch. I have personally seen Hakeem dominate Moses, Kareem, Parish, Daugherty, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, and Robinson. When its all said and done, Hakeem was more versatile and harder to defend than any player on that list. Yes, Duncan is one of the greats, but even he would tell you he was no match for Hakeem.

I agree Hakeem would have beaten Duncan in a 1-on-1 game at their peaks. However, the argument here is about who does better if you give them a similar supporting cast. Hakeem dominating his peers was in the context of their supporting casts (i.e. Robinson playing man coverage on Hakeem, while the Rockets were able to double David; or Shaq having younger teammates compared to the veteran shooters surrounding Hakeem).

My argument is simple:

1. If you take out Hakeem's relatively short peak, his performance was not in the company of the all-time greats. I've already posted the Rockets' team records. Compare that to Duncan, whose team has been contending at a high level for a decade.

2. Hakeem's peak playoff performance in 1994 actually falls short of Duncan's peak performance in 2003.

3. Duncan has more team and individual accomplishments/awards by a fair margin.

[baseline bum]

I picked Duncan by the thinnest of margins, because I think he's a better teammate than Hakeem. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I vaguely recall some static between him and Cassell about the offense that made the Barkley trade a no-brainer. Having lived in Houston in 97-99 (and having watched most of Houston's games), I remember Hakeem and Barkley both having a hard time taking a step back and sharing the ball with the rest of the team. It's not too big a deal though; the competitive edge that makes a player incredible like Olajuwon was is never going to disappear, and no way was Hakeem ever going to shrink from the challenge of carrying a team.

I don't want it to sound too much like I'm canonizing Duncan. I know he had issues with Parker and thought Pop was nuts to pin their title hopes on a 19 year-old from France. There had to be some static with Tim pushing the FO to go after Kidd. Still, Tim has always shown the maturity to take a step back and let his teammates flourish, just like David Robinson did with him.

Lastly, I think Olajuwon would've gone to Orlando in 2000. Sometimes I'm still shocked Duncan didn't.

[JamStone]

On the contrary, the fact that Duncan in his best title run scored, redounded and passed better than Hakeem in his best run suggests that Duncan would have been able to do at least what Hakeem did, especially with more veteran clutch shooters around him.

I'm getting the feeling that Duncan's recent injury-induced decline has played a major part in people underrating him. In fact, I did a quick search on similar threads from a year back, and here is what you had to say about the matter then:

I don't underrate Duncan. Even in the quote below, you see that I have had very high regard for Duncan and his career and his legacy. Hakeem was a more explosive, potent scorer than Duncan. That is something you cannot argue. Hakeem was able to consistently score 30+ ppg for entire title runs. I still don't know if Duncan could do that if he was called upon all the way to a championship. He may. He may not.




Link to JamStone's post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2358760&postcount=8)

2009 Duncan has been painful to watch, but that doesn't detract from his legacy. Even before this year, he has played more consistently and won more consistently than Hakeem had. That, added to the fact that his best year actually compares pretty favorably with Hakeem's best year, just emphasizes that Timmy arguably has had the better career.

Again, goes to show you that I don't underrate him. Tim's career does compare favorably. And, Duncan was more of a winner throughout his career than Hakeem was. It's true Tim Duncan has arguably had a better overall career than Hakeem. Hakeem in his prime was better than Duncan in his prime.

That does not refute my original comments in this thread. I'm not convinced Duncan leads the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship. My glowing comments about Duncan's career do not contradict that.

[sook]

Whats funny is these same Spurs fans would be arguing a case for Robinson being better than Hakeem, but we all saw what happened when they met in their primes.

For someone to come on here and say Hakeem's career is similiar to Dirk, or Amare's is insane... flat out insane. The argument Spurs fans have for Duncan being better than Hakeem is about as rediculous as the one Lakers fans have for Kobe being better than Jordan. Infact, its even worse. If Kobe and Jordan went head to head in their primes, I have no doubt Jordan would get the best of Kobe, but Kobe would still get his. He would have been Jordans toughest cover by far. If Duncan and Hakeem went head to head in their primes, Hakeem would destroy Duncan, just like he did Robinson.

Hakeem was better than Duncan at every aspect of the game with the exception of passing. It would have been a total mismatch. I have personally seen Hakeem dominate Moses, Kareem, Parish, Daugherty, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, and Robinson. When its all said and done, Hakeem was more versatile and harder to defend than any player on that list. Yes, Duncan is one of the greats, but even he would tell you he was no match for Hakeem.
Hakeem was so effective outside of the scoring realm, like I said, YOU HAD TO WATCH HIM PLAY.
He would score on one end and be the first one down the court to contest a shot. I can only ponder what the sampson/Hakeem combo could have accomplished, that was the greatest rockets team ever.

[sook]

I picked Duncan by the thinnest of margins, because I think he's a better teammate than Hakeem. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I vaguely recall some static between him and Cassell about the offense that made the Barkley trade a no-brainer. Having lived in Houston in 97-99 (and having watched most of Houston's games), I remember Hakeem and Barkley both having a hard time taking a step back and sharing the ball with the rest of the team. It's not too big a deal though; the competitive edge that makes a player incredible like Olajuwon was is never going to disappear, and no way was Hakeem ever going to shrink from the challenge of carrying a team.

I don't want it to sound too much like I'm canonizing Duncan. I know he had issues with Parker and thought Pop was nuts to pin their title hopes on a 19 year-old from France. There had to be some static with Tim pushing the FO to go after Kidd. Still, Tim has always shown the maturity to take a step back and let his teammates flourish, just like David Robinson did with him.

Lastly, I think Olajuwon would've gone to Orlando in 2000. Sometimes I'm still shocked Duncan didn't.

Hakeem was washed up when they got Barkley. He wasn't anything close to what he was in 95', even then he was in his 30s

[sook]

And Barkley was washed up too

[DPG21920]

I don't underrate Duncan. Even in the quote below, you see that I have had very high regard for Duncan and his career and his legacy. Hakeem was a more explosive, potent scorer than Duncan. That is something you cannot argue. Hakeem was able to consistently score 30+ ppg for entire title runs. I still don't know if Duncan could do that if he was called upon all the way to a championship. He may. He may not.





Again, goes to show you that I don't underrate him. Tim's career does compare favorably. And, Duncan was more of a winner throughout his career than Hakeem was. It's true Tim Duncan has arguably had a better overall career than Hakeem. Hakeem in his prime was better than Duncan in his prime.

That does not refute my original comments in this thread. I'm not convinced Duncan leads the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship. My glowing comments about Duncan's career do not contradict that.

I do not think that is arguable. As previously stated, Hakeems prime (short lived) > Duncan's, but career not even close.

[Tmac&Luther]

The fact that the voting is pretty much 50/50 on a "SPURS MESSAGE BOARD", speaks volumes and tells you all you need to know. :toast

[baseline bum]

The fact that the voting is pretty much 50/50 on a "SPURS MESSAGE BOARD", speaks volumes and tells you all you need to know. :toast

Yeah, with half the votes by Rocket fans.

[JamStone]

I do not think that is arguable. As previously stated, Hakeems prime (short lived) > Duncan's, but career not even close.

I still believe it's arguable. If you factor in team success, Duncan wins hands down. But, if you're talking about which had the better individual career, it's still very debatable.

Some of you act like outside of the 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons, Hakeem was an average player. In his first 13 seasons, even if you take out those two championship years, Hakeem was right around 22 ppg, 11-12 rpg, 3 bpg, 51% FG shooting, and he was an all league defender. Again, factor in team success, and it's Duncan no doubt. Talk about individual player, it's very much open for debate.

I'd also like to point something else out. Someone suggested that Tim Duncan in his prime would never let his team not make the playoffs, criticizing Hakeem for the 1991-92 Rockets team failing to make it to the playoffs. Noteworthy is that Hakeem missed 12 games that season and the Rockets were 2-10 without him. They ended up with a 42-40 record and 9th place in the conference. The 8th seed in the Western Conference that year were the LA Lakers with a record of 43-39. The Rockets missing the playoffs that year is very much an indictment on Hakeem's supporting cast. In 2004-05, Tim Duncan missed 16 games and the Spurs went 9-7 in those games he missed. In 2003-04, Duncan missed 13 games and the Spurs went 6-7 in those games Duncan missed. The Spurs supporting cast could manage to be around .500 without Duncan. That 1991-92 Rockets team had a 16.7% winning percentage

[Tmac&Luther]

Yeah, with half the votes by Rocket fans.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.......this is Duncan's home turf, not Hakeem's.

[DPG21920]

I still believe it's arguable. If you factor in team success, Duncan wins hands down. But, if you're talking about which had the better individual career, it's still very debatable.

Some of you act like outside of the 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons, Hakeem was an average player. In his first 13 seasons, even if you take out those two championship years, Hakeem was right around 22 ppg, 11-12 rpg, 3 bpg, 51% FG shooting, and he was an all league defender. Again, factor in team success, and it's Duncan no doubt. Talk about individual player, it's very much open for debate.

I'd also like to point something else out. Someone suggested that Tim Duncan in his prime would never let his team not make the playoffs, criticizing Hakeem for the 1991-92 Rockets team failing to make it to the playoffs. Noteworthy is that Hakeem missed 12 games that season and the Rockets were 2-10 without him. They ended up with a 42-40 record and 9th place in the conference. The 8th seed in the Western Conference that year were the LA Lakers with a record of 43-39. The Rockets missing the playoffs that year is very much an indictment on Hakeem's supporting cast. In 2004-05, Tim Duncan missed 16 games and the Spurs went 9-7 in those games he missed. In 2003-04, Duncan missed 13 games and the Spurs went 6-7 in those games Duncan missed. The Spurs supporting cast could manage to be around .500 without Duncan. That 1991-92 Rockets team had a 16.7% winning percentage

Yes, but in those years the Spurs were 60 wins and 57 wins and were in no danger of not making the playoffs. Duncan put them in that spot. Hakeem, if he was as good outside of his "peak" should have had his team closer.

[baseline bum]

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.......this is Duncan's home turf, not Hakeem's.

We get it; ' 95 is all you all have.

[Blake]

Whats funny is these same Spurs fans would be arguing a case for Robinson being better than Hakeem, but we all saw what happened when they met in their primes.

Fail.

I don't know any real Spurs fans that believe Robinson was better than Hakeem.


For someone to come on here and say Hakeem's career is similiar to Dirk, or Amare's is insane... flat out insane. The argument Spurs fans have for Duncan being better than Hakeem is about as rediculous as the one Lakers fans have for Kobe being better than Jordan. Infact, its even worse. If Kobe and Jordan went head to head in their primes, I have no doubt Jordan would get the best of Kobe, but Kobe would still get his. He would have been Jordans toughest cover by far. If Duncan and Hakeem went head to head in their primes, Hakeem would destroy Duncan, just like he did Robinson.

Hakeem would destroy anyone.


Hakeem was better than Duncan at every aspect of the game with the exception of passing. It would have been a total mismatch. I have personally seen Hakeem dominate Moses, Kareem, Parish, Daugherty, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, and Robinson. When its all said and done, Hakeem was more versatile and harder to defend than any player on that list. Yes, Duncan is one of the greats, but even he would tell you he was no match for Hakeem.

in his prime yes, career wise no.

Duncan is getting severely underestimated in here on his outside shooting, passing and post moves.

Duncan is easily the smarter of the two players........arguably one of the top 5 smartest NBA players of all time.

[JamStone]

Yes, but in those years the Spurs were 60 wins and 57 wins and were in no danger of not making the playoffs. Duncan put them in that spot. Hakeem, if he was as good outside of his "peak" should have had his team closer.

Ummm, so you're saying Duncan is a one man team? Come on now.

Those Spurs teams weren't in danger of missing the playoffs because they were good teams even without Duncan. The Rockets missed the playoffs because they were not a good team without Hakeem and were dependent on Hakeem.

40-30 with Hakeem. 2-10 without Hakeem.

[JamStone]

Blake, what would your list be for top ten players in NBA history?

[mavs>spurs2]

To me team success doesn't hold as much merit when they're both proven winners. That just shows who had the ball bounce slightly more their way or who had the better role players. Let's not forget Parker is regarded as the best pg in the world by many of you spur fans and Ginobili is an international ball legend. As far as individual's go, Hakeem has more impact on the game at both ends. There's a reason Duncan never guarded Shaq, Dirk, Amare went off for 40ppg that one series, etc. Hakeem is better offensively and a landslide defensively, while Duncan makes up some ground in leadership qualities and team defense. But looking at the two as individuals with no bias, I've got to take Hakeem every time, although I despise the Rockets.

[Blake]

In fact, I did a quick search on similar threads from a year back, and here is what you had to say about the matter then:






Tim Duncan, better overall player.

Hakeem Olajuwon, better individual talent.


:lol

[DPG21920]

Ummm, so you're saying Duncan is a one man team? Come on now.

Those Spurs teams weren't in danger of missing the playoffs because they were good teams even without Duncan. The Rockets missed the playoffs because they were not a good team without Hakeem and were dependent on Hakeem.

40-30 with Hakeem. 2-10 without Hakeem.

Come on Jam, how can you infer that I said the Spurs were a one man team from my comments? I simply said it is not fair to compare games missed, when the teams had their star players at full strength for similar amounts of time and one had so many more wins.

You cannot tell me that Duncan did not have more to do with that than his "team".

[mavs>spurs2]

Hakeem would destroy anyone.

in his prime yes, career wise no.

Exactly, Hakeem destroyed everyone in his path and although Duncan did it for more years and was more consistant, no one in this modern era was better than Hakeem during those few peak years outside of Jordan and Magic.

[mavs>spurs2]

My top big men list looks something like:

1. Hakeem
2. Shaq
3. Wilt*
4. Russel*
5. Jabbar
6. Duncan

* meaning I don't think these 2 would have dominated this era quite like they did in their own, it's hard to gauge how good they would be today, but this is my guess.

[Blake]

Blake, what would your list be for top ten players in NBA history?

what does it have to do with duncan>hakeem?

in no particular order:

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Shaq
Moses
Russell
10 Oscar
10a Dr J

[Blake]

Exactly, Hakeem destroyed everyone in his path and although Duncan did it for more years and was more consistant, no one in this modern era was better than Hakeem during those few peak years outside of Jordan and Magic.

Great, we agree.

duncan's level of play over his career was greater than Hakeem's while Hakeem had one nice quick run.

Duncan>Hakeem.

[JamStone]

what does it have to do with duncan>hakeem?

in no particular order:

Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Shaq
Moses
Russell
10 Oscar
10a Dr J

Do you think Bill Russell was a better player than Tim Duncan is?

[Blake]

To me team success doesn't hold as much merit when they're both proven winners.

fail.

Duncan is a proven winner: 50 wins every year.

Hakeem.......not so much.


That just shows who had the ball bounce slightly more their way or who had the better role players. Let's not forget Parker is regarded as the best pg in the world by many of you spur fans and Ginobili is an international ball legend. As far as individual's go, Hakeem has more impact on the game at both ends. There's a reason Duncan never guarded Shaq, Dirk, Amare went off for 40ppg that one series, etc. Hakeem is better offensively and a landslide defensively, while Duncan makes up some ground in leadership qualities and team defense. But looking at the two as individuals with no bias, I've got to take Hakeem every time, although I despise the Rockets.

I guess you failed to read where we went over this.

Duncan actually always did guard Shaq and Amare in the 4th quarter when it counted.

[Blake]

Do you think Bill Russell was a better player than Tim Duncan is?

yup. get to the point.

[JamStone]

Come on Jam, how can you infer that I said the Spurs were a one man team from my comments? I simply said it is not fair to compare games missed, when the teams had their star players at full strength for similar amounts of time and one had so many more wins.

You cannot tell me that Duncan did not have more to do with that than his "team".

You said:


Yes, but in those years the Spurs were 60 wins and 57 wins and were in no danger of not making the playoffs. Duncan put them in that spot. Hakeem, if he was as good outside of his "peak" should have had his team closer.

As if it was all on Duncan getting them that record.

And, sure it was fair to compare the games missed. It showed how important Hakeem was to that 91-92 Rockets team that went 2-10 without him and missed the playoffs by 1 game. Me bringing up Tim Duncan and those two seasons where he missed several games was just to show how the Spurs had a pretty good team even without him.

I was refuting the contention that Tim Duncan would have never allowed his team to miss the playoffs in his prime. I think making or missing the playoffs and the regular season record of a team are products of the team. It doesn't go on the shoulders of one player.

[Blake]

And Barkley was washed up too

nope. he was an all star and averaged 19 and 15.

[Blake]

Hakeem was washed up when they got Barkley. He wasn't anything close to what he was in 95', even then he was in his 30s

Hakeem was still option #1 that Barkley deferred to and they made it to the WCF

[mavs>spurs2]

Great, we agree.

duncan's level of play over his career was greater than Hakeem's while Hakeem had one nice quick run.

Duncan>Hakeem.

Nope, that's only somewhat true. When I look at a player I remember to when they were at their best, not when they were up and coming or over the hill. For several years Hakeem did it better than Duncan or pretty much anyone.

[JamStone]

yup. get to the point.

I wanted to see if you would continue to follow your logic, and you did.

Personally, I think Tim Duncan is a better player than Bill Russell. Russell was the better winner in an era that was not nearly as competitive, but I think Duncan is the better player.

I'm surprised you feel Russell was better.

[DPG21920]

You said:



As if it was all on Duncan getting them that record.

And, sure it was fair to compare the games missed. It showed how important Hakeem was to that 91-92 Rockets team that went 2-10 without him and missed the playoffs by 1 game. Me bringing up Tim Duncan and those two seasons where he missed several games was just to show how the Spurs had a pretty good team even without him.

I was refuting the contention that Tim Duncan would have never allowed his team to miss the playoffs in his prime. I think making or missing the playoffs and the regular season record of a team are products of the team. It doesn't go on the shoulders of one player.

Then how can you point to Hakeem saying he was more important to his team if it does not rest on one players shoulders?

Just because I said Duncan got them there, does not mean there was no one else, but he was the most dominant/best player on the team. He did lead them.

[mavs>spurs2]

I guess you failed to read where we went over this.

Duncan actually always did guard Shaq and Amare in the 4th quarter when it counted.

Nope, but that's somewhat of a crutch because Duncan simply isn't capable of guarding those type of players all game long, he'd foul out. By sticking him on them in crunch time you're relying on the fact that the ref is reluctant to foul out a hall of famer and he can get away with more.

And as far as Amare, he averaged 40ppg on Duncan the last time he guarded him for an entire series back in 2005. We all see how that went

[Lars]

It is not even close.

Duncan played in a weak era of basketball. The only decent team he ever faced was Shaq and Kobes Lakers. His dominance in this era causes people to overate him.

Hakeem played in one of the toughest. The Sonics, Suns, Spurs, Bulls and Jazz of the 90s would dominate in the league today. Hakeem led his team past 3 consecutive 60 win teams, all of which were vastly superior to any team Duncan had to face in his reign (outside LA)

[JamStone]

Then how can you point to Hakeem saying he was more important to his team if it does not rest on one players shoulders?

Just because I said Duncan got them there, does not mean there was no one else, but he was the most dominant/best player on the team. He did lead them.

Huh? I can say Hakeem was extremely important to the team without saying making or missing the playoffs was only on his shoulders. That was the point. It's still a team game. It still takes a team to win games and to have success. So the point I was arguing that "Tim Duncan would never allow his team to miss the playoffs in his prime" is something I feel has little merit because while individual player might be very important for the team, it's not only on one single player to win games and get their teams to the playoffs.

[DPG21920]

At some point, you have to look at when they were healthy and Tim's win percentage was higher than Hakeem's. That is more Tim than his team.

Tim won more games for his team than Hakeem did and willed them to the playoffs. He put his team in better spots so that if he did miss time, they could still make the playoffs.

It is a cop out to pull the "team wins" card, but then try and argue one player being better than another on an individual basis. You are essentially giving Tim no credit, and saying his team made the playoffs because his team was better than Hakeem's.

[Bob Lanier]

More or less even. Olajuwon was better at scoring and defense; Duncan was better at rebounding and passing. Neither had too many weaknesses.

I haven't seen a credible analysis of specific strengths or weaknesses in either's game that led to a difference in team success - and I reject timvp's magical thinking about "clutchness" of teammates entirely.

Neither is on Kareem or Wilt's level, but they aren't far behind, and I'd take either ahead of any other center you care to name.

[Cry Havoc]

It is not even close.

Duncan played in a weak era of basketball. The only decent team he ever faced was Shaq and Kobes Lakers. His dominance in this era causes people to overate him.

Hakeem played in one of the toughest. The Sonics, Suns, Spurs, Bulls and Jazz of the 90s would dominate in the league today. Hakeem led his team past 3 consecutive 60 win teams, all of which were vastly superior to any team Duncan had to face in his reign (outside LA)

:lmao

This is the most homerrific post in the thread. The SPURS of the 90s would have dominated the Spurs in any of their championship seasons? Really?

Wow. :lmao

[baseline bum]

It is not even close.

Duncan played in a weak era of basketball. The only decent team he ever faced was Shaq and Kobes Lakers. His dominance in this era causes people to overate him.

Hakeem played in one of the toughest. The Sonics, Suns, Spurs, Bulls and Jazz of the 90s would dominate in the league today. Hakeem led his team past 3 consecutive 60 win teams, all of which were vastly superior to any team Duncan had to face in his reign (outside LA)

The Bulls were never Olajuwon's competition, since they played each other twice a year. :lmao

Suns? Only the 93 team would have a shot at title right now. The Jazz had their chance to dominate when Jordan retired, and they barely escaped the first round and then Karl Malone became an even greater pussy in the Portland series. Sonics? The same team that blew a series to a horrible Denver team is going to come and regulate against the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics of this decade? 95 Spurs? With Rodman pouting and not playing D?

You gotta be kidding me. 1994 was an incredibly weak year for the league. That Knicks team was awful; what kind of scoring did they have on that team? They still took you to 7 with Ewing playing one of the worst series of his career. Why were you even talking about the Sonics as competition when Denver took care of the job for you?

[JamStone]

At some point, you have to look at when they were healthy and Tim's win percentage was higher than Hakeem's. That is more Tim than his team.

Tim won more games for his team than Hakeem did and willed them to the playoffs. He put his team in better spots so that if he did miss time, they could still make the playoffs.

It is a cop out to pull the "team wins" card, but then try and argue one player being better than another on an individual basis. You are essentially giving Tim no credit, and saying his team made the playoffs because his team was better than Hakeem's.

That's an inaccurate representation of what I was saying.

I haven't been discrediting Tim Duncan. I gave an example of how Tim Duncan had a better team around him than Hakeem did, particularly in the 1991-92 season when the Rockets missed the playoffs. Once again, you are putting it on Tim Duncan, saying he won more games for his team than Hakeem did and willed them to the playoffs. Again, giving the credit to Tim Duncan.

It's not a cop out to say the team wins games and then argue which player is better individually. Winning games and winning championships is on an entire team. Being the better individual player is about individual players. Not a cop out. Not a contradiction.

It's not about not giving Tim credit. It's about showing that one player alone does not win games or gets all or even the majority of the credit for taking a team to the playoffs or gets all or the majority of the blame for his team missing the playoffs. It being on the team as a whole is precisely what I've been arguing, and that's why to me a team missing the playoffs by one game in a season they went 2-10 without that player isn't a strike against how good or bad that player is.

[sook]

nope. he was an all star and averaged 19 and 15.

Hmmm thats funny, especially when Barkley admitted it?!?!? :lol Self ownage

[Many PackYao]

The Bulls were never Olajuwon's competition, since they played each other twice a year. :lmao

Suns? Only the 93 team would have a shot at title right now. The Jazz had their chance to dominate when Jordan retired, and they barely escaped the first round and then Karl Malone became an even greater pussy in the Portland series. Sonics? The same team that blew a series to a horrible Denver team is going to come and regulate against the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics of this decade? 95 Spurs? With Rodman pouting and not playing D?

You gotta be kidding me. 1994 was an incredibly weak year for the league. That Knicks team was awful; what kind of scoring did they have on that team? They still took you to 7 with Ewing playing one of the worst series of his career. Why were you even talking about the Sonics as competition when Denver took care of the job for you?
The Rockets were 2-2 against the Sonics that year. The Rockets did not match up well with them when they gave up Thorpe for Clyde in '95.

[Lars]

The Bulls were never Olajuwon's competition, since they played each other twice a year. :lmao

Suns? Only the 93 team would have a shot at title right now. The Jazz had their chance to dominate when Jordan retired, and they barely escaped the first round and then Karl Malone became an even greater pussy in the Portland series. Sonics? The same team that blew a series to a horrible Denver team is going to come and regulate against the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics of this decade? 95 Spurs? With Rodman pouting and not playing D?

You gotta be kidding me. 1994 was an incredibly weak year for the league. That Knicks team was awful; what kind of scoring did they have on that team? They still took you to 7 with Ewing playing one of the worst series of his career. Why were you even talking about the Sonics as competition when Denver took care of the job for you?

Son listen, I know you want to feel special for your guy. I understand where you are coming from. Tim Duncan is fantastic, he really is. Great game, few weaknesses, great personality. But he just isn't as good as you think he is. He was a man amongst boys in his years. He was one of 2-3 legitimate big men in the league. If he came into the league in 89, he is winning zero championships and zero mvps.

The era of bigmen in the nineties and quality of teams and far and away more competitive then the collection of vaginas that have run rampant in the league for the past ten years.

I can't even begin to fathom what Hakeem would do if he came into the league in 99. Who would fucking guard him? He would average 40-15-5. Look at what Dwight Howard averages and he has zero post up game.

[mavs>spurs2]

Son listen, I know you want to feel special for your guy. I understand where you are coming from. Tim Duncan is fantastic, he really is. Great game, few weaknesses, great personality. But he just isn't as good as you think he is. He was a man amongst boys in his years. He was one of 2-3 legitimate big men in the league. If he came into the league in 89, he is winning zero championships and zero mvps.

The era of bigmen in the nineties and quality of teams and far and away more competitive then the collection of vaginas that have run rampant in the league for the past ten years.

I can't even begin to fathom what Hakeem would do if he came into the league in 99. Who would fucking guard him? He would average 40-15-5. Look at what Dwight Howard averages and he has zero post up game.

I agree but most won't see it that way

[Tmac&Luther]

More or less even. Olajuwon was better at scoring and defense; Duncan was better at rebounding and passing. Neither had too many weaknesses.

The only thing Duncan is better at is assists........and that's it. (and it's not even a huge # difference)

Hakeem Olajuwon > at

man to man defense
team defense
shot blocking...........he's one of the best defensive players that ever played, the man could've had a HOF career on that end of the court alone

offensive skills...post play (one of the best alltime there too) and a better shooter.
and a better rebounder, yes a better rebounder (right now there career averages are dead even, but don't forget Hakeem played until he was 39, we'll see how far Duncan's numbers fall is he plays that long. Duncan hasn't rebounded at or above his career average since he was 27 years old......at 27 Hakeem was pulling down 14 boards a game.

from start of career to the age of 32 Hakeem averaged 12.4 boards a game....Duncan, 11.7.

[Killakobe81]

I think it's somewhat unfair to talk about Hakeem having only 1 League MVP compared to Duncan's 2 in so much as had the bulk of Duncan's career in his prime spanned over the careers of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, Duncan would have also been hard pressed to win multiple League MVPs. It would be a similar criticism to say Duncan is no where near Hakeem defensively, otherwise Duncan would have at least one DPOY. Hakeem has two.

Barkley put everything into his first year at Houston, but there's no denying that he was not the player he was even just a couple years before joining the Rockets. And, Drexler was the same way. Both still pretty good players, but not the superstar players they were earlier in their career. That said, except for maybe a couple seasons, David Robinson was very much in his decline as well for most of his time with Tim Duncan.

I think it's close. But for me, I would take Hakeem and not think twice about it. I think he was better at both ends of the court. Where Duncan probably beats Hakeem is his team play. Duncan to me is the better team player. Hakeem is the better individual player. But, you really can't go wrong either way.

Now THAT is the Jamstone I remember ...insightful fair and honest. Hakeem in a close race for me as well ..if we go to the question of "franchise" Id take tim for the consistency of his greatness and less ego ...

But if i had to win one game or series and i had to go to war with one or the other It's hakeem in a cakewalk his best was better than duncan's best or Shaq's he just wasnt as dominant for as long but ask the Spurs, Sonics etc. in the playoffs who was more dominant? Hakeem the "Dream" ...

[Tmac&Luther]

Hakeem was dominant throughout his career (knocking off the showtime Lakers in only his second season), the only thing that wasn't was the talent around him.......if Ralph doesn't become chronically injured and if his teammates don't let their careers go down the drain because of drug use, this isn't even a debate.

And I'd still love to hear how Duncan is a "better team player" I guess you get that award when you play on "better teams". Go ask the players Hakeem played with, they'll tell you who the "best team player" was. Hakeem never put his self before any of his teammates and I don't know where this "ego" talk came from. Hakeem doesn't even know what a "ego" is. You couldn't ever meet a more humble individual. Some people that are posting in this thread probably never even saw the guy play ball, because some of the stuff they're typing is completely off the wall

[Killakobe81]

Another point here ...Coaching. Duncan has had same coach same front-office. pop does NOT get enough credit for coaching the team around Duncan's strengths and he and RC getting players that complement him well ...the barkley Pippen experiment was one of those Stever kerr Isiah thomas specials where you just collect talent but don't complememnt the star well ...Spurs have donme that for Most of duncan's career the 3 peat Lakers, pistons and Celts last year did a good job of this for short stretches ...Duncan has benefited from this his WHOLE career ...

Look duncan is my all-time PF ...and only behind Kareem and Hakeem in my big man pantheon ...(he edges out SHAQ)
But if you put Kareem Shaq Duncan and Hakeem at their peaks ...duncan may not even beat out Shaq ...but I would take duncan over Shaq for his consistency and leadership ...for the long haul. I have said this many times ...
Kareem is the best because he was bad ass at his peak yet did it well for many years ...

[Cry Havoc]

from start of career to the age of 32 Hakeem averaged 12.4 boards a game....Duncan, 11.7.

Duncan would average 20 boards a game playing for the Feenix Sons. Just saying that pace matters and if you're going to bandy on about stats, Spurs fans are going to come back with titles and mvp talk.

[Killakobe81]

One last thought watch the dream or his profile on NBA team and watch the plays where he chases down Rod strickland or blocks 3 straight shots ...Hakeem made blocks like the one everyone was gushing about Lebron made on Ray allen on Sunday every other night!
Look im a laker fan and as a youngun he made me cry when he led the rox over my lakers in '86 ...but game recognizes game Hakeem had playoffs and seasons much like what Lebron is doing in a tougher era sorry but Hakeem is better ...Duncan is the best big man since though ...BUT SHaq at his best was more dominant as well ...

[Bob Lanier]

and a better rebounder, yes a better rebounder (right now there career averages are dead even, but don't forget Hakeem played until he was 39
Hakeem's peak as a rebounder was from about 1988 to 1993, the same years during which he was at his peak defensively. And yes, during those four years, he was about 5% more efficient a rebounder than Duncan typically is - he was at the height of his athletic ability and that was always better than was Duncan's.

But during his offensive peak in the early-mid 90s, he was worse at rebounding than Duncan has ever been, save for the 2008 season. It's this disjointed inconsistency that leads me to favor Duncan in this area: Duncan is a career 18.4% rebounder, and tends to vary in between 17.6 and 19.6; Olajuwon is a career 17.2% rebounder, but varies -- during his young and peak years, ignoring the declining ones of the late '90s -- from 14.5 to 19.9.

Another part of this is that Duncan is inarguably the better defensive rebounder, while Olajuwon boosts his rebounding totals with his superior work on the offensive glass. Not that offensive rebounding isn't important - clearly it is - but I'd rate it less so than defensive glass work.

[Tmac&Luther]

Duncan would average 20 boards a game playing for the Feenix Sons. Just saying that pace matters and if you're going to bandy on about stats, Spurs fans are going to come back with titles and mvp talk.

Sorry, but that doesn't work either.

Go pull up the rebounding stats of Ralph Sampson, Otis Thorpe, and Charles Barkley when they played here......that's who Olajuwon had to compete with every night. Duncan had a beat up Robinson and Rodman was pretty much the only other double digit threat. Do you know how many boards a game he'd grab playing next to Oberto?

[Tmac&Luther]

Hakeem's peak as a rebounder was from about 1988 to 1993, the same years during which he was at his peak defensively. And yes, during those four years, he was about 5% more efficient a rebounder than Duncan typically is - he was at the height of his athletic ability and that was always better than was Duncan's.

But during his offensive peak in the early-mid 90s, he was worse at rebounding than Duncan has ever been, save for the 2008 season. It's this disjointed inconsistency that leads me to favor Duncan in this area: Duncan is a career 18.4% rebounder, and tends to vary in between 17.6 and 19.6; Olajuwon is a career 17.2% rebounder, but varies -- during his young and peak years, ignoring the declining ones of the late '90s -- from 14.5 to 19.9.

Another part of this is that Duncan is inarguably the better defensive rebounder, while Olajuwon boosts his rebounding totals with his superior work on the offensive glass. Not that offensive rebounding isn't important - clearly it is - but I'd rate it less so than defensive glass work.


read above please.....Duncan never really played with other rebounding bigs. Hakeem would be free to suck everything up as well.

[Killakobe81]

read above please.....Duncan never really played with other rebounding bigs. Hakeem would be free to suck everything up as well.

Another point mising here HAkeem was the FAR more AGressive shot blocker ...anyone that knows ball knows that if you are shotblocking you will miss some rebound opportunities ...Duncan is great position defender and to be honest sometimes Hakeem's gamblesfor steals and blocks left his team vulnerable Tim rarely ever does that but because Hakeem intimidated opponents in way duncan never has (he is respected more but not feared) I say hakeem is still the better rebounder ... if i needed 1 rebound or loose ball to be sntached Id much rather have hakeem geting after it than duncan ..sorry.

[baseline bum]

Son listen, I know you want to feel special for your guy. I understand where you are coming from. Tim Duncan is fantastic, he really is. Great game, few weaknesses, great personality. But he just isn't as good as you think he is. He was a man amongst boys in his years. He was one of 2-3 legitimate big men in the league. If he came into the league in 89, he is winning zero championships and zero mvps.

The era of bigmen in the nineties and quality of teams and far and away more competitive then the collection of vaginas that have run rampant in the league for the past ten years.

I can't even begin to fathom what Hakeem would do if he came into the league in 99. Who would fucking guard him? He would average 40-15-5. Look at what Dwight Howard averages and he has zero post up game.

Son? Go fuck yourself. No way Olajuwon would put up the same numbers in this much slower league with better D than was seen in the 90s.

[baseline bum]

read above please.....Duncan never really played with other rebounding bigs. Hakeem would be free to suck everything up as well.

What the fuck?

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/david_robinson/index.html

[Ghazi]

This is like comparing Jordan and Kobe. Both guys had all the tools but one was just a little more versatile, a little more driven. Hakeem has the better career stats, but Duncan has the titles, and still has tiime to get more. If I had to say Hakeem had one glaring strength over Duncan, it would be speed and defense.

You cant lose with either one of these guys, but I would take Hakeem if I had to choose.

Actually, no it's not. Kobe couldn't hold Jordan's jockstrap, Hakeem could hold Tim's.

[Warlord23]

Listen you stat-quoting idiots, when you compare players across eras (or even in the same era for that matter), you have to adjust for pace and minutes played.

Let's take a look at the top PERs for Duncan and Hakeem:

Hakeem:
27.31 (92-93), 25.98 (94-95), 25.52 (95-96), 25.29 (93-94), 25.17 (88-89), 24.30 (90-91), 24.17 (85-86), 24.14 (89-90), 23.84 (86-87), 23.66 (91-92)

Duncan:
27.06 (03-04), 27.04 (04-05), 27.01 (01-02), 26.93 (02-03), 26.12 (06-07), 24.78 (99-00), 24.35 (07-08), 24.26 (08-09), 23.83 (00-01)

As you can see, Duncan has 5 seasons with a PER over 26, while Hakeem has only 1.

Duncan's PER in the current (08-09) season on a pair of bum knees is better than Hakeem's season PERs for 85-86, 86-87, 89-90, 91-92 and almost the same as 90-91.

Hakeem is an underachiever, period. He happened to play 3-4 great seasons which you wide-eyed kids gobbled up, and are now treating him like some kind of all-time great. You take out those 2 championship years and nobody would have put him in the 50 greatest players.

Duncan beats Hakeem statistically.
Duncan beats Hakeem in rings.
Duncan beats Hakeem in total wins
Duncan beats Hakeem in playoff appearances.
Duncan beats Hakeem in All-NBA selections.
Duncan beats Hakeem in All-Defensive selections.
Duncan beats Hakeem in MVPs.
Duncan beats Hakeem in Finals MVPs.

Duncan beats Hakeem on every parameter that counts.

[baseline bum]

Robinson was playing on the level of a Lamar Odom when Duncan came into the league. Otis Thorpe, Ralph Sampson, and Barkley were rebounding machines.

LOL.. Robinson wasn't a good rebounder averaging 10.6, 10.0, 9.6, 8.6, 8.3, and 7.9 playing with Duncan?

[Warlord23]

Also, about the rebounding argument, Duncan is better and it isn't close if you adjust it for pace and minutes.

# of seasons with Total rebounding % > 18%

Duncan has 9
Hakeem has 5

Not ... even .... close.

[JamStone]

In the 2007-08 season, Amare Stoudemire had a higher PER than Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitzki. That's all you need to know about the PER statistic.

[Killakobe81]

Listen you stat-quoting idiots, when you compare players across eras (or even in the same era for that matter), you have to adjust for pace and minutes played.

Let's take a look at the top PERs for Duncan and Hakeem:

Hakeem:
27.31 (92-93), 25.98 (94-95), 25.52 (95-96), 25.29 (93-94), 25.17 (88-89), 24.30 (90-91), 24.17 (85-86), 24.14 (89-90), 23.84 (86-87), 23.66 (91-92)

Duncan:
27.06 (03-04), 27.04 (04-05), 27.01 (01-02), 26.93 (02-03), 26.12 (06-07), 24.78 (99-00), 24.35 (07-08), 24.26 (08-09), 23.83 (00-01)

As you can see, Duncan has 5 seasons with a PER over 26, while Hakeem has only 1.

Duncan's PER in the current (08-09) season on a pair of bum knees is better than Hakeem's season PERs for 85-86, 86-87, 89-90, 91-92 and almost the same as 90-91.

Hakeem is an underachiever, period. He happened to play 3-4 great seasons which you wide-eyed kids gobbled up, and are now treating him like some kind of all-time great. You take out those 2 championship years and nobody would have put him in the 50 greatest players.

Duncan beats Hakeem statistically.
Duncan beats Hakeem in rings.
Duncan beats Hakeem in total wins
Duncan beats Hakeem in playoff appearances.
Duncan beats Hakeem in All-NBA selections.
Duncan beats Hakeem in All-Defensive selections.
Duncan beats Hakeem in MVPs.
Duncan beats Hakeem in Finals MVPs.

Duncan beats Hakeem on every parameter that counts.
Thank you John Hollinger ...
But if you go by PER Robinson is better center than Hakeem or Shaq but we ALL know that is NOT the case when the playoffs hit ...
Duncan has Had the better career no doubt about it ...but Hakeem was better at his best no way duncan could destroy the 2nd best center and the 3rd best center (or power forward) the way he beat out Robinson and Ewing on his way to the title...

[JamStone]

Lol stats manipulating.

[Warlord23]

So for dumbass/insecure Rocket fans and Spur haters, when comparing any 2 players:

- Look at PER for efficiency/dominance (Duncan wins)
- Look at Total Rebounding % for Rebounding (Duncan wins)
- Look at Offensive rating for Offense (Duncan wins)
- Look at Defensive rating for Defense (Hakeem wins)

Hakeem was a statistically better defender, everywhere else Tim beats him handily. Adjust for pace and minutes and Duncan is better overall.

[Killakobe81]

In the 2007-08 season, Amare Stoudemire had a higher PER than Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitzki. That's all you need to know about the PER statistic.

PER is garbage like QB ratings it looks good and good players will do well in it ...but I trust my eyes more than numbers
Jordan dominated Drexler and Miller (2nd and 3rd best players at his position)
Hakeem dominated Kareem an dParish and Robinson and Ewing in diffrent points of his career
Tim's teams have dominated the Nets, cavs Pistons and sons but WHEN has he DESTROYED the next best player at his position in a playoffs?
When did he DOMINATE SHAQ? OR KG he has outplayed them at times ...yes but Duncan was never the hands-down alpha male ...BUT he stayed at ahigh level while his fellow big man have risen and Fallen (Shaq, amare etc.)

That is why Duncan is the best big man SINCE Hakeem and at PF the best I have EVER seen but he is no Hakeem

[Warlord23]

Thank you John Hollinger ...
But if you go by PER Robinson is better center than Hakeem or Shaq but we ALL know that is NOT the case when the playoffs hit ...
Duncan has Had the better career no doubt about it ...but Hakeem was better at his best no way duncan could destroy the 2nd best center and the 3rd best center (or power forward) the way he beat out Robinson and Ewing on his way to the title...

Whoa whoa whoa ... the Hakeem supporters were the ones who broke out the stats first.

If you leave aside the stats, it's even more one-sided. Talk about Hakeem-led teams missing the playoffs (once) and not even cracking 50 games (7 times) vs Duncan-led teams winning 56 or more every single time, contending every single time and winning 4 rings to boot.

[Warlord23]

Hakeem had 4 good seasons and a dozen mediocre ones.

Duncan has had 11 excellent seasons.

Even Rocket fan would prefer the success the Spurs have enjoyed in the Duncan era.

[Killakobe81]

So for dumbass/insecure Rocket fans and Spur haters, when comparing any 2 players:

- Look at PER for efficiency/dominance (Duncan wins)
- Look at Total Rebounding % for Rebounding (Duncan wins)
- Look at Offensive rating for Offense (Duncan wins)
- Look at Defensive rating for Defense (Hakeem wins)

Hakeem was a statistically better defender, everywhere else Tim beats him handily. Adjust for pace and minutes and Duncan is better overall.

You are soo defensive LMAO
I have said He is the best PF and a top 5 big man since 1980 (since i started watching ball)
BUT because Some disagree we are SPur haters? I have MAD respect for TImmy
I'm not my fellow Laker fans it does not bother me that people feel MJ is way better than Kobe by stats rings etc HE IS ...BUt he is the best since MJ just like Duncan is best since Hakeem ...no disrepect it is a compliment to be compared
If it makes you fell better bill russell would vote for TIm here ...

[JamStone]

Per 36 minute stats:

Hakeem: 21. 9 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.1 bpg, 1.8 spg, .512 FG%, .712 FT%
Duncan: 21.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.8 spg, .507 FG%, .685 FT%,

And that's including Hakeem declining seasons.

You don't have to adjust for pace. Just take the per 36 minute stats. Same amount of time on the court. If you have to manipulate the stats with "adjusted for pace" then you're trying too hard.

You can look at FG% and scoring to see who the better offensive player is, but you didn't because then Hakeem would win out. So you went to Offensive rating. You could straight to rebounding to see which is the better rebounder, but if you did that, it would be pretty much a draw, so you didn't and you went to rebounding PERCENTAGE? Come on.

Stop stats manipulating.

The two players were both great and had similar stats. Hakeem's stats were similar even though he had several declining years in those stats.

You even had the audacity to say earlier that Hakeem was an "underachiever." Right there, you should have stopped. And, I bet whenever Duncan's stats start to slip, you'll claim Duncan is just being an unselfish player by deferring to his teammates which still makes him great.

It's amusing.

[Warlord23]

All these numbers you put up are worthless. If you match Hakeem up on Duncan in any era, no matter who are playing along their sides, Hakeem takes Duncans lunch every day of the week.

I know hearing these statements hurts the ass of most Spurs fans on this site, but even if you throw Robinson in there to help Duncan out, Hakeem still comes out on top. We Laker fans know this to be true because Shaq would outplay Duncan and Robinson on a yearly basis. Duncan and Robinson for three years combined couldnt stop Shaq, so how the fuck you think an average defender like Duncan could stop Hakeem. But we know Hakeem would have guarded Duncan one on one and sent back atleast 4 shots a game, just like he did you alls classy little Robinson.

Duncans defene fooled the league into the thinking Amare and Dirk were the next big thing. Those two guys look like world beaters next to Duncan. Imagine what The Dream would do.

Again, what Hakeem did with Robinson and Shaq was only in 1 playoff series apiece, and then too because he had a terrific supporting cast.

Robinson facing double teams while Hakeem scored in single coverage is not a comparable example.

That's like saying Steve Nash outplayed Kobe in 2005 and 2006.

[Killakobe81]

Hakeem had 4 good seasons and a dozen mediocre ones.

Duncan has had 11 excellent seasons.

Even Rocket fan would prefer the success the Spurs have enjoyed in the Duncan era.

Best argumet you have made on here ...Also I agree Hakeem did underachieve to a certain degree not as bad as Shaq but he sometimes coasted until the playoffs.

But in the playoffs he was a beast just like shaq plus he was clutch like duncan ...

[JamStone]

Hakeem had 4 good seasons and a dozen mediocre ones.

Duncan has had 11 excellent seasons.

Even Rocket fan would prefer the success the Spurs have enjoyed in the Duncan era.

You just need to stop.

Hakeem's first 13 seasons in the league, he was putting up 24 ppg, 12 rpg, 3 bpg and shooting over 51% from the field. Even if you take his four best seasons in that span, the other 9 seasons were right around 21 ppg, 11 rpg, 3 bpg, and over 50% shooting. If you call that mediocre, then most of Duncan's career was mediocre.

[baseline bum]

Tim's teams have dominated the Nets, cavs Pistons and sons but WHEN has he DESTROYED the next best player at his position in a playoffs?
When did he DOMINATE SHAQ? OR KG he has outplayed them at times ...yes but Duncan was never the hands-down alpha male ...BUT he stayed at ahigh level while his fellow big man have risen and Fallen (Shaq, amare etc.)


So Shaq only had a three-year prime? You're really reaching here.

[Warlord23]

Per 36 minute stats:

Hakeem: 21. 9 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.1 bpg, 1.8 spg, .512 FG%, .712 FT%
Duncan: 21.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.8 spg, .507 FG%, .685 FT%,

And that's including Hakeem declining seasons.

You don't have to adjust for pace. Just take the per 36 minute stats. Same amount of time on the court. If you have to manipulate the stats with "adjusted for pace" then you're trying too hard.

You can look at FG% and scoring to see who the better offensive player is, but you didn't because then Hakeem would win out. So you went to Offensive rating. You could straight to rebounding to see which is the better rebounder, but if you did that, it would be pretty much a draw, so you didn't and you went to rebounding PERCENTAGE? Come on.

Stop stats manipulating.

The two players were both great and had similar stats. Hakeem's stats were similar even though he had several declining years in those stats.

You even had the audacity to say earlier that Hakeem was an "underachiever." Right there, you should have stopped. And, I bet whenever Duncan's stats start to slip, you'll claim Duncan is just being an unselfish player by deferring to his teammates which still makes him great.

It's amusing.

What's amusing is you not understanding stats, having seen about 2 seasons of Hakeem's play and generalizing based on that.

a) You have to adjust for pace. It's about how much they produce in the same number of possessions, not in the same number of minutes. It's obvious, and you don't have an argument against it.

b) Rebounding % is the % of total available rebounds that the player gathered. At a faster pace, more rebounds will be available and stats will be padded. Again, give me a rational argument against this.

Hakeem played in a faster-paced era. If he played today, his numbers would be down across the board.

[JamStone]

Whoa whoa whoa ... the Hakeem supporters were the ones who broke out the stats first.

If you leave aside the stats, it's even more one-sided. Talk about Hakeem-led teams missing the playoffs (once) and not even cracking 50 games (7 times) vs Duncan-led teams winning 56 or more every single time, contending every single time and winning 4 rings to boot.

Here is where the argument goes awry. The debate is between Hakeem and Duncan as players, not the Hakeem Rockets and the Duncan Spurs. If you want to talk about team success, Duncan wins. No argument. If you talk about which is the better winner, again it's Duncan.

If we talk about individual players, there's plenty of room for debate. I won't blast on somehow who believes Duncan was the better player. But I will argue against it being a slam dunk contest in favor of Duncan hands down. Individually, there's plenty of evidence to support Hakeem as the better player already in this thread. But, you cannot bottom line the debate between two individual players by saying one players' team won more or won more championships when those are team accomplishments.

I believe Tim Duncan is a better all around player than Bill Russell. But, if you argue championships and MVPs, it's no contest. That's not how you analyze a comparison between two individual players.

[Warlord23]

You just need to stop.

Hakeem's first 13 seasons in the league, he was putting up 24 ppg, 12 rpg, 3 bpg and shooting over 51% from the field. Even if you take his four best seasons in that span, the other 9 seasons were right around 21 ppg, 11 rpg, 3 bpg, and over 50% shooting. If you call that mediocre, then most of Duncan's career was mediocre.

And you need to up your comprehension. So let me state it in words of one syllable for you:

When you adjust for pace and minutes, except for defensive numbers, Duncan has produced better than Hakeem in every category. Hakeem's numbers apart from his 4 best seasons are indeed lower, and if you add to the fact that his teams were playoff doormats for those years, his overall contribution is indeed mediocre.

[Killakobe81]

Again, what Hakeem did with Robinson and Shaq was only in 1 playoff series apiece, and then too because he had a terrific supporting cast.

Robinson facing double teams while Hakeem scored in single coverage is not a comparable example.

That's like saying Steve Nash outplayed Kobe in 2005 and 2006.

Double teams? not needed ...we all know david was NOT clutch ...

Duncan is great his consistency is amazing ...
I remember back in TMAc's short prime some thought he was better than Kobe (ridiculous now, I know) but his 3 best years there is an ARGUMENT that could be made stat wie he was better than Kobe ...who has more rings, MVP's better career numbers etc? KObe!
Or even better Wade if you take this year and his Finals MVP year ...
And I would concede that for those 2 years his best was better than Kobe's ...
But would laker fans rather have 3 titles and MVP season and this year of course! In the end who will have the better career and better overall numbers? probaly Kobe ...but I can respect the argument could be made same with Lebron ...
Duncan=Kobe Hakeem=Wade Who do you want longterm?
the former but at their best a case could be made for the latter ...and that is FINE with me ...over time I have learned to respect evryone's game.

[Killakobe81]

What's amusing is you not understanding stats, having seen about 2 seasons of Hakeem's play and generalizing based on that.

a) You have to adjust for pace. It's about how much they produce in the same number of possessions, not in the same number of minutes. It's obvious, and you don't have an argument against it.

b) Rebounding % is the % of total available rebounds that the player gathered. At a faster pace, more rebounds will be available and stats will be padded. Again, give me a rational argument against this.

Hakeem played in a faster-paced era. If he played today, his numbers would be down across the board.

His numbers could have been down definitely but he would be even MORE dominant because the lack of big man (quality) is ridiculous ...I love bynum but Hakeem would destroy him i have seen bynum play duncan well this year before he got hurt Hakeem would of embarassed a young Bynum hell he did the same to a seasoned Robinson and young Shaq (in consecutive seasons)

[Tmac&Luther]

Hakeem had 4 good seasons and a dozen mediocre ones.

:lmao I would trade anybody that has ever played on this team for another player with Hakeem's skill set who could put up those 12 "mediocre" seasons.

[Lars]

And you need to up your comprehension. So let me state it in words of one syllable for you:

When you adjust for pace and minutes, except for defensive numbers, Duncan has produced better than Hakeem in every category. Hakeem's numbers apart from his 4 best seasons are indeed lower, and if you add to the fact that his teams were playoff doormats for those years, his overall contribution is indeed mediocre.

And you need to up your comprehension. So let me state it in words of one syllable for you:

When you play against weak competition your numbers will be inflated. Your stats are meaningless.

[Thomas82]

he had all stars Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley over the course of his career, moron.

How old are you? I bet you are too young to remember rocket games from the 90s.

lol, rocketfans.

Don't forget, he had Scottie Pippen too.

[Lars]

Son? Go fuck yourself. No way Olajuwon would put up the same numbers in this much slower league with better D than was seen in the 90s.

Listen sport, I can understand why you are getting so worked up. I thought it was fun to argue with you because I thought you had actually watched both eras, till I saw the better D comment. Get some NBA classic, I think you will really enjoy what real basketball looked like.

[Killakobe81]

Don't forget, he had Scottie Pippen too.

Ok Spurs fans that argue this crap look at the 1st title team the ROX had ...
this was even weaker than the '99 Spurs team ...you guys had Sjax, elliott, Robinson, kerr and avery
Now look at what the Rox had for Hakeem's 1st ring Thorpe, Horry Kenny smith and Mario elie with a rookie Cassell ...

Im sorry but Id much rather have that spurs cast ...

the recent winners have Tony (better than kenny or Cassell though Casell was clutch) Manu though not the HOF'er Clyde was ...way more clutch and won more in international and pro careers ...Horry was better in houston but more clutch proven in his SA years plus he saved your 3rd title series ...no way you beat Detroit without him ...

[Killakobe81]

That 1st title team Hakeem carried on his back ...had no business wining a title ...
no other HOF caliber players thorpe and Cassel were fringe all-stars a couple appearances but neither were 1st team ALL nba type players ....

[Warlord23]

And you need to up your comprehension. So let me state it in words of one syllable for you:

When you play against weak competition your numbers will be inflated. Your stats are meaningless.

I see, so let's see the kind of competition that Hakeem played against in his first 6 years in the league, shall we?

In this era (late 80s), Shaq and Mourning hadn't entered the league yet. Robinson had just entered the league. Ewing, Parrish and Sampson were the other established centers, and Sampson played on the Rockets.

Apart from this, this is the list of big men Hakeem had to go up against: Bill Laimbeer, Bill Cartwright, Kevin Duckworth, Jack Sikma, Roy Tarpley, Mark Eaton, Brad Daugherty, Benoit Benjamin, Larry Nance, Olden Polynice, Brad Sellers, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Dave Corzine, Manute Bol, Mike Gminski, Roy Hinson, Tim McCormick, Steve Stipanovich, Danny Schayes, Joe Kleine, Tellis Frank.

So basically Hakeem in the late 80s went up against 3 great centers and several good-to-decent ones.

Compare this to what Duncan has had to play at the PF spot in his time: Garnett, Webber, Rasheed, Dirk, Amare, Gasol, McDyess, Jermaine, Bosh, Brand, Boozer, Marion.

Double-digit number of All-star/All-NBA caliber PFs.

Hakeem did beat Shaq, Ewing and Olajuwon handily in the mid-90s playoffs. But in the 80s he as going up against an average crop of big men in a swingman-dominated league and putting up modest numbers.

4 great seasons do not make a career.

[Tmac&Luther]

This is a joke....

all you have to do is watch the two guys play, I watched Hakeem play and I've watched Duncan play......and I know who the better player is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKD0SFErg4&fmt=18

Hakeem did things on the court in his 30's that Duncan could never do in his absolute prime (and that's not a knock against Duncan, not many players could. Hakeem is probably the best modern era two way/complete player to ever play the game)......but, but, but, Duncan has team success :rolleyes

Hakeem played in possibly the best "big men era" and had his way with everyone....yes even the great David Robinson, Duncan played against Shaq (who Hakeem already beat) and ??? There isn't a doubt in my mind that is you put Duncan against Hakeem, Hakeem would've taught him a few lessons as well.

What this damn thread boils down to is "who would you rather have, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith" Same damn argument. Sanders was a better talent/player, but Emmitt had better talent around him....and just like Dallas Cowboy fans, Spurs fans can't get that through their damn heads or fathom it.

[baseline bum]

Listen sport, I can understand why you are getting so worked up. I thought it was fun to argue with you because I thought you had actually watched both eras, till I saw the better D comment. Get some NBA classic, I think you will really enjoy what real basketball looked like.

I was a season-ticket holder in that era. I know exactly what I'm talking about. It's so lame when people canonize the past and complain about how shitty the present is just because their team has gone to hell.

[Warlord23]

Nobody's arguing that Hakeem did things on the court that Duncan cannot do. Problem is, he did it for a grand total of 4 seasons.

[SpuronyourFace]

Duncan.

He's had the Spurs in contention his entire career with different teammates, and as a previous poster mentioned no one has quite elevated his teammates play like Duncan has.

People want to throw in the Hakeem had the better stats argument, but Duncan has been so unselfish with his stats, and that is the main reason he has lead his team to 4 rings. He has also been robbed of the DPOY at least twice in his career that I can recall.

Duncan. Its an easy choice.

But, hey Hakeem was an amazing player as well. No disrespect at all. One of my all time favorite players to watch play the game.

[Warlord23]

Listen sport, I can understand why you are getting so worked up. I thought it was fun to argue with you because I thought you had actually watched both eras, till I saw the better D comment. Get some NBA classic, I think you will really enjoy what real basketball looked like.

See, this is the problem with new-age Rocket fan. Having watched a few highlight reels on NBA classic, he sets out to debate an era when he was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.

No offense, but you need to stick to things you've seen, like T-Mac's lazy eye and Alston's streetball.

[Killakobe81]

This is a joke....

all you have to do is watch the two guys play, I watched Hakeem play and I've watched Duncan play......and I know who the better player is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKD0SFErg4&fmt=18

Hakeem did things on the court in his 30's that Duncan could never do in his absolute prime (and that's not a knock against Duncan, not many players could. Hakeem is probably the best modern era two way/complete player to ever play the game)......but, but, but, Duncan has team success :rolleyes

What this damn thread boils down to is "who would you rather have, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith" Same damn argument. Sanders was a better talent/player, but Emmitt had better talent around him....and just like Dallas Cowboy fans, Spurs fans can't get that through their damn heads or fathom it.

Not valid because Barry never won a better argument would be Elway or Farve vs. Montana ...

Farve at his best put up better numbers but Montana was conistent and won more ...same advantage over elway BUT at his best Elway was better (to me)

[Tmac&Luther]

Nobody's arguing that Hakeem did things on the court that Duncan cannot do. Problem is, he did it for a grand total of 4 seasons.

Problem is you're wrong, don't know where you're pulling this 4 grand total crap from.

Go ahead and post those 4 season stats......Guarantee I can pull some stats from other seasons that match up with what Duncan has done.

again comes down to Barry vs. Emmitt.

[Warlord23]

If Jordan had gone off to play baseball in 97 & 98 instead of 94 & 95, this thread would have Jazz fans instead of Rocket fans, and we'd be debating about how Malone did things on the court that nobody else had.

[Tmac&Luther]

Not valid because Barry never won a better argument would be Elway or Farve vs. Montana ...

Farve at his best put up better numbers but Montana was conistent and won more ...same advantage over elway BUT at his best Elway was better (to me)

Oh it's very valid, team sport.

[Tmac&Luther]

If Jordan had gone off to play baseball in 97 & 98 instead of 94 & 95, this thread would have Jazz fans instead of Rocket fans, and we'd be debating about how Malone did things on the court that nobody else had.

Hey dumbass how about you go pull up Houston's record against those Bull's teams. If Jordan hadn't retired this thread might not even be here.

and how the fuck are "Utah fans" supposed to be here with they didn't even get past us. :downspin: Not to metion that Jordan played in '95

[Warlord23]

Problem is you're wrong, don't know where you're pulling this 4 grand total crap from.

Go ahead and post those 4 season stats......Guarantee I can pull some stats from other seasons that match up with what Duncan has done.

again comes down to Barry vs. Emmitt.

Go back in this thread, I've posted the numbers again and again.

Or, go pull up statistics adjusted for pace and minutes, and see it for yourself. Hakeem in the 80s was struggling to get his team into the playoffs and putting up lesser stats than Duncan.

[Lars]

Compare this to what Duncan has had to play at the PF spot in his time: Garnett, Webber, Rasheed, Dirk, Amare, Gasol, McDyess, Jermaine, Bosh, Brand, Boozer, Marion.


This is seriously your arguement as Duncan's defense stoppers? Are you trying to prove my point?

Half of those guys play no defense whatsoever.

[Thomas82]

Has there ever been another player that didnt have another allstar playing with him that won a title?

Tim Duncan in 2003.

[Tmac&Luther]

Go back in this thread, I've posted the numbers again and again.

Or, go pull up statistics adjusted for pace and minutes, and see it for yourself. Hakeem in the 80s was struggling to get his team into the playoffs and putting up lesser stats than Duncan.

Wow, the great "team stats" again. :sleep

again, Sanders vs. Emmitt. Let me guess, you're a Cowboys fan also, this isn't your first rodeo is it pal?

[Killakobe81]

Oh it's very valid, team sport.

My point is you cant be in the "BEST" argument if you NEVER have won ...
Sorry you just can't ...

In the 2 sports I watched the most (NFL & NBA and hell even hockey) team wise the BEST Clutch players alwys win at least once and if they don;t they at least make Finals ...

Marino, barkley, stockton and Regiie Miller were clutch GREAT players who never won titles ...

Guys like Barry(bonds/sanders) Nique, Gervin, Jim kelly great regular season guys but in the clutch were all found wanting at times ...

The best Montana, Magic, bird, Jordan, Young Aikman Rege white Ray Lewis Isiah hakeem duncan Shaq Kobe, gretzky, Lemiuex, Roy they win and lack of talent isnt an excuse great players elevate their team nd carry them at least to a Cahmpionship gaame even if they lose there (marino, Kobe last year, Malone, Stockton, barkley)

[Thomas82]

I'm saying they developed into the players they are today because they had Tim Duncan with them early on, helping build their confidence, picking up their slack, and making things a lot easier for them by drawing so much defensive attention. A lot of players have incredible talent, but aren't developed well due to poor teammates/poor coaching, and dont reach their potential. Tim Duncan is the ultimate guy you want to have on your team to help develop young talent.

I honestly don't feel that they would have turned into the players they became today, without Tim Duncan helping them early in their careers, showing them what its like to win titles right out the gate.

Good post!!

[Warlord23]

This is seriously your arguement as Duncan's defense stoppers? Are you trying to prove my point?

Half of those guys play no defense whatsoever.

That was my counter to your fallacious argument that Hakeem saw better competition than Duncan. The PF spot has been the strongest in history in this era, certainly stronger than the C spot in the late 80s.

As to defense, Duncan (as with Hakeem) regularly saw double teams. The NBA is not a 1-on-1 game.

[Warlord23]

I noticed how you conviently left out the two best centers of the 80's, Kareem and Moses Malone. Nice going. Now let's compare. If you just take Kareem, Moses, Robinson, Ewing, and Daugherty, those guys dwarf the talent you put on the board for Duncan.

And your argument defeats itself. Every last one of the guys you listed that Duncan has played against have allstar numbers against Duncan. Try matching those clowns up against Hakeem and they might have short careers. You can add Dwight Howard in there as well.

Good catch about Kareem. Although Moses was clearly over the hill in this era. But still the point remains that the cream of the crop was not more than 6-7 guys, compared to double that in Duncan's era.

As to your second point, they weren't playing 1-on-1 out there. Team D is the name of the game, but none of them saw as many double-teams as Duncan, none of them came up big in the playoffs like Duncan did, and none of them got anointed the best PF in the game within 6 years of entering the league.

[Tmac&Luther]

That was my counter to your fallacious argument that Hakeem saw better competition than Duncan. The PF spot has been the strongest in history in this era, certainly stronger than the C spot in the late 80s.

As to defense, Duncan (as with Hakeem) regularly saw double teams. The NBA is not a 1-on-1 game.

Wait, wait, wait......let me get this straight. So for years now Rockets fans have heard how Duncan is the "best big man" in the league and how he really plays center (which he does), but now when it fits your argument he's a PF and only plays against PFs.....guess the next time I see Duncan on Yao, I must be on acid.

We're talking about "Big men" Hakeem is very comparable to Duncan size wise and like Hakeem, Duncan usually gaurds other team's centers/big men.

Oh BTW, the PF position/big man position doesn't come close to the depth that it was in the late 80's/early 90's.......try again.

[kingmalaki]

I've gone over this in the other thread, and I don't want to rehash the same things we have been debating about there. I just wanted respond on a few things I have been reading on here:

- Both Horry and Elie say Hakeem was the better player. But who are they to know, since they only played with, and won titles with both players. I would say their opinion trumps all of ours but that would just make too much sense. :lol

- Hakeem seems to always win these debates on neutral boards. Here is an example:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43680

- It's silly to say Duncan made Parker or Manu, just like it has always been silly to say MJ made Pippen, etc. Did Duncan make TP quick as hell? Did he make him spend countless hours in the gym working on a dependable jumper, so he could finally start to finish games? Did he give Manu the reckless abandon that he came into the league with? The answer is no to all of these questions. Of course, Duncan made their lives easier...but he didn't make them.

- Someone noted that Duncan always checked Shaq in the 4th quarter and that is the furthest thing from the truth, especially when Robinson was here.

- Someone noted the monster stats that Howard is putting up in the league today, with average man defense at best and like zero post moves. The funny thing is that Hakeem was arguably a better athlete than Howard, and he actually had great man defense, a jumper and impeccable footwork. Prior to Amare's injury, it didn't seem like the league could stop him either. Hakeem was basically a bigger version of him.

- Someone said Hakeem wasn't getting doubled in 94 and 95? Huh???? I must admit I always laugh when Spurs fans say we doubled Robinson all the time yet they never doubled Hakeem. Sure.......

- The Rockets supporting cast weren't known as "clutch" players in 94. Cassell's first really big shot was in the 94 Finals (Game 3 I believe). Horry's first game winner was against the Spurs in the 95 WCF's...which was his only basket of the game. Maxwell was a chucker. Elie was a reserve that year that didn't get a lot of burn. Smith was so clutch that we let a rookie Cassell put him on the pine to finish games. Hell, the Houston newspaper labeled them chokers...in typical Houston fashion...in the Phoenix series that year. The team simply wouldn't die in 95 and that's where most of the clutch city stuff is from...but the clutch dude in 94 was Olajuwon, on both sides of the ball.

- PER doesn't take into account defense, or your level of competition. I love my Rockets but when Yao is arguably the games best center over the last few years, then you know the pivot position is extremely weak.

- Someone posted a list of some very good PF's. I wouldn't take any of those PF's over Ewing, Robinson or Shaq. I would like to see how those PF's would fare leading some of the talent stricken teams that Ewing and Robinson had to carry. Not to mention, I wouldn't take any of those dudes over Karl Malone or Barkley. Other PF's from that time weren't slouches either, like Kemp, Buck Williams, Horace Grant, Larry Nance, Rodman, Kevin McHale, etc. Actually, the last time I checked like 3 of these dudes are in the argument for best PF ever, right up there with Duncan (not saying there are better....but it's interesting that you are toting a bunch of PF's from today when 3 of the GOAT dudes are from Hakeems time).

[Warlord23]

All right folks, good debate ... I'm out now.

They're both great players with great accomplishments, statistics, awards and success. In that close a race, I'd give it to the winningest guy. But it isn't a slam dunk choice, and you can't go wrong with either at the end of the day.

Apologies if I was rude to anyone. Catch y'all later.

[Many PackYao]

Considering Tim Duncan plays below the rim most of the time with the occasional dunk, I can only imagine how many shots Hakeem would swat back in his face...like this.:lol

BuP1pJYsEPc

[Many PackYao]

As a fan watching Hakeem's supporting cast during the 1st title year was frustrating because Maxwell was an erratic shooting guard version of Rafer Alston. He shot .389 from 2 and .298 from 3 in 93-94 @ 13.6ppg. Robert Horry shot a slightly better 32% from 3pt range @ 9.9ppg. Where is this great supporting cast the Spurs homers severely overrate?Hakeem carried these guys on his back that year. Other than Olajuwon and Thorpe they were so inconsistant, it wasn't funny. Maxwell did make up for it with game-winning shots, but the mainly after shooting 4-12 on most nights. What every fanbase outside of the Rockets' saw and remembers is the supporting cast overachieving and playing out of their minds in the playoffs. That wasn't the case throughout the reg season. Hakeem was carrying their asses to that 1st title.

[Many PackYao]

You know whats amazing about this video was Hakeem left Robinson to jump over Barkelys back to block Duncans fall away.:wow
Damn straight! :toast

[mavs>spurs2]

As a fan watching Hakeem's supporting cast during the 1st title year was frustrating because Maxwell was an erratic shooting guard version of Rafer Alston. He shot .389 from 2 and .298 from 3 in 93-94 @ 13.6ppg. Robert Horry shot a slightly better 32% from 3pt range @ 9.9ppg. Where is this great supporting cast the Spurs homers severely overrate?Hakeem carried these guys on his back that year. Other than Olajuwon and Thorpe they were so inconsistant, it wasn't funny. Maxwell did make up for it with game-winning shots, but the mainly after shooting 4-12 on most nights. What every fanbase outside of the Rockets' saw and remembers is the supporting cast overachieving and playing out of their minds in the playoffs. That wasn't the case throughout the reg season. Hakeem was carrying their asses to that 1st title.

I remember looking up those stats last time we had this argument and I remembered it was bad, but dayum. Hakeem got those chuckers enough open looks that I guess they were barely able to knock down enough to win ball games.

[Caltex2]

Barkely was washed up when he went to Houston. Even he admited that. Hakeem and Sampson would have won multiple titles if Sampson had not hurt his back. That was the best twin tower duo in history, even much better than Duncan/Robinson. Even Drexler was at the end of his career when he played with Hakeem.

Eh, he pulled down 33 boards in one game (at Phoenix no less) in his first week after being traded the previous summer. Maybe by the second year, but not the first.

Give me Hakeem, but Duncan is the model of consistency.

[JamStone]

Eh, he pulled down 33 boards in one game (at Phoenix no less) in his first week after being traded the previous summer. Maybe by the second year, but not the first.

Give me Hakeem, but Duncan is the model of consistency.

Barkley never stopped being a relentless rebounder even when injuries and age caught up to him in Phoenix and Houston. But, it did affect him at the offensive end. Before his first season at Houston, Charles Barkley had a career 55.0% field goal percentage up to that point. That first season at Houston, he shot 48.4% from the field, 48.5% his second season in Houston, and 47.8% in his last two seasons with the Rockets.

[Many PackYao]

Guys like Thorpe, Cassell, Elie and Horry were never the problem. The problem was the starting backcourt. Maxwell was too much of chucker with a worse shot-selection than Ron Artest and Alston put together. Smith was a good shooter, but could be shutdown and was too much of a puss to drive the lane. The Rockets during Olajuwon's era never had a point guard of Parker's caliber that could penetrate the defense and score at will. We had Sleepy Floyd for a couple of years, but he played his best ball with the Warriors. If the Rockets had in some way acquired Drexler without giving up Thorpe, then more than likely the Rockets would have stayed competitive for a while longer than they did.

[Caltex2]

Hitting wide open jumpers because of Hakeem. They aren't even remotely in position to hit clutch jumpers without Hakeem carrying that offense for entire games. Again, the shooting numbers weren't even that impressive. And, I'd have to go back and watch those playoffs, but I'd want to re-visit them to see how often Maxwell and Kenny Smith hit clutch jumpers in that 1994 title run. Actually, I'd like to go back and see all of them because while Horry and Cassell and Elie have reputations of being clutch shooters, I'd really like to see how many each hit during that first title run. Not saying they didn't. I'm sure they hit some. But, legend sometimes skews past realities. Horry has built his clutch shooting reputation even more so with the Lakers and even the Spurs. How clutch was he with the Rockets? It's been a long time that I can't remember and say for sure. Having clutch shooters is important. Having great players that can also help carry the team throughout the game and not just at the end of games might be even more important. Hakeem averaged 28.9 ppg in the 1994 playoffs. The next highest average on the team was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg.

Horry was just the man. I've watched many games from the title runs shown on ESPN Classic the last couples years and yes, Horry really was pretty clutch. I remember thinking "dang look at Horry hittin all those clutch shots." Down the stretch of 1995 NBA Finals Game 1 and I believe NBA Finals Game 6 (or 7) would be great references for this.

[Many PackYao]

Horry was just the man. I've watched many games from the title runs shown on ESPN Classic the last couples years and yes, Horry really was pretty clutch. I remember thinking "dang look at Horry hittin all those clutch shots." Down the stretch of 1995 NBA Finals Game 1 and I believe NBA Finals Game 6 (or 7) would be great references for this.
Yeah the '95 title run with Rockets is where Horry truly began his clutch rep.I remember him hitting some really big ones against the Spurs and Magic.

[monosylab1k]

I'm not for sure, but I think in NBA Live '95 Hakeem had a 97 rating, while in Live 04 Duncan had his career high of a 98 rating. Let me go back and check, but that should effectively end this debate once and for all.

[Bob Lanier]

Clutch is magical thinking.

[Caltex2]

Hakeem was dominant throughout his career (knocking off the showtime Lakers in only his second season), the only thing that wasn't was the talent around him.......if Ralph doesn't become chronically injured and if his teammates don't let their careers go down the drain because of drug use, this isn't even a debate.

And I'd still love to hear how Duncan is a "better team player" I guess you get that award when you play on "better teams". Go ask the players Hakeem played with, they'll tell you who the "best team player" was. Hakeem never put his self before any of his teammates and I don't know where this "ego" talk came from. Hakeem doesn't even know what a "ego" is. You couldn't ever meet a more humble individual. Some people that are posting in this thread probably never even saw the guy play ball, because some of the stuff they're typing is completely off the wall

Oh "Akeem" was quite the hot head and ego trip before the plane ride to Japan in 1993 and increased faith in Islam created "Hakeem."

[Caltex2]

Another thing to throw in this comparison is injuries. The Rockets didn't start having major injuries in thsi era. As a matter of fact, injuries are probably the reason that as competitive as they have been, the Rockets have never won 60 games and only came close twice (1994 and '97)

[Blake]

I wanted to see if you would continue to follow your logic, and you did.

Personally, I think Tim Duncan is a better player than Bill Russell. Russell was the better winner in an era that was not nearly as competitive, but I think Duncan is the better player.

I'm surprised you feel Russell was better.

5 time MVP, 11 time Champ.

Russell gets underappreciated a lot because of the team he played with and the era he played in.

This year, they will start calling the finals MVP trophy the "Bill Russell Finals MVP Award"

so yeah.......Russell>Duncan

[Blake]

Nope, but that's somewhat of a crutch because Duncan simply isn't capable of guarding those type of players all game long, he'd foul out. By sticking him on them in crunch time you're relying on the fact that the ref is reluctant to foul out a hall of famer and he can get away with more.

that's pretty sorry logic.

you stick Duncan on the other team's best player because he IS the best defensive player. Relying on the refs reluctancy to foul him out is stupid.


And as far as Amare, he averaged 40ppg on Duncan the last time he guarded him for an entire series back in 2005. We all see how that went

yeah, Duncan averaged 30ppg in the wins and the Spurs dismissed the Suns in 5 games.

Good job agreeing even though you don't know you are.

[Blake]

Nope, that's only somewhat true. When I look at a player I remember to when they were at their best, not when they were up and coming or over the hill. For several years Hakeem did it better than Duncan or pretty much anyone.

yes, Hakeem did it better than anyone for a couple of years.

Duncan did it better than Hakeem over the course of their careers.

nicely done again.

[Thunder Dan]

yes, Hakeem did it better than anyone for a couple of years.

Duncan did it better than Hakeem over the course of their careers.

nicely done again.

Blake is just picking Duncan because Hakeem is black. Blake, you need to stop being so racist

[Blake]

Hmmm thats funny, especially when Barkley admitted it?!?!? :lol Self ownage

huh? again, Barkley averaged 19 and 15. How many guys in the history of the league have ever averaged 19 and 15 in the same season?

I'm not sure what part of all star you or Barkley don't understand.

you apparently don't undertstand what self ownage means either.

[Blake]

Blake is just picking Duncan because Hakeem is black. Blake, you need to stop being so racist

what kind of cars do Hakeem and Duncan drive, Ku Klux Dan?

you're an idiot.

[Blake]

You ass backwards cuckhold you. You completely misinterpreted my comparison there. Hakeem is Jordan, and Duncan is Kobe in that comparison. But even still, Duncans skill level is like two notches below Hakeem's.

your ass is so backwards that kobe bends you over from the front.

Hakeem is Jordan? Duncan is Kobe?

That might be the worst comparison of the day. Duncan is the one with the 2 MVPs and the 4 titles, not the other way around.

[Blake]

Ok Spurs fans that argue this crap look at the 1st title team the ROX had ...
this was even weaker than the '99 Spurs team ...you guys had Sjax, elliott, Robinson, kerr and avery
Now look at what the Rox had for Hakeem's 1st ring Thorpe, Horry Kenny smith and Mario elie with a rookie Cassell ...

Im sorry but Id much rather have that spurs cast ...

the recent winners have Tony (better than kenny or Cassell though Casell was clutch) Manu though not the HOF'er Clyde was ...way more clutch and won more in international and pro careers ...Horry was better in houston but more clutch proven in his SA years plus he saved your 3rd title series ...no way you beat Detroit without him ...

in 99 the Spurs had the old version of Elie and Jaren Jackson playing the 2 guard......not SJax....

Elie and Cassell were very clutch for the rockets in those years.

[Thunder Dan]

what kind of cars do Hakeem and Duncan drive, Ku Klux Dan?

you're an idiot.

Hakeem rides a camel or a compact coupe with bombs strapped to it or a magic carpet

[Bob Lanier]

clutch
More magical thinking.

[Blake]

Hakeem rides a camel or a compact coupe with bombs strapped to it or a magic carpet

I'm sure you have stats to back it up.

you're an idiot.

[Cry Havoc]

:lol at this thread devolving.

[Blake]

:lol at this thread devolving.

what more is there after 10 pages?

I think I can honestly say I have thoroughly changed all of the rocketfans minds, making them realize how wrong and stupid they all are for thinking Hakeem is somehow greater than Duncan.

[Killakobe81]

As a fan watching Hakeem's supporting cast during the 1st title year was frustrating because Maxwell was an erratic shooting guard version of Rafer Alston. He shot .389 from 2 and .298 from 3 in 93-94 @ 13.6ppg. Robert Horry shot a slightly better 32% from 3pt range @ 9.9ppg. Where is this great supporting cast the Spurs homers severely overrate?Hakeem carried these guys on his back that year. Other than Olajuwon and Thorpe they were so inconsistant, it wasn't funny. Maxwell did make up for it with game-winning shots, but the mainly after shooting 4-12 on most nights. What every fanbase outside of the Rockets' saw and remembers is the supporting cast overachieving and playing out of their minds in the playoffs. That wasn't the case throughout the reg season. Hakeem was carrying their asses to that 1st title.

I agree with the above 100% yes horry, maxwell, Elie hit clutch shots but only after Hakem wass double and even triple teamed ...yet according to BLake Robinson single covered Hakeem ...oh yeah right... all of the Clutch city highlight dagger 3's was due to Hakeem's presence ...to overrate those guys are just like the morons who gave Parker the Finals MVP when we all know TP would not get free reign at the lane without yes Tim he would score more but hes numbers would be down (FG% TO's without duncan)

I again state the 1st title team without drexler was one of the WEAKEST title teams in NBA history yet Hakeem carried them to the promise land TWICE the 2nd team was better and battle tested but no on would compare them to best spur, laker celts or bulls teams their ONE advantage was Hakeem ...

[Lars]

what more is there after 10 pages?

I think I can honestly say I have thoroughly changed all of the rocketfans minds, making them realize how wrong and stupid they all are for thinking Hakeem is somehow greater than Duncan.

What is your counter to both Horry and Elie claiming Hakeem as a superior player?

[Tmac&Luther]

what more is there after 10 pages?

I think I can honestly say I have thoroughly changed all of the rocketfans minds, making them realize how wrong and stupid they all are for thinking Hakeem is somehow greater than Duncan.

Man it must be nice living in your "wonderland" where everything you say somehow becomes fact......let me guess, you're king there aren't you and you smoke pot with the Cheshire Cat, infact he's your dealer isn't he?

[DaBears]

Now seriously people come on!!!! Who in here can honestly say look-in back strictly at stats that Hakeem was a better player. If it was, he would be named "Mr Fundamental". And named as being potentially the greatest center of all time, but he not mentioned even in the top 5 @ center. So how could anyone rank or think Hakeem is better.

No I will give the man credit I saw him play and he was one of the best centers during his time, and he did make my main man David Robinson his poster boy in that fateful series. But let’s get real all he no TD.

[baseline bum]

What is your counter to both Horry and Elie claiming Hakeem as a superior player?

If you're gonna take Horry's word as gospel, then you gotta take his statement in 2005 or 2007 (can't remember which of the two it was) that the competition is way better currently than in the 80s and 90s as true too.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Hakeem rides a camel or a compact coupe with bombs strapped to it or a magic carpet

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Many PackYao]

If you're gonna take Horry's word as gospel, then you gotta take his statement in 2005 or 2007 (can't remember which of the two it was) that the competition is way better currently than in the 80s and 90s as true too.
Source?- Spurs champ dvds?, beyond the glory?

[sook]

http://www.chiaobama.com/images/chia-obama-animated-2.gif

[JoeTait75]

Oh "Akeem" was quite the hot head and ego trip before the plane ride to Japan in 1993 and increased faith in Islam created "Hakeem."

Yup, just ask Billy Paultz, Mitch Kupchak, and Dave Feitl. :lol

[Lars]

If you're gonna take Horry's word as gospel, then you gotta take his statement in 2005 or 2007 (can't remember which of the two it was) that the competition is way better currently than in the 80s and 90s as true too.

Fair point, but to counter Horry played with both Duncan and Hakeem in thier primes, so he is qualified to make a comparison.

He did not however play in the 80s, so I question how good of a candidate he is too coment on this.

[mavs>spurs2]

that's pretty sorry logic.

you stick Duncan on the other team's best player because he IS the best defensive player. Relying on the refs reluctancy to foul him out is stupid.



yeah, Duncan averaged 30ppg in the wins and the Spurs dismissed the Suns in 5 games.

Good job agreeing even though you don't know you are.

I didn't agree on shit. Pop's gameplan was simple, guard Amare one on one and let him get his, while shutting down the rest of the Suns players. And dayum, he sure did get his, 37 ppg. That's what happens when Duncan guards the opposing teams superstar big, and the reason why the following year he didn't guard Dirk.

[kingmalaki]

If you're gonna take Horry's word as gospel, then you gotta take his statement in 2005 or 2007 (can't remember which of the two it was) that the competition is way better currently than in the 80s and 90s as true too.

Now how does that makes sense, since Horry didn't play in the 80's? Now if he said the 00's were better than the 90's then you have a valid point. Now somehow connect that to him noting that stars from the 80's/90's (like Hakeem) would struggle in the modern era and you have a winner.

But he is on record as saying Dream was better, and so was Elie. Again...all they did was play with and win titles with both men.

[Borat]

I have read that chocolate face Hakeem Olajuwon has a chram larger than a Burmese python. Is true?

[Many PackYao]

I have read that chocolate face Hakeem Olajuwon has a chram larger than a Burmese python. Is true?
I don't know personally, but Pamela Anderson say she know for fact is true!Hi five!:p:

[kingmalaki]

I didn't agree on shit. Pop's gameplan was simple, guard Amare one on one and let him get his, while shutting down the rest of the Suns players. And dayum, he sure did get his, 37 ppg. That's what happens when Duncan guards the opposing teams superstar big, and the reason why the following year he didn't guard Dirk.

Hmm, now this is a solid point. So why didn't Duncan check Dirk in that series? Hakeem or Robinson would have. It's not like Dampier was an offensive threat. I honestly don't remember.

Now if you say he did check him, well....didn't Dirk go off that series (27, 13 on 53%)?

[sook]

The 80s was a time that the league was packages with 3 or 4 upper echelon teams that would make the best team in the league this past decade quiver. The fact that Jordan got his championships in the 90s tells you alot


And when did Horry play back then?:lol

[baseline bum]

Now how does that makes sense, since Horry didn't play in the 80's? Now if he said the 00's were better than the 90's then you have a valid point. Now somehow connect that to him noting that stars from the 80's/90's (like Hakeem) would struggle in the modern era and you have a winner.

But he is on record as saying Dream was better, and so was Elie. Again...all they did was play with and win titles with both men.

I posted that in response to this garbage argument that the 2000's were some weak decade in comparison the 90s, which is looking to minimize Duncan's accomplishments. There's no way the 90s were stronger if you take Jordan out of the equation, which you have to since the Rockets never competed against Chicago in any meaningful game.

[IronMexican]

The 00's were stronger than the 90's, imo.

[Many PackYao]

The 00's were stronger than the 90's, imo.
No offense IM, but isn't that like the only era of bball you've really seen?

[Bob Lanier]

Hmm, now this is a solid point. So why didn't Duncan check Dirk in that series? Hakeem or Robinson would have. It's not like Dampier was an offensive threat. I honestly don't remember.
Because Dirk is a wing player, like David Robinson, not a big man, like Duncan or Olajuwon.

[kingmalaki]

Because Dirk is a wing player, like David Robinson, not a big man, like Duncan or Olajuwon.

So are you saying Duncan wasn't on him? Dirk is a PF, the same position as Duncan. Looking back at the boxscores it seems like Diop and Dampier split most of the minutes at center, and considering how much PT the Mav's wings were getting, I'm assuming Dirk lined up at C some too when they went small. This is me assuming, which is why I asked the question.

[kingmalaki]

I posted that in response to this garbage argument that the 2000's were some weak decade in comparison the 90s, which is looking to minimize Duncan's accomplishments. There's no way the 90s were stronger if you take Jordan out of the equation, which you have to since the Rockets never competed against Chicago in any meaningful game.

I'm sure you will disagree, but I think all of the following teams would be favorites to win titles in the 00's:

1992 Blazers
1993 Suns
1994 Knicks
1995 Rockets
1995 Magic
1996 Sonics
1997 and 98 Jazz
1999 Spurs

If you want to say the 3peat Lakers are better than all of those teams then I may agree. But the secondary teams from this decade? All of those teams that made the Eastern Finals when the Spurs and Lakers won? Were the 06 Pistons really better than any of the above teams? The 03 Spurs? The Kings teams that challenged the lakers....did they really have more talent than the Jazz, Sonics or Blazers? Nash and Amare dominate but KJ and Barkley couldn't? Payton and Kemp with all the insane depth on those Sonics teams, and they actually did play defense.

Additionally, Hakeem did play like 7 seasons in the 80's, and got to the Finals once. Do you think the 00's were better than the 80's as well?