Robert Horry: "Hakeem was 20 times better than Tim Duncan"

[JohnnyMax]

Skip to 2:45


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKqQqmg8Mwk

[Thread]

Without the 3 of 'em the Suns wouldn't be O & Forever.

Robert Horry
Hakeem
Tim Duncan

[TDMVPDPOY]

20times better, yet could only win 2 rings when Jordan was out the league

didn't do shit during pistons 2 ring run, bulls 1st 3peat and 2nd 3peat...

[ambchang]

He also said hakeem shot85% fts when he shot 71.2 for his career, 1.6 better than Duncan.

Horry is great, love is candidness but it's no secret he loves hakeem and only played with him during Hakeem's absolute peak.

[lefty]

Hakeem shits on both DRob and Duncan

[MultiTroll]

desperation

[hitmanyr2k]

Interesting comments from Horry to say the least :lol I've always thought Hakeem was a better player than Duncan but not by that much. 2x better would be hyperbole, 20x is flat out ridiculous. I'm not sure where he and Kenny are getting the idea the Rockets would beat the Bulls either. The Bulls were used to going through teams with HOF big men. Hakeem would get his points most definitely but would the others get theirs? The main reason the Rockets would have a shot in '94 or '95 (if Jordan didn't retire) would be because Chicago would be severely fatigued and most likely bored by the time they got to a 4 or 5 peat.

[StrengthAndHonor]

20times better, yet could only win 2 rings when Jordan was out the league

didn't do shit during pistons 2 ring run, bulls 1st 3peat and 2nd 3peat...
Supporting cast for one.:lol Hakeem's best teammates were Kenny Smith and a washed up Clyde Drexler, tbh. Duncan capitalized on a great organization.

[hitmanyr2k]

Supporting cast for one.:lol Hakeem's best teammates were Kenny Smith and a washed up Clyde Drexler, tbh. Duncan capitalized on a great organization.

Olajuwon had a pretty good cast around him. Otis Thorpe was a workhorse and a damn good PF, not a star but in the Horace Grant mode. Sam Cassell came on the scene and made an immediate impact. Mario Elie was another good player but when I think of him I always see Danny Ainge blasting him in the face with the basketball :lol And Drexler wasn't all that washed up in '95. He could still ball with the best of'em.

[StrengthAndHonor]

Olajuwon had a pretty good cast around him. Otis Thorpe was a workhorse and a damn good PF, not a star but in the Horace Grant mode. Sam Cassell came on the scene and made an immediate impact. Mario Elie was another good player but when I think of him I always see Danny Ainge blasting him in the face with the basketball :lol And Drexler wasn't all that washed up in '95. He could still ball with the best of'em.
Nobody said Olajuwon's cast was weak, but it pales in comparison to Duncan's.


I'd take Manu over Drexler and Ginobili wasn't even Duncan's best teammate.

[LkrFan]

20times better, yet could only win 2 rings when Jordan was out the league

didn't do shit during pistons 2 ring run, bulls 1st 3peat and 2nd 3peat...

All of Jim's rangs were post MJ. Jim was 0-2 during MJ era. His first one was off a strike shortened season: *

His 2007 one was a farce as well, thanks to Horry's hipcheck.

Jim always had Pop patrolling the sideline.

Dream shitted on Admiral in 1994. He would shit on Jim too, if both were in their primes.

You have no room son. :)

[Mitch]

:tu

Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq are a tier above Timothy

[TDMVPDPOY]

All of Jim's rangs were post MJ. Jim was 0-2 during MJ era. His first one was off a strike shortened season: *

His 2007 one was a farce as well, thanks to Horry's hipcheck.

Jim always had Pop patrolling the sideline.

Dream shitted on Admiral in 1994. He would shit on Jim too, if both were in their primes.

You have no room son. :)

2 yr peak, yet everyone thinks he played like that his whole career...cmon man, hakeem was a fkn nobody from his first finals appearance till first championship, how come he didn't advance deep during those years? empty stat guy

[ambchang]

People didn't remember Hakeem had a reputation as a diva, and a bit of a black hole earlier in his career. He turned it around after rediscovering Allah, so kudos to him on that.

Rudy T deserves a lot of credit for convincing Hakeem to give up the ball and pass out of double teams. He also benefitted enormously with the shortened three point line and a bunch of quick shooters.

Finally, Drexler played really well in the 95 playoffs, he added that slashing element to their offense. That 95 Rockets team was basically the prototype of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and (to a less extent) Duncan/Ginobili Spurs.

[hitmanyr2k]

People didn't remember Hakeem had a reputation as a diva, and a bit of a black hole earlier in his career. He turned it around after rediscovering Allah, so kudos to him on that.

Rudy T deserves a lot of credit for convincing Hakeem to give up the ball and pass out of double teams. He also benefitted enormously with the shortened three point line and a bunch of quick shooters.

Finally, Drexler played really well in the 95 playoffs, he added that slashing element to their offense. That 95 Rockets team was basically the prototype of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and (to a less extent) Duncan/Ginobili Spurs.


I agree with everything except this part. Post players didn't like the shortened 3 point line because it shrunk their space and gave them less room to operate and made it easier for the defense to double and recover.

[Koolaid_Man]

Tammy tits was system only player. When that nigga went to the Olympics he was sitting on the side walk between 2 trash cans crying because he took home a Bronze.....and then he came home and promptly QUIT on his COUNTRY....said he never play for the USA again. See when you ratchet like that Mexicans come in steal a million dollars of your cash, fuck your wife without condoms, and make your kids his own. LOL

[Koolaid_Man]

Dream would have made Tammy his bitch...we all know it....Tammy tits would have been treated worse than the religious military vet. :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Lets not forget that MJ (the human god himself) has Hakeem on his starting squad top 5 all-time. That's gotdam impressive. MJ picked the following line-up

MJ - SG
Pippen - SF
Kareem - C
Magic - PG
Hakeem - PF

that could be the greatest team team ever assembled. Nice picks by MJ

[ambchang]

I agree with everything except this part. Post players didn't like the shortened 3 point line because it shrunk their space and gave them less room to operate and made it easier for the defense to double and recover.

Yeah, but the way the Rockets were made helped him. The Rockets shooters were quick (other than Elie), and it also allowed players like Matt Bullard to be a threat.

No mistake, Hakeem was phenomenal, him and McHale were the best low post players the game has ever seen, and Hakeem became a better passer later in his career. But to say that he is leaps and bounds better than Duncan is crazy talk. In a one on one setting, Hakeem > Duncan. To build a team, Duncan > Hakeem.

[ambchang]

Lets not forget that MJ (the human god himself) has Hakeem on his starting squad top 5 all-time. That's gotdam impressive. MJ picked the following line-up

MJ - SG
Pippen - SF
Kareem - C
Magic - PG
Hakeem - PF

that could be the greatest team team ever assembled. Nice picks by MJ

Because we all know how well MJ evaluates talent. :lol Kwame Brown, :lol Adam Morrison.

[LkrFan]

:tu

Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq are a tier above Timothy

This. Exactly this. Loved Cap, but the Dream was a damn monster. Ask Shaq and Admiral about nightmare, er um, Dream! :lmao

[LkrFan]

Tammy tits was system only player. When that nigga went to the Olympics he was sitting on the side walk between 2 trash cans crying because he took home a Bronze.....and then he came home and promptly QUIT on his COUNTRY....said he never play for the USA again. See when you ratchet like that Mexicans come in steal a million dollars of your cash, fuck your wife without condoms, and make your kids his own. LOL

:rollin :lmao :rollin

[LkrFan]

2 yr peak, yet everyone thinks he played like that his whole career...cmon man, hakeem was a fkn nobody from his first finals appearance till first championship, how come he didn't advance deep during those years? empty stat guy

His 3,830 swats are tops in NBA history. 2-year peak my ass. That is a true big man stat. Jim light over 800 swats and Dream didn't play 20 years :lol

Dream has had quad doubles and left shit stains on many many big men. Shall I name them? Stick to clowning TP. When it comes to Dream, you are a dumbass (no offense) tbh :lol

[LkrFan]

If Dream had Pop for his whole career, he'd have at least 6 rangs if Jim won 5 tbh. He was a bad bad man.

[ambchang]

If Dream had Pop for his whole career, he'd have at least 6 rangs if Jim won 5 tbh. He was a bad bad man.

Will those be the years where he missed the playoffs or got kicked off in the first round in our existing universe?

[Thread]

If Dream had Pop for his whole career, he'd have at least 6 rangs if Jim won 5 tbh. He was a bad bad man.

He was cursed with a severe Bell curve. He fell off the edge and he still ain't landed.

[LkrFan]

He was cursed with a severe Bell curve. He fell off the edge and he still ain't landed.

I disagree Cubby. From 1984-1999 (15 years), here's his averages: 22.1ppg, 11.7rpg and 3.2bpg (compare that to his career averaged of 21.8ppg, 11.1rpg and 3.2bpg over 17 years). He was pretty consistent. His ppg fell off a cliff around 1998 season, but he was still a good defender and rebounder throughout his career.

He gave you a double double and guarded the yard too. I believe if he put up ^ numbers for 15 years and Pop on the sideline, he'd have more rangs than Jim. Jim had better teams and a better coach. That's it to me.

LINK: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html

[DAF86]

Oh, now Horry's words matter? :lol Where was this when he said Duncan > Kobe?

[whitemamba]

Hakeem would shit on Prime duncan, no conest.

[TD 21]

:lmao At the "system" and "culture" . . . It's funny, you never heard a peep about these things until Duncan arrived.
:lmao The "system" for the first half of Duncan's career, was four-down, aka Duncan post-ups on the left block . . . I guess it took a genius to conjure that up.
:lmao Relying on antiquated counting stats and supplying no context.
:lmao Ignoring 5 rings, with only '97-'01 Robinson as another superstar or near one and beating all other prominent teams of era.
:lmao Ignoring superior longevity.

[lefty]

Olajuwon had a pretty good cast around him. Otis Thorpe was a workhorse and a damn good PF, not a star but in the Horace Grant mode. Sam Cassell came on the scene and made an immediate impact. Mario Elie was another good player but when I think of him I always see Danny Ainge blasting him in the face with the basketball :lol And Drexler wasn't all that washed up in '95. He could still ball with the best of'em.
Clyde was actually a beast during the 95 playoffs

[ambchang]

:tu

Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq are a tier above Timothy

So shaq is a tie above Duncan, Kobe > Duncan, Jackson > pop and Robinson in his prime got killed by hakeem who is on the same level as shaq who is a tier above Duncan and yet they are 3-2 head to head in the playoffs.

Is it Avery Johnson or Stephen Jackson who is that first ballot Jordan level hall of famer?

[djohn2oo8]

Olajuwon had a pretty good cast around him. Otis Thorpe was a workhorse and a damn good PF, not a star but in the Horace Grant mode. Sam Cassell came on the scene and made an immediate impact. Mario Elie was another good player but when I think of him I always see Danny Ainge blasting him in the face with the basketball :lol And Drexler wasn't all that washed up in '95. He could still ball with the best of'em.

Duncan had a prime Ginobli. Which some people around here said he could have been a franchise player. Oh and a prime Parker.

[djohn2oo8]

Ellie said Hakeem was better too.

[lefty]

Ellie said Hakeem was better too.

I agree tbh

[Mitch]

So shaq is a tie above Duncan, Kobe > Duncan, Jackson > pop and Robinson in his prime got killed by hakeem who is on the same level as shaq who is a tier above Duncan and yet they are 3-2 head to head in the playoffs.

Is it Avery Johnson or Stephen Jackson who is that first ballot Jordan level hall of famer?

Shaq > Duncan, simple as that Ambzedong

[hitmanyr2k]

Clyde was actually a beast during the 95 playoffs

He gave Jordan the business during one of the Bulls/Rockets games in 95-96 season too.

[benefactor]

Dream's peak was short, but only a homer would say Duncan>Dream at their best. I watched both of them live...and Dream at his best was the best big man to ever play.

[daslicer]

Hakeem's peak was one of the greatest peaks I have ever seen but it was only for 2 years. As a player he massively underachieved. He had a stretch from 87-92 where he couldn't get out of the first round along with missing the playoffs one year. He didn't have the patience or IQ Duncan had to win more with less talent until the tail end of his prime which coincided with his 2 championships. He's massively overrated due to his 93-95 run.

[ambchang]

Shaq > Duncan, simple as that Ambzedong

So is it Avery Johnson or Stephen Jackson?

[dbreiden83080]

:tu

Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq are a tier above Timothy

Shaq needed arguably a top-five player in history to win championships. You're fucking kidding me right? Shaq was lazy, not as good a defender, not as good a passer, and a dog shit teammate. He was very dominant offensively but he needed Kobe to win because he was not clutch and one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Duncan's overall body of work and impact on the game greatly exceeded Hakeem's two year flash in the pan, so I'd say Duncan was better from that perspective.

And Robinson v. Olajuwon will always be measured by one bad series where Bob Hill decided to let Robinson try to single cover Hakeem while Houston threw the entire kitchen sink at DRob. Individual matchups throughout their careers weren't as lopsided as most people believe them to be. Folklore and conjecture.

And ranking Shaq above Duncan? Again, Shaq was unstoppable in his prime. He could have been the greatest center of all time. But I'd take Tim's overall career and impact ahead of Shaq's.

It probably boils down to what we deem to be the qualities by which we judge greatness on the court. Why do most people consider Bill Russell to be better than Wilt Chamberlain? Wilt's individual stats destroy anything Russell ever did, but that doesn't stop those who can measure a player's greatness by more than a stat-line from understanding the intangibles that Russell brought to the game that Wilt didn't. Tim (hopefully) will be remembered similarly. Winning matters, and Duncan did it better than anyone in his era. He made the players around him better, no matter who that was, or what the popular style of play was at the time, and all he did was win for 19 straight years. Shaq, Hakeem and Wilt had their moments, but guys with the sustained winning greatness of Jordan, Russell and Duncan will be remembered as the pillars of league 50 years down the road.

[lefty]

"Hakeems 2 years flash in a pan"

What? Prime Hakeem was fantastic. The only times he had s good team around him he took Houston to the Finals / titles.

Following the 86 run, the Rockets had injuries to key players /drug problems that led to shit trades. But prior those unfortunate events, Hakeem gave the 2 80s powerhouses (both teams in their apex) the business FFS

What did Jordan do with coke addicts like Woodridge?

[Mitch]

So is it Avery Johnson or Stephen Jackson?

It's just...

Shaq > Duncan

[Reck]

:tu

Hakeem, Kareem and Shaq are a tier above Timothy

LOL Shaq.

His career torpedoed after he couldn't work with the rapist, had one good year with the Heat and then went ring chasing for the rest of his career until it just died rather pathetically.

[Arcadian]

Figures people would go back to underrating Duncan after he retires. He got a lot of respect in the second half of his career, because the first half was so dominant that everyone knew they were watching a legend. He was already considered the GOAT PF halfway through his career, and rightfully so - he was the first player in history to be First-team All-NBA and First-team All-defense in each of his first 9 seasons. And that sums up why he's a top 5 all-time player: he was the centerpiece for 5 championship teams on both ends of the floor.

Horry was just using hyperbole to emphasize his admiration of Dream, but the way he did it was fucking retarded. Next time, get your facts straight and look up the actual FT percentages, asshole. Tim shot 80% from the FT line in 2 seasons. If you're gonna call someone out for that, it should obviously be Shaq.

I think he knows he can get away with saying this shit because Tim is a chill dude who doesn't overreact to everything that is said about him like a faggot.

[ambchang]

It's just...

Shaq > Duncan
How? It's just Duncan > shaq.

You suck at talent evaluation, that's why you got fired by even a joke of a franchise like the lakers.

[140]

Shaq needed arguably a top-five player in history to win championships. You're fucking kidding me right? Shaq was lazy, not as good a defender, not as good a passer, and a dog shit teammate. He was very dominant offensively but he needed Kobe to win because he was not clutch and one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history.
:lmao:lmao:lmao

go back upstairs faggot

[lebomb]

Dream's peak was short, but only a homer would say Duncan>Dream at their best. I watched both of them live...and Dream at his best was the best big man to ever play.

True in a sense, but go back and look at the Rockets record the entire time Hakeem was on the team. They only won 2 rings when he was there and that was when Jordan was AWOL. The Rockets record hovered around .500 for over 10yrs. Hakeem for 2 season > Duncan............career, its not even remotely close Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem.

[DAF86]

Ellie said Hakeem was better too.

And he, just like Horry, didn't play with 2003 Duncan, tbh.

Hakeem's prime might have been a tiny bit better than Duncans, but considering that the difference in primes isn't significant, and could be argued both ways, and Duncan has the definitive advantange in terms of longevity, you just have to give the overall edge to Duncan.

[LkrFan]

True in a sense, but go back and look at the Rockets record the entire time Hakeem was on the team. They only won 2 rings when he was there and that was when Jordan was AWOL. The Rockets record hovered around .500 for over 10yrs. Hakeem for 2 season > Duncan............career, its not even remotely close Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem.

All Jim's titles are post MJ. He had a shot in 1997 and 1998, but didn't "break thru" until the strike shortened 1999 season. That's why he gets an * fam ;)

[140]

^You can't be that retarded, Juanito :lol

[Mitch]

How? It's just Duncan > shaq.

You suck at talent evaluation, that's why you got fired by even a joke of a franchise like the lakers.

If you can't see it then you need to open your eyes, if possible, ambchink

[JamStone]

Duncan has the definitive advantange in terms of longevity, you just have to give the overall edge to Duncan.

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

[ambchang]

All Jim's titles are post MJ. He had a shot in 1997 and 1998, but didn't "break thru" until the strike shortened 1999 season. That's why he gets an * fam ;)

How many players won a ring the first two years in the league as the alpha?

[ambchang]

If you can't see it then you need to open your eyes, if possible, ambchink

:lol. Do you have any other moves other than talking about me being Asian? Was that some form of insult? I don't understand that.

[Mitch]

:lol. Do you have any other moves other than talking about me being Asian? Was that some form of insult? I don't understand that.

No idea what you're talking about, ambchong

[LkrFan]

How many players won a ring the first two years in the league as the alpha?

Magic in '79, before you got your green card :lol

[LkrFan]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Jam came in, dropped a wet deuce, then dipped out. Well played s:loln

[ambchang]

No idea what you're talking about, ambchong

Pretty weak stuff man. Just save the white flag.

[ambchang]

Magic in '79, before you got your green card :lol

Alpha?

[LkrFan]

Alpha?

Yes, Alpha.

[ambchang]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.
Except Duncan's got better advanced stats in some categories.

[Horse]

All of Jim's rangs were post MJ. Jim was 0-2 during MJ era. His first one was off a strike shortened season: *

His 2007 one was a farce as well, thanks to Horry's hipcheck.

Jim always had Pop patrolling the sideline.


Dream shitted on Admiral in 1994. He would shit on Jim too, if both were in their primes.

You have no room son. :)
Stick to sucking cock you're much better at that. You could asterisk every fucking season if you wanted to. Hakeem is 12-30 against 50

[Kyle Orton]

Shaq needed arguably a top-five player in history to win championships. You're fucking kidding me right? Shaq was lazy, not as good a defender, not as good a passer, and a dog shit teammate. He was very dominant offensively but he needed Kobe to win because he was not clutch and one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history.

:lmao

[LkrFan]

Stick to sucking cock you're much better at that. You could asterisk every fucking season if you wanted to. Hakeem is 12-30 against 50

Great post horse shit :lol

[Horse]

Stupid ass horry gave cocksucker laker fans a reason to show up.

[Horse]

Great post horse shit :lol

Facts not the bullshit you constantly spew

[JamStone]

Except Duncan's got better advanced stats in some categories.

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

[LkrFan]

:cry

:lol

[DAF86]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Duncan - PER: 24.2 - WS/48: .209 - VORP: 89.3
Olajuwon - PER: 23.6 - WS/48: .177 - VORP: 77.1

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html#all_advanced
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html#all_advanced

Have a good day son.

[DAF86]

Jam came in, dropped a wet deuce, then dipped out. Well played s:loln

lol

[DAF86]

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

So we can't use the "he had better advanced stats" argument but we can use the "he had better raw numbers" argument?

[ambchang]

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

It could be, but to say that Hakeem's better than Duncan statistically across the board is false. Especially when adjusted for pace and also looking at advanced stats.

Paul is the advanced stats king, and the reason is because his teams revolves almost exclusively around him. Fact that his team failed every year with him as the centre is indicative of where he stands as an all time great, something that's not applicable to Duncan nor hakeem.

[TD4THREE]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.Their stats are negligible when you account for pace, which you should unless you think having a dozen more possessions a game isn't an advantage when it comes to raw stats. And if raw stats are your main reason for having Hakeem over Duncan, then you could make the case that Hakeem was the 4th best center of his era, behind Shaq,Robinson,and Ewing.

[Clipper Nation]

Shaq needed arguably a top-five player in history to win championships. You're fucking kidding me right?
I can understand liking Horry, but he's not a top five player in history :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Magic in '79, before you got your green card :lol
:lol At least he has one, Adelio.

[baseline bum]

If Dream had Pop for his whole career, he'd have at least 6 rangs if Jim won 5 tbh. He was a bad bad man.

If Kobe had Pop for his whole career, he wouldn't have had a rape charge in Colorado. He was a bad bad man.

[lefty]

If Kobe had Pop for his whole career, he wouldn't have had a rape charge in Colorado. He was a bad bad man.

If Kobe had Pop he would have had averaged 15 ppg

[JamStone]

Duncan - PER: 24.2 - WS/48: .209 - VORP: 89.3
Olajuwon - PER: 23.6 - WS/48: .177 - VORP: 77.1

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html#all_advanced
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html#all_advanced

Have a good day son.

Did you not read my post just two posts above this? Advance stats by themselves rarely if ever tell the entire story. I don't discredit them. Better if used along with other standard statistical evidence and in context.

Both win shares and vorp are advanced stats that are formulated at least in part with team performance and team success. Not a great reflection of individual statistical production. PER is a better advanced stat for that. And Duncan does have the advantage in career regular season. Hakeem has a bigger advantage in career playoffs PER. Would you concede Hakeem had the better playoff career than Duncan? Your call.

[JamStone]

So we can't use the "he had better advanced stats" argument but we can use the "he had better raw numbers" argument?

Never once said that. In fact, I don't mind using advanced stats at all. I just prefer a more complete picture using both.

[JamStone]

It could be, but to say that Hakeem's better than Duncan statistically across the board is false. Especially when adjusted for pace and also looking at advanced stats.

That's a fair point. Based on PER 100 possession production, the two are statistically comparable. Duncan the slightly better rebounder and playmaker; Hakeem the better and more efficient scorer and a better or more active "statistical" defender. But both pretty close to each other statistically.

Remember, my entry into the discussion started in response to DAF's assertion that Duncan's longevity gave him the definite, overall edge. If I can concede looking at per100 statistics that the two are essentially statistically negligible, it still stands that I don't believe Duncan has the definite overall edge, based on longevity or otherwise. In fact, I still haven't read from DAF explaining the longevity point.


Paul is the advanced stats king, and the reason is because his teams revolves almost exclusively around him. Fact that his team failed every year with him as the centre is indicative of where he stands as an all time great, something that's not applicable to Duncan nor hakeem.

Precisely why I wouldn't use advanced stats "exclusively" to argue a point, the way DAF did above.

[LkrFan]

:lol At least he has one, Adelio.

:lol

[JamStone]

Their stats are negligible when you account for pace, which you should unless you think having a dozen more possessions a game isn't an advantage when it comes to raw stats. And if raw stats are your main reason for having Hakeem over Duncan, then you could make the case that Hakeem was the 4th best center of his era, behind Shaq,Robinson,and Ewing.

Again, fair point as I just said responding to amchang.

The problem with your examples are they don't fit your argument. Both Robinson and Ewing had a couple to a handful of seasons of better statistics than Hakeem. Not entire careers. Hakeem has better overall stats than either. If you want to go season by season, sure each had a few better seasons. Just not overall. And that's why we evaluate entire careers, not just 2 or 3 or 5 isolated seasons.

Shaq is interesting and has a more arguable point especially because of sheer dominance scoring the ball. But the rest of his game doesn't reall stack up, particularly on the defensive end. Really good assist guy and good but not all time great rebounder. An average defender considering his size and athletically ability, especially earlier in his career.

So while I do and already have conceded the point about pace adjusted statistical production, your examples are left wanting.

[DAF86]

Never once said that. In fact, I don't mind using advanced stats at all. I just prefer a more complete picture using both.

Well, "the more complete picture", using both, doesn't show Hakeem's stats are "clearly better", as you said. So, either way you look at it, you are still wrong.

[DAF86]

In fact, I still haven't read from DAF explaining the longevity point.

-Duncan's first all-NBA team was in '98, his last was in 2015. That's a 17 years difference. Olajuwon's first all-NBA team came in '86, his last in '99. 13 years difference. That leaves Duncan with a 4 year advantage. Not to mention Duncan has a 15 to 12 all-NBA team advantage and a 10 to 6 all-NBA first team.advantage.

-Duncan was elite for everysingle year of his career, with the exception of maybe the last one (in which he was still ranked number 1 in DPM). Hakeem's last years (and some in between) were a disgrace (Raptors' Hakeem :vomit: ).

-And finally, but not least, Duncan won his first championship in 1999, his last one in 2014. 5 championships in total, at least one in three different decades. And yeah, you can point, with some validity, that those are teams' accomplishments; but the fact that Duncan won all those championships as the best player on his team should not only matter but it should be held up high as one of the most incredible feats in the history of the league.

So, no matter how important each individual believes those things, I listed, to be, I think pretty much everybody will agree that Duncan does have a longevity advantage, how big of an advantage? That's for each one to decide, but an advantage at least. And that's how you prove something to be "clear"; not by posting some raw stats and just stating that it is, tbh.

[djohn2oo8]

True in a sense, but go back and look at the Rockets record the entire time Hakeem was on the team. They only won 2 rings when he was there and that was when Jordan was AWOL. The Rockets record hovered around .500 for over 10yrs. Hakeem for 2 season > Duncan............career, its not even remotely close Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem.
Hakeem nearly carried his drugged out teammates to a title against Boston. Go back and show me his best teammates from those 10 years.

[ambchang]

That's a fair point. Based on PER 100 possession production, the two are statistically comparable. Duncan the slightly better rebounder and playmaker; Hakeem the better and more efficient scorer and a better or more active "statistical" defender. But both pretty close to each other statistically.

Remember, my entry into the discussion started in response to DAF's assertion that Duncan's longevity gave him the definite, overall edge. If I can concede looking at per100 statistics that the two are essentially statistically negligible, it still stands that I don't believe Duncan has the definite overall edge, based on longevity or otherwise. In fact, I still haven't read from DAF explaining the longevity point.



Precisely why I wouldn't use advanced stats "exclusively" to argue a point, the way DAF did above.

But given the two are similar in adjusted stats and Duncan did it longer, with better team success, and also with multiple types of teams, it reasons that Duncan > hakeem.

Again, one on one: hakeem, build a team: Duncan.

[ambchang]

Hakeem nearly carried his drugged out teammates to a title against Boston. Go back and show me his best teammates from those 10 years.

So when hakeem sucked it's because of his teammates, but when hakeem beat Robinson it was because of individuals, nothing to do with one coach deciding to go single team and the other go triple, nothing to do with rodman leaving his man open to chase rebound so Robinson had to guard two positions, nothing to do with robinsons teammates failing to bail wide open shots. Stick to a lane.

And btw, don't blame Hakeem's teammates, everyone was drugged out in the mid 80s, it's just that you guys and Dallas were threatening the league cashcow of lakers vs celtics so those two had to be sacrificed for the greater good.

[djohn2oo8]

So when hakeem sucked it's because of his teammates, but when hakeem beat Robinson it was because of individuals, nothing to do with one coach deciding to go single team and the other go triple, nothing to do with rodman leaving his man open to chase rebound so Robinson had to guard two positions, nothing to do with robinsons teammates failing to bail wide open shots. Stick to a lane.

And btw, don't blame Hakeem's teammates, everyone was drugged out in the mid 80s, it's just that you guys and Dallas were threatening the league cashcow of lakers vs celtics so those two had to be sacrificed for the greater good.
Wait, so because Hakeem's best teammates were drugged out it's okay because everyone else but the Celtics were doing it? :lmao

[djohn2oo8]

Yeah I can blame those Rockets from getting banned from the league in the 80's because of drug use.

[DMC]

If Kobe had Pop for his whole career, he wouldn't have had a rape charge in Colorado. He was a bad bad man.

And Vanessa could have French and Filipino kids.

[dbreiden83080]

I can understand liking Horry, but he's not a top five player in history :lol

Kobe....

[djohn2oo8]

Hakeem went from 87-94 with pretty trash teams. Sampson ,Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas In 87, Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas were kicked out of the league and Sampson was done. So chang, who were his best teammates from that time?

[ambchang]

Wait, so because Hakeem's best teammates were drugged out it's okay because everyone else but the Celtics were doing it? :lmao

Point, engaged in flying motion <-----


You, particularly your head <------

[lefty]

Hakeem went from 87-94 with pretty trash teams. Sampson ,Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas In 87, Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas were kicked out of the league and Sampson was done. So chang, who were his best teammates from that time?

[ambchang]

Hakeem went from 87-94 with pretty trash teams. Sampson ,Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas In 87, Loyd, Wiggins, Lucas were kicked out of the league and Sampson was done. So chang, who were his best teammates from that time?

And Robinson's best PG in his career was cut by the Rockets, twice! Robinson relied on teammates like JR Reid and Vinny Del Negro, his best sidekick was Sean Elliott (who I love, but clearly not the caliber of Drexler even the washed up version). People kept talking about how bad the support cast Hakeem had in 94 (95 was decent), but Kenny Smith was a 17/8 guy (before he reached his prime) on those horrible Kings teams, he as actually still a 17/7 when he first joined the Rockets. He was a decent player on a bad team, not unlike the Kemba Walkers or Nikola Vucevics in :lol today's NBA. Maxwell was a 17pt guy with defense with the Rockets as well. Otis Thorpe was a borderline allstar, and Larry Smith was a workhorse. You make it sound like Hakeem played with a bunch of scrubs like T-Mac did in Orlando, but that isn't the case.

The point is that if you want to talk about Hakeem > Robinson because of one h2h playoff series and rings, yet totally ignore quality of teammates, then don't say teammates is a factor when comparing Duncan and Hakeem.

My stance is pretty clear and simple, Duncan > Hakeem from a career perspective because they both had similar normalized stats, and yet Duncan won more and with more diverse teams. Duncan's 03 supporting cast is comparable to Hakeem's 94 supporting cast, and Duncan dragged deeply flawed teams from 00 to 02 to the playoffs every year, something Hakeem wasn't able to do with his deeply flawed team in 89 (albeit injuries). For peaks, Duncan's 03 playoff run is most definitely comparable to Hakeems championship runs, just that Hakeem did it twice (99 was also a great run btw).

People talk about Hakeem's peak >>>>>> Duncan's peak, and it's simply not the case. They are very comparable.

I am not saying Hakeem's got great teammates, but I am asking you (and general posters) to be consistent.

[JamStone]

-Duncan's first all-NBA team was in '98, his last was in 2015. That's a 17 years difference. Olajuwon's first all-NBA team came in '86, his last in '99. 13 years difference. That leaves Duncan with a 4 year advantage. Not to mention Duncan has a 15 to 12 all-NBA team advantage and a 10 to 6 all-NBA first team.advantage.

-Duncan was elite for everysingle year of his career, with the exception of maybe the last one (in which he was still ranked number 1 in DPM). Hakeem's last years (and some in between) were a disgrace (Raptors' Hakeem :vomit: ).

-And finally, but not least, Duncan won his first championship in 1999, his last one in 2014. 5 championships in total, at least one in three different decades. And yeah, you can point, with some validity, that those are teams' accomplishments; but the fact that Duncan won all those championships as the best player on his team should not only matter but it should be held up high as one of the most incredible feats in the history of the league.

So, no matter how important each individual believes those things, I listed, to be, I think pretty much everybody will agree that Duncan does have a longevity advantage, how big of an advantage? That's for each one to decide, but an advantage at least. And that's how you prove something to be "clear"; not by posting some raw stats and just stating that it is, tbh.


Thank you for finally explaining your contention, however flawed the logic is.

1. Your first point needs context in the worst way. Duncan's last all-NBA team in 2015 was a third team all-NBA honor in a season where Duncan averaged 13.9 PPG. 14 points a game all-NBA? On a forum that criticizes, discredits, and bemoans media voted awards like Kobe's all-Defense honors, you're going to use all-NBA honors as your first point? Really? If you think Duncan didn't "earn" third team all-NBA in 2015 because of name and reputation over guys like Jimmy Butler and Gordon Hayward in a season where guys like Kevin Durant and Paul George were injured, you're fooling yourself.

Here's more context: Hakeem in his rookie year averaged 21 points and 12 rebounds and didn't make all-NBA. Two huge points: in 1985, there were only two all-NBA teams, not the expanded three all-NBA teams that happened in 1989. Two spots. Duncan's last all-NBA came in 2015 as a forward where there are 6 spots for forwards. Two spots for centers in 1985. Six spots for forwards in 2015 where Duncan was likely the 6th forward honored. Pretty important piece of information. Oh and the two centers who were all-NBA in 1985 were just guys named Kareem and Moses. Oh just that too.

Your all-NBA argument is superficial and lacks true substance. "Yeahhh Kobe was an elite defender through the 2012 season when he was 33 years old!" Agree with that, do you?


2. Hakeem was not good his last few years, absolutely, when he had certainly regressed and injuries really started to stunt his production. But he was never a disgrace "in between" the start of his career and those last few seasons. Your bias is showing. Duncan stopped being a dominant player in his own right around the same age (mid 30s) when he became less of a focal point on offense and became more of a role player. His last three years were nothing to right home about either. Even before his last season, the prior two seasons before that, he was a 14-15 point scorer and essentially a role player at that. Not "elite." Hell, he was a 13 point scorer in his age 33-34 season.

Come on with the "elite" title every year but his last. Really? It sounds silly. Of course, based on your Manu is a franchise player, maybe 13 points a game is still "elite" in your mind...


Let's look at their actual year-by-year production instead of just media voted awards.

Duncan stats / Hakeem stats

1. 21.1 P, 11.9 R, .549 FG% / 20.6 P, 11.9 R, .538 FG%
2. 21.7 P, 11.4 R, .495 FG% / 23.5 P, 11.5 R, .526 FG%
3. 23.2 P, 12.4 R, .490 FG% / 23.4 P, 11.4 R, .508 FG%
4. 22.2 P, 12.2 R, .499 FG% / 22.8 P, 12.1 R, .514 FG%
5. 25.5 P, 12.7 R, .508 FG% / 24.8 P, 13.5 R, .508 FG%
6. 23.3 P, 12.9 R, .513 FG% / 24.3 P, 14.0 R, .501 FG%
7. 22.3 P, 12.4 R, .501 FG% / 21.2 P, 13.8 R, .508 FG%
8. 20.3 P, 11.1 R, .496 FG% / 21.6 P, 12.1 R, .502 FG%
9. 18.6 P, 11.0 R, .484 FG% / 26.1 P, 13.0 R, .529 FG%
10. 20.0 P, 10.6 R, .546 FG% / 27.3 P, 11.9 R, .528 FG%
11. 19.3 P, 11.3 R, .497 FG% / 27.8 P, 10.8 R, .517 FG%
12. 19.3 P, 10.7 R, .504 FG% / 26.9 P, 10.9 R, .514 FG%
13. 17.9 P, 10.1 R, .518 FG% / 23.2 P, 9.2 R, .510 FG%
14. 13.4 P, 8.9 R, .500 FG% / 16.4 P, 9.8 R, .483 FG%
15. 15.4 P, 9.0 R, .492 FG% / 18.9 P, 9.6 R, .514 FG%
16. 17.8 P, 9.9 R, .502 FG% / 10.3 P, 6.2 R, .458 FG%
17. 15.1 P, 9.7 R, .490 FG% / 11.9 P, 7.4 R, .498 FG%
18. 13.9 P, 9.1 R, .512 FG% /7.1 P, 6.0 R, .464 FG%
19. 8.6 P, 7.3 R, .488 FG% / N/A

The longevity argument doesn't make sense to me. They both started to regress in their mid 30s. Difference was that Duncan was still playing on great teams when he started to regress. That's not due to his greatness. That's because the team was simply still good.


3. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. And Duncan wasn't the best player on all those championship teams. To assert that is stupefying to say the least. In Duncan's last championship, he was a role player. Even in 2007, he was a second banana to Tony Parker in the Finals. Hell he shot under 45% from the field in the 2007 NBA Finals, against that "juggernaut defensive" Cavaliers team.

The championship argument is almost as silly as Manu was a franchise player assertion.

It's not an incredible feat to be part of great teams. It's a credit to the organization and, the drafting and acquiring of players, the longterm development of those players, and the coaching of those teams.

In Duncan's last season, when he was really limited to a much smaller role, 25 minutes a game, less than 10 points a game, and the team was truly handed over to Kawhi and even Aldridge to a lesser extent, what happened? Oh they were a 67 win team, their best record in the Tim Duncan era... with Duncan as a small role player. What happened when the all-time great Duncan retired and the team no longer had his elite production from their best player to carry them? 61 wins, 2nd best record in the league.

Great players help teams win. They aren't the sole reason team's have success, certainly not Duncan in his later years. And not just his last 2-3 seasons, but heck Pop started transitioning from Duncan as the focal point in the offense as early as "around" the 2007 season, but certainly by 2010-2011. 5 years before Duncan retired.


Longevity... your argument, your points are all very weak. Posting media voted awards and team accomplishments is much worse than posting raw stats. Honestly...

But hey, at least you tried to explain yourself, finally.

[DAF86]

Thank you for finally explaining your contention, however flawed the logic is.

1. Your first point needs context in the worst way. Duncan's last all-NBA team in 2015 was a third team all-NBA honor in a season where Duncan averaged 13.9 PPG. 14 points a game all-NBA? On a forum that criticizes, discredits, and bemoans media voted awards like Kobe's all-Defense honors, you're going to use all-NBA honors as your first point? Really? If you think Duncan didn't "earn" third team all-NBA in 2015 because of name and reputation over guys like Jimmy Butler and Gordon Hayward in a season where guys like Kevin Durant and Paul George were injured, you're fooling yourself.

Here's more context: Hakeem in his rookie year averaged 21 points and 12 rebounds and didn't make all-NBA. Two huge points: in 1985, there were only two all-NBA teams, not the expanded three all-NBA teams that happened in 1989. Two spots. Duncan's last all-NBA came in 2015 as a forward where there are 6 spots for forwards. Two spots for centers in 1985. Six spots for forwards in 2015 where Duncan was likely the 6th forward honored. Pretty important piece of information. Oh and the two centers who were all-NBA in 1985 were just guys named Kareem and Moses. Oh just that too.

Your all-NBA argument is superficial and lacks true substance. "Yeahhh Kobe was an elite defender through the 2012 season when he was 33 years old!" Agree with that, do you?


2. Hakeem was not good his last few years, absolutely, when he had certainly regressed and injuries really started to stunt his production. But he was never a disgrace "in between" the start of his career and those last few seasons. Your bias is showing. Duncan stopped being a dominant player in his own right around the same age (mid 30s) when he became less of a focal point on offense and became more of a role player. His last three years were nothing to right home about either. Even before his last season, the prior two seasons before that, he was a 14-15 point scorer and essentially a role player at that. Not "elite." Hell, he was a 13 point scorer in his age 33-34 season.

Come on with the "elite" title every year but his last. Really? It sounds silly. Of course, based on your Manu is a franchise player, maybe 13 points a game is still "elite" in your mind...


Let's look at their actual year-by-year production instead of just media voted awards.

Duncan stats / Hakeem stats

1. 21.1 P, 11.9 R, .549 FG% / 20.6 P, 11.9 R, .538 FG%
2. 21.7 P, 11.4 R, .495 FG% / 23.5 P, 11.5 R, .526 FG%
3. 23.2 P, 12.4 R, .490 FG% / 23.4 P, 11.4 R, .508 FG%
4. 22.2 P, 12.2 R, .499 FG% / 22.8 P, 12.1 R, .514 FG%
5. 25.5 P, 12.7 R, .508 FG% / 24.8 P, 13.5 R, .508 FG%
6. 23.3 P, 12.9 R, .513 FG% / 24.3 P, 14.0 R, .501 FG%
7. 22.3 P, 12.4 R, .501 FG% / 21.2 P, 13.8 R, .508 FG%
8. 20.3 P, 11.1 R, .496 FG% / 21.6 P, 12.1 R, .502 FG%
9. 18.6 P, 11.0 R, .484 FG% / 26.1 P, 13.0 R, .529 FG%
10. 20.0 P, 10.6 R, .546 FG% / 27.3 P, 11.9 R, .528 FG%
11. 19.3 P, 11.3 R, .497 FG% / 27.8 P, 10.8 R, .517 FG%
12. 19.3 P, 10.7 R, .504 FG% / 26.9 P, 10.9 R, .514 FG%
13. 17.9 P, 10.1 R, .518 FG% / 23.2 P, 9.2 R, .510 FG%
14. 13.4 P, 8.9 R, .500 FG% / 16.4 P, 9.8 R, .483 FG%
15. 15.4 P, 9.0 R, .492 FG% / 18.9 P, 9.6 R, .514 FG%
16. 17.8 P, 9.9 R, .502 FG% / 10.3 P, 6.2 R, .458 FG%
17. 15.1 P, 9.7 R, .490 FG% / 11.9 P, 7.4 R, .498 FG%
18. 13.9 P, 9.1 R, .512 FG% /7.1 P, 6.0 R, .464 FG%
19. 8.6 P, 7.3 R, .488 FG% / N/A

The longevity argument doesn't make sense to me. They both started to regress in their mid 30s. Difference was that Duncan was still playing on great teams when he started to regress. That's not due to his greatness. That's because the team was simply still good.


3. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. And Duncan wasn't the best player on all those championship teams. To assert that is stupefying to say the least. In Duncan's last championship, he was a role player. Even in 2007, he was a second banana to Tony Parker in the Finals. Hell he shot under 45% from the field in the 2007 NBA Finals, against that "juggernaut defensive" Cavaliers team.

The championship argument is almost as silly as Manu was a franchise player assertion.

It's not an incredible feat to be part of great teams. It's a credit to the organization and, the drafting and acquiring of players, the longterm development of those players, and the coaching of those teams.

In Duncan's last season, when he was really limited to a much smaller role, 25 minutes a game, less than 10 points a game, and the team was truly handed over to Kawhi and even Aldridge to a lesser extent, what happened? Oh they were a 67 win team, their best record in the Tim Duncan era... with Duncan as a small role player. What happened when the all-time great Duncan retired and the team no longer had his elite production from their best player to carry them? 61 wins, 2nd best record in the league.

Great players help teams win. They aren't the sole reason team's have success, certainly not Duncan in his later years. And not just his last 2-3 seasons, but heck Pop started transitioning from Duncan as the focal point in the offense as early as "around" the 2007 season, but certainly by 2010-2011. 5 years before Duncan retired.


Longevity... your argument, your points are all very weak. Posting media voted awards and team accomplishments is much worse than posting raw stats. Honestly...

But hey, at least you tried to explain yourself, finally.

For a guy that says that wants to provide context, some of your arguments sure lack that, tbh.

First of all, your "Duncan was a second banana in 2007" comment was downright embarrassing, but you know that, so no reason to expand on that.

Second, do you limit everything to points per game? There's only two possible explanations for you saying Duncan wasn't the best Spur player up to the team's most recent championship:

1) you are twisting reality to fit your agenda or;
2) You haven't watched those Spurs play enough, not only that, you didn't even care to check the numbers either (and not the raw numbers. The numbers that actually show how important a player is to a team. On this case, you would be comparing players on the exact same roster, so you don't have the "advanced stats are influenced by teammates" copout, tbh).

And finally, if you think that the best player of the team that won a championship isn't "elite", then we have very different conceptions of what elite represents. To me an elite player is someone who influences the game enough to make a team a championship contender (for example, your own Ben Wallace was an elite player in the mid '00's, imho), to you it seems to be a player who puts up high pts totals.

Anyway, do you want to change the word "elite" for "very good"? For me it's the same. Duncan has been "very good" for the entirety of his career with the exception of the maybe the last one (and even that last year can be arguable for the fact that I have already mentioned), Hakeem hasn't.

P/S: I would like to read your opinion on why you think Ginobili couldn't have been a franchise player to see how obtuse your bb reasoning can get. I had you as smarter than that, tbh. but I guess there's a reason why you always were one of the biggest Kobe apologists in here.

[TD 21]

Thank you for finally explaining your contention, however flawed the logic is.

1. Your first point needs context in the worst way. Duncan's last all-NBA team in 2015 was a third team all-NBA honor in a season where Duncan averaged 13.9 PPG. 14 points a game all-NBA? On a forum that criticizes, discredits, and bemoans media voted awards like Kobe's all-Defense honors, you're going to use all-NBA honors as your first point? Really? If you think Duncan didn't "earn" third team all-NBA in 2015 because of name and reputation over guys like Jimmy Butler and Gordon Hayward in a season where guys like Kevin Durant and Paul George were injured, you're fooling yourself.

Here's more context: Hakeem in his rookie year averaged 21 points and 12 rebounds and didn't make all-NBA. Two huge points: in 1985, there were only two all-NBA teams, not the expanded three all-NBA teams that happened in 1989. Two spots. Duncan's last all-NBA came in 2015 as a forward where there are 6 spots for forwards. Two spots for centers in 1985. Six spots for forwards in 2015 where Duncan was likely the 6th forward honored. Pretty important piece of information. Oh and the two centers who were all-NBA in 1985 were just guys named Kareem and Moses. Oh just that too.

Your all-NBA argument is superficial and lacks true substance. "Yeahhh Kobe was an elite defender through the 2012 season when he was 33 years old!" Agree with that, do you?


2. Hakeem was not good his last few years, absolutely, when he had certainly regressed and injuries really started to stunt his production. But he was never a disgrace "in between" the start of his career and those last few seasons. Your bias is showing. Duncan stopped being a dominant player in his own right around the same age (mid 30s) when he became less of a focal point on offense and became more of a role player. His last three years were nothing to right home about either. Even before his last season, the prior two seasons before that, he was a 14-15 point scorer and essentially a role player at that. Not "elite." Hell, he was a 13 point scorer in his age 33-34 season.

Come on with the "elite" title every year but his last. Really? It sounds silly. Of course, based on your Manu is a franchise player, maybe 13 points a game is still "elite" in your mind...


Let's look at their actual year-by-year production instead of just media voted awards.

Duncan stats / Hakeem stats

1. 21.1 P, 11.9 R, .549 FG% / 20.6 P, 11.9 R, .538 FG%
2. 21.7 P, 11.4 R, .495 FG% / 23.5 P, 11.5 R, .526 FG%
3. 23.2 P, 12.4 R, .490 FG% / 23.4 P, 11.4 R, .508 FG%
4. 22.2 P, 12.2 R, .499 FG% / 22.8 P, 12.1 R, .514 FG%
5. 25.5 P, 12.7 R, .508 FG% / 24.8 P, 13.5 R, .508 FG%
6. 23.3 P, 12.9 R, .513 FG% / 24.3 P, 14.0 R, .501 FG%
7. 22.3 P, 12.4 R, .501 FG% / 21.2 P, 13.8 R, .508 FG%
8. 20.3 P, 11.1 R, .496 FG% / 21.6 P, 12.1 R, .502 FG%
9. 18.6 P, 11.0 R, .484 FG% / 26.1 P, 13.0 R, .529 FG%
10. 20.0 P, 10.6 R, .546 FG% / 27.3 P, 11.9 R, .528 FG%
11. 19.3 P, 11.3 R, .497 FG% / 27.8 P, 10.8 R, .517 FG%
12. 19.3 P, 10.7 R, .504 FG% / 26.9 P, 10.9 R, .514 FG%
13. 17.9 P, 10.1 R, .518 FG% / 23.2 P, 9.2 R, .510 FG%
14. 13.4 P, 8.9 R, .500 FG% / 16.4 P, 9.8 R, .483 FG%
15. 15.4 P, 9.0 R, .492 FG% / 18.9 P, 9.6 R, .514 FG%
16. 17.8 P, 9.9 R, .502 FG% / 10.3 P, 6.2 R, .458 FG%
17. 15.1 P, 9.7 R, .490 FG% / 11.9 P, 7.4 R, .498 FG%
18. 13.9 P, 9.1 R, .512 FG% /7.1 P, 6.0 R, .464 FG%
19. 8.6 P, 7.3 R, .488 FG% / N/A

The longevity argument doesn't make sense to me. They both started to regress in their mid 30s. Difference was that Duncan was still playing on great teams when he started to regress. That's not due to his greatness. That's because the team was simply still good.


3. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. And Duncan wasn't the best player on all those championship teams. To assert that is stupefying to say the least. In Duncan's last championship, he was a role player. Even in 2007, he was a second banana to Tony Parker in the Finals. Hell he shot under 45% from the field in the 2007 NBA Finals, against that "juggernaut defensive" Cavaliers team.

The championship argument is almost as silly as Manu was a franchise player assertion.

It's not an incredible feat to be part of great teams. It's a credit to the organization and, the drafting and acquiring of players, the longterm development of those players, and the coaching of those teams.

In Duncan's last season, when he was really limited to a much smaller role, 25 minutes a game, less than 10 points a game, and the team was truly handed over to Kawhi and even Aldridge to a lesser extent, what happened? Oh they were a 67 win team, their best record in the Tim Duncan era... with Duncan as a small role player. What happened when the all-time great Duncan retired and the team no longer had his elite production from their best player to carry them? 61 wins, 2nd best record in the league.

Great players help teams win. They aren't the sole reason team's have success, certainly not Duncan in his later years. And not just his last 2-3 seasons, but heck Pop started transitioning from Duncan as the focal point in the offense as early as "around" the 2007 season, but certainly by 2010-2011. 5 years before Duncan retired.


Longevity... your argument, your points are all very weak. Posting media voted awards and team accomplishments is much worse than posting raw stats. Honestly...

But hey, at least you tried to explain yourself, finally.



The dumbest argument, in virtually any player comparison, is counting stats. Advanced stats, era, mindset, teammates, all have to be factored in to have the proper context. You can't just take someone's raw totals and surmise that that's all a player was capable of averaging.

[Clipper Nation]

Kobe....
:lol Thinking Shaq "needed" that D-League caliber scrub

[TD4THREE]

Tim Duncan age 37.

18 points 10 rebounds and 3 blocks per game in just over 30 minutes, per 36 of 21.3, 11.9 and 3.2. Had the 6th highest PER in the league, was the best player on a team that was a missed 3pt shot, an offensive rebound a made ft or another made ft away from winning it all. But yeah, "role player"...:rolleyes:rolleyes. And even up until 2015 which was his second to last season, he was still the spurs best postseason player.

[TD4THREE]

Again, fair point as I just said responding to amchang.

The problem with your examples are they don't fit your argument. Both Robinson and Ewing had a couple to a handful of seasons of better statistics than Hakeem. Not entire careers. Hakeem has better overall stats than either. If you want to go season by season, sure each had a few better seasons. Just not overall. And that's why we evaluate entire careers, not just 2 or 3 or 5 isolated seasons.

Shaq is interesting and has a more arguable point especially because of sheer dominance scoring the ball. But the rest of his game doesn't reall stack up, particularly on the defensive end. Really good assist guy and good but not all time great rebounder. An average defender considering his size and athletically ability, especially earlier in his career.

So while I do and already have conceded the point about pace adjusted statistical production, your examples are left wanting.
Hakeem and Robinson career stats are virtually identical across the board. With as you said Robinson having better peak years. Similar case with Ewing. I use them as examples because during their careers many considered them to be equal or above Hakeem, then he won back to back championships and the comparisons pretty much ended.

Winning matters..You can say all you want about it being a team accomplishment, but look at the players who people unanimously consider top 10 MJ,Bird,Magic,Kobe,Duncan, Shaq, Russell, Kareem, etc. All of them won big throughout their careers, they didn't spend the majority of their careers barely getting their team over .500 and getting dumped in the first round, which is why I think Hakeem is behind all of them.