If you wanted to start a franchise, who would you pick?

[gtownspur]

State why......

[Pablo Escobar]

why not

[gtownspur]

I guess some people would rather have 2 championships and few playoff appearances than have 3-4 championships and regular playoff appearances.

[thewatcher]

i would pick the greatest, because he was a super-human.

[ambchang]

1) The Dream won with one type of team (surrounded by 3 pt shooters), Duncan won with much more.
2) The Dream's prime was quite long 89-96, but his years of dominance in the league was 2 to 3 years. Duncan's prime was 97-present, and he has been dominant since 99.

[gtownspur]

Whott would probably pick Terry Cummings.

[gtownspur]

i would pick the greatest, because he was a super-human.

Yes he was.....



sincerely,

Scottie pippen
and the 96' sonics.

[gtownspur]

i would pick the greatest, because he was a super-human.


I didn't put jesus as an option, pick again.

[thewatcher]

so...duncan > the goat of the goats???????????

[BradLohaus]

State why......

Because Duncan is better :fro

Throw in Russell, Wilt and Jabbar and there could be some debate.

[thewatcher]

who is "the dream"? hakem?. i thought it was mike. :lol

[gtownspur]

who is "the dream"? hakem?. i thought it was mike. :lol


Yes, Hakeem "The Wet Dream".

[dbreiden83080]

Hakeem was amazing on both ends just like Duncan but to me Tim is the ultimate team player that can adapt himself to any supporting cast. He makes everyone around him as good as anyone i have seen since Jordan.

[exstatic]

I'd pick Tim, because his game is less predicated on athleticism, and he will probably last longer. When Dream's hops went, his game fell off a cliff.

[implacable44]

different eras -- hakeem had to go up against Ewing, Mutombo, Sean Kemp - Shaq, D-rob - Mark Eaton all in their prime - there are few quality big men in the game today - not to take away from Duncan but his biggest obstacle --opponent was am old Karl Malone.

Hakeem won his two rings with Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, Sam Cassell and Bob -- he did not have near the team that the Spurs are.

[mVp]

Hakeem was amazing on both ends just like Duncan but to me Tim is the ultimate team player that can adapt himself to any supporting cast. He makes everyone around him as good as anyone i have seen since Jordan.

True!

[v2freak]

I'd pick Tim, because his game is less predicated on athleticism, and he will probably last longer. When Dream's hops went, his game fell off a cliff.

Agree

[bobbyjoe]

1) The Dream won with one type of team (surrounded by 3 pt shooters), Duncan won with much more.
2) The Dream's prime was quite long 89-96, but his years of dominance in the league was 2 to 3 years. Duncan's prime was 97-present, and he has been dominant since 99.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

[SANANTOJAMES]

Timmy is proven

[bobbyjoe]

different eras -- hakeem had to go up against Ewing, Mutombo, Sean Kemp - Shaq, D-rob - Mark Eaton all in their prime - there are few quality big men in the game today - not to take away from Duncan but his biggest obstacle --opponent was am old Karl Malone.

Hakeem won his two rings with Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, Sam Cassell and Bob -- he did not have near the team that the Spurs are.

This is why it's pretty silly just to look at rings. Duncan landed into the perfect situation with a top 50 player in David Robinson, a team which had consistently won 55-60 games before his arrival (discounting the 97 injury filled season).

Then the Spurs hit the jackpot in the draft with Manu and Parker, 2 excellent guards. They've had Bowen, Horry, and Finley, excellent role players.

Hakeem ran into a guy named Larry Bird in the 1986 Finals even after beating a Kareem/Magic team.

You have to look at context.

There's really nothing on the basketball court that Tim does BETTER than Olajuwon which is the problem in this matchup besides passing.

Hakeem scored more, had more moves, shot a higher % from the field and line, and defended better. He was Tim Duncan with more athleticism.

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

[dbreiden83080]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

Tim does not look to put up the big stats. He is the ultimate team player. He goes 10-15 whenever he wants, you doubt Timmy could go for 35 a night every night if he wanted too. Tim can adapt himself better to teamates than Hakeem could. He had Barkley on his team still a very good player and Drexler and they lost in the playoffs to teams like the Sonics.

[bobbyjoe]

Actually, that's not true at all. Hakeem faced the Sonics once with Charles Barkley on his team in 1997. Both he and Charles were 34-35 yrs old at the time, past their prime, and they still beat the Sonics. Maybe you were thinking of the Utah Jazz the year they got to the Finals.

Regardless, using that argument is it a slap in Tim's face that he couldn't get past a team with Dirk Nowitzki as it's best player, not exactly a guy known as a playoff juggernaut?

Again, the best judges really should be Elie and Horry here since they played with both players in their primes. Both picked Hakeem so I guess they didn't seem to mind the way he "adapted to his teammates".

Hakeem was easily the better defensive player than Tim, so to make an argument Tim was better overall you have to argue that he was significantly better than him offensively even though your eyes, statistics, and guys who played with both say otherwise.

[dbreiden83080]

Regardless, using that argument is it a slap in Tim's face that he couldn't get past a team with Dirk Nowitzki as it's best player, not exactly a guy known as a playoff juggernaut?



You just lost the argument with that crap right then and there pal, everyone knows Tim was putting up huge numbers in that series on one DAMN FOOT!! He still played great and his team let him down, that is a pathetic example.

[johngateswhiteley]

b/c TD is better...

[bobbyjoe]

You just lost the argument with that crap right then and there pal, everyone knows Tim was putting up huge numbers in that series on one DAMN FOOT!! He still played great and his team let him down, that is a pathetic example.

Uh, ok, and you won the argument when you said Hakeem lost with Barkley to the Sonics even though that was FALSE?

[PM5K]

It's useless to ask questions like this on a SPURS forum.

For the record however, I can't say I'd pick Dream, but I really like that a prime Dream was a better shot blocker and got more steals than Tim...

It's hard to turn down a guy who for example, put together a season where he averaged 24 PPG / 14 Rebounds / 4.6 BLK / 2.1 STL

[Nbadan]

Should be Shaq or tim

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/diaz_cameron_2.jpg

[SpursIndonesia]

It would be a tough choice, IMHO, can't go wrong with either. Hakeem's peak is higher than TD, but TD's the easier franchise player to built around with -my subjectivity. So, TD's my choice personally -can't argue much against the opposite choice though.

[T-Pain]

The Big Fundamental = 3 rings (and potentially 1 more)
The Dream = 2 rings

[bobbyjoe]

The Big Fundamental = 3 rings (and potentially 1 more)
The Dream = 2 rings

Billups: 1 ring
Stockton: 0 rings
Nash: 0 rings

So Billups>>>Stockton and Nash?

[T-Pain]

Billups: 1 ring
Stockton: 0 rings
Nash: 0 rings

So Billups>>>Stockton and Nash?
records and shit dont mean a thing without the ring. if you ask me about brady and manning, i still pick brady because hes brought his team to the promised land more times than manning has.

[bobbyjoe]

Except that rings are a team, not an individual achievement.

Wilt only had 2 rings but is widely and easily considered bettered than Shaq who had 4 rings and TD who has 3 rings and Kareem who had more than Wilt as well.

Not to even mention that it's ridiculous to compare rings of people from different eras. Different levels of competition, different qualities of supporting casts.

By your logic, you come up with ridiculous statements like Billups being better than Stockton or Troy Aikman being better than Dan Marino and Steve Young.

Heck, by your logic does David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain because both had the same # of rings? lol.

[gtownspur]

Except that rings are a team, not an individual achievement.

Wilt only had 2 rings but is widely and easily considered bettered than Shaq who had 4 rings and TD who has 3 rings and Kareem who had more than Wilt as well.

Not to even mention that it's ridiculous to compare rings of people from different eras. Different levels of competition, different qualities of supporting casts.

By your logic, you come up with ridiculous statements like Billups being better than Stockton or Troy Aikman being better than Dan Marino and Steve Young.

Heck, by your logic does David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain because both had the same # of rings? lol.


No, the simple fact is that Tim Led those teams to a championship.

And Hakeem played with a superstar in Drexler who was still avg 20 a game, and he had really good shooters and defenders in maxwell and horry, pure shooters in Cassell and Smith, and good help in Thorpe and Horry. Not to mention some clutch bench players.

Tim led the spurs to a title with washed up veterans at one time in 99, and then a bunch of rookies.

Tim also faced Shaquille Oneal in his Dominant era of 99-05. Stood down Garnett, And was the defensive anchor all his tenure.

If tim was living in the 90's there no question he'd be on the all defensive 1st team.

[gtownspur]

Hell, theres no way The Dream could of stopped the LakerDynasty of the Millenium in Shobe and Snaq.

Shaq was a beast during his run, and hakeem would of been raped physically.

[whottt]

Tim Duncan...without even thinking a second about it.

Duncan does a better job of making his teamates better, he's more of a team player, he's less selfish, and I think he's just as good as Hakeem on the block....

But also because Hakeem could be a horses's ass and pout for half the season if he wasn't happy, wasn't getting the ball enough....wasn't get paid enough. Put it this way...Hakeem wasn't in the business of taking paycuts, that's for damn sure.

And other stuff.

Duncan's teams have never missed the post season, they always excel....some of that is tribute to Duncan's teamates in at least one season, but most of it for the past 5 years has been tribute to Duncan...

And I think Duncan is playing the best basketball of his career...right now...like Hakeem did, after turning 30. He's playing as well as Hakeem ever did in the post season IMO. More consistent even.,




I take Tim Duncan over Hakeem in a split second.

[gtownspur]

We should base the player on his whole carreer, not just a couple of years.

Cuz if we go the Hakeem jockers route, 2005 Ginobilli >> Lebron James today.

[gtownspur]

Except that rings are a team, not an individual achievement.

Wilt only had 2 rings but is widely and easily considered bettered than Shaq who had 4 rings and TD who has 3 rings and Kareem who had more than Wilt as well.

Not to even mention that it's ridiculous to compare rings of people from different eras. Different levels of competition, different qualities of supporting casts.

By your logic, you come up with ridiculous statements like Billups being better than Stockton or Troy Aikman being better than Dan Marino and Steve Young.

Heck, by your logic does David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain because both had the same # of rings? lol.



Bobby Joe, do you want 2 rings and half the effort. Or 4 and still more to come and 110 percent.

[whottt]

Except that rings are a team, not an individual achievement.

Wilt only had 2 rings but is widely and easily considered bettered than Shaq who had 4 rings and TD who has 3 rings and Kareem who had more than Wilt as well.

Not to even mention that it's ridiculous to compare rings of people from different eras. Different levels of competition, different qualities of supporting casts.

By your logic, you come up with ridiculous statements like Billups being better than Stockton or Troy Aikman being better than Dan Marino and Steve Young.

Heck, by your logic does David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain because both had the same # of rings? lol.



What an absolute crock of shit from someone who rates Hakeem over Robinson on the basis of one playoff series...

Live by the ring argument, die by it.

[gtownspur]

The Hakeem the Steam Olajuwon was also know to be a very childish player, what motivated him to play at a high level in the second run wasn't his team, but for the fact that he didn't get an MVP trophy and he felt betrayed becuase he felt he deserved it after whining all season.


I mean he did what he did, and that was great, but what a crybaby and a narcisist.

[gtownspur]

IF you would of had Hakeem playing with DelNegro, Johnson, elliot, and Cummings, Hakeem wouldn't have beaten the SUns that year or The Knicks before that.


He wouldn't even have made it to the alamodome to get butthurt over Drobs trophy.

Hakeem the dream with outside shooters, is Patrick ewing with better mobility and a higher amount of steals.

[whottt]

bobbyjoe...don't try to hide in the regular season...

If you do, you better start looking at the records Hakeem's teams had...in the years they made the playoffs.


And people need to stop saying Hakeem never had any talent...

He had Robert Fucking Horry(and yes, he mattered)
Sam Cassel
Mario Elie
Kenny Smith
Clyde Freaking Drexler
Otis Thorpe(20 and 10 All Star Big)

He also played with Ralph Sampson, and Charles Barkley, and Scottie Pippen.

[T-Pain]

Except that rings are a team, not an individual achievement.

Wilt only had 2 rings but is widely and easily considered bettered than Shaq who had 4 rings and TD who has 3 rings and Kareem who had more than Wilt as well.

Not to even mention that it's ridiculous to compare rings of people from different eras. Different levels of competition, different qualities of supporting casts.

By your logic, you come up with ridiculous statements like Billups being better than Stockton or Troy Aikman being better than Dan Marino and Steve Young.

Heck, by your logic does David Robinson = Wilt Chamberlain because both had the same # of rings? lol.
well that just blows my doctrine right out of the water. thats just how i look at it.

[bobbyjoe]

Tim Duncan...without even thinking a second about it.

Duncan does a better job of making his teamates better, he's more of a team player, he's less selfish, and I think he's just as good as Hakeem on the block....

But also because Hakeem could be a horses's ass and pout for half the season if he wasn't happy, wasn't getting the ball enough....wasn't get paid enough. Put it this way...Hakeem wasn't in the business of taking paycuts, that's for damn sure.

And other stuff.

Duncan's teams have never missed the post season, they always excel....some of that is tribute to Duncan's teamates in at least one season, but most of it for the past 5 years has been tribute to Duncan...

And I think Duncan is playing the best basketball of his career...right now...like Hakeem did, after turning 30. He's playing as well as Hakeem ever did in the post season IMO. More consistent even.,




I take Tim Duncan over Hakeem in a split second.

Right, and you also take DRob over Shaq in a split second. And George Gervin over Kobe Bryant and Clyde Drexler.

Hakeem had 2 playoff runs in 94 and 95 where he averaged over 30 ppg on 54% FG shooting, 11 boards, 3 plus blocks. Not only are those #'s much better than what Duncan is producing now, they came against

Pat Ewing in his prime
David Robinson in his MVP year
Shaq O'Neal

That comp is infinitely better than what Duncan has faced in the past few years. Hakeem shot a higher % from both the field and FT line in the postseason than Tim, blocked more shots, faced tougher competition, and scored more. Facts are facts.

Robert Horry and Mario Elie think it's an easy choice too, but what do they know? After all, they only played with both in their primes.

"Tim is good," said forward Robert Horry "But it's hard to label him because each person brought a different thing to the game. To pick the best, you had to go with `Dream' (Hakeem Olajuwon) because he did some of the things (Shaquille O'Neal) did, he does some of the things Tim does. He has a combination of both of them, so you had to look at him as probably being the best"

Q: “You mentioned that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with. You also played with the Spurs and Tim Duncan and David Robinson, who was obviously up there in years at that point in time but still a good player. What are your memories of playing with them? Since you do feel that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with, compare his game to Duncan’s. Some people see a little similarity between their games. What do you think of that?”


Elie: “I love Tim. I think he may be the second best player I played with “Exactly. I just think that ‘Dream’ was more athletic, had a better game on the box and was a better shot blocker. Tim is a great defender. He gets his arms up and he blocks a couple shots, but ‘Dream’ was an amazing shot blocker. Like you said, he had great hands. He was always hitting the ball away from guys.”

Your recollection of Hakeem is a joke. This is the guy who when presented with the MVP award in 1994 called his entire team out to accept the award. Yeah, how selfish of a guy he was. Anyone who watched basketball in the 90's knew that Hakeem was a terrific guy for the league on and off the court.

As for making teammates better, guys like Horry and Finley have been established players in this league for many, many years. Ditto with David Robinson who was an MVP before Duncan arrived. Tony Parker with his combination of quicks and improved jumper would be a nightmare matchup regardless of where he played. Ditto for Ginobili, who led Argentina to amazing success.

I'm sorry but "making players better" is something that only truly be said about a handful of players in this game and none of them were Centers/PF's. This is Steve Nash/Magic Johnson/Larry Bird territory. Getting a guy easier shots and erasing a guy's mistakes defensively is not the same as making a person a better player, but this is something both Hakeem and Duncan did successfully.

[whottt]

What about the year Hakeem couldn't get his team to the playoffs?

Prior to Hakeem winning championships, he did pout, he did tank it in the regular season, he did tank it over contract issues...fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.

Were you a fan back then? Because if you were you'd know all those things happened...you might excuse him for doing it...but they definitely happened.

Hakeem got his ass kicked out in the first round many a time in his career...


And his teams had a lot of substandard records..mid 40 wins...


It's ludicrous to say he didn't have talent when he won thos championships........

[bobbyjoe]

IF you would of had Hakeem playing with DelNegro, Johnson, elliot, and Cummings, Hakeem wouldn't have beaten the SUns that year or The Knicks before that.


He wouldn't even have made it to the alamodome to get butthurt over Drobs trophy.

Hakeem the dream with outside shooters, is Patrick ewing with better mobility and a higher amount of steals.

Hakeem owned David Robinson. I guess some never got over it to say something this stupid. We all know it was his trophy and David didn't earn it. That was a case closed type of deal after the WCF fiasco.

Hakeem had a starting backcourt of Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell (the same guy the Spurs sold for $50 K cash) and took them to a title, so your argument about cast is stupid, but obviously you are out of bullets.

Saying Hakeem was Ewing with a better mobility just shows how utterly ignorant you are.

I notice you don't have any sort of explanation for why the 2 guys who played with both players in their primes ranked the Ewing clone as the better player without hesitation. I guess the truth just hurts?

[Strike]

Hakeem was probably the better individual player as his stats show.

But Duncan is obviously the better team player.


You want to build your team around a guy who not only is a great player, but is also a great teammate and can make the rest of your team better.

That's why I would pick Duncan.

[whottt]

I notice you don't have any sort of explanation for why the 2 guys who played with both players in their primes ranked the Ewing clone as the better player without hesitation. I guess the truth just hurts?

1. Elie played with Duncan nearly 10 years ago.

2. Duncan is playing as well as Hakeem ever did in the post season...right now. Are you watching?

3. The only thing Hakeem owned related to David Robinson was the fucking bench in foul trouble when he had to defend him.

[whottt]

Hakeem was winning 42 games with guys in their primes that DRob won 55 games with in their last season on the bench, and they were the best PG on the team.

Hakeem couldn't even make post season with the best PG Drob ever had.

Hakeem got hot in the biggest series of Drob's career...the rest of the time Drob got him. That's the facts.

And Drob never dogged it in the regular season like Hakeem did...he couldn't, his team would be in the lottery if he did. It's easy to save it for the post season when you are dogging it for 30 games of the season.

Hakeem got his skull cracked and his team went on the longest winning streak in team history without him..in fact, his team posted the best record in Rockets history that year and he was injured for half the season...

Drob got injured and it was the worst single season turnaround in NBA history.

[bobbyjoe]

What about the year Hakeem couldn't get his team to the playoffs?

Prior to Hakeem winning championships, he did pout, he did tank it in the regular season, he did tank it over contract issues...fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.

Were you a fan back then? Because if you were you'd know all those things happened...you might excuse him for doing it...but they definitely happened.

Hakeem got his ass kicked out in the first round many a time in his career...


And his teams had a lot of substandard records..mid 40 wins...


It's ludicrous to say he didn't have talent when he won thos championships........

None of those are facts. If they are facts, prove it. You can't because none of it is true.

If "tanking it prior to championships" means winning 2 rebounding titles, beating the 1986 Lakers in your 2nd season with Magic and Kareem, ssetting single season records for blocked shots, and averaging 24/14/4.6 blks/2.1 steals, that's the best tank job in the history of time.

I don't see what missing the playoffs once in 15 years proves about anything. Look at the roster on that Houston team and tell me when Tim Duncan has once played with a roster that talent deprived.

FYI, 1/15 is 6%. When your biggest bullet is that a guy didnt make the playoffs once in his 15 year prime, you are putting all the focus on a very tiny sliver of the overall pie and that basically shows how weak the overall argument is.

Maybe you weren't a fan back in the 80's, but the reason the Rockets TEAM went into several seasons of mid 40 win years is because Ralph Sampson fizzled out as an NBA Player and the Rockets had 3 of their best 6 players suspended for cocaine use (Mitchell Wiggins, Llewis Lloyd, and John Lucas). The team was gutted.

This would be equivalent to the league suspending Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Bruce Bowen next year. Do you think the Spurs would be expected to win 60 games for the next 2-3 years if this sort of incident happened? WOuld that be a slight on Duncan if this happened and the Spurs only won 45 games the next 2 years?

You name some of the better players Hakeem played with. Except you ignore the years before those players got there and the years that Houston was forced to rebuild after losing 4 of their best 6 players to drugs and injuries. Conveniently ignoring obviously.

And was mentioning Pippen a joke? I mean Hakeem was 36 years old when that happened. The Hakeem of that year was about as good as Fabricio Oberto is now.

[whottt]

See bobbyjoe...I don't think you understand the question...

The question is not...

Who had the best 2 year playoff run, and who has the best career numbers...

Who is perhaps the most talented....


The question is...who do you take?


I take Duncan...all the positives, none of the negatives.


Hakeem was not a better block scorer than Duncan is...he's probably a better defender...but Hakeem was not a shutdown defender...he was very similar to Duncan, it was very much a team thing...and he was foul prone if he was forced to defend a C of equal talent.



But you are wrong...Hakeem did dog it over contract issues, he drug them into the media, he faked injury...

Yeah he put up some nice numbers...he also tanked it from time to time.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem was probably the better individual player as his stats show.

But Duncan is obviously the better team player.


You want to build your team around a guy who not only is a great player, but is also a great teammate and can make the rest of your team better.

That's why I would pick Duncan.

Again, then why do the 2 common teammates of the 2 cite Hakeem as the better player? If anyone is going to be cognizant of who the better team player was and the better teammate was, it's got to be guys who actually played and traveled and went to war with both players.

Why did Robert Horry have his best years of his career with Hakeem, better than he had with either Shaq, Kobe, or TD? Perhaps because Hakeem made him a better player.

Why did Clyde Drexler who was considered on a steep decline as a basketball player have a resurgence in 1995 when reunited with Hakeem? Because Hakeem made him a better player.

Why did Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, 2 journeyman guards, have their NBA careers effectively ended when they weren't on Hakeem's teams anymore? Perhaps because he made them better players.

TD didnt have a monopoly on making others around him better. Guys before him have done and guys after him will as well.

[whottt]

Again, then why do the 2 common teammates of the 2 cite Hakeem as the better player? If anyone is going to be cognizant of who the better team player was and the better teammate was, it's got to be guys who actually played and traveled and went to war with both players.

Why did Robert Horry have his best years of his career with Hakeem, better than he had with either Shaq, Kobe, or TD? Perhaps because Hakeem made him a better player.

Why did Clyde Drexler who was considered on a steep decline as a basketball player have a resurgence in 1995 when reunited with Hakeem? Because Hakeem made him a better player.

Why did Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, 2 journeyman guards, have their NBA careers effectively ended when they weren't on Hakeem's teams anymore? Perhaps because he made them better players.

TD didnt have a monopoly on making others around him better. Guys before him have done and guys after him will as well.


Because they both still live in Houston?

Because they won their first championship with him?

Because he hadn't had this post season yet?

[bobbyjoe]

See bobbyjoe...I don't think you understand the question...

The question is not...

Who had the best 2 year playoff run, and who has the best career numbers...

Who is perhaps the most talented....


The question is...who do you take?


I take Duncan...all the positives, none of the negatives.

The question was if you wanted to start a franchise, who would you take first.

I would take the guy who in his prime was the best player. That is Hakeem. On both ends of the court.

I would answer the same if you asked "Tim or Shaq". Shaq was more dominant than either Tim OR Hakeem in his prime.

If you're asking who you'd take first if you were the GM and could pick from any player, I think it goes without say that you are picking from the better players in their primes. Which in this case goes:

1) Shaq
2) Hakeem
3)Timmy

I think the way you are interpreting this question sounds like "which player was on the team which had the most success" which is a different question than who'd you'd pick if you were starting a team.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that Tim Duncan is playing GREAT basketball right now. I thought he played phenomenal last year in the playoffs as well against Dallas. As a fan of postplay going back to the Moses/Hakeem/Kareem days, it's beautiful to watch. He has an aura of dominance around him now which is very Hakeem-like and which reminds of his 99 run when he looked like a beast. I'm amazed that Duncan is as good defensively as he is this postseason given his age.

But I'd still place him 3rd behind Hakeem and O'Neal! I think for some reason the contributions of other Spurs like Parker/Manu/Bowen seem to be under the radar. Some act like this is Tim and a bunch of average players. It's certainly not.

[whottt]

Say what you want but by the time Hakeem won his title it was his 3rd major final...

And the Rockets don't make the Finals in 86 if Sampson doesn't hit the shot to do it.

Hakeem's teams didn't do shit unless he had talent.


And we here in SA appreciate both Elie and Horry for their roles in titles, and they never even played for us at the same time.

And any RocketFan that doesn't give Sam Cassell an assload of credit for both of those titles...as in, being the fucking closer, isn't a true RocketFan.

[Strike]

Again, then why do the 2 common teammates of the 2 cite Hakeem as the better player? If anyone is going to be cognizant of who the better team player was and the better teammate was, it's got to be guys who actually played and traveled and went to war with both players.

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]Why did Robert Horry have his best years of his career with Hakeem, better than he had with either Shaq, Kobe, or TD? Perhaps because Hakeem made him a better player.

I'll say (and I might be wrong) because by the time Horry went to LA, his playing time shrunk due to ability, age or whatever. When he played in Houston with Hakeem he was still pretty young and had more of a role than just backup late game shooter. Again, I may be wrong but that's my opinion.

Why did Clyde Drexler who was considered on a steep decline as a basketball player have a resurgence in 1995 when reunited with Hakeem? Because Hakeem made him a better player.
Clyde's last couple years with Portland were a disaster because of his dislike for management. He was in a much better place mentally when he went to Houston because Trader Bob Whitsitt basically did to him what the Boston Red Sox did to Roger Clemens. And we all know how that went.

Why did Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, 2 journeyman guards, have their NBA careers effectively ended when they weren't on Hakeem's teams anymore? Perhaps because he made them better players.
If I remember correctly, Kenny Smith was at the tail end of his career at that point. As for Maxwell, I can't really say.

TD didnt have a monopoly on making others around him better. Guys before him have done and guys after him will as well.
I'll say your take holds some water. I'll also admit I have a huge Spurs bias.
I'm going by memory as far as Hakeem. And since he stopped playing several years ago and Duncan is still playing, my thought process goes toward what's more fresh on my mind.

But I do remember Hakeem whining and pulling a Randy Moss whenever he wasn't getting his way. I've never seen Duncan do that.

Like I said, your take holds water but my opinion is still that Duncan would be a better player with whom to build your team around.

Take that as you will.

[bobbyjoe]

Because they both still live in Houston?

Because they won their first championship with him?

Because he hadn't had this post season yet?

IIRC, both Horry and Elie left Houston under some bitter terms and were pretty unhappy with the franchise. Horry was traded and Elie wasn't wanted back.

Horry's comments came while he was a teammate of Duncan. If anything as a player, you're not going to want to piss off a fellow teammate.

I think the right answer is "because that's the way they honestly feel"

[whottt]

And fucking Clyde Drexler was good enough to get his own team to the finals...how the hell can you say he wasn't a factor?

I wish you guys didn't have Drexler in 95...ya'll wouldn't have made it out of the first round.

[whottt]

IIRC, both Horry and Elie left Houston under some bitter terms and were pretty unhappy with the franchise. Horry was traded and Elie wasn't wanted back.

Horry's comments came while he was a teammate of Duncan. If anything as a player, you're not going to want to piss off a fellow teammate.

I think the right answer is "because that's the way they honestly feel"


It's a loyalty thing...I am not entirely sure they are being objective...and as I said...this post season has a lot to do with it.

Duncan is playing at an extremely high level this post season...more consistent than Hakeem did...even when Hakeem had his 2 year peak.

Let's see what they say, after this post season.


But again...Duncan has done a better job of carrying teams to the post season...and he's been more of a team player....

[whottt]

Oh...and damn straight I take Gervin over Kobe...

What in the hell is wrong with you?


What has Kobe done on his own?

Rape?
Run his coach and C out of town and blow up his fucking dynasty?
Shoot his team out of the 04 finals?
Miss the playoffs?
Get punked by teams the Doug Moe Spurs would have scored 175ppg against?

Struggle to shoot over 40%?
Win a scoring title jacking up 3 times per many shots per game as Gervin did winning his?


You think if you stick Shaq on some of Gervin's teams they don't destroy the NBA?

You're bloody insane.

The only shooting guards I take over Gervin are Jordan and West.

[bobbyjoe]

I'll say (and I might be wrong) because by the time Horry went to LA, his playing time shrunk due to ability, age or whatever. When he played in Houston with Hakeem he was still pretty young and had more of a role than just backup late game shooter. Again, I may be wrong but that's my opinion.

Clyde's last couple years with Portland were a disaster because of his dislike for management. He was in a much better place mentally when he went to Houston because Trader Bob Whitsitt basically did to him what the Boston Red Sox did to Roger Clemens. And we all know how that went.

If I remember correctly, Kenny Smith was at the tail end of his career at that point. As for Maxwell, I can't really say.

I'll say your take holds some water. I'll also admit I have a huge Spurs bias.
I'm going by memory as far as Hakeem. And since he stopped playing several years ago and Duncan is still playing, my thought process goes toward what's more fresh on my mind.

But I do remember Hakeem whining and pulling a Randy Moss whenever he wasn't getting his way. I've never seen Duncan do that.

Like I said, your take holds water but my opinion is still that Duncan would be a better player with whom to build your team around.

Take that as you will.

Glad to see you admit the bias. These Randy Moss type comments are really bizarre and some reaches/distortions. We're talking about a guy who was pretty widely considered one of the classiest NBA superstars on and off the court, much like Tim Duncan. I have yet to see a professional athlete refuse to accept an MVP trophy individually and instead ask his entire team accept the award like Hakeem did in 1994 when he was MVP.

I believe Charley Rosen a few weeks back had an "all time nice guys" list and both Hakeem and DUncan were on it.

As for Kenny Smith, he was only 30 years old when Houston cut him. Hardly at the tail end of the line at only 30 yrs old but without Hakeem to make him look good, he hardly played in the NBA after that and basically fell off the cliff.

[Strike]

Glad to see you admit the bias. These Randy Moss type comments are really bizarre and some reaches/distortions. We're talking about a guy who was pretty widely considered one of the classiest NBA superstars on and off the court, much like Tim Duncan. I have yet to see a professional athlete refuse to accept an MVP trophy individually and instead ask his entire team accept the award like Hakeem did in 1994 when he was MVP.

I believe Charley Rosen a few weeks back had an "all time nice guys" list and both Hakeem and DUncan were on it.

As for Kenny Smith, he was only 30 years old when Houston cut him. Hardly at the tail end of the line at only 30 yrs old but without Hakeem to make him look good, he hardly played in the NBA after that and basically fell off the cliff.

Ok you got me on Kenny. When did he retire?

[whottt]

The question was if you wanted to start a franchise, who would you take first.

I would take the guy who in his prime was the best player. That is Hakeem. On both ends of the court.

I would answer the same if you asked "Tim or Shaq". Shaq was more dominant than either Tim OR Hakeem in his prime.

If you're asking who you'd take first if you were the GM and could pick from any player, I think it goes without say that you are picking from the better players in their primes. Which in this case goes:

1) Shaq
2) Hakeem
3)Timmy

I think the way you are interpreting this question sounds like "which player was on the team which had the most success" which is a different question than who'd you'd pick if you were starting a team.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that Tim Duncan is playing GREAT basketball right now. I thought he played phenomenal last year in the playoffs as well against Dallas. As a fan of postplay going back to the Moses/Hakeem/Kareem days, it's beautiful to watch. He has an aura of dominance around him now which is very Hakeem-like and which reminds of his 99 run when he looked like a beast. I'm amazed that Duncan is as good defensively as he is this postseason given his age.

But I'd still place him 3rd behind Hakeem and O'Neal! I think for some reason the contributions of other Spurs like Parker/Manu/Bowen seem to be under the radar. Some act like this is Tim and a bunch of average players. It's certainly not.


Not if you're a GM in San Antonio you don't...

Shaq would leave when we couldn't pay him...
Ditto Hakeem.

[whottt]

Glad to see you admit the bias. These Randy Moss type comments are really bizarre and some reaches/distortions. We're talking about a guy who was pretty widely considered one of the classiest NBA superstars on and off the court, much like Tim Duncan. I have yet to see a professional athlete refuse to accept an MVP trophy individually and instead ask his entire team accept the award like Hakeem did in 1994 when he was MVP.

I believe Charley Rosen a few weeks back had an "all time nice guys" list and both Hakeem and DUncan were on it.

As for Kenny Smith, he was only 30 years old when Houston cut him. Hardly at the tail end of the line at only 30 yrs old but without Hakeem to make him look good, he hardly played in the NBA after that and basically fell off the cliff.


Bullshit...

Kenny Smith tore it up the year Hakeem got his face cracked...lead the Rockets on the longest winning streak in team history.

Kenny Smith was a talented dude....only man to ever be in both the Dunk Contest and the 3 Point Contest in the Same All Star Game.

[bobbyjoe]

Say what you want but by the time Hakeem won his title it was his 3rd major final...

And the Rockets don't make the Finals in 86 if Sampson doesn't hit the shot to do it.

Hakeem's teams didn't do shit unless he had talent.


And we here in SA appreciate both Elie and Horry for their roles in titles, and they never even played for us at the same time.

And any RocketFan that doesn't give Sam Cassell an assload of credit for both of those titles...as in, being the fucking closer, isn't a true RocketFan.

Uh, fact check here.

In 1986, the Rockets led the series 3-1 before Sampson's shot and the game was tied. Even if Sampson misses, LA has to win in overtime and win the next 2 games to win the series.

Hakeem's 94 Rockets supporting cast was about the weakest supporting cast to ever win a title.

Tim's never won a title with a group as weak as that one.

Saying Duncan's run now> Hakeem's 94 and 95 runs is crazier than saying Gervin is better than Kobe (MEGA Homer alert on that comment; Gervin could not hold Kobe Bryant's jockstrap, period).

Hakeem's run those 2 yrs came against 3 of the top 10 Centers of all time. Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq.

In these matchups, Hakeem averaged over 30 ppg, his teams went 12-5 against the Big 3's team's, and he amazingly outscored his contemporaries in all 17 games.

You can't compare what Duncan is doing the last 2 yrs against Dirk, Nene, Amare, and Okur (3 of which being weak defensive players) at all to what Hakeem did. Hakeem's run those 2 yrs is the gold standard for postseason basketball performances by a big.

George Gervin did not play one lick of defense and can't hold a freaking candle to Kobe Bryant. It seems whenever you are trying to hold your own in an argument you are clearly out of line with, you always resort to the attacks on personal character (Kobe was a rapist and chased of teammates).

Kobe was more clutch than Gervin, more creative, better defensively. The only 2 guard better in NBA history is MJ. Gervin's not even in the same tier. Championships aside, Kobe was just that much better individually. Gervin's teams did have a habit of choking in the playoffs as well.

[bobbyjoe]

Ok you got me on Kenny. When did he retire?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smithke01.html

It looks like 2-3 years later, but he basically was relegated to Mr. Irrelevant status after being cut by Houston.

Of course in Whott's book, he was this amazing basketball player.

[bobbyjoe]

Bullshit...

Kenny Smith tore it up the year Hakeem got his face cracked...lead the Rockets on the longest winning streak in team history.

Kenny Smith was a talented dude....only man to ever be in both the Dunk Contest and the 3 Point Contest in the Same All Star Game.

So amazingly talented was Mr. Smith that after leaving Houston in 96 at age 30, he remained in the league one year, bouning around with 3 teams, and then was never wanted again by any NBA team.

WOW, what a talent!!!!!

[Strike]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smithke01.html

It looks like 2-3 years later, but he basically was relegated to Mr. Irrelevant status after being cut by Houston.

Of course in Whott's book, he was this amazing basketball player.

That's what I thought. I don't remember anything from "Jet" after the 94 and 95 championship years.

[whottt]

He was a good basketball player...his knees went out on him.

AJ backed him up when they played on the same team.

[bobbyjoe]

Not if you're a GM in San Antonio you don't...

Shaq would leave when we couldn't pay him...
Ditto Hakeem.

So when there were rumors of Duncan leaving after 2000 to Orlando, do you think he'd have stayed if SA hadn't offered him the max contract (something like $12 million a year)?

Duncan got paid like a max player. He's not this philantropist who stayed with a team for a below market contract, so I dont see what your point is.

You're kidding if you dont think Duncan signs with Orlando if SA says in 2000 "we'd love to have you but cant pay you the max contract other teams are ready to pay you".

[whottt]

Duncan took less than he could have in 2003...

PWNT.


And Gervin would have ruled Kobe's ass...

You probably never even saw him play.

[bobbyjoe]

He was a good basketball player...his knees went out on him.

AJ backed him up when they played on the same team.

He had a dissapointing NBA career. Dude was drafted ahead of KJ but never panned out as anything but an accurate 3 point shooter. He did have a lot of God Given talent, but never put it together.

AJ backed him up because that was before AJ emerged as a basketball player.

[whottt]

You can hate on all those old clutch Rockets...

Horry
Elie
Smith

But none of them really did shit as STAR type players....

But they could knock down 3 point shots in an elimination game or a game 7 like no other mother fuckers in NBA history. Fact...

They don't realize how good they were.


God I wish you had to rely on Vinny Del Negro...

[whottt]

He had a dissapointing NBA career. Dude was drafted ahead of KJ but never panned out as anything but an accurate 3 point shooter. He did have a lot of God Given talent, but never put it together.

AJ backed him up because that was before AJ emerged as a basketball player.



He was a lot like Horry...didn't seem to care much about putting up numbers every game.

[whottt]

AJ backed him up because that was before AJ emerged as a basketball player.


Um...that was like a year before they won the title.
And AJ's emergence as a PG had a lot to do with throwing it into a 7 foot scoring champ that was pretty much a guranteed dunk or layup....even without a PG throwing it into him.

[bobbyjoe]

Duncan took less than he could have in 2003...

PWNT.


And Gervin would have ruled Kobe's ass...

You probably never even saw him play.

Could you imagine Gervin trying to guard Kobe Bryant? I did see him play. Great scorer, very fun to watch, but didnt play or care about defense, and played on some really good teams that just consistently came up short. Lacked the killer instinct of a Kobe Bryant and not the floorgame that Kobe had.

How did Duncan take less than he could have in 2003? I am not familiar with what happened, but he's making $17 mill a yr this year. Was this the year the Spurs wanted to get Jason Kidd?

[bobbyjoe]

Um...that was like a year before they won the title.
And AJ's emergence as a PG had a lot to do with throwing it into a 7 foot scoring champ that was pretty much a guranteed dunk or layup....even without a PG throwing it into him.

AJ was a solid, solid PG and an excellent leader. One of the more underrated PG's of his day.

[whottt]

You discount those shooters but I say the Jazz are the proof...

When the Rockets had those great shooters, they whupped up on the Jazz...

When they didn't...the Jazz gave Hakeem the same kind of beatdowns Drob got annually...and kicked Hakeem's ass.

[whottt]

Could you imagine Gervin trying to guard Kobe Bryant? I did see him play. Great scorer, very fun to watch, but didnt play or care about defense, and played on some really good teams that just consistently came up short. Lacked the killer instinct of a Kobe Bryant and not the floorgame that Kobe had.
[quote]
How did Duncan take less than he could have in 2003? I am not familiar with what happened, but he's making $17 mill a yr this year. Was this the year the Spurs wanted to get Jason Kidd?

He didn't get the Max guranteed years IIRC...the seventh one...or if he did...he didn't get the max amount he could have.

[whottt]

And Gervin may not have played much D...but Kobe couldn't have stopped him..no one ever did. No one even came close


You ever look at Gervin's post season numbers? Every bit the freak his regular season numbers are...and his numbers are freakish...compared any 2 guard in history. Including Jordan.

A 50% career shooting multiple time scoring champion 2 guard.

That's a freak...it was a freak in 1980...it was a freak in 1960....it's a freak in 2007.

You don't get scoring champion 2 guards shooting over 50%...

Fucking Kobe struggled to shoot 40% a couple of times with Shaq drawing triple teams.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem's game declined from 1996 onwards. Thats why they lost to Utah in 97 and 98.

Who has once said the Rockets didnt have great shooters? Of course they did, arguably one of the most clutch collections ever assembled. But still, on balance a Smith, Maxwell, Elie, Horry cast just doesn't compare with:

Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, etc
Kareem Abdul Jabbar, James Worthy, Byron Scott
etc
etc

You are ignoring that Houston didn't have a creator besides Hakeem (first title) even though they had some good spot up shooters. The Spurs of today for instance have 3 offensive creators in Manu, TP, and Tim. The Lakers had 2 with Magic and Kareem. The Bulls had 2 with MJ and Scottie. They had quality role players/shooters AND secondary offensive creators.

The 94 rockets and 99 spurs stand out as 2 of the recent champions who lacked this and were about as close to one man bands as you can get except that I think Duncan had more help in 99 because David Robinson was still a force, especially defensively.

You put a young Hakeem in a situation where he's playing alongside David Robinson and teams just wouldn't get anything whatsoever in the paint. Duncan was very blessed to land into that situation and that's hard to deny.

[bobbyjoe]

And Gervin may not have played much D...but Kobe couldn't have stopped him..no one ever did. No one even came close


You ever look at Gervin's post season numbers? Every bit the freak his regular season numbers are...and his numbers are freakish...compared any 2 guard in history. Including Jordan.

A 50% career shooting multiple time scoring champion 2 guard.

That's a freak...it was a freak in 1980...it was a freak in 1960....it's a freak in 2007.

You don't get scoring champion 2 guards shooting over 50%...

Fucking Kobe struggled to shoot 40% a couple of times with Shaq drawing triple teams.

Yes, Gervin was great, no doubt. Pure scorers and shooters are always fun to watch. He was about a pure a scorer as you could find.

Using Kobe's FG% in this argument though is deceiving because he shoots so many more 3 pointers than Ice did so you have to adjust for that because a 3 pter is more of a high yield, lower % shot.

The main issue though is the defense though. Not that Kobe is Bruce Bowen defensively, but he was just a far better factor on that end of the court than Ice, especially when motivated.

[johngateswhiteley]

The question was if you wanted to start a franchise, who would you take first.

I would take the guy who in his prime was the best player. That is Hakeem. On both ends of the court.

I would answer the same if you asked "Tim or Shaq". Shaq was more dominant than either Tim OR Hakeem in his prime.

If you're asking who you'd take first if you were the GM and could pick from any player, I think it goes without say that you are picking from the better players in their primes. Which in this case goes:

1) Shaq
2) Hakeem
3)Timmy

I think the way you are interpreting this question sounds like "which player was on the team which had the most success" which is a different question than who'd you'd pick if you were starting a team.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that Tim Duncan is playing GREAT basketball right now. I thought he played phenomenal last year in the playoffs as well against Dallas. As a fan of postplay going back to the Moses/Hakeem/Kareem days, it's beautiful to watch. He has an aura of dominance around him now which is very Hakeem-like and which reminds of his 99 run when he looked like a beast. I'm amazed that Duncan is as good defensively as he is this postseason given his age.

But I'd still place him 3rd behind Hakeem and O'Neal! I think for some reason the contributions of other Spurs like Parker/Manu/Bowen seem to be under the radar. Some act like this is Tim and a bunch of average players. It's certainly not.

typical NBA fan.

[whottt]

Yes, Gervin was great, no doubt. Pure scorers and shooters are always fun to watch. He was about a pure a scorer as you could find.

Using Kobe's FG% in this argument though is deceiving because he shoots so many more 3 pointers than Ice did so you have to adjust for that because a 3 pter is more of a high yield, lower % shot.


And Kobe has never shot over 50% from 2.




The main issue though is the defense though. Not that Kobe is Bruce Bowen defensively, but he was just a far better factor on that end of the court than Ice, especially when motivated.


Ehhh...if Kobe had played for Doug Moe he probably would not be known as a great defender...


George could block shots...he blocked over a shot per game his first 5 years in the NBA(and well over a block per game in the ABA), and was the NBA's all im leader in blocks by a 2 guard when he retird...stick that in your shooting guard and smoke it.

I am hardpressed to find a single thing Kobe did better than Ice.


Bottom line...Kobe plays in LA

He's done exactly crap on his own.

[bobbyjoe]

No, the simple fact is that Tim Led those teams to a championship.

And Hakeem played with a superstar in Drexler who was still avg 20 a game, and he had really good shooters and defenders in maxwell and horry, pure shooters in Cassell and Smith, and good help in Thorpe and Horry. Not to mention some clutch bench players.

Tim led the spurs to a title with washed up veterans at one time in 99, and then a bunch of rookies.

Tim also faced Shaquille Oneal in his Dominant era of 99-05. Stood down Garnett, And was the defensive anchor all his tenure.

If tim was living in the 90's there no question he'd be on the all defensive 1st team.

If Tim was playing Center at the same time Hakeem, David, Ewing, Alonzo, Shaq, and Dikembe were in the 90's, not only would he not have a single defensive 1st team but probably not even a 2nd team. No way is he on par with Hakeem, David, Alonzo, or Deke as a defender. Not a chance.

You put a poll up on this site as to who was a better defender out of Tim or David and it's not going to be close, I guarantee you that. No way would Tim ever beat out DRob for Def first team even if Hakeem, Mutombo, or Mourning weren't in the league.

BTW, I didnt know shooting 39% for your career qualified as really good (V. Maxwell). What oh what were the Spurs thinking when they traded this sharpshooting gem for $50,000 in cash?

[dg7md]

I'd take Shaq over Duncan, but not Hakeem over Duncan.

[Jimcs50]

Timmy is proven


As opposed to Hakeem?

:lol

[gaKNOW!blee]

I'd take Shaq over Duncan, but not Hakeem over Duncan.



is that Cameron in your sig?

[Warlord23]

It's a pretty close call, and you can't go wrong with either. I think Hakeem was ridiculously dominant in his championship runs, more so than Duncan. But I think Duncan has shown more consistency and a commitment to winning.

If Tim Duncan plays 70+ games, his team will be a 55-win contender, period. You can't say the same about Olajuwon.

1991-92: Hakeem played 70 games; Team record: 42 - 40
1989-90: Hakeem played 82 games; Team record: 41 - 41
1988-89: Hakeem played 82 games; Team record: 45 - 37
1987-88: Hakeem played 79 games; Team record: 46 - 36
1986-87: Hakeem played 75 games; Team record: 42 - 40

That's too many middle-of-the-road .500 seasons. The Rockets' '86 Finals appearance was the one highlight of the entire decade for Olajuwon. Olajuwon's legacy was decided by exactly 2 seasons in the middle 90s. Tim is the more consistent player, and it ain't close.

[DarrinS]

Tim's command of the English language

[gtownspur]

The best Guard Hakeem had the privelege of worrying about penetrating and creating during his run was John Starks and Vinny.


Tims has been Kobe, Kidd, Nash, Iverson, Marbury..and he still had his assignment in guarding Amare, Martin, Shaq, Garnett.

I'd say Tim Duncan did a hella of a lotta Good on the defensive end, his teams have been at the top of the NBA in fewest opponent ppg.



IF TIM Duncan was in the 90's his team would have been the best in the league in DEfense and that alone would put him on all Nba Defensive 1st team.

[exstatic]

You put a young Hakeem in a situation where he's playing alongside David Robinson and teams just wouldn't get anything whatsoever in the paint. Duncan was very blessed to land into that situation and that's hard to deny.
So, if two seven footers is the answer, why did the Olajuwan/Sampson duo make only one Finals appearance? Hakeem had his partner.

[angel_luv]

Tim is younger. :)

[BUMP]

he still had his assignment in guarding Amare, Martin, Shaq, Garnett.


Amare is not a great center. he has few post moves, he cant back you down and score on you 1 on 1. he just feeds off Nash. thats a terrible argument. Martin is nowhere close to the centers Hakeem had to go up against and he is currently out of the league. WHAT A TALENT! and he's only matched up against Garnett once in 00-01, and the T-Wolves were a pathetic 8-seed.

Hakeem was easily the better player in his prime. he had to go through Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq to get those championships.

[ObiwanGinobili]

Timmy.,
the name says it all - FUNDAMENTAL basketball. excellent on both ends of ht court. also - I am building a team and I want ot build the right team: tim sets the tone on the court nad in the locker room. Theres not a stat for that - but it;s beyond important.

[SpursIndonesia]

It's a pretty close call, and you can't go wrong with either. I think Hakeem was ridiculously dominant in his championship runs, more so than Duncan. But I think Duncan has shown more consistency and a commitment to winning.

If Tim Duncan plays 70+ games, his team will be a 55-win contender, period. You can't say the same about Olajuwon.

1991-92: Hakeem played 70 games; Team record: 42 - 40
1989-90: Hakeem played 82 games; Team record: 41 - 41
1988-89: Hakeem played 82 games; Team record: 45 - 37
1987-88: Hakeem played 79 games; Team record: 46 - 36
1986-87: Hakeem played 75 games; Team record: 42 - 40

That's too many middle-of-the-road .500 seasons. The Rockets' '86 Finals appearance was the one highlight of the entire decade for Olajuwon. Olajuwon's legacy was decided by exactly 2 seasons in the middle 90s. Tim is the more consistent player, and it ain't close.

Good point. I always think that TD's more consistent while Hakeem had higher peak years. Did Hakeem play with not so great teammates those years ?

IMHO, TD got a rather weak supporting casts in 01-02 & 03-04. The Spurs still had a 50+ wins season those years.

[Bob Lanier]

:lol

[SpursIndonesia]

OTOH, to be frankly, if i draft Hakeem vs TD without foreseeing TD's great mental strength & coachability, i must say Hakeem (and Shaq to some extent) is a more interesting player to draft because of his (their) great physical attributes (Hakeem with guard like agility & Shaq with his sheer size+athleticism).

[Bob Lanier]

Next up on WhotttTalk: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs. Artis Gilmore, exploring why the soft, arrogant Alcindor was no match for the A-Train. Part 1 of 32.

[Don Quixote]

If were starting a franchise ...

PG: Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury
SG: J.R. Rider, Stephen Jackson
F: Sprewell, Antoine Walker, Artest
F: Vin Baker, Eddie Griffin
C: Jerome James, Calvin Booth, Erick Dampier

Now that would be a team! We would need extra security at the games, and I imagine the police will need to use a taser at least once before the game is over.

[whottt]

Next up on WhotttTalk: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs. Artis Gilmore, exploring why the soft, arrogant Alcindor was no match for the A-Train. Part 1 of 32.


How would you know? You were probably attending a memorial for Idi Amin while Hakeem was in his prime...or something.

[dg7md]

is that Cameron in your sig?

Yeah

[5ToolMan]

IIRC, both Horry and Elie left Houston under some bitter terms and were pretty unhappy with the franchise. Horry was traded and Elie wasn't wanted back.

Horry's comments came while he was a teammate of Duncan. If anything as a player, you're not going to want to piss off a fellow teammate.

I think the right answer is "because that's the way they honestly feel"

Elie played with the Dream when he was at the very top of his game and with Duncan when he was a 2 and 3 year player. Horry played with Dream and Shaq when both were at the very top of their games.

The Dream is dead and gone and Shaq in a steep decline. If you are paying attention and you might consider we may just be starting to see the best of Duncan.

Horry made his comments about who "was" best after his first year with Tim and multiple rings with Dream and Shaq. After Tim led him to another ring in 05, Robert said the gap is certainly closing and learning more about Duncan he may have to reconsider.

In my view, by the Time Tim has finished his career his collection of rings and finals MVP's will make this a very one sided poll ... in favor of Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

Good point. I always think that TD's more consistent while Hakeem had higher peak years. Did Hakeem play with not so great teammates those years ?

IMHO, TD got a rather weak supporting casts in 01-02 & 03-04. The Spurs still had a 50+ wins season those years.

After the Finals Appearance in 86, Houston lost 4 of it's best 6 players to injuries and drug suspensions in Sampson, Lloyd, Wiggins, and Lucas.

It'd be like if Tim lost Manu, Parker, Bowen, and Finley this offseason. I think that'd put a little bit of a hit to the Spurs regular season success if the team was just gutted for whatever reason, don't you? They'd be going through a retooling phase.

I'll never understand why team records and achievements are used by some to try to compare individual players. There are a myriad of factors which go into them. Eras (watered down now vs. late 80's), teammates, coaching, etc.

Was Dirk a better player than Duncan last year because the Mavs beat SA in the playoffs and had a better regular season record or did the Mavs just have the better team?

This argument would carry more weight if Hakeem during these 4 years you mention struggled individually in either the regular or postseason. But instead he won 2 rebounding titles, 2 scoring titles these years you cite and was very consistent overall.

In one of these years you mention (89), Hakeem averaged 24 pts, 14 rebounds, 4.6 blocks, 2.9 assists, and 2.2 steals a game. That's probably one of the best all around seasons by a big man in the history of the NBA.

Yes, the team sucked but your ceiling is pretty limited when your starting 5 is Sleepy Floyd, Buck Johnson, Wiggins post drug suspension, etc. Not exactly Manu/Parker backccourt there.

[bobbyjoe]

So, if two seven footers is the answer, why did the Olajuwan/Sampson duo make only one Finals appearance? Hakeem had his partner.

Sampson's career which was short-lived due to injuries. Him and Hakeem played 2 1/2 seasons together and then Sampson was traded the next year after the Finals Apperance.

In one of the years they were together, they knocked off one of the best dynasties in NBA history, a team with Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc, then ran into Bird, McHale, etc in the NBA Finals.

They were looked on back then as the beginning of the next dynasty after beating the Lakers before the Sampson fallout and drug suspensions.

[bobbyjoe]

Amare is not a great center. he has few post moves, he cant back you down and score on you 1 on 1. he just feeds off Nash. thats a terrible argument. Martin is nowhere close to the centers Hakeem had to go up against and he is currently out of the league. WHAT A TALENT! and he's only matched up against Garnett once in 00-01, and the T-Wolves were a pathetic 8-seed.

Hakeem was easily the better player in his prime. he had to go through Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq to get those championships.

Not to even mention that in 99, 01,02, 03, and 04 the Spurs didnt' use Tim Duncan to guard Shaq. That duty primarily went to David RObinson the first 4 matchups in the playoffs and then Rasho/Willis the last one. Duncan only had to guard Hakeem in spot duty where Hakeem in 95 had to guard Shaq the entire game and was guarded by O'Neal at the other end.

Comparing Amare, Martin, etc to DRob/Ewing/Shaq is just comical! The hits keep coming. Didn't Amare average 38 ppg on Duncan in 2005 as well, setting the record for ppg in a WCF? The Spurs won because they had a better team but Amare dominated that series.

[bobbyjoe]

The best Guard Hakeem had the privelege of worrying about penetrating and creating during his run was John Starks and Vinny.


Tims has been Kobe, Kidd, Nash, Iverson, Marbury..and he still had his assignment in guarding Amare, Martin, Shaq, Garnett.

I'd say Tim Duncan did a hella of a lotta Good on the defensive end, his teams have been at the top of the NBA in fewest opponent ppg.



IF TIM Duncan was in the 90's his team would have been the best in the league in DEfense and that alone would put him on all Nba Defensive 1st team.

Honestly, where do you come up with this flat out nonsense?

The best guard Hakeem faced in his run was Vinny? Yeah, if you want to exclude Clyde Drexler, Kevin Johnson, John Stockton, and Afernee Hardaway.

And there was this guy named Magic Johnson Hakeem had to face in the playoffs early in his career. Maybe you've heard of him, or maybe you think contemporary studs like Stephon Marbury are tougher to go against. Maybe you've heard of Gary Payton too.

[Warlord23]

Again, let's be clear what we are discussing. It is the entire body of work over a career, not a player's 2-year prime. And since you want to use stats, let me throw up a few more.

Career PER: Hakeem's career PER is lower than the people he is compared against:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/PER_career.html

The top 10 includes Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Tim, Kareem, Pettit, Barkley. Hakeem is # 16.

How about Single-season PER:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/PER_season.html
Hakeem's name appears twice on that list (#57 and #97).
Duncan appears 5 times (# 63, # 64, #66, #69, #93)
Shaq appears 11 times, DRob appears 7 times, Kareem 7 times, Wilt 8 times, Pettit 4 times, Malone 6 times, Barkley 4 times.

Curious, because if Hakeem had bad teammates after the drug suspensions, you would expect him to put up the numbers (a-la McGrady's 30+ PER when on the Orlando Magic).

Hakeem's consistency and dominance are blown out of proportion because he had 2 great post-seasons (which might have been laid waste if Jordan hadn't left basketball). He was the leader of mediocre teams for the most part of his career.

Whereas Duncan won a title with Stephen Jackson as the 2nd threat, won 60+ games with Derek Anderson as the 2nd banana, led the Spurs to the highest win% in all of professional sports in the entire last decade, etc.

When it comes to career consistency, Hakeem is not even in the same ballpark as the other great big men across eras.

[whottt]

Not to even mention that in 99, 01,02, 03, and 04 the Spurs didnt' use Tim Duncan to guard Shaq. That duty primarily went to David RObinson the first 4 matchups in the playoffs and then Rasho/Willis the last one. Duncan only had to guard Hakeem in spot duty where Hakeem in 95 had to guard Shaq the entire game and was guarded by O'Neal at the other end.

Comparing Amare, Martin, etc to DRob/Ewing/Shaq is just comical! The hits keep coming. Didn't Amare average 38 ppg on Duncan in 2005 as well, setting the record for ppg in a WCF? The Spurs won because they had a better team but Amare dominated that series.


Yeah...well the Rockets didn't use Hakeem to guard Drob(in the games they won).


Seriously...you realize that you are are contradicting every argument you have made in arguing Hakeem over Drob, to argue Hakeem over Duncan...

A consistent and definable position will prevent this...as opposed to selectively over or under emphasising the determining factors depending on which player you are putting Hakeem up against.


For all the reasons you have argued Hakeem over Drob....you have dealt precursory self buttcking to your argument of Hakeem over Duncan. I know...I was there.


Duncan
More MVP
More Titles
More playoff success
List of opponents is just as Impressive(Duncan went through a 3 timje champ to win one of his titles, Olajuwon did it while the 3 time champ was playing baseball).

If you want to argue peaks and who they beat...then you better start giving Drob some credit...becuase his peaks were insane. Including in the playoffs.



Otoh hand...my arguments do not contradict each other....I can point to Duncan's regular season success and consistency to justify ranking him over Hakeem...much like I did with Drob...


People like to discount the regular season...why?

It's longer, it's a truer sample, a great player can have more of a determinable impact during it...


Great Teams win championships...

If all it took was a great player....then how in the fuck did Hakeem miss the playoffs smack dab in his prime? And what about all those years he didn't win championships?

[whottt]

You act like Robinson never lost teamates or had coaches fired...

Drob had his whole cast come down with injuries 92-93...lost his PG..

He had a different coach just about every year of his career after Larry Brown...one time, he had 3 coaches in a single year...just so happens to be the same year he lost all his teamates to injury...


You know what he did? He carried his team to the second best record in the division...even missing the last 3 weeks injured his team won 47 games(losing hteir ass off the 3 weeks he was injured before getting swept out of the playoffs)...which would be like the 4th or 5th best record of Hakeem's career. It was Drob's worst.

And what happened to those teams when those stars were injured?

Hakeem's teams barely registered Hakeem's injuries during the regular season...in fact, sometimes they performed better without him...that was never the case for a single season of Drob's prime. When he was out...the Spurs lost their asses, every year, for the time he was out..whether it was a single game....or a stretch...not a single winning record without him.

Not true of Hakeem...not true of Duncan...not true of Kareem...or Wilt...not true of Jordan either, his teams went to the conference finals without him...only true of David(biggest single season positive turnaround in NBA history, twice, and biggest single season negative turnaround when he was injured)...Magic, Larry Bird and Dr. J. And don't fucking tell me Drob had as much talent as any one of those guys. Not even fucking close. Most of them had guys you say are better than DRob in fact.



If you wanna to talk playoffs....Duncan clearly>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hakeem when it comes to winning...which is the only stat that matters if you are arguing the post season. As you like to do.

[bobbyjoe]

Again, let's be clear what we are discussing. It is the entire body of work over a career, not a player's 2-year prime. And since you want to use stats, let me throw up a few more.

Career PER: Hakeem's career PER is lower than the people he is compared against:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/PER_career.html

The top 10 includes Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Tim, Kareem, Pettit, Barkley. Hakeem is # 16.

How about Single-season PER:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/PER_season.html
Hakeem's name appears twice on that list (#57 and #97).
Duncan appears 5 times (# 63, # 64, #66, #69, #93)
Shaq appears 11 times, DRob appears 7 times, Kareem 7 times, Wilt 8 times, Pettit 4 times, Malone 6 times, Barkley 4 times.

Curious, because if Hakeem had bad teammates after the drug suspensions, you would expect him to put up the numbers (a-la McGrady's 30+ PER when on the Orlando Magic).

Hakeem's consistency and dominance are blown out of proportion because he had 2 great post-seasons (which might have been laid waste if Jordan hadn't left basketball). He was the leader of mediocre teams for the most part of his career.

Whereas Duncan won a title with Stephen Jackson as the 2nd threat, won 60+ games with Derek Anderson as the 2nd banana, led the Spurs to the highest win% in all of professional sports in the entire last decade, etc.

When it comes to career consistency, Hakeem is not even in the same ballpark as the other great big men across eras.

Actually, it's not clear that we are discussing that in the least bit.

The only thing that needs to be said about PER rating is that you come with ridiculous results like:

David Robinson ranking over Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell ending up #97 on the list
Yao Ming over Oscar Robertson
Tracy McGrady over Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon.
Barkley over Moses Malone and Bill Russell.

Any rating system which doesn't have Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving, Bill Russell in it's top 16 is obviously flawed and tainted.

It's also statistically deceptive to compare a current player in his prime (peak level stats) to a guy who's retired and played a long career by the end of which time his average stats were getting dragged down.

It's already been shown that Hakeem in 89 had a year with 24.3 ppg, 14.0 rbg, 4.6 bpg, and 2.2 steals per game in the era you say he should have been putting up "Tracy McGrady orlando" type stats. Leading the league in rebounding and blocks, and giving your team basically a combo of 7 blocks and steals EVERY NIGHT is about as good a season as you will find out of any bigman ever. You don't need any PER stat to tell you that.

And staying Hakeem only had 2 prime years or 2 years of great work in the postseason is flat out ignorant and ridiculous. Show me when any big aside from Shaq and Kareem and Wilt put up #'s like this? Duncan certainly didnt.

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

86 playoffs (faced Kareem, Magic, Bird): 27 ppg, 11 rpg, 53% shooting, 3.5 bpg

87 playoffs: 29.2 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 4.3 bpg, 61% FG

88 playoffs (this is the year some have chastised Hakeem for only winning 42 games): 37.5 ppg, 17 rpg, 57% FG

93 playoffs: 25.8 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 4.9 assists per game, 4.9 blocks per game

If this isn't being consistently dominant in the postseason, nothing Tim has done is either. All 4 of these playoff runs came outside of the supposedly "only 2 great prime years".

[thewatcher]

keep the ownage bobbyjoe :clap

[Warlord23]

So let me get this straight:

Tim has more titles, MVPs, Finals MVPs, All-NBA awards, and better career statistics than Hakeem. And your only response to that is "he played better against the Lakers in so-and-so year, he got so many blocks in that year".

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise

[Warlord23]

By the way, PER is the best statistic to measure player contributions, but it doesn't prove who the better player was.

As for your comparisons:
David Robinson ranking over Wilt Chamberlain (Wilt's last few years were statistically poor; you can clearly see his dominance in the single-season PER)
Bill Russell ending up #97 on the list (he played with 5 HOFs, and was the 4th offensive option; what do you expect?)
Yao Ming over Oscar Robertson (Oscar's later years sucked ass; Yao's PER will decline as he ages, why dont we keep the conversation limited to players who've played at least 10 seasons?)
Tracy McGrady over Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon (Bird played with multiple HOFs, McGrady's numbers will decline over time just like Yao's)
Barkley over Moses Malone and Bill Russell (Barkley was a monster in his prime, same as Moses, difference being Moses needed Doc and Cheeks to win a 'ship)

And that's precisely my point: At least in Russell's case, you can say stuff like "Russell was a great leader who won 11 rings while sacrificing his stats". 11 rings > PER

In this case, Hakeem has lesser rings, a short prime, and lower stats than Duncan. Apart from his short prime, Hakeem is behind Duncan on all parameters.

[bobbyjoe]

So let me get this straight:

Tim has more titles, MVPs, Finals MVPs, All-NBA awards, and better career statistics than Hakeem. And your only response to that is "he played better against the Lakers in so-and-so year, he got so many blocks in that year".

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

Hakeem faced tougher competition and thrived against it.

Hakeem had more moves and defended better. No discussion of top defensive players in NBA history either excludes Hakeem Olajuwon or includes Tim Duncan.

The argument about rings is all about context. Duncan was drafted onto a squad which had consistently won 55-60 games every year before he got there (excluding 97 injury filled year). Hakeem on balance had weaker supporting casts than TD and didnt have the benefit of playing in today's watered down league where a guy like Mehmet Okur is arguably the best Center in the NBA (since Duncan is at PF and Shaq is on a deep decline). Expansion and the high school invasion have weakened the league from the 80s and 90s.

Duncan's first finals he faced the 8 seed Knicks of A Hou/Lat Spre. Hakeem's he got by Magic/Kareem (which is a better team than any Duncan has ever defeated or beaten) but lost to arguably the best team ever in Boston. If you want to only look at who got the ring, yes it's Tim. But Hakeem's accomplishment here was clearly more impressive when you factor in quality of competition.

Duncan would not have had near as many all-team NBA awards defense or overall playing Center in the 90's playing alongside Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo, and Mutombo all their primes. He's benefitted greatly from playing the forward position in terms of All NBA rankings so using those in this argument is weak and deceptive.

Duncan's an awesome talent. If starting a team with today's NBA players, I'd pick him first and not think twice about it.

I have him in my top 10 NBA players of all time. But no, unlike the homer talk you see here, he is just not better than guys like Larry Bird, Shaq O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon (if you look at accomplishments to date since Duncan's career isn't over yet). He's in the tier of those guys but not ahead of them.

[whottt]

If Duncan had played C on defense his entire career his numbers would probably be better IMO...especially his block totals.


You can say Hakeem was such a great defender...but he wasn't doing any more defending than Duncan does in the post season.

Unless you can explain to me how they allowed Hakeem 8 PF per game in 94-95....he wasn't guarding(fouling) Drob.

If Duncan had played in some of the offense those guys played in...his offensive numbers would be better.

Duncan has played in a grind it out low scoring offensive system for virtually his entire career...yeah the Spurs are more high scoring now...but they have other players taking those shots.

[bobbyjoe]

You didnt see anyone drop 37 ppg on Hakeem in the playoffs like Amare did to TD, did you?

He held Ewing to 35% shooting (15% below his career average) and just 18 ppg in the 94 Finals. Robinson's offensive #'s also went down in the series against Houston.

Hakeem was a better one on one defender than Tim and a better team defender as well.

Regardless of what Duncan played officially, he's always defended the paint like a Center. The reason Hakeem got more blocks is that he was quicker and more hops and was a quicker leaper. Plus early in his career Duncan had the luxury of a David Robinson who would guard the other team's best big which allowed Duncan to conserve more energy defensively and made weakside defense much easier. He doesn't have that benefit now but did for several years.

If anything, hakeem would have averaged a lot more blocks (Drob as well) if their careers had been in the 2000's with the more lax zone rules. Back in the day, Hakeem and DRob were pulled out of the paint at times to avoid illegal defense violations.

Duncan has played in grind it out scoring systems but any team with a dominant big will always want to play a slowdown, halfcourt game (see Shaq, LA, Hakeem, Houston)

[Warlord23]

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

Here's the snag with that reasoning. What you're saying is "If player A scores more PPG than player B, player A is a better offensive player than player B". That doesn't take into account that possibility that player A might have played in an era where teams took more FGAs across the board, what was the league average of FG% etc.

Which is where PER comes into play. Hollinger has set up PER so that the league average, every season, is 15.00. So that we don't end up comparing apples to oranges. Duncan's PER > Hakeem's. So I stick to my point about career statistics being in Duncan's favor.


No discussion of top defensive players in NBA history either excludes Hakeem Olajuwon or includes Tim Duncan.

I thought we would stick to facts, not conjecture and opinions. I do concede that Hakeem in his prime was the better defender. But Duncan has kept this up for a full decade, and the consistency on defense is awesome. At best he falls behind Olajuwon by a small margin on defense, but the difference is nowehere as large as you imply.


Duncan would not have had near as many all-team NBA awards defense or overall playing Center in the 90's playing alongside Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo, and Mutombo all their primes. He's benefitted greatly from playing the forward position in terms of All NBA rankings so using those in this argument is weak and deceptive.

Again, conjecture. Mourning, Ewing and Mutombo in their primes are not on Duncan's level. Speaking of prime Shaq, do you honestly believe Hakeem would have held his own vs a 2000 Shaq. 2000 Shaq was a whole different animal compared to 1995 Shaq. Duncan beat 2002-03 Shaq, who was superior to 1994-95 Shaq.

And finally, the most remarkable thing about this argument is that Duncan is not done yet. He is just 30 years old. At 30, Hakeem had no titles, no MVPs. He played his best ball at ages 31 to 33. If Duncan steps it up even more in the next 3 years, we won't be having this particular argument, as Duncan would have moved up into the GOAT debate.

[bobbyjoe]

PER is always going to underrate a star defensive player. If you have a lockdown defender like Hakeem or Bruce Bowen or Scottie Pippen who is shutting his man down and playing great team D, altering shots, and resulting in a lower FG%, PER gives absolutely zero credit for this. Look at Bruce Bowen's PER and he'd be about the worst starter in the league even though he obviously has tremendous value.

Hakeem was an easily better defender than Duncan. He locked down his man (like Duncan does) but gave you the added plus of better overall range and verstality. Better shotblocker than Duncan and he ranks in top 10 all time in steals, unheard of for a big and a trait Duncan doesn't have. This wasn't just something Hakeem did in his prime, but from day one. Him and Robinson are just on a different level defensively than TD.

Also, as we know looking at Hakeem's PER is misleading when comparing him to a current player in his prime because Hakeem has many years of average or poor play after his prime to drag down career #'s. To accont for this, you'd have to look at Hakeem's PER as of 1995-1996, not his whole career.

Isn't there another comprehensive rating system used which is similar to PER but with a different strucure? I seem to remember one and would be curious to see how that one looks vs. PER.

I think I've already said that I would rank Shaq as the best out of the 3 in terms of prime value. Hakeem 95 vs. Shaq 00 is a tough call, but I would lean O'Neal.

I just can't give 100% credit for Duncan beating 2002-2003 as you say because DRob was the primary defender on O'Neal the year. They weren't matched head to head all series. That's where the real problem comes in in defending Shaq. Him wearing you down on offense and zapping your energy to attack him on the other end. Tim was able to avoid this challenge thanks to the Admiral.

Mourning, Ewing, and Mutombo were indeed not on Duncan's level as overall players, but Duncan is third in that group defensively most probably and so he wouldnt have the All team defense awards that he does now.

I've never bought into the "league FG% btw". Are you telling me a guy like George Gervin who shot 50% for his career many times benefitted from playing in a league with higher FG% or that overall FG%'s in the league were higher because you had more offensively skilled and talented players in that era (which is what I think is the case easily).

I mean Gervin wouldnt shoot 50% in today's NBA? MJ wouldnt shoot 50% in the 2000's, just because the league is watered down today and overall league FG% is down from the MJ era along with scoring? Personally, I think that's baloney.

[BUMP]

Tim's career > Hakeem's career ... bring me one fact that proves otherwise


Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.


WOOOOOOOOOW

talk about getting :owned

[Warlord23]

Well I personally think Duncan himself is one of the players who specializes in a lot of things that don't show up on the stat sheet (e.g. altered shots, opponents FG% when being defended, hockey assists etc). For instance, Duncan passing out of a double team, then the extra pass leading to a 3 is a very common play for the Spurs. Hakeem is another such player, so i don't think either is dsadvantaged too much.

Regarding defense, the most difficult thing is to separate the impact of individual defense vs team defense. A team's defensive system can maximize an individual's defensive contribution, or waste it altogether. With Duncan as the centerpiece, the Spurs are always a top 3 team in opp PPG and opp FG%. Over a decade, that counts for a lot. This coninues even after Robinson's decline and retirement. Not sure how you can compare that with Zo's/Ewing's defensive contritbution to their teams and conclusively establish Zo's/Ewing's superiority. I'll just say that being the anchor of the top D in the league clearly includes Duncan in the discussion of the top 3 defensive players in the last decade. Just like Hakeem gets included in his decade. Only I think in Duncan's case it'll continue (probably and hopefully) for 15 years. Which is something Hakeem, Ewing and Mourning can't claim.

Regarding league FG%, it's an iffy topic since you can't simulate Gervin's performance in this era. But a few trends are visible. When the Celtic dynasty dominated, the FG% was low throughout the league except for freaks like Wilt (Bob Cousy had a career 37.5% FGP and is included in the 50 greatest). It increased in the 70s and especially in the 80s, then started on a gradual decline through the 90s. Dunno what the reason is, maybe invention/prevalence of new defensive schemes, rules, officiating patterns etc. But the trend is a discernible one.

[Warlord23]

WOOOOOOOOOW

talk about getting :owned

Read post # 117 about PER. And try to apply rational thought before posting cute emoticons. Thanks.

[thewatcher]

ownage count:

bobbyjoe: 8797419028741209879

spurs homers: 0

[whottt]

ownage count:

bobbyjoe: 8797419028741209879

spurs homers: 0


Fans of teams who trade their Dynasty and choke or miss the playoffs every year thereafter, are not in charge of deciding who is owned...you are the example of what owned is at this particular time in NBA history.

You can start judging who is owned, once it is no longer you...Raja.

[thewatcher]

^^^ keep in the topic please

[whottt]

^^^ keep in the topic please


It is in the topic...it's about your qualifications to decide who is owned...of which there is none.


You can tell us we're owned when you don't have to root for our team to beat the team that just eliminated you.

[thewatcher]

^^^stop the empty speech please

[whottt]

^^^stop the empty speech please


Ok...
PWNAGE Total
whottt = 435456456456456456
thewatcher = -0


Meaningful...wouldn't you say?

[thewatcher]

Ok...
PWNAGE Total
whottt = 435456456456456456
thewatcher = -0


Meaningful...wouldn't you say?

-0 doesnt exist! :lmao

[Warlord23]

ownage count:

bobbyjoe: 8797419028741209879

spurs homers: 0

And we're still waiting for one post from you on this topic that isn't a waste of time and space...

[thewatcher]

i'm just a spectator :lol

[whottt]

i'm just a spectator :lol

Then IMO, that's what you should stick to doing


Watch more, post less


:smokin

[mavs>spurs2]

If I was starting a franchise, the obvious choice would be Beno Udrih.

[whottt]

+1 ownage = whottt

[thewatcher]

*waits bobbyjoe to raise his ownage points*

[whottt]

*waits bobbyjoe to raise his ownage points*


I am waiting for bobbyjoe to pay me royalties for all the elements of my Pro-Drob argument he is plaigerizing.

He started out Pro Hakeem on this board originally with...Hakeem's got the rings.

[PM5K]

as Duncan would have moved up into the GOAT debate.

I don't think so son....

[Warlord23]

I don't think so son....

I don't think your thought particularly bothers me, son

[Ockham]

I'm not looking to draw vitriol from the pro-Hakeem camp here, because I think all would agree that starting a franchise with Hakeem would be a dream (pun intended) for any GM. That being said...

Since the question is "Who would you choose to start your franchise with?"---and not "Who was more athletically gifted?" or "Who had the more impressive statistics?"---the clear choice for me is Duncan. If I'm a GM, I'm most interested in getting someone who will give me a consistent high winning percentage, consistent playoff appearances and few early-round exits, and (not to be underrated) the ability to win with various supporting casts, given the risk of changing personnel. Duncan gives me that like few players in NBA history.

And while Duncan has had a few years of stellar supporting casts---Robinson in 99, and Parker and Ginobili in 2005-2007---he led the Spurs to outstanding records and post-season success without such casts for much of his career. Olajuwan's teams suffered when he didn't have a lot of help around him.

[Cry Havoc]

Sampson's career which was short-lived due to injuries. Him and Hakeem played 2 1/2 seasons together and then Sampson was traded the next year after the Finals Apperance.

In one of the years they were together, they knocked off one of the best dynasties in NBA history, a team with Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc, then ran into Bird, McHale, etc in the NBA Finals.

They were looked on back then as the beginning of the next dynasty after beating the Lakers before the Sampson fallout and drug suspensions.

Just curious, but after reading all of your arguments, in 3-4 years if Duncan is still putting up 25+, 12+, with 4 dimes and 2.5-3 blocks per game (which could happen as his game is predicated on knowing his opponent and out-thinking them as opposed to using phenomenal athleticism to do all his work and "overpower" other players), what are you doing to say about the two then?

Duncan is as dominant now as he has EVER been. Did you notice the spin move by Okur? Does that look like someone who's in the midst of decline to you? TimmAY has at LEAST two peak years of performance left after this one. He could easily leave the game with 5 or 6 rings, 7+ if the Spurs front office retools around Parker with Duncan as a great role player.

What then? Will Hakeem's 2 years of dominance and long-standing record of impressive individual play overshadow Duncan's incredible ability to drag teams kicking and screaming through the playoffs while being the best defensive player in the league as well as perhaps the most unguardable? Can't double him, because he passes as well as any big ever has. Can't single cover him, because then you really have no hope of stopping 30+15.

Just curious.

[gtownspur]

THe same people who argue Hakeem over Duncan should never ever own a pretzel stand nevertheless a franchise.


Geez what would i have?

A player who half asses and demands Da Money, or A player who is a workhorse and doesn't demand Money who has more championships, better carreer and wins......

Duh hAkeem...slurp slurp...

[gtownspur]

Hakeem was Nigerian and Tim Duncan from the Virgin Islands...

who wins in a war..


Nigeria..


Therefore Hakeem > Tim Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

THe same people who argue Hakeem over Duncan should never ever own a pretzel stand nevertheless a franchise.


Geez what would i have?

A player who half asses and demands Da Money, or A player who is a workhorse and doesn't demand Money who has more championships, better carreer and wins......

Duh hAkeem...slurp slurp...

People who think Hakeem half assed it or that Vinny was a better guard than Stockton or Clyde Drexler should be finding other hobbies than watching basketball. Or at least keep their ignorance from themselves so they dont keep embarassing themselves.

I guess someone should tell Elie and Horry, common teammates of Hakeem and TD, that they are idiots. Apparently, they didnt mind the "selfish" Hakeem but what do they know, they were only teammates of both Dream and TD.

Hakeem was a bigger workhorse than Tim on both ends of the court. Anyone who can lead the league in rebounding, shot blocks, rank in the top 10 in steals, and drop 24-26 and 11-12 boards a game year in and year out while "half assing" it is clearly in a league of his own.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem was Nigerian and Tim Duncan from the Virgin Islands...

who wins in a war..


Nigeria..


Therefore Hakeem > Tim Duncan.

Duncan donned the silver and black and once you do that you are automatically one of the GOAT's.

Hakeem didnt wear silver and black so he sucked.

[Cry Havoc]

As a side note, I shudder to think the # of blocks Duncan would have if he were on a subpar defensive team which allowed penetration all game.

He'd avg. at least 4. Maybe 4.5. And a ridiculous amount of re-directs.

[BradLohaus]

In the 9 postseasons that Duncan has played in, he has made it past the 1st round every time. In the one postseason he missed due to injury, the Spurs lost in the 1st round.

In Hakeem's first 9 postseasons he lost in the 1st round 5 out of 9 times, including 4 straight years from '88 to '91. He would later lose in the first round in 2 of his last 5 seasons in Houston.

So, in Hakeem's 14 postseasons with the Rockets, he lost in the 1st round of the playoffs in half of them. Duncan has never lost in the first round, and his team did lose in the first round when he missed a postseason because he was hurt.

Why is this even being debated?

[Cry Havoc]

In the 9 postseasons that Duncan has played in, he has made it past the 1st round every time. In the one postseason he missed due to injury, the Spurs lost in the 1st round.

In Hakeem's first 9 postseasons he lost in the 1st round 5 out of 9 times, including 4 straight years from '88 to '91. He would later lose in the first round in 2 of his last 5 seasons in Houston.

So, in Hakeem's 14 postseasons with the Rockets, he lost in the 1st round of the playoffs in half of them. Duncan has never lost in the first round, and his team did lose in the first round when he missed a postseason because he was hurt.

Why is this even being debated?

It's not. It's a bunch of shitty "this guy is more athletic and has better numbers so obviously he's the best" vs. "no way this guy is better cause he's playing now and he's on my favorite team and he has more rings so you're an idiot" "nuh uh" "yuh huh" "Nuh UH!" "yah HUH!" arguments.

That's most of the thread folks.

Though anyone who attempts to measure Duncan and his contribution on court by his statsheet is truly in need an F-MRI scan.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Hakeem was winning 42 games with guys in their primes that DRob won 55 games with in their last season on the bench, and they were the best PG on the team.

Hakeem couldn't even make post season with the best PG Drob ever had.

Hakeem got hot in the biggest series of Drob's career...the rest of the time Drob got him. That's the facts.

And Drob never dogged it in the regular season like Hakeem did...he couldn't, his team would be in the lottery if he did. It's easy to save it for the post season when you are dogging it for 30 games of the season.

Hakeem got his skull cracked and his team went on the longest winning streak in team history without him..in fact, his team posted the best record in Rockets history that year and he was injured for half the season...

Drob got injured and it was the worst single season turnaround in NBA history.

:lmao RACK!!!!

[bobbyjoe]

Just curious, but after reading all of your arguments, in 3-4 years if Duncan is still putting up 25+, 12+, with 4 dimes and 2.5-3 blocks per game (which could happen as his game is predicated on knowing his opponent and out-thinking them as opposed to using phenomenal athleticism to do all his work and "overpower" other players), what are you doing to say about the two then?

Duncan is as dominant now as he has EVER been. Did you notice the spin move by Okur? Does that look like someone who's in the midst of decline to you? TimmAY has at LEAST two peak years of performance left after this one. He could easily leave the game with 5 or 6 rings, 7+ if the Spurs front office retools around Parker with Duncan as a great role player.

What then? Will Hakeem's 2 years of dominance and long-standing record of impressive individual play overshadow Duncan's incredible ability to drag teams kicking and screaming through the playoffs while being the best defensive player in the league as well as perhaps the most unguardable? Can't double him, because he passes as well as any big ever has. Can't single cover him, because then you really have no hope of stopping 30+15.

Just curious.

The homerism here is incredible.

Duncan's been the best defensive player in the league?

He has not even won the Defensive Player of the year award ONCE. He never led the league in blocked shots. Hakeem did both on numerous occasions and is top 10 all time in steals.

Why does the best defensive player in the league allow 37 ppg to Amare in the playoffs? That never happened to Hakeem even when he faced much better comp in DRob, Ewing, and Shaq.

Not one person outside of SA, TX would ever imply Duncan was a better defender than Olajuwon. That's simply laughable.

You are in awe of a spin move on Okur (weak defender) but Hakeem was doing this in his prime against a guy named David Robinson, an infinitely better defender than Okur.

To answer your question, yes it would make a difference if Duncan maintained his dominance through his mid 30's. Hakeem was dominant until about age 33, then slowed down. Some rare bigs are like Karl Malone and Kareem who can continue to be great late into their 30's. If Duncan does that, of course it will have to be considered.

However, as for your argument, think of it this way. Let's say Duncan's game starts declining next year and he slows down quickly.

Does that mean Karl Malone in 10 yrs is considered the best PF of all tiem because some fan is talking about how Malone's career was more consistently excellent, he only doesn't have rings because of Jordan, has better stats, etc?

Or will Duncan be the better PF than Malone regardless because he was clearly a better player than Malone in his peak years?

It's the exact same argument you are presenting to me and I'm sure in the latter case you'd say Duncan's supremacy at his peak supersedes Malone's longer period of high quality all star caliber play.

[Marcus Bryant]

Karl Malone. He was the greatest placekicker of all time.

[bobbyjoe]

In the 9 postseasons that Duncan has played in, he has made it past the 1st round every time. In the one postseason he missed due to injury, the Spurs lost in the 1st round.

In Hakeem's first 9 postseasons he lost in the 1st round 5 out of 9 times, including 4 straight years from '88 to '91. He would later lose in the first round in 2 of his last 5 seasons in Houston.

So, in Hakeem's 14 postseasons with the Rockets, he lost in the 1st round of the playoffs in half of them. Duncan has never lost in the first round, and his team did lose in the first round when he missed a postseason because he was hurt.

Why is this even being debated?

And how many times would Duncan have beat Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott, etc in their primes with a supporting cast of Mitchell Wiggins, Purvis Short, Buck Johnson, etc like Hakeem had from 88 to 91?

It was the Houston TEAM that lost those series.

As a case in point, in one of those series in 1988 you criticize Hakeem for not "getting past the first round" even though that is a TEAM and not an individual outcome, he averaged 38 ppg and 17 ppg on 57% shooting against Dallas. A Jordanesque type individual performance but a TEAM loss due to a weak supporting cast.

It really says a lot that the pro-Duncan crowd here has to always cite a team achievement in this argument. The discussion is not "who had better teams, the late 80's Rockets or the 00's Spurs".

Duncan doesn't win the title this year if you replace Tony Parker, Ginobili, Bowen with 3 average or below average basketball players.

You're also skewing the team achievements rather conveniently. Hakeem got to the WCF 4 times and the NBA Finals 3. Duncan has been to both the exact same # of times, although that is highly likely to change obviously.

Again, answer this: Did Tim Duncan lose last year to the Mavs (he was clearly dominant in this series) or did the Spurs team lose to the Mavs?

[Cry Havoc]

And how many times would Duncan have beat Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott, etc in their primes with a supporting cast of Mitchell Wiggins, Purvis Short, Buck Johnson, etc like Hakeem had from 88 to 91?

Ah, I get it. So Duncan loses points because he didn't play against the squads you wanted him to get beat by, and because his team has never had the floor wiped in the first round while he's playing.

Got it. Yep. Losing to purportedly "great" teams somehow makes Hakeem better than Duncan, because the competition was better. It's not winning and losing, it's who you played that determines how great you are. You're clearly the paragon of rationality and factual discourse with this kind of "logic". :rolleyes

NO ONE can predict how Duncan would have fared in the 80s or 90s. For someone who claims to be full of only facts, you bandy about such nonsense pretty freely.

[Cry Havoc]

The homerism here is incredible.

Duncan's been the best defensive player in the league?

He has not even won the Defensive Player of the year award ONCE. He never led the league in blocked shots. Hakeem did both on numerous occasions and is top 10 all time in steals.

Wtf. You jump down people's throats for talking about rings, and then you list individual statistics for why Hakeem is clearly better? And you call other people homers?

That's borderline trolling, man.

[bobbyjoe]

That's not what I said.

I'm asking a question. How many times would Duncan have realistically won with a supporting cast on par with Houston's of the late 80's were he having to face Magic's teams 2 of the years and a really good Mavericks team one of the other years.

This doesn't make Hakeem better because he lost to better comp, but it minimizes the strength of any argument that Duncan is better because Hakeem's teams lost to teams which clearly had a lot more talent and were superior.

Put it this way: Give Duncan a weak to average supporting cast (let's say the Timberwolves cast of KG's career) and would the Twolves TEAM have won 55 games a year and got to the Finals and won titles.

If the answer to this is no, then it's silly to say Duncan is a better player than KG solely because his TEAMS have done better in the playoffs.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am in no way saying KG is on par with Duncan. I would rather have TD easily, but it's also disingenuous to act as if it isn't an apples and oranges comparison in terms of using team success as a criteria to answer the question of who was a better player between the 2.

PS. Are you going to answer the Karl Malone question?

[bobbyjoe]

Wtf. You jump down people's throats for talking about rings, and then you list individual statistics for why Hakeem is clearly better? And you call other people homers?

That's borderline trolling, man.

Try reading the question starting this thread. Then read it again, maybe then you'll get it.

The question isn't "Who had better teams, the 1980's/1990's Rockets or the 2000's Spurs?"

It's "what individual would you start a franchise with, hakeem or TD?"

This isn't Rocket science. When comparing INDIVIDUALS, it goes without say that you look at INDIVIDUAL accomplishments and traits, etc.

Who was a better scorer, who had more moves, who was a better rebounder, who palyed better defense, who passed better, who was more versatile, who was more durable?

These are the kinds of things it's logical to look at if you are comparing 2 players because the playing field is level when you look at such traits.

When you look at who was on a team that won more or had more success, you introduce a ton of variables like era played in, quality of competition, quality of teammates, quality of coaching, variables which are not influenced solely or even highly by individuals but extraneous factors.

[whottt]

You're on fucking crack...you stick Sam Casell, Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, and Robert Horry on Duncan's team...

I guranfucking tee you that team is wining a title...

Go ahead and replace Drexler with Otis Thorpe...it's still winning a title...that team is easily a better team than the 99 Spurs.

[Cry Havoc]

That's not what I said.

I'm asking a question. How many times would Duncan have realistically won with a supporting cast on par with Houston's of the late 80's were he having to face Magic's teams 2 of the years and a really good Mavericks team one of the other years.

This doesn't make Hakeem better because he lost to better comp, but it minimizes the strength of any argument that Duncan is better because Hakeem's teams lost to teams which clearly had a lot more talent and were superior.

Put it this way: Give Duncan a weak to average supporting cast (let's say the Timberwolves cast of KG's career) and would the Twolves TEAM have won 55 games a year and got to the Finals and won titles.

If the answer to this is no, then it's silly to say Duncan is a better player than KG solely because his TEAMS have done better in the playoffs.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am in no way saying KG is on par with Duncan. I would rather have TD easily, but it's also disingenuous to act as if it isn't an apples and oranges comparison in terms of using team success as a criteria to answer the question of who was a better player between the 2.

PS. Are you going to answer the Karl Malone question?

For the record, yes, I think Duncan would do more with the T-wolves supporting cast than KG has done. Isn't that kind of what we're discussing here?

Secondly, the idea that you're putting forth -- the who would have done what on what team -- is inconsequential, immeasurable, and completely pointless. There is no way you can mentally assess how a player would have done on another team for a given season. Put Hakeem in his prime on the Spurs this year -- are they more dominant than 58 wins and a potential championship?

I'm sure you would say yes, but that's irrelevant even if all parties agree. Especially since Spurs fans will undoubtedly point to the fact that Duncan fits our system as well as possible.

And no, Karl Malone cannot be considered better. He never won a title even with some great teams, he was consistently dirty, he never played a real team concept of play, and he was NEVER the defender that Duncan has become. Oh dear heavens, Duncan doesn't have a DPoY! That means he's missing something!

Never mind the fact that he has ten All-NBA defensive teams. The fact that a bunch of people got together and decided that Camby (not in the playoffs) is a better defender and Nash (also not in the playoffs, both of whom exited courtesy of Duncan & Co.) is a better player is obviously indicative of his overall abilities as a player! :dramaquee

Back to the Malone statement, Malone was amazing for what, exactly? He never put the team on his back like Duncan did. Truly excellent, dominant players find ways to win the big one. Karl will never reach that level. Neither will Steve Nash, mostly because he doesn't have any clue how to stay in front of his man. And yes, there are certain exceptions to that rule. Malone just wasn't a man who's players would follow into "battle". They wouldn't lay down for him. That's called leadership, and it's something Duncan has and Malone doesn't.

[bobbyjoe]

You're on fucking crack...you stick Sam Casell, Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, and Robert Horry on Duncan's team...

I guranfucking tee you that team is wining a title...

Go ahead and replace Drexler with Otis Thorpe...it's still winning a title...that team is easily a better team than the 99 Spurs.

That wasn't the comparison.

The comparison was Duncan's current teams to the teams of Houston from 88 to 91 when they lost in the first round every year. That cast was a lot weaker and different than the cast you cite which was the cast in the mid 90's.

Based on Brad Lohaus' argument, Duncan > Hakeem because Hakeem's teams between Sampson and the 2 title years kept getting bounced in the first round. Duncan has not carried teams with that low a level of talent deep into the playoffs because he's been fortunate enough never to be in that situation.

Besides Wilt Chamberlain, there's never been any player in the NBA who didn't need a solid cast to go deep into the playoffs. Not Duncan, not Magic, not Hakeem, not Bird, not Jordan.

[Cry Havoc]

Try reading the question starting this thread. Then read it again, maybe then you'll get it.

The question isn't "Who had better teams, the 1980's/1990's Rockets or the 2000's Spurs?"

It's "what individual would you start a franchise with, hakeem or TD?"

This isn't Rocket science. When comparing INDIVIDUALS, it goes without say that you look at INDIVIDUAL accomplishments and traits, etc.

Who was a better scorer, who had more moves, who was a better rebounder, who palyed better defense, who passed better, who was more versatile, who was more durable?

These are the kinds of things it's logical to look at if you are comparing 2 players because the playing field is level when you look at such traits.

When you look at who was on a team that won more or had more success, you introduce a ton of variables like era played in, quality of competition, quality of teammates, quality of coaching, variables which are not influenced solely or even highly by individuals but extraneous factors.


Fine. Except for two things.

1. This isn't a one-on-one game we're talking about here. Do you feel it's obvious that T.O. and Randy Moss are better wideouts than Marvin Harrison? But these facts were lost on you long after you proclaimed Darius Miles as the greatest future player ever, because he has more "moves" than the other rising stars. :lol Speaking of which, have you ever watched Rafer Alston play? That guy has moves for days. :lol

2. This also isn't a thread about the better "player". Nowhere in the poll does it ask who the better player is, to say nothing of who the better individual performer is. If that's the case, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in NBA history and it's not debatable. But we know that's not the case. The question is "who would you start a franchise with?"

[E20]

IMO BobbyJoe laid down some pretty good points backed up with facts and was articulate.

I'm gonna have to vote for Hakeem, just because of BJ. :lol

[bobbyjoe]

For the record, yes, I think Duncan would do more with the T-wolves supporting cast than KG has done. Isn't that kind of what we're discussing here?

Secondly, the idea that you're putting forth -- the who would have done what on what team -- is inconsequential, immeasurable, and completely pointless. There is no way you can mentally assess how a player would have done on another team for a given season. Put Hakeem in his prime on the Spurs this year -- are they more dominant than 58 wins and a potential championship?

I'm sure you would say yes, but that's irrelevant even if all parties agree. Especially since Spurs fans will undoubtedly point to the fact that Duncan fits our system as well as possible.

And no, Karl Malone cannot be considered better. He never won a title even with some great teams, he was consistently dirty, he never played a real team concept of play, and he was NEVER the defender that Duncan has become. Oh dear heavens, Duncan doesn't have a DPoY! That means he's missing something!

Never mind the fact that he has ten All-NBA defensive teams. The fact that a bunch of people got together and decided that Camby (not in the playoffs) is a better defender and Nash (also not in the playoffs, both of whom exited courtesy of Duncan & Co.) is a better player is obviously indicative of his overall abilities as a player! :dramaquee

Back to the Malone statement, Malone was amazing for what, exactly? He never put the team on his back like Duncan did. Truly excellent, dominant players find ways to win the big one. Karl will never reach that level. Neither will Steve Nash, mostly because he doesn't have any clue how to stay in front of his man. And yes, there are certain exceptions to that rule. Malone just wasn't a man who's players would follow into "battle". They wouldn't lay down for him. That's called leadership, and it's something Duncan has and Malone doesn't.


Yes, I agree that Duncan would have done more. I think they'd have got out of the first round a couple more times and been more competitive and successful overall. But I do not think they would have 3 titles or even 2. The only chance I'd give them was in 2004 when KG had Spree and Cassell. Ditto if you supplant KG with Hakeem or Shaq in their primes. You still have to have some help.

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

Duncan was a better defender than Malone. I'm not sure how fair that is since Malone was a true PF and Duncan was a Center who is listed at PF, but nevertheless Duncan protected the basket much better than Malone, altered and blocked shots, etc.

However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.

[bobbyjoe]

Fine. Except for two things.

1. This isn't a one-on-one game we're talking about here. Do you feel it's obvious that T.O. and Randy Moss are better wideouts than Marvin Harrison? But these facts were lost on you long after you proclaimed Darius Miles as the greatest future player ever, because he has more "moves" than the other rising stars. :lol Speaking of which, have you ever watched Rafer Alston play? That guy has moves for days. :lol

2. This also isn't a thread about the better "player". Nowhere in the poll does it ask who the better player is, to say nothing of who the better individual performer is. If that's the case, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in NBA history and it's not debatable. But we know that's not the case. The question is "who would you start a franchise with?"

I know it's not a one on one game. I had moves as one of my criteria, not the be all or end all. With guys like Miles or Rafer, it'd be pretty obvious that they had poor basketball IQ's and that'd be a reason to look past them or downgrade them (either that or the fact that both may have had moves but were poor finishers!) Other than that, fair enough on your points.

BTW, I'd take Harrison in a hearbeat. Not sure if you were trying to relate that to the Hakeem/TD discussion but Harrison is just way better than the other 2 nutcases, even if you ignore how nutso they are.

[BradLohaus]

Duncan never had a super strong supporting cast until Parker and Ginobili got here, certainly nothing along the lines of what Hakeem had in his 2 title winning teams.

Much has been said in this thread recently, so I just put this out there: if TD gets one more Finals MVP, and the odds have to favor that happening since he's just 31, then the list of players with more than 3 NBA Finals MVP's will be 1.) Jordan and 2.) Duncan

When Tim is done does anyone actually think that there will be any debate about Duncan vs. Hakeem? No way. Hakeem was older than Tim is now before he won anything. We're arguing this when Tim is at an age that Olajuwon hadn't even won a title at yet. Give Tim another 4 or 5 years and no one will be able to even ask this question.

[mbass]

Yes, I agree that Duncan would have done more. I think they'd have got out of the first round a couple more times and been more competitive and successful overall. But I do not think they would have 3 titles or even 2. The only chance I'd give them was in 2004 when KG had Spree and Cassell. Ditto if you supplant KG with Hakeem or Shaq in their primes. You still have to have some help.

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

Duncan was a better defender than Malone. I'm not sure how fair that is since Malone was a true PF and Duncan was a Center who is listed at PF, but nevertheless Duncan protected the basket much better than Malone, altered and blocked shots, etc.

However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.





WE Spurs fans look at intangibles - including Duncan's leadership factor. Duncan is like the Gladiator. His team will follow him anywhere because they know he has the best interests of the team at heart. They are a bonded group. That gives them that extra boost and it is due primarily to Duncan's temperament and personality - you have to be a fan to see it.

[gtownspur]

THe only reason why hakeem is considered the best of all time in Centers is because he "owned" Robinson in one series......... That's the only reason.... Duncan owned shaq in his prime and no one is jawing him..

[Cry Havoc]

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

Right, but I would never use that as a reason why Duncan is a better franchise player than KG. Because it's not something you could ever hope to prove or even show evidence from.


I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

It speaks to his character. It is the type of player Karl Malone was. He was great, no doubt, but the fact that he was so underhanded makes him less of a leader, I feel. Of course, that's only my opinion, but I wonder how other Jazz players felt when they saw their "leaders" throwing elbows, pulling jerseys, and playing cheap basketball. Would you want to follow someone into battle who thought they needed to play like that or lose? I wouldn't.


My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

There's a difference, though. Unless Duncan has a huge unexpected decline, he will have outperformed Karl Malone for many years in both team accomplishments and individual play (mostly on the defensive side of things). That's a big difference. Hakeem-Duncan is much more debatable because Hakeem was clearly more dominant at his peak, but it didn't last long and only resulted in 2 titles. Duncan could well walk away with 4 after this season and still appears to have quite a few years left.



However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

My point was that Malone was never a really complete player, in terms of dominance on both ends. Duncan and Hakeem are, which instantly elevates them well above Mailman.


Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.

Duncan deserved it this year, even though he wasn't dominant the whole year. He's finished in the top 3 in voting enough that both he and Bruce are now routinely ignored. Lack of press, blah blah blah. The fact that Nash has 2 MVPs and has never even made it to the Finals is indicative of how the voters pick the MVP these days.

[thewatcher]

fact: the competition that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the competition that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?

[thewatcher]

hakeem played in the golden age of the nba. duncan?...in the copper age

[thewatcher]

i wanna hear the holy, unbiassed timvp's word :hungry:

[gtownspur]

fact: the competition that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the competition that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?


That must mean Dominique >>>> Kobe..

Seriously, go back to drinking Bobbyjoe smegma..

[Cry Havoc]

fact: the competition that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the competition that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?

If Shaq and Kobe played against the 60s Celts, they would have 0 titles, 0 individual awards (except for perhaps scoring title) and even fewer years together. Therefore, neither Kobe and Shaq are even decent basketball players and should be stripped of their titles.

:rolleyes

Now get lost. People who actually know a thing or two are debating (people who are making an attempt at civilized discourse, at least). The other Lakers fan here is a much better representation of an intelligent, reasoned fan, so undermining him with this kind of idiocy only makes him look good and you completely clueless.

[x_roux_x]

People who think Hakeem half assed it or that Vinny was a better guard than Stockton or Clyde Drexler should be finding other hobbies than watching basketball. Or at least keep their ignorance from themselves so they dont keep embarassing themselves.

I guess someone should tell Elie and Horry, common teammates of Hakeem and TD, that they are idiots. Apparently, they didnt mind the "selfish" Hakeem but what do they know, they were only teammates of both Dream and TD.

Hakeem was a bigger workhorse than Tim on both ends of the court. Anyone who can lead the league in rebounding, shot blocks, rank in the top 10 in steals, and drop 24-26 and 11-12 boards a game year in and year out while "half assing" it is clearly in a league of his own.

Ellie played with Tim in the first couple of years of his career...Horry has played in the last couple(hardly the part he played in houston) fuck staistics...this is a bullshit argument to begin with....to start a team Tim Duncan has to be the obvious choice...He is a better teammate...solid and consistant on both sides...I dont care about the stats.....and hakeem is so great for his steals and blocks yada yada yada....look Timmy is the overall better player...parker hasnt been a force but the last 2 yrs...Manu had on great year....Since Duncan we have had the best winning percentage in all major sports...3 rings some mvps....yada fucking yada again...He makes his team better...and once again is just damn down right consistant and solid....Hakeem is a great Center...but not the greatest...Who is the best PF? Almost everyone will say Duncan...and he does play center too....sorry dream lovers...I dont care about ur quality of comp. shit and all the stats in the world....what matters at the end of the day is winning and because of Timmy thats what the spurs do...

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/johnsonm_stats.html
By looking at the stats, we can also say that Olajuwon was more dominant than Magic Johnson during their primes, which is just ludricrous.

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcadobo01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html
By looking at the stats, we can also say that 74-79 Bob McAdoo was more dominant than Olajuwon, which is just ludricrous.

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html
By looking at the stats, we can tell that Shaquille O'neal was more dominant in his 2nd and 3rd years (when he was getting his ass owned in the playoffs) than when he was in 00 - 03, which is just ludricrous.

[Warlord23]

Wow, this thread has gone way off track. BobbyJoe, you've still not answered the central issue in this thread:

1. Championships: Duncan > Hakeem
2. Team winning %: Duncan >>> Hakeem
3. PER: Duncan > Hakeem (just to emphasize the earlier point that PER is the best measure to compare people across eras, as well as adjusting for minutes played)
4. Prime: Hakeem > Duncan
5. Awards: Duncan > Hakeem

Overall career: Duncan > Hakeem.

Let's not bring KG ( :wtf ) or the Mailman or DRob or anybody else into this thread. Let's stick to the main issue.

[ambchang]

Also, as we know looking at Hakeem's PER is misleading when comparing him to a current player in his prime because Hakeem has many years of average or poor play after his prime to drag down career #'s. To accont for this, you'd have to look at Hakeem's PER as of 1995-1996, not his whole career.

But didn't you say earlier that Hakeem's dominance spans from 88 to 96? Why just those two years when we are comparing Hakeem's prime to Duncan's prime? If anything, that is comparing Hakeem's best two seasons to Duncan's best two seasons, which does nothing to say that one should pick one player over the other.
It's like saying a GM should pick Ewing over Kareem after comparing Ewing's stats from 89 to 91 with Kareem's stats over his whole career.

[ambchang]

That's not what I said.

I'm asking a question. How many times would Duncan have realistically won with a supporting cast on par with Houston's of the late 80's were he having to face Magic's teams 2 of the years and a really good Mavericks team one of the other years.

This doesn't make Hakeem better because he lost to better comp, but it minimizes the strength of any argument that Duncan is better because Hakeem's teams lost to teams which clearly had a lot more talent and were superior.

Put it this way: Give Duncan a weak to average supporting cast (let's say the Timberwolves cast of KG's career) and would the Twolves TEAM have won 55 games a year and got to the Finals and won titles.

If the answer to this is no, then it's silly to say Duncan is a better player than KG solely because his TEAMS have done better in the playoffs.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am in no way saying KG is on par with Duncan. I would rather have TD easily, but it's also disingenuous to act as if it isn't an apples and oranges comparison in terms of using team success as a criteria to answer the question of who was a better player between the 2.

PS. Are you going to answer the Karl Malone question?

You continue to argue about Duncan's superior supporting cast, so what about 03?
Robinson in his last year with a terrible back.
Parker in his 2nd year.
Ginobili's rookie year, with a twisted ankle to boot.
Volatile Stephen Jackson.
Malik Rose
Bruce Bowen
Steve Smith
Steve Kerr
Kevin Willis
Claxton
Ferry
Devin Brown

This compared to (I picked the weaker of the two supporting casts Hakeem had).
Otis Thorpe (All star)
Vernon Maxwell
Kenny Smith (a guy who averaged 17.7 ppgs 3 years earlier)
Robert Horry
Mario Elie
Casell in his rookie year.
Scott Brooks
Carl Herrera
Larry Robinson
Matt Bullard

Neither of these casts were great, and they are very similar. Both teams won the championship, but Duncan had to knock off (in dominating fashion I might add) the 3 time champ to get there, while in 94, the leader of the 3 time champ was out playing baseball.

[thewatcher]

If Shaq and Kobe played against the 60s Celts, they would have 0 titles, 0 individual awards (except for perhaps scoring title) and even fewer years together. Therefore, neither Kobe and Shaq are even decent basketball players and should be stripped of their titles.

:rolleyes

maybe, but that is not a fact. fact is that hakeem faced a much better competiton than duncan so duncan awards are DEVALUATED, so duncan would not have win shit in the time that hakeem played.


Now get lost. People who actually know a thing or two are debating (people who are making an attempt at civilized discourse, at least). The other Lakers fan here is a much better representation of an intelligent, reasoned fan, so undermining him with this kind of idiocy only makes him look good and you completely clueless.

whatever

[Ghost Writer]

Although I don't know if Duncan in his prime could ever beat Hakeem in his prime, one-on-one -- I still voted for Duncan.

Duncan has showed me more consistency and flexibility in his career than the Dream, who seemed to be unstoppable for 2-3 years, but sort've lacked a championship fire throughout most of his career.


:cooldevil

[thewatcher]

so,,,

in value terms,,,

hakeem stats >> duncans stats

so imho, excluding duncans weak, devaluated awards,,,

hakeem >> duncan

[whottt]

Although I don't know if Duncan in his prime could ever beat Hakeem in his prime, one-on-one -- I still voted for Duncan.

Duncan has showed me more consistency and flexibility in his career than the Dream, who seemed to be unstoppable for 2-3 years, but sort've lacked a championship fire throughout most of his career.


:cooldevil



Best GhostWriter post in history.

[Winery]

1985/86: Hakeem Olajuwon and Ralph Sampson continued to tower of the Western Conference as they led the Rockets to the Division title with a solid record of 51-31. Despite Guard John Lucas being suspended for the playoffs for failing a drug test the Rockets hit their stride in the playoffs sweeping the Sacramento Kings in 3 straight games. After splitting the first 4 games against the Denver Nuggets the Rockets blast their way on to the Western Conference Finals in 6 games for a match up with Los Angeles Lakers. With the Boston Celtics dominating in the East everyone anticipated a 3rd straight NBA Finals match up between the Lakers and Celtics. However, the Rockets would spoil the rematch by stunning the Lakers in 5 games, winning the 5th game on an awkward turnaround jumper by Ralph Sampson at the buzzer in Los Angeles. After being blown out by the Celtics in the first 2 games on the road the Rockets pulled out a nail bitter 106-104. to keep their Championship hopes alive. However, the Celtics would take a 3-1 series lead with a 3-point win in Game 4. After staving off elimination at home in Game 5, the Rockets are blown out 114-97 in Game 6 as the Boston Celtics completed a record breaking season in which they lost just 1 game at home on the way to their 16th Championship.

1986/87: After making it to the NBA Finals the Rockets self destructed as their 3 guards John Lucas, Lewis Lloyd, and Mitchell Wiggins were suspended for substance abuse problems. With Ralph Sampson being limited to just 43 games Hakeem Olajuwon becomes the leader of the team averaging 23.4 ppg as the Rockets finished in 3rd place with a mediocre 42-40 record. In the playoffs the Rockets would blast past the Portland Trailblazers in 4 games before being knocked off by the Seattle Supersonics in 6 games.

1987/88: Hakeem Olajuwon would become the lone force in the middle of the Rockets as Ralph Sampson is traded early in the season along with Steve Harris to the Golden State Warriors for Eric "Sleepy" Floyd and Joe Barry Carroll after troubles with Coach Bill Fitch boiled over. Fitch had stated the trade would make the Rockets a better team then the one that went to the Finals 2 years earlier. The Rockets would go on to finish with a 46-36 record before crashing in the first round of the playoffs in 4 games against the Dallas Mavericks, as Coach Bill Fitch is fired and replaced by Don Chaney following the season.

1988/89: The Rockets continued to retool as they traded Joe Barry Carroll and Lester Connerto the New Jersey Nets for Tim McCormick and Frank Johnson. In addition they would deal Rodney McCray and Jim Petersen to the Sacramento Kings for Otis Thorpe. The Thorpe trade would pay dividends right away as he averaged 16.7ppg as the Rockets finished in 2nd place with a 45-37 record. However, the Rockets would fail in the playoffs again as they are beaten by the Seattle Supersonics in 4 games.

1989/90: The Rockets would sputter at the start of the season posting 12-18 records as they entered the New Year. However, the New Year would be a new start for the Rockets who battled their way back to .500 to make it into the playoffs as the 8th seed with a 41-41 record. However, in the playoffs it would be another quick exit as the Rockets are beaten by the Los Angeles Lakers in 4 games.

1990/91: Despite losing Hakeem Olajuwon for 25 games due to injury the Rockets show marked improvement finishing in 3rd place with a solid 52-30 record, as Kenny Smith provided a spark averaging 17.7 ppg. However despite a fully healthy team the Rockets would fail in the playoffs again as they are swept in 3 straight games by the Los Angeles Lakers.

1991/92: The Rockets would get off to a fast start winning 8 of their first 10 games. However, the Rockets would start to struggle and by February 21st were hovering at .500 with a 27-27 record when Coach Don Chaney is fired and replaced by Rudy Tomjanovich. Under Rudy T the Rockets seemed revitalized as they won 11 of their first 15 games. However, down the stretch the Rockets struggled losing 10 of their last 15 including 3 straight to close the season with a disappointing 42-40 record that saw them miss the playoff by one game, as dispute between Hakeem Olajuwon and Rockets management seemed to distract the entire team.

1992/93: The Rockets start the season with 2 straight losses facing the Seattle Supersonics in Japan. On the flight home the Rockets would finally resolve their problems with Hakeem Olajuwon. Now refocused and without distraction the Rockets were able to lift themselves to a division title with a solid 55-27 record, as Olajuwon had a career season with 26.1 ppg, as he won Defensive player of the Year honors with an incredible 4.17 blocks per game. In the playoffs the Rockets were pushed to the limit in the first round as they needed an 84-80 win at The Summit in Game 5 to knock off the Los Angeles Clippers. Despite winning the Midwest Division the Rockets would not have home court advantage in the 2nd round as they faced the Seattle Supersonics, because under the NBA playoff format home court is awarded to the team with the better record in the 2nd round something the Sonics achieved by a head-to-head tiebreaker. It would end up being key as the home team won all 7 games with Rockets hopes ending with a 123-110 overtime loss in Game 7 at Seattle.

1993/94: The Rockets lifted off into the stratosphere right away winning their first 15 games to set a NBA record for wins to start the season. After climbing to 22-1 the Rockets would naturally come back to earth a little bit as they finished in first place with a terrific 58-24 record, as Hakeem Olajuwon won the Defensive Player of the Year with 11.9 rebounds per game, while also claiming the MVP with 27.3 ppg. In the playoffs the Rockets would quickly fly past the Portland Trailblazers in 4 games. However, in the second round it appeared as if the Rockets were heading for disappointment again as they lost the first 2 games at home to the Phoenix Suns, blowing a 20-point lead in the 4th quarter of Game 2 after seeing an 18-point lead melt away in Game 1. After Rockets and Oilers playoff disappointments some one cracked that Houston was "Choke City." In Game 3 the Rockets appeared to be heading for a 4-game exit as they trailed at halftime by 9 points. However, Vernon Maxwell led the way with 31-second half points as the Rockets came roaring back to win 118-102. The Rockets would go on to grab Game 4 to even the series and Game 5 at home to take control. After losing Game 6 in Phoenix, Houston churned the choke moniker into clutch moniker by beating the Suns 104-94 to advance to the Western Finals. In the Western Finals the Rockets made the most of their new-found life by dominating the Utah Jazz in 5 games. In the NBA Finals the Rockets were matched up against the New York Knicks as Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing met in a battle of premier centers. After splitting 2 physical battles in Houston the Rockets took a Game 3 as Sam Cassell hit a clutch 3-pointer in the final minutes. After losing the next 2, the Rockets faced elimination with Game 6 at The Summit. Trailing most of Game 6 the Rockets rallied to win Game 6 and force a decisive 7th game as a potential Game winning 3-point shot by John Starks was blocked by Olajuwon at the buzzer to win 86-84. In Game 7 the Rockets controlled from the start holding off every Knicks rally as Hakeem Olajuwon scored 25 points en route to winning NBA Finals MVP honors as the Rockets captured the NBA Championship with a 90-84 win turning Houston form "Choke City" to 'Clutch City."

1994/95: After winning the NBA Title the Rockets again blasted off at the start of the season winning their first 9 games. However with increased competition in the West, management felt a change was needed to win the title again so they traded Otis Thorpe, who had been such a valuable inside force to the Portland Trailblazers for former "Phil Slamma Jamma" star Clyde Drexler. However, the trade appeared to have backfired on the Rockets as they play mediocre basketball in the second half posting a 17-18 record after the trade on the way to finishing in 3rd place with a 47-35 record. Making matters worse injuries to Carl Herrera, forced him to miss most of the season's second half, including the playoffs, and a frustrated Vernon Maxwell leaving the team due to lack of playing time left the Rockets without 2 key players heading into the postseason. In the playoffs the Rockets faced elimination right away, as they needed to win Game 4 at home just to set up a decisive 5th game on the road against the Utah Jazz. In Game 5 it appeared as if the Rockets Championship reign had run it course as they trailed by 12 points in the 3rd Quarter. However, behind 33 points from Hakeem Olajuwon the Rockets would advance with a 95-91 win. Facing he Phoenix Suns in the 2nd Round the Rockets appeared doomed again as they fell behind 3 games to 1. However the Rockets were not ready to give up as they won Game 5 in overtime on the clutch shooting of Robert Horry. After a solid 116-103 win in Game 6 at The Summit the Rockets overcame a 10-point deficit to bet the Suns 113-110 in Phoenix on a Game winning 3-point shot by Mario Ellie with 7.1 seconds left. After again rallying past the Phoenix Suns the Rockets, Championship dreams were alive and well as they faced the San Antonio Spurs in an all Texas Western Conference Finals. The Rockets continued their momentum by taking the first 2 games on the road. However, upon arriving back in Houston the Rockets would struggle as the Spurs won both games at The Summit to even the series at 2 games apiece. However, back in San Antonio for Game 5 the Rockets took control back by winning 111-90 as Hakeem Olajuwon scored 42 points. Olajuwon would again rise to the occasion by scoring 39 points and pulling down 17 rebounds as the Rockets made it back to the NBA Finals with a 100-95 win. In the NBA Finals the Rockets were again underdogs as they faced the Orlando Magic. In Game 1 in Orlando the Rockets rallied to force overtime on Kenny Smiths clutch 3-point shot, after Magic star Nick Anderson missed 2 free throws that would have iced the game. With the score tied at 118 late on overtime Hakeem Olajuwon tipped in a Clyde Drexler miss to deliver the Rockets a victory in Game 1. The Rockets would grab a 2-0 series lead as Olajuwon and Sam Cassell each topped 30 points in Game 2. As the series shifted to Houston the Magic crumbled as the Rockets completed the sweep with 2 impressive wins to capture their 2nd straight NBA Championship as Hakeem Olajuwon won his second straight Finals MVP award.

1995/96: After 2 straight NBA Championship the Rockets got new colors, uniforms, and a new logo which was actually unveiled aboard the Space Shuttle. Injuries would be an issue all year for the Rockets who finished in 3rd place again with a 48-34 record. In the playoffs the Rockets appeared ready for another run as they blasted past the Los Angels Lakers in 4 games. However, in the 2nd round the Rockets would run out of fuel as they were swept by the Seattle Supersonics in 4 straight games.

1996/97: After failing to win a 3rd straight Championship the Rockets took a big step towards returning to the top by acquiring Charles Barkley from the Phoenix Suns for Sam Cassell, Chucky Brown, Mark Bryant and Robert Horry. Together with Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler the Rockets now had 3 of the 50 Greatest players on their team as they got off to a solid 6-0 start, on the way to finishing in 2nd place with a solid record of 57-25. In the playoffs the Rockets blasted off right away as they swept the Minnesota Timberwolves in 3 straight games. In the second round the Rockets jumped out to a 3-1 series lead over the Seattle Supersonics, but had to hold on to win in 7 games 96-91. In the Western Finals the Rockets found their backs to the wall right away as they dropped the first 2 games on the road to the Utah Jazz. However, upon arriving back at The Summit the Rockets rallied winning Game 3 by 8 points and tying the series in Game 4 on a dramatic a Game winning shot by Eddie Johnson at the buzzer. After losing Game 5 in Utah 96-91, the Rockets needed another clutch performance at home to force a 7th game. However, with the game tied at 100 in the waning second Jazz guard John Stockton would nail a 3-point shot at the buzzer to end the Rockets Championship hopes.

1997/98: The Rockets began to show their age and the wear and tear of long playoff runs as they played mediocre basketball all season on the way to finishing in 4th place with a 41-41 record. Despite being the 8th seed in the playoffs the Rockets still had to be considered a legitimate playoff threat as they jumped out a 2-1 series lead over the Utah Jazz. However, the Jazz would recover to blow the Rockets out in the final 2 games to take the series in 5 games. Following the season Clyde Drexler would retire to take over the head-coaching job at the University of Houston.

1998/99: To replace the retiring Clyde Drexler the Rockets would acquire Scottie Pippen from the Chicago Bulls, as the season was delayed by a 4-month lockout. Pippen would play solid basketball scoring 14.5 ppg as the Rockets finished in 3rd place with a 31-19 record. However in the playoffs the Rockets would make a quick exit as they are beaten by the Los Angeles Lakers in 4 games. Despite the solid season the Rockets would trade Pippen to the Portland Trailblazers for Walt Williams, Stacey Augmon, Kelvin Cato, Ed Gray, Carlos Rogers and Brian Shaw.

1999/00: Already announcing it would be his final season Charles Barkley suffered a knee injury in December. In addition the Rockets would lose Hakeem Olajuwon to a variety of injuries for half the season as they missed the playoffs for the first time in 8 years with a record of 34-48. However, not all was lost as Rookie Steve Francis who was acquired from the Vancouver Grizzlies in a3-team deal after refusing to play for the team that draft him split Rookie of the Year honors with Elton Brand of the Chicago Bulls with 18.0 ppg. In the final game of the season Charles Barkley would return not wanting to have his career ended by being carried off the court.



Easily Tim Duncan.

[thewatcher]

no word from timvp yet?. "silence implies consent" timvp :cooldevil

[bobbyjoe]

Wow, this thread has gone way off track. BobbyJoe, you've still not answered the central issue in this thread:

1. Championships: Duncan > Hakeem
2. Team winning %: Duncan >>> Hakeem
3. PER: Duncan > Hakeem (just to emphasize the earlier point that PER is the best measure to compare people across eras, as well as adjusting for minutes played)
4. Prime: Hakeem > Duncan
5. Awards: Duncan > Hakeem

Overall career: Duncan > Hakeem.

Let's not bring KG ( :wtf ) or the Mailman or DRob or anybody else into this thread. Let's stick to the main issue.

Uh, this was alll addressed in an earlier post. I'll go ahead and repost it. The first 2 items on your list are not individual achievements. They are team accomplishments of the San Antonio Spurs.

(PS Do you really think Duncan has 3 titles if his first opponents are the 86 Celtics instead of the 99 Knicks in his first titles appearance, honestly?)

They have limited value in a discussion like this becuase when you are making the decision to draft a Duncan or Hakeem, you are only making that choice, not choosing to bring Parker/Ginobili vs. Houston guards with you, Popovich with you, or the choice to play in the weaker era, etc.

We've already debunked the importance of PER, partiduclary when comparing the stats of a guy right in his prime vs. a guy who retired and has 5-6 years of lower level post prime play dragging down #'s. This is just silly to continue to compare. I guarantee you Duncan's career PER will start to go down when his game slows down, it happens to everyone.

If you look at PER, Bruce Bowen is probably the worst starting player in the NBA. It's a stat with a lot of flaws in it and in the context of these 2 players, will always underrate the clearly superior defensive player because it does not take altered shots and defensive disruption into account.

The same deal with awards. It's just not as meaningful to win all-nba awards (which is what I assume you are referring to) against the forwards of today's watered down NBA (given that 2 are selected for all first team and all first team D) as opposed to having to win them facing 3 of the top 10 C's of all time year in and year out and then face those guys in addition to them at the C position like Mourning and Mutombo for defensive honors. Apples and oranges.

I also don't see how Duncan clearly has more awards.

Hakeem had 2 defesnive players of the year to Duncan's 0. 2 Rebounding titles to duncan's ? (I dont remember Tim ever winning one, but mabe I'm wrong). 3 years of leading the league in blocks to Duncan's? (zero)?

All time shot block leader is an individual award Hakeem owns. Hakeem had a quadrupble double and Tim didn't. I think both only had one MVP (because both were overlooked at times when they should have won it). What awards does Duncan have an edge on besides the All-NBA which we know is misleading?

(And finals MVP is partially a team award because you have to be on a team good enough to get to the Finals in order to have the chance to win it. Again, quality of competition comes into play here. Hakeem's 3 Finals app he was competing against Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Shaq O'Neal, Kevin McHale, to win the awards. Duncan's 3 he's competing against Latrell Sprewell, Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace. Objectively, which is the easier field there?). Things always have to be looked at in context.

Hakeem had better career stats, both regular and postseason. More ppg, higher FG%, higher FT%, more blocks, more steals. The only area Tim edges is assists.

If you look only at rings without surrounding and extraneous factors, then you get stuff like

DRob = Wilt (each had 2 rings)
Billups>>> Nash or Stockton
etc.

Hakeem faced tougher competition and thrived against it.

Hakeem had more moves and defended better. No discussion of top defensive players in NBA history either excludes Hakeem Olajuwon or includes Tim Duncan.

The argument about rings is all about context. Duncan was drafted onto a squad which had consistently won 55-60 games every year before he got there (excluding 97 injury filled year). Hakeem on balance had weaker supporting casts than TD and didnt have the benefit of playing in today's watered down league where a guy like Mehmet Okur is arguably the best Center in the NBA (since Duncan is at PF and Shaq is on a deep decline). Expansion and the high school invasion have weakened the league from the 80s and 90s.

Duncan's first finals he faced the 8 seed Knicks of A Hou/Lat Spre. Hakeem's he got by Magic/Kareem (which is a better team than any Duncan has ever defeated or beaten) but lost to arguably the best team ever in Boston. If you want to only look at who got the ring, yes it's Tim. But Hakeem's accomplishment here was clearly more impressive when you factor in quality of competition.

Duncan would not have had near as many all-team NBA awards defense or overall playing Center in the 90's playing alongside Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo, and Mutombo all their primes. He's benefitted greatly from playing the forward position in terms of All NBA rankings so using those in this argument is weak and deceptive.

Duncan's an awesome talent. If starting a team with today's NBA players, I'd pick him first and not think twice about it.

I have him in my top 10 NBA players of all time. But no, unlike the homer talk you see here, he is just not better than guys like Larry Bird, Shaq O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon (if you look at accomplishments to date since Duncan's career isn't over yet). He's in the tier of those guys but not ahead of them.

[thewatcher]

^^^ :clap :clap :clap

[bobbyjoe]

But didn't you say earlier that Hakeem's dominance spans from 88 to 96? Why just those two years when we are comparing Hakeem's prime to Duncan's prime? If anything, that is comparing Hakeem's best two seasons to Duncan's best two seasons, which does nothing to say that one should pick one player over the other.
It's like saying a GM should pick Ewing over Kareem after comparing Ewing's stats from 89 to 91 with Kareem's stats over his whole career.

His career PER as of 1996. As in all years from rookie year to 96. Not just the 2 year peak. That would give you a more appropriate comparison.

Comparing a guy's PER for his entire career when he has down years past his peak to drag down #'s vs. a guy like Duncan right in his prime is just misleading.

Your Ewing comparison, speaking of misleading, is the same. No GM would take Ewing at his peak over Kareem at his peak. That's where that analogy fails in the comparison of Hakeem/TD.

It's obvious in the case of Hakeem/TD that Hakeem had the higher peak. That's not the case at all in Ewing/Kareem. So to say Tim is better overall you have to believe Tim was that much more valuable than Hakeem in the non-peak years to make up for him not being as dominant in the peak.

[romain.star]

hakeem is wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy to old now.......


























































































































































































































































:bang

[Warlord23]

Bobbyjoe, let me see if I can make a case for PER being an effective statistic for comparison across eras.

Say we divide the entire league of 30 teams into 2 leagues of 15.

League 1 has teams that tend more toward the run-and-gun style of play (Warriors, Suns, Nets, etc are part of League 1). League 2 has teams that tend to play more of a half-court game (Spurs, Pistons, Jazz, etc).

Now let's have different rules for the 2 leagues. League 1 has no hand-checking, ticky-tack foul-calling on the perimeter, more illegal defense calls if players are doubled, etc. League 2 has hand-checking, a more bruising style of play is permitted, a more collapsing defense is permitted, etc.

Now each league plays their respective season of 41 games apiece.

League 1's MVP is Baron Davis with 35 PPG on 56% shooting.
League 2's MVP is Tim Duncan with 26 PPG on 49% shooting.
So Baron Davis > Tim Duncan, right? Wrong. Different leagues, different rules. League 1 probably has an average of 115 points scored in every game at 50% shooting, given the absence of defense. However, only 90 PPG is scored in League 2 at 42% FGP.

Say if we calculate PERs, setting each league's average at 15, TD's PER comes out to 29.00, Davis' PER is 27.86. Now we are really comparing apples to apples.

I'm not really a stat-geek who uses stats to compare eveything. But if I had to use stats, I'd use PER more than PPG, FG%, etc across eras. so while Hakeem may have more PPG, Tim got his in an era where people didn't get as high a PPG as in Hakeem's era.

Also, like I said in an earlier post, even if you do throw out all stats out of the window, Duncan's superior success (rings, team winning %, awards) should put him above Hakeem. I know that the championship is a team award, but is driven by individuals. Don't tell me that Bill Russell with zero rings would occupy the same place in history that Russell with 11 rings does. Championships do matter, and even Hakeem made his name with his NBA Finals performances. In the 8 years post Michael Jordan, either a Shaq-led or Duncan-led team has won the Finals 7 times. It does count a lot. Lack of Finals dominance is what puts also-rans like Karl Malone and Barkley out of this discussion, not to mention Kevin Garnett who does not even belong on the same friggin discussion forum as Duncan and Hakeem.

And that brings me back to my original point, I can't see any single FACT (be it PER stats or rings or other parameters of team success) that puts Hakeem above Duncan. Duncan wins on all these facts. Every pro-Hakeem post in this thread uses conjecture over fact to attempt to prove his superiority. The facts support TD, and that is that.

[Warlord23]

And its not just about career PERs. Hakeem has only 2 seasons as part of the top 100 of all time. Duncan has 5. All the other greats have 5 or more. Hakeem is the odd man out with a mere 2. He peaked at the right time and got himself a couple of rings when Jordan was out. Before that he had decent stats (not top 100 worthy, mind you), but his leadership and teams stank to high heaven. He couldn't will his team to a deep playoff run even.

Duncan on the other hand took teams with a payroll half the size of deep teams like the Lakers, Blazers, Kings, Mavs and Suns, and took them into the second round every year he played, and willed them to 3 championships.

Not even close.

[thewatcher]

hakeem's mvp = 3 x duncan's mvp

[bobbyjoe]

And why in this era is the PPG and FG% is down?

Because the league is watered down for reasons of expansion, declining skill sets, high school players coming right out and not honing their games, etc. You can call it conjecture to state that guys in this era don't have the fundamentals of passing, teamwork, midrange shooting, and running a fastbreak like in previous eras but to people who watched both era's, the vast majority feel that way.

This goes back to the George Gervin question. Did Gervin score 30 ppg on 50% shooting because he was a tremendously skiled scorer or because the league supported higher ppg and higher FG% back then. To me, the answer to that is pretty self-evident to those who watched Ice play.

MJ didnt average 33 ppg on 50% shooting because the league was different. He did so because of his sick athleticism, jumper, skills, and footwork. Obviously if a league is composed of more talent as it was in the 80's/90's, there will be more scoring and higher FG%.

Regardless even if you throw all that stuff out, you seem to continually miss the point that comparing the career PER of a guy who's done playing and has 5-6 yrs of lower level post peak ball to reduce #'s to the PER of a guy right in the middle of his prime is just ridiculously misleading. If you find Hakeem's career PER as of his 96 season and compare it to Duncan's career PER as of now, that would be more relevant. But like I said, PER is an offensively biased measuring tool. PER will never tell you about how superior defensive disruptors like a Hakeem, Bowen, or Pippen can frustrate an opposing offensve out of its rhythm.

It's not conjecture to say Hakeem was DPOY twice and Duncan 0 times. Not conjecture to say he scored more, blocked more, had more steals, and shot higher FG% and FT%'s than Duncan/ Not conjecture to say he is the all time shotblock leader, led the league in that category several times, while Tim didn't. Those are absolute facts, as are the facts that when asked who was better, the 2 common teammates of both players answered Hakeem. Those are all facts, not conjecture or opinion.

I understand your comments about Baron Davis and while true, I dont see how they apply to this discussion because Hakeem's teams like Tim were slow it down halfcourt teams. And they didnt play 50 yrs apart like Rusell and Tim to where the level of athleticism was drastically different in the league. Not to mention, that as I've said, PER is offensively biased and Duncan is obviously way more valuable defensively than Baron, so that'd have to be considered too. In this case, as gifted as Duncan was defensively, Hakeem was just better.

I think it's also short-sighted to suggest that just because something is not 100% provable with facts, that it's not important or part of the discussion.

Can you PROVE that Robert Horry and Reggie Miller and Michael Jordan, etc were clutch players who were deadly with the ball in their hands late? No, you can't really do that. But it happened enough times to where the majority of intelligent basketball fan would concur that these players were remarkable in their ability to nail shots in clutch moments.

And if i started a discussion on some NBA forum as to who was more clutch Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, I'm sure there'd be someone like you saying I can't prove MJ was more clutch and that's it conjecture. But at the same time, it's simply true even if not factually provable.

[bobbyjoe]

And its not just about career PERs. Hakeem has only 2 seasons as part of the top 100 of all time. Duncan has 5. All the other greats have 5 or more. Hakeem is the odd man out with a mere 2. He peaked at the right time and got himself a couple of rings when Jordan was out. Before that he had decent stats (not top 100 worthy, mind you), but his leadership and teams stank to high heaven. He couldn't will his team to a deep playoff run even.

Duncan on the other hand took teams with a payroll half the size of deep teams like the Lakers, Blazers, Kings, Mavs and Suns, and took them into the second round every year he played, and willed them to 3 championships.

Not even close.

Ok, so when Hakeem in his 2nd NBA season took a team that was 2 yrs removed from a lottery to an NBA Finals apperance beating a team with HOF top 10 all time NBA players like Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar (not to mention James Worthy, Michael Cooper), his "leadership and team stank to high heaven and he couldnt will his team to a deep playoff run"

In just his 2nd year, Hakeem led a team with Sampson and a bunch of role players past Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper. A team that was one of the best dynasties in league history.

The hits keep on coming.

Duncan never beat a team of MJ's caliber either, so that doesn't hold weight here. The Spurs had a losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. Not conjecture, but fact.

[bdictjames]

Duncan

Dont ask.

[thewatcher]

homer.

dont answer.

[bobbyjoe]

http://www.marcmellon.com/sports/nbamvplg.JPG
http://www.marcmellon.com/sports/nbamvplg.JPG

And how many MVP's would Duncan have in a league with Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson in it? Those 3 won a combined 10 MVP awards during Hakeem's era. Be realistic.

Duncan having more MVP's than Hakeem would mean something in the context of this discussion if they were in the same era competing heads up for it. But that wasn't the case.

Because Nash has the same # of MVP's as Duncan, is he on par with him? You tell me.

[bobbyjoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PER_Sports

Looking at this here, Duncan has the higher career PER but Olajuwon has the better playoff PER and the higher regular season PER (though it's unclear as to how that was computed since Hakeem is retired).

That to me is what separated Olajuwon from Ewing and David Robinson anyway. Not the rings, but the ability to elevate postseason play. These 3 were always very close in terms of regular season awards, stats, etc but the postseason is what separated the 3.

This was the PER I was telling you about which wasn't formed by Hollinger, but someone else. If you have a link to the Hollinger PER's, I'd be curious to see how they ranked Duncan vs. Hakeem in terms of postseason PER.

[Warlord23]

As to your point about PPG and FG% in this era v/s the last one, there could be several factors. One of them could be the zone defense. Coaches and players in the 90s didn't have to plan for the zone. Teams with isolation-oriented superstars like Hakeem and Jordan ruled the roost. In today's league teams have to prepare for the zone as well, so iso play doesn't give as much dividends. While Hakeem could just take a pass in the block and go into his move without a second thought, Duncan might need to make the pass or a "hockey assist" to Kerr. Hakeem gets his PPG, Duncan gets his unquantified "effectiveness". PPG and FG% were indeed higher in the 90s than today. That is why Hakeem's PER is lower. I don't know how much more lucidly I can put this, but given the rules/defenses of today, Duncan is doing a better job than Hakeem did in his era.

Regarding defense, PER includes steals and blocks which Hakeem was proficient at. What it does not include are altered shots, effective doubling etc. Duncan never became DPOY because it is a media-voted award that has more hype than substance. The coaches in this league know the truth, and so Duncan has his 7-time All-Defensive 1st team selection to justify his position as the best defensive big in the post-Jordan era. Hakeem and Duncan are both elite defenders, regardless of what the media hype says. Are you telling me that Camby (1 DPOY, same as Jordan) belongs in the same class as Jordan/Payton/Hakeem? BS. Duncan is probably the only one from this era who qualifies to be part of this group. Duncan-led teams always lead the league in defensive numbers. That is irrespective of whether it is Elliott, Bowen, Manu, SJax or Finley playing the wings. That has to say something, as the constant factor is one: Duncan.

MJ v/s Kobe: I won't argue on clutchness, although it was recently brought about that Kobe's EFG% is among the lowest in the NBA in crunch time (last few minutes of a ballgame with teams apart by 10 points or less + overtimes). But for overall effectiveness, PER tells the story like it is. Jordan has astounding PER numbers which puts him in big man territory, the only perimeter player ever to have PER as high as that. Kobe is a long way away.

[Warlord23]

The PER you linked to does not have the 1 factor which makes the Hollinger PER suitable for comparison across eras: normalizing the league average PER to 15, and thus making it a "relative PER" to the rest of the league. That was the sole Reason Hollinger developed it, to help compare players across teams, eras and minutes played.

That is why in this other "PER", Magic Johnson ranks higher than Wilt and Shaq. Magic played in an era filled with high numbers across the board. Wilt and Shaq were ridiculously dominant and efficient compared to their peers. Which is why Magic is just out of the top 10 in the Hollinger PER.

[bobbyjoe]

Actually, you forgot a key constant factor: Gregg Popovich.

Look at a guy like JVG. Didnt Houston lead the league this year in FG% allowed, PPG allowed, etc. Guys like Popovich, JVG know how to coach great defense. JVG didnt have great individual defenders in NY or Houston, but his teams always ranked high defensively. And if someone says Yao Ming is a great defender because he's the lynchpin of a highly ranked defensive squad, that's just a weak argument (not saying this applies to Duncan, but that again you are giving one player all the credit for what is a team accomplishment).

Anyway, PER absolutely does not consider clutch play, which is a very important component in a players' overall value. I see from your comments you dont disagree that PER doesnt' include altered shots, quality team defense, etc. There's a helluva lot more to D than just boards and steals. So just including these 2 doesnt tell the whole story.

Charles Barkley has a ridiculously higher PER, higher than Hakeem I believe per your link and yet the understated defensive value of PER is one of the reasons most would rank Hakeem the better player.

The comments about the Iso era are not really relevant here because both Hakeem and Duncan got the "hockey assists" and Hakeem was double teamed as much if not more than TD (double teaming Hakeem was a no brainer when the supporting casts were so weak in between the Sampson era and championship years). Teams don't really an employ a zone for a high % of the game because the shooting in the NBA is too good, especially on a team like San Antonio.

There was all this talk about how the zone would change the league but guys like Duncan and Shaq and Kobe, etc are just as effective and play the same way as before.

Regarding PER, I dont know how much more lucidly I can put this, but you can not fairly compare the career PER of a guy who's still playing and at his peak vs. a guy who retired and had several years on the backside to lower overall #'s. I believe the difference in PER from the link you showed me between Duncan and Hakeem careerwise is 1.5 pts. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Duncan's PER drops 1.5 pts between now and the end of his career after several years where he can't match the production of this year?

Adding to the PER argument, how valuable or relevant would it be to compare the PER of an NBA star playing in the East vs. a star playing in the West? Clearly, the East is a weaker conference and the star in the East plays a higher % of games against weaker competition so this tends to inflate his stats relative to his western superstar counterpart. You can't prove something like this, but to most astute bball fans it's just self evident that the East has lower quality and caliber basketball.

In addition, I showed you a link that showed Hakeem at a higher playoff PER than Duncan. Any comments or does postseason not matter?

[bobbyjoe]

The PER you linked to does not have the 1 factor which makes the Hollinger PER suitable for comparison across eras: normalizing the league average PER to 15, and thus making it a "relative PER" to the rest of the league. That was the sole Reason Hollinger developed it, to help compare players across teams, eras and minutes played.

That is why in this other "PER", Magic Johnson ranks higher than Wilt and Shaq. Magic played in an era filled with high numbers across the board. Wilt and Shaq were ridiculously dominant and efficient compared to their peers. Which is why Magic is just out of the top 10 in the Hollinger PER.

This is very debatable.

To me, any list which has David Robinson #3 all time, Charles Barkley #7 alltime, McGrady #15 alltime, and Bill Russell #97 has some serious issues.

The Thompson PER produces some results which are a lot more logical. Magic is much closer to #2 all time than he is #11. DRob much closer to #14 alltime than #3. Russell much closer to #4 all time than #97. Larry Bird sounds right at #6 alltime, but ridiculous at #18 all time.

The problem with normalizing the average player at 15.0 is that it doesn't factor quality of competition. If the caliber of comp declines from Era A to Era B, the same exact player X would have a higher PER in Era B as opposed to Era A.

In reality, both systems have some clear flaws. Hollinger had a good idea, but at the end of the day there's just no method to rate basketball players which entirely excludes subjective analysis.

I also find it hard to believe Duncan would rank higher than Hakeem in any playoff PER analysis, be it Hollinger, Thompson, or whomever. Where is that data?

The problem with saying that "player x dominated his era to a larger degree than player Y" is that it completely discounts quality of era.

Would Tom Brady's excellence as a QB stand out as much if he was playing QB 15 yrs ago with the likes of Montana, Young, Aikman, Marino, Elway, Moon, Kelly, etc? Or does he stand out more because of the real dearth of quality at the QB position. No stat or PER system can tell you this.


Were the Bulls of the 90's better than the Celtics of the 80's because they had 6 rings to 3? Or does the higher quality of competition in the 80's facing Boston make that question more tricky to answer?

[ambchang]

1973-76 Bob McAdoo > Hakeem at his best.
McAdoo has a higher ppg, rpg and FT% than Hakeem, and had similar FT%, and assist #s, the only things Hakeem has on McAdoo are blks and stls.
Not to mention that McAdoo had to go up against greats like Kareem, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, and Wes Unseld.

[ambchang]

And why in this era is the PPG and FG% is down?

Because the league is watered down for reasons of expansion, declining skill sets, high school players coming right out and not honing their games, etc. You can call it conjecture to state that guys in this era don't have the fundamentals of passing, teamwork, midrange shooting, and running a fastbreak like in previous eras but to people who watched both era's, the vast majority feel that way. MJ didnt average 33 ppg on 50% shooting because the league was different. He did so because of his sick athleticism, jumper, skills, and footwork. Obviously if a league is composed of more talent as it was in the 80's/90's, there will be more scoring and higher FG%.

I whole-hearted disagree with this notion. One needs to look at a single consistent player and see how his performance has changed during the years.
Since you brought up Jordan, I will use his statistics to compare year across year.
With a watered down league, defense should suffer, scoring should suffer on a whole, but individual scoring should increase, because not only does the opposition's defense gets weaker, there is more responsibility for scorers to score.
But when you look at Jordan's career stats, both his ppg and FG% starts a slow decline since his 37.1 ppg year. Well were his skills diminishing? Well clearly not since the Bulls got better in that span, and Jordan's rebounding, minutes and FT% stayed relatively constant. Were his teammates taking more of a scoring burden? If that is true, wouldn't we expect Jordan to have a higher FG% with better shot selection? Shouldn't there be significant changes in his stats during the expansion years? Well, it doesn't seem to be the case.
The only reasonable explanation is that the league's defense is getting better and better.

[ambchang]

Ok, so when Hakeem in his 2nd NBA season took a team that was 2 yrs removed from a lottery to an NBA Finals apperance beating a team with HOF top 10 all time NBA players like Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar (not to mention James Worthy, Michael Cooper), his "leadership and team stank to high heaven and he couldnt will his team to a deep playoff run"

In just his 2nd year, Hakeem led a team with Sampson and a bunch of role players past Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper. A team that was one of the best dynasties in league history.

The hits keep on coming.

Duncan never beat a team of MJ's caliber either, so that doesn't hold weight here. The Spurs had a losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. Not conjecture, but fact.
You make it sound like Sampson was chopped liver. Sampson was destined to be one of the best centers in the league before his knees went out. He was better than Robinson in 03, and arguably in 99 when he led the Rockets to the Finals in 86.
And Duncan was 2-3 vs. Shaq and Kobe in his career, including a sound defeat of the 3 time champion Lakers with a supporting cast that includes Parker in his second year, Manu's rookie year, and Robinson's last year. Malik Rose was considered to be an extremely important part of the Spurs, and Stephen Jackson was the 2nd most reliable scorer on the squad.

[bobbyjoe]

I whole-hearted disagree with this notion. One needs to look at a single consistent player and see how his performance has changed during the years.
Since you brought up Jordan, I will use his statistics to compare year across year.
With a watered down league, defense should suffer, scoring should suffer on a whole, but individual scoring should increase, because not only does the opposition's defense gets weaker, there is more responsibility for scorers to score.
But when you look at Jordan's career stats, both his ppg and FG% starts a slow decline since his 37.1 ppg year. Well were his skills diminishing? Well clearly not since the Bulls got better in that span, and Jordan's rebounding, minutes and FT% stayed relatively constant. Were his teammates taking more of a scoring burden? If that is true, wouldn't we expect Jordan to have a higher FG% with better shot selection? Shouldn't there be significant changes in his stats during the expansion years? Well, it doesn't seem to be the case.
The only reasonable explanation is that the league's defense is getting better and better.

Jordan was well into his 30's when expansion started to dilute the league. Nice try, but it's called father time.

If you dont think a player has an advantage playing against inferior competition in terms of achieving individual success, I don't know what to tell you.

[BradLohaus]

Duncan having more MVP's than Hakeem would mean something in the context of this discussion if they were in the same era competing heads up for it. But that wasn't the case.

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that since Duncan has never been the DPOY then that is a strike against him?

But the fact that Duncan has more MVP's (and Finals MVP's) is dismissed by you because they didn't compete against each other.

[bobbyjoe]

Except that there were clearly more dominant defensive players in the league when Hakeem was around.

Which is a harder field to win DPOY in?

Group A: Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, Mutombo (younger), David Robinson, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Dennis Rodman

or

Group B: Ben Wallace, Ron Artest, Marcus Camby, Bruce Bowen.

Answer me that objectively. I don't think anyone with a straight face could pick Group B.

[BradLohaus]

Except that there were clearly more dominant defensive players in the league when Hakeem was around.

Which is a harder field to win DPOY in?

Group A: Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, Mutombo (younger), David Robinson, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Dennis Rodman

or

Group B: Ben Wallace, Ron Artest, Marcus Camby, Bruce Bowen.

Answer me that objectively. I don't think anyone with a straight face could pick Group B.

Group A is better, but they gave the DPOY award to Ben Wallace a couple of years that it should have been Duncan. Everybody knows that Duncan is the best defender in the league; the media likes Wallace because of his style.

My point is that you dismiss everything Duncan wins as either: "teams were better when Hakeem played" or "Duncan has better players around him" or "Elie and Horry said Hakeem is better, so that means he is".

I mean, Hakeem's supporting cast during the 2 title years was pretty damn good. Ralph Sampson was pretty damn good there for awhile. From the time Duncan got into the league people were saying that the Spurs needed more help around Duncan, until Parker and Ginobili got here. Aside from Robinson, who had a bad back for over 5 years, just who were these stars surrounding Duncan from 97 to 02? Still he managed to win divisions and get out of the first round (at least) every year.

I'd like to know what big men you think are better than Hakeem. I'm guessing you think he was the best big man ever.

[gtownspur]

Except that there were clearly more dominant defensive players in the league when Hakeem was around.

Which is a harder field to win DPOY in?

Group A: Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, Mutombo (younger), David Robinson, Gary Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Dennis Rodman

or

Group B: Ben Wallace, Ron Artest, Marcus Camby, Bruce Bowen.

Answer me that objectively. I don't think anyone with a straight face could pick Group B.



4>2, not even a race.

Duncan > Hakeem

Duncan, best pf ever!!!

Hakeem, best ................. i'm sorry, what was that again.

[gtownspur]

The best guards Hakeem was threaten by the penetration in his run were Kevin Johnson and Penny Hardaway.

Duncan's was Nash, Kobe, Billups, AI, Allen, Kidd.

[gtownspur]

Not to mention, Duncan dismantled a Dynasty, and Hakeem.............. was dismantled by the Sonics.

[gtownspur]

Dirk> tHe dream....... in fishing.

[ambchang]

Jordan was well into his 30's when expansion started to dilute the league. Nice try, but it's called father time.

If you dont think a player has an advantage playing against inferior competition in terms of achieving individual success, I don't know what to tell you.
The whole notion is that the competition was not inferior, but in fact, superior due to better scouting, conditioning, and defensive philosphies.

[smrattler]

Because I'm a total homer?

No, aside from being one of the most talented ever, Timmy is one of the smartest players ever too. He'll find a way to get it done. Hakeem needed certain things to fall a certain way and that window was short lived because of that.