Duncan>Hakeem.

[polandprzem]

I take that back, they did shorten the 3 point line from the top of the key for a few years. The distance from the corners was still the same, though.

Take everything back.
Esp. those imature insults

thanks

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

It's pretty obvious with your incoherent choppy sentences.



Our friend from Poland with his incoherent choppy sentences is doing a fine job of destroying your weak arguments. By now you ought to have the word "Ho" stenciled on your sloping forehead right above your protruding orbital ridge. I'm no rhodes scholar, but your english "ain't" nothing to write home about. Seems to me like you have to resort to lame personal attacks when you are losing a debate and have run out of intelligent material with which to reply. So typical.

btw how's your Polish? Do you know any other foreign languages. I'm giving the Man mad props for writing better Engish then many of the posters on this forum. Yes this is a Spurs forum, but it's for all fans, foreign and domestic.

And since your position is based purely on speculation, what if Jordan hadn't taken his 2 year hiatus. Would your boy Hakeem even have 1 NBA championship?

[mavs>spurs2]

Our friend from Poland with his incoherent choppy sentences is doing a fine job of destroying your weak arguments. By now you ought to have the word "Ho" stenciled on your sloping forehead right above your protruding orbital ridge. I'm no rhodes scholar, but your english "ain't" nothing to write home about. Seems to me like you have to resort to lame personal attacks when you are losing a debate and have run out of intelligent material with which to reply. So typical.

btw how's your Polish? Do you know any other foreign languages. I'm giving the Man mad props for writing better Engish then many of the posters on this forum. Yes this is a Spurs forum, but it's for all fans, foreign and domestic.

And since your position is based purely on speculation, what if Jordan hadn't taken his 2 year hiatus. Would your boy Hakeem even have 1 NBA championship?

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the hell it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.

[mavs>spurs2]

Take everything back.
Esp. those imature insults

thanks

Wow what a major victory, I was off on the top of the key by 1 foot 9 inches. The distance from the sides were still the same, so technically I am partially correct anyways. While i'll take back calling you a moron for this minor little detail, I still say you're wrong on many of your other takes.

[JamStone]

Check the NBA right now. There aren't exactly that many dominating 7-footers in the NBA right now outside of Shaq. Not even Yao punishes players in the paint as a 7-foot-6 center.

In fact, two of the most dominating players inside on defense in the past decade have been pretty short, Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning. Ben is listed at 6-9, really closer to 6-7. Alonzo listed at 6-10, closer to 6-9.

And, the bigger and stronger argument carries little weight because Wilt and Russell would have been bigger and stronger in today's game as well. They would have the same strength and conditioning training, the same nutrition and diet regimen, and would have been playing in an age where lifting weights and playing year round would have made them bigger and stronger. As for more athletic, that's pure conjecture. How can you definitively say Wilt and Russell in their prime weren't just as athletic as players today? You can't.

And, back in the 60s and 70s, there were plenty of big men that were plenty tough and plenty big and strong, even if they weren't legitimate 7-footers: Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall. Kareem came in the tail end of Wilt's career. And, undersized guys that ended up being Hall of Fame type big men like Wes Unseld (dominated like Ben Wallace at 6-foot-7), Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins.

You talk like Wilt and Russell played against a whole bunch of 6-4 centers, which proves you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there were some teams that played 6-7 centers. But, there were plenty with big and athletic 6-10 to 6-11 centers.

If you put Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in today's game, they'd be just fine, especially if you also give them today's strength and conditioning training and today's diet and nutrition. Wilt was 7-foot-1 and 275 pounds and extremely athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 and could shut down Wilt Chamberlain.

Look at today's NBA. What guys outside of Shaq would really be too big and athletic for Wilt and Russell. I don't even think Shaq is too strong for Wilt and Russell. Dwight Howard maybe? Amare Stoudemire? Heck, Amare is only 6-9 and 240. He's undersized too. Think Tyson Chandler just cuz he's 7-foot-1 and athletic would be too much for Wilt and Russell?

Your argument about Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell fighting to be role players in today's game is a complete joke.

[polandprzem]

Wow what a major victory, I was off on the top of the key by 1 foot 9 inches. The distance from the sides were still the same, so technically I am partially correct anyways. While i'll take back calling you a moron for this minor little detail, I still say you're wrong on many of your other takes.

haha

The close 3pt line changed the NBA a lot, that's why they got back to the longer distance.
They wanted more points in NBA but it did not helped much as you could crowd the paint more and defense was even more stellar.
Even Shaq hit 3 pointer one year.

So the change in the distance of this line was having an impact on a play.


You two points are an opinion

Wilt and Russ would be dominant centers in todays NBA. Just give them the same conditions as centers of today have.

How come at once people got more talent?
God decided that in the 70s he will produce more talented people cause the NBA is lacking talent?

Put Duncan in a place of hakeem champinship teams and he would be succesfull as well
What kind of argument. Point is that?
That is proving nothing. Cause it's the if's and coulda woulda. And you bringing it all the time.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the hell it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.


All I'm saying is that you had some nice dialogue going back and forth until for some reason your attacks turned personal. I can only summize that you felt he was besting you. Point is polandprzem had made some persuasive and compelling points. So what if he misplaced a dangling participle or misspelled a word. Are you trying to win a pendantic argument? We can tell from his handle that he is a foreign national. Give the man his dues. And I see you're a Mav's homer. Hell yeah I'm a Spurs homer. What's your point. You have not made any points, but you have presented your opinions. When you can tell me how players who played in vastly different eras would fare against each other, well until then it's just speculation.

to your opinions:

1) Wilt and Bill playing in this era would still be great, probably all star. Any stance that they wouldn't is just ignorant. Would Wilt ever score 100 points in a game? Possibly, but probably not. You're talking about those rare once in a generation type players that would be great to a varying degree depending on what era they played. How do you think Tim would do playing in their era?

2) If we replaced Tim with Hakeem he would have 5-7 titles? Is that what you're saying? It's possible. I don't know and you don't either.

Hakeem was not the most dominant player since Jordan. But you never address my previous point; if Jordan had not taken off 2 years, would Hakeem even have 1 NBA title. If Jordan had played and won 8 straight titles, would Hakeem be little more then an afterthought?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I take that back, they did shorten the 3 point line from the top of the key for a few years. The distance from the corners was still the same, though.


During the 1994–95, 1995–96, and 1996-97 seasons, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring (due to tougher style defenses) by shortening the overall distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet (6.7 m) around the basket. Dennis Scott used this rule change to set a record for most three-pointers in a season: 267 in 1995–96. (This record was surpassed by Ray Allen with 269 in the 2005-06 season.) In the same season, the legendary Michael Jordan, who was never known for his three-point shooting, used the closer arc to his advantage as he established a career high with a three-point field goal percentage of almost 43%. From the 1997–98 season, the NBA reverted the line to its original distance of 23 feet, 9 inches (22 feet at the corners). With the legalization of zone defense in 2001, the three-point shot became more important, because of its ability to stretch out a zone.



NBA Three Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_field_goal)

[bobbyjoe]

All I'm saying is that you had some nice dialogue going back and forth until for some reason your attacks turned personal. I can only summize that you felt he was besting you. Point is polandprzem had made some persuasive and compelling points. So what if he misplaced a dangling participle or misspelled a word. Are you trying to win a pendantic argument? We can tell from his handle that he is a foreign national. Give the man his dues. And I see you're a Mav's homer. Hell yeah I'm a Spurs homer. What's your point. You have not made any points, but you have presented your opinions. When you can tell me how players who played in vastly different eras would fare against each other, well until then it's just speculation.

to your opinions:

1) Wilt and Bill playing in this era would still be great, probably all star. Any stance that they wouldn't is just ignorant. Would Wilt ever score 100 points in a game? Possibly, but probably not. You're talking about those rare once in a generation type players that would be great to a varying degree depending on what era they played. How do you think Tim would do playing in their era?

2) If we replaced Tim with Hakeem he would have 5-7 titles? Is that what you're saying? It's possible. I don't know and you don't either.

Hakeem was not the most dominant player since Jordan. But you never address my previous point; if Jordan had not taken off 2 years, would Hakeem even have 1 NBA title. If Jordan had played and won 8 straight titles, would Hakeem be little more then an afterthought?

Do you not see the irony in your last 2 paragraphs? You downplay "Hakeem would have won 5-7 titles" because it's a hypothetical then present the hypothetical of Jordan's retirement situation...

Hakeem was the most dominant player in the 90's other than Jordan. If you want to use the argument that he won because of Jordan's absence, Tim Duncan is no higher footing in that regard because:

A) He never played Jordan in the playoffs or a team the caliber of the 90's Bulls either.

B) His first title came in a similar situation to Hakeem's in 94, the year after Jordan's retirement in 1998.

Would Tim Duncan have been an afterthought if he was drafted by the Celtics instead of the Spurs in 98 and thus never won a title because he never played with DRob, Elliott, Parker, Manu, etc? You tell me...

The argument here isn't about who's team won the most or did the best. It's about 2 individual players. If you are drafting 2 players out of college, you aren't going to draft the 7 foot guy from Duke over the 7 foot guy from Fresno State with the superior skillset simply because Duke won the National Title and Fresno didn't.

That's always been the problem with the Duncan-Hakeem argument and the reason most neutral posters here like the Pistons and Mavs fans and in other forums along with teammates like Elie and Horry pick Hakeem in this argument over Duncan. Hakeem basically did everything Duncan did but better and against a tougher field. Besides passing the ball, there isn't one thing Duncan did better than Dream.

[bobbyjoe]

Can you name who was actually guarding Amare in that series?

But I do agree Hakeem was a better individual defender.

Duncan (50%) and Horry (50%).

Are you honestly going to tell me Duncan defended Stoudemire well that series when he was on him?

[bobbyjoe]

Not if the Sean Kemp Sonics allowed it.

Btw, Olajuwon against 01 shaq would have been double fucked. Olajuwon wouldn't have beaten the LakerDynasty in this early part of the century. You're smokin somethin.

And btw, you can take the Shooting Guard trapped in a centers body, I'll take the 4 time champion and anchor of the one of the best statistical defensive squads in history in a Powerfowards body, in the age of the elite guards and small fowards nevertheless.

Oh really?

So Akeem in his 2nd year can lead his team past one of the best dynasties in NBA history in the Magic-Kareem-Worthy-BScott-Cooper Lakers, but in his prime he'd have been "Double fucked" by an inferior Kobe-Shaq squad. Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. You are right though, he was swept by O'Neal the one time he faced him in the Finals. Oh wait, that was the other way around, ooops.

In the 01 series where SA was swept by the Lakers, Duncan was neutralized by Robert Horry. Call me crazy, but I dont see any guys in Hakeem's playoff career the caliber of Horry (solid, but not great) shutting him down.

Who is the shooting guard trapped in a centers body btw? Hakeem wasn't the one who didnt take on the challenge of guarding Shaq (like Duncan didnt want to when the Spurs always put Robinson-Rose-Nesterovic on Shaq)

You do realize that's it universally considered that Hakeem and McHale, not Duncan had the best post moves of any player in NBA history right?

Memo to Ignorant: Shooting guards dont make a living with back to the basket play on the box.

[Rummpd]

Anyone who brings up Duncan and Stoudemire need to remember that
Duncan was badly hurt that year but sucked it up and won. This year against Duncan and the Spurs Amare was proven to be what he is a pretty good offensive player when playing with Nash and a piss poor defender.

Duncan and The Dream are both fabulous players, but when all is said and done, Duncan has 6 titles no one in the their right mind would put the Dream over Duncan in a historical NBA sense. Duncan is the cornerstone of a dynasty and the Dream never achieved that status.

[duncan228]

Anyone who brings up Duncan and Stoudemire need to remember that Duncan was badly hurt that year but sucked it up and won.

I seem to remember something about letting Amare get his and staying tight on everyone else in that series.

I remember Pop joking about it in the press conference after we won the series, something like "What did he average-45 against us?"

But before the jokes, as the series went on, I remember it being said that they weren't going to try to shut Amare down.

[JamStone]

Duncan has 6 titles?

[spursfan09]

Fuck that saying that Amare went for 38 points against Duncan and the Spurs. He still has never beaten Duncan ever in a playoff series. Too bad Amare couldn't go for 50 then maybe they would of won.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]Do you not see the irony in your last 2 paragraphs? You downplay "Hakeem would have won 5-7 titles" because it's a hypothetical then present the hypothetical of Jordan's retirement situation...

Believe it or not I'm not trying to downplay it at all, what I'm saying is that one one really knows if Hakeem would have won 5-7 titles. I't would be best-guess or at best a semi-educated guess/opinion. Based on the premise that Jordan led teams won the 3 before and the 3 after, well it's a reasonable assumption that he may have deprived the Rockets of their back to back titles.


Hakeem was the most dominant player in the 90's other than Jordan. If you want to use the argument that he won because of Jordan's absence, Tim Duncan is no higher footing in that regard because:

A) He never played Jordan in the playoffs or a team the caliber of the 90's Bulls either.

B) His first title came in a similar situation to Hakeem's in 94, the year after Jordan's retirement in 1998.

I won't dispute that Jordan and Hakeem were two of the most dominant players of the 90's bar none. Again one can only go by reasonable assumptions. His Airness was at his peak during the first 3peat and then again during his 2nd 3peat, evidenced by him leading the league in scoring in 95-96 and winning the MVP during the regular season, all star game and finally the NBA finals. Oh, and he led his team to a regular season record of 72-10. And if Jordan had elected to return for the '99 season, he would have been without Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen and no Dennis Rodman. The Spurs could have argueably beaten a declining 37 yr old Michael Jordan.




Would Tim Duncan have been an afterthought if he was drafted by the Celtics instead of the Spurs in 98 and thus never won a title because he never played with DRob, Elliott, Parker, Manu, etc? You tell me...

That's a good question. How would Tim have done without playing along an aging, often injured DRob, kidney-impaired Elliott, a very young Parker and Manu who wasn't a force until 2005? This goes back to the argument that Tim accomplished more with less. With the Celts crummy luck after the Bird era, in one scenario you play it out with Tim and in another scenario you play it out with Hakeem, IMO the Celts come out looking better playing under Tim then under the Dream.


The argument here isn't about who's team won the most or did the best. It's about 2 individual players. If you are drafting 2 players out of college, you aren't going to draft the 7 foot guy from Duke over the 7 foot guy from Fresno State with the superior skillset simply because Duke won the National Title and Fresno didn't.

Agreed. But how do you quantify their place in history, or how one would do against the other, especially when they didn't play against each other, one on one. One way to do it is speculation. Yet another way to do it is who has the bling.


That's always been the problem with the Duncan-Hakeem argument and the reason most neutral posters here like the Pistons and Mavs fans and in other forums along with teammates like Elie and Horry pick Hakeem in this argument over Duncan. Hakeem basically did everything Duncan did but better and against a tougher field. Besides passing the ball, there isn't one thing Duncan did better than Dream.

Ok I'll give you that some fans and Elie and Horry picked Hakeem over Duncan. But I'm sure you've seen the polls and questionaires that have gone out to GM's and coaches and NBA pundits asking them if you were going to build a team around one player, Duncan was often one of the first 1, 2, or 3 players mentioned. And if you think when Hakeem played that the teams were tougher, let me just say this; part of the Spurs problem with them being considered boring is that they destroyed their opponents in the NBA finals, 4-3, 4-2, 4-1 and 4-0. Not to mention that the West for a good while has been a regular murderers row. And as far as Dream doing everything better then Duncan, you know this their stats were similar. Agreed Dream had better numbers. But along with passing, don't make the mistake of diminishing the intagibles that Duncan possesses like getting his teammates involved, leadership and a high basketball IQ. All these traits and characteristics which don't show up on a stat sheet are what make his team mates better then they really are and which have resulted in 4 NBA titles and counting.

The only thing that you and I can say with 100% certainty is: Dream arguably the best center ever! TDunc best power forward ever. Head to head, it's a crap shoot.

[mavs>spurs2]

In fact, two of the most dominating players inside on defense in the past decade have been pretty short, Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning. Ben is listed at 6-9, really closer to 6-7. Alonzo listed at 6-10, closer to 6-9.

Since when are you a height regulator? I've never heard of either of these players being this short. The only player in recent years that I know of lying about height is Iverson(they say he isn't even quite 6ft) and Barkely(supposedly 6ft 4)

And, the bigger and stronger argument carries little weight because Wilt and Russell would have been bigger and stronger in today's game as well. They would have the same strength and conditioning training, the same nutrition and diet regimen, and would have been playing in an age where lifting weights and playing year round would have made them bigger and stronger. As for more athletic, that's pure conjecture. How can you definitively say Wilt and Russell in their prime weren't just as athletic as players today? You can't.

Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

And, back in the 60s and 70s, there were plenty of big men that were plenty tough and plenty big and strong, even if they weren't legitimate 7-footers: Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall. Kareem came in the tail end of Wilt's career. And, undersized guys that ended up being Hall of Fame type big men like Wes Unseld (dominated like Ben Wallace at 6-foot-7), Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins.

You talk like Wilt and Russell played against a whole bunch of 6-4 centers, which proves you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there were some teams that played 6-7 centers. But, there were plenty with big and athletic 6-10 to 6-11 centers.

Since we're playing the height regulator game, Willis Reed was listed 6ft10 but is rumored to have only been 6ft 8-9. Elvin Hayes was only listed 6ft 9 but was really about 6ft 8. Wes Unseld was listed as 6ft 7. Half of your list is just full of shit. And these are just a few players spanning a whole decade. The average for centers of that time was about 6ft7, maybe 6ft 8, the size of a big swingman in todays league, not a center. I don't know where you got anything about 6ft 4.


If you put Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell in today's game, they'd be just fine, especially if you also give them today's strength and conditioning training and today's diet and nutrition. Wilt was 7-foot-1 and 275 pounds and extremely athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 and could shut down Wilt Chamberlain.

Bill Russell would have a hard time defending Duncan or Garnett, giving up 2-3 inches and 40 something pounds. Not to mention he couldn't leap with the guys like Amare, and shot blocking was a big part of his game.

Look at today's NBA. What guys outside of Shaq would really be too big and athletic for Wilt and Russell. I don't even think Shaq is too strong for Wilt and Russell. Dwight Howard maybe? Amare Stoudemire? Heck, Amare is only 6-9 and 240. He's undersized too. Think Tyson Chandler just cuz he's 7-foot-1 and athletic would be too much for Wilt and Russell?

Wrong

Your argument about Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell fighting to be role players in today's game is a complete joke.

That's something that you will never know for sure, but I think I did at least exagerrate a little when I said they would struggle to be role players. IMO they would probably be borderline all-stars, not superstars and definately not scoring 100 points in a game.

[mavs>spurs2]

Fuck that saying that Amare went for 38 points against Duncan and the Spurs. He still has never beaten Duncan ever in a playoff series. Too bad Amare couldn't go for 50 then maybe they would of won.

Dude, you are so busy riding Duncan's nuts that you fail to give credit to Manu, Tony, and all the other great role players. Duncan doesn't have to score 38 a game in order for the Spurs to win, otherwise you guys might not have very many wins. The point he was trying to prove is that Duncan has great help side defense, but not great one on one defense which was really shown when Amare lit you guys up.

[spursfan09]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

[mavs>spurs2]

All you Duncan homers continue to ignore a few simple key questions.

1. Why doesn't Duncan guard the other teams best big man, like Hakeem did throughout his career? Hakeem dominated the likes of Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc on both sides of the ball.

2. Why are Hakeems stats so much superior to Duncans? You can't just look at career stats, because Olajuwon really should have retired a few years before he did and it really hurt his averages, especially his short time in Toronto. Look at each players peak 10-12 years and compare. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, spg, bpg, ft%, fg%, he beats Duncan in every stat that they record.

3. Why did Horry and Elie, two teammates of both men, come out and say on record that they would rather play with Hakeem? I think former teammates of the 2 and nba players know more than some polish guy on a spurs message board and all the other little spur homers. I'm not trying to be mean or cut down Duncan, he's a great player, but Hakeem was clearly better.

[mavs>spurs2]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

You started off your post with "fuck." That's not very ladylike, can you blame me for assuming you're a guy? Not to mention most of the posters here are guys.

[spursfan09]

All you Duncan homers continue to ignore a few simple key questions.

1. Why doesn't Duncan guard the other teams best big man, like Hakeem did throughout his career? Hakeem dominated the likes of Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc on both sides of the ball.

2. Why are Hakeems stats so much superior to Duncans? You can't just look at career stats, because Olajuwon really should have retired a few years before he did and it really hurt his averages, especially his short time in Toronto. Look at each players peak 10-12 years and compare. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, spg, bpg, ft%, fg%, he beats Duncan in every stat that they record.

3. Why did Elliott and Elie, two teammates of both men, come out and say on record that they would rather play with Hakeem? I think former teammates of the 2 and nba players know more than some polish guy on a spurs message board and all the other little spur homers. I'm not trying to be mean or cut down Duncan, he's a great player, but Hakeem was clearly better.

Thats exactly what you don't see. Its not "clear" that Hakeem was the better player. Tim has been more of a winner and he has dominated a period of time way longer than Hakeem. Also I don't think you meant Elliot said Hakeem was the better teammate, that was Horry.

[spursfan09]

You started off your post with "fuck." That's not very ladylike, can you blame me for assuming you're a guy? Not to mention most of the posters here are guys.

Its okay I was just letting you know.

[bobbyjoe]

First of all i'm not a dude, and secondly, if the point is defense did you not know that the Spurs plan was to let Amare get his and shut down the other suns. It worked.

This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.

[duncan228]

This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.

It was the stratigic plan.

The Spurs knew Amare was a beast that year, there was no way our 2 headed center could do anything about it.

And risking Duncan's already very compromised ankles would have been suicide.

Pop picked his poison, and as you said, Nash was taken out. And so was Marion.

And no, Pop didn't plan on what Amare accomplished, though he did joke about it after the series ended.

I'm not giving Duncan all the credit, Duncan is all about team play.
But make no mistake, Duncan mattered in that series, on both ends of the floor. He always does.

[JamStone]

Since when are you a height regulator? I've never heard of either of these players being this short. The only player in recent years that I know of lying about height is Iverson(they say he isn't even quite 6ft) and Barkely(supposedly 6ft 4)

It's pretty much customary for a lot of NBA players to exaggerate their heights. In fact, when Ben Wallace was first with the Washington Bullets, he was listed at 6-foot-7. When he first joined the Detroit Pistons, he was initially listed at 6-foot-8. And, as was mentioned before in this thread, in the days of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, players' heights were measured barefoot. Nowadays, players add an inch to two inches because they are measured with shoes. That does give some discrepancy to the height differences of the eras.



Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

We're talking about big men, and use a quick little point guard for an example of modern NBA players not lifting weights??? The overwhelming majority of centers and power forwards in today's game lift weights. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain in today's game would lift weights. You gotta be kidding to even suggest they wouldn't.

Are youtube highlights the end-all be-all now? Because I can youtube Jack Shit and he probably has some pretty impressive basketball highlights that would make a person wonder why he's not an NBA player. Youtube highlights? You're serious? That's how you're going to support a point? Wilt Chamberlain had a 48 inch vertical jump. And, I've read stories that stated he had remarkable quickness for his size. And Bill Russell was said to have some of the greatest quickness and agility for a big man in the history of the game. You are making conjectured assumptions on their athletic ability based on how you think things are and were.


Since we're playing the height regulator game, Willis Reed was listed 6ft10 but is rumored to have only been 6ft 8-9. Elvin Hayes was only listed 6ft 9 but was really about 6ft 8. Wes Unseld was listed as 6ft 7. Half of your list is just full of shit. And these are just a few players spanning a whole decade. The average for centers of that time was about 6ft7, maybe 6ft 8, the size of a big swingman in todays league, not a center. I don't know where you got anything about 6ft 4.

Half of my list was shit??? My entire list was of players that played when Wilt and Russell did and were legitimate big men with legitimate 6-10 height. Just because they prove your theory wrong, it doesn'mt make them shit. LMAO! Sad really. You made it seem like Bill And Wilt only played against 6-foot-4 to 6-foot-7 centers. That's not true. It's not even remotely true. Just because you don't know some of those players, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. 30 years from now, who's going to remember Erick Dampier or Mark Blount or Joel Przybilla or Zydrunas Ilgauskas? They won't. And, some idiot like you who doesn't really know his NBA history is going to say: "Shaq never played against tough 7-footers in his career except for Hakeem and Yao Ming. Centers were all 6-9 midgets like Ben Wallace and Amare Stoudemire."


Bill Russell would have a hard time defending Duncan or Garnett, giving up 2-3 inches and 40 something pounds. Not to mention he couldn't leap with the guys like Amare, and shot blocking was a big part of his game.

Bill Russell would be closer to 240 in today's NBA. He'd also be similar to a Ben Wallace type of player that uses a blend of quickness and agility as well as positioning, timing, and technique to be a superstar defender. You see that? That's conjecture just like you did. I can do the same thing. You don't know that Bill Russell wouldn't be effective in today's NBA. Why couldn't he be like Ben Wallace on defense with that height? Why couldn't he be like Marcus Camby with that weight? Your conjecture has no legitimate evidential support to it.


Wrong

Amare Stoudemire is not really 6-10. He just isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.



That's something that you will never know for sure, but I think I did at least exagerrate a little when I said they would struggle to be role players. IMO they would probably be borderline all-stars, not superstars and definately not scoring 100 points in a game.

A 7-foot-1, 275 pound beast with a 48 inch vertical and surprisingly great quickness for his size would not be a superstar in this league? Yeah ... ok. And, Bill Russell would be bigger and stronger. I think he could have been every bit the player Ben Wallace is on defense but with better offense. Ben Wallace is a four time DPOY, an NBA champ, two time rebounding champ, and multiple all Defense and all NBA performer. But, Bill Russell would not be a superstar either.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that your opinion sucks ass.

[mavs>spurs2]

Jamstone, I almost don't even want to respond to that bullshit. If you want to show some proof, maybe a link that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical then go ahead and prove me wrong. And several players on your list were actually below 6ft 10, according to NBA.com, regardless what you want to think. Do you have proof that players are measured with their shoes on now and were barefoot back then? Bill Russell WOULD be bigger and stronger today? What good are would should and could? Give me some damn proof, so far all you have done is talk out of your ass and state some outlandish opinions.

[mavs>spurs2]

For god sakes I dont even think Vince Carter had a 48 inch vertical pre injury. :lmao You really exaggerated on that one.

A 48 inch vertical at over 7 ft tall would mean he could probably get his entire upper body above the rim. I'm not buying it.

[mavs>spurs2]

Not to mention Wilt couldn't use his left hand well at all. Can you imagine a player in today's league that couldn't even finish with his left?

[JamStone]

I don't know where they keep vertical jump measurements ... If you want to find me any proof that he didn't have a 48 inch vertical, you really can't say otherwise. These aren't NBA archive sources, but here's what I found:


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0150219/bio

"At his athletic peak, he was said to have been measured with a vertical jump of 48-50 inches."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

* "What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]



That's Wilt's quote. Take it how you want to take it. But, how about you give some proof that states otherwise.

[JamStone]

Not to mention Wilt couldn't use his left hand well at all. Can you imagine a player in today's league that couldn't even finish with his left?


And, how good is Shaq's left hand? How good does it need to be when he is stronger than all of his opponents and can move them out of the way and use his right hand?

[mavs>spurs2]

I don't know where they keep vertical jump measurements ... If you want to find me any proof that he didn't have a 48 inch vertical, you really can't say otherwise. These aren't NBA archive sources, but here's what I found:


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0150219/bio

"At his athletic peak, he was said to have been measured with a vertical jump of 48-50 inches."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

* "What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]



That's Wilt's quote. Take it how you want to take it. But, how about you give some proof that states otherwise.

I can dunk a 10ft 4 inch goal up at the park, and its double rimmed so it makes it harder. Im only 5ft 11, so you tell me which is more impressive. And I don't have a 50 inch vertical. Im just not buying that he was taller than vince, had a better vert, but wasn't an impressive dunker. Gonna have to give some proof if you want that to stick.

[JamStone]

Jamstone, I almost don't even want to respond to that bullshit. If you want to show some proof, maybe a link that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical then go ahead and prove me wrong. And several players on your list were actually below 6ft 10, according to NBA.com, regardless what you want to think. Do you have proof that players are measured with their shoes on now and were barefoot back then? Bill Russell WOULD be bigger and stronger today? What good are would should and could? Give me some damn proof, so far all you have done is talk out of your ass and state some outlandish opinions.

Like who?

I already stated that Wes Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins weren't tall. But, they were undersized hall of fame type of big men in Bill's and Wilt's day.

Who else on the list wasn't at least 6-10?

No, I don't have proof that players back then were measured barefoot. Do you have proof that they weren't?

Thing is, whatever you call your opinion as proof, it's conjecture as well.

So, perhaps some of those guys were 6-foot-9 1/2 and not 6-10. I remember watching Howard Stern years ago and Shaquille O'Neal stating that he was really only 6-foot-11. Hakeem was said to only be 6-foot-10.

I listed a bunch of players in Bill's and Wilt's era that were big men of similar size, and were not that 6-foot-7 average you were talking about earlier. Sure, there were some small centers back then. Yes, more so than now. But, big men were not nearly as small throughout the league as you made it appear. Wilt and Bill battled legitimate 6-foot-10 and 6-foot-11 players. Not every night. But, they did.

And, again, it just goes to show how much of an exaggeration you made in trying to make your argument appear stronger than it was.

Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would have been superstars in any era.

[mavs>spurs2]

And, how good is Shaq's left hand? How good does it need to be when he is stronger than all of his opponents and can move them out of the way and use his right hand?

Did you just accidently describe Wilt?

Yea and if Shaq had impressive skill to go along with his size, he wouldn't have gotten owned so bad by Hakeem.

[mavs>spurs2]

Like who?

I already stated that Wes Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins weren't tall. But, they were undersized hall of fame type of big men in Bill's and Wilt's day.

Who else on the list wasn't at least 6-10?

No, I don't have proof that players back then were measured barefoot. Do you have proof that they weren't?

Thing is, whatever you call your opinion as proof, it's conjecture as well.

So, perhaps some of those guys were 6-foot-9 1/2 and not 6-10. I remember watching Howard Stern years ago and Shaquille O'Neal stating that he was really only 6-foot-11. Hakeem was said to only be 6-foot-10.

I listed a bunch of players in Bill's and Wilt's era that were big men of similar size, and were not that 6-foot-7 average you were talking about earlier. Sure, there were some small centers back then. Yes, more so than now. But, big men were not nearly as small throughout the league as you made it appear. Wilt and Bill battled legitimate 6-foot-10 and 6-foot-11 players. Not every night. But, they did.

And, again, it just goes to show how much of an exaggeration you made in trying to make your argument appear stronger than it was.
Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would have been superstars in any era.

:lmao You are the one trying to exaggerate to make your arguement, claiming every player today is actually smaller than what they are listed as and also wear shoes as opposed to back then. GTFO of here with that bullshit and come back with a real arguement.

Yea and I just double checked, 3 players on your list of "6ft10 and up centers from Wilts era" were actually 6ft 9 and under. You are full of shit.

[JamStone]

I can dunk a 10ft 4 inch goal up at the park, and its double rimmed so it makes it harder. Im only 5ft 11, so you tell me which is more impressive. And I don't have a 50 inch vertical. Im just not buying that he was taller than vince, had a better vert, but wasn't an impressive dunker. Gonna have to give some proof if you want that to stick.

Just provide proof to the contrary that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical, and you win the argument.

I provided something at least.

[JamStone]

Did you just accidently describe Wilt?

Yea and if Shaq had impressive skill to go along with his size, he wouldn't have gotten owned so bad by Hakeem.


I'm sorry. Has Shaq not been a superstar? Is that your next asinine contention?

[mavs>spurs2]

Just provide proof to the contrary that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical, and you win the argument.

I provided something at least.

LMAO when I go up to the gym and play and all the black guys freak out to see a short white guy dunk, I could easily lie and say my vert is 40 inches when they ask. When in reality its like 34-35. Just because Wilt ''says'' he has a 50 inch vertical doesn't make it true. YOU are the one that can't back up your statements, it's not up to me to prove otherwise. There is nothing on the internet I can find that will say "Wilt Chamberlain is a liar he didnt have a 50 inch vert." For all you know its just a myth.

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm sorry. Has Shaq not been a superstar? Is that your next asinine contention?

Of course Shaq is a superstar, alot of superstars got owned by Hakeem in his prime. Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, among others.

Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help you win this arguement.

[JamStone]

:lmao You are the one trying to exaggerate to make your arguement, claiming every player today is actually smaller than what they are listed as and also wear shoes as opposed to back then. GTFO of here with that bullshit and come back with a real arguement.

Yea and I just double checked, 3 players on your list of "6ft10 and up centers from Wilts era" were actually 6ft 9 and under. You are full of shit.

Which ones and what were they listed as?

[mavs>spurs2]

Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall

Willis Reed was listed as 6ft 9, but I have heard otherwise that he was actually 6ft 7-8. But ill go ahead and give you 6ft9, it doesnt matter. Wes Unseld was only 6ft 7. And ill have to go back and research to find the last, feel free to do it yourself.

[JamStone]

LMAO when I go up to the gym and play and all the black guys freak out to see a short white guy dunk, I could easily lie and say my vert is 40 inches when they ask. When in reality its like 34-35. Just because Wilt ''says'' he has a 50 inch vertical doesn't make it true. YOU are the one that can't back up your statements, it's not up to me to prove otherwise. There is nothing on the internet I can find that will say "Wilt Chamberlain is a liar he didnt have a 50 inch vert." For all you know its just a myth.


No, it means you can't provide proof that Wilt didn't have a 48 inch vertical.

And, what if it were 45 inches? What then? Your original point was that Wilt and Russell weren't athletic enough to be superstars in today's NBA. You arguing over that Wilt's vertical wasn't actually 48 or 50 inches only demonstrates how you are now forced to argue that Wilt wasn't an unbelievably amazing athlete, but only really amazing.

You're not arguing that Wilt had a 20 inch vertical. You're arguing he didn't have a 50 inch vertical. At any rate, even if exaggerated, Wilt must have been pretty fucking impressive with his vertical. That still goes to refute your notion that he wasn't athletic enough to play in today's NBA.

[mavs>spurs2]

No, it means you can't provide proof that Wilt didn't have a 48 inch vertical.

And, what if it were 45 inches? What then? Your original point was that Wilt and Russell weren't athletic enough to be superstars in today's NBA. You arguing over that Wilt's vertical wasn't actually 48 or 50 inches only demonstrates how you are now forced to argue that Wilt wasn't an unbelievably amazing athlete, but only really amazing.

You're not arguing that Wilt had a 20 inch vertical. You're arguing he didn't have a 50 inch vertical. At any rate, even if exaggerated, Wilt must have been pretty fucking impressive with his vertical. That still goes to refute your notion that he wasn't athletic enough to play in today's NBA.

Do you always twist the arguement when you are losing to save face? I don't know what his exact vertical was, but if you want to say that it was 50 then prove it. VC's vert isn't even that high, and he can get damn near his whole upper body above the rim. Show me a picture of Wilt anywhere near head and shoulders above the rim.

And for the record, I never said he wouldn't be athletic enough to play in today's league. I said that he wouldn't be able to just tower over and overpower everyone in his way like he did in those days. His athleticism was well ahead of its time and was the reason he could do the things he did. In today's league where everyone is just as athletic if not more than he was and not to mention as big and strong as him, he wouldn't succeed with his skillset.

[mavs>spurs2]

You must be some sort of old timer who grew up watching these guys and still idolizes them. I've seen all sort of old clips of Wilt play and you cannot convince me that he is anything special compared to todays players. He might, a big might, be an all star type player but not a 50ppg scorer.

[spursfan09]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".



QUOTE]


:rolleyes yeah thats exactly how coach pop said it.

It was well known that the Spurs were going to let Amare get his, becuase they knew they couldn't really handle him the best. I'm not trying to give the credit to only Tim Duncan. Manu and Tony and Bruce were great as well. It does take a team to win. Also Tim was playing on 2 very hurt ankles, so ofcourse Amare was at an advantage, because he was way more athletic than Tim Duncan. Doesn't mean hes a better player than him.

[JamStone]

Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall

Willis Reed is listed at 6-9.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/reedwi01.html

Walt Bellamy listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bellawa01.html

Elvin Hayes listed at 6-9.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesel01.html

I already said Wes Unseld was undersized.

Nate Thurmond listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thurmna01.html

Bob Lanier listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/laniebo01.html

Elmore Smith listed at 7-0.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smithel01.html

Otto Moore listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mooreot01.html

Sam Lacey listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/laceysa01.html

Leroy Ellis listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellisle01.html

Darrall Tucker ... sorry mistyped, meant Darrall Imhoff, listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/imhofda01.html



Go ahead, check them all. The two guys that missed the cut are Elvin Hayes and Willis Reed, hall of fame big men. LMAO. Oh shoot, I missed those two by inch. Sorry.

[mavs>spurs2]

You missed hayes by an inch too. And you initially had Unseld on your list of 6ft10 and up big men, and later went back and said differently.

[mavs>spurs2]

So in total, 4 of the 11 on your list were wrong. No big deal, but just more proof that you were talking out of your ass.

[gtownspur]

Without the jordan bulls, hakeem would have won 2 titles still. To even put a what if on that, you would have had to have the rockets meet the bulls in the finals, but that didn't happen.

And anybody who compares shaq in his 2nd year to his prime is pathological liar like bobby joe.

Shaq in his 2nd year matched hakeems numbers head to head, Shaq in 01 would have dominated Da Dream.



And if you want to compare Defensive player of the year award, to Defensive team accomoplishments, just remember one thing, Marcus Camby, and the simple fact that the media gets to decide one of those awards.

Duncan has gotten credit from the coaches from day one.

Olajuwon was given credit from the media.

Nevermind Houston has a large market.

[mavs>spurs2]

Yea but let's not forget that Shaq's dominance came after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing all retired or got old. Whether or not you believe that had something to do with it, or if Shaq just got that much better is a matter of personal opinion, there's no way to tell for sure. Shaq is the last of a dying breed, there are no great centers to matchup with him today. Now days all the best big men are power forwards. Duncan, KG, Amare, just to name a few.

[bobbyjoe]

Without the jordan bulls, hakeem would have won 2 titles still. To even put a what if on that, you would have had to have the rockets meet the bulls in the finals, but that didn't happen.

And anybody who compares shaq in his 2nd year to his prime is pathological liar like bobby joe.

Shaq in his 2nd year matched hakeems numbers head to head, Shaq in 01 would have dominated Da Dream.



And if you want to compare Defensive player of the year award, to Defensive team accomoplishments, just remember one thing, Marcus Camby, and the simple fact that the media gets to decide one of those awards.

Duncan has gotten credit from the coaches from day one.

Olajuwon was given credit from the media.

Nevermind Houston has a large market.

Thanks for proving my point. This era is so weak that even a guy like Marcus Camby can win a Defensive Player of the Year Award.

Do you think Camby even gets one vote for DPOY playing in an era of David Robinson, Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Alonzo Mourning, Scottie Pippen, Dikembe Mutombo, and Gary Payton? Hell no.

Yet Duncan hasn't won a single DPOY award.

Also, it's utter hypocrisy and completely ridiculous for Spur fan to say "Duncan is better than Hakeem because 4>2" then say "Hakeem's #'s were matched by Shaq in 1995" and ignoring the 4-0 series sweep.

Hakeem did clearly outplay Shaq in 1995 and Shaq has always been the first person to admit this. Especially in the closing minutes of the series-defining moments, Hakeem was the one making the plays and Shaq was making big mistakes (see Game 1 tip in at the buzzer to win the game).

Also, Hakeem actually guarded Shaq mano y mano and Duncan never did. It was always David Robinson or Nesterovic later on. Had Duncan had to guard Shaq at one end and carry the offensive load on the other, his offensive would have suffered.

We'll never know how Hakeem prime vs. Shaq prime would have shaken out, but we know taht Shaq got the better of Duncan head to head when both were in their primes. His teams won more and he outplayed TD individually. Shaq>Duncan. Hakeem vs. Duncan is closer than Shaq vs. Duncan. I would take Shaq over both.

Why was Olajuwon given credit by the media for DPOY? Because he usually led the league in blocked shots or was 2nd, played great individual D, and even ranked top 10 year in and year out in steals, almost unheard of for a Center. If Duncan had this kind of resume or impact defensively, of course he'd have won a few DPOY himself in such a weak era.

There's a difference between being a great defensive player (Hakeem, Russell, DRob, Scottie) and a good defensive player (Duncan).

You can't tell me the media overlooks Duncan because the guy is always very high in MVP voting and All-NBA first teams. They just dont see him as the defensive beast you do...

[bobbyjoe]

Yea but let's not forget that Shaq's dominance came after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing all retired or got old. Whether or not you believe that had something to do with it, or if Shaq just got that much better is a matter of personal opinion, there's no way to tell for sure. Shaq is the last of a dying breed, there are no great centers to matchup with him today. Now days all the best big men are power forwards. Duncan, KG, Amare, just to name a few.

Shaq of 2000-2002 was more dominant than Shaq 95. No doubt.

But the point is that even a young Shaq was tremendous competition. He was still a 29/12/3 guy who shot nearly 60% from the field. You combine his prowess even in his young 20's with DRob, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo, Hakeem in their primes and you have arguably the Golden Age of NBA Centers. Behind MJ, Hakeem, and Karl Malone, Shaq was still a top 5 player in the NBA even in his younger years.

Duncan doesn't compete against a single big man in today's NBA who is as good as a Shaq of 1995. It's that barren at big man. Hell, Mehmet freakin Okur made the All Star game this year. What does that tell you?

That's the point Spur Fan seems to try to get away from because it's almost impossible to argue against something so obvious (and in this case, something that causes Duncan to stack up unfavorably against a guy who earned his against a stronger field).

[JamStone]

So in total, 4 of the 11 on your list were wrong. No big deal, but just more proof that you were talking out of your ass.


First, off, I included Wes Unseld by mistake. I also put him in the original post as an undersized hall of fame type.

Second Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, and Elvin Hayes equals 3. Hayes was someone I stated in that post as 6-9, as one of the two hall of fame big men I missed by an inch. Three.

And, didn't you say "half" my list was bullshit? Since when was 3 bullshit?

And, going back to your original point of 6-foot-7 centers, as you can see, there were plenty of quality big men back in Wilt Chamberlain's and Bill Russell's era that were bigger than unathletic 6-foot-7 centers. Rather than arguing trivial crap like how one inch makes a difference, you should actually try looking at the point of me listing big, tall, tough legitimate big men back in the 60s and 70s.

Throughout this thread, you argued as if Wilt and Russell only battled against 6-4 to 6-7 unathletic centers. That's obviously not the case. You arguing over two guys that are 6-foot-9 as opposed to 6-foot-10 is ridiculous, especially when you consider that Reed and Hayes are hall of fame big men.

Your argument is feces.

[mavs>spurs2]

First, off, I included Wes Unseld by mistake. I also put him in the original post as an undersized hall of fame type.

Second Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, and Elvin Hayes equals 3. Hayes was someone I stated in that post as 6-9, as one of the two hall of fame big men I missed by an inch. Three.

And, didn't you say "half" my list was bullshit? Since when was 3 bullshit?

And, going back to your original point of 6-foot-7 centers, as you can see, there were plenty of quality big men back in Wilt Chamberlain's and Bill Russell's era that were bigger than unathletic 6-foot-7 centers. Rather than arguing trivial crap like how one inch makes a difference, you should actually try looking at the point of me listing big, tall, tough legitimate big men back in the 60s and 70s.

Throughout this thread, you argued as if Wilt and Russell only battled against 6-4 to 6-7 unathletic centers. That's obviously not the case. You arguing over two guys that are 6-foot-9 as opposed to 6-foot-10 is ridiculous, especially when you consider that Reed and Hayes are hall of fame big men.

Your argument is feces.

You're only further proving my point. Three of the best centers from that era were 6ft7-6ft9, small for even a power forward in today's league. And you are only listing a handful of players out of an entire era. There were plenty other centers from back then that don't make the cut.

I could list 10 players under 6ft from the last 20 years, and say that nba players are getting smaller. But we would both know that is bullshit, it's not the AVERAGE for players of any position.

It is an evolutionary FACT that people are growing taller. Look into it yourself, average height has slowly grown over the past 50 years.

I think it's your arguement thats shit, especially since u sat here viewing the thread for about 2 hours before u finally came up with that last post. :lol

[JamStone]

I wasn't even on my computer for the last two hours before I wrote that post. How sad that that has to be an argument for you. How sad for you.

There were plenty of big men in Wilt's and Russell's era that were in the 6-foot-10 range, not the 6-foot-7 range that you make it appear was all through the league back then.

It goes back to your point that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be superstars in today's league. And, it just doesn't fly. If Wilt and Russell played today, they'd weigh more and would be stronger because they would be in an era of weight-lifting and conditioning and diet and nutrition maximization. You stick to the 6-foot-9 argument. You haven't even come close to address the point about Wilt and Russell being stronger in today's NBA except for some silly little point about Tony Parker not weight lifting.

I state how Wilt was an amazing athlete and he had a 48 inch vertical. And, your rebuttal is that he lied.

I give a list of 10 guys that in Wilt's and Russell's day that were 6-10 to 6-11, and you nitpick on how two of them were 6-9.

You do know there were only like 12-16 teams back then around that time, don't you?

You attack trivial discrepancies like "one inch" with two players makes all the difference in the world because you realize that your comment that Wilt and Russell wouldn't even be stars in today's NBA is completely idiotic.

There is one great center in today's NBA, Shaquille O'Neal. But Wilt would be a role player or a borderline all star. Yeah ok. Ben Wallace at 6-9 and no offensive game has won four DPOY awards in the last 7 years, but Bill Russell would be a role player.

Do you not yet realize how stupid you sound?

[mavs>spurs2]

I wasn't even on my computer for the last two hours before I wrote that post. How sad that that has to be an argument for you. How sad for you.

There were plenty of big men in Wilt's and Russell's era that were in the 6-foot-10 range, not the 6-foot-7 range that you make it appear was all through the league back then.

It goes back to your point that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be superstars in today's league. And, it just doesn't fly. If Wilt and Russell played today, they'd weigh more and would be stronger because they would be in an era of weight-lifting and conditioning and diet and nutrition maximization. You stick to the 6-foot-9 argument. You haven't even come close to address the point about Wilt and Russell being stronger in today's NBA except for some silly little point about Tony Parker not weight lifting.

I state how Wilt was an amazing athlete and he had a 48 inch vertical. And, your rebuttal is that he lied.

I give a list of 10 guys that in Wilt's and Russell's day that were 6-10 to 6-11, and you nitpick on how two of them were 6-9.

You do know there were only like 12-16 teams back then around that time, don't you?

You attack trivial discrepancies like "one inch" with two players makes all the difference in the world because you realize that your comment that Wilt and Russell wouldn't even be stars in today's NBA is completely idiotic.

There is one great center in today's NBA, Shaquille O'Neal. But Wilt would be a role player or a borderline all star. Yeah ok. Ben Wallace at 6-9 and no offensive game has won four DPOY awards in the last 7 years, but Bill Russell would be a role player.

Do you not yet realize how stupid you sound?

No but I realize you have a way with twisting things in an attempt to make me sound stupid.

Im sick of arguining, obviously none of this is getting through to you, but I do have one last question.

When you watch Wilt and Russell play, what are you seeing that you think is so great? What do they do that any big man in today's league can't? All I see is a great defensive player in Russell and a tall guy with no basketball skills shooting over smaller players . What is it that they do that is so great? For gods sake in your mind Wilt had a 50 inch vertical, when in reality he never got very high above then rim. Not to mention you can't seem to find a link to back that statement up. Oh, and he didn't even have a left hand whatsoever. He had decent athleticism, probably a 30 inch vert. Nothing to be ashamed of, alot better than Duncan's alleged 20 or so, but that's it. And then you say that guys like Dwight Howard who can touch the top of the freakin backboard aren't more athletic than players in the 60s. Give me a break. Go back and watch the film, you will see a bunch of unathletic white guys running around with short shorts and a few decent athletes that really stand out and look good just because everyone around them sucks. The game evolves and changes, as the years go by more and more kids play it it gets more popular players train harder and harder and get better starting at younger ages. Not to mention bigger, and you can't argue there it is scientific fact that Americans in general are taller than they were 50 years ago.

[polandprzem]

Are youtube highlights the end-all be-all now? Because I can youtube Jack Shit and he probably has some pretty impressive basketball highlights that would make a person wonder why he's not an NBA player. Youtube highlights? You're serious? That's how you're going to support a point? Wilt Chamberlain had a 48 inch vertical jump. And, I've read stories that stated he had remarkable quickness for his size. And Bill Russell was said to have some of the greatest quickness and agility for a big man in the history of the game. You are making conjectured assumptions on their athletic ability based on how you think things are and were.

Wilt was feak of nature back then. it's so scary to imagine how much could the training and medicine of today changed him.
He was the best in the NCAA conference in the heigh jump and he was also a long jump athlete he was also shot putting. In the Globtrotter team he was a PG a 7 foot PG! (The beat up a Mikan Mineapolis back then also)
At the age of 50 some of the NBA clubs wanted to sign him. He was also playing volleyball.

Bill was the best defender that time. Not just he was doing his job on defence but he was freaking smart. He outsmarts EVERYONE who played in the NBA (Ask Frazier, ask Pettit). He was saying that Wilt was ustoppable, that he could just slow him down, never shut down and that he had to use a different game. He used 4 guys on the floor to beat a freak of nature Wilt was. That's called a team game !

Taking about youtube highlights.
It's the argument?
How silly is to look at the old tapes and say they were not dunking so they were no athletic so they would not stand the NBA of today.
Bullshit all over the place!
First of all you are not winning with athletics. (it's important but not the most important thing). Just look at Bird for excample.
Second the leauge in 70s was more brutal and powerfull and the players were allowed more. Today you can bearly touch another player.
Third point - the rules. Every Kidd, every Kobe every Iverson back in 70s would not be dribbling that well. Why? Cause what they are doing right now was not allowed back in the days. All those crossovers would be whistled out.
Fourth point- No dunks? Wow how's that possible? For one. Back in the days that was a showoff and nobody acceptd that kind of game. So the centers were not using it. Plus it would equal an injury. All the highflyers had problems with the injuries. Just ask Elgin Baylor.
Fith and the most interesting point - how come an inch is worth something? Damn I don't even care how tall Unseld was I care how good he was! I care how strong he was! The bigger dick doesn't give you a better sex. The mind and vision is what gives good sex even when with a bigger dick you have more options. The more options does not give you more talent and IQ to use the body (dick) [a penis - to be strict]

Tim made better temas. He was winning more then Hakeem and that what matters cause these are the facts.
KG is a freak of stats but never won a jack. Now you can go by if's ( a better supporters a better coach, a better wife, a longer dick) I do not realy care.

Everyone is want to be known as a winner.
That's Jordans words, and he knew he had to grow up and be a team player to win something in this leauge.

As for Shaq?
He was ustoppable in 2000-2002 cause Phil found a way to relese his best qualities. And with the triangle offense he could get a pass in the box from different sides as the ball moved the players moved...

Cheers

[JamStone]

Wilt ... soooooo unathletic:


http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article5.html

"Wilt Chamberlain is probably the first giant in history to be able to break 50 seconds in the 440 and win a Big Eight high jump title."

http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/chamberl.shtml

"Often overlooked is the fact that Chamberlain was an excellent all-around athlete. At Kansas, he was the Big Eight Conference high jump champion three years in a row, he put the shot 56 feet, ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, and triple jumped more than 50 feet. He turned down offers to become a professional boxer and football player, but after retiring from basketball he starred in the short-lived International Volleyball Association."

[JamStone]

Also, that darn unathletic Bill Russell ...

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/multitalented

"Bill Russell ranked as the world's No. 7 high jumper in Track and Field News rankings in 1956. Russell won titles in the West Coast Relays, Pacific AAU meet and Central California AAU meet in 1956. His winning mark of 6-9 1/4 in the West Coast Relays was the 11th-best mark recorded in the world in 1956. "

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

As he did at Overbrook, Chamberlain again showcased his diverse athletic talent. He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shotput 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.

Mavs fan is correct. Wilt would have been dominated by Jack Haley. End of discussion.
Wilt Chamberlain Had Your Momma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain)

[JamStone]

http://www.nba.com/warriors/history/Dupree_Chamberlain.html

"But to judge Chamberlain only by his incredible NBA statistics is to miss the boat on the effect he had on sports in general and on just how great an athlete he was. He could also run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds, had a 50-inch vertical jump, was a Big Eight high-jump champion at Kansas, was undefeated in the shot put, but his best track event might have been the 440-yard dash."

Francisco Elson and Andrew Bogut would own Wilt Chamberlain.

[ambchang]

Yes, the game changes and is played alot differently than it was when the league was first founded years ago. That still doesn't change any of my points. Wilt and Russel played in an era with fewer teams, less talent, and less big men. In those days a 7 footer was very rare to see and they were able to dominate their much smaller opponents. They would both be lucky to be role players in today's league.

By the same token ...
The game changes and is played a lot differently than it was in the 90's when Hakkem was playing . Hakeem played in an era with fewer teams, less talent, and less big men. In those days, 7 footers with perimeter skills was very rare to see and Hakeem was able to dominate their much slower opponents. He would be lucky to be a role player in today's league.

Not that I believe any of what was just written, but it just shows how wrong your original opinion could be.

[ambchang]

And Karl Malone is better than Duncan in every aspect except height and the most important intangible, team play and winning. That's why most would give the slight edge to Duncan. Malone was a smart defender, but since he was short for a PF and didn't have long arms he wasn't allowed to play d like Duncan, staying low and not going for any pumpfakes, so Timmy has an edge over him defensively as well. That said, both players > Malone, not sure what point you were trying to make here.
But since Karl Malone was so damned short for a PF, doesn't he gets regularly dominated by his taller opponents, like how the shorter opponents in Russel's days gets dominated by him? Oh wait, you counted Russell as one of those shorties at 6'9" 225 lbs.

[ambchang]

Elliott was still a major contributor that year despite his kidney problems. Don't forget about Robinson who was still able to contribute, at least defensively, and Mario Elie. Remember Sean Elliots miracle shot against Portland, and Avery's game winner in game 5 of the finals? Don't act like Duncan did it all alone. If it wasn't for Elliott, the Spurs go home in game 7 of the West finals.

Also, I did a little research and Mario Elie shot significantly better from the field playing with Olajuwon during their championship years than he did playing with Duncan in 99. Robert Horry shot about the same playing on both teams, so you probably can't use that theory to see who made their teammates better. But I do know that Duncans so called scrubs help him to a great regular season record every year. You can't win 60 games by yourself, the load has to be spread evenly over the coarse of 82 games. I did notice that Olajuwon's Rockets finished a mediocre 47-35 in 94-95, and 48-34 in 95-96. This means that Hakeem really had to step it up in the playoffs in order for his team to win championships. In reality you are backwards it was actually Duncan who has had better teammates.

The logic is so flawed in your arguments. Nobody ever said Duncan scored all 90 or so points for the Spurs, grabbed all 40 or so rebounds and blocked all 6 or 7 of the shots. Nobody said Elliott contributed nothing, but it's a fact that Elliott was not even close to his former all-star self because of age and health issues. Mario Elie shot worse with Duncan at the tail end of his career, so what? Isn't that what most players do, especially when they have to adapt to a new system? Elie actually had his FG% career high with GSW in 92, are you going to say Chris Gatling > Hakeem?

Oh, and Hakeem didn't make the game tying 3 in Game 1, it was Kenny Smith. It was the same way Elliott makes that MDM, perhaps both had the opportunities because their respective HoF big man opened it up for them?

And Horry shot the same he did 10 years ago, good for him! What does that prove?

Finally, the Rockets didn't do very well in the regular season WITH Hakeem in the lineup, in fact, Hakeem only missed 10 games in each of those two seasons, why was he not able to carry his team? A better explanation might be because the Rockets were saving for the playoffs, like what the Lakers did in the early 00's and what the Spurs were doing last year.

[ambchang]

Read it and weep, bitch



http://basketball-players.suite101.com/article.cfm/could_wilt_dominate_todays_nba

It's the age-old debate whether or not stars of the yesteryears, like Wilt Chamberlain, would fare in today's NBA game. Some argue, for example, that Wilt Chamberlain was before his time, and that his freakish athleticism could be seen in his great high jumping ability as a Track athlete. Others contend that basketball has reached a new echelon of athletic superiority, where everyone's big and fast.

Throughout his career, Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain averaged 30.1 points per game (ppg) and an amazing 22.9 rebounds per game (rbpg). In 1961-62, he did something that nobody may ever be able to do again, averaging 50.4 ppg in 80 games. In the same season, Chamberlain scored 100 points in a single game.

In addition, Wilt won the scoring title in each of his first seven seasons and led the league in rebounding 11 times. He is the only center to lead the league in assists, and never fouled out in his career.

Perhaps the most unusual statistic of all, Chamberlain actually averaged more than 48 minutes per game in a season. In 1961-62, his Philadelphia Warriors played in ten overtime quarters, and he played in all but eight of a possible 3,980 minutes that season.

Yet, the question still remains whether Wilt could have dominated in today's NBA game.

Consider that by the end of his career, Chamberlain was listed as about 7-1 275lbs, which is considerably large by even today's standards.

Now consider that the bulk of his competition at the center position was significantly smaller than he was. There's a lot of hoopla surrounding the Wilt Chamberlain versus Bill Russell matchup. Yet, Russell was only listed as 6-9 to 6-10 220lbs. Another Hall of Famer, Dave Cowens, was listed as 6-8 230lbs. Wes Unseld was only listed at about 6-6 to 6-7, and Willis Reed was only 6-9 240lbs. Of course, one could say that Shaquille O'Neal is much larger than most of his opponents, but the fact was, Chamberlain dwarfed everybody, where O'Neal is at least used to frequently facing other seven footers.
With modern advances in weight lifting programs and physical fitness, it's silly to think that a player in the 1960s could compare to a player in 2007, where the size of a lot of perimeter players and even shooting guards is larger than the typical center of that era. Moreover, players were not paid a fraction as much back then as they are now, making the incentive to get in the best shape possible not as high.

Watching game tapes of Chamberlain make it apparent that his slow speed and lack of a left hand wouldn't get him very far in today's game. This is not to say that he couldn't have been a great player had he developed in this era, with the advantages of modern nutrition, weight programs, etc... It only means that taking players out of their era and comparing them to players of a different era is pointless and unfair.

Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most dominant players to play in one period, but if taken out of that era and placed into today's NBA game, Wilt's skill would have been lacking and he would not have been able to rely so much on his size.

So how did Bill Russell dominate all the other centers in that era? By being the same size as them? Mourning was 6'10", Hakeem, despite being listed 7'0", was way closer to 6'10", Yao Ming is taller than everybody else, slow, and doesn't have a left hand. Isn't he an all-star now? Why is he not averaging 30 ppg and hauling down 27 rpg despite his incredible size advantage? What about Mark Eaton in the late 80s? Wasn't he much bigger than everybody else?
You remember Stanley Roberts? He was as big as Shaq, where is he now? What does size have to do with basketball skills?

[ambchang]

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the hell it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.

Why would they stand until proven otherwise? Because you made them?
Why would Hakeem have won 5 to 7 rings if he swapped careers with Duncan? If you proposed a theory, it is YOUR job to prove it, not somebody else's to disprove it.

Ditto for the older players suck argument. As Barkley, Iverson, Gheorge Muresan, Marco Jaric, Stanley Roberts, and others have shown over the years, there is absolutely no correlation between size relative to positions played and success. The onus is on you to prove that it does.

[ambchang]

Since when are you a height regulator? I've never heard of either of these players being this short. The only player in recent years that I know of lying about height is Iverson(they say he isn't even quite 6ft) and Barkely(supposedly 6ft 4)

http://ask.metafilter.com/54144/Is-he-really-that-tall

It's a long running joke that Hakeem Olajuwon is nowhere near (like 2-3 inches away from) the 7 feet he is listed at by the NBA. I've head numerous play-by-play and color guys comment on this on the air.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Allen-Iverson-1232.html
http://www.celebheights.com/s/Shaquille-ONeal-3142.html


Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

So genetics changed in 40 years? Are we in the age of X-men?
And I am sure you are aware that the rule for not having FT shooters cross the FT line after a shot is because of Wilt, right?
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110493.html
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html


Years ago, teams could pass the ball over the backboard or take a running start when attempting a foul shot. The former was outlawed because Chamberlain would use the backboard as a screen, cherry-picking passes and converting them into layups; the latter was banned after Chamberlain took a running start, leapt from the foul line and dunked the ball.
Yes, Chamberlain dunked foul shots.


Since we're playing the height regulator game, Willis Reed was listed 6ft10 but is rumored to have only been 6ft 8-9. Elvin Hayes was only listed 6ft 9 but was really about 6ft 8. Wes Unseld was listed as 6ft 7. Half of your list is just full of shit. And these are just a few players spanning a whole decade. The average for centers of that time was about 6ft7, maybe 6ft 8, the size of a big swingman in todays league, not a center. I don't know where you got anything about 6ft 4.

And once again, please find me any correlation with size relative to position and success in the NBA. For every Shaq, there’s a Stanley Roberts, or every Iverson, there’s a Chris Jackson.


Bill Russell would have a hard time defending Duncan or Garnett, giving up 2-3 inches and 40 something pounds. Not to mention he couldn't leap with the guys like Amare, and shot blocking was a big part of his game.

Duncan can’t jump, he aveages 2 blocks a game. And he blocked Amare. Blocking shots has a LOT more to do with timing and coordination. Speaking of which, how many blocks did jumping jack Amare average last year and in his career?


Wrong

Certainly had people in the grips of reason …..


That's something that you will never know for sure, but I think I did at least exagerrate a little when I said they would struggle to be role players. IMO they would probably be borderline all-stars, not superstars and definately not scoring 100 points in a game.

Again, why? You ridicule others for being the “height regulator”, despite wide-spread knowledge of height exaggeration in today’s league, and yet you continue to through out opinions after opinions as facts, and force the onus to disprove on others.

[ambchang]

This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.
No it is not absurd, the Suns did that with Jordan in 93, it backfired and destroyed them. The Spurs concentrated on stopping Nash and not Amare because they recognized it was Nash who drove the Suns offense, and it worked.
And no, Duncan did fine himself in the 05 playoffs vs. the Suns, he averaged something like 32 and 16.

[ambchang]

For god sakes I dont even think Vince Carter had a 48 inch vertical pre injury. :lmao You really exaggerated on that one.

A 48 inch vertical at over 7 ft tall would mean he could probably get his entire upper body above the rim. I'm not buying it.
Your lack of knowledge on NBA legends is disturbing. If you would like to bash the likes of Wilt, first learn about him.
He was an outstanding track and fielder, and his specialty was high jump and won the Big Eight tourney by clearing a 6’6” bar.
Second, your lack of mathematical skills is absolutely deplorable. At 7’ tall, a 48” (4 foot) jump would only have Chamberlain a foot about the rim, not his entire upper body, what is so ridiculous about that? Shawn Kemp required stitches after hitting his face on the rim. Robinson, at 7’1”, had a 40” vertical.

[mavs>spurs2]

Your lack of knowledge on NBA legends is disturbing. If you would like to bash the likes of Wilt, first learn about him.
He was an outstanding track and fielder, and his specialty was high jump and won the Big Eight tourney by clearing a 6’6” bar.
Second, your lack of mathematical skills is absolutely deplorable. At 7’ tall, a 48” (4 foot) jump would only have Chamberlain a foot about the rim, not his entire upper body, what is so ridiculous about that? Shawn Kemp required stitches after hitting his face on the rim. Robinson, at 7’1”, had a 40” vertical.

You're a dumbass. I am 5'11 and can almost get a foot above the rim with a 35 inch vertical. Vince Carter is 6ft 5, has a 48 inch vert, and I have seen him get head and shoulders above the rim. Wilt would have his entire upper body above the rim if his vertical was really as high as VCs, given that he was 8 inches taller.

[mavs>spurs2]

And my arguement wasn't so much that Wilt and Bill weren't athletic, it was that they were the only 2 athletic players in a totally different era. They were ahead of their time, dominating a bunch of short unathletic white guys in short shorts. (a bit of an exaggeration)

In today's league, where everyone is just as athletic or more, they wouldn't succeed with their skillsets. Wilt couldn't even use his left hand. He would never score 100 points in today's NBA. Even Jordan couldn't do that, and hopefully we can please agree that he is the best player of all time. Russell would probably be a Dennis Rodman type player, but not one of the most dominant big men ever.

And I am at school and don't have the time to read all of your posts, but I did catch your Stanley Roberts argument. For every big guy in todays league that sucks, there was a 6ft 7 center that sucked back in Wilt's day.

[BronxCowboy]

You're a dumbass. I am 5'11 and can almost get a foot above the rim with a 35 inch vertical. Vince Carter is 6ft 5, has a 48 inch vert, and I have seen him get head and shoulders above the rim. Wilt would have his entire upper body above the rim if his vertical was really as high as VCs, given that he was 8 inches taller.

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.

[JamStone]

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.


LMAO ... hurry up and erase your post. It's not his height but his hand (reach) that you would add to the vertical. A 5-11 person would reach about 7-11 with a standing reach. You add 35 inches to 7-foot-11.

[mavs>spurs2]

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.

I do have arms. Long arms. My wingspan is that of a 6ft 2 person. My reach is 7ft 6.

7ft6 + 35 inches = 10 foot 5 inches.

And that's just flat footed, common sense tells you a running start allows you to jump alot higher.

fuck off

[mardigan]

I do have arms. Long arms. My wingspan is that of a 6ft 2 person. My reach is 7ft 6.

7ft6 + 35 inches = 10 foot 5 inches.

And that's just flat footed, common sense tells you a running start allows you to jump alot higher.

fuck off
No point in insulting when your wrong bro.
What dont you understand about 7 feet lus 4 feet equals 11 feet, 1 foot above the rim. Meaning his head would have cleared the rim. Not that hard to understand hops

[mavs>spurs2]

I never saw any pics of Wilt with his head anywhere near above the rim. I think he meant just get a foot above the rim, not his head. Which is alot more believeable.

And even if Wilt could jump that high, it only proves that he was one of the very very few with that kind of athleticism in his time. In today's nba there are alot of guys with that kind of athleticism.

[HighLowLobForBig-50]

wow thats a funny thread.

[gtownspur]

Thanks for proving my point. This era is so weak that even a guy like Marcus Camby can win a Defensive Player of the Year Award.


No, i think you missed the point. the point is that The DPOY award is awarded by the media.

YOu get that? that means it means zilch when compared to the accolades the coaches, people who understand the game give, like all nba defensive team honors.

Do you think Camby even gets one vote for DPOY playing in an era of David Robinson, Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Alonzo Mourning, Scottie Pippen, Dikembe Mutombo, and Gary Payton? Hell no.

Yet Duncan hasn't won a single DPOY award.

Your totally right, Duncan will not win a media given prize. Nothing profound there.


Also, it's utter hypocrisy and completely ridiculous for Spur fan to say "Duncan is better than Hakeem because 4>2" then say "Hakeem's #'s were matched by Shaq in 1995" and ignoring the 4-0 series sweep.

what does the 4-0 sweep have to do with head to head matchups you so like to use to prove your point, have to do with team success here? Why can't you likewise credit Duncan for those 4 championships. Your reasoning makes no sense.

Here's how fucked up it is;

SHaq matched Hakeems numbers as a 2nd year player in Hakeem's prime. Hakeem team's gets the win regardless. Hakeems team wins attest to his greatness.

Therefore Hakeem > Shaq.


Garnett matched Duncan's stats throughout his career. Duncan's team won 4 championship in that timespan. Duncan's Team success does not make a case for his greatness.

Therefore Duncan = Garnett <<< Any bigman back in the era of short shorts.

Which leads me to believee that since no logical minded person would believe this drivel;

BobbyJoe is Hakeem Olajuwon, posting to defend his honor and still bitter that Robinson won a Regular season MVP.



Hakeem did clearly outplay Shaq in 1995 and Shaq has always been the first person to admit this. Especially in the closing minutes of the series-defining moments, Hakeem was the one making the plays and Shaq was making big mistakes (see Game 1 tip in at the buzzer to win the game).

Also, Hakeem actually guarded Shaq mano y mano and Duncan never did. It was always David Robinson or Nesterovic later on. Had Duncan had to guard Shaq at one end and carry the offensive load on the other, his offensive would have suffered.



Likewise Shaq never guarded Duncan because of the foul problems. It don't mean shit bobbyjoe. And Shaq still got his while Hakeem guarded him. All Houston had to do was collapse on Shaq and make the outside shooters beat them.

Hakeem's squad > Shaq's.

We'll never know how Hakeem prime vs. Shaq prime would have shaken out, but we know taht Shaq got the better of Duncan head to head when both were in their primes. His teams won more and he outplayed TD individually. Shaq>Duncan. Hakeem vs. Duncan is closer than Shaq vs. Duncan. I would take Shaq over both.


What the fuck are you smoking? only time shaq outplayed timmy was for that one year. the other years Duncan matched Shaq's production head to head, not to mention Duncan was the Anchor of the defense.

I guess you also forgot about 99.

Why was Olajuwon given credit by the media for DPOY? Because he usually led the league in blocked shots or was 2nd, played great individual D, and even ranked top 10 year in and year out in steals, almost unheard of for a Center. If Duncan had this kind of resume or impact defensively, of course he'd have won a few DPOY himself in such a weak era.

Duncan is sorry he's not athletic, but just happened to anchor one of the best defensive squads the world has ever seen professionally to which Bruce gives him credit for his defensive prowess. It's a good thing Nba scouts don't look at stats only when assesing a player.

Looks like Bobbyjoe would make a great La Clipper scout.


There's a difference between being a great defensive player (Hakeem, Russell, DRob, Scottie) and a good defensive player (Duncan).

What a joke. All the nba coaches would take an issue with that statement. Guess what bobby joe? Duncan made all nba defensive honors in the Jordan era, with all the big centers and Olajuwon playing. He came only 2 years after Olajuwon's prime.

You can't tell me the media overlooks Duncan because the guy is always very high in MVP voting and All-NBA first teams. They just dont see him as the defensive beast you do...

The same Media that awarded Nash back to back MVP's and Dirk aswell. Keep hanging yourself.

[gtownspur]

I trust the Media over the Coaches intuition.

Also Stephen A Smith >> Pat Riley in basketball knowledge.

Sincerely,

Bobby Joe.

[JamStone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc&mode=related&search=

Some Wilt footage ...

2:00 - Wilt leads the break and throws a behind-the-back pass in the open court on the run

2:45 - Wilt blocks a shot and his head even with the rim

2:52 - Wilt gets the loose ball, dribbles to lead the break, passes it out, and runs the court to finish the fast break with a dunk

5:40 - Again, Wilt blocks a shot where he head is just below the rim


To say a guy like Wilt didn't have the requisite skillset to play in today's game is again just ridiculous. Watch all those turn-around jumpers he hits off the glass from 10-12 feet out. No one in today's game is defending that shot when he's making them. And, those two instances where he starts the break with his own dribble. A 7-footer dribbling and leading the break. You can tell he had superior athleticism than everyone else back then. But, you also look at the clips, and many of those clips aren't against little, unathletic 6-foot-7 guys. No, he's battling with real big men. Maybe not all 7-footers, but easily 6-foot-9 to 6-foot-11 guys. It's ridiculous to say that he didn't have the requisite skill set. Hell, he led the league in assists one season. The ONLY center in the history of the game to lead the league in assists. His athleticism is without question. And, while there certainly are more athletic players in the league now, Wilt would still be a freak at 7-foot-1, 275 pounds, can high jump 6-foot-6 inches, run the 110 yard dash in under 11 seconds, run the 440 in under 50 seconds, and shot put 56 feet. The guy was a straight freak athletically. He would still be among the top 5% elite athletes in the NBA. He'd be in the class of LeBron and KG and Dwight Howard and a pre-op Amare Stoudemire. He was of that ilk, ESPECIALLY if you consider that if you put him in today's game, he would also have had modern technology in weight training, diet, nutrition, and agility and quickness enhancement. He would have been a freak just like he was in the 60s.

This is getting just silly.

Wilt would have been a megastar in today's NBA just like back then. He'd be like a Shaq or Hakeem. He'd be the athletic freak that David Robinson was. He would not be a role player. He would not just be a borderline all star. Wilt Chamberlain would still be one of the greatest players in NBA history if he played in today's NBA.

[mavs>spurs2]

Lmao his moves all look slow and uncoordinated, and im not sure if I could slide a sheet of paper under his feet on some of those dunks he didn't have to even jump or look like he was trying to elevate over the top of those guys. That was a nice behind the back pass, though.

You can't tell me this guy > Duncan, i'm never buying it.

[bobbyjoe]

Wow, Duncan was able to put up the same #'s on JR Reid/Robert Horry/100 yr old Horace Grant as Shaq was on David Robinson, a top 50 all time player.

I guess that proves everything.

I vividly remember in the 2002 series Duncan struggling badly in the 4th quarters of every playoff game when the Lakers switched Shaq to guard TD.

Duncan has absolutely never dominated or outplayed Shaq head to head. As mentioned before, Shaq has publically admitted to getting outplayed by Hakeem in the 95 Finals. Anyone who actually saw that series knows that is simply the way it went, Hakeem making the key plays in that series where a young Shaq wasn't seasoned enough to make them.

You telling me SHaq didn't SEVERELY outplay Duncan in the 2001 playoffs? Duncan was awful that series against LA, neutralized by Robert Horry. I believe one game he was held to single digit points. He had 1 good game that series, and 3 awful ones.

AGain in the 04 playoffs, Duncan was really frustrated by Karl Malone's defense. If you think Duncan dominated the Lakers in the 2001, 2002, and 2004 series or outplayed Shaq, you are even crazier than your largely incoherent posts of drivel suggest. Yes, in 99 he had a great series against the Lakers awesome PF combination of JR Reid and Robert Horry.

Why is Hakeem guarding Shaq relevant? Because when Houston played Orlando or LA they knew Hakeem was their best option on O'Neal.

Duncan never had to face this responsbility; if he did he wouldnt have been as successfull offensively, period. He's just lucky he's been on teams where this option was actually available.

And you can cry about it all you want and try to spin, but Duncan is just not considered on the level of Hakeem defensively in anyone's mind but yours. Just read these thread and look at the opinions of your own fellow Spurs fans, who don't even say anything that ludicrous and self-evident.

I noticed you cant provide anything resembling a reasonable argument for why the same media who consistently have Duncan at or near the top of MVP voting Do NOT have him in the top of Defensive Player of the Year voting. Maybe because they aren't Spurs fans?!

Do you not understand that beating out PF's and SF's for all-defensive teams is a million times easier than beating out guys like David Robinson, Dikembe Mutombo, and ALonzo Mourning for All-defense honors? Duncan did not make All NBA defensive teams at CENTER.

Also, explain to me how the hell u know nba coaches would take exception to Duncan being considered a good defender, but not in the class of Hakeem, Russell, DRob, Scottie, MJ, etc. He pretty clearly wasn't.

[JamStone]

If your bottom line is that Wilt Chamberlain was never as good as Duncan is, then you're a blubbering idiot for starting this whole discussion that Wilt Chamberlain (as well as Bill Russell) couldn't dominate in today's NBA.

So, now that you're back up against a wall, you throw out, well, he's not better than Duncan. Well, who the hell is better than Duncan.

You fucking went from "Wilt couldn't dominate in today's game" to "well he's not better than Duncan."

Newsflash, there aren't many big men in the history of the game that are better than Duncan, maybe none. But, that doesn't mean they can't play in today's game.

That comment clinched it for me. I'm done.

You essentially proved you're just a complete dumbass.

How do you go from questioning Wilt's strength and skill set to play in today's NBA and then resort to the notion that he's not better than Duncan? Not being better than Duncan in no way means he couldn't be a superstar in today's game.

LOL ... so stupid ...

[mavs>spurs2]

If your bottom line is that Wilt Chamberlain was never as good as Duncan is, then you're a blubbering idiot for starting this whole discussion that Wilt Chamberlain (as well as Bill Russell) couldn't dominate in today's NBA.

So, now that you're back up against a wall, you throw out, well, he's not better than Duncan. Well, who the hell is better than Duncan.

You fucking went from "Wilt couldn't dominate in today's game" to "well he's not better than Duncan."

Newsflash, there aren't many big men in the history of the game that are better than Duncan, maybe none. But, that doesn't mean they can't play in today's game.

That comment clinched it for me. I'm done.

You essentially proved you're just a complete dumbass.

How do you go from questioning Wilt's strength and skill set to play in today's NBA and then resort to the notion that he's not better than Duncan? Not being better than Duncan in no way means he couldn't be a superstar in today's game.

LOL ... so stupid ...

What are you not understanding? Wilt and Russell dominated the league against smaller, less athletic players. They dominated because of these huge advantages, they were way ahead of their time in those areas. But don't get that confused with skill. In a league where everybody is just as big, strong, as they are, if not more, they wouldn't succeed with the skills they had. Wilt would never get that slow, uncoordinated looking 12 foot turnaround over Hakeem. It would get swatted into the 7th row. Russell would never get his own rebound 2-3 times in a row over Shaq. They might, still be good, no way to tell for sure. But i can assure you Wilt would never put up 100, grab 50 rebounds, etc. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson, even Ewing would get the better of them. Maybe even guys like Amare and KG, there's really no sure fire way to know. All I can do is look at the old film and i'm just not impressed.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

What are you not understanding? Wilt and Russell dominated the league against smaller, less athletic players. They dominated because of these huge advantages, they were way ahead of their time in those areas. But don't get that confused with skill. In a league where everybody is just as big, strong, as they are, if not more, they wouldn't succeed with the skills they had. Wilt would never get that slow, uncoordinated looking 12 foot turnaround over Hakeem. It would get swatted into the 7th row. Russell would never get his own rebound 2-3 times in a row over Shaq. They might, still be good, no way to tell for sure. But i can assure you Wilt would never put up 100, grab 50 rebounds, etc. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson, even Ewing would get the better of them. Maybe even guys like Amare and KG, there's really no sure fire way to know. All I can do is look at the old film and i'm just not impressed.


You're going in all different directions on this thread so let me address your last post. Your takes on Wilt and Russell competing in this era are convoluted and totally lacking merit. Even the casual observer would concede that no one is likely to put up 100 and 50, although DRob once came close against the Clippers with 71 points to win the scoring title back in 93-94.

Wilt and Russell, especially Wilt were freaks of nature. Given today's advances in sports medicine and training they would be even more athletic and skilled then they were when they played. I think that assumption is a given. To think that they couldn't compete with Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing is asinine. Would they be as dominant today as they were in their day, probably not. To think that they wouldn't have as many all star and MVP titles as Shaq and company is just plain wrong.

We know you're not impressed with Wilt and Russell, and that's ok, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But are you just going with gut instinct or do you have some type of empirical data to support your indefensible position?

I'm not going to say that they would be better then Shaq and company, but let me be clear on this imho, they would be as good as them. If you tried to share your assertion with anyone else besides your friends at ST, they'd laugh in your face. Let it die. :toast

[upTD]

Wow, Duncan was able to put up the same #'s on JR Reid/Robert Horry/100 yr old Horace Grant as Shaq was on David Robinson, a top 50 all time player.

I guess that proves everything.

I vividly remember in the 2002 series Duncan struggling badly in the 4th quarters of every playoff game when the Lakers switched Shaq to guard TD.

Duncan has absolutely never dominated or outplayed Shaq head to head. As mentioned before, Shaq has publically admitted to getting outplayed by Hakeem in the 95 Finals. Anyone who actually saw that series knows that is simply the way it went, Hakeem making the key plays in that series where a young Shaq wasn't seasoned enough to make them.

You telling me SHaq didn't SEVERELY outplay Duncan in the 2001 playoffs? Duncan was awful that series against LA, neutralized by Robert Horry. I believe one game he was held to single digit points. He had 1 good game that series, and 3 awful ones.

AGain in the 04 playoffs, Duncan was really frustrated by Karl Malone's defense. If you think Duncan dominated the Lakers in the 2001, 2002, and 2004 series or outplayed Shaq, you are even crazier than your largely incoherent posts of drivel suggest. Yes, in 99 he had a great series against the Lakers awesome PF combination of JR Reid and Robert Horry.

Why is Hakeem guarding Shaq relevant? Because when Houston played Orlando or LA they knew Hakeem was their best option on O'Neal.

Duncan never had to face this responsbility; if he did he wouldnt have been as successfull offensively, period. He's just lucky he's been on teams where this option was actually available.

And you can cry about it all you want and try to spin, but Duncan is just not considered on the level of Hakeem defensively in anyone's mind but yours. Just read these thread and look at the opinions of your own fellow Spurs fans, who don't even say anything that ludicrous and self-evident.

I noticed you cant provide anything resembling a reasonable argument for why the same media who consistently have Duncan at or near the top of MVP voting Do NOT have him in the top of Defensive Player of the Year voting. Maybe because they aren't Spurs fans?!

Do you not understand that beating out PF's and SF's for all-defensive teams is a million times easier than beating out guys like David Robinson, Dikembe Mutombo, and ALonzo Mourning for All-defense honors? Duncan did not make All NBA defensive teams at CENTER.

Also, explain to me how the hell u know nba coaches would take exception to Duncan being considered a good defender, but not in the class of Hakeem, Russell, DRob, Scottie, MJ, etc. He pretty clearly wasn't.

and Shaq said recently that just Russell and Wilt were better than he. where were Hakeem?

[mystargtr34]

Instead of comparing players by statistics using raw numbers, we should look at PER's. They take into account per minute production and also takes into account team pace and other factors so guys like Shawn Marion who average 20-10 for a run and gun team like the Suns dont have their production over inflated.

All of Duncan's San Antonio teams have played at a slow pace, especially the 90's and early 00's teams. This means he will have less chance for points and shots on offense and rebounds blocks steals etc on defense. This is why PER is the best stat to use when comparing players.

Hakeem (Age 22) PER - 21.1
Duncan (Age 21) PER - 22.6

Hakeem (Age 23) PER - 24.2
Duncan (Age 22) PER - 23.2

Hakeem (Age 24) PER - 23.8
Duncan (Age 23) PER - 24.8

Hakeem (Age 25) PER - 23.4
Duncan (Age 24) PER - 23.8

Hakeem (Age 26) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 25) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 27) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 26) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 28) PER - 24.1
Duncan (Age 27) PER - 26.9

Hakeem (Age 29) PER - 24.3
Duncan (Age 28) PER - 27.1

Hakeem (Age 30) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 29) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 31) PER - 23.7
Duncan (Age 30) PER - 27.0
OK i think i stuffed some up in terms of age but you get my point.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=olajuha01&y1=1989&p2=duncati01&y2=2002

Obviously PER isnt the be-all-end-all, but your statictical output will be affected by how many possessions your team has. Obviously Hakeem's Rockets played at a much faster pace than Duncan's Spurs thus there were more shots put up (more chances at shot/free throw attempts aswell as rebounds blocks steals etc) because Hakeem's numbers were a little better than Duncan's, yet when adjusted for team pace, Duncan actually had better numbers than Hakeem. And well, theres the minor part about having double the amount of titles as Hakeem.

[ambchang]

You're a dumbass. I am 5'11 and can almost get a foot above the rim with a 35 inch vertical. Vince Carter is 6ft 5, has a 48 inch vert, and I have seen him get head and shoulders above the rim. Wilt would have his entire upper body above the rim if his vertical was really as high as VCs, given that he was 8 inches taller.
A rim is 10' above ground. If you are 5'11" and has a 35" jump, that would add up to 106", which is less than 120" (10 feet). You can have your arm over the rim, and you can get higher with a running jump, but I fail to see how you can "get a foot above the rim".
It's simple mathematics, sure beats your testimonial evidence.

[ambchang]

And my arguement wasn't so much that Wilt and Bill weren't athletic, it was that they were the only 2 athletic players in a totally different era. They were ahead of their time, dominating a bunch of short unathletic white guys in short shorts. (a bit of an exaggeration)

And yet you said:


Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

[ambchang]

I do have arms. Long arms. My wingspan is that of a 6ft 2 person. My reach is 7ft 6.

7ft6 + 35 inches = 10 foot 5 inches.

And that's just flat footed, common sense tells you a running start allows you to jump alot higher.

fuck off
And yet I fail to understand how your arm could have your whole body a foot above rim.
And how Wilt could have his whole upper body above the rim.

[TheAuthority]

:lol What do cell phones and cars have to do with basketball? We are talking BASKETBALL here, try to stay on topic. Bottom line is Bill and Wilt were both the greatest two players in their respective times, but wouldn't make it in today's league. Neither IMO deserve to be in the same class as Duncan or Olajuwon.

That is nuts. Do you know nothing of basketball? Do you know how hard it is to win as many championships as Russell did? Regardless of era. Wilt had an insane amount of skill and athleticism for a man his size. I agree the competition might have been a little weaker, but that is trivial. The man scored 100 points. He averaged 50 points per game in a season. Both Russell and Wilt are head and shoulders above Hakeem and Duncan(for now). There is no debating that.

And for whatever idiots were saying Horry dominated Duncan in the 2001 playoffs, here are Duncan's statlines.

PTS/BLK/AST/RBD
28 5 6 14
40 4 3 15
9 4 7 13
15 4 1 7

Yeah, 23 points per game is really shutting him down. I've got to tell you. Completely on lockdown. :lmao

[TheAuthority]

Instead of comparing players by statistics using raw numbers, we should look at PER's. They take into account per minute production and also takes into account team pace and other factors so guys like Shawn Marion who average 20-10 for a run and gun team like the Suns dont have their production over inflated.

All of Duncan's San Antonio teams have played at a slow pace, especially the 90's and early 00's teams. This means he will have less chance for points and shots on offense and rebounds blocks steals etc on defense. This is why PER is the best stat to use when comparing players.

Hakeem (Age 22) PER - 21.1
Duncan (Age 21) PER - 22.6

Hakeem (Age 23) PER - 24.2
Duncan (Age 22) PER - 23.2

Hakeem (Age 24) PER - 23.8
Duncan (Age 23) PER - 24.8

Hakeem (Age 25) PER - 23.4
Duncan (Age 24) PER - 23.8

Hakeem (Age 26) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 25) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 27) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 26) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 28) PER - 24.1
Duncan (Age 27) PER - 26.9

Hakeem (Age 29) PER - 24.3
Duncan (Age 28) PER - 27.1

Hakeem (Age 30) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 29) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 31) PER - 23.7
Duncan (Age 30) PER - 27.0
OK i think i stuffed some up in terms of age but you get my point.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=olajuha01&y1=1989&p2=duncati01&y2=2002

Obviously PER isnt the be-all-end-all, but your statictical output will be affected by how many possessions your team has. Obviously Hakeem's Rockets played at a much faster pace than Duncan's Spurs thus there were more shots put up (more chances at shot/free throw attempts aswell as rebounds blocks steals etc) because Hakeem's numbers were a little better than Duncan's, yet when adjusted for team pace, Duncan actually had better numbers than Hakeem. And well, theres the minor part about having double the amount of titles as Hakeem.

Nice post. Really sheds some light on the topic. I think this should be an end-of-discussion post. Not only has Duncan won more, but he also now has better statistical backing, which originally wasn't even a strong point in the pro-Duncan campaign.

[JamStone]

And for whatever idiots were saying Horry dominated Duncan in the 2001 playoffs, here are Duncan's statlines.

PTS/BLK/AST/RBD
28 5 6 14
40 4 3 15
9 4 7 13
15 4 1 7

Yeah, 23 points per game is really shutting him down. I've got to tell you. Completely on lockdown. :lmao

I didn't see who said that, but you might concede that it looks like Horry did a pretty good job on Duncan in games 3 and 4. And, game 3 was the game in which Horry played the most in that series, the same game Duncan went 3-for-14 from the field. Perhaps overall, Duncan still played well. But, even for one game, someone might remember that one game and be justified in claiming Horry defended him well.

[gtownspur]

Bobby Joe has been devestated. He's tearing up his Tigerbeat posters of Hakeem Olajuwon.

[polandprzem]

I didn't see who said that, but you might concede that it looks like Horry did a pretty good job on Duncan in games 3 and 4. And, game 3 was the game in which Horry played the most in that series, the same game Duncan went 3-for-14 from the field. Perhaps overall, Duncan still played well. But, even for one game, someone might remember that one game and be justified in claiming Horry defended him well.
Well the spurs were nothing those two games that was simple execution :hang
So no surprise one of their players had such low stats.

[bobbyjoe]

That is nuts. Do you know nothing of basketball? Do you know how hard it is to win as many championships as Russell did? Regardless of era. Wilt had an insane amount of skill and athleticism for a man his size. I agree the competition might have been a little weaker, but that is trivial. The man scored 100 points. He averaged 50 points per game in a season. Both Russell and Wilt are head and shoulders above Hakeem and Duncan(for now). There is no debating that.

And for whatever idiots were saying Horry dominated Duncan in the 2001 playoffs, here are Duncan's statlines.

PTS/BLK/AST/RBD
28 5 6 14
40 4 3 15
9 4 7 13
15 4 1 7

Yeah, 23 points per game is really shutting him down. I've got to tell you. Completely on lockdown. :lmao


So averaging 12 ppg in the final 2 closeout games of a series is good with your team's season on the line? My, the standards are low here for Duncan.

You also conveniently exclude the FG% and FT% that series. Duncan shot just terribly in both games in LA.

So basically, he had one great game in Game 2, one good game in Game 1, and 2 brutal games in 3 and 4. Is that a good series? Is that how low the bar is?

[bobbyjoe]

Well the spurs were nothing those two games that was simple execution :hang
So no surprise one of their players had such low stats.

So when the Spurs team plays well and wins, Duncan gets assigned all the credit, so much so that in any comparison with all time greats it's Duncan's 4 championships, not the Spurs.

But when he gets shut down by Robert Horry, averaging 12 ppg in the final 2 games of his team's season when his team needed him to step up to extend the series, it's not on him, but his team? I see.

News flash: Guys like Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, etc don't average 12 ppg on sub 40% shooting in Games 3 of 4 of a series with their teams facing elimination right smack in the middle of their primes, especially when matched up with undersized defenders like Horry.

If Duncan struggled this much with Horry, how do you think he'd fare banging with Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson game after game in the 90's?!

[bobbyjoe]

Instead of comparing players by statistics using raw numbers, we should look at PER's. They take into account per minute production and also takes into account team pace and other factors so guys like Shawn Marion who average 20-10 for a run and gun team like the Suns dont have their production over inflated.

All of Duncan's San Antonio teams have played at a slow pace, especially the 90's and early 00's teams. This means he will have less chance for points and shots on offense and rebounds blocks steals etc on defense. This is why PER is the best stat to use when comparing players.

Hakeem (Age 22) PER - 21.1
Duncan (Age 21) PER - 22.6

Hakeem (Age 23) PER - 24.2
Duncan (Age 22) PER - 23.2

Hakeem (Age 24) PER - 23.8
Duncan (Age 23) PER - 24.8

Hakeem (Age 25) PER - 23.4
Duncan (Age 24) PER - 23.8

Hakeem (Age 26) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 25) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 27) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 26) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 28) PER - 24.1
Duncan (Age 27) PER - 26.9

Hakeem (Age 29) PER - 24.3
Duncan (Age 28) PER - 27.1

Hakeem (Age 30) PER - 25.2
Duncan (Age 29) PER - 27.0

Hakeem (Age 31) PER - 23.7
Duncan (Age 30) PER - 27.0
OK i think i stuffed some up in terms of age but you get my point.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=olajuha01&y1=1989&p2=duncati01&y2=2002

Obviously PER isnt the be-all-end-all, but your statictical output will be affected by how many possessions your team has. Obviously Hakeem's Rockets played at a much faster pace than Duncan's Spurs thus there were more shots put up (more chances at shot/free throw attempts aswell as rebounds blocks steals etc) because Hakeem's numbers were a little better than Duncan's, yet when adjusted for team pace, Duncan actually had better numbers than Hakeem. And well, theres the minor part about having double the amount of titles as Hakeem.

The problem with this is 3 fold:

1) It completely neglects to factor in quality of competition, which was clearly far superior in Olajuwon's era. Had Duncan played in that era, he would have faced much tougher and more phsyical defenders, which would adversely impact his scoring output and FG%. PER does not account for one era having tougher competition than another. Many believe that while Wilt and Russell would still be great in today's NBA, they wouldn't dominate to the extent they did in their day. Something like this is never considered in PER because you are comparing one era to another, with no adjustments for the different conditions in that era.

Also, a player with superior teammates (as Duncan had relative to Hakeem's casts on balance over his careers) will find the going easier offensively in terms of shooting efficiency (better looks due to better ball movement and less collapsing), assists, etc. You think Malone didn't benefit greatly from playing with a PG like Stockton who got him so many easy looks? PER won't tell you that.

2) You also only consider regular season PER, when Olajuwon had a higher playoff PER

3) PER doesn't account for defense, aside from just the factors of defense which are quantifiable like blocks and steals. Altered shots, intimidation in the lane, and pass deflections to disrupt offensive timing are not considered. Thus, great defensive players like Hakeem dont see a translation from their oncourt defensive impact into a higher PER score. When Amare dumps 38 a game on TD in 2005, that doesnt count against his PER, but it hurts the Spurs.

PER as you point out is not something you use as a be all, end-all. It has a ton of flaws Do you consider Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, and Dwayne Wade superior to Tim Duncan statistically? ALL had higher PER averages than Duncan last year.

I think if you took a poll on here, most Spurs fans would pick Tim over David Robinson. Well, guess what? David has a higher Career PER than Timmy. In fact, David Robinson has a higher PER than Wilt Chamberlain, Hakeem, Tim, and Kareem. According to PER, Larry Bird is only the 18th best player of all time...etc, etc.

PER is not the best stat to use comparing players, because it leads to some ridiculous conclusions as you see above. Guys like Wade and Yao did not have better seasons than Duncan in 2006, regardless of what some formula tells you.

You point out that Shawn Marion's stats are inflated because he's on a team that runs more. Well, a great part of that is that Marion is a terrific open court player. Trying to normalize for this aspect by saying "well, he's on a team that runs more" completely ignores the WHY part of the equation. The Suns wouldn't be able to run more if they didnt have guys like Marion who are so adept at running the court, filling lanes, and finishing. Marion's skill set adds value to the Suns, as much as something as flawed as PER tries to minimize it.

[gtownspur]

So when the Spurs team plays well and wins, Duncan gets assigned all the credit, so much so that in any comparison with all time greats it's Duncan's 4 championships, not the Spurs.

But when he gets shut down by Robert Horry, averaging 12 ppg in the final 2 games of his team's season when his team needed him to step up to extend the series, it's not on him, but his team? I see.

News flash: Guys like Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, etc don't average 12 ppg on sub 40% shooting in Games 3 of 4 of a series with their teams facing elimination right smack in the middle of their primes, especially when matched up with undersized defenders like Horry.

If Duncan struggled this much with Horry, how do you think he'd fare banging with Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson game after game in the 90's?!

When you have Danny ferry and Terry Porter, Malik Rose as your offensive power, Hakeem would have been shutdown aswell.

But Duncan faced Shaq, Malone, Both Wallaces, and stared them down. In Duncan's rookie season, he pwned Malone.


Bobby Joe, must you putdown Duncan to raise up Hakeem.

The best PF of all time?

After all PF is a Post position.

[gtownspur]

The problem with this is 3 fold:

1) It completely neglects to factor in quality of competition, which was clearly far superior in Olajuwon's era. Had Duncan played in that era, he would have faced much tougher and more phsyical defenders, which would adversely impact his scoring output and FG%. PER does not account for one era having tougher competition than another. Many believe that while Wilt and Russell would still be great in today's NBA, they wouldn't dominate

Far superior? Keep dreaming. Duncan's West > Hakeem's West.

And btw, in Hakeems prime, the East was besting the west. In Duncan's time the opposite.
2) You also only consider regular season PER, when Olajuwon had a higher playoff PER

3) PER doesn't account for defense, aside from just the factors of defense which are quantifiable like blocks and steals. Altered shots, intimidation in the lane, and pass deflections to disrupt offensive timing are not considered. Thus, great defensive players like Hakeem dont see a translation from their oncourt defensive impact into a higher PER score. When Amare dumps 38 a game on TD in 2005, that doesnt count against his PER, but it hurts the Spurs.

When Bobbyjoe chooses to ignore the gameplan the spurs had in 2005 in letting Amare go off, while ignoring Amare's disappearance this playoffs, you get nothing but spin.

PER as you point out is not something you use as a be all, end-all. It has a ton of flaws Do you consider Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, and Dwayne Wade superior to Tim Duncan statistically? ALL had higher PER averages than Duncan last year.

And Hakeem.

I think if you took a poll on here, most Spurs fans would pick Tim over David Robinson. Well, guess what? David has a higher Career PER than Timmy. In fact, David Robinson has a higher PER than Wilt Chamberlain, Hakeem, Tim, and Kareem. According to PER, Larry Bird is only the 18th best player of all time...etc, etc.

Don't blame the stats bobby joe when it suits you, and then turn around and use them to edify your defensive prowess arguments.

PER is not the best stat to use comparing players, because it leads to some ridiculous conclusions as you see above. Guys like Wade and Yao did not have better seasons than Duncan in 2006, regardless of what some formula tells you.

That's why Spurfan uses championships as the best meter.

[bobbyjoe]

I am not putting Duncan down. I consider him a top 10-12 all time NBA player, just behind Olajuwon and O'Neal.

Everything is relative. Relative to all the PF's ever, Duncan is #1. Relative to the top 4 or 5 Centers ever, I just dont think he's there.

Didnt Duncan's Spurs lose to the Jazz in the playoffs in his rookie season after they beat the Suns in the first round? How did he own Malone? (not that I dont agree Duncan is the best PF ever and > Malone, because I think that is fairly obvious).

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem wasn't in the league this year. The PER rankings I gave you were for the 2006-2007 season.

In your opinion, did Duncan have inferior seasons this past year to Wade, Dirk, and Yao?

Was Duncan a better playoff performer or Amare? (Amare had the highest playoff PER in the nba this postseason).

If your answers are no, you are conceding that PER is absolutely not the single best way to compare players statistically.

[mavs>spurs2]

So when the Spurs team plays well and wins, Duncan gets assigned all the credit, so much so that in any comparison with all time greats it's Duncan's 4 championships, not the Spurs.

But when he gets shut down by Robert Horry, averaging 12 ppg in the final 2 games of his team's season when his team needed him to step up to extend the series, it's not on him, but his team? I see.

News flash: Guys like Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, etc don't average 12 ppg on sub 40% shooting in Games 3 of 4 of a series with their teams facing elimination right smack in the middle of their primes, especially when matched up with undersized defenders like Horry.

If Duncan struggled this much with Horry, how do you think he'd fare banging with Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson game after game in the 90's?!

Might as well give it up, its a Spurs board they will never concede that Hakeem> Duncan untill hell freezes over. Duncan is God in their eyes, take your arguement to another board and see the difference in opinions. Just quietly laugh and know that you know the truth.

[gtownspur]

Might as well give it up, its a Spurs board they will never concede that Hakeem> Duncan untill hell freezes over. Duncan is God in their eyes, take your arguement to another board and see the difference in opinions. Just quietly laugh and know that you know the truth.


Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes. :smokin

[gtownspur]

Might as well give it up, its a Spurs board they will never concede that Hakeem> Duncan untill hell freezes over. Duncan is God in their eyes, take your arguement to another board and see the difference in opinions. Just quietly laugh and know that you know the truth.


BTw, this is coming from the same fans that once declared dirk would eclipse duncan.

[gtownspur]

I guarantee you duncan wouldn't have lost to the sonics in 96.

[bobbyjoe]

Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes. :smokin

Did you bother reading the takes from the links on the first page of this thread?

They are from Inside Hoops and other neutral NBA fan forums. The opinions are decidedly pro-Hakeem. Decidedly.

As are the opinions of Mario Elie and Robert Horry, teammates of both greats.

Of course when you are in complete denial, I guess none of it matters.

Why do most non-Spurs fan pick Hakeem here, ever thought about that?

[bobbyjoe]

I guarantee you duncan wouldn't have lost to the sonics in 96.

Lol. OK. I guess that settles it all.

[mavs>spurs2]

Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes. :smokin

Nah, a neutral sports board would do just fine. And I don't know why mav fans would be biased, Hakeem never played for us.

[mavs>spurs2]

BTw, this is coming from the same fans that once declared dirk would eclipse duncan.

Never came out of my mouth, but thanks for the generalization.

[gtownspur]

Nah, a neutral sports board would do just fine. And I don't know why mav fans would be biased, Hakeem never played for us.


I don't know, just ask the mavfan that had the words "Duncan Sucks" under his moniker, or read mavtalk, or talk to a DFW sports fan.

[gtownspur]

Never came out of my mouth, but thanks for the generalization.


Dude, there were mavfans this past year claiming Devin Harris would eclipse parker in his career.

[gtownspur]

Even though that had nothing to do with the present argument, i thought it would be funny to point that out.

Oh, and historians will remember Duncan over Hakeem.

[polandprzem]

Hmm

As I look at those games from the 90s I can see the centers had more freedome.
But maybe I see that way diferently I don't know.

Another aspect.
You play against a team not a player.

[polandprzem]

And why Olajuwon was so static on offense?

Was he setting any picks on permieter?

Most those picks are made by Thorpe and Hakeem stands on low block most of the time sometimes changing side of the box and when do he gets screens from others (the most common play in 80s)

[ambchang]

Might as well give it up, its a Spurs board they will never concede that Hakeem> Duncan untill hell freezes over. Duncan is God in their eyes, take your arguement to another board and see the difference in opinions. Just quietly laugh and know that you know the truth.
Neither do we agree that it is possible that a 7' man can have most of his upper body making up 1', while the other 6' is made up of his lower body.

[ambchang]

Did you bother reading the takes from the links on the first page of this thread?

They are from Inside Hoops and other neutral NBA fan forums. The opinions are decidedly pro-Hakeem. Decidedly.

As are the opinions of Mario Elie and Robert Horry, teammates of both greats.

Of course when you are in complete denial, I guess none of it matters.

Why do most non-Spurs fan pick Hakeem here, ever thought about that?

The problem is that it was not true, yes, most people took Hakeem over Duncan, and I actually agree with them in terms of individual talent, but it is not as lopsided as you suggested (or at least as I take from reading your posts):


Anyway this is a tough choice, both guys were/are excellent players. If I had to choose one or the other based upon their achievements, then obviously Duncan would be the first choice. 2 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 finals MVPs and a potential 4th championship and 4th finals MVP. Compared to Hakeem's 1 MVP, 2 championships and 2 finals MVPs.

Both guys excell(ed) at all aspects of the game. But if I had to choose based on what the player done on the hardwood I would take Hakeem. An aray of low post spins, fakes, passes and fade-away's to dazzle the oponent made Hakeem pretty much unstoppable down low.


Sorry guys, but as great a player as Hakeem is, its not close. Lets review the scorecard:


these 2 players are so similar

This one is probably biased:

Duncan is the millenium version of hakeem. in Duncans first few years he was just as fast as hakeem was and he has also maintained that level of excellence over a long career like hakeem. the similarities are very parallel.


Since Hakeem is a bit overrated on ISH (people still insist he should be ranked higher than Shaq on all time list... LOL WTF. shaq surpassed Hakeem like 6 years ago)

I think this thread will be overwhelmingly in Hakeem's favor with 90% sayign "Hakeem and it's not even close".

Well they'd br wrong.

Cause first, it is VERY close, and second, Duncan will probably retire with the highest regular season win average/% and 4-5 rings....


both are legends, but duncans career is much more dominant than hakeems 2-3 years of dominance.

tim duncan got his rings against the prime shaq/kobe duo. hakeem never even got his chance to go against jordan.

4 rings > 2 rings.


And so on, you get the picture.

[bobbyjoe]

You read the thread right?

I'd say for everyone who voted Duncan, 2-3 voted for Hakeem. You dont consider that lopsided?

[[email protected]]

i was looking at youtube.they say tim duncan is a freaking baby.

[bobbyjoe]

I guarantee you duncan wouldn't have lost to the sonics in 96.

BTW, The 96 Sonics were a 67-15 team.

Can you name me one time in Duncan's NBA history he beat a team with 67 wins?









That's what I thought...

[ambchang]

You read the thread right?

I'd say for everyone who voted Duncan, 2-3 voted for Hakeem. You dont consider that lopsided?

I did, but I also considered the quality of the responses.

For somebody who came in and simply posted "No", vs. somebody who posted some rationale behind their decision, I would take the later as a more "serious" vote.

Hakeem got better stats at face value, but after taking into account pace factor, Duncan's stat does look slightly better.

Hakeem is much quicker, much more agile, and have much better individual defense (I would argue team defense as well), but Duncan is no slouch in any of them, and does in fact, lead very different teams to championships.

Hakeem had crappy teams, but part of it is because he was basically quitting his team in the late 80's early 90's (trade demands and such). In fact, the Rockets went on a tear after Hakeem broke his eye socket. He eventually became more of a team guy, but Hakeem wasn't even the clear-cut #1 center in the league for much of his career. Other than 94 and 95, either Robinson or Ewing were considered the #1 center, and if you can't beat out Robinson and Ewing in all but two years of your career, how can you beat out Duncan over an 11 year span?

[ambchang]

BTW, The 96 Sonics were a 67-15 team.

Can you name me one time in Duncan's NBA history he beat a team with 67 wins?

That's what I thought...

You probably had them mixed up with somebody else, the Sonics won 64 games that year.

And the Mavs won 67 games this year and got kicked out in the first round. I actually think the Spurs lucked out without having to play Dallas and Phoenix back to back because of it, but 67 wins may not translate into postseason success every time.

BTW, Duncan did beat 3-time reigning champ Lakers, and forced them to take a drastic change in direction that ended a dynasty in the making.

Not like Hakeem did that.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

BTW, The 96 Sonics were a 67-15 team.

Can you name me one time in Duncan's NBA history he beat a team with 67 wins?

That's what I thought...

I think the 96 Sonics were 64-18 but they lost to a 72-10 Bulls team led by a rejuvenated Michael Jordan, no shame in that. And since Duncan's Spurs have never lost an NBA finals, not sure what you're getting at. I think you're twisting facts to suit your argument. That's like someone saying you've never done the dirty with Jessica Alba therefore your track record with women is somewhat less then stellar. See how that works. You bring some damn good stats, facts, suppositions to the table but then you're picking and choosing them to reinforce and support your take that Dream > The Big Fundamental. You may sincerely believe that, no shocker, it's not like you're going out on a limb. I believe otherwise, but that's just me. But guess what, it's too close to call. If the experts are divided on this issue, why would a fan's take hold any more credibility?


Now the mavs fan, I'm just assuming he has a hidden agenda and may be a little bitter that his franchise has never sniffed an NBA championship. Jealousy and envy may be rearing it's ugly head.

[skinnypotbelly]

Hakeem had crappy teams, but part of it is because he was basically quitting his team in the late 80's early 90's (trade demands and such). In fact, the Rockets went on a tear after Hakeem broke his eye socket. He eventually became more of a team guy, but Hakeem wasn't even the clear-cut #1 center in the league for much of his career. Other than 94 and 95, either Robinson or Ewing were considered the #1 center, and if you can't beat out Robinson and Ewing in all but two years of your career, how can you beat out Duncan over an 11 year span?

I'm sorry but thats just not true. Hakeem's teams were crappy because of drug suspensions and injuries. This article can explain it much better than I can: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/3663271.html

[bobbyjoe]

You probably had them mixed up with somebody else, the Sonics won 64 games that year.

And the Mavs won 67 games this year and got kicked out in the first round. I actually think the Spurs lucked out without having to play Dallas and Phoenix back to back because of it, but 67 wins may not translate into postseason success every time.

BTW, Duncan did beat 3-time reigning champ Lakers, and forced them to take a drastic change in direction that ended a dynasty in the making.

Not like Hakeem did that.

There's a lot of spin here.

1) Duncan's Spurs did beat the 3 time reigning champs in 2003. True. They also lost to them in 2001, 2002, and 2004. The 01 and 02 series, the Lakers took 8 out of 9 games against SA.

2) Saying the loss in 03 "drastically changed the direction" of the Lakers is ridiculous. It changed it so drastically that the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 straight playoff games the very next year? The Lakers were broken up after 2004 due to Kobe-Shaq squabbles. It obviously wasn't because of a team they beat that very same year in the playoffs.

3) As for "not like Hakeem did that" it's already been noted that in his 2nd season Olajuwon led the Rockets past a 62 win Showtime Lakers team in the middle of a run in which it won the NBA Finals 5 times in 8 years in the West Finals. This accomplishment is actually far better than what Duncan's Spurs pulled off because Hakeem didnt lose to the Lakers over and over before finally getting over the hump (ala Duncan) and those Showtime Lakers were a much better team than Kobe-Shaq. Kobe-Shaq had a great 3 yr run in a diluted league, Kareem-Magic-Worthy had a decade long run in the Golden Era of the NBA.

This also flies in the face of your erroneous and flat out ridiculous contention that Hakeem was "only great for 2 years". If you don't consider leading a team with less talent past one of the all time Great teams in NBA history in only your 2nd season great, you need to take off the homer glasses.

Tell me, did Olajuwon "quit on his teammates" that year?

Your argument is basically that the guy who led the league in blocks 3 times from the late 80's to early 90's, led the league in rebounding 3 straight years, was either first or 2nd team all NBA at Center every year and put up #'s better back then than Duncan has in his prime "quit on his teammates" and that is the reason for the mediocre Rockets records, NOT the fact that 4/5ths of the starters from the team that made the Finals were lost due to drug suspensions and injury? Uhhhhhhhh, ok. Sure.

I'm sure if Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen were all suspended for drug use next year, Duncan is such a God, he'd still lead the team to 60 wins and a Title right?

Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?

[bobbyjoe]

I'm sorry but thats just not true. Hakeem's teams were crappy because of drug suspensions and injuries. This article can explain it much better than I can: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/3663271.html

Wait, I thought it was because Hakeem "quit on his teammates".

Why was that obvious fact excluded from this article?

[ambchang]

I'm sorry but thats just not true. Hakeem's teams were crappy because of drug suspensions and injuries. This article can explain it much better than I can: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/3663271.html
Yes, I am aware of the decline of Ralph Sampson and Lucas, but the fact remains that Hakeem did demand a trade in the late 80's (forgot which year), and the Rockets did go on a tear (13 game winning streak) when at the end of the 90-91 season after Hakeem came back from injury and came off the bench. In the games he missed, the Rockets were something like 14-10.
Hakeem was not always known as a bona-fide Magic/Jordan/Bird level superstar. He wasn't even a Malone / Thomas superstar until he won back to back.

[ambchang]

There's a lot of spin here.

1) Duncan's Spurs did beat the 3 time reigning champs in 2003. True. They also lost to them in 2001, 2002, and 2004. The 01 and 02 series, the Lakers took 8 out of 9 games against SA.

I'd say that's why the Lakers were a borderline dynasty, because they beat really good teams, title-contending teams in fact, in such convincing fashion. It's not like the Spurs lost to them in 03, did they? How was that a spin?



2) Saying the loss in 03 "drastically changed the direction" of the Lakers is ridiculous. It changed it so drastically that the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 straight playoff games the very next year? The Lakers were broken up after 2004 due to Kobe-Shaq squabbles. It obviously wasn't because of a team they beat that very same year in the playoffs.

The 03 and 04 Lakers had 3/5s of their starters changed, how was that not significant? The Lakers beat the Spurs the next year because they changed by adding HoF Malone and Payton to the team. If that is not a drastic change in direction, I don't know what is.
So I suppose if Boston beat any teams in this year's playoffs, they were just staying the course.


3) As for "not like Hakeem did that" it's already been noted that in his 2nd season Olajuwon led the Rockets past a 62 win Showtime Lakers team in the middle of a run in which it won the NBA Finals 5 times in 8 years in the West Finals. This accomplishment is actually far better than what Duncan's Spurs pulled off because Hakeem didnt lose to the Lakers over and over before finally getting over the hump (ala Duncan) and those Showtime Lakers were a much better team than Kobe-Shaq. Kobe-Shaq had a great 3 yr run in a diluted league, Kareem-Magic-Worthy had a decade long run in the Golden Era of the NBA.

In Duncan's 2nd season, Duncan led the Spurs past a Lakers and Blazers to the championship. In his first year, he led the Spurs to 61 wins.
So first, you argued that Duncan is not better than Hakeem even though he had more team success because Duncan got better teammates, but now, you are saying that team success is indicative of Hakeem's greatness despite the Rockets having 4 15 ppg scorers, including Ralph Sampson, who was one of the best big man in the league before he blew out his knee, playing alongside Hakeem in his prime. Make up your mind.


This also flies in the face of your erroneous and flat out ridiculous contention that Hakeem was "only great for 2 years". If you don't consider leading a team with less talent past one of the all time Great teams in NBA history in only your 2nd season great, you need to take off the homer glasses.

Tell me, did Olajuwon "quit on his teammates" that year?

He did peaked unusually high in those two years. If you want to go with statistics, why are you not putting PER into consideration? Is Shaq better than Hakeem because he had better stats despite having significantly worse defense? Is Stockton > Magic because he had more assists?

Hakeem's second year was amazing, but I fail to see how 23.5/11.5/3.5 would be considered so amazing when Duncan had similar numbers for 4 straight seasons.


Your argument is basically that the guy who led the league in blocks 3 times from the late 80's to early 90's, led the league in rebounding 3 straight years, was either first or 2nd team all NBA at Center every year and put up #'s better back then than Duncan has in his prime "quit on his teammates" and that is the reason for the mediocre Rockets records, NOT the fact that 4/5ths of the starters from the team that made the Finals were lost due to drug suspensions and injury? Uhhhhhhhh, ok. Sure.

I'm sure if Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen were all suspended for drug use next year, Duncan is such a God, he'd still lead the team to 60 wins and a Title right?

Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?

The fact that Hakeem demanded a trade in the late 80's, had a huge spat with management about the legitimacy of his injury, did you ever see things like that come up with Duncan?

So when Hakeem's teams had team success (2nd season), it's all because of him, and we can discount Ralph Sampson and John Lucas, when his team sucked, it's because of his teammates. But then when Duncan's team won 4 championships, it's becaues of his superior teammates, but when his team got beaten by a 3-peat championship Lakers, that Lakers team wasn't that good to begin with, and it's all Duncan's fault. This is truly amazing.

So now that Robinson led his team to Game 7 against the Blazers in his rookie year, then hauled his crap of a team to the playoffs every single year, it must mean that Robinson > Hakeem according to your logic, right?
Besides, Robinson did lead the league in blocked shots twice and rebounding twice, and scoring once. He was even top 10 in 5 major statistical category in a season (91-92), he MUST be better than Hakeem now, right?
Since Shaq never led the league in blocks, or rebounds, I guess Manute Bol and Dennis Rodman are better than him, right?

[timmy21_4rings]

In your work who gets more rewards and high ratings? Two choices

1) One that gets job done and has results to prove it.
2) One that some people think has more talent but rarely got the job done and often comes up excuses for some reason.

If your honest answer is 1, Duncan is the winner in our conversation. Otherwise you need to seek help to improve your career.

[timmy21_4rings]

In our life, if we can not succeed in a company there are few reasons. Most important are 1) we do not have real talent 2) we have talent but the people we work with are having less talent or they are not the right people to work with to maximize our potential.

In case 1) we can not do anything just like Hakeem did. Just get the pay check and be happy.
In case 2, if we have talent we would have moved to a better organization. Organization that has better skills in finding right people around you. I do not know why Hakeem did not do it. He could have either forced a trade or changed teams when he was a Free Agent. He really failed to assert himself there by becoming a loser. Saying that Hakeem did not have talented team mates is an excuse. He had chances. He could have tested free agency. Anyone know why he did not do?

In my eyes DUNCAN > Hakeem for a simple reason that Hakeem is ready to tolerate the loses and never bothered to test free agency. Losers always put the blame on something else.

Just see what Duncan did when he was a free agent, he made sure the management knows his frustration and made sure he got the right promises. Otherwise he would have gone to Magic. The most important thing he did was, he signed a shorter contract than he could have got otherwise, so that if management does not bring help immediately, he could always have an option to leave. Do you think Duncan will be with Spurs if they have not brought enough help? No way.

To conclude, Hakeem was happy to be a loser and Duncan had and still has will power to win. So I would always consider Duncan over Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

In your work who gets more rewards and high ratings? Two choices

1) One that gets job done and has results to prove it.
2) One that some people think has more talent but rarely got the job done and often comes up excuses for some reason.

If your honest answer is 1, Duncan is the winner in our conversation. Otherwise you need to seek help to improve your career.

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.

[bobbyjoe]

In our life, if we can not succeed in a company there are few reasons. Most important are 1) we do not have real talent 2) we have talent but the people we work with are having less talent or they are not the right people to work with to maximize our potential.

In case 1) we can not do anything just like Hakeem did. Just get the pay check and be happy.
In case 2, if we have talent we would have moved to a better organization. Organization that has better skills in finding right people around you. I do not know why Hakeem did not do it. He could have either forced a trade or changed teams when he was a Free Agent. He really failed to assert himself there by becoming a loser. Saying that Hakeem did not have talented team mates is an excuse. He had chances. He could have tested free agency. Anyone know why he did not do?

In my eyes DUNCAN > Hakeem for a simple reason that Hakeem is ready to tolerate the loses and never bothered to test free agency. Losers always put the blame on something else.

Just see what Duncan did when he was a free agent, he made sure the management knows his frustration and made sure he got the right promises. Otherwise he would have gone to Magic. The most important thing he did was, he signed a shorter contract than he could have got otherwise, so that if management does not bring help immediately, he could always have an option to leave. Do you think Duncan will be with Spurs if they have not brought enough help? No way.

To conclude, Hakeem was happy to be a loser and Duncan had and still has will power to win. So I would always consider Duncan over Hakeem.

Right, winning 2 titles and getting to the Finals 3 teams is being a loser, whereas winning 4 titles in a much easier field with a much better team around you is just night and day better. Sure.

What makes your argument more ludicrous is that if Duncan's #1 concern was direction of the team, he would have signed with Orlando. He showed loyalty by sticking with SA. What did management tell him exactly? "Tim, we're going to strike gold in the next 2 drafts with the #27th and #30th picks in the first round and get 2 all star caliber guards, just wait and see"

Orlando was the team with the cap $ and making the moves for Grant Hill/TMac/and or Tim Duncan. SA was the team with a declining David Robinson and a lot of over the hill players in Elliott and AJ, the team who's future prognosis was more questionable.

If winning the Finals twice and getting their 3 times and being of the top players in NBA history is defined a loser, you can only wish you were so lucky. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on David Robinson, using the exact logic you use to denigrate Hakeem. Was he like the "Ultimate Loser" using your formula?

[gtownspur]

THe hardest team the Rockets beat were the Knicks, followed by the Robinson Spurs.

THe hardest teams the Spurs beat were, The Threepeat Lakers, and the Dethroning pistons with 5 allstars on their team.

Fuck, if logic won't work with Bobbyjoe, what else would?

[gtownspur]

Lakers > Knicks

SHaq and Kobe >>>>>>> Ewing and Starks

[gtownspur]

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.
A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.


yeah tell that to those ceo's raking in the money.

[timmy21_4rings]

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.

Bobbyjoe,

Employee A is Duncan. Remember 2003 team that has inexperienced young staffs in Manu and Parker. Yeah Parker made lot of mistakes. Duncan still led them to Championship Team. Completed toughest assignment beautifully. Remember the biggest battle: winning series against 3peat Lakers when both stars are at prime.

So even with your logic, Duncan only wins. How is it Bobbyjoe?
where can I find an inexperienced team that Hakeen led to Championship?

[gtownspur]

bobby joe is busy twisting his logic to fit his arguments and googling the latest stats.

[bobbyjoe]

Lakers > Knicks

SHaq and Kobe >>>>>>> Ewing and Starks

Worthy, Magic, and Karem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any team the Spurs have EVER beaten in the Duncan era.

Also, Duncan had a lifetime losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. You know that, right?

The comparison you should be making is

Ewing and Starks >>>> Sprewell and Houston
Bird, Mchale, Parish >>>> Any team Duncan has ever faced

DO you think Duncan would have beaten the 86 Celtics, much less the 86 Lakers? Teams like these were a wee bit tougher than the mighty 2007 Cavs, 1999 Knicks, etc.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

LOL!.

[QUOTE]Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways.

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.


Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?



1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

[bobbyjoe]

THe hardest team the Rockets beat were the Knicks, followed by the Robinson Spurs.

THe hardest teams the Spurs beat were, The Threepeat Lakers, and the Dethroning pistons with 5 allstars on their team.

Fuck, if logic won't work with Bobbyjoe, what else would?

They also beat Malone-Stockton Jazz, u know the same Jazz who beat Duncan 4-1 in 1998 and the same Malone who frustrated Duncan at age 40 when the Lakers beat the Spurs in the playoffs.

Of course you prob think the Boozer-DWill Jazz are much better?

Any reason you left out the perennial 58-60 win Barkley/KJ Suns who gave the Bulls one of the best NBA Finals Ever in 1993 and owned the Robinson Spurs?

Or the Magic with Shaq-Penny who beat MJ in the playoffs?

What makes you think Duncan would have beat Malone in his prime in the 90's if he was 0-2 against an old grey beard Karl Malone in the playoffs?

If anyone knows how good those Jazz teams were, it should be the Spurs. The Jazz flat OWNED Robinson's Spurs, crushing them in the playoffs year after year.

[bobbyjoe]

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.



Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?




I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]Worthy, Magic, and Karem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any team the Spurs have EVER beaten in the Duncan era.

When did they play, I must have missed those games. On paper one can always speculate that one team from one era could have beaten another team from another era, but that's all it is, just speculation. Not trying to be dense here, but doesn't one have to actually play the games, because....


Also, Duncan had a lifetime losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. You know that, right?

......continuing with your logic, had Shaq-Kobe stayed together; chemistry issues, salary cap limitations, an aging Shaq would (and I'm just speculating here) have contributed to a less powerful laker squad where the Spurs would have had an advantage and would still won in 05 and 07. See? You can't have it both ways.




DO you think Duncan would have beaten the 86 Celtics, much less the 86 Lakers? Teams like these were a wee bit tougher than the mighty 2007 Cavs, 1999 Knicks, etc.


I'd take the money and run with the 2007 version and even the 2005 team may have had an even to good chance of beating them. We'll never know because they didn't play.

See what I'm getting at, you can't predicate a players place in history based on imaginary EA Sports games. Sure their fun to play, but ultimately what can it prove?

[bobbyjoe]

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.



Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?




I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

Also, your question about calling the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep shows you didnt follow the original post at all.

The simple minded sheep are those who attribute all of a team's success of which many factors are involved, to one person.

Basketball is not an individual sport. It's a 5 on 5 game where most teams have 8-9 guys playing a night. This is not Golf, where individual dominance always results in a championship.

The sheep are those who say things in say a Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell discussion like "Bill was better because 11>2!". There's a helluva lot more to it than that.

If Duncan is superior to making teammates better than Olajuwon, why did guys like Elie and Horry:

1) Pick Hakeem as the best teammate they ever had
2) Have their best seasons and moments as teammates of Olajuwon, not Duncan

#1 and #2 greatly reffute your theory that Duncan is superior to making teammates better. The only response seems to be "4>2" which has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever...

I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...

[bobbyjoe]

When did they play, I must have missed those games. On paper one can always speculate that one team from one era could have beaten another team from another era, but that's all it is, just speculation. Not trying to be dense here, but doesn't one have to actually play the games, because....



......continuing with your logic, had Shaq-Kobe stayed together; chemistry issues, salary cap limitations, an aging Shaq would (and I'm just speculating here) have contributed to a less powerful laker squad where the Spurs would have had an advantage and would still won in 05 and 07. See? You can't have it both ways.





I'd take the money and run with the 2007 version and even the 2005 team may have had an even to good chance of beating them. We'll never know because they didn't play.

See what I'm getting at, you can't predicate a players place in history based on imaginary EA Sports games. Sure their fun to play, but ultimately what can it prove?

Well, at least you are honest. I mean there isnt one neutral NBA Fan who would say any Spurs team would have a chance against the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

I have never played Tiger Woods in Golf. Does that mean I could maybe beat him just because its purely hypothetical to say I couldnt since I have never faced him?

I mean you are seriously comparing the 2005 and 2007 Spurs to the 86 Celtics? That doesnt even warrant a discussion it's so asinine.

You may as well call Duncan the best athlete in the history of mankind and call it a day...

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

You're going with the style over substance argument here. Hakeem looked flashier, and had the guard like moves, etc. Though Hakeem had marginally better numbers, Duncan didn't need to put up the big numbers because he helped make his teammates better. How did the 2003 team win and win big with such a revamped roster? Tim was was the catalyst.



These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

Yeah, I guess they did and they should know because Elie won one ring with Tim and Horry two. Hakeem in his career has done this twice and Tim four times. You probably know the rosters as well as I do, so the proof is in the pudding. You can make that leap in logic by just know what the composition of the rosters were and what the end results were.

One can argue that if Hakeem would have extended his career, or if Jordan had just stayed out one more year, or if team A would have had some critical injuries that he would have added additional titles.

And one can argue that had Tim not gotten injured in 2000 or if David had not retired, or if Fisher's .04 shot had not gone in, he would have had more then 4 titles. Lots of ifs, ands and buts, but it is what it is and history, real history is all we have to go by.

Peace out

[ambchang]

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

I would have though better footwork, better hops, better defense, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG% are all tangibles, and winning four rings with similar level of talent is where the intangible part comes in, but what do I know? I still can't figure out when it is appropriate to talk strictly about individual stats, and when it is to talk about team success when evaluating players.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

They also beat Malone-Stockton Jazz, u know the same Jazz who beat Duncan 4-1 in 1998 and the same Malone who frustrated Duncan at age 40 when the Lakers beat the Spurs in the playoffs.

Right, right. That was a rookie Tim Duncan going up against a HOF in his prime. And in that series Duncan held his own against Malone. Duncan was part of a team that in the previous year had gone 20-62. Malone at that time had a huge overall team advantage. Incidently in same year when Duncan went up against Barkley, Barkley stated "I have seen the future, and the future is Tim Duncan", paraphrasing here but you get the point. And when Duncan played Malone at age 40, I guess you forgot Malone was playing his best basketball and had a guy by the name of Shaq helping him out against Tim. And by the way from 99-04, Tim had two titles, and Malone still didn't have any. Splain that one Lucy?


Of course you prob think the Boozer-DWill Jazz are much better?

Do you have a link to where anyone said that, or are you just spinning again?


Any reason you left out the perennial 58-60 win Barkley/KJ Suns who gave the Bulls one of the best NBA Finals Ever in 1993 and owned the Robinson Spurs?

Let me know how this has any bearing on the Duncan > Hakeem issue and I can probably tell why I left this out.



Or the Magic with Shaq-Penny who beat MJ in the playoffs?

Really what year was that? Shaq-Penny beat a Jordanless Bulls in 94-95. But in 95-96 when Jordan came back, the Bulls swept the magic.




What makes you think Duncan would have beat Malone in his prime in the 90's if he was 0-2 against an old grey beard Karl Malone in the playoffs?

Again Malone beat a rookie Tim Duncan in 98. Again with Shaq at his side in 04, remember when he sold out to buy a championship and they still got punked by the Pistons. Malone did squat in 99, 01, 02, 03. Tim won a title in 99 and 03. Your old grey beard didn't win a whole lot else.


If anyone knows how good those Jazz teams were, it should be the Spurs. The Jazz flat OWNED Robinson's Spurs, crushing them in the playoffs year after year.

Ok in 98, 96 and 94 the Jazz with two HOF's beat Robinsons Spurs. And your point?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Also, your question about calling the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep shows you didnt follow the original post at all.

I know what you were talking about, but you apparantly didn't agree or follow my answer.



The simple minded sheep are those who attribute all of a team's success of which many factors are involved, to one person.

Bingo, that's what I'm talking about. People who have made this assertion about Tim making everyone around him better are not only his teammates, but his peers, coaches, GM's and the NBA pundits and media alike. I guess they're all sheep.


Basketball is not an individual sport. It's a 5 on 5 game where most teams have 8-9 guys playing a night. This is not Golf, where individual dominance always results in a championship.

And the team that has the best overall team play wins the championship. Simple enough. The best 1-12 often get to be the best 1-12 because people like Duncan, Jordan and Hakeem facilitate the process. Agree?


The sheep are those who say things in say a Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell discussion like "Bill was better because 11>2!". There's a helluva lot more to it than that.

I don't think I've ever heard or read where someone made that claim. Have a link? If they did, they'd be much much worse then a sheep.



If Duncan is superior to making teammates better than Olajuwon, why did guys like Elie and Horry:

1) Pick Hakeem as the best teammate they ever had
2) Have their best seasons and moments as teammates of Olajuwon, not Duncan


1) you have two players who backed up your assertion and everyone is supposed to take that as gospel. Not refuting it, nor diminishing it's relevance.
2) They had the best seasons when they were younger and not role players. I guess you forgot that part.


#1 and #2 greatly reffute your theory that Duncan is superior to making teammates better. The only response seems to be "4>2" which has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever...

4>2 is all that ultimately counts. 50 years from now, who are they going to remember more? The guy from Nigeria who led the Houston Rockets to two NBA titles or the greatest PF who led his Spurs to 4 and counting titles? Tim and Hakeem never played, and I think you'll agree that EA Sports computer games are a poor barometer for determining a players place in history.


I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...

I was aware about Horry's and Elie's comments. I don't think Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Clyde Drexler ever claimed that Hakeem's influence was greater then Tim's. There you go spinning again.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Well, at least you are honest. I mean there isnt one neutral NBA Fan who would say any Spurs team would have a chance against the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

Take a poll and you may be surprised. It's not far fetched that the 05 and 07 version of the Spurs would have done well against the 80's Celts and Lakers. Surprisingly well. And they would have absolutely donkey stomped the 90's Rockets.


I have never played Tiger Woods in Golf. Does that mean I could maybe beat him just because its purely hypothetical to say I couldnt since I have never faced him?

Better make sure you get 8 hrs of sleep and a bowl of wheaties. And if that dream match ever comes up I want a piece of the action. Don't want to hurt your feelings, but my moneys on Tiger. Seriously I think you could have used a better analogy.


I mean you are seriously comparing the 2005 and 2007 Spurs to the 86 Celtics? That doesnt even warrant a discussion it's so asinine.

Ok we won't discuss it, but since I can't prove it, I think they would have held their own. Oh yeah, you can't prove it either. But we can both speculate like mofo's.


You may as well call Duncan the best athlete in the history of mankind and call it a day...

How about if we just leave it as the best Power forward ever!

[ambchang]

I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...
Kenny Smith was the 6th pick of the 87 draft, and averaged 17 ppg in Sacramento. his first season he joined the Rockets, he averaged ..... 17 ppg, then 14, then 13 and the downward spiral continued. Vernon Maxwell was averaging 12 ppg in 26 mpg in SA, then he went to Houston, his minutes went to 35mpg, and averaged 17ppg. I don't have a clue where you would think that they are journeyman before joining the Rockets, that was Smith's 3rd team and Maxwell's 2nd team.
Sean Elliott sucked eggs when he was in Detroit, but an All-star next to Robinson, Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro all had career years when Robinson won MVP, obviously Robinson made his teammates better, but are you going to say Robinson > Hakeem?
Drexler was averaging around 20 ppg in his last few seasons with Portland, he then averaged around 20 ppg after he joined the Rockets in slightly more minutes.
Horry had his best statistical season in Houston by playing 37 mpg and when he was 25 years old, and yet his per 40 minute stats has basically stayed between 9 and 14 ppg.
Elie's situation is essentially the same, where his numbers were only better because he played more minutes. His per 40 minute stats were basically identical to his Houston days.

[bobbyjoe]

Smith played for 6 teams in his 10 year career. After he was separated from Hakeem in Houston at the age of only 30, he only lasted one more year in the NBA, bouncing from team to team before figuring out he wasn't wanted. He never played in the NBA again. What does that tell you about teh value of his playing with Hakeem? How many guards at age 30 are deemed useless by the NBA?

Maxwell was so highly regarded that he was sold by the Spurs for $50,000 cash to Houston.

As for Drexler, his shooting %'s his last 3 year in Portland:
43%
43%
42%

Then after the 95 trade the rest of that season paired with Hakeem he shot 51% from the field and 49% in the playoffs after shooting in the low 40's his 2 previous postseasons with Portland.

I'd call that making your teammates a helluva lot better. How often do you see a guy's efficiency make a huge jump like that in the latter end of their career? You mention his PPG staying the same from Portland to Houston? Well, uh, when your #'s dont decline despite going from the clearcut #1 option to the #2 option behind a 28 ppg scorer I'd say your level of play is clearly increasing.

Also, trying to prorate a guy's minutes who gets 10-15 mins a game like Horry does to 40 minutes is ridiculous. There's going to be a dropoff in productivity when you play longer minutes. If you just prorate a reserve's minutes to 40 mpg guys like Reggie Evans and Dikembe Mutombo become amongts the top rebounding guys in the league when this wouldnt happen if they logged that many minutes.

Again, you conveniently ignore Horry's FG% from the analysis. He shot a much, much higher % from the field paired with Hakeem, due to getting easier looks at the basket from collapsing double and triple teams.

Your Robinson comments are also pointless. Did Robinson make his teammates better? Yes, he did. Did he do so to the extent of a Hakeem or Duncan? Hell freaking no. A dominant postplayer opens the game up for teammates in a much greater fashion than a face up big man like KG or Robinson. Guys like DRob/KG dont have the skill sets to be great postseason players and the proof was in the pudding. Look at how their 2 #'s dropped off so dramatically in postseason play.

[gtownspur]

I totally forgot that hakeem had other perimeters to open up a three for horry.

[ambchang]

Smith played for 6 teams in his 10 year career. After he was separated from Hakeem in Houston at the age of only 30, he only lasted one more year in the NBA, bouncing from team to team before figuring out he wasn't wanted. He never played in the NBA again. What does that tell you about teh value of his playing with Hakeem? How many guards at age 30 are deemed useless by the NBA?

Kenny Smith's career was already on free fall while he was with Houston. And there are plenty of guards who are deemed useless at age 30. Norm Nixon was essentially out of the league by 30, ditto Johnny Dawkins.
Vinny Del Negro's career was similar, only he lasted a few more years because he left SA later than Smith left Houston.
And this still doesn't change the fact that he averaged 17 while he was young and with the Kings.


Maxwell was so highly regarded that he was sold by the Spurs for $50,000 cash to Houston.

Because the Spurs had Willie Anderson, Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland/Maurice Cheeks, and Maxwell is crazy? There was never any doubt about his talent, he's like Artest in that way, just not as extreme.


As for Drexler, his shooting %'s his last 3 year in Portland:
43%
43%
42%

Then after the 95 trade the rest of that season paired with Hakeem he shot 51% from the field and 49% in the playoffs after shooting in the low 40's his 2 previous postseasons with Portland.

I'd call that making your teammates a helluva lot better. How often do you see a guy's efficiency make a huge jump like that in the latter end of their career? You mention his PPG staying the same from Portland to Houston? Well, uh, when your #'s dont decline despite going from the clearcut #1 option to the #2 option behind a 28 ppg scorer I'd say your level of play is clearly increasing.

And then the next few years he shot 43, 44 and 42. Was that because of Hakeem too?
And let's see, if you have a big man givingyou open looks, wouldn't you shoot much much better from 3s? Then why did Drexler shot the same that year before and afterhis trade from Portland? Perhaps another way to look at it was because he had Smith and Maxwell spreading the floor for to open up the driving lanes for him, when Drexler, throughout his career, was known as a penetrating guard, huh?


Also, trying to prorate a guy's minutes who gets 10-15 mins a game like Horry does to 40 minutes is ridiculous. There's going to be a dropoff in productivity when you play longer minutes. If you just prorate a reserve's minutes to 40 mpg guys like Reggie Evans and Dikembe Mutombo become amongts the top rebounding guys in the league when this wouldnt happen if they logged that many minutes.

Again, you conveniently ignore Horry's FG% from the analysis. He shot a much, much higher % from the field paired with Hakeem, due to getting easier looks at the basket from collapsing double and triple teams.

Why was the ridiculous? We all know Horry wouldn'thave the same level of production with long minutes strictly because of stamina, not because of skills. While he was 25 years old, stamina wouldn't be a problem, right? Same with Mutombo, he WAS a top rebounding guy before, and now, he could still do it if his body can hold up.
And of course he shot better when he was with Houston, because he was driving more, and when he got old, he could no longer do it. Want proof? Out of 11.7 FGA in his rookie year, 0.8 of them were 3 pters. His last year in Houston, out of 11.1 FGA, 5.9 were 3 pters, and his FG% went from 47.4 to 41.0. When he was in LA, about 40% of his shots were 3pters, while in SA, the number increased to about 50%.


Your Robinson comments are also pointless. Did Robinson make his teammates better? Yes, he did. Did he do so to the extent of a Hakeem or Duncan? Hell freaking no. A dominant postplayer opens the game up for teammates in a much greater fashion than a face up big man like KG or Robinson. Guys like DRob/KG dont have the skill sets to be great postseason players and the proof was in the pudding. Look at how their 2 #'s dropped off so dramatically in postseason play.

Like how Hakeem spread the floor for Drexler to drive? And how Elliott's 3pt% always hovers around 35 to 40%, except when he was in Detroit, where he shot 30%? And how the Rifleman still had career highs in 3pt% during the tail end of his career? I wonder why ..... maybe because in the postseason, other teams figured, hey, these other guys can't shoot from the outside, just pack the lane, and see how they react.
It worked in every single season against the Spurs, except Robinson's rookie year because he actually had decent teammates that year. It worked against Houston too, until Smith and Maxwell made teams pay.

[bobbyjoe]

Yeah, Maxwell really made teams pay with his sub 40% shooting and low 30% from 3.

Maxwell is the one who opened up the floor for Drexler in 95, not Hakeem.

Oh whoops, Maxwell quit on the team that year and wasn't even on the squad.

Where do you come up with this erroneous nonsense?

Explain to me how the hell Drexler's FG% went up 7-8 points in 1995 after the trade. I don't want to hear what happened in 96, 97, and 98 when Drexler was in his mid 30's and his knees were breaking down.

Robinson has no reason to be in discussion. He was a clearly inferior player to Hakeem in every aspect of the game and inferior to Duncan as well...

Good NBA players don't get sold for $50,000 cash regardless of whatever ridiculous spin you are trying to put on it.

[bobbyjoe]

What's utterly ridiculous and incomprehensible is Spur fan saying Houston 3 point shooters got free not because of Hakeem because of the awesome creating skills of a spot up shooting PG like Smith and Vernon Maxwell.

But then the Spurs outside shooting success is all because of Duncan, nevermind that Parker and Ginobili are INFINITELY better penetrating and creating guards than a spot up 3 pt shooter like Smith and a jacker like Maxwell.

Just ridiculous.

[Baron Davis]

Hakeem was a better overall player than Duncan in the primes of their respective careers. Hakeem redefined the center position because of his quickness, footwork and athleticism. I also read somewhere that Michael Jordan would've taken Hakeem as his fantasy center on his team, over Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Duncan, etc. because he was so well rounded.

[mavs>spurs2]

Damn, that settles it. The opinion of spurstalk posters>former nba players with championship experience.

[ThePrivateSpur]

This comparison of TD and Hakeem is apples to oranges.

If Hakeem played PF like TD, then it is a legitimate comparison to make.

[ambchang]

Yeah, Maxwell really made teams pay with his sub 40% shooting and low 30% from 3.

Maxwell is the one who opened up the floor for Drexler in 95, not Hakeem.

Oh whoops, Maxwell quit on the team that year and wasn't even on the squad.

Where do you come up with this erroneous nonsense?

Explain to me how the hell Drexler's FG% went up 7-8 points in 1995 after the trade. I don't want to hear what happened in 96, 97, and 98 when Drexler was in his mid 30's and his knees were breaking down.

Robinson has no reason to be in discussion. He was a clearly inferior player to Hakeem in every aspect of the game and inferior to Duncan as well...

Good NBA players don't get sold for $50,000 cash regardless of whatever ridiculous spin you are trying to put on it.

Maxwell didn't quit on the team, he was suspended and then was replaced by Drexler at the starting lineup very late in the season. He played till late March and was an integral part of the team, including the games he played with Drexler. And Allen Iverson shot a dismal % from the field and 3, I am sure he has been utterly useless for the 6ers all these years.

Drexler's % went up for half a season, and then dipped the following 3, despite playing all 3.5 of them with Hakeem, so you can conclusively say that Hakeem made Drexler MUCH better. Perhaps because role players, like Kenny Smith starts to suck eggs in 95-96, and left Houston after that, or maybe Maxwell was off the team and that didn't open up the lanes like the 94-95 season? Ever thought that Drexler benefited as being in a perfect situation with the right team? No question the whole team revolves around Hakeem, but ever thought how the role players made Hakeem better and more effective as well? How else can you explain Hakeem's 3 best scoring seasons (92-93, 93-94 and 94-95), coincided with Kenny Smith's three best 3p % seasons? Or Maxwell's three best seasons?

And why was Robinson clearly inferior? Before his injury, in 96, he had better statistics than Hakeem did, his team had a better overall record than Hakeem's team despite way inferior supporting casts, he never had a decent coach outside of Larry Brown. Why? They even had similar numbers head to head.

And why can't good role players be sold for $50,000? Rick Barry was traded for a pick and cash, Dr. J himself was sold for $3mil in cash, Chamberlain was traded for 3 nobodies, I am sure you can judge a player by who he was traded for.

[ambchang]

What's utterly ridiculous and incomprehensible is Spur fan saying Houston 3 point shooters got free not because of Hakeem because of the awesome creating skills of a spot up shooting PG like Smith and Vernon Maxwell.

But then the Spurs outside shooting success is all because of Duncan, nevermind that Parker and Ginobili are INFINITELY better penetrating and creating guards than a spot up 3 pt shooter like Smith and a jacker like Maxwell.

Just ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous about that? All the plaers benefitted from the system. The Rockets plan was simple, have Hakeem in the middle, and the 3 point shooters bomb away. The Spurs had the exact game plan with Duncan instead from 99 to 04, and it was proven that without 3 pt shooters, the Spurs don't win. The same was true for Hakeem and the Rockets.
The only difference is that Hakeem's scoring averaged fluctuated greatly depending on the accuracy of the shooters, Duncan's apparently had little correlation.
It is obvious that Drexler wouldn't have the driving lanes by having Hakeem in the middle and no 3 pt shooters to open up the lanes, which is exactly what happened to the Spurs in 04 vs. the Lakers. Did Duncan open up the driving lanes for Parker? How is that even possible? Only Hakeem homers would attribute every little bit of success to Rockets and its players to Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

Maxwell didn't quit on the team, he was suspended and then was replaced by Drexler at the starting lineup very late in the season. He played till late March and was an integral part of the team, including the games he played with Drexler. And Allen Iverson shot a dismal % from the field and 3, I am sure he has been utterly useless for the 6ers all these years.

Drexler's % went up for half a season, and then dipped the following 3, despite playing all 3.5 of them with Hakeem, so you can conclusively say that Hakeem made Drexler MUCH better. Perhaps because role players, like Kenny Smith starts to suck eggs in 95-96, and left Houston after that, or maybe Maxwell was off the team and that didn't open up the lanes like the 94-95 season? Ever thought that Drexler benefited as being in a perfect situation with the right team? No question the whole team revolves around Hakeem, but ever thought how the role players made Hakeem better and more effective as well? How else can you explain Hakeem's 3 best scoring seasons (92-93, 93-94 and 94-95), coincided with Kenny Smith's three best 3p % seasons? Or Maxwell's three best seasons?

And why was Robinson clearly inferior? Before his injury, in 96, he had better statistics than Hakeem did, his team had a better overall record than Hakeem's team despite way inferior supporting casts, he never had a decent coach outside of Larry Brown. Why? They even had similar numbers head to head.

And why can't good role players be sold for $50,000? Rick Barry was traded for a pick and cash, Dr. J himself was sold for $3mil in cash, Chamberlain was traded for 3 nobodies, I am sure you can judge a player by who he was traded for.

You need to check your facts.

Maxwell did quit on the team in the playoffs. That is a fact.

Comparing Maxwell to Iverson in anyway, shape, or form is a joke.

Robinson was clearly inferior to Hakeem; it doesnt even warrant a discussion. Keep living in denial. He did not have better stats than Hakeem. In fact his playoff stats were dramatically inferior to Hakeem, which is what you'd expect from a guy who's game didnt translate to the postseason, like DRob.

DRob was a guy who was killed by Malone and Hakeem in the playoffs in the 90's everytime he faced them. He came up small when the Spurs needed him the most. Great players step up their play in the clutch and postseason. Shaq did, Duncan did, Hakeem did, etc, etc. Robinson most assuredly did not.

Still have yet to hear an explanation for why this great role player Kenny Smith couldn't even stick with an NBA team once Hakeem wasn't there to cover up his weaknesses. At age 31, he was out of the league. The answer is that he sucked.

[mavs>spurs2]

What is so ridiculous about that? All the plaers benefitted from the system. The Rockets plan was simple, have Hakeem in the middle, and the 3 point shooters bomb away. The Spurs had the exact game plan with Duncan instead from 99 to 04, and it was proven that without 3 pt shooters, the Spurs don't win. The same was true for Hakeem and the Rockets.
The only difference is that Hakeem's scoring averaged fluctuated greatly depending on the accuracy of the shooters, Duncan's apparently had little correlation.
It is obvious that Drexler wouldn't have the driving lanes by having Hakeem in the middle and no 3 pt shooters to open up the lanes, which is exactly what happened to the Spurs in 04 vs. the Lakers. Did Duncan open up the driving lanes for Parker? How is that even possible? Only Hakeem homers would attribute every little bit of success to Rockets and its players to Hakeem.

You need to go back and look at the stats, Hakeem's so called 3 point shooters sucked ass. Drexler shot a massive 33% in 95-96. Maxwell shot 32% in 94-95, Horry shot 36-37% which isn't much better, Sam Cassel 33-34%, Elie 32% in 95-96, etc. The only one that ever shot a respectable percentage was Kenny Smith in 94-95, he shot 42.9%. And like Bobbyjoe pointed out, what happened to him after Hakeem?

[TheAuthority]

All you Duncan homers continue to ignore a few simple key questions.

1. Why doesn't Duncan guard the other teams best big man, like Hakeem did throughout his career? Hakeem dominated the likes of Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc on both sides of the ball.

2. Why are Hakeems stats so much superior to Duncans? You can't just look at career stats, because Olajuwon really should have retired a few years before he did and it really hurt his averages, especially his short time in Toronto. Look at each players peak 10-12 years and compare. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, spg, bpg, ft%, fg%, he beats Duncan in every stat that they record.

3. Why did Horry and Elie, two teammates of both men, come out and say on record that they would rather play with Hakeem? I think former teammates of the 2 and nba players know more than some polish guy on a spurs message board and all the other little spur homers. I'm not trying to be mean or cut down Duncan, he's a great player, but Hakeem was clearly better.

rofl What are you, like 14 years old? Honestly. Watch the NBA much?

#1) He doesn't guard them because he doesn't need to. This should be obvious to anyone. Why on earth would you want to risk him getting in early foul trouble? He will usually switch off to the best low post player in the 4th quarter, when the game is on the line, and it matters. This is common of the Spurs to coast until the 4th quarter and then try to take over the game. It's actually came back to bite them on many occasion, for which I blame Popovich, but that's a completely different issue.

#2) They aren't. Look at PER. PER is the be all and end all in basketball these days as far as stats go, if you're going purely on stats alone.

#3) Because that was a different point in their careers, for both players. Elie played with Duncan when he was essentially a rookie. Horry played with Hakeem for his dominant 2-YEAR stretch and not much else. Plus, no offense to Horry, but you can tell he isn't the smartest guy. I mean, the guy clearly has the IQ of a rock. Any time you hear him talk it's "errrr gaa eh shucks!" he's never articulate in anything he says, nor is he ever intelligent.

[polandprzem]

Arguments about the teemates is not worth nothing caouse you can use it for both sides of the arguing sides.

Just a one thought.

[ambchang]

You need to go back and look at the stats, Hakeem's so called 3 point shooters sucked ass. Drexler shot a massive 33% in 95-96. Maxwell shot 32% in 94-95, Horry shot 36-37% which isn't much better, Sam Cassel 33-34%, Elie 32% in 95-96, etc. The only one that ever shot a respectable percentage was Kenny Smith in 94-95, he shot 42.9%. And like Bobbyjoe pointed out, what happened to him after Hakeem?
He only had 5 perimeter players playing heavy minutes shoot over 30%? That really really suck ass.
Guess how many the Spurs had in 94-95? They had 4, and one of them was David Robinson himself. Elliott shot 40.8%, Del Negro 40.7%, then Person was at 38.7, and finally Robinson was at 30%. So if the Rockets shooter sucked ass, what does that have to say about Robinson’s supporting cast?
Let’s also look at the sharpshooting Spurs in 03. Bowen was at 44.1% (making a whopping 1.2 a game), Ginobili at 34.5, Parker at 33.7, and Jackson at 32.0.
So what happened to Jaren Jackson after he left the Spurs? What happened to Johnson before he joined the Spurs? Oh yes, he was playing as a third string guard with the Rockets and got cut! Guess Hakeem couldn’t make him better like Robinson could.

[ambchang]

You need to check your facts.

Maxwell did quit on the team in the playoffs. That is a fact.

Comparing Maxwell to Iverson in anyway, shape, or form is a joke.

Maxwell was suspended for 10 games after going in the stands to punch out a fan who said nasty thing about his daughter. He came back, and never got back in the lineup. This still doesn’t change the fact that he played more than 60 games in 95 and helped Clyde Drexler in the role.

And why is comparing Maxwell to Iverson a joke. You brought up Maxwell’s crappy FG% and 3p% as proof that he doesn’t help the Rockets, Iverson was just as bad, so why is he not a detriment to the 6ers? What about Marbury? Hell, Horry wasn’t shooting that well for the Spurs the last couple of seasons.


Robinson was clearly inferior to Hakeem; it doesnt even warrant a discussion. Keep living in denial. He did not have better stats than Hakeem. In fact his playoff stats were dramatically inferior to Hakeem, which is what you'd expect from a guy who's game didnt translate to the postseason, like DRob.

DRob was a guy who was killed by Malone and Hakeem in the playoffs in the 90's everytime he faced them. He came up small when the Spurs needed him the most. Great players step up their play in the clutch and postseason. Shaq did, Duncan did, Hakeem did, etc, etc. Robinson most assuredly did not.

And why was Robinson “clearly inferior”?
You noted that Duncan < Hakeem despite having 2 more rings because he got inferior stats, after people brought up PER, you proceed to say that PERs are useless and the level of competition is different. So I am bringing in David Robinson, and the following are the stats between the two centers from 90 to 96:

Robinson Hakeem
90 24.3/12/3.9 25.5/14.7/4.8 (Hakeem)
91 25.6/13/3.9 23/14.9/4.3 (Robinson)
92 23.2/12.2/4.5 22.9/12.8/4.6 (Robinson)
93 23.4/11.7/3.2 26.4/13.2/4.2 (Hakeem)
94 29.8/10.7/3.3 26.7/11.7/3.6 (Robinson)
95 27.6/10.8/3.2 28.1/10.9/3.4 (Hakeem)
96 25.0/12.2/3.3 27.7/11.2/3.0 (Tie)

So these are the stats from the same era, against the same competition. Why was Robinson clearly inferior? During the same period, Hakeem was All-NBA twice, Robinson 4 times. So why was Robinson clearly inferior?



Still have yet to hear an explanation for why this great role player Kenny Smith couldn't even stick with an NBA team once Hakeem wasn't there to cover up his weaknesses. At age 31, he was out of the league. The answer is that he sucked.

Oh yes, he sucked so much that he was drafted 6th overall, and then averaged 17 ppg for the Kings before he joined the Rockets. Yeah, that really sucked.
You want to talk about Jaren Jackson? The hero in the 99 playoffs?

[bobbyjoe]

Hmmm, because Robinson sucked eggs in the playoffs and Hakeem didnt? Robinson's Playoff PER was dramatically lower than Olajuwons.

Nice comparison to Jaren Jackson who was Duncan's teammate for a year or 2 whereas Kenny Smith was Hakeem's starting PG the majority of his career, for about 7 years. Brilliant.

Seriously, what's your obsession with comparing Robrinson to Hakeem? That's just a joke.

Do you ever even listen to how ridiculous you sound? Your orgiinal argument was that Maxwell "opened up the floor for Hakeem with his accurate shooting". When this nonsense was debunked because it was shown that Maxwell'ls ability to shoot from the perimiter was clearly poor by league standards, you go on some useless tirade about how Iverson didn't shoot well either?

WTF does that have to with your original erroneous statement that "Maxwell opened up the floor for Hakeem?

Uh, newsflash, teams are more worried about a 7 foot center who shoots 53% from the field and dominates people night in and night out than a 30% 3 point streak shooter who was consistently a sub 40% shooter from the field every single year.

Is your strategy just to try to divert when your arguments are just shot down?

Do you still maintain that a 30% 3 point shooter "opened up the inside" for Hakeem?

[bobbyjoe]

Comparing Maxwell to Iverson in anyway, shape, or form is a joke.

Maxwell was suspended for 10 games after going in the stands to punch out a fan who said nasty thing about his daughter. He came back, and never got back in the lineup. This still doesn’t change the fact that he played more than 60 games in 95 and helped Clyde Drexler in the role.

And why is comparing Maxwell to Iverson a joke. You brought up Maxwell’s crappy FG% and 3p% as proof that he doesn’t help the Rockets, Iverson was just as bad, so why is he not a detriment to the 6ers? What about Marbury? Hell, Horry wasn’t shooting that well for the Spurs the last couple of seasons.



And why was Robinson “clearly inferior”?
You noted that Duncan < Hakeem despite having 2 more rings because he got inferior stats, after people brought up PER, you proceed to say that PERs are useless and the level of competition is different. So I am bringing in David Robinson, and the following are the stats between the two centers from 90 to 96:

Robinson Hakeem
90 24.3/12/3.9 25.5/14.7/4.8 (Hakeem)
91 25.6/13/3.9 23/14.9/4.3 (Robinson)
92 23.2/12.2/4.5 22.9/12.8/4.6 (Robinson)
93 23.4/11.7/3.2 26.4/13.2/4.2 (Hakeem)
94 29.8/10.7/3.3 26.7/11.7/3.6 (Robinson)
95 27.6/10.8/3.2 28.1/10.9/3.4 (Hakeem)
96 25.0/12.2/3.3 27.7/11.2/3.0 (Tie)

So these are the stats from the same era, against the same competition. Why was Robinson clearly inferior? During the same period, Hakeem was All-NBA twice, Robinson 4 times. So why was Robinson clearly inferior?




Oh yes, he sucked so much that he was drafted 6th overall, and then averaged 17 ppg for the Kings before he joined the Rockets. Yeah, that really sucked.
You want to talk about Jaren Jackson? The hero in the 99 playoffs?

I guess Sam Bowie didnt suck because he was drafted 2nd. Neither did Darko. Draft position is all that matters in determining quality of a player?

With all the drivel you've posted, there's still not one solid reasonable explanation for why a gem like Kenny Smith was kicked out of the NBA at age 31, once he wasn't on Olajuwon's team anymore. Why did 30 NBA GM's disagree with you so much about his value that he wasn't even worth a roster spot? Were they not privy to the most important note concerning his career, that he was drafted 6th overall?!?!

[mavs>spurs2]

rofl What are you, like 14 years old? Honestly. Watch the NBA much?

#1) He doesn't guard them because he doesn't need to. This should be obvious to anyone. Why on earth would you want to risk him getting in early foul trouble? He will usually switch off to the best low post player in the 4th quarter, when the game is on the line, and it matters. This is common of the Spurs to coast until the 4th quarter and then try to take over the game. It's actually came back to bite them on many occasion, for which I blame Popovich, but that's a completely different issue.

#2) They aren't. Look at PER. PER is the be all and end all in basketball these days as far as stats go, if you're going purely on stats alone.

#3) Because that was a different point in their careers, for both players. Elie played with Duncan when he was essentially a rookie. Horry played with Hakeem for his dominant 2-YEAR stretch and not much else. Plus, no offense to Horry, but you can tell he isn't the smartest guy. I mean, the guy clearly has the IQ of a rock. Any time you hear him talk it's "errrr gaa eh shucks!" he's never articulate in anything he says, nor is he ever intelligent.

Great players in the past always matched up with the best big man on the opposing team. Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, etc always went head to head. Duncan doesn't for fear of foul trouble, in other words he has trouble guarding them and can't stay out of foul trouble. Duncan is not a great 1on1 defender, Spur fans especially should know this. He is a great team defender, though.

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

"Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season."

Hakeems stat's during his best 10-12 years were better than anything Duncan has put up in any of his prime years. It's not objective or debatable. Look it up, Hakeem had more ppg, rpg, spg, fg%, ft%, bpg, just about every stat imaginable.

:lmao at your Horry comments. The guy is one of the smartest basketball players in the league, that's how he made it so far in this league without much athleticism.

[ambchang]

Hmmm, because Robinson sucked eggs in the playoffs and Hakeem didnt? Robinson's Playoff PER was dramatically lower than Olajuwons.


Nice comparison to Jaren Jackson who was Duncan's teammate for a year or 2 whereas Kenny Smith was Hakeem's starting PG the majority of his career, for about 7 years. Brilliant.

It illustrates that Duncan made journeyman like Jaren Jackson better as much as Olajuwon makes Kenny Smith. You make it should like Smith would only have succeeded with Olajuwon, when I can pull out a guy like Jaren Jackson, who has never amounted to anything before, and had never amounted to anything since playing with Duncan.


Seriously, what's your obsession with comparing Robrinson to Hakeem? That's just a joke.

It’s to show your inconsistency in comparing players. So Hakeem > Duncan because of stats, and we can disregard the rings, while Robinson < Hakeem despite similar stats?
I am also interested in seeing how you would rank SHaq in all of this.


Do you ever even listen to how ridiculous you sound? Your orgiinal argument was that Maxwell "opened up the floor for Hakeem with his accurate shooting". When this nonsense was debunked because it was shown that Maxwell'ls ability to shoot from the perimiter was clearly poor by league standards, you go on some useless tirade about how Iverson didn't shoot well either?

WTF does that have to with your original erroneous statement that "Maxwell opened up the floor for Hakeem?

I do not recall saying that I said Maxwell’s shooting was accurate, and I said he opened up the floor for Drexler, not Hakeem. So let me get this straight, Drexler is known for driving into the lane, and you are contending that Hakeem opened up the floor for him by clogging the lane and not being a particularly stellar passer? Ever occurred to you that the reason Drexler had room to drive was because defenders were out defending Horry, Smith and Maxwell, thus opening up the floor for Drexler to drive and not jumping in to cut him off? This was exactly how the Lakers shut off Parker in 04. Did Duncan’s work in the middle open up the lanes for Parker? Of course not, I am not going to pretend he did.

YOU were the one who somehow concluded I said Maxwell’s shooting was accurate, and said how his terrible FG% and 3P% did not help the Rockets.


Uh, newsflash, teams are more worried about a 7 foot center who shoots 53% from the field and dominates people night in and night out than a 30% 3 point streak shooter who was consistently a sub 40% shooter from the field every single year.

Let’s see, expected value of 53% 2 pt shooting = 1.15, expected value of 33% 3 pt shooting = 1 pt, doesn’t seem to be that much of a difference. And yes, Hakeem opened up the floor for Maxwell, no question about it.


Is your strategy just to try to divert when your arguments are just shot down?

Do you still maintain that a 30% 3 point shooter "opened up the inside" for Hakeem?

Read what I wrote, he opened up the floor for Drexler to drive. And what is wrong with a 30% shooter opening up the floor? The man averages more than 2 3PM a games, that’s somewhere around 6 to 9 points a game. Are you saying teams are not going to guard that?

[ambchang]

I guess Sam Bowie didnt suck because he was drafted 2nd. Neither did Darko. Draft position is all that matters in determining quality of a player?

With all the drivel you've posted, there's still not one solid reasonable explanation for why a gem like Kenny Smith was kicked out of the NBA at age 31, once he wasn't on Olajuwon's team anymore. Why did 30 NBA GM's disagree with you so much about his value that he wasn't even worth a roster spot? Were they not privy to the most important note concerning his career, that he was drafted 6th overall?!?!
Did Sam Bowie average 17ppg for any seasons? I wasn't aware of that. Was he all-rookie 1st team?
And why do I have to explain why teams didn't sign Smith? He was finished, that's all.

[kingmalaki]

My, this thread is still alive? I don’t think anyone will change anyone else’s minds, but I do have the following questions for some posters.


but Duncan has anchored the best defensive team of the era for his entire career

Are the Spurs a better defensive team than the 90’s Bulls, Rockets or Knicks? Also, how was Duncan the defensive anchor when Robinson was on the team? He was clearly the one checking top pivots while Bowen checked top perimeter players. If Duncan is the anchor when his coaches use others to protect him from difficult assignments (i.e. Shaq, Dirk, Amare, etc), then what is Hakeem, when he was clearly the one taking on those assignments?

And I don’t undervalue the Spurs. I just recognize that their teams have less talent in comparison to the championship teams of the 90’s and definitely to the ones of the 80’s. They are a great team relative to their era…which is all they need to be.


Hakeem benefited from Jordan being gone.

These kind of comments make me laugh. So Hakeem benefited from MJ being gone, yet all of Duncan’s titles came when MJ was either retired or near the age of 40? This is why I think it makes no sense to mention the 4 rings to 2 unless you bring up the era that they were won in. It is not like you are comparing a player who has won to one who hasn’t. It is quite arguable that Hakeem won his titles in a tougher era, and against better competition. Even using your argument, Hakeem still had to go through Stockton & Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, KJ & Barkley when MJ was missing. Yet you will honestly say he had an easier time winning titles, especially at his position (where he had to play both sides of the court)?

So far all the people saying Duncan is a better teammate and gets folks involved more than Hakeem, are you basically saying Horry and Elie (who played with both) are full of crap? Both have stated Hakeem was the best, and Horry also played with Shaq. So you, the fan, are right basically…and the only dudes to go through 82 games and a postseason with both is off his rocker? Please don’t give me the “they were at different stages of their careers argument”, unless you can tie in how that impacts their ability to say which player was better.


Olajuwon was given credit from the media. Nevermind Houston has a large market.

Are ya serious? First off, the Houston market is bigger than the SA one, but it really isn’t that big. It’s so “large” that when the Rockets won their first title SI didn’t even put out a championship edition (until the entire city threatened to cancel subscriptions) and just had a blurb on the cover, next to soccer of all things. Robinson got way more media love than Dream in their day, mainly because Dream just wasn’t that marketable (foreigner with a heavy accent not located in a media market).


Duncan doesn't compete against a single big man in today's NBA who is as good as a Shaq of 1995.

Amen. This point is not even really debatable. Actually, besides the 2004 season, has Duncan ever gone through another quality big? He won one series against Shaq and lost what, 3? Hakeem beat Kareem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. Yes, I know Duncan didn’t have the chance to really play against these studs, but how can you consider titles and not include the teams and players faced in your analysis? Clearly Duncan has a losing record (when it matters) against the one quality big that he faced (isn’t he 0-2 against Malone as well, or 1-2). Hakeem usually came out on top against HOF bigs.


When you have Danny ferry and Terry Porter, Malik Rose as your offensive power, Hakeem would have been shutdown aswell.

Um, Hakeem played the majority of his career with players like this, in a tougher era. So it’s ok to blame Duncan’s poor playoff games on teammates but Hakeem is worse for not leading these same kinda dudes to more titles? Make up your mind now. This is exactly why you have to consider how much playing with scrubs impacts your team success. I guess Duncan only made the teammates better when his teammates were quality players?


But Duncan faced Shaq, Malone, Both Wallaces, and stared them down. In Duncan's rookie season, he pwned Malone.

Yes, that looks way tougher than facing Shaq (and holding him on the other end), Robinson/Rodman, Ewing/Mason/Oakley, Kareem, Barkley, Malone, etc…


Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?

However, the only two teammates to play with both clearly state Hakeem is better. So do you want to go by what teammates say or don’t you?

Again, no one is going to change their minds in this debate. Pro Hakeem folks will continue to argue with the numbers and the aspects on each players games (again, Dream was just as fundamentally sound, just with added athleticism). Duncan folks will continue to argue the team success, even though few care to discuss the differences in eras, rules, position competition, etc. I find it funny that folks discount Duncan’s help after he just won another title with a ho-hum Finals showing where another player got the MVP.

But let the record show that most neutral fan sites are pro Hakeem, and the only two dudes to play with both are also pro Hakeem. That alone seals the argument in my book, unless someone can tell me why our opinions matter more than two dudes who played 82 games and postseasons with both players. The only place Duncan seems to be winning this argument is on Spurs boards. That’s cool though…on the Rockets boards we still argue that Hakeem > MJ, lol…….

[TheAuthority]

unless someone can tell me why our opinions matter more than two dudes who played 82 games and postseasons with both players. The only place Duncan seems to be winning this argument is on Spurs boards. That’s cool though…on the Rockets boards we still argue that Hakeem > MJ, lol…….

Really? According to "experts" on the topic, Hakeem is not even in the top 3 of best CENTERS of all-time. In fact, he gets 0 first place votes, and only ONE second place vote, by scoop jackson, so that should tell you something. Whereas Duncan is the best player of all-time at his position. Better luck next time.
:lol

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters

[TheAuthority]

Great players in the past always matched up with the best big man on the opposing team. Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, etc always went head to head. Duncan doesn't for fear of foul trouble, in other words he has trouble guarding them and can't stay out of foul trouble. Duncan is not a great 1on1 defender, Spur fans especially should know this. He is a great team defender, though.

Wait... wait. So Shaq guarded Duncan the majority of the time when they played? ROFL Hilarious! Shaq never guarded Duncan, he would have gotten torched. And Duncan doesn't have trouble guarding them at all, in fact, he does it when it matters most... in the 4th quarter. Duncan is a great 1 on 1 defender in the low post, of course he can't guard perimeter players, he is a big man.


Hakeems stat's during his best 10-12 years were better than anything Duncan has put up in any of his prime years. It's not objective or debatable. Look it up, Hakeem had more ppg, rpg, spg, fg%, ft%, bpg, just about every stat imaginable.

Really? So his PERs aren't better than Hakeem's? I thought they were...


:lmao at your Horry comments. The guy is one of the smartest basketball players in the league, that's how he made it so far in this league without much athleticism.

ROFL WITHOUT MUCH ATHLETICISM? Dude, don't you have some homework to do? Seriously, you are a rookie. Apparently you've never seen Horry block players like Allen Iverson on a fast break layup off the glass at 36 years old. Apparently you never saw Horry in Houston jump 3 feet in the air on his jump shot. Wait, of course you didn't, back in that day you were still playing with Legos. Seriously, give up.

[mavs>spurs2]

Wait... wait. So Shaq guarded Duncan the majority of the time when they played? ROFL Hilarious! Shaq never guarded Duncan, he would have gotten torched. And Duncan doesn't have trouble guarding them at all, in fact, he does it when it matters most... in the 4th quarter. Duncan is a great 1 on 1 defender in the low post, of course he can't guard perimeter players, he is a big man.


I stand by what I said, Duncan is a much better team defender than a 1on1 defender. He doesn't have the quickness to matchup with guys like Dirk and Amare and that's why Horry or someone else gets the job.



ROFL WITHOUT MUCH ATHLETICISM? Dude, don't you have some homework to do? Seriously, you are a rookie. Apparently you've never seen Horry block players like Allen Iverson on a fast break layup off the glass at 36 years old. Apparently you never saw Horry in Houston jump 3 feet in the air on his jump shot. Wait, of course you didn't, back in that day you were still playing with Legos. Seriously, give up.

Robert Horry was never a player known for his athleticism. He's known for being a smart basketball player who also happens to be very clutch. You saying he is so stupid is what makes me think you're the one still playing with legos. What I don't understand is how you could be so dead wrong about one of the players on your very own team. You must be a bandwagon fan or really stupid.

[smrattler]

This thread is 17 pages long and ALL OVER THE PLACE.... Iverson, Maxwell, Shaq, Sam Bowie, Shakira... all kinds of names popping up here.

[kingmalaki]

Really? According to "experts" on the topic, Hakeem is not even in the top 3 of best CENTERS of all-time. In fact, he gets 0 first place votes, and only ONE second place vote, by scoop jackson, so that should tell you something. Whereas Duncan is the best player of all-time at his position. Better luck next time.
:lol

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters

According to THE PEOPLE WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH PLAYERS. How much more of an expert opinion can you get than Horry’s, who played with Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq?

Hmm, so you don’t think these “experts” would say Hakeem was better than all of the top PF’s as well? He beat two of the top 5 on his way to both of his championships. How is this point relevant since Duncan is clearly not a center? Is your argument now that he would rank above their top 3 (Wilt, Russell, Kareem)?


Really? So his PERs aren't better than Hakeem's? I thought they were...

Did you not read the other posts on how flawed the PER rankings are, especially when you are comparing players/teams from two different era’s? So does this mean Dirk > Duncan since he has higher PER ratings?

[ambchang]

According to THE PEOPLE WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH PLAYERS. How much more of an expert opinion can you get than Horry’s, who played with Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq?

People always brings this argument up as some kind of be all and end all argument, but there are three flaws:
1) Horry and Elie won first championship with Hakeem. The first one is always sweeter, just ask Jordan.
2) Horry was a 2nd year player. His first exposure to a great player was to Hakeem.
3) Player have preferences in style, just like you and me. If I played with John Stockton and get the ball 20 times from him a game, vs. playing with Isiah Thomas and getting the ball 3 times a game, I may either say Stockton > Thomas because I like to shoot, or I may say Thomas > Stockton because he can take over games, it really depends on the style.


Hmm, so you don’t think these “experts” would say Hakeem was better than all of the top PF’s as well? He beat two of the top 5 on his way to both of his championships. How is this point relevant since Duncan is clearly not a center? Is your argument now that he would rank above their top 3 (Wilt, Russell, Kareem)?

Did you not read the other posts on how flawed the PER rankings are, especially when you are comparing players/teams from two different era’s? So does this mean Dirk > Duncan since he has higher PER ratings?

I have to agree that it makes little sense to say greatest PF > 4th greatest center, this is definitely comparing apples and oranges. However, if I was to build a team from scratch, and if I were to pick between Duncan and Hakeem, I would pick Duncan 8 times out of 10.

[kingmalaki]

People always brings this argument up as some kind of be all and end all argument, but there are three flaws:
1) Horry and Elie won first championship with Hakeem. The first one is always sweeter, just ask Jordan.
2) Horry was a 2nd year player. His first exposure to a great player was to Hakeem.
3) Player have preferences in style, just like you and me. If I played with John Stockton and get the ball 20 times from him a game, vs. playing with Isiah Thomas and getting the ball 3 times a game, I may either say Stockton > Thomas because I like to shoot, or I may say Thomas > Stockton because he can take over games, it really depends on the style.

For these to be flaws in the argument you would have to KNOW that these are the reasons behind why they made their statements. Do you know either personally or are these just your assumptions. If you don't know either personally, then you are giving some pretty flawed reasons to try and justify why these teammates said Hakeem was better (not a better teammate, but [/B]BETTER[/B]). The bottom line is both of these players said Hakeem was better, and that opinion is worth more than fans on a message board who aren't pro athletes and never played with the two being discussed.


I have to agree that it makes little sense to say greatest PF > 4th greatest center, this is definitely comparing apples and oranges. However, if I was to build a team from scratch, and if I were to pick between Duncan and Hakeem, I would pick Duncan 8 times out of 10.

That's what I would expect to hear. I, as a Rockets fan, would pick Hakeem. Again, it seems like most neutral fans and the teammates willing to comment are pro Hakeem as well.

[TheAuthority]

Like I said, this is all going to be moot when Duncan retires with 6 or 7 rings. Again, then there will be no question who the better player was.

[kingmalaki]

Like I said, this is all going to be moot when Duncan retires with 6 or 7 rings. Again, then there will be no question who the better player was.

I doubt it. He has more rings than both Hakeem and Bird now, and I don't see anyone saying he is better (outside of SA). It seems most pundits realize that it's easier to win titles now than it was in the 80's (when you had the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers) and the 90's (Bulls). I still give him props for winning them but no one even mentions the Spurs teams in the same breath as any of those teams (not that they mention Hakeem's Rockets either)....basically I'm saying he does not have 4, 6 or 7 titles in those eras.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I doubt it. He has more rings than both Hakeem and Bird now, and I don't see anyone saying he is better (outside of SA). It seems most pundits realize that it's easier to win titles now than it was in the 80's (when you had the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers) and the 90's (Bulls). I still give him props for winning them but no one even mentions the Spurs teams in the same breath as any of those teams (not that they mention Hakeem's Rockets either)....basically I'm saying he does not have 4, 6 or 7 titles in those eras.

That's your semi-educated opinion. I'd expect no less from a rockets homer, no crime in that. And outside of Horry and Elie and some casual fans, who has ever stated that Hakeem was unequivocably better then Duncan head to head? Not dismissing what two players stated. But it would be wise not to base your opinion that Hakeem > Duncan based on their opinion solely.

Since we can't compare players who played in different eras head to head, here are some interesting factoids:

Hakeems careers stats were marginally better then Tims.
Tims PER rankings were marginally better then Hakeems.
((twisting and convoluting stats to suit one's arguement is probably the 2nd greatest trick ever pulled))

It is a well known consensus that Tim is arguably the greatest PF to ever play.
According to BSPN experts Hakeem is the 5th best center of all time.
((Both of the two prior statements are just opinions from the so-called experts, and opinions are just like a holes, everybody has one))

4 (and counting) is greater then 2.
((Pre-emptive strike; the naysayers are going to point out that these 4 titles were not won during the NBA's glory days of the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. I don't care if these 4 and counting titles were won during the Ottoman Empire, with Duncan as the one constant it's still pretty freakin' impressive.))



It would have been more difficult for the rest of the league to win titles in the 90's had Jordan not decided to take his two year hiatus. If he hadn't taken leave, it's possible, no actually probable that Hakeem would have had zero titles. And if you'd ask the rest of the league since 1999, I bet outside of the Spurs, Lakers, Detroit and Miami the rest of the league would say it has been tough enough to win a title; pay particular attention to what Dallas and Phoenix are saying. It just so happens that the CBA has helped with parity and leveled the playing field, but just the same it's just remarkeable that the Spurs have been so dominant during that time frame.

Some of you guys are going through a great deal of trouble to pimp Hakeem over Tim. You're preaching to the choir or worse pissing into the wind. IMO it's too close to call.

[TheAuthority]

I doubt it. He has more rings than both Hakeem and Bird now, and I don't see anyone saying he is better (outside of SA). It seems most pundits realize that it's easier to win titles now than it was in the 80's (when you had the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and Sixers) and the 90's (Bulls). I still give him props for winning them but no one even mentions the Spurs teams in the same breath as any of those teams (not that they mention Hakeem's Rockets either)....basically I'm saying he does not have 4, 6 or 7 titles in those eras.

Actually, all you hear about is the Spurs are the next dynasty of the NBA. Guess who the cornerstone of that dynasty is? Tim. Also, they don't compare Duncan and Hakeem because they play different positions. Most people say Shaq is better than Hakeem, and in the same breath, they say Duncan is the best player post-Jordan, so you can connect your own dots with that one.

[Ignignokt]

bobby joe and Malaqueen have been collectively told to stand in a corner to squat and pee while recieving bukkake


-- the CBF.

[kingmalaki]

Actually, all you hear about is the Spurs are the next dynasty of the NBA. Guess who the cornerstone of that dynasty is? Tim. Also, they don't compare Duncan and Hakeem because they play different positions. Most people say Shaq is better than Hakeem, and in the same breath, they say Duncan is the best player post-Jordan, so you can connect your own dots with that one.

The Spurs are the next dynasty., although I hear plenty hate and refuse to call them that (due to no repeat). I rarely hear anyone say that this dynasty was as good as the ones from the 80's and 90's. Those teams just had more talent on them (more diluted league now).

I do not hear most say Shaq > Hakeem. It depends on who you ask.

I rarely hear anyone say Duncan > Shaq, especially since Shaq's teams beat Tim's 3 of 4 times. I realize Shaq having Kobe made a huge difference, but at the end of the day I rarely hear anyone say Tim > Shaq.

Nice post Demo Dick Marcinko.

[kobyz]

Shaq's teams beat Tim's 3 of 5 time and one time it was because of illegal fisher shot.
and remember that shaq play with kobe.

[Brutalis]

The Lakers shit on everyone, that's why now nobody..now.. gives a shit except Laker fans, I knew this would happen as did many people.

You trade Duncan for DRob in 94' and sadly to say it's a better outcome for Spur fans and not so anymore for Rocket fans. The world today know Duncan is one of those.. forever type players. Hell ask even true Laker fans, they have been through several. And about Duncan on some of those deep 90s squads. TD makes people around him a winner from just being one. He wants to win and that's the whole jist of it all no drama or glitz, glamor. He just takes his pay, says no more than he can do, and gets the most important goals done. Hakeem could not have stopped and younger quicker version of himself.

This whole thread is tiresome and old.

[TheAuthority]

The Spurs are the next dynasty., although I hear plenty hate and refuse to call them that (due to no repeat). I rarely hear anyone say that this dynasty was as good as the ones from the 80's and 90's. Those teams just had more talent on them (more diluted league now).

I do not hear most say Shaq > Hakeem. It depends on who you ask.

I rarely hear anyone say Duncan > Shaq, especially since Shaq's teams beat Tim's 3 of 4 times. I realize Shaq having Kobe made a huge difference, but at the end of the day I rarely hear anyone say Tim > Shaq.

Nice post Demo Dick Marcinko.

It depends on who you ask? They asked a panel of ESPN's experts and they said Shaq was the better player. It wasn't particularly close, either.

You rarely hear anyone say Duncan > Shaq? Maybe you were living under a rock during the NBA finals when everyone on the broadcast and everyone on the cooler-talk type shows was saying Duncan is the best player of the post-Jordan era.

[kingmalaki]

It depends on who you ask? They asked a panel of ESPN's experts and they said Shaq was the better player. It wasn't particularly close, either.

You rarely hear anyone say Duncan > Shaq? Maybe you were living under a rock during the NBA finals when everyone on the broadcast and everyone on the cooler-talk type shows was saying Duncan is the best player of the post-Jordan era.

Please find me some quotes with respected folks saying Duncan > Shaq.....

I don't put too much stock into what folks on the broadcasts say. their job is to sell what you are viewing at the time. I remember when Shaq and Kobe first won they had a series long special about "the coronation" and how that LA team was one of the best ever. I heard plenty of these same broadcast folks saying what SA accomplished is not dynasty material since there was no repeat. I guess you believe that too??

[ambchang]

For these to be flaws in the argument you would have to KNOW that these are the reasons behind why they made their statements. Do you know either personally or are these just your assumptions. If you don't know either personally, then you are giving some pretty flawed reasons to try and justify why these teammates said Hakeem was better (not a better teammate, but [/B]BETTER[/B]). The bottom line is both of these players said Hakeem was better, and that opinion is worth more than fans on a message board who aren't pro athletes and never played with the two being discussed.
I could easily argue that for these to be arguments at all you would need to know the reasons behind their opinions. There could be many reasons Horry and Elie would say Hakeem was the best, and the least of which was that Horry said it after 2005, playing one year with Duncan, and Elie played only 2 years with Duncan, vs. 5 of his prime years with Hakeem.

[kingmalaki]

I could easily argue that for these to be arguments at all you would need to know the reasons behind their opinions. There could be many reasons Horry and Elie would say Hakeem was the best, and the least of which was that Horry said it after 2005, playing one year with Duncan, and Elie played only 2 years with Duncan, vs. 5 of his prime years with Hakeem.

We can argue anything we want, but how much sense does the argument really make is the question. We can argue anyone's reason for their opinion using your logic...I could pull any reason out of my butt on why I think someone said something. "The sky is blue...well you only think it's blue because such and such". That still doesn't change his conclusion that the sky is blue.

No one knows their reason for saying why (at least none of us). All we know is that they picked Hakeem. At the end of they day his opinion is still that Hakeem was better. You are just trying to look for a way to discredit their opinions....

And by the way, Horry played the majority of his career in LA...with Shaq (7 seasons). He won more titles there as well and arguably had more big-time moments in his career there. He also picked Hakeem > Shaq, while in LA. He said the same after he left LA (prior to playing with Duncan). He said the same after playing and winning titles with Duncan. Hmm, maybe he just really does think Hakeem is the best....

I respect your opinion that you think Duncan is better. You are a Spurs fan and I'm not suprised. Just note that most neutral fans seem to think otherwise, and so do the only players on record who played with both. And considering one of those dudes played with both of them and Shaq...and still picked Hakeem...I put more stock in his opinion than yours or mine. And honsetly I'm sure you would too if he said Duncan was the best....

[WHOTTABITCH]

We can argue anything we want, but how much sense does the argument really make is the question. We can argue anyone's reason for their opinion using your logic...I could pull any reason out of my butt on why I think someone said something. "The sky is blue...well you only think it's blue because such and such". That still doesn't change his conclusion that the sky is blue.

No one knows their reason for saying why (at least none of us). All we know is that they picked Hakeem. At the end of they day his opinion is still that Hakeem was better. You are just trying to look for a way to discredit their opinions....

And by the way, Horry played the majority of his career in LA...with Shaq (7 seasons). He won more titles there as well and arguably had more big-time moments in his career there. He also picked Hakeem > Shaq, while in LA. He said the same after he left LA (prior to playing with Duncan). He said the same after playing and winning titles with Duncan. Hmm, maybe he just really does think Hakeem is the best....

I respect your opinion that you think Duncan is better. You are a Spurs fan and I'm not suprised. Just note that most neutral fans seem to think otherwise, and so do the only players on record who played with both. And considering one of those dudes played with both of them and Shaq...and still picked Hakeem...I put more stock in his opinion than yours or mine. And honsetly I'm sure you would too if he said Duncan was the best....


What makes a neutral fan neutral? Just because he says so?

We're going by an internet sports site with little traffic to gauge sports demographics?

Well paint me placenta red, give me a scola strapon, and call me a rocketfan.

[mavs>spurs2]

The Lakers shit on everyone, that's why now nobody..now.. gives a shit except Laker fans, I knew this would happen as did many people.

You trade Duncan for DRob in 94' and sadly to say it's a better outcome for Spur fans and not so anymore for Rocket fans. The world today know Duncan is one of those.. forever type players. Hell ask even true Laker fans, they have been through several. And about Duncan on some of those deep 90s squads. TD makes people around him a winner from just being one. He wants to win and that's the whole jist of it all no drama or glitz, glamor. He just takes his pay, says no more than he can do, and gets the most important goals done. Hakeem could not have stopped and younger quicker version of himself.

This whole thread is tiresome and old.

Hakeem was probably the quickest big man ever, he was light years ahead of Duncan in that category.

Hakeem could have at least slowed Duncan down a little, he's a much better defender than Duncan has ever gone up against. And I can't see Duncan stopping Hakeem at the other end since he can't even stop Amare or Dirk, and they are a joke compared to Hakeem.

[kingmalaki]

What makes a neutral fan neutral? Just because he says so?

We're going by an internet sports site with little traffic to gauge sports demographics?

Well paint me placenta red, give me a scola strapon, and call me a rocketfan.

Neutral = I'm not biased by my love for the Spurs or Rockets. We are on a web forum. Unless you have some access to some coaches or more players opinions (besides Horry and Elie) then what else do you have to go on?

[ambchang]

And by the way, Horry played the majority of his career in LA...with Shaq (7 seasons). He won more titles there as well and arguably had more big-time moments in his career there. He also picked Hakeem > Shaq, while in LA. He said the same after he left LA (prior to playing with Duncan). He said the same after playing and winning titles with Duncan. Hmm, maybe he just really does think Hakeem is the best....

I respect your opinion that you think Duncan is better. You are a Spurs fan and I'm not suprised. Just note that most neutral fans seem to think otherwise, and so do the only players on record who played with both. And considering one of those dudes played with both of them and Shaq...and still picked Hakeem...I put more stock in his opinion than yours or mine. And honsetly I'm sure you would too if he said Duncan was the best....

I have no problems having Hakeem > Shaq, it's perfectly fine by me, but if my memory serves right, Horry mentioned that Hakeem is best of the 3 after winning the championship in 05. He was asked again in 06, and he said Duncan is closing in, so you can take your pick at what that means.
I actually wouldn't put more stock in the opinions of the players than some hardcore fans, and I do mean that. Having in the job in the NBA does not translate to high basketball knowledge (although I am aware that both Horry and Elie are excellent basketball minds), his opinion puts as much weight as some posters here in Spurstalk to me.

[ambchang]

Neutral = I'm not biased by my love for the Spurs or Rockets. We are on a web forum. Unless you have some access to some coaches or more players opinions (besides Horry and Elie) then what else do you have to go on?
And why are you dismissing Barkley's comments? He played with Hakeem, but not with Duncan.

[mavs>spurs2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd24uS_c9mg

:smokin

Guy was a 1 of a kind badass

[kingmalaki]

And why are you dismissing Barkley's comments? He played with Hakeem, but not with Duncan.

When did Barkley get asked the question who was better between the two and then said Duncan? If you are speaking of the talk surrounding the recent title wins then I don't put much stock into what the commentators say at that time. Last year they said Wade was the best in the league. Before that the LA team was the best ever, etc.

Additionally, I have heard Barkley say Duncan was the best PF...or actually not the best but better than him. he also speaks very highly of McHale. I have never heard him say he is better than those top centers (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Dream, Shaq).

[mavs>spurs2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

another favorite :)

[mavs>spurs2]

I've yet to see Duncan, or anyone else for that matter, be able to dominate the game at both ends of the floor at the level Hakeem did. Well at least not since Chamberlain, but that was a totally different era. That's why IMO he is second to only Jordan all time.

[Galileo]

My two favorite basketball players of all time are Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan, so it is amazing to see this discussion here. Both are very underrated. Both were the best in their times. I have watched almost all of their games which have been on TV since I first saw Hakeem when he was a freshman in college in the winter of 1981-82.

That being said, please let me weigh in....

The four most important accomplishments in the NBA are; 1st Team All-NBA, ring, MVP, and Final's MVP, so first I will look at this data:

[note that this provides a perfect balance between team accomplishments and individual accomplishments, as well as a perfect balance between regular season and playoffs. It also scales back accomplishmnets before the MVP awards were given, which balances out the fact the NBA has become more competitive since it's early years and the 1960s.]

FIRST TEN YEARS OF NBA CAREER - BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME

Tim Duncan; 9 1st Team All-NBA, 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 3 Final's MVPs

9 + 4 + 2 + 3 = 18

Michael Jordan; 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16 (career total = 27)

Kareem Abdul-Jabber; 6 + 1 + 5 + 1 = 13 (career total = 23)

Magic Johnson; 7 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 17 (career total = 20)

Bill Russell; 3 + 9 + 5 + 0 = 17 (career total = 19)

Larry Bird; 9 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 17

Hakeem Olajuwon; 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 (career total = 11)

Tim Duncan has accomplished more during his first 10 years in the NBA than any other player in NBA history. He dwarfs Hakeem, and should easily pass Russell and Magic for his career. He is better than even money to catch Kareem and could catch Jordan if the Spurs can keep winning titles. I think he will.

Here is why Tim is the best:

Tim makes his teammates better like no one else in history. I first saw it during the 1995 ACC tournament where Randolph Childress went wild. Tim was there and made it happen. Tim was only 18 years old at the time. Only Bill Russell approaches Tim in this respect, with Bird and Magic next.

Tim is one of the greatest defenders of all time, seven first team selections and 3 second team. When Tim is old, he will still be a great defensive specialist. Young stars will want to come to the Spurs to play with Tim and win a championship. Tim could win championships on the backside of his career like Kareem.

Tim is awesome at position defense.

Tim can guard anyone, including Shaq in his prime.

Tim is unique in that he doesn't go for ball fakes.

Tim boxes out for rebounds better than anyone in the NBA today.

On offense, Tim moves without the ball like Russell and Danny Manning.

Tim sets picks like Wes Unseld.

Tim passes out of the low post way better than Hakeem. Dominating big men NEVER win NBA titles if they do not know how to pass out of the low post. Hakeem did not learn how to do this until Rudy T. came on board in 1992.

Tim shoots bank shots like Sam Jones and Phillip 'Doom' Haynes.

Tim posts up on offense like Hakeem. When I watched Tim in the '99 Finals, it totally reminded me of Hakeem. When you can run your offense through a dominant big man, you have a great advantage over your opponent.

Tim can shoot the midrange jumper. I too, saw this in detail in the '99 Finals. Shaq you can stop if you just keep him away from the basket. Not Tim. Hakeem did not develop this shot until the middle of his career, Tim had it at the beginning.

Tim is unique in history in that he does not care if he gets his shot blocked once in a while. Tim knows the odds. He makes a lot of shots because he is not afraid to have one blocked once in a while.

Tim has one of the best basketball IQs of all time, along with Russell, Bird, and Magic.

Tim is a psychology major and psyches out his opponent. His best move last season was psyching out Joey Crawford and getting him kicked out of the playoffs. In a battle of wits almost always won by refs, Tim stood tall.

Tim steps up in crunch time and the playoffs, just like Hakeem, Jordan, Russell and Jerry West. He has a drive to win. His stats are always better in the playoffs. He won an NBA title on two bad ankles in '05. In '04, he hit one of the greatest shots in history in the pivotal game 5 vs the Lakers. In '06, his performance on his bad foot was amazing against Dallas. By comparison, Larry Hughes had the same injury last year in the Finals and was not effective.

Tim shoots 70% on free throws in the playoffs for his career, not bad for a big man.

That said, some have argued that the NBA was tougher in the days of Bird/Magic/Jordan.

Well, first of all, the NBA did not have hardly any international back in those days.

The fact is, Tim does not have great players on his team, he has a couple very good players who are sometimes marginal all-stars. If it were not for Tim, you would not hear much about Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. David Robinson would have faded away, had Tim not come on board.

Tim lead the only "Twin Towers" duo to win a championship, and they won two.

Other Twin Towers did not win; Olajuwon/Sampson, Bowie/Turpin, Rashard Griffith/Thomas Hamilton (Chicago High School), etc.

Hakeem played when the best competition for All-NBA was at center, Tim played when the best competition for All-NBA was a forward, this balances out.

Go Tim! Tim is best.

If you are playing basketball, and you want to win, the best player is always Tim Duncan.

[duncan228]

Welcome to the forum Galileo.

Always wonderful to read someone's opinion about the greatness that is Duncan. :smokin

Nicely done. (I'm sure others will come and argue your post so for now I'll revel in it! :spin )

[Galileo]

Welcome to the forum Galileo.

Always wonderful to read someone's opinion about the greatness that is Duncan. :smokin

Nicely done. (I'm sure others will come and argue your post so for now I'll revel in it! :spin )

Thank you, It's very good to meet other Spurs and Tim Duncan fans.

I live in Madison, Wisconsin. We do not have many NBA fans here.

Have read through the entire 18 pages, and I must say it was very interesting. I have never met people who were so well informed about the NBA before.

Can't wait for the season to begin!

[duncan228]

Thank you, It's very good to meet other Spurs and Tim Duncan fans.

I live in Madison, Wisconsin. We do not have many NBA fans here.

Have read through the entire 18 pages, and I must say it was very interesting. I have never met people who were so well informed about the NBA before.

Can't wait for the season to begin!

You've found the right place for Spurs fans. And NBA fans. There are a lot of really knowledgable basketball fans here. And some fun trolls as well.

This season looks to be especially fun, with the Spurs trying to repeat.

If you enjoy your time here half as much as I do I can promise you a good time.

[lefty]

My two favorite basketball players of all time are Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan, so it is amazing to see this discussion here. Both are very underrated. Both were the best in their times. I have watched almost all of their games which have been on TV since I first saw Hakeem when he was a freshman in college in the winter of 1981-82.

That being said, please let me weigh in....

The four most important accomplishments in the NBA are; 1st Team All-NBA, ring, MVP, and Final's MVP, so first I will look at this data:

[note that this provides a perfect balance between team accomplishments and individual accomplishments, as well as a perfect balance between regular season and playoffs. It also scales back accomplishmnets before the MVP awards were given, which balances out the fact the NBA has become more competitive since it's early years and the 1960s.]

FIRST TEN YEARS OF NBA CAREER - BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME

Tim Duncan; 9 1st Team All-NBA, 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 3 Final's MVPs

9 + 4 + 2 + 3 = 18

Michael Jordan; 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16 (career total = 27)

Kareem Abdul-Jabber; 6 + 1 + 5 + 1 = 13 (career total = 23)

Magic Johnson; 7 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 17 (career total = 20)

Bill Russell; 3 + 9 + 5 + 0 = 17 (career total = 19)

Larry Bird; 9 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 17

Hakeem Olajuwon; 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 (career total = 11)

Tim Duncan has accomplished more during his first 10 years in the NBA than any other player in NBA history. He dwarfs Hakeem, and should easily pass Russell and Magic for his career. He is better than even money to catch Kareem and could catch Jordan if the Spurs can keep winning titles. I think he will.

Here is why Tim is the best:

Tim makes his teammates better like no one else in history. I first saw it during the 1995 ACC tournament where Randolph Childress went wild. Tim was there and made it happen. Tim was only 18 years old at the time. Only Bill Russell approaches Tim in this respect, with Bird and Magic next.

Tim is one of the greatest defenders of all time, seven first team selections and 3 second team. When Tim is old, he will still be a great defensive specialist. Young stars will want to come to the Spurs to play with Tim and win a championship. Tim could win championships on the backside of his career like Kareem.

Tim is awesome at position defense.

Tim can guard anyone, including Shaq in his prime.

Tim is unique in that he doesn't go for ball fakes.

Tim boxes out for rebounds better than anyone in the NBA today.

On offense, Tim moves without the ball like Russell and Danny Manning.

Tim sets picks like Wes Unseld.

Tim passes out of the low post way better than Hakeem. Dominating big men NEVER win NBA titles if they do not know how to pass out of the low post. Hakeem did not learn how to do this until Rudy T. came on board in 1992.

Tim shoots bank shots like Sam Jones and Phillip 'Doom' Haynes.

Tim posts up on offense like Hakeem. When I watched Tim in the '99 Finals, it totally reminded me of Hakeem. When you can run your offense through a dominant big man, you have a great advantage over your opponent.

Tim can shoot the midrange jumper. I too, saw this in detail in the '99 Finals. Shaq you can stop if you just keep him away from the basket. Not Tim. Hakeem did not develop this shot until the middle of his career, Tim had it at the beginning.

Tim is unique in history in that he does not care if he gets his shot blocked once in a while. Tim knows the odds. He makes a lot of shots because he is not afraid to have one blocked once in a while.

Tim has one of the best basketball IQs of all time, along with Russell, Bird, and Magic.

Tim is a psychology major and psyches out his opponent. His best move last season was psyching out Joey Crawford and getting him kicked out of the playoffs. In a battle of wits almost always won by refs, Tim stood tall.

Tim steps up in crunch time and the playoffs, just like Hakeem, Jordan, Russell and Jerry West. He has a drive to win. His stats are always better in the playoffs. He won an NBA title on two bad ankles in '05. In '04, he hit one of the greatest shots in history in the pivotal game 5 vs the Lakers. In '06, his performance on his bad foot was amazing against Dallas. By comparison, Larry Hughes had the same injury last year in the Finals and was not effective.

Tim shoots 70% on free throws in the playoffs for his career, not bad for a big man.

That said, some have argued that the NBA was tougher in the days of Bird/Magic/Jordan.

Well, first of all, the NBA did not have hardly any international back in those days.

The fact is, Tim does not have great players on his team, he has a couple very good players who are sometimes marginal all-stars. If it were not for Tim, you would not hear much about Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. David Robinson would have faded away, had Tim not come on board.

Tim lead the only "Twin Towers" duo to win a championship, and they won two.

Other Twin Towers did not win; Olajuwon/Sampson, Bowie/Turpin, Rashard Griffith/Thomas Hamilton (Chicago High School), etc.

Hakeem played when the best competition for All-NBA was at center, Tim played when the best competition for All-NBA was a forward, this balances out.

Go Tim! Tim is best.

If you are playing basketball, and you want to win, the best player is always Tim Duncan.


Very interesting post

I approve the Super Rookie ! :elephant

[Galileo]

You've found the right place for Spurs fans. And NBA fans. There are a lot of really knowledgable basketball fans here. And some fun trolls as well.

This season looks to be especially fun, with the Spurs trying to repeat.

If you enjoy your time here half as much as I do I can promise you a good time.


You're welcome, I have been reading the other threads, I just discovered this site about a week ago.

I especially like the flashing sign at the top counting down the time until the season starts. It reminds me of countdown signs for Y2K or for how long until Bush is out of office.

If Tim stays healthy, the Spurs will repeat. I think Tim will slightly improve over last season and get the MVP. Tim was coming off an injury last season, but not this year.

The Mavs will drop during the regular season. Usually when teams choke in the playoffs is because something is wrong. Also, the Spurs led the NBA in point differential last year, so they were really the best team even in the regular season.

The new ball last year may have also affected the Spurs, as at one point they were "only" 33-18, before blowing by everyone the second half of the season. This season, we will have the same leather ball all year.

If the Spurs have the best regular season recond and Tim goes 20-10 and leads the team in scoring, Tim will get the MVP for sure.

The Suns will be tough, but the fact is, they cannot beat the Spurs. Nash is getting old.

NBA basketbal is the best fan sport on the planet. The NFL has way too many players to follow and a high turnover rate because of injury. Nothing sucks more than when your favorite player gets injured. And you can actually see what is going on in basketball, plus it has more scoring plays.

I would like to see a debate between who is better between Jordan and Duncan. I'll take Duncan. Jordan is a guard. He was not a good team player at the beginning of his career and had two top 30 alltime players on his team (according to the book by Elliot Kalb, Pippen & Rodman) for his last three championships.

Duncan > Jordan

:fro > :cooldevil

[mavs>spurs2]

You're welcome, I have been reading the other threads, I just discovered this site about a week ago.

I especially like the flashing sign at the top counting down the time until the season starts. It reminds me of countdown signs for Y2K or for how long until Bush is out of office.

If Tim stays healthy, the Spurs will repeat. I think Tim will slightly improve over last season and get the MVP. Tim was coming off an injury last season, but not this year.

The Mavs will drop during the regular season. Usually when teams choke in the playoffs is because something is wrong. Also, the Spurs led the NBA in point differential last year, so they were really the best team even in the regular season.

The new ball last year may have also affected the Spurs, as at one point they were "only" 33-18, before blowing by everyone the second half of the season. This season, we will have the same leather ball all year.

If the Spurs have the best regular season recond and Tim goes 20-10 and leads the team in scoring, Tim will get the MVP for sure.

The Suns will be tough, but the fact is, they cannot beat the Spurs. Nash is getting old.

NBA basketbal is the best fan sport on the planet. The NFL has way too many players to follow and a high turnover rate because of injury. Nothing sucks more than when your favorite player gets injured. And you can actually see what is going on in basketball, plus it has more scoring plays.

I would like to see a debate between who is better between Jordan and Duncan. I'll take Duncan. Jordan is a guard. He was not a good team player at the beginning of his career and had two top 30 alltime players on his team (according to the book by Elliot Kalb, Pippen & Rodman) for his last three championships.

Duncan > Jordan

:fro > :cooldevil

:lmao

I had so much respect for you until that.

Although I didn't agree with your assessment of Hakeem and Duncan(personally i'd take Hakeem), it was well thought out and you did make some valid points.

But then you come back with this.

[Galileo]

Very interesting post

I approve the Super Rookie ! :elephant

Wow, there are certainly a lot of Spurs fans here.

There is nothing I am more sick of than hearing Shaq & Kobe, Shaq & Kobe, Shaq & Kobe & Lebron, Shaq & Kobe & Lebron & the Yankees.

[this is a reference to ESPN radio]

I forgot to mention in my other post that Udoka looks like a brilliant pickup for the Spurs. He seems like a younger Bowen clone and can shoot the three. Bowen can teach him the tricks of the trade.

The eastern conference really sucks, I mean, how could it get any worse. The Celtics are overrated, you'll see, just another 'superteam' that will fall short.

If Hakeem were in the east, he would single handidly take whatever team he was on to the Finals.

Sort of like '81 when Moses led Houston to the Finals because Magic was injured.

[Galileo]

:lmao

I had so much respect for you until that.

Although I didn't agree with your assessment of Hakeem and Duncan(personally i'd take Hakeem), it was well thought out and you did make some valid points.

But then you come back with this.

According to my point system above, Jordan is the best of all time.

But Tim is better after 10 years.

But Jordan dominated in years 11-13.

Tim needs to sweep both MVP awards this season, and then he will be in striking distance of Jordan. That would put Tim at 22 points after 11 years, while Jordan was at 20 points after 11 years, and finished with 27.

PS

1984 NBA draft:

Olajuwon > Bowie > Jordan > Perkins

1997 NBA draft:

Duncan > van Horn > Billups > Daniels

[mavs>spurs2]

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

Around the 4:10 mark Hakeem says who he thinks is the best in the league today :smokin

[Galileo]

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

Around the 4:10 mark Hakeem says who he thinks is the best in the league today :smokin

That was a pretty cool video. I just started to get into google video last year, but that was mostly political stuff like Ron Paul, so I am just starting to watch my favorite sports stuff.

As I said before, I was a huge Akeem superfan for 10 years from when Akeem was a freshman in college (I was a freshman the same year). My other favorite player was Keith Lee, but he fizzled in the pros.

[trivia - Keith Lee once scored 25 points in an NBA game with 12 rebounds]

So then it was Akeem. But in the winter of 92-93, I became a Hakeem super-duperfan because that is when Hakeem picked his game up to the next level and lived up to his talent.

In my opinion, Hakeem was at the peak of his career in spring 1993. He was a scoring machine, a rebounding machine, and running up and down the court blocking shots at one end and dunking on the other. I still don't know how the Rockets lost to Seattle in round two that year, in game 7. There was nothing I wanted to see more that Jordan vs Hakeem in the Finals because I was confident Hakeem would have smoked 'em. But it never happened. The Rockets got some young talent the next year, Horry & Cassell were key additions that helped Hakeem win his titles.

But in '99 Duncan started to remind me of Hakeem. I was so pissed when Duncan got hurt in '00 and really pissed when they lost to the Lakers in '01 and '02.

But by the '03 playoffs, I realized that Duncan was actually better than Hakeem, which is hard to believe.

That is when I became a Duncan Super-duperfan. So the past five years have been nice....

:elephant

[Cry Havoc]

Wow, there are certainly a lot of Spurs fans here.

There is nothing I am more sick of than hearing Shaq & Kobe, Shaq & Kobe, Shaq & Kobe & Lebron, Shaq & Kobe & Lebron & the Yankees.

[this is a reference to ESPN radio]

I forgot to mention in my other post that Udoka looks like a brilliant pickup for the Spurs. He seems like a younger Bowen clone and can shoot the three. Bowen can teach him the tricks of the trade.

The eastern conference really sucks, I mean, how could it get any worse. The Celtics are overrated, you'll see, just another 'superteam' that will fall short.

If Hakeem were in the east, he would single handidly take whatever team he was on to the Finals.

Sort of like '81 when Moses led Houston to the Finals because Magic was injured.

Anyone have more info on Udoka? I'd like to do a little more research on him, see what he's made of. I'd also like to see his lateral mobility on D and the way he uses his hands.

Thanks. =) And welcome to ST!!!

[mavs>spurs2]

That was a pretty cool video. I just started to get into google video last year, but that was mostly political stuff like Ron Paul, so I am just starting to watch my favorite sports stuff.

As I said before, I was a huge Akeem superfan for 10 years from when Akeem was a freshman in college (I was a freshman the same year). My other favorite player was Keith Lee, but he fizzled in the pros.

[trivia - Keith Lee once scored 25 points in an NBA game with 12 rebounds]

So then it was Akeem. But in the winter of 92-93, I became a Hakeem super-duperfan because that is when Hakeem picked his game up to the next level and lived up to his talent.

In my opinion, Hakeem was at the peak of his career in spring 1993. He was a scoring machine, a rebounding machine, and running up and down the court blocking shots at one end and dunking on the other. I still don't know how the Rockets lost to Seattle in round two that year, in game 7. There was nothing I wanted to see more that Jordan vs Hakeem in the Finals because I was confident Hakeem would have smoked 'em. But it never happened. The Rockets got some young talent the next year, Horry & Cassell were key additions that helped Hakeem win his titles.

But in '99 Duncan started to remind me of Hakeem. I was so pissed when Duncan got hurt in '00 and really pissed when they lost to the Lakers in '01 and '02.

But by the '03 playoffs, I realized that Duncan was actually better than Hakeem, which is hard to believe.

That is when I became a Duncan Super-duperfan. So the past five years have been nice....

:elephant

IMO no one will ever surpass Jordan. It really makes me wonder how things would be had he never left for baseball because I really feel like he would have 8 rings instead of 6, making it the most dominant stretch in NBA history.

[Galileo]

Anyone have more info on Udoka? I'd like to do a little more research on him, see what he's made of. I'd also like to see his lateral mobility on D and the way he uses his hands.

Thanks. =) And welcome to ST!!!

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Here is Udoka in action:

Blazers at Sonics 11-01-06

Blazers pull it out after erasing a 9 point Seattle lead late in the 4th.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-978278275482206610&q=Ime+Udoka&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Ime Udoka makes some big plays in this clip!

[Galileo]

IMO no one will ever surpass Jordan. It really makes me wonder how things would be had he never left for baseball because I really feel like he would have 8 rings instead of 6, making it the most dominant stretch in NBA history.

Bill Russell scored 30 points, and had 44 REBOUNDS, in GAME 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals.

[ashrafabdeljaber]

Wow, there are certainly a lot of Spurs fans here.

I wonder why its called SpursTalk :lol

[E20]

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

Around the 4:10 mark Hakeem says who he thinks is the best in the league today :smokin
Why are you posting that you are a Mavs fan?

[Mister Sinister]

I wonder why its called SpursTalk :lol
STFU, n00b.

[polandprzem]

Well Duncan is not the best cause he is just winning, and winning is not the most important thing in sport, Accually it is not important to win. All you want in sports in to show yourself and lose. Be the best indywidual player in a team sport and put up a showtime everynight.

[DuncanIceman44]

Olajuwon are u crazy? geez

[Cry Havoc]

I think it's amusing, because when Duncan retires with 6+ rings there will be no question who is better. The only question will be where Duncan belongs in the top 5 of all-time.

[jman3000]

hmm... yeah... if tim duncan retired right now it'd be pretty close... truth is timmy still has a few years left in him to leave any and all discussion on this subject irrelevant.

[jman3000]

:lol i didnt see it had 19 pages... i only read page 1 ... lolz

[kingmalaki]

My two favorite basketball players of all time are Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan, so it is amazing to see this discussion here. Both are very underrated. Both were the best in their times. I have watched almost all of their games which have been on TV since I first saw Hakeem when he was a freshman in college in the winter of 1981-82.

That being said, please let me weigh in....

The four most important accomplishments in the NBA are; 1st Team All-NBA, ring, MVP, and Final's MVP, so first I will look at this data:

I am not sure if you have read this entire thread as it is rather long, but IMO, the above analysis is very flawed for a debate about these two players. These items have been mentioned before but here they are again....

They played two different positions. so that throws out comparing All-NBA honors (only 1 center is selected, while two forwards are).

They played in two completely different era's with completely different squads, so how do you compare titles without considering the time that they were won (i.e. against which teams) and the surrounding help over their careers? Additionally, playing in different era's also comes to play in comparing All-NBA honors as the pantheon of centers (Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem) are generally considered > than the top PF's. Duncan is the only one to even get into that convo.

Steve Nash has two MVP's in this era. He has more MVP's than Shaq. Is he better? Dirk just won an MVP in this era. There is a big difference between players like Nash, Dirk and players like Magic, Bird, MJ, etc. Those three are generally considered top 5-7 players of all-time and they won the majority of the MVP's in the 80's and early 90's.


Tim Duncan has accomplished more during his first 10 years in the NBA than any other player in NBA history. He dwarfs Hakeem, and should easily pass Russell and Magic for his career. He is better than even money to catch Kareem and could catch Jordan if the Spurs can keep winning titles. I think he will.

How has he accomplished more than Magic, who went to the Finals 8 times in his first 10 years? Because he got to play the Knicks and Cavs, as opposed to the Celtics, Sixers and Pistons? Again, when mentioning accomplishments you have to mention the entire picture in your analysis.


Tim can guard anyone, including Shaq in his prime.

Yet someone else was always holding him? I respect Tim's defense (it is not on Dream's level but still very good) but let's not speak untruth's.


Tim passes out of the low post way better than Hakeem. Dominating big men NEVER win NBA titles if they do not know how to pass out of the low post. Hakeem did not learn how to do this until Rudy T. came on board in 1992.

He seemed to do it just fine in his second season when he got to the Finals. Amazing how much more one seems to be able to share when they have surrounding talent.


Other Twin Towers did not win; Olajuwon/Sampson, Bowie/Turpin, Rashard Griffith/Thomas Hamilton (Chicago High School), etc.

Would they have won against the 99 Knicks, who had no center (Ewing injury)? I think two dominant pivots against a team with their center injured makes quite an advantage. In the Rockets case, that is a big difference from facing the 86 Celtics frontline (Parish, McHale, Bird, Walton).


Hakeem played when the best competition for All-NBA was at center, Tim played when the best competition for All-NBA was a forward, this balances out.

Not unless you can start naming some opposing PF's today that are better than Kareem, Parish, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq (the centers Dream faced).

[ambchang]

Let us not pretend that the finals opponent is the only one who counts. I would expect the Spurs going to through the Lakers in 99 and 03 to count as a significantly better achievement than beating the Nets and the Knicks in the finals.
I wouldn't say that the 86 Celtics to be inferior to the 80 Lakers because they had to got through the Rockets vs. the 6ers, would you?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

They played in two completely different era's with completely different squads, so how do you compare titles without considering the time that they were won (i.e. against which teams) and the surrounding help over their careers? Additionally, playing in different era's also comes to play in comparing All-NBA honors as the pantheon of centers (Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem) are generally considered > than the top PF's. Duncan is the only one to even get into that convo.


When talking about a players place in history, all one has to quantify their niche is accomplishments and benchmarks. Coulda, shoulda have no place in this conversation. I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?


Steve Nash has two MVP's in this era. He has more MVP's than Shaq. Is he better?

Well unless Nash improves his inside game and learns to bang a little better in the post, or unless Shaq improves his assist to turnover ratio......come on, it's apples to oranges. Not a good example.


Dirk just won an MVP in this era. There is a big difference between players like Nash, Dirk and players like Magic, Bird, MJ, etc. Those three are generally considered top 5-7 players of all-time and they won the majority of the MVP's in the 80's and early 90's.

Not so comfortable using Herr Notwitzki here, but Nash certainly. I'm using your built in disclaimer about personal and team accomplishments to put Nash in the same conversation with Magic and other "point guards" of that era. Just because he doesn't have as many championships as the next guy doesn't mean he's automatically excluded from being mentioned in the conversation. Is he a all time 5-7 guy? No! Is he a all time 5-7 point guard? Hell yeah!


How has he accomplished more than Magic, who went to the Finals 8 times in his first 10 years? Because he got to play the Knicks and Cavs, as opposed to the Celtics, Sixers and Pistons? Again, when mentioning accomplishments you have to mention the entire picture in your analysis.

Aside from the fact that they played in two different eras at two different positions Tim accomplished more then Magic because he was named all NBA first team more often, two times more as a matter of fact. Magic won one more NBA championship, and they both had the same amount of MVP's and finals MVP's. And even though Magic went to the finals more often his teams were beaten alot more then Tim's. Does Tim get any bonus points for not ever losing a finals series? Where as Magic was a three time loser.

And you're trying to imply that some how Tim's personal and team accomplishments should have an asterisk or that maybe it shouldn't count as much because they played the Knicks and Cavs? They played the Knicks and Cavs and did what they were supposed to and won. None of Magics or Bird's teams ever played Shaq's threepeat Laker team of 2000-2002 or any of Duncan's Spur teams, particulary 2005 and 2007. You see that argument works both ways.




Would they have won against the 99 Knicks, who had no center (Ewing injury)? I think two dominant pivots against a team with their center injured makes quite an advantage. In the Rockets case, that is a big difference from facing the 86 Celtics frontline (Parish, McHale, Bird, Walton).


Well we all agree that Duncan's Spurs, Hakeem's Rockets and the '86 Celtics would have all beaten the '99 Knicks. But then again all of Duncan's Spurs teams could have beaten both the Rockets and the Celts. That's just my personal belief. But I'm going to take the highroad, because this argument just can't be proven. We can speculate and postulate till we turn blue in the face and make all sorts of convoluted assertions, but neither position can be proven. Or who knows, maybe the '99 Knicks could have turned Golden State on us and they could have beaten the favored team. That's why they play the games.




Not unless you can start naming some opposing PF's today that are better than Kareem, Parish, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq (the centers Dream faced).

It's not Tim's fault that for whatever reason, this is not the Golden Age of Big Men. Of those he has faced, his teams have prevailed every single time they went to the big dance. We'll never know if Tim or a Duncan led team would have prevailed over ____________(insert big man)led team or if ___________(insert big man) led team would have beaten any of the Spurs teams. One gets into the area of futile and worse, pointless guessticulating.

[mavs>spurs2]

I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?

I got my opinion ripped to shreds for stating those same things pages back....

Several people(spur fans) tried to tell me that athletes aren't bigger or superior to those 50 years ago

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I got my opinion ripped to shreds for stating those same things pages back....

Several people(spur fans) tried to tell me that athletes aren't bigger or superior to those 50 years ago

My 10 year old son asked me why football players today are so much bigger then the players from the 1970's? Common sense, tells you that diet and training regimens due to advances in medicine and technology are going to improve size, strength, explosiveness and ultimately performance. What else could explain a little Vietnamese boy ever playing middle linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys? Remember Dat Nguyen?

[mavs>spurs2]

My 10 year old son asked me why football players today are so much bigger then the players from the 1970's? Common sense, tells you that diet and training regimens due to advances in medicine and technology are going to improve size, strength, explosiveness and ultimately performance. What else could explain a little Vietnamese boy ever playing middle linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys? Remember Dat Nguyen?

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

Word!

[Reggie Miller]

No I agree, but some jackass was trying to make a point that athletes aren't more athletic today than they were in Wilt and Russels time.

I am not the jackass to whom you refer, but I can't let that go either.

Sorry, but you can't make that sort of argument (athletes today are bigger and stronger across the board) and ignore the elephant in the room: anabolic steroids. Sure, football players are bigger today. How many of them are bigger due to PEDs? Who knows? Claiming that body types have changed that much in a generation or two solely due to nutrition and training regimens is not defensible. However, I will admit to the following facts: 1) These legal elements (weight training, nutrition, etc.) have revolutionized sports and would have done so had PEDs never existed; 2) Whether due to legal or illegal measures, athletes in general are bigger and stronger today in general.

I mention all of this becuase we tend to discuss all this in a partial vacuum. If Bill Russell played today, he would have access to all of the same options, including PEDs. It's not like we could or would pit '60s era Chamberlain or Russell against '90s vintage Shaq or Duncan and then deny them access to the whirlpool and trainer. If these men were coming up through the ranks of professional basketball today, they would have access to the very same modern training methods, etc.

One problem may be the overemphasis on athleticism. That is, how "athletic" do you really have to be to play basketball at a high level? Conditioning is important, but playing major minutes will condition a player anyway. Jump or spot shooting is a skill that involves very little or even no athleticism (which may explain why I am a decent shooter and a poor basketball player). How "athletic" does someone with the skill set of a Pete Maravich need to be?

Basketball is probably more like baseball than football in this regard. Don't worry, I am not kidding myself. You'll never see someone who looks like David Wells or John Kruk on the basketball court (or not for very long). However, height and speed can only carry you so far. See: Brown, Kwame. Many of the all-time greats would still be great players today, becuase of their basketball skills.

Again, I would agree that in general professional basketball players are more athletic today than fifty years ago. However, that doesn't mean that Wilt Chamberlain was less athletic than say, Greg Oden or Andrew Bogut, becuase it's obvious that he wasn't. You are still talking about individuals. Wilt Chamberlain was an athletic freak for his time and dominated every single sport he played. When you are making this type of argument, you have to admit that some players from thirty-fifty years ago were obviously more athletic than some contemporary players. Example: Oscar Robertson was clearly more athletic in the '60s than Bruce Bowen is today. Bruce probably has better conditioning, though.

In other words, I think a lot of theis "athleticism" talk is just a wash. We are after all talking about dominant, perhaps even transcendent, players. That is, we are comparing men who represent a tiny percentage of the very small percentage of men who have ever played pro basketball. To me, the eras differ more in terms of rules than anything else.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I am not the jackass to whom you refer, but I can't let that go either.

Sorry, but you can't make that sort of argument (athletes today are bigger and stronger across the board) and ignore the elephant in the room: anabolic steroids. Sure, football players are bigger today. How many of them are bigger due to PEDs? Who knows? Claiming that body types have changed that much in a generation or two solely due to nutrition and training regimens is not defensible. However, I will admit to the following facts: 1) These legal elements (weight training, nutrition, etc.) have revolutionized sports and would have done so had PEDs never existed; 2) Whether due to legal or illegal measures, athletes in general are bigger and stronger today in general.

I mention all of this becuase we tend to discuss all this in a partial vacuum. If Bill Russell played today, he would have access to all of the same options, including PEDs. It's not like we could or would pit '60s era Chamberlain or Russell against '90s vintage Shaq or Duncan and then deny them access to the whirlpool and trainer. If these men were coming up through the ranks of professional basketball today, they would have access to the very same modern training methods, etc.

One problem may be the overemphasis on athleticism. That is, how "athletic" do you really have to be to play basketball at a high level? Conditioning is important, but playing major minutes will condition a player anyway. Jump or spot shooting is a skill that involves very little or even no athleticism (which may explain why I am a decent shooter and a poor basketball player). How "athletic" does someone with the skill set of a Pete Maravich need to be?

Basketball is probably more like baseball than football in this regard. Don't worry, I am not kidding myself. You'll never see someone who looks like David Wells or John Kruk on the basketball court (or not for very long). However, height and speed can only carry you so far. See: Brown, Kwame. Many of the all-time greats would still be great players today, becuase of their basketball skills.

Again, I would agree that in general professional basketball players are more athletic today than fifty years ago. However, that doesn't mean that Wilt Chamberlain was less athletic than say, Greg Oden or Andrew Bogut, becuase it's obvious that he wasn't. You are still talking about individuals. Wilt Chamberlain was an athletic freak for his time and dominated every single sport he played. When you are making this type of argument, you have to admit that some players from thirty-fifty years ago were obviously more athletic than some contemporary players. Example: Oscar Robertson was clearly more athletic in the '60s than Bruce Bowen is today. Bruce probably has better conditioning, though.

In other words, I think a lot of theis "athleticism" talk is just a wash. We are after all talking about dominant, perhaps even transcendent, players. That is, we are comparing men who represent a tiny percentage of the very small percentage of men who have ever played pro basketball. To me, the eras differ more in terms of rules than anything else.

Nor was I responding back with you in mind. You do bring up some excellant points of view. My response was aimed at the "all things being equal" crowd. But I know that comparing apples and oranges of today to apples and oranges of 20,30,40 or more years ago is futile and pointless, but your assertion that if Wilt had had access to PED and today's diets, training and conditioning then the playing field would have been leveled and he would be as dominant today as he was back in the '60s, at least to me goes without saying. No brainer on that.

There is no way that anyone will know with any degree of certainty how dominant player "A" from 2007 would have done against dominant player "B" from the 1960's. A players performance will often improve or even digress when they change coaches, teams or even teammates, much less an era.

The biggest piece, but not the only piece of the player vs player puzzle should be about hardware and bling. Who's got it and who doesn't. Who's got some and who has more. That doesn't mean that Robert Horry can enter by default into the NBA's greatest Big Man arguement because of his 7 rings. Common sense and at least a basic understanding of the teams, their rosters and the league as a whole would help.

[kingmalaki]

Let us not pretend that the finals opponent is the only one who counts. I would expect the Spurs going to through the Lakers in 99 and 03 to count as a significantly better achievement than beating the Nets and the Knicks in the finals.
I wouldn't say that the 86 Celtics to be inferior to the 80 Lakers because they had to got through the Rockets vs. the 6ers, would you?

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the title in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their title because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing titles players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

[kingmalaki]

When talking about a players place in history, all one has to quantify their niche is accomplishments and benchmarks. Coulda, shoulda have no place in this conversation. I agree with your take that we have to consider the eras that a player played in, but it's not the definitive factor in the equation. Wilt dominated in an age where the skilled big man was a rarity. I'm not sure how you would compare an apple of 50 years ago to an apple of today. Are you taking into account that today's athletes are far superior to those 50 years ago? Or are you taking the George Orwell approach of putting Tim in a time machine and see how he dominates in 1962? Or vice versa, how does Wilt, Bill Russell do against todays Duncans, Shaq of 99-2006, Garnett or even an Elton Brand?

The whole convo is coulda, woulda, shoulda. We are not comparing Duncan to someone who played 50 years ago. We are comparing him to a dude who played in the 80's and 90's, against big men that were clearly better than the ones in the league today.


Well unless Nash improves his inside game and learns to bang a little better in the post, or unless Shaq improves his assist to turnover ratio......come on, it's apples to oranges. Not a good example.

It is a good example. The poster said you have to look at the MVP’s won, while completely discounting that it’s easier to win an MVP now because you are not competing with dudes who are generally considered to be in the top 5-7 players in league history. Winning an MVP does not make one better. Nash has two. Stockton has zero (because he played in an era with Magic, Bird, MJ and Hakeem). Surely you don’t think Nash > Stockton, right? Dirk won one over Tim this year right? Is he better than Tim?


Not so comfortable using Herr Notwitzki here, but Nash certainly. I'm using your built in disclaimer about personal and team accomplishments to put Nash in the same conversation with Magic and other "point guards" of that era. Just because he doesn't have as many championships as the next guy doesn't mean he's automatically excluded from being mentioned in the conversation. Is he a all time 5-7 guy? No! Is he a all time 5-7 point guard? Hell yeah!

I am not saying Nash or anyone else doesn’t belong in the convo. Feel free to debate…this is what these boards are for (one of the reasons). This thread is 19 pages long and I have already stated why I think Dream was better. I just had to comment on that dudes take..to simply say if you are going to mention those things (titles, all nba teams) then you have to mention the whole story.


Aside from the fact that they played in two different eras at two different positions Tim accomplished more then Magic because he was named all NBA first team more often, two times more as a matter of fact. Magic won one more NBA championship, and they both had the same amount of MVP's and finals MVP's. And even though Magic went to the finals more often his teams were beaten alot more then Tim's. Does Tim get any bonus points for not ever losing a finals series? Where as Magic was a three time loser.

Again, not telling the whole story. Of the teams that Magic lost to, which team do you honestly think ANY Spurs team would have beaten? Or which team do you think most pundits think they would beat? You are basically blaming Magic for playing in what most consider to be the best era in NBA history. Do the Spurs really beat the 82 Sixers? Do they really beat the Celtics squad that took out LA? Do they beat the Bad Boys or the Bulls? I don’t think so….


And you're trying to imply that some how Tim's personal and team accomplishments should have an asterisk or that maybe it shouldn't count as much because they played the Knicks and Cavs? They played the Knicks and Cavs and did what they were supposed to and won. None of Magics or Bird's teams ever played Shaq's threepeat Laker team of 2000-2002 or any of Duncan's Spur teams, particulary 2005 and 2007. You see that argument works both ways.

No title deserves an asterick, but I have no problem saying every championship team from 1980 to 1993 would be a clear favorite to win a title in any season Tim Duncan has played in. Those teams had superstars who were better (only one that didn’t was Detroit with Isiah) and A LOT more surrounding talent. I think it’s silly to discount how many titles a CHAMPION won in a tougher era when the player you are comparing him to likely doesn’t get titles in that era either….on any of his title teams.


It's not Tim's fault that for whatever reason, this is not the Golden Age of Big Men. Of those he has faced, his teams have prevailed every single time they went to the big dance. We'll never know if Tim or a Duncan led team would have prevailed over ____________(insert big man)led team or if ___________(insert big man) led team would have beaten any of the Spurs teams. One gets into the area of futile and worse, pointless guessticulating.

Just like it’s not Hakeem’s fault that he didn’t play with more help, or in an easier era against worse competition at his spot. I am not saying “blame Tim” for these things. I am saying you have to consider all of these things (surrounding talent, help) when bringing up how many titles one player has compared to another. I can see breaking away from this is two folks clearly have a team good enough to win and go head-to-head for the ring (i.e. MJ and Malone, Hakeem and Robinson, etc), but not when two dudes didn’t even play at the same time….

[kingmalaki]

The biggest piece, but not the only piece of the player vs player puzzle should be about hardware and bling. Who's got it and who doesn't. Who's got some and who has more. That doesn't mean that Robert Horry can enter by default into the NBA's greatest Big Man arguement because of his 7 rings. Common sense and at least a basic understanding of the teams, their rosters and the league as a whole would help.

I am lost on how you can type this yet not seem to grasp the difference/difficulty between a title in the 80's, 90's or 00's? Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts....

[Galileo]

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the title in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their title because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing titles players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

The overall talent during the Tim Duncan era is bolstered by another fact hithero not uncovered on this thread until Galileo Galilei dug it out:

early entry of star players.

In the Bird/Magic era, star players generally came out after their Junior year, if at all.

examples

Bird - 4 years in college
Olajuwon - 3 years
Jordan - 3 years
D. Robinson - 6 years
Manning - 4 years
Worthy - 3 years
Sampson - 4 years
Moncreif - 4 years

But in the Duncan era, more talent gets to the NBA faster:

examples

Lebron - 0 years
Carmello - 0 years
Iverson - 2 years

Also, to the Spurs, the rest of the NBA may not seem as tough as it was in the Bird/Magic/Jordan era.

But to the rest of the NBA, the NBA is as tough as ever, as all the other teams have to play against Tim Duncan.

[E20]

My two favorite basketball players of all time are Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan, so it is amazing to see this discussion here. Both are very underrated. Both were the best in their times. I have watched almost all of their games which have been on TV since I first saw Hakeem when he was a freshman in college in the winter of 1981-82.

That being said, please let me weigh in....

The four most important accomplishments in the NBA are; 1st Team All-NBA, ring, MVP, and Final's MVP, so first I will look at this data:

[note that this provides a perfect balance between team accomplishments and individual accomplishments, as well as a perfect balance between regular season and playoffs. It also scales back accomplishmnets before the MVP awards were given, which balances out the fact the NBA has become more competitive since it's early years and the 1960s.]

FIRST TEN YEARS OF NBA CAREER - BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME

Tim Duncan; 9 1st Team All-NBA, 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 3 Final's MVPs

9 + 4 + 2 + 3 = 18

Michael Jordan; 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16 (career total = 27)

Kareem Abdul-Jabber; 6 + 1 + 5 + 1 = 13 (career total = 23)

Magic Johnson; 7 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 17 (career total = 20)

Bill Russell; 3 + 9 + 5 + 0 = 17 (career total = 19)

Larry Bird; 9 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 17

Hakeem Olajuwon; 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 (career total = 11)

Tim Duncan has accomplished more during his first 10 years in the NBA than any other player in NBA history. He dwarfs Hakeem, and should easily pass Russell and Magic for his career. He is better than even money to catch Kareem and could catch Jordan if the Spurs can keep winning titles. I think he will.

Here is why Tim is the best:

Tim makes his teammates better like no one else in history. I first saw it during the 1995 ACC tournament where Randolph Childress went wild. Tim was there and made it happen. Tim was only 18 years old at the time. Only Bill Russell approaches Tim in this respect, with Bird and Magic next.

Tim is one of the greatest defenders of all time, seven first team selections and 3 second team. When Tim is old, he will still be a great defensive specialist. Young stars will want to come to the Spurs to play with Tim and win a championship. Tim could win championships on the backside of his career like Kareem.

Tim is awesome at position defense.

Tim can guard anyone, including Shaq in his prime.

Tim is unique in that he doesn't go for ball fakes.

Tim boxes out for rebounds better than anyone in the NBA today.

On offense, Tim moves without the ball like Russell and Danny Manning.

Tim sets picks like Wes Unseld.

Tim passes out of the low post way better than Hakeem. Dominating big men NEVER win NBA titles if they do not know how to pass out of the low post. Hakeem did not learn how to do this until Rudy T. came on board in 1992.

Tim shoots bank shots like Sam Jones and Phillip 'Doom' Haynes.

Tim posts up on offense like Hakeem. When I watched Tim in the '99 Finals, it totally reminded me of Hakeem. When you can run your offense through a dominant big man, you have a great advantage over your opponent.

Tim can shoot the midrange jumper. I too, saw this in detail in the '99 Finals. Shaq you can stop if you just keep him away from the basket. Not Tim. Hakeem did not develop this shot until the middle of his career, Tim had it at the beginning.

Tim is unique in history in that he does not care if he gets his shot blocked once in a while. Tim knows the odds. He makes a lot of shots because he is not afraid to have one blocked once in a while.

Tim has one of the best basketball IQs of all time, along with Russell, Bird, and Magic.

Tim is a psychology major and psyches out his opponent. His best move last season was psyching out Joey Crawford and getting him kicked out of the playoffs. In a battle of wits almost always won by refs, Tim stood tall.

Tim steps up in crunch time and the playoffs, just like Hakeem, Jordan, Russell and Jerry West. He has a drive to win. His stats are always better in the playoffs. He won an NBA title on two bad ankles in '05. In '04, he hit one of the greatest shots in history in the pivotal game 5 vs the Lakers. In '06, his performance on his bad foot was amazing against Dallas. By comparison, Larry Hughes had the same injury last year in the Finals and was not effective.

Tim shoots 70% on free throws in the playoffs for his career, not bad for a big man.

That said, some have argued that the NBA was tougher in the days of Bird/Magic/Jordan.

Well, first of all, the NBA did not have hardly any international back in those days.

The fact is, Tim does not have great players on his team, he has a couple very good players who are sometimes marginal all-stars. If it were not for Tim, you would not hear much about Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. David Robinson would have faded away, had Tim not come on board.

Tim lead the only "Twin Towers" duo to win a championship, and they won two.

Other Twin Towers did not win; Olajuwon/Sampson, Bowie/Turpin, Rashard Griffith/Thomas Hamilton (Chicago High School), etc.

Hakeem played when the best competition for All-NBA was at center, Tim played when the best competition for All-NBA was a forward, this balances out.

Go Tim! Tim is best.

If you are playing basketball, and you want to win, the best player is always Tim Duncan.
The fact that Duncan has accomplished so much more in his first years was already addressed earlier in this thread (All NBA teams etc.) Reason being is that there was so much more harder, tougher, and better competition at the PF/C spots when Hakeem was playing compared to Duncan's era. Duncan plays the Center, but he just wants to be called PF. Same reason why he is actually 7 feet, but he wants to be listed as 6'11 it's just his preference, but you can deny the truth or facts.

It's no question that on D Hakeem >>>>>>>>>>>>>Duncan

Duncan hasn't managed to win a DPOY in an era where his main competition is Marcus Camby.

Olajuwon was winning DPOY in a field of highly competitive player.

[E20]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

another favorite :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMonqfh69J4&mode=related&search=

[duncan228]

Duncan plays the Center, but he just wants to be called PF. Same reason why he is actually 7 feet, but he wants to be listed as 6'11 it's just his preference, but you can deny the truth or facts.

Just an aside...
Yes, Duncan wants to be called a power forward whether he plays power forward or center.

But...He is actually 6'11", not 7'. (It's been wondered if he's closer to 6'10" rather than 6'11".)

When he joined the Spurs they wanted to promote the "Twin Towers" with Robinson and Duncan listed as 7'.

When Robinson retired Duncan asked that he be listed at his true height.

Means nothing to the conversation at hand, but I wanted to mention it.

[E20]

Just an aside...
Yes, Duncan wants to be called a power forward whether he plays power forward or center.

But...He is actually 6'11", not 7'. (It's been wondered if he's closer to 6'10" rather than 6'11".)

When he joined the Spurs they wanted to promote the "Twin Towers" with Robinson and Duncan listed as 7'.

When Robinson retired Duncan asked that he be listed at his true height.

Means nothing to the conversation at hand, but I wanted to mention it.
I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

[mavs>spurs2]

Duncan just wants to be 6ft 11 because it goes along with him wanting to be the best PF of all time

[duncan228]

I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

I knew someone would ask. I'm looking for it, I've got it somewhere.
I'll post it as soon as I find it.

Meanwhile, run a game tape. Check Duncan out standing next to Horry, who's 6'10".
Or Rasheed Wallace.

Then look at him next to Garnett. Garnett towers over him.

I'll look for the article...

[duncan228]

I'll pull a ChumpDumper:

Link?

Here's one. I've got the same story in other articles/from other sources, I'm still looking for those.

(It's a long article, I just pulled this piece.)

http://ask.metafilter.com/54144/Is-he-really-that-tall

Is he really that tall?

How accurate are player's listed heights in college football and pro basketball? And are they measured with shoes on?

The most accurate height estimates you can find will be the heights of prospective draftees at the NBA draft camp. There they are measured with just socks on, and you'll often notice a 2"-3" difference.

Heights are played with because they can often make or break a pro career. In the NFL, 6'4" is considered ideal, and qb's that are 6'2" are considered too short, so they often fudge to be 6'3". I think this happens more often in basketball. Shooting guards that are 6'2"-6'3" get stuck with the dreaded 'tweener' label when they jump to the pros, so they often fudge their heights to be 6'4", 6'5". While they'll obviously be found out at the draft camp, they avoid getting stuck with a label throughout their four years of college.

As far as guys going down in height, this is also done for similiar reasons. I know that Dirk is a legit 7'2", but when he initially came to the nba, he wanted to play SF, so he didn't want to seem too tall and too slow for the position. Another example is Tim Duncan. When Robinson was there, they wanted to market the whole twin towers aspect, so they listed both heights as 7'0". Last year Duncan requested that the San Antonio media guide list his true height at 6'11"

[ambchang]

The Lakers in 99 pre Phil Jackson, during Kobe's first season as a starter (at age 20), also no Ron Harper? I guess Phil and the implementation of the triangle had nothing to do with making LA champs?

The 03 Lakers were good, but unless you are of the opinion that they were better than the 86 Celtics or Lakers then my point still remains. Congrats to the Spurs for winning the title in 99, but don't dismiss the fact that they played lesser teams. It does not discredit their title because you can only beat who is in front of you, but you do have to consider the teams played when comparing titles players from two different era's won. No team post MJ's Bulls is even mentioned in the same breath as those 80's teams....

So you are arguing that
86 Celtics > 03 Lakers (opinion)
03 Spurs > 03 Lakers (fact)
86 Celtics> 86 Rockets (fact)
and then somehow 86 Rockets > 03 Spurs?
How does that work?

Just admit you are pulling out opinions as you see fit, and argue that just because Hakeem last to one of the all-time great teams, it somehow translate to him being better than Duncan, who led his team to 4 championships over lesser competition.

All the while, we learned how Hakeem leading the Rockets over the Knicks and the Magic was that much more impressive.

[kingmalaki]

So you are arguing that
86 Celtics > 03 Lakers (opinion)
03 Spurs > 03 Lakers (fact)
86 Celtics> 86 Rockets (fact)
and then somehow 86 Rockets > 03 Spurs?
How does that work?

Just admit you are pulling out opinions as you see fit, and argue that just because Hakeem last to one of the all-time great teams, it somehow translate to him being better than Duncan, who led his team to 4 championships over lesser competition.

All the while, we learned how Hakeem leading the Rockets over the Knicks and the Magic was that much more impressive.

I have stated this already, but i will restate it again for you. I believe every title team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets title teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a title. Therefore, I don't see the point of saying Duncan has more rings than Hakeem, because if Duncan played in that era than he would not have 4 titles (IMO). The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams). It is pointless to throw rings into the argument when comparing two champions who played in completely different era's unless you are going to analyze all of the dynamics involved (i.e. team support, competition faced, etc). All of those things factor into championships, do they not? Were the teams better in his era...yes or no (including the Spurs title teams)? Simple question....

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won titles from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the title teams from Hakeems era?

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which title teams any Spurs champion (or their competition) would beat (another debate). In case you forgot the champions from that time were:

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

[lrrr]

Robert Horry seems to think this Spurs team could have beaten the Boston teams of the 80's...

[Galileo]

I have stated this already, but i will restate it again for you. I believe every title team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets title teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a title. Therefore, I don't see the point of saying Duncan has more rings than Hakeem, because if Duncan played in that era than he would not have 4 titles (IMO). The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams). It is pointless to throw rings into the argument when comparing two champions who played in completely different era's unless you are going to analyze all of the dynamics involved (i.e. team support, competition faced, etc). All of those things factor into championships, do they not? Were the teams better in his era...yes or no (including the Spurs title teams)? Simple question....

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won titles from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the title teams from Hakeems era?

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which title teams any Spurs champion (or their competition) would beat (another debate). In case you forgot the champions from that time were:

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

In the old days, NBA players did not keep in shape during the off season or lift weights.

They did not get as good of coaching as teenagers.

Hence Duncan faces tougher competition.

Hence Duncan > Olajuwon.

[Reggie Miller]

In the old days, NBA players did not keep in shape during the off season or lift weights.

They did not get as good of coaching as teenagers.

Hence Duncan faces tougher competition.

Hence Duncan > Olajuwon.


1. True. Most players "played into condition" during the first half of the season. This tended to leave them in a little better shape for the playoffs, as the players weren't worn down. In that period, back-to-backs weren't common, due to travel limitations.

2. Probably false, but at least arguable. In Indiana, that is definitely false. Basketball was the be-all/end-all here from the 1920s-1980s. When the Colts moved to Indianapolis, football made some major inroads. Otherwise, it was like the other sports only existed to kill time until basketball started up again. Check how many HOF coaches began their careers by coaching high school in Indiana. (John Wooden is the biggest "name" obviously.) My guess is that the level of coaching has been pretty consistent in the traditional basketball strongholds.

3. In previous eras, you have several factors that limited the pool of available players. If we go back far enough, regionalism and segregation were major factors. More specifically, the NBA had zero or one team west of the Mississippi for several years. If you didn't play for a major program like UCLA or set conference records, you weren't going to be playing in the NBA. The race issue is pretty obvious, but basketball integrated fairly early on.

Individual players may be tougher, bigger, faster, etc. Expansion has diluted the talent pool, however. While the pool has grown larger over time (esp. with the internationalization of the game), overexpansion has more or less cancelled out this benefit.

The '80s are generally considered the golden age of the NBA for interrelated reasons. First, the players had all attended integrated schools for approximately one generation. Thus, the opportunities for black players had become more or less equal (or as good as they would get). Second, the talent pool had expanded; international players even begin to appear in significant numbers in the '80s. Third, the number of teams remained relatively small. (The ABA merger actually helped in my opinion because many of the "additional" players came from colleges out west.)

I think Duncan may face better athletes today than in past eras, but I'm not sure that he's facing tougher teams, 1-12.

[Galileo]

Some more info to chew on:

Let's see how Olajuwon did in the All-NBA voting...

1984-85) beaten out by Moses and Jabber

[Ewing enters league]

86) beaten by Jabber, Hakeem 2nd

[in my opinion, this was a very poor choice. I remember when it happened I felt Hakeem had been cheated.]

87) Hakeem 1st

88) Hakeem 1st

89) Hakeem 1st

[Robinson eneters league]

90) beaten by Ewing, Hakeem 2nd

91) beaten by Robinson and Ewing

92) beaten by Robinson, Ewing, and Daugherty, Hakeem injured

[O'Neil enters league]

93) Hakeem 1st

94) Hakeem 1st

95) beaten by Robinson and O'Neil, Hakeem vindicates himself in playoffs

96) beaten by Robinson, Hakeem 2nd

97) Hakeem 1st, Robinson injured

98) beaten by O'Neil, Robinson, and Mutombo, Hakeem injured

99) beaten by Mourning and O'Neil

00) Hakeem old and injured

So if you add 2nd teams to 1st teams, Hakeem has 9, the same as Duncan.

So the argument about only one center, compared to two forwards, if you grant this, makes it a wash. Duncan may very well add a couple more 1st Team All-NBA awards.

By far, the toughest competition for All-NBA these days is forward.

Example - Carlos Boozer didn't even make the 3rd team last year.

Also - the western conference is, and has been, the toughest conference in NBA history during this decade.

To win the NBA title, you have Final's level matchups in the 2nd and third round. In the first round in the west, is almost final's level as well.

Back in the 1980s you would have all these sub 500 teams in the playoffs, so the first round was basically a bye.

Also, in the 1980s, the western conference, where Hakeem played, was weak, weak, weak.

In 1981 Magic got injured, so the pathetic Houston Rockets actually made the finals.

Now, all the rounds are best of 7, so to win from the west you must win 16 grueling games.

[Galileo]

oops, Hakeem was injured in '91, not '92.