Duncan>Hakeem.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

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.

Wow, just wow. Sorry bro but I gotta call you out on that one. It's clear that you do not think highly of todays Spurs as compared to teams of the 80's and 90's. However I believe that the Duncan led Spurs team would have/could have beaten any of those teams during 85-98. I'll concede that the 80's showtime Lakers and Bird's Celtics would have been favored, but get out of here with this clear favorite stuff. Not a single one of those champions would have been a clear favorite. None of those teams had an answer for TD, Parker and Ginobili, just like today, and I understand that the Spurs would have had match up problems as well, but it works both ways.

1985 Spurs < Lakers
1986 Spurs < Celtics
1987 Spurs < Lakers
1988 Spurs < Lakers
1989 Spurs > Pistons
1990 Spurs > Pistons
1991 Spurs > Bulls
1992 Spurs > Bulls
1993 Spurs > Bulls
1994 Spurs > Rockets
1995 Spurs > Rockets
1996 Spurs < Bulls
1997 Spurs < Bulls
1998 Spurs < Bulls

This is just my lowly opinion. Each one of these series could have gone either way with the exception of the Pistons, Rockets and the Bulls of the first 3peat, where I believe the Spurs should have been favored. In the other series, the Lakers and Celts should have been favored, but again my brutha from another mother get out of here with this clear favorite stuff.



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).

Why not? After all, if Hakeem would have played against any of Duncan's championship teams, or if Michael had not elected to pursue his HOF career in Canton then Hakeem could have very well ended up with 0, zilch, nada rings.

Isn't part of the barometer for where a players niche in history belongs is his accomplishments and championships won? No where in the history books or any record book I've ever seen have a disclaimer where player so-and-so did not compete that year.



The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams).

I agree with you as far as the quality big men are concerned but as far as top notch teams, I disagree. You know for example who the Spurs had to go thru in the Western Conference just to get the right to play the lowly Cavaliers. And one thing that helps your argument is that there has not been another Magic, Bird or Jordan. Take those three off their respective teams and what do you have? I thought so. It has nothing to do with the teams or this superior team play thing you keep bringing up, Magic, Bird and Jordan all elevated the level of their team's play, just like this Duncan fellow I keep telling you so much about. See the correlation; transcendental player + good coach + quality role players + set of perfect circumstance = NBA Championship.


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....

Too bad there's not a simple answer to give you. Let me just sum it up by saying that contrary to your assertion that most of the teams from 85 to 98 would have punked Duncan's Spurs, well I disagree.



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?

General consensus? Is that your opinion or did you read a Hoops Hype article? Do you have a link? I don't know about that. Those 3peat Laker teams were absolutely dominant! How can you say that with a straight face. You're a very good poster, but that is down right delusional.


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 would go ahead and count the '99 season because their transcendental players Shaq and Kobe were part of that team.


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).

It would be clear as mud, and it seems the pro-Hakeem crowd actually brought up the teams from another era by claiming that Tim played in a water-down league against inferior opponents.


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....

Correction, already established we went 2-3 against a very dominant Laker squad and as far as the Spurs record, well San Antonio is the winningest basketball franchise since Tim Duncan arrived. Despite playing in the very tough western conference.

[bobbyjoe]

So the Spurs were better than Isiah's Pistons and the 91-93 MJ Bulls?

Man, you are a riot.

They were a Rasheed Wallace brainfart from not even beating a 2005 Pistons team without a single superstar in the Finals and you think they were better than Isiah-Laimbeer-Dumars, who were night and day better than the 2005 Pistons?!? What world do you live in?

The league is ridiculously watered down and yes, any title team from 85-98 would beat the Spurs.

I still dont see how going 1-3 against the Lakers is something so wonderful to hang your hat on. Counting the 99 Lakers is asinine. Those Lakers had an 18 year old, very raw Kobe Bryant and Kurt Rambis as Coach. That team was a complete mess. They had just been crushed by Malone's Jazz back 2 back years.

If you think the 00-04 Lakers under Phil Jackson with a prime Shaq and more savvy Bryant were the same team as the 99 Lakers, you are just a bloody fool.

The Spurs did indeed take down the Lakers mini dynasty, but were 1-3 against them. I repeat, 1 up, 3 down. That's just not impressive.

[bobbyjoe]

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.

You need to check your facts.

Magic was in fact not injured in the 1981 playoffs, the Lakers had both Magic and Kareem and were just upset by Houston.

What that has to with Hakeem I have no idea, since he was in Nigeria at the time. Perhaps you are trying to downplay Hakeem's 1986 victory over Showtime, but just picked the wrong year.

Also, comparing the Centers in the 1990's as far as ease of making NBA First team vs. Forwards in the weak 2000's is a joke.

90's Centers = Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing. All 4 are HOF top 50 all time. Hakeem and Shaq are top 10 all time players. This doesn't even mention Daugherty, Mourning, Mutombo.

00's Forwards = Duncan and a bunch of forwards other than Garnett who will not be threatening for the HOF or Top 50 all time anytime soon. Beating out a guy like Carlos Boozer or one dimensional guy like Amare Stoudemire, especially when 2 forwards make it, just doesnt even remotely compare to having to face the quality of comp at Center in the 1990's.

I mean in that era, it's quite possible Duncan wouldn't have made the All-NBA First team once at Center and he certainly wouldnt have sniffed it on the All-Defensive teams.

Comparing the 90's comp at Center (Golden Age) vs. Big men now is like going to your local high school and saying the JV team is on par with the Varsity team. The difference is that significant.

[ambchang]

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?

So beating a team one out of 4 tries (including a year where they didn't even face each other when Duncan was hurt and the Spurs were kicked out of 1st round) is somehow worse than the Rockets losing to a legendary team, the 86 Celtics, in which you are using as some kind of proof that Hakeem is capable of carrying a team with the right teammates.
Speaking of that argument, the teammates argument, why is it such a shame for the Spurs to lose to the Lakers when the Lakers had a clearly superior supporting cast? Why is it that Shaq not playing most of the regular season not be a factor when the Lakers finished 52-30? The Rockets did exactly the same in 95, when they went into the playoffs with a deceivingly bad regular season record, pretty much by design. This is why they play in the playoffs.

[ambchang]

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....

I would say you have a strong argument about the Lakers, Celtics, and some of the Bulls teams, but the Pistons? They were a very very deep team, but were largely viewed as the weakest of the list of champions you listed out. The 97-98 Bulls were not that great, the 95-96 Bulls, though owns the best record ever, benefitted from a watered down league with new expansions.
And somehow you are ignoring the fact the the Spurs had a 15-2 record in 99 playoffs, and a 16-4 record in the 07 playoffs.
Finally, for a guy who puts such great emphasize in quality of competition, you sure are contradicting yourself by looking at regular season records as some kind of proof that teams in the 80's/90's > Lakers and Spurs of 00's.

[ambchang]

So the Spurs were better than Isiah's Pistons and the 91-93 MJ Bulls?

Man, you are a riot.

They were a Rasheed Wallace brainfart from not even beating a 2005 Pistons team without a single superstar in the Finals and you think they were better than Isiah-Laimbeer-Dumars, who were night and day better than the 2005 Pistons?!? What world do you live in?

The league is ridiculously watered down and yes, any title team from 85-98 would beat the Spurs.

I still dont see how going 1-3 against the Lakers is something so wonderful to hang your hat on. Counting the 99 Lakers is asinine. Those Lakers had an 18 year old, very raw Kobe Bryant and Kurt Rambis as Coach. That team was a complete mess. They had just been crushed by Malone's Jazz back 2 back years.

If you think the 00-04 Lakers under Phil Jackson with a prime Shaq and more savvy Bryant were the same team as the 99 Lakers, you are just a bloody fool.

The Spurs did indeed take down the Lakers mini dynasty, but were 1-3 against them. I repeat, 1 up, 3 down. That's just not impressive.

Rather than saying the league is watered down, I would say that talent is much more distributed in today's league due to better salary cap.
Take a look at the 88-89 season. Anybody remember the Heat, Clippers, Spurs, Kings, Hornets, Nets, Pacers? Teams that are just as bad as those teams last season was probably the Celtics, Bucks, Hawks and Grizzlies.
Thats 7 vs. 4, with a larger # of teams in today's league. Instead of having super teams like the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics, you have superstars spread over multiple teams. Of course, rather than arguing over being the man and getting an extra $500K, you are talking about being the man and having extra salary of millions of dollars + endorsement $. The economics is very different in today's league, and it's much tougher to construct a lasting championship team like the Spurs.

[kingmalaki]

Wow, just wow. Sorry bro but I gotta call you out on that one. It's clear that you do not think highly of todays Spurs as compared to teams of the 80's and 90's. However I believe that the Duncan led Spurs team would have/could have beaten any of those teams during 85-98. I'll concede that the 80's showtime Lakers and Bird's Celtics would have been favored, but get out of here with this clear favorite stuff. Not a single one of those champions would have been a clear favorite. None of those teams had an answer for TD, Parker and Ginobili, just like today, and I understand that the Spurs would have had match up problems as well, but it works both ways.

1985 Spurs < Lakers
1986 Spurs < Celtics
1987 Spurs < Lakers
1988 Spurs < Lakers
1989 Spurs > Pistons
1990 Spurs > Pistons
1991 Spurs > Bulls
1992 Spurs > Bulls
1993 Spurs > Bulls
1994 Spurs > Rockets
1995 Spurs > Rockets
1996 Spurs < Bulls
1997 Spurs < Bulls
1998 Spurs < Bulls

This is just my lowly opinion. Each one of these series could have gone either way with the exception of the Pistons, Rockets and the Bulls of the first 3peat, where I believe the Spurs should have been favored. In the other series, the Lakers and Celts should have been favored, but again my brutha from another mother get out of here with this clear favorite stuff.

Hey dude, I respect your opinion and we will never know, but how do you say none of those teams had an answer for Duncan, Parker and Manu when they had answers for Moses, Kareem, Bird, MJ, Pippen, McHale. Hakeem, Ewing, Malone. Barkley, Isiah, KJ, Payton, Kemp and Shaq? Duncan is considered better than the PF’s on that list and Ewing, but none of those guards are considered worse than Many or Parker. So these teams, while beating one another, had answers for all of these HOF players but they wouldn’t have an answer for Many or Parker? Do you see either winding up in the HOF?


Why not? After all, if Hakeem would have played against any of Duncan's championship teams, or if Michael had not elected to pursue his HOF career in Canton then Hakeem could have very well ended up with 0, zilch, nada rings.

I think Hakeem’s Rockets would have beaten every Spurs title team, with the only one even giving him a run being the 99 squad due to Robinson still being a star player (over the 94 squad). But that is an entirely different debate, much like the Houston vs Chicago one since we routinely beat the Bulls.


Isn't part of the barometer for where a players niche in history belongs is his accomplishments and championships won? No where in the history books or any record book I've ever seen have a disclaimer where player so-and-so did not compete that year.

Yes, a part. But again, if you mention titles you must tell the whole story, which includes the era that they were won in, the surrounding talent and against who. For example, it makes no sense for me to say Robert is a better role player than say, Sam Cassell and not mention the fact that Horry got to play with Hakeem, Shaq then Duncan.


I agree with you as far as the quality big men are concerned but as far as top notch teams, I disagree. You know for example who the Spurs had to go thru in the Western Conference just to get the right to play the lowly Cavaliers. And one thing that helps your argument is that there has not been another Magic, Bird or Jordan. Take those three off their respective teams and what do you have? I thought so. It has nothing to do with the teams or this superior team play thing you keep bringing up, Magic, Bird and Jordan all elevated the level of their team's play, just like this Duncan fellow I keep telling you so much about. See the correlation; transcendental player + good coach + quality role players + set of perfect circumstance = NBA Championship.

I know who they had to go through. Of the teams they beat, none are mentioned in the same breath with those teams from 1985-1998.

You are severly underestimating the help that Magic, Bird and MJ had. Those three dudes were great but their teams were quite stacked. The 80’s Celtics and Lakers had two additional HOF players on each squad (remove Bird and Magic). Say that again….two other HOF players. This isn’t even counting the other supporting role players (Ainge, Walton, D.Johnson, Cooper, A.C. Green, B.Scott, etc). Remobe Moses from the 82 Sixers and they still had two other HOF players (Dr. J and Cheeks), and that is before you hit their additional role players. The Pistons also had 3 HOF players (well Rodman deserves to be in). In today’s league you are lucky to have 1, if 2 on your team. Blame that on league expansion but it doesn’t change the fact that those teams were stacked. I know you may think Manu and Parker are the equivalent of say Pippen and Rodman, Worthy and Kareem, McHale and Parish, Erving and Cheeks, Dumars and Rodman (hell, or Agguire)…but they aren’t. Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE TITLE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.


General consensus? Is that your opinion or did you read a Hoops Hype article? Do you have a link? I don't know about that. Those 3peat Laker teams were absolutely dominant! How can you say that with a straight face. You're a very good poster, but that is down right delusional.

They were dominant, but I rarely hear folks put them in the same breath with those earlier squads for the same reasons (not enough talent on the roster from 1-12, and their best star is not considered better than Magic, Bird or MJ).


I would go ahead and count the '99 season because their transcendental players Shaq and Kobe were part of that team.

So you discount the impact that Phil Jackson and his coaching had on the team? Or that it was Kobe’s first yr starting, at 20? Kobe starting is quite arguable, but how can you discount what Jackson brought when both transcendant players say they would not have won without him? The same lakers were swept out of the playoffs the 2 seasons prior, right?

So if the NE Patriots win the title this season with Randy Moss and other additions, will you say it was the same team that lost last year, which had no receivers?


It would be clear as mud, and it seems the pro-Hakeem crowd actually brought up the teams from another era by claiming that Tim played in a water-down league against inferior opponents.

Tim does play in a league where there is less talent on each team due to expansion, in arguably the weakest big-man era in league history. How can you even debate that? It isn’t his fault but let’s call a spade a spade. The top teams of today just don’t have the same talent as the top teams of yesterday 1-12. Parker and Manu wouldn’t even start for any title team from 1980 – 1998. The closest case would be Parker on Hakeem’s Rockets, but I doubt he would get the nod as our PG had to be a 3 point specialist.


Correction, already established we went 2-3 against a very dominant Laker squad and as far as the Spurs record, well San Antonio is the winningest basketball franchise since Tim Duncan arrived. Despite playing in the very tough western conference.

The 99 Lakers were on pace to win 51 games. That is dominant? I remember that team quite well…they were not even predicted to make it out of the first round matchup against my Rockets. They were swept the previous year as well.

The Spurs do have the highest winning % since Duncan came on the team. Yet, in every title season, they would finish tied for 3rd from the bottom of those teams from 85-98, since you want to use win %. Hmmmm…..

[kingmalaki]

So beating a team one out of 4 tries (including a year where they didn't even face each other when Duncan was hurt and the Spurs were kicked out of 1st round) is somehow worse than the Rockets losing to a legendary team, the 86 Celtics, in which you are using as some kind of proof that Hakeem is capable of carrying a team with the right teammates.
Speaking of that argument, the teammates argument, why is it such a shame for the Spurs to lose to the Lakers when the Lakers had a clearly superior supporting cast? Why is it that Shaq not playing most of the regular season not be a factor when the Lakers finished 52-30? The Rockets did exactly the same in 95, when they went into the playoffs with a deceivingly bad regular season record, pretty much by design. This is why they play in the playoffs.

Yes, it would be worse unless you think that Lakers team would beat that 86 squad. I have already stated I think every title team from 85-98, excluding Houston, would be a clear favorite in todays league. But I wasn't trying to say 86 Rockets > Spurs so I don't see why you keep bringing that up and trying to twist my point, when it is quite simple. Each squad from that time had 3 HOF type players, and too much talent 1-12 (just less teams in the league). No one on your team outside of Duncan would start for any of those teams. The era was harder. You can't throw titles in the comparison without discussing outside factors such as that...it is not an apple to apple
comparison (i.e. two players going for the ring in the same year).

And get your facts straight. The 3 times that I'm counting are the Lakers last two titles and when they beat you and lost to Detroit in 04. Also, the Rockets record in 95 was not bad by design. It was bad due to injury to Hakeem, and a horrible start that led to a Drexler trade.

[kingmalaki]

I would say you have a strong argument about the Lakers, Celtics, and some of the Bulls teams, but the Pistons? They were a very very deep team, but were largely viewed as the weakest of the list of champions you listed out. The 97-98 Bulls were not that great, the 95-96 Bulls, though owns the best record ever, benefitted from a watered down league with new expansions.
And somehow you are ignoring the fact the the Spurs had a 15-2 record in 99 playoffs, and a 16-4 record in the 07 playoffs.
Finally, for a guy who puts such great emphasize in quality of competition, you sure are contradicting yourself by looking at regular season records as some kind of proof that teams in the 80's/90's > Lakers and Spurs of 00's.

Who doesn't consider Detroit great? They had more depth than any of those title teams 1-12, two HOF guards, a HOF caliber big man, scorers off the pine (Agguire and Microwave) and like 5 solid big men. They blew going to one additional Finals when Bird stole the pass, and blew a potential 3-peat when Isiah got hurt in Game 6 of the first Finals series against LA. Not to mention they also repeated (which you should know is hard to do) and were in the Finals 3 straight years. Learn ya history son.

How can you say the Bulls benefitted from a watered down league when the league is even more watered down now?

Does it not make sense for a team facing weaker competiton to have a better playoff record? It's kinda hard to only lose 2 games to the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, etc.....

I am looking at the teams 1-12 and not seeing how any team from this era beats those teams. I don't even see how the 90's teams beat the 80's teams to be honest........

[kingmalaki]

Rather than saying the league is watered down, I would say that talent is much more distributed in today's league due to better salary cap.
Take a look at the 88-89 season. Anybody remember the Heat, Clippers, Spurs, Kings, Hornets, Nets, Pacers? Teams that are just as bad as those teams last season was probably the Celtics, Bucks, Hawks and Grizzlies.
Thats 7 vs. 4, with a larger # of teams in today's league. Instead of having super teams like the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics, you have superstars spread over multiple teams. Of course, rather than arguing over being the man and getting an extra $500K, you are talking about being the man and having extra salary of millions of dollars + endorsement $. The economics is very different in today's league, and it's much tougher to construct a lasting championship team like the Spurs.

I agree with your reasoning, but at the end of the day the results are still the same. Those teams from that timeframe were very stacked. Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players. Most teams in the 90's had two HOF type players and role players, except for Hakeem's Rockets. Now you only need 1 HOF type player. Look at the tems that are considered great today (Spurs, my Rockets included) and outside of the main star the other starters are on the bench for every one of those title teams (except for my Rockets).

The top teams from that time were just insanely stacked. Call a spade a spade. Allen, KG and Pierce got on the same squad, with no role players, and most predict them to make the Finals, for example....

[baseline bum]

I think Hakeem’s Rockets would have beaten every Spurs title team, with the only one even giving him a run being the 99 squad due to Robinson still being a star player (over the 94 squad). But that is an entirely different debate, much like the Houston vs Chicago one since we routinely beat the Bulls.


OMFG
The 94 Rockets team is the second weakest champion I've seen in watching the game since 84 (sorry, Miami). You guys came one blocked shot from losing to a one-man team whose one man didn't even show up (it's not even debatable that Ewing was crap in that series). That 94 Rockets team was notorious for blowing leads, and most likely wouldn't have won a title in any other year when the three point line wasn't moved two feet in. Now the 95 team was a lot more versatile with Drexler replacing Maxwell and Olajuwon was playing unreal in that run, and was probably better than all but the 99 team, but the 99, 03, and 07 teams would mop the floor with the 94 Rockets. The 05 team would probably take the 94 Rockets in 7.




Tim does play in a league where there is less talent on each team due to expansion, in arguably the weakest big-man era in league history. How can you even debate that? It isn’t his fault but let’s call a spade a spade. The top teams of today just don’t have the same talent as the top teams of yesterday 1-12. Parker and Manu wouldn’t even start for any title team from 1980 – 1998. The closest case would be Parker on Hakeem’s Rockets, but I doubt he would get the nod as our PG had to be a 3 point specialist.


:lmao @ Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili not starting over Kenny Smith, BJ Armstrong, Vernon Maxwell, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Danny Ainge, John Paxson, Ron Harper, Mo Cheeks, or Chris Ford. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

[baseline bum]

Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players.

1980 Lakers? Whose the third? Jamaal Wilkes? Norm Nixon? Mark Landsberger?
1981 Celtics? McHale was a bench player and Archibald was old.
1983 Sixers? They had great depth, but Andrew Toney and Mo Cheeks are nowhere close to being Hall of Famers.
1988/89 Pistons? Are you serious calling, Rodman a Hall of Famer? The guy who quit on the Spurs in the WCF, and couldn't last with anyone once he got away from Phil Jackson?

[ambchang]

Who doesn't consider Detroit great? They had more depth than any of those title teams 1-12, two HOF guards, a HOF caliber big man, scorers off the pine (Agguire and Microwave) and like 5 solid big men. They blew going to one additional Finals when Bird stole the pass, and blew a potential 3-peat when Isiah got hurt in Game 6 of the first Finals series against LA. Not to mention they also repeated (which you should know is hard to do) and were in the Finals 3 straight years. Learn ya history son.

How can you say the Bulls benefitted from a watered down league when the league is even more watered down now?

Does it not make sense for a team facing weaker competiton to have a better playoff record? It's kinda hard to only lose 2 games to the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, etc.....

I am looking at the teams 1-12 and not seeing how any team from this era beats those teams. I don't even see how the 90's teams beat the 80's teams to be honest........
I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

[ambchang]

I agree with your reasoning, but at the end of the day the results are still the same. Those teams from that timeframe were very stacked. Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players. Most teams in the 90's had two HOF type players and role players, except for Hakeem's Rockets. Now you only need 1 HOF type player. Look at the tems that are considered great today (Spurs, my Rockets included) and outside of the main star the other starters are on the bench for every one of those title teams (except for my Rockets).

The top teams from that time were just insanely stacked. Call a spade a spade. Allen, KG and Pierce got on the same squad, with no role players, and most predict them to make the Finals, for example....

People predict them to make the finals, they haven't made it yet. And know, my money (figuratively speaking) is on the Bulls.

[bobbyjoe]

Rodman is easily a HOFer. One of the best rebounders of all time in NBA history, a terrific defender with multiple DPOY awards, and a 5 time NBA Champion. That's pretty open and shut.

The NBA HOF voters aren't only going to consider how a player did as a Spur for 2-3 yrs of his 15 career year, believe it or not. When surrounded on teams with solid leadership like Phil/MJ, Daly/Isiah, etc, Rodman was just fine and a tremendous asset. Without Rodman, no way does MJ win titles 4,5, and 6. His ability to frustrate and contain guys like Karl Malone and Shaq in the Bulls 2nd 3peat was huge. George Karl called him the MVP of the 1996 Finals.

The 83 Sixers had they played in the 2000's would easily have won all 7 NBA titles this decade. I mean Dr. J and Moses Malone at their peaks, plus a great all around team surrounding them? They beat some unreal competition in their run and did so handily. Just a great, great team. Even if they didnt have 3 HOFers, they are still so far and away better than anything in today's NBA that it's not even funny.

BTW, it's pretty ironic for Spur fan (who is always touting Bruce Bowen's amazing defense) to say that "Ewing played like crap in 94" as if to suggest Hakeem's D wasn't the main reason. Hakeem made guys like Ewing and Robinson look like crap in the playoffs. I mean did Lebron James just suck in the NBA Finals or did the Spurs D have something to do with it?

I do agree with you on the Parker comment. How on earth would Parker not start for the Rockets who had K. Smith as PG? THat makes no sense at all.

[bobbyjoe]

I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

First off, your comments on the Pistons are ridiculous. No one could carry the Pistons offensively when needed? The Microwave was like the Robert Horry of his era, a dead on clutch scorer and performer when you needed a bucket. So was Joe Dumars. And the team was so dominant defensively and on the boards. They were too physical for teams of today's NBA to hang with them.

Also, the 1990's talent was far, far, and far away better than the super weak 00's. The talent pool argument is basically BS.

1) Simple supply and demand tells you that the expansion of the NBA in the late 90's added about 15% of supply to the NBA in terms of # of teams. To offset this, you need a talent infusion of >15% to prevent dilution.


2) The # of elite impact foreign players is basically the same in the 1990's as now. Besides Dirk and Manu, you just dont have many first tier frontline NBA players from overseas in today's NBA. Sure, if you look at quantity you do have a ton of guys in the Darko, Sasha Pavlovic, Radmanovic, Vujajig mold. You have a ton of completely marginal NBA talent type of Euro who doesn't play a lick of defense and is soft, but not many impact players. The NBA has always been open to having the best players in the World come here. Just ask Hakeem Olajuwon, Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulonis, Dikembe Mutombo, Detlef Schrempf, Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc. All foreign born stars who came to the NBA in the 1980's/1990's when you want to attest that the league was shut off to non-American players. This argument simply holds no water. In fact, it's completely wrong.

3) The trend of high schoolers coming straight to the NBA and not going to college is something that started in the late 1990's and on into the 2000's. This trend has clearly and decisively hurt the quality of product in today's NBA. Guys come in with much less fundamentals. This wasn't nearly as prevalent in the 80's and 90's and it's not a coincidence that things like team play, passing, and bball IQ were higher in the Golden Ages.

4) The proof is basically in the pudding. If I tell you Decade A allows you to play more physical D, handcheck the hell out of strong perimter players and that Decade B frowns on physical play and bars handchecks, which Decade would you tell me had higher scoring? You would say Decade B. The rules are structured in Decade B to allow for a more free flowing, high scoring game. However Decade A was the 1990's and saw teams average about 10ppg on a much higher FG% than Decade B was the 2000's. This shows you how brutal the league has gotten in terms of quality of play. Passing, midrange shooting, and unselfish play are things of the past in today's NBA.
This is why in 1992 team USA was winning by 50 ppg and why in the 2000's we are losing Gold Medals to freaking Argentina. The World hasn't caught up, we've just lost the ball on what the principles and fundamentals of the game are.

[baseline bum]

Rodman is easily a HOFer. One of the best rebounders of all time in NBA history, a terrific defender with multiple DPOY awards, and a 5 time NBA Champion. That's pretty open and shut.

The NBA HOF voters aren't only going to consider how a player did as a Spur for 2-3 yrs of his 15 career year, believe it or not. When surrounded on teams with solid leadership like Phil/MJ, Daly/Isiah, etc, Rodman was just fine and a tremendous asset. Without Rodman, no way does MJ win titles 4,5, and 6. His ability to frustrate and contain guys like Karl Malone and Shaq in the Bulls 2nd 3peat was huge. George Karl called him the MVP of the 1996 Finals.


You don't they'll consider that he was a cancer? That he was shipped out of Detroit because he liked to sleep in his truck, holding a shotgun? How he quit on the Spurs in 95? How he couldn't last more than a couple of months with the Lakers or the Mavericks? That he wore out his welcome in the NBA so badly that he had to go play for some team in Tijuana?



The 83 Sixers had they played in the 2000's would easily have won all 7 NBA titles this decade. I mean Dr. J and Moses Malone at their peaks, plus a great all around team surrounding them? They beat some unreal competition in their run and did so handily. Just a great, great team. Even if they didnt have 3 HOFers, they are still so far and away better than anything in today's NBA that it's not even funny.


The 83 Sixers were one of the two or three most amazing teams I've ever seen. kingmalaki was making some really stupid generalizations about every contender from 1980-98 having Bird/McHale/Parish level trios.




BTW, it's pretty ironic for Spur fan (who is always touting Bruce Bowen's amazing defense) to say that "Ewing played like crap in 94" as if to suggest Hakeem's D wasn't the main reason. Hakeem made guys like Ewing and Robinson look like crap in the playoffs. I mean did Lebron James just suck in the NBA Finals or did the Spurs D have something to do with it?


This isn't about Olajuwon. I completely agree that he was better than Duncan, and that Duncan most likely won't pass him as the better player all-time. This is about the ridiculous assertion he made about the 94 Rockets. Hey, the Spurs swept. The Knicks came one block from taking the series in 6 despite Ewing being able to do nothing. John Starks and a past his prime Derek Harper aren't enough of a supporting cast to explain that one if the 94 Rockets were some kind of powerhouse.

[polandprzem]

I still do not get it why most people think that the '90 were much better then the '00 ?

All in all you can't just measure it.

What stays is your own bare observations.
What the 90s gave the fans?
The emotions of the 'early years' (the best in life).
The 90s was tyhe time of expansion of the NBA of the game that showed the world how superb game of basketball is. It brings out the good memories.
Like in a marriage - the early years are the best. Then comes the boring days and your wife just does not look like she was when you married her...

The 90s were the promotions days of NBA, prime days. In that days a regular players seemd to be better vthen they realy were.

And for one - damn many games were so boring in 90s that is sick.
The game right now is just much more interesting.
And the argument of having more brutal leauge is quite lame as we look at 70s or even 60s the game was so much more brutal (less safe) but you could not say that the 70s were better then the 90s.
It was good that the leauge opened up the offense. cause the defense was getting way too good. As you look at the 1999 Champions who were demolishing the other squads with D.
Then came the offense and the Lakers with great offensive force inside in Shaq and great offense on permieter in Kobe that killed the leauge although there were good Portland and Kings teams and we can put the Duncans Spurs to the mix.

great thing about Duncan is that he can different kind of games, that comes from his ability to play team game in a team way.
I belive in five and I'm tired of writting ...

[kingmalaki]

OMFG
The 94 Rockets team is the second weakest champion I've seen in watching the game since 84 (sorry, Miami). You guys came one blocked shot from losing to a one-man team whose one man didn't even show up (it's not even debatable that Ewing was crap in that series). That 94 Rockets team was notorious for blowing leads, and most likely wouldn't have won a title in any other year when the three point line wasn't moved two feet in. Now the 95 team was a lot more versatile with Drexler replacing Maxwell and Olajuwon was playing unreal in that run, and was probably better than all but the 99 team, but the 99, 03, and 07 teams would mop the floor with the 94 Rockets. The 05 team would probably take the 94 Rockets in 7.

Hmm, who blocked that shot and who was dogging Ewing that series? I guess having to chech Hakeem and go against him has nothing to do with Ewing's numbers falling.

By the way, the 94 Rockets were similar to the Spurs in that that team didn't have the same talent, 1-12, like the others from that time period (which makes what Hakeem did that season, on both ends, even more impressive). It seems like you are agreeing with the point that I'm trying to make.


:lmao @ Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili not starting over Kenny Smith, BJ Armstrong, Vernon Maxwell, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Danny Ainge, John Paxson, Ron Harper, Mo Cheeks, or Chris Ford. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

I believe I listed teams from 84-98, since that's when Dream entered the league. No, Parker and Manu wouldn't start over Kenny (we needed his 3-point shooting at the 45% clip) and Maxwell. Maxwell was a better defender than Manu. I also believe I stated every team, excluding the Rockets. But that's for another debate. And before ya say they would start over Ainge and Scott, I suggest you go check their numbers and remember the roles they had on those teams.

[kingmalaki]

I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

No, I don't think Parker would start. He is not a 3 point specialist, which is what the PG's role on the Bulls was. Either that, or a supereme defender (Ron Harper), which Parker really isn't either.

Yes the 90's were more diluted, but the 00's are even more diluted. I believe there is already another thread about the Bulls champ teams vs Spurs squads, so no need to cover it here too.

[kingmalaki]

Dude, if you are going to attempt to call me out at least get your facts straight.


kingmalaki was making some really stupid generalizations about every contender from 1980-98 having Bird/McHale/Parish level trios.



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)

Which of the above teams did not have a Bird/McHale/Parish level trios? Oh, I think I answered that too.


Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE TITLE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.

And I think Rodman's on the court accomplishments clearly put him in the HOF. The only reason he won't make it is due to off the court issues. And you call him a cancer, yet the Bulls didn't seem to have a problem winning with him once you gave him up for free.

Additionally....


This isn't about Olajuwon. I completely agree that he was better than Duncan, and that Duncan most likely won't pass him as the better player all-time. This is about the ridiculous assertion he made about the 94 Rockets. Hey, the Spurs swept. The Knicks came one block from taking the series in 6 despite Ewing being able to do nothing. John Starks and a past his prime Derek Harper aren't enough of a supporting cast to explain that one if the 94 Rockets were some kind of powerhouse.


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.

Ewing did nothing because Hakeem was kicking his butt. I like how you conviently forget to mention that Hakeem made that one block, switching on a guard, on the perimiter. And yes the Spurs swept....the Cavs....arguably the weakest team to come out of the East in the last 20 years!!!!

Apology accepted....

[kingmalaki]

I still do not get it why most people think that the '90 were much better then the '00 ?

I think the top teams were better because the league was smaller, meaning those top teams had more talent on them. In the 80's it was 3 stars. In the 90's it was 2, with the exception of my 94 Rockets. The 00's have had at least 5 champions with only 1 star/HOF type player (03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 05 Spurs, 06 Heat, 07 Spurs unless you consider Parker a HOF type player). The teams today just don't have as much talent 1-12 as those top teams. That doesn't even take into account that Magic, Bird and MJ are generally considered to be better than every player in the league from this era. And again, remember that each one of their title teams had more help 2-12.

Better star + better supporting cast = better team

[jman3000]

considering that the basketball HOF is international and not soley run by the NBA... we did have 2 HOF caliber players with Manu... what he's done on the international level is amazing.

[ambchang]

First off, your comments on the Pistons are ridiculous. No one could carry the Pistons offensively when needed? The Microwave was like the Robert Horry of his era, a dead on clutch scorer and performer when you needed a bucket. So was Joe Dumars. And the team was so dominant defensively and on the boards. They were too physical for teams of today's NBA to hang with them.

Also, the 1990's talent was far, far, and far away better than the super weak 00's. The talent pool argument is basically BS.

1) Simple supply and demand tells you that the expansion of the NBA in the late 90's added about 15% of supply to the NBA in terms of # of teams. To offset this, you need a talent infusion of >15% to prevent dilution.


2) The # of elite impact foreign players is basically the same in the 1990's as now. Besides Dirk and Manu, you just dont have many first tier frontline NBA players from overseas in today's NBA. Sure, if you look at quantity you do have a ton of guys in the Darko, Sasha Pavlovic, Radmanovic, Vujajig mold. You have a ton of completely marginal NBA talent type of Euro who doesn't play a lick of defense and is soft, but not many impact players. The NBA has always been open to having the best players in the World come here. Just ask Hakeem Olajuwon, Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulonis, Dikembe Mutombo, Detlef Schrempf, Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc. All foreign born stars who came to the NBA in the 1980's/1990's when you want to attest that the league was shut off to non-American players. This argument simply holds no water. In fact, it's completely wrong.

3) The trend of high schoolers coming straight to the NBA and not going to college is something that started in the late 1990's and on into the 2000's. This trend has clearly and decisively hurt the quality of product in today's NBA. Guys come in with much less fundamentals. This wasn't nearly as prevalent in the 80's and 90's and it's not a coincidence that things like team play, passing, and bball IQ were higher in the Golden Ages.

4) The proof is basically in the pudding. If I tell you Decade A allows you to play more physical D, handcheck the hell out of strong perimter players and that Decade B frowns on physical play and bars handchecks, which Decade would you tell me had higher scoring? You would say Decade B. The rules are structured in Decade B to allow for a more free flowing, high scoring game. However Decade A was the 1990's and saw teams average about 10ppg on a much higher FG% than Decade B was the 2000's. This shows you how brutal the league has gotten in terms of quality of play. Passing, midrange shooting, and unselfish play are things of the past in today's NBA.
This is why in 1992 team USA was winning by 50 ppg and why in the 2000's we are losing Gold Medals to freaking Argentina. The World hasn't caught up, we've just lost the ball on what the principles and fundamentals of the game are.
A 15% increase in players for a 24-team league is about 7.2 players (assuming 2 per team). Foreign players that made an impact last year:
Dirk
Manu
Tony Parker
Yao Ming
Mehmet Okur
Andrei Kirilenko
Pau Gasol
Zydrunas Igauskas
These are all players who made the all-star team in the last 3 years.

[ambchang]

No, I don't think Parker would start. He is not a 3 point specialist, which is what the PG's role on the Bulls was. Either that, or a supereme defender (Ron Harper), which Parker really isn't either.

Yes the 90's were more diluted, but the 00's are even more diluted. I believe there is already another thread about the Bulls champ teams vs Spurs squads, so no need to cover it here too.
Then again, this has absolutely nothing to do with talent level and everything to do with being an exact match of what the Bulls had in their lineup. I guess you are right then, Parker is not the next Armstrong or the next Harper.
It was enlightening to see that you think Armstrong and Harper > Parker (maybe Harper in his prime), it really helps your case that Hakeem > Duncan.

[Rummpd]

Most people who really put Hakeem up there do so based on a single series whereby he outplayed David Robinson. (In that series, Robinson had to defend the Dream 1 on 1 while 2-3 Rockets sagged on Robinson). However, I saw many matchups between them including one in Houston where Robinson scored 50+ (believe it was 54) on Hakeem during the regular season of his MVP season that were very evenly contested, and in many Robinson, outplayed Hakeem.

Players get hot, and Hakeem did this in the 95 series. He was a phenominal player and talent, but Duncan is the man among three great historicalplayers, as one has to bring Robinson also into the equation. He was the starting center on the dream team most of the time, and was that d*&% good. However,Duncan has had the best career when one looks at titles, MVPs, defensive first teams etc of all three. However, Hakeem and Robinson are in the top tier of NBA greats.

[Obstructed_View]

http://lolcat.com/pics/threadlovercat.jpg

[polandprzem]

I think the top teams were better because the league was smaller, meaning those top teams had more talent on them. In the 80's it was 3 stars. In the 90's it was 2, with the exception of my 94 Rockets. The 00's have had at least 5 champions with only 1 star/HOF type player (03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 05 Spurs, 06 Heat, 07 Spurs unless you consider Parker a HOF type player). The teams today just don't have as much talent 1-12 as those top teams. That doesn't even take into account that Magic, Bird and MJ are generally considered to be better than every player in the league from this era. And again, remember that each one of their title teams had more help 2-12.

Better star + better supporting cast = better team

What makes you a star?-

Your play? Statistics? marketing?

And who said that team with more stars are better?
All in all lakers with wilt, jerry and Elgin lost to the harmony of the Knicks - damn I love getting back to it. It's just shows you that no matter how great you are indyvidual you must be great in team sport. That's why Russell had more succes then Wilt. All that talk about pieces and puzzles is true.

And to me it's no doubt that Timmay is better in that art then Akeem


I'll be back (bennett)

[jman3000]

lakers of 04 had 5 HOF locks ... best team EVAR!

[baseline bum]

Dude, if you are going to attempt to call me out at least get your facts straight.




[quote]
Which of the above teams did not have a Bird/McHale/Parish level trios? Oh, I think I answered that too.



And I think Rodman's on the court accomplishments clearly put him in the HOF. The only reason he won't make it is due to off the court issues. And you call him a cancer, yet the Bulls didn't seem to have a problem winning with him once you gave him up for free.


Are you kidding me? Mark Aguirre, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper are fucking Hall of Famers in your mind? Every one of them save Kukoc has been eligible for at least two years, and none of them has even come close. The only one with a chance if Kukoc, because of his play overseas. You romanticize the past too much. I've been a fan since the mid 80s, and I saw every one of these teams in their primes. Mark Aguire kills me. Yeah, he made those Dallas teams unstoppable back in the day. Laimbeer? Laimbeer wouldn't make the all-star team in today's center deprived league. :lol

Scott had a sweet stroke and got lots of open shots off Magic. He reminds me of Raja Bell. Once again , hasn't sniffed the hall with 5 years and counting of eligibility. Michael Cooper was a poor man's Shawn Marion, without the whiny attitude.



Additionally....


Ewing did nothing because Hakeem was kicking his butt. I like how you conviently forget to mention that Hakeem made that one block, switching on a guard, on the perimiter. And yes the Spurs swept....the Cavs....arguably the weakest team to come out of the East in the last 20 years!!!!

Apology accepted....

Apology for what? Are you fucking retarded? Why do you keep referring to Olajuwon when I'm referring to the entire 94 team? Yes, Olajuwon is an all-time great, and at worst the third best center all-time. The 94 Rockets were a team that blew big games over and over, had one of the worst rosters of a champion in the last 20 years, benefited greatly from the three point line being brought two feet in since all they had was shooters next to Hakeem, and barely beat a horrible Finals opponent that wasn't playing well. There is no way in hell the 94 Rockets would have any chance against the 99 Spurs or the 07 Spurs, and the 03 team was way more versatile than the 94 Rockets.

[baseline bum]

To get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:

Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6". :lol

Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.

High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.

Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.

Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.

Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael Dickerson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)

Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.

[kingmalaki]

Are you kidding me? Mark Aguirre, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper are fucking Hall of Famers in your mind? Every one of them save Kukoc has been eligible for at least two years, and none of them has even come close. The only one with a chance if Kukoc, because of his play overseas. You romanticize the past too much. I've been a fan since the mid 80s, and I saw every one of these teams in their primes. Mark Aguire kills me. Yeah, he made those Dallas teams unstoppable back in the day. Laimbeer? Laimbeer wouldn't make the all-star team in today's center deprived league. :lol



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)

Each one of those teams has HOF caliber players on it, with the exception of the first 3-peat Bulls. The only reason Rodman won’t make the hall is because of his off the-court behavior. His on the court play clearly puts him in. I believe I stated this NUMEROUS times, hence me telling you to get your facts straight.



Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE TITLE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.

All you have to do is read…and you question if I am retarted….

[kingmalaki]

Then again, this has absolutely nothing to do with talent level and everything to do with being an exact match of what the Bulls had in their lineup. I guess you are right then, Parker is not the next Armstrong or the next Harper.
It was enlightening to see that you think Armstrong and Harper > Parker (maybe Harper in his prime), it really helps your case that Hakeem > Duncan.

That is true. When did I state they wouldn't start for those squads because they were worse than the starting PG's?

The main point I was trying to make is those squads 2nd and 3rd best players were HOF types. Manu and TP are not. The point, which you keep avoiding, highlights the talent discrepancy between the teams from then and the teams today. Again, these are the 2nd and 3rd bets players...not even mentioning the main stars who are considered top 5-7 in league history (Bird, Magic, MJ). Again, do you see Parker or Manu going to the HOF? Those are the best players behind Duncan for the majority of his titles....

[kingmalaki]

What makes you a star?-

Your play? Statistics? marketing?

And who said that team with more stars are better?
All in all lakers with wilt, jerry and Elgin lost to the harmony of the Knicks - damn I love getting back to it. It's just shows you that no matter how great you are indyvidual you must be great in team sport. That's why Russell had more succes then Wilt. All that talk about pieces and puzzles is true.

And to me it's no doubt that Timmay is better in that art then Akeem


I'll be back (bennett)

The same things that make Duncan a star. When I say star, I mean a top notch player. There is no doubt that Duncan is the best PF today, just like there was no doubt about how good those HOF players from back then were (McHale, Parish, Isiah, Dumars, Worthy, Kareem, etc).

And the example you gave is a very bad one. That Knicks team had SIX HOF players on it (Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley, Earl Monroe, Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere), and none of them were older than 32 (i..e. in their primes).

And are you going to argue that those championship teams that I posted didn’t have team harmony?

[baseline bum]

Each one of those teams has HOF caliber players on it, with the exception of the first 3-peat Bulls. The only reason Rodman won’t make the hall is because of his off the-court behavior. His on the court play clearly puts him in. I believe I stated this NUMEROUS times, hence me telling you to get your facts straight.


How is Rodman clearly a Hall of Famer? He was a one-dimensional player after leaving Detroit. How does being a cancer to your team not factor in? Off-court behavior is one thing, but being an ass to your teammates and coach is on-court behavior. Rodman clearly had it physically when he went to LA and Dallas, but he repeated his cancerous ways from his days in SA and his last days in Detroit.



All you have to do is read…and you question if I am retarted….



I think Hakeem’s Rockets would have beaten every Spurs title team, with the only one even giving him a run being the 99 squad due to Robinson still being a star player (over the 94 squad). But that is an entirely different debate, much like the Houston vs Chicago one since we routinely beat the Bulls.

[ambchang]

That is true. When did I state they wouldn't start for those squads because they were worse than the starting PG's?

The main point I was trying to make is those squads 2nd and 3rd best players were HOF types. Manu and TP are not. The point, which you keep avoiding, highlights the talent discrepancy between the teams from then and the teams today. Again, these are the 2nd and 3rd bets players...not even mentioning the main stars who are considered top 5-7 in league history (Bird, Magic, MJ). Again, do you see Parker or Manu going to the HOF? Those are the best players behind Duncan for the majority of his titles....
I definitely see Manu going to the HoF, and that is based on his international accomplishments though, not his NBA performance.
But since you are arguing that the NBA teams of the 80s > those in the 00's (or which I agree), why would that have any effect on not having rings as an indicator of a player's greatness? Duncan winning 4 rings in a league with generally weaker teams by having a weaker team himself compared to those in the 80s is just as impressive as any player winning 4 rings in the 80s with a stronger supporting cast. It's not like Duncan had incredible supporting cast the last 4 championships then, is it?

[bobbyjoe]

A 15% increase in players for a 24-team league is about 7.2 players (assuming 2 per team). Foreign players that made an impact last year:
Dirk
Manu
Tony Parker
Yao Ming
Mehmet Okur
Andrei Kirilenko
Pau Gasol
Zydrunas Igauskas
These are all players who made the all-star team in the last 3 years.

Except that there actually is no increase. At absolute best, it's a wash.

Again, here are some of the impact foreign born players from the 90's:

Hakeem Olajuwon
Toni Kukoc
Detlef Schrempf
Arvydas Sabonis
Dikembe Mutombo
Sarunas Marciulonis.
Drazen Petrovic.
Vlade Divac

In a hypothetical game between the foreign born impact nba stars of the 90's vs. the foreign born impact nba stars of the 00's, it's pretty clear as day that the talent is at best equal and more realistically heavily in favor of the 90's group.

So again, the argument that international players have boosted the talent level of the NBA is just garbage because there hasnt been an increase in imported top heavy talent on a decade over decade basis. There just hasn't.

BTW, your post ironically proves my point. The fact that a complete stiff like Mehmet Okur made the All star team shows just how weak and diluted the league is nowadays. Okur would be a below average starter in the 90's and in the 00's he's an all star. What did he average, 5 ppg on 30% shooting in this year's playoffs?

[bobbyjoe]

How is Rodman clearly a Hall of Famer? He was a one-dimensional player after leaving Detroit. How does being a cancer to your team not factor in? Off-court behavior is one thing, but being an ass to your teammates and coach is on-court behavior. Rodman clearly had it physically when he went to LA and Dallas, but he repeated his cancerous ways from his days in SA and his last days in Detroit.

He wasn't one dimensional. He was great defensively and as a rebounder. The only dimension he lacked was scoring, but he got his teams lots of extra possessions by pounding the glass.

You mention his cancerous ways, but he also had an impact on the game by getting his opponent's heads with his physical and dirty play, much like a Bruce Bowen, so he was a huge asset there as well.

And using short stints of what he did in LA and Dallas in his late 30's when few NBA players are productive is misleading, because these stints pale in comparison to his body of work in Detroit and Chicago over much longer periods of time.

[bobbyjoe]

To get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:

Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6". :lol

Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.

High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.

Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.

Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.

Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael Dickerson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)

Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.

This is a pretty fairminded analysis and impressive to see from a Spurs fan.

A couple things I would disagree on are:

1) Teammate: Hakeem didnt chase Cassell out of town. Cassell was a piece in the Barkley trade and if you are the Suns you dont make that deal unless you are getting young talent like Cassell + Horry.

2) Olajuwon threw a great outlet pass to initiate fast breaks. This is a lost art in today's NBA and not one I think Duncan really excels in. But Hakeem and Shaq were both terrific at snatching boards and making quick on target passes to start breaks. In his earlier years, I've also never seen 2 bigs better at filling lanes as trailers on fast breaks than Olajuwon and Robinson.

If Duncan has an edge on Hakeem, it's his ability to pass more crisply and effectively out of the post.

I would also say one key difference between the 2 is that in the clutch, Hakeem nailed his FT's and Duncan's been very shaky in those situations at key times.

[polandprzem]

The same things that make Duncan a star. When I say star, I mean a top notch player. There is no doubt that Duncan is the best PF today, just like there was no doubt about how good those HOF players from back then were (McHale, Parish, Isiah, Dumars, Worthy, Kareem, etc).

And the example you gave is a very bad one. That Knicks team had SIX HOF players on it (Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley, Earl Monroe, Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere), and none of them were older than 32 (i..e. in their primes).

And are you going to argue that those championship teams that I posted didn’t have team harmony?

Now we can argue the quality of the HOF's
Now we can go back to the talent and how the 70s were better cause there were more HOFs in squads then in 90s.

This argument with HOF's in teams is just not speaking loud to me.

BTW. We can talk about preferences and tastes when it comes to deciding who is better. It is simple unmeasuable when talking about players from that same shelf.

That's why sometimes I think that those over 20 pages are not necessery :)
But people has got to talk about something.

Persuade a Rocket fan that Tim was/is better and persuade a spurs fan that Hakeem was better.
Yup I can find some suiciders spurs fans that thinks Hakeem was better even when the fact about winning is so simple. So how much more edge does Hakeem have over Duncan??

[mavs>spurs2]

To get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:

Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6". :lol

Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.

High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.

Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.

Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.

Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael Dickerson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)

Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.
Finally an honest asessment, I applaud you for that

[ambchang]

Except that there actually is no increase. At absolute best, it's a wash.

Again, here are some of the impact foreign born players from the 90's:

Hakeem Olajuwon
Toni Kukoc
Detlef Schrempf
Arvydas Sabonis
Dikembe Mutombo
Sarunas Marciulonis.
Drazen Petrovic.
Vlade Divac

In a hypothetical game between the foreign born impact nba stars of the 90's vs. the foreign born impact nba stars of the 00's, it's pretty clear as day that the talent is at best equal and more realistically heavily in favor of the 90's group.

So again, the argument that international players have boosted the talent level of the NBA is just garbage because there hasnt been an increase in imported top heavy talent on a decade over decade basis. There just hasn't.

BTW, your post ironically proves my point. The fact that a complete stiff like Mehmet Okur made the All star team shows just how weak and diluted the league is nowadays. Okur would be a below average starter in the 90's and in the 00's he's an all star. What did he average, 5 ppg on 30% shooting in this year's playoffs?

Most of the players on your list played in a US college. And Toni Kukoc and Divacs wasn't that much less of a stiff that Mehmet Okur.

[bobbyjoe]

Uh, that's completely false. Kukoc, Sabonis, Marciulounis, Petrovic, and Divac did not attend a US college.

Also, what the hell is the relevance of whether they attended a US college or not?

Your argument was that in the 2000's there is more overall talent in the NBA because of the improved accessibility to the league of international players.

The 1990's clearly prove that the NBA has always been open to having the best players not only from America, but from the rest of the World. WTF does where they went to college have to do with anything? Is this basically your way of trying to divert attention from the fact that your premise is just completely wrong. The NBA has always featured the world's best players, not just America's.

The fact that guys like Hakeem, Ewing, and Mutombo went to college in the US if anything emboldens the argument that the effect of international stars on US play was actually stronger in the 1990's than now because several of the 90's stars actually honed their skills in an environment of American basketball, unlike guys like Dirk and Parker who have had to come straight to America from abroad and thus taken much longer to become quality NBA players.

Your argument is basically ridiculous. The only thing you've seen in the 2000's is teams fighting so hard to find the next Manu that they bring over stiffs like Darko, Vujajic, Radmanovic, Spanoullis, Turkan, etc. The majority of these stiffs are marginal at best rotational players and do not impact the overall talent level of the NBA in a positive manner.

[ambchang]

Uh, that's completely false. Kukoc, Sabonis, Marciulounis, Petrovic, and Divac did not attend a US college.

Also, what the hell is the relevance of whether they attended a US college or not?

Your argument was that in the 2000's there is more overall talent in the NBA because of the improved accessibility to the league of international players.

The 1990's clearly prove that the NBA has always been open to having the best players not only from America, but from the rest of the World. WTF does where they went to college have to do with anything? Is this basically your way of trying to divert attention from the fact that your premise is just completely wrong. The NBA has always featured the world's best players, not just America's.

The fact that guys like Hakeem, Ewing, and Mutombo went to college in the US if anything emboldens the argument that the effect of international stars on US play was actually stronger in the 1990's than now because several of the 90's stars actually honed their skills in an environment of American basketball, unlike guys like Dirk and Parker who have had to come straight to America from abroad and thus taken much longer to become quality NBA players.

Your argument is basically ridiculous. The only thing you've seen in the 2000's is teams fighting so hard to find the next Manu that they bring over stiffs like Darko, Vujajic, Radmanovic, Spanoullis, Turkan, etc. The majority of these stiffs are marginal at best rotational players and do not impact the overall talent level of the NBA in a positive manner.

The relevance is that if you count those who did attend US colleges, in today's league, I would have included Tim Duncan, and Steve Nash, and you could include players like Nique (I think he was born in France), and Ewing (Jamaica).

And since when have I said the 00's have more talent than the 90's? I am saying there is a higher supply of talent from overseas spread over a higher demand with more teams.
It is no surprise that most European players in the 90s were at least good players, the league wasn't looking for role players overseas then, like they are right now the Sideshow Bob, Diaw and such.

[Galileo]

I have been a huge NBA fan since about 1980 and watched several hundred games on TV, although I was a fan in the 70s as well.

Based on my personal observations, these are the best players I've seen, in order:

1. Tim Duncan

2. Hakeem Olajuwon

3. Magic Johnson

next tier (in no particular order):

McHale, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Lebron James, Walt Frazier, Dennis Johnson, Jabber, Isiah, Reggie Miller, David Robinson, Ewing, Fat Lever, and Sidney Moncrief.

Next tier:

Kidd, Kobe, Nash, Iverson, Parish, Barkley, Pippen, Karl Malone, Stockton, Garnett, Nowitzski, Shawn Marion, McGrady, Amare Stoudemire, Penny Hardaway, Dwayne Wade, Carmello, Vince Carter, Grant Hill, Maurice Cheeks, Clyde Drexler, and Tom Chambers.

Best college players:

1. Keith Lee

2. Christian Laettner

I apologize in advance for any oversights.

[mavs>spurs2]

I have been a huge NBA fan since about 1980 and watched several hundred games on TV, although I was a fan in the 70s as well.

Based on my personal observations, these are the best players I've seen, in order:

1. Tim Duncan

2. Hakeem Olajuwon

3. Magic Johnson

next tier (in no particular order):

McHale, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Lebron James, Walt Frazier, Dennis Johnson, Jabber, Isiah, Reggie Miller, David Robinson, Ewing, Fat Lever, and Sidney Moncrief.

Next tier:

Kidd, Kobe, Nash, Iverson, Parish, Barkley, Pippen, Karl Malone, Stockton, Garnett, Nowitzski, Shawn Marion, McGrady, Amare Stoudemire, Penny Hardaway, Dwayne Wade, Carmello, Vince Carter, Grant Hill, Maurice Cheeks, Clyde Drexler, and Tom Chambers.

Best college players:

1. Keith Lee

2. Christian Laettner

I apologize in advance for any oversights.

:lmao :rolleyes Jordan not even top 3 all time?

And you have Shawn Marion and Tom Chambers as some of the best players you have ever seen? Vince Carter? Oh but it gets better. Fat Lever and Sidney Moncrief :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
Moncrief, a career 15ppg 3assist per game guy one of the best ever? Now I think i've heard it all.

Give me a fucking break. This is the worst list i've ever seen. Tim Duncan is NOT the best player of all time. Jordan, Magic, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar Robertson, among others were better than him. Add Shaq to that list, in his prime he was one of the most dominant players ever.

And you even leave Pete Maravich off the best college players instead of Christian Laettner. Wow, just wow.

[kingmalaki]

How is Rodman clearly a Hall of Famer? He was a one-dimensional player after leaving Detroit. How does being a cancer to your team not factor in? Off-court behavior is one thing, but being an ass to your teammates and coach is on-court behavior. Rodman clearly had it physically when he went to LA and Dallas, but he repeated his cancerous ways from his days in SA and his last days in Detroit.

Rodman is arguably the greatest rebounder in league history and a 2 time DPOY winner. He was a cancer to THE SPURS. The Pistons didn’t seem to have an issue winning 2 titles with him, and the Bulls didn’t think he was a problem when he helped them 3 peat after y’all gave him away. How did the cancerous ways have an impact in Chicago? He is a HOF player based on his play, but he probably won’t make it due to his antics.
And for the second part, I was responding to your blanket statements such as:



kingmalaki was making some really stupid generalizations about every contender from 1980-98 having Bird/McHale/Parish level trios.

I believe I reposted those line-ups for you 3-4 times already. All you have to do is read. Sure, you think Rodman isn’t HOF material. I believe I mentioned that before your blanket statement as well:



Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE TITLE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.

If you want to discuss Hakeem’s Rockets vs Duncan’s Spurs then that’s an entirely new debate. This thread is already over 20 pages, lol.

[Galileo]

Another way to judge the overall talent in different eras, is to look at the top High School classes, and top prospects:

Best HS classes:

1.

'81 - Jordan, Hakeem, Keith Lee, Ewing, Jon Koncak, Joe Klein, Ed Pinchney, Chris Mullin, Anthony Welch, JJ Weber, Cory Blackwell, Brad Sellers, Scott Roth, Charles Barkley, Lorenzo Charles, Stuart Gray, Ennis Whatley, Xavier McDaniel, Oakley, Kenny Green, AC Green, Blair Rasmussen, Bill Wennington, Michael Payne, Greg Stokes, Uwe Blab, Sam Vincent, Terry Catledge, Jerry 'Ice' Reynolds, Dwayne McClain, Bobby Lee Hurt, Gary McLain

2.

'87 - Billy Owens, Alonzo Mouning, Crawford Palmer, Robert Horry, Byron Houston, Shawn Kemp, Stanley Roberts, Christian Laettner, Chris Jackson, Kenny Williams

3.

'79 - Ralph Sampson, Sam Bowie, Dominique Wilkens, Stipo, Rodney McCray

TOP PROSPECTS IN NBA DRAFT SINCE RALPH SAMPSON:

1. Ralph Sampson

2. Shaq

3. Tim Duncan

4. Ewing

5. Akeem Olajuwon

6. David Robinson

7. Alonzo Mourning

8. Lebron James

9. Danny Manning

10. Greg Oden

11. Kevin Durant

12. Derrick Coleman

[kingmalaki]

I definitely see Manu going to the HoF, and that is based on his international accomplishments though, not his NBA performance.
But since you are arguing that the NBA teams of the 80s > those in the 00's (or which I agree), why would that have any effect on not having rings as an indicator of a player's greatness? Duncan winning 4 rings in a league with generally weaker teams by having a weaker team himself compared to those in the 80s is just as impressive as any player winning 4 rings in the 80s with a stronger supporting cast. It's not like Duncan had incredible supporting cast the last 4 championships then, is it?

See the bolded parts in your statement. The difference is Hakeem [/b]didn’t[/b] have a strong supporting cast for the majority of his career. Even Spurs supporters here are dismissing the help he had on his title teams. I have already mentioned the stacked teams from the 80’s and 90’s.

Duncan hasn’t played on the best team every season but his teams always have had top 5-7 talent on them since he entered the league. He has never had to carry a scrub team and never really had to go through a rebuilding phase due to great management and the hitting on the Parker and Manu picks…both of whom didn’t take long to develop.

And again, I am not trying to dismiss Duncan’s titles. I am just saying you can’t just say 4 to 2 without bringing the other dynamics into the discussion.

[kingmalaki]

This argument with HOF's in teams is just not speaking loud to me.


Answer this question honestly. Do you think Manu and Parker are better than McHale& Parish, Kareem & Worthy, Dumars and Rodman, Pippen & Grant/Rodman, or Erving and Mo. Cheeks? Remove the HOF title and just evaluate the players….yes or no? You can go from players 4-12 and do the same analysis. Do the same for player 1 (Duncan vs Bird, Magid & MJ).

Is it speaking to you yet (not asked in a sarcastic way)?

[baseline bum]

See the bolded parts in your statement. The difference is Hakeem [/b]didn’t[/b] have a strong supporting cast for the majority of his career. Even Spurs supporters here are dismissing the help he had on his title teams. I have already mentioned the stacked teams from the 80’s and 90’s.

Duncan hasn’t played on the best team every season but his teams always have had top 5-7 talent on them since he entered the league. He has never had to carry a scrub team and never really had to go through a rebuilding phase due to great management and the hitting on the Parker and Manu picks…both of whom didn’t take long to develop.

And again, I am not trying to dismiss Duncan’s titles. I am just saying you can’t just say 4 to 2 without bringing the other dynamics into the discussion.

The 01 team started Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, and then Antonio Daniels in the playoffs when Derek Anderson got injured. David Robinson was two months from 36 by the time they met the Lakers. There's no way that could be considered a top 7 supporting cast, especially considering Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson were completely finished by that time, and Jaren Jackson was injured the whole season.

[Holt's Cat]

The 01 team started Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, and then Antonio Daniels in the playoffs when Derek Anderson got injured. David Robinson was two months from 36 by the time they met the Lakers. There's no way that could be considered a top 7 supporting cast, especially considering Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson were completely finished by that time, and Jaren Jackson was injured the whole season.


The '01 team that faced the Lakers had the worse perimeter cast a Spurs team has ever had in TD's career. It was worse than what Hakeem had in the '94 playoffs, without a doubt.

No Manu, No TP.

Typical Rockets fan, sitting in his trailer with his Rockets championship t-shirt from the mid-90s with the dirt stains under the armpits polishing off a 12 pack of Bud and dedicating his life to the preservation of Hakeem's legacy on the internets.

[Holt's Cat]

Uh, that's completely false. Kukoc, Sabonis, Marciulounis, Petrovic, and Divac did not attend a US college.

Also, what the hell is the relevance of whether they attended a US college or not?

Your argument was that in the 2000's there is more overall talent in the NBA because of the improved accessibility to the league of international players.

The 1990's clearly prove that the NBA has always been open to having the best players not only from America, but from the rest of the World. WTF does where they went to college have to do with anything? Is this basically your way of trying to divert attention from the fact that your premise is just completely wrong. The NBA has always featured the world's best players, not just America's.

The fact that guys like Hakeem, Ewing, and Mutombo went to college in the US if anything emboldens the argument that the effect of international stars on US play was actually stronger in the 1990's than now because several of the 90's stars actually honed their skills in an environment of American basketball, unlike guys like Dirk and Parker who have had to come straight to America from abroad and thus taken much longer to become quality NBA players.

Your argument is basically ridiculous. The only thing you've seen in the 2000's is teams fighting so hard to find the next Manu that they bring over stiffs like Darko, Vujajic, Radmanovic, Spanoullis, Turkan, etc. The majority of these stiffs are marginal at best rotational players and do not impact the overall talent level of the NBA in a positive manner.

Get real. The 'globalization' of the league has only increased its competitiveness here in the 21st Century. Spare me the glory days bullshit.

[baseline bum]

The '01 team that faced the Lakers had the worse perimeter cast a Spurs team has ever had in TD's career. It was worse than what Hakeem had in the '94 playoffs, without a doubt.

It was worse than what Hakeem had in 91 when his team didn't make the playoffs.

[Holt's Cat]

It was worse than what Hakeem had in 91 when his team didn't make the playoffs.


True.

4>2.

[Galileo]

:lmao :rolleyes Jordan not even top 3 all time?

And you have Shawn Marion and Tom Chambers as some of the best players you have ever seen? Vince Carter? Oh but it gets better. Fat Lever and Sidney Moncrief :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
Moncrief, a career 15ppg 3assist per game guy one of the best ever? Now I think i've heard it all.

Give me a fucking break. This is the worst list i've ever seen. Tim Duncan is NOT the best player of all time. Jordan, Magic, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar Robertson, among others were better than him. Add Shaq to that list, in his prime he was one of the most dominant players ever.

And you even leave Pete Maravich off the best college players instead of Christian Laettner. Wow, just wow.

This was a list of players that I personally saw play. I didn't watch much basketball until the late 1970s and never saw Maravich in college. That said, I thought Maravich was an overrated ballhog that played poor defense.

The college list was also limited to players not on my NBA list.

As far as Jordan vs Magic I'll take Magic. I saw both play and I thought Magic was a better player. I'll take a cat quick 6' 9" point guard that gets triple doubles over a 6' 6" shooting guard any day. That's why Magic was a number 1 draft pick and Jordan was number 3.

And I'll take Duncan as the best player I've ever seen play. Duncan is way better than Oscar Robertson who is just an everage sized guard with inflated stats from the early 60s, a title gift from Jabber, and extended career because the ABA diluted the talent.

Duncan is also better than Bird, who would have not done much had not McHale and Parish been behind him. Bird was not an elite defensive player.

4 > 3

Duncan is only slightly better than Hakeem as this forum has indicated.

Fat Lever was another underated triple double man, 6th of all time.

Most triple doubles:

1. Oscar Robertson 181
2. Magic Johnson 138
3. Jason Kidd 87
4. Wilt Chamberlain 78
5. Larry Bird 59
6. Fat Lever 48

http://home.swbell.net/hartley4/tripdoub.htm

Tom Chambers was a great inside outside player who could hit threes and dunk. He had great height for a deadly shooter and was an all-star MVP.

Moncreif was way underrated, and guarded Bird in the 1979 Final Four, and lead his team in scoring, rebounds, and assists in the same year and was defensive player of the year. The only thing holding him back from Magic and Bird was that he was 5 inches shorter.

Vince Carter has been a consistent all star who stepped up in the playoffs, and is another three point/dunk threat.

And Shawn Marion is way underated, as he scores and rebounds just as much as Stoudemire, plus he is a great defender, a very good team player, is very consistent, and can hit threes. He is just as good as Nash, if not better, as well.

So my list is very good, eh?

[bobbyjoe]

Get real. The 'globalization' of the league has only increased its competitiveness here in the 21st Century. Spare me the glory days bullshit.

Can you read?

International born Guys like Mutombo, Hakeem, Divac, Marciulonis, Petrovic, Schrempt, Kukoc, Peja Stojavokick, etc were NBA stars in the 1990's. The "globalization" of the league began long before 2000. Hell in 1998 the #1 pick was a British Center in Olowakandi.

It's utterly false, inaccurate, and bogus to claim the impact of "globalization" on the NBA is greater in the 2000's than in the 1990's in terms of # of impact players.

Stick to the simple juvenile "4>2" drivel.

[ambchang]

See the bolded parts in your statement. The difference is Hakeem [/b]didn’t[/b] have a strong supporting cast for the majority of his career. Even Spurs supporters here are dismissing the help he had on his title teams. I have already mentioned the stacked teams from the 80’s and 90’s.

Duncan hasn’t played on the best team every season but his teams always have had top 5-7 talent on them since he entered the league. He has never had to carry a scrub team and never really had to go through a rebuilding phase due to great management and the hitting on the Parker and Manu picks…both of whom didn’t take long to develop.

And again, I am not trying to dismiss Duncan’s titles. I am just saying you can’t just say 4 to 2 without bringing the other dynamics into the discussion.

And I have repeated it a million times, the Spurs from 00 to 03/04 was basically the Duncan and a bunch of other players. If you take away Duncan, the Spurs did NOT have top 3 talent in the league. As for top 5 to 7, that is really a general statement, that is saying top 17 to 23% in talent should be contenders, and that is simply not true. The Pistons would probably shock the world if they win the championship next year, so would the Bulls, or even the Rockets and the Jazz. These are top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, and they are pretenders, not contenders (yes, they could still win, but it's unlikely). Year-in year-out, there are about 3 to 4 teams, max, that has a legitimate shot at the title. The Spurs from 00 to 04, were not those teams. Lakers, Blazers, Kings, and even Mavs were more talented, the sole reason the Spurs were even contenders was because of Duncan.

[ambchang]

The 01 team started Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, and then Antonio Daniels in the playoffs when Derek Anderson got injured. David Robinson was two months from 36 by the time they met the Lakers. There's no way that could be considered a top 7 supporting cast, especially considering Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson were completely finished by that time, and Jaren Jackson was injured the whole season.
The fact that Jaren Jackson was even mentioned kinda drove home the point. :lol

[bobbyjoe]

This was a list of players that I personally saw play. I didn't watch much basketball until the late 1970s and never saw Maravich in college. That said, I thought Maravich was an overrated ballhog that played poor defense.

The college list was also limited to players not on my NBA list.

As far as Jordan vs Magic I'll take Magic. I saw both play and I thought Magic was a better player. I'll take a cat quick 6' 9" point guard that gets triple doubles over a 6' 6" shooting guard any day. That's why Magic was a number 1 draft pick and Jordan was number 3.

And I'll take Duncan as the best player I've ever seen play. Duncan is way better than Oscar Robertson who is just an everage sized guard with inflated stats from the early 60s, a title gift from Jabber, and extended career because the ABA diluted the talent.

Duncan is also better than Bird, who would have not done much had not McHale and Parish been behind him. Bird was not an elite defensive player.

4 > 3

Duncan is only slightly better than Hakeem as this forum has indicated.

Fat Lever was another underated triple double man, 6th of all time.

Most triple doubles:

1. Oscar Robertson 181
2. Magic Johnson 138
3. Jason Kidd 87
4. Wilt Chamberlain 78
5. Larry Bird 59
6. Fat Lever 48

http://home.swbell.net/hartley4/tripdoub.htm

Tom Chambers was a great inside outside player who could hit threes and dunk. He had great height for a deadly shooter and was an all-star MVP.

Moncreif was way underrated, and guarded Bird in the 1979 Final Four, and lead his team in scoring, rebounds, and assists in the same year and was defensive player of the year. The only thing holding him back from Magic and Bird was that he was 5 inches shorter.

Vince Carter has been a consistent all star who stepped up in the playoffs, and is another three point/dunk threat.

And Shawn Marion is way underated, as he scores and rebounds just as much as Stoudemire, plus he is a great defender, a very good team player, is very consistent, and can hit threes. He is just as good as Nash, if not better, as well.

So my list is very good, eh?

Duncan is better than Magic, Bird, and Jordan?

Do you also think Manu is better than Jordan?

David Robinson better than Wilt?

Bruce Bowen better than Scottie Pippen?

Hell, you may as well...

[bobbyjoe]

And I have repeated it a million times, the Spurs from 00 to 03/04 was basically the Duncan and a bunch of other players. If you take away Duncan, the Spurs did NOT have top 3 talent in the league. As for top 5 to 7, that is really a general statement, that is saying top 17 to 23% in talent should be contenders, and that is simply not true. The Pistons would probably shock the world if they win the championship next year, so would the Bulls, or even the Rockets and the Jazz. These are top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, and they are pretenders, not contenders (yes, they could still win, but it's unlikely). Year-in year-out, there are about 3 to 4 teams, max, that has a legitimate shot at the title. The Spurs from 00 to 04, were not those teams. Lakers, Blazers, Kings, and even Mavs were more talented, the sole reason the Spurs were even contenders was because of Duncan.

It's not always about pure talent, but how a team is built.

The Mavs had more pure talent, yes, but the Spurs were better constructed because they had guys like David Robinson and Bruce Bowen who could fill roles and impact the game without the ball.

I'd much rather have a team smartly built with pieces that fit around a superstar than a collection of individual all-stars who couldnt play defense or play well together like the Mavs had, until Avery Johnson took over as Coach and they became a more cohesive team.

As much credit goes to Popovich as anyone for always seeming to find that piece that fits, whether it's a Oberto, Malik, or Bowen.

[ambchang]

True Hakeem had worse supporting casts than Duncan throughout their careers, but it's not like it was so bad that he had to miss playoffs.
In 91-92, when the Rockets missed the playoffs, Hakeem had Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Sleepy Floyd, and their 3rd string PG, Avery Johnson, became David Robinson's best PG. Sure, that team may not win the championship, but miss the playoffs?

[mavs>spurs2]

This was a list of players that I personally saw play. I didn't watch much basketball until the late 1970s and never saw Maravich in college. That said, I thought Maravich was an overrated ballhog that played poor defense.

The college list was also limited to players not on my NBA list.

As far as Jordan vs Magic I'll take Magic. I saw both play and I thought Magic was a better player. I'll take a cat quick 6' 9" point guard that gets triple doubles over a 6' 6" shooting guard any day. That's why Magic was a number 1 draft pick and Jordan was number 3.

And I'll take Duncan as the best player I've ever seen play. Duncan is way better than Oscar Robertson who is just an everage sized guard with inflated stats from the early 60s, a title gift from Jabber, and extended career because the ABA diluted the talent.

Duncan is also better than Bird, who would have not done much had not McHale and Parish been behind him. Bird was not an elite defensive player.

4 > 3

Duncan is only slightly better than Hakeem as this forum has indicated.

Fat Lever was another underated triple double man, 6th of all time.

Most triple doubles:

1. Oscar Robertson 181
2. Magic Johnson 138
3. Jason Kidd 87
4. Wilt Chamberlain 78
5. Larry Bird 59
6. Fat Lever 48

http://home.swbell.net/hartley4/tripdoub.htm

Tom Chambers was a great inside outside player who could hit threes and dunk. He had great height for a deadly shooter and was an all-star MVP.

Moncreif was way underrated, and guarded Bird in the 1979 Final Four, and lead his team in scoring, rebounds, and assists in the same year and was defensive player of the year. The only thing holding him back from Magic and Bird was that he was 5 inches shorter.

Vince Carter has been a consistent all star who stepped up in the playoffs, and is another three point/dunk threat.

And Shawn Marion is way underated, as he scores and rebounds just as much as Stoudemire, plus he is a great defender, a very good team player, is very consistent, and can hit threes. He is just as good as Nash, if not better, as well.

So my list is very good, eh?

When someone doesn't have Jordan on their list of top 3 all time players that should immediately raise a white flag. Jordan was just incredibly dominant on both sides of the ball and there wasn't a thing he couldn't do. The man just had an incredible drive to win and always come out on top, he was probably the best competitor this league has ever seen. He was very clutch and you never saw him shy away from the big shot, usually knocking it down. Aside from the fact that there was no way to stop him, he was also one of the best perimeter defenders this league has ever seen. And all of Jordan's accomplishments come from an era where it was extremely hard for a guard to dominate the way he did. The handcheck rule made it a whole different ball game. That rule would kill guys like Tony Parker or Barbosa who's main talent is to use their speed to get to the rim. When Jordan got through the hand check and tried to make it to the rim, he still had some of the best big men and shotblockers of all time under the rim. Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, and even Mutumbo was a great shotblocker. The man probably could have rightfully been MVP almost every year he was in the league, but that would have gotten dull and they wanted to give other guys a chance.

Everyone so far wants to use the 4>2 argument to say Duncan>Hakeem, but you fail to realize Jordan would probably have twice as many rings as Duncan had he not left for baseball. Just think, 8 in a row, that would probably be the most dominant stretch in sports history. And there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do at the time to stop him.

Not to mention the shit Jordan went through on a game by game basis, he was beaten up almost every time down the court. The NBA as a whole was just extremely rough in the late 80's early 90s. I don't think alot of today's players would be able to adapt. I don't think Kobe could score half the points he does back in those days. I'm surprised that people forget how rough the game was and how hard it was on a perimeter scorer to get to the rim especially with the hand check rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLUV_Hc2_I

Just take this video for instance, half the shit that went on in this game would be an ejection in today's league. Look at all the missed shots around the rim because guys are just getting hammered every time they go up. Tim would be screaming bloody murder if any of this happened to him at all, much less every time down the court.

As far as the rest of the list goes, right off the top I can tell you that most on this board will agree that Marion is overrated to to his inflated stats from Phoenix's system. He's also way overrated as a defender, i've never seen him shut anyone down. And as much as I used to love watching Carter, he's been reduced to an overrated low % jump shooter who plays no defense because of his knee surgury.

You say Magic>Jordan simply because he was a little taller, and was a number 1 overall pick? Please tell me this is a joke, it's not where you're drafted that counts it's what you do with your career.

I also find it interesting that 3 players I listed as being better than Duncan you also listed as being in the top 5 all time in triple doubles.

Bottom line is that Duncan is good, there's no doubt about that, but putting him in the top 5 all time is a joke, as is leaving Jordan out of the top 3.

Edit: And as for what you said about Maravich, you could call him an overrated ball hog with no defense because of his pro career. But since you admit you never watched him play in college, i'll fill you in.

Maravich averaged an incredible 44.2 points per game in college over 3 seasons and is still the NCAA's all time leading scorer. It has since been calculated that he would have averaged 57 points per game with the benefit of the college 3 point line.

[Holt's Cat]

Can you read?

Yes. Can you bathe?




International born Guys like Mutombo, Hakeem, Divac, Marciulonis, Petrovic, Schrempt, Kukoc, Peja Stojavokick, etc were NBA stars in the 1990's. The "globalization" of the league began long before 2000. Hell in 1998 the #1 pick was a British Center in Olowakandi.


There are a greater number of international born players today in the league. A few in the 80s and 90s does not disprove that.






It's utterly false, inaccurate, and bogus to claim the impact of "globalization" on the NBA is greater in the 2000's than in the 1990's in terms of # of impact players.


No it's not.



Stick to the simple juvenile "4>2" drivel.

I thought it'd be easier for you to understand.

[Cry Havoc]

Stating that one era is better than another is pointless.

You CANNOT compare eras.

It wastes any logical discussion's time.

[saporvida]

Stating that one era is better than another is pointless.

You CANNOT compare eras.

It wastes any logical discussion's time.

agreed.

it's almost as stupid as comparing _____(lebron, kobe, carter, etc.) to jordan.

[kingmalaki]

The 01 team started Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, and then Antonio Daniels in the playoffs when Derek Anderson got injured. David Robinson was two months from 36 by the time they met the Lakers. There's no way that could be considered a top 7 supporting cast, especially considering Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson were completely finished by that time, and Jaren Jackson was injured the whole season.

Name 7 other squads better 1-12. I give you Dallas, LA, Portland, Utah and Sacremento.....

Ferry only started 29 games. Anderson got hurt in the playoffs but he still started the entire season and was definately not a scrub. When y'all signed him everyone thought he was the missing piece at SG. Robinson was still able to play very solid defense, similar to in 2002 when y'all beat LA (he was the one counted on to hold Shaq, after all).

[kingmalaki]

It was worse than what Hakeem had in 91 when his team didn't make the playoffs.

You mean the season where he missed 12 games (really 13 cuz he didn't start 1 after the injury) and we missed the playoffs by 3 games? The same season where we went 2-10 in the 12 games that he missed? Where the starting SF was Buck Johnson and the main players off the bench were Sleepy Floyd (at 31) and Matt Bullard?

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerlog.htm?yr=1991&ilkid=OLAJUHA01

And the playoff backcourt was worse than ours because D.Anderson was injured. He wasn't injured during the regular season.

[kingmalaki]

And I have repeated it a million times, the Spurs from 00 to 03/04 was basically the Duncan and a bunch of other players. If you take away Duncan, the Spurs did NOT have top 3 talent in the league. As for top 5 to 7, that is really a general statement, that is saying top 17 to 23% in talent should be contenders, and that is simply not true. The Pistons would probably shock the world if they win the championship next year, so would the Bulls, or even the Rockets and the Jazz. These are top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, and they are pretenders, not contenders (yes, they could still win, but it's unlikely). Year-in year-out, there are about 3 to 4 teams, max, that has a legitimate shot at the title. The Spurs from 00 to 04, were not those teams. Lakers, Blazers, Kings, and even Mavs were more talented, the sole reason the Spurs were even contenders was because of Duncan.

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. Please list 7 teams from that period with better rosters 1-12 than SA. The Spurs were in the contender convo in each of those seasons. True, they were not always considered the favorite but they were always in the convo.

Remove the best player from the other teams and 2-12, SA still had top level talent (again, name 7 better squads).

[kingmalaki]

True Hakeem had worse supporting casts than Duncan throughout their careers, but it's not like it was so bad that he had to miss playoffs.
In 91-92, when the Rockets missed the playoffs, Hakeem had Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Sleepy Floyd, and their 3rd string PG, Avery Johnson, became David Robinson's best PG. Sure, that team may not win the championship, but miss the playoffs?

Hakeem also missed 12 games that season, in which the team went 2-10. We missed the playoff by 3 games.

[baseline bum]

Name 7 other squads better 1-12. I give you Dallas, LA, Portland, Utah and Sacremento.....

Ferry only started 29 games. Anderson got hurt in the playoffs but he still started the entire season and was definately not a scrub. When y'all signed him everyone thought he was the missing piece at SG. Robinson was still able to play very solid defense, similar to in 2002 when y'all beat LA (he was the one counted on to hold Shaq, after all).

The Spurs beat LA in 2003.

I'm also not talking 1-12, I'm talking 2-12 (ie, Duncan's supporting cast). These 9 are obviously better supporting casts than what Duncan had in 00-01:

1. Allen Houston's supporting cast in NY
Latrell Sprewell > Derek Anderson
Larry Johnson > Danny Ferry
Marcus Camby = David Robinson
Kurt Thomas = Malik Rose
Charlie Ward = Terry Porter
Glen Rice > Antonio Daniels

2. Shaq's supporting cast in LA
Kobe Bryant >> Derek Anderson
Rick Fox > Danny Ferry
Horace Grant < David Robinson
Robert Horry = Malik Rose
Derek Fisher > Terry Porter
Brian Shaw < Antonio Daniels

3. Webber's supporting cast in Sac
Doug Christie >= Derek Anderson
Peja Stojakovic >> Danny Ferry
Vlade Divac = David Robinson
Hedo Turkoglu = Malik Rose
Jason Williams > Terry Porter
Bobby Jackson > Antonio Daniels

4. Nowitzki's supporting cast in Dallas
Michael Finley > Derek Anderson
Christian Laettner / Juwan Howard > Danny Ferry
Shawn Bradley < David Robinson
Calvin Booth < Malik Rose
Steve Nash >> Terry Porter
Howard Eisley = Antonio Daniels

5. Rasheed's supporting cast in Portland
Steve Smith = Derek Anderson
Scottie Pippen >> Danny Ferry
Arvydas Sabonis < David Robinson
Dale Davis > Malik Rose
Damon Stoudamire > Terry Porter
Bonzi Wells >> Antonio Daniels

6. Glenn Robinson's supporting cast in Milwaukee
Ray Allen >> Derek Anderson
Tim Thomas > Danny Ferry
Ervin Johnson << David Robinson
Jason Caffey < Malik Rose
Sam Cassell >> Terry Porter
Lindsey Hunter > Antonio Daniels

7. Allen Iverson's supporting cast in Philly
Aaron McKie = Derek Anderson
George Lynch > Danny Ferry
Dikembe Mutombo > David Robinson
Tyrone Hill = Malik Rose
Eric Snow >= Terry Porter
Toni Kukoc = Antonio Daniels

8. Jalen Rose's supporting cast in Indiana
Reggie Miller > Derek Anderson
Austin Croshere > Danny Ferry
Jermaine O'Neal = David Robinson
Al Harrington = Malik Rose
Travis Best > Terry Porter
Sam Perkins < Antonio Daniels

9. Eddie Jones' supporting cast in Miami
Dan Majerle < Derek Anderson
Bruce Bowen > Danny Ferry
Brian Grant = David Robinson
Anthony Mason >> Malik Rose
Tim Hardaway > Terry Porter
Cedric Ceballos < Antonio Daniels

[bobbyjoe]

Yes. Can you bathe?




There are a greater number of international born players today in the league. A few in the 80s and 90s does not disprove that.




No it's not.



I thought it'd be easier for you to understand.


International born stars from the 00's:

Dirk
Manu
Tony Parker
Yao Ming
Mehmet Okur
Andrei Kirilenko
Pau Gasol
Zydrunas Igauskas

International born stars from the 90's:

Hakeem Olajuwon
Dikembe Mutombo
Sarunas Marciulonis
Vlade Divac
Detlef Schrempf
Toni Kukoc
Drazen Petrovic
Rik Smits

http://jonesonthenba.blogspot.com/2006/12/20-greatest-international-born-nba.html

Notice that the majority of the top international born players (this list incidentally ranks Hakeem over Duncan as well) are actually from the 90's. Not "a few" as you suggest, but in fact the majority on this list played in and/or were drafted in the 1990's.

Are there more international born scrubs in today's NBA than in the 1990's? Yes, that is definitely true. The quantity has increased.

But are there more impact international stars in today's NBA than in the 90's? Uh, no. As this list shows, the majority of the international stars and the truly top echelon ones like Hakeem and Ewing were in the 1990's, not in the 2000's.

And as a result, arguing that the influx of international born players has bolstered the quality of the NBA is short-sighted and erroneous. Because at the end of the day, it's the top stars who impact the league, not stiffs like Vujajic, Radmanovic, Darko, etc. Quality>>>>>>>>>>>> Quantity.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem also missed 12 games that season, in which the team went 2-10. We missed the playoff by 3 games.


So basically Houston was 40-30 that year when Hakeem actually started. I guess this should put to rest the garbage about "hakeem didnt make the playoffs that 1 yr of his 18 yr career".

[bobbyjoe]

When someone doesn't have Jordan on their list of top 3 all time players that should immediately raise a white flag. Jordan was just incredibly dominant on both sides of the ball and there wasn't a thing he couldn't do. The man just had an incredible drive to win and always come out on top, he was probably the best competitor this league has ever seen. He was very clutch and you never saw him shy away from the big shot, usually knocking it down. Aside from the fact that there was no way to stop him, he was also one of the best perimeter defenders this league has ever seen. And all of Jordan's accomplishments come from an era where it was extremely hard for a guard to dominate the way he did. The handcheck rule made it a whole different ball game. That rule would kill guys like Tony Parker or Barbosa who's main talent is to use their speed to get to the rim. When Jordan got through the hand check and tried to make it to the rim, he still had some of the best big men and shotblockers of all time under the rim. Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, and even Mutumbo was a great shotblocker. The man probably could have rightfully been MVP almost every year he was in the league, but that would have gotten dull and they wanted to give other guys a chance.

Everyone so far wants to use the 4>2 argument to say Duncan>Hakeem, but you fail to realize Jordan would probably have twice as many rings as Duncan had he not left for baseball. Just think, 8 in a row, that would probably be the most dominant stretch in sports history. And there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do at the time to stop him.

Not to mention the shit Jordan went through on a game by game basis, he was beaten up almost every time down the court. The NBA as a whole was just extremely rough in the late 80's early 90s. I don't think alot of today's players would be able to adapt. I don't think Kobe could score half the points he does back in those days. I'm surprised that people forget how rough the game was and how hard it was on a perimeter scorer to get to the rim especially with the hand check rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLUV_Hc2_I

Just take this video for instance, half the shit that went on in this game would be an ejection in today's league. Look at all the missed shots around the rim because guys are just getting hammered every time they go up. Tim would be screaming bloody murder if any of this happened to him at all, much less every time down the court.

As far as the rest of the list goes, right off the top I can tell you that most on this board will agree that Marion is overrated to to his inflated stats from Phoenix's system. He's also way overrated as a defender, i've never seen him shut anyone down. And as much as I used to love watching Carter, he's been reduced to an overrated low % jump shooter who plays no defense because of his knee surgury.

You say Magic>Jordan simply because he was a little taller, and was a number 1 overall pick? Please tell me this is a joke, it's not where you're drafted that counts it's what you do with your career.

I also find it interesting that 3 players I listed as being better than Duncan you also listed as being in the top 5 all time in triple doubles.

Bottom line is that Duncan is good, there's no doubt about that, but putting him in the top 5 all time is a joke, as is leaving Jordan out of the top 3.

Edit: And as for what you said about Maravich, you could call him an overrated ball hog with no defense because of his pro career. But since you admit you never watched him play in college, i'll fill you in.

Maravich averaged an incredible 44.2 points per game in college over 3 seasons and is still the NCAA's all time leading scorer. It has since been calculated that he would have averaged 57 points per game with the benefit of the college 3 point line.


Jordan in today's NBA with the lax rules favoring perimeter players and the lack of physical play would just be ridiculous. I mean he'd probably average 35-38 ppg on 55-58% shooting.

I remember those Bulls-Knicks and Bulls-Pistons series where MJ would just get murdered physically.

Today's NBA is so weak that his dominance would stand out that much moreso.

You have to keep in mind that some of these fans undoubtedly never saw Magic, Hakeem, or MJ play or they wouldnt be able to rate Duncan over them with a straight face. Those guys did what they did in a much, much tougher league.

I mean some of the younger fools who never saw MJ play undoubtedly actually compare Kobe to him, which is absurd.

[Nikos]

Jordan in today's NBA with the lax rules favoring perimeter players and the lack of physical play would just be ridiculous. I mean he'd probably average 35-38 ppg on 55-58% shooting.

I remember those Bulls-Knicks and Bulls-Pistons series where MJ would just get murdered physically.

Today's NBA is so weak that his dominance would stand out that much moreso.

You have to keep in mind that some of these fans undoubtedly never saw Magic, Hakeem, or MJ play or they wouldnt be able to rate Duncan over them with a straight face. Those guys did what they did in a much, much tougher league.

I mean some of the younger fools who never saw MJ play undoubtedly actually compare Kobe to him, which is absurd.

Why can't you rate Duncan up there with Magic or Hakeem? Personally I think Hakeem was better than Magic, and that Duncan might possibly be better than him as well. But it all depends how much you value defense and someone who is an assist machine.

As far as Hakeem goes, I think I would give him the slight edge on Duncan for his 1994 and 1995 playoff runs over Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem did seem to be more athletic and effective on defense overall. Duncan plays it safe more and fouls less, but Hakeem was quicker. As far as offense goes they are very close. Hakeem had some more moves, but don't forget one of Hakeems best assets was his turnaround, not necessarily banging and scoring in the deep post. He was like Garnett somewhat with more moves and tougher underneath.

As far as MJ scoring 38ppg on 58% shooting I highly doubt that. He probably would do the same now as he did back then. Not much of a difference. He would still be the best player in the league, but he wouldn't be scoring 38-40ppg. As a rule I would say that defense is better than it was in the 80s, and yes the late 80s even if you factor the Pistons PHYSICAL, but not necessarily superior defense (to teams like the Spurs of today for example).

Sure the Knicks and Pistons were great on defense, but lets not act like they were much better than the Spurs of today. Just because they might have allowed more contact without penalty doesn't mean the teams in the 80s would score 130ppg or whatever. The talent level has not gotten any worse then those days, and if it has gotten worse it is minimal at best.

[ambchang]

Sorry, but this is completely untrue. Please list 7 teams from that period with better rosters 1-12 than SA. The Spurs were in the contender convo in each of those seasons. True, they were not always considered the favorite but they were always in the convo.

Remove the best player from the other teams and 2-12, SA still had top level talent (again, name 7 better squads).

It would help if you read what I wrote.
I said the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. And arbitrarily taking top 7 talent is just increasing the pool to strengthen your argument. From 00-04, if you take Duncan away, the Spurs are may top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, but that does NOT mean that they should be real contenders, and yet they were always one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the league BECAUSE OF DUNCAN.

A top 7 talent team, such as the Bulls or Pistons from last year, would really shock everyone if they win the championship.

[ambchang]

It's not always about pure talent, but how a team is built.

The Mavs had more pure talent, yes, but the Spurs were better constructed because they had guys like David Robinson and Bruce Bowen who could fill roles and impact the game without the ball.

I'd much rather have a team smartly built with pieces that fit around a superstar than a collection of individual all-stars who couldnt play defense or play well together like the Mavs had, until Avery Johnson took over as Coach and they became a more cohesive team.

As much credit goes to Popovich as anyone for always seeming to find that piece that fits, whether it's a Oberto, Malik, or Bowen.

Thank you, which is why I would pick Duncan over Hakeem to build a team, because Duncan is easier to build around.
No slight to Hakeem, I think in terms of talent, he is >>>> Duncan, no question, this is pretty much like a less extreme version of Wilt vs. Russell, only Duncan didn't have 7 HoFs on his team.

[Galileo]

Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball?: Mr Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time (Paperback)
by Elliott Kalb
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Better-Best-Basketball-Straight/dp/0071417885

This is a great book, has anyone read it?

It came out after Duncan's 6th season (2003).

Ranks:

Jordan # 3

Duncan #9

Hakeem #16

If Duncan after 6 seasons & 2 rings > Hakeem, then Duncan after 10 seasons & 4 rings > Hakeem.

[ambchang]

Hakeem also missed 12 games that season, in which the team went 2-10. We missed the playoff by 3 games.
Interesting you brought that up, so by taking those 12 games out, Rockets with Hakeem won 40 and lost 30, which when projected to a 82-game season, would be a 47-35 season, and coincidentally the same as the David Robinson Spurs of that year. Only issue is that the Spurs lost Robinson for 14 games, where they finished 5-9, and STILL made the playoffs with supporting cast of Cummings, Elliott, Strickland, and Avery Johnson.
But since we are comparing Duncan to Hakeem, I would be interested to know which of the season(s) in the 00-04 period would the Spurs have missed the playoffs if Duncan missed 12 games, getting a 2-10 record.

While we are at it, I would think none of those Spurs team could make the playoffs without Duncan for 82 games, and yet they were contenders every single year, wonder why.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Thank you, which is why I would pick Duncan over Hakeem to build a team, because Duncan is easier to build around.
No slight to Hakeem, I think in terms of talent, he is >>>> Duncan, no question, this is pretty much like a less extreme version of Wilt vs. Russell, only Duncan didn't have 7 HoFs on his team.


Wow, I step away from the computer for one day and this thing is up to 23 threads. Gotta love it. But look this whole thing started over the debate about whether or not Duncan > Hakeem.

We all know the the player's stats, team accomplishments so at the end of the day, let me ask each and everyone of you, if you were a GM (all things being equal) and you were starting a franchise who would you draft? Tim or Hakeem? Who would you build your team around? This should settle the Tim > Hakeem argument.

I'll go with the guy who accomplished alot more in 746 career games as opposed to the player who played in 1238 career games.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Interesting you brought that up, so by taking those 12 games out, Rockets with Hakeem won 40 and lost 30, which when projected to a 82-game season, would be a 47-35 season, and coincidentally the same as the David Robinson Spurs of that year. Only issue is that the Spurs lost Robinson for 14 games, where they finished 5-9, and STILL made the playoffs with supporting cast of Cummings, Elliott, Strickland, and Avery Johnson.
But since we are comparing Duncan to Hakeem, I would be interested to know which of the season(s) in the 00-04 period would the Spurs have missed the playoffs if Duncan missed 12 games, getting a 2-10 record.

While we are at it, I would think none of those Spurs team could make the playoffs without Duncan for 82 games, and yet they were contenders every single year, wonder why.

Exactly, in Tim Duncan's 10 years with the Spurs, the Spurs have never finished lower the 2nd in the division. In Hakeems 17 years with the Rockets, they finished an incredible 5th in the division 6 times, and once 6th. I don't care on what team or what era, that's something that can't be overlooked for those who are trying to elevate Hakeem over Duncan.

[kingmalaki]

The Spurs beat LA in 2003.

I'm also not talking 1-12, I'm talking 2-12 (ie, Duncan's supporting cast). These 9 are obviously better supporting casts than what Duncan had in 00-01:

1. Allen Houston's supporting cast in NY
Latrell Sprewell > Derek Anderson
Larry Johnson > Danny Ferry
Marcus Camby = David Robinson
Kurt Thomas = Malik Rose
Charlie Ward = Terry Porter
Glen Rice > Antonio Daniels

2. Shaq's supporting cast in LA
Kobe Bryant >> Derek Anderson
Rick Fox > Danny Ferry
Horace Grant < David Robinson
Robert Horry = Malik Rose
Derek Fisher > Terry Porter
Brian Shaw < Antonio Daniels

3. Webber's supporting cast in Sac
Doug Christie >= Derek Anderson
Peja Stojakovic >> Danny Ferry
Vlade Divac = David Robinson
Hedo Turkoglu = Malik Rose
Jason Williams > Terry Porter
Bobby Jackson > Antonio Daniels

4. Nowitzki's supporting cast in Dallas
Michael Finley > Derek Anderson
Christian Laettner / Juwan Howard > Danny Ferry
Shawn Bradley < David Robinson
Calvin Booth < Malik Rose
Steve Nash >> Terry Porter
Howard Eisley = Antonio Daniels

5. Rasheed's supporting cast in Portland
Steve Smith = Derek Anderson
Scottie Pippen >> Danny Ferry
Arvydas Sabonis < David Robinson
Dale Davis > Malik Rose
Damon Stoudamire > Terry Porter
Bonzi Wells >> Antonio Daniels

6. Glenn Robinson's supporting cast in Milwaukee
Ray Allen >> Derek Anderson
Tim Thomas > Danny Ferry
Ervin Johnson << David Robinson
Jason Caffey < Malik Rose
Sam Cassell >> Terry Porter
Lindsey Hunter > Antonio Daniels

7. Allen Iverson's supporting cast in Philly
Aaron McKie = Derek Anderson
George Lynch > Danny Ferry
Dikembe Mutombo > David Robinson
Tyrone Hill = Malik Rose
Eric Snow >= Terry Porter
Toni Kukoc = Antonio Daniels

8. Jalen Rose's supporting cast in Indiana
Reggie Miller > Derek Anderson
Austin Croshere > Danny Ferry
Jermaine O'Neal = David Robinson
Al Harrington = Malik Rose
Travis Best > Terry Porter
Sam Perkins < Antonio Daniels

9. Eddie Jones' supporting cast in Miami
Dan Majerle < Derek Anderson
Bruce Bowen > Danny Ferry
Brian Grant = David Robinson
Anthony Mason >> Malik Rose
Tim Hardaway > Terry Porter
Cedric Ceballos < Antonio Daniels

I was speaking of the 02/03 season (season starts in 02, playoffs extend to 03).

Agreed and I stand corrected. But thats still top 10 talent surrounded by arguably the games best player at that time. Five of those teams that you mentioned really weren't led by a superstar...(Houston, Rasheed, Robinson, Rose and Jones), and since a team without a true superstar has only won the title 1 time in the last 27 years I don't see the point in mentioning them.

The point still remains that Duncan has NEVER been on a scrub team, while other superstar players (i.e. Hakeem) have played on plenty of horrible teams. You can't not mention that when discussing titles, unless you think Duncan won on his own....

[mavs>spurs2]

Why can't you rate Duncan up there with Magic or Hakeem? Personally I think Hakeem was better than Magic, and that Duncan might possibly be better than him as well. But it all depends how much you value defense and someone who is an assist machine.

As far as Hakeem goes, I think I would give him the slight edge on Duncan for his 1994 and 1995 playoff runs over Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem did seem to be more athletic and effective on defense overall. Duncan plays it safe more and fouls less, but Hakeem was quicker. As far as offense goes they are very close. Hakeem had some more moves, but don't forget one of Hakeems best assets was his turnaround, not necessarily banging and scoring in the deep post. He was like Garnett somewhat with more moves and tougher underneath.

As far as MJ scoring 38ppg on 58% shooting I highly doubt that. He probably would do the same now as he did back then. Not much of a difference. He would still be the best player in the league, but he wouldn't be scoring 38-40ppg. As a rule I would say that defense is better than it was in the 80s, and yes the late 80s even if you factor the Pistons PHYSICAL, but not necessarily superior defense (to teams like the Spurs of today for example).

Sure the Knicks and Pistons were great on defense, but lets not act like they were much better than the Spurs of today. Just because they might have allowed more contact without penalty doesn't mean the teams in the 80s would score 130ppg or whatever. The talent level has not gotten any worse then those days, and if it has gotten worse it is minimal at best.

You are just talking out of your ass, you need to go back and read my post.

Jordan would be that much more dominant in today's league because of the handcheck rule, less great shotblockers, less defense as a whole, just to sum it up in short. Today's NBA is so pussified people aren't even allowed to play d anymore it seems and i'm really having a hard time watching guys like Tony Parker waltz to the rim uncontested. 10-20 years ago he would have gotten the living fuck knocked out of him, sometimes without a whistle.

[kingmalaki]

It would help if you read what I wrote.
I said the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. And arbitrarily taking top 7 talent is just increasing the pool to strengthen your argument. From 00-04, if you take Duncan away, the Spurs are may top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, but that does NOT mean that they should be real contenders, and yet they were always one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the league BECAUSE OF DUNCAN.

A top 7 talent team, such as the Bulls or Pistons from last year, would really shock everyone if they win the championship.

I agree with you that the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. When did I say that they did? If you have one of the games 5 best players do you need top 3 talent to win, especially when the player is a big-man? Hakeem didn't have top 3 talent in any of his title seasons.

My point was Duncan has always been on a team with enough supporting to compete for a championship. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree then how can you not include that in your analysis when comparing him to a player like Hakeem who did not have always play with enough supporting talent to compete for a title, especially when Hakeem has clearly demonstrated that he could lead a team very far when he had help (3 Finals trips and 2 titles)?

[mavs>spurs2]

Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball?: Mr Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time (Paperback)
by Elliott Kalb
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Better-Best-Basketball-Straight/dp/0071417885

This is a great book, has anyone read it?

It came out after Duncan's 6th season (2003).

Ranks:

Jordan # 3

Duncan #9

Hakeem #16

If Duncan after 6 seasons & 2 rings > Hakeem, then Duncan after 10 seasons & 4 rings > Hakeem.

But you said Duncan was the greatest of all time, this only has him #9. Do you really want to use this nonsense book as your defense?

The guy says Shaq is the best player of all time, yet he didn't dominate nearly like Wilt or Russel. Why is Jordan #3? Shaq's teams could never touch the Bulls, Jordan was on top untill the day he retired. No one could stop him, he was the most dominant player since the short shorts and 12 teams in the whole league days.

This is just some dumbass who probably knows nothing about basketball trying to make a buck off of a nonsense book.

[kingmalaki]

Interesting you brought that up, so by taking those 12 games out, Rockets with Hakeem won 40 and lost 30, which when projected to a 82-game season, would be a 47-35 season, and coincidentally the same as the David Robinson Spurs of that year. Only issue is that the Spurs lost Robinson for 14 games, where they finished 5-9, and STILL made the playoffs with supporting cast of Cummings, Elliott, Strickland, and Avery Johnson.
But since we are comparing Duncan to Hakeem, I would be interested to know which of the season(s) in the 00-04 period would the Spurs have missed the playoffs if Duncan missed 12 games, getting a 2-10 record.

A 2-10 record is winning at a 20% clip. A 5-9 record is winning at a 35% clip. If the Rockets won 36% of their games without Hakeem then that gives them 4 extra wins. They missed the playoffs by 3 games. Either way, a 47-35 record left you tied for the 5th/6th best record in the West that season.

Um, a supporting cast of Cummings (17 and 9), Strickland (14 and 9) and Elliott (16 a game) looks pretty solid to me. Even Willie Anderson put up 13 a game at 46% that season. We started Buck Johnson that year for God’s sake. Furthermore, I don’t see how noting the Spurs supporting cast did better without Robinson shows that the Rockets supporting cast should have won more…or whatever. Basically, I don’t see how it discredits the point that Hakeem missing 12 games and the team only winning 20% of them had more to do with us missing the playoffs, since we were on track for the 5th/6th best record in the games Hakeem played.


While we are at it, I would think none of those Spurs team could make the playoffs without Duncan for 82 games, and yet they were contenders every single year, wonder why.

Maybe because Duncan has never been on a bad team and the league is worse today, with more teams and less talent on each giving a quality team more chances for gimmie wins? These are all my opinions and not things that can be proved.

However, Duncan missed/didn’t start 14 games in 03/04, and the team went 6-8 (43% clip). He missed 16 games in 04/05 and the team went 9-7 (56% clip). Since I’ve been stating forever that he has usually had better surrounding talent and never been on a scrub team, these numbers don’t surprise me. That’s a hell of a difference form your cast winning 20% of their games…..

[kingmalaki]

Exactly, in Tim Duncan's 10 years with the Spurs, the Spurs have never finished lower the 2nd in the division. In Hakeems 17 years with the Rockets, they finished an incredible 5th in the division 6 times, and once 6th. I don't care on what team or what era, that's something that can't be overlooked for those who are trying to elevate Hakeem over Duncan.

Good…don't overlook it. Just go back and compare the surrounding talent for each player on those teams..and make sure to include the differences in your analysis.

Hakeem was good enough to lead his team past a dynasty to the Finals in his 2nd season (he had help that year). His 2nd best player got hurt and was traded and his entire backcourt was lost to drug suspensions. He didn't suddenly get worse from 87 until the mid 90's. He just started playing with teammates like Buck Johnson. Every star player isn't fortunate to play on a team with greta management and coaching. Duncan came to a veteran team and has never not had enough surrounding talent to compete for a title.

[saporvida]

Good…don't overlook it. Just go back and compare the surrounding talent for each player on those teams..and make sure to include the differences in your analysis.

Hakeem was good enough to lead his team past a dynasty to the Finals in his 2nd season (he had help that year). His 2nd best player got hurt and was traded and his entire backcourt was lost to drug suspensions. He didn't suddenly get worse from 87 until the mid 90's. He just started playing with teammates like Buck Johnson. Every star player isn't fortunate to play on a team with greta management and coaching. Duncan came to a veteran team and has never not had enough surrounding talent to compete for a title.

you act like ginobili, parker, and said talent were veterans when they arrived here. sure both mentioned had previous experience overseas but they were by far not nba veterans upon arrival. duncan has been surrounded by ring chasing veterans and overseas talent(luckily we have good scouts). so before you keep trying to compare the two based on supporting cast, first look at how long some of our players were in the league before getting their 1st, 2nd, maybe even 3rd ring with DUNCAN/SPURS.

there were no real superstars helping us along the way besides robinson during our 1st two titles and even at that he was past his prime. sure we had some decent people come in and out of the organization, but nothing real special until we finally found our accompanying two in tony, and manu(possibly three with bruce). Remind me about the last time you heard duncan referenced with someone other then those 2. Ex; Twin Towers & The Big Three.

tony isn't even in his prime yet and well ginobili is still stellar but he is climbing that ladder per say. keep on hating cause duncan still has some time in his career to add another title or two to his record. can't get any better than duncan.

[kingmalaki]

you act like ginobili, parker, and said talent were veterans when they arrived here. sure both mentioned had previous experience overseas but they were by far not nba veterans upon arrival. duncan has been surrounded by ring chasing veterans and overseas talent(luckily we have good scouts). so before you keep trying to compare the two based on supporting cast, first look at how long some of our players were in the league before getting their 1st, 2nd, maybe even 3rd ring with DUNCAN/SPURS.

Do you have to be a veteran to produce, or do you just have to be talented enough? Magic won as a rookie. Bird won in his 2nd year. Hakeem went to the Finals in his second. Duncan won in his second. Of course Manu and TP are not on those guys level but they were both able to contribute, and as you already stated, they had plenty of experience overseas playing against professionals. For a proper comparison, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell were key pieces to our title runs in just their first and second seasons. Surrounding talent matters!!!!

And as far as the ring chasing vets, how is mentioning them not supporting my argument?


there were no real superstars helping us along the way besides robinson during our 1st two titles and even at that he was past his prime. sure we had some decent people come in and out of the organization, but nothing real special until we finally found our accompanying two in tony, and manu(possibly three with bruce). Remind me about the last time you heard duncan referenced with someone other then those 2. Ex; Twin Towers & The Big Three.

tony isn't even in his prime yet and well ginobili is still stellar but he is climbing that ladder per say. keep on hating cause duncan still has some time in his career to add another title or two to his record. can't get any better than duncan.[/QUOTE]

The last 5 champions have only had one superstar player on their roster (07 Spurs, 06 Heat, 05 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 03 Spurs). Every Finals losing team since 98 has only had one superstar player, except for the 04 Lakers. Hell, the only title competing team since 98 with two stars has been LA with Kobe and Shaq. You don’t need two stars to win these days…this isn’t the 80’s or 90’s.

And I’m not hating. I love Duncan and respect his game. I just think Hakeem was better.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Good…don't overlook it. Just go back and compare the surrounding talent for each player on those teams..and make sure to include the differences in your analysis.

Hakeem was good enough to lead his team past a dynasty to the Finals in his 2nd season (he had help that year). His 2nd best player got hurt and was traded and his entire backcourt was lost to drug suspensions. He didn't suddenly get worse from 87 until the mid 90's. He just started playing with teammates like Buck Johnson. Every star player isn't fortunate to play on a team with greta management and coaching. Duncan came to a veteran team and has never not had enough surrounding talent to compete for a title.

1999 Duncan had a 33 yr old David Robinson who only played in 49 games that year and was showing the first signs of the chronic back pain that would later cut short his distinguished career. They had 30 year old Ninja who only played in 50 games that year, but thank god he played that Memorial Day. They had Mario Elie, AJ, Jaren Jackson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Jerome Kersey, Will Perdue, Gerard King and Andrew Gaze. Now that is one star studded lineup if I've ever seen one.

In 2003 Duncan had a 20 year old man child in Tony Parker, who was in his 2nd year in the league. They had a less then 100% 37 year old Admiral who only played in 64 games that year and was most definitely affected by his ailing back. Manu was in his 2nd year. The Spurs also had the star power of the always mercurial Stephen Jackson, ancient cricketty legged Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Speedy Claxton, Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, Devin Brown and Menke Bateer.

From those two squads, all I see is one Mr Universe in Tim Duncan and some great role players, both young and old. This must be the great surrounding talent you were refering to. If you say so. And I see that you're going one step further now by saying that Tim won those championships because he had great coaching and management. I won't dispute that, but are you saying he won his 4 championships because of that, or that Hakeem didn't have that?

Now the roster that played with Hakeem during their championship years is even more star studded then the certain HOF's (according to you) that Tim played with. Hakeem had Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, Robert Horry (both in their prime), Otis Thorpe and Sam Cassell. How does in your eyes having a roster that includes one of the 50 greatest in Clyde Drexler constitute not having enough surrounding talent, especially when you compare it to the Spurs roster the years they won title. Riddle me that batman.

[bobbyjoe]

Why can't you rate Duncan up there with Magic or Hakeem? Personally I think Hakeem was better than Magic, and that Duncan might possibly be better than him as well. But it all depends how much you value defense and someone who is an assist machine.

As far as Hakeem goes, I think I would give him the slight edge on Duncan for his 1994 and 1995 playoff runs over Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem did seem to be more athletic and effective on defense overall. Duncan plays it safe more and fouls less, but Hakeem was quicker. As far as offense goes they are very close. Hakeem had some more moves, but don't forget one of Hakeems best assets was his turnaround, not necessarily banging and scoring in the deep post. He was like Garnett somewhat with more moves and tougher underneath.

As far as MJ scoring 38ppg on 58% shooting I highly doubt that. He probably would do the same now as he did back then. Not much of a difference. He would still be the best player in the league, but he wouldn't be scoring 38-40ppg. As a rule I would say that defense is better than it was in the 80s, and yes the late 80s even if you factor the Pistons PHYSICAL, but not necessarily superior defense (to teams like the Spurs of today for example).

Sure the Knicks and Pistons were great on defense, but lets not act like they were much better than the Spurs of today. Just because they might have allowed more contact without penalty doesn't mean the teams in the 80s would score 130ppg or whatever. The talent level has not gotten any worse then those days, and if it has gotten worse it is minimal at best.

Defense is nothing in today's NBA compared to the 80's. Not even a comparison.

As the Mavs fan noted, handchecking is illegal in today's NBA and was the most common defensive option in containing perimeter stars of 20 years ago. Games were ridiculously more physical in that era as compared to now.

You also don't have many elite shotblockers at the rim in today's NBA where in the 90's you had some monster athletic rim defenders in Hakeem, Robinson, Zo, Mourning, Dikembe, Mark Eaton, etc and some very rugged post defenders like Charles Oakley, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, etc. One can only imaginie how many times Duncan would show the wide-eyed "are u crazy?" look to refs playing in an era where that much contact was allowed.

Scoring is down because offensive fundamentals like passing, shooting, and team ball have declined and because guys dont hone their skills in collge for multiple years anymore.

You allow teams in today's NBA like they did in the 80's, 90's and you're looking at some 71-68 type of games.

Stern has done everything to make the games more high scoring and it's all failed because the offensive fundamentals are that bad in today's NBA.

To say that MJ wouldnt be more effective in a league with handchecking not allowed is just mind boggling. This is like saying Shaq wouldnt be more effective in a league where 3 second violations didnt exist.

Your comment on Hakeem's turnaround jumper is one of the key reasons Hakeem is better than Tim. That shot was unstoppable and demoralized opponents because they would defend it as well as they could and it would still go in. It was up there with Jabbar's skyhook.

You clearly never watched Hakeem play to compare his style to Garnett's. Hakeem was almost an exclusively in the box, post player, where Garnett is a jump shooter and a driver from the wing. Hakeem's style was just like Duncan's (in the post), except with more moves and versatility.

[bobbyjoe]

1999 Duncan had a 33 yr old David Robinson who only played in 49 games that year and was showing the first signs of the chronic back pain that would later cut short his distinguished career. They had 30 year old Ninja who only played in 50 games that year, but thank god he played that Memorial Day. They had Mario Elie, AJ, Jaren Jackson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Jerome Kersey, Will Perdue, Gerard King and Andrew Gaze. Now that is one star studded lineup if I've ever seen one.

In 2003 Duncan had a 20 year old man child in Tony Parker, who was in his 2nd year in the league. They had a less then 100% 37 year old Admiral who only played in 64 games that year and was most definitely affected by his ailing back. Manu was in his 2nd year. The Spurs also had the star power of the always mercurial Stephen Jackson, ancient cricketty legged Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Speedy Claxton, Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, Devin Brown and Menke Bateer.

From those two squads, all I see is one Mr Universe in Tim Duncan and some great role players, both young and old. This must be the great surrounding talent you were refering to. If you say so. And I see that you're going one step further now by saying that Tim won those championships because he had great coaching and management. I won't dispute that, but are you saying he won his 4 championships because of that, or that Hakeem didn't have that?

Now the roster that played with Hakeem during their championship years is even more star studded then the certain HOF's (according to you) that Tim played with. Hakeem had Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, Robert Horry (both in their prime), Otis Thorpe and Sam Cassell. How does in your eyes having a roster that includes one of the 50 greatest in Clyde Drexler constitute not having enough surrounding talent, especially when you compare it to the Spurs roster the years they won title. Riddle me that batman.

Do you not see the irony in your post?

You downplay Duncan's time with Robinson because David was 33 and on the decline and then state that Hakeem had the great fortune of playing with one of the 50 best of all time.

Uh, Clyde joined the Rockets at age 32 (about the same age you point out that DRob started to decline). Clyde was WELL past his peak when he came to Houston and after his first year in Houston was a shell of his former self. Hakeem never played with the younger/in prime Clyde who was a top 50 players.

[ambchang]

I agree with you that the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. When did I say that they did? If you have one of the games 5 best players do you need top 3 talent to win, especially when the player is a big-man? Hakeem didn't have top 3 talent in any of his title seasons.

My point was Duncan has always been on a team with enough supporting to compete for a championship. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree then how can you not include that in your analysis when comparing him to a player like Hakeem who did not have always play with enough supporting talent to compete for a title, especially when Hakeem has clearly demonstrated that he could lead a team very far when he had help (3 Finals trips and 2 titles)?

I have made it pretty clear that i do not agree for the seasons 00 to 04.
Hakeem definitely overachieved in 94 and 95, but it was evident that he needed a team that is made specifically with outside shooting and a shortend 3 pt line for him to succeed. Duncan didn't need either, his 4 championship teams were totally different from each other.

[mavs>spurs2]

I have made it pretty clear that i do not agree for the seasons 00 to 04.
Hakeem definitely overachieved in 94 and 95, but it was evident that he needed a team that is made specifically with outside shooting and a shortend 3 pt line for him to succeed. Duncan didn't need either, his 4 championship teams were totally different from each other.

Hakeem's outside shooters still shot in the very low 30's percentage wise, even with the shortened three point line. The only point you are making is that Hakeem didn't have a great supporting cast.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Hakeem doesn't get a free pass, since some of you guys are so big on talking about a watered-down league. How did Hakeems Rockets fail to win anything from '96 to 2000? In '96 they lost in the W.C. semis, then in '97 they lost in the W.C. finals, followed by back to back first round exits in '98 and '99. In 2000 they didn't even make the playoffs. How is that so? Especially when he was playing with Drexler, Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, Walt Williams. Doesn't that support your criteria of additional HOF players playing alongside Olajuwon?

And you probably already know that Duncan's Spurs have made the playoffs every single year he has worn the black and silver. He doesn't know what it's like to lose in the first round. But don't let the facts get in the way.

[mavs>spurs2]

Hakeem doesn't get a free pass, since some of you guys are so big on talking about a watered-down league. How did Hakeems Rockets fail to win anything from '96 to 2000? In '96 they lost in the W.C. semis, then in '97 they lost in the W.C. finals, followed by back to back first round exits in '98 and '99. In 2000 they didn't even make the playoffs. How is that so? Especially when he was playing with Drexler, Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, Walt Williams. Doesn't that support your criteria of additional HOF players playing alongside Olajuwon?

And you probably already know that Duncan's Spurs have made the playoffs every single year he has worn the black and silver. He doesn't know what it's like to lose in the first round. But don't let the facts get in the way.

:lol They were all washed up at this point

[ambchang]

A 2-10 record is winning at a 20% clip. A 5-9 record is winning at a 35% clip. If the Rockets won 36% of their games without Hakeem then that gives them 4 extra wins. They missed the playoffs by 3 games. Either way, a 47-35 record left you tied for the 5th/6th best record in the West that season.

Perhaps I was being unclear, the thing is, Robinson led the team to 47-35 even though he missed 14 games. Take those 14 games out, that would be a 42-26 team, good enough for a 51 wins in an 82-game season.


Um, a supporting cast of Cummings (17 and 9), Strickland (14 and 9) and Elliott (16 a game) looks pretty solid to me. Even Willie Anderson put up 13 a game at 46% that season. We started Buck Johnson that year for God’s sake. Furthermore, I don’t see how noting the Spurs supporting cast did better without Robinson shows that the Rockets supporting cast should have won more…or whatever. Basically, I don’t see how it discredits the point that Hakeem missing 12 games and the team only winning 20% of them had more to do with us missing the playoffs, since we were on track for the 5th/6th best record in the games Hakeem played.
Ironically, Otis Thorpe averaged 17 and 10.5, Maxwell at 17.2 and 4.1, and Kenny Smith chipped in at 14/7, not bad. and it was funny how you took Buck Johnson into account and ignored the Spurs had no PG for a huge chunk of the season with Strickland out.
This doesn't show too much, just that by comparing players with the same position in the same year, and it was so clear that Robinson outplayed Hakeem in that one season.


Maybe because Duncan has never been on a bad team and the league is worse today, with more teams and less talent on each giving a quality team more chances for gimmie wins? These are all my opinions and not things that can be proved.

However, Duncan missed/didn’t start 14 games in 03/04, and the team went 6-8 (43% clip). He missed 16 games in 04/05 and the team went 9-7 (56% clip). Since I’ve been stating forever that he has usually had better surrounding talent and never been on a scrub team, these numbers don’t surprise me. That’s a hell of a difference form your cast winning 20% of their games…..
You don't think in 91-92, the Magic, Bullets, Bucks, Hornets, Wolves, Mavs, Nuggets and Kings were gimmes? There was a huge disparity in talent in the late 80s all the way up to the mid 90s, what finally fixed that trend was the luxury tax, and we start to see more disparity in terms of talent. To wit, in 92, Moses Malone, at 36 years of age, averaged 15 and 9, and people are complaining about people never retiring now because of lack of talent?
The difference between Hakeem and Duncan is that he couldn't drag an otherwise 25-win team to the playoffs, while Duncan dragged an otherwise 38-win team to a championship.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Do you not see the irony in your post?

You downplay Duncan's time with Robinson because David was 33 and on the decline and then state that Hakeem had the great fortune of playing with one of the 50 best of all time.

Uh, Clyde joined the Rockets at age 32 (about the same age you point out that DRob started to decline). Clyde was WELL past his peak when he came to Houston and after his first year in Houston was a shell of his former self. Hakeem never played with the younger/in prime Clyde who was a top 50 players.

That was aimed at another poster, and it was a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. But I see that you get it. I'm not down playing anything. My point is that it was Duncan, and a 75% David Robinson and a bunch of other guys. For Tim's first two championships, he had little support as far as a 2nd go to guy. It wasn't until 2005 and 2007 that he had support from Bowen, Parker and Manu. Those players brought stability and familiarity, but even so, you know how much the composition of the team has changed from '99 to 2007. The only constant has been TD. Hakeem had similar circumstances and opportunities and wasn't able to get it done. No slight on Dream, that just amplifies the greatness that is Tim Duncan.

[ambchang]

Defense is nothing in today's NBA compared to the 80's. Not even a comparison.

As the Mavs fan noted, handchecking is illegal in today's NBA and was the most common defensive option in containing perimeter stars of 20 years ago. Games were ridiculously more physical in that era as compared to now.

You also don't have many elite shotblockers at the rim in today's NBA where in the 90's you had some monster athletic rim defenders in Hakeem, Robinson, Zo, Mourning, Dikembe, Mark Eaton, etc and some very rugged post defenders like Charles Oakley, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, etc. One can only imaginie how many times Duncan would show the wide-eyed "are u crazy?" look to refs playing in an era where that much contact was allowed.

Scoring is down because offensive fundamentals like passing, shooting, and team ball have declined and because guys dont hone their skills in collge for multiple years anymore.

You allow teams in today's NBA like they did in the 80's, 90's and you're looking at some 71-68 type of games.

Stern has done everything to make the games more high scoring and it's all failed because the offensive fundamentals are that bad in today's NBA.


I have got to disagree with this comment (not like we have agreed much in this thread), but defense in the 00s has been lightyears ahead of the 80's. The badboys changed that, and defensive schemes are much more complex than those of the mid 80s.
ANd your comments about 3 stars, I would say Phoenix has 3 stars, so does the Nets, but they are not going anywhere, because more emphasis is being put on team construction.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

:lol They were all washed up at this point

I know that big guy, but compare that to what Tim had to work with in '99 and even in 2003.

[ambchang]

Hakeem's outside shooters still shot in the very low 30's percentage wise, even with the shortened three point line. The only point you are making is that Hakeem didn't have a great supporting cast.
Really? Low 30's is bad now?
94 Rockets:
Maxwell - 29.8%
Smith - 40.5%
Horry - 32.4%
Elie - 33.5
Cassell - 29.5%
Brooks - 37.7%
Bullard - 32.5

03 Spurs:
Parker - 33.7%
Jackson - 32%
Bowen - 44.1%
Ginobili - 34.5%
Smith - 33.1 %
Kerr - 39.5%

Taken into account how few 3s Bowen and Kerr were throwing up, I'd say there really isn't that much of a difference.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

We all know the the player's stats, team accomplishments so at the end of the day, let me ask each and everyone of you, if you were a GM (all things being equal) and you were starting a franchise who would you draft? Tim or Hakeem? Who would you build your team around? This should settle the Tim > Hakeem argument.


Any takers?

[lefty]

Can we close this stupid thread ???? :sleep

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem doesn't get a free pass, since some of you guys are so big on talking about a watered-down league. How did Hakeems Rockets fail to win anything from '96 to 2000? In '96 they lost in the W.C. semis, then in '97 they lost in the W.C. finals, followed by back to back first round exits in '98 and '99. In 2000 they didn't even make the playoffs. How is that so? Especially when he was playing with Drexler, Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, Walt Williams. Doesn't that support your criteria of additional HOF players playing alongside Olajuwon?

And you probably already know that Duncan's Spurs have made the playoffs every single year he has worn the black and silver. He doesn't know what it's like to lose in the first round. But don't let the facts get in the way.

Man, this $hit is getting comical.

Why did Hakeem's Rockets fail wo win anything in 99 and 00?

You do realize that Hakeem was in his late 30's then right?

If Duncan's Spurs dont do well in 7 years, is some idiot going to be on a message board saying "why didnt his teams win in his twilight years when he was washed up?"

Duncan making it out of the first round every year does nothing to mitigate the fact that the league is so much clearly watered down now as opposed to previous eras. Any fair-minded fan alive in both eras can see the difference. Dont believe me, then look at the ratings. Why are they so far down from the 80's/90's even though there is so much more involvement by players of different cultures and nations? Could it be that it's because the product has gotten that diluted as the league has expanded and kids come into the league as green 18 yr olds instead of going to College and becoming basketball players? Hmmm, I wonder...

[bobbyjoe]

Any takers?

Hakeem, easily. As would most neutral fans (see message boards earlier on this thread) and the 2 players who played with both guys in their primes.

Ask Robert Horry and Elie who they'd take. You wont like the answer.

[bobbyjoe]

Really? Low 30's is bad now?
94 Rockets:
Maxwell - 29.8%
Smith - 40.5%
Horry - 32.4%
Elie - 33.5
Cassell - 29.5%
Brooks - 37.7%
Bullard - 32.5

03 Spurs:
Parker - 33.7%
Jackson - 32%
Bowen - 44.1%
Ginobili - 34.5%
Smith - 33.1 %
Kerr - 39.5%

Taken into account how few 3s Bowen and Kerr were throwing up, I'd say there really isn't that much of a difference.

What is your obsession with diverting attention from the issue?

Your assertion was that the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team. The question was not "Did Duncan have better 3 point shooters than the Spurs"

You asserted the Rockets had good 3 point shooters and as usual, the poster shot down your false claim with facts. Shooting in the low 30's is not considered good in this league. Never mind what the Spurs shot. In this league, shooting at a low 30's clip from the Arc is below average, plain and simple. That's close to Charles Barkley territory.

You were clearly wrong that Hakeem had these dead eye 3 pt shooters. Only one was statistically, that being K. Smith. I mean 2 of the guards you are citing as great 3 point shooters in Maxwell and Cassell were below 30% and you claim that is great support? My goodness...

[bobbyjoe]

That was aimed at another poster, and it was a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. But I see that you get it. I'm not down playing anything. My point is that it was Duncan, and a 75% David Robinson and a bunch of other guys. For Tim's first two championships, he had little support as far as a 2nd go to guy. It wasn't until 2005 and 2007 that he had support from Bowen, Parker and Manu. Those players brought stability and familiarity, but even so, you know how much the composition of the team has changed from '99 to 2007. The only constant has been TD. Hakeem had similar circumstances and opportunities and wasn't able to get it done. No slight on Dream, that just amplifies the greatness that is Tim Duncan.


They were absolutely not similar circumstances and opportunities. Not even close...

[ambchang]

What is your obsession with diverting attention from the issue?

Your assertion was that the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team. The question was not "Did Duncan have better 3 point shooters than the Spurs"

You asserted the Rockets had good 3 point shooters and as usual, the poster shot down your false claim with facts. Shooting in the low 30's is not considered good in this league. Never mind what the Spurs shot. In this league, shooting at a low 30's clip from the Arc is below average, plain and simple. That's close to Charles Barkley territory.

You were clearly wrong that Hakeem had these dead eye 3 pt shooters. Only one was statistically, that being K. Smith. I mean 2 of the guards you are citing as great 3 point shooters in Maxwell and Cassell were below 30% and you claim that is great support? My goodness...

Can you go ahead and name me another team that has better three point shooters?
In 95, the Rockets made 646 3P, and that is far and away the best in the league. And the team shot 36.76%, which is almost a full % above league average.
In 94, the Rockets made 429 3P, which is also tops in the league at 33.39%, slightly above league average of 33.33%, and you are trying to argue that the Rockets are not a potent 3 pt shooting team?
The Rockets, unlike any other team, can spot 4 3 pt shooters on the floor with Hakeem, and run the whole inside out offense to perfection. It is true that Hakeem ran the offense and made it happen, but Hakeem also required this makeup (or having a HoF caliber C by his side) to have any team success.
And at the end of it, this is why I wouldn't choose Hakeem over Duncan to build a team around because he requires a particular makeup to be successful.

[SpursDynasty]

This is clearly a no-brainer. Tim Duncan is the greatest player in the NBA since Michael Jordan.

Hakeem Olajuwon? He only won 2 championships because Jordan wasn't in the NBA at that point.

[bobbyjoe]

Can you go ahead and name me another team that has better three point shooters?
In 95, the Rockets made 646 3P, and that is far and away the best in the league. And the team shot 36.76%, which is almost a full % above league average.
In 94, the Rockets made 429 3P, which is also tops in the league at 33.39%, slightly above league average of 33.33%, and you are trying to argue that the Rockets are not a potent 3 pt shooting team?
The Rockets, unlike any other team, can spot 4 3 pt shooters on the floor with Hakeem, and run the whole inside out offense to perfection. It is true that Hakeem ran the offense and made it happen, but Hakeem also required this makeup (or having a HoF caliber C by his side) to have any team success.
And at the end of it, this is why I wouldn't choose Hakeem over Duncan to build a team around because he requires a particular makeup to be successful.

Ok, so the Rockets were an average 3 point shooting team. They had the most attempts, but their %'s were right in line with league averages.

If you win a title and your 3 point shooting is AVERAGE, it goes without say you are winning for other reasons than an AVERAGE conversion rate on 3's.

Duncan is the one who relied on a HOF Center in David Robinson to be successful in his early years (if Duncan had to guard Shaq on his own and be the main offensive weapon at the other end like Hakeem had to in 95 vs. Shaq, the Spurs would never ever have beaten LA), and then an all star caliber backcourt the last few years (Manu being the Spurs playoff MVP in 2005 and Tony Parker the Finals MVP in 2007).

Please tell me you didnt just call Ralph Sampson a HOF Caliber Center, please.

The bottomline is that Duncan got his in an inferior era of basketball. The league is so diluted now that a team as sorry as the 2006 Miami Heat were able to win a Ring and a guy like Marcus Camby is the DPOY.

FYI, I dont remember the Rockets being a prolific 3 point shooting team in 1986 when they beat the Showtime Lakers. I guess that about shoots your garbage argument about Hakeem needing a "certain makeup" around him to succeed into the toilet. And no, Ralph wasn't HOF Caliber. Not even freaking close. He was a poor man's Yao Ming.

[TheAuthority]

This is clearly a no-brainer. Tim Duncan is the greatest player in the NBA since Michael Jordan.

Hakeem Olajuwon? He only won 2 championships because Jordan wasn't in the NBA at that point.

Amen.
:toast

[bobbyjoe]

This is clearly a no-brainer. Tim Duncan is the greatest player in the NBA since Michael Jordan.

Hakeem Olajuwon? He only won 2 championships because Jordan wasn't in the NBA at that point.

And Duncan never beat a player the caliber of Jordan.

Duncan's record in the playoffs against the Super Duper top 10 all time players in the NBA:

vs. Shaq: 2-3
vs. Karl Malone: 0-2

He can't beat Shaq or K. Malone, but would have beat Jordan? Uh, ok.

BTW, Shaq is easily the best player in the NBA post Michael Jordan.

Duncan is great, but some of this talk about him being better than Shaq, Hakeem, MJ, Bird is just crazy. No one outside of a Spurs board would believe that. He aint on that level.

[bobbyjoe]

Amen.
:toast

LOL. This coming from a fan of a team who's first title came the very year after Jordan retired. I guess it didnt matter that Jordan wasnt around then, huh?

Would the Spurs have won in 99 if Jordan hadnt retired?

[TheAuthority]

LOL. This coming from a fan of a team who's first title came the very year after Jordan retired. I guess it didnt matter that Jordan wasnt around then, huh?

Would the Spurs have won in 99 if Jordan hadnt retired?

I don't bother with what-if's. I don't have to rely on that. 4 > 2. Cheers.
:toast

[polandprzem]

Answer this question honestly. Do you think Manu and Parker are better than McHale& Parish, Kareem & Worthy, Dumars and Rodman, Pippen & Grant/Rodman, or Erving and Mo. Cheeks? Remove the HOF title and just evaluate the players….yes or no? You can go from players 4-12 and do the same analysis. Do the same for player 1 (Duncan vs Bird, Magid & MJ).

Is it speaking to you yet (not asked in a sarcastic way)?

Wow so Duncan won with scrubs!
He is the best!

[polandprzem]

I was speaking of the 02/03 season (season starts in 02, playoffs extend to 03).

Agreed and I stand corrected. But thats still top 10 talent surrounded by arguably the games best player at that time. Five of those teams that you mentioned really weren't led by a superstar...(Houston, Rasheed, Robinson, Rose and Jones), and since a team without a true superstar has only won the title 1 time in the last 27 years I don't see the point in mentioning them.

The point still remains that Duncan has NEVER been on a scrub team, while other superstar players (i.e. Hakeem) have played on plenty of horrible teams. You can't not mention that when discussing titles, unless you think Duncan won on his own....

Ridiculous as hell

Steph jackson,
21year old TP
Old dave
Bowen

Wow all HoF's

They are not scrubs but hmm well
Tim won the freaking title with them
Would hakeem made the playoffs without a real 3pt thret?

[polandprzem]

You are just talking out of your ass, you need to go back and read my post.

Jordan would be that much more dominant in today's league because of the handcheck rule, less great shotblockers, less defense as a whole, just to sum it up in short. Today's NBA is so pussified people aren't even allowed to play d anymore it seems and i'm really having a hard time watching guys like Tony Parker waltz to the rim uncontested. 10-20 years ago he would have gotten the living fuck knocked out of him, sometimes without a whistle.

The rules are changing

Jordan had no zones so he was mainly one on one playoing a lot of isos

[ambchang]

Ok, so the Rockets were an average 3 point shooting team. They had the most attempts, but their %'s were right in line with league averages.

If you win a title and your 3 point shooting is AVERAGE, it goes without say you are winning for other reasons than an AVERAGE conversion rate on 3's.

Duncan is the one who relied on a HOF Center in David Robinson to be successful in his early years (if Duncan had to guard Shaq on his own and be the main offensive weapon at the other end like Hakeem had to in 95 vs. Shaq, the Spurs would never ever have beaten LA), and then an all star caliber backcourt the last few years (Manu being the Spurs playoff MVP in 2005 and Tony Parker the Finals MVP in 2007).

Please tell me you didnt just call Ralph Sampson a HOF Caliber Center, please.

The bottomline is that Duncan got his in an inferior era of basketball. The league is so diluted now that a team as sorry as the 2006 Miami Heat were able to win a Ring and a guy like Marcus Camby is the DPOY.

FYI, I dont remember the Rockets being a prolific 3 point shooting team in 1986 when they beat the Showtime Lakers. I guess that about shoots your garbage argument about Hakeem needing a "certain makeup" around him to succeed into the toilet. And no, Ralph wasn't HOF Caliber. Not even freaking close. He was a poor man's Yao Ming.


Far and number one in MAKES, not ATTEMPTS. I am beginning to wonder whether you actually read what is written, or you are just intentionally avoiding all the points to make your arguments legit.
If you are the opposition, and you KNOW that any one of the other 4 players can make a 3 at an average of 33 to 36%, and that they will shoot a 3 when left open, would you give that up to double team a big man down low who shoots 50%, the expected value is pretty much the same. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And yes, before the number of injuries, Ralph Sampson was a HoF caliber center. He was a constant 21/11 guy who can pass and shoot from the outside. He was a 7'4" Chris Webber/Kevin Garnett hybrid. He was an all-star the 1st four years, All-star MVP and All-NBA 2nd team in his 2nd year.

Tim Duncan had one season with a center who averaged 20/10, Hakeem had two, with another 19/10.

As for Manu being Spurs playoffs MVP, I really didn't know that they had such a thing, honest.

As for beating the Lakers being some kind of triumph. I already stated in the previous post that Hakeem needed 3pt shooters or a HoF caliber centre next to him to be successful, and yes, Ralph Sampson was a HoF caliber centre before his string of injuries. Besides, not like the Rockets won the title that year.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]Man, this $hit is getting comical.

Why did Hakeem's Rockets fail wo win anything in 99 and 00?
I don't know, but an anonymous poster on a Spurs board propping the opposition ad naseum is pretty comical. Brother you're preaching to the choir, but hey Einstein, let me clue you in, they weren't good enough. Get it? Good!


You do realize that Hakeem was in his late 30's then right?
If he's the transcendental player you're propping him up to be then he should have gotten the job done. The excuses for when he was younger just don't fly. Since the different era argument has been exhausted, what next? Coaching and organization?



If Duncan's Spurs dont do well in 7 years, is some idiot going to be on a message board saying "why didnt his teams win in his twilight years when he was washed up?"

Why not? There's some idiot on a Spurs board giving us every excuse under the sun as to why 4 > 2 does not mean 4 > 2. And in 50 years who's gonna care? All they're going to see is that Hakeem Olajuwon played for the Houston Rockets, won a total of 2 NBA championships and was regarded as one of the premier centers of his era. Whereas Tim Duncan won 4+ NBA championships and was widely regarded as the best Power Forward to ever play the game, hence the moniker the "Big Fundamental."



Duncan making it out of the first round every year does nothing to mitigate the fact that the league is so much clearly watered down now as opposed to previous eras. Any fair-minded fan alive in both eras can see the difference. Dont believe me, then look at the ratings. Why are they so far down from the 80's/90's even though there is so much more involvement by players of different cultures and nations? Could it be that it's because the product has gotten that diluted as the league has expanded and kids come into the league as green 18 yr olds instead of going to College and becoming basketball players? Hmmm, I wonder...

Well, if my aunt had a package then she'd be my uncle! Reality check. Let's not contemplate on the ifs, it has no place in real life. Going by your fantasy matchups the Spurs suck eggs compared the mighty teams of yesteryear. I don't know the outcomes and just as importantly neither do you. Let's deal in something tangible and concrete

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Hakeem, easily. As would most neutral fans (see message boards earlier on this thread) and the 2 players who played with both guys in their primes.

Ask Robert Horry and Elie who they'd take. You wont like the answer.

Yeah, that pretty much seals the deal. And as far as "most neutral fans" gimme a link please. What neutral fans are these? Are these the casual NBA fans? The hardcore follower? Media pundits or NBA GM's and coaches across the league? Or is just bobbyjoe?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

They were absolutely not similar circumstances and opportunities. Not even close...

Sorry if it doesn't augment your rosy little argument, but I've already shown you why their opportunities where similar. One player took the high road and the other player stumbled along the way.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]Ok, so the Rockets were an average 3 point shooting team. They had the most attempts, but their %'s were right in line with league averages.

They were at the top of the league as far as 3 point percentage. And see if you can follow along - if they shoot more threes, then law of averages states that they will make more threes.

If you win a title and your 3 point shooting is AVERAGE, it goes without say you are winning for other reasons than an AVERAGE conversion rate on 3's.


Duncan is the one who relied on a HOF Center in David Robinson to be successful in his early years (if Duncan had to guard Shaq on his own and be the main offensive weapon at the other end like Hakeem had to in 95 vs. Shaq, the Spurs would never ever have beaten LA), and then an all star caliber backcourt the last few years (Manu being the Spurs playoff MVP in 2005 and Tony Parker the Finals MVP in 2007).

And what does that have to do with anything? Didn't Hakeem and Shaq have their own big man to help them out? A 75% was still as good as they come, granted, but because of age and injuries he was a victim of diminished capacity. Unless you're trying to say that David Robinson was playing at a HOF level in his later years.

And there you go again, speculating on the ifs. Tim didn't need to guard Shaq exclusively because he had David and later Will Perdue, Kevin Willis, Rasho, Nazr and Oberto and so on. This was a coaching philosophy. Smart one I might add. If you've got player B who is capable of doing a credible job on player C and taking the load of player A so he can focus on other aspects of the game, go for it. Brilliant move I would say. Tim could have guarded any big man that he played against, but he didn't always have to. Novel concept, I know but hey it worked. I don't know if you noticed but this approached as worked for Pop to the tune of 4 NBA championships and universal recognition that Tim is the best power forward to ever don a uniform. Do you know of a better way that maybe Pop hasn't thought of? We're all ears.


Please tell me you didnt just call Ralph Sampson a HOF Caliber Center, please.

What's the matter? Doesn't playing in 3 or 4 all star games, and winning an all star game MVP count as a pretty good player to have playing alongside you. I hope that share the same thoughts, that namely had Ralph Sampson not been injured so early in his career that he surely would have been a HOF player. Does that not equate to atleast having a 75% David Robinson playing alongside Tim?

The bottomline is that Duncan got his in an inferior era of basketball. The league is so diluted now that a team as sorry as the 2006 Miami Heat were able to win a Ring and a guy like Marcus Camby is the DPOY.


FYI, I dont remember the Rockets being a prolific 3 point shooting team in 1986 when they beat the Showtime Lakers. I guess that about shoots your garbage argument about Hakeem needing a "certain makeup" around him to succeed into the toilet. And no, Ralph wasn't HOF Caliber. Not even freaking close. He was a poor man's Yao Ming.

Think again.

[Cry Havoc]

Defense is nothing in today's NBA compared to the 80's. Not even a comparison.

Yes, this is obvious. Today players are covered when they shoot jumpers, where as in the 80s players took (and let me stress this) wide open 15 footers while the other team sat around wide-eyed.

Just because players were allowed to maul each other in the 80s once in a while does not mean the defense was superior. In fact, since the players used those tactics at all, it means they probably couldn't stay in front of their man to save their life.

Today's NBA sports the best defenses from top to bottom that the league has ever seen. Open jumpers are a thing of the past. You want to make the argument that because players were allowed to body-check each other to make a statement, defenses were superior. I don't understand that logic, but feel free to enlighten me. Games from the 80s, players were left all alone at the 'bows, the line, anywhere outside of the paint was just a shooting gallery, and I've watched way too many of them to be swayed by that idea.

Lastly, you think Parker just "waltzes" into the lane. That is hilarious. Watch the Spurs-Sonics series from a couple years ago. Watch games 3 & 4 from Detroit in the Finals, and tell me that Parker has never been hit while going in for a layup.

Unless, of course, you would really like to make the argument that the Wallace Bros. with Billups and Prince are not a physical team. :lol

[mavs>spurs2]

The rules are changing

Jordan had no zones so he was mainly one on one playoing a lot of isos

He also constantly faced double and triple teams, handchecks, and getting pushed around and beat up on.

Not many teams run much zone now days anyway

[bobbyjoe]

Far and number one in MAKES, not ATTEMPTS. I am beginning to wonder whether you actually read what is written, or you are just intentionally avoiding all the points to make your arguments legit.
If you are the opposition, and you KNOW that any one of the other 4 players can make a 3 at an average of 33 to 36%, and that they will shoot a 3 when left open, would you give that up to double team a big man down low who shoots 50%, the expected value is pretty much the same. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And yes, before the number of injuries, Ralph Sampson was a HoF caliber center. He was a constant 21/11 guy who can pass and shoot from the outside. He was a 7'4" Chris Webber/Kevin Garnett hybrid. He was an all-star the 1st four years, All-star MVP and All-NBA 2nd team in his 2nd year.

Tim Duncan had one season with a center who averaged 20/10, Hakeem had two, with another 19/10.

As for Manu being Spurs playoffs MVP, I really didn't know that they had such a thing, honest.

As for beating the Lakers being some kind of triumph. I already stated in the previous post that Hakeem needed 3pt shooters or a HoF caliber centre next to him to be successful, and yes, Ralph Sampson was a HoF caliber centre before his string of injuries. Besides, not like the Rockets won the title that year.

I cant believe this is so hard for you to grasp. Your posts are so filled with inaccuracies and lies it's pathetic.

You say the Rockets did not lead the league in ATTEMPTS and only in MAKES in 1993-1994?

That's completely false.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994.html

The Rockets in 1993-1994 ATTEMPTED a full 150 more 3 pointers than the next closest team. That's a full 2 per game. Their conversion RATE was right at the league average, hence they can only be described as an AVERAGE 3 point shooting team.

Ditto for 1995. Again, the Rockets % from 3 was only right at the 3 average, but they led the league in attempts and makes.

Duncan has needed a HOF Center as well (1999-2003) and then after that all star caliber guards (Manu, Parker) along with the league's best wing defender, a guy who shoots his 3's at a far better clip than any of the oh, so lethal 33% shooters you think were the reason the Rockets won with in the mid 90/s.

Your argument is such utter trash that in fact that Duncan's Spurs were the ones in 2006-2007 who shot 38.1% (nearly 5% higher than Hakeem's awesome shooters) and 36.3% in 2004-2005. In both these title seasons, the Spurs shot a far higher % from 3 than the rest of the league so if anyone relied more on 3 point shooters to complement him in title seasons, it was clearly DUncan if you want to look at the stone cold facts.

[bobbyjoe]

The rules are changing

Jordan had no zones so he was mainly one on one playoing a lot of isos

And why did the rules change? To increase scoring and free-flowing basketball by cutting down on hard handchecks.

You can't breathe on a wing player in today's NBA and you think the best guard in the league's history would somehow be adversely affected by these rules? ROFL!!!!!

Without being able to body, push, and bump Jordan you'd have absolutely zero chance of containing him.

Just think about your argument and how ridiculous it sounds. You are arguing that the rules Stern implemented with the specific goal of increasing scoring and high percentage baskets would somehow HURT the best basketball player ever, one who thrived in an era of far, FAR greater competition.

[bobbyjoe]

Yes, this is obvious. Today players are covered when they shoot jumpers, where as in the 80s players took (and let me stress this) wide open 15 footers while the other team sat around wide-eyed.

Just because players were allowed to maul each other in the 80s once in a while does not mean the defense was superior. In fact, since the players used those tactics at all, it means they probably couldn't stay in front of their man to save their life.

Today's NBA sports the best defenses from top to bottom that the league has ever seen. Open jumpers are a thing of the past. You want to make the argument that because players were allowed to body-check each other to make a statement, defenses were superior. I don't understand that logic, but feel free to enlighten me. Games from the 80s, players were left all alone at the 'bows, the line, anywhere outside of the paint was just a shooting gallery, and I've watched way too many of them to be swayed by that idea.

Lastly, you think Parker just "waltzes" into the lane. That is hilarious. Watch the Spurs-Sonics series from a couple years ago. Watch games 3 & 4 from Detroit in the Finals, and tell me that Parker has never been hit while going in for a layup.

Unless, of course, you would really like to make the argument that the Wallace Bros. with Billups and Prince are not a physical team. :lol

Your last sentence says a lot. Are the Wallace bro's considered physical? Yes, certainly by today's standards.

However, flip on a game with the Lakers-Celts of the 80's, Bad boys Pistons, Riley's Knicks, Riley's Heat from the 1990's and those games will look like prison ball compared to today's Pistons.

The reason you see more open jumpers in the 1980's is that teams back them were much more unselfish and players had much better fundamentals.

Back then, you had a bunch of guys who hit the pull up in between jumper which guys can't hit today. Fast breaks were run much more efficiently. Guys knew how to move without the ball and players could pass the ball.

All of these are declining arts in today's NBA.

Why do teams like the San Antonio Spurs and Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks have no trouble getting wide open jumpers and great looks in today's supposedly superior defensive climate? Because they execute and are efficient like the previous great offensive teams.

When you have teams like in today's NBA running few plays other than isolations for perimeter players and a few pick n rolls the result is ugly 82-78 ball like you have in today's league.

The rules are more pro-offense in today's league than in the 80's, 90's yet scoring and shooting are down tremendously. That should tell you all you need to know.

I notice you didnt even attempt to argue with the fact that there were so many more elite shotblockers in the 80's, 90's than today also making defense much tougher in those times. I guess that's just too obvious to dispute.

How many DPOY's would a marginal player like Marcus Camby win in the 1980's and 1990's?!

[bobbyjoe]

Yeah, that pretty much seals the deal. And as far as "most neutral fans" gimme a link please. What neutral fans are these? Are these the casual NBA fans? The hardcore follower? Media pundits or NBA GM's and coaches across the league? Or is just bobbyjoe?

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

http://boards.ign.com/basketball/b5109/143878190/p1

[polandprzem]

And why did the rules change? To increase scoring and free-flowing basketball by cutting down on hard handchecks.

You can't breathe on a wing player in today's NBA and you think the best guard in the league's history would somehow be adversely affected by these rules? ROFL!!!!!

Without being able to body, push, and bump Jordan you'd have absolutely zero chance of containing him.

Just think about your argument and how ridiculous it sounds. You are arguing that the rules Stern implemented with the specific goal of increasing scoring and high percentage baskets would somehow HURT the best basketball player ever, one who thrived in an era of far, FAR greater competition.

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days.
I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to hell I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pettit and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh :rolleyes

[mavs>spurs2]

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days. I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to hell I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pettit and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh :rolleyes

Are you kidding me? Jordan was constantly double and triple teamed, fouled, shoved, bodied up, everything you couldn't get away with in todays league. The only hope you had of even containing him was by using tactics that people are no longer able to use.

[mavs>spurs2]

And by the way, Bobbyjoe has been kicking ass all throughout this thread

[mavs>spurs2]

I cant believe this is so hard for you to grasp. Your posts are so filled with inaccuracies and lies it's pathetic.

You say the Rockets did not lead the league in ATTEMPTS and only in MAKES in 1993-1994?

That's completely false.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994.html

The Rockets in 1993-1994 ATTEMPTED a full 150 more 3 pointers than the next closest team. That's a full 2 per game. Their conversion RATE was right at the league average, hence they can only be described as an AVERAGE 3 point shooting team.

Ditto for 1995. Again, the Rockets % from 3 was only right at the 3 average, but they led the league in attempts and makes.

Duncan has needed a HOF Center as well (1999-2003) and then after that all star caliber guards (Manu, Parker) along with the league's best wing defender, a guy who shoots his 3's at a far better clip than any of the oh, so lethal 33% shooters you think were the reason the Rockets won with in the mid 90/s.

Your argument is such utter trash that in fact that Duncan's Spurs were the ones in 2006-2007 who shot 38.1% (nearly 5% higher than Hakeem's awesome shooters) and 36.3% in 2004-2005. In both these title seasons, the Spurs shot a far higher % from 3 than the rest of the league so if anyone relied more on 3 point shooters to complement him in title seasons, it was clearly DUncan if you want to look at the stone cold facts.

Well said

Duncan relies on having great 3 point shooters more than Hakeem ever did

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Hakeem had to have a certain type of team built around him to win, while Duncan wins mass amounts of championships with any type of scrubs you put around him. Especially when it's Duncan, not Hakeem, who relies on having great 3 point shooters.

[bobbyjoe]

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days.
I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to hell I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pettit and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh :rolleyes

Comparing eras across 50 yrs (Mikan to Shaq) is a lot different than comparing eras across one decade (Hakeem era vs. Tim era).

In any era taking the ball out of a guard's hands is difficult. What's different from the Jordan era to now is that back then you could at least body, bump, and push MJ around to try to slow him down. In today's NBA, if you try that, you'll foul out early in the game.

Say what you want about Hakeem vs. Tim, but arguing that Jordan wouldnt be more successful in the 2000's with far less contact allowed on perimeter stars and far less great shotblockers at the rim than he was in the 1990's is just silly.

Per your post, do you seriously think that double teaming is this revolutionary concept only born in the 2000's? Do you really think stars of the 80's and 90's weren't double teamed?!

[polandprzem]

Are you kidding me? Jordan was constantly double and triple teamed, fouled, shoved, bodied up, everything you couldn't get away with in todays league. The only hope you had of even containing him was by using tactics that people are no longer able to use.

Yup once he was killed and still was able to make the basket ...


:rolleyes

[mavs>spurs2]

Yup once he was killed and still was able to make the basket ...


:rolleyes
basically a true story

[SpursDynasty]

And Duncan never beat a player the caliber of Jordan.

Duncan's record in the playoffs against the Super Duper top 10 all time players in the NBA:

vs. Shaq: 2-3
vs. Karl Malone: 0-2

He can't beat Shaq or K. Malone, but would have beat Jordan? Uh, ok.

BTW, Shaq is easily the best player in the NBA post Michael Jordan.

Duncan is great, but some of this talk about him being better than Shaq, Hakeem, MJ, Bird is just crazy. No one outside of a Spurs board would believe that. He aint on that level.

Duncan not only DID beat Shaq (your post said he didn't), but both times he beat Shaq, he went on to win the championship. He ended the Lakers run of 3 straight. No other team in the NBA could beat the Lakers. The Spurs were the last ones to beat them in 1999 before their 3-year run, then beat them again in 2003 to end it. The Pistons beat them in 2004, but we beat the Pistons in 2005 and got the championship back.

The reason Duncan is a notch over Shaq is because Duncan can win a championship surrounded by role players. The 2003 championship team was a dominant Duncan and role players. Robinson was there, but not the dominant Robinson. Same in 2005, no other dominant superstar. Shaq always needs another dominant superstar (Bryant, Wade) to win a championship, and Shaq actually had little to do with Miami's.

Karl Malone is not a Top 10 All-Time player, BTW. The greatest players win championships. And if you want to make the "Well he had to face Jordan" argument, Jordan's Bulls were gone by 1999. Malone had what, 6 six non-Jordan seasons (98-99 lockout season to 03-04 season) to put together a championship and he didn't.

MJ > Duncan
Duncan > Bird, or 4 > 3
Duncan > Hakeem, or 4 > 2

[Ignignokt]

Well said

Duncan relies on having great 3 point shooters more than Hakeem ever did

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Hakeem had to have a certain type of team built around him to win, while Duncan wins mass amounts of championships with any type of scrubs you put around him. Especially when it's Duncan, not Hakeem, who relies on having great 3 point shooters.

WHat?

Hakeem relied on so many three point players to win both championships. THe Mario Ellie three to beat pheonix, countless horry and cassel 3pt's. THat's just ridiculous.

Even shaq relied on 3pters.

Don't listen to bobby joe, he only uses the facts when it suits his argument. This whole thread is evidenced by that.

[Ignignokt]

SOme of you must have downs. Hakeem with out a three point threat(s) would have been Robinson.

[bobbyjoe]

WHat?

Hakeem relied on so many three point players to win both championships. THe Mario Ellie three to beat pheonix, countless horry and cassel 3pt's. THat's just ridiculous.

Even shaq relied on 3pters.

Don't listen to bobby joe, he only uses the facts when it suits his argument. This whole thread is evidenced by that.

And the key 3's of Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Manu Ginobili, and Michael Finley weren't a factor in Duncan's run this past year?

I remember a certain 3 by the same Robert Horry that bailed Duncan out of a Game 5 in Det where he was 1-7 from the FT line in the clutch in the 4th quarter.

Hakeem wasn't the one who's teams were good enough to win a title with him not being the team's MVP in the Finals. That would be Tim DUncan (see Tony Parker winning Finals MVP the 2007 Finals when Duncan shot, what, 42% from the field against Big Z?)

The Bruce Bowen 3 from the Corner this yr to give the Spurs the lead in Game 5 of the Semifinals in the last minute wasn't Duncan relying on a big 3?

The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!

Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem have ALL relied on 3 point shooters. The idea that Duncan is so above the other 2 that he didnt need "that makeup" to succeed is false and laughable as the facts have irrefutably proven, because in fact it's Duncan who's had a 3 pt shooting supporting cast which was above average in that department.

[bobbyjoe]

Duncan not only DID beat Shaq (your post said he didn't), but both times he beat Shaq, he went on to win the championship. He ended the Lakers run of 3 straight. No other team in the NBA could beat the Lakers. The Spurs were the last ones to beat them in 1999 before their 3-year run, then beat them again in 2003 to end it. The Pistons beat them in 2004, but we beat the Pistons in 2005 and got the championship back.

The reason Duncan is a notch over Shaq is because Duncan can win a championship surrounded by role players. The 2003 championship team was a dominant Duncan and role players. Robinson was there, but not the dominant Robinson. Same in 2005, no other dominant superstar. Shaq always needs another dominant superstar (Bryant, Wade) to win a championship, and Shaq actually had little to do with Miami's.

Karl Malone is not a Top 10 All-Time player, BTW. The greatest players win championships. And if you want to make the "Well he had to face Jordan" argument, Jordan's Bulls were gone by 1999. Malone had what, 6 six non-Jordan seasons (98-99 lockout season to 03-04 season) to put together a championship and he didn't.

MJ > Duncan
Duncan > Bird, or 4 > 3
Duncan > Hakeem, or 4 > 2

Duncan > Wilt or 4 > 2
Billups > Nash or 1 > 0
Billups > Stockton or 1>0
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone or 1>0
Robert Horry > Scottie Pippen or 7>6


Do you honestly think any human outside of SA seriously thinks Tim Duncan is better than Larry Freakin Bird? That's just a joke. Bird got his against Magic/Kareem, Great Sixers teams, not against the 1999 Knicks and 2007 Cavs and 2003 Nets.

Duncan's great but not close to the same planet as Bird, forget about all the Hakeem stuff...

Name one team that Duncan has ever defeated that's on par with teams Bird had to contend with?

[Ignignokt]

And the key 3's of Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Manu Ginobili, and Michael Finley weren't a factor in Duncan's run this past year?

I remember a certain 3 by the same Robert Horry that bailed Duncan out of a Game 5 in Det where he was 1-7 from the FT line in the clutch in the 4th quarter.

Hakeem wasn't the one who's teams were good enough to win a title with him not being the team's MVP in the Finals. That would be Tim DUncan (see Tony Parker winning Finals MVP the 2007 Finals when Duncan shot, what, 42% from the field against Big Z?)

The Bruce Bowen 3 from the Corner this yr to give the Spurs the lead in Game 5 of the Semifinals in the last minute wasn't Duncan relying on a big 3?

The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!

Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem have ALL relied on 3 point shooters. The idea that Duncan is so above the other 2 that he didnt need "that makeup" to succeed is false and laughable as the facts have irrefutably proven, because in fact it's Duncan who's had a 3 pt shooting supporting cast which was above average in that department.


So Tony Parker won the MVP in one year. You still have the other 3 where parker was non existant. THAT's still 3>2. Don't hang yourself bobby. Maybe fans who post on message boards agree that Dunc is lesser than the Dream, but all the sports experts put duncan and shaq in a class with MJ, Kareem, and Bird. Nobody in the media outside of HOuston put hakeem in that same class.

Btw, thanks for agreeing with me that Duncan and Hakeem both relied on 3pts, which neglects your previous argument. And Hakeem also had an above average 3pt shooting cast.


Let's review the 3pt Dept.


Sam Cassel > Parker

Horry 95 > Bowen

Maxwell, Smith > Ginobilli

Matt Bullard > Brent barry and Finley were too inconsistent.

[Ignignokt]

Duncan > Wilt or 4 > 2
Billups > Nash or 1 > 0
Billups > Stockton or 1>0
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone or 1>0
Robert Horry > Scottie Pippen or 7>6


Do you honestly think any human outside of SA seriously thinks Tim Duncan is better than Larry Freakin Bird? That's just a joke. Bird got his against Magic/Kareem, Great Sixers teams, not against the 1999 Knicks and 2007 Cavs and 2003 Nets.

Duncan's great but not close to the same planet as Bird, forget about all the Hakeem stuff...

Name one team that Duncan has ever defeated that's on par with teams Bird had to contend with?

The lakers with SHaq and Kobe. and i did that without consulting a message board.

[Ignignokt]

here are a list of non spurfan peeps who rated duncan higher than hakeem

http://motownsportsrevival.blogspot.com/2006/12/top-50-basketball-players-of-all-time.html


http://books.google.com/books?id=z1itO8fkAEwC&dq=top+50+nba+players+of+all+time&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=08fcVK9_g7&sig=e5sJCNDQ_1TUyq8T3_eErvoe5yM#PPR3,M1

this book puts duncan at 9th and Akeem at 16th of all time.



http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/47841

puts the dunkmeister at 9 over akeem.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dreamteams/08/14/nba.alltime/index.html

Duncan makes the list, hailed as the bill russel of the era.

[Ignignokt]

it's kinda quiet, here... maybe bobbyjoe is consulting his and 1 and faux nba forums for help.

[bobbyjoe]

So Tony Parker won the MVP in one year. You still have the other 3 where parker was non existant. THAT's still 3>2. Don't hang yourself bobby. Maybe fans who post on message boards agree that Dunc is lesser than the Dream, but all the sports experts put duncan and shaq in a class with MJ, Kareem, and Bird. Nobody in the media outside of HOuston put hakeem in that same class.

Btw, thanks for agreeing with me that Duncan and Hakeem both relied on 3pts, which neglects your previous argument. And Hakeem also had an above average 3pt shooting cast.


Let's review the 3pt Dept.


Sam Cassel > Parker

Horry 95 > Bowen

Maxwell, Smith > Ginobilli

Matt Bullard > Brent barry and Finley were too inconsistent.

Yes, let's review the 3 point department:

Rockets 3 pt % 1994: 33.3%
Rockets 3 pt % 1995: 36.7%
Spurs 3 pt % 2005: 36.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 2007: 38.1%
Spurs 3 pt % 2003: 35.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 199: 33.0%

These are the facts and they clearly show the Spurs had more efficient 3 point shooting than Houston.

You claim Horry was a better 3 baller than Bowen but the stats and facts disagree with you. Bowen shoots 3's at a higher % than Horry.

Your Maxwell comment is hilarious. The dude shot .298 % from 3's in the Rockets first championship. To put that in perspective, NINE Spurs from this last year's team shot a higher % than that.

You may not have realized this, but if you shoot a worse percentage from 3 than someone, that means you aren't a better 3 point shooter than them. I know for someone like you that's very hard to figure out. Take some time and maybe it'll come to you.

Higher % > Lower %.

You claim that Matt Bullard was better than Finley or Barry as a 3 point shooter?

Here are the facts:

93-94 Bullard 3 pt %: 33%
Finley 06-07 3 pt %: 36.4%
Barry 06-07 3 pt %: 45%

Which is more "consistent" and effective in your opinion, a 3 pt shooter who shoots 33%, 36.4%, or 45%?

Where do you come up with this crap, seriously?

[bobbyjoe]

The lakers with SHaq and Kobe. and i did that without consulting a message board.


LOL.

1) No, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers aren't even close to the Kareem-Magic-Worthy-B. Scott-we ruled the NBA for a decade Lakers. Not even close.

2) Duncan was 1-3 against Shaq/Kobe and Phil Jackson. I repeat 1 win, 3 losses. What's so awesome about beating someone once, but losing 3 times to them in the playoffs?

[gtownspur]

awesome, so finley and ginobilli have better 3pt stats in the regular season than Bullard and Maxwell. Nevermind the rest of the rockets were better shooters.

Why do you hate Duncan?

The spurs of 2007 were the only team with a higher 3pt percantage. all the others are equal if rounded.

THat's still 3>2 bobby joe.

and that still doesn't change the expert's pick of Duncan over Akeem.

Maybe the whole stripping a guard does not make one supreme.

[bobbyjoe]

awesome, so finley and ginobilli have better 3pt stats in the regular season than Bullard and Maxwell. Nevermind the rest of the rockets were better shooters.

Why do you hate Duncan?

The spurs of 2007 were the only team with a higher 3pt percantage. all the others are equal if rounded.

THat's still 3>2 bobby joe.

and that still doesn't change the expert's pick of Duncan over Akeem.

Maybe the whole stripping a guard does not make one supreme.

Except that most NBA fans and common players who played with both players pretty universally pick Hakeem.

Does every single person pick Hakeem? Of course not. But it's pretty clear if you look at some neutral NBA boards what most people think.

And I do agree with you that the 3 point shooting is not decidedly in anyone's favor. If anything though, the Spurs are the team that shot 3's more efficiently.

Here's another board which talks about the 2007 Spurs vs. the 1995 Rockets. Notice that when most neutral fans talk about the Duncan-Hakeem matchup who they favor.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=711942&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I've said repeatedly, I dont hate Duncan. I have him as the top PF ever and a top 15 all time player, one who probably ends up close to top 10 ever. That's not hate. But putting him over guys like MJ, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq like many on this thread are doing is just homerism...

[timmy21_4rings]

Hakeem could not even win a playoff series 1988 through 1992. In 91-92 he also missed the playoffs. Can you imagine TD not able to win a playoff series for that long or missing playoffs in the middle of his career?

[timmy21_4rings]

Neutral fans never appreciate what Duncan does. Most of them have no idea about what Duncan does year after year. Please refer the NBA finals ratings when Duncan is in finals.

If neutral fans are right, Yao, James, Wade and Kobe are the best players. Their jerseys are the best selling ones.

[gtownspur]

when people bring up that bowen and drexler were the same defensively, i puke.

I didn't know a realgm, armchair message board held more weight than the experts.

[timmy21_4rings]

We would not be discussing this had MJ played 94 and 95 seasons (complete seasons). We would talking about who is the best ring-less player (Malone Vs Hakeem).

[bobbyjoe]

We would not be discussing this had MJ played 94 and 95 seasons (complete seasons). We would talking about who is the best ring-less player (Malone Vs Hakeem).


Had Jordan not retired in 99, we'd be discussing the Bulls as NBA Champs in 99 right?

Had David Stern not been an idiot and rewarded the Spurs for a cheapshot in 2007, we'd be discussing the Suns as NBA Champs in 2007 right?

Had Timmy played in the Jordan era, maybe we'd be discussing who was the best ring-less player (Malone vs. TD vs. Hakeem)?

Tim never played Jordan once in the playoffs. He did face Malone and Shaq 7 times in the playoffs (neither player obviously as good as Jordan) and went
2-5 against them.

You expect us to believe that he'd have won multiple titles in the Jordan era when he was 2-5 against Shaq/Malone, guys he'd have to go through in that era just to get to Jordan?

A Spurs fan can never use the "Jordan was gone" argument and be taken seriously because the Spurs won their first title the very year Jordan retired and the Bulls were broken up in the half-season of 1999.

[bobbyjoe]

when people bring up that bowen and drexler were the same defensively, i puke.

I didn't know a realgm, armchair message board held more weight than the experts.

And name one "expert" who has ranked Duncan over Hakeem. Not some random guy with a blog as per the previous threads, but an actual "expert".

You shrug off the opinions of Robert Horry, Mario Elie (who played with both guys and rank Hakeem the best) and shrug off the opinions of neutral fans who favor Hakeem simply because it doesnt suit your argument.

[baseline bum]

Had Jordan not retired in 99, we'd be discussing the Bulls as NBA Champs in 99 right?

Had David Stern not been an idiot and rewarded the Spurs for a cheapshot in 2007, we'd be discussing the Suns as NBA Champs in 2007 right?

Had Timmy played in the Jordan era, maybe we'd be discussing who was the best ring-less player (Malone vs. TD vs. Hakeem)?

Tim never played Jordan once in the playoffs. He did face Malone and Shaq 7 times in the playoffs (neither player obviously as good as Jordan) and went
2-5 against them.

You expect us to believe that he'd have won multiple titles in the Jordan era when he was 2-5 against Shaq/Malone, guys he'd have to go through in that era just to get to Jordan?

A Spurs fan can never use the "Jordan was gone" argument and be taken seriously because the Spurs won their first title the very year Jordan retired and the Bulls were broken up in the half-season of 1999.

2-4

Lost: 98,01,02,04
Won: 99,03

[Ignignokt]

And name one "expert" who has ranked Duncan over Hakeem. Not some random guy with a blog as per the previous threads, but an actual "expert".

You shrug off the opinions of Robert Horry, Mario Elie (who played with both guys and rank Hakeem the best) and shrug off the opinions of neutral fans who favor Hakeem simply because it doesnt suit your argument.


bob costas, you'd know if you'd click on the link.

[Ignignokt]

For a guy who claims to be neutral, and pimps the lakers as his favorite team, to ask a guestion like this one....



Name one team that Duncan has ever defeated that's on par with teams Bird had to contend with?


makes me question whether he's actually a lakerfan.

I'm obviously am a sonic and spursfan.

[Ignignokt]

Duncan would have atleast led scottie pippen and barkley past the first round.

[E20]

So who is better, John Salley or Tim Duncan?

[Ignignokt]

So who is better, John Salley or Tim Duncan?

posting numerous threads, and taking credit for the new reformation in the troll forum, and taco bell for mexican food.

[polandprzem]

The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!

Hmm they swept Portland ...
I gues Sean had like 4 Miracles shots game after game, good he was on that team to win championship

[polandprzem]

Duncan would have atleast led scottie pippen and barkley past the first round.

NAILED !

[timmy21_4rings]

Had Jordan not retired in 99, we'd be discussing the Bulls as NBA Champs in 99 right?

Had David Stern not been an idiot and rewarded the Spurs for a cheapshot in 2007, we'd be discussing the Suns as NBA Champs in 2007 right?

Had Timmy played in the Jordan era, maybe we'd be discussing who was the best ring-less player (Malone vs. TD vs. Hakeem)?

Tim never played Jordan once in the playoffs. He did face Malone and Shaq 7 times in the playoffs (neither player obviously as good as Jordan) and went
2-5 against them.

You expect us to believe that he'd have won multiple titles in the Jordan era when he was 2-5 against Shaq/Malone, guys he'd have to go through in that era just to get to Jordan?

A Spurs fan can never use the "Jordan was gone" argument and be taken seriously because the Spurs won their first title the very year Jordan retired and the Bulls were broken up in the half-season of 1999.

Duncan would have won 1999 irrespective of Jordan played in 1999 or not.

On your Sun's argument, you must be an idiot to think that Suns would have won. First of all even if you discount 1 game that Spurs won without 2 players it is still 3-2 in Spurs favor. Second of all, Suns never won anything significant against Spurs for past 3 years (check regular season record and play off series record). All Suns did in past 2 years was to win series against LA teams (twice Lakers and once Clippers) and you are telling that we will be talking about Suns as Champion. Don't be fooled: Championships are not given once second round is over (NEED PROOF? Ask 2006 Dalls Mavs).

[bobbyjoe]

2-4

Lost: 98,01,02,04
Won: 99,03

Thanks for the correction...

[bobbyjoe]

For a guy who claims to be neutral, and pimps the lakers as his favorite team, to ask a guestion like this one....




makes me question whether he's actually a lakerfan.

I'm obviously am a sonic and spursfan.

There's not one Laker fan alive who thinks Kobe-Shaq was a better team than Magic-Kareem. Not one.

That's complete disrespect and foolishness to say Kobe-Shaq was on par with one of the NBA's 2 or 3 best dynasties ever.

Do you know who Magic and Kareem were or do you need the noted NBA "expert" Bob Costas to explain it to you? :rolleyes

[bobbyjoe]

NAILED !

LOL. They were all only pushing 40 years old and washed up at the time.

I guess MJ sucks too since he couldnt lead the Wizards to a title at age 40.

I hope you use this same standard with Duncan 8 yrs from now when he's an NBA Greybeard...

[E20]

Did Jordan play in 1999? Also would that be really called the Jordan era? It was more like the Kobe/Shaq era.

I think when people say Jordan era they refer to his time as a Bull. Nonetheless I don't know how Michael Jordan got pulled into this arguement. This is getting old, both sides have good arguments to be made for, but IMO when comparing two players you can't just say one won more rings than the other and call it an end, because that sole player didn't win that ring, it was the team who did, however when comparing two teams as a whole using the number of championships can be used. I think the only way to decide this is to get NBA Live 2003 or NBA 2K3 and have Duncan play Hakeem one-on-one best out of 7 up to 11, 2's and 1's only, call your own fouls to see who is the better player.

[bobbyjoe]

bob costas, you'd know if you'd click on the link.

Costas only wrote the foreword for that book.

It was Elliott Kalb who wrote the book and rated the players.

[Ignignokt]

I just don't get it. Duncan would have led pippen in his prime and barkley to a championship.

Hakeem didn't.

[bobbyjoe]

Did Jordan play in 1999? Also would that be really called the Jordan era? It was more like the Kobe/Shaq era.

I think when people say Jordan era they refer to his time as a Bull. Nonetheless I don't know how Michael Jordan got pulled into this arguement. This is getting old, both sides have good arguments to be made for, but IMO when comparing two players you can't just say one won more rings than the other and call it an end, because that sole player didn't win that ring, it was the team who did, however when comparing two teams as a whole using the number of championships can be used. I think the only way to decide this is to get NBA Live 2003 or NBA 2K3 and have Duncan play Hakeem one-on-one best out of 7 up to 11, 2's and 1's only, call your own fouls to see who is the better player.

Exactly. When comparing 2 players it's disingenuous to just say one had more rings so he was better. And you're right, this argument has been dissected to an extreme degree.

Let me know who wins on NBA Live. :blah

[bobbyjoe]

I just don't get it. Duncan would have led pippen in his prime and barkley to a championship.

Hakeem didn't.

Pippen's prime and Barkley's prime were the early 1990's. They were all nearly 40 year old and on the injury list on and off in 1999 and 2000. Comprende?

You do understand that when a player is 37 yrs old like Hakeem was in 1999 and Barkley was that year they are not "in their primes" right?

Do you think David Robinson was in his prime in 2003?

Please explain to us, oh wise one, how Barkley, Olajuwon and Scottie Pippen were in their primes in 1999 when all 3 were pushing 40...

Maybe Bob Costas can explain it to you

[Ignignokt]

Pippen's prime and Barkley's prime were the early 1990's. They were all nearly 40 year old and on the injury list on and off in 1999 and 2000. Comprende?

You do understand that when a player is 37 yrs old like Hakeem was in 1999 and Barkley was that year they are not "in their primes" right?

Do you think David Robinson was in his prime in 2003?

Please explain to us, oh wise one, how Barkley, Olajuwon and Scottie Pippen were in their primes in 1999 when all 3 were pushing 40...

Pippen was still athletic and at age 35. Barkley was still a beast.
Hell Jason kidd and Nash are all pippens age when pips was in Houston right now, and one of them just finished winning an mvp trophy not to long ago.

Also, Robinson had a nasty injury that severely limited his movement.

Only somebody who choses to ignore the facts, and is a closet Rocketsfan would admit to that.

And Lakerfans today would agree that the LakerDynasty of the millenium would have beaten the Celtics and were of that caliber.

[polandprzem]

LOL. They were all only pushing 40 years old and washed up at the time.

I guess MJ sucks too since he couldnt lead the Wizards to a title at age 40.

I hope you use this same standard with Duncan 8 yrs from now when he's an NBA Greybeard...

washed uo washed up

Atre we talking about the prime years?

Hakeem had about 2 years of prime. No one is talking about his previous and later years. Just those two dominant years.

Duncan is all the time on the highest NBA level.
We can say that he is in his prime all the time with his specific dominance.

[Ignignokt]

Pippen's prime and Barkley's prime were the early 1990's. They were all nearly 40 year old and on the injury list on and off in 1999 and 2000. Comprende?

You do understand that when a player is 37 yrs old like Hakeem was in 1999 and Barkley was that year they are not "in their primes" right?

Do you think David Robinson was in his prime in 2003?

Please explain to us, oh wise one, how Barkley, Olajuwon and Scottie Pippen were in their primes in 1999 when all 3 were pushing 40...

Maybe Bob Costas can explain it to you


Duncan wouldnt have gotten spanked by SHawn KEmp, that's for sho!

[Ignignokt]

Duncan is going to be considered in the top 5-10 when this is all over, even over hakeems. And the people who will rank him over hakeem, will probably not care that Hakeem was a goalie.

[Ignignokt]

Dude, Duncan is considered up there with Tiger, Tom Brady, That tennis player whatever his name is, as one of the most dominating athletes of this millenium.


The league is flooded with athletes moreso than in hakeems era. We may not have nigerians and africans at center position, but we have stronger more athletic forwards and centers in this league if you count millenium shaq.

[bobbyjoe]

Pippen was still athletic and at age 35. Barkley was still a beast.
Hell Jason kidd and Nash are all pippens age right now, and one of them just finished winning an mvp trophy not to long ago.

Also, Robinson had a nasty injury that severely limited his movement.

Only somebody who choses to ignore the facts, and is a closet Rocketsfan would admit to that.

And Lakerfans today would agree that the LakerDynasty of the millenium would have beaten the Celtics and were of that caliber.

You are embarassing yourself with every post.

Robinson had a nasty injury that severely limited his movement. That is the reason he was slowed down by age 35?

Fair enough.

Perhaps if you hadn't been 5 yrs old in 1998, you'd realize that Scottie Pippen was coming off major back surgery and a foot surgery before he went to Houston. He missed 35 games his last year in Chicago.

If you seriously think that was his prime, you're just an idiot.

Barkley was a beast? His scoring and rebounding were down about 35-40% from his prime years. His knees were shot and the guy had nearly retired several times in his last years with Phoenix.

If Barkley was a beast in 1999, then Robinson was a beast in 2003 and I can just as easily say Hakeem would have won the title paired with a Center of Robinson's caliber EVERY year.

After 1998, Scottie Pippen never averaged 15 ppg again. He was a 20-22 ppg in his prime.

[bobbyjoe]

Dude, Duncan is considered up there with Tiger, Tom Brady, That tennis player whatever his name is, as one of the most dominating athletes of this millenium.


The league is flooded with athletes moreso than in hakeems era. We may not have nigerians and africans at center position, but we have stronger more athletic forwards and centers in this league if you count millenium shaq.

You need to officially change your name to "Idiot" if you think the Centers of today's league are stronger and more athletic than the 1990's.

That's the stupidest comment ever uttered on these forums.

[bobbyjoe]

washed uo washed up

Atre we talking about the prime years?

Hakeem had about 2 years of prime. No one is talking about his previous and later years. Just those two dominant years.

Duncan is all the time on the highest NBA level.
We can say that he is in his prime all the time with his specific dominance.

What is "specific dominance"?

[Ignignokt]

You need to officially change your name to "Idiot" if you think the Centers of today's league are stronger and more athletic than the 1990's.

That's the stupidest comment ever uttered on these forums.


Shaq 01-06 > 93-98Hakeem

Robinson = Dwight Howard

Brand or Wallace > Ewing

Amare = Mutombo.

This is just on strenght and athleticism.

We still have 7ft forwards, and 6 11 guards like Novitzki, Garnett, and McGrady. Rasheed, Randolph, Oneal.

[Ignignokt]

You are embarassing yourself with every post.

Robinson had a nasty injury that severely limited his movement. That is the reason he was slowed down by age 35?

Fair enough.

Perhaps if you hadn't been 5 yrs old in 1998, you'd realize that Scottie Pippen was coming off major back surgery and a foot surgery before he went to Houston. He missed 35 games his last year in Chicago.

If you seriously think that was his prime, you're just an idiot.

Barkley was a beast? His scoring and rebounding were down about 35-40% from his prime years. His knees were shot and the guy had nearly retired several times in his last years with Phoenix.

If Barkley was a beast in 1999, then Robinson was a beast in 2003 and I can just as easily say Hakeem would have won the title paired with a Center of Robinson's caliber EVERY year.

After 1998, Scottie Pippen never averaged 15 ppg again. He was a 20-22 ppg in his prime.


Scottie played 50 games in the Lockout season, Avg 14.5 ppg, 6 ast and 6 rebounds.

Again, Duncan has hakeem's age 37 speed at age 31. Duncan does not rely on athleticism.

He'd atleast get past the first round.

Hell, Hakeem couldn't get past the first round for years. HE showed up for one year to dominate against Robinson and his squad in the middle of a meltdown, and went toe to toe with a young shaq in his 2nd year, whose statistics were similiar. And now you're fellating him

When duncan shows up 24/7. Even with Plantar Fascitis, he can lead a team past the first round.

[bobbyjoe]

Why debate just strenght and athleticism when all that really matters is who was the better player (combination of skill, bball IQ, and athleticism).

Howard is a better pure athlete than TD but not 1/10th the basketball player. I dont see why that is relevant.

If you want to argue the league is more athletic at C than in the 1990's, Olajuwon and Robinson are undoubtedly the 2 most athletic Centers this league has ever seen.

[Ignignokt]

Why debate just strenght and athleticism when all that really matters is who was the better player (combination of skill, bball IQ, and athleticism).

Howard is a better pure athlete than TD but not 1/10th the basketball player. I dont see why that is relevant.

If you want to argue the league is more athletic at C than in the 1990's, Olajuwon and Robinson are undoubtedly the 2 most athletic Centers this league has ever seen.


Maybe some of the fastest. But you still have Howard, Garnett, j Oneal, who are similiarly fast.

[Ignignokt]

These are JO's numbers...

2002-03 24 IND NBA 77 37.2 7.9 16.4 0.1 0.3 4.8 6.6 2.6 7.7 10.3 2.0 0.9 2.3 2.3 3.6 20.8
2003-04 25 IND NBA 78 35.7 7.8 17.9 0.0 0.2 4.5 5.9 2.5 7.5 10.0 2.1 0.8 2.6 2.3 3.2 20.1
2004-05 26 IND NBA 44 34.8 8.8 19.4 0.0 0.1 6.7 8.9 1.9 6.9 8.8 1.9 0.6 2.0 3.0 3.9 24.3
2005-06 27 IND NBA 51 35.3 7.5 15.8 0.1 0.2 5.1 7.2 2.0 7.3 9.3 2.6 0.5 2.3 3.0 3.5 20.1
2006-07 28 IND NBA 69 35.6 7.2 16.5 0.0 0.1 5.0 6.5 2.2 7.4 9.6 2.4 0.7 2.6 2.9 3.4 19.4
+------------------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+


and ZO's


1993-94 23 CHH NBA 60 33.6 7.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 7.2 9.5 3.0 7.2 10.2 1.4 0.5 3.1 3.3 3.5 21.5
1994-95 24 CHH NBA 77 38.2 7.4 14.3 0.1 0.4 6.4 8.4 2.6 7.3 9.9 1.4 0.6 2.9 3.1 3.6 21.3
1995-96 25 MIA NBA 70 38.2 8.0 15.4 0.1 0.4 7.0 10.2 3.1 7.3 10.4 2.3 1.0 2.7 3.7 3.5 23.2
1996-97 26 MIA NBA 66 35.2 7.2 13.4 0.0 0.1 5.5 8.6 2.9 7.1 9.9 1.6 0.8 2.9 3.4 4.1 19.8
1997-98 27 MIA NBA 58 33.4 6.9 12.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 8.0 3.3 6.3 9.6 0.9 0.7 2.2 3.1 3.6 19.2
1998-99 28 MIA NBA 46 38.1 7.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 6.0 9.2 3.6 7.4 11.0 1.6 0.7 3.9 3.0 3.5 20.1
1999-00 29 MIA NBA 79 34.8 8.3 15.0 0.0 0.1 5.2 7.4 2.7 6.8 9.5 1.6 0.5 3.7 2.7 3.9 21.7


not much of a difference there.

[bobbyjoe]

Scottie played 50 games in the Lockout season, Avg 14.5 ppg, 6 ast and 6 rebounds.

Again, Duncan has hakeem's age 37 speed at age 31. Duncan does not rely on athleticism.

He'd atleast get past the first round.

Hell, Hakeem couldn't get past the first round for years. HE showed up for one year to dominate against Robinson and his squad in the middle of a meltdown, and went toe to toe with a young shaq in his 2nd year, whose statistics were similiar. And now you're fellating him

When duncan shows up 24/7. Even with Plantar Fascitis, he can lead a team past the first round.

You need to get your facts straight. Hakeem had a lot of injuries, miles, knee injuries, and heart irregularities by the time he was 37.

If you think Duncan will be as effective at age 37 as he is now, you are absolutely on crack. Even if his game relies less on athleticism, the wear and tear of 15-18 yrs in the NBA gets to all 7 footers and they slow down. Look at Shaq of today. Look at DRob at age 35.

Hakeem didnt show up "for one year". He torched every Center he faced in the playoff, Shaq included. He dominated his peers in the playoffs to a degree that Duncan has never done. Duncan struggled in the playoffs against the stud bigmen he faced in Shaq and Malone, even when Malone was freakin 40 yrs old, going 2-4 in those playoff series. Those are facts.

It was Hakeem who lost 4/5th of his starting lineup after the 1986 season. This is a situation Duncan never faced. Duncan came into the right situation alongside DRob and since then has been complemented by more talent than Olajuwon had alongside him the majority of his career.

You got me on Scottie's stats. Those are so awesome! I mean a guy who scored 14 ppg, WOW!

[Ignignokt]

Garnett's

2000-01 24 MIN NBA 81 39.5 8.7 18.2 0.2 0.8 4.4 5.8 2.7 8.7 11.4 5.0 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.5 22.0
2001-02 25 MIN NBA 81 39.2 8.1 17.3 0.5 1.4 4.4 5.5 3.0 9.1 12.1 5.2 1.2 1.6 2.8 2.3 21.2
2002-03 26 MIN NBA 82 40.5 9.1 18.1 0.2 0.9 4.6 6.1 3.0 10.5 13.4 6.0 1.4 1.6 2.8 2.4 23.0
2003-04 27 MIN NBA 82 39.4 9.8 19.6 0.1 0.5 4.5 5.7 3.0 10.9 13.9 5.0 1.5 2.2 2.6 2.5 24.2
2004-05 28 MIN NBA 82 38.1 8.3 16.6 0.1 0.3 5.4 6.7 3.0 10.5 13.5 5.7 1.5 1.4 2.7 2.5 22.2
2005-06 29 MIN NBA 76 38.9 8.2 15.7 0.1 0.4 5.2 6.4 2.8 9.9 12.7 4.1 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.7 21.8

Ewings.


1991-92 29 NYK NBA 82 3150 10.1 19.4 0.0 0.1 4.8 6.5 2.9 8.8 11.7 2.0 1.1 3.1 2.7 3.5 25.0
1992-93 30 NYK NBA 81 3003 10.4 20.6 0.0 0.1 5.3 7.4 2.5 10.5 13.1 2.0 1.0 2.1 3.5 3.8 26.1
1993-94 31 NYK NBA 79 2972 10.0 20.2 0.1 0.2 6.0 7.8 2.9 9.0 11.9 2.4 1.2 2.9 3.5 3.7 26.1
1994-95 32 NYK NBA 79 2920 10.0 19.9 0.1 0.3 5.8 7.7 2.2 9.7 11.9 2.9 0.9 2.2 3.5 3.7 25.8
1995-96 33 NYK NBA 76 2783 9.7 20.9 0.1 0.4 5.0 6.6 2.3 9.3 11.6 2.3 1.0 2.6 3.2 3.6 24.6


not to domineering if we're comparing post players.

[mavs>spurs2]

Duncan wouldnt have gotten spanked by SHawn KEmp, that's for sho!

Duncan doesn't have the strength or athleticism to match up with Kemp. If Kemp and Duncan went head to head, it would be like the 2005 suns-spurs series where Amare scored like 37 ppg and won the individual matchup, but lost the series. Duncan>Kemp in terms of team ball, not individual talent. Not sure why you took this opportunity to take a shot at Kemp.

[Ignignokt]

You need to get your facts straight. Hakeem had a lot of injuries, miles, knee injuries, and heart irregularities by the time he was 37.

If you think Duncan will be as effective at age 37 as he is now, you are absolutely on crack. Even if his game relies less on athleticism, the wear and tear of 15-18 yrs in the NBA gets to all 7 footers and they slow down. Look at Shaq of today. Look at DRob at age 35.

Hakeem didnt show up "for one year". He torched every Center he faced in the playoff, Shaq included. He dominated his peers in the playoffs to a degree that Duncan has never done. Duncan struggled in the playoffs against the stud bigmen he faced in Shaq and Malone, even when Malone was freakin 40 yrs old, going 2-4 in those playoff series. Those are facts.

It was Hakeem who lost 4/5th of his starting lineup after the 1986 season. This is a situation Duncan never faced. Duncan came into the right situation alongside DRob and since then has been complemented by more talent than Olajuwon had alongside him the majority of his career.

You got me on Scottie's stats. Those are so awesome! I mean a guy who scored 14 ppg, WOW!


14ppg, 6 ast, 6 rebs.

That's more than Robinson ever had help with. ROcketfan.

[bobbyjoe]

These are JO's numbers...

2002-03 24 IND NBA 77 37.2 7.9 16.4 0.1 0.3 4.8 6.6 2.6 7.7 10.3 2.0 0.9 2.3 2.3 3.6 20.8
2003-04 25 IND NBA 78 35.7 7.8 17.9 0.0 0.2 4.5 5.9 2.5 7.5 10.0 2.1 0.8 2.6 2.3 3.2 20.1
2004-05 26 IND NBA 44 34.8 8.8 19.4 0.0 0.1 6.7 8.9 1.9 6.9 8.8 1.9 0.6 2.0 3.0 3.9 24.3
2005-06 27 IND NBA 51 35.3 7.5 15.8 0.1 0.2 5.1 7.2 2.0 7.3 9.3 2.6 0.5 2.3 3.0 3.5 20.1
2006-07 28 IND NBA 69 35.6 7.2 16.5 0.0 0.1 5.0 6.5 2.2 7.4 9.6 2.4 0.7 2.6 2.9 3.4 19.4
+------------------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+


and ZO's


1993-94 23 CHH NBA 60 33.6 7.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 7.2 9.5 3.0 7.2 10.2 1.4 0.5 3.1 3.3 3.5 21.5
1994-95 24 CHH NBA 77 38.2 7.4 14.3 0.1 0.4 6.4 8.4 2.6 7.3 9.9 1.4 0.6 2.9 3.1 3.6 21.3
1995-96 25 MIA NBA 70 38.2 8.0 15.4 0.1 0.4 7.0 10.2 3.1 7.3 10.4 2.3 1.0 2.7 3.7 3.5 23.2
1996-97 26 MIA NBA 66 35.2 7.2 13.4 0.0 0.1 5.5 8.6 2.9 7.1 9.9 1.6 0.8 2.9 3.4 4.1 19.8
1997-98 27 MIA NBA 58 33.4 6.9 12.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 8.0 3.3 6.3 9.6 0.9 0.7 2.2 3.1 3.6 19.2
1998-99 28 MIA NBA 46 38.1 7.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 6.0 9.2 3.6 7.4 11.0 1.6 0.7 3.9 3.0 3.5 20.1
1999-00 29 MIA NBA 79 34.8 8.3 15.0 0.0 0.1 5.2 7.4 2.7 6.8 9.5 1.6 0.5 3.7 2.7 3.9 21.7


not much of a difference there.

Please tell me that you dont consider Jermaine O'Neal on the same level as Alonzo Mourning, regardless of what the stats say.

And the obvious answer here is that Alonzo was a terrific defensive player and JO isn't.

JO is a jump shooting forward masquerading as a Center. He's a soft overrated player.

The forwards/Centers of today's NBA are mainly soft and 20 foot jumpshooters. The only exceptions are Duncan, Shaq, and Yao really. You dont impact a game as much that way as you do dominating in the post.

I could point out that KG's stats are on par with Duncan's, but it's pretty obvious Duncan is way better. Ditto for JO vs. Alonzo.

[bobbyjoe]

Garnett's

2000-01 24 MIN NBA 81 39.5 8.7 18.2 0.2 0.8 4.4 5.8 2.7 8.7 11.4 5.0 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.5 22.0
2001-02 25 MIN NBA 81 39.2 8.1 17.3 0.5 1.4 4.4 5.5 3.0 9.1 12.1 5.2 1.2 1.6 2.8 2.3 21.2
2002-03 26 MIN NBA 82 40.5 9.1 18.1 0.2 0.9 4.6 6.1 3.0 10.5 13.4 6.0 1.4 1.6 2.8 2.4 23.0
2003-04 27 MIN NBA 82 39.4 9.8 19.6 0.1 0.5 4.5 5.7 3.0 10.9 13.9 5.0 1.5 2.2 2.6 2.5 24.2
2004-05 28 MIN NBA 82 38.1 8.3 16.6 0.1 0.3 5.4 6.7 3.0 10.5 13.5 5.7 1.5 1.4 2.7 2.5 22.2
2005-06 29 MIN NBA 76 38.9 8.2 15.7 0.1 0.4 5.2 6.4 2.8 9.9 12.7 4.1 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.7 21.8

Ewings.


1991-92 29 NYK NBA 82 3150 10.1 19.4 0.0 0.1 4.8 6.5 2.9 8.8 11.7 2.0 1.1 3.1 2.7 3.5 25.0
1992-93 30 NYK NBA 81 3003 10.4 20.6 0.0 0.1 5.3 7.4 2.5 10.5 13.1 2.0 1.0 2.1 3.5 3.8 26.1
1993-94 31 NYK NBA 79 2972 10.0 20.2 0.1 0.2 6.0 7.8 2.9 9.0 11.9 2.4 1.2 2.9 3.5 3.7 26.1
1994-95 32 NYK NBA 79 2920 10.0 19.9 0.1 0.3 5.8 7.7 2.2 9.7 11.9 2.9 0.9 2.2 3.5 3.7 25.8
1995-96 33 NYK NBA 76 2783 9.7 20.9 0.1 0.4 5.0 6.6 2.3 9.3 11.6 2.3 1.0 2.6 3.2 3.6 24.6


not to domineering if we're comparing post players.

You could just as easily substitute "Tim Duncan" for "Patrick Ewing" here.

[Ignignokt]

Duncan doesn't have the strength or athleticism to match up with Kemp. If Kemp and Duncan went head to head, it would be like the 2005 suns-spurs series where Amare scored like 37 ppg and won the individual matchup, but lost the series. Duncan>Kemp in terms of team ball, not individual talent. Not sure why you took this opportunity to take a shot at Kemp.

That same year, duncan was playing on two bad ankles. Kemp wouldn't have stopped duncan.

Maybe you mean the athleticism is all kemp, but talent <<<<<<<<Duncan, who has better footwork and can play better in a halfcourt offense double teamed.

[Ignignokt]

You could just as easily substitute "Tim Duncan" for "Patrick Ewing" here.


You could, and even then DUncan is way more clutch.

Duncan and Hakeems carreer stats are similiar when we checked them out earlier, so I guess Duncan negates Hakeem.

[mavs>spurs2]

Ignignokt is purposely putting out misleading information. You can't compare the numbers of 2 players from different eras.

Mourning and J Oneal might put up similar numbers, but Mourning did it in a tougher era
prime Mourning>>J Oneal

[bobbyjoe]

14ppg, 6 ast, 6 rebs.

That's more than Robinson ever had help with. ROcketfan.

1) No, it's not. Sean Elliott consistently put up better #'s than that. Elliott in his prime was much better than Pippen post 1998

2) Most importantly, you are changing the subject. Your contention was that Pippen was in his prime at age 34 post back surgery and foot surgery in Houston. 14,6, and 6 is a solid line, no doubt, but it's clearly and vastly inferior to Scottie's production in his true prime. All you've proved with those stats is that Pippen was clearly NOT in his prime as you contended...

[mavs>spurs2]

You could, and even then DUncan is way more clutch.

Duncan and Hakeems carreer stats are similiar when we checked them out earlier, so I guess Duncan negates Hakeem.

Dont look at career averages, once again you are trying to mislead people.

Hakeem played several years too long and it made his numbers do a nose dive.

Take Hakeems prime 10-12 years and compare them with Duncans career numbers. Hakeem has better ppg, rpg, steals, blocks, fg%, ft%, every stat except Tim has about a 1 assist advantage in assists.

[Ignignokt]

1) No, it's not. Sean Elliott consistently put up better #'s than that. Elliott in his prime was much better than Pippen post 1998

2) Most importantly, you are changing the subject. Your contention was that Pippen was in his prime at age 34 post back surgery and foot surgery in Houston. 14,6, and 6 is a solid line, no doubt, but it's clearly and vastly inferior to Scottie's production in his true prime. All you've proved with those stats is that Pippen was clearly NOT in his prime as you contended...

pippen could have still put up 20ppg if he were alone, but he had to share the ball with Hakeem and Barks crying.

No Scottie was not the athlete he was. Still, an amazing scorer.

[mavs>spurs2]

That same year, duncan was playing on two bad ankles. Kemp wouldn't have stopped duncan.

Maybe you mean the athleticism is all kemp, but talent <<<<<<<<Duncan, who has better footwork and can play better in a halfcourt offense double teamed.

What are you not understanding. They wouldn't be able to stop eachother, both getting theirs and cancelling eachother out. Although there's always the possibility of Kemp going off like Amare did against the spurs in 05 because they are very similar players and extreme athleticism gives Tim problems.

[Ignignokt]

Dont look at career averages, once again you are trying to mislead people.

Hakeem played several years too long and it made his numbers do a nose dive.

Take Hakeems prime 10-12 years and compare them with Duncans career numbers. Hakeem has better ppg, rpg, steals, blocks, fg%, ft%, every stat except Tim has about a 1 assist advantage in assists.

Ofcourse Hakeem logged in more minutes than tim. so we should go on a per min basis.

Even moreso, Duncan has accomplished way more than, hakeem ever did in his earlier years. You still had Zo scoring 20ppg, in 98. You still had a defensive monster in Robinson, and you had shaq, and Malone in the league, Mutombo.

Barkley and Akeem were waste by then. So DUncan making all defensive team in his rookie year is bad ass. No matter if they hadn't wore short shorts, Tony Danza was on Tv, or fros were cool, and people weren't buying buicks. THe whole fallacy of the olden golden days rears its ugly head, and is hardly based on facts.

[Ignignokt]

What are you not understanding. They wouldn't be able to stop eachother, both getting theirs and cancelling eachother out. Although there's always the possibility of Kemp going off like Amare did against the spurs in 05 because they are very similar players and extreme athleticism gives Tim problems.


Didn't happen this year. Amare is still extremely athletic. Were was Amare then?

[bobbyjoe]

Duncan doesn't have the strength or athleticism to match up with Kemp. If Kemp and Duncan went head to head, it would be like the 2005 suns-spurs series where Amare scored like 37 ppg and won the individual matchup, but lost the series. Duncan>Kemp in terms of team ball, not individual talent. Not sure why you took this opportunity to take a shot at Kemp.

Good points Mavs>Spurs. Kemp was pretty much a more explosive version of Amare. He had a bigger frame and even better hops than Amare.

The Spurs were able to win with Duncan clearly losing the individual matchup with Amare in 2005 because of the strength of the team surrounding Duncan. That series, Bowen completely shut down Marion and Parker actually neutralized Nash by matching his offensive output and torching Nash off the dribble. Manu was also the Spurs closer in the clutch that series.

That series showed that while Duncan was great, he obviously had one helluva supporting cast for his team to still be able to win with him clearly being outplayed by Amare.

I suspect the Shawn Kemp matchup would have unfolded similarly. Duncan is of course better than Kemp and more valuable but he wouldnt be able to slow Kemp down due to how much more athletic Shawn was.

I dont understand why some of these Spurs fan lump all the praise on Duncan when guys like Parker, Manu, and Bowen are so vital. You are talking basically the quickest PG in the NBA and also the best finishing PG, the most clutch shooting guard not named Kobe Bryant, and the league's best wing defender. That's a helluva cast.

I also find it odd the guy is a Sonics fan and bashing Kemp? Those Sonics teams were pretty darn good when not choking in the first round. They won 64 games in 1996 and took the 72 win Bulls team to 6 games. When has Duncan beaten a 64 win team in the playoffs?

[mavs>spurs2]

Ofcourse Hakeem logged in more minutes than tim. so we should go on a per min basis.

So now its Hakeems fault that Duncan doesn't have the physical ability and conditioning to play the minutes Hakeem did? That's all part of the game dude..

[Ignignokt]

So now its Hakeems fault that Duncan doesn't have the physical ability and conditioning to play the minutes Hakeem did? That's all part of the game dude..


No, Duncan does login heavy minutes in the playoffs. He just doesn't need to if the scores out of reach in the Reg season. And doesn't care about his stats. His playoff stats are amazing when he logs in the min. Not tim duncan's fault he's scoring the points he's supposed to......... Doh!

[Ignignokt]

Good points Mavs>Spurs. Kemp was pretty much a more explosive version of Amare. He had a bigger frame and even better hops than Amare.

The Spurs were able to win with Duncan clearly losing the individual matchup with Amare in 2005 because of the strength of the team surrounding Duncan. That series, Bowen completely shut down Marion and Parker actually neutralized Nash by matching his offensive output and torching Nash off the dribble. Manu was also the Spurs closer in the clutch that series.

That series showed that while Duncan was great, he obviously had one helluva supporting cast for his team to still be able to win with him clearly being outplayed by Amare.

I suspect the Shawn Kemp matchup would have unfolded similarly. Duncan is of course better than Kemp and more valuable but he wouldnt be able to slow Kemp down due to how much more athletic Shawn was.

I dont understand why some of these Spurs fan lump all the praise on Duncan when guys like Parker, Manu, and Bowen are so vital. You are talking basically the quickest PG in the NBA and also the best finishing PG, the most clutch shooting guard not named Kobe Bryant, and the league's best wing defender. That's a helluva cast.

I also find it odd the guy is a Sonics fan and bashing Kemp? Those Sonics teams were pretty darn good when not choking in the first round. They won 64 games in 1996 and took the 72 win Bulls team to 6 games. When has Duncan beaten a 64 win team in the playoffs?


Weak, where was AMare this series? Maybe Oberto shut him down, are we supposed to believe that?

[bobbyjoe]

Ofcourse Hakeem logged in more minutes than tim. so we should go on a per min basis.

Even moreso, Duncan has accomplished way more than, hakeem ever did in his earlier years. You still had Zo scoring 20ppg, in 98. You still had a defensive monster in Robinson, and you had shaq, and Malone in the league, Mutombo.

Barkley and Akeem were waste by then. So DUncan making all defensive team in his rookie year is bad ass. No matter if they hadn't wore short shorts, Tony Danza was on Tv, or fros were cool, and people weren't buying buicks. THe whole fallacy of the olden golden days rears its ugly head, and is hardly based on facts.

Fine, if you go by per minute, Hakeem still has the edge in PPG, FG%, FT%, Steals, and Blocks. Duncan has the edge in Rebounds (12.7 to 12.4) and assists (3.4 to 2.8).

Hakeem has the edge in every single category if you look at playoff #'s instead of regular season.

This doesnt even account for the fact Hakeem's #'s came in a league which was more competitive and stacked at Center.

[bobbyjoe]

Weak, where was AMare this series? Maybe Oberto shut him down, are we supposed to believe that?

Amare averaged 26.4 ppg on 47% FG shooting against the Spurs this series.

Bear in mind that in the Donaghy game, he only played 21 minutes because of foul trouble.

No one shut him down.

I will say though that the series Duncan had against the Suns this playoffs was just awesome. He was just unbelievable, even against a solid post defender like Kurt Thomas. Probably the best ball I've ever seen Duncan play.

But it's not like Amare was shut down completely when he put up 26 a game.

[kingmalaki]

Wow...Bobbyjoe is wrecking shop here. I won't repeat everything you have already posted.

I just wanted to ask (again) why do folks keep touting that Duncan has been winning titles without a 2nd star player when the last 5 NBA champions have only really had one star player?

07 Spurs - Duncan (beat Cavs with LeBron as the sole star)
06 Heat - Wade (beat Mavs with Dirk as the sole star)
05 Spurs - Duncan (beat starless Pistons)
04 Pistons - Starless (beat LA with Shaq and Kobe)
03 Spurs - Duncan (beat Nets with Kidd as the sole star)

Additionally, the losing teams from 99 - 02 only had 1 star (Knicks, Pacers, Sixers, Nets). I consider the 99 Spurs and the 3-peat Lakers two star teams.

It is clearly evident that you only need one superstar, surrounded by good talent, to compete for a title these days. It isn't like the past where the top teams had 2-3 HOF players. So yes, Duncan is winning without HOF help, but so are the other teams in this era not named the LA Lakers.

[DaDakota]

It would be interesting if this was put before a GM...Hakeem or Duncan....who would you take in the draft.

I would take Hakeem because of his ability to play defense too.

Either way though, you are certainly going to be happy.

DD

[TheAuthority]

It would be interesting if this was put before a GM...Hakeem or Duncan....who would you take in the draft.

I would take Hakeem because of his ability to play defense too.

:lmao

[DaDakota]

Authority,

You don't think Hakeem being the number one shot blocker in NBA history means anything.


MMMMMkay.

[spursfan09]

Well ofcourse I would expect a Rocket fan to pick Hakeem over TD. :rolleyes

[DaDakota]

Yes, I am biased that way for sure, and I don't think it is a hands down type of deal. I would be happy with either one of them....you guys want to trade TD for Scola?

:D

[Phenomanul]

Wow...Bobbyjoe is wrecking shop here. I won't repeat everything you have already posted.

I just wanted to ask (again) why do folks keep touting that Duncan has been winning titles without a 2nd star player when the last 5 NBA champions have only really had one star player?

07 Spurs - Duncan (beat Cavs with LeBron as the sole star)
06 Heat - Wade (beat Mavs with Dirk as the sole star)
05 Spurs - Duncan (beat starless Pistons)
04 Pistons - Starless (beat LA with Shaq and Kobe)
03 Spurs - Duncan (beat Nets with Kidd as the sole star)

Additionally, the losing teams from 99 - 02 only had 1 star (Knicks, Pacers, Sixers, Nets). I consider the 99 Spurs and the 3-peat Lakers two star teams.

It is clearly evident that you only need one superstar, surrounded by good talent, to compete for a title these days. It isn't like the past where the top teams had 2-3 HOF players. So yes, Duncan is winning without HOF help, but so are the other teams in this era not named the LA Lakers.

Bobbyjoe was once singlehandedly manhandled by whottt that it wasn't even close (on a thread where he tried to discredit David Robinson - see a recurring theme here? Or ask yourself why else he would have 100 posts on a thread such as this one and hardly any on any of the other threads).

Anyways, on several occasions during the progression of this thread I was tempted to refute one of his many subjective claims... but... have neither the time nor the patience to deal with his belligerent argumentative style.

Having said that, he does make some very good points and will usually back them up with supporting stats... but he also fails to concede on anything... which openly exposes him as embodying the very thing he supposedly denounces - 'bias'. Oh well.

[ambchang]

I cant believe this is so hard for you to grasp. Your posts are so filled with inaccuracies and lies it's pathetic.

You say the Rockets did not lead the league in ATTEMPTS and only in MAKES in 1993-1994?

That's completely false.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994.html

The Rockets in 1993-1994 ATTEMPTED a full 150 more 3 pointers than the next closest team. That's a full 2 per game. Their conversion RATE was right at the league average, hence they can only be described as an AVERAGE 3 point shooting team.

Ditto for 1995. Again, the Rockets % from 3 was only right at the 3 average, but they led the league in attempts and makes.

Duncan has needed a HOF Center as well (1999-2003) and then after that all star caliber guards (Manu, Parker) along with the league's best wing defender, a guy who shoots his 3's at a far better clip than any of the oh, so lethal 33% shooters you think were the reason the Rockets won with in the mid 90/s.

Your argument is such utter trash that in fact that Duncan's Spurs were the ones in 2006-2007 who shot 38.1% (nearly 5% higher than Hakeem's awesome shooters) and 36.3% in 2004-2005. In both these title seasons, the Spurs shot a far higher % from 3 than the rest of the league so if anyone relied more on 3 point shooters to complement him in title seasons, it was clearly DUncan if you want to look at the stone cold facts.

Gee, I said I was saying that they were #1 in makes and didn't say they were #1 in attempts, that does not mean that they are not #1 in attempts.
If a team is #1 in makes, and is only average in %, it would follow that said team is probably #1 in attempts (though not conclusive), but my point is to say that given that they were #1 in makes, would you as a team not defend their 3s?
The % is higher, but that does not mean that the Spurs are as potent on the 3 as the Rockets were, it is just not as big a part of the offense. Besides, even IF the Spurs were a more potent 3 pt shooting team than the Rockets, this STILL does not exclude the fact that Hakeem only won titles with amazing 3 pt shooting teams, and that Duncan won 4 titles with very different teams.

BTW, if you want to count 99 to 03 Robinson as a significant contributor, you should be talking about Barkley and Pippen with Hakeem. At that point in their careers, they were all past their primes, broken down and injured.

[ambchang]

And by the way, Bobbyjoe has been kicking ass all throughout this thread
Why, because you agreed with him? :blah

[ambchang]

Well said

Duncan relies on having great 3 point shooters more than Hakeem ever did

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Hakeem had to have a certain type of team built around him to win, while Duncan wins mass amounts of championships with any type of scrubs you put around him. Especially when it's Duncan, not Hakeem, who relies on having great 3 point shooters.
This is absolutely ridiculous.

In 1999, the Spurs were19/29 in 3pt % and 24/29 in makes and 25/29 in attempts.
In 2003, 11/29 in makes, 11/29 attempts, and 11/29 in %
In 2005, 12/30 in makes, 13/30 in attempts, and 8/30 in %
In 2007, 6/30 in makes, 7/30 in attempts, and 3rd in %.

Next time when you wants to mouth off on something, do your own research instead of coattailing on somebody else’s arguments.
BTW, the 3 pt % also helps shoot down some garbage arguments by bobbyjoe that shooting is getting worse. Also, go check out FT% of the league when you have time.

[Ignignokt]

Gary Payton wouldn't have given Kemp the ball as well as Nash does amare. Kemp would have avg 18-21ppg.

Even still, Akeem was taller and just as fast, and an awesome shot blocker,you'd think.


One thing to consider, Duncan has won 4 titles in a small market, with small resources, with his stars coming only through draft. The spurs have never managed to pull in an established superstar through trade like the Rox did with drexler.

Basically everyteam the spurs have lost, have been in the FInals. Every team.

And about bowen being a stellar defender, you wouldn't know that if you were like bobby joe and only looked at the stats. Besides the fact that bowens defense is credited to Duncan, ought to say something about duncans multidimensional defensive prowess.

Bowen, has avg stats for being a defensive monster. And if we were to take the bobbyjoe approach, Ginobilli is a better defender than bruce.

Sorry Joe, The media might be mesmerized by steals and blocks. But the real students of the game, the coaches will always pick duncan as a defensive jagguarnat. Who happened to get in the all defensive team in his rookie year with Zo and Shaq, and Drob still kicking ass.

In the end, Historians will look at wins, and contribution.

Duncan is just the obvious choice. No number of blocks, steals, and FT pct,:lmao will take that away.

[ambchang]

Yes, let's review the 3 point department:

Rockets 3 pt % 1994: 33.3%
Rockets 3 pt % 1995: 36.7%
Spurs 3 pt % 2005: 36.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 2007: 38.1%
Spurs 3 pt % 2003: 35.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 199: 33.0%

These are the facts and they clearly show the Spurs had more efficient 3 point shooting than Houston.

You mean for every 100 3 pters shot, the Spurs make about 5 more than the Rockets between the best year of the Spurs and the worst year of the Rockets, and have essentially no difference when comparing the worst to the worst and only a difference of 1.4 3 pters , or 4.2 points comparing the best to the best? Wow, this is truly profounding and showed how much more potent the Spurs are than the Rockets.

But let us ignore the fact that the Rockets were #1 in the league in both makes and attempts both years. Where in 1994, they score an average of 1.3 points more than the 2nd best 3 pt shooting team a game, and 5.8 points more than the average team. But no team would guard the 3 pt line, and let them shoot away because they ranked a paltry 15/28 in 3pt %, which is a ranking significantly better than the 99 Spurs. The same is true for 95, only that the Rockets made even MORE 3pters, and scored on average 2.3 points more than the 2nd best 3 pt shooting team, and 7 more points than the average team.

Right.

[mavs>spurs2]

Gary Payton wouldn't have given Kemp the ball as well as Nash does amare. Kemp would have avg 18-21ppg.

Are we stalking about the same Kemp who averaged about 23 ppg from 94-98 with that same Payton feeding him the ball? Kemp would have destroyed Duncan ala 2005 Amare. Duncan doesn't have the athletic ability to match up with these type players


One thing to consider, Duncan has won 4 titles in a small market, with small resources, with his stars coming only through draft. The spurs have never managed to pull in an established superstar through trade like the Rox did with drexler.

Give me a break, Drexler was past his prime before he ever got to the Rockets. It's funny how you're so quick to discredit David's time with Duncan but want to say Hakeem played next to this bonafide superstar in Drexler, when in reality Drexler was the same age Robinson was when Duncan got to the spurs. And who cares where you get your superstars, whether it's trade or draft. The thing is, Duncan has played with more stars than Hakeem ever did. Hakeem never got to play with a finals MVP while he was still in his prime.



Sorry Joe, The media might be mesmerized by steals and blocks. But the real students of the game, the coaches will always pick duncan as a defensive jagguarnat. Who happened to get in the all defensive team in his rookie year with Zo and Shaq, and Drob still kicking ass.

No one ever said Duncan wasn't a great defensive player, he just isn't on Hakeems level.

[SpursDynasty]

Spurs had to dethrone the Kobe/Shaq Laker mini-dynasty in 2003. No other team could do that.

They wrestled and grinded out a tough 7-game NBA Finals in 2005.

They won the championship in 2007 easily, but with such world-class competition like Dallas and Phoenix :lol , that's an accomplishment, isn't it?

[ambchang]

LOL.

1) No, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers aren't even close to the Kareem-Magic-Worthy-B. Scott-we ruled the NBA for a decade Lakers. Not even close.

2) Duncan was 1-3 against Shaq/Kobe and Phil Jackson. I repeat 1 win, 3 losses. What's so awesome about beating someone once, but losing 3 times to them in the playoffs?
Weren't you the same person who would go on and on about Hakeem missing the playoffs due to a crap supporting cast?

[ambchang]

Wow...Bobbyjoe is wrecking shop here. I won't repeat everything you have already posted.

I just wanted to ask (again) why do folks keep touting that Duncan has been winning titles without a 2nd star player when the last 5 NBA champions have only really had one star player?

07 Spurs - Duncan (beat Cavs with LeBron as the sole star)
06 Heat - Wade (beat Mavs with Dirk as the sole star)
05 Spurs - Duncan (beat starless Pistons)
04 Pistons - Starless (beat LA with Shaq and Kobe)
03 Spurs - Duncan (beat Nets with Kidd as the sole star)

Additionally, the losing teams from 99 - 02 only had 1 star (Knicks, Pacers, Sixers, Nets). I consider the 99 Spurs and the 3-peat Lakers two star teams.

It is clearly evident that you only need one superstar, surrounded by good talent, to compete for a title these days. It isn't like the past where the top teams had 2-3 HOF players. So yes, Duncan is winning without HOF help, but so are the other teams in this era not named the LA Lakers.


94 Rockets – Hakeem (beat Knicks with Ewing as sole star)
94 Rockets – Hakeem (beat Magic with O’Neal as sole star, maybe Hardaway).

What is the point again?
Suns had 3 stars in 05 and 07, Mavs had 3 stars in the early 00s, where did that get them?

[Ignignokt]

Dont worry, Bobbyjoe has youtube videos of Akeem and real gm to back up his arguments.

[Ignignokt]

I thought we beat shaq and kobe twice.

[Ignignokt]

Are we stalking about the same Kemp who averaged about 23 ppg from 94-98 with that same Payton feeding him the ball? Kemp would have destroyed Duncan ala 2005 Amare. Duncan doesn't have the athletic ability to match up with these type players



Give me a break, Drexler was past his prime before he ever got to the Rockets. It's funny how you're so quick to discredit David's time with Duncan but want to say Hakeem played next to this bonafide superstar in Drexler, when in reality Drexler was the same age Robinson was when Duncan got to the spurs. And who cares where you get your superstars, whether it's trade or draft. The thing is, Duncan has played with more stars than Hakeem ever did. Hakeem never got to play with a finals MVP while he was still in his prime.




No one ever said Duncan wasn't a great defensive player, he just isn't on Hakeems level.


that's still 3>2 if we are to deducts parker's MVP performance.

[kingmalaki]

Besides, even IF the Spurs were a more potent 3 pt shooting team than the Rockets, this STILL does not exclude the fact that Hakeem only won titles with amazing 3 pt shooting teams, and that Duncan won 4 titles with very different teams.

I don't think you are getting his point and it isn't that complex. he has posted the state for it 3 or 4 times already.

If a team makes it's 3 pointers at an average clip, then how can you say they are an amazing 3 point shooting team? The only thing they were amazing at is taking more than anyone else in the league. It makes sense that you would make more if you take more if you are an average shooting team.

I agree that the Spurs don't rely on the 3 as much as those Rockets teams did, but it's silly to say they were an amazing at shooting the 3 when the Spurs were making them a a higher clip during their title runs. It's silly to say they were amazing just because they launched them more, when their % was average compared to everyone else. Is Duncan an amazing ft shooter since he attempts more than most bigs, even though his average is just so/so (compared to most bigs)? See how foolish that argument is? If anything, the fact that SA doesn't have to rely on the 3 as much is a testament to having other players who could create their own shot and actually having a decent coach that can come up with more offensive sets than "dump it to my big man and stand around".

[kingmalaki]

94 Rockets – Hakeem (beat Knicks with Ewing as sole star)
94 Rockets – Hakeem (beat Magic with O’Neal as sole star, maybe Hardaway).

What is the point again?
Suns had 3 stars in 05 and 07, Mavs had 3 stars in the early 00s, where did that get them?

Penny was a star in 95. So were Stockton & Malone (94 and 95), Robinson & Rodman (95) and KJ & Barkley (94 and 95).

And by star, I am speaking of NBA susperstar, HOF caliber player. I can count 1 on those Suns teams (Nash) and one on the Mavs (Dirk). Who else are you speaking of?

I think i clearly posted my point. Did you not see it?


I just wanted to ask (again) why do folks keep touting that Duncan has been winning titles without a 2nd star player when the last 5 NBA champions have only really had one star player?

[ambchang]

I don't think you are getting his point and it isn't that complex. he has posted the state for it 3 or 4 times already.

If a team makes it's 3 pointers at an average clip, then how can you say they are an amazing 3 point shooting team? The only thing they were amazing at is taking more than anyone else in the league. It makes sense that you would make more if you take more if you are an average shooting team.

I agree that the Spurs don't rely on the 3 as much as those Rockets teams did, but it's silly to say they were an amazing at shooting the 3 when the Spurs were making them a a higher clip during their title runs. It's silly to say they were amazing just because they launched them more, when their % was average compared to everyone else. Is Duncan an amazing ft shooter since he attempts more than most bigs, even though his average is just so/so (compared to most bigs)? See how foolish that argument is? If anything, the fact that SA doesn't have to rely on the 3 as much is a testament to having other players who could create their own shot and actually having a decent coach that can come up with more offensive sets than "dump it to my big man and stand around".

And my point is equally simple (and I think more valid) and I have stated it 3 or 4 times myself.
Two teams, one shoots on average 15 3 pters a game and makes 35% of them, scoring 15.75 points on 3 pters a game.
The other shoots 10 3 pters a game and makes 38% of them, scoring an average of 11.4 points a game on 3's, and you are telling me that the 2nd team is more potent because it shoots a whopping 3% better than the first team?

[ambchang]

Penny was a star in 95. So were Stockton & Malone (94 and 95), Robinson & Rodman (95) and KJ & Barkley (94 and 95).

And by star, I am speaking of NBA susperstar, HOF caliber player. I can count 1 on those Suns teams (Nash) and one on the Mavs (Dirk). Who else are you speaking of?

I think i clearly posted my point. Did you not see it?
Me seeing it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.
Coincidentally, Nash and Dirk were on the same team in 03, didn't do much now did they?

[baseline bum]

Penny was a star in 95. So were Stockton & Malone (94 and 95), Robinson & Rodman (95) and KJ & Barkley (94 and 95).

And by star, I am speaking of NBA susperstar, HOF caliber player. I can count 1 on those Suns teams (Nash) and one on the Mavs (Dirk). Who else are you speaking of?

I think i clearly posted my point. Did you not see it?

Stoudemire is definitely a hall of fame player, unless his knee goes out. It's a joke that KJ's not already in there; he's the most underrated point in the games' history, but Springfield shows no respect for the pro game.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Ignignokt is purposely putting out misleading information. You can't compare the numbers of 2 players from different eras.

Mourning and J Oneal might put up similar numbers, but Mourning did it in a tougher era
prime Mourning>>J Oneal

Tell that to bobbyjoe, who has somehow convinced himself that 4 titles don't mean squat today because the players today don't compete against the gods of yesteryear. Every sports journal and reference site I've check still have Duncan with 4 titles and Hakeem with only 2. Even now, I think you'll agree Tim Duncan is regarded as the best power forward to ever play, and hopefully and he continues to win another title or two, and win additional accolades, his stature will do nothing but improve and his legend grow even larger then life. I think someone just has an agenda, maybe because as of late, bobbyjoe's and mav>spurs' teams haven't been relevant. Why else would he be pimping Hakeem over Duncan so passionately? Heck I'm a Spurs homer and you probably spend more time on this board then I do. But I digress, mediocrity and irrelevance is a bitch, huh?

Dude lose the fanaticism, you're on a Spurs board, it's too close to call and your feeble attempts to cram or force feed your opinion aren't going to influence or change anyone's mind.

[kingmalaki]

And my point is equally simple (and I think more valid) and I have stated it 3 or 4 times myself.
Two teams, one shoots on average 15 3 pters a game and makes 35% of them, scoring 15.75 points on 3 pters a game.
The other shoots 10 3 pters a game and makes 38% of them, scoring an average of 11.4 points a game on 3's, and you are telling me that the 2nd team is more potent because it shoots a whopping 3% better than the first team?

I am telling you that you can't draw a conclusion that the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team because they took a lot of threes. If they made a high percentage of their threes then that means they were a great 3 point shooting team. The numbers show they were an ok 3 point shooting team that took a lot of them. Why did we take so many? Because we had a great post that no one could cover 1-1 and for some reason our coaches couldn't come up with any other plays besides post Hakeeem, or post Drexler after we traded for him.

Your analysis basically says one team shoots more three's than the other (even though at a lower %), so they are a better 3 point shooting team. Sorry, but that is one of the worst cases of trying to twist stats that I can think of. Your analysis shows that the Rockets scored more off 3 point shots. Looking at the numbers further shows that they scored more because they shot it more. Even in your above case it took them 5 more attempts per game to score 4 more points from behind the arc (basically 1 3 point shot plus one). Using your logic, I guess I would be able to conclude that Duncan is a better ft shooter than Finley (91% last year) because he was one of the league leaders in FT attempts? See how silly that sounds?

It's ok to admit you were wrong dude. If you want to change your statement to say the Rockets at that time relied on the 3-point shot more, then that's fine. But attempting a lot of shots at a decent % does not make you great at that shot....

[kingmalaki]

Me seeing it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.
Coincidentally, Nash and Dirk were on the same team in 03, didn't do much now did they?

You don't have to agree...but if you saw it then why ask me again?

Nope, Nash and Dirk lost in 03. I still don't see how that nullifies my point that in this era a team doesn't need to have more than 1 superstar, surrounded by quality talent to win. Do you always dodge the point being made by trying to twist it someway, with a follow up question that has nothing to do with the original point?

Every team in the Finals this decade, save for the LA Lakers, has had one star. Noting that, I don't see the point of constantly mentioning that Duncan won without a second star. Maybe you can fill me in on how that is relevant, especially in this debate since Hakeem clearly did the same thing in an era where every other team had two.....

[kingmalaki]

Stoudemire is definitely a hall of fame player, unless his knee goes out. It's a joke that KJ's not already in there; he's the most underrated point in the games' history, but Springfield shows no respect for the pro game.

I don't think Amare's going to the Hall but I res[ect your opinion and can see why you would say so. I think he needs to make more of an impact defensively and on the boards. I also think he gets a lot of his points from Nash. He is still young though and has plenty of time to grow. The fact that he has already added a jumper shows that he is putting in offseason work....

[kingmalaki]

Tell that to bobbyjoe, who has somehow convinced himself that 4 titles don't mean squat today because the players today don't compete against the gods of yesteryear.


I don’t think he, or anyone else in the pro Hakeem camp is saying 4 titles in today’s day don’t mean squat. Is there really a need to twist folks words around?

Folks are simply saying you can’t mention the titles without including all of the other factors in your analysis (the era won, the competition faced, the supporting talent, etc). I would be just as silly to say Horry > Malone or Horry > Barkley because Horry has 7 rings. Further analysis would show me that Horry was a roleplayer while the other dudes weren’t, or that the other dudes carried their squads and lost to a dynasty while Horry’s teams beat worse teams in the Finals. It isn’t as simple as 7 > 6, or whatever.

If that’s the case Bill Russell is the greatest NBA player in league history, undisputed, and no player ever has a chance of topping him. Ignore the fact that Russell said Wilt was better, or all the HOF talent he had on his squad. He has the most rings…right???

[Reggie Miller]

Nope, Nash and Dirk lost in 03. I still don't see how that nullifies my point that in this era a team doesn't need to have more than 1 superstar, surrounded by quality talent to win. Do you always dodge the point being made by trying to twist it someway, with a follow up question that has nothing to do with the original point?

Not to distort your point, but Dirk went down to injury in the WCF in 2003. So even if Dallas normally had two "stars," they didn't when it really counted that year.

[ambchang]

I am telling you that you can't draw a conclusion that the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team because they took a lot of threes. If they made a high percentage of their threes then that means they were a great 3 point shooting team. The numbers show they were an ok 3 point shooting team that took a lot of them. Why did we take so many? Because we had a great post that no one could cover 1-1 and for some reason our coaches couldn't come up with any other plays besides post Hakeeem, or post Drexler after we traded for him.

Your analysis basically says one team shoots more three's than the other (even though at a lower %), so they are a better 3 point shooting team. Sorry, but that is one of the worst cases of trying to twist stats that I can think of. Your analysis shows that the Rockets scored more off 3 point shots. Looking at the numbers further shows that they scored more because they shot it more. Even in your above case it took them 5 more attempts per game to score 4 more points from behind the arc (basically 1 3 point shot plus one). Using your logic, I guess I would be able to conclude that Duncan is a better ft shooter than Finley (91% last year) because he was one of the league leaders in FT attempts? See how silly that sounds?

It's ok to admit you were wrong dude. If you want to change your statement to say the Rockets at that time relied on the 3-point shot more, then that's fine. But attempting a lot of shots at a decent % does not make you great at that shot....

Whatever you want to say, fact is the Rockets were comparable to the Spurs in 3 pt shooting % in every one of their championship winning years except 2007, but no, just because the Spurs were better in one single year translates to the Rockets being an average 3 pt shooting team, and the Spurs being a great one.

The point is, the Rockets had 3 pt shooting as an integral part of their offense, and yes, a huge part of it was because Hakeem drew so much attention in the low post, but it also speaks to the fact that, 1995 in particular, that the Rockets can have 4 3 pt shooting threats on the floor with Hakeem without having anyone play out of position, and they took advantage of that and shot a huge about of 3 pters.

If Duncan ever shot 88% from the line vs. Finley 91%, and shot a significantly higher amount, I would say Duncan is much more dangerous from the FT line than Finley. And if the Rockets were making 12% of their 3 pters compared to the league average, then yeah, let them go nuts. But the fact is that neither were the case. Your case is much more like saying Miller is a worse 3 pt shooter than Kevin Johnson in 1997 because he shot 42.8% compared to 44.1%, despite making much much more (229 vs. 89)

You are making it sound like there is a huge difference in shooting percentage between the two teams, while all the while, the Rockets are only 3.4% from the team with the best 3pt% in 1994 while making 133% more 3pters (that’s 2.33 x), and shot 3 % worse than the team with the best 3pt % and shot 15% more 3 pters.

But if you were ever the coach, you will tell me that you will put more emphasis in covering a team that shot 3% from the 3 pt line, rather than a team that is slightly worse in %, but integrate it much more in their offense. But then again, only shooting a good % means you are a good 3 pt shooting team, not a team that uses it as a huge part of their offense.

[Reggie Miller]

If that’s the case Bill Russell is the greatest NBA player in league history, undisputed, and no player ever has a chance of topping him. Ignore the fact that Russell said Wilt was better, or all the HOF talent he had on his squad. He has the most rings…right???

That's the clincher for me, anyway. Everyone criticizes certain players for their lack of defense. As in, "Player X can't be the GOAT, becuase he only played one end of the floor." However, it is often forgotten that Russell had virtually no offensive game. My understanding is that most of his points came off of put-backs and free throws, at least early in his career. It is very difficult for me to serously consider someone the GOAT when they were never a primary scoring threat in their entire pro career.

My point has always been that there is no single set of criteria for comparing players at different positions and/or from different generations. If you go by career accomplishments without weighing them, Russell is the clear winner of GOAT. If you go by overall basketball skills in relation to contemporaries, it's Oscar Robertson. Given the "questions," the above "answers" are not debateable; it's just simple arithmetic. The real issue then becomes how to ask the right "questions" in the first place.

The problem is that any attempts to weigh the different eras or positions are essentially forging new territory, as there is no commonly accepted method or methods for doing so in basketball. (As opposed to baseball, for example.) One cannot evaluate players "objectively," becuase no generally recognized "objective" criteria exist at the moment. The APBR is approaching the stage where they can seriously compare their work with that of SABR, but they still have a long way to go. At least basketball fans can take some comfort in knowing that even baseball has trouble modelling defense statistically.

[ambchang]

You don't have to agree...but if you saw it then why ask me again?

Nope, Nash and Dirk lost in 03. I still don't see how that nullifies my point that in this era a team doesn't need to have more than 1 superstar, surrounded by quality talent to win. Do you always dodge the point being made by trying to twist it someway, with a follow up question that has nothing to do with the original point?

Every team in the Finals this decade, save for the LA Lakers, has had one star. Noting that, I don't see the point of constantly mentioning that Duncan won without a second star. Maybe you can fill me in on how that is relevant, especially in this debate since Hakeem clearly did the same thing in an era where every other team had two.....

Given that in this era, the Spurs and the Lakers won all but two of the championships makes it a moot point.
And let's forget about the fact that in the 90's, the Jordan Bulls won 6 of the 10. What about the late 80's Pistons, two championships back to back, Isiah Thomas as the only star. If you are not counting 06 Shaq as a star, then neither was Dumars, if you are not counting Ben Wallace as a star, then neither was Rodman/Laimbeer.
I also found something shocking, from 57 to 69, your team needs 5+ HoF on your team to win a championship, it happened 11 out of 13 times. That decade must be the best decade ever. Comparatively, the 80's was a disgrace.

[Galileo]

Had Jordan not retired in 99, we'd be discussing the Bulls as NBA Champs in 99 right?

Had David Stern not been an idiot and rewarded the Spurs for a cheapshot in 2007, we'd be discussing the Suns as NBA Champs in 2007 right?

Had Timmy played in the Jordan era, maybe we'd be discussing who was the best ring-less player (Malone vs. TD vs. Hakeem)?

Tim never played Jordan once in the playoffs. He did face Malone and Shaq 7 times in the playoffs (neither player obviously as good as Jordan) and went
2-5 against them.

You expect us to believe that he'd have won multiple titles in the Jordan era when he was 2-5 against Shaq/Malone, guys he'd have to go through in that era just to get to Jordan?

A Spurs fan can never use the "Jordan was gone" argument and be taken seriously because the Spurs won their first title the very year Jordan retired and the Bulls were broken up in the half-season of 1999.

TD in playoff series:

98 1-1
99 4-0
01 2-1
02 1-1
03 4-0
04 1-1
05 4-0
06 1-1
07 4-0

TOTAL

22-5

this blows Hakeem out of the water, and it would be a lot better had SA been in the eastern conference.

By way of Comparison, here is Jordan's #'s

85 0-1
86 0-1
87 0-1
88 1-1
89 2-1
90 2-1
91 4-0
92 4-0
93 4-0
95 1-1
96 4-0
97 4-0
98 4-0

TOTAL

30-7

Duncan needs to go 8-2 to tie Jordan.

He could do it this way:

Duncan:

08 4-0
09 3-1
10 1-1

or

08 4-0
09 2-1
10 2-1

or

08 4-0
09 4-0
10 0-1
11 0-1

[ambchang]

TD in playoff series:

98 1-1
99 4-0
01 2-1
02 1-1
03 4-0
04 1-1
05 4-0
06 1-1
07 4-0

TOTAL

22-5

this blows Hakeem out of the water, and it would be a lot better had SA been in the eastern conference.

By way of Comparison, here is Jordan's #'s

85 0-1
86 0-1
87 0-1
88 1-1
89 2-1
90 2-1
91 4-0
92 4-0
93 4-0
95 1-1
96 4-0
97 4-0
98 4-0

TOTAL

30-7

Duncan needs to go 8-2 to tie Jordan.

He could do it this way:

Duncan:

08 4-0
09 3-1
10 1-1

or

08 4-0
09 2-1
10 2-1

or

08 4-0
09 4-0
10 0-1
11 0-1
But it doesn't matter, because the competition today is crap because the league is so watered-down, remember?
Nevermind the fact that it is not like Duncan has superior teammates to other teams in the league for all 4 championship and that the watered-down effect affected every single team, not just the opponents of the Spurs.
Nevermind that Hakeem couldn't lead his team to the playoffs because he missed an amazing 12 games in a season! Could you imagine Duncan missing 12 games in any given season? I am sure the Spurs would miss the playoffs because Duncan is not as strong as Hakeem and can't lead his team to a better than 40-30 record in 70 games.
When the Rockets suffer, it's because Hakeem's teammates sucked, when the Spurs win, it's because he's got a great supporting cast, just remember that.

[Galileo]

The lower tier playoff teams are better today than in the 80's because 16 out of 30 teams make the playoffs, rather than 16 out of 23 teams.

In the 80s, you were way more likely to draw a sub 500 team in round one, and basically get a bye.

[Galileo]

But it doesn't matter, because the competition today is crap because the league is so watered-down, remember?
Nevermind the fact that it is not like Duncan has superior teammates to other teams in the league for all 4 championship and that the watered-down effect affected every single team, not just the opponents of the Spurs.
Nevermind that Hakeem couldn't lead his team to the playoffs because he missed an amazing 12 games in a season! Could you imagine Duncan missing 12 games in any given season? I am sure the Spurs would miss the playoffs because Duncan is not as strong as Hakeem and can't lead his team to a better than 40-30 record in 70 games.
When the Rockets suffer, it's because Hakeem's teammates sucked, when the Spurs win, it's because he's got a great supporting cast, just remember that.

Good point, ambchang.

Duncan missed more than 12 games in both '04 and '05 and the Spurs still made the playoffs.

More stats:

Duncan's W/L record in first round of playoffs:

32-10 = 76%

Spurs record without Duncan:

1-4 = 20%

I do not think you will find this disparity in the history of the NBA. Duncan is the greatest winner outside of maybe Bill Russell.

FACTOID:

The Spurs have had on ONE Lottery pick since 1989 and that Lottery pick was Tim Duncan.

Yep, the Spurs have sure stockpiled lots of talent to hoist Duncan up by his bootstraps!

[Galileo]

I think we should start a thread comparing Duncan to Jordan.

Here is a JORDAN FACTOID:

1993 Bulls 57-25 (Jordan 3rd in MVP)
1994 Bulls 55-27 (Pippen 3rd in MVP)

There you have it.

Jordan is worth 2 wins for your team each year.

I'll take Duncan.

[mavs>spurs2]

I think we should start a thread comparing Duncan to Jordan.

Here is a JORDAN FACTOID:

1993 Bulls 57-25 (Jordan 3rd in MVP)
1994 Bulls 55-27 (Pippen 3rd in MVP)

There you have it.

Jordan is worth 2 wins for your team each year.

I'll take Duncan.

kill yourself

[Galileo]

kill yourself

That would be suicidal.

:smokin

[mavs>spurs2]

I think someone just has an agenda, maybe because as of late, bobbyjoe's and mav>spurs' teams haven't been relevant. Why else would he be pimping Hakeem over Duncan so passionately? Heck I'm a Spurs homer and you probably spend more time on this board then I do. But I digress, mediocrity and irrelevance is a bitch, huh?

It could also be said that you probably suck more cocks than I do.

Amazing how just because I agree with everyone outside of San Antonio, all the sudden I have an agenda.



Dude lose the fanaticism, you're on a Spurs board, it's too close to call and your feeble attempts to cram or force feed your opinion aren't going to influence or change anyone's mind.

My opinion may not change anyones mind, but the FACTS and evidence presented by myself, bobbyjoe, and several others tell the story.

[ambchang]

It could also be said that you probably suck more cocks than I do.

Amazing how just because I agree with everyone outside of San Antonio, all the sudden I have an agenda.




My opinion may not change anyones mind, but the FACTS and evidence presented by myself, bobbyjoe, and several others tell the story.
Yes, such as the fact that the Spurs won with teams with and without good 3 pt shooting, and yet you claim that Duncan can only win with good 3 pt shooters on his team, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, it's not about how dangerous you are behind the 3 pt line, but what % you shoot at. We all know Malik Rose is a better 3 pt shooter than Stephen Jackson that year, because he shot 40% vs. 32% for SJax. Wait, there's more, Parker, who everybody said couldn't shoot, was actually a better 3 pt shooter than SJax too, he shot 33.7%. Damn! Finally, Malik was better than Kerr, if only ever so slightly! 40% vs. 39.5%. Malik, simply the 2nd best 3 pt shooter on the Spurs in 2003 despite making only 2 of them.

[mavs>spurs2]

Yes, such as the fact that the Spurs won with teams with and without good 3 pt shooting, and yet you claim that Duncan can only win with good 3 pt shooters on his team, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, it's not about how dangerous you are behind the 3 pt line, but what % you shoot at. We all know Malik Rose is a better 3 pt shooter than Stephen Jackson that year, because he shot 40% vs. 32% for SJax. Wait, there's more, Parker, who everybody said couldn't shoot, was actually a better 3 pt shooter than SJax too, he shot 33.7%. Damn! Finally, Malik was better than Kerr, if only ever so slightly! 40% vs. 39.5%. Malik, simply the 2nd best 3 pt shooter on the Spurs in 2003 despite making only 2 of them.

Both the spurs and rockets shot alot more than 2 three pointers, so quit trying to act like the % isn't relevant

[Cry Havoc]

It could also be said that you probably suck more cocks than I do.

My opinion may not change anyones mind, but the FACTS and evidence presented by myself, bobbyjoe, and several others tell the story.


Maybe it's because your posts are completely devoid of any class or decency.

It's a message board. If you need to start tossing insults, save us. Go outside. Have a cookie. You do nothing but undermine any sort of legitimacy presented by your arguments with that kind of adolescent playground commentary.

[mavs>spurs2]

:dramaquee

The insults came after i was attacked by this demo dick marcinko and told i had a so called "agenda" for voicing the same opinions as several other posters.

You want to preach to someone, at least save your breath for someone who gives a shit.

This thread is for discussing Tim vs Hakeem, get with the program or get lost