Duncan>Hakeem.

[Cry Havoc]

: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

Ah, yes. Tim vs. Hakeem.

This obviously is why you bought male genitalia into the thread. My mistake, I clearly see now how that correlates with the discussion in question.

[Mister Sinister]

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.
http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/internet_serious_business.jpg

[bobbyjoe]

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".

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a title. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

[Ignignokt]

The spurs had no one who could create in 99 either.

[bobbyjoe]

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!

What's with the intentionally deceptive factoid?

Fine, the Spurs only have had one lottery pick post Duncan.

Duncan also landed onto a team which was a year removed from a 55 win season with a guy who was MVP 2 yrs prior to his arrival and a team stacked with talent which only landed the #1 pick due to a slew of injuries.

How many #1 picks have ever landed in a scenario like that?

Also, it's pretty obvious that Manu and Parker were both draft steals even though technically not drafted in the lottery. Looking back at those drafts, the Spurs got lottery level talent (thats an understatement).

[Ignignokt]

What's with the intentionally deceptive factoid?

Fine, the Spurs only have had one lottery pick post Duncan.

Duncan also landed onto a team which was a year removed from a 55 win season with a guy who was MVP 2 yrs prior to his arrival and a team stacked with talent which only landed the #1 pick due to a slew of injuries.

How many #1 picks have ever landed in a scenario like that?

Also, it's pretty obvious that Manu and Parker were both draft steals even though technically not drafted in the lottery. Looking back at those drafts, the Spurs got lottery level talent (thats an understatement).


It's the prophetic BOBBY CODE, starring the dude from growing pains, and the tamara twins.

[bobbyjoe]

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.

Steals and blocks tell you about team defense, not individual D.

[Ignignokt]

Steals and blocks tell you about team defense, not individual D.

what, when you block, you're blocking the whole team?

[kingmalaki]

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.

I never said the Spurs were a great 3 point shooting team and neither did bobbyjoe. You claimed the Rockets were great at shooting the three and now that the numbers don't support your argument you are trying to twist things around. Just admit you were wrong. It's really ok....


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.

You are absolutely correct. But what you are saying now is nothing like what you originally stated...something like the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team and Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded bu great 3 point shooters.


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)

Both cases are just as dumb. How can you say someone is great at shooting 3's when they have an average %, just because they tame more attempts than anyone else?


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.

No, I am not. I am saying it makes no sense to say a team that made 3's at around the league average was a great 3 point shooting team. Great at what...launching them more than anyone else???

[kingmalaki]

Given that in this era, the Spurs and the Lakers won all but two of the championships makes it a moot point.

How does it make it a moot point? Every team to make the Finals was also led by 1 star player, except for the Lakers.



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.

Dumars was playing at a HOF level when the Pistons won their titles. Shaq was getting outplayed by Alonzo Mourning when the Heat won theirs.


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.

Technically you could make the argument that the teams from 57 - 69 had more collective talent on each team, as the league was obviously smaller.

[kingmalaki]

The spurs had no one who could create in 99 either.

David Robinson and Sean Elliott couldn't create their own shot in 99? :wtf

[bobbyjoe]

what, when you block, you're blocking the whole team?


No. Individual D is when you are matched one on one and 'Team' Defense is when you are double teaming, playing help D, drawing charges, or getting in the passing lanes.

Great shotblockers dont usually block their own man's shot, but help when a teammate is beat.

Guys like Larry Bird and John Stockton weren't great on-ball individual defenders like Bowen but were solid team defenders.

Your old Sonics teams played great team D with all the tall, athletic defenders they had who were so disruptive.

[bobbyjoe]

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.

I didnt try to discredit David Robinson. Saying he doesnt quite stack up to Player X doesnt mean you dont appreciate and respect Robinson's game. Everything is relative when you are comparing all time greats and noting areas where one all time great maybe didnt stack up with peers at that level isnt dissing or discrediting.

In fact, I loved David Robinson's game. His athleticism was always entertaining as a fan and it's too bad we dont have more athlete's like him and Hakeem in today's NBA at the Pivot. I saw the Youtube of Robinson's highlights vs. Jordan the other day and it reminded me of how great of a pure athlete he was and reminded me how fun the Pivot battles of the 90's (Hakeem vs. DROb, DRob vs. Shaq, DRob vs. Ewing, Hakeem vs. Shaq) were to watch compared to today's NBA.

I also am not trying to discredit Duncan. I've said many times I think Duncan is THE best player in today's NBA and a top 15 player of all time who will probably end his career close to or in the top 10.

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

[kingmalaki]

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

Especially when they didn't play against each other.

[ambchang]

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a title. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

Of course Duncan has been surrounded by good 3 point shooters the last few seasons, there is no question about it, and that is why I have always contended that the 07 team is the strongest of the 4 championship Spurs teams. The difference is that Duncan was able to win it all with a team that doesn’t have that level of outside shooting in the 99 and 03 team.

And let’s face it, Hakeem dominates the ball on the offensive end, and his passing is mostly to outside shooters rather than cutters, that is why I felt Hakeem was successful with 4 shooters rather than 2 cutters and 2 shooters.

Lastly, Parker couldn’t create offense until about 06, before then, he was chided for being a PG with no point.

[ambchang]

I never said the Spurs were a great 3 point shooting team and neither did bobbyjoe. You claimed the Rockets were great at shooting the three and now that the numbers don't support your argument you are trying to twist things around. Just admit you were wrong. It's really ok....

You are absolutely correct. But what you are saying now is nothing like what you originally stated...something like the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team and Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded bu great 3 point shooters.

Both cases are just as dumb. How can you say someone is great at shooting 3's when they have an average %, just because they tame more attempts than anyone else?

No, I am not. I am saying it makes no sense to say a team that made 3's at around the league average was a great 3 point shooting team. Great at what...launching them more than anyone else???

It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

[ambchang]

How does it make it a moot point? Every team to make the Finals was also led by 1 star player, except for the Lakers.

Because the sample size is ridiculously small. And you are dismissing the fact that there are teams with multiple stars who couldn’t even make the finals. So perhaps there is not a direct 1 to 1 correlation between talent level and team success? And a better team does not necessary translates to better individual players on the team? I thought team USA drove home the point the last few years.


Dumars was playing at a HOF level when the Pistons won their titles. Shaq was getting outplayed by Alonzo Mourning when the Heat won theirs.

You can argue Ginobili was playing at a HoF level in 05, he was just as good as Dumars was in the title runs. Josh Howard and Jason Terry were playing like all-stars (choking all-stars, but all-stars nonetheless) in 06. Outside of Game 2 and 6, Shaq outplayed Mourning in every single game, go watch the tapes again.


Technically you could make the argument that the teams from 57 - 69 had more collective talent on each team, as the league was obviously smaller.

So why isn’t Bill Russell conclusively the best ever? He won 11 titles in a league that was stacked full of talent at every single team. How do we know? Because we only looked at the top teams that made the finals and ignored the bottom feeders, just like you and bobbyjoe ignored all the crap teams in the 80s and claimed that there was so much more talent in the late 80s.
Look at the all-star teams, Sleepy Floyd, Rolando Blackman, Tom Chambers, Walter Davis, Alvin Robertson, Joe Barry Carroll, Bill Laimbeer, and Jeff Malone are no better than Sahwn Marion, Mehmet Okur, Josh Howard, Joe Johnson and Caron Butler.

[mavs>spurs2]

It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

:lmao So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...

[Phenomanul]

:lmao So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...


Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

[mavs>spurs2]

Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.

[Cry Havoc]

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.

God you're an idiot. You've been riding bobbyjoe's coattails this entire thread. The minute someone besides ambchang steps into the thread and points out how freaking stupid and baseless your comments are, you start crying about how ambchang isn't fighting his own battles.

You're on a SPURS BOARD whining about Spurs fans backing each other? I thought I've seen some asnine commentary from Fast Dunk or da_suns_fan, but at least they realize they're trolls. You purport yourself to be a serious poster and you come up with this driveling snot. My God, you are so beaten in this moment. Bobby can at least hold his own in this discussion, meanwhile, have you started your own investment company in DVD rewinders? Weak does not begin to describe your retort.

Just stop posting now. Just stop. You will never say anything that will ever disprove how moronic you are after this.

[ambchang]

:lmao So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...

Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.
2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.
3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the hell out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.
4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.
5) You are just all agreeing that Miller is not as great as Kevin Johnson in 3 pt shooting in 97 despite leaging the league in makes, just because Johnson shot 2.5% better than him.

[Phenomanul]

I didnt try to discredit David Robinson. Saying he doesnt quite stack up to Player X doesnt mean you dont appreciate and respect Robinson's game. Everything is relative when you are comparing all time greats and noting areas where one all time great maybe didnt stack up with peers at that level isnt dissing or discrediting.

In fact, I loved David Robinson's game. His athleticism was always entertaining as a fan and it's too bad we dont have more athlete's like him and Hakeem in today's NBA at the Pivot. I saw the Youtube of Robinson's highlights vs. Jordan the other day and it reminded me of how great of a pure athlete he was and reminded me how fun the Pivot battles of the 90's (Hakeem vs. DROb, DRob vs. Shaq, DRob vs. Ewing, Hakeem vs. Shaq) were to watch compared to today's NBA.

I also am not trying to discredit Duncan. I've said many times I think Duncan is THE best player in today's NBA and a top 15 player of all time who will probably end his career close to or in the top 10.

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

Fair enough.

About that video..... I can 'assure' you that more than 80% (a guess of course) of the people that try to discredit Robinson's game never even saw him play prior to his back injury. They can only relate to what they saw after Duncan's arrival to the league - a Robinson at less than 60% - a shell of his former self.

Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDndDpnR9kI&mode=related&search=

Before his injury Robinson was:

34 - 11 in head to head matchups vs. Hakeem (including playoffs)
6-1 in head to head matchups vs Shaq (including one near quadruple double)
10-3 in head to head matchups vs Ewing
8-1 in head to head matchups vs Mourning
7-2 in head to head matchups vs Dikembe

[ambchang]

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.
Were they inaccurate? Would you like to show the numbers?

[Galileo]

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a title. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

Otis Thorpe was a great cutter.

Hakeem got to play w/ Thorpe for a majority of his prime years, making them a near Twin Tower.

Thorpe made the all-star team, and was a near all-star many times.

He had giant hands and was great cutting to the basket and getting a pass.

Thorpe played center when Kakeem was injured or in foul trouble.

He also out rebounded Ewing for the Big East rebounding title while in college.

[kingmalaki]

The difference is that Duncan was able to win it all with a team that doesn’t have that level of outside shooting in the 99 and 03 team.

The 99 team had Elie (37%), J.Jackson (36%), Elliott (33%) and Kerr (31%). The 03 team had Bowen (44%), S.Smith (33%), S.Jackson (32%), Manu (35%) and Steve Kerr (40%). S.Smith and Kerr are two of the best shooters in their generation. What the heck are you talking about?


And let’s face it, Hakeem dominates the ball on the offensive end, and his passing is mostly to outside shooters rather than cutters, that is why I felt Hakeem was successful with 4 shooters rather than 2 cutters and 2 shooters.

Don’t you dominate the ball more when you have less people on your team that can create their own shot?


Lastly, Parker couldn’t create offense until about 06, before then, he was chided for being a PG with no point.

Parker has always been able to penetrate and create offense for himself. If you are referring to creating offense for others then that is different.


It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

And again, just because a team relies on the shot more (i.e. takes them more) doesn’t mean they are great at shooting that shot. Duncan is not a great FT shooter because he is one of the league leaders in attempts. Your definition is quite flawed because a team that makes a lot of 3’s isn’t necessarily that good at shooting them…they could just be shooting a lot more than anyone else. Bobbyjoe has already posted the data, showing that the Rockets were average in their %, they just happened to shoot a heck of a lot more because we had a great pivot that had to be doubled and no one else that could really create offense on their own. It really isn’t that complex. Your definition is very flawed.


Because the sample size is ridiculously small. And you are dismissing the fact that there are teams with multiple stars who couldn’t even make the finals. So perhaps there is not a direct 1 to 1 correlation between talent level and team success? And a better team does not necessary translates to better individual players on the team? I thought team USA drove home the point the last few years.

The sample size isn’t small at all. I listed every team to make the Finals since 99…that’s going on a 10 year span. And you are right, more talent doesn’t = better team, but all those teams from the 80’s and 90’s (except the Rockets) had a hell of a lot of talent and the teamwork/chemistry was great also. The facts show that in this era you don’t need as much talent on each squad to compete.


You can argue Ginobili was playing at a HoF level in 05, he was just as good as Dumars was in the title runs. Josh Howard and Jason Terry were playing like all-stars (choking all-stars, but all-stars nonetheless) in 06. Outside of Game 2 and 6, Shaq outplayed Mourning in every single game, go watch the tapes again.

Wow..did you really say Manu was playing at a HOF level in 05? Did you really say that?


So why isn’t Bill Russell conclusively the best ever? He won 11 titles in a league that was stacked full of talent at every single team. How do we know? Because we only looked at the top teams that made the finals and ignored the bottom feeders, just like you and bobbyjoe ignored all the crap teams in the 80s and claimed that there was so much more talent in the late 80s.
Look at the all-star teams, Sleepy Floyd, Rolando Blackman, Tom Chambers, Walter Davis, Alvin Robertson, Joe Barry Carroll, Bill Laimbeer, and Jeff Malone are no better than Sahwn Marion, Mehmet Okur, Josh Howard, Joe Johnson and Caron Butler.

I believe we said the top teams from the 80’s and 90’s (i.e. the ones winning all the titles, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Sixers) had tons of talent on them. It is no surprise that either the Celtics or Lakers were in almost every Finals in the 80’s. Stop twisting words around to suit your argument.

And Bill Russell isn’t considered the GOAT because pundits (except for some here) typically recognize the impact that your teammates and other situations (coaching, era, injuries, whatever) can have on you winning a title. Thank you for discrediting your own 4>2 argument.


Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

That I agree with completely. Those Rockets teams just would not die. Horry, Cassell, Maxwell, Smith, Elie…those guys all had stones. However, so did guys like Kerr, Elliott, Horry (Spurs version), S.Jackson, J.Jackson, Manu, Elie (Spurs version). We can go tit for tat naming big shots that players not named Hakeem or Duncan have hit. That’s why the whole 4>2 thing is silly to me, because Hakeem has clearly displayed that he could be a winner when he had help, from day 1.

Additionally, when ambchang made his original point he was not talking about the same thing you are here (being clutch, or at least it wasn’t mentioned anywhere). He basically looked up some stat that said the Rockets made the most 3’s and tried to build an argument off of it, not realizing that their %’s were just so/so, or that the Spurs title teams have fielded teams with better %’s.


Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.

So now above average and great/exceptional mean the same thing?


2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.

Yes, because they shot more. Their % was still not great/exceptional. Again, taking more shots than someone else doesn’t mean you are great at making them


3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the hell out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.

What situation are we looking at? You are the one making the silly comment that a team with a non-great % was great at making 3’s simply because they shot more of them.


4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.

And what were the Spurs in their title winning seasons? Bobbyjoe has already posted stats showing that in the Spurs title winning seasons, they were making 3’s at the same % or higher than those Rockets teams. Yes, they did not rely on the 3 point shot as much but that was not your original point…not to mention no need to do so when you have penetrating guards.


Fair enough.

About that video..... I can 'assure' you that more than 80% (a guess of course) of the people that try to discredit Robinson's game never even saw him play prior to his back injury. They can only relate to what they saw after Duncan's arrival to the league - a Robinson at less than 60% - a shell of his former self.

Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDndDpnR9kI&mode=related&search=

Before his injury Robinson was:

34 - 11 in head to head matchups vs. Hakeem (including playoffs)
6-1 in head to head matchups vs Shaq (including one near quadruple double)
10-3 in head to head matchups vs Ewing
8-1 in head to head matchups vs Mourning
7-2 in head to head matchups vs Dikembe

Robinson was a great center. I put him in the Karl Malone, Dirk category….great players but they just don’t have “it” (i.e. not great leaders, known for stepping up, etc).


Were they inaccurate? Would you like to show the numbers?

They were accurate but not great/exceptional like you originally said. Maybe we have different opinions of what great is. They were great at hoisting them up….


Otis Thorpe was a great cutter.

Hakeem got to play w/ Thorpe for a majority of his prime years, making them a near Twin Tower.

Thorpe made the all-star team, and was a near all-star many times.

He had giant hands and was great cutting to the basket and getting a pass.

Thorpe played center when Kakeem was injured or in foul trouble.

He also out rebounded Ewing for the Big East rebounding title while in college.

Otis Thorpe was a slightly above average PF. He couldn’t handle the ball at all and really couldn’t create his own shot. The majority of his points came off folks leaving to go help Hakeem. He was also a solid defender..good but not great player (similar to Dale Davis). He was replaced in 95 by a SF playing out of position and Chucky Brown and the Rockets were a better team.

My last post on this topic matter guys. 30 pages is enough…let the season begin already. Someone start another Scola thread or something. :lol

[Galileo]

First 10 Years of NBA Career: Slam Duncan vs. Michael Jordan:

1st Team, All-NBA
Duncan 9
Jordan 7

2nd Team, All-NBA
Duncan 1
Jordan 1

1st Team, All-Defense
Duncan 7
Jordan 6

2nd Team, All-Defense
Duncan 3
Jordan 0

Regular Season MVPs
Duncan 2
Jordan 3

NBA Finals MVPs
Duncan 3
Jordan 3


NBA Championships
Duncan 4
Jordan 3

Average Team Wins
Per 82 Games
Regular Season
Duncan 58
Jordan 49

Playoff Series Win/Loss Record
Duncan 22-5
Jordan 18-7

TV Commercials & Shoe Contracts
Duncan Not many
Jordan A whole bunch

Media Hype

Duncan None

Jordan Way too much

If Duncan is better than Jordan, then Duncan is better than Hakeem!

[mavs>spurs2]

Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.
2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.
3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the hell out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.
4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.
5) You are just all agreeing that Miller is not as great as Kevin Johnson in 3 pt shooting in 97 despite leaging the league in makes, just because Johnson shot 2.5% better than him.

All facts aside, you said that the rockets were both a great 3 point shooting team, but aren't very accurate. You're an idiot if you can't see the hypocracy in that.

[mavs>spurs2]

God you're an idiot. You've been riding bobbyjoe's coattails this entire thread. The minute someone besides ambchang steps into the thread and points out how freaking stupid and baseless your comments are, you start crying about how ambchang isn't fighting his own battles.

You're on a SPURS BOARD whining about Spurs fans backing each other? I thought I've seen some asnine commentary from Fast Dunk or da_suns_fan, but at least they realize they're trolls. You purport yourself to be a serious poster and you come up with this driveling snot. My God, you are so beaten in this moment. Bobby can at least hold his own in this discussion, meanwhile, have you started your own investment company in DVD rewinders? Weak does not begin to describe your retort.

Just stop posting now. Just stop. You will never say anything that will ever disprove how moronic you are after this.

Who gives a fuck what kind of board i'm on? I haven't seen that insult thrown at any rocket or laker fans in this thread, but maybe your panties are still in a wad because of what happened in 06. That's the only plausible answer I can come up with.

And as for your bobbyjoe bullshit, I was arguing in this thread before bobbyjoe ever showed up, and the man happens to have some great takes. Don't be mad because he has been kicking ass throughout this thread and I agree with most of what he's said.

I comment about the hypocrasy of the statement "the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team, but they weren't very accurate" and you think its your duty to come to the rescue of your fellow spur fan. Well if you want to do that, at least state something relevant, not the clutch bullshit you were trying to spew. Yes, that rockets team was clutch, but at the same time they still shot a not so hot 3 point %. What the fuck does that have to do with their 3 point %? God you are a moron

:lmao And the best part is now you're telling me to stop posting because i'm such a moron for pointing out the hypocracy of a statement? Nice try, but i'd rather stick around and watch bobbyjoe and others wipe the floor with your ignorant homer ass.

[ambchang]

The 99 team had Elie (37%), J.Jackson (36%), Elliott (33%) and Kerr (31%). The 03 team had Bowen (44%), S.Smith (33%), S.Jackson (32%), Manu (35%) and Steve Kerr (40%). S.Smith and Kerr are two of the best shooters in their generation. What the heck are you talking about?

Hold on, so with the Spurs ranking 19th in 3pt % (which you used as some sort of holy mecca to indicate whether a team is good at 3pt shooting), 24th in makes and 25th in attempts, they are somehow a good 3 pt shooting team?


Don’t you dominate the ball more when you have less people on your team that can create their own shot?

That explains why his assist remained absolutely unchanged, his FGA and FTA went up after Clyde Drexler joined. Or perhaps Hakeem wasn’t absolutely the greatest at everything related to basketball, and he wasn’t all that great with passing (good, not great).


Parker has always been able to penetrate and create offense for himself. If you are referring to creating offense for others then that is different.

And again, just because a team relies on the shot more (i.e. takes them more) doesn’t mean they are great at shooting that shot. Duncan is not a great FT shooter because he is one of the league leaders in attempts. Your definition is quite flawed because a team that makes a lot of 3’s isn’t necessarily that good at shooting them…they could just be shooting a lot more than anyone else. Bobbyjoe has already posted the data, showing that the Rockets were average in their %, they just happened to shoot a heck of a lot more because we had a great pivot that had to be doubled and no one else that could really create offense on their own. It really isn’t that complex. Your definition is very flawed.

Not only does Duncan NOT rely on the FT, he shies away from it. In fact, teams fouled Duncan to send him to the line at the end of the game, much like Shaq. Your analogy would work if teams were leaving the Rockets wide open for 3s because the opposition would benefit from it, but this was clearly not the case.

BTW, Artis Gilmore is the best scorer in the history of the league, just look up his FG%.


The sample size isn’t small at all. I listed every team to make the Finals since 99…that’s going on a 10 year span. And you are right, more talent doesn’t = better team, but all those teams from the 80’s and 90’s (except the Rockets) had a hell of a lot of talent and the teamwork/chemistry was great also. The facts show that in this era you don’t need as much talent on each squad to compete.


And ever since 99, there were 18 teams that went to the finals.
Spurs 4 times, Lakers 4 times, the Nets 2, the Pistons 2. These 4 teams by itself was 2/3s of the sample you gave, this is not an 18 team sample, it’s more like a 4 team sample.



Wow..did you really say Manu was playing at a HOF level in 05? Did you really say that?

Only when you list Joe Dumars as HoF level in the late 80's.


I believe we said the top teams from the 80’s and 90’s (i.e. the ones winning all the titles, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Sixers) had tons of talent on them. It is no surprise that either the Celtics or Lakers were in almost every Finals in the 80’s. Stop twisting words around to suit your argument.

And Bill Russell isn’t considered the GOAT because pundits (except for some here) typically recognize the impact that your teammates and other situations (coaching, era, injuries, whatever) can have on you winning a title. Thank you for discrediting your own 4>2 argument.

The Celtics of the 60s had tons of talent there, it is no surprise that they won the championship every year. And because 11 of the 13 champions in those years had like 8 HoF on them, it just shows how stack that era was, and that those championships were tougher to get than the ones in the 80’s. That was your argument, only substituting 60’s with 80’s, and 80’s with 00’s. My point is that you failed to look at the bottom dwellers of the league back then, and that this is not a valid excuse to have Hakeem miss the playoffs despite having Otis Thorpe, Maxwell and Kenny Smith on his team.


Additionally, when ambchang made his original point he was not talking about the same thing you are here (being clutch, or at least it wasn’t mentioned anywhere). He basically looked up some stat that said the Rockets made the most 3’s and tried to build an argument off of it, not realizing that their %’s were just so/so, or that the Spurs title teams have fielded teams with better %’s.

So now above average and great/exceptional mean the same thing?

And I still am arguing that. What is so hard to understand that? They were #1 in the league in makes. They made 646 3pters that year, that is 8 a game for about 24 points. Having a quarter of your offense on one shot doesn’t make you great, right.


Yes, because they shot more. Their % was still not great/exceptional. Again, taking more shots than someone else doesn’t mean you are great at making them



What situation are we looking at? You are the one making the silly comment that a team with a non-great % was great at making 3’s simply because they shot more of them.

I never, ever once said they were particularly accurate at it. They made a lot, and that shot was an integral part of the team offense. I said they were excellent, outstanding, prolific, but never once said they were particularly or exceptionally accurate. You jumped to that conclusion and tried to change what I said.



And what were the Spurs in their title winning seasons? Bobbyjoe has already posted stats showing that in the Spurs title winning seasons, they were making 3’s at the same % or higher than those Rockets teams. Yes, they did not rely on the 3 point shot as much but that was not your original point…not to mention no need to do so when you have penetrating guards.

Quote me, what was my original point. Why would you know what my original point more than myself? For someone who continued in every single post to say that I am twisting words, you sure as hell is doing a fine job demonstrating how to do it.


Robinson was a great center. I put him in the Karl Malone, Dirk category….great players but they just don’t have “it” (i.e. not great leaders, known for stepping up, etc).

Didn’t you just say something about supporting casts? So what is your criteria? Hakeem couldn’t make the playoffs with a 17/10.5 PF, a 17ppg SG and a 14/7 PG is because he had a crappy supporting cast, yet Robinson not winning it all despite a worse supporting cast is because he didn’t have “it”. You sure are a model of consistency.


They were accurate but not great/exceptional like you originally said. Maybe we have different opinions of what great is. They were great at hoisting them up….

#1 in makes and only 3 % off the top team in accuracy is not exceptional. Sure , I would say Hakeem was a so-so scorer. Sure he averaged 21.8 ppg in his career, but he only shot 51.2%. It was good, but not great. But a guy like James Donaldson is on another plateau, he averaged 8.6 points, but he shot 57.1% from the field! That is almost 6% better than Hakeem (or twice the difference between the Rockets and the league leading team). And no wonder you felt Hakeem > Duncan, Duncan only shot 50.9% for his career, with the % likely to drop when he falls out of his prime.

You know what? You are right, Hakeem > Duncan because he had a 0.3% advantage on FG%, that alone settles it.

[ambchang]

All facts aside, you said that the rockets were both a great 3 point shooting team, but aren't very accurate. You're an idiot if you can't see the hypocracy in that.
What is wrong with that. Iverson is a great scorer, he wasn't particularly accurate at it how is he?
I just found another interesting fact, Larry Bird made 37.6% from 3 pt land for his career, Matt Bullard made 38.4%. Matt Bullard > Larry Bird in 3 pt shooting.

[mavs>spurs2]

What is wrong with that. Iverson is a great scorer, he wasn't particularly accurate at it how is he?
I just found another interesting fact, Larry Bird made 37.6% from 3 pt land for his career, Matt Bullard made 38.4%. Matt Bullard > Larry Bird in 3 pt shooting.

When was the last time you heard Iverson called a great shooter? He can score, but i'll take Steve Kerr in a 3 point contest anyday.

And who care's if Matt Bullard is a slightly better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird? Bird was better than him in every other aspect of basketball. And Bullards % is overrated do to the fact that he was a role player, feeding off open looks created by teammates. Bird was constantly the focus of every defense he faced, meaning all of his shots were more contested.

You do a nice job of throwing facts out there and twisting logic to try to cover up your hypocritical statement. No matter what way you spin it, you cannot be a great 3 point shooter and be an innacurate 3 point shooter. Those two statements conflict with each other, its not a hard concept to understand. Just admit that you were wrong about Hakeem having great 3 point shooters. The fact that they led the league in makes only means that it was part of the coaches plan to bomb away with the shortened 3 point line. Hell, Shaq could lead the league in 3 pointers if he jacked up shot after shot after shot. It wouldn't mean he was a great shooter, he would probably shoot like 5%.

It's more of a testament to how great Hakeem was that he was able to win with teammates who had poor shot selection.

[Galileo]

A note on Athleticism:

I keep hearing people in this forum say Tim Duncan is not 'athletic'. Well that's a load of BS.

I remember reading my basketball guide back in '95, before the draft, and it said Duncan might have gone # 1 in the '95 NBA draft, had he gone out.

Just so you know, Duncan was only 18 years old during the '95 ACC tournament, and was not yet THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL. This was a tribute to Duncan's athleticism and potential.

A reminder, the first five picks of the '95 draft were:

sophmore Joe Smith

sophmore Antonio McDyse

sophmore Rasheed Wallace

sophmore Jerry Stackhouse

Kevin Garnett

Duncan was TWO years younger than Smith/McDyse/Wallace/Stackhouse, and the same age as Garnett.

So I think this means Duncan was the most athletic player of his time.

[mavs>spurs2]

A note on Athleticism:

I keep hearing people in this forum say Tim Duncan is not 'athletic'. Well that's a load of BS.

I remember reading my basketball guide back in '95, before the draft, and it said Duncan might have gone # 1 in the '95 NBA draft, had he gone out.

Just so you know, Duncan was only 18 years old during the '95 ACC tournament, and was not yet THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL. This was a tribute to Duncan's athleticism and potential.

A reminder, the first five picks of the '95 draft were:

sophmore Joe Smith

sophmore Antonio McDyse

sophmore Rasheed Wallace

sophmore Jerry Stackhouse

Kevin Garnett

Duncan was TWO years younger than Smith/McDyse/Wallace/Stackhouse, and the same age as Garnett.

So I think this means Duncan was the most athletic player of his time.

:lol Me thinks somebody's never seen McDyess pre knee surgury, or heard of Kevin Garnett.

[mavs>spurs2]

McDyess pre surgury was probably the most explosive player this league has ever seen

Even Spur homers will tell you that Duncan isn't very athletic, he's a smart basketball player not an athletic one.

[ambchang]

When was the last time you heard Iverson called a great shooter? He can score, but i'll take Steve Kerr in a 3 point contest anyday.

And who care's if Matt Bullard is a slightly better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird? Bird was better than him in every other aspect of basketball. And Bullards % is overrated do to the fact that he was a role player, feeding off open looks created by teammates. Bird was constantly the focus of every defense he faced, meaning all of his shots were more contested.

You do a nice job of throwing facts out there and twisting logic to try to cover up your hypocritical statement. No matter what way you spin it, you cannot be a great 3 point shooter and be an innacurate 3 point shooter. Those two statements conflict with each other, its not a hard concept to understand. Just admit that you were wrong about Hakeem having great 3 point shooters. The fact that they led the league in makes only means that it was part of the coaches plan to bomb away with the shortened 3 point line. Hell, Shaq could lead the league in 3 pointers if he jacked up shot after shot after shot. It wouldn't mean he was a great shooter, he would probably shoot like 5%.

It's more of a testament to how great Hakeem was that he was able to win with teammates who had poor shot selection.

Why are you putting qualitative arguments around Bullard vs. Bird? Wasn’t the % a be-all-and-end all? Wasn’t the fact that the whole Rockets offense was centred on an inside-out philosophy that relies heavily on 3 pt shooting (with a shortened 3 pt line nonetheless) a qualitative factor that would move them to a great 3 pt shooting team?

And since when are the Rockets “inaccurate”? They were only 3% off of the best team. Wow, a 38% 3pt shooting would be exceptionally accurate, and yet a 35% would now register as inaccurate? This is fantastic.

And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the hell out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

Lastly, I wonder why Shaq did NOT lead the league in 3PA or 3PM … oh, yeah, because him doing that would be detrimental to team success, but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

[Galileo]

Otis Thorpe was a slightly above average PF. He couldn’t handle the ball at all and really couldn’t create his own shot. The majority of his points came off folks leaving to go help Hakeem. He was also a solid defender..good but not great player (similar to Dale Davis). He was replaced in 95 by a SF playing out of position and Chucky Brown and the Rockets were a better team.



Thorpe is very underrated and much better than "slightly above average".

Thorpe was a 20-10 man the year before arriving in Houston and replacing Sampson.

Thorpe:

1989 16.7 points/game , 9.6 rebounds, 54% FG percent, 82 games

1990 17.7 9.0 55% 82

1991 17.5 10.3 56% 82

1992 17.3 10.5 59% 82 (all-star)

1993 12.8 8.2 56% 72

1994 14.0 10.6 56% 82

1995 13.3 8.9 56% 36

Thorpe also average over 3 offensive rebounds per game all 6 1/2 seasons w/ Hakeem.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thorpot01.html

Just compare this to what Duncan had for big man help in years 5 to 10 of his career.

And Hakeem had Sampson before Thorpe, and Drexler/Barkley/Pippen after Thorpe.

Thorpe played 17 years in the NBA, including his prime with Olajuwon.

The fact is, Duncan is a better basketball player than Hakeem, and if Duncan had a consistent big man to help with the rebounding, like Thorpe, the Spurs would win the NBA title practically every year until Duncan is an old man.

[mavs>spurs2]

Why are you putting qualitative arguments around Bullard vs. Bird? Wasn’t the % a be-all-and-end all? Wasn’t the fact that the whole Rockets offense was centred on an inside-out philosophy that relies heavily on 3 pt shooting (with a shortened 3 pt line nonetheless) a qualitative factor that would move them to a great 3 pt shooting team?

And since when are the Rockets “inaccurate”? They were only 3% off of the best team. Wow, a 38% 3pt shooting would be exceptionally accurate, and yet a 35% would now register as inaccurate? This is fantastic.

And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the hell out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

Lastly, I wonder why Shaq did NOT lead the league in 3PA or 3PM … oh, yeah, because him doing that would be detrimental to team success, but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

Since you made these two statements:


To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team

Ok, so since the Rockets made the most 3 pointers that year you think they were a great 3 point shooting team, fair enough.


I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth.

Wait a minute, here you are backpeddling saying "you never said they were accurate at it"

How can you be a great 3 point shooting team but at the same time not be accurate at it? You must be insane if you can't see the contradiction here.

What happened is you threw out there that Hakeem had all these great shooters, without looking deeper into it first. Then when other posters come up with evidence stating otherwise, the backpeddling begins. Sometimes it's ok to admit your own mistakes, we all make them and its only a message board. Pathetic

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

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.

WTF, what are you like in 8th grade. Look little man, bobbyjoe and others have atleast brought compelling though biased takes on this thread. They atleast put some thought into what they're debating on, rather then ride on someone else's coattails. I understand that your season ended in less then a desired outcome, but maybe you ought to concern yourself with your _allas Mavs and maybe this year they'll get out of the first round. Other then slobbing on bobbyjoes knob you haven't actually brought anything of merit. You've been weighed, measured and found lacking.

And GTFO with this alleged facts and evidence as I doubt that EVERYONE outside of San Antonio agrees with you.

[ambchang]

Since you made these two statements:



Ok, so since the Rockets made the most 3 pointers that year you think they were a great 3 point shooting team, fair enough.



Wait a minute, here you are backpeddling saying "you never said they were accurate at it"

How can you be a great 3 point shooting team but at the same time not be accurate at it? You must be insane if you can't see the contradiction here.

What happened is you threw out there that Hakeem had all these great shooters, without looking deeper into it first. Then when other posters come up with evidence stating otherwise, the backpeddling begins. Sometimes it's ok to admit your own mistakes, we all make them and its only a message board. Pathetic

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]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?

Read some of the previous posts, and words are being twisted on both sides, so don't get all holier then thou on us. Just saying....


Folks are simply saying you can’t mention the titles without including all of the other factors in your analysis

Bull! Why does that even factor into the equation? The only folks saying that it has to be brought up are you pro-hakeem folks on this thread. I think you'll agree with me, I've never ever seen a sports record book or any internet sports web site that has a disclaimer for any of the NBA championships won. I've never heard John Q. Casualfan or Joe Hardcorefan talk about current or past championship teams by qualifying that they won because Jordan, or the Showtime Lakers or Wilt did not compete against them. I think you guys may be the ones guilty of twisting words and stats to suit your argument.


(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 the Spurs are guilty of playing in a watered down league, and Duncan doesn't have the mandatory 2 HOF's playing alongside him, isn't it amazing what Tim has accomplished playing on essentially different rosters every year since 1999. Please don't tell me that DRob 99-2003 was the same DRob of 1995. Please don't tell me that a 20 year old french guard or a first year Manu were the superior talents that Hakeem didn't have. Tony and Manu were not the impact players they are today until 2005 and 2007.

[ambchang]

Last year, the Bulls were a better 3pt shooting team than the Warriors because they had a better percentage. I don't really care that they made 280 less 3pters.

[mavs>spurs2]

WTF, what are you like in 8th grade. Look little man, bobbyjoe and others have atleast brought compelling though biased takes on this thread. They atleast put some thought into what they're debating on, rather then ride on someone else's coattails. I understand that your season ended in less then a desired outcome, but maybe you ought to concern yourself with your _allas Mavs and maybe this year they'll get out of the first round. Other then slobbing on bobbyjoes knob you haven't actually brought anything of merit. You've been weighed, measured and found lacking.

And GTFO with this alleged facts and evidence as I doubt that EVERYONE outside of San Antonio agrees with you.

Who's in 8th grade?

And i've brought alot more to this thread than you or mr contadictory ambchang over here, who's latest genius idea is that great 3 point shooters shoot a low % :rolleyes

[mavs>spurs2]

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion

And go back and read where I explained to you why Bird was a better 3 point shooter than Matt Bullard.

First of all, we are talking about less than a % difference with these two, keep in mind. Now I see that your trying to come up with clever ways to use my own logic against me, but this wasn't a good choice on your part.

Larry Bird was constantly the focus of every defense. He was usually guarded by the opposing teams best perimeter defender and his shots were well contested because he was a superstar and people knew the damage he could do. Matt Bullard on the other hand, was just a spot up shooter who benefitted from kick outs from Hakeem drawing double teams. His main skill and job during his time in this league was to spread the floor and make open 3 pointers, benefitting from the open looks that his teammates created. Creating your own shots is alot harder than benefitting from another superstar doing drawing double teams. If you left Larry Bird open and focused on everyone else, his 3 point % would be alot higher than 38%.

[mavs>spurs2]

Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Tony and Manu weren't the consistant offensive creators until 2005 and 2007. Who did we have in 99 and 2003? Here's a hint, no one.





Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a title. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

It may snow, I agree with you. But tell the complete story. Again in 2005 the Spurs had a revamped roster. Tony did not make the all star roster until 2006 and it's a good thing because 2006 was an injury plagued year for Manu. He was selected as an all star reserve in 2005.


I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

Again tell the whole story, while Hakeem didn't have a pure slasher in 94 (Clyde arrived in 95) it's not like the cupboard was bare:

Otis Thorpe 14 pts
Vernon Maxwell 13.6 pts
Kenny Smith 11.6 pts
Chris Jent 10.3 pts
Robert Horry 9.9 pts
Mario Elie 9.3 pts
Sam Cassell 6.7 pts

Not your Showtime Lakers, but it's not like the roster was devoid of talent. Solid role players. No more, no less.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Who's in 8th grade?

And i've brought alot more to this thread than you or mr contadictory ambchang over here, who's latest genius idea is that great 3 point shooters shoot a low % :rolleyes


Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

[mavs>spurs2]

Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

Little man? It's pretty funny how you have to try to belittle others to feel better about yourself after getting your ass handed to you time and time again.

No matter how many 3s the rockets shot or how much of a chunk of their total offense came from 3s, the fact is they still ever so slightly above the league average.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/stats95/hou95.txt

94-95 Rockets shot .368 from 3

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/stats95/tmstats.txt

That year they shot worse than:


Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Indiana
Miami
Orlando
Philadelphia
San Antonio
Seattle
Utah

And exactly the same as Boston and New York

Far from being a "great" 3 point shooting team

It seems you're having trouble grasping the concept of simple mathematics and percentages. Any team can jack up a bunch of 3's, but the % of those 3's that they hit will determine whether or not they are good shooters. Nobody is disputing that the Rockets shot alot of 3 pointers that year. But to say that Hakeem had all these awesome 3 point shooters is the most absurd lie i've ever seen in all of message boards. They were a decent 3 point shooting team that made a living off of Hakeem's ability to draw double teams.

Tim Duncan could hit the same amount of 3's as Dirk if he shot twice as many. Dirk's % would still be much higher and anyone with half a brain would know who was the better shooter.

[Cry Havoc]

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion


Well, if they sucked at three point shooting, and had absolutely no penetrators or skilled offensive players, that kind shoots to shit the theory that the mid-90s were still the glory days of the NBA and took a fantastic team loaded with talent to win, doesn't it? Therefore, why are we discussing how Duncan's 4 titles means less now due to the watered down talent in the league?

Amazing the double standard you guys set. Really.

[mavs>spurs2]

Well, if they sucked at three point shooting, and had absolutely no penetrators or skilled offensive players, that kind shoots to shit the theory that the mid-90s were still the glory days of the NBA and took a fantastic team loaded with talent to win, doesn't it? Therefore, why are we discussing how Duncan's 4 titles means less now due to the watered down talent in the league?

Amazing the double standard you guys set. Really.

Explain to me how they sucked at 3 point shooting and had no skilled players

Or were you just talking out of your ass again?

[mavs>spurs2]

You also fail to prove you have any kind of reading skills to speak of.

The previous post states that the Rockets were a slightly above average 3 point shooting team, and has a link with data to back it up. Not great as one poster tried to claim, but a far cry from your "sucking at three point shooting" comment

Next

[kingmalaki]

Hmm, ok...I said I was done but I can't let these completely false statements slide. I'm done arguing who was better though....



And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the hell out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

No, he didn't. The stats clearly show that the only Rocket who could be considered a great 3 point shooter was Kenny Smith (about a 40% shooter, similar to Bruce Bowen). Look at the %'s for the other Rockets. They were not hitting them at a great %. They were hitting the shot in the lower 30% range...THAT IS NOT GREAT. Yes, I watched them take a lot of 3's and make them at a decent clip compared to the rest of the league. Why are you still trying to deflect that you were in error? You did not say that the 3 point shot was a big part of the Rockets offense (the argument you are trying to rely on now). You stated that Hakeem only won because he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters. Taking a lot of 3's does not make you a great 3 point shooter. Why is this so hard to comprehend....


Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

So you are still ignoring the fact that the Hakeem missed 12 games that season, with his team going 2-10 without him..when they missed the playoffs by 3 games? They were on pace to have the #5/#6 seed with him. And the last time I checked, the starting SF from that season was Buck Johnson, and our top bench players were Sleepy Floyd and Matt Bullard. Yeah, that sure looks like the title winning team with key cogs like Horry, Cassell, Elie, etc.


but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

Yes Dream had more room to operate when the team hit 3's...the same way Duncan has more room to operate. The only reason the Spurs don't rely on the 3 point shot as much is because you have two guards that can create their own shot off the dribble. Bobbyjoe has already posted the stats from your title teams, and it is clear that the Spurs players were hitting their 3's at the same or better %'s that the Rockets players around Hakeem that season. So now your argument is somehow the Rockets relied on the 3 point shot heavily, which somehow made them great at making them even though their %'s were around the average????

[kingmalaki]

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

Again, for like the tenth time...no, it doesn't. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE ON A WORSE % MAINLY BECAUSE YOU SHOOT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU GREAT AT MAKING THE SHOT.

Your logic is flawed.....very flawed. Corey Maggette made the 3rd most FT's this season. He shot 82%, which is not great. LeBron James made the 5th most FT's this season. He shot 70%, which is not great. AI made the 6th most FT's this season. He shot 80%, which is not great. Chris Bosh made the 8th most FT's this season. He shot 79%, which is not great. Etc. Just admit you were wrong dude.....

[kingmalaki]

Bull! Why does that even factor into the equation? The only folks saying that it has to be brought up are you pro-hakeem folks on this thread. I think you'll agree with me, I've never ever seen a sports record book or any internet sports web site that has a disclaimer for any of the NBA championships won. I've never heard John Q. Casualfan or Joe Hardcorefan talk about current or past championship teams by qualifying that they won because Jordan, or the Showtime Lakers or Wilt did not compete against them. I think you guys may be the ones guilty of twisting words and stats to suit your argument.

It factors into the equation when comparing players from different era's, or championship teams. When these comparisons are made you hear these disclaimers all the time. They aren't meant to discredit anyone's accomplishments...just to point out the surrounding situations behind each one. It's the same reason folks realize it's easier to win a MLB title now when wild card teams can get into the playoffs, compared to the past when less teams got in. It's the same reason folks realize how different NFL teams were pre salary cap (how they could hoard talent, i.e. the 49ers having Steve Young on the bench for all those years).


If the Spurs are guilty of playing in a watered down league, and Duncan doesn't have the mandatory 2 HOF's playing alongside him, isn't it amazing what Tim has accomplished playing on essentially different rosters every year since 1999. Please don't tell me that DRob 99-2003 was the same DRob of 1995. Please don't tell me that a 20 year old french guard or a first year Manu were the superior talents that Hakeem didn't have. Tony and Manu were not the impact players they are today until 2005 and 2007.

What Tim has accomplished is amazing. Again as my earlier post stated, it isn't mandatory to have as much help on your team to win a title anymore. Yes, a 20 yr old Parker and first year Manu were better swingmen than what Hakeem played with for a lot of his NBA seasons...the same applies to David Robinson and Patrick Ewing. Since when can you not make an impact in your first or 2nd year? Drafting Robert Horry and Sam Cassell is what finally put us over the top.

[kingmalaki]

Tony and Manu weren't the consistant offensive creators until 2005 and 2007. Who did we have in 99 and 2003? Here's a hint, no one.

What do you mean by creating offense? If you are referring to setting others up, you had a very good PG in Avery Johnson. If you are referring to someone creating their own shot, Sean Elliott and David Robinson were pretty good at that in 99. Additionally, Many and TP have been good at penetrating and getting their own shot since they entered the league. TP's main issue at first was his jumper, while Manu's was his turnovers.


It may snow, I agree with you. But tell the complete story. Again in 2005 the Spurs had a revamped roster. Tony did not make the all star roster until 2006 and it's a good thing because 2006 was an injury plagued year for Manu. He was selected as an all star reserve in 2005.

You had a revamped roster with quality NBA vet's still chasing rings (Robert Horry, Brent Barry). Manu was back starting, and even though TP wasn't an all-star he still put up 17 and 6 on 48% from the field. Bowen also came in 2nd for DPOY that season, and he was not a revamp...actually none of the core cogs were (Duncan, TP, Manu, Bowen).


Again tell the whole story, while Hakeem didn't have a pure slasher in 94 (Clyde arrived in 95) it's not like the cupboard was bare:

Otis Thorpe 14 pts
Vernon Maxwell 13.6 pts
Kenny Smith 11.6 pts
Chris Jent 10.3 pts
Robert Horry 9.9 pts
Mario Elie 9.3 pts
Sam Cassell 6.7 pts

Not your Showtime Lakers, but it's not like the roster was devoid of talent. Solid role players. No more, no less.

No one said the Hakeems talent in 94 and 95 sucked...just that no one else could really create their own offense..hence us relying so much on the three...which we were great at jacking up, but slightly above average at making. We just made so many because we shot so many. It's similar to a guy that asks 20 girls for their number at a bar...just because he pulls 5 doesn't make him a mack. He just hit on every chick in sight.

[kingmalaki]

Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

Come on dude...what you are describing is the 3 point shot being a big part of a teams offensive game plan...as in we are just going to keep launching these things and we will be happy as long as we make them at a decent clip. That isn't what he said at all. He said Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters...not that the Rockets as a team were great at living/dying by the three. Shooters...individuals...not as in a team concept. It's cool...he stuck his foot in his mouth....

[ambchang]

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion

And go back and read where I explained to you why Bird was a better 3 point shooter than Matt Bullard.

First of all, we are talking about less than a % difference with these two, keep in mind. Now I see that your trying to come up with clever ways to use my own logic against me, but this wasn't a good choice on your part.

Larry Bird was constantly the focus of every defense. He was usually guarded by the opposing teams best perimeter defender and his shots were well contested because he was a superstar and people knew the damage he could do. Matt Bullard on the other hand, was just a spot up shooter who benefitted from kick outs from Hakeem drawing double teams. His main skill and job during his time in this league was to spread the floor and make open 3 pointers, benefitting from the open looks that his teammates created. Creating your own shots is alot harder than benefitting from another superstar doing drawing double teams. If you left Larry Bird open and focused on everyone else, his 3 point % would be alot higher than 38%.

You are putting more qualitative arguments around 3pt%. And by your definition, that is backpeddling.
I am just demonstrating how stupid it is to put your own definitions on somebody else's statements, and force others to use yours. I never once said the Rockets were accurate.
Quit putting your definitions into my words, and quit forcing me to admit that great three point shooting teams HAS to be exceptionally accurate. This is your definition, not mine.
This is the same as saying 4<2 with all those qualitative arguments, you have what is defined as greatness, and I have mine, I won't go in and claim that you made a mistake by saying Hakeem > Duncan without looking at 4>2, and claim that you are backpeddling when somebody brought up that obvious claim. If you jump to conclusions on my meaning of what a great shooting team is, that is your problem, not mine.

[ambchang]

Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

You mean how you are forcing me to use your definition of a great shooting team is pages ago? Thanks for finally getting the irony of the last 5 pages of posts.
I fully expect you to come in and claim that it was more than 5 pages ago that the 3pt shooting argument was raised, and that I am back-peddling when what I meant was many pages ago instead of exactly 5.

[Phenomanul]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back titles. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

[ambchang]

Hmm, ok...I said I was done but I can't let these completely false statements slide. I'm done arguing who was better though....

No, he didn't. The stats clearly show that the only Rocket who could be considered a great 3 point shooter was Kenny Smith (about a 40% shooter, similar to Bruce Bowen). Look at the %'s for the other Rockets. They were not hitting them at a great %. They were hitting the shot in the lower 30% range...THAT IS NOT GREAT. Yes, I watched them take a lot of 3's and make them at a decent clip compared to the rest of the league. Why are you still trying to deflect that you were in error? You did not say that the 3 point shot was a big part of the Rockets offense (the argument you are trying to rely on now). You stated that Hakeem only won because he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters. Taking a lot of 3's does not make you a great 3 point shooter. Why is this so hard to comprehend....

Even though repetition doesn’t seemed to have delivered the message, I will have to say this at least one more time ….
I consider a team that is #1 in 3PM, and only 3 % off of the top team in % to be a great 3 point shooting team. Being exceptionally high in %, but not making a whole lot of it makes you an accurate shooter. If a guy comes into the game shooting 50% from 3, and I know that he plays only 5 minutes a game and only shoots on average once a game, I am not going to revolve my whole defense around him. But if a guy comes in shooting 35%, and I know that he is going to jack it up any chance he got, and is averaging 8 makes a game, I am definitely going to concentrate my defense on him.


So you are still ignoring the fact that the Hakeem missed 12 games that season, with his team going 2-10 without him..when they missed the playoffs by 3 games? They were on pace to have the #5/#6 seed with him. And the last time I checked, the starting SF from that season was Buck Johnson, and our top bench players were Sleepy Floyd and Matt Bullard. Yeah, that sure looks like the title winning team with key cogs like Horry, Cassell, Elie, etc.

Oh yes, I know how Hakeem can make a marginal playoff team, awesome!


Yes Dream had more room to operate when the team hit 3's...the same way Duncan has more room to operate. The only reason the Spurs don't rely on the 3 point shot as much is because you have two guards that can create their own shot off the dribble. Bobbyjoe has already posted the stats from your title teams, and it is clear that the Spurs players were hitting their 3's at the same or better %'s that the Rockets players around Hakeem that season. So now your argument is somehow the Rockets relied on the 3 point shot heavily, which somehow made them great at making them even though their %'s were around the average????

So are we not ranking the teams relative to their competition, but we are doing that to individual players.

You: Hakeem won two less championships than Duncan, but his competition in his era was greater.

You Later on: Spurs shot the same % as the Rockets in 3s, nevermind that they were ranked 25th in the league in 99, and the Rockets were 14th and 15th in the two championship years. I just like to pull out the relative to competition card / different era card whenever it suits me.

[ambchang]

Again, for like the tenth time...no, it doesn't. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE ON A WORSE % MAINLY BECAUSE YOU SHOOT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU GREAT AT MAKING THE SHOT.

Your logic is flawed.....very flawed. Corey Maggette made the 3rd most FT's this season. He shot 82%, which is not great. LeBron James made the 5th most FT's this season. He shot 70%, which is not great. AI made the 6th most FT's this season. He shot 80%, which is not great. Chris Bosh made the 8th most FT's this season. He shot 79%, which is not great. Etc. Just admit you were wrong dude.....

Again, for the millionth time, your definition of a great 3 point shooting team is not the same as mine. The Spurs were #3 in FG% last year, but 12 in FGM, but I would never consider them a great shooting team, got it?

[ambchang]

While you are at it kingmalaki and mavs>spurs, could you define for me what success in life is? See, I am not living my life according the way that you want me to, and I am deeply distressed, I may have to admit that my whole life upto this point was wrong, and that I need your guidance to the path of light.
Oh mighty kings, please show me thy way!

[kingmalaki]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

I think your memory is off, no offense. Horry hit a game winning 17 foot jumper to win Game 1. He was wide open and and a doubled Dream gave him the rock. Has the same thing not happened on the Spurs countless times? We would not have won without the perimeter players making key shots, but I think Dream putting up 40 a game on Robinson/Rodman had more to do with us winning.


Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back titles. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

Who ever stated the 3 point shot wasn’t an essential piece of the Rockets offense? They took a lot and made a lot. But to imply that Dream only won when he was surrounded by great shooters is completely false, and a completely different point than the backpeddling that amchbag is doing now, by trying to convert his statement into the 3 pointer was a big part of the Rockets offense. Additionally, he brought up the point as if to say Duncan won titles when he wasn’t surrounded by “great” shooters, while Hakeem couldn’t. The stats clearly show that Duncan’s shooters were just as good, if not better, than Hakeems. Yes, The Rockets took more threes because we didn’t have swingmen that could create their own offense like TP, Manu or Elliott.

And if you want to use your logic that they were a great shooting team because they made clutch 3’s, then how does that not apply to the Spurs as well? What about the miracle 3 that Elliott hit in 99? The killer 3’s by Kerr in the Finals? Horry’s barrage in Game 5 against Detroit in 05? Again, we can go tit for tat in naming big shots hit by role players.

Show me a Spurs team that won a title without consistent perimeter threats. Isn’t this the specific reason that y’all lost in 02 or 04 (one of those seasons against LA, I forget)…Parkers inability to hit a jumper? The following season you went out and got jumpshooters…and TP worked on his. Is that not correct?

[baseline bum]

I guess clutchness really doesn't matter.

If I recall correctly Horry beat San Antonio in Game 2 of the 1995 series with two threes in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Elie had already delivered a similar blow in Game 1 (or was it the other way around?) All I remember is that both of them delivered knock out blows in the first two games of that series. Of course it didn't help that Rodman somehow came to the realization that he was a downtown threat by launching 3-4 ill-advised threes in that series. Or that he failed to play a lick of defense on Horry. Or that Avery and Del Negro couldn't buy a jumper to save their lives. The Rockets' gameplan was simple. Deny Robinson the ball and make everyone else beat you. The rest of the Spurs shriveled up. San Antonio, conversely could not play Houston with the same strategy because Houston's core of bombers made you pay dearly if you doubled off of Hakeem. Game... Set... and Match.

Truth be told - the timely 3pt shot was an essential piece of the pie that enabled Houston to obtain back-to-back titles. To say that it wasn't would be to deny the facts. PEOPLE.... just look at the game tapes!!! Regular season stats are worthless in this debate, when ultimately we are trying to compare how Hakeem's teams won vs. how Duncan's teams won.

Houston was a great 3pt team simply because they beat you with that weapon when it mattered most. Those trying to twist the logic by playing semantics, and pointing out insignificant statistical differences are doing so at the cost of impartiality.

3 or 4 in the series? :lol

Rodman shot three threes in the first quarter of a must-win game 2 (I have the game on my computer). He was basically begging Bob Hill to bench him for the rest of the game, which he did. I guess Rodman's ass was too lazy to want to run with Horry or something. I hated seeing that guy do his little half-ass jog up the court with his 'I don't give a fuck' expression on his face while Horry was beating him to the rim in transition. I still have never seen as pathetic a display in professional sports as Rodman's quitting on the team in 95. He was so worthless and such a cancer to the Spurs that Chicago was the only team in the league that expressed interest in Rodman. The only reason the Spurs even got Perdue was because Jordan hated him, and forced Chicago's hand.

[Phenomanul]

I think your memory is off, no offense. Horry hit a game winning 17 foot jumper to win Game 1. He was wide open and and a doubled Dream gave him the rock. Has the same thing not happened on the Spurs countless times? We would not have won without the perimeter players making key shots,

Of course the 3pt shot was an element of the Spurs' Championships... it wasn't the key element though. DEFENSE has always been the Spurs' 'bread and butter' in the Poppovich era... not a prolific inside/outside game.



but I think Dream putting up 40 a game on Robinson/Rodman had more to do with us winning.

Olajuwon averaged 35 ppg against David's 24.... David however, had to score most of his points against double and triple teams. And unfortunately for Robinson, no one on his team ever stepped up to help him shoulder the burden. Olajuwon despite his superhuman efforts still relied on game winning jumpers from his teammates to win the series. That was the difference.




Who ever stated the 3 point shot wasn’t an essential piece of the Rockets offense? They took a lot and made a lot. But to imply that Dream only won when he was surrounded by great shooters is completely false, and a completely different point than the backpeddling that amchbag is doing now, by trying to convert his statement into the 3 pointer was a big part of the Rockets offense. Additionally, he brought up the point as if to say Duncan won titles when he wasn’t surrounded by “great” shooters, while Hakeem couldn’t.

Duncan never missed the playoffs... and only lost to eventual conference champions (Stockton & Malone Jazz his rookie year, Shaq & Kobe Lakers from '01 to '02 and '04, Dirk's Mavs in '06) Other than that Duncan has always triumphed over his opposition.

Not counting his twilight seasons in Toronto, Olajuwan missed the playoffs once, and was eliminated twice in the first round. Duncan has yet to do either.

Draw your own conclusions.



The stats clearly show that Duncan’s shooters were just as good, if not better, than Hakeem's. Yes, The Rockets took more threes because we didn’t have swingmen that could create their own offense like TP, Manu or Elliott.

And if you want to use your logic that they were a great shooting team because they made clutch 3’s, then how does that not apply to the Spurs as well? What about the miracle 3 that Elliott hit in 99?

The killer 3’s by Kerr in the Finals? Horry’s barrage in Game 5 against Detroit in 05? Again, we can go tit for tat in naming big shots hit by role players.

It does apply to the Spurs... I never said it didn't.

I'm just trying to point out that using volume stats to imply that Houston had average 3pt shooting teams was lame. They had awesome 3 point shooters just based on the fact that they made them when it mattered most - during playoff games.

BTW the Spurs swept Portland in 1999... had Elliott missed his three, the Spurs still win that series. And Kerr's 3pt barage was against Dallas in the Conf. Finals (not the Finals).




Show me a Spurs team that won a title without consistent perimeter threats. Isn’t this the specific reason that y’all lost in 02 or 04 (one of those seasons against LA, I forget)…Parkers inability to hit a jumper?

'01 Loss of Derek Anderson for the entire series against LA was crucial

'02 Lack of swingmen to take pressure off of Duncan, Robinson's back injury were the key factors of defeat.

'04 Hedo Turkoglu's and Horry's brickfest against LA. and the infamous 0.4 were the key factors of defeat.



The following season you went out and got jumpshooters…and TP worked on his. Is that not correct?

We let go of Hedo, lost Stephen Jackson to FA and picked up Brent Barry.....

I think that the emergence of SuperManu in '05 was more important than anything in the line above. He was an unstoppable force in those playoffs, and had he not been hurt for Game 3 & 4, he could have legitimately taken the Finals MVP that year.

[telecomguy]

Has anyone looked at the PER comparison between Duncan and Hakeem? I understand PER is not the be-all and the end-all of deciding who the best player is but it is certainly fairly comprehensive, well thought-out metric that takes into consideration offence, defence, and other key variables in 48 minute pro-rated, pace-adjusted calculation. Here are the all-time PER leaders in their CAREER.

Duncan is substantially ahead of Olajuwon, and more amazingly Duncan comes out at no. 6 in ALL TIME PER calculation which may further validate the argument that TD is not out of place in the top 10 GOAT player of all time considering all the rings, MVP's, first-team all-NBA, first-team All-Defence, etc.etc. which does not even get factored into PER.

Total

Name PER
1 Michael Jordan 27.91
2 Shaquille O'Neal 27.63
3 David Robinson 26.18
4 Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
5 Bob Pettit* 25.34
6 Tim Duncan 25.17
7 Charles Barkley* 24.63
8 Neil Johnston* 24.62
9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
10 LeBron James 24.24
11 Magic Johnson* 24.11
12 Karl Malone 23.89
13 Tracy McGrady 23.88
14 Dirk Nowitzki 23.84
15 Kevin Garnett 23.84
16 Hakeem Olajuwon 23.59
17 Julius Erving* 23.57
18 Larry Bird* 23.50
19 Kobe Bryant 23.49
20 Yao Ming 23.22
21 Oscar Robertson* 23.18
22 Jerry West* 22.90
23 Elton Brand 22.75
24 Elgin Baylor* 22.70
25 Vince Carter 22.01
26 Moses Malone* 22.00
27 Dolph Schayes* 21.91
28 John Stockton 21.83
29 Pau Gasol 21.71
30 Bob Lanier* 21.69
31 Amare Stoudemire 21.67
32 Clyde Lovellette* 21.64
33 Paul Pierce 21.58
34 Dominique Wilkins* 21.56
35 Adrian Dantley 21.51
36 Allen Iverson 21.48
37 Harry Gallatin* 21.41
38 Artis Gilmore 21.39
39 Dan Issel* 21.39
40 George Gervin* 21.38
41 Grant Hill 21.36
42 Alonzo Mourning 21.31
43 Arvydas Sabonis 21.17
44 Rick Barry* 21.10
45 Clyde Drexler* 21.07
46 Patrick Ewing 21.01
47 Chris Webber 20.99
48 Shawn Marion 20.95
49 Gilbert Arenas 20.81
50 John Drew 20.74
51 Bob McAdoo* 20.73
52 Kevin Johnson 20.70
53 George Yardley* 20.48
54 Michael Redd 20.34
55 Ed Macauley* 20.32
56 Ray Allen 20.26
57 Andrei Kirilenko 20.25
58 Larry Foust 20.12
59 Marques Johnson 20.11
60 Bill Walton* 20.04
61 Billy Cunningham* 20.04
62 George McGinnis 20.04
63 Mel Daniels 20.02
64 Kevin McHale* 20.02
65 Steve Nash 19.95
66 Connie Hawkins* 19.94
67 Larry Nance 19.92
68 David Thompson* 19.90
69 Alex English* 19.87
70 Walt Bellamy* 19.85
71 Cliff Hagan* 19.83
72 Bob Cousy* 19.72
73 Terrell Brandon 19.69
74 John Beasley 19.68
75 Sam Cassell 19.67
76 Paul Arizin* 19.63
77 Chris Bosh 19.62
78 Mark Price 19.61
79 Carmelo Anthony 19.57
80 Zach Randolph 19.50
81 Zydrunas Ilgauskas 19.44
82 Paul Westphal 19.43
83 Cedric Ceballos 19.33
84 Robert Parish* 19.22
85 Bernard King 19.18
86 Walt Frazier* 19.12
87 Bailey Howell* 19.11
88 Spencer Haywood 19.11
89 Shawn Kemp 19.08
90 Walter Davis 19.07
91 Stephon Marbury 19.06
92 Shareef Abdur-Rahim 19.05
93 Mark Aguirre 19.02
94 Larry Jones 19.02
95 Jermaine O'Neal 19.01
96 Gary Payton 18.88
97 Bill Russell* 18.88
98 Jerry Lucas* 18.86
99 Jason Kidd 18.86
100 Brad Daugherty 18.85

[Phenomanul]

3 or 4 in the series? :lol

Rodman shot three threes in the first quarter of a must-win game 2 (I have the game on my computer). He was basically begging Bob Hill to bench him for the rest of the game, which he did. I guess Rodman's ass was too lazy to want to run with Horry or something. I hated seeing that guy do his little half-ass jog up the court with his 'I don't give a fuck' expression on his face while Horry was beating him to the rim in transition. I still have never seen as pathetic a display in professional sports as Rodman's quitting on the team in 95. He was so worthless and such a cancer to the Spurs that Chicago was the only team in the league that expressed interest in Rodman. The only reason the Spurs even got Perdue was because Jordan hated him, and forced Chicago's hand.


Validates my statement even more...

:madrun Rodman.. :pctoss

[Phenomanul]

Has anyone looked at the PER comparison between Duncan and Hakeem? I understand PER is not the be-all and the end-all of deciding who the best player is but it is certainly fairly comprehensive, well thought-out metric that takes into consideration offence, defence, and other key variables in 48 minute pro-rated, pace-adjusted calculation. Here are the all-time PER leaders in their CAREER.

Duncan is substantially ahead of Olajuwon, and more amazingly Duncan comes out at no. 6 in ALL TIME PER calculation which may further validate the argument that TD is not out of place in the top 10 GOAT player of all time considering all the rings, MVP's, first-team all-NBA, first-team All-Defence, etc.etc. which does not even get factored into PER.

Total

Name PER
1 Michael Jordan 27.91
2 Shaquille O'Neal 27.63
3 David Robinson 26.18
4 Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
5 Bob Pettit* 25.34
6 Tim Duncan 25.17
7 Charles Barkley* 24.63
8 Neil Johnston* 24.62
9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
10 LeBron James 24.24


After incorporation of Shaquille's stats this upcoming season, Shaq's PER will probably drop and bump Robinson up to the No. 2 spot - Further legitimizing the Admiral's efficiency.

[mavs>spurs2]

:yield

Thank you

[mavs>spurs2]

Ambchang, all i'll say is that your twisted definition of a great 3 point team is very flawed. There is such thing as a team that shoots alot of 3's and and the same time shoots a pretty damn good percentage. See, the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings of old. Jacking a bunch at an average % doesn't make you a great shooting team, it just means that it's a big part of your gameplan. Nobody ever argued that the 3 point shot wasn't a big part of Houstons success.

You took it out of context and said that having great 3 point shooters was the reason for Hakeems success. That's just not the case, and I know you know the truth too because of the way you're flip flopping your argument all over the place.

kingmalaki summed it up pretty well with this line

He (meaning ambchang) said Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded by great 3 point shooters...not that the Rockets as a team were great at living/dying by the three.

You aren't pulling the wool over anyones eyes, you made a mistake just man up to it instead of changing your argument.

[Galileo]

There is nothing worse for a Spurs or Rockets fan than seeing Duncan or Olajuwon get into foul trouble. Nor is there a better way to lose a game.

This is another area where Duncan is superior to Olajuwon; Duncan was much less likely to get into foul trouble:

Tim

regular season career:

minutes 27,964

steals 595

blocks 1840

fouls 2036

fouls per 48 minutes = 3.49

blocks per foul = 0.90

blocks + steals per foull = 1.20

playoffs:

minutes 5537

steals 93

blocks 380

fouls 426

fouls per 28 minutes = 3.69

blocks per foul = 0.89

steals + blocks per foul = 1.11

Hakeem

regular season career:

minutes 44222

steals 2162

blocks 3830

fouls 4383

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.76

blocks per foul = 0.87

steals + blocks per foul = 1.37

playoffs:

minutes 5749

steals 245

blocks 472

fouls 562

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.69

blocks per foul = 0.84

steals + blocks per foul = 1.28

Please note that Duncan beats Olajuwon by over one foul per 48 minutes, which is huge; and Duncan also gets more blocks per foul than Olajuwon.

So the 'Olajuwon is better on defense' is out the window.

Based on what I've seen on TV, Duncan is better on defense than Olajuwon.

PS - since Duncan plays more physical, and went to the free throw line more, it is probable that a higher proportion of Duncan's fouls were offensive charging fouls, rather than defensive fouls. If so, that would only add to Duncan's advantage on defense.

[ambchang]

(After putting a little smiley face with a white flag attributed as my quote)

Thank you


Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

I believe I am not the only one who noticed the irony of this post.

[bobbyjoe]

There is nothing worse for a Spurs or Rockets fan than seeing Duncan or Olajuwon get into foul trouble. Nor is there a better way to lose a game.

This is another area where Duncan is superior to Olajuwon; Duncan was much less likely to get into foul trouble:

Tim

regular season career:

minutes 27,964

steals 595

blocks 1840

fouls 2036

fouls per 48 minutes = 3.49

blocks per foul = 0.90

blocks + steals per foull = 1.20

playoffs:

minutes 5537

steals 93

blocks 380

fouls 426

fouls per 28 minutes = 3.69

blocks per foul = 0.89

steals + blocks per foul = 1.11

Hakeem

regular season career:

minutes 44222

steals 2162

blocks 3830

fouls 4383

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.76

blocks per foul = 0.87

steals + blocks per foul = 1.37

playoffs:

minutes 5749

steals 245

blocks 472

fouls 562

fouls per 48 minutes = 4.69

blocks per foul = 0.84

steals + blocks per foul = 1.28

Please note that Duncan beats Olajuwon by over one foul per 48 minutes, which is huge; and Duncan also gets more blocks per foul than Olajuwon.

So the 'Olajuwon is better on defense' is out the window.

Based on what I've seen on TV, Duncan is better on defense than Olajuwon.

PS - since Duncan plays more physical, and went to the free throw line more, it is probable that a higher proportion of Duncan's fouls were offensive charging fouls, rather than defensive fouls. If so, that would only add to Duncan's advantage on defense.

Based on your comment's that Duncan > Jordan, no one will ever take you seriously again.

Duncan wasn't close to Jordan and he wasn't close to Hakeem defensively.

[ambchang]

Ambchang, all i'll say is that your twisted definition of a great 3 point team is very flawed. There is such thing as a team that shoots alot of 3's and and the same time shoots a pretty damn good percentage. See, the Dallas Mavericks and Sacramento Kings of old. Jacking a bunch at an average % doesn't make you a great shooting team, it just means that it's a big part of your gameplan. Nobody ever argued that the 3 point shot wasn't a big part of Houstons success.

You took it out of context and said that having great 3 point shooters was the reason for Hakeems success. That's just not the case, and I know you know the truth too because of the way you're flip flopping your argument all over the place.

kingmalaki summed it up pretty well with this line


You aren't pulling the wool over anyones eyes, you made a mistake just man up to it instead of changing your argument.

I have maintained from the start that the Rockets have had great shooters, and were a great 3 pt shooting team, I haven't changed that at all.
It was you and kingmalaki who imposes your definition of what a great 3 pt shooting team is into my arguments. You have been changing my arguments for me, and forcing me to admit that I was wrong in an argument that you thought I meant from the get go.

Well, no, I never said the Rockets were particularly accurate, it was your interpretation.

This was my first post in this thread regarding 3 pt shooting from the Rockets:

Post 411 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942088&postcount=411)


What is so ridiculous about that? All the plaers benefitted from the system. The Rockets plan was simple, have Hakeem in the middle, and the 3 point shooters bomb away. The Spurs had the exact game plan with Duncan instead from 99 to 04, and it was proven that without 3 pt shooters, the Spurs don't win. The same was true for Hakeem and the Rockets.

And this was your response

Post 413 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942593&postcount=413)


You need to go back and look at the stats, Hakeem's so called 3 point shooters sucked ass. Drexler shot a massive 33% in 95-96. Maxwell shot 32% in 94-95, Horry shot 36-37% which isn't much better, Sam Cassel 33-34%, Elie 32% in 95-96, etc. The only one that ever shot a respectable percentage was Kenny Smith in 94-95, he shot 42.9%. And like Bobbyjoe pointed out, what happened to him after Hakeem?

Clearly from the get go, you interpreted me saying the rockets shooter bombing away as some indication of their accuracy, but that was never my intention, and I never understood why you would think that.

In fact, upon review, YOU were the one who said Hakeem's shooters sucked ass using %s, when they were, at worst, average. Perhaps it was you who was spinning the whole time.

Later on, bobbyjoe even put in quotation marks about something I never said and tried to attribute this to me:


Do you ever even listen to how ridiculous you sound? Your orgiinal argument was that Maxwell "opened up the floor for Hakeem with his accurate shooting". When this nonsense was debunked because it was shown that Maxwell'ls ability to shoot from the perimiter was clearly poor by league standards, you go on some useless tirade about how Iverson didn't shoot well either?

WTF does that have to with your original erroneous statement that "Maxwell opened up the floor for Hakeem?

Given the amount of 3pters made by Maxwell, it is pretty clear that he opened up the offense for the Rockets (I originally said he opened up the floor for Drexler), but it was his inability to fully digest my post before posting that led to him intrepreting what I said and thought I said Maxwell's shooting was accurate, or that he opened up the floor for Hakeem.

Up till now, the 3 of you had no ability to quote me on saying either, and is trying to twist my wording around into saying something you two felt I said through your own misinterpretation.

If the two of you does not like to read my post but still like to respond to them, it is up to you, but please do not try to twist my word around and say I said something I never said, and try to show that things I never said to be incorrect and attribute the error to me.

[Galileo]

Duncan's '06 foot injury

The single best indicator of how the Spurs do has always been Duncan's health.

Here is a little known factoid regarding how the foot injury affected Duncan's playoff performance:

Duncan

2006 Playoffs;

blocks per foul 0.50

2007 Playoffs;

blocks per foul 1.05

This is an astounding difference!

Other tidbits

Duncan was the youngest player in history to be named 1st Team, All-NBA, when he won the award after a season in which he was only a 21 year old rookie. This despite staying 4 years in college.

Lebron James beat him out for the honor in '06, but only by a few months, because Duncan's stats took a late season nosedive from a seroius foot injury, and despite James being a third year veteran rather than a rookie.

Bonus tidbit:

Let's talk about raising your level of play during crunch time.

In the '06 playoffs, w/ a serious foot injury, Duncan avaeraged 18 points/game in round 1, versus a below average playoff team not expected to give the Spurs any problems.

But in round 2, a grueling 7 game series versus an elite team (Dallas), Duncan raised his point production by 15 points per game, to 32 points per game.

Amazing!

This accomplishement, of course, has been almost forgotten, since the Spurs did not win the NBA title that year.

[bobbyjoe]

Of course the 3pt shot was an element of the Spurs' Championships... it wasn't the key element though. DEFENSE has always been the Spurs' 'bread and butter' in the Poppovich era... not a prolific inside/outside game.



Olajuwon averaged 35 ppg against David's 24.... David however, had to score most of his points against double and triple teams. And unfortunately for Robinson, no one on his team ever stepped up to help him shoulder the burden. Olajuwon despite his superhuman efforts still relied on game winning jumpers from his teammates to win the series. That was the difference.




Duncan never missed the playoffs... and only lost to eventual conference champions (Stockton & Malone Jazz his rookie year, Shaq & Kobe Lakers from '01 to '02 and '04, Dirk's Mavs in '06) Other than that Duncan has always triumphed over his opposition.

Not counting his twilight seasons in Toronto, Olajuwan missed the playoffs once, and was eliminated twice in the first round. Duncan has yet to do either.

Draw your own conclusions.



It does apply to the Spurs... I never said it didn't.

I'm just trying to point out that using volume stats to imply that Houston had average 3pt shooting teams was lame. They had awesome 3 point shooters just based on the fact that they made them when it mattered most - during playoff games.

BTW the Spurs swept Portland in 1999... had Elliott missed his three, the Spurs still win that series. And Kerr's 3pt barage was against Dallas in the Conf. Finals (not the Finals).




'01 Loss of Derek Anderson for the entire series against LA was crucial

'02 Lack of swingmen to take pressure off of Duncan, Robinson's back injury were the key factors of defeat.

'04 Hedo Turkoglu's and Horry's brickfest against LA. and the infamous 0.4 were the key factors of defeat.



We let go of Hedo, lost Stephen Jackson to FA and picked up Brent Barry.....

I think that the emergence of SuperManu in '05 was more important than anything in the line above. He was an unstoppable force in those playoffs, and had he not been hurt for Game 3 & 4, he could have legitimately taken the Finals MVP that year.

Putting any sort of relevance on the year Olajuwon's team missed the playoffs is just being purposely misleading.

1) It's a sample size of 1 year out of his 18 year career
2) It's already been noted that the team was 2-10 without Olajuwon that year he missed the playoffs and 40-30 with Olajuwon, which put them on a pace for a low playoff seed.
3) Duncan hasn't ever played on a cast that poor.

Show me a Spurs team that went 2-10 when Duncan wasn't in the lineup. All that season that Hakeem missed the playoffs shows is how weak his surrounding cast was. 2-10 proprates to a 13-69 record over 82 games. You can throw out all the stats about the stud Otis Thorrpe and all world Kenny Smith, but the bottomline is without Olajuwon, that team was a joke.

You make some good points about how "clutch" the Rockets shooting was. This is a fair point, unlike Chang's assertion that the Rockets had "great 3 point shooters" which has been brutally exposed. They clearly weren't great, but they were very clutch.

You can not be a "great" 3 point shooter and shoot below the league average at it.

Shaquille O'Neal wasn't a Great Free throw shooter just because he made and attempted amongst the most Free Thrrows in the NBA year in and year out.

Duncan's line has basically been the same as Hakeem as you show. In the years without some sort of legitimate outside shooting threats to complement his game, the Spurs were knocked out of the playoffs. And when they had the guns, they won it all. Chang's theory was that Hakeem was different from Duncan in that he needed "Great 3 point shooters" to win. That's been epxosed; all great big men need that outside shooting threat to make teams pay for double and triple teams. That is not exclusive to Hakeem.

Chang also conveniently ignores that the 86 Rockets which got to the Finals and beat the Showtime Lakers were not a prolific 3 point shooting team. The makeup of that team was completely different than the Title teams, so the argument that Hakeem only succeeded in an inside-outside offense is false.

[Galileo]

Based on your comment's that Duncan > Jordan, no one will ever take you seriously again.

Duncan wasn't close to Jordan and he wasn't close to Hakeem defensively.

After 10 years in the NBA, I have already shown that Duncan has accomplished more than any other player in NBA history, including Jordan.

If you remember, had a poll been taken after the '95 season, you would have had few takers that Jordan was the greatest, although he was in the conversation.

Most people still selected either Russell, Chamberlain, Jabber, Magic or Bird, with Olajuwon and Jordan in the conversation.

But Jordan then went out and won three more rings.

So lets give Tim a chance.

If Tim wins THREE MORE RINGS, you will not think what I am saying is foolish.

2008 will be a pivotal year, because Duncan needs to prove he can win back to back titles.

[bobbyjoe]

Jordan still was considered #1, even after 1995.

Regardless of if Duncan wins 4, 5, or 10 rings he just never dominates a game to the extent that MJ did. And MJ's clutch factor was off the charts.

Russell has more rings than MJ and few if any rate him over MJ. Most knowledgable basketball fans when ranking players dont only look at the # of rings and rank the players in descending order. That's a very sophmoric approach.

[bobbyjoe]

I have maintained from the start that the Rockets have had great shooters, and were a great 3 pt shooting team, I haven't changed that at all.
It was you and kingmalaki who imposes your definition of what a great 3 pt shooting team is into my arguments. You have been changing my arguments for me, and forcing me to admit that I was wrong in an argument that you thought I meant from the get go.

Well, no, I never said the Rockets were particularly accurate, it was your interpretation.

This was my first post in this thread regarding 3 pt shooting from the Rockets:

Post 411 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942088&postcount=411)



And this was your response

Post 413 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942593&postcount=413)



Clearly from the get go, you interpreted me saying the rockets shooter bombing away as some indication of their accuracy, but that was never my intention, and I never understood why you would think that.

In fact, upon review, YOU were the one who said Hakeem's shooters sucked ass using %s, when they were, at worst, average. Perhaps it was you who was spinning the whole time.

Later on, bobbyjoe even put in quotation marks about something I never said and tried to attribute this to me:



Given the amount of 3pters made by Maxwell, it is pretty clear that he opened up the offense for the Rockets (I originally said he opened up the floor for Drexler), but it was his inability to fully digest my post before posting that led to him intrepreting what I said and thought I said Maxwell's shooting was accurate, or that he opened up the floor for Hakeem.

Up till now, the 3 of you had no ability to quote me on saying either, and is trying to twist my wording around into saying something you two felt I said through your own misinterpretation.

If the two of you does not like to read my post but still like to respond to them, it is up to you, but please do not try to twist my word around and say I said something I never said, and try to show that things I never said to be incorrect and attribute the error to me.

So Maxwell opened up the court for a guy he played all of about 15 games with?!?

LOL. Maxwell quit on the Rockets in the playoffs of 1995. He was injured for most of the 2nd half of the season in 1995 after the Clyde Drexler trade. After 95, he never played for the Rockets or with Clyde as a teammate again.

I've got to hand it to you, I never thought I'd hear something crazier than "the rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, but hey i never said they were accurate at it". Now Maxwell opened up the floor for a guy he hardly ever was a teammate with in his entire career?

[ambchang]

You make some good points about how "clutch" the Rockets shooting was. This is a fair point, unlike Chang's assertion that the Rockets had "great 3 point shooters" which has been brutally exposed. They clearly weren't great, but they were very clutch.

Hmmm ... still continuing to misinterpret what I said and continue to say I meant things you think I meant?


You can not be a "great" 3 point shooter and shoot below the league average at it.

Shaquille O'Neal wasn't a Great Free throw shooter just because he made and attempted amongst the most Free Thrrows in the NBA year in and year out.

Next time an opponent fouls people so that they are forced to shoot and miss 3 pters as a defensive mechanism, you let me know.
Oh wait, the Lakers did that to the Spurs in 04, and it worked.


Duncan's line has basically been the same as Hakeem as you show. In the years without some sort of legitimate outside shooting threats to complement his game, the Spurs were knocked out of the playoffs. And when they had the guns, they won it all. Chang's theory was that Hakeem was different from Duncan in that he needed "Great 3 point shooters" to win. That's been epxosed; all great big men need that outside shooting threat to make teams pay for double and triple teams. That is not exclusive to Hakeem.

Chang also conveniently ignores that the 86 Rockets which got to the Finals and beat the Showtime Lakers were not a prolific 3 point shooting team. The makeup of that team was completely different than the Title teams, so the argument that Hakeem only succeeded in an inside-outside offense is false.

So as the 86 Rocket's team never won the championship, I don't see how that team was so massively successful. Yes, I acknowledged that it was an accomplishment in beating the Lakers that year, but why was it a success when they couldn't win it all?

And how were the Rockets not surrounded Hakeem with great 3 point shooters in 94 and 95? All 4 players around Hakeem could shoot and make 3s.

[ambchang]

So Maxwell opened up the court for a guy he played all of about 15 games with?!?

LOL. Maxwell quit on the Rockets in the playoffs of 1995. He was injured for most of the 2nd half of the season in 1995 after the Clyde Drexler trade. After 95, he never played for the Rockets or with Clyde as a teammate again.

I've got to hand it to you, I never thought I'd hear something crazier than "the rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, but hey i never said they were accurate at it". Now Maxwell opened up the floor for a guy he hardly ever was a teammate with in his entire career?

It was about as crazy as you stating how Hakeem resurrected Drexler's by pointing to Drexler's FG% for 35 games in 95, and ignored all the other games he played in Houston since then.

BTW, Drexler soht 43.3%, 44.2%, and 42.7% with Houston from 96 to 98, but you HAD to look into the 35 games he played in 95. Oh wait, I remember now, it was because he was injured and broken down exactly in the summer of 95, despite missing significant chunks of time in 93 and 94 with the Blazers. I am sure this has nothing to do with a hot streak Drexler encountered and realizing that this was his last chance for the title.

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]

Jordan still was considered #1, even after 1995.

QUOTE]

That's a load of bullshit.

Jordan sucked in the '95 playoffs, and was clearly inferior to Olajuwon & Barkley in the '93 regular season.

Here is a comparison of Jordan, as of '95, to Russell, Chamberlain, Jabber, Bird, and Magic:

Rings:

Jordan 3
Russell 11
Chamberlain 2
Jabber 6
Bird 3
Magic 5

MVPs

Jordan 3
Russell 5
Chamberlain 4
Jabber 6
Bird 3
Magic 3

1st Team, All-NBA

Jordan 7
Russell 3
Chamberlain 7
Jabber 9
Bird 9
Magic 9

Final's MVP

Jordan 3
Russell 0
Chamberlain 1
Jabber 2
Bird 2
Magic 3

Jordan is a guard, not a big man. Everyone knows big men dominate the NBA.

Jordan never even swept an NBA Finals.

He had a top 30 alltime teammate for his three titles (Pippen).

When Jordan retired, the Bulls won TWO LESS GAMES. That's it. TWO games. From 57 to 55.

How do you explain that?

Even seen what happened to the Spurs when David Robinson went down with an injury? The Spurs won about 30 less games, not 2.

Besides, Jordan wasn't even the first pick in the NBA draft. Sam Bowie was drafted ahead of him.

Jordan didn't win jack for 6 years.

Jordan never won a thing without Pippen.

or Jackson.

If it hadn't been for Phil Jackson, Jordan wouldn't have won anything.

Please get off the crack pipe.

[ambchang]

Also found this was what I posted:


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

Hmm, so I actually said Maxwell and Smith, instead of just Maxwell, and the next 3 years, Drexler's FG% sucked ... let's see what happened. Maxwell was out of Houston, and Smith started sucking. Hakeem was still dominating, but why wasn't Drexler's efficiency similar to the 2nd half of 95?

This just in, Manu Ginobili is a better shooter than Kobe Bryant, just check out their FG% and 3P% the last 3 seasons. Shocking!

[bobbyjoe]

Hmmm ... still continuing to misinterpret what I said and continue to say I meant things you think I meant?



Next time an opponent fouls people so that they are forced to shoot and miss 3 pters as a defensive mechanism, you let me know.
Oh wait, the Lakers did that to the Spurs in 04, and it worked.



So as the 86 Rocket's team never won the championship, I don't see how that team was so massively successful. Yes, I acknowledged that it was an accomplishment in beating the Lakers that year, but why was it a success when they couldn't win it all?

And how were the Rockets not surrounded Hakeem with great 3 point shooters in 94 and 95? All 4 players around Hakeem could shoot and make 3s.

The 94 Rockets had great 3 point shooters at all 4 spots?

LOL.

Yeah, Otis Thorpe was a great 3 pt shooter. I think he made 2 his entire career.

Maxwell was a terrific 3 point shooter. So terrific he shot under 30% that season.

The team shot 33% from the arc that year. Is that great?

The 94 Rockets had 1 very good 3 point shooter in K. Smith. The rest were average at best.

If Duncan ever beat a team as good as the 86 Lakers, you'd have him as the Best Athlete Ever. So what if they didnt win the title? They played teh 86 Celtics with Bird/Mchale, one of the best NBA teams ever. That still doesnt diminish beating a great playoff opponent, one greater than Duncan's Spurs have ever defeated.

How many times do you want to shoot yourself in the foot with the crap that you can be a great 3 point shooter, while not even shooting the league average it?

You are basically saying that you can be great and incompetent at something at the same time.

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

In 93-94, the Rockets did not have one player in the top 5 in 3 point makes or in 3 point %. Maxwell sure enough was up there in ATTEMPTS at 403 but nowhere to be found at the top of the makes category.

Horry shot 32.4% that yr from the arc and Sam Cassell was at 29.8%.

Of course I guess since David Robinson and Shaq led the NBA that year in Free throws made, I guess they were both "great free throw shooters" even though their % was average at best.

[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.

BTW, in this post you clearly stated your opinion that the Rockets led the league by far in "MAKES, not ATTEMPTS"

No one twisted your words. You were the one who suggested the Rockets led the league in made 3's, but not attempts and that has proven to be completely false.

[bobbyjoe]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]

Jordan still was considered #1, even after 1995.

QUOTE]

That's a load of bullshit.

Jordan sucked in the '95 playoffs, and was clearly inferior to Olajuwon & Barkley in the '93 regular season.

Here is a comparison of Jordan, as of '95, to Russell, Chamberlain, Jabber, Bird, and Magic:

Rings:

Jordan 3
Russell 11
Chamberlain 2
Jabber 6
Bird 3
Magic 5

MVPs

Jordan 3
Russell 5
Chamberlain 4
Jabber 6
Bird 3
Magic 3

1st Team, All-NBA

Jordan 7
Russell 3
Chamberlain 7
Jabber 9
Bird 9
Magic 9

Final's MVP

Jordan 3
Russell 0
Chamberlain 1
Jabber 2
Bird 2
Magic 3

Jordan is a guard, not a big man. Everyone knows big men dominate the NBA.

Jordan never even swept an NBA Finals.

He had a top 30 alltime teammate for his three titles (Pippen).

When Jordan retired, the Bulls won TWO LESS GAMES. That's it. TWO games. From 57 to 55.

How do you explain that?

Even seen what happened to the Spurs when David Robinson went down with an injury? The Spurs won about 30 less games, not 2.

Besides, Jordan wasn't even the first pick in the NBA draft. Sam Bowie was drafted ahead of him.

Jordan didn't win jack for 6 years.

Jordan never won a thing without Pippen.

or Jackson.

If it hadn't been for Phil Jackson, Jordan wouldn't have won anything.

Please get off the crack pipe.

Jordan "sucked" in the 95 playoffs? He played as well in that playoff as any player in them not named Hakeem. Dude averaged 33 ppg.

Pretty convenient that you dont point out the Bulls record in 1995 before MJ returned and only point out the 94 record when Pippen had an MVP caliber season.

What freaking difference does it make if Jordan won the NBA finals 4-0 or 4-3?

Jordan didnt have the benefit of playing a team as pathetic as the 2007 Cavs in the Finals if that's what you are getting at.

What he did do in the Finals though is beat a team with Karl Malone on it back to back years, something Duncan never managed to do (0-2 against the mailman in the playoffs lifetime).

[ambchang]

The 94 Rockets had great 3 point shooters at all 4 spots?

LOL.

Yeah, Otis Thorpe was a great 3 pt shooter. I think he made 2 his entire career.

Maxwell was a terrific 3 point shooter. So terrific he shot under 30% that season.

The team shot 33% from the arc that year. Is that great?

The 94 Rockets had 1 very good 3 point shooter in K. Smith. The rest were average at best.

If Duncan ever beat a team as good as the 86 Lakers, you'd have him as the Best Athlete Ever. So what if they didnt win the title? They played teh 86 Celtics with Bird/Mchale, one of the best NBA teams ever. That still doesnt diminish beating a great playoff opponent, one greater than Duncan's Spurs have ever defeated.

How many times do you want to shoot yourself in the foot with the crap that you can be a great 3 point shooter, while not even shooting the league average it?

You are basically saying that you can be great and incompetent at something at the same time.

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

In 93-94, the Rockets did not have one player in the top 5 in 3 point makes or in 3 point %. Maxwell sure enough was up there in ATTEMPTS at 403 but nowhere to be found at the top of the makes category.

Horry shot 32.4% that yr from the arc and Sam Cassell was at 29.8%.

Of course I guess since David Robinson and Shaq led the NBA that year in Free throws made, I guess they were both "great free throw shooters" even though their % was average at best.

If you didn't think that the Rockets were a fantastic 3 pt shooting team, then that is your problem. I find it shocking that a person who has been watching basketball as long as you has not realized that the Rockets started a trend of building successful teams with an offense built around a dominant center and a bunch of 3 point shooters. The formula has since been improved by the Spurs and the Lakers in terms of effectiveness and efficiencies with players like Kobe, or Parker and Manu over Drexler.

Yes, I made a mistake in 94, they surrounded Hakeem with 3 players who could bomb the crap out of opposing teams, and were still #1 in makes.

And I will repeat this probably for the 4th time, as an individual player, I will pick Hakeem over Duncan any day of the week, he was a better defender and has a much more well-rounded offensive repertoire, but as a team player, I will pick Duncan, because he has demonstrated that he can win with drastically different teams, something that Hakeem has failed to do (and no, losing in the finals is not success).

And of course, I have said it before that if a team ever left the Rockets wide open for 3s so that they have a better chance to win, then you have a case about the Shaq comment. In fact, Robinson was a great FT shooter, he went to the line a lot by creating contact, and put in a decent clip. I can say the same thing about Karl and Moses Malone. It was a great part of their offense.

[ambchang]

BTW, in this post you clearly stated your opinion that the Rockets led the league by far in "MAKES, not ATTEMPTS"

No one twisted your words. You were the one who suggested the Rockets led the league in made 3's, but not attempts and that has proven to be completely false.

Gee, read the previous post in it's full context instead of nitpicking parts out.
You responded to my post about Rockets leading the league in makes by saying that they jacked up a lot of shots does not translate into them being particularly good at it, my above comment was saying that I said the Rockets were #1 in makes, and not that I said the Rockets were #1 in attempts.
This is different from how you interpret it as me saying the Rockets were #1 in 3 pters made, but not #1 in attempts.


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.

It was quite clear in the bolded part that I was referring to my post talking about makes, but not talking about attempts, but due to your infatuation about finding bits and pieces of a post, misinterpreting them, creating a strawman argument, then blowing it down to claim victory, you can't seem to see whole posts.

Do you want to continue putting words in somebody else's mouth now?

[Galileo]

Jordan "sucked" in the 95 playoffs? He played as well in that playoff as any player in them not named Hakeem. Dude averaged 33 ppg.

Pretty convenient that you dont point out the Bulls record in 1995 before MJ returned and only point out the 94 record when Pippen had an MVP caliber season.

What freaking difference does it make if Jordan won the NBA finals 4-0 or 4-3?

Jordan didnt have the benefit of playing a team as pathetic as the 2007 Cavs in the Finals if that's what you are getting at.

What he did do in the Finals though is beat a team with Karl Malone on it back to back years, something Duncan never managed to do (0-2 against the mailman in the playoffs lifetime).

Shaq was more dominating in the '00 - '02 playoffs, than Jordan in '91 - '93.

Jabber was more dominating in '71 than maybe anyone in history.

He took an expansion team to the NBA Finals, went 12-1 throught he playoffs, and swept the Finals without even one close game.

Moses Malone was more dominating in '83 than any season Jordan ever had.

Bill Russell had the most dominating game of all time, with 30 points and 44 rebounds in game 7 of the 1962 Finals.

And I have not even started with Wilt Chamberlain who average 50 points and 25 rebounds in 1962.

You are enthralled with scoring.

Magic was so dominating that he basically handed the all-star game MVP to Tom Chambers one year, and handed the Finals MVP to James Worthy another year.

Worthy disappeared after Magic retired.

The only claim Jordan had to the best of all time in '95 was by 'dominating' for three years.

[Phenomanul]

What he did do in the Finals though is beat a team with Karl Malone on it back to back years, something Duncan never managed to do (0-2 against the mailman in the playoffs lifetime).

Loosing to a heavily experienced Malone in his Rookie year is hardly a thing to feel bad about.

But I would add that loosing to Malone and 3 other HOF teammates hardly constitutes a nick to Duncan's reputation. He made the clutchest basket of his career in that series only to see it stripped of worth after Derek Fisher's physics defying shot went in.

The true measure of comparison is that Duncan went 2-3 against a Shaq & Kobe tandem. Saying that Duncan went 0-2 against Malone in the playoffs, while technically true is a bit misleading.

[kingmalaki]

Of course the 3pt shot was an element of the Spurs' Championships... it wasn't the key element though. DEFENSE has always been the Spurs' 'bread and butter' in the Poppovich era... not a prolific inside/outside game.

So you are saying hitting 3 pointers was the key element to the Rocket’s titles, and not Hakeem dominating on both ends of the court, and having the ability to putplay HOF centers? I will not debate this with you. Either way his original implication that Dream only won when surrounded by great 3 point shooters was way off, and as factually inaccurate as it get’s.


Olajuwon averaged 35 ppg against David's 24.... David however, had to score most of his points against double and triple teams. And unfortunately for Robinson, no one on his team ever stepped up to help him shoulder the burden. Olajuwon despite his superhuman efforts still relied on game winning jumpers from his teammates to win the series. That was the difference.

I have the tapes from that series as well and Dream was also double-teamed (how else do the Rockets perimeter threats get so many open looks)? This premise that David was doubled and Hakeem wasn’t is quite false. I agree that the Rockets role players stepped up more than the Spurs role players.


I'm just trying to point out that using volume stats to imply that Houston had average 3pt shooting teams was lame. They had awesome 3 point shooters just based on the fact that they made them when it mattered most - during playoff games.

BTW the Spurs swept Portland in 1999... had Elliott missed his three, the Spurs still win that series. And Kerr's 3pt barage was against Dallas in the Conf. Finals (not the Finals).

Either way, the Spurs still won when Duncan was surrounded by 3 point shooters just as good as the ones that surrounded Hakeem, using whatever method you like (clutchness, 3 point %). Just because the Rockets launched more did not make them better at converting. That’s why his original implication made no sense….

As far as the rest of your post, I have spent like 15 pages going back and forth between who was better and won’t say anything that hasn’t already been said. Just clearing up completely false statements at the moment….

[kingmalaki]

ambchang

Dude, your analysis is quite flawed. You are basically saying that the Rockets were great at shooting the three because they were a league leader in makes and attempts. Now note, this is not what you were implying at first (you are backtracking), but let’s just roll with it.

Using that same logic, do you conclude that Corey Maggettee is a great FT shooter? He is a forward, and for forwards he had the 4th most FT attempts last season (633) and the most makes (519). He scored 17 pts a game, and 7 of those came from FT’s (about a 42% clip off his offense was from the FT line). He made 82% of his FT’s. Is he a great FT shooter, at 82%?

Do you conclude that Lebron James is a great FT shooter? He is a forward, and for forwards he had the most FT attempts last season and the 3rd most makes. He scored 27 pts a game, and 7 of those came from FT’s (about a 26% clip off his offense was from the FT line). He made 70% of his FT’s. Is he a great FT shooter, at 70%?

Is someone a great FT shooter at 87%? Kobe shot 87% last season, when he was #1 in the league in makes and attempts? Oh, and he is clutch too!!!! Is he a great ft shooter?

See how flawed your argument is?

[ambchang]

I would say Corey Maggette is a great FT shooter, it was an integral part of his offense, gets his man into foul trouble, and coverts it at a reasonable rate.
Kobe would be the same, great FT shooter, no doubt.
I would say James is a very good FT shooter, for someone to consistently go to the line and making his team pay, afterall, him going to the FT line yields 1.4 expected points, far more than a FT, which gives about 1.

But then again, these are individuals, would you say the Bulls were a great 3pt shooting team last year? The were, afterall, 2nd in the league. Were they a better 3pt shooting team than GS, despite making 280 more but a few % points higher.

And no, I never implied the Rockets were accurate, you kept saying that I was backtracking, but continued not be able to quote me. To me, this is a low form of argument. I don't know how you can say that I implied the Rockets were accurate, when in the 3rd or 4th post I had regarding 3's, I flat out said I never said they were accurate, but they were great, and when the 1st post I went out and said the Rockets can bomb away from 3 pt land. Where is the implication that I said they were accurate? Is flat out saying that I never said they were accurate implying that they were accurate? Which world do you live in?

Also, was Lebron James 3% point off the league leader, like what the Rockets were in 95? Or was he an astounding 3.4% off, like they were in 94? You know, I figured if 3% is what separates an excellent % from an average/suckass %, 0.4% could be quite significant.

BTW, so is Manu a better shooter than Kobe? He did get better FG% and 3P% than Kobe the last 3 seasons.

[Phenomanul]

So you are saying hitting 3 pointers was the key element to the Rocket’s titles, and not Hakeem dominating on both ends of the court, and having the ability to putplay HOF centers? I will not debate this with you. Either way his original implication that Dream only won when surrounded by great 3 point shooters was way off, and as factually inaccurate as it get’s.

Don't put words in my mouth. I only wrote what was stated... don't extrapolate my statements.



I have the tapes from that series as well and Dream was also double-teamed (how else do the Rockets perimeter threats get so many open looks)? This premise that David was doubled and Hakeem wasn’t is quite false. I agree that the Rockets role players stepped up more than the Spurs role players.


To the point where they were hitting game winning jumpers.

BTW it was noted who was double-teaming, and playing completely out of character. Ummm that would be Rodman. His antics cost us that series, considering that the Spurs had dominated Houston during the Regular season that year...

12/10/94 SAS..108..at..HOU..96
12/23/94 SAS...98......HOU...96
01/13/95 SAS..100..at..HOU..103
01/26/95 SAS..103......HOU..100
02/21/95 SAS...98..at..HOU...97
03/05/95 SAS..124......HOU..103

and the year after for that matter.

12/23/95 SAS..110......HOU...95
01/09/96 SAS...88..at..HOU...82
02/15/96 SAS..108..at..HOU..112
02/18/96 SAS...93......HOU...79

to the tune of 8-2....

The only anomaly then (in the playoff series that took place between those two seasons) was the disappearance of the Spurs' role players and the emergence of Houston's.



Either way, the Spurs still won when Duncan was surrounded by 3 point shooters just as good as the ones that surrounded Hakeem, using whatever method you like (clutchness, 3 point %). Just because the Rockets launched more did not make them better at converting. That’s why his original implication made no sense….

As far as the rest of your post, I have spent like 15 pages going back and forth between who was better and won’t say anything that hasn’t already been said. Just clearing up completely false statements at the moment….


Nice to know your objectivity is around to catch em' all.

[Galileo]

ambchang

Dude, your analysis is quite flawed. You are basically saying that the Rockets were great at shooting the three because they were a league leader in makes and attempts. Now note, this is not what you were implying at first (you are backtracking), but let’s just roll with it.

Using that same logic, do you conclude that Corey Maggettee is a great FT shooter? He is a forward, and for forwards he had the 4th most FT attempts last season (633) and the most makes (519). He scored 17 pts a game, and 7 of those came from FT’s (about a 42% clip off his offense was from the FT line). He made 82% of his FT’s. Is he a great FT shooter, at 82%?

Do you conclude that Lebron James is a great FT shooter? He is a forward, and for forwards he had the most FT attempts last season and the 3rd most makes. He scored 27 pts a game, and 7 of those came from FT’s (about a 26% clip off his offense was from the FT line). He made 70% of his FT’s. Is he a great FT shooter, at 70%?

Is someone a great FT shooter at 87%? Kobe shot 87% last season, when he was #1 in the league in makes and attempts? Oh, and he is clutch too!!!! Is he a great ft shooter?

See how flawed your argument is?

free throws are different from threes because you EARN a free throw attempt.

Anyone can throw up a three.

And here is a dirty little secret....

Any FT% better than 50% is a plus, because going 2-4 from the line is no different than going 1-2 from the floor.

Plus, even if you go 2-4 from the line, you just drew 2 fouls, whereas if you go 1-2 from the floor, you didn't draw any fouls.

Which brings me to another Hakeem vs Duncan moment....

Duncan

regular season career

free throw attempts per 40 minutes = 8.0

free throws made per 40 minutes = 5.4

FT% = 68%

playoffs

FTA per 40 minutes = 8.86

FT per 40 minutes = 6.18

FT% = 70%

[note that Duncan raises his game more in the playoffs, than Olajuwon]

Olajuwon

regular season career

FTA per 40 minutes = 6.9

FT per 40 minutes = 4.9

FT% = 71%

playoffs

FTA per 40 minutes = 7.19

FT per 40 minutes = 5.17

FT% = 72%

Duncan draws more fouls than Olajuwon, makes more free throws than Olajuwon, and only shoots free throws at 2 to 3% less than Olajuwon.

Over the course of Duncan's career, here is how many more free throws Duncan would have made had he shot at The Dream's percentage:

regular season; 167 free throws over ten years, 16.7 points per season, or 0.2 points per game.

[remember, Duncan makes 0.5 more free throws per game than Olajuwon]

playoffs; 25 free throws over 9 years, 2.7 points per season, or 0.2 points per game.

[remember, Duncan make 1.01 more free throws per game than Olajuwon]

It looks like the Spurs fans are keener than Rockets fans!

:fro

[ambchang]

So you are saying hitting 3 pointers was the key element to the Rocket’s titles, and not Hakeem dominating on both ends of the court, and having the ability to putplay HOF centers? I will not debate this with you. Either way his original implication that Dream only won when surrounded by great 3 point shooters was way off, and as factually inaccurate as it get’s.

For someone who takes so much pride in putting down others and saying others were illogical, you sure did find a way to show us how your logic works.
Just because the Rockets were great with shooting 3s doesn't mean that Hakeem wasn't great in the middle. It was said numerous times throughout this thread that the 3 pt making abilities of the Rockets were enhanced by the presence of Hakeem in the middle, and I have went on a number of times how the Rocket's offense was inside-out (ie: not outside-in). But it is a fact that Hakeem works best and benefitted with having great 3 pt shooters around him because it opens up the middle for him to operate. It is that simple. For a fan of the Rockets, you sure didn't know how your team benefitted from the 3 pt barrages.
If I say Warren Buffet made so much money because he works hard, it doesn't mean I am saying he is a dumbass idiot, you got that?


Either way, the Spurs still won when Duncan was surrounded by 3 point shooters just as good as the ones that surrounded Hakeem, using whatever method you like (clutchness, 3 point %). Just because the Rockets launched more did not make them better at converting. That’s why his original implication made no sense….

Once again, in 99, the Spurs were ranked 25/29 in the league in 3 pt %, while the Rockets in 94 and 95 were 15th and 14th. The % are the same, but the era certainly wasn't. So it is OK to compare hard exact numbers when it comes to 3pt%, but not when it is about titles won. Gotcha.


As far as the rest of your post, I have spent like 15 pages going back and forth between who was better and won’t say anything that hasn’t already been said. Just clearing up completely false statements at the moment….

Such as you claiming different era whenever it suits you, but completely ignoring it when it refutes your points.

[ambchang]

Found something interesting from Wikipedia.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_field_goal#Coaching_attitudes)


Coaching attitudes

... The 1995 Houston Rockets won the NBA title utilizing a three-point centered, "inside-out" strategy, where any double team of Hakeem Olajuwon would result in a three point attempt.

[ambchang]

There's more:
Link (http://www.nba.com/rockets/history/lookingback_95finals.html)


In Game Six, Olajuwon had a team-high 30 points as Houston shot three-pointers on Phoenix all night to force Game Seven with a 116-103 win.

In the same article:


The Magic fought back to take a three-point lead with a little over a minute left in the game. An Olajuwon turnover should have spelled doom for the Rockets, but they fouled the right Orlando player. Magic guard Nick Anderson missed four straight free throws with 10.5 seconds left in the game to give the Rockets a chance. With 1.6 seconds left, Rockets guard Kenny Smith faked the Magic's Anfernee Hardaway out of his way and calmly sank his Finals-record seventh three-pointer to tie the game at 110.

[ambchang]

More about Rocket's prowess at the 3 point line:

Link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DC1531F933A25755C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)


His ability to answer the Magic after it had made a run to get back into Game 2 was demoralizing to Orlando. First, the Magic had to contend with Kenny Smith's 5 3-pointers in the third quarter of Game 1. Tonight, it was Cassell's 16 points in the second quarter and clutch baskets in the second half.

Even Hardaway was dumbfounded.

"What can you do?" the Magic point guard said. "Kenny doesn't have a good night, Sam comes in and turns it on. Seems like you can't keep both down."

Cassell ran the floor and the offense with such precision that the Magic was discombobulated after his wild second-quarter barrage. He made layups off the wrong foot, fallaway 10-footers over O'Neal and then poured in some malicious 3-pointers for good measure.

Orlando had moved within 14 points of the Rockets at 85-71 in the third quarter when Cassell caught fire again.

[ambchang]

Will this ever end?

Link (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ST&s_site=dfw&p_multi=ST&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF9004705165D8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM)

Titled "Rockets tie series with 3-point barrage"

[ambchang]

And finally:

Link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DF1530F930A25755C0A9639582 60)

Titled "1995 N.B.A. PLAYOFFS; Houston's 3-Pointers Are Putting It on Top"


They made the most 3-pointers of any team during the regular season. And during the finals, the Houston Rockets have used that weapon wisely to put themselves on the brink of another title.

With Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Mario Elie and Kenny Smith leading the way, the Rockets' long-range attack has helped them build a 3-0 lead over the Orlando Magic in the four-of-seven-game championship series. The inside force of Hakeem Olajuwon, coupled with Houston's perimeter shooting, has turned Orlando's defense inside out. When the Magic plays Olajuwon one on one, he usually scores. When it double-teams him, the Rockets usually find the unguarded man for an open 3-pointer.

How do you stop that? Orlando has yet to figure it out, heading into Game 4 on Wednesday night at the Summit.


Interestingly, in the article itself, Rudy T was quoted as saying:


"It's a daily thing that we live by," said Rudy Tomjanovich, the Rockets' coach, reflecting on Houston's 40 percent shooting from 3-point range during the finals. "There is not a guy on this team that won't get into a situation where they are shooting some 3-pointers in practice. That is just the way we live. That's a part of the Rockets' system."

[ambchang]

When a coach admits that the team's bread-and-butter was 3 point shooting, and that everyone practices it, and that they got the championship, I would reason that the team is a pretty damned good 3 point shooting team.
But no, they were just average, or even suckass by some, because they were 3% off the top shooting team in the league. This is just brilliant.

[kingmalaki]

I would say Corey Maggette is a great FT shooter, it was an integral part of his offense, gets his man into foul trouble, and coverts it at a reasonable rate.
Kobe would be the same, great FT shooter, no doubt.
I would say James is a very good FT shooter, for someone to consistently go to the line and making his team pay, afterall, him going to the FT line yields 1.4 expected points, far more than a FT, which gives about 1.

But then again, these are individuals, would you say the Bulls were a great 3pt shooting team last year? The were, afterall, 2nd in the league. Were they a better 3pt shooting team than GS, despite making 280 more but a few % points higher.

And no, I never implied the Rockets were accurate, you kept saying that I was backtracking, but continued not be able to quote me. To me, this is a low form of argument. I don't know how you can say that I implied the Rockets were accurate, when in the 3rd or 4th post I had regarding 3's, I flat out said I never said they were accurate, but they were great, and when the 1st post I went out and said the Rockets can bomb away from 3 pt land. Where is the implication that I said they were accurate? Is flat out saying that I never said they were accurate implying that they were accurate? Which world do you live in?

Also, was Lebron James 3% point off the league leader, like what the Rockets were in 95? Or was he an astounding 3.4% off, like they were in 94? You know, I figured if 3% is what separates an excellent % from an average/suckass %, 0.4% could be quite significant.

BTW, so is Manu a better shooter than Kobe? He did get better FG% and 3P% than Kobe the last 3 seasons.

So basically you are saying Maggette is great at getting to the FT line and making FT's is an important part of his offense...yet completly ignoring his conversion rate in your analysis? So by the same definition, Shaq and Duncan are also great FT shooters in your opinion..they just don't convert at a reasonable rate?

Hmmm........

No one is saying you said they were accurate. We are saying it is silly to say a person is great at converting a shot when their accuracy isn't great. If I shoot at someone 100 times and hit him 5 times, I am not a great shooter because I shot 60 more shots than the next person. It is silly to not include accuracy in your analysis of a great shooter..that makes no sense.

And I could argue that Manu is a better shooter than Kobe. Of course, I would also have to include where they took shots from, and the fact that Kobe shoots while being the #1 option while Manu doesn't. Unlike you, I like to look at the complete picture when analyzing data.

[kingmalaki]

Don't put words in my mouth. I only wrote what was stated... don't extrapolate my statements.

How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth?


To the point where they were hitting game winning jumpers.

BTW it was noted who was double-teaming, and playing completely out of character. Ummm that would be Rodman. His antics cost us that series, considering that the Spurs had dominated Houston during the Regular season that year...

12/10/94 SAS..108..at..HOU..96
12/23/94 SAS...98......HOU...96
01/13/95 SAS..100..at..HOU..103
01/26/95 SAS..103......HOU..100
02/21/95 SAS...98..at..HOU...97
03/05/95 SAS..124......HOU..103

and the year after for that matter.

12/23/95 SAS..110......HOU...95
01/09/96 SAS...88..at..HOU...82
02/15/96 SAS..108..at..HOU..112
02/18/96 SAS...93......HOU...79

to the tune of 8-2....

The only anomaly then (in the playoff series that took place between those two seasons) was the disappearance of the Spurs' role players and the emergence of Houston's.

I already agree with you that the Rockets roleplayers outplayed the Spurs role players that series. However, Hakeem completely outplayed Robinson as well, and both players were doubled.


Nice to know your objectivity is around to catch em' all.

Anytime bro!!!! :spin

[Galileo]

FOULS: Duncan vs Akeem;

I already showed above, that on the average...

* Duncan draws one more foul per game than Akeem.

* Commits one less foul per game than Akeem.

I do not think I can stress how important this is to winning basketball games.

That one extra foul on Akeem will send him to the pines if he already has 1 foul in the first quarter, 2 fouls in the second, or 3 fouls in the third quarter. It will cripple the Rockets if he fouls out or gets the foul in OT.

On the other hand....

That one extra foul that Duncan draws may send his defender to the pines, or cripple the team in crunch time.

I vote for Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

FOULS: Duncan vs Akeem;

I already showed above, that on the average...

* Duncan draws one more foul per game than Akeem.

* Commits one less foul per game than Akeem.

I do not think I can stress how important this is to winning basketball games.

That one extra foul on Akeem will send him to the pines if he already has 1 foul in the first quarter, 2 fouls in the second, or 3 fouls in the third quarter. It will cripple the Rockets if he fouls out or gets the foul in OT.

On the other hand....

That one extra foul that Duncan draws may send his defender to the pines, or cripple the team in crunch time.

I vote for Duncan.

Oh, really?

If that is true, why did Olajuwon log more minutes per game in his prime than Duncan did?

You're putting way too much emphasis on Fouls. I've never heard anyone use a Blocks/Fouls ratio until you did.

If you are more active defensively like Hakeem was (Hakeem impacted games defensively at the perimeter and in the post, unlike Duncan) you are probably going to committ more fouls.

You keep harping on this stat, but ignoring the blocks and steals stats.

When Hakeem can get you about a full 2.0 more combined blocks and steals than Duncan, that means he's taking away easy scoring opportunities for the opponents twice a game more than Duncan and it's very likely that these are becoming fastbreak opportunities for his team.

In reality, it's almost an 8 point swing to right off the bat get 2 more blocks/steals because most of the time you're taking 4 points away from the opponent and getting 4 for your team.

If the tradeoff for this drastically superior defensive thievery is one extra foul a game, dont kid yourself that every coach in the league would more than happily take it.

Also, bear in mind, during the time Duncan has been a Spur, he's either had David Robinson or Bruce Bowen guard the other team's most proflic scorer.

From 99-03, Robinson guarded Shaq, not Duncan

When the Mavs play the Spurs, Dirk is guarded by Bowen, not Duncan.

In Hakeem's prime, he guarded Shaq, Robinson, and Ewing mano y mano. He didnt have a HOF Center alongside him who could take the tougher matchup so he could draw a weaker matchup and thus make it easier for him to steer clear of foul trouble.

This is why everything must be looked at in context.

If you read this thread, not even the most pro-Duncan of the pro-Duncan crowd have said anything as ridiculous as Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Not even a comparison there...

[bobbyjoe]

How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth?



I already agree with you that the Rockets roleplayers outplayed the Spurs role players that series. However, Hakeem completely outplayed Robinson as well, and both players were doubled.



Anytime bro!!!! :spin

It's pretty obvious Olajuwon was extensively double teamed that series, given that he averaged 5.5 assists a game that series, nearly double his career average.

[Cry Havoc]

How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth?



I already agree with you that the Rockets roleplayers outplayed the Spurs role players that series. However, Hakeem completely outplayed Robinson as well, and both players were doubled.



Anytime bro!!!! :spin


I have a curiosity about this thread that no one has bothered to bring up.

Why on God's green Earth were the Rockets taking so many 3 pointers?

I mean, if you were a coach, and your team was a poor shooting 3 point team, would you tell them to keep leading the league in attempts?

Sounds like Rudy realized that he had a weapon beyond the arc. But maybe it was only an "average" weapon instead of a "great" one. :lol

[bobbyjoe]

For someone who takes so much pride in putting down others and saying others were illogical, you sure did find a way to show us how your logic works.
Just because the Rockets were great with shooting 3s doesn't mean that Hakeem wasn't great in the middle. It was said numerous times throughout this thread that the 3 pt making abilities of the Rockets were enhanced by the presence of Hakeem in the middle, and I have went on a number of times how the Rocket's offense was inside-out (ie: not outside-in). But it is a fact that Hakeem works best and benefitted with having great 3 pt shooters around him because it opens up the middle for him to operate. It is that simple. For a fan of the Rockets, you sure didn't know how your team benefitted from the 3 pt barrages.
If I say Warren Buffet made so much money because he works hard, it doesn't mean I am saying he is a dumbass idiot, you got that?



Once again, in 99, the Spurs were ranked 25/29 in the league in 3 pt %, while the Rockets in 94 and 95 were 15th and 14th. The % are the same, but the era certainly wasn't. So it is OK to compare hard exact numbers when it comes to 3pt%, but not when it is about titles won. Gotcha.



Such as you claiming different era whenever it suits you, but completely ignoring it when it refutes your points.

And why are you looking only at 99 and not years like 2005 and 2007?

Gee, I wonder why...

[Cry Havoc]

And why are you looking only at 99 and not years like 2005 and 2007?

Gee, I wonder why...

As was stated earlier in the thread (not accusing, I just realize this thread is insanely long), everyone agrees that in 05 and 07, Duncan has had much more assistance winning the title.

Even so, I have to wonder what the Spurs record would be without Duncan for a full season.

[Indazone]

Ok, you're standing on the playground. You are about to start a game of 3 on 3. The teams are set with two friends vs two friends with a choice between Hakeem or Duncan. Who do you pick to be on your team. $50,000 rides on the winner and first to 20 wins. Who's it gonna be?

[bobbyjoe]

I have a curiosity about this thread that no one has bothered to bring up.

Why on God's green Earth were the Rockets taking so many 3 pointers?

I mean, if you were a coach, and your team was a poor shooting 3 point team, would you tell them to keep leading the league in attempts?

Sounds like Rudy realized that he had a weapon beyond the arc. But maybe it was only an "average" weapon instead of a "great" one. :lol

Houston didn't have guys like Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker who could consistently beat wing players off the dribble and create shots.

Besides Hakeem, they didnt have many offensive weapons until Clyde Drexler was along. Teams like this usually jack more 3 pointers than they should.

And no one said the Rockets were "poor" 3 point shooters. Those are your words. What they were is an average 3 point shooting team who had a knack for hitting the key or clutch 3 pointer in the 4th Q and in the playoffs due to guys like Horry, Elie, and Cassell.

Regardless of what spin you use, you can't be considered great at something if you perform right at the league average at it in terms of efficiency.

Timely, yes. Great, no.

[Indazone]

They jacked up 3's under Rudy T because his offense consisted of Iso plays. When you ran out of time or you couldn't get the Iso, guess what..take the shot before the clock runs out. I always remember when Charles Barkley got the ball on the left block. Everyone else ran to the right side leaving Charles alone with his defender. Then he'd back his defender down with his big butt and throw up a prayer. He was sort of effective but I also thought it took the rest of the team out of it's offensive rhythm.

[bobbyjoe]

As was stated earlier in the thread (not accusing, I just realize this thread is insanely long), everyone agrees that in 05 and 07, Duncan has had much more assistance winning the title.

Even so, I have to wonder what the Spurs record would be without Duncan for a full season.

I would throw in 1999 as well, quite frankly.

2003 I will give you as a year where like Hakeem in 1994, it was basically a one man show with marginal help.

But in 1999, David Robinson was still a force in this league. I can only imagine how hard it would be to get any sort of basket inside the paint if you had 2 freaks like young Hakeem and a 99 DRob on the same team.

Robinson was still a great defender then and his D on Shaq was a huge reason why the Spurs played the Lakers tougher than any team in the NBA.

No, the Spurs didnt have the quality of shooting around Duncan and creators that they do now, but Sean Elliott and David Robinson alongside you in the frontcourt is still a lot of quality help.

Not to mention Jaren Jackson caught fire that postseason at the right time and did his best Reggie Miller impersonation for about 5-6 weeks. :)

Regardless, some here make it sound like Duncan has dragged teams which always had the supporting cast level of the 2003 team to title after title, which is simply a stretch.

[ambchang]

And why are you looking only at 99 and not years like 2005 and 2007?

Gee, I wonder why...

Because he said the same % or higher, and the year with the same % was 99.
That was compared with 94, the worse of the two championship seasons for the Rockets.
Does that answer your inquisitive mind?

[ambchang]

Ok, you're standing on the playground. You are about to start a game of 3 on 3. The teams are set with two friends vs two friends with a choice between Hakeem or Duncan. Who do you pick to be on your team. $50,000 rides on the winner and first to 20 wins. Who's it gonna be?

How about a game of 5 on 5, will millions of dollars at stake?

[mavs>spurs2]

the flip flop artist ambchang and galileo with his "jordan sucks" takes are really making this thread unreadable

[ambchang]

So basically you are saying Maggette is great at getting to the FT line and making FT's is an important part of his offense...yet completly ignoring his conversion rate in your analysis? So by the same definition, Shaq and Duncan are also great FT shooters in your opinion..they just don't convert at a reasonable rate?

Hmmm........
And I could argue that Manu is a better shooter than Kobe. Of course, I would also have to include where they took shots from, and the fact that Kobe shoots while being the #1 option while Manu doesn't. Unlike you, I like to look at the complete picture when analyzing data.
It probably would have resembled an argument if I haven't already addressed the fact that the opposition had a choice of intentionally fouling others to put them at the line because it hurts the team Duncan/Shaq was on due to their inability to convert, and then get the ball back, and if I have never addressed the fact that Duncan and Shaq were way below league leading % (probably in the 30 to 40% range) rather than a measily 3%, but that is your choice.

LOL at your complete picture comment. I mean, up to this point, you were the one ignoring the fact that the Rockets based their offense on 3 pt shooters around Hakeem, you were the one ignoring the fact that they lead the league in 3 pt shot and created a new breed of teams that utilizes an almost unstoppable inside-out offense, I was the one noting that the Rockets led the league in 3PM with a % that was only 3% less than the league leading team.

I am sure you were looking at the whole picture. So what constitutes as a great shooting team?

[ambchang]

I have a curiosity about this thread that no one has bothered to bring up.

Why on God's green Earth were the Rockets taking so many 3 pointers?

I mean, if you were a coach, and your team was a poor shooting 3 point team, would you tell them to keep leading the league in attempts?

Sounds like Rudy realized that he had a weapon beyond the arc. But maybe it was only an "average" weapon instead of a "great" one. :lol


I mean, why base this argument on simple logic, when Rudy T himself stated that 3 pters were a big part of their game.

Rudy T is such a suckass coach, he intentionally asked his team to bomb away because they suck at it! Hakeem basically carried the team to those two titles despite the poor supporting cast (I am not kidding, somebody actually stated this a few post back).

[Galileo]

Oh, really?

If that is true, why did Olajuwon log more minutes per game in his prime than Duncan did?

You're putting way too much emphasis on Fouls. I've never heard anyone use a Blocks/Fouls ratio until you did.

If you are more active defensively like Hakeem was (Hakeem impacted games defensively at the perimeter and in the post, unlike Duncan) you are probably going to committ more fouls.

You keep harping on this stat, but ignoring the blocks and steals stats.

When Hakeem can get you about a full 2.0 more combined blocks and steals than Duncan, that means he's taking away easy scoring opportunities for the opponents twice a game more than Duncan and it's very likely that these are becoming fastbreak opportunities for his team.

In reality, it's almost an 8 point swing to right off the bat get 2 more blocks/steals because most of the time you're taking 4 points away from the opponent and getting 4 for your team.

If the tradeoff for this drastically superior defensive thievery is one extra foul a game, dont kid yourself that every coach in the league would more than happily take it.

Also, bear in mind, during the time Duncan has been a Spur, he's either had David Robinson or Bruce Bowen guard the other team's most proflic scorer.

From 99-03, Robinson guarded Shaq, not Duncan

When the Mavs play the Spurs, Dirk is guarded by Bowen, not Duncan.

In Hakeem's prime, he guarded Shaq, Robinson, and Ewing mano y mano. He didnt have a HOF Center alongside him who could take the tougher matchup so he could draw a weaker matchup and thus make it easier for him to steer clear of foul trouble.

This is why everything must be looked at in context.

If you read this thread, not even the most pro-Duncan of the pro-Duncan crowd have said anything as ridiculous as Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Not even a comparison there...

Akeem averaged less than 37 minutes per game in each of his first 5 seasons.

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

Duncan averaged more than 38 minutes per game in each of his 6 first seasons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

* Well, you heard it hear first, Blocks to Fouls ratio.

Duncan is better than Akeem in blocks to fouls ratio. And Duncan is better at team defense as well. The Spurs have better defensive points stats and FG% defense than the Rockets. The Spurs have been in the top 5 in BOTH categories all 10 years Duncan has been in the league. Duncan won more first team All-defense awards than Akeem, and made the all-defense team more.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Duncan was defensive player of the year in '08, and he should have been voted this honor a long time ago.

Duncan also had 4 blocks in the first 17 minutes of game one of this year's NBA Finals, including one on Lebron. Basically, they had the series wrapped up in 1 1/2 quarters. Lebron was so intimidated, he did not make a field goal until well into the second half. This is what Duncan does on defense, he makes strategic blocks, just like Bill Russell.

* Robinson guarded Shaq, except in the 4th quarter, OT or when Robinson was in foul trouble, whenever the coach wanted to keep Shaq away from the basket, or the Spurs got behind. Hakeem had Sampson & Thorpe for help, just like Duncan had Robinson. Now Duncan has Oberto.

* Duncan does not guard Dirk because Dirk is a three point shooter, and it would be stupid to put you best defensive big man out on the perimeter.

Duncan guarding or not guarding someone has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with strategy.

Duncan is the most underated player of all time for one simple reason, he does not put up a huge scoring average.

Duncan got over the hype of scoring average a long long time ago, when he was 14 and led his team to an undefeated record (after losing every single game the previous year).

PS

The Celtics have never had the NBA scoring leader, yet have won 16 NBA titles.

[ambchang]

And no one said the Rockets were "poor" 3 point shooters. Those are your words. What they were is an average 3 point shooting team who had a knack for hitting the key or clutch 3 pointer in the 4th Q and in the playoffs due to guys like Horry, Elie, and Cassell.

Regardless of what spin you use, you can't be considered great at something if you perform right at the league average at it in terms of efficiency.

#1: Somebody, though not use, did use the term suckass to describe the Rocket's 3 point shooting. But that guy is a clown and can be ignored.
#2: Based on your definition, Iverson is not a great scorer, neither was Larry Bird or Michael Jordan, they were merely converting at slightly below 50% in their careers. In fact, in 1986, Bird was only 1.5% above league average and 14% off the league leader.

[ambchang]

the flip flop artist ambchang and galileo with his "jordan sucks" takes are really making this thread unreadable

Quote me, I challenge you to quote me, tell me when did I EVER said the Rockets were accurate.

Speaking of flipflopping was it you who said the Rockets sucked ass in 3 pt shooting? How did that come along? Tell me again how they "sucked ass".

[mavs>spurs2]

Quote me, I challenge you to quote me, tell me when did I EVER said the Rockets were accurate.

Speaking of flipflopping was it you who said the Rockets sucked ass in 3 pt shooting? How did that come along? Tell me again how they "sucked ass".

You didn't say the Rockets were accurate.

You said they were a great 3 point shooting team, then went on to say that they weren't accurate.

THOSE ARE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS YOU ARE CHALLENGED IF YOU CANT SEE THAT

[ambchang]

You didn't say the Rockets were accurate.

You said they were a great 3 point shooting team, then went on to say that they weren't accurate.

THOSE ARE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS YOU ARE CHALLENGED IF YOU CANT SEE THAT

Are you retarded? Can you read?

I said they were a great 3-point shooting team, and that I said I never said they were accurate. I never said they were inaccurate, that was YOU who said it.

I did say about 15 times that they were a great shooting team because they were #1 in 3PM AND were only 3% off of the #1 team in the league in terms of %.

I am having trouble dumbing down this any further. I am not sure how many times I can say the same thing over and over and over again.

I have a 16 month old nephew right beside me now, I am sure if I explain to him that me saying "Kid, I never said you do not stink.", he would not take it as me saying that he does stink.

[ambchang]

Oh, and quote me, and tell me how the Rockets sucked ass in 3p shooting.

[Cry Havoc]

You didn't say the Rockets were accurate.

You said they were a great 3 point shooting team, then went on to say that they weren't accurate.

THOSE ARE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS YOU ARE CHALLENGED IF YOU CANT SEE THAT

Not being ridiculously accurate does not equal sucking. I realize that your world is all whites and blacks. People talk about grey and you rant for 20 minutes about how light or dark it is. But that's ok. Keep on posting, at this point it's just hilarious.

[ambchang]

I also find it absolutely astounding why there were not any rebuttals to Rudy T's quote, where the coach himself said 3 pointers is a part of the system, where himself said this is a way they live, where all the players shoot some 3-pointers in practice.
I am positive he is integrating a part of the game where the Rockets were not good at as an integral part of their system. Gee, I wonder when will Popovich base the Spurs system around Duncan and Bowen shooting FTs, maybe then, the Spurs can finally win back-to-backs like the Rockets did.

[meta2007]

This should be discussed after Ducan retires. :blah

[ambchang]

Why not throw in a quote from Hakeem himself for good measure, since kingmalaki and bobbyjoe are so fond of quoting Horry and Elie about whether Duncan or Hakeem is better, despite Horry was quoted after playing one year with Duncan, and Elie only two during Duncan's early years.

Link (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19941995.html)


Yes, I agree, but I think it was because of this team, the style of play. We're playing team basketball, aggressive defense, hitting more outside shots which opened the floor and gave me more room to operate inside. And also, we played with more experience after what we had done last year.

Oh my! This can't be true, Hakeem himself actually said the outside shots opening the game up for him? How is this possible? They were only an average shooting team, how can one of the greatest inside player benefit from an average shooting team?

[Indazone]

I mean, why base this argument on simple logic, when Rudy T himself stated that 3 pters were a big part of their game.

Rudy T is such a suckass coach, he intentionally asked his team to bomb away because they suck at it! Hakeem basically carried the team to those two titles despite the poor supporting cast (I am not kidding, somebody actually stated this a few post back).


I been a Rocket follower for a long time...gotta agree with you on that one. But this is more evidence attributed to the greatness of Hakeem as he carried that team on his back.

[bobbyjoe]

It probably would have resembled an argument if I haven't already addressed the fact that the opposition had a choice of intentionally fouling others to put them at the line because it hurts the team Duncan/Shaq was on due to their inability to convert, and then get the ball back, and if I have never addressed the fact that Duncan and Shaq were way below league leading % (probably in the 30 to 40% range) rather than a measily 3%, but that is your choice.

LOL at your complete picture comment. I mean, up to this point, you were the one ignoring the fact that the Rockets based their offense on 3 pt shooters around Hakeem, you were the one ignoring the fact that they lead the league in 3 pt shot and created a new breed of teams that utilizes an almost unstoppable inside-out offense, I was the one noting that the Rockets led the league in 3PM with a % that was only 3% less than the league leading team.

I am sure you were looking at the whole picture. So what constitutes as a great shooting team?

As usual, you are being intentionally deceptive with the "only 3% less than the league leading team".

They were probably the same "only 3%" from being the least accurate team.

If a guy is averaging 4 blocks a game, it is true he is "only 1 block per game" higher than a guy averaging 3 blocks a game. However, it's also true and more relevant that he averages 33% more blocks (4 divided by 3) than the guy averaging 3 blocks a game.

Everything is relative.

The "only 3%" is misleading since the entire range of 3 pt shooting from the worst team to the best team was probably 6 or 7%.

I mean according to your logic every NFL team Marty Schottenheimer coached would by definition be the best running team in the league simply by virtue of the fact they tried the most.

As for your Allen Iverson comments, Iverson is by NBA standards a below average shooter. That's simply a fact. What he is is a great scorer. A guy who no matter where he is can create a shot attempt and get to the foul line.

There's a clear difference between being a great scorer (Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, etc) and a great shooter (Ray Allen, Brent Barry, etc).

Iverson wouldnt be in or win many shooting contests.

[bobbyjoe]

#1: Somebody, though not use, did use the term suckass to describe the Rocket's 3 point shooting. But that guy is a clown and can be ignored.
#2: Based on your definition, Iverson is not a great scorer, neither was Larry Bird or Michael Jordan, they were merely converting at slightly below 50% in their careers. In fact, in 1986, Bird was only 1.5% above league average and 14% off the league leader.

It's pretty incredulous you've gone a long tirade requesting for you not to be misquoted and then you completely misapply the points I've been trying to make.

First off, I dont know who said the Rockets 3 point shooting was suckass.

My definition had to with a "great shooter" and not a "great scorer".
You can absolutely not be a "Great shooter" and shoot a lower % than a standard benchmark for whatever league you are in.

However, you can be a "great scorer" and still have a low %. See Kobe, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady. You're completely twisting things by implying the definition of great shooting extends to "great scorer"

Besides Kenny Smith, the Rockets didnt have any great shooters. Smith was amongst the league's best as evidenced by his multiple trips to the 3 pt shooting contest.

You did notice in the 3 point contest btw that it's not the person who attempts the most 3's, but the one who makes them, that wins right?

Besides Smith, you had a bunch of guys like Maxwell, Elie, Cassell, and Horry who weren't great shooters but were unbelievably clutch. But were they great shooters? No. Not individually, and not collectively either.

The fact that Houston had several guys who could shoot at a respectable % did help spread the floor for Olajuwon, no doubt. But to say they were a great shooting team when they were 14th and 15th %wise in a 28 team league is not true.

[bobbyjoe]

Why not throw in a quote from Hakeem himself for good measure, since kingmalaki and bobbyjoe are so fond of quoting Horry and Elie about whether Duncan or Hakeem is better, despite Horry was quoted after playing one year with Duncan, and Elie only two during Duncan's early years.

Link (http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19941995.html)



Oh my! This can't be true, Hakeem himself actually said the outside shots opening the game up for him? How is this possible? They were only an average shooting team, how can one of the greatest inside player benefit from an average shooting team?

You do realize this quote is about one Finals series right? Not about an entire season or consecutive number or seasons.

I dont think anyone denies that Houston had some playoff series here and there, esp in 94 and 95, where they shot lights out from 3.

But the discussion is about years and careers, not one series, which is what the quote you pulled was in regards to.

[Phenomanul]

It's pretty obvious Olajuwon was extensively double teamed that series, given that he averaged 5.5 assists a game that series, nearly double his career average.

You're missing the point of the defensive strategy...

The point about being double teamed is not whether the opposing team throws one at you or not - that was never in question. At some point in every game most forwards or centers will face a double team of some kind. It's whether you have to fight through them to score - all dependent on whether or not the shooters are making their shots to open up the inside game for the pivots.

Once San Antonio's shooters failed to find any consistency whatsoever in that series Robinson's options dwindled, and the pressure to overcome his double and triple teams fell squarely on his shoulders. Hakeem knew that the moment anyone lagged off of one of his teammates that he could still rely on them. That kept SA's defense guessing and relieved Hakeem from having to force things whenever he was doubled. Oviously, this gave Houston's offense a significant advantage over San Antonio's.

Robinson's demise in that series was greatly exaggerated in light of this strategy. It's a shame that the casual fan will throw that one 'Dream Shake' highlight out as reason to suggest that Olajuwon dominated Robinson. I remember a game in Robinson's rookie year where he blocked 4 consecutive shot attempts by Olajuwon - all on the same trip down the floor no less. Since no Youtube clip of that event exists however, history has all but forgotten that Robinson was just as versatile as 'The Dream'.... I'm glad someone started putting some of Robinson's pre-injury highlights on Youtube. Robinson was the fastest seven footer I've ever seen - with or without the ball.

In recap, Houston beat San Antonio... So although Olajuwon played out of his mind; he did not singlehandedly destroy Robinson or the Spurs - i.e. the Rockets beat the Spurs... And again, Rodman's crazy implosion vastly helped the Rockets accomplish that feat.

[bobbyjoe]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Olajuwon did dominate Robinson.

I do agree with you that it's a shame Robinson receives so much scrutiny for that series but not for the reason you suggest (shooters, double teams, etc). That series was more about Olajuwon playing ridiculous than Robinson playing poorly. DRob was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the way Hakeem was playing, no one would have stopped him.

However, one key thing I think u are ignoring about the double teams is the individual styles of the 2 players.

DRob's pet move was the face up at the wing or baseline and take a slower Center off the dribble to get to the hoop. Moves like this are pretty easy to double team by clogging the paint.

However, Hakeem's petmove was to receive the ball from the post-entry passer, spin to the baseline and launch a fadeaway. This is a shot that double teaming is simply useless against and I suspect that is one of the reasons Hakeem developed it. If the guy guarding the post-entry passer drops down as soon as the ball is dumped inside, Hakeem was so quick and tall that the double teamer just doesn't affect his shot.

This go to move is one of the key things that separated Olajuwon from Robinson careerwise. Having a go-to move like that is just invaluable and sets the table to get your outside shooters wide open looks.

And while I hear your point about the Youtube highligts (I'm sure you're sick of seeing them), the playoffs and the regular season are just too different.

I do remember in Akeem's early years DRob gave him a LOT of trouble. In fact, it seemed both gave each other trouble and neither would have good offensive games against the other for a long time.

However, in 93 when Hakeem entered his 4 yr peak of all-world, top 5 of all time time of play, he was just too much for DRob.

[bobbyjoe]

You're missing the point of the defensive strategy...

The point about being double teamed is not whether the opposing team throws one at you or not - that was never in question. At some point in every game most forwards or centers will face a double team of some kind. It's whether you have to fight through them to score - all dependent on whether or not the shooters are making their shots to open up the inside game for the pivots.

Once San Antonio's shooters failed to find any consistency whatsoever in that series Robinson's options dwindled, and the pressure to overcome his double and triple teams fell squarely on his shoulders. Hakeem knew that the moment anyone lagged off of one of his teammates that he could still rely on them. That kept SA's defense guessing and relieved Hakeem from having to force things whenever he was doubled. Oviously, this gave Houston's offense a significant advantage over San Antonio's.

Robinson's demise in that series was greatly exaggerated in light of this strategy. It's a shame that the casual fan will throw that one 'Dream Shake' highlight out as reason to suggest that Olajuwon dominated Robinson. I remember a game in Robinson's rookie year where he blocked 4 consecutive shot attempts by Olajuwon - all on the same trip down the floor no less. Since no Youtube clip of that event exists however, history has all but forgotten that Robinson was just as versatile as 'The Dream'.... I'm glad someone started putting some of Robinson's pre-injury highlights on Youtube. Robinson was the fast seven footer I've ever seen - with or without the ball.

in recap, Houston beat San Antonio... So although Olajuwon played out of his mind; he did not singlehandedly destroy Robinson or the Spurs - i.e. the Rockets beat the Spurs... And again, Rodman's crazy implosion vastly helped the Rockets accomplish that feat.

Let me ask you a question.

Supposing David Robinson and Tim Duncan had been reversed (i.e. it's Duncan drafted in 89 and DRob in 97), how many titles do you think David Robinson would have won with the exact same circumstances, teammates, and competition that Duncan was surrounded with from 97-now.

I'm not looking to flame here, just looking for an honest opinion from a fan who loved both players...

[Phenomanul]

Let me ask you a question.

Supposing David Robinson and Tim Duncan had been reversed (i.e. it's Duncan drafted in 89 and DRob in 97), how many titles do you think David Robinson would have won with the exact same circumstances, teammates, and competition that Duncan was surrounded with from 97-now.

I'm not looking to flame here, just looking for an honest opinion from a fan who loved both players...


It's hard to tell.... I don't know if it can be answered.

Robinson was more athletic and explosive than Duncan (a combination of Garnett's and Amare's best abilities). But Duncan has always had more of an inner drive. I believe it is that facet which has propelled him past his opposition and ever so slightly separated him from David...

Truth be told Robinson did more than his fair share to take that series against Houston to 6 games. Who knows what Duncan would have achieved under the same scenario.

Oddly enough both are very humble, and neither heavily sought the limelight.

Fortunately for Duncan however, he lives in a world where everyone can literally see him play... and winning never hurts your cause. Like I mentioned on an earlier post; a disproportionate number of people who discredit Robinson never even saw his game prior to his injuries.

[Phenomanul]

Conversely, I believe D'Rob would have bested Shaq at his prime.... even during Shaq's suppossed 'most dominant ever' years.

[TheAuthority]

Decide for yourselves then

Hakeem Olajuwan

[edit] Accolades
2x NBA champion (1994, '95)
2x NBA Finals MVP (1994, '95)
1x NBA MVP (1994)
2x Defensive Player of Year (1993, '94)
6x All-NBA First Team (1987, '88, '89, '93, '94, '97)
3x All-NBA Second Team ('86, '90, '96)
3x All-NBA Third Team (1991, '95, '99)
5x All-Defensive First Team ('87, '88, '90, '93, '94)
12x All-Star
Olympic gold medalist (1996)
Named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996).
Only player in NBA history to have won MVP, Finals MVP and Defensive Player of the Year awards in the same season (1994).[21]
One of the 4 players in NBA history to have ever recorded a quadruple-double.[3]
Olajuwon also won the rebounding and blocked shots titles in 1989-90, becoming the third player ever (after Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton) to lead the league in both categories during the same season.[29]
All-time leader in blocked shots. (note: the NBA did not keep statistics for blocked shots until the 1973-74 season)
Olajuwon is also in the top ten in blocks, scoring, rebounding, and steals. He is the only player in NBA history placed in the top ten for all four categories.
All-time NBA Playoffs leader in total blocks with 472 and blocks per game with 3.3 per game.[44][45]
Olajuwon ranks 7th all-time in steals and is by far the highest ranked center. (note that steals were not recorded until the 1973-74 season)[46]
In 1989, Olajuwon had 282 blocks and 218 steals, becoming the only NBA player to record over 200 blocks and 200 steals in a season. [18]
Olajuwon is one of few players to record more than 200 blocks and 100 steals in a season. As the all-time leader in this feat, he did it for 11 seasons (consecutively from the 1985-86 season to the 1995-96 season). The next closest is David Robinson, who did it for 7 seasons.[47][48]

Tim Duncan
In his career, the two-time MVP (2002, 2003), four-time NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and three-time NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005) Duncan has collected a number of individual and team honours. As a college player, he was named ACC Male Athlete of the Year, won the John R. Wooden Award and was named Naismith College Player of the Year (all 1997).[7] In his debut year in the NBA (1998), he was voted Rookie of the Year and elected into the All-NBA Rookie Team, made the first of nine NBA All-Star Teams (eight First Team nominations), ten All-NBA Teams (nine First Team nominations), and ten All-Defensive Teams (seven First Team nominations).[3] With these impressive performances, Duncan is one of only four players to receive All-NBA First Team honors in each of his first eight seasons (1998-2005), along with Hall of Famers Bob Pettit (ten seasons), Larry Bird (nine seasons), and Oscar Robertson (nine seasons), and is notably the only player in NBA history to receive All-NBA and All-Defensive honors in his first nine seasons (1998-2006).[36]

Duncan was also named by the Association for Professional Basketball Research as one of "100 Greatest Professional Basketball Players of The 20th Century", being the youngest player on that list.[37] In the 2001-02 season, he won the IBM Player Award[38] and The Sporting News (TSN) MVP Award,[39] becoming the third player to ever win the NBA MVP, IBM Player and TSN Player Awards in the same season. In 2003, Duncan was ranked 55th by Slam Magazine in their list of the "Top 75 NBA players of All Time". On February 18, 2006, he was named one of the Next 10 Greatest Players on the tenth anniversary of the release of the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team by the TNT broadcasting crew.[40]

So basically what this says is Duncan has more of everything that matters. Titles, MVPs, Finals MVPs.

[ambchang]

As usual, you are being intentionally deceptive with the "only 3% less than the league leading team".

They were probably the same "only 3%" from being the least accurate team.

If a guy is averaging 4 blocks a game, it is true he is "only 1 block per game" higher than a guy averaging 3 blocks a game. However, it's also true and more relevant that he averages 33% more blocks (4 divided by 3) than the guy averaging 3 blocks a game.

Everything is relative.

The "only 3%" is misleading since the entire range of 3 pt shooting from the worst team to the best team was probably 6 or 7%.

So given the narrow band of deviation, is 3pt % really that important in the scheme of things? The Rockets shot 1757 3 pters that year, if they were to make it at the rate of the top shooting team that year (the Hornets) of 39.7%, the Rockets would score a whopping 1.9 more points a game, when they were scoring 103.5 points a game for the season, I am sure that would give you ulcers.

Besides, we are talking about a 3% difference between 36% and 39%, that is hardly a 1/3 difference now is it? I am not comfortable with doing percentages of percentage difference, but that is a 1/12 difference.

On the other hand, they were 10.6% above the team with the 2nd most 3PM, and 43.5% over league average. You want relative numbers? Here you go, tell me now relatively average they were at 3 pt shooting.


I mean according to your logic every NFL team Marty Schottenheimer coached would by definition be the best running team in the league simply by virtue of the fact they tried the most.

I am not familiar with football.


As for your Allen Iverson comments, Iverson is by NBA standards a below average shooter. That's simply a fact. What he is is a great scorer. A guy who no matter where he is can create a shot attempt and get to the foul line.

There's a clear difference between being a great scorer (Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, etc) and a great shooter (Ray Allen, Brent Barry, etc).

Iverson wouldnt be in or win many shooting contests.

Yeah, but he is not an efficient scorer, so by your definition, he would not be a great scorer because he is not efficient at it.

[ambchang]

It's pretty incredulous you've gone a long tirade requesting for you not to be misquoted and then you completely misapply the points I've been trying to make.

First off, I dont know who said the Rockets 3 point shooting was suckass.

My definition had to with a "great shooter" and not a "great scorer".
You can absolutely not be a "Great shooter" and shoot a lower % than a standard benchmark for whatever league you are in.

However, you can be a "great scorer" and still have a low %. See Kobe, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady. You're completely twisting things by implying the definition of great shooting extends to "great scorer"

Besides Kenny Smith, the Rockets didnt have any great shooters. Smith was amongst the league's best as evidenced by his multiple trips to the 3 pt shooting contest.

You did notice in the 3 point contest btw that it's not the person who attempts the most 3's, but the one who makes them, that wins right?

Besides Smith, you had a bunch of guys like Maxwell, Elie, Cassell, and Horry who weren't great shooters but were unbelievably clutch. But were they great shooters? No. Not individually, and not collectively either.

The fact that Houston had several guys who could shoot at a respectable % did help spread the floor for Olajuwon, no doubt. But to say they were a great shooting team when they were 14th and 15th %wise in a 28 team league is not true.

The next time any team shoot three pointers the way they shoot it in a 3 pt contest to determine a winner, please let me know.

So you are saying that Hakeem relied on an average shooting team? He said it.

[ambchang]

You do realize this quote is about one Finals series right? Not about an entire season or consecutive number or seasons.

I dont think anyone denies that Houston had some playoff series here and there, esp in 94 and 95, where they shot lights out from 3.

But the discussion is about years and careers, not one series, which is what the quote you pulled was in regards to.

Only problem was that Hakeem was referring to the whole playoffs, not just that one series. See the sentence above:


Asked whether the playoffs represented the best basketball of his career, Olajuwon typically turned the focus away from himself and onto his team.

[Galileo]

The Horry factor

Don't forget that the Robert Horry Duncan has is an old, low scoring dude who can hit a clutch three once in a while and play credible defense.

For Akeem, Horry played like an NBA All-star in the '95 Finals, and continued that into 1996, until he was slowed by an injury that he never fully recovered from.

[polandprzem]

Tim is top 3 greatest leaders in history of the NBA.

Specific dominance is a quiet one and stable one. Who needs a high peek, when you can win on and on again. Tim was always giving his team a chance to win a title he was always a contender. Hakeem wasn't no matter the fact about teammates.

Btw amchang killed everybody with those articles about treys.
Plain and simple watch the Houston to see how much they depended on 3 pointers. Plus Duncan in more active on offense. (prove me wrong)

When you want disscuss about history. Akwnowledge it first. Take a big picture and take a look from different angels.
Can't compare eras by stats the players were making.

Stats are almost always lieing and everybody should know it.
F the stats cause they won't tell you how the game is played.

[Galileo]

We all know that when players go from bad teams to good teams, their scoring average goes down.

Duncan's teams won 58 games per season

Hakeem's teams won 48 games per season

So if you adjust, using Galileo's ratio, you get:

Duncan 20 points per game = Hakeem 24.2 points per game

Duncan 25 points per game = Hakeem 30.2 points per game

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE]Tim is top 3 greatest leaders in history of the NBA.

I'd put him top 5, but definitely ahead of Hakeem. No slight on Dream. He was huge.


Specific dominance is a quiet one and stable one. Who needs a high peek, when you can win on and on again. Tim was always giving his team a chance to win a title he was always a contender. Hakeem wasn't no matter the fact about teammates.
Ever since Tim first came into the league, and this was including his rookie season and even at times during the Laker 3peat, but I've always felt that the Spurs were in it. They have never gone into a finals series where I've felt that they Spurs weren't destined to win it all. That's what having the Big Fundamental play on your team does.



Btw amchang killed everybody with those articles about treys.
Plain and simple watch the Houston to see how much they depended on 3 pointers. Plus Duncan in more active on offense. (prove me wrong)


Both Chuck Norris and Bill Brasky now officially check under their beds looking for amchang.



When you want disscuss about history. Akwnowledge it first. Take a big picture and take a look from different angels.
Can't compare eras by stats the players were making.

That would be the second greatest trick ever pulled.


Stats are almost always lieing and everybody should know it.
F the stats cause they won't tell you how the game is played.


I agree stats can deceive. They can be skillfully and convincingly twisted, manipulated and distorted to suit an argument. We all know the drill.
Take 4 (& counting) > 2 and twist it any way you want and in the end you still have 4 (& countin) > 2. I'm more then happy that I've gotten a chance to be part of the Tim Duncan experience and I and probably 99.5% of Spurs fans wouldn't trade him for any other big man in recent history.

I'm out, and thus I won't be posting any more on the greatest thread never known.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

We all know that when players go from bad teams to good teams, their scoring average goes down.

Duncan's teams won 58 games per season

Hakeem's teams won 48 games per season

So if you adjust, using Galileo's ratio, you get:

Duncan 20 points per game = Hakeem 24.2 points per game

Duncan 25 points per game = Hakeem 30.2 points per game

Meant to tell you earlier, you brought some great info to this thread, nice job.

[Galileo]

Meant to tell you earlier, you brought some great info to this thread, nice job.

Thank you.

It was my lucky break because I have watched almost every televised game that Hakeem and Duncan played in, in their primes, as they have been my favorite players.

[Galileo]

Duncan's assendancy....

Each of Duncan's 4 titles moved him up a major notch in the pantheon of all time greats:

# 1 - Duncan had just turned 23, and literally dominated during the end of season and playoffs. The Spurs started that season 6-8, but finished 31-5 in the regular season + 15-2 in the playoffs, for a finish of 46-7, one of the best of all time. [maybe the best over the last 53 games of an NBA champ, can anyone find better?]

# 2 - The Spurs, with Duncan & role players, overcame the 3 time champion Shaq/Kobe/Jackson Lakers. Duncan almost had a quadruple double in the Finals. He held Kenyon Martin to something like 3-22 from the floor in the last game.

# 3 - Tim won it all without David Robinson.

# 4 - Tim won it all without David Robinson again.

# 5 - Tim proves he can win back to back?

[bobbyjoe]

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/362971-hakeem-vs-duncan.html

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/365187-2-questions-regarding-hakeem-duncan.html

This is for AmbChang who dismissed the other general nba fan forum threads because he thought people were just voting and not giving solid reasons or arguments.

The opinions of both the pro-Duncan and pro-Hakeem in this thread are pretty well presented and compelling, regardless of which side you lean towards.

[ambchang]

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/362971-hakeem-vs-duncan.html

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/365187-2-questions-regarding-hakeem-duncan.html

This is for AmbChang who dismissed the other general nba fan forum threads because he thought people were just voting and not giving solid reasons or arguments.

The opinions of both the pro-Duncan and pro-Hakeem in this thread are pretty well presented and compelling, regardless of which side you lean towards.

The arguments are certainly much more laid out that the previous two threads you posted, and I think they are very valid arguments, and not surprisingly, most of the arguments that were listed in this thread.

And once again (I probably said it 3 times already), on a game of one one one, I will pick Hakeem, every day of the week. He was simply a better defender, and his moves down low was sick. I think Duncan has a better jumper out to 18, but Hakeem was too quick for Duncan to guard.
On the other hand, Duncan's defense (especially man to man) was nothing close to Hakeem, Hakeem was a force, and of all the players I saw, only David Robinson was better on defense (yes, i am a Spurs fan).

However, to start a franchise, I will pick Duncan 7 times out of 10, maybe 6.
The reason is because Hakeem is very dominant of the ball on offense, and his passing skills are not as polished as Duncan. He was great with 3 point shooters around him, and was fantastic drawing double teams and kicking it out for a 3 point shot, but either because of lack of ability from teammates, coaching or otherwise, he couldn't pass to cutters as well as (See Drexler vs. Manu/Parker), nor could he pass to another low post scorer (see Thorpe) as well as Duncan could (see Oberto, Robinson, even Nazr).

On defense, Duncan is a very smart defender, he fouls less, rarely leaves his feet, and covers his teammates as well as Hakeem. It is just easier to build around Duncan You can have the 99 team, the 03 team, or the 05/07 team (I think those two teams were very similar, just that the 07 team was better). The 94 and 95 Rockets team, other than Thorpe and Drexler, were essentially the same. And both of them were Hakeem and a bunch of 3 point shooters.

[ambchang]

Rocket backed up by Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry, and John Starks :lol
Maybe he meant how Starks shot the Knicks out of game 7.

[Galileo]

Duncan vs Shaq

In the post-Jordan era, only two players can claim to be the best, Duncan and Shaq.

Shaq's only claim over Duncan is that he beat the Spurs in '01 and '02.

Let's take a look at all their playoff matchups. If Duncan > Shaq, then Duncan > Akeem:

1999

Spurs win 4-0

Duncan per game

29 points, 10.8 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 2 blocks, 4 fouls, 11.8 free throw attempts

51% FG, 81% FT

Shaq

23.8 points, 13 rebounds, 0.5 assists, 1.8 blocks, 4.3 fouls, 15.3 free throw attempts

49% FG, 48% FT

2001

Lakers win 4-0

Duncan

23 points 12.3 rebounds, 4.3 assists, 4.3 blocks, 4 fouls, 9.3 free throw attempts

48% FG, 62% FT

Shaq

29.3 points, 13 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.3 blocks, 3 fouls, 7.8 free throw attempts

54% FG, 58% FT

2002

Lakers win 4-1

Duncan

29 points, 17.2 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 3.2 blocks, 3.4 fouls, 12.4 free throw attempts

42% FG, 77% FT

Shaq

21.4 points, 12.2 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 3 blocks, 3.6 fouls, 7.2 free throw attempts

45% FG, 64% FT

2003

Spurs win 4-2

Duncan

28 points, 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 1.3 blocks, 3.5 fouls, 9.5 free throw attempts

53% FG, 75% FT

Shaq

25.3 points, 14.3 rebounds, 3.7 assists, 2.8 blocks, 3.3 fouls, 10 free throw attempts

56% FG, 63% FT

2004

Lakers win 4-2

Duncan

20.7 points, 12.2 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 1.7 blocks, 3.5 fouls, 9.5 free throw attempts

47% FG, 67% FT

Shaq

22.5 points, 14.5 rebounds, 2 assists, 4.3 blocks, 4 fouls, 10.3 free throw attempts

64% FG, 44% FT

Summary

Duncan

25.8 points, 12.9 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 2.4 blocks, 3.6 fouls, 10.4 free throw attempts

48% FG, 73% FT

Shaq

24.2 points, 13.5 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 2.8 blocks, 3.6 fouls, 10 free throw attempts

54% FG, 54% FT

WINS

Duncan 11 >>> 44%
Shaq 14 >>> 56%

Series wins leading to NBA Title

Duncan 2
Shaq 2

Other teams beating Duncan in NBA playoffs, besides Lakers:

'98 Jazz, '06 Mavs

Other teams beating Shaq in NBA playoffs, besides Spurs:

'94 Pacers, '95 Rockets, '96 Bulls, '97 Jazz, '98 Jazz, '04 Pistons, '05 Pistons, '07 Bulls

[Shaq's team didn't make the playoffs in '93]

I fail to see how either player has much of an advantage over the other in their head-to-head matchups.

So given that only two other teams have defeated Duncan in the playoffs, compared to 8 other teams that have beaten down Shaq, I rank Duncan> Shaq.

[bobbyjoe]

Head to Head playoff series:

Shaq 3 > Duncan 2

Duncan was also guarded by J.R. Reid and Robert Horry in these matchups where Shaq had to contend with David Robinson and Tim Duncan

Edge: Shaq

You left off the 2004 playoff series (by inserting the tally of series wins leading to a playoff title, as if it didnt matter who won if the winner didnt take it all) obviously because the Spurs and Duncan lost it. Unfortunately it did happen and your post stating let's look at "all their playoff matchups" somehow tried to spin around the final tally of 3>2.

You cant have it both ways. If you want to say Hakeem< Duncan because 2<4, then Duncan will always <<< Shaq because Shaq won the majority of the head to head playoff matchups, even when he was guarded by a HOF Center in David Robinson where Duncan had creampuff matchups relatively speaking like a skinny Robert Horry, washed up Horace Grant, J.R. Reid, and a 40 year old Karl Malone.

[mystargtr34]

Or you could say Duncan has 4 Rings as the man while Shaq has 3?

[barbacoataco]

Shaq also had Kobe Bryant on those teams. The way I remember it Kobe was the one hitting the 4th quarter daggers. The 2001-2002 Spurs did not have Manu Ginobili. Duncan has 4 rings, and Shaq has 4 rings, so they are equal in accomplishments. Shaq was a maybe a little more dominant in his best 2-3 seasons, but he was allowed to play in a way that many fans consider unfair. Also, Duncan has never been accused of being a cancer, and Shaq has.

[mavs>spurs2]

Shaq also had Kobe Bryant on those teams. The way I remember it Kobe was the one hitting the 4th quarter daggers. The 2001-2002 Spurs did not have Manu Ginobili. Duncan has 4 rings, and Shaq has 4 rings, so they are equal in accomplishments. Shaq was a maybe a little more dominant in his best 2-3 seasons, but he was allowed to play in a way that many fans consider unfair. Also, Duncan has never been accused of being a cancer, and Shaq has.

:wtf

[barbacoataco]

One of the things about Duncan that is different from other elite players is that he DOES NOT PLAY FOR STATISTICS. Most top tier players always play with an eye on their stats, especially those that are in contention for leading the NBA in scoring. Tim Duncan is not concerned with those things. He doesn't jack up a few more shots in the 4th quarter of a meaningless game just to pad his stats. I think you have to take that into account when comparing scoring averages. If Duncan really wanted to average 27-28 ppg he could. His FG average would go down a little, and the Spurs as a team would suffer, but he could do it.

[polandprzem]

Duncan was also guarded by J.R. Reid and Robert Horry in these matchups where Shaq had to contend with David Robinson and Tim Duncan

So who had to face Duncan Reid, Horry or Shaq?
Or all of them?

Shaq is lazy on defense, that's for one.
You could play p&r against him and you was succesfull beating him (not team)

[Galileo]

Head to Head playoff series:

Shaq 3 > Duncan 2

Duncan was also guarded by J.R. Reid and Robert Horry in these matchups where Shaq had to contend with David Robinson and Tim Duncan

Edge: Shaq

You left off the 2004 playoff series (by inserting the tally of series wins leading to a playoff title, as if it didnt matter who won if the winner didnt take it all) obviously because the Spurs and Duncan lost it. Unfortunately it did happen and your post stating let's look at "all their playoff matchups" somehow tried to spin around the final tally of 3>2.

You cant have it both ways. If you want to say Hakeem< Duncan because 2<4, then Duncan will always <<< Shaq because Shaq won the majority of the head to head playoff matchups, even when he was guarded by a HOF Center in David Robinson where Duncan had creampuff matchups relatively speaking like a skinny Robert Horry, washed up Horace Grant, J.R. Reid, and a 40 year old Karl Malone.

* Duncan gets double teamed all the time, just like Shaq. And Duncan is better at passing out of the double team.

* Duncan has way better assist numbers than Shaq.

* The 2004 stats ARE listed, I didn't forget about it.

* Duncan had a superstar teammate in '99, while Shaq had a superstar teammate in '01, '02, '03, and '04. So it should have 4-1 Shaq if they were equal players.

* Duncan outplayed Shaq in the '02 series.

* Duncan went to the line more than Shaq in their head to head matchups, which is supposed to be the advantage for the "dominating" Shaq.

* Duncan raised his scoring vs Shaq, while Shaq's scoring went down. Duncan outscored Shaq. And scoring is supposed to be Shaq's specialty.

* Duncan true FG% (combining FG & FTs) is 56% in their combined matchups, to 54% for Shaq.

* Duncan shot 73% from the line, which is supposed to be his biggest weakness.

* Shaq is dominating against average defense. But Duncan has figured out if you can keep Shaq away from the basket, he is not dominating. The fact is, Shaq was NOT dominating against the Spurs, even in their championship heydays of yesteryear and yore. Meanwhile, Duncan dominance extends beyond the numbers.

[kingmalaki]

* Duncan gets double teamed all the time, just like Shaq. And Duncan is better at passing out of the double team.

* Duncan has way better assist numbers than Shaq.

* The 2004 stats ARE listed, I didn't forget about it.

* Duncan had a superstar teammate in '99, while Shaq had a superstar teammate in '01, '02, '03, and '04. So it should have 4-1 Shaq if they were equal players.

* Duncan outplayed Shaq in the '02 series.

* Duncan went to the line more than Shaq in their head to head matchups, which is supposed to be the advantage for the "dominating" Shaq.

* Duncan raised his scoring vs Shaq, while Shaq's scoring went down. Duncan outscored Shaq. And scoring is supposed to be Shaq's specialty.

* Duncan true FG% (combining FG & FTs) is 56% in their combined matchups, to 54% for Shaq.

* Duncan shot 73% from the line, which is supposed to be his biggest weakness.

* Shaq is dominating against average defense. But Duncan has figured out if you can keep Shaq away from the basket, he is not dominating. The fact is, Shaq was NOT dominating against the Spurs, even in their championship heydays of yesteryear and yore. Meanwhile, Duncan dominance extends beyond the numbers.


Duncan was being held by the likes of Robert Horry. Shaq had to contend with David Robinson and Duncan helping weakside (which contributed to Kobe getting off because at that time you couldn't not have a body on Shaq). The two situations really aren't the same. kobe was the difference in those series but he was able to have such an impact due to Shaq's precense.

[Phenomanul]

Duncan was being held by the likes of Robert Horry. Shaq had to contend with David Robinson and Duncan helping weakside (which contributed to Kobe getting off because at that time you couldn't not have a body on Shaq). The two situations really aren't the same. kobe was the difference in those series but he was able to have such an impact due to Shaq's precense.


You mean the David Robinson that had a floating particle in his back during the '01 Series? The one who had lapses during the playoffs where he would lose all sensation in his legs? That Robinson?

Robinson at less than 50% was easier to abuse than the one Shaq faced in 1999; where ultimately Shaq was taken to school and swept yet again.

[kingmalaki]

You mean the David Robinson that had a floating particle in his back during the '01 Series? The one who had lapses during the playoffs where he would lose all sensation in his legs? That Robinson?

Robinson at less than 50% was easier to abuse than the one Shaq faced in 1999; where ultimately Shaq was taken to school and swept yet again.

The one that played solid D on Shaq in every LA/SA series so Duncan didn't have to do it. No one can stop Shaq but David made him work for his points, and there is a difference between working on one 7 footer with another helping weakside, as opposed to just working on 1. Let's not discount the Admiral's roles on those title teams. You don't beat LA without him.

And if you are saying Robinson was not fully healthy in the 01 postseason..you lost that year, right?

[Cry Havoc]

The one that played solid D on Shaq in every LA/SA series so Duncan didn't have to do it. No one can stop Shaq but David made him work for his points, and there is a difference between working on one 7 footer with another helping weakside, as opposed to just working on 1. Let's not discount the Admiral's roles on those title teams. You don't beat LA without him.

And if you are saying Robinson was not fully healthy in the 01 postseason..you lost that year, right?

I think that was the point. Robinson was good enough that even when not totally healthy (though I'm pretty sure he was over 50% for the 99 season) he was still a force.

Robinson in his prime would have given Shaq fits all over the place. Hell, you could set an ISO for D-rob and let everyone clear the court. Shaq wouldn't stand a chance.

Just a thought.... my goodness, imagine David in his prime on the Suns team. Not that it matters, but it's fun to think about. I wonder if he could outrun Marion up the floor.

[Phenomanul]

I think that was the point. Robinson was good enough that even when not totally healthy (though I'm pretty sure he was over 50% for the 99 season) he was still a force.

Yes he was healthier in '99.... and what was the outcome? Spurs 4 - Lakers 0.



Robinson in his prime would have given Shaq fits all over the place. Hell, you could set an ISO for D-rob and let everyone clear the court. Shaq wouldn't stand a chance.

Robinson's Head to Head vs. Shaq before his injury in '97 was 8 to 2 or something as lopsided as that. Robinson was also one steal or a block (can't remember which) from recording a quadruple double against Shaq. It's pretty clear to me that Robinson in his prime, did if fact own Shaq.



Just a thought.... my goodness, imagine David in his prime on the Suns team. Not that it matters, but it's fun to think about. I wonder if he could outrun Marion up the floor.

I would venture to say yes.... first day of training camp from 1990-1995 Robinson was always the fastest on the court....

[syrus]

I read most of the arguments in this topic and I have to dispute some things regarding Hakeem. Some of the pro-Hakeem supporters act like he guarded the likes of Robinson and Shaq in their playoff battles. Um, no he didn't. The Rockets doubled both DRob and Shaq in both series. In that 7-game series versus the Knicks, Hakeem outscored Ewing in every game but he was only better than Patrick in Games 6 & 7. Pat outrebounded and blocked more shots inthe series. If Starks makes that 3-pointer in Game 6, folks wouldn't be talking about Hakeem the way that they do now. And someone brings up Hakeem beating the Lakers in the '86. Well, he certainly didn't beat up Boston in the Finals that same year. And yeah, everyone brings up the fact that Hakeem beat Ewing, DRob and Shaq but Shaq also beat Hakeem, DRob and Duncan.

Hakeem was a great player but I wouldn't say he's miles ahead of Duncan. Defensively, as good as Hakeem was, he's also in the Top 10 All-Time with personal fouls.

[remingtonbo2001]

I wish I could've seen D-Rob and Timmy play together in their primes.
Chicago wouldn't have won 6 championships, nor would the Rockets have gotten 2.
It would've rivaled the Boston Dynasties. Okay, maybe I'm exagerrating a little.

[Matchman]

I read most of the arguments in this topic and I have to dispute some things regarding Hakeem. Some of the pro-Hakeem supporters act like he guarded the likes of Robinson and Shaq in their playoff battles. Um, no he didn't. The Rockets doubled both DRob and Shaq in both series. In that 7-game series versus the Knicks, Hakeem outscored Ewing in every game but he was only better than Patrick in Games 6 & 7. Pat outrebounded and blocked more shots inthe series. If Starks makes that 3-pointer in Game 6, folks wouldn't be talking about Hakeem the way that they do now. And someone brings up Hakeem beating the Lakers in the '86. Well, he certainly didn't beat up Boston in the Finals that same year. And yeah, everyone brings up the fact that Hakeem beat Ewing, DRob and Shaq but Shaq also beat Hakeem, DRob and Duncan.

Hakeem was a great player but I wouldn't say he's miles ahead of Duncan. Defensively, as good as Hakeem was, he's also in the Top 10 All-Time with personal fouls.

hey, dont most spurs fans always pull the "its january, suns/mavs cant do nothing in playoffs, we win only the games that count"?
tahts exactly what the great legend Hakeem Olajuwon did: win the games that count

[duncan228]

The thread that wouldn't die comes back after 4 months.

[syrus]

hey, dont most spurs fans always pull the "its january, suns/mavs cant do nothing in playoffs, we win only the games that count"?
tahts exactly what the great legend Hakeem Olajuwon did: win the games that count


And Timmy has done that much more than Hakeem. ;-)

[Spuradicator]

Both are great players, but Duncan exceeded Hakeem about 3 years ago.

[Matchman]

The thread that wouldn't die comes back after 4 months.

Which Rockets-related thread will last longer? This thread or the official Luis Scola thread? :downspin:

[Please_dont_ban_me]

That's tough.

I love Hakeem. I would say they're both pretty damn close. I couldn't pick one over the other.

[Sec24Row7]

Hakeem gives money to Al Queda.

Duncan > Hakeem

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Hakeem gives money to Al Queda.

Duncan > Hakeem

Very mature.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

A friend of mine in Houston used to go to the same mosque as Hakeem (when he played there).

Hakeem used to come for morning prayer (at like 5-6 am) then sleep in one of the class rooms on the floor until afternoon prayer. People would offer him a pillow and blanket and he wouldn't take it. He just asked for a quiet place. He also drove a pretty modest car, supposedly.

He also used to fast during the month of Ramadan, and played games while fasting.

The guy is amazing to me.

[polandprzem]

A friend of mine in Houston used to go to the same mosque as Hakeem (when he played there).

Hakeem used to come for morning prayer (at like 5-6 am) then sleep in one of the class rooms on the floor until afternoon prayer. People would offer him a pillow and blanket and he wouldn't take it. He just asked for a quiet place. He also drove a pretty modest car, supposedly.

He also used to fast during the month of Ramadan, and played games while fasting.

The guy is amazing to me.

That is not amazing. He was just religious. He had some problems with heart and imagine him playing during Ramadan 3 games a week.

As I take a look at my life I've done similar things you say are amazing. :nerd

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I invested a lot of time on this thread and I never thought I'd see again. anyhows, TD > Hakeem.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

That is not amazing. He was just religious. He had some problems with heart and imagine him playing during Ramadan 3 games a week.

As I take a look at my life I've done similar things you say are amazing. :nerd


Have you ever tried to play basketball at the gym for an hour without any water?

Imagine fasting all day, not being able to eat / drink...then having to play a basketball game at the NBA level, not your gym level. To me that takes some heart.

That along with his involvement in the community, and the guys overall humbleness, makes him an amazing person.



I really don't need your approval to think so.

[polandprzem]

Have you ever tried to play basketball at the gym for an hour without any water?

Imagine fasting all day, not being able to eat / drink...then having to play a basketball game at the NBA level, not your gym level. To me that takes some heart.

That along with his involvement in the community, and the guys overall humbleness, makes him an amazing person.



I really don't need your approval to think so.

That's bad cause I thought you needed my approval ... :rolleyes

Most of the sportsmen giving up many things, as most people. To me more amazing is what my Mom is doing.


And btw. I played without water and giving all I had.
Also I played a game 4 hours in full sun, one-on-one. Argubly no breaks.
Also I was driving shooting at the basket and all that stuff for two hours then was aking a gym (weights) for 90 minutes, then basketball again 2 hours or so and then gym again for about 2 hours. Two weeks rutine. But unfortunatelly I can't get back to those days. I wish I had.
And also I played basketball, nope that was not NBA but I was playing without ACL. Have yopu tried that? Esp. when my weight was around 240punds.
Not much amazing- plus two surgeries on the knee, not everything went as it should. Earlier on I twisted this knee pretty big amount of time, many litters of water in the knee big pain, but I kept coming back to playing basketball. How stupid I was. And I still am, but have not much oppurtunity to show it.
Well yup I can show it on the forum, when everybody right now don't give a fuck what I have to say.

[hsxvvd]

Therefore

Beno Udrih + Matt Bonner > Charles Barkley + Karl Malone

:lol Beno > Nash

[spursfan09]

:lol, fans of other teams thinking Spurs fans saying Duncan>>Hakeem is the most horrible thing on earth. Come on Spur fans shame on us to think that. Oh my god! The horror!

[cinemafusion]

I go with Hakeem. Both are so close to each other and on this board of course most will side with Duncan.

I think one of the biggest differences is the teams they played on during their peaks.

Hakeem had a great team in 86, one that looked to be a dominant force into the early 90's. Sampson hurt his knees and was never the same, 3 other huge players were kicked out of the league because of drugs. Lucas, Loyld, Wiggins I think.

Hakeem suffered on a crappy team from 87-92. You put Duncan on those teams and Duncan isn't winning rings. you put Magic Johnson on those teams and they aren't winning rings. Great players have to be surrounded by talent to win.

Same can be said of Garnett...look what happened this year, put Garnett on a team with great players and next thing you know he is one one of the best teams in the league. Doesn't mean you will win it all but it gives you a chance. Dream didn't have a chance from 87-92.

When you look at Hakeem's time with the rockets. He had 6 years where the team could be said had a solid chance of winning a championship. 86, 93-97. After 97 dreams knees started to give out. In those years, he went to a western conference finals and three nba championships, winning two.

Hakeem also took his cougars to three final four appearances. Surrond a great player and great things happen.

Give a great player buck "the blade" johnson, Allen Level and all the other scrubs Hakeem played with from 87-92 and you aren't going anywhere.

Duncan couldn't save those teams.
Replace Duncan with Garnett and the spurs are still winning championships while Duncan would be stuck on a crappy Timberwolves team.

Replace Domique Wilkins with Bird on the Celtics and the Celtics are still winning championships. Wilkins was a flat out stud..wonder how it would have looked if he had the 86 celtics surronding him?

Duncans teams have been better, he has had great supporting cast around him. You put Hakeem on these teams and they still kick ass.

So who is the better individual player?
Flip a coin and pick...no one is head and shoulders better then the other. I think both are better then shaq though.

Here are there playoff stats....

Playoff stats:
Points: Hakeem 25.9
Duncan 23.8

Rebounds: Duncan 12.5
Hakeem 11.2

Blocked shots: Hakeem 3.25
Duncan 2.8

Steals: Hakeem 1.68
Duncan 0.7

Assists: Duncan 3.5
Hakeem 3.2

Free throws: Hakeem 72%
Duncan 69%

As you can see these guys are both studs...if we are talking about individual talent with the same players around them, I'll go with Hakeem for the simple fact his defense was some of the best I've ever seen.

If we are going by who has the better teams and the better people surronding him for a career.... It's Duncan by far.

They are so close though, no one is head and shoulders above the other...if you think otherwise you are a fool.

I have no problem with someone thinking Duncan is slightly better the Hakeem. I just happen to think Dream was slightly better then Duncan.

[Cry Havoc]

blah blah blah

Buzzer-beating 3 point shots in the playoffs:

Duncan - 1
Hakeem - 0

:toast

[cinemafusion]

Not to take away from what you said but Hakeem has one two...Game 4 of 1995 finals. Hakeem hits a 3 pointer at the buzzer to put an end to the Orlando Magic

[Elraptor]

Not to take away from what you said but Hakeem has one two...Game 4 of 1995 finals. Hakeem hits a 3 pointer at the buzzer to put an end to the Orlando MagicQuit bumping this thread, can't you see the first post as it was edited by Kori?

8 Months old. :lol

[cinemafusion]

I read most of the arguments in this topic and I have to dispute some things regarding Hakeem. Some of the pro-Hakeem supporters act like he guarded the likes of Robinson and Shaq in their playoff battles. Um, no he didn't. The Rockets doubled both DRob and Shaq in both series. In that 7-game series versus the Knicks, Hakeem outscored Ewing in every game but he was only better than Patrick in Games 6 & 7. Pat outrebounded and blocked more shots inthe series. If Starks makes that 3-pointer in Game 6, folks wouldn't be talking about Hakeem the way that they do now. And someone brings up Hakeem beating the Lakers in the '86. Well, he certainly didn't beat up Boston in the Finals that same year. And yeah, everyone brings up the fact that Hakeem beat Ewing, DRob and Shaq but Shaq also beat Hakeem, DRob and Duncan.

Hakeem was a great player but I wouldn't say he's miles ahead of Duncan. Defensively, as good as Hakeem was, he's also in the Top 10 All-Time with personal fouls.

Well Duncan isn't really close to Hakeem with Defense. Hakeem is up there in all time steals and block shots.
And the reason we are still talking about Hakeem now is because he is the one who blocks John Starks 3 pointer to win game 6.
I agree, if Hakeem doesn't block that shot...the knicks win. Hakeem was a force on the defensive side.

Hakeem did destroy the Lakers in 86 averaging over 30 points for the season and he didn't do too bad against the Celtics that year. He averaged 28.5 for the series. They didn't contain Hakeem, Celtics just had the better team.

Gets down to that really, Hakeem was never really on that great of teams....I feel for Garnett the same way but he is on a good team this year.

One thing that kills me about those that judge players. You put the same talent around Kevin Garnett like that around a player like Duncan and he has just as many rings or at least as many opportunites to get the rings. We are talking about to very special players here.

You put Duncan on the Timberwolf teams Garnett was on and he doesn't sniff the finals. As great as Duncan is and he is great, you can't win if you have crap around you.

[Galileo]

Best players of alltime who've I've seen play:

1. Tim Duncan

2. Hakeem Olajuwon

3. The rest

[HarlemHeat37]

Well Duncan isn't really close to Hakeem with Defense. Hakeem is up there in all time steals and block shots.
And the reason we are still talking about Hakeem now is because he is the one who blocks John Starks 3 pointer to win game 6.
I agree, if Hakeem doesn't block that shot...the knicks win. Hakeem was a force on the defensive side.

Hakeem did destroy the Lakers in 86 averaging over 30 points for the season and he didn't do too bad against the Celtics that year. He averaged 28.5 for the series. They didn't contain Hakeem, Celtics just had the better team.

Gets down to that really, Hakeem was never really on that great of teams....I feel for Garnett the same way but he is on a good team this year.

One thing that kills me about those that judge players. You put the same talent around Kevin Garnett like that around a player like Duncan and he has just as many rings or at least as many opportunites to get the rings. We are talking about to very special players here.

You put Duncan on the Timberwolf teams Garnett was on and he doesn't sniff the finals. As great as Duncan is and he is great, you can't win if you have crap around you.

Duncan's team in 2003 was arguably the worst supporting cast FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM in NBA history..only Hakeem's 1st championship rivals it IMO..there was no near all-star caliber players..so Duncan has already proven he can carry a supporting cast that was far from GREAT..he averaged 25, 15, 5 assists and 3 blocks in the 2003 playoffs, all leading the team..including defeating Kobe and Shaq..

Garnett has had a good supporting cast in the past..

KG doesn't win with the Spurs, simply because of the difference of styles..Duncan is a post player on both sides, Garnett is more perimeter oriented..there's no way KG would have got the 2003 Spurs a championship..

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Duncan's team in 2003 was arguably the worst supporting cast FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM in NBA history..only Hakeem's 1st championship rivals it IMO..there was no near all-star caliber players..so Duncan has already proven he can carry a supporting cast that was far from GREAT..he averaged 25, 15, 5 assists and 3 blocks in the 2003 playoffs, all leading the team..including defeating Kobe and Shaq..

Garnett has had a good supporting cast in the past..

KG doesn't win with the Spurs, simply because of the difference of styles..Duncan is a post player on both sides, Garnett is more perimeter oriented..there's no way KG would have got the 2003 Spurs a championship..

Don't forget the '99 team. 2nd year Tim had an declining 33 yr old David Robinson who averaged 17.8 pts 9.6 rebounds. Avery Johnson, an ancient Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Mario Elie, Samaki Walker and Sean who played all of 19 regular season games. Not exactly a HOF supporting cast. That's what makes that year so remarkable.

Real funny.

[Sec24Row7]

Yeah there is no way you can compare KG with Duncan... KG doesn't have a back to the basket game...

[cinemafusion]

Duncan's team in 2003 was arguably the worst supporting cast FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM in NBA history..only Hakeem's 1st championship rivals it IMO..there was no near all-star caliber players..so Duncan has already proven he can carry a supporting cast that was far from GREAT..he averaged 25, 15, 5 assists and 3 blocks in the 2003 playoffs, all leading the team..including defeating Kobe and Shaq..

Garnett has had a good supporting cast in the past..

KG doesn't win with the Spurs, simply because of the difference of styles..Duncan is a post player on both sides, Garnett is more perimeter oriented..there's no way KG would have got the 2003 Spurs a championship..

I disagree, KG would have done just as well. Why couldn't KG have taken Spurs on his back and taken them to a championship.

KG's numbers that year were 23 points, 13.4 boards, 6 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.6 blocks, and .75 at the line
Duncan was 23 points 12.9 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .7 steals, and 2.9 blocks with a .71 at the line.

The spurs would not have sucked as a team with him on the team in replace of Duncan. I would say Duncan, KG, Dream could take that team to the championship....Shaq wouldn't be able to. I don't like Shaq's defense and his free throw %. It hurts teams in te 4th quarter. (I'm talking about a prime Shaq, not what we see now)

When I say these things I'm not taking away from Duncan but I'm trying to be fair to guys who had crap teams around them for a long time. It was disgusting that Dream had to go from 87-92 with nothing around him.

And look at my point now, Garnett has a great team around him and all of a sudden he is on the best team.

Put Duncan or put Dream on those Timberwolf teams and they go nowhere. Give Dream/ Duncan the team Garnett has with the Celtics and he has a chance to win a championship.

To win a championship it comes down to good team, hard work, and luck.
Shaq was awesome but it was a little lucky the ball happens to bounce right to Horry in Sac town.

Spurs have a great team this year and with the right bounces of the ball can win another championship.
Hakeem's rockets played a classic in seattle in 93 losing in game 7 in overtime. They had a chance to ice it in the finals minutes of the 4th....the next two years they hit those shots and the other team missed. Hard work and luck and then the teams need players like a Duncan or Dream.

[cinemafusion]

[QUOTE=HarlemHeat37;2425973]Duncan's team in 2003 was arguably the worst supporting cast FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM in NBA history..only Hakeem's 1st championship rivals it IMO..there was no near all-star caliber

Sad think is that was one of Hakeem's best teams.

86 team was his best, that team was going places if Sampson doesn't get hurt and 3 key players aren't kicked out for drugs.

95-96 team was his second best

93-94 was third

97 was fourth

After that all his teams sucked or Hakeem was just to old. In 1998 his skills went on the decline.

That is just 6 years out of an NBA lifetime where he had a ligit shot at a title.
He had a great team in college and went to the final four 3 times.
So I guess it balances out. phi slamma jamma! pretty darn good college team.

[Cry Havoc]

I disagree, KG would have done just as well. Why couldn't KG have taken Spurs on his back and taken them to a championship.

KG's numbers that year were 23 points, 13.4 boards, 6 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.6 blocks, and .75 at the line
Duncan was 23 points 12.9 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .7 steals, and 2.9 blocks with a .71 at the line.

The spurs would not have sucked as a team with him on the team in replace of Duncan. I would say Duncan, KG, Dream could take that team to the championship....Shaq wouldn't be able to. I don't like Shaq's defense and his free throw %. It hurts teams in te 4th quarter. (I'm talking about a prime Shaq, not what we see now)

When I say these things I'm not taking away from Duncan but I'm trying to be fair to guys who had crap teams around them for a long time. It was disgusting that Dream had to go from 87-92 with nothing around him.

And look at my point now, Garnett has a great team around him and all of a sudden he is on the best team.

Put Duncan or put Dream on those Timberwolf teams and they go nowhere. Give Dream/ Duncan the team Garnett has with the Celtics and he has a chance to win a championship.

To win a championship it comes down to good team, hard work, and luck.
Shaq was awesome but it was a little lucky the ball happens to bounce right to Horry in Sac town.

Spurs have a great team this year and with the right bounces of the ball can win another championship.
Hakeem's rockets played a classic in seattle in 93 losing in game 7 in overtime. They had a chance to ice it in the finals minutes of the 4th....the next two years they hit those shots and the other team missed. Hard work and luck and then the teams need players like a Duncan or Dream.

Ah, the stats game again. Nothing says "champion" like stats.

Except there's a lot more to games than statistics. And while we're at it, check out the block differences between the two players. Think that doesn't say a hell of a lot about protecting the paint?

Tim Duncan has displayed time and time again, even in this early playoffs, that he can be the man to step up in crunch time and completely take over a game.

Garnett gets into big game situations and passes the rock, is hesitant, cannot be dependent upon. Throw whatever statistics you want at me, Garnett shies away from the big shot. Duncan steps up and drills it.

[thiste]

Duncan steps up and drills it.

...even if it's a frigging 3 pointer :downspin:

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I'm a gigantic Duncan fan. But, put KG on any of out Championship teams, and KG probably wins those rings.

Duncan, right from the start of his career was in a great situation with a great organization.

You can't say the same about KG. The ONE year he had a team comparable to Duncan's in talent he got far into the playoffs. And, that team was probably equivalent in talent to the Spurs worst championship team, which is the 2003 team. And, it was held back considering it was coached by Flip.

Which brings me to my next point:

Flip = #1 reason Pistons haven't made much noise lately
Garnett = reason none of those Twolves teams (except the one good when they had) are blamed for being average.

??????

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

...even if it's a frigging 3 pointer :downspin:

Love your sig.

KG is finally making some noise because he happens to have 2 future HOF'ers and some nice role players playing along side him. Felton Spencer could do almost as well with this years roster.

2005 was the first time Tim had two impact players playing alongside him. Read "impact" not "HOF" caliber guys. Now, todays Manu and Tony are arguably the the equivalent of todays Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. But they certainly weren't in 2003 and probably not in 2005 either. And again other then a 33 year old David Robinson and serviceable role players what impact player did Tim have in 1999? Check it out for yourself..., no one. And let's not forget that Tim was only in his second year ? Pretty good for a second year player to lead a team to the championship.

KG better do something this year, otherwise the stigma of not winning a championship is still going to accompany him. Right now he looks like he may finally get the getting out of the first round monkey off his back.

To address those comments that Kevin could do what Tim did with the same players, I don't think so. Stats are just one aspect of being on a team. This can't be stressed enough. I don't think that Kevin has the intangibles that Timmy has. Leadership, poise (in other words not acting like a punk and swinging at someone when they lose their temper) character, fostering team harmony and fellowship and leading by example. Tim is a team first guy. He's Pop's tip of the spear and gets everyone to buy into the team system. With all due respect I don't think KG could carry Tim's jock when it comes to those intangibles.
Want another example; how about when Timmy took a discount contract to remain in San Antonio and signed a contract that freed up salary to sign Tony and Manu. I don't remember the numbers or specifics but I remember the net effect. We resigned all our core players, including Bruce Bowen.

Remember Garnett's first 112 million dollar contract. I think he initially wanted 122 million, and this was after his first 3 years in the league, I'm doing this from memory so correct me where I'm wrong. But my point is that albatross prevented the Timber Wolves from ever signing other key players.

Tim made a huge sacrifice, Kevin didn't. People, especially the players see this. This has to have a halo effect on the whole organization That's why the Spurs currently have 4 NBA Championships and KG as great as he was could never get his team out of the first round, imho.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm a gigantic Duncan fan. But, put KG on any of out Championship teams, and KG probably wins those rings.

Duncan, right from the start of his career was in a great situation with a great organization.

You can't say the same about KG. The ONE year he had a team comparable to Duncan's in talent he got far into the playoffs. And, that team was probably equivalent in talent to the Spurs worst championship team, which is the 2003 team. And, it was held back considering it was coached by Flip.

Which brings me to my next point:

Flip = #1 reason Pistons haven't made much noise lately
Garnett = reason none of those Twolves teams (except the one good when they had) are blamed for being average.

??????

All this is well and good until you look at the games in which Garnett has had to step up.

He didn't.

He cowered down, stopped being aggressive, and watched his team shoot their way to a loss.

I love KG as a player, hell I bought his shoe one year. He went to high school close to where I live now. And for most of the game, he's at the upper echelon of players the NBA. The problem is when the game is near the end and the team needs someone clutch. KG isn't. Does that mean he won't step up this year? Of course not. But accrediting him to be on Duncan's level when he has never shown any semblance of being a clutch performer is foolhardy. Merit is awarded by deed, not by proclivity or potential. KG has the potential. He'd better show it now.

[thiste]

Love your sig.

Thanks dude. I love it too :lol

[Ronaldo McDonald]

All this is well and good until you look at the games in which Garnett has had to step up.

He didn't.

He cowered down, stopped being aggressive, and watched his team shoot their way to a loss.

I love KG as a player, hell I bought his shoe one year. He went to high school close to where I live now. And for most of the game, he's at the upper echelon of players the NBA. The problem is when the game is near the end and the team needs someone clutch. KG isn't. Does that mean he won't step up this year? Of course not. But accrediting him to be on Duncan's level when he has never shown any semblance of being a clutch performer is foolhardy. Merit is awarded by deed, not by proclivity or potential. KG has the potential. He'd better show it now.

IMO, if you let Garnett develope in the same environment as Duncan since he came into the league up until now, you have roughly the same results in terms of winning %.

He'd be a totally different player than he is now.

None of use can say for sure that he'd be as successful as Duncan or he wouldn't be.

[mojorizen7]

If these two went one-on-one in their primes Hakeem would school Duncan more times than not. As far as comparing career achievments it gets more complicated than that IMO.

[GSH]

Well Duncan isn't really close to Hakeem with Defense. Hakeem is up there in all time steals and block shots.
And the reason we are still talking about Hakeem now is because he is the one who blocks John Starks 3 pointer to win game 6.
I agree, if Hakeem doesn't block that shot...the knicks win. Hakeem was a force on the defensive side.

Hakeem did destroy the Lakers in 86 averaging over 30 points for the season and he didn't do too bad against the Celtics that year. He averaged 28.5 for the series. They didn't contain Hakeem, Celtics just had the better team.

Gets down to that really, Hakeem was never really on that great of teams....I feel for Garnett the same way but he is on a good team this year.

One thing that kills me about those that judge players. You put the same talent around Kevin Garnett like that around a player like Duncan and he has just as many rings or at least as many opportunites to get the rings. We are talking about to very special players here.

You put Duncan on the Timberwolf teams Garnett was on and he doesn't sniff the finals. As great as Duncan is and he is great, you can't win if you have crap around you.

You could put Duncan on the fucking Knicks, under Isiah Thomas, and they wouldn't bust out the way Garnett's T-Wolves did. I went to U of H the same years as Hakeem, so I am a HUGE Hakeem fan. Hakeem ruled the low post. And if it were a 1-on-1 low post contest, I think he would get the best of Tim. But Tim (and Pop) would never allow him to get locked up into that contest. There is a reason why Duncan is considered a PF, and Hakeem a C.

One difference between the two, that I haven't seen mentioned, is "the look". Hakeem was definitely capable of dominating a game, just like Tim. But there are nights when the Spurs are getting their asses kicked, and Tim gets "the look"... and I just say, "Oh, shit. Tim's not going to let them lose tonight."

Hakeem's skills allowed him to take over some games. But I've seen Tim take over games by sheer force of will. I know that's a totally subjective point of view. But it comes from someone who is more than happy to acknowledge the greatness of Hakeem Olajuwan. Tim is something special, even among the special players the league has seen.

[HarlemHeat37]

the difference between KG and Duncan for OUR team would make a difference..we played an in and out game, which is something we wouldn't have been able to play with Garnett..KG is a solid post player, but not elite..his main move is his fadeaway J, and he's always had the ability to take his defender off the dribble and finish with athleticism..

2003..Duncan 60% of his shot attempts were jumpers, 40% inside..Garnett 77% attempts were jumpers, 23% inside..

2004..Duncan 56% jumpers, 44% inside..Garnett 75% jumpers, 25% inside..

it's the same for every year..

Duncan and Garnett are VERY close in terms of ability, but you can't build the same team around both guys..so I don't believe the Spurs win the 2003 title if we were built around Garnett..

[gasolina]

Duncan has 6 titles?

by 2010, yes.:toast

[Galileo]

I'm getting tired of people claiming Hakeem was better on D than Duncan.

For his career, Hakeem averaged 84 blocks per 100 fouls in the playoffs.

Duncan?

90 blocks per 100 fouls.

The only reason Duncan blocks fewer shots is that he takes fewer chances to avoid foul trouble. Unlike Hakeem, Duncan very rarely ever has to sit down because of foul trouble.

career fouls per 48 minutes in playoffs:

Duncan 3.7
Hakeem 4.7

[Jason_Terry]

It's too bad Hakeem's teams didn't have the luxury of beating up on shit teams like the Nets, Cavs, and Knicks for rings.

If TD had to deal with the Laker/Celtics in the 80s, he'd be missing a few rings. Hell, he probably wouldn't have even been able to get his team out of the West.

I'd take one Hakeem on my team over two Tim Duncans any day. He'd probably embarrass them both the way he did David Robinson in the playoffs if they played each other.

I loved one of D-robs quotes after the that series: "I though I did a pretty good job guarding him" :lol :lol :lol

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm getting tired of people claiming Hakeem was better on D than Duncan.

For his career, Hakeem averaged 84 blocks per 100 fouls in the playoffs.

Duncan?

90 blocks per 100 fouls.

The only reason Duncan blocks fewer shots is that he takes fewer chances to avoid foul trouble. Unlike Hakeem, Duncan very rarely ever has to sit down because of foul trouble.

career fouls per 48 minutes in playoffs:

Duncan 3.7
Hakeem 4.7
America, eatin' my lunch from a single bowl in my parents basement, where I'm livin'. Happy Birthday, I'm forty-three.

Don't want to waste those precious calories...chewin'. Jesus come move my jaw for me, help me get my sloppy food down my throat.

[Jason_Terry]

Bill Cartwright >>>>>>> Tim Duncan.

He has more rings.

:lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:

[cinemafusion]

the difference between KG and Duncan for OUR team would make a difference..we played an in and out game, which is something we wouldn't have been able to play with Garnett..KG is a solid post player, but not elite..his main move is his fadeaway J, and he's always had the ability to take his defender off the dribble and finish with athleticism..

2003..Duncan 60% of his shot attempts were jumpers, 40% inside..Garnett 77% attempts were jumpers, 23% inside..

2004..Duncan 56% jumpers, 44% inside..Garnett 75% jumpers, 25% inside..

it's the same for every year..

Duncan and Garnett are VERY close in terms of ability, but you can't build the same team around both guys..so I don't believe the Spurs win the 2003 title if we were built around Garnett..


sure the team would be built a little different but Garnett can carry a team. The team would be built a little different if Hakeem was on the team.

All I'm saying is Garnett hasn't had as many good teams to play on that gives him a chance at a title. He has a chance this year. Surrond him with good players and all of a sudden Garnett is on one of the best teams in the league, a celtics team that sucked last year.

Garnett on the 2003 team would have given the Spurs a chance at a title.

[cinemafusion]

You could put Duncan on the fucking Knicks, under Isiah Thomas, and they wouldn't bust out the way Garnett's T-Wolves did. I went to U of H the same years as Hakeem, so I am a HUGE Hakeem fan. Hakeem ruled the low post. And if it were a 1-on-1 low post contest, I think he would get the best of Tim. But Tim (and Pop) would never allow him to get locked up into that contest. There is a reason why Duncan is considered a PF, and Hakeem a C.

One difference between the two, that I haven't seen mentioned, is "the look". Hakeem was definitely capable of dominating a game, just like Tim. But there are nights when the Spurs are getting their asses kicked, and Tim gets "the look"... and I just say, "Oh, shit. Tim's not going to let them lose tonight."

Hakeem's skills allowed him to take over some games. But I've seen Tim take over games by sheer force of will. I know that's a totally subjective point of view. But it comes from someone who is more than happy to acknowledge the greatness of Hakeem Olajuwan. Tim is something special, even among the special players the league has seen.


Sorry, Duncan would not have been able to help the knicks. They would win more games but they wouldn't have a prayer at going after a ring.

The look? Dream had that look always. Ask D-rob, Ewing, Shaq about the look. In 1987 Hakeem's team was wiped out when three of his players where kicked out for drug use and Sampson's knee was torn up.
Hakeem with crap around him did everything he could to beat the Sonics. I know you remember that since you grew up watching him, remember the 49 point game, but it takes more than one man.
Though Hakeem was basically a one man show in 1994.

I think Duncan is a special player and I have no problem with spurs fans thinking he is better then Hakeem.
On a national level though I think the edge is for Hakeem. It's close and it's subjective.
Same with lakers fans, they are going to say Shaq is better then Duncan. It's close and it's subjective.
And on a national level most would say Shaq is the best of the three. I don't buy that but that is how that most of the nation sees it.

[cinemafusion]

What happened to Duncan in game one? Is he hurt? 5 points, three rebounds?
Wow! Was out with my girlfriend and couldn't watch the game

[cly2tw]

Hakeem in his prime was better than Duncan in his. Duncan is quite lucky to be in a great program with Pop as the coach. Hakeem had no teammate that was nearly as good as Parker. Drexler was about the same as Manu. That team depended on Hakeem much more than this Spurs one on TD.

[Galileo]

With how well Duncan is playing this year, its time to revive this thread.

Duncan is going to be 1st team all-NBA this year for the 10th time, and he has a shot at another ring. If he gets the ring, he will probably pick up another Finals MVP as well.

I agree, Duncan > Hakeem.

4 > 2.

[DMX7]

I agree, Duncan > Hakeem.

4 > 2.

+1

[Loose Cannon]

This is as much of a "debate" as U of Texas vs. North Texas is a "football contest".

Not even close. Not an argument. Not debateable. At this point, it's just a concrete fact.

It's Duncan.

[Manufan909]

The ring arguement is pathetic it. It means Kerr is better than Dirk and Nash combined.

[Galileo]

We only need 32 more posts to break Spurstalk history and break the vaunted 1000 barrier!

[angelbelow]

The ring arguement is pathetic it. It means Kerr is better than Dirk and Nash combined.

trudat. hakeem is amazing and i think hes a better 1v1 player. we'll see, duncans career is far from over still.

[scanry]

The ring arguement is pathetic it. It means Kerr is better than Dirk and Nash combined.

It usually is, but in this case that is probably a good one to look at. We are looking at a player comparison who have combined 3 Regular season MVP's & 5 Finals MVP's.

[Killakobe81]

It usually is, but in this case that is probably a good one to look at. We are looking at a player comparison who have combined 3 Regular season MVP's & 5 Finals MVP's.

It's a close call ...but I give the edge to hakeem still and Shaq is 3rd ....
Hakeem abused your boy the MVP in the playoffs and ewing and Shaq in back 2 back Finals
Duncan dominated Malone and held his own with Shaq ....
When it comes to being clutch both are ...if Duncan wins another title ...id be more willing to give it to duncan but Hakeem at his best was the best big man i have seen (NBA fan since 1980)

[PuttPutt]

It's a close call ...but I give the edge to hakeem still and Shaq is 3rd ....
Hakeem abused your boy the MVP in the playoffs and ewing and Shaq in back 2 back Finals
Duncan dominated Malone and held his own with Shaq ....
When it comes to being clutch both are ...if Duncan wins another title ...id be more willing to give it to duncan but Hakeem at his best was the best big man i have seen (NBA fan since 1980)

I pretty much have to agree, but for me it's too close to call too. Both were & are extremely awesome players.

[mystargtr34]

This debate will go on for a long time. Its still close.

[DrHouse]

I'd rather have Hakeem in his prime. He was just a monster defensively.

[z0sa]

I'd rather have Hakeem in his prime. He was just a monster defensively.

I think if Tim wins another Finals MVP (very possible, though I'd guess Parker does it again first by the odds), Tim clearly wins this one. Actually, even if doesn't win Finals MVP. Why? Including being close or equal to Hakeem in just about every regard, Tim has had a much longer period of sustained dominance. I honestly think its Tim right now by some distance, but another Finals win would cement it and another Finals MVP would lay it in stone..

Hakeem's only Finals Wins were when Jordan was retired or under a different number than #23. Tim's Spurs swept a great Lakers team in 99 (though they of course didnt have PJ, doesn't change a damn thing still IMO), then knocked them off their threepeat touting pedastal in 03. Not only that, the Spurs defeated a tough, tough Detroit team who was looking for a repeat after beating the Lakers (aka supposedly the League's most dominant team again during 04) and came very close. If not for Tim's heroics in Game 7, there wouldn't be a 2005 Spurs banner hanging in the AT&T center today.

That was at least two times they took out the League's best on their way to a trophy, something Hakeem really didn't do since they hit their stride during Jordan's "inbetween" years, and Tim won all 3 of those Finals MVPs...

[Yorae]

Duncan is better....but man, dream shake is the shiznit, did drob somehow defended that move well?

[HarlemHeat37]

career-wise, Duncan will have the edge at the end..prime? definitely Hakeem..they were similar players, but Hakeem has more advantages than Tim..the only aspect I can give Tim the advantage for would be passing..

outside of the immortal 6, it comes down to Duncan, Hakeem, and Shaq for the next 3 on the all-time list IMO..

career-wise, it'll probably be Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem..in their primes, it would be Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan..

[peskypesky]

Hakeem's "problem" is the same as Wilt's. How do you explain such a dominant player only getting two rings?

How do you put Hakeem and Wilt in the same category as the multiple-ring winners (Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan)? Because it's not an individual sport like golf, it's a team sport, and the goal is that championship.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hakeem's "problem" is the same as Wilt's. How do you explain such a dominant player only getting two rings?

How do you put Hakeem and Wilt in the same category as the multiple-ring winners (Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan)? Because it's not an individual sport like golf, it's a team sport, and the goal is that championship.

Hakeem was lacking in supporting cast talent for a good number of years..he didn't have a secondary star for a while until they got Clyde..the fact that he won a title with that supporting cast in 1993 shows how great he was, similar to Timmy in 2003..

Wilt was playing against the 60's Celtics..the most stacked teams in NBA history..the fact that he always outplayed Russell and also managed to win some titles vs. those stacked teams is proof of how great he was..you also have to consider that they actually changed rules to stop Wilt..

[DrHouse]

The silly rings argument again.

Winning a ring is dependent on so many factors outside of an individual player's control. So many players never get the chance to be on a team with great ownership and a smart GM. It's all about timing and let's be honest luck.

Most kids here probably didn't even watch the NBA pre-1999 so they have no idea about Hakeem's game at all. I fully believe that based on what I've read time and time again. Hakeem in his prime was simply dominant on both ends of the floor in ways that Duncan just could never match. Duncan's biggest asset is his consistency, but if we are talking about taking a player in their absolute prime it's Hakeem every day.

[mystargtr34]

Hakeem's "problem" is the same as Wilt's. How do you explain such a dominant player only getting two rings?

How do you put Hakeem and Wilt in the same category as the multiple-ring winners (Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan)? Because it's not an individual sport like golf, it's a team sport, and the goal is that championship.

Of all team sports basketball is the one which an individual can have the most impact. Its not like comparing the amount of rings a guy has in baseball or even Football. Its still a team game but a single player can impact the outcome of the game more so than any other team sport. You have to give the guy with more rings the edge - given that the players in question are obviously somewhat equal individually.


Your going to get your douche's that come in here saying "By that logic, Horry > Hakeem".

Like i said, Duncan and Hakeem wont be settled even after Duncan is done playing. In their respective prime, i give Hakeem the edge, in terms of career value then Duncan was better for longer.

[peskypesky]

The ring arguement is pathetic it. It means Kerr is better than Dirk and Nash combined.

It's only pathetic if you're not able to understand that:

1. THE GOAL of playing is to win the Championship
2. Basketball is a team sport, so part of being a great player is the ability to help your team get a championship
3. The Bulls were Jordan's team, not Kerr's.

If you don't factor championships in, then what are you going to use as your determining factor? Scoring? Well then Gervin is better than Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar combined, as he had more scoring titles than those four combined.

Rebounds? Then Dennis Rodman is greater than Hakeem, Shaq, Barkley and Kareem combined...as Rodman had more rebounding titles than those 4 combined.

You see, you can't just look at individual stats. To be considered one of the all-time greats, you have to be the Man on your team, AND you have to take that team to the Championship. Cause there's lots of guys who were the Man on their team(s). Lots of guys who could score like crazy but never get a championship (McGrady, Iverson, Gervin, Alex English, Dominique).

I think you have to factor Championships in, and I think you have to give them a lot of weight.

[peskypesky]

Wilt was playing against the 60's Celtics..the most stacked teams in NBA history..the fact that he always outplayed Russell and also managed to win some titles vs. those stacked teams is proof of how great he was..you also have to consider that they actually changed rules to stop Wilt..

Just for the record, Wilt never beat the Celtics for a Championship.

[mystargtr34]

Of all team sports basketball is the one which an individual can have the most impact. Its not like comparing the amount of rings a guy has in baseball or even Football. Its still a team game but a single player can impact the outcome of the game more so than any other team sport. You have to give the guy with more rings the edge - given that the players in question are obviously somewhat equal individually.


Your going to get your douche's that come in here saying "By that logic, Horry > Hakeem".

Like i said, Duncan and Hakeem wont be settled even after Duncan is done playing. In their respective prime, i give Hakeem the edge, in terms of career value then Duncan was better for longer.

Quoting myself, that argument is somewhat of a copout, but its really the only way you can seperate the two. They were remarkably similar, Hakeem was a more athletic and flamboyant version of Duncan, while Duncan probably had a little better feel for the game, especially in terms of doing the little things off the ball such as screening.

[m33p0]

Hakeem was lacking in supporting cast talent for a good number of years..he didn't have a secondary star for a while until they got Clyde..the fact that he won a title with that supporting cast in 1993 shows how great he was, similar to Timmy in 2003..

Wilt was playing against the 60's Celtics..the most stacked teams in NBA history..the fact that he always outplayed Russell and also managed to win some titles vs. those stacked teams is proof of how great he was..you also have to consider that they actually changed rules to stop Wilt..
that houston team that went up against the celtics in the 80s should have won the finals and would have dominated more if hakeem wasn't so impatient. his temper was his downfall early in his career.

[Killakobe81]

I think if Tim wins another Finals MVP (very possible, though I'd guess Parker does it again first by the odds), Tim clearly wins this one. Actually, even if doesn't win Finals MVP. Why? Including being close or equal to Hakeem in just about every regard, Tim has had a much longer period of sustained dominance. I honestly think its Tim right now by some distance, but another Finals win would cement it and another Finals MVP would lay it in stone..

Hakeem's only Finals Wins were when Jordan was retired or under a different number than #23. Tim's Spurs swept a great Lakers team in 99 (though they of course didnt have PJ, doesn't change a damn thing still IMO), then knocked them off their threepeat touting pedastal in 03. Not only that, the Spurs defeated a tough, tough Detroit team who was looking for a repeat after beating the Lakers (aka supposedly the League's most dominant team again during 04) and came very close. If not for Tim's heroics in Game 7, there wouldn't be a 2005 Spurs banner hanging in the AT&T center today.

That was at least two times they took out the League's best on their way to a trophy, something Hakeem really didn't do since they hit their stride during Jordan's "inbetween" years, and Tim won all 3 of those Finals MVPs...

What are you Phil Jackson?! are you trying to put a * on Hakeem's title?!
MJ didnt have the drive to keep going that is Mj's fault not Hakeem's and when he did he couldnt beat a young Magic squad ...who Hakeem dominated ...
If you use this logic than Duncan's 1st title is suspect I dont think so ... a title is a title
only 1 I can dispute is the Wade/ref Finals vs. Dallas ...but even with those calls Dallas choked ...

[mystargtr34]

The silly rings argument again.

Winning a ring is dependent on so many factors outside of an individual player's control. So many players never get the chance to be on a team with great ownership and a smart GM. It's all about timing and let's be honest luck.

Most kids here probably didn't even watch the NBA pre-1999 so they have no idea about Hakeem's game at all. I fully believe that based on what I've read time and time again. Hakeem in his prime was simply dominant on both ends of the floor in ways that Duncan just could never match. Duncan's biggest asset is his consistency, but if we are talking about taking a player in their absolute prime it's Hakeem every day.

You calling others here 'kids' when every one of your posts sounds like your a High School kid with a hard on for Kobe.

I think most people agree that at their absolute primes, Hakeem was a little better than Duncan. An argument can still be made for Duncan using some obscure stats like PER and so on. But i think the majority agree that in their primes, Hakeem > Duncan.

My point is rings are the biggest factor when comparing two players of similar level. A single player effects the outcome of a game in basketball more so than any other team sport. Even in terms of 'stats' that dont show up in the box score.

[peskypesky]

I think most people agree that at their absolute primes, Hakeem was a little better than Duncan. An argument can still be made for Duncan using some obscure stats like PER and so on. But i think the majority agree that in their primes, Hakeem > Duncan.

GTFO.

[DrHouse]

You calling others here 'kids' when every one of your posts sounds like your a High School kid with a hard on for Kobe.

I think most people agree that at their absolute primes, Hakeem was a little better than Duncan. An argument can still be made for Duncan using some obscure stats like PER and so on. But i think the majority agree that in their primes, Hakeem > Duncan.

My point is rings are the biggest factor when comparing two players of similar level. A single player effects the outcome of a game in basketball more so than any other team sport. Even in terms of 'stats' that dont show up in the box score.

Rings are the last factor I would use to compare two individual players.

1 player does not make a team. Never has, never will. Even the best to ever lace them up, Michael Jordan, did not start winning rings until he had an amazing cast of characters around him.

I think you are overreaching on the rings argument because that's really the one area you can point to where Duncan separates himself from Hakeem.

[WayOutWest]

IMO Hakeem was better than Duncan as a player, although TD's career surpasses 90% of all NBA players. Hakeem had the misfortune to come into the league when the Lakers dominted the WC and the Celtics/Sixers dominated the EC. When Hakeem finally made it to the 86 Finals he faced arguably the greatest team in NBA history and IMO the greatest front court in NBA history. Hakeem never had the talent around him in Houston to compete with the elite teams in the league. When he got a decent supporting cast he went off for two titles in a row. Not since Walton's Blazers has one single guy carried an entire team to a championship.

The only guy I've seen dominate both ends of the court like Hakeem was Shaq in 99-00. TD controls games and can do it on both ends of the court but what Hakeem did for a couple of years and what Shaq did for one year is DOMINATE. Hakeem had entire teams looking over their shoulders or listening for footsteps when they went to the basket and almost everyone knows about his incredible post moves. I have not seen anybody else besides Shaq and Hakeem do that in my 24 years of watching basketball. Obviously guys like Wilt and Kareem probably did it as well but their primes were before my time.

IMO TD is the best PF to ever play the game but when you start comparing him with centers you're going to have a tougher time making your case.

[mystargtr34]

GTFO.

For the other 12 seasons of Hakeems career, i think Duncan was better.

Happy?

[Killakobe81]

IMO Hakeem was better than Duncan as a player, although TD's career surpasses 90% of all NBA players. Hakeem had the misfortune to come into the league when the Lakers dominted the WC and the Celtics/Sixers dominated the EC. When Hakeem finally made it to the 86 Finals he faced arguably the greatest team in NBA history and IMO the greatest front court in NBA history. Hakeem never had the talent around him in Houston to compete with the elite teams in the league. When he got a decent supporting cast he went off for two titles in a row. Not since Walton's Blazers has one single guy carried an entire team to a championship.

The only guy I've seen dominate both ends of the court like Hakeem was Shaq in 99-00. TD controls games and can do it on both ends of the court but what Hakeem did for a couple of years and what Shaq did for one year is DOMINATE. Hakeem had entire teams looking over their shoulders or listening for footsteps when they went to the basket and almost everyone knows about his incredible post moves. I have not seen anybody else besides Shaq and Hakeem do that in my 24 years of watching basketball. Obviously guys like Wilt and Kareem probably did it as well but their primes were before my time.

IMO TD is the best PF to ever play the game but when you start comparing him with centers you're going to have a tougher time making your case.

I agree shaq's MVP year is the only 1 of his that is in this discussion ...playoffs all 3 dominated ...
If shaq was that motivated for more of his career he would be above bothe Duncan and hakeem ...

[z0sa]

Most kids here probably didn't even watch the NBA pre-1999 so they have no idea about Hakeem's game at all. I fully believe that based on what I've read time and time again.



^^ this paired with this:


Hakeem in his prime was simply dominant on both ends of the floor in ways that Duncan just could never match. Duncan's biggest asset is his consistency, but if we are talking about taking a player in their absolute prime it's Hakeem every day.

officially gives you the stupidest take of the day award.

Let me fill you in partner: Hakeem did not win either one of his rings in his physical prime. He was 31-33 from mid 93 to 95, the Hakeem Era I guess you could call it, and we're his most productive seasons statistically - despite being surrounded by the best talent of his career. In other words, he wasn't his best during his prime but nice try at sounding smart.

To go further, Tim will be 33 before the start of this season's playoffs, and already has 4 championships (double Hakeem's) over a 9 year period and 3 Finals MVPs, one more than Hakeem. Also he is barely going to be as old as when Hakeem won his second and final trophy .. this goes along with my argument he did not beat the best of his era, MJ for his trophies, while the Spurs beat the best of their era at least twice and probably 3 times on their way to ring 1/2/3. Additionally the Hakeem Era was very short, lasting only two years. After just one season later the Stockton/Malone Jazz had put themselves on top of the West. Duncan's Era has been prolonged, and the Spurs have been right there every season for several years now, with no signs of stopping for a few more.

Finally, the way you make Hakeem vs. Duncan sound, as if its nolo contendre, is ridiculous. These two head to head is about as close of a matchup as you want, but in reality, Duncan is clearly on top.

[Pelicans78]

I'm not sure if Duncan would have four rings if he played in the same area as Michael Jordan. I think Hakeem would dominate Duncan because he's bigger, stronger, more athletic. Duncan is a PF, Hakeem is a true C.

[z0sa]

I'm not sure if Duncan would have four rings if he played in the same area as Michael Jordan.

Hakeem never even reached the Finals to play Jordan .. so your argument is void and null. Meanwhile, before the Spurs could even reach the Finals they had the best in the League to deal with, except in 05 when Detroit was obviously the defending champ and had the the 2nd best D in the League, including a reasonably young Wallace duo, aka real Duncan stoppers, at least on occassion.


Another Jordan excuse. Hakeem was in the league 18 years. Jordan won 6 rings.

I honestly believe this works against hakeem, because Jordan won all of his rings during Hakeem's best years, barring 94/95 of course.

[mystargtr34]

I'm not sure if Duncan would have four rings if he played in the same area as Michael Jordan. I think Hakeem would dominate Duncan because he's bigger, stronger, more athletic. Duncan is a PF, Hakeem is a true C.

Duncan was probably a little bigger, Hakeem was closer to 6'10" than he was 7'0". No doubt he was more athletic.

Another Jordan excuse. Hakeem was in the league 18 years. Jordan won 6 rings.

That leaves 12 years. Whos to blame for those?

[Pelicans78]

Hakeem never even reached the Finals to play Jordan .. so your argument is void and null.

Not really because even if Duncan would have gotten to the finals during Jordan's era, who knows if he would have won any rings. Maybe Karl Malone's teams would have won a few rings this decade. Probably not. Maybe if Hakeem had Parker, Manu, Horry, and Pop, he might have won more than 4 rings.

[z0sa]

Not really because even if Duncan would have gotten to the finals during Jordan's era, who knows if he would have won any rings. Maybe Karl Malone's teams would have won a few rings this decade. Probably not. Maybe if Hakeem had Parker, Manu, Horry, and Pop, he might have won more than 4 rings.

You act like he had Coach K and a handful of shitty teammates.

[Pelicans78]

Duncan was probably a little bigger, Hakeem was closer to 6'10" than he was 7'0". No doubt he was more athletic.

Another Jordan excuse. Hakeem was in the league 18 years. Jordan won 6 rings.

That leaves 12 years. Whos to blame for those?

Hakeem was physically stronger than Duncan. Again, Hakeem had to deal with the great Lakers/Celtics teams who had multiple Hall of Famers during the early part of his career and was pretty old the last few years. Duncan has probably had the better career, but I would rather draft Hakeem.

[z0sa]

Post 1000? ^^ yep there

[DrHouse]

In their primes....

Hakeem > Duncan.

/thread