Duncan>Hakeem.

[z0sa]

In their primes....

Hakeem > Duncan.

/thread

apparently I pwned you too badly for a real response.

[underdawg]

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.

That's true because if Jordan didn't have 6 rings, he would still be considered the best that ever played:rolleyes

[galvatron3000]

Hakeem played power forward alongside Ralph Sampson until Sampson was injured and Hakeem took the center spot, didn't you guys watch the Classic Sports recap of that spot in NBA history?

Hakeem is not considered the best PF because he became a center and as good as he was he improved overtime, Tim came into the league refined, he just became a better passer out of the double team over a few seasons, he also received better quality help on the perimeter over time. Hakeem for the most part was the only star on his first chamionship team Tim's first still had RObinson and in a small way Sean Elliott.



Ralph Sampson 1983-1992

Career Statistics
PPG 15.4 RPG 8.80 APG 2.3 Born: Jul 7, 1960
College : Virginia Playoff Appearances: 4
Finals Apperances: 0
All-Star Apperances: 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[peskypesky]

apparently I pwned you too badly for a real response.

:lmao

[peskypesky]

Hakeem for the most part was the only star on his first chamionship team Tim's first still had RObinson and in a small way Sean Elliott.

Wrong. Otis Thorpe was an All-Star for the Rockets in '92.

[galvatron3000]

Wrong. Otis Thorpe was an All-Star for the Rockets in '92.

WRONG. FOR THE MOST PART

[Gutter92]

Hell, didnt Shaq himself say that Hakeem was the best C he's seen? If i want a good individual player, i'll take Hakeem. If I want championships for my franchise, I'll take Duncan.

[WayOutWest]

Hakeem played power forward alongside Ralph Sampson until Sampson was injured and Hakeem took the center spot, didn't you guys watch the Classic Sports recap of that spot in NBA history?

Hakeem is not considered the best PF because he became a center and as good as he was he improved overtime, Tim came into the league refined, he just became a better passer out of the double team over a few seasons, he also received better quality help on the perimeter over time. Hakeem for the most part was the only star on his first chamionship team Tim's first still had RObinson and in a small way Sean Elliott.



Ralph Sampson 1983-1992

Career Statistics
PPG 15.4 RPG 8.80 APG 2.3 Born: Jul 7, 1960
College : Virginia Playoff Appearances: 4
Finals Apperances: 0
All-Star Apperances: 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hakeem NEVER played PF for the Rockets. Sampson was a 7'5 guy who liked to play on the perimeter, thin as a leaf, and had no desire to bang in the paint with the likes of Kareem, Malone, Parish, Walton, and Ewing. "Dream" was a center from day one.

[Manufan909]

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.

What's pathetic is people who believe that to be true. In all honesty, there is no good way to compare players who never faced each other, there are just too many variables(difference in officiating, supporting cast, opponents, or if they didn't meet in their primes). And since basketball is a team sport, there are great chances that HOF players are on crappy teams that are so bad not even a Jordan or Larry Bird can do anything. Without Shaq/Gasol, Kobe got the Lakers nowhere, doesn't mean he wasn't as good as he was with Shaq/Gasol, he just needed someone else to lift the Lakers up.

I think you have to try to weight everything equally, but that becomes a headache when you try to account for pace, and PER, and other such measuring tools.

[senorglory]

This thread is making me sad.

[TDfan2007]

People talk about Hakeem's prime being so much better than Tim's, which may be true, but not by much.

Tim's prime IMO was 2002-2005. In those years he was the best player in the NBA. His regular season numbers were really good (amazing in 2002 and 2003), but were he really shined was the playoffs.

Tim's playoff numbers for those years:

2002: 27.6 ppg 14.4 rpg 5 apg 4.33 bpg

against Shaq and the Lakers his numbers were 29ppg 17.2 rpg 4.6 apg 3.2 bpg

2003: 24.7 ppg 15.4 rpg 5.3 apg 3.29 bpg

against Shaq and the Lakers: 28 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.33 bpg

2004: 22.1 ppg 11.3 rpg 3.2 apg 2 bpg (keep in mind he came into this particular postseason after reaggravating his knee injury)

2005: 23.6 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg 2.26 bpg


Those are some incredible numbers, especially with respect to rebounds and blocks, and in my opinion what Tim did in 2002 and 2003 is right up there with how Hakeem decimated David and Shaq in 1995. People like to talk about Tim being Mr. Consistent and not scoring a lot, but the guy could drop 30 and 15 in the playoffs like nobody's business.

BTW, Tim is 2nd all time in 40+pt 15+ rebound 5+ ast games in the playoffs. The only guy ahead of him is Mr. Chamberlain. I'm not sure about Tim's place on the "most 30+ pt 15+ rb games" list, but I'm sure he's way up there.


Again, nothing against Hakeem, I watched old tapes of what he did against the Spurs in 1995 and was amazed, but Tim in his prime was just as good.

[Indazone]

This is BS. If Hakeem played for the Spurs you guys would have eight championships by now instead of four.

[mystargtr34]

People talk about Hakeem's prime being so much better than Tim's, which may be true, but not by much.

Tim's prime IMO was 2002-2005. In those years he was the best player in the NBA. His regular season numbers were really good (amazing in 2002 and 2003), but were he really shined was the playoffs.

Tim's playoff numbers for those years:

2002: 27.6 ppg 14.4 rpg 5 apg 4.33 bpg

against Shaq and the Lakers his numbers were 29ppg 17.2 rpg 4.6 apg 3.2 bpg

2003: 24.7 ppg 15.4 rpg 5.3 apg 3.29 bpg

against Shaq and the Lakers: 28 ppg 11.8 rpg 4.8 apg 1.33 bpg

2004: 22.1 ppg 11.3 rpg 3.2 apg 2 bpg (keep in mind he came into this particular postseason after reaggravating his knee injury)

2005: 23.6 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg 2.26 bpg


Those are some incredible numbers, especially with respect to rebounds and blocks, and in my opinion what Tim did in 2002 and 2003 is right up there with how Hakeem decimated David and Shaq in 1995. People like to talk about Tim being Mr. Consistent and not scoring a lot, but the guy could drop 30 and 15 in the playoffs like nobody's business.

BTW, Tim is 2nd all time in 40+pt 15+ rebound 5+ ast games in the playoffs. The only guy ahead of him is Mr. Chamberlain. I'm not sure about Tim's place on the "most 30+ pt 15+ rb games" list, but I'm sure he's way up there.


Again, nothing against Hakeem, I watched old tapes of what he did against the Spurs in 1995 and was amazed, but Tim in his prime was just as good.


Thats some pretty impressive stuff. Good research. I posted the exact same stuff bout 20 pages ago - i think this thread has had the same points redebated over about 5 times in its life :lol.

[baseline bum]

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.

Hakeem had some of the all-time great clutch shooters around him. Most bigs would kill to have even one of the guys Olajuwon was completely surrounded by:

1) Robert Horry
2) Sam Cassell
3) Clyde Drexler
4) Mario Elie

All of these guys are big-game assassins wherever they go, so don't paint it only as reflected glory from Olajuwon. Horry may be the greatest clutch player since Bird. Cassell is a monster closing out games. Drexler doesn't even have to be argued, as a top50 player all-time. Elie was a huge late-game threat for the Spurs in their 99 run.

I'm not trying to disrespect Olajuwon, because he's probably the most complete bigman I've ever seen (spectacular footwork, a nice jumper, ability to penetrate, quick jump and great timing on shotblocking, great rebounding, excellent foot-speed to get back on D in transition, etc). But to act like he won those two titles without a lot of help from a lot of very skilled teammates is flat-out wrong.

[Agloco]

It's safe to say they are both much better than Dirk.

On this board anyway.....

[Galileo]

Duncan is ahead of Olajuwon on the Hall-of Fame Monitor:

All Time HOF Monitor Scores
1. Kareem Abdul-jabbar 833*
2. Michael Jordan 731
3. Wilt Chamberlain 639*
4. Bill Russell 628*
5. Magic Johnson 549*
6. Larry Bird 529*
7. Karl Malone 501
8. Bob Pettit 460*
9. Moses Malone 449*
10. Tim Duncan 436
11. Oscar Robertson 409*
12. Bob Cousy 364*
13. Shaquille O'neal 363
14. Hakeem Olajuwon 338*
http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadershof.htm

Duncan is also ahead of Hakeem in Hall-of Fame Probability:

Rank Player HoF Prob
1. Michael Jordan 1.0000
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 1.0000
3. Bill Russell* 1.0000
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 1.0000
5. Larry Bird* 1.0000
6. Magic Johnson* 1.0000
7. Shaquille O'Neal 1.0000
8. Tim Duncan 1.0000
9. Karl Malone 1.0000
10. Bob Pettit* 1.0000
11. Oscar Robertson* 1.0000
12. Jerry West* 1.0000
13. Kobe Bryant 1.0000
14. Elgin Baylor* 1.0000
15. Hakeem Olajuwon* 1.0000
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob_career.html

[InK]

Duncan is also ahead of Hakeem in Hall-of Fame Probability:

Rank Player HoF Prob
1. Michael Jordan 1.0000
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 1.0000
3. Bill Russell* 1.0000
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 1.0000
5. Larry Bird* 1.0000
6. Magic Johnson* 1.0000
7. Shaquille O'Neal 1.0000
8. Tim Duncan 1.0000
9. Karl Malone 1.0000
10. Bob Pettit* 1.0000
11. Oscar Robertson* 1.0000
12. Jerry West* 1.0000
13. Kobe Bryant 1.0000
14. Elgin Baylor* 1.0000
15. Hakeem Olajuwon* 1.0000



So Duncan's 100% probability outshines Hakeem's 100% probability by a slight margin? Besides the obvious point, and based on the fact that Hakeem is allready there, it might be hard to argue that the probability of Duncan becoming a HOF is somehow greater then Hakeem's wouldnt it?

Anways, i really enjoyed reading this thread through the last two days, good posts on both sides of the argument. I managed to get to around page 25 or so before getting tired of the repeatitive points. In all fairness, the points that the "Hakeem camp" made seemed to be a bit stronger and coherent then the "Duncan camp". About the Hakeem> < Duncan, i dont think its worth calling it either way, its to hard to put into account all the factors; teamates, different eras, head to head competition, leadership, rings, etc... One has the edge in one field, the other in another (and so on and forth), so without doing injustice to either of the two, im gonna say Hakeem= Duncan

[mystargtr34]

So Duncan's 100% probability outshines Hakeem's 100% probability by a slight margin? Besides the obvious point, and based on the fact that Hakeem is allready there, it might be hard to argue that the probability of Duncan becoming a HOF is somehow greater then Hakeem's wouldnt it?

Anways, i really enjoyed reading this thread through the last two days, good posts on both sides of the argument. I managed to get to around page 25 or so before getting tired of the repeatitive points. In all fairness, the points that the "Hakeem camp" made seemed to be a bit stronger and coherent then the "Duncan camp". About the Hakeem> < Duncan, i dont think its worth calling it either way, its to hard to put into account all the factors; teamates, different eras, head to head competition, leadership, rings, etc... One has the edge in one field, the other in another (and so on and forth), so without doing injustice to either of the two, im gonna say Hakeem= Duncan

D comes before O.

Therefore Duncan >>> Olajuwon

-- Galileo

[IronMexican]

Galileo furthermore proves his IQ deficiency. How is 100% better than 100%?

[wildbill2u]

What about athleticism? Hakeen could jump; Duncan is lucky to get his shoes out of contact with the floor.

On the other hand, you could argue that Duncan's ranking as one of the 50 best of all time is miraculous because of his deficit in this area. Think of a blind sniper.

[Yorae]

What about athleticism? Hakeen could jump; Duncan is lucky to get his shoes out of contact with the floor.

On the other hand, you could argue that Duncan's ranking as one of the 50 best of all time is miraculous because of his deficit in this area. Think of a blind sniper.

:nope

Tim Duncan could jump well in his prime.

[scanry]

What about athleticism? Hakeen could jump; Duncan is lucky to get his shoes out of contact with the floor.

On the other hand, you could argue that Duncan's ranking as one of the 50 best of all time is miraculous because of his deficit in this area. Think of a blind sniper.

How about you watch the 2003 playoffs. :lol

Plantar Fasciitis has really taken away the lift Tim had before. He no longer has that jumping ability and the ability to grab boards.

[scanry]

This is BS. If Hakeem played for the Spurs you guys would have eight championships by now instead of four.

:lol:lol:lol

4/12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/18 season

BTW i was a big fan of the Dream, but no way would he have beaten a prime Shaq & Kobe duo in 2000-2002 :wow

Duncan almost single handedly beat them in 1999 & 2003.

[baseline bum]

:nope

Tim Duncan could jump well in his prime.

No way. You never heard David Robinson constantly make fun of his jumping ability when he was a rookie? :lol

[mavs>spurs2]

Hakeem was a better player on both sides of the court IMO. Offensively I think it's obvious whether you look at the stats or just Hakeems never ending arsenol of weapons, and defensively because of his superior athletic ability. It's pretty much a pointless debate on a Spurs board and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove it by posting numbers until I'm blue in the face. It's just an honest observation from someone who's seen both guys play and happens to know a little bit about basketball, for what it's worth.

[Yorae]

No way. You never heard David Robinson constantly make fun of his jumping ability when he was a rookie? :lol

Yeah, because DRob could jump way higher than him.



But to say that Duncan is lucky to get his shoes out of contact with the floor is a bit too much. :depressed

It's like saying Bird could jump higher than duncan....

[Cry Havoc]

Hakeem was a better player on both sides of the court IMO. Offensively I think it's obvious whether you look at the stats or just Hakeems never ending arsenol of weapons, and defensively because of his superior athletic ability. It's pretty much a pointless debate on a Spurs board and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove it by posting numbers until I'm blue in the face. It's just an honest observation from someone who's seen both guys play and happens to know a little bit about basketball, for what it's worth.

Hakeem's peak was higher. There are few fans on the board who are going to debate that.

However, Tim has put together a sustained period of dominance that few NBA players are ever going to match. He is a much better passer than Hakeem, and plays much smarter defense, which refutes your statement that athleticism is able to trump this category. If defense = athleticism, the Spurs would not have more than a single banner in the rafters, if that.

And he's not done yet. Really, if Timmy ends up with 15 ASGs or more in his career and 5+ rings, how are you going to possibly argue that Hakeem was a better player over the course of an entire career? Tim Duncan's game is one that, in spite of posting excellent statistics across the board, defies those statistics in the same motion. He is a perfect example of what stats DO NOT tell you about the game of basketball.

So you can take Hakeem's incredible number of post moves and offensive abilities, you can take his dream hook, and his vaunted athleticism. I'll take Duncan's consistently heady play, his BB IQ that is almost unparalleled across all of the major sports, his ability to control the game when he doesn't have the ball, his passing skills, his incredible clutch play, and the four banners hanging from the rafters that all resulted from him being the best power forward the league has ever seen. The part that puts it over the edge for me is that Tim isn't even CLOSE to being done yet, and may have 6 or 7 rings when everything is said and finished, at which point the comparisons to Hakeem would cease and talk about whether Duncan should be in the top 5 of all time would start.

[Ghazi]

Duncan's a few fluky bullshit jumpers away from having SIX rings.

[m33p0]

Yeah, because DRob could jump way higher than him.



But to say that Duncan is lucky to get his shoes out of contact with the floor is a bit too much. :depressed

It's like saying Bird could jump higher than duncan....
yes he can. parish said bird could jump over a soda bottle cap. honestly, that's what he said.

[m33p0]

This is BS. If Hakeem played for the Spurs you guys would have eight championships by now instead of four.
young hakeem would not have allowed tony and manu to develop the way duncan has. the mature hakeem would have though.

[Galileo]

Galileo furthermore proves his IQ deficiency. How is 100% better than 100%?

If you look at the formula, it is based on an inverse exponential function that has a limit of one as the variable approaches infinity. Duncan is ahead of Hakeem, but the chart is rounded off. Duncan has a significant lead in the "v" variable.

Hall of Fame Probability
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html

P(HoF election) = e**v / (1 + e**v)

Where v is the variable that increases for better players.

Elliott Kalb also rated Duncan better all-time as of the end of the 2003 season.

Kalb had Duncan # 9 all-time, with Hakeem # 16 all-time.

Kalb, during the 2005 playoffs, moved Duncan ahead of Bird, Magic, and Oscar Robertson to no worse than # 6 all-time.

Tim Duncan Best Forward Ever
http://www.sportsgamer.com/forums/nba-chat/33145-tim-duncan-best-forward-ever.html

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

Table of Contents (has rankings)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0071417885/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S004#reader-link

The players in between Duncan and Hakeem are, in order, Bob Cousy, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Moses Malone, and Julius Erving.

[InK]

Kalb, during the 2005 playoffs, moved Duncan ahead of Bird, Magic, and Oscar Robertson to no worse than # 6 all-time.


In other words it would be better if Duncan retired in 2005, seeing he lost two places in the last 3 and a half seasons? Its nothing more frustrating to see an over the hill ex superstar not knowing when to call it quits, aint it?
This stats suck and you know it yourself. A decade ago retired Bird and Magic outplayed Duncan for the last 3 years and overtook him on the all-time greatest. Or something to that effect apperently

Not only 4>2 but also 0>1 it seems.

[Rogue]

TD>dream, yao is a smart guy, yi is not an idiot, spurs are the best team in the league.... ... all these comments are nothing at all but BS.

[j-money24]

4>2

in that case, robert horry>duncan and almost everyone

[j-money24]

hakeen was cleary the better player and more dominant, the only thing that makes duncan so good is his 4 rings.. but rings are team awards, u dont get rings coz ur the better player, Basketball is a team game and the team that has the best players wins it all, duncans was the best player for spurs, but he still had amazing supporting cast, but individually, their is alot of players that above duncan, like i said last time malone is the better player but duncan has more accomplishments coz of his rings.

[daslicer]

young hakeem would not have allowed tony and manu to develop the way duncan has. the mature hakeem would have though.

Thats something I agree with hundred percent. One of Duncan's strenghts as a player is that he has great patience when it comes to young players developing. I think that is very rare because most of the time you will see star players bitch and complain after 2-3 games when their young guns aren't producing right away. Hell look at Kobe summer of '07 when he started bitching about Bynum not ever amounting to nothing but a scrub. It is because of those reasons I don't think if Hakeem switch places with Duncan career wise that he would have had the same success. Reality is that Hakeem in his 20's was immature so you have to consider how in hell would he able to tolerate a yougn Parker and Manu going through growing pains without getting angry and frustrated. I just don't see it happening.

[baseline bum]

young hakeem would not have allowed tony and manu to develop the way duncan has. the mature hakeem would have though.

When was there a mature Hakeem? At the end he and Barkley used to constantly fight over the ball, and it never came out once it went in to either of them. They both left Scottie Pippen standing on the three-point line with his finger up his ass every single possession the whole 99 'season, and Scottie came out looking like the asshole when he forced the trade to Portland.

[Galileo]

In other words it would be better if Duncan retired in 2005, seeing he lost two places in the last 3 and a half seasons? Its nothing more frustrating to see an over the hill ex superstar not knowing when to call it quits, aint it?
This stats suck and you know it yourself. A decade ago retired Bird and Magic outplayed Duncan for the last 3 years and overtook him on the all-time greatest. Or something to that effect apperently

Not only 4>2 but also 0>1 it seems.

You are confusing the Kalb list with the Hall-of-Fame probability list. Duncan has not lost any ground in any list since 2005. By adding another ring, he contiues to build his credentials.

[cool hand]

yes!

[m33p0]

When was there a mature Hakeem? At the end he and Barkley used to constantly fight over the ball, and it never came out once it went in to either of them. They both left Scottie Pippen standing on the three-point line with his finger up his ass every single possession the whole 99 'season, and Scottie came out looking like the asshole when he forced the trade to Portland.
sorry. i stopped watching the rockets once charles came to town.

[m33p0]

for all of hakeem's great moves, he always went for the turnaround jumper that would miss more than it would make and it always left him out of position to get the rebound.

[kingmalaki]

Hmm, where to start (again)? Well, as far as the rings argument goes (since that's what most of the pro-Duncan camp is relying on), what Spurs title team would lose the title if you replaced Duncan with Hakeem? Be honest now. Yes, Duncan does have more rings than Hakeem. He has also played with better coaching and more talent for the majority of his career. He, Shaq and Magic are a few players that came to stacked squads and never really had to play on teams with piss poor surrounding talent. That wasn't the case from the centers from Hakeem's era (Ewing & Robinson). But if you want to stick with the rings argument go ahead....but both players have clearly shown they can lead a team to a title if you give them the right surrounding talent.

I will focus on the things Duncan has shown me he can't do. They are very minor things, but it's what seperates Shaq and Hakeem from him IMO. Really, it's only two things.

Offensively:

2001 - Horace Grant/Robert Horry (48%)
2002 - Robert Horry/Samaki Walker (42%)
2004 - Over the hill Karl Malone (47%)
2008 - Gasol (43%)

In each of those seasons, those teams (mainly Phil Jackson..who doesn't like to double) allowed the above players to basically play Duncan straight up...and dared Tim to punish them enough to get the win. And he couldn't do it (his % is in the parenthesis). Last years series against LA was a perfect example....Duncan just doesn't have that extra umph in his game to give you 35-40 a night in a series if you need him to. When he has to become a volume shooter and really pump points, he can't. He just has always had the luxury of not having to do that due to his surrounding talent. He can't hit that turbodrive...Hakeem and Shaq could. There is no way in hell you could rely on Gasol, Grant, Horry, etc to check Hakeem or Shaq straight up and get away with it. They would murder them. You can't tell me a player is in the same realm offensively as Hakeem or Shaq when they can be neutralized in the postseason by Pau freaking Gasol.

Additionally, Duncan shot 42% against Detroit in the 05 Finals, but still got the ring due to others like Horry and Manu stepping up (not saying Duncan didn't do his part..he was still the leader on both sides of the ball). But Hakeem never had the luxury of winning a series while he shot 42%. Deny all you want but surrounding talent has a lot do do with titles. That's why I'm not so big into the ring argument, unless it's two dudes going H2H in the playoffs on teams that are just as good, and one guy is stepping up while another isn't (i.e. 95 WCF, Finals between Bulls and Jazz/Suns, etc).

Defensively:

It really isn't a competition on this side of the ball. Hakeem was clearly better and it's not even close. The dude is #1 in blocks and top 10 in steals. I have seen Amare kill Duncan in a playoff series. I have seen Dirk kill Duncan in a playoff series. Thank God for Robinson because Duncan never had the ability to check Shaq (before he got all old). Earlier on I noted Hakeem would win a title taking Duncan's place on any Spurs squad. I don't know if Duncan could have led the Rockets to any title in 94 or 95. Why....because he would have had to neutralize Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. And if he can't stop Amare or Dirk....then I'm not so sure how he would fare in those situations. Duncan is a great defender but Hakeem he is not.

[Lars]

Number of rings is a good way to compare teams, not players. I don't buy into this arguement. I am obviously biased in Hakeems favor because I watched him play for so many years and he was nothing short of unbelievable. Grats on your extra 2 rings, but Hakeem was a better player in a better era. The West was way tougher back then. I would say Robinson's Spurs, Payton/Kemp's Sonics, Stockton/Malone's Jazz and Barkley's Suns were all much better teams than everything thats been here since the 84 class fell out of thier primes.

Sorry to dissapoint Spurs fans, but I don't think even a fourth of you ever watched Hakeem play.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Number of rings is a good way to compare teams, not players. I don't buy into this arguement. I am obviously biased in Hakeems favor because I watched him play for so many years and he was nothing short of unbelievable. Grats on your extra 2 rings, but Hakeem was a better player in a better era. The West was way tougher back then. I would say Robinson's Spurs, Payton/Kemp's Sonics, Stockton/Malone's Jazz and Barkley's Suns were all much better teams than everything thats been here since the 84 class fell out of thier primes.

Sorry to dissapoint Spurs fans, but I don't think even a fourth of you ever watched Hakeem play.

The West was tougher?

Sorry but the WEst was much tougher for Duncan.

94 and 95 were the years when a certain 23 was out of basketball. The greatness of Magic and Bird were over. Essentially Jordan came back and Houston went back to the wayside.

In 94 it was the Sonics as teh 1 seed and they got bounced by Denver. Phoenix? Give me a break?

95 and Hakeem was playing out of his mind with the Spurs as a 1 seed. There really were no other teams of note.

Duncan had to get through the like of Kobe and Shaq, Bibby and Weber, Kidd, Nash and Stoudemire and those Pistons teams.

Duncan has maintained his level of play for a longer time has more MVP's, better stats outside of blocks across the board, has more rings and the list goes on.

Duncan passed Hakeem back in 05. Now its not even in question.

[Rapper]

Hakeem sucks

that's all

[Rapper]

This debate is absolutely meaningless

people who take Hakeem's part are stupid

[Galileo]

Number of rings is a good way to compare teams, not players. I don't buy into this arguement. I am obviously biased in Hakeems favor because I watched him play for so many years and he was nothing short of unbelievable. Grats on your extra 2 rings, but Hakeem was a better player in a better era. The West was way tougher back then. I would say Robinson's Spurs, Payton/Kemp's Sonics, Stockton/Malone's Jazz and Barkley's Suns were all much better teams than everything thats been here since the 84 class fell out of thier primes.

Sorry to dissapoint Spurs fans, but I don't think even a fourth of you ever watched Hakeem play.

I watched Hakkem play since his freshman year of college. I remember a game where he was spectacular in the winter of 81/82. I watched his entire carreer, every game I could that was on TV. and always though he was equal to or greater than Jordan.

But when I saw Duncan in the '99 Finals, I said "Wow! This guy is better than Hakeem."

[Double-Up]

I'm sorry but Hakeem was the better scorer, and better shot blocker, and the most dominant out of the two. Duncan is one of the best at the PF spot all time but he wasn't ever better than Hakeem.

[Galileo]

Hmm, where to start (again)? Well, as far as the rings argument goes (since that's what most of the pro-Duncan camp is relying on), what Spurs title team would lose the title if you replaced Duncan with Hakeem? Be honest now. Yes, Duncan does have more rings than Hakeem. He has also played with better coaching and more talent for the majority of his career. He, Shaq and Magic are a few players that came to stacked squads and never really had to play on teams with piss poor surrounding talent. That wasn't the case from the centers from Hakeem's era (Ewing & Robinson). But if you want to stick with the rings argument go ahead....but both players have clearly shown they can lead a team to a title if you give them the right surrounding talent.

I will focus on the things Duncan has shown me he can't do. They are very minor things, but it's what seperates Shaq and Hakeem from him IMO. Really, it's only two things.

Offensively:

2001 - Horace Grant/Robert Horry (48%)
2002 - Robert Horry/Samaki Walker (42%)
2004 - Over the hill Karl Malone (47%)
2008 - Gasol (43%)

In each of those seasons, those teams (mainly Phil Jackson..who doesn't like to double) allowed the above players to basically play Duncan straight up...and dared Tim to punish them enough to get the win. And he couldn't do it (his % is in the parenthesis). Last years series against LA was a perfect example....Duncan just doesn't have that extra umph in his game to give you 35-40 a night in a series if you need him to. When he has to become a volume shooter and really pump points, he can't. He just has always had the luxury of not having to do that due to his surrounding talent. He can't hit that turbodrive...Hakeem and Shaq could. There is no way in hell you could rely on Gasol, Grant, Horry, etc to check Hakeem or Shaq straight up and get away with it. They would murder them. You can't tell me a player is in the same realm offensively as Hakeem or Shaq when they can be neutralized in the postseason by Pau freaking Gasol.

Additionally, Duncan shot 42% against Detroit in the 05 Finals, but still got the ring due to others like Horry and Manu stepping up (not saying Duncan didn't do his part..he was still the leader on both sides of the ball). But Hakeem never had the luxury of winning a series while he shot 42%. Deny all you want but surrounding talent has a lot do do with titles. That's why I'm not so big into the ring argument, unless it's two dudes going H2H in the playoffs on teams that are just as good, and one guy is stepping up while another isn't (i.e. 95 WCF, Finals between Bulls and Jazz/Suns, etc).

Defensively:

It really isn't a competition on this side of the ball. Hakeem was clearly better and it's not even close. The dude is #1 in blocks and top 10 in steals. I have seen Amare kill Duncan in a playoff series. I have seen Dirk kill Duncan in a playoff series. Thank God for Robinson because Duncan never had the ability to check Shaq (before he got all old). Earlier on I noted Hakeem would win a title taking Duncan's place on any Spurs squad. I don't know if Duncan could have led the Rockets to any title in 94 or 95. Why....because he would have had to neutralize Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. And if he can't stop Amare or Dirk....then I'm not so sure how he would fare in those situations. Duncan is a great defender but Hakeem he is not.

In 2002 vs LAL, Duncan had 34 points and 25 rebounds in game 5, and the Spurs still didn't win. DRob was shut out, zero points. Shaq was only 7-18 from the floor. Duncan's worst game in that series was 26 points.

In 2001, Duncan has 28 points, 14 boards, 6 assists, and 5 blocks in game 1, and the Spurs lost.

In game 2, Duncan dropped 40 points on 15-26 shooting, plus 9-9 from line and 15 boards, and the Spurs lost. Shaq was only 8-21 with 19 points. They folded in game 3.

In both series, which I watched, Duncan was clearly better than Shaq, the so-called peak Shaq. Duncan was a basically a one-man team. In my opinion, Duncan has been more honorable and impressive when going down in defeat, than Hakeem. Don't get me started on the Dallas '06 series when Duncan played on one foot.

No one remembers how good Duncan was in those series because Duncan didn't get a ring.

[K-State Spur]

Hmm, where to start (again)? Well, as far as the rings argument goes (since that's what most of the pro-Duncan camp is relying on), what Spurs title team would lose the title if you replaced Duncan with Hakeem? Be honest now. Yes, Duncan does have more rings than Hakeem. He has also played with better coaching and more talent for the majority of his career. He, Shaq and Magic are a few players that came to stacked squads and never really had to play on teams with piss poor surrounding talent. That wasn't the case from the centers from Hakeem's era (Ewing & Robinson). But if you want to stick with the rings argument go ahead....but both players have clearly shown they can lead a team to a title if you give them the right surrounding talent.

I will focus on the things Duncan has shown me he can't do. They are very minor things, but it's what seperates Shaq and Hakeem from him IMO. Really, it's only two things.

Offensively:

2001 - Horace Grant/Robert Horry (48%)
2002 - Robert Horry/Samaki Walker (42%)
2004 - Over the hill Karl Malone (47%)
2008 - Gasol (43%)

In each of those seasons, those teams (mainly Phil Jackson..who doesn't like to double) allowed the above players to basically play Duncan straight up...and dared Tim to punish them enough to get the win. And he couldn't do it (his % is in the parenthesis). Last years series against LA was a perfect example....Duncan just doesn't have that extra umph in his game to give you 35-40 a night in a series if you need him to. When he has to become a volume shooter and really pump points, he can't. He just has always had the luxury of not having to do that due to his surrounding talent. He can't hit that turbodrive...Hakeem and Shaq could. There is no way in hell you could rely on Gasol, Grant, Horry, etc to check Hakeem or Shaq straight up and get away with it. They would murder them. You can't tell me a player is in the same realm offensively as Hakeem or Shaq when they can be neutralized in the postseason by Pau freaking Gasol.

Additionally, Duncan shot 42% against Detroit in the 05 Finals, but still got the ring due to others like Horry and Manu stepping up (not saying Duncan didn't do his part..he was still the leader on both sides of the ball). But Hakeem never had the luxury of winning a series while he shot 42%. Deny all you want but surrounding talent has a lot do do with titles. That's why I'm not so big into the ring argument, unless it's two dudes going H2H in the playoffs on teams that are just as good, and one guy is stepping up while another isn't (i.e. 95 WCF, Finals between Bulls and Jazz/Suns, etc).

Defensively:

It really isn't a competition on this side of the ball. Hakeem was clearly better and it's not even close. The dude is #1 in blocks and top 10 in steals. I have seen Amare kill Duncan in a playoff series. I have seen Dirk kill Duncan in a playoff series. Thank God for Robinson because Duncan never had the ability to check Shaq (before he got all old). Earlier on I noted Hakeem would win a title taking Duncan's place on any Spurs squad. I don't know if Duncan could have led the Rockets to any title in 94 or 95. Why....because he would have had to neutralize Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. And if he can't stop Amare or Dirk....then I'm not so sure how he would fare in those situations. Duncan is a great defender but Hakeem he is not.

a) Jackson's a smart enough coach not to send constant double teams at TD the instant he gets the ball. But to say that Duncan was played 'straight up' by any of those guys is a GROSS overstatement. Despite having various degrees of quality talent surrounding him over the years, Duncan has yet to play in a playoff series where he is not the focal point of the defense.

b) For a guy who is so focused on who is guarding who, you completely ignore that Duncan rarely has guarded Amare or Dirk in the playoffs.

c) Before he got all old (but after he gained a vet's feel for the game) - Shaq was unguardable by anybody in the league. But Duncan did as well against him as anybody in the rare moments that they were matched up (Duncan's strength has often been underrated around the league). He was certainly more effective against Shaq in the late 90s than Olajuwon (an over the hill version I freely admit).

d) You've focused solely on 4 elimination series, completely ignoring the series where Tim has put the team on his back and made teams pay for not overplaying him. Newsflash - Olajuwon's stats weren't always pretty in elimination series either.


As to the ultimate question, I don't think it's answered yet.

[Galileo]

I'm sorry but Hakeem was the better scorer, and better shot blocker, and the most dominant out of the two. Duncan is one of the best at the PF spot all time but he wasn't ever better than Hakeem.

Duncan was already better than Hakeem's peak by the end of the '99 season. The Spurs ended the '99 season with 46 wins and 7 losses, the most devastating 51 game romp in NBA history, and the best finish from March madness first to the end EVER.

The Spurs were 31-5 to end the regular season and 15-2 in the playoffs. Never again has Duncan had as much talent around him.

[kingmalaki]

In 2002 vs LAL, Duncan had 34 points and 25 rebounds in game 5, and the Spurs still didn't win. DRob was shut out, zero points. Shaq was only 7-18 from the floor. Duncan's worst game in that series was 26 points.

In 2001, Duncan has 28 points, 14 boards, 6 assists, and 5 blocks in game 1, and the Spurs lost.

In game 2, Duncan dropped 40 points on 15-26 shooting, plus 9-9 from line and 15 boards, and the Spurs lost. Shaq was only 8-21 with 19 points. They folded in game 3.

In both series, which I watched, Duncan was clearly better than Shaq, the so-called peak Shaq. Duncan was a basically a one-man team. In my opinion, Duncan has been more honorable and impressive when going down in defeat, than Hakeem. Don't get me started on the Dallas '06 series when Duncan played on one foot.

No one remembers how good Duncan was in those series because Duncan didn't get a ring.

You have identified one or two good/great games from that series. Props to Duncan on those few good games. His series %'s were still low. Basically, you haven't addressed my main point. Over the course of a series, Duncan hasn't shown that he can pump 35-40 over the series to lead his team to a win, ala Hakeem or Shaq. To Duncan's credit, due to his teammates he has rarely been in this situation. But there have been times where he was in this position (ala last year while being manned up by Pau Gasol), and he couldn't deliver. Again, there is no way you could stick the likes of Horry, Grant, or Gasol on Hakeem or Shaq 1-1 and get away with it. Duncan is great but a profilic scorer like those two he is not.

[kingmalaki]

The West was tougher?

Sorry but the WEst was much tougher for Duncan.

94 and 95 were the years when a certain 23 was out of basketball. The greatness of Magic and Bird were over. Essentially Jordan came back and Houston went back to the wayside.

In 94 it was the Sonics as teh 1 seed and they got bounced by Denver. Phoenix? Give me a break?

95 and Hakeem was playing out of his mind with the Spurs as a 1 seed. There really were no other teams of note.

Duncan had to get through the like of Kobe and Shaq, Bibby and Weber, Kidd, Nash and Stoudemire and those Pistons teams.

Duncan has maintained his level of play for a longer time has more MVP's, better stats outside of blocks across the board, has more rings and the list goes on.

Duncan passed Hakeem back in 05. Now its not even in question.

You are bragging on the likes of the Pistons and the choking Kings, or no defense Suns led by Nash and Amare!!! In 94 and 95 the top teams were the Suns (Barkley & KJ), Jazz (Stockton & Malone), Magic (Penny & Shaq), Knicks (Ewing/Mason/Oakley...you think the Pistons had tough defense), Spurs (Robinson/Rodman), etc. Aside from Kobe & Shaq...not one individual star on those other squads is better than any dude I just mentioned from 94/95, outside of Penny. Those teams would beat all of the teams from this era too (not counting the ones that won titles).

Duncan has squared off against one great team in his era, and he only beat them once (I'm not counting the yr Kobe was a pup and Jackson wasn't coaching them).

The rings argument is silly in this comparison IMO, because Hakeem has clearly shown he can carry a team to a title when he has enough help. He led his team to the title in his 2nd season and lost to one of the best teams in league history. It's not his fault his surrounding cast got injured or booted for drugs and management didn't assemble good help until around 93.

[TD4THREE]

You have identified one or two good/great games from that series. Props to Duncan on those few good games. His series %'s were still low. Ok, Duncan against the mavs in the 06 playoffs.

game 1- 31 pts 4 ast

game 2- 28 pts 3 ast

game 3- 35 pts 2 ast

game 4- 31 pts 6 ast

game 5- 36 pts 4 ast

game 6- 24 pts 1 ast

game 7- 41 pts 6 ast

Duncan averaged 32.2 ppg, 3.8 ast, and 11.7 rebounds for the entire 7 game series, he also shot .579 % from the field. Still think Duncan can't be a "prolific" scorer when he needs to be?

[kingmalaki]

Ok, Duncan against the mavs in the 06 playoffs.

game 1- 31 pts 4 ast

game 2- 28 pts 3 ast

game 3- 35 pts 2 ast

game 4- 31 pts 6 ast

game 5- 36 pts 4 ast

game 6- 24 pts 1 ast

game 7- 41 pts 6 ast

Duncan averaged 32.2 ppg, 3.8 ast, and 11.7 rebounds for the entire 7 game series, he also shot .579 % from the field. Still think Duncan can't be a "prolific" scorer when he needs to be?

Let me clarify. Hakeem and Shaq have an extra boost in their offensive games. You can't single cover them with dudes like Pau Gasol or Robert Horry and get away with it. You just can't. I have seen this happen to Duncan in the playoffs 4 times. He is just not the profilic scorer that either of those two are.

Sorry, but you can't convince me that Duncan could pump Robinson for 40 a night or Ewing/Mason/Oakley for 27 a night (when the series average is in the 80's) when he is being neutralized by Pau Gasol or shooting in the low 40's against the Wallace boys. Do you honestly think Pau Gasol could neutralize Hakeem or Shaq in a playoff series...where they struggle to score against him? Be honest now. It's similar to how T-Mac and Kobe are both great offensive threats (the old T-Mac), but there is no way in hell you could stick a Derek Fisher on Kobe (like the Jazz did to T-Mac in the 06 playoffs) and get away with it.

That was a great offensive series against the Mavs BTW.

[TD4THREE]

Do you honestly think Pau Gasol could neutralize Hakeem or Shaq in a playoff series... In their primes? Of course not. But in Duncan's defense, he's wasn't exactly in his either. He's 32 years old(will be 33 before the playoffs start). As far as Horry, I wouldn't say they got away with it, Duncan had alot of high scoring games and outplayed Shaq several times in alot of their meetings. With that said I'm not suggesting that Duncan could do what Hakeem did to Robinson in 95, or even that he's as good offensively.

[Shaquala-Williams]

This may be the worst thread ever! First of all, the name of the site is spurstalk, what do you expect the answer will be?

When I lived in Seattle back in the 80's my daddy took me to game 6 of my beloved Sonics vs Houston. I've never seen a more dominant performance by a center EVER! This guy was just everywhere, blocking shots, taking rebounds, scoring, assists etc.. After that I had him as one my favs in the nba even though I was a Seattle-fan.

This discussion is damn lame because there's just no way I can give it to Timmy, more rings, yes but that doesn't mean smack honestly. In basketball it's about offensive and defensive plays and Hakeem was a better offensive player and a better defensive player. Talk all you want about rings etc. etc but on the unbiased basketballforums Hakeem is seen as the better.

[afireinside20]

In my opinion Duncan is better than Hakeem. Sure Hakeem had the Dream Shake and good low post moves, but hey, so does Duncan. I think Duncan just about edges him out.

[Galileo]

In my opinion Duncan is better than Hakeem. Sure Hakeem had the Dream Shake and good low post moves, but hey, so does Duncan. I think Duncan just about edges him out.

The value of a big man who runs around and sets dozens of picks on offense is hard to quantify. Duncan did it, and Hakeem didn't.

Another big man who did it was Bill Russell. he was constantly in motion on offense, setting picks and opening up the offense.

The results of Duncan and Russell speak for themselves.

[Ignignokt]

I like how Bobbyjones KingMalaki like to say that the jordan era was tougher than today's peak, yet it's a useless argument to use because the rockets won when jordan was gone. So in actuality, the rockets dominated in the Chris Weber/Scottie Pippen Era! ROFL!!!!!! x 1000000 victoria texas wic products.

[Ignignokt]

Let me clarify. Hakeem and Shaq have an extra boost in their offensive games. You can't single cover them with dudes like Pau Gasol or Robert Horry and get away with it. You just can't. I have seen this happen to Duncan in the playoffs 4 times. He is just not the profilic scorer that either of those two are.

Sorry, but you can't convince me that Duncan could pump Robinson for 40 a night or Ewing/Mason/Oakley for 27 a night (when the series average is in the 80's) when he is being neutralized by Pau Gasol or shooting in the low 40's against the Wallace boys. Do you honestly think Pau Gasol could neutralize Hakeem or Shaq in a playoff series...where they struggle to score against him? Be honest now. It's similar to how T-Mac and Kobe are both great offensive threats (the old T-Mac), but there is no way in hell you could stick a Derek Fisher on Kobe (like the Jazz did to T-Mac in the 06 playoffs) and get away with it.

That was a great offensive series against the Mavs BTW.

Duncan makes the teams better. Everyones shooting percentage get's better when they joined the spurs. Look at mason who was a carreer .377 3pt shooter and now is a .450.

It is Duncan who took three different squads to the finals.

Infact, I think the Pistons of 05 could have beat the Rockets of 94-95 because of the matchups.

[spursfan09]

:lol @ rings don't mean anything. WTF? Then don't have a freaken playoff.
You can cry all you want that Hakeem didn't have the talent to win more, but TD has alwasy been known for making players around him better.

Also TD gets overlooked cause he plays with so much ease that when you see Hakeem and see all his fancy moves you just think he's better when in reality Tim is so good he makes his performance look like it took no effort.

This is something I noticed about Parker as well. He has such a natural talent, that when he plays bad some think he's being lazy or not trying when he's just having an off night.

[Galileo]

:lol @ rings don't mean anything. WTF? Then don't have a freaken playoff.
You can cry all you want that Hakeem didn't have the talent to win more, but TD has alwasy been known for making players around him better.

Also TD gets overlooked cause he plays with so much ease that when you see Hakeem and see all his fancy moves you just think he's better when in reality Tim is so good he makes his performance look like it took no effort.

This is something I noticed about Parker as well. He has such a natural talent, that when he plays bad some think he's being lazy or not trying when he's just having an off night.

I agree.

The fact is, with Duncan, the Spurs run a more smooth offense than the Rockets ever did.

I watched Hakeem. He was NOT a team player until the fall of 1992 when Rudy T came aboard. Then he dominated for three years, but his skills were already on the decline by the '95 season because of age.

Duncan was a team player from day one, and became a great team player by his second year.

Duncan '99 more athletic than Hakeem '95

[Galileo]

for all of hakeem's great moves, he always went for the turnaround jumper that would miss more than it would make and it always left him out of position to get the rebound.

Great point.

I often wondered this myself as I watched Hakeem play. At least he usually ran down the court fast to get back on defense.

[SpurSupremacist]

The only thing Hakeem supporters can rely on is him being more flashy, therefore he will be more universally respected than Duncan.. Duncan more rings, and he's been the common denominator on every Spurs championship team. He's taken more people to rings than Michael Jordan. (wow)

Clear choice, Duncan.

[ambchang]

Talks that Duncan didn't have another gear is laugable.

In 2003, the following are the numbers for Duncan in each series:

Vs. Suns:
18.7 ppg, 16 rpg, 5.2 ast, 3.5 blks

vs. Lakers:
28 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 4.8 ast, 1.3 blks

vs. Mavs:
28 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 5.8 ast, 3 blks

vs. Nets:
24.2ppg, 17 rpg, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blks

And these include masterpieces like the near quadruple double title clinching game, 40 pt, 15 reb, 7 ast gae vs. the mavs, 34 pts, 24 reb, 6 ast, 6 blk vs. the mavs, 37 pts, 16 reb, 4 ast vs. the 3-time champ lakers, 36 pt, 9 reb, 5 ast vs. the Lakers, 28 pt, 8 reb, 7 ast vs. the Lakers, 27 pt, 14 reb, 5 ast vs. the Lakers, triple double vs. the suns, 32 pt, 20 reb, 6 ast, 7 blk vs. the Nets, and these are all in the same playoff run.

[sook]

Hakeem is top 10 all time, with his skill set he is arguable the best Center of all time lmao...but Duncan is a PF, how can you compare the 2 that accurately.

Good arguments Jam, i agree with you for the most part

[sook]

The West was tougher?

Sorry but the WEst was much tougher for Duncan.

94 and 95 were the years when a certain 23 was out of basketball. The greatness of Magic and Bird were over. Essentially Jordan came back and Houston went back to the wayside.

In 94 it was the Sonics as teh 1 seed and they got bounced by Denver. Phoenix? Give me a break?

95 and Hakeem was playing out of his mind with the Spurs as a 1 seed. There really were no other teams of note.

Duncan had to get through the like of Kobe and Shaq, Bibby and Weber, Kidd, Nash and Stoudemire and those Pistons teams.

Duncan has maintained his level of play for a longer time has more MVP's, better stats outside of blocks across the board, has more rings and the list goes on.

Duncan passed Hakeem back in 05. Now its not even in question.

the 95 Rockets had the toughest path to the finals in NBA history, 4 teams with 50+ wins, including a 1-3 comeback in the series vs the suns.

Someone already posted it too, the first time Hakeem went to the finals the team wasn't that great and that was probably the era of the most Powerful teams in NBA history, the Pistons, Lakers, Celtics, you name it.

He actually wanted to be traded or something b.c he was so frustrated of carrying all the load at one point. I think Duncan is great but it is also the compliments he has that allowed the spurs to be the team of the decade

[TDfan2007]

the 95 Rockets had the toughest path to the finals in NBA history, 4 teams with 50+ wins, including a 1-3 comeback in the series vs the suns.

Someone already posted it too, the first time Hakeem went to the finals the team wasn't that great and that was probably the era of the most Powerful teams in NBA history, the Pistons, Lakers, Celtics, you name it.

He actually wanted to be traded or something b.c he was so frustrated of carrying all the load at one point. I think Duncan is great but it is also the compliments he has that allowed the spurs to be the team of the decade


I love how everyone mentions Tim's supporting cast, then forgets about 2003. That year was supposed to be a rebuilding year and Tim was basically surrounded by unproven guys. He made everyone better and destroyed opposing teams individually during that title run. What Tim did in 2003 is on par with anything that Hakeem has ever done. He was just that good.

[duncan228]

What Tim did in 2003 is on par with anything that Hakeem has ever done. He was just that good.

Duncan was out of his mind in '03. Not my favorite Championship, but some of Duncan's best basketball.

[m33p0]

Duncan's go to move > Hakeem's go to move.

nuff sed.

[Thomas82]

Hakeem is top 10 all time, with his skill set he is arguable the best Center of all time lmao...but Duncan is a PF, how can you compare the 2 that accurately.

Good arguments Jam, i agree with you for the most part

Please tell me that was a joke.

[Killakobe81]

Hakeem's peak was higher. There are few fans on the board who are going to debate that.

However, Tim has put together a sustained period of dominance that few NBA players are ever going to match. He is a much better passer than Hakeem, and plays much smarter defense, which refutes your statement that athleticism is able to trump this category. If defense = athleticism, the Spurs would not have more than a single banner in the rafters, if that.

And he's not done yet. Really, if Timmy ends up with 15 ASGs or more in his career and 5+ rings, how are you going to possibly argue that Hakeem was a better player over the course of an entire career? Tim Duncan's game is one that, in spite of posting excellent statistics across the board, defies those statistics in the same motion. He is a perfect example of what stats DO NOT tell you about the game of basketball.


So you can take Hakeem's incredible number of post moves and offensive abilities, you can take his dream hook, and his vaunted athleticism. I'll take Duncan's consistently heady play, his BB IQ that is almost unparalleled across all of the major sports, his ability to control the game when he doesn't have the ball, his passing skills, his incredible clutch play, and the four banners hanging from the rafters that all resulted from him being the best power forward the league has ever seen. The part that puts it over the edge for me is that Tim isn't even CLOSE to being done yet, and may have 6 or 7 rings when everything is said and finished, at which point the comparisons to Hakeem would cease and talk about whether Duncan should be in the top 5 of all time would start.

great post and agree longterm i would take Duncan over Hakeem (and Shaq)
BUT Shaq and Hakeem in their MVP years were far more dominant ...Duncan consistently great

[m33p0]

great post and agree longterm i would take Duncan over Hakeem (and Shaq)
BUT Shaq and Hakeem in their MVP years were far more dominant ...Duncan consistently great
i knew deferring to his teammates and showing them trust will come back and haunt duncan. he should have told manu and tony to take a hike and taken all the shots himself! :bang:bang:bang

[sook]

Please tell me that was a joke.

Why is it a joke? You want to refute my point? That is nowhere close to a joke my friend, thats like saying Kobe bryant isn't one of the greatest centers of all time.


Bring up Shaq if you want, but maybe you should see the 95 finals where dream swept shaq's team, and don't give me the bull of shaq wasn't in his prime, they took out Jordan's bullsm

[lefty]

Duncan = Hakeem.

Thread

[TwinTowers]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.

Hakeem and half the NBA in the 90's would have more accomplishments if it wasn't for one man.... the real king:bking

[Nathan Explosion]

"Why is it a joke? You want to refute my point? That is nowhere close to a joke my friend, thats like saying Kobe bryant isn't one of the greatest centers of all time."

I think you meant Kobe is one of the best 2 guards ever.

The joke is that you said Hakeem might be the greatest center ever. I can name 3 off the bat who get higher billing, Wilt, Russell and Kareem.

The best center I've ever seen, maybe. Hakeem and Shaq are neck and neck. But the greatest ever.....NO.

[sook]

"Why is it a joke? You want to refute my point? That is nowhere close to a joke my friend, thats like saying Kobe bryant isn't one of the greatest centers of all time."

I think you meant Kobe is one of the best 2 guards ever.

The joke is that you said Hakeem might be the greatest center ever. I can name 3 off the bat who get higher billing, Wilt, Russell and Kareem.

The best center I've ever seen, maybe. Hakeem and Shaq are neck and neck. But the greatest ever.....NO.

Wilt and Russel had their stats inflated due to the time they were playing, Kareem, well you got me there.

[Nathan Explosion]

Wilt and Russel had their stats inflated due to the time they were playing, Kareem, well you got me there.


Actually, if you really want to be critical of the era, Wilt's and Russell's stats would be more impressive if blocks were an official stat. That would knock down some of Hakeem's accomplishments if they totaled blocks.

Legend has it that Wilt once had unofficially 20 blocks in a game. I wish I could remember where I heard that. I think it was a blog talking about the era.

[Thomas82]

Actually, if you really want to be critical of the era, Wilt's and Russell's stats would be more impressive if blocks were an official stat. That would knock down some of Hakeem's accomplishments if they totaled blocks.

Legend has it that Wilt once had unofficially 20 blocks in a game. I wish I could remember where I heard that. I think it was a blog talking about the era.

Yeah, and Bill Russell's stats were not inflated at all, especially scoring. He never even averaged 20 points a game in a season, and I believe he was a career 15/16 PPG. As for Hakeem, you can make a case for him being a top 5 all-time center, but definately not the best. I would put Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell,, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Moses Malone ahead of Hakeem.

[Thomas82]

Why is it a joke? You want to refute my point? That is nowhere close to a joke my friend, thats like saying Kobe bryant isn't one of the greatest centers of all time.


Bring up Shaq if you want, but maybe you should see the 95 finals where dream swept shaq's team, and don't give me the bull of shaq wasn't in his prime, they took out Jordan's bullsm

I don't even consider Shaq a top 5 center, but I would put him in the bottom half of the top 10.

[sook]

Yeah, and Bill Russell's stats were not inflated at all, especially scoring. He never even averaged 20 points a game in a season, and I believe he was a career 15/16 PPG. As for Hakeem, you can make a case for him being a top 5 all-time center, but definately not the best. I would put Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell,, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Moses Malone ahead of Hakeem.

MM is not better than Hakeem, i think i remember him even praising Hakeem can calling him the best C of all time, ill try to find the vid

[ambchang]

Why is it a joke? You want to refute my point? That is nowhere close to a joke my friend, thats like saying Kobe bryant isn't one of the greatest centers of all time.


Bring up Shaq if you want, but maybe you should see the 95 finals where dream swept shaq's team, and don't give me the bull of shaq wasn't in his prime, they took out Jordan's bullsm

Kareem says Hi.

[TDMVPDPOY]

imo tim duncan has done alot in round 1-2-3...finals he takes a back step cause the defense just collapse onto him.....just look at all our championship runs, monster stat avgs better than his b2b mvp years.

[Nathan Explosion]

imo tim duncan has done alot in round 1-2-3...finals he takes a back step cause the defense just collapse onto him.....just look at all our championship runs, monster stat avgs better than his b2b mvp years.

Except for 2003 of course. 2 blocks shy of a quadruple double is not taking a back seat.

[j-money24]

Kareem says Hi.
and wilt is in heaven right now so isnt able to say hi.

[m33p0]

and wilt is in heaven right now so isnt able to say hi.
e-mail?

[j-money24]

e-mail?

il make sure he sends a nice email