Duncan>Hakeem.

[Ignignokt]

....

[Cloud786]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.

[ducks]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.
not

[spursfaninla]

This was put to bed a while back I would say. The only question is about Hakeem at his peak in the playoffs vs. duncan at his. In that case, Hakeem might have him.

Overall career wise it is clearly no contest.

[E20]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.

[Obstructed_View]

Um. Duh.

[JamStone]

Overall career wise it is clearly no contest.


How is it CLEARLY no contest?

[mavs>spurs2]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.

Agreed

[duncan228]

Will the season ever get here?

[Stone Cold Hakeem]

Compelling arguments all around.

[screw_ston713]

Now the Argentine team is playing the "Marchand Continental Cup" in Puerto Rico.
This firendly tournament started today. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Puerto Rico are playing in it.

Argentina beat Brazil 75-67. Brazil played without Nene and Leandrinho.

Scola was the main scorer and rebounder of the game.

His Stats:

33 min, 23 pts (11/22 2pt), 12 rebs, 2 as.

Boxscore




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

The Official site of the tournament (with live scores and stats):

http://www.fiba.com/pages/esp/fe/07/fibaAmer/tutoCup/news/lateNews/p/openNodeIDs/6309/selNodeID/6309/FE_news_lateNews.html

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



__________________

[exstatic]

4>2

[jaffies]

Now the Argentine team is playing the "Marchand Continental Cup" in Puerto Rico.
This firendly tournament started today. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Puerto Rico are playing in it.

Argentina beat Brazil 75-67. Brazil played without Nene and Leandrinho.

Scola was the main scorer and rebounder of the game.

His Stats:

33 min, 23 pts (11/22 2pt), 12 rebs, 2 as.




:wakeup

[Obstructed_View]

Now the Argentine team is playing the "Marchand Continental Cup" in Puerto Rico.
This firendly tournament started today. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Puerto Rico are playing in it.

Argentina beat Brazil 75-67. Brazil played without Nene and Leandrinho.

Scola was the main scorer and rebounder of the game.

His Stats:

33 min, 23 pts (11/22 2pt), 12 rebs, 2 as.

Boxscore




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

The Official site of the tournament (with live scores and stats):

http://www.fiba.com/pages/esp/fe/07/fibaAmer/tutoCup/news/lateNews/p/openNodeIDs/6309/selNodeID/6309/FE_news_lateNews.html

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



__________________
Argentina just lost to Canada.

[JamStone]

4>2


Scottie Pippen > Tim Duncan

[SpursDynasty]

Scottie Pippen > Tim Duncan

Johnny Pippen only won because of Michael Jordan.

[JamStone]

Johnny Pippen only won because of Michael Jordan.

Tim Duncan played 1 on 5 on the court for his four titles?

[CubanMustGo]

Scottie Pippen > Tim Duncan

Therefore

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan

[texbound]

Therefore

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan


Therefore

Beno Udrih + Matt Bonner > Charles Barkley + Karl Malone

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Stewie: Hello officer, We met on the Internet. He lured me into the car with promises of candy and funny stories.

Meg: Everybody! Guess what I am?
Stewie: Hm, the end result of a drunken back-seat grope-fest and a broken prophylactic?
:lmao

[JamStone]

Therefore

Robert Horry > Michael Jordan


Exactly my point why I questioned "4 > 2"

[x_roux_x]

Hakeem was a great. But I still choose Duncan all the way around. I have already heard everyones arguments on this before and Duncan is still my choice clearly and easily.

[Indazone]

Hakeem was a great. But I still choose Duncan all the way around. I have already heard everyones arguments on this before and Duncan is still my choice clearly and easily.

haha..Olajuwan would have schooled Duncan at his peak. He clearly took it to David Robinson. Nobody his size had his footwork, speed and touch. Hakeem was a guard in a center's body.

[ChumpDumper]

In the course of his career, Hakeem played at a higher level than Duncan for two seasons.

That's about it.

[Roxsfan]

haha..Olajuwan would have schooled Duncan at his peak. He clearly took it to David Robinson. Nobody his size had his footwork, speed and touch. Hakeem was a guard in a center's body.

though I agree, who gives a shiit..when it comes down to it.

But,..............


what a great sight that would have been to see Hakeem dismantle Robinson and Duncan in a few games.

[Indazone]

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]

[ChumpDumper]

Decide for yourselves thenI did.

Two seasons.

Nice guy.

[ploto]

Horry said Hakeem was the best.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Is Horry Chumpdumper? No.

[Stone Cold Hakeem]

For the sake of honest argument, I looked up the PER ratings for both players.

PER
Age Duncan Olajuwon
22 23.2 21.1
23 24.8 24.2
24 23.8 23.8
25 27.0 23.4
26 26.9 25.2
27 27.1 24.1
28 27.0 24.3
29 23.0 23.7
30 26.1 27.3
Average 25.4 24.1

If you compare PER ratings for Olajuwon and Duncan at the same age up until age 30, Duncan is clearly the superior player. Both players tend to be criminally underrated but given Tim Duncan's age and what he's already accomplished, I think history will remember him as the better player in the end.

PER ratings have their flaws -- they don't, for example, account for intangibles, especially on the defensive end of the floor, which was a large part of Hakeem's presence. But general consensus is that PER is reliable barometer for a player's overall talent.

It pains to have to write this post, love Hakeem as much as do, but I like Duncan and I don't think he gets enough respect. So...there you go.

[SpursIndonesia]

I don't like comparing both of them, they're great on their own respective career. I do think Hakeem's peak is higher than TD's peak, especially defensively, but TD has the better achievements up to this point. I must say Hakeem's the better athlete, TD's the better BBall player -that's my SUBJECTIVE opinion.

[spursfan09]

Tell us something we don't know.

[x_roux_x]

I don't like comparing both of them, they're great on their own respective career. I do think Hakeem's peak is higher than TD's peak, especially defensively, but TD has the better achievements up to this point. I must say Hakeem's the better athlete, TD's the better BBall player -that's my SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Very good way of putting it. But looking at the careers and my personal bias I will choose TD. Well I will honeslty choose TD without the bias. I love all texas sports teams with the exception Dallas Mavericks at times.(too classless.) Never truly liked them much, but they are still TX. But houston has always been my second favorite team. And I use to love Drob and Hakeem duels. It was great. I love Hakeem and definately respect what he did as a player. But I just think that tim is a better basketball player in regards to doing everything effectively(including team work). If I would start a team I would pick Duncan first. Then Hakeem. Then Shaq(which pains me to say) then Drob. (obviously not on the same team, but in the order of my selection draft wise.)Although Shaq is obviously before Drob I would personally pick Drob before Shaq. I think the reasons should be obvious.(not just cuz he was a spur and yes shaq was more dominant) but out of pure all around great bball player and class act.

[mavs>spurs2]

Kind of dumb to argue this on a Spurs message board. If its remotely close, everyone on here will choose the Spur. Take this arguement on a neutral board if you really want to have a true debate.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[TheAuthority]

You can argue D-Rob vs. Hakeem. Duncan vs Hakeem is just silly. Duncan in a landslide. Duncan is going to have twice as many all-nba first teams by the time he's retired as Hakeem did.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Hakeem clearly got the better of Robinson in '95. But all their other match ups were neck and neck. When Hakeem left, so did Houston's relevance in the Western Conferance power rankings, evidenced by them not doing squat since.

Houston homers are putting all their hopes and dreams on a PF that would not have been good enough to start for the Spurs and a washed up former franchise player on bad wheels making their team better, which they should be. But they'll still be the 3rd or 4th best team in the western conferance.

Duncan and Hakeem were both great players. One intangible that not many talk about is what makes Duncan far and away a better player then Hakeem. Duncan makes everyone around him much better.

btw no one talks about Duncan winning his 4 NBA titles with 4 completely overhauled rosters. Hakeem won his back to back titles with essentially the same starting core players.

By the way we got scoreboard bitches.

[Obstructed_View]

haha..Olajuwan would have schooled Duncan at his peak.
Which lasted about two years. Duncan's been on a ten year plateau.

[bobbyjoe]

Kind of dumb to argue this on a Spurs message board. If its remotely close, everyone on here will choose the Spur. Take this arguement on a neutral board if you really want to have a true debate.

Ask and you shall receive.

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

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

As you'd expect on basically any non-Spurs forum, the opinion of neutral NBA fans is decidedly pro Hakeem. So is the opinion of Mario Elie and Horry, the 2 common teammates of Duncan and Hakeem.

[mavs>spurs2]

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

Do you always have to be such a smartass? God it was nice while you were gone.

[mavs>spurs2]

Ask and you shall receive.

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

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

As you'd expect on basically any non-Spurs forum, the opinion of neutral NBA fans is decidedly pro Hakeem. So is the opinion of Mario Elie and Horry, the 2 common teammates of Duncan and Hakeem.

Personally, i'd take Hakeem imo he was better all around than Duncan and much more athletic.

[bobbyjoe]

You can argue D-Rob vs. Hakeem. Duncan vs Hakeem is just silly. Duncan in a landslide. Duncan is going to have twice as many all-nba first teams by the time he's retired as Hakeem did.

Getting All NBA first team in the diluted 2000's (which see teams like the Cavs, Nets, and Sixers make the NBA Finals with marginal at best teams) at forward when 2 forward's make it is a comprable achievement as making All NBA First team at Center in the 1990's when you have Hakeem, DRob, Shaq, Ewing all in their primes? Not quite.

You got it backwards btw. Duncan-Hakeem is close enough to debate, as evidenced by the forums in the above link getting some actual discourse. Hakeem-Robinson is just so obvious it's not worth even talking about. It's like asking if Shaq was better than Ewing or if Duncan is better than Garnett.

[Rustyman]

As a player, no doubt that Duncan is a better and more effective player who will always be the better winner. However, for me, Hakeem was the most talented player I have ever seen, in my eyes more talented than even Jordan. Hakeem had moves, I have never seen any other player do or even attempt.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem clearly got the better of Robinson in '95. But all their other match ups were neck and neck. When Hakeem left, so did Houston's relevance in the Western Conferance power rankings, evidenced by them not doing squat since.

Houston homers are putting all their hopes and dreams on a PF that would not have been good enough to start for the Spurs and a washed up former franchise player on bad wheels making their team better, which they should be. But they'll still be the 3rd or 4th best team in the western conferance.

Duncan and Hakeem were both great players. One intangible that not many talk about is what makes Duncan far and away a better player then Hakeem. Duncan makes everyone around him much better.

btw no one talks about Duncan winning his 4 NBA titles with 4 completely overhauled rosters. Hakeem won his back to back titles with essentially the same starting core players.

By the way we got scoreboard bitches.

This is a statement that many throw around here which really is overblown "Duncan makes everyone around him much better"

There's not a big man in NBA History IMO who literally "makes those around him better" IMO. That honor is reserved for the super great PG's like Stockton, Magic, Nash.

Guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem can certainly make the game easier for teammates but that's different than really making them better.

Anyway, when you look at the guys that Duncan has played with, most have been quality players pre-Duncan or in situations without him

DRob: MVP before Duncan got there
Elliott: All star pre-Duncan
Tony Parker: Finals MVP 2007
Ginobili: Great international success
Finley: All star/solid 2 guard for many years pre-Duncan
Bowen: Marginal NBA Career pre-Duncan and found a perfect role in SA
Horry: Nothing needs to be said here

Duncan's certainly a great teammate and a very unselfish player which I guess is a part of what you are getting at, but the Spurs have some great collective talent around him. These guys aren't scrubs who would fall to pieces without Tim.

A lot of people here love to say Shaq had Kobe, Shaq had Wade, but the roster the Spurs have excluding Duncan right now is pretty damn good, even if it lacks a traditional 2nd superstar like Pippen, Kobe, etc.

Parker is arguably a top 5 or 6 PG in the NBA. Would he not be as ridiculously quick and clever around the basket if he didnt have Duncan on his team? Somehow I doubt that.

Ginobili is one of the most clutch finishers in today's NBA and he's done this at the international level too (against the US as well) without Duncan on his team.

[Capt Bringdown]

As a player, no doubt that Duncan is a better and more effective player who will always be the better winner. However, for me, Hakeem was the most talented player I have ever seen, in my eyes more talented than even Jordan. Hakeem had moves, I have never seen any other player do or even attempt.

Copy that. The most exciting player I've ever seen. His progression from U of H to his NBA peak was incredible. I can remember watching him play and being in awe.

[mbass]

This is a statement that many throw around here which really is overblown "Duncan makes everyone around him much better"

There's not a big man in NBA History IMO who literally "makes those around him better" IMO. That honor is reserved for the super great PG's like Stockton, Magic, Nash.

Guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem can certainly make the game easier for teammates but that's different than really making them better.

Anyway, when you look at the guys that Duncan has played with, most have been quality players pre-Duncan or in situations without him

DRob: MVP before Duncan got there
Elliott: All star pre-Duncan
Tony Parker: Finals MVP 2007
Ginobili: Great international success
Finley: All star/solid 2 guard for many years pre-Duncan
Bowen: Marginal NBA Career pre-Duncan and found a perfect role in SA
Horry: Nothing needs to be said here

Duncan's certainly a great teammate and a very unselfish player which I guess is a part of what you are getting at, but the Spurs have some great collective talent around him. These guys aren't scrubs who would fall to pieces without Tim.

A lot of people here love to say Shaq had Kobe, Shaq had Wade, but the roster the Spurs have excluding Duncan right now is pretty damn good, even if it lacks a traditional 2nd superstar like Pippen, Kobe, etc.

Parker is arguably a top 5 or 6 PG in the NBA. Would he not be as ridiculously quick and clever around the basket if he didnt have Duncan on his team? Somehow I doubt that.

Ginobili is one of the most clutch finishers in today's NBA and he's done this at the international level too (against the US as well) without Duncan on his team.

Without Duncan I question whether the Spurs would win 40 games.

[to21]

I've never heard any arguments about The Dream (which BTW was a bad man) being the best ever at his position.

[Indazone]

forget about Hakeem Duncan

The real question should be for years to come..who's better? Yao or Duncan?

Tim Duncan
San Antonio Spurs
Position: F-C
Height: 6-11 Weight: 260
College: Wake Forest
Player file | Team stats

2006-07 Statistics
PPG 20.0
RPG 10.6
APG 3.4
SPG 0.8
BPG 2.4
FG% 0.546
FT% 0.637
3P% 0.111
MPG 34.1


Yao Ming
Houston Rockets
Position: C
Height: 7-6 Weight: 310
College: China
Player file | Team stats

2006-07 Statistics
PPG 25.0
RPG 9.4
APG 2.0
SPG 0.3
BPG 2.0
FG% 0.516
FT% 0.862
3P% 0.000
MPG 33.8

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

For years to come? Well Yao is 26 and Duncan is gonna hit 32. I don't think you have a choice there.

[Obstructed_View]

You got it backwards btw. Duncan-Hakeem is close enough to debate, as evidenced by the forums in the above link getting some actual discourse. Hakeem-Robinson is just so obvious it's not worth even talking about. It's like asking if Shaq was better than Ewing or if Duncan is better than Garnett.
Robinson vs. Hakeem head to head: Robinson 34 wins, Hakeem 14 wins. Just because Hakeem played over his head for four games doesn't make him the superior player. Robinson's teams were upset in the playoffs more often than they weren't. It's not an accomplishment for a team that rested all their starters at the end of the season while everyone else had to play. It's amazing that Robinson could win championships when he was surrounded by talented players, too. :rolleyes

[Dave McNulla]

tim is better than hakeem. a lot of people forget when hakeem came out of college, all raw talent and no fundamentals. there were times he kept questioning his teammates, he didn't trust them until one time they won something like 13 games in a row while he was injured. he had three trips to the finals, only won two of them (lost to an aging boston team). he won two championships against shaq (before his prime) and ewing (in his prime) after going through malone stockton (in thier prime), barkley (in his prime), robinson (in his prime), and the trailblazers (two years after they went to the finals).

he was no slouch. but he didn't do as much as duncan. we can't put them against eachother with the same rules and the same teammates around them, so i'll go scoreboard.

[wildchild]

Duncan>Hakeem and Yao
Duncan's a the star that leads and other players become a better players only because they playing with him. my sig prove that
Hakkem hasn't that gravitation, he took Shaq to school in the Rockets/Orlando nba finals but Timmy is the best forever.

[spursfan09]

I don't know why other fans are debating this? History will show that Duncan was the better player. More championships more accomplishments, just better.

[weebo]

I just played TD v. Dream on my NBA Live. Duncan won.

[JamStone]

I've never heard any arguments about The Dream (which BTW was a bad man) being the best ever at his position.

If you make Hakeem a power forward, he'll have a better argument.

I don't disagree that Tim Duncan is better. I just don't agree with a few people saying it's CLEARLY SO or it's Duncan in a LANDSLIDE.

Hakeem was a genius on the low-block. He had as smooth and as clever of moves in the post as anyone in the history of the game. His athleticism and agility for a 7-footer were unprecedented. And, his defense was just unbelievable.

People, especially Spurs fans, can point at championships and call it case closed. I don't think it's quite that simple.

What both players did in their respective eras was phenomenal. Hakeem was not raised by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He did not have another Hall of Famer he could lean on when he entered the league to take pressure off of him. Imagine if Hakeem had a well established former MVP center on the Rockets when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis. When Hakeem won his titles (granted they were in the two seasons Jordan decided to take a break in), he had Drexler one year, but he didn't have much frontcourt help at all. He had Otis Thorpe the first championship, and then Robert Horry the second, who back then was more of a small forward than a power forward. Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell were all solid players, but none were capable of carrying the team. Duncan has been fortunate enough to have had David Robinson his first two championships, and then have Manu and Parker emerge as bonafide superstar type of players, especially when it comes to the playoffs. Now, you can give credit to Tim Duncan to helping them become those players or Pop for coaching them into those kinds of players, but aside from that, Manu and Parker still had to become those players at least in part on their own merit.

When Hakeem first started his career, he had to play against a dynasty of a team in the Showtime Lakers. And in the 80s when Magic wasn't winning titles, Larry Bird was. And, in the west, he had to deal with one of the best NBA tandems of all time in Stockton and Malone. Then Charles Barkley moved over to the West and decided to wreck the Western Conference and make it even tougher. Then Michael Jordan shut down the NBA for six out of 8 seasons. It's an accomplishment in itself to win an NBA title. Then, during that time, to be able to win two in a row, it's still very much an accomplishment.

No disrespect to any of the Spurs titles. They had to go through Shaq and Kobe. But, after Shaq and Kobe, there has been little true title contending competition in either conference. The Webber-Peja Kings for two seasons? The Jailblazers? 40 year olds Stockton and Malone? The East has been an utter joke as well. There have been great players in the league since 1997, but fewer championship caliber teams/organizations, especially when you consider how expansion has diluted the talent level somewhat.

Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon are both Hall of Fame players that were and are phenomenal basketball players. I actually think Hakeem was the more talented player. That is by no means disrespectful to anything Tim Duncan has done as an NBA player. Tim Duncan has a few more accomplishments, aside from the DPOY award. I think it's close, and it go either way depending what you believe makes the better player.

On individual talent, I would go with Hakeem.

I would definitely NOT say it's a landslide or CLEARLY in favor of one over the other.

[Fabbs]

Hakeem on the Spurs 1999-2007+ would have made for some very good teams.

[Obstructed_View]

He did not have another Hall of Famer he could lean on when he entered the league to take pressure off of him. Imagine if Hakeem had a well established former MVP center on the Rockets when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis.
How quickly Ralph Samson is forgotten. The only difference is that Samson slid over to the 4.

[callo1]

Gotta love these pointless ignorant threads.

Impossible to compare Duncan and Hakeem. They played for different eras and the game, the rules, and the styles of play have changed far too much for a comparison. When Hakeem played the game was far more of a big man's league and now it is a 2 guard / small forward league. Hakeem was an excellent player in his day, and Timmy is the best at his position today.

I doubt any GM would turn a prime Timmy or Hakeem down if they were starting a franchise today.

As far as Hakeem "schooling" D'Rob in '95...lol that is SUCH an oversimplification of the way that series went. I attended all the home games in that series, so I saw what happened. Hakeem had FAR more help than D'Rob did and Houston knew it. Dave had to try to defend Hakeem 1-1 because the Rockets had such great perimeter shooting (Elie, Maxwell, Horry, K-Smith) and the Spurs had zilch outside of a streaky Elliott. Houston played smart and realized the Spurs had a guard that couldn't buy a perimeter shot (Avery) and they doubled and tripled Dave everytime he touched the ball.

Take that aberration of '95 away and D'Rob and Hakeem played each other even up their entire careers.

[E20]

How quickly Ralph Samson is forgotten. The only difference is that Samson slid over to the 4.
Ralph is in the hall of fame? I didn't know playing for like 2 full seasons and averaging 20 and 10 puts you in the HOF......


This statement/conjecture is pretty pointless:

Duncan > Hakeem, it's on a SPURS board LMAO. It's as if the thread was supposed to start controversey or something in a SPURS board. It's like the equivalent of someone posting this:

This is a Spurs board, we are Spurs fans.

[Indazone]

it is pointless cause you put this comparison up on clutchfans and you're gonna get exactly the opposite lol

[JamStone]

How quickly Ralph Samson is forgotten. The only difference is that Samson slid over to the 4.

I forgot Ralph Sampson was in the Hall of Fame and was a former league MVP.

How quickly silly comments in rebuttal are made.

[RocketsDynasty]

Tim Duncan is a fluke. Hakeem won 2 in a row, something Duncan has never done. He would have won 5 in a row but the refs screwed the Rockets and gave all the calls to the Bulls.

Fake dynasties don't win repeat championships.

[Gino20]

Tim Duncan is a fluke. Hakeem won 2 in a row, something Duncan has never done. He would have won 5 in a row but the refs screwed the Rockets and gave all the calls to the Bulls.

Fake dynasties don't win repeat championships.

So are you implying that the Rockets are a dynasty??? :nope Oh, Duncan has 4 rings, something Hakeem will never do....

[dickface]

So are you implying that the Rockets are a dynasty??? :nope Oh, Duncan has 4 rings, something Hakeem will never do....
tip: when a poster has "Dynasty" at the end of their name then don't take them seriously.

[Obstructed_View]

I forgot Ralph Sampson was in the Hall of Fame and was a former league MVP.

How quickly silly comments in rebuttal are made.
Oh so you literally mean a guy who had been awarded the MVP trophy, rather than an all-star caliber big man who averaged 21 points and 11 rebounds, which you clearly forgot. I guess Hakeem knew as a rookie that Ralph was going to have health problems down the road so he couldn't lean on him, and it always preyed on Hakeem's confidence that Sampson wasn't an MVP. :lol

Sampson and Robinson had the same number of 20/10 seasons after the arrival of their HOF teammate. I guess I shouldn't expect you to admit that you completely forgot about Sampson when you made that ignorant statement.

[Obstructed_View]

Take that aberration of '95 away and D'Rob and Hakeem played each other even up their entire careers.
Except that David won 71 percent of the time.

[Dave McNulla]

it is pointless cause you put this comparison up on clutchfans and you're gonna get exactly the opposite lolthat's right. they'll say things like hakeem was better because he won two and duncan only won four, and hakeem lost in the finals against a really old celtic team and hakeem only won one mvp and stuff.

spurs fans won't have a comeback for that.

[JamStone]

Oh so you literally mean a guy who had been awarded the MVP trophy, rather than an all-star caliber big man who averaged 21 points and 11 rebounds, which you clearly forgot. I guess Hakeem knew as a rookie that Ralph was going to have health problems down the road so he couldn't lean on him, and it always preyed on Hakeem's confidence that Sampson wasn't an MVP. :lol

Sampson and Robinson had the same number of 20/10 seasons after the arrival of their HOF teammate. I guess I shouldn't expect you to admit that you completely forgot about Sampson when you made that ignorant statement.

Did not forget about Ralph Sampson. Ralph Sampson had a few very good seasons on the Rockets with Hakeem. Ralph Sampson also only had one year in the NBA under his belt when Hakeem joined the Rockets. Hardly the same thing as a 7-8 year veteran who had already won the league MVP and asserted himself as one of the best centers in the league in David Robinson when Duncan joined the Spurs. Mentoring doesn't happen when two players are 2-3 years apart in age and enter the NBA essentially at the same time. David Robinson mentored Duncan as well as allow him to play power forward and take pressure off of him defensively. Ralph Sampson did not provide the same thing to Hakeem as David Robinson did to Duncan. As I said earlier, had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar been on the Rockets at the time, that would be a similar situation. Ralph Sampson ... no.

But, then again you thought Ralph Sampson was in the Hall of Fame and was a former league MVP.

[LakerLanny]

Duncan has more accomplishments but Hakeem was more talented.

I would agree with that.

Both are incredible players, but Hakeem's quickness and coordination for a player of his size was simply freakish.

Duncan is so solid with his footwork and is able to get it done in big games.

It is a tossup in my mind, good company to be in.

[LakerLanny]

As far as Hakeem "schooling" D'Rob in '95...lol that is SUCH an oversimplification of the way that series went. I attended all the home games in that series, so I saw what happened. Hakeem had FAR more help than D'Rob did and Houston knew it. Dave had to try to defend Hakeem 1-1 because the Rockets had such great perimeter shooting (Elie, Maxwell, Horry, K-Smith) and the Spurs had zilch outside of a streaky Elliott. Houston played smart and realized the Spurs had a guard that couldn't buy a perimeter shot (Avery) and they doubled and tripled Dave everytime he touched the ball.


Nice spin, but anyone who watched it saw Hakeem humiliate the Little Mermaid in that series.

Reality Bites. :devil

[Obstructed_View]

But, then again you thought Ralph Sampson was in the Hall of Fame and was a former league MVP.
If it helps you to think you are winning the discussion, then yes, that's what I thought. :rolleyes

[Obstructed_View]

Nice spin, but anyone who watched it saw Hakeem humiliate the Little Mermaid in that series.

Reality Bites. :devil
What do you know about reality? :lol

[JamStone]

If it helps you to think you are winning the discussion, then yes, that's what I thought. :rolleyes

If that's not what you thought, then it means your reading comprehension skills are in need of some serious polish.

[callo1]

Nice spin, but anyone who watched it saw Hakeem humiliate the Little Mermaid in that series.

Reality Bites. :devil

OK, since reality is what your after...allow me to serve you a dose:)


The Fakers will remain in the Western conference basement again this year. May as well put the "Home Sweet Home" sign out bro, your team is gonna be there a while:)

[LakerLanny]

OK, since reality is what your after...allow me to serve you a dose:)


The Fakers will remain in the Western conference basement again this year. May as well put the "Home Sweet Home" sign out bro, your team is gonna be there a while:)

:oops

:dizzy

:cry

[bobbyjoe]

that's right. they'll say things like hakeem was better because he won two and duncan only won four, and hakeem lost in the finals against a really old celtic team and hakeem only won one mvp and stuff.

spurs fans won't have a comeback for that.

A "really old Celtics team" Now, that's rich. The 86 Celtics are universally considered one of the top 5 teams in NBA History. Bird, McHale, Parrish were all in their primes.

This is like saying the 93 Bulls were really old and aging. Hilarious.

[Ignignokt]

Two Playboy bunnies is better than 4

sincerely

bobby joe!

[bobbyjoe]

"I cant possibly win this argument by comparing the players individual skills and talent, so I'll rely on team accomplishments, even though it's not relevant and by this logic you come up with illogical conclusions like:

Billups > Stockton (1 vs. 0)
Duncan > Wilt (4 vs. 2)
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone and Charles Barkley (1 vs. 0)"

Sincerely,
Ignigokt

How many Titles does Duncan win playing in an era with Magic/Kareem, Larry/McHale, MJ, Karl/John, Sir Charles/KJ, etc all in their primes? How many MVP's? How many all first team NBA? It's a little different than beating a Drew Gooden/Zydrunas Ilgaukas frontcourt.

Look up "context" in the dictionary. If you read the quotes by Elie, Horry and the comments by fans in neutral NBA fan forums, you can see that outside of SA tinted glasses, most pick Hakeem. I guess they gave it more respect though than just reducing the entire argument to who's team of 12 players won the most championships.

Did Chauncey Billups have a better career than John Stockton? Yes or no.

[Ignignokt]

"I cant possibly win this argument by comparing the players individual skills and talent, so I'll rely on team accomplishments, even though it's not relevant and by this logic you come up with illogical conclusions like:

Billups > Stockton (1 vs. 0)
Duncan > Wilt (4 vs. 2)
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone and Charles Barkley (1 vs. 0)"

Sincerely,
Ignigokt

How many Titles does Duncan win playing in an era with Magic/Kareem, Larry/McHale, MJ, Karl/John, Sir Charles/KJ, etc all in their primes? How many MVP's? How many all first team NBA? It's a little different than beating a Drew Gooden/Zydrunas Ilgaukas frontcourt.

Look up "context" in the dictionary. If you read the quotes by Elie, Horry and the comments by fans in neutral NBA fan forums, you can see that outside of SA tinted glasses, most pick Hakeem. I guess they gave it more respect though than just reducing the entire argument to who's team of 12 players won the most championships.

Did Chauncey Billups have a better career than John Stockton? Yes or no.



Okay if you want to say billups= duncan and stockton= Hakeem, then that's just a joke.


Hakeem wouldn't have gotten 4 championships in this era anyway.

His team is what got him there.

Duncan is a different story. He's won multiple championships with different team makeup.

Hakeem is not even the best at his position.

[JP le Requin]

FACTS ARE HERE:

DUNCAN HAS 3 MVP FINALS FOR 4 FINALS (so he was THE leader of the champion team THREE TIMES)
HOLAJUWON HAS "ONLY" 2 MVP FINALS FOR 2 FINALS AS LEADER AND 1 LOST....in THE 80's (dont forget it)

[barbacoataco]

First of all, this is kind of a pointless thread, but what the hell. Hakeem in the mid-90's was one of the 3 or 4 most dominant players I have seen. He was a great defender, who blocked a lot of shots, and he played at a time when there were some good centers around. He was better than Shaq and DRob (though not by much) who themselves are great players. But his team did not win with the same consistency as Duncan. You can't blame it all on Michael Jordan either, since its not like the Rockets were going to the Finals every year and losing to the Bulls. Were the teams better then than now? I'm not so sure. The Malone/Stockton Jazz were the best team in the Western Conference most of those years, and I believe the Spurs of today would win against them. In 1999 the Blazers beat that same Jazz team that had gone to the Finals the year before (and almost won), and then the 99 Spurs knocked off the blazers. If Jordan's Bulls, Hakeem's Rockets, and Malone's Jazz were so much better than today's teams, when did the dropoff happen? I don't buy it, and I think every year there are 3-4 teams that are good enough to win a championship. I guarantee you that the 2004 Pistons would have beat some of the "great" teams of the 80's and 90's.
Bottom line--- Duncan and Hakeem were both winners. Duncan has won more, but Hakeem's stats are better, and IMO he was a better defender. So take your pick.

[bobbyjoe]

Okay if you want to say billups= duncan and stockton= Hakeem, then that's just a joke.


Hakeem wouldn't have gotten 4 championships in this era anyway.

His team is what got him there.

Duncan is a different story. He's won multiple championships with different team makeup.

Hakeem is not even the best at his position.

And if Hakeem had played PF, he not Duncan, would be considered the best of all time at that position. Ditto for Moses Malone. If you consider Malone a PF, Duncan aint #1.

It's obviously a lot easier to be #1 at PF when your main competition is Malone, Barkley, and McHale than at Center when your competition is Bill Russell, Kareem, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal, 4 of the top 10 nba players in NBA history.

If you think that anyone outside of SA would consider Duncan the best Center of all time, you're just nuts. Just like Hakeem he'd be considered in the top 5 or 6 but no one would have him #1. No one.

A guy like Hakeem would easily be much more dominant and win more rings in today's NBA than the late 80's to late 90's when there was elite competition at the Center position whereas a guy like Duncan would be challenged a lot harder competing against Malone/Barkley/DRob/Ewing/Shaq, especially without a C like DRob to guard those guys.

You still havent answered the question. If you concede that Stockton is a better PG than Billups, than you are acnowledging that there are other factors in determining who was a better player than "1 ring beats 0".

But I guess you are right, that awesome starting backccourt of Kenny Smith (who?) and Vernon Maxwell (who?) just carried Hakeem past Barkley/KJ and Stockton/Malone in 94. Right?

[Ignignokt]

And if Hakeem had played PF, he not Duncan, would be considered the best of all time at that position. Ditto for Moses Malone. If you consider Malone a PF, Duncan aint #1.

It's obviously a lot easier to be #1 at PF when your main competition is Malone, Barkley, and McHale than at Center when your competition is Bill Russell, Kareem, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal, 4 of the top 10 nba players in NBA history.

If you think that anyone outside of SA would consider Duncan the best Center of all time, you're just nuts. Just like Hakeem he'd be considered in the top 5 or 6 but no one would have him #1. No one.

A guy like Hakeem would easily be much more dominant and win more rings in today's NBA than the late 80's to late 90's when there was elite competition at the Center position whereas a guy like Duncan would be challenged a lot harder competing against Malone/Barkley/DRob/Ewing/Shaq, especially without a C like DRob to guard those guys.

You still havent answered the question. If you concede that Stockton is a better PG than Billups, than you are acnowledging that there are other factors in determining who was a better player than "1 ring beats 0".

But I guess you are right, that awesome starting backccourt of Kenny Smith (who?) and Vernon Maxwell (who?) just carried Hakeem past Barkley/KJ and Stockton/Malone in 94. Right?


See that's the sad thing you don't get Bobby joe, Shaq and Duncan are the best bigman of this era. Duncan has accomplished more than shaq, won a ring before Shaq with a less studded team.

Duncan in the early nineties wouldn't have backed down from ewing or Drob, This is the same Duncan who went up against Horry and SHaq at their peak as a tandem, with Robinson only logging in 13mpg.

Nominated 1st team all defense since his rookie year.

[Ignignokt]

And if Hakeem had played PF, he not Duncan, would be considered the best of all time at that position. Ditto for Moses Malone. If you consider Malone a PF, Duncan aint #1.

It's obviously a lot easier to be #1 at PF when your main competition is Malone, Barkley, and McHale than at Center when your competition is Bill Russell, Kareem, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal, 4 of the top 10 nba players in NBA history.

If you think that anyone outside of SA would consider Duncan the best Center of all time, you're just nuts. Just like Hakeem he'd be considered in the top 5 or 6 but no one would have him #1. No one.

A guy like Hakeem would easily be much more dominant and win more rings in today's NBA than the late 80's to late 90's when there was elite competition at the Center position whereas a guy like Duncan would be challenged a lot harder competing against Malone/Barkley/DRob/Ewing/Shaq, especially without a C like DRob to guard those guys.

You still havent answered the question. If you concede that Stockton is a better PG than Billups, than you are acnowledging that there are other factors in determining who was a better player than "1 ring beats 0".

But I guess you are right, that awesome starting backccourt of Kenny Smith (who?) and Vernon Maxwell (who?) just carried Hakeem past Barkley/KJ and Stockton/Malone in 94. Right?

Yeah Karl malone isn't competition. Wtf?

Doesn't his stats blow hakeems out of the water, and in the same era.

[Ignignokt]

Karl malone stats

in the Era of big men,

89-90 UTA 82 82 38.1 .562 .372 .762 2.80 8.30 11.10 2.8 1.48 .61 3.71 3.20 31.0
90-91 UTA 82 82 40.3 .527 .286 .770 2.90 8.90 11.80 3.3 1.09 .96 2.98 3.30 29.0
91-92 UTA 81 81 37.7 .526 .176 .778 2.80 8.40 11.20 3.0 1.33 .63 3.06 2.80 28.0
92-93 UTA 82 82 37.8 .552 .200 .740 2.80 8.40 11.20 3.8 1.51 1.04 2.93 3.20 27.0
93-94 UTA 82 82 40.6 .497 .250 .694 2.90 8.60 11.50 4.0 1.52 1.54 2.85 3.30 25.2
94-95 UTA 82 82 38.1 .536 .268 .742 1.90 8.70 10.60 3.5 1.57 1.04 2.88 3.30 26.7
95-96 UTA 82 82 38.0 .519 .400 .723 2.10 7.70 9.80 4.2 1.68 .68 2.43 3.00 25.7
96-97 UTA 82 82 36.6 .550 .000 .755 2.40 7.50 9.90 4.5 1.38 .59 2.84 2.60 27.4
97-98 UTA 81 81 37.4 .530 .333 .761 2.30 8.00 10.30 3.9 1.19 .86 3.05 2.90 27.0
98-99 UTA 49




Hakeems overshadowing numbers as a big man in the big man era...
89-90 HOU 82 82 38.1 .501 .167 .713 3.60 10.40 14.00 2.9 2.12 4.59 3.85 3.80 24.3
90-91 HOU 56 50 36.8 .508 .000 .769 3.90 9.80 13.80 2.3 2.16 3.95 3.11 3.90 21.2
91-92 HOU 70 69 37.7 .502 .000 .766 3.50 8.60 12.10 2.2 1.81 4.34 2.67 3.80 21.6
92-93 HOU 82 82 39.5 .529 .000 .779 3.50 9.60 13.00 3.5 1.83 4.17 3.20 3.70 26.1
93-94 HOU 80 80 41.0 .528 .421 .716 2.90 9.10 11.90 3.6 1.60 3.71 3.39 3.60 27.3
94-95 HOU 72 72 39.6 .517 .188 .756 2.40 8.40 10.80 3.5 1.85 3.36 3.29 3.50 27.8
95-96 HOU 72 72 38.8 .514 .214 .724 2.40 8.40 10.90 3.6 1.57 2.88 3.43 3.40 26.9
96-97 HOU 78 78 36.6 .510 .313 .787 2.20 7.00 9.20 3.0 1.50 2.22 3.60 3.20 23.2
97-98 HOU 47 45 34.7 .483 .000 .755 2.50 7.30 9.80 3.0 1.79 2.04 2.68 3.20 16.4
98-99 HOU 50 50 35.7 .514 .308 .717 2.10 7.40 9.60 1.8 1.64 2.46 2.78 3.20 18.

[Ignignokt]

Hakeem was the lone superstar for a while and was a 24 ppg star. Not bad. He got better help and then his scoring boosted 5 pts while his rebounds declined.

[bobbyjoe]

Uh, the comparison you need to make is Malone vs. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq.

Is it tougher to edge out Malone for #1 PF all time or to edge out Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq for #1 all time C?

If you think Malone's stats blow Hakeem's out of the water, they then blow Duncan's out of the galaxy because Duncan's stats are inferior to Hakeem's.

Do you seriously want to compare Malone's resume to Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, and Russell?

[bobbyjoe]

See that's the sad thing you don't get Bobby joe, Shaq and Duncan are the best bigman of this era. Duncan has accomplished more than shaq, won a ring before Shaq with a less studded team.

Duncan in the early nineties wouldn't have backed down from ewing or Drob, This is the same Duncan who went up against Horry and SHaq at their peak as a tandem, with Robinson only logging in 13mpg.

Nominated 1st team all defense since his rookie year.

You definitely dont want to use Defense in a debate between Hakeem and TD.

Hakeem blocked way more shots, stole the ball more, had more range, quickness and athletic ability, and also won DPOY honors twice in an era with much tougher defenders like DRob, MJ, Scottie Pippen, Alonzo, Dikembe, Rodman, and Gary Payton to Duncan's 0 in an era where even Marcus Camby got DPOY.

Debate offense, but defense is one-sided.

[Brutalis]

You definitely dont want to use Defense in a debate between Hakeem and TD.

Hakeem blocked way more shots, stole the ball more, had more range, quickness and athletic ability, and also won DPOY honors twice in an era with much tougher defenders like DRob, MJ, Scottie Pippen, Alonzo, Dikembe, Rodman, and Gary Payton to Duncan's 0 in an era where even Marcus Camby got DPOY.

Debate offense, but defense is one-sided.
Thanks for bringing that to attention.

How fucking retarded is it that Duncan has not won DPOY yet Wallace and Camby can fuck off Bowen for the award each year? Some bullshit nobody wants to talk about right there.

[Roxsfan]

Behold, Greatness.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=JDUSCQDP

[Indazone]

Man that Ralph Sampson/Olajuwan tandom was killer. If only he didn't get hurt and Lucas wasn't busted for drugs. That Rockets team imploded.

[TheAuthority]

You definitely dont want to use Defense in a debate between Hakeem and TD.

Hakeem blocked way more shots, stole the ball more, had more range, quickness and athletic ability, and also won DPOY honors twice in an era with much tougher defenders like DRob, MJ, Scottie Pippen, Alonzo, Dikembe, Rodman, and Gary Payton to Duncan's 0 in an era where even Marcus Camby got DPOY.

Debate offense, but defense is one-sided.

Duncan = 10 all-defense first teams and counting
Hakeem = 5... his entire career

Sorry, but you don't know shit. Defensive player of the year is an irrelevant award. Marcus Camby won it last year on a crappy defensive squad. Case closed.

[bobbyjoe]

# of All-NBA first team defense teams Duncan would have had in the 80's/90's era at Center if he had to beat out David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Dikembe Mutombo: ???

Blocks: Edge Hakeem (massive)
Steals: Edge Hakeem (massive)
Def Rebs: Even
DPOY: 2-0
Functional set of eyes which can see colors outside of Silver and black: Hakeem

There's not even a comparison between the 2 defensively. When did any player go off on Hakeem in the playoffs for 38 ppg like Amare in 2005? Stuff like that just didnt happen.

What is relevant defensively exactly if blocks, steals, and Def Player of the year honors arent?

Duncan is a good shot blocker, but he doesnt have the lateral quickness to stop quick bigmen. That's what separates guys like Robinson and Hakeem from TD on that side of the court. Both were stronger and quicker than TD and much more intimidating at the hoop and could also be factors defensively on the perimeter whereas TD can't.

Duncan also has more All-Defense first teams than David Robinson and I'd bet $ if you took a poll on who was better defensively, David would win hands down. Even the DRob of his latter years was more of an impact player on D than Tim in his prime.

[JamStone]

Two forward spots for all defensive first team. Only one center spot for all defensive first team. The fact that Duncan was one of the TWO best defensive forwards for however number of years running is a great accomplishment. Considering there is only one center spot for all defensive first team in the era of David Robinson, Kareem, Alonzo Mourning, and Dikembe, it's quite an accomplishment to get as many first team all defense honors Hakeem did.

You can't simply say Duncan has more first team all defense honors than Hakeem and leave it at that. And, saying the DPOY is irrelevant because Camby won it is just ridiculous. It's like saying the league MVP is irrelevant because guys like Karl Malone, Iverson, and KG won it and never won anything in the playoffs. But, you wouldn't make that claim because Timmy won it twice. If Duncan had won even one DPOY, you'd never say the DPOY is irrelevant.

[Obstructed_View]

If that's not what you thought, then it means your reading comprehension skills are in need of some serious polish.
If I'd realized that, when you said this:


"Imagine if Hakeem had a well established former MVP center on the Rockets when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis."

...that you meant that Timmy literally had a guy who had won the MVP award and had already compiled a hall of fame career, rather than having a fellow big man, a hall of fame talent (whose career would years later be derailed by chronic injuries), who had existing NBA experience and a dominant game, which you completely fucking forgot about when you made the stupid statement in the first place, I would have let you have your retarded point. Yes, Ralph Sampson was not an MVP. He'll never be in the hall of fame. He has exactly the same number of 20-10 seasons with Hakeem as Robinson did with Timmy, IIRC. Please, point that out if I'm mistaken. It might distract readers from your lame attempt to re-affirm Hakeem's greatness, which doesn't require nearly that much effort.

I frankly expected more from you than to run and hide under the skirts of semantics when I good-naturedly pointed out that you'd forgotten about Sampson. Of course, you've been reaching into the bottom of the barrel to scrape for any evidence to support your claim, so I shouldn't be surprised you'd defend them tooth and nail.

[skinnypotbelly]

Saw this post in another forum, thought it was relevant.

Originally Posted by Achilleus
Try validating your opinion with something other than...another opinion.

Try refuting the stats...


In 1993, Olajuwon averaged 26.1 points per game. In 1994, Olajuwon averaged 27.3 points per game. In 1995 he averaged 27.8 points per game. In 1996 Olajuwon averaged 26.9 points per game.

Tim Duncan has averaged more than 23.3 points per game in his career only once (25.5) . In total, Olajuwon averaged over 23.3 points per game for eight seasons.

In 1990, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged (in a season in which he played all 82 games) 14.00 rebounds a game. Tim Duncan has never even had a season in which he grabbed 13 rebounds a game. Olajuwon averaged 13 or more rebounds per game for four seasons in his career.

In 1990, Olajuwon averaged 4.59 blocks per game. Yes, 4.59 blocks per game... Tim Duncan has never averaged more than 2.9 blocks a game in his entire career. Hakeem Olajuwon averaged more than 2.9 blocks nine seasons in his career, and not slightly over 2.9...

85-86 - 3.40
86-87 - 3.39
88-89 - 3.44
89-90 - 4.59
90-91 - 3.95
91-92 - 4.34
92-93 - 4.17
93-94 - 3.71
94-95 - 3.36

The most steals per game Tim Duncan has averaged is 0.9. In his entire career Hakeem Olajuwon never averaged so few steals per game. Olajuwon's worst steals per game average is better than Tim Duncan's best.

84-85 - 1.21
85-86 - 1.97
86-87 - 1.87
87-88 - 2.05
88-89 - 2.60
89-90 - 2.12
90-91 - 2.16
91-92 - 1.81
92-93 - 1.83
93-94 - 1.60
94-95 - 1.85
95-96 - 1.57
96-97 - 1.50
97-98 - 1.79
98-99 - 1.64
99-00 - 0.93
00-01 - 1.21
01-02 - 1.21


Hakeem Olajuwon's career field goal percentage is .512.

Tim Duncan's career field goal percentage is .509 .


Hakeem Olajuwon's career free throw percentage is .712.

Tim Duncan's career free throw percentage is .680.


Hakeem Olajuwon had a career playoff average of 25.9 points per game.

Tim Duncan has a career playoff average of 23.9 points per game.


Hakeem Olajuwon had a career playoff average of 3.26 blocks per game.

Tim Duncan has a career playoff average of 2.8 blocks per game.


Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 1.69 steals per game in the playoffs.

Tim Duncan averages 0.7 steals per game in the playoffs.


Hakeem Olajuwon had a career playoff field goal percentage of .528.

Tim Duncan has a career playoff field goal percentage of .509.


Hakeem Olajuwon had a career playoff FT percentage of .719.

Tim Duncan has a career playoff FT percentage of .698.


Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 2.92 turnovers per game in the playoffs.

Tim Duncan averages 3.18 turnovers per game in the playoffs.



Tim Duncan is a great player, Olajuwon was better.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/hakeem_olajuwon/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tim_d...reer_stats.html

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

4>2

[Dennis Lindsey]

:lmao Spurs fans still bitter when The Dream embarrassed the "MVP" during the playoffs? I know it hurts, you guys must still be having nightmares.

[spursfan09]

Wow, fans who don't follow the Spurs seriously underrating Tim Duncan. But what else is new?

[Dennis Lindsey]

Wow, fans who don't follow the Spurs seriously underrating Tim Duncan. But what else is new?

Nobody is underrating Tim. He's a beast and I think 4 'ships speak for themselves. But if you look at Hakeem, he played in a tougher era and didn't exactly have the same talent on his team that Tim had. Don't get me wrong, they surrounded Hakeem with the right role players. IMO, Hakeem's offense is better and Tim doesn't have anything on Hakeem's defense.

[E20]

I think Bobby Joe also posted in another TD vs Dream thread. LMAO All his 265 posts come from defending Hakeem, or was that someone else?

It's pointless to have this argument here. Bobby ain't convincing anybody here, it's a Spurs board.

I agree with with the 3rd post on here.

Duncan has had more accomplishments/accolades, but Hakeem had more talent/better player.

[JamStone]

If I'd realized that, when you said this:


"Imagine if Hakeem had a well established former MVP center on the Rockets when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis."

...that you meant that Timmy literally had a guy who had won the MVP award and had already compiled a hall of fame career, rather than having a fellow big man, a hall of fame talent (whose career would years later be derailed by chronic injuries), who had existing NBA experience and a dominant game, which you completely fucking forgot about when you made the stupid statement in the first place, I would have let you have your retarded point. Yes, Ralph Sampson was not an MVP. He'll never be in the hall of fame. He has exactly the same number of 20-10 seasons with Hakeem as Robinson did with Timmy, IIRC. Please, point that out if I'm mistaken. It might distract readers from your lame attempt to re-affirm Hakeem's greatness, which doesn't require nearly that much effort.

I frankly expected more from you than to run and hide under the skirts of semantics when I good-naturedly pointed out that you'd forgotten about Sampson. Of course, you've been reaching into the bottom of the barrel to scrape for any evidence to support your claim, so I shouldn't be surprised you'd defend them tooth and nail.


What semantics? I stated quite clearly a Hall of Fame player and an MVP player and somehow you twisted my intent to say "all star caliber." If I knew you would make up your own moronic assumptions of what I meant, I would have said if Hakeem had Tickle Me Elmo on his team when he joined the Rockets instead.

If you were going to make assumptions of what I wrote anyway, why didn't you assume that being an 8 year veteran of the NBA putting up Hall of Fame numbers would be different from a one year player who didn't have the experience or mentoring skills to give Hakeem what David Robinson gave Tim Duncan?

Why? Because you make assumptions of what people mean only when it makes sense for your own stubborn and idiotic train of thought.

I never stated "all star caliber" yet that's what you twisted my intent to say. That's your fault you have unbelievably poor reading comprehension skills. It has nothing to do with making a semantical argument.

[JamStone]

4>2


Robert Horry > Scottie Pippen > Tim Duncan > Hakeem Olajuwon

[Vito Corleone]

First off I love Duncan and consider him the greatest Spur ever, but Hakeem would eat him for lunch. If you were to combine Amare and Duncan you would have Hakeem. Secondly, I consider Hakeem to be the greatest big man to ever step onto a court, that includes Russell Shaq and Chamberlin. None of those guys had the combination of speed strength and skill that Hakeem had. Hakeem was the total package.

[~~Ice Man 2000~~]

First off I love Duncan and consider him the greatest Spur ever, but Hakeem would eat him for lunch. If you were to combine Amare and Duncan you would have Hakeem. Secondly, I consider Hakeem to be the greatest big man to ever step onto a court, that includes Russell Shaq and Chamberlin. None of those guys had the combination of speed strength and skill that Hakeem had. Hakeem was the total package.
Yet he only won two rings???

[gaKNOW!blee]

First off I love Duncan and consider him the greatest Spur ever, but Hakeem would eat him for lunch. If you were to combine Amare and Duncan you would have Hakeem. Secondly, I consider Hakeem to be the greatest big man to ever step onto a court, that includes Russell Shaq and Chamberlin. None of those guys had the combination of speed strength and skill that Hakeem had. Hakeem was the total package.
lol

[Obstructed_View]

Imagine if Hakeem had a seven foot center (but not 7'4") on the Rockets - who had actually been awarded the NBA MVP trophy at some point in his career - when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis, rather than having a guy who put up the exact same numbers but was later injured, so it doesn't count, because Hakeem knew he was going to be injured. Hakeem rules.

You might as well have said this. Since you are jocking for Hakeem, it's ironic that you'd mention the MVP award as such a critical element to your point, considering most Rocket fans believe it was Hakeem's.

And if we're going to nit pick, I don't exactly see the words "hall of fame" in your quote, but maybe it's that reading comprehension thing. It apparently just flares up when you post.

[JamStone]

Perhaps because your quoting abilities are on the same level as your reading comprehension skills.



What both players did in their respective eras was phenomenal. Hakeem was not raised by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He did not have another Hall of Famer he could lean on when he entered the league to take pressure off of him. Imagine if Hakeem had a well established former MVP center on the Rockets when he first came into the NBA so he could slide over to the power forward spot and play against smaller power forwards on a night in and night out basis. When Hakeem won his titles (granted they were in the two seasons Jordan decided to take a break in), he had Drexler one year, but he didn't have much frontcourt help at all. He had Otis Thorpe the first championship, and then Robert Horry the second, who back then was more of a small forward than a power forward. Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell were all solid players, but none were capable of carrying the team. Duncan has been fortunate enough to have had David Robinson his first two championships, and then have Manu and Parker emerge as bonafide superstar type of players, especially when it comes to the playoffs. Now, you can give credit to Tim Duncan to helping them become those players or Pop for coaching them into those kinds of players, but aside from that, Manu and Parker still had to become those players at least in part on their own merit.


You made poor assumptions on what I meant. You did not read what I wrote correctly and then you try to play some lame argument of "semantics" to make yourself feel better.

You misread what I wrote. You misinterpreted and/or misconstrued what I meant.

Leave it at that. And, leave it alone.

[MONTENEGRINO]

Duncan is bigger than Olajuwon. Close, but bigger.

[MONTENEGRINO]

Hakeem was the total package.
So, Timmy isn't? Yet, Hakeem took TWO in time of MJ's retirement, Timmy took second while Shaq was in his prime...
Timmy already has deserved ALL TIME NBA starting 5...What we will say when he retire?

[Booharv]

I'm a Spurs fan but Hakeem is the best big man I've ever seen. I've never seen a player dominate three HOFers who play the same position like that in the playoffs, in such a short period of time.

[MONTENEGRINO]

But anyway, Tim and Hakeem are in my all time best team...
PG Magic
SG MJ
SF Larry Bird
PF Timmy
C Hakeem

[E20]

They were both good players. Can't we just respect both without putting up comparsions? They're both ballin'.

http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/Tim_Duncan-thumb.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/980000/images/_982617_olajuwon_300.jpg

[DOMINATOR]

just ask horry and elie who they thought the better player is... oh wait they both said hakeem.

hakeem in his prime > duncan's prime
duncan's support team > hakeems

with that said i still dont see how you can compare... apples and oranges... not disrespecting duncan here. if i had to choose 1 player to build a team around it would be very hard for me not to choose duncan. duncan makes his teammates better. hakeem didn't always do that.

[Vito Corleone]

Yet he only won two rings???

How many rings would Duncan have won if he had to face the 80's Lakers and Celtics and then the Bad Boys and Bulls? I won't down play what the Spurs have done but right now there is a huge lack of quality play in the NBA. Hakeem played in what is considered to be the Golden Years of the NBA.

[gaKNOW!blee]

just ask horry and elie who they thought the better player is... oh wait they both said hakeem.

hakeem in his prime > duncan's prime
duncan's support team > hakeems

with that said i still dont see how you can compare... apples and oranges... not disrespecting duncan here. if i had to choose 1 player to build a team around it would be very hard for me not to choose duncan. duncan makes his teammates better. hakeem didn't always do that.He doesnt make his teammates better yet he is better than duncan?

[JamStone]

He doesnt make his teammates better yet he is better than duncan?

Do you believe Steve Nash is a better player than Kobe Bryant?

Making your teammates better alone doesn't mean you're a better player than another player, just like having two DPOY awards doesn't by themselves mean a player is better than another player.

[Booharv]

They were both good players. Can't we just respect both without putting up comparsions? They're both ballin'.

http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/Tim_Duncan-thumb.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/980000/images/_982617_olajuwon_300.jpg

Definitely.

[DOMINATOR]

He doesnt make his teammates better yet he is better than duncan?
as a player yes... individually.

[Obstructed_View]

1984
Atlanta Hawks coach: "Okay boys, we're playing the Rockets tonight. They have two seven footers, including the rookie of the year last season who's averaging 20 points and ten rebounds, but he didn't win the MVP, he's only going to be in three all-star games and his body will start to break down after that. Just swarm Akeem in the low post and we'll be fine."

1998
Atlanta Hawks coach: "Okay boys, we're playing the Spurs tonight. David Robinson has an MVP trophy, and is a lock for the hall of fame, so make sure you swarm him. Just single coverage on Duncan in the low post and we'll be fine."

[mavs>spurs2]

So, Timmy isn't? Yet, Hakeem took TWO in time of MJ's retirement, Timmy took second while Shaq was in his prime...
Timmy already has deserved ALL TIME NBA starting 5...What we will say when he retire?

Don't use Shaq as an example to make a point. Olajuwon schooled Shaq every time they went head to head.

[mavs>spurs2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

Of all people, Spur fans should know better than to underrate Olajuwon like this.

[E20]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SUn7BvZ-4ZQ

They're having the same discussion as in that clip right there under the comments section.


BTW.........that clip is BALLIN' SON.:smokin

[j1nsa]

I give Duncan a slight edge. I can't see either player stopping one another. I never seen Duncan get stopped and don't think Hakeem could have stopped him either. When David went up against Hakeem, they usually came out with the same numbers, but David's teams usually won more, except for when Hakeem had that tremendous playoff performance. Dream usually took 10-12 more shots than David in every game, plus more double teaming against David. Duncan is better than David! If Duncan didn't have his great supporting cast, he would average 30 a game and still win, not sure if he would have 4 trophies, maybe for his career. Hakeem, maybe would have had none. Hakeem had Elie, Horry, Cassell, Maxwell, Smith, Drexler, Barkley, Pippen, Sampson, Mobley, Francis. Duncan has/had Horry, Robinson, Elliott, Ginobili, Parker, Elie, Kerr, Finley, Bowen, Jackson, Beno. :lol

[mavs>spurs2]

Dude, Hakeem destroyed David when they went head to head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

[Brutalis]

It's like one fucking dickhead fan comes along we have something to do with, and you guys talk shit back, and bam, there's a whole damn pod of them arguing amongst themselves and each other.

Trying leaving them the hell alone in the next thread like this! It will work I promise.

And second....


In 1990, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged (in a season in which he played all 82 games)

I like girls, (that are not 300lbs and hairy)
I rode a bike 9 million miles, (motor bike anyways)

You are good at that shit. If you're going to fucking say something bud, say it all. Add it all up, compare them and twist it together. Some Rockets fan coming along trying to rub Hakeem is better pointers when the guy he's facing is already better, and not even finished yet.

Seriously retard, ebay a brain and type with it? Do something productive with facts or truth to build on!

Like a lot of these 'regular' Suns and Mavs posters, that jolly along most threads and like an appointment with a naked chick always end up defending the same old tune that somehow the Spurs suck, cheated, lost, lucked, robbed, or whatever and argue it out with some Spurs fan about how Duncan is overrated or I got more candy than you childish bullshit.. on ironically a Spurs board.

It's like, take some notes from a few Piston fans to understand how to get along here with this fan site supporting a team that's pretty fucking dominant for the generation.

[polandprzem]

Was hakeem always in the playoffs?

No!


Thank you

[TheAuthority]

Through their first 10 seasons in the league, these are their records.

Duncan
56 - 26
37 - 13
53 - 29
58 - 24
58 - 24
60 - 22
57 - 25
59 - 23
63 - 19
58 - 24

559 - 229

Hakeem

48 - 34
51 - 31
42 - 40
46 - 36
45 - 37
41 - 41
52 - 30
42 - 40
55 - 27
58 - 24

480 - 340

Laughable. Uncomparable. Duncan owns Hakeem. He's already got twice as many championships, and there's more to come. Oh wait, I suppose the West was stronger back then, right? ROFL What a joke. The West is stronger right now than it's ever been. Nice try.

Hey, this is where you paste something completely irrelevant like Steve Kerr's career winning percentage, because Duncan owns Hakeem and you've got nothing else to counter. Cry more!

[bobbyjoe]

"How many rings would Duncan have won if he had to face the 80's Lakers and Celtics and then the Bad Boys and Bulls? I won't down play what the Spurs have done but right now there is a huge lack of quality play in the NBA. Hakeem played in what is considered to be the Golden Years of the NBA"

This was posted by a Spurs fan above and pretty much sums it up.

There's a reason why guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, and John Stockton are considered top 50 all time players yet never won a ring (excluding the 2 Robinson won as a 2nd banana to Duncan).

The reasons are in that era to win you had to go through:

Lakers Dynasty (Magic/Kareem)
Celtics Dynasty (Bird/McHale)
Jazz (stockton/malone)
Rockets (Hakeem)
Bulls Dynasty
Pistons Dynasty
Barkley/KJ Suns

These were the great teams of the late 80's/early 90's. The Spurs have only faced one team that was this caliber, that being the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, who they did beat twice (very impressively) but also lost to 3 times. The field is much easier now than it was 15 yrs ago.

Regardless, attributing an entire team's success in terms of regular and postseason to one player without accounting for teammates, quality of competition, era, etc is asinine.

It says a lot that the only pro-Duncan argument you consistently hear is (4 vs. 2) which is a team achievement. Guys like David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Elliott, Horry, Finley had a little something to do with the team accomplishments.

The question isnt "Did the Spurs have more success in the 00's or the Rockets in the 90's". It's who was better out of 2 individual players, Hakeem or TD.

You can also say that Manu Ginobili has 3 rings to Clyde Drexler's 1. Does that in and of itself make him better?

Duncan has 4 rings to Wilt Chamberlain's 2. If you want to reduce the argument to 4 vs. 2 and ignore everything else, you come up with the ridiculous conclusion that Duncan >>>> Wilt.

Is Chauncey a better PG all time than Nash or Stockton because he had 1 ring to their 0? After all 1>0 right? Rasheed Wallace better than Malone or Charles Barkley? (1 vs. 0).

Obviously there's more that matters. When you make a comparison between 2 individual players in a 5 on 5 sport based solely on who's team won more, you are completely (and in this case conveniently) ignoring numerous extraneous factors which had absolutely nothing to do with who was better individually.

If # of rings were the absolute only thing that mattered in comparing players individually, Bill Russell would universally be considered #1 of all time and that is not the case at all. Many dont even have him in the top 5 of all time.

[bobbyjoe]

Don't use Shaq as an example to make a point. Olajuwon schooled Shaq every time they went head to head.

This is where solely looking at rings get ridiculous.

When Olajuwon and Shaq faced off head to head, they guarded each other mano y mano.

You didnt have Hakeem playing PF and have another big guarding Shaq. That was the case though for Duncan who would guard Horry or Samaki Walker on Defense while DRob would battle with the Diesel down low. Even in the 04 series without DRob, SA used Willis and Rasho to battle with Shaq.

It's a helluva lot harder to have to contain Shaq at one end in the paint and carry the offensive load simultaneously which is the scenario when Hakeem faced Shaq than it is to get a creampuff matchup on one end so you can conserve energy and be fresh on the offensive end.

[tlongII]

Oden > Duncan

[mavs>spurs2]

I dont know why some spur fans act like Duncan is a better defender than Olajuwon. While it's true that he's about the smartest defender i've ever seen, he's really limited by being slow and athletic. He does a great job of using his head and not biting on fakes, but he isn't physically capable of being the defender Hakeem was. Hakeem was every bit the defender Duncan is, but with athleticism to stay in front of quicker guys and block alot more shots. And on the offensive end, all you have to do is look at their stats, they speak for themselves. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, and better fg%. It really isn't much of a debate. IMO Hakeem is second to only Jordan, while Duncan is top 20, which is still a great accomplishment.

[j1nsa]

David was doubled and tripled team and the Spurs outside shooters couldn't hit a freaking shot, while Drexler, Horry, Smith, Cassell, Elie were shooting lights out. David said he thought his defense on Olajuwon was pretty good, but it sucked. He played flat footed and jump at every ball fake Dream made. The few times Olajuwon got doubled, it was Avery, Vinny, bumbed knee Doc, those didn't count, oh and Bob Hill was the coach. :p: Hakeem didn't stop David, the team did and when it was time for someonelse to step for the Spurs, no one did, and that destroyed some of their confidence. Other than this series, David usually out played him and had a winning record against him throughout the years. Dream did however put up some good numbers on him every now and then, but he shot 10-12 times more per game and played more mins. If Robinson played every game the way Ginobili plays, he maybe could had been the best center of all time, the way they say Olajuwon is the best of all time. Though David was my favorite player at the time, I think Olajuwon is slightly better just because he did take it to another level in this series. If Olajuwon didn't have this series against him, David would be ahead. Duncan plays like this all the time, that's why I put him above Olajuwon, because I know TD will always take it to the other level himself.

# Game 1: Olajuwon: 27 pts - Robinson 21 pts
# Game 2: Olajuwon: 41 pts - Robinson 32 pts
# Game 3: Olajuwon: 43 pts - Robinson 29 pts
# Game 4: Olajuwon: 20 pts - Robinson 20 pts
# Game 5: Olajuwon: 42 pts - Robinson 22 pts
# Game 6: Olajuwon: 39 pts - Robinson 19 pts

Robinson: 23.8 points 11.3 rebounds 2.7 assists 2.7 blocks 1.5 steals
Olajuwon: 35.3 points 12.5 rebounds 5.0 assists 4.1 blocks 1.3 steals

Houston 4, San Antonio 2
Game 1 Houston 94 at San Antonio 93
Game 2 Houston 106 at San Antonio 96
Game 3 San Antonio 107 at Houston 102
Game 4 San Antonio 103 at Houston 81
Game 5 Houston 111 at San Antonio 90
Game 6 San Antonio 95 at Houston 100

Though Shaq lost to Hakeem in the finals, I don't think he was outplayed, Hakeem just shot more and had a better supporting cast. Check this link with stats: http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1995.htm In Shaq's prime, he would had beaten Olajuwon.

Do you really think Hakeem was more athletic than David?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18&mode=related&search=

This years Spurs team or the ones with David and Tim's Championship teams would have been as great as any of those teams from the 80's and early 90's, don't think Houston Championship teams would had done as well. Don't forget, all these Spurs teams paly team ball and great defense, something that made up most of these teams from the past. Only the center position is in question for this years team, but Fabricio played his role well.

[mavs>spurs2]

With people bringing Robinson into the discussion this thread has Whott bait written all over it.

[TheAuthority]

Regardless, attributing an entire team's success in terms of regular and postseason to one player without accounting for teammates, quality of competition, era, etc is asinine.

It says a lot that the only pro-Duncan argument you consistently hear is (4 vs. 2) which is a team achievement. Guys like David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Elliott, Horry, Finley had a little something to do with the team accomplishments.


No question, Hakeem had a better supporting cast. Funny you should mention that as a point of argument. I hate to bring it to your attention, but guys like D-Rob, Horry and Finley were has-beens when they won championships with Duncan. The only legit all-star Duncan has played with is Parker. Manu probably shouldn't have been an all-star, even though I am a fan of his. The guy's a winner and I'm a big fan of his game, but he's not an all-star.


The question isnt "Did the Spurs have more success in the 00's or the Rockets in the 90's". It's who was better out of 2 individual players, Hakeem or TD.

Ummm... what are you, dense? This has A LOT to do with who is a better individual player. Since they don't play 1-on-1 in the NBA, you gauge a lot by team success.




You can also say that Manu Ginobili has 3 rings to Clyde Drexler's 1. Does that in and of itself make him better?

A baseless argument. Manu is obviously not the reason they won the championships. Duncan is. Duncan has been the constant from day 1.


Duncan has 4 rings to Wilt Chamberlain's 2. If you want to reduce the argument to 4 vs. 2 and ignore everything else, you come up with the ridiculous conclusion that Duncan >>>> Wilt.

Wilt played in a way different era, it's almost impossible to compare them. Wilt was bigger than everyone back then, so people had a difficult time guarding him just by his sheer size. In today's NBA game, he would have a lot more trouble scoring. It's really too impossible to debate.


Is Chauncey a better PG all time than Nash or Stockton because he had 1 ring to their 0? After all 1>0 right? Rasheed Wallace better than Malone or Charles Barkley? (1 vs. 0).

It could be argued that Chauncey Billups wasn't even the 2nd best player on his team, so that's a pretty bad example.


Obviously there's more that matters. When you make a comparison between 2 individual players in a 5 on 5 sport based solely on who's team won more, you are completely (and in this case conveniently) ignoring numerous extraneous factors which had absolutely nothing to do with who was better individually.

So basically what you're saying is that you want to discount championships won and say that they equate to nothing... hilarious. You know you've lost when you're bringing up weak points as such.



If # of rings were the absolute only thing that mattered in comparing players individually, Bill Russell would universally be considered #1 of all time and that is not the case at all. Many dont even have
him in the top 5 of all time.

I don't know whose top 5 you're looking at. Most people who knew anything about the game of basketball would have Russell in their top 5. And, nobody said rings were the only determining factor. I can throw at you... first team all-nba selections, first team all-defense selections, finals mvps... ALL of which Duncan has more of.

[JamStone]

English reed not me good very understand and.

[ambchang]

Ask and you shall receive.

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

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

As you'd expect on basically any non-Spurs forum, the opinion of neutral NBA fans is decidedly pro Hakeem. So is the opinion of Mario Elie and Horry, the 2 common teammates of Duncan and Hakeem.

I read through the takes, and there were people taking Duncan and Hakeem, only with the Hakeem supporters going

"Trust me, Hakeem is way more athletic", despite the fact that we are not talking about atleticism, or else Stromile Swift > Duncan,

"Olajuwon could do everything Duncan can plus he had a way better offensive game. In my opinion Duncan looks like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing when he has the ball sometimes.", despite the fact that Duncan has won two MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs, been on the All-NBA first team almost a dozen times, and averages more than 20 ppg in almost every single season he played, and gems like

"It takes a whole team to win a championship and Olajuwon was playing during the Jordan days.", despite the fact that Olajuwon won both championships during Jordan's baseball excursion.

I am sure more people agreeing on something doesn't make that right. Democracy/majority voting makes more people happy, it doesn't decide what is right.

[ambchang]

Getting All NBA first team in the diluted 2000's (which see teams like the Cavs, Nets, and Sixers make the NBA Finals with marginal at best teams) at forward when 2 forward's make it is a comprable achievement as making All NBA First team at Center in the 1990's when you have Hakeem, DRob, Shaq, Ewing all in their primes? Not quite.

You got it backwards btw. Duncan-Hakeem is close enough to debate, as evidenced by the forums in the above link getting some actual discourse. Hakeem-Robinson is just so obvious it's not worth even talking about. It's like asking if Shaq was better than Ewing or if Duncan is better than Garnett.
In other words, Robinson > Shaq because
Shaq has 1 All-NBA 1st selection in the non-watered down league, and 7 in the watered-down league, while Robinson got 4 in the non-watered down league.
BTW, Hakeem got 5 in the non-watered down league, with 3 coming before Robinson joining the league. So it really isn't as far off as Shaq vs. Ewing or Duncan vs. Garnett.

[ambchang]

This is where solely looking at rings get ridiculous.

When Olajuwon and Shaq faced off head to head, they guarded each other mano y mano.

You didnt have Hakeem playing PF and have another big guarding Shaq. That was the case though for Duncan who would guard Horry or Samaki Walker on Defense while DRob would battle with the Diesel down low. Even in the 04 series without DRob, SA used Willis and Rasho to battle with Shaq.

It's a helluva lot harder to have to contain Shaq at one end in the paint and carry the offensive load simultaneously which is the scenario when Hakeem faced Shaq than it is to get a creampuff matchup on one end so you can conserve energy and be fresh on the offensive end.

Then should we compare playoffs missed? A player > Duncan would never ever miss the playoffs regardless of his teammates (provided that they are NBA caliber) if he played a full season. Olajuwon did.

[Sec24Row7]

ROFL... I would love to see Duncan guarding Hakeem on the "signature" play of the 95 playoffs he had against Robinson when Hakeem upfakes him...

Duncan would have just stepped further into his chest... he can't jump... heh

And the league was tougher in Hakeems era?

ROFL... The lakers and spurs from 2000-2005 would have DESTROYED both the Rockets Championship teams.

The Pistons of 04-06 would have beaten them.

The Suns and Mavericks would have played them tough but choked.

Please...

What teams do you have in Olajuwan's championship teams way?

Jazz? Suns?? Sonics (lol) A Bob Hill coached Spurs? They couldnt beat the Trailblazers until they stole "The Glide" (a Hall of famer Hakeem doesnt get credit for playing with even though he won his second championship with him).

[BronxCowboy]

Duncan is a great player and Hakeem was a great player too. So was The Admiral and so was Shaq. Is there any way of knowing who is better? Probably not, especially considering that Hakeem and Timmy never had any significant head-to-head encounters. Does it even matter who is better? Not unless we're talking about letting Timmy go and signing Hakeem, and that's all I need to know.

[mavs>spurs2]

ROFL... I would love to see Duncan guarding Hakeem on the "signature" play of the 95 playoffs he had against Robinson when Hakeem upfakes him...

Duncan would have just stepped further into his chest... he can't jump... heh

And the league was tougher in Hakeems era?

ROFL... The lakers and spurs from 2000-2005 would have DESTROYED both the Rockets Championship teams.

The Pistons of 04-06 would have beaten them.

The Suns and Mavericks would have played them tough but choked.

Please...

What teams do you have in Olajuwan's championship teams way?

Jazz? Suns?? Sonics (lol) A Bob Hill coached Spurs? They couldnt beat the Trailblazers until they stole "The Glide" (a Hall of famer Hakeem doesnt get credit for playing with even though he won his second championship with him).

Please...the league as a whole was much more competitive in the 80s and 90s. Don't bring that bullshit in here unless you have an actual take. There's a Spur section if all you want to say is Rah Rah Rah GO SPURS GO. There is no way you can say the Spurs "would" have destroyed the Rockets...woulda shoulda and coulda don't count in my book.

[Reggie Miller]

As you'd expect on basically any non-Spurs forum, the opinion of neutral NBA fans is decidedly pro Hakeem. So is the opinion of Mario Elie and Horry, the 2 common teammates of Duncan and Hakeem.


Exactly why would I expect that? Also, I don't even necessarily buy into the entire "Hakeem's peak was higher than Duncan's" rationale. Did Olajuwon ever come two blocks shy of a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game? (I realize that in of itself doesn't resolve the debate, but I couldn't let that go, either.)

Charles Barkley certainly thinks Duncan is the better player, although he never played on the Spurs (of course).

[ChumpDumper]

There's a Spur section if all you want to say is Rah Rah Rah GO SPURS GO.You mean the forum labeled "San Antonio Spurs"?

[Spurs1234]

i dont see how rockets fans can claim the nba was tougher in the 1990's, on the contrary, the 90's was very weak in competition compared to the 80's...and while I think the 90's and 2000's are close in terms of overall competition, all the talent was in the west for the spurs run, and a majority of it was in the east for the rockets run. plus the rockets never had to play the bulls.

[MONTENEGRINO]

Olajuwon schooled Shaq every time they went head to head.
Every time? Ahem, ahem...?
OK, Hakeem was better than Tim in psyhical matters and FT's, but it (as I know) isn't whole point of basketball. Tim's influence on game of his team is much bigger than Hakeems was. By the same logic, we can say that Barkley was better player than Larry Bird in his prime...

[Obstructed_View]

I'll distract from the flaws in my logic by trying to insult people that point them out. Poorly.

[mavs>spurs2]

i dont see how rockets fans can claim the nba was tougher in the 1990's, on the contrary, the 90's was very weak in competition compared to the 80's...and while I think the 90's and 2000's are close in terms of overall competition, all the talent was in the west for the spurs run, and a majority of it was in the east for the rockets run. plus the rockets never had to play the bulls.

How was the nba NOT tougher in the 90's? You have some of the top 10 greatest centers of all time going head to head in Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing. Don't forget about the greatest player of all time, Jordan, and his teammate Pippen who is also a top 50 all time player and one of the greatest defenders ever. This was also an era where teams played tough, hard nosed defense to copy the style of the late 80's bad boy Pistons teams. You have some of the best shot blockers ever patrolling the paint with Mutumbo, Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, etc. And don't forget about 92 when the dream team, the greatest team ever assembled, won the gold medal in the Olympics. IMO I don't see how anyone can say the 80's and 90's weren't the NBA's golden years.

[mavs>spurs2]

Every time? Ahem, ahem...?
OK, Hakeem was better than Tim in psyhical matters and FT's, but it (as I know) isn't whole point of basketball. Tim's influence on game of his team is much bigger than Hakeems was. By the same logic, we can say that Barkley was better player than Larry Bird in his prime...

You can't say Duncan makes his teammates better than Hakeem without actually going back in time and having them switch positions. That is just an opinion of yours. My opinion is that Hakeem never had as good of teammates as Duncan has had throughout his career, which makes what he did that much more impressive. Bottom line is, there is no way to see who makes their teammates better than the other. But I can say this, if Hakeem didn't make his teammates better he wouldn't have 2 rings.

[Obstructed_View]

if Hakeem didn't make his teammates better he wouldn't have 2 rings.
I definitely agree with that. Duncan gets a lot of credit for making his teammates better because he's a dominant post player. Guess what Hakeem was?

[JamStone]

I'll distract from the flaws in my logic by trying to insult people that point them out. Poorly.

Distract from what???

It's already been established that you can't read properly, and then you make up things.

What else is there?

I write: "Hall of Famer and former MVP."

And, you respond by thinking that means: "All star caliber."

It doesn't get any more obvious that from that example alone, you are a moron who cannot read properly.

So, you go on and beat a dead horse saying Ralph Sampson put up similar numbers to David Robinson, AGAIN avoiding the point I made that David Robinson had about 7 more accomplished seasons when Duncan joined the Spurs than Sampson had when Hakeem joined the Rockets. 10 years apart versus 2-3 years apart. You fail to even touch that point of my argument because you cannot refute it. The mentoring of a well-established Hall of Fame type veteran versus a great player with only one NBA season under his belt.

And, I'm the one distracting? You avoid a point altogether.

And, moreover, you still fail to admit that Hall of Fame/League MVP is not the same thing as all star caliber.

Shrek is looking for you, :donkey

[JamStone]

i dont see how rockets fans can claim the nba was tougher in the 1990's, on the contrary, the 90's was very weak in competition compared to the 80's...and while I think the 90's and 2000's are close in terms of overall competition, all the talent was in the west for the spurs run, and a majority of it was in the east for the rockets run. plus the rockets never had to play the bulls.


In the 90s, besides Chicago, what teams made the East have the majority of the talent in the NBA??? New York? That's about it. The Pistons and the Celtics were both done by 1991. The West had the Malone and Stockton Jazz, the Payton/Kemp Sonics, and the Charles Barkley/KJ/Majerle Suns, a Portland Blazers team that went to the Finals twice as well. And, don't forget Run TMC and later the Webber/Sprewell Golden State Warrior teams. The East didn't have more talent in the 90s. The East had Michael Jordan. After that, you might argue Patrick Ewing and the Knicks. But, after that, what other teams? I don't agree the majority of the talent in the NBA was in the East for the Rockets run. It just had one ultimate roadblock talent in Michael Jordan.

And, moreover, the 90s didn't have the dilution of talent the 2000s have had from expansion. 27 NBA teams in 1993-95. After 1995, there were 29 teams. Talent spread out thinner. More rosters with less talent towards the end of the bench. Michael Jordan being gone in 1993-94 and most of 1994-95 definitely helped the Rockets. But, competition was still relatively tough ... in the WESTERN CONFERENCE ... with less talent-diluted rosters.

[Roxsfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0

Of all people, Spur fans should know better than to underrate Olajuwon like this.

how embarassing for David Robinson. Complete and utter domination.

[Roxsfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18&mode=related&search=

.


great clip!

[kingmalaki]

While I admit that I am a Rockets homer, I really don't see how this is even debatable. Ok, well I see how it is debatable but I don't see how many would pick Timmy. Through ten seasons the majority of Hakeem's numbers are better than Duncan's.

Hakeem:
23.7 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.9 spg, 3.6 bpg, 3.2 topg, 52%, 71%

Duncan
22.1 ppg, 12.04 rpg, 3.1 apg, 0.71 spg, 2.48 bpg, 2.9 topg, 50%, 69%

The only thing y'all have to rely on is the rings argument. Yes, Duncan has won more but he has NEVER played on a scrub team. He has never had to go through a rebuilding phase because his front office hit with the Parker and Manu picks. When I say rebuilding I mean losing a considerable amount of talent and not replacing it. Duncan's surrounding talent has been in at least the top third of the league every season.

As knowledgable Spurs fans I'm sure y'all know how hard it is to win with a great center if he has no help since Robinson played a good chunk of his career in the same situation. When Hakeem came into the league he had help on his squads and was leading his team to the Finals in his 2nd season (going through the LA dynasty and against the Parish/McHale/Bird/Walton frontline by the way). When the help was gone (due to injuries and drug suspensions) the winning stopped, but he was still getting his team to the playoffs. He got help again and won.

Hakeem's numbers are better than Duncan's on both sides of the ball. He was a more dynamic scorer and better defender. He was a better athlete (he could run guards down from behind) and controlled the lane better even though he didn't have a shut-down perimiter defender on his team (i.e. Bowen). He won with less help (1 season that is). He won against better competition (and didn't have a David Robinson to guard the stud big-man on the other side of the court...yes, he put up better numbers than Timmy against better centers and he had to work them on both ends). He had a higher peak (granted Duncan still has time to get there but I predict that he won't). The only thing in Duncan's favor is "he won more" (against weaker competition, in an easier league, with more talent).

Honestly, is there any Spurs title team that you think Olajuwon would not win a championship on? Please name one?? If you replace Hakeem with Duncan I don't think we win in 94 or 95. We won titles those seasons because Dream went bezerk on frontlines of Ewing/Oakley/Mason, Robinson/Rodman, Shaq/Grant. I'm not discrediting what the rest of the team did, but if Dream is not going nuts down there then we aren't winning. Not only was he lighting them up offensively, but he had to guard all of those dudes on the other end of the court. Duncan has never had to do that. In the playoffs Duncan has had to hold a good offensive big-man one time and that big-man averaged 30 a game (I don't consider Dirk to be a real big man). Every other time he faced a quality one (and the only other was Shaq) he had someone else checking him defensively. This is why I can't see us winning in 94 or 95 with Timmy. He has never had to really dominate another big on both ends of the court....

I have only been watching ball since the 80's but I have rarely seen a player play at that level (MJ, Dream, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Isiah off the top of the dome). I have seen Duncan have to work harder to get points against defenders like the Wallace boys and McDyess, Kurt Thomas, Camby/Nene, etc. I don't see him going in kill mode like I have seen Dream or those other players do.

I do think Duncan is the best PF to play the position, but I don't think he has reached the level of Kareem or Hakeem yet (I didn't see Wilt or Russell play). I just think both of those players would easliy win in the same situation...there is nothing Duncan can do that they can't. I give him the advantage over Shaq because he brings it on defense...but even Shaq's peak was higher.

[bobbyjoe]

Exactly why would I expect that? Also, I don't even necessarily buy into the entire "Hakeem's peak was higher than Duncan's" rationale. Did Olajuwon ever come two blocks shy of a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game? (I realize that in of itself doesn't resolve the debate, but I couldn't let that go, either.)

Charles Barkley certainly thinks Duncan is the better player, although he never played on the Spurs (of course).

It's pretty funny you bring this up given that Hakeem is one of 4 players along with David Robinson to ever have recorded a quad double. In fact, the same month he had a 2nd quad double which was later rescinded by the NBA who took back one assist. So Hakeem came one assist shy of having 2 quadruple doubles in one month.

[TheAuthority]

Through ten seasons the majority of Hakeem's numbers are better than Duncan's.

Hakeem:
23.7 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.9 spg, 3.6 bpg, 3.2 topg, 52%, 71%

Duncan
22.1 ppg, 12.04 rpg, 3.1 apg, 0.71 spg, 2.48 bpg, 2.9 topg, 50%, 69%"


Garnett has better numbers than Duncan. Is he better than Duncan? No. I think it's universally understood by now that Duncan is the superior player to Garnett. Numbers have a lot more to do with system. You go on to later say that Hakeem didn't have a lockdown perimeter defender. Thus, he would have more opportunity for shot blocks. The only clear advantage he has is steals. Duncan could easily average 26-30 points a game if he was given the touches. He's unselfish. He makes everyone else better, he doesn't say I need X amount of touches per game. Whereas if you passed the ball to Hakeem, you weren't getting it back.



"The only thing y'all have to rely on is the rings argument. Yes, Duncan has won more but he has NEVER played on a scrub team. He has never had to go through a rebuilding phase because his front office hit with the Parker and Manu picks. When I say rebuilding I mean losing a considerable amount of talent and not replacing it. Duncan's surrounding talent has been in at least the top third of the league every season."

Um, I'd say that's a pretty big argument. Considering titles are the most important thing in the NBA. It's real easy to blame supporting cast. I've seen it done countless times with Garnett supporters.


"As knowledgable Spurs fans I'm sure y'all know how hard it is to win with a great center if he has no help since Robinson played a good chunk of his career in the same situation. When Hakeem came into the league he had help on his squads and was leading his team to the Finals in his 2nd season (going through the LA dynasty and against the Parish/McHale/Bird/Walton frontline by the way). When the help was gone (due to injuries and drug suspensions) the winning stopped, but he was still getting his team to the playoffs. He got help again and won."

Yep, blame his teammates again. Nice excuses. I don't care WHO you put on Duncan's team. You can take 4 players from the YMCA and Duncan is still not missing the playoffs. Something you conveniently omitted when you say "he was still getting his team to the playoffs". No, he wasn't. He missed the playoffs. Something Duncan has never done, and will never do... no matter what teammates he is playing with.


"He won against better competition (and didn't have a David Robinson to guard the stud big-man on the other side of the court...yes, he put up better numbers than Timmy against better centers and he had to work them on both ends). He had a higher peak (granted Duncan still has time to get there but I predict that he won't). The only thing in Duncan's favor is "he won more" (against weaker competition, in an easier league, with more talent)."

Not really. The West is stronger now than it's ever been. Nice try, though. And if you want to talk about peak... I don't recall Hakeem ever putting up a damn near quadruple double in the Finals.


"I have seen Duncan have to work harder to get points against defenders like the Wallace boys and McDyess, Kurt Thomas, Camby/Nene, etc. I don't see him going in kill mode like I have seen Dream or those other players do."
ROFL @ the "Wallace boys"... you mean in the finals... when he lead them to a game 7 victory on 2 bad wheels? Oh, that one. Good example. Kurt Thomas? I love this one, especially. Duncan was shooting like 8 for 8 from the field and the announcers are like... Duncan is working very hard for his points, Kurt Thomas is playing excellent defense. Meanwhile the guy hasn't missed a shot. Yeah, stellar defense there. 100% FG% is rough.


"there is nothing Duncan can do that they can't."
Really? So Hakeem won 4 championships then? Had the highest winning % in sports since entering the league? Made first team all-nba his first 9 years in the league? Won 3 finals MVP's? I can keep going... but I'll stop to save your boy the embarrassment.

</win>

Who's next?

[j1nsa]

Dream was a great player, all the other great centers put up similar numbers. What seperated Dream was his magical playoff series in 94-95. If he didn't have that run, he would just be another great center. Duncan doesn't need to put those same numbers up during the regular season, he does have supporting cast, if he didn't then his numbers would be a lot higher. If Duncan had David's athleticism, then we can quit this discussion long time ago. Just like they compare the old and the new, we will never know. The center position is gone compared to the ones in the past, but come on, Ewing, Mutombo, great? You can say Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq in that era, that's about it.

[TheAuthority]

Dream was a great player, all the other great centers put up similar numbers. What seperated Dream was his magical playoff series in 94-95. If he didn't have that run, he would just be another great center. Duncan doesn't need to put those same numbers up during the regular season, he does have supporting cast, if he didn't then his numbers would be a lot higher. If Duncan had David's athleticism, then we can quit this discussion long time ago. Just like they compare the old and the new, we will never know. The center position is gone compared to the ones in the past, but come on, Ewing, Mutombo, great? You can say Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq in that era, that's about it.

I'm glad Duncan doesn't have great athleticism anymore. And yes, he did have good athleticism at one point, before his surgery. I think it will help him play into his late 30's and possibly even longer, if his body holds up, and he still has the desire. He doesn't rely on athleticism. He could play for a real long time.

[bobbyjoe]

Dream was a great player, all the other great centers put up similar numbers. What seperated Dream was his magical playoff series in 94-95. If he didn't have that run, he would just be another great center. Duncan doesn't need to put those same numbers up during the regular season, he does have supporting cast, if he didn't then his numbers would be a lot higher. If Duncan had David's athleticism, then we can quit this discussion long time ago. Just like they compare the old and the new, we will never know. The center position is gone compared to the ones in the past, but come on, Ewing, Mutombo, great? You can say Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq in that era, that's about it.


Ewing is a top 10 Center of all time and a perennial 20/10 player. You may think he's overrated, but he's still a HOF caliber center with a great resume.

Put him in today's NBA and he's easily, easily the best Center in the league and he was #4 in the 90's and Mourning wasn't far behind him.

You ignored a bunch of very solid bigmen from that era. Barkley, Karl Malone, Kareem, Parish (late 80's), Alonzo Mourning, Vlade Divac, Brad Daugherty, Arvydas Sabonis, Sam Perkins, Dennis Rodman, Charles Oakley, Sam Perkins. There were a helluva lot less stiffs around than now inside. The league is just a lot more perimeter oriented now than in that time.

And a lot of today's big's like Dirk, KG, and Jermaine O'Neal play like small forwards and not in the post. Even Amare isnt a traditional back to the basket player at all. Duncan, Shaq, and Yao are your more traditional post players now and hopefully Oden can add to that mix, but Yao has his limitations and Shaq, sadly, is on the latter half of his career.

The quality of post play in the 80's and 90's was a lot more physical and competitive than now. You wont find many basketball fans who watched both those days and then now seriously debate that.

[my2sons]

Not only did duncan have the supporting cast, he has the talent to raise the level of play of his supporting cast. I know hakeem was a great player and the rockets got lucky with mj's retirement party, but i can't remember how unselfish hakeem was. the thing with duncan is that his ego does not need to be the focal point on the floor, he knows when to give up the rock and when to take over. factoring in homerism, i give the slightest edge to duncan because he makes has made his teamates better his whole career, not two seasons.

[ambchang]

Ewing is a top 10 Center of all time and a perennial 20/10 player. You may think he's overrated, but he's still a HOF caliber center with a great resume.

Put him in today's NBA and he's easily, easily the best Center in the league and he was #4 in the 90's and Mourning wasn't far behind him.

You ignored a bunch of very solid bigmen from that era. Barkley, Karl Malone, Kareem, Parish (late 80's), Alonzo Mourning, Vlade Divac, Brad Daugherty, Arvydas Sabonis, Sam Perkins, Dennis Rodman, Charles Oakley, Sam Perkins. There were a helluva lot less stiffs around than now inside. The league is just a lot more perimeter oriented now than in that time.

And a lot of today's big's like Dirk, KG, and Jermaine O'Neal play like small forwards and not in the post. Even Amare isnt a traditional back to the basket player at all. Duncan, Shaq, and Yao are your more traditional post players now and hopefully Oden can add to that mix, but Yao has his limitations and Shaq, sadly, is on the latter half of his career.

The quality of post play in the 80's and 90's was a lot more physical and competitive than now. You wont find many basketball fans who watched both those days and then now seriously debate that.

I guess this is one of the rare things we can agree on in this thread.
Hakeem did have better competition in the post in the 80's and 90's, and there really is no comparison. If Mourning in his prime was playing today, he would be the undisputed #1, and he didn't even make any all-nba teams back then.

However, teams were not that strong in the 90s. Yes, they didn't have weakass teams like the Nets, the 6ers or the Cavs representing the finals, but the reason is because the two best teams always meet in the finals back then.

The Spurs had to go through the 3-peat Lakers, a loaded Trailblazer team to win the title. The Suns and the Mavs were not-championship caliber when the Spurs beat them, but they were a good team nonetheless. Then there are teams that the Spurs never played/beat at their peak in the playoffs, like the Kings, the Wolves in 04, and the Jazz of the late 90s.

Duncan and Hakeem takes their teams on their backs very differently. Hakeem chose to take over games by doing everything, while Duncan leads his team by doing things that his team needs. There is no denying that Duncan is more versatile than Hakeem when it comes to winning, and does not need a team that is built in a specific mode.

Finally, the Spurs DID rebuild, 2003 was supposedly the rebuilding year, neither Parker and Ginobili came of age, and Robinson was on his last legs. Stephen Jackson was the #2 on the team offensively, and the Spurs still managed to dethrone the 3-peat Lakers and win the championship.

[Reggie Miller]

It's pretty funny you bring this up given that Hakeem is one of 4 players along with David Robinson to ever have recorded a quad double. In fact, the same month he had a 2nd quad double which was later rescinded by the NBA who took back one assist. So Hakeem came one assist shy of having 2 quadruple doubles in one month.

You missed the operative words: Finals closeout game. It makes a big difference. Also, I pointed out that this is more of a curiosity than a final arbiter.

The general consensus is that Olajuwon had a higher peak. I think there are some flaws in that position, even though I tend to agree. As I already mentioned, Duncan has at least one Finals performance that tops any Olajuwon Finals performance. Additionally, Hakeem is retired; Tim is still an active player. My best guess is that Duncan is about to enter the decline phase of his career, due to aging. Still, we don't know what the future will bring. If the Spurs repeat and Duncan has a monster year, many people will think of that as his peak, rather than using a statistical approach.

[Sec24Row7]

Patrick Ewing was an overrated joke who gets a lot of credit for playing in a big market.

[JamStone]

Patrick Ewing was an overrated joke who gets a lot of credit for playing in a big market.


I tend to agree with the notion he was overrated, but not to that extreme.

After his first two seasons in the league, he helped lead the Knicks to 13 consecutive playoff seasons. Look at the Knicks of recent seasons, and you'll realize how much of an accomplishment that is. Career numbers of 21 ppg, 10 rpg, 2.4 bpg, and 50% FG shooting. 11 time all star. An NBA Finals appearance. All NBA first or second team 7 times.

Spurs fans are fortunate to have a the likes of Tim Duncan and David Robinson to set their standards on what is great. But, to any fan of NBA basketball, Patrick Ewing was one of the greats of all time. And, this coming from someone who still thinks he was overrated, just not to the point I would call him a "joke."

[kingmalaki]

Garnett has better numbers than Duncan. Is he better than Duncan? No. I think it's universally understood by now that Duncan is the superior player to Garnett. Numbers have a lot more to do with system. You go on to later say that Hakeem didn't have a lockdown perimeter defender. Thus, he would have more opportunity for shot blocks. The only clear advantage he has is steals. Duncan could easily average 26-30 points a game if he was given the touches. He's unselfish. He makes everyone else better, he doesn't say I need X amount of touches per game. Whereas if you passed the ball to Hakeem, you weren't getting it back.

Garnett does not have Duncan's post game and isn't as good of a defender in the lane. You can look at their skillsets and clearly point to things Duncan can do that KG can't, especially when it comes to playing with your back to the basket like a traditional big. You can't do that with Hakeem. There is nothing on the court that Timmy could do that he couldn't. Looking at their offensive arsenal Hakeem had more moves. The numbers show he scored more on a better % (since you claim he could score more if he wanted..that we know, but could he score at as good of a rate). He was a better FT shooter. He was a better man defender and more athletic (and quicker) which allowed him to make certain plays that Duncan can't make (i.e. chasing down Rod Strickland or KJ from the end of the court to block shots). He and Robinson brought a level of athleticism to the center position that has rarely been seen (maybe only Wlit).

Hakeem blocked A LOT more shots (#1 All-Time) because he is a better shotblocker (see the physical advantages he has over Duncan mentioned above). A great defender like Bowen directs folks towards the help D and is already contesting the shot. It makes it easier to block as opposed to a wide open shot where the offensive player only has to beat you instead of two men.

Folks got the ball back when they passed it to Dream. The only difference is he had many seasons playing with scrub teammates while Duncan never has. Easier to “trust someone” when they can hit a shot.


Um, I'd say that's a pretty big argument. Considering titles are the most important thing in the NBA. It's real easy to blame supporting cast. I've seen it done countless times with Garnett supporters.

When you take titles into account you have to consider the surrounding help and the teams defeated. In case you missed this question the first time, what Spurs title team would Hakeem have not won a title on? Again, I don’t see Duncan carrying our squads to a ring in 94 or 95 because he has never shown the ability to put up as many points at a high % during a postseason (as we had no one else to score in the first run) AND be relied on to stop a superstar big on the other end. He has never been relied on to contain Shaq, and Amare got off against him. Again, different situations but Duncan has never shown that he can go 1-1 against a great big ON BOTH ENDS and win a series. This isn’t a knock on Duncan because what Hakeem did in 94/95 (going through 3 HOF’ers at his position on the way to titles) doesn’t happen often.


No, he wasn't. He missed the playoffs. Something Duncan has never done, and will never do... no matter what teammates he is playing with.

So again, please name one team where Duncan’s surrounding talent wasn’t in the top 3rd of the league. Over half the teams make the playoffs. Will you continue to dodge these questions?


Not really. The West is stronger now than it's ever been. Nice try, though. And if you want to talk about peak... I don't recall Hakeem ever putting up a damn near quadruple double in the Finals.

No, it’s not. The 90’s Rockets, Blazers, Jazz, Suns and Sonics would all be championship contenders in today’s league. You do realize Hakeem’s Finals numbers surpass Duncan’s, right?


ROFL @ the "Wallace boys"... you mean in the finals... when he lead them to a game 7 victory on 2 bad wheels? Oh, that one. Good example. Kurt Thomas? I love this one, especially. Duncan was shooting like 8 for 8 from the field and the announcers are like... Duncan is working very hard for his points, Kurt Thomas is playing excellent defense. Meanwhile the guy hasn't missed a shot. Yeah, stellar defense there. 100% FG% is rough.

I mena the Finals where Horry saved his butt in game 5….did you forget that?


Really? So Hakeem won 4 championships then?

What team does Hakeem not get a ring on if you replace Duncan with him?


Had the highest winning % in sports since entering the league?

Would he have had the highest % if he played in a league with the 80’s Lakers, 80’s Celtics and 90’s Bulls dynasties?


Made first team all-nba his first 9 years in the league?

Would he make all-nba every year competing with CENTERS like Kareem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq? You do know there is one center spot and two forward spots, right? Is any player he was beating for an all-nba spot better than the centers mentioned above?


Won 3 finals MVP's? I can keep going... but I'll stop to save your boy the embarrassment.

Too bad he had to play the 86 Celtics and not the 99 Knicks or he woulda had 3 MVP’s. Keep going….I am still waiting for you to say something/anything relevant. You are relying completely on championships won, so I guess Horry > Jordan. Again, do you not think Hakeem wins on those teams. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY.

[maddnezz]

Tim Duncan played 1 on 5 on the court for his four titles?Shut up Jordan was great but had a lot of phantom calls,
dont get it twisted dude

[kingmalaki]

As I already mentioned, Duncan has at least one Finals performance that tops any Olajuwon Finals performance.

How does one Finals game against a Nets frontline of Collins, K-Mart and a 36 yr old Mutombo top Olajuwon putting up 33 a game against a Shaq/Grant frontline in a sweep (becoming one of the few players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in every game of an NBA Finals series) , while also having to hold Shaq on the other end? How does that surpass Hakeem putting up 27 a game on a Ewing/Oakley/Mason frontline in 1994 when the Rockets only scored 88 ppg that series, while also having to hold Ewing on the other end?

[kingmalaki]

Finally, the Spurs DID rebuild, 2003 was supposedly the rebuilding year, neither Parker and Ginobili came of age, and Robinson was on his last legs. Stephen Jackson was the #2 on the team offensively, and the Spurs still managed to dethrone the 3-peat Lakers and win the championship.

Parker put up 16 and 6 that year. S.Jackson put up 12 a game. Robinson was on his last legs but he still was the defensive anchor when it mattered most…when they had to play LA. When he couldn’t bang with Shaq or other bigs Rose or Willis filled in. Manu provided a spark off the bench and an ability to hit big shots and drive with no abandon.

Again, the Spurs have never had to really rebuild because the FO has drafted well and has been able to attract quality older free agents chasing a ring (Willis and S.Smith in the case of the 03 team). Please find me one season where Duncan has been on a scrub team if you are using team accolades as your support, unless you don’t think it takes a team to win.

Duncan is even on record as noting how fortunate he is to have been on a team with a great FO, one coach during his tenure, etc. The only stars that walked into a better situation IMO are Magic and Kobe.

[Reggie Miller]

How does one Finals game against a Nets frontline of Collins, K-Mart and a 36 yr old Mutombo top Olajuwon putting up 33 a game against a Shaq/Grant frontline in a sweep (becoming one of the few players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in every game of an NBA Finals series) , while also having to hold Shaq on the other end? How does that surpass Hakeem putting up 27 a game on a Ewing/Oakley/Mason frontline in 1994 when the Rockets only scored 88 ppg that series, while also having to hold Ewing on the other end?

You're comparing a single game to two entire series.

All I am saying is that even if you compare "peaks" then it isn't 100% clear cut. This is not a Duncan v. Garnett comparison; this is a Majic Johnson v. Michael Jordan argument.

I actually tend to agree with you, and I think you made some very good points earlier. In particular, it is worth noting that it's not like Duncan has a skill set that Olajuwon didn't possess. On the other hand, Hakeem could do a few things Timmy can't do, or did it a little better.

[Sec24Row7]

I tend to agree with the notion he was overrated, but not to that extreme.

After his first two seasons in the league, he helped lead the Knicks to 13 consecutive playoff seasons. Look at the Knicks of recent seasons, and you'll realize how much of an accomplishment that is. Career numbers of 21 ppg, 10 rpg, 2.4 bpg, and 50% FG shooting. 11 time all star. An NBA Finals appearance. All NBA first or second team 7 times.

Spurs fans are fortunate to have a the likes of Tim Duncan and David Robinson to set their standards on what is great. But, to any fan of NBA basketball, Patrick Ewing was one of the greats of all time. And, this coming from someone who still thinks he was overrated, just not to the point I would call him a "joke."

It is a joke to compare him to Robinson Shaq or Hakeem.

He and Mourning are Clearly second tier to those 3 for that era... and he had no business being named to the top 50 players of all time. He's a marginal HOF player in any market but LA, NY or boston. He's not a first or second team player 7 times if he doesnt play in NY either.

[ambchang]

Parker put up 16 and 6 that year. S.Jackson put up 12 a game. Robinson was on his last legs but he still was the defensive anchor when it mattered most…when they had to play LA. When he couldn’t bang with Shaq or other bigs Rose or Willis filled in. Manu provided a spark off the bench and an ability to hit big shots and drive with no abandon.

Again, the Spurs have never had to really rebuild because the FO has drafted well and has been able to attract quality older free agents chasing a ring (Willis and S.Smith in the case of the 03 team). Please find me one season where Duncan has been on a scrub team if you are using team accolades as your support, unless you don’t think it takes a team to win.

Duncan is even on record as noting how fortunate he is to have been on a team with a great FO, one coach during his tenure, etc. The only stars that walked into a better situation IMO are Magic and Kobe.

Does Parker putting up 16 and 6 (actually 15.5 and 5.3) somehow change the fact that he was a 20 yo PG from France playing his second season in the NBA, or him, being as great as you described, having his butt saved by a 92 yo old Steve Kerr and a guy who can't hit an outside shot to save his life in Claxton?
Does that somehow change the fact that Terrell Brandon, at his peak and playing with Garnett, was a way better PG than the 2003 Parker?
12 ppg (actually 11.8) Jackson? Wow! Awesome! You know how many people averaged >= 11.8 last year in the league? 114, and one of them was called Adam Morrison, othrs also include Ryan Gomes, Jarret Jack, Mark Blount, and Delonte West. I am sure those guys would jump right in front of you when you talk about a championship caliber supporting cast, right?
Robinson, Rose and Willis did do a great job against the Lakers, too bad the team had to play another 82 games and 3 playoff rounds.
Manu drove great that year to his fantastic 7.6 ppg and 1.4 TO! Whoopey doo! He throws the ball to the opposition only once ever time he scores 5.4 points! And who can forget his 43.8% FG shooting? He was so great that year, Spurs fans were openly saying they wanted Hedo back!

And yes, Spurs FO did an amazing job, not qualms about that, but aren't we going in circular logic here?
Me: Duncan's team won a lot.
You: But he had great teammates throughout his career.
Me: No he didn't, the Spurs overachieved by a mile in 03.
You: That is not true, that team won the championship.

Well, it's because Duncan took those scrub teams and willed them to the championship. Look again at the 03 team, tell me that was a playoff team without Duncan with a straight face. That team without Duncan was basically comparable to the last year's Celtics without Pierce, and yet Duncan dragged them to 60 wins (itself a great accomplishment) and then dethroned the 3-peat Lakers to the title.

The 99 team wasn't that great, it was a fantastic defensive unit, but it was basically just Duncan on offense (they relied on Jaren Jackson for crying out loud). 05 was a solid team with Manu being the 2nd coming of Jordan in the playoffs, but the rest of the team wasn't all that strong. 07 was by far the most talented Spurs team with Parker coming of age, and Manu still having some of his magic left.

[kingmalaki]

You're comparing a single game to two entire series.

All I am saying is that even if you compare "peaks" then it isn't 100% clear cut. This is not a Duncan v. Garnett comparison; this is a Majic Johnson v. Michael Jordan argument.

I actually tend to agree with you, and I think you made some very good points earlier. In particular, it is worth noting that it's not like Duncan has a skill set that Olajuwon didn't possess. On the other hand, Hakeem could do a few things Timmy can't do, or did it a little better.

My bad, i thought you were saying his performance in the Finals was better than anything Hakeem ever did in the Finals. I did not know you were just specifying that one game. I do think Hakeem shares the playoff or Finals record for blocks in a game but I think you may be right...he has never put up a near quad dub in the Finals, especially with 20-20.

[kingmalaki]

Does Parker putting up 16 and 6 (actually 15.5 and 5.3) somehow change the fact that he was a 20 yo PG from France playing his second season in the NBA, or him, being as great as you described, having his butt saved by a 92 yo old Steve Kerr and a guy who can't hit an outside shot to save his life in Claxton?
Does that somehow change the fact that Terrell Brandon, at his peak and playing with Garnett, was a way better PG than the 2003 Parker?

Didn’t Magic win as a rookie? Didn’t Sam Cassell play very big for us in his rookie year when we first won in 95? Didn’t Horry when we won (his 2nd and third seasons)? Did Duncan not carry you to a title in his second? Did Hakeem not carry the Rockets to the Finals past LA in his second? So what does TP being in his second yr have to do with anything? He produced....

I never stated that Duncan had the best team every season. My point is he has NEVER been on a scrub team. You are providing support noting that some of his teams weren't the most talented team in the league, but that is far different than a scrub team (i.e. Hakeems Rockets from 87-91, some of Robinsons Spurs, T-Mac's Magic, Kobe's Lakers, etc). You can’t dismiss that when touting his championships (i.e. TEAM accomplishment). Again, name me one season where Duncan played on a team as poor as the teams that Dream and Robinson played on for a good chunk of their careers?


12 ppg (actually 11.8) Jackson? Wow! Awesome! You know how many people averaged >= 11.8 last year in the league? 114, and one of them was called Adam Morrison, othrs also include Ryan Gomes, Jarret Jack, Mark Blount, and Delonte West. I am sure those guys would jump right in front of you when you talk about a championship caliber supporting cast, right?

Is 12 ppg bad for a 3rd scorer? Yes or no? How many teams had a star player with worse surrounding talent than Duncan did in 03? Maybe 4 at most? You still aren’t addressing the point that Duncan’s teams have always had very good supporting talent, in comparison to the talent on other teams in the league at that time. If your argument is that other folks in the league that year had just as much talent then I agree with you, although you won’t find too many studs who did have that much help. Yes, I think Duncan is better than KG and Dirk (other PF’s with just as much help that season)…but let’s not act like they were playing with stacked squads while he was playing with scrubs.


Robinson, Rose and Willis did do a great job against the Lakers, too bad the team had to play another 82 games and 3 playoff rounds.
Manu drove great that year to his fantastic 7.6 ppg and 1.4 TO! Whoopey doo! He throws the ball to the opposition only once ever time he scores 5.4 points! And who can forget his 43.8% FG shooting? He was so great that year, Spurs fans were openly saying they wanted Hedo back!

So you dismiss the Robinson/Rose/Willis impact in playing D on Shaq (the ONLY stud big they had to face in Tim’s era), so Tim didn’t have to bang with him and could just concentrate on offense and help defense?


And yes, Spurs FO did an amazing job, not qualms about that, but aren't we going in circular logic here?
Me: Duncan's team won a lot.
You: But he had great teammates throughout his career.
Me: No he didn't, the Spurs overachieved by a mile in 03.
You: That is not true, that team won the championship.

How did the Spurs overachieve that season? They had the #2 record in the league (tied with Dallas). They were a top 5 team the prior year and lost to the eventual champion (many said either them or LA would win the title that season). TP got a yr older, they added Kevin Willis, Manu and Kerr (who was brought in specifically to do what he had experience doing, making big wide open shots with the game on the line). So a top five team that loses to the champs keeps their core, adds veteran help, someone with championship experience and they overachieved even though most picked either them or LA to win it all. Sure man….


Well, it's because Duncan took those scrub teams and willed them to the championship. Look again at the 03 team, tell me that was a playoff team without Duncan with a straight face. That team without Duncan was basically comparable to the last year's Celtics without Pierce, and yet Duncan dragged them to 60 wins (itself a great accomplishment) and then dethroned the 3-peat Lakers to the title.

Again, do you think Hakeem would not win a title with that team? If so, then why? This argument would hold more merit if Hakeem didn’t carry a worse squad to a title against better competition (in 94). And I am still waiting for you to point out who was a scrub on the 03 team? Willis, Rose and Kerr off the bench looks pretty good to me. David Robinson as your defensive anchor looks pretty good to me. Jackson as your #3 scorer looks good to me. TP starting looks good to me. What team with a top 10 player would have made the playoffs in 03 if you removed their best player?


The 99 team wasn't that great, it was a fantastic defensive unit, but it was basically just Duncan on offense (they relied on Jaren Jackson for crying out loud). 05 was a solid team with Manu being the 2nd coming of Jordan in the playoffs, but the rest of the team wasn't all that strong. 07 was by far the most talented Spurs team with Parker coming of age, and Manu still having some of his magic left.

My point is the 99 team or the 03 teams weren’t that bad. Please list 5 better squads from either season, from 1-12? The only ones I can really think of with better surrounding talent were the Lakers, Kings, Mavs and Blazers…and I already admit that Duncan was better than the stars from those teams (save Shaq). However, you make it seem like he was carrying scrubs to titles. Each of those title teams had top 5 league talent compared to the rest of the league….unless you can rattle off 5 squads that were better (waiting…….).

And I love Duncan (a sin for a Rockets fan) and think he is without doubt the best PF in league history (that I have seen at least). I may even take him over Shaq since Shaq is lazy at times and doesn't always bring it defensively. But when I start looking at some of these centers like Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem....I am not seeing Duncan do anything that I don't believe they could do if in the same situation. I have yet to see Duncan go into kill mode like those guys have (not for 1 game..for extended playoff runs). I have yet to see him just destroy another stud big in that class. I think he is great...just that the others are better.

[ambchang]

Didn’t Magic win as a rookie? Didn’t Sam Cassell play very big for us in his rookie year when we first won in 95? Didn’t Horry when we won (his 2nd and third seasons)? Did Duncan not carry you to a title in his second? Did Hakeem not carry the Rockets to the Finals past LA in his second? So what does TP being in his second yr have to do with anything? He produced....

Yes, Magic also won the Finals MVP, was a 3 time league MVP, and the best PG ever. Nobody in their right minds would say the same about Parker, and it STILL doesn’t change the fact that Parker WAS an inexperienced 20 yo 2nd year player from France who got chewed out by his coach because of his poor decision making and had his ass saved by Kerr and Claxton.

And didn’t Cassell come off the bench in 95? Didn’t Horry play a complimentary role, as, at best, the 4th best player on the team behind Hakeem, Otis Thorpe/Clyde, Kenny Smith/Vernon Maxwell while Parker was the #2 (#3 at worst) on that team?
Tony produced enough for a 2 yo PG, he still got his head chewed off by his coach.

[QUOTE=kingmalaki]I never stated that Duncan had the best team every season. My point is he has NEVER been on a scrub team. You are providing support noting that some of his teams weren't the most talented team in the league, but that is far different than a scrub team (i.e. Hakeems Rockets from 87-91, some of Robinsons Spurs, T-Mac's Magic, Kobe's Lakers, etc). You can’t dismiss that when touting his championships (i.e. TEAM accomplishment). Again, name me one season where Duncan played on a team as poor as the teams that Dream and Robinson played on for a good chunk of their careers?

What would that prove anything? That because Hakeem had worse teammates in their careers means and did worse than Duncan did with good teammates somehow translates as proof that Hakeem is better? What we do know is when both have a 20 ppg all-star centers by their side, Duncan’s team won 56 games his rookie season and then won the championship his second season, while Hakeem’s won 48 and then lost in the finals. And we do know that while both teams led their teams with a relatively weak supporting cast to the championship, Duncan’s team won 60 games in the regular season, while Hakeems team won 58.


Is 12 ppg bad for a 3rd scorer? Yes or no? How many teams had a star player with worse surrounding talent than Duncan did in 03? Maybe 4 at most? You still aren’t addressing the point that Duncan’s teams have always had very good supporting talent, in comparison to the talent on other teams in the league at that time. If your argument is that other folks in the league that year had just as much talent then I agree with you, although you won’t find too many studs who did have that much help. Yes, I think Duncan is better than KG and Dirk (other PF’s with just as much help that season)…but let’s not act like they were playing with stacked squads while he was playing with scrubs.

And I keep telling you that the 03 was not good supporting talent. You want to know how the support talent did without Duncan? They lost in the 1st round to a 5th seed after Duncan went down a year from a championship season, that’s how good they were. And KG couldn’t even get his team into the playoffs for a couple of season, while Dirk played with Finley, and Nash in their primes and STILL couldn’t get the Mavs into the finals. Duncan had 4 seasons with an all-star by his side and won 2 championships in those seasons (05 and 07, you can argue 99, where there was no all-star game, and that would make it 3 championships in 5 seasons with an allstar by his side), in the other years he didn’t have any all-stars beside him, he won a championship in 03. Dirk never had a similar season, and KG couldn’t even get his team out of the 1st round except 04.


So you dismiss the Robinson/Rose/Willis impact in playing D on Shaq (the ONLY stud big they had to face in Tim’s era), so Tim didn’t have to bang with him and could just concentrate on offense and help defense?

How did the Spurs overachieve that season? They had the #2 record in the league (tied with Dallas). They were a top 5 team the prior year and lost to the eventual champion (many said either them or LA would win the title that season). TP got a yr older, they added Kevin Willis, Manu and Kerr (who was brought in specifically to do what he had experience doing, making big wide open shots with the game on the line). So a top five team that loses to the champs keeps their core, adds veteran help, someone with championship experience and they overachieved even though most picked either them or LA to win it all. Sure man….

Didn’t the Spurs overachieve by having the #2 record in the league? Didn’t Robinson got a year older as well? Wasn’t Willis 42 years old then? Didn’t Manu get hurt at the beginning of the season and never contributed significantly to the championship that year (he specifically said that in 05)? Wasn’t Kerr like 40 years old as well? You make is sound like Willis and Kerr were some bonafide superstar, and that Manu was the Manu of 05. That was not the case at all, it’s not even close. Kerr didn’t even get any time until the situation got desperate vs. the Mavs, and Pop took the risk. It paid off. Kerr averaged a whopping 4ppg on 12.7 that season, then proceed to only play in 10 games in the playoffs, averaging 4.6 mins and 2.2 points.

And find me previews where people picked the Spurs to win in 03, the Lakers and the Kings were by far the favourites in 03, the Spurs were in rebuilding mode when Robinson made known that he was retiring. The following were results I got when I typed in 2002-03 NBA preview in google:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/2002/preview/main/
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/tank/nba/nba2003.html
http://www.nba.com/preview2002/General_Manager_Survey.html
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/sports/20061027/the_kings_of_the_court_an.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/shanoff/021029.html

What you said cannot be further from the truth.


Again, do you think Hakeem would not win a title with that team? If so, then why? This argument would hold more merit if Hakeem didn’t carry a worse squad to a title against better competition (in 94). And I am still waiting for you to point out who was a scrub on the 03 team? Willis, Rose and Kerr off the bench looks pretty good to me. David Robinson as your defensive anchor looks pretty good to me. Jackson as your #3 scorer looks good to me. TP starting looks good to me. What team with a top 10 player would have made the playoffs in 03 if you removed their best player?

I am saying the Spurs team of 03 was not anything close to a championship team, and yet they overachieved to do so, despite your revisionist history.
There were scrubs a plenty in that team. Claxton, Kerr, Willis, Rose (see what he did with the Knicks), Steve Smith, Danny Ferry. They even had the undisputed worst Spurs of all time on that roster, Mengke Bateer. No, they don’t need 12 all-stars, but like every other team, they had their share of scrubs.

And how can you justify the Rockets not winning a championship in 94 and 95 with Duncan in place of Hakeem?



My point is the 99 team or the 03 teams weren’t that bad. Please list 5 better squads from either season, from 1-12? The only ones I can really think of with better surrounding talent were the Lakers, Kings, Mavs and Blazers…and I already admit that Duncan was better than the stars from those teams (save Shaq). However, you make it seem like he was carrying scrubs to titles. Each of those title teams had top 5 league talent compared to the rest of the league….unless you can rattle off 5 squads that were better (waiting…….).

Of course those teams weren’t that bad, they won the championship, but those were not supposed to be championship teams. The 99 team was 6-8, and people were calling for Pop’s head earlier on in the season. NOBODY expected them to win the championship that season except Spurs fan. Jazz was the popular pick. And 03, I have already addressed earlier on.

If you want to talk about surrounding talent, meaning teams without their superstar, Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Blazers, Nets, Pistons, Pacers all had better talent than the Spurs when you take out the respective #1s on their teams.



And I love Duncan (a sin for a Rockets fan) and think he is without doubt the best PF in league history (that I have seen at least). I may even take him over Shaq since Shaq is lazy at times and doesn't always bring it defensively. But when I start looking at some of these centers like Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem....I am not seeing Duncan do anything that I don't believe they could do if in the same situation. I have yet to see Duncan go into kill mode like those guys have (not for 1 game..for extended playoff runs). I have yet to see him just destroy another stud big in that class. I think he is great...just that the others are better.

The 03 playoffs was definitely kill mode for him, ditto for 99.
The problem for Duncan is that there were no stud bigs for him to destroy, is this his fault? Isn’t destroying Shaq and Mutombo in 03 enough? Handling the Wallace brothers in the 05 finals on two bad wheels enough (he averaged 20.6 and 14.1 vs. 21.6 and 15.9 for the Wallace brothers in the series, including 2 games where he outscored AND outrebounded both players combined, and a game where he outrebounded both players). I mean, what could you expect from him?
What about putting up absolutely dominant numbers in losing causes? See 02 and 01 series vs. the Lakers.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

It could be argued that if Duncan played now against any of the greatest big men of the last 10-40 yrs that he would at the very least hold his own and more then likely get the better of them simply because of the inevitable, inexorable thing called evolution of the athlete. Players today are simply better physical specimens due to nutrition and training regimens.

In only 10-40 years would it be a huge difference, probably not. But it would be something to consider. Duncan would hold his own against any of the greatest. This is only from a physical, talent perspective. As discussed ad naseum Duncan also has one aspect of his game which is far better then any of the other greats mentioned. The cerebral aspect of the game. He's always in control, he always has a tremendous court awareness and despite being double teamed consistantly he always finds the open man and the right time and at the opportune time to facilitate a score. He gets his team mates involved and he makes them better. That is something that everyone has said from the coaches and NBA pundits to the casual fan.

[tlongII]

Oden

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Oden

Sam Bowie. Let's wait until Oden actually plays a couple of full healthy seasons before we start annoiting him. I know it was only mouth surgery but he didn't even get out of the preseason healthy. Ominous start.

Not saying that he will, but he certainly wouldn't be the first player to crash and burn due to not living up to his potential or due to injury.

[kingmalaki]

It could be argued that if Duncan played now against any of the greatest big men of the last 10-40 yrs that he would at the very least hold his own and more then likely get the better of them simply because of the inevitable, inexorable thing called evolution of the athlete. Players today are simply better physical specimens due to nutrition and training regimens.

In only 10-40 years would it be a huge difference, probably not. But it would be something to consider. Duncan would hold his own against any of the greatest. This is only from a physical, talent perspective. As discussed ad naseum Duncan also has one aspect of his game which is far better then any of the other greats mentioned. The cerebral aspect of the game. He's always in control, he always has a tremendous court awareness and despite being double teamed consistantly he always finds the open man and the right time and at the opportune time to facilitate a score. He gets his team mates involved and he makes them better. That is something that everyone has said from the coaches and NBA pundits to the casual fan.

Better athlete doesn't mean better player. There is no PG today that I would take over Magic, Oscar, isiah or Stockton. There is no SG that I would take over MJ. There is no SF that I would take over Bird. Most who are old enough to have seen Wilt and Russell play swear to God that there hasn't been a big-man better since. The supreme athletes of the past are just as good as the ones of today (go back and look at the times Russell ran or how high Wilt jumped when they competed in other sports, players then were measured without shoes on and didn't have the same weight training of today, etc). Additionally, the person in this comparison (Olajuwon) played within the last 10 years and I'm sure you aren't going to argue that Duncan was better than him in regards to athleticism, speed, quickness, etc.

[Reggie Miller]

Better athlete doesn't mean better player. There is no PG today that I would take over Magic, Oscar, isiah or Stockton. There is no SG that I would take over MJ. There is no SF that I would take over Bird. Most who are old enough to have seen Wilt and Russell play swear to God that there hasn't been a big-man better since. The supreme athletes of the past are just as good as the ones of today (go back and look at the times Russell ran or how high Wilt jumped when they competed in other sports, players then were measured without shoes on and didn't have the same weight training of today, etc). Additionally, the person in this comparison (Olajuwon) played within the last 10 years and I'm sure you aren't going to argue that Duncan was better than him in regards to athleticism, speed, quickness, etc.

That's always been my opinion. When you are comparing the players at the absolute pinnacle of their sports, I don't think era matters very much. Babe Ruth pitched a complete game victory in a World Series before becoming a position player for the Yankees. Does anyone really think he wouldn't be a dominant player today? Ruth's career ended nearly 80 years ago.

Basketball is a little different, becuase athleticism matters more, but we are still only talking about a generation's worth of difference between Russell and Duncan (for example). I can't believe there is THAT much difference.

On the other hand, watching films or game footage from forty years ago clearly indicates that the average to mediocre players of today are much taller and fitter than scrubs of the past.

Ultimately, we can't really answer these questions, so we have to make intelligent guesses instead.

[kingmalaki]

What would that prove anything? That because Hakeem had worse teammates in their careers means and did worse than Duncan did with good teammates somehow translates as proof that Hakeem is better?

No, it shows how silly it is to say Duncan is better because he has won more titles in a completely different era, at a completely different position, playing against completely different (and very much arguably worse) competition (team wise and individually).


What we do know is when both have a 20 ppg all-star centers by their side, Duncan’s team won 56 games his rookie season and then won the championship his second season, while Hakeem’s won 48 and then lost in the finals. And we do know that while both teams led their teams with a relatively weak supporting cast to the championship, Duncan’s team won 60 games in the regular season, while Hakeems team won 58.

Just using the situations you presented, what I know is Duncan came on a veteran team with an MVP by his side. Hakeem came on a team where the prior year’s best player was rookie Ralph Sampson. The Rockets were garbage for two seasons in a row prior to getting Hakeem. The Spurs were a playoff team that happened to have the #1 pick due to injuries. Duncan’t team won in the Finals against the Knicks, with no Pat Ewing. Hakeem’s team lost in the Finals against the 86 Celtics, arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time, and with 3 frontcourt players better than any Knick from that 99 team (Parish, McHale, Bird). You keep ‘forgetting’ to include all the extra information for some reason. Did you actually watch both of those seasons and know what happened or are you just looking at a listing of championships and records (not an attack, serious question)? Either way, I hope this shows you why it makes little sense to compare some titles won from two different eras. It would be different if you were comparing folks from the same era (i.e. Hakeem and Robinson).


And I keep telling you that the 03 was not good supporting talent. You want to know how the support talent did without Duncan? They lost in the 1st round to a 5th seed after Duncan went down a year from a championship season, that’s how good they were. And KG couldn’t even get his team into the playoffs for a couple of season, while Dirk played with Finley, and Nash in their primes and STILL couldn’t get the Mavs into the finals. Duncan had 4 seasons with an all-star by his side and won 2 championships in those seasons (05 and 07, you can argue 99, where there was no all-star game, and that would make it 3 championships in 5 seasons with an allstar by his side), in the other years he didn’t have any all-stars beside him, he won a championship in 03. Dirk never had a similar season, and KG couldn’t even get his team out of the 1st round except 04.

When Duncan went down that was in 2000. Wasn’t the 2000 team completely different from 2003 (Parker wasn’t there, or Willis, or Kerr, etc.). My question is simple…just list for me 5 teams with better supporting talent in each championship season? I can come up with (arguably) LA, Sacremento, Portland and Dallas and Phoenix at different times. Maybe Detroit one season (but they had no real superstar player). That’s about it. Why do you keep dodging this question? My point remains that every year Duncan won a title, he was on one of the best teams (surrounding talent wise) in the league. Not “the best” for sure, but he was not carrying scrubs to titles.


Didn’t the Spurs overachieve by having the #2 record in the league? Didn’t Robinson got a year older as well? Wasn’t Willis 42 years old then? Didn’t Manu get hurt at the beginning of the season and never contributed significantly to the championship that year (he specifically said that in 05)? Wasn’t Kerr like 40 years old as well? You make is sound like Willis and Kerr were some bonafide superstar, and that Manu was the Manu of 05. That was not the case at all, it’s not even close. Kerr didn’t even get any time until the situation got desperate vs. the Mavs, and Pop took the risk. It paid off. Kerr averaged a whopping 4ppg on 12.7 that season, then proceed to only play in 10 games in the playoffs, averaging 4.6 mins and 2.2 points.

No, I don’t think they overachieved. Weren’t they one of the title favorites heading into that season? Weren’t they arguable the second best team behind LA the previous year? Did they not make additions the following season (Willis, Kerr)? These vets are an addition to a team that isn’t losing anybody, especially when they have championship experience (didn’t Kerr hit the clinching shot!!!!).


And find me previews where people picked the Spurs to win in 03, the Lakers and the Kings were by far the favourites in 03, the Spurs were in rebuilding mode when Robinson made known that he was retiring. The following were results I got when I typed in 2002-03 NBA preview in google:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/2002/preview/main/
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/tank/nba/nba2003.html
http://www.nba.com/preview2002/General_Manager_Survey.html
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/sports/20061027/the_kings_of_the_court_an.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/shanoff/021029.html

What you said cannot be further from the truth.

Hmm, did you even read the Spurs profile from those link? The SI one picked SA #3, and basically said they just needed to get through LA (which they did). It also had this to say about TP and Manu:

“More crucial to San Antonio's success will be how well Parker and Ginobili mesh with Duncan. Parker is only 20, but he plays with the swagger of a 10-year All-Star.”

All of those sites had SA picked as one of the title contenders, especially if the young backcourt produced (which it did). Maybe we differ, but I don’t see how a “title contender” actually winning the title is overachieving.


I am saying the Spurs team of 03 was not anything close to a championship team, and yet they overachieved to do so, despite your revisionist history.
There were scrubs a plenty in that team. Claxton, Kerr, Willis, Rose (see what he did with the Knicks), Steve Smith, Danny Ferry. They even had the undisputed worst Spurs of all time on that roster, Mengke Bateer. No, they don’t need 12 all-stars, but like every other team, they had their share of scrubs.

Again, list the teams with better talent from 1-12? I guarantee you that that Spurs team will be in the top 1/3 of the league. How can you say they weren’t close to a championship team when folks said they were a contender for the title (see the links YOU provided). How were they not a contender when they only lost to the champs the year before and upgraded?


And how can you justify the Rockets not winning a championship in 94 and 95 with Duncan in place of Hakeem?

Because there was no David Robinson on the 94 team to play defense on bigs on the other end of the court. Because we had a SF starting at PF in the 95 run. Duncan has never shown the ability to match-up with a stud big on both ends in a series and win. Granted the only chance that he ever had was with Shaq (and either Robinson/Willis/Rose checked him) or with Amare (who got off). That is my opinion but Hakeem was relied on to go at 3 HOF big-men on both ends in those runs, kill them, and that is rare.


If you want to talk about surrounding talent, meaning teams without their superstar, Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Blazers, Nets, Pistons, Pacers all had better talent than the Spurs when you take out the respective #1s on their teams.

So the Spurs were still in the top 1/3 in the league, correct? Again, I never stated Duncan was always on the best team. My point is you can’t mention titles won and not note that he has never had to carry a abysmal team like some stars (Hakeem, Robinson, T-Mac, etc).


The 03 playoffs was definitely kill mode for him, ditto for 99.
The problem for Duncan is that there were no stud bigs for him to destroy, is this his fault? Isn’t destroying Shaq and Mutombo in 03 enough? Handling the Wallace brothers in the 05 finals on two bad wheels enough (he averaged 20.6 and 14.1 vs. 21.6 and 15.9 for the Wallace brothers in the series, including 2 games where he outscored AND outrebounded both players combined, and a game where he outrebounded both players). I mean, what could you expect from him?
What about putting up absolutely dominant numbers in losing causes? See 02 and 01 series vs. the Lakers.

No, it’s not his fault. But the point is Hakeem did the same thing against better comp…I have no doubt he could do it against worse comp, especially when he doesn’t have to come down and bang on the other end. That’s why I think it’s silly to compare titles because the situations that they were won in will never be the same. But the titles are the main support for the pro-Duncan camp. When you look at individual numbers or the skillsets each player brought to the table it clearly favors Olajuwon.

So I guess you are conceding that Hakeem would win a title on all of those championship teams, against worst comp, with another big-man to play defense for him?

And good way to debate without taking things to the insult level…..

[CarefreeAZ]

Exactly why would I expect that? Also, I don't even necessarily buy into the entire "Hakeem's peak was higher than Duncan's" rationale. Did Olajuwon ever come two blocks shy of a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game? (I realize that in of itself doesn't resolve the debate, but I couldn't let that go, either.)

Charles Barkley certainly thinks Duncan is the better player, although he never played on the Spurs (of course).

Consider your source(Barkley). He's just bitter that Olajuwon's Rockets ousted the Suns twice in the playoffs 94 & 95.

[Roxsfan]

Patrick Ewing was an overrated joke who gets a lot of credit for playing in a big market.

nice trophy sig :elephant

[TheAuthority]

No, it shows how silly it is to say Duncan is better because he has won more titles in a completely different era, at a completely different position, playing against completely different (and very much arguably worse) competition (team wise and individually).


Failing to see how this is silly. He has more titles. He is the more accomplished player. You can make all of the excuses you want. The fact is, he is more accomplished.



When Duncan went down that was in 2000. Wasn’t the 2000 team completely different from 2003 (Parker wasn’t there, or Willis, or Kerr, etc.).

The fact remains they were out in the first round without Duncan.


No, I don’t think they overachieved. Weren’t they one of the title favorites heading into that season? Weren’t they arguable the second best team behind LA the previous year? Did they not make additions the following season (Willis, Kerr)? These vets are an addition to a team that isn’t losing anybody, especially when they have championship experience (didn’t Kerr hit the clinching shot!!!!).

I laughed at this... a lot. Kerr and Kevin Willis as the additions. LOL Big acquisitions there. Yes, Kerr hit some wide open shots. Guess why they were wide open... yeah... Tim.





Again, list the teams with better talent from 1-12?

How does one accurately evaluate the Spurs roster when they have Duncan on their team to make them significantly better than what they really are? Half of these players would be average or mediocre players without the presence of Duncan down there.




Because there was no David Robinson on the 94 team to play defense on bigs on the other end of the court. Because we had a SF starting at PF in the 95 run. Duncan has never shown the ability to match-up with a stud big on both ends in a series and win. Granted the only chance that he ever had was with Shaq (and either Robinson/Willis/Rose checked him) or with Amare (who got off). That is my opinion but Hakeem was relied on to go at 3 HOF big-men on both ends in those runs, kill them, and that is rare.

Umm... why would it be Duncan's fault that he didn't check the other team's best post player? He obviously could if needed, but it was the smarter move to have someone else guard them and avoid foul trouble. And who are you kidding... Shaq was a 2nd year player when Hakeem beat him. lol Not exactly in his prime. Duncan beat Shaq in the peak of his career WITH Kobe Bryant on the team as well. The only stud he beat was Robinson... which is good for him. Hats off. Name a team Hakeem beat that had more talent than that Laker team? That's right... there wasn't one. Shaq and Kobe is probably the most talented duo ever. And Duncan didn't guard Amare 95% of the time. Please, know what you're talking about before you type nonsense.





No, it’s not his fault. But the point is Hakeem did the same thing against better comp…

Wait, so he won 4 titles? I thought it was 2...


I have no doubt he could do it against worse comp, especially when he doesn’t have to come down and bang on the other end.

It's one thing to think, it's another to do it.


When you look at individual numbers or the skillsets each player brought to the table it clearly favors Olajuwon.

Um, not exactly. Career numbers...

Duncan = 21.8PPG, 11.9RPG, 0.8SPG, 3.2APG, 2.4BPG, 2.8TOPG
Hakeem = 21.8PPG, 11.1RPG, 1.7SPG, 2.5APG, 3.0BPG, 2.9TOPG

Basically the same. What do you do when you have players that are close in numbers? You go to achievements. You go to winning. Duncan is more accomplished. He's won significantly more.



Your arguments are based around what-if scenarios. None of these arguments are based off of facts. Would Hakeem have won championships on the Duncan teams that won championships? Maybe, maybe not. Would Tim have won on Hakeem's championship teams? Maybe, maybe not. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Tim has 4 championships and Hakeem has 2. He also boasts a much higher winning %. More importantly, he's never missed the playoffs. Ever. And no, I don't care if you put him on Hakeem's team that missed the playoffs... he's making the playoffs. There's no way in hell a Duncan-led team misses the playoffs. Not only that, they probably make a deep playoff run to go along with making the playoffs.

Hakeem is quicker, more athletic, faster... jumps higher... all of that. I agree with that. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the entire story. Those things don't make a basketball player. Vince Carter has just as much raw talent and unquestionably better athletic ability than Jordan did. Does that make him better than Jordan, or even deserve to be in the same sentence with Jordan as a player? No. Tim is a basketball player, he's not a cross country athlete. Tim is a better jump shooter, he's a better banger, he's got better touch, he's a better teammate and leader, he's a better position defender, he has a higher basketball IQ, he's more clutch, he's stronger and a more dominant force inside, he's got better floor vision, and he's got probably the most intangibles I've ever seen on a basketball player. Most importantly, he makes every single player he plays with a whole lot better.

[ambchang]

No, it shows how silly it is to say Duncan is better because he has won more titles in a completely different era, at a completely different position, playing against completely different (and very much arguably worse) competition (team wise and individually).

I fail to see the logic here. If anything, it shows that the Spurs FO during Duncan’s era > Rocket’s FO during Hakeem’s era. And I agree that we cannot strictly look at rings as a dominant player to gauge a player’s ability.
What I am arguing though, is that Duncan does not require as specific a set up to be successful, noted by Hakeem’s failure to take his team to the playoffs and early first round exits in a couple of seasons.
Hakeem is great, he was my 2nd favourite player in the 90’s (well, maybe top 5) next to Robinson despite the clinic he put on the Spurs in 94. I have not seen such dominance on another superstar ever, but it was a two season peak, Duncan had way more success over a longer period of time with a very different lineup.


Just using the situations you presented, what I know is Duncan came on a veteran team with an MVP by his side. Hakeem came on a team where the prior year’s best player was rookie Ralph Sampson. The Rockets were garbage for two seasons in a row prior to getting Hakeem. The Spurs were a playoff team that happened to have the #1 pick due to injuries. Duncan’t team won in the Finals against the Knicks, with no Pat Ewing. Hakeem’s team lost in the Finals against the 86 Celtics, arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time, and with 3 frontcourt players better than any Knick from that 99 team (Parish, McHale, Bird). You keep ‘forgetting’ to include all the extra information for some reason. Did you actually watch both of those seasons and know what happened or are you just looking at a listing of championships and records (not an attack, serious question)? Either way, I hope this shows you why it makes little sense to compare some titles won from two different eras. It would be different if you were comparing folks from the same era (i.e. Hakeem and Robinson).

The Rocket’s got the #1 pick two years in a row with franchise centers as the top pick. It’s like getting Duncan and Robinson back to back, how can that not be huge! Remember Orlando? They got Shaq and Penny back to back, they went from a crap team to the Finals in like 3 years after that. How can you dismiss that?
People don’t remember how good Ralph Sampson was, he was like a 7’4” Garnett, he was absolutely amazing. If it wasn’t for his blown out knees, there would be no doubt that he would be in the HoF.
As for the no Ewing comment, the also happen to have swept the Shaq Kobe Lakers and a loaded Blazer team. Just because they faced a crappy eastern conference team doesn’t mean that they were not good. If that is the case, what does that say about the Lakers beating a one-man-team-6ers, the Nets and the Pacers for their 3-peat? And the fact is the Rocket’s lost to the Celtics, self-destructed, and was insignificant for another 6 or 7 years. The point is Duncan had more success with equal or lesser talent.


When Duncan went down that was in 2000. Wasn’t the 2000 team completely different from 2003 (Parker wasn’t there, or Willis, or Kerr, etc.). My question is simple…just list for me 5 teams with better supporting talent in each championship season? I can come up with (arguably) LA, Sacremento, Portland and Dallas and Phoenix at different times. Maybe Detroit one season (but they had no real superstar player). That’s about it. Why do you keep dodging this question? My point remains that every year Duncan won a title, he was on one of the best teams (surrounding talent wise) in the league. Not “the best” for sure, but he was not carrying scrubs to titles.

Just to make it clear, I am saying 2003 was the team thin on talent. I think 07 has talent through the nose, and 05 was really good. 99 has its flaws with serious lack of offensive power though. And yes, I have listed 5 teams that has better supporting talent than the Spurs in 03. If you want to compare whole eras, then yes, Duncan’s got more talent than Hakeem, but Hakeem only had success with great talent, while Duncan had success with great and mediocre talent.
00 team was different from the 03 team, but very similar to the 99 team. 99 won the title, 00 was a first round exit.


No, I don’t think they overachieved. Weren’t they one of the title favorites heading into that season? Weren’t they arguable the second best team behind LA the previous year? Did they not make additions the following season (Willis, Kerr)? These vets are an addition to a team that isn’t losing anybody, especially when they have championship experience (didn’t Kerr hit the clinching shot!!!!).

No, the Kings were clearly the #2 (most argued #1) team that season. Willis and Kerr were not significant additions. I already ran through the stats, and both were 9th to 10th man. Kerr did not hit the clinching shot, he exploded in one game vs. Dallas, and I think one vs. the Nets, that was it. Willis did a commendable job on Shaq in Game 6, but he only played short stretches.


Hmm, did you even read the Spurs profile from those link? The SI one picked SA #3, and basically said they just needed to get through LA (which they did). It also had this to say about TP and Manu:

“More crucial to San Antonio's success will be how well Parker and Ginobili mesh with Duncan. Parker is only 20, but he plays with the swagger of a 10-year All-Star.”

All of those sites had SA picked as one of the title contenders, especially if the young backcourt produced (which it did). Maybe we differ, but I don’t see how a “title contender” actually winning the title is overachieving.

Once again, they were #3 at best, with Kings and Lakers as the clear 1-2. Parker certainly had swagger, no question about it, still doesn’t change the fact that he was yanked for Claxton in the finals, and choked worse than Dirk in 04.
Ginobili had a lot of hype coming in, especially for a late 2nd round pick, but he certainly did not perform like an all-star. He was way more productive than any #58 pick, but he was nothing more than a 7th 8th man.


Again, list the teams with better talent from 1-12? I guarantee you that that Spurs team will be in the top 1/3 of the league. How can you say they weren’t close to a championship team when folks said they were a contender for the title (see the links YOU provided). How were they not a contender when they only lost to the champs the year before and upgraded?

I wouldn’t say top 1/3 of the league to be championship level. That is the top 10 teams in the league. I would be shocked if, say, Chicago won the championship next year, they would have seriously overachieved.

Again, read the links. There were two picks for the champs that year, it was either the Kings or the Lakers. Nobody picked the Spurs. They were contenders the same way the Cavs were contenders, or the Pistons, or the Jazz. They weren’t even the Suns or the Mavs. And to top it off, the SOLE reason they were in pegged #3 was because of Duncan. Take Duncan out, and 03 wasn’t even a playoff team, there is absolutely no question about that, and yet they won the championship. You think a lineup of 2nd year Parker, young Stephen Jackson, Bowen, Malik Rose and 38 year old Robinson was going to make the playoffs?


Because there was no David Robinson on the 94 team to play defense on bigs on the other end of the court. Because we had a SF starting at PF in the 95 run. Duncan has never shown the ability to match-up with a stud big on both ends in a series and win. Granted the only chance that he ever had was with Shaq (and either Robinson/Willis/Rose checked him) or with Amare (who got off). That is my opinion but Hakeem was relied on to go at 3 HOF big-men on both ends in those runs, kill them, and that is rare.

Absolutely no argument that Hakeem was amazing in 94 and 95, but when viewed as a whole body of work, Duncan has allowed his teams to have sustained levels of success despite mediocre talent (00 – 04)


So the Spurs were still in the top 1/3 in the league, correct? Again, I never stated Duncan was always on the best team. My point is you can’t mention titles won and not note that he has never had to carry a abysmal team like some stars (Hakeem, Robinson, T-Mac, etc).

The Spurs were always one of the top 5 teams in the league because of Duncan. I wouldn’t go so far as calling the Spurs outside of Duncan abysmal, but any team that relies on Jaren Jackson for offensive power, having Derek Anderson as an undisputed #2, relying on Stephen Jackson for timely offense and defense, and having Speedy Claxton and Kerr save their butt is definitely not a title-team.



No, it’s not his fault. But the point is Hakeem did the same thing against better comp…I have no doubt he could do it against worse comp, especially when he doesn’t have to come down and bang on the other end. That’s why I think it’s silly to compare titles because the situations that they were won in will never be the same. But the titles are the main support for the pro-Duncan camp. When you look at individual numbers or the skillsets each player brought to the table it clearly favors Olajuwon.

So I guess you are conceding that Hakeem would win a title on all of those championship teams, against worst comp, with another big-man to play defense for him?

And good way to debate without taking things to the insult level…..

I would say Hakeem would win in 05 and 07 no doubt, probably 99, but I am not sure about the 03 team. On an individual basis, and on skills, Hakeem by a mile, but in terms of providing the team with what it needs to succeed, I believe I will go with Duncan, but only by a hair.

[kingmalaki]

Failing to see how this is silly. He has more titles. He is the more accomplished player. You can make all of the excuses you want. The fact is, he is more accomplished.

Those aren’t excuses. Each is a factual statement, with the exception that he played against better competition (that one is debatable). If you are relying on titles won, then it makes no sense not to take into account those differences.


The fact remains they were out in the first round without Duncan.

And the best team in basketball (record wise) was out in the first round this year, correct? What playoff team from last year would win their playoff series if you removed their best player?


I laughed at this... a lot. Kerr and Kevin Willis as the additions. LOL Big acquisitions there. Yes, Kerr hit some wide open shots. Guess why they were wide open... yeah... Tim.

You still need someone to hit those wide open shots, right? Wasn’t that why LA beta y’all in Parkers rookie season, because your perimeter players couldn’t hit open shots? Isn’t that why players like Kerr and Smith were brought in?


How does one accurately evaluate the Spurs roster when they have Duncan on their team to make them significantly better than what they really are? Half of these players would be average or mediocre players without the presence of Duncan down there.

Easy…remove him and remove the best player form another team, then go down the list from players 2-12. I doubt you will find 1/3 of teams in the league better than SA. The surrounding talent does not compare (in terms of futility) to the suck talent that other stars have had to play with. I am not saying Duncan always had studs on his team, but he never had a season playing with a bunch of scrubs and no one can provide any support showing that he did.


Umm... why would it be Duncan's fault that he didn't check the other team's best post player? He obviously could if needed, but it was the smarter move to have someone else guard them and avoid foul trouble.

How can you say he could if he never had to?


And who are you kidding... Shaq was a 2nd year player when Hakeem beat him. lol Not exactly in his prime. Duncan beat Shaq in the peak of his career WITH Kobe Bryant on the team as well. The only stud he beat was Robinson... which is good for him. Hats off.

Shaq put up 29, 12 a d 2 blocks when we beat them (his 3rd season by the way). Yes, Duncan beat a in-prime Shaq but also had Robinson, therefore he never had to check him. He also lost to Shaq twice. And last time I checked Ewing is also a HOF center. Barkley, Stockton, Malone are also HOF players. KJ and Rodman are arguable HOF players as well.


Name a team Hakeem beat that had more talent than that Laker team? That's right... there wasn't one. Shaq and Kobe is probably the most talented duo ever. And Duncan didn't guard Amare 95% of the time. Please, know what you're talking about before you type nonsense.

Um, probably the 85/86 LA Lakers. I mean, they only had Magic, Kareem (who still put up 23 a game that season), Worthy, B.Scott, Maurice Lucas and Micheal Cooper. But yeah, that team wasn’t more talented than the 00 Lakers. They only had 3 HOF’ers and won 5 championships in the decade, going to the Finals 8 times. Maybe you should take your own advice….


Wait, so he won 4 titles? I thought it was 2...

No, he only won two. He didn’t have the benefit of playing against teams like the 99 Knicks. Again, which title team would not have won a title if you replace Duncan with Olajuwon?


Um, not exactly. Career numbers...

Duncan = 21.8PPG, 11.9RPG, 0.8SPG, 3.2APG, 2.4BPG, 2.8TOPG
Hakeem = 21.8PPG, 11.1RPG, 1.7SPG, 2.5APG, 3.0BPG, 2.9TOPG

Basically the same. What do you do when you have players that are close in numbers? You go to achievements. You go to winning. Duncan is more accomplished. He's won significantly more.

No, it’s not the same thing. Nice of you to compare Duncan’s numbers after 10 years to Hakeem’s after 18!!!! The numbers at 10 years each have already been posted if you would like to review those.


Your arguments are based around what-if scenarios. None of these arguments are based off of facts. Would Hakeem have won championships on the Duncan teams that won championships? Maybe, maybe not. Would Tim have won on Hakeem's championship teams? Maybe, maybe not. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Tim has 4 championships and Hakeem has 2. He also boasts a much higher winning %. More importantly, he's never missed the playoffs. Ever. And no, I don't care if you put him on Hakeem's team that missed the playoffs... he's making the playoffs. There's no way in hell a Duncan-led team misses the playoffs. Not only that, they probably make a deep playoff run to go along with making the playoffs.

No, my arguments bring all aspects into the situation. Again, it is silly to just say Player X has more titles so he is better when the players never played in the same era, did not play the same position and didn’t play the same competition. You are comparing apples to oranges. I give Duncan full props for his 4 titles. But I do realize that he won them in a completely different era than Hakeem played in, and he always had quality support on his teams.


Hakeem is quicker, more athletic, faster... jumps higher... all of that. I agree with that. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the entire story. Those things don't make a basketball player. Vince Carter has just as much raw talent and unquestionably better athletic ability than Jordan did. Does that make him better than Jordan, or even deserve to be in the same sentence with Jordan as a player? No. Tim is a basketball player, he's not a cross country athlete. Tim is a better jump shooter, he's a better banger, he's got better touch, he's a better teammate and leader, he's a better position defender, he has a higher basketball IQ, he's more clutch, he's stronger and a more dominant force inside, he's got better floor vision, and he's got probably the most intangibles I've ever seen on a basketball player. Most importantly, he makes every single player he plays with a whole lot better.

Tim has a better jumper than Hakeem? Is this why his fg% is lower (and Hakeem took A LOT of jumpers…what do you think the Dreamshake was). Duncan a better banger..lol. More clutch than Hakeem….who went superhuman two postseason runs in a row and knocked off 3 HOF centers along the way? Sure dude…. Hakeem has all those intangibles and he is a better athlete. That is why I think he is better. How much did you even watch Olajuwon play…cuz it’s boggling for someone to think Duncan has a better touch or is a better banger…

[kingmalaki]

I fail to see the logic here. If anything, it shows that the Spurs FO during Duncan’s era > Rocket’s FO during Hakeem’s era. And I agree that we cannot strictly look at rings as a dominant player to gauge a player’s ability.
What I am arguing though, is that Duncan does not require as specific a set up to be successful, noted by Hakeem’s failure to take his team to the playoffs and early first round exits in a couple of seasons.
Hakeem is great, he was my 2nd favourite player in the 90’s (well, maybe top 5) next to Robinson despite the clinic he put on the Spurs in 94. I have not seen such dominance on another superstar ever, but it was a two season peak, Duncan had way more success over a longer period of time with a very different lineup.



The Rocket’s got the #1 pick two years in a row with franchise centers as the top pick. It’s like getting Duncan and Robinson back to back, how can that not be huge! Remember Orlando? They got Shaq and Penny back to back, they went from a crap team to the Finals in like 3 years after that. How can you dismiss that?
People don’t remember how good Ralph Sampson was, he was like a 7’4” Garnett, he was absolutely amazing. If it wasn’t for his blown out knees, there would be no doubt that he would be in the HoF.
As for the no Ewing comment, the also happen to have swept the Shaq Kobe Lakers and a loaded Blazer team. Just because they faced a crappy eastern conference team doesn’t mean that they were not good. If that is the case, what does that say about the Lakers beating a one-man-team-6ers, the Nets and the Pacers for their 3-peat? And the fact is the Rocket’s lost to the Celtics, self-destructed, and was insignificant for another 6 or 7 years. The point is Duncan had more success with equal or lesser talent.



Just to make it clear, I am saying 2003 was the team thin on talent. I think 07 has talent through the nose, and 05 was really good. 99 has its flaws with serious lack of offensive power though. And yes, I have listed 5 teams that has better supporting talent than the Spurs in 03. If you want to compare whole eras, then yes, Duncan’s got more talent than Hakeem, but Hakeem only had success with great talent, while Duncan had success with great and mediocre talent.
00 team was different from the 03 team, but very similar to the 99 team. 99 won the title, 00 was a first round exit.



No, the Kings were clearly the #2 (most argued #1) team that season. Willis and Kerr were not significant additions. I already ran through the stats, and both were 9th to 10th man. Kerr did not hit the clinching shot, he exploded in one game vs. Dallas, and I think one vs. the Nets, that was it. Willis did a commendable job on Shaq in Game 6, but he only played short stretches.



Once again, they were #3 at best, with Kings and Lakers as the clear 1-2. Parker certainly had swagger, no question about it, still doesn’t change the fact that he was yanked for Claxton in the finals, and choked worse than Dirk in 04.
Ginobili had a lot of hype coming in, especially for a late 2nd round pick, but he certainly did not perform like an all-star. He was way more productive than any #58 pick, but he was nothing more than a 7th 8th man.



I wouldn’t say top 1/3 of the league to be championship level. That is the top 10 teams in the league. I would be shocked if, say, Chicago won the championship next year, they would have seriously overachieved.

Again, read the links. There were two picks for the champs that year, it was either the Kings or the Lakers. Nobody picked the Spurs. They were contenders the same way the Cavs were contenders, or the Pistons, or the Jazz. They weren’t even the Suns or the Mavs. And to top it off, the SOLE reason they were in pegged #3 was because of Duncan. Take Duncan out, and 03 wasn’t even a playoff team, there is absolutely no question about that, and yet they won the championship. You think a lineup of 2nd year Parker, young Stephen Jackson, Bowen, Malik Rose and 38 year old Robinson was going to make the playoffs?



Absolutely no argument that Hakeem was amazing in 94 and 95, but when viewed as a whole body of work, Duncan has allowed his teams to have sustained levels of success despite mediocre talent (00 – 04)



The Spurs were always one of the top 5 teams in the league because of Duncan. I wouldn’t go so far as calling the Spurs outside of Duncan abysmal, but any team that relies on Jaren Jackson for offensive power, having Derek Anderson as an undisputed #2, relying on Stephen Jackson for timely offense and defense, and having Speedy Claxton and Kerr save their butt is definitely not a title-team.




I would say Hakeem would win in 05 and 07 no doubt, probably 99, but I am not sure about the 03 team. On an individual basis, and on skills, Hakeem by a mile, but in terms of providing the team with what it needs to succeed, I believe I will go with Duncan, but only by a hair.


Good responses. I will stop debating it now with you as I think we have come to the level where we will just be repeating ourselves to clarify our points. Both players were/are great though....

[ambchang]

Good responses. I will stop debating it now with you as I think we have come to the level where we will just be repeating ourselves to clarify our points. Both players were/are great though....
:lol
About the only thing we agreed on in the thread.

[bobbyjoe]

Failing to see how this is silly. He has more titles. He is the more accomplished player. You can make all of the excuses you want. The fact is, he is more accomplished.




The fact remains they were out in the first round without Duncan.



I laughed at this... a lot. Kerr and Kevin Willis as the additions. LOL Big acquisitions there. Yes, Kerr hit some wide open shots. Guess why they were wide open... yeah... Tim.





How does one accurately evaluate the Spurs roster when they have Duncan on their team to make them significantly better than what they really are? Half of these players would be average or mediocre players without the presence of Duncan down there.





Umm... why would it be Duncan's fault that he didn't check the other team's best post player? He obviously could if needed, but it was the smarter move to have someone else guard them and avoid foul trouble. And who are you kidding... Shaq was a 2nd year player when Hakeem beat him. lol Not exactly in his prime. Duncan beat Shaq in the peak of his career WITH Kobe Bryant on the team as well. The only stud he beat was Robinson... which is good for him. Hats off. Name a team Hakeem beat that had more talent than that Laker team? That's right... there wasn't one. Shaq and Kobe is probably the most talented duo ever. And Duncan didn't guard Amare 95% of the time. Please, know what you're talking about before you type nonsense.





Wait, so he won 4 titles? I thought it was 2...



It's one thing to think, it's another to do it.



Um, not exactly. Career numbers...

Duncan = 21.8PPG, 11.9RPG, 0.8SPG, 3.2APG, 2.4BPG, 2.8TOPG
Hakeem = 21.8PPG, 11.1RPG, 1.7SPG, 2.5APG, 3.0BPG, 2.9TOPG

Basically the same. What do you do when you have players that are close in numbers? You go to achievements. You go to winning. Duncan is more accomplished. He's won significantly more.



Your arguments are based around what-if scenarios. None of these arguments are based off of facts. Would Hakeem have won championships on the Duncan teams that won championships? Maybe, maybe not. Would Tim have won on Hakeem's championship teams? Maybe, maybe not. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Tim has 4 championships and Hakeem has 2. He also boasts a much higher winning %. More importantly, he's never missed the playoffs. Ever. And no, I don't care if you put him on Hakeem's team that missed the playoffs... he's making the playoffs. There's no way in hell a Duncan-led team misses the playoffs. Not only that, they probably make a deep playoff run to go along with making the playoffs.

Hakeem is quicker, more athletic, faster... jumps higher... all of that. I agree with that. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the entire story. Those things don't make a basketball player. Vince Carter has just as much raw talent and unquestionably better athletic ability than Jordan did. Does that make him better than Jordan, or even deserve to be in the same sentence with Jordan as a player? No. Tim is a basketball player, he's not a cross country athlete. Tim is a better jump shooter, he's a better banger, he's got better touch, he's a better teammate and leader, he's a better position defender, he has a higher basketball IQ, he's more clutch, he's stronger and a more dominant force inside, he's got better floor vision, and he's got probably the most intangibles I've ever seen on a basketball player. Most importantly, he makes every single player he plays with a whole lot better.


Now it's just getting painfully obvious you never watched Hakeem play, which explains a helluva lot.

Saying Tim was a better jump shooter than Hakeem is just comical. Hakeem had the higher FG% of the 2, especially in the playoffs, and shot FT's much better. How the hell can u shoot better jumpers than someone when they are a much better FT shooter and FG shooter than you?

Also, the Vince Carter example is crazy too. Any basketball purist will tell you the bigmen with the best footwork in the history of the NBA were Mchale and Olajuwon. #1 and 2.

That's the whole problem with the Duncan Hakeem debate. Sure, Duncan has tremendous fundamentals. But Hakeem had Duncan's fundamentals plus much better athleticism to boot. He was Duncan on roids.

He shot a higher % against better comp, hit his FT's much better, especially in the clutch (you cant tell me there are many Spurs fans who aren't sweating profusely in the last 2 minutes of a tight game with Duncan on the FT line, he's shaky in those situations).

The position defender part is insanity also. Duncan can not move laterally and guard the quicker guys like Amare and Dirk. Amare went for 38 ppg in the 2005 playoffs on TD and Popovich won't even use TD on Dirk, he will use Bowen instead. Same for Shaq, DRob always drew that matchup. Duncan is a great TEAM defender, but not a great individual defensive player, esp relative to a guy like Hakeem.

Hakeem had the versatility to guard quicker PF's and bang with Shaq inside. Duncan just does not have that. That's all well and good when u have a DRob or Bowen to help out, but if u are picking individual players (Hakeem vs. TD), you don't get to throw in DRob or Bowen. You want the more versatile player.

I think you have lost all credibility by saying that Kobe/Shaq was a better combo than Magic/Kareem. Post that question on a Lakers forum and you will get a 99% response rate of Magic/Kareem. This again makes it sound like you just were a little kid in the golden ages of the NBA (the 80's era, Celtics-Lakers-Pistons). Magic and Kareem are 2 top 5 players of all time on most lists. Shaq is a top 10 all time player but Kobe is simply not. And not close really. Not to mention the Lakers of the 80's, whom Hakeem's team beat, had a much better cast around their 2 headed duo than Shaq-Kobe. Of course, maybe names like James Worthy, Michael Cooper, and Byron Scott are foreign to you given your commentary. The 80's Lakers would be a 70 plus win team in today's league and would sweep Kobe-Shaq. Arguably the best team in NBA history or a top 5 one at least for sure.

Also, Duncan was 2-3 lifetime in the playoffs vs. Shaq/Kobe. Impressive to beat them twice, no doubt, but still an overall losing record...Those were some great series though and the NBA really needs a rivarly like that again where u have 2 great teams battling it out. On that, I think we all can agree.

Also, the career #'s are deceiving. You are factoring in Hakeem's grey beard years of steep decline. To make it apples to apples, you have to compare Hakeem's first 10 years to Duncan's first 10. SOmeone has posted that already on this thread and it was pro-Hakeem, especially if you look at playoff #'s, which again contradicts your "Duncan was more clutch" theory. Hakeem's playoff #'s blow Duncans out of the water and came against much tougher competition.

You keep raving about how Duncan makes teammates better than Hakeem, yet the 2 common teammates of both guys (Elie and Horry) both ahve said point blank Hakeem was the best teammate they ever played with. This flies in the face of your theory and really while we fans can argue all we want about who was better, the fact that those 2 guys who have played with both guys in their primes, won titles with both guys, say Hakeem was better, well that should tell you something.

Besides passing, there's just not one element of the game Hakeem was inferior to TD. TD does pass the ball out of the post better than Hakeem. There is no doubt about that. His passes are more crisp and Hakeem struggled with passing out of double teams until his prime years. I agree that Duncan's basketball IQ is awesome as well.

Besides that though, Hakeem had more moves, better footwork, better athleticism, was more clutch, scored more, and defended better both as a team defender and an individual defender. Hakeem could dominate games defensively in a way Duncan simply isn't equipped to do. Remember, this is all relative. Yes, Duncan is a great defender but does he stack up with the all time great bigmen defensively (Hakeem, Russell, Kareem, DRob, Rodman). Uhh, that's just a no, no offense to TD. Rebounding is a wash.

[Rummpd]

Tim Duncan first team NBA 10x end of discussion to the above poster saying that Duncan is not historically one of the great big men defensively. I love the Dream but Duncan when careers will be compared will always be the better player. Duncan just has that "something extra" that wins and makes others better.

[TheAuthority]

And the best team in basketball (record wise) was out in the first round this year, correct? What playoff team from last year would win their playoff series if you removed their best player?

The first round? Pistons, Suns and Nets



You still need someone to hit those wide open shots, right? Wasn’t that why LA beta y’all in Parkers rookie season, because your perimeter players couldn’t hit open shots? Isn’t that why players like Kerr and Smith were brought in?

I think you're missing the point. Those players are scrubs. Being able to hit wide open jump shots doesn't qualify as not being a scrub.






How can you say he could if he never had to?

Because he's been first team all-nba defense every season since he entered the NBA. lol That isn't an accident.



Shaq put up 29, 12 a d 2 blocks when we beat them (his 3rd season by the way). Yes, Duncan beat a in-prime Shaq but also had Robinson, therefore he never had to check him. He also lost to Shaq twice. And last time I checked Ewing is also a HOF center. Barkley, Stockton, Malone are also HOF players. KJ and Rodman are arguable HOF players as well.

He lost to Shaq once. I don't count the 0.4 series because the shot itself shouldn't have counted. What's the difference if he guards Shaq or not? You act like he can't guard Shaq. I've seen him guard Shaq. I've seen him lock Shaq down. To have him guard him an entire game is just plain stupid when you have someone else capable of guarding him and eating fouls up. Patrick Ewing? Charles Barkley? You don't think Duncan would eat those players alive? That's hilarious. Kevin Johnson isn't a hall of famer, and if Rodman gets in it would be a travesty. lol If Rodman gets in, you better let Ben Wallace in. No question.




Um, probably the 85/86 LA Lakers. I mean, they only had Magic, Kareem (who still put up 23 a game that season), Worthy, B.Scott, Maurice Lucas and Micheal Cooper. But yeah, that team wasn’t more talented than the 00 Lakers. They only had 3 HOF’ers and won 5 championships in the decade, going to the Finals 8 times. Maybe you should take your own advice….

The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were a 3-peat team. I don't recall Magic/Kareem ever winning 3 in a row. So... while you go by opinion, I will go by facts.




No, he only won two. He didn’t have the benefit of playing against teams like the 99 Knicks. Again, which title team would not have won a title if you replace Duncan with Olajuwon?

Yep, excuses and opinion. Again, I bring factual information. Duncan = 4. Olajuwon = 2. I don't believe he could have won on any of Duncan's title teams, because he isn't the player Duncan is. Duncan is surrounded primarily by shooters. He finds them out of the double. Hakeem couldn't do that.



Tim has a better jumper than Hakeem? Is this why his fg% is lower (and Hakeem took A LOT of jumpers…what do you think the Dreamshake was). Duncan a better banger..lol. More clutch than Hakeem….who went superhuman two postseason runs in a row and knocked off 3 HOF centers along the way? Sure dude…. Hakeem has all those intangibles and he is a better athlete. That is why I think he is better. How much did you even watch Olajuwon play…cuz it’s boggling for someone to think Duncan has a better touch or is a better banger…

FG% doesn't mean you have a better jump shot. lol That's hilarious. Does Bruce Bowen have a better jump shot than Ray Allen? He shoots a better % from 3... I guess he does. Hakeem shot a better % because he was able to dunk the ball and get away with traveling violations constantly. Watch some Hakeem highlights on youtube. You'll find that most of his "best" moves were travels. Yes, he's a better banger. Olajuwon was a finesse player. He used finesse moves to free himself. Duncan is a power post player with excellent footwork. He doesn't need to travel to score. Hakeem obviously doesn't have the intangibles Duncan has, because Duncan has 4 titles and Hakeem has 2.

[TheAuthority]

Now it's just getting painfully obvious you never watched Hakeem play, which explains a helluva lot.

Saying Tim was a better jump shooter than Hakeem is just comical. Hakeem had the higher FG% of the 2, especially in the playoffs, and shot FT's much better. How the hell can u shoot better jumpers than someone when they are a much better FT shooter and FG shooter than you?

Well, I guess Ray Allen has a worse jump shot than Bruce Bowen, according to your FG% theory. Speaking of Bruce Bowen, he's shot a better % from 3 than free throws. So, basically... what that means... is your theory is shit.



Also, the Vince Carter example is crazy too. Any basketball purist will tell you the bigmen with the best footwork in the history of the NBA were Mchale and Olajuwon. #1 and 2.

Will they? I think you're reaching. Maybe if they said what big man traveled the most and got away with it... well... maybe then they'd say Olajuwon.



That's the whole problem with the Duncan Hakeem debate. Sure, Duncan has tremendous fundamentals. But Hakeem had Duncan's fundamentals plus much better athleticism to boot. He was Duncan on roids.

Really? Why did he only win 2 titles? Duncan has 4 and counting. Oh, nevermind. He has had better teammates than Hakeem. Convenient.


He shot a higher % against better comp, hit his FT's much better, especially in the clutch (you cant tell me there are many Spurs fans who aren't sweating profusely in the last 2 minutes of a tight game with Duncan on the FT line, he's shaky in those situations).

71% from the line isn't exactly stellar, or much better than Duncan... at all.


The position defender part is insanity also. Duncan can not move laterally and guard the quicker guys like Amare and Dirk. Amare went for 38 ppg in the 2005 playoffs on TD and Popovich won't even use TD on Dirk, he will use Bowen instead. Same for Shaq, DRob always drew that matchup. Duncan is a great TEAM defender, but not a great individual defensive player, esp relative to a guy like Hakeem.

Duncan didn't guard Amare. Please, know what you're talking about before you type. He didn't use Duncan on Dirk, because as we've all seen Dirk is bothered by smaller players guarding him. Again, why would Duncan guard the opposing team's best player if he doesn't have to? It just makes no sense. It doesn't mean he can't guard them. It's just the smarter move to avoid possible foul trouble.


Hakeem had the versatility to guard quicker PF's and bang with Shaq inside. Duncan just does not have that. That's all well and good when u have a DRob or Bowen to help out, but if u are picking individual players (Hakeem vs. TD), you don't get to throw in DRob or Bowen. You want the more versatile player.

Hakeem hardly played the dominant Shaq that Duncan saw.


I think you have lost all credibility by saying that Kobe/Shaq was a better combo than Magic/Kareem. Post that question on a Lakers forum and you will get a 99% response rate of Magic/Kareem. This again makes it sound like you just were a little kid in the golden ages of the NBA (the 80's era, Celtics-Lakers-Pistons). Magic and Kareem are 2 top 5 players of all time on most lists. Shaq is a top 10 all time player but Kobe is simply not. And not close really. Not to mention the Lakers of the 80's, whom Hakeem's team beat, had a much better cast around their 2 headed duo than Shaq-Kobe. Of course, maybe names like James Worthy, Michael Cooper, and Byron Scott are foreign to you given your commentary. The 80's Lakers would be a 70 plus win team in today's league and would sweep Kobe-Shaq. Arguably the best team in NBA history or a top 5 one at least for sure.

Not really. As I said, they won 3 in a row. Magic/Kareem never did that. Sorry. As I said before, I bring facts, you bring opinions. If I posted it on a Lakers forum, they would say Magic/Kareem, because they didn't have the problems that Kobe and Shaq had. No way in hell is Magic top 5. lol That's nuts. The guy couldn't even hit a jump shot.


Also, Duncan was 2-3 lifetime in the playoffs vs. Shaq/Kobe. Impressive to beat them twice, no doubt, but still an overall losing record...Those were some great series though and the NBA really needs a rivarly like that again where u have 2 great teams battling it out. On that, I think we all can agree.

I think we can all agree 0.4 should have never counted as well.


Also, the career #'s are deceiving. You are factoring in Hakeem's grey beard years of steep decline. To make it apples to apples, you have to compare Hakeem's first 10 years to Duncan's first 10. SOmeone has posted that already on this thread and it was pro-Hakeem, especially if you look at playoff #'s, which again contradicts your "Duncan was more clutch" theory. Hakeem's playoff #'s blow Duncans out of the water and came against much tougher competition.

His playoff numbers blow Duncan's out of the water? I thought all that matters in the playoffs is getting a win. I guess not. Nobody cares if you score 30, grab 15 boards and block 5 shots if you lose the game. Well, unless you're a fan of losers.


You keep raving about how Duncan makes teammates better than Hakeem, yet the 2 common teammates of both guys (Elie and Horry) both ahve said point blank Hakeem was the best teammate they ever played with. This flies in the face of your theory and really while we fans can argue all we want about who was better, the fact that those 2 guys who have played with both guys in their primes, won titles with both guys, say Hakeem was better, well that should tell you something.

Elie played with Tim when he was basically a rookie. And Horry played with Hakeem during that run where Hakeem was spectacular. Duncan has been consistently dominant. That's why he doesn't rely on a 2 year run to define his greatness. It's a body of work.


Besides that though, Hakeem had more moves, better footwork, better athleticism, was more clutch, scored more, and defended better both as a team defender and an individual defender. Hakeem could dominate games defensively in a way Duncan simply isn't equipped to do. Remember, this is all relative. Yes, Duncan is a great defender but does he stack up with the all time great bigmen defensively (Hakeem, Russell, Kareem, DRob, Rodman). Uhh, that's just a no, no offense to TD. Rebounding is a wash.

Better footwork aka traveling. More clutch aka 2 rings to Tim's 4. Scoring is relative to system. He might be a better individual defender but Duncan is a better team defender.


I just can't wait til Tim retires and has like 7 rings. Then there won't even be a ridiculous debate like this. It will be a more deserving comparison. It will be who's the better big man? Russell, Wilt, Kareem or Duncan? Now those are names that are deserving to be mentioned with Duncan. Hakeem and Shaq will be in Duncan's rearview mirror when all is said and done.

[spursfan09]

^^Hakeem is already in Duncan's rearview mirror.

[Vito Corleone]

Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror, I guess Dr J is in Scottie Pippen's rear view mirror.

[JamStone]

Right, and I guess Tim Duncan can only dream of being in the shadow of Bill Russell, but will never even be that close.

[duncan228]

Comparing athletes can be fun.

Deciding, for yourself, who's in what order in a "top ten" etc.... but I'm convinced that it's impossible to change someone else's mind about their "top ten" no matter what arguement you use. Stats, intangibles, coach, teammates, particular era they played in, etc...

As for Duncan/Hakeem and Duncan/Garnett, being the latest conversations here, I'm just glad that Duncan is in the conversation. When he retires his place in the "official" books will be set in stone. There's no question he's a HOF lock, there's no question he'll be ranked among the greatest to ever play. Exactly where he'll fall in those ranks we don't know but we can safely assume he'll be pretty high.

It doesn't matter to me where he ends up or who is "in his rear-view mirror."

I'm just honored to be able to watch him play and know I'm witnessing greatness.

[bobbyjoe]

Things we have learned from "The Authority":

The Kobe/Shaq Lakers playing in the worst era of NBA Basketball were better than Magic/Kareem.

Reason: Kobe/Shaq won 3 in a row. This clearly supersedes the fact that Magic/Kareem's Lakers made EIGHT NBA Finals Appearances in the 1980's, winning FIVE of them. Also, Kobe/Shaq had epic battles with monster teams like the Nets and Sixers where all Magic/Kareem had to deal with were the Pistons Dynasty, Bird-Dynasty, and one of the best teams ever in the Moses/Dr. J sixers.

Magic Johnson wasn't great because he "couldn't shoot". Every sane person on the planet has him as a top 5 player NBA player EVER, but they are all wrong.

Tim Duncan, despite being one of the poorer free throw shooting superstars in the NBA, had a better jumper than Hakeem, even though Hakeem shot better FT's and FG's. Hakeem just travelled more. lol

Hakeem was only good for 2 years. The other years of leading the NBA in rebounds, blocks, winning DPOY's, and taking down Magic/Kareem in year 2 of his career weren't even that good. Never mind that he put up better stats than Timmy basically every year in the NBA. He just travelled so much that he won. lol

It's been nice hearing this stuff from you. Really showing your basketball knowledge, buddy.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

First off, there isn't less talent in the NBA today, there is significantly more-- first i tend to believe that players do get better every generation (at least a little) and second, think of all the international stars that play in today's league that would not have been playing in the "golden years".

And all of you out there that are saying Duncan has always had more talent then Hakeem had are just wrong-- Duncan has played on tons of untalented teams.

Hakeem wouldn't have won a championship on the 2002-03 Spurs team, because he didn't win the championship during years he had more talent on his team (and some of the mythical MJ teams weren't that good, the 1998 team for example was very beatable by today's standards) Back to the 2003 championship, for whatever reason people forget about how out of this world Tim played in those playoffs, going for a near quadruple double to cap it off.

To the multiple Rockets fans that have been spouting off how superior Hakeem's stat lines are, that argument is preposterous, any serious difference in the numbers is negligible at best, it's not like their numbers aren't practically identical. I will say that Hakeem was a better shot blocker, but Duncan has anchored the best defensive team of the era for his entire career. I think the problem a lot of people have with conceptualizing Duncan's ability is a lack of statistical support. Duncan's Defensive QB and his overwhelming BB IQ has made the entire Spurs defense around him better, and he has erased so many mistakes with his low post D. He's not a tremendous athlete and he does get posterized sometimes, but his defensive ability always shows up on the score board.

I think the fact that Duncan does not play the best low post player card is a bit overblown, Duncan does guard the best low post player in the 4th quarter, and he dominates.... he doesnt play them in the first three quarters because Pop's game strat, it allows Duncan to be a help defender and have a much larger contribution on the game.

And it's not like you see Amare or Dirk or Shaq or many other "elite" big men guarding Tim. Hell I don't even think Ben Wallace was put on Duncan.

This argument about the talent level is also quite wrong. The lakers dynasty was really good. People forget that so easily now, but their 3peat was an amazing run of basketball, they had two top 15 possibly top 10 players running wild, and they had some pretty good role players. And the man many consider to be the best coach ever (some people have him number 2)

The 2004 pistons were a dominant defensive team, and i think they could have beaten the 1993 rockets, possibly the 1994 rockets as well.

the 2006 heat were relatively weak, but that year would have ended with a spurs win had it not be for a very beat up roster

[bobbyjoe]

So basically Jordan's Bulls were overrated as were Kareem/Magic Lakers and the Rockets of Hakeem/Drexler as well.

All paled in comparison to the mighty Billups/Rasheed Wallace combo who won 1 title and appeared in the NBA Finals twice.

Sure...

All one has to do is look at the mighty Leastern Conference the last 7 years to see how much better the NBA is now than the 80's right?

Yes, Tim was out of this world in the 2003 playoffs. But it still wasn't close to the level of say O'Neal in the 2000-2002 playoffs (his peak) or Hakeem from the 93-95 playoffs (his peak). Everything is relative.

[polandprzem]

The beautifull thing about the peak is that it's short

Duncan has the stability especially in winning.
He is a winner like Bill Russell
What means the most? Wins

nuff

[RobinsontoDuncan]

So basically Jordan's Bulls were overrated as were Kareem/Magic Lakers and the Rockets of Hakeem/Drexler as well.

All paled in comparison to the mighty Billups/Rasheed Wallace combo who won 1 title and appeared in the NBA Finals twice.

Sure...

All one has to do is look at the mighty Leastern Conference the last 7 years to see how much better the NBA is now than the 80's right?

Yes, Tim was out of this world in the 2003 playoffs. But it still wasn't close to the level of say O'Neal in the 2000-2002 playoffs (his peak) or Hakeem from the 93-95 playoffs (his peak). Everything is relative.

the bulls were certainly good, and so where the lakers-- but neither team ever played the spurs did they (as for the the bulls they never played the rockets either.

It seems like everyone undervalues the spurs, but history will look at them differently

[mavs>spurs2]

^^Hakeem is already in Duncan's rearview mirror.

No. Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror except Jordans. Tim Duncan is a nice player, top 20 all time, but please leave him out of the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic discussions.

[polandprzem]

No. Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror except Jordans. Tim Duncan is a nice player, top 20 all time, but please leave him out of the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic discussions.

I can agree that you can die comapring anyone to Jordan.
Maybe Bird and magic because of the fame

But Hakeem?
GMAB

Tim Duncan never missed a second round in the playoffs.
hakeem was taking seasons off

In what element of the basketball art Hakeem is so far infront of Duncan?
Esecially talking about the most important thing - winning.

IS Olajuwon out of question to be the best center in the history?
Cause you mentioned only 3 guys which lifted the NBA to the watchabale level in the 80s and 90s (for the fans). From a marketing point of view they are out of reach but basketball wise?

Was hakkem better indyvidual player then was Wilt?
Was Hakeem better team player then was Bill?
Was Hakeem simply better then 20 jabbar years?

Add some people to the disscussion man!

[spursfan09]

No. Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror except Jordans. Tim Duncan is a nice player, top 20 all time, but please leave him out of the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic discussions.

:lol Yeah he's just a "nice player" :rolleyes
All the experts put Duncan in the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird and Magic discussions, so I will take their opinions over yours. Tim will be considered the best at his position of all time. And has won more than Hakeem. I don't know why you think that Duncan doesn't belong with Hakeem. But then again I guess you as a Mav fan think Dirk is just as great as Duncan, when really its an insult to Tim Duncan to be compared to that choker.

[mavs>spurs2]

:lol Yeah he's just a "nice player" :rolleyes
All the experts put Duncan in the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird and Magic discussions, so I will take their opinions over yours. Tim will be considered the best at his position of all time. And has won more than Hakeem. I don't know why you think that Duncan doesn't belong with Hakeem. But then again I guess you as a Mav fan think Dirk is just as great as Duncan, when really its an insult to Tim Duncan to be compared to that choker.

Well for one Tim might be the greatest PF of all time, if you want to consider him a PF at 7ft. But is he the greatest big man of all time? Not by a long shot. Who are these experts you speak of? Link?

The "who has won more" bullshit is tired and worn out. Hakeem won 2 rings in a much tougher era going up against the likes of Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Kemp, and defensive greats like Mutumbo. He was defending players like those guys on a nightly basis and still scoring and putting up numbers at the other end. When was the last time you saw Duncan defending the other teams star low post player? I know Duncan doesn't defend Dirk because of fear of foul trouble. Hakeem put up more ppg, rpg, fg%, blocks, steals, just about every stat you can think of. He had more moves than Duncan, more athleticism, and even better defense, which is apparent by Duncan's inability to defend premier post players in this league although he is a great helpside defender. No one other than a Spurs homer would argue that Duncan>Hakeem. Hell even Jordan isn't that much better than Hakeem. Hakeem was like a guard in a big mans body he was the most skilled, athletic big the league has ever seen.

[mavs>spurs2]

I can agree that you can die comapring anyone to Jordan.
Maybe Bird and magic because of the fame

But Hakeem?
GMAB

Tim Duncan never missed a second round in the playoffs.
hakeem was taking seasons off

In what element of the basketball art Hakeem is so far infront of Duncan?
Esecially talking about the most important thing - winning.

IS Olajuwon out of question to be the best center in the history?
Cause you mentioned only 3 guys which lifted the NBA to the watchabale level in the 80s and 90s (for the fans). From a marketing point of view they are out of reach but basketball wise?

Was hakkem better indyvidual player then was Wilt?
Was Hakeem better team player then was Bill?
Was Hakeem simply better then 20 jabbar years?

Add some people to the disscussion man!

Why are you bringing Bill Russell and Wilt into this conversation? They were the only 2 giants in a watered down league with fewer teams and even less talent. They would both be average big men at best in today's league.

Just like the poster after you, you want to bring winning into the discussion. Hakeem proved that he was a winner with his 2 rings. Don't penalize him for not having a front office that surrounds him with talent like the Spurs front office, or else he would have more rings. You put Olujuwon on the Spurs in place of Duncan and they would have 5-7 rings and have repeated by now.

Since I know you have never likely seen Olajuwon play, you probably ought to youtube him sometime and check him out. You might have to change up your opinion after actually watching the guy play.

[Roxsfan]

Why are you bringing Bill Russell and Wilt into this conversation? They were the only 2 giants in a watered down league with fewer teams and even less talent. They would both be average big men at best in today's league.

Just like the poster after you, you want to bring winning into the discussion. Hakeem proved that he was a winner with his 2 rings. Don't penalize him for not having a front office that surrounds him with talent like the Spurs front office, or else he would have more rings. You put Olujuwon on the Spurs in place of Duncan and they would have 5-7 rings and have repeated by now.

Since I know you have never likely seen Olajuwon play, you probably ought to youtube him sometime and check him out. You might have to change up your opinion after actually watching the guy play.


Yep. :clap

[polandprzem]

Why are you bringing Bill Russell and Wilt into this conversation? They were the only 2 giants in a watered down league with fewer teams and even less talent. They would both be average big men at best in today's league.

Just like the poster after you, you want to bring winning into the discussion. Hakeem proved that he was a winner with his 2 rings. Don't penalize him for not having a front office that surrounds him with talent like the Spurs front office, or else he would have more rings. You put Olujuwon on the Spurs in place of Duncan and they would have 5-7 rings and have repeated by now.

Since I know you have never likely seen Olajuwon play, you probably ought to youtube him sometime and check him out. You might have to change up your opinion after actually watching the guy play.

Well I must consider if you are kidding me or what?

The first sentence you brought. This about Wilton Norman and Bill should force me to just quit and ignore you. But I'm so kind that I will try to explain some things which are bothering you.

1. Why I brough two best centers in the history to that conversation?
Simply because that if you consider (as you mentioned before) Bird Magic and Jordan AND HAKEEM to be out of Tims reach, I can cosider Wilt being out of reach for anyone who played in this leaguge (from the indyvidual point of view). They would be just average big men?
Put in your mind the whole invention process. The progressin in medicine in sportswear and in training, work out etc.
Search and get back to the 70s and take a look what kind of problems had this league and esp. players with injuries and how they lived. Compare them to the stars of today and get back to me.
I won't even mention the evolution in the game which is normal process.
I sad the game not players to be precise.

2. A winner.
have you read this whole thread or just want to bring few centssayin Hakeem was better without giving any arguments. The guys already brought them and that was enough as I assume they ended disscussion in a right time.
There was a part with the FO and the supporting cast. To me it's just impossible how could Tim won with the supporters he had. Amazing how Tony was still a youngster. Damn Tony was still not ready in 2004. And in 2003 he had 3 good first games of the Finals then he dissapeared. manu was just a rookie man of the bench nothing more, nothing special.
View this thread and then come back.

3. Youtube yourself.

[spursfan09]

I maybe a Spurs homer but last I checked, Duncan has been dominant way longer than Hakeem has and also my math knowledge tells me 4>2. Hakeem benefited from Jordan being gone. But I do think Hakeem was a great defender than Tim, but thats about it.

[sharpshooter]

i love duncan he got more championship than hakeem, but don't disregard the fact that duncan had a better supporting cast for his whole career. i would say duncan=hakeem

[mavs>spurs2]

Well I must consider if you are kidding me or what?

The first sentence you brought. This about Wilton Norman and Bill should force me to just quit and ignore you. But I'm so kind that I will try to explain some things which are bothering you.

1. Why I brough two best centers in the history to that conversation?
Simply because that if you consider (as you mentioned before) Bird Magic and Jordan AND HAKEEM to be out of Tims reach, I can cosider Wilt being out of reach for anyone who played in this leaguge (from the indyvidual point of view). They would be just average big men?
Put in your mind the whole invention process. The progressin in medicine in sportswear and in training, work out etc.
Search and get back to the 70s and take a look what kind of problems had this league and esp. players with injuries and how they lived. Compare them to the stars of today and get back to me.
I won't even mention the evolution in the game which is normal process.
I sad the game not players to be precise.

2. A winner.
have you read this whole thread or just want to bring few centssayin Hakeem was better without giving any arguments. The guys already brought them and that was enough as I assume they ended disscussion in a right time.
There was a part with the FO and the supporting cast. To me it's just impossible how could Tim won with the supporters he had. Amazing how Tony was still a youngster. Damn Tony was still not ready in 2004. And in 2003 he had 3 good first games of the Finals then he dissapeared. manu was just a rookie man of the bench nothing more, nothing special.
View this thread and then come back.

3. Youtube yourself.

English isn't your first language, am I correct?

Ill try to answer a couple of your questions anyway.

1. Russell and Chamberlain might have put up the best numbers ever, but they were playing in a league with much less talent and even less big men. A player with their skill set would be lucky to survive in today's league where they wouldn't tower above opposing players. Common sense will tell you that it is easier to win rings in a league with less teams, it really ups your odds. Russell was also coached by Auerbach, had Bob Cousy as a point guard, and Havlicek among others.

2. You can not base solely base your argument on rings. Just because 4 rings > 2, they were both still winners. Both players won championships, and there were different influences on why each player has won what they did. Olajuwon played in a much tougher era IMO and therefore won less rings. Nothing to be ashamed of, but a legitimate reason. You put Olajuwon on any championship Spurs team in place of Duncan and they still win the championship every time. The 4>2 arguement is weak and has so many flaws in it. According to your logic, Robert Horry>Jordan, and no one is buying that bullshit.

[polandprzem]

English isn't your first language, am I correct?
Even a dog can find a bone on a desert ...



Ill try to answer a couple of your questions anyway.

1. Russell and Chamberlain might have put up the best numbers ever, but they were playing in a league with much less talent and even less big men. A player with their skill set would be lucky to survive in today's league where they wouldn't tower above opposing players. Common sense will tell you that it is easier to win rings in a league with less teams, it really ups your odds. Russell was also coached by Auerbach, had Bob Cousy as a point guard, and Havlicek among others.

2. You can not base solely base your argument on rings. Just because 4 rings > 2, they were both still winners. Both players won championships, and there were different influences on why each player has won what they did. Olajuwon played in a much tougher era IMO and therefore won less rings. Nothing to be ashamed of, but a legitimate reason. You put Olajuwon on any championship Spurs team in place of Duncan and they still win the championship every time. The 4>2 arguement is weak and has so many flaws in it. According to your logic, Robert Horry>Jordan, and no one is buying that bullshit.

2. Hmm where did I brought the 4>2 argument?
Although 4 is higher number then 2 so 4>2 is correct.

We can all base on ifs when it comes to comparing NBA superstar players. It's comes with taste and individual needs of a single person.
So there will always be argues.
I just want to mention those Duncans 10 years in the best pro team in the states. Was Hakeem near to that kind of achievement?
(1.)Taking about supporters: As I remember correctly Boston have never won a championship before Russell came to this city. There you had Cousy, Sharmann, Auerbach, McCaulley (all HOFs? ---- yup).
And don't you just transfer Bill or Wilt to the 00s - it's unfair to them, to the leauge (any age) and to times.
Sheesh they had no internet in 70s, no cell phones no ipods. Why is that? Because every era got it's time. Period. That's the common sense.
And prove me that there was less talent in 70s ( :) )
Plus Russell and Chamberlain met many more times. Not just 2 or 4 times in a year like in a todays NBA.
Btw. the players height through the ages haven't changed much so the argument about less big men is funny.

When I get home, when I get some time I might argue about the supporters hakeem had. And what kind of game he played and how many treys his weak supportes were hitting.

[mavs>spurs2]

Even a dog can find a bone on a desert ...

It's pretty obvious with your incoherent choppy sentences.



2. Hmm where did I brought the 4>2 argument?
Although 4 is higher number then 2 so 4>2 is correct.

Your 2nd major point was that Duncan was a winner, and the only way he is more of a winner than Hakeem is if you are going with the lame 4>2 arguement. Nice try, you fail.


And don't you just transfer Bill or Wilt to the 00s - it's unfair to them, to the leauge (any age) and to times.
Sheesh they had no internet in 70s, no cell phones no ipods. Why is that? Because every era got it's time. Period. That's the common sense.

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

[polandprzem]

I'm incoherent no metter the language or the country which is Poland as everybody knows here.
Hmm - you didn't?


Umm winner is a guy who helps his team win more basketball games. Yup the most important is the number 4 which hakeem won't even smell but through all those years as you (not excactly you :rolleyes ) can see Tim was more succesfull. That is what matter also.

Btw I will tell you when I fail okay?

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm incoherent no metter the language or the country which is Poland as everybody knows here.
Hmm - you didn't?


Umm winner is a guy who helps his team win more basketball games. Yup the most important is the number 4 which hakeem won't even smell but through all those years as you (not excactly you :rolleyes ) can see Tim was more succesfull. That is what matter also.

Btw I will tell you when I fail okay?

:lmao wtf?

[polandprzem]

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

It's got to do with the evolution of a game as I was telling you.
You claim to be an NBA fan not knowing the history of the NBA? :rolleyes

[polandprzem]

Hmm there was not a blog fight in a long time here ...

[mavs>spurs2]

It's got to do with the evolution of a game as I was telling you.
You claim to be an NBA fan not knowing the history of the NBA? :rolleyes

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

[JamStone]

Uhhh Wilt was 7-foot-1, 275 and athletic. He would have little trouble being more than just a role player in today's league.

And, I don't understand why you can hypothetically put them in today's game but fail to allow them today's advantages. You don't think Wilt and Russell would have also been into weight training? Don't think they'd also be in AAU from the age of 12 years old if they were born in the 80s? You can't just put them into today's game without allowing for them to have the same amenities in terms of strength and conditioning, training and year long basketball.

Let's put Wilt and Russell in today's game but they have 1960s medical technology and they don't get to train and condition all year round.

Makes a lot of sense ...

[polandprzem]

I thought I would have a valuable disscussion her, but as I can see that mavs fan is lacking of basketball knowledge so I won't even bother the response.


Thank you much

kissess to all

[mavs>spurs2]

I thought I would have a valuable disscussion her, but as I can see that mavs fan is lacking of basketball knowledge so I won't even bother the response.


Thank you much

kissess to all

Learn to speak english before you try to have a basketball discussion.

[polandprzem]

Learn to speak english before you try to have a basketball discussion.

The basketball disscussion is about having a knowledge in the mind.
I do not need to speak English or Slovenian or Chinise.

But somebody like you would not understand that kind of stuff mainly because you lack the most common knowledge, the ABC basketball knowledge and esp. NBA knowledge.

You even not worth of discussion.

Saying that there were few 7 footers when Wilt was playing and NBA had no bigmen is a lie.

Recognize

[Ignignokt]

Why are you bringing Bill Russell and Wilt into this conversation? They were the only 2 giants in a watered down league with fewer teams and even less talent. They would both be average big men at best in today's league.

Just like the poster after you, you want to bring winning into the discussion. Hakeem proved that he was a winner with his 2 rings. Don't penalize him for not having a front office that surrounds him with talent like the Spurs front office, or else he would have more rings. You put Olujuwon on the Spurs in place of Duncan and they would have 5-7 rings and have repeated by now.

Since I know you have never likely seen Olajuwon play, you probably ought to youtube him sometime and check him out. You might have to change up your opinion after actually watching the guy play.


Not if the Sean Kemp Sonics allowed it.

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

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

[Ignignokt]

Btw, Duncan beat out a guy for best PF of all time who happened to have a Linebackers physique trapped in a PF's body.

[Ignignokt]

And Btw, don't let the simple fact that afro's and 450 engines ruled the day in the Kareem and wilt days distract from the superathletic and competive day in this era.


Duncan won in the toughest era of the Western Conference, with Kevin Garnett, Dirk and Nash Mavs, The Lakers, Jazz, and the Sacramento Kings.

[Ignignokt]

Olajuwon wouldn't have lead scrubs like Jaren Jackson and a kidney ailed elliot, and shot for shits avery to a title.

[Ignignokt]

And if you wanna go by stats, Karl Malone > Olajuwon.

[mavs>spurs2]

Not if the Sean Kemp Sonics allowed it.

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

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

What was so much different about 01 Shaq and 95-96 Shaq? Looks like the same no free throw shooting, lazy guy just a little bit bigger. Your whole arguement is woulda, shoulda, coulda which means nothing. IMO Olajuwon in his prime would have owned Shaq in 01.

[mavs>spurs2]

And if you wanna go by stats, Karl Malone > Olajuwon.

And Karl Malone is better than Duncan in every aspect except height and the most important intangible, team play and winning. That's why most would give the slight edge to Duncan. Malone was a smart defender, but since he was short for a PF and didn't have long arms he wasn't allowed to play d like Duncan, staying low and not going for any pumpfakes, so Timmy has an edge over him defensively as well. That said, both players > Malone, not sure what point you were trying to make here.

[polandprzem]

. Your whole arguement is woulda, shoulda, coulda which means nothing. IMO Olajuwon in his prime would have owned Shaq in 01.

:lmao

[mavs>spurs2]

Olajuwon wouldn't have lead scrubs like Jaren Jackson and a kidney ailed elliot, and shot for shits avery to a title.

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

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

[mavs>spurs2]

:lmao

My point was that opinions mean nothing, you have to back it up with stats, facts, something else. I guess you are a little slow. When I say "IMO, Hakeem would have owned 01 shaq" I am being sarcastic, just stating opinions with no facts like the previous poster.

[polandprzem]

My point was that opinions mean nothing, you have to back it up with stats, facts, something else. I guess you are a little slow. When I say "IMO, Hakeem would have owned 01 shaq" I am being sarcastic, just stating opinions with no facts like the previous poster.

You haven't put one fact in here.

Ayou are comming with the bullshit 2>4 and that people were shorter 40 years ago :lol

That is so sarcastic it's beyond me :lol

[mavs>spurs2]

You haven't put one fact in here.

Ayou are comming with the bullshit 2>4 and that people were shorter 40 years ago :lol

That is so sarcastic it's beyond me :lol

Read it and weep, bitch



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[polandprzem]

Read it and weep, bitch

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

Thanks for giving some arguments to my advantage.



If you put a boat made in 1888 'era' it would not survive in 2007 'era'


I knew your brain haven't eveluated

[polandprzem]

btw. :lmao

[mavs>spurs2]

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Learn some fucking english before you come try to talk trash on an english speaking message board.


and that people were shorter 40 years ago

That is so sarcastic it's beyond me

It is fact that the average center was closer to about 6ft 7 back in Wilt's day compared to about 7 foot today. You lose.

[polandprzem]

In Russell era the height of the players were without shoes

[mavs>spurs2]

In Russell era the height of the players were without shoes

:lmao True height is always measured without shoes, and shoes dont = 5 inches

[polandprzem]

and btw. if you don't get my haotic english that is your problem not mine

[mavs>spurs2]

Wilt and Russell were both great, dominant players in their time, but the guys they went up against would be guards in today's NBA. That's like saying Duncan is the best because he can post up Kobe. Neither of those guys would put up anywhere near the same numbers in today's league, not a chance.

When you watch old clips of those guys, do they actually do anything that really makes you say wow? Do you see anything special that Duncan can't do? The answer is no.

[polandprzem]

:lmao True height is always measured without shoes, and shoes dont = 5 inches

Where do you have 5 inches you moron?

And wtf height got to do with dominance.

Tims teams were always better then Hakeems.
At least Tim helped his team more.
Tim changed the whole concept of play, on offence and defence and the spurs were always an elite on defence.
While hakeem could block from the weak side Tim changing the whole game by his defence just like Russell previously.

And what elie shooting better got to do with anythng?
That was not the same year and the player was not in the same role, plus the NBA had the 3pt line closer when Hakeem was winning titles. As I remember correctly the Rox were hitting treys like machines. You got Cassell elie Drexler, Horry. Jeez it's looks like Hakeem was alone out there. Esp with the Rox style of play (inside-ouside). And haotic '90 play.

The fact is that Tim was a better winner, and the leauge remember the winners.

Mikan was a winner, Russell was a winner, Bird, Magic (less), Jordan (needed to grow) Shaq, Duncan

Wilt was the best in history as an indyvidual but it's a team sport. That's why Russell was so special, that's why the winners are special cause they are doing everything what is in the need of a team.
And Duncan is a freaking winner, and I take him over the athleticism and highlights of Akeem.

[saporvida]

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Learn some fucking english before you come try to talk trash on an english speaking message board.



It is fact that the average center was closer to about 6ft 7 back in Wilt's day compared to about 7 foot today. You lose.

there really aren't a bunch of 7ft centers today... on average probably around 6-9 to 6-11.

[polandprzem]

Wilt and Russell were both great, dominant players in their time, but the guys they went up against would be guards in today's NBA. That's like saying Duncan is the best because he can post up Kobe. Neither of those guys would put up anywhere near the same numbers in today's league, not a chance.

When you watch old clips of those guys, do they actually do anything that really makes you say wow? Do you see anything special that Duncan can't do? The answer is no.

Are you insane?

Your brain just not work right.

I was explaining the evolution of the game and life of the players and you still in your own shit...

[mavs>spurs2]

:lmao Now you are flip flopping your arguement

Just a few posts back you were calling me a retard for saying that players were shorter back then. Now you realize you are wrong and change the subject. :lol classic

And lmao the 3 point line was NOT shorter back in the 90's, you moron. This just further proves that you are talking out of your ass. I'm done, there's no use arguing with the village idiot who doesn't even speak english. Good day

[polandprzem]

:lmao Now you are flip flopping your arguement

Just a few posts back you were calling me a retard for saying that players were shorter back then. Now you realize you are wrong and change the subject. :lol classic

And lmao the 3 point line was NOT shorter back in the 90's, you moron. This just further proves that you are talking out of your ass. I'm done, there's no use arguing with the village idiot who doesn't even speak english. Good day

They were not shorter. But I can't find the stats to prove it. When I will find them I will post them.

In '90 3pt line was not closer?
Are you realy was watching NBA?

[bobbyjoe]

Where do you have 5 inches you moron?

And wtf height got to do with dominance.

Tims teams were always better then Hakeems.
At least Tim helped his team more.
Tim changed the whole concept of play, on offence and defence and the spurs were always an elite on defence.
While hakeem could block from the weak side Tim changing the whole game by his defence just like Russell previously.

And what elie shooting better got to do with anythng?
That was not the same year and the player was not in the same role, plus the NBA had the 3pt line closer when Hakeem was winning titles. As I remember correctly the Rox were hitting treys like machines. You got Cassell elie Drexler, Horry. Jeez it's looks like Hakeem was alone out there. Esp with the Rox style of play (inside-ouside). And haotic '90 play.

The fact is that Tim was a better winner, and the leauge remember the winners.

Mikan was a winner, Russell was a winner, Bird, Magic (less), Jordan (needed to grow) Shaq, Duncan

Wilt was the best in history as an indyvidual but it's a team sport. That's why Russell was so special, that's why the winners are special cause they are doing everything what is in the need of a team.
And Duncan is a freaking winner, and I take him over the athleticism and highlights of Akeem.

Defensively, Hakeem also moved laterally FAR better than Duncan, was an impact defender on the perimeter (Duncan is absolutely not an impact defender up top), got into the passing lanes and stole the ball more, defended better offensive players, and won multiple Defensive Player of the Year Honors.

You are really on crack if you think DUncan > Hakeem defensively. That's just flat out ignorant. It's not even close.

Can you name me one time in Hakeem's career a contemporary went off on him for 38 ppg like Amare in 2005 playoffs? Good luck finding it... Duncan is not a great individual defender, Hakeem was.

[polandprzem]

I was talking about defense as a whole

[ChumpDumper]

Can you name me one time in Hakeem's career a contemporary went off on him for 38 ppg like Amare in 2005 playoffs?Can you name who was actually guarding Amare in that series?

But I do agree Hakeem was a better individual defender.

[mavs>spurs2]

They were not shorter. But I can't find the stats to prove it. When I will find them I will post them.

In '90 3pt line was not closer?
Are you realy was watching NBA?

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