IF duncan wins a ring this year...Duncan > Hakeem.

[Ignignokt]

hey bobby joe..

[ambchang]

Oh Lord, I don't want to go through another 38 pages of showing Houston was a great 3pt shooting team.

[polandprzem]

lol excactly

[Spurminator]

2005 forum

[honestfool84]

based on this..

robert horry > kobe, jordan, and pippen cause he has more rings

[Galileo]

Duncan was already better than Hakeem after the 2003 ring.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hakeem wishes he could've had a career like Duncan's.

And, Timmy's not even done yet.

[JamStone]

Tim Duncan, better overall player.

Hakeem Olajuwon, better individual talent.

[MrChug]

Francisco Elson>Patrick Ewing

[timvp]

Olajuwon had about three or four superstar seasons. Other than that he wasn't much better than Patrick Ewing.

Oh and Olajuwon's best seasons came when he was older than Duncan is now :smokin

[JBIIRockets]

Duncan maximized his potential for much longer than Hakeem did. 4 rings to 2. Can't argue that.

[Indazone]

OH C'mon Olajuwan is just too quick. The way he schooled Robinson in 1995 he would have schooled Duncan the same way.

[Galileo]

rings:

Duncan 4, Hakeem 2

MVPs:

Duncan 2, Hakeem 1

Finals MVPs:

Duncan 3, Hakeem 2

1st Team, All-NBA

Duncan 9, Hakeem 6

They were about equal in physical talent, but Duncan was a better team player.

Hakeem won his rings at ages 31 and 32, followed by Jordan at ages 33, 34, and 35.

Duncan is 31, so he can lead the Spurs to some more rings.

Dallas and Phoenix are on the way down for next year because of dumb trades for old people. Houston has injury prone stars. No team with Lamar Odom starting will ever win an NBA title.

[Warlord23]

We've been over this again and again.

Hakeem's prime > Duncan's prime
Duncan's career and overall body of work > Haeem's career and overall body of work

[Indazone]

The comparison of players by rings and championships is total crap. Otherwise you'd rate Reggie Miller and Kevin Garnett as nobodies. Yet you'd kiill to have them on your team. Over a career, you need to look at a players overall statistics and in head to head match ups if available and against other players they both played against.

To be honest, I've watched a lot of tape of Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem. Shaq was unstoppable because he was just to big and quick. His entire game was based on power. Duncan has good foot work and very good fundamentals. Robinson had a very good but not exceptional offensive game. Kareem was unstoppable with that sky hook of his. But Hakeem. The guy just juked Robinson out of his shorts in head to head play.

I don't think that Duncan would be able to keep up with Hakeem head to head. Hakeem had so many fakes, fadeaways, spin moves, and a great first step dribble drive. Hakeem's game was fluid, and based on misdirection and speed. Hakeem could create spacing on anyone and get his shot off. The Big Fundamental would have been juked out of his shorts too.

[Galileo]

The comparison of players by rings and championships is total crap. Otherwise you'd rate Reggie Miller and Kevin Garnett as nobodies. Yet you'd kiill to have them on your team. Over a career, you need to look at a players overall statistics and in head to head match ups if available and against other players they both played against.

To be honest, I've watched a lot of tape of Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem. Shaq was unstoppable because he was just to big and quick. His entire game was based on power. Duncan has good foot work and very good fundamentals. Robinson had a very good but not exceptional offensive game. Kareem was unstoppable with that sky hook of his. But Hakeem. The guy just juked Robinson out of his shorts in head to head play.

I don't think that Duncan would be able to keep up with Hakeem head to head. Hakeem had so many fakes, fadeaways, spin moves, and a great first step dribble drive. Hakeem's game was fluid, and based on misdirection and speed. Hakeem could create spacing on anyone and get his shot off. The Big Fundamental would have been juked out of his shorts too.

I watched Hakeem all the time on TV. He was my favorite player before Duncan came along.

Before the fall of 1992 when Rudy T came on board, Akeem was just a great talent with great stats, he was not a great team player. Akeem was elite from 92/93 until 94/95, then slowly started to fade.

Duncan was a great team player out of the box. Duncan's bank shot jumper is just as unguardable as the dream shake or the sky hook.

Akeem was just as talanted as Jordan, maybe more talented. But Jordan became a great team player in 88/89, four years before Akeem did.

I do not buy the argument that Akeem was more talented than Duncan, when comparing them at the same age.

I saw Duncan come into the league in '97. By '99 he was already better than Shaq, who had a five year head start. Duncan could guard Shaq by simply keeping him away from the basket most of the time. That is how Duncan would guard Akeem. He would also not go for all Akeems shakes, Duncan is unique in history, besides Bill Russell, in that he does not go for pump fakes.

Duncan also has a degree in psychology. I bet Duncan could freak Akeem out in the head and make him flip.

[Gooshie]

In a game of 1-on-1 in their primes, Hakeem wins.

But if you asked me who I would take at the beginning of their careers to start my NBA franchise with? I'll take Duncan.

Hakeem had better individual talents across the board. Duncan was a slightly better team player. The thing that separates the 2 is number of peak years. As TimvP said, Hakeem was at his peak for about 5 years max. Duncan has been a top 3 player in the League ever since his rookie year (except for the 2006 regular season, when he had Plantar Fasciitis).

It's close, but Duncan has had the better career and he's not done yet.

[Galileo]

Another advantage for Duncan is foul management. Duncan hardly ever has to sit down because of fouls, unlike Hakeem. Neither team was all that great without their big men.

Duncan does not risk stupid fouls by going for too many blocks. If you take the ratio of blocks per foul in the playoffs, Duncan is .89 and Hakeem is .84

Duncan does not waste his energy with dozens of pump fakes and shakes like Akeem. You may get a bucket and make the highlight real, but it takes its toll on your overall effectiveness.

[E20]

Why does FUCKtownSpur always make this thread? He leaves for 3-4 months comes back and makes Duncan > Hakeem thread.

[JamStone]

Duncan maximized his potential for much longer than Hakeem did. 4 rings to 2. Can't argue that.

Rings are won by teams.

The comparison is between two individual players.

You can argue that Tim has had more team success and championship success.

I can argue that Hakeem was the better individual talent.

[JamStone]

1st Team, All-NBA

Duncan 9, Hakeem 6

One spot for centers in an era where he battled Kareem Abdul Jabbar at first, then Patrick Ewing and David Robinson for the title of premier center each year.

Two spots for forwards.

KG may have taken a few of those 1st team honors, 2000, 2003, 2004 when both Duncan and KG were 1st Team, All-NBA as forwards.

[mavs>spurs2]

Oh Lord, I don't want to go through another 38 pages of showing Houston was a great 3pt shooting team.

They weren't...they had a bunch of chuckers who benefitted from Hakeem.

[Galileo]

One spot for centers in an era where he battled Kareem Abdul Jabbar at first, then Patrick Ewing and David Robinson for the title of premier center each year.

Two spots for forwards.

KG may have taken a few of those 1st team honors, 2000, 2003, 2004 when both Duncan and KG were 1st Team, All-NBA as forwards.

When Duncan played, all the good centers were power forwards, and even a player like Lebron, who's really a guard, is considered a forward.

[peewee's lovechild]

Why are all you morons talking about Duncan in the past tense, as if he's retired or something??

Do you idiots realize he's still playing?

Damn, peoples IQs plummet just by reading this.

[ShoogarBear]

Sleepy Floyd scored 51 points in a playoff game once.

Sleepy Floyd's prime > Tracy McGrady's prime.

[E20]

Sleepy Floyd scored 51 points in a playoff game once.

Sleepy Floyd's prime > Tracy McGrady's prime.
Then in that case:
Tim Duncan's prime > Hakeem's prime.

[polandprzem]

Shoog got some irony in him

[bobbyjoe]

Another advantage for Duncan is foul management. Duncan hardly ever has to sit down because of fouls, unlike Hakeem. Neither team was all that great without their big men.

Duncan does not risk stupid fouls by going for too many blocks. If you take the ratio of blocks per foul in the playoffs, Duncan is .89 and Hakeem is .84

Duncan does not waste his energy with dozens of pump fakes and shakes like Akeem. You may get a bucket and make the highlight real, but it takes its toll on your overall effectiveness.

This is again where context comes in.

When the Spurs are facing Dirk Nowitzki, Bowen, not Duncan, guards him.

When the Spurs face Shaq or Yao, Duncan doesnt draw the assignment. David Robinson drew the other team's best big for years. Post D-Rob it's been Rasho/Oberto/Elson/Kurt Thomas.

It goes without say when you have a HOF C, one of the 3 best Defensive C's ever in DRob for the first 5 yrs of your career who consistently guarded the other team's best big, you'll have an easier time staying out of foul trouble.

Then when you have a guy like Bowen, who is a lock down perimeter defender, you are also going to be in a better position to draw less fouls.

In Hakeem's heyday, he guarded DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Zo, etc. It wasnt deferred to someone else on the Rockets. Not only does that make it harder to have enough energy to dominate offensively, it puts you in a position to pick up more fouls.


But all of this is pretty much irrelevant, because as was noted in the previous Duncan-Hakeem argument, Hakeem averaged the same number of minutes per game in the regular and postseasons in his prime as Tim Duncan. So this argument is basically utterly wrong.

OBTW, arguing that Duncan's bankshot is on par with Kareem's skyhook or Hakeem's turnaround J is just ridiculous. Not only does Duncan not shoot that as near the clip of the other 2 money shots, but it's easier to take away. Crowd a PF and he can't shoot the bank shot. You can't prevent a 7'4" guy from shooting a skyhook and can't block a 7 foot C with Hakeem's athleticism from shooting a fadeaway jumper. You just have to hope they miss.

If the Spurs win the Title this year, the likely main reason will be Manu Ginobili. You put guys like Manu and Parker in their primes around a great big and there's many guys who would have won multiple titles, not just Tim Duncan. I believe in today's NBA David Robinson would be a multiple time NBA Champion (not 4, but prob 1-2). Barkley would have too.

I doubt any true Spurs fan would argue that Ginobili isn't the best player on the team in 2007-2008. He's the closer, the man that finishes close games. He could very easily rank in the top 5 for NBA MVP this year and he almost certainly will get more consideration than Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

When Duncan played, all the good centers were power forwards, and even a player like Lebron, who's really a guard, is considered a forward.

If Duncan played C, most of the First Team Awards would have gone to Shaquille O'Neal every year, until 2003 or 2004. He might not get it over Dwight Howard this year or Yao Ming, who have had better seasons.

And that's in a league where C is the weakest it's ever been, not even a blip compared to the era Hakeem played with David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Shaq O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Kareem and Moses in their later years, etc.

Jamstone made a good point. It's always going to be easier to get it at Forward, because Center is historically the strongest position in the NBA. The top 5 Centers in NBA history are all top 10-11 all time players. Plus you can make it as the #2 guy and still be first team all NBA, as Duncan was many of those years to KG, at least in the regular season.

Make no mistake, when Duncan played the premier bigman in the NBA besides him was Shaquille O'Neal and he played Center.

Your point about Lebron is largely irrelevant given the guy didn't even enter the league until Duncan was about 7 yrs Pro and that was as a raw 18 yr old. The guy just now is entering his prime. Do you really think Duncan makes All-NBA first team this season over Kevin Garnett and Lebron James?

[Warlord23]

^^ Here you are. What took you so long?

For the noobs on the board, bobbyjoe visits ST to post exclusively on Duncan vs Hakeem topics.

[Indazone]

Then in that case:
Tim Duncan's prime > Hakeem's prime.

There is no way that Duncan was better than Hakeem in his prime. In fact I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that today's NBA players can't light a candle to the players of the last era.

Bird, Jordan, Magic, Dr. J, Hakeem, Stockton, Malone, R. Miller, Barkley >>>> D.Wade, Lebron, Yao, Duncan, Kidd, Arenas, Melo, Iverson, T-Mac

with one notable exception...Kobe

Today's NBA players would get beaten by 40 pts if they played against the players from 15 years ago.

[bobbyjoe]

Actually, I post a lot on the NBA Forums section. Of course those have deteriorated lately in quality. Lots of weak smack talk.

[Warlord23]

At the end of the day, nobody cares whether you had the turnaround or the bank shot, whether you beat Robinson 1-on-1 or dropped 37/16 to finish off the 3-peat Lakers. It all ultimately boils down to who you'd select to start your franchise. Here's what they've done for their respective franchises (SA and HOU respectively)

Duncan: 71% career wins in SA during his playing years, 4 titles as the 1st option, anchored the defense and quarterbacked the offense

Hakeem: 57% career wins in HOU during his years, 2 titles as the main man, focal point of both defense and offense

Duncan's tenure with the Spurs has not only been dominant in basketball, but also across all the major pro sports. He changed the face of the franchise from that of a moderately successful also-ran to the 4th most successful NBA franchise of all time, behind the Celtics (16), Lakers (14) and Bulls (6). Hakeem can go suck on that.

[Obstructed_View]

Over a career, you need to look at a players overall statistics and in head to head match ups if available and against other players they both played against.

Robinson's record vs Hakeem: 32-16
Robinson 20.1 ppg 11.2 rpg
Hakeem 23.6 ppg 11.5 rpg

Robinson vs Ewing: 12-7
Olajuwon vs Ewing: 18-17

Robinson vs Shaq: 21-20
Olajuwon vs Shaq: 11-17


But Hakeem. The guy just juked Robinson out of his shorts in head to head play.
Actually, just for that one series, and the only reason he did it is because Robinson won an individual award that Hakeem thought was rightfully his. The consummate team player, that one. :rolleyes

Like Jamstone said, Olajuwon kills almost everyone in individual talent and ability. The reason he's not greater is because he couldn't be bothered to play to his potential much of the time.

[bobbyjoe]

I watched Hakeem all the time on TV. He was my favorite player before Duncan came along.

Before the fall of 1992 when Rudy T came on board, Akeem was just a great talent with great stats, he was not a great team player. Akeem was elite from 92/93 until 94/95, then slowly started to fade.

Duncan was a great team player out of the box. Duncan's bank shot jumper is just as unguardable as the dream shake or the sky hook.

Akeem was just as talanted as Jordan, maybe more talented. But Jordan became a great team player in 88/89, four years before Akeem did.

I do not buy the argument that Akeem was more talented than Duncan, when comparing them at the same age.

I saw Duncan come into the league in '97. By '99 he was already better than Shaq, who had a five year head start. Duncan could guard Shaq by simply keeping him away from the basket most of the time. That is how Duncan would guard Akeem. He would also not go for all Akeems shakes, Duncan is unique in history, besides Bill Russell, in that he does not go for pump fakes.

Duncan also has a degree in psychology. I bet Duncan could freak Akeem out in the head and make him flip.

By 99 Duncan was better than Shaq?!?

Uhhhh, No.

Shaq guards Duncan more effectively than vice versa. Even at 35 yrs old, Shaq shut down Duncan a few weeks ago. 4 for 16 shooting. Intimidation from the Diesel.

Did you not watch basketball from 2000-2002 when Shaq put together the most dominant stretch of play from a big man in NBA history?

In the 2002 playoff series, the Lakers put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Q's of every game and he completely shut down Timmy. In 01 and 02, the Lakers and Shaq were 8-1 against TD and his Spurs in the playoffs. 8-1!!!

Timmy's great and you can argue him vs. Hakeem all you want, but no way is he a better player overall or in his prime than Shaq.

What was your opinion of Duncan's "Bill Russell" type of defense against Amare in the 2005 playoffs?

The fallacy in your thesis is that Hakeem has shown he can succeed against defenders better than Duncan (David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo) and dominate but Duncan has struggled with quicker players (see Dirk, who Popovich wont even let him guard and Amare Stoudemire).

Conversely, Duncan has never faced a player as good as Hakeem defensively but we can see anecdotally that players with length and shotblocking ability do help contain Duncan effectively.

All that said, Shaq ranks ahead of both guys and pretty easily...

[Warlord23]

Regarding comparisons on defense, comparing eras is misleading. The late 80s and early 90s saw quite a bit of physical defense, handchecking, leniency towards shotblocks and bodying up.

The 2000s has ushered in the pussification of the league to protect its golden-boy swingmen. This is another reason why the C position has floundered and average Centers are foul machines. The refs call fouls if you so much as breathe on a player who is playing facing the basket. Dirk and Amare have it 10X easier than say, Shawn Kemp did. The 90s Centers wouldn't have been as effective in today's world. No doubt they were still great, but their defensive effectiveness would have been lower in the modern NBA

[bobbyjoe]

Actually, in the 90's it was much easier to neutralize the defensive prowess of a great shotblocker like a David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon.

Pull your big man out to the top of the key and dominant shotblockers would have to exit the paint. Back then it was illegal defense if they parked in the paint. Now you can do whatever you want with your bigs defensively.

I agree about the pussification of the league, but that really affects guys on the perimeter. Guys like Dwayne Wade are so effective in the no-handcheck era and may not have been with the older rules. It's much harder to deny penetration with the current rules but underneath the level of contact is still physical in today's NBA. On the wings is where you see the cheapies being called.

[mojorizen7]

Maybe in terms of being an NBA icon yes, but in terms of who was the better player, The Dream was the man.....no contest.

[bobbyjoe]

At the end of the day, nobody cares whether you had the turnaround or the bank shot, whether you beat Robinson 1-on-1 or dropped 37/16 to finish off the 3-peat Lakers. It all ultimately boils down to who you'd select to start your franchise. Here's what they've done for their respective franchises (SA and HOU respectively)

Duncan: 71% career wins in SA during his playing years, 4 titles as the 1st option, anchored the defense and quarterbacked the offense

Hakeem: 57% career wins in HOU during his years, 2 titles as the main man, focal point of both defense and offense

Duncan's tenure with the Spurs has not only been dominant in basketball, but also across all the major pro sports. He changed the face of the franchise from that of a moderately successful also-ran to the 4th most successful NBA franchise of all time, behind the Celtics (16), Lakers (14) and Bulls (6). Hakeem can go suck on that.

I disagree completely with your logic and methodology (using team stats in a 5 on 5 sport to compare players who didnt even play in the same era; your inference is that quality of teammates or competition somehow don't matter), but I wholeheartedly agree that it doesnt matter who would win 1 on 1 between the 2 players. That's just irrelevant and not likely to be the real question the original post is asking.

John Stockton was totally outplayed by Gary Payton everytime the 2 were matched up, but who would take Payton over #12 to start a franchise?

[Ignignokt]

It's quite simple folks.


Victoria, Texas > Del Rio

[Indazone]

At the end of the day, nobody cares whether you had the turnaround or the bank shot, whether you beat Robinson 1-on-1 or dropped 37/16 to finish off the 3-peat Lakers. It all ultimately boils down to who you'd select to start your franchise. Here's what they've done for their respective franchises (SA and HOU respectively)

Duncan: 71% career wins in SA during his playing years, 4 titles as the 1st option, anchored the defense and quarterbacked the offense

Hakeem: 57% career wins in HOU during his years, 2 titles as the main man, focal point of both defense and offense

Duncan's tenure with the Spurs has not only been dominant in basketball, but also across all the major pro sports. He changed the face of the franchise from that of a moderately successful also-ran to the 4th most successful NBA franchise of all time, behind the Celtics (16), Lakers (14) and Bulls (6). Hakeem can go suck on that.

That is the dumbest argument to support who's better. Duh, did you forget the other 4 guys on the court for both respective players?

[Ignignokt]

That is the dumbest argument to support who's better. Duh, did you forget the other 4 guys on the court for both respective players?


you mean Drexler, Cassell, Horry, Smith, ellie. Not exactly scrubs.

[whottt]

Robinson vs Shaq: 15-18




Pretty sure Drob VS Shaq is 21-20 or 20-19 Drob. Drob was 5-3 VS Shaq before Duncan. In the playoffs DRob and Shaq were 9-9(or 2 series to 2)


I think your total leaves off all of the 2003 season where the Lakers got swept in the regular season(with Shaq being healthy for 2 of the losses) and defeated 4-2 in the post season.

[Galileo]

By 99 Duncan was better than Shaq?!?

Uhhhh, No.

Shaq guards Duncan more effectively than vice versa. Even at 35 yrs old, Shaq shut down Duncan a few weeks ago. 4 for 16 shooting. Intimidation from the Diesel.

Did you not watch basketball from 2000-2002 when Shaq put together the most dominant stretch of play from a big man in NBA history?

In the 2002 playoff series, the Lakers put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Q's of every game and he completely shut down Timmy. In 01 and 02, the Lakers and Shaq were 8-1 against TD and his Spurs in the playoffs. 8-1!!!

Timmy's great and you can argue him vs. Hakeem all you want, but no way is he a better player overall or in his prime than Shaq.

What was your opinion of Duncan's "Bill Russell" type of defense against Amare in the 2005 playoffs?

The fallacy in your thesis is that Hakeem has shown he can succeed against defenders better than Duncan (David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo) and dominate but Duncan has struggled with quicker players (see Dirk, who Popovich wont even let him guard and Amare Stoudemire).

Conversely, Duncan has never faced a player as good as Hakeem defensively but we can see anecdotally that players with length and shotblocking ability do help contain Duncan effectively.

All that said, Shaq ranks ahead of both guys and pretty easily...

Duncan was MVP in 2002 and 2003, so he beats Shaq those years. In Shaq's first 5 years, he never made first team. He missed in '99 as well.

In '99, Duncan finished ahead of Shaq in MVP voting.

In '98, Shaq was 4th, Duncan 5th.

In 2001, Duncan was ahead of Shaq.

In 2004, Duncan was ahead of Shaq again.

[peskypesky]

I doubt any true Spurs fan would argue that Ginobili isn't the best player on the team in 2007-2008. He's the closer, the man that finishes close games. He could very easily rank in the top 5 for NBA MVP this year and he almost certainly will get more consideration than Duncan.

You, like most people who don't understand basketball, fail to realize that basketball is not all about scoring. Sure, it's the most talked-about stat, but it's only one of many important aspects of the game. And yes, Ginobili has a slight edge in scoring over Duncan at the moment. Slight.

But right up there with scoring is a thing called rebounding. Do you know what that is? Guess who leads the Spurs by a long shot in rebounding? It's not Ginobili.

Another important aspect of the game is defense, especially protecting the rim. Guess who's the best Spur at defending the rim, by a long shot? Again, it's not Ginobili.

Now, I love Manu. He's my second favorite player in the game. And he is CRUCIAL to the Spurs' success this year and every year. But that being said, I never make the mistake of forgetting that basketball is a game of big men, and the Spurs are built around one of the top 10 big men to ever play the game. He is their MVP this year, and every year he's been on the team.

You doubt the importance of a dominant big man? Look at the Lakers' last night. Despite Kobe's 50+ points, they lost at home to the Grizzlies! Because they had no Gasol and no Bynum. You take Duncan off the Spurs, sure, Manu might average 29pts a game, but they wouldn't make the playoffs this year, and they definitely wouldn't be contending for a 5th Championship.

Just ask George Gervin how many Championships he won without a dominant big man.

[duncan228]

You, like most people who don't understand basketball, fail to realize that basketball is not all about scoring. Sure, it's the most talked-about stat, but it's only one of many important aspects of the game. And yes, Ginobili has a slight edge in scoring over Duncan at the moment. Slight.

But right up there with scoring is a thing called rebounding. Do you know what that is? Guess who leads the Spurs by a long shot in rebounding? It's not Ginobili.

Another important aspect of the game is defense, especially protecting the rim. Guess who's the best Spur at defending the rim, by a long shot? Again, it's not Ginobili.

Now, I love Manu. He's my second favorite player in the game. And he is CRUCIAL to the Spurs' success this year and every year. But that being said, I never make the mistake of forgetting that basketball is a game of big men, and the Spurs are built around one of the top 10 big men to ever play the game. He is their MVP this year, and every year he's been on the team.

You doubt the importance of a dominant big man? Look at the Lakers' last night. Despite Kobe's 50+ points, they lost at home to the Grizzlies! Because they had no Gasol and no Bynum. You take Duncan off the Spurs, sure, Manu might average 29pts a game, but they wouldn't make the playoffs this year, and they definitely wouldn't be contending for a 5th Championship.

Just ask George Gervin how many Championships he won without a dominant big man.

Thank you.
Well stated and it's no surprise that I agree with you.

It's a team sport, one man doesn't win it alone.
But without Duncan this team has no rings.
It all goes through Duncan, on both ends of the floor.
Pop has said it many times every season, as have Parker and Manu.

[Obstructed_View]

Pretty sure Drob VS Shaq is 21-20 or 20-19 Drob. Drob was 5-3 VS Shaq before Duncan. In the playoffs DRob and Shaq were 9-9(or 2 series to 2)


I think your total leaves off all of the 2003 season where the Lakers got swept in the regular season(with Shaq being healthy for 2 of the losses) and defeated 4-2 in the post season.
By golly you're right. The article didn't have a year on it, but I found out that it's from January of 2003. It should be 21-20 Dave, which just makes the argument that Dave>Hakeem all the more convincing.

[Galileo]

This is again where context comes in.

When the Spurs are facing Dirk Nowitzki, Bowen, not Duncan, guards him.

When the Spurs face Shaq or Yao, Duncan doesnt draw the assignment. David Robinson drew the other team's best big for years. Post D-Rob it's been Rasho/Oberto/Elson/Kurt Thomas.

It goes without say when you have a HOF C, one of the 3 best Defensive C's ever in DRob for the first 5 yrs of your career who consistently guarded the other team's best big, you'll have an easier time staying out of foul trouble.

Then when you have a guy like Bowen, who is a lock down perimeter defender, you are also going to be in a better position to draw less fouls.

In Hakeem's heyday, he guarded DRob, Ewing, Shaq, Zo, etc. It wasnt deferred to someone else on the Rockets. Not only does that make it harder to have enough energy to dominate offensively, it puts you in a position to pick up more fouls.


But all of this is pretty much irrelevant, because as was noted in the previous Duncan-Hakeem argument, Hakeem averaged the same number of minutes per game in the regular and postseasons in his prime as Tim Duncan. So this argument is basically utterly wrong.

OBTW, arguing that Duncan's bankshot is on par with Kareem's skyhook or Hakeem's turnaround J is just ridiculous. Not only does Duncan not shoot that as near the clip of the other 2 money shots, but it's easier to take away. Crowd a PF and he can't shoot the bank shot. You can't prevent a 7'4" guy from shooting a skyhook and can't block a 7 foot C with Hakeem's athleticism from shooting a fadeaway jumper. You just have to hope they miss.

If the Spurs win the Title this year, the likely main reason will be Manu Ginobili. You put guys like Manu and Parker in their primes around a great big and there's many guys who would have won multiple titles, not just Tim Duncan. I believe in today's NBA David Robinson would be a multiple time NBA Champion (not 4, but prob 1-2). Barkley would have too.

I doubt any true Spurs fan would argue that Ginobili isn't the best player on the team in 2007-2008. He's the closer, the man that finishes close games. He could very easily rank in the top 5 for NBA MVP this year and he almost certainly will get more consideration than Duncan.

When the Rockets & Akeem went up against Ewing, Olajuwon would guard him until he got near foul trouble, then they would stick Thorpe on him. In earlier years, Akeem had Ralph Sampson as well.

[ambchang]

Tim Duncan, better overall player.

Hakeem Olajuwon, better individual talent.
:tu

[ambchang]

One spot for centers in an era where he battled Kareem Abdul Jabbar at first, then Patrick Ewing and David Robinson for the title of premier center each year.

Two spots for forwards.

KG may have taken a few of those 1st team honors, 2000, 2003, 2004 when both Duncan and KG were 1st Team, All-NBA as forwards.

2000 and 2004 would probably go to KG given that he has better MVP voting numbers those two years, but 2003 was all Duncan.

Besides, it's not like Duncan didn't have any competition out of KG in his 10 year career. There was Karl Malone earlier on, then Chris Webber, Jermaine O'Neal, Nowitzki, and LeBron James.

Nowitzki's MVP season, Karl Malone and James were as high as Robinson's peak (almost), and the other ones were at least comparable to Ewing.

[ambchang]

If Duncan played C, most of the First Team Awards would have gone to Shaquille O'Neal every year, until 2003 or 2004. He might not get it over Dwight Howard this year or Yao Ming, who have had better seasons.

And that's in a league where C is the weakest it's ever been, not even a blip compared to the era Hakeem played with David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Shaq O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Kareem and Moses in their later years, etc.

I used MVP voting as some form of gauge:
Shaq Duncan
98 #4 #5
99 #6 #3
00 #1 #5
01 #3 #2
02 #3 #1
03 #5 #1
04 #6 #2
05 #2 #4
06 N/A #8 (higher than all centers)
07 12 #4 (higher than all centers)

So the last 10 years, Duncan would have been the #1 center in 7 years based on MVP votes.

Also, you pointed out that Hakeem competed in the strongest years for centers, while ignored that Duncan competed in an era with the strongest forwards.


Jamstone made a good point. It's always going to be easier to get it at Forward, because Center is historically the strongest position in the NBA. The top 5 Centers in NBA history are all top 10-11 all time players. Plus you can make it as the #2 guy and still be first team all NBA, as Duncan was many of those years to KG, at least in the regular season.

Make no mistake, when Duncan played the premier bigman in the NBA besides him was Shaquille O'Neal and he played Center.

Your point about Lebron is largely irrelevant given the guy didn't even enter the league until Duncan was about 7 yrs Pro and that was as a raw 18 yr old. The guy just now is entering his prime. Do you really think Duncan makes All-NBA first team this season over Kevin Garnett and Lebron James?

[Galileo]

You, like most people who don't understand basketball, fail to realize that basketball is not all about scoring. Sure, it's the most talked-about stat, but it's only one of many important aspects of the game. And yes, Ginobili has a slight edge in scoring over Duncan at the moment. Slight.

But right up there with scoring is a thing called rebounding. Do you know what that is? Guess who leads the Spurs by a long shot in rebounding? It's not Ginobili.

Another important aspect of the game is defense, especially protecting the rim. Guess who's the best Spur at defending the rim, by a long shot? Again, it's not Ginobili.

Now, I love Manu. He's my second favorite player in the game. And he is CRUCIAL to the Spurs' success this year and every year. But that being said, I never make the mistake of forgetting that basketball is a game of big men, and the Spurs are built around one of the top 10 big men to ever play the game. He is their MVP this year, and every year he's been on the team.

You doubt the importance of a dominant big man? Look at the Lakers' last night. Despite Kobe's 50+ points, they lost at home to the Grizzlies! Because they had no Gasol and no Bynum. You take Duncan off the Spurs, sure, Manu might average 29pts a game, but they wouldn't make the playoffs this year, and they definitely wouldn't be contending for a 5th Championship.

Just ask George Gervin how many Championships he won without a dominant big man.

These comments are right on. I love Manu's game, he's exciting and very good. But he is no Tim Duncan.

You hit the nail on the head, scoring is still way overrated. Just ask Bill Russell.

[Josepatches]

Duncan>Hakeem.
About the 80's if you know something about basketball you have to know big men could score more easy in the past.Now Duncan has always two men on him.He can't play one on one in the low post.
In the past it was more easy by the rule of the illegal defense.Now players doesn't have to be with his man or with the man who has the ball.
If you saw the leading scorers in the 90's or the 80's you will see a lot of centers or PF.

[peskypesky]

Duncan>Hakeem.
About the 80's if you know something about basketball you have to know big men could score more easy in the past.Now Duncan has always two men on him.He can't play one on one in the low post.
In the past it was more easy by the rule of the illegal defense.Now players doesn't have to be with his man or with the man who has the ball.
If you saw the leading scorers in the 90's or the 80's you will see a lot of centers or PF.

An excellent point. The rule changes over the past 10-15 years have definitely been geard towards helping perimeter players and hampering interior players. The league (and a lot of fans) wanted another Jordan, so they've been trying to artificially create one through rule changes.

Hakeem was amazing, make no mistake, but it would be fun to see Duncan playing with the rules of Hakeem's day.

[E20]

Pretty useless to argue this on a Spurs board. I didn't know what GTownSpur was thinking, but then again he is a retard.

[mavs>spurs2]

He's just trying to stir trouble. And don't look now but there's been a Bobbyjoe sighting, I know he will have something to say about all this. Get ready for another 40 page thread

[Harry Callahan]

Hakeem was a better athlete in his prime. I think Tim has proven to be a slightly better all around basketball player. Totally different styles.

I will say this, the Rockets benefitted greatly from Michael Jordan's (forced) exile in the 1994 and 1995 seasons.

Duncan has easily surpassed Akeem as far as overall team success.

[nfg3]

No team with Lamar Odom starting will ever win an NBA title.

Be careful - I remember the same thing being said about Avery. And any team that has Kobe can't be taken lightly.

Will ever/never - these things have a tendency to happen sooner than you think.

[bobbyjoe]

You, like most people who don't understand basketball, fail to realize that basketball is not all about scoring. Sure, it's the most talked-about stat, but it's only one of many important aspects of the game. And yes, Ginobili has a slight edge in scoring over Duncan at the moment. Slight.

But right up there with scoring is a thing called rebounding. Do you know what that is? Guess who leads the Spurs by a long shot in rebounding? It's not Ginobili.

Another important aspect of the game is defense, especially protecting the rim. Guess who's the best Spur at defending the rim, by a long shot? Again, it's not Ginobili.

Now, I love Manu. He's my second favorite player in the game. And he is CRUCIAL to the Spurs' success this year and every year. But that being said, I never make the mistake of forgetting that basketball is a game of big men, and the Spurs are built around one of the top 10 big men to ever play the game. He is their MVP this year, and every year he's been on the team.

You doubt the importance of a dominant big man? Look at the Lakers' last night. Despite Kobe's 50+ points, they lost at home to the Grizzlies! Because they had no Gasol and no Bynum. You take Duncan off the Spurs, sure, Manu might average 29pts a game, but they wouldn't make the playoffs this year, and they definitely wouldn't be contending for a 5th Championship.

Just ask George Gervin how many Championships he won without a dominant big man.

Who said anything about the main argument for Manu > Duncan in 2008 being a higher PPG average? It has nothing to do with that.

Your rebounding argument is irrelevant. Obviously any big will have more rebounds than a wing player, but that doesnt mean he's more valuable.

As for defense, Manu isnt the #1 defender but neither is Duncan. That would be Bruce Bowen and has been for years.

Why is Manu the Spurs MVP? Because he's elevated his game this year. He's bailed the Spurs out of many games with incredible 4th quarter clutch play. In many of those games, the Spurs were listless and seemingly tired.

His production in "clutch" situations this year is off the charts. Like they say, in the NBA, it usually comes down to the last 6 minutes and at those times Popovich runs the offense through Manu, not Tim, because he knows that is the course of action which gives his team the best chance to win.

He had a few games when Duncan was out where he was unbelievable, both as a scorer and creator. Manu is not only a great scorer and clutch player, but his intensity is a valuable intangible for SA and his passes facilitate motion. He's also become a good defender.

Duncan has been the Spurs MVP yr after yr and great bigs are more valuable than great wings, but for 2007-2008 Manu has been the Spurs MVP. This isn't about lifetime achievement (which easily goes to TD and also seems to be what you are arguing, even though that isnt the discussion), but about this particular season. There's a reason most NBA analysts have Manu higher than Tim in their MVP lists this year. They've never had that before.

[Gooshie]

By 99 Duncan was better than Shaq?!?

Uhhhh, No.

Shaq guards Duncan more effectively than vice versa. Even at 35 yrs old, Shaq shut down Duncan a few weeks ago. 4 for 16 shooting. Intimidation from the Diesel.

Did you not watch basketball from 2000-2002 when Shaq put together the most dominant stretch of play from a big man in NBA history?

In the 2002 playoff series, the Lakers put Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Q's of every game and he completely shut down Timmy. In 01 and 02, the Lakers and Shaq were 8-1 against TD and his Spurs in the playoffs. 8-1!!!

Timmy's great and you can argue him vs. Hakeem all you want, but no way is he a better player overall or in his prime than Shaq.

What was your opinion of Duncan's "Bill Russell" type of defense against Amare in the 2005 playoffs?

The fallacy in your thesis is that Hakeem has shown he can succeed against defenders better than Duncan (David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo) and dominate but Duncan has struggled with quicker players (see Dirk, who Popovich wont even let him guard and Amare Stoudemire).

Conversely, Duncan has never faced a player as good as Hakeem defensively but we can see anecdotally that players with length and shotblocking ability do help contain Duncan effectively.

All that said, Shaq ranks ahead of both guys and pretty easily...


When comparing Shaq and Duncan, you cannot just say the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2001 and 2002 so therefore Shaq is better. How about the fact that Kobe frickin' Bryant was on his team??? The role players on the Lakers were also better than the role players on the Spurs those years - by far.

Did you not watch those series?? It was Kobe who killed the Spurs, not Shaq - especially in 2002. If Duncan had the luxury of playing with Kobe, he would have easily beaten Shaq's teams back then.