career-wise, Duncan will have the edge at the end..prime? definitely Hakeem..they were similar players, but Hakeem has more advantages than Tim..the only aspect I can give Tim the advantage for would be passing..
outside of the immortal 6, it comes down to Duncan, Hakeem, and Shaq for the next 3 on the all-time list IMO..
career-wise, it'll probably be Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem..in their primes, it would be Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan..
Hakeem's "problem" is the same as Wilt's. How do you explain such a dominant player only getting two rings?
How do you put Hakeem and Wilt in the same category as the multiple-ring winners (Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan)? Because it's not an individual sport like golf, it's a team sport, and the goal is that championship.
Hakeem was lacking in supporting cast talent for a good number of years..he didn't have a secondary star for a while until they got Clyde..the fact that he won a le with that supporting cast in 1993 shows how great he was, similar to Timmy in 2003..
Wilt was playing against the 60's Celtics..the most stacked teams in NBA history..the fact that he always outplayed Russell and also managed to win some les vs. those stacked teams is proof of how great he was..you also have to consider that they actually changed rules to stop Wilt..
The silly rings argument again.
Winning a ring is dependent on so many factors outside of an individual player's control. So many players never get the chance to be on a team with great ownership and a smart GM. It's all about timing and let's be honest luck.
Most kids here probably didn't even watch the NBA pre-1999 so they have no idea about Hakeem's game at all. I fully believe that based on what I've read time and time again. Hakeem in his prime was simply dominant on both ends of the floor in ways that Duncan just could never match. Duncan's biggest asset is his consistency, but if we are talking about taking a player in their absolute prime it's Hakeem every day.
Of all team sports basketball is the one which an individual can have the most impact. Its not like comparing the amount of rings a guy has in baseball or even Football. Its still a team game but a single player can impact the outcome of the game more so than any other team sport. You have to give the guy with more rings the edge - given that the players in question are obviously somewhat equal individually.
Your going to get your 's that come in here saying "By that logic, Horry > Hakeem".
Like i said, Duncan and Hakeem wont be settled even after Duncan is done playing. In their respective prime, i give Hakeem the edge, in terms of career value then Duncan was better for longer.
It's only pathetic if you're not able to understand that:
1. THE GOAL of playing is to win the Championship
2. Basketball is a team sport, so part of being a great player is the ability to help your team get a championship
3. The Bulls were Jordan's team, not Kerr's.
If you don't factor championships in, then what are you going to use as your determining factor? Scoring? Well then Gervin is better than Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar combined, as he had more scoring les than those four combined.
Rebounds? Then Dennis Rodman is greater than Hakeem, Shaq, Barkley and Kareem combined...as Rodman had more rebounding les than those 4 combined.
You see, you can't just look at individual stats. To be considered one of the all-time greats, you have to be the Man on your team, AND you have to take that team to the Championship. Cause there's lots of guys who were the Man on their team(s). Lots of guys who could score like crazy but never get a championship (McGrady, Iverson, Gervin, Alex English, Dominique).
I think you have to factor Championships in, and I think you have to give them a lot of weight.
Just for the record, Wilt never beat the Celtics for a Championship.
Quoting myself, that argument is somewhat of a copout, but its really the only way you can seperate the two. They were remarkably similar, Hakeem was a more athletic and flamboyant version of Duncan, while Duncan probably had a little better feel for the game, especially in terms of doing the little things off the ball such as screening.
that houston team that went up against the celtics in the 80s should have won the finals and would have dominated more if hakeem wasn't so impatient. his temper was his downfall early in his career.
What are you Phil Jackson?! are you trying to put a * on Hakeem's le?!
MJ didnt have the drive to keep going that is Mj's fault not Hakeem's and when he did he couldnt beat a young Magic squad ...who Hakeem dominated ...
If you use this logic than Duncan's 1st le is suspect I dont think so ... a le is a le
only 1 I can dispute is the Wade/ref Finals vs. Dallas ...but even with those calls Dallas choked ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 01-22-2009 at 10:52 PM.
You calling others here 'kids' when every one of your posts sounds like your a High School kid with a hard on for Kobe.
I think most people agree that at their absolute primes, Hakeem was a little better than Duncan. An argument can still be made for Duncan using some obscure stats like PER and so on. But i think the majority agree that in their primes, Hakeem > Duncan.
My point is rings are the biggest factor when comparing two players of similar level. A single player effects the outcome of a game in basketball more so than any other team sport. Even in terms of 'stats' that dont show up in the box score.
Rings are the last factor I would use to compare two individual players.
1 player does not make a team. Never has, never will. Even the best to ever lace them up, Michael Jordan, did not start winning rings until he had an amazing cast of characters around him.
I think you are overreaching on the rings argument because that's really the one area you can point to where Duncan separates himself from Hakeem.
IMO Hakeem was better than Duncan as a player, although TD's career surpasses 90% of all NBA players. Hakeem had the misfortune to come into the league when the Lakers dominted the WC and the Celtics/Sixers dominated the EC. When Hakeem finally made it to the 86 Finals he faced arguably the greatest team in NBA history and IMO the greatest front court in NBA history. Hakeem never had the talent around him in Houston to compete with the elite teams in the league. When he got a decent supporting cast he went off for two les in a row. Not since Walton's Blazers has one single guy carried an entire team to a championship.
The only guy I've seen dominate both ends of the court like Hakeem was Shaq in 99-00. TD controls games and can do it on both ends of the court but what Hakeem did for a couple of years and what Shaq did for one year is DOMINATE. Hakeem had entire teams looking over their shoulders or listening for footsteps when they went to the basket and almost everyone knows about his incredible post moves. I have not seen anybody else besides Shaq and Hakeem do that in my 24 years of watching basketball. Obviously guys like Wilt and Kareem probably did it as well but their primes were before my time.
IMO TD is the best PF to ever play the game but when you start comparing him with centers you're going to have a tougher time making your case.
For the other 12 seasons of Hakeems career, i think Duncan was better.
Happy?
I agree shaq's MVP year is the only 1 of his that is in this discussion ...playoffs all 3 dominated ...
If shaq was that motivated for more of his career he would be above bothe Duncan and hakeem ...
^^ this paired with this:
officially gives you the stupidest take of the day award.Hakeem in his prime was simply dominant on both ends of the floor in ways that Duncan just could never match. Duncan's biggest asset is his consistency, but if we are talking about taking a player in their absolute prime it's Hakeem every day.
Let me fill you in partner: Hakeem did not win either one of his rings in his physical prime. He was 31-33 from mid 93 to 95, the Hakeem Era I guess you could call it, and we're his most productive seasons statistically - despite being surrounded by the best talent of his career. In other words, he wasn't his best during his prime but nice try at sounding smart.
To go further, Tim will be 33 before the start of this season's playoffs, and already has 4 championships (double Hakeem's) over a 9 year period and 3 Finals MVPs, one more than Hakeem. Also he is barely going to be as old as when Hakeem won his second and final trophy .. this goes along with my argument he did not beat the best of his era, MJ for his trophies, while the Spurs beat the best of their era at least twice and probably 3 times on their way to ring 1/2/3. Additionally the Hakeem Era was very short, lasting only two years. After just one season later the Stockton/Malone Jazz had put themselves on top of the West. Duncan's Era has been prolonged, and the Spurs have been right there every season for several years now, with no signs of stopping for a few more.
Finally, the way you make Hakeem vs. Duncan sound, as if its nolo contendre, is ridiculous. These two head to head is about as close of a matchup as you want, but in reality, Duncan is clearly on top.
Last edited by z0sa; 01-22-2009 at 11:44 PM.
I'm not sure if Duncan would have four rings if he played in the same area as Michael Jordan. I think Hakeem would dominate Duncan because he's bigger, stronger, more athletic. Duncan is a PF, Hakeem is a true C.
Hakeem never even reached the Finals to play Jordan .. so your argument is void and null. Meanwhile, before the Spurs could even reach the Finals they had the best in the League to deal with, except in 05 when Detroit was obviously the defending champ and had the the 2nd best D in the League, including a reasonably young Wallace duo, aka real Duncan stoppers, at least on occassion.
I honestly believe this works against hakeem, because Jordan won all of his rings during Hakeem's best years, barring 94/95 of course.Another Jordan excuse. Hakeem was in the league 18 years. Jordan won 6 rings.
Last edited by z0sa; 01-23-2009 at 12:26 AM.
Duncan was probably a little bigger, Hakeem was closer to 6'10" than he was 7'0". No doubt he was more athletic.
Another Jordan excuse. Hakeem was in the league 18 years. Jordan won 6 rings.
That leaves 12 years. Whos to blame for those?
Not really because even if Duncan would have gotten to the finals during Jordan's era, who knows if he would have won any rings. Maybe Karl Malone's teams would have won a few rings this decade. Probably not. Maybe if Hakeem had Parker, Manu, Horry, and Pop, he might have won more than 4 rings.
You act like he had Coach K and a handful of ty teammates.
Hakeem was physically stronger than Duncan. Again, Hakeem had to deal with the great Lakers/Celtics teams who had multiple Hall of Famers during the early part of his career and was pretty old the last few years. Duncan has probably had the better career, but I would rather draft Hakeem.
Post 1000? ^^ yep there
In their primes....
Hakeem > Duncan.
/thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
