Duncan>Hakeem.

[z0sa]

In their primes....

Hakeem > Duncan.

/thread

apparently I pwned you too badly for a real response.

[underdawg]

Rings are the last factor I would use to compare two individual players.

1 player does not make a team. Never has, never will. Even the best to ever lace them up, Michael Jordan, did not start winning rings until he had an amazing cast of characters around him.

I think you are overreaching on the rings argument because that's really the one area you can point to where Duncan separates himself from Hakeem.

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

[galvatron3000]

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

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



Ralph Sampson 1983-1992

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

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

[peskypesky]

apparently I pwned you too badly for a real response.

[peskypesky]

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

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

[galvatron3000]

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

WRONG. FOR THE MOST PART

[Gutter92]

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

[WayOutWest]

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

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



Ralph Sampson 1983-1992

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

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

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

[Manufan909]

It's only pathetic if you're not able to understand that:

1. THE GOAL of playing is to win the Championship
2. Basketball is a team sport, so part of being a great player is the ability to help your team get a championship
3. The Bulls were Jordan's team, not Kerr's.

If you don't factor championships in, then what are you going to use as your determining factor? Scoring? Well then Gervin is better than Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar combined, as he had more scoring 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.

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

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

[senorglory]

This thread is making me sad.

[TDfan2007]

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

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

Tim's playoff numbers for those years:

2002: 27.6 ppg 14.4 rpg 5 apg 4.33 bpg

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

2003: 24.7 ppg 15.4 rpg 5.3 apg 3.29 bpg

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

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

2005: 23.6 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg 2.26 bpg


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

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


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

[Indazone]

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

[mystargtr34]

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

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

Tim's playoff numbers for those years:

2002: 27.6 ppg 14.4 rpg 5 apg 4.33 bpg

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

2003: 24.7 ppg 15.4 rpg 5.3 apg 3.29 bpg

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

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

2005: 23.6 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg 2.26 bpg


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

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


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

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

[baseline bum]

Not really because even if Duncan would have gotten to the finals during Jordan's era, who knows if he would have won any rings. Maybe Karl Malone's teams would have won a few rings this decade. Probably not. Maybe if Hakeem had Parker, Manu, Horry, and Pop, he might have won more than 4 rings.

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

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

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

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

[Agloco]

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

On this board anyway.....

[Galileo]

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

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

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

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

[InK]

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

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

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

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

[mystargtr34]

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

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

D comes before O.

Therefore Duncan >>> Olajuwon

-- Galileo

[IronMexican]

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

[wildbill2u]

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

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

[Yorae]

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

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

Tim Duncan could jump well in his prime.

[scanry]

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

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

How about you watch the 2003 playoffs.

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

[scanry]

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

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

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

Duncan almost single handedly beat them in 1999 & 2003.

[baseline bum]

Tim Duncan could jump well in his prime.

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

[mavs>spurs2]

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