Duncan>Hakeem.

[Yorae]

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

Yeah, because DRob could jump way higher than him.



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

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

[Cry Havoc]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ghazi]

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

[m33p0]

Yeah, because DRob could jump way higher than him.



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

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

yes he can. parish said bird could jump over a soda bottle cap. honestly, that's what he said.

[m33p0]

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

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

[Galileo]

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

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

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

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

Where v is the variable that increases for better players.

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

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

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

Tim Duncan Best Forward Ever
http://www.sportsgamer.com/forums/nb...ward-ever.html

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

Table of Contents (has rankings)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0071...04#reader-link

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

[InK]

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

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

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

[Rogue]

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

[j-money24]

4>2

in that case, robert horry>duncan and almost everyone

[j-money24]

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

[daslicer]

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

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

[baseline bum]

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

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

[Galileo]

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

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

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

[cool hand]

yes!

[m33p0]

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

sorry. i stopped watching the rockets once charles came to town.

[m33p0]

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

[kingmalaki]

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

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

Offensively:

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

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

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

Defensively:

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

[Lars]

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

The West was tougher?

Sorry but the WEst was much tougher for Duncan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rapper]

Hakeem sucks

that's all

[Rapper]

This debate is absolutely meaningless

people who take Hakeem's part are stupid

[Galileo]

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

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

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

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

[Double-Up]

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

[Galileo]

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

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

Offensively:

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

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

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

Defensively:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[K-State Spur]

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

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

Offensively:

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

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

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

Defensively:

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

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

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

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

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


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