Hakeem vs Duncan Part 2

[baseline bum]

Clearly number of MVPs is relevant to this arguement.

Again, if Duncan comes into the league in 1984, he wins no MVPs, no DPOY awards and no rings. Its all about cir stance, he was incredibly fortunate to come in when he did. Duncan won MVPs because the level of talent in the league was ing awful. If Jordan doesn't play, Hakeem takes atleast 4 of his 6 MVP awards. And if you want to keep playing this 4>2, 2>1 bull , lets go ahead and bring up Robinson's MVP, and then how he was completlly dismantled by a far superior player and the true MVP of that season. People want to * our championships, fine, but this entire era is post Jordan so it is all irrevelant.

Which 4 of those 6 (really 5) would those be?

87-88? Over Magic when they won 62 games and were favorites for the re-peat? I doubt it.
90-91? When he missed 36 games?
91-92? When the Rockets were one game over .500 despite Olajuwon playing 70 games?
95-96? As a 48 win team over Shawn Kemp with 64 wins and Shaq with 60?
97-98? When he missed half the season?

[kingmalaki]

Hakeem finished in the top ten in MVP voting just 6 times.

If he had finished 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th every single year, then you might have a point.

Unfortunately for you, you don't.

So now it's finishing in the top 10 in MVP voting, and not having the actual award itself?

If you are arguing one player is better than the other based on MVP awards, then you are basically arguing that Nash > Kobe and Shaq since he has the same amount of those two combined. But of course that argument is silly since different cir stances determine if you can win the award or not. As I have pointed out, Stockton and KJ were putting up Nash numbers and their teams had top records and they weren't sniffing MVP awards. You can say the same about what Paul has done the last two seasons...he may have won awards in the Nash years.

Again, do you think Duncan would win those awards over MJ, Magic and Larry? They won like every award until MJ retired.

[kingmalaki]

Which 4 of those 6 (really 5) would those be?

87-88? Over Magic when they won 62 games and were favorites for the re-peat? I doubt it.
90-91? When he missed 36 games?
91-92? When the Rockets were one game over .500 despite Olajuwon playing 70 games?
95-96? As a 48 win team over Shawn Kemp with 64 wins and Shaq with 60?
97-98? When he missed half the season?

I doubt he wins in either one of those years to be honest. You have to have top numbers and be on a top team (i.e. have a good supporting cast) to win an MVP award. Kobe didn't sniff the MVP in 06, arguably his best season where he drug a sorry team to the playoffs. Does that mean he wasn't a better player than the guys who won it? In the years that Nash won the MVP, would you say he was a better player than Duncan...and would you choose Nash if you had to pick between the two?

If your answer is no, then I don't see how the MVP award comes into play when comparing two players.

[Texas_Ranger]

All this ''what would'' talk is just stupid.
I'd picked Tim, but thats perhaps just cause I didn't watch Hakeem play a lot in his best years. But really you couldn't go wrong with any of those two. Respect to both of them.

[baseline bum]

I doubt he wins in either one of those years to be honest. You have to have top numbers and be on a top team (i.e. have a good supporting cast) to win an MVP award. Kobe didn't sniff the MVP in 06, arguably his best season where he drug a sorry team to the playoffs. Does that mean he wasn't a better player than the guys who won it? In the years that Nash won the MVP, would you say he was a better player than Duncan...and would you choose Nash if you had to pick between the two?

If your answer is no, then I don't see how the MVP award comes into play when comparing two players.

I love Olajuwon and he's one of my all-time favorites, but something as stupid as Lars saying he'd win 4 out 5 MVPs if Jordan wasn't there ain't gonna stand.

[ambchang]

Arguing that Player A > Player B because Player A has more MVPs and les is stupid.
It does not factor in factors such as teammates, compe ion, compe ion for awards, defensive schemes, etc ...
But I can say that if I want to start a franchise, I would pick Duncan. Reasons being:
1) Duncan had a far longer prime
2) Duncan has proven that he can adapt and excel in very different teams.
3) Hakeem pouted for a great chunk of his career, when he was theorhetically in his physical prime, Duncan never did.

In a one on one game, I am picking Hakeem 9 out of 10 times, but in a team game environment, give me Duncan.

[Many PackYao]

All this ''what would'' talk is just stupid.
I'd picked Tim, but thats perhaps just cause I didn't watch Hakeem play a lot in his best years. But really you couldn't go wrong with any of those two. Respect to both of them.

Finally, someone who is at least honest about how much he actually saw Hakeem play, unlike these young 20 yr olds just going by looking up stats online.

[Blake]

So now it's finishing in the top 10 in MVP voting, and not having the actual award itself?

no, it's about the people saying that Hakeem could never win MVP because of Jordan, Magic and Bird.

Apparently in most of his career, there were 10 players that had better years than he did.

But thanks for missing the point.

If you are arguing one player is better than the other based on MVP awards, then you are basically arguing that Nash > Kobe and Shaq since he has the same amount of those two combined. But of course that argument is silly since different cir stances determine if you can win the award or not.

I'm not solely basing it on MVP awards.

Thanks for not reading my posts.

As I have pointed out, Stockton and KJ were putting up Nash numbers and their teams had top records and they weren't sniffing MVP awards. You can say the same about what Paul has done the last two seasons...he may have won awards in the Nash years.

nobody is comparing Nash to anyone else.

In any case, KJ played with a bunch of other all stars, Hornacek, Chambers, and Majerle and they still didn't win 60 games.

Playing next to Karl Malone, Stockton was never going to win it.....especially never averaging many ppg during the 60 win years in the 90s.

Nash won an improbable 62 games in his first MVP run and somehow the Suns won 54 the next year after trading Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson and losing Amare to injury. Nash easily beat Kobe, LBJ and Dirk that 2nd time.

Again, do you think Duncan would win those awards over MJ, Magic and Larry? They won like every award until MJ retired.

If Duncan were to consistently win just 40+ games a year like Hakeem? No.

but take his 2003 season where the Spurs have the best record and no other all stars on the team, then yes, he wins the MVP.

[Blake]

Finally, someone who is at least honest about how much he actually saw Hakeem play, unlike these young 20 yr olds just going by looking up stats online.

because remembering what you saw on TV back in the 90s is always a better way to prove your point than using stats.

For the record, I saw Hakeem play throughout the 80s and 90s.

I distinctly recall the split screen during the Finals of NY/Hou on one side and the police chasing OJ in a bronco on the other side.

You are an idiot.

lol slayer
lol waiting for the lame steve blake picture comeback

[Blake]

Arguing that Player A > Player B because Player A has more MVPs and les is stupid.

no, it's not. If you don't factor that in, then all you have is biased opinion.

It does not factor in factors such as teammates, compe ion, compe ion for awards, defensive schemes, etc ...
But I can say that if I want to start a franchise, I would pick Duncan. Reasons being:
1) Duncan had a far longer prime
2) Duncan has proven that he can adapt and excel in very different teams.
3) Hakeem pouted for a great chunk of his career, when he was theorhetically in his physical prime, Duncan never did.

so you think judging someone by the number of MVPs he has is stupid, but judging someone on the way you think he pouted is smart.

great.

[Fernando TD21]

All this ''what would'' talk is just stupid.
I'd picked Tim, but thats perhaps just cause I didn't watch Hakeem play a lot in his best years. But really you couldn't go wrong with any of those two. Respect to both of them.

Arguing that Player A > Player B because Player A has more MVPs and les is stupid.
It does not factor in factors such as teammates, compe ion, compe ion for awards, defensive schemes, etc ...
But I can say that if I want to start a franchise, I would pick Duncan. Reasons being:
1) Duncan had a far longer prime
2) Duncan has proven that he can adapt and excel in very different teams.
3) Hakeem pouted for a great chunk of his career, when he was theorhetically in his physical prime, Duncan never did.

In a one on one game, I am picking Hakeem 9 out of 10 times, but in a team game environment, give me Duncan.

Agreed. Hakeem was probably the best individual player. While Duncan is probably the best team player.

I picked Duncan because I'm his fan. I'm biased, but a really unbiased person should pick the third option "Can't go wrong with either", since they both were/are amazing players.

And the question is "Who would you pick to be your franchise player?" and not who is the most dominant or who had the best career, so picking any one of them should be fine.

[Many PackYao]

because remembering what you saw on TV back in the 90s is always a better way to prove your point than using stats.

For the record, I saw Hakeem play throughout the 80s and 90s.

I distinctly recall the split screen during the Finals of NY/Hou on one side and the police chasing OJ in a bronco on the other side.

You are an idiot.

lol slayer
lol waiting for the lame steve blake picture comeback

Good, I saw it too. Why do you make these things so personal? Calling people names like you're in elementary school. Are you this much of a outside of the forum? Also, I don't give a damn what you think of Slayer, so you can keep talkin' about them as much as you like.

[mavs>spurs2]

Good, I saw it too. Why do you make these things so personal? Calling people names like you're in elementary school. Are you this much of a outside of the forum? Also, I don't give a damn what you think of Slayer, so you can keep talkin' about them as much as you like.

No, he'd get punched in the mouth.

Can someone please come to my aid and tell this er that Hakeem > Ben Wallace defensively? Hakeem may be the best defender of all time, while Big Ben was certainly great at what he did he just didn't have the same physical tools Hakeem did, he was terribly undersized. Quit disrespecting an all time great by drastically underestimating him in order to prove a point. Flashy weakside blocks, being muscular and having a fro don't necessarily make you an all time great defender, although he was great. Just not all time great

[Blake]

Good, I saw it too. Why do you make these things so personal? Calling people names like you're in elementary school.

it's not personal. Your posts are idiotic.

Are you this much of a outside of the forum? Also, I don't give a damn what you think of Slayer, so you can keep talkin' about them as much as you like.

why are you making this personal? calling people names like you're in elementary school.

lol butt hurt

lol slayer

lol yao

lol rocketfan

[Blake]

No, he'd get punched in the mouth.

lol butt hurt mav fan

lol fake championship

Can someone please come to my aid and tell this er that Hakeem > Ben Wallace defensively? Hakeem may be the best defender of all time, while Big Ben was certainly great at what he did he just didn't have the same physical tools Hakeem did, he was terribly undersized.

says who? you?

all you have is an opinion, moron, while Ben Wallace has 4 DPOY trophies.

if you are that insecure that you have to ask for "aid" then you're almost always wrong.

you're a biased mav fan that hates the Spurs.

Quit disrespecting an all time great by drastically underestimating him in order to prove a point. Flashy weakside blocks, being muscular and having a fro don't necessarily make you an all time great defender, although he was great. Just not all time great

What part of 4 DPOY trophies don't you understand?

Everything else is your own weak opinion.

[mavs>spurs2]

lol butt hurt mav fan

lol fake championship



says who? you?

all you have is an opinion, moron, while Ben Wallace has 4 DMVP trophies.

if you are that insecure that you have to ask for "aid" then you're almost always wrong.

you're a biased mav fan that hates the Spurs.




What part of 4 DMVP trophies don't you understand?

Everything else is your own weak opinion.

4 DMVP's, got!

4 rings, got!

4 inch you have, got!

[Blake]

4 DMVP's, got!

4 rings, got!

4 inch you have, got!

that's what I thought.

If you were to say that to someone off the board, you'd get punched in the mouth.

lol meltdown

lol stupid mavs fan

[mavs>spurs2]

that's what I thought.

If you were to say that to someone off the board, you'd get punched in the mouth.

lol meltdown

lol stupid mavs fan

Only if they were also trained in martial arts and damn good at it

lol, spur fan bias

lol, hakeem > ben wallace

lol, you taking stretch's patented for mav fan use only "lol, _______" line

[Many PackYao]

it's not personal. Your posts are idiotic.



why are you making this personal? calling people names like you're in elementary school.

lol butt hurt

lol slayer

lol yao

lol rocketfan

You called about three or four people idiotic in this thread because they don't agree with you. I'm just saying can't you have a discussion without resorting to name calling? No butthurting here, I'm just asking a simple question.

[Blake]

Only if they were also trained in martial arts and damn good at it

lol you=chuck norris

lol, spur fan bias

lol 2 MVPs from unbiased voters

lol, hakeem > ben wallace

lol 4 DPOY>2 DPOY

lol, you taking stretch's patented for mav fan use only "lol, _______" line

lol butthurt over lol

lol, lol

[Blake]

You called about three or four people idiotic in this thread because they don't agree with you.

no, I'm not calling them idiots for not agreeing. I'm calling them/you idiots for using nothing but your own opinion from what you remember in 1994 as the basis for your "argument".

It's weak and it's idiotic.

I'm just saying can't you have a discussion without resorting to name calling? No butthurting here, I'm just asking a simple question.

You're asking me this after calling me a ? ....which was after you basically called anyone who didn't agree with you a "20 something year old that obviously didn't watch Hakeem play"

You are a focking idiot.

[Tmac&Luther]

370 replies and 3 or 4 days and the voting is still the same....I think it's time to close up shop, nobody's opinions are going to change.

[mavs>spurs2]

Yeah Blake, all people have offered so far is opinions dating back to '94 . Nevermind the horrid shooting % of those other Rocket players, Vernon Maxwell being the 2nd leading scorer at 13 points off 32% shooting, nevermind him being better than Duncan in every statistical category, or being better than him at simply every aspect of basketball. All you have is your weak "4 rings got" argument, the same Spur fans always fall back on as a crutch when they get upset or owned. Spur fans have been ridiculed so much for the very argument you're presenting that "4 rings got" has become a trademark spurstalk phrase. Offer something besides calling people idiots and saying 4>2 before you talk to us. If Robert Horry, the man who played along side both guys says it's true, then it's good enough for me. Look at the era of big men Hakeem played in and fast forward to today. Dwight Howard is the undisputed best center in the game, just because of raw athletic ability. He doesn't have a single post move, a shot, any ball handling skills, or really very many basketball skills for that matter. You can't just look at achievements ignoring the difference in era's, building you're entire argument upon "4>2." Discuss a point that hasn't yet been brought up and I'll respond, until then kindly take my out of your mouth and off.

[Many PackYao]

no, I'm not calling them idiots for not agreeing. I'm calling them/you idiots for using nothing but your own opinion from what you remember in 1994 as the basis for your "argument".

It's weak and it's idiotic.



You're asking me this after calling me a ? ....which was after you basically called anyone who didn't agree with you a "20 something year old that obviously didn't watch Hakeem play"

You are a focking idiot.

I called you a for the way you react and respond to people not agreeing with you. You're always trying to turn things around just like a little kid.

[Thomas82]

Just out of curiosity, does anybody remember how Tim and Hakeem did when they faced each other head to head a few times? I know Tim was just coming to the league and Hakeem was on his way out, but I was just curious about that. What made me curious is seeing that video of Hakeem jumping over Charles Barkley's back to block a fall away shot from Tim.