God, remember when Shaq was young and lean? That guy, if he would have wanted to, could have been... man. Shaq with Kawhi's demeanor would have been the biggest conundrum in the league.
Ridiculously dominant and improving year by year, but no personality, that gave Shaq so much of his aura, like Mohammed Ali.
That guy would have been considered over MJ as the GOAT.
That's so stupid. It's like saying bird kept Hakeem ring less until jorda. couldn't so bird is better than Jordan. How about Allen iverson kept Lebron ring less and Durant couldn't so iverson is better than Durant? So many different levels of stupid.
And Duncan is on another level as an all time great as Hakeem now. Just accept it and move on.
LOL, I realize what website I'm on but LOL. Hakeem never had the longevity Duncan has had but he was still great the majority of his career with a peak much, much higher than Duncan's.
Much mich higher? Based on what?
What's stupid is using the rings argument to determine who was the better basketball player. Duncan was in a better situation and environment with a great front office all of his career. Hakeem was not.
Well, the Reason Duncan had the longevity was because Duncan started playing less minutes around the age of 28, while Hakeem was playing near 40 minutes a game from 27 until he was 34. Or let's put it another way...Duncan has played 19 seasons and Hakeem 17 seasons. Yet Hakeem is only 3000 minutes, (or the equivalent of one season) behind Duncan in minutes. Which indicates Tim never had to carry his team for a long stretch of time like Dream did.
That's how we started,,,and that's how we'll conduct ourselves onward.
That's why he acted like a diva until he refound Allah.
Which explains why simpletons would view how Hakeem had a "much higher peak" than Duncan, without even looking at minutes played and pace of game, not to mention the league moving to a perimeter friendly game where big men were not being used to the same extent.
Yeah, Hakeem's peak was 27.8 ppg, 14 rpg, 3.6 apg, 2.6 stls and 4.6 blks (have to admit, the last two are ridiculous) while Duncan's was "only" 25.5, 12.9, 3.9, 0.9 and 2.9, but if you look at per 100 possessions, those numbers became:
35.8/18.8/4.7/3.3/5.8 vs.
33.5/18.3/5.7/1.6/4.5
Then when you look at advanced stats, Hakeems' best ORtg - Drtg season was 114-96, or 18, Duncan is 112-93 = 19
Advanced stats for OWS/DWS/WS/WS48/OBPM/DBPM/BPM/VORP are:
7.9/8.7/15.8/.234/3.0/5.9/8.4/8.5 vs.
10.7/7.2/17.8/.257/3.9/5.1/7.6/8.1
You can make an argument for either of those stats, but Duncan did it for much longer, much better consistency, and didn't have that diva stage. It's stupid to say Hakeem had the better career, and totally inaccurate to say that Hakeem had a MUCH higher peak.
Doesn't change the fact the Spurs were a better organization than the Rockets.
Good Lord, no one is saying Hakeem had the better career. It is true he is the better player. And yes, Hakeem did have a MUCH higher peak. The fact you have to use "per 100 possessions" means it's not as close as it should be on raw numbers. Hakeem had those numbers without playing in the Pop's system. Because he was the system, dominant, and couldn't be stopped those two years. Though, he had many years like those. Duncan started playing less minutes at 28 when Parker and Ginobli hit their primes. Hakeem was playing near 40 minutes a game.
Also loved how you left out Hakeem's playoff numbers from those two years
28.9/11/4 blocks
33.0/10.3/2 blocks
And how Dream was one assist away from recording two quadruple doubles in the same season, all while fasting during Ramadan. Top 10 in steals, and blocks. Has a higher FG% and FT% than Tim. Hakeem > Tim.
Last edited by djohn2oo8; 06-25-2016 at 03:54 PM.
Ouch!!!
Forget staring only at the numbers, remember the 1995 playoffs? You're a Spurs fan, you should know all too well what went down. And not just that but from about 1993-97, Olajuwon was on another level.
oh, another thread about repeats? a championship is about being the best team in a given year
That's just because you're born ignorant and you ain't been nurtured otherwise in the intervening temporal.
You don't know. You eked yours out one at-a-time, piss pot style. You had your chance, but, were too busy pre nupin' - custodying, divorcin', stabbin' each other in the back.
Big shots.
Nice to see Laker fans living in the past again now that the LA Warriors have been dethroned.
This.
The best posters like ambchang can do is say that if you extrapolate Duncan's numbers out you would have similar results. But we dont know if there would be diminishing returns as Duncans was asked to carry a larger work load.
Duncan was a good PF/C hyrbrid but he was never dominant like Shaq or Hakeem.
As if the Spurs are the champions. They lost to the team who lost to the team who lost to the Champions.
Last year they lost in the first round.
As long as the Spurs are not a lottery team I'm good.
go your mother some more
And you're there in the past with us. Now, quit talkin'---start shinin'.
I out in raw and per possession stats and neither are that far off. Just that per 100 accounts for pace and Duncan played at a much lower pace during his prime than Hakeem did in his. Neither of those numbers show Hakeem was much better at their respective peaks, per 100 showed them to be equals and advanced stats showed them to be equal too. If you don't use per 100 stats, you are basically saying Michael Adams at his prime was as good a scorer as Chris mullin or Tim Duncan at their primes.
And Duncan was also the system, he was four down, he he four downed the Spurs to a championship. The highlight of Hakeem's career was 94 when he led a team with underwhelming talent to a ring. Duncan did that in 03.
And with Duncan playing less minutes he still dominated. Duncan sacrificed his stats in the system for the benefit of winning and longevity and STILL put up similar numbers as Hakeem's peak, so thanks for that one.
Duncan out up 27.6, 14.4, 5 and 4.3 in 02, 24.7, 15.4, 5.3 and 3.3 in 03. You act like Duncan puts up 18 and 10 every playoffs. In per 100 stats Duncan out up similar scoring, rebounding assist and blks number as Hakeem, often times better stats. You can't talk about the system and ignore pace. You are being a total hypocrite.
To say Hakeem is MUCH better than Duncan without listing any Duncan stats is just being dishonest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote