Spurs: Robert Horry: "Hakeem was 20 times better than Tim Duncan"

[LkrFan]

True in a sense, but go back and look at the Rockets record the entire time Hakeem was on the team. They only won 2 rings when he was there and that was when Jordan was AWOL. The Rockets record hovered around .500 for over 10yrs. Hakeem for 2 season > Duncan............career, its not even remotely close Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem.

All Jim's les are post MJ. He had a shot in 1997 and 1998, but didn't "break thru" until the strike shortened 1999 season. That's why he gets an * fam

[140]

^You can't be that re ed, Juanito

[Mitch]

How? It's just Duncan > shaq.

You suck at talent evaluation, that's why you got fired by even a joke of a franchise like the lakers.

If you can't see it then you need to open your eyes, if possible, amb

[JamStone]

Duncan has the definitive advantange in terms of longevity, you just have to give the overall edge to Duncan.

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

[ambchang]

All Jim's les are post MJ. He had a shot in 1997 and 1998, but didn't "break thru" until the strike shortened 1999 season. That's why he gets an * fam

How many players won a ring the first two years in the league as the alpha?

[ambchang]

If you can't see it then you need to open your eyes, if possible, amb

. Do you have any other moves other than talking about me being Asian? Was that some form of insult? I don't understand that.

[Mitch]

. Do you have any other moves other than talking about me being Asian? Was that some form of insult? I don't understand that.

No idea what you're talking about, ambchong

[LkrFan]

How many players won a ring the first two years in the league as the alpha?

Magic in '79, before you got your green card

[LkrFan]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Jam came in, dropped a wet deuce, then dipped out. Well played sn

[ambchang]

No idea what you're talking about, ambchong

Pretty weak stuff man. Just save the white flag.

[ambchang]

Magic in '79, before you got your green card

Alpha?

[LkrFan]

Alpha?

Yes, Alpha.

[ambchang]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Except Duncan's got better advanced stats in some categories.

[Horse]

All of Jim's rangs were post MJ. Jim was 0-2 during MJ era. His first one was off a strike shortened season: *

His 2007 one was a farce as well, thanks to Horry's hipcheck.

Jim always had Pop patrolling the sideline.


Dream ted on Admiral in 1994. He would on Jim too, if both were in their primes.

You have no room son.

Stick to sucking you're much better at that. You could asterisk every ing season if you wanted to. Hakeem is 12-30 against 50

[Kyle Orton]

Shaq needed arguably a top-five player in history to win championships. You're ing kidding me right? Shaq was lazy, not as good a defender, not as good a passer, and a dog teammate. He was very dominant offensively but he needed Kobe to win because he was not clutch and one of the worst free-throw shooters in NBA history.

[LkrFan]

Stick to sucking you're much better at that. You could asterisk every ing season if you wanted to. Hakeem is 12-30 against 50

Great post horse

[Horse]

Stupid ass horry gave sucker laker fans a reason to show up.

[Horse]

Great post horse

Facts not the bull you constantly spew

[JamStone]

Except Duncan's got better advanced stats in some categories.

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

[LkrFan]

[DAF86]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Duncan - PER: 24.2 - WS/48: .209 - VORP: 89.3
Olajuwon - PER: 23.6 - WS/48: .177 - VORP: 77.1

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...l#all_advanced
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...l#all_advanced

Have a good day son.

[DAF86]

Jam came in, dropped a wet deuce, then dipped out. Well played sn

lol

[DAF86]

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

So we can't use the "he had better advanced stats" argument but we can use the "he had better raw numbers" argument?

[ambchang]

I think there's good value in advanced stats (more so in baseball), especially when used in support of and/or in conjunction with standard statistics. Standard stats are more tangible and factual. While advanced stats can sometimes manipulate the standard stats. That's why I think it's better to use them together as statistical evidence.

I generally don't like the use of advanced stats "in place of" standard stats.

In basketball, PER and WS/48 for example can be very informative and insightful. But again, if exclusively used, they don't tell the complete story. For example, win shares in particular are a product of team success. Team success, while readily impacted by the greatness of one player, is never exclusively dependant on one individual player even the all-timers like a Jordan.

The faux notion that Hakeem only had a two year peak is not only naive but completely factually inaccurate. The longevity of Duncan's success is pretty much based on the longevity of his team's success. Again, that goes to the team, not one individual player. Hakeem's consistent year after year production tells a different narrative.

As for your advanced stats argument, best way I can counter with an example is that if you only look at advanced stats, I could make the argument right now that if Chris Paul retired today, we could argue that he had a better career than Tim Duncan based on career PER, TS%, and WS/48.

That's your "advanced stats" argument. Let's not use your "he had some better advanced stats" as a legitimate counter argument.

It could be, but to say that Hakeem's better than Duncan statistically across the board is false. Especially when adjusted for pace and also looking at advanced stats.

Paul is the advanced stats king, and the reason is because his teams revolves almost exclusively around him. Fact that his team failed every year with him as the centre is indicative of where he stands as an all time great, something that's not applicable to Duncan nor hakeem.

[TD4THREE]

Why? Hakeem has better career averages and career totals than Duncan despite Duncan playing 150 more games. Hakeem has better playoff averages. And while Hakeem's stats don't blow Duncan out of the water, they're clearly better.

Hakeem was the better player. Duncan's only real legitimate argument is team success, which is a team accomplishment. Any comparison between the two as individual players favors Hakeem, and pretty clearly so.

Their stats are negligible when you account for pace, which you should unless you think having a dozen more possessions a game isn't an advantage when it comes to raw stats. And if raw stats are your main reason for having Hakeem over Duncan, then you could make the case that Hakeem was the 4th best center of his era, behind Shaq,Robinson,and Ewing.