I am not putting Duncan down. I consider him a top 10-12 all time NBA player, just behind Olajuwon and O'Neal.
Everything is relative. Relative to all the PF's ever, Duncan is #1. Relative to the top 4 or 5 Centers ever, I just dont think he's there.
Didnt Duncan's Spurs lose to the Jazz in the playoffs in his rookie season after they beat the Suns in the first round? How did he own Malone? (not that I dont agree Duncan is the best PF ever and > Malone, because I think that is fairly obvious).
Hakeem wasn't in the league this year. The PER rankings I gave you were for the 2006-2007 season.
In your opinion, did Duncan have inferior seasons this past year to Wade, Dirk, and Yao?
Was Duncan a better playoff performer or Amare? (Amare had the highest playoff PER in the nba this postseason).
If your answers are no, you are conceding that PER is absolutely not the single best way to compare players statistically.
Might as well give it up, its a Spurs board they will never concede that Hakeem> Duncan untill freezes over. Duncan is God in their eyes, take your arguement to another board and see the difference in opinions. Just quietly laugh and know that you know the truth.
Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes.
BTw, this is coming from the same fans that once declared dirk would eclipse duncan.
I guarantee you duncan wouldn't have lost to the sonics in 96.
Did you bother reading the takes from the links on the first page of this thread?Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes.
They are from Inside Hoops and other neutral NBA fan forums. The opinions are decidedly pro-Hakeem. Decidedly.
As are the opinions of Mario Elie and Robert Horry, teammates of both greats.
Of course when you are in complete denial, I guess none of it matters.
Why do most non-Spurs fan pick Hakeem here, ever thought about that?
Lol. OK. I guess that settles it all.
Nah, a neutral sports board would do just fine. And I don't know why mav fans would be biased, Hakeem never played for us.Yeah, take it to a Rockets or Mavs board and you'll have more unbiased takes.
Never came out of my mouth, but thanks for the generalization.
I don't know, just ask the mavfan that had the words "Duncan Sucks" under his moniker, or read mavtalk, or talk to a DFW sports fan.
Dude, there were mavfans this past year claiming Devin Harris would eclipse parker in his career.
Even though that had nothing to do with the present argument, i thought it would be funny to point that out.
Oh, and historians will remember Duncan over Hakeem.
Hmm
As I look at those games from the 90s I can see the centers had more freedome.
But maybe I see that way diferently I don't know.
Another aspect.
You play against a team not a player.
And why Olajuwon was so static on offense?
Was he setting any picks on permieter?
Most those picks are made by Thorpe and Hakeem stands on low block most of the time sometimes changing side of the box and when do he gets screens from others (the most common play in 80s)
Neither do we agree that it is possible that a 7' man can have most of his upper body making up 1', while the other 6' is made up of his lower body.
The problem is that it was not true, yes, most people took Hakeem over Duncan, and I actually agree with them in terms of individual talent, but it is not as lopsided as you suggested (or at least as I take from reading your posts):
This one is probably biased:
And so on, you get the picture.
You read the thread right?
I'd say for everyone who voted Duncan, 2-3 voted for Hakeem. You dont consider that lopsided?
i was looking at youtube.they say tim duncan is a freaking baby.
BTW, The 96 Sonics were a 67-15 team.
Can you name me one time in Duncan's NBA history he beat a team with 67 wins?
That's what I thought...
I did, but I also considered the quality of the responses.
For somebody who came in and simply posted "No", vs. somebody who posted some rationale behind their decision, I would take the later as a more "serious" vote.
Hakeem got better stats at face value, but after taking into account pace factor, Duncan's stat does look slightly better.
Hakeem is much quicker, much more agile, and have much better individual defense (I would argue team defense as well), but Duncan is no slouch in any of them, and does in fact, lead very different teams to championships.
Hakeem had crappy teams, but part of it is because he was basically quitting his team in the late 80's early 90's (trade demands and such). In fact, the Rockets went on a tear after Hakeem broke his eye socket. He eventually became more of a team guy, but Hakeem wasn't even the clear-cut #1 center in the league for much of his career. Other than 94 and 95, either Robinson or Ewing were considered the #1 center, and if you can't beat out Robinson and Ewing in all but two years of your career, how can you beat out Duncan over an 11 year span?
You probably had them mixed up with somebody else, the Sonics won 64 games that year.
And the Mavs won 67 games this year and got kicked out in the first round. I actually think the Spurs lucked out without having to play Dallas and Phoenix back to back because of it, but 67 wins may not translate into postseason success every time.
BTW, Duncan did beat 3-time reigning champ Lakers, and forced them to take a drastic change in direction that ended a dynasty in the making.
Not like Hakeem did that.
I think the 96 Sonics were 64-18 but they lost to a 72-10 Bulls team led by a rejuvenated Michael Jordan, no shame in that. And since Duncan's Spurs have never lost an NBA finals, not sure what you're getting at. I think you're twisting facts to suit your argument. That's like someone saying you've never done the dirty with Jessica Alba therefore your track record with women is somewhat less then stellar. See how that works. You bring some damn good stats, facts, suppositions to the table but then you're picking and choosing them to reinforce and support your take that Dream > The Big Fundamental. You may sincerely believe that, no shocker, it's not like you're going out on a limb. I believe otherwise, but that's just me. But guess what, it's too close to call. If the experts are divided on this issue, why would a fan's take hold any more credibility?
Now the mavs fan, I'm just assuming he has a hidden agenda and may be a little bitter that his franchise has never sniffed an NBA championship. Jealousy and envy may be rearing it's ugly head.
I'm sorry but thats just not true. Hakeem's teams were crappy because of drug suspensions and injuries. This article can explain it much better than I can: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/3663271.html
There's a lot of spin here.
1) Duncan's Spurs did beat the 3 time reigning champs in 2003. True. They also lost to them in 2001, 2002, and 2004. The 01 and 02 series, the Lakers took 8 out of 9 games against SA.
2) Saying the loss in 03 "drastically changed the direction" of the Lakers is ridiculous. It changed it so drastically that the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 straight playoff games the very next year? The Lakers were broken up after 2004 due to Kobe-Shaq squabbles. It obviously wasn't because of a team they beat that very same year in the playoffs.
3) As for "not like Hakeem did that" it's already been noted that in his 2nd season Olajuwon led the Rockets past a 62 win Showtime Lakers team in the middle of a run in which it won the NBA Finals 5 times in 8 years in the West Finals. This accomplishment is actually far better than what Duncan's Spurs pulled off because Hakeem didnt lose to the Lakers over and over before finally getting over the hump (ala Duncan) and those Showtime Lakers were a much better team than Kobe-Shaq. Kobe-Shaq had a great 3 yr run in a diluted league, Kareem-Magic-Worthy had a decade long run in the Golden Era of the NBA.
This also flies in the face of your erroneous and flat out ridiculous contention that Hakeem was "only great for 2 years". If you don't consider leading a team with less talent past one of the all time Great teams in NBA history in only your 2nd season great, you need to take off the homer glasses.
Tell me, did Olajuwon "quit on his teammates" that year?
Your argument is basically that the guy who led the league in blocks 3 times from the late 80's to early 90's, led the league in rebounding 3 straight years, was either first or 2nd team all NBA at Center every year and put up #'s better back then than Duncan has in his prime "quit on his teammates" and that is the reason for the mediocre Rockets records, NOT the fact that 4/5ths of the starters from the team that made the Finals were lost due to drug suspensions and injury? Uhhhhhhhh, ok. Sure.
I'm sure if Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen were all suspended for drug use next year, Duncan is such a God, he'd still lead the team to 60 wins and a le right?
Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
