Duncan>Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

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

Wait, I thought it was because Hakeem "quit on his teammates".

Why was that obvious fact excluded from this article?

[ambchang]

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

Yes, I am aware of the decline of Ralph Sampson and Lucas, but the fact remains that Hakeem did demand a trade in the late 80's (forgot which year), and the Rockets did go on a tear (13 game winning streak) when at the end of the 90-91 season after Hakeem came back from injury and came off the bench. In the games he missed, the Rockets were something like 14-10.
Hakeem was not always known as a bona-fide Magic/Jordan/Bird level superstar. He wasn't even a Malone / Thomas superstar until he won back to back.

[ambchang]

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.

I'd say that's why the Lakers were a borderline dynasty, because they beat really good teams, le-contending teams in fact, in such convincing fashion. It's not like the Spurs lost to them in 03, did they? How was that a spin?

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.

The 03 and 04 Lakers had 3/5s of their starters changed, how was that not significant? The Lakers beat the Spurs the next year because they changed by adding HoF Malone and Payton to the team. If that is not a drastic change in direction, I don't know what is.
So I suppose if Boston beat any teams in this year's playoffs, they were just staying the course.

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.

In Duncan's 2nd season, Duncan led the Spurs past a Lakers and Blazers to the championship. In his first year, he led the Spurs to 61 wins.
So first, you argued that Duncan is not better than Hakeem even though he had more team success because Duncan got better teammates, but now, you are saying that team success is indicative of Hakeem's greatness despite the Rockets having 4 15 ppg scorers, including Ralph Sampson, who was one of the best big man in the league before he blew out his knee, playing alongside Hakeem in his prime. Make up your mind.

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?

He did peaked unusually high in those two years. If you want to go with statistics, why are you not putting PER into consideration? Is Shaq better than Hakeem because he had better stats despite having significantly worse defense? Is Stockton > Magic because he had more assists?

Hakeem's second year was amazing, but I fail to see how 23.5/11.5/3.5 would be considered so amazing when Duncan had similar numbers for 4 straight seasons.

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?

The fact that Hakeem demanded a trade in the late 80's, had a huge spat with management about the legitimacy of his injury, did you ever see things like that come up with Duncan?

So when Hakeem's teams had team success (2nd season), it's all because of him, and we can discount Ralph Sampson and John Lucas, when his team sucked, it's because of his teammates. But then when Duncan's team won 4 championships, it's becaues of his superior teammates, but when his team got beaten by a 3-peat championship Lakers, that Lakers team wasn't that good to begin with, and it's all Duncan's fault. This is truly amazing.

So now that Robinson led his team to Game 7 against the Blazers in his rookie year, then hauled his crap of a team to the playoffs every single year, it must mean that Robinson > Hakeem according to your logic, right?
Besides, Robinson did lead the league in blocked shots twice and rebounding twice, and scoring once. He was even top 10 in 5 major statistical category in a season (91-92), he MUST be better than Hakeem now, right?
Since Shaq never led the league in blocks, or rebounds, I guess Manute Bol and Dennis Rodman are better than him, right?

[timmy21_4rings]

In your work who gets more rewards and high ratings? Two choices

1) One that gets job done and has results to prove it.
2) One that some people think has more talent but rarely got the job done and often comes up excuses for some reason.

If your honest answer is 1, Duncan is the winner in our conversation. Otherwise you need to seek help to improve your career.

[timmy21_4rings]

In our life, if we can not succeed in a company there are few reasons. Most important are 1) we do not have real talent 2) we have talent but the people we work with are having less talent or they are not the right people to work with to maximize our potential.

In case 1) we can not do anything just like Hakeem did. Just get the pay check and be happy.
In case 2, if we have talent we would have moved to a better organization. Organization that has better skills in finding right people around you. I do not know why Hakeem did not do it. He could have either forced a trade or changed teams when he was a Free Agent. He really failed to assert himself there by becoming a loser. Saying that Hakeem did not have talented team mates is an excuse. He had chances. He could have tested free agency. Anyone know why he did not do?

In my eyes DUNCAN > Hakeem for a simple reason that Hakeem is ready to tolerate the loses and never bothered to test free agency. Losers always put the blame on something else.

Just see what Duncan did when he was a free agent, he made sure the management knows his frustration and made sure he got the right promises. Otherwise he would have gone to Magic. The most important thing he did was, he signed a shorter contract than he could have got otherwise, so that if management does not bring help immediately, he could always have an option to leave. Do you think Duncan will be with Spurs if they have not brought enough help? No way.

To conclude, Hakeem was happy to be a loser and Duncan had and still has will power to win. So I would always consider Duncan over Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

In your work who gets more rewards and high ratings? Two choices

1) One that gets job done and has results to prove it.
2) One that some people think has more talent but rarely got the job done and often comes up excuses for some reason.

If your honest answer is 1, Duncan is the winner in our conversation. Otherwise you need to seek help to improve your career.

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.

[bobbyjoe]

In our life, if we can not succeed in a company there are few reasons. Most important are 1) we do not have real talent 2) we have talent but the people we work with are having less talent or they are not the right people to work with to maximize our potential.

In case 1) we can not do anything just like Hakeem did. Just get the pay check and be happy.
In case 2, if we have talent we would have moved to a better organization. Organization that has better skills in finding right people around you. I do not know why Hakeem did not do it. He could have either forced a trade or changed teams when he was a Free Agent. He really failed to assert himself there by becoming a loser. Saying that Hakeem did not have talented team mates is an excuse. He had chances. He could have tested free agency. Anyone know why he did not do?

In my eyes DUNCAN > Hakeem for a simple reason that Hakeem is ready to tolerate the loses and never bothered to test free agency. Losers always put the blame on something else.

Just see what Duncan did when he was a free agent, he made sure the management knows his frustration and made sure he got the right promises. Otherwise he would have gone to Magic. The most important thing he did was, he signed a shorter contract than he could have got otherwise, so that if management does not bring help immediately, he could always have an option to leave. Do you think Duncan will be with Spurs if they have not brought enough help? No way.

To conclude, Hakeem was happy to be a loser and Duncan had and still has will power to win. So I would always consider Duncan over Hakeem.

Right, winning 2 les and getting to the Finals 3 teams is being a loser, whereas winning 4 les in a much easier field with a much better team around you is just night and day better. Sure.

What makes your argument more ludicrous is that if Duncan's #1 concern was direction of the team, he would have signed with Orlando. He showed loyalty by sticking with SA. What did management tell him exactly? "Tim, we're going to strike gold in the next 2 drafts with the #27th and #30th picks in the first round and get 2 all star caliber guards, just wait and see"

Orlando was the team with the cap $ and making the moves for Grant Hill/TMac/and or Tim Duncan. SA was the team with a declining David Robinson and a lot of over the hill players in Elliott and AJ, the team who's future prognosis was more questionable.

If winning the Finals twice and getting their 3 times and being of the top players in NBA history is defined a loser, you can only wish you were so lucky. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on David Robinson, using the exact logic you use to denigrate Hakeem. Was he like the "Ultimate Loser" using your formula?

[gtownspur]

THe hardest team the Rockets beat were the Knicks, followed by the Robinson Spurs.

THe hardest teams the Spurs beat were, The Threepeat Lakers, and the Dethroning pistons with 5 allstars on their team.

, if logic won't work with Bobbyjoe, what else would?

[gtownspur]

Lakers > Knicks

SHaq and Kobe >>>>>>> Ewing and Starks

[gtownspur]

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.
A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.

yeah tell that to those ceo's raking in the money.

[timmy21_4rings]

LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways. Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

A better example would be:

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

Employee B is on teams who generally make less mistakes and get the job done a little quicker. However, this team is stacked with tenured and highly regarded staff, moreso than the team Employee A is on. They also get handed more cush projects.

Duncan is Employee B and Hakeem is Employee A. And Employee A is more valuable to the company.

Bobbyjoe,

Employee A is Duncan. Remember 2003 team that has inexperienced young staffs in Manu and Parker. Yeah Parker made lot of mistakes. Duncan still led them to Championship Team. Completed toughest assignment beautifully. Remember the biggest battle: winning series against 3peat Lakers when both stars are at prime.

So even with your logic, Duncan only wins. How is it Bobbyjoe?
where can I find an inexperienced team that Hakeen led to Championship?

[gtownspur]

bobby joe is busy twisting his logic to fit his arguments and googling the latest stats.

[bobbyjoe]

Lakers > Knicks

SHaq and Kobe >>>>>>> Ewing and Starks

Worthy, Magic, and Karem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any team the Spurs have EVER beaten in the Duncan era.

Also, Duncan had a lifetime losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. You know that, right?

The comparison you should be making is

Ewing and Starks >>>> Sprewell and Houston
Bird, Mchale, Parish >>>> Any team Duncan has ever faced

DO you think Duncan would have beaten the 86 Celtics, much less the 86 Lakers? Teams like these were a wee bit tougher than the mighty 2007 Cavs, 1999 Knicks, etc.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]LOL!.

Man, some of you are a work. This analogy really applies. Really, it does.

In the corporate world, no one person on a project team is going to get all the credit for the success of the team when there were many team members who each contributed in different ways.

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.

Only a simple minded sheep would attribute the team's sucess to just 1 person.

Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?

1) Employee A consistently scores better in performance reviews than Employee B. He has a better resume of individual achievement and can wear more hats than Employee B, who is more specialized. However, he's been on project teams which tend to make more mistakes, largely because the team he is on has a higher % of inexperienced and younger staff. His team also gets assigned more complex projects and has a higher rate of turnover.

I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

[bobbyjoe]

THe hardest team the Rockets beat were the Knicks, followed by the Robinson Spurs.

THe hardest teams the Spurs beat were, The Threepeat Lakers, and the Dethroning pistons with 5 allstars on their team.

, if logic won't work with Bobbyjoe, what else would?

They also beat Malone-Stockton Jazz, u know the same Jazz who beat Duncan 4-1 in 1998 and the same Malone who frustrated Duncan at age 40 when the Lakers beat the Spurs in the playoffs.

Of course you prob think the Boozer-DWill Jazz are much better?

Any reason you left out the perennial 58-60 win Barkley/KJ Suns who gave the Bulls one of the best NBA Finals Ever in 1993 and owned the Robinson Spurs?

Or the Magic with Shaq-Penny who beat MJ in the playoffs?

What makes you think Duncan would have beat Malone in his prime in the 90's if he was 0-2 against an old grey beard Karl Malone in the playoffs?

If anyone knows how good those Jazz teams were, it should be the Spurs. The Jazz flat OWNED Robinson's Spurs, crushing them in the playoffs year after year.

[bobbyjoe]

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.



Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?




I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]

Worthy, Magic, and Karem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any team the Spurs have EVER beaten in the Duncan era.

When did they play, I must have missed those games. On paper one can always speculate that one team from one era could have beaten another team from another era, but that's all it is, just speculation. Not trying to be dense here, but doesn't one have to actually play the games, because....

Also, Duncan had a lifetime losing record against Shaq-Kobe in the playoffs. You know that, right?

......continuing with your logic, had Shaq-Kobe stayed together; chemistry issues, salary cap limitations, an aging Shaq would (and I'm just speculating here) have contributed to a less powerful laker squad where the Spurs would have had an advantage and would still won in 05 and 07. See? You can't have it both ways.

DO you think Duncan would have beaten the 86 Celtics, much less the 86 Lakers? Teams like these were a wee bit tougher than the mighty 2007 Cavs, 1999 Knicks, etc.

I'd take the money and run with the 2007 version and even the 2005 team may have had an even to good chance of beating them. We'll never know because they didn't play.

See what I'm getting at, you can't predicate a players place in history based on imaginary EA Sports games. Sure their fun to play, but ultimately what can it prove?

[bobbyjoe]

But in the basketball world, a consummate pro like Duncan makes all those around him better by doing the things that can't be quantified and don't always show up on the stat sheets at the end of the game. The points, rebounds, blocks, defense, steals, assists are only a part of the greatness that is Tim Duncan. These intangibles are ultimately what separates Tim from Hakeem. To not acknowledge that is where your homer shades show up.



Every single one of Tim's teammates attribute their personal and team success to him, and rightly so. Tim is unquestionably the foundation upon which this Spurs team is built on. Would you call the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep?




I would say this fits Tim's profile, evidenced by the 4 rings and vastly different squads from 99 to 2007. In 2003 the Spurs with 9 new players and Manu a rookie, Tony had 1 yr experience. How about in 2005 with 8 new players on the roster. The most experienced team Tim has had to work with was the 2007 version. The one constant from 99 till now is Tim Duncan. Hakeem can't even come close to this. I'd say that's pretty freakin' impressive.

Also, your question about calling the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep shows you didnt follow the original post at all.

The simple minded sheep are those who attribute all of a team's success of which many factors are involved, to one person.

Basketball is not an individual sport. It's a 5 on 5 game where most teams have 8-9 guys playing a night. This is not Golf, where individual dominance always results in a championship.

The sheep are those who say things in say a Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell discussion like "Bill was better because 11>2!". There's a uva lot more to it than that.

If Duncan is superior to making teammates better than Olajuwon, why did guys like Elie and Horry:

1) Pick Hakeem as the best teammate they ever had
2) Have their best seasons and moments as teammates of Olajuwon, not Duncan

#1 and #2 greatly reffute your theory that Duncan is superior to making teammates better. The only response seems to be "4>2" which has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever...

I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...

[bobbyjoe]

When did they play, I must have missed those games. On paper one can always speculate that one team from one era could have beaten another team from another era, but that's all it is, just speculation. Not trying to be dense here, but doesn't one have to actually play the games, because....



......continuing with your logic, had Shaq-Kobe stayed together; chemistry issues, salary cap limitations, an aging Shaq would (and I'm just speculating here) have contributed to a less powerful laker squad where the Spurs would have had an advantage and would still won in 05 and 07. See? You can't have it both ways.





I'd take the money and run with the 2007 version and even the 2005 team may have had an even to good chance of beating them. We'll never know because they didn't play.

See what I'm getting at, you can't predicate a players place in history based on imaginary EA Sports games. Sure their fun to play, but ultimately what can it prove?

Well, at least you are honest. I mean there isnt one neutral NBA Fan who would say any Spurs team would have a chance against the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

I have never played Tiger Woods in Golf. Does that mean I could maybe beat him just because its purely hypothetical to say I couldnt since I have never faced him?

I mean you are seriously comparing the 2005 and 2007 Spurs to the 86 Celtics? That doesnt even warrant a discussion it's so asinine.

You may as well call Duncan the best athlete in the history of mankind and call it a day...

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

You're going with the style over substance argument here. Hakeem looked flashier, and had the guard like moves, etc. Though Hakeem had marginally better numbers, Duncan didn't need to put up the big numbers because he helped make his teammates better. How did the 2003 team win and win big with such a revamped roster? Tim was was the catalyst.

These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

Yeah, I guess they did and they should know because Elie won one ring with Tim and Horry two. Hakeem in his career has done this twice and Tim four times. You probably know the rosters as well as I do, so the proof is in the pudding. You can make that leap in logic by just know what the composition of the rosters were and what the end results were.

One can argue that if Hakeem would have extended his career, or if Jordan had just stayed out one more year, or if team A would have had some critical injuries that he would have added additional les.

And one can argue that had Tim not gotten injured in 2000 or if David had not retired, or if Fisher's .04 shot had not gone in, he would have had more then 4 les. Lots of ifs, ands and buts, but it is what it is and history, real history is all we have to go by.

Peace out

[ambchang]

You are right. The individual and team defense, ability to alter shots, defend multiple positions on the floor are what separate Hakeem from Tim Duncan. Only not in the way you believe. Hakeem was clearly superior to Tim defensively. Again, Hakeem did all the things Duncan did but better. Better footwork, better hops, better defensively, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG%, etc.

These intangibles are exactly the things Elie and Horry cited when they picked Hakeem over Duncan. I guess they just need the RX for the Spurs homer glasses to override their beliefs based on years being teammates with both guys...

I would have though better footwork, better hops, better defense, better repertoire of moves, better FT%, FG% are all tangibles, and winning four rings with similar level of talent is where the intangible part comes in, but what do I know? I still can't figure out when it is appropriate to talk strictly about individual stats, and when it is to talk about team success when evaluating players.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

They also beat Malone-Stockton Jazz, u know the same Jazz who beat Duncan 4-1 in 1998 and the same Malone who frustrated Duncan at age 40 when the Lakers beat the Spurs in the playoffs.

Right, right. That was a rookie Tim Duncan going up against a HOF in his prime. And in that series Duncan held his own against Malone. Duncan was part of a team that in the previous year had gone 20-62. Malone at that time had a huge overall team advantage. Incidently in same year when Duncan went up against Barkley, Barkley stated "I have seen the future, and the future is Tim Duncan", paraphrasing here but you get the point. And when Duncan played Malone at age 40, I guess you forgot Malone was playing his best basketball and had a guy by the name of Shaq helping him out against Tim. And by the way from 99-04, Tim had two les, and Malone still didn't have any. Splain that one Lucy?

Of course you prob think the Boozer-DWill Jazz are much better?

Do you have a link to where anyone said that, or are you just spinning again?

Any reason you left out the perennial 58-60 win Barkley/KJ Suns who gave the Bulls one of the best NBA Finals Ever in 1993 and owned the Robinson Spurs?

Let me know how this has any bearing on the Duncan > Hakeem issue and I can probably tell why I left this out.

Or the Magic with Shaq-Penny who beat MJ in the playoffs?

Really what year was that? Shaq-Penny beat a Jordanless Bulls in 94-95. But in 95-96 when Jordan came back, the Bulls swept the magic.

What makes you think Duncan would have beat Malone in his prime in the 90's if he was 0-2 against an old grey beard Karl Malone in the playoffs?

Again Malone beat a rookie Tim Duncan in 98. Again with Shaq at his side in 04, remember when he sold out to buy a championship and they still got punked by the Pistons. Malone did squat in 99, 01, 02, 03. Tim won a le in 99 and 03. Your old grey beard didn't win a whole lot else.

If anyone knows how good those Jazz teams were, it should be the Spurs. The Jazz flat OWNED Robinson's Spurs, crushing them in the playoffs year after year.

Ok in 98, 96 and 94 the Jazz with two HOF's beat Robinsons Spurs. And your point?

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Also, your question about calling the Jordan led Bulls simple minded sheep shows you didnt follow the original post at all.

I know what you were talking about, but you apparantly didn't agree or follow my answer.

The simple minded sheep are those who attribute all of a team's success of which many factors are involved, to one person.

Bingo, that's what I'm talking about. People who have made this assertion about Tim making everyone around him better are not only his teammates, but his peers, coaches, GM's and the NBA pundits and media alike. I guess they're all sheep.

Basketball is not an individual sport. It's a 5 on 5 game where most teams have 8-9 guys playing a night. This is not Golf, where individual dominance always results in a championship.

And the team that has the best overall team play wins the championship. Simple enough. The best 1-12 often get to be the best 1-12 because people like Duncan, Jordan and Hakeem facilitate the process. Agree?

The sheep are those who say things in say a Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell discussion like "Bill was better because 11>2!". There's a uva lot more to it than that.

I don't think I've ever heard or read where someone made that claim. Have a link? If they did, they'd be much much worse then a sheep.

If Duncan is superior to making teammates better than Olajuwon, why did guys like Elie and Horry:

1) Pick Hakeem as the best teammate they ever had
2) Have their best seasons and moments as teammates of Olajuwon, not Duncan

1) you have two players who backed up your assertion and everyone is supposed to take that as gospel. Not refuting it, nor diminishing it's relevance.
2) They had the best seasons when they were younger and not role players. I guess you forgot that part.

#1 and #2 greatly reffute your theory that Duncan is superior to making teammates better. The only response seems to be "4>2" which has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever...

4>2 is all that ultimately counts. 50 years from now, who are they going to remember more? The guy from Nigeria who led the Houston Rockets to two NBA les or the greatest PF who led his Spurs to 4 and counting les? Tim and Hakeem never played, and I think you'll agree that EA Sports computer games are a poor barometer for determining a players place in history.

I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...

I was aware about Horry's and Elie's comments. I don't think Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Clyde Drexler ever claimed that Hakeem's influence was greater then Tim's. There you go spinning again.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Well, at least you are honest. I mean there isnt one neutral NBA Fan who would say any Spurs team would have a chance against the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

Take a poll and you may be surprised. It's not far fetched that the 05 and 07 version of the Spurs would have done well against the 80's Celts and Lakers. Surprisingly well. And they would have absolutely donkey stomped the 90's Rockets.

I have never played Tiger Woods in Golf. Does that mean I could maybe beat him just because its purely hypothetical to say I couldnt since I have never faced him?

Better make sure you get 8 hrs of sleep and a bowl of wheaties. And if that dream match ever comes up I want a piece of the action. Don't want to hurt your feelings, but my moneys on Tiger. Seriously I think you could have used a better analogy.

I mean you are seriously comparing the 2005 and 2007 Spurs to the 86 Celtics? That doesnt even warrant a discussion it's so asinine.

Ok we won't discuss it, but since I can't prove it, I think they would have held their own. Oh yeah, you can't prove it either. But we can both speculate like mofo's.

You may as well call Duncan the best athlete in the history of mankind and call it a day...

How about if we just leave it as the best Power forward ever!

[ambchang]

I think guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, who were journeymen before and after Hakeem would strongly disagree with the notion that Hakeem didnt make teammates better. As would Clyde Drexler, whos career was on a steep decline before the trade to Houston. As did Horry and Elie...

Kenny Smith was the 6th pick of the 87 draft, and averaged 17 ppg in Sacramento. his first season he joined the Rockets, he averaged ..... 17 ppg, then 14, then 13 and the downward spiral continued. Vernon Maxwell was averaging 12 ppg in 26 mpg in SA, then he went to Houston, his minutes went to 35mpg, and averaged 17ppg. I don't have a clue where you would think that they are journeyman before joining the Rockets, that was Smith's 3rd team and Maxwell's 2nd team.
Sean Elliott sucked eggs when he was in Detroit, but an All-star next to Robinson, Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro all had career years when Robinson won MVP, obviously Robinson made his teammates better, but are you going to say Robinson > Hakeem?
Drexler was averaging around 20 ppg in his last few seasons with Portland, he then averaged around 20 ppg after he joined the Rockets in slightly more minutes.
Horry had his best statistical season in Houston by playing 37 mpg and when he was 25 years old, and yet his per 40 minute stats has basically stayed between 9 and 14 ppg.
Elie's situation is essentially the same, where his numbers were only better because he played more minutes. His per 40 minute stats were basically identical to his Houston days.