Duncan>Hakeem.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

I have stated this already, but i will restate it again for you. I believe every le team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets le teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a le.

Wow, just wow. Sorry bro but I gotta call you out on that one. It's clear that you do not think highly of todays Spurs as compared to teams of the 80's and 90's. However I believe that the Duncan led Spurs team would have/could have beaten any of those teams during 85-98. I'll concede that the 80's showtime Lakers and Bird's Celtics would have been favored, but get out of here with this clear favorite stuff. Not a single one of those champions would have been a clear favorite. None of those teams had an answer for TD, Parker and Ginobili, just like today, and I understand that the Spurs would have had match up problems as well, but it works both ways.

1985 Spurs < Lakers
1986 Spurs < Celtics
1987 Spurs < Lakers
1988 Spurs < Lakers
1989 Spurs > Pistons
1990 Spurs > Pistons
1991 Spurs > Bulls
1992 Spurs > Bulls
1993 Spurs > Bulls
1994 Spurs > Rockets
1995 Spurs > Rockets
1996 Spurs < Bulls
1997 Spurs < Bulls
1998 Spurs < Bulls

This is just my lowly opinion. Each one of these series could have gone either way with the exception of the Pistons, Rockets and the Bulls of the first 3peat, where I believe the Spurs should have been favored. In the other series, the Lakers and Celts should have been favored, but again my brutha from another mother get out of here with this clear favorite stuff.

Therefore, I don't see the point of saying Duncan has more rings than Hakeem, because if Duncan played in that era than he would not have 4 les (IMO).

Why not? After all, if Hakeem would have played against any of Duncan's championship teams, or if Michael had not elected to pursue his HOF career in Canton then Hakeem could have very well ended up with 0, zilch, nada rings.

Isn't part of the barometer for where a players niche in history belongs is his accomplishments and championships won? No where in the history books or any record book I've ever seen have a disclaimer where player so-and-so did not compete that year.

The league is weaker now than it was then, as far as big men are concerned, and just overall (top notch teams).

I agree with you as far as the quality big men are concerned but as far as top notch teams, I disagree. You know for example who the Spurs had to go thru in the Western Conference just to get the right to play the lowly Cavaliers. And one thing that helps your argument is that there has not been another Magic, Bird or Jordan. Take those three off their respective teams and what do you have? I thought so. It has nothing to do with the teams or this superior team play thing you keep bringing up, Magic, Bird and Jordan all elevated the level of their team's play, just like this Duncan fellow I keep telling you so much about. See the correlation; transcendental player + good coach + quality role players + set of perfect cir stance = NBA Championship.

It is pointless to throw rings into the argument when comparing two champions who played in completely different era's unless you are going to analyze all of the dynamics involved (i.e. team support, compe ion faced, etc). All of those things factor into championships, do they not? Were the teams better in his era...yes or no (including the Spurs le teams)? Simple question....

Too bad there's not a simple answer to give you. Let me just sum it up by saying that contrary to your assertion that most of the teams from 85 to 98 would have punked Duncan's Spurs, well I disagree.

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won les from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets?

General consensus? Is that your opinion or did you read a Hoops Hype article? Do you have a link? I don't know about that. Those 3peat Laker teams were absolutely dominant! How can you say that with a straight face. You're a very good poster, but that is down right delusional.

Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the le teams from Hakeems era?

I would go ahead and count the '99 season because their transcendental players Shaq and Kobe were part of that team.

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which le teams any Spurs champion (or their compe ion) would beat (another debate).

It would be clear as mud, and it seems the pro-Hakeem crowd actually brought up the teams from another era by claiming that Tim played in a water-down league against inferior opponents.

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

Correction, already established we went 2-3 against a very dominant Laker squad and as far as the Spurs record, well San Antonio is the winningest basketball franchise since Tim Duncan arrived. Despite playing in the very tough western conference.

[bobbyjoe]

So the Spurs were better than Isiah's Pistons and the 91-93 MJ Bulls?

Man, you are a riot.

They were a Rasheed Wallace brainfart from not even beating a 2005 Pistons team without a single superstar in the Finals and you think they were better than Isiah-Laimbeer-Dumars, who were night and day better than the 2005 Pistons?!? What world do you live in?

The league is ridiculously watered down and yes, any le team from 85-98 would beat the Spurs.

I still dont see how going 1-3 against the Lakers is something so wonderful to hang your hat on. Counting the 99 Lakers is asinine. Those Lakers had an 18 year old, very raw Kobe Bryant and Kurt Rambis as Coach. That team was a complete mess. They had just been crushed by Malone's Jazz back 2 back years.

If you think the 00-04 Lakers under Phil Jackson with a prime Shaq and more savvy Bryant were the same team as the 99 Lakers, you are just a bloody fool.

The Spurs did indeed take down the Lakers mini dynasty, but were 1-3 against them. I repeat, 1 up, 3 down. That's just not impressive.

[bobbyjoe]

Some more info to chew on:

Let's see how Olajuwon did in the All-NBA voting...

1984-85) beaten out by Moses and Jabber

[Ewing enters league]

86) beaten by Jabber, Hakeem 2nd

[in my opinion, this was a very poor choice. I remember when it happened I felt Hakeem had been cheated.]

87) Hakeem 1st

88) Hakeem 1st

89) Hakeem 1st

[Robinson eneters league]

90) beaten by Ewing, Hakeem 2nd

91) beaten by Robinson and Ewing

92) beaten by Robinson, Ewing, and Daugherty, Hakeem injured

[O'Neil enters league]

93) Hakeem 1st

94) Hakeem 1st

95) beaten by Robinson and O'Neil, Hakeem vindicates himself in playoffs

96) beaten by Robinson, Hakeem 2nd

97) Hakeem 1st, Robinson injured

98) beaten by O'Neil, Robinson, and Mutombo, Hakeem injured

99) beaten by Mourning and O'Neil

00) Hakeem old and injured

So if you add 2nd teams to 1st teams, Hakeem has 9, the same as Duncan.

So the argument about only one center, compared to two forwards, if you grant this, makes it a wash. Duncan may very well add a couple more 1st Team All-NBA awards.

By far, the toughest compe ion for All-NBA these days is forward.

Example - Carlos Boozer didn't even make the 3rd team last year.

Also - the western conference is, and has been, the toughest conference in NBA history during this decade.

To win the NBA le, you have Final's level matchups in the 2nd and third round. In the first round in the west, is almost final's level as well.

Back in the 1980s you would have all these sub 500 teams in the playoffs, so the first round was basically a bye.

Also, in the 1980s, the western conference, where Hakeem played, was weak, weak, weak.

In 1981 Magic got injured, so the pathetic Houston Rockets actually made the finals.

Now, all the rounds are best of 7, so to win from the west you must win 16 grueling games.

You need to check your facts.

Magic was in fact not injured in the 1981 playoffs, the Lakers had both Magic and Kareem and were just upset by Houston.

What that has to with Hakeem I have no idea, since he was in Nigeria at the time. Perhaps you are trying to downplay Hakeem's 1986 victory over Showtime, but just picked the wrong year.

Also, comparing the Centers in the 1990's as far as ease of making NBA First team vs. Forwards in the weak 2000's is a joke.

90's Centers = Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing. All 4 are HOF top 50 all time. Hakeem and Shaq are top 10 all time players. This doesn't even mention Daugherty, Mourning, Mutombo.

00's Forwards = Duncan and a bunch of forwards other than Garnett who will not be threatening for the HOF or Top 50 all time anytime soon. Beating out a guy like Carlos Boozer or one dimensional guy like Amare Stoudemire, especially when 2 forwards make it, just doesnt even remotely compare to having to face the quality of comp at Center in the 1990's.

I mean in that era, it's quite possible Duncan wouldn't have made the All-NBA First team once at Center and he certainly wouldnt have sniffed it on the All-Defensive teams.

Comparing the 90's comp at Center (Golden Age) vs. Big men now is like going to your local high school and saying the JV team is on par with the Varsity team. The difference is that significant.

[ambchang]

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won les from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the le teams from Hakeems era?

So beating a team one out of 4 tries (including a year where they didn't even face each other when Duncan was hurt and the Spurs were kicked out of 1st round) is somehow worse than the Rockets losing to a legendary team, the 86 Celtics, in which you are using as some kind of proof that Hakeem is capable of carrying a team with the right teammates.
Speaking of that argument, the teammates argument, why is it such a shame for the Spurs to lose to the Lakers when the Lakers had a clearly superior supporting cast? Why is it that Shaq not playing most of the regular season not be a factor when the Lakers finished 52-30? The Rockets did exactly the same in 95, when they went into the playoffs with a deceivingly bad regular season record, pretty much by design. This is why they play in the playoffs.

[ambchang]

You keep bringing up the 03 Lakers. Do you realize the general consensus is that the recent Lakers dynasty is not as good as the teams that won les from 1985 - 98, excluding Hakeem's Rockets? Do you realize you beat that championship squad ONE SERIES, AND LOST THREE (yes, I am not counting the 99 season unless you are going to tell me you think Jackson and the triangle had little to do with the recent Lakers dynasty)? This is what you want to hang your hat on....beating a team once....that is generally considered inferior to the le teams from Hakeems era?

I did not state that 86 Rockets > the Spurs. I stated it makes no sense to tout Duncan's rings over a champion from another era, when it is clear that THAT era had better champions...unless you want to list which le teams any Spurs champion (or their compe ion) would beat (another debate). In case you forgot the champions from that time were:

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

The Spurs only had a better record than 2 of these teams, by the way. The great LA dynasty that you beat once finished 52-30. I'm baffled that you are hanging your hat on beating a team that you went 1-3 against....

I would say you have a strong argument about the Lakers, Celtics, and some of the Bulls teams, but the Pistons? They were a very very deep team, but were largely viewed as the weakest of the list of champions you listed out. The 97-98 Bulls were not that great, the 95-96 Bulls, though owns the best record ever, benefitted from a watered down league with new expansions.
And somehow you are ignoring the fact the the Spurs had a 15-2 record in 99 playoffs, and a 16-4 record in the 07 playoffs.
Finally, for a guy who puts such great emphasize in quality of compe ion, you sure are contradicting yourself by looking at regular season records as some kind of proof that teams in the 80's/90's > Lakers and Spurs of 00's.

[ambchang]

So the Spurs were better than Isiah's Pistons and the 91-93 MJ Bulls?

Man, you are a riot.

They were a Rasheed Wallace brainfart from not even beating a 2005 Pistons team without a single superstar in the Finals and you think they were better than Isiah-Laimbeer-Dumars, who were night and day better than the 2005 Pistons?!? What world do you live in?

The league is ridiculously watered down and yes, any le team from 85-98 would beat the Spurs.

I still dont see how going 1-3 against the Lakers is something so wonderful to hang your hat on. Counting the 99 Lakers is asinine. Those Lakers had an 18 year old, very raw Kobe Bryant and Kurt Rambis as Coach. That team was a complete mess. They had just been crushed by Malone's Jazz back 2 back years.

If you think the 00-04 Lakers under Phil Jackson with a prime Shaq and more savvy Bryant were the same team as the 99 Lakers, you are just a bloody fool.

The Spurs did indeed take down the Lakers mini dynasty, but were 1-3 against them. I repeat, 1 up, 3 down. That's just not impressive.

Rather than saying the league is watered down, I would say that talent is much more distributed in today's league due to better salary cap.
Take a look at the 88-89 season. Anybody remember the Heat, Clippers, Spurs, Kings, Hornets, Nets, Pacers? Teams that are just as bad as those teams last season was probably the Celtics, Bucks, Hawks and Grizzlies.
Thats 7 vs. 4, with a larger # of teams in today's league. Instead of having super teams like the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics, you have superstars spread over multiple teams. Of course, rather than arguing over being the man and getting an extra $500K, you are talking about being the man and having extra salary of millions of dollars + endorsement $. The economics is very different in today's league, and it's much tougher to construct a lasting championship team like the Spurs.

[kingmalaki]

Wow, just wow. Sorry bro but I gotta call you out on that one. It's clear that you do not think highly of todays Spurs as compared to teams of the 80's and 90's. However I believe that the Duncan led Spurs team would have/could have beaten any of those teams during 85-98. I'll concede that the 80's showtime Lakers and Bird's Celtics would have been favored, but get out of here with this clear favorite stuff. Not a single one of those champions would have been a clear favorite. None of those teams had an answer for TD, Parker and Ginobili, just like today, and I understand that the Spurs would have had match up problems as well, but it works both ways.

1985 Spurs < Lakers
1986 Spurs < Celtics
1987 Spurs < Lakers
1988 Spurs < Lakers
1989 Spurs > Pistons
1990 Spurs > Pistons
1991 Spurs > Bulls
1992 Spurs > Bulls
1993 Spurs > Bulls
1994 Spurs > Rockets
1995 Spurs > Rockets
1996 Spurs < Bulls
1997 Spurs < Bulls
1998 Spurs < Bulls

This is just my lowly opinion. Each one of these series could have gone either way with the exception of the Pistons, Rockets and the Bulls of the first 3peat, where I believe the Spurs should have been favored. In the other series, the Lakers and Celts should have been favored, but again my brutha from another mother get out of here with this clear favorite stuff.

Hey dude, I respect your opinion and we will never know, but how do you say none of those teams had an answer for Duncan, Parker and Manu when they had answers for Moses, Kareem, Bird, MJ, Pippen, McHale. Hakeem, Ewing, Malone. Barkley, Isiah, KJ, Payton, Kemp and Shaq? Duncan is considered better than the PF’s on that list and Ewing, but none of those guards are considered worse than Many or Parker. So these teams, while beating one another, had answers for all of these HOF players but they wouldn’t have an answer for Many or Parker? Do you see either winding up in the HOF?

Why not? After all, if Hakeem would have played against any of Duncan's championship teams, or if Michael had not elected to pursue his HOF career in Canton then Hakeem could have very well ended up with 0, zilch, nada rings.

I think Hakeem’s Rockets would have beaten every Spurs le team, with the only one even giving him a run being the 99 squad due to Robinson still being a star player (over the 94 squad). But that is an entirely different debate, much like the Houston vs Chicago one since we routinely beat the Bulls.

Isn't part of the barometer for where a players niche in history belongs is his accomplishments and championships won? No where in the history books or any record book I've ever seen have a disclaimer where player so-and-so did not compete that year.

Yes, a part. But again, if you mention les you must tell the whole story, which includes the era that they were won in, the surrounding talent and against who. For example, it makes no sense for me to say Robert is a better role player than say, Sam Cassell and not mention the fact that Horry got to play with Hakeem, Shaq then Duncan.

I agree with you as far as the quality big men are concerned but as far as top notch teams, I disagree. You know for example who the Spurs had to go thru in the Western Conference just to get the right to play the lowly Cavaliers. And one thing that helps your argument is that there has not been another Magic, Bird or Jordan. Take those three off their respective teams and what do you have? I thought so. It has nothing to do with the teams or this superior team play thing you keep bringing up, Magic, Bird and Jordan all elevated the level of their team's play, just like this Duncan fellow I keep telling you so much about. See the correlation; transcendental player + good coach + quality role players + set of perfect cir stance = NBA Championship.

I know who they had to go through. Of the teams they beat, none are mentioned in the same breath with those teams from 1985-1998.

You are severly underestimating the help that Magic, Bird and MJ had. Those three dudes were great but their teams were quite stacked. The 80’s Celtics and Lakers had two additional HOF players on each squad (remove Bird and Magic). Say that again….two other HOF players. This isn’t even counting the other supporting role players (Ainge, Walton, D.Johnson, Cooper, A.C. Green, B.Scott, etc). Remobe Moses from the 82 Sixers and they still had two other HOF players (Dr. J and Cheeks), and that is before you hit their additional role players. The Pistons also had 3 HOF players (well Rodman deserves to be in). In today’s league you are lucky to have 1, if 2 on your team. Blame that on league expansion but it doesn’t change the fact that those teams were stacked. I know you may think Manu and Parker are the equivalent of say Pippen and Rodman, Worthy and Kareem, McHale and Parish, Erving and Cheeks, Dumars and Rodman ( , or Agguire)…but they aren’t. Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE LE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.

General consensus? Is that your opinion or did you read a Hoops Hype article? Do you have a link? I don't know about that. Those 3peat Laker teams were absolutely dominant! How can you say that with a straight face. You're a very good poster, but that is down right delusional.

They were dominant, but I rarely hear folks put them in the same breath with those earlier squads for the same reasons (not enough talent on the roster from 1-12, and their best star is not considered better than Magic, Bird or MJ).

I would go ahead and count the '99 season because their transcendental players Shaq and Kobe were part of that team.

So you discount the impact that Phil Jackson and his coaching had on the team? Or that it was Kobe’s first yr starting, at 20? Kobe starting is quite arguable, but how can you discount what Jackson brought when both transcendant players say they would not have won without him? The same lakers were swept out of the playoffs the 2 seasons prior, right?

So if the NE Patriots win the le this season with Randy Moss and other additions, will you say it was the same team that lost last year, which had no receivers?

It would be clear as mud, and it seems the pro-Hakeem crowd actually brought up the teams from another era by claiming that Tim played in a water-down league against inferior opponents.

Tim does play in a league where there is less talent on each team due to expansion, in arguably the weakest big-man era in league history. How can you even debate that? It isn’t his fault but let’s call a spade a spade. The top teams of today just don’t have the same talent as the top teams of yesterday 1-12. Parker and Manu wouldn’t even start for any le team from 1980 – 1998. The closest case would be Parker on Hakeem’s Rockets, but I doubt he would get the nod as our PG had to be a 3 point specialist.

Correction, already established we went 2-3 against a very dominant Laker squad and as far as the Spurs record, well San Antonio is the winningest basketball franchise since Tim Duncan arrived. Despite playing in the very tough western conference.

The 99 Lakers were on pace to win 51 games. That is dominant? I remember that team quite well…they were not even predicted to make it out of the first round matchup against my Rockets. They were swept the previous year as well.

The Spurs do have the highest winning % since Duncan came on the team. Yet, in every le season, they would finish tied for 3rd from the bottom of those teams from 85-98, since you want to use win %. Hmmmm…..

[kingmalaki]

So beating a team one out of 4 tries (including a year where they didn't even face each other when Duncan was hurt and the Spurs were kicked out of 1st round) is somehow worse than the Rockets losing to a legendary team, the 86 Celtics, in which you are using as some kind of proof that Hakeem is capable of carrying a team with the right teammates.
Speaking of that argument, the teammates argument, why is it such a shame for the Spurs to lose to the Lakers when the Lakers had a clearly superior supporting cast? Why is it that Shaq not playing most of the regular season not be a factor when the Lakers finished 52-30? The Rockets did exactly the same in 95, when they went into the playoffs with a deceivingly bad regular season record, pretty much by design. This is why they play in the playoffs.

Yes, it would be worse unless you think that Lakers team would beat that 86 squad. I have already stated I think every le team from 85-98, excluding Houston, would be a clear favorite in todays league. But I wasn't trying to say 86 Rockets > Spurs so I don't see why you keep bringing that up and trying to twist my point, when it is quite simple. Each squad from that time had 3 HOF type players, and too much talent 1-12 (just less teams in the league). No one on your team outside of Duncan would start for any of those teams. The era was harder. You can't throw les in the comparison without discussing outside factors such as that...it is not an apple to apple
comparison (i.e. two players going for the ring in the same year).

And get your facts straight. The 3 times that I'm counting are the Lakers last two les and when they beat you and lost to Detroit in 04. Also, the Rockets record in 95 was not bad by design. It was bad due to injury to Hakeem, and a horrible start that led to a Drexler trade.

[kingmalaki]

I would say you have a strong argument about the Lakers, Celtics, and some of the Bulls teams, but the Pistons? They were a very very deep team, but were largely viewed as the weakest of the list of champions you listed out. The 97-98 Bulls were not that great, the 95-96 Bulls, though owns the best record ever, benefitted from a watered down league with new expansions.
And somehow you are ignoring the fact the the Spurs had a 15-2 record in 99 playoffs, and a 16-4 record in the 07 playoffs.
Finally, for a guy who puts such great emphasize in quality of compe ion, you sure are contradicting yourself by looking at regular season records as some kind of proof that teams in the 80's/90's > Lakers and Spurs of 00's.

Who doesn't consider Detroit great? They had more depth than any of those le teams 1-12, two HOF guards, a HOF caliber big man, scorers off the pine (Agguire and Microwave) and like 5 solid big men. They blew going to one additional Finals when Bird stole the pass, and blew a potential 3-peat when Isiah got hurt in Game 6 of the first Finals series against LA. Not to mention they also repeated (which you should know is hard to do) and were in the Finals 3 straight years. Learn ya history son.

How can you say the Bulls benefitted from a watered down league when the league is even more watered down now?

Does it not make sense for a team facing weaker compe on to have a better playoff record? It's kinda hard to only lose 2 games to the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, etc.....

I am looking at the teams 1-12 and not seeing how any team from this era beats those teams. I don't even see how the 90's teams beat the 80's teams to be honest........

[kingmalaki]

Rather than saying the league is watered down, I would say that talent is much more distributed in today's league due to better salary cap.
Take a look at the 88-89 season. Anybody remember the Heat, Clippers, Spurs, Kings, Hornets, Nets, Pacers? Teams that are just as bad as those teams last season was probably the Celtics, Bucks, Hawks and Grizzlies.
Thats 7 vs. 4, with a larger # of teams in today's league. Instead of having super teams like the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics, you have superstars spread over multiple teams. Of course, rather than arguing over being the man and getting an extra $500K, you are talking about being the man and having extra salary of millions of dollars + endorsement $. The economics is very different in today's league, and it's much tougher to construct a lasting championship team like the Spurs.

I agree with your reasoning, but at the end of the day the results are still the same. Those teams from that timeframe were very stacked. Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players. Most teams in the 90's had two HOF type players and role players, except for Hakeem's Rockets. Now you only need 1 HOF type player. Look at the tems that are considered great today (Spurs, my Rockets included) and outside of the main star the other starters are on the bench for every one of those le teams (except for my Rockets).

The top teams from that time were just insanely stacked. Call a spade a spade. Allen, KG and Pierce got on the same squad, with no role players, and most predict them to make the Finals, for example....

[baseline bum]

I think Hakeem’s Rockets would have beaten every Spurs le team, with the only one even giving him a run being the 99 squad due to Robinson still being a star player (over the 94 squad). But that is an entirely different debate, much like the Houston vs Chicago one since we routinely beat the Bulls.

OMFG
The 94 Rockets team is the second weakest champion I've seen in watching the game since 84 (sorry, Miami). You guys came one blocked shot from losing to a one-man team whose one man didn't even show up (it's not even debatable that Ewing was crap in that series). That 94 Rockets team was notorious for blowing leads, and most likely wouldn't have won a le in any other year when the three point line wasn't moved two feet in. Now the 95 team was a lot more versatile with Drexler replacing Maxwell and Olajuwon was playing unreal in that run, and was probably better than all but the 99 team, but the 99, 03, and 07 teams would mop the floor with the 94 Rockets. The 05 team would probably take the 94 Rockets in 7.

Tim does play in a league where there is less talent on each team due to expansion, in arguably the weakest big-man era in league history. How can you even debate that? It isn’t his fault but let’s call a spade a spade. The top teams of today just don’t have the same talent as the top teams of yesterday 1-12. Parker and Manu wouldn’t even start for any le team from 1980 – 1998. The closest case would be Parker on Hakeem’s Rockets, but I doubt he would get the nod as our PG had to be a 3 point specialist.

@ Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili not starting over Kenny Smith, BJ Armstrong, Vernon Maxwell, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Danny Ainge, John Paxson, Ron Harper, Mo Cheeks, or Chris Ford. You gotta be ing kidding me.

[baseline bum]

Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players.

1980 Lakers? Whose the third? Jamaal Wilkes? Norm Nixon? Mark Landsberger?
1981 Celtics? McHale was a bench player and Archibald was old.
1983 Sixers? They had great depth, but Andrew Toney and Mo Cheeks are nowhere close to being Hall of Famers.
1988/89 Pistons? Are you serious calling, Rodman a Hall of Famer? The guy who quit on the Spurs in the WCF, and couldn't last with anyone once he got away from Phil Jackson?

[ambchang]

Who doesn't consider Detroit great? They had more depth than any of those le teams 1-12, two HOF guards, a HOF caliber big man, scorers off the pine (Agguire and Microwave) and like 5 solid big men. They blew going to one additional Finals when Bird stole the pass, and blew a potential 3-peat when Isiah got hurt in Game 6 of the first Finals series against LA. Not to mention they also repeated (which you should know is hard to do) and were in the Finals 3 straight years. Learn ya history son.

How can you say the Bulls benefitted from a watered down league when the league is even more watered down now?

Does it not make sense for a team facing weaker compe on to have a better playoff record? It's kinda hard to only lose 2 games to the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, etc.....

I am looking at the teams 1-12 and not seeing how any team from this era beats those teams. I don't even see how the 90's teams beat the 80's teams to be honest........

I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

[ambchang]

I agree with your reasoning, but at the end of the day the results are still the same. Those teams from that timeframe were very stacked. Each squad up until 90 had 3 HOF type players on it, plus quality role players. Most teams in the 90's had two HOF type players and role players, except for Hakeem's Rockets. Now you only need 1 HOF type player. Look at the tems that are considered great today (Spurs, my Rockets included) and outside of the main star the other starters are on the bench for every one of those le teams (except for my Rockets).

The top teams from that time were just insanely stacked. Call a spade a spade. Allen, KG and Pierce got on the same squad, with no role players, and most predict them to make the Finals, for example....

People predict them to make the finals, they haven't made it yet. And know, my money (figuratively speaking) is on the Bulls.

[bobbyjoe]

Rodman is easily a HOFer. One of the best rebounders of all time in NBA history, a terrific defender with multiple DPOY awards, and a 5 time NBA Champion. That's pretty open and shut.

The NBA HOF voters aren't only going to consider how a player did as a Spur for 2-3 yrs of his 15 career year, believe it or not. When surrounded on teams with solid leadership like Phil/MJ, Daly/Isiah, etc, Rodman was just fine and a tremendous asset. Without Rodman, no way does MJ win les 4,5, and 6. His ability to frustrate and contain guys like Karl Malone and Shaq in the Bulls 2nd 3peat was huge. George Karl called him the MVP of the 1996 Finals.

The 83 Sixers had they played in the 2000's would easily have won all 7 NBA les this decade. I mean Dr. J and Moses Malone at their peaks, plus a great all around team surrounding them? They beat some unreal compe ion in their run and did so handily. Just a great, great team. Even if they didnt have 3 HOFers, they are still so far and away better than anything in today's NBA that it's not even funny.

BTW, it's pretty ironic for Spur fan (who is always touting Bruce Bowen's amazing defense) to say that "Ewing played like crap in 94" as if to suggest Hakeem's D wasn't the main reason. Hakeem made guys like Ewing and Robinson look like crap in the playoffs. I mean did Lebron James just suck in the NBA Finals or did the Spurs D have something to do with it?

I do agree with you on the Parker comment. How on earth would Parker not start for the Rockets who had K. Smith as PG? THat makes no sense at all.

[bobbyjoe]

I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

First off, your comments on the Pistons are ridiculous. No one could carry the Pistons offensively when needed? The Microwave was like the Robert Horry of his era, a dead on clutch scorer and performer when you needed a bucket. So was Joe Dumars. And the team was so dominant defensively and on the boards. They were too physical for teams of today's NBA to hang with them.

Also, the 1990's talent was far, far, and far away better than the super weak 00's. The talent pool argument is basically BS.

1) Simple supply and demand tells you that the expansion of the NBA in the late 90's added about 15% of supply to the NBA in terms of # of teams. To offset this, you need a talent infusion of >15% to prevent dilution.


2) The # of elite impact foreign players is basically the same in the 1990's as now. Besides Dirk and Manu, you just dont have many first tier frontline NBA players from overseas in today's NBA. Sure, if you look at quan y you do have a ton of guys in the Darko, Sasha Pavlovic, Radmanovic, Vujajig mold. You have a ton of completely marginal NBA talent type of Euro who doesn't play a lick of defense and is soft, but not many impact players. The NBA has always been open to having the best players in the World come here. Just ask Hakeem Olajuwon, Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulonis, Dikembe Mutombo, Detlef Schrempf, Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc. All foreign born stars who came to the NBA in the 1980's/1990's when you want to attest that the league was shut off to non-American players. This argument simply holds no water. In fact, it's completely wrong.

3) The trend of high schoolers coming straight to the NBA and not going to college is something that started in the late 1990's and on into the 2000's. This trend has clearly and decisively hurt the quality of product in today's NBA. Guys come in with much less fundamentals. This wasn't nearly as prevalent in the 80's and 90's and it's not a coincidence that things like team play, passing, and bball IQ were higher in the Golden Ages.

4) The proof is basically in the pudding. If I tell you Decade A allows you to play more physical D, handcheck the out of strong perimter players and that Decade B frowns on physical play and bars handchecks, which Decade would you tell me had higher scoring? You would say Decade B. The rules are structured in Decade B to allow for a more free flowing, high scoring game. However Decade A was the 1990's and saw teams average about 10ppg on a much higher FG% than Decade B was the 2000's. This shows you how brutal the league has gotten in terms of quality of play. Passing, midrange shooting, and unselfish play are things of the past in today's NBA.
This is why in 1992 team USA was winning by 50 ppg and why in the 2000's we are losing Gold Medals to freaking Argentina. The World hasn't caught up, we've just lost the ball on what the principles and fundamentals of the game are.

[baseline bum]

Rodman is easily a HOFer. One of the best rebounders of all time in NBA history, a terrific defender with multiple DPOY awards, and a 5 time NBA Champion. That's pretty open and shut.

The NBA HOF voters aren't only going to consider how a player did as a Spur for 2-3 yrs of his 15 career year, believe it or not. When surrounded on teams with solid leadership like Phil/MJ, Daly/Isiah, etc, Rodman was just fine and a tremendous asset. Without Rodman, no way does MJ win les 4,5, and 6. His ability to frustrate and contain guys like Karl Malone and Shaq in the Bulls 2nd 3peat was huge. George Karl called him the MVP of the 1996 Finals.

You don't they'll consider that he was a cancer? That he was shipped out of Detroit because he liked to sleep in his truck, holding a shotgun? How he quit on the Spurs in 95? How he couldn't last more than a couple of months with the Lakers or the Mavericks? That he wore out his welcome in the NBA so badly that he had to go play for some team in Tijuana?

The 83 Sixers had they played in the 2000's would easily have won all 7 NBA les this decade. I mean Dr. J and Moses Malone at their peaks, plus a great all around team surrounding them? They beat some unreal compe ion in their run and did so handily. Just a great, great team. Even if they didnt have 3 HOFers, they are still so far and away better than anything in today's NBA that it's not even funny.

The 83 Sixers were one of the two or three most amazing teams I've ever seen. kingmalaki was making some really stupid generalizations about every contender from 1980-98 having Bird/McHale/Parish level trios.

BTW, it's pretty ironic for Spur fan (who is always touting Bruce Bowen's amazing defense) to say that "Ewing played like crap in 94" as if to suggest Hakeem's D wasn't the main reason. Hakeem made guys like Ewing and Robinson look like crap in the playoffs. I mean did Lebron James just suck in the NBA Finals or did the Spurs D have something to do with it?

This isn't about Olajuwon. I completely agree that he was better than Duncan, and that Duncan most likely won't pass him as the better player all-time. This is about the ridiculous assertion he made about the 94 Rockets. Hey, the Spurs swept. The Knicks came one block from taking the series in 6 despite Ewing being able to do nothing. John Starks and a past his prime Derek Harper aren't enough of a supporting cast to explain that one if the 94 Rockets were some kind of powerhouse.

[polandprzem]

I still do not get it why most people think that the '90 were much better then the '00 ?

All in all you can't just measure it.

What stays is your own bare observations.
What the 90s gave the fans?
The emotions of the 'early years' (the best in life).
The 90s was tyhe time of expansion of the NBA of the game that showed the world how superb game of basketball is. It brings out the good memories.
Like in a marriage - the early years are the best. Then comes the boring days and your wife just does not look like she was when you married her...

The 90s were the promotions days of NBA, prime days. In that days a regular players seemd to be better vthen they realy were.

And for one - damn many games were so boring in 90s that is sick.
The game right now is just much more interesting.
And the argument of having more brutal leauge is quite lame as we look at 70s or even 60s the game was so much more brutal (less safe) but you could not say that the 70s were better then the 90s.
It was good that the leauge opened up the offense. cause the defense was getting way too good. As you look at the 1999 Champions who were demolishing the other squads with D.
Then came the offense and the Lakers with great offensive force inside in Shaq and great offense on permieter in Kobe that killed the leauge although there were good Portland and Kings teams and we can put the Duncans Spurs to the mix.

great thing about Duncan is that he can different kind of games, that comes from his ability to play team game in a team way.
I belive in five and I'm tired of writting ...

[kingmalaki]

OMFG
The 94 Rockets team is the second weakest champion I've seen in watching the game since 84 (sorry, Miami). You guys came one blocked shot from losing to a one-man team whose one man didn't even show up (it's not even debatable that Ewing was crap in that series). That 94 Rockets team was notorious for blowing leads, and most likely wouldn't have won a le in any other year when the three point line wasn't moved two feet in. Now the 95 team was a lot more versatile with Drexler replacing Maxwell and Olajuwon was playing unreal in that run, and was probably better than all but the 99 team, but the 99, 03, and 07 teams would mop the floor with the 94 Rockets. The 05 team would probably take the 94 Rockets in 7.

Hmm, who blocked that shot and who was dogging Ewing that series? I guess having to chech Hakeem and go against him has nothing to do with Ewing's numbers falling.

By the way, the 94 Rockets were similar to the Spurs in that that team didn't have the same talent, 1-12, like the others from that time period (which makes what Hakeem did that season, on both ends, even more impressive). It seems like you are agreeing with the point that I'm trying to make.

@ Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili not starting over Kenny Smith, BJ Armstrong, Vernon Maxwell, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Danny Ainge, John Paxson, Ron Harper, Mo Cheeks, or Chris Ford. You gotta be ing kidding me.

I believe I listed teams from 84-98, since that's when Dream entered the league. No, Parker and Manu wouldn't start over Kenny (we needed his 3-point shooting at the 45% clip) and Maxwell. Maxwell was a better defender than Manu. I also believe I stated every team, excluding the Rockets. But that's for another debate. And before ya say they would start over Ainge and Scott, I suggest you go check their numbers and remember the roles they had on those teams.

[kingmalaki]

I do know about the Pistons' history, and that was during a time when I had the most free timeon my hands, thus the most time to follow basketball. The Pistons were deserving champions, but they rose during the demise of the Lakers and Celtics (aging Jabbar, Bird, McHale) and before the rise of Jordan. They were a team that created the suffocating defense, and I still think Daly is one of the best coaches in the history of the league for the very fact that he actually brought such success to the Pistons.
The team was very diversified on offense, and other than Thomas (who was streaky), nobody can carry that team when in need. Is Aguire and the Microwave that much better than Ginobili? Would Parker not have started for the 90's Bulls? Come to think of it, the Bulls starting 5 wasn't even that strong, there was Jordan, Pippen, Grant (who is a slightly above average PF), and then there is BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright, they were a great team because of superb coaching and a greatly built system surrounding Jordan and Pippen.
Finally, the league was watered down in the 90's without the benefit of the expanded talent pool of foreign players, in terms of overall talent, it wasn't much better than the 00's.

No, I don't think Parker would start. He is not a 3 point specialist, which is what the PG's role on the Bulls was. Either that, or a supereme defender (Ron Harper), which Parker really isn't either.

Yes the 90's were more diluted, but the 00's are even more diluted. I believe there is already another thread about the Bulls champ teams vs Spurs squads, so no need to cover it here too.

[kingmalaki]

Dude, if you are going to attempt to call me out at least get your facts straight.

kingmalaki was making some really stupid generalizations about every contender from 1980-98 having Bird/McHale/Parish level trios.

1997-98 Bulls (62-20) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1996-97 Bulls (69-13) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1995-96 Bulls (72-10) (MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc)
1992-93 Bulls (57-25) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1991-92 Bulls (67-15) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1990-91 Bulls (61-21) (MJ, Pippen, Grant)
1989-90 Pistons (59-23) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1988-89 Pistons (63-19) (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Agguire, Laimbeer)
1987-88 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1986-87 Lakers (65-17) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)
1985-86 Celtics (67-15) (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton)
1984-85 Lakers (62-20) (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper)

Which of the above teams did not have a Bird/McHale/Parish level trios? Oh, I think I answered that too.

Again, do you think Manu or Parker will make the HOF. ALL OF THOSE 2ND AND 3RD PLAYERS FROM THOSE LE TEAMS ARE, with the exception of Rodman and Ho. Grant.

And I think Rodman's on the court accomplishments clearly put him in the HOF. The only reason he won't make it is due to off the court issues. And you call him a cancer, yet the Bulls didn't seem to have a problem winning with him once you gave him up for free.

Additionally....

This isn't about Olajuwon. I completely agree that he was better than Duncan, and that Duncan most likely won't pass him as the better player all-time. This is about the ridiculous assertion he made about the 94 Rockets. Hey, the Spurs swept. The Knicks came one block from taking the series in 6 despite Ewing being able to do nothing. John Starks and a past his prime Derek Harper aren't enough of a supporting cast to explain that one if the 94 Rockets were some kind of powerhouse.

I believe every le team from 1985 through 1998, excluding the Rockets le teams, would be a clear favorite to win a championship in ANY season that Duncan won a le.

Ewing did nothing because Hakeem was kicking his butt. I like how you conviently forget to mention that Hakeem made that one block, switching on a guard, on the perimiter. And yes the Spurs swept....the Cavs....arguably the weakest team to come out of the East in the last 20 years!!!!

Apology accepted....

[kingmalaki]

I still do not get it why most people think that the '90 were much better then the '00 ?

I think the top teams were better because the league was smaller, meaning those top teams had more talent on them. In the 80's it was 3 stars. In the 90's it was 2, with the exception of my 94 Rockets. The 00's have had at least 5 champions with only 1 star/HOF type player (03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 05 Spurs, 06 Heat, 07 Spurs unless you consider Parker a HOF type player). The teams today just don't have as much talent 1-12 as those top teams. That doesn't even take into account that Magic, Bird and MJ are generally considered to be better than every player in the league from this era. And again, remember that each one of their le teams had more help 2-12.

Better star + better supporting cast = better team

[jman3000]

considering that the basketball HOF is international and not soley run by the NBA... we did have 2 HOF caliber players with Manu... what he's done on the international level is amazing.

[ambchang]

First off, your comments on the Pistons are ridiculous. No one could carry the Pistons offensively when needed? The Microwave was like the Robert Horry of his era, a dead on clutch scorer and performer when you needed a bucket. So was Joe Dumars. And the team was so dominant defensively and on the boards. They were too physical for teams of today's NBA to hang with them.

Also, the 1990's talent was far, far, and far away better than the super weak 00's. The talent pool argument is basically BS.

1) Simple supply and demand tells you that the expansion of the NBA in the late 90's added about 15% of supply to the NBA in terms of # of teams. To offset this, you need a talent infusion of >15% to prevent dilution.


2) The # of elite impact foreign players is basically the same in the 1990's as now. Besides Dirk and Manu, you just dont have many first tier frontline NBA players from overseas in today's NBA. Sure, if you look at quan y you do have a ton of guys in the Darko, Sasha Pavlovic, Radmanovic, Vujajig mold. You have a ton of completely marginal NBA talent type of Euro who doesn't play a lick of defense and is soft, but not many impact players. The NBA has always been open to having the best players in the World come here. Just ask Hakeem Olajuwon, Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulonis, Dikembe Mutombo, Detlef Schrempf, Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, etc. All foreign born stars who came to the NBA in the 1980's/1990's when you want to attest that the league was shut off to non-American players. This argument simply holds no water. In fact, it's completely wrong.

3) The trend of high schoolers coming straight to the NBA and not going to college is something that started in the late 1990's and on into the 2000's. This trend has clearly and decisively hurt the quality of product in today's NBA. Guys come in with much less fundamentals. This wasn't nearly as prevalent in the 80's and 90's and it's not a coincidence that things like team play, passing, and bball IQ were higher in the Golden Ages.

4) The proof is basically in the pudding. If I tell you Decade A allows you to play more physical D, handcheck the out of strong perimter players and that Decade B frowns on physical play and bars handchecks, which Decade would you tell me had higher scoring? You would say Decade B. The rules are structured in Decade B to allow for a more free flowing, high scoring game. However Decade A was the 1990's and saw teams average about 10ppg on a much higher FG% than Decade B was the 2000's. This shows you how brutal the league has gotten in terms of quality of play. Passing, midrange shooting, and unselfish play are things of the past in today's NBA.
This is why in 1992 team USA was winning by 50 ppg and why in the 2000's we are losing Gold Medals to freaking Argentina. The World hasn't caught up, we've just lost the ball on what the principles and fundamentals of the game are.

A 15% increase in players for a 24-team league is about 7.2 players (assuming 2 per team). Foreign players that made an impact last year:
Dirk
Manu
Tony Parker
Yao Ming
Mehmet Okur
Andrei Kirilenko
Pau Gasol
Zydrunas Igauskas
These are all players who made the all-star team in the last 3 years.

[ambchang]

No, I don't think Parker would start. He is not a 3 point specialist, which is what the PG's role on the Bulls was. Either that, or a supereme defender (Ron Harper), which Parker really isn't either.

Yes the 90's were more diluted, but the 00's are even more diluted. I believe there is already another thread about the Bulls champ teams vs Spurs squads, so no need to cover it here too.

Then again, this has absolutely nothing to do with talent level and everything to do with being an exact match of what the Bulls had in their lineup. I guess you are right then, Parker is not the next Armstrong or the next Harper.
It was enlightening to see that you think Armstrong and Harper > Parker (maybe Harper in his prime), it really helps your case that Hakeem > Duncan.