Most people who really put Hakeem up there do so based on a single series whereby he outplayed David Robinson. (In that series, Robinson had to defend the Dream 1 on 1 while 2-3 Rockets sagged on Robinson). However, I saw many matchups between them including one in Houston where Robinson scored 50+ (believe it was 54) on Hakeem during the regular season of his MVP season that were very evenly contested, and in many Robinson, outplayed Hakeem.
Players get hot, and Hakeem did this in the 95 series. He was a phenominal player and talent, but Duncan is the man among three great historicalplayers, as one has to bring Robinson also into the equation. He was the starting center on the dream team most of the time, and was that d*&% good. However,Duncan has had the best career when one looks at les, MVPs, defensive first teams etc of all three. However, Hakeem and Robinson are in the top tier of NBA greats.
What makes you a star?-
Your play? Statistics? marketing?
And who said that team with more stars are better?
All in all lakers with wilt, jerry and Elgin lost to the harmony of the Knicks - damn I love getting back to it. It's just shows you that no matter how great you are indyvidual you must be great in team sport. That's why Russell had more succes then Wilt. All that talk about pieces and puzzles is true.
And to me it's no doubt that Timmay is better in that art then Akeem
I'll be back (bennett)
lakers of 04 had 5 HOF locks ... best team EVAR!
[QUOTE=kingmalaki]Dude, if you are going to attempt to call me out at least get your facts straight.
Are you kidding me? Mark Aguirre, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper are ing Hall of Famers in your mind? Every one of them save Kukoc has been eligible for at least two years, and none of them has even come close. The only one with a chance if Kukoc, because of his play overseas. You romanticize the past too much. I've been a fan since the mid 80s, and I saw every one of these teams in their primes. Mark Aguire kills me. Yeah, he made those Dallas teams unstoppable back in the day. Laimbeer? Laimbeer wouldn't make the all-star team in today's center deprived league.Which of the above teams did not have a Bird/McHale/Parish level trios? Oh, I think I answered that too.
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.
Scott had a sweet stroke and got lots of open shots off Magic. He reminds me of Raja Bell. Once again , hasn't sniffed the hall with 5 years and counting of eligibility. Michael Cooper was a poor man's Shawn Marion, without the whiny at ude.
Apology for what? Are you ing re ed? Why do you keep referring to Olajuwon when I'm referring to the entire 94 team? Yes, Olajuwon is an all-time great, and at worst the third best center all-time. The 94 Rockets were a team that blew big games over and over, had one of the worst rosters of a champion in the last 20 years, benefited greatly from the three point line being brought two feet in since all they had was shooters next to Hakeem, and barely beat a horrible Finals opponent that wasn't playing well. There is no way in the 94 Rockets would have any chance against the 99 Spurs or the 07 Spurs, and the 03 team was way more versatile than the 94 Rockets.Additionally....
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....
To get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:
Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6".
Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.
High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.
Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.
Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.
Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael erson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)
Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.
Each one of those teams has HOF caliber players on it, with the exception of the first 3-peat Bulls. The only reason Rodman won’t make the hall is because of his off the-court behavior. His on the court play clearly puts him in. I believe I stated this NUMEROUS times, hence me telling you to get your facts straight.Are you kidding me? Mark Aguirre, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper are ing Hall of Famers in your mind? Every one of them save Kukoc has been eligible for at least two years, and none of them has even come close. The only one with a chance if Kukoc, because of his play overseas. You romanticize the past too much. I've been a fan since the mid 80s, and I saw every one of these teams in their primes. Mark Aguire kills me. Yeah, he made those Dallas teams unstoppable back in the day. Laimbeer? Laimbeer wouldn't make the all-star team in today's center deprived league.
All you have to do is read…and you question if I am retarted….
That is true. When did I state they wouldn't start for those squads because they were worse than the starting PG's?
The main point I was trying to make is those squads 2nd and 3rd best players were HOF types. Manu and TP are not. The point, which you keep avoiding, highlights the talent discrepancy between the teams from then and the teams today. Again, these are the 2nd and 3rd bets players...not even mentioning the main stars who are considered top 5-7 in league history (Bird, Magic, MJ). Again, do you see Parker or Manu going to the HOF? Those are the best players behind Duncan for the majority of his les....
The same things that make Duncan a star. When I say star, I mean a top notch player. There is no doubt that Duncan is the best PF today, just like there was no doubt about how good those HOF players from back then were (McHale, Parish, Isiah, Dumars, Worthy, Kareem, etc).
And the example you gave is a very bad one. That Knicks team had SIX HOF players on it (Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley, Earl Monroe, Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere), and none of them were older than 32 (i..e. in their primes).
And are you going to argue that those championship teams that I posted didn’t have team harmony?
How is Rodman clearly a Hall of Famer? He was a one-dimensional player after leaving Detroit. How does being a cancer to your team not factor in? Off-court behavior is one thing, but being an ass to your teammates and coach is on-court behavior. Rodman clearly had it physically when he went to LA and Dallas, but he repeated his cancerous ways from his days in SA and his last days in Detroit.
All you have to do is read…and you question if I am retarted….
I definitely see Manu going to the HoF, and that is based on his international accomplishments though, not his NBA performance.
But since you are arguing that the NBA teams of the 80s > those in the 00's (or which I agree), why would that have any effect on not having rings as an indicator of a player's greatness? Duncan winning 4 rings in a league with generally weaker teams by having a weaker team himself compared to those in the 80s is just as impressive as any player winning 4 rings in the 80s with a stronger supporting cast. It's not like Duncan had incredible supporting cast the last 4 championships then, is it?
Except that there actually is no increase. At absolute best, it's a wash.
Again, here are some of the impact foreign born players from the 90's:
Hakeem Olajuwon
Toni Kukoc
Detlef Schrempf
Arvydas Sabonis
Dikembe Mutombo
Sarunas Marciulonis.
Drazen Petrovic.
Vlade Divac
In a hypothetical game between the foreign born impact nba stars of the 90's vs. the foreign born impact nba stars of the 00's, it's pretty clear as day that the talent is at best equal and more realistically heavily in favor of the 90's group.
So again, the argument that international players have boosted the talent level of the NBA is just garbage because there hasnt been an increase in imported top heavy talent on a decade over decade basis. There just hasn't.
BTW, your post ironically proves my point. The fact that a complete stiff like Mehmet Okur made the All star team shows just how weak and diluted the league is nowadays. Okur would be a below average starter in the 90's and in the 00's he's an all star. What did he average, 5 ppg on 30% shooting in this year's playoffs?
He wasn't one dimensional. He was great defensively and as a rebounder. The only dimension he lacked was scoring, but he got his teams lots of extra possessions by pounding the glass.
You mention his cancerous ways, but he also had an impact on the game by getting his opponent's heads with his physical and dirty play, much like a Bruce Bowen, so he was a huge asset there as well.
And using short stints of what he did in LA and Dallas in his late 30's when few NBA players are productive is misleading, because these stints pale in comparison to his body of work in Detroit and Chicago over much longer periods of time.
This is a pretty fairminded analysis and impressive to see from a Spurs fan.To get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:
Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6".
Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.
High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.
Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.
Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.
Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael erson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)
Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.
A couple things I would disagree on are:
1) Teammate: Hakeem didnt chase Cassell out of town. Cassell was a piece in the Barkley trade and if you are the Suns you dont make that deal unless you are getting young talent like Cassell + Horry.
2) Olajuwon threw a great outlet pass to initiate fast breaks. This is a lost art in today's NBA and not one I think Duncan really excels in. But Hakeem and Shaq were both terrific at snatching boards and making quick on target passes to start breaks. In his earlier years, I've also never seen 2 bigs better at filling lanes as trailers on fast breaks than Olajuwon and Robinson.
If Duncan has an edge on Hakeem, it's his ability to pass more crisply and effectively out of the post.
I would also say one key difference between the 2 is that in the clutch, Hakeem nailed his FT's and Duncan's been very shaky in those situations at key times.
Now we can argue the quality of the HOF's
Now we can go back to the talent and how the 70s were better cause there were more HOFs in squads then in 90s.
This argument with HOF's in teams is just not speaking loud to me.
BTW. We can talk about preferences and tastes when it comes to deciding who is better. It is simple unmeasuable when talking about players from that same shelf.
That's why sometimes I think that those over 20 pages are not necessery
But people has got to talk about something.
Persuade a Rocket fan that Tim was/is better and persuade a spurs fan that Hakeem was better.
Yup I can find some suiciders spurs fans that thinks Hakeem was better even when the fact about winning is so simple. So how much more edge does Hakeem have over Duncan??
Finally an honest asessment, I applaud you for thatTo get on topic, here's my evaluaition of the two:
Athleticism: Easily Olajuwon. Hakeem is the second or third most athletic center ever (behind only Robinson, and maybe Russell), while Tim can't jump more than 6".
Low Post Scoring: Slight edge to Olajuwon. He's the only big I've ever seen with more post moves than Duncan. The ball fakes and his baseline turnaround are what separates him from Tim.
High Post/Perimeter Scoring: Pretty clearly Duncan. For years Duncan killed teams from the top of the key, and has been automatic off the glass from the elbow 15 feet out every year except his injury plagued 2006.
Defense: Olajuwon. Better shotblocker, about even on the glass, far better transition defender. Pretty close in the halfcourt.
Passing / Ball Handling: Duncan. Duncan was the main initiator on the break from the time AJ got benched until 2004-05. I haven't seen any other big who could setup the break like him.
Teammate: Clearly Duncan. Hakeem forced Cassell out of town. How much would the Rockets had loved to have him in the Matt Maloney and Michael erson days? Hakeem wasn't a bad guy, but he could be pretty selfish (such as when he and Barkley took turns dominating the ball for 15 seconds per possession while making Scottie Pippen just stand out at the three point line and wait for the chance to throw up a desperation three at the end of the shot clock)
Overall: Slight edge to Hakeem. His two best years are better than Tim's, and he had more tools offensively and defensively.
Most of the players on your list played in a US college. And Toni Kukoc and Divacs wasn't that much less of a stiff that Mehmet Okur.
Uh, that's completely false. Kukoc, Sabonis, Marciulounis, Petrovic, and Divac did not attend a US college.
Also, what the is the relevance of whether they attended a US college or not?
Your argument was that in the 2000's there is more overall talent in the NBA because of the improved accessibility to the league of international players.
The 1990's clearly prove that the NBA has always been open to having the best players not only from America, but from the rest of the World. WTF does where they went to college have to do with anything? Is this basically your way of trying to divert attention from the fact that your premise is just completely wrong. The NBA has always featured the world's best players, not just America's.
The fact that guys like Hakeem, Ewing, and Mutombo went to college in the US if anything emboldens the argument that the effect of international stars on US play was actually stronger in the 1990's than now because several of the 90's stars actually honed their skills in an environment of American basketball, unlike guys like Dirk and Parker who have had to come straight to America from abroad and thus taken much longer to become quality NBA players.
Your argument is basically ridiculous. The only thing you've seen in the 2000's is teams fighting so hard to find the next Manu that they bring over stiffs like Darko, Vujajic, Radmanovic, Spanoullis, Turkan, etc. The majority of these stiffs are marginal at best rotational players and do not impact the overall talent level of the NBA in a positive manner.
The relevance is that if you count those who did attend US colleges, in today's league, I would have included Tim Duncan, and Steve Nash, and you could include players like Nique (I think he was born in France), and Ewing (Jamaica).
And since when have I said the 00's have more talent than the 90's? I am saying there is a higher supply of talent from overseas spread over a higher demand with more teams.
It is no surprise that most European players in the 90s were at least good players, the league wasn't looking for role players overseas then, like they are right now the Sideshow Bob, Diaw and such.
I have been a huge NBA fan since about 1980 and watched several hundred games on TV, although I was a fan in the 70s as well.
Based on my personal observations, these are the best players I've seen, in order:
1. Tim Duncan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Magic Johnson
next tier (in no particular order):
McHale, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Lebron James, Walt Frazier, Dennis Johnson, Jabber, Isiah, Reggie Miller, David Robinson, Ewing, Fat Lever, and Sidney Moncrief.
Next tier:
Kidd, Kobe, Nash, Iverson, Parish, Barkley, Pippen, Karl Malone, Stockton, Garnett, Nowitzski, Shawn Marion, McGrady, Amare Stoudemire, Penny Hardaway, Dwayne Wade, Carmello, Vince Carter, Grant Hill, Maurice Cheeks, Clyde Drexler, and Tom Chambers.
Best college players:
1. Keith Lee
2. Christian Laettner
I apologize in advance for any oversights.
Jordan not even top 3 all time?
And you have Shawn Marion and Tom Chambers as some of the best players you have ever seen? Vince Carter? Oh but it gets better. Fat Lever and Sidney Moncrief
Moncrief, a career 15ppg 3assist per game guy one of the best ever? Now I think i've heard it all.
Give me a ing break. This is the worst list i've ever seen. Tim Duncan is NOT the best player of all time. Jordan, Magic, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar Robertson, among others were better than him. Add Shaq to that list, in his prime he was one of the most dominant players ever.
And you even leave Pete Maravich off the best college players instead of Christian Laettner. Wow, just wow.
Last edited by mavs>spurs2; 09-20-2007 at 04:09 PM.
Rodman is arguably the greatest rebounder in league history and a 2 time DPOY winner. He was a cancer to THE SPURS. The Pistons didn’t seem to have an issue winning 2 les with him, and the Bulls didn’t think he was a problem when he helped them 3 peat after y’all gave him away. How did the cancerous ways have an impact in Chicago? He is a HOF player based on his play, but he probably won’t make it due to his antics.
And for the second part, I was responding to your blanket statements such as:
I believe I reposted those line-ups for you 3-4 times already. All you have to do is read. Sure, you think Rodman isn’t HOF material. I believe I mentioned that before your blanket statement as well:
If you want to discuss Hakeem’s Rockets vs Duncan’s Spurs then that’s an entirely new debate. This thread is already over 20 pages, lol.
Another way to judge the overall talent in different eras, is to look at the top High School classes, and top prospects:
Best HS classes:
1.
'81 - Jordan, Hakeem, Keith Lee, Ewing, Jon Koncak, Joe Klein, Ed Pinchney, Chris Mullin, Anthony Welch, JJ Weber, Cory Blackwell, Brad Sellers, Scott Roth, Charles Barkley, Lorenzo Charles, Stuart Gray, Ennis Whatley, Xavier McDaniel, Oakley, Kenny Green, AC Green, Blair Rasmussen, Bill Wennington, Michael Payne, Greg Stokes, Uwe Blab, Sam Vincent, Terry Catledge, Jerry 'Ice' Reynolds, Dwayne McClain, Bobby Lee Hurt, Gary McLain
2.
'87 - Billy Owens, Alonzo Mouning, Crawford Palmer, Robert Horry, Byron Houston, Shawn Kemp, Stanley Roberts, Christian Laettner, Chris Jackson, Kenny Williams
3.
'79 - Ralph Sampson, Sam Bowie, Dominique Wilkens, Stipo, Rodney McCray
TOP PROSPECTS IN NBA DRAFT SINCE RALPH SAMPSON:
1. Ralph Sampson
2. Shaq
3. Tim Duncan
4. Ewing
5. Akeem Olajuwon
6. David Robinson
7. Alonzo Mourning
8. Lebron James
9. Danny Manning
10. Greg Oden
11. Kevin Durant
12. Derrick Coleman
See the bolded parts in your statement. The difference is Hakeem [/b]didn’t[/b] have a strong supporting cast for the majority of his career. Even Spurs supporters here are dismissing the help he had on his le teams. I have already mentioned the stacked teams from the 80’s and 90’s.
Duncan hasn’t played on the best team every season but his teams always have had top 5-7 talent on them since he entered the league. He has never had to carry a scrub team and never really had to go through a rebuilding phase due to great management and the hitting on the Parker and Manu picks…both of whom didn’t take long to develop.
And again, I am not trying to dismiss Duncan’s les. I am just saying you can’t just say 4 to 2 without bringing the other dynamics into the discussion.
Answer this question honestly. Do you think Manu and Parker are better than McHale& Parish, Kareem & Worthy, Dumars and Rodman, Pippen & Grant/Rodman, or Erving and Mo. Cheeks? Remove the HOF le and just evaluate the players….yes or no? You can go from players 4-12 and do the same analysis. Do the same for player 1 (Duncan vs Bird, Magid & MJ).
Is it speaking to you yet (not asked in a sarcastic way)?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
