It would help if you read what I wrote.
I said the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. And arbitrarily taking top 7 talent is just increasing the pool to strengthen your argument. From 00-04, if you take Duncan away, the Spurs are may top 5 to 7 in terms of talent, but that does NOT mean that they should be real contenders, and yet they were always one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the league BECAUSE OF DUNCAN.
A top 7 talent team, such as the Bulls or Pistons from last year, would really shock everyone if they win the championship.
Thank you, which is why I would pick Duncan over Hakeem to build a team, because Duncan is easier to build around.
No slight to Hakeem, I think in terms of talent, he is >>>> Duncan, no question, this is pretty much like a less extreme version of Wilt vs. Russell, only Duncan didn't have 7 HoFs on his team.
Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball?: Mr Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time (Paperback)
by Elliott Kalb
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Better-Be.../dp/0071417885
This is a great book, has anyone read it?
It came out after Duncan's 6th season (2003).
Ranks:
Jordan # 3
Duncan #9
Hakeem #16
If Duncan after 6 seasons & 2 rings > Hakeem, then Duncan after 10 seasons & 4 rings > Hakeem.
Interesting you brought that up, so by taking those 12 games out, Rockets with Hakeem won 40 and lost 30, which when projected to a 82-game season, would be a 47-35 season, and coincidentally the same as the David Robinson Spurs of that year. Only issue is that the Spurs lost Robinson for 14 games, where they finished 5-9, and STILL made the playoffs with supporting cast of mings, Elliott, Strickland, and Avery Johnson.
But since we are comparing Duncan to Hakeem, I would be interested to know which of the season(s) in the 00-04 period would the Spurs have missed the playoffs if Duncan missed 12 games, getting a 2-10 record.
While we are at it, I would think none of those Spurs team could make the playoffs without Duncan for 82 games, and yet they were contenders every single year, wonder why.
Wow, I step away from the computer for one day and this thing is up to 23 threads. Gotta love it. But look this whole thing started over the debate about whether or not Duncan > Hakeem.
We all know the the player's stats, team accomplishments so at the end of the day, let me ask each and everyone of you, if you were a GM (all things being equal) and you were starting a franchise who would you draft? Tim or Hakeem? Who would you build your team around? This should settle the Tim > Hakeem argument.
I'll go with the guy who accomplished alot more in 746 career games as opposed to the player who played in 1238 career games.
Exactly, in Tim Duncan's 10 years with the Spurs, the Spurs have never finished lower the 2nd in the division. In Hakeems 17 years with the Rockets, they finished an incredible 5th in the division 6 times, and once 6th. I don't care on what team or what era, that's something that can't be overlooked for those who are trying to elevate Hakeem over Duncan.
I was speaking of the 02/03 season (season starts in 02, playoffs extend to 03).
Agreed and I stand corrected. But thats still top 10 talent surrounded by arguably the games best player at that time. Five of those teams that you mentioned really weren't led by a superstar...(Houston, Rasheed, Robinson, Rose and Jones), and since a team without a true superstar has only won the le 1 time in the last 27 years I don't see the point in mentioning them.
The point still remains that Duncan has NEVER been on a scrub team, while other superstar players (i.e. Hakeem) have played on plenty of horrible teams. You can't not mention that when discussing les, unless you think Duncan won on his own....
Last edited by kingmalaki; 09-21-2007 at 01:27 PM.
You are just talking out of your ass, you need to go back and read my post.
Jordan would be that much more dominant in today's league because of the handcheck rule, less great shotblockers, less defense as a whole, just to sum it up in short. Today's NBA is so pussified people aren't even allowed to play d anymore it seems and i'm really having a hard time watching guys like Tony Parker waltz to the rim uncontested. 10-20 years ago he would have gotten the living knocked out of him, sometimes without a whistle.
I agree with you that the Spurs did not have top 3 talent. When did I say that they did? If you have one of the games 5 best players do you need top 3 talent to win, especially when the player is a big-man? Hakeem didn't have top 3 talent in any of his le seasons.
My point was Duncan has always been on a team with enough supporting to compete for a championship. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree then how can you not include that in your analysis when comparing him to a player like Hakeem who did not have always play with enough supporting talent to compete for a le, especially when Hakeem has clearly demonstrated that he could lead a team very far when he had help (3 Finals trips and 2 les)?
But you said Duncan was the greatest of all time, this only has him #9. Do you really want to use this nonsense book as your defense?
The guy says Shaq is the best player of all time, yet he didn't dominate nearly like Wilt or Russel. Why is Jordan #3? Shaq's teams could never touch the Bulls, Jordan was on top untill the day he retired. No one could stop him, he was the most dominant player since the short shorts and 12 teams in the whole league days.
This is just some dumbass who probably knows nothing about basketball trying to make a buck off of a nonsense book.
A 2-10 record is winning at a 20% clip. A 5-9 record is winning at a 35% clip. If the Rockets won 36% of their games without Hakeem then that gives them 4 extra wins. They missed the playoffs by 3 games. Either way, a 47-35 record left you tied for the 5th/6th best record in the West that season.
Um, a supporting cast of mings (17 and 9), Strickland (14 and 9) and Elliott (16 a game) looks pretty solid to me. Even Willie Anderson put up 13 a game at 46% that season. We started Buck Johnson that year for God’s sake. Furthermore, I don’t see how noting the Spurs supporting cast did better without Robinson shows that the Rockets supporting cast should have won more…or whatever. Basically, I don’t see how it discredits the point that Hakeem missing 12 games and the team only winning 20% of them had more to do with us missing the playoffs, since we were on track for the 5th/6th best record in the games Hakeem played.
Maybe because Duncan has never been on a bad team and the league is worse today, with more teams and less talent on each giving a quality team more chances for gimmie wins? These are all my opinions and not things that can be proved.
However, Duncan missed/didn’t start 14 games in 03/04, and the team went 6-8 (43% clip). He missed 16 games in 04/05 and the team went 9-7 (56% clip). Since I’ve been stating forever that he has usually had better surrounding talent and never been on a scrub team, these numbers don’t surprise me. That’s a of a difference form your cast winning 20% of their games…..
Good…don't overlook it. Just go back and compare the surrounding talent for each player on those teams..and make sure to include the differences in your analysis.
Hakeem was good enough to lead his team past a dynasty to the Finals in his 2nd season (he had help that year). His 2nd best player got hurt and was traded and his entire backcourt was lost to drug suspensions. He didn't suddenly get worse from 87 until the mid 90's. He just started playing with teammates like Buck Johnson. Every star player isn't fortunate to play on a team with greta management and coaching. Duncan came to a veteran team and has never not had enough surrounding talent to compete for a le.
you act like ginobili, parker, and said talent were veterans when they arrived here. sure both mentioned had previous experience overseas but they were by far not nba veterans upon arrival. duncan has been surrounded by ring chasing veterans and overseas talent(luckily we have good scouts). so before you keep trying to compare the two based on supporting cast, first look at how long some of our players were in the league before getting their 1st, 2nd, maybe even 3rd ring with DUNCAN/SPURS.
there were no real superstars helping us along the way besides robinson during our 1st two les and even at that he was past his prime. sure we had some decent people come in and out of the organization, but nothing real special until we finally found our accompanying two in tony, and manu(possibly three with bruce). Remind me about the last time you heard duncan referenced with someone other then those 2. Ex; Twin Towers & The Big Three.
tony isn't even in his prime yet and well ginobili is still stellar but he is climbing that ladder per say. keep on hating cause duncan still has some time in his career to add another le or two to his record. can't get any better than duncan.
Do you have to be a veteran to produce, or do you just have to be talented enough? Magic won as a rookie. Bird won in his 2nd year. Hakeem went to the Finals in his second. Duncan won in his second. Of course Manu and TP are not on those guys level but they were both able to contribute, and as you already stated, they had plenty of experience overseas playing against professionals. For a proper comparison, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell were key pieces to our le runs in just their first and second seasons. Surrounding talent matters!!!!
And as far as the ring chasing vets, how is mentioning them not supporting my argument?
tony isn't even in his prime yet and well ginobili is still stellar but he is climbing that ladder per say. keep on hating cause duncan still has some time in his career to add another le or two to his record. can't get any better than duncan.[/QUOTE]
The last 5 champions have only had one superstar player on their roster (07 Spurs, 06 Heat, 05 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 03 Spurs). Every Finals losing team since 98 has only had one superstar player, except for the 04 Lakers. , the only le competing team since 98 with two stars has been LA with Kobe and Shaq. You don’t need two stars to win these days…this isn’t the 80’s or 90’s.
And I’m not hating. I love Duncan and respect his game. I just think Hakeem was better.
1999 Duncan had a 33 yr old David Robinson who only played in 49 games that year and was showing the first signs of the chronic back pain that would later cut short his distinguished career. They had 30 year old Ninja who only played in 50 games that year, but thank god he played that Memorial Day. They had Mario Elie, AJ, Jaren Jackson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Jerome Kersey, Will Perdue, Gerard King and Andrew Gaze. Now that is one star studded lineup if I've ever seen one.
In 2003 Duncan had a 20 year old man child in Tony Parker, who was in his 2nd year in the league. They had a less then 100% 37 year old Admiral who only played in 64 games that year and was most definitely affected by his ailing back. Manu was in his 2nd year. The Spurs also had the star power of the always mercurial Stephen Jackson, ancient cricketty legged Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Speedy Claxton, Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, Devin Brown and Menke Bateer.
From those two squads, all I see is one Mr Universe in Tim Duncan and some great role players, both young and old. This must be the great surrounding talent you were refering to. If you say so. And I see that you're going one step further now by saying that Tim won those championships because he had great coaching and management. I won't dispute that, but are you saying he won his 4 championships because of that, or that Hakeem didn't have that?
Now the roster that played with Hakeem during their championship years is even more star studded then the certain HOF's (according to you) that Tim played with. Hakeem had Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, Robert Horry (both in their prime), Otis Thorpe and Sam Cassell. How does in your eyes having a roster that includes one of the 50 greatest in Clyde Drexler cons ute not having enough surrounding talent, especially when you compare it to the Spurs roster the years they won le. Riddle me that batman.
Defense is nothing in today's NBA compared to the 80's. Not even a comparison.
As the Mavs fan noted, handchecking is illegal in today's NBA and was the most common defensive option in containing perimeter stars of 20 years ago. Games were ridiculously more physical in that era as compared to now.
You also don't have many elite shotblockers at the rim in today's NBA where in the 90's you had some monster athletic rim defenders in Hakeem, Robinson, Zo, Mourning, Dikembe, Mark Eaton, etc and some very rugged post defenders like Charles Oakley, Bill Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman, etc. One can only imaginie how many times Duncan would show the wide-eyed "are u crazy?" look to refs playing in an era where that much contact was allowed.
Scoring is down because offensive fundamentals like passing, shooting, and team ball have declined and because guys dont hone their skills in collge for multiple years anymore.
You allow teams in today's NBA like they did in the 80's, 90's and you're looking at some 71-68 type of games.
Stern has done everything to make the games more high scoring and it's all failed because the offensive fundamentals are that bad in today's NBA.
To say that MJ wouldnt be more effective in a league with handchecking not allowed is just mind boggling. This is like saying Shaq wouldnt be more effective in a league where 3 second violations didnt exist.
Your comment on Hakeem's turnaround jumper is one of the key reasons Hakeem is better than Tim. That shot was unstoppable and demoralized opponents because they would defend it as well as they could and it would still go in. It was up there with Jabbar's skyhook.
You clearly never watched Hakeem play to compare his style to Garnett's. Hakeem was almost an exclusively in the box, post player, where Garnett is a jump shooter and a driver from the wing. Hakeem's style was just like Duncan's (in the post), except with more moves and versatility.
Do you not see the irony in your post?
You downplay Duncan's time with Robinson because David was 33 and on the decline and then state that Hakeem had the great fortune of playing with one of the 50 best of all time.
Uh, Clyde joined the Rockets at age 32 (about the same age you point out that DRob started to decline). Clyde was WELL past his peak when he came to Houston and after his first year in Houston was a s of his former self. Hakeem never played with the younger/in prime Clyde who was a top 50 players.
I have made it pretty clear that i do not agree for the seasons 00 to 04.
Hakeem definitely overachieved in 94 and 95, but it was evident that he needed a team that is made specifically with outside shooting and a shortend 3 pt line for him to succeed. Duncan didn't need either, his 4 championship teams were totally different from each other.
Hakeem's outside shooters still shot in the very low 30's percentage wise, even with the shortened three point line. The only point you are making is that Hakeem didn't have a great supporting cast.
Hakeem doesn't get a free pass, since some of you guys are so big on talking about a watered-down league. How did Hakeems Rockets fail to win anything from '96 to 2000? In '96 they lost in the W.C. semis, then in '97 they lost in the W.C. finals, followed by back to back first round exits in '98 and '99. In 2000 they didn't even make the playoffs. How is that so? Especially when he was playing with Drexler, Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, Walt Williams. Doesn't that support your criteria of additional HOF players playing alongside Olajuwon?
And you probably already know that Duncan's Spurs have made the playoffs every single year he has worn the black and silver. He doesn't know what it's like to lose in the first round. But don't let the facts get in the way.
They were all washed up at this point
Perhaps I was being unclear, the thing is, Robinson led the team to 47-35 even though he missed 14 games. Take those 14 games out, that would be a 42-26 team, good enough for a 51 wins in an 82-game season.
Ironically, Otis Thorpe averaged 17 and 10.5, Maxwell at 17.2 and 4.1, and Kenny Smith chipped in at 14/7, not bad. and it was funny how you took Buck Johnson into account and ignored the Spurs had no PG for a huge chunk of the season with Strickland out.
This doesn't show too much, just that by comparing players with the same position in the same year, and it was so clear that Robinson outplayed Hakeem in that one season.
You don't think in 91-92, the Magic, Bullets, Bucks, Hornets, Wolves, Mavs, Nuggets and Kings were gimmes? There was a huge disparity in talent in the late 80s all the way up to the mid 90s, what finally fixed that trend was the luxury tax, and we start to see more disparity in terms of talent. To wit, in 92, Moses Malone, at 36 years of age, averaged 15 and 9, and people are complaining about people never retiring now because of lack of talent?
The difference between Hakeem and Duncan is that he couldn't drag an otherwise 25-win team to the playoffs, while Duncan dragged an otherwise 38-win team to a championship.
That was aimed at another poster, and it was a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. But I see that you get it. I'm not down playing anything. My point is that it was Duncan, and a 75% David Robinson and a bunch of other guys. For Tim's first two championships, he had little support as far as a 2nd go to guy. It wasn't until 2005 and 2007 that he had support from Bowen, Parker and Manu. Those players brought stability and familiarity, but even so, you know how much the composition of the team has changed from '99 to 2007. The only constant has been TD. Hakeem had similar cir stances and opportunities and wasn't able to get it done. No slight on Dream, that just amplifies the greatness that is Tim Duncan.
I have got to disagree with this comment (not like we have agreed much in this thread), but defense in the 00s has been lightyears ahead of the 80's. The badboys changed that, and defensive schemes are much more complex than those of the mid 80s.
ANd your comments about 3 stars, I would say Phoenix has 3 stars, so does the Nets, but they are not going anywhere, because more emphasis is being put on team construction.
I know that big guy, but compare that to what Tim had to work with in '99 and even in 2003.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote