Duncan>Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

The rules are changing

Jordan had no zones so he was mainly one on one playoing a lot of isos

And why did the rules change? To increase scoring and free-flowing basketball by cutting down on hard handchecks.

You can't breathe on a wing player in today's NBA and you think the best guard in the league's history would somehow be adversely affected by these rules? ROFL!!!!!

Without being able to body, push, and bump Jordan you'd have absolutely zero chance of containing him.

Just think about your argument and how ridiculous it sounds. You are arguing that the rules Stern implemented with the specific goal of increasing scoring and high percentage baskets would somehow HURT the best basketball player ever, one who thrived in an era of far, FAR greater compe ion.

[bobbyjoe]

Yes, this is obvious. Today players are covered when they shoot jumpers, where as in the 80s players took (and let me stress this) wide open 15 footers while the other team sat around wide-eyed.

Just because players were allowed to maul each other in the 80s once in a while does not mean the defense was superior. In fact, since the players used those tactics at all, it means they probably couldn't stay in front of their man to save their life.

Today's NBA sports the best defenses from top to bottom that the league has ever seen. Open jumpers are a thing of the past. You want to make the argument that because players were allowed to body-check each other to make a statement, defenses were superior. I don't understand that logic, but feel free to enlighten me. Games from the 80s, players were left all alone at the 'bows, the line, anywhere outside of the paint was just a shooting gallery, and I've watched way too many of them to be swayed by that idea.

Lastly, you think Parker just "waltzes" into the lane. That is hilarious. Watch the Spurs-Sonics series from a couple years ago. Watch games 3 & 4 from Detroit in the Finals, and tell me that Parker has never been hit while going in for a layup.

Unless, of course, you would really like to make the argument that the Wallace Bros. with Billups and Prince are not a physical team.

Your last sentence says a lot. Are the Wallace bro's considered physical? Yes, certainly by today's standards.

However, flip on a game with the Lakers-Celts of the 80's, Bad boys Pistons, Riley's Knicks, Riley's Heat from the 1990's and those games will look like prison ball compared to today's Pistons.

The reason you see more open jumpers in the 1980's is that teams back them were much more unselfish and players had much better fundamentals.

Back then, you had a bunch of guys who hit the pull up in between jumper which guys can't hit today. Fast breaks were run much more efficiently. Guys knew how to move without the ball and players could pass the ball.

All of these are declining arts in today's NBA.

Why do teams like the San Antonio Spurs and Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks have no trouble getting wide open jumpers and great looks in today's supposedly superior defensive climate? Because they execute and are efficient like the previous great offensive teams.

When you have teams like in today's NBA running few plays other than isolations for perimeter players and a few pick n rolls the result is ugly 82-78 ball like you have in today's league.

The rules are more pro-offense in today's league than in the 80's, 90's yet scoring and shooting are down tremendously. That should tell you all you need to know.

I notice you didnt even attempt to argue with the fact that there were so many more elite shotblockers in the 80's, 90's than today also making defense much tougher in those times. I guess that's just too obvious to dispute.

How many DPOY's would a marginal player like Marcus Camby win in the 1980's and 1990's?!

[bobbyjoe]

Yeah, that pretty much seals the deal. And as far as "most neutral fans" gimme a link please. What neutral fans are these? Are these the casual NBA fans? The hardcore follower? Media pundits or NBA GM's and coaches across the league? Or is just bobbyjoe?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43680

http://boards.ign.com/basketball/b5109/143878190/p1

[polandprzem]

And why did the rules change? To increase scoring and free-flowing basketball by cutting down on hard handchecks.

You can't breathe on a wing player in today's NBA and you think the best guard in the league's history would somehow be adversely affected by these rules? ROFL!!!!!

Without being able to body, push, and bump Jordan you'd have absolutely zero chance of containing him.

Just think about your argument and how ridiculous it sounds. You are arguing that the rules Stern implemented with the specific goal of increasing scoring and high percentage baskets would somehow HURT the best basketball player ever, one who thrived in an era of far, FAR greater compe ion.

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days.
I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pet and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh

[mavs>spurs2]

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days. I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pet and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh

Are you kidding me? Jordan was constantly double and triple teamed, fouled, shoved, bodied up, everything you couldn't get away with in todays league. The only hope you had of even containing him was by using tactics that people are no longer able to use.

[mavs>spurs2]

And by the way, Bobbyjoe has been kicking ass all throughout this thread

[mavs>spurs2]

I cant believe this is so hard for you to grasp. Your posts are so filled with inaccuracies and lies it's pathetic.

You say the Rockets did not lead the league in ATTEMPTS and only in MAKES in 1993-1994?

That's completely false.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1994.html

The Rockets in 1993-1994 ATTEMPTED a full 150 more 3 pointers than the next closest team. That's a full 2 per game. Their conversion RATE was right at the league average, hence they can only be described as an AVERAGE 3 point shooting team.

Ditto for 1995. Again, the Rockets % from 3 was only right at the 3 average, but they led the league in attempts and makes.

Duncan has needed a HOF Center as well (1999-2003) and then after that all star caliber guards (Manu, Parker) along with the league's best wing defender, a guy who shoots his 3's at a far better clip than any of the oh, so lethal 33% shooters you think were the reason the Rockets won with in the mid 90/s.

Your argument is such utter trash that in fact that Duncan's Spurs were the ones in 2006-2007 who shot 38.1% (nearly 5% higher than Hakeem's awesome shooters) and 36.3% in 2004-2005. In both these le seasons, the Spurs shot a far higher % from 3 than the rest of the league so if anyone relied more on 3 point shooters to complement him in le seasons, it was clearly DUncan if you want to look at the stone cold facts.

Well said

Duncan relies on having great 3 point shooters more than Hakeem ever did

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Hakeem had to have a certain type of team built around him to win, while Duncan wins mass amounts of championships with any type of scrubs you put around him. Especially when it's Duncan, not Hakeem, who relies on having great 3 point shooters.

[bobbyjoe]

Theory babyjoe, theory.

It was not looking like you are saying.
I can remember the isolations plays all the time for Jordan realy, I have not seen much double teams back in a days.
I do not know but even when he was posting up he did not get many double teams, at least vs Utah. Maybe my memory is not that good but what to I have go t to say someting.

And mentioning about zones and rule changes. wtf does it proof?
Nothing If Tim would be born earlier he would face the rules hakeem faced and when Akeem would be born later he would face what Duncan is faceing.
What does it change for Mikan and Russell and Pet and Wilt and Bird and Magic and Julius?
They all were great.
So let's not transfer Shaq to Mikans years and say that Mikan was nothing okay?

Compareing era to era .... Sheesh

Comparing eras across 50 yrs (Mikan to Shaq) is a lot different than comparing eras across one decade (Hakeem era vs. Tim era).

In any era taking the ball out of a guard's hands is difficult. What's different from the Jordan era to now is that back then you could at least body, bump, and push MJ around to try to slow him down. In today's NBA, if you try that, you'll foul out early in the game.

Say what you want about Hakeem vs. Tim, but arguing that Jordan wouldnt be more successful in the 2000's with far less contact allowed on perimeter stars and far less great shotblockers at the rim than he was in the 1990's is just silly.

Per your post, do you seriously think that double teaming is this revolutionary concept only born in the 2000's? Do you really think stars of the 80's and 90's weren't double teamed?!

[polandprzem]

Are you kidding me? Jordan was constantly double and triple teamed, fouled, shoved, bodied up, everything you couldn't get away with in todays league. The only hope you had of even containing him was by using tactics that people are no longer able to use.

Yup once he was killed and still was able to make the basket ...

[mavs>spurs2]

Yup once he was killed and still was able to make the basket ...

basically a true story

[SpursDynasty]

And Duncan never beat a player the caliber of Jordan.

Duncan's record in the playoffs against the Super Duper top 10 all time players in the NBA:

vs. Shaq: 2-3
vs. Karl Malone: 0-2

He can't beat Shaq or K. Malone, but would have beat Jordan? Uh, ok.

BTW, Shaq is easily the best player in the NBA post Michael Jordan.

Duncan is great, but some of this talk about him being better than Shaq, Hakeem, MJ, Bird is just crazy. No one outside of a Spurs board would believe that. He aint on that level.

Duncan not only DID beat Shaq (your post said he didn't), but both times he beat Shaq, he went on to win the championship. He ended the Lakers run of 3 straight. No other team in the NBA could beat the Lakers. The Spurs were the last ones to beat them in 1999 before their 3-year run, then beat them again in 2003 to end it. The Pistons beat them in 2004, but we beat the Pistons in 2005 and got the championship back.

The reason Duncan is a notch over Shaq is because Duncan can win a championship surrounded by role players. The 2003 championship team was a dominant Duncan and role players. Robinson was there, but not the dominant Robinson. Same in 2005, no other dominant superstar. Shaq always needs another dominant superstar (Bryant, Wade) to win a championship, and Shaq actually had little to do with Miami's.

Karl Malone is not a Top 10 All-Time player, BTW. The greatest players win championships. And if you want to make the "Well he had to face Jordan" argument, Jordan's Bulls were gone by 1999. Malone had what, 6 six non-Jordan seasons (98-99 lockout season to 03-04 season) to put together a championship and he didn't.

MJ > Duncan
Duncan > Bird, or 4 > 3
Duncan > Hakeem, or 4 > 2

[Ignignokt]

Well said

Duncan relies on having great 3 point shooters more than Hakeem ever did

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Hakeem had to have a certain type of team built around him to win, while Duncan wins mass amounts of championships with any type of scrubs you put around him. Especially when it's Duncan, not Hakeem, who relies on having great 3 point shooters.

WHat?

Hakeem relied on so many three point players to win both championships. THe Mario Ellie three to beat pheonix, countless horry and cassel 3pt's. THat's just ridiculous.

Even shaq relied on 3pters.

Don't listen to bobby joe, he only uses the facts when it suits his argument. This whole thread is evidenced by that.

[Ignignokt]

SOme of you must have downs. Hakeem with out a three point threat(s) would have been Robinson.

[bobbyjoe]

WHat?

Hakeem relied on so many three point players to win both championships. THe Mario Ellie three to beat pheonix, countless horry and cassel 3pt's. THat's just ridiculous.

Even shaq relied on 3pters.

Don't listen to bobby joe, he only uses the facts when it suits his argument. This whole thread is evidenced by that.

And the key 3's of Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Manu Ginobili, and Michael Finley weren't a factor in Duncan's run this past year?

I remember a certain 3 by the same Robert Horry that bailed Duncan out of a Game 5 in Det where he was 1-7 from the FT line in the clutch in the 4th quarter.

Hakeem wasn't the one who's teams were good enough to win a le with him not being the team's MVP in the Finals. That would be Tim DUncan (see Tony Parker winning Finals MVP the 2007 Finals when Duncan shot, what, 42% from the field against Big Z?)

The Bruce Bowen 3 from the Corner this yr to give the Spurs the lead in Game 5 of the Semifinals in the last minute wasn't Duncan relying on a big 3?

The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!

Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem have ALL relied on 3 point shooters. The idea that Duncan is so above the other 2 that he didnt need "that makeup" to succeed is false and laughable as the facts have irrefutably proven, because in fact it's Duncan who's had a 3 pt shooting supporting cast which was above average in that department.

[bobbyjoe]

Duncan not only DID beat Shaq (your post said he didn't), but both times he beat Shaq, he went on to win the championship. He ended the Lakers run of 3 straight. No other team in the NBA could beat the Lakers. The Spurs were the last ones to beat them in 1999 before their 3-year run, then beat them again in 2003 to end it. The Pistons beat them in 2004, but we beat the Pistons in 2005 and got the championship back.

The reason Duncan is a notch over Shaq is because Duncan can win a championship surrounded by role players. The 2003 championship team was a dominant Duncan and role players. Robinson was there, but not the dominant Robinson. Same in 2005, no other dominant superstar. Shaq always needs another dominant superstar (Bryant, Wade) to win a championship, and Shaq actually had little to do with Miami's.

Karl Malone is not a Top 10 All-Time player, BTW. The greatest players win championships. And if you want to make the "Well he had to face Jordan" argument, Jordan's Bulls were gone by 1999. Malone had what, 6 six non-Jordan seasons (98-99 lockout season to 03-04 season) to put together a championship and he didn't.

MJ > Duncan
Duncan > Bird, or 4 > 3
Duncan > Hakeem, or 4 > 2

Duncan > Wilt or 4 > 2
Billups > Nash or 1 > 0
Billups > Stockton or 1>0
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone or 1>0
Robert Horry > Scottie Pippen or 7>6


Do you honestly think any human outside of SA seriously thinks Tim Duncan is better than Larry Freakin Bird? That's just a joke. Bird got his against Magic/Kareem, Great Sixers teams, not against the 1999 Knicks and 2007 Cavs and 2003 Nets.

Duncan's great but not close to the same planet as Bird, forget about all the Hakeem stuff...

Name one team that Duncan has ever defeated that's on par with teams Bird had to contend with?

[Ignignokt]

And the key 3's of Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Manu Ginobili, and Michael Finley weren't a factor in Duncan's run this past year?

I remember a certain 3 by the same Robert Horry that bailed Duncan out of a Game 5 in Det where he was 1-7 from the FT line in the clutch in the 4th quarter.

Hakeem wasn't the one who's teams were good enough to win a le with him not being the team's MVP in the Finals. That would be Tim DUncan (see Tony Parker winning Finals MVP the 2007 Finals when Duncan shot, what, 42% from the field against Big Z?)

The Bruce Bowen 3 from the Corner this yr to give the Spurs the lead in Game 5 of the Semifinals in the last minute wasn't Duncan relying on a big 3?

The Sean Elliott Memorial Day Miracle from behind the 3 pt line had nothing to do with Duncan winning in 1999?!

Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem have ALL relied on 3 point shooters. The idea that Duncan is so above the other 2 that he didnt need "that makeup" to succeed is false and laughable as the facts have irrefutably proven, because in fact it's Duncan who's had a 3 pt shooting supporting cast which was above average in that department.

So Tony Parker won the MVP in one year. You still have the other 3 where parker was non existant. THAT's still 3>2. Don't hang yourself bobby. Maybe fans who post on message boards agree that Dunc is lesser than the Dream, but all the sports experts put duncan and shaq in a class with MJ, Kareem, and Bird. Nobody in the media outside of HOuston put hakeem in that same class.

Btw, thanks for agreeing with me that Duncan and Hakeem both relied on 3pts, which neglects your previous argument. And Hakeem also had an above average 3pt shooting cast.


Let's review the 3pt Dept.


Sam Cassel > Parker

Horry 95 > Bowen

Maxwell, Smith > Ginobilli

Matt Bullard > Brent barry and Finley were too inconsistent.

[Ignignokt]

Duncan > Wilt or 4 > 2
Billups > Nash or 1 > 0
Billups > Stockton or 1>0
Rasheed Wallace > Karl Malone or 1>0
Robert Horry > Scottie Pippen or 7>6


Do you honestly think any human outside of SA seriously thinks Tim Duncan is better than Larry Freakin Bird? That's just a joke. Bird got his against Magic/Kareem, Great Sixers teams, not against the 1999 Knicks and 2007 Cavs and 2003 Nets.

Duncan's great but not close to the same planet as Bird, forget about all the Hakeem stuff...

Name one team that Duncan has ever defeated that's on par with teams Bird had to contend with?

The lakers with SHaq and Kobe. and i did that without consulting a message board.

[Ignignokt]

here are a list of non spurfan peeps who rated duncan higher than hakeem

http://motownsportsrevival.blogspot....-all-time.html


http://books.google.com/books?id=z1i...voe5yM#PPR3,M1

this book puts duncan at 9th and Akeem at 16th of all time.



http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/47841

puts the dunkmeister at 9 over akeem.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ime/index.html

Duncan makes the list, hailed as the bill russel of the era.

[Ignignokt]

it's kinda quiet, here... maybe bobbyjoe is consulting his and 1 and faux nba forums for help.

[bobbyjoe]

So Tony Parker won the MVP in one year. You still have the other 3 where parker was non existant. THAT's still 3>2. Don't hang yourself bobby. Maybe fans who post on message boards agree that Dunc is lesser than the Dream, but all the sports experts put duncan and shaq in a class with MJ, Kareem, and Bird. Nobody in the media outside of HOuston put hakeem in that same class.

Btw, thanks for agreeing with me that Duncan and Hakeem both relied on 3pts, which neglects your previous argument. And Hakeem also had an above average 3pt shooting cast.


Let's review the 3pt Dept.


Sam Cassel > Parker

Horry 95 > Bowen

Maxwell, Smith > Ginobilli

Matt Bullard > Brent barry and Finley were too inconsistent.

Yes, let's review the 3 point department:

Rockets 3 pt % 1994: 33.3%
Rockets 3 pt % 1995: 36.7%
Spurs 3 pt % 2005: 36.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 2007: 38.1%
Spurs 3 pt % 2003: 35.4%
Spurs 3 pt % 199: 33.0%

These are the facts and they clearly show the Spurs had more efficient 3 point shooting than Houston.

You claim Horry was a better 3 baller than Bowen but the stats and facts disagree with you. Bowen shoots 3's at a higher % than Horry.

Your Maxwell comment is hilarious. The dude shot .298 % from 3's in the Rockets first championship. To put that in perspective, NINE Spurs from this last year's team shot a higher % than that.

You may not have realized this, but if you shoot a worse percentage from 3 than someone, that means you aren't a better 3 point shooter than them. I know for someone like you that's very hard to figure out. Take some time and maybe it'll come to you.

Higher % > Lower %.

You claim that Matt Bullard was better than Finley or Barry as a 3 point shooter?

Here are the facts:

93-94 Bullard 3 pt %: 33%
Finley 06-07 3 pt %: 36.4%
Barry 06-07 3 pt %: 45%

Which is more "consistent" and effective in your opinion, a 3 pt shooter who shoots 33%, 36.4%, or 45%?

Where do you come up with this crap, seriously?

[bobbyjoe]

The lakers with SHaq and Kobe. and i did that without consulting a message board.

LOL.

1) No, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers aren't even close to the Kareem-Magic-Worthy-B. Scott-we ruled the NBA for a decade Lakers. Not even close.

2) Duncan was 1-3 against Shaq/Kobe and Phil Jackson. I repeat 1 win, 3 losses. What's so awesome about beating someone once, but losing 3 times to them in the playoffs?

[gtownspur]

awesome, so finley and ginobilli have better 3pt stats in the regular season than Bullard and Maxwell. Nevermind the rest of the rockets were better shooters.

Why do you hate Duncan?

The spurs of 2007 were the only team with a higher 3pt percantage. all the others are equal if rounded.

THat's still 3>2 bobby joe.

and that still doesn't change the expert's pick of Duncan over Akeem.

Maybe the whole stripping a guard does not make one supreme.

[bobbyjoe]

awesome, so finley and ginobilli have better 3pt stats in the regular season than Bullard and Maxwell. Nevermind the rest of the rockets were better shooters.

Why do you hate Duncan?

The spurs of 2007 were the only team with a higher 3pt percantage. all the others are equal if rounded.

THat's still 3>2 bobby joe.

and that still doesn't change the expert's pick of Duncan over Akeem.

Maybe the whole stripping a guard does not make one supreme.

Except that most NBA fans and common players who played with both players pretty universally pick Hakeem.

Does every single person pick Hakeem? Of course not. But it's pretty clear if you look at some neutral NBA boards what most people think.

And I do agree with you that the 3 point shooting is not decidedly in anyone's favor. If anything though, the Spurs are the team that shot 3's more efficiently.

Here's another board which talks about the 2007 Spurs vs. the 1995 Rockets. Notice that when most neutral fans talk about the Duncan-Hakeem matchup who they favor.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtop...er=asc&start=0

I've said repeatedly, I dont hate Duncan. I have him as the top PF ever and a top 15 all time player, one who probably ends up close to top 10 ever. That's not hate. But putting him over guys like MJ, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq like many on this thread are doing is just homerism...

[timmy21_4rings]

Hakeem could not even win a playoff series 1988 through 1992. In 91-92 he also missed the playoffs. Can you imagine TD not able to win a playoff series for that long or missing playoffs in the middle of his career?

[timmy21_4rings]

Neutral fans never appreciate what Duncan does. Most of them have no idea about what Duncan does year after year. Please refer the NBA finals ratings when Duncan is in finals.

If neutral fans are right, Yao, James, Wade and Kobe are the best players. Their jerseys are the best selling ones.