Duncan>Hakeem.

[Cry Havoc]

The insults came after i was attacked by this demo marcinko and told i had a so called "agenda" for voicing the same opinions as several other posters.

You want to preach to someone, at least save your breath for someone who gives a .

This thread is for discussing Tim vs Hakeem, get with the program or get lost

Ah, yes. Tim vs. Hakeem.

This obviously is why you bought male genitalia into the thread. My mistake, I clearly see now how that correlates with the discussion in question.

[Mister Sinister]

I think we should start a thread comparing Duncan to Jordan.

Here is a JORDAN FACTOID:

1993 Bulls 57-25 (Jordan 3rd in MVP)
1994 Bulls 55-27 (Pippen 3rd in MVP)

There you have it.

Jordan is worth 2 wins for your team each year.

I'll take Duncan.

[bobbyjoe]

I don't think you are getting his point and it isn't that complex. he has posted the state for it 3 or 4 times already.

If a team makes it's 3 pointers at an average clip, then how can you say they are an amazing 3 point shooting team? The only thing they were amazing at is taking more than anyone else in the league. It makes sense that you would make more if you take more if you are an average shooting team.

I agree that the Spurs don't rely on the 3 as much as those Rockets teams did, but it's silly to say they were an amazing at shooting the 3 when the Spurs were making them a a higher clip during their le runs. It's silly to say they were amazing just because they launched them more, when their % was average compared to everyone else. Is Duncan an amazing ft shooter since he attempts more than most bigs, even though his average is just so/so (compared to most bigs)? See how foolish that argument is? If anything, the fact that SA doesn't have to rely on the 3 as much is a testament to having other players who could create their own shot and actually having a decent coach that can come up with more offensive sets than "dump it to my big man and stand around".

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a le. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

[Ignignokt]

The spurs had no one who could create in 99 either.

[bobbyjoe]

Good point, ambchang.

Duncan missed more than 12 games in both '04 and '05 and the Spurs still made the playoffs.

More stats:

Duncan's W/L record in first round of playoffs:

32-10 = 76%

Spurs record without Duncan:

1-4 = 20%

I do not think you will find this disparity in the history of the NBA. Duncan is the greatest winner outside of maybe Bill Russell.

FACTOID:

The Spurs have had on ONE Lottery pick since 1989 and that Lottery pick was Tim Duncan.

Yep, the Spurs have sure stockpiled lots of talent to hoist Duncan up by his bootstraps!

What's with the intentionally deceptive factoid?

Fine, the Spurs only have had one lottery pick post Duncan.

Duncan also landed onto a team which was a year removed from a 55 win season with a guy who was MVP 2 yrs prior to his arrival and a team stacked with talent which only landed the #1 pick due to a slew of injuries.

How many #1 picks have ever landed in a scenario like that?

Also, it's pretty obvious that Manu and Parker were both draft steals even though technically not drafted in the lottery. Looking back at those drafts, the Spurs got lottery level talent (thats an understatement).

[Ignignokt]

What's with the intentionally deceptive factoid?

Fine, the Spurs only have had one lottery pick post Duncan.

Duncan also landed onto a team which was a year removed from a 55 win season with a guy who was MVP 2 yrs prior to his arrival and a team stacked with talent which only landed the #1 pick due to a slew of injuries.

How many #1 picks have ever landed in a scenario like that?

Also, it's pretty obvious that Manu and Parker were both draft steals even though technically not drafted in the lottery. Looking back at those drafts, the Spurs got lottery level talent (thats an understatement).

It's the prophetic BOBBY CODE, starring the dude from growing pains, and the tamara twins.

[bobbyjoe]

Gary Payton wouldn't have given Kemp the ball as well as Nash does amare. Kemp would have avg 18-21ppg.

Even still, Akeem was taller and just as fast, and an awesome shot blocker,you'd think.


One thing to consider, Duncan has won 4 les in a small market, with small resources, with his stars coming only through draft. The spurs have never managed to pull in an established superstar through trade like the Rox did with drexler.

Basically everyteam the spurs have lost, have been in the FInals. Every team.

And about bowen being a stellar defender, you wouldn't know that if you were like bobby joe and only looked at the stats. Besides the fact that bowens defense is credited to Duncan, ought to say something about duncans multidimensional defensive prowess.

Bowen, has avg stats for being a defensive monster. And if we were to take the bobbyjoe approach, Ginobilli is a better defender than bruce.

Sorry Joe, The media might be mesmerized by steals and blocks. But the real students of the game, the coaches will always pick duncan as a defensive jagguarnat. Who happened to get in the all defensive team in his rookie year with Zo and Shaq, and Drob still kicking ass.

In the end, Historians will look at wins, and contribution.

Duncan is just the obvious choice. No number of blocks, steals, and FT pct, will take that away.

Steals and blocks tell you about team defense, not individual D.

[Ignignokt]

Steals and blocks tell you about team defense, not individual D.

what, when you block, you're blocking the whole team?

[kingmalaki]

Whatever you want to say, fact is the Rockets were comparable to the Spurs in 3 pt shooting % in every one of their championship winning years except 2007, but no, just because the Spurs were better in one single year translates to the Rockets being an average 3 pt shooting team, and the Spurs being a great one.

I never said the Spurs were a great 3 point shooting team and neither did bobbyjoe. You claimed the Rockets were great at shooting the three and now that the numbers don't support your argument you are trying to twist things around. Just admit you were wrong. It's really ok....

The point is, the Rockets had 3 pt shooting as an integral part of their offense, and yes, a huge part of it was because Hakeem drew so much attention in the low post, but it also speaks to the fact that, 1995 in particular, that the Rockets can have 4 3 pt shooting threats on the floor with Hakeem without having anyone play out of position, and they took advantage of that and shot a huge about of 3 pters.

You are absolutely correct. But what you are saying now is nothing like what you originally stated...something like the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team and Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded bu great 3 point shooters.

If Duncan ever shot 88% from the line vs. Finley 91%, and shot a significantly higher amount, I would say Duncan is much more dangerous from the FT line than Finley. And if the Rockets were making 12% of their 3 pters compared to the league average, then yeah, let them go nuts. But the fact is that neither were the case. Your case is much more like saying Miller is a worse 3 pt shooter than Kevin Johnson in 1997 because he shot 42.8% compared to 44.1%, despite making much much more (229 vs. 89)

Both cases are just as dumb. How can you say someone is great at shooting 3's when they have an average %, just because they tame more attempts than anyone else?

You are making it sound like there is a huge difference in shooting percentage between the two teams, while all the while, the Rockets are only 3.4% from the team with the best 3pt% in 1994 while making 133% more 3pters (that’s 2.33 x), and shot 3 % worse than the team with the best 3pt % and shot 15% more 3 pters.

No, I am not. I am saying it makes no sense to say a team that made 3's at around the league average was a great 3 point shooting team. Great at what...launching them more than anyone else???

[kingmalaki]

Given that in this era, the Spurs and the Lakers won all but two of the championships makes it a moot point.

How does it make it a moot point? Every team to make the Finals was also led by 1 star player, except for the Lakers.

And let's forget about the fact that in the 90's, the Jordan Bulls won 6 of the 10. What about the late 80's Pistons, two championships back to back, Isiah Thomas as the only star. If you are not counting 06 Shaq as a star, then neither was Dumars, if you are not counting Ben Wallace as a star, then neither was Rodman/Laimbeer.

Dumars was playing at a HOF level when the Pistons won their les. Shaq was getting outplayed by Alonzo Mourning when the Heat won theirs.

I also found something shocking, from 57 to 69, your team needs 5+ HoF on your team to win a championship, it happened 11 out of 13 times. That decade must be the best decade ever. Comparatively, the 80's was a disgrace.

Technically you could make the argument that the teams from 57 - 69 had more collective talent on each team, as the league was obviously smaller.

[kingmalaki]

The spurs had no one who could create in 99 either.

David Robinson and Sean Elliott couldn't create their own shot in 99?

[bobbyjoe]

what, when you block, you're blocking the whole team?

No. Individual D is when you are matched one on one and 'Team' Defense is when you are double teaming, playing help D, drawing charges, or getting in the passing lanes.

Great shotblockers dont usually block their own man's shot, but help when a teammate is beat.

Guys like Larry Bird and John Stockton weren't great on-ball individual defenders like Bowen but were solid team defenders.

Your old Sonics teams played great team D with all the tall, athletic defenders they had who were so disruptive.

[bobbyjoe]

Bobbyjoe was once singlehandedly manhandled by whottt that it wasn't even close (on a thread where he tried to discredit David Robinson - see a recurring theme here? Or ask yourself why else he would have 100 posts on a thread such as this one and hardly any on any of the other threads).

Anyways, on several occasions during the progression of this thread I was tempted to refute one of his many subjective claims... but... have neither the time nor the patience to deal with his belligerent argumentative style.

Having said that, he does make some very good points and will usually back them up with supporting stats... but he also fails to concede on anything... which openly exposes him as embodying the very thing he supposedly denounces - 'bias'. Oh well.

I didnt try to discredit David Robinson. Saying he doesnt quite stack up to Player X doesnt mean you dont appreciate and respect Robinson's game. Everything is relative when you are comparing all time greats and noting areas where one all time great maybe didnt stack up with peers at that level isnt dissing or discrediting.

In fact, I loved David Robinson's game. His athleticism was always entertaining as a fan and it's too bad we dont have more athlete's like him and Hakeem in today's NBA at the Pivot. I saw the Youtube of Robinson's highlights vs. Jordan the other day and it reminded me of how great of a pure athlete he was and reminded me how fun the Pivot battles of the 90's (Hakeem vs. DROb, DRob vs. Shaq, DRob vs. Ewing, Hakeem vs. Shaq) were to watch compared to today's NBA.

I also am not trying to discredit Duncan. I've said many times I think Duncan is THE best player in today's NBA and a top 15 player of all time who will probably end his career close to or in the top 10.

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

[kingmalaki]

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

Especially when they didn't play against each other.

[ambchang]

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a le. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

Of course Duncan has been surrounded by good 3 point shooters the last few seasons, there is no question about it, and that is why I have always contended that the 07 team is the strongest of the 4 championship Spurs teams. The difference is that Duncan was able to win it all with a team that doesn’t have that level of outside shooting in the 99 and 03 team.

And let’s face it, Hakeem dominates the ball on the offensive end, and his passing is mostly to outside shooters rather than cutters, that is why I felt Hakeem was successful with 4 shooters rather than 2 cutters and 2 shooters.

Lastly, Parker couldn’t create offense until about 06, before then, he was chided for being a PG with no point.

[ambchang]

I never said the Spurs were a great 3 point shooting team and neither did bobbyjoe. You claimed the Rockets were great at shooting the three and now that the numbers don't support your argument you are trying to twist things around. Just admit you were wrong. It's really ok....

You are absolutely correct. But what you are saying now is nothing like what you originally stated...something like the Rockets were a great 3 point shooting team and Hakeem couldn't win until he was surrounded bu great 3 point shooters.

Both cases are just as dumb. How can you say someone is great at shooting 3's when they have an average %, just because they tame more attempts than anyone else?

No, I am not. I am saying it makes no sense to say a team that made 3's at around the league average was a great 3 point shooting team. Great at what...launching them more than anyone else???

It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

[ambchang]

How does it make it a moot point? Every team to make the Finals was also led by 1 star player, except for the Lakers.

Because the sample size is ridiculously small. And you are dismissing the fact that there are teams with multiple stars who couldn’t even make the finals. So perhaps there is not a direct 1 to 1 correlation between talent level and team success? And a better team does not necessary translates to better individual players on the team? I thought team USA drove home the point the last few years.

Dumars was playing at a HOF level when the Pistons won their les. Shaq was getting outplayed by Alonzo Mourning when the Heat won theirs.

You can argue Ginobili was playing at a HoF level in 05, he was just as good as Dumars was in the le runs. Josh Howard and Jason Terry were playing like all-stars (choking all-stars, but all-stars nonetheless) in 06. Outside of Game 2 and 6, Shaq outplayed Mourning in every single game, go watch the tapes again.

Technically you could make the argument that the teams from 57 - 69 had more collective talent on each team, as the league was obviously smaller.

So why isn’t Bill Russell conclusively the best ever? He won 11 les in a league that was stacked full of talent at every single team. How do we know? Because we only looked at the top teams that made the finals and ignored the bottom feeders, just like you and bobbyjoe ignored all the crap teams in the 80s and claimed that there was so much more talent in the late 80s.
Look at the all-star teams, Sleepy Floyd, Rolando Blackman, Tom Chambers, Walter Davis, Alvin Robertson, Joe Barry Carroll, Bill Laimbeer, and Jeff Malone are no better than Sahwn Marion, Mehmet Okur, Josh Howard, Joe Johnson and Caron Butler.

[mavs>spurs2]

It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...

[Phenomanul]

So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...

Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

[mavs>spurs2]

Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.

[Cry Havoc]

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.

God you're an idiot. You've been riding bobbyjoe's coattails this entire thread. The minute someone besides ambchang steps into the thread and points out how freaking stupid and baseless your comments are, you start crying about how ambchang isn't fighting his own battles.

You're on a SPURS BOARD whining about Spurs fans backing each other? I thought I've seen some asnine commentary from Fast Dunk or da_suns_fan, but at least they realize they're trolls. You purport yourself to be a serious poster and you come up with this driveling snot. My God, you are so beaten in this moment. Bobby can at least hold his own in this discussion, meanwhile, have you started your own investment company in DVD rewinders? Weak does not begin to describe your retort.

Just stop posting now. Just stop. You will never say anything that will ever disprove how moronic you are after this.

[ambchang]

So they're a great 3 point shooting team, they're just not very accurate at it? Do you realize what a contradictory statement that is?

Just end this argument now by plea of insanity...

Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.
2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.
3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.
4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.
5) You are just all agreeing that Miller is not as great as Kevin Johnson in 3 pt shooting in 97 despite leaging the league in makes, just because Johnson shot 2.5% better than him.

[Phenomanul]

I didnt try to discredit David Robinson. Saying he doesnt quite stack up to Player X doesnt mean you dont appreciate and respect Robinson's game. Everything is relative when you are comparing all time greats and noting areas where one all time great maybe didnt stack up with peers at that level isnt dissing or discrediting.

In fact, I loved David Robinson's game. His athleticism was always entertaining as a fan and it's too bad we dont have more athlete's like him and Hakeem in today's NBA at the Pivot. I saw the Youtube of Robinson's highlights vs. Jordan the other day and it reminded me of how great of a pure athlete he was and reminded me how fun the Pivot battles of the 90's (Hakeem vs. DROb, DRob vs. Shaq, DRob vs. Ewing, Hakeem vs. Shaq) were to watch compared to today's NBA.

I also am not trying to discredit Duncan. I've said many times I think Duncan is THE best player in today's NBA and a top 15 player of all time who will probably end his career close to or in the top 10.

As for the subjective comments, let's face it. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, a significant portion of your argument is just going to be subjective by nature. You can't have a real debate about which player was better, Player X or Player Y without introducing the subjective element.

Fair enough.

About that video..... I can 'assure' you that more than 80% (a guess of course) of the people that try to discredit Robinson's game never even saw him play prior to his back injury. They can only relate to what they saw after Duncan's arrival to the league - a Robinson at less than 60% - a s of his former self.

Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDndD...elated&search=

Before his injury Robinson was:

34 - 11 in head to head matchups vs. Hakeem (including playoffs)
6-1 in head to head matchups vs Shaq (including one near quadruple double)
10-3 in head to head matchups vs Ewing
8-1 in head to head matchups vs Mourning
7-2 in head to head matchups vs Dikembe

[ambchang]

Let him fight his own battles and quit twisting logic.

You can't be a great 3 point shooting team and at the same time be innacurate.

Were they inaccurate? Would you like to show the numbers?

[Galileo]

Thanks King.

Obviously if you take the most 3's in the league, you should make the most.

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Chang's argument would be akin to a random fan saying "Duncan only succeeded with either a HOF Center or alongside guards who excelled at creating their own shots". It's a silly argument.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a le. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

When the Spurs go with a lineup of Duncan, Horry, Bowen, Manu, and Parker, who exactly is the weak link as a 3 point shooter? Parker isnt' a great 3 baller, but he's a great penetrator. The other 3 are good 3 pt shooters and this doesnt even mention Finley or Barry off the bench.

The idea Duncan hasnt been surrrounded by good 3 point shooting is silly.

And neither Duncan nor Hakeem required a "specific makeup" around them to succeed. Both were/are versatile championship caliber players. It's only natural to surround a dominant post player like Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with a stable of quality outside shooters. It wasn't something exclusive to Hakeem, which is what Chang basically implied.

Otis Thorpe was a great cutter.

Hakeem got to play w/ Thorpe for a majority of his prime years, making them a near Twin Tower.

Thorpe made the all-star team, and was a near all-star many times.

He had giant hands and was great cutting to the basket and getting a pass.

Thorpe played center when Kakeem was injured or in foul trouble.

He also out rebounded Ewing for the Big East rebounding le while in college.