Reply With Quote
Was hakeem always in the playoffs?
No!
Thank you
It's like one ing head fan comes along we have something to do with, and you guys talk back, and bam, there's a whole damn pod of them arguing amongst themselves and each other.
Trying leaving them the alone in the next thread like this! It will work I promise.
And second....
I like girls, (that are not 300lbs and hairy)In 1990, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged (in a season in which he played all 82 games)
I rode a bike 9 million miles, (motor bike anyways)
You are good at that . If you're going to ing say something bud, say it all. Add it all up, compare them and twist it together. Some Rockets fan coming along trying to rub Hakeem is better pointers when the guy he's facing is already better, and not even finished yet.
Seriously re , ebay a brain and type with it? Do something productive with facts or truth to build on!
Like a lot of these 'regular' Suns and Mavs posters, that jolly along most threads and like an appointment with a naked chick always end up defending the same old tune that somehow the Spurs suck, cheated, lost, lucked, robbed, or whatever and argue it out with some Spurs fan about how Duncan is overrated or I got more candy than you childish bull .. on ironically a Spurs board.
It's like, take some notes from a few Piston fans to understand how to get along here with this fan site supporting a team that's pretty ing dominant for the generation.
Was hakeem always in the playoffs?
No!
Thank you
Through their first 10 seasons in the league, these are their records.
Duncan
56 - 26
37 - 13
53 - 29
58 - 24
58 - 24
60 - 22
57 - 25
59 - 23
63 - 19
58 - 24
559 - 229
Hakeem
48 - 34
51 - 31
42 - 40
46 - 36
45 - 37
41 - 41
52 - 30
42 - 40
55 - 27
58 - 24
480 - 340
Laughable. Uncomparable. Duncan owns Hakeem. He's already got twice as many championships, and there's more to come. Oh wait, I suppose the West was stronger back then, right? ROFL What a joke. The West is stronger right now than it's ever been. Nice try.
Hey, this is where you paste something completely irrelevant like Steve Kerr's career winning percentage, because Duncan owns Hakeem and you've got nothing else to counter. Cry more!
"How many rings would Duncan have won if he had to face the 80's Lakers and Celtics and then the Bad Boys and Bulls? I won't down play what the Spurs have done but right now there is a huge lack of quality play in the NBA. Hakeem played in what is considered to be the Golden Years of the NBA"
This was posted by a Spurs fan above and pretty much sums it up.
There's a reason why guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, and John Stockton are considered top 50 all time players yet never won a ring (excluding the 2 Robinson won as a 2nd banana to Duncan).
The reasons are in that era to win you had to go through:
Lakers Dynasty (Magic/Kareem)
Celtics Dynasty (Bird/McHale)
Jazz (stockton/malone)
Rockets (Hakeem)
Bulls Dynasty
Pistons Dynasty
Barkley/KJ Suns
These were the great teams of the late 80's/early 90's. The Spurs have only faced one team that was this caliber, that being the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, who they did beat twice (very impressively) but also lost to 3 times. The field is much easier now than it was 15 yrs ago.
Regardless, attributing an entire team's success in terms of regular and postseason to one player without accounting for teammates, quality of compe ion, era, etc is asinine.
It says a lot that the only pro-Duncan argument you consistently hear is (4 vs. 2) which is a team achievement. Guys like David Robinson, Manu, Parker, Elliott, Horry, Finley had a little something to do with the team accomplishments.
The question isnt "Did the Spurs have more success in the 00's or the Rockets in the 90's". It's who was better out of 2 individual players, Hakeem or TD.
You can also say that Manu Ginobili has 3 rings to Clyde Drexler's 1. Does that in and of itself make him better?
Duncan has 4 rings to Wilt Chamberlain's 2. If you want to reduce the argument to 4 vs. 2 and ignore everything else, you come up with the ridiculous conclusion that Duncan >>>> Wilt.
Is Chauncey a better PG all time than Nash or Stockton because he had 1 ring to their 0? After all 1>0 right? Rasheed Wallace better than Malone or Charles Barkley? (1 vs. 0).
Obviously there's more that matters. When you make a comparison between 2 individual players in a 5 on 5 sport based solely on who's team won more, you are completely (and in this case conveniently) ignoring numerous extraneous factors which had absolutely nothing to do with who was better individually.
If # of rings were the absolute only thing that mattered in comparing players individually, Bill Russell would universally be considered #1 of all time and that is not the case at all. Many dont even have him in the top 5 of all time.
This is where solely looking at rings get ridiculous.
When Olajuwon and Shaq faced off head to head, they guarded each other mano y mano.
You didnt have Hakeem playing PF and have another big guarding Shaq. That was the case though for Duncan who would guard Horry or Samaki Walker on Defense while DRob would battle with the Diesel down low. Even in the 04 series without DRob, SA used Willis and Rasho to battle with Shaq.
It's a uva lot harder to have to contain Shaq at one end in the paint and carry the offensive load simultaneously which is the scenario when Hakeem faced Shaq than it is to get a creampuff matchup on one end so you can conserve energy and be fresh on the offensive end.
Oden > Duncan
I dont know why some spur fans act like Duncan is a better defender than Olajuwon. While it's true that he's about the smartest defender i've ever seen, he's really limited by being slow and athletic. He does a great job of using his head and not biting on fakes, but he isn't physically capable of being the defender Hakeem was. Hakeem was every bit the defender Duncan is, but with athleticism to stay in front of quicker guys and block alot more shots. And on the offensive end, all you have to do is look at their stats, they speak for themselves. Hakeem has more ppg, rpg, and better fg%. It really isn't much of a debate. IMO Hakeem is second to only Jordan, while Duncan is top 20, which is still a great accomplishment.
David was doubled and tripled team and the Spurs outside shooters couldn't hit a freaking shot, while Drexler, Horry, Smith, Cassell, Elie were shooting lights out. David said he thought his defense on Olajuwon was pretty good, but it sucked. He played flat footed and jump at every ball fake Dream made. The few times Olajuwon got doubled, it was Avery, Vinny, bumbed knee Doc, those didn't count, oh and Bob Hill was the coach.Hakeem didn't stop David, the team did and when it was time for someonelse to step for the Spurs, no one did, and that destroyed some of their confidence. Other than this series, David usually out played him and had a winning record against him throughout the years. Dream did however put up some good numbers on him every now and then, but he shot 10-12 times more per game and played more mins. If Robinson played every game the way Ginobili plays, he maybe could had been the best center of all time, the way they say Olajuwon is the best of all time. Though David was my favorite player at the time, I think Olajuwon is slightly better just because he did take it to another level in this series. If Olajuwon didn't have this series against him, David would be ahead. Duncan plays like this all the time, that's why I put him above Olajuwon, because I know TD will always take it to the other level himself.
# Game 1: Olajuwon: 27 pts - Robinson 21 pts
# Game 2: Olajuwon: 41 pts - Robinson 32 pts
# Game 3: Olajuwon: 43 pts - Robinson 29 pts
# Game 4: Olajuwon: 20 pts - Robinson 20 pts
# Game 5: Olajuwon: 42 pts - Robinson 22 pts
# Game 6: Olajuwon: 39 pts - Robinson 19 pts
Robinson: 23.8 points 11.3 rebounds 2.7 assists 2.7 blocks 1.5 steals
Olajuwon: 35.3 points 12.5 rebounds 5.0 assists 4.1 blocks 1.3 steals
Houston 4, San Antonio 2
Game 1 Houston 94 at San Antonio 93
Game 2 Houston 106 at San Antonio 96
Game 3 San Antonio 107 at Houston 102
Game 4 San Antonio 103 at Houston 81
Game 5 Houston 111 at San Antonio 90
Game 6 San Antonio 95 at Houston 100
Though Shaq lost to Hakeem in the finals, I don't think he was outplayed, Hakeem just shot more and had a better supporting cast. Check this link with stats: http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1995.htm In Shaq's prime, he would had beaten Olajuwon.
Do you really think Hakeem was more athletic than David?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqp...elated&search=
This years Spurs team or the ones with David and Tim's Championship teams would have been as great as any of those teams from the 80's and early 90's, don't think Houston Championship teams would had done as well. Don't forget, all these Spurs teams paly team ball and great defense, something that made up most of these teams from the past. Only the center position is in question for this years team, but Fabricio played his role well.
Last edited by j1nsa; 08-20-2007 at 04:59 AM.
With people bringing Robinson into the discussion this thread has Whott bait written all over it.
No question, Hakeem had a better supporting cast. Funny you should mention that as a point of argument. I hate to bring it to your attention, but guys like D-Rob, Horry and Finley were has-beens when they won championships with Duncan. The only legit all-star Duncan has played with is Parker. Manu probably shouldn't have been an all-star, even though I am a fan of his. The guy's a winner and I'm a big fan of his game, but he's not an all-star.
Ummm... what are you, dense? This has A LOT to do with who is a better individual player. Since they don't play 1-on-1 in the NBA, you gauge a lot by team success.The question isnt "Did the Spurs have more success in the 00's or the Rockets in the 90's". It's who was better out of 2 individual players, Hakeem or TD.
A baseless argument. Manu is obviously not the reason they won the championships. Duncan is. Duncan has been the constant from day 1.You can also say that Manu Ginobili has 3 rings to Clyde Drexler's 1. Does that in and of itself make him better?
Wilt played in a way different era, it's almost impossible to compare them. Wilt was bigger than everyone back then, so people had a difficult time guarding him just by his sheer size. In today's NBA game, he would have a lot more trouble scoring. It's really too impossible to debate.Duncan has 4 rings to Wilt Chamberlain's 2. If you want to reduce the argument to 4 vs. 2 and ignore everything else, you come up with the ridiculous conclusion that Duncan >>>> Wilt.
It could be argued that Chauncey Billups wasn't even the 2nd best player on his team, so that's a pretty bad example.Is Chauncey a better PG all time than Nash or Stockton because he had 1 ring to their 0? After all 1>0 right? Rasheed Wallace better than Malone or Charles Barkley? (1 vs. 0).
So basically what you're saying is that you want to discount championships won and say that they equate to nothing... hilarious. You know you've lost when you're bringing up weak points as such.Obviously there's more that matters. When you make a comparison between 2 individual players in a 5 on 5 sport based solely on who's team won more, you are completely (and in this case conveniently) ignoring numerous extraneous factors which had absolutely nothing to do with who was better individually.
I don't know whose top 5 you're looking at. Most people who knew anything about the game of basketball would have Russell in their top 5. And, nobody said rings were the only determining factor. I can throw at you... first team all-nba selections, first team all-defense selections, finals mvps... ALL of which Duncan has more of.If # of rings were the absolute only thing that mattered in comparing players individually, Bill Russell would universally be considered #1 of all time and that is not the case at all. Many dont even have
him in the top 5 of all time.
I read through the takes, and there were people taking Duncan and Hakeem, only with the Hakeem supporters going
"Trust me, Hakeem is way more athletic", despite the fact that we are not talking about atleticism, or else Stromile Swift > Duncan,
"Olajuwon could do everything Duncan can plus he had a way better offensive game. In my opinion Duncan looks like he doesn't know what the he's doing when he has the ball sometimes.", despite the fact that Duncan has won two MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs, been on the All-NBA first team almost a dozen times, and averages more than 20 ppg in almost every single season he played, and gems like
"It takes a whole team to win a championship and Olajuwon was playing during the Jordan days.", despite the fact that Olajuwon won both championships during Jordan's baseball excursion.
I am sure more people agreeing on something doesn't make that right. Democracy/majority voting makes more people happy, it doesn't decide what is right.
In other words, Robinson > Shaq because
Shaq has 1 All-NBA 1st selection in the non-watered down league, and 7 in the watered-down league, while Robinson got 4 in the non-watered down league.
BTW, Hakeem got 5 in the non-watered down league, with 3 coming before Robinson joining the league. So it really isn't as far off as Shaq vs. Ewing or Duncan vs. Garnett.
Then should we compare playoffs missed? A player > Duncan would never ever miss the playoffs regardless of his teammates (provided that they are NBA caliber) if he played a full season. Olajuwon did.
ROFL... I would love to see Duncan guarding Hakeem on the "signature" play of the 95 playoffs he had against Robinson when Hakeem upfakes him...
Duncan would have just stepped further into his chest... he can't jump... heh
And the league was tougher in Hakeems era?
ROFL... The lakers and spurs from 2000-2005 would have DESTROYED both the Rockets Championship teams.
The Pistons of 04-06 would have beaten them.
The Suns and Mavericks would have played them tough but choked.
Please...
What teams do you have in Olajuwan's championship teams way?
Jazz? Suns?? Sonics (lol) A Bob Hill coached Spurs? They couldnt beat the Trailblazers until they stole "The Glide" (a Hall of famer Hakeem doesnt get credit for playing with even though he won his second championship with him).
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 08-20-2007 at 10:06 AM.
Duncan is a great player and Hakeem was a great player too. So was The Admiral and so was Shaq. Is there any way of knowing who is better? Probably not, especially considering that Hakeem and Timmy never had any significant head-to-head encounters. Does it even matter who is better? Not unless we're talking about letting Timmy go and signing Hakeem, and that's all I need to know.
Please...the league as a whole was much more compe ive in the 80s and 90s. Don't bring that bull in here unless you have an actual take. There's a Spur section if all you want to say is Rah Rah Rah GO SPURS GO. There is no way you can say the Spurs "would" have destroyed the Rockets...woulda shoulda and coulda don't count in my book.
Exactly why would I expect that? Also, I don't even necessarily buy into the entire "Hakeem's peak was higher than Duncan's" rationale. Did Olajuwon ever come two blocks shy of a quadruple double in a Finals closeout game? (I realize that in of itself doesn't resolve the debate, but I couldn't let that go, either.)
Charles Barkley certainly thinks Duncan is the better player, although he never played on the Spurs (of course).
You mean the forum labeled "San Antonio Spurs"?
i dont see how rockets fans can claim the nba was tougher in the 1990's, on the contrary, the 90's was very weak in compe ion compared to the 80's...and while I think the 90's and 2000's are close in terms of overall compe ion, all the talent was in the west for the spurs run, and a majority of it was in the east for the rockets run. plus the rockets never had to play the bulls.
Every time? Ahem, ahem...?Olajuwon schooled Shaq every time they went head to head.
OK, Hakeem was better than Tim in psyhical matters and FT's, but it (as I know) isn't whole point of basketball. Tim's influence on game of his team is much bigger than Hakeems was. By the same logic, we can say that Barkley was better player than Larry Bird in his prime...
How was the nba NOT tougher in the 90's? You have some of the top 10 greatest centers of all time going head to head in Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing. Don't forget about the greatest player of all time, Jordan, and his teammate Pippen who is also a top 50 all time player and one of the greatest defenders ever. This was also an era where teams played tough, hard nosed defense to copy the style of the late 80's bad boy Pistons teams. You have some of the best shot blockers ever patrolling the paint with Mutumbo, Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, etc. And don't forget about 92 when the dream team, the greatest team ever assembled, won the gold medal in the Olympics. IMO I don't see how anyone can say the 80's and 90's weren't the NBA's golden years.
You can't say Duncan makes his teammates better than Hakeem without actually going back in time and having them switch positions. That is just an opinion of yours. My opinion is that Hakeem never had as good of teammates as Duncan has had throughout his career, which makes what he did that much more impressive. Bottom line is, there is no way to see who makes their teammates better than the other. But I can say this, if Hakeem didn't make his teammates better he wouldn't have 2 rings.
I definitely agree with that. Duncan gets a lot of credit for making his teammates better because he's a dominant post player. Guess what Hakeem was?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
