If you wanted to start a franchise, who would you pick?

[Cry Havoc]

And how many times would Duncan have beat Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott, etc in their primes with a supporting cast of Mitc Wiggins, Purvis Short, Buck Johnson, etc like Hakeem had from 88 to 91?

Ah, I get it. So Duncan loses points because he didn't play against the squads you wanted him to get beat by, and because his team has never had the floor wiped in the first round while he's playing.

Got it. Yep. Losing to purportedly "great" teams somehow makes Hakeem better than Duncan, because the compe ion was better. It's not winning and losing, it's who you played that determines how great you are. You're clearly the paragon of rationality and factual discourse with this kind of "logic".

NO ONE can predict how Duncan would have fared in the 80s or 90s. For someone who claims to be full of only facts, you bandy about such nonsense pretty freely.

[Cry Havoc]

The homerism here is incredible.

Duncan's been the best defensive player in the league?

He has not even won the Defensive Player of the year award ONCE. He never led the league in blocked shots. Hakeem did both on numerous occasions and is top 10 all time in steals.

Wtf. You jump down people's throats for talking about rings, and then you list individual statistics for why Hakeem is clearly better? And you call other people homers?

That's borderline trolling, man.

[bobbyjoe]

That's not what I said.

I'm asking a question. How many times would Duncan have realistically won with a supporting cast on par with Houston's of the late 80's were he having to face Magic's teams 2 of the years and a really good Mavericks team one of the other years.

This doesn't make Hakeem better because he lost to better comp, but it minimizes the strength of any argument that Duncan is better because Hakeem's teams lost to teams which clearly had a lot more talent and were superior.

Put it this way: Give Duncan a weak to average supporting cast (let's say the Timberwolves cast of KG's career) and would the Twolves TEAM have won 55 games a year and got to the Finals and won les.

If the answer to this is no, then it's silly to say Duncan is a better player than KG solely because his TEAMS have done better in the playoffs.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am in no way saying KG is on par with Duncan. I would rather have TD easily, but it's also disingenuous to act as if it isn't an apples and oranges comparison in terms of using team success as a criteria to answer the question of who was a better player between the 2.

PS. Are you going to answer the Karl Malone question?

[bobbyjoe]

Wtf. You jump down people's throats for talking about rings, and then you list individual statistics for why Hakeem is clearly better? And you call other people homers?

That's borderline trolling, man.

Try reading the question starting this thread. Then read it again, maybe then you'll get it.

The question isn't "Who had better teams, the 1980's/1990's Rockets or the 2000's Spurs?"

It's "what individual would you start a franchise with, hakeem or TD?"

This isn't Rocket science. When comparing INDIVIDUALS, it goes without say that you look at INDIVIDUAL accomplishments and traits, etc.

Who was a better scorer, who had more moves, who was a better rebounder, who palyed better defense, who passed better, who was more versatile, who was more durable?

These are the kinds of things it's logical to look at if you are comparing 2 players because the playing field is level when you look at such traits.

When you look at who was on a team that won more or had more success, you introduce a ton of variables like era played in, quality of compe ion, quality of teammates, quality of coaching, variables which are not influenced solely or even highly by individuals but extraneous factors.

[whottt]

You're on ing crack...you stick Sam Casell, Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, and Robert Horry on Duncan's team...

I guran ing tee you that team is wining a le...

Go ahead and replace Drexler with Otis Thorpe...it's still winning a le...that team is easily a better team than the 99 Spurs.

[Cry Havoc]

That's not what I said.

I'm asking a question. How many times would Duncan have realistically won with a supporting cast on par with Houston's of the late 80's were he having to face Magic's teams 2 of the years and a really good Mavericks team one of the other years.

This doesn't make Hakeem better because he lost to better comp, but it minimizes the strength of any argument that Duncan is better because Hakeem's teams lost to teams which clearly had a lot more talent and were superior.

Put it this way: Give Duncan a weak to average supporting cast (let's say the Timberwolves cast of KG's career) and would the Twolves TEAM have won 55 games a year and got to the Finals and won les.

If the answer to this is no, then it's silly to say Duncan is a better player than KG solely because his TEAMS have done better in the playoffs.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am in no way saying KG is on par with Duncan. I would rather have TD easily, but it's also disingenuous to act as if it isn't an apples and oranges comparison in terms of using team success as a criteria to answer the question of who was a better player between the 2.

PS. Are you going to answer the Karl Malone question?

For the record, yes, I think Duncan would do more with the T-wolves supporting cast than KG has done. Isn't that kind of what we're discussing here?

Secondly, the idea that you're putting forth -- the who would have done what on what team -- is inconsequential, immeasurable, and completely pointless. There is no way you can mentally assess how a player would have done on another team for a given season. Put Hakeem in his prime on the Spurs this year -- are they more dominant than 58 wins and a potential championship?

I'm sure you would say yes, but that's irrelevant even if all parties agree. Especially since Spurs fans will undoubtedly point to the fact that Duncan fits our system as well as possible.

And no, Karl Malone cannot be considered better. He never won a le even with some great teams, he was consistently dirty, he never played a real team concept of play, and he was NEVER the defender that Duncan has become. Oh dear heavens, Duncan doesn't have a DPoY! That means he's missing something!

Never mind the fact that he has ten All-NBA defensive teams. The fact that a bunch of people got together and decided that Camby (not in the playoffs) is a better defender and Nash (also not in the playoffs, both of whom exited courtesy of Duncan & Co.) is a better player is obviously indicative of his overall abilities as a player!

Back to the Malone statement, Malone was amazing for what, exactly? He never put the team on his back like Duncan did. Truly excellent, dominant players find ways to win the big one. Karl will never reach that level. Neither will Steve Nash, mostly because he doesn't have any clue how to stay in front of his man. And yes, there are certain exceptions to that rule. Malone just wasn't a man who's players would follow into "battle". They wouldn't lay down for him. That's called leadership, and it's something Duncan has and Malone doesn't.

[bobbyjoe]

You're on ing crack...you stick Sam Casell, Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, and Robert Horry on Duncan's team...

I guran ing tee you that team is wining a le...

Go ahead and replace Drexler with Otis Thorpe...it's still winning a le...that team is easily a better team than the 99 Spurs.

That wasn't the comparison.

The comparison was Duncan's current teams to the teams of Houston from 88 to 91 when they lost in the first round every year. That cast was a lot weaker and different than the cast you cite which was the cast in the mid 90's.

Based on Brad Lohaus' argument, Duncan > Hakeem because Hakeem's teams between Sampson and the 2 le years kept getting bounced in the first round. Duncan has not carried teams with that low a level of talent deep into the playoffs because he's been fortunate enough never to be in that situation.

Besides Wilt Chamberlain, there's never been any player in the NBA who didn't need a solid cast to go deep into the playoffs. Not Duncan, not Magic, not Hakeem, not Bird, not Jordan.

[Cry Havoc]

Try reading the question starting this thread. Then read it again, maybe then you'll get it.

The question isn't "Who had better teams, the 1980's/1990's Rockets or the 2000's Spurs?"

It's "what individual would you start a franchise with, hakeem or TD?"

This isn't Rocket science. When comparing INDIVIDUALS, it goes without say that you look at INDIVIDUAL accomplishments and traits, etc.

Who was a better scorer, who had more moves, who was a better rebounder, who palyed better defense, who passed better, who was more versatile, who was more durable?

These are the kinds of things it's logical to look at if you are comparing 2 players because the playing field is level when you look at such traits.

When you look at who was on a team that won more or had more success, you introduce a ton of variables like era played in, quality of compe ion, quality of teammates, quality of coaching, variables which are not influenced solely or even highly by individuals but extraneous factors.

Fine. Except for two things.

1. This isn't a one-on-one game we're talking about here. Do you feel it's obvious that T.O. and Randy Moss are better wideouts than Marvin Harrison? But these facts were lost on you long after you proclaimed Darius Miles as the greatest future player ever, because he has more "moves" than the other rising stars. Speaking of which, have you ever watched Rafer Alston play? That guy has moves for days.

2. This also isn't a thread about the better "player". Nowhere in the poll does it ask who the better player is, to say nothing of who the better individual performer is. If that's the case, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in NBA history and it's not debatable. But we know that's not the case. The question is "who would you start a franchise with?"

[E20]

IMO BobbyJoe laid down some pretty good points backed up with facts and was articulate.

I'm gonna have to vote for Hakeem, just because of BJ.

[bobbyjoe]

For the record, yes, I think Duncan would do more with the T-wolves supporting cast than KG has done. Isn't that kind of what we're discussing here?

Secondly, the idea that you're putting forth -- the who would have done what on what team -- is inconsequential, immeasurable, and completely pointless. There is no way you can mentally assess how a player would have done on another team for a given season. Put Hakeem in his prime on the Spurs this year -- are they more dominant than 58 wins and a potential championship?

I'm sure you would say yes, but that's irrelevant even if all parties agree. Especially since Spurs fans will undoubtedly point to the fact that Duncan fits our system as well as possible.

And no, Karl Malone cannot be considered better. He never won a le even with some great teams, he was consistently dirty, he never played a real team concept of play, and he was NEVER the defender that Duncan has become. Oh dear heavens, Duncan doesn't have a DPoY! That means he's missing something!

Never mind the fact that he has ten All-NBA defensive teams. The fact that a bunch of people got together and decided that Camby (not in the playoffs) is a better defender and Nash (also not in the playoffs, both of whom exited courtesy of Duncan & Co.) is a better player is obviously indicative of his overall abilities as a player!

Back to the Malone statement, Malone was amazing for what, exactly? He never put the team on his back like Duncan did. Truly excellent, dominant players find ways to win the big one. Karl will never reach that level. Neither will Steve Nash, mostly because he doesn't have any clue how to stay in front of his man. And yes, there are certain exceptions to that rule. Malone just wasn't a man who's players would follow into "battle". They wouldn't lay down for him. That's called leadership, and it's something Duncan has and Malone doesn't.

Yes, I agree that Duncan would have done more. I think they'd have got out of the first round a couple more times and been more compe ive and successful overall. But I do not think they would have 3 les or even 2. The only chance I'd give them was in 2004 when KG had Spree and Cassell. Ditto if you supplant KG with Hakeem or Shaq in their primes. You still have to have some help.

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

Duncan was a better defender than Malone. I'm not sure how fair that is since Malone was a true PF and Duncan was a Center who is listed at PF, but nevertheless Duncan protected the basket much better than Malone, altered and blocked shots, etc.

However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.

[bobbyjoe]

Fine. Except for two things.

1. This isn't a one-on-one game we're talking about here. Do you feel it's obvious that T.O. and Randy Moss are better wideouts than Marvin Harrison? But these facts were lost on you long after you proclaimed Darius Miles as the greatest future player ever, because he has more "moves" than the other rising stars. Speaking of which, have you ever watched Rafer Alston play? That guy has moves for days.

2. This also isn't a thread about the better "player". Nowhere in the poll does it ask who the better player is, to say nothing of who the better individual performer is. If that's the case, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson are the two greatest players in NBA history and it's not debatable. But we know that's not the case. The question is "who would you start a franchise with?"

I know it's not a one on one game. I had moves as one of my criteria, not the be all or end all. With guys like Miles or Rafer, it'd be pretty obvious that they had poor basketball IQ's and that'd be a reason to look past them or downgrade them (either that or the fact that both may have had moves but were poor finishers!) Other than that, fair enough on your points.

BTW, I'd take Harrison in a hearbeat. Not sure if you were trying to relate that to the Hakeem/TD discussion but Harrison is just way better than the other 2 nutcases, even if you ignore how nutso they are.

[BradLohaus]

Duncan never had a super strong supporting cast until Parker and Ginobili got here, certainly nothing along the lines of what Hakeem had in his 2 le winning teams.

Much has been said in this thread recently, so I just put this out there: if TD gets one more Finals MVP, and the odds have to favor that happening since he's just 31, then the list of players with more than 3 NBA Finals MVP's will be 1.) Jordan and 2.) Duncan

When Tim is done does anyone actually think that there will be any debate about Duncan vs. Hakeem? No way. Hakeem was older than Tim is now before he won anything. We're arguing this when Tim is at an age that Olajuwon hadn't even won a le at yet. Give Tim another 4 or 5 years and no one will be able to even ask this question.

[mbass]

Yes, I agree that Duncan would have done more. I think they'd have got out of the first round a couple more times and been more compe ive and successful overall. But I do not think they would have 3 les or even 2. The only chance I'd give them was in 2004 when KG had Spree and Cassell. Ditto if you supplant KG with Hakeem or Shaq in their primes. You still have to have some help.

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

Duncan was a better defender than Malone. I'm not sure how fair that is since Malone was a true PF and Duncan was a Center who is listed at PF, but nevertheless Duncan protected the basket much better than Malone, altered and blocked shots, etc.

However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.

WE Spurs fans look at intangibles - including Duncan's leadership factor. Duncan is like the Gladiator. His team will follow him anywhere because they know he has the best interests of the team at heart. They are a bonded group. That gives them that extra boost and it is due primarily to Duncan's temperament and personality - you have to be a fan to see it.

[gtownspur]

THe only reason why hakeem is considered the best of all time in Centers is because he "owned" Robinson in one series......... That's the only reason.... Duncan owned shaq in his prime and no one is jawing him..

[Cry Havoc]

You call the 'who would have done what on what team' immeasuarable and useless but you just said you think TD would have done more with KG's cast. Sure, you can't measure it, this is all obviously opinion based on observations. And when comparing players across era's, it always boils down to that since they never competed heads up or against the same players.

Right, but I would never use that as a reason why Duncan is a better franchise player than KG. Because it's not something you could ever hope to prove or even show evidence from.

I disagree with a lot of your comments on Malone, besides TD being better than Malone which I think is pretty obvious. Yes, Mailman was dirty, but I dont see why that enters the discussion.

It speaks to his character. It is the type of player Karl Malone was. He was great, no doubt, but the fact that he was so underhanded makes him less of a leader, I feel. Of course, that's only my opinion, but I wonder how other Jazz players felt when they saw their "leaders" throwing elbows, pulling jerseys, and playing cheap basketball. Would you want to follow someone into battle who thought they needed to play like that or lose? I wouldn't.

My point on that was that it'd be a pretty weak argument IMHO for someone 10 yrs from now to say when comparing Malone to TD "well Malone was better for a longer period of time" (assuming this is the way it all pans out in the future) when Duncan was clearly more dominant at his peak and prime. And this was kind of the way it sounds like your Duncan/Hakeem argument was headed (longevity vs. better prime).

There's a difference, though. Unless Duncan has a huge unexpected decline, he will have outperformed Karl Malone for many years in both team accomplishments and individual play (mostly on the defensive side of things). That's a big difference. Hakeem-Duncan is much more debatable because Hakeem was clearly more dominant at his peak, but it didn't last long and only resulted in 2 les. Duncan could well walk away with 4 after this season and still appears to have quite a few years left.

However, Malone was a solid defender. He wasn't Steve Nash. He developed the move where he'd swipe down at the ball with the chop and it did affect opponents. He was also impossible for PF's to back down, even Charles Barkley who was a beast. I don't agree at all that he didn't have a concept of team play. He set mean (granted dirty at times) screens and passed the ball very well. The Jazz ran an offense that executed insanely well and maximized their talent level.

My point was that Malone was never a really complete player, in terms of dominance on both ends. Duncan and Hakeem are, which instantly elevates them well above Mailman.

Malone did feel the weight of big games, which is also why he gets knocked down a few notches in my book and yours too apparently.

As for the DPOY, it's hard to find any superelite defenders in NBA history who didnt win the award once. Hakeem, MJ, Rodman, Mutombo, Pippen? all won it. You'd figure if Duncan was clearly the best defensive player of the past 10 years he'd have won it at least once. I do think he was a better DEF than Camby this year and was surprised that he didn't win it.

Duncan deserved it this year, even though he wasn't dominant the whole year. He's finished in the top 3 in voting enough that both he and Bruce are now routinely ignored. Lack of press, blah blah blah. The fact that Nash has 2 MVPs and has never even made it to the Finals is indicative of how the voters pick the MVP these days.

[thewatcher]

fact: the compe ion that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the compe ion that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?

[thewatcher]

hakeem played in the golden age of the nba. duncan?...in the copper age

[thewatcher]

i wanna hear the holy, unbiassed timvp's word

[gtownspur]

fact: the compe ion that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the compe ion that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?

That must mean Dominique >>>> Kobe..

Seriously, go back to drinking Bobbyjoe smegma..

[Cry Havoc]

fact: the compe ion that duncan faced is insignificant compared with the compe ion that hakeem faced. or im wrong?
imagine duncan facing the GOAT, magic and many others great players and teams. not a 8th seed team, not the sorry nets, in the finals. how many awards he would have?

If Shaq and Kobe played against the 60s Celts, they would have 0 les, 0 individual awards (except for perhaps scoring le) and even fewer years together. Therefore, neither Kobe and Shaq are even decent basketball players and should be stripped of their les.



Now get lost. People who actually know a thing or two are debating (people who are making an attempt at civilized discourse, at least). The other Lakers fan here is a much better representation of an intelligent, reasoned fan, so undermining him with this kind of idiocy only makes him look good and you completely clueless.

[x_roux_x]

People who think Hakeem half assed it or that Vinny was a better guard than Stockton or Clyde Drexler should be finding other hobbies than watching basketball. Or at least keep their ignorance from themselves so they dont keep embarassing themselves.

I guess someone should tell Elie and Horry, common teammates of Hakeem and TD, that they are idiots. Apparently, they didnt mind the "selfish" Hakeem but what do they know, they were only teammates of both Dream and TD.

Hakeem was a bigger workhorse than Tim on both ends of the court. Anyone who can lead the league in rebounding, shot blocks, rank in the top 10 in steals, and drop 24-26 and 11-12 boards a game year in and year out while "half assing" it is clearly in a league of his own.

Ellie played with Tim in the first couple of years of his career...Horry has played in the last couple(hardly the part he played in houston) staistics...this is a bull argument to begin with....to start a team Tim Duncan has to be the obvious choice...He is a better teammate...solid and consistant on both sides...I dont care about the stats.....and hakeem is so great for his steals and blocks yada yada yada....look Timmy is the overall better player...parker hasnt been a force but the last 2 yrs...Manu had on great year....Since Duncan we have had the best winning percentage in all major sports...3 rings some mvps....yada ing yada again...He makes his team better...and once again is just damn down right consistant and solid....Hakeem is a great Center...but not the greatest...Who is the best PF? Almost everyone will say Duncan...and he does play center too....sorry dream lovers...I dont care about ur quality of comp. and all the stats in the world....what matters at the end of the day is winning and because of Timmy thats what the spurs do...

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/johnsonm_stats.html
By looking at the stats, we can also say that Olajuwon was more dominant than Magic Johnson during their primes, which is just ludricrous.

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...mcadobo01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html
By looking at the stats, we can also say that 74-79 Bob McAdoo was more dominant than Olajuwon, which is just ludricrous.

[ambchang]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/olajuwon_stats.html

Can you please explain how years like 1988,1989,1993,and 1996 are less dominant than Duncan's seasons post 1999, given that Hakeem's stats are better in both the regular seasons and postseasons than basically ANY of Duncan's years post 99?

This assumes that you are saying Hakeem's years of dominance in the league was only 1994 and 1995 which is just ludicrous.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...onealsh01.html
By looking at the stats, we can tell that Shaquille O'neal was more dominant in his 2nd and 3rd years (when he was getting his ass owned in the playoffs) than when he was in 00 - 03, which is just ludricrous.

[Warlord23]

Wow, this thread has gone way off track. BobbyJoe, you've still not answered the central issue in this thread:

1. Championships: Duncan > Hakeem
2. Team winning %: Duncan >>> Hakeem
3. PER: Duncan > Hakeem (just to emphasize the earlier point that PER is the best measure to compare people across eras, as well as adjusting for minutes played)
4. Prime: Hakeem > Duncan
5. Awards: Duncan > Hakeem

Overall career: Duncan > Hakeem.

Let's not bring KG ( ) or the Mailman or DRob or anybody else into this thread. Let's stick to the main issue.