Reply With Quote
Oden
It could be argued that if Duncan played now against any of the greatest big men of the last 10-40 yrs that he would at the very least hold his own and more then likely get the better of them simply because of the inevitable, inexorable thing called evolution of the athlete. Players today are simply better physical specimens due to nutrition and training regimens.
In only 10-40 years would it be a huge difference, probably not. But it would be something to consider. Duncan would hold his own against any of the greatest. This is only from a physical, talent perspective. As discussed ad naseum Duncan also has one aspect of his game which is far better then any of the other greats mentioned. The cerebral aspect of the game. He's always in control, he always has a tremendous court awareness and despite being double teamed consistantly he always finds the open man and the right time and at the opportune time to facilitate a score. He gets his team mates involved and he makes them better. That is something that everyone has said from the coaches and NBA pundits to the casual fan.
Oden
Sam Bowie. Let's wait until Oden actually plays a couple of full healthy seasons before we start annoiting him. I know it was only mouth surgery but he didn't even get out of the preseason healthy. Ominous start.
Not saying that he will, but he certainly wouldn't be the first player to crash and burn due to not living up to his potential or due to injury.
Better athlete doesn't mean better player. There is no PG today that I would take over Magic, Oscar, isiah or Stockton. There is no SG that I would take over MJ. There is no SF that I would take over Bird. Most who are old enough to have seen Wilt and Russell play swear to God that there hasn't been a big-man better since. The supreme athletes of the past are just as good as the ones of today (go back and look at the times Russell ran or how high Wilt jumped when they competed in other sports, players then were measured without shoes on and didn't have the same weight training of today, etc). Additionally, the person in this comparison (Olajuwon) played within the last 10 years and I'm sure you aren't going to argue that Duncan was better than him in regards to athleticism, speed, quickness, etc.
That's always been my opinion. When you are comparing the players at the absolute pinnacle of their sports, I don't think era matters very much. Babe Ruth pitched a complete game victory in a World Series before becoming a position player for the Yankees. Does anyone really think he wouldn't be a dominant player today? Ruth's career ended nearly 80 years ago.
Basketball is a little different, becuase athleticism matters more, but we are still only talking about a generation's worth of difference between Russell and Duncan (for example). I can't believe there is THAT much difference.
On the other hand, watching films or game footage from forty years ago clearly indicates that the average to mediocre players of today are much taller and fitter than scrubs of the past.
Ultimately, we can't really answer these questions, so we have to make intelligent guesses instead.
No, it shows how silly it is to say Duncan is better because he has won more les in a completely different era, at a completely different position, playing against completely different (and very much arguably worse) compe ion (team wise and individually).
Just using the situations you presented, what I know is Duncan came on a veteran team with an MVP by his side. Hakeem came on a team where the prior year’s best player was rookie Ralph Sampson. The Rockets were garbage for two seasons in a row prior to getting Hakeem. The Spurs were a playoff team that happened to have the #1 pick due to injuries. Duncan’t team won in the Finals against the Knicks, with no Pat Ewing. Hakeem’s team lost in the Finals against the 86 Celtics, arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time, and with 3 frontcourt players better than any Knick from that 99 team (Parish, McHale, Bird). You keep ‘forgetting’ to include all the extra information for some reason. Did you actually watch both of those seasons and know what happened or are you just looking at a listing of championships and records (not an attack, serious question)? Either way, I hope this shows you why it makes little sense to compare some les won from two different eras. It would be different if you were comparing folks from the same era (i.e. Hakeem and Robinson).
When Duncan went down that was in 2000. Wasn’t the 2000 team completely different from 2003 (Parker wasn’t there, or Willis, or Kerr, etc.). My question is simple…just list for me 5 teams with better supporting talent in each championship season? I can come up with (arguably) LA, Sacremento, Portland and Dallas and Phoenix at different times. Maybe Detroit one season (but they had no real superstar player). That’s about it. Why do you keep dodging this question? My point remains that every year Duncan won a le, he was on one of the best teams (surrounding talent wise) in the league. Not “the best” for sure, but he was not carrying scrubs to les.
No, I don’t think they overachieved. Weren’t they one of the le favorites heading into that season? Weren’t they arguable the second best team behind LA the previous year? Did they not make additions the following season (Willis, Kerr)? These vets are an addition to a team that isn’t losing anybody, especially when they have championship experience (didn’t Kerr hit the clinching shot!!!!).
Hmm, did you even read the Spurs profile from those link? The SI one picked SA #3, and basically said they just needed to get through LA (which they did). It also had this to say about TP and Manu:
“More crucial to San Antonio's success will be how well Parker and Ginobili mesh with Duncan. Parker is only 20, but he plays with the swagger of a 10-year All-Star.”
All of those sites had SA picked as one of the le contenders, especially if the young backcourt produced (which it did). Maybe we differ, but I don’t see how a “ le contender” actually winning the le is overachieving.
Again, list the teams with better talent from 1-12? I guarantee you that that Spurs team will be in the top 1/3 of the league. How can you say they weren’t close to a championship team when folks said they were a contender for the le (see the links YOU provided). How were they not a contender when they only lost to the champs the year before and upgraded?
Because there was no David Robinson on the 94 team to play defense on bigs on the other end of the court. Because we had a SF starting at PF in the 95 run. Duncan has never shown the ability to match-up with a stud big on both ends in a series and win. Granted the only chance that he ever had was with Shaq (and either Robinson/Willis/Rose checked him) or with Amare (who got off). That is my opinion but Hakeem was relied on to go at 3 HOF big-men on both ends in those runs, kill them, and that is rare.
So the Spurs were still in the top 1/3 in the league, correct? Again, I never stated Duncan was always on the best team. My point is you can’t mention les won and not note that he has never had to carry a abysmal team like some stars (Hakeem, Robinson, T-Mac, etc).
No, it’s not his fault. But the point is Hakeem did the same thing against better comp…I have no doubt he could do it against worse comp, especially when he doesn’t have to come down and bang on the other end. That’s why I think it’s silly to compare les because the situations that they were won in will never be the same. But the les are the main support for the pro-Duncan camp. When you look at individual numbers or the skillsets each player brought to the table it clearly favors Olajuwon.
So I guess you are conceding that Hakeem would win a le on all of those championship teams, against worst comp, with another big-man to play defense for him?
And good way to debate without taking things to the insult level…..
Consider your source(Barkley). He's just bitter that Olajuwon's Rockets ousted the Suns twice in the playoffs 94 & 95.
nice trophy sig
Failing to see how this is silly. He has more les. He is the more accomplished player. You can make all of the excuses you want. The fact is, he is more accomplished.
The fact remains they were out in the first round without Duncan.When Duncan went down that was in 2000. Wasn’t the 2000 team completely different from 2003 (Parker wasn’t there, or Willis, or Kerr, etc.).
I laughed at this... a lot. Kerr and Kevin Willis as the additions. LOL Big acquisitions there. Yes, Kerr hit some wide open shots. Guess why they were wide open... yeah... Tim.No, I don’t think they overachieved. Weren’t they one of the le favorites heading into that season? Weren’t they arguable the second best team behind LA the previous year? Did they not make additions the following season (Willis, Kerr)? These vets are an addition to a team that isn’t losing anybody, especially when they have championship experience (didn’t Kerr hit the clinching shot!!!!).
How does one accurately evaluate the Spurs roster when they have Duncan on their team to make them significantly better than what they really are? Half of these players would be average or mediocre players without the presence of Duncan down there.Again, list the teams with better talent from 1-12?
Umm... why would it be Duncan's fault that he didn't check the other team's best post player? He obviously could if needed, but it was the smarter move to have someone else guard them and avoid foul trouble. And who are you kidding... Shaq was a 2nd year player when Hakeem beat him. lol Not exactly in his prime. Duncan beat Shaq in the peak of his career WITH Kobe Bryant on the team as well. The only stud he beat was Robinson... which is good for him. Hats off. Name a team Hakeem beat that had more talent than that Laker team? That's right... there wasn't one. Shaq and Kobe is probably the most talented duo ever. And Duncan didn't guard Amare 95% of the time. Please, know what you're talking about before you type nonsense.Because there was no David Robinson on the 94 team to play defense on bigs on the other end of the court. Because we had a SF starting at PF in the 95 run. Duncan has never shown the ability to match-up with a stud big on both ends in a series and win. Granted the only chance that he ever had was with Shaq (and either Robinson/Willis/Rose checked him) or with Amare (who got off). That is my opinion but Hakeem was relied on to go at 3 HOF big-men on both ends in those runs, kill them, and that is rare.
Wait, so he won 4 les? I thought it was 2...No, it’s not his fault. But the point is Hakeem did the same thing against better comp…
It's one thing to think, it's another to do it.I have no doubt he could do it against worse comp, especially when he doesn’t have to come down and bang on the other end.
Um, not exactly. Career numbers...When you look at individual numbers or the skillsets each player brought to the table it clearly favors Olajuwon.
Duncan = 21.8PPG, 11.9RPG, 0.8SPG, 3.2APG, 2.4BPG, 2.8TOPG
Hakeem = 21.8PPG, 11.1RPG, 1.7SPG, 2.5APG, 3.0BPG, 2.9TOPG
Basically the same. What do you do when you have players that are close in numbers? You go to achievements. You go to winning. Duncan is more accomplished. He's won significantly more.
Your arguments are based around what-if scenarios. None of these arguments are based off of facts. Would Hakeem have won championships on the Duncan teams that won championships? Maybe, maybe not. Would Tim have won on Hakeem's championship teams? Maybe, maybe not. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Tim has 4 championships and Hakeem has 2. He also boasts a much higher winning %. More importantly, he's never missed the playoffs. Ever. And no, I don't care if you put him on Hakeem's team that missed the playoffs... he's making the playoffs. There's no way in a Duncan-led team misses the playoffs. Not only that, they probably make a deep playoff run to go along with making the playoffs.
Hakeem is quicker, more athletic, faster... jumps higher... all of that. I agree with that. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the entire story. Those things don't make a basketball player. Vince Carter has just as much raw talent and unquestionably better athletic ability than Jordan did. Does that make him better than Jordan, or even deserve to be in the same sentence with Jordan as a player? No. Tim is a basketball player, he's not a cross country athlete. Tim is a better jump shooter, he's a better banger, he's got better touch, he's a better teammate and leader, he's a better position defender, he has a higher basketball IQ, he's more clutch, he's stronger and a more dominant force inside, he's got better floor vision, and he's got probably the most intangibles I've ever seen on a basketball player. Most importantly, he makes every single player he plays with a whole lot better.
I fail to see the logic here. If anything, it shows that the Spurs FO during Duncan’s era > Rocket’s FO during Hakeem’s era. And I agree that we cannot strictly look at rings as a dominant player to gauge a player’s ability.
What I am arguing though, is that Duncan does not require as specific a set up to be successful, noted by Hakeem’s failure to take his team to the playoffs and early first round exits in a couple of seasons.
Hakeem is great, he was my 2nd favourite player in the 90’s (well, maybe top 5) next to Robinson despite the clinic he put on the Spurs in 94. I have not seen such dominance on another superstar ever, but it was a two season peak, Duncan had way more success over a longer period of time with a very different lineup.
The Rocket’s got the #1 pick two years in a row with franchise centers as the top pick. It’s like getting Duncan and Robinson back to back, how can that not be huge! Remember Orlando? They got Shaq and Penny back to back, they went from a crap team to the Finals in like 3 years after that. How can you dismiss that?
People don’t remember how good Ralph Sampson was, he was like a 7’4” Garnett, he was absolutely amazing. If it wasn’t for his blown out knees, there would be no doubt that he would be in the HoF.
As for the no Ewing comment, the also happen to have swept the Shaq Kobe Lakers and a loaded Blazer team. Just because they faced a crappy eastern conference team doesn’t mean that they were not good. If that is the case, what does that say about the Lakers beating a one-man-team-6ers, the Nets and the Pacers for their 3-peat? And the fact is the Rocket’s lost to the Celtics, self-destructed, and was insignificant for another 6 or 7 years. The point is Duncan had more success with equal or lesser talent.
Just to make it clear, I am saying 2003 was the team thin on talent. I think 07 has talent through the nose, and 05 was really good. 99 has its flaws with serious lack of offensive power though. And yes, I have listed 5 teams that has better supporting talent than the Spurs in 03. If you want to compare whole eras, then yes, Duncan’s got more talent than Hakeem, but Hakeem only had success with great talent, while Duncan had success with great and mediocre talent.
00 team was different from the 03 team, but very similar to the 99 team. 99 won the le, 00 was a first round exit.
No, the Kings were clearly the #2 (most argued #1) team that season. Willis and Kerr were not significant additions. I already ran through the stats, and both were 9th to 10th man. Kerr did not hit the clinching shot, he exploded in one game vs. Dallas, and I think one vs. the Nets, that was it. Willis did a commendable job on Shaq in Game 6, but he only played short stretches.
Once again, they were #3 at best, with Kings and Lakers as the clear 1-2. Parker certainly had swagger, no question about it, still doesn’t change the fact that he was yanked for Claxton in the finals, and choked worse than Dirk in 04.
Ginobili had a lot of hype coming in, especially for a late 2nd round pick, but he certainly did not perform like an all-star. He was way more productive than any #58 pick, but he was nothing more than a 7th 8th man.
I wouldn’t say top 1/3 of the league to be championship level. That is the top 10 teams in the league. I would be shocked if, say, Chicago won the championship next year, they would have seriously overachieved.
Again, read the links. There were two picks for the champs that year, it was either the Kings or the Lakers. Nobody picked the Spurs. They were contenders the same way the Cavs were contenders, or the Pistons, or the Jazz. They weren’t even the Suns or the Mavs. And to top it off, the SOLE reason they were in pegged #3 was because of Duncan. Take Duncan out, and 03 wasn’t even a playoff team, there is absolutely no question about that, and yet they won the championship. You think a lineup of 2nd year Parker, young Stephen Jackson, Bowen, Malik Rose and 38 year old Robinson was going to make the playoffs?
Absolutely no argument that Hakeem was amazing in 94 and 95, but when viewed as a whole body of work, Duncan has allowed his teams to have sustained levels of success despite mediocre talent (00 – 04)
The Spurs were always one of the top 5 teams in the league because of Duncan. I wouldn’t go so far as calling the Spurs outside of Duncan abysmal, but any team that relies on Jaren Jackson for offensive power, having Derek Anderson as an undisputed #2, relying on Stephen Jackson for timely offense and defense, and having Speedy Claxton and Kerr save their butt is definitely not a le-team.
I would say Hakeem would win in 05 and 07 no doubt, probably 99, but I am not sure about the 03 team. On an individual basis, and on skills, Hakeem by a mile, but in terms of providing the team with what it needs to succeed, I believe I will go with Duncan, but only by a hair.
Those aren’t excuses. Each is a factual statement, with the exception that he played against better compe ion (that one is debatable). If you are relying on les won, then it makes no sense not to take into account those differences.
And the best team in basketball (record wise) was out in the first round this year, correct? What playoff team from last year would win their playoff series if you removed their best player?
You still need someone to hit those wide open shots, right? Wasn’t that why LA beta y’all in Parkers rookie season, because your perimeter players couldn’t hit open shots? Isn’t that why players like Kerr and Smith were brought in?
Easy…remove him and remove the best player form another team, then go down the list from players 2-12. I doubt you will find 1/3 of teams in the league better than SA. The surrounding talent does not compare (in terms of futility) to the suck talent that other stars have had to play with. I am not saying Duncan always had studs on his team, but he never had a season playing with a bunch of scrubs and no one can provide any support showing that he did.
How can you say he could if he never had to?
Shaq put up 29, 12 a d 2 blocks when we beat them (his 3rd season by the way). Yes, Duncan beat a in-prime Shaq but also had Robinson, therefore he never had to check him. He also lost to Shaq twice. And last time I checked Ewing is also a HOF center. Barkley, Stockton, Malone are also HOF players. KJ and Rodman are arguable HOF players as well.
Um, probably the 85/86 LA Lakers. I mean, they only had Magic, Kareem (who still put up 23 a game that season), Worthy, B.Scott, Maurice Lucas and Micheal Cooper. But yeah, that team wasn’t more talented than the 00 Lakers. They only had 3 HOF’ers and won 5 championships in the decade, going to the Finals 8 times. Maybe you should take your own advice….
No, he only won two. He didn’t have the benefit of playing against teams like the 99 Knicks. Again, which le team would not have won a le if you replace Duncan with Olajuwon?
No, it’s not the same thing. Nice of you to compare Duncan’s numbers after 10 years to Hakeem’s after 18!!!! The numbers at 10 years each have already been posted if you would like to review those.
No, my arguments bring all aspects into the situation. Again, it is silly to just say Player X has more les so he is better when the players never played in the same era, did not play the same position and didn’t play the same compe ion. You are comparing apples to oranges. I give Duncan full props for his 4 les. But I do realize that he won them in a completely different era than Hakeem played in, and he always had quality support on his teams.
Tim has a better jumper than Hakeem? Is this why his fg% is lower (and Hakeem took A LOT of jumpers…what do you think the Dreamshake was). Duncan a better banger..lol. More clutch than Hakeem….who went superhuman two postseason runs in a row and knocked off 3 HOF centers along the way? Sure dude…. Hakeem has all those intangibles and he is a better athlete. That is why I think he is better. How much did you even watch Olajuwon play…cuz it’s boggling for someone to think Duncan has a better touch or is a better banger…
Good responses. I will stop debating it now with you as I think we have come to the level where we will just be repeating ourselves to clarify our points. Both players were/are great though....
About the only thing we agreed on in the thread.
Now it's just getting painfully obvious you never watched Hakeem play, which explains a uva lot.
Saying Tim was a better jump shooter than Hakeem is just comical. Hakeem had the higher FG% of the 2, especially in the playoffs, and shot FT's much better. How the can u shoot better jumpers than someone when they are a much better FT shooter and FG shooter than you?
Also, the Vince Carter example is crazy too. Any basketball purist will tell you the bigmen with the best footwork in the history of the NBA were Mchale and Olajuwon. #1 and 2.
That's the whole problem with the Duncan Hakeem debate. Sure, Duncan has tremendous fundamentals. But Hakeem had Duncan's fundamentals plus much better athleticism to boot. He was Duncan on roids.
He shot a higher % against better comp, hit his FT's much better, especially in the clutch (you cant tell me there are many Spurs fans who aren't sweating profusely in the last 2 minutes of a tight game with Duncan on the FT line, he's shaky in those situations).
The position defender part is insanity also. Duncan can not move laterally and guard the quicker guys like Amare and Dirk. Amare went for 38 ppg in the 2005 playoffs on TD and Popovich won't even use TD on Dirk, he will use Bowen instead. Same for Shaq, DRob always drew that matchup. Duncan is a great TEAM defender, but not a great individual defensive player, esp relative to a guy like Hakeem.
Hakeem had the versatility to guard quicker PF's and bang with Shaq inside. Duncan just does not have that. That's all well and good when u have a DRob or Bowen to help out, but if u are picking individual players (Hakeem vs. TD), you don't get to throw in DRob or Bowen. You want the more versatile player.
I think you have lost all credibility by saying that Kobe/Shaq was a better combo than Magic/Kareem. Post that question on a Lakers forum and you will get a 99% response rate of Magic/Kareem. This again makes it sound like you just were a little kid in the golden ages of the NBA (the 80's era, Celtics-Lakers-Pistons). Magic and Kareem are 2 top 5 players of all time on most lists. Shaq is a top 10 all time player but Kobe is simply not. And not close really. Not to mention the Lakers of the 80's, whom Hakeem's team beat, had a much better cast around their 2 headed duo than Shaq-Kobe. Of course, maybe names like James Worthy, Michael Cooper, and Byron Scott are foreign to you given your commentary. The 80's Lakers would be a 70 plus win team in today's league and would sweep Kobe-Shaq. Arguably the best team in NBA history or a top 5 one at least for sure.
Also, Duncan was 2-3 lifetime in the playoffs vs. Shaq/Kobe. Impressive to beat them twice, no doubt, but still an overall losing record...Those were some great series though and the NBA really needs a rivarly like that again where u have 2 great teams battling it out. On that, I think we all can agree.
Also, the career #'s are deceiving. You are factoring in Hakeem's grey beard years of steep decline. To make it apples to apples, you have to compare Hakeem's first 10 years to Duncan's first 10. SOmeone has posted that already on this thread and it was pro-Hakeem, especially if you look at playoff #'s, which again contradicts your "Duncan was more clutch" theory. Hakeem's playoff #'s blow Duncans out of the water and came against much tougher compe ion.
You keep raving about how Duncan makes teammates better than Hakeem, yet the 2 common teammates of both guys (Elie and Horry) both ahve said point blank Hakeem was the best teammate they ever played with. This flies in the face of your theory and really while we fans can argue all we want about who was better, the fact that those 2 guys who have played with both guys in their primes, won les with both guys, say Hakeem was better, well that should tell you something.
Besides passing, there's just not one element of the game Hakeem was inferior to TD. TD does pass the ball out of the post better than Hakeem. There is no doubt about that. His passes are more crisp and Hakeem struggled with passing out of double teams until his prime years. I agree that Duncan's basketball IQ is awesome as well.
Besides that though, Hakeem had more moves, better footwork, better athleticism, was more clutch, scored more, and defended better both as a team defender and an individual defender. Hakeem could dominate games defensively in a way Duncan simply isn't equipped to do. Remember, this is all relative. Yes, Duncan is a great defender but does he stack up with the all time great bigmen defensively (Hakeem, Russell, Kareem, DRob, Rodman). Uhh, that's just a no, no offense to TD. Rebounding is a wash.
Tim Duncan first team NBA 10x end of discussion to the above poster saying that Duncan is not historically one of the great big men defensively. I love the Dream but Duncan when careers will be compared will always be the better player. Duncan just has that "something extra" that wins and makes others better.
The first round? Pistons, Suns and NetsAnd the best team in basketball (record wise) was out in the first round this year, correct? What playoff team from last year would win their playoff series if you removed their best player?
I think you're missing the point. Those players are scrubs. Being able to hit wide open jump shots doesn't qualify as not being a scrub.You still need someone to hit those wide open shots, right? Wasn’t that why LA beta y’all in Parkers rookie season, because your perimeter players couldn’t hit open shots? Isn’t that why players like Kerr and Smith were brought in?
Because he's been first team all-nba defense every season since he entered the NBA. lol That isn't an accident.How can you say he could if he never had to?
He lost to Shaq once. I don't count the 0.4 series because the shot itself shouldn't have counted. What's the difference if he guards Shaq or not? You act like he can't guard Shaq. I've seen him guard Shaq. I've seen him lock Shaq down. To have him guard him an entire game is just plain stupid when you have someone else capable of guarding him and eating fouls up. Patrick Ewing? Charles Barkley? You don't think Duncan would eat those players alive? That's hilarious. Kevin Johnson isn't a hall of famer, and if Rodman gets in it would be a travesty. lol If Rodman gets in, you better let Ben Wallace in. No question.Shaq put up 29, 12 a d 2 blocks when we beat them (his 3rd season by the way). Yes, Duncan beat a in-prime Shaq but also had Robinson, therefore he never had to check him. He also lost to Shaq twice. And last time I checked Ewing is also a HOF center. Barkley, Stockton, Malone are also HOF players. KJ and Rodman are arguable HOF players as well.
The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were a 3-peat team. I don't recall Magic/Kareem ever winning 3 in a row. So... while you go by opinion, I will go by facts.Um, probably the 85/86 LA Lakers. I mean, they only had Magic, Kareem (who still put up 23 a game that season), Worthy, B.Scott, Maurice Lucas and Micheal Cooper. But yeah, that team wasn’t more talented than the 00 Lakers. They only had 3 HOF’ers and won 5 championships in the decade, going to the Finals 8 times. Maybe you should take your own advice….
Yep, excuses and opinion. Again, I bring factual information. Duncan = 4. Olajuwon = 2. I don't believe he could have won on any of Duncan's le teams, because he isn't the player Duncan is. Duncan is surrounded primarily by shooters. He finds them out of the double. Hakeem couldn't do that.No, he only won two. He didn’t have the benefit of playing against teams like the 99 Knicks. Again, which le team would not have won a le if you replace Duncan with Olajuwon?
FG% doesn't mean you have a better jump shot. lol That's hilarious. Does Bruce Bowen have a better jump shot than Ray Allen? He shoots a better % from 3... I guess he does. Hakeem shot a better % because he was able to dunk the ball and get away with traveling violations constantly. Watch some Hakeem highlights on youtube. You'll find that most of his "best" moves were travels. Yes, he's a better banger. Olajuwon was a finesse player. He used finesse moves to free himself. Duncan is a power post player with excellent footwork. He doesn't need to travel to score. Hakeem obviously doesn't have the intangibles Duncan has, because Duncan has 4 les and Hakeem has 2.Tim has a better jumper than Hakeem? Is this why his fg% is lower (and Hakeem took A LOT of jumpers…what do you think the Dreamshake was). Duncan a better banger..lol. More clutch than Hakeem….who went superhuman two postseason runs in a row and knocked off 3 HOF centers along the way? Sure dude…. Hakeem has all those intangibles and he is a better athlete. That is why I think he is better. How much did you even watch Olajuwon play…cuz it’s boggling for someone to think Duncan has a better touch or is a better banger…
Well, I guess Ray Allen has a worse jump shot than Bruce Bowen, according to your FG% theory. Speaking of Bruce Bowen, he's shot a better % from 3 than free throws. So, basically... what that means... is your theory is .
Will they? I think you're reaching. Maybe if they said what big man traveled the most and got away with it... well... maybe then they'd say Olajuwon.Also, the Vince Carter example is crazy too. Any basketball purist will tell you the bigmen with the best footwork in the history of the NBA were Mchale and Olajuwon. #1 and 2.
Really? Why did he only win 2 les? Duncan has 4 and counting. Oh, nevermind. He has had better teammates than Hakeem. Convenient.That's the whole problem with the Duncan Hakeem debate. Sure, Duncan has tremendous fundamentals. But Hakeem had Duncan's fundamentals plus much better athleticism to boot. He was Duncan on roids.
71% from the line isn't exactly stellar, or much better than Duncan... at all.He shot a higher % against better comp, hit his FT's much better, especially in the clutch (you cant tell me there are many Spurs fans who aren't sweating profusely in the last 2 minutes of a tight game with Duncan on the FT line, he's shaky in those situations).
Duncan didn't guard Amare. Please, know what you're talking about before you type. He didn't use Duncan on Dirk, because as we've all seen Dirk is bothered by smaller players guarding him. Again, why would Duncan guard the opposing team's best player if he doesn't have to? It just makes no sense. It doesn't mean he can't guard them. It's just the smarter move to avoid possible foul trouble.The position defender part is insanity also. Duncan can not move laterally and guard the quicker guys like Amare and Dirk. Amare went for 38 ppg in the 2005 playoffs on TD and Popovich won't even use TD on Dirk, he will use Bowen instead. Same for Shaq, DRob always drew that matchup. Duncan is a great TEAM defender, but not a great individual defensive player, esp relative to a guy like Hakeem.
Hakeem hardly played the dominant Shaq that Duncan saw.Hakeem had the versatility to guard quicker PF's and bang with Shaq inside. Duncan just does not have that. That's all well and good when u have a DRob or Bowen to help out, but if u are picking individual players (Hakeem vs. TD), you don't get to throw in DRob or Bowen. You want the more versatile player.
Not really. As I said, they won 3 in a row. Magic/Kareem never did that. Sorry. As I said before, I bring facts, you bring opinions. If I posted it on a Lakers forum, they would say Magic/Kareem, because they didn't have the problems that Kobe and Shaq had. No way in is Magic top 5. lol That's nuts. The guy couldn't even hit a jump shot.I think you have lost all credibility by saying that Kobe/Shaq was a better combo than Magic/Kareem. Post that question on a Lakers forum and you will get a 99% response rate of Magic/Kareem. This again makes it sound like you just were a little kid in the golden ages of the NBA (the 80's era, Celtics-Lakers-Pistons). Magic and Kareem are 2 top 5 players of all time on most lists. Shaq is a top 10 all time player but Kobe is simply not. And not close really. Not to mention the Lakers of the 80's, whom Hakeem's team beat, had a much better cast around their 2 headed duo than Shaq-Kobe. Of course, maybe names like James Worthy, Michael Cooper, and Byron Scott are foreign to you given your commentary. The 80's Lakers would be a 70 plus win team in today's league and would sweep Kobe-Shaq. Arguably the best team in NBA history or a top 5 one at least for sure.
I think we can all agree 0.4 should have never counted as well.Also, Duncan was 2-3 lifetime in the playoffs vs. Shaq/Kobe. Impressive to beat them twice, no doubt, but still an overall losing record...Those were some great series though and the NBA really needs a rivarly like that again where u have 2 great teams battling it out. On that, I think we all can agree.
His playoff numbers blow Duncan's out of the water? I thought all that matters in the playoffs is getting a win. I guess not. Nobody cares if you score 30, grab 15 boards and block 5 shots if you lose the game. Well, unless you're a fan of losers.Also, the career #'s are deceiving. You are factoring in Hakeem's grey beard years of steep decline. To make it apples to apples, you have to compare Hakeem's first 10 years to Duncan's first 10. SOmeone has posted that already on this thread and it was pro-Hakeem, especially if you look at playoff #'s, which again contradicts your "Duncan was more clutch" theory. Hakeem's playoff #'s blow Duncans out of the water and came against much tougher compe ion.
Elie played with Tim when he was basically a rookie. And Horry played with Hakeem during that run where Hakeem was spectacular. Duncan has been consistently dominant. That's why he doesn't rely on a 2 year run to define his greatness. It's a body of work.You keep raving about how Duncan makes teammates better than Hakeem, yet the 2 common teammates of both guys (Elie and Horry) both ahve said point blank Hakeem was the best teammate they ever played with. This flies in the face of your theory and really while we fans can argue all we want about who was better, the fact that those 2 guys who have played with both guys in their primes, won les with both guys, say Hakeem was better, well that should tell you something.
Better footwork aka traveling. More clutch aka 2 rings to Tim's 4. Scoring is relative to system. He might be a better individual defender but Duncan is a better team defender.Besides that though, Hakeem had more moves, better footwork, better athleticism, was more clutch, scored more, and defended better both as a team defender and an individual defender. Hakeem could dominate games defensively in a way Duncan simply isn't equipped to do. Remember, this is all relative. Yes, Duncan is a great defender but does he stack up with the all time great bigmen defensively (Hakeem, Russell, Kareem, DRob, Rodman). Uhh, that's just a no, no offense to TD. Rebounding is a wash.
I just can't wait til Tim retires and has like 7 rings. Then there won't even be a ridiculous debate like this. It will be a more deserving comparison. It will be who's the better big man? Russell, Wilt, Kareem or Duncan? Now those are names that are deserving to be mentioned with Duncan. Hakeem and Shaq will be in Duncan's rearview mirror when all is said and done.
^^Hakeem is already in Duncan's rearview mirror.
Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror, I guess Dr J is in Scottie Pippen's rear view mirror.
Right, and I guess Tim Duncan can only dream of being in the shadow of Bill Russell, but will never even be that close.
Comparing athletes can be fun.
Deciding, for yourself, who's in what order in a "top ten" etc.... but I'm convinced that it's impossible to change someone else's mind about their "top ten" no matter what arguement you use. Stats, intangibles, coach, teammates, particular era they played in, etc...
As for Duncan/Hakeem and Duncan/Garnett, being the latest conversations here, I'm just glad that Duncan is in the conversation. When he retires his place in the "official" books will be set in stone. There's no question he's a HOF lock, there's no question he'll be ranked among the greatest to ever play. Exactly where he'll fall in those ranks we don't know but we can safely assume he'll be pretty high.
It doesn't matter to me where he ends up or who is "in his rear-view mirror."
I'm just honored to be able to watch him play and know I'm witnessing greatness.
Things we have learned from "The Authority":
The Kobe/Shaq Lakers playing in the worst era of NBA Basketball were better than Magic/Kareem.
Reason: Kobe/Shaq won 3 in a row. This clearly supersedes the fact that Magic/Kareem's Lakers made EIGHT NBA Finals Appearances in the 1980's, winning FIVE of them. Also, Kobe/Shaq had epic battles with monster teams like the Nets and Sixers where all Magic/Kareem had to deal with were the Pistons Dynasty, Bird-Dynasty, and one of the best teams ever in the Moses/Dr. J sixers.
Magic Johnson wasn't great because he "couldn't shoot". Every sane person on the planet has him as a top 5 player NBA player EVER, but they are all wrong.
Tim Duncan, despite being one of the poorer free throw shooting superstars in the NBA, had a better jumper than Hakeem, even though Hakeem shot better FT's and FG's. Hakeem just travelled more. lol
Hakeem was only good for 2 years. The other years of leading the NBA in rebounds, blocks, winning DPOY's, and taking down Magic/Kareem in year 2 of his career weren't even that good. Never mind that he put up better stats than Timmy basically every year in the NBA. He just travelled so much that he won. lol
It's been nice hearing this stuff from you. Really showing your basketball knowledge, buddy.
First off, there isn't less talent in the NBA today, there is significantly more-- first i tend to believe that players do get better every generation (at least a little) and second, think of all the international stars that play in today's league that would not have been playing in the "golden years".
And all of you out there that are saying Duncan has always had more talent then Hakeem had are just wrong-- Duncan has played on tons of untalented teams.
Hakeem wouldn't have won a championship on the 2002-03 Spurs team, because he didn't win the championship during years he had more talent on his team (and some of the mythical MJ teams weren't that good, the 1998 team for example was very beatable by today's standards) Back to the 2003 championship, for whatever reason people forget about how out of this world Tim played in those playoffs, going for a near quadruple double to cap it off.
To the multiple Rockets fans that have been spouting off how superior Hakeem's stat lines are, that argument is preposterous, any serious difference in the numbers is negligible at best, it's not like their numbers aren't practically identical. I will say that Hakeem was a better shot blocker, but Duncan has anchored the best defensive team of the era for his entire career. I think the problem a lot of people have with conceptualizing Duncan's ability is a lack of statistical support. Duncan's Defensive QB and his overwhelming BB IQ has made the entire Spurs defense around him better, and he has erased so many mistakes with his low post D. He's not a tremendous athlete and he does get posterized sometimes, but his defensive ability always shows up on the score board.
I think the fact that Duncan does not play the best low post player card is a bit overblown, Duncan does guard the best low post player in the 4th quarter, and he dominates.... he doesnt play them in the first three quarters because Pop's game strat, it allows Duncan to be a help defender and have a much larger contribution on the game.
And it's not like you see Amare or Dirk or Shaq or many other "elite" big men guarding Tim. I don't even think Ben Wallace was put on Duncan.
This argument about the talent level is also quite wrong. The lakers dynasty was really good. People forget that so easily now, but their 3peat was an amazing run of basketball, they had two top 15 possibly top 10 players running wild, and they had some pretty good role players. And the man many consider to be the best coach ever (some people have him number 2)
The 2004 pistons were a dominant defensive team, and i think they could have beaten the 1993 rockets, possibly the 1994 rockets as well.
the 2006 heat were relatively weak, but that year would have ended with a spurs win had it not be for a very beat up roster
So basically Jordan's Bulls were overrated as were Kareem/Magic Lakers and the Rockets of Hakeem/Drexler as well.
All paled in comparison to the mighty Billups/Rasheed Wallace combo who won 1 le and appeared in the NBA Finals twice.
Sure...
All one has to do is look at the mighty Leastern Conference the last 7 years to see how much better the NBA is now than the 80's right?
Yes, Tim was out of this world in the 2003 playoffs. But it still wasn't close to the level of say O'Neal in the 2000-2002 playoffs (his peak) or Hakeem from the 93-95 playoffs (his peak). Everything is relative.
The beautifull thing about the peak is that it's short
Duncan has the stability especially in winning.
He is a winner like Bill Russell
What means the most? Wins
nuff
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
