Reply With Quote
Duncan
And Yao got blocked by Nate Robinson. So what?
Duncan
The second best player on the 1993-94 Houston Rockets was either Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell. Take your pick. That team's 3PT shooting on the season was 33.4%. Their playoff 3PT shooting was 36.1%. By comparison, the 2006-07 Championship Spurs shot 38.1% from three point range in the regular season and 38.4% in the playoffs.
Hakeem's cast in 1993-94 was as weak a cast any superstar had on a championship team.
Hakeem from 1994 to 1996 was unbelievable. It's the best stretch of basketball I've ever seen from a bigman.
That said, he wasn't always a beast. His first finals, he got owned by Bill Walton on one leg. Then he went on to somehow have the Rockets miss the playoffs in an era in which the West was much, much weaker than it is right now. Then he entered into a phase that saw the Rockets consider trading him.
When he finally learned to pass the ball and the Rockets surrounded him with the best clutch shooters of the last 20 years, he was able to dominate like few ever have. But somehow the rest of his career is forgotten.
Take out 1994 to 1996 and he was more in the KG/Dirk realm of player. If Dirk would have finished off the Heat, I case could be made that Hakeem - 1994 - 1995 - 1996 < Dirk.
If Hakeem wouldn't have learned to pass or the Rockets wouldn't have surrounded him with the clutchest shooters in the game, he very well could have gone down like a better version of Amare Stoudemire.
Ranking wise, I really don't care. Saying Hakeem was better than Duncan isn't unreasonable. I'd personally give the edge to Duncan because A) no way he'd ever miss the playoffs when in his prime ... simply no way B) he too would have won a championship with those supporting casts Hakeem had C) I'm not sure Hakeem wins with the 2003 supporting cast.
Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie ... those might be the five clutchest role-playing shooters of the past 20 years.
QFT
Maxwell was a low-percentage chucker like Alston. He made a alot of game winning shots though and sometimes he would off for 30-35 pts. Kenny Smith was a good shooter, but would get you 25 one night then 5 the next night. Otis Thorpe was the most consistent player behind Dream.
I'm not convinced Tim Duncan wins a le in 1993-94 with that same Houston Rockets cast where Hakeem basically had to drop basically 30 a game just to give them a chance to win. Maybe Tim could have, but it's at least as much in question as Hakeem winning with the 2003 Spurs cast.
this post ftw
Well, technically outside shooting is not just 3-point shooting. If you compare jump shooting threats, I'd take Elie/Horry/Maxwell/Kenny/Cassell over SJax/Bowen/2003 Manu and some rare appearances by 2003 Steve Smith and 2003 Steve Kerr. In 94-95 you add Drexler to that list and that makes the group even more deadly.
Teams had to single-team Hakeem much of the time because they could put four deadly shooters around him. Duncan in his prime single-teamed? Uh yeah, that wouldn't have been pretty either.
Hitting wide open jumpers because of Hakeem. They aren't even remotely in position to hit clutch jumpers without Hakeem carrying that offense for entire games. Again, the shooting numbers weren't even that impressive. And, I'd have to go back and watch those playoffs, but I'd want to re-visit them to see how often Maxwell and Kenny Smith hit clutch jumpers in that 1994 le run. Actually, I'd like to go back and see all of them because while Horry and Cassell and Elie have reputations of being clutch shooters, I'd really like to see how many each hit during that first le run. Not saying they didn't. I'm sure they hit some. But, legend sometimes skews past realities. Horry has built his clutch shooting reputation even more so with the Lakers and even the Spurs. How clutch was he with the Rockets? It's been a long time that I can't remember and say for sure. Having clutch shooters is important. Having great players that can also help carry the team throughout the game and not just at the end of games might be even more important. Hakeem averaged 28.9 ppg in the 1994 playoffs. The next highest average on the team was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg.
You think Steve Smith, Steve Kerr and Danny Ferry were creating their own shot? They were on the floor because of Duncan. In 2003, either Duncan embarrassed 1-on-1 coverage (see 37/16 vs L.A.) or dished it out to shooters (see near quadruple double vs NJ)
In the 2003 playoffs, Duncan lead the team in minutes played, points, rebounds, assists, blocks and was second in FG% behind DRob (the latter was reduced to taking high % shots near the rim).
And, if you compare the efficiency of 2003 playoff Duncan and 1994 playoff Hakeem, you need to adjust for both minutes and pace. So here's how they match up (all numbers for playoffs):
PER:
2003 Duncan: 28.4
1994 Hakeem: 27.7
True shooting %
2003 Duncan: 0.577
1994 Hakeem: 0.568
Effective FG%
2003 Duncan: 0.529
1994 Hakeem: 0.521
Total Rebounding %
2003 Duncan: 19.9%
1994 Hakeem: 14.5%
Assist %:
2003 Duncan: 25.5%
1994 Hakeem: 20.4%
Offensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 116
1994 Hakeem: 109
Defensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 92
1994 Hakeem: 97
Duncan comes out better overall, not by a crushing margin, but by a fair separation.
Last edited by Warlord23; 04-13-2009 at 05:15 PM. Reason: bolded for easier reading
Hakeem's teammates in 94-95 were psychopaths
No conscience whatsoever, they would just shoot the damn ball ...and score
I loved it when Horry would take an offensive rebound, have an open 2 ,but dribble on purpose to go behind the 3 point line and score
That's just craziness....or major cojones
Horry did that ALL THE TIME with the Lakers. It pissed me off to no end, but paid off in the end when he made a huge one vs the Blazers in 2000.
I remember that one, it was in game 7
He also did it once of the 1994 Finals games at MSG
Each of those players proved to be clutch in other situations that didn't involve Hakeem. Hakeem didn't make Maxwell, Horry, Elie and Cassell clutch. The only borderline clutch one of those five is Kenny Smith ... and last time I checked he's the all-time career three-point percentage leader in playoff history.
Props to the Rockets for locating clutch players but you can't give all that credit to Hakeem. He deserves props for learning how to pass but not for creating their clutchness.
They were all damn clutch. I watched their whole playoff run at the time and it was just sick the amount of heart and clutchness that team had. Those five clutch players stepped up whenever the chips were down.
He was damn clutch then, trust me
0-for-8 or whatever it was and then steps up and knocks down the game winner
Again, Hakeem was awesome in those two seasons. No bigman in the history of the NBA was going to slow him down.
But he had damn clutch shooters. That Rocket team you are talking about had five players averaging double-digits in the playoffs ... and that's not including Sam Cassell, who at times was the second best player on the team. Duncan never had that many double-digit scorers around him.
Of course there's no way to prove it but give Duncan in his prime Thorpe, Horry, Maxwell, Cassell, Smith and Elie that team rolls. No doubling Duncan with clutch shooters at every position? Yes, please.
If Hakeem's Rockets had won the West or at least challenged Malone's Jazz every year, I think you could successfully say that Hakeem was just unfortunate to play in the same era as the GOAT.
I shudder to think what Timmy would have averaged for his career if he hadn't demanded double-teams from everyone in the league.
I realize that it's not as impressive numbers-wise, but I still think one of the three greatest performances (and maybe one of the best performances in any sporting finale) was Duncan's Game 7 against the Pistons in 05. Hurt, hobbled, and being double-teamed, he STILL dominated two of the best post defenders in the League to the point where they were absolutely unable to stop him.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my comments about the 1994 Rockets team.
[QUOTE]In the 2003 playoffs, Duncan lead the team in minutes played, points, rebounds, assists, blocks and was second in FG% behind DRob (the latter was reduced to taking high % shots near the rim).[QUOTE]
That's great. Hakeem did the same for the Rockets in the 1994 playoffs, except he also led the team in steals.
That's great. But, again, I don't see the relevance to my comments.And, if you compare the efficiency of 2003 playoff Duncan and 1994 playoff Hakeem, you need to adjust for both minutes and pace. So here's how they match up (all numbers for playoffs):
PER:
2003 Duncan: 28.4
1994 Hakeem: 27.7
True shooting %
2003 Duncan: 0.577
1994 Hakeem: 0.568
Effective FG%
2003 Duncan: 0.529
1994 Hakeem: 0.521
Total Rebounding %
2003 Duncan: 19.9%
1994 Hakeem: 14.5%
Assist %:
2003 Duncan: 25.5%
1994 Hakeem: 20.4%
Offensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 116
1994 Hakeem: 109
Defensive Rating:
2003 Duncan: 92
1994 Hakeem: 97
Duncan comes out better overall, not by a crushing margin, but by a fair separation.
I didn't take anything away from Duncan and what he did in 2003 leading the Spurs to a championship. I merely said I'm not sure Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship, where that team counted on Hakeem to score basically 30 ppg in order for them to win.
Duncan is a great player, one of the best ever. You are assuming I'm trying to blast on Duncan in order to build up Hakeem. I'm not. What Duncan did in 2003 was nothing short of spectacular with the cast he had around him. And, I would agree that it's not at all certain that Hakeem could have done the same with that cast. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. I simply suggested an opinion that I'm also not certain that Duncan could have led the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship either. Duncan is a great scorer and certainly capable of big scoring games. I'm not sure if he would have been able to consistently have explosive scoring nights game after game in a playoff run. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. Point was to suggest it's as uncertain as Hakeem leading the 2003 Spurs to a le.
What he said.
end of the thread
Are you also suggesting as another poster did that Duncan made Parker and Ginobili the players they are?
Are you also suggesting that the 2003 Spurs didn't have any clutch shot makers? S-Jax, Steve Kerr, Ginobili, Parker (not three point shooting back then, but you couldn't leave him alone). Bruce Bowen shot 35-for-80 in the 2003 playoffs from three point range. I think it's really splitting hairs to suggest the Rockets had all these clutch shooters and the Spurs were essentially completely reliant on Tim Duncan.
Again, the team has to be in position to get those clutch shots. Hakeem had to carry that team to be in position for those jump shooter to hit big shots.They were all damn clutch. I watched their whole playoff run at the time and it was just sick the amount of heart and clutchness that team had. Those five clutch players stepped up whenever the chips were down.
He was damn clutch then, trust me
0-for-8 or whatever it was and then steps up and knocks down the game winner
The 2003 Spurs played at a much slower pace than the 1994 Rockets. That 2003 Spurs team had four players average 9.3 ppg or more in the 2003 playoffs. It's again splitting hairs, especially when you consider pace of the game. Bruce Bowen hit 35 for 80 three pointers in the 2003 playoffs. Steve Kerr went 5-for-6. S-Jax and Ginobili were more chuckers but also hit their share of big shots along the way. Parker was still a lightning blur defenders couldn't stay in front of. We can go back and forth on the supporting casts, but I don't think there's a huge difference either way. The 1994 Rockets supporting cast had more "clutch shooters." The 2003 Spurs supporting cast had better individual players that could help take over the game other than just the final minutes of the fourth quarter of close games.Again, Hakeem was awesome in those two seasons. No bigman in the history of the NBA was going to slow him down.
But he had damn clutch shooters. That Rocket team you are talking about had five players averaging double-digits in the playoffs ... and that's not including Sam Cassell, who at times was the second best player on the team. Duncan never had that many double-digit scorers around him.
And, in an era where hacks like Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason were allowed to hand check and get away with it, use two elbows in the back and rarely get called, and no defensive three seconds, so even if there was no double, the lane could be clogged, it might not be the walk in the park you imagine. I think Duncan could easily play back in that era and help lead a team to great success. But, I'm not sure he could lead a team all the way to a le, just the same way you are skeptical that Hakeem could have led the 2003 Spurs to a le.Of course there's no way to prove it but give Duncan in his prime Thorpe, Horry, Maxwell, Cassell, Smith and Elie that team rolls. No doubling Duncan with clutch shooters at every position? Yes, please.
On the contrary, the fact that Duncan in his best le run scored, redounded and passed better than Hakeem in his best run suggests that Duncan would have been able to do at least what Hakeem did, especially with more veteran clutch shooters around him.
I'm getting the feeling that Duncan's recent injury-induced decline has played a major part in people underrating him. In fact, I did a quick search on similar threads from a year back, and here is what you had to say about the matter then:
Link to JamStone's post
2009 Duncan has been painful to watch, but that doesn't detract from his legacy. Even before this year, he has played more consistently and won more consistently than Hakeem had. That, added to the fact that his best year actually compares pretty favorably with Hakeem's best year, just emphasizes that Timmy arguably has had the better career.
I agree Hakeem would have beaten Duncan in a 1-on-1 game at their peaks. However, the argument here is about who does better if you give them a similar supporting cast. Hakeem dominating his peers was in the context of their supporting casts (i.e. Robinson playing man coverage on Hakeem, while the Rockets were able to double David; or Shaq having younger teammates compared to the veteran shooters surrounding Hakeem).
My argument is simple:
1. If you take out Hakeem's relatively short peak, his performance was not in the company of the all-time greats. I've already posted the Rockets' team records. Compare that to Duncan, whose team has been contending at a high level for a decade.
2. Hakeem's peak playoff performance in 1994 actually falls short of Duncan's peak performance in 2003.
3. Duncan has more team and individual accomplishments/awards by a fair margin.
I picked Duncan by the thinnest of margins, because I think he's a better teammate than Hakeem. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I vaguely recall some static between him and Cassell about the offense that made the Barkley trade a no-brainer. Having lived in Houston in 97-99 (and having watched most of Houston's games), I remember Hakeem and Barkley both having a hard time taking a step back and sharing the ball with the rest of the team. It's not too big a deal though; the compe ive edge that makes a player incredible like Olajuwon was is never going to disappear, and no way was Hakeem ever going to shrink from the challenge of carrying a team.
I don't want it to sound too much like I'm canonizing Duncan. I know he had issues with Parker and thought Pop was nuts to pin their le hopes on a 19 year-old from France. There had to be some static with Tim pushing the FO to go after Kidd. Still, Tim has always shown the maturity to take a step back and let his teammates flourish, just like David Robinson did with him.
Lastly, I think Olajuwon would've gone to Orlando in 2000. Sometimes I'm still shocked Duncan didn't.
I don't underrate Duncan. Even in the quote below, you see that I have had very high regard for Duncan and his career and his legacy. Hakeem was a more explosive, potent scorer than Duncan. That is something you cannot argue. Hakeem was able to consistently score 30+ ppg for entire le runs. I still don't know if Duncan could do that if he was called upon all the way to a championship. He may. He may not.
Again, goes to show you that I don't underrate him. Tim's career does compare favorably. And, Duncan was more of a winner throughout his career than Hakeem was. It's true Tim Duncan has arguably had a better overall career than Hakeem. Hakeem in his prime was better than Duncan in his prime.Link to JamStone's post
2009 Duncan has been painful to watch, but that doesn't detract from his legacy. Even before this year, he has played more consistently and won more consistently than Hakeem had. That, added to the fact that his best year actually compares pretty favorably with Hakeem's best year, just emphasizes that Timmy arguably has had the better career.
That does not refute my original comments in this thread. I'm not convinced Duncan leads the 1993-94 Rockets to a championship. My glowing comments about Duncan's career do not contradict that.
Hakeem was so effective outside of the scoring realm, like I said, YOU HAD TO WATCH HIM PLAY.
He would score on one end and be the first one down the court to contest a shot. I can only ponder what the sampson/Hakeem combo could have accomplished, that was the greatest rockets team ever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
