Olajuwon vs Duncan

[StrongLurk]

I'm not one to underrate Duncan...but honestly I would take the dream over Duncan.

I think Duncan is just rated higher because of rings honestly...

[NBAGOAT]

duncan because longevity.

[warriorfan]

Hakeem for better peak and style points

[baudkarma]

One-on-one I take Hakeem. Starting a team, I take Duncan.

[DaHeezy]

I'd take Duncan. His game is efficient and effective both offensively and defensively. Plus the longevity.

[superduper]

If your team consists of 3&d role players = Hakeem
If your team has more star level players = Duncan

[Uncle Drew]

Duncan.

[SouBeachTalents]

Classic peak vs. longevity argument

[StrongLurk]

I'd take Duncan. His game is efficient and effective both offensively and defensively. Plus the longevity.

Hakeem's game is clearly good on offense and defense as well...and Duncan's longevity isn't any better than Hakeem's.

Longevity is just games played...it's really referencing your prime.

Duncan and Hakeem were elite players for basically 1,000 games.

[NBAGOAT]

Hakeem's game is clearly good on offense and defense as well...and Duncan's longevity isn't any better than Hakeem's.

Longevity is just games played...it's really referencing your prime.

Duncan and Hakeem were elite players for basically 1,000 games.

duncan's post prime years are a lot better than most.

[Bosnian Sajo]

I'd take Duncan. His game is efficient and effective both offensively and defensively. Plus the longevity.


As if Olajuwon's was not? There has never been a better shot blocker in NBA history than the dream. As mobile as a guard, but as dominant as a center.



If we are looking career wise, give me Duncan due to his success. But peak matchup head to head? Olajuwon vs Duncan? Give me the dream.

[StrongLurk]

duncan's post prime years are a lot better than most.

Kind of true...I mean Duncan was worse in 2011 than 2013.

He had a revitalization but a lot of that can be contributed to being with the Spurs and Popovich.

Duncan only averaged 15ppg 2009-2016.

[StrongLurk]

Hakeem 84-99 put up 24/12/3/2/3 in 37.4mpg

Duncan 97-12 put up 20/11/3/1/2 in 35.4mpg

I'd take Hakeem :confusedshrug:

[superduper]

bump because this is the only reasonable Olajuwon comparison thread made today

[StrongLurk]

bump because this is the only reasonable Olajuwon comparison thread made today

I dont get everyone mentioning "longevity"...that's always the tie breaker for comparisons like McGrady vs Kobe or something like that.

Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Olajawon all had VERY similar longevity.

The only crazy longevity guys that stand out right now are Kareem, Karl Malone, and most likely Lebron.

[Phoenix]

Duncan never peaked higher than Hakeem did in 94 and 95. Some other years it may be an argument year to year, but I don't feel like Timmy ever reached *that* height.

In terms of longevity, Duncan had his minutes scaled back heavily after 8 seasons(33 mpg down from 36-40 his first 7 years) then 30 and less after age 33. Hakeem averaged 36mpg at 36, and he was still giving you 20 and 10 pretty much to that age. He was highly productive 15 out of his 18 years in the league. Duncan played 19 years, productivity scaled back after year 17 and again his minutes were scaled way back 5 years before that. Not sure longevity is much of an argument to hang your hat on.

[Manny98]

Give me 03 Duncan over any version of Hakeem

[Phoenix]

Give me 03 Duncan over any version of Hakeem

Did you actually see any version of Hakeem to even offer that opinion with a straight face?

[Manny98]

Did you actually see any version of Hakeem to even offer that opinion with a straight face?
I saw enough of prime Hakeem to form a opinion and Duncan was better

He was a better defender and much better passer

[Phoenix]

I saw enough of prime Hakeem to form a opinion and Duncan was better

He was a better defender and much better passer

You base this on...?

[Manny98]

You base this on...?
Duncan had the edge in defensive IQ and defensive positioning to me and anchored better defensive teams

[Phoenix]

Duncan had the edge in defensive IQ and defensive positioning to me and anchored better defensive teams

He generally had better defensive personnel around him. Individually Hakeem was a better shotblocker and ball-thief, and more prolific scorer. So any 'minor' defensive edge Duncan may have as a defensive anchor is neutralized by Hakeem being a better peak scorer.

[Round Mound]

The Dream

[thefatmiral]

Watching duncan go to work in his late thirties in the finals puts him above hakeem. How you play in post season matters the most.

[Rocket]

Dream!!!

I agree 100% with the person who said this is the only Hakeem comparison thread that makes any sense.

[Stringer Bell]

Classic peak vs. longevity argument

Not really, they were both terrific players as soon as they entered the league and both had great longevity as being among the best players. Olajuwon

[houston]

Give me 03 Duncan over any version of Hakeem


exactly

[GimmeThat]

and in 1992 George Bush Sr. lost to Bill Clinton , who later became a 2-term president despite the Lewinsky scandal

Bill Clinton(1946) is 22 years younger than Sr., 2 months younger than 43, who was a product of FDR's new deal between 1933 and 36, and stuck due to World War 2 and his 4 terms presidency.

essentially filing an anti-trust application to the united nation, who later filed for extension by the argument of categories first, second and third world country.

how did it happen? Republic of China mingled into the U.S. election, and the republican party reneged on a domestic promise - a bill that increased taxes.

[houston]

[QUOTE=Stringer Bell]Not really, they were both terrific players as soon as they entered the league and both had great longevity as being among the best players. Olajuwon

[GimmeThat]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/salary-cap-history.html

also again, I wonder what were the +/- when they were off the floor for their team

[ImKobe]

I think most of us can agree that Hakeem was a better overall player but Duncan had the greater career. I'd obviously pick Hakeem over Timmy if I had to build my team around one of them. Hakeem didn't have a short prime either, he was elite from his rookie year at age 22 up to age 34/35 and he didn't have the minutes restriction or the help around him that Duncan did, he played 35+ mpg well into his mid-30s while Duncan had his minutes restricted and last played 35+ mpg at age 28 and basically was a 30 mpg player for the 2nd half of his career.

[superduper]

I think most of us can agree that Hakeem was a better overall player but Duncan had the greater career. I'd obviously pick Hakeem over Timmy if I had to build my team around one of them. Hakeem didn't have a short prime either, he was elite from his rookie year at age 22 up to age 34/35 and he didn't have the minutes restriction or the help around him that Duncan did, he played 35+ mpg well into his mid-30s while Duncan had his minutes restricted and last played 35+ mpg at age 28 and basically was a 30 mpg player for the 2nd half of his career.

The main difference here though is that Hakeem was seen as a toxic teammate for the first chunk of his career while Duncan is seen as the best teammate ever for his entire career. There are certain intangibles that definitely favor Duncan.

[StrongLurk]

I think most of us can agree that Hakeem was a better overall player but Duncan had the greater career. I'd obviously pick Hakeem over Timmy if I had to build my team around one of them. Hakeem didn't have a short prime either, he was elite from his rookie year at age 22 up to age 34/35 and he didn't have the minutes restriction or the help around him that Duncan did, he played 35+ mpg well into his mid-30s while Duncan had his minutes restricted and last played 35+ mpg at age 28 and basically was a 30 mpg player for the 2nd half of his career.

It would be a different story for "greater career" if Sampson hadn't gotten injured so early on.

Besides, "greater career" is a silly term. You admitted that Hakeem was a better player than Duncan, which is what we are judging.

[jayfan]

All the Duncan arguments are nice & pretty, but he wasn't as good as Hakeem.

Look at it this way:

You have one game to win it all, and there's a player-draft for the two teams. With the first pick of the draft, you can take either peak Duncan or peak Hakeem. (whenever there's a 'which player was better?' question, you always judge them at their best).

Anyone being honest with themselves takes Hakeem every time.

.

[eliteballer]

Hakeem is Duncan with elite athleticism.

[superduper]

Giannis > both

[Facepalm]

Hakeem 84-99 put up 24/12/3/2/3 in 37.4mpg

Duncan 97-12 put up 20/11/3/1/2 in 35.4mpg

I'd take Hakeem :confusedshrug:
This. People forget Dream was dominant since his rookie year. Not his fault he had to carry shit teams.

[meat]

I'm old and from Houston. I watched almost every Rockets game in the 90's. Hakeem's peak was a thing of beauty.

Aside from his amazing defense, the offense basically set up through him.
He carried a tremendous load on both ends of the court.

Would Tim Duncan be guarding John Starks on the 3 point line in the last seconds of a finals game? Hakeem blocked the shot BTW.

[ImKobe]

The main difference here though is that Hakeem was seen as a toxic teammate for the first chunk of his career while Duncan is seen as the best teammate ever for his entire career. There are certain intangibles that definitely favor Duncan.

That's true, but if we go by their ability on the court then I'd say Hakeem was better. It's easy for Duncan to be seen as a great leader/teammate when he had the best coach/FO from day one and David Robinson(one of the classiest greatest big men and teammates ever) to mentor him. It's not like Duncan wasn't looking to join T-Mac in Orlando in the early 2000s after D-Rob was on his way to retirement.


It would be a different story for "greater career" if Sampson hadn't gotten injured so early on.

Besides, "greater career" is a silly term. You admitted that Hakeem was a better player than Duncan, which is what we are judging.

I just wanted to put both arguments out there. Those who'd pick Duncan would obviously go with his 5/6 Finals record and making a case that he should have been 6/6 with 4 FMVPs if not for missed FTs and Ray Allen's shot.

I like Hakeem as a player more but I understand why others would choose Duncan over him, I've had Duncan over Olajuwon on all-time lists due to accolades.

[72-10]

That's true, but if we go by their ability on the court then I'd say Hakeem was better. It's easy for Duncan to be seen as a great leader/teammate when he had the best coach/FO from day one and David Robinson(one of the classiest greatest big men and teammates ever) to mentor him. It's not like Duncan wasn't looking to join T-Mac in Orlando in the early 2000s after D-Rob was on his way to retirement.



I just wanted to put both arguments out there. Those who'd pick Duncan would obviously go with his 5/6 Finals record and making a case that he should have been 6/6 with 4 FMVPs if not for missed FTs and Ray Allen's shot.

I like Hakeem as a player more but I understand why others would choose Duncan over him, I've had Duncan over Olajuwon on all-time lists due to accolades.

Could you please drop your all-time list?

[houston]

Duncan made more all-stars,all-nba,all-defense, more rings,more mvp's than Hakeem hence he the better player.

[Smoke117]

Anyone who thinks Duncan is better/greater than Hakeem Olajuwon either never actually watched Dream play or doesn't know anything about basketball. That will always be my final opinion on the matter. Hakeem is considered better than David Robinson and Duncan was never as good as Robinson in his prime (though, greater overall because of longevity) so to think Tim Duncan could be better/greater than Hakeem is an absolute joke. He NEVER completely dominated like Olajuwon and Robinson were at their peaks.

[Round Mound]

Duncan made more all-stars,all-nba,all-defense, more rings,more mvp's than Hakeem hence he the better player.

Hakeem was a total better player than Duncan. Hakeem was a better scorer, had more moves in the post, better rebounder and better shot blocker/defender. Duncan was a better ball handler and passer thats it.

[Smoke117]

Hakeem was a total better player than Duncan. Hakeem was a better scorer, had more moves in the post, better rebounder and better shot blocker/defender. Duncan was a better ball handler and passer thats it.

Don't even bother. When a cat has to go into...he made this blah blah...he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about and never actually watched said players.

[meat]

Don't even bother. When a cat has to go into...he made this blah blah...he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about and never actually watched said players.

Ridiculous. Duncan a better passer and ball handler? Nope. Dream was a 6'11" ballerina and as I said before, in his prime, almost every play started with passing into the post and setting up from there.

Duncan had better teammates and a better coach.

Dream had Rudy T, who was pretty much an alcoholic at the time.

[Carbine]

Anyone who thinks Duncan is better/greater than Hakeem Olajuwon either never actually watched Dream play or doesn't know anything about basketball. That will always be my final opinion on the matter. Hakeem is considered better than David Robinson and Duncan was never as good as Robinson in his prime (though, greater overall because of longevity) so to think Tim Duncan could be better/greater than Hakeem is an absolute joke. He NEVER completely dominated like Olajuwon and Robinson were at their peaks.


This is quite funny to read.

Another thing that's interesting to me is people lay out these stat lines like 29/16/5/3/3 on 53% vs 24/13/4//2/1 on 50% as if this is some kind of math equation and one determines who the better is.

Yet their the same people who will say Anthony Davis puts up some of the most empty stats in the league. Or LeBron puts up the most empty stats.

Since nobody mentioned it yet, Hakeem in his age 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 seasons......got bounced in the first round four straight years, got swept and actually missed the playoffs entirely in his age 29 season.

The only time the Spurs got bounced in the first round was when Duncan didn't play in the playoffs (99-00) or when he was past his prime (age 33)

Horry who played with both said Hakeem is 20 times better than Duncan so there is that. I'd rather watch Hakeem play, I may rather play with Duncan.

[houston]

Hakeem was a total better player than Duncan. Hakeem was a better scorer, had more moves in the post, better rebounder and better shot blocker/defender. Duncan was a better ball handler and passer thats it.


he wasn't a better defender. Hakeem gamble alot on defense. Duncan was more efficient and better teammate by far.Duncan was the more polish player out the gate than Hakeem.

Duncan never really was heavy minute player like Hakeem so "numbers" never was big deal like that.

Hakeem I swear has the most overrated legacy when it comes to a player.

[meat]

he wasn't a better defender. Hakeem gamble alot on defense. Duncan was more efficient and better teammate by far.Duncan was the more polish player out the gate than Hakeem.

Duncan never really was heavy minute player like Hakeem so "numbers" never was big deal like that.

Hakeem I swear has the most overrated legacy when it comes to a player.

Oh so "numbers" aren't a big deal huh? Duncan wasn't a "heavy minute player" like Hakeem? So Duncan only averaged 34 mpg for his career compared to Hakeem's 35.7? These scary mysterious "numbers" as you call them actually mean something sometimes. You are a disgrace to your user name.

[meat]

he wasn't a better defender. Hakeem gamble alot on defense. Duncan was more efficient and better teammate by far.Duncan was the more polish player out the gate than Hakeem.

Duncan never really was heavy minute player like Hakeem so "numbers" never was big deal like that.

Hakeem I swear has the most overrated legacy when it comes to a player.

Oh efficiency? There's those scary numbers again. Hakeem has better FG and FT%. How can Duncan be more efficient by making fewer shots? Actually Dream has better stats across the board.

Tim had better teammates and one of the best coaches ever.

[meat]

he wasn't a better defender. Hakeem gamble alot on defense. Duncan was more efficient and better teammate by far.Duncan was the more polish player out the gate than Hakeem.

Duncan never really was heavy minute player like Hakeem so "numbers" never was big deal like that.

Hakeem I swear has the most overrated legacy when it comes to a player.

One more thing, Duncan is from the U.S. Virgin Islands, not Poland.

[rmt]

This is quite funny to read.

Another thing that's interesting to me is people lay out these stat lines like 29/16/5/3/3 on 53% vs 24/13/4//2/1 on 50% as if this is some kind of math equation and one determines who the better is.

Yet their the same people who will say Anthony Davis puts up some of the most empty stats in the league. Or LeBron puts up the most empty stats.

Since nobody mentioned it yet, Hakeem in his age 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 seasons......got bounced in the first round four straight years, got swept and actually missed the playoffs entirely in his age 29 season.

The only time the Spurs got bounced in the first round was when Duncan didn't play in the playoffs (99-00) or when he was past his prime (age 33)

Horry who played with both said Hakeem is 20 times better than Duncan so there is that. I'd rather watch Hakeem play, I may rather play with Duncan.

I would like to add that Horry played with Hakeem (and Shaq) in their peak MVP years when they played heavy minutes. Horry played with Duncan post-peak MVP years when more of the offensive was being shared with Manu and Parker.

And Hakeem is certainly not 20 times (I assume this is not the number he said) or any factor more than a little over 1 better than Duncan. IMO, the difference (when taking the total package into account) is very little.

[rmt]

Oh efficiency? There's those scary numbers again. Hakeem has better FG and FT%. How can Duncan be more efficient by making fewer shots? Actually Dream has better stats across the board.

Tim had better teammates and one of the best coaches ever.

Popovich was not one of the best coaches ever for most of their championships - especially at the beginning - he was very close to being fired in their first championship year.

And those better team mates (28th and 57th overall) developed and blossomed under Duncan.

[rmt]

One more thing, Duncan is from the U.S. Virgin Islands, not Poland.

I think the word is "polished."

[meat]

I think the word is "polished."

You are correct. It was supposed to be a joke

[Micku]

Hakeem for peak, Duncan for career.

I believe there were a lot of comments of Duncan's mature play as soon as he came to the league. He did the right plays that aren't recorded via stats. The right picks, the right passes, the right rotation with help, contested, right attitude and etc.

Hakeem was great too, but got pissed off a lot. Not that it shouldn't reduce results cuz Shaq, MJ, even Magic could yell and get pissed off at their teammates. And Hakeem obviously went to the finals and was a force to be reckon with. But Hakeem didn't trust in his teammates I think? He was reported to be undisciplined and stuff. It wasn't until he found religion that he cooled off and trust in his teammates more. He became a better passer too.

Again, give me Hakeem peak. I believe he was the better player. But Duncan for career. Duncan was ready from the get go and apparently did the little things better tho Hakeem was probably the better individual talent. Duncan might've been the best team player. Hakeem didn't get that way until around 1991 or 1992 ish.

[Facepalm]

Ridiculous. Duncan a better passer and ball handler? Nope. Dream was a 6'11" ballerina and as I said before, in his prime, almost every play started with passing into the post and setting up from there.

Duncan had better teammates and a better coach.

Dream had Rudy T, who was pretty much an alcoholic at the time.
Dream grew up playing soccer hence his amazing footwork

[Round Mound]

he wasn't a better defender. Hakeem gamble alot on defense. Duncan was more efficient and better teammate by far.Duncan was the more polish player out the gate than Hakeem.

Duncan never really was heavy minute player like Hakeem so "numbers" never was big deal like that.

Hakeem I swear has the most overrated legacy when it comes to a player.

:facepalm :rolleyes: :no: :confusedshrug:

[ILLsmak]

Duncan was never as good as Robinson in his prime.

I was with you til here. Way to slay your own post. I gotta get outta here.

-Smak

[bizil]

GOAT wise hands down Timmy. Dream has no argument there. But peak-prime wise, its DAMN CLOSE! For me, i'll go with the Dream because his scoring arsenal was just plain nasty with the combo of style and fundamentals. I just think he was a bit tougher to handle scoring the rock than Timmy.

BUT I consider Timmy on the same caliber of player in general. On other teams, Duncan would have been top 5 in the league in scoring year after year. People forget how young Timmy used to get it in. His athletic ability has become underrated over the years. At the time, had some of the best handles I've seen from a 7 footer.

And in the Triple Towers lineup Pop used to employ at times, he had Timmy ACTUALLY at the SF spot. With Robinson at PF and Perdue at C! So even though Timmy is the best PF ever on the block, his versatility and athletic ability in his younger days gets overlooked!

[jayfan]

Again, if the two players had switched teams, would the fate of either team have changed?

Yes, for Houston. The Rockets do not win their rings with Duncan instead of Hakeem.

Conversely, the Spurs still win theirs with Hakeem instead of Duncan. (before spurs fans start tripping on this, imagine Hakeem & his talents being coached by Pop and utilized in his system. There's no downside, only upside).


.

[HoopsNY]

This is quite funny to read.

Another thing that's interesting to me is people lay out these stat lines like 29/16/5/3/3 on 53% vs 24/13/4//2/1 on 50% as if this is some kind of math equation and one determines who the better is.

Yet their the same people who will say Anthony Davis puts up some of the most empty stats in the league. Or LeBron puts up the most empty stats.

Since nobody mentioned it yet, Hakeem in his age 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 seasons......got bounced in the first round four straight years, got swept and actually missed the playoffs entirely in his age 29 season.

The only time the Spurs got bounced in the first round was when Duncan didn't play in the playoffs (99-00) or when he was past his prime (age 33)

Horry who played with both said Hakeem is 20 times better than Duncan so there is that. I'd rather watch Hakeem play, I may rather play with Duncan.

I think you're not looking at a greater context. Hakeem lost his entire core from '86 with the demise of Sampson, the letting go of John Lucas, and the banning of Lloyd and Wiggins. This obviously disrupted the flow of things and proved fatal to Houston's aspirations of becoming a dynasty.

Hakeem played stellar in the '88 1st round against Dallas, putting up 38/17/2/2/3 on 57%, even shooting 88% from the line. In the elimination game, he put up 40/15/2/1 on 67%. But the Rockets couldn't stop Mark Aguirre. What else could have Hakeem done as a big man?

By the early '90s, Hakeem was becoming disgruntled because he felt he wasn't getting what he had deserved. Guys like Ewing and Robinson were getting paid way more than him, and he wanted a new deal. Charlie Thomas (owner) and Steve Patterson (GM), went to war with Hakeem. In 1992, the Rockets were fighting for an 8th seed, Hakeem had a hamstring strain and the Patterson and Thomas had Hakeem suspended for five games. Houston went 0-5 in those games and subsequently missed the playoffs.

What a lot of people may not remember is that Thomas was trying to sell the team. By wanting to do so, he didn't want to give Hakeem a bigger contract because it would prevent potential buyers since more money would have had to been paid to Hakeem. This infuriated Hakeem, but not to the point of faking an injury.

I'm not saying that Hakeem getting bounced out of the 1st round and then missing the playoffs doesn't hold any merit at all, but it certainly is decontextualized given what happened to his would be dynasty and the contract woes he had with his GM and owner.

Not to mention, as others have mentioned, Hakeem didn't waltz into a franchise with an all-time (top 3?) coach in Pop AND a GOAT level player in David Robinson. If Hakeem switched roles, is there any doubt in anyone's minds that he would have seen the same, if not more, success? We saw what happened with Rudy T, then how about the Pop system?

[HoopsNY]

Duncan got bounced in the first round 3 times actually. And it wasn't when he was age 33 or higher only.

2009 they lost to Dallas, he was 32. But also, he was All-NBA 2nd Team and All-Defensive 2nd Team. They lost again in 2011, but him and Ginobili were banged up in the playoffs IIRC. Then they lost in 2015 but he was 38. But in 2015, he was still All-NBA 3rd Team and All-Defensive 2nd Team.

I doubt anyone would hold these 1st round exits against Duncan.

[rmt]

Not to mention, as others have mentioned, Hakeem didn't waltz into a franchise with an all-time (top 3?) coach in Pop AND a GOAT level player in David Robinson. If Hakeem switched roles, is there any doubt in anyone's minds that he would have seen the same, if not more, success? We saw what happened with Rudy T, then how about the Pop system?

Pop's NBA head coach record at the start of 1999 was 73-73 - was that all-time (top 3) coaching? He was on the verge of being fired. Pop system? More like throw it to Duncan or DRob. IMO, his coaching skills didn't really EXCEL until the 2010's when Duncan, Manu and to a lesser extent, Parker, were past their prime and he emphasized the "passing" game which Kerr/Warriors took to another level with their 3 point shooting. But for TD's peak, it was throw it in to him. Later, it was pick and roll/pop with TD and either Parker or Manu.

Congratulations to Pop on his record - that's quite an achievement - he certainly maximized the talent of all the players he coached. Not that I don't have criticisms like putting Bowen on Rip instead of Chauncey (letting Parker chase Rip around screens), going with small ball vs 06 Mavs and not playing the best players in crunch time/leaving TD on the bench in '13 game 6 but sustained excellence in coaching/player development (especially Kawhi) for a helluva long time.

[Im Still Ballin]

The whole idea of a "system" in San Antonio is/was a bit of a misnomer.

The Spurs simply had great top-end talent that sacrificed for the good of the team. They did whatever it took to win; they set a standard and culture that trickled down to the roleplayers. Robinson sacrificed, Duncan sacrificed, Manu sacrificed, Parker sacrificed. Hell, even a young Kawhi did too.

It's just like any work environment: strong leaders make for positive work environments. It's easier to provide value as an employee when the managers and c-suite executives are setting the example. Accountability and responsibility. Selflessness. A collective mindset.

[HoopsNY]

Pop's NBA head coach record at the start of 1999 was 73-73 - was that all-time (top 3) coaching? He was on the verge of being fired. Pop system? More like throw it to Duncan or DRob. IMO, his coaching skills didn't really EXCEL until the 2010's when Duncan, Manu and to a lesser extent, Parker, were past their prime and he emphasized the "passing" game which Kerr/Warriors took to another level with their 3 point shooting. But for TD's peak, it was throw it in to him. Later, it was pick and roll/pop with TD and either Parker or Manu.

Congratulations to Pop on his record - that's quite an achievement - he certainly maximized the talent of all the players he coached. Not that I don't have criticisms like putting Bowen on Rip instead of Chauncey (letting Parker chase Rip around screens), going with small ball vs 06 Mavs and not playing the best players in crunch time/leaving TD on the bench in '13 game 6 but sustained excellence in coaching/player development (especially Kawhi) for a helluva long time.

I don't think this is really fair. 1997 was his first season as head coach. Sean Elliott had knee surgeries and missed more than half the year, and David Robinson missed almost all of the year. How did you expect Pop to have a great record with his two best guys out?

Would the Lakers have been a great team with Kobe half the season and Shaq gone for the entire season? How about the Bulls and MJ/Scottie, or the Cavs with LeBron/Kyrie? If the answer is no, then it's unfair to expect that Pop would have pulled a miracle out of his hat.

The point here is, no one is going to deny that Pop is an elite all time coach, and Duncan benefited greatly from him. Switch roles and Hakeem has equal if not more success.

[rmt]

I don't think this is really fair. 1997 was his first season as head coach. Sean Elliott had knee surgeries and missed more than half the year, and David Robinson missed almost all of the year. How did you expect Pop to have a great record with his two best guys out?

Would the Lakers have been a great team with Kobe half the season and Shaq gone for the entire season? How about the Bulls and MJ/Scottie, or the Cavs with LeBron/Kyrie? If the answer is no, then it's unfair to expect that Pop would have pulled a miracle out of his hat.

The point here is, no one is going to deny that Pop is an elite all time coach, and Duncan benefited greatly from him. Switch roles and Hakeem has equal if not more success.

My point was in response to your post below that Pop was an all-time great coach in the late 90s and Pop's system (when this so call switch of Hakeem/TD would have happened). Pop was on the verge of being fired - that is undeniable and documented - he was not all-time THEN nor was there any Pop's system.


Not to mention, as others have mentioned, Hakeem didn't waltz into a franchise with an all-time (top 3?) coach in Pop AND a GOAT level player in David Robinson. If Hakeem switched roles, is there any doubt in anyone's minds that he would have seen the same, if not more, success? We saw what happened with Rudy T, then how about the Pop system?

I have no argument with anyone who thinks Hakeem is better than Duncan, but I take exception to Pop being all time anything (or having any system) in the late 90s.

[HoopsNY]

My point was in response to your post below that Pop was an all-time great coach in the late 90s and Pop's system (when this so call switch of Hakeem/TD would have happened). Pop was on the verge of being fired - that is undeniable and documented - he was not all-time THEN nor was there any Pop's system.



I have no argument with anyone who thinks Hakeem is better than Duncan, but I take exception to Pop being all time anything (or having any system) in the late 90s.

That's fair, but there's more to it than that. Pop fired Bob Hill in the beginning of the '97 season because the Spurs started the season 3-15. The firing of Hill wasn't taken too well, but for Pop it had to happen. Fans and players didn't like the firing, and the Spurs woes continued under Pop.

It wasn't because he was a bad coach. And the expectation of him changing things immediately (in terms of wins) was unfair. Players on SAS didn't take to him immediately, but they recognized that Pop had a different style, was direct, and was willing to change things up to establish a winning culture. Will Perdue spoke about this when he assessed Pop taking over in the '97 season.

So to dismiss Pop as a coach with his own style is incorrect, I think. He didn't simply pick up where the Spurs left off without changing things, and he wanted to help them build beyond where they were. Under Hill, they had a .167 win %. Under Pop, they improved to .265%. And what happened afterwards is history.

[Loco 50]

That's fair, but there's more to it than that. Pop fired Bob Hill in the beginning of the '97 season because the Spurs started the season 3-15. The firing of Hill wasn't taken too well, but for Pop it had to happen. Fans and players didn't like the firing, and the Spurs woes continued under Pop.

It wasn't because he was a bad coach. And the expectation of him changing things immediately (in terms of wins) was unfair. Players on SAS didn't take to him immediately, but they recognized that Pop had a different style, was direct, and was willing to change things up to establish a winning culture. Will Perdue spoke about this when he assessed Pop taking over in the '97 season.

So to dismiss Pop as a coach with his own style is incorrect, I think. He didn't simply pick up where the Spurs left off without changing things, and he wanted to help them build beyond where they were. Under Hill, they had a .167 win %. Under Pop, they improved to .265%. And what happened afterwards is history.
Players had a team meeting led by AJ and DRob in which they decided Hill needed to go. They went to Pop about it and he dropped the hammer.

They wanted Pop.

Fans (including me) were unhappy until the real story started filtering out. We had a local reporter that was deeply in Bob Hill's corner putting out hit pieces on Pop so that didn't help his popularity initially. But, eventually it came out that this is what team leadership so that helped smooth the situation over.