Printable View
It's already been said, but Hakeem is a better scorer and defender. Tim Duncan has passing on him and maybe game management.
Tim Duncan is solid at everything, great at nothing (compared all-time)
Hakeem is maybe the best defender at C ever, and a better scorer than all but 3 other C's (Shaq, Wilt, Kareem).
Apart from accolades, Tim Duncan does not compare to the all-time greats.
[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]It's already been said, but Hakeem is a better scorer and defender. Tim Duncan has passing on him and maybe game management.
Tim Duncan is solid at everything, great at nothing (compared all-time)
Hakeem is maybe the best defender at C ever, and a better scorer than all but 3 other C's (Shaq, Wilt, Kareem).
Apart from accolades, Tim Duncan does not compare to the all-time greats.[/QUOTE]
completely false. you are confusing his "boring" play with not being great in your terms. hardly the case. tim duncan is actually a much superior defender than hakeem was.....and that is saying something because hakeem was great. hakeem got a lot of his defensive stats because he gambled a lot and went for huge blocks and highlight plays. duncan is the epitome of a professional ballplayer. he put team and winning first and did everything he could to make that happen.
i have duncan ahead of hakeem.....and it has nothing to do with accolades. duncan was simply a slightly better basketball player. he was a better overall defender....what Duncan does for the spurs defense is really unmatched since bill russell. evidenced by duncan's 2nd best defensive rating of all time. Duncan has a better PER. Was a slightly better rebounder. Passed the ball better....and was flat out a better leader on and off the floor.
hakeem was more flashy....but don't confuse flashier with better. once you start to factor in titles and accolades and advanced stats and mvp awards shares....it becomes even more obvious that duncan was the better player.
[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]It's already been said, but Hakeem is a better scorer and defender. Tim Duncan has passing on him and maybe game management.
Tim Duncan is solid at everything, great at nothing (compared all-time)
Hakeem is maybe the best defender at C ever, and a better scorer than all but 3 other C's (Shaq, Wilt, Kareem).
[B]Apart from accolades, Tim Duncan does not compare to the all-time greats.[/B][/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Shame on you ginobilli bumping 3 year old threads lol
Sry had to do it lolz was bored
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]:oldlol:
Shame on you ginobilli bumping 3 year old threads lol
Sry had to do it lolz was bored[/QUOTE]
i didn't realize it was old.....someone bumped it before me....wasn't it you?
Busted :lol
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]completely false. you are confusing his "boring" play with not being great in your terms. hardly the case. tim duncan is actually a much superior defender than hakeem was.....and that is saying something because hakeem was great. hakeem got a lot of his defensive stats because he gambled a lot and went for huge blocks and highlight plays. duncan is the epitome of a professional ballplayer. he put team and winning first and did everything he could to make that happen. [/QUOTE]
:oldlol: @ much superior defender. If you think Duncan was a much superior defender than Hakeem, I don't know what to say. Duncan was less of a gambler, didn't go for fakes and held ground well. He wasn't a better interior defender than Hakeem. Individual defensive rating is useless. Shows that guys like Anderson Varejao (flopper) is a great defender. Was ahead of Duncan in 2009. 2009 Big Z who was a horrific post defender was a top 10 defender in the league. Individual defensive rating is boosted by the type of players you have around you and the scheme you're in. Duncan's defensive rating is helped by the fact that he had Bruce Bowen who was a terrific perimeter defender, Popovich who has a great defensive scheme, DRob in his earlier days who could focus more on defense since Duncan took pressure off of him and great defensive role players in general. You bring up highlight plays, sure, Dream gambled a bit. But, you can't question his overall defense. 2x DPOY. Had several gamewinning defensive plays. And had high IQ. Series-saving block on Starks in game 6 of the '94 finals. Shut down Ewing. Ewing shot 36% from the field cause Dream pushed him away from the basket. And you know what he did to DRob (league MVP), held him to 44% shooting. The Rockets defense started and ended with Hakeem. His willingness and communication on that end was terrific. I don't need stats to believe Dream was a better defender and player than Hakeem. But, if you wanna go there. How about the '05 WCF where Amare literally did whatever he wanted to Duncan. 37 a game. Though, they lost which had something to do with JJ being injured for the first 3 games. How about Duncan not being able to hide himself against the Suns this year? Got lit up by Frye from deep, Hill took him off the dribble and Amare blew by him. Hakeem's perimeter defense was considerably better than Duncan's. I've seen guard some guards on switches and not allow penetration and recover in time to contest their shot. Duncan can't do that to save his life. His defense has been overrated ever since 2006. Ask Robert Horry. The guy whose played with Dream, Duncan and Shaq. And he'll tell you that Dream was better than both of them.
[QUOTE]i have duncan ahead of hakeem.....and it has nothing to do with accolades. duncan was simply a slightly better basketball player. he was a better overall defender....what Duncan does for the spurs defense is really unmatched since bill russell. evidenced by duncan's 2nd best defensive rating of all time. Duncan has a better PER. Was a slightly better rebounder. Passed the ball better....and was flat out a better leader on and off the floor. [/QUOTE]
PER? The same stat that tells me Dirk is better than Garnett, DRob is better than the likes of KAJ, Duncan, Dream etc, Ginobili is better than Drexler, '08 version of Ginobili is better than MVP Bryant? I could go on and on......
'93-96 Hakeem was better than peak Duncan. Really, there is not a single thing that Duncan does better than Olajuwon other than passing off the dribble and finding the open man from the post.. Duncan's decision making is also better considering he makes very few mistakes and knows what to do at the right time. Also, Duncan has never won against a team like the Suns (94-95) or the Jazz (94-95) with the exception of the 2003 Lakers. And the '03 Lakers were not as good as they were in the 3 peat due to various reasons such as fatigue, chemistry issues, lack of depth etc. Granted, Duncan's cast wasn't great in 2003. Olajuwon was also better on offense. His vast array of low post moves were highly effective in getting you in foul trouble or juking you out of your shoes. Howoever, most of his points came from textbook plays like jumphooks and 15 foot Js. Rebounding is about even. Also, Olajuwon being a lot more athletic helps him recover a lot faster on the defensive end while Duncan rarely committs mistakes so Duncan has a edge in decision making or fundamentals.
And really if you're gonna bring up Duncan's 2003 run. I can tell you it doesn't compare to Hakeem's '94 run or '95 run. Duncan's team was about as good as Hakeem's yet his competition was much worse. '03 Suns led by a rookie Amare and Marbury. Note that Duncan choked at the FT line (twice) which led to a Marbury gamewinner. '03 Lakers weren't the same team that won the 3peat like I said before. '03 Mavs which were a horrific defensive team due to personnel and coaching. And Dirk went down in game 3. And the '03 Nets which are possibly the worst team to make the finals. Hakeem's dominance is really on another level.
[QUOTE]hakeem was more flashy....but don't confuse flashier with better. once you start to factor in titles and accolades and advanced stats and mvp awards shares....it becomes even more obvious that duncan was the better player.[/QUOTE]
No, Hakeem was just flashier and better. Whatever you wanna call it. Titles are only cause of Duncan's teams and circumstances. Several people have put a asterik on the Spurs' 99 and 07 rings. '99 was the lockout that severly affected the older teams (Utah, Pacers etc) since the schedule was so tight. East was weak as hell. Lakers were not a great team due to terrible defense, coaching and lack of chemistry. The Knicks had a magical run but they weren't close to a great team. No Ewing either. '07, you had the suspensions which ruined the series. After that it was a cakewalk. Duncan's rings are not more impressive than Hakeem's under context. Accolades have a lot to do with competition which I'm not even gonna get into.
Also, the first time I've seen someone bring up an MVP award share.
Did you really just mention this years playoffs with a Duncan who's like 6 years part his prime:lol
If the 2003 spurs had faced this suns teams it'd be an easy sweep . Prime Duncan defensively was a beast.
I just found that funny but I won't interrupt on your argument lol
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Did you really just mention this years playoffs with a Duncan who's like 6 years part his prime:lol [/QUOTE]
Uhh, Duncan is 33 RIGHT NOW. He isn't in his prime but it's not like he's totally done. For all the credit he gets for his longevity and "fundamentally sound play" which is hilarious btw, why shouldn't I bring up his poor peformance... Just for the record, Hakeem at 33 was putting up 27/11/4/3 and was considered the best player in the league by several people (not that I agreed with it). And this was with MJ back.
[QUOTE]If the 2003 spurs had faced this suns teams it'd be an easy sweep . Prime Duncan defensively was a beast.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't give a less of a f*ck if the '03 Spurs would sweep the Suns or not. I'm talkin from an individual scale, not a team scale.
Tim Duncan is not 33...
granted he was for most of the season, but still.
What does that have to do with being past your prime? That saids nothing about longevity.
Hakeem's prime 1993-1995 7 years after his prime he was putting up 12/7/1
Duncan's Prime 2001-2003 7 years after his prime he was putting up 18/10/3(This season)
I don't get what you're trying to do? Are you punishing Duncan for not having as late a prime as Hakeem? Hakeem had a prime later in his career so of course he's gonna be putting up better numbers at age 33. But how does that translate to longevity?
That's like saying Nash has better longevity then every point guard because he has a later prime and is productive at an older age.
[QUOTE=D-Town-Raised]Duncan has played 10 years. Lets takes Hakeem's stats for his first 11 years. (You could do the first 13 if you want to)
Hakeem 24 Points 12.4 Rebounds 3.6 Blocks 2.5 Assists 1.9 Steals
Duncan 21.8 Points 11.9 Rebounds 2.4 Blocks 3.2 Assists .8
Your right it is not even close by your own criteria.
You are accounting career stats when Hakeem played 17 years. He injured himself in 97-98, then came the strike season, then for three years he played 20 minutes a game as an old man ending with Toronto. This is the only reason their stats are close.
Hakeem dominates individual stats for the same career length so far and if Duncan playes seven more years Hakeems full career stats will dominate again.
There is absolutely nothing Duncan does better then Hakeem except low post passing.
Hakeem better man to man defender
Hakeem better low post moves.
Hakeem better scorer.
Hakeem better handles.
Hakeem better range on jumper.
Hakeem better free throw shooter.
Hakeem better off the ball blocker.
Duncan is no more of a Power Forward then Hakeem is a Power Forward.
Garnett and Duncan are both Power Forwards. Yet they were both on All NBA First Team in 2003-2004. If you choose only one then Duncan is out and on the second team. If Hakeem was allowed to be placed as a center or on either forward spots his first 13 years like they do with players now. (Amare, two Power Forwards at the Forward Position etc...) he would have had 10 or 11 All NBA first teams in his first 13 years.
Duncan 4 Finals 3 Wins Still Pending 4
Hakeem 3 Finals 2 Wins
Even with Jordan retired the road to Hakeems two championships where harder then any road Duncan has ever taken. The Nets in the finals.:oldlol: Strike season with Ewing hurt.:oldlol: The Cavaliers.:oldlol:
In 94-95 Hakeem beat the four teams with the best records in the NBA.
Prime Hakeem is vastly superior to Duncan.
Career Hakeem is a notch above Duncan.
Championships define individual careers by grabbing at least two and being able to carry your team to one practically by yourself. When you start stacking them up it becomes about era, team and who you play. For this reason. Bill Russell will never be better then Jordan and Duncan will never be better then Hakeem even if he wins 6 titles.[/QUOTE]
Good post. Talent wise Duncan isnt on Hakeems level, although no question they are both All-time great players. Dream in his prime was [B]better [/B]in every area except passing, so how come this is even comparison? The only thing which brings them closer are team-based accolades.
[QUOTE=Harison]Good post. Talent wise Duncan isnt on Hakeems level, although no question they are both All-time great players. Dream in his prime was [B]better [/B]in every area except passing, so how come this is even comparison? The only thing which brings them closer are team-based accolades.[/QUOTE]
Because.
On the court skill wise they were never that far apart. Hakeem may be better in most aspects but he was never "that much better" That it's enough to set them apart. So it usually comes down to Hakeem being slightly better in nearly every aspect on the court against Duncan being the greater winner and having better longevity.
And yes rings do have alot to do with ranking players .
Duncan is and should only be compared to Jabbar and Shaq. Duncan did everything Hakeem did and won twice as many titles. Hakeem is ****ing overrated. One highlight clip made this guy very overrated. Hakeeem got stats when stats were ****ing easy to get. Fast pace means easy blocks, more rebounds, more points. Duncan played in a way slower pace and got similar stats.
Passing-Duncan
One on One D-Duncan
Shotblocker-Hakeem
Scorer-Hakeem
Better team defender- Duncan
Rebounder-Duncan
Free throws-Hakeem
Shooter-equal
Leader and IQ-Duncan
Sure hakeem had a better scoring average and rebounding numbers but in a way faster pace. Not to mention centers were allow to hack like hell goaltend and live in the key made it easire to get blocks.
Had Duncan played against the easy competition Hakeem played against he would have sick ****ing numbers. For every Robinson and Ewing there was 15 luc longleys. Duncan played in a perimeter player friendly era and still dominated on D. Duncan and Hakeem are very similar but Duncan was the better player. 4 rings in the Shaq and Kobe era is more impressive than 2 rings in a Ewing/Robinson/Malone era.
People calling Hakeem fast as a gaurd and the greatest defender ever need to die.
[QUOTE=Big#50]Duncan is and should only be compared to Jabbar and Shaq. Duncan did everything Hakeem did and won twice as many titles. Hakeem is ****ing overrated. One highlight clip made this guy very overrated. Hakeeem got stats when stats were ****ing easy to get. Fast pace means easy blocks, more rebounds, more points. Duncan played in a way slower pace and got similar stats.
Passing-Duncan
One on One D-Duncan
Shotblocker-Hakeem
Scorer-Hakeem
[B]Better team defender- Duncan[/B]
Rebounder-Duncan
Free throws-Hakeem
[B]Shooter-equal[/B]
Leader and IQ-Duncan
Sure hakeem had a better scoring average and rebounding numbers but in a way faster pace. Not to mention centers were allow to hack like hell goaltend and live in the key made it easire to get blocks.
Had Duncan played against the easy competition Hakeem played against he would have sick ****ing numbers. For every Robinson and Ewing there was 15 luc longleys. Duncan played in a perimeter player friendly era and still dominated on D. Duncan and Hakeem are very similar but Duncan was the better player. 4 rings in the Shaq and Kobe era is more impressive than 2 rings in a Ewing/Robinson/Malone era.
People calling Hakeem fast as a gaurd and the greatest defender ever need to die.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll:
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Because.
On the court skill wise they were never that far apart. Hakeem may be better in most aspects but he was never "that much better" That it's enough to set them apart. So it usually comes down to Hakeem being slightly better in nearly every aspect on the court against Duncan being the greater winner and having better longevity.
And yes rings do have alot to do with ranking players .[/QUOTE]
As I've watched them and not just checked stats, Dream was [I][B]visibly [/B][/I]better overall player. One could very well make a case of Robinson and Duncan being on the same level (accolades aside), and Hakeem schooled DRob. The main difference between TD and DRob were Playoffs, Duncan played better and Rob worse, but Hakeem so much so improved in the post-season, that its a no contest again:
The peak Duncan playoff run at 25 was [B]27.6/14.4/5.0[/B] at TS 55%, that's a bit better than 25.5/12.7/3.7 at TS 57%.
Hakeem peaked at [B]37.5/16.8/1.8[/B] at TS 64%, compare that to 22.8/12.1/2.1 at TS 55% in the regular season, its [B]ridiculous [/B]how much Dream kicked to the higher gear in the post-season. Or at the age of 32 Dream went 33.0/10.3/4.5
Duncan greater winner? He has more rings, but it doesnt mean that much if we forget the context - Duncan had a better team [B]and [/B]competition in most years was weaker than teams Dream faced. How many rings would TD have even with his better team against Jordan, Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Isiah's Bad Boys? Probably none.
Its true Hakeem would probably have one ring less if Jordan wouldnt have retired, but Dream's championship run was one of the greatest individual run in the post-season, ever, upseting much better teams in the process, he probably is the second player in NBA history almost single-handedly winning the rings, Duncan/Shaq/Kobe and other superstars havent managed that, hell even Jordan couldnt (in big part because of much more fierce competition in his days). So no, Duncan isnt a greater winner, just was in better position team and era wise.
[QUOTE=Harison]As I've watched them and not just checked stats, Dream was [I][B]visibly [/B][/I]better overall player. One could very well make a case of Robinson and Duncan being on the same level (accolades aside), and Hakeem schooled DRob. The main difference between TD and DRob were Playoffs, Duncan played better and Rob worse, but Hakeem so much so improved in the post-season, that its a no contest again:
The peak Duncan playoff run at 25 was [B]27.6/14.4/5.0[/B] at TS 55%, that's a bit better than 25.5/12.7/3.7 at TS 57%.
Hakeem peaked at [B]37.5/16.8/1.8[/B] at TS 64%, compare that to 22.8/12.1/2.1 at TS 55% in the regular season, its [B]ridiculous [/B]how much Dream kicked to the higher gear in the post-season. Or at the age of 32 Dream went 33.0/10.3/4.5
Duncan greater winner? He has more rings, but it doesnt mean that much if we forget the context - Duncan had a better team [B]and [/B]competition in most years was weaker than teams Dream faced. How many rings would TD have even with his better team against Jordan, Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Isiah's Bad Boys? Probably none.
Its true Hakeem would probably have one ring less if Jordan wouldnt have retired, but Dream's championship run was one of the greatest individual run in the post-season, ever, upseting much better teams in the process, he probably is the second player in NBA history almost single-handedly winning the rings, Duncan/Shaq/Kobe and other superstars havent managed that, hell even Jordan couldnt (in big part because of much more fierce competition in his days). So no, Duncan isnt a greater winner, just was in better position team and era wise.[/QUOTE]
Duncan had to beat Shaq/Kobe. Watch Duncan in 03. This era is greater than your beloved 80's and 90's era. When did Hakeem win a ring by himself. I hope you don't mean 94.
[QUOTE=Harison]As I've watched them and not just checked stats, Dream was [I][B]visibly [/B][/I]better overall player. One could very well make a case of Robinson and Duncan being on the same level (accolades aside), and Hakeem schooled DRob. The main difference between TD and DRob were Playoffs, Duncan played better and Rob worse, but Hakeem so much so improved in the post-season, that its a no contest again:
The peak Duncan playoff run at 25 was [B]27.6/14.4/5.0[/B] at TS 55%, that's a bit better than 25.5/12.7/3.7 at TS 57%.
Hakeem peaked at [B]37.5/16.8/1.8[/B] at TS 64%, compare that to 22.8/12.1/2.1 at TS 55% in the regular season, its [B]ridiculous [/B]how much Dream kicked to the higher gear in the post-season. Or at the age of 32 Dream went 33.0/10.3/4.5
[B][U]Duncan greater winner? He has more rings, but it doesnt mean that much if we forget the context - Duncan had a better team [B]and [/B]competition in most years was weaker than teams Dream faced. How many rings would TD have even with his better team against Jordan, Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Isiah's Bad Boys? Probably none.
[/U][/B]
[B][U]Its true Hakeem would probably have one ring less if Jordan wouldnt have retired, but Dream's championship run was one of the greatest individual run in the post-season, ever, upseting much better teams in the process, he probably is the second player in NBA history almost single-handedly winning the rings, Duncan/Shaq/Kobe and other superstars havent managed that, hell even Jordan couldnt (in big part because of much more fierce competition in his days). So no, Duncan isnt a greater winner, just was in better position team and era wise.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
So basically your main point is to speculate what would happened if Duncan played in the 90's how the hell are we supposed to know that? For all I know Duncan could have been the anti Jordan. I can't rank a player based on what they could have won in a different era. I rank them on what they did in whatever era they played. Should I say Russel's not a greater winner then Hakeem cause he didn't play in the Jordan era ?
That's plain retarded. I'm not saying Duncan is better then Hakeem but to deny he's a greater winner then Hakeem just based on the era he played is retarded.
So by that logic any player who didn't play against Jordan isn't a greater winner then Hakeem?
Come on now Duncan's team never missed the playoffs since he came into the Nba and never had less then a 50 win season. That is the model of winning
And what's your point about Hakeem's championship run?
Duncan also put up one of the greatest championship runs of all time in 2003 when he carried the rebuilding spurs.
[B]
40/15/7 Vs The Mavs
34/24/6/6 Vs The Mavs
37/16/4 Vs The Lakers
36/9/5 Vs The Lakers
28/8/7 Vs The Lakers
27/14/5 Vs The Lakers
32/20/6/7 Vs The Nets
[/B]Triple Double 15/20 rebounds/10 assists Vs The Suns
[B]
Near Quarduable double Finals clinching game 21/20/10/8
Broke the record for most block in a playoff series and tied most blocks in an Nba game.[/B]
[B]Vs. Suns:
18.7 ppg, 16 rpg, 5.2 ast, 3.5 blks
vs. Lakers:
28 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 4.8 ast, 1.3 blks
vs. Mavs:
28 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 5.8 ast, 3 blks
vs. Nets:
24.2ppg, 17 rpg, 5.3 ast, 5.3 blks[/B]
1993-1994 Houston Rockets(58-24):
Pg: Kenny Smith/Sam Cassell/Scott Brooks
Sg: Vernon Maxwell/Mario Elie/Larry Robinson
Sf: Robert Horry/Chris Jent/Matt Bullard
Pf: Otis Thorpe/Carl Herrera/Earn Crueton
C: Hakeem Olajuwon/Richard Petruska/Eric Riley
2002-2003 San Antonio Spurs(60-22):
Pg: Tony Parker/Steve Kerr/Speedy Claxton
Sg: Stephen Jackson/Manu Ginobili
Sf: Bruce Bowen/Steve Smith/Danny Ferry
Pf: Tim Duncan/Malik Rose
C: David Robinson/Kevin Willis/Mengke Bateer
Neither team had a legit second option
I'll take Duncan. Similar peak/prime,more accolades/accomplishments, and greater longevity.
[QUOTE=Harison]Good post. Talent wise Duncan isnt on Hakeems level, although no question they are both All-time great players. Dream in his prime was [B]better [/B]in every area except passing, so how come this is even comparison? The only thing which brings them closer are team-based accolades.[/QUOTE]
Duncan was better at more things. Hakeem had better footwork and speed. Nothing else. Duncan won't ever get the respect he deserves. Watch some prime Duncan. Duncan was ten times better at getting to the rim. Was a better defender. Duncan never went for fakes Pops slow ass grind it out style of play.Duncan in the 80's and 90's under a coach like John Lucas would have had 30/16/4. No doubt about it.
These 2 are very close. All around interior defense I would give it to Timmy. For pure blocking, I would give the edge to Hakeem. For low post scoring, I would go with Timmy. For all around scoring probably Hakeem.
This is pretty much a toss up.
Edit: After further contemplation, I think Tim Duncan is overall the better player. Olajuwon is pretty damn good too though.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]So basically your main point is to speculate what would happened if Duncan played in the 90's how the hell are we supposed to know that? For all I know Duncan could have been the anti Jordan. I can't rank a player based on what they could have won in a different era. I rank them on what they did in whatever era they played. Should I say Russel's not a greater winner then Hakeem cause he didn't play in the Jordan era ?
That's plain retarded. I'm not saying Duncan is better then Hakeem but to deny he's a greater winner then Hakeem just based on the era he played is retarded.
So by that logic any player who didn't play against Jordan isn't a greater winner then Hakeem?
Come on now Duncan's team never missed the playoffs since he came into the Nba and never had less then a 50 win season. That is the model of winning[/QUOTE]
You missed the point entirely. The point is - Hakeem individually did [B]better [/B]in the postseason than Duncan and did it against [B]tougher [/B]competition. To point it out is a common sense, not retarded :rolleyes: On the other hand, to ignore the teammates and era when judging players accolades is not very wise. And why you single out Jordan? I was speaking about era, and if you think Duncan faced every year anyone remotely close to what elite teams faced it back then - its not very wise either.
Its funny how you cherry pick games to make case stronger for Duncan, when you [B][I]know [/I][/B]Hakeem did a better job in the Playoffs and have even more impressive game results. Plus considering this era is very weak frontcourt wise, Hakeem would have even better stats than he did in his days, but its not needed:
1) we already established Dream kicked to the higher gear in the Playoffs than Duncan.
2) we already established Hakeem was more overall skilled than TD as well.
[QUOTE=Harison]You missed the point entirely. The point is - Hakeem individually did [B]better [/B]in the postseason than Duncan and did it against [B]tougher [/B]competition. To point it out is a common sense, not retarded :rolleyes: On the other hand, to ignore the teammates and era when judging players accolades is not very wise. And why you single out Jordan? I was speaking about era, and if you think Duncan faced every year anyone remotely close to what elite teams faced it back then - its not very wise either.
Its funny how you cherry pick games to make case stronger for Duncan, when you [B][I]know [/I][/B]Hakeem did a better job in the Playoffs and have even more impressive game results. Plus considering this era is very weak frontcourt wise, Hakeem would have even better stats than he did in his days, but its not needed:
1) we already established Dream kicked to the higher gear in the Playoffs than Duncan.
2) we already established Hakeem was more overall skilled than TD as well.[/QUOTE]
And we established
1)Duncan is a greater winner then Hakeem(4 vs 2)
2)Duncan has better longevity then Hakeem
You're trying to tell me that we're discrediting Duncan's championships just because he didn't play in the 90's
:lol
Players have already admitted that the defense is better now then it used to be
[QUOTE]Bird and Ainge: Defense is better NOW
Quote:
Three key participants in the storied Lakers-Celtics rivalry who still hold lofty positions in the game
Players can't control what era they play in. Duncan dominated in the 00's we don't know what he could have done in the 90's. Hakeem dominated in the 90's so we don't know he could have done in the 00's.
Every era has been completely different from the previous era.So discrediting a players win for dominating in the era they were born into is flawed.
[QUOTE=ginobli2311]completely false. you are confusing his "boring" play with not being great in your terms. hardly the case. [SIZE="4"][B]tim duncan is actually a much superior defender than hakeem was[/B][/SIZE].....and that is saying something because hakeem was great. hakeem got a lot of his defensive stats because he gambled a lot and went for huge blocks and highlight plays. duncan is the epitome of a professional ballplayer. he put team and winning first and did everything he could to make that happen.
i have duncan ahead of hakeem.....and it has nothing to do with accolades. duncan was simply a slightly better basketball player. he was a better overall defender....what Duncan does for the spurs defense is really unmatched since bill russell. evidenced by duncan's 2nd best defensive rating of all time. Duncan has a better PER. Was a slightly better rebounder. Passed the ball better....and was flat out a better leader on and off the floor.
hakeem was more flashy....but don't confuse flashier with better. once you start to factor in titles and accolades and advanced stats and mvp awards shares....it becomes even more obvious that duncan was the better player.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
This has to be a canidate for worst attempt at trying to rewrite history.
Duncan wasnt half the defender Hakeem was
[QUOTE=DwightHowardMVP]:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
This has to be a canidate for worst attempt at trying to rewrite history.
Duncan wasnt half the defender Hakeem was[/QUOTE]
Half is pushing it. Duncan was one of the best defenders of all time. And he was a better help defender
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Players can't control what era they play in. Duncan dominated in the 00's we don't know what he could have done in the 90's. Hakeem dominated in the 90's so we don't know he could have done in the 00's.
Every era has been completely different from the previous era.So discrediting a players win for dominating in the era they were born into is flawed.[/QUOTE]
How is Duncan a better winner? Hakeem won 2 rings with a much inferior team and players
[QUOTE=DwightHowardMVP]How is Duncan a better winner? Hakeem won 2 rings with a much inferior team and players[/QUOTE]
Um the 1993-1994 houston rockets were way inferior to the 2002-2003 spurs who were a rebuilding team with no legit second option? That's news to me
[QUOTE=DwightHowardMVP]How is Duncan a better winner? Hakeem won 2 rings with a much inferior team and players[/QUOTE]
This
Mr. Williams also needs to look at the teams and players that Tim Duncan had beaten in the playoffs.
1993-1994 Houston Rockets(58-24):
Pg: Kenny Smith/Sam Cassell/Scott Brooks
Sg: Vernon Maxwell/Mario Elie/Larry Robinson
Sf: Robert Horry/Chris Jent/Matt Bullard
Pf: Otis Thorpe/Carl Herrera/Earn Crueton
C: Hakeem Olajuwon/Richard Petruska/Eric Riley
2002-2003 San Antonio Spurs(60-22):
Pg: Tony Parker/Steve Kerr/Speedy Claxton
Sg: Stephen Jackson/Manu Ginobili
Sf: Bruce Bowen/Steve Smith/Danny Ferry
Pf: Tim Duncan/Malik Rose
C: David Robinson/Kevin Willis/Mengke Bateer
Neither had a second option both were just surrounded by role players.
And yes a 38 year old robinson who could barley jump is considered a role player. It was the year of his retirement
So you don't become what of the greatest winners of all time by carrying a rebuilding team to a championship.
Having 4 championships
Never having less then a 50 win season.
And Never missing the playoffs
That's news to me.
But I guess that's what happens when you're born into a different era.
Lets get real guys. Obviously everyone here knows Duncan and Shaq are greater winners then Hakeem. That doesn't mean they're greater players.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]1993-1994 Houston Rockets(58-24):
Pg: Kenny Smith/Sam Cassell/Scott Brooks
Sg: Vernon Maxwell/Mario Elie/Larry Robinson
Sf: Robert Horry/Chris Jent/Matt Bullard
Pf: Otis Thorpe/Carl Herrera/Earn Crueton
C: Hakeem Olajuwon/Richard Petruska/Eric Riley
2002-2003 San Antonio Spurs(60-22):
Pg: Tony Parker/Steve Kerr/Speedy Claxton
Sg: Stephen Jackson/Manu Ginobili
Sf: Bruce Bowen/Steve Smith/Danny Ferry
Pf: Tim Duncan/Malik Rose
C: David Robinson/Kevin Willis/Mengke Bateer
Neither had a second option both were just surrounded by role players.
And yes a 38 year old robinson who could barley jump is considered a role player. It was the year of his retirement[/QUOTE]
Robinson> Thorpe
Bowen> Horry
Parker> Smith
Jackson> Thorpe
Ginobili> Any rocket bench player
Carl Herrera Chris Jent are your back up 3 and 4? They even spelled Jent's name wrong on Nba live. Thats how garbage he was.
Spurs have a much much better team. Not really close
[QUOTE=DwightHowardMVP]Robinson> Thorpe
Bowen> Horry
Parker> Smith
Jackson> Thorpe
Ginobili> Any rocket bench player
Carl Herrera Chris Jent are your back up 3 and 4? They even spelled Jent's name wrong on Nba live. Thats how garbage he was.
Spurs have a much much better team. Not really close[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? Ginobilli in 2003 wasn't good
Neither was Parker
They were both very new players and Pop didn't even trust them
both were inconsistent and Ginobilli hardly got any minutes. Parker was a bit better then current Ty Lawson if anything.
[QUOTE=DwightHowardMVP]Robinson> Thorpe
Bowen> Horry
Parker> Smith
Jackson> Thorpe
Ginobili> Any rocket bench player
Carl Herrera Chris Jent are your back up 3 and 4? They even spelled Jent's name wrong on Nba live. Thats how garbage he was.
Spurs have a much much better team. Not really close[/QUOTE]
Lets look at this great diffrence between their supporting cast
Pg: Kenny Smith: 12/1/4
Sg: Veron Maxwell 14/3/5
Sf: Robert Horry 10/5/3
Pf: Otis Thrope: 14/10/2
C: Hakeem Olajuwon:27/12/4
Mario Elie: 10/5/3
Sam Cassel: 7/2/3
Pg: Tony Parker: 16/5/3
Sg: Stephen Jackson:12/2/4
Sf: Bruce Bowen 7/1/2
Pf: Tim Duncan 23/13/4
C: David Robinson 9/5/1
Manu Ginobilli: 8/8/5
Steve Smith: 7/2/1
Yep you see the great diffrence in production between their supporting cast.
People need to realize there was a reason that was supposed to be a rebuilding year
[B][U][COLOR="Red"]O yea and that Chris Jent kid funny you shoud talk about him because outside of Duncan,Parker and Jackson he would have have been the highest scorer on the spurs.
10/5/2[/COLOR][/U][/B]
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]And we established
1)Duncan is a greater winner then Hakeem(4 vs 2)
2)Duncan has better longevity then Hakeem
[/QUOTE]
2nd is correct, 1st one isnt, for me greater winner isnt the same as more rings, for you it is. Horry is one of the greatest winners of all time, ladies and gentleman! But you could say who makes the biggest impact on the team matter and also the context? Exactly! :oldlol: Its like in other threads young Kobe stans and media riding on Kobe are claiming he is the best Laker ever, although for older fans who remember Magic its really no brainer who is the best Laker, same here - those who remember Hakeem pick him, those who dont - pick Duncan.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]
You're trying to tell me that we're discrediting Duncan's championships just because he didn't play in the 90's
:lol [/QUOTE]
No, I'm putting it into the context. Rings always matter, context always matter too (team, competition, era, rules, etc). I'm not discarding rings, while you discard the context.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]
Players have already admitted that the defense is better now then it used to be
Should we just discredit every championship won in the 80's because they didn't play against the great 00's defense?[/QUOTE]
Currently elite teams use slightly more advanced defensive tactics, so in this sense its correct, [B]but its much easier to score individually [I]now[/I][/B]. Contradiction? Not if you understand the context. Individual defense was much more physical back then, rules allowed hand-checking and what was just a foul then, would be a Flagrant now. I'm sure you remember many coaches and players saying how for example Jordan would average even better numbers if he would play at the moment.
Another thing what concerns the defense - Hakeem was playing against All-time great defensive anchors, whom exactly is Duncan playing against?... Thats why elite bigs like Dream would simply [B][I]abuse [/I][/B]current weak frontcourts.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]
Okay lets not single out Jordan. Should we discredit Russel's achievements just because he didn't play in the 90's?[/QUOTE]
Achievements wise Russell is the best player ever, is he considered one? Top4 yes, but not Top1, why? Because one can put in the context everything, not just the rings, and its not the same as discrediting his achievements. Common sense.
The Horry argument again?
Was Horry the best player on those teams? Was he the main option?
No
We're talking about Duncan and Hakeem 2 top 10 players who have always been the main option on their team when winning championships
One has 4 championships the other has 2 championships so why bring in Horry into this argument when he's not even a star?
We might as well put Fisher in this thread