Hakeem the Dream vs Tim Duncan

[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