Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[JordansBulls]

Who do you take?

[Joao Saraiva]

Hakeem. I think he's a top 5 peak player ever.

Is it just me or do you guys get the feeling Tim Duncan is getting overrated lately? Is this the same thing that happened with Dirk in 2011?

Don't get me wrong Dirk and Duncan are true greats... but no, they're not at the level of Magic, LeBron, Hakeem, Shaq, MJ...

[Timmaytime]

Duncan's longevity does it for me.

Earlier I was trying to define Timmy D's prime and I was stuck with taking just about every year. Dude just doesn't stop. His peak isn't quite as high but you don't get much better than his prime

[GSP]

Hakeem for me. Hes just better, defended better b/c of his versatility/perimeter D/pickandroll etc and had less defensive help career wise. Better and more reliable scorer in the playoff even tho Timmys the better passer. As for Timmys longevity i believe alot of it had to do with Pops Goat lvl minute managing. I dont dock Hakeem for being in a much worse situation specially coaching in comparison. He was clearly better in their peak, best 3, 5, 7 or 10yr stretch IMO (not saying it isnt close) and thats the difference for me

[Steven1562]

Hakeem for me ... you can't go wrong with either both are true franchise players great #1 piece to start any team ... i just think Hakeem was the better player overall could score a little better and defend a lot better .... dude was in the top 5 in steals at age 26 along with guards like Stockton Jordan Drexler amazing for a center/power forward ...

[Baller2014]

Duncan pretty clearly for me. Hakeem only had 3 years that really compare favourably to Duncan's prime, the rest doesn't. Even then, advanced per 40 pace adjusted stats show that Hakeem doesn't even really have an advantage over Duncan on stats. I was actually doing some reading on this the other day. Check out this table, which shows the negligible stat difference when you adjust for pace and make it per 40 minutes:

Code: Select all

olajuwon,  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
1995-96   27.4 11.1  3.6  1.6  2.9  3.5 .558 +.003 25.5
1994-95   27.4 10.6  3.5  1.8  3.3  3.2 .563 -.007 26.1
1993-94   25.7 11.2  3.4  1.5  3.5  3.2 .565 +.027 25.1
1992-93   25.3 12.8  3.5  1.8  4.1  3.1 .573 +.022 27.0
1991-92   22.2 12.4  2.3  1.9  4.5  2.7 .553 +.019 23.4
1990-91   21.1 13.7  2.3  2.2  3.9  3.1 .549 +.022 24.1
1989-90   23.0 13.3  2.7  2.0  4.3  3.6 .541 +.013 24.0
1988-89   24.1 13.1  1.8  2.5  3.3  3.3 .552 +.021 25.1
1987-88   23.0 12.2  2.1  2.1  2.7  3.1 .555 +.032 23.5
1986-87   23.3 11.4  2.9  1.9  3.4  3.0 .554 +.032 23.9
1985-86   22.9 11.2  2.0  1.9  3.3  2.8 .560 +.029 24.2
Total     24.2 12.1  2.7  1.9  3.6  3.2 .557 +.021 24.7

duncan,ti  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
2007-08   23.6 13.8  3.4  0.9  2.4  2.8 .546 +.004 24.2
2006-07   24.0 12.7  4.1  1.0  2.9  3.3 .579 +.022 25.9
2005-06   22.1 13.1  3.8  1.0  2.4  3.0 .523 -.029 22.9
2004-05   25.3 13.8  3.4  0.8  3.3  2.4 .540 +.007 27.0
2003-04   25.0 14.0  3.5  1.0  3.0  3.0 .534 +.029 26.8
2002-03   24.1 13.3  4.0  0.7  3.0  3.2 .564 +.030 26.6
2001-02   25.6 12.8  3.8  0.7  2.5  3.2 .576 +.049 26.9
2000-01   23.5 12.9  3.2  0.9  2.5  3.1 .536 -.006 23.6
1999-00   24.1 12.9  3.3  0.9  2.3  3.4 .555 +.025 24.6
1998-99   22.8 12.0  2.5  0.9  2.6  3.1 .541 +.023 22.9
1997-98   22.3 12.6  2.9  0.7  2.6  3.6 .577 +.058 22.3
Total     23.9 13.1  3.5  0.9  2.7  3.1 .553 +.020 24.9

So there goes Hakeem's big advantage (raw stats). Then look at how Duncan was better at carrying teams overall (some of the teams knocking out Hakeem before his late peak were mediocre in the extreme, he didn't even make the playoffs in 1992 despite having an all-star big man next to him). Duncan has more longevity of course, and he's a better man defender for mine. It seems like a straight forward choice. It would be tough to say if Hakeem had played throughout his career like he did in 93-95, but he didn't, and I rate guys off the careers they actually had, not a bunch of hypotheticals.

It's also strange to me that the average Hakeem backer still has Bill Russell ahead of him, but not Duncan. Why I can't imagine. Assumedly Hakeem's even bigger advantage on O must easily propel him ahead of Russell.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Here's a funny thing

-- I have said, and do believe that Hakeem Olajuwon was better/more talented than Tim Duncan

-- Nonetheless in the Top 10 all time poll a few days ago I ranked Tim Duncan ahead of Hakeem, I think by two slots

-- Now for the tiebreaker...I go back to Hakeem.

[Basketballefan]

Probably Hakeem. I think Hakeem was a better player even though Duncan had the better career.

[tha_rock220]

I have Duncan ranked higher than Olajuwon. I don't know about this though. As a two way player I can' think of anyone who matches Dream, but you just can't argue with Timmy's results.

[KyletheDingbat]

Duncan no question. I'm getting 50+ wins a season. Hakeem had a weird career. With Duncan you don't have to worry about those attitude issues like you did with Akeem. And (gulp) Duncan beat the best players in the game when they were in their prime and not retired lol.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's also strange to me that the average Hakeem backer still has Bill Russell ahead of him, but not Duncan. Why I can't imagine. Assumedly Hakeem's even bigger advantage on O must easily propel him ahead of Russell.

The "average Hakeem backer" does not have Russell ahead of him, and, in fact, finds the comparison laughable. Most Hakeem backers (I don't speak from the perspective of just one particular board) say Hakeem's the GOAT center.

[Exodus]

You have to admit that Dream faced tougher opposition in the 90s at his position. I always consider Duncan more of a center than a power forward. Peak Dream was more dominant, yes even over 03 Duncan. Dream defense and better free throw shooter. Dream led the league in shot blocks and rebounding and DPOTY

I think if you insert Hakeem with some of Duncan's team, the Spurs would of had more success. Dream never got to play with 2 hall of famers most of his whole career and arguably greatest coach of all time and a coach to monitor his minutes.

I'm going with Dream. Love both of their games though.

[Secret Lover14]

Both really close. Hakeem had the better prime but Duncan had the better longevity and consistency. I'll go with Hakeem by a hair just because he wasn't always on talented teams and faced greater competition from his position.

[Baller2014]

You have to admit that Dream faced tougher opposition in the 90s at his position. I always consider Duncan more of a center than a power forward. Peak Dream was more dominant, yes even over 03 Duncan. Dream defense and better free throw shooter. Dream led the league in shot blocks and rebounding and DPOTY

I think if you insert Hakeem with some of Duncan's team, the Spurs would of had more success. Dream never got to play with 2 hall of famers most of his whole career and arguably greatest coach of all time and a coach to monitor his minutes.

I'm going with Dream. Love both of their games though.

Duncan played Power Forward, so the only sensible way to judge him is as a Power Forward, otherwise we get into ridiculous territory of being able to redefine a lot of the greats in NBA history. As it happens, Duncan played in a time where he matched up with some of the greatest PF's of all time: KG, Dirk, Webber, Pau, etc. He also played against some of the best players of all-time: Lebron & the Heatles, Shaq + Kobe, Nash's Suns, etc.

It's pretty ridiculous to think that Hakeem (and I mean Hakeem for most of his career, not 93-95) could have done as well as Duncan carrying teams, given his obviously mixed results outside of those 3 years, losing to some garbage teams, and not even making the playoffs in 92. This "Duncan played with X HOF'ers is silly", because what matters is how good they were when they actually played with him, not what their careers looked like in the end.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Duncan no question. I'm getting 50+ wins a season. Hakeem had a weird career. With Duncan you don't have to worry about those attitude issues like you did with Akeem. And (gulp) Duncan beat the best players in the game when they were in their prime and not retired lol.

Its funny how we always get on Dwight for not having any big man competition inside, and then I guess because of the convenient labeling of Duncan as a PF, we ignore that he too has played through the weak big man era. When Hakeem blew up into MVP form he did it against maybe the greatest group of guys at his position in league history. Duncan has been fortunate in many ways. And his career arc reflects that. Hakeem's best teammate for the heart of his career was Otis Thorpe, a strong/solid big to be sure, but nothing special. His early pairing with Sampson ended quickly as Sampson's knees went. His best early perimeter help disappeared as he had to watch his drug riddled lockerroom implode and get suspended. And he did not get to play with another HOF anything until at the tail end of his prime the Rockets went out and traded Thorpe for an in decline Clyde Drexler. then his last 5 years the Rockets' front office chose that way to go, and every year brought in more and more old over the hill HOFers for annual disappointments just like the Lakers have experienced with that tactic.

Spurs fans have to make a choice at some point. They can either jock Pop, jock Manu and Parker, or they can jock Duncan. But you can't get done saying Pop's the best coach of all time, Manu is the second best SG of all time...and then turn around and pretend that Hakeem had the same kind of help. Alternately you can run Pop down as a senile old hack, call Manu a 6th man and Parker a creation of the system, and jock Duncan as having carried all those scrubs the way Hakeem had to carry Vernon Maxwell and Carl Herrera. But you can't have it both ways. Either Duncan had a LOT of help, a great organization, and was constantly surrounded by HOFers, while Hakeem did not. Or Duncan's teammates and coaches were mediocre and it was he who was great.

[Jaivl]

Spurs fans have to make a choice at some point. They can either jock Pop, jock Manu and Parker, or they can jock Duncan. But you can't get done saying Pop's the best coach of all time, Manu is the second best SG of all time...and then turn around and pretend that Hakeem had the same kind of help. Alternately you can run Pop down as a senile old hack, call Manu a 6th man and Parker a creation of the system, and jock Duncan as having carried all those scrubs the way Hakeem had to carry Vernon Maxwell and Carl Herrera. But you can't have it both ways. Either Duncan had a LOT of help, a great organization, and was constantly surrounded by HOFers, while Hakeem did not. Or Duncan's teammates and coaches were mediocre and it was he who was great.

Wow, this is stupid. There is no midpoint?

[Baller2014]

Some years Duncan had great support casts, other years (like 01-03) he had varying degrees of garbage, who he carried to contention. I fully agree that the narrative has to be consistent, but mine is. Some years Duncan had a lot of help, other years he didn't. Duncan's prime was 98-07, and in recent years the Spurs revival is as much to do with the unprecedented depth and all around talent on the Spurs team as it is to Duncan (though Duncan also slimmed down in order to carry less weight, and play differently to the way he had played in his prime). Popp is a great coach, but he has grown in his role over the years. Even Pop and the players admit his offense was incredibly simplistic back in 02-03, most plays just involved chucking it to Duncan in the post and letting something happen. Over the years Pop developed a really sophisticated offensive system that hadn't existed in the early Duncan days, a lot of which he stole from Europe (one reason the Spurs are looking at hiring Messina as an assistant, with a view to him eventually taking over as head coach).

[ThaRegul8r]

Spurs fans have to make a choice at some point. They can either jock Pop, jock Manu and Parker, or they can jock Duncan. But you can't get done saying Pop's the best coach of all time, Manu is the second best SG of all time...and then turn around and pretend that Hakeem had the same kind of help. Alternately you can run Pop down as a senile old hack, call Manu a 6th man and Parker a creation of the system, and jock Duncan as having carried all those scrubs the way Hakeem had to carry Vernon Maxwell and Carl Herrera. But you can't have it both ways. Either Duncan had a LOT of help, a great organization, and was constantly surrounded by HOFers, while Hakeem did not. Or Duncan's teammates and coaches were mediocre and it was he who was great.

Wow, this is stupid. There is no midpoint?

This is an internet basketball forum. It's all about false dichotomies.

[Masigond]

Hakeem had the better peak, but I'd take Duncan as he was the complete big man from the get-go. Olajuwon took some time to become a good passer, and I think that it shows in the two players' respective team records. For more years, TD + average material (like in 2003, Duncan's sixth season) > Hakeem + average players.

If Hakeem would always have been the apt passer like in the mid-90s, it would be no real contest (still somewhat close but rather clear that Hakeem would be the player of choice). But he wasn't.

[Exodus]

Duncan played Power Forward, so the only sensible way to judge him is as a Power Forward, otherwise we get into ridiculous territory of being able to redefine a lot of the greats in NBA history. As it happens, Duncan played in a time where he matched up with some of the greatest PF's of all time: KG, Dirk, Webber, Pau, etc. He also played against some of the best players of all-time: Lebron & the Heatles, Shaq + Kobe, Nash's Suns, etc.

Even Spurs coach Gregg Popovich seemed to acknowledge the charade on the eve of last year’s playoff series against Utah. When asked who the Spurs would start at center, Popovich said, “Tim Duncan, like we have for the last 15 years.”

I don't think it's quite ridiculous at all. Popovich has a much higher basketball IQ than you, and if you look at his career he did play center. I wouldn't call him a pure power forward. I wouldn't classify Pau and Webber as the greatest power forward of all time. KG played on bad teams most of the time with the wolves. Dirk didn't have the luxury of playing with hall of famers with the exception of an older kid and Nash wasn't Nash until he played in a run and gun style @ phoenix. Duncan is a great player no doubt about it, but he did have advantages with playing with Pop, Ginobli, Parker most of his career along with great role players.

It's pretty ridiculous to think that Hakeem (and I mean Hakeem for most of his career, not 93-95) could have done as well as Duncan carrying teams, given his obviously mixed results outside of those 3 years, losing to some garbage teams, and not even making the playoffs in 92. This "Duncan played with X HOF'ers is silly", because what matters is how good they were when they actually played with him, not what their careers looked like in the end.

Well how good a player plays during the moment determines the outcome of how they are looked back on when their careers are over. This is how players become hall of famers, in how much they contributed personally and for the team. You think Smush Parker can play at the same level as Tony Parker because they played with Tim Duncan? It doesn't work that way. I don't see Kenny the Jet Smith winning a finals mvp and being rated as a top point guard in the league anytime in his career. 1995 he got to play with Drexler who was 32 , but didn't have the luxury of playing with a hall of fame SG his whole career in ginobli. The 80s were dominated by super teams and some of the greatest teams ever in the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons and later in the 90s with Jordans Bulls. I actually wouldn't bring up Nash Suns teams, KG Wolves, Dir'ks Mavs teams when compared to those team imo, and got beaten 4 out of 5 times vs the Laker runs in the decade of 2000s in Duncan's prime.

Hakeem led the 94 Rockets to a ring and out playing Ewing in the finals. Hakeem didn't play with one hall of fame player. I think he was more dominant in his prime imo. He led the league in rebounds, block shots, DPOY multiple times.

I think both are all time greats, and would love start either for my franchise, but I think Hakeem is more potent defensive player, where he would swat anything in his range and great ability to his feet on rotations and just as dominant offensively with his footwork, speed, touch and a better free throw shooter, which is vital late in games.