Why is Duncan universally consider better than Hakeem?

[dc]

People are forgetting how Hakeem was perceived just a year or 2 before he won a championship.....which was when he was 31 years old. He was considered high maintenance, a malcontent and even semi-cancerous. He was supposedly on the trading block several times, which prime Duncan almost certainly never was.

A lot of that changed after he won 2 titles in a row, especially in 1995 after out dueling Shaq, embarassing David Robinson after the Admiral got presented with the MVP trophy and leading the Rox to a championship as a 6th seed.

Hakeem probably had a better peak in 94/95, but Duncan definitely wins on longevity. Duncan was seen as a guy who would make everyone around him better and was always doing winning things for his team (even if his stats didn't reflect it) while pre-championship Hakeem was often seen as a hard guy to win a round.....basically a rich man's Demarcus Cousins.

[scrabbarista]

Here are the aforementioned comments on Hakeem's passing:

"Hakeem was far from a poor passer. In his era, there weren't many great-passing centers, because the rules weren't conducive to their existence.

Among starting centers, Hakeem was 3rd in the league in Asts/100 in '94, 2nd in '95, and 2nd in '96. Only David Robinson or Vlade Divac finished ahead of him in any of those years.

Hakeem was also versatile enough, even in an era when this versatility wasn't necessary, to play and dominate from anywhere on the court within 18 feet, facing or posting. Also, many of his "post-ups" were passes caught while flashing through the lane, i.e., on the move. The Rockets of that era (especially after Drexler joined) were not a team that needed to rely on a static, frozen offense with four guys standing around Hakeem. Rather, they were a team that could still score better than anyone else when things bogged down, as they were wont to do in the 90's due to the illegal defense and double-team rules."

"I'm talking peaks. Hakeem is a very underrated passer. He did what he needed to do, but because he was so devastating one on one (and given NBA rules at the time), he never had to pass on the move. It was just give him the ball and have guys stand outside the line. He would hit them if they were open. And, most importantly, it worked (to the tune of two titles). Hakeem just needed to average 3.5 asts to be 2nd in the league in center assists, because that's just how the game was played at the time.

Let's look more closely at Garnett in '04 vs. Hakeem in '95.

PS AST/TO%
Hakeem (22 games) = 2.35/1
Garnett (18 games) = 1.617/1

RS AST/TO%
Hakeem (72 games) = 1.47/1
Garnett (82 games) = 2.32/1

PS ASTS/36
Hakeem = 3.8
Garnett = 4.2

RS ASTS/36
Hakeem = 3.2
Garnett = 4.6

I saw Hakeem play tons from the '92 season forward, and I don't remember ever once being frustrated by his passing. Otoh, I only had to watch prime Garnett for a game or two to immediately become frustrated that he wasn't shooting more. Hakeem has six seasons where his PPG was higher than Garnett's highest - and I would imagine the PS differential is even greater. Inexcusable for a player of Garnett's talent. He was an overpasser for most of his career, and it only stopped hurting him/started making sense when he teamed up with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen."

"Olajuwon vs. Garnett peak playoffs Ast/100 numbers:

Hakeem '93-'95 (three seasons, 57 total games)
5.8
5.3
5.5

Garnett '03-'08 (three seasons, 50 total games)
5.7
5.9
6.3"

"His assists being a function of his scoring and his gravity affecting his passing are completely irrelevant. There is no place in the world where you can see prime Hakeem without his gravity and his scoring. That footage doesn't exist, because guess what, he was a great scorer. To say that Hakeem couldn't do anything (be the hub, play the point, fly to the moon) without it is irrelevant. You can't simply imagine prime Hakeem without his scoring ability and then tell me that's an argument against his passing. You're imagining a different player, one who doesn't exist.

I just randomly clicked on highlights of a game (against the Mavericks) of Hakeem's in December of 1995 or 1996 (the title makes it unclear), in which Hakeem was credited for 6 assists, and I got ten seconds into it before he hits Cassell in the corner for a three off of a nearly no-look pass. Cassell did not need to "enter Hakeem's line of sight," no matter what Kenny Smith says on television. In that same vid he hits several cutters on crisp, timely passes. There is one clip where either Elie or Cassell (I think it was Sam) moves into Dream's line of sight on the three point line and Dream hits him for the bucket. It's not a coincidence that "line of sight" usually coincides with "open space" and "passing lanes." Hakeem was also capable of making skip passes to the weak side, although he didn't often do so, usually because he commanded double and triple teams, which - because of the rules of the time - nearly always came from the nearest man, which meant his nearest teammate was the one who was open.

I am not disputing that Garnett was the better passer. I do maintain that (prime) Hakeem was a good passer, and that Garnett too often looked to pass first instead of shoot first like Hakeem (or Jordan, for that matter). There is a balance. Kobe went too far in one direction. Guys like Garnett and Nash went too far in the other. Guys like MJ, Hakeem, and Curry found the balance.

Here's that video. And again, this is literally the first video I clicked on. As someone who watched most of those Rockets' seasons, I can tell you that the five scoring passes he makes here are representative.

Watch on YouTube

"

"It's not a coincidence that Russell, Duncan, Wilt, KG, and Walton [considered great passing centers] played most of their careers outside of the hard-double-team era, whereas Hakeem and Shaq played most of theirs inside of it."

(cont'd in next post, as this one is getting long)

[Prokorov]

Without mentioning championships, is their one thing on the court Duncan was superior to Hakeem in? The only thing I can think of is passing because for the early part of Hakeem prime he had really low assists rate and was known as a very tough shot taker. Also Duncan has better post prime longevity, but Hakeem was an all-star caliber player for 13 seasons, and also had all-time level peak from 1992-1995. I definitely think it's a close comparison, and they would both be in my personal top ten, but how can Duncan get GOAT consideration while Hakeem barely sneaks into most top tens. I just don't see the argument for Duncan being on a different tier as Hakeem.

what didnt duncan do better should be the question.

better offensively, better defensively, better in the clutch, didnt consitently get bested by his peers in the playoffs every year.

its duncan and it isnt even remotely close. the better argument is robinson vs dream

[scrabbarista]

More comments on Olajuwon's passing and the illegal defense era:

"The passes that were asked of Russell, Duncan, Wilt, KG, and Walton in their primes were different than those asked of Hakeem in his. Shaq is more between eras.

If any or all of the following is stuff you already know, I do apologize. Just consider it as being for the benefit of others.

The hard-double-era was very broadly from the '82 season through the '01 season, but it wasn't really until the '90's that it began to warp the game in such a way that it necessitated a rule change. (Strategy always lags behind rule changes, so - particularly with the most dominant one-on-one veterans (i.e., Shaq) - there may have been some residue that extended a bit beyond '01. In the 80's, when there was far less money at stake and far less invested, lags may have lasted much longer. It may have taken thirty years for coaches to make as much progress up to '80 as they could make in twelve years up to '01 and four years up to '05. If you watch Duncan in '03 and Hakeem in '95, they are playing almost the same way, but Duncan's passing repertoire is slightly wider. This, I would argue, was due to the rule changes. I always give the benefit to players who actually do something, so I am willing to place all six of the bigs you name above Hakeem as passers, but probably with a much smaller margin than would you.)

Russell, Duncan, Wilt, KG, and Walton all played their primes outside of that twenty-year window. Shaq was on the border (Duncan to some extent, too.) It is no coincidence that those are the guys who come to mind when you think of great passing bigs.

Here are the rules put in place before the '82 season, rules that the league said were designed to "open up the paint and increase scoring." This doesn't automatically mean they were effective in doing so, but that was the intent. All of these changes had cascading effects on the game - some of which I am probably unaware of - but I will highlight those I see as most obviously relevant.

New rules for Illegal Defensive Alignments.
a. Weak side defenders may come in the pro lane (16’), but not in the college lane (12’) for more than three seconds.
b. Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint area).
c. Player without ball may not be double-teamed from weak side.
d. Offensive player above foul line and inside circle must be played by defender inside dotted line.
e. If offensive player is above the top of the circle, defender must come to a position above foul line.
f. Defender on cutter must follow the cutter, switch, or double-team the ball.

These changes were very specific. They ended up making offenses less creative, particularly those with dominant post-players (MJ & Hakeem - although MJ played in the triangle). The more limitations and guidelines were placed on defenders, the more cookie-cutter would be the correct offensive decisions. If offensive players of this era played within those strictures, this does not mean they weren't capable of more creative or "advanced" passing. It just means it wasn't necessary or even efficient. (Coincidentally, I happen to believe that Jordan is more often than not underrated as a passer.)

The "hard-double" was something I saw/heard ad-nauseum with Hakeem. He was unguardable one-on-one, so teams usually had to double him. The rules, unfortunately for the opposition, meant that every man had to be guarding someone at almost all times. If they tried to send a player from the weak side before he got the ball, they would be whistled for illegal defense, a technical foul. Otoh, double teaming him without the ball from the strong side was obviously suicide, because that meant either leaving the man with the ball or the man one pass away, often setting up for the corner three. Otooh, doubling him from the weak side after he received the ball meant A) he's probably already scored (often by fading to the baseline) B) you've given him more time to identify an open man.
The only option was usually to wait until he got the ball to double team him from the strong side. So, he would get the ball and either score or wait for the double team. If the double team came, he would either score anyway or make a simple pass to a cutter or spot-up shooter.

The soft-double is when the double-teamer stunts or plays the middle ground between the player being doubled and the player being doubled off of. This effectively did not exist in the 90's. Any player who began running toward Olajuwon when he received the ball had to continue running toward him - the instant that player pivoted to return to his own man before his own man actually received a pass, the refs would blow their whistle for illegal defense. Often, I would see Hakeem receive the pass in the post, a help defender would run towards him, and Hakeem would fake a pass back to that defender's man, causing the defender to react to the fake by turning his body or freezing in place, resulting in the refs blowing their whistles for illegal defense. I also saw Barkley do this many times when he was with Houston.

The Rockets' offensive principles were absurdly simple by today's standards, but it was the rules of the time, combined with Hakeem's awesome one-on-one ability, that made them so. It was "give it to Hakeem, wait for the double, cut or spot-up off of the double." This was all you had to do as long as the rules forced teams to hard-double (i.e., run all the way to Hakeem's body when doubling him).

Here is a link to the '82 and '01 rule changes. Notice the comments on the post-2001 rule changes: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=387300

"Purpose: to encourage ball movement and team play through giving defenses more freedom to defend, particularly help defense from the weak side, which was extremely restricted from 1981-2001 with the Illegal Defense guideline in place."

"With post ups and isolation plays being able to be defended much better, more ball movement and clever schemes are required for these elite scorers to hit the box score." [Note: this does not mean Hakeem, MJ, or Barkley would flounder in today's game. They adapted as iso scorers because of the rules of their own era. If they played in any other era, they would have adapted to it. If they'd played post-2009, for example, they might have looked to pass as soon as they caught the ball. In their own era, however, this would have been senseless, given that they basically had two choices on every play, both of which precluded looking to pass first: either score on single coverage, or wait for the hard-double and react to it accordingly.]

"And as for assists, in 1985-86, the 10 players who played the longest minutes in the season's first 36 games combined for 1,308 assists. Five years ago [2010, I think], that number was 1,482. This year it's all the way up to 1,768."

"Referees let point guards flit around unfettered, but the paint remains a war zone where brutality can trump skill. Legalized zone frees help defenders to sandwich dangerous post-up threats. “The reason the post-up doesn't work anymore is that teams just front now,” Karl says. Help defenders can drift from their assignments to prevent a lob pass over that front, forcing the offense to whip the ball elsewhere."

This last quote is important. If Hakeem had been in his prime in '05 instead of '95 (and far more in '15), he would have played a role more like Garnett's because of fronting, weak doubles, weak-side help, and off-ball doubling. If Garnett had played college/high school in the early 80's, gotten drafted in '84, and then hit his prime around '93, you can bet he would have played more like Hakeem: more post-ups and more simple passes. There's no telling exactly how much their games would have been different, but I feel safe saying they would have been significantly different. Enough that we might casually include Hakeem among the Waltons, Wilts, Duncans, and Russells, while leaving Garnett with the Mo Malones, Shaqs, Mutombos, and Mournings - or, perhaps with the better passing bigs of that era like Divac and... gosh, it's hard to even think of any. Karl Malone? This is not a coincidence. It's the rules.

To answer your question directly, it is harder to be a passing big when the reads are more difficult, i.e., post-2001, and particularly post-2008 (when the league finally fully adapted to the rule changes). But running 2 miles is harder than running 1 mile. If you run a 2 mile race and I run a 1 mile race, that doesn't mean you're a better runner than me (or even a better 2-mile runner). It just means you ran the harder race."

[jokeboy86]

Good question. Probably cause of the rings but maybe more so where the both of them rank in regards to best at their position. Hakeem was great but some people may even have him just outside of the top 5 centers of all time. Some people may even have Moses Malone ahead of him and it's a tossup for me between him and Shaq. Duncan is like Jerry Rice where there's simply no question he's the best ever at his position. As is the case with Rice you don't even hear the media debate it with Duncan its just acknowledged he's the best PF and they move on lol.

[Rodwilliams]

Hakeem is better and has more moves.

[scrabbarista]

People are forgetting how Hakeem was perceived just a year or 2 before he won a championship.....which was when he was 31 years old. He was considered high maintenance, a malcontent and even semi-cancerous. He was supposedly on the trading block several times, which prime Duncan almost certainly never was.

A lot of that changed after he won 2 titles in a row, especially in 1995 after out dueling Shaq, embarassing David Robinson after the Admiral got presented with the MVP trophy and leading the Rox to a championship as a 6th seed.

Hakeem probably had a better peak in 94/95, but Duncan definitely wins on longevity. Duncan was seen as a guy who would make everyone around him better and was always doing winning things for his team (even if his stats didn't reflect it) while pre-championship Hakeem was often seen as a hard guy to win a round.....basically a rich man's Demarcus Cousins.

Perception and reality aren't always in agreement. (Also, DeMarcus and Hakeem in the same sentence... bruh...)

It's possible that Olajuwon simply wanted to win so badly that he couldn't be happy when he wasn't competing for a title.

I'm pretty sure Olajuwon played with no HoF's (barely even a guy who ever made an All-Star team!) until the season he turned 32. Ralph Sampson is in the HoF, but it's a dubious distinction at best, and anyway, Olajuwon soundly (4-1) beat Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the middle of the Showtime Lakers' dominance when he had Sampson on his team.

Contrast that to Duncan who by his 32 year-old season had played with Robinson, Parker, and Ginobili in or near their primes: arguably all Top 75 guys, while the only guy sniffing the Top 150 with Olajuwon was Otis Thorpe.

I have Duncan over Olajuwon on my all-time list, because I value what Duncan did with his teammates over what Olajuwon might have done with better teammates. But given the success Olajuwon had with relatively (in a historical sense) pedestrian supporting casts in '86, '93, '94, and '95, it's fair to wonder what might have been if he'd been blessed with better teammates over the course of his career.

[jokeboy86]

I also think people give Hakeem a pass for lack of rings because he played during the MJ/Bulls era and give him extra credit because he won rings when Jordan wasn't playing. That being said though its not like his teams were getting to the conference Finals every year and in fact he's got a couple of playoff sweeps and gentleman's sweeps that don't help his resume.

[dk1115]

I can't help but think of Bill Russell's quote. Something of the lines of "I'll never distort your offense nor your defense." That's what I think makes Tim Duncan ahead of so many other players. Did it as the top guy, second guy, third guy, probably even as a role player towards the end.

[sikma42]

Hakeem was low maintenance?

It's a good debate, but really you can't go wrong with either players. Low maintenance, GOAT tier big men are hard to come by.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[-Sammy-]

I think Hakeem was much more skilled offensively as a scorer, but I'll give everything else to Timmy.

[dc]

Hakeem was low maintenance?

It's a good debate, but really you can't go wrong with either players. Low maintenance, GOAT tier big men are hard to come by.

Yeah, people who view Hakeem as low maintenance with a Duncan like team oriented personality are really only remembering him for his career after he turned 30.

The Rockets seriously contemplated trading him in his prime several times. He was viewed as a talented guy who was hard to win with.

[90sAllDecade]

Hakeem was the better player overall.

Duncan had better longevity but Hakeem had a better peak.

The narrative is due to Duncan having much better team support throughout his career and has more rings.

People can forget about it at times, but rings bias is a real thing.

I personally don't judge individual players on team based accomplishments without studying team support and competition.

Duncan is awesome absolutely, but if you get into it you can see why he had a great career but Hakeem is the better player imo.

[Teen Girl Squad]

Hakeem had a bit of Westbrook/a dash in Giannis in him where the highlights/stats probably obscure some of his downsides as a player. All time great no question but I think he probably was a better one one one player than a cerebral cornerstone ala Duncan. Bill Simmons in his book of basketball makes the argument that being surrounded with high level role players might be the reason he won his titles over having better "Stars" around him. His passing stats were closer to "Marbury assists" than something like LeBron really opening up a play. Duncan was really the all time great glue guy in a franchise players body. One could still definitely make the Hakeem over Duncan argument but the sustained excellence is why most give Duncan the nod.

[Jabroni Lames]

Ringzz and because Hakeem only won because MJ sat out those 2 years. Duncan was able to beat the top players of his era: Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade, etc...

[dautjazz]

Without mentioning championships, is their one thing on the court Duncan was superior to Hakeem in? The only thing I can think of is passing because for the early part of Hakeem prime he had really low assists rate and was known as a very tough shot taker. Also Duncan has better post prime longevity, but Hakeem was an all-star caliber player for 13 seasons, and also had all-time level peak from 1992-1995. I definitely think it's a close comparison, and they would both be in my personal top ten, but how can Duncan get GOAT consideration while Hakeem barely sneaks into most top tens. I just don't see the argument for Duncan being on a different tier as Hakeem.

what didnt duncan do better should be the question.

better offensively, better defensively, better in the clutch, didnt consitently get bested by his peers in the playoffs every year.

its duncan and it isnt even remotely close. the better argument is robinson vs dream

What? Maybe if Robinson came to the league earlier and didn't have his injury in the 1996-97 season. Robinson had 7 elite seasons, Olajuwon was still making the All-NBA 1st team in his 13th season. Olajuwon also had twice as many defensive player of the year awards as Robinson. I'd personally take them at their peak over Duncan, for a single season (or a short stretch of seasons), but obviously Duncan had better longevity.

[BostonCouchGM]

he isn't? I mean, I've never heard a single person say it. Hakeem is always the guy who dominated all the other supposed dominant centers of the 1980s and 1990s and he has two rings with him being the best player. Duncan was great but not quite at Hakeem's level. Hopefully not many people are claiming that he is.

[DaPessimist]

They're usually ranked close to one another. Duncan usually gets the nod because of his accolades.

[homecourtloss]

Also, Hakeem is underrated as a passer, mostly because of the era he played in (i.e., illegal defense rules), but also because he didn't pass well when he was younger. I have to go for a walk now, but when I come back, I'll find a long thread from a couple years ago that contains my (extensive) defense of Hakeem as a passer.

It was much, much easier to pass out of the post in Hakeem’s time.

Rules changed have made defending the post easier now. In the 1980s/1990s with illegal defense rules, defenses HAD to trap hard. Illegal defense rules (mostly) prohibited players from lurking in no-man's land to deny entry passes, swipe at the ball, or clutter those inside-out passing lanes Olajuwon exploited. Help defenders can do all of that today making both posting up AND passing out of the post easier.

[IAMZOOTED2]

Duncan’s bank shot and utilization of the glass may have been superior, but other than that them two were beasts down there