Why is Duncan universally consider better than Hakeem?

[Kalela]

Olajuwon > Duncan.

[Ring Damage]

I think Duncan would have been overshadowed if he played most of his career in the 1990s.
He probably wouldn't even be considered as good as Karl Malone, let alone the freakish centers.

[CptCrunch]

Duncan is not better. He is more accomplished.

[John Murdoch]

Duncans my favourite player of all time and I put Hakeem right there with him. I think most will have Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem in the same tier career wise and you can reasonably argue for any over the other.

I will always be biased towards Duncan but have no issues with anyone saying the other 2 were better.

If you look at entire body of work over a career I think Duncan has the slight edge. If you're talking about peak prime I think I take Shaq and Hakeem for a single peak season over Duncan.

Where Duncan really was leaps and bounds ahead of Shaq was leadership and BBall IQ but Shaq could physically dominate a game/series in ways Duncan could never do.

You make it sound like Shaq was a dumb brute, he was actually very smart ..you cant play the triangle and be a dumazz

[dhsilv2]

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.

Leadership
Passing - and we can't stress that the gap here is HUGE
Off ball movement

Those are the biggest gaps between the two. You can debate who was the better rim protector. Hakeem got more blocks but Duncan's game was about positioning and altering where as hakeem was more mobile. Ultimately, outside of the above 3 things I listed, the two were pretty similar players in terms of what they were good at. The other thing is that Duncan was more complete over his prime while Hakeem took a lot of time to really develop into a player who's passing was a functional tool. As a result his best defensive years weren't close to his best offensive years.

[dhsilv2]

I don't think the premise of the OP is correct as I don't think it's universal.

Recency bias probably plays a little bit into it, though.

If anything Hakeem has been moving UP on lists in recent years.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Man...Duncan's 03 run is just getting ignored. It's an all time elite peak where he took a roster with a broken down robinson and two insanely raw and inexperienced players in manu and parker to a title. It's every bit as impressive as Hakeem's first title and certainly better than anything robinson did.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Not to mention the rockets were one of the first teams to get the idea of spacing to make passing easier for hakeem but also to make scoring easier for him. The whole "wheel spoke" or whatever Rudy T called it offense was about making the game easier for hakeem. Smart coaching but hakeem benefited from having a coach who was ahead of his time.

[dhsilv2]

Those saying Duncan's defense was better than Hakeem I don't really think studied Olajuwon's defense or watched him play.

There is a ton of evidence that Hakeem was better and many argue he was the GOAT defensive player since Bill Russell.

Robinson used to take the heavy lifting for Duncan on defense many times, and against Amare in a playoff series they hid Duncan and Amare shredded the team. Hakeem would guard his peers at his position in the playoffs, dominating or outplaying them. Him and Thurmond are up there for GOAT man defenders.

Duncan was an all time great, no doubt and can't take that away from him, but Hakeem was a better defensive player and overall two way player imo.

You want your best big man defender generally speak, off the best offensive player. This allows them to have the greater impact on the floor. You also will often HIDE a poor defender by having them guard the guy with the ball. This is critical as the worst defenders are that because they are bad when AWAY from the ball. And most elite defenders are best AWAY from the ball.

The amare series was a smart move by the spurs to dare one player to beat them and no not use doubles. elite scorers will score on elite defenders without help. That shouldn't remotely be used against Duncan. He did exactly what he was supposed to do in that series.

[JShuttlesworth]

I don't think you can ignore the championships while comparing the two. That's what made Duncan so great, you can't remove them the conversation, he won in three different decades with the same team.

Nothing flashy, just good fundamental basketball. Elbow extended, off glass, all day.

I have Duncan ahead of Hakeem but they are very close on my list, he's one of my favourite players of all-time.

[Ring Damage]

I wish they kept the team together and Jordan played 1998-99 so we could see Bulls vs. Spurs....
Especially because Rodman played for the Spurs before he arrived in Chicago, so he'd probably play his best basketball in a Finals vs. SA.
But I think Jordan had the cigar injury at that time.

[meekrab]

Hakeem never got Joey Crawford suspended from officiating, Duncan is just too powerful.

[90sAllDecade]

So one thing I think happens is people downplay how good Popovich was as a coach and leader.

Every coach needs talent to win, Riley, Auerbach, Larry Brown is a great example and Phil Jackson. Popovich was the same, when Duncan retired he won 60 games with Kawhi and no Duncan, as almost all championship contending caliber teams need a superstar to be successful.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2017.html

He was almost universally regarded as the best coach of his era for the most part and a GOAT coach all time.

Duncan was a excellent team leader, and allowed himself to be coached hard to lead by example. But if you think about it, it's a team dynamic and the coach is the actual leader and Tim is being a great follower.

Now this is smart, as sometimes you should defer to others to be successful. But honestly Popovich was the leader who influenced Duncan, he also created the offensive structure so he could improve his passing. These are team support features.

And before Pop became and NBA coach and was learning, he joined a division III college team and lead them from a 2-22 record the first year to thier first championship in 68 years. Pop already knew how to win as a coach before he was hired in the NBA:

Popovich: Division III Coach at Heart

But the eight seasons he spent at Pomona-Pitzer, two colleges in Claremont, Calif., that are small enough to share an athletic department, were formative ones for Popovich. It was where he had his first head coaching job and where he first got the feel for what it was like to oversee an entire operation — although in San Antonio that no longer means driving a team van, working out of a converted janitor’s closet, and living in dormitories.

Popovich has one trophy in his office at the Spurs’ complex, and it is for the 1986 Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference championship, Pomona-Pitzer’s first in 68 years.

...

Popovich had no designs to leave in 1988 to join the Spurs’ staff under Larry Brown, with whom he spent the 1986-87 season at Kansas while he was on a sabbatical. He had built Pomona-Pitzer into a conference champion after going 2-22 in his first season.

It is probably not a coincidence that some of the N.B.A.’s well-regarded coaches have played Division III basketball: Detroit’s Stan Van Gundy, Chicago’s Tom Thibodeau, Boston’s Brad Stevens, Memphis’s Dave Joerger, Indiana’s Frank Vogel, Charlotte’s Steve Clifford and Atlanta’s Mike Budenholzer, who was recruited to Pomona-Pitzer by Popovich.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/sports/basketball/revered-in-nba-spurs-leader-remembers-his-california-roots.html


Duncan credited Pop with being an incredible influence and father figure to him, others in the organization referred to Pops as a genius:

POP ART

HOW GREGG POPOVICH—A FOODIE, FORMER SPY (MAYBE), RUSSIAN LITERATURE LOVER, FRENCH NEW WAVE CINEPHILE, WINE ENTHUSIAST, CURMUDGEON, FATHER FIGURE, DEFENSIVE GURU TURNED OFFENSIVE MASTERMIND AND THE LONGEST-TENURED COACH IN AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS—CREATED A MASTERPIECE IN SAN ANTONIO

...

With his drill-sergeant visage, accented by the military crew cut
and his occasional sideline implosions, Popovich gave the team a
harder edge, and in 1998-99, two years after Duncan's arrival as
the No. 1 pick in the 1997 draft, he drove the Spurs to their
first title. Popovich stepped down as G.M. in 2002, though not
before laying the groundwork for a startling feat: San Antonio
not only finished with a 60-22 record and the championship this
season, but it also enters the summer with more room under the
salary cap than any other team in the NBA. "Genius is a big
word," says Buford, "but when you're around Pop [and you] see how
his mind works, see how he always has a grasp of the big picture,
that's the word you use."

For 16 years now, keeping Duncan happy and healthy has been at the top of Pop's mission list. Pop and Tim: tough and steadfast, different sides of the same coin, the Auerbach and Russell of the modern NBA. Pop is one of the few subjects the Big Fundamental will talk about without looking like someone is torturing him with thumbscrews. "Pop has always taken care of me, whether I knew it or not," says Duncan. "Pop has been a mentor for me, a father figure. I know it's incredibly rare. And I know I'm lucky to have it."

Here he is creating and orchestrating the passing offense that helped Duncan and the entire team evolve as a passing offense. Popovich created the system as the organizational and coaching leader:

All but Duncan, the No. 1 pick in 1997, could have been acquired at some point by virtually any other organization. Their talent, in many cases, was their aptitude. "We're not an athletic team," Splitter says. "We don't jump over people and do 360s. What we have is our smarts and our system."

There is no playbook that describes The System, no mission statement that puts it into words. Guidelines are passed down from Popovich, who developed it, and the Big Three, who adopted it. When the Spurs acquire a new member, the front office holds a meeting. "We get everybody in a room," says general manager R.C. Buford, "and ask each other, 'What can we do to help this player?'"

But in the summer of 2010, Duncan was 34 and the NBA was evolving, thanks to a generation of effervescent point guards who were too talented just to feed the post. San Antonio had knocked Phoenix from the playoffs in three out of four years, but Steve Nash and his go-go Suns provided the impetus for change, pureeing the Spurs with their high pick-and-rolls. Popovich told his lieutenants at the Peninsula, "We can't win like this anymore. We have to get faster."

The strategy sounded counterintuitive, an older club embracing a swifter pace, yet it is exactly what revived the Spurs. Instead of exiling trusty veterans on lucrative contracts, the common course of action in professional sports, Popovich reshaped their roles. He unleashed Parker, coaxed Duncan out of the paint and surrounded them with marksmen galore. He found that Parker could channel Nash, and Duncan could pass as well out of pick-and-rolls as post ups. The Spurs never changed their nucleus, only their personality, morphing from plodders to pushers. "Pace! pace! pace!" Popovich yelled in timeouts, and his charges complied, jetting from 20th in pace factor (possessions per 48 minutes) in 2009--10 to seventh two years later.

He also coached Kawhi to help him breakout in the Finals:

ON SUNDAY afternoon you could have passed out five Finals MVP ballots and received five different winners. There was a reasonable case to be made for Diaw, Duncan, Parker, Ginóbili and Leonard. Through the first two games Leonard failed to score in double figures, earning a lecture from his coach. "The hell with Tony, the hell with Timmy, the hell with Manu," Popovich told him. "You play the game. You are the man." Whether it was Popovich's words or Diaw's passes that unlocked Leonard, the shy 22-year-old cracked 20 points in three straight games for the first time in his three NBA seasons. Teammates mobbed him as he cradled the MVP trophy on Father's Day, six years after his dad was killed in a Compton, Calif., shooting that remains unsolved.

Imo Duncan deserves credit as a team leader, leading by example and great follower to allowed himself to be coached hard, but although deferential at times, Popovich was the true leader and created the system for Duncan to succeed.

[blackcosmos]

I'm siding with the player that never faked an injury to get a contract extension.

[dhsilv2]

So one thing I think happens is people downplay how good Popovich was as a coach and leader.

Not to ignore the rest of your post, but this point must be made. Pop BECAME a great coach while on the spurs. He was a rookie head coach the year before. He was nearly fired even after winning the title in 99. Pop had to grow into the coach he'd become and that doesn't happen without Duncan's support and willingness to let Pop learn how to become a coach. Pop was NOT anywhere near the level of coach he'd become in those early days on the spurs, the first 2 titles and perhaps even the 3rd were before we'd really see pop become a special coach.

[2klegend]

Duncan is a very deceptively quick player. His reaction to miss and footwork is very underrated. He has a very high basketball IQ. Hakeem is the better athlete but Duncan's fundamental style conserves less energy to score and plays a smarter game. It comes down to longevity, where Duncan is more useful past his prime. You can't go wrong either player.

[FreeThrowLine]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either guy and don't have any issue with someone preferring one over the other. I have only skimmed through this thread so I didn't see it, but I hope no one has tried to argue that "it's not even close" because these 2 whilst approaching the game in a different way are very close in my opinion as far as overall impact on the game.

In my opinion, Duncan could afford to be more of a facilitator because his supporting cast was generally speaking better than Hakeems. I don't say that as someone who thinks Hakeem played with scrubs like some people try and make out.

The guys Hakeem played with may not have been allstars till late in his career and had he played alongside Drexler/Pippen/Barkley etc in their prime then he likely is higher on people's lists.

However the guys he had alongside him had heart and toughness and anyone who grew up watching how they played as a team, with everyone chipping in on a different night would recall just how tough they were. Guys like Cassell, Elie, Maxwell, Horry, Thorpe etc weren't All-star caliber players, but they left it all out on the floor and played well within the system

If you switch places between Duncan and Olajuwon, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they finish with the same number of rings as the other (Duncan 2 and Hakeem 5)

[Michael Lucky]

Ring totals, simple as that.

[Pg81]

...Popovich was the true leader and created the system for Duncan to succeed.

Duncan was the system and regardless how Duncan was used he excelled in his role.

[bigtsdaman30]

The answer actually is pretty simple in that Duncan was a pf and considered arguably the best and Hakeem was a center and the greatness bar is a little more steep.Comparing the two works on paper but that's about all.That being said Prime Duncan vs Prime Hakeem would be ridiculous to see lol.

Sent from my SM-A515U using RealGM mobile app