Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[Laimbeer]

Hakeem is an echo player here at realgm. People keep repeating to one another how great he was and the legend just grows as time goes on. It has started to fade a bit, but remains strong.

On the floor prime ability, this is debatable. Throw in leadership, intangibles, etc. it's not close.

[AMW27]

Well, my initial point with regards to the MVP voting is that yeah, I know Hakeem was on bad teams for the most part...but a super elite player who ranks amongst the very best in the game would still be recognized for how great he is, and would still receive some MVP love. Hakeem wasn't even close in a few of those years.

In 03, when Duncan won his 2nd MVP, T-Mac was 4th in MVP voting that year, AHEAD of Shaq. This was a guy who led a crappy Magic team to a .500 record and the 8th seed in a terrible Eastern Conference. He still got recognition for how great of a player he was. MVP voters WILL give votes to great players on terrible teams. Hakeem wasn't even getting those "sympathy" votes. Why is that? Probably because he wasn't THAT highly regarded around the league...he wasn't considered the clear cut 4th best player in the league after Jordan, Magic, and Bird. He was considered on the same level, or worse, than Robinson, Malone, and Barkley. Guys who Duncan was definitely superior to.

I just don't buy the team success argument as for why Hakeem was always finishing so low in MVP voting, because that hasn't stopped the voters from recognizing great players on bad teams before. Look at the other 4 leading MVP candidates other than Duncan in 03: already discussed T-Mac, but there was KG (51-win T'Wolves in a tough West...still not your typical "MVP" success), Kobe, and Shaq (the Lakers massively underachieved and only won 50 games that year). Dirk finished 7th in the voting, despite having a monster statistical season and leading his team to 60 wins. Sometimes, individual players are so great that they get their due recognition for MVP voting, despite a lack of team success. That wasn't the case for Hakeem.

It's not like there weren't other players that were getting a lot of MVP votes despite playing for mediocre teams.

87: Hakeem finishes 7th behind not only the big 3 (Magic, Jordan, and Bird), but he also finished behind McHale, Nique, and Barkley...Barkley's Sixers only won 3 more games than Olajuwon's Rockets.

88: Hakeem finishes 7th behind not only the big 3, but Barkley, Drexler, and Nique...Barkley's Sixers were 10 games behind the Rockets in terms of record (36-46 vs 46-36)...and yet Barkley still managed to finish 4th that year.

89: Hakeem finishes 5th behind not just Magic and Jordan, but K. Malone and Ewing as well...but admittedly, everyone had clearly more team success than Hakeem.

90: Hakeem finishes 7th behind not just Magic and Jordan, but Barkley, Malone, Ewing, and Robinson...Ewing's Knicks only won 4 more games than Hakeem's Rockets.

91: Hakeem finishes 18th, including behind his own teammate, Kenny Smith...yes, Hakeem missed 26 games, but he still put up the biggest numbers on the team, he still played the majority of the season, and he was still clearly their best player...I don't think Derrick Rose would lose out to Carlos Boozer or Joakim Noah in MVP voting if he missed 25 games in a season, but the Bulls still did really well...and it's also hard to really rag on the supporting cast in this scenario, when they help your team win 52 games while the star player misses 26.

92: Hakeem doesn't even get a vote...can't just be because his team missed the playoffs...because Barkley's Sixers missed the playoffs (and Barkley was eating his way out of Philadelphia and was openly being a cancer and was demanding a trade) with a terrible 35-47 record...and he still managed to receive some votes...Danny Manning received a vote, whose Clippers were only 3 games better than the Rockets...Detlef Schrempf received a vote, whose Pacers finished below .500.

If you think the voters were just getting it wrong (and I actually agree, because some of the people getting votes over Hakeem is pretty ridiculous), fine. But clearly, Hakeem's status as a player wasn't anywhere close to what it's being portrayed here as being...he wasn't considered a super-elite player at the time, because super-elite players on mediocre teams still receive some recognition in MVP voting...just look at Dirk in 03, he had the numbers, and he had the team success...but Kobe, T-Mac, Shaq, and KG, despite winning a lot less games, were considered superior players and thus got the nod from the voters. If you're considered a truly standout player that's just in an unfortunate situation, you don't get voted below so many players like Hakeem did.

Yup. People act like olajuwon was 94-95 olajuwon his whole career.

I don't believe his teams from 89-92 were bad.

[Masigond]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

[rowdystylz]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

[ushvinder88]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

I knew a hakeem fan would do this, ignore 1991 and just bring up 1992. The fact is hakeem was gone for 26 games in 1991 and his team didnt miss a beat, yet in the previous season of 1990, the finish 41-41 with a healthy hakeem.

His supporting cast in 1991 was so terrible that his team went 16-10 without him, cavaliers lebron sure wishes he could miss 26 games in a season and still see the cavs go 16-10, lol. This just shows why hakeem didnt deserve mvp votes in 1990, exact same cast and a terrible record.

[LarsV8]

Fairly easily Hakeem, just better in every facet of the game.

Swap Hakeem and Duncan, Duncan wins 0 and Hakeem wins more than 5 rings.

LOL watch out guys, world's oldest fanboy approaching.

A Lin fan calling someone a fan boy.

Life is complete, I have seen everything.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Hakeem is an echo player here at realgm. People keep repeating to one another how great he was and the legend just grows as time goes on. It has started to fade a bit, but remains strong.

On the floor prime ability, this is debatable. Throw in leadership, intangibles, etc. it's not close.

I do believe you got the name wrong in that first sentence.

[microfib4thewin]

Going back to the topic, it's a tough choice between the two. They're pretty much tied for what they do court so the only reason I would lean towards Duncan is the possibility that Duncan could be easier to build around from day 1.

[ronnymac2]

I'm just not sure how Tim Duncan stops all that cocaine from entering the noses of his Houston Rocket teammates in the 1980s. If Hakeem with the GOAT reflexes couldn't, I doubt Duncan could.

[Regulio]

I wholly agree with therealbig3. Hakeem is getting so overrated around here. He came onto the NBA scene when MJ went for his baseball adventure, I remember that moment very clearly, there was a void that Hakeem and Robinson filled. He exploded for 2-3 years and went under again.
Yes, peak Hakeem is probably a better player, than Duncan, better scorer for sure, better defender. Yet Duncan was always a better passer, similar-better at rebounding.
Hakeem had always sexy stats and it deceives people into thinking he was uber awesome all the time. It's like with Kevin Love now, looking at his stats, he is putting superstar numbers, but it is quite clear he is nowhere near Duncan's or Garnett's level in their prime.
To me the choice is very simple and easy here - Duncan.

On a side note, Pop and Duncan made Spurs into model franchise, he didn't join one.

[Baller2014]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

Firstly, that is a complete dodge of the point you are quoting, which is about 1991, not 1992. Secondly, 40-30 is nothing special. Duncan took his bad support casts from 01-03 to far better than 40-30. And Duncan didn't have a 2nd best player close to 17-10-3 all-star big Otis Thorpe, or useful role player Mad Max (took too many shots, but was good at 3's when he was on, and a tough defender). There were other useful role players that year too.

[Krodis]

Hakeem probably peaks a tad higher, but if we're talking about starting a team, and who I'd want from Year 1 through Year 15 and on? Duncan. Fairly easily at that.

[baki]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

I knew a hakeem fan would do this, ignore 1991 and just bring up 1992. The fact is hakeem was gone for 26 games in 1991 and his team didnt miss a beat, yet in the previous season of 1990, the finish 41-41 with a healthy hakeem.

His supporting cast in 1991 was so terrible that his team went 16-10 without him, cavaliers lebron sure wishes he could miss 26 games in a season and still see the cavs go 16-10, lol. This just shows why hakeem didnt deserve mvp votes in 1990, exact same cast and a terrible record.

I can echo this sentiment having watch Hakeem during those days. I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about when there were more exciting players to watch at the time (Jordan, Bird, Magic, Ewing, Robinson etc). Rudy T did make a huge difference but it was good timing that helped Houston win those 2 championships, we never would have won if Jordan didn't retire.

[baki]

The difference was that in David's and Hakeem's era they were made to do almost everything for the team, whereas in Duncan's era the offense and defense was a lot more spread out. With such an effective system we never got to see how much better his numbers would have been.

Actually, we somehow did. Look at Duncan's stats in the 2002 and 2003 playoffs (combined): 25.5 ppg / 15.1 rpg / 5.2 apg / 3.6 bpg / 0.6 spg / 3.4 TOV

The Spurs went through him, and he delivered. He isn't the same scorer as Hakeem (one of the very best centers for true volume scoring as he could create for himself so easily - take the 1995 finals numbers as an example: He was taking 29 FGAs per game), but as he is a very good passer, I'd say that he was close as an offensive force as a go-to-guy. Could he have averaged even more? Quite likely (he was averaging less than 22 FGAs per game in the 2003 playoffs), but there's not that much that Duncan could have done more without his efficiency taking a hit, and maximizing efficiency was what the Pop-lead Spurs embodied quite well. Even rather mediocre players would have their share in the team's offense (in that era - the early 2000s, which were Duncan's peak - there were quite some teams who didn't spread out that much. But the Spurs tried to do so) and Duncan was the guy who made limited players like Bowen score their share (even if Bowen couldn't do anything else than shooting threes from the corner).

Duncan played at his natural role at power forward so yes he was a lot more effective, but these were the teams with Robinson still on it as well as Parker, Steve Smith, Rose, Antonio Daniels, Stephen Jackson, Charles Smith. Plus his backup was Cherokee Parks lol

[rowdystylz]

Houston Rockets 1990-91 with Olajuwon: 36-20 (.643)
without Olajuwon: 16-10 (.615)

Doesn't exactly look like a true garbage team that even a superstar wasn't good enough to carry, or does it?

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

Firstly, that is a complete dodge of the point you are quoting, which is about 1991, not 1992. Secondly, 40-30 is nothing special. Duncan took his bad support casts from 01-03 to far better than 40-30. And Duncan didn't have a 2nd best player close to 17-10-3 all-star big Otis Thorpe, or useful role player Mad Max (took too many shots, but was good at 3's when he was on, and a tough defender). There were other useful role players that year too.

The same core that went 16-10 with Hakeem out in 91 went 2-10 not even a year later- Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Buck Johnson, Otis Thorpe, Larry Smith and Sleepy Floyd with David Wood's 5/3 replaced by Bullard's 6/3 at the SF/PF spot. How is that a dodge when your point is that it was somehow not a garbage supporting cast if the exact same cast with the same coach went 2-10 the very next year? How did that happen?

As for the rest you are missing the point, and that point is Chaney was a garbage coach. They obviously had some solid role players in Otis, Kenny and Max (once his chucking was reigned in some), but overall they were not a good cast especially the way Chaney used them with Hakeem. I'd take Duncan's supporting cast from 01-03 with Pop as the coach over Hakeem's cast and Chaney every time. Great defensive system, role players that played their role, and better 3 point shooting with Hakeem as the focal point sounds a lot better than what was happening in Houston.

[Baller2014]

Bill Fitch was the coach of the Rockets too, the guy who coached the Bird Celtics for a while, and the exact same sorts of problems happened (Hakeem not seen as a particularly top player, Rockets not performing well relative how they should be given how Hakeem is being retrospectively rated, etc).

As for the 92 record, what's your point? You want to argue the 16-10 team in 91 was more accurately depicted as a 28-20 team if we include a bigger sample size? I'm good with that. A 28-20 team is still vastly better than what Duncan had in years like 2002 or 2003, and he had no problem taking those horrible support casts to contention.

[Purch]

When you guys talk about Duncan's longevity, you must also take into consideration that Duncan has played over two full 82 game seasons worth of playoff minutes.

He's played the most playoff minutes in Nba history at 8902

[Baller2014]

Yeh, I brought this up to explain why the "he couldn't play as many minutes as Hakeem" argument didn't add up. There's been no reply to it (of course).

[rowdystylz]

Bill Fitch was the coach of the Rockets too, the guy who coached the Bird Celtics for a while, and the exact same sorts of problems happened (Hakeem not seen as a particularly top player, Rockets not performing well relative how they should be given how Hakeem is being retrospectively rated, etc).

As for the 92 record, what's your point? You want to argue the 16-10 team in 91 was more accurately depicted as a 28-20 team if we include a bigger sample size? I'm good with that. A 28-20 team is still vastly better than what Duncan had in years like 2002 or 2003, and he had no problem taking those horrible support casts to contention.

Yeah the Rockets went to the Finals under Fitch in Hakeem's second year, After that Sampson was hurt and he was never the same again, and the team imploded under a drug scandal. The next 2 years Sampson only played 62 games and McCray/Floyd were his next best teammates.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6xJBnNIfiQ[/youtube]

This happened and you think Hakeem wasn't seen as a top player from there on out? He was, Hakeem's biggest problem was he didn't have a real second option for the majority of his career from the Sampson injury until Drexler arrived almost 10 years later while almost all the other stars in the league did. Sure Duncan had some lean years support wise, but he always had Pop and he still had Robinson/Parker/Ginobili for the majority of his prime in a weaker era while Hakeem had Chaney/McCray/Thorpe as his sidekicks for the majority of his. If you think Duncan could do better with Chaney and those casts we'll agree to disagree.

[ushvinder88]

Houston Rockets 1991-1992 with Olajuwon: 40-30 (.574)
without Olajuwon: 2-10 (.167)
Same cast.

Hakeem's casts were awful those years but the biggest problem was Chaney- Hakeem's low MVP voting and the Rockets record were direct results of his crappy system. There is no excuse for Vernon Maxwell taking 15.2 shots per game(90-92) with a .51TS% with Hakeem only taking about 17- anyone think Pop would allow that? When Chaney was fired and Rudy took over and ran the offense inside-out is when they started winning. Rudy's first full year in 92-93 Hakeem was taking 19.5 shots per game and Max was down to 12.2, and their record jumped from 42-40 to 55-27. Rookie Horry helped but the coaching change was by far the biggest difference.

Firstly, that is a complete dodge of the point you are quoting, which is about 1991, not 1992. Secondly, 40-30 is nothing special. Duncan took his bad support casts from 01-03 to far better than 40-30. And Duncan didn't have a 2nd best player close to 17-10-3 all-star big Otis Thorpe, or useful role player Mad Max (took too many shots, but was good at 3's when he was on, and a tough defender). There were other useful role players that year too.

The same core that went 16-10 with Hakeem out in 91 went 2-10 not even a year later- Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Buck Johnson, Otis Thorpe, Larry Smith and Sleepy Floyd with David Wood's 5/3 replaced by Bullard's 6/3 at the SF/PF spot. How is that a dodge when your point is that it was somehow not a garbage supporting cast if the exact same cast with the same coach went 2-10 the very next year? How did that happen?

As for the rest you are missing the point, and that point is Chaney was a garbage coach. They obviously had some solid role players in Otis, Kenny and Max (once his chucking was reigned in some), but overall they were not a good cast especially the way Chaney used them with Hakeem. I'd take Duncan's supporting cast from 01-03 with Pop as the coach over Hakeem's cast and Chaney every time. Great defensive system, role players that played their role, and better 3 point shooting with Hakeem as the focal point sounds a lot better than what was happening in Houston.

No not really, you havent explained how the rockets in 1991 still managed to have the same winning percentage despite hakeem missing 26 games, all your doing is making bickering excuses like the typical olajuwon mark. Tell us, why did that terrible supporting cast not miss a beat in 1991 with hakeem out of the lineup, talk about 1991, quit dodging the **** question by bringing up 1992.