Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[Baller2014]

Pop is famous for trolling the media like that. I wouldn't take his remarks in that context seriously. I saw that interview, he was being sarcastic.

As to the rest, I've discussed it with you in other threads. I'm not going to respond to such a vague, broad brush post. If you want to break down year by year what Duncan's support casts were like, and whether they met or exceeded expectations each year, I'm happy to do that (same for Hakeem), but broad generalisations like your post above aren't helpful. Some years his support was good, other times it was not (same for Hakeem). Duncan certainly met or exceeded expectations more than Hakeem did.

[Masigond]

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.

You're talking peak Olajuwon there, and regarding their peaks, you're right. But Olajuwon wasn't the much better free throw shooter for all of his career (career average .712 to Duncan's .694 - it's not that much of a difference), and as I already mentioned: Duncan's passing ability was quite constant for all of his career while Olajuwon wasn't good for more than the first half of his career. That makes it much closer when taking the whole careers into concern.

[Baller2014]

I already posted their per 40 pace adjusted stats across their primes (though 08 wasn't really Duncan's prime) and Hakeem's stat advantage is non-existent. When we look beyond raw stats Duncan was definitely more impactful.

I agree Hakeem's peak was probably better, but it was short, and distinct from the rest of his prime. Everywhere else I prefer Duncan; better prime overall, more longevity, better average impact, better man D (but sure, Hakeem was a better help defender), none of the chemistry issues Hakeem created early in his career either.

[Exodus]

Pop is famous for trolling the media like that. I wouldn't take his remarks in that context seriously. I saw that interview, he was being sarcastic.

As to the rest, I've discussed it with you in other threads. I'm not going to respond to such a vague, broad brush post. If you want to break down year by year what Duncan's support casts were like, and whether they met or exceeded expectations each year, I'm happy to do that (same for Hakeem), but broad generalisations like your post above aren't helpful. Some years his support was good, other times it was not (same for Hakeem). Duncan certainly met or exceeded expectations more than Hakeem did.

Well you say they exceed expectation. Don't you consider some players having higher ceiling than others? Look at my analogy once again, who do you think Pop can get the most out of a player , Tony Parker or Smush Parker as a hypothetical question. Pop can only get the most out of a player, the rest is on him. Parker is a top 5 point guard in the league in his prime. Ginobli is a top 5 small guard in his prime in the league. Bowen and Leonard are top defenders in the league in their primes. Robinson was still a solid big in 99 in a championship run. It really doesn't take a rocket science to figure out who has more of supporting along with all time great coach in pop.

[Baller2014]

It's a pointless question because it lacks a context. It you want to seriously look at a year by year comparison between the two, I'll be there. I'm not responding to ridiculous generalities like "Tony Parker is better than Smush".

[Exodus]

It's a pointless question because it lacks a context. It you want to seriously look at a year by year comparison between the two, I'll be there. I'm not responding to ridiculous generalities like "Tony Parker is better than Smush".

Well you inferred that what matters is a player playing to his potential disregarding the skill level of the individual player. to make your claim for Duncan and Hakeem not having a disparity in talent level for their respective teams. Usually great teams win championships along with great players that play to their potential win rings. Great organizations with great coaches with great players win multiple rings.

This is Hakeem's team in 1990



No. Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp College
50 Matt Bullard PF 6-10 215 June 5, 1967 R University of Iowa
44 Adrian Caldwell PF 6-8 265 July 4, 1966 1 Lamar University
5 Dave Feitl C 6-11 235 June 8, 1962 3 University of Texas at El Paso
21 Sleepy Floyd PG 6-3 170 March 6, 1960 8 Georgetown University
32 Dave Jamerson SG 6-5 190 August 13, 1967 R Ohio University
1 Buck Johnson SF 6-7 190 January 3, 1964 4 University of Alabama
11 Vernon Maxwell SG 6-4 180 September 12, 1965 2 University of Florida
34 Hakeem Olajuwon C 7-0 255 January 21, 1963 6 University of Houston
30 Kenny Smith PG 6-3 170 March 8, 1965 3 University of North Carolina
13 Larry Smith PF 6-8 215 January 18, 1958 10 Alcorn State University
33 Otis Thorpe PF 6-9 225 August 5, 1962 6 Providence College
20 Kennard Winchester SF 6-5 210 September 3, 1966 R Averett University
10 David Wood SF 6-9 227 November 30, 1964 1 University of Nevada, Reno
42 Mike Woodson SG 6-5 195 March 24, 1958 10 Indiana University



I wouldn't classify this as a great roster, compared to any of Duncan's teams

[Baller2014]

I'd say that roster is clearly better than Duncan's roster in 02, for instance. Otis Thorpe was a legit all-star PF, and some of the other guys on the team were solid players too. Maxwell was streaky but a tough player, kind of like a middle class mans Artest (takes too many shots, but his % is artificially lower because he takes so damn many of them, he's actually really good at shooting and played tough D). Guys like Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson were solid journeymen. Nothing special, but not bad either. Sleepy had actually made an all-star team only 3 years earlier, and was still only 29 years old. He wasn't a real all-star, he just got lucky, but he was no bum that's for sure.

Duncan didn't have anyone even close to an all-star in 2002. Duncan had legit bums on his team in 2002, guys who had no business starting in the NBA anymore (or ever). Guys like A.Daniels, Old Man Smith, Malik Rose, C.Smith, the bones of T.Porter and D.Ferry, etc. Do you even realise how many minutes these jokers were getting? Then in the playoffs D.Rob barely even played (and he was totally washed up by this point anyway, nothing more than a middle of the road big who lacked the stamina to play full games). Tony Parker was a rookie putting up 9ppg, nowhere near what he'd become in the future. Bruce Bowen is a defensive role player who, without a guy like Duncan/Shaq/Lebron to draw double teams, would ride the bench owing to his total lack of offensive ability. He'd be a complete liability without someone to constantly get him open corner 3's. And even Bowen missed 23 games that year (and had a horrid FG% during the season, worse than normal).

Then look at the result. Duncan's awful 2002 team won 58 games and was a legit contender, one of the top 3 teams in the NBA. Hakeem's notably better support cast won 41 games and got clubbed in the first round. It's not like the outcomes were close or anything.

[Joseph17]

Longevity vs peak and I'm taking peak the way I usually do. The only time I'll take longevity over peak is a case like Kobe vs T-Mac. T-Mac had the better peak imo, but his longevity wasn't even close to Kobe's. His lack of longevity in addition to playing for **** teams is what prevented him from having a successful career.

[Baller2014]

When 2 peaks are very close, and the rest of a guys prime is on a clearly lower level than his peak, while his opponent's prime is incredibly consistent, poses problems for just going with the higher peak. It poses even bigger problems when, in addition to having a more consistently good prime, said player has way more longevity too. I mean, Duncan was just the best player on a team who made the finals 2 years in a row. One year they were as close as you could get to winning a title without winning it, and he was an all-NBA first teamer, and this year he was more or less as good as last year, and the team blew away the competition to win a title in dominant fashion. What was Hakeem doing at age 37 and 38? Averaging 23-26 minutes and missing 30-40 games a season, while basically looking like a shadow of himself. Hakeem basically hadn't been healthy since age 34. His big longevity advantage only helps Duncan increase the gap.

[Shot Clock]

Lets see.

Hakeem plays on a team with a turnstile of coaches and styles. The ownership never makes moves to put talent around him.

Hakeem's 1986 team that made the Finals had 3 players (significant minutes guys) test positive for cocaine that year. Can you imagine, today, if a Finals team had 3 guys nailed for cocaine use and they lost 3 contributors within a 12 month period. Would they be looked at as a dysfunctional franchise? Would anyone expect them to be right back in contention? Hakeem only wished he was drafted by a stable franchise with solid character players and a strong coach. Today everyone would expect that player to be pushing for a trade and to be disgruntled. Heck Duncan came within a hair of leaving SAS.

Then you consider that Hakeem had to carry the load every year. He regularly put in 2800-3300 minutes per year until age 34. Compare that to Duncan who by age 26 was given the ability to play reduced minutes to save himself for the playoffs. Or Hakeem having to go against some really good centers on both ends of the floor while Duncan was always given a break on guarding the oppositions best big in a league with few true big men. I think anyone could put up better numbers if they changed circumstances.

[Joao Saraiva]

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.

I have a problem with adjusting per 40 minutes. If Duncan gives you 20 minutes of great basketball and doesn't play more he should be penalized against another guy who is really doing it for 40 minutes. The 40 minutes guy will help his team more.

I get the pace adjustment, but the per 40 minutes or per 36 is bull man. Even per 40 Hakeem's stats are better.

[Joseph17]

When 2 peaks are very close, and the rest of a guys prime is on a clearly lower level than his peak, while his opponent's prime is incredibly consistent, poses problems for just going with the higher peak. It poses even bigger problems when, in addition to having a more consistently good prime, said player has way more longevity too. I mean, Duncan was just the best player on a team who made the finals 2 years in a row. One year they were as close as you could get to winning a title without winning it, and he was an all-NBA first teamer, and this year he was more or less as good as last year, and the team blew away the competition to win a title in dominant fashion. What was Hakeem doing at age 37 and 38? Averaging 23-26 minutes and missing 30-40 games a season, while basically looking like a shadow of himself. Hakeem basically hadn't been healthy since age 34. His big longevity advantage only helps Duncan increase the gap.

Come on now you're just exaggerating. Kawhi Leonard is the best player on the Spurs. I know you're going to give me some advanced stat and say that Duncan's PER last year was higher than peak Tony Parker's PER so therefore he's the best player on the Spurs. Classic example of why stats like that are useless. I use the eyeball test and it was pretty clear to me that Leonard was San Antonio's best player this year. Who knows where Duncan would be right now if he didn't play in Pops system and he didn't have Pop managing his minutes. He might be in a situation similar to KG's situation right now for all I know. I'm not taking anything away from TD and I have a lot of respect for him as a player, but you have to think of his circumstances and compare them to players such as Hakeem's who was basically battling injuries since the age of 34. Hakeem was playing 41 minutes a game at age 31, whereas Duncan was only playing 34. Hakeem was also playing 37 minutes a game at age 34, whereas Duncan was only playing 28 minutes per game at age 34. It's the little things like that that add to a person's longevity which is why I usually go with peak over longevity. Wilt was another example of a player with a GOAT peak and poor longevity. The guy almost played over 45 minutes per game every season. There's a reason why his numbers dropped significantly when he entered his 30s.

[Shot Clock]

I already posted their per 40 pace adjusted stats across their primes (though 08 wasn't really Duncan's prime) and Hakeem's stat advantage is non-existent. When we look beyond raw stats Duncan was definitely more impactful.

PACE adjustment is just a totally unproven and garbage stat. There are a ton more factors that effect stats then PACE. In fact a slower pace is usually more beneficial to a center as they aren't constantly in transition. Hakeem's best seasons came at a lower PACE.

[Baller2014]

The minutes adjustment is 100% fair, because:
1) Duncan's playing less minutes in the regular season because his impact is helping blow teams out, that's hardly his fault, and
2) Duncan plays so many more playoff minutes, that the wear and tear should be greater than Hakeem experienced, not less. Duncan has the most playoff minutes ever at 8,902, to go with his 43K+ regular season minutes. So while Hakeem played more minutes during the prime of his career (his career total is 44K), the disparity in playoff minutes (Hakeem played 5749) puts to bed the idea that Duncan couldn't have physically played as many minutes as Hakeem. He just didn't need to (and part of that was thanks to how awesome his impact was).

And no, the per 40 adjusted numbers are about equal. Hakeem's are not better. And since that's Hakeem's supposedly big advantage over Duncan, it's a pretty huge nail in the coffin of the "Hakeem was better" argument.

Kawhi was arguably the best player in the 5 game series against the Heat, but the best player for the Spurs through the season and the playoffs was plainly Tim Duncan. That has nothing to do with PER, it's just freaking obvious.

[Baller2014]

I already posted their per 40 pace adjusted stats across their primes (though 08 wasn't really Duncan's prime) and Hakeem's stat advantage is non-existent. When we look beyond raw stats Duncan was definitely more impactful.

PACE adjustment is just a totally unproven and garbage stat. There are a ton more factors that effect stats then PACE. In fact a slower pace is usually more beneficial to a center as they aren't constantly in transition. Hakeem's best seasons came at a lower PACE.

That's completely ridiculous. Your arguing that players who have less possessions put up bigger stats. Absurd and illogical. The more possessions, the more shots, the more rebounds, the more points you can score, the more assists you can get. That's one reason why so many crazy stats were posted by Russell and Wilt, because they played in an era where the pace (not speed, pace) was much higher. There were more possessions per game, more shots, more rebounds, and the shot clock was used up way less frequently. That helped guys pad numbers.

We know why Hakeem's best seasons came later on, it had nothing to do with a counter-intuitive "well, if we give Hakeem less touches, he'll put up bigger stats" logic. It was because he started playing better. Jesus.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Come on now you're just exaggerating. Kawhi Leonard is the best player on the Spurs.

Seriously? If anything we can say that the Spurs had 4 players at a very similar levl with nobody standing out too clearly, but arguing Kawhi to be the best over the course of the season seems way too much.

[Shot Clock]

I already posted their per 40 pace adjusted stats across their primes (though 08 wasn't really Duncan's prime) and Hakeem's stat advantage is non-existent. When we look beyond raw stats Duncan was definitely more impactful.

PACE adjustment is just a totally unproven and garbage stat. There are a ton more factors that effect stats then PACE. In fact a slower pace is usually more beneficial to a center as they aren't constantly in transition. Hakeem's best seasons came at a lower PACE.

That's completely ridiculous. Your arguing that players who have less possessions put up bigger stats. Absurd and illogical. The more possessions, the more shots, the more rebounds, the more points you can score, the more assists you can get. That's one reason why so many crazy stats were posted by Russell and Wilt, because they played in an era where the pace (not speed, pace) was much higher. There were more possessions per game, more shots, more rebounds, and the shot clock was used up way less frequently. That helped guys pad numbers.

There's no doubt higher scoring games give more opportunities. That doesn't mean that your PACE adjustment is anywhere close to capturing the effect.

Lets look at a guy who played at different paces.

Magic
Actuals - 1984 - (PACE 103.7) 17.6p/7.3r/13.1a 38.3 MPG (throw them in the PACE adjustment per 40 minute supercomputer and we would expect the following at a 94.1 PACE)

16.7P/6.9r/12.4a

Aren't we lucky that later on the Lakers slowed their PACE down to 94.1
Magic's numbers

Actuals - 1991 (PACE 94.1) 19.4p/7r/12.5a 37.1 MPG

(throw them in the PACE adjustment per 40 minute supercomputer and we would expect the following at a 94.1 PACE) Which is a little easier because you are only adjusting for minutes.

20.9p/7.5r/13.5a compared to the earlier projection of 16.7P/6.9r/12.4a

So he's playing less minutes at a MUCH slower pace and putting up better stats.

We know why Hakeem's best seasons came later on, it had nothing to do with a counter-intuitive "well, if we give Hakeem less touches, he'll put up bigger stats" logic. It was because he started playing better. Jesus.

No. He didn't start "playing better" past age 30. That's such a myth. They slowed the game down and started going through him. He had better players around him and a better coach. And it's quite funny you want to add context in now to explain the numbers.

[Baller2014]

His stats all tell us he started playing better in 93, and his team's performance tells us the same. If your explanation is that "they started using him better" that's fine with me. The thing is, it's irrelevant, because guys in the all-time rankings get judged for the careers they actually had, not the ones they might have had if events had unfolded differently. If that was how we ranked players, Len Bias would be in the top 100 players of all-time, as would a number of other players. "What is Shaq had learnt to shoot FTs?", "What if Gerald Green has figured out how to play earlier?" "What if Grant Hill's surgery wasn't botched?" "What if Bill Walton never got hurt?" "What if T-Mac had played with more heart more consistently?"

Pace adjustment is the most reasonable tool we have available to assess the distortion. Your alternative of "ignore it" is not a sensible one. Your example of why it doesn't work is not really very good either, because there are lots of other variables. Who says Magic played at the same level each of those years? Most people think Magic in 91 was much better. He also had less help and a totally different support cast. Comparing his numbers and expecting an exact equivalence 7 years apart (when he was in totally different situations) isn't very reasonable.

[Shot Clock]

His stats all tell us he started playing better in 93, and his team's performance tells us the same. If your explanation is that "they started using him better" that's fine with me. The thing is, it's irrelevant, because guys in the all-time rankings get judged for the careers they actually had,

Right, so lets stop pretending Timmy could play 40 minutes a game at the same production. He was intentionally saved for the playoffs.

Pace adjustment is the most reasonable tool we have available to assess the distortion. Your alternative of "ignore it" is not a sensible one. Your example of why it doesn't work is not really very good either, because there are lots of other variables. Who says Magic played at the same level each of those years? Most people think Magic in 91 was much better. He also had less help and a totally different support cast. Comparing his numbers and expecting an exact equivalence 7 years apart (when he was in totally different situations) isn't very reasonable.

But comparing Hakeems to Duncans over various era's is... Gold

And PACE is still crap. It's one factor but certainly not the only factor nor the biggest influence. You really think Duncan's numbers go up playing a run and gun style? You already point out some other factors that influence stats.

Here's an old thread on it
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1114378

[Baller2014]

Your response is bizarre.

Duncan actually played more minutes than Hakeem, as I pointed out. He played way more playoff minutes, which put him well ahead of Hakeem. So the argument that Duncan's body couldn't have handled playing the same minutes Hakeem did is plainly false... because he played more minutes.

You've only proven why your earlier attempt to discredit pace adjustment was misguided. Your belief we should ignore pace completely is just bizarre, as though the context of how a player got his raw volume stats is irrelevant. The point of pace adjusting the stats wasn't to say "well, Duncan is better because he has better raw stats!", looking at volume stats to determine impact is silly anyway. The point is that Hakeem's raw volume stat advantage is deceptive, and probably non-existent, because when you factor in pace and minutes it vanishes. Obviously you can't truly adjust for guys playing in different eras and different situations, nobody can, but that's the reason you shouldn't be using volume stats as an argument in the first place.