Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

90sAllDecade · Post #321 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:33 am

Okay, there has been a lot of spin saying Duncan was better based on what "actually happened" so we can judge them individually in the regular season & playoffs.

I'll do a team & competition analysis for team based accolades (championships, MVPs etc,) measurements as well later if suggested.

Career Numbers Regular Season: Hakeem vs Duncan:

Hakeem

Spoiler:

Duncan

Spoiler:

So, despite the fact that Duncan hasn't played until the age of 39 yet, Hakeem still has better numbers for his career even in the regular season.

Hakeem is a better individual offensive player as a scorer, has better TS%, is a better stealer, shot blocker not to mention just an overall better defensive player. Duncan will also likely get worse statistically as he ages to 39 and over, bringing these numbers down.

I consider Duncan a better rebounder (his 0.5 passing advantage is enhanced by teammates and Pops system imo), but if you want to be literal on "what actually happened" then they are dead even rebounders and assists are a wash (but I look at advanced percentage and teams support as well)

Well, how about what actually happened individually in the playoffs?

Playoff Career Stats: Hakeem vs Duncan:

Hakeem

Spoiler:

Duncan

Spoiler:

Well, based on actual numbers for their entire playoff careers Hakeem is still a better offensive player as a scorer, better TS%, stealer, shot blocker and better all around defensive player as well. Rebound and assists are a wash and this doesn't include team support, competition and that Hakeem is a better athlete than Duncan.

So not only does Hakeem have a better peak and is a better athlete; he has a better prime, and also is a better regular season & playoff performer individually over their entire careers.

Sources:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

ShaqAttack3234 · Post #322 » by **ShaqAttack3234** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:06 am

baki wrote:Why are we watching this? It's a Suns team and Penny did a great job keeping the suns in the game but they were severely undersized.

To show Shaq's skill level on that sequence, which came vs a player similar size to him with a great help defender Jason Kidd also a factor.

Baller2014 wrote:You have yet to produce one iota of proof that Shaq's (run of the mill) injuries in the Spurs series affected him more than they did in the other series those years. Not one iota. You assert his injuries did, but you have provided zero proof. The one article someone linked to earlier in this thread cited the Kings series, not the Spurs one. You were not the Lakers team doctor, you don't know squat about which games Shaq was feeling more sore in.

How the hell can I prove this? You prove it didn't. The fact is, I've supported my case more than well enough by citing the numerous injuries. I tried pulling out a bookmarked SI article I had, but the morons at that site now forward links to all old articles to the NBA home page, which they appear to have only done in the last few days since the draft.

The fact is, there are numerous injuries documented for Shaq at the time, and this happened to coincide with the worst offensive series of Shaq's prime. Just knowing that, a reasonable, unbiased person would at least come away thinking, "you know what, maybe Shaq's play was largely a result of injuries." However, when you see the series, and see how Shaq was missing shots and his limited finishing ability, it erases any doubt in my mind that injuries played a significant factor.

I've not only cited the series, but explained how they affected his game. My arguments haven't lacked explanations.

As for "proof", would you consider me linking examples from the series of Shaq's limited finishing and his shot looking more off than usual? If not, then it's obvious you're too biased to have an open mind. If so, then great, I'm looking forward to getting an opportunity to do that.

Oh yeah, and the reason I mention midway through the Kings series is because articles mentioned that.

It's funny to me that you deny that injuries played a significant role in Shaq's play. It's also extremely frustrating, but as biased as I thought you were based on your evaluations of the 2001-2003 Spurs, I'd now call you the most biased fanboy on the site.

baki wrote:You know, whatever, somebody else has already concluded this already:

Yes, I have repeatedly, but trolls have still felt the need to repeatedly spew nonsense.

I didn't watch the series

Why does that not surprise me?

Even Yao Ming was a better ball player.

Whatever small amount of credibility you had, if you had any, is now gone.

Baller2014 · Post #323 » by **Baller2014** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:24 am

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:How the hell can I prove this? You prove it didn't.

You have the burden of proof backwards here. You're the one who said "we can't take Shaq's play at face value because of injuries". If you want to make that claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence for it. Asking me to prove a negative is absurd, much like me getting up in court and saying to you "prove to me you did not murder your wife". This has been explained so many times, it's tiresome to think I'm still having to call you on it. We all know Shaq had niggling injuries all the time after 00, we talked about this. What we said was "we have no evidence those injuries effected him anymore in the Spurs series than the rest of the playoffs those years, and thus we should take his play at face value". You're the one insisting Shaq was extra hurt in the Spurs series, and you have not provided one single drop of proof to back that claim up. So either you can put up or shut up.

Shot Clock · Post #324 » by **Shot Clock** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:44 pm

Baller2014 wrote:
ShaqAttack3234 wrote:How the hell can I prove this? You prove it didn't.

We all know Shaq had niggling injuries all the time after 00, we talked about this. What we said was "we have no evidence those injuries effected him anymore in the Spurs series than the rest of the playoffs those years, and thus we should take his play at face value". You're the one insisting Shaq was extra hurt in the Spurs series, and you have not provided one single drop of proof to back that claim up. So either you can put up or shut up.

So forget the "niggling injuries"

He cut his finger on his shooting had before game 1

He cut his wrist on his shooting hand in Game 1

He sprained his ankle in Game 2

Those are all new injuries he suffered early in THAT SERIES. This has been addressed many times. It was a common discussion point during that series. As for SAC, who knows when his finger and ankle felt better? Injuries heal. Time off helps a lot.

"He was numb -- try to shoot with a numb hand. That's tough," Walker said. "He's beat up right now, he's playing hurt, he's playing sore. He's hurting, there's no doubt about it."

"He seems upset that we split; we all are," Bryant said. "He had to get a couple stitches in his finger, it looks terrible."

"(Tim) Duncan took the ball right out of his hands a couple times in the game," Jackson said. "You could see that it bothers him. He doesn't have the hand strength he normally has."

O'Neal, who only had 10 points at the break and appeared to be bothered by the left ankle sprain he suffered in Game Two,

Even if we ignore all that it doesn't change the fact that Duncan WASN'T the primary defender on Shaq that series, SAS had multiple guys take turns. So even if he had no injuries the credit doesn't go solely to Duncan.

ShaqAttack3234 · Post #325 » by **ShaqAttack3234** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:37 pm

Baller2014 wrote:You have the burden of proof backwards here. You're the one who said "we can't take Shaq's play at face value because of injuries". If you want to make that claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence for it. Asking me to prove a negative is absurd, much like me getting up in court and saying to you "prove to me you did not murder your wife". This has been explained so many times, it's tiresome to think I'm still having to call you on it. We all know Shaq had niggling injuries all the time after 00, we talked about this. What we said was "we have no evidence those injuries effected him anymore in the Spurs series than the rest of the playoffs those years, and thus we should take his play at face value". You're the one insisting Shaq was extra hurt in the Spurs series, and you have not provided one single drop of proof to back that claim up. So either you can put up or shut up.

You don't have to call me on it and shouldn't because I'm right. You're the one ignoring a handful of documented injuries, and you haven't countered my points about Shaq's finish around the rim both the lack of explosiveness off his feet and the hesitance because of the stitches as well as this appearing to affect his accuracy on those turnarounds, which were a big part of his offensive game during the 3peat. Are you denying these observations? Would you consider it "proof" if I go through the series and point out plays where these things affected him and the commentators also noted it?

Yeah, I know you're acknowledging Shaq had the injuries, I mean you can't deny that with the sources backing that up, but the problem is, you're not even considering the possibility that Shaq was affected by this. You're assuming they didn't and that the Spurs shut down prime Shaq, without a potentially(and probable) huge factor involved in this.

As for the injuries being more relevant to the Spurs series than the other series, I have a good answer for that. We have two facts with one being that 2 major injuries didn't occur until the Spurs series. One was Shaq cutting his hand on the rim in the 3rd quarter of game 1, iirc, and then Shaq also sprained his ankles during the series. You can see both occur during the series. As for why he played better in subsequent series, well again, these injuries heal, and it was unlikely they'd heal during the Spurs series since they occurred in the series, but with time, particularly time off between series, they were probably much better by the Kings series. This may have been what the article was referring to when it spoke about Shaq feeling better midway through the Kings series. I believe commentators also noted how much better Shaq looked late in the playoffs, but I'll have to check that.

That's a pretty strong case since the ankles and hand occurred DURING the Spurs series, so wouldn't it be logical to assume those injuries affected him more when he first had them as opposed to when he had time to heal? The toe did affect him throughout the season and playoffs, which is why he had to have surgery after the season on it, but he may have been able to play through the toe, but you add in 4 other injuries and it's a different story. Plus, Shaq looked slimmer to me later in the playoffs after he reportedly weighed 382 entering the playoffs, and the Blazer and Spurs series were just about the heaviest I've seen him, while I'd guess late in the Sacramento series and finals he was more 360-365 range. I can't prove that either, but I could try to post clips and pictures from each series and let people judge for themselves.

Even if I can't prove they were a big factor in Shaq's offensive struggles(after all, how many things can you actually prove in basketball) it's foolish for you to assume they didn't and then mention Shaq's numbers that series without even including the simple fact that he was dealing with 5 injuries, with the hand and ankles occurring during the series. I believe Phil even said Shaq wouldn't have been playing if it were the regular season. Unfortunately, because of SI's stupid change eliminating access to the archive articles, I can't view them to double check that.

But most importantly, if I post convincing plays where Shaq is uncharacteristically blowing easy finishes and his release looks unusually off on his turnaround, would you consider that proof?

I do this for Duncan's 2005 playoff run as well when he shot an uncharacteristic 46% and then just 42% and 47 TS% in the finals vs Detroit. Like the 2002 Spurs, Detroit was an excellent team with great defensive big men in Sheed and Big Ben, so I do think that contributed as well, but I believe the injury was a factor on top of that, and so do many people. This is despite the fact that Duncan had averaged 27/14/3 on 53 FG% and 59 TS% in the WCF vs Phoenix, and the badly sprained ankle had occurred long before that towards the end of the regular season, but it appeared to linger. Then there's the 2006 season when he had plantar fasciitis and like many people, I thought he looked limited and that his noticeably down year statistically was a result of that, despite the fact that he went on to play pretty much as well as he ever has in the playoffs including what he called the best series of his career vs Dallas when he averaged 32/12/4/3 on 56 FG% and 62 TS%, which was not only the highest scoring series of his career as he never had another 30 ppg series before that, but also on an unusually high efficiency for him at any volume with his stats up across the board compared to the regular season. Simply put, Duncan seemed to be healthy again and back in prime form.

As for non-Shaq and Duncan examples, there's Pippen in 1996. Up until mid-February, Pippen was clearly playing the best ball of his career, but then really struggled with his shooting the rest of the season and playoffs as few had any doubts the injuries were the primary reason, and I always keep this in mind. Then there's Wade's poor game 7 in the 2005 ECF after he had been playing like arguably the best player in the playoffs until his injury in game 5 of that series. And Bird has had several series like this, the one that comes to mind is the '85 finals, but I believe there were 2-3 earlier in his career.

Again, I don't excuse Shaq for his play in '97 and '99 because he had no excuse. I don't think the Lakers were the better team in any case, but regardless, when a player plays well below their usual level and they lose, I always view it as a negative. Especially since Shaq was only a year away from his prime in '97 and in his prime in '99.

ShaqAttack3234 · Post #326 » by **ShaqAttack3234** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:39 pm

Shot Clock wrote:So forget the "niggling injuries"

He cut his finger on his shooting had before game 1

He cut his wrist on his shooting hand in Game 1

He sprained his ankle in Game 2

Those are all new injuries he suffered early in THAT SERIES. This has been addressed many times. It was a common discussion point during that series. As for SAC, who knows when his finger and ankle felt better? Injuries heal. Time off helps a lot.

"He was numb -- try to shoot with a numb hand. That's tough," Walker said. "He's beat up right now, he's playing hurt, he's playing sore. He's hurting, there's no doubt about it."

"He seems upset that we split; we all are," Bryant said. "He had to get a couple stitches in his finger, it looks terrible."

"(Tim) Duncan took the ball right out of his hands a couple times in the game," Jackson said. "You could see that it bothers him. He doesn't have the hand strength he normally has."

O'Neal, who only had 10 points at the break and appeared to be bothered by the left ankle sprain he suffered in Game Two,

Even if we ignore all that it doesn't change the fact that Duncan WASN'T the primary defender on Shaq that series, SAS had multiple guys take turns. So even if he had no injuries the credit doesn't go solely to Duncan.

Fantastic post once again. Great job showing what really happened and giving some facts on the series. I've seen it 3 times. Once when it happened, once again about 4 years ago and again within the last year so I'm very familiar with it myself.

Baller2014 · Post #327 » by **Baller2014** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:46 pm

There is nothing to suggest that the injuries were especially bad in the Spurs series, that is pure assertion on your part. He was said to have the same issues in the SacTown series and the playoffs/season generally, and he had no problem in any of those series. Indeed, the article you got those quotes from (which you didn't link to, I suspect for this very reason) makes that point repeatedly:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=au

"From what I can tell, he hasn't been himself," forward Rick Fox said. "But that's something we've dealt with all year. We came to grips with that a long time ago."

"He has a lot going on," guard Derek Fisher said. "When you're struggling physically, it affects you mentally. We've understood all year long we haven't been dealing with the A-list, No. 1 Shaquille O'Neal. We know everything's bothering him, we definitely understand that."

Jackson also criticises Shaq's lack of effort (a frequent criticism in Shaq's career).

We heard the same stuff in the Kings series, in the very article linked earlier in this thread. "Yeh, Shaq's ailing man" his team said after splitting the first two games v.s the Kings. "Ailing Shaq" had averaged 30.5ppg and 10.5rpg on awesome efficiency over the first two games.

baki · Post #328 » by **baki** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:48 pm

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:
baki wrote:You know, whatever, somebody else has already concluded this already:

Yes, I have repeatedly, but trolls have still felt the need to repe

Stop just stop, if you're not going to discuss Tim or Hakeem then go start another thread. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why Yao is a flat out better shooter and better talent than Shaq, simple as that.

baki · Post #329 » by **baki** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:55 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:So not only does Hakeem have a better peak and is a better athlete; he has a better prime, and also is a better regular season & playoff performer individually over their entire careers.

Sources:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Ah, I think we've covered this as I posted from these information several pages ago. We all agree that Duncan had a better 18 year career with better results. You're the one still trying to dig for excuses that Duncan had a better team for his whole life.

The Infamous1 · Post #330 » by **The Infamous1** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:21 pm

Hakeem does benefit a lot from revisionist history though. There was none of this "top 5 player all time", "GOAT center" talk when he was actually in his Prime. This is something that started 15, 20 years later after the fact.

ShaqAttack3234 · Post #331 » by **ShaqAttack3234** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:19 pm

baki wrote:Stop just stop, if you're not going to discuss Tim or Hakeem then go start another thread. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why Yao is a flat out better shooter and better talent than Shaq, simple as that.

I was hoping you'd just go away. I did start discussing on topic. It's not my fault I had to correct ridiculous posters like yourself. And please spare us some nonsense about Yao being better than Shaq, you'll get laughed off the board.

microfib4thewin · Post #332 » by **microfib4thewin** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:20 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:...

I haven't gone over the numbers, but from what I do recall, it would seem that Hakeem should have a statistical advantage on raw numbers because:

1. The game was played at a higher pace from the mid 80s to the early 90s.

2. Centers were given more freedom in the post because any soft zone could be called for illegal defense. I know that they don't call it all the time but they call it often enough that it would discourage teams from sending help to the post on every possession.

3. In addition, having defensive 3s makes it much more difficult to protect the paint.

4. For the second half of Duncan's career he played with revised handchecking which gives unprecedented advantage for perimeter players. This affects centers on both ends of the floor because they can't be as physical to defenders and they can't play physical defense, especially since they will mostly be dealing with smaller guys trying to get to the rack as opposed to big post up players after the handcheck change.

5. Despite playing in a more physical era Hakeem averaged one more foul per game than Duncan. Even if we account for the higher pace in Hakeem's era Hakeem is still one foul ahead(4.9 to 3.7 per 100 poss). For reference, Shaq averaged 4.6 PF per 100 poss in his career before 2005, and in 2005 he got 5.6 followed by 6.7 in 2006. There is no way Hakeem could play the way he did if he had to play in the 00s decade.

6. For the playoffs Hakeem played 3000 less minutes than Duncan. That's nearly the difference of 3 Finals runs or 5 runs to the CF.

7. Historically the Spurs have been a great defensive team outside of 2011 and 2012. The Rockets had some excellent years in defense but were mostly mediocre during Hakeem's times. A team that can put in more stops on defense will generally have a harder time scoring at the other end.

I still think Hakeem and Duncan is even despite seeing a stronger argument for Duncan here.

LarsV8 · Post #333 » by **LarsV8** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:10 pm

Soooooo gooood

andrewww · Post #334 » by **andrewww** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:51 pm

ReaLiez wrote:Hakeem is the better NBA player but Duncan has had the better career.

I pick Hakeem

I agree.

Hakeem had the better stats, and by in large is regarded as BOTH the better offensive AND defensive player.

However, Duncan's got more of the team accolades.

Let's remember that Hakeem was in competition with Shaq/Robinson/Ewing/Mourning/Kareem/Moses in the greatest center era of all time. He's totalled 12 all-nba selections including 6 1st team nods (more than any of his contemporaries when he was an active player). 2 DPOY's vs Duncan's 0 (although Duncan is an underrated beast defensively as we saw in the 2014 Finals even at his advanced age stopping Lebron and Wade on drives).

Given how Hakeem holds his own in accomplishments too, I personally see very little logic for ranking Duncan over Hakeem as the greater player since it's not like Hakeem never won anything (remember that Jordan's Bulls as great as they were, really were on their last legs in 1993 and 1998 when it's clear the role players were in decline around the centerpieces).

90sAllDecade · Post #335 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:47 pm

See now, this is what I'm talking about. Real points with (some) objective arguments. None of that "Your facts are wrong because of my opinion" stuff, lol. Okay, let's go.

microfib4thewin wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:...

I haven't gone over the numbers, but from what I do recall, it would seem that Hakeem should have a statistical advantage on raw numbers because:

1. The game was played at a higher pace from the mid 80s to the early 90s.

I find some value in Per100 stats but with context as it can be flawed as well. My argument was for the literal "What actually happened" people.

For your point, if you look at per100 RS stats, although Duncan is a better rebounder and passer (which I attest to Pop's system and prime/peak HOF teammates enhancing his numbers) Hakeem is still a better scorer from his rookie year until age 37 (Duncan's age this season) and a better shot-blocker, stealer and all around defensive player. His TS% percentage is better regardless of pace and translates.

Anyway you slice it, Hakeem is a better offensive scorer, defensive player and athlete than Duncan even in the regular season.

In the playoffs Hakeem beats him pretty well, where his peak blows Duncan out and he performs better against HOF peers at his natural position. (Using Karl Malone a natural PF against post prime Hakeem at 34+ is a reach imo.)

2. Centers were given more freedom in the post because any soft zone could be called for illegal defense. I know that they don't call it all the time but they call it often enough that it would discourage teams from sending help to the post on every possession.

Al Jefferson and Demarcus Cousins are both centers who averaged 22-23 ppg with these rules in place. Hakeem is more skilled and a better offensive player than both. He would still dominate imo.

In comparison to Olajuwon Duncan is a worse athlete, less skilled, less efficient and is behind on the curve with those rules for centers regardless imo.

3. In addition, having defensive 3s makes it much more difficult to protect the paint.

Rules or not, Olajuwon would be at the top of the curve over Duncan defensively. He's simply a better talent, has more skill and is more athletic defensively.

4. For the second half of Duncan's career he played with revised handchecking which gives unprecedented advantage for perimeter players. This affects centers on both ends of the floor because they can't be as physical to defenders and they can't play physical defense, especially since they will mostly be dealing with smaller guys trying to get to the rack as opposed to big post up players after the handcheck change.

Olajuwon is a better athlete than Noah with the same or better motor, a better volume shot-blocker than Larry Sanders and a better perimeter defender than Dwight. He's a better stealer than any big all time.

Who is better to guard these smaller players, Hakeem or Duncan?

His skill & athletic ability offensively and defensively translates over past or future eras as well as any big or player in NBA history.

5. Despite playing in a more physical era Hakeem averaged one more foul per game than Duncan. Even if we account for the higher pace in Hakeem's era Hakeem is still one foul ahead(4.9 to 3.7 per 100 poss). For reference, Shaq averaged 4.6 PF per 100 poss in his career before 2005, and in 2005 he got 5.6 followed by 6.7 in 2006. There is no way Hakeem could play the way he did if he had to play in the 00s decade.

This is a flawed comparison imo. Shaq is a completely different player defensively, who carried about 90 more lbs and was injury prone in his career, affecting his fouls rates in later years.

I could point to Marcus Camby who also averaged a career 4.9 fouls per100, and won DPOY in 06'-07 with the same rules. He actually averaged 5.2 - 7.7 fouls per100 before the handcheck rules reduced them to a lower average.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cambyma01.html

6. For the playoffs Hakeem played 3000 less minutes than Duncan. That's nearly the difference of 3 Finals runs or 5 runs to the CF.

These numbers are averages and Duncan played the majority of his playoff games before 30, which would increase his per game average due to playing more in his athletic window. Hakeem played the majority of his playoff games after thirty.

Duncan's Playoff Games:

age 21-30: 138 or 59%
age 30-37: 96 or 41%

Hakeem's Playoff Games:

age 22-30: 62 or 43%
age 30-39: 83 or 57%

If Hakeem had the supporting casts & coaching Duncan had, his playoff games would increase in his athletic window (see what he did in 87'-88' to see what I mean) and he'd have an even bigger statistical average advantage over Duncan and others imo.

7. Historically the Spurs have been a great defensive team outside of 2011 and 2012. The Rockets had some excellent years in defense but were mostly mediocre during Hakeem's times. A team that can put in more stops on defense will generally have a harder time scoring at the other end.

I still think Hakeem and Duncan is even despite seeing a stronger argument for Duncan here.

Hakeem lacked the defensive, all star, prime/peak HOF and GOAT level coaching Duncan had to increase his team defense (a team based measurement for an individual player). He did what a dominant defender does, he took a bad defensive supporting cast from terrible to decent or good defensively.

Here is a team analysis of the two, which addresses team defense, passing and team based accolades:

Spoiler:

baki · Post #336 » by **baki** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:35 pm

baki wrote:Olajuwon (Sampson, McCray, Lloyd all scored over 1000 points) had a better supporting first year cast than Duncan (only injured Robinson scored over 1000 points), Duncan was ready to play, Olajuwon needed another season.

Duncan topped scored as a rookie, Olajuwon didn't.

Olajuwon had more healthy 1st rounders and quality players (Thorpe, Smith, Maxwell, Horry, Elie) around him than Duncan did in their championship years. Olajuwon needed people around him to make him better because he was selfish and he was not a passer.

Olajuwon played at least 3 seasons with the same group of people until they won their first championship, Duncan only needed 2 seasons with different lineups to win his.

During Olajuwon's peak, Houston lost more games in the second championship year and his numbers started to declined rapidly afterwards even at 32, Duncan had 4 more championships to go over 3 decades and is still going at 38. Olajuwon couldn't maintain his peak while Duncan did. Who would you rather have over 18 years?

Olajuwon's Houston in their prime didn't have to play against a strong team like the Chicago Bulls or even Seattle. When Jordan really came back, Chicago swept Houston in 95-96 with a slow center like Longley on Olajuwon. Houston never won a championship again, not even with Drexler, Barkley or Pippen on the team. Duncan faced championship teams LA, Dallas, Miami/Cleveland several times and won.

The truth is, we don't even need to speculate WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN over the course of 18 years because it has already been played out. Olajuwon would have wanted a team that made him look better because he was more selfish, while Duncan just needed any team to play on. It's that simple.

Your fantasy is thinking that Olajuwon could play like he did in those 2 special years over 18 seasons, it never happened and never was going to happen. And that's why the all time top ten with Olajuwon is wrong, and that's why starting a franchise with Olajuwon was never going to beat Duncan's.

Ah... just in case you missed it

And I'll leave some numbers that only matters,

5 > 2 :lol:

baki · Post #337 » by **baki** » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:38 pm

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:
baki wrote:Stop just stop, if you're not going to discuss Tim or Hakeem then go start another thread. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why Yao is a flat out better shooter and better talent than Shaq, simple as that.

I was hoping you'd just go away. I did start discussing on topic. It's not my fault I had to correct ridiculous posters like yourself. And please spare us some nonsense about Yao being better than Shaq, you'll get laughed off the board.

Good now leave and create another thread, this Shaq talk is getting in the way of this thread and is a different case. I let someone else more familiar with those games make the clarification so that I don't have to.

microfib4thewin · Post #338 » by **microfib4thewin** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:26 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:I find some value in Per100 stats but with context as it can be flawed as well. My argument was for the literal "What actually happened" people.

For your point, if you look at per100 RS stats, although Duncan is a better rebounder and passer (which I attest to Pop's system and prime/peak HOF teammates enhancing his numbers) Hakeem is still a better scorer from his rookie year until age 37 (Duncan's age this season) and a better shot-blocker, stealer and all around defensive player. His TS% percentage is better regardless of pace and translates.

For one thing, I don't see this GOAT tier coaching and management when they had a 20 win season. If they intentionally tanked for a possible chance to get Duncan then they're not a model franchise, unless you think the Cavs is one. Second, if you say Duncan's defensive numbers are helped by having a good team I can also say Hakeem's offensive numbers are helped by him playing on a bad team. Neither stealing or blocking numbers are important because a player that averaged 36 minutes a game has to play defense for 70+ possessions and blocks/steals account for less than 1% of those possessions.

90sAllDecade wrote:Anyway you slice it, Hakeem is a better offensive scorer, defensive player and athlete than Duncan even in the regular season.

Hakeem age 22 - 29 season(before 1993)

22.9 PPG 12.5 RPG 2.2 APG 3.5 BPG 51.3% FG 55.3% TS 18.4% TRB

Duncan age 21 - 28 season

22.5 PPG 12.2 RPG 3.1 APG 2.5 BPG 50.7% FG 55.4% TS 18.2% TRB

They were essentially the same players number wise until Hakeem hit his peak from 93-96.

90sAllDecade wrote:Al Jefferson and Demarcus Cousins are both centers who averaged 22-23 ppg with these rules in place. Hakeem is more skilled and a better offensive player than both. He would still dominate imo.

Big Al and Cousins play no defense and the teams they are on doesn't play much defense either. It's easy to score 20-25 when one doesn't need to exert effort on defense and their team consistently gives up points at the other end of the floor.

Al Jefferson's teams:

Not counting his Boston years since he wasn't a 20 PPG scorer then
2008 Wolves: +3.7 Drtg to league average
2009 Wolves: +3.1
2010 Wolves: +4.0
2011 Jazz: +2.8
2012 Jazz: +1.5
2013 Jazz: +0.9
2014: Hornets: -2.9

Cousins' teams:

2012 Kings: +5.2
2013 Kings: +5.5
2014 Kings: +2.1

The only decent defensive team that Big Al was on is last year's Hornets. 2013 Jazz is pretty close to league average whereas the rest can't put a stop whatsoever. Cousins has been on terrible defensive teams for his entire career.

90sAllDecade wrote:Olajuwon is a better athlete than Noah with the same or better motor, a better volume shot-blocker than Larry Sanders and a better perimeter defender than Dwight. He's a better stealer than any big all time.

Hakeem was also able to look better because he doesn't need to play with the restrictions that current bigs have to abide to. There is no way to predict where Hakeem will be at defensively. Also, an uber skilled defender would not foul as much as Hakeem did.

90sAllDecade wrote:I could point to Marcus Camby who also averaged a career 4.9 fouls per100, and won DPOY in 06'-07 with the same rules. He actually averaged 5.2 - 7.7 fouls per100 before the handcheck rules reduced them to a lower average.

Camby is built like a twig. He hates to body up in the post and he settles for long jumpers. It's not surprising for a player like him to foul less once the game becomes less physical.

90sAllDecade wrote:These numbers are averages and Duncan played the majority of his playoff games before 30, which would increase his per game average due to playing more in his athletic window. Hakeem played the majority of his playoff games after thirty.

Duncan's Playoff Games:

age 21-30: 138 or 59%
age 30-37: 96 or 41%

Hakeem's Playoff Games:

age 22-30: 62 or 43%
age 30-39: 83 or 57%

If Hakeem had the supporting casts & coaching Duncan had, his playoff games would increase in his athletic window (see what he did in 87'-88' to see what I mean) and he'd have an even bigger statistical average advantage over Duncan and others imo.

If Hakeem played more minutes during his youth then we will also have to consider the possibility that Hakeem would not play as well when he got older, and with him playing worse past age 30 he may not have the same deep playoff runs that he enjoyed from age 30 - 34('93 - '97). We might never see a fabled run as great as his '94 and '95 postseason.

90sAllDecade wrote:Hakeem lacked the defensive, all star, prime/peak HOF and GOAT level coaching Duncan had to increase his team defense (a team based measurement for an individual player). He did what a dominant defender does, he took a bad defensive supporting cast from terrible to decent or good defensively.

My point is not "Duncan is a better defender because he's on a better defensive team". My point is it's harder for Duncan to put up numbers because he is on better defensive teams than Hakeem is. It's natural that a player would have a tougher time putting up numbers when the team only allows 90 points a game as opposed to a team that allows more than 100.

ShaqAttack3234 · Post #339 » by **ShaqAttack3234** » Tue Jul 1, 2014 12:46 am

microfib4thewin wrote:1. The game was played at a higher pace from the mid 80s to the early 90s.

That may have been a factor in the 80's, particularly the twin towers era from '85-'87 when Dream was more raw and the pace difference was dramatic, but while the pace was still significantly higher in 1990, I doubt Dream benefited too much. Dream became a much more effective offensive player from '93-'96 and his impact on a team's offense pre-'93 is actually a bit questionable as far as a 1st tier 1st option, but Dream's offensive skills were very close to his prime '93-'96 form by '90. I think the problem is Houston was looking to run too much, running a poor offense under Don Chaney allowing the perimeter players to chuck bad shots while Dream was underutilized. So I don't think pace really aided him too much, at elast in the early 90's. In fact, when Hakeem was out with an injury in '91, Houston looked to play more up-tempo, and actually went away from the offense relying on Hakeem as the first option since in the up-tempo system, he only averaged about 18 ppg in the 27 games after he returned.

As for '93-'95, the pace wasn't fast enough to be worth mentioning, especially for a post player, and this was even more true in '96. Hakeem was obviously mobile, but mostly a half court player and Houston's half court offense really revolved around him in the post, so a slightly more up-tempo game wasn't really going to benefit him much at that time.

2. Centers were given more freedom in the post because any soft zone could be called for illegal defense. I know that they don't call it all the time but they call it often enough that it would discourage teams from sending help to the post on every possession.

To some extent, but I don't think it made a real difference vs the truly dominant centers. I saw pre-'02 teams who had the right personnel and commitment to send hard doubles on the catch come up with defenses as tough as any defense I've seen from a post '02 team.

What Dream probably benefited from was the offensive explosion the shortened line in 1995 when his team gave him so much shooting during the playoffs, but I'll go back and focus on how differently he was defended comparabed to '94, if at all.

3. In addition, having defensive 3s makes it much more difficult to protect the paint.

Sort of, though funny enough, Duncan's shot blocking actually went up after 2002.

1998- 2.5 bpg, 4.5 BLK%
1999- 2.5 bpg, 4.4 BLK%
2000- 2.2 bpg, 4.0 BLK%
2001- 2.3 bpg, 4.2 BLK%

2002- 2.5 bpg, 4.3 BLK%
2003- 2.9 bpg, 5.2 BLK%
2004- 2.7 bpg, 5.3 BLK%
2005- 2.6 bpg, 5.7 BLK%
2006- 2.0 bpg, 4.2 BLK%
2007- 2.4 bpg, 5.1 BLK%

Then Duncan's shot blocking dropped off to 1.8 bpg, 4.3 BLK% in 2008, before a more steady decline in 2009 and 2010, but then blocked shots at a high rate (1.9 bpg, 4.8 BLK%) and then actually blocked shots at the highest rate of his career in 2013(2.6 bpg, 6.4 BLK%) at 36 years old and still a high rate last season(1.9 bpg, 4.6 BLK%).

5. Despite playing in a more physical era Hakeem averaged one more foul per game than Duncan. Even if we account for the higher pace in Hakeem's era Hakeem is still one foul ahead(4.9 to 3.7 per 100 poss). For reference, Shaq averaged 4.6 PF per 100 poss in his career before 2005, and in 2005 he got 5.6 followed by 6.7 in 2006. There is no way Hakeem could play the way he did if he had to play in the 00s decade.

Hakeem was more foul prone in the 80's because he use to bite on a lot of fakes, but he got a lot better at that to the point that it wasn't really a problem by the Rudy T era.

1985- 4.2 PF, 35.5 mpg
1986- 4.0 PF, 36.3 mpg
1987- 3.9 PF, 36.8 mpg
1988- 4.1 PF, 35.8 mpg
1989- 4.0 PF, 36.9 mpg

1990- 3.8 PF, 38.1 mpg
1991- 3.9 PF, 36.8 mpg
1992- 3.8 PF, 37.7 mpg

1993- 3.7 PF, 39.5 mpg
1994- 3.6 PF, 41 mpg
1995- 3.5 PF, 39.6 mpg
1996- 3.4 PF, 38.8 mpg
1997- 3.2 PF, 36.6 mpg

As you can see, he gradually improved this, and by the Rudy T era was much better and capable of playing 40 mpg. Duncan was always much better at staying out of foul trouble because he had exceptional timing, and you'd see him block shots without even having to leave his feet much, but with Hakeem's activity level, I think the amount of fouls he averaged during the Rudy T era is fine.

6. For the playoffs Hakeem played 3000 less minutes than Duncan. That's nearly the difference of 3 Finals runs or 5 runs to the CF.

What point is this making? That Duncan has had much more success, or that we have to keep in mind the difference when comparing playoff numbers? If it's the latter, then I never compare career numbers anyway.

7. Historically the Spurs have been a great defensive team outside of 2011 and 2012. The Rockets had some excellent years in defense but were mostly mediocre during Hakeem's times. A team that can put in more stops on defense will generally have a harder time scoring at the other end.

The Rockets weren't mostly mediocre

1985- 4th best defensive rating (+1.6 over league average)
1986- 14th best defensive rating (-0.4 under league average)
1987- 3rd best defensive rating (+2.8 over league average)
1988- 4th best defensive rating (+2.3 over league average)
1989- 4th best defensive rating (+3.0 over league average)
1990- best defensive rating (+4.7 over league average)
1991- 2nd best defensive rating (+4.0 over league average)
1992- 10th best defensive rating (+0.2 over league average)
1993- Top 5 defensive rating (+2.8 over league average)
1994- 2nd best defensive rating (+4.9 over league average)

Houston's defense started to slip after that, but in his first 10 seasons, Hakeem anchored top 5 defenses in 8 of those seasons, and I'd be interested to see what Houston's defensive rating was in the 68 games with Hakeem vs the 14 without him in '86 as well as the 70 games with him as opposed to the 12 games without him in 1992, especially since Houston was 40-30 with him that year compared to just 2-10 without him. As far as '94-'97, here are Houston's defenses.

1995- 12th best defensive rating (+0.9 over league average)
1996- 14th best defensive rating (+0.1 over league average)
1997- 9th best defense (+2.7 over league average)

So he really wasn't anchoring mediocre defenses at all. They were consistently good/above average when they weren't great, which they were most of his first 10 years. And remember that he missed 10 games in '95 when Houston was just 3-7 without him and had to adjust to a big midseason trade, and '96 when Houston was just 1-9 without Hakeem compared to 47-25 with him, and also had to deal with a lot of injuries. Through his first 13 years before he really fell off due to age and injuries, '96 was one of only 2 years Houston was pretty much just an average defensive team, and considering how bad they were without him, I'd guess their defensive rating in the 72 games he played was more solidly above average with him. The other season was '86, but they were 44-24 with him that year compared to just 7-7 without him.

Hell, a 34 year old Hakeem still had a top 9 defense with Houston in '97, and that's no easy feat with a 34 year old Barkley at power forward.

I still think Hakeem and Duncan is even despite seeing a stronger argument for Duncan here.

Well, it's obviously a legitimate debate as evidenced by how close they are in this poll, but to me, it's Hakeem and not a tough decision since I believe Hakeem reached a level of dominance from '93-'95 that Duncan never quite did.

baki wrote:Good now leave and create another thread, this Shaq talk is getting in the way of this thread and is a different case. I let someone else more familiar with those games make the clarification so that I don't have to.

No, I'll actually stay and discuss Hakeem and Duncan, which is what I wanted to do, but don't like people spreading misinformation so I chimed in the Shaq stuff. I hope that does die down. I'm rarely the person to bring up Shaq in a thread. I really never do that unless the thread is about him.

Hopefully, you won't try to comment on a series you now admit you've never seen, and you picked a pretty bad person if you were looking for someone familiar with the series. I'd be a happy man if I never read another one of your obnoxious posts.

JordansBulls · Post #340 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Jul 1, 2014 2:10 am

Never seen a debate this close on Realgm before. We are talking almost 100 votes and the poll is tied up. Two evenly matched players.