Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[Shot Clock]

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.

From the time Duncan was 28 they reduced his MPG in the regular season to about 34. His playoff minutes per game were about 38. Hakeem was putting in 37-41 MPG regular season and 43 MPG in the playoffs.

Of course he played more playoff minutes. They played more playoff games. He was held back in the regular season to be better in the playoffs. How hard is that to comprehend?

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.

Your belief I said that is just bizarre. Where have I suggested we ignore the tempo of the game totally? It's integral. But there are many factors that are a bigger consideration. Kobe's biggest scoring year was in their lowest PACE year. Tons of factors impacted that, none of them PACE.

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.

It's one factor but certainly not the only factor nor the biggest influence.

That's what I said. Anyways I'm out, you can continue to believe your estimates provide meaningful data. I don't.

[Baller2014]

Of course you're "out", you're about to be called on misrepresenting the argument we were having. To bring this back to the actual disagreement between us:

You and others said "it's not fair to adjust minutes to per 40, because we don't know if Duncan could have physically held up if he'd had to play as much as Hakeem"

I said in reply: "We know Duncan's body could have held up under the strain of playing as many minutes as Hakeem... because he did once we include playoff minutes".

This was not a complex response, I'm not sure what part of it you've missed. Duncan played less because the team didn't need him to play as many minutes, partly because he was so good he was helping ensure opponents were frequently blown out. But we literally know he could have played as many minutes per year as Hakeem... because he did once you include the playoffs. So equalising the minutes to fairly depict their stats is completely reasonable.

Pace should also be noted, because it provides vital context to Hakeem's numbers. Once you apply those two bits of context it suddenly doesn't look like Hakeem has a volume stat advantage at all. Since that's really his only argument (that and help D) I'd say the pro-Hakeem argument is in big trouble.

[AMW27]

I would take Duncan. Duncan was one of the best in the world when he entered the league. Speaking of Duncan playing with hall of famers, at their best Parker and Ginoboli are very good players, not great. Meaning there's a chance they don't wind up in the hall of fame if they don't play with Duncan.

David Robinson is a hall of famer and one of the greatest ever. But when the Spurs won in 1999 he was no longer a great player. He was clearly well past his prime.

Duncan may have had the better cast for over his career than Hakeem. But Hakeem had some solid cast too.

At their absolute peaks there's nothing wrong taking Hakeem over Duncan.

Its just some people focus too much on Olajuwon in 93-95 and ignore those prior years.

[KyletheDingbat]

Duncan no question. I'm getting 50+ wins a season. Hakeem had a weird career. With Duncan you don't have to worry about those attitude issues like you did with Akeem. And (gulp) Duncan beat the best players in the game when they were in their prime and not retired lol.

Its funny how we always get on Dwight for not having any big man competition inside, and then I guess because of the convenient labeling of Duncan as a PF, we ignore that he too has played through the weak big man era. When Hakeem blew up into MVP form he did it against maybe the greatest group of guys at his position in league history. Duncan has been fortunate in many ways. And his career arc reflects that. Hakeem's best teammate for the heart of his career was Otis Thorpe, a strong/solid big to be sure, but nothing special. His early pairing with Sampson ended quickly as Sampson's knees went. His best early perimeter help disappeared as he had to watch his drug riddled lockerroom implode and get suspended. And he did not get to play with another HOF anything until at the tail end of his prime the Rockets went out and traded Thorpe for an in decline Clyde Drexler. then his last 5 years the Rockets' front office chose that way to go, and every year brought in more and more old over the hill HOFers for annual disappointments just like the Lakers have experienced with that tactic.

Spurs fans have to make a choice at some point. They can either jock Pop, jock Manu and Parker, or they can jock Duncan. But you can't get done saying Pop's the best coach of all time, Manu is the second best SG of all time...and then turn around and pretend that Hakeem had the same kind of help. Alternately you can run Pop down as a senile old hack, call Manu a 6th man and Parker a creation of the system, and jock Duncan as having carried all those scrubs the way Hakeem had to carry Vernon Maxwell and Carl Herrera. But you can't have it both ways. Either Duncan had a LOT of help, a great organization, and was constantly surrounded by HOFers, while Hakeem did not. Or Duncan's teammates and coaches were mediocre and it was he who was great.

Yeah Hakeem had some tough breaks. But seeing how their careers played out it's hard for me not to pick Duncan here. Hakeem was great though! 2 championships, great two way player, awesome. But I don't think he was as much a factor in the league for as long as Duncan was. Hakeem was 2nd tier for a lot of years, and only really broke out in the mid 90's. Always a phenomenal talent though.

[ThunderDan9]

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

Not a great roster, but it certainly has more quality than those early 00's Spurs squads.

[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.

[ThunderDan9]

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.

Now, that's some hyperbole.

[LarsV8]

Now, that's some hyperbole.

Listen Duncan is a great guy and a great player, but the Spurs success is dissproportionately attributed to him. You want to rank him higher than Hakeem on the GOAT lists due to accomplishments, fine, do what you gotta do. But as an individual player comparison, Hakeem is just flat out a better player.

[LoyalKing]

Tim Duncan

Better size for both PF/C positions, way better passer (Hakeem is the weakest passer among the all-time greats that are generally in the top 10 GOAT list), better rebounder, better longevity, and was never selfish his whole career. Duncan simply had a much better career.

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

[ceiling raiser]

You know, this is a very tough comparison. A few things I'm thinking:

1) Hakeem in his first three full years with Rudy T. was a better offensive player than Duncan ever was. I don't know if his offensive peak coincided with his defensive peak, though, and I don't believe those three years were his best in terms of rebounding.

2) It's really hard to quantify the defensive difference between the two. Play-by-play data doesn't exist prior to 96-96, so there is no RAPM. But post-prime Hakeem wasn't incredible in that area, and it's hard to extrapolate how prime Hakeem would rate. I don't know how Hakeem rates in terms of WOWY, but the relative DRtg numbers weren't eye-popping. Obviously, Olajuwon comes out ahead in terms of reputation, the eye test, and box score stats.

3) There are more concerns about Hakeem, in terms of behavior, attitude, commitment, etc., relative to Duncan. Pre-religious awakening of course, and a lot of that has to probably do with his contract situation, and some of the teams he was stuck with after Sampson broke down.

4) Timmy has been playing at a high level for a long time. A very damn long time. I think his post-prime years would have to be considered better than Hakeem's, in terms of level of play and consistency.

I think it's really tough. I started watching in 92-93, so Hakeem's peak seasons really resonate with me. Obviously this must be the case with plenty of others as well, because I know he gets a ton of support. I can't speak for anyone else, but to be perfectly honest, I think I perhaps think more highly of Hakeem than I should, purely because his peak years stand out so much.

I really need to evaluate two things, and I'd encourage most others to do these as well: decide how I feel about Hakeem's defense in particular during his peak years, and try and appreciate the longevity/consistency Timmy has exhibited throughout his career.

[LarsV8]

Tim Duncan

Better size for both PF/C positions, way better passer (Hakeem is the weakest passer among the all-time greats that are generally in the top 10 GOAT list), better rebounder, better longevity, and was never selfish his whole career. Duncan simply had a much better career.

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

MJ played in 95, he put up an awesome series, but he lost to Shaq and the Magic, who Hakeem later swept.

[LoyalKing]

Tim Duncan

Better size for both PF/C positions, way better passer (Hakeem is the weakest passer among the all-time greats that are generally in the top 10 GOAT list), better rebounder, better longevity, and was never selfish his whole career. Duncan simply had a much better career.

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

MJ played in 95, he put up an awesome series, but he lost to Shaq and the Magic, who Hakeem later swept.

In the end of the season though. Only 17 games in the regular season.

As great as MJ was, you don't get back to the NBA rusty, with baseball shape and little practice with your teammates expecting to win the title. We all saw what happened later when he had a full off-season to be in basketball form along with his teammates.

Not a knock on Hakeem, great player and an all-time great, but if MJ doesn't retire, he ends up ringless.

[ceiling raiser]

Tim Duncan

Better size for both PF/C positions, way better passer (Hakeem is the weakest passer among the all-time greats that are generally in the top 10 GOAT list), better rebounder, better longevity, and was never selfish his whole career. Duncan simply had a much better career.

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

MJ played in 95, he put up an awesome series, but he lost to Shaq and the Magic, who Hakeem later swept.

In the end of the season though. Only 17 games in the regular season.

As great as MJ was, you don't get back to the NBA rusty, with baseball shape and little practice with your teammates expecting to win the title. We all saw what happened later when he had a full off-season to be in basketball form along with his teammates.

Not a knock on Hakeem, great player and an all-time great, but if MJ doesn't retire, he ends up ringless.

Are we assuming they keep Grant in this hypothetical, or they get Rodman a year earlier? If neither, what are they doing against Shaq/Hakeem?

Make no mistake, MJ was pretty good against Orlando. He wasn't at his peak, but he wasn't the reason they lost that series. Besides, if he never retires, how can we say he wouldn't be fatigued from so many consecutive long runs (since they'd make the Finals in 94, or lose to the Knicks)?

Can't just hand-wave champions to players like that.

[LarsV8]

In the end of the season though. Only 17 games in the regular season.

As great as MJ was, you don't get back to the NBA rusty, with baseball shape and little practice with your teammates expecting to win the title. We all saw what happened later when he had a full off-season to be in basketball form along with his teammates.

Not a knock on Hakeem, great player and an all-time great, but if MJ doesn't retire, he ends up ringless.

Not a knock on Hakeem?

THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS

[page]

I'd take Hakeem, although it's close. He didn't have privilege to work with coach of Popovich caliber for entire career, and his environment between 1987 and 1992 was dysfunctional.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

If Tim Duncan ran into Bird's Celtics when he hit the Finals as a kid, and then had to live in a league with MJ dominating it for the next 15 years, we might be talking about him as a 6'11" Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

No, that would never happen to the SPURS, not to Duncan.

There was some slight similarity to the way Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan got off to their careers. both walked right into Twin Towers lineups set up by intentionally tanking teams, and got to pair with HOF frontcourt mates from Day 1. Both in fact made an early Finals with flawed teams built around that duo. The difference, the first of many such advantages Duncan has had, was that Duncan got to meet the 27-23 New York Knicks in that Finals, and won, thus setting up the beginning of his legend. Hakeem? Merely gets to run into the 67 win 85-86 Celtics, widely considered one of the greatest teams of all time (and maybe the greatest clash of frontcourts in Finals history with no fewer than SIX HOF front court guys in one series (Bird, McHale, Walton, Parrish, Hakeem, Sampson). And in fact because of Sampson's knee deterioration, both saw that situation deteriorate pretty quickly. Of course a major difference was that Admiral was a veteran, a legend before Ducnan even arrived, while the Rockets' Twin Towers were kids, and kids surrounded by a cocaine addicted lockerroom.

Sampson lasted about 2 1/2 years for Hakeem. By the third year he played in only 43 games and averaged 15.6pts as the knees went.

And from that point, Hakeem did not have one highly decorated teammate for the next SEVEN years. In fact Hakeem went the first 10 1/2 years of his career with 2 1/2 seasons of help as a rookie/sophomore from a borderline HOF who got in mostly on his college record. And he did what you are supposed to do with that, like Duncan making the Finals as a sophomore. And then for the next 8 years he had a grand total of 1 All Star appearance by a teammate. One. A single random slip in for the solid Otis Thorpe.

Let's line that up shall we?

Assuming Pop, Manu and Parker make the HOF, here are the year by year breakdowns of what Hakeem and Duncan had to work with through their primes. The first 10 years of their careers:

Yr 1:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 2:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 3:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star (for half season)
Yr 4:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing (Sampson traded midseason)
Yr 5:
Duncan: 3 HOFs (Admiral old, Parker young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 6:
Duncan: 4 HOFs (Admiral old, Manu young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 7:
Duncan: 3 HOFs
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 8:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 All Star
Yr 9:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 10:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing

So there you go, first 10 years of either guy's career. You want to know what the "weirdness" of Hakeem's career was? It was that for 10 years his team never got him reinforcements. There was no Pop. There was no Manu or Parker. The best they ever got him was a solid guy in Otis Thorpe. there was never a wingman. And still he got them into the playoffs year after year in a true display of a superstar carrying.

Now if you are Duncan fan, all you need to do to dispute that is to say that Pop is just a Bill Fitch or Don Cheaney, and Parker and Manu really just Robert Reid, Vernon Maxwell (who was a crazy alcoholic btw), Sleepy Floyd etc. If that's true then Duncan can have had just as many problems as Hakeem had.

[Masigond]

The first 10 years of their careers:

Yr 1:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 2:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 3:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star (for half season)
Yr 4:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing (Sampson traded midseason)
Yr 5:
Duncan: 3 HOFs (Admiral old, Parker young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 6:
Duncan: 4 HOFs (Admiral old, Manu young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 7:
Duncan: 4 HOFs
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 8:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 All Star
Yr 9:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 10:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing

Quite a botched list. How does it help the Spurs and Duncan much that Parker and Manu eventually became Hall-of-Famer caliber players when they were far from that in their first season(s)?
It's the same nonsense like with the 2011 Mavs when people were saying that Dirk was playing with a plethora of All-Stars (Kidd, Marion, Peja). Take the players at their actual performance in the respective years. In 2003, there were no HoF-caliber player on the Spurs team other than Duncan performance-wise. Robinson was a shell of himself, in the playoffs Parker was giving his best Iversonesque low efficiency impersonation when he needed 14 shots to score 14.7 points per game while adding only 3.5 assists, and Manu was a 9.4/3.8/2.9 player at this stage. Still you're counting them as 3 additional Hall-of-Famers to Duncan. Come on...

[Winsome Gerbil]

The first 10 years of their careers:

Yr 1:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 2:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 3:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star (for half season)
Yr 4:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing (Sampson traded midseason)
Yr 5:
Duncan: 3 HOFs (Admiral old, Parker young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 6:
Duncan: 4 HOFs (Admiral old, Manu young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 7:
Duncan: 4 HOFs
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 8:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 All Star
Yr 9:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 10:
Duncan: 4 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing

Quite a botched list. How does it help the Spurs and Duncan much that Parker and Manu eventually became Hall-of-Famer caliber players when they were far from that in their first season(s)?
It's the same nonsense like with the 2011 Mavs when people were saying that Dirk was playing with a plethora of All-Stars (Kidd, Marion, Peja). Take the players at their actual performance in the respective years. In 2003, there were no HoF-caliber player on the Spurs team other than Duncan performance-wise. Robinson was a shell of himself, in the playoffs Parker was giving his best Iversonesque low efficiency impersonation when he needed 14 shots to score 14.7 points per game while adding only 3.5 assists, and Manu was a 9.4/3.8/2.9 player at this stage. Still you're counting them as 3 additional Hall-of-Famers to Duncan. Come on...

You guys are amusing, and not being honest in your arguments. I noted Admiral's age, as well as Parker and Manu's in their respective years, although talent is talent, and you either have it or not.

The larger point however would be that Hakeem NEVER had those sorts of guys. Duncan's 2-3 year teammate dip which seems of such sudden handwringing concern to Spurs fans, was basically Hakeem's situation his entire career until he was 33 years old.

[ceiling raiser]

Hakeem had a great peak 93-95, but if MJ doesn't retire, we would be taking about a 6'10 Center with great skills and no rings.

If Tim Duncan ran into Bird's Celtics when he hit the Finals as a kid, and then had to live in a league with MJ dominating it for the next 15 years, we might be talking about him as a 6'11" Center with great skills and no rings.

Hakeem lost 4 times in a row in the 1st round in his prime. 8 times a 1st round exit and missed the playoffs 3 times. That's 11 pathetic appearances among 18 in total.

That would never happen with a Duncan team.

No, that would never happen to the SPURS, not to Duncan.

There was some slight similarity to the way Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan got off to their careers. both walked right into Twin Towers lineups set up by intentionally tanking teams, and got to pair with HOF frontcourt mates from Day 1. Both in fact made an early Finals with flawed teams built around that duo. The difference, the first of many such advantages Duncan has had, was that Duncan got to meet the 27-23 New York Knicks in that Finals, and won, thus setting up the beginning of his legend. Hakeem? Merely gets to run into the 67 win 85-86 Celtics, widely considered one of the greatest teams of all time (and maybe the greatest clash of frontcourts in Finals history with no fewer than SIX HOF front court guys in one series (Bird, McHale, Walton, Parrish, Hakeem, Sampson). And in fact because of Sampson's knee deterioration, both saw that situation deteriorate pretty quickly. Of course a major difference was that Admiral was a veteran, a legend before Ducnan even arrived, while the Rockets' Twin Towers were kids, and kids surrounded by a cocaine addicted lockerroom.

Sampson lasted about 2 1/2 years for Hakeem. By the third year he played in only 43 games and averaged 15.6pts as the knees went.

And from that point, Hakeem did not have one highly decorated teammate for the next SEVEN years. In fact Hakeem went the first 10 1/2 years of his career with 2 1/2 seasons of help as a rookie/sophomore from a borderline HOF who got in mostly on his college record. And he did what you are supposed to do with that, like Duncan making the Finals as a sophomore. And then for the next 8 years he had a grand total of 1 All Star appearance by a teammate. One. A single random slip in for the solid Otis Thorpe.

Let's line that up shall we?

Assuming Pop, Manu and Parker make the HOF, here are the year by year breakdowns of what Hakeem and Duncan had to work with through their primes. The first 10 years of their careers:

Yr 1:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 2:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star
Yr 3:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 HOF, 1 All Star (for half season)
Yr 4:
Duncan: 2 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing (Sampson traded midseason)
Yr 5:
Duncan: 3 HOFs (Admiral old, Parker young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 6:
Duncan: 4 HOFs (Admiral old, Manu young)
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 7:
Duncan: 3 HOFs
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 8:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: 1 All Star
Yr 9:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing
Yr 10:
Duncan: 3 HOFs, 1 All Star
Hakeem: nothing

So there you go, first 10 years of either guy's career. You want to know what the "weirdness" of Hakeem's career was? It was that for 10 years his team never got him reinforcements. There was no Pop. There was no Manu or Parker. The best they ever got him was a solid guy in Otis Thorpe. there was never a wingman. And still he got them into the playoffs year after year in a true display of a superstar carrying.

Now if you are Duncan fan, all you need to do to dispute that is to say that Pop is just a Bill Fitch or Rudy T, and Parker and Manu really just Robert Reid, Vernon Maxwell (who was a crazy alcoholic btw), Sleepy Floyd etc. If that's true then Duncan can have had just as many problems as Hakeem had.

I agree 100% about Hakeem's supporting casts. Had Sampson never fallen apart, we could've had plenty more memorable playoff series.

Just wondering though, how big a difference would you say there was between the West during Hakeem's first 10 years as opposed to Timmy's? Obviously the conference improved by the mid-90s, but early on in Hakeem's career there was a legitimate disparity between East and West.

[te887848]

Duncan takes this quite handily. A far more accomplished player and a better overall player as well. Easily a more productive/impactful regular season performer and had far more great playoff runs than Hakeem.

Hakeem may have been more flashy and had a greater variety of moves, but give me Duncan's production and consistent, year in and year out impact on winning basketball over Hakeem's cooler-looking skills. Aside from a few years, Hakeem was nothing in the playoffs. And he sure was fortunate to sidestep the juggernaut team of his era due to its best player's premature retirement from the game, whereas Duncan dethroned the kings of the league when he played.