Better All Around Player: Tim Duncan vs Hakeem Olajuwon

[Xherdan 23]

Tim Duncan

Hmm... most people say Hakeem was the most complete & versatile two way big man ever existed... Scoring, Rebounding, Blocks, Steals etc.

Robert Horry who played with both said Olajuwon is far better player of the two...

Is that the same Horry who said Rudy-T is the best coach he's ever played for? Cool story.

[WaveTheWheat80]

This is really close. Hakeem is riding the wave right now, but I think I would take Duncan by a hair

Sent from my SM-G930T using RealGM mobile app

[Adam Stern]

Olajuwon is easily a superior individual talent to Tim Duncan. For anyone who has seen them both play I don't think there's much of a debate.

Unfortunately some people might view that as a slight to Timmy but it really isn't. Olajuwon was just an extremely rare big man.

[Hindenburg]

Hakeem

But this thread should be on the player comparison board

[Fencer reregistered]

this thread should be on the player comparison board

Of course.

[Fencer reregistered]

Duncan to me was the "greater" player -- better longevity, off-the-charts intangibles, etc.

But that doesn't contradict those who say Hakeem was more skilled.

[Mr. E]

This clearly belongs in the PC forum. Do not start threads like this here.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[1993Playoffs]

Hakeem is the better player

[mischievous]

Lot of hyperbole in this thread. They are similar level players with similar impact in both peak and prime. Hakeem peaked a bit higher, and his prime is at least as good or possibly slightly better there as well, however Duncan has a lot of high value non prime years that pushes his career value higher for me. Then we can consider Duncan likely has better intangibles as well. Overall Hakeem is probably a slightly better player, who didn’t have the same fortunate circumstances in his career. He didn’t have late prime David Robinson to start his career off, didn’t consistently have someone of Manu’s caliber on his team, then didn’t have a coach who turned into a genius in Pop.

[Beethoven]

Id have olajuwon over Duncan on my team.
More entertaining and inspiring play

[Franco]

Anyone saying "X easily" is hallucinating.

That said, "all-around" I'd take Duncan, but Hakeem was the better player to me.

[eminence]

I don't differentiate "all-around" from just better, but either way I'll go Duncan, mainly on the back of better passing/screening/ positioning.

[Harsh Lesson]

So we are giving Hakeem credit for producing stats with 2 rings while MJ retired, but giving Duncan credit for his lower stats while getting FIVE RINGS to Hakeems two?

Imagine if Duncan was drafted by a terrible team. He would be putting up stats that eclipsed Hakeems easily.

The dude put up 22/21/10/8 (and two were later found to be blocks...AKA a quad double) in a FINALS CLOSING game....

Yall crazy to put up Hakeem Mr. 2 rings over Timmy Mr. 5 rings....

You said "imagine if Duncan were drafted to a terrible team" as if he weren't wearing a jersey for every championship the Spurs have won. Old Man Riverwalk is the foundational piece of a dynasty that has thrived across three decades, and is undeniably the single greatest contributor to San Antonio's success.

[LakerLegend]

Is OP asking who's better or who's more well-rounded?

I would probably lean Olajuwon on both but I think there's a better debate over who's more well-rounded.

Olajuwon is what Duncan would be if he was an elite athlete IMO, but as far as skill goes Olajuwon's footwork and balhandling ability are definitely the biggest differences on a cursory look.

[B-Ball Freak]

Hakeem, by a hair...not a slight on Duncan, those two are the best big man ever IMO (that I have seen play). Shaq is the most dominant though.

[mischievous]

I don't differentiate "all-around" from just better

I don’t get the difference either.

[B-Ball Freak]

I don't differentiate "all-around" from just better

I don’t get the difference either.

Draymond is better all around than KD but KD is the better player.

[G35]

As far as the debate here (“all around player”) to me it’s clearly Duncan, given that he was hugely impactful in a wild array of team strategies even as his body wore down. Hakeem lost his ability to be effective basically as soon as his body stopped being able to keep up with his brain, whereas Duncan had a late career renaissance reimagining himself as a screening, passing, short roll and mid-range jumper machine with the occasional post up against a mismatch. He remained one of the league’s premier defensive players from his rookie season until the literal day he retired. Hakeem notably did not do that.

I thought I was going to have to write this myself...glad you saved me the time.

"All around" means more than tangible boxscore ability.

All around means:

coachable - lots of players are great, many of them do not like being coached

flexibility - can you be a #1 option, #2 option, or not an option at all...Duncan did all those at a high level on championship winning teams

longevity - only player's currently on Duncan's level are Karl Malone and Kareem...I'll say Stockton as well

leadership - find one player, coach, opponent that doesn't respect Tim Duncan; no controversey, no in-fighting, just consistency for 20 years

TL;DR its more than about talent/stats......

[dhsilv2]

And you forgot about Gregg Popovich.

How many rings do you think Duncan would've won with Rudy Tomjanovich as his head coach? I'd guess 0.

The dude put up a damn near quad double in a Finals closing game. Imagine his stats under a coach that didn't minimize his stats to maximize the team success?

Newsflash: Pop is considered the greatest coach of all time. Duncan is not considered the greatest player of all time. Duncan is not even consistently listed in the top 10.

Here San Antonio is in the post Duncan era and they're STILL winning 60+ games.

The story of Spurs rings has less to do with Duncan and more to do with the GOAT coach in Pop.

Show me any credible list that has duncan outside of the top 10.

[dhsilv2]

These topics are just so bad.

Duncan is a MUCH and I do mean MUCH smarter player. Duncan's passing gap between him and hakeem is light years. As scorers they were nearly equal, hakeem had a bit more mobility and dazel. Duncan was stronger and could do more in the post. The difference in pace and team styles skews this.

Duncan could setup the offense from the top the key. He often did just get a rebound and took the ball down the court and setup the offense. Hakeem never would have been able to do that.

Duncan rebounded better. Duncan set screens better. Duncan moved without the ball better. Duncan knew where to stand and knew when to not gamble better. Duncan took better angles when people attacked the rim.

offensively Duncan was peak vs peak slightly better than hakeem. As a scorer hakeem was a bit better, but hakeem was never the passer, play maker, or screener that Duncan was. Defensively Hakeem was a bit better at his peak, though Duncan was better career defensively as he just kept getting better at taking the right angles and knowing when to jump and when not to.

Peak vs Peak they were pretty close, but Duncan was better. Career wise however Duncan is far better. And to the question of all around, duncan's game had no real faults. Hakeem has huge issues (passing being his biggest issue). Hakeem was more athletic and if you just watch highlights and don't watch the constant black hole effect from him, you might be confused into thinking he was better. Hakeem absolutely was not.