Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[AMW27]

Hakeem's teams from 89-92 were not bad. His cast in 1993 and 1994 were not on another level than those 89-92 cast.
Hakeem just started to peak at the right time.

Duncan won a title in 2003 with a crappy roster.

[ardee]

This is an ageless debate.

When I look at their careers, I see only one player with a HOLY **** THAT GUY IS THE GOAT level peak. That's Hakeem. '93-'95 Hakeem can all be argued as the best peak of all time (I don't agree, but it can be argued). Duncan doesn't have a year like that. '03 was great but he was never that good.

Basically those 3 years come as close to anyone in history at guaranteeing you a championship if he had a decent cast.

Now, it's not like Duncan's peak is very far behind. I have '93 and '94 Hakeem at a +9 (6/3 offensive/defensive split) and '03 Duncan at a +7.5 or 8 (5/2.5 or 3 offensive/defensive split). Hakeem is 4th on my list, Duncan is 10th.

IF you already know what the team is going to be like, and you think it's ok enough to catch lightning in a bottle with Hakeem at his peak, you take Hakeem, because he's closer to guaranteeing you a championship during those peak years.

But that's obviously not the case, hence I'd take Duncan. His total career value surpasses Hakeem, and even though he has many more relevant years, I'd say his average season was also better than Hakeem's average season.

If the peak gap was really that huge in spite of a longevity gap on other side (like say, Hakeem/Karl Malone) I'd take Hakeem no questions asked. But as close as the peak gap is, I think the extra value Duncan provides over his career takes it.

Duncan gives you more shots at a championship through '99 and '01 to '07 then Hakeem does in his early years and then the Rudy peak years (I think he simply wasn't good enough to take a team to a title level during the intervening years).

So yeah, this is Duncan, close as it is.

[Masigond]

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.

You're ignorant.

Let's take Hakeem's Rockets in his sixth year (1989-90, 41-41) as a comparison to Duncan's Spurs of 2002-03 (his sixth year, 60-22)

starting fives:
Hakeem Olajuwon 24/14 - David Robinson 8.5/8
Otis Thorpe 17/9 - Tim Duncan 23/13
Buck Johnson 15/4.5 - Bruce Bowen 7/3 (good defense, though)
Mitchell Wiggins 15.5/4 - Stephen Jackson 12/3.5
Sleepy Floyd 12/7 - Tony Parker 15.5/5

The Rockets didn't have much of a bench to speak of, but the Spurs weren't great either: Young Manu was averaging 7.6/2.3/2.0, Malik Rose a 10.5/6.5 player (somewhat boosted by starting some games that Robinson missed), and a lot of old guys contributing their bit (Steve Smith, Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis and Speedy Claxton).

Still you're acting as if the Spurs had vastly superior material that year by counting 4 Hall-of-Famers for that year (look at the three other HoFs' stats that year. They are marked red...). Thus, your list is no more than crap. The numbers of HoFs and All-Stars on the respective teams are misleading - quite a lot, to be honest.

[Winsome Gerbil]

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.

You're ignorant.

Let's take Hakeem's Rockets in his sixth year (1989-90, 41-41) as a comparison to Duncan's Spurs of 2002-03 (his sixth year, 60-22)

starting fives:
Hakeem Olajuwon 24/14 - David Robinson 8.5/8
Otis Thorpe 17/9 - Tim Duncan 23/13
Buck Johnson 15/4.5 - Bruce Bowen 7/3 (good defense, though)
Mitchell Wiggins 15.5/4 - Stephen Jackson 12/3.5
Sleepy Floyd 12/7 - Tony Parker 15.5/5

The Rockets didn't have much of a bench to speak of, but the Spurs weren't great either: Young Manu was averaging 7.6/2.3/2.0, Malik Rose a 10.5/6.5 player (somewhat boosted by starting some games that Robinson missed), and a lot of old guys contributing their bit (Steve Smith, Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis and Speedy Claxton).

Still you're acting as if the Spurs had vastly superior material that year by counting 4 Hall-of-Famers for that year (look at the three other HoFs' stats that year. They are marked red...). Thus, your list is no more than crap. The numbers of HoFs and All-Stars on the respective teams are misleading - quite a lot, to be honest.

I may be ignorant, but I'm not the one who just acquiesced in accusing the Spurs HOF gallery of players and coaches being = to Don Chaney, Sleepy Floyd and Buck Williams. Of any age.

I'm also aware of the blatant gamesmanship of Duncaniebers spending post after post after post woe is Timmying about the same two teams in Duncan's entire history while we've got a solid decade of Hakeem teams of that level.

Perhaps just as importantly, what about Pop?

Think carefully before you answer this, because I will store this away and hound you if you pop up in a later Pop thread conveniently arguing the opposite. But what about Pop vs. Don Chaney as coaches? What do you think? Any difference? Swap Pop onto the Rockets and Chaney onto those Spurs, think it might change the fortunes of either team? Or you think it wouldn't have mattered?

[Masigond]

Perhaps just as importantly, what about Pop?

Think carefully before you answer this, because I will store this away and hound you if you pop up in a later Pop thread conveniently arguing the opposite. But what about Pop vs. Don Chaney as coaches? What do you think? Any difference? Swap Pop onto the Rockets and Chaney onto those Spurs, think it might change the fortunes of either team? Or you think it wouldn't have mattered?

I won't argue about it as Pop is quite certainly the better coach, and he would very likely have made some difference.
I just answered to your list of alleged help of Hall-of-Famers and All-Stars which was painfully wrong in my eyes.
Or do you count Robert Parish as another HoFer contributing to the 1996-97 Bulls team? He was 43 years old, in his very last season of his career, playing no more than 406 minutes in the regular season, averaging 3.7 ppg and 2.1 rpg, and was barely used in the playoffs (only 18 minutes in total in 2 of 19 games).
By your logic he would have been another HoFer caliber player on this team, even though at this stage of his career he was no more than the typical big man scrub. So please let's stick to the actual level of help the players had in each respective season: The Bulls of that year were otherworldly nevertheless. So, the Spurs between 2000 and ~2004 (when Parker and Ginobili finally evolved) were well-assembled and well-coached, but Duncan didn't exactly have help of true star caliber players in those years. The team was quite a contender nevertheless.

[AMW27]

This is an ageless debate.

When I look at their careers, I see only one player with a HOLY **** THAT GUY IS THE GOAT level peak. That's Hakeem. '93-'95 Hakeem can all be argued as the best peak of all time (I don't agree, but it can be argued). Duncan doesn't have a year like that. '03 was great but he was never that good.

Basically those 3 years come as close to anyone in history at guaranteeing you a championship if he had a decent cast.

Now, it's not like Duncan's peak is very far behind. I have '93 and '94 Hakeem at a +9 (6/3 offensive/defensive split) and '03 Duncan at a +7.5 or 8 (5/2.5 or 3 offensive/defensive split). Hakeem is 4th on my list, Duncan is 10th.

IF you already know what the team is going to be like, and you think it's ok enough to catch lightning in a bottle with Hakeem at his peak, you take Hakeem, because he's closer to guaranteeing you a championship during those peak years.

But that's obviously not the case, hence I'd take Duncan. His total career value surpasses Hakeem, and even though he has many more relevant years, I'd say his average season was also better than Hakeem's average season.

If the peak gap was really that huge in spite of a longevity gap on other side (like say, Hakeem/Karl Malone) I'd take Hakeem no questions asked. But as close as the peak gap is, I think the extra value Duncan provides over his career takes it.

Duncan gives you more shots at a championship through '99 and '01 to '07 then Hakeem does in his early years and then the Rudy peak years (I think he simply wasn't good enough to take a team to a title level during the intervening years).

So yeah, this is Duncan, close as it is.

Looking at how dominant Olajuwon was in 1993-1995, some people act as if he was that same player for almost his whole career or at least his first 10 or so.

Other than 93-95 you probably can't say he was the best player or a top 3 player any other year.

If you took away 1994 and 1995 Olajuwon would be just another David Robinson. Heck he wasn't even considered better than Barkley, Malone, Robinson before the titles.

That's the whole issue with Olajuwon.


Duncan was a top five player in the league his first ten seasons. And the first or second best for some of those years.

[Winsome Gerbil]

This is an ageless debate.

When I look at their careers, I see only one player with a HOLY **** THAT GUY IS THE GOAT level peak. That's Hakeem. '93-'95 Hakeem can all be argued as the best peak of all time (I don't agree, but it can be argued). Duncan doesn't have a year like that. '03 was great but he was never that good.

Basically those 3 years come as close to anyone in history at guaranteeing you a championship if he had a decent cast.

Now, it's not like Duncan's peak is very far behind. I have '93 and '94 Hakeem at a +9 (6/3 offensive/defensive split) and '03 Duncan at a +7.5 or 8 (5/2.5 or 3 offensive/defensive split). Hakeem is 4th on my list, Duncan is 10th.

IF you already know what the team is going to be like, and you think it's ok enough to catch lightning in a bottle with Hakeem at his peak, you take Hakeem, because he's closer to guaranteeing you a championship during those peak years.

But that's obviously not the case, hence I'd take Duncan. His total career value surpasses Hakeem, and even though he has many more relevant years, I'd say his average season was also better than Hakeem's average season.

If the peak gap was really that huge in spite of a longevity gap on other side (like say, Hakeem/Karl Malone) I'd take Hakeem no questions asked. But as close as the peak gap is, I think the extra value Duncan provides over his career takes it.

Duncan gives you more shots at a championship through '99 and '01 to '07 then Hakeem does in his early years and then the Rudy peak years (I think he simply wasn't good enough to take a team to a title level during the intervening years).

So yeah, this is Duncan, close as it is.

Looking at how dominant Olajuwon was in 1993-1995, some people act as if he was that same player for almost his whole career or at least his first 10 or so.

Other than 93-95 you probably can't say he was the best player or a top 3 player any other year.

If you took away 1994 and 1995 Olajuwon would be just another David Robinson. Heck he wasn't even considered better than Barkley, Malone, Robinson before the titles.

That's the whole issue with Olajuwon.


Duncan was a top five player in the league his first ten seasons. And the first or second best for some of those years.

doesn't actually answer the question.

Hakeem was always a Top 5 player too. And if Duncan was in the league at the same time as Michael, Magic, and Bird when young, Admiral, Robinson, Mailman, Barkley and Shaq as he aged, he would never at any point have won an MVP or been the #1 player in the league, and its doubtful he even would have ever been considered #2, certainly not clearly. He'd be another great, likely Top 5 most if not all years (would have to look). Like Hakeem.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Perhaps just as importantly, what about Pop?

Think carefully before you answer this, because I will store this away and hound you if you pop up in a later Pop thread conveniently arguing the opposite. But what about Pop vs. Don Chaney as coaches? What do you think? Any difference? Swap Pop onto the Rockets and Chaney onto those Spurs, think it might change the fortunes of either team? Or you think it wouldn't have mattered?

I won't argue about it as Pop is quite certainly the better coach, and he would very likely have made some difference.

Don Chaney has a .406 career win percentage as an NBA coach. 337-494 all time. he made 3 playoff appearance in 12 years as a coach. Those 3 playoff appearances exactly coinciding with his time coaching Hakeem.

Pop is 967-443 as a coach, .686. He's made 17 playoff appearances in 18 years, those 17 appearances all being with Duncan.

So what do you honestly think. Don Chaney comes to coach that Spurs team you complain about so much. How many less wins is that? 0? 5? 10?

And flip that, Pop goes to coach that Rockets team. How many more do they win because of Pop? 0? 5? 10? There's got to be a pretty significant difference in coaching results right? Or has Pop just been created by his players?

P.S. Note that you are probably contractually prohibited as a Duncan jocker in this thread from saying Pop is anymore than 7 wins better than Don Chaney. If you do, you will find that Hakeem and Duncan have nearly identical records. So its important you talk down Pop here to some degree. You can probably venture 3 or 4 before it begins to endanger Duncan's claim to superiority.

[Masigond]

Don Chaney has a .406 career win percentage as an NBA coach. 337-494 all time. he made 3 playoff appearance in 12 years as a coach. Those 3 playoff appearances exactly coinciding with his time coaching Hakeem.

Pop is 967-443 as a coach, .686. He's made 17 playoff appearances in 18 years, those 17 appearances all being with Duncan.

So what do you honestly think. Don Chaney comes to coach that Spurs team you complain about so much. How many less wins is that? 0? 5? 10?

And flip that, Pop goes to coach that Rockets team. How many more do they win because of Pop? 0? 5? 10? There's got to be a pretty significant difference in coaching results right? Or has Pop just been created by his players?

P.S. Note that you are probably contractually prohibited as a Duncan jocker in this thread from saying Pop is anymore than 7 wins better than Don Chaney. If you do, you will find that Hakeem and Duncan have nearly identical records. So its important you talk down Pop here to some degree. You can probably venture 3 or 4 before it begins to endanger Duncan's claim to superiority.

Read my posts again and see that it's very clear what I had to criticize about your list, and I made my claim about the difference between Hakeem and Duncan on page 1.
I don't care about any woulds and ifs like changing of coaches and all this stuff. Choose another user to argue about that.

[therealbig3]

Am I missing something, or did Duncan not win back to back MVPs in a league with Shaq, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk, and T-Mac in their primes? Was he not considered the best or second best player in the league along with Shaq in those years, clearly ahead of KG (maybe not for people that looked at it more in depth, but certainly for most analysts and fans), Kobe, Dirk, and T-Mac?

That's certainly comparable competition to Barkley, Robinson, Malone, and young Shaq.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Am I missing something, or did Duncan not win back to back MVPs in a league with Shaq, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk, and T-Mac in their primes? Was he not considered the best or second best player in the league along with Shaq in those years, clearly ahead of KG (maybe not for people that looked at it more in depth, but certainly for most analysts and fans), Kobe, Dirk, and T-Mac?

That's certainly comparable competition to Barkley, Robinson, Malone, and young Shaq.

Except that Timmy won his MVPs in his 5th + 6th seasons, which would have been 88-89 and 89-90 for Hakeem. Which would have meant he was going up squarely into the teeth of Michael (won 87-88, 90-91, 91-92) and Magic (won back to backs in 88-89 and 89-90). Good luck with that.

By the time the 2 year Jordanless window opened up for Hakeem, it was 4-5 years later. Hakeem still had the juice in the tank to explode during those years. But by that point, years 10-11 of Duncan's career, it was 2006-07 and 07-08 and Timmy was no longer that MVP guy. He averaged 20.0 and 10.6reb in his 10th year (Hakeem won MVP with 27.3pts 11.9reb), and 19.3pts 11.3reb in his 11th year.

Timing is everything. As is situation. You swap timing and situation on these guys and we are having a flipped conversation here. Tim is probably leading that other thread about whether Wade is the best player never to win an MVP, and people who don't know their history are probably complaining about why he didn't win more for Don Cheaney and Buck Johnson. Meanwhile its entirely possible we are talking about a 4 or 5 time MVP in Hakeem and people are trying to shove him in ahead of Kareem. (Hakeem's numbers were even more impressive than Duncan's in his 5th/6th seasons, and of course he had the late career explosion too).

[ushvinder88]

I love it how hakeem fans want to ignore paces. In 1982 moses malone averaged 31 ppg on a higher TS%, in 1990 Patrick Ewing averaged 28.6 ppg on a higher ts% and field goal percentage than hakeem ever did. Even tom chambers managed to average 27 ppg. I guess those guys were better scorers than hakeem, acting like hakeem puts up 27 ppg in the late 90s-early 2000s is a joke. Technically ewing and moses outpeaked hakeem as scorers.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I love it how hakeem fans want to ignore paces. In 1982 moses malone averaged 31 ppg on a higher TS%, in 1990 Patrick Ewing averaged 28.6 ppg on a higher ts% and field goal percentage than hakeem ever did. Even tom chambers managed to average 27 ppg. I guess those guys were better scorers than hakeem, acting like hakeem puts up 27 ppg in the late 90s-early 2000s is a joke. Technically ewing and moses outpeaked hakeem as scorers.

Pace was not a factor by '93-94. Riley and the Knicks in particular had popularized wrestle ball by that point. In Hakeem's MVP year his team averaged 101.1 ppg with a Pace of 95.0. This years 2013-14 Spurs had a Pace of 95.0.

[therealbig3]

Well, we can look at their relative MVP voting through the years as well to see if timing was the only reason for Hakeem's early career being overlooked:

85: 12th
86: 4th
87: 7th
88: 7th
89: 5th
90: 7th
91: 18th
92: nothing
93: 2nd
94: 1st
95: 5th
96: 4th

That's the end of his prime imo. He didn't receive any votes in 92, and it's not like he was consistently finishing 4th behind only Jordan, Magic, and Bird early on. Other players were beating him out too. Other players were seen as better than he was, like Malone, Barkley, and Robinson. The only time Hakeem entered the conversation as best player in the league was when Jordan, Magic, and Bird were retired and Barkley was on the decline. His only competition at the time was really just a young Shaq and Robinson. And people were still unsure about who was better between him and Robinson until Hakeem owned him in that 95 playoff series, at which point everyone revised history and made it seem like Hakeem was the obviously superior player the whole time (even though Robinson tended to match or outplay him prior to that series). I definitely think Duncan could have looked like the best player in the league if his competition was a young Shaq (quite a few people thought he was better than a prime Shaq, at least in certain years) and Robinson (although Robinson was a beast, not denying that).

And I also don't think Duncan would have finished lower in MVP voting than anyone other than Jordan, Magic, and Bird early on. You're kind of ignoring the fact that part of the reason why Hakeem didn't have much success before 93 outside of his first couple of years is because he was a cancer. The reason why Duncan was a big part of sustained success even after Robinson declined and became a role player, and before Parker and Manu developed into good players, and before Popovich became a legendary coach (he was always an excellent coach, let me make that clear, but he's clearly improved as the years have gone on) is because Duncan was VASTLY more coachable than Hakeem...he allowed himself to be bitched out by Popovich, he didn't throw teammates under the bus, and he wasn't involved in ANY controversial issues on or off the court. As a result, his role players allowed themselves to be coached by Popovich too (it's very easy for other players to act out when the star is acting out...if the star sees himself on the same level as everyone else, the role players are going to fall in line). Hakeem is the guy that's gotten himself thrown out in crucial playoff games for getting into a fight with an opposing player...Duncan doesn't do that crap.

Duncan was a more mature, polished player than Hakeem when they both first entered the league. Sure, Hakeem's numbers might have been comparable, or even better, but Duncan clearly had more impact for his team because of his innate qualities compared to headcase Hakeem.

After Hakeem found religion and calmed down, no question, he was a better player than Duncan...but no, I don't believe he was always capable of that, because mentally, he wasn't as focused before. Would playing for Popovich have changed that, at least partially? Sure, I can buy that, which is why I still rank Hakeem VERY high all-time, and why I'd take him over Duncan all-time, because yeah, I agree...Duncan was in a better situation. But I do give credit to Duncan for imo, being PART of why he had a better situation. I think if they switched places, who knows, maybe Duncan doesn't achieve anywhere close to the same success as he did in SA with Popovich...but I'm pretty confident he would have been more highly regarded around the league than younger Hakeem was, and I'm pretty confident the Rockets would have been slightly better with him than with younger Hakeem.

[Winsome Gerbil]

That's such an aggressively and ambitiously, well, incorrect characterization I am not even going to attempt to confront it. Maybe if there are any Rockets fans in this forum they can talk about it, although they seem notably absent from most of these debates, so I assume they aren't many.

Hakeem the cancer steams from 1992-93 when he and the Rockets got into a nasty contract dispute, and Hakeem wanted out precisely because he felt he wasn't being paid like a franchise guy (Admiral was earning $5.7mil in 92-93, Hakeem $3,2mil) and the Rockets had operated like penny pinching buffoons for years and never put a team around him.

P.S. The MVP voting isn't terribly revelatory because of the elite team bias in NBA MVP voting. Of course you aren't going to be Top 5 unless you are part of a serious winner. Its just another way of stating his teams weren't winning at the time. The only question being how far we have to twist ourselves to pin it on the guy winning 1st Team All NBA and All Defense honors every year while carrying an annual 24-25 PER.

[Shot Clock]

You don't get MVP playing on a dysfunctional team and not winning at least 50 games. 50 was pretty much the yardstick back then.

Hakeem joined a messed up franchise with a prevalent drug problem. They had some huge attitude issues and zero stability. With Sampson getting injured and 3 guys lost to drugs they were firmly stuck on the treadmill. Unable to get a decent draft pick and no trade options. Plus a horrible reputation around the league as a franchise.

Meanwhile Duncan joins a model franchise. One that rarely deviated from their strategy around bringing in non-disruptive personalities. In their desperation to bring in a PF to help Robinson they deviated from that once in Rodman and suffered for it. Once Robinson hit town at the beginning of the decade they became a perennial playoff team. This is a team that went 55, 62 and 59 wins the three years before Robinson got injured and they lucked out on Duncan.

Two polar opposite organizations.

Mind you if Sampson stayed healthy they had a bright future with a 23 yr old Hakeem that had just put up 25p/12r against maybe the best front court ever. And that was a follow up to 31p/11r/4b against the Showtime Lakers.

[Fo11ower91]

Duncan easily imo

[Shock Defeat]

Hakeem. Never had as much help as Duncan did. Playing with perhaps the best coach ever and two hall of famers. Hakeem never had that. Make them switch places and I guarantee you Dream has every bit as much success as Duncan had, maybe even more.

[ThaRegul8r]

As usual, a topic that asks "Who would you take?" becomes pointless bickering among some people about how "my choice is better than your choice." Just stating one's own choice and leaving it at that is apparently too much. It's like, some people are literally incapable of doing it.

[Baller2014]

I won't get into why Hakeem got better, whether he found religion or whatever, but for whatever reason he improved a tonne in 93 until 95. That was his prime, and stats, media recognition, etc, observation, all support that.

I am also baffled by the absurd argument Rockets fans are putting out, that Duncan would be nobody in Hakeem's era. Duncan beat a top 3-5 all-time player and a top 15 player on the same team in their primes. Duncan beat Lebron and the Heatles, Nash and his up tempo Suns juggernaut, Dirk and his strong Mavs teams, Shaq and his 99 team which featured multiple all-stars and an all-nba Kobe, etc. Duncan was widely regarded as the best player in a league with Shaq, KG, Dirk, Kobe, T-Mac, etc, and if he hadn't been a 2nd year player who had no rep he probably would have won the 99 MVP over Malone (as it was he was in the all-nba 1st team his first 8 years in the NBA). In the 02 and 03 playoffs Duncan was widely (and correctly) regarded as having outplayed Shaq (and in 02 they matched up head to head. I have no idea what NBA Lars and his friends have been watching, but it's not the same one as I have.

This stuff about Duncan's amazing support casts (and poor Hakeem having nobody) has also been addressed. Duncan had genuinely bad support casts from 01-03, and some of the "bad" support casts Hakeem had compare very favourably to those squads. In 1990 the Rockets were a 500. team, despite Hakeem having an all-star Power forward, Mad Max, still prime Sleepy Floyd and some other solid-ish journeyman like Buck Johnson and co. It wasn't like Hakeem was being held back by Jordan and Magic and Bird. His teams lost to the Xavier McDaniel Sonics (who won 39 games that year), the Roy Tarpley/Blackman Mavs, the McDaniel Sonics again, they then finished with 41 wins and got killed in the first round, lost in the first round again in 91, didn't even make the playoffs in 92, and in 93 they lost to the young Gary Payton Sonics. Meanwhile Duncan had no problems turning garbage support teams into contenders from 01-03, even winning the title in the jaws of two all-time greats in their primes (Shaq and Kobe).