f4p wrote:Vote:
1. Hakeem Olajuwon
Nominate: Larry Bird
Hakeem vs Duncan Arguably the greatest franchise situation ever over the totality of a long career vs the worst.
To me this is a case of two great players, but one who so far exceeded the possibilities of his team in the playoffs it is hard to believe, and one who has nits that can be picked in high leverage situations where opportunities were not capitalized upon. Can I blame someone if they pick Duncan? I suppose not (and I suppose this board will pick him unless people change their minds). He has the individual numbers, the very impressive impact stats, the team success, longevity, perfect teammate, etc.
Team Situation Tim Duncan entered the NBA joining the core of a team that won 59 games before it tanked. He left on a team that won 61 games and had the #1 defense the year after he retired. Good work if you can get it. Hakeem entered the NBA joining the core of a team that won 29 games the year before (and 14 the year before that). He left on a team that won 28 games and finished last in defense the year after he retired. Ugh, better grab your bootstraps and start pulling. Note, Hakeem retired after 2001 and definitely did not play for the Toronto Raptors.
Duncan's average series loss in the playoffs is as an SRS favorite
Hakeem's average series win in the playoffs is as an SRS underdog
I don't know if there's a more succinct way to describe their situations than that stat. Both are practically unique.
One played with David Robinson while he was still leading the league in WS48 and BPM, Ginobili and Parker for their entire primes, and then got a prime season or 2 from Kawhi Leonard. Hakeem first spied a future hall of famer on his team in year 11, and Clyde Drexler was already in year 12. By the time Barkley joined, they were all 34 year old guys from the era before load management.
Playoff Hakeem vs Playoff Duncan Might as well jump into it, because it's the crux of my case. Hakeem is, in the overall picture of things, almost certainly the greatest playoff riser in history. And the NBA traditionally crowns the champion in the playoffs, so this is quite important.
His 10 SRS underdog series victories are tied with Lebron for most by a star/team leader (Horry has 13). But Lebron racked up 6 of these in his second Cleveland stint when they clearly weren't maxing out in the regular season. After those 2, you have to drop to Shaq and Kobe at 8.
From the WCF of 1986 to the 1st round of 1996, almost 11 full years of playoffs, Hakeem was a favorite in only 4 of his 19 playoff series. He won 12 of them! And two of his "favorites" were by 0.1 SRS and 0.5 SRS. From the 2nd round of 1994 to the first round of 1996, Hakeem was an underdog in 7 of his 8 series and 0.1 SRS favorite in the other. He won all of them! He smacked down +6.8 SRS Showtime as a -4.7 underdog in 1986 and 11 years later was still beating a +6.9 SRS Sonics team as a -3.1 underdog. His average series victory is as a -0.8 underdog. Jimmy Butler is the only other person with a negative and the only other below Dirk at +0.59.
Meanwhile, Tim Duncan has 8 losses as a favorite. Now he's 31-8, which sounds pretty good. And Hakeem is only 6-2, so hey, isn't 31/39 better than 6/8? Well, not all favorites are created equally. Hakeem has only 3 series as a +2 favorite, and won them all. Duncan lives in the world of the other guys with a huge amount of favorite series. How do those guys fare (Top 40 players, give or take), ranked by winning percentage (minimum 18 series)?
Jordan 25-0
Russell 24-1
Kobe 25-2
Lebron 31-3
Havlicek 20-2
Wade 18-2
Wilt 16-2
Durant 16-2
West 16-2
Magic 28-4
Curry 19-3
Kareem 33-7
Shaq 24-6
Duncan 31-8
Erving 15-4
Bird 22-6
David Robinson 14-5
Chris Paul 9-9
Erving, Bird, Robinson? Not the people you want to be next to in playoff stats.
Now was losing as a favorite always so bad for Duncan? Maybe he just tore it up and his team let him down. There are certainly examples, like 2006 vs Dallas (32/12/4 on 56%). And some are coinflips or meaningless series between weaker teams and I'll be nice and ignore the longevity argument and not count a brutal 2016 2nd round vs OKC. But to me the Big 4 disappointments are:
2001 Lakers in the WCF- Not necessarily an underperformance individually, as Duncan posts 22/12/4/4 on "meh" efficiency. But holy bleep, a #1 SRS team, a +7.92 SRS team, a +4.2 favorite just got annihilated! By 22.3 ppg. By 29 and 39 in the last 2 games. This is the series that made the legend of the 2001 Lakers. They didn't even win another playoff game by as much as their average victory against the Spurs. When Hakeem is over here crawling through the desert, hoping to maybe see a +1 SRS opportunity every 5 years, you can't just get crushed as a huge favorite as the #1 SRS team.
2002 Lakers in the 2nd Round (not actually a favorite, but within 1 SRS)- Spurs and Lakers near SRS parity. Duncan puts up fantastic series numbers, but the Spurs are outscored in every 4th quarter and Duncan goes 11-29 with 9 turnovers in the five 4th quarters of the series. Losing a series they led after 3 quarters in 3 of 5 games. Could easily have gone the other way if Duncan has not been so limited by Shaq guarding him in the 4th and Lakers certainly were not unbeatable as the next round showed.
2004 Lakers in the 2nd Round- The Spurs, significant SRS favorites on the Lakers, go up 2-0. Note that Hakeem has never lost a 2 game lead. Or even a 1 game lead as anything other than an 8th seed (it's possible I missed a series). Over the final 4 games, Duncan averages 17.5 ppg on 38 FG% with 4.3 TOpg. While mostly being guarded by a 40 year old Mailman who I don't recall guarding Hakeem much even when Malone was younger. This seems to be a highly winnable series if Duncan plays better. Arguably the biggest disappointment as it has significant invididual underperformance causing the loss with a very good chance at a title if they get by LA.
2011 Memphis in the 1st Round- If we are to praise Duncan for his longevity, then certainly this must count against him. A loss to an 8th seed while putting up 12.7/10.5 on 50.0 TS%. This is the same age as 1997 Hakeem so it's hard to see Hakeem be so limited or lose as such a favorite.
Honorable mention:
- 2008 Duncan shoots 42.1% in the 2nd round and 42.6% in the WCF for a pretty good Spurs team, but the Lakers were very good and should have won the West anyway
- 2005 Duncan wins the title but gets stifled in the 2005 Finals in a way Hakeem wasn't by the equally ferocious Knicks defense in 1994. Manu could have been finals MVP. At the end of a playoffs Ginobili dominated in the box score and plus/minus.
- 3 losses as #1 SRS and 2 more losses as #2 SRS without facing the #1 SRS team. Hakeem got just one playoffs with homecourt throughout and, even with 2 SRS underdog series, won it all.
Are these unforgivable? Perhaps not. After all, when you play 40 series as a favorite, you'll probably have a few bad ones. But when you're being compared to the biggest playoff riser ever? With massive overperformances and essentially no championship-shifting poor series (and barely any poor series to begin with) and a lot of championship-shifting great performances as an underdog? I think they're a pretty big knock against Duncan vs Hakeem. Especially the 5 #1/#2 SRS losses. Losing a 4/5 matchup? Not going to make a big deal out of it. But elite teams who are favorites is how you get championships historically. Losing in 5 of those situations is a big deal.
Hakeem Notable OverperformancesNow I haven't done a similar list for Duncan, so I'd actually like to see the numbers if someone wants to gather them, but part of the thing with Hakeem is his performance against seeming peers in big series.
1986 Lakers in the WCF (-4.7 SRS underdog)- Kareem is old but also named the 1st team center. To most, he is the best center in basketball. Hakeem puts up 31/11/4 and beats the defending champions with Magic having a great series. The Lakers would also win the next 2 championships.
Hakeem Game Score - 28.3
Kareem Game Score - 17.4
Absolute domination of #2 in this project, vaunted for his longevity, in a huge series where Hakeem pulls off one of the all-time upsets. This won't be the last time Hakeem knocks off a 62 win team with the 1st team center in the WCF.
1994 Knicks in the Finals (-2.3 SRS underdog)- Against one of the greatest defenses of all time, with that defensive greatness focused on the frontline, Hakeem puts up 26.9 ppg on 56 TS% in a series with an average score of 87-86. He stuffs Ewing to a 18.9 ppg, 39 TS% series. By true shot attempts, Hakeem and Ewing were amazingly tied for the series at 169, but Hakeem scored 8 more points per game! This isn't just a high leverage series, it's a 7 game series where every game is decided by single digits. His city starving for its first championship, the media ready to crown the Knicks, a great center on the other side. Hakeem outplays Ewing by an absolutely massive margin to win in 7, including game 6 by 2 points where Ewing shot 6-20. How many close finals have been flipped by a such a decisive outplaying of one great by another?
Hakeem Game Score - 21.0
Ewing Game Score - 12.1
1995 Spurs in the WCF (-3.6 SRS underdog)- The legend-maker. When Hakeem truly rose into the pantheon. The league MVP on the other side. A 62 win team against his 47 win team. Hakeem delivers a 35/12.5/5/4 series that has reverberated through the ages. An MVP, a top 20 players all-time with his legacy left in ashes.
Hakeem Game Score - 28.2
Robinson Game Score - 17.9
1997 Jazz in the WCF (-4.1 SRS underdog)- Not really up there with the other series, as the Rockets lose. But only because injuries had diminished Barkley and Drexler in the 2nd half of the season (much lower FG% at the end of the season and in the playoffs). Hakeem at 34 still delivers a 27/9/4/3/2 series on 59% shooting (64 TS%). Karl Malone is the MVP and is significantly outplayed. Hakeem almost matches the game score of Barkley and Drexler combined (24.6 to combined 26.7).
Hakeem Game Score - 24.6
Malone Game Score - 16.0
Hakeem has now massively outplayed, in the WCF or later, a 1st team center, a top 50 player at center, the league MVP at center, and the league MVP at power forward. And won 3 of the 4 series as an average -3.7 SRS underdog. That's how you win 2 titles when you were supposed to win 0. Well...
Expected ChampionshipsIt was actually 0.1. In this thread:
Expected ChampionshipsI totaled up expected championships (by SRS) for the previous Top 100 (plus Tatum, Butler, and Luka). Out of 103 players, Hakeem finished...98th! With 0.1 expected championships. He didn't just have little help, he had historically little help. Even the years he had a good team, there were a bunch of other solid to excellent teams in the way. He only had a 6.1% chance in 1994 because every series was basically a coinflip, with the 8th highest (when last I checked) combined opponents SRS for a championship (17.86). He had only a 0.2% chance in 1995. Even a solid team like 1997 was doomed to a 0.3% chance with 6.9, 8.0, and 10.7 teams in their way.
Duncan was at 4.04 expected titles. So 5 is greater than 4.04 (0.96 absolute delta, 24% delta). But by the standards of the best of the best, only Wilt and Bird are lower from the previous top 10 in terms of absolute delta or percentage. Among guys with 5 titles, Duncan's +0.96 only beats Bob Cousy's 0.64. The only other below +2 is Kareem. Hakeem meanwhile, with his +1.90 and +1868%, manages to be 5th in absolute delta and first by a country mile over the previous Top 10 (Shaq at 137% is 2nd). Hakeem basically created 2 titles out of thin air.
Stop punishing Duncan for being good!!!This is unfair to Duncan. He's a favorite so much because he's good and raises his team up in the regular season. Same reason he can barely exceed his expected championships. Maybe if Hakeem was better, he would have more expected championships. I will first respond to the claim that if Hakeem could have just been better, especially before 1993, he would have had a lot of contending teams. The 1993 and 1994 Rockets had Hakeem at his absolute best, basically no missed games, his supporting casts basically its best, hardly any missed games, great chemistry that led to a title...and they both finished 6th in SRS. Ideal situations and 6th. With a total of 0.063 expected championships for the 2 seasons. There were no lurking contending 80's Rockets teams that Hakeem just couldn't lift up.
Next, I did another calculation to determine just what would be needed for a player to make their expected championships equal their actual championships. For the Top 25, I ran their expected title calculation again, except with a given constant number of SRS/Wins added to their team each year. SRS affects the actual series calculations, Wins (1 SRS = 2.7 Wins) were just changed to determine if the hypothetical team would have homecourt or not.
How much better would Duncan have had to be to make his 4.04 expected titles match his 5 actual titles? 0.63 SRS and 1.7 wins per season.
How much better would Hakeem have had to be to make his 0.10 expected titles match his 2 actual titles? 4.81 SRS and 13 wins! That's an enormous difference. And that would have to be on top of however good you think Hakeem is! That's the equivalent of the 1993 Rockets winning 68 games, the 1994 Rockets winning 71, and the 1997 Rockets winning 70. There is simply no way Hakeem could have been good enough to justify his actual number of championships.
Here is the Top 25 ranked by Wins/SRS they would have needed to add to each season to get their actual titles. Hakeem way up there with Mikan. Duncan a little below the average of 2.3 Wins. Oscar destroyed by his years with Kareem. For 0 championship guys, I adjusted until I hit 0.34 expected championships based on the average 34% odds for champions throughout history
I think this is different than just showing playoff overperformance. It shows just how crazy Hakeem would have needed to be to really explain his playoff performances.
Record against good teamsBut if you think I'm still cheating, let's try records against good teams, which we'll call +6 SRS teams. Duncan had a way better team situation and beating good teams is an absolute performance thing (i.e. not relative like winning as an underdog), so he should be beating +6 teams way better than Hakeem.
Hakeem played 11 teams that were +6. He went 5-6.
Duncan played 10 teams that were +6. He went 4-6!
And I'm being a merciful judge. If the cut-off were 5.9, it would be:
Hakeem played 12 teams that were +5.9. He went 6-6.
Duncan played 11 teams that were +5.9. He went 4-7!
But I didn't even mention it. And the next 2 best teams, Duncan goes 1-1 so I'm not just cutting it off at some perfect place. And to bring it back to my theory of relativity, Duncan was a favorite in 6 of 11 such series. Hakeem was an underdog in every single one! And not just barely. At least a -3 underdog in 10 of the 11 (and -2.3 in the other). So he's not just winning series as an underdog, and not just as a huge underdog, but doing it against very good teams. The kind of teams that aren't as likely to slip up as some middling 50 win 4th seed or something. And Hakeem's wins come across 4 playoffs, so this isn't just 1995 juicing the numbers. We've got all the greatest hits. 1986, 1994, 1995, and 1997.
This is incredible absolute performance against the best teams that either faced. Honestly, this might be my favorite point.
Tim Duncan's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad title-winning playoff plus/minusesI posted this in another thread, but I don't think it got any response/traction. Tim Duncan won 5 titles. In 3 of them he is not a box score standout on the Spurs and in a 4th the advantage is there but not crazy. But the more problematic thing, for an impact giant, is what is going on with his on-off plus/minus (raw, not adjusted, to be fair). He posts 3 negative on-off plus/minus scores in 5 titles! And a 4th at only +5.2. Obviously 2003 is the exception and is crazy good for Duncan.
In 1999, after a regular season where David Robinson bested Duncan by box composites, they played pretty evenly in the playoffs. Duncan slightly ahead in PER (25.1/23.3), tied exactly in WS48 (0.243), Robinson ahead in BPM (7.1/6.6). Now Duncan played more minutes, so he should get the edge, but then there's the matter of net plus/minus. Duncan was a negative! At -3.6. Robinson had a seemingly absurd +35.0. With enough off minutes to not just be about a few possessions here or there.
As said, 2003 is unimpeachable.
Then we get to 2005 in the playoffs. Duncan and Manu are neck and neck in everyone's favorite - PER - at 24.9 to 24.8. But Manu crushes him in WS48 (0.260 to 0.191), BPM (9.2 to 5.5) and TS% (65.2 to 52.6). Yes, yes, there is defense being played by Duncan, but then Manu crushes him in plus/minus (19.9 to -5.3). Another negative!
In 2007, Duncan reclaims the box advantage over Manu (though not by much in WS48 and BPM), but they basically tie at +5 in plus/minus. Another fairly low number.
And then finally 2014. Any one of 5 spurs were basically equal in the box score in the playoffs, but Tim Duncan once against posts a negative plus/minus. At -0.8. A third negative plus/minus in 5 championship runs. Kawhi is at +7.0 and Manu once against shines at +12.1.
This is how others stack up in the plus/minus era (1997 and on). It's not common to have a negative (Duncan has 3 of the 7) and something like Shaq's 2001 is surrounded by two massive +22's.
Code: Select all
Rank Year Team Player On/Off
1 1999 Spurs Robinson 35
2 2004 Pistons Wallace 27.7
3 2012 Heat James 24.3
4 1997 Bulls Jordan 23.6
5 2003 Spurs Duncan 23.1
6 2000 Lakers O'neal 22.9
7 2002 Lakers O'neal 22.9
8 2006 Heat Wade 22.2
9 2017 Warriors Curry 20.6
10 2016 Cavaliers James 20
11 2005 Spurs Ginobili 19.9
12 2008 Celtics Garnett 19.8
13 2015 Warriors Green 19.4
14 2017 Warriors Green 18.8
15 2020 Lakers Davis 17.4
16 2011 Mavericks Nowitzki 16.8
17 2019 Raptors Leonard 16.7
18 2020 Lakers James 15.3
19 2001 Lakers Bryant 14.2
20 1997 Bulls Pippen 13.8
21 1998 Bulls Jordan 13.1
22 2009 Lakers Bryant 12.4
23 2012 Heat Wade 11.4
24 2018 Warriors Durant 10.7
25 2022 Warriors Green 10.6
26 2008 Celtics Pierce 8.6
27 2021 Bucks Antetokounmpo 8
28 2010 Lakers Bryant 7.6
29 2015 Warriors Curry 7.6
30 2014 Spurs Leonard 7
31 2009 Lakers Gasol 6.8
32 2022 Warriors Curry 6.5
33 2017 Warriors Durant 6
34 2007 Spurs Duncan 5.2
35 2010 Lakers Gasol 5.2
36 2007 Spurs Ginobili 5
37 2018 Warriors Green 4.2
38 2004 Pistons Bilups 3.8
39 2018 Warriors Curry 3.8
40 2002 Lakers Bryant 1.5
41 2013 Heat James 0.2
42 2000 Lakers Bryant 0.1
43 2001 Lakers O'neal -0.3
44 2014 Spurs Duncan -0.8
45 1998 Bulls Pippen -1.4
46 1999 Spurs Duncan -3.6
47 2005 Spurs Duncan -5.3
48 2006 Heat O'neal -8.6
49 2013 Heat Wade -14.5
. 1992 he misses the playoffs, even with a lot of the main guys from the championship team. I think it's a fair knock on him. At least in the sense that I can't see him in a GOAT conversation. I think Don Chaney was ultimately proven wrong to take the ball out of Hakeem's hands, but the Rockets did win 52 games in 1991 so it's possible that Hakeem's lack of being a good passer was holding his teams back at times, compared to other all-time greats certainly.
Hakeem lost in the 1st round a lot. I don't think this is fair. He literally lost a first round where he set the all-time playoff PER, WS48, and BPM records, averaging 37.5 ppg on 64 TS% and 16.8 rpg, 2.8 bpg and had more steals (11) than turnovers (7).
He was only good for 3 years. His best playoff numbers (PER, WS48, BPM, TS%) all come from 1986-1988, even with the statistical worst of those 3 years accounting for 60% of the games. And he still dominated in the 1997 playoffs.
He was lucky to have so much spacing. Again, his best playoff numbers (including scoring per 100) are from 1986-1988. Watch Game 5 of the 1986 WCF if you think he had spacing. The Rockets whole offense ran within 20 feet of the basket. And don't confuse 1994 with 1995. The 1994 Rockets did set some 3 point records, but only in the context that no one else had shot 3's before. Defenses guard absolute 3 point attempts, not relative 3 point attempts. The Rockets only took 15.7 3's per game and hit them at a league average 33.4%.
Hakeem wasn't scalable. He paired with Barkley in 1997 before they all fell apart but the Rockets didn't win. He finally got some talent and didn't capitalize. I thought he took advantage of all his opportunities? Okay, but how did that really go? Barkley and Hakeem played 49 games together in 1997. They went 38-11. A 64 win pace. They were great together. So what happened? Well, first injuries happened. And not to Hakeem. This was the year Barkley got kneed by Shawn Bradley. He went from 49.5% shooting before the injury and down to 44.3% after and 43.4% in the playoffs. Drexler started the season shooting 45%, missed a month and a half, shot 42% the rest of the way and then 43.6% in the playoffs. Meanwhile, as mentioned Hakeem was great in the playoffs. And it's not like they disappointed. They beat a +6.9 Sonics in the 2nd round and went to 6 games against a +8.0 Jazz team. A little expansion inflation there, but even if I knocked 1 SRS off each of them, down to 12.9 combined SRS, that would still be better than the combined opponents SRS of every single championship by Larry and Magic! And the Rockets still had a +10.7 team waiting for them in the finals and would have had to finish with the 2nd highest combined opponents SRS ever for a title, behind only themselves in 1995. This is exceptionally low on the disappointment scale, especially considering Hakeem's own very high level of play in the playoffs.
A note about longevityMuch is made of Duncan's longevity advantage, but I can't help feel it is very team-situation-specific and not so Tim Duncan-specific. To be clear, Duncan played his role to a tee later in his career. But reducing minutes and significantly reducing offensive output because you have plenty of teammates who can play offense is as perfect a situation as you can hope for. Hakeem was rode hard and put up wet until the very end. But just to speak to Hakeem's longevity. For starters, here is the list of most 20/10 seasons in NBA history:
Shaq - 13
Hakeem - 12
Kareem - 12
Wilt - 12
...
Duncan - 9 (technically 8, but 1599/80 feels like 20 ppg to me in 2007)
When you do something as much as Kareem, you were probably pretty good for a long while. It also speaks to the minutes per game difference over Duncan that guys like Shaq and Hakeem were able to rack up the counting stats per game to easily exceed Duncan in 20/10 seasons.
Tim Duncan from ages 31-34 was 2008-2011. In those seasons, the Spurs:
- 2008: Lost in the WCF with Duncan shooting 42.6% a series after he averaged 15.3 ppg on 42.1% shooting.
- 2009: Lost to a 6th seed with Duncan averaging 20/8
- 2010: Swept in the 2nd round with Duncan averaging a good 20/10 on 55 TS%, but nothing earth shattering
- 2011: Lost to an 8th seed with Duncan averaging 12.7/10.5 on 50.0 TS% (hard to say it was all Ginobili being hurt if you put up those numbers)
Hakeem from ages 31-34 was 1994-1997. In those seasons, the Rockets:
- 1994: Won the title with Hakeem leading the team in all 5 stats (first to do that in history)
- 1995: Won the title with Hakeem massacring the legacy of a top 20 player along the way (he concludes a 17 game playoff stretch against top 50 centers Ewing/Robinson/O'neal without being outscored by any of them in a single game, perhaps one of the craziest stats ever)
- 1996: Lost in the 2nd round to a 64 win Sonics team but Hakeem is finally offensively limited in a series, by a team with some of the most relentless doubling ever (100% double rate on post-ups through the first 2 games by my count). This shows that even out to age 33 Hakeem was essentially considered an auto-double if you didn't want your center to be destroyed.
- 1997: Lost in the WCF to a 64 win +8.0 Jazz team. Hakeem averages 23/11 on 59% in the playoffs but ups it to 27 ppg on 59% shooting in the WCF with 9 rpg, 4 apg, 3 bpg, and 2 spg while outplaying the league MVP and almost having a higher game score than his two hall of fame teammates combined.
So up through age 34, there is nothing to indicate Duncan has a longevity advantage. Hakeem is proving to have one of the latest peaks in NBA history.
After that, I would certainly give Duncan an advantage, but they simply didn't play their early 30's as similar players. To me, it says everything that right as Duncan turned 31, his production started dropping and the Spurs team performance went from title-winning dynasty to meeker playoff performances. Did Duncan just fall off for 4 years and then get better? To me, it gives credence to the idea that 35-39 year old Duncan is more team situation than just being that good as an older player. And back to that team situation comparison. I will look at a playoff situation for Hakeem after 1997.
In 1998, Hakeem plays only 47 games due to injury (certainly Hakeem has a health disadvantage from this point forward). After a long career of no load management and being asked to carry a franchise offensively and defensively to a crazy degree in his early 30's, certainly Hakeem is eased into his playoff matchup with the #1 seed Jazz (who would go on to star in "The Last Dance")? Right? Duncan would be. After all, Hakeem's got 2 hall of fame teammates? Nope, he takes 20 FGA/gm. And as you might expect for a 35 year old who dealt with injuries, it didn't go well. 44.9 TS%. Oof, was he trying to kick the ball in? But why is Hakeem being asked to be 1995 Hakeem. Or is he demanding to be 1995 Hakeem? Well, Barkley is hurt (some sort of arm injury from what I gather) and can't shoot and only takes 23 FGA for the entire series (7th on the team). And Clyde Drexler, in his last playoff series ever, is so checked out he puts up 31/19/76 shooting splits and delivers a 1-13 from the field, 4-10 from the line game 5. Kevin Willis fares little better as the 3rd offensive option and the 5 Rockets with the most shots attempts after Hakeem and before Barkley shoot 35.7% from the field and 24.2% from 3. Hakeem was literally the best option!
Now this series between a 62 win team and 41 win team ultimately went 5, with the Rockets even leading 2-1 and leading early in game 4 before Barkley was injured, which likely flipped the series. Seemingly another huge outperformance for the Rockets. So how did it happen? Well, there are two sides to basketball and while the Rockets offense set basketball back 20 years, their defense almost did the same to the Jazz. With the Rockets posting a -9 rDRtg for the series (I would say "against the #1 offense", as is tradition, but the "r" in "rDRtg" already accounts for that). So what group of defensive heroes helped Hakeem orchestrate this rock fight with Utah? Well, he had Matt Maloney holding down the PG position (hope Utah doesn't have a good PG) and Matt Bullard starting at small forward. He had 35 year old Clyde Drexler for SG and 35 year old Kevin Willis at PF. That kind of looks like a horrendous defensive starting lineup. The bench did have Mario Elie (34 years old) but then after that had 38 year old Eddie Johnson (is anyone under 34?) and 35 year old injured Charles Barkley, not exactly a defensive stalwart even in his younger, healthier days.
This would appear to be one of the great defensive performances in playoff history by Hakeem. Maybe the Jazz were just really cold, but -9 rDRtg with that help? So how would this have played out for 2012/13/14 Tim Duncan? His defense would be praised in epic poems and his teammates would keep the offense humming and he'd get a victory against a great team. The guy's still got it! For Hakeem? Oh man, he's really fallen off. Because we got to see it. Hakeem being asked to be the old Hakeem and just being old Hakeem.
Given the age 31-34 differential, the "load management" advantage Duncan got, and the team situation Duncan enjoyed in his late 30's, I'm not sure the longevity is really all that much to write home about.
So given the massive playoff outperformance by Hakeem relative to most stars of history, given his absolute performance against his best opponents compared to Duncan, given him winning not 1, but 2 of the most impressive titles in history, I just think Hakeem has the edge. He won in a way completely incongruous with the opportunities he was given, played amazingly in the highest leverage, no-margin-for-error games and series, and combined not missing any opportunities with creating opportunities out of nothing better than any player in history.
Fin 
