Duncan 03 vs Hakeem 94 and 95

[rrravenred]

Hmmr.... coming in late to this one.

My original intended point was that both Hakeem and TD won championships without another elite player (which neither KG nor KB have done as yet). In 95, you can certainly argue that Drexler filled that role, and every other championship year TD had either DRob (still playing at a very high level in the lockout year) or later on the elite-for-the-playoffs Parker and Ginnobli. However, in 03 he had neither. Is Hakeem significantly better in pretty much every facet of the game (except, arguably, straight up post D)? Absolutely. Do the two championships have vastly different contexts and paths? Yes. Is the second-level talent on both teams relatively low? That was my intended point.

[sp6r=underrated]

Hmmr.... coming in late to this one.

My original intended point was that both Hakeem and TD won championships without another elite player (which neither KG nor KB have done as yet). In 95, you can certainly argue that Drexler filled that role, and every other championship year TD had either DRob (still playing at a very high level in the lockout year) or later on the elite-for-the-playoffs Parker and Ginnobli. However, in 03 he had neither. Is Hakeem significantly better in pretty much every facet of the game (except, arguably, straight up post D)? Absolutely. Do the two championships have vastly different contexts and paths? Yes. Is the second-level talent on both teams relatively low? That was my intended point.

This is what drives me up the wall about some Hakeem fans. The enormous amount of hyperbole that they use.

Hakeem's rebound rate in 94 and 95 was around 16 in the regular season and 14.5 in the playoffs. Duncan's was 19 in the regular season and 19.8 in the playoffs. Look at their assist ratios to get an idea of their passing. Hakeem just under 17 in the regular season and 21.5 in the playoffs. Duncan 19.5 in the regular season and 25.5 in the playoffs.

Rebounding and Passing are two big facets of the game of basketball and I don't see how anyone can argue that Hakeem enjoyed a significant advantage in passing or any advantage in rebounding.

It fine to argue Hakeem was better than Duncan in 94 or 95. Hell, argue he enjoyed advantaged in almost all areas. But give me a **** break with statements like "significantly better in pretty much every facet of the game ".

[bastillon]

See, why can't it just be left at that? Comparing Hakeem and Duncan is separate from comparing the Rockets and their title run to the Spurs and their title run. I personally think Hakeem's performances were better and that he was a better player than Duncan, but to say that Tim simply did what he was supposed to do or was replacable and that prime Tim wasn't in the same stratosphere as prime Hakeem is unnecessary hyperbole.

I didn't want it to turn into Hakeem vs Duncan debate. my initial point was that Spurs competition was so pathetic that year, that you can't compare this title to other titles. hell, the best team they beat was probably NJN and one could make the case they wouldn't be a 2nd round team in neither conference today.

how many teams could've won a title that year against Marbury's Suns, injured Lakers without any depth whatsoever, Mavs without Dirk and Kidd's Nets who barely won 50 games on that pathetic east ? you'll probably have 4-5 teams every year who could beat these four teams effortlessly. this year, you have Nuggets, Lakers, Celtics, Cleveland, Suns, Mavs, Spurs, Utah of the teams which would've most likely won a title that year.

it's vastly different from playing against Stock/Malone Jazz and Riley's Knicks in '94 or four different 60W teams in '95.

and that's my point. not how far Duncan is off of Hakeem or how great they were.

Hakeem's rebound rate in 94 and 95 was around 16 in the regular season and 14.5 in the playoffs. Duncan's was 19 in the regular season and 19.8 in the playoffs. Look at their assist ratios to get an idea of their passing. Hakeem just under 17 in the regular season and 21.5 in the playoffs. Duncan 19.5 in the regular season and 25.5 in the playoffs.

that's what I think is funny here - people are acting as if 31 and 32 y-old Hakeem was at his physical peak, give me a break. that "prime" Hakeem was basically the same player we saw in '86. different in terms of style and skillset but similar impact-wise. '86 Hakeem was more of a Amare-type of player on offense. he drew tons of fouls, played closer to the basket, attacked the rim, insane finisher. '94 or '95 Hakeem has developed jumpshot and used his to his advantage in that stage of his career. because he shot those fade-away shots at such an efficient rate, he evolved into jumpshooting big(obviously greatest repertuar ever, but jumpshot was his primary choice). now if you wanna choose prime Hakeem, that's around 1990 so prbably '88-'91. Hakeem was still in his physical peak, but was already very good jumpshooter.

the main problem is that people judge him by the numbers and his supporting cast from those years didn't have any shooters around him nor acceptable coaching who could utilize him properly. that's why you don't see fancy scoring or assist numbers. the truth is, though, Hakeem was at his peak that year and the only reason why he didn't score 25-30 PPG and didn't average 3-4 assists is that he didn't have comfortable circumstances to do so.

Rudy T came in '92 or '93 and all of a sudden Hakeem was scoring more and averaged more assists. the difference was in shooting and coaching. Rudy had a philosophy to go to Hakeem pretty much every time(which was really the only choice here since there was noone to go to apart from him) and without limited touches like in previous years, Hakeem excelled at scoring and passing in '93-'97. it's not like he learned how to pass in '93 and couldn't do the same thing in '92. it wasn't about Hakeem improving. it was other things that changed at the time.

and well... peak Hakeem had about 19% rebounding rate and averaged 4 blocks/2-2.5 steals. he was a defensive monster. too bad he was robbed out of like 5 DPOYs and finally won them when he was clearly way past his defensive prime, much less peak.

[Blame Rasho]

I didn't want it to turn into Hakeem vs Duncan debate.

Really?

The title of the topic says diffenetly, Duncan 03 vs Hakeem 94 and 95....

I mean yeah we get it... according to you Duncans title team sucks compared to the Dreams title team... yeah... People think differently. Deal with it..

You need to come to term with the fact that you are not the sole authority of what is right and wrong on the board.

[bastillon]

Really?

The title of the topic says diffenetly, Duncan 03 vs Hakeem 94 and 95....

should I have called it "competition sucked big time in 2003" ? please...
still, I made my point. beating teams in 2003 wasn't as difficult as other years and that's why, in my opinion, you can't ac as if this title meant much more than other solely based on supporting cast quality(which wasn't that bad anyway if you take defense into account). there's just more to it.

[sp6r=underrated]

should I have called it "competition sucked big time in 2003" ? please...

Yes, if that was the purpose of the thread. Titling a thread a thread Duncan vs Hakeem compares the two players

still, I made my point. beating teams in 2003 wasn't as difficult as other years and that's why, in my opinion, you can't ac as if this title meant much more than other solely based on supporting cast quality(which wasn't that bad anyway if you take defense into account). there's just more to it.

Edited for tone

You made your argument and it was unconvincing. You engaged in disingenuous arguments to belittle the teams in 03 and to hype up the Spurs supporting cast. It was transparent to anyone what your agenda was and is. You believe Hakeem was the possible GOAT and that he was far better than Duncan and Shaq (based on your other thread). In this thread, you've really hyped up the players on the Spurs while tearing apart other rosters. You've made similar arguments about Shaq's 2000 season in the Shaq/Hakeem thread. Most neutral observers in this thread, even those who agree with you about Hakeem, found your argument lacking.

The facts of their respective careers don't support your argument and rather than readdress your central premise you instead have decided to manipulate facts to fit your worldview.

[TrueLAfan]

Let's all be cool and show some courtesy here.

[ThaRegul8r]

if the Rockets had to play the Sonics in the playoff's in any year with Hakeem it was already an L.....

I dunno why this isn't talked about more. Everyone talks about "well, those titles came when Jordan was playing baseball"... forget Jordan. Look within their own conference. The Rockets were able to win the titles they won because they lucked out and didn't face Seattle.

In the 1992-93 regular season, Houston went 1-3 against Seattle during the regular season and lost in seven in the Western Conference Semifinals.

In the 1993-94 season, Houston split the season series against Seattle. In the playoffs, the eighth-seeded Denver Nuggets upset the number-one seeded SuperSonics—who won a franchise-record 63 games during the regular season—in the first round.

In the 1994-95 season, Houston went 0-4 against Seattle, but Seattle was eliminated in four by the Los Angeles Lakers in the first round.

In 1995-96, Houston went 0-4 against Seattle, faced them in the Western Conference Semifinals, and got swept out of the playoffs.

Houston had a playoff record of 10-18 against Seattle (.357 winning percentage) since Olajuwon’s arrival. They were 3-13 against Seattle from 1992-93 to 1995-96 during the regular season (18.8%), and 3-8 in the playoffs (27.3%). The Sonics owned them. Their two titles are bookended by Seattle postseason eliminations, and if circumstances didn't work out that they were able to avoid Seattle, then they never would have gotten to the finals, and we never would have seen Hakeem's performances against Ewing, Robinson and Shaq.

Hakeem was one of my favorite players in the league to watch, but I can still be objective to acknowledge that the Rockets got a break in avoiding a bad matchup for them.

[ronnymac2]

See, why can't it just be left at that? Comparing Hakeem and Duncan is separate from comparing the Rockets and their title run to the Spurs and their title run. I personally think Hakeem's performances were better and that he was a better player than Duncan, but to say that Tim simply did what he was supposed to do or was replacable and that prime Tim wasn't in the same stratosphere as prime Hakeem is unnecessary hyperbole.

I didn't want it to turn into Hakeem vs Duncan debate. my initial point was that Spurs competition was so pathetic that year, that you can't compare this title to other titles. hell, the best team they beat was probably NJN and one could make the case they wouldn't be a 2nd round team in neither conference today.

Like others have said, if that was the point you were trying to make, and if you weren't comparing Dream and Duncan, well...you didn't make it seem that way.

The reason those title runs (94 and 03...not 95 because Drexler was there) are compared and categorized closely together is because both teams had 1 guy playing at a superstar level (most title teams have more talent at the top than that), and that 1 guy was a dominant 2-way big man.

[bastillon]

not 95 because Drexler was there

and Pete Chilcutt was playing PF what completely made up for the difference on other positions. your point ? in '95 talent disparity was even bigger, because Rockets didn't really fit well without 2nd rebounding big next to Hakeem and teams were outrebounding them easily. not to mention how much better competition was in '95.

most title teams have more talent at the top than that

most title teams don't play vs Nets 2003 as their best opponent. in fact, there was no other example of such poor competition.

You made your argument and it was unconvincing. You engaged in disingenuous arguments to belittle the teams in 03 and to hype up the Spurs supporting cast.

what did I say about Duncan's supporting cast or his competition that was untrue ?
-name better backcourts in the NBA that year taking into account defense, mins played and versatility
-name better supporting cast than Duncan had of all teams that were (relatively) healthy in the playoffs and played in 2003
-name worse title competition than 03 Suns, injured Lakers 03, Dirkless Mavs 03 and Nets 03

if you can do that, then call my arguments unconvincing. so far, you haven't presented anything that would support your claim, whereas I have done so.

[NY Kicks]

The dream is totally at the different level...I don't think we will ever see a player having that dream footwork and talent...

TD is a fantastic player on the other hand, but Hakeem man, he had been so unique...

[sp6r=underrated]

what did I say about Duncan's supporting cast or his competition that was untrue ?
-name better backcourts in the NBA that year taking into account defense, mins played and versatility

Again your analysis was laughably biased. You made out Manu, Parker, and Jackson to be much better players than they were in 2003. When someone claims Tony Parker and Manu were good players in 2003 when they averaged in the playoffs

Manu: 9.4 ppg (.522 ts%)
Parker: 14.7 ppg (.468 ts%)

No one agreed with your claims who was neutral. Backcourts I would take over the Spurs in 2003 limited myself strictly to the teams they faced
Suns: Marbury, Penny, Joe Johnson
Nets: Kidd, Kittles
Mavs: Nash, Finley, Van Exel
Lakers: Because Kobe himself was far more valuable than anyone on the spurs backcourt

-name better supporting cast than Duncan had of all teams that were (relatively) healthy in the playoffs and played in 2003

The Spurs were comfortably ahead in game 3 when Dirk got hurt and leading the series. I don't how you think you can get away with making the Mavs not have a superior supporting cast. Kings still had a superior supporting cast with the injury to Webber. Furthermore, the lakers with Bryant are still better than the 2003 Spurs.

-name worse title competition than 03 Suns, injured Lakers 03, Dirkless Mavs 03 and Nets 03

if you can do that, then call my arguments unconvincing. so far, you haven't presented anything that would support your claim, whereas I have done so.

This is from a previous post of mine which occured before the 2008/2009 finals. Average regular season winning percentage of team's playoff opponents for NBA champions between 1979/1980-2008/2009.

Code: Select all

94/95 Rockets     0.726
79/80 Lakers      0.691
96/97 Bulls       0.689
01/02 Lakers      0.671
00/01 Lakers      0.668
92/93 Bulls       0.668
04/05 Spurs       0.662
05/06 Heat        0.653
75th PERCENTILE   0.65275
97/98 Bulls       0.652
95/96 Bulls       0.649
93/94 Rockets     0.649
99/00 Lakers      0.647
06/07 Spurs       0.631
03/04 Pistons     0.625
82/83 Sixers      0.622
MEDIAN            0.6205
91/92 Bulls       0.619
02/03 Spurs       0.619
81/82 Lakers      0.618
78/79 Sonics      0.614
89/90 Pistons     0.613
07/08 Celtics     0.604
80/81 Celtics     0.598
25th PERCENTILE   0.59575
88/89 Pistons     0.595
98/99 Spurs       0.59
84/85 Lakers      0.588
90/91 Bulls       0.583
85/86 Celtics     0.573
83/84 Celtics     0.567
87/88 Lakers      0.564
86/87 Lakers      0.54

The 2003 Spurs title competition was slightly below median for winning percentage but far from the worst. Thus, there is little evidence to support the theory that the Spurs championship competition was weak unless you can establish that their was a league wide drop in talent in the NBA. In fact, based on NBA history the Spurs went through a below average but respectable group of teams.

The burden is on you to (A) prove the existence of a collapse in talent from the NBA during the early part of the decade and (B) establish why. Simply stating players that year were garbage is not sufficient.

Edit: I should add that I fully expect more disingenuous arguments from you based on you response to someone's bringing up the Warriors talent, which you instantly hyped up. But just for fun explain to me how the Spurs competition was worse than the Bucks championship team who faced
A 41-41 warriors squad (expected won loss percentage of 37-45
A 48-34 Lakers squad that played without Jerry West
A 42-40 Bullets wquad.

[bastillon]

Again your analysis was laughably biased. You made out Manu, Parker, and Jackson to be much better players than they were in 2003. When someone claims Tony Parker and Manu were good players in 2003 when they averaged in the playoffs

Manu: 9.4 ppg (.522 ts%)
Parker: 14.7 ppg (.468 ts%)

No one agreed with your claims who was neutral. Backcourts I would take over the Spurs in 2003 limited myself strictly to the teams they faced
Suns: Marbury, Penny, Joe Johnson
Nets: Kidd, Kittles
Mavs: Nash, Finley, Van Exel
Lakers: Because Kobe himself was far more valuable than anyone on the spurs backcourt

except that there isn't much of a response to my post. I've said from the beginning that Spurs backcourt was one of the best in the league, not the best. playoff opponents happened to have good backcourts and were flat out terrible as far as bigs(Shaq was the best, then you had Martin, then probably rookie Amare...). neither it does argue against what I've said earlier about Spurs backcourt nor does it provide any argument for Lakers' opponents. just because they had good backcourts, doesn't mean they were great teams(or even good, for that matter).

The Spurs were comfortably ahead in game 3 when Dirk got hurt and leading the series. I don't how you think you can get away with making the Mavs not have a superior supporting cast. Kings still had a superior supporting cast with the injury to Webber. Furthermore, the lakers with Bryant are still better than the 2003 Spurs.

you mean leading the series 1-1 ?

I feel like you're looking at this Spurs roster strictly from offense POV. I think you're completely dismissing the defense here... you know, like 50% of the game(in Spurs case it was the key to winning, not their offense(+2 ORtg in comparison to league average in that pathetic league). I've argued from the beginning that Duncan's support is underrated, because it's one of the best defensive supporting casts ever. I didn't say a word about great offensive supporting cast. actually, I've made a thread a while ago about the best d.support ever and IIRC Duncan's 2003 Spurs were the team which was mentioned the most.

if you consider defense, it's not even close. Duncan had Robinson, Bowen, S-Jax and Manu while being coached by Popovich. rarely, if ever, it has come to having half of these circumstances, much less all of it at the same time. there is no case for Dirk-less Mavs to have a better supporting cast than Duncan's Spurs. the truth is Timmy didn't have great teammates overall, but if you compare them to the opposition, well... as it turns out, they were quite dominant. Dirk-less Mavs and Nets(+Webber-less Kings) were the closest to what Duncan had(but still, he had better teammates) and the rest was so pathetic that they shouldn't even get past the 1st round in normal circumstances.

(Webber-less Kings weren't even beaten by SAS, so I don't see why would you bring that up anyway)

The 2003 Spurs title competition was slightly below median for winning percentage but far from the worst. Thus, there is little evidence to support the theory that the Spurs championship competition was weak unless you can establish that their was a league wide drop in talent in the NBA. In fact, based on NBA history the Spurs went through a below average but respectable group of teams.

this is a pretty good argument, but it doesn't take into account that Dirk-less Mavs didn't come anywhere close to their RS ~60W and Kobe-Shaq Lakers were so injured they didn't even have one healthy SF(and they PFs sucked, but that's another topic). see how your results will look like if you consider Dallas as 45-50W team(which is probably still generous considering their roster without Dirk and Nash playing limited role where he's not as effective) or Lakers as ~45W team. not to mention how inflated Nets' winning percentage was, due to historically weak east in '03...

44W
45W
45-50W
45W

this is, in reality, what Spurs faced during their title run. considering all the injuries and circumstances, their opponents weren't performing at the level they were capable of and thus, they were much easier competition than what winning percentage would suggest.

[tsherkin]

Just to chime in with a brief comment on Hakeem versus Duncan.

There is no question that Duncan was a more prolific playoff rebounder than Olajuwon. 'Keem was a good rebounder, and for his first 9 seasons or so, he was about the same as a rebounder as Duncan has been his entire career (regular season-wise, that is). It bears mention that Olajuwon was playing 38.8 mpg as late as 33, and Duncan hasn't played 35+ mpg since the 03-04 season, or 38+ since 02-03. The lesser regular-season load Duncan faces helps him a lot, whereas Olajuwon didn't have that. Very much on account of the greater talent his teams possess in post-03 Manu and Parker, he's able to rest a lot more in the regular season.

What's also true is that Olajuwon was a more prolific and more efficient playoff scorer than Duncan, and likewise a more prolific shot blocker as well and there's a sizeable difference in steals as well, because Dream was always way, way better at forcing turnovers and playing the passing lanes.

02-03 was a fine year for Tim in the playoffs, though. Regardless of what anyone says, when you're dropping 25/15/5, you're doing something special. Parker sucked that year, Manu was terrible... I mean, you're talking about some pretty weak-sauce teammates for him. There were certainly timely contributions, and the Finals were a joke.

The first round was a joke, but it usually is. The Suns had no hope of beating the Spurs that year, even after the false hope the opener gave them.

The Lakers series was a little different. Game One was basically epic-fail from the role players and a relatively poor performance from Kobe. Shaq had a 20/20 game before fouling out, but guys not named Kobe or Shaq shot 8/28, which was pathetic. That, for reference, was the year that Robert Horry couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn with a 10-ton thermonuclear weapon. He shot just over 5 percent (5, not 25, 5!!) from downtown in the playoffs that year. Epic meltdown from Horry. Game 2 was a blowout where Kobe looked awful and guys not named Shaq/Kobe shot 17/42 (and Kobe shot 9/24). Also, Bruce Bowen was 7/8 from downtown and 10/12 on the game, which was insane. Lakers grabbed two wins after that, lost a close one, then got blown apart in the clincher. The role players just sucked that year. Really, really bad.

I think you have to put a good word in for how Bowen handled Kobe, but that team was the Lakers squad most LACKING proper support for its star players when it counted.

The WCFs though, were where it happened. DIrk was lights-out in the opener, then OK. Then terrible. Then ABSENT in games four, five and six. The Spurs caught a HUGE break on that one. Dirk was missing for three games, during which the Mavs went 1-2. If they'd had DIrk, that would have been at least a 7-game series, and maybe even a Dallas victory.

EDIT:

My point:

Hakeem was a better player than Duncan in many facets of the game... but Duncan was a better rebounder and a better passer. Duncan benefited from more talent in his first, third and fourth titles. Instead of having a lot of talent in the second title, though, he was just incredibly lucky. He ran into a Lakers team devoid of support and a Mavs team that didn't have its star player for half the series, and the Finals were a cakewalk, as they had been until the 2008 season.

[bastillon]

I think you have to put a good word in for how Bowen handled Kobe, but that team was the Lakers squad most LACKING proper support for its star players when it counted.

Kobe had injured shoulder since Wolves series.

The lesser regular-season load Duncan faces helps him a lot, whereas Olajuwon didn't have that. Very much on account of the greater talent his teams possess in post-03 Manu and Parker, he's able to rest a lot more in the regular season.

to add to that, Olajuwon was also insane athlete while Duncan had solid athleticism, but didn't come anywhere close to Hakeem in that regard.

[ronnymac2]

not 95 because Drexler was there

and Pete Chilcutt was playing PF what completely made up for the difference on other positions. your point ? in '95 talent disparity was even bigger, because Rockets didn't really fit well without 2nd rebounding big next to Hakeem and teams were outrebounding them easily. not to mention how much better competition was in '95.

most title teams have more talent at the top than that

most title teams don't play vs Nets 2003 as their best opponent. in fact, there was no other example of such poor competition.

A.C. Green was the pf on the 2000 Lakers. Can't Shaq get the same argument?

What really matters is Drexler gave the Rockets that second superstar...talent at the top (especially since Drexler is the type of player where fit isn't an issue) is the best thing you can have. 1-2 combos rule. Besides, Horry got burn at the 4 as well, which was an advantage for the Rockets. They had 4 3-point shooters on the floor. Imagine the 2009 Magic, except they have a dominant force on offense inside against all types of defenses that provides them with a constant source of offense. That's scary.


And yes, the Nets sucked. Sue Rod Thorn. Haha

[bastillon]

A.C. Green was the pf on the 2000 Lakers. Can't Shaq get the same argument?

Green was a solid role player. Chilcutt sucked. that's a pretty big difference.

What really matters is Drexler gave the Rockets that second superstar...talent at the top (especially since Drexler is the type of player where fit isn't an issue) is the best thing you can have. 1-2 combos rule. Besides, Horry got burn at the 4 as well, which was an advantage for the Rockets. They had 4 3-point shooters on the floor. Imagine the 2009 Magic, except they have a dominant force on offense inside against all types of defenses that provides them with a constant source of offense. That's scary.

Horry was the SF for that team, bc for some reason Tomjanovich didn't want him to start. perhaps that was because the Rockets were below average rebounding team and with Horry at the 3, Houston wasn't being outrebounded by that much. on the other hand, Horry as PF was easily better rebounder than any of the PFs Houston had and gave them spacing. the truth is Rockets were much better with Horry at PF and some dependable shooter at the 3, but Rudy didn't ackowledge it. when Horry finally became a starter, they swept Orlando. he spent the rest of the time at SF.

to me it's a knock on Tomjanovic. after seeing how well Horry did as PF against the Magic in '95 finals, he should've left him there next season, but he went back to this more traditional line-up with Chucky Brown at PF(who sucked). that's part of the reason why Rockets '96 ended their season much sooner than expected.

[drza]

Stepping away from the "Duncan vs Olajuwon theme" for a moment, I do give some credence to the thought that if a title run is going to get "extra credit" for difficulty then all circumstances should be included.

For instance, both Duncan's '03 and Olajuwon's '94 titles are given extra credit on these boards in comparison to titles won by other great players because these teams won without a second "star" player. For that to be a reasonable thing to do, though, then we have to take competition level and actual supporting cast strength into effect as well.

i.e. When the Lakers won the '87 title Magic had a supporting cast of All Stars. But you have to consider that the team that he was playing also had a team full of stars. On the other hand, while the '94 Rockets may not have had any other superstars playing with Hakeem they also were not facing the '87 Celtics on the way to the title. So saying that Hakeem's '94 is more impressive than Magic's '87 because he had less help...I don't really agree with that. It's basing a conclusion on only partial information.

I think context is important, and to that end I have no problem with the OP pointing out that the Spurs' cast was underrated (because so much emphasis is put on offense but defense is often ignored) or that the top teams in the league had major injuries to their best players. But if that's the case, the same treatment has to be given to Hakeem's Rockets who also had a stronger-than-advertised defensive/clutch shooting supporting cast and played in a league where the best player was "retired". And the same has to be applied to Kobe's '09 title as "the Man", as he also had a better-than-advertised supporting cast and played in a league where the last two championship teams had major injuries to vital players.

Bottom line: if you're going to look at circumstances, do it for everyone. I'm perfectly fine whether you want to just call a title a title or if you prefer going in-depth to see the circumstances surrounding a win, but don't do it halfway. Duncan and Olajuwon belong on the short list of greatest players ever because of their full body of work, not because of a nebulous "won without another star" extra credit boost that isn't as strong under scrutiny IMO.

[bastillon]

played in a league where the best player was "retired"

I think this is an unfair argument since their opponents had by far the best W% of any title teams opponents. competition does matter, but in case of Houston '95, there is no way you can use this argument against them.

oh, and MJ was in the league, albeit not 100%