Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[MacGill]

[quote="ShaqAttack3234"]
Listing head to head stats for the entire series implying that Shaq and Duncan matched up throughout the entire games is just wrong as well. Duncan and Shaq typically didn't even start the games guarding each other. Duncan would go against Samaki Walker and Horry quite a bit early and Shaq would go against Malik Rose and Mark Bryant quite a bit. Shaq and Duncan did defend each other quite a bit, but not even close to enough to just list the series stats as if they're head to head between the two players. Shaq defended Duncan more late in games, sometimes earlier, certainly for stretches, but fouls also dictated some of this, and both coaches clearly tried to avoid having their star big man guard the other of good amounts of the game. Anyone who watches the series will also see plenty of Duncan matched up with Horry and Walker and Shaq matched up with Rose and Mark Bryant. As for how they defended each other, both Shaq and Duncan were successful defending the other. It's ridiculous to post a stretch out of a 5 game series as if that's indicative of the entire series. Of course, Duncan limiting Shaq will be brought up while I'm sure it was just overlooked that Shaq limited Duncan and actually blocked quite a few of Duncan's shots.[quote]

+1, Same goes with Hakeem in 95 being matched up with Horace Grant for a good part of the series. Almost every opposing star big played off O'Neal quite a bit to conserve energy and fouls.

[therealbig3]

Well, I think overlooking how strong New Jersey's front line was defensively is unfair. Kenyon Martin was a really good defender, so was Jason Collins, so was Aaron Williams, and so was Dikembe Mutombo. Duncan destroyed them.

Yeah, he struggled offensively against Detroit's front line, but wasn't Sheed a two-way PF too? He was worse than Duncan in that series.

Also, with regards to Shaq...I believe colts18 has done thorough research through all the games and found that Duncan did guard Shaq a lot throughout their matchups...Robinson did get him most of the time, but Duncan was the 2nd choice to guard Shaq, and did a better job than anyone else. And it's also strange that Shaq's injuries are going to be mentioned in 02 (when that article states that Shaq wasn't feeling better until AFTER games 1 and 2 in Sacramento...games that he still dominated...which tells me that his injury wasn't the only reason why he struggled against SA), but Duncan's injuries from 04-06 aren't mentioned, when he struggled with Malone, Amare, and Dirk.

I can talk about Hakeem's matchups too:

1985
Utah: Mark Eaton...Hakeem averages 21/12 but on 49% TS

1986
Sacramento: Lasalle Thompson
Denver: Wayne Cooper
LAL: Old-ass Kareem who still averaged 27/7 on him
Boston: Nice stats, but Hakeem struggles badly in games 3 and 4 (the first two games were blowout losses), and Boston takes the 3-1 lead. Hakeem has a big game 5, but then doesn't play well in game 6. And Ralph Sampson isn't exactly a nobody at the time...Parish struggles, but Hakeem should get some blame for McHale's series as well, since he guarded him too...McHale averaged 26/9 in that series

1987
Portland: Steve Johnson
Seattle: Alton Lister and Clemon Johnson

1988
Dallas: James Donaldson

1989
Seattle: Alton Lister

1990
LAL: Mychal Thompson...Hakeem has a horrible series

1991
LAL: young Vlade Divac


Nobody's debating Hakeem was fantastic from 93-96...but you want to talk about overmatched competition, look at who Hakeem's matchups were from 85-91. And he had Sampson and Thorpe with him, so it's not like he was out there by himself guarding the PFs and Cs singlehandedly.

[therealbig3]

I also find it funny that Antonio McDyess is going to be called "young" in 98 as an explanation for why Duncan outplays him, when McDyess was OLDER than Duncan, and was in his 3rd season as opposed to Duncan being in his rookie year. Duncan outplays an older, more experienced player in his FIRST EVER playoff series, and the excuse is that the opposing player was "young".

[Shot Clock]

I also find it funny that Antonio McDyess is going to be called "young" in 98 as an explanation for why Duncan outplays him, when McDyess was OLDER than Duncan, and was in his 3rd season as opposed to Duncan being in his rookie year. Duncan outplays an older, more experienced player in his FIRST EVER playoff series, and the excuse is that the opposing player was "young".

As opposed to the "older" McDyess he play vs Detroit, the one most around here would be familiar with. I doubt many people even know he was a decent player. He wasn't nearly as refined a player as Duncan was, ever.

[Shot Clock]

The point of my list was that Duncan faced no competition in the playoffs That would even count in Hakeems Top 5 big men.

Side note: Downplaying Kareem? Kareem was a scoring beast.

There's no yardstick matchup, he never faced a true challenge in a traditional big.

[90sAllDecade]

Saying "Duncan had these players in 01-03" is like saying "hey, Lebron had Shaq in 2010" or "why didn't Hakeem make the Raptors good?" These players were not at a good place in their career arc from 01-03 (especially in 02, where the team just sucked beyond any words that can describe sucking). To call players "all stars on D" is to confuse what an all-star is. Mutombo was an all-star on D. Ben Wallace was an all-star on D. Rodman was an all-star on D. Not because any of them had an offensive game at all, but because their D was so good they were on the all-star team.

Nobody on the Spurs support cast was any kind of all-star, and some of their players were simply bad (on D and otherwise). Take a look at the Spurs wing and back-court rotation in the 01 playoffs. Not only was not a single one of those players "good on D", but they were actively bad players, between bench warmers and outright scrubs. The 02 and 03 Spurs were little better. D.Rob was not any kind of all-star at that point, indeed he was passed over for Wally S (that's how bad he looked). And it wasn't some snub because of his stats or because good D wasn't appreciated, Mutombo made the all-star team the same year and was an all-nba teamer purely on the back of his underrated big man D. D.Rob wasn't considered for such honours because he had collapsed as a player, and everyone knew it. He basically didn't even play in the 02 playoffs, and he wasn't much better in 03 when he did play (which wasn't very much). Bowen was good on D, but so bad on O that without a megastar to draw constant double teams like Duncan or Shaq (or peak Hakeem) he would have come off the bench or worse. Talk of how guys were "defensive all-stars" is usually a mask designed to hide the fact that they were "bad players", e.g. "Michael Curry is a good defensive player".

Tim Duncan Team Support during "Weak Team Years":

00'-01' - David Robinson - All Star, Led Spurs in Drtg over Duncan RS and PO (HOF), Greg Popovich (HOF) - Top 1-4 Coach of all time

01'-02 - Bruce Bowen- 2nd Team all NBA defense, David Robinson (HOF) - starter 30 mpg, 12 pts, 8 rebs, 2 blks, Lead Spurs in Drtg over Duncan RS, Tony Parker - All Rookie First Team (eventual HOF), Greg Popovich (HOF) - Top 1-4 Coach of All time

02'-03' - Bruce Bowen - 2nd Team all NBA Defense , David Robinson - close 2nd in Drtg in RS and PO, Manu Ginobilli (eventual HOF)- All Rookie 2nd Team, Greg Popovich (HOF)- Coach of the Year winner, Top 1-4 Coach all Time

Hakeem Team Support during 3 of selected "Weak Team Years" (not including many others yet)

91'-92 - Otis Thorpe - All Star (only time in career ever), (Coach Don Chaney Fired mid-season after horrible tenure)

92'-93' - Nothing (No All star, Defensive star/selection, HOF contribution or HOF coach)

93'-94 - Nothing

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

This doesn't even include the Rockets worst years in the 80's with a terrible Coach Don Chaney and teammates. There is no comparison to Duncan's team support vs Olajuwons. I haven't even gotten into competition yet.

Again, when taken in context with the rest, Hakeem is the better individual player imo.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well, I think overlooking how strong New Jersey's front line was defensively is unfair. Kenyon Martin was a really good defender, so was Jason Collins, so was Aaron Williams, and so was Dikembe Mutombo. Duncan destroyed them.

You're right, the Nets were a very good defensive team with good defensive team. Actually, K-Mart, was a good two-way power forward at the time. I think people have a tendency to look at a guy like Collins who had a poor offensive game and say "oh, he's a scrub" and try to diminish a performance because of that, when in reality, the reason a guy like that is in the league despite a terrible offensive game was his post defense. Different series, but if you look at the '99 finals, the player who actually defended Duncan the best was Chris Dudley, iirc. Dudley was a horrible offensive player, but he was a good defender. Problem was, he was so bad offensively, you didn't want him on the court that long. Anyway, it's not uncommon for "scrubs" like these players to do the better defensive job. As mentioned, many actually are very good post defenders, and some are in the league pretty much because of that. Plus, opposing stars will worry about foul trouble, and sometimes, conserving energy for the offensive end. People have an idea about these superstar match ups that's very different from reality.

As far as the '03 Finals, I believe Duncan was matched up with K-Mart most of the time, and as he did vs most natural 4s, pretty much dominated him in the post. The other guy I remember the Nets trying at times to give Duncan a different look was Mutombo. Either way, what people have to remember is that a lot of these aren't 1 on 1 match ups. Especially when it comes to post players, and in Duncan's case, I don't remember exactly how much he was doubled in that finals, bug I think a decent amount and I know he saw his share of doubles throughout that '03 run, which is one of the reasons he racked up so many assists.

Also, with regards to Shaq...I believe colts18 has done thorough research through all the games and found that Duncan did guard Shaq a lot throughout their matchups...Robinson did get him most of the time, but Duncan was the 2nd choice to guard Shaq, and did a better job than anyone else. And it's also strange that Shaq's injuries are going to be mentioned in 02 (when that article states that Shaq wasn't feeling better until AFTER games 1 and 2 in Sacramento...games that he still dominated...which tells me that his injury wasn't the only reason why he struggled against SA), but Duncan's injuries from 04-06 aren't mentioned, when he struggled with Malone, Amare, and Dirk.

There's no doubt that injuries were really bothering Shaq in the series. Watch when he's around the rim and going to finish, you can see he doesn't have anywhere near the same lift or explosiveness, and to add to that, Shaq was hesitant to finish strong because of the stitches in his hand.

And yeah, it wasn't uncommon for Shaq and Duncan to guard each other, but they usually weren't the primary match up, at least in their primes. Though sometimes, it'd be alternating sort of deal with Duncan and Robinson depending on who had foul trouble. Pop was doing that with those two frequently in 2000 when deciding who would guard the 4 and who would guard the 5, and who would guard the star big man. It became more set later because Robinson lost mobility, and his offense became less important, while in 2000, he was still an 18/10 player and a big enough part of the offense to actually lead the Spurs in scoring during the 2nd half of the season Duncan did do a surprisingly good job on Shaq most of the time, though Shaq often did a very good job defending Duncan.

LAL: Old-ass Kareem who still averaged 27/7 on him

I'll have to re-watch the series again, but I believe Sampson and Kareem were matched up most of the time. With that said, I know that Hakeem couldn't guard Kareem in the 80's regardless. There are 2 reasons for this, with one being that post defense wasn't Hakeem's strength when he was young, especially since Hakeem was really undisciplined his first few years, would try to block everything and you could get him to bite on fakes very easily. Plus, Kareem was about 7'3" while Dream was more like 6'10"-6'11" and then you throw in the sky hook. More importantly, despite Kareem's age, he was still a great offensive player in '86. He averaged 23.4 ppg and 3.5 apg with just 2.6 TO on 56.4 FG% for the season as the first option on a championship team. Plus, he had averaged 25.2 ppg and 3.6 apg on 59.9 FG% in 9 games during the first 2 rounds of the playoffs including 29.2 ppg and 4.2 apg with 2.8 TO on 59.7 FG% in 6 games during the WCSF vs Dallas. So despite Kareem averaging 27 ppg and 3.4 apg, Houston actually did a better job containing Kareem than most teams since Kareem was held below 50% shooting at 49.6% and he averaged 3.8 turnovers in the series.

1990
LAL: Mychal Thompson...Hakeem has a horrible series

\

Been a while since I've seen this one as well, though I believe Hakeem also matched up with Vlade at times as well, but I have to point out several things. First, Hakeem was doubled a ridiculous amount. Before one of the games, I believe game 2, Hubie Brown mentions how frequently Hakeem was doubled since they kept stats for it, but it's visible watching the series. That was a big factor in Hakeem struggling offensively, but I do remember that Dream was dominant defensively in the series. A real beast at that end, so I wouldn't call him horrible.

[Jonny Blaze]

This has always been a close debate.

When i started this thread I leaned toward Hakeem, but the arguments made in Duncan's favor have put me in the Tim Duncan camp.

Hakeem had way too many mediocre teams, while with Duncan you are getting consistent excellence every single year.

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

Tim Duncan has done it twice (beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the current Miami Heat.)

Duncan beat shadows of those two teams. And really, this "Ducnan beat the Spurs bit...ha. He was a piece of a team that did it. Not even the best piece in the Finals. If Hakeem had been there instead of Duncan, they still win that series. And that Lakers team, as I have pointed out, was NOT the same team. They were a 50-win also ran when Duncan (i.e. the Sours) beat them. This Heat squad is closer, but also never were that impressive this year. Or overall really. Outside of LeBron, looking back we may view the two-peat Lakers at least as well. That by the way is normally the way it works. The baton is normally passed when one team weakens and another rises up. Peak matchups are pretty rare (one of the reasons I think the Lakers/Celts in the 80s iso legendary).

More importantly of course, the "big dog" teams of Hakeem's era were bigger. He did beat the Showtime Lakers if you recall. He never even had a shot at the Bulls. After beating the Lakers he ran into one of the greatest teams of all time, at that team's peak. Meeting the 67 win Celtics is not the same thing as beating a declining 50 win Lakers team. Those Celtics would have beat any title team that either Hakeem or Duncan was on. They were that good.

Im Sorry man.....I went into this debate about 53% for Hakeem and 47% for Duncan and I think the Duncan fans have made much better arguments.

Your arguments are not that good because they are all based on hypotheticals.

What Superstar has Tim Duncan not beat? (Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Lebron, Wade...etc)

Are you going to tell me that the Western Conference hasn't been a monster conference for the past 10-15 years?

You are pulling the exact same arguments that you used to tear down Dirk Nowitski and the Mavs.....that the teams and superstars that they beat weren't actually that good the year they beat them.....which is ludicrous.

The Rockets never beat the Bulls and Michael Jordan, they never beat the Sonics.

You are a Rocket fan......why did you guys just fall off after 1995?


As soon as Jordan came back into the league the Rockets went right back to being just a pretty good team that faltered in the playoffs.

You remove 94 and 95 (two years that Jordan didn't play) and this Hakeem/Duncan discussion is not a debate.

What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.

[magicmerl]

As soon as Jordan came back into the league the Rockets went right back to being just a pretty good team that faltered in the playoffs.

I'm staggered that you can suggest this. Jordan's presence in the league isn't the reason why the Rockets failed to advance in the Western conference playoffs, and his absence wasn't the reason why they finally broke through.

Sure, the Rockets may have lost to the Bulls in the finals but they still would have been finalists in the same way those doomed Utah teams were subesquently.

[Brooklyn_34]

I watched Hakeem and obviously Duncan.

Personally, I don't see how this isn't Duncan. Forgive me, but I don't see how this is even close.

Hakeem absolutely had the better PEAK than Duncan.

The problem is that I cannot picture Duncan almost being traded for a lesser player (as Hakeem almost was in the early 1990s) and being on a team that after reaching the Finals barely scratched the first round of the playoffs for about 6-7 seasons.

I respect Hakeem as an all-time great, but Hakeem didn't fully understand the game of basketball until he reached 30. He really didn't make anyone around him better because he didn't trust his teammates. It wasn't until he started passing the ball (and developing a consistent midrange game) that his game really opened up and he elevated his teammates.

With Duncan, he was good to go from DAY 1. DAY 1--he was like wine that needed no more aging.

No, he didn't peak like Hakeem. No he didn't have a PF matchup where you said he completely destroyed him.

But to have the run that Duncan has had is nothing short of incredible IMO. I simply cannot imagine Hakeem doing what Duncan is doing now.

Love me some Hakeem, but if I had to start a franchise today, Duncan, no questions asked.

[Baller2014]

A lot of stuff has been said since my last post, so this will be a long reply.

They lost to the Lakers in 1990 and 1991 so I give Hakeem a pass for those two seasons.

It was Hakeem's fault they were playing those teams in the first place. Don't lead your solid support cast to 500. ball in the regular season in 1990 and you don't play the best team.

the only time he faced strong defensive PF's he struggled

This is completely untrue. In the 04 series for instance Duncan was not just against Malone, he was constantly being doubled by Shaq because Rasho was useless. And he still did well in what was a grind out series that neither of them stood out in. As was pointed out, Duncan dominated the strong defensive front court of the Nets, and there are numerous other examples.

I'm going to zero in on this post, because the Rockets fans seem to be looking to this guy, although I have to say a lot of this was already covered on the thread.

The revisionist underrating of Duncan's teams has definitely gone overboard, imo. Duncan had bad teams from '01-'03? Duncan has never been on a truly bad team along the lines of T-Mac's Magic, Kobe's '06 Lakers, MJ's '87 Bulls, Wade's '09 Heat ect. More importantly, his '01 team wasn't even remotely bad.

His 01 team was the strongest of the 3 I named (probably), in the regular season anyway, but it was definitely bad. Firstly, Derek Anderson was hurt in the playoffs, so you can scrub him from being considered as a factor. The few games he tried to force himself to play a few minutes in the Laker series he looked so hobbled it was clear it'd been a mistake to even let him play (he averaged 2ppg, 2rpg on 0FG% when he played for 20mpg in 2 games). As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. You mention Derek Anderson shot "39% from the 3", what you fail to mention is that his FG% that year was 416. and his career % was 402. The guy was a gunner who took many ill advised shots, and was worse in the playoffs than the regular season. Derek Anderson padded numbers for good or desperate teams, but was not actually a good scorer. His three highest seasons he averaged 16.9 padding for a Clippers, 15.5 gunning for the talent deficient Spurs backcourt, and 13.9 for the Blazers. His career average was 12ppg. If it wasn't for his 1 year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who Derek Anderson was. He just seemed good because of how bad the rest of the Spurs wings were. Let's go over that now.

Why was Anderson able to shine in the Spurs backcourt? Here's why. It consisted of:
- Antonio Daniels, a career back-up on a good team who was forced into a starting role
- 36 year old Avery Johnson, who was so washed up he basically became a player coach after this year (where he'd play stints of the season for various teams on the understanding he was trying to become a coach there after)
- 38 year old Terry Porter, so old he squeaked when he moved. All he could still do was shoot and throw an entry pass.
- 35 year old Dan Ferry's corpse. All he could do was shoot at this point.
- 33 year Sean Elliot, now crippled by kidney disease, who was so bad this year he promptly retired after it was over.
-35 year old Steve Kerr, who couldn't do anything except shoot
That's maybe the worst backcourt I've ever seen on a contender. They couldn't defend anything, and there is not one guy who is a real starter there (maybe not even Anderson, who was hurt). Worse, they didn't even shoot well in the playoffs (the only thing they were meant to be good at). Terry Porter was 3-18 at the 3 in the Lakers series. Antonio Daniels, who the Spurs were forced to play an unbelievable 42mpg, was 3-17 that series.

Malik Rose was a fan favourite, but he was a bench scrub who had no business getting serious minutes on a contender. He was a 6-6, overweight power forward with negligible skill who couldn't shoot. I liked the guy, a lot of Spurs fans did, he had a good attitude (mostly), but he was not a guy I wanted to see on the court more than 10mpg, and certainly not to guard the 7-1 Shaq (low centre of gravity or not).

In fairness, D/Rob sharply declined in 02, not so much in 01, where D.Rob was still a very serviceable, above average big man. I'll stop short of saying he was an all-star (he might have been in 01), but he was still good (unlike in 02 and especially in 03). But that's literally all they had. The rest of the squad was hot garbage, which is why I referred to the wings and backcourt as being the problem.

Granted, the 2002 team was significantly worse, and I've always considered it the worst cast Duncan has ever had, and definitely a weak team for a contender, but not a bad team in general relative to the rest of the NBA.

Suffice to say, I agree with the worse sentence, and not the second. It was a bad support cast by any definition. Robinson was a well below average player in 02. He couldn't play for long stretches because of stamina issues, he ran stiffly and he had sharply declined. In the playoffs he basically didn't play, and was banged up when he did. The next year of course D.Rob was notably worse (while he played in the 03 Lakers series, he was such a non-factor outside of the first game, you could be forgiven for not noticing it).

Malik Rose, like I said, was still not good. He was being forced into a starter role by the total lack of support on the team. Anyone can fill a stat sheet (to the extent Malik's stats "improved"), but whether that player is someone who should see the court in the first place is another matter. There are plenty of scrubs who get great per 36 minute stats, but there's a reason they're not getting 36 minutes. Check out Baynes per 36 stats this year.

As for Bruce Bowen, he shot worse than usual in 02 (389 FG%), played only 59 regular season games that year, and was a guy who most teams wouldn't have been able to start. That he could start for the Spurs was wholly due to Duncan being able to draw constant double teams, which in turn allowed Bowen to get his one shot (the wide open corner 3). Without a Duncan/Shaq like player, Bowen would have been unusable. He was not a holistically good player, no team was out there trying to offer good money to Bowen, because they knew this. He was a great wing defender though, it's just Duncan who made him usable. Steve Smith shot the best he had ever (thanks to Duncan getting him so many open looks), but much like Ferry he was at the point in his career where all he could do was shoot. He pretty much ceased to be an NBA player after this year (assuming he was one this year). Charles Smith was obviously a scrub, Daniels a frustrating bench player getting way too many minutes, and Tony Parker a raw rookie getting 9ppg. He wasn't Tony Parker as we know him until 04 at the earliest (when he started to become the Parker we know today)

As for the 2003 Spurs, it's just ridiculous to call them a bad team. They had perimeter talent in Parker, Jackson and Ginobili, even if none were particularly consistent.

Whether you're consistent is a big part of whether you're good in the NBA. Parker was still very raw, he was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the finals, and Manu was a 20mpg player who caused the coach a lot of headaches with his wild play. S.Jax was not a good player at this point. He showed a few signs, but he was not S.Jax as we came to know him. Other teams didn't think he was either. In the offseason after turning down a modest offer from the Spurs for 2-3 mill a year, he discovered nobody was interested in signing him. He ended up settled for a 1 year, $1 million contract from the Hawks. Sometimes he hit shots, but not usually when it mattered, and certainly not consistently. In the Lakers series he shot 0/10 from the 3pt line in games the Spurs won.

Malik Rose was still a scrub. D.Rob was worse than he'd ever been, hurt in the regular season, mostly MIA in the playoffs. Bowen still had all the problems I alluded to earlier. Duncan made Bowen. Without him he wouldn't have been able to get on the court. Duncan got guys open shots, and sometimes they had "on" nights where they'd score, but that'll happen. From a holistic point of view the team was just not good though. The NBA is a star league, and the mere presence of Kobe and Shaq on the same team should have made all these meh players irrelevant. It certainly had the previous 3 years. That they won is a testament to Duncan's awesomeness, no more no less.

Duncan beat shadows of those two teams.

Shadows that were favourites leading in, and who in the case of the Lakers were favourites after 2003 too. This idea that people saw the Lakers as having been finished is just way off.

More importantly of course, the "big dog" teams of Hakeem's era were bigger.

Yup, went down to the X-Man Sonics (twice), the Blackman Mavs, the young Payton Sonics, and didn't even make the playoffs in 92. He was sure going down to the giants of the 80's. Try carrying your team to more than 41 wins, then you won't play the showtime Lakers in round 1.

It's worth adding that Duncan beat the 99 Lakers, which had Shaq, an all-NBA Kobe, and several other all-stars too. The idea he beat only bad teams is rubbish.

I know Shaqattack tries to downplay Duncan's duel with Shaq in 02, but the reality is that they did play head to head the overwhelming majority of the series, and here's the outcome:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg, 3.2bpg on 517TS%
Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg, 3bpg on 487TS%

Duncan had only himself in 02. Shaq had Kobe. End of discussion really.

[ronnymac2]

Anaheim Royale/Gilmore Fan really loves him some Tim Duncan, doesn't he?

[Baller2014]

Hakeem Team Support during 3 of selected "Weak Team Years" (not including many others yet)

91'-92 - Otis Thorpe - All Star (only time in career ever), (Coach Don Chaney Fired mid-season after horrible tenure)

92'-93' - Nothing (No All star, Defensive star/selection, HOF contribution or HOF coach)

93'-94 - Nothing

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

This doesn't even include the Rockets worst years in the 80's with a terrible Coach Don Chaney and teammates. There is no comparison to Duncan's team support vs Olajuwons. I haven't even gotten into competition yet.

Again, when taken in context with the rest, Hakeem is the better individual player imo.

Posts like this destroy the credibility of the Hakeem side. "Nothing". Yeh, because Otis Thorpe ceased to play like a all-star in years he didn't make it. Pop is mentioned as the Spurs coach, and a D.Rob who was a shell of himself, but Rudy and Thorpe are "nothing". Ugh.

[PaulieWal]

Shadows that were favourites leading in, and who in the case of the Lakers were favourites after 2003 too.

You made some great points but the Heat were not the favorites leading in. Most analysts and journalists picked the Spurs, Vegas had Spurs as the slight favorites too before the series began.

[Baller2014]

Shadows that were favourites leading in, and who in the case of the Lakers were favourites after 2003 too.

You made some great points but the Heat were not the favorites leading in. Most analysts and journalists picked the Spurs, Vegas had Spurs as the slight favorites too before the series began.

I'm talking about the favourites at the start of the season, not after Duncan shocked everyone during it. The Heat were the clear Vegas favourites in 2013. Nobody really had the Spurs making the finals, they thought they were finished (again).

[PaulieWal]

Shadows that were favourites leading in, and who in the case of the Lakers were favourites after 2003 too.

You made some great points but the Heat were not the favorites leading in. Most analysts and journalists picked the Spurs, Vegas had Spurs as the slight favorites too before the series began.

I'm talking about the favourites at the start of the season, not after Duncan shocked everyone during it. The Heat were the clear Vegas favourites in 2013. Nobody really had the Spurs making the finals, they thought they were finished (again).

I am referring to the 2014 Finals and you can't really use odds at the beginning of the season to say that the Heat were the favorites to win it. The Heat are favorites for the 2015 title too but that's meaningless. It makes sense to use the predictions/odds right before the series started.

[Baller2014]

The whole point of determining how you meet expectations is to look at what the expectations were, before you started exceeding them and people adjusted the expectations. The Phoenix Suns weren't supposed to make the playoffs in 05, but once they starting ripping it up of course people started giving them cred by the time the playoffs rolled around. They still obviously exceeded actual expectations.

[baki]

A lot of stuff has been said since my last post, so this will be a long reply.

They lost to the Lakers in 1990 and 1991 so I give Hakeem a pass for those two seasons.

It was Hakeem's fault they were playing those teams in the first place. Don't lead your solid support cast to 500. ball in the regular season in 1990 and you don't play the best team.

the only time he faced strong defensive PF's he struggled

This is completely untrue. In the 04 series for instance Duncan was not just against Malone, he was constantly being doubled by Shaq because Rasho was useless. And he still did well in what was a grind out series that neither of them stood out in. As was pointed out, Duncan dominated the strong defensive front court of the Nets, and there are numerous other examples.

I'm going to zero in on this post, because the Rockets fans seem to be looking to this guy, although I have to say a lot of this was already covered on the thread.

The revisionist underrating of Duncan's teams has definitely gone overboard, imo. Duncan had bad teams from '01-'03? Duncan has never been on a truly bad team along the lines of T-Mac's Magic, Kobe's '06 Lakers, MJ's '87 Bulls, Wade's '09 Heat ect. More importantly, his '01 team wasn't even remotely bad.

His 01 team was the strongest of the 3 I named (probably), in the regular season anyway, but it was definitely bad. Firstly, Derek Anderson was hurt in the playoffs, so you can scrub him from being considered as a factor. The few games he tried to force himself to play a few minutes in the Laker series he looked so hobbled it was clear it'd been a mistake to even let him play (he averaged 2ppg, 2rpg on 0FG% when he played for 20mpg in 2 games). As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. You mention Derek Anderson shot "39% from the 3", what you fail to mention is that his FG% that year was 416. and his career % was 402. The guy was a gunner who took many ill advised shots, and was worse in the playoffs than the regular season. Derek Anderson padded numbers for good or desperate teams, but was not actually a good scorer. His three highest seasons he averaged 16.9 padding for a Clippers, 15.5 gunning for the talent deficient Spurs backcourt, and 13.9 for the Blazers. His career average was 12ppg. If it wasn't for his 1 year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who Derek Anderson was. He just seemed good because of how bad the rest of the Spurs wings were. Let's go over that now.

Why was Anderson able to shine in the Spurs backcourt? Here's why. It consisted of:
- Antonio Daniels, a career back-up on a good team who was forced into a starting role
- 36 year old Avery Johnson, who was so washed up he basically became a player coach after this year (where he'd play stints of the season for various teams on the understanding he was trying to become a coach there after)
- 38 year old Terry Porter, so old he squeaked when he moved. All he could still do was shoot and throw an entry pass.
- 35 year old Dan Ferry's corpse. All he could do was shoot at this point.
- 33 year Sean Elliot, now crippled by kidney disease, who was so bad this year he promptly retired after it was over.
-35 year old Steve Kerr, who couldn't do anything except shoot
That's maybe the worst backcourt I've ever seen on a contender. They couldn't defend anything, and there is not one guy who is a real starter there (maybe not even Anderson, who was hurt). Worse, they didn't even shoot well in the playoffs (the only thing they were meant to be good at). Terry Porter was 3-18 at the 3 in the Lakers series. Antonio Daniels, who the Spurs were forced to play an unbelievable 42mpg, was 3-17 that series.

Malik Rose was a fan favourite, but he was a bench scrub who had no business getting serious minutes on a contender. He was a 6-6, overweight power forward with negligible skill who couldn't shoot. I liked the guy, a lot of Spurs fans did, he had a good attitude (mostly), but he was not a guy I wanted to see on the court more than 10mpg, and certainly not to guard the 7-1 Shaq (low centre of gravity or not).

In fairness, D/Rob sharply declined in 02, not so much in 01, where D.Rob was still a very serviceable, above average big man. I'll stop short of saying he was an all-star (he might have been in 01), but he was still good (unlike in 02 and especially in 03). But that's literally all they had. The rest of the squad was hot garbage, which is why I referred to the wings and backcourt as being the problem.

Granted, the 2002 team was significantly worse, and I've always considered it the worst cast Duncan has ever had, and definitely a weak team for a contender, but not a bad team in general relative to the rest of the NBA.

Suffice to say, I agree with the worse sentence, and not the second. It was a bad support cast by any definition. Robinson was a well below average player in 02. He couldn't play for long stretches because of stamina issues, he ran stiffly and he had sharply declined. In the playoffs he basically didn't play, and was banged up when he did. The next year of course D.Rob was notably worse (while he played in the 03 Lakers series, he was such a non-factor outside of the first game, you could be forgiven for not noticing it).

Malik Rose, like I said, was still not good. He was being forced into a starter role by the total lack of support on the team. Anyone can fill a stat sheet (to the extent Malik's stats "improved"), but whether that player is someone who should see the court in the first place is another matter. There are plenty of scrubs who get great per 36 minute stats, but there's a reason they're not getting 36 minutes. Check out Baynes per 36 stats this year.

As for Bruce Bowen, he shot worse than usual in 02 (389 FG%), played only 59 regular season games that year, and was a guy who most teams wouldn't have been able to start. That he could start for the Spurs was wholly due to Duncan being able to draw constant double teams, which in turn allowed Bowen to get his one shot (the wide open corner 3). Without a Duncan/Shaq like player, Bowen would have been unusable. He was not a holistically good player, no team was out there trying to offer good money to Bowen, because they knew this. He was a great wing defender though, it's just Duncan who made him usable. Steve Smith shot the best he had ever (thanks to Duncan getting him so many open looks), but much like Ferry he was at the point in his career where all he could do was shoot. He pretty much ceased to be an NBA player after this year (assuming he was one this year). Charles Smith was obviously a scrub, Daniels a frustrating bench player getting way too many minutes, and Tony Parker a raw rookie getting 9ppg. He wasn't Tony Parker as we know him until 04 at the earliest (when he started to become the Parker we know today)

As for the 2003 Spurs, it's just ridiculous to call them a bad team. They had perimeter talent in Parker, Jackson and Ginobili, even if none were particularly consistent.

Whether you're consistent is a big part of whether you're good in the NBA. Parker was still very raw, he was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the finals, and Manu was a 20mpg player who caused the coach a lot of headaches with his wild play. S.Jax was not a good player at this point. He showed a few signs, but he was not S.Jax as we came to know him. Other teams didn't think he was either. In the offseason after turning down a modest offer from the Spurs for 2-3 mill a year, he discovered nobody was interested in signing him. He ended up settled for a 1 year, $1 million contract from the Hawks. Sometimes he hit shots, but not usually when it mattered, and certainly not consistently. In the Lakers series he shot 0/10 from the 3pt line in games the Spurs won.

Malik Rose was still a scrub. D.Rob was worse than he'd ever been, hurt in the regular season, mostly MIA in the playoffs. Bowen still had all the problems I alluded to earlier. Duncan made Bowen. Without him he wouldn't have been able to get on the court. Duncan got guys open shots, and sometimes they had "on" nights where they'd score, but that'll happen. From a holistic point of view the team was just not good though. The NBA is a star league, and the mere presence of Kobe and Shaq on the same team should have made all these meh players irrelevant. It certainly had the previous 3 years. That they won is a testament to Duncan's awesomeness, no more no less.

Duncan beat shadows of those two teams.

Shadows that were favourites leading in, and who in the case of the Lakers were favourites after 2003 too. This idea that people saw the Lakers as having been finished is just way off.

More importantly of course, the "big dog" teams of Hakeem's era were bigger.

Yup, went down to the X-Man Sonics (twice), the Blackman Mavs, the young Payton Sonics, and didn't even make the playoffs in 92. He was sure going down to the giants of the 80's. Try carrying your team to more than 41 wins, then you won't play the showtime Lakers in round 1.

It's worth adding that Duncan beat the 99 Lakers, which had Shaq, an all-NBA Kobe, and several other all-stars too. The idea he beat only bad teams is rubbish.

I know Shaqattack tries to downplay Duncan's duel with Shaq in 02, but the reality is that they did play head to head the overwhelming majority of the series, and here's the outcome:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg, 3.2bpg on 517TS%
Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg, 3bpg on 487TS%

Duncan had only himself in 02. Shaq had Kobe. End of discussion really.

I'm a Rockets fan as well as a Spurs fan but that was very well said, though I don't agree that Malik Rose was that bad. I do agree the argument for Duncan has been better than for Hakeem, but the poll results haven't shown that yet.

This discussion has opened my eyes a bit more regarding the center and power forward positions in terms of court usability and ball stoppage, power forwards seem to have better court vision and passing options on the floor compared to centers where the ball would often get stuck. Interesting.

[Mattsanity]

Duncan at age 23 > hakeem at 23.
Duncan at age 38 > hakeem at 38.

Why would anyone choose hakeem over duncan when it comes to starting a franchise

[microfib4thewin]

Duncan led the league in FGM and FTM in 2002. How can anyone say that Spurs offense was helpful for Duncan?