Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[Quotatious]

Poll results seem to be pretty fair. 39-37 for Duncan right now. I wonder how Shaq would fare against these two? He seems to be the most dominant in terms of peak/prime, but I guess his propensity for causing trouble could discourage a few people.

[baki]

He topped scored all of them, led with the most rebounds and was second to Avery Johnson in assists. You make it sound like Duncan was joining a playoff ready team just because people expected Robinson to be the same player coming back from injury.

No, I make it sound like he was joining anything but a losing franchise. I make it sound like he was joining a long term perennial power used to winning, teamed with not only a HOFer, but a classy nice guy HOFer who politely got out of the way rather than Kobeing him, and coached by a coach now thought of as one of the 4 best of all time.

You on the other hand make it sound like he headed into distressed circumstances. Those circumstances were about as far from distressed as any #1 pick has ever had.

NO, no and...

Unfortunately you seem confused about what this thread is actually about

...no.

I'm just using the existing model in the era that these guys played in roughly under similar situations to make the comparison. The key is how each player reacted to the competition, to their teams, how their skills improved, how long they lasted and so on.

Olajuwon (Sampson, McCray, Lloyd all scored over 1000 points) had a better supporting first year cast than Duncan (only injured Robinson scored over 1000 points), Duncan was ready to play, Olajuwon needed another season.

Duncan topped scored as a rookie, Olajuwon didn't.

Olajuwon had more healthy 1st rounders and quality players (Thorpe, Smith, Maxwell, Horry, Elie) around him than Duncan did in their championship years. Olajuwon needed people around him to make him better because he was selfish and he was not a passer.

Olajuwon played at least 3 seasons with the same group of people until they won their first championship, Duncan only needed 2 seasons with different lineups to win his.

During Olajuwon's peak, Houston lost more games in the second championship year and his numbers started to declined rapidly afterwards even at 32, Duncan had 4 more championships to go over 3 decades and is still going at 38. Olajuwon couldn't maintain his peak while Duncan did. Who would you rather have over 18 years?

Olajuwon's Houston in their prime didn't have to play against a strong team like the Chicago Bulls or even Seattle. When Jordan really came back, Chicago swept Houston in 95-96 with a slow center like Longley on Olajuwon. Houston never won a championship again, not even with Drexler, Barkley or Pippen on the team. Duncan faced championship teams LA, Dallas, Miami/Cleveland several times and won.

The truth is, we don't even need to speculate WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN over the course of 18 years because it has already been played out. Olajuwon would have wanted a team that made him look better because he was more selfish, while Duncan just needed any team to play on. It's that simple.

Your fantasy is thinking that Olajuwon could play like he did in those 2 special years over 18 seasons, it never happened and never was going to happen. And that's why the all time top ten with Olajuwon is wrong, and that's why starting a franchise with Olajuwon was never going to beat Duncan's.

[Shot Clock]

You can write all the would-haves and should-haves that you want but Duncan clearly has achieved more than Olajuwon ever had in a 17 year career which is what this thread has been about.

I'll give you another would have since you like them so much. In 1986 the Rockets "Would have" won a title if they had the 1999 Knicks waiting for them in the Finals". Completely different eras completely different situations.

[baki]

You can write all the would-haves and should-haves that you want but Duncan clearly has achieved more than Olajuwon ever had in a 17 year career which is what this thread has been about.

I'll give you another would have since you like them so much. In 1986 the Rockets "Would have" won a title if they had the 1999 Knicks waiting for them in the Finals". Completely different eras completely different situations.

Don't understand your point here. Are you saying that the 1999 Knicks were bad? Sorry but they came up tops in the east against Riley's Miami, Lenny Wilkins' Hawks and Larry Bird's Pacers. Not bad for a team that only had a 27-23 record.

The Knicks never played SA during the regular season that year but they were swept by them the year before even with a more talented lineup of Ewing, Houston, Larry Johnson, Latrell Sprewell, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby, Ward and Childs. Easily more than a handful for the Rockets, let alone the 1986 Rockets.

[Shot Clock]

You can write all the would-haves and should-haves that you want but Duncan clearly has achieved more than Olajuwon ever had in a 17 year career which is what this thread has been about.

I'll give you another would have since you like them so much. In 1986 the Rockets "Would have" won a title if they had the 1999 Knicks waiting for them in the Finals". Completely different eras completely different situations.

Don't understand your point here. Are you saying that the 1999 Knicks were bad? Sorry but they came up tops in the east against Riley's Miami, Lenny Wilkins' Hawks and Larry Bird's Pacers. Not bad for a team that only had a 27-23 record.

The Knicks never played SA during the regular season that year but they were swept by them the year before even with a more talented lineup of Ewing, Houston, Larry Johnson, Latrell Sprewell, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby, Ward and Childs. Easily more than a handful for the Rockets, let alone the 1986 Rockets.

Alright, I've seen enough.

[90sAllDecade]

Quick question for Duncan supporters. Hakeem was known for dominating or outplaying his HOF peers in the playoffs.

I think you're applying Hakeem's 2 year championship peak accross a 17 year career.

If you want to say which player peaked the highest, that's one thing. If you're saying you want that player more for 17 years, that's quite another.

What happened to prime 28 year old Duncan getting shredded on defense by a 22 year old Amar'e Stoudimire against the Suns in the 2005 playoffs? Olajuwon never had a player go off for 37 pts on .611% TS on him for a series during his peak/prime.

LOL. You're picking a series the Spurs won 4-1 as an example of Duncan being bad? I never felt for a moment that the Spurs would lose to the Nash-led Suns in any year.

Here's their respective stats from that series:
Duncan ORtg123 DRtg111 USG29.3 PTS27.4 REB13.8 AST3.2 BLK0.6 BLK1.8
Amare ORtg121 DRtg118 USG37.5 PTS37.0 REB9.8 AST1.4 STL1.0 BLK1.6

Despite Amare's gaudy point totals and astronomical USG%, he still had an ORtg very close to Duncans. But defensively and in terms of rebounding, there's no contest who was the more valuable player.

They wanted to keep Duncan out of foul trouble and basically would hide him from Amare. Amare is a true PF and Duncan played center for many years. Amare averaged 39 pts a game vs Duncan and the Spurs in that regular season too. Duncan is a better PF, had a better coach & team defensively and would win, but Amare still torched them.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stoudam01/splits/2005/

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2005_WCF.html#SAS-PHO

Now, using your metric:

2006 playoffs Dirk vs Duncan:

Dirk (age 27): Ortg 128 Drtg 107 Usg 25.5 Pts 27.1 Reb 13.3 Ast 2.7 Stl 1.4 Blk 0.4 TS .654%
Duncan (age 29): Ortg 122 Drtg 111 Usg 34.6 Pts 32.3 Reb 11.7 Ast 3.7 Stl 1.0 Blk 2.6 TS .615%

So, despite Duncan's "gaudy point totals and astronomical USG%", he still had an ORtg AND Drtg lower than Dirk's. But defensively Duncan (who was known for defense, unlike Dirk) got outplayed and edged out in terms of rebounding, Dirk was the more valuable player. The Spurs had HCA, comparable talent and still lost.

While he was dominant, Duncan was out played in the playoffs by a HOF peer in his prime at age 29 imo.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2006_WCS.html#DAL-SAS

2009 playoffs Dirk vs Duncan:

Dirk (age 30): Ortg 118 Drtg 106 Usg 24.2 Pts 19.2 Reb 8.6 Ast 2.2 Stl 1.0 Blk 0.6 TS% .595
Duncan (age 32) Ortg 115 Drtg 113 Usg 29.5 Pts 19.8 Reb 8.0 Ast 3.2 Stl 0.6 Blk 1.2 TS% .554

At this age Hakeem was going off in the playoffs and dominating or outplaying his HOF peers at center. Duncan puts up similar numbers but again is outplayed as even Tony Parker clearly was the better Spurs player putting up 28 pts 7 ast 4 rebs on .588 TS% to carry Duncan and the Spurs.

Again the Spurs had HCA as the 3rd seed and lost 4-1 to the sixth seed Mavs with Dirk with comparable talent. Duncan got outplayed by a power forward HOF peer again in the playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2009_WC1.html#DAL-SAS

I haven't included other times he was outplayed in the playoffs but I could go on.

Now I consider Duncan the greatest PF and he edges out Dirk head to head. But a HOF peer out played him in the playoffs his prime and at age 32 & 33 in comparison to Hakeem. Who peaked those years and dominated or outplayed his HOF center peers during this time span.

[O_6]

I went back and forth on this one. I think it comes down to your interpretation of "Start a franchise".

I'm someone who believes that Hakeem had a higher ceiling than Duncan. Peak Hakeem around '93 and '94 probably checked more boxes than any player in NBA history. When we did the All-Time League project, Peak Hakeem's all-around impact was actually one of the most impressive things. His strengths to weakness ratio was out of this world.

Even guys like Peak Duncan and Peak Shaq had shortcomings that could be taken advantage of in an all-time league. For Duncan, it was the fact that he was not a great #1 offensive option in an All-Time League. For Shaq, it was the fact that he was a limited defender and poor shooter who could be taken advantage of on defense by elite guard play. Peak Hakeem was considered a great #1 offensive option AND a great defensive anchor by even All-Time League standards. He was the only player in the league who was considered great at both. That says a lot when you are talking about such an amazingly loaded league filled with the greatest rosters imaginable.

So Peak Hakeem's scoring ceiling just always stands out. He felt more unstoppable than Duncan. Whereas Duncan struggled on offense against the Pistons and the Wallace bros. in the Finals, Hakeem was able to score at a very impressive rate against the Knicks and Ewing/Mason. Both were historic defenses with incredible interior defense and yet Hakeem was able to score 27 PPG on .500 FG% while Duncan was only able to score 21 PPG on .419 FG% shooting.

The problem with Hakeem is the fact that he was not a consistently great offensive player in his 20s. He always showed up in the playoffs but over the course of hundreds of regular season games, Hakeem was not a dominant offensive player until '93 when he was 30. Take a look at Duncan and Hakeem's regular season offensive numbers during their 20s....

Player ------ Pts/100 --- TS% ---- Ast% ---- Tov%
Hakeem ----- 29.7 ------ .553 ---- 9.4% ---- 13.1% ----- through age 29
Duncan ------ 31.2 ------ .551 ---- 16.2% --- 12.6% ----- through age 29

Hakeem ----- 34.3 ------ .564 ---- 16.7% --- 12.7% ----- from ages 30-34
Duncan ------ 29.7 ------ .555 ---- 17.5% --- 11.7% ----- from ages 30-34


Over the course of their 20s, Tim Duncan was clearly the better offensive player in the regular season. He was a FAAR superior passer and decision maker. Whereas Hakeem would often dribble dribble dribble and pound the rock, Duncan was a lot quicker and more efficient with his moves and decision making. Duncan was actually the superior scorer in the regular season during their 20s as well. I think people underestimate what a diverse and skilled offensive game Young Timmy had. He had a better face-up game than Hakeem imo and he was very decisive with his moves.

It wasn't until '93 when Hakeem consistently became a great regular season offensive player because he finally started to learn how to pass better. Once Hakeem was able to develop his passing, it allowed his volume scoring game to blossom and he became a far more dangerous scorer than Duncan ever was. Unfortunately, Hakeem's offensive game flourished in his 30s when his defensive game started to decline. So outside of '93 and maybe '94, I don't think Hakeem was ever better than Duncan at both offense and defense.

So the answer to this question really depends on Hakeem's offensive production in his 20s. If "Start your Franchise" means that you can draft each of these guys knowing what we know now, I would draft Hakeem and try and teach him how to pass earlier on in his career. If Hakeem could pass in his 20s, we would be comparing him to the Jordan/Russell/Kareem tier imo. Those few years where Hakeem's peak defense and offense overlapped were legendary, he probably brought more to the table than any one player ever at his very peak. If I could draft him to start my franchise, I would try and surround him with the right offensive cast and teach him how to pass earlier so I could expand that peak offense + peak defense window. Because peak Hakeem was simply better than peak Duncan.

But if "Start your Franchise" means that you get the same performance and careers out of these players, I'd go Duncan. Duncan was a comparable defender, better in terms of Defensive IQ/Positioning and Rebounding imo. While Hakeem was the slightly better man defender and more chaotic help defender. But both guys were A+ defensive players that would both provide dominant play on that end. So it comes down to offensive production, and Duncan was simply a better offensive threat in his 20s because he knew how to pass from the get-go and just had a better feel for the game in his 20s. This is why I rank Duncan higher on my GOAT lists despite thinking that Hakeem had the higher peak.

Since this is a hypothetical, I'm going to go ahead and take Hakeem and try and maximize his career by teaching him how to pass in his 20s and surrounding him with a capable supporting cast. But that's definitely the more risky pick.

[RayBan-Sematra]

For Shaq, it was the fact that he was a limited defender and poor shooter who could be taken advantage of on defense by elite guard play.

Don't really agree with this.
Shaq up until 2004 had extremely good mobility and incredibly quick feet.

I can remember one defensive play by Shaq in the 95 Finals where he managed to move his feet quick enough to stay with Hakeem who was executing a lightning quick spinmove towards the basket.
Shaq stayed infront of him through the entire move and then managed to alter his shot into a miss.

Shaq's effort at times when it came to stepping out on the perimeter when he was forced into a switch was indeed poor but he did have the capability to guard those plays well.
He couldn't guard them like Hakeem, Robinson or KG could but he could still do it well if he put in the effort.

I would also add that Shaq's coaches often asked him to fall back on PnR plays in order to protect the rim so it wasn't always a lack of effort on his part.

Even if I was to agree that Shaq generally did not do a great job at switching and staying with guards on the perimeter that still does not make him a limited defender.
He excelled greatly at every other aspect of defense like post defense, man defense and rim protection. So in no way was he a "limited" defensive player. He was an elite defensive anchor who was generally average to poor in one aspect of defense.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Now, with that caveat out of the way, the injury excuses with Shaq are tired. Shaq had no problems dominating the 1st, 3rd and 4th round of the playoffs while banged up. The fact he couldn't do it matched up on Duncan tells us something more.

So why did Shaq murder Duncan the year before and also have a dominant offensive series against him the following two years (03/04).
Why in that 4 year stretch did he struggle offensively only in that one series against Duncan?

As I said before he really did have multiple injuries flare up and occur at the time.
It was just bad luck.

In 04 Duncan was constantly double teamed by Malone and Shaq, because Rasho was useless. To say Shaq "outplayed" Duncan in 04 is misleading. He wasn't doing it alone.

So?
What about Duncan having a very potent Robinson in 99 or 01?
Using the Malone excuse is unfair if you are going to ignore the times when Duncan had a potent Robinson at his side who was in those specific years certainly a better defender then a Malone who was about to retire.

[O_6]

For Shaq, it was the fact that he was a limited defender and poor shooter who could be taken advantage of on defense by elite guard play.

Don't really agree with this.
Shaq up until 2004 had extremely good mobility and incredibly quick feet.

I can remember one defensive play by Shaq in the 95 Finals where he managed to move his feet quick enough to stay with Hakeem who was executing a lightning quick spinmove towards the basket.
Shaq stayed infront of him through the entire move and then managed to alter his shot into a miss.

Shaq's effort at times when it came to stepping out on the perimeter when he was forced into a switch was indeed poor but he did have the capability to guard those plays well.
He couldn't guard them like Hakeem, Robinson or KG could but he could still do it well if he put in the effort.

I would also add that Shaq's coaches often asked him to fall back on PnR plays in order to protect the rim so it wasn't always a lack of effort on his part.

Even if I was to agree that Shaq generally did not do a great job at switching and staying with guards on the perimeter that still does not make him a limited defender.
He excelled greatly at every other aspect of defense like post defense, man defense and rim protection. So in no way was he a "limited" defensive player. He was an elite defensive anchor who was generally average to poor in one aspect of defense.

I was talking about his defense in the context of our All-Time league. Shaq was a tremendous defender at his best. He was one of the greatest man-to-man low post defenders ever and was an incredibly intimidating rim protector. I totally agree that he was a very good overall defender and a great one at his best. But I was comparing him with All-Time great defensive bigs in that All-Time League, and Shaq falls a little short compared to those guys when it comes to making a defensive impact outside of 5ft from the rim.

I also called Duncan an ok but not great #1 offensive option, again that's in the context of the All-Time league not a normal league. An all-time league just emphasizes strengths and weaknesses which is why I brought it up.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I was talking about his defense in the context of our All-Time league. Shaq was a tremendous defender at his best. He was one of the greatest man-to-man low post defenders ever and was an incredibly intimidating rim protector. I totally agree that he was a very good overall defender and a great one at his best. But I was comparing him with All-Time great defensive bigs in that All-Time League, and Shaq falls a little short compared to those guys when it comes to making a defensive impact outside of 5ft from the rim.

I also called Duncan an ok but not great #1 offensive option, again that's in the context of the All-Time league not a normal league. An all-time league just emphasizes strengths and weaknesses which is why I brought it up.

Fair enough. We agree then.
I have Shaq on my 3rd defensive Tier below 1st Tier guys like Russell/Hakeem/Robinson and 2nd Tier guys like Duncan.

Indeed his defensive impact on the perimeter was quite limited compared to those guys.

[90sAllDecade]

Quick question for Duncan supporters. Hakeem was known for dominating or outplaying his HOF peers in the playoffs.

I think you're applying Hakeem's 2 year championship peak accross a 17 year career.

If you want to say which player peaked the highest, that's one thing. If you're saying you want that player more for 17 years, that's quite another.

My man.

I forgot to address this, this is beautiful.

I'll give Duncan his longevity, but again playing for a GOAT 1-4 coach in Pops and his system, HOFers during thier peaks/primes and great all star, former MVP and defensive role players extended that by having his job made easier on as offense and defense anchor. Hakeem was the clear #1 offensive and defensive anchor during his time with much less talent, coaching and greater competition.

But back to your point. Hakeem dominated or outplayed his HOF peers in the playoffs throughout his career.

1986 playoffs Hakeem vs Kareem (HOF):



Hakeem played PF while Sampson guarded Kareem. Kareem's numbers are misleading though, 2nd year Hakeem destroyed the Lakers PF and was killing old Kareem, Lakers PFs and everyone else on the front-line on the glass and running the floor. The lesser talented Rockets beat the 62 win defending champion Lakers without HCA (Was that a tough former champion the Rockets beat?)

They wanted to keep both big men out of foul trouble until game 4 I believe when they put KAJ on him and Hakeem starts dominating him in their very few head to head plays that series. KAJ was old and Hakeem was a 2nd year player, but throughout their prime careers Hakeem had a better peak, was a better rebounder, defender, shot blocker and stealer with comparable offense in the playoffs. KAJ would also get outplayed by HOF peers in the playoffs. Olajuwon was also mentally tougher with less help and better competition.

I can provide a link for people to watch the series, there is no doubt who the dominant player was. Here's the highlights for an idea.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOCMH_6NMBI[/youtube]

1986 playoffs Hakeem vs Parish (HOF):



The Rockets faced a team and frontline that is argued as the best of all time and 2nd year Hakeem dominated Parish and anyone who guarded him. He undressed Parish on both sides of the ball, while Sampson guarded McHale at PF. The Rockets got beat handily and simply were out matched talent wise. Only two players dominated indivdiually against that Boston defense and team: Michael Jordan and Olajuwon.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz1wyL8neEM[/youtube]

1994 playoffs Hakeem vs Ewing (HOF):



He undressed Ewing on offense and defense, we all know what happened here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeN34AZExv4[/youtube]

1995 playoffs Hakeem vs Robinson (HOF):



The league's MVP, one of the greatest defensive players ever and one of the freakish NBA athletes of all time. He got destroyed by Olajuwon.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0[/youtube]

1995 playoffs Hakeem vs Shaq (HOF):




Shaq held his own, but his turnovers, Hakeem was more impactful during crucial times and as a team defender; and the more talented, 57 win Magic lost in a sweep with HCA against a against the 47 win sixth seeded Rockets weighs the scales in Olajwon's favor imo.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j6HgipHIrM[/youtube]

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

[Baller2014]

So why did Shaq murder Duncan the year before

Because every game is different, and sometimes players play better/worse? Not a complex answer to your problem. Like I said, this wasn't peak Shaq, but it was still prime Shaq whose constantly niggling injuries had no effect on him in the non-Duncan series he had to play. Your narrative that they "flared up" only in the Spurs series, and never in the non-Spurs ones, is not only unsubstantiated (your own link was from the Kings series that year, where he dominated putting up 30-13 on great efficiency), but has a pretty obvious ulterior motive. Shaq played how he played, and he gets judged for that. Whether you were injured (assuming you were more injured than usual) really has no bearing on an all-time list, because we don't give people points for how they might have played if they'd been healthy.

"Very potent" D.Rob put up 13-6 in 99 against the Lakers, and the Spurs could hardly double Shaq that series because of all the other weapons on the court. The Spurs in 04 had Rasho and a bunch of shooters who were not shooting well. It was all too easy to double down on Duncan, and as someone who watched the series I saw them do it constantly.

[baki]

Quick question for Duncan supporters. Hakeem was known for dominating or outplaying his HOF peers in the playoffs.

I think you're applying Hakeem's 2 year championship peak accross a 17 year career.

If you want to say which player peaked the highest, that's one thing. If you're saying you want that player more for 17 years, that's quite another.

My man.

I forgot to address this, this is beautiful.....

Again, you can write all the would-haves and should-haves and selected videos off youtube but it still doesn't change a thing, over the course of their careers Duncan did better in 18 years.

Robinson and Olajuwon are about equal, but I'd give Robinson the edge for being far more critical to the team's success than Olajuwon was.

[Baller2014]

Baki, I appreciate that my arguments have swayed you, but in fairness I should point out that some of the positions you are taking are hurting the Tim Duncan case here. Duncan already has a solid case over Hakeem, it doesn't need to be exaggerated.

[magicmerl]

Again, you can write all the would-haves and should-haves and selected videos off youtube but it still doesn't change a thing, over the course of their careers Duncan did better in 18 years.

Robinson and Olajuwon are about equal, but I'd give Robinson the edge for being far more critical to the team's success than Olajuwon was.

Um, are you writing Robinson when you really mean Duncan?

Or are you actually trying to say that you think Robinson was more critical to his team's success than Olajuwon?

[baki]

Baki, I appreciate that my arguments have swayed you, but in fairness I should point out that some of the positions you are taking are hurting the Tim Duncan case here. Duncan already has a solid case over Hakeem, it doesn't need to be exaggerated.

Like what?

Yeah I felt like I had to contribute to this thread more than I had to, maybe I was suckered into it and had to respond and repeat myself all the time.

[Baller2014]

Like I said, Duncan has had bad teams, and by looking at those sorts of teams (01-03) we can see his impact is bigger than Hakeem's non-prime impact was (because Hakeem couldn't carry better support casts as well when he had the chance). To say that Duncan's teams were generally bad though is wrong, and to say that Duncan came into a worse organisation with bad talent isn't really accurate. Hakeem did have plenty of talent early on, and later too, but the Rockets organisation did screw the pooch a few years, and Duncan generally had a better situation. That's irrelevant, because we're not punishing Hakeem for failing to win a title prior to 94. Duncan wouldn't have won a title prior to 94 either... but the Rockets would have done better with Duncan.

[baki]

Again, you can write all the would-haves and should-haves and selected videos off youtube but it still doesn't change a thing, over the course of their careers Duncan did better in 18 years.

Robinson and Olajuwon are about equal, but I'd give Robinson the edge for being far more critical to the team's success than Olajuwon was.

Um, are you writing Robinson when you really mean Duncan?

Or are you actually trying to say that you think Robinson was more critical to his team's success than Olajuwon?

I was saying that Duncan is better than Olajuwon, while I would rate Robinson as equal to Olajuwon. Robinson may not have had the kind of peak+championship that Olajuwon but over the course of his career for the first 10 years Robinson was actually pretty amazing considering he was literally carrying the team the whole way.

But that may be another argument to discuss. As Baller2014 said case have been made and won, case closed. I'm out.

[magicmerl]

My man.

I forgot to address this, this is beautiful.

I'll give Duncan his longevity, but again playing for a GOAT 1-4 coach in Pops and his system, HOFers during thier peaks/primes and great all star, former MVP and defensive role players extended that by having his job made easier on as offense and defense anchor. Hakeem was the clear #1 offensive and defensive anchor during his time with much less talent, coaching and greater competition.

But back to your point. Hakeem dominated or outplayed his HOF peers in the playoffs throughout his career.

Thank for your response. I don't put much credence in youtube highlights, since it's pretty easy to conclude that Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant jointly share the GOAT label if you only show their makes in a series of spectacular but low percentage shots. Given that Tim Duncan has the 'big fundamental' moniker, it stamds to reason that his highlights won't look as spectacular.

But whatever. I'll take results and effectiveness over splash every time.

The arguement you are making is that Hakeem dominated his HOF opponents. And you've given some details of that. That seems well and good. But let's look at the full picture. Who were the HOF players that Duncan went against? Let's say they were Shaq, Garnett and Dirk. Here's the breakdown (with the figures culled from BR showing PTS TRB AST STL BLK ORtg DRtg)

Duncan vs Garnett, Shaq and Dirk in the playoffs

Spoiler:

1999 SAS 3, MIN 1
Duncan 18.8 10.8 3.3 0.8 3.0 112 94
Garnett 21.8 12.0 3.8 1.8 2.0 100 97
Garnett has better raw stats on points and rebounds, but Duncan has far better O/DRtg, and a better TS%. You could argue this series either way I think. A tie

1999 SAS 4, LAL 0
Duncan 29.0 10.8 3.3 1.0 2.0 111 95
Shaq 23.8 13.0 0.5 1.0 1.8 106 105
This looks like a win for Duncan here.

2001 SAS 3, MIN 1
Duncan 22.5 13.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 104 88
Garnett 21.0 12.0 4.3 1.0 1.5 120 99
Both players are great, although I'd give the nod to Duncan here.

2001 SAS 4, DAL 1
Duncan 27.0 17.4 3.6 1.0 2.0 107 93
Dirk 23.0 8.6 1.2 1.8 0.8 116 110
Now THIS is dominance. Yes? Duncan

2001 LAL 4, SAS 0
Duncan 23.0 12.3 4.3 1.3 4.3 99 108
Shaq 27.0 13.0 2.5 0.8 1.3 106 90
I think Duncan's DRtg says it all, especially when compared to the previous two rounds. The Lakers were too dominant offensively and broke the SA defense. This is clearly Shaq.

2002 LAL 4, SAS 1
Duncan 29.0 17.2 4.6 1.0 3.2 103 97
Shaq 21.4 12.2 3.2 0.6 3.0 100 94
Duncan may have lost the series, but I think he was the most dominant player in the series.

2003 SAS 4, LAL 2
Duncan 28.0 11.8 4.8 0.3 1.3 120 102
Shaq 25.3 14.3 3.7 0.7 2.8 117 104
Duncan has the point lead and won the series, but I'd be inclined to call this one a tie. Shaq was NOT the reason the Lakers lost this.

2003 SAS 4, DAL 2
Duncan 28.0 16.7 5.8 0.8 3.0 121 99
Dirk 25.3 11.3 2.0 1.3 0.7 104 109
Easily Duncan.

2004 LAL 4, SAS 2
Duncan 20.7 12.2 3.3 1.0 1.7 99 98
Shaq 22.5 14.5 2.0 0.2 4.3 111 90
Easily Shaq.

2006 DAL 4, SAS 3
Duncan 32.3 11.7 3.7 1.0 2.6 122 111
Dirk 27.1 13.3 2.7 1.4 0.4 128 107
Looks like a great series out of both players. I'd give the slight edge to Dirk here.

2009 DAL 4, SAS 1
Duncan 19.8 8.0 3.2 0.6 1.2 115 113
Dirk 19.2 8.6 2.2 1.0 0.6 118 106
Interesting how the stats shoot down in the post-Thibs world. Looks like another very close series. I think this is another tie.

2010 SAS 4, DAL 2
Duncan 18.2 9.5 2.7 0.5 1.0 99 104
Dirk 26.7 8.2 3.0 0.8 0.7 129 106
Easily Dirk.

2014 SAS 4, DAL 3
Duncan 17.3 8.4 1.3 0.1 1.9 129 110
Dirk 19.1 8.0 1.6 0.9 0.9 96 111
Those numbers look quite similar until you get to the offensive ratings. Holy cow! It's not often that Duncan has a better TS% than Dirk.

Now let's apply the same methodology to Hakeem. I think his HOF big men were Karl Malone, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, David Robinson, Shaq and Patrick Ewing. I don't think much of Robert Parish (I rate Shawn Kemp higher and think he was a contemporary of Olajuwon that had his number, but he's not in the same class as the guys above).

Hakeem vs Kareem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq and Malone in the playoffs

Spoiler:

1986 HOU 4, LAL 1
Hakeem 31.0 11.2 2.0 2.2 4.0 128 102
Kareem 27.0 6.8 3.4 0.8 2.4 100 112
Easily Hakeem.

-- big gap where he doesn't face anybody --

1994 HOU 4, UTA 1
Hakeem 27.8 10.2 4.4 2.6 4.6 109 97
Malone 26.0 12.6 5.2 0.6 0.6 111 109
Hakeem looks to have been much better defensively.

1994 HOU 4, NYK 3
Hakeem 26.9 9.1 3.6 1.6 3.9 105 95
Ewing 18.9 12.4 1.7 1.3 4.3 85 95
Easily Hakeem.

1995 HOU 3, UTA 2
Hakeem 35.0 8.6 4.0 0.8 2.6 116 112
Malone 30.2 13.2 3.8 1.4 0.4 114 118
I'm not in love with the low rebound total, but Hakeem is probably this one too.

1995 HOU 4, SAS 2 (the infamous series that is the reason this topic is even being discussed)
Hakeem 35.3 12.5 5.0 1.3 4.2 111 101
Robinson 23.8 11.3 2.7 1.5 2.2 106 107
Easily Hakeem.

1995 HOU 4, ORL 0
Hakeem 32.8 11.5 5.5 2.0 2.0 107 106
Shaq 28.0 12.5 6.3 0.3 2.5 109 115
Eh, this isn't dominance to me. Hakeem's extra points come courtesy of his much higher USG%, he was actually much less efficient than Shaq. I'd be inclined to call this a tie.

1997 UTA 4, HOU 2
Hakeem 27.2 9.3 3.8 2.0 3.3 122 105
Malone 23.5 11.5 3.2 1.3 1.2 102 106
Utah won the series, and I still don't like his rebounding totals, but this is Hakeem.

1998 UTA 3, HOU 2
Hakeem 20.4 10.8 2.4 1.0 3.2 91 96
Malone 26.6 12.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 105 90
Easily Malone.

1999 LAL 4, HOU 1
Shaq 29.5 10.3 4.0 0.8 4.0 109 104
Hakeem 13.3 7.3 0.5 1.3 0.8 94 105
Maybe a little unfair since this is clearly the end of his career, but it's no different from the Hakeem vs Kareem comparison that starts this sequence off. Easily Shaq.

So if you tally that up, you get
Duncan (Win-Loss-Tie)
vs Garnett 1-0-1
vs Shaq 3-2-1
vs Dirk 3-2-1

So although he's not pantsing his HOF opponents, he does get the better of them more than they get of him.

Hakeem (Win-Loss)
vs Malone 3-1-0
vs Kareem 1-0-0
vs Ewing 1-0-0
vs Robinson 1-0-0
vs Shaq 0-1-1

So really, I think it's a little surprising how infrequently Hakeem was paired up against HOF calibre players in the playoffs. Duncan had far more battles with his contemporaries than Hakeem did.