Better All Around Player: Tim Duncan vs Hakeem Olajuwon

[thekdog34]

Also, why do people say Duncan had better longevity?

They both played to 39.

Hakeem had slightly better stats at 36. They both declined after that with Hakeem declining a bit quicker, but his per 36 numbers were only slightly lower.

Also looks like Hakeem maintained a high scoring average deeper into his 30s but Duncan was in a unique system.

[KnickFan33]

I personally think Hakeem is the most skilled center of all time. He had multiple counters to your counter which countered his counter to your counter.

Duncan for sure is a skilled player, but nah... I don’t think it’s even a debate.

[rebirthoftheM]

Also, why do people say Duncan had better longevity?

They both played to 39.

Hakeem had slightly better stats at 36. They both declined after that with Hakeem declining a bit quicker, but his per 36 numbers were only slightly lower.

Also looks like Hakeem maintained a high scoring average deeper into his 30s but Duncan was in a unique system.

Exactly... Pop started reducing TD's minutes from 04 at the age of 27 (usually a players peak). He never played in excess of 35mpg again in the RS. Meanwhile Hakeem playing 37 MPG at the age of 34.

[thekdog34]

Also, why do people say Duncan had better longevity?

They both played to 39.

Hakeem had slightly better stats at 36. They both declined after that with Hakeem declining a bit quicker, but his per 36 numbers were only slightly lower.

Also looks like Hakeem maintained a high scoring average deeper into his 30s but Duncan was in a unique system.

Exactly... Pop started reducing TD's minutes from 04 at the age of 27 (usually a players peak). He never played in excess of 35mpg again in the RS. Meanwhile Hakeem playing 37 MPG at the age of 34.

Makes one wonder if it's worth it.

All those reduced minutes so he could be slightly better from ages 37-39?

Of course we don't know how it would have turned out, and it's really about being fresher in the playoffs

[Coleman]

These topics are just so bad.

Duncan is a MUCH and I do mean MUCH smarter player. Duncan's passing gap between him and hakeem is light years. As scorers they were nearly equal, hakeem had a bit more mobility and dazel. Duncan was stronger and could do more in the post. The difference in pace and team styles skews this.

Duncan could setup the offense from the top the key. He often did just get a rebound and took the ball down the court and setup the offense. Hakeem never would have been able to do that.

Duncan rebounded better. Duncan set screens better. Duncan moved without the ball better. Duncan knew where to stand and knew when to not gamble better. Duncan took better angles when people attacked the rim.

offensively Duncan was peak vs peak slightly better than hakeem. As a scorer hakeem was a bit better, but hakeem was never the passer, play maker, or screener that Duncan was. Defensively Hakeem was a bit better at his peak, though Duncan was better career defensively as he just kept getting better at taking the right angles and knowing when to jump and when not to.

Peak vs Peak they were pretty close, but Duncan was better. Career wise however Duncan is far better. And to the question of all around, duncan's game had no real faults. Hakeem has huge issues (passing being his biggest issue). Hakeem was more athletic and if you just watch highlights and don't watch the constant black hole effect from him, you might be confused into thinking he was better. Hakeem absolutely was not.

Robert Horry that played in the NBA said Hakeem was a better passer and knew how to draw the double team clear down to him and really take the full double then would pass to Horry for easy 15 footers.

[dhsilv2]

These topics are just so bad.

Duncan is a MUCH and I do mean MUCH smarter player. Duncan's passing gap between him and hakeem is light years. As scorers they were nearly equal, hakeem had a bit more mobility and dazel. Duncan was stronger and could do more in the post. The difference in pace and team styles skews this.

Duncan could setup the offense from the top the key. He often did just get a rebound and took the ball down the court and setup the offense. Hakeem never would have been able to do that.

Duncan rebounded better. Duncan set screens better. Duncan moved without the ball better. Duncan knew where to stand and knew when to not gamble better. Duncan took better angles when people attacked the rim.

offensively Duncan was peak vs peak slightly better than hakeem. As a scorer hakeem was a bit better, but hakeem was never the passer, play maker, or screener that Duncan was. Defensively Hakeem was a bit better at his peak, though Duncan was better career defensively as he just kept getting better at taking the right angles and knowing when to jump and when not to.

Peak vs Peak they were pretty close, but Duncan was better. Career wise however Duncan is far better. And to the question of all around, duncan's game had no real faults. Hakeem has huge issues (passing being his biggest issue). Hakeem was more athletic and if you just watch highlights and don't watch the constant black hole effect from him, you might be confused into thinking he was better. Hakeem absolutely was not.

Robert Horry that played in the NBA said Hakeem was a better passer and knew how to draw the double team clear down to him and really take the full double then would pass to Horry for easy 15 footers.

Horry has been extremely negative about the spurs since he started doing tv. I don't consider him an objective person on the topic or honestly even credible.

That said sure Hakeem was better at getting double teamed, that however was a function of his poor passing (teams weren't as worried about the open guy).

[Coleman]

These topics are just so bad.

Duncan is a MUCH and I do mean MUCH smarter player. Duncan's passing gap between him and hakeem is light years. As scorers they were nearly equal, hakeem had a bit more mobility and dazel. Duncan was stronger and could do more in the post. The difference in pace and team styles skews this.

Duncan could setup the offense from the top the key. He often did just get a rebound and took the ball down the court and setup the offense. Hakeem never would have been able to do that.

Duncan rebounded better. Duncan set screens better. Duncan moved without the ball better. Duncan knew where to stand and knew when to not gamble better. Duncan took better angles when people attacked the rim.

offensively Duncan was peak vs peak slightly better than hakeem. As a scorer hakeem was a bit better, but hakeem was never the passer, play maker, or screener that Duncan was. Defensively Hakeem was a bit better at his peak, though Duncan was better career defensively as he just kept getting better at taking the right angles and knowing when to jump and when not to.

Peak vs Peak they were pretty close, but Duncan was better. Career wise however Duncan is far better. And to the question of all around, duncan's game had no real faults. Hakeem has huge issues (passing being his biggest issue). Hakeem was more athletic and if you just watch highlights and don't watch the constant black hole effect from him, you might be confused into thinking he was better. Hakeem absolutely was not.

Robert Horry that played in the NBA said Hakeem was a better passer and knew how to draw the double team clear down to him and really take the full double then would pass to Horry for easy 15 footers.

Horry has been extremely negative about the spurs since he started doing tv. I don't consider him an objective person on the topic or honestly even credible.

That said sure Hakeem was better at getting double teamed, that however was a function of his poor passing (teams weren't as worried about the open guy).

He gave the reason though why Hakeem was the better passer. Hakeem pretty much invented the whole- pass inside to the center spread the floor, draw the double or triple to you and then pass to the three point line for threes.

Horry said because of the way he would not just take the double but he would fake the double and make them get on the wrong side of him and fully take the two defenders so that everyone would be open. Hakeem was a better passer in traffic too.

Hakeem beat prime, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Robinson, and Shaq all in a row.
Also many were saying on tv when he went on that run that he was putting up the second best performances in NBA playoffs history considering everything. They didn't really say things like that when Duncan was averaging 24 and 15 or whatever against Kenyon Martin and the 50 win nets.

I thought Hakeem was the better passer anyway. You are welcome to your opinion.

[dhsilv2]

Also, why do people say Duncan had better longevity?

They both played to 39.

Hakeem had slightly better stats at 36. They both declined after that with Hakeem declining a bit quicker, but his per 36 numbers were only slightly lower.

Also looks like Hakeem maintained a high scoring average deeper into his 30s but Duncan was in a unique system.

Exactly... Pop started reducing TD's minutes from 04 at the age of 27 (usually a players peak). He never played in excess of 35mpg again in the RS. Meanwhile Hakeem playing 37 MPG at the age of 34.

Duncan played ~3000 more minutes and was still a top 20 player his last year. Hakeem not so much. As for minute control 04 and 05 Duncan had that foot thing and some other injuries, so the minute saving was a result of injuries. And then pop just went with it, though Duncan was leading the spurs in minutes most years.

[dhsilv2]

Robert Horry that played in the NBA said Hakeem was a better passer and knew how to draw the double team clear down to him and really take the full double then would pass to Horry for easy 15 footers.

Horry has been extremely negative about the spurs since he started doing tv. I don't consider him an objective person on the topic or honestly even credible.

That said sure Hakeem was better at getting double teamed, that however was a function of his poor passing (teams weren't as worried about the open guy).

He gave the reason though why Hakeem was the better passer. Hakeem pretty much invented the whole- pass inside to the center spread the floor, draw the double or triple to you and then pass to the three point line for threes.

Horry said because of the way he would not just take the double but he would fake the double and make them get on the wrong side of him and fulling take the two defenders so that everyone would be open. Hakeem was a better passer in traffic too.

Hakeem beat prime, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Robinson, and Shaq all in a row.
Also many were saying on tv when he went on that run that he was putting up the second best performances in NBA playoffs history considering everything. They didn't really say things like that when Duncan was averaging 24 and 15 oer whatever against Kenyon Martin and the 50 win nets.

Hakeem didn't come up with that offense. Rudy T did. He absolutely wasn't a better passer in traffic, not even remotely close to as good as Duncan there.

His 94 run was absolutely an all time great playoff run.

Duncan just beat Amre and Marion, Kobe and Shaq, and Dirk on his way to the finals. I'd however say his supporting cast was worse than Hakeems.

[Coleman]

I like Duncan and put him around 11th all time, but I don't think he would be able to take Drexler, Smith, Maxwell, and Horry to the Championship as a 6 seed in 1995. Beating Prime MVP Robinson and an MVP level Shaq as well.

[Coleman]

Horry has been extremely negative about the spurs since he started doing tv. I don't consider him an objective person on the topic or honestly even credible.

That said sure Hakeem was better at getting double teamed, that however was a function of his poor passing (teams weren't as worried about the open guy).

He gave the reason though why Hakeem was the better passer. Hakeem pretty much invented the whole- pass inside to the center spread the floor, draw the double or triple to you and then pass to the three point line for threes.

Horry said because of the way he would not just take the double but he would fake the double and make them get on the wrong side of him and fulling take the two defenders so that everyone would be open. Hakeem was a better passer in traffic too.

Hakeem beat prime, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Robinson, and Shaq all in a row.
Also many were saying on tv when he went on that run that he was putting up the second best performances in NBA playoffs history considering everything. They didn't really say things like that when Duncan was averaging 24 and 15 oer whatever against Kenyon Martin and the 50 win nets.

Hakeem didn't come up with that offense. Rudy T did. He absolutely wasn't a better passer in traffic, not even remotely close to as good as Duncan there.

His 94 run was absolutely an all time great playoff run.

Duncan just beat Amre and Marion, Kobe and Shaq, and Dirk on his way to the finals. I'd however say his supporting cast was worse than Hakeems.

Well there is actual video of Hakeem passing in traffic with great passes. Hakeem was known as a passer. Duncan really wasn't. Are you trying to say that Duncan was an underated passer?

Who do you think was the better mid range jumper and post game?

[dhsilv2]

He gave the reason though why Hakeem was the better passer. Hakeem pretty much invented the whole- pass inside to the center spread the floor, draw the double or triple to you and then pass to the three point line for threes.

Horry said because of the way he would not just take the double but he would fake the double and make them get on the wrong side of him and fulling take the two defenders so that everyone would be open. Hakeem was a better passer in traffic too.

Hakeem beat prime, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Robinson, and Shaq all in a row.
Also many were saying on tv when he went on that run that he was putting up the second best performances in NBA playoffs history considering everything. They didn't really say things like that when Duncan was averaging 24 and 15 oer whatever against Kenyon Martin and the 50 win nets.

Hakeem didn't come up with that offense. Rudy T did. He absolutely wasn't a better passer in traffic, not even remotely close to as good as Duncan there.

His 94 run was absolutely an all time great playoff run.

Duncan just beat Amre and Marion, Kobe and Shaq, and Dirk on his way to the finals. I'd however say his supporting cast was worse than Hakeems.

Well there is actual video of Hakeem passing in traffic with great passes. Hakeem was known as a passer. Duncan really wasn't. Are you trying to say that Duncan was an underated passer?

Who do you think was the better mid range jumper and post game?

Hakeem is known as a blackhole, he is not known as a great passer by anyone. Duncan was seen as a great passer outside of his first few years, where he was rather poor. It was something announcers constantly praised him for.

Their post and mid range games are about the same. Duncan was bigger and stronger so he could power through some larger guys that Hakeem would use his face up game on. Hakeem had insane foot work. Duncan had his bank shots, hakeem his turn around fade aways. Hakeem overall was a slightly better scorer at his peak though skill wise in an iso Hakeem was better than his results (because he was a bad passer and tried to do too much instead of just passing it). They really played extremely similarly as scorers despite the razzel dazzel of hakeem. Take bigger guys off the dribble and use jumpers to keep them honest or post up weaker guys and force doubles. Hakeem had the fade away, Duncan had his jump hook.

[dhsilv2]

I like Duncan and put him around 11th all time, but I don't think he would be able to take Drexler, Smith, Maxwell, and Horry to the Championship as a 6 seed in 1995. Beating Prime MVP Robinson and an MVP level Shaq as well.

True, but that's because they'd have been the 1 or 2 seed that year with Duncan. And 11th? Wow you're underrating Duncan.

[Coleman]

You seem biased against Hakeem. Hakeem was always around 3.5 assists to 4.5 assists. He was a very smooth passer, great passer in traffic and pretty good out let passer and high post passer. Maybe Duncan was the better high post passer but mainly because that was the offense that the Spurs played and Duncan was 7 feet a little bigger than Hakeem mind you and passing over 6'8 PF's for much of his career.

Duncan played more like Ewing overall. But even then he wasn't as physical as Ewing or didn't spring up as high off the ground as Ewing, few did. Also Ewing had a better jumpshot.

I'm a big Duncan fan and think his longevity is up their with Jordan, Malone, and Kareem. But I'll be honest the league rigged a few series for the spurs against the Suns and Mavs in the early 2000's and mid 2000's. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 questionable calls. Why the NBA rigs certain series is a different topic.

Also Duncan always had a lot of trouble against Shaq. He would let Shaq throw him around too much. That didn't happen to Hakeem. Hakeem lit him up

[70sFan]

You seem biased against Hakeem. Hakeem was always around 3.5 assists to 4.5 assists. He was a very smooth passer, great passer in traffic and pretty good out let passer and high post passer. Maybe Duncan was the better high post passer but mainly because that was the offense that the Spurs played and Duncan was 7 feet a little bigger than Hakeem mind you and passing over 6'8 PF's for much of his career.

Duncan played more like Ewing overall. But even then he wasn't as physical as Ewing or didn't spring up as high off the ground as Ewing, few did. Also Ewing had a better jumpshot.

I'm a big Duncan fan and think his longevity is up their with Jordan, Malone, and Kareem. But I'll be honest the league rigged a few series for the spurs against the Suns and Mavs in the early 2000's and mid 2000's. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 questionable calls. Why the NBA rigs certain series is a different topic.

Also Duncan always had a lot of trouble against Shaq. He would let Shaq throw him around too much. That didn't happen to Hakeem. Hakeem lit him up

Duncan didn't really have more troubles against Shaq than Hakeem. He was really effective at defending O'Neal. You might be suprised but when you watch it closely, he really limited Shaq post game.

[Coleman]

I like Duncan and put him around 11th all time, but I don't think he would be able to take Drexler, Smith, Maxwell, and Horry to the Championship as a 6 seed in 1995. Beating Prime MVP Robinson and an MVP level Shaq as well.

True, but that's because they'd have been the 1 or 2 seed that year with Duncan. And 11th? Wow you're underrating Duncan.

One can not say Hakeem is not as good in the playoffs as Duncan. Hakeems playoff stats are probably the second highest of any player ever (before they started inflating stats in the last 3 years) But even then he's still probably second best because I think Steals and Blocks mean a lot. Like someone averaging 4 blocks in the playoffs is like the equivalent of someone averaging 30 ppg. And he did both.

Basically every playoff game he played in his prime and I'm going by just watching the league and remembering( not looking it up because that gets old and by memory is where you separate those that know the game and don't anyway usually) Hakeem was 26 ppg 13 rebounds, 4 blocks, 1.6 steals, 3.5 assists, on 51% shooting for his playoff prime from 85-97.

Duncan was more like 23 ppg (inflated by 2-3 rigged series) 13 rebounds, 3 blocks, .9 steals, and 3.5 assits. on 51% shooting.

Hakeem's stats are better and he was doing that against real All Time greats every series like Kareem, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Shaq, and Ewing.


In any true ranking of players there will be many near ties or basic ties. Like I think the 6-11 spots are all about the same. Those being players like Duncan, Moses, Magic, Bird, and Barkley with maybe Pippen depending on how much you factor primes and how great they were in those primes. I rank Moses 6, Magic 7, Bird, 8, Barkley 9 and maybe Pippen 10. Because of the 6-0 in the Finals all in a row almost. Of course there are other reasons Why I rank Pippen up here like his 22 / 8 / 6 / 2 / 1/ playoff stats in his prime 7-8 years (some of those stats may be weighted more to Finals, but he was really that type of player) and maybe the best all around perimeter defender ever in an era where teams were usually scoring about 95 ppg. so that's stats are high for that.

[dhsilv2]

I like Duncan and put him around 11th all time, but I don't think he would be able to take Drexler, Smith, Maxwell, and Horry to the Championship as a 6 seed in 1995. Beating Prime MVP Robinson and an MVP level Shaq as well.

True, but that's because they'd have been the 1 or 2 seed that year with Duncan. And 11th? Wow you're underrating Duncan.

One can not say Hakeem is not as good in the playoffs as Duncan. Hakeems playoff stats are probably the second highest of any player ever (before they started inflating stats in the last 3 years) But even then he's still probably second best because I think Steals and Blocks mean a lot. Like someone averaging 4 blocks in the playoffs is like the equivalent of someone averaging 30 ppg. And he did both.

Basically every playoff game he played in his prime and I'm going by just watching the league and remembering( not looking it up because that gets old and by memory is where you separate those that know the game and don't anyway usually) Hakeem was 26 ppg 13 rebounds, 4 blocks, 1.6 steals, 3.5 assists, on 51% shooting for his playoff prime from 85-97.

Duncan was more like 23 ppg (inflated by 2-3 rigged series) 13 rebounds, 3 blocks, .9 steals, and 3.5 assits. on 51% shooting.

Hakeem's stats are better and he was doing that against real All Time greats every series like Kareem, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Shaq, and Ewing.

You ignore that I was making a clear point that Duncan was much more valuable in the regular season. Winning on the road because you didn't win in the regular season isn't something to brag about in my book.

And why are stats now inflated? Duncan's stats came up when the league was at the slowest pace I can remember and his team was by no means pushing pace. And he inflated his stats in a few series? When did Duncan EVER inflate his numbers? The guy simply didn't care about his stats.

Since you used through age 34. Per 100

Duncan 31.2 17 4.7 3.5 1
Hakeem 34.4 14.6 4.3 4.3 2.2

I'll give that sample to Hakeem, but there's a LOT more games played by Duncan in there. I'll let you debate who faced better defenders.

[Coleman]

You seem biased against Hakeem. Hakeem was always around 3.5 assists to 4.5 assists. He was a very smooth passer, great passer in traffic and pretty good out let passer and high post passer. Maybe Duncan was the better high post passer but mainly because that was the offense that the Spurs played and Duncan was 7 feet a little bigger than Hakeem mind you and passing over 6'8 PF's for much of his career.

Duncan played more like Ewing overall. But even then he wasn't as physical as Ewing or didn't spring up as high off the ground as Ewing, few did. Also Ewing had a better jumpshot.

I'm a big Duncan fan and think his longevity is up their with Jordan, Malone, and Kareem. But I'll be honest the league rigged a few series for the spurs against the Suns and Mavs in the early 2000's and mid 2000's. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 questionable calls. Why the NBA rigs certain series is a different topic.

Also Duncan always had a lot of trouble against Shaq. He would let Shaq throw him around too much. That didn't happen to Hakeem. Hakeem lit him up

Duncan didn't really have more troubles against Shaq than Hakeem. He was really effective at defending O'Neal. You might be suprised but when you watch it closely, he really limited Shaq post game.

True I thought he would do well, he did have a great help inside with David Robinson however.

One can say Duncan has Hakeem on longevity.

A lot of people top 5 all time has Hakeem in it. not as many has Duncan in it. Like take Jordan's top 5. Hakeem, Worthy, Pippen, Jordan and I believe he said Magic.

[Coleman]

True, but that's because they'd have been the 1 or 2 seed that year with Duncan. And 11th? Wow you're underrating Duncan.

One can not say Hakeem is not as good in the playoffs as Duncan. Hakeems playoff stats are probably the second highest of any player ever (before they started inflating stats in the last 3 years) But even then he's still probably second best because I think Steals and Blocks mean a lot. Like someone averaging 4 blocks in the playoffs is like the equivalent of someone averaging 30 ppg. And he did both.

Basically every playoff game he played in his prime and I'm going by just watching the league and remembering( not looking it up because that gets old and by memory is where you separate those that know the game and don't anyway usually) Hakeem was 26 ppg 13 rebounds, 4 blocks, 1.6 steals, 3.5 assists, on 51% shooting for his playoff prime from 85-97.

Duncan was more like 23 ppg (inflated by 2-3 rigged series) 13 rebounds, 3 blocks, .9 steals, and 3.5 assits. on 51% shooting.

Hakeem's stats are better and he was doing that against real All Time greats every series like Kareem, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Kemp, Shaq, and Ewing.

You ignore that I was making a clear point that Duncan was much more valuable in the regular season. Winning on the road because you didn't win in the regular season isn't something to brag about in my book.

And why are stats now inflated? Duncan's stats came up when the league was at the slowest pace I can remember and his team was by no means pushing pace. And he inflated his stats in a few series? When did Duncan EVER inflate his numbers? The guy simply didn't care about his stats.

Since you used through age 34. Per 100

Duncan 31.2 17 4.7 3.5 1
Hakeem 34.4 14.6 4.3 4.3 2.2

I'll give that sample to Hakeem, but there's a LOT more games played by Duncan in there. I'll let you debate who faced better defenders.

You make good points and it's good conversating with you. I know about Duncan's regular seasons success and also his playoff success. I always wanted the Spurs to win a Back to Back.

I think one of the major factors that helped Duncan was the fact that the spurs always went with two 7 footers in the starting lineup every season. This allowed for more rebounds and also allowed Duncan to pick the PF or center he wanted to be able to guard easier.

I noticed the Rockets had a lot of success when they had twin towers aswell. Also even with Thorpe who was one of the biggest and more physical PF's of that era.

[dhsilv2]

You seem biased against Hakeem. Hakeem was always around 3.5 assists to 4.5 assists. He was a very smooth passer, great passer in traffic and pretty good out let passer and high post passer. Maybe Duncan was the better high post passer but mainly because that was the offense that the Spurs played and Duncan was 7 feet a little bigger than Hakeem mind you and passing over 6'8 PF's for much of his career.

Duncan played more like Ewing overall. But even then he wasn't as physical as Ewing or didn't spring up as high off the ground as Ewing, few did. Also Ewing had a better jumpshot.

I'm a big Duncan fan and think his longevity is up their with Jordan, Malone, and Kareem. But I'll be honest the league rigged a few series for the spurs against the Suns and Mavs in the early 2000's and mid 2000's. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 questionable calls. Why the NBA rigs certain series is a different topic.

Also Duncan always had a lot of trouble against Shaq. He would let Shaq throw him around too much. That didn't happen to Hakeem. Hakeem lit him up

Shaq was a much bigger man when Duncan faced him in the playoffs than hakeem. And I don't recall Duncan having any problems with Shaq beyond well it was Shaq.

I'm sorry but you're the only person I've ever heard claim Hakeem was more than a decent passer and even then only after Rudy T got there. You're talking about him in a way I've just never heard and it doesn't match what I've seen even remotely. Hakeem over his career was not good, great, average, poor....he was BAD. This has been a knock on him, it isn't something I came up with. Often people gloss over it because Hakeem was fun to watch, but it was truly a weakness. And please assists are NOT a real proxy for passing skills. You need to watch some games perhaps and refresh your memory on these two.

And please don't compare Duncan to Ewing. Duncan was a much better offensive player.

And Jordan....longevity? What?

And you think the league rigged series to let the most boring team win? And I"m done!