Why is Duncan universally consider better than Hakeem?

[JustJoe]

Without mentioning championships, is their one thing on the court Duncan was superior to Hakeem in? The only thing I can think of is passing because for the early part of Hakeem prime he had really low assists rate and was known as a very tough shot taker. Also Duncan has better post prime longevity, but Hakeem was an all-star caliber player for 13 seasons, and also had all-time level peak from 1992-1995. I definitely think it's a close comparison, and they would both be in my personal top ten, but how can Duncan get GOAT consideration while Hakeem barely sneaks into most top tens. I just don't see the argument for Duncan being on a different tier as Hakeem.

[Wallace_Wallace]

It's a good debate, but really you can't go wrong with either players. Low maintenance, GOAT tier big men are hard to come by.

[Tor_Raps]

Duncans my favourite player of all time and I put Hakeem right there with him. I think most will have Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem in the same tier career wise and you can reasonably argue for any over the other.

I will always be biased towards Duncan but have no issues with anyone saying the other 2 were better.

[VanWest82]

He's not universally considered better. I suspect they're very close on most fans all time list.

[MarcusBrody]

I don't really think that many people rate one much above the other. They both seem to be bottom half of the Top 10 players.

If I were going to argue Timmy over Hakeem, I'd probably say that Duncan was a bit better of a passer, though Hakeem improved over time. His peak was also a bit longer than Hakeem's and he turned the all over just a bit less.

[Cavsfansince84]

Mainly because of 5>2 and the idea that his personality was more conducive to building around. Also that his age 34-39 years were solidly better than Dream's.

[SK21209]

I think most people have Duncan higher but not in a different tier. I can never really figure out how to order Bird, Duncan, Hakeem and Shaq.

[Leslie Forman]

He isn't.

[Duffman100]

Duncan for longevity, Hakeem for peak?

[scrabbarista]

I agree with Cavs fan: "his personality was more conducive to building around*. Also that his age 34-39 years were solidly better than Dream's."

Also, I consider Duncan the defensive GoAT. Olajuwon is arguably right there, but Duncan was unmatched in his combination of size, length, mobility, individual post defense or team defense, rebounding, never being out of position, and protecting the rim - and longevity in virtually all of those areas.

I have Duncan fourth on my all-time list.

But yeah, the titles obviously enter into the equation.

Also, yes to those who've said it isn't universal.

*Also, I'm not saying the personality thing is necessarily justified. It certainly isn't meant as a knock on Hakeem, who was undeniably a winner and a champion in his character. It's just that with Duncan, you have twenty years' worth of proof.

Also, Hakeem is underrated as a passer, mostly because of the era he played in (i.e., illegal defense rules), but also because he didn't pass well when he was younger. I have to go for a walk now, but when I come back, I'll find a long thread from a couple years ago that contains my (extensive) defense of Hakeem as a passer and my explanation of how the illegal defense rules affected the game during his era.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Better defender, better passer, easier to build around, proven winner with multiple casts. Close but Duncan comes out slightly ahead in a handful of categories leading me to believe he was better.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

longevity, played for one of the best coaches the NBA has ever seen in Pops, successful in all stages of his career.

[Johnny Tomala]

Hakeem Olajuwon was better than Tim Duncan. Duncan he is universally consider better only be ESPN and American media, not by whole basketball community.

[HoopsterJones]

I have Duncan ahead of Hakeem by a hair. The Spurs had such a long run of 50+ win seasons and 5 championships with Tim Duncan anchoring that defense.

[spacemonkey]

I don't think the premise of the OP is correct as I don't think it's universal.

Recency bias probably plays a little bit into it, though.

[Shock Defeat]

Accomplishments, that's it.

[Optms]

Hakeem was flat out better and its not even an argument for me. Offensively he was closer to Dirk than to Duncan and defensively the two are comparable with Hakeem having the edge to due his versatility to guard in the perimeter for stretches.

[chitownsalesmen]

what universe is this exactly?

[Winsome Gerbil]

I've noted the statistical similarities for years.

And Hakeem Olajuwon was subjectively more talented. Could do more things, much better athlete.

The question would be if Duncan was steadier as a franchise anchor. But on that one views are perverted by both recency bias and the generally superior teams he got to play with for much of his career. As with all things fan, people who win are automatically "better" than people who don't, even if they were in better positions to do so.

[OdomFan]

Both players has an argument but I don't know where you got universally better from for either player. Heck Duncan didn't even get talked about much throughout the 00s because a lot of fans around the US labeled him boring.

Many also say Hakeems rings only came from Jordan retiring but they atleast had respect for his style of play liking his foot work and stuff as far as I know. So it can go either way really. I'd personally say they're in the same tier.