Why is Duncan universally consider better than Hakeem?

[DoctorX]

Yeah I mean they're obviously pretty close. What separates Duncan is the consistent success--and notably, what he had to do with that. His teams always, always had elite cultures, and he deserves a lot of credit for that. The counter-argument is concerning where the credit for that is his, and where it's Pop's.

I always felt coaches are overrated in the NBA and don't carry the same value they do in other leagues. Phil Jackson, Riley,Pop all haven't been able to do jack **** when they don't have talented players. The Spurs have fallen apart since losing Kawhi. They went from a championship contender, to a first round playoff team, and to now a lottery team within 2 years. To me it's always ludicrous when people try to discredit Duncan's greatness by screaming he had Pop. Great players make great coaches and it's never the other way around.

One could easily argue that they should have gone immediately to being out of the playoffs, and it's a testament to Pop that they've remained competitive in the post-Kawhi years, given the state of the roster.

That's not even really what I'm arguing about though. Clearly the Spurs have had good talent for the last couple of decades. But they've also been sustained by arguably the best culture in pro sports. The success doesn't happen without the talent, of course. But it doesn't happen to the same degree, and it's probably not nearly as consistent without that elite culture.

The credit for this often is given to Duncan, which I think is mostly fair. It's rare for a superstar talent like him to allow himself to be coached hard by a guy like Pop, and that example has trickled down to decades of amazing success.

But it's also true that that impact wouldn't be anywhere near as strong or successful if it was **** Randy Wittman coaching Duncan in 97. So I'm just saying, the line of where the credit goes for the culture is blurry.

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

[DoctorX]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either guy and don't have any issue with someone preferring one over the other. I have only skimmed through this thread so I didn't see it, but I hope no one has tried to argue that "it's not even close" because these 2 whilst approaching the game in a different way are very close in my opinion as far as overall impact on the game.

In my opinion, Duncan could afford to be more of a facilitator because his supporting cast was generally speaking better than Hakeems. I don't say that as someone who thinks Hakeem played with scrubs like some people try and make out.

The guys Hakeem played with may not have been allstars till late in his career and had he played alongside Drexler/Pippen/Barkley etc in their prime then he likely is higher on people's lists.

However the guys he had alongside him had heart and toughness and anyone who grew up watching how they played as a team, with everyone chipping in on a different night would recall just how tough they were. Guys like Cassell, Elie, Maxwell, Horry, Thorpe etc weren't All-star caliber players, but they left it all out on the floor and played well within the system

If you switch places between Duncan and Olajuwon, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they finish with the same number of rings as the other (Duncan 2 and Hakeem 5)

I don't think Hakeem would have won 5 rings with the Spurs. Duncan's maturity was huge reason why he was able to win when he was young versus Hakeem who didn't start to mature until he hit his 30's. Hakeem pretty much checked out after '86 and stopped being a team player once he no longer had an all-star next to him. He didn't commit to being a team player again until 92-93 Whereas Duncan didn't check out after the Lakers swept him in '01 knowing he had no legit all-star next to him. He still trusted the team and eventually prevailed against the Lakers in '03 without any all-stars. I don't think a young Hakeem would have had the maturity and discipline to bounce back from those tough Laker poundings in '01 and '02.

[FreeThrowLine]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either guy and don't have any issue with someone preferring one over the other. I have only skimmed through this thread so I didn't see it, but I hope no one has tried to argue that "it's not even close" because these 2 whilst approaching the game in a different way are very close in my opinion as far as overall impact on the game.

In my opinion, Duncan could afford to be more of a facilitator because his supporting cast was generally speaking better than Hakeems. I don't say that as someone who thinks Hakeem played with scrubs like some people try and make out.

The guys Hakeem played with may not have been allstars till late in his career and had he played alongside Drexler/Pippen/Barkley etc in their prime then he likely is higher on people's lists.

However the guys he had alongside him had heart and toughness and anyone who grew up watching how they played as a team, with everyone chipping in on a different night would recall just how tough they were. Guys like Cassell, Elie, Maxwell, Horry, Thorpe etc weren't All-star caliber players, but they left it all out on the floor and played well within the system

If you switch places between Duncan and Olajuwon, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they finish with the same number of rings as the other (Duncan 2 and Hakeem 5)

I don't think Hakeem would have won 5 rings with the Spurs. Duncan's maturity was huge reason why he was able to win when he was young versus Hakeem who didn't start to mature until he hit his 30's. Hakeem pretty much checked out after '86 and stopped being a team player once he no longer had an all-star next to him. He didn't commit to being a team player again until 92-93 Whereas Duncan didn't check out after the Lakers swept him in '01 knowing he had no legit all-star next to him. He still trusted the team and eventually prevailed against the Lakers in '03 without any all-stars. I don't think a young Hakeem would have had the maturity and discipline to bounce back from those tough Laker poundings in '01 and '02.

I disagree, as we really have no proof of how mature either one was unless you had access/insight to what they were like off the court in practice and with their teammates. We also have no way of knowing how either would have reacted in a different system with a completely different coaching staff, teammates and system.

What proof do you have that Hakeem checked out after '86 and didn't commit to the team until '92?

[Biased_Fan6425]

Should have added a poll.

Hakeem - Peak
Duncan - Career

[Ryoga Hibiki]

You should be more careful with the words.
"Universally" it's too strong, and in most cases people have Duncan higher on career value, less so for peak.
Anyway, one thing that made Timmeh incredibly valuable is how much of a culture setter he appeared to be.
Hearing guys like Jackson admitting that they became more coachable after seeing the respect Timmeh was giving Pop was very telling. This is a players' league, you can't build a long lasting culture without your best player setting the example.
I remember reading a story, long time ago, about Timmeh in Wake Forrest. He was a junior or a senior, they were listening to a coach during a break and there was freshmen appearing not focused and looking at the floor: he put his index on his chin raising his head up and signaling to watch and listen. This is amazing stuff.

[pillwenney]

I always felt coaches are overrated in the NBA and don't carry the same value they do in other leagues. Phil Jackson, Riley,Pop all haven't been able to do jack **** when they don't have talented players. The Spurs have fallen apart since losing Kawhi. They went from a championship contender, to a first round playoff team, and to now a lottery team within 2 years. To me it's always ludicrous when people try to discredit Duncan's greatness by screaming he had Pop. Great players make great coaches and it's never the other way around.

One could easily argue that they should have gone immediately to being out of the playoffs, and it's a testament to Pop that they've remained competitive in the post-Kawhi years, given the state of the roster.

That's not even really what I'm arguing about though. Clearly the Spurs have had good talent for the last couple of decades. But they've also been sustained by arguably the best culture in pro sports. The success doesn't happen without the talent, of course. But it doesn't happen to the same degree, and it's probably not nearly as consistent without that elite culture.

The credit for this often is given to Duncan, which I think is mostly fair. It's rare for a superstar talent like him to allow himself to be coached hard by a guy like Pop, and that example has trickled down to decades of amazing success.

But it's also true that that impact wouldn't be anywhere near as strong or successful if it was **** Randy Wittman coaching Duncan in 97. So I'm just saying, the line of where the credit goes for the culture is blurry.

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

[cupcakesnake]

Disagree about using a team based metric to judge individual players without analyzing the team support and competition that player had.

Spoiler:

When discussing the greatest defensive players all time, six seasons and doing the heavy lifting defensively for a candidate counts imo. You may not agree, but Robinson was defending for Duncan several times in the regular season and playoff series.

Amare ripped him during the regular season as well in the three seperate games they played against the Spurs, two against Duncan he dressed for as he missed one game.

He averaged 38 points on 76% TS against Duncan's Spurs:


Box Scores of two games they played RS:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200412280SAS.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200501210PHO.html

Ducan did have injuries, but this was a trend that season in all the games they played, this is the playoff video:

Watch on YouTube

Duncan did prove himself as a great defender absolutely, he is an awesome player and deserves credit, but he did have help to make his job easier than others in a team support comparision. Duncan had Bowen, Robinson, and Pops to help orchestrate defense as a coach and take the burden off for team defense.

Basically if you praise Duncan for team defense, you are praising the team and I would analyze for the comparision. I don't rank individual players on team based accolades or metrics. Team defense is a team metric imo, so why not analyze the team support in comparison for thier careers?

Also Hakeem was better as a man defender and help defender, Hakeem also was much better with steals and had quicker hands where he is top 10 all time ever, by far the most by a center. Duncan is 164th:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/stl_career.html

I don't have a lot of time so I'll just do a comparision of team support between the two:

Team Support: Duncan vs Hakeem

Tim Duncan
Year with 1 All Star: x 12
Years with 2 All Stars: x1 (Duncan age 39 in the last year w/Kawhi and Aldridge)

Plus a GOAT level coach in Popovich for 18 years, Duncan's whole career and prime.

Hakeem:
Years with 1 All Star x 7
Years with 2 All Star x 1 (Drexler age 32 - 35 and Barkley ages 33 - 36)

Plus Rudy T for 8 years when Hakeem was ages 32 - 38.

Here are some of the offensive and defensive support Duncan had in his prime from David Robinson:

David Robinson (during Duncan's Years)
All Star x 3 (Former: MVP, Scoring Leader and DPOY)
All NBA Second Team x 1
All NBA Third Teamx 2
All Defensive Second Team x 1
Top Ten in Blocks x 4
Top Ten in Rebounds x 3
Top Ten in PER x 4
Top Five Defensive Win Shares x 4
Top Five in Defensive BPM x 4 (Close to leading league three times)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html

I'm short on time or I would add Bowen, Parker, Ginobilli etc.

Duncan had much better offensive, defensive team support and coaching than Hakeem making his job much easier on both side of the ball. When breaking down team support, competition and what they did as individual defensive players Hakeem was better.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this post. Your points are:
- Duncan played with Robinson for the first 6 years of his career (true!)
- Robinson was really good at defense (true!)
- Duncan had more overall help than Hakeem (no doubt!)
- Amar'e scored a ton of point against the Spurs for a few years (undebatable)

I never argued against any of these points. They don't really add up to detract from Duncan in a convincing way. If Duncan had floundered without David Robinson during the next 13 years(!) of his career, I might consider Robinson propping up Duncan. But Duncan, and the Spurs defense, took zero steps back with Robinson. So I just don't see what the point is there. I'm also don't agree that the Spurs had such overwhelming defensive personnel enough to take anything away from Duncan. Duncan thrived in different defenses across eras. He was mobile enough to play next to another big (elite defenses next to Rasho Nesterovic, Francisco Elson, Nazr Mohammad, Tiago Splitter and Fabricio Oberto), and able to play center full time with smaller players as basketball evolved (power forward like Dejuan Blair, old Robert Horry, Matt Bonner, old Antonio McDyess, Boris Diaw).

The Amar'e thing... I'd have to go back and watch the tape and see possessions with Duncan guarding Amar'e to feel strongly about this one. That playoffs, Duncan had 2 sprained ankles and only guarded Amar'e in crunch time. If Amar'e is torching Fabricio Oberto consistently (while the Suns keep losing to the Spurs), I'm not sure if that says anything about Duncan's defense. My impression at the time was that San Antonio seemed fine with letting Amar'e score points and more determined to stop Steve Nash from generating open threes. Amar'e in his prime was certainly a unstoppable threat in the pick & roll, but he also was woefully bad at making backline reads, so smart teams knew how to neuter him in crunch time.

- You say you can't use team defense to assess an individual player? uhhh.. I dunno! I think for defensive anchors, looking at how good the overall defense built around them was is kind of important. If the team is defensively STACKED, you may want to share credit more. Duncan did play with good defensive wings like Bowen and Kawhi, but also went through the middle of his career with a massive hole on the wing, and offense only guys playing big minutes in the frontcourt (Bonner, Blair). Ginobili was a sneaky awesome defender, Tony Parker was average at best. I don't look at San Antonio rosters and feel like WOW stacked defensive rosters.

Remember we're talking about defense. Not overall play. Hakeem was given very little offensive help for most of his career between Sampson and Drexler. His teams were usually defensive slanted and built around Hakeem's magnificent rim protection. Hakeem is definitely the KG of his generation in terms of have a front office that refused (or was unable to) surround him with talent. He got a bit luckier than KG and won 2 titles with the Rockets, kind of like if Minne had acquired Sprewell and Cassell 2-3 years earlier. No amount of offensive help advantage that Duncan has over Hakeem really changes the defensive help question. So stop listing David Robinson's all-star appearances and PER.

Team defense is built on defensive personnel. I'd accept an argument that was: Hakeem had trash defensive rosters and still led them to a perennial top 5 defense. If that was true I'd probably have a similar opinion that Hakeem did more than Duncan on defense over his career. But I'm not sure on this. They're both in the argument for defensive GOAT to me. For sure Duncan had more offensive help over more of his career, and a much stable coaching situation.

[dhsilv2]

One could easily argue that they should have gone immediately to being out of the playoffs, and it's a testament to Pop that they've remained competitive in the post-Kawhi years, given the state of the roster.

That's not even really what I'm arguing about though. Clearly the Spurs have had good talent for the last couple of decades. But they've also been sustained by arguably the best culture in pro sports. The success doesn't happen without the talent, of course. But it doesn't happen to the same degree, and it's probably not nearly as consistent without that elite culture.

The credit for this often is given to Duncan, which I think is mostly fair. It's rare for a superstar talent like him to allow himself to be coached hard by a guy like Pop, and that example has trickled down to decades of amazing success.

But it's also true that that impact wouldn't be anywhere near as strong or successful if it was **** Randy Wittman coaching Duncan in 97. So I'm just saying, the line of where the credit goes for the culture is blurry.

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

Did they really operate differently BEFORE Duncan? Seemed like the spurs were constantly looking for a fit next to Robinson for years to me.

Robinson had Larry Brown as his coach to start but a coaching change was made in 93. The next year the spurs had 3 new coaches and the coach from the end of 92 was in an executive role. New coach rolls around in 95 and at this point Pop is the GM so a GM change as well. And Pop becomes coach in 97. The spurs weren't some well oiled and stable team before Duncan. Duncan was the foundation that kept Pop in that role for so long and allowed Pop to have the decades build what the spurs have.

It's of course a "chicken or egg" type question. Teams need great players to develop executives and coaches as most teams just don't have the stability. But the spurs had Robinson before Duncan and they couldn't do what they did with Duncan.

[Odinn21]

- Amar'e scored a ton of point against the Spurs for a few years (undebatable)

This is very much debatable looking at the sense people talk about.

The only series Stoudemire had massive numbers against the Spurs was 2005. First, Duncan was not his primary defender for majority of the game. Popovich's plan was to let Amar'e have his and focus on other parts to mask Duncan's mobility issues coming from his injury. When Duncan defended Stoudemire it was mostly crunch time and Stoudemire couldn't keep scoring on that level.

If Stoudemire were such an issue for Duncan, then why he couldn't replicate his performance in 2005 after that season?
2005- 37.0 ppg on .550 fg
2007- 26.4 ppg on .500 fg
2008- 23.2 ppg on .485 fg
2010- 20.5 ppg on .475 fg

People arguing against Duncan talk like 2005 WCF series was not an outlier for Stoudemire. If that was the case, how come Stoudemire never came close to that scoring production ever again? Both in volume and efficiency?

---

As for the thread title, general perception about Olajuwon is that as if he played like 1993-95 span for his entire career. He did not. Peak to peak, 1994 Olajuwon and 2003 Duncan were on the same level. Choice is dependant on preference but Olajuwon definitely did not have a peak advantage over Duncan. When you think top 10 seasons between the two, you see that, Duncan's prime was superior to Olajuwon's one. Not only that, Duncan's longevity was better. Duncan's intangibles were definitely better.

Going about perception about Olajuwon, especially his case against Duncan;
People tend to assume Olajuwon was the better passer due to his high apg numbers under Tomjanovich but he was pretty ball dominant for a center and comparing assist numbers of non-primary ball handlers never makes sense. O'Neal was also a better passer than Olajuwon but his apg numbers are lower.
People are not aware of how Duncan limited O'Neal in 2002, despite losing the series cause of having the worse team. 1995 NBA Finals was great for Olajuwon? Guess what. The gap between Duncan and O'Neal in 2002, when O'Neal was definitely better than his 1995 self, was even bigger.

Going by categories;
Peaks- they were on the same level.
Prime duration- again, both primes lasted around 10 seasons.
Average prime quality- Duncan was better.
Longevity- Duncan was better.
Intangibles- Duncan was better.
Career resume- Duncan was better.

You would pick Olajuwon ahead of Duncan for your team? Go ahead. Picking Olajuwon is never a bad choice.
But there's not much reason for Olajuwon to be ranked ahead Duncan. There's a clear gap. Not a big one surely. But very clear.

[cupcakesnake]

- Amar'e scored a ton of point against the Spurs for a few years (undebatable)

This is very much debatable looking at the sense people talk about.

The only series Stoudemire had massive numbers against the Spurs was 2005. First, Duncan was not his primary defender for majority of the game. Popovich's plan was to let Amar'e have his and focus on other parts to mask Duncan's mobility issues coming from his injury. When Duncan defended Stoudemire it was mostly crunch time and Stoudemire couldn't keep scoring on that level.

If Stoudemire were such an issue for Duncan, then why he couldn't replicate his performance in 2005 after that season?
2005- 37.0 ppg on .550 fg
2007- 26.4 ppg on .500 fg
2008- 23.2 ppg on .485 fg
2010- 20.5 ppg on .475 fg

People arguing against Duncan talk like 2005 WCF series was not an outlier for Stoudemire. If that was the case, how come Stoudemire never came close to that scoring production ever again? Both in volume and efficiency?

---

As for the thread title, general perception about Olajuwon is that as if he played like 1993-95 span for his entire career. He did not. Peak to peak, 1994 Olajuwon and 2003 Duncan were on the same level. Choice is dependant on preference but Olajuwon definitely did not have a peak advantage over Duncan. When you think top 10 seasons between the two, you see that, Duncan's prime was superior to Olajuwon's one. Not only that, Duncan's longevity was better. Duncan's intangibles were definitely better.

Going about perception about Olajuwon, especially his case against Duncan;
People tend to assume Olajuwon was the better passer due to his high apg numbers under Tomjanovich but he was pretty ball dominant for a center and comparing assist numbers of non-primary ball handlers never makes sense. O'Neal was also a better passer than Olajuwon but his apg numbers are lower.
People are not aware of how Duncan limited O'Neal in 2002, despite losing the series cause of having the worse team. 1995 NBA Finals was great for Olajuwon? Guess what. The gap between Duncan and O'Neal in 2002, when O'Neal was definitely better than his 1995 self, was even bigger.

Going by categories;
Peaks- they were on the same level.
Prime duration- again, both primes lasted around 10 seasons.
Average prime quality- Duncan was better.
Longevity- Duncan was better.
Intangibles- Duncan was better.
Career resume- Duncan was better.

You would pick Olajuwon ahead of Duncan for your team? Go ahead. Picking Olajuwon is never a bad choice.
But there's not much reason for Olajuwon to be ranked ahead Duncan. There's a clear gap. Not a big one surely. But very clear.

Clarification, the quote you pulled from me came in the context of defending Duncan's defense overall, as well as his defense of Amar'e after the poster I was responding to pointed out that Amare dropped 30+ (37 and 35) in both their regular season meetings that year. I mispoke when I said "few years", I meant to say "that year" but didn't notice. I know that series well and don't think that Amar'e's body of work against Duncan or the Spurs overall is strong... because it isn't.

My posts in that thread have been arguing that Hakeem isn't a clearly better defender than Duncan. I think Hakeem was a better athlete, where Duncan was bigger and smarter. I think the Shaq matchup is a fun comparison. I agree with your assessment overall of Duncan vs. Hakeem. I have them both as top 10 players. I don't hate it if people have Hakeem ranked higher, though I personally do not.

[Odinn21]

Clarification, the quote you pulled from me came in the context of defending Duncan's defense overall, as well as his defense of Amar'e after the poster I was responding to pointed out that Amare dropped 30+ (37 and 35) in both their regular season meetings that year. I mispoke when I said "few years", I meant to say "that year" but didn't notice. I know that series well and don't think that Amar'e's body of work against Duncan or the Spurs overall is strong... because it isn't.

My posts in that thread have been arguing that Hakeem isn't a clearly better defender than Duncan. I think Hakeem was a better athlete, where Duncan was bigger and smarter. I think the Shaq matchup is a fun comparison. I agree with your assessment overall of Duncan vs. Hakeem. I have them both as top 10 players. I don't hate it if people have Hakeem ranked higher, though I personally do not.

A clarification from myself, that part about Stoudemire was not directed at your post entirely. It was more like a general statement. Just quoted that part to build on.

I agree that Olajuwon being a better defender than Duncan is not given.
Olajuwon's lateral quickness was than Duncan's. Duncan, OTOH, is probably only 2nd to Bill Russell in terms of being a smart rim protector.
It's too close to call for one of them IMO.

[pillwenney]

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

Did they really operate differently BEFORE Duncan? Seemed like the spurs were constantly looking for a fit next to Robinson for years to me.

Robinson had Larry Brown as his coach to start but a coaching change was made in 93. The next year the spurs had 3 new coaches and the coach from the end of 92 was in an executive role. New coach rolls around in 95 and at this point Pop is the GM so a GM change as well. And Pop becomes coach in 97. The spurs weren't some well oiled and stable team before Duncan. Duncan was the foundation that kept Pop in that role for so long and allowed Pop to have the decades build what the spurs have.

It's of course a "chicken or egg" type question. Teams need great players to develop executives and coaches as most teams just don't have the stability. But the spurs had Robinson before Duncan and they couldn't do what they did with Duncan.

It's very chicken and egg for sure, especially since while Pop was in and out of the franchise before Duncan came along, the culture-setting position of head coach only happened during the hopeless season before Duncan came along, which wouldn't really be a fair way to judge Pop.

I'm sure Duncan deserves a ton of credit for setting that up. I just think, speaking in terms of the Spurs' elite culture specifically, it's hard to decouple them and give either one all the credit for it--kinda similar to how it's hard to evaluate both Stockton and Malone on their own IMO.

[SAKURABA216]

Is he though?

I don't know why, but I guess I have never seen the 2 compared very often even though they both essentially played the same position.

Hakeem at the height of his powers was probably better than Duncan, but Duncan's longevity and health probably put him over Hakeem when looking at their entire careers. Either way, you can't go wrong with either of them.

[DoctorX]

One could easily argue that they should have gone immediately to being out of the playoffs, and it's a testament to Pop that they've remained competitive in the post-Kawhi years, given the state of the roster.

That's not even really what I'm arguing about though. Clearly the Spurs have had good talent for the last couple of decades. But they've also been sustained by arguably the best culture in pro sports. The success doesn't happen without the talent, of course. But it doesn't happen to the same degree, and it's probably not nearly as consistent without that elite culture.

The credit for this often is given to Duncan, which I think is mostly fair. It's rare for a superstar talent like him to allow himself to be coached hard by a guy like Pop, and that example has trickled down to decades of amazing success.

But it's also true that that impact wouldn't be anywhere near as strong or successful if it was **** Randy Wittman coaching Duncan in 97. So I'm just saying, the line of where the credit goes for the culture is blurry.

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

TBH I don't. Some will argue they drafted Parker,Manu. Keep in mind those guys were very raw and didn't become all-star caliber players until the '04-'05 season. So who was leading the Spurs during that time period when they were developing? Tim Duncan that's the answer to the question. Very few superstar players have the patience and trust to allow young guys to develop. Duncan allowed the stability and longevity of the organization. He was willing to take many different roles to keep the organization prospering.

[DoctorX]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either guy and don't have any issue with someone preferring one over the other. I have only skimmed through this thread so I didn't see it, but I hope no one has tried to argue that "it's not even close" because these 2 whilst approaching the game in a different way are very close in my opinion as far as overall impact on the game.

In my opinion, Duncan could afford to be more of a facilitator because his supporting cast was generally speaking better than Hakeems. I don't say that as someone who thinks Hakeem played with scrubs like some people try and make out.

The guys Hakeem played with may not have been allstars till late in his career and had he played alongside Drexler/Pippen/Barkley etc in their prime then he likely is higher on people's lists.

However the guys he had alongside him had heart and toughness and anyone who grew up watching how they played as a team, with everyone chipping in on a different night would recall just how tough they were. Guys like Cassell, Elie, Maxwell, Horry, Thorpe etc weren't All-star caliber players, but they left it all out on the floor and played well within the system

If you switch places between Duncan and Olajuwon, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they finish with the same number of rings as the other (Duncan 2 and Hakeem 5)

I don't think Hakeem would have won 5 rings with the Spurs. Duncan's maturity was huge reason why he was able to win when he was young versus Hakeem who didn't start to mature until he hit his 30's. Hakeem pretty much checked out after '86 and stopped being a team player once he no longer had an all-star next to him. He didn't commit to being a team player again until 92-93 Whereas Duncan didn't check out after the Lakers swept him in '01 knowing he had no legit all-star next to him. He still trusted the team and eventually prevailed against the Lakers in '03 without any all-stars. I don't think a young Hakeem would have had the maturity and discipline to bounce back from those tough Laker poundings in '01 and '02.

I disagree, as we really have no proof of how mature either one was unless you had access/insight to what they were like off the court in practice and with their teammates. We also have no way of knowing how either would have reacted in a different system with a completely different coaching staff, teammates and system.

What proof do you have that Hakeem checked out after '86 and didn't commit to the team until '92?

Proof is that he has admitted in his own documentary and the clutch city championship documentary that he stopped believing in the organization after they lost Sampson and didn't trust his own teammates. He said he was all about himself and was a selfish player. He has admitted all of this in interviews and said it was finding Islam that made him a better person and teammate.

[pillwenney]

Lamarcus Aldridge playing at a high level was the reason why they got into the playoffs the previous 2 years but I'm sure you will say Pop made him great and ignore the fact Lamarcus is actually a very talented player. Without Lamarcus the Spurs would have been a 20 win team. Lebron James was able to win a ring with Tyron Lue that in itself should show you coaches are overrated. I'm sure Wittman gets a few rings if he gets to coach Duncan for at least 8 years.

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

TBH I don't. Some will argue they drafted Parker,Manu. Keep in mind those guys were very raw and didn't become all-star caliber players until the '04-'05 season. So who was leading the Spurs during that time period when they were developing? Tim Duncan that's the answer to the question. Very few superstar players have the patience and trust to allow young guys to develop. Duncan allowed the stability and longevity of the organization. He was willing to take many different roles to keep the organization prospering.

Absolutely. They've also always been a team-first organization that universally plays smart, fundamental, disciplined basketball at a level and consistency not otherwise seen in the sport. I don't think it's crazy to give the coach a good deal of credit for that part of it.

[dhsilv2]

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

Did they really operate differently BEFORE Duncan? Seemed like the spurs were constantly looking for a fit next to Robinson for years to me.

Robinson had Larry Brown as his coach to start but a coaching change was made in 93. The next year the spurs had 3 new coaches and the coach from the end of 92 was in an executive role. New coach rolls around in 95 and at this point Pop is the GM so a GM change as well. And Pop becomes coach in 97. The spurs weren't some well oiled and stable team before Duncan. Duncan was the foundation that kept Pop in that role for so long and allowed Pop to have the decades build what the spurs have.

It's of course a "chicken or egg" type question. Teams need great players to develop executives and coaches as most teams just don't have the stability. But the spurs had Robinson before Duncan and they couldn't do what they did with Duncan.

It's very chicken and egg for sure, especially since while Pop was in and out of the franchise before Duncan came along, the culture-setting position of head coach only happened during the hopeless season before Duncan came along, which wouldn't really be a fair way to judge Pop.

I'm sure Duncan deserves a ton of credit for setting that up. I just think, speaking in terms of the Spurs' elite culture specifically, it's hard to decouple them and give either one all the credit for it--kinda similar to how it's hard to evaluate both Stockton and Malone on their own IMO.

Well, Pop was about to be fired and Doc Rivers was slated as the next coach in the early 00's. Duncan proceeded to roast the rockets and saved Pop's job. It's hard to get past that reality as that was a thing and it was legit decided by a game.

I say this as I think Duncan knew it and that was part of his fire. But the reality is the spurs were that close to making a change. I'd also add, Pop's more important to the spurs over his career outside of his coaching than his coaching. Pop's way bigger than a coach. I don't know if this adds to the discussion but he's the guy who hired RC after all. He doesn't report to RC like any normal coach would. Pop to me has always been more important in his non coach role than as a coach.

[blackcosmos]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either guy and don't have any issue with someone preferring one over the other. I have only skimmed through this thread so I didn't see it, but I hope no one has tried to argue that "it's not even close" because these 2 whilst approaching the game in a different way are very close in my opinion as far as overall impact on the game.

In my opinion, Duncan could afford to be more of a facilitator because his supporting cast was generally speaking better than Hakeems. I don't say that as someone who thinks Hakeem played with scrubs like some people try and make out.

The guys Hakeem played with may not have been allstars till late in his career and had he played alongside Drexler/Pippen/Barkley etc in their prime then he likely is higher on people's lists.

However the guys he had alongside him had heart and toughness and anyone who grew up watching how they played as a team, with everyone chipping in on a different night would recall just how tough they were. Guys like Cassell, Elie, Maxwell, Horry, Thorpe etc weren't All-star caliber players, but they left it all out on the floor and played well within the system

If you switch places between Duncan and Olajuwon, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they finish with the same number of rings as the other (Duncan 2 and Hakeem 5)

I don't think Hakeem would have won 5 rings with the Spurs. Duncan's maturity was huge reason why he was able to win when he was young versus Hakeem who didn't start to mature until he hit his 30's. Hakeem pretty much checked out after '86 and stopped being a team player once he no longer had an all-star next to him. He didn't commit to being a team player again until 92-93 Whereas Duncan didn't check out after the Lakers swept him in '01 knowing he had no legit all-star next to him. He still trusted the team and eventually prevailed against the Lakers in '03 without any all-stars. I don't think a young Hakeem would have had the maturity and discipline to bounce back from those tough Laker poundings in '01 and '02.

I disagree, as we really have no proof of how mature either one was unless you had access/insight to what they were like off the court in practice and with their teammates. We also have no way of knowing how either would have reacted in a different system with a completely different coaching staff, teammates and system.

What proof do you have that Hakeem checked out after '86 and didn't commit to the team until '92?

Hakeem did checked out. He was unhappy with his contract extension and got himself on the injured list. He also spat with the GM and the owner during this period.

[DoctorX]

So you really don't see any difference in how the Spurs operate versus other organizations? You don't think that makes any difference?

Well, I disagree. I think it makes a very substantial one.

TBH I don't. Some will argue they drafted Parker,Manu. Keep in mind those guys were very raw and didn't become all-star caliber players until the '04-'05 season. So who was leading the Spurs during that time period when they were developing? Tim Duncan that's the answer to the question. Very few superstar players have the patience and trust to allow young guys to develop. Duncan allowed the stability and longevity of the organization. He was willing to take many different roles to keep the organization prospering.

Absolutely. They've also always been a team-first organization that universally plays smart, fundamental, disciplined basketball at a level and consistency not otherwise seen in the sport. I don't think it's crazy to give the coach a good deal of credit for that part of it.

My point is Duncan allowed all that to happen. Without him it doesn't. Kawhi decided not to stay and now there is no great organization or team first basketball. The Spurs the last two years have run nothing but iso plays for Lamarcus and Derozan which has not led to much success. The Spurs defense has gone down the toilet with Pop playing a trio of Forbes,Mills,Bellinelli together a lot that lead to a lot of losses this year. A lot of fans wouldn't know this because they don't watch the Spurs but Pop is very mediocre when he doesn't have superstar talent.

[HomoSapien]

It's pretty simple, IMO. Hakeem was the better player, Duncan was the better winner.