Why is Duncan universally consider better than Hakeem?

[HomoSapien]

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

[DoctorX]

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

Well you know winning is a talent Duncan being able to do that would by default make him better than Hakeem.

[HomoSapien]

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

Well you know winning is a talent Duncan being able to do that would by default make him better than Hakeem.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't saying it diminish Duncan in any way. The man is an absolute legend in every way. As for if it makes him a better player? I'm not sure I'm sold on that, as Duncan clearly had the better supporting cast throughout his prime.

[cloudXXI]

They are pretty much at the same level.

I have both as the best big men I have ever seen (I just saw Kareem at the end of his career).

[flow]

What universe would that be?

.

[The_Hater]

I was actually thinking of this exact question the other week. I think a very good argument could be made for Hakeem here.

[The_Hater]

What universe would that be?

.

He’s right. If you read any website’s top all-time player list, Duncan will be ahead of Hakeem. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a list where HAkeem ranks higher.

[BigBoss23]

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

Well you know winning is a talent Duncan being able to do that would by default make him better than Hakeem.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't saying it diminish Duncan in any way. The man is an absolute legend in every way. As for if it makes him a better player? I'm not sure I'm sold on that, as Duncan clearly had the better supporting cast throughout his prime.

Winning with star teammates is generally only held against Kobe and Durant on this board. Look no further than the PC board.

When a team wins a lot, full credit is given to Russell and Duncan (as they should). But when Kobe or Durant win b2b FMVPs on the same court as Garnett/Curry/Lebron (players considered superior to them), their rings get discounted because they were on "stacked" teams etc.

[Maze]

Next to Michael Jordan, '94/'95 Hakeem Olajuwon is the most all around dominant player I've ever seen with my own two eyes.GOAT post moves, automatic mid range, and could even stretch it out to 3pt range.All while being maybe the best defensive player in the league.Duncan was like the slow & steady turtle who won the race.Hakeem was more dynamic.

[flow]

"Better" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. So here's how I'd put it:

If we were drafting a team to play for a championship, and for our first pick, we had to take either Tim Duncan (at his best) or Hakeem Olajuwon (at his best), I'd pick Hakeem without hesitation. And I assume everyone on this board would do the same thing if they're being honest with themselves.

.

[dhsilv2]

"Better" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. So here's how I'd put it:

If we were drafting a team to play for a championship, and for our first pick, we had to take either Tim Duncan (at his best) or Hakeem Olajuwon (at his best), I'd pick Hakeem without hesitation. And I assume everyone on this board would do the same thing if they're being honest with themselves.

.

I'd take Duncan though I'd first want to think a bit about who's on the team and coaching styles. It's certainly close.

[flow]

"Better" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. So here's how I'd put it:

If we were drafting a team to play for a championship, and for our first pick, we had to take either Tim Duncan (at his best) or Hakeem Olajuwon (at his best), I'd pick Hakeem without hesitation. And I assume everyone on this board would do the same thing if they're being honest with themselves.

.

I'd take Duncan though I'd first want to think a bit about who's on the team and coaching styles. It's certainly close.

No one's on the team yet. It's your first pick. No coach to consider, either.

[dhsilv2]

"Better" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. So here's how I'd put it:

If we were drafting a team to play for a championship, and for our first pick, we had to take either Tim Duncan (at his best) or Hakeem Olajuwon (at his best), I'd pick Hakeem without hesitation. And I assume everyone on this board would do the same thing if they're being honest with themselves.

.

I'd take Duncan though I'd first want to think a bit about who's on the team and coaching styles. It's certainly close.

No one's on the team yet. It's your first pick. No coach to consider, either.

Then Duncan without much thought needed. Always take the better passer when things are close. it makes team building and coaching easier to work around. Just much more dynamic in the different systems you can run.

[hoosierdaddy34]

At their absolute apex, Hakeem and Shaq are the two greatest big men I’ve ever seen. Duncan starts to close the gap some when you bring sustained excellence over an entire career into the equation.

[Chronz]

Hakeem was low maintenance?

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.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

In 98 probably. I think 94-95 really cloud how selfish Akeem Olajuwon was. I was reading the post defending his passing in the 'hard double' team era as the explanation why he didn't pass but it is flawed because post players like Bird, Barkley, McHale, Magic, Daugherty, Robinson, Jordan were all far more frequent passers out of double teams which always mean someone is open. The post was used to draw the hard double team.

Olajuwon was originally very selfish and his best passing led to his winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Agreed, Ill have to search the archives but I think Hakeem admits to learning to trust his teammates more. I used to always say that people have the illusion of Hakeem being at his apex defensively the same years as his offensive peak but they didn't really overlap. Hakeem was far more reliant on his athleticism early (pretty sure he picked the game up late) and when he was at his most skilled/best offensively were the later years when he wasn't quite the same defender, tho obviously still elite.

There was also very small evidence that he wasn't exactly improving the team as much his stats would indicate, this was highlighted in the year they tried to trade him to Miami(I forget why/who Miami didn't trade) and the team survived his injury/absense. His passing and shooting really hit elite levels during his championship runs, young Hakeem prolly doesn't win 1 of those 2 titles in that role but thats not an insult given you could win other ways.

[Curmudgeon]

Duncan was a slightly better all-around player. But it's so close.

[dhsilv2]

Just for context, at their peaks here are their 3 year box score metrics. Should add this was from 2017 so it's the old vorp/bpm formula.

[90sAllDecade]

Not really trying to go back and forth cherry picking stats and years, but just wanted to illustrate a few points.

Winshares is a team based metric, it's good for comparing a player within thier team in a year. But poor for comparing other players in cross era or sometimes cross team comparisons.

Vorp is also a more a longevity stat that skews to the player with greater total minutes and games played.

So if you have better team support you can have better win shares as a team with comparable players.

As for VORP, if you are on a team and do all the work yourself with less talent around you, it's harder playing more minutes. But if you have stars on offense and defense as well as a GOAT level coach designing a system for you, your job can become easier and you can play more minutes with less burden.

It's easier working overtime if more talented coworkers on your team are doing a good percentage of work for you those hours, instead of doing it all yourself on another team.

Team support helps winshares and can aid longevity which helps VORP if two players are comparable.

For example George Mikan beats Duncan and others in Win Shares per 48 and for thier careers Karl Malone beats Duncan in RS total winshares and VORP due to the total games and minutes played edge. I don't think it accurately shows who the better player was overall using win shares and VORP.

What is a Win Share?

James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html#:~:text=Bill%20James%20developed%20his%20system,equivalent%20to%20three%20Win%20Shares.&text=James%20made%20team%20Win%20Shares,exactly%20270%20Win%20Shares%2C%20etc.

Also, it's not really apples to apples. It's a comparsion of 25 year old Duncan with 32 year old Hakeem. Hakeem had better team support and coaching late in his career, Duncan had it his whole career. Team support and systems help players, but most people don't athletically peak in thier 30s. It also misses Hakeems 86 year and playoffs.

So taking a three year peak from both similar ages and to include Hakeem's 86 year we can look and compare by age, again I don't care for picking stats or years like this but wanted to illustrate a few points, as both were awesome players.