Manu played 20 minutes a game and averaged 7 points. Robinson was about to retire. Jackson was erratic as usual. Parker was only just beginning to blossom. In the playoffs Duncan averaged 10 points more than anyone else on the team. Duncan led the team in the playoffs in Points, offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, assists and blocks.
You mean individual career, not that you know one is going to bring 2 titles and the other is going to bring 4-5 titles.
Hakeem was a better rebounder than Duncan (heck he was the league leading rebounder twice vs well, zero), his numbers plummeted late in his career as he played with Barkley and Barkley focused on doing the majority of rebounding, then he just got old and washed up those last 3 years in an era where there wasn't the expertise to extend careers. Hakeem not only scored more, but did it ever so slightly more efficiently. And he was a better defender (man to man fairly similar, but as a help defender, he was vastly superior, to anyone really (that's where the blocks and steals come in)).
The whole Hakeem's peak was only 3 years is also way overplayed, and not really true. in 89 and 90, his averages were phenomenal, his team was crap, then in 91 and 92 he was suffering injuries (which some people like to claim were faked, of course it caused a giant spat that was only really salvaged with an ownership change), then in 93-95, it was the same guy who owned everything in 89 and 90.
This. Duncan has been very good for a very long time, which is a hell of an accomplishment for a center. And he's also had the benefit of a long tenure with a well-run franchise and a quality roster when Olajuwon wasted several good years with bad teams. But, Olajuwon reached greater heights of performance when he was at his best. A candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long and Dream has burned very, very brightly.
Well said. I try to turn a blind eye to these sort of comparisons when I see them on TV since, objectively, it could go either way. Same way whenever I see Duncan being compared to Shaq. Duncan is longevity personified, however both players had better peaks than Duncan ever did. To each his own, I suppose....
I love Hakeem but Timmy... Tim Duncan SHOULD be mentioned in the conversation with who's better Kobe, Michael, or Timmy. Let's do a ring count - Michael - 6 rings -Kobe - 5 rings (and the NBA gifted the Lakers that Game 7 over the Celtics, so he SHOULD actually have 4 rings) - Timmy - 4 rings (and working on #5) I hardly ever comment but I'm always checking in with clutchfans BUT Tim Duncan is one of the top 10 to ever play basketball and if that mean sacrificing Dream's position in the top 10, so be it.
Well said indeed, Longevity should be considered. Kobe, Tim, KG have played at a high level for DECADES, think about that. Tracy McGrady (Sorry to bring him up but), played at a high level, some would argue higher than Kobe, but Kobe's longevity squashes any comparison.
The longevity is really about advances in medical science, nutrition, fitness regimes, personnel management, etc Go ahead 20 years, and you'll be talking about how today's players were all washed up so early.
Duncan didn't play Center. So the comparison based on position is moot, since Hakeem will be regraded as a top 3 greatest C of all time. Hakeem was the better athlete for sure. Overall career? Yes its Timmay. But is Duncan the greatest PF? The whole other separate debate. Let the Spurs fans deal with that.
As much as a Rockets fan I am, Polillo is right. In his prime, Hakeem over Duncan. Career-wise, Duncan over Hakeem. Dream over Admiral in his prime and in his career.
Duncan and Dream are both top 10 players. Kobe isn't. I think he's 11, but there's a greater argument for 12 ( Julius) being ahead of him than Kobe has to be ahead of 10 (Oscar). The problem with that is that I'm not using raw rebounding numbers, I'm using rebound percentage. And Dream's rebound percentage numbers from 93 to the end are all fairly similar, and all worse than Duncan's. Also, just something to note for rimrocker since he made the claim: Duncan actually has the higher PER.
OK, let's cut out this nonsense once and for all about Hakeem's "prime." Look at those numbers for the first 6 years of his career. You're going to tell me those do not compare to Duncan? Utter f*king lie. Dream had a 4-year run in which he was averaging over 26 points per game, but let's not act like he was a scrub pre-1990. His numbers are actually better than Duncan's in the first 6 years of his career. His peak 4-year run between 1993 and 1996? Duncan doesn't come close in terms of scoring. Duncan averaged over 25 points once in his career. Dream did it 4 times- and twice above 27, and twice above 26. Averages Season Age Team GP GS MIN FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF REB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 1984–85 22 Houston 82 82 35.5 .538 .613 5.4 6.5 11.9 1.4 1.2 2.7 2.9 4.2 20.6 1985–86 23 Houston 68 68 36.3 .526 .645 4.9 6.6 11.5 2.0 2.0 3.4 2.9 4.0 23.5 1986–87 24 Houston 75 75 36.8 .508 .200 .702 4.2 7.2 11.4 2.9 1.9 3.4 3.0 3.9 23.4 1987–88 25 Houston 79 79 35.8 .514 .000 .695 3.8 8.3 12.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 4.1 22.8 1988–89 26 Houston 82 82 36.9 .508 .000 .696 4.1 9.4 13.5 1.8 2.6 3.4 3.4 4.0 24.8 1989–90 27 Houston 82 82 38.1 .501 .167 .713 3.6 10.4 14.0 2.9 2.1 4.6 3.9 3.8 24.3 1990–91 28 Houston 56 50 36.8 .508 .000 .769 3.9 9.8 13.8 2.3 2.2 3.9 3.1 3.9 21.2 1991–92 29 Houston 70 69 37.7 .502 .000 .766 3.5 8.6 12.1 2.2 1.8 4.3 2.7 3.8 21.6 1992–93 30 Houston 82 82 39.5 .529 .000 .779 3.5 9.6 13.0 3.5 1.8 4.2 3.2 3.7 26.1 1993–94† 31 Houston 80 80 41.0 .528 .421 .716 2.9 9.1 11.9 3.6 1.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 27.3 1994–95† 32 Houston 72 72 39.6 .517 .188 .756 2.4 8.4 10.8 3.5 1.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 27.8 1995–96 33 Houston 72 72 38.8 .514 .214 .724 2.4 8.4 10.9 3.6 1.6 2.9 3.4 3.4 26.9 1996–97 34 Houston 78 78 36.6 .510 .313 .787 2.2 7.0 9.2 3.0 1.5 2.2 3.6 3.2 23.2 Regular season Year Team GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG 1997–98 San Antonio 82 82 39.1 .549 .000 .662 11.9 2.7 .7 2.5 21.1 1998–99† San Antonio 50 50 39.3 .495 .143 .690 11.4 2.4 .9 2.5 21.7 1999–00 San Antonio 74 74 38.9 .490 .091 .761 12.4 3.2 .9 2.2 23.2 2000–01 San Antonio 82 82 38.7 .499 .259 .618 12.2 3.0 .9 2.3 22.2 2001–02 San Antonio 82 82 40.6 .508 .100 .799 12.7 3.7 .7 2.5 25.5 2002–03† San Antonio 81 81 39.3 .513 .273 .710 12.9 3.9 .7 2.9 23.3 2003–04 San Antonio 69 68 36.6 .501 .167 .599 12.4 3.1 .9 2.7 22.3 2004–05† San Antonio 66 66 33.4 .496 .333 .670 11.1 2.7 .7 2.6 20.3 2005–06 San Antonio 80 80 34.8 .484 .400 .629 11.0 3.2 .9 2.0 18.6 2006–07† San Antonio 80 80 34.1 .546 .111 .637 10.6 3.4 .8 2.4 20.0 2007–08 San Antonio 78 78 34.0 .497 .000 .730 11.3 2.8 .7 2.0 19.3 2008–09 San Antonio 75 75 33.6 .504 .000 .692 10.7 3.5 .5 1.7 19.3 2009–10 San Antonio 78 77 31.3 .519 .182 .725 10.1 3.2 .6 1.5 17.9
Peak Hakeem completely embarrasses peak Duncan. Not enough details in the question to say, but give me Hakeem any day unless you're talking about comparing when he had a Toronto uniform on.
Duncan has a better resume but I know without a shadow of a doubt that Hakeem is the superior player. A prime Hakeem would absolutely embarrass Duncan just like he schooled, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq and everyone else.
Hakeem actually would have led the league in rebounding three times, a third straight, but he didn't play enough games to qualify
See and this is where I have a issue, comparing one player that's prime was in a different "era" with one from another. Tim Duncan and Kobe comparison is something I can get behind but all this talk of comparing active players to already made legends is a fools errand especially with many young folk that never even saw them play.
A question for guys who are saying that they would take Duncan over Hakeem. Have you ever seen Hakeem play? Hakeem at his peak is miles ahead of Tim Duncan. Duncan would be embarrassed by the dream the same way the admiral was embarrassed in 1995.
