Am I missing something here, Shaq, Dream, Moses > Tim Duncan

Clyde was equally past his prime. Tony Parker won the 2007 Finals MVP for goodness sake. Which makes Duncan the only guy were talking about who didn't win that award in one of their championship seasons.

Duncan had very solid teammates. He didn't have Kobe. Or even Scottie. But he had better teammates than Hakeem, and better teammates than dirk just had.

For all the talk of dominating performances, teammates aside, just look at Shaq's finals runs with LA. Equally bad Finals competition, but still. In that first Lakers championship the Diesle put up 38 points, 16.7 boards and 2.67 blocks per game, over the six games. Yes, he was surrounded with better players, but that's a level of domination Duncan has just never been capable of. Has he been dominant? Of course, and the consummate professional and winner... But Robert Horry has been those last two as well. Shaq put up amazing crazy numbers in the playoffs and Finals the next two years as well.

Moreover, numbers aside, I can use my eyes and my memory. Going off those, again I just can't put Duncan up there with Hakeem or Shaq. Right behind those guys? Fine... But I think even that is debatable. Robinson was amazing in his prime, as was the often ridiculed Ewing. Those guys undoubtedly played in the dominant era of post play fOr the last 40 years. They also played in the era with the games greatest player and winner ever, coached by its greatest coach ever on a team stacked with talent. Championships definitely count, but so does context. Duncan's teams weren't stacked - great players but as you pointed out, not multiple HOFer great. I don't see the Spurs winning multiple (if any) championships if the team and Duncan played in that era (all else about the team being the same).

 

I know one thing: that a large majority of Hakeem's defensive prowess was based on fear of getting your shot blocked, and steals. Back then, the rockets' defensive scheme was all about funneling the guards and forwards to the middle, where Hakeem would meet them with a blocked shot. It was flashy, and effective. Hakeem could get away with a lot because he was long and athletically gifted.

With Duncan, he played under sounder defensive principals. He was also much stronger in the post than Hakeem was, and he would make you shoot your shot where he wanted you to shot from on the floor. He had a mix of was lateral quickness and strength and defensive principals that Hakeem never had, or cared to have really. Hakeem's defensive philosophy, even on big men, was to alter their shot, Duncan's was to alter your position you shoot from on the floor to begin with. Which was more effect?

I think that on guards and smaller guys Hakeem's fear was very effective, but on stronger guys in the post, I would take Duncan's approach to defense every day.

 

Michael Jordan said it best; Dream's versatility is what set's him apart from the other great big men, including a masquerading Center as a PF in Tim.

 

Duncan was a great power forward. He chose not to play the center position therefor he gets compared to Karl Malone, Kevin McHale, Charles Barkley etc...

Duncan could have been a great center but he did not have the courage to play that position, that's why Pops was always trying to find centers to pair with Duncan.

 

The thing I always find interesting is-

Players who played against/with Hakeem seem to rate Hakeem higher than the media. Like the media on NBA Open Court asking Hakeem or Ewing and every player saying Hakeem and it's not even that close

However, Duncan also gets mad respect from players and ex-players.

 

You might be right. If you could take Dream's skill set from the backend of his career and add that to Dream explosiveness of the first part of his career, Dream would make a better 4 than Duncan in Duncan's prime.

The thing about Duncan was that he had the complete package from the start of his NBA career.

The problem with Dream playing the 4 would be that his complete skills would not be utilized.

 

You like to be "objective" about Hakeem, I know, to go against anti-"nut hugging". But it comes off too contrarian just to be different.


Making it sound like Hakeem is Marcus Camby or Theo Ratliff just getting block numbers and weak-side cheap blocks in spite of sturdy post defense.


Well, it worked effectively

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BuP1pJYsEPc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BuP1pJYsEPc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Duncan was not as good a positional defender as Olajuwon or Robinson. Then again, based on some of the bizarre things you have posted before, your ignorance does not surprise me. You really should stick to what you know.

 

1. Duncan was not any stronger than Olajuwon or Robinson.
2. Olajuwon and Robinson had exceptional fundamentals, as good or better than Duncan
3. Robinson and Olajuwon were far better team defenders.

 

Duncan was a fantastic team defender. I would not say that you can say "far better." That is not being fair at all.

Look at any metric there are two sets of defenders at the top. People who played with Tim Duncan and people who played with Bill Russell

 

What? I can name you bpat loads of all time great defenders who didn't play with either. Hakeem, Rodman, KG, etc.

 

Psychologically a true center strikes fear into someone's heart when thinking of driving to the rim. That's why Mutumbo is even more of a center and better at the position than Dunk. The think about Duncan is he would post up, but he's a PF, not a center. I didn't see him defending any of the great bigs and I didn't see him swatting balls out of the paint to a point where men were hesitant to drive because of his presence.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7239

The point is that Duncan and Russell always made the defenders around them elite.

 

Ok. By one measure. Fortunately, by the better measure - my eyes - I know that Hakeem is, for example, light years better than Yao as a defender... So, yeah... great list.

Bowen and Ginobili are viewed as great defenders because they were great defenders. They always had a solid defensive 5 as well. I guess that's how Tony Parker looks good defensively - by any measure.

Moreover, my point remains, there are tons of great all time defenders who didn't play alongside either.

 

Ok... The whole point is that Duncan made everyone around him seem great defensively.

I have never seen Ginobili considered as a "Great" defender.

 

Myth: Duncan was stornger in the post than Hakeem.

eg.

Hakeem had success against Malone on offense and defense during playoffs.

Duncan had problems going through an aging Malone in the Lakers series. Malone's strength kept him in check.

People's age is showing in this thread.

 

I thought I was the only one noticing it. Based on some of the stuff he has posted in this thread (claims without anything to back them up), I am beginning to question whether he is even old enough to have seen Hakeem play.

 

Need to hype Duncan up for SOMETHING. If its "positional fundamental defense" he has to be a leader for, then let that be.

Hakeem has him on everything else and stats show it.

Defensive rules in Hakeem's era had it where you couldn't roam off your man and play in any zone. Hakeem had to go against Shaq, Robinson & Ewing HEAD-to-HEAD. None of that putting Rasho Nesterovic on Shaq while he goes & guards Robert Horry stuff.

 

You just did not watch Hakeem if you think he was a positional defender. He was not a positional defender, no matter how much you want to make it sound like we was. How old are you?

 

I never mentioned anything about "cheap" blocks and the sort. And yes, the guards FEARED hakeem in the middle. And that's why the rockets made the game plan to funnel the guards TO hakeem so that he could pull off his man and block (or more importantly) alter the shot.

Hakeem was an "active"-type defender. He'd swipe at the ball once it went down on the post, he'd step out on guards and smother them for a TO, but to call his brand of defense as THAT plus positional, is just ill-informed. Hakeem's defense, like his offense frankly, was sf-like.

But it doesn't matter what I say, because unless I say that Hakeem was the greatest everything offense and defense wise, then I'm slighting the greatness that was hakeem. If, for example, you read the above and think I'm not giving hakeem his due, you fall into that category.