lmfaaoooo the ring argument. so according to your logic" steve kerr > john stockton robert horry > charles barkley and karl malone right? lmfaaaoo at better fundamentals, how would you know that? because shaq nicknamed him big fundamentals? GTFO.
Well, DPOY is just as subjective as MVP, so there's no point in you mentioning that and then complaining about MVPs. As for your other stats? Duncan has the higher rebound percentage than Dream anyways, and blocks and steals are the single most useless box score stats - Ibaka and DeAndre block far more shots than Asik, but I know which one's by far the best defender out of the 3. As for your final argument on Ruth? I certainly don't have a problem saying that athletes from the past can be GOATs. Russell to me is #2. I mean, what's next? In 20 years there will be arguments that Jordan wouldn't be that great a player because defenses are smarter today and his not great 3 point shooting?
Blocks and steals would be useless if Hakeem were a poor defender but he was an elite defender that anchored the entire defense and he just so happens to be the all time leading shot blocker and routinely was top ten in steals, completely unheard of for a center. One of Dream's greatest plays was a blocked shot on a shooting guard attempting a potential championship winning three point shot. Name any centers that have the quickness, agility, and basketball IQ to close out a three point shooter in that situation and actually block the shot.
DPOY isnt the only thing i listed there. the rest were stats accrued based on the player's individual greatness. blocks and steals matter to this argument because we are comparing duncan and olajuwon. two guys who are somewhat comparable statistically. all numbers matter. and you know asik is better defender than ibaka? how so? you can pretend to be all politically correct and incorrect all you want, im not doing it. its intellectually dishonest. the early 60s was basically the infancy of the nba. it was the weakest era in terms of size, athleticism, talent in the history of the nba. look at all the greatest players of all time in other sports, they all come from modern times. rod laver to bjorn borg to mcenroe to sampras/agassi to federer/nadal, otto graham to bart starr to unitas to terry bradshaw to elway marino to manning/brady pele to beckenbauer to maradona to ronaldo fenomeno to messi/c ronaldo jesse owens to carl lewis to usain bolt... i can keep going. the greatest always comes in modern time. you dont crown the greatest of all time during the beginning stages of your sport. you have to allow it to develop, grow, and refine itself and allow future athletes to learn moves, techniques from past athletes. modern athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster. just look at the 100 meter olympic times. Its getting faster, not slower. Look at the physical size of nfl position players now in comparison to the 60s and 70s. you got todays safetys the size of 1960s linebackers and defensive ends. lmfaaoo at you ranking russell #2. the guy is what 6'8 230 at best in his prime? how do you think he would do if you magically transported him to play in the 80s and 90s with shaq, dream, robinson, ewing? stop mythologizing past athletes in order to preserve history. It is intellectually and analytically dishonest.
and duncan was a coward. he's a 7 foot center who jumps back and forth between power forward and center when it suits his advantages. total cop out.
I'm not reading all 12 pages of this thread, but I will say this. I actually watched the entire careers of both of these guys, and to me, I don't even know how this is a discussion. Tim Duncan is the best big man of his time, for sure. But Dream was in another class. I seriously don't know how this is up for debate. Dream would have had Duncan's head swimming trying to defend him, and he could more than match up on defense. Hakeem was absolutely unguardable by one man. There's no way Duncan is in his class. Duncan is a sure-fire hall of famer, but he's no Hakeem, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure how anyone who witness both men play can even compare their basketball abilities and say Duncan is better with a straight face. Duncan is more accomplished, and on that topic, he had a better career. But he has never and will never be the player Hakeem was. No way.
Dream was consistent <PRE> Season Age Tm Lg Pos G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 1984-85 22 HOU NBA C 82 82 35.5 8.3 15.3 .538 0.0 0.0 4.1 6.7 .613 5.4 6.5 11.9 1.4 1.2 2.7 2.9 4.2 20.6 1985-86 23 HOU NBA C 68 68 36.3 9.2 17.5 .526 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.9 .645 4.9 6.6 11.5 2.0 2.0 3.4 2.9 4.0 23.5 1986-87 24 HOU NBA C 75 75 36.8 9.0 17.8 .508 0.0 0.1 .200 5.3 7.6 .702 4.2 7.2 11.4 2.9 1.9 3.4 3.0 3.9 23.4 1987-88 25 HOU NBA C 79 79 35.8 9.0 17.5 .514 0.0 0.1 .000 4.8 6.9 .695 3.8 8.3 12.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 4.1 22.8 1988-89 26 HOU NBA C 82 82 36.9 9.6 19.0 .508 0.0 0.1 .000 5.5 8.0 .696 4.1 9.4 13.5 1.8 2.6 3.4 3.4 4.0 24.8 1989-90 27 HOU NBA C 82 82 38.1 9.8 19.6 .501 0.0 0.1 .167 4.7 6.5 .713 3.6 10.4 14.0 2.9 2.1 4.6 3.9 3.8 24.3 1990-91 28 HOU NBA C 56 50 36.8 8.7 17.1 .508 0.0 0.1 .000 3.8 4.9 .769 3.9 9.8 13.8 2.3 2.2 3.9 3.1 3.9 21.2 1991-92 29 HOU NBA C 70 69 37.7 8.4 16.8 .502 0.0 0.0 .000 4.7 6.1 .766 3.5 8.6 12.1 2.2 1.8 4.3 2.7 3.8 21.6 1992-93 30 HOU NBA C 82 82 39.5 10.3 19.5 .529 0.0 0.1 .000 5.4 7.0 .779 3.5 9.6 13.0 3.5 1.8 4.2 3.2 3.7 26.1 1993-94 31 HOU NBA C 80 80 41.0 11.2 21.2 .528 0.1 0.2 .421 4.9 6.8 .716 2.9 9.1 11.9 3.6 1.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 27.3 1994-95 32 HOU NBA C 72 72 39.6 11.1 21.5 .517 0.0 0.2 .188 5.6 7.5 .756 2.4 8.4 10.8 3.5 1.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 27.8 1995-96 33 HOU NBA C 72 72 38.8 10.7 20.8 .514 0.0 0.2 .214 5.5 7.6 .724 2.4 8.4 10.9 3.6 1.6 2.9 3.4 3.4 26.9 1996-97 34 HOU NBA C 78 78 36.6 9.3 18.3 .510 0.1 0.2 .313 4.5 5.7 .787 2.2 7.0 9.2 3.0 1.5 2.2 3.6 3.2 23.2 1997-98 35 HOU NBA C 47 45 34.7 6.5 13.5 .483 0.0 0.1 .000 3.4 4.5 .755 2.5 7.3 9.8 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.2 16.4 1998-99 36 HOU NBA C 50 50 35.7 7.5 14.5 .514 0.1 0.3 .308 3.9 5.4 .717 2.1 7.4 9.6 1.8 1.6 2.5 2.8 3.2 18.9 1999-00 37 HOU NBA C 44 28 23.8 4.4 9.6 .458 0.0 0.0 .000 1.6 2.5 .616 1.5 4.8 6.2 1.4 0.9 1.6 1.7 2.0 10.3 2000-01 38 HOU NBA C 58 55 26.6 4.9 9.8 .498 0.0 0.0 .000 2.1 3.4 .621 2.1 5.3 7.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 2.4 11.9 2001-02 39 TOR NBA C 61 37 22.6 3.2 6.9 .464 0.0 0.0 .000 0.8 1.4 .560 1.6 4.4 6.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.4 7.1 Career NBA 1238 1186 35.7 8.7 17.0 .512 0.0 0.1 .202 4.4 6.2 .712 3.3 7.8 11.1 2.5 1.7 3.1 3.0 3.5 21.8 </PRE>
Thank you for preaching the truth, brother!!! Enough of this malarkey about Hakeem not being consistent. Just because he had a 4-year peak way higher than Duncan does not mean the rest was inconsistent. The numbers don't lie. And I do think the championship factor can be included in a discussion of the all-time greats, but it truly should be applied as such: 1. Should only be used to apply to players who are basically close to the same ranking. Translation: no "who was better: Steve Kerr or John Stockton?" More like: "Who was better: Patrick or Hakeem?" 2. Should only hold a 20% value. No more than 1/5 of the consideration should be based on rings. Meaning that, if Charles Barkley and Tim Duncan come out exactly even in overall statistics, crunch-time statistics, longevity, and playoff performance (just making up those categories), then the championship factor should rank Duncan over Barkley. Conversely, no way does Rasheed Wallace get ranked over Karl Malone based on one championship, even though Rasheed was an all-star ( you see, the comparison here is not Horry vs. Malone- I chose someone who was at least a past all-star). Duncan's 4 rings compared to Hakeem's 2 might put him ahead in that category, but Hakeem has him on everything else, which puts Hakeem above Duncan. Besides, I probably sound like a homer, but I'm putting Hakeem's 1986 run as near-equivalent to at least one of the Spurs' less spectacular championship runs (maybe the year they played the Nets). Sorry, but when your team beats the 80s Lakers, the reigning champs, in 5 games, and you take the 1986 Celtics to 6 games, that is as, if not more, impressive than the Spurs' 2003 run
I was debating Dream vs Robinson during the 95 WCF against some spurs fans. Now it's the year 2013 and so called 'Rockets fans' are debating me Dream vs Spur Hero would get destroyed if faced 1x1 . <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OSHwPJTgpPw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
From reading this thread and being an independent opinion from Los Angeles, this is what I get out of both side's arguments: Olajuwon is a better fantasy basketball player. If you have an all-time rotisserie league and you want consistent numbers, then pick him over Duncan. Tim Duncan excels at the part of the game that involves leading your team in the playoffs to win championship rings. Yes, if you judged players by total number of rings, then Robert Horry would be better than Michael Jordan. But Tim Duncan has 3 NBA Finals MVPs and it's a bit hard pressed to trivialize Duncan's rings as equal to that of Steve Kerr or Robert Horry. Players like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili don't just get totally missed in the draft and that's why they were steals. They entered a great situation and became such great players because of a guy like Tim Duncan on the team. Much like Peyton Manning. Many can argue that he always had great receivers to throw to, but would they have been so great if they didn't have Peyton Manning throwing them the ball? That said, I have to say, as a Lakers fan, I hated Tim Duncan a lot more than Olajuwon. If anything, if I had any hate towards the Rockets, it would be more Ralph Sampson and his lucky ass shot in the 80's playoff matchup. The player Duncan reminds me of the most that I absolutely hated in the 80s was Kevin McHale. Everyone talked about how Bird was the greatest Celtic back then, but it was McHale that I feared and he always seemed to make contorted and unbelievable shots that seemed to find their way into the basket. Duncan has that gift to find a way to win and it definitely is contagious to the rest of the team. Other than that, Shaq and Kobe owned the Spurs when they were on their game.
Parker owned Fish. Bruce "Lee" Bowen owned Ko"cry ba"be. As a side note, Duncan just made the All-NBA first team for the first time since 2006-07, WOT?
Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball ever and he would be one of the greatest baseball players ever today. There has never been a combo of elite pitching and elite hitting like the Babe. Nobody has come close to being the best pitcher in baseball one season and the best hitter another. How many guys from that era still have articles written about them? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...re-matches-babe-ruth-8-0-start-144623400.html He's still in the Top 10 in a bunch of categories: 1st on all-time slugging % with 0.690 1st on all-time OPS with 1.164 1st on all-time OPS+ with 206 2nd on all-time on-base % list with .474 2nd on all-time RBI list with 2,213 3rd on all-time home run list with 714 3rd on all-time bases on balls list with 2,062 4th on all-time runs list with 2,174 6th on all-time total bases list with 5,793 10th on all-time batting average list with .342 Many of his records stood for decades: Slugging Percentage (single season): .847 - Babe Ruth (1920) » Broken: Barry Bonds (.863) in 2001 (81 yrs) Base on Balls (single season): 170 - Babe Ruth (1923) » Broken: Barry Bonds (177) in 2001 (78 yrs) Career Base on Balls: 2,062 - Babe Ruth (retired 1935) » Broken: R. Henderson (2,190) in 2001 (66 yrs) I could go on. He held a ridiculous number of records when he died and he most certainly did not have the benefit of modern sports medicine or conditioning. In short, lay off the Babe.
Which is why, if I have this argument with someone, the first question I ask is if the other person has followed both players' careers and watched both play. Hakeem was on a different level. There are only two players I have seen that at their best did not have a weakness to their game. Jordan and Hakeem. They did not have a weakness you could exploit on either end of the floor, were dominant, athletically gifted, clutch, and were tough as nails.
That doesn't make a lot of sense really, Hakeem elevated himself, moreso than Duncan during the playoffs, but he never had the level of help, but probably more importantly, the level of competition was much much higher. The talent pool of 99-03 was the weakest since the pre Magic/Bird days, if you slapped the players from that 90-98 era and put them in a draft with the 99-03, you'd end up with 11 of the top 15 picks going to the 90-98 group. Scouting of european players was terrible at that point, the Spurs were several years ahead of the curve (christ, the Spurs draft Scola at #56, as well as Ginobili at #57) There would never be a year where you'd look back and go "hey, that guy cost us an nba title", same thing will happen with Lebron, 15-20 years from now, Lakers fans will never look back and think "hey if it wasn't for him, we would have won an nba title in 20xx".
Someone made a good point saying that TD may be underrated because he is the ultimate team player without an ego. Basketball being a team sport, this attribute should count big. Nevertheless, skill-wise Hakeem is superior. Another hypothetical mind experiment is this: Assuming health be no issue, can you imagine, swapping the roster, whether Hakeem would have won those 4 titles with Spurs replacing TD and TD would have won the 2 titles with Rockets vice versa? Hakeem would. TD hardly so. Some say Hakeem only dominated a young Shaq in 1995 finals. But a healthy Hakeem would be the few who could defend Shaq in his prime in a playoff series with his nimble defensive moves, better than Ben Wallace at that. (He might gets worn down by Shaq if it extends to more than 7 games though.) Shaq in his prime was still prone to off. foul TOs. It's all hypothetical though. If one has to rank the great big men of the last 25 years, here is my list: 1. Hakeem 2. Duncan and Shaq 4. Karl Malone 5. KGarnett 6. Charles Barkley (yes I'm a Suns fan) 7. David Robinson 8. Ewing 9. Yao 10. Alonzo Mourning 11. Mutombo Note, Dirk Nowitzky is big but not big man in the narrow sense. Amare, Kemp, Rasheed Wallace had the potential. Did I miss someone?
