Freak, I don't know if you saw this but here is season breakdowns from champ/playoff MVP seasons of the greatest bigmen since the 60 that I posted earlier. Here I expanded and edited for this dicussion, if anyone wants or knows playoff figures for those seasons that would be great too.
Duncan has more MVPs, all-nba first teams and all-nba defensive 1st teams than either shaq or hakeem, and will probaly end up with more rings then shaq . TD is voted in as a PF which is arguably the most stacked position in the nba. So don't argue he has no competition. Remember Hakeem didn't win his first trophy till like his 10th year. I don't think duncan was a better defender than the dream, but stats don't mean everything. Until Hakeem passed the ball he was just another selfish player (albiet great) putting up big stats. TD has always been a pretty unselfish player in terms of giving the ball to his teamates. Every year TD has been with the spurs they have been a 50 win team. You can't say the same about dream in his early days. I think we as rocket fans need to stop comparing the peak dream to Duncan. Thats not fair to duncan. Dream was in his absolute peak for a relatively short time. By the time he had learned to trust his teamates he only had a few years before his decline. I think at the end of Duncan's career he will go down as one of the greatest players of his era just like shaq and hakeem. He is in the same class as those guys.
He might get them on longevity, but I don't think anyone can say when Duncan was at his peak he was as good as Hakeem, or Shaq. The stats just don't bear it out. If you want longevity and officially defined positions we can see where Duncan is relative to Karl Malone, but I think it is more of a credit to Duncan to compare him to Hakeem or Shaq in their prime than one Karl Malone. Would TD rather be considered simply as among or the best officially defined power forwards, or considered among the best bigmen or even best players to ever play? I think the latter is more flattering, even if there are some guys better. We are tallking about his legacy (stacking up with the best players period), the degree his performance is legendary, right? There is only 1 player who you could argue was equal to or better than Hakeem defensively, and that was Russell. Duncan just isn't in Hakeem's league defensively. Shaq wasn't either, but at his peak was at least as disruptive as TD defensively and far more dominant offensively. The PF and 1st team awards thing is misleading. He has more defensive 1st team awards because he isn't considered a center--there are two forwards who make the team and the best defensive players tend to play center anyway. He is an excellent defender, but his performance versus Amare didn't exactly help his case as a lock down defensive force either. Further, while he considers himself a PF and starts the game as a PF, he plays more minutes and the key minutes as a C. Based on his complete and fundamental game, I personally can't think of any better player to compare him to Hakeem, I just don't think he was quite that good or dominant as Hakeem was. Also, Hakeem didn't have the teammates TD did most of those years, but let's not forget he still go a finals visit early in his career only to lose to a team better than TD has ever had to face in his finals visits. Had TD had DR lose his knees after 1 year, and his guards to be suspended for drugs, and a series of year after year of poor draft picks and moves, he would be in a lot different position in team accomplishments. That is why you have to balance individual statistics with teammate quality and team performance to get the complete picture of a players greatness. Hakeem and Shaq have multiple rings, and they have the individually dominant figures a couple notches ahead of TD. IMO Duncan has to be more dominant statistically than he has shown so far be "even" with them. But if he does but up something like 27PPG 13RPG 3BPG 4APG--what they greatest championship winning bigs have been able to do, I'll say he is right there or greater. But I don't think he is capable of that. I think what we see is him getting everything he can from his basketball ability, and he is a great player for the times but not a player for the ages.
Hakeem beat the Lakers with Magic and Kareem in 86. That's more impressive than something Duncan has EVER done and that was hakeem's 2nd year. You think Duncan's Spurs beat the 86 Celtics? If so, take that BS to SA. Dream was at his absolute peak from 93-96. How is that a very short time? The definition of a peak is that it's something short term. It's ridiculous how some overrate Duncan. He should never be mentioned with these 2 super greats. COmpare him to guys in his tier like DRob, K. Malone, Barkley. And Duncan's not freakin close to Hakeem defensively and you don't need any stat to show you this: just a pair of functional eyes and a view from outside the rectum of a Spur.
If you think 20 ppg on 41.8% FG shooting and consistent choke jobs from the FT line is playing well, then you must think DRob had a series of the ages against Hakeem in 95 and Ewing against Hakeem in 93 because those are the type of #'s they put up. Saying Fox is on par with Bowen or Fisher with parker is just asinine. Bowen completely shuts down guys and parker is much better than useless fisher. Your last statement is just a joke, pure speculation from apparently a Spur fan at heart. The facts are that Duncan is 2-3 lifetime vs. Shaq in the playoffs, one of those coming when Bryant was what 18? and the other mainly due to a Robert Horry in and out 3 pointer to win Game 5 in SA. You could just as easily say Duncan would be 2-4 against Shaq if not for his injury in 2000. Duncan was completely HUMILIATED in the 2001 series. He was just shut down by HOrry and Shaq went wild against the twin towers. Look it up yourself. In 02, he couldn't buy a hoop against Shaq in crunch time. Who has an easier matchup here: Duncan vs. Horace Grant/Horry Shaq vs. Duncan/Robinson? Don't give me this Duncan had to face Bryant nonsense because Bryant didn't guard him. Duncan faced a couple of weak defensive players against LA while Shaq faced a great defensive Center in DRob so shaq had a much tougher assignment and still got the better of him. Duncan is no shaq and never will be.
Perhaps you should ask Peja Stojakovic how asinine that is. In his Laker years, Fox was one of the elite perimeter defenders in the game and a reliable threat from downtown. And Fisher, useless? The same Fisher that shot 40 percent or better from three point range for three consecutive seasons? The same Fisher whose pressure defense on opposing point guards completely took them out of rhythm? The same Fisher who seemingly couldn't miss a shot in the '01 playoffs? Parker has more ability than Fisher, but he's inconsistent. He averages 2 to 3 times the turnovers of Fisher. You don't have to respect him from behind the arc, so his penetration skills are diminished because you can play so far back. If I have a team with a superstar, I'll take Derek Fisher in his prime anyday over the current Tony Parker. Parker will be better in time, but for a game right now, I'll take my chances with Fish. 18? Try 20 and averaging 20 points a game. Furthermore, if you're going to argue based on weak hypotheticals (if Horry...), what if Fisher hadn't made the most improbable shot in NBA history in Game 5 a year ago? What if the clock operator had started that play on time? What if Derek Anderson hadn't been hurt in 2001? Etc. And yeah, I'm sure 2000 would have been an automatic loss for SA against LA... that Laker team was only down 15 points in the fourth quarter of Game 7 at home to Portland... let's anoint them as untouchable! Anyway, there's no use arguing on "what ifs" because there are plenty from both sides... let's deal with what actually happened. Humiliated? I seem to remember a 40 and 15 game in Game 2 of the '01 series from Duncan. It was the Lakers play as a team and the Spurs lack of any athleticism outside of Duncan (Anderson was hurt and there was no Parker or Ginobili... just Terry Porter, Avery Johnson, Danny Ferry, etc.) that was their downfall that season. Yes, Duncan had a couple of stinkers in LA... but only after anyone with a pulse knew that series was over. That doesn't excuse it, but it's not like Duncan was the downfall of the team that series. There are two huge problems here. First of all, everyone who watched the Lakers-Spurs knows that Shaq frequently guarded Duncan when he wasn't in foul trouble. But, in the end, even that doesn't matter too much. Why? Because when your name is Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan, there essentially is no such thing as an individual matchup! The other team sends help defenders in waves each and every possession to get the ball out of your hands or keep you away from the basket. And, when you look at most of the Lakers/Spurs teams from the last seven years, you'll see that the Lakers frequently had the Spurs beaten in athleticism at every position on the floor. Kobe, Horry, and even George are all well above average athletes at their positions, while the Spurs were countering with the likes of Sean Elliott, David Robinson and Danny Ferry. Shaq had a much easier time attacking the Spurs defense than Duncan did with the Lakers because Shaq had more teammates to be respected.
