Who said Olajuwon "was done" at equal age to Duncan. Quote from the other thread. The Tim Duncan thread refers to Hakeem as over the hill at equal age. That is a patently FALSE statement, and a proper response deserves its own thread. Duncan will be doing well to maintain his stats for an entire season. Don't assume he will. At age 36, Olajuwon has equal stats to Tim Duncan at age 36, especially considering Duncan isn't playing with a dominant low post scorer and rebounder like Barkley in a dual low-post offense. Who's with me on this! <script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.sports-reference.com/wg.fcgi?css=1&site=bbr&url=%2Fteams%2FHOU%2F1999.html&div=div_per_game"></script> Advanced Stats <script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.sports-reference.com/wg.fcgi?css=1&site=bbr&url=%2Fteams%2FHOU%2F1999.html&div=div_advanced"></script>
LOL! Please tell me it's 713 posting that... please... :grin: that would just complete his trifecta... :grin:
Hakeem played most of his basketball in a far more physical era, too. I don't know if being elbowed in the solar plexus 100 games a year while you battle for rebounding position hurts longevity, but it can't possibly help it.
The other wrong thing about the Tim Duncan thread is since no one actually compares him to Centers (which he really is), then shouldn't the longevity argument be a comparison to PFs like Karl Malone instead of Centers. If so, that thread never would have been started, am I write? He would have had to say: "By the time most other PFs like Karl Malone and Rodman were still going strong, TD is going strong. " What kind of thread would that be. LOLs
I believe there were rumors that Hakeem is 5 yrs older than his official NBA age. So, this means he was winning back to back titles at 36 and 37.
And Hakeem did not have a coach monitoring his minutes for years and years before he turned 36 anyway. I just looked up the stats on basketball reference. The last time Duncan logged a 3,000 minute season? He was 26 years old. The last time Hakeem logged a 3,000 minute season? He was 31 years old. Every season before that, basically, had been 3,000+ And check out blocked shots, truly changing the game defensively: Compare 34 year old Duncan and 34 year old Olajuwon. They both played 77 or 78 games in 2010-11 and 1996-97, respectively. Hakeem had 173 blocks, versus Duncan's 122. And don't even get into career blocks of course. I'm just trying to compare the "aging center" thing.
Wrong year, 98-99 Hakeem started 35, ended 36, 99-00, Hakeem started 36, ended 37, which is what Duncan is now. (Sure there's a lot of factors that contribute to when a player breaks down, and at that age, it's rarely basketball related, but it's still the wrong year)
You know, heypartner... ...alot of this has to do, in my opinion, with garnering some respect for Tim Duncan's career, since it's obviously entering its twilight. I never considered Duncan a power forward at any time in his career, even though it's fair to place him that category. Even when he entered the league and was paired with David Robinson, Duncan was the low post scoring option. As his career progressed, Duncan was the primary low post (post-up, back to the basket) scorer for the Spurs. he has always played, offensively and defensively from my perspective, like a center. The problem, of course, is that if you review Duncan's career from the perspective of center (especially now, with history and context that lends his career comparisons to all-time great big men), he is somewhere outside of the top 5 centers all-time. And a big man with 4 NBA championship rings (which is an almost automatic qualifier for all-time-great status), it seems almost blasphemous to not think of him as one of the best (insert you big man position here) in NBA history. Duncan was not a player who would have shied away from competition. But if you're going to make a "best big man ever" argument for Duncan, it makes sense to make that argument where there is the least resistance to it. Strange to slap players like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley in the face like that...two guys who revolutionized the power forward position (there may never be another player as unique as Barkley was, in fact—6'4 and 260lbs—in many ways like Lebron James, with his end-to-end forays)...just to make a case for how good Tim Duncan is. The "Big Fundamental" was never sexy or glamorous. He never wooed you or made your jaw drop. He just did his job. And he did it better than most everybody in his time. He didn't get alot of media attention. And he never really had to CARRY a team at all (not like you'd seen alot of great big men have had to do at some point in their careers). Greg Popovich did a terrific job of surrounding Duncan, season after season, with very good players, and never abandoning the team first, last and always concept of coaching that he is finally starting to garner some recognition for. I daresay that, whenever Tim Duncan retires, Greg Popovich will at least leave his seat at the bench. But that approach may have, in a lot of people's minds, inexplicably diminished Tim Duncan's own individual prowess and stature. Duncan would never pass the "eye test" of greatness that a lot of big men could and did. But more to the point of your post, heypartner: NOW you're seeing the rest of the basketball universe acknowledge Hakeem Olajuwon's greatness, with comparisons like this, in my mind. There are those who could argue that, somehow, Duncan was better than Olajuwon because he won more titles (a circular argument at best....one even Duncan or Popovich themselves wouldn't make)... ...but just having Hakeem in that conversation makes me feel good inside. No matter how ridiculous it is. Because, sooner or later, even if you eyes don't tell you the whole story... ...you can never say you didn't see a good story... Nobody here saw a better big man than Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime. I know I didn't.
