Comparing apples to oranges. Duncan didn't have to bang with the big boys like Hakeem did. If Duncan was a full time Center, then the comparison is legit. Otherwise, the true comparisons is Hakeem and David Robinson, and Hakeem wins hands down. And just like Robert Horry said, he played with both Hakeem and Shaq in their primes and he said the nod goes to Hakeem because Hakeem could hit those clutch free throws.
Although what you are saying is somewhat true, I think the thread so far has already taken on a point of view that generally underrates Duncan. For example he was compared to David Robinson. David Robinson is probably a top 10 center of all time, although that's probably even debatable. But Duncan is >>>>>>>>>>>> than Robinson, it's not even remotely close. Just to say something that even compared them screams of homerism and I am sure it will not be the only post. Also the point of view already seems unanimous that Hakeem was the better defender. Well I have to say that this is debatable IMO. I confidently say as a long-time Rocket fan and also someone who has followed Duncan and Spurs closely all these years, it's not really accurate to simply say Hakeem was just better at D. Hakeem was a better weak side shot blocker and a better defender at multiple spots and out further on the floor. He was obviously more athletic and much more physical and had the knack for the spectacular play on D. Much like on O he had the dazzling display of stunning moves and was literally a thing of beauty to watch. Duncan is "Groundhog Day." But, Duncan's BBall IQ is higher, he's a better team player, he's a better passer, he reads the game and floor better, he's a better TEAM defender, he does all the things that don't show up in the box score. He ALWAYS controls the flow of the game on defense and offense. In fact, his fundamental D and team D is frankly >>>>>>>>> than Hakeem's . Just because Duncan doesn't get as many blocks or steals and plays a different style of D, you should not say Hakeem was better on D. I see already a comparison made in an earlier post of "Hakeem is only comparable to Russell on D". See this simply is BS. I've watched many tapes of Russell and many games, he did things on D that would have made Hakeem spin his head. And the competition was NOT "a bunch of 6-7 white stiffs." He did this against numerous centers that would be #2 center today or #1 in Chamberlain's case. For example a play that stands out to me, I remember in one playoff game he blocked two shots on opposite sides of the court within 2 seconds of each other. Now granted, I and every other Rocket fan have seen SIMILAR acts by (SIMILAR but not like THIS) Hakeem that we know Duncan can not do. BUT, if you would have seen this, and many other plays that Russell made, you would know that Hakeem is not even in the ball park on D with Russell. Russell made plays on D that are simply mind boggling, he was so dominant on the defensive end that words cannot even really describe it. That article written recently about Russell could not handle Hakeem on D isn't really accurate, although certainly interesting. NO ONE could handle him, just like NO ONE could handle prime Wilt or prime Shaq. But NO ONE would have done as well as Russell, Hakeem could not guard Hakeem (if it was possible) as well as Russell could guard Hakeem. So again strong homerism in the thread. Watch Duncan and Hakeem objectively and it's honestly I think true that Duncan is a more efficient defensive player. The thread is pretty homeristic I think.
I agree with most of your list with minor exceptions, except that Shaq is way too low. You can argue Dream or Shaq as #5, either is almost certainly better than Bird or Duncan, Magic a tougher call. One way to look at it, Duncan, in his peak, 00-03, was the second best player in the league for the most part behind Shaq. TD became the best player only after Shaq started tailling off, not because TD became any better than he was the previous year. Shaq also doesn't get more credit as a shot blocker. Shaq was no Hakeem or Deke or DR, but he hit 3BPG twice (3.5 his 1st year) where Duncan never has. Shaq was probably a more disruptive defensive interior force than Duncan considering bocks, boards and just his presence. Shaq's drawback of course is FTs, but that alone doesn't kick you off the list (see Wilt). Shaq had crazy offensive domination (more than either Hakeem or Duncan in their peaks) considering points and efficiency (similar assits in his peak to Duncan and Hakeem too). Shaq has been the most dominant offensive force post-Jordan, and underrated in his boards and defensive presence as well. HERE IS MY GROUPING. Top 4: Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Russell (cases can be made for each as GOAT--unresolvable debate) #5-7: Shaq, Hakeem, Magic (tough to order--this is mine) #8-12: Bird, Duncan, Oscar, Moses, West (probably this order) Next tier, top 20)? #12-20?: Karl M, Hayes, Robinson, Barkley, Pettit, Havlicek, Barry, Baylor, Walton (much higher if not for the knee issues, maybe one of the ten best at his very prime)?
Can't agree. 1. Duncan is light years superior to Shaq on D. I mean LIGHT YEARS. 2. You think Hakeem and Shaq are comparable to Magic and Larry Legend? I don't even know what to say.
You can first ask the Spurs fans who's better in their prime: Tim Duncan or David Robinson? they'll have a long debate. and then for those Spurs fans who think D-Rob is better or they're equal, you ask them who's better: D-Rob or the Dream. I think Duncan is at the same level of David Robinson at his prime. Hakeem is just a different level. I hope, however, one day we can ask who's better: Duncan or Yao?
BBallS. Nobody is saying Duncan isn't a great player and top 10. And I agree he has better court sense than Hakeem. But I don't think it is even debatable Duncan is at the level of Hakeem defensively. Other players in Hakeem's time will tell you he might have had the most all-around impact, Jordan included. I personally don't think he is quite the presence of Shaq in his prime in terms of altering what the opponents do, though I'd be fine calling it even. Duncan certainly hasn't been at the level of Ben Wallace, Robinson, Zo and Deke in his peak either in terms of anchoring a defense (though TD is better than all in offense, particularly playoff style)--and none of these guys were quite Hakeem's level. If Duncan could have gotten to 3.5 or 4 blocks playing center and PF as he does and pickup up a couple steals, he would have. He didn't have the physical attributes to do it. Further quite often Duncan has had the luxury of not taking the toughest individual match-up defensively. They usually has fallen on Robinson (versus Shaq in the early match-ups) or later grinders. Duncan can't have it both ways. He can't have lower weakside shot blocks, rebounds and team defense accolades while not taking the opponents best big. Players like Dirk and Amare (and before, Shaq) going crazy on the Spurs with TD. Meanwhile Hakeem was battling the Robinsons, Ewings and Shaqs head to head AND blocking more weak side shots and disrupting the whole other teams offense on top. Claiming TD is a better defender than Hakeem is certainly more ridiculous than having a tough time deciding whether Bird or Hakeem was better (I don't think Bird could have taken that 94 Rockets team to a title), or whether Shaq or Duncan had more of a defensive impact. Who do you think was anchoring the Lakers defense in their 3 peat and going through TD in his prime.
Jordan is not the best player of all time. He is not the best at winning titles (Russell), he is not the best at putting up stats (Wilt), he is not the best at combining team and individual success (Kareem) there is no way that given the choice to pick someone at the start of their career and have them for their whole career that you pick Jordan. I would pick Kareem, then Wilt, then Russell, and probably Magic before Jordan, thus Jordan is 5 or 6 on my list.
Where do come up with something like this. Debatable Robinson is a top 10 center of all time? I mean I am no fan of Robinson in lots of ways but he was a great, great player. He just ran into the wrong guy at the wrong time. Are you an ex/current Spurs fans a little bitter about 1995. I am not trying to be pointed, but you seem to way overrate Duncan and underrate Robinson. I think Duncan is better, certainly in the playoffs, but it isn't a big gap at all. Robinson was a force, heck I think even he put up mid 20s on Hakeem in the playoffs (a lot less than the much inferior Amare did to the Spurs 3 years ago), and DR would be the best player in the game today if he were at his peak.
for anyone who thinks hakeem didn't get good until november 1994 or that duncan was so much better early on, here are there stats, both year by year, and their running averages (meaning when it says Year 5, those were their career averages after Year 5). yeah i'm pretty sure no one who says this: can finish off by saying this:
I can't even imagine someone thinking Shaq and Hakeem are better than Larry Legend. Does anyone here even remember Larry Legend? Good lord. 6-9 6-10 unlimited range, purest of pure shot, elite level team defender, as tough, fiery, spirited as they came, unreal Bball IQ, this dude could rebound great, also great help for team boards and team stats, did all the intangibles, ran the offense, hell his court vision and passing was on another level. Tough as nails, maybe the clutchest player ever. His competitive nature was unparalleled to any other I have seen on that court. His will was pure. His creativity, passing, handles and array of shots and moves were simply awe-inspiring. In the league today he would be the best shooter, best passer, best scorer, best play-maker, best post scorer, best team player, best one on one player, one of the top 5 team defenders, top 5 handle............even comparable court vision and awareness to Steve Nash, and Larry was about 6-10 in shoes. This is freaking Larry Legend we are talking about here the things he could create, he could do on the court were INCREDIBLE. He was so much better than players like Kobe or Lebron it's laughable. I see the media and ESPN has really skewed history. He was like a 6-10 Steve Nash with more range, WAY better D and was a damn good rebounder, plus he was PHYSICAL, he was the absolute antithesis of a soft player. He could dominate a slow game, a fast game, a half-court game, a full-court game......... Larry is like the antichrist compared to players like Dirk or T-Mac. He was the guy that would make Bobby Sura seem like a pansy on the court by comparison. As much as I love Hakeem and how wonderful he was and brought us the 2 titles, Hakeem is no Larry Legend.
Hakeem put up those numbers while the league's scoring average was down. Duncan is doing it while the league average has gone up. Hakeem was better at defense without a doubt, so, why is this an argument at all? Is it because Tim won 4 and Hakeem won 2? Does that also mean that Derek Fisher is better than John Stockton? No, so why is number of championship weighted that heavily? Spurs fans have no idea what greatness is.
Good point. Hakeem was also a 6'10.4" center playing against legit 7+ footers. Duncan is a legit 7+ footer playing a smaller position.
I think Hakeem is definitely in the same league with Larry Legend. Hakeem played better defense, was clutch on both ends of the floor, and did it all with fewer quality complimentary players than Larry Legend. Bird was not a top 5 defender, and not in the top 50 defenders. Even during the time he was in the league Bird wasn't a top 5 defender among his contemporaries. He played good team defense, and could come up with some clutch defensive plays when he needed to, but he was avg. to below avg. one on one defender. They were different positions. Hakeem was definitely a cooler person. Hakeem was never the ass that Bird was.
David Robinson in his prime was a better play than Duncan is/was. Unfortunately, the back issue robbed D. Robinson of taking his place among elite centers of all time. Hakeem, as we all know, completely destroyed Robinson while Robinson was the very pinnacle of his abilities. The stats support Dream, the dominating performances came from the Dream, and the jaw dropping moments come from Hakeem. Duncan has some more rings but he did not win them alone. Hakeem proved he could pick up an entire team of role players and carry them to a Championship. Duncan cannot say that.
I think the proprer question should be is which player would you want to build your team around? I would like to pose this question to people who aren't a spurs or rockets fan.
If Hakeem played for the Spurs instead of Duncan, then the Spurs would have truly been a dynasty winning multiple championships in consecutive years - they would have had at least 6 championships instead of 4.
My guess is anyone who is knowledgeable and has watched the sport for 20+ would go with Dream. But who knows? This would be a fantastic question to pose to some NBA columnists who, again, actually know the sport.
