Who is better: Duncan or Hakeem

I think his point was that NBA stats are the best measure of how a player plays in the NBA, and as such they trump Euroleague stats. If some NBA castoff goes over to Europe and plays well (like Trajon Langdon) no NBA GM is over there trying to bring them back to the NBA, because they already have better information about how they play in the NBA than trying to predict off stats from another league. So of course people look at Euroleague stats FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT PLAYED IN THE NBA. Those are the best metrics available. For guys who have played in the NBA, Euroleague stats are not very important, because we can just look at how they ACTUALLY PLAY IN THE NBA to determine how they play in the NBA. Nobody looks up Pujols's numbers from AAA, because they can just look at his numbers with the Cardinals. It is nice that V-SPAN was great in Euroleague, but in the NBA he sucked balls, being statistically one of the worst players on the team. People can make up whatever excuses for him they want, but he was terrible, he cried about it, and now has gone home to Greece.

 

No his point was that it shouldn't be allowed to cite what was done in Europe in ADDITION to NBA. He only has a more colorful way of putting it as "we don't give a damn."

The FACT is whether some like it or not, BOTH can be looked at.


Like I said if they don't like this, and want all citing to all stats other than NBA banned then make a petition to Clutch.

Ask him to "ban" all NCAA and Euroleague stats citing and see how well that goes over.

Now I will ask politely that the thread hijack stops here. If you want directly to me about a subject that has no place here do it in the Spanoulis thread.

If it continues expect no response again after this from me because it's a thread hijack and I do not believe that is appropriate.

 

So who is this mysterious big man that made Oscar "truly great"? If you're talking about Alcindor/Jabbar, Robertson was "truly great" LONG before he joined the Bucks. Using that logic, Kareem isn't really a top-10 player because he was only able to win titles when he was paired with other Hall of Famers.

As for Havlicek, you're right: He WAS better than Pippen. So what? He's still one of a handful of great players whose reputation was enhanced because he was fortunate enough to play most of his career on teams with other Hall-of-Fame players.

Robertson was one of the two best point guards ever DESPITE playing most of his career without great teammates.

 

Hakeem is more all around player than Duncan eventhough i'm a Rocket fan! Come on, take that to the national, they will still choose "The Dream" over Duncan!

 

Spanoulis didn't simply play poorly in the NBA based on Hollinger stats. He played like sh*t based on any measure imaginable.

Cite your Euroleague stats if you want. Nobody says you can't. But everyone else has the right to call you a moron, which they're using liberally. Too bad freedom of speech doesn't apply to just you. If we think your methods are bunk we will say so.

 

2 years ago in 2005

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,1666,00.html


Notice that Tim Duncun's name didn't even get mentioned.

 

Oscar won 2 titles, one with prime Wilt, one with prime Kareem. On both teams he played 2nd fiddle.


He needed Wilt and Kareem in their primes to win 2 titles. How is he any different than Kobe?

Havlicek won 2 and would have won 3 (if not for that playoff injury in 1973) with Dave Cowens. Dave Cowens was a great player no doubt but compared to prime Wilt or Prime Kareem?

Other than that Havlicek won 6 titles with Russell but was always the go to player the first option once he reached his prime, he was the main guy on offense on 4 title teams.

He was a great defensive player. So keep in mind he was one of the greats ever on the defensive end too. Not to mention one of the most famous, maybe THE most famous defensive play of all time.


Here's some playoff stats:

1966 (world championship)

This was playing with Russell, I suppose Russell didn't get much help here then?

23.6 PPG 9.0 RPG 4.1 APG

1967 (Eastern Conference Finals)

Russell and Hondo lost to Wilt and Oscar in the Eastern Conference Finals (point to Oscar). Again, he's overrated with this performance?

27.4 PPG 8.1 RPG 3.1 APG

1968 (world championship)

Again playing with Russell, again just overrated because of what team he was on?

25.9 PPG 8.6 RPG 7.5 APG

1969 (world championship)

Again with Russell, again just because he played on the team he gets too much credit right?

25.4 PPG 9.9 RPG 5.6 APG

1974 (world championship)

This is with Dave Cowens, great player but not Russell, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, etc.

This is NOT like Kobe, Oscar, Clyde and such with another dominant big. This is Hondo winning with a great big, not a dominant big, I think we understand the difference. This is Hondo winning as THE MAN.

BTW, Havlicek/Cowens beat Kareem/Oscar in Finals, who is better as supporting cast, Cowens or Kareem?

27.1 PPG 6.4 RPG 6.0 APG


Thats 4 championships where he could have very well been the MVP of the team. Those are playoff stats and titles over a long haul, that's like 4 times turning in a D Wade or Kobe or whatever and once doing it without a dominant big, albeit though a great one.


Not to mention he won 4 OTHER titles being the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team, that's pretty good too no?

Like in 1965 he had like 19/7 average in the playoffs on the title team, and he stole the ball. He certainly had THE play.

"Havlicek steals the ball."

This play has become known simply as "The Steal" in NBA lore. We are talking arguably the most famous play in history.

But yes, Oscar always has better stats.

I'm hard pressed to see how Havlicek is overrated.

Of course I know since the Celtics beat the Rockets twice in the Finals I know lots of Rockets fans hate the Celtics big time but even so I think Bird and Hondo were better than the thread indicates.

 

Quick followup, since aamir was acting as if DRob and Malone played evenly or had similar stats, well, I also looked at the full 1994 playoff stats. The result?

Malone averaged 29.5 and 12.25 rebounds against the Spurs and Rob up from a regular season average of 26.6 ppg and 10.6 rebs. David, on the other hand, went from regular season averages of 29.8 and 12 boards to 20(!) ppg and 10 rebounds against Malone in the post-season.

That looks like both massive domination by Karla and a precipitous drop in production for Robinson when the games counted.

How anyone can debate Robinson against Hakeem, as if they were at all equal, and keep any credibility is rather a mystery to me.

I'm just so sick of any mention of Robinson in comparison to Hakeem in relation to the idea that they were anywhere near the same caliber of player. Bull****!

Hakeem's prime was about domination of the entire league, while David was being manhandled in his by not only Hakeem but also the Maulman in multiple post-seasons. Those are the facts, plain and simple.

 

Throw Shaq in there too. I remember once someone asked Shaq if Yao was soft like David Robinson and Shaq just couldn't stop laughing.

Keep in mind this is Shaq's hero in his youth.

 

That almost makes me want to puke.

But this could quickly go OT if I elaborate too much further.

It does, in shorthand, open up an interesting question: would Yao have possibly been a better player in the halfcourt oriented 90s versus today and, on the other side, would David have been a better player in what is arguably a softer league on the frontlines right now?

You take Robinson's skillset and take away tougher-minded players in their primes, and it totally upends perception of what he was just by the lack of competition around him.

That's also my question with Duncan and the Spurs. From my standpoint, the league's not nearly as top-heavy as it was 10-14 years ago, either as far as bigs or as far as the teams they played on.

And as far as Yao, the dilemma is threefold as far as possibility: is the problem psychological, physical (vis a vis the NBA of today and its pace) or is there no problem at all, other than the impatience of fans like myself?

 

You really fail at comprehension jim...

Regarding the fouling out -- lie? Re-read the sentence, that you separated to quote nonetheless. "Aside from the 32 - 11 pt performance you quoted, and a game where Robinson fouled out in 24 minutes, they played their standard games." Meaning two separate games. Check the stat link again -- the second game in which Robinson scores 11 points, 24 minutes of play, 6 fouls. Conclusion?

...and again, looking at the same quote, it reads "Aside" from those two games they played their standard games. A 24-minute performance and 3-9 FT shooting by a 73.6% career FT shooter are statistics I take lightly. Ignoring those games, DR averaged 23.5ppg and 10.25rbpg -- compared to his 25ppg and 12.2rbpg season averages, its not a notable drop off.

Regarding the supposed contradiction on labeling -- again, re-read. My point was that labels thrown around by the media after losses are nothing more than another story to sell. Saying "KM makes everything look ugly" is not in the same vain as calling someone an "ugly player," and even then it is not something used as reasoning after losses -- such as "soft player," "never lead a team," etc... Once (if) they win, people treat those labels as if they were never said. It's journalism, as is the "stifling defense [that] held David Robinson to 11 points" on his 2-3 FG, 7-10 FT performance in 24 minutes and the non-mentioning of the defense that held Karla to 6-15 FGs or 4 turnovers, in favor of his 22 points scored. They are a story to sell, nothing definitive, and yes, irrelevant.

As for your second post, as I said, I could not find the '94 playoff stats, and was referring to only their '96 and '98 playoff series. The numbers you posted do suggest that Karla dominated in '94 -- kudos to you on that call. However, they do not suggest a thrashing of the caliber that Hakeem gave Robinson -- which has been my point. It's undermining to what Hakeem did to claim otherwise.

Regardless, it seems we are arguing two different points. I just stated my argument, while you seem to be arguing that Hakeem and DR are not in the same league -- which I have not argued against, nor would I disagree with. Hakeem is a premier center, where as DR is second tier, though still top 10 imo with the low number of dominating centers the league has seen. With that realization, I suggest this be dropped, as we are debating nothing.

 

hahaahhaahahahahha that is funny

 

Not sure if this had been referenced in this thread yet, but basketball-reference.com has a nifty Head2Head tool for anyone who's interested in Hakeem's stats against some of the centers:

http://basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h.cgi

 

if tim donaghy was not here in this world , duncan will only win 1 title

 

Hakeem owns drob and duncan

 

WTF are you babbling about? Oscar Robertson was never on the same team as Chamberlain, except maybe a few all-star teams. You seriously don't have a clue, do you?

And in some threads, you scream about how fans who rely on stats can't be trusted to give a valid opinion of a player, while in others you rely SOLELY on stats to try to prove your points.

Man, BBall Refuse Engineer, your stock is plummeting faster than Michael Vick's.

 

Excuse me I got Hal Greer in my mind.

I still think Hondo was better.

Oscar = LeBron
Hondo = upgraded Manu

I take Hondo because of that "winners" factor.

 

Here ya go....

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43680

http://boards.ign.com/basketball/b5109/143878190/p1

Seems pretty pro-Hakeem to me.

I don't even see why this is even debatable. Duncan is great, but the only thing he has on Dream is championships, won in a weaker era, against weaker competition at his position, and with better teammates in general. For anyone using the ring argument, please list one Spurs title team that would lose if you replace Duncan with Hakeem. Please list one season where Duncan hasn't been on a team that had a talent level in the top 1/3 of the league (and I am being generous by going down to 1/3).

Twice in a row I witnessed Hakeem do something I have rarely seen any other NBA player do...win a title as the #1 option on both sides of the court. Yes, I know Duncan controls the defense for the Spurs...but he controls the tempo and usually gets to sit back as support. We relied on Hakeem to score the most points, be our scorer in the clutch with the game on the line, and come on the other end of the court and hold the best player...3 of whom are going to the Hall (Ewing, Robinson, Shaq). He not only did that on the way to championships...he also destroyed them in the process.

I don't think Duncan can do that. The only time he was relied on to hold stud bigs he got torched (Amare and Dirk). He never had to hold Shaq. In the 05 Finals he struggled to score against the Wallace boys and McDyess at times. I have seen Kurt Thomas do a solid job on him. He just is not Hakeem on either side of the ball. And again, if you want to use the ring argument just let me know which one of those teams couldn't win with Hakeem at PF...

 

Actually the confusion came in because I conflated two already completed sentences into one, creating the gaffe.

Now, as to meaning, I will continue to dispute that Robinson played up to Malone's standard -- or that of his regular season self -- when Karla held him to 11, 11, and 17 and had a PPG average of 19 for the series. If you play awful in 50% of the games -- all losses -- in a playoff series, I'd say that's well below par. It's ridiculous to say otherwise and yes, stretching of credulity to the point of it therein being a lie.

I could go on and on, but just centrally and quickly, why the hell should those games, along with the 17 point game 6 clincher, be ignored? Especially when three out of four SA losses directly link up with awful performances by Robinson in that series?

I guess if we take it far enough (and this is exactly where you're at), then, hey, the Spurs actually also could be argued as the true winners of that series, since you're disregarding half the result outright in your response.

Or, hey, Robinson could even be argued to have played a great series against the Rockets through your type of outlook, seeing as how hit his SEASON AVERAGE. Yeah, woo, that proves a lot...except he didn't even come close to doing that in 94 and 96.

Why on Earth should fifty percent of this specific result be ignored or called invalid? Fifty percent of an aggregate. An aggregate that likewise says Robinson didn't even average 19 per in the series, and these terrible games all linking up with playoff elimination for the Spurs.

Facts are facts, and the fact is that Robinson played like **** in that series -- a 19 ppg average rather proves that.

Your argument is a non-starter because its based on ignoring the facts that you find inconvenient, for whatever reason.

It's not supposed, it simply is a contradiction. Players get labeled all the time, in wins or losses. Some of the time it's unfair, yes, but you've certainly provided no evidence as to why this is the case with the Mermaid -- other than the broad assertion that because players are labeled at all, no matter the result (and no, your standards as to what is accurate and inaccurate really have no bearing on this fact, other than their own subjective caprice), somehow proves that Robinson was mislabeled.

Again, ridiculous.

Much like Malone, I'd say he's been properly labeled. One's the all-time dirty b*stard standard for the league, and the other was a secondary "star" that was easily thrown out of his comfort zone and ability when confronted by truly dominant low post threats from his era. The stats and on court play involving the players support both assertions.

As opposed to the bull**** story you're trying to sell now? Wherein, somehow, a 22 point night, even on mediocre to bad shooting, is somehow equal to back to back 11 point performances from a former MVP?

You're so impressed by a defense from Robinson that still allows Malone to double Robinson's offensive output from the same game , yet Karla holding Robinson to 19 points as an average over the series altogether is to be just as altogether ignored?

Note that there isn't a sngle game where Robinson's "great" D holds Malone below even 22 (that was Malone's worst game statistically points-wise), as opposed to what Dave was doing (or not doing) on the other side.

Talk about propaganda.

No, actually, your point has been that Malone and Robinson have played each other equally in playoff games. Which is a huge canard.

You're imagining something that isn't there, as all I've said all along is that Robinson being owned was not isolated to the 95 WCF. That's no diss to a guy that owned the entire league back then.

So chill. And try looking at the facts.

29 to 20 IS ownage, plain and simple. As is 25+ to 19 over the course of a playoff series.

When a high volume scorer, so called, like Robinson can't even crack 20 per game as average in a playoff series, that's a pretty humiliating bit of one-sidedness when also compared to what Malone did offensively. In other words, a beating both offensively and defensively is what is to be taken away from these matchups.

That's not taking away anything from Hakeem. What takes away from Hakeem is having excuses made for this overrated "star" player who was actually a time-share as far as ownage in the 90s, and yet even to this day is mentioned in the same breath as Dream by many -- to the point where zealous Spurs' fans and easily guided casual fans somehow believe or make arguments to the effect of Dave being just as good as Dream outside that series or, even better, how he was let down by his teammates and really was as good as Hakeem even in that series (yes, I'm not kidding, I've been present for these types of statements).

Baloney to all that, as the Malone examples should make strikingly clear.

Well, then I take it this will be your last post, assuming your one to follow your own advice.