i'm not saying size is everything, but size do matters. I'm just saying they would not put up stats of that kind now.
I think it's telling that Duncun doesn't even make MJ's all dream team and Hakeem is his starting center. To even try to compare Duncun to Hakeem is a joke. Hakeem can win you a ring with a cast of role-players. Duncun requires some serious talent. Duncun wasn't even the finals MVP this year, it was tony parker!
hakeem played against a well balanced NBA. Duncan is playing where the West is superior and the east sucks.
As it has previously been mentioned- Hakeem had much less talent to work with form many years- '87 to '91 when little was done to effectively build a team around him thanks to Steve Patterson and Charlie Thomas. Hakeem was a much better defender (all time great) than Duncan ever demonstrated. Think of a stronger Amare -quicker- with superior intellect / instincts Olajuwon stepped it up every playoffs series and came up big in the biggest games-power of the mind
I mentioned a couple of years ago that amare was the closet thing I've ever seen to olajuwon in terms of athleticism, but he just doesn't play the defense hakeem does, and doesn't show the desire to rebound. amare is probably quicker but I understand the comparison.
I wouldn't make much of that. Jordan's respect level will be higher for his peers, and Duncan is part of the new generation.
Both these guys can thank Mario Elie and Robert Horry. They played with some HEROES.. they're roles were of HERO. Shaq can thank Robert Horry too.
Granted it's very difficult to compare players from different eras, but the biggest issue I always have in these "who is better than Hakeem" discussions or "even greatest players of all time" discussion is Bill Russell. I really wish I could have seen him play, so I could understand more where people are coming from. Unfortunately all I have is stats. And looking over the stats, the guy just wasn't a very gifted offensive player. Now, I respect good tough-nosed defense and hard work ethic as much as the next guy, but to me pure basketball skill and ability is demonstrated on the offensive end. Russell's career field goal percentage was 44%, which would be classified as below average for a big man. His free-throw percentage is 56%. His career ppg is 15. Now, if Hakeem was an absolute slouch on defense, I could understand this argument a little more, but he wasn't. In fact, Hakeem is arguably the second best defensive player (at least for big men) in league history after Russell. On the other end, Hakeem may be one of the top 10 to 20 offensive players ever. However, Russell would never appear on an offensive players list unless it went all the way to 250, and even that would probably be a stretch. It's just hard for me to see how someone who is the most complete big man ever, and was so dominant on both ends of the court is not better than a guy who was only dominant on the defensive end and on the glass. Obviously the only rebuttal to this is "rings." I think rings should only factor into the discussion if the player is notorious for choking and/or never won a single title. We all know Hakeem wasn't a choker in the playoffs and was even able to step up his game. We also know he led a much less talented team to the finals and carried a much bigger load than Russell ever had to. Since Hakeem has proven he can step up his game int he playoffs and carry a team to a championship that's all you need to know. When you start getting into number of rings, then external factors start to creep in such as league competition at the time, the surrounding players, etc, and the discussion starts to lose its credibility. Anyway, I guess I'll just never understand this argument unless I go back in time and watch Russell play. In fact, the only people that I will ever take seriously in this argument are one's who were alive to see him play. The stats are just too lop-sided in favor of Hakeem for someone to never have seen Russel play to make a valid judgment. If they didn't see him play they're obviously just going by number of rings, which is an extremely half-baked conclusion.
and the only other constant with him and 11 championships in thirteen years is red auerbach and the guy won in college at the university of san francisco. what's not hard to understand, he's a winner, he goes on the list by default.
The stats show that Duncan > KG. The rings indicate that Duncan >>>> KG. Duncan has KG beat on both individual prowess (stats) and team success (rings). Just because KG plays a flashier style doesn't mean he's better than Duncan.
It was also constant that he never played with less than three other hall of fame players. Below are the number of hall of fame players on each championship team Bill Russell played for (including himself). 1957 - 6 1959 - 7 1960 - 7 1961 - 7 1962 - 6 1963 - 8 1964 - 7 1965 - 5 1966 - 4 1968 - 4 1969 - 4 Who cares if he was on all the teams..some hall of fame players left and were replaced by new ones. Doesn't show me anything except that he contributed mightily on the glass and defensive end on what were essentially dream teams, while the rest of the hall of famers carried the offensive load.
I've watched many tapes of the old conference and finals games. The big fuss I will try to explain. His athleticism was truly amazing, he could leap out of the gym as they say, he had an explosive leap, a quick leap, a second quick leap, an explosive first step, last step, he could hang, he could contort his body in mid air, he had great speed straight and side to side, extremely quick feet, quick hands. KG and Amare are poor athletes by comparison. So Russell was at the very least on par with Hakeem here, but I actually think he was more athletic. I wouldn't put him on an athletic level with say Wilt or Jordan, but after them he has to be #3. Now when you factor in that he was about 6-9 1/2 barefoot 260...... There's always this confusion about his size. Maybe he was 220 or whatever at like age 22 but in his prime he was more like 260. He was 6- 9 1/2 as would often be mentioned. But back then height was without shoes. So really in today's NBA he's like 6-11 260. That's not even factoring in weight training, I mean he was like 260. The game was much faster then, Celtics played like Suns only they were amazing on defense. Russell maintained a very slim build because of the fast pace, but he was incredibly strong. Everyone knows how strong Hakeem was how athletic he was. But I dare say Russell was more so. He wasn't Wilt strong or athletic, but he was slightly more than Hakeem. And he was noticeably bigger than people think he was, because they used barefoot heights then, they didn't round a half inch up and they just kept using a weight from when he was like 22 or something. There was even an interview where Russell was asked what he weighed around 1965 and he said 260. He was so agile it was amazing. I would say Hakeem as he was so agile is comparable. Everyone remembers Hakeem's legendary hand eye coordination. Russell's was just as good. That's the thing, Rockets fans all know how agile Hakeem was well Russell was about the same I would say. Russell was a hell of rebounder, he was bigger than Rodman, stronger than Rodman, more athletic than Rodman, quicker than Rodman and he was every bit as good at getting the ball as Rodman was. Think of it, a BETTER version of Rodman on the boards. Russell was a phenomenal passer. I mean he could run an offense from high or low post. He really had a BBall IQ. Kidd and Nash do not compare IMO. But the whole thing with Russell has got to be the D. He was so good on D you just have to really look at it many times to understand it. There is zero argument at all. He's the best defender ever. It could not even be debated. Look sorry Hakeem is simply not even in his range on D. And we all remember how Hakeem dominated on D. Russell was like Ben Wallace on super steroids or something. The D he would play, the things he would do. He was just a complete freak. He was like Ben Wallace weak side only better, Mutombo inside only better, Pippen on the perimeter only better. Hakeem coming out to help only better. Bowen bodying up one on one only better. Battier on team D only better. And really that doesn't even describe it. His BBall IQ was definitely on par with a Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, a John Stockton. He truly has to be the only player that actually could completely win a game simply with the defense. He was THAT good. He was that intimidating. He owned the defense and the boards like it was his god given right. Hakeem has Russell beat in footwork, scoring, finishing, free throws, offense in general other than passing and BBall IQ and of course post moves and scoring. Hakeem is about equal in agility and hand eye coordination. Russell has Hakeem by >>>>>>>>>>>in everything else even shot blocking. I would actually say Russell might even get one of those 5 to 6 legendary fade aways if they went head to head. He was just something one of a kind on the defensive end.
Thanks for that. I appreciate the explanation without just simply playing the "rings card." I still find it hard to put him above Hakeem because of the offense disparity, but that was never going to change. However, if what you write is remotely true, I can now at least see where people are coming from.
Even though it is the minority, some people do think KG is better than Duncan. Even Dr. Jack Ramsey who I respect alot. The only year KG had a supporting cast that was semi-equivalent to Duncans, was when he won MVP and his team won the midwest division over the Spurs. So it's hard to say Duncan is better just on his team and individual accomplishments. He's got a great coach, team, and system, and most importantly consistency. Parker, Ginobli, Pop, and him together for 5 years. Hakeem and Shaq are clearly more dominant players. You put either one of those guys in there prime in today's NBA and replace Duncan with them on the Spurs. Not only would they rack up 4 NBA titles in a row, the Spurs would completely dominate in the playoffs. A more fair question would be to rank Moses Malone, Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Robinson(who was a better defensive player than duncan and averaged close to 30 points a game in 2 seasons), maybe Ewing(who has stats and a career similar to Duncans minus the rings-Bulls and Rockets of course) and KG in order. Even George Gervin who is a Spurs fan, during the finals this year would not say that Duncan was better than Karl or Moses Malone. He put them all in the same category.
Somebody asked Blinebury the same question and he said Hakeem is the better player, but Duncan is closing the gap.
DCkid, you bring up some good points I don't think there will be clear answers. But one way to look at it as a fair number of their contemporaries will say they would take Bill Russell over Wilt to build a winner. (In addition to all the NBA titles, Russell lead two NCAA champions--just a remarkable winning stretch). Now Wilt has the same number of titles of playoff MVPs as Hakeem (and both have heartbreaking NCAA runner up loses) and just one less MVP than Shaq, and more finals appearences than both. Statistically Wilts just kills everybody. Some other side points. Lots of rules also got changed to try to weaken both Russell and Wilt, and they dealt with a racism and public negativity that today's players have little concept of. Not that this directly is relevant, but does get you a idea of the climate these guys had to persevere where today’s stars, even young ones, get extra favorable attention from refs, fans, public, etc. In addition both guys were excellent in other sports--track (both high jumped over 6'9", and were pretty fast in sprints), volleyball, etc, so I don't believe for a second their athleticism would not compare with today’s best. I can't see Duncan for instance coming near their track and field marks. Hakeem if he trained, probably yes. Shaq or DR, maybe, but probably not. So overall, I accept arguments Russell was the best of all time. His winning record at all levels is the best I can think of in any individual in a team sport. Would I put him as best ever? Probably not. Was he really better than Wilt (who killed him statistically in their match-ups despite Russell dominating in the team wins department)? I don't think so (many contemporaries are split or if anything favor Russell). Was Russell better than Lew Alcider/Kareem (9 titles in pros and college, only behind Russell, and the nest most phenom stats in his prime, next to Wilt), I don't think so. Was he better than Michael Jordan, hard to say too. I think any of these 4 have cases for the best ever basketball player (I think Wilt probably has the best case for best athlete ever even if not the best BB player ever) and it is an unresolvable question. Further, as much as I appreciate Hakeem, I don’t think he earned a place to be considered greater than any of these 4 despite him maybe being a better individual player than Russell. Russell after all was the best player on ultimately 13 champions of 16 opportunities in the pro (11 rings) and college ranks (2). Hakeem IMO can be reasonably argued for anywhere in the #5-#8 range of best ever (with Magic, Shaq and Bird jockeying for those spots in my book).
You need to chill with the Russell love. I think he is one of the greatest of all time and I'm glad you've seen tapes. I have too and my great uncle went to college with him in San Francisco. But something you are not considering is that Russell played in a much slower less athletic era. Of course he is going to look like Wallace and Rodman on steroids and an amazing passer(the passing lanes are alot wider). His passing does not compare to Kidd or Nash and he does not have a combination of Mutombo, Rodman, and Wallace's best defensive skills put together. Plus the Celtics were clearly the best team with the best system and the best coach in their era. He isn't a product of a system like say Kurt Warner but he did benefit from playing with Red and the Celtics.
