The MVP Bryant got was a career achievement award, and there are 12 players with 2 or more MVPs (probably 13 after this season). He's a great player, but there have been a number of players who are as great or greater.
Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan
11,756 Views |
133 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by Adam87inSA
Kobe in the ice in his veins hall of fame for sure.
Re: Jordan's bulls vs Hakeem's rockets... From 1990-1998, the teams split the regular season games 9-9. To say the Bulls would have "dominated" the Rockets in the finals is madness.
Source: http://www.clutchfans.net/opponent_history.cfm?TeamID=24
Can't confirm if true but I've previously heard that the Rockets were the only NBA team to not have a losing record against Jordan's bulls in the 90s.
Source: http://www.clutchfans.net/opponent_history.cfm?TeamID=24
Can't confirm if true but I've previously heard that the Rockets were the only NBA team to not have a losing record against Jordan's bulls in the 90s.
quote:Hakeem above Duncan? Really? Well I guess you are a Rockets fan. There is no objective argument that Hakeem deserves to be ranked above Duncan, Duncan dominates him in every category. Duncan surpassed Shaq and Bird a few years back as well. He just keeps on ticking and playing at an elite level.
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Kobe
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
West
You realize different people have different views of what "best" is, right?
Earl Campbell was the best running back in football for 3 years, but he was no Emmitt Smith for longevity. But If I pick one or the other, it's OK for both to be right.
Earl Campbell was the best running back in football for 3 years, but he was no Emmitt Smith for longevity. But If I pick one or the other, it's OK for both to be right.
quote:That's why I said there is no OBJECTIVE argument Hakeem is better than Duncan. Of course you can rank players however you wish but if there is no supporting evidence behind it then it is pretty weak.
You realize different people have different views of what "best" is, right?
Earl Campbell was the best running back in football for 3 years, but he was no Emmitt Smith for longevity. But If I pick one or the other, it's OK for both to be right.
The obvious issue being that Hakeem and Duncan are both more like Emmitt Smith than Earl Campbell. Both were great players that logged over 44,000 minutes in the regular season, plus significant playoff time.
Neither was a guy like Campbell that was awesome for a couple seasons, then hurt, then never really the same again.
That is the argument that Simmons used to place Bill Walton way higher than he deserved to be.
Neither was a guy like Campbell that was awesome for a couple seasons, then hurt, then never really the same again.
That is the argument that Simmons used to place Bill Walton way higher than he deserved to be.
Put Hakeem on Duncan's Spurs and Duncan on Hakeem's Rockets and tell me who has more rings. I don't think the Rockets win even one title with Duncan.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
I think Hakeem had a higher peek but Duncan a better career. In their primes I would take Hakeem over Duncan. If I where drafting a player in the 50's, I would take Duncan. If I were drafting today, I would take Hakeem.
I am a Mavs fan with some loyalties to the Spurs.
I am a Mavs fan with some loyalties to the Spurs.
quote:Ahh, so your argument is the opinion of a couple players and a completely unprovable what-if.
Put Hakeem on Duncan's Spurs and Duncan on Hakeem's Rockets and tell me who has more rings. I don't think the Rockets win even one title with Duncan.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
Strong work.
quote:Duncan's peak was probably '03. He won the MVP and Finals MVP, led the Spurs to a win in their house to end the Lakers dynasty with a 37/17 game where he dominated Shaq and literally left Kobe on the bench in tears. Then he went on to the Finals and led the Spurs to a win where he had a 20/20 in the clincher and came 2 blocks away from a Quadruple Double. The Spurs were also the #1 seed that season with the best record. Was Hakeem awesome at his peak? Sure, but so was Duncan and a lot of people seem to forget just how dominant he could be. About the only thing Duncan didn't do in '03 was win DPOY, though he was All Defense 1st Team.
Put Hakeem on Duncan's Spurs and Duncan on Hakeem's Rockets and tell me who has more rings. I don't think the Rockets win even one title with Duncan.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
Duncan was just never a guy that cared about stats or who got the credit, that's why he has had so much team success. When Duncan needed to take over though he could and he still can at times in spite of his age. He has always been the reserved and quiet leader who hates doing interviews and never cared about awards or stats other than the rings and yet he still has a trophy case of individual awards few can compare to.
It's not like every Spurs team Duncan played on was loaded, in fact rarely (if ever) were the Spurs considered the most talented team in the league. Yet Duncan has never missed the playoffs and the Spurs have never failed to win 50 games with him unless it was a strike shortened season with their lowest regular season win percentage being .610. A few bounces of the ball and Duncan could have 8 rings pretty easily. He was the dominant Power Forward in the Golden Age of Power Forwards. Better than Malone. Better than Barkley. Better than Dirk. Better than Garnett. Hakeem had more raw physical tools but did not have Duncan's overall game nor did he have Duncan's incredible mental toughness. It's not like Duncan has just been more consistent than Hakeem, he is probably the most consistently great player in NBA history when you realize he is still playing at the level he is at the age of 39. Realize that last year he still finished 12th in the MVP vote and 8th in the DPOY vote. That's insane, especially when you consider that Duncan has 241 playoff games (almost 3 full seasons) of mileage on top of the regular season time. He is also going to pass into 2nd All Time in Playoff games this year (unless the Spurs don't make the playoffs lol) and needs only 18 games to become the All Time Leader.
As for awards, Duncan stacks up against just about anyone but here he is against Hakeem:
MVP
Duncan 2, Hakeem 1
NBA Champ
Duncan 5, Hakeem 2
Finals MVP
Duncan 3, Hakeem 2
All Star
Duncan 15, Hakeem 12
All Star MVP
Duncan 1, Hakeem 0
All NBA First Team
Duncan 10, Hakeem 6
All NBA Second Team
Duncan 3, Hakeem 3
All NBA Third Team
Duncan 2, Hakeem 3
DPOY
Duncan 0, Hakeem 2
All Defense First Team
Duncan 8, Hakeem 5
All Defense Second Team
Duncan 7, Hakeem 3
Rookie of the Year
Duncan 1, Hakeem 0
So really the only one of those that Hakeem isn't dominated by Duncan is DPOY but Duncan has more All Defense selections. Hakeem came out of college early and had an extra year in his prime over Duncan while Duncan won back to back Naismith trophies at Wake Forest. Hakeem's teams only won 50 games 5 times in his career and he never won 60, something Duncan has done 4 times (and may do again this year).
So as I said, there is no OBJECTIVE argument for Hakeem over Duncan.
It should be noted that if you watch the game film, Duncan clearly had 10 blocks, but was only credited with 8.
quote:
So as I said, there is no OBJECTIVE argument for Hakeem over Duncan
"Best' 4 consecutive seasons:
HO = 92/93-95/96
TD = 99/00 -02-03
Points:
HO TD
26 23
27 22
28 26
27 23
Big win for HO
Rebounds
HO TD
13 12
12 12
11 13
11 13
Slight Advantage TD
BLKs
HO TD
4.2 2.2
3.7 2.3
3.4 2.5
2.9 2.9
Big win for HO
Assist
HO TD
3.5 3.2
3.6 3.0
3.5 3.7
3.6 3.9
Slight advantage HO 3.55>3.45
HO had better FG%, they played about the same minutes, had slightly better FT%, almost 1 steal per game more, but about .8 more turnovers per game.
Numbers are objective and noticeably better for HO over TD during their best statistical 4 consecutive years.
If you are looking at the best players ever (not over a career but actual best ever), HO has a very good case over TD. TD had a much better career and you made a great case for the best Career.
I would make similar arguments for Larry Bird. Objectively looking at his peak, he was as good as any.
What you are saying is based on a lot of SUBJECTIVE awards (MVP, Defensive player of the year, etc.) Scoring titles and championships are not subjective; those are OBJECTIVE. Stats, don't tell you everything, but they are by definition OBJECTIVE.
quote:
Put Hakeem on Duncan's Spurs and Duncan on Hakeem's Rockets and tell me who has more rings. I don't think the Rockets win even one title with Duncan.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
Link to these comments?
quote:Horry definitely said Hakeem was the most talented player he ever played with and that Kobe was the hardest working. He also said that his 95 title was the most meaningful to him and that the 01 Lakers was the best team he ever played on.quote:
Put Hakeem on Duncan's Spurs and Duncan on Hakeem's Rockets and tell me who has more rings. I don't think the Rockets win even one title with Duncan.
Ask guys who played with both players (Elie, Horry) or against them (Shaq, Jordan) and you won't find a single NBA player who says Duncan was better.
Link to these comments?
Don't know about Elie, but Elie also played with Duncan for just a season and a half at the beginning of his career, but played with Hakeem for five years in Hakeem's prime, getting Elie two rings.
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
19,026
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And what taking just the per game stats, you ignore that Hakeem played many more minutes than Duncan.
Just because you want to use a 4-year stretch only, here are the per minute, per possession and advanced stats for both of them:
Per 36 Min Played
Advanced
Per 100 possessions:
For entire careers:
Just because you want to use a 4-year stretch only, here are the per minute, per possession and advanced stats for both of them:
Per 36 Min Played
Advanced
Per 100 possessions:
For entire careers:
You can tell people who don't know a thing about basketball when they bust out "advanced stats". The only thing more useless than "stats" are "advanced stats". This isn't baseball fool.
Find me a player, who played with or against both guys that says Duncan was better than Hakeem. That's not a knock on Duncan anymore that it's a knock on Kobe to say Jordan was better.
Find me a player, who played with or against both guys that says Duncan was better than Hakeem. That's not a knock on Duncan anymore that it's a knock on Kobe to say Jordan was better.
quote:You just tried to prove Hakeem was better than Duncan by suggesting we imagine that the take each other's place, then imagine what might have possibly have happened in a mythical alternative universe where they swapped teams, and you are busting on people for using a minute-based or possession based stat rather than a game based stat?
You can tell people who don't know a thing about basketball when they bust out "advanced stats". The only thing more useless than "stats" are "advanced stats". This isn't baseball fool.
Find me a player, who played with or against both guys that says Duncan was better than Hakeem. That's not a knock on Duncan anymore that it's a knock on Kobe to say Jordan was better.
Please, go on about your supreme knowledge of both basketball and statistics and why you should be the GM of the Rockets instead of Morey.
quote:I will give you points for creativity. So in some subjective measure of Hakeem's 4 best regular seasons he had slightly better stats than Duncan? Um, ok. As mentioned, Duncan was never worried about stats. He has always been rested in blowouts of which the Spurs have many and Duncan's prime is much longer than Hakeems. The only real way to measure a player in terms of greatness is what they were able to accomplish over their career. Even when you try to get into "prime vs prime" it is still a negligible statistical difference easily outweighed by what counts, winning and championships. Duncan's sustained excellence also shows how truly great he is, I mean the guy essentially hasn't had cartilage in his knee for 10 years and yet he still is a force. Kareem is the only player in NBA history that can rival Duncan for long term career effectiveness.quote:
So as I said, there is no OBJECTIVE argument for Hakeem over Duncan
"Best' 4 consecutive seasons:
HO = 92/93-95/96
TD = 99/00 -02-03
Points:
HO TD
26 23
27 22
28 26
27 23
Big win for HO
Rebounds
HO TD
13 12
12 12
11 13
11 13
Slight Advantage TD
BLKs
HO TD
4.2 2.2
3.7 2.3
3.4 2.5
2.9 2.9
Big win for HO
Assist
HO TD
3.5 3.2
3.6 3.0
3.5 3.7
3.6 3.9
Slight advantage HO 3.55>3.45
HO had better FG%, they played about the same minutes, had slightly better FT%, almost 1 steal per game more, but about .8 more turnovers per game.
Numbers are objective and noticeably better for HO over TD during their best statistical 4 consecutive years.
If you are looking at the best players ever (not over a career but actual best ever), HO has a very good case over TD. TD had a much better career and you made a great case for the best Career.
I would make similar arguments for Larry Bird. Objectively looking at his peak, he was as good as any.
What you are saying is based on a lot of SUBJECTIVE awards (MVP, Defensive player of the year, etc.) Scoring titles and championships are not subjective; those are OBJECTIVE. Stats, don't tell you everything, but they are by definition OBJECTIVE.
Hakeem also couldn't win with Sampson nor could he win with Pippen and Barkley. You just can't dismiss his lack of team success so flippantly.
I also like the link to a 2006 article by Ellie when Hakeem's career was done and Duncan is still going strong almost a DECADE later.
I really liked Hakeem and rooted for him all the way back tot he Phi Slamma Jamma days as long as he wasn't playing the Ags or the Spurs. I admit that he surpassed Robinson. He was just left in the dust by Duncan somewhere around the 4th Championship.
One other thing to consider, Duncan did most of his damage after the rule changes of '99 that favored perimeter players. Coincidentally Hakeem's career finished a deep dive after '99. Who knows what kind of numbers Duncan could have put up had he played in an earlier era that actually favored big men and physical play.
Subjective v objective
Look it up.
Learn to use it properly.
Look it up.
Learn to use it properly.
quote:Subjective is opinion based or from a single point of view. Objective is factually based and is from many points of view or comparisons based on a common standard.
Subjective v objective
Look it up.
Learn to use it properly.
Championships and winning or team accomplishments and awards and recognition or personal accomplishments are the common standard upon how you compare players from different eras. Duncan clearly outdistances Hakeem in both categories.
Duncan has been allowed to play Zone. That favors big men defensively and on rebounds.
It's a team sport. The value of the individual is subjective. MVP, all star/NBA, defensive player of the year, etc is all subjective. You argument Is mostly built on subjective awards. stats are objective.
HO had better basic stats in his 4 best statistical sequential years over what TD did in his. By that Onjective standard, HO was better and your statement is wrong which was my only point.
I agree that TD is better.
It's a team sport. The value of the individual is subjective. MVP, all star/NBA, defensive player of the year, etc is all subjective. You argument Is mostly built on subjective awards. stats are objective.
HO had better basic stats in his 4 best statistical sequential years over what TD did in his. By that Onjective standard, HO was better and your statement is wrong which was my only point.
I agree that TD is better.
this is all subjective: As mentioned, Duncan was never worried about stats. He has always been rested in blowouts of which the Spurs have many and Duncan's prime is much longer than Hakeems. The only real way to measure a player in terms of greatness is what they were able to accomplish over their career. Even when you try to get into "prime vs prime" it is still a negligible statistical difference easily outweighed by what counts, winning and championships. Duncan's sustained excellence also shows how truly great he is, I mean the guy essentially hasn't had cartilage in his knee for 10 years and yet he still is a force. Kareem is the only player in NBA history that can rival Duncan for long term career effectiveness.
In the end the standard way of measuring players from different eras is to look at team and personal accomplishments. It's that simple.
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
19,026
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
^Wrong. It's competition during the era and personal accomplishments. If it were team and personal accomplishments, Bob Cousy would be the greatest point guard of all-time.
Team (team success, I assume you're talking about) is as much a product, if not more of a product of coaching, GM, timing, luck, etc. than of any individual player.
Team (team success, I assume you're talking about) is as much a product, if not more of a product of coaching, GM, timing, luck, etc. than of any individual player.
quote:There is a big difference between valuing team success and making team success the only factor. In the end basketball is a team sport and the goal is to win, not to get statistics or personal awards. Winning and championships matter. There are many other factors involved in winning of course and that is why it isn't the only measure.
^Wrong. It's competition during the era and personal accomplishments. If it were team and personal accomplishments, Bob Cousy would be the greatest point guard of all-time.
Team (team success, I assume you're talking about) is as much a product, if not more of a product of coaching, GM, timing, luck, etc. than of any individual player.
In the context of this discussion though, Duncan has both greater team accomplishments and personal accomplishments than Hakeem and thus there is no objective way of saying Hakeem was superior.
FWIW, it's not like Duncan was surrounded by elite players his entire career. His '03 Title is considered by some to be one of the most impressive because there was so little talent around him. He had Robinson in his last season and a shadow of his former self. He had Tony Parker as a rookie who didn't even finish games because he was so limited. He had Manu in his second year only showing glimpses of what he could be because he wasn't a very good shooter at the time. Other players were guys like Stephen Jackson that the Spurs had picked up on the trash heap and Speedy Claxton. Duncan did everything on that squad. Throughout his career you could make an argument that Duncan didn't have another Top 15 player on his team outside of a couple of years. His biggest advantage was having Coach Pop but that was a 2 way relationship, Duncan's leadership made Pop's success possible.
Hakeem will always have more highlights than Duncan because Duncan was never a flashy player. You would rarely see Duncan block balls into the seats for instance because he saw that as a missed opportunity to get possession of the ball. He is a surgeon that would always make the highest percentage play, he never cared about dazzling people with his physical ability because that doesn't win games. Duncan would just wear people down with consistent, fundamentally sound play over and over and over.
OK, so how about Hakeem vs. Kobe?
Looking at Tim Duncan's career so far, he is a top 5 NBA All Timer. All. Day. Long.
Featured Stories
See All
16:42
16h ago
2.8k
All-American Jace LaViolette motivated by A&M baseball's brotherhood
by Ryan Brauninger
27:26
1d ago
6.6k
20:23
17h ago
5.4k
5 Thoughts: No. 8 Texas A&M 69, Georgia 53
by Luke Evangelist