Ok, Hotard.

Well clearly it means if he had been playing ball his whole life he would be at least 20 times better than Duncan in everyone's eyes not just a guy who played with both. I'll give you guys credit with one thing for sure if he had Pop early in his career who knows, might of been 50 times better

And also it could be argued Duncan made Pop. Even Pop admits that to this day. If anything, Dave Odom made Tim Duncan at Wake. He was the reason he was NBA ready right off of the bat.

Endless debate/ trolling here.

Duncan was the perfect player for Spurs/Pop to land and vise versa. Ultimate team player; no doubt played to win. Put some other greats in that spot and ego gets in the way. Played along 2-3 other HOF players, but they all complimented each other.

On the flip side, put Duncan on those rockets teams, and IMO you don't get the same result. Hakeem DEMANDED the ball then dominated. Requires some ego. I don't see Duncan as that player even if physically capable.

Hey guys!

Duncan vs Moses Malone would be a better discussion. Akeem isn't even the best big man in Rockets history.

CactusThomas said:

---

Duncan vs Moses Malone would be a better discussion. Akeem isn't even the best big man in Rockets history.

---

Agree. Timmy may be top 5 if he was a Rocket.

Houston is home of the big.

No doubt Houston has had a lot of good post players.

CactusThomas said:

---

No doubt Houston has had a lot of good post players.

---

It's a shame they didn't trade Ralph for #2 and Clyde Drexler.

Guitarsoup said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

No doubt Houston has had a lot of good post players.

---

It's a shame they didn't trade Ralph for #2 and Clyde Drexler.

---

You think Dream, Drexler, and MJ would have won a few games?

aggie1906 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

No doubt Houston has had a lot of good post players.

---

It's a shame they didn't trade Ralph for #2 and Clyde Drexler.

---

You think Dream, Drexler, and MJ would have won a few games?

---

If they didn't implode. A lot of ego to fit on one court.

Guitarsoup said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

No doubt Houston has had a lot of good post players.

---

It's a shame they didn't trade Ralph for #2 and Clyde Drexler.

---

You think Dream, Drexler, and MJ would have won a few games?

---

If they didn't implode. A lot of ego to fit on one court.

---

Agree. Dream would have probably come to blows with Airness. Two of the biggest Alphas in NBA history.

CactusThomas said:

---

Duncan vs Moses Malone would be a better discussion. Akeem isn't even the best big man in Rockets history.

---

Duncan vs. the guy that was David Robinson's backup?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacglover/2017/06/15/this-player-edged-out-michael-jordan-as-the-greatest-nba-player-of-all-time/#561d87543b8c

Rusty GCS said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacglover/2017/06/15/this-player-edged-out-michael-jordan-as-the-greatest-nba-player-of-all-time/#561d87543b8c

---

Is that like the study that claimed Axl Rose the greatest singer of all time?

David Robinson >> Magic, Bird, Dr. J and Duncan and everyone below

TMac >>> Shaq, Garnett, Moses, Isiah and everyone below

Shawn Kemp >>> Kobe, Pippen, Kidd, Malone and everyone below

Horry >>> Steve Nash, Dominique, Reggie Miller, Vince Carter, Webber, Pierce, Ray Allen, Grant Hill


Maybe that guy's formula needs some tweaking.

I want to play: ALL of Duncan's teams without Robininson playing would not have beaten any of the championship teams in the 80's up through Jordan's rein including the 94,95 rockets, bad boys, the dr j team, or any of those celtics lakers teams up to 89.

Duncan is an incredibly consistent player that won 2 championships with another hall of famer and then won his championships during a relative period of parity. The fact they never won back to back and only went to the finals back to back one time and there were 7 different champs in the last 10 years proves it.

Hakeem probably never wins any without Jordan taking off years but Timmy with Parker and Ginobli but without Robinson never beat any team in the 90s and won 99 with Robinson only because the 98 bulls broke up and Jordan retired again.

Hakeem vs Duncan in their prime would have been a battle with Hakeem winning but by much less of a margin than he did over Robinson.

Sometimes timing is everything and had Hakeem's prime been in the time of parity instead of the time of giants his accomplishments would have equaled Duncan's. Then his superior stats would have been unquestioned.

Stressboy said:

---

I want to play: ALL of Duncan's teams without Robininson playing would not have beaten any of the championship teams in the 80's up through Jordan's rein including the 94,95 rockets, bad boys, the dr j team, or any of those celtics lakers teams up to 89.

---

Huh.

The Shaq and Kobe Lakers would have beaten any of those teams except the 86 Celtics. It's strange that they were playing the same time as Duncan but you act like the league was garbage the whole time Duncan was playing.

I haven't been over to this board in a while, so I'm just now seeing this. A poster on the first page nailed it. Hakeem had a better peak, but Duncan had a better overall career.

However, I still think if you had to ask GMs who they would rather have to build a team around, most would pick Dream.

Bottom line, there both obviously two of the all time greats and you can't go wrong with either one.

It's ridiculous to base it on "peaks" alone. By that logic Klay Thompson, Manu Ginobili and Robert Horry himself are top 30 players of all time. What you do and accomplish over your career is what matters when talking all time greats. Heck, by peaks alone then Robinson and his 71 points to win the scoring title makes him better than Hakeem!

There is a reason almost everyone outside of Rockets fans have Tim Duncan noticeably high than Hakeem. It's really not that close.

GatorAg03 said:

---

It's ridiculous to base it on "peaks" alone. By that logic Klay Thompson, Manu Ginobili and Robert Horry himself are top 30 players of all time. What you do and accomplish over your career is what matters when talking all time greats. Heck, by peaks alone then Robinson and his 71 points to win the scoring title makes him better than Hakeem!

There is a reason almost everyone outside of Rockets fans have Tim Duncan noticeably high than Hakeem. It's really not that close.

---

I agree with most of what your saying, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how Robert Horry's peak was ever top 30. It's not even top 3000.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

GatorAg03 said:

---

It's ridiculous to base it on "peaks" alone. By that logic Klay Thompson, Manu Ginobili and Robert Horry himself are top 30 players of all time. What you do and accomplish over your career is what matters when talking all time greats. Heck, by peaks alone then Robinson and his 71 points to win the scoring title makes him better than Hakeem!

There is a reason almost everyone outside of Rockets fans have Tim Duncan noticeably high than Hakeem. It's really not that close.

---

I agree with most of what your saying, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how Robert Horry's peak was ever top 30. It's not even top 3000.

---

Horry is only an all time great if you're only worried about how many rings they won.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

GatorAg03 said:

---

It's ridiculous to base it on "peaks" alone. By that logic Klay Thompson, Manu Ginobili and Robert Horry himself are top 30 players of all time. What you do and accomplish over your career is what matters when talking all time greats. Heck, by peaks alone then Robinson and his 71 points to win the scoring title makes him better than Hakeem!

There is a reason almost everyone outside of Rockets fans have Tim Duncan noticeably high than Hakeem. It's really not that close.

---

I agree with most of what your saying, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how Robert Horry's peak was ever top 30. It's not even top 3000.

---

If you consider a <2 second peak, I'd put him top 20.

CactusThomas said:

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

GatorAg03 said:

---

It's ridiculous to base it on "peaks" alone. By that logic Klay Thompson, Manu Ginobili and Robert Horry himself are top 30 players of all time. What you do and accomplish over your career is what matters when talking all time greats. Heck, by peaks alone then Robinson and his 71 points to win the scoring title makes him better than Hakeem!

There is a reason almost everyone outside of Rockets fans have Tim Duncan noticeably high than Hakeem. It's really not that close.

---

I agree with most of what your saying, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how Robert Horry's peak was ever top 30. It's not even top 3000.

---

If you consider a <2 second peak, I'd put him top 20.

---

What about 13 years?

That's exactly my point. If it is peak for a career(which it is) then Duncan is far superior? But if you start segmenting it to argue Hakeem had a higher peak then where do you stop? If you believe that Hakeem's peak was greater for a season or two then I'll argue that Manu was a more peak player for a season or at least a game or two, Klay Thompson is a peak player here and there for a game or two or at least a quarter or two, Horry is a peak player for a big playoff shot or two.

Yet none of those are considered elite all-time players, nor should they be because the entire body of work matters not just peak moments/games, quarters, seasons, etc that can be segmented and defined a ton of different ways.

Duncan was better NBA player by a good margin. The End.

You can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

aggie1906 said:

---

You can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

---

You should be listening to your own advice.

It absolutely does make it true and it is completely measurable and quantifiable unless you start splitting out segments and bringing in feelings.

Which is fine. For example I believe Manu is one of the greatest players of all time at his peak. Far better than peak Hakeem. Can that be proven based on stats and accomplishments? Of course it can't, but it doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion based on feelings, loyalty, bias, etc.

Chipotlemonger said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

You can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

---

You should be listening to your own advice.

---

For the large part of Dream's career scored more, blocked more shots, changed more shots, rebounded the ball more, and shot more efficiently. All facts. Not only that, but he did it vs easily arguably better competition in a much more impressive way.

I see the two differently, and frankly if Hakeem was on the Spurs they may have won a title sooner. Dream was a pure Center while Tim was a hybrid PF/C, so it's apples and oranges anyway. Duncan had one of the greatest NBA careers in being part of one of the greatest sports franchises ever, but as already mentioned, Hakeem in the mid 90s was at one of those dominant peaks only players like MJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Koby, and Lebron have reached. Admiral got the MVP in '95, but he wasn't on the level of Hakeem then, plain and simple. Rockets won titles and were the best NBA team, so if Spurs fans wanna talk titles for Duncan, you gotta talk titles when comparing Dream and David as well. The Rockets would have atleast one title if not two had MJ not been told to take time off by the NBA.

I only read the first page but did 1906 continue to get owned through 5 pages or did he realize he had dug himself too deep in a hole