Tim Duncan was basically a less athletic/slower version of Hakeem?

[Clippersfan86]

I'm watching film from 94/95. Right now specifically I'm watching the 1995 finals where Hakeem dismantled Shaq on both ends basically. I can't help but notice that Hakeem looks A LOT like Duncan in numerous ways. The main difference I see is Hakeem is a lot quicker, has a superior first step and looks more mobile. He's also better at ball handling. The things they have in common are far greater though. Both are playing Shaq the same way defensively (I watched the Spurs/Lakers series back in 03 when Duncan held Shaq to his worst shooting series ever). Basically neither tries to get overly physical with him, they just keep a body on him and go for the strip on his predictable post moves, and use their length for verticality to bother him when they can't force turnovers. Most bigs of that era tried to get physical or foul him a lot to frustrate him, neither of these legends did that in these respective matchups.

Beyond this series alone both Hakeem and Duncan score in a lot of the same ways. Extremely high IQ's. Elite post game/foot work leading leading to a variety of moves, a ton of bank shots. Both didn't rely on cuts or lobs hardly at all. Both were dominant with tip ins coming via the offensive glass. Duncan and Hakeem were both around 60-65% of their shot attempts being in the post during peak years. Both were deadly in that pick and pop mid. Both were really unselfish and good at finding the open man. Both are elite, top 5-10 defenders all time with fantastic longevity.

When you look at team success, both have amazing resumes too.

Duncan:

5× NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
3× NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
2× NBA Most Valuable Player (2002, 2003)
15× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011, 2013, 2015)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)
10× All-NBA First Team (1998–2005, 2007, 2013)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2006, 2008, 2009)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2010, 2015)
8× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1999–2003, 2005, 2007, 2008)
7× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2015)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)


Hakeem:

2× NBA champion (1994, 1995)
2× NBA Finals MVP (1994, 1995)
NBA Most Valuable Player (1994)
12× NBA All-Star (1985–1990, 1992–1997)
6× All-NBA First Team (1987–1989, 1993, 1994, 1997)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1986, 1990, 1996)
3× All-NBA Third Team (1991, 1995, 1999)
2× NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1993, 1994)
5× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1987, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994)
4× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1985, 1991, 1996, 1997)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1985)
2× NBA rebounding leader (1989, 1990)
3× NBA blocks leader (1990, 1991, 1993)


I can't help but feel like Tim Duncan has the better achievements in his career because of a FAR superior team pretty much his entire career. I'd say Hakeem's rings were a lot harder relative to the talent around him. Anyway, do you see the similarities in their strengths, weaknesses and playstyle?

[Lebron23]

I'm watching film from 94/95. Right now specifically I'm watching the 1995 finals where Hakeem dismantled Shaq on both ends basically. I can't help but notice that Hakeem looks A LOT like Duncan in numerous ways. The main difference I see is Hakeem is a lot quicker, has a superior first step and looks more mobile. He's also better at ball handling. The things they have in common are far greater though. Both are playing Shaq the same way defensively (I watched the Spurs/Lakers series back in 03 when Duncan held Shaq to his worst shooting series ever). Basically neither tries to get overly physical with him, they just keep a body on him and go for the strip on his predictable post moves, and use their length for verticality to bother him when they can't force turnovers. Most bigs of that era tried to get physical or foul him a lot to frustrate him, neither of these legends did that in these respective matchups.

Beyond this series alone both Hakeem and Duncan score in a lot of the same ways. Extremely high IQ's. Elite post game/foot work leading leading to a variety of moves, a ton of bank shots. Both didn't rely on cuts or lobs hardly at all. Both were dominant with tip ins coming via the offensive glass. Duncan and Hakeem were both around 60-65% of their shot attempts being in the post during peak years. Both were deadly in that pick and pop mid. Both were really unselfish and good at finding the open man. Both are elite, top 5-10 defenders all time with fantastic longevity.

When you look at team success, both have amazing resumes too.

Duncan:

5× NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
3× NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
2× NBA Most Valuable Player (2002, 2003)
15× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011, 2013, 2015)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)
10× All-NBA First Team (1998–2005, 2007, 2013)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2006, 2008, 2009)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2010, 2015)
8× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1999–2003, 2005, 2007, 2008)
7× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2015)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)


Hakeem:

2× NBA champion (1994, 1995)
2× NBA Finals MVP (1994, 1995)
NBA Most Valuable Player (1994)
12× NBA All-Star (1985–1990, 1992–1997)
6× All-NBA First Team (1987–1989, 1993, 1994, 1997)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1986, 1990, 1996)
3× All-NBA Third Team (1991, 1995, 1999)
2× NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1993, 1994)
5× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1987, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994)
4× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1985, 1991, 1996, 1997)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1985)
2× NBA rebounding leader (1989, 1990)
3× NBA blocks leader (1990, 1991, 1993)


I can't help but feel like Tim Duncan has the better achievements in his career because of a FAR superior team pretty much his entire career. I'd say Hakeem's rings were a lot harder relative to the talent around him. Anyway, do you see the similarities in their strengths, weaknesses and playstyle?

Yes. The Spurs copied Hakeem's Rockets after they drafted Tim Duncan. They surrounded him with players who can hit their outside shoots.

[999Guy]

95 Hakeem lost a step compared to say 89 as well. And a half step compared to 93.

Duncan was stronger, longer, a little more technically sound and less mistake prone as far as risky play on both ends.

Hakeem however could legitimately defend a lot more plays, knew this and took advantage of it. He would bait guys into feeling comfortable shooting and passing in the interior and have the amazing athleticism to blow up any and every thing.

Duncan was more naturally a deterrent and he visibly didn’t guard as many shots, help as aggressively on the perimeter, and make as many amazing chasedowns in transition, deflections on rebounders/slashers, etc

Offensively, Duncan would bait guys and rack up a lot of foul calls. Had all the technical tricks of the trade with rebounding and positioning. And had the athleticism to just abuse it but Hakeem had a lot more natural talent than when it came to scoring and creating out of nothing.

Was a better jump shooter, had countless counters on the move in either direction, and more raw athleticism on the glass and at the rim. And just a pure tough shot maker on the level of Kobe.

Hakeem by 95 is seriously not what he was in the past athletically. It’s like Miami LeBron Vs Cleveland.
One got more moves and tricks because he kind of had to. The other would just physically overwhelm a team on both ends.

Hakeem was better than Duncan and in those contender years(93-95), its more clear on offense imo.

But Hakeem was seriously amazing on defense. He was the equivalent of a tough shot maker(Kobe, KD, Curry) but on defense. Not just making the right reads, but actually taking away would should and would be easy points, foul shots, passes against anyone else away entirely. Playing a style and level of defense no coach would think to ask from a player.

[Clippersfan86]

95 Hakeem lost a step compared to say 89 as well. And a half step compared to 93.

Duncan was stronger, longer, a little more technically sound and less mistake prone as far as risky play on both ends.

Hakeem however could legitimately defend a lot more plays, knew this and took advantage of it. He would bait guys into feeling comfortable shooting and passing in the interior and have the amazing athleticism to blow up any and every thing.

Duncan was more naturally a deterrent and he visibly didn’t guard as many shots, help as aggressively on the perimeter, and make as many amazing chasedowns in transition, deflections on rebounders/slashers, etc

Offensively, Duncan would bait guys and rack up a lot of foul calls. Had all the technical tricks of the trade with rebounding and positioning. And had the athleticism to just abuse it but Hakeem had a lot more natural talent than when it came to scoring and creating out of nothing.

Was a better jump shooter, had countless counters on the move in either direction, and more raw athleticism on the glass and at the rim. And just a pure tough shot maker on the level of Kobe.

Hakeem by 95 is seriously not what he was in the past athletically. It’s like Miami LeBron Vs Cleveland.
One got more moves and tricks because he kind of had to. The other would just physically overwhelm a team on both ends.

Hakeem was better than Duncan and in those contender years(93-95), its more clear on offense imo.

But Hakeem was seriously amazing on defense. He was the equivalent of a tough shot maker(Kobe, KD, Curry) but on defense. Not just making the right reads, but actually taking away would should and would be easy points, foul shots, passes against anyone else away entirely. Playing a style and level of defense no coach would think to ask from a player.

Good post, but I doubt he was much longer. Hakeem had a 7'6" wingspan, which I'm pretty sure is about the same. Also speculated standing reach being very similar. I do agree Duncan was stronger though, Hakeem faster/more agile. Thanks for the good input. I did neglect to mention that Hakeem was better at switching out onto smaller players for sure as you alluded to.

[Round Mound]

Duncan is a more athletic version of McHale and heavier.

Duncan is a better ball handler than Hakeem actually but Hakeem is actually stronger, more agil, quicker and faster. Hakeem was a better defender (both rim protection-shotblocking or floor defense-steals) and scorer though. The rest rebouding, passing etc its pretty close.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Two brilliant players. Its a shame we couldnt see them playing each other in their primes.

[warriorfan]

They are very similar players but Hakeem was noticeably more athletic. I don’t think Tim Duncan could really score like Hakeem could either.

[Norcaliblunt]

2 players who were better than Lebron James.

[bizil]

I agree with many in this thread. Skillset wise and what they were capable of, they are very similar players. BUT I will say early Timmy was a BIT BETTER than early Dream. But PEAK Dream was a bit better than peak Timmy. Once Dream blended the flawless fundamentals, athletic ability, and dominance as a package, he was the best player on Earth those couple of years MJ was out.

Scoring wise, Duncan was obviously alpha dog material. But The Dream was more blood thirsty when it came to dominating scoring the rock. On other squads, Duncan may have been putting up 27 PPG all the time. On the Spurs, he didn't need to do that to win rings. So I'll give Dream the scoring edge. BUT I frankly think the MAIN DIFFERENCE between the two is the Dream was more athletic. ON TOP being just as skilled OR MORE SKILLED as Timmy in most facets of the game.

Even though Tim goes down as the GOAT PF, the only C's I would take over him peak-prime wise are Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Dream. Timmy was really the 1st PF who could dominate the paint two way wise ON THE LEVEL of the great two way centers. BUT he had many of the elements of the new age PF's in the early 2000s. He had underrated handles, athletic ability, and positional versatility. Spurs actually played him at times as a SF in their Triple Towers lineup with David at PF and Perdue at C!

[Lebron23]

2 players who were better than Lebron James.

LeBron already surpassed them in 2016.

[Rysio]

Duncan is KG with no jumpshot.

[Smoke117]

Tim Duncan was never as good as David Robinson prime for prime and peak for peak. One series has basically made David Robinson the most underrated player of all time. The funny thing is beside that series he got the better of Hakeem throghout their match ups, but nobody wants to talk about anything but that 95 series. Tim Duncan never even came close to the peak David Robinson reached. He never carried teams like Big Dave did.

[Rysio]

Tim Duncan was never as good as David Robinson prime for prime and peak for peak. One series has basically made David Robinson the most underrated player of all time. The funny thing is beside that series he got the better of Hakeem throghout their match ups, but nobody wants to talk about anything but that 95 series. Tim Duncan never even came close to the peak David Robinson reached. He never carried teams like Big Dave did.

This Duncan was just a great system player and that system helped him get 5 rings.

[dirkdiggler41]

And had the athleticism to just abuse it but Hakeem had a lot more natural talent than when it came to scoring and creating out of nothing.


My understanding was that Hakeem was not known for his offense coming into the NBA. If that is so, what is natural talent?

[Akeem34TheDream]

Tim Duncan was never as good as David Robinson prime for prime and peak for peak. One series has basically made David Robinson the most underrated player of all time. The funny thing is beside that series he got the better of Hakeem throghout their match ups, but nobody wants to talk about anything but that 95 series. Tim Duncan never even came close to the peak David Robinson reached. He never carried teams like Big Dave did.

Both of them are better than Robinson and it is very clear. But you go and pull some random advanced stats to back your argument.

[Smoke117]

Both of them are better than Robinson and it is very clear. But you go and pull some random advanced stats to back your argument.

Way to argue something without saying anything at all. All you said was that you think Hakeem and Duncan were better...because. You provided absolutely no kind of argument whatsover besides you think this way...because anyone gives a two ****s what you think about. Like you're the ****ing top shit opinion everyone jumps to on the subject. If you have nothing to say then don't even open your mouth. Don't try and trump up some worthless idiotic opinion, sweetheart.

[Smoke117]

2006 Elton Brand was as good as any version of Tim Duncan. He was a top 5 player through the regular season AND the playoffs that season. He's super underrated because of that achilles tear in the 2007 off season.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Who the fck calls other men sweetheart on a regular basis?

[Smoke117]

Who the fck calls other men sweetheart on a regular basis?

Having sized you up it seemed appropriate. We cross? Do we have a problem? Or more like, do you have a problem? I'm pretty sure you dont, so just shut your sweetheart mouth.

[Kblaze8855]

This Duncan was just a great system player and that system helped him get 5 rings.


The spurs won 3 rings before they stopped just posting Duncan up and watching. At least 2. There were times in 99 and 2000 where they just called 4 down every time they needed a basket. That system shit doesn’t come from anyone who watched those teams.

I sat here for years of people complaining the spurs were the most boring team in the league because all they did was give it to Duncan and stay out of his way. People hated watching the spurs till Tony and Manu really got unleashed.


Watch 2 minutes of this and tell me the “system” you see:




https://youtu.be/Mmk0HUlgQBE





I see an awful lot of 4 people getting to the other side of the court while a second year player goes one on one....or two...or three...to win a ring.

[DoctorP]

Having sized you up it seemed appropriate. We cross? Do we have a problem? Or more like, do you have a problem? I'm pretty sure you dont, so just shut your sweetheart mouth.

:lol

[tpols]

i dont see the comparison at all. Both are great two way centers basically, that dont really play a like.

hakeem is the flashy, skills guy with more athleticism, duncan is the slow methodical, always make the right play guy.

young hakeem was wild, young duncan wasnt. old hakeem couldnt do shit even on super teams, old duncan was still awesome.

the coolest thing about both is that i dont think either had ever even picked up a basketball before the age of 15.

duncan was a swimmer, and hakeem was a soccer player.

[Clippersfan86]

2006 Elton Brand was as good as any version of Tim Duncan. He was a top 5 player through the regular season AND the playoffs that season. He's super underrated because of that achilles tear in the 2007 off season.

06 Elton Brand is one of the most underrated seasons ever no doubt. He was elite on both ends. Better than Duncan though at any time? Not gonna go there. I'd say that 06 Brand would be Duncan's 4th best season of his career maybe.

[Kblaze8855]

Elton Brand at his best would not have won the 99 ring in the spurs much less the 03. I’m not taking any version of Brand over 06 Kobe, Duncan, Wade, Dirk, Nash, KG, or Lebron and it’s not like KG was done either. He was 29 with a shit team and Brand had Cassell balling and losing Sam is one reason Minnesota was ass again.

[Horatio33]

It think some posters look at stats and think Elton Brand was as good as Duncan. Next you will be saying Kevin Love in Minnesota was better than Duncan.

[Clippersfan86]

Elton Brand at his best would not have won the 99 ring in the spurs much less the 03. I’m not taking any version of Brand over 06 Kobe, Duncan, Wade, Dirk, Nash, KG, or Lebron and it’s not like KG was done either. He was 29 with a shit team and Brand had Cassell balling and losing Sam is one reason Minnesota was ass again.

Which isn't saying a whole lot. You basically named a bunch of top 30 all time players (including a couple top 10). Elton Brand isn't that far up the list, but 06 Brand surely was elite. If he didn't happen to be playing at a time with peak Duncan/KG.. he would of EASILY been the best PF and maybe even big that year period. Like Webber for example got a lot more hype, despite being inferior to him. Elton Brand in 06, especially the playoffs was an insane defender that got too little credit because of how many legendary bigs played at the time.

[Kblaze8855]

He was obviously higher than he normal would be that year and I totally agree I named all time greats so it’s no insult to be behind them....but it wasn’t meant as one.

Its like saying I wouldn’t call Drexler top 5 in 88 with Jordan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, and Barkley. It’s not an insult but if someone is saying he is top 5....it’s the obvious response.


Theres always weird advanced stats to suggest this or that especially if you throw out history and go with single years but....eh. I don’t think we need version 89 of “But these numbers say....” vs “Well....what I saw was....”.

Ill just say I followed brand since he was a Bull and our supposed next superstar. He wasn’t that special to me though he did have a much better run on the clippers. I just....never saw top 5. Not that I didn’t hear it then too.

[Clippersfan86]

He was obviously higher than he normal would be that year and I totally agree I named all time greats so it’s no insult to be behind them....but it wasn’t meant as one.

Its like saying I wouldn’t call Drexler top 5 in 88 with Jordan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, and Barkley. It’s not an insult but if someone is saying he is top 5....it’s the obvious response.


Theres always weird advanced stats to suggest this or that especially if you throw out history and go with single years but....eh. I don’t think we need version 89 of “But these numbers say....” vs “Well....what I saw was....”.

Ill just say I followed brand since he was a Bull and our supposed next superstar. He wasn’t that special to me though he did have a much better run on the clippers. I just....never saw top 5. Not that I didn’t hear it then too.

Naw, I already shot down the idea of him being better than Duncan. Brand was in a very weird situation in the Clippers era. He was probably better than Webber multiple years, but due to the Clippers team failures, he never got much recognition or an all star nod (until 06). He had the unfortunate situation as I mentioned of playing in the era of prime Duncan/KG/Dirk/Webber who were all out west with him.

[Kblaze8855]

Multiple years over Webber? I won’t assume you mean 01 or 02. Webber played like 30 games in 04 I think. That’s the year Peja got MVP talk. So I’m gonna assume you mean 04 and that first half of 05 before he went to philly? If you mean peak Webber I’d be surprised but there are people who pull out the ts% and so on to make Webber out to be ho hum as if anyone at the time thought that.

[Clippersfan86]

Multiple years over Webber? I won’t assume you mean 01 or 02. Webber played like 30 games in 04 I think. That’s the year Peja got MVP talk. So I’m gonna assume you mean 04 and that first half of 05 before he went to philly? If you mean peak Webber I’d be surprised but there are people who pull out the ts% and so on to make Webber out to be ho hum as if anyone at the time thought that.

My knock on Webber vs Brand is his defense. Yes he was a much better playmaker, but he was a less efficient scorer, worse rebounder and FAR worse defender. Webber was obviously more gifted, Brand more of a grind it out type. I'd actually give Brand the small edge in 02. Brand has the edge in WS/48, Net rating, VORP, rebounding, defense, with a HUGE edge in efficiency (59% TS to 54% as you hinted at). So 02+04+05, but ESPECIALLY 06 I'd go Brand over Webber. Honestly year by year this comparison gets worse for Webber. I think that's why I was so bitter at the time as a HS kid. Watching Brand get zero recognition, while flashy guys on winning teams like Webber were considered better. I understood Duncan/Dirk/KG but not Webber. I don't think any given year Webber was definitively better.

[Norcaliblunt]

Brand was a straight beast in 06. Definitely up there with the all time great power forwards for sure. Better than Duncan? Naw. But still really really good. Before this year that 06 team was the best Clipper team in franchise history. I’d take them over any of the Paul teams.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m fairly sure that if you call the Kings in 2002 and offer Brand for Webber they would have called in a drone strike on your facility. I’m aware of what all of those numbers you posted mean I just....don’t concern myself with them. Brand was second in win shares in 2002. I don’t need to say the names he’s ahead of to make that point I’m sure. I must have seen him play 70 times or so for the Bulls the very year before that....I can’t take him over Webber because of a calculator. The passing alone?



https://youtu.be/CfQ23mWBxwk


Webber would have 3 entries on Elton Brands career top 20 passes in that random game nobody remembers.

Elton could play d but it’s not like he was some kinda team D making anchor. He was another of the young talented knuckleheads not really doing anything that mattered back then. And the rebounding is pretty meh. That comes down to team need in many cases. Webber led the nba in rebounding one year on the Kings so it’s not like he couldn’t.

Pretty solid talent gap there considering that Webber was a god level athlete for a 4 and was more skilled overall.

Brand was really good. Like Bosh or Jermaine O’Neal....Vin Baker....Larry Johnson...um....Mcdyess. He wasn’t that Duncan/KG/Dirk tier and I’d say Webber bridged that gap nicely. That slot between the tiers where you could probably put Mchale too depending on the season.

Elton was comfortably on tier 2 or 3. Webber was caught between 2 and 1 depending on who you asked and when. Webber or KG wouldn’t have been considered unreasonable to ask in 2002.

As with most things we see it differently in retrospect and toss in a lot of new standards but the people watching at the time would have been pretty comfortable with a Webber/Dirk/Kg discussion and I wouldn’t put Brand over that 01-03 run of any of those guys.

Maybe get dramatic and talk about how terrible young Dirk was on defense but....03 Brand makes those Mavs worse I’d say. He doesn’t fit the style the mavs or Kings played some maybe it’s an unfair comparison but still....


I don’t think he steps in for those guys.

[tpols]

it looks like the main difference is webber wasnt an efficient scorer at all. Brand was. along with the defense.

you'd think an elite athlete like chris webber would be a great defender.

[Kblaze8855]

People who can’t do as much often make a higher percentage of their shots. They also limit what you can run.

Kobe was never gonna shoot what an Adrian Dantley would. But you can’t get very many things from AD.

[tpols]

i get that, but webber wasnt exactly a crazy scorer. i dont think its a stretch at all to say brand was better at it.

Brand wasnt tyson chandler, the man was first option taking all the heat in the same way. his splits are very elite and the kings were far more talented than the clippers outside both stars.

[Kblaze8855]

Looks like brand might enter the Reggie territory where 20 years later someone looks at a number nobody gave a shit about at the time and determines he was better than everyone watching him realized. I bet Paul Millsap is gonna be a beast in 2015 when we get to 2035. We really don’t know what we’re seeing till it’s 15-20 years ago.

[tpols]

millsap sucked balls in the playoffs every year. he was like the kyle lowry of forwards and the stats fully support it.

Brand was still elite in the playoffs.

[Norcaliblunt]

In 06 Brand was elite. Idk about better than peak Webber but for that one year it is fair to say he was up there. Now for a whole career that’s a different story.

[warriorfan]

His 06 season was special and a bit of an outlier. Not saying he shouldn’t get credit for it or it be deemed a fluke. People used to have shitfits over ranking Elton Brand because of all this back in the day on RealGM.

[Kblaze8855]

Three high scoring losses will help bump that average up while losing in the second round(after an 18/10 first). Gonna be as remembered as Shawn Marion having 36/20, 34/9/6 steals, 32/19/4 steals and another 30 point game in the same series. Playoff numbers when you don’t go anywhere are always tricky to evaluate. I guess it’s left to each of us decide what a 35 point blowout loss is worth. I watched all those games as I’m sure many of us did. Only thing I’d call noteworthy was Sam losing his mind and getting that 8 second violation while he was screwing around. That was hilarious.

[Clippersfan86]

06 Clippers should have been in the conference finals, let's be honest. I wouldn't say that's doing nothing. They weren't favored in any series really either. Yet they should of beat the Suns and Brand went INSANE that series on both ends. PS .. Brand wasn't an elite defender all the time, but at his peak he was an underrated defensive anchor for a 3-4 year stretch. Also he led the NBA in offensive rebounds in his prime with about 4 per game as a 6'8 PF. I absolutely wouldn't say him and Webber are a wash on the glass.

So Brand was a more efficient scorer (similar volume), way better defender, better rebounder. The only thing Webber had was he was a legendary passer. Is passing from bigs more important than defense, rebounding and efficiency?

Sure Webber was more versatile and talented, he also didn't maximize his potential, Brand did. Also let's not disregard that Brand's midrange in his few year peak shits on Webber. Look at the shot chart again. Around 05+ he became a lights out, super high volume pick and pop guy. He stopped banging down low as much.

[Smoke117]

I’m fairly sure that if you call the Kings in 2002 and offer Brand for Webber they would have called in a drone strike on your facility. I’m aware of what all of those numbers you posted mean I just....don’t concern myself with them. Brand was second in win shares in 2002. I don’t need to say the names he’s ahead of to make that point I’m sure. I must have seen him play 70 times or so for the Bulls the very year before that....I can’t take him over Webber because of a calculator. The passing alone?



https://youtu.be/CfQ23mWBxwk


Webber would have 3 entries on Elton Brands career top 20 passes in that random game nobody remembers.

Elton could play d but it’s not like he was some kinda team D making anchor. He was another of the young talented knuckleheads not really doing anything that mattered back then. And the rebounding is pretty meh. That comes down to team need in many cases. Webber led the nba in rebounding one year on the Kings so it’s not like he couldn’t.

Pretty solid talent gap there considering that Webber was a god level athlete for a 4 and was more skilled overall.

Brand was really good. Like Bosh or Jermaine O’Neal....Vin Baker....Larry Johnson...um....Mcdyess. He wasn’t that Duncan/KG/Dirk tier and I’d say Webber bridged that gap nicely. That slot between the tiers where you could probably put Mchale too depending on the season.

Elton was comfortably on tier 2 or 3. Webber was caught between 2 and 1 depending on who you asked and when. Webber or KG wouldn’t have been considered unreasonable to ask in 2002.

As with most things we see it differently in retrospect and toss in a lot of new standards but the people watching at the time would have been pretty comfortable with a Webber/Dirk/Kg discussion and I wouldn’t put Brand over that 01-03 run of any of those guys.

Maybe get dramatic and talk about how terrible young Dirk was on defense but....03 Brand makes those Mavs worse I’d say. He doesn’t fit the style the mavs or Kings played some maybe it’s an unfair comparison but still....


I don’t think he steps in for those guys.

Webber had to chuck up a lot of shots to get his points. He was never anything special as a scorer, but he thought he was. When he was averaging 27ppg he was chucking up 23 shot attempts. That's awful. The only thing he had on Elton Brand is passing.

[Kblaze8855]

And ball handling....attacking off the face up...while being an all time elite big man athlete. He was quicker, faster, a more explosive player in general and more coordinated. Brand wasn’t physically capable of being Webber. This wouldn’t be a serious discussion in his prime and there’s no reason to make it one 15-20 years later. I can’t think of a single decades later argument in the face of the opinion of the time that’s more accurate. It’s always shit like Reggie being considered great or Adrian Dantley actually being better than bird. Real similar to this actually. We love using numbers decades later to act like people didn’t know what they were seeing at the time. I kinda wanna find the Dantley arguments. I had to bail on those.

[Kblaze8855]

This kinda shit here:



80-86 Adrian Dantley vs 80-86 Larry Bird offensively (https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/agx7mb/8086_adrian_dantley_vs_8086_larry_bird_offensively/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_title)​
Dantley: 24.1 PER, 63.2% TS, .205 WS/48, 6.2 OBPM
​
Bird: 23.4 PER, .558% TS, .210 WS/48, 4.4 OBPM
​
Does Bird have any case here? Considering Dantley's far higher OBPM, much higher TS, and much better OBPM?
​



Discuss.


I have to stay out of those conversations.....


The history rewriting kills me.

[Whoah10115]

This is a great discussion but theyre are like 6 different topics lol.

Hakeem was crazy talented, but started playing late, and had Sampson for a couple years, whereas as Duncan had an elite Admiral for only one.

I see some similarities in their post game, but with Hakeem having more counters and Duncan having a more traditional big man post game. Both had finesse, both were strong and could handle the ball. Duncan had more polish and Hakeem was more raw yet more..if not refined, then more cultivated. He had silk and variety. Duncan, like Ewing, would just carry the offense early on, slowing it down and working tirelessly.