Robert Horry: Hakeem Olajuwon was 20 times better than Tim Duncan

[Lebron23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZpVlMVYr-A

[Lebron23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2AxB1GpU24

[pandiani17]

I am not that sure. Duncan is the GOAT PF, had the perfect skill-set on offense and was very good on defense. Definitely not 20 times worse than Hakeem.:roll:

[90sgoat]

Definitely not 10 times better, but yeah, had a significantly higher peak, but Duncan adapted better and relied less on athleticism, so he had the longer, better career.

Peak wise, say best 3 years, then not a lot of people beat Hakeem though.

[John8204]

Hakeem was really good...but Duncan was more successful.

[Akeem34TheDream]

I'd say they were close to an equal.

[1987_Lakers]

Horry has been saying this for over a decade.

Peak: Hakeem
Career: Duncan

[WhiteKyrie]

Obviously. Duncan was a Center not a PF

[Round Mound]

Not 20 times better but better yeah...

[tpols]

Pierce checked him on that Hakeem only won with Jordan out though... :oldlol:

In the words of Rasheed "Ball don't lie."

That's basketball karma scripture
..

[1987_Lakers]

Pierce checked him on that Hakeem only won with Jordan out though... :oldlol:

In the words of Rasheed "Ball don't lie."

That's basketball karma scripture
..

Except, Hakeem did win a championship with MJ in the league in '95.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Pretty equal comparison if you ask me

[kawhileonard2]

Horry has been saying this for over a decade.

Peak: Hakeem
Career: Duncan

This

[Phoenix]

Hakeem peaked higher, I don't think the Spurs win 5 titles with him though (people forget he was a bit of a malcontent in the early 90s before his run). Duncan was a better culture setter.

[HoopsNY]

Hakeem peaked higher, I don't think the Spurs win 5 titles with him though (people forget he was a bit of a malcontent in the early 90s before his run). Duncan was a better culture setter.

We saw how well Hakeem did under Rudy T, but he wouldn't under the Pop system that thrived off of defense and ball movement? Hakeem probably peaks earlier under that system, and his peak is notably better than Duncan's. So, you do the math.

[Phoenix]

We saw how well Hakeem did under Rudy T, but he wouldn't under the Pop system that thrived off of defense and ball movement? Hakeem probably peaks earlier under that system, and his peak is notably better than Duncan's. So, you do the math.

Reread my post. I said Hakeem peaked higher and in a vacuum I think was the better player on both sides( more dominant scorer, more versatile defender). Culture and chemistry was the meat of my post, not peaks, talent and ability. The bolded is a big part of building a dynasty framework and again, Hakeekm in the early 90's was a malcontent prior to converting to the Muslim faith. If that same trajectory occurs with him on the Spurs, I don't think the same level of success is achieved. We have no idea if Hakeem takes to Pop and that framework to produce identical results. Duncan has bookend titles as early as 23 years old in 1999, and as old as 37 on that 2014 team where he was still a 15/10 guy with all-defensive level ability. Hakeem at 37 was a 12/7 roleplayer. Now, if you give peak Hakeem Manu and Parker, can that core produce titles? Obviously.

So, the math tells me the best case scenario is Hakeem replicates the same level of mid career success but probably doesn't win the early and late career titles. This is assuming you're merely plopping Hakeem as we knew him into the Spurs system in 97, or speculating that under said system he develops completely differently. Which is entirely possible, but is spending extraordinary time pissing in the wind on that level of speculation worth it? I'd say no, personally. You're generally nuanced enough in your takes to know that winning titles, especially multiple titles across the spectrum of a decade, requires more than talent and ability. We have an example of that at this very moment with the Warriors. Was this Warriors team their most talented version, or the most talented team this year in general? No and no. Take Steph off that team and substitite Durant. Is he building the kind of culture/leadership that gets to 6 finals in 8 seasons and wins 4? Nope, and it's not because he's a 'lesser' player int terms of talent and ability.

[plowking]

I mean Horry right there is an example of why players opinions suck at times.

"Who would you rather have taking the last free throw? Hakeem at 85% or Duncan at 70%?"

lol... Duncan actually peaked higher, and the difference is Duncan 70% and Hakeem 71%.

Players don't know shit at times, and go off narrative more so than the fans and media though.

[Shooter]

pRos kNoW mOre tHeY pLayeD tHe gAmE :lol

This is why they can't be taken seriously most of the time.

Nobody is twenty times better than Duncan. Literally nobody.

[Shooter]

Except, Hakeem did win a championship with MJ in the league in '95.

:roll: Gottem

2 ez

[HoopsNY]

Reread my post. I said Hakeem peaked higher and in a vacuum I think was the better player on both sides( more dominant scorer, more versatile defender). Culture and chemistry was the meat of my post, not peaks, talent and ability. The bolded is a big part of building a dynasty framework and again, Hakeekm in the early 90's was a malcontent prior to converting to the Muslim faith. If that same trajectory occurs with him on the Spurs, I don't think the same level of success is achieved. We have no idea if Hakeem takes to Pop and that framework to produce identical results. Duncan has bookend titles as early as 23 years old in 1999, and as old as 37 on that 2014 team where he was still a 15/10 guy with all-defensive level ability. Hakeem at 37 was a 12/7 roleplayer. Now, if you give peak Hakeem Manu and Parker, can that core produce titles? Obviously.

So, the math tells me the best case scenario is Hakeem replicates the same level of mid career success but probably doesn't win the early and late career titles. This is assuming you're merely plopping Hakeem as we knew him into the Spurs system in 97, or speculating that under said system he develops completely differently. Which is entirely possible, but is spending extraordinary time pissing in the wind on that level of speculation worth it? I'd say no, personally. You're generally nuanced enough in your takes to know that winning titles, especially multiple titles across the spectrum of a decade, requires more than talent and ability. We have an example of that at this very moment with the Warriors. Was this Warriors team their most talented version, or the most talented team this year in general? No and no. Take Steph off that team and substitite Durant. Is he building the kind of culture/leadership that gets to 6 finals in 8 seasons and wins 4? Nope, and it's not because he's a 'lesser' player int terms of talent and ability.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. You're spot on about Hakeem's late career numbers and that if we do a plug and play, it doesn't work out in his favor, but that wasn't the premise of my response to you.

My point is if Hakeem has someone like Pop early on, then what is the eventual outcome? Intuition tells me, based on how well he adapted under Rudy T, that Hakeem probably develops just as well under Pop, if not more. And that, combined with his notably better peak, leads me to believe he experiences more success early on and during his mid years.

So while Duncan won at 37, and Hakeem doesn't, what was he doing at Hakeem's peak aged years, namely ages 30-32. Duncan won in 2007, and Hakeem probably does too. But look at Duncan at 31 and 32 when Hakeem was winning titles at the same age. Does SAS win in 2008 and 2009? We don't really know, but it is possible.

Duncan PS '08-'09: 20/13/3/1/2 on 47%
Hakeem PS '94-'95: 31/11/4/2/3 on 53%

I think Hakeem wins in 2008 and 2009, in addition to previous titles of 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007. But they probably lose in 2014.

[Thenameless]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. You're spot on about Hakeem's late career numbers and that if we do a plug and play, it doesn't work out in his favor, but that wasn't the premise of my response to you.

My point is if Hakeem has someone like Pop early on, then what is the eventual outcome? Intuition tells me, based on how well he adapted under Rudy T, that Hakeem probably develops just as well under Pop, if not more. And that, combined with his notably better peak, leads me to believe he experiences more success early on and during his mid years.

So while Duncan won at 37, and Hakeem doesn't, what was he doing at Hakeem's peak aged years, namely ages 30-32. Duncan won in 2007, and Hakeem probably does too. But look at Duncan at 31 and 32 when Hakeem was winning titles at the same age. Does SAS win in 2008 and 2009? We don't really know, but it is possible.

Duncan PS '08-'09: 20/13/3/1/2 on 47%
Hakeem PS '94-'95: 31/11/4/2/3 on 53%

I think Hakeem wins in 2008 and 2009, in addition to previous titles of 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007. But they probably lose in 2014.

2008 was the Celtics Big 3 year. That will not be easy. We don't know how well he'd handle Ray Allen bombing away with 3's.

2009 was also a very strong Lakers year. He'd be up against two true 7-footers in Bynum and Gasol, and another very versatile big in 6'10" Odom. World Peace for defense and physicality. We haven't mentioned Kobe yet, almost at his very best still.

[Phoenix]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. You're spot on about Hakeem's late career numbers and that if we do a plug and play, it doesn't work out in his favor, but that wasn't the premise of my response to you.

My point is if Hakeem has someone like Pop early on, then what is the eventual outcome? Intuition tells me, based on how well he adapted under Rudy T, that Hakeem probably develops just as well under Pop, if not more. And that, combined with his notably better peak, leads me to believe he experiences more success early on and during his mid years.

So while Duncan won at 37, and Hakeem doesn't, what was he doing at Hakeem's peak aged years, namely ages 30-32. Duncan won in 2007, and Hakeem probably does too. But look at Duncan at 31 and 32 when Hakeem was winning titles at the same age. Does SAS win in 2008 and 2009? We don't really know, but it is possible.

Duncan PS '08-'09: 20/13/3/1/2 on 47%
Hakeem PS '94-'95: 31/11/4/2/3 on 53%

I think Hakeem wins in 2008 and 2009, in addition to previous titles of 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007. But they probably lose in 2014.

We honestly don't know ( at least I don't), and that's where I say it's probably not worth spending much energy heavily speculating on. I did get the crux of your point regarding Poppvich getting his hooks into Dream early. I'm saying we really have no way of knowing whether Poppovich reins him in or not. Duncan was pretty much the definition of a selfless superstar and very coachable by all accounts.

The version of Hakeem we most fondly remember in the early-mid 90s and we're saying that guy wins a bunch of titles, wasn't always that guy. In general though, these kinds of player swaps mean so much more than just trading the skills of one player for another.

[HoopsNY]

2008 was the Celtics Big 3 year. That will not be easy. We don't know how well he'd handle Ray Allen bombing away with 3's.

2009 was also a very strong Lakers year. He'd be up against two true 7-footers in Bynum and Gasol, and another very versatile big in 6'10" Odom. World Peace for defense and physicality. We haven't mentioned Kobe yet, almost at his very best still.

Yea, you have a good point, though I still think the chance remains high. I mean, Duncan in the Lakers series put up 22 PPG on 42% shooting. I don't think Hakeem does that. In the elimination game he gave 19 points on 37% shooting. Again, I don't think Hakeem does that.

And yea, Bynum/Gasol were good, but defensively how do they stand against duos like Ewing/Oakley, Robinson/Rodman, and Shaq/Grant. All those guys were elite defensive players and DPOY status for some of them.

And Bynum didn't play in the playoffs in 2008. In 2009, he played 23 minutes a game and put up 6 points, 3 rebounds, on 46% in the playoffs. Sorry but, I'll take my chances with Hakeem.

[HoopsNY]

We honestly don't know ( at least I don't), and that's where I say it's probably not worth spending much energy heavily speculating on. Hakeem wasn't the greatest teammate at one point, and we really have no way of knowing whether Poppovich reins him in or not. The version of Hakeem we most fondly remember in the early-mid 90s and we're saying that guy wins a bunch of titles, wasn't always that guy.

We agree to disagree here. My point, though, is that given how well he did once he had a great coach in Rudy T is a testimony to how he could thrive under the right coach and system. Greg Popovich is one of, if not the greatest, coaches of all time. I think it's a fair point at the very least.

[Phoenix]

We agree to disagree here. My point, though, is that given how well he did once he had a great coach in Rudy T is a testimony to how he could thrive under the right coach and system. Greg Popovich is one of, if not the greatest, coaches of all time. I think it's a fair point at the very least.

It's not an unfair point, and I'm not sure if it's even something to agree to disagree on. Its just like....you either think Hakeem adapts fine or he doesn't. I'm simply saying I'm not taking a position on that particular point one way or another. It's much easier to slide them in and out on the basis of skillsets. The thing is, Rudy took over as coach in 1992, by that point Hakeem was already maturing into the player we most remember. We don't know what Rudy does with young Akeem.

[jayfan]

I mean Horry right there is an example of why players opinions suck at times.

"Who would you rather have taking the last free throw? Hakeem at 85% or Duncan at 70%?"

lol... Duncan actually peaked higher, and the difference is Duncan 70% and Hakeem 71%.

Players don't know shit at times, and go off narrative more so than the fans and media though.


Going off narrative? He was a teammate of both players. Won rings with both players. He's going off first hand experience, not narrative.


.

[jayfan]

Do the Spurs still win their championships with prime Hakeem in place of Duncan? Yes.

Do the Rockets still win their championships with prime Duncan in place of Hakeem? No.


.

[Nowitness]

Not even close, bar a 2 year anomaly in which MJ was swinging at curveballs and the 3 point line shortened Hakeem rarely was able to turn his individual dominance into post season success.

The same people who claim Hakeem carried scrubs to a title are the same ones who claim he couldn't beat Mavs teams led by Rolando Blackman and Derek Harper or Sonics teams led by Xavier McDaniels and Tom Chambers because, he played with scrubs. Over half a decade straight before he found Islam of first round losses and missed playoffs during his age 25-30 seasons.

The Heat in 93 refused to trade Rony Seikaly for Hakeem :oldlol:

Duncan didn't care about his stats and still routinely outplayed his teammates on the way to victory. His intangables, leadership, IQ and ability to raise his game separates him from Hakeem.

Duncan is the 4th greatest player ever, Hakeem 11th.

Horry still salty Duncan didn't accept him into the SA crop.

[Nowitness]

Do the Spurs still win their championships with prime Hakeem in place of Duncan? Yes.

Do the Rockets still win their championships with prime Duncan in place of Hakeem? No.


.

Not sure you've looked into what Duncan did in 03. Still the highest VORP and Win Shares for a playoff run ever, without an All-Star teammate beat 6 current All-NBA players.

[ShawkFactory]

Are we absolutely sure that Hakeem peaked that much higher? If we’re just looking at PPG and blocks maybe.

Peak Duncan was an almost perfect big though with all the little things he did on top of the numbers.

[Charlie Sheen]

Horry was a 5 time champion and well established in the league by the time he got to san antonio. By that stage of his career there isn't much that's going to impress him the same way that it did when he was early in his career trying to find his place in the league. That has to influence his perspective of the two.

[jayfan]

Horry was a 5 time champion and well established in the league by the time he got to san antonio. By that stage of his career there isn't much that's going to impress him the same way that it did when he was early in his career trying to find his place in the league. That has to influence his perspective of the two.

It's not as if Horry was a 5 time champ before he saw Duncan play for the first time.

He played against Duncan every year, many times per year, from the start of his career.


.

[Charlie Sheen]

It's not as if Horry was a 5 time champ before he saw Duncan play for the first time.

He played against Duncan every year, many times per year, from the start of his career.


.

In the video Horry supports the 20 times better statement by saying he played with both and knows the work ethic of both. He's specifically pointing to the time he spent as a teammate.

[Shogon]

pRos kNoW mOre tHeY pLayeD tHe gAmE :lol

This is why they can't be taken seriously most of the time.

Nobody is twenty times better than Duncan. Literally nobody.

This post is 100% correct through and through.

In fact, nobody in NBA history has even been twice as good as Tim Duncan was, let alone 5x, 10x, and heaven forbid someone say something as stupid as 20x, etc. Literally nobody. Not one single person has ever been that good.

Can you imagine how good a player would have to be to be twice as good as any top 10 player? lol.

And I just can't get over it... no matter how many stupid things players say, even really good players such as Horry... no matter how many stupid things they say, people want to act like what players say is gospel. Newsflash... no.

[rmt]

A few thoughts:

1. I agree with previous post about Horry playing with Hakeem early in his career - much more impressionable than as a blasé veteran. Also played with each in Hakeem’s MVP year as opposed to past Duncan’s MVP years when Pop started minute restrictions.

2. Everyone talks about Hakeem developing under Pop - what about the other way around. Pop was not some experienced GOAT coach early on - he developed into that - and I would say much later with the ball movement (2010s) - does Pop develop into a GOAT level coach with Hakeem?

3. Personally, this switching out of peaks/skills is limited - what about the intangibles, the personality/ego/culture that allowed others to thrive. To me, I look at the totality of career - isn’t that what GOAT is about? And total career - I think Duncan is ahead of Hakeem.

4. Free throws? 20x better? Exaggeration much?

[jayfan]

A few thoughts:

1. I agree with previous post about Horry playing with Hakeem early in his career - much more impressionable than as a blasé veteran. Also played with each in Hakeem’s MVP year as opposed to past Duncan’s MVP years when Pop started minute restrictions.

2. Everyone talks about Hakeem developing under Pop - what about the other way around. Pop was not some experienced GOAT coach early on - he developed into that - and I would say much later with the ball movement (2010s) - does Pop develop into a GOAT level coach with Hakeem?

3. Personally, this switching out of peaks/skills is limited - what about the intangibles, the personality/ego/culture that allowed others to thrive. To me, I look at the totality of career - isn’t that what GOAT is about? And total career - I think Duncan is ahead of Hakeem.

4. Free throws? 20x better? Exaggeration much?

Horry said better. Forget the 20x part, that was exaggeration for emphasis. And if you listen to his context, he meant more dominant, more unstoppable. When pressed on the subject, he mentioned better work ethic & free throw shooting, as well. He wasn't saying anything about total career accomplishments/longevity.... That's just the ole Tim Duncan fall-back counter-claim.

[houston]

Duncan better than Hakeem. LOL@ Pop man Spurs was about to fire Pop in the Lockout if the Spurs didn't turn it around. Doc Rivers was going to replace him. Duncan got more all-nba,all-star, all defense more rings and MVPs,All-star MVP, Finals MVP etc....

LOL @ Parker and Manu. They so vital to Duncan but yet they didn't get voted top 75 Annvi. 75.

[Shooter]

This post is 100% correct through and through.

In fact, nobody in NBA history has even been twice as good as Tim Duncan was, let alone 5x, 10x, and heaven forbid someone say something as stupid as 20x, etc. Literally nobody. Not one single person has ever been that good.

Can you imagine how good a player would have to be to be twice as good as any top 10 player? lol.

And I just can't get over it... no matter how many stupid things players say, even really good players such as Horry... no matter how many stupid things they say, people want to act like what players say is gospel. Newsflash... no.

High IQ recognize high IQ :cheers:

[Phoenix]

A few thoughts:

1. I agree with previous post about Horry playing with Hakeem early in his career - much more impressionable than as a blasé veteran. Also played with each in Hakeem’s MVP year as opposed to past Duncan’s MVP years when Pop started minute restrictions.

2. Everyone talks about Hakeem developing under Pop - what about the other way around. Pop was not some experienced GOAT coach early on - he developed into that - and I would say much later with the ball movement (2010s) - does Pop develop into a GOAT level coach with Hakeem?

3. Personally, this switching out of peaks/skills is limited - what about the intangibles, the personality/ego/culture that allowed others to thrive. To me, I look at the totality of career - isn’t that what GOAT is about? And total career - I think Duncan is ahead of Hakeem.

4. Free throws? 20x better? Exaggeration much?

That's the point I was making earlier. To have the kind of multi-decade success that Spurs core had, it goes beyond individual skillsets. Duncan's coachability and selflessness to allow others to shine and make room for Tony taking over the main scoring role leading to Kawhi coming into his own, we can't just automatically assume the exact same thing happens with Hakeem to breed that kind of enduring success. And you have a good point, Pop came into his own WHEN Duncan entered the league, he wasn't some GOAT-tier coach before that. So the jury is out even on how successful HE is swapping Duncan for Hakeem. We tend to do a bit too much plug and play comparisons in this discussions when there's so many more dynamics to consider.

And yes, the idea that anyone is '20 times better' than anyone at this level is the epitome of hyperbole.

[HoopsNY]

Not even close, bar a 2 year anomaly in which MJ was swinging at curveballs and the 3 point line shortened Hakeem rarely was able to turn his individual dominance into post season success.

The same people who claim Hakeem carried scrubs to a title are the same ones who claim he couldn't beat Mavs teams led by Rolando Blackman and Derek Harper or Sonics teams led by Xavier McDaniels and Tom Chambers because, he played with scrubs. Over half a decade straight before he found Islam of first round losses and missed playoffs during his age 25-30 seasons.

The Heat in 93 refused to trade Rony Seikaly for Hakeem :oldlol:

Duncan didn't care about his stats and still routinely outplayed his teammates on the way to victory. His intangables, leadership, IQ and ability to raise his game separates him from Hakeem.

Duncan is the 4th greatest player ever, Hakeem 11th.

Horry still salty Duncan didn't accept him into the SA crop.

Hakeem took that team to a double OT and put up 49/25 with 6 blocks. His cast fell apart when him and Sampson (who fouled out) got into foul trouble and were on the bench.

Reid and Sampson shot 32% for the game, Harris shot 17%. I get it, a player has to impact his teammates, but there is only so much one player can do at the end of the day.

Furthermore, you're still divorcing context from the situation and forgetting that Sampson suffered career ending injuries, and 3 of Hakeem's cast (2 of them starters) got banned due to drug use.

This was a dynasty that never was and a lot of people felt Houston would have been the next dynasty had that team not fallen apart.

[HoopsNY]

That's the point I was making earlier. To have the kind of multi-decade success that Spurs core had, it goes beyond individual skillsets. Duncan's coachability and selflessness to allow others to shine and make room for Tony taking over the main scoring role leading to Kawhi coming into his own, we can't just automatically assume the exact same thing happens with Hakeem to breed that kind of enduring success. And you have a good point, Pop came into his own WHEN Duncan entered the league, he wasn't some GOAT-tier coach before that. So the jury is out even on how successful HE is swapping Duncan for Hakeem. We tend to do a bit too much plug and play comparisons in this discussions when there's so many more dynamics to consider.

And yes, the idea that anyone is '20 times better' than anyone at this level is the epitome of hyperbole.

Pop was an assistant coach for 6 years prior to becoming a head coach in 1997, and the team won 17 games as David Robinson was injured. Pop didn't just become a coach with absolutely no experience. Furthermore, the same could be said about Phil Jackson. Or how about Pat Riley? These guys climbed the ladder and had valuable coaching experience as assistants before ultimately taking over and becoming champions.

[plowking]

Going off narrative? He was a teammate of both players. Won rings with both players. He's going off first hand experience, not narrative.


.

He literally made up that Hakeem was an 85% free throw shooter in that video, because Hakeem is always depicted as this "killer mentality" guy as well. Reality is, him and Duncan were near identical as free throw shooters.

[Phoenix]

Pop was an assistant coach for 6 years prior to becoming a head coach in 1997, and the team won 17 games as David Robinson was injured. Pop didn't just become a coach with absolutely no experience. Furthermore, the same could be said about Phil Jackson. Or how about Pat Riley? These guys climbed the ladder and had valuable coaching experience as assistants before ultimately taking over and becoming champions.

I said he wasn't a GOAT level coach, not that he had no coaching experience whatsoever. I don't see where that is even a debatable point.

And yes, I would and have made the exact same point about Phil Jackson if the conversation was about him and the Bulls ascension.

[HoopsNY]

I said he wasn't a GOAT level coach, not that he had no coaching experience whatsoever. I don't see where that is even a debatable point.

And yes, I would and have made the exact same point about Phil Jackson if the conversation was about him and the Bulls ascension.

Fair enough. I still think Pop would have been a massive improvement vs someone like Don Chaney when things were ultimately at their worst for Hakeem in the Rockets between '88-'92.