2003 Tim Duncan vs 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon. Which player had a better supporting cast?

[1987_Lakers]

Hakeem
Otis Thorpe
Vernon Maxwell (It's amazing how this guy took over 5 three pointer a game and only made 30% of them. )
Kenny Smith
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell
Mario Elie

Tim Duncan
Tony Parker (Young & inconsistent Parker)
Stephen Jackson
Malik Rose
David Robinson (In his last season)
Manu Ginobili (Young)
Bruce Bowen

[ShaqAttack3234]

Relative to the teams they faced, Duncan definitely had more help in the playoffs.

[KG5MVP]

when you look at it, duncan's cast in 2003 is actually not that bad

[Dripac]

when you look at it, duncan's cast in 2003 is actually not that bad

It's not better than Olajuwon's in my opinion

[SCdac]

Duncan probably had more help. Spurs always share the ball and play as a team, and had a deep team that season - deeper than the 2005 championship team IMO. However I wouldn't equate "having more help" with being less valuable, at least not in this case. Stephen Jackson, Tony Parker, and crew, were nothing but wild cards at that point - good enough to put up big games but not good enough to carry the team (on both ends) the way Duncan did on most every night... Both Duncan and Hakeem averaged a whopping and necessary 42.5 MPG and 43.0 MPG in the playoffs, respectively. So it's not like the casts for these HOF players had to be ultra-stacked, just had to be reliable, clutch, etc. The Rockets and Spurs could win a playoff game with their best player putting up under 20, and they could also lose games with them putting up over 30, so in the end I'm not sure how much it matters who had more or less support. Both players had a really high Usage percentage (28.0-31.4%).

[Ne 1]

People always look at both teams and say they carried their teams to a title without any help because neither team had a great "#2 option", but I actually think they were both well rounded teams with solid role players.

To answer your question I would say Duncan had the better overall cast.

[ginobli2311]

Relative to the teams they faced, Duncan definitely had more help in the playoffs.

this.


the rockets faced tougher teams really....not counting the lakers of course. although the lakers were hardly a great team that year. they should have been, but team mutiny destroyed them.

[D.J.]

Duncan had more help and especially on a more consistent basis. The Spurs were a team that shared the ball, played great team defense, and showed up ready for war every night. The problem with that '94 Rockets team is although they were probably more talented than the '03 Spurs, they were not nearly as consistent or reliable. The Rockets nearly lost to the Knicks because of Vernon Maxwell. The first six games, John Starks SHUT HIM DOWN.

[Shep]

olajuwon

[ShaqAttack3234]

this.


the rockets faced tougher teams really....not counting the lakers of course. although the lakers were hardly a great team that year. they should have been, but team mutiny destroyed them.

Yeah, and I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Tim got more 20+ point performances from a variety of guys, and it wasn't uncommon for a Spur besides Duncan to lead them in scoring during that run and atleast as good of a defensive cast, particularly Bowen whose defense on Kobe was extremely important in the '03 semifinals.

The '94 Blazers were more talented than the '03 Suns and I feel the '94 Suns were better than the '03 Lakers. The Suns had Barkley, KJ, Dan Majerle, AC Green and Cedric Ceballos. And while the '03 Mavs were talented, Dirk got injured in game 3 and missed the final 3 games so the '94 Jazz were a tougher opponent. The biggest disparity is the finals too. The '94 Knicks were much more formidable than the '03 Nets.

Both had all-time great seasons, but Duncan had more help, particularly when you consider the teams they faced. Olajuwon had less help relative to his playoff opponents that year than any champion I can think of with the exception of maybe Rick Barry in '75.

[SCdac]

Yeah, and I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Tim got more 20+ point performances from a variety of guys, and it wasn't uncommon for a Spur besides Duncan to lead them in scoring during that run and atleast as good of a defensive cast, particularly Bowen whose defense on Kobe was extremely important in the '03 semifinals.

The '94 Blazers were more talented than the '03 Suns and I feel the '94 Suns were better than the '03 Lakers. The Suns had Barkley, KJ, Dan Majerle, AC Green and Cedric Ceballos. And while the '03 Mavs were talented, Dirk got injured in game 3 and missed the final 3 games so the '94 Jazz were a tougher opponent. The biggest disparity is the finals too. The '94 Knicks were much more formidable than the '03 Nets.

Both had all-time great seasons, but Duncan had more help, particularly when you consider the teams they faced. Olajuwon had less help relative to his playoff opponents that year than any champion I can think of with the exception of maybe Rick Barry in '75.

I don't understand how competition plays a significant role in factoring who had the better supporting cast. Not to mention how subject it is. It's not like the 03 Lakers were anything to scoff at, and it's not like the Spurs weren't playing the best teams in the league at the time, just because those teams don't hold up to past greats. Regardless, you're teammates don't necessarily become more or less relevant depending on the opponent's 'caliber' of play. By that logic, if the Rocket's playoff competition was indeed tougher (and I'm not saying it wasn't - I remember those days), shouldn't Hakeem's teammates (Robert Horry, Mario Ellie, Cassell, etc) also be credited as better, because they went through such strong competition? You look at the Rockets roster and you had 4 guys (almost 5) outside Hakeem who were giving you at least 3 dimes a night, and some generally clutch players (wasn't called "clutch city" for no reason)... Are 7 blocked shots against a "weak" team inferior to 7 blocked shots against a "strong" team? I don't think so. That's the same line of thinking that people use to bring down Dwight Howard, because he's playing in this era and not another. I think about it like this, were the 2007 Cavs swept in the Finals because they were really bad, or because the Spurs were really dominant? Should we hold it against the Spurs for going up against "weak competition", or were they weak because Spurs caused them to be with choke-hold-defense? I think the Spurs, especially on this board, get the short end of the stick on that, and not enough credit for being one of the best defensive, and most dominant, teams ever, lead by Duncan of course. I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment, surely Dirk missing games was a factor, and there have been better Finals teams than the 03 Nets when you look at it retrospectively, but had the teams been any "tougher" it wouldn't have changed how I view about the Spurs roster from top to bottom. If anything, we'd probably see less role players, more Duncan domination. No doubt he was the Spurs best play maker at the time, lead the Spurs in assists and points by a nice sized margin.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't understand how competition plays a significant role in factoring who had the better supporting cast. Not to mention how subject it is. It's not like the 03 Lakers were anything to scoff at, and it's not like the Spurs weren't playing the best teams in the league at the time, just because those teams don't hold up to past greats. Regardless, you're teammates don't necessarily become more or less relevant depending on the opponent's 'caliber' of play. By that logic, if the Rocket's playoff competition was indeed tougher (and I'm not saying it wasn't - I remember those days), shouldn't Hakeem's teammates (Robert Horry, Mario Ellie, Cassell, etc) also be credited as better, because they went through such strong competition? You look at the Rockets roster and you had 4 guys (almost 5) outside Hakeem who were giving you at least 3 dimes a night, and some generally clutch players (wasn't called "clutch city" for no reason)... Are 7 blocked shots against a "weak" team inferior to 7 blocked shots against a "strong" team? I don't think so. That's the same line of thinking that people use to bring down Dwight Howard, because he's playing in this era and not another. I think about it like this, were the 2007 Cavs swept in the Finals because they were really bad, or because the Spurs were really dominant? Should we hold it against the Spurs for going up against "weak competition", or were they weak because Spurs caused them to be with choke-hold-defense? I think the Spurs, especially on this board, get the short end of the stick on that, and not enough credit for being one of the best defensive, and most dominant, teams ever, lead by Duncan of course. I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment, surely Dirk missing games was a factor, and there have been better Finals teams than the 03 Nets when you look at it retrospectively, but had the teams been any "tougher" it wouldn't have changed how I view about the Spurs roster from top to bottom. If anything, we'd probably see less role players, more Duncan domination. No doubt he was the Spurs best play maker at the time, lead the Spurs in assists and points by a nice sized margin.

Better supporting cast is relative. To me, it's pretty pointless without mentioning what was considered a good supporting cast at the time. It's like saying that Magic and Bird had more help than Shaq, Kobe and Duncan when they won titles and then citing their teammates without mentioning how loaded the teams were that Magic and Bird faced.

It doesn't mean that a team's titles should count more or less because you're still the best of your era regardless. Just like if someone was comparing someone's stats from 1990 to Duncan's in '03 I'd mention that individual stats were lower in '03 due to it being a slower-paced, more defensive-minded era.

Regardless of era, I think both casts on paper are similar in talent. Both had some solid defenders and role players who hit clutch shot. Both teams obviously relied on Duncan and Hakeem to anchor the defenses. The difference is that Duncan ended up having more help offensively because he had teammates go for 20+ more often and he didn't have to lead the team in scoring as much.

[Pinkhearts]

George Mikan has a crappy supporting cast consisting of puny short white players. Compared to Hakeem and Duncan's teams, Mikan's team are amateurs. Yet that didn't stop Mikan from dominating the league.

Mikan has to be the greatest player of all time.

[Harison]

Duncan had a bit better teammates and weaker opponents.

[ginobli2311]

Better supporting cast is relative. To me, it's pretty pointless without mentioning what was considered a good supporting cast at the time. It's like saying that Magic and Bird had more help than Shaq, Kobe and Duncan when they won titles and then citing their teammates without mentioning how loaded the teams were that Magic and Bird faced.

It doesn't mean that a team's titles should count more or less because you're still the best of your era regardless. Just like if someone was comparing someone's stats from 1990 to Duncan's in '03 I'd mention that individual stats were lower in '03 due to it being a slower-paced, more defensive-minded era.

Regardless of era, I think both casts on paper are similar in talent. Both had some solid defenders and role players who hit clutch shot. Both teams obviously relied on Duncan and Hakeem to anchor the defenses. The difference is that Duncan ended up having more help offensively because he had teammates go for 20+ more often and he didn't have to lead the team in scoring as much.

bingo. you have to delve deeply into this stuff to come to the right conclusion. of course competition strength matters a lot. in my study of the nba....i can only think of barry/hakeem/duncan winning with this kind of help. i still say hakeem's in 94 was the most impressive. the 94 suns were amazing. they had everything needed to win a title. hakeem was just too damn good.

i mean. 37 points 17 boards 5 assists and elite defense in game 7....now that is some all time great stuff.