Recently, Chris Fender tried to make the argument that Hakeem was the last NBA player to win a title by himself. When he was forced to admit that he was wrong, he tried to argue that Duncan had the advantage because Duncan had Popovich as a coach. My contention is this:
Fender is dumb and cannot research his childhood memories. Not only did Hakeem not win the title alone, he shouldn’t have won it at all. He was a fluke.
First, let’s encapsulate Duncan’s 2003 run. He had a 20 year old Tony Parker (who routinely lost crunch time minutes to Speedy Claxton. Yeah, Speedy Claxton). A rookie Manu Ginobili who hurt his ankle halfway through the season and averaged 7.6 ppg on the season. David Robinson who had already admitted he was retiring at years end (and averaged a dominant 9 and 8 that year). Know who the three and four scorers on this team were? Stephen Jackson and Malik Rose. Yeah.
Their playoff run started with a Suns team that featured a young Amare, Joe Johnson, and Marion (and a still sane Marbury who would give them 22 and 8 on the season), though in all honesty, they were 2 years and a rat-faced point guard away from being good. A lucky, banked-in three at the buzzer was the only reason it went six. However, after that was the three-time defending champs in the form of the LA Lakers (who the spurs crushed in LA in game 6). Then came the Dallas Mavericks featuring Steve Nash, Nowitzki, and Michael Finley before he died. The finals featured Ason Kidd, and while that team was a let-down after the previous two, many people had clamored for him to win the MVP over Duncan, which made Timmy’s 21-20-10-8 that much more fun. Point being, check the opponents. Duncan went through two legit teams, including the Shaq-Kobe grouping.
Now, let’s look at Hakeem. His team is an interesting comparison to Duncan’s 2003 in that it featured young guys who we all (NOW) remember as pretty great (Robert Horry and Sam Cassell) and some aging vets. The Rockets also featured 3 other players averaging more than 10 points aside from their centerpiece. Otis Thorpe even managed to average a double double (14/11) for the season. In the two comparable seasons, the talent was similar around them.
However, when we get to the playoffs, the vast, vast difference in what the 2 accomplished becomes blatant.
As much as the suns were a year away, the Trailblazers were just terrible. Remember Clifford Robinson? He led the team in scoring at 20.1 points a game. Harvey Grant was the only player to average more than 7 rebounds a game. In a weird note, he was also the highest paid player on the team (WTF Fender!). And the coach was playoff guru Rick Adelman. I would say this team was actually worse than that suns team. Though it’s close.
The next round brought on the defending conference champion Phoenix Suns. Still a very potent team, featuring Sir Charles, Kevin Johnson, and Cedric Ceballos (19.1ppg), not to mention Thunder Dan Majerle. This was a team that led the league in scoring (though they were 14/27 in points given up, technically putting them in the bottom half of the league). Point being, this was a very legitimate team. However, there are two points to make here:
The first point is that the Suns chocked this series away. They went into Houston and won the first two games, only to go home and lose two and then game five in Houston. They won game 6, but then lost game 7 for a very simple reason: teams that live and die by the jump shot ultimately die by the jump shot (a lesson Phoenix would forget). In game 7, Thunder Dan Majerle shot 3 of 11, Sir Charles was 9/19, and Kevin Johnson shot a gentlemen’s 9 for 22. Hakeem finished with 37 points on 33 shots, 17 boards, and 5 assists. Seeing as how he only had three blocks, that must mean that the big 3 for Phoenix managed to miss 28 shots all by themselves. In face the Suns as a whole missed 50 shots and shot 39.8%. Hakeem was good, but this wasn’t a one man win (especially since Sam Cassell chipped in 22), it was a three man failure.
The second point to remember is that while this suns team was good, it was not the defending champ. The Lakers were. And Timmy beat them in 6 games, not seven. For comparisons sake, Timmy had 37 points on 25 shots (giggle), 16 rebounds, and 4 assists. So again, I would give the edge to Duncan’s accomplishment over Hakeem’s.
Next came the Utah Jazz. Another team that was simply a couple years away and would get their revenge later (again mirroring Dallas who would eventually defeat San Antonio en route to a finals loss. The difference of course is that Timmy avenged that and won another title, unlike Hakeem). However, one man wins? In game one Hakeem outscored Kenny the Jet by 4 points. It took him 6 more shots. Oh yeah, he had 6 rebounds in 44 minutes. Game 2 was a 41-13, so no complaints there. Game 3 was a 29-13. Game 4, however, was a 16-9 (on 6-18 shooting). And game 5 was a 22-10 that saw Robert Horry score as many points as Hakeem.
To be fair, against the Mavericks Timmy had a 40-15 game one (on 20 shots(giggle)), a 32-15 game 2, a 34-24 game 3, a 21-20 game 4, a 23-15 game 5, and 18-11 in the clincher. Again , huge edge Timmy.
Finally, we come to what truly separates these two men from the losers we’ve brushed over already (Malone, Barkley, the city of Portland). Their MVP performances in the Finals.
I won’t bother defending Timmy’s performance. I’ll simply post this link, and this line:
21-20-10-8.
Here’s the problem. That finals that made Hakeem a winner? The wrong team won.
Okay, not really. Both teams took the court and played their hearts out and blah blah. However, the Rockets winning was a gigantic fluke. Everyone knows the story. John Starks shot 2-18, including 0-11 from 3. John Starks took 5.7 threes a game that year. He hit at 33.5% that year, so even if you prorate that, that’s 3-11 and the Knicks win. John Starks shot 42% from the field that year. The sad thing is, John Starks never recovered. His ppg dropped from 19 that year to 15.3 the next to 12.6 the next. This was the greatest individual failure in NBA history, comparable to tragic events such as Norwood and Mitch Williams. Hakeem didn’t win the title, he was the lucky beneficiary of the greatest meltdown in NBA finals history. When someone loses the title, which is what Starks and Riley (who let him keep playing) did, somebody has to be lucky enough to win it. Right time, right place.
And that’s ultimately the difference between Duncan and Hakeem. Hakeem got lucky. Starks shoots 2-11, it’s tied at the end. He shoots 3-11, Ewing has a ring. You cannot say that about Duncan. He won every series decisively. 15 years later, isn’t that what that game 7 is truly remembered for? Starks’ failure? Nobody remembers what Hakeem did. Because he didn’t define the game. Someone else did. He just got a pretty ring for all of it. You cannot say that about Duncan. There is no series he should have lost. There is no moment that could have changed that playoff run and taken away his ring.
Well, except for Horry’s shot…
And Nowitzki’s injury…
Then again, did I mention Jordan’s retirement?
PS: in my research I have discovered that Kenyon Martin shot 3-23 in the final game of the 2003 finals. This is totally different than Starks for two reasons:
1. Timmy was guarding Martin and thus should even get extra credit. No wonder he had 8 blocks...
2. Hakeem was not guarding Starks. Especially out at the 3 point line where he was 0-11. I award him no points for this and may god have mercy on his soul.
PPS: in that link I posted where Duncan is rated 3rd best all time, the 1994 Hakeem is rated 5. I feel vindicated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment