[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Duncan averages 21.8, 11.9, and 3.2. Hakeem averages 21.8, 11.1, and 2.5. And thats not even factoring in pace and era.

Hakeem's career PER is 23.6, Duncan's is 25.2.

[/ QUOTE ]

these numbers include Hakeem's last 6 years, where he was no where near as productive as the first 12. FWIW Hakeem's averages through his first 10 seasons are 23.5/12.5/3.6. If Duncan plays 8 more years (which he probably won't, no offense to him, an 18 year career is unreal) his overall numbers will dip well below Hakeem's.

[ QUOTE ]
More titles despite having at best a similar cast over the coures of his career, better stats despite playing on a slower paced team and in a lower scoring era, more awards and honors, better PER....how can you say "i'm not sure how anyone can argue on Duncan's side"?

[/ QUOTE ]

comparing number of titles is a poor way to compare players, and especially here. Hakeem had to compete against the best player and the best team in NBA history, as well as another historically great team (Jazz), while Duncan has not. Stats are slightly in favor of Duncan because he's still in his peak. Comparing peak seasons or first 10 years and it's clear Hakeem's stats are better.

I'll say it again, Hakeem was better offensively and defensively, and it's not really that argueable.