Is Robert Horry Right? Was Hakeem Olajuwon "20 Times Better" than Tim Duncan?

Robert Horry inhabits an interesting chapter in NBA history. Even though Big Shot Bob was just a role player, he is an absolute playoff legend. Horry benefited from playing alongside some of the all-time greats of his era (Hakeem, Shaq & Kobe, Timmy, etc.) and when it was all said and done, he wound up with more rings than Jordan (seven). That said, his rings weren't all luck, the guy was good and had ice in his veins. He was a great shooter, defender, and teammate. Some say he should be in the Hall of Fame for his title-turning shots, but I disagree. Still, if there was a role-player Hall of Fame, he would be on everyone's first ballot.

The Spurs experienced the full gamut with Horry; the pain of his clutch shots when he was with the Rockets and Lakers but they also benefited when he joined the team in the 2003-2004 season. In his time with the Spurs, he was nothing but a consummate teammate.  He was a critical player in both of his championships in San Antonio (especially in 2005). 

In 2017, Spurs fans were blindsided and bewildered when he stated the following on an ESPN show: 

"They had nobody that could guard Dream [Olajuwon's nickname]. They had nobody that could guard Dream. I'm gonna say that twice because Dream was just that dominant. When we played San Antonio one time, Tim was killing me on the block, and [then-Lakers coach] Phil [Jackson] refused to double-team Tim to get the ball out of his hands. And Dream is 20 times better than Tim Duncan."

Here's a clip with a little more pushback from Stephen Jackson and Paul Pierce.

I want you to really think about that for a hot minute. Horry is claiming Hakeem Olajuwon is TWENTY TIMES  better than Duncan. If that was literally true, Hakeem would have career averages of 380 points, 216 rebounds, 44 Blocks and 14 steals a game. Those numbers would make Wilt look like a bench warmer. 

Okay, okay, I know he didn't mean this literally. It's just a colorful way of saying that Horry thinks Hakeem was an all-around greater player than Duncan....and in his mind, it wasn't even close. Once I stepped outside of my defensive Spurs reaction, I started thinking. Who would be better to judge between the two legends than someone that played alongside both, and won titles with both players? Even if he's using disrespectful hyperbole, does Horry have a point?  Was Hakeem better than Timmy? And if he was better, how much better was he? 

This question was posed on thetylt.com and I saw these horrifying results, please note we don't know how many people voted and maybe they only allowed people to vote that were terrible at math? 

I think it's wise to take a time out here and state that I think it's not just hard to compare players from different eras (while their careers overlapped, it's not by much). Even comparing two players from the same season presents challenges for great basketball minds. There are so many different factors to account for and to quantify. To be clear, I don't think I have a great basketball mind. I'm just a dude blogging on the internet, but yes, I will be taking a look at the stats and trying my best to deconstruct Horry's argument and comparing two players. 

So, let's get back to Horry's first comments. As we know so far, his argument is that Dream was better because "no one could guard him". The ESPN crew didn't let that sit for too long and they pressed him for more details as to his judgment:

"I played with both. I know the work ethic of both. I've seen it live. I've seen these two guys in the gym. I know what Dream brought to practice and I know what Tim brought to practice. I know Tim brought work ethic to practice, but to be a superstar you need to go to the extra level—not saying Tim's not a superstar, but I'm saying what Dream brought to the game was amazing, and I don't think people understand how good Olajuwon was."

Again, he receives more push back and he states, making his final argument (as seen in the video above): 

"I always tell people you judge a player by what they cannot do, who would you want at the free throw line with the game at the line? Would you rather go with 85% or 70%?" 

I know it's a morning ESPN show and not a graduate thesis but let's summarize Horry's argument as to why Olajuwon was TWENTY times better than Duncan:

• Olajuwon couldn't be guarded (and Phil Jackson didn't send a double team to Tim "one time")
• Olajuwon had a better work ethic 
• Olajuwon shot better from the free-throw line (according to Horry, 85% to 70%)

The first two points are extremely subjective and have varying degrees of ridiculousness. We will get back to the first two points in a moment. However, we can definitely check the numbers for the players as free-throw shooters. Did Hakeem really shoot 85% from the free-throw line? 

Tim Duncan was a career 69.6% free throw shooter (Horry was pretty darn close). It's not a good number and he had his ups and downs at the line (he shot a career-high of 81% one season and a low of 59% another) While Hakeem's career free throw shooting percent is better than Tim's career average, it's not 85%. 

Hakeem shot a career average of 71.2% (with a high of 78% and a low of 56%). So, Hakeem has the edge but it's not that much of an edge, Shooting less than two percentage points for his career at the free-throw line does not make Duncan twenty times worse than Hakeem. 

Horry's other points are harder to quantify. I think the work ethic argument might be his best argument given his closeness and experiences with both players. However, at the same time, it's still a very weak argument because it's unfalsifiable. That is, the argument cannot be proved either way, it's unknowable and completely subjective. I think the all-time greats have amazing work ethics. Even if Olajuwon had a better work ethic - does it matter when we're evaluating their careers and the results on the court? 

Still, if you want a neat story about Duncan's work ethic, check out this video (cued at the 1:52 mark):

Finally, his last argument is that Phil Jackson didn't send a double team one time and this illustrates that no one could guard Hakeem. That's right, Jackson didn't send a double-team in one game and that proves what exactly?  Jackson sent double teams at Duncan in many regular season and playoff games, I saw them. In fact, Horry often needed help handling Duncan. 

As Horry gave one example, here's my one example, game six of the 2003 WCSF one of Duncan's best games from the 2003 title run: 

If you didn't watch the highlights above it looks like Jackson used primarily single coverage, (especially if Shaq was guarding Timmy) but there were plenty of weak-side doubles, feigning doubles from the top of the key (reaches to disrupt Timmy's dribble and set up) and late doubles in the paint when Duncan made his move. There was even one triple-team at one point. So, there ya go, Horry said Jackson didn't send a double team one time, in one game and I found a game where he did it numerous times. 

At this point, it may seem I am beleaguering the point, kicking a dead horse, and maybe just being silly. It's more than obvious Horry was talking out of his ass, and maybe even trolling San Antonio and their fans. Maybe Bob is just really bad at math and didn't realize how dramatic a difference "twenty times better" really is. .

 All that may be true but we're done yet. 

As it turns out, just a few years later, Horry changed his tune. In 2022, it looks like Hakeem was now downgraded to now only being "ten times better than Duncan." 

I guess he was feeling a bit more generous and actually self-reflective during this interview. He admits that he admired Hakeem due to the fact that he was his mentor when he came into the league (on and off the court). He mentions "Hey, I think my mom is ten times better than your mom," as if to admit his own feelings are quite biased on this topic. Because he recognizes his own subjectivity, he doesn't bother with any nonsensical arguments this time around and centers discussion over how Spurs fans hate him now (Bob, I don't hate you!!!!)  

I am glad to see a change in his tune but....but....but..... "ten times better than Duncan" is still more than a little disrespectful. Geez, maybe he really is terrible at math? 

A Real Comparison and a Deeper Dive 

So, now that we have Horry's argument out of the way, who was the better player? 

Let's start with a quick overview of the two players:

Tim Duncan was a five-time NBA champ with six appearances in the NBA Finals. He was the NBA Finals MVP three times and won the regular season MVP twice. He appeared in 15 All-Star teams and made 10 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, and 2 All-NBA Third Teams. Although he never won the Defensive Player of the Year (it is a well-understood travesty), he was on the NBA All-Defensive First Team 8 times and  NBA All Defensive Second Team 7 times. 

Hakeem Olajuwon was a two-time NBA champ with three appearances in the NBA Finals. He was the NBA Finals MVP twice and won the regular season MVP once. He appeared in 12 All-Star teams and made 6 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, and 3 All-NBA Third Teams. He was also Defensive Player of the Year twice and was on the NBA All Defensive First Team 5 times and NBA All-Defensive Second Team 4 times. 

If we were basketball archeologists and all NBA stats were lost in some event like the Alexandria fire, and all we had to go on was this brief overview, Duncan clearly has the edge. 

If you are a Hakeem or Rockets fan you might counter and say,  the Spurs had a better-supporting cast or coaching or that Olajuwon had to play in the Jordan era. He also had to play in an era with amazing centers like Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq, making an All-NBA team was tough (although it should be noted Tim played in a power-forward-rich era as with Malone, KG, Dirk, Webber and Amare).  Again, all those could be something to consider, but let's again turn to team results as a measuring tool. I don't want to focus on just one way of assessing a player's performance but winning should be one of the most important ones. I occasionally see some stat heads that disregard winning too much (an overaction to the prominence of "ring culture"). I freely admit that part of being an all-time great or winning even one championship depends on a good helping of luck. Who your teammates are, what era you play in, even how the ball bounces for one shot. There's just no way around this. We can only look at what we can look at.  

Through this nonsensical project I learned Duncan never lost against Olajuwon, he was 10-0 in their career against teams featuring Hakeem. Kinda interesting and improbable. 

Tim Duncan has a winning percentage of 71.91%, which is good for eighth all-time. Olajuwon isn't even in the top fifty. Tim Duncan played in 48 playoff series and ended with a 35-13 record. Olajuwon played in 29 playoff series and ended with a 16-13 record. Tim's top highest Win Shares for the playoffs were 5.9, 3.7, and 3.5 while Hakeem's top three playoff win shares were 4.3, 3.7 3.0. Just about every year the Spurs were a legitimate contender, the same can not be said for Hakeem and the Rockets. The Spurs not only appeared in 6 Finals (5-1) with Tim as the leader but he also led them to 8 total conference final runs. Hakeem appeared in 3 Finals (2-1) and appeared in 4 conference finals. 

So if we are judging the players on their team success, Duncan has another clear advantage. Big Shot Bob is off the mark thus far....but let's take a look at some individual numbers, where the Dream shines. 

Hakeem's per-game stats are marginally but decisively better than Duncan's, he beats Duncan in almost every category, career-wise, except assists. 

Hakeem averaged 21.8/11.1/2.5/3.1 shooting at 51%

Duncan averaged 19.0/10.8/3.0/2.2 shooting at 50.6% 

It's very close but I give Hakeem the edge here, let's look at their MVP peaks. 

In 1994, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.9/3.6/3.7 while shooting 52%

In Duncan's 2002 MVP campaign, he averaged 25.5/12.7/3.7/2.5 while shooting 50.8% 

In Duncan's 2003 MVP campaign, he averaged 23.3/12.9/3.9/2.9 while shooting 51.3% 

You could give the slight edge to Hakeem but here's where it gets tricky, if you dig deeper you find out that most of the advanced stats actually favor Tim's impact on the court. 

Both players had two-year seasons at their absolute peak (Hakeem 1992-1994 and Tim with 2001-2003), here's what their two runs looked like:

Again, it's very close but I think Duncan gets the nod here as Hakeem bests him in TOV% (it's lower), BLK%, and STL% and some other minor areas but it's still an advantage for Tim.  

However, when you look at the career advanced stats, Timmy now takes a decisive edge over Hakeem. 

Tim has a total of 91.1 VORP, 5.6 BPM, 2.3 DBPM, 3.3 OBPM with 206.4 Win Shares. 

Hakeem has a total of 74.2 VORP, 4.6 BPM, 2.5 DBPM, 2.2 OBPM with 162.8 Win Shares. 

Final Thoughts

In most areas of our comparison, Duncan has the advantage. If Hakeem was a better player, the team impact and advanced stats don't show it. If he is better, it's not TWENTY times better, not even TEN times better, but if that's your persuasion, I can see a good argument being made that despite the advanced stats and finding excuses for the Rocket's not being better, maybe, just maybe Hakeem was smudge better player but it wouldn't be by much. I would be okay with that argument. If there was a deeper dive exploring some of this, I think there's an argument to be made. 

What it comes down to for me is Hakeem might have had a slightly better peak in terms of defensive playmaking. There's a great article on both Hakeem's and Tim's best playoff runs.  He ranks Timmy's run as the 3rd best all-time playoff run, while Hakeem's 1994 run as the best.  It's a great read, I recommend checking it out. 

I think Hakeem had two iconic playoff runs in those two seasons when he peaked. Although Tim was nearly as good defensively if not just as good (Tim's total Defensive Win Shares for his career was 106.3 while Hakeem's was at 94.5), Tim was more of a positional defender. Hakeem was more athletically talented and he had more blocks and steals. That kinda stuff matters in the eyes of the public. I see it all the time on Instagram. Up until this point, you would think Bol Bol is an All-Star from what I see on social media. Maybe he will be someday, but right now (summer 2023) he's not even close now. They see the Dream Shake, the blocks, the beautiful post moves, the highlights, and they think he was better.

I think the stats and winning show Tim was a slightly better player than Hakeem. He was less athletically gifted and less highlight prone but you can't argue with this success. He had a longer, more consistent, and more relevant career than Hakeem. He was able to change his body later in his career and he easily shifted from being the "top dog" to doing whatever the team needed. In my mind, he was the ultimate teammate. 

Robert Horry was a great NBA player, even a historic player at that.  I loved watching him with the Spurs, but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Tim Duncan was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon.