Kobe vs Duncan

[mystargtr34]

Whos had the better career?

[mystargtr34]

Directed more so to non-Laker and non-Spurs fans for obvious reasons, but everyone can chime in.

[Vertical]

Both careers not over...but it's not looking good for TD at this point.

[duhoh]

kobe's had a higher peak of accomplishment, while duncan consistently brought it every year.

[BadOdor]

I think you can argue for either.

Duncan's 3 finals mvp+4 titles as number 1 guy are very impressive, just as his all-NBA teams. Great defender for most of his career(discounting the last couple of years, maybe), I think he really deserved at least 1 DPOY.

That being said, Kobe seems to have a couple of mvp caliber years left in him, while duncan is pretty much winding down. That gives kobe some time to build on his legacy.

[Spursfan092120]

I think you can argue for either.

Duncan's 3 finals mvp+4 titles as number 1 guy are very impressive, just as his all-NBA teams. Great defender for most of his career(discounting the last couple of years, maybe), I think he really deserved at least 1 DPOY.

That being said, Kobe seems to have a couple of mvp caliber years left in him, while duncan is pretty much winding down. That gives kobe some time to build on his legacy.
This...I actually agree with you for once.

[eyeh8u]

basketball is ruled by the giants, big men win championships, wing players cant do shit without bigmen, replace kobe with wade and you have the same titles in 09 and 10, replace duncan with the second best pf in the league of each year and the 4 rings aren't guaranteed.

[JamStone]

Right now, if both retired today, I'd say Duncan. It's close. Careers comparably outstanding. Kobe has more titles and he was able to lead his team to repeat. I think that's an impressive feat. Duncan trumps in League MVPs, Finals MVPs, and he has a DPOY.

I think Kobe can surpass Duncan over the next few upcoming seasons, but right now I'll say Duncan.

[duncan228]

Duncan trumps in League MVPs, Finals MVPs, and he has a DPOY.

Duncan doesn't have a DPOY and it's a crime. He deserved at least one.

[Chieflion]

Right now, if both retired today, I'd say Duncan. It's close. Careers comparably outstanding. Kobe has more titles and he was able to lead his team to repeat. I think that's an impressive feat. Duncan trumps in League MVPs, Finals MVPs, and he has a DPOY.

I think Kobe can surpass Duncan over the next few upcoming seasons, but right now I'll say Duncan.

Duncan doesn't have a DPOY.

[eyeh8u]

Duncan doesn't have a DPOY and it's a crime. He deserved at least one.


shhhh.. let them think he does

[Leetonidas]

A better individual career? Duncan easily. More titles as the #1 option, more Finals MVPs, more regular seasons MVPs, more all-NBA team selections, more impact on both sides of the floor.

Now team success? Bryant easily. He's had the GOAT coach and the most dominant player ever to help bolster his resume, and now has a stacked team to continue to do so. He's a great player, but he doesn't impact the game as much as Duncan.

Fuck you Kobe nut suckers.

[JamStone]

basketball is ruled by the giants, big men win championships, wing players cant do shit without bigmen, replace kobe with wade and you have the same titles in 09 and 10, replace duncan with the second best pf in the league of each year and the 4 rings aren't guaranteed.

It's pure conjecture, but I'm not 100% the Lakers win both titles if you replace Kobe with Wade. I think they're still in the hunt and have a good chance. I'm not completely sure they still win it. But I might go along with it.

If you replace Tim Duncan with Kevin Garnett, I think the Spurs have a very good chance at winning all of those championships they won, except for 2003. Not guaranteed but I think there's a very good chance they win 2-3 of them.

I don't think either is guaranteed if you replace Kobe or Timmy.

[JamStone]

Duncan doesn't have a DPOY.

Oops. Brainfart.

[silverblk mystix]

Kobe is a rapist and should be in prison.

[JamStone]

A better individual career? Duncan easily. More titles as the #1 option, more Finals MVPs, more regular seasons MVPs, more all-NBA team selections, more impact on both sides of the floor.

Now team success? Bryant easily. He's had the GOAT coach and the most dominant player ever to help bolster his resume, and now has a stacked team to continue to do so. He's a great player, but he doesn't impact the game as much as Duncan.

Fuck you Kobe nut suckers.

I really wanna know why Kobe is the only superstar player that gets this criticism. Does Magic really only have 3 championships? Bird only 2?

Kobe was "1B" for at least two of the first Shaq-Kobe three-peat.

That argument just stinks of hate.

[eyeh8u]

It's pure conjecture, but I'm not 100% the Lakers win both titles if you replace Kobe with Wade. I think they're still in the hunt and have a good chance. I'm not completely sure they still win it. But I might go along with it.

If you replace Tim Duncan with Kevin Garnett, I think the Spurs have a very good chance at winning all of those championships they won, except for 2003. Not guaranteed but I think there's a very good chance they win 2-3 of them.

I don't think either is guaranteed if you replace Kobe or Timmy.


i agree the spurs would win a title or two but i dont think they would win all 4, as for the wade thing i am completely convinced after 2006 that wade could do the same as kobe if he was motivated and had the same pieces, hell he did do it in 2006 when he had one of kobe's old pieces.

[Blackjack]

Garnett ain't winning those titles as the No. 1 option. Just ain't happenin'; and he sure as hell isn't going to be the wrecking ball in the paint to put the whole Pistons front line into foul trouble, much less on two bad wheels. This is almost similar to the Kobe-MJ debate ... in that the unquantifiable proves immeasurable.

[arles]

basketball is ruled by the giants, big men win championships, wing players cant do shit without bigmen

This +100000

[Leetonidas]

I really wanna know why Kobe is the only superstar player that gets this criticism. Does Magic really only have 3 championships? Bird only 2?

Kobe was "1B" for at least two of the first Shaq-Kobe three-peat.

That argument just stinks of hate.

Because it's not like he's playing with a decent big man, he played with arguably the greatest player ever in his prime. Duncan never played with anyone in his championship years anywhere NEAR that good. It's like a 10 year old getting help on a paper from his dad. Yeah, the kid got the A, but we know the dad was behind it.

I don't care if my analogy sucks.

[duncan228]

Awards and Honors.

Tim Duncan

1997-98 NBA Rookie of the Year
1998-99 NBA Finals MVP
1999-00 NBA All-Star Game MVP
2001-02 NBA MVP
2002-03 NBA Finals MVP
2002-03 NBA MVP
2004-05 NBA Finals MVP


1997-98 NBA All-Rookie (1st)

1997-98 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1998-99 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2008-09 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2009-10 NBA All-NBA (3rd)

1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2004-05 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)


Kobe Bryant

2001-02 NBA All-Star Game MVP
2006-07 NBA All-Star Game MVP
2007-08 NBA MVP
2008-09 NBA All-Star Game MVP
2008-09 NBA Finals MVP
2009-10 NBA Finals MVP


1996-97 NBA All-Rookie (2nd)

1998-99 NBA All-NBA 3rd)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2008-09 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2009-10 NBA All-NBA (1st)

1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
2002-03 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2003-04 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2008-09 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2009-10 NBA All-Defensive (1st)

[Leetonidas]

And Kobe being on the all-defensive team first team every year is a FUCKING JOKE.

[Cane]

Since Kobe's having surgery this summer and already piled on even more miles especially after a grueling 7 game Finals series... I'm going to go ahead and predict that his MVP seasons are also over. Kobe really wasn't much of a regular season MVP candidate this past year either so its not new; happens to most veteran champions. Bryant does have a far superior team which makes all the difference though when it comes to their twilight years.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Kobe try and break all the records he can before calling it quits although I don't see him finding a coach he respects as much as Phil Jackson (who basically has a one season window right now). How big of a difference this will make remains to be seen although Phil's as great as they come when it comes to managing talents and their personalities.

As is, Duncan's got the superior career as a no. 1 option and overall. Kobe never had the highs Duncan did especially in the Finals as a no. 1 option. Bryant does have more finals appearances and one more ring (two as the no. 1 option) however Duncan's never lost on the biggest stage and also never missed the playoffs. Duncan has never led as many poor regular seasons as Kobe has either. Duncan's career also includes a pretty impressive 50 win streak that Kobe has no answer for. Bryant's a far more popular player though but also had a truckload's worth of shitty drama ranging from rape to Shaq. Don't have to deal with stupid bullshit when it comes to Duncan.

TD's wins as a no. 1 option (incredible active streak of 50+ win seasons, 3 Finals MVP's), consistent efficiency, truly great performances in the Finals as a no. 1 option (near quadruple double, a top 10 all time NBA finals performance from Hollinger, etc), seem to exceed Kobe's achievements. However Kobe's got the best team in the West for the near future (although it'll be interesting to see what they're like without Phil which should happen well before Kobe retires..and how Kobe and Bynum rebound after their surgeries and taking on the NBA season) so he'll likely have more opportunities to try and shine on the biggest stage.

[JamStone]

Because it's not like he's playing with a decent big man, he played with arguably the greatest player ever in his prime. Duncan never played with anyone in his championship years anywhere NEAR that good. It's like a 10 year old getting help on a paper from his dad. Yeah, the kid got the A, but we know the dad was behind it.

I don't care if my analogy sucks.

I just think it's such a bad point. Kobe was just as necessary for those first three titles as Shaq was. There's no question that Shaq was the best player of those teams. But they don't win without Kobe either. People say, well exchange him with another great player and they still win. First, that's pure conjecture as well. And second, yeah, you'd have to get another really "great" wing player to replace Kobe. Does Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady guarantee those titles too? Maybe. But that's far from guaranteed too. Win all three? I would lean towards saying no. Shaq went to the Finals with a what was considered a really great wing player in Penny and it didn't happen.

Kobe was still necessary for those titles. And some people love to imply that he wasn't.

Does Duncan really only get credit for 3 titles?

Was there such an uproar and outrage when he won the Finals MVP in 2005 over Manu? Some might have felt that Manu deserved it more, even some Spurs fans. But people weren't outraged that Duncan won it. Didn't make fun of his 37% shooting in game 7 or that he shot 42% from the field for that Finals... as a big man. Heck, one could argue Duncan was only the first option for 1999 and 2003. 2005 was more Manu and 2007 was Tony. But we don't hear people coming out the woodwork to discredit Tim for that.

I don't know. It's just a point I never really seem to understand why it's used and emphasized so much.

[Flux451]

kobe 3 NBA All Star Game MVP vs. Duncan 1 NBA Allstar MVP

Kobe hands down.

[TDMVPDPOY]

kobe 3 NBA All Star Game MVP vs. Duncan 1 NBA Allstar MVP

Kobe hands down.

all star mvp lmao watta joke ball hog

[Fabbs]

Kobe is legit.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2009-3/1336749/joeycrawford1.jpg

[JamStone]

So what exactly makes a player the first option of a team over another player? The player that scores more is always the number one option? Problem with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers is that there are very few other examples of championship teams that have had their two best players both in their prime and both having the dominant talent to be number 1 options. Take a look at the last two seasons of the Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers.

2000-01 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 28.7 ppg, 19.2 FGApg
Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 22.2FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 21.5 FGApg
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 22.4 FGApg

2001-02 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 27.2 ppg, 18.3 FGApg
Kobe: 25.2 ppg, 20.0 FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 20.2 FGApg
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 22.7 FGApg

Yes, Shaq scored more, marginally. Yes, he was more efficient at scoring, since he was making dunks, lay-ups, and short hook shots. And yes, he had better NBA Finals performances. But, if you look at those stats above, it's far from a huge margin between the two as to which was the number one option. Kobe took more shots. The offense was geared towards showcasing both players, rather equally actually. Kobe wasn't a second option on those Lakers teams. The most appropriate way to call it is Shaq was 1A and Kobe was 1B. Kobe was a first option.

It absolutely boggles my mind that people try to twist it so adamantly just to discredit Kobe.

[Cane]

I just think it's such a bad point. Kobe was just as necessary for those first three titles as Shaq was. There's no question that Shaq was the best player of those teams. But they don't win without Kobe either. People say, well exchange him with another great player and they still win. First, that's pure conjecture as well. And second, yeah, you'd have to get another really "great" wing player to replace Kobe. Does Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady guarantee those titles too? Maybe. But that's far from guaranteed too. Win all three? I would lean towards saying no. Shaq went to the Finals with a what was considered a really great wing player in Penny and it didn't happen.

I don't know. It's just a point I never really seem to understand why it's used and emphasized so much.

I share the opposite sentiment; imo this perspective comes across as a serious underestimation of how dominant Shaq was during that period especially in their championship Finals. He was the most dominant force the modern NBA has ever and likely will ever see. Kobe was a great player but his role was clearly a secondary one. Doesn't mean he's not important but it wasn't 1a and 1b, it was clearly 1 and 2. On everyone's top players list in the NBA for that period, Shaq was at the top whereas Duncan and Kobe were fighting for spots 2 and 3 back in early 00's on Bill Simmons and the rest of the media's best-of lists. That also doesn't mean that a clear no. 1 option can't be outplayed on occasion by fellow teammates especially if the match-ups prove to be favorable or if they simply play great.

Shaq's also been to the Finals as a no. 1 option prior to Kobe and got there without him although riding on the Wade train in 2006 when it comes to that "what if Shaq had another great swing man" argument. And Kobe's got Gasol as his "got there without Shaq but still had a great big man" argument.

[Fabbs]

It absolutely boggles my mind that people try to twist it so adamantly just to discredit Kobe.
Kome got so many of those shots because of other teams having to pay attention to Shaq.
And the refs sniffing.

It's not that boggling. You are not that smart.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

BOWEN doesn't have a DPOY and it's a crime. He deserved at least one.

FIFY but I like it when you actually post an original thought.

[TD4THREE]

Does Duncan really only get credit for 3 titles?

Was there such an uproar and outrage when he won the Finals MVP in 2005 over Manu? Some might have felt that Manu deserved it more, even some Spurs fans. But people weren't outraged that Duncan won it. Didn't make fun of his 37% shooting in game 7 or that he shot 42% from the field for that Finals... as a big man. Heck, one could argue Duncan was only the first option for 1999 and 2003. 2005 was more Manu and 2007 was Tony. But we don't hear people coming out the woodwork to discredit Tim for that.

I don't know. It's just a point I never really seem to understand why it's used and emphasized so much.You can argue that Duncan didn't deserve finals mvp, but there is no way he wasn't the best player on all of those championship teams. It's a moot point since you said it yourself that Shaq was clearly the number one option for the lakers during their three peat. And not just in a finals series; which is your case for both Tony and Manu being the number one option over Duncan.

[Why So Serious]

I would say Kobe is ranked above duncan in terms of his career.. but i would also understand if someone else said duncan is ranked above kobe.

They both have distinct advantages over each other which makes them relatively equal in my book.

Both are top 10 players of all time. :toast

[JamStone]

You can argue that Duncan didn't deserve finals mvp, but there is no way he wasn't the best player on all of those championship teams. It's a moot point since you said it yourself that Shaq was clearly the number one option for the lakers during their three peat. And not just in a finals series; which is your case for both Tony and Manu being the number one option over Duncan.

I didn't say Shaq was clearly the number one option for those Lakers during their three-peat. I said he was the best player. If people would say that instead of the argument of "number one option" I'd likely not argue against it as much. Being a "number one option" is what I read all the time. Kobe shared that title with Shaq for the last two title teams of that three-peat. Shaq, however, was still the best player.

[BullsDynasty]

Definately Duncan. Duncan did more with less, has more MVPS and has 4 titles as the alpha dog. Kobe Bryant has only 2 titles as the alpha dog. From 2005-2007 Kobe either missed the playoffs or got bounced in the 1st - 2nd round as 7th or 8th seed. This will always be a stain in Kobe's legacy. Jerry West's retarded trade saved Kobe's legacy. A prime Duncan beat a Prime Kobe in the playoffs.

[JamStone]

I share the opposite sentiment; imo this perspective comes across as a serious underestimation of how dominant Shaq was during that period especially in their championship Finals. He was the most dominant force the modern NBA has ever and likely will ever see. Kobe was a great player but his role was clearly a secondary one. Doesn't mean he's not important but it wasn't 1a and 1b, it was clearly 1 and 2. On everyone's top players list in the NBA for that period, Shaq was at the top whereas Duncan and Kobe were fighting for spots 2 and 3 back in early 00's on Bill Simmons and the rest of the media's best-of lists. That also doesn't mean that a clear no. 1 option can't be outplayed on occasion by fellow teammates especially if the match-ups prove to be favorable or if they simply play great.

Shaq's also been to the Finals as a no. 1 option prior to Kobe and got there without him although riding on the Wade train in 2006 when it comes to that "what if Shaq had another great swing man" argument. And Kobe's got Gasol as his "got there without Shaq but still had a great big man" argument.

Shaq's Finals appearance as the no. 1 option prior to Kobe only helps support my point. Shaq couldn't win it with a great wing player like Penny. It required the caliber of player Kobe was. And what you indicate as riding the Wade train in 2006 doesn't really add much to either side of the argument.

I agree that Shaq was the most dominant player in the late 90s and early 2000s. The most dominant player in the league alone cannot by himself win a championship. Wilt Chamberlain knows all about that.

There's a distinction between individual dominance and team greatness. LeBron is the most dominant and most talented player in the league. But hasn't his shine worn off considering the last couple of post-seasons?

To me, Shaq was the more dominant player. But Kobe carried the offense roughly about as much as Shaq did. Shaq could have averaged 30 field goal attempts a game to make Kobe more of a role player. But they wouldn't have had the success they had as a team. The balance they shared on offense made it so difficult for other teams to guard. Shaq dominated the paint. And Kobe's abilities out on the perimeter not only to score but to create for others made Kobe just as important as Shaq on those Lakers teams. It was the balance between the two. It was the two of the equally sharing the offensive load.

[JamStone]

Kome got so many of those shots because of other teams having to pay attention to Shaq.
And the refs sniffing.

It's not that boggling. You are not that smart.

Vice versa works.

Shaq didn't get triple teamed every single time down the court because of Kobe's ability to score on the perimeter and create other scoring opportunities for others. Kobe's emergence as a premier scorer in the league in the early 2000s had a great deal to do with teams not being able to stop Shaq or the Lakers.

But I guess just telling someone they're not smart is a much better argument.

[Cane]

So what exactly makes a player the first option of a team over another player? The player that scores more is always the number one option? Problem with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers is that there are very few other examples of championship teams that have had their two best players both in their prime and both having the dominant talent to be number 1 options. Take a look at the last two seasons of the Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers.

2000-01 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 28.7 ppg, 19.2 FGApg
Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 22.2FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 21.5 FGApg
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 22.4 FGApg

2001-02 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 27.2 ppg, 18.3 FGApg
Kobe: 25.2 ppg, 20.0 FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 20.2 FGApg
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 22.7 FGApg

Yes, Shaq scored more, marginally. Yes, he was more efficient at scoring, since he was making dunks, lay-ups, and short hook shots. And yes, he had better NBA Finals performances. But, if you look at those stats above, it's far from a huge margin between the two as to which was the number one option. Kobe took more shots. The offense was geared towards showcasing both players, rather equally actually. Kobe wasn't a second option on those Lakers teams. The most appropriate way to call it is Shaq was 1A and Kobe was 1B. Kobe was a first option.

It absolutely boggles my mind that people try to twist it so adamantly just to discredit Kobe.

See, this take absolutely boggles my mind since it paints a seriously skewed image. You're basically only comparing their PPG and FGA which is a pretty questionable way to evaluate any two players overall impact and their importance to the team. However the fact that Shaq was a god damn near 30 PPG player playing as a center on the 3-peat should say a lot more than what you're taking from it.

You also only compare two of the three seasons of the 3-peat.

Shaq was able to create his own, much higher percentage shots than Kobe while being a dominant force. He created the inside-out game that championship teams usually utilize and had a superior impact on the rest of the boxscore.

Shaq's impact in the finals was also huge compared to Bryant's and thats the stage that matters the most.

PER doesn't include either players numerous intangibles but its a much better stat to gauge than just PPA and FGA if you want to compare players on their metrics. PER also shows one how dominant Shaq really was without having to go back and watch tape or read media articles.

Shaq had a phenomenal 30.5, 28.7, and 28.3 PER rating in the playoffs for the 3-peat. Kobe had had a great but not phenomenal 19.3, 25.0, 20.0. Shaq put up phenomenal numbers and his career PER averages both for the playoffs and regular season currently exceeds both Duncan's and Kobe's.

And if you don't want to take my post for it, check out the media articles and post game coverage of the time. Shaq was ranked as the clear cut no. 1 player during that period. Both Kobe and Duncan were fighting for secondary spots until age, injuries and questionable motivation caught up to Shaq.

[Cane]

Shaq's Finals appearance as the no. 1 option prior to Kobe only helps support my point. Shaq couldn't win it with a great wing player like Penny. It required the caliber of player Kobe was. And what you indicate as riding the Wade train in 2006 doesn't really add much to either side of the argument.

I agree that Shaq was the most dominant player in the late 90s and early 2000s. The most dominant player in the league alone cannot by himself win a championship. Wilt Chamberlain knows all about that.

There's a distinction between individual dominance and team greatness. LeBron is the most dominant and most talented player in the league. But hasn't his shine worn off considering the last couple of post-seasons?

To me, Shaq was the more dominant player. But Kobe carried the offense roughly about as much as Shaq did. Shaq could have averaged 30 field goal attempts a game to make Kobe more of a role player. But they wouldn't have had the success they had as a team. The balance they shared on offense made it so difficult for other teams to guard. Shaq dominated the paint. And Kobe's abilities out on the perimeter not only to score but to create for others made Kobe just as important as Shaq on those Lakers teams. It was the balance between the two. It was the two of the equally sharing the offensive load.

And without having a great frontcourt, Kobe doesn't win championships either. These what-if games kinda suck since without Pippen, Jordan wouldn't have had as many championships either. EDIT: Although its much easier to build around a prime Shaq than Kobe. Basketball's a team game but its no question that Shaq was the more vital piece and had a much bigger overall impact especially since he was quite possibly the most dominant big man the NBA will see playing in a big man's game.

[JamStone]

See, this take absolutely boggles my mind since it paints a seriously skewed image. You're basically only comparing their PPG and FGA which is a pretty questionable way to evaluate any two players overall impact and their importance to the team. However the fact that Shaq was a god damn near 30 PPG player playing as a center on the 3-peat should say a lot more than what you're taking from it.

You also only compare two of the three seasons of the 3-peat.

Shaq was able to create his own, much higher percentage shots than Kobe while being a dominant force. He created the inside-out game that championship teams usually utilize and had a superior impact on the rest of the boxscore.

Shaq's impact in the finals was also huge compared to Bryant's and thats the stage that matters the most.

PER doesn't include either players numerous intangibles but its a much better stat to gauge than just PPA and FGA if you want to compare players on their metrics. PER also shows one how dominant Shaq really was without having to go back and watch tape or read media articles.

Shaq had a phenomenal 30.5, 28.7, and 28.3 PER rating in the playoffs for the 3-peat. Kobe had had a great but not phenomenal 19.3, 25.0, 20.0. Shaq put up phenomenal numbers and his career PER averages both for the playoffs and regular season currently exceeds both Duncan's and Kobe's.

And if you don't want to take my post for it, check out the media articles and post game coverage of the time. Shaq was ranked as the clear cut no. 1 player during that period. Both Kobe and Duncan were fighting for secondary spots until age, injuries and questionable motivation caught up to Shaq.

I've already made reference to this in one of my previous posts, but it's the whole idea of "number one option" and Kobe not being the "number one option" on those Lakers teams or only winning two titles as the "number one option." It just doesn't make for a compelling argument for me. Your take is slightly different, by saying it's Shaq's dominance or that he was more vital. That I have less of a problem with. As I said earlier, if people argued Shaq was the "best player" on those teams, I'd have less of a problem with. It's the whole "number one option" thing merely to discredit Kobe.

I haven't argued once that Kobe was the number one option over Shaq. Merely that they shared that status for two of those championship teams. I didn't include the first title and I didn't even look at the stats of that team because I'm pretty sure the stats would bear out that Shaq was more clearly the number one guy on that team. I'm only suggesting that this whole "number one option" thing is just a phrase used to discredit Kobe.

I haven't once argued anything to discredit Shaq or how good or dominant he was during that stretch of titles. He was phenomenal. You don't have to convince me. He was a modern version of Wilt Chamberlain, or as close as there could be. He was just unstoppable in the paint. None of my comments have suggested otherwise, nor have I intended them to.

Point to point, I'm arguing that you can't discredit Kobe for those championships either. How people talk about it, you'd think Kobe was really a role player, someone like the status of a Scottie Pippen or Kevin McHale. But that's simply not the case. The cat averaged one or two points fewer than Shaq. He was not simply a role player or even a sidekick. It wasn't Batman and Robin. It was Superman and Batman. That's what I've been getting at. Role players don't average 25-30 points a game. Sidekicks don't get the basketball in their hands in the final two minutes of close games to close it out.

When you consider that Kobe was playing with such a dominant big man, and then you look at his numbers, it's crazy to discredit him for not having as much an impact on those early Lakers titles as he did.

Magic Johnson not once was the playoff leading scorer on any of his five championship Lakers squad. How ridiculous would it be to say he wasn't the "the number one option" on those teams? Now I know it's not exactly the same thing. But that's the type the criticism Kobe not being "the number one option" on those teams come across as. Kobe wasn't Kevin McHale. He wasn't Robin. He was "1B."

[Chieflion]

I hope we can use usage % over FGA. I think it is a better measurement to see how many possessions end with the particular player whether it is a shot or an assist. Maybe Jamstone would like to bring that up in his argument. That would be helpful.

[JamStone]

And without having a great frontcourt, Kobe doesn't win championships either. These what-if games kinda suck since without Pippen, Jordan wouldn't have had as many championships either. EDIT: Although its much easier to build around a prime Shaq than Kobe. Basketball's a team game but its no question that Shaq was the more vital piece and had a much bigger overall impact especially since he was quite possibly the most dominant big man the NBA will see playing in a big man's game.

Don't disagree with that and that follows my line of thinking.

I think Kobe's impact was just as vital. You take Shaq off those Lakers teams, they don't win titles. You take Kobe off those Lakers teams, they don't win titles. I truly believe that.

Shaq was the better player. He was the more dominant player. I personally think his importance wasn't that much greater than Kobe's. I still view it as more as a "1A" and "1B' type of thing. Kobe's emergence as elite player and premier scorer is what helped make Shaq's dominance so unstoppable. It wasn't with Penny. It wasn't with Van Exel/Eddie Jones. It got to that point with Kobe. It wasn't like Hakeem and a bunch of jumpshooting role players. It was Shaq 1A and Kobe 1B.

[JamStone]

I hope we can use usage % over FGA. I think it is a better measurement to see how many possessions end with the particular player whether it is a shot or an assist. Maybe Jamstone would like to bring that up in his argument. That would be helpful.

I'm not really one who has looked at USG% much, but for what it's worth:

2000-01
Regular Season
Shaq: 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 31.8 USG%
Playoffs
Shaq: 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 30.3 USG%

2001-02
Regular Season
Shaq: 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 30.4 USG%
Playoffs
Shaq: 31.4 USG%
Kobe: 29.8 USG%

[cobbler]

Funny how nobody discredits any of Magic's 5 titles even though he only won the finals MVP 3 times and in the year of his first his own teamate was the season MVP.

Kobe just ins't as likeable... simple as that.

PJ just last night described Kobe's role in the 3peat as a primary mover.

FG%, FGA, Points, advanced stats, etc etc blah blah blah. Watch the games!

It takes a team to win and neither Kobe or Shaq win without the likes of Fish, Shaw, Horry, Fox, Harper etc. Anyone who watched the games knows that neither win without the other. The BIG men will always have better effeciency numbers. It goes with the position.

Just as Magic and Kareem don't win shit without Worthy, Scott, Wilkes, Green, Rambis etc. So who was the number one option? Kareem or Magic? I believe it was Kareem and Magic was the glue. Othere might think the opposite. Does that take anything away from either players championships or legacies? Of couse not...

Only Kobe get's that microscope.

[namlook]

Kobe is a rapist and should be in prison.

Maybe you should be in prison too.

[silverblk mystix]

Maybe you should be in prison too.

I am not a rapist.

[Cane]

I've already made reference to this in one of my previous posts, but it's the whole idea of "number one option" and Kobe not being the "number one option" on those Lakers teams or only winning two titles as the "number one option." It just doesn't make for a compelling argument for me. Your take is slightly different, by saying it's Shaq's dominance or that he was more vital. That I have less of a problem with. As I said earlier, if people argued Shaq was the "best player" on those teams, I'd have less of a problem with. It's the whole "number one option" thing merely to discredit Kobe.

Kobe had a profound impact on the 3-peat but he was still clearly a secondary option since they had a prime Shaq on their team. Shaq's impact on the game was unrivaled at the point in the league and to sound like a broken record he was basically the undisputed best player during his LA prime. Bryant simply didn't contribute as much as Shaq did and wasn't as dominant whether its overall stats, impact, or in their championship winning Finals. But yea I agree that without him, LA wouldn't 3peat but without Shaq they would've been much worse off.



I haven't argued once that Kobe was the number one option over Shaq. Merely that they shared that status for two of those championship teams. I didn't include the first title and I didn't even look at the stats of that team because I'm pretty sure the stats would bear out that Shaq was more clearly the number one guy on that team. I'm only suggesting that this whole "number one option" thing is just a phrase used to discredit Kobe.


Kobe really only shared that "1B" status for one year and was vastly outplayed in the other two by a combined 19.5 PER in the playoffs. Kobe was easily the best secondary option in the NBA and a top player himself but Shaq was clearly the best player in the league.

When it comes to comparing such elite players and their careers, qualities such as not having as impressive run(s) in the Championship-winning Finals or as the overall no. 1 option are still in the discussion.



I haven't once argued anything to discredit Shaq or how good or dominant he was during that stretch of titles. He was phenomenal. You don't have to convince me. He was a modern version of Wilt Chamberlain, or as close as there could be. He was just unstoppable in the paint. None of my comments have suggested otherwise, nor have I intended them to.


Well when you compared Kobe to Shaq by using PPG and FGA on just two of the three-peat years it seemed like a biased and skewed take.



Point to point, I'm arguing that you can't discredit Kobe for those championships either. How people talk about it, you'd think Kobe was really a role player, someone like the status of a Scottie Pippen or Kevin McHale. But that's simply not the case. The cat averaged one or two points fewer than Shaq. He was not simply a role player or even a sidekick. It wasn't Batman and Robin. It was Superman and Batman. That's what I've been getting at. Role players don't average 25-30 points a game. Sidekicks don't get the basketball in their hands in the final two minutes of close games to close it out.

Of course he wasn't a role player, he was one of the top players in the league. However during that 3peat era everyone was Robin if Shaq's Batman including the next best players in the league in Duncan and Kobe. Everyone would've played second fiddle to Shaq on the Lakers during that era and that shouldn't be an insult to anyone. But that also doesn't mean that he wasn't the best no.1 option of the time either given his basically unrivaled modern NBA dominance.




Magic Johnson not once was the playoff leading scorer on any of his five championship Lakers squad. How ridiculous would it be to say he wasn't the "the number one option" on those teams?

I'm not sure whats the deal with the scoring emphasis and jumping to other players but Magic Johnson wasn't outplayed by a teammate by over 10 PER in a championship run like Kobe was and its not like Magic was the Finals MVP on all their runs either . Magic also posted up far greater moments in NBA finals history.



Now I know it's not exactly the same thing. But that's the type the criticism Kobe not being "the number one option" on those teams come across as. Kobe wasn't Kevin McHale. He wasn't Robin. He was "1B."

It was no contest that Shaq was absolutely superior for most of the run especially in the Finals, Kobe only had one championship year where he closed in on Shaq's impact.

No one's saying Kobe is Kevin McHale but Bryant was clearly a secondary option on the 3-peat and not "1B" but that doesn't mean he wasn't a top 2-4 player either



Don't disagree with that and that follows my line of thinking.

I think Kobe's impact was just as vital. You take Shaq off those Lakers teams, they don't win titles. You take Kobe off those Lakers teams, they don't win titles. I truly believe that.

Shaq was the better player. He was the more dominant player. I personally think his importance wasn't that much greater than Kobe's. I still view it as more as a "1A" and "1B' type of thing. Kobe's emergence as elite player and premier scorer is what helped make Shaq's dominance so unstoppable. It wasn't with Penny. It wasn't with Van Exel/Eddie Jones. It got to that point with Kobe. It wasn't like Hakeem and a bunch of jumpshooting role players. It was Shaq 1A and Kobe 1B.

Kobe really only has a legitimate argument for one championship run as the 1B. He was the second most important reason why they were successful though but did fall short in the championship Finals.

You seem to acknowledge that Shaq was a greater player so how can Kobe be just as important if Shaq as better? You take Kobe off the team and the Lakers still has a shot of getting a title and at the very least having a much better chance at getting a title than a team built around Kobe.

And now that I think about it....1B basically is being a no. 2 spot or not being the legitimate no. 1 guy. :)


Funny how nobody discredits any of Magic's 5 titles even though he only won the finals MVP 3 times and in the year of his first his own teamate was the season MVP.

Final MVP's are decided by the team and Magic was able to carry the load during Kareem's injury is why he got that one IIRC.



Kobe just ins't as likeable... simple as that.


Doesn't stop his jersey from being the most sold in the NBA. However other GOATs also didn't get involved with rape, nasty feuds like he had with Shaq, and you're surfing on spurstalk.com where LA is basically enemy no. 1.

Lets not forget that Magic Johnson and the Lakers were a polarizing force back in the day as well versus Bird and the Celtics.



PJ just last night described Kobe's role in the 3peat as a primary mover.

FG%, FGA, Points, advanced stats, etc etc blah blah blah. Watch the games!

It takes a team to win and neither Kobe or Shaq win without the likes of Fish, Shaw, Horry, Fox, Harper etc. Anyone who watched the games knows that neither win without the other. The BIG men will always have better effeciency numbers. It goes with the position.

Just as Magic and Kareem don't win shit without Worthy, Scott, Wilkes, Green, Rambis etc. So who was the number one option? Kareem or Magic? I believe it was Kareem and Magic was the glue. Othere might think the opposite. Does that take anything away from either players championships or legacies? Of couse not...

Only Kobe get's that microscope.

During that Shaq-era PJ also called Kobe "uncoachable" and was willing to trade him since that locker room was so crazy and Shaq was the more important piece at the time IIRC.

Whenever people do talk about the stacked teams like Magic's and Bird's its usually brought up that they had incredible teammates and some of the most talent on a roster the NBA has seen.

But yea, basketball is of course a team game and Kobe was instrumental in the 3-peat and not really interchangeable. Doesn't change that he didn't have as much of an impact as Shaq and by a substantial margin in at least two of the three championship years. Or that Shaq performed better in the championship finals.

[Mikesatx]

Kobe's talent should never be discredited. I don't think many would argue who is more talented between Duncan and Kobe. Basketball is about team and winning and this is where Tim passes Kobe.

By the time 2000 rolls around the Lakers are starting the next dynasty. Shaq is 28 and Kobe 22. Three years in and three titles later this isn't enough for Kobe. He has bought into the hype of being the next Jordan and deferring to Shaq or allowing Shaq to take more credit is more than Kobe can take. He chases Shaq out in '04 and along with it more titles. The alternative here is to exude a little humility and recognize that at some point he would be the go to guy and Shaq would recognize and embrace it. He couldn't do that. In the interim the Lakers are mediocre for 5 years. He threatens to walk because he can't take the mediocrity and suddenly the Lake show gets Gasol. Along this journey he has a rape accusation and throws Shaq under the bus for cheating on his wife.

Duncan on the other hand has exhibited loyalty to his team franchise and city. Has always played with the best interest of the team ahead of his own. Has brought 4 titles to a town as the best player on his team. He has exuded class and a committment to winning over personal glory at every step along the way.

Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.

[024]

Kobe is legit.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2009-3/1336749/joeycrawford1.jpg
:lmao

[Pelicans78]

Duncan's had the better career overall. More consistent, even in the playoffs. The margin is small but the edge goes to Duncan.

[Pelicans78]

Playing with Shaq hurt Kobe in a sense because he was forced to be the 2nd option for so many years. Who knows what kind of success Kobe could have had if he was the 1st option for most of his career. He's proven to win championships as the guy. Maybe he would be regarded higher. But unfortunately, playing with Shaq hindered some of his legacy.

[cobbler]

Final MVP's are decided by the team and Magic was able to carry the load during Kareem's injury is why he got that one..

Of course. But again, even though Kareem was the season MVP and go to guy for the playoffs with the exception of the missed game due to injury, nobody says Magic really only has 4 relevent rings. Or because Worthy carried them in 88 I never hear Magic only has 3 relevent rings.

The whole #1 option thing is just garbage IMO. It's not like we are talking the difference between a scrub player and a star. Discrediting Kobe's first 3 rings because he had a great teamate is just as absurd as discrediting Magic or Kareem for theres. You could say the same for many teams.


Doesn't stop his jersey from being the most sold in the NBA. However other GOATs also didn't get involved with rape, nasty feuds like he had with Shaq, and you're surfing on spurstalk.com where LA is basically enemy no. 1..

He's very popular no doubt. But his haters are rabid in the efforts to discredit him. Surely you can see this? There is a huge list of discretions from many star players. Magic's sexcapades. MJ's gambling and history of hanging with thugs etc etc. Come on, the NBA is not lacking for anti role models.


During that Shaq-era PJ also called Kobe "uncoachable" and was willing to trade him since that locker room was so crazy and Shaq was the more important piece at the time IIRC..

And thank god Dr. Buss saw it the other way and in retrospect made the correct decision. PJ also came back tail tucked tightly. I'm sure his animosity in the book had nothing to do with being fired by Dr. Buss after he chose Kobe over Shaq. Right?


Whenever people do talk about the stacked teams like Magic's and Bird's its usually brought up that they had incredible teammates and some of the most talent on a roster the NBA has seen. .

Exactly my point. We don't hear that the Laker team was stacked, just that Shaq was the dominant one and Kobe rode his coattails. It's a double standard that nobody has had to face like Kobe does.


But yea, basketball is of course a team game and Kobe was instrumental in the 3-peat and not really interchangeable. Doesn't change that he didn't have as much of an impact as Shaq and by a substantial margin in at least two of the three championship years. Or that Shaq performed better in the championship finals.

Again, I have no problem acknowledging Shaqs dominance. He was a freak of nature not unlike Lebron today and unstoppable. He deserves all the credit he gets for the championships he HELPED bring to the Lakers. My point is you just cannot disregard Kobe's importance and act like he only has 2 because of it. Hey was a KEY component and neither get rings without each other.

[Pelicans78]

Now Kobe has been better the last couple of seasons and will likely continue to be better perhaps allowing him to completely surpass Duncan when its all said and done.

[cobbler]

Kobe's talent should never be discredited. I don't think many would argue who is more talented between Duncan and Kobe. Basketball is about team and winning and this is where Tim passes Kobe.

By the time 2000 rolls around the Lakers are starting the next dynasty. Shaq is 28 and Kobe 22. Three years in and three titles later this isn't enough for Kobe. He has bought into the hype of being the next Jordan and deferring to Shaq or allowing Shaq to take more credit is more than Kobe can take. He chases Shaq out in '04 and along with it more titles. The alternative here is to exude a little humility and recognize that at some point he would be the go to guy and Shaq would recognize and embrace it. He couldn't do that. In the interim the Lakers are mediocre for 5 years. He threatens to walk because he can't take the mediocrity and suddenly the Lake show gets Gasol. Along this journey he has a rape accusation and throws Shaq under the bus for cheating on his wife.

Duncan on the other hand has exhibited loyalty to his team franchise and city. Has always played with the best interest of the team ahead of his own. Has brought 4 titles to a town as the best player on his team. He has exuded class and a committment to winning over personal glory at every step along the way.

Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.

After all that has gone on since you still believe this? The fact that Kobe, Dr. Buss, and Shaq himself have gone on record as saying that it just wasn't the case means nothing? Shaq's continued history of burning bridges with every team he has played on sheds no further light? Only Kobe asking to be traded because he wanted to win and the Lakers werent fulfilling their promise gets airplay? Come on.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[TheMACHINE]

What a waste of thread space. Noone cares about Duncan outside of Spurstalk. How many times did I hear Duncan compared to anyone this year?! Answer: NONE.

Good night.

[tdunk21]

Kobe's talent should never be discredited. I don't think many would argue who is more talented between Duncan and Kobe. Basketball is about team and winning and this is where Tim passes Kobe.

By the time 2000 rolls around the Lakers are starting the next dynasty. Shaq is 28 and Kobe 22. Three years in and three titles later this isn't enough for Kobe. He has bought into the hype of being the next Jordan and deferring to Shaq or allowing Shaq to take more credit is more than Kobe can take. He chases Shaq out in '04 and along with it more titles. The alternative here is to exude a little humility and recognize that at some point he would be the go to guy and Shaq would recognize and embrace it. He couldn't do that. In the interim the Lakers are mediocre for 5 years. He threatens to walk because he can't take the mediocrity and suddenly the Lake show gets Gasol. Along this journey he has a rape accusation and throws Shaq under the bus for cheating on his wife.


Duncan on the other hand has exhibited loyalty to his team franchise and city. Has always played with the best interest of the team ahead of his own. Has brought 4 titles to a town as the best player on his team. He has exuded class and a committment to winning over personal glory at every step along the way.

Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.

very well said

[tdunk21]

What a waste of thread space. Noone cares about Duncan outside of Spurstalk. How many times did I hear Duncan compared to anyone this year?! Answer: NONE.

Good night.

duncan is not compared to anyone coz he is the best at the position he plays....just like MJ is not compared to anyone, everyone is compared to MJ....this guy is a joke.....

[TheMACHINE]

duncan is not compared to anyone coz he is the best at the position he plays....just like MJ is not compared to anyone, everyone is compared to MJ....this guy is a joke.....

Is Duncan a top 10 player of all time?

[tdunk21]

Is Duncan a top 10 player of all time?

name one PF in the top 10 players of all time.......there are so many sites with different top 10 all time players.....timmy does deserve a spot in top 10 coz who would have thought that a small market team like spurs will win 4 rings and thats all because of this guy....

[Mikesatx]

After all that has gone on since you still believe this? The fact that Kobe, Dr. Buss, and Shaq himself have gone on record as saying that it just wasn't the case means nothing? Shaq's continued history of burning bridges with every team he has played on sheds no further light? Only Kobe asking to be traded because he wanted to win and the Lakers werent fulfilling their promise gets airplay? Come on.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.


If that wasn't the case then what was? Have the three agreed to lay it on Shaq? What bridges has he burned? I agree that after the Miami title he didn't deliver for the Heat, Suns and last year the Cavs but is that burning bridges or just not living up to expectations? What promise are we talking about? Kobe signs a max contract and the sole role of any front office is to build the best team they can, that is a given. If you don't have pieces to trade or don't draft well then you fail. Happens to teams all the time. Kobe wanted it both ways and at the end of the day he got it.

[cobbler]

If that wasn't the case then what was? Have the three agreed to lay it on Shaq? What bridges has he burned? I agree that after the Miami title he didn't deliver for the Heat, Suns and last year the Cavs but is that burning bridges or just not living up to expectations? What promise are we talking about? Kobe signs a max contract and the sole role of any front office is to build the best team they can, that is a given. If you don't have pieces to trade or don't draft well then you fail. Happens to teams all the time. Kobe wanted it both ways and at the end of the day he got it.

No... all three agreed that it was Dr. Buss who made the decision and it had nothing to do with Kobe and Shaqs differences. It was a business decision and the correct one. Do some research. He ragged on the Magic and his teammates there after he left. His issues with Penny are well known. His derogatory comments about every aspect of the Lakers organization are well documented. Nash had issues with Shaq. Give him time and no doubt the Cavs comments will surface. He's petty. Ask Gilbert!

The promise was to ACTIVELY persue obtaining talent. They balked for 2 years and brought in crap. Unless you consider Smush and Kwame good moves.

He got it... because he forced the issue. He should have done so behind closed doors but none the less... his bitch move worked. I'm glad for it. :toast

[JamStone]

Mike, while I don't agree with every thing in the post you wrote, I only wanted to address your last line which essentially was the conclusion to the post:


Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.

What you wrote to make that conclusion didn't really support that conclusion. What you wrote more so concluded this:


Kobe is the better basketball talent, while Tim is the better person.

or


Kobe is the better basketball player, while Tim is the better teammate.

That seemed more what your post got at than what you actually concluded.

[Roddy Beaubois]

A better individual career? Duncan easily. More titles as the #1 option, more Finals MVPs, more regular seasons MVPs, more all-NBA team selections, more impact on both sides of the floor.

Now team success? Bryant easily. He's had the GOAT coach and the most dominant player ever to help bolster his resume, and now has a stacked team to continue to do so. He's a great player, but he doesn't impact the game as much as Duncan.

Fuck you Kobe nut suckers.


I think Duncan > Kobe career wise too, but you are an obvious Duncan nut sucker. He had a great coach and great teams, yet you seem to imply Duncan did it all by himself. Duncan had two very good players in Tony and Manu, and many other good pieces like Bowen. He never played with a player like Shaq, but he was on staaaaaked teams that some superstars never had in their prime.

[TheSpursFNRule]

I don't get why people keep saying Kobe will surpass Duncan. Kobe himself has admitted Duncan is the best PF of all time and most will say Duncan is the best PF of all time. That is Duncan's legacy. How would Kobe(a SG) surpass Duncan's legacy as the greatest PF of all time.

[Booharv]

So what exactly makes a player the first option of a team over another player? The player that scores more is always the number one option? Problem with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers is that there are very few other examples of championship teams that have had their two best players both in their prime and both having the dominant talent to be number 1 options. Take a look at the last two seasons of the Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers.

2000-01 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 28.7 ppg, 19.2 FGApg
Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 22.2FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 21.5 FGApg
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 22.4 FGApg

2001-02 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 27.2 ppg, 18.3 FGApg
Kobe: 25.2 ppg, 20.0 FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 20.2 FGApg
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 22.7 FGApg

Yes, Shaq scored more, marginally. Yes, he was more efficient at scoring, since he was making dunks, lay-ups, and short hook shots. And yes, he had better NBA Finals performances. But, if you look at those stats above, it's far from a huge margin between the two as to which was the number one option. Kobe took more shots. The offense was geared towards showcasing both players, rather equally actually. Kobe wasn't a second option on those Lakers teams. The most appropriate way to call it is Shaq was 1A and Kobe was 1B. Kobe was a first option.

It absolutely boggles my mind that people try to twist it so adamantly just to discredit Kobe.

It's not that complicated imo. Include their numbers in the three-peat Finals. Shaq averaged like 35/15 in the Finals. When you have a teammate averaging 35/15 in the Finals it kind of eases the burden. Much like having a nuclear bomb kind of eased our invasion of Japan. Kobe was definitely essential to those championships. But comparing Tony and Manu to a prime Shaq like you did earlier is flattering to any Spurs fan but absurd. Shaq was dominating like few big men ever have, now you could argue that he was aided by a historically shitty era of centers, but that's another story.

The least number of points Shaq scored in those three Finals series is 28. The Least. And that's the game he had the near Quad double. He never shot lower than 52% from the field in any game.

To further display the point I took 2 minutes to make this pic of Shaq's numbers in the Three-peat Finals from Basketball Reference.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4716092939_20ba6da79d_b.jpg

What's the worst game in the Indiana series? It's probably the game he only scored 33 and 13 but shot 62.5%. Or maybe when he only shot 52% but had 36 and 21. As a matter of fact what's the worst game he had in those Three Finals period? To me it's down to either the 30 and 12 with 4 blocks he put on Philly on 55% shooting or the 29 and 13 with 5 blocks on 55.6% shooting he also put on the Sixers.

The fact of the matter is every game he played he put up straight dominant numbers in those three Finals. Here's a shitty analogy to drive the point home: If winning an NBA championship is like beating the original Contra, having that Shaq on your team is like having the up up down down etc. cheat code.

[mingus]

if Kobe wins one more Final's MVP he'll be right there with Timmy, maybe even better because of his more championships. however, you can't be ahead of someone and not have at least as many Final's mvp's. that is the most important award of them all in terms of measuring who's better than who. so right now i suspect he'll win at least one more Final's mvp and when all is said and done he'll have the better career than Duncan. i don't think Tim has another championship or Finals' MVP left in him. if he does, that's obviously change things.

[JamStone]

I haven't argued Shaq wasn't the better player or wasn't the more dominant player.

From the beginning, my issue had been with the notion of "number one option."

There are some people that choose to discredit Kobe's impact on those championships by saying he wasn't the number one option on the team. I am arguing he shared that status with Shaq, particularly for the 2001 and 2002 titles.

I'm not arguing Kobe was better or more dominant than Shaq. Why does that keep coming up? Shaq was more dominant. Shaq was the better player. I've not argued otherwise.

As far as impact, which I didn't even talk about initially, I look at it this way. If you take Shaq off those Lakers teams, they don't win the championship. If you take Kobe off those Lakers teams, they don't win the championship. In that regard, I think both Shaq and Kobe made an impact for those teams that were essential to the success. If you want to go deeper, I can concede that Shaq's impact was more. But I don't think it's by a wide margin as some others do. I think Kobe's emergence as an elite player was just as important for those titles as Shaq's dominance was.

[dirk4mvp]

Haven't read the thread because it looks like it's a bunch of retarded laker fans jerking each other off, but if anyone uses Kobe's 5th as a reason for being over Duncan, you can kindly go fuck your mother, cuz Duncan has never choked as hard as Kobe did in game 7, a game/performance that would make Malone and Ewing blush.

[JamStone]

Haven't read the thread because it looks like it's a bunch of retarded laker fans jerking each other off, but if anyone uses Kobe's 5th as a reason for being over Duncan, you can kindly go fuck your mother, cuz Duncan has never choked as hard as Kobe did in game 7, a game/performance that would make Malone and Ewing blush.

Hard to beat Kobe's dreadful shooting performance in game 7 the other night.

But this what I talk about when Kobe gets hated on more than anyone else. Do you actually know how Tim Duncan performed in the last two championship clinching games (2005, 2007)?

People really get on Kobe for poor performances more than any other player.

[xellos88330]

We can compare when both retire.

[dirk4mvp]

Hard to beat Kobe's dreadful shooting performance in game 7 the other night.

But this what I talk about when Kobe gets hated on more than anyone else. Do you actually know how Tim Duncan performed in the last two championship clinching games (2005, 2007)?

People really get on Kobe for poor performances more than any other player.

A sweep of one of the worst teams of all time to make the Finals is a little different than a game 7 of what is supposedly one of the greatest rivalries in sports. And the clinching game in 05 was a far cry from 25%.

People really cover up for Kobe's poor performances more than any other player.

[JamStone]

Lol it's easy to say "the situations were different" after the fact. Did you even know Duncan had a couple of horrible clinching games in the NBA Finals? My guess is that you didn't. And 37% for a big man accustomed to shooting at or around 50% from the field is extremely poor, especially for a guy who is generally so efficient and unselfish when his game is not on and then chucks 27 shots up. No, it's not as bad as Kobe's shooting performance. But my guess is that you didn't even know Duncan had that poor of a game in that game 7.

Because Tim Duncan is a nice guy. Whether you like him or think he's boring, he's still respected. People don't have venom for him like they do for Kobe. So a really poor performance like that does not collect the amount of criticism Kobe gets. People forget it the next day. They don't challenge his Finals MVP. They don't diminish his greatness.

Yes, the situations were different. Still helps prove my point about how much hate Kobe gets no matter what.

[dirk4mvp]

Lol it's easy to say "the situations were different" after the fact. Did you even know Duncan had a couple of horrible clinching games in the NBA Finals? My guess is that you didn't. And 37% for a big man accustomed to shooting at or around 50% from the field is extremely poor, especially for a guy who is generally so efficient and unselfish when his game is not on and then chucks 27 shots up. No, it's not as bad as Kobe's shooting performance. But my guess is that you didn't even know Duncan had that poor of a game in that game 7.

Because Tim Duncan is a nice guy. Whether you like him or think he's boring, he's still respected. People don't have venom for him like they do for Kobe. So a really poor performance like that does not collect the amount of criticism Kobe gets. People forget it the next day. They don't challenge his Finals MVP. They don't diminish his greatness.

Yes, the situations were different. Still helps prove my point about how much hate Kobe gets no matter what.


People hate Kobe so much that ABC went as far as to not show his FG%, but show his FT%. People hate Kobe, the most popular basketball player on the planet :tu

[JamStone]

I guess the world will never know how he shot the ball in game 7 then... unless they actually watched the game, or the post game where the analysts talked about it, or Sports Center when they talked about it, or look at the boxscore on the internet, or read about it in the newspaper the next day, or when they talk to people about how badly he shot the ball... I guess not putting up his FG% on the TV screen for 5 seconds erases it from history right?

Lol did you really just post that?

[Booharv]

I haven't argued Shaq wasn't the better player or wasn't the more dominant player.

From the beginning, my issue had been with the notion of "number one option."

There are some people that choose to discredit Kobe's impact on those championships by saying he wasn't the number one option on the team. I am arguing he shared that status with Shaq, particularly for the 2001 and 2002 titles.

I'm not arguing Kobe was better or more dominant than Shaq. Why does that keep coming up? Shaq was more dominant. Shaq was the better player. I've not argued otherwise.

As far as impact, which I didn't even talk about initially, I look at it this way. If you take Shaq off those Lakers teams, they don't win the championship. If you take Kobe off those Lakers teams, they don't win the championship. In that regard, I think both Shaq and Kobe made an impact for those teams that were essential to the success. If you want to go deeper, I can concede that Shaq's impact was more. But I don't think it's by a wide margin as some others do. I think Kobe's emergence as an elite player was just as important for those titles as Shaq's dominance was.

The thing is if the Lakers go Chris Wallace-mode and trade David Robinson (Duncan's best teammate in 1999) for Shaq (Kobe's best teammate in 1999) before the 2000 season, which would be an all-time stupid move but still, Duncan has seven championships and Kobe has 2. As a matter of fact, if 2007-09 D-Wade had the Prime Shaq-Cheat code they would probably three-peat. Same with 2007-09 Lebron. I'm fully aware of Shaq's weaknesses. He can't shoot FT's, he took advantage of the fact that centers have sucked a dick since about the 1994-95 D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq era, and you can't go to him in the clutch since he can't shoot FT's (not pictured anywhere on this list, Shaquille O'Neal: http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm) but with D-Wade to hit the clutch shots and score like crazy for him they would three-peat. Now, Lebron hasn't been as good in the clutch as D-Wade and Kobe (excluding game 7) but I would argue Lebron+Prime Shaq-Cheat code would be so good the first 46 the last 2 wouldn't matter.

Tbh, I think that the fact is a lot of players could three-peat with that Shaq. Pretty much any top 30-35 player imo and maybe even 90-92 Clyde Drexler (Clyde was a close game seven in 1991 versus the Lakers from making three straight Finals), meaning Jordan might not have won until 1993 . That version of Shaq could get a shit load of great players easy championships.

[dirk4mvp]

Lol did you really just post that?

Coming from kobefan who says Kobe gets so much hate, the most popular player on the planet? :wow

[JamStone]

The thing is if the Lakers go Chris Wallace-mode and trade David Robinson (Duncan's best teammate in 1999) for Shaq (Kobe's best teammate in 1999) before the 2000 season, which would be an all-time stupid move but still, Duncan has seven championships and Kobe has 2. As a matter of fact, if 2007-09 D-Wade had the Prime Shaq-Cheat code they would probably three-peat. Same with 2007-09 Lebron. I'm fully aware of Shaq's weaknesses. He can't shoot FT's, he took advantage of the fact that centers have sucked a dick since about the 1994-95 D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq era, and you can't go to him in the clutch since he can't shoot FT's (not pictured anywhere on this list, Shaquille O'Neal: http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm) but with D-Wade to hit the clutch shots and score like crazy for him they would three-peat. Now, Lebron hasn't been as good in the clutch as D-Wade and Kobe (excluding game 7) but I would argue Lebron+Prime Shaq-Cheat code would be so good the first 46 the last 2 wouldn't matter.

Tbh, I think that the fact is a lot of players could three-peat with that Shaq. Pretty much any top 30-35 player imo and maybe even 90-92 Clyde Drexler (Clyde was a close game seven in 1991 versus the Lakers from making three straight Finals), meaning Jordan might not have won until 1993 . That version of Shaq could get a shit load of great players easy championships.

Make it more interesting.

In 2000, have the Lakers trade Shaq for Duncan.

Kobe and Duncan. Shaq and Robinson. They meet for the next four seasons. Who wins the titles in those four years?

[Booharv]

Make it more interesting.

In 2000, have the Lakers trade Shaq for Duncan.

Kobe and Duncan. Shaq and Robinson. They meet for the next four seasons. Who wins the titles in those four years?

I don't understand this. This thread is comparing Kobe and Duncan, if they're on the same team then we're comparing Duncan to Shaq. Aka Shaq-Kobe to Duncan-Kobe. My point is that prime Duncan never had the Prime Shaq-Cheat Code. And besides Robinson is by far the worst of the four here in this time period and Duncan had him not Shaq as his teammate then.

[Booharv]

http://www.internet-tools.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/konamicode.png

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4716092939_20ba6da79d_b.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5DZbgHv0KQk/S7Dh6WFPQQI/AAAAAAAAEL8/XrP7NxefbWw/s1600/equals+sign.png

http://basketballtrophies.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/larry_obrien_championship.jpg

[JamStone]

I don't understand this. This thread is comparing Kobe and Duncan, if they're on the same team then we're comparing Duncan to Shaq. Aka Shaq-Kobe to Duncan-Kobe. My point is that prime Duncan never had the Prime Shaq-Cheat Code. And besides Robinson is by far the worst of the four here in this time period and Duncan had him not Shaq as his teammate then.

Discussion has been in a tangent debate regarding Shaq's impact/importance versus Kobe's. If you give Shaq a top 5 player in the league and give Kobe an aging and ailing center, of course I'd take Shaq's situation over Kobe's as to who will have more success.

There was no other real dominant center in the late 90s early 2000s. Duncan is probably the only one you could argue but he's a PF.

But let's say trade Kobe on those Lakers teams with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. And then pit them against a team by trading Shaq on those Lakers teams with Duncan. Shaq-Vince or Shaq-TMac isn't guaranteed to beat Kobe-Duncan. I'd probably put my bet on Kobe-Duncan.

This is where we disagree. I don't think you can plug any player next to Shaq and he wins three straight titles. I don't think Drexler does it like you mention. I don't buy that.

[Booharv]

Discussion has been in a tangent debate regarding Shaq's impact/importance versus Kobe's. If you give Shaq a top 5 player in the league and give Kobe an aging and ailing center, of course I'd take Shaq's situation over Kobe's as to who will have more success.

There was no other real dominant center in the late 90s early 2000s. Duncan is probably the only one you could argue but he's a PF.

But let's say trade Kobe on those Lakers teams with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. And then pit them against a team by trading Shaq on those Lakers teams with Duncan. Shaq-Vince or Shaq-TMac isn't guaranteed to beat Kobe-Duncan. I'd probably put my bet on Kobe-Duncan.

This is where we disagree. I don't think you can plug any player next to Shaq and he wins three straight titles. I don't think Drexler does it like you mention. I don't buy that.

I said top 30-35 player earlier. Of course, I've been over simplifying, the supporting cast would be extremely important but I'm assuming a decent championship level supporting cast. Which, with Prime Shaq-Cheat code plus a top 35 player wouldn't need to be that great of a supporting cast imo. Tbh, Clyde didn't have much help in 1990-92 at all (Terry Porter as your second best player?) and still carried his team pretty far but if you disagree, fair enough.

You did make one awesome point I agree with in this thread though. To sidetrack for one second, Magic was the best player on three title teams. People forget that Kareem was averaging like 33 a game through five in the 1980 Finals and really should probably still have been the Finals MVP even with the missed game 6. If you read on the history of it, the reason people were so worried when Kareem went down is because he was setting fire to the Sixers in that series. They just couldn't stop him. Magic won the Finals MVP really on the basis of that one game plus the shock value of the Lakers best player going down and Magic defying all odds for one game and carrying his team to victory. Plus the fact that he jumped the opening tip has been beaten to death. How important is the opening tip, really? That game was more of a Villanova/NC State upset than an indicator of who the best player in the series was.

[Nahtanoj]

Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.

Kobe is a better Guard. Tim is a better Forward. There..

Don't know why this thread is even four pages.

[Muser]

Both are all time greats, instead of bitching about who is better you should be happy you got to see two of the best players to ever play the game.

[Ghazi]

:smokin

[Cane]

http://www.internet-tools.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/konamicode.png

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4716092939_20ba6da79d_b.jpg



:toast

:wow

[doobs]

I'd rather have a first tier big than a first tier wing. ALWAYS.

Duncan is a first tier big, Gasol is a second tier big.

Kobe is a first tier wing, Ginobili is a second tier wing.

If all are in their prime . . . I take Duncan/Ginobili over Kobe/Gasol.

[dirk4mvp]

Kobe is a better Guard. Tim is a better Center. There..

Don't know why this thread is even four pages.


fixed, tbh.

[HarlemHeat37]

Some points..

-It's a toss-up IMO..you can make a convincing argument for both guys..the main thing Kobe has over Duncan now is the fact that he repeated, since Tim never did it..I would take Duncan by a slight margin right now, but Kobe has a much better chance of surpassing him for obvious reasons..

-The thing about Kobe's performances in the Finals isn't about how poorly he has performed IMO..Duncan has had some sub-par Finals, so has Jordan, so has pretty much every legendary player..for me, it's about Kobe never having Finals performances that can match Jordan's 1st 3-peat, Shaq's 3-peat, Duncan in '99 and 2003, Bird/Magic and many others..he hasn't consistently played well..it also hurts him that the 2004 Finals was arguably the worst star performance of all-time..

-The hype and credit for Kobe is a lot different than a guy like Duncan..

Tim Duncan in 2005 was playing on 2 severely hurt ankles..this wasn't a "phantom" injury like others, this was an injury that forced him to miss the last few weeks of the season, and he re-aggravated it during the Seattle series, as everybody knows..the problem is that Duncan was heavily criticized for not playing up to his offensive standards during the Pistons series..the media was bashing him the entire series, up until he killed the 2nd half of game 7..

Kobe is pretty much the opposite..he was playing through minor injuries during the playoffs, yet he used it as an excuse, and so did the media, throughout the playoffs..the media doesn't mention his struggles..when he was scoring a lot and shooting poorly at times during this series, they mentioned his injuries and mentioned how he contributed in other ways like rebounding and defending..

Duncan is a legendary defensive player, one of the top 5-7 all-time IMO, but nobody mentioned it during this time..he never received any excuses from the media or the casual fan..he was bashed the entire series, even though he had even more potential excuses to work with than Kobe..

Kobe homers like to mention how Kobe is unfairly criticized, which is a valid argument at times, but they ignore all the advantages he receives from the media, which appeals to the casual fan..not showing his FG% is unheard of..


-I don't like using titles as "#1 option", it's easier to say "best player", which isn't difficult to judge..

Shaq was clearly the best player in 2000, that one isn't arguable..Kobe was distant in every way..I would also say that Shaq was clearly the best player on the team in 2002 as well..

In 2002, Shaq led the Lakers in the playoffs in PER by a massive margin, he led Win Shares and Wins Produced, he had the best offensive rating AND defensive rating on the team, he was the best rebounder, and he was by far the most efficient player on the team..he also led usage %, so he got the most possessions as well..

2001 is the only year where you can say Kobe was the #1a best player on the team, still behind Shaq, but close..Kobe led that team in offensive rating, tied Shaq for Win Shares/Wins Produces, was nearly as efficient, he was the closer and the perimeter defender on the team..I would accept the argument that Kobe was #1a on that team..

There's absolutely no argument for 2000, and the argument isn't strong for 2002..

Another thing for the "best player" argument..if you're going to say Kobe was a 1a or whatever for these teams, then you can't say that Gasol currently isn't for this Lakers team..

Gasol had by far the highest WS/WP for the Lakers, by far the best offensive rating on the team, slightly trailed Odom for defensive rating and Kobe for PER, led the Lakers in rebounding, he was by far the most efficient player on the team, led the team in blocks..

As an overall player, Gasol arguably did as much as Kobe did in 2001 and 2002, you could certainly make an argument for it..if you lowered Kobe's touches and increased Pau's, the numbers would be a lot closer, so Pau wouldn't have such a big lead in these advanced stats, I have taken that into consideration..why is it that everybody quickly dismisses Pau's contribution to this year's Laker team, but they're quick to prop up Kobe's contributions to the 3-peat teams?..

[cobbler]

It's a toss-up IMO so let me give you a whole page disparaging Kobe!

:lol:lol:lol:lol

The OBSESSION cont...

[Thomas82]

Some points..

-It's a toss-up IMO..you can make a convincing argument for both guys..the main thing Kobe has over Duncan now is the fact that he repeated, since Tim never did it..I would take Duncan by a slight margin right now, but Kobe has a much better chance of surpassing him for obvious reasons..

-The thing about Kobe's performances in the Finals isn't about how poorly he has performed IMO..Duncan has had some sub-par Finals, so has Jordan, so has pretty much every legendary player..for me, it's about Kobe never having Finals performances that can match Jordan's 1st 3-peat, Shaq's 3-peat, Duncan in '99 and 2003, Bird/Magic and many others..he hasn't consistently played well..it also hurts him that the 2004 Finals was arguably the worst star performance of all-time..

-The hype and credit for Kobe is a lot different than a guy like Duncan..

Tim Duncan in 2005 was playing on 2 severely hurt ankles..this wasn't a "phantom" injury like others, this was an injury that forced him to miss the last few weeks of the season, and he re-aggravated it during the Seattle series, as everybody knows..the problem is that Duncan was heavily criticized for not playing up to his offensive standards during the Pistons series..the media was bashing him the entire series, up until he killed the 2nd half of game 7..

Kobe is pretty much the opposite..he was playing through minor injuries during the playoffs, yet he used it as an excuse, and so did the media, throughout the playoffs..the media doesn't mention his struggles..when he was scoring a lot and shooting poorly at times during this series, they mentioned his injuries and mentioned how he contributed in other ways like rebounding and defending..

Duncan is a legendary defensive player, one of the top 5-7 all-time IMO, but nobody mentioned it during this time..he never received any excuses from the media or the casual fan..he was bashed the entire series, even though he had even more potential excuses to work with than Kobe..

Kobe homers like to mention how Kobe is unfairly criticized, which is a valid argument at times, but they ignore all the advantages he receives from the media, which appeals to the casual fan..not showing his FG% is unheard of..


-I don't like using titles as "#1 option", it's easier to say "best player", which isn't difficult to judge..

Shaq was clearly the best player in 2000, that one isn't arguable..Kobe was distant in every way..I would also say that Shaq was clearly the best player on the team in 2002 as well..

In 2002, Shaq led the Lakers in the playoffs in PER by a massive margin, he led Win Shares and Wins Produced, he had the best offensive rating AND defensive rating on the team, he was the best rebounder, and he was by far the most efficient player on the team..he also led usage %, so he got the most possessions as well..

2001 is the only year where you can say Kobe was the #1a best player on the team, still behind Shaq, but close..Kobe led that team in offensive rating, tied Shaq for Win Shares/Wins Produces, was nearly as efficient, he was the closer and the perimeter defender on the team..I would accept the argument that Kobe was #1a on that team..

There's absolutely no argument for 2000, and the argument isn't strong for 2002..

Another thing for the "best player" argument..if you're going to say Kobe was a 1a or whatever for these teams, then you can't say that Gasol currently isn't for this Lakers team..

Gasol had by far the highest WS/WP for the Lakers, by far the best offensive rating on the team, slightly trailed Odom for defensive rating and Kobe for PER, led the Lakers in rebounding, he was by far the most efficient player on the team, led the team in blocks..

As an overall player, Gasol arguably did as much as Kobe did in 2001 and 2002, you could certainly make an argument for it..if you lowered Kobe's touches and increased Pau's, the numbers would be a lot closer, so Pau wouldn't have such a big lead in these advanced stats, I have taken that into consideration..why is it that everybody quickly dismisses Pau's contribution to this year's Laker team, but they're quick to prop up Kobe's contributions to the 3-peat teams?..


:worthy::worthy:

[Blackjack]

If winning an NBA championship is like beating the original Contra, having that Shaq on your team is like having the up up down down etc. cheat code.

up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-Select-Start

Contra FTW!!! :elephant

[Blackjack]

I didn't notice the fourth page. :depressed



But, still . . . :elephant

[HarlemHeat37]

It's a toss-up IMO so let me give you a whole page disparaging Kobe!

:lol:lol:lol:lol

The OBSESSION cont...

Where did I disparage Kobe?..I didn't say anything bad about him..I said he gets more hype from the media than Duncan, which is a fact, and I said he was the 2nd best player on the 3-peat teams, with 2001 being a 1a situation, which is pretty much a fact..

Why is it that Kobe fans believe that somebody is insulting him when they don't bow down to him?..

I was responding to arguments that were already brought up in the thread..I know you're an old racist man, so you have trouble keeping up, but try to keep pace with the rest of us please..

It's a thread ABOUT Kobe that I didn't make, so please stop with your obsession over me..

[namlook]

I'd rather have a first tier big than a first tier wing. ALWAYS.

Duncan is a first tier big, Gasol is a second tier big.

Kobe is a first tier wing, Ginobili is a second tier wing.

If all are in their prime . . . I take Duncan/Ginobili over Kobe/Gasol.

No. Kobe/Gasol were able to repeat when Kobe was past his athletic prime. Duncan was never able to repeat even when he and Manu were in their prime.

[HarlemHeat37]

Duncan only had a "prime" Manu for 3 years IMO, and they won titles together for 2 of those 3, just like Kobe/Gasol won 2 out of 3 years..

[cobbler]

queue the "I don't play for the Spurs" diatribe...

[HarlemHeat37]

lol @ changing his posting style out of fear of getting banned again..
lol @ Pakistan losing to India in the Asia Cup..

[Veterinarian]

Didn't Duncan just sweep all the player of decade lists like a year ago? Kobe came in 3rd or 4th on several of them tbh.

[mavsfan1000]

Kobe 5 rings Duncan 4. Could be 6 next year for Kobe while Duncan looks finished.

[Sisk]

I think you can argue for either.

Duncan's 3 finals mvp+4 titles as number 1 guy are very impressive, just as his all-NBA teams. Great defender for most of his career(discounting the last couple of years, maybe), I think he really deserved at least 1 DPOY.

That being said, Kobe seems to have a couple of mvp caliber years left in him, while duncan is pretty much winding down. That gives kobe some time to build on his legacy.

:tu

Pretty spot on tbh

[dbreiden83080]

Pretty even..

Both top 10 all time

[RsxPiimp]

And I dont know why people still rag on Kobe's NBA Finals performance. He shot 42% for the past two Finals series, we get it, the guy has a questionable shooting selection...ever since, but Orlando's defense on him was pretty good, Celtics? suffocating, look past his FG % and you'll see he has been amazing.


2010

28.6 PPG 8 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG

2009

32.4 PPG and 5.5 RPG and 7.4 assists 2.3 SPG


In terms of shooting efficiency, Kobe's TS% in the playoffs has been at its highest in his career for the last 3 years (08-10) even higher than Jordan's during his 2nd three peat years. As for Duncan and Kobe, the media has picked Kobe as the player of the decade, what it seems like a travesty then appears to be much more acceptable now especially after Duncan's Spurs was ousted in 4 games by the Suns and the Lakers completed their repeat. I think its safe to say that at this point, Duncan's legacy is pretty much set while Kobe can still ad to his by winning another title and MVP while eclipsing other milestones.

[dbreiden83080]

Kobe 5 rings Duncan 4. Could be 6 next year for Kobe while Duncan looks finished.

Uh If Duncan had played 8 years with Shaq do you really think they would have only won 3 titles together? I guarantee that would have been the smoothest sailing tandum in NBA history. Duncan would never bitch like a little girl about not getting enough shots or who gets more credit for titles. He'd just play like a stud alongside another all time great BIG and win a shitload of rings.

IT was never enough for Kobe to win rings he needed his ass kissed royally too...

[TD 21]

Any true basketball fan knows it's Duncan. Unfortunately, Bryant's going to be remembered as better by far too many people who once upon a time (a time not that long ago) wouldn't have even put Bryant in the same breathe as Duncan. It's funny how the Gasol trade inflated the legacy of Bryant and deflated the legacy of Duncan.

I can go through the litany of reasons why Duncan is better, but I'm sure most of you have heard them before, so i'll just say this: if you had asked most people from 97-07 who they'd have rather had, Duncan would have won in a landslide.

[Lars]

Duncan