Sporting News Poll: Who Is The NBA Athlete Of The Decade: Kobe Or Duncan?

[Blackjack]

Duncan 70%

Kobe 30%

This really should be between Tim and Shaq.

[duncan228]

Taking advantage of mouse or whoever it is linking the thread:

Welcome to any Duncan/Spurs fan who may find SpursTalk from the Sporting News poll. Join the board and join the Duncan Mini Forum.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/group.php?groupid=7

[Blackjack]

Taking advantage of mouse or whoever it is linking the thread:

Welcome to any Duncan/Spurs fan who may find SpursTalk from the Sporting News poll. Join the board and join the Duncan Mini Forum.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/group.php?groupid=7

[Baseline]

Duncan 70%

Kobe 30%

This really should be between Tim and Shaq.

Exactly. Championships are a measuring stick, but in the modern NBA, Finals MVPs have to be strongly considered. Anybody who seriously equates Bryant's contribution to the three Laker les from 2000-2002 to the first three Spurs les with Tim is absolutely off their rocker. there's no comparison whatsoever.

Look up the stats Shaquille put up in those three Finals. He averaged something like 34 and 16 over the course of all three. Bryant coattailed him.

Tim has never coattailed anybody.

[j-money24]

Duncan only has 3 rings this decade.. Kobe is the Player of the decade.

[Greg Oden]

Wilt Chamberlain is the player of the decade.

[Greg Oden]

^^^^Not the decade, but he he the best player of all time.

It's ok to be wrong I guess.

[j-money24]

Duncan was the leader on all three teams and he won back to back MVPs.

Kobe on the other hand was Shaq's Robin the early part of the decade.

Kobe was a Superstar in those Championship years too. You put Duncan instead of Kobe on that team and he would still be second fiddle to Shaq too. You guys give no credit to Kobe, he was a very important piece on that team. You can't say Lakers shaq would have still won championships if you replace kobe with another guard, Shaq-Kobe was a great geat Duo, one of the greatest if not the best.

Shaq-Kobe was pretty much the team.

[honestfool84]

Shaq-Kobe was a great geat Duo, one of the greatest if not the best.

[Nathan Explosion]

Duncan only has 3 rings this decade.. Kobe is the Player of the decade.

By that logic, Shaq has 4 rings this decade and 3 Finals MVPs. So is Shaq the player of the decade?

Oh wait, but Tim has a higher winning percentage than both Shaq and Kobe. So he's the player of the decade.

Either way, Kobe loses.

The list is really Shaq and Duncan. Kobe doesn't enter the discussion because Shaq was the best player on the Lakers teams (has the Finals MVPs to prove it) when they 3-peated and Duncan has won more than both Kobe and Shaq.

[duncan228]

Duncan was the leader on all three teams and he won back to back MVPs.

Don't forget the Finals MVPs.

[Nathan Explosion]

Shaq-Kobe was a great geat Duo, one of the greatest if not the best.

Shaq-Kobe was pretty much the team.

First off, Shaq was the dominant force. He has the hardware to prove it (3 Finals MVPs).

Second, Shaq-Kobe isn't even the best Lakers duo ever. Have you heard of Magic-Kareem or do you think the Lakers history dates back to 2000?

[Greg Oden]

phila_chamberlain, how old are you? Did you watch him play? A fella like myself is old enough and i know first handedly he's not the best ever.

[Nathan Explosion]

Don't forget the Finals MVPs.

2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, a Regular season winning % of .712 (ridiculous) and a postseason winning % of .631.

Oh yeah, and when Duncan gets to the Finals, he finishes the job. A perfect 1.000 when he gets to the Finals.

[Greg Oden]

64.

How is he not the best ever?

I have gotten into this argument before many times and I have won every time.

I have browsed these forums and seen you get your chode bloaded in this argument.

[honestfool84]

64.

How is he not the best ever?

I have gotten into this argument before many times and I have won every time.

i don't think wilt was the best.

he was a head taller than everyone...and there were only, what, 12-16 teams back then?

it's easier to be a dominant force when there are less players and teams.

[migs21]

latest result...


Kobe Bryant
1448
30%
Tim Duncan
3429
70%

[Nathan Explosion]

i don't think wilt was the best.

he was a head taller than everyone...and there were only, what, 12-16 teams back then?

it's easier to be a dominant force when there are less players and teams.

Or it was harder to be the best because the talent wasn't diluted so those 12-16 teams were ridiculously stacked.

[Greg Oden]

Or it was harder to be the best because the talent wasn't diluted so those 12-16 teams were ridiculously stacked.

. . . stacked with ymca players.

[Greg Oden]

how many 50+ year olds get contract offers?

Me.


Besides, I'm just ing with you. I must say however it is very interesting to read someone's takes with the opinion that Wilt is the best. Do you know where that other thread is?

[Nathan Explosion]

. . . stacked with ymca players.

How many HOFers did the Celtics teams that defeated Wilt have?

Right now you're showing your ignorance in regards to NBA Wilt played in.

[Nathan Explosion]

How many of them would be in the hall of fame if they played in today's game? Or didn't play together?

Conjecture. Fact is, Wilt played against them, and they're in. You all forget Wilts was an absolutely amazing athlete to boot. He was a collegiate high jump champion, and became the best volleyball player in the world after he retired, WHEN HE WAS IN HIS 40's.

People try to diminish Wilt's accomplishments by saying he never won, completely forgetting how loaded those Celtics teams were. I've heard a counter saying that Wilt played with HOFers as well, but those Celtics teams produced something like 8 or 9 HOFers. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Nathan Explosion]

Bob Cousy could basically be today's Steve Nash. A very flashy guard who could run the fast break like no one else. Bill Sharman was a great outside shooter and could pull off a small guard game.

KC and Sam Jones were two players that could play in todays game as well. Havlicek could play in today's era easily.

Don't forget Russell. Russell had the bball IQ to hang with anyone in addition to the physical tools.

[Nathan Explosion]

But the question is... would they be in the hall of fame?

No, the question is, Are they in the Hall of Fame. The short answer, yes. To ask anything else is pure conjecture.

[Nathan Explosion]

I don't think anyone doubt's Russell would be a player in today's game. I was just throwing out some names that people would not think of.

Some people doubt Wilt could play in today's game, so I can never assume anyone would think Russell could play. I mean seriously, if you can score 100 points in an NBA game, you can ball a little. And if you have more rings than fingers, you can ball a little too. Yet you have people saying that the compe ion was inferior and therefore, the accomplishments don't translate as well.

I'm young (27) but I'm not stupid. Unfortunately, you can't say the same for a lot of NBA fans these days. People who think that today's game is the best have no sense of history, even recent history. For every Dwight Howard and Amare you have Hakeem and DRob (athletically speaking for all the following players). For every Kobe you have Jordan. For every Lebron there's Shawn Kemp and Karl Malone.

And I only went back 15-20 years. I didn't even mention the 70s and 80s players, guys like Bird, Magic, Dr. J, Gervin, Moses Malone, and of course, Kareem, to name a few to say the least.