MVP + Finals MVP..

[ezau]

Duncan just got swept. That's is bad as it gets. You can't even win one ing game!!!

Ok, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[HarlemHeat37]

I've already defeated the idiot who started the thread. Notice he don't have to say about his bogus claim. Now you've been defeated as well.

What?..I already replied to your poor arguments..stop giving yourself phantom Ws..

You freaked out about my OP and Kobe, even though I didn't even mention him..talk about insecurity..

, I had the last reply in our "argument", in which you couldn't reply to..

[ezau]

I didn't say you said Kobe choke. But you quoted my post which was responding to Nathan89's inference that Kobe's game 7 was a choke. If you read what I was responding to and realized that, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten into misconstruing the comment in the first place.

As for the 39 point loss, it is what it is. It was embarrassing for Kobe and the Lakers. The only thing they could do is find redemption. Winning the next two NBA les was a good start.

Oh, and I'm not sure how long you've been a Spurs fan, but how about getting swept in the playoffs and in the final two games losing by "39" points and then 29 points even with homecourt advantage? Shrugs, embarrassing things happen sometimes to the best NBA players and the best teams.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210525013
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=210527013

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.

[ezau]

I've already defeated the idiot who started the thread. Notice he don't have to say about his bogus claim. Now you've been defeated as well.

okay

[duhoh]

I only seek consistency in arguments. My calling Duncan's game 7 in the 2005 NBA Finals a choke is predicated on the contention that Kobe's 23 point, 15 rebound performance in game 7 of this past NBA Finals a choke. If Kobe's is a choke in large part to his extremely poor shooting, reasonable logic could surmise the same for Duncan's 10-for-27 performance in his game 7 alleged "choke," particularly considering that Duncan generally puts up 50% from the field as opposed to Kobe who often has poor shooting numbers. Kobe also played great defense in game 7 and throughout the Finals.

23 points, 15 rebounds (from the guard position) a choke...

But you say 25 points and 11 rebounds is not?

Well, then I question the legitimacy of categorizing Kobe's as a choke.

Interesting how to make the two consistent...

i wouldn't care what team affiliation JamStone would put, i'd still read his stuff.

at the end, will it matter whether what spurs fan says about duncan>kobe? they're both first ballots for springfield, and given kobe's popularity, he WILL be remembered as the better player. in most aspects of the game, kobe>duncan. who do i like far more? duncan, no questions asked. being in the same sentence as the likes of kobe/shaq is not a bad thing at all. the players in that fading generation only those 3 will be remembered by everyone.

QFT spurs fans. rising to bait like this. bunch a little headless chickens running around.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Typically, these arguments tend to carry on and on with both sides claiming victory.

Let's get a couple of facts out of the way. The true finals isn't always the NBA finals. 1999-2003, whoever won the west was going to win it all, period. If Shaq doesn't have Kobe running rampant on the Spurs in 2001-02, Lakers don't advance.

So, let's make whole new argument, one I rarely if ever see. Kobe couldn't win without Shaq? How about Tim couldn't win without the Admiral? Yes, I know Tim was the finals MVP in 1999 and 2003, but DRob was on the team.

I remember watching the 2005 finals and the announcers said it was important for Duncan to win without Robinson, to validate his greatness once and for all.. Gee, heard that last year about how important it was for Kobe to win without Shaq.

So, who was the better duo, Shaq and Kobe or Tim and David? It's only fair to ask this if Spurs fans are pulling the Kobe had Shaq card out!

Here's a breakdown of the results as the teams changed key players. I thnk it's fair to start it when the championships started and the Jordan Bulls were dismantled:

Duncan and Robinson vs. Shaq and Kobe:
1999 Spurs beat Lakers
2000 Lakers win championship, Duncan injured for playoffs
2001 Lakers beat Spurs
2002 Lakers beat Spurs
2003 Spurs beat Lakers

Lakers 3 les, Spurs 2 les
Head to head 2-2 Who would have won in 2000 if Duncan was playing is pure speculation, but they would have met in WCSF with Lakers having HCA. I believe the Spurs won the season series 3-1.

==========

Duncan vs, Shaq and Kobe:
2004 Lakers beat Spurs

Lakers 0 les, head to head 1-0

==========

Duncan Vs. Kobe:
2005 Spurs win le Lakers miss playoffs
2006 Mavs beat Spurs
2007 Spurs win le

Spurs 2 les, no head to head

==========

Duncan vs. Kobe and Gasol:
2008 Lakers beat Spurs
2009 Lakers win le
2010 Lakers win le

Lakers 2 les, head to head Lakers 1-0

==========

Who lasted the longest in the playoffs?
1999 Spurs
2000 Lakers
2001 Lakers
2002 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2004 Lakers
2005 Spurs
2006 SPurs
2007 Spurs
2008 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2010 Lakers

Score: Lakers 7 Spurs 5
Finals played: Lakers 7 (5-2) Spurs 4 (4-0)
Head to Head: Lakers 4 Spurs 2

==========

As long as both Duncan and Kobe play, this scorecard is not complete. I'll let you folks interpret it.

Edit: I don't know if I should add Parker and Ginobili in or not from 2004 on. Key players usually change.

[HarlemHeat37]

This has nothing to do with the thread, please stop polluting my thread..if you want to discuss what you posted about, make a thread about it, please..I'm asking you politely, so don't be sad, raise the bar..

[FkLA]

Comparing the Duncan/Robinson duo to Kobe/Shaq or even Kobe/Gasol is beyond stupid...99' is really the only year where Robinson was still somewhat dominant. In 2000 Duncan was out for the playoffs with his knee injury, and by 2001 D-Rob's back problems had caught up with him making him a s of his former self. Kobe's robin Gasol, or in Shaq's case batman, were in their prime when they were paired with Kobe. No comparison at all.

[Killakobe81]

Tim Duncan had a greater impact than Kobe Bryant. But I do think Kobe Bryant had more talent than Duncan. As for skill, for each of them, they were among the most skilled players at their position. I think one could make a case that Kobe is the more skilled player but Duncan is one of the most skilled big men ever. And regardless, skill doesn't equal dominance or greatness. Right now, Duncan goes down as the better player in the history books. He's accomplished more individually as a player. I think that's how it will end up too unless Kobe has an incredible finish to his career. As far as who was the better player or more talented player, there's definitely an argument for Kobe over Duncan. But that alone doesn't define greatness.

I do recall Duncan himself calling Kobe the best player on the planet a few years ago, or something to that effect. Kobe critics like to discredit him, but for much of this decade, many if not most NBA players and coaches regarded Kobe as the best player in the league. I think people started thinking LeBron took over, which I myself had thought starting a couple seasons ago. But with LeBron's failure to get that elusive le, I think some of those same people have reneged on that notion.

There are different ways to define greatness. I think a lot of factors are considered, from individual dominance to skill/talent to having that translate into team success. Duncan's resume outshine's Kobe's right now. Kobe's individual talent might have been greater, but that doesn't mean he's been better.

Agree with most of this but ... (see above bold) I think that is pretty debatable. If both end there careers right now I doubt that "history" will say that Duncan was better. Yes duncan has more MVP les and i think that he is better than Shaq (but there are even Spur fans that debate if Duncan is the better big man over Shaq)...but not Kobe. I do think Duncan benefits from playing a position that was relatively weak (in terms of a definitive or general consensus) class of winners at PF. Barkley and Malone are great but since they did not ring it gives duncan an obvious edge. Put him with centers or group him with big men and Duncan no longer is a slam dunk best player at his position. Kobe on the other hand is compared to the GOAT and regardless of what he does his last few years...will never catch him in "history".

My point is, that some in history could argue shaq was beter than duncan he definitely is more memorable in the general casual fan's eye ....but that does not make it so. and even though i agree (so far) duncan has accomplished more individually ...same with kobe, who has more rings, will have more points, he has always had more recognition etc. but may not have accomplished as much as an individual but even that is debatable.

I also disagree that duncan has had more impact on the league. Duncan is a big man and big man have won in the Nba from Mikan to Bill to Kareem to Moses to hakeem to Shaq to Tim. That is NOT an impact of historic porportions. Logic dicates if you have the BEST big man you are SUPPOSED to win more often than not. Kobe to me historically has little "impact" in terms of significance since Jordan led 6 teams to les at his position before he could and non center dominated le teams are rare.

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater. But for those that argue duncan ....one thing i definitely concede is that duncan had wayyyy more impact ON HIS FRANCHISE. There is no debate or disputing this. Without duncan (MOST LIKELY) Spurs are still ringless with the Mavs and suns over the world. Without duncan this site is probaly far less entertaining and duncan put San antonio basketbal on the "big stage".
Lakers won before kobe and will win les after he is gone (may take a while but we will ... God it's good to be a laker fan).

If franchise significance is the tie-breaker then I would give duncan the edge.

Duncan as great as he is and was ...will be the guy that true basketball fans like myself that will have to bring up when people argue, at work, barbershops and at tailgate parties etc . Was one of the best big men I had ever seen. Only true hoop heads like Jamstone and Spur fans will be giving duncan his props ...i do the same when people dismis Hakeem as a two year wonder. My guess is because he was not flashy duncan will have even les support ...down the road.

Oh and as for the OP ...this is silly. You can do whatever you want to kep Kobe out of a best player debate but he is in there. Duncan should be as well. But as Jamstone said so is Willis Reed ... if we use the Harlem method for seperating elite HOF'ers

[Koolaid_Man]

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.

Some good reading:

Double Standard 1: Everyone harps on Kobe for playing with Shaq, yet no one harps on Duncan for having Manu, Parker, Bowen and other amazing players.
Shaq has played in the NBA 18 seasons, he only has 4 rings, he is not an automatic championship. In fact, he was not even in his physical prime during the threepeat championship run. He was significantly overweight almost every season during that run.

Double Standard 2: Duncan has played on a contending, elite team since he came into the NBA. Kobe has been rebuilding for 3 seasons in the 2000's (2005,2006,2007) and still has more rings in the decade.

Myth 1: Duncan has more impact for his team .

Kobe's Roles for his team:

-Primary Scorer
-Primary Defender
-Primary go to player in 4th
-Primary playmaker

Duncan's Roles for team:

-Not a primary scorer (very well-balanced scoring)
-Bowen is the primary defender (Duncan anchors the paint, but Bowen denies penetration, guards best players on other team)
-Manu and Parker are the go to guys in the 4th (Duncan also has his moments, but he is not self-sufficient)
-Parker is the primary playmaker

Myth 2: Duncan is more dominant than Kobe.

If you are going to call Duncan dominant, I guess we should call Kevin Garnett and Elton Brand dominant as well. Don't confuse dominance with consistency. The truth of the matter is Kobe is far more dominant than Timmy.

80+ point games: Kobe 1, Duncan 0
70+ point games Kobe 1, Duncan 0
60+ point games: Kobe 4, Duncan 0
50+ point games: Kobe 24, Duncan 0
40+ point games: Kobe 100, Duncan 9

January 14, 2002: Kobe score 56 points in 3 quarters. Memphis scores 59 in 3 quarters.

December 20, 2005: Kobe outscores the entire Dallas Mavericks team 62-61 at the end of the third quarter. This is the first and only time a player has outscored a team after 3 quarters.

Kobe Bryant is the only player who has can outscore an entire opposing team, you dont' get any more dominant than that. No one else has come close to matching Kobe in that regard - not Shaq, not Jordan and definately not Duncan.

Myth 3: Tim Duncan is the most fundamentally sound player in the NBA.

Tim Duncan's game has weaknessses - free throw shooting, three point shooting.
Kobe Bryant's game does not have any weaknesses. He is the most complete player in the game.

Kobe Bryant:

5 Championships (2000,2001,2002, 2009, 2010)
7 NBA Finals (2000,2001,2002,2004,2008, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP
2 Scoring les (2006, 2007)
1 Gold Medal (2008)
2 All-Star MVP (2001,2007)
1 NBA MVP (2008)
8 NBA All NBA 1st team
8 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
3 30+ ppg seasons
6 2000+ point seasons
1 SDC (1996)

Tim Duncan:

4 Championships (1999,2003,2005,2007)
4 NBA Finals (1999,2003,2005,2007)
3 Finals MVP (1999,2003, 2005)
0 Scoring les
0 Gold Medals
1 All-Star MVP (2004)
2 NBA MVP (2003,2004)
9 NBA All NBA 1st team
9 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
0 30 ppg seasons
1 2000+ point seasons

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

No one gives a how you ask. There you go acting like a little ho again.

He's my lakaluva. I had to take you out to make room for his beatdowns. Cue in the redundant "But I have an all Spurstalk posting award" at any time now.

LOL, just mention Kobe Bryant around here and you get 10K posts and a lot of butthuurt fans on both sides, lol.

Look what I posted in the Kobe thread. Kobe admitted while getting his Finals MVP award his game 7 sucked and the haters didn't see it! Probably because they had their TV turned off in disgust when Kobe took the stage.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1058

[picc84]

Not sure why you put up the box scores from 2001, but I concede that no team's touching the Lakers from 2000-2002. That was just Shaq at his best and I doubt anyone from any era can guard him during that time.

Speaking of redemption, the Spurs finally broke through the Lakers in 2003, which ended their reign and dynasty. From 2001 onwards, the Spurs won three championships, "redeeming" themselves so to speak.

Meanwhile, the 39-point beatdown by the Celtics against the Lakers were significant because:

1. It's the first time that both teams met after more than two decades
2. The Lakers were favored to win
3. Kobe's the main man and he had a chance to win a championship without Shaq for the first time.

We all know what happened next. It is what it is, I guess.

Suuure. The only reason you think its more 'significant' than the Spurs catching a 39 point beatdown in the midst of a sweep, where they had homecourt advantage, is because you're a Spurs fan.

[FkLA]

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater.

In what sense? Scoring? Individual talent?

Cause as great as Kobe is thats about all he has on Duncan. Kobe definitely didnt have the impact Duncan had defensively, not even offensively either...Kobe can get his 30 anytime he wants but he didnt have that element Duncan had of drawing double/triple teams and most importantly being a willing passer. We all saw how Kobe fared when he wasnt surrounded with a stacked team. His individual talent is unquestioned, his ability to make teammates better is a different story. Thats what sets Duncan apart from Kobe in my opinion.

[Killakobe81]

Suuure. The only reason you think its more 'significant' than the Spurs catching a 39 point beatdown in the midst of a sweep, where they had homecourt advantage, is because you're a Spurs fan.

Spur fan: But duncan didnt choke ...the Lakers were better!!!

Spur fan2: Duncan would never geta 39 point beatdown in the NBA finals so that PROVES Duncan is better ...

Spur fan3: The last 3 years dont matter ... SI and yahoo (?) said duncan was the player of the decade. (nevermind the other sites that chose Kobe)

[ezau]

So, which is worse, losing by 39 points in the finals, or earlier in the playoffs.

I think you know the answer by now. Weren't you about to kill yourself two years ago when the Cs dropped 39?

[picc84]

Agree with most of this but ... (see above bold) I think that is pretty debatable. If both end there careers right now I doubt that "history" will say that Duncan was better. Yes duncan has more MVP les and i think that he is better than Shaq (but there are even Spur fans that debate if Duncan is the better big man over Shaq)...but not Kobe. I do think Duncan benefits from playing a position that was relatively weak (in terms of a definitive or general consensus) class of winners at PF. Barkley and Malone are great but since they did not ring it gives duncan an obvious edge. Put him with centers or group him with big men and Duncan no longer is a slam dunk best player at his position. Kobe on the other hand is compared to the GOAT and regardless of what he does his last few years...will never catch him in "history".

My point is, that some in history could argue shaq was beter than duncan he definitely is more memorable in the general casual fan's eye ....but that does not make it so. and even though i agree (so far) duncan has accomplished more individually ...same with kobe, who has more rings, will have more points, he has always had more recognition etc. but may not have accomplished as much as an individual but even that is debatable.

I also disagree that duncan has had more impact on the league. Duncan is a big man and big man have won in the Nba from Mikan to Bill to Kareem to Moses to hakeem to Shaq to Tim. That is NOT an impact of historic porportions. Logic dicates if you have the BEST big man you are SUPPOSED to win more often than not. Kobe to me historically has little "impact" in terms of significance since Jordan led 6 teams to les at his position before he could and non center dominated le teams are rare.

I do think Kobe and duncan is a very close debate but i do think kobe is greater. But for those that argue duncan ....one thing i definitely concede is that duncan had wayyyy more impact ON HIS FRANCHISE. There is no debate or disputing this. Without duncan (MOST LIKELY) Spurs are still ringless with the Mavs and suns over the world. Without duncan this site is probaly far less entertaining and duncan put San antonio basketbal on the "big stage".
Lakers won before kobe and will win les after he is gone (may take a while but we will ... God it's good to be a laker fan).

If franchise significance is the tie-breaker then I would give duncan the edge.

Duncan as great as he is and was ...will be the guy that true basketball fans like myself that will have to bring up when people argue, at work, barbershops and at tailgate parties etc . Was one of the best big men I had ever seen. Only true hoop heads like Jamstone and Spur fans will be giving duncan his props ...i do the same when people dismis Hakeem as a two year wonder. My guess is because he was not flashy duncan will have even les support ...down the road.

Oh and as for the OP ...this is silly. You can do whatever you want to kep Kobe out of a best player debate but he is in there. Duncan should be as well. But as Jamstone said so is Willis Reed ... if we use the Harlem method for seperating elite HOF'ers

Its not fair to penalize Kobe for the Spurs franchise being 2nd tier and mostly worthless for 90% of the NBA's existence.

I think its safe to say that in terms of NBA legacy, Duncan will probably overshadow Kobe in terms of fan viewpoint until Kobe wins another one. In terms of the players viewpoints, they likely all have Kobe above him in their all-time lists.

[HarlemHeat37]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive compe ion was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

[FkLA]

Some good reading:

Double Standard 1: Everyone harps on Kobe for playing with Shaq, yet no one harps on Duncan for having Manu, Parker, Bowen and other amazing players.
Shaq has played in the NBA 18 seasons, he only has 4 rings, he is not an automatic championship. In fact, he was not even in his physical prime during the threepeat championship run. He was significantly overweight almost every season during that run.

Double Standard 2: Duncan has played on a contending, elite team since he came into the NBA. Kobe has been rebuilding for 3 seasons in the 2000's (2005,2006,2007) and still has more rings in the decade.

Myth 1: Duncan has more impact for his team .

Kobe's Roles for his team:

-Primary Scorer
-Primary Defender
-Primary go to player in 4th
-Primary playmaker

Duncan's Roles for team:

-Not a primary scorer (very well-balanced scoring)
-Bowen is the primary defender (Duncan anchors the paint, but Bowen denies penetration, guards best players on other team)
-Manu and Parker are the go to guys in the 4th (Duncan also has his moments, but he is not self-sufficient)
-Parker is the primary playmaker

Myth 2: Duncan is more dominant than Kobe.

If you are going to call Duncan dominant, I guess we should call Kevin Garnett and Elton Brand dominant as well. Don't confuse dominance with consistency. The truth of the matter is Kobe is far more dominant than Timmy.

80+ point games: Kobe 1, Duncan 0
70+ point games Kobe 1, Duncan 0
60+ point games: Kobe 4, Duncan 0
50+ point games: Kobe 24, Duncan 0
40+ point games: Kobe 100, Duncan 9

January 14, 2002: Kobe score 56 points in 3 quarters. Memphis scores 59 in 3 quarters.

December 20, 2005: Kobe outscores the entire Dallas Mavericks team 62-61 at the end of the third quarter. This is the first and only time a player has outscored a team after 3 quarters.

Kobe Bryant is the only player who has can outscore an entire opposing team, you dont' get any more dominant than that. No one else has come close to matching Kobe in that regard - not Shaq, not Jordan and definately not Duncan.

Myth 3: Tim Duncan is the most fundamentally sound player in the NBA.

Tim Duncan's game has weaknessses - free throw shooting, three point shooting.
Kobe Bryant's game does not have any weaknesses. He is the most complete player in the game.

Kobe Bryant:

5 Championships (2000,2001,2002, 2009, 2010)
7 NBA Finals (2000,2001,2002,2004,2008, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP
2 Scoring les (2006, 2007)
1 Gold Medal (2008)
2 All-Star MVP (2001,2007)
1 NBA MVP (2008)
8 NBA All NBA 1st team
8 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
3 30+ ppg seasons
6 2000+ point seasons
1 SDC (1996)

Tim Duncan:

4 Championships (1999,2003,2005,2007)
4 NBA Finals (1999,2003,2005,2007)
3 Finals MVP (1999,2003, 2005)
0 Scoring les
0 Gold Medals
1 All-Star MVP (2004)
2 NBA MVP (2003,2004)
9 NBA All NBA 1st team
9 NBA All-Defensive 1st team
0 30 ppg seasons
1 2000+ point seasons

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sop re that got benched in favor of Speedy ing Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean ing George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple ing lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim ing Duncan.

The other arguments are even more ing re ed...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some . ing childish.

[Killakobe81]

In what sense? Scoring? Individual talent?

Cause as great as Kobe is 1.thats about all he has on Duncan. Kobe definitely didnt have the impact Duncan had defensively, not even offensively either...Kobe can get his 30 anytime he wants but he didnt have that element Duncan had of drawing double/triple teams and most importantly being a willing passer. We all saw how Kobe fared when he wasnt surrounded with a stacked team. His individual talent is unquestioned, 2.his ability to make teammates better is a different story. Thats what sets Duncan apart from Kobe in my opinion.

i like how you ignored the part where I said Duncan HAD accomplished more and if franchise impact is considred he may get the nod ... LOL

1. - If that is ALL you think kobe has on duncan then there is no point in us going further plus it has been stated by Laker fans on here ad nauseum.
2. - Yes duncan has not had as much help as Kobe but name ONE Spurs squad of the duncan era that was as ty as the Lakers from 05-07 ... waiting ....

Look thing i hate about this debate is that you have to knock one great player to praise another so i will not do that to duncan (like many on here) I have too much respect for his game to do that.

But duncan has ALWAYS had a future HOF'er at coach and even an old as Avery johnson is light years better than Smush parker and and one kidney Sean elliott is the far better former wildcat than Luke "purple shorts" Walton. just keep that in mind in this debate.

We never saw duncan with a team does duncan get credit for that ABSOLUTELY. But don't be a hypocrite. when people point o kobe's rings you say well had had Shaq and Gasol ...but when you point out Kobe missed a playoff or lost in the 1st round you don't point to one of the tiest lakers supporting since i started watching lakers ball in the 80's

[Killakobe81]

[QUOTE=FkLA;4586527]1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sop re that got benched in favor of Speedy ing Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean ing George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple ing lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim ing Duncan.

The other arguments are even more ing re ed...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some . ing childish.[/QUOTE]

You post that and call someone else childish? LOL
Defend duncan he is one of the best big men i have ever seen but no need to get hostile ...

[cobbler]

- Duncan did choke for 2 and a half quarters, it's pretty well-publicized..he was criticized for the entire series for not playing up to his standard, and he was criticized and told he had to step up, even during game 7, where he struggled through the first 2 and a half..

The difference is that Duncan pretty much took over the game when the Spurs made their big run during the end of the 3rd quarter..after the Pistons took a 9-point lead, the Spurs caught up, took the lead, and pretty much never looked back..Duncan went 6-12 and led the way for the entire run during that time(Manu too, obviously)..

He took over when his team needed it, which is the only reason it wasn't labeled a choke job, he stepped up when it mattered..he did struggle for the first 2 and a half quarters though, everybody said this at the time..

- Kobe didn't really do that..he struggled from the beginning until the end of the game..Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher had to ask him to stop shooting and control himself IIRC..he was 1-4 in the 4th, and struggled in the 3rd too..the difference was that Kobe stopped shooting as much as he did in the 1st half, which helped the Lakers, but obviously not something you would expect from your superstar..he never stood out at any point of the game from an offensive standpoint, unlike Duncan, who took over the entire 2nd half of the 3rd to the end of the game, which turned out to be the most important part of that game 7..

- Kobe is known as one of the best scorers of all-time, while Duncan is a very good/great scorer, but never a dominant one, so there's more of an emphasis on scoring with Kobe IMO..it's more surprising to see Kobe struggling to score than it would seeing Duncan struggling to score(especially since Duncan's defensive compe ion was better, too)..while Duncan should have been criticized for his struggles, and he certainly was, his stronger suits have always been other parts of the game..

Last time I looked, basketball has many facets. Kobe had a remarkable post season this year. Sure you can point out games or portions of games where he underachieved. Please show me one player who didn't. Why is it ALWAYS about shooting % or efficiency of one stat or another? Watch the friggen games!

You see clearly who the leader is. You haters saving grace is that Kobe shot a piss poor % as he led his team to his 5th le? Its laughable! He simply had a bad game 7 shooting and his & was down. It was suggested that Duncan had similar numbers and your argument again is soley based on offense and shooting %. No talk of the 15 rebounds? No talk of the passes to players who hit clutch shots? Passes all you haters say he would never concede? Ohhh, noooo, all we hear about is the missed shots. None of the other aspects of the game. The leadership? The defense? Desire to win that teammates feed off of? Noooo, but then again, when you have an agenda which everyone here knows you do, it's pretty simple to pick a stat here or there, a quarter here or there to support your obsession. Hey when that doesn't fly, you can always resort to your usual hypocritical moral rants.

[FkLA]

How about les, head to head matches, gold medals, finals appearances... the list goes on, son.

Are we comparing Kobe and Duncan, or the Lakers and Spurs?

[Koolaid_Man]

1a.Those players werent there in 99'.
2a.Manu was an inconsistant rookie in 03', Parker was an even more inconsistant sop re that got benched in favor of Speedy ing Claxton in numerous 4th quarters during that 03' run.
3a.Shaq is an all-time great, as much as I love Manu/TP they arent.

1b.lol @ Kobe being a primary defender...Fox, Ariza, Artest, and even Devean ing George have almost always guarded the opposing team's best perimeter player. Alot of Kobe's all-defense nods are BS.
2b.double lol @ Duncan having less offensive responsibility than Kobe...the Spurs offense was Tim Duncan before Manu and Tony developed son, it was let him go to work or shoot out of the double/triple teams. The fact that Kobe scored more points means jack as to who actually had the bigger impact offensively.
3b.triple ing lol @ Duncan not being the anchor of the Spurs defense...Bruce is great but the Spurs were a great defensive team before him. The only constant from 99'-07' before the Spurs dropped off was Tim ing Duncan.

The other arguments are even more ing re ed...comparing an egotistical volume shooting 2-guards 60 and 80 pt games to a big man who has been the epitome of team player? Get Kobe's balls out of your mouth son, come on. Thats like me bringing up 20 rebound games or 5 block games or some . ing childish.

excuse me was you saying something? sounds like you're trying to reverse engineer a math problem.

[Killakobe81]

Are we comparing Kobe and Duncan, or the Lakers and Spurs?

Both
LOL no offense buy you are being a hypocrite. So you point out duncan's leadership and his ability to make his teammates and team better but yet we are NOT going to discuss the succes of their teams?
how does that make ANY sense?

[ezau]

Nope, a loss in the finals hurts no matter what the score is. I bet Boston felt more pain being up 13 while Kobe had an off night and still loss a game 7. It all depends on how you like losing to be honest. To me, it all hurts.

I'm not sure how Boston would feel more pain knowing that they're still up 9-3 in their head-to-head matchup against the Lakers. Had the Cs didn't choke, it would have been 10-2 by now.