MVP + Finals MVP..

[ogait]

For me to say who had more or less help between Kobe and Duncan is pointless. Both sides have stated their cases and their isn't much left to say within that debate.

I don't think it's pointless and here is why.
The consensual 3 best players after the Jordan era are Duncan, Kobe, Shaq with different opinions regarding the ranking between this 3. Now I would agree that debating who had more help could be pointless if all we're talking about was second tier stars like who's better Gasol or Ginobili, or who were better role players Lamar Odom or Robert Horry, etc.

The fact is 2 of this best 3 players actually played together and achieved the greater portion of their achievements (rings) by playing together. Further more it can also be argued that by doing so they directly prevent Duncan for at least 3 opportunities of getting another ring (2001, 2002, 2004). Even more we could argue that if those two had kept playing together then perhaps Duncan rings would be even less and Kobe would have even more, and you would agree that if that had happened it wouldn't change the overall value of any of those players but probably would change the number of rings each of them had right now.

This isn't by any means a reasoning for me to think that Duncan is better than any of those two. The fact that 2 of the 3 best players of this generation played together and achieved so much together is only the reason why I believe you can't dismiss the "who had more help" argument when discussing this subject. Also the fact that Kobe's apologists in this matter so frequently down rate the contribute of an all time great like Shaq (some don't even thing the Lakers should retire his jersey) should attest what I just said.

I have said I think players should be ranked by position, or just a greatest list, no order.

If you want to move Russell out of the top 10, then it's easy to put Duncan ahead of Kobe. Just argue Tim did more with less than the other guys. 4 rings can be greater than 5 rings which can be greater than 11 rings.

I agree with this very much. In fact normally I don't even like to like to discuss players in terms of their legacy or how they rank among the all time greats because I know my limitations when judging the current players in comparison with guys like Russell witch I never got to see playing apart from some occasional videos.

I prefer to discuss players current ability in the way they can contribute to their team success right now. For the course of Duncan and Kobe career's that was a good debate and I believe Duncan was ahead for the most part and that's why I have him ahead on my list.

I won't have any problems changing my opinion if Kobe proves that he can age better than Duncan and maintain a high level of dominance against the younger players with the decline of his physical abilities and the appearance of new possible dominant teams like Miami, just like Duncan had to face this new Lakers as he started to slow down.

If I had to choose now I would choose Duncan over Kobe as the best player over the course of their careers but placing them among the all time greats I must admit my inep ude.

[Mr.Robinson]

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...

Duncan was the reason the Spurs won. Kobe was the reason the Lakers almost lost. Would have if it wasn't fro Pau and ron.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I don't think it's pointless and here is why.
The consensual 3 best players after the Jordan era are Duncan, Kobe, Shaq with different opinions regarding the ranking between this 3. Now I would agree that debating who had more help could be pointless if all we're talking about was second tier stars like who's better Gasol or Ginobili, or who were better role players Lamar Odom or Robert Horry, etc.

The fact is 2 of this best 3 players actually played together and achieved the greater portion of their achievements (rings) by playing together. Further more it can also be argued that by doing so they directly prevent Duncan for at least 3 opportunities of getting another ring (2001, 2002, 2004). Even more we could argue that if those two had kept playing together then perhaps Duncan rings would be even less and Kobe would have even more, and you would agree that if that had happened it wouldn't change the overall value of any of those players but probably would change the number of rings each of them had right now.

This isn't by any means a reasoning for me to think that Duncan is better than any of those two. The fact that 2 of the 3 best players of this generation played together and achieved so much together is only the reason why I believe you can't dismiss the "who had more help" argument when discussing this subject. Also the fact that Kobe's apologists in this matter so frequently down rate the contribute of an all time great like Shaq (some don't even thing the Lakers should retire his jersey) should attest what I just said.



I agree with this very much. In fact normally I don't even like to like to discuss players in terms of their legacy or how they rank among the all time greats because I know my limitations when judging the current players in comparison with guys like Russell witch I never got to see playing apart from some occasional videos.

I prefer to discuss players current ability in the way they can contribute to their team success right now. For the course of Duncan and Kobe career's that was a good debate and I believe Duncan was ahead for the most part and that's why I have him ahead on my list.

I won't have any problems changing my opinion if Kobe proves that he can age better than Duncan and maintain a high level of dominance against the younger players with the decline of his physical abilities and the appearance of new possible dominant teams like Miami, just like Duncan had to face this new Lakers as he started to slow down.

If I had to choose now I would choose Duncan over Kobe as the best player over the course of their careers but placing them among the all time greats I must admit my inep ude.

Thanks for the great reply.

I see the need for fans to argue about Kobe and Tim, after all, landing in the top 10 all time is a great honor. For me, I have no desire to rank them. I just gave it a shot, at least to figure out who to eliminate, and it drove me nuts! I have a top 20, no order, I may share soon. Let me explain how difficult it is in my opinion to create a top 10.

1) I believe the 1-3 positions are a lock. MJ, Wilt, Kareem, At least, they will be in the top 10 on just about everyone's list.
2) To fill the next 7 spots, some seriously talented players are going to get left out.

Let's look at a few players you can make an argument for. Not everyone is going to agree, but if you have an argument for a player, that superstar becomes a candidate. Note abut rings. A lot of NBA greats won one or no rings because of the great teams we already know about they were up against in their eras. Rings are a factor, but don't overstate them!

A) Oscar Robertson. You could argue he is the second greatest guard to ever play, even ahead of Magic Johnson. His problem is, one ring. In his favor is he played in the east with no help during Russell's years. He went west and won with Kareem in Milwaukee.
B) (I'm going somewhere with this, please bear with me) Compare Patrick Ewing and Hakeem. Stats are close to equal; edge to Hakeem, but Ewing rarely had help. Hakeem won when they faced off in finals. Hakeem goes on a lot of top 10 lists.
C) Willis Reed. While that great Knicks team was developing in the 60's, he lost twice to Russell's Celtics, once as the favorite. However, he beat Wilt's Lakers twice and Havlicek/Cowens/White's Celtics once. His Knicks lost to both those Lakers and Celtics when he was out injured. and his team still beat those Celtics once. That's a top 10 resume right there.
D) Now, compare Reed to Ewing. Ewing's career was long, little help. Reed's was short and he was plagued by injuries. Also, like Russell, Reed had plenty of top 50 and Hall of fame help. Look it up. So who's better? It's an argument. Probably both fall out of the top 10 as Russell should.
D) Bird and Magic go on just about everyone's list, but watch this. Kobe is now being compared by some to Magic. Some people rate Bird ahead of Magic. Duncan has 4 les, and didn't have the stacked lineups Bird and Magic did. You can argue Duncan ahead of Bird and Magic if you wish, just as easily as you can argue Tim ahead of Kobe.
E) Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. They lost plenty of times to the Celtics, but I already noted how stacked Boston was. Jerry and Elgin (and not much more help except Wilt in 1969) took their Lakers teams to three 7 game series with Boston, for what it's worth. Think 2009 Bulls taking Celtics to 7 games for a comparison; same drama. At his best Baylor was unstoppable going to the hoop and Jerry was named Mr. Clutch when Kobe's dad was young.
f) Dr. J. Go ahead and credit his ABA points, he would have had nearly as many if he always played in the NBA; 30K points. His first blemish is losing to the Blazers in 1977 after beng up 2-0 with a stacked team. During the first part of the 80's, he was 2-1 vs. Bird's Celtics and 1-2 against Magic's Lakers. His other blemish was losing to Boston in 1981 ECF after leading 3-1, which were the defacto finals. Rockets and Kings were 40-42 that year and playing in the WCF. His main problem was he was eight years ahead of Larry and Earvin. He declined first.
G_ Karl Malone. 36,928 points, second all time. No rings. Consistency his whole career in Utah. He's worth discussing.
H) John Havlicek. Still ahead of Kobe in total scoring. 6th man for Russell's Celtics or he would have more. Led Cowens and White to 2 Celtics les in the 70's, including one vs. The Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, and no HCA. I place him ahead of Russell, and I wasn't alone, years ago.
I) Shaq. We know his resume. He's also the only player on the top 50 list still playing. That list needs more players from the current era, badly. We know Tim and Kobe belong. LeBron is signed for 6 more years and will impact the stat leader lists before he's done. He'll eventually be in the top 10 list argument rings or not. (compared to Karl Malone or MJ? Stay tuned!)

I could go on with more examples, like Stockton and all those assists, but I'll stop here.

I mentioned earlier Russell was left out of top 10 type discussions years ago. I can't remember exactly when but it was fairly constant from late in his career up to about when Magic and Bird came to the NBA. Aside from the older generation players listed above, the other NBA greats, considered better than Russell probably included Mikan, Cousy, Pet , Greer, Hayes, Lenny wilkens, Kareem, and Schayes. That's my best guess. The Celtics were just defined as a consistent and deep team with no dominating superstar. However, they didn't need to be. 10 time champ G/F Sam Jones might have been a Baylor or a Robertson if he played elsewhere. Who knows?