[Prime] Duncan vs [Prime] Kobe

[gin17]

who would you rather have in your franchise and build your team upon?

1) In their primes
2) In their peaks
3) Career as a whole


this is not a thread about who is the better player, but who would give your team the better chance of winning the championship/s for as many times as possible.

[9erEmpire]

Kobe in his prime because he plays like he's still in it and it may be true.

Career as a whole?....Kobe as well.

[ralph_i_el]

duncan. Bigs are more valuable in most cases

[kennethgriffin]

kobe prime... and kobe longevity

35/5/5 with 81 point games/ 40ppg for month long stretches/ 4-5 straight 50+ point games

then his longevity...

2001 - 29ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's

2012 - 30ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's

[SilkkTheShocker]

griff, remember when u used to get owned by ErieVern and skufner? ahaaha

[kurple]

I would take Timmy

[DMAVS41]

1. Duncan for sure

2. Duncan. Duncan played about 12 quality/elite years. This will be Kobe's 13th. Not a big enough gap in longevity yet to trump the fact that Duncan was superior in many of those prime vs prime years.

[rule1223]

kobe prime... and kobe longevity

35/5/5 with 81 point games/ 40ppg for month long stretches/ 4-5 straight 50+ point games

then his longevity...

2001 - 29ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's

2012 - 30ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's
http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx45/TheStigIsBig/blackguyclapping.gif

[rhythmic]

I have a hard time picking Duncan for the simple fact, Kobe has been ass rapping his team in the playoffs his entire career.

It's amazing how Kobe started his career before Duncan and to date; he is still a superstar and Duncan is a shell of his former self.

There is no way Duncan ends up higher then Kobe on the all-time ladder.

[rhythmic]

1. Duncan for sure

2. Duncan. Duncan played about 12 quality/elite years. This will be Kobe's 13th. Not a big enough gap in longevity yet to trump the fact that Duncan was superior in many of those prime vs prime years.

Uhm Duncan hasn't been elite since about 2008.
Don't let the All-Star nominees fool you to think otherwise.

[kennethgriffin]

griff, remember when u used to get owned by ErieVern and skufner? ahaaha

lmfao i owned the f*ck out of those losers

so much that they retired from espn

i still post on espn to this day

infact. they once gave me a year long perma ban because of the cartoons i made of them having gay love for each other

ahh the good ol days

[gin17]

this is not a thread about who is the better player, but who would give your team the better chance of winning the championship/s for as many times as possible.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Kobe would sell about 10x times more tickets and jerseys than boring duncan. That alone should be a reason for any owner to build around some1 like that.

Basketball wise both are great choices, though I'm sticking with Bryant.

[9erEmpire]

Kobe's in another league than Duncan.

Kobe still plays like he was in his 20's....long @ss prime.

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobe easily...he won more championships...and was a better allaround player and a much better player in crunchtime

[kurple]

lakers fans opinion should not count.. for obvious reasons

[Flagrant 2]

It's close, but the correct answer is Kobe.

[Scholar]

Definitely KB24.

[kennethgriffin]

Duncan

1999 top 5
2000 top 3
2001 top 3
2002 best player
2003 top 2
2004 top 3
2005 best player
2006 top 5
2007 top 5
2008 top 10
2009 top 20
2010 top 50
2011 top 60
2012 arguably worst starter in the nba

Kobe

1999 top 10
2000 top 5
2001 top 2
2002 top 2
2003 best player
2004 top 3
2005 top 5 ( injured )
2006 best player
2007 best player
2008 best player
2009 best player
2010 best player
2011 top 5 ( injured )
2012 arguably the best player


this is why kobes higher all time.... forget about having more rings lol

[Rocker09]

I'm lakers fan and a kobe fan and IMO, Kobe is above Duncan in the GOAT list. Having said this, If I were to choose a cornerstone for my franchise, I'd pick Duncan because a good big man is more valuable than an equally good guard.

[hitmanyr2k]

Depends on the era and the rules. Pre-2005 I would take Duncan no doubt. Post-2005 I would take Kobe mainly because of the rules Stern implemented to make it easier for swingmen to dominate. Pre-2005 it was truly a big man's game but I believe to thsi day Stern and his crew saw the writing on the wall and he recognized the center position getting weaker (especially with the decline of Shaq and Duncan's decline not being too far off) so he handcuffed defenders and opened the game up to make the wing guys look better.

And besides that Pre-2005 Duncan was the better player. A Kobe-led Laker team (without Shaq) is barely sniffing the playoffs, never mind the Finals. Kobe was nothing more than a gunner back then (still is)...not really leader material.

[gin17]

Duncan

1999 top 5
2000 top 3
2001 top 3
2002 best player
2003 top 2
2004 top 3
2005 best player
2006 top 5
2007 top 5
2008 top 10
2009 top 20
2010 top 50
2011 top 60
2012 arguably worst starter in the nba

Kobe

1999 top 10
2000 top 5
2001 top 2
2002 top 2
2003 best player
2004 top 3
2005 top 5 ( injured )
2006 best player
2007 best player
2008 best player
2009 best player
2010 best player
2011 top 5 ( injured )
2012 arguably the best player


this is why kobes higher all time.... forget about having more rings lol
One of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

[kurple]

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard.
yeah, that proved to everyone that his oponion cant be taken seriously

[Odinn]

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard.
He said Kobe > Duncan in 2003. What else you expect from him?:oldlol:

[hkfosho]

the kobe fanboyism in this thread is immensely strong.

[kennethgriffin]

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

duncan is a 7 footer shooting 40% fg's

averaging 10ppg and 5 rebounds?

pathetic

hes on derek fishers skill level with that crap


He said Kobe > Duncan in 2003. What else you expect from him?:oldlol:

kobe had a better year... the spurs were a better team and duncan had the better finish

but are you gonna tell me that the year kobe averaged 30/5/5 and averaged 40ppg for TWO entire months and set the all time three point record in a half and a game DIDNT have a better year?

[kurple]

duncan is a 7 footer shooting 40% fg's

averaging 10ppg and 5 rebounds?

pathetic

hes on derek fishers skill level with that crap

he had 17/11/5/3/2 tonight

not the best timing to post this

[kennethgriffin]

he had 17/11/5/3/2 tonight

not the best timing to post this


good

i dont hate duncan anymore.. he stopped being a threat a long time ago... i dont wanna see him retire yet. my lakers play their best against the spurs in the playoffs

[Odinn]

Q was Prime vs. Prime... Duncan's prime was 1999-07 and Kobe's prime was 2001-10.

http://e1201.hizliresim.com/t/d/1s4m6.jpg

Also Kobe never had a playoff run like Duncan's 2003 run. Peak Duncan > Peak Kobe. Prime Duncan > Prime Kobe.


I added EFG% and corrected Duncan's H2H #s.

[hitmanyr2k]

Duncan

1999 top 5
2000 top 3
2001 top 3
2002 best player
2003 top 2
2004 top 3
2005 best player
2006 top 5
2007 top 5
2008 top 10
2009 top 20
2010 top 50
2011 top 60
2012 arguably worst starter in the nba

Kobe

1999 top 10
2000 top 5
2001 top 2
2002 top 2
2003 best player

2003? Yeah right. Kobe put up a bunch of empty numbers and couldn't lead a team for shit. All he cared about was his stats. Even jacked 17-47 against the Celtics that had his team shaking their heads saying WTF. With Kobe at the helm the Lakers were 5-10 before Shaq came back to right the ship. Kobe wasn't a leader. He was a shotjacker. And then Duncan absolutely murdered the Lakers that year and sent them home in tears on his way to a championship.

2003 - best player and leader Tim Duncan




2005 top 5 ( injured )
2006 best player
2007 best player
2008 best player
2009 best player
2010 best player
2011 top 5 ( injured )
2012 arguably the best player

The rest is arguable but 2005 Stern's stupid rule changes came into play and made it a lot tougher on Duncan and big men but made it much easier for Kobe and the rest of the guards in the league.

[tpols]

Kobe. People act like Duncan hasn't been on great teams his whole career.. he's played on the equivalent of the 2004 Pistons his whole career with extremely effective players/defenders at every position and a GOAT coach to coordinate everything. His team won 60+ games while he was a role player for christs sake. And he still ended up winning less.. Plus Kobe shitted on Duncan and his team too many times for me to pick him.

[kennethgriffin]

Q was Prime vs. Prime... Duncan's prime was 1999-07 and Kobe's prime was 2001-10.

http://e1201.hizliresim.com/t/d/1rkk3.jpg

Also Kobe never had a playoff run like Duncan's 2003 run. Peak Duncan > Peak Kobe. Prime Duncan > Prime Kobe.


duncan had a short lived prime

he played at his absolute best from 2002 till 2005

his 1999 title he won but wasnt nearly the best player in the nba... and in 2007 he wasnt even the best player on his own team


kobe on the other hand has been elite boss status for over a decade now LOL

its not even close IMO

[hitmanyr2k]

Kobe. People act like Duncan hasn't been on great teams his whole career.. he's played on the equivalent of the 2004 Pistons his whole career with extremely effective players/defenders at every position and a GOAT coach to coordinate everything. His team won 60+ games while he was a role player for christs sake. And he still ended up winning less.. Plus Kobe shitted on Duncan and his team too many times for me to pick him.

Give Kobe that 2003 Spurs team and they're going home in the first round...probably don't even make the playoffs. Give them Tim Duncan...championship.

[kennethgriffin]

Give Kobe that 2003 Spurs team and they're going home in the first round...probably don't even make the playoffs. Give them Tim Duncan...championship.


well duh.. a team built around a center needs their center...


duncan couldnt do kobes job at SG either lol



but lets not forget about the fact that duncan hasnt been important in and around this league for nearly half a decade by now...


duncan and kobe both became allstars the same year... kobes had more surgerys and played 1 more season in the nba...

yet duncan fell off the planet 5 years ago... and kobe isnt showing any signs of stopping any time soon

duncan might be retired for another half a decade before kobe dips below 20ppg LOL

[tpols]

Give Kobe that 2003 Spurs team and they're going home in the first round...probably don't even make the playoffs. Give them Tim Duncan...championship.
Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are pretty much the big men equivalents to Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker respectively. Then you have a bunch of role players on both sides that can really go either way considering Bynum's absence in LA's 3 straight Finals run.. Those mid 2000 Spurs teams were just as good as the team's Kobe took deep through the playoffs year in and year out and led to two rings.. so your argument doesn't make much sense.

[hitmanyr2k]

Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are pretty much the big men equivalents to Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker respectively. Then you have a bunch of role players on both sides that can really go either way considering Bynum's absence in LA's 3 straight Finals run.. Those mid 2000 Spurs teams were just as good as the team's Kobe took deep through the playoffs year in and year out and led to two rings.. so your argument doesn't make much sense.

In 2003?!? :oldlol: Ginobili was a rookie. Tony Parker was still a green 2nd year player. Neither were anywhere near all-star level. There's a reason Duncan lead his team in practically every category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc) during that title run.

[tpols]

In 2003?!? :oldlol: Ginobili was a rookie. Tony Parker was still a green 2nd year player. Neither were anywhere near all-star level. There's a reason Duncan lead his team in practically every category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc) during that title run.
No.. I'm talking about for his 2005 and 2007 titles. 2003 was a great title run.. but you said in your previous posts that a Kobe led team w/o Shaq was a first round exit team, and thats total bullshit. When given decent talent like:

Pau Gasol
Vladimir Radmonovic/Trevor Ariza/Ron Artest
Derek Fisher
Lamar Odom
Scrubs

..which Duncan had comparable with him for nearly his whole career outside of 2003[although that wasn't a terrible team], Kobe will lead his team to be a contender year in and year out.. and he did. Again, Duncan's teams have never been about star power.. they've been built on defense, offensive execution, and great coaching. They were the most dominant team in the league all of last year with a myriad of different guys stepping up in huge spurts. Gary Neal, Blair, Manu, Parker.. etc. it's never just one guy but he always ends up having SOMEBODY step up.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I'll take Duncan everyday of the week.

In all honesty he could score at will in his prime. If he needed to he could just take over the game and put up as many points as he needed until either the team needs shifted or they brought doubles. I remember something that kind of shows whats up. In 2007 in the 4th quarter of the All-Star they doubled him on touch. The damn All-Star game!

But here's the thing he can pass of days too. In his prime he was offensively dominant.

And then we get to defense. Duncan is a far better, and way way waaaaaay more impactful defender. It's the nature of the position. His shot altering abilities forced teams to change their game plan the second he stepped on the court. Add in his ability to rebound, his leading qualities, and his coachability and I'd take prime Duncan 100/100 times.

Career wise they are far closer.

[9erEmpire]

I would still take Kobe because Duncan's prime was short....Kobe's never stopped.

You would be stupid to take Duncan because they are no longer contenders and he's no longer dominating.

You can say the opposite for Kobe...contending and playing beast mode.

[macpierce]

duncan hasnt been relevant since 2007, kobes prime would last longer...........give me kobe

no disrespect to tim duncan fans tho

[Timmy D for MVP]

I would still take Kobe because Duncan's prime was short....Kobe's never stopped.

You would be stupid to take Duncan because they are no longer contenders and he's no longer dominating.

You can say the opposite for Kobe...contending and playing beast mode.

Sure but it's easier to build around an elite big than an elite wing. Kobe would need more help, and in fact more help from bigs which are hard to find good ones. Tim I could pair with shooters, and smart players and we're good to go. What that means, and what we've seen, is that I can keep the window open more steadily. From 1999-2008 a healthy Spurs team would be considered a contender. From 2003-2008 the Spurs were incredibly close to winning or did win the title. Now you need a great front office, and that helped out a TON! But the point I think stand, it takes less money, time to develop, and effort to fill in perimeter players when you have a paint force like Timmy.

They have fewer miles, but there's a reason they are more in demand in general than perimeter players. I can't hate a pick for Kobe. I just think the wise choice is Tim. But that's my opinion, I value rebounding and defense more than anything because I think you can stay in games if you are great in those aspects.

[kennethgriffin]

funny thing is... kobes prime already has lasted 5 years longer... and he aint even close to being finished... duncan might verry well retire this year

kobe could play another 3-4 years at a 25ppg level

thats nearly a decade longer as a starting allstar

[rmt]

who would you rather have in your franchise and build your team upon?

1) In their primes
2) Career as a whole


1) 2003 Duncan > any Kobe
2) Elite big man > elite guard (unless his name is Michael Jordan)

[DMAVS41]

Kobe. People act like Duncan hasn't been on great teams his whole career.. he's played on the equivalent of the 2004 Pistons his whole career with extremely effective players/defenders at every position and a GOAT coach to coordinate everything. His team won 60+ games while he was a role player for christs sake. And he still ended up winning less.. Plus Kobe shitted on Duncan and his team too many times for me to pick him.

Comparing the two in amount of help is laughable.....

If Duncan was ever the 2nd best player on his team for 8 years in his prime....its 6 titles at minimum. at minimum.

[DMAVS41]

funny thing is... kobes prime already has lasted 5 years longer... and he aint even close to being finished... duncan might verry well retire this year

kobe could play another 3-4 years at a 25ppg level

thats nearly a decade longer as a starting allstar

this is not true. this is kobe's 13th quality year if you count 00. Duncan played 11 or 12 quality years.

and duncan was a better player in most of those prime years than kobe was.

lol at kobe's prime lasting 5 years longer.....

[hitmanyr2k]

No.. I'm talking about for his 2005 and 2007 titles. 2003 was a great title run.. but you said in your previous posts that a Kobe led team w/o Shaq was a first round exit team, and thats total bullshit. When given decent talent like:

Pau Gasol
Vladimir Radmonovic/Trevor Ariza/Ron Artest
Derek Fisher
Lamar Odom
Scrubs


Pre-2008 I don't see Kobe going anywhere even with the players on that list above. Without Shaq, Kobe was an idiot. A talented, gifted scorer? Definitely, but still an idiot. He sucked as a leader up until 2008 when he finally figured it out. Before 2008 he was a petulant shotjacker looking for personal glory...a gunner with a primary goal to put up stats and shine more than anyone else with his agenda to catch Jordan. I believe even with Gasol on the team Kobe in 2006 - 2007 is still going to throw up a ton of shots and try to win scoring titles whether it benefitted the Lakers or not.



..which Duncan had comparable with him for nearly his whole career outside of 2003[although that wasn't a terrible team], Kobe will lead his team to be a contender year in and year out.. and he did. Again, Duncan's teams have never been about star power.. they've been built on defense, offensive execution, and great coaching. They were the most dominant team in the league all of last year with a myriad of different guys stepping up in huge spurts. Gary Neal, Blair, Manu, Parker.. etc. it's never just one guy but he always ends up having SOMEBODY step up.

The latter part of this paragraph you're talking about Duncan past his prime. I don't care about that. I'm talking about Duncan and Kobe in their primes. During Duncan's prime the Spurs ran through him. He was the anchor on both ends. He was coachable, a true leader and not some douchebag gloryhound headcase.

Duncan's teams from 2000-2003 were never anything to write home about until Parker and Ginobili developed. Yet, Duncan never shot his mouth off to the press or whined for more help or called press conferences demanding a trade like some primadonna. And there's a reason players like Parker and Ginobili developed the way they did on the Spurs. It's because Duncan didn't give a shit about stats. He didn't give a shit about personal glory. He put none of that over the team. He just did what he had to do as the leader of that team. He didn't mind if Parker and Ginobili developed and shined right along with him or even more than him. That's a leader. With a young shotjacker like Kobe, I don't see players developing into all-stars or anything resembling an all-star because Kobe is going to put his glory and stats over the team 9 times out 10.

[tpols]

Pre-2008 I don't see Kobe going anywhere even with the players on that list above. Without Shaq, Kobe was an idiot. A talented, gifted scorer? Definitely, but still an idiot. He sucked as a leader up until 2008 when he finally figured it out. Before 2008 he was a petulant shotjacker looking for personal glory...a gunner with a primary goal to put up stats and shine more than anyone else with his agenda to catch Jordan. I believe even with Gasol on the team Kobe in 2006 - 2007 is still going to throw up a ton of shots and try to win scoring titles whether it benefitted the Lakers or not.
.
Gasol wasn't on the team before 2008 you moron.

Kobe's teams in 06 and 07 were all time bad.. Luke Walton, Smush Parker, Brian Cook, and Lamar Odom[only decent player].. worse than anything Duncan has ever played with.

Now I know what I'm dealing with.:facepalm

[hitmanyr2k]

Gasol wasn't on the team before 2008 you moron.

Kobe's teams in 06 and 07 were all time bad.. Luke Walton, Smush Parker, Brian Cook, and Lamar Odom[only decent player].. worse than anything Duncan has ever played with.

Now I know what I'm dealing with.:facepalm

You dummy. I'm hypothesizing if Gasol was on the team in 2006 or 2007 :oldlol: . It still wouldn't matter because you still have the same idiot Kobe jacking up shots regardless.

[eliteballer]

Definitely, but still an idiot. He sucked as a leader up until 2008 when he finally figured it out. Before 2008 he was a petulant shotjacker looking for personal glory...a gunner with a primary goal to put up stats and shine more than anyone else with his agenda to catch Jordan.

He wouldnt have won 3 damn titles, ISHiot

[MooseJuiceBowen]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[rmt]

Pre-2008 I don't see Kobe going anywhere even with the players on that list above. Without Shaq, Kobe was an idiot. A talented, gifted scorer? Definitely, but still an idiot. He sucked as a leader up until 2008 when he finally figured it out. Before 2008 he was a petulant shotjacker looking for personal glory...a gunner with a primary goal to put up stats and shine more than anyone else with his agenda to catch Jordan. I believe even with Gasol on the team Kobe in 2006 - 2007 is still going to throw up a ton of shots and try to win scoring titles whether it benefitted the Lakers or not.




The latter part of this paragraph you're talking about Duncan past his prime. I don't care about that. I'm talking about Duncan and Kobe in their primes. During Duncan's prime the Spurs ran through him. He was the anchor on both ends. He was coachable, a true leader and not some douchebag gloryhound headcase.

Duncan's teams from 2000-2003 were never anything to write home about until Parker and Ginobili developed. Yet, Duncan never shot his mouth off to the press or whined for more help or called press conferences demanding a trade like some primadonna. And there's a reason players like Parker and Ginobili developed the way they did on the Spurs. It's because Duncan didn't give a shit about stats. He didn't give a shit about personal glory. He put none of that over the team. He just did what he had to do as the leader of that team. He didn't mind if Parker and Ginobili developed and shined right along with him or even more than him. That's a leader. With a young shotjacker like Kobe, I don't see players developing into all-stars or anything resembling an all-star because Kobe is going to put his glory and stats over the team 9 times out 10.

Exactly.

Kobe's recent quotes about it starts with him, bigs play off that, not changing and continuing to chuck (6-27) when the bigs are shooting 55% shows it's still all about him. Imagine how much more/faster Bynum would improve if he got some of those touches. Kobe's not going to let Bynum develop and take center stage or hand over the reigns.

Unselfish, team-first big man who gets along with any player vs selfish, me-first, chucker who bails on his teammates. LOL at the teammate argument - rookie Manu and 2nd year Parker & SJax vs MDE or Gasol/Bynum/Odom. No way Kobe leads an inexperienced team like '03 Spurs to any championship.

[tpols]

Why do Spurs fans consistently bring up 2003 when this thread is asking about PRIMES? As if one year in someone's prime outweighs the other 9+ years. Prime Duncan wasn't leading last year's Mavs team to a title either, but does that mean he's a worse player than Dirk? Nope.. just means he couldn't have a stretch of clutch games/series like Dirk did and wouldn't fit as well with that particular set of teammates. Has NOTHING to do with the proposed question.

[rmt]

Why do Spurs fans consistently bring up 2003 when this thread is asking about PRIMES? As if one year in someone's prime outweighs the other 9+ years. Prime Duncan wasn't leading last year's Mavs team to a title either, but does that mean he's a worse player than Dirk? Nope.. just means he couldn't have a stretch of clutch games/series like Dirk did and wouldn't fit as well with that particular set of teammates. Has NOTHING to do with the proposed question.

I strongly disagree that replacing Dirk with Prime Duncan on last year's Mavs team wouldn't lead to a title. With the way the Mavs shot the 3pters, they'd have even more of a field day off double teams of TD. And how much better would the Mavs defense be with Prime Duncan instead of Dirk? Prime TD is the kind of player that would fit well with any set of team mates - very easy to build around.

[Jacks3]

Exactly.

Kobe's recent quotes about it starts with him, bigs play off that, not changing and continuing to chuck (6-27) when the bigs are shooting 55% shows it's still all about him. Imagine how much more/faster Bynum would improve if he got some of those touches. Kobe's not going to let Bynum develop and take center stage or hand over the reigns.


Another clown who clearly doesn't watch the games. Bynum is in his 7th freaking year and is still nothing more than a role-player. A guy who's never even made a All-Star team. Seriously, dude is straight garbage if he's not getting fed easy baskets. Please. Watch the last 4-5 Laker games. he gets PLENTY of touches. Dude has no clue how to consistently create his own shot, struggles to get his own shot against similarly sized defenders, doesn't have a post-up game and is a HORRIBLE passer who has no clue how to handle double-teams. He's a huge black-hole. There's a reason the Lakers have consistently been better offensively without him for years now. Why the **** would Kobe hand over the reigns to a guy like that, especially now when he's still a far, far better player.

SMH.

Kobe doesn't have the luxury of being a role-player and still having his team win 60+ games like Duncan. :oldlol:

[MMM]

I take the elite big over the guard in every case except for MJ. Taking Duncan will also give me things that are rare in the NBA today which is a big man that can anchor the defense while carrying the load offensively in the low post. While Kobe is a incredible talent his skill set is more common or duplicated that of Duncan's, however, it is on a lesser scale.

[magnax1]

Peak vs Peak, I'll take Kobe pretty easily. Best perimeter player since Michael Jordan by a fairly wide margin to me. Duncan was great in 02, but even then, the gap between their offense is pretty massive. Defense makes it moderately close, but it's still quite obvious that Kobe was a better player.
Prime vs Prime it's a lot closer. 00-05 Duncan vs 06-09 Kobe is pretty difficult to choose from. Duncan's stats fell quite a bit after 02, but I don't think he was really all that worse until 06, except for him being able to hit his jumpshot less often and use his faceup game a bit less effectively. His stats usually jumped back up to what he put up in his best couple years during the playoffs. Kobe definitely lost some athleticism after 07, and never really looked like he was capable of playing similarly to 06 and 07 after 08. He was still the best in the league to me, but just not quite as potent of a slasher, though he was probably a bit better midrange shooter. I'd take Duncan since he didn't fall off as much, and had a bit longer prime, but I might change my mind if you asked me another time.

[rmt]

Another clown who clearly doesn't watch the games. Bynum is in his 7th freaking year and is still nothing more than a role-player. A guy who's never even made a All-Star team. Seriously, dude is straight garbage if he's not getting fed easy baskets. Please. Watch the last 4-5 Laker games. he gets PLENTY of touches. Dude has no clue how to consistently create his own shot, struggles to get his own shot against similarly sized defenders, doesn't have a post-up game and is a HORRIBLE passer who has no clue how to handle double-teams. He's a huge black-hole. There's a reason the Lakers have consistently been better offensively without him for years now. Why the **** would Kobe hand over the reigns to a guy like that, especially now when he's still a far, far better player.

SMH.

Kobe doesn't have the luxury of being a role-player and still having his team win 60+ games like Duncan. :oldlol:

1) Bynum just turned 24 - plenty young for a big man - he started at 17

2) how exactly is he to learn how to create his own shot and pass out of double-teams with Kobe chucking? The fact that he's getting double teams should tell you something.

3) similar sized defenders - sorry, but there aren't that many 7 ft/285 lbs big men around.

4) doesn't have a post-up game - compared to which big men? - the league sure seems to be filled with lots of big men with better post-up games than Bynum (sarcasm)

5) what don't you understand about - it starts with him, bigs play off that, not changing - maybe if he'd allow the young'uns to develop and stress teamwork and unselfishness, he'd have the luxury of becoming a role-player and still having his team win 60+ games like Duncan.

6) Why is Buss hanging on to Bynum and why isn't Bynum part of all the trade talks if he's nothing more than a role player?

[Myth]

I have a hard time picking Duncan for the simple fact, Kobe has been ass rapping his team in the playoffs his entire career.

It's amazing how Kobe started his career before Duncan and to date; he is still a superstar and Duncan is a shell of his former self.

There is no way Duncan ends up higher then Kobe on the all-time ladder.

Keep in mind that Duncan did multiple years at college (all 4?) and Kobe was drafted at 17. This allowed Kobe to be in the league longer, but Duncan also reached his peak before Kobe, so it isn't a surprise he lost his peak before Kobe.

Anywho, I'd take Duncan's playoff dominating prime over Kobe's regular season dominating/baring winning championships prime.

[gin17]

Hmm... interesting discussion so far.

I added a new scenario... their peaks.

(Again, this is about winning more championships rather than being the better player. Though, you may still argue about that.)

[toxicxr6]

I wonder how many championships the spurs would have won without another 40% salary allowance? The Lakers over duncan/kobe's career have had about an extra 40% to spend on players. Give that to the spurs and duncan might retire with 6 or 7 rings...
Plus i wonder what things may have been like if kobe and duncan played on the dame team for their careers? just a thought...

[Odinn]

How can Kobe have the edge on longevity "right now"?

Duncan gave 13 quailty seasons to the Spurs. 2011/12 season is Kobe's 14th season as starter. Also his 1998-99 and 1999-00 seasons were not that much high quality. That leaves 12 quailty seasons.

If you want to include ages, Duncan's last quailty season was 2009/10 and he was at his 33 (34 in the playoffs). Kobe is currently at his 33. (I'm not saying 33 year old Duncan > 33 year old Kobe. But Duncan was still good at his 33)

As for being best player in the L;
1998-99; Duncan was the best. Kobe wasn't top5.
1999-00; Duncan was the 2nd. Kobe wasn't top 5.
2000-01; Duncan was top3. Kobe was top3.
2001-02; Duncan was top2(Shaq or Duncan). Kobe was top5.
2002-03; Duncan was the best. Kobe was top5.
2003-04; Duncan was the 2nd. Kobe was top5.
2004-05; Duncan was the best. Kobe wasn't top5.
2005-06; Duncan was top5. Kobe was the best.
2006-07; Duncan was top2. Kobe was top2. (po; Duncan - rs; Kobe)
2007-08; Duncan was top5. Kobe was the best.
2008-09; Duncan wasn't top5. Kobe was top3(2nd or 3rd, depends on Wade).
2009-10; Duncan wasn't top5. Kobe was top3(depends on Wade&Durant).
2010-11; Both of them wasn't top 5.


PS: I said "Duncan gave 13 quailty seasons" and said he wasn't top5 in 2008-09 and 2009-10 but he was still top10. Can't say the same thing for Kobe's 1998-99 and 1999-2000 seasons.

[DMAVS41]

Hmm... interesting discussion so far.

I added a new scenario... their peaks.

(Again, this is about winning more championships rather than being the better player. Though, you may still argue about that.)

If its about winning titles....then the answer as of right now is Duncan. As I said before, if Duncan ever played 8 years of his career with a top 8 player of all time that complimented his game perfectly like Shaq did for Kobe.....you are getting at minimum 6 titles.

And furthermore, Duncan has proven he can win titles with much less help than Kobe needs to win.

You give Duncan the same help Kobe has had over his career and Duncan is looking at 7 to 9 titles.

Not only was Duncan the better player, but he was a far better teammate/team player.

[Bigsmoke]

Duncan

1999 top 5
2000 top 3
2001 top 3
2002 best player
2003 top 2
2004 top 3
2005 best player
2006 top 5
2007 top 5
2008 top 10
2009 top 20
2010 top 50
2011 top 60
2012 arguably worst starter in the nba

Kobe

1999 top 10
2000 top 5
2001 top 2
2002 top 2
2003 best player
2004 top 3
2005 top 5 ( injured )
2006 best player
2007 best player
2008 best player
2009 best player
2010 best player
2011 top 5 ( injured )
2012 arguably the best player


this is why kobes higher all time.... forget about having more rings lol

I think Kobe vs Lebron in 2009 and 2010 would be a more debatable comparison than Kobe vs Duncan in 2003

Duncan in 2003 > any Kobe season

[Duncan21formvp]

who would you rather have in your franchise and build your team upon?

1) In their primes
2) In their peaks
3) Career as a whole


this is not a thread about who is the better player, but who would give your team the better chance of winning the championship/s for as many times as possible.

Duncan for all 3. Better Prime, Better Peak and Better Career.
Kobe won because he went to an organization that was known for winning. Lakers had been in 24 finals and won 11 titles prior to Kobe ever coming. Spurs in the NBA had 0 finals and 0 titles prior to Duncan arriving.

[eliteballer]

Havent you guys watched any of the playoff series between them. Kobe has always clearly looked like the more dominant player. 2008 should have settled this

[DMAVS41]

Havent you guys watched any of the playoff series between them. Kobe has always clearly looked like the more dominant player. 2008 should have settled this

That argument makes no sense. This is about their entire careers...not what each player does against 1 team.

That would be like me saying that 2003 should have settled it.

[rmt]

Havent you guys watched any of the playoff series between them. Kobe has always clearly looked like the more dominant player. 2008 should have settled this

And weren't most of the playoff series (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) between them when Shaq was the dominant force, when the focus was on trying to contain Shaq and he was the one drawing double teams? Only 2008 had Kobe as the best player on the Lakers.

[eliteballer]

And weren't most of the playoff series (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) between them when Shaq was the dominant force, when the focus was on trying to contain Shaq and he was the one drawing double teams? Only 2008 had Kobe as the best player.

Uh, 2001, 2002, 2004. 2003 would be there too if Kobe's knee and shoulder werent banged up.

[rmt]

Uh, 2001, 2002, 2004. 2003 would be there too if Kobe's knee and shoulder werent banged up.

In 2001, 2002 and 2004, Kobe was the best player on the Lakers? Kobe was the one getting double-teamed, not Shaq? My memory must be going as I hit 50.

My point is that except for the 2008 series, the focus of Spurs was to contain Shaq, leaving Kobe lots of room to do his thing (because of the attention paid to Shaq).

[onhcetum]

The answer is Duncan and here's why.

First off, Kobe was 17 when he was drafted out of high school. Duncan played four years in college before joining the NBA. Based off that alone, Kobe will have a longer NBA career. "Most points in someone's 16th season" or "How good someone plays after X amount of years" is just another fabricated and contrived statistic to make Kobe look better than he really is. If you guys actually want to make things fair, how about you give Duncan 4 more years of 20-25ppg, 10-12 rpg, and 2-3 bpg onto his stats? How many more All-Star appearances, MVP's, All-NBA, and All-Defensive teams is that? Duncan could be looking at 30,000 points if he had came out of high school. Duncan was NBA-ready out of high school. He would have been #1 overall if he had left Wake Forest after his freshman year.

Duncan actually carries his team and makes his teammates better. The Spurs have never missed the playoffs and have won at least 50 games every year since Duncan has been there. Without Shaq, Kobe missed the playoffs and was going nowhere.

Like I said before, Kobe is just an overly glorified Iverson, Vince Carter, Tracey McGrady, Paul Pierce, and Steve Francis... all high volume shooters who put up a lot of points. The only difference is that Kobe wasn't stuck on a bad team his entire career.

And LOL, why do people act like Kobe is the only player to have played on a bad team? Many star players are stuck on bad teams their entire careers.

Duncan has 3 finals MVP, 4 titles as #1, and 2 regular season MVPs. Kobe has 2 finals MVP, 2 titles as #1, and 1 regular season MVP.

Oh yeah, and about how Kobe "crushes" Duncan head to head. First off, they don't even guard each other. What about 1999 and 2003? What about 2005? Oh wait, Kobe didn't even make the playoffs! And even in the 2000-2002 losses to the Lakers, Duncan put up monster numbers... but it's meaningless in this debate since Kobe doesn't even guard Duncan.

Also, like the other mention, if Duncan was ever the #2 best player on his team from 1998-2007, we're looking at 6 titles AT THE MINIMUM.

ALL OF THIS... and I still haven't mentioned Tim Duncan's defensive presence and what it means to his team.

[tpols]

You give Duncan the same help Kobe has had over his career and Duncan is looking at 7 to 9 titles.
.
Pure speculation. There's absolutely no proof for this.. just your opinion on a giant hypothetical. Pretty meaningless.

And to the guy saying Kobe wont have longevity over Duncan.. you're wrong. Kobe has shown the ability to be an elite top 3-5 player in the league year in and year out from 2001 to 2012[where he is currently a top MVP candidate], and barring major injury he will be continue it for at least another year. Thats 13 years of 25+/5+/5+.. where as Duncan tarted tapering off in 08/09 giving him only 9-10 years of his dominant 20+/10+ great D averages. It could be anywhere from 30 to 50% longer and thats a huge difference.

[Odinn]

Havent you guys watched any of the playoff series between them. Kobe has always clearly looked like the more dominant player. 2008 should have settled this
:wtf:

Let's play your game.

As for Lakers-Spurs series;
1999 - Duncan (Spurs won the series because they were the better team.)
2001 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team. Also D. Anderson should be Kobe's main matchup but he was injured. Kobe went up against old perimeter players.)
2002 - Duncan (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2003 - Duncan (What Duncan did was exceptional.)
2004 - Almost a tie, slightly Kobe. (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2008 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)

Duncan dominated 2003 Spurs-Lakers series like Kobe dominated in 2008. But Duncan won with the worse team.

[tpols]

:wtf:

Let's play your game.

As for Lakers-Spurs series;
1999 - Duncan (Spurs won the series because they were the better team.)
2001 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team. Also D. Anderson should be Kobe's main matchup but he was injured. Kobe went up against old perimeter players.)
2002 - Duncan (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2003 - Duncan (What Duncan did was exceptional.)
2004 - Almost a tie, slightly Kobe. (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2008 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)

Duncan dominated 2003 Spurs-Lakers series like Kobe dominated in 2008. But Duncan won with the worse team.
So basically Kobe and Duncan split their head to heads in the playoffs both dominating in different years.. but then after all of that being pretty much a tie, Kobe in the following years went on to have two playoff runs of 30/5/5 leading to B2B titles. And now.. two years after that, and 4 years since 08, he's still putting up monster numbers[30/6/6.. back to back 40 pt games]. I'd say he has the longevity argument won.

[DMAVS41]

Pure speculation. There's absolutely no proof for this.. just your opinion on a giant hypothetical. Pretty meaningless.

And to the guy saying Kobe wont have longevity over Duncan.. you're wrong. Kobe has shown the ability to be an elite top 3-5 player in the league year in and year out from 2001 to 2012[where he is currently a top MVP candidate], and barring major injury he will be continue it for at least another year. Thats 13 years of 25+/5+/5+.. where as Duncan tarted tapering off in 08/09 giving him only 9-10 years of his dominant 20+/10+ great D averages. It could be anywhere from 30 to 50% longer and thats a huge difference.


Everything in threads like this is speculation to an extent. But there is a ton of evidence that what I say would happen. Duncan managed to lead 4 teams to titles as the man and having nowhere near the kind of help Kobe did throughout.

The idea that Duncan being the 2nd best player on a team for 8 years of his career would result in less than 6 or 7 titles really just doesn't add up.

[rmt]

I wonder how many championships the spurs would have won without another 40% salary allowance? The Lakers over duncan/kobe's career have had about an extra 40% to spend on players. Give that to the spurs and duncan might retire with 6 or 7 rings...
Plus i wonder what things may have been like if kobe and duncan played on the dame team for their careers? just a thought...

Great point. If the Spurs could spend like LA, they could have paid SJax his money and not let him go for nothing. They could also have had Scola instead of trading him away just to get rid of Jackie Butler's contract. Imagine having SJax and Scola (lots of heart and toughness) instead of RJ and Bonner (soft, glorified 3pt shooters).

[onhcetum]

Dfrrrtrruyu

[tpols]

Everything in threads like this is speculation to an extent. But there is a ton of evidence that what I say would happen. Duncan managed to lead 4 teams to titles as the man and having nowhere near the kind of help Kobe did throughout.

The idea that Duncan being the 2nd best player on a team for 8 years of his career would result in less than 6 or 7 titles really just doesn't add up.
Again.. you have no idea. Who knows how Duncan would have performed outside of the spurs great gameplanning and defensive sets on other completely different teams. Kobe has shown he can win multiple titles given a 20/10 big man a 10/10 sixth man, and a bunch of role players. Who knows how many he could have competed for if he had that type of team around him from 05 to 10 instead of 08 to 10. Based on what he showed from 08 to 10, he could have won 4 or 5 titles in that stretch on top of what he already won with Shaq.

What if the New Jersey Nets, who held a 3-2 lead over the Pistons in the ECF, pulled that series out and met up with LA in the playoffs instead of Detroit.. there's no way the Lakers lose that series because NJ has never had the big men to deal with LA's frontline, while Detroit had the best in the league. Kobe would have had another title..

Way too many hypotheticals.. small things, injuries, chemistry problems, differing matchups based on things out of your control.. that can all giantly swing how things play out year to year. It is beyond absurd for you to say someone could win NINE titles and have a beyond Jordan like stretch in any hypothetical.. just looks stupid.

Duncan since 04/05ish has had 'star power' talent around him, and since 99 he has had GOAT coaching and veteran 2011 Mavs like squads around him. He plays for one of the most successful, come out of nowhere, small market teams in the history of the NBA.. the spurs are like Apple in the business world.. they started small and blew up on pure intelligence and innovation, playing the game of basketball in the most efficient and effective way out of any team in the league, relying not on star power, but on TEAM play. He had a GOAT big man in David Robinson to show him the ropes as he was coming up and hold the D down with him for his first couple years. Duncan was placed in such a great, great system to grow as a player and learn what it takes to be a successful basketball player and winner in the NBA. It's a joke to act like Duncan didn't have the perfect team to become who he became.. he was drafted into the some of the most fortunate circumstances of any other great big man to ever play the game.

[PTB Fan]

Q was Prime vs. Prime... Duncan's prime was 1999-07 and Kobe's prime was 2001-10.

http://e1201.hizliresim.com/t/d/1rkk3.jpg

Also Kobe never had a playoff run like Duncan's 2003 run. Peak Duncan > Peak Kobe. Prime Duncan > Prime Kobe.

Repped. Nice post.

[PTB Fan]

Tim Duncan is arguably better.

[DMAVS41]

Again.. you have no idea. Who knows how Duncan would have performed outside of the spurs great gameplanning and defensive sets on other completely different teams. Kobe has shown he can win multiple titles given a 20/10 big man a 10/10 sixth man, and a bunch of role players. Who knows how many he could have competed for if he had that type of team around him from 05 to 10 instead of 08 to 10. Based on what he showed from 08 to 10, he could have won 4 or 5 titles in that stretch on top of what he already won with Shaq.

What if the New Jersey Nets, who held a 3-2 lead over the Pistons in the ECF, pulled that series out and met up with LA in the playoffs instead of Detroit.. there's no way the Lakers lose that series because NJ has never had the big men to deal with LA's frontline, while Detroit had the best in the league. Kobe would have had another title..

Way too many hypotheticals.. small things, injuries, chemistry problems, differing matchups based on things out of your control.. that can all giantly swing how things play out year to year. It is beyond absurd for you to say someone could win NINE titles and have a beyond Jordan like stretch in any hypothetical.. just looks stupid.

Duncan since 04/05ish has had 'star power' talent around him, and since 99 he has had GOAT coaching and veteran 2011 Mavs like squads around him. He plays for one of the most successful, come out of nowhere, small market teams in the history of the NBA.. the spurs are like Apple in the business world.. they started small and blew up on pure intelligence and innovation, playing the game of basketball in the most efficient and effective way out of any team in the league, relying not on star power, but on TEAM play. He had a GOAT big man in David Robinson to show him the ropes as he was coming up and hold the D down with him for his first couple years. Duncan was placed in such a great, great system to grow as a player and learn what it takes to be a successful basketball player and winner in the NBA. It's a joke to act like Duncan didn't have the perfect team to become who he became.. he was drafted into the some of the most fortunate circumstances of any other great big man to ever play the game.

People just don't realize what Duncan did. Best win percentage of the post MJ era as a team. 2nd best win percentage as a player....only behind Manu for the era. 12 straight seasons of over 50 wins. Never missing the playoffs. One of the best playoff runs ever with one of the worst supporting casts ever to win a title.

And he did it all without an all nba teammate and the historical criteria for winning titles. The notion that Kobe is winning more than 1 title with the equivalent of help that Duncan got makes me laugh.

Duncan made those circumstances...holy shit. He was drafted and immediately was one of the best players in the league.

Kobe was drafted into far better circumstances and actually had a GOAT level player and the actual GOAT coach.

Hell, you give Tim Duncan a guy like Paul Pierce his entire career and I bet he gets 6 or more titles.

Duncan is so undervalued here and his help is extremely over-rated....just like you did with the Mavs this year.

Its not absurd at all to project what Duncan would have been like if given the type of loaded teams Kobe has had for the majority of his career with the spending power of the Lakers behind him. Duncan is one of the truly greatest of all time and along with Shaq separated himself from the rest of the league for at minimum a 8 year stretch.

You give that Duncan a top 10 player of all time as a running mate and the results would be historic.

You act like Duncan getting more help and more talent would somehow result in him winning less. The dude led 4 teams to titles. Had one of the best playoff runs ever with one of the worst supporting casts ever to win. Yet somehow him playing with better players and better teams for longer is going to result in the same amount of titles?

Laughable really. Kobe played with Shaq for 8 years. In Kobe's rookie year, the Lakers won 56 games with Kobe being nothing more than 15mpg bench guy. LOL

Could you imagine Duncan playing with a guy like Bird for his first 8 years with Bird at his absolute peak/prime. Its game over for the league. That is what Kobe was drafted into. So don't give me this BS about how projecting a Duncan/Bird combination winning 6 titles in 8 years is absurd. And then when Bird would be gone, Duncan has proven he can win a title with much less help than Kobe needs. So another 1 or 2 with the kind of help Kobe had in 09 and 10 is hardly out of the question.

You really think Prime Duncan and Prime Bird are only winning 3 titles in 8 years? No ****ing way. Again, that is basically what Kobe had with Shaq. And Shaq was better in my opinion.....

The only argument Kobe will have over Duncan is longevity. Duncan was simply a better player in his prime. And the longevity difference just isn't big enough yet. Kobe only has 1 year on Duncan really at this point. And that is if you count 00 and 05....both years are debatable.

[tpols]

People just don't realize what Duncan did. Best win percentage of the post MJ era as a team. 2nd best win percentage as a player....only behind Manu for the era. 12 straight seasons of over 50 wins. Never missing the playoffs. One of the best playoff runs ever with one of the worst supporting casts ever to win a title.
And I wonder why the Spurs are STILL a contender type team and have been for years with Duncan being a total shadow of his former self. They won 60+ games last year with Duncan as a role player.:oldlol: What does that tell you? The Spurs organization isn't built on star power.. they did it last year with no stars on the team. Best team in the league all regular season long with zero superstars or top ten players on the team.

That's your problem DMAVs, you're judging the Spurs on a 'star power' scale because you dont know how basketball works. Stars are a sufficient, but not a necessary factor for successful teams. There have been a handful of teams in the history of the league that have been successful w/o superstar play, and with great team play/defense/coaching instead. They are rarer only because it is harder to find a coach that can get a group of guys together to commit to playing TRUE basketball in a league where most guys are just out for money and fame.. but just because it's rarer doesn't mean it isn't just as successful a formula.

Bottom line, your hypotheticals mean nothing in a comparison of primes where everyone else is judging on what actually HAPPENED.

[AlphaWolf24]

People just don't realize what Duncan did. Best win percentage of the post MJ era as a team. 2nd best win percentage as a player....only behind Manu for the era. 12 straight seasons of over 50 wins. Never missing the playoffs. One of the best playoff runs ever with one of the worst supporting casts ever to win a title.

And he did it all without an all nba teammate and the historical criteria for winning titles. The notion that Kobe is winning more than 1 title with the equivalent of help that Duncan got makes me laugh.

Duncan made those circumstances...holy shit. He was drafted and immediately was one of the best players in the league.

Kobe was drafted into far better circumstances and actually had a GOAT level player and the actual GOAT coach.

Hell, you give Tim Duncan a guy like Paul Pierce his entire career and I bet he gets 6 or more titles.

Duncan is so undervalued here and his help is extremely over-rated....just like you did with the Mavs this year.

Its not absurd at all to project what Duncan would have been like if given the type of loaded teams Kobe has had for the majority of his career with the spending power of the Lakers behind him. Duncan is one of the truly greatest of all time and along with Shaq separated himself from the rest of the league for at minimum a 8 year stretch.

You give that Duncan a top 10 player of all time as a running mate and the results would be historic.

You act like Duncan getting more help and more talent would somehow result in him winning less. The dude led 4 teams to titles. Had one of the best playoff runs ever with one of the worst supporting casts ever to win. Yet somehow him playing with better players and better teams for longer is going to result in the same amount of titles?

Laughable really. Kobe played with Shaq for 8 years. In Kobe's rookie year, the Lakers won 56 games with Kobe being nothing more than 15mpg bench guy. LOL

Could you imagine Duncan playing with a guy like Bird for his first 8 years with Bird at his absolute peak/prime. Its game over for the league. That is what Kobe was drafted into. So don't give me this BS about how projecting a Duncan/Bird combination winning 6 titles in 8 years is absurd. And then when Bird would be gone, Duncan has proven he can win a title with much less help than Kobe needs. So another 1 or 2 with the kind of help Kobe had in 09 and 10 is hardly out of the question.

You really think Prime Duncan and Prime Bird are only winning 3 titles in 8 years? No ****ing way. Again, that is basically what Kobe had with Shaq. And Shaq was better in my opinion.....

The only argument Kobe will have over Duncan is longevity. Duncan was simply a better player in his prime. And the longevity difference just isn't big enough yet. Kobe only has 1 year on Duncan really at this point. And that is if you count 00 and 05....both years are debatable.


the 1994 Bulls won 55 games without MJ...there defense and offense also improved without MJ...


but in the Playoff's they missed MJ's abilty in crunchtime...much like the Lakers didn't become a championship team until Kobe played heavy minutes and was the First option in the 4th quarters...


wow...Kobe and MJ are very similar..
























next

[rmt]

Kobe has shown he can win multiple titles given a 20/10 big man a 10/10 sixth man, and a bunch of role players.

Duncan has shown he can win multiple titles as THE 20+/10+ big MAN with a bunch of role players.


Duncan since 04/05ish has had 'star power' talent around him, and since 99 he has had GOAT coaching and veteran 2011 Mavs like squads around him. He plays for one of the most successful, come out of nowhere, small market teams in the history of the NBA.. the spurs are like Apple in the business world.. they started small and blew up on pure intelligence and innovation, playing the game of basketball in the most efficient and effective way out of any team in the league, relying not on star power, but on TEAM play. He had a GOAT big man in David Robinson to show him the ropes as he was coming up and hold the D down with him for his first couple years. Duncan was placed in such a great, great system to grow as a player and learn what it takes to be a successful basketball player and winner in the NBA. It's a joke to act like Duncan didn't have the perfect team to become who he became.. he was drafted into the some of the most fortunate circumstances of any other great big man to ever play the game.

I'd like to know in what world coaching 146 NBA games while losing half of them (73-73 record before the 99 season) suddenly turns one into a GOAT coach in 1999. Maybe you're confusing Pop with Phil Jackson who went to LA having 6 rings under his belt. It couldn't possibly be Pop who after starting the 99 season 6-8 (losing 5 of their previous 7) was in danger of being fired when the team spurred on by Avery Johnson's four 4th quarter shots turned the season around (that game is probably why Avery's jersey is hanging in the rafters).

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/10/05/spurs-memory-no-28-pops-career-turns-after-crucial-1999-victory-at-houston/

Overall, Kobe has had better team mates, better coach, better owner (more salaried teams), better city to attract free agents. Duncan has done a little more (2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 4 rings as the man) with less.

It can't be that the Spurs are the way they are because their franchise player is that way - efficient and effective - not because of any great system that was there before him and had resulted in zero championships. I guess averaging 23/12/3/3 on 51% (99) and 25/15/5/3 on 53% (03) while breaking the NBA Finals record for most blocks in a series isn't star power.

[tpols]

Laughable really. Kobe played with Shaq for 8 years. In Kobe's rookie year, the Lakers won 56 games with Kobe being nothing more than 15mpg bench guy. LOL

And Duncan's team won MORE games last year with him having a similarly small impact. What does that tell you about his team's true strength if they won more games than a team with PRIME Shaq on it? It tells you that a group of coordinated, smart basketball players playing under a great coach can have just as much success as a team with a superstar on it that everyone defers to. You're so clueless as to how the game is actually played.:oldlol:

[AlphaWolf24]

And Duncan's team won MORE games last year with him having a similarly small impact. What does that tell you about his team's true strength if they won more games than a team with PRIME Shaq on it? It tells you that a group of coordinated, smart basketball players playing under a great coach can have just as much success as a team with a superstar on it that everyone defers to. You're so clueless as to how the game is actually played.:oldlol:


owned

[DMAVS41]

And I wonder why the Spurs are STILL a contender type team and have been for years with Duncan being a total shadow of his former self. They won 60+ games last year with Duncan as a role player.:oldlol: What does that tell you? The Spurs organization isn't built on star power.. they did it last year with no stars on the team. Best team in the league all regular season long with zero superstars or top ten players on the team.

That's your problem DMAVs, you're judging the Spurs on a 'star power' scale because you dont know how basketball works. Stars are a sufficient, but not a necessary factor for successful teams. There have been a handful of teams in the history of the league that have been successful w/o superstar play, and with great team play/defense/coaching instead. They are rarer only because it is harder to find a coach that can get a group of guys together to commit to playing TRUE basketball in a league where most guys are just out for money and fame.. but just because it's rarer doesn't mean it isn't just as successful a formula.

Bottom line, your hypotheticals mean nothing in a comparison of primes where everyone else is judging on what actually HAPPENED.

I do know how basketball works. Takes stars to win almost every time. Duncan found a way to do it without that.

And contender? They lost in the first round last year.....failed to mention that didn't you.

Nobody is saying Duncan played with scrubs, he just played with less help than Kobe.

And if Duncan had quality teams and the star power Kobe had? Its game over for the league.

Just a question. How many titles do you think Bird and Duncan would have won together in 8 years?

[tpols]

.

Duncan has shown he can win multiple titles as THE 20+/10+ big MAN with a bunch of role players.
.
Manu and Parker were capable of 20/5/5 and 20/8 respectively.. they were the perimeter equivalents of Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom.. actually Parker was better than Lamar Odom.

[DMAVS41]

And Duncan's team won MORE games last year with him having a similarly small impact. What does that tell you about his team's true strength if they won more games than a team with PRIME Shaq on it? It tells you that a group of coordinated, smart basketball players playing under a great coach can have just as much success as a team with a superstar on it that everyone defers to. You're so clueless as to how the game is actually played.:oldlol:

AND THEY LOST IN THE FIRST ****ING ROUND.....

This is about winning titles. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[LA_Showtime]

I would take Duncan. I think if you put that guy on the Lakers or another big market team he would've potentially been even better. The guy is a winner, one of the most professional players in the league, and the best power forward the game has ever seen. He is criminally underrated on these boards.

[tpols]

And contender? They lost in the first round last year.....failed to mention that didn't you.
?
Only because their chemistry was broken when Manu snapped his arm and was forced to leave early in the series. Clearly turned the momentum of the series.

[tpols]

AND THEY LOST IN THE FIRST ****ING ROUND.....

This is about winning titles. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Wait, did Shaq's team win the titile in that 56 win season? You dont know how to stick to a point man. They lost JUST like the Spurs did last year. Both teams had just about equal years with one having a dominant superstar and the other a team of all non-superstars.

[SCdac]

Q was Prime vs. Prime... Duncan's prime was 1999-07 and Kobe's prime was 2001-10.

http://e1201.hizliresim.com/t/d/1s4m6.jpg

Also Kobe never had a playoff run like Duncan's 2003 run. Peak Duncan > Peak Kobe. Prime Duncan > Prime Kobe.


I added EFG% and corrected Duncan's H2H #s.

Damn.. :applause:

I'm not even big on using stats as a basis for an argument, but Duncan is just a beast! and the stats clearly emphasize it

71.6 win% is incredible.

[DMAVS41]

Only because their chemistry was broken when Manu snapped his arm and was forced to leave early in the series. Clearly turned the momentum of the series.

And if Duncan was in his prime he would have been good enough to get them through that. That is the ****ing point.

And stop telling me I don't know the game. You are trying to buck NBA history by saying star power isn't the driving force. That is exactly what has dominated NBA history.

Very rarely do teams like the 11 Mavs and 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets win. Its borderline historic when it happens because of how hard it is to win 4 best of 7 series.

And you act like Kobe had one or the other. He had everything.

GOAT level teammate. Great role players. GOAT coach. He had it all and has had it for pretty much every year of his career other than 05 through 07.

[DMAVS41]

Wait, did Shaq's team win the titile in that 56 win season? You dont know how to stick to a point man. They lost JUST like the Spurs did last year. Both teams had just about equal years with one having a dominant superstar and the other a team of all non-superstars.

And Kobe was joining that team with a proven star...not just in the game, but of all time.

Just please answer the following questions:

1. Who played with more help...Duncan or Kobe?

2. How many titles do prime Bird and Duncan win in Duncan's first 8 years in the league?

[AlphaWolf24]

And if Duncan was in his prime he would have been good enough to get them through that. That is the ****ing point.

And stop telling me I don't know the game. You are trying to buck NBA history by saying star power isn't the driving force. That is exactly what has dominated NBA history.

Very rarely do teams like the 11 Mavs and 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets win. Its borderline historic when it happens because of how hard it is to win 4 best of 7 series.

And you act like Kobe had one or the other. He had everything.

GOAT level teammate. Great role players. GOAT coach. He had it all and has had it for pretty much every year of his career other than 05 through 07.


so did Magic...so Did Bird.....so did MJ...

shoot..MJ had the 2 of the top 5 defensive players maybe of alltime on his team....he had the greatest rebounder and defensive player of his generation for half of his titles....not to mention the best European player of the 90's.

why do you feel it necassary to slight Kobe every breathing second of your existence but fail to slight the other great players who are no different??:confusedshrug:


maybe because......


U

M
A
D

__________

still funny how you ingore the Bull's winning 55 games without Jordan

[DMAVS41]

so did Magic...so Did Bird.....so did MJ...

shoot..MJ had the 2 of the top 5 defensive players maybe of alltime on his team....he had the greatest rebounder and defensive player of his generation for half of his titles....not to mention the best European player of the 90's.

why do you feel it necassary to slight Kobe every breathing second of your existence but fail to slight the other great players who are no different??:confusedshrug:


maybe because......


U

M
A
D

stay on topic. this is comparing duncan to kobe. not mj or bird. lol.....can't stay on topic because you are an idiot.

[LA_Showtime]

Kobe hasn't had everything. The Lakers' supporting cast from their previous 2 championships are severely overrated on these boards.

[tpols]

And Kobe was joining that team with a proven star...not just in the game, but of all time.

What the fvck does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about GOAT coaching/team play/defense ala Pistons versus teams that rely on pure star power.. iso sets.. etc. You're COMPLETELY changing the topic to something else because you dont know jack shit about how the game is actually played.

Tim Duncan was a great team player that made already very effective teams even more effective and outright dominant because he is a great player. It's why his teams now are still winning tons of games with him not having a big impact.. he puts them over the top by a lot, but they was still a great basketball system in place all along.

[AlphaWolf24]

stay on topic. this is comparing duncan to kobe. not mj or bird. lol.....can't stay on topic because you are an idiot.


wait...wich one am I talking too??

do you really want me to bump the "Kobe 360" thread??

don't make me do it...don't make me do it.....

[DMAVS41]

Kobe hasn't had everything. The Lakers' supporting cast from their previous 2 championships are severely overrated on these boards.

Was talking mostly about his first 8 years in which he played with prime/peak Shaq.

Disagree about 09 and 10 supporting casts. Compared to the league those years they were elite supporting casts. All time? No, but those Lakers teams weren't playing in past years. They were playing the teams in front of them.

And compared to the help the other star players had, Kobe had the best or close to the best help.

[tpols]

stay on topic. this is comparing duncan to kobe. not mj or bird. lol.....can't stay on topic because you are an idiot.
The irony in this post is amazing.. you change topics and go off the point more than anyone on this site.

[DMAVS41]

What the fvck does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about GOAT coaching/team play/defense ala Pistons versus teams that rely on pure star power.. iso sets.. etc. You're COMPLETELY changing the topic to something else because you dont know jack shit about how the game is actually played.

Tim Duncan was a great team player that made already very effective teams even more effective and outright dominant because he is a great player. It's why his teams now are still winning tons of games with him not having a big impact.. he puts them over the top by a lot, but they was still a great basketball system in place all along.

There is a huge difference between regular season and playoffs. The fact that you haven't figure that out yet is hilarious.

You need that star power to win consistently....as has been true throughout NBA history. Well....aside from Duncan really...LOL

[tpols]

wait...wich one am I talking too??

do you really want me to bump the "Kobe 360" thread??

don't make me do it...don't make me do it.....
:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

The irony in this post is amazing.. you change topics and go off the point more than anyone on this site.

What? Not at all. You just want to pretend that certain teams were much better than reality so you don't have to give players enough credit.

Answer the ****ing question:

Who had more help?

Remember when you used to say Dirk could never win and that Dirk wasn't a true championship first option and that it was a joke to compare Dirk and Kobe on game winners? Remember that moron? That is not knowing the game.

Claiming that Duncan and an elite all time great like Bird would win 6 titles together in 8 years is not misunderstanding the game. Its knowing it and knowing what wins.

If you honestly think star power isn't a huge factor in winning....then you are even dumber than I thought.

[AlphaWolf24]

Was talking mostly about his first 8 years in which he played with prime/peak Shaq.

Disagree about 09 and 10 supporting casts. Compared to the league those years they were elite supporting casts. All time? No, but those Lakers teams weren't playing in past years. They were playing the teams in front of them.

And compared to the help the other star players had, Kobe had the best or close to the best help.


He had Shaq:confusedshrug: ..who was after that?...40 year old Glenn rice...Brian Shaw?

Shaq was a great Bigman....and him and Kobe dominated for 5 years with the best postseason ever....but without kobe he could not have dominated in that same fashion or won as many titles....cough Orlando....Miami...PHX...Cleveland....boston.

[rodman91]

1.Duncan
2.Duncan
3.Duncan

[LA_Showtime]

Was talking mostly about his first 8 years in which he played with prime/peak Shaq.

Disagree about 09 and 10 supporting casts. Compared to the league those years they were elite supporting casts. All time? No, but those Lakers teams weren't playing in past years. They were playing the teams in front of them.

And compared to the help the other star players had, Kobe had the best or close to the best help.

Well obviously anyone who played with prime Shaq was VERY fortunate. No debate there really.

I guess you could say relative to the rest of the league those teams were elite, but that doesn't factor in Bynum's injuries, Odom's inconsistencies, spotty play at point guard, and their nonexistent bench. I'd argue they were VERY fortunate to win either championship.

[DMAVS41]

Well obviously anyone who played with prime Shaq was VERY fortunate. No debate there really.

I guess you could say relative to the rest of the league those teams were elite, but that doesn't factor in Bynum's injuries, Odom's inconsistencies, spotty play at point guard, and their nonexistent bench. I'd argue they were VERY fortunate to win either championship.

Yea, but every team has things like that happen to them. Guys get hurt. Role players don't show up every night.

The truth is that Kobe was great both years but he also got a great amount of help from a quality supporting cast that featured one of the best bigs in the game playing great.

I think people forget how good Pau was at times. 20/11/4 on 54% fg in the 10 playoffs. 18/11/3 on 58% fg in the 09 playoffs. Pretty sick stuff. Not to mention the state of the current league with bigs. Huge advantage having another elite player on your team....

[tpols]

What? Not at all. You just want to pretend that certain teams were much better than reality so you don't have to give players enough credit.

Answer the ****ing question:

Who had more help?
And you do it again.:oldlol:

I've already explained my stance on their respective teams in earlier posts. Kobe had Shaq early.. which was better than what Duncan had only because it's Shaq, probably the best peak player ever, but his casts from 05 to 10, which he made three Finals with and won two championships with were WORSE than what Duncan had for his titles in 05 and 07 and almost every year since. Kobe is STILL playing like an MVP caliber player and his team blows this year and last year in comparison to the Spurs. LA minus Kobe these past few years would be far worse than SA minus duncan.. because they have done great with Duncan playing a much smaller role than Kobe.

I'm not going to get into a 10 page argument with you full of LOLs and dumbed down basketball conversation.

[DMAVS41]

And you do it again.:oldlol:

I've already explained my stance on their respective teams in earlier posts. Kobe had Shaq early.. which was better than what Duncan had only because it's Shaq, probably the best peak player ever, but his casts from 05 to 10, which he made three Finals with and won two championships with were WORSE than what Duncan had for his titles in 05 and 07 and almost every year since. Kobe is STILL playing like an MVP caliber player and his team blows this year and last year in comparison to the Spurs. LA minus Kobe these past few years would be far worse than SA minus duncan.. because they have done great with Duncan playing a much smaller role than Kobe.

I'm not going to get into a 10 page argument with you full of LOLs and dumbed down basketball conversation.

Disagree about 09 and 10 being worse than what Duncan had. I think you really undervalue Gasol.

Its not dumb basketball talk. Its based on the history of the league. Its very obvious the historical criteria for winning. Duncan had it sometimes...sometimes he didn't. Every year Kobe won he had it. That matters.

And I love how you ignore the entire defensive side of things. Isn't that why Dirk could never win? His defense was so bad and that matters so much.....why aren't you consistent with Duncan vs Kobe in terms of defensive impact?

Just confused why you can't stay consistent ever.

[DMAVS41]

And you do it again.:oldlol:

I've already explained my stance on their respective teams in earlier posts. Kobe had Shaq early.. which was better than what Duncan had only because it's Shaq, probably the best peak player ever, but his casts from 05 to 10, which he made three Finals with and won two championships with were WORSE than what Duncan had for his titles in 05 and 07 and almost every year since. Kobe is STILL playing like an MVP caliber player and his team blows this year and last year in comparison to the Spurs. LA minus Kobe these past few years would be far worse than SA minus duncan.. because they have done great with Duncan playing a much smaller role than Kobe.

I'm not going to get into a 10 page argument with you full of LOLs and dumbed down basketball conversation.

And how about you answer the question about how many titles you think Duncan wins playing next to the equivalent of Shaq for 8 years.

I think a fair guy to plug in would be Bird...even though I think Shaq was better.

So please answer. How many titles would peak/prime Bird and Duncan win in Duncan's first 8 years in your opinion? Just curious.....you called me stupid for saying 6.

How many do they get?

[Odinn]

Kobe hasn't had everything. The Lakers' supporting cast from their previous 2 championships are severely overrated on these boards.
Yep but in their championship runs, Kobe had more help.

When it comes to Kobe, people always say "his peaks wasted because he had crappy casts" but also "at least 2 seaons of Duncan's peak wasted because his team was so unstable in the playoffs".

People give applaud to Kobe because he has 5 rings and went to the finals 7 times. One of them came in 1999-00 and Kobe clearly wasn't prime in that season. He had 3 rings and 4 finals when arguably MDE was a Laker. Duncan had to compete with that Lakers with unstable teams;
2000 playoffs; Duncan injured.
2001 playoffs; alongside Duncan, only 15+ ppg Spur - Derek Anderson was injured.
2002 playoffs; DRob was injured and played 74 mins for entire Lakers-Spurs series.
2003 playoffs; Parker was a sophomore, Ginobili was a rookie and both of them inconsistent players.
2004 playoffs; DRob was gone.

We can argue about Duncan's 2005-07 cast vs. Kobe's 2008-10 cast. IMO Kobe's cast slightly better. Yep, competition was truly weak in 2007 but 2005 competition was the strongest(2005 Suns>2010 Suns and 2005 Pistons>2010 Celtics) and Duncan still won the title.
Maybe you don't agree with me about 05-07 cast vs. 08-10 cast but Duncan won in 2003. You can't change that. He showed how much he can dominate the game.

Duncan won with less help. Did more with less help.

[rmt]

And I wonder why the Spurs are STILL a contender type team and have been for years with Duncan being a total shadow of his former self. They won 60+ games last year with Duncan as a role player.:oldlol: What does that tell you? The Spurs organization isn't built on star power.. they did it last year with no stars on the team. Best team in the league all regular season long with zero superstars or top ten players on the team.

That's your problem DMAVs, you're judging the Spurs on a 'star power' scale because you dont know how basketball works. Stars are a sufficient, but not a necessary factor for successful teams. There have been a handful of teams in the history of the league that have been successful w/o superstar play, and with great team play/defense/coaching instead. They are rarer only because it is harder to find a coach that can get a group of guys together to commit to playing TRUE basketball in a league where most guys are just out for money and fame.. but just because it's rarer doesn't mean it isn't just as successful a formula.

Bottom line, your hypotheticals mean nothing in a comparison of primes where everyone else is judging on what actually HAPPENED.

C'mon, tpols, you and I and the Spurs themselves know that they aren't true contenders and haven't been since Duncan has declined. They are a great regular season team because they are disciplined, hard-working and they have "character" guys who take their jobs seriously/don't fool around. They teach the youngsters and give them run so they have depth which is great for the regular season.

When playoff time comes, rotations are shortened and "star power" prevails as they play longer minutes. A team that no longer has a franchise player/star power who can't be stopped/doesn't draw double teams when the defensive intensity is turned up in the playoffs has almost no chance.

The Spurs do not have the talent to win a title as currently constructed. They have TP (29), Manu (34), TD (35), Splitter/Neal (2nd year), Blair (undersized), RJ and Bonner (chokers), TJ Ford and a bunch of newbies getting big minutes - Kawhi Leonard (rookie - 22 mins./game), 2nd year James Anderson (15.3 mins) and Danny Green (14.7 mins.) In the playoffs, teams are going to cut off the 3pt line which takes out the majority of the team. Duncan no longer commands a double team, TP's speed is not effective/neutralized in the half court and how many minutes can Manu play effectively (if he doesn't get injured)?

Your bolded statement doesn't make any sense at all. The fact that winning without superstar play is very rare indicates it isn't a successful formula at all. Probably only the Pistons (04) could qualify.

[DMAVS41]

Yep but in their championship runs, Kobe had more help.

When it comes to Kobe, people always say "his peaks wasted because he had crappy casts" but also "at least 2 seaons of Duncan's peak wasted because his team was so unstable in the playoffs".

People give applaud to Kobe because he has 5 rings and went to the finals 7 times. One of them came in 1999-00 and Kobe clearly wasn't prime in that season. He had 3 rings and 4 finals when arguably MDE was a Laker. Duncan had to compete with that Lakers with unstable teams;
2000 playoffs; Duncan injured.
2001 playoffs; alongside Duncan, only 15+ ppg Spur - Derek Anderson was injured.
2002 playoffs; DRob was injured and played 74 mins for entire Lakers-Spurs series.
2003 playoffs; Parker was a sophomore, Ginobili was a rookie and both of them inconsistent players.
2004 playoffs; DRob was gone.

We can argue about Duncan's 2005-07 cast vs. Kobe's 2008-10 cast. IMO Kobe's cast slightly better. Yep, competition was truly weak in 2007 but 2005 competition was the strongest(2005 Suns>2010 Suns and 2005 Pistons>2010 Celtics) and Duncan still won the title.
Maybe you don't agree with me about 05-07 cast vs. 08-10 cast but Duncan won in 2003. You can't change that. He showed how much he can dominate the game.

Duncan won with less help. Did more with less help.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[tpols]

And how about you answer the question about how many titles you think Duncan wins playing next to the equivalent of Shaq for 8 years.

I think a fair guy to plug in would be Bird...even though I think Shaq was better.

So please answer. How many titles would peak/prime Bird and Duncan win in Duncan's first 8 years in your opinion? Just curious.....you called me stupid for saying 6.

How many do they get?
This is the last question I'm answering.. 4-5. Are Duncan and Bird going to beat Kobe and Shaq every year for 9 straight years?

The problem with your hypotheticals are that Kobe wasn't in his prime when he joined Shaq. Your hypotheticals with Duncan.. have Duncan in his prime. You put 06-10 Kobe from 96 to 00 on LA and then leave 01 to 04 Kobe as it is? And LA may win, as you said with Duncan, 7+titles.

You're manipulating the different timelines of their careers to make one look better than the other in bullshit hypotheticals.

[DMAVS41]

No, because Duncan had more quality years than you are giving him credit for. And its not like we didn't see the problems prime Kobe caused playing with Shaq. Young Kobe might have actually been better suited to play with him.

You put prime Kobe on a team with that Shaq for 8 years and they might not even make it to year 3 before the team blows up.

Can't ignore stuff like that. There is evidence for it.

This is prime vs prime....right? Duncan proved himself to be the better player. He grades out as the more dominant player objectively and he did more with less.

So I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Define Kobe's prime. Was Kobe ever a better player than Duncan from 99 through 07 when Duncan averaged something like 24/13/3 in the playoffs and played some of the best defense ever seen by a player in NBA history. Winning 2 mvps, 3 finals mvps, and 4 titles. Playing with by far the least amount of help a star player winning 3 or more titles on a run like that has ever had? Those are the 8 years I'm talking about. Plug in any of Kobe's 8 years you want and I'll take Duncan quite easily.

Its the longevity component that could ultimately change the rankings...not the prime vs prime....Duncan won that battle. Its over.

[Doranku]

Peak Duncan was better, primes is close, slight edge to Duncan, career will probably be Kobe after this year if he continues playing like he is.

[rmt]

Manu and Parker were capable of 20/5/5 and 20/8 respectively.. they were the perimeter equivalents of Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom.. actually Parker was better than Lamar Odom.

The (multiple) titles in 99 and 03 were won without a 20/5/5 Manu and a 20/8 Parker. Rookie Manu and 2nd year TP were not capable of putting up those numbers.

[tpols]

No, because Duncan had more quality years than you are giving him credit for. And its not like we didn't see the problems prime Kobe caused playing with Shaq. Young Kobe might have actually been better suited to play with him.

You put prime Kobe on a team with that Shaq for 8 years and they might not even make it to year 3 before the team blows up.
.
You dont know any of this though 06-10 Kobe and 01-04 Kobe playing with Shaq could have resulted in a lot more titles because that was his full prime.

Basically you're giving prime 99-07 Duncan Shaq and 97-00 NON PRIME Kobe and 01-04 prime Kobe Shaq and saying the comparison is fair. Kobe gets to play with the guy for half the time[and win 3 titles btw] and he's being criticized for it in your hypothetical. Your analyses are just straight garbage.

And you've still yet to answer my answer to your Q. Bird and Duncan are beating Shaq and Kobe every single year for 9 years straight?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll give Duncan the edge for peak(2003). For primes? It's tougher.

Kobe's prime was very long, from '01-'10, or at the very least '03-'09. Duncan's was as well considering out of all of the all-time greats, he seemed to enter the league closest to prime level, maybe some older players like Russell, Wilt and Kareem were similar, but it's rare for a player to enter the league as developed as Duncan. His prime was probably '99-'07 or at least '00-'05. He wasn't much less effective when he was on the court through '07, but after '04, he had more injuries and had his minutes limited making his stamina/durability more of a question post-'04.

As far as what they could do in their primes? Duncan was the best defensive player of his era, imo and well rounded in pretty much every area. Post game, fundamentals at both ends(example being blocking shots without biting on fakes), passing, rebounding, face up game and playing within a team concept.

His weakness was free throw shooting, and while it's a stretch to call this a weakness, he wasn't truly a dominant scorer, imo, though he was very very good good.

Kobe was/is an all-time great scorer, a very good passer, a good rebounder for a guard and for part of his career, arguably the best perimeter defender in the game, or at least one of them, and even later, was still capable when he gave the effort.

As far as weaknesses. Well the one true one if playing within the team and shot selection. This has been a reoccurring problem throughout his career, though at various points such as pre-'00, early '00-'01 season, '03 vs Spurs, '04 vs Detroit, midseason '10 when he was injured and shooting a lot. In those situations it did hurt the team.

I guess the other thing I'd have to mention as a follow up on defense, which most know. While he has proven himself as a defender, it hasn't been a constant throughout his career/prime so if we're talking the duration of his prime, this has to be kept in mind in terms of what he brings to the table as a player, and his best defensive season(2000) came before his prime.

Duncan did have a playoff run(2003) better than any of Kobe's, but comparing their multiple top playoff runs(2001, 2008, 2009, 2010), Kobe seems to have the advantage in quantity.

Duncan won 4 as the best player, while Kobe "only" won 2. But Kobe's 2001 and 2002 titles saw him perform at that level, his 2001 run is all-time great and his 2002 run is better than the numbers suggest, in large part due to his clutch performances in the Spurs series and finals in particular. And in those 2001 and 2002 titles, Kobe was the best player in both the Lakers/Spurs series, which is worth mentioning.

So Kobe's first 3 rings(especially 2001 and 2002) being disrespected isn't fair. I'm not saying anyone in this thread in particular is doing it, but it does happen. Kobe earned the 2000 ring as well, but it is less of a factor when comparing two top 10 players, but shouldn't be disregarded completely considering his two-way play and clutch moments.

Duncan did win a ring with less talent(particularly on paper) in 2003, and that deserves to be mentioned because it took an all-time great player and performance to make them what they were. But despite what people see on paper, it was a balanced team with numerous players stepping up. It also can't be compared to other casts outside of context because like Duncan's '99 and '07 titles, the competition was weaker during that run. Lakers series was competition, but still a dysfunctional team with Horry not being able to buy a shot, an aging supporting cast with injuries. Though still the 3-time defending champs with 2 of the top 5 players in the game so I'm not trying to take anything away from that.

I do agree that Duncan for the most part has had good casts, the one weaker one was '02. Though that's not really a negative for me because Kobe didn't win without good casts either, nobody does. Duncan's consistency in leading contenders is remarkable and extremely rare.

I do think that Duncan's casts get underrated compared to how they were viewed at the time, and I think that Kobe's casts can be overrated in general. The guy had to carry them a lot and the team did have flaws, it's not like Bynum was healthy for either title run either.

You can pretty much a flip a coin. I don't usually like to go by years outside of prime, but if Kobe can keep it up for a few more years, that will probably be the tiebreaker for me. As of now, I lean towards Duncan because there's less negatives and I typically prefer a big man's impact.

It's extremely close, going over what each player can/could do and has done, it comes down to preference.


Duncan

1999 top 5
2000 top 3
2001 top 3
2002 best player
2003 top 2
2004 top 3
2005 best player
2006 top 5
2007 top 5
2008 top 10
2009 top 20
2010 top 50
2011 top 60
2012 arguably worst starter in the nba

Kobe

1999 top 10
2000 top 5
2001 top 2
2002 top 2
2003 best player
2004 top 3
2005 top 5 ( injured )
2006 best player
2007 best player
2008 best player
2009 best player
2010 best player
2011 top 5 ( injured )
2012 arguably the best player


this is why kobes higher all time.... forget about having more rings lol

:oldlol: No, this is more like it.

Kobe

1998- Not high enough to rank,
1999- Maybe top 15 or so
2000- Top 9
2001- Top 2
2002- Top 3
2003- Top 4
2004- Top 4
2005- Top 10
2006- Best Player
2007- Best Player
2008- Best Player
2009- Top 3
2010- Top 2
2011- Top 6
2012- Still very early, but looks like he could still be top 3-5.

Duncan

1998- Top 5
1999- Best Player
2000- Top 2
2001- Top 3
2002- Top 2
2003- Best Player
2004- Top 2
2005- Best Player
2006- Top 5
2007- Top 2
2008- Top 5
2009- Top 12
2010- Top 14
2011- Not high enough to be ranked.
2012- Haven't seen much of him this season

[DMAVS41]

You dont know any of this though 06-10 Kobe and 01-04 Kobe playing with Shaq could have resulted in a lot more titles because that was his full prime.

Basically you're giving prime 99-07 Duncan Shaq and 97-00 NON PRIME Kobe and 01-04 prime Kobe Shaq and saying the comparison is fair. Kobe gets to play with the guy for half the time[and win 3 titles btw] and he's being criticized for it in your hypothetical. Your analyses are just straight garbage.

And you've still yet to answer my answer to your Q. Bird and Duncan are beating Shaq and Kobe every single year for 9 years straight?

Did I ever say they are winning all 9 titles? No....but I think they win 6. I think they win 99 and 00 for sure.

01 and 02 would be toss ups.

Then they have great chances to win 03 through 06. At least 5 titles. 5 would be the lowest I would ever go on that.

Its prime/peak Bird and Tim freaking Duncan. Its not absurd to say such things.

Again, of course we'll never know. But we at least saw what "prime Kobe" turned the Lakers into. There is evidence to suggest that the pairing would fall apart after a couple titles....perhaps sooner if they are coming up short against Bird and Duncan.

Also, Duncan didn't have the teams that the Lakers did during the Lakers three titles...even you would admit that. So remove Shaq from the equation and let Kobe do it by himself and give him trust a very good player and not an all time great player. Spurs then might win your 8 in a row.

That is what I'm talking about. Not only was it about Kobe and Shaq playing together, but the rest of the league really didn't have anything that could match them for a number of years.

Its like me asking you if you really think the Lakers still win 3 in a row of peak Bird is on the spurs with Duncan....hell no they don't. But that isn't what happened. So its only fair to create the same situation. Give Duncan that elite player and make sure nobody else in conference has a duo close to as good.

Then you could have seen 7 or 8 titles...they would have been that good.

[tpols]

The (multiple) titles in 99 and 03 were won without a 20/5/5 Manu and a 20/8 Parker. Rookie Manu and 2nd year TP were not capable of putting up those numbers.
I never said they were.. I was comparing for Duncan's last two titles only. His 03 title was his greatest accomplishment, and the 99 one came against an 8 seeded Knick team minus Ewing.. not really at all comparable to the teams Kobe has had to go through as the man in the Finals.

Basically, everyone wants to say Duncan is CLEARLY better solely because of his 03 title.. the team success 60+ win seasons were just as much a product of the Spurs basketball system as they were Duncan, and all of his titles outside of 03 weren't anymore impressive than Kobe's run from 08-10.

Basically it comes down to Duncan's 03 and 99 titles versus Kobe titles putting up 29/7/6, 27/5+/5+, and 20/5//4[whatever he did in 2000] PLUS Kobe's big edge in longevity and statistical accomplishments. It's close either way so spurs fans and Kobe haters[DMAVs and his bros] saying it isn't are just trapped in their own bias.

[tpols]

Did I ever say they are winning all 9 titles? No....but I think they win 6. I think they win 99 and 00 for sure.

01 and 02 would be toss ups.

Then they have great chances to win 03 through 06. At least 5 titles. 5 would be the lowest I would ever go on that.
So you go from 7-9, to around 5.:rolleyes:

Cmon dude..

And lol at your edit.

[SCdac]

Yeah, the Spurs beat the 8th seeded team in '99... but they SWEPT a Shaq/Kobe Lakers team to get there :applause:

[Round Mound]

Duncan was More Dominant. He won 4 rings as the Best Player. Him and Shaq are the Best 2000s Players..then Kobe, Dirk, Wade and Lebron.

What was that Finals where Duncan averaged over 5 BPG? Thats unreal

[SCdac]

Duncan was More Dominant. He won 4 rings as the Best Player. Him and Shaq are the Best 2000s Players..then Kobe, Dirk, Wade and Lebron.

What was that Finals where Duncan averaged over 5 BPG? Thats unreal

It was 2003, and he still holds the record for most blocks in a Finals series.

[magnax1]

Yeah, the Spurs beat the 8th seeded team in '99... but they SWEPT a Shaq/Kobe Lakers team to get there :applause:
I don't think that team was even above .500 the second half of the season. Rodman left, they had some injuries and they made some bad trades. That team was really weak.

[DMAVS41]

So you go from 7-9, to around 5.:rolleyes:

Cmon dude..

And lol at your edit.

No you are confused. I said if Duncan had played with the kind of help Kobe has throughout his career, I think Duncan could have won 7 or more titles.

With just Bird in those 8 years....that is when I was saying 5 minimum...likely 6. Especially if the rest of the league was as weak as it was for Kobe/Shaq....meaning that there wouldn't be another duo out there like that.

So you have to make it even. If you pair up Bird and Duncan...Kobe and Shaq wouldn't exist. Shaq what in essence take the place of Duncan as a single star on very good teams....and Kobe would be on another team. So its fair and balanced.

So the competition would be the same. The Spurs would have to go through teams like the Kings and Blazers and the Lakers with only Shaq.

That is what I'm talking about.

And a quick note about circumstances....you could come up with excuses/injuries every year for teams. How about the 08 Spurs with Manu playing horribly hobbled against the Lakers? Had games of 3 of 13, 2 of 8, 2 of 8, and 3 of 9 in a 5 game series. So lets not pretend its always Kobe that is playing with injured teammates or tough circumstances.

[magnax1]

Duncan and Bird would probably have really similar results to Kobe and Shaq since Shaq and Bird are very close as players and Duncan and Kobe are. They could win 5 if they played from their rookie years in 97 to their 8th season in 04, but not because it's a much better duo the Shaq and Kobe but because Kobe wasn't really Kobe until 01 or sort of in 00, where Bird was a top 10 player right away and so was Duncan.

[DMAVS41]

It would be prime/peak Bird....not rookie Bird. And of course Duncan came in right away as an elite player.

They would win more than 3 if that duo replaced Shaq/Kobe....way more than 3.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe
I feel he's the better player, better playmaker, better shot-maker, more clutch, and had a longer prime

[SCdac]

I don't think that team was even above .500 the second half of the season. Rodman left, they had some injuries and they made some bad trades. That team was really weak.

I never said they were amazing, and they were clearly in flux, but they were the second best scoring team in the league and both Kobe and Shaq averaged 21+ ppg in the second round yet Spurs still swept them.

Duncan's stats against LA 1999:

29 PPG (.51 FG% , .80 FT%)
11 RPG
3 APG
2 BPG
1 SPG

straight up beast mode

[Odinn]

Kobe
I feel he's the better player, better playmaker, better shot-maker, more clutch, and had a longer prime
What a surprise! A swingman better at playmaking and shot-making compared to a bigman!:oldlol:

It's saying like; Duncan the better rebounder, shot-blocker. So he is the better.:oldlol:

And; 7 of 25 game winners in the playoffs? Wasn't that Kobe's "more clutch" situations?:oldlol:

[SCdac]

29 ppg is beast mode?

for a big man who plays in the paint and shoots no three's? on slow paced team none the less... definitely

[magnax1]

It would be prime/peak Bird....not rookie Bird. And of course Duncan came in right away as an elite player.

They would win more than 3 if that duo replaced Shaq/Kobe....way more than 3.
Okay, but if you stuck Kobe in his best years with Shaq, he'd win way more then 3 too. Shaq and Kobe from 03-10 would win just as much as Bird and Duncan from 99-07 (or whatever years you want to use for either of them) if you give them an equally talented team compared to the competition. Your premise just seems to be that Kobe only won three with Shaq because that's just how good he was. He wasn't the same player from 97-00 and in 03 he didn't have a chance or really 04 too because Shaq wasn't the same player and his team fell apart in the playoffs.

[Deuce Bigalow]

What a surprise! A swingman better at playmaking and shot-making compared to a bigman!:oldlol:

It's saying like; Duncan the better rebounder, shot-blocker. So he is the better.:oldlol:

And; 7 of 25 game winners in the playoffs? Wasn't that Kobe's "more clutch" situations?:oldlol:
look at what he did to the spurs in the '02 and '08 playoffs:lol

[tpols]

Okay, but if you stuck Kobe in his best years with Shaq, he'd win way more then 3 too. Shaq and Kobe from 03-10 would win just as much as Bird and Duncan from 99-07 (or whatever years you want to use for either of them) if you give them an equally talented team compared to the competition. Your premise just seems to be that Kobe only won three with Shaq because that's just how good he was. He wasn't the same player from 97-00 and in 03 he didn't have a chance or really 04 too because Shaq wasn't the same player and his team fell apart in the playoffs.
I already explained this to him.. like 5 times.

[Odinn]

look at what he did to the spurs in the '02 and '08 playoffs:lol
Yeah. I also remember Game7 of 2010 finals. The greatest clutch rebounding performance.:lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yeah. I also remember Game7 of 2010 finals. The greatest clutch rebounding performance.:lol
more rebounds than duncan had in his game 7:lol

[Odinn]

more rebounds than duncan had in his game 7:lol
I think you don't want to compare their Game7s. Because you'd lose.:lol

[california123]

duncan and the spurs are pretty much vultures, winning championships when dynasties fell apart

[Deuce Bigalow]

I think you don't want to compare their Game7s. Because you'd lose.:lol
KB - 23 points on 24 shots, 15 rebounds, 10 4th quarter points
TD - 25 points on 27 shots, 11 rebounds, 5 4th quarter points

:lol

[Odinn]

KB - 23 points on 24 shots, 15 rebounds, 10 4th quarter points
TD - 25 points on 27 shots, 11 rebounds, 5 4th quarter points

:lol
Go back. Watch the games. Watch the 3rd quarter comeback. Then come back and eat the shit you wrote.:lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Go back. Watch the games. Watch the 3rd quarter comeback. Then come back and eat the shit you wrote.:lol
:lol kobe's was better, and he had the better series

[Odinn]

:lol kobe's was better, and he had the better series
Nope. Duncan's Game7 was better. He carried his team in the 3rd quarter, made a comeback and thanks to Duncan the Spurs won the title. You can not say the same for Kobe's Game7.
But yes, Kobe's 2010 finals performance in general slightly better than Duncan's 2005 finals performance.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Nope. Duncan's Game7 was better. He carried his team in the 3rd quarter, made a comeback and thanks to Duncan the Spurs won the title. You can not say the same for Kobe's Game7.
But yes, Kobe's 2010 finals performance in general slightly better than Duncan's 2005 finals performance.
kobe had 10 pts, 4 reb in the 4th quarter, got to the line 4 times (8-9 ft) getting the Cs in the penalty
I just don't see how duncan's was better tbh, a 7-footer with 25 pts on 27 shots and less rebounds...

[Alamo]

I'll take the greatest PF of all time. Duncan

[Odinn]

kobe had 10 pts, 4 reb in the 4th quarter, got to the line 4 times (8-9 ft) getting the Cs in the penalty
I just don't see how duncan's was better tbh, a 7-footer with 25 pts on 27 shots and less rebounds...
Give me a break. You consistently avoiding to state fgm #s. Also it's NBA Finals game7. All quarters, all moments about being clutch. Kobe got carried by his team in Game7. Duncan carried his team. You just don't see because you want to keep your obvious agenda alive.

[eliteballer]

duncan and the spurs are pretty much vultures, winning championships when dynasties fell apart

:oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Give me a break. You consistently avoiding to state fgm #s. Also it's NBA Finals game7. All quarters, all moments about being clutch. Kobe got carried by his team in Game7. Duncan carried his team. You just don't see because you want to keep your obvious agenda alive.
carried? :lol agenda is obvious
BTW in game 5, Duncan pulled a Lebron
game 7, 4th quarter, lakers down 2
there isn't any more pressure than that really and Kobe had 10 pts and 4 reb, and got the Cs in foul trouble
6-24 6-24 6-24 carried!! just say it:lol

[Odinn]

carried? :lol agenda is obvious
BTW in game 5, Duncan pulled a Lebron
game 7, 4th quarter, lakers down 2
there isn't any more pressure than that really and Kobe had 10 pts and 4 reb, and got the Cs in foul trouble
6-24 6-24 6-24 carried!! just say it:lol
You're just talking about Kobe's Game7 because you remember only that one. You don't even remember 2005 Finals Game7. Right?:oldlol:

Except Kobe-stans, everyone accepted Kobe got carried but yeah.:rockon:

[Deuce Bigalow]

You're just talking about Kobe's Game7 because you remember only that one. You don't even remember 2005 Finals Game7. Right?:oldlol:

Except Kobe-stans, everyone accepted Kobe got carried but yeah.:rockon:
how did he get carried when he had the most points and rebounds in the 4th quarter?:lol

[gin17]

What is this about kobe+shaq vs duncan+bird (in their primes) hypothetical situations? i'd take duncan+bird everyday and twice on sundays. in a heartbeat.

[Odinn]

how did he get carried when he had the most points and rebounds in the 4th quarter?:lol
Okay. I'll play your 4th quarter game.
Kobe scored 10 points, made an asisst to Artest for a 3 pointer*. Grabbed 4 rebounds. 8-9 from the charity stripe. 1-4 from the field. The Lakers scored 30 points in 4th quarter. 17 points not came directly from Bryant's stats.
Duncan scored 5 points, made 2 asissts to Ginobili&Bowen for 2 3 pointers*. Grabbed 3 rebounds. 1-2 from the ft line. 2-5 from the field. The Spurs scored 24 points in 4th quarter. 13 points not came directly from Duncan's stats.
(Ginobili made 2 easiest layups thanks to Duncan's screens. And that means Spurs scored only 9 points without Duncan's impact. But I'll leave out this one because Kobe could be made non-stat impact.)
*(Kobe didn't set a play for Artest. Artest shoot the ball because shot-clock was running out. For those 2 3 pointers Duncan drawed the attention - was tripled, made the diagonal passes and Ginobili&Bowen hit wild open 3s.)

You tried to discredit Duncan and failed. Also yes, you can write any stat you want, you can not change the fact that Kobe got carried. Only you Kobe-stans... FT shooting was important. But not that much you suggest.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You have not yet told me how he was carried

[Odinn]

You have not yet told me how he was carried
Ron Artest, 20 points. Also Pau Gasol's offensive rebounds. That's what kept Lakers alive and gave a chance to shoot those free throws to Kobe.

Both games on YouTube. You should watch them again.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Ron Artest, 20 points. Also Pau Gasol's offensive rebounds. That's what kept Lakers alive and gave a chance to shoot those free throws to Kobe.

Both games on YouTube. You should watch them again.
did Kobe's 10 rebounds through 3 quarters not keep them in the game?

Manu had 23 points on 14 less shots than Duncan in game 7, and statistically might have had a better series than Duncan

[Harison]

Timmy, two-way superstar bigs are always more valuable than guards, if talent level is comparable.

[Pursuer]

So you guys are trying to figure out, which player was better, by comparing their game 7's in the finals?

[ImmortalD24]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[Odinn]

did Kobe's 10 rebounds through 3 quarters not keep them in the game?

Manu had 23 points on 14 less shots than Duncan in game 7, and statistically might have had a better series than Duncan
Like I said, "the goat clutch rebounding"...:rolleyes: Kobe paid much more attention to rebounds because he wasn't good at anything else except ft shooting in that game.

You won't watch the game. That's obvious. At least watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5Tv1mlM8fA
Duncan carried his team to the title. And if you want to bring up the performance of the 2nd options, Gasol's argument over Kobe way more legit...

[Odinn]

So you guys are trying to figure out, which player was better, by comparing their game 7's in the finals?
Nope. We started this debate from "Kobe more clutch" argument.

[tpols]

Nope. We started this debate from "Kobe more clutch" argument.
Kobe was a better closer than Duncan.. although Duncan was one of the best for a big man. That, just like rebounding and shotblocking for a big man, is just something perimeter players can do better.. because it's easier to double a big man in the post than it is a guard at the top of the key. Kobe was the driving force in the 4th quarters in tight games his whole career for LA. And I'm not just talking GWs here..

[Deuce Bigalow]

Like I said, "the goat clutch rebounding"...:rolleyes: Kobe paid much more attention to rebounds because he wasn't good at anything else except ft shooting in that game.

You won't watch the game. That's obvious. At least watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5Tv1mlM8fA
Duncan carried his team to the title. And if you want to bring up the performance of the 2nd options, Gasol's argument over Kobe way more legit...
PPG difference between Duncan-Manu was 1.9, For Kobe-Gasol was 10.0

[rmt]

carried? :lol agenda is obvious
BTW in game 5, Duncan pulled a Lebron
game 7, 4th quarter, lakers down 2
there isn't any more pressure than that really and Kobe had 10 pts and 4 reb, and got the Cs in foul trouble
6-24 6-24 6-24 carried!! just say it:lol

I fail to see how Duncan's 26 pts / 19 rebs / 2 asst / 2 blks in game 5 qualifies as a Lebron.


You have not yet told me how he was carried

"Ron Artest was the most valuable player tonight," Phil Jackson said. "He brought life to our team."

"... the more I tried to push, the more it kept getting away from me.”

"... I wanted it so bad, and sometimes when you want it so bad, it slips away from you. My guys picked me up.” - Kobe

[Odinn]

PPG difference between Duncan-Manu was 1.9, For Kobe-Gasol was 10.0
Yep. I remembered now. The only thing you matter PPG. Remember 32dayz, saying Pau>Kobe? I don't agree with that troll surely. Kobe made that NBA Champions and earned his award without a doubt. But he wasn't 100% wrong. Pau made impact almost as much as Kobe in 2010 Finals. (not equally but almost)

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yep. I remembered now. The only thing you matter PPG. Remember 32dayz, saying Pau>Kobe? I don't agree with that troll surely. Kobe made that NBA Champions and earned his award without a doubt. But he wasn't 100% wrong. Pau made impact almost as much as Kobe in 2010 Finals. (not equally but almost)
Gasol in the '10 Finals was almost as good as Duncan in the '05 finals
20-14-4 on 42% vs 19-12-4 on 48%
the second option putting up Duncan type # :oldlol:

[Odinn]

Gasol in the '10 Finals was almost as good as Duncan in the '05 finals
20-14-4 on 42% vs 19-12-4 on 48%
the second option putting up Duncan type # :oldlol:
You are going to keep trying hard. Aren't you?:lol

Because what you wrote is so irrelevant.:lol
I already said; Kobe's 2010 finals performance in general slightly better than Duncan's 2005 finals performance.
But here is the main flaw; if Kobe won against weaker opponent with a 2nd option which puts up Duncan type #s, this would discredit Kobe.

Here an advice for you; think before post.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You are going to keep trying hard. Aren't you?:lol

Because what you wrote is so irrelevant.:lol
I already said; Kobe's 2010 finals performance in general slightly better than Duncan's 2005 finals performance.
But here is the main flaw; if Kobe won against weaker opponent with a 2nd option which puts up Duncan type #s, this would discredit Kobe.

Here an advice for you; think before post.
Kobe's finals wasn't "slightly better" it was much better
29/8/4/41% >> 21/14/2/42%
:oldlol: @slightly

and Manu was every bit as good as Gasol, he was their playmaker in the clutch

[Odinn]

Kobe's finals wasn't "slightly better" it was much better
29/8/4/41% >> 21/14/2/42%
:oldlol: @slightly

and Manu was every bit as good as Gasol, he was their playmaker in the clutch
As I expected, we discussed about game7s for nothing... If Kobe made an impact in game7 like Duncan did his own game7, if he carried his team instead of got carried by his team, it wouldn't be "slighlty".


Also, you probably didn't see this. I didn't remember quotes but Kobe, himself accepted what you don't.

"Ron Artest was the most valuable player tonight," Phil Jackson said. "He brought life to our team."

"... the more I tried to push, the more it kept getting away from me.”

"... I wanted it so bad, and sometimes when you want it so bad, it slips away from you. My guys picked me up.” - Kobe

[The Choken One]

kobe prime... and kobe longevity

35/5/5 with 81 point games/ 40ppg for month long stretches/ 4-5 straight 50+ point games

then his longevity...

2001 - 29ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's

2012 - 30ppg/6reb/6ast on 47% fg's
/thread.

[NugzHeat3]

I fail to see how Duncan's 26 pts / 19 rebs / 2 asst / 2 blks in game 5 qualifies as a Lebron.
I don't know. You should ask Duncan because he basically admitted he nearly lost the game for them before Horry bailed him out.


The player who wasn't hitting the big ones was two-time NBA Finals MVP Tim Duncan, who missed six straight foul shots and a putback at the end of the fourth quarter that would have won it for the Spurs.

"An absolute nightmare, yes," Duncan said. "[Horry] pulled me out of an incredible hole that I put myself in." http://espn.go.com/nba/recap/_/id/250619008/san-antonio-spurs-vs-detroit-pistons

Going 0 for 6 from the line in the fourth in a finals game? That probably counts as a James impersonation.

[Deuce Bigalow]

As I expected, we discussed about game7s for nothing... If Kobe made an impact in game7 like Duncan did his own game7, if he carried his team instead of got carried by his team, it wouldn't be "slighlty".


Also, you probably didn't see this. I didn't remember quotes but Kobe, himself accepted what you don't.
Kobe had the better game 7 and carried the team in the 4th when it mattered most
And had a way better series
nothing more to discuss

[Deuce Bigalow]

I don't know. You should ask Duncan because he basically admitted he nearly lost the game for them before Horry bailed him out.

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap/_/id/250619008/san-antonio-spurs-vs-detroit-pistons

Going 0 for 6 from the line in the fourth in a finals game? That probably counts as a James impersonation.
and missed a wideopen put back in the final seconds of regulation, he didnt make a field goal for the final 9 minutes of the game

[Odinn]

Kobe had the better game 7 and carried the team in the 4th when it mattered most
And had a way better series
nothing more to discuss

Okay. I'll play your 4th quarter game.
Kobe scored 10 points, made an asisst to Artest for a 3 pointer*. Grabbed 4 rebounds. 8-9 from the charity stripe. 1-4 from the field. The Lakers scored 30 points in 4th quarter. 17 points not came directly from Bryant's stats.
Duncan scored 5 points, made 2 asissts to Ginobili&Bowen for 2 3 pointers*. Grabbed 3 rebounds. 1-2 from the ft line. 2-5 from the field. The Spurs scored 24 points in 4th quarter. 13 points not came directly from Duncan's stats.
(Ginobili made 2 easiest layups thanks to Duncan's screens. And that means Spurs scored only 9 points without Duncan's impact. But I'll leave out this one because Kobe could be made non-stat impact.)
*(Kobe didn't set a play for Artest. Artest shoot the ball because shot-clock was running out. For those 2 3 pointers Duncan drawed the attention - was tripled, made the diagonal passes and Ginobili&Bowen hit wild open 3s.)

You tried to discredit Duncan and failed. Also yes, you can write any stat you want, you can not change the fact that Kobe got carried. Only you Kobe-stans... FT shooting was important. But not that much you suggest.
I blew up your 4th quarter and Game7 argument already.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185072&page=37

Like I said. You Kobe-stans. Always the same.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I blew up your 4th quarter and Game7 argument already.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185072&page=37

Like I said. You Kobe-stans. Always the same.
10 pts, 4 reb >>> 5 pts, 3 reb

idiots, all ways the same

[Odinn]

10 pts, 4 reb >>> 5 pts, 3 reb

idiots, all ways the same
Anyone who can read will know who is the idiot. Have a good day sir.:oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Anyone who can read will know who is the idiot. Have a good day sir.:oldlol:
You're saying that Duncan had a better game 7

25 pts, 27 shots, 11 rebounds for duncan
23 pts, 24 shots, 15 rebounds for kobe

wrong

You're saying that Duncan had a better 4th quarter

5 pts, 3 rebounds for duncan
10 pts, 4 rebounds for kobe

wrong, again

:oldlol: Have a good day

[DKLaker]

This thread :facepalm

Kobe's career >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan's career and while Duncan is virtually washed up, Kobe is still going strong as ever.

No more useless Kobe vs. Duncan threads, they have lost all their meaning.

[rmt]

and missed a wideopen put back in the final seconds of regulation, he didnt make a field goal for the final 9 minutes of the game

Should have slammed that ball down but too concerned with time running out so he tipped it. Probably too gassed from playing 48 minutes.


Kobe had the better game 7 and carried the team in the 4th when it mattered most

The players, coaches and Kobe himself don't agree with you.


"Ron Artest was the most valuable player tonight," Phil Jackson said. "He brought life to our team."

"... the more I tried to push, the more it kept getting away from me.”

"... I wanted it so bad, and sometimes when you want it so bad, it slips away from you. My guys picked me up.” - Kobe

compared to:

He was the fulcrum of virtually every key play down the stretch.

"His complete game is so sound, so fundamnetal, so unnoticed at times, because if he didn't score, people think, 'Well, he didn't do anything,'" Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "But he was incredible and he was the force that got it done for us."

Spurs guard Tony Parker said. "Timmy is the leader of the team, and he just carried us tonight."

"He put his team on his shoulders and carried them to a championship," Pistons center Ben Wallace said. "That's what the great players do."

"You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate," Popovich said.

"A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player."

It's not only about scoring (and he was defended by DPOY Ben Wallace, Rasheed and Dice).

[MMM]

Timmy, two-way superstar bigs are always more valuable than guards, if talent level is comparable.

Exactly, having a Big that is elite on both sides of the court is rare especially in the this era of the NBA. Additionally it is much easier to build a championship team around an elite big than it is a wing player. A team will have more margin of error if it took Duncan over Kobe.

[DMAVS41]

Okay, but if you stuck Kobe in his best years with Shaq, he'd win way more then 3 too. Shaq and Kobe from 03-10 would win just as much as Bird and Duncan from 99-07 (or whatever years you want to use for either of them) if you give them an equally talented team compared to the competition. Your premise just seems to be that Kobe only won three with Shaq because that's just how good he was. He wasn't the same player from 97-00 and in 03 he didn't have a chance or really 04 too because Shaq wasn't the same player and his team fell apart in the playoffs.

No. I don't agree with that. I don't think Kobe could have played with him in his prime and succeeded. I think they break up even sooner if Kobe was full on in his prime.

Plenty of evidence for it.

And it happened. No need to play hypothetical.

[Doctor Rivers]

:wtf:

Let's play your game.

As for Lakers-Spurs series;
1999 - Duncan (Spurs won the series because they were the better team.)
2001 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team. Also D. Anderson should be Kobe's main matchup but he was injured. Kobe went up against old perimeter players.)
2002 - Duncan (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2003 - Duncan (What Duncan did was exceptional.)
2004 - Almost a tie, slightly Kobe. (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)
2008 - Kobe (Lakers won the series because they were the better team.)

Duncan dominated 2003 Spurs-Lakers series like Kobe dominated in 2008. But Duncan won with the worse team.

Just a point of contention here, but Kobe would have *hit on Anderson as well in 2001. He never had any trouble with him throughout their careers:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=bryanko01&p2=anderde01

[miles berg]

Duncan for sure, he is already one of the most underrated players in NBA history.

[Odinn]

Just a point of contention here, but Kobe would have *hit on Anderson as well in 2001. He never had any trouble with him throughout their careers:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=bryanko01&p2=anderde01
Oh, I have no objection to that. But like I said; Spurs' perimeter players were OLD. 35 year old Avery Johnson, 37 year old Terry Porter, 34 year old Danny Ferry and 25 year old Antonio Daniels. Derek Anderson was better than all of these players in 2001. I'm not exactly saying Kobe wouldn't dominate like that if D. Anderson was there. With or without Anderson, there was no way to make it to the finals for the Spurs. But Anderson can make the game a little harder for Kobe.

[LA_Showtime]

I know people like to say that Kobe and Shaq broke up because they couldn't play together but I really think that's overblown. They won 3 championships and were a Karl Malone injury away from 4. Yeah, they didn't like each other, but it's not like it affected their individual games. Kobe's self destruction against Detroit in the '04 Finals had more to do with the fatigue from the rape trial than anything.

[Coffee Black]

Hold on, did I just read that the spurs teams from last 14 years were not well constructed teams? They are probably the best coached and put together teams. Definitely better than the Lakers teams who started Samaki Walker or Devean George and main back up big men were Stanislav Medvedenko and Mark Madsen. I remember watching that 2003 Spurs team. Every player in the rotation right down to Kevin Willis were playing well.
It's like you look at Manu's numbers and say he was not that good in 2003. Are you kidding me? That was like his coming out party. The effect he had on games while showing off his tenacity and creativity was great. That guy would just go off in stretches of games when nobody else was.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Hold on, did I just read that the spurs teams from last 14 years were not well constructed teams? They are probably the best coached and put together teams. Definitely better than the Lakers teams who started Samaki Walker or Devean George and main back up big men were Stanislav Medvedenko and Mark Madsen. I remember watching that 2003 Spurs team. Every player in the rotation right down to Kevin Willis were playing well.

Yeah on paper those Spurs teams didn't have stars outside of Duncan but the Spurs have never been built on star power. They've had quality role players and guys who could step up when needed (before Tony and Manu developed).

[obonpaxis]

I wish someone would show Duncan this thread. He'd read 4 or 5 posts, get bored, and then go back to over to his Star Trek board.

[StateOfMind12]

I would rather have Prime Duncan on my team over Prime Kobe like many people have already said, you always take the big first.



I do think prime and peak Duncan was somewhat overrated though. I am talking about his '03 season that everybody is always amazed about. Now don't get me wrong, Duncan's '03 season was pretty amazing. However, I don't think it was comparable or as amazing as what Hakeem did in '94 or as amazing as many people say it was.



In the '03 playoffs, a lot of the West teams got banged up and suffered some key injuries.


-Sacramento Kings - They supposedly made some great moves during the off-season. The Kings lost to the Lakers in 7 in the WCF last season in '02. The moves the Kings made in the off-season were suppose to put them over the top and above the Lakers.

What happened? Chris Webber suffered a serious injury in the '03 playoffs against the Mavericks and because of that the Kings lost a good shot at going deep in the playoffs and winning it. The Mavericks-Kings series was tied 1-1 when Webber got hurt. I hate Chris Webber and I do think he is overrated, but how often do you lose your best player and continue to win a series and go deep in the playoffs?

The Spurs didn't play the Kings in the '03 playoffs but the Mavericks were the ones that eliminated them and they did it in 7. This just goes to show you how deep and great of a team the Kings were in general, with or without C-Webb.

-Los Angeles Lakers - Kobe Bryant injured his shoulder in 2003 first round against the T-Wolves and despite that he played a great series against Minnesota. Kobe was pretty much known and is pretty much known for being the Spurs killer but because of the shoulder injury he suffered against the Wolves he wasn't able to dominate them as he commonly would.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/2003/06/11/bryant_lakers_ap/


Bryant was injured on April 22 during a first-round playoff game against the Minnesota Timberwolves.

The injury was diagnosed as a tear in the tissue around the shoulder socket.

He said that he suffered the injury when he went to the rim for a dunk and jammed his shoulder.

"It affected me a lot," he said. "The playoffs, you just have to play through it."

Kobe wasn't the only injured player on the Lakers either. Rick Fox didn't play in the Spurs series at all although I did not recall his injury but he stopped playing after Game 4 in the 1st round against the T-Wolves. I assume that Fox got hurt in that Game 4 because his stats were empty in that game.

Also, IIRC, Fox's backup, Devean George was also somewhat injured and playing through some pain in the '03 playoffs as well.

So the Lakers had arguably their best player in Kobe Bryant playing through a shoulder injury that affected his game severely, lost their starting small forward in Rick Fox, and their backup SF Devean George was playing through some pain.

There was a reason why the Wolves were up 2-1 against the Lakers in the 1st round in the '03 playoffs and the reason was far from the T-Wolves being the more talented team.

-Dallas Mavericks - People need to remember that Dirk sat out in Game 4, 5, and 6 in the WCF against the Spurs. Dirk suffered a sprained knee in Game 3 and was out for the entire series. The Mavericks lost their best player for the rest of the series. The series was 1-2 after Game 3 so you could argue that the Spurs would have won that series anyways but now we would never know.


Duncan's '03 run was great but he had a lot of breaks and it is not comparable to what Hakeem did in '94. The '02-'03 season was honestly just an odd year in general.

[Odinn]

-Dallas Mavericks - People need to remember that Dirk sat out in Game 4, 5, and 6 in the WCF against the Spurs. Dirk suffered a sprained knee in Game 3 and was out for the entire series. The Mavericks lost their best player for the rest of the series. The series was 1-2 after Game 3 so you could argue that the Spurs would have won that series anyways but now we would never know.

Other parts maybe but clearly NO to this. The Spurs were up 2-1 while Nowitzki healthy and Duncan outperformed Nowitzkli in those 3 games. It wasn't like Dirk didn't got outplayed by Duncan.

1st game; Dirk 38/15/2/1/1 on 52.6% - Tim 40/15/7/1/1 on 70.0%
2nd game; Dirk 23/10/2/2/0 on 42.1% - Tim 32/15/5/0/3 on 52.4%
3rd game; Dirk 15/9/2/1/1 on 35.0% - Tim 34/24/6/2/6 on 63.2%