Re-visiting Kobe vs. Duncan 2007.
As I've said earlier, its neck to neck. Here are the arguments I see for each:
Tim Duncan
Pros:
[LIST][*] Was a solid offensive player. He could be your team's offensive anchor as he averaged 20.0ppg on a career high 54.9% FG. He was his championship team's leading scorer and demonstrated solid passing skills averaging 3.4apg.[*] He was also arguably the best defensive player in the NBA. He anchored the best defensive team in the NBA finishing Top 10 in blocks with an All-Defensive 1st team selection. [*] Overall an ideal 2 way player that by just having him your team had a strong foundation on both ends of the floor. [*] Strong rebounder finishing top 10 in rebounds in the league as well. [*]He showed strong winning characteristics by actually winning the NBA championship in 2007[*]He led the league in On/Off court points differential of 15.0 just another metric displaying the impact Duncan still had on the court[*]People forget he fell a bit due to injuries in 2006 but was back strong in 2007 in every way and was just as good as he was in 2005 when they won the championship. [*]He was the clear pick if we had asked this question following the 2007 NBA season to ISH posters
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47980
[*]He demonstrated the ability to step up when his team needed him the most. Their toughest opponent in the playoffs came in the WCF the Suns where Duncan had games of 33/16, 29/11, 33/19, and 24/13/9blk[/LIST]
Cons:
[LIST][*]His stamina had lowered by then and was only able to play 34.1mpg. Probably could play more if needed, but even under Popovich he used to get more minutes. But overall may not be on the court as long as you would like him to be. [*] Though could step up when you need him to, at 20.0ppg he was not dominant night in night out leading his team at every occasion. [*] His free throw shooting was generally poor[/LIST]
Kobe Bryant
Pros:
[LIST][*] Arguably the best offensive player in the game. He led the league in scoring averaging 31.6ppg. He was also more unselfish this year than in the year past trying to get his teammates involved. Yet he still had the ability to dominate when needed to having intervals of high scoring throughout the season. Overall much more dynamic and showed a variety of playing styles on offense this year. [*]He was a solid perimeter defender being named to All-Defensive 1st. [*] He was an outstanding rebounder and playmaker for a SG averaging 5.7rpg and 5.4apg. [*]He definitely had the ability to take over games whenever he needed to and also had the stamina to stay and finish them averaging over 40.0mpg. [*] He was about as good as he was in 2006 believe it or not. Just his playing style was different and more unselfish. He could still score at a high rate but just tried to involve his teammates more throughout the season. His defense however dropped a little. So a more team-orientated version of the 2006 Kobe (a plus) but with worse defense. [/LIST]
Cons:
[LIST][*]Still was a selfish player overall compared to Duncan and did not have all the intangibles Duncan brought[*] Did not do anything special in the playoffs as his team was bounced out in the 1st round in 5 games[*] His defense dropped in 2007 compared to 2006 and even 2008. [/LIST]
I mean once again it's really close I'll admit. I go back and forth. I guess we must go back to the definition of being a better basketball player and that is winning more games on average given all possible teams. In other words, which player was going to help me get closest to an NBA championship regardless of who else was on my team.
Tim Duncan would give your team a strong foundation on offense and defense, while Kobe Bryant would be your true superstar who you could count on every game to contribute the very most. Both players played styles that can help your team win....I'll think about it a little more, if any one has any opinions in the meantime feel free to chip in.