If Duncan wins #5, will people start rating his career above Shaq?

[konex]

Duncan has one fewer rings than Kobe and was never a distant second best player on his own team like Kobe was his first 5 years in the league.

As for Kobe being elite now while Duncan has dropped off? Well, Duncan became elite earlier. He was the best player on a title team in 1999. Top 5 player in the league by 2000, you know, the same year when Kobe averaged 15 on 37% in the finals and was outplayed by Bonzi Wells in the WCF.

LMAO. Didn't Kobe DESTROY Tim's Spurs in that SAME playoff run?

[konex]

it's Duncan's leadership and unselfishness that could put him above both since it's really been that has enabled pretty much all of his teammates to flourish with him way more then in the case of Shaq or Kobe.

Or maybe he's just had better, deeper teams?

[JMT]

They already should. He's a better basketball player.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm astonished at how vastly overrated Shaq is on this forum. Was he really as important to Wade as Kobe was to him during his single Heat championship?

At least as important.

Kobe by '01 and '02 was a top 3 player in the NBA while '06 Shaq was borderline top 10 like Kobe was in '00.

But Shaq led the Lakers to a 25-6 record without Kobe during the 3peat(12-3 in '00, 11-3 in '01 and 2-0 in '02). While Wade led Miami to just a 10-11 record without Shaq in '06, and that's with one of the better centers to step in and start(Mourning averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg as a starter in '06). In comparison, Miami was 42-17 with Shaq, and 10-13 overall without him. Shaq still had a huge impact on games and was extremely difficult to replace in '06. His impact went well beyond numbers, even '07 Shaq who had declined further led Miami to a 16-7 record without Wade with an old cast that had really declined from the previous season(particularly Walker and Payton).

Wade had a subpar series in the first round vs Chicago, though Shaq averaged 20/11/2/2 on 61% during that series including a 27/16/5 opening game and a 30/20/5 closeout game.

And Detroit played him mostly 1 on 1 during the ECF, but Shaq killed them averaging 22/11 with 2.3 bpg on 66% shooting while being more active defensively than unusual and making an impact at that end. Even though Shaq had a subpar finals and Wade really carried the team, Shaq was the primary focus of the Mavs defense, perhaps in response to his dominant ECF. They constantly doubled him, often right away on the catch throughout the series.

Wade was the second best player in '06, imo, so the gap between Wade and Shaq may have been larger individually than Shaq and Kobe in '01 and '02. But I have my doubts the '06 Heat even make the playoffs without Shaq, while I still think the 3peat Lakers are going to win 50+ without Kobe, except for maybe '02 when Shaq missed 12 games with injuries and 3 more due to a suspension(and they were just 7-8 without him so if Kobe hadn't played too, it's tough to see them doing any better than 1 or 2 wins during that stretch).

LMAO. Didn't Kobe DESTROY Tim's Spurs in that SAME playoff run?

Wrong year. He's referring to 2000. Kobe destroyed the Spurs in '01 and '02. The Lakers didn't face them in '00, probably due to Duncan's injury.

[Odinn]

As for their primes and accomplishments;


As for longevity;

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.

How can Kobe have the edge on longevity "right now"?
Duncan was All-NBA and All-Defensive in his first 13 seasons and 2011/12 season is Kobe's 14th season as starter.

As for peak and prime; Duncan > Kobe. As for accomplishments/accolades; Duncan > Kobe. If Kobe gains the edge on longevity, still it'd remain debatable.

Addition; Kobe is top 5 player in current season. But if Spurs and Duncan keep their pace and dig deep in the playoffs, 11/12 season would be in favor of Duncan(because of his age).

Also I'd take 2003 Duncan over any version of Kobe. As for peaks;
It's playoffs vs. regular season.
Kobe averaged 35.4 - 5.3 - 4.5 - 1.8 - 0.4 in 2005-06 regular season. He made the playoffs with one of the weakest supporting cast for a playoff team.
Duncan averaged 24.7 - 15.4 - 5.3 - 0.6 - 3.3 in 2003 playoffs. He made one of the greatest title(playoff) runs ever. He won it all with one of the weakest supporting cast for a championship team.
If we extend span, to 3 years, I'd rather have '01-'03 Duncan over '06-'08 Kobe.

Lastly, Duncan has the edge on being a better playoff performer.

Those are the reasons why Duncan already ahead of Kobe with a clear (not huge) difference.

So. No. Unless you're a Kobestan, 5 rings > 4 rings does not work on Duncan-Bryant debates. It's completely retarded. Duncan has 1 more MVP and 1 FMVP while he "led" his team to the title 2 more times. OP is a fakkit we all know.

---

Also, if Duncan gets his 5th ring it will not make a major difference on Shaq-Duncan debates.

[Bigsmoke]

i dont think this title would make a differance.

If the Spurs win this year, it would be by committing and their team overall depth than it is to Duncan's dominance

[Odinn]

i dont think this title would make a differance.

If the Spurs win this year, it would be by committing and their team overall depth than it is to Duncan's dominance

Agreed. It'd be like Kareem's 1985 title.

[StateOfMind12]

I don't think it'll make much of a difference since Duncan is arguably not even the best player on his own team. Duncan winning a ring this season would be similar to Shaq winning a ring in '06.

I think the only way you can rank Duncan ahead of Shaq is if you already think Duncan should be higher or if you think it's literally dead close to you that a ring as a 2nd or 3rd option could make the difference.

I'm considering putting Duncan above Shaq myself these days even though Shaq had the stronger peak.

[2LeTTeRS]

In a strange way if Tim wins this year it may hurt his legacy in many people's eyes. We know this is a "what have you done for me lately" society and if you combine TP's Final's MVP with another championship team that was led by the perimeter players, I'd imagine that 10-15 years from now when people look back at the Spurs they won't think of the Spurs as "Tim Duncan's team," and instead will just see him as a member of a "Big 3."

[ShaqAttack3234]

Agreed. It'd be like Kareem's 1985 title.

Nah, Kareem was still the first option on that team offensively, and it was still "his team", even though Kareem and Magic were debatable as players starting in the '83-'84 season. Kareem had a phenomenal finals in '85 as well and won finals MVP. He was still probably one of the top offensive players, or overall players in the league.

[Odinn]

Tim was great in '07. He had a better season than he had in '06, and arguably '05 as well. Duncan was still the 2nd best player in the league in '07,

I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.

[Odinn]

Nah, Kareem was still the first option on that team offensively, and it was still "his team", even though Kareem and Magic were debatable as players starting in the '83-'84 season. Kareem had a phenomenal finals in '85 as well and won finals MVP. He was still probably one of the top offensive players, or overall players in the league.

IMO, it's 2 different things "being the best player" and "his team". Let's hear out Pop.

[StateOfMind12]

I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.

Tim Duncan was the best in 2005 because there wasn't much competition for the elite/dominant players, kind of like the way it is right now. He didn't have much going for him that year other than Shaq who suffered injuries in the post-season and wasn't even the best player on his team in the post-season. I really can't think of anyone else that was standing in Duncan's way for the best that season besides Shaq.

I think you could argue that Duncan was actually better in 2007 than he was in 2005 because of the injuries he suffered in 2005.

Kobe in 2007 was better than Duncan was in 2007 and 2005 in my opinion.

There are some people that even think that Kobe in 2005 was better than Duncan in 2005 as well but people tend to discredit Kobe out of the discussion because his team missed the playoffs that season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I highly doubt Duncan being worse than 2007 or 2005 in 2006. I mean for the first time, he averaged less than 20 ppg in regular season and his scoring efficiency was the worst of his career(.523 ts). But in 2006, he had his best playoff series ever (according to by himself) against Dallas with 32.3/11.7/3.7/2.6 on .556 fg - .615 ts. What he was capable of doing in 2006 is not worse than 2007 or 2005 imo. In 2006 playoffs, he averaged 25.8 and it was his the most efficient playoffs with .573 fg - .625 ts.

Yeah, but for the most part, he was not as effective throughout '06 due to plantar fasciitis. The Dallas series was incredible, but for the most part, his mobility didn't seem the same that year, even though to his credit, he didn't really miss any games.

I'd say he was better in '05, except for injuries, they caused him to miss a career high 16 games, and he wasn't 100% during the playoffs. He was a bit more athletic in general in '05 when he was healthy, but he was healthy throughout '07 unlike '05 and '06 and nearly shot a career high from the field at 54.6%, which was just behind his rookie percentage of 54.9%.


[QUOTE=Odinn]IMO, it's 2 different things "being the best player" and "his team". Let's hear out Pop.

[steve]

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate what Tim is doing and what he still means to his team(see my earlier post), and I'm aware of Pop's quotes, but I still consider Parker the best player on this team like most people do.

Parker's their best player, but Duncan's contributions would be more difficult for the Spurs to replace than Parker's.