Tim Duncan Still

[PosImpos]

Tim Duncan has never been as exciting, since he's a big man who is above all fundamentally sound.  He's not flashy, but he also has had a much greater impact as a player.

Really? A MUCH greater impact? It's one thing to think that TD has had a better career than Kobe. I respectfully disagree - but reasonable minds can argue differently. But really? A MUCH greater impact?

Yes.  Tim Duncan has been the key player on 4 championship teams.

Kobe has been the #2 option on 3, and the #1 option on 2, though in my opinion Gasol was the Lakers' best player in the 2010 championship run.

So really, in my opinion, Kobe has only been the best player on a championship team once in his career.

Like I said, Duncan is a top 10 player all time.  Kobe is top 15.

[soap07]

Tim Duncan has never been as exciting, since he's a big man who is above all fundamentally sound.  He's not flashy, but he also has had a much greater impact as a player.

Really? A MUCH greater impact? It's one thing to think that TD has had a better career than Kobe. I respectfully disagree - but reasonable minds can argue differently. But really? A MUCH greater impact?

Yes.  Tim Duncan has been the key player on 4 championship teams.

Kobe has been the #2 option on 3, and the #1 option on 2, though in my opinion Gasol was the Lakers' best player in the 2010 championship run.

So really, in my opinion, Kobe has only been the best player on a championship team once in his career.

Like I said, Duncan is a top 10 player all time.  Kobe is top 15.

Kobe has 5 rings to Duncan's 4. In the 2010 championship run - and this means the entire regular season included (because contrary to popular belief, those games count and are essential in advancing to the playoffs)- is it your position that Gasol was the best player on the Lakers?

Secondly, in one of Duncan's four rings, Tony Parker won a Finals MVP. So it can be argued that Duncan was the "key" player in 3 of the rings. It can then be argued that one of the four championships should have an asterisk because of the shortened season.

Thirdly, yes, Kobe had Shaq. But the Lakers' 3-12, for a championship roster, is among the worst in NBA history. The Spurs were consistently deeper.


Anyways, I'm not saying that Duncan didn't have as big an impactas Kobe. He may have - he may not - you can argue either way. To say Tim Duncan had a much greater impact is, in my humble and unqualified opinion, ridiculous.

[Celtics4ever]

I think Kobe is the better player but I would rather have Tim Duncan on my team.  Kobe can be a jerk.

[ManUp]

Tim Duncan has never been as exciting, since he's a big man who is above all fundamentally sound.  He's not flashy, but he also has had a much greater impact as a player.

Really? A MUCH greater impact? It's one thing to think that TD has had a better career than Kobe. I respectfully disagree - but reasonable minds can argue differently. But really? A MUCH greater impact?

Yes.  Tim Duncan has been the key player on 4 championship teams.

Kobe has been the #2 option on 3, and the #1 option on 2, though in my opinion Gasol was the Lakers' best player in the 2010 championship run.

So really, in my opinion, Kobe has only been the best player on a championship team once in his career.

Like I said, Duncan is a top 10 player all time.  Kobe is top 15.

Kobe has 5 rings to Duncan's 4. In the 2010 championship run - and this means the entire regular season included (because contrary to popular belief, those games count and are essential in advancing to the playoffs)- is it your position that Gasol was the best player on the Lakers?

Secondly, in one of Duncan's four rings, Tony Parker won a Finals MVP. So it can be argued that Duncan was the "key" player in 3 of the rings. It can then be argued that one of the four championships should have an asterisk because of the shortened season.

Thirdly, yes, Kobe had Shaq. But the Lakers' 3-12, for a championship roster, is among the worst in NBA history. The Spurs were consistently deeper.


Anyways, I'm not saying that Duncan didn't have as big an impactas Kobe. He may have - he may not - you can argue either way. To say Tim Duncan had a much greater impact is, in my humble and unqualified opinion, ridiculous.

So would you rather start your team with a young Duncan or young Bryant? Kobe's a great player and he can kill your team, but on a Nightly yearly basis Duncan has been a better player. Duncan's impact on a game is closer to Shaq than it is to Kobe and Kobe's impact on a game has never approached Shaq's status as a game changer.

[PosImpos]

Tim Duncan has never been as exciting, since he's a big man who is above all fundamentally sound.  He's not flashy, but he also has had a much greater impact as a player.

Really? A MUCH greater impact? It's one thing to think that TD has had a better career than Kobe. I respectfully disagree - but reasonable minds can argue differently. But really? A MUCH greater impact?

Yes.  Tim Duncan has been the key player on 4 championship teams.

Kobe has been the #2 option on 3, and the #1 option on 2, though in my opinion Gasol was the Lakers' best player in the 2010 championship run.

So really, in my opinion, Kobe has only been the best player on a championship team once in his career.

Like I said, Duncan is a top 10 player all time.  Kobe is top 15.

Kobe has 5 rings to Duncan's 4. In the 2010 championship run - and this means the entire regular season included (because contrary to popular belief, those games count and are essential in advancing to the playoffs)- is it your position that Gasol was the best player on the Lakers?

Secondly, in one of Duncan's four rings, Tony Parker won a Finals MVP. So it can be argued that Duncan was the "key" player in 3 of the rings. It can then be argued that one of the four championships should have an asterisk because of the shortened season.

Thirdly, yes, Kobe had Shaq. But the Lakers' 3-12, for a championship roster, is among the worst in NBA history. The Spurs were consistently deeper.


Anyways, I'm not saying that Duncan didn't have as big an impactas Kobe. He may have - he may not - you can argue either way. To say Tim Duncan had a much greater impact is, in my humble and unqualified opinion, ridiculous.

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07, but Duncan was still the Spurs' MVP.  Parker just did more scoring, which got him the award.

Kobe has only been the best player on 2 NBA title teams during the post-season run.  The post-season run is the only part that matters, so the fact that Gasol was the Lakers' best player throughout the 2010 post-season is important.

Duncan has been the central, best player on 4 championship teams, and while he's been on the Spurs they've been a very good team the entire time.  The Spurs haven't won fewer than 50 games (or the equivalent -- in the lockout year they were 37-13) the entire time that Duncan has been on the team!  That's nuts.

The Lakers have only been an elite team when Kobe has had a dominant big man playing next to him.  Kobe's been the best player on plenty of teams that were just okay. While Shaq was in town, Kobe wasn't the best player on his own team, and the Lakers have only won one championship with Kobe as their best performer in the post-season. 

So yes, I think Duncan has had a much larger impact.

[soap07]

We'll just agree to disagree I suppose.

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07, but Duncan was still the Spurs' MVP.  Parker just did more scoring, which got him the award.

I just don't see how you can discount Kobe in 2010 and under the same logic, not discount Duncan against a much weaker opponent in 2007.

The post-season run is the only part that matters, so the fact that Gasol was the Lakers' best player throughout the 2010 post-season is important.

Uh, what? Why is the post-season run the only part that matters?

Duncan has been the central, best player on 4 championship teams, and while he's been on the Spurs they've been a very good team the entire time.  The Spurs haven't won fewer than 50 games (or the equivalent -- in the lockout year they were 37-13) the entire time that Duncan has been on the team!  That's nuts.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the Spurs have surrounded Duncan with much deeper teams than what Kobe has had. Additionally, 3 of the 4 teams Duncan faced on the Finals were terrible, terrible teams - Nets, Knicks and Cavs - who had no business being in the Finals. None. You can say that for the Nets/Sixers for Kobe's championships but not for the Magic/Pacers/Celtics.

Lakers have only won one championship with Kobe as their best performer in the post-season. 

Okay, well they've won two championships with Kobe as their best player overall and three others with him being 1b on the team. I just think this is moving the goalposts in order to fit a poor narrative.

Again, if you think Tim Duncan has had a better career, fine - I can see an argument. But if he has, it's by inches, not miles. Especially when Kobe has 5(!) rings.

[PosImpos]

We'll just agree to disagree I suppose.

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07, but Duncan was still the Spurs' MVP.  Parker just did more scoring, which got him the award.

I just don't see how you can discount Kobe in 2010 and under the same logic, not discount Duncan against a much weaker opponent in 2007.

The post-season run is the only part that matters, so the fact that Gasol was the Lakers' best player throughout the 2010 post-season is important.

Uh, what? Why is the post-season run the only part that matters?

Duncan has been the central, best player on 4 championship teams, and while he's been on the Spurs they've been a very good team the entire time.  The Spurs haven't won fewer than 50 games (or the equivalent -- in the lockout year they were 37-13) the entire time that Duncan has been on the team!  That's nuts.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the Spurs have surrounded Duncan with much deeper teams than what Kobe has had. Additionally, 3 of the 4 teams Duncan faced on the Finals were terrible, terrible teams - Nets, Knicks and Cavs - who had no business being in the Finals. None. You can say that for the Nets/Sixers for Kobe's championships but not for the Magic/Pacers/Celtics.

Lakers have only won one championship with Kobe as their best performer in the post-season.  

Okay, well they've won two championships with Kobe as their best player overall and three others with him being 1b on the team. I just think this is moving the goalposts in order to fit a poor narrative.

Again, if you think Tim Duncan has had a better career, fine - I can see an argument. But if he has, it's by inches, not miles. Especially when Kobe has 5(!) rings.

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree, because we obviously see this very differently.

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

The post-season run is what matters most because that's when the team wins the championship.  If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

[soap07]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

[soap07]

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Should say 3-12.

[PosImpos]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Pau Gasol was the most important player in that 2010 run, particularly in the Finals, because the Lakers won by virtue of their major advantage scoring inside and on the boards.  Gasol was the factor in that.

Kobe shot 6-24 in the deciding Game 7.

Gasol (and to a lesser extent Bynum) killed the Celtics and won the championship for the Lakers.

The same size advantage is what got the Lakers past the Thunder, the Jazz, and the Suns.  Gasol had a really great post-season.


Soap, you're not going to convince me that Kobe wasn't similarly advantaged.

In the first three-peat, Kobe had the most dominant player on the planet (one of the most dominant ever) playing at center.  He also had Rice, Horry, Fox, and Grant.  In terms of the difficulty of the opponent, they faced the Sixers and the Nets (blech).

In the second run of 3 Finals, he had a stacked team with Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza / Artest.

It's strength at the top that matters in terms of winning a championship, and Kobe's hardly ever had any cause to complain about that.  Kobe has always had talented teammates.

[Chelm]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Pau Gasol was the most important player in that 2010 run, particularly in the Finals, because the Lakers won by virtue of their major advantage scoring inside and on the boards.  Gasol was the factor in that.

Kobe shot 6-24 in the deciding Game 7.

Gasol (and to a lesser extent Bynum) killed the Celtics and won the championship for the Lakers.

The same size advantage is what got the Lakers past the Thunder, the Jazz, and the Suns.  Gasol had a really great post-season.


Soap, you're not going to convince me that Kobe wasn't similarly advantaged.

In the first three-peat, Kobe had the most dominant player on the planet (one of the most dominant ever) playing at center.  He also had Rice, Horry, Fox, and Grant.  In terms of the difficulty of the opponent, they faced the Sixers and the Nets (blech).

In the second run of 3 Finals, he had a stacked team with Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza / Artest.

It's strength at the top that matters in terms of winning a championship, and Kobe's hardly ever had any cause to complain about that.  Kobe has always had talented teammates.

Pos, the problem Soap is having with your argument isn't your conclusion that you'd prefer to have a young Duncan to build your team around over a young Kobe, it's the assertion that the argument isn't even close.  I personally feel that he's right on all counts, but the main problem is that you're letting your hatred of Kobe blind reality to declare that they are not even in comparable spheres.

Also, the assertion that Gasol was clearly better in the 2010 playoffs than Kobe is ridiculous.  He was better visually, statistically, and he clearly was the leader of his team.  And, in the terrible shooting game 7 you bring up (despite which, he still pulled a 24.7 PER and a TS of 57% over the 7 game series), he secures 15 rebounds which, of course, you completely discount.

[PosImpos]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Pau Gasol was the most important player in that 2010 run, particularly in the Finals, because the Lakers won by virtue of their major advantage scoring inside and on the boards.  Gasol was the factor in that.

Kobe shot 6-24 in the deciding Game 7.

Gasol (and to a lesser extent Bynum) killed the Celtics and won the championship for the Lakers.

The same size advantage is what got the Lakers past the Thunder, the Jazz, and the Suns.  Gasol had a really great post-season.


Soap, you're not going to convince me that Kobe wasn't similarly advantaged.

In the first three-peat, Kobe had the most dominant player on the planet (one of the most dominant ever) playing at center.  He also had Rice, Horry, Fox, and Grant.  In terms of the difficulty of the opponent, they faced the Sixers and the Nets (blech).

In the second run of 3 Finals, he had a stacked team with Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza / Artest.

It's strength at the top that matters in terms of winning a championship, and Kobe's hardly ever had any cause to complain about that.  Kobe has always had talented teammates.

Pos, the problem Soap is having with your argument isn't your conclusion that you'd prefer to have a young Duncan to build your team around over a young Kobe, it's the assertion that the argument isn't even close.  I personally feel that he's right on all counts, but the main problem is that you're letting your hatred of Kobe blind reality to declare that they are not even in comparable spheres.

Also, the assertion that Gasol was clearly better in the 2010 playoffs than Kobe is ridiculous.  He was better visually, statistically, and he clearly was the leader of his team.  And, in the terrible shooting game 7 you bring up (despite which, he still pulled a 24.7 PER and a TS of 57% over the 7 game series), he secures 15 rebounds which, of course, you completely discount.

a) I watched the Lakers throughout the 2010 post-season, and yes, I strongly believe that Gasol was their best and most important player and pointing to small differences in PER or the fact that Kobe grabbed a bunch of boards in Game 7 isn't going to persuade me otherwise.

b) I understand Soap's point.  I respectfully disagree.  I don't think it's close.  I don't think there should be any question that Tim Duncan has had a greater impact as a player over the course of his career than Kobe has.  Bottom line, over the course of 10-12 years Duncan was the best player on his team and his team has never been worse than 50 wins, and he's won 4 championships spread throughout that time frame.  

Kobe simply can't lay any claim to that kind of consistent greatness.  There were substantial stretches of Kobe's career where he often hurt his team as much as he helped them, and his team wasn't really all that good.  Moreover, it wasn't until late in his career that he was the best player on a championship team.

This has nothing to do with Kobe-hate.  I don't particularly Kobe, but I don't hate him.  I just think people in general tend to hero-worship perimeter players, especially ones who specialize in making contested mid-range jumpers, and that clouds people's judgment where Kobe is concerned.

[Chelm]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Pau Gasol was the most important player in that 2010 run, particularly in the Finals, because the Lakers won by virtue of their major advantage scoring inside and on the boards.  Gasol was the factor in that.

Kobe shot 6-24 in the deciding Game 7.

Gasol (and to a lesser extent Bynum) killed the Celtics and won the championship for the Lakers.

The same size advantage is what got the Lakers past the Thunder, the Jazz, and the Suns.  Gasol had a really great post-season.


Soap, you're not going to convince me that Kobe wasn't similarly advantaged.

In the first three-peat, Kobe had the most dominant player on the planet (one of the most dominant ever) playing at center.  He also had Rice, Horry, Fox, and Grant.  In terms of the difficulty of the opponent, they faced the Sixers and the Nets (blech).

In the second run of 3 Finals, he had a stacked team with Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza / Artest.

It's strength at the top that matters in terms of winning a championship, and Kobe's hardly ever had any cause to complain about that.  Kobe has always had talented teammates.

Pos, the problem Soap is having with your argument isn't your conclusion that you'd prefer to have a young Duncan to build your team around over a young Kobe, it's the assertion that the argument isn't even close.  I personally feel that he's right on all counts, but the main problem is that you're letting your hatred of Kobe blind reality to declare that they are not even in comparable spheres.

Also, the assertion that Gasol was clearly better in the 2010 playoffs than Kobe is ridiculous.  He was better visually, statistically, and he clearly was the leader of his team.  And, in the terrible shooting game 7 you bring up (despite which, he still pulled a 24.7 PER and a TS of 57% over the 7 game series), he secures 15 rebounds which, of course, you completely discount.

a) I watched the Lakers throughout the 2010 post-season, and yes, I strongly believe that Gasol was their best and most important player and pointing to small differences in PER or the fact that Kobe grabbed a bunch of boards in Game 7 isn't going to persuade me otherwise.

b) I understand Soap's point.  I respectfully disagree.  I don't think it's close.  I don't think there should be any question that Tim Duncan has had a greater impact as a player over the course of his career than Kobe has.  Bottom line, over the course of 10-12 years Duncan was the best player on his team and his team has never been worse than 50 wins, and he's won 4 championships spread throughout that time frame.  

Kobe simply can't lay any claim to that kind of consistent greatness.  There were substantial stretches of Kobe's career where he often hurt his team as much as he helped them, and his team wasn't really all that good.  Moreover, it wasn't until late in his career that he was the best player on a championship team.

This has nothing to do with Kobe-hate.  I don't particularly Kobe, but I don't hate him.  I just think people in general tend to hero-worship perimeter players, especially ones who specialize in making contested mid-range jumpers, and that clouds people's judgment where Kobe is concerned.

You do realize that the Shaq-led Lakers would not have won 3 championships (or any?) without Kobe, right?  You also realize his career-long true shooting percent & per-game assists (both things that Kobe is often knocked for, and used against him when talking about how terrible a teammate he is) are both higher than Duncan's, right?  All Duncan had on Kobe was rebounding numbers.  I'm not saying the argument for Duncan is moot, but I don't think it can be totally discounted that it is, in fact, an argument.

The teams that Kobe was on in between Shaq and Gasol were horrid.  Absolutely terrible.  Smush & Kwame starting PG and C?  Yet, he still carried them to playoff berths every single year but one.  Are you sure Duncan would've won 50+ games switched out with Kobe?

Duncan wasn't even the best big man of him time; not by a long shot.

[Chelm]

Double post

[PosImpos]

Tony Parker won Finals MVP in '07 because he was the scorer of the series.  Same reason Kobe won Finals MVP in '10 (and Billups in '04).  Doesn't change the fact that Duncan and Gasol, respectively, were the most important players on those teams.

Hmm....during the 2010 Finals playoff run, Kobe had an insane 24.7 PER to Gasol's almost equally as insane 24.0. He averaged 29 points a game, 6 boards and 5.5 assists with a TS% of .567. He wasn't just a scorer. He was also a passer and a rebounder. Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 boards and 3.5 assists. I'm just not seeing an argument that Gasol was the more important player to the Lakers on that team during the postseason, regular season, or any other season ever in existence on any planet.

If one player on the team is the best during the regular season but isn't the primary contributor during the post-season, it doesn't much matter when considering their contribution to the team winning a championship, does it?

Again, tell me how Kobe wasn't the primary contributor during the postseason of that 2010 run when he averaged 29/6/6.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me Kobe's been in a less advantageous competitive situation in LA (which has all the money in the world to spend and tons of draw with FAs) than Duncan.  Duncan's had good teams around him, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Spurs have NEVER been a bad team as long as Duncan's been playing.  That's insane.

Are we seriously arguing that Kobe's championship team's 4-12 isn't significantly worse than the Duncan's? Regardless of competitive advantage/disadvantages, we only have the facts of what is in front of us which is the roster the two teams had.

Pau Gasol was the most important player in that 2010 run, particularly in the Finals, because the Lakers won by virtue of their major advantage scoring inside and on the boards.  Gasol was the factor in that.

Kobe shot 6-24 in the deciding Game 7.

Gasol (and to a lesser extent Bynum) killed the Celtics and won the championship for the Lakers.

The same size advantage is what got the Lakers past the Thunder, the Jazz, and the Suns.  Gasol had a really great post-season.


Soap, you're not going to convince me that Kobe wasn't similarly advantaged.

In the first three-peat, Kobe had the most dominant player on the planet (one of the most dominant ever) playing at center.  He also had Rice, Horry, Fox, and Grant.  In terms of the difficulty of the opponent, they faced the Sixers and the Nets (blech).

In the second run of 3 Finals, he had a stacked team with Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza / Artest.

It's strength at the top that matters in terms of winning a championship, and Kobe's hardly ever had any cause to complain about that.  Kobe has always had talented teammates.

Pos, the problem Soap is having with your argument isn't your conclusion that you'd prefer to have a young Duncan to build your team around over a young Kobe, it's the assertion that the argument isn't even close.  I personally feel that he's right on all counts, but the main problem is that you're letting your hatred of Kobe blind reality to declare that they are not even in comparable spheres.

Also, the assertion that Gasol was clearly better in the 2010 playoffs than Kobe is ridiculous.  He was better visually, statistically, and he clearly was the leader of his team.  And, in the terrible shooting game 7 you bring up (despite which, he still pulled a 24.7 PER and a TS of 57% over the 7 game series), he secures 15 rebounds which, of course, you completely discount.

a) I watched the Lakers throughout the 2010 post-season, and yes, I strongly believe that Gasol was their best and most important player and pointing to small differences in PER or the fact that Kobe grabbed a bunch of boards in Game 7 isn't going to persuade me otherwise.

b) I understand Soap's point.  I respectfully disagree.  I don't think it's close.  I don't think there should be any question that Tim Duncan has had a greater impact as a player over the course of his career than Kobe has.  Bottom line, over the course of 10-12 years Duncan was the best player on his team and his team has never been worse than 50 wins, and he's won 4 championships spread throughout that time frame. 

Kobe simply can't lay any claim to that kind of consistent greatness.  There were substantial stretches of Kobe's career where he often hurt his team as much as he helped them, and his team wasn't really all that good.  Moreover, it wasn't until late in his career that he was the best player on a championship team.

This has nothing to do with Kobe-hate.  I don't particularly Kobe, but I don't hate him.  I just think people in general tend to hero-worship perimeter players, especially ones who specialize in making contested mid-range jumpers, and that clouds people's judgment where Kobe is concerned.

You do realize that the Shaq-led Lakers would not have won 3 championships (or any?) without Kobe, right?  You also realize his career-long true shooting percent & per-game assists (both things that Kobe is often knocked for, and used against him when talking about how terrible a teammate he is) are both higher than Duncan's, right?  All Duncan had on Kobe was rebounding numbers.  I'm not saying the argument for Duncan is moot, but I don't think it can be totally discounted that it is, in fact, an argument.

The teams that Kobe was on in between Shaq and Gasol were horrid.  Absolutely terrible.  Smush & Kwame starting PG and C?  Yet, he still carried them to playoff berths every single year but one.  Are you sure Duncan would've won 50+ games switched out with Kobe?

Duncan wasn't even the best big man of him time; not by a long shot.

All you're telling me is that Kobe was the 2nd most important player on at least 3 championship teams.

Great argument.

Duncan beats Kobe in major awards won (3x Finals MVP, 2x MVP). 


As for statistics, well, I'd point to my statistically determined list of the NBA's greatest players that I compiled last summer.

A statistically-determined list of the 50 greatest NBA players of all time.

Points determined as follows:


50 points for MVP
25 points for DPOY*
25 points for Finals MVP
10 points for ROY
10 points for Sixth Man
5 points for Championship (each one)
5 points for each All-NBA 1st team appearance

Also:
40 points for 1st rank in primary stat (2 points for 20th)
20 points for 1st rank in secondary stat (1 point for 20th)


Primary stats: (career regular season points, rebounds, blocks, steals, assists, win shares, offensive win shares, defensive win shares, MVP award shares)

Secondary stats (career regular season PER, TS%, 3 pt makes, PPG, APG, RPG, SPG, BPG, career playoff points, rebounds, blocks, steals, assists, win shares, offensive win shares, defensive win shares)

Under that scoring system, Duncan comes in at #7 all time with 454 points.  Kobe comes in at #11 with 336.  That's an enormous difference, though they are both all-time greats.