Take your pick: Duncan or Kobe

[OutlawImmortal]

It's nearly impossible to compare the two since they don't play the same position. I'd take Duncan preferably, but I'm biased given I'm not exactly a fan of the Lakers.

Tim Duncan's teams are way more consistent given their 15-year run in which they've won 50+ games a season. He's also taken a small market team and made them into a dynasty in the mid-2000's.

I will say this though, although Duncan is the more consistent star player who doesn't get the daily recognition. When Kobe has one of those games where he can't miss - there's probably no one better. But at his age now I don't see that Kobe ever returning.

This is a very acceptable post from a Heat fan.


Don't forget Kobe has been to 7 Finals. Oh and I'm just sayin but if Duncan is a Center then he's about to pass up Shaq for championships.

 

[HizzleRocker]

Let me fix that for you TLF. Spurs got 4 with Duncan as the #1 option and the Lakers have 2 with Kobe as the #1 option. Makes the choice a lot easier to see now doesnt it?

I don't think that is entirely accurate. For the 1999-2000, Shaq was #1, sure. However,

In 2000-2001 playoffs - Shaq had 30.4/game and Kobe had 29.4/game. Kobe also had 7 boards and 6 assists per game. Many believed that Kobe, not Shaq, deserved the finals MVP here. During the regular season Shaq had 28.7/game and Kobe 28.5/game.

In 2001-2002 playoffs - Shaq had 28.5/game and Kobe 26.6/game. Shaq had more boards, Kobe had more assists and steals.

Those don't look like #2 options stats to me.

 

[Sman2011]

Let me fix that for you TLF. Spurs got 4 with Duncan as the #1 option and the Lakers have 2 with Kobe as the #1 option. Makes the choice a lot easier to see now doesnt it?

Parker won one of those finals MVP...Is that what you mean by #1 option? Or do you mean leading scorer on the team?

Kobe was leading scorer on the Lakers for 3 of the rings.

 

[shitsho]

Parker won one of those finals MVP...Is that what you mean by #1 option? Or do you mean leading scorer on the team?

Kobe was leading scorer on the Lakers for 3 of the rings.

We arent talking about MVPs we were talking about main options. However, if you want to go there how many did Kobe win while Shaq was on the team? Oh thats right. He didnt win even 1. You see dummy we aren't talking about who scored the most we are talking about who was the main man. Lets look at the facts. I could be the leading scorer with Shaq demanding a double and triple team. Plus I would shoot a better percentage. Did you get dropped on your head as a child?

 

[rmilia1]

As a lifelong Lakers fan here is the deal. If you were taking a guy to start a team, to build around then who do you take??? You take Duncan. Big men are harder to find and Duncan plays both ends of the court well. Now if you were adding a guy to an already solid team in hopes to win a title who do you add??? Still Duncan. The guy doesnt need the ball as much as Kobe in order to be effective and once again an established big guy is better than a guard. The only scenario where you MAY consider taking Kobe is if you were a 25-30 win team that was looking to increase revenue, boost ticket sales and simply make the playoffs. In that scenario Kobe is your better bet because Kobe can win games by himself where Duncan really cant.

 

[HizzleRocker]

If you diminish Kobe's titles, should you do the same for Duncan?

I don't think that is entirely accurate. For the 1999-2000, Shaq was #1, sure. However,

In 2000-2001 playoffs - Shaq had 30.4/game and Kobe had 29.4/game. Kobe also had 7 boards and 6 assists per game. Many believed that Kobe, not Shaq, deserved the finals MVP here. During the regular season Shaq had 28.7/game and Kobe 28.5/game.

In 2001-2002 playoffs - Shaq had 28.5/game and Kobe 26.6/game. Shaq had more boards, Kobe had more assists and steals.

Those don't look like #2 options stats to me.

1999 - Duncan had 23/game in playoffs. Same year of the twin towers where Robinson had 16. Close, but I will give you Duncan as the stud on this one.

2003 - Duncan's team and year. No argument from me here.

2005 - Regular season: Duncan 20/game; Parker 17/game; Ginobili 16/game. Parker led in assists and Ginobili in steals.
Playoffs: Duncan 23/game; Ginobili 21/game; Parker 17/game.

2007 - Regular season: Duncan 20/game; Parker 19/game.
Playoffs: Duncan 22/game; Parker 22/game.


Point is, if you discount Kobe's in 2000 and 2001 (which is ridiculous, but....) just because his stats were basically identically as impressive as another player - then you have to discount Duncan's in 2005 and 2007 since his stats were basically matched by 2 other players on his team.

Or we could just go back to Kobe = 5, and Duncan = 4.

 

[shitsho]

Dont just look at stats. Look at the game situation. Shaq was being double and tripled teamed and still shot a higher percentage. Kobe was left to go one on one most of the time as the gameplan for most teams was to let Kobe shoot the Lakers out of the game and try and slow down Shaq. Many may have thought Kobe was the MVP but they weren't part of the people in the know and that understood why Shaq was the winner of the award so their opinions are just that....opinions. The people that mattered voted Shaq the MVP.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Fact. Shaq was the most dominant force while gettn double or triple teamed, who is open Kobe.

Shaq was the #1 for 3 of Kobe's ships.

Kobe was the #1 for the other 2 of his ships.

 

[rmilia1]

Fact. Shaq was the most dominant force while gettn double or triple teamed, who is open Kobe.

Shaq was the #1 for 3 of Kobe's ships.

Kobe was the #1 for the other 2 of his ships.

True but thats not Kobes fault. If Shaq had been on the Spurs he would have been the primary option on all those teams too.

 

[HizzleRocker]

I also don't think that Duncan going 22/11 while winning a title somehow deserves more credit than Kobe going 30/7/6 while winning a title.

 

[shitsho]

True but thats not Kobes fault. If Shaq had been on the Spurs he would have been the primary option on all those teams too.

We know what happens when Kobe does not have a dominant big man/men. He can't carry the team. Duncan won all of his rings without Shaq. Kobe only won 2. Those are facts.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

We know what happens when Kobe does not have a dominant big man/men. He can't carry the team. Duncan won all of his rings without Shaq. Kobe only won 2. Those are facts.

Duncan had a few good guards on his team too lol. These arguments are ridiculous.

 

[shitsho]

Duncan had a few good guards on his team too lol. These arguments are ridiculous.

The answer was in response to the Shaq reference. Lets stay on task here. Duncan has consistently helped his team be relevant. We cant say the same for Kobe.

 

[lakersrule]

Defenses had to pay attention to Kobe as well. That is what made these two one of the most dominant tandems ever.

 

[rmilia1]

We know what happens when Kobe does not have a dominant big man/men. He can't carry the team. Duncan won all of his rings without Shaq. Kobe only won 2. Those are facts.

Sure and Duncan also won 2 of his 4 rings with another all time top 50 player ( Robinson ) thats also a fact. I already said Id take Duncan but not because Kobe couldnt win without Shaq just because big men are tougher to come WHICH is of course why having the most dominating center in the last 25 years of the NBA history proably shouldnt be held against Kobe. Shaq would have been the best player on every team in the NBA during the Lakers first 3 title runs

 

[shitsho]

Defenses had to pay attention to Kobe as well. That is what made these two one of the most dominant tandems ever.

Thats true. I do not dispute that. What I am saying is that Kobe was the #2 option.

 

[Jims_Doors]

nvm.

 

[shitsho]

Sure and Duncan also won 2 of his 4 rings with another all time top 50 player ( Robinson ) thats also a fact. I already said Id take Duncan but not because Kobe couldnt win without Shaq just because big men are tougher to come WHICH is of course why having the most dominating center in the last 25 years of the NBA history proably shouldnt be held against Kobe. Shaq would have been the best player on every team in the NBA during the Lakers first 3 title runs

Correct me if I am wrong but Duncan was the #1 option the minute he came into the league and robinson stepped aside for the good of the team. Thats all I'm saying. I think its very pertinent to the conversation of who can carry a team. Everyone is whining about how unfair it is that Kobe played with Shaq. Well guess what? If Shaq was not there Kobe would not have an additional 3 rings.

 

[lakersrule]

Thats true. I do not dispute that. What I am saying is that Kobe was the #2 option.

Kobe was definitely the #2 option. About as good as a #2 option as a team could have. Defenses had to help out on Shaq in the post and help out on Kobe on the perimeter. The signature Shaq/Kobe Laker's era play is Kobe breaking down the defense up top, the defense helping off of Shaq, and Kobe feeding Shaq for the alley oop dunk.

 

[shitsho]

Kobe was definitely the #2 option. About as good as a #2 option as a team could have. Defenses had to help out on Shaq in the post and help out on Kobe on the perimeter. The signature Shaq/Kobe Laker's era play is Kobe breaking down the defense up top, the defense helping off of Shaq, and Kobe feeding Shaq for the alley oop dunk.

Too bad that is considered the signature play because that definitely was not the norm. I remember that play more as a revelation that just maybe Kobe could actually see something else besides the hoop.