The Kobe vs Duncan debate has officially begun

[Sedale Threatt]

I'll take the two-way anchor who gives you the opportunity, with good management, to compete for a championship every year for nearly two decades, with zero locker room issues and is easier to build around all day, every day.

But the discussion is the greater player, not the greater teammate

How do you separate the two? Players don't function in a vacuum.

[TyCobb]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5nQFmrKZ5o[/youtube]

The **** most people use on this site are already outdated.

[jigga_man]

The whole rankings never made sense too me. Duncan winning or not this didn't change how I viewed him. He's still Tim Duncan. Neither did it change I viewed Kobe. People are just quantifying the unquantifiable. How much stake do put in winning back-to-back titles that Duncan didn't do? Does him never missing the playoffs negate all that? How much is the consistency have to do with better management hitting homeruns in the late and second round? Would it have made a difference regardless?

People are going to put more weight into certain success that both players had due to their own personal bias. It's all subjective. They're the two best players of the last 18 years by far, and that's it. (I put Shaq with them too just due to the short period of his sheer dominance)

[Baller2014]

Like I said, I'll be happy to discuss this in depth on the PC board. I see it as having been pretty clear for a long time now. Duncan has a better peak, better prime, longer prime, longer high impact, better intangibles, and even more hardware (and a bigger role for said rings). I don't even understand what the pro-Kobe argument is anymore; volume scoring? Duncan is vastly better on D, and frankly he's better on O, because it's easier to build an offense around a dominant inside scorer anchoring your offense. Not that "O + D" is the way to look at a guys impact, but Kobe doesn't have a bigger impact on either end. People who think he does are confusing volume with impact. Steve Nash is a good example of this. He's one of the greatest offensive players of all time, despite having a low ppg average. Prime Duncan is much the same, for different reasons.

[gts1]

I'll take the two-way anchor who gives you the opportunity, with good management, to compete for a championship every year for nearly two decades, with zero locker room issues and is easier to build around all day, every day.

But the discussion is the greater player, not the greater teammate

How do you separate the two? Players don't function in a vacuum.

easily.. the league is lousy with great teammates there's probably 5 guys who could qualify on every team as a great teammate but there's only a handful of elite players that are considered all time greats and very few of them if any would you say he was a great teammate as your reason for him being elite...

[Sedale Threatt]

It's not THE reason, but it's A reason, and when you're getting to the rarefied air of the top 10 or whatever, every little thing matters. Guys like Duncan and Bill Russell and Magic Johnson being supreme teammates that can push their teams beyond the individual sum of their parts...that's a massive attribute.

When you're getting into comparisons where the margin for error is so thin, it needs to be part of the discussion. Plus, for all the whining and belly-aching about advanced stats and whatnot, it shows that there will always be things like chemistry that (so far, at least) elude measurement.

I already think Duncan is the better choice based on superior two-way play, as Baller outlined. When you factor in that he has been the driving force for a culture of sacrifice and teamwork throughout his tenure, compared to guys like Shaq and Kobe who have struggled to get along with key championship pieces, that absolutely matters.

[TruSkool]

^ call me when Tim Duncan is asked to carry a team starting Smush Parker, Luke Walton and Chris Mihm/Kwame Brown to 50 wins in the West.

in duncans defense, kobe never led that team to 50 wins. they were 42-40 that year, 1 game above .500

[Sedale Threatt]

From Twitter:

Duncan's playoff averages, per 36 minutes

1999: 19.4 PPG, 9.6 RPG, 51.1% FG (Year of 1st Title, 23)
2014: 17.9 PPG, 10.1 RPG, 52.3% FG (Year of 5th Title, 38)

[Baller2014]

Duncan carried worse teams to far better outcomes, but again I'd recommend this be discussed on the PC board.

[Slava]

Like I said, I'll be happy to discuss this in depth on the PC board. I see it as having been pretty clear for a long time now. Duncan has a better peak, better prime, longer prime, longer high impact, better intangibles, and even more hardware (and a bigger role for said rings). I don't even understand what the pro-Kobe argument is anymore; volume scoring? Duncan is vastly better on D, and frankly he's better on O, because it's easier to build an offense around a dominant inside scorer anchoring your offense. Not that "O + D" is the way to look at a guys impact, but Kobe doesn't have a bigger impact on either end. People who think he does are confusing volume with impact. Steve Nash is a good example of this. He's one of the greatest offensive players of all time, despite having a low ppg average. Prime Duncan is much the same, for different reasons.

I've mentioned before Kobe has a higher TS%, higher peak PER, higher offensive rating than Duncan. If you keep throwing around unsubstantiated arguments in this thread with the sole intention of antagonizing people, I suggest you gtfo.

Steve Nash has historically great offensive ratings and his numbers are on par with Magic Johnson of the showtime era, Duncan has never been that good on offense.

[Baller2014]

Prime Duncan has the best offensive ability of all, the ability to demand a constant double team, which creates overlaps in the offense, and allows otherwise useless players to become useful, and increases the offensive ability of the players around him. There are a lot of posters here, mods among them, who probably agree with me (or are at least more moderate) but as I said, this is not the forum to discuss this issue seriously, and your latest reply makes the reason for that obvious.

[Slava]

Prime Duncan could slay mountain tigers, wearing sheep skin while making sweet love to an octopus. See how easy it is to write stupid without even making an effort?

[Kilroy]

Like I said, I'll be happy to discuss this in depth on the PC board. I see it as having been pretty clear for a long time now. Duncan has a better peak, better prime, longer prime, longer high impact, better intangibles, and even more hardware (and a bigger role for said rings). I don't even understand what the pro-Kobe argument is anymore; volume scoring? Duncan is vastly better on D, and frankly he's better on O, because it's easier to build an offense around a dominant inside scorer anchoring your offense. Not that "O + D" is the way to look at a guys impact, but Kobe doesn't have a bigger impact on either end. People who think he does are confusing volume with impact. Steve Nash is a good example of this. He's one of the greatest offensive players of all time, despite having a low ppg average. Prime Duncan is much the same, for different reasons.

Then go to the PC board and start the thread, if they'll still have you...

Otherwise, the rest of this post is pure nonsense...

[Draginho]

per 36min is absolute nonsense. jordan hill had 17/13 season according to that. all nba team material i guess!

i also disagree that tim had longer and better peak/prime/whatever. major props goes to pop/spurs organization and the system they've been using throughout tim's career. tim is practically on maintenance program since 2007 season, of course he is better rested than kobe. he never had to play close to 40min every given night and work his ass off to guide his team into the playoffs. only pop can squeeze everything from his role players and make a patty mills/bellineli/diaw looks like all star player. don't get me wrong, tim is great great player, best pf of all time, great anchor on d, great leader and great person. for me, he and kobe are on the same level of all-time greatness, whether he has 4 or 5 rings.

[LAKESHOW]

KOBE won the MVP for his last title. Some dude who's name I forgot won MVP this year. Kwame Brown? And besides, the spurs have an asterisk on the 1999 strike/shortened title.

Go check the Finals MVP for Kobe's first 3 rings....also keep in mind the stability that Duncan brought to the Spurs who had no history of winning or rings for the most part.

The asterisk is reaching too regarding '99.

Quickly, how many times has KOBE scored in the paint? a gazillion times. How many times has KOBE scored from the 3point line? A gazillion times. How many times has Duncan scored from the paint? A gazillion times. How many times has Duncan scored from the 3 point line? You can probably count them all on 1 hand. If you cant see the difference and impact a perimeter all around player. Vs a big. BIGs are on a different scale. KOBE is the greatest player of this era. Period. Hopefully this will assist you.

[Anklebreaker702]

If you really think there's a debate between the two, go to the PC board and start a thread and see how it goes. Personally I think Duncan is clearly better, and ended the debate and left an unbridgeable chasm between himself and Kobe some years ago, and I think you'll be decisively told that by dozens and dozens of posters on the PC board too (most of them Lakers fans).

The PC board is actually quite terrible for "player comparisons." It's just a bunch of stat geeks reciting advanced stats off basketball reference and using that as the determining factor of who was the better basketball player - without any real knowledge of the game.

That's also the reputation of the RealGM PC board in many other forums as well - many of which have been around longer than RealGM.

The PC board holds no value. None.

Exactly. Numbers are 1 thing but what about the eyeball test? Since everyone wants to anoint Jordan as G.O.A.T hands down (me not being one of them but that's another discussion entirely) who else has even put anyone's mind near Jordan besides Kobe?

He's broken records that have been held since Wilt. Which means Jordan didn't even do certain things that Kobe did.

Like I said before Timmay is either 1 or 1a in greatest PF ever but Kobe is up there with greatest players ever

Sent from my SPH-L900 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Kilroy]

This has clearly gone as far as it needs to.