SDChargers#1 wrote:
AUF specifically said that Olajuwon and Duncan had more defensive impact. He is just saying that Kobe has had a defensive impact, which can be shown in playoff series in which he would switch onto opposing perimeter players (Westbrook, Rondo, etc)
He does, but he's not some sort of anchor that can take complete control on the defensive end. He's overstating the offensive impact of Bryant saying he's a vastly greater offensive player compared to the two, from simply looking at AST% and PST%? That's honestly silly, it's subjective to look at statistics that way when each of these players clearly have a different objective.
Kobe's support is getting vastly overrated as usual. I will concede the O'Neal years, but his help in '09 in '10 were not that great, certainly not even close to all time teams. But I will say there were more help than Hakeem or Duncan's teams.
Defensively he had the support from Gasol, just look at Pau's first playoff run there on how he limited PFs in every single series Martin (42%), Boozer (38%), Duncan (42%), Garnett (44%), and BTW this continued onto the '09 & '10 championship runs.
This is my biggest qualm with these arguments. It's that you are perfectly willing to ignore the biggest strength Bryant has over Duncan and Hakeem (offense produced), but then trump defensive impact of Duncan and Hakeem as being significantly superior. You can't have it both ways. Here I will play your game...
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just simply stating that you can't compare any of these players offensively since they all have different objectives. Defensively it's obvious the big-man has the greater impact, but whatever impact Bryant "may"(I'm still not agreeing he has more impact) is very slight, compared to the defensive advantage.
Especially considering both Duncan & Olajuwon in both '94 and '03 were closing out games without a perimeter creator on the floor, they were the focal point of their offenses, and again without a perimeter or all-star caliber player incapable of creating their own shot. They fed off the double-triple teams, but even then when the offense needed to be carried, but did whatever it took (check the Finals runs). Bryant at least had that kind of help both defensively and offensively, just take '10 Game 7 of the Finals for example (Ron Artest).
You're ridiculous, you are comparing defense for post players whose main defensive objective is to protect the paint, of course their defense is going to be generally a lot better, but how can you from that aspect state they are clearly better defensive player when they don't even play the same relative position and have completely different objectives throughout the course of a basketball game, how does that automatically make Duncan and Hakeem superior defensive players, and in this case significantly superior?
Umm…the Chicago Bulls had similar objectives but they impacted an entire defensive scheme for a total of 6 championship runs (perimeter focused defense from MJ & Pippen, they were bigger threats defensively, Grant & Rodman weren't anchoring anything, considering once Jordan and Pippen would go out the defensive value would drop), LeBron in '09 & '10 was single handedly anchoring a defense from the perimeter, and the '11 Heat focused around Wade & LeBron's perimeter defense, it's evident throughout history even on Phil Jackson's teams that defensively a perimeter player CAN impact an entire defensive scheme, but Bryant clearly hasn't done that. So your point is moot, considering it's been done.
Now, I want to state that I find what I just wrote to be ridiculous. Of course Duncan and Hakeem have more impact than Bryant defensively. It is their job. But in the same way Bryant clearly...CLEARLY has more impact offensively. Honestly, I can't believe we are arguing that point. He is a better scorer (on better efficiency) and a better passer than both. Who cares what their jobs are, what matters is what they produce on the court.
I'm not arguing he that does have offensive impact, but it's very completely overstated in saying it's a clear advantage towards him.
I find this particularly interesting because as usual peoples arguments change once Kobe becomes involved. What happened to the importance of defense when comparing these 2 to Bird? They were even better at defense than they are compared to Kobe?
It's fine if you believe in something, but please be consistent with it.
If that's the case Kobe Bryant from everything AUF has been stating should have gone at number 2 all-time.
I agree completely. Except Kobe has a higher career TS% than Duncan or Hakeem
. That's the biggest factor for me personally, is that these two highly efficient big men are LESS efficient than Kobe.
?
Duncan TS%: .552
Olajuwon TS%: .553
Bryant TS%: .556
He has a .03% advantage on Olajuwon and .04% advantage on Duncan, he scores at a volume obviously, but where's the "significant" offensive advantage? Both of these guys without scoring at volume levels or nearly having the same kind of talent as Bryant ('03 & '94) were able to win championships as the main established guys on the floor, closing out games, and taking complete dominance when their teams needed them, just like Bryant.
I can go the same way and compare Kobe's rebounding rate compared to those same guys. Kobe is actually one of the best rebounding SGs in the league and has been for most of his career. His career rebounding % is above Wade (who is another great rebounding SG), and blows away guys like Iverson, Allen, Carter, etc.
Yeah, but the point I was arguing was that it's silly to compare all three of those players through AST%, I was suggesting comparing them through rebound rate or BLK % due to the fact AUF is comparing them through AST%.
You just stated that Bryant was "hands down" the best player on the floor in every Spurs series. I provided Duncan's stats, you're suggesting he played even better than those numbers?
You're still not understanding that they both play completely different positions, in what context did he outperform Duncan? Here are his numbers again: 25.9 PPG, 12.8 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.7 BPG, FG 47%. Show me, how did he outperform that? Duncan's weak-side defense also helped contain Shaq from having a monster series (23.9PPG on 52%) and again this is against the Lakers having one of the best paint defenses in the league with Shaq +6.7 (ranked 3 ) in '01 & +7.1 (ranked 2) in '02, so show me how he "outplayed" individually in those series, I still have yet to see any evidence suggesting so.
It is actually quite close given the numbers you provided, but I am going to do a double check on those when given the chance, cause just glancing they don't look very close to what you pointed out.
EDIT: I did Duncan's numbers as well. In 15 games ('01, '02, and '04) Duncan put up:
24.1 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, FG 46%
So you're numbers weren't entirely accurate, but close enough (maybe you included other years? Not sure). I would give the slight advantage to Bryant, but certainly not a landslide like AUF suggested.
I was including '99 as well for Duncan because I was comparing Shaq v Duncan in the prior thread, considering it was his start to prime dominance.
In 15 games ('01, '02, and '04) Kobe put up:
28.1 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.8 APG, FG 47% (I didn't do FT%, but it was a good deal higher than Duncan).
Fair enough, but I'm still not seeing AUF's "easily the most dominant player on the floor" in the series.
Overall, this is a very close vote, I can understand people going both ways, but some of the Kobe hate in this thread is unbelievable. He's overrated on defense? OK, I get it people have been saying it for years. He's doesn't have a sizeable advantage on offense compared to Duncan and Hakeem? Cmon, really? Kobe's a better scorer, more efficient and a better passer than both. This is as clear as defense is an argument for them over Kobe.
[/quote]
I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong, it's your vote and you seem like a very knowledgeable poster, but I was simply just addressing some of the scenarios of AUF, where he gave such a significant offensive advantage to Bryant over Olajuwon & Duncan that not even their defensive advantage was good enough to help them, despite them being one of the better more dominant players at their positions from an all-time perspective?
