Kevin Durant vs. Kobe Bryant

[Morb]

In this era for weak team I'll take Kobe. For good team I'll take Durant.

[lobosloboslobos]

this is one of the most well-argued threads I've ever read on RealGM. congrats everyone.

i voted Kobe but don't claim to be remotely as knowledgeable as some of you guys. having read the thread I definitely might change it but to me it's hard to weigh Durant's true greatness because his only title came the way it did. i know that it's considered lame to consider titles when comparing two players but it does affect my judgement because in addition to team talent it speaks to the individual leadership capabilities of a great player and the ability to overcome adversity. so though i am in awe of durant and actually enjoy his game more, i think i'd probably still stick with kobe for the best chance to win.

[Kawhi_205]

Maybe KD

GoSpursGo Kawhi4ever

[Kawhi_205]

I'm not sure

GoSpursGo Kawhi4ever

[penbeast0]

...
Kobe played horribly offball and catch amd shooting when he started doing it. He was never good at it. He had other offensive weapons but catch&shoot was never one of his strenghts.
1. Rings alone don't tell which player is better. Kobe had the luck to play with Shaq early on his carrer.
2. Breaking scoring records shooting at everage efficiency (league average or lower) is still impresive but is not really game changing. Scoring a lot at very high efficiency has a lot more
way more value . For every 60 points game that Kobe had,he had 4 10 points games shooting 3/22 from the field.
3. Duncan has had a superior carrer than Kobe and was way more dominant in his prime. Kobe never reached 2003 Duncan playoffs level of dominance. But we are not discussing Duncan vs Kobe

1. He also won rings on a team where Pau Gasol was the second best player; that's very impressive
2. Kobe was generally above league average shooting efficiency, if not by a lot. The early 00s were an era of fairly low shooting efficiency before they changed the rules and before coaches began truly spamming 3s.
3. Agree on Duncan.

[penbeast0]

production? kobe produced 5 rings, shattered records after records and etc.? not enough production for you? oh ok though

not even the best player of his generation? then who? says you? is eye test not part of your criteria anymore? sir you need start being honest and give the man his credit.

Eye test told me that Kobe was a selfish gunner who took a lot of bad shots and publicly took shots at his coach and teammates. What made me rethink Kobe was his success (winner's bias?) with Gasol and Odom who I don't think are among the great supporting casts of all time or even the good supporting casts for an NBA champion. I had to reevaluate how they won and that made me respect Kobe more.

Duncan is still the best of his generation to me, but Kobe's second back to back moved him up in my eyes a lot and made me respect Phil Jackson even more.

[Theverdad]

...
Kobe played horribly offball and catch amd shooting when he started doing it. He was never good at it. He had other offensive weapons but catch&shoot was never one of his strenghts.
1. Rings alone don't tell which player is better. Kobe had the luck to play with Shaq early on his carrer.
2. Breaking scoring records shooting at everage efficiency (league average or lower) is still impresive but is not really game changing. Scoring a lot at very high efficiency has a lot more
way more value . For every 60 points game that Kobe had,he had 4 10 points games shooting 3/22 from the field.
3. Duncan has had a superior carrer than Kobe and was way more dominant in his prime. Kobe never reached 2003 Duncan playoffs level of dominance. But we are not discussing Duncan vs Kobe

1. He also won rings on a team where Pau Gasol was the second best player; that's very impressive
2. Kobe was generally above league average shooting efficiency, if not by a lot. The early 00s were an era of fairly low shooting efficiency before they changed the rules and before coaches began truly spamming 3s.
3. Agree on Duncan.

1. You needed less talent to win in the late 00's than you need right now. Pau was really good in the playoffs and carryed the Lakers in key moments like in the series against Houston or game 6 against the Celtics
2. Kobe scored mostly from isoball. His catch&shoot game was really poor. Catch&shooting wasn't as relevant back then either way.

[penbeast0]

1. You needed less talent to win in the late 00's than you need right now. Pau was really good in the playoffs and carryed the Lakers in key moments like in the series against Houston or game 6 against the Celtics
2. Kobe scored mostly from isoball. His catch&shoot game was really poor. Catch&shooting wasn't as relevant back then either way.

Certainly true that until Boston got the Garnett/Pierce/Allen big three and then Miami expanded on it with the LeBron/Wade/Bosh trio, there wasn't as big a divide between the Haves and Have Nots as there is today. Didn't seem to be as many tankers then either though I haven't double checked that statement.

Not sure I would make such blanket statements about Catch and Shoot; there were more different offensive systems out there and some of them were more reliant on catch and shoot than others.

[andrewww]

1. You needed less talent to win in the late 00's than you need right now. Pau was really good in the playoffs and carryed the Lakers in key moments like in the series against Houston or game 6 against the Celtics
2. Kobe scored mostly from isoball. His catch&shoot game was really poor. Catch&shooting wasn't as relevant back then either way.

Less talent was needed in the non-superteam era, yes.

Pau was good, but carrying the Lakers at key moments is factually incorrect and is realgm propaganda. Kobe outplayed Pau in every game of the series and the gap was even more substantial in games 3-5 in Boston in 2010, where the Lakers fell into a 3-2 hole largely because Pau disappeared for large stretches.

Kobe didnt score mostly from isoball. If anything, Lebron-led teams including Lebron himself score more from isoball situations. This myth exists because Kobe has a very public reputation as being a gunner which is greatly exaggerated.

[andrewww]

[

Eye test told me that Kobe was a selfish gunner who took a lot of bad shots and publicly took shots at his coach and teammates. What made me rethink Kobe was his success (winner's bias?) with Gasol and Odom who I don't think are among the great supporting casts of all time or even the good supporting casts for an NBA champion. I had to reevaluate how they won and that made me respect Kobe more.

Duncan is still the best of his generation to me, but Kobe's second back to back moved him up in my eyes a lot and made me respect Phil Jackson even more.

Eye test tells me that Manu played relatively better than Duncan in the 2005 Finals, and even the stats support that. But of course, I also recognize that Duncan's two-way impact helped allow prime Manu to get his. Similar to the 2017 GSW dynamic where Curry had the bigger impact according to advance stats, but KD won FMVP because he had the better statistical production.

On the contary, anyone who watched the 08-10 Lakers would easily recognize Kobe as having the biggest impact. Yet this propaganda that Pau should've won FMVP in 2010 still exists. To me, the Lakers were the odds on favs in 09-10 specifically and from what I gather, some of the mods here felt that team overachieved (I don't because I thought they deserved to be the favs. HCA and Vegas odds had them as the favs too).

When you look at the big picture where the media narrative had the 2010 FMVP as Kobe's (win or lose), the Vegas odds had the Lakers as the favs, etc. How can you justify the argument that some felt the Lakers overachieved and that Pau was their best player? That's called bias my friends.

This is another reason why Kobe is underrated on these boards. His peak wasn't 08. Put 06 Kobe on that team in 08 and they don't blow game 5 and are three-peating imo. This is a sentiment shared by many who have followed his entire career and why his peak isn't top 20 on the PC board which is an absolute joke.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Obviously Kobe did more for his career and had insane longevity. So for this comparison to be fair I think you need to be comparing their respective peaks.

I'm going to take their MVP years as being their respective peaks. Durant in 2014, Kobe in 2008.

Kobe.. 36.5PTS 8.1REB 6.9AST 2.4STL 0.6BLK 4.0TOV 3.6PF .576TS% 31.4USG% 13.8WS .208WS/48 5.4BPM 6.0VORP
Durant 41.8PTS 9.6REB 7.2AST 1.7STL 1.0BLK 4.6TOV 2.8PF .635TS% 33.0USG% 19.2WS .295WS/48 8.8BPM 8.5VORP

So yeah, I don't really see ANY argument for Kobe's peak being higher than Durant's based on their regular season.

Except that Kobe was a true #1 option and won several Championships as such.


Kobe is a better first option
Durant is a better second option

[oaktownwarriors87]

In this era for weak team I'll take Kobe. For good team I'll take Durant.

You want Kobe creating buckets

You want Durant feeding off the creator

Kobe is a true #1 option while Durant is a #2 option.

[Theverdad]

1. You needed less talent to win in the late 00's than you need right now. Pau was really good in the playoffs and carryed the Lakers in key moments like in the series against Houston or game 6 against the Celtics
2. Kobe scored mostly from isoball. His catch&shoot game was really poor. Catch&shooting wasn't as relevant back then either way.

Less talent was needed in the non-superteam era, yes.

Pau was good, but carrying the Lakers at key moments is factually incorrect and is realgm propaganda. Kobe outplayed Pau in every game of the series and the gap was even more substantial in games 3-5 in Boston in 2010, where the Lakers fell into a 3-2 hole largely because Pau disappeared for large stretches.

Kobe didnt score mostly from isoball. If anything, Lebron-led teams including Lebron himself score more from isoball situations. This myth exists because Kobe has a very public reputation as being a gunner which is greatly exaggerated.

Game 7 against the Rockets
14 points,4-12 from the field,7 rebounds,3 assits
Game 7 against the Celtics
23 points,6/24 from the field,2 assists,15 rebounds.
Kobe didn't overperform or carry those Lakers in the harder matches. Pau did overperform against the Rockets and was key against the Celtics with his paint presence.
And Kobe had an awful % from catch&shoot. In the 33% range I think

[andrewww]

Game 7 against the Rockets
14 points,4-12 from the field,7 rebounds,3 assits
Game 7 against the Celtics
23 points,6/24 from the field,2 assists,15 rebounds.
Kobe didn't overperform or carry those Lakers in the harder matches. Pau did overperform against the Rockets and was key against the Celtics with his paint presence.
And Kobe had an awful % from catch&shoot. In the 33% range I think

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2010-nba-finals-celtics-vs-lakers.html

Game 1:
Kobe - 30/7/6 on 10/22 FGs.
Pau - 23/14/3 on 8/14 FGs.

Game 2:
Kobe - 21/5/6 on 8/20 FGs.
Pau - 25/8/3 on 7/10 FGs.

Game 3:
Kobe - 29/7/4 on 10/29 FGs.
Pau - 13/10/4 on 5/11 FGs.

Game 4:
Kobe - 33/6/2 on 10/22 FGs.
Pau - 21/6/3 on 6/13 FGs.

Game 5:
Kobe - 38/5/4 on 13/27 FGs.
Pau - 12/12/0 on 5/12 FGs.

Game 6:
Kobe - 26/11/3 on 9/19 FGs.
Pau - 17/13/9 on 6/14 FGs.

Game 7:
Kobe - 23/15/2 on 6/24 FGs.
Pau - 19/18/4 on 6/16 FGs.

Series:
Kobe - 28.6/8.0/3.9 on 40.5 FG
Pau - 18.6/11.6/3.7 on 47.8 FG

In which universe did Pau do the heavy lifting? And I'm a huge Pau fan but your argument like many others have made, is a tremendous reach, especially since the media was ready to give Kobe FMVP win or lose that series.

[Takes5]

These polls are annoying. A guy who hasn't sniffed the top 30-40AT lists yet being compared to an AT great top 10 player. Jeez.

[Mike87]

I think Durant is the better player but he obviously has a long way to go to match Kobe career wise.

[magicmerl]

Obviously Kobe did more for his career and had insane longevity. So for this comparison to be fair I think you need to be comparing their respective peaks.

I'm going to take their MVP years as being their respective peaks. Durant in 2014, Kobe in 2008.

Kobe.. 36.5PTS 8.1REB 6.9AST 2.4STL 0.6BLK 4.0TOV 3.6PF .576TS% 31.4USG% 13.8WS .208WS/48 5.4BPM 6.0VORP
Durant 41.8PTS 9.6REB 7.2AST 1.7STL 1.0BLK 4.6TOV 2.8PF .635TS% 33.0USG% 19.2WS .295WS/48 8.8BPM 8.5VORP

So yeah, I don't really see ANY argument for Kobe's peak being higher than Durant's based on their regular season.

Except that Kobe was a true #1 option and won several Championships as such.


Kobe is a better first option
Durant is a better second option

'Several' meaning exactly two, right? Right?

Durant can be a #1 or #2 option. So can Kobe (he did we'' early in his career as the 1b option to Shaq).

[oaktownwarriors87]

Obviously Kobe did more for his career and had insane longevity. So for this comparison to be fair I think you need to be comparing their respective peaks.

I'm going to take their MVP years as being their respective peaks. Durant in 2014, Kobe in 2008.

Kobe.. 36.5PTS 8.1REB 6.9AST 2.4STL 0.6BLK 4.0TOV 3.6PF .576TS% 31.4USG% 13.8WS .208WS/48 5.4BPM 6.0VORP
Durant 41.8PTS 9.6REB 7.2AST 1.7STL 1.0BLK 4.6TOV 2.8PF .635TS% 33.0USG% 19.2WS .295WS/48 8.8BPM 8.5VORP

So yeah, I don't really see ANY argument for Kobe's peak being higher than Durant's based on their regular season.

Except that Kobe was a true #1 option and won several Championships as such.


Kobe is a better first option
Durant is a better second option

'Several' meaning exactly two, right? Right?

Durant can be a #1 or #2 option. So can Kobe (he did we'' early in his career as the 1b option to Shaq).

That's at least two more than Durant.

Durant has proven to be a choker as a #1 because he's more of shooter than a play maker. That's why 60% of his shots in the Finals were assisted.

As a #1 option Durant isn't Championship material like Curry, LeBron, Kobe, or Jordan. He is, however, an elite 2nd option.

[bondom34]

I actually kind of agree with the above. I think Durant could have been a number one but don't have any concrete proof of it. I feel like he might be the better player but certainly not the better career and I can't ever see him surpassing Kobe's.

[magicmerl]

Except that Kobe was a true #1 option and won several Championships as such.


Kobe is a better first option
Durant is a better second option

'Several' meaning exactly two, right? Right?

Durant can be a #1 or #2 option. So can Kobe (he did we'' early in his career as the 1b option to Shaq).

That's at least two more than Durant.

Durant has proven to be a choker as a #1 because he's more of shooter than a play maker. That's why 60% of his shots in the Finals were assisted.

As a #1 option Durant isn't Championship material like Curry, LeBron, Kobe, or Jordan. He is, however, an elite 2nd option.

That's a pretty weak argument. I think the Curry was very valuable for the Warriors, and the engine that their offense is built around. That said, it's pretty hard to call Durant's 35.2PPG in the finals any sort of statistical tie with Curry, who averaged 26.8ppg.

Durant's scoring edge over Curry in the finals was in the same order of magnitude as Kobe's edge over Gasol in their respective two rings.

So all you're really spinning about is that Durant has only won 1 ring so far. That's hardly a compelling argument.