RealGM

Both 6'10 guys who played more like guards, both sixth men on Phil Jackson-coached championship teams. Toni had more consistent range and could post up while Odom was quicker and a better rebounder. Passing is about equal.

Which one do you prefer?

I don't agree with a couple of those characterizations. While Kukoc did often play like a guard, I always thought Odom played like a 3/4 though he did like to dribble (maybe too much).

Second, Kukoc always seemed to have better passing skills and when I look at the numbers, his assist% is about 20% higher while his turnover% is about 10% lower. Just seemed a smarter player.

On the other hand, I think Odom's defense against forwards was clearly better; he was stronger and more able to body.

If I choose one for a prime, though, it's going to be Kukoc. The focus was more consistent. Odom went through bouts with addiction and depression where Kukoc had both foot and back issues.

penbeast0 wrote:I don't agree with a couple of those characterizations. While Kukoc did often play like a guard,I always thought Odom played like a 3/4 though he did like to dribble (maybe too much).

Second, Kukoc always seemed to have better passing skills and when I look at the numbers, his assist% is about 20% higher while his turnover% is about 10% lower. Just seemed a smarter player.

On the other hand, I think Odom's defense against forwards was clearly better; he was stronger and more able to body.

If I choose one for a prime, though, it's going to be Kukoc. The focus was more consistent. Odom went through bouts with addiction and depression where Kukoc had both foot and back issues.

Odom could certainly rebound like a PF, but offensively he was more guard-like. He did a lot of slashing but wasn't exactly a back-to-the-basket post-up type of scorer.

It's Odom. Not terribly close.

Odom, a great swiss army knife in his prime.

Think peak to peak, Odom might be the better player. But Odom needed to be the 3rd offensive option and strong leadership ard him to shine.

I think Kukoc is a better talent and a clearer franchise building block, but Odom did show a lot of value in lesser scoring roles. So Kukoc as your first through third option, Odom as your fourth or later option (obviously either of them as a fourth piece means your team is likely 60+ win good).

Wow, Odom was dominating this poll for a while but I see some Kukoc votes have come in

AEnigma wrote:I think Kukoc is a better talent and a clearer franchise building block, but Odom did show a lot of value in lesser scoring roles. So Kukoc as your first through third option, Odom as your fourth or later option (obviously either of them as a fourth piece means your team is likely 60+ win good).

Odom as best player on a team won 31 games and led a below avg team in 01

Kukoc as best player on a team led a 21 win team (adjusting for lockout when they were 13-37) in 99 to a bottom 3 team in the league

They were both 2nd option to Elton Brand in the same time frame.

In 24 games with Kukoc and Brand in 2000 they played at a 27 win pace.
In 29 games with Odom and Brand in 2002 they played at a 39 win pace.

Odom was better 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th option......Lakers were 60+ win teams with Odom as 3rd best player. Bynum took more shots but he wasnt a better overall player than Odom.

There is no case here for Kukoc in Nba play

GSP wrote:

AEnigma wrote:I think Kukoc is a better talent and a clearer franchise building block, but Odom did show a lot of value in lesser scoring roles. So Kukoc as your first through third option, Odom as your fourth or later option (obviously either of them as a fourth piece means your team is likely 60+ win good).

Odom as best player on a team won 31 games and led a below avg team in 01

Kukoc as best player on a team led a 21 win team (adjusting for lockout when they were 13-37) in 99 to a bottom 3 team in the league

They were both 2nd option to Elton Brand in the same time frame.

In 24 games with Kukoc and Brand in 2000 they played at a 27 win pace.
In 29 games with Odom and Brand in 2002 they played at a 39 win pace.

Odom was better 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th option......Lakers were 60+ win teams with Odom as 3rd best player. Bynum took more shots but he wasnt a better overall player than Odom.

There is no case here for Kukoc in Nba play

Haven't formed strong thoughts in general.

But sub-30 games with one common teammate (though even he is at a different level of production) isn't exactly ... a fair control.


At their best you'd love to have either. Both are elite "never all-stars". Think otoh Kukoc's box peak is higher, Odom is the better defender, both seemed to be impactful iirc. Odom might require more attention, support.

GSP wrote:There is no case here for Kukoc in Nba play.

Correct, but the argument was not “1999/2000 Kukoc versus peak Odom”.

You also do not seem to know what “first/second/third option” means. Rudy Gobert, Ben Wallace, and Dikembe Mutombo have never been their team’s first options, although they have often been their team’s best players.

Odom! The only skill/trait Kukoc has over is shooting. Passing is pretty equal tho!

GSP wrote:

AEnigma wrote:I think Kukoc is a better talent and a clearer franchise building block, but Odom did show a lot of value in lesser scoring roles. So Kukoc as your first through third option, Odom as your fourth or later option (obviously either of them as a fourth piece means your team is likely 60+ win good).

Odom as best player on a team won 31 games and led a below avg team in 01

Kukoc as best player on a team led a 21 win team (adjusting for lockout when they were 13-37) in 99 to a bottom 3 team in the league

They were both 2nd option to Elton Brand in the same time frame.

In 24 games with Kukoc and Brand in 2000 they played at a 27 win pace.
In 29 games with Odom and Brand in 2002 they played at a 39 win pace.

Odom was better 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th option......Lakers were 60+ win teams with Odom as 3rd best player. Bynum took more shots but he wasnt a better overall player than Odom.

There is no case here for Kukoc in Nba play

Elton Brand was a rookie in 1999-00 vs an all star in 2001-02. Same guy in a short time period, yet pretty different player.