Kobe Bryant top 10 player of all-time?

[Sedale Threatt]

...

I'm definitely not one of the fanatics who want to take team success and individual awards entirely out of the discussion. To me they're very important, particularly in a sport like basketball where one player can make such a massive impact.

That said, if you'll notice, your case rests almost entirely on circumstantial details, with zero emphasis placed on pure playing ability. To which, again, I'll say that Duncan, as a 7-footer who dominated on both ends of the floor -- his impact is clear to measure, individually and team-wise -- was just a better, more impactful player than Kobe.

The key thing to me is the defensive end. Kobe, though overrated, has generally been an excellent defensive player. But it's simply impossible for a wing defender to impact the game like someone of Duncan's caliber can.

San Antonio ranked no worse than third in defensive rating during his first 11 seasons, during which he was the one constant besides Popovich. Robinson retires? No problem -- the Spurs have the league's best defense three years running. That he's never won a DPOY is an absolute joke, and an indication why awards, while very important, should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Then there's rebounding, another key facet of the game where Kobe cannot match Duncan by virtue of their respective positions.

So that's an entire half of the game where Kobe doesn't even come close to touching Duncan's impact. Then when you add the fact that Duncan, at his best, was good for 20-25 a night, on great efficiency, without dominating the ball, and what I see is one of the absolute best all-around cornerstones the game has ever seen.

And that's not even getting into the whole intangible debate, where Duncan is virtually flawless and Kobe...well, he's obviously had his issues there.

All in all, about the only complaint I can come up with Duncan is that he probably wasn't quite as aggressive as he could/should have been on offense. No reason, for example, he could have been a regular 25-a-night scorer for four or five seasons instead of just one. But then, that selflessness is also one of his greatest strengths. He just didn't care about individual achievements.

Moving back to the circumstances you touched on...again, I'm a big proponent of individual achievement and team success being a part of the discussion. But it can be an extremely slippery proposition if this is your only measure.

Case in point, the 2010 Finals. Look at how drastically one game changed Kobe's legacy, for reasons totally outside of his control. Pau and Artest don't show up like they did, and he's got an absolutely gigantic blemish on a resume that's already got more than one. They do, and suddenly he's hailed as a five-time champion and his legacy post-Shaq is sealed.

See how tenuous that is?

That's why I think it's best to try to blend all of the factors together in some sort of composite, instead of focusing exclusively on one measure or another. And if we're just measuring pure playing ability, I'm taking Tim Duncan 10 out of 10 times.

[Sedale Threatt]

I never understood the " peak years" talk when talking about a "all-time" list. All-Time is all-time and peak years are well your peak years: a short time players spend at the top of they're game.

I think peak is important because, for most players, it's a four- or five-year window into his absolute best game. It's not the end-all, be-all -- longevity is also an important factor -- but in certain cases, especially when you're rating top-end guys who have very few warts, it's a very valuable tool.

[Sedale Threatt]

The PC list currently has KG at #13 ahead of the big O, Moses and Jerry West. Lebron ahead of Gervin, Robinson and Barkley. More interestingly, all time greats Stockton, Payton, and Isiah aren't even up for nomination for up coming picks but Steve Nash, Wade and Patrick Ewing somehow are?

I'm surprised Chris Paul isn't up for nomination for that 20th spot the way some rant on about him. Their top 10 looks solid but what a mess it is afterwards.

You should check over the threads. The level of discourse is head and shoulders above anything I've ever participated in.

I don't agree with some of the votes, either, and I think it can depend heavily on whether or not a particular player has an advocate, and how skilled that advocate is at shaping an argument in his favor. But this group definitely takes this stuff seriously, and they will absolutely pick you apart if you don't bring some pretty heavy artillery.

(As for LeBron over George Gervin, that is an absolute no-brainer. I'd take him over the other two pretty easily as well. I don't even have a problem with KG over the other three; as with Duncan, his all-around impact was tough to beat. The one vote I had a problem with was Malone at 12.)

[crazyeights]

See how tenuous that is?

That's why I think it's best to try to blend all of the factors together in some sort of composite, instead of focusing exclusively on one measure or another. And if we're just measuring pure playing ability, I'm taking Tim Duncan 10 out of 10 times.

ST,

First off, immediately after reading your list I remarked how it is probably one of the most fair I’ve ever seen.

I agree with your post and as I said I was using Duncan and Kobe as an example rather than attempting to directly compare them (if a distinction there can be seen).

The post was about rivalries. Strength of schedule, so to speak.

Such as my statement about Bird and Magic elevating their legacies…I don’t necessarily think that’s “fair” or what we should be using as a yardstick, but I do think it’s a factor here. It’s a perception, it’s human nature, etc.

I more was interested in hearing thoughts on this sort of angle, because in my mind I think the fact that the Spurs didn’t even repeat finals appearances—hell, they didn’t even make it to two consecutive Western Conference finals until after their 4th title and there they lost 4-1 to the Lakers—has to carry some weight here.

If Duncan is such an impactful player than how do you explain the Spurs' inability to do something that others in the same era have shown was possible?

And yes, of course, this is the real-world, which entails everything to gravity, age, among other “circumstantial details."

Yes, basketball is a team sport, yes, people get injured or get fat or whatever but at the end of the day, it is basketball—of all the team sports—that allows a single player to put his stamp on the game more than any other.

I realize that my post may seem absurd, probably setting things at too high of a standard, but shouldn’t we be? This is the top 10 we’re talking about here, this is the gold standard. When this board judged Mike Brown on the P&G standard they said great regular season winning percentage, but couldn’t get it done in the playoffs. We look at Phil and we say 11 rings—best ever. Why shouldn’t the fact that Duncan’s teams couldn’t put it together from year-to-year affect his legacy or his placement in our lists? It’s not as if the Spurs are the Clippers. They’re probably the best-run organization. What if the Spurs didn’t tank to draft Duncan? And the 76ers snatched him up instead? AI and TD could have been like KG and Marbury…who knows?

My point is we say we’re talking about top players and then we use winning and rings to back this up. If a guy has good stats on a crap team we call him Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

But instead of fantasyland, we know that Tim Duncan was drafted by the Spurs and we’ve seen him being mentored by a Hall of Famer, we’ve seen their front office be way ahead of the curve, unearthing innumerable diamonds in the rough, we’ve seen Pop be the best Xs Os coach for a decade.

Duncan had arguably the best possible nurturing of any player his era. I think it’s fair to grade him on a pretty harsh scale here.

Thus, there’s a reason why MJ is untouchable. Because he is 6-0 in the finals. Two three-peats.

So yes, while I agree this is no zero sum debate, and that you must factor in everything; I was merely trying to toss another consideration into the discussion…

[Sedale Threatt]

It's a fun debate with a lot of different layers that need to be accounted for.

Regarding San Antonio's inability to defend their titles -- keep in mind that Bird's Celtics never repeated, either. Granted, we'd probably both agree that it was a much more competitive era. But I wouldn't consider that a major mark-down.

Especially when the player in question was the hands-down, no-questions-asked, best player of four different championship teams. That, to me, trumps the fact that the Spurs were unable to repeat. Especially when one of those runs, in 03, is on the short list of epic individual playoff performances -- 25/15/5 with 3 blocks per over 24 games, capped off by a near quadruple dub in the clincher for a team that was in transition.

So if we're factoring in individual achievements and accolades -- which we both agree are important parts of the discussion -- you're looking at a 4x champion, 3x Finals MVP, 2x MVP. I don't have the time to look that up, but you're looking at extremely select company. Jordan and...who else? I don't think anyone.

No question he was in an ideal situation to win. Great coach, great GM, great organization. But I defy anyone to argue that it didn't all start with Duncan. And I have to stress, even outside of the resume I just listed, my main admiration for Duncan is for what he actually did on the court. He had very, very few peers in that regard.

The same with Jordan. The championships seal his case for GOAT, but more importantly, it's what he was doing while he was winning all those rings. And the fact that, even when the Bulls were losing, he was going down in a blaze of glory. The guy was just phenomenal, across the board.

Thanks for the compliment, too!

[andrewww]

It's a fun debate with a lot of different layers that need to be accounted for.

Regarding San Antonio's inability to defend their titles -- keep in mind that Bird's Celtics never repeated, either. Granted, we'd probably both agree that it was a much more competitive era. But I wouldn't consider that a major mark-down.

Especially when the player in question was the hands-down, no-questions-asked, best player of four different championship teams. That, to me, trumps the fact that the Spurs were unable to repeat. Especially when one of those runs, in 03, is on the short list of epic individual playoff performances -- 25/15/5 with 3 blocks per over 24 games, capped off by a near quadruple dub in the clincher for a team that was in transition.

So if we're factoring in individual achievements and accolades -- which we both agree are important parts of the discussion -- you're looking at a 4x champion, 3x Finals MVP, 2x MVP. I don't have the time to look that up, but you're looking at extremely select company. Jordan and...who else? I don't think anyone.

No question he was in an ideal situation to win. Great coach, great GM, great organization. But I defy anyone to argue that it didn't all start with Duncan. And I have to stress, even outside of the resume I just listed, my main admiration for Duncan is for what he actually did on the court. He had very, very few peers in that regard.

The same with Jordan. The championships seal his case for GOAT, but more importantly, it's what he was doing while he was winning all those rings. And the fact that, even when the Bulls were losing, he was going down in a blaze of glory. The guy was just phenomenal, across the board.

Thanks for the compliment, too!

a bit late to the party, but while many points i agree with, i look at it like this too. duncan is a team player and as such he's sacrificed numbers for the better of the team, and this is something i put him in high regard for. Having said that, when he's had to carry the load so to speak, his efficiency dropped and it's not necessarily due to bail out shots that many wing players take nowadays. I've always thought that Duncan while drafted into a great situation, also made the most of his opportunity. But he was never the dominant player as percieved by some posters and that's the main reason why I put him in the same regard as the 2nd tier of the all time top 10 list (along w/ shaq, kobe, and hakeem).

[andrewww]

Let me start off by saying other than the Lakers, there is no other franchise I respect more than the San Antonio Spurs.

But I think one of the biggest problems some might have with Duncan's legacy is he never put together two in a row and never beat his biggest rival, the Lakers, at their best.

Instead the Spurs won in the lockout season and didn't win again until 4 years later, beating the Lakers who were going for four straight finals appearances...as we saw this year, that kind of run takes a toll, especially with essentially a two-man team.

It would be like if Kobe's only championship without Shaq was against Orlando...that would've tarnished his legacy. Whereas that Kobe got revenge against the Celtics, two in a row, third straight finals appearance, with the Western Conference as strong as ever...that's huge for his legacy.

I'm not really even trying to bash Duncan and it's not about Kobe.

I'm merely trying to point out how much competition should be key in this debate. It's why Bird and Magic will always be in discussion for top 10, because they went at it, leading two great teams, the greatest rivalry in NBA history, year after year. Together they elevated their legacies.

Meanwhile the Spurs' great rival is probably the Lakers...but it's the Lakers who have the edge there. They have to. The Spurs didn't even so much as repeat finals appearances once....Whereas the Lakers have been there 3 in a row twice.

One of the Spurs' championships was against arguably the weakest finals team of all time: The 2007 Cavs.

Maybe I'm alone here, to me, Duncan's championships have a sense of opportunism. That maybe unfair, but it's a perception.

id say that 2 of the spurs championship teams this decade (2003 and 2007) were among the weakest, and as such you can definitely use that against duncan because at their respective peaks, the lakers owned the spurs and that holds a lot of weight in my opinion (the spurs trump the lakers for consistency, but when the lakers were on point the spurs couldnt knock them off.

[magic1fan]

i don't see how not. he's the greatest winner of his generation. he is moving up the points list,and well as the playoff points list. he has a regular season mvp,two finals mvp's,he's a scoring champ. whether people agree or not he has the accolades af far as first team and defense. there is no good expalnation to really keep him out.