Tim Duncan vs Kobe Bryant [in terms of accomplishments]

ptown08 · Post #21 » by **ptown08** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:57 pm

I'd go Duncan by a hair if both retired today. As it stands, Kobe has a couple more solid years left to over take Tim which I think he will.

On a different note, it's an embarrassment to the league voters that Duncan and Kobe have equal amounts of First team All-Defense awards. That is seriously under rating Duncan's defensive ability. Best defensive player of the decade by far.

RealRip32 · Post #22 » by **RealRip32** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:58 pm

youngcrev wrote:Kobe might have him in terms of accomplishments if he wins another title. No matter what Kobe does the rest of his career (within reason) I think Duncan will be the greater player though. All his rings have come as the clear cut best player on his team, and he's one of the great defensive anchors of all time.

agreed.
comparing them i would say:who is the most skilled/talented?kobe
who i want to build around a championship team?Duncan in a heartbeat

DreamShakeFTW · Post #23 » by **DreamShakeFTW** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 12:46 am

LALegend wrote:
DreamShakeFTW wrote:Duncan.

He was the best player on every championship team he was on.

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that Tony Parker won Finals MVP in 07. I don't get how people can be so blind to this fact. When its Kobe, the argument is..."OH he had Shaq, he didn't really win anything." Without Kobe, does anyone really think those championships even happen?

The Spurs have been contenders every year that Duncan has been in the league. No matter who else was on the team.

Kobe whined and bitched and pouted like a baby because he couldn't do it by himself until they traded for Pau.

Speaking of 'people ignoring facts'...

Volcano · Post #24 » by **Volcano** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 12:50 am

crnulus wrote:Kobe had 2 Scoring titles, and was also one of the best defensive players in the past decade.

False..maybe a top defender in the earlier decade, but no where near there for the past 5 years.

You also forgot his Olympic gold medal, unless you're talking about NBA accomplishments only.

Got Rings · Post #25 » by **Got Rings** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 12:59 am

Yes, he's been the man of all 4 Championships, which is exactly why they gave it (Finals MVP) to Tony Parker in 07.

Jimmy Recard · Post #26 » by **Jimmy Recard** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:06 am

TImmy.

RealRip32 · Post #27 » by **RealRip32** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:17 am

DreamShakeFTW wrote:
The Spurs have been contenders every year that Duncan has been in the league. No matter who else was on the team.

Kobe whined and bitched and pouted like a baby because he couldn't do it by himself until they traded for Pau.

Speaking of 'people ignoring facts'...

i agree that duncan is the overall better player so far,but people always overreact on Kobe.
2005-2008 Lakers were worse than all the teams duncan had in his career

dhh2h · Post #28 » by **dhh2h** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:18 am

DreamShakeFTW wrote:
LALegend wrote:
DreamShakeFTW wrote:Duncan.

He was the best player on every championship team he was on.

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that Tony Parker won Finals MVP in 07. I don't get how people can be so blind to this fact. When its Kobe, the argument is..."OH he had Shaq, he didn't really win anything." Without Kobe, does anyone really think those championships even happen?

The Spurs have been contenders every year that Duncan has been in the league. No matter who else was on the team.

Kobe whined and bitched and pouted like a baby because he couldn't do it by himself until they traded for Pau.

Speaking of 'people ignoring facts'...

Duncan always had either David Robinson, Tony Parker or Manu Ginobli... Give that to Kobe before Pau and i'm sure he wouldn't be whining.

DreamShakeFTW · Post #29 » by **DreamShakeFTW** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:31 am

Well, people in the David Robinson thread said he was just a role player when the Spurs won the two championships he was involved in. So which is it?

Like I said in that thread, people twist their opinions around to fit what would be best for their current argument for their favorite player. Now that it's Duncan vs. Kobe, it's 'OMG! Duncan had Robinson! He was the Best EVAR! Kobe had no help at all!!!'

When it's a thread about Robinson and his championships are brought up, it's 'Duncan won those! Robinson was a role player on those teams. They shouldn't count.'

So which is it?

RealRip32 · Post #30 » by **RealRip32** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:37 am

DreamShakeFTW wrote:Well, people in the David Robinson thread said he was just a role player when the Spurs won the two championships he was involved in. So which is it?

Like I said in that thread, people twist their opinions around to fit what would be best for their current argument for their favorite player. Now that it's Duncan vs. Kobe, it's 'OMG! Duncan had Robinson! He was the Best EVAR! Kobe had no help at all!!!'

When it's a thread about Robinson and his championships are brought up, it's 'Duncan won those! Robinson was a role player on those teams. They shouldn't count.'

So which is it?

none of the above.
Robinson was a role player in 2003,but sure as hell he wasn't in 1999.
2003 spurs supporting cast was pretty weak for a championship team,and that shows how good duncan was at the time,but still clearly better than those lakers.

LALegend · Post #31 » by **LALegend** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:41 am

DreamShakeFTW wrote:Well, people in the David Robinson thread said he was just a role player when the Spurs won the two championships he was involved in. So which is it?

Like I said in that thread, people twist their opinions around to fit what would be best for their current argument for their favorite player. Now that it's Duncan vs. Kobe, it's 'OMG! Duncan had Robinson! He was the Best EVAR! Kobe had no help at all!!!'

When it's a thread about Robinson and his championships are brought up, it's 'Duncan won those! Robinson was a role player on those teams. They shouldn't count.'

So which is it?

I have never seen anyone say that David Robinson is a role player. Please quote someone saying that...I'm sure we're all anxious to see. People are going to be trolls and change the facts. But the truth is...D Rob was one of the best centers of all time.

I was simply refuting what you said about Duncan being the best player on all the championship teams. If this were the case, he would have won Finals MVP instead of Parker. Let's also not forget that he shot 6-17 and 4-15 in the last two games of the Finals (since this always seems to be a popular argument against Kobe).

Post #32 » by **mopper8** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:44 am

Its definitely Timmy in terms of accomplishments. Kobe might be able to pass him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. Still, they're close over all, with a clear edge to Duncan. The all-NBA/all-D selections still favor Duncan, he's got an extra MVP, I find his 4 titles actually more impressive than Kobe's 5 because of their respective roles on those teams. As for the notion that because Tony Parker won Finals MVP somehow Duncan was the 2nd option, please, whoever thinks that is only kidding themselves...that years Duncan was 4th in MVP voting, with 286 points, and Tony Parker was tied for 15th in MVP with...1 point. That's 1 5th place vote.

Let's be real here. That season, Duncan played more games, more minutes/game, scored more points and overall had better numbers (and a higher PER), more WS and WS/48...its not even a question. Heck, you could argue that Parker wasn't even the 2nd best player on that team...Manu had a great great season that year IMO, very efficient.

Post #33 » by **mopper8** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 1:58 am

LALegend wrote:I was simply refuting what you said about Duncan being the best player on all the championship teams. If this were the case, he would have won Finals MVP instead of Parker.

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. In 80-81, Larry Bird averaged 21.2 ppg, 10.9 rbg, 5.5 apg, 2.0 spg, and was 2nd in MVP voting. Cedric Maxwell averaged 15 and 6 (3rd on the team in scoring behind Bird and Parish) and the Celts won 62 games. In a year when 30 players got MVP votes, Maxwell got...none.

But when Boston won the Finals, Maxwell was named Finals MVP. Are we to believe that he, not Bird, was the first option on that team as a result? :-?

LALegend · Post #34 » by **LALegend** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 2:36 am

mopper8 wrote:
LALegend wrote:I was simply refuting what you said about Duncan being the best player on all the championship teams. If this were the case, he would have won Finals MVP instead of Parker.

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. In 80-81, Larry Bird averaged 21.2 ppg, 10.9 rbg, 5.5 apg, 2.0 spg, and was 2nd in MVP voting. Cedric Maxwell averaged 15 and 6 (3rd on the team in scoring behind Bird and Parish) and the Celts won 62 games. In a year when 30 players got MVP votes, Maxwell got...none.

But when Boston won the Finals, Maxwell was named Finals MVP. Are we to believe that he, not Bird, was the first option on that team as a result?

Exactly. I'm glad my point was made. Then why do people downplay Kobe's role on the 00-02 championship teams? Yes, Shaq was clearly the first option, but without Kobe, those titles don't even happen. It's not like Shaq carried a team full of scrubs to a 3peat. He had arguably the second best player on his team.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you can't have it both ways. You can't knock Kobe because he didn't win Finals MVP a few times and then not knock Duncan for the same thing.

chefy · Post #35 » by **chefy** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 2:55 am

give me 5 rings

I still don't get why people discredit kobe for his first 3 championships. that's like saying kobe can not win a chip by himself/without shaq.

bigrussia · Post #36 » by **bigrussia** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 3:14 am

because the question is who brings you closer to the most championships w/ equal teammates. and the correct answer is duncan, for all the reasons already stated in this topic (leadership, ridiculous defense, elevates teammates, great production etc.)

another way to look at it is a team of kobe w/ 4 average players is worse than a team of duncan and w/ 4 average players. as for accomplishments, more subjective at seeing what's worth more (as kobe has nearly as good all-nba defense selections, but it's very clear who is a much better defender)

The MVPlaya · Post #37 » by **The MVPlaya** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 3:21 am

Duncan has never won multiple championships. Kobe's done it...twice. 7 finals appearances vs 4. 5 to 4 on Championships. Just those three facts alone put Kobe in a very very very elite list that doesn't include Duncan.

Kobe has a slight advantage, all things considered.

bigrussia · Post #38 » by **bigrussia** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 3:25 am

The MVPlaya wrote:Duncan has never won multiple championships. Kobe's done it...twice. 7 finals appearances vs 4. 5 to 4 on Championships. Just those three facts alone put Kobe in a very very very elite list that doesn't include Duncan.

Kobe has a slight advantage, all things considered.

championships are team accomplishments

The MVPlaya · Post #39 » by **The MVPlaya** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 3:28 am

bigrussia wrote:
The MVPlaya wrote:Duncan has never won multiple championships. Kobe's done it...twice. 7 finals appearances vs 4. 5 to 4 on Championships. Just those three facts alone put Kobe in a very very very elite list that doesn't include Duncan.

Kobe has a slight advantage, all things considered.

championships are team accomplishments

Not by this thread's definition.

RunMCR · Post #40 » by **RunMCR** » Wed Sep 1, 2010 3:39 am

bigrussia wrote:
The MVPlaya wrote:Duncan has never won multiple championships. Kobe's done it...twice. 7 finals appearances vs 4. 5 to 4 on Championships. Just those three facts alone put Kobe in a very very very elite list that doesn't include Duncan.

Kobe has a slight advantage, all things considered.

championships are team accomplishments

is that why most people in this thread said that duncan won more rings by their logic? :lol: