Who had more competitive drive and ''fire'', Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan?Originally Posted by Mythrol
 |
| . |
|
Who had more competitive drive and ''fire'', Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan?
Basketball.
This is such a bad rebuttal. It's not about emotion, screaming,etc it's about playing hard and right way all the time and being a dedicated leader of the pack
CAW CAW!!!
-Founder and valuable member of the Caw Caw Boyz-
It's not a rebuttal. It's a question. The way to tell is the question mark at the end.
I think we would both agree that Kobe had more fire than Tim. Only player that probably had more than Kobe was Jordan and I could see an argument made for Bird too. All three are probably top 5 in most fire in the belly ever.
Okay, but is Kobe a better player than Tim Duncan? Or rather, a more successful player?
Tim had the best coach of all time and an extremely well run if not the most well ran organization in the entire NBA. Along with some of the luckiest draft picks in NBA history.
I don't think you can judge success without factoring in everything.
Ask yourself this, if you could have either prime Kobe or prime Tim and had to build around one of them on the Pelicans with a clean roster, Who would you pick? Personally I pick Kobe.
Tim, no question. I think he is honestly better in almost every way. Much higher basketball IQ, much better defender (yes, I know Kobe was a good defender, but Tim is one of the all time greats there), had much more command over the pace of a game, better team player, happier to sacrifice, better mentor, etc etc. Kobe was a better scorer, and that's pretty much it, and even that only really works when you consider that Kobe TOOK way more shots than Duncan. Kobe averaged 19.5 FGAs per game. Tim Duncan's career high in FGAs per game was 18.3.
Yeah I think this is just an area we disagree. I REALLY like Tim, a lot. Mr. Fundamental. He was great and embodied everything a basketball player should be.
If I'm building a team from the ground up though, I want a player that can simply take over and has that killer instinct. I think Kobe has willed his teams to more wins than Tim ever has and that's what I want in a player.
In my view, Tim is the 4th best basketball player of all time. The only names I take ahead of him are MJ, Lebron, and Kareem. Kobe doesn't make my top ten. There's no universe where I'm starting a team and decide to pick Kobe over Tim, for exactly the reason you named: Tim embodied everything a basketball player should be. Kobe was a narcissist on the court. He was, often, an inefficient chucker. His reputation for selfish play is well deserved, and when watching Kobe play, I get the feeling that he would have rather scored 60 than got a win. Duncan would have been happy to go scoreless if it meant victory.
There's a reason that Kobe spent his years after Shaq wallowing in the dumps of the league while Tim never missed the playoffs. Sure, coaching plays a part, and sure team construction matters, but you also have to think how much that team construction required Tim as the centrepiece. Does Manu Ginobili become a HoF, multi-champion on the Denver Nuggets? Nope. Does Tony Parker become 4x champion and future HoF if he's drafted by Sacramento? Nope. It's all about Tim. He made everyone around him better, and I honestly think it's one of the biggest tragedies in NBA history that his legacy will forever have Pop looming over it, because I actually think the reverse of expectation is true. Coach Pop won so much because of Tim Duncan. Not the other way around.
Like is said. This is simply an area will disagree on. I have Tim in the top 10-15 all time. I have Kobe in the top 5-7 range.
What does your top 10 look like, for context?
Not in any specific order:
MJ
Lebron
Bird
Kareem
Shaq
Kobe
Wilt
Moses Malone
Magic
Bill Russell
Once typing it out I could see the argument for Duncan cracking the top 10 around 9 or 10. I could see replacing Moses Malone with him.
I mostly agree with your list. Stunned to see Malone and Russell in there though, to be honest.
For me, my top ten is as follows (top 5 ARE in order, but 6-10 aren't)
1) Lebron
2) MJ
3) Kareem
4) Duncan
5) Magic
6) Bird
7) Shaq
8) Wilt
9) Hakeem
10) David Robinson.
I am aware that ranking the Admiral and Hakeem over Kobe is a highly contentious choice. I stick by it.
I had Hakeem at 10 over Moses and swapped back and forth in my mind. I feel like Russell has to be in there. I'm less solid on Moses.
I agree it's extremely controversial to have Hakeem and David Robinson in over Kobe.
My reasoning for it was basically as follows.
Kobe scored more than Hakeem. Hakeem was a superior defender. They were both extremely skilful, especially with footwork, but I don't think it's debatable that Hakeem was the more efficient of the two. Hakeem was pretty much always the guy on his team: Kobe got 3 rings off the back of Shaquille O'Neal. Hakeem won 2 Finals MVPs, so did Kobe, but there's a strong argument that says Gasol should have won one of Kobe's, whereas that Hakeem deserved both of his is pretty much undisputed. Hakeem has 2 DPOY awards, Kobe has none.
With Robinson, it's even more controversial. Robinson has 2 rings as well, but both of those came at the end of his career with Duncan. But, Robinson also has a DPOY. I don't think comparing accumulated stats is fair here because Kobe was straight from high school whereas Robinson spent some time in the military so he didn't play his first game until age 24. But again, Robinson was more efficient, I would argue the better defender, and there is a degree to which it's just an eye-test thing as well. I think that in his prime, Robinson may have been the most dynamic big man to ever touch an NBA floor. I accept that there's some argument to be had there with characters like Wilt.
Kobe is, while an all time great (I have him 11th all time, which I think you'd agree is no small achievement) possibly the most overrated figure in NBA history. If you were to describe him as positively as possible, he'd be a furious competitor who accepted all responsibility, never shyed from a challenge, and who was a scoring machine while maintaining two way play. If you were to describe him as negatively as possible, he'd be a furious chucker who never won anything without another all time great doing the lion's share of the work, who spent huge chunks of his career languishing outside of the playoffs while actively hampering his teammate's progress.
I think the negative description of Kobe is extremely harsh. What did Shaq win before Kobe or without Wade? What did MJ win without Pippin? What did Robinson win without Duncan? What did Lebron win without Wade and Bosh or Love, Kyrie? What did Duncan win without Manu and Parker or later without Leonard?
You can play the same game with almost every single all time great player.
MJ
Magic
Dr. J.
Kobe
LeBron
Olajuwon
Bird
Wilt
Shaq
Well, remember I did say that that was describing him ''as negatively as possible''. The truth is probably somewhere between the negative and the possible descriptions.
I would add though that the fact MJ didn't win anything without Pippen and that the Bulls without MJ were still a 55 win team is part of why I have Lebron over MJ.
Shaq got to the finals without Kobe or Wade. Lebron got to the finals on the single worst finals team of all time in 2007, and then took (if it were possible) a worse team to the finals again last season. Duncan won his first ring without Manu, Parker, or Kawhi.
There's also the question of who the best player was on those teams. For example, sure, Lebron won with Kyrie and Love, but was there any question about who was the best player on that team? No, it was Lebron, unquestionably. Similarly, when Shaq and Kobe had the three-peat, which of them was the clear superior player? Obviously Shaq. Whereas Kobe has never been the undisputed best player on any of his championship teams: Shaq was better than him for the first three, and there's a real argument that puts Gasol as the more vital piece for his final two.
That's right Duncan won his first ring without Parker, Manu, and Leonard. He just happened to have another guy you listed as top 10 of all time.
Yeah, he did. David Robinson was 33 years old at that time, played only 49 games that year, and averaged less than 16 points a game. Robinson was still really good, no question about that, but he was obviously on the back end of his career and wasn't the same guy who was averaging 30/11/5 6 years earlier.
Also note that I put Robinson at 10th and Kobe at 11th, so I'm not talking about oceans apart here, yet when I listed Shaq at 7th, you didn't require a caveat because he had won 3 of his rings with the guy I have at 11th. Why?
I didn't require a caveat because I never made the argument that Shaq didn't have help. You said Duncan didn't have Manu, Parker, or Leonard for his 1st ring. He did however have the guy who was 10th on your list so he still did require someone else.
Edit: wait no I clicked on the wrong championship year for the Spurs.
Last edited by Mythrol; 04-07-2019 at 06:03 PM.
Yep, but as I said, who's the best player on the team? Duncan was obviously, unquestionably the better player of the two particularly at those points in their careers, whereas applying the same question to Kobe's teams only harms his argument because of Shaq being the obvious superior of the two and Gasol having such a strongargument for the latter two titles.
My point when saying that Duncan didn't have Manu, Ginobili, or Kawhi, for his first ring is just a direct response to your question ''What did Duncan win without Manu and Parker or later without Leonard?''.
The argument of who the best player on the team was, was never in question. The point is Duncan still had someone you listed as top 10 all time on the team when he won his first ring.
This is of course ignoring Pop completely.
My original and only point I was making was nearly every single person on either of our top 10 all time had to have help to win a ring so I don't find that argument against Kobe compelling in the least.
You can't seriously think that Kobe having Shaq averaging 35/15 in the finals is at all equivalent to someone like Duncan having 15.8 points per game from old man Robinson, right? Just, if we agree on nothing else, confirm that for me.
Edit: correction here. I just checked, Shaq actually averaged 38/17 in their first finals together. 33/16 in their second finals, 36/12 in the third.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 04-07-2019 at 06:21 PM.
C I R C U L A R !!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote