N/P: Duncan vs. Kobe

[Mythrol]

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.

Where did I say it was equivalent?

It doesn't erase the fact that Duncan still needed Robinson to win. The guy was still averaging a double double and that was on top of his outstanding defense.

You have Robinson ahead of Kobe yet the only rings he won was when he was paired up with a guy you have ranked as the 4th all time. So either Robinson was valuable during those championship runs and deserving of his 10th all time ranking or he wasn't. You can't say he is better than Kobe and then turn around and minimize him to prop up Duncan.

[Pelicanidae]

Where did I say it was equivalent?

It doesn't erase the fact that Duncan still needed Robinson to win. The guy was still averaging a double double and that was on top of his outstanding defense.

You have Robinson ahead of Kobe yet the only rings he won was when he was paired up with a guy you have ranked as the 4th all time. So either Robinson was valuable during those championship runs and deserving of his 10th all time ranking or he wasn't. You can't say he is better than Kobe and then turn around and minimize him to prop up Duncan.

I'm going to try and lay it out as clearly as possible.

Neither Robinson, NOR Kobe was ever the best player on a championship team. As a result, I don't think the fact that Kobe has more rings than Robinson is particularly important, because the 3 extra he has were gifted to him by Shaq doing his best Incredible Hulk impersonation.

As a result of that, you have to compare them as individual players. When doing that, you essentially have a handful of different qualities to compare them on.

Longevity: Obviously Kobe wins that. He was good until his ankle exploded, whereas Robinson started later and declined earlier.
Scoring: Kobe wins, I think clearly.
Rebounding: Obviously Robinson wins
Playmaking: Kobe was sub-par for a guard, Robinson was exemplary for a big man. Judge that how you want.
Defense: Obviously Robinson wins, no question.
Efficiency: Obviously Robinson wins.
Leadership: Some debate, but I think Robinson wins. Kobe was a toxic teammate who, I think even his biggest supporters generally agree, was a narcissist on the court.

I have Robinson there winning 5 of 7 categories.

Edit: like I said, the difference between 10th and 11th place is not ocean-sized, here.

[Mythrol]

I'm going to try and lay it out as clearly as possible.

Neither Robinson, NOR Kobe was ever the best player on a championship team.

I disagree with this premise and so I find the rest of your post irrelevant. Kobe was the clear best player on the team he won his rings with after Shaq.

For example, your argument against David Robinson being help to Duncan during his 1st ring was that Robinson only put up 16 points and 10 rebounds.

During the 08-09 playoffs that the Lakers won Kobe put up 30-5-5. Gasol put up 18-10, barely better than Robinson whom you said was old and implied didn't add much to that team.

During the 09-10 playoffs Kobe put up 29-6-5. Gasol put 19.6-11-3.

Even if we agreed that there was a push on the 09-10 playoffs for who was the best player was on the Lakers, I simply cannot see any argument that could be made for Kobe not being the best player on the 08-09 Lakers.

[Pelicanidae]

During the 09-10 playoffs Kobe put up 29-6-5. Gasol put 19.6-11-3.

Even if we agreed that there was a push on the 09-10 playoffs for who was the best player was on the Lakers, I simply cannot see any argument that could be made for Kobe not being the best player on the 08-09 Lakers.

In the 08-09 finals, Kobe shot 43% from the floor and took one hundred and thirty five shots, for an average of 27 shots per game. That's ludicrous. 70 more total points than Gasol, on literally 70+ more shots. Gasol shot 60%.

Kobe, 52.5% TS, .463 EFG, 37.5% usage, +1 net rating.
Gasol, 64.7% TS, .600 EFG, 17.5% usage, +33 net rating.

08-09 is Kobe's STRONGEST possible argument for being the best player on a championship team, and you can argue it until you're blue in the face but the fact remains that even that year, his SINGLE STRONGEST year in the finals, it's still debatable. Rewatch that series if you haven't recently, Gasol was doing all the grunt-work. He was the heart and soul of both of those Lakers teams, and while I don't think that it's absurd to say Kobe was better, it's hardly a clear thing.

Edit: that said, even if I conceded the point and said that Kobe was the best player on a single championship team, Robinson still has a DPOY over him. And even if you don't value the DPOY, then congrats. Kobe is the 10th best player, not the 11th.

[Mythrol]

I don't care where you rank Kobe. That wasn't my point.

Again, my only point has been that nearly every player on the top 10 all time list needed help to win a ring. That includes Duncan AND Kobe. So any arguments for dropping Kobe lower because he needed help is not compelling at all to me.

You'd have to drop basically everyone because of that.

[Pelicanidae]

I don't care where you rank Kobe. That wasn't my point.

Again, my only point has been that nearly every player on the top 10 all time list needed help to win a ring. That includes Duncan AND Kobe. So any arguments for dropping Kobe lower because he needed help is not compelling at all to me.

You'd have to drop basically everyone because of that.

I never said that none of them needed help At no point did I say that, at all. I agree that every great player who has ended up winning, has had at least SOME help. I argued that the quality of help matters, and that when when you get up into players all have sparkling resumes and you're attempting to sort between them, then it's important that they have been the best player on their team to get the full points.

Essentially it boils down to this: did you get help, or were you the help? Duncan got help from Ginobili and Parker. Kobe was help for Shaq.

[Mythrol]

I never said that none of them needed help At no point did I say that, at all. I agree that every great player who has ended up winning, has had at least SOME help. I argued that the quality of help matters, and that when when you get up into players all have sparkling resumes and you're attempting to sort between them, then it's important that they have been the best player on their team to get the full points.

Essentially it boils down to this: did you get help, or were you the help? Duncan got help from Ginobili and Parker. Kobe was help for Shaq.

You are being very disengenious by not admitting that Kobe was the one that got help for at least 2 of his rings. Gasol was not the main guy on either of those Laker Championship teams. He was what Green is for the Warriors. Essential. But not better than Curry.

But again, this is why we won't see eye to eye on this. You see Kobe as the help, and nearly everyone else in the world sees him as the man. So I go back to what I said originally which is, we just disagree on this topic.

[Mythrol]

There's something else I thought was really interesting while looking up about Duncan and Robinson.

Guess who was on their 02-03 championship team? None other than our very own Danny Ferry. Crazy how connected things are.

[Pelicanidae]

There's something else I thought was really interesting while looking up about Duncan and Robinson.

Guess who was on their 02-03 championship team? None other than our very own Danny Ferry. Crazy how connected things are.

Small world, especially in the NBA. The random video guys ending up as executives are rare: it's usually players, or people who spent a long time working for someone else. A more cynical man than I might call it nepotism.