Kobe vs Duncan debate

He's better.

And he was always the best player on championship teams, unlike Ballhogbe.

 

As he's aged he's learned to defer to other players.

 

3 Final MVPs to 2.

 

And he actually deserved them

 

so this has become lakersground forum now. I took a peak at those jokers and see the same copycat threads over here. smh

 

1. More MVP's
2. More FMVP's
3. Greater defensive impact (by virtue of being the defensive anchor)
4. More efficient than Kobe
5. Played better in the playoffs than in the regular season (Kobe played worse in the playoffs)
6. Better teammate (no feuds, willing to take a paycut to keep a competitive team, willing to defer)
7. Led the star-less 2003 Spurs to a title
8. Has never had the luxury of being the 2nd best player on his team whereas most of Kobe's titles came while he was the #2 option.

 

Never missed the playoffs. Never played on a team that failed to win 50 games (outside of the the lockout-shortened 98-99 season, when the Spurs finished 37-13, swept the Shaq & Kobe Lakers out of the Conference Semis, and won the title).

 

You forgot 9 All-Defensive First Teams > 8 All-Defensive First Teams.

 

(That 1st round sweep over 3 Hall of Famer LA still stinging?) I think everyone even LA considers the entire 2013 season a collective choke.

And '09 Lakers, 2 All Stars 1 past All Star going down with injuries in Yao Ming and Dikembe Mutombo, not to mention Tracy McGrady out before that, from being upset by a Chuck Hayes Shane Battier led Rockets team.

Though it could go either way really.

 

So what generation exactly are we talking about, or else why wouldn't KG be in the debate? Are we talking drafted in the 90's? Drafted after 95?

 

-Phil Jackson says so, you first build around big player (size).
-Duncan isn't a team killer, Shaq got shipped elsewhere with Kobe.
-Ever since rookie year, Spurs have finished 1st, or 2nd.
-Duncan's has only 1 coach Popovich, Rudy Tomjanovich used to coach Kobe and many more he probaly fired, or in-hand letting them go.
-Duncan's championship is for San Antonio, Kobe championship is for Lakers and #8.

 

Is this actually a debate?

 

Because Duncan is and was the better player. Ok next question.

 

Yeah but if you look at 1st and 2nd team All-Defense it's Duncan 14 > Kobe 12

 

For Duncan I also had the following advantages:
1. Rookie of the Year (Kobe was 2nd team all-rookie)
2. Wake Forest. I take this comparison as total basketball career (not just NBA) and Duncan excelled for 4 years at Wake Forest, including winning player of the year, although it's a small part of the big debate, I think it shouldn't be ignored.


Kobe's other advantages:
1. Besides scoring and an extra title, Kobe's biggest advantage over Duncan is Olympic basketball play. Kobe has two golds while Duncan was only on the team for the Bronze medal run.

 

Squeaky clean record, aside from the Joey Crawford picture.

The Joey Crawford picture.


This is pretty much a debate about super underrated and super overrated.

I feel neutral, I hate both the lakers and spurs, and I think it's obvious Duncan is wayyyyyyyyy better than shot happy mamba.

 

They're both really good. What does it matter which is better? If there is even such a thing.

 

Duncan isn't a huge D-bag.