Skip and Shannon list their all time top 10

[Swagnificent]

Duncan’s ahead of Kobe. Think age of people plays a part, as they might not clearly remember 99-03 Duncan. Him and Shaq were top two during that time.

Maybe in the media. But I actually remember vividly being a kid debating with my friends at that time in middle/high school about who was the best player in the NBA. I actually said Duncan cause I used to just regurgitate what the media said back then thinking they knew better. But all my friends said Kobe (to my surprise).

To most kids growing up at that time Kobe was more highly thought of than Duncan and was looked at as the best player in the league by 2001.

But then again we were a bunch of young black kids between the ages of 13-15. I'm guessing you'll say our opinions didn't count.

 

[Reign X]

Maybe in the media. But I actually remember vividly being a kid debating with my friends at that time in middle/high school about who was the best player in the NBA. I actually said Duncan cause I used to just regurgitate what the media said back then thinking they knew better. But all my friends said Kobe (to my surprise).

To most kids growing up at that time Kobe was more highly thought of than Duncan and was looked at as the best player in the league by 2001.

But then again we were a bunch of young black kids between the ages of 13-15. I'm guessing you'll say our opinions didn't count.

Most 13-15 year olds are gonna go for flash over substance. Kobe flat out was not the best player in the league by 2001. If you give him Spurs 2003 roster, do they win championship? Hell no. In playoffs Duncan led any teammate by 10 ppg, 9 boards, 2 assists, 2 blocks. Pretty much a goat level playoff run, with no Shaq to help draw coverage.

 

[MJ Truth]

I can see why folks won’t put Shaq in the top ten but why not Duncan?

I've never understood the argument for having Duncan ahead of Shaq, unless it's gonna strictly be more titles >>>> always.

 

[MJ Truth]

Maybe in the media. But I actually remember vividly being a kid debating with my friends at that time in middle/high school about who was the best player in the NBA. I actually said Duncan cause I used to just regurgitate what the media said back then thinking they knew better. But all my friends said Kobe (to my surprise).

To most kids growing up at that time Kobe was more highly thought of than Duncan and was looked at as the best player in the league by 2001.

But then again we were a bunch of young black kids between the ages of 13-15. I'm guessing you'll say our opinions didn't count.

You ask kids today who the best player is and they might say LaMelo Ball. Your opinions DON'T count lol. Would you take the opinion of a 13-year-old with no perspective seriously today?

Even though, to be fair, judging by most of your posts, you've shown that you probably haven't gained that much wisdom since age 13 anyway, so maybe it's not that big of a deal.

 

[staticshock]

I've never understood the argument for having Duncan ahead of Shaq, unless it's gonna strictly be more titles >>>> always.

Duncan was more of a complete player than Shaq in my opinion..but Shaq probably had a better prime/mvp season. Shaq was probably the most dominant player in nba history during the Lakers 3 peat but Duncan was better overall for their careers. Can’t go wrong with either one though.

 

[10bandz]

nikka typed a whole essay about how you ca t anchor a defense around Kobe when Kobe was 1sr team defense a million times and locked up other perimeter stars his whole career And mentioned Odom like he was a star player

 

[10bandz]

Where do you personally rank Kobe, bro?

SI's 50 greatest players in NBA history

Michael Jordan. LeBron James. Stephen Curry. Who else? On the 20–year anniversary of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA history, SI.com's Jack McCallum revises his list.

www.si.com

All-Time #NBArank: The greatest players ever

We're counting down the greatest players in NBA history.

es.pn

Bleacher Report's All-Time Player Rankings: NBA's Top 50 Revealed

A total of 4,374 players have appeared in at least one NBA game. How can anyone whittle that number down to the top 50? Attempting to create that list is an excruciating endeavor...

syndication.bleacherreport.com

CBS Sports' 50 greatest NBA players of all time: Where do LeBron, Curry rank?

Twenty years after the NBA celebrated its original 50 greatest, we're updating things a bit

www.cbssports.com

🐐 SLAM's Top 100 Players Of All-Time: Michael Jordan, No. 1 🐐

Fueled by doubters, MJ went on to win six championships, six Finals MVPs, five regular season MVPs, and 10 scoring titles.

www.slamonline.com

These are 5 respected and reputable sports rags, just to give examples. Pre-death, the outlier was SLAM having Kobe at #5, the other four ranked him between 10 and 14 with an average ranking of 12; all five entities combined give him an average ranking of 10.6...

The complete turnabout on Kobe as a Top 10 lock, much less debatable Top 5, is attributable to the emotions The Culture collectively has for him that rushed out once he passed...

The spillover effect is that in the short term, for at least a half-decade following his death, his career and his work will be inflated to heights he wasn't at while alive. In life, aside from 20% outliers like SLAM and individuals who mainly were Kobe Stans, Kobe's place as a Top 10 GOAT was hotly contested---->he was not in any way viewed as a locked in GOAT 10 guy...

But he obviously had the resume and work on the board that having him in the discussion was more than fair; honestly the pre-death consensus on Kobe was parallel to where Steph is actively right now: debatable Top 10 so if he sneaks into someone's back end GOAT 10 it isn't really anything to get riled about, certainly GOAT 15, and there are 20% outliers (shout out to @Ohene ) who rank him as Top 5 as is...

That is EXACTLY where Kobe was at before he passed...

This board is overrun with Kobe heads, so of course the majority opinion on here wont mirror the consensus within The Culture. I'm saying all this to say, if Kobe was alive, given that he already debatably wasn't a GOAT 10 player, its entirely feasible he'd gradually shift further from GOAT 10 discourse...

Since his death 29 months ago he's risen from a borderline Top 10 guy to a Top 10 lock and many more people arguing for him as Top 5, though nothing on the floor has happened to actually warrant this huge leap in perception. It is what is. The further we are removed from his passing, we'll gradually shift back to where his placement makes sense...

For the record I have him in the 8-10 range, i dont think there is any strong argument for him higher than the 8th greatest player ever and certainly not Top 5; I also think any ranking below 12 is too low but it's not wild to me if someone says Kobe isn't in their Top 10----->that was a majority opinion before he died...



Most Bron heads don't factor in Kobe with how they view Bron. They grade them separately unless directly compared. If I'm evaluating Kobe's historical place it's based on him and where he fits amongst ALL the historical titans; Kobe heads made up this propaganda that if someone has an opinion on Kobe it has to correlate with how they view LeBron, and that just ain't the wave...

fakkit wrote a whole essay claiming Kobe’s death raised his status when real heads been ranking Kobe high the whole time. Literally tons of evidence of Kobe’s peers ranking him too 5-10 even top 3 since well before he died,but all he has are cac media lists.

LeGBT been weaponzing Kobe’s death since it happened to muddy the narrative of Kobe’s true standing. Y’all keep entertaining these cornballs though

 

[VBM]

I've never understood the argument for having Duncan ahead of Shaq, unless it's gonna strictly be more titles >>>> always.

Duncan's viewed as the better defender, had more titles/MVPs, equal finals MVPs. Shaq fell off more harshly as well. Shaq's titles also came with Kobe and Wade, both much better Robins (although Wade was Batman in Miami during their title year) than Duncan ever had. All his titles came with Phil or Riley as coach, while Duncan turned an unknown into a GOAT-level coach.

It doesn't help Shaq that his accomplishments get downplayed to boost Kobe and vice versa. They hurt each other's cases when it comes to rankings.

 

[murksiderock]

I've never understood the argument for having Duncan ahead of Shaq, unless it's gonna strictly be more titles >>>> always.

Duncan was a greater floor-raiser, a greater defensive player, and was the best player on more championship rosters, but probably the most damning thing against Shaq is that during a peak that was higher than Duncan's respective peak, Shaq had a better team around him and didn't dominate Duncan head to head...

For me, someone with the purported degree of dominance of Shaq was supposed to have some separation between he and Timmy when they played, and it just wasn't there. Duncan and Shaq peaked simultaneously and Duncan still won more MVPs during their peaks, which I think is a direct reflection of the work Duncan was doing with his roster around him, vs Shaq with his...

Duncan had a greater burden of responsibility...

This idea of Shaq as the most dominant player ever doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Kareem won 5 MVPs in 7 years, and 6 in 10, there is no question of his dominance. Wilt and Bird won 3 MVPs in a row. Russell won 5 MVPs in 8 years and 3 in a row; Magic won 3 in 4 years; Mike won 3 in 5 and 5 overall; Bron won 4 in 5; Steph went b2b and was the first unanimous MVP; Giannis went b2b...

These guys who completely imposed their will on the sport all have more than one MVP. Shaq only having one juxtaposed next to a competitor having more at the exact same era reveals some of the myth surrounding him as the most dominant player ever...

There's too many legacy points in Duncan's favor here. Granted, I don't think calling Shaq greater than Duncan is outta bounds, because he did peak higher and dominate to a higher degree. It's splitting hairs and I myself have switched the order I have Shaq, Duncan, Kobe many times, there is marginal separation between the three but I think overall Duncan was more impressive, it's not like these guys have him beat in MVPs or #1 championship runs (or even total ring count), or dominated him h2h...

nikka typed a whole essay about how you ca t anchor a defense around Kobe when Kobe was 1sr team defense a million times and locked up other perimeter stars his whole career And mentioned Odom like he was a star player

fakkit wrote a whole essay claiming Kobe’s death raised his status when real heads been ranking Kobe high the whole time. Literally tons of evidence of Kobe’s peers ranking him too 5-10 even top 3 since well before he died,but all he has are cac media lists.

LeGBT been weaponzing Kobe’s death since it happened to muddy the narrative of Kobe’s true standing. Y’all keep entertaining these cornballs though

I also mentioned Manu and Parker, I guess I'm calling them stars, too? Was the combo of Manu and Parker during Peak Duncan demonstrably greater support than Pau and Odom during Peak Kobe?

Stop bytching, nikka ️ . There wouldn't be such wild variance about Kobe if it was clear where he belonged, but we already established you've never left (as in, lived outside) suburban LA, your frame of reference for this conversation is minimal...

 

[Swagnificent]

Most 13-15 year olds are gonna go for flash over substance. Kobe flat out was not the best player in the league by 2001. If you give him Spurs 2003 roster, do they win championship? Hell no. In playoffs Duncan led any teammate by 10 ppg, 9 boards, 2 assists, 2 blocks. Pretty much a goat level playoff run, with no Shaq to help draw coverage.

Shaq himself was saying Kobe was the best player in the game in 2001. I remember the media was saying the Lakers couldn't be beat because they had the two best players in the game not just the best duo. There were many people that had it as Shaq then Kobe then Duncan.

With regard to whether Kobe could have led the 2003 Spurs to a title? Maybe not. That team was built around a big like Duncan. Kobe's a guard. He would have needed a different type of supporting cast. But if your question is could Kobe have won a title with a team similar in talent to that then my answer is a resounding yes. He won with a similar talent in 2009 and 2010. The 2003 Spurs were talented. They had Tony Parker, Manu, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Steve Smith. I know your counter will be Tony and Manu were young and David Robinson and Steve Smith were old. True. If all those guys were in their primes it would have been the most talented roster in NBA history. Nonetheless, they were all still talented enough to amount to a pretty talented roster. All-time greats can contribute to winning before and after their primes.

Kobe in 2009 and 2010 won with arguably LESS talent than Duncan in 2003.

 

[Swagnificent]

You ask kids today who the best player is and they might say LaMelo Ball. Your opinions DON'T count lol. Would you take the opinion of a 13-year-old with no perspective seriously today?

Even though, to be fair, judging by most of your posts, you've shown that you probably haven't gained that much wisdom since age 13 anyway, so maybe it's not that big of a deal.

He mentioned 99-03 and said folks might not remember that time and how folks ranked players. I said I remembered and recounted my experience. Excuse me for having been a child then. All I can go on are my experiences. If you were older and remember older folks looked at the game back then by all means go ahead and tell me.

 

[GreatestLaker]

Shaq himself was saying Kobe was the best player in the game in 2001. I remember the media was saying the Lakers couldn't be beat because they had the two best players in the game not just the best duo. There were many people that had it as Shaq then Kobe then Duncan.

With regard to whether Kobe could have led the 2003 Spurs to a title? Maybe not. That team was built around a big like Duncan. Kobe's a guard. He would have needed a different type of supporting cast. But if your question is could Kobe have won a title with a team similar in talent to that then my answer is a resounding yes. He won with a similar talent in 2009 and 2010. The 2003 Spurs were talented. They had Tony Parker, Manu, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, and Steve Smith. I know your counter will be Tony and Manu were young and David Robinson and Steve Smith were old. True. If all those guys were in their primes it would have been the most talented roster in NBA history. Nonetheless, they were all still talented enough to amount to a pretty talented roster. All-time greats can contribute to winning before and after their primes.

Kobe in 2009 and 2010 won with arguably LESS talent than Duncan in 2003.

No just no. Odom would have been easily the second best player on that Spurs team. 03 Spurs won the title that year due to injuries. Webber had a career ending injury and Dirk severely sprained his ankle. Both of those teams would have beaten them.

 

[No1]

Most 13-15 year olds are gonna go for flash over substance. Kobe flat out was not the best player in the league by 2001. If you give him Spurs 2003 roster, do they win championship? Hell no. In playoffs Duncan led any teammate by 10 ppg, 9 boards, 2 assists, 2 blocks. Pretty much a goat level playoff run, with no Shaq to help draw coverage.

I don’t think Kobe was the best by 01 (Shaq). But how you go from 01 to 03 and comparing rosters doesn’t make sense because you would never assemble that same team around Kobe. A better comparison would be asking if I think Kobe could take the 01 Sixers roster to the finals and yeah I do.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

nikka typed a whole essay about how you ca t anchor a defense around Kobe when Kobe was 1sr team defense a million times and locked up other perimeter stars his whole career And mentioned Odom like he was a star player

Kobe’s All-Defensive selections were largely down to reputation (and the voting panel not doing their due diligence), and not a reflection of him being able to lock up players his entire career, because he didn’t. And no, there was never really a time where the Lakers anchored their defense around his efforts either.

 

[Swagnificent]

No just no. Odom would have been easily the second best player on that Spurs team. 03 Spurs won the title that year due to injuries. Webber had a career ending injury and Dirk severely sprained his ankle. Both of those teams would have beaten them.

Lamar Odom was not better than Tony Parker even then GTFOH. I remember that version of Tony being impossible for even Kobe to guard on the perimeter. And Kobe is one of the greatest perimeter defenders ever especially when it comes to lateral quickness. Tony Parker's ability to penetrate was a cheat code for those Spurs teams.