Skip and Shannon list their all time top 10

[Swagnificent]

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.

NBA coaches voted for all-defensive teams back then. So you're saying you know better than guys who were paid to watch tape and prepare their teams for Kobe?

And for the sake of argument, let's say what you said is true. Then is Kobe the only all-time great to get All-defensive nods due to reputation? Did Jordan or LeBron not get the same reputation nods? If not does that mean the respect for Kobe by NBA coaches superceded that of every other star in NBA history to the point he's the only one who kept getting undeserved all-defense selections?

Either track you take leads to the same conclusion.

 

[GreatestLaker]

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.

A 20 year old Tony Parker wasn't better than LO in 09 and 10. If anything they were on the same level. The 03 Spurs definitely didn't have any players on the level of a Pau Gasol.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

NBA coaches voted for all-defensive teams back then. So you're saying you know better than guys who were paid to watch tape and prepare their teams for Kobe?

NBA coaches don’t have time to watch every game of every team during a season. It’s one of the reasons why those responsibilities were removed from them in the first place. By the time the voting process comes around, coaches are either too focused on preparing for the playoffs, and/or they’re too mentally drained to put any real thought into some meaningless shyt that has absolutely nothing to do with their team.

And please, do NOT start this shyt about me thinking I know more than the coaches when they’d laugh you out of the room for 99% of your opinions on the game.

And for the sake of argument, let's say what you said is true. Then is Kobe the only all-time great to get All-defensive nods due to reputation? Did Jordan or LeBron not get the same reputation nods? If not does that mean the respect for Kobe by NBA coaches superceded that of every other star in NBA history to the point he's the only one who kept getting undeserved all-defense selections?

Either track you take leads to the same conclusion.

There’s no for the sake of the argument, because what I’m saying is true.

Kobe is not the only one who’s received undeserved All-Defensive selections, but he’s certainly one of the players that stands out the most given his actual defensive performances don’t even remotely measure up with how many selections he received (especially given the fact it was by design he conserved the majority of his energy for the other end of the floor during those years). And you can stop pretending like you’re the voice of reason here - we aren’t going to play those games.

 

[Reign X]

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.

I talked about Duncan from 99-03, was just continuing from there. What’s your opinion on Duncan or Kobe from 01-03?

In 2003, elimination game against lakers in la. Duncan put up 37/16 and Kobe had 20/6 with 7 turnovers.

 

[Reign X]

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.

Arguably less talent? Hahaha. Kobe had better teams in 2009 and 2010 then Duncan did in 2003, that’s not even debatable. This alone shows how biased you are towards Kobe. Talking about steve smith. The guy averaged under 2 ppg in playoffs in 2003. Manu and david both averaged under 10 ppg in playoffs. Parker averaged under 15 ppg on terrible shooting. David gave solid defense for his 23 minutes, but overall it was a Duncan carry job.

 

[Ozymandeas]

When it comes to Kobe you can’t help but be condescending. If someone values offense more than defense. Than yes they’re probably going to put Kobe above Duncan. And that’s how most people rank players based on offense not defense. Box score, impact, player tracking, and advanced stats all show Kobe as being offensively superior to Duncan.

It must hurt you that so many people rank Kobe over Duncan. And Duncan no matter how great he was(and I think he’s top 5) is basically an afterthought.

It burns their soul. Duncan was closer to Garnett and Dirk than he was to Kobe, Bron and Jordan. It just so happened that he was put on a great team with a great system and a HOF coach. If you need a player to give you 20 points, 10 rebounds and elite rim protection then Duncan is your guy. But if you need him to put up 30, 40 points on a consistent basis in the playoffs, you’re going to take an L. If you need Duncan to be your sole superstar on an average team with little help, you’re going to take an L. Duncan could never score 63 in the playoffs, outscore an entire team in three quarters or come back from being down 3-1 against the Warriors averaging almost 40 a game. Like never. And to compare him to his peers in the paint, you can just do the eye test and see he was a step or two behind juggernauts like Shaq, Hakeem and Kareem who really were “like that” as big men. He’s really a borderline 10 player (really somewhere around top 12) but his resume is so strong that people overrate him. The narrative argument is so stupid. Narratives form because of events that happen on the court. You do amazing sh*t and fans remember it years later. See Jordan, Bron, Steph, Kobe, Shaq, Game 6 Klay. The reason there’s no “narrative” for Duncan is because he wasn’t dominating like the other guys were. If he was scoring 50 points in the Finals like Giannis, he would have a “narrative”. I never heard a single person call him the best alive back in the day (talking 2005 to 2011). Now he’s better than Kobe

 

[No1]

I talked about Duncan from 99-03, was just continuing from there. What’s your opinion on Duncan or Kobe from 01-03?

In 2003, elimination game against lakers in la. Duncan put up 37/16 and Kobe had 20/6 with 7 turnovers.

You’re not making much sense using one game. The Spurs simply had a better team. People keep talking about that Spurs roster ignoring that it was a better roster than the 2003 Lakers. Outside of Kobe and Shaq that Lakers team didn’t have anything. All Duncan had to do was cancel our Shaq and it was a question of whether Kobe could outscore every Spurs role player combined. This was the same thing in 2004 once Malone went down. The Lakers got worse as much as the Spurs got better. I think 03 Duncan gets the nod because he didn’t have anyone as good as Shaq on his team. But Kobe was the best wing player in basketball and if you built a team around him then he could and would get you to the finals. That is why I used the 01 Sixers as an example. I think people forget that talent wasn’t as highly concentrated back then. Like Kobe and Shaq won 3 straight because no one else had two top 5 caliber players.

 

[Swagnificent]

A 20 year old Tony Parker wasn't better than LO in 09 and 10. If anything they were on the same level. The 03 Spurs definitely didn't have any players on the level of a Pau Gasol.

20 year old Tony Parker was a menace to Kobe. Who was Lamar ever a problem for? I'm taking 20 year old Tony without hesitation.

With regard to Pau, I agree. Nobody on that Spurs team was as good as him. But that Spurs team had more depth than the 2009 and 2010 Lakers. Young Manu, Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson, old David Robinson, old Steve Smith, and even Malik Rose were quality role players. So while the Lakers were more top heavy, I would argue the Spurs had more depth. That's why I think both rosters were equivalent once we got past Kobe and Duncan.

 

[Swagnificent]

NBA coaches don’t have time to watch every game of every team during a season. It’s one of the reasons why those responsibilities were removed from them in the first place. By the time the voting process comes around, coaches are either too focused on preparing for the playoffs, and/or they’re too mentally drained to put any real thought into some meaningless shyt that has absolutely nothing to do with their team.

And please, do NOT start this shyt about me thinking I know more than the coaches when they’d laugh you out of the room for 99% of your opinions on the game.

There’s no for the sake of the argument, because what I’m saying is true.

Kobe is not the only one who’s received undeserved All-Defensive selections, but he’s certainly one of the players that stands out the most given his actual defensive performances don’t even remotely measure up with how many selections he received (especially given the fact it was by design he conserved the majority of his energy for the other end of the floor during those years). And you can stop pretending like you’re the voice of reason here - we aren’t going to play those games.

OK. So the coaches don't have time to see every other game. But they do get to see Kobe in the games he plays against them just as they see every other team. So why is Kobe the only one who gets undue respect? Couldn't we argue that every player ends up on the same level biased playing field? The coaches only see Kobe, Jordan, LeBron, etc. 2-4 times a year. But yet Kobe's the guy who gets singled out for undeserved selections?

If Kobe got undeserved all-defensive selections then so has every other star in NBA history. So why even bring it up? At the end of the day they were all good enough early on to get that respect from the coaches to the point that as they aged they held on to that respect due to reputation. And if your argument Kobe got more of this respect than other greats then you're only making the case for his greatness. Because if it's only Kobe getting a higher percentage of undeserved all-defensive selections after he was no longer deserving then that means the respect he garnered from coaches was greater than that of any player.

 

[Swagnificent]

Arguably less talent? Hahaha. Kobe had better teams in 2009 and 2010 then Duncan did in 2003, that’s not even debatable. This alone shows how biased you are towards Kobe. Talking about steve smith. The guy averaged under 2 ppg in playoffs in 2003. Manu and david both averaged under 10 ppg in playoffs. Parker averaged under 15 ppg on terrible shooting. David gave solid defense for his 23 minutes, but overall it was a Duncan carry job.

Here are the playoffs stats for both teams:

2009 Los Angeles Lakers Player Stats - Playoffs

Stats per game recorded by the 2009 Lakers players in the Playoffs, including games, points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and shooting details.

www.landofbasketball.com

2003 San Antonio Spurs Player Stats - Playoffs

Stats per game recorded by the 2003 Spurs players in the Playoffs, including games, points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and shooting details.

www.landofbasketball.com

Kobe led the Lakers with 30ppg, Pau averaged 18ppg, Lamar put up 12ppg, and Ariza had 11ppg.

Duncan averaged 25ppg, Parker was at 15ppg, Stephen Jackson put up 13ppg, and Manu had 9 ppg.

The gap between Kobe and Duncan as #1 options was 5ppg. The gap between Pau and Tony was 3 ppg, the gap between Lamar and Stephen Jackson was 1ppg, the gap between Ariza and Manu was 2ppg.

The scoring stats at the very least say these rosters were very comparable. Kobe and Duncan had the biggest separation as #1 options in terms of PPG. Gasol and Tony were closer. And then as a 3rd option Stephen Jackson scored more than Lamar. While Ariza as the 4th option outscored Manu.

 

[Swagnificent]

It burns their soul. Duncan was closer to Garnett and Dirk than he was to Kobe, Bron and Jordan. It just so happened that he was put on a great team with a great system and a HOF coach. If you need a player to give you 20 points, 10 rebounds and elite rim protection then Duncan is your guy. But if you need him to put up 30, 40 points on a consistent basis in the playoffs, you’re going to take an L. If you need Duncan to be your sole superstar on an average team with little help, you’re going to take an L. Duncan could never score 63 in the playoffs, outscore an entire team in three quarters or come back from being down 3-1 against the Warriors averaging almost 40 a game. Like never. And to compare him to his peers in the paint, you can just do the eye test and see he was a step or two behind juggernauts like Shaq, Hakeem and Kareem who really were “like that” as big men. He’s really a borderline 10 player (really somewhere around top 12) but his resume is so strong that people overrate him. The narrative argument is so stupid. Narratives form because of events that happen on the court. You do amazing sh*t and fans remember it years later. See Jordan, Bron, Steph, Kobe, Shaq, Game 6 Klay. The reason there’s no “narrative” for Duncan is because he wasn’t dominating like the other guys were. If he was scoring 50 points in the Finals like Giannis, he would have a “narrative”. I never heard a single person call him the best alive back in the day (talking 2005 to 2011). Now he’s better than Kobe

Remember when Robert Horry said Hakeem was way better than Duncan. He played with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Hakeem and said Hakeem and Kobe were the two best players he ever played with.

When the players are all saying the same thing I choose to listen.

 

[Ozymandeas]

Remember when Robert Horry said Hakeem was way better than Duncan. He played with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Hakeem and said Hakeem and Kobe were the two best players he ever played with.

When the players are all saying the same thing I choose to listen.

And it’s easy to understand why he’d say that. Hakeem had a similar skill set defensively but he was much more talented on the offensive side.

 

[Gangstar8]

Everybody knows Kobe is top 2

 

[VBM]

Remember when Robert Horry said Hakeem was way better than Duncan. He played with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Hakeem and said Hakeem and Kobe were the two best players he ever played with.

When the players are all saying the same thing I choose to listen.

Robert Horry Picks Tim Duncan Over Kobe Bryant

 

[Swagnificent]

Robert Horry Picks Tim Duncan Over Kobe Bryant

Horry: Kobe over Duncan, Hakeem over Dwight

Who would Robert Horry would between Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan, and Hakeem Olajuwon and Dwight Howard? One of these players would have "no chance" head-to-head, according to Big Shot Rob.

www.silverscreenandroll.com

"When asked who has had a better career between Bryant and Duncan, Horry's selection would be Kobe."

Guess we can include Robert Horry in the Scottie Pippen category of inconsistent.