Skip and Shannon list their all time top 10

[murksiderock]

From 2001-05 most people still had Kobe ranked higher but Duncan was also thought of as a top 5 player so it was close. Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, and T-Mac were like the consensus top 5. What happened after 2005 is Duncan was no longer considered top 5 or in conversation for the best player in the game. Guys like LeBron, D-Wade, Chris Paul, and Dwight joined Kobe as the consensus top 5 to end the decade.

Kobe was the only player in the 2000s to be in the conversation for best player in the league for the entire decade. Duncan was only in that debate for half of it.

We remember this time period differently...

 

[Swagnificent]

We remember this time period differently...

Well I have quotes from NBA players and coaches supporting my view. You just have your opinion.

 

[GreatestLaker]

We remember this time period differently...

The consensus back then was that Duncan and Shaq were the two best players in basketball. Then there was an argument for 3rd between KG and Kobe. With Tmac usually rounding out the top 5.

 

[Copy Ninja]

Shaq is barely a Top 10 center, he can't be overall top 10

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So Duncan's most dominant stretch included years where Kobe 3peated and was clearly the best player in the majority of those Spurs vs Lakers series, and that is that puts him ahead of Kobe?

You mean Shaq + Kobe can outplay Duncan + Antonio Daniels? What a surprise!


You're lying about who the best player in those series were though. In 1999, 2002, and 2003, Duncan was clearly the best player in the series. In 2004 it was basically a wash between Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, Kobe just took more shots (against single coverage) while Shaq and Duncan were both more efficient against tighter defense and came up bigger on the defensive end as well. The only series where Kobe was clearly the best player was 2001, and that was when he was going single coverage against shytty-ass Antonio Daniels all game while the entire Lakers defense was focused on Duncan since there were zero other threats.

I consider Shaq and Duncan to be at the same level all-time, and they peaked at the same time. So Duncan vs. Shaq was going to be close to a wash and victory would depend on the supporting casts. Shaq's #2 was Kobe and he often had a better cast #3-#7 as well, so the fact that the Spurs still won two titles in that period is wild.

Pop's strategy was to focus the Spurs' defense on stopping Shaq with both Robinson and Duncan zeroed in on him, then leave Kobe on an island against single coverage and hope Kobe shot them out of games. That's why Kobe took outrageous FGA for a player with a dominant scorer like Shaq on his team. Kobe took:

27 shots/game in 2003 (Shaq just 17)
22 shots/game in 2004 (Shaq just 14)
24 shots/game in 2002 (Shaq just 19)
26 shots/game in 2001 (Shaq just 21)

Even in 1999 when Kobe was just 20, he took 19 shots/game while Shaq took just 17. Those are WILD shooting volume #'s and in every case Kobe was putting up more shots against the Spurs than he did the rest of the postseason. But it wasn't efficient - Kobe's TS% was well under 50% every year except 2001, which was what Pop was hoping for and the only way the Spurs could win.




1999: Duncan puts up 29-11-3 and 2 blocks a game on 51% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs sweep.

2002: Duncan puts up 29-17-5 and 3 blocks a game on 43% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Lakers win in 6 cause Duncan's #2 was a rookie TP with 13ppg on 41% shooting and no one else was in double figures.

2003: Duncan puts up 28-12-5 and 1 block/game on 53% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs win in 6.


You want to claim that Kobe was "clearly the best player" in ANY of those series, especially considering Duncan was the focus of the Lakers' defense in every game but Shaq was the focus of the Spurs' defense in every game?

 

[murksiderock]

You mean Shaq + Kobe can outplay Duncan + Antonio Daniels? What a surprise!


You're lying about who the best player in those series were though. In 1999, 2002, and 2003, Duncan was clearly the best player in the series. In 2004 it was basically a wash between Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, Kobe just took more shots (against single coverage) while Shaq and Duncan were both more efficient against tighter defense and came up bigger on the defensive end as well. The only series where Kobe was clearly the best player was 2001, and that was when he was going single coverage against shytty-ass Antonio Daniels all game while the entire Lakers defense was focused on Duncan since there were zero other threats.

I consider Shaq and Duncan to be at the same level all-time, and they peaked at the same time. So Duncan vs. Shaq was going to be close to a wash and victory would depend on the supporting casts. Shaq's #2 was Kobe and he often had a better cast #3-#7 as well, so the fact that the Spurs still won two titles in that period is wild.

Pop's strategy was to focus the Spurs' defense on stopping Shaq with both Robinson and Duncan zeroed in on him, then leave Kobe on an island against single coverage and hope Kobe shot them out of games. That's why Kobe took outrageous FGA for a player with a dominant scorer like Shaq on his team. Kobe took:

27 shots/game in 2003 (Shaq just 17)
22 shots/game in 2004 (Shaq just 14)
24 shots/game in 2002 (Shaq just 19)
26 shots/game in 2001 (Shaq just 21)

Even in 1999 when Kobe was just 20, he took 19 shots/game while Shaq took just 17. Those are WILD shooting volume #'s and in every case Kobe was putting up more shots against the Spurs than he did the rest of the postseason. But it wasn't efficient - Kobe's TS% was well under 50% every year except 2001, which was what Pop was hoping for and the only way the Spurs could win.




1999: Duncan puts up 29-11-3 and 2 blocks a game on 51% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs sweep.

2002: Duncan puts up 29-17-5 and 3 blocks a game on 43% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Lakers win in 6 cause Duncan's #2 was a rookie TP with 13ppg on 41% shooting and no one else was in double figures.

2003: Duncan puts up 28-12-5 and 1 block/game on 53% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs win in 6.


You want to claim that Kobe was "clearly the best player" in ANY of those series, especially considering Duncan was the focus of the Lakers' defense in every game but Shaq was the focus of the Spurs' defense in every game?

Bruh, I remember an article from SI (I think) back in Summer '05, I was 16 and 3 rings 8 years into Duncan's career they were starting "The Watch" on just how high Duncan could climb historically. This was not the conversation muhfukkas were having about Kobe Bryant in 2005...

I really wish I could find that article. Kobe Stans really try this bait and switch shyt that works if you didn't see all these guys in real time. We saw these dudes play. There was no Duncan/Kobe comparison the first half of these guys career, Kobe's game was respected overall bit there was clear separation into the stature of player both guys were thought to be...

These nikkas really think quoting players who are Kobe Stans means anything

The consensus back then was that Duncan and Shaq were the two best players in basketball. Then there was an argument for 3rd between KG and Kobe. With Tmac usually rounding out the top 5.

Now tell this nikka Swag this, who was obviously watching an alternate reality NBA...

 

[CP3.]

1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Russell
9. Duncan
10. Hakeem

Kobe maybe at 10 over Olajuwon but I honestly think Dream was the better player. He was just playing in such a stacked era that his accomplishments don't jump off the page at you the way Kobe's do.

 

[KidJSoul]

LOL

I will never understand why basketball fans act like having good teammates devalues a great player’s achievements.

I truly think basketball fans, more than any other fan base, has zero idea of what it means to be a team.

Y’all just want 1 player to win with as little help as possible. That’s the only way y’all want to respect anyone.

Sad.

What kind of dumb response is this

I shouldn't even have to respond to this but I will anyway

I never said or implied you don't need help. The issue is that Kareem literally needed the best point guard of each generation to win.

Not just a good or even great point guard. Literally the best one of each generation

And in the 70s, he underachieved. He did not have good teams then, but neither did a lot of guys in that decade. Plus the talent pool was split for a little bit. And by the late 80s, he wasnt even the best player on his own teams

 

[KidJSoul]

You mean Shaq + Kobe can outplay Duncan + Antonio Daniels? What a surprise!


You're lying about who the best player in those series were though. In 1999, 2002, and 2003, Duncan was clearly the best player in the series. In 2004 it was basically a wash between Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, Kobe just took more shots (against single coverage) while Shaq and Duncan were both more efficient against tighter defense and came up bigger on the defensive end as well. The only series where Kobe was clearly the best player was 2001, and that was when he was going single coverage against shytty-ass Antonio Daniels all game while the entire Lakers defense was focused on Duncan since there were zero other threats.

I consider Shaq and Duncan to be at the same level all-time, and they peaked at the same time. So Duncan vs. Shaq was going to be close to a wash and victory would depend on the supporting casts. Shaq's #2 was Kobe and he often had a better cast #3-#7 as well, so the fact that the Spurs still won two titles in that period is wild.

Pop's strategy was to focus the Spurs' defense on stopping Shaq with both Robinson and Duncan zeroed in on him, then leave Kobe on an island against single coverage and hope Kobe shot them out of games. That's why Kobe took outrageous FGA for a player with a dominant scorer like Shaq on his team. Kobe took:

27 shots/game in 2003 (Shaq just 17)
22 shots/game in 2004 (Shaq just 14)
24 shots/game in 2002 (Shaq just 19)
26 shots/game in 2001 (Shaq just 21)

Even in 1999 when Kobe was just 20, he took 19 shots/game while Shaq took just 17. Those are WILD shooting volume #'s and in every case Kobe was putting up more shots against the Spurs than he did the rest of the postseason. But it wasn't efficient - Kobe's TS% was well under 50% every year except 2001, which was what Pop was hoping for and the only way the Spurs could win.




1999: Duncan puts up 29-11-3 and 2 blocks a game on 51% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs sweep.

2002: Duncan puts up 29-17-5 and 3 blocks a game on 43% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Lakers win in 6 cause Duncan's #2 was a rookie TP with 13ppg on 41% shooting and no one else was in double figures.

2003: Duncan puts up 28-12-5 and 1 block/game on 53% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs win in 6.


You want to claim that Kobe was "clearly the best player" in ANY of those series, especially considering Duncan was the focus of the Lakers' defense in every game but Shaq was the focus of the Spurs' defense in every game?

Aint this similar to the Durant steph conversation tho? Obviously Durant was more efficient but still

 

[KidJSoul]

What about pre-2005?



Boy, that's a leap to assume Kobe could win up to 5 chips sans Shaq...

He played 12 years without Shaq and got two championships from it, that's a big deal. There's nothing to suggest he could have won more than he did, and certainly not 5...

The mid 2000s lakers were rebuilding, and then mid 2010s was Achilles time

So out of that 12 year period, only like 7 were true contenders. (05 and 06 had smush Parker and Kwame brown, and medvedenko). (And 2014-2016 was Achilles).

And in that span, he made 3 finals, and won 2.

So it's not crazy to assume that from 96-2004, if they built a contender around him, he could have gotten 2-3 chips

 

[Rev]

Skip got Bron at 9

That shyt almost had me crying forreal because of Skip’s troll commitment. It’s a lifestyle for him.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I always laugh at this argument. If that's the end all, then Steve Nash > Kobe and Dirk > Kobe. Duncan averaged 22/17/2 blks in that series while Manu played like trash due to his ankle injury. Another injury break for the Lakers in their playoff history against the Spurs (Derek Anderson 01, David Robinson 02).

Spurs' injury history was even worse than that. Almost every year the Lakers competed from 2000-2008 it was in part because of a critical Spurs injury


2000: Sean Elliott (their top perimeter scorer in 1999) misses the season due to kidney transplant. Duncan hurts his knee near the end of regular season and misses the playoffs, so he can't defend their title.


2001: Sean Elliott returns and is decent in the regular season, but his health starts degrading and he's useless in the playoffs. Spurs had signed Derek Anderson to become the #2 scorer, but dislocates his shoulder in the WCSF and against the Lakers in the WCF Spurs are forced to start 37yo Terry Porter, career scrub Antonio Daniels, and 34yo Danny Ferry.


2002: David Robinson has a back injury and misses most of the playoffs. Spurs supporting cast is weak as fukk that year. Tim Duncan's dad also died right before the WCSF started and he missed the last game of the 1st round to attend the funeral.


2008: Ginobli has a major ankle sprain which makes it the "size of a grapefruit" and requires surgery in the summer. Was useless in the WCF. Also every damn player from #4-#8 (Horry, Barry, Thomas, Finley, Bowen) was 34-37 and basically aged out that year.

 

[Shadow King]

I'm surprised Skip gave Bron a spot honestly...

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Its just goes to show once you stop playing people forget who was the scarier player to go against and just look at the resume.

Kareem has benefitted from this the most. When he played, nobody thought he was in the same class as Wilt. Similar to how nobody viewed Duncan in the same class as Kobe post 2005. But after you stop playing people begin to forget and when they make these all-time rankings lists it becomes more about resume than actual playing ability.

When he played he won 6 MVPs... When Duncan played he was always in the playoffs and won 5 rings and considered the best player EVER at his position... You really picked the wrong two people to pull out because they were lauded while playing

And yes... Nobody is making a top 10 list full of "who would win one on one".. Resume always matters.. Pat Mahomes can throw it around better than Montana but Montana being 4-0 will trump that. A rod vs Brady.. We know who got more talent but who's the goat?

Resume matters.. Nobody cares about your meaningless stats that lead to nothing

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

You mean Shaq + Kobe can outplay Duncan + Antonio Daniels? What a surprise!


You're lying about who the best player in those series were though. In 1999, 2002, and 2003, Duncan was clearly the best player in the series. In 2004 it was basically a wash between Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe, Kobe just took more shots (against single coverage) while Shaq and Duncan were both more efficient against tighter defense and came up bigger on the defensive end as well. The only series where Kobe was clearly the best player was 2001, and that was when he was going single coverage against shytty-ass Antonio Daniels all game while the entire Lakers defense was focused on Duncan since there were zero other threats.

I consider Shaq and Duncan to be at the same level all-time, and they peaked at the same time. So Duncan vs. Shaq was going to be close to a wash and victory would depend on the supporting casts. Shaq's #2 was Kobe and he often had a better cast #3-#7 as well, so the fact that the Spurs still won two titles in that period is wild.

Pop's strategy was to focus the Spurs' defense on stopping Shaq with both Robinson and Duncan zeroed in on him, then leave Kobe on an island against single coverage and hope Kobe shot them out of games. That's why Kobe took outrageous FGA for a player with a dominant scorer like Shaq on his team. Kobe took:

27 shots/game in 2003 (Shaq just 17)
22 shots/game in 2004 (Shaq just 14)
24 shots/game in 2002 (Shaq just 19)
26 shots/game in 2001 (Shaq just 21)

Even in 1999 when Kobe was just 20, he took 19 shots/game while Shaq took just 17. Those are WILD shooting volume #'s and in every case Kobe was putting up more shots against the Spurs than he did the rest of the postseason. But it wasn't efficient - Kobe's TS% was well under 50% every year except 2001, which was what Pop was hoping for and the only way the Spurs could win.




1999: Duncan puts up 29-11-3 and 2 blocks a game on 51% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs sweep.

2002: Duncan puts up 29-17-5 and 3 blocks a game on 43% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Lakers win in 6 cause Duncan's #2 was a rookie TP with 13ppg on 41% shooting and no one else was in double figures.

2003: Duncan puts up 28-12-5 and 1 block/game on 53% shooting against the Lakers, was clearly the best player. Spurs win in 6.


You want to claim that Kobe was "clearly the best player" in ANY of those series, especially considering Duncan was the focus of the Lakers' defense in every game but Shaq was the focus of the Spurs' defense in every game?

nikkas sleeping on the GOAT PF

I been a Duncan fan since he decided he was staying all 4 years at Wake Forest. He just shows up, busts your ass and goes home. No need for small talk or any talk at all. He didn't want the endorsements, the fame, still low key now, not looking to get on tv or coach nobody

If Giannis was doing what Duncan was doing, they'd call him the GOAT right now and be screaming bout how unstoppable he was. Duncan just did it on the hush and drove the bus his entire career.