Who would you rather build around ,prime Kobe or prime Tim Duncan?

[Colourless Ant]

Duncan.

 

[mastermind]

And you would be fired....

was the Rockets GM fired for drafting Olajuwon over Jordan in 1984? Is it even seen as a bad draft pick?

The fact that he never played with a dominant big man or faced a dominant big, but still won 6 rings, should show you how much you are overvaluing size in this instance.. The fact that the most dominant bigs of the era didn't win anything until Mike was playing baseball (Hakeem) or retired (Robinson) also points to this.

Robinson and Hakeem didnt have great pieces around htem in the late 80s/early 90s, those teams were constantly in flux. And even still, the Bulls used to get the beats by the Rockets in the regular season. I think they only beat the Rockets once between 1990-1993

I would have loved, LOVED to see the Rockets vs. the Bulls in the mid 90s. Im convinced the Rockets beat them in a finals.

Im not overvaluaing size, size is what always wins in the NBA (until rule changes made things different).

Duncan was great.. But Mike's prime was longer and more dominant...Don't even go through the career numbers...Just judge them both at age 35 (remember the notion that big men generally have longer careers)


Jordan at 35-29 ppg, 1st team all NBA, League MVP, Finals MVP, World Champion..


Duncan at 35-15 ppg, No all league teams, loss in conference finals..

and Duncan won an NBA title at the age of 24. What was Mike winning?

and who knows how many rings Duncan wins if Shaq and Kobe arent also in the West or on the same team. Jordan never had to face a rival like that in the east.

Give me Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Wilt, and even Hakeem if im starting a team over Jordan. Its much easier to build a winner if you are a competent GM.

 

[OG Talk]

I would have loved, LOVED to see the Rockets vs. the Bulls in the mid 90s. Im convinced the Rockets beat them in a finals.

Im not overvaluaing size, size is what always wins in the NBA (until rule changes made things different).



and Duncan won an NBA title at the age of 24. What was Mike winning?

and who knows how many rings Duncan wins if Shaq and Kobe arent also in the West or on the same team. Jordan never had to face a rival like that in the east.

Give me Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Wilt, and even Hakeem if im starting a team over Jordan. Its much easier to build a winner if you are a competent GM.

You have absolutely no tangible metric to show why it would be wise to take Duncan over Jordan (other than him being taller)


Individual stats don't support it, team stats don't support it, history doesn't support it... Jordan was superior to Duncan in every category on and off the court...The best you can do is come up with hypothetical scenarios about what "would or could have happened"


This isn't a sound argument on your part...

 

[mastermind]

You have absolutely no tangible metric to show why it would be wise to take Duncan over Jordan (other than him being taller)


Individual stats don't support it, team stats don't support it, history doesn't support it... Jordan was superior to Duncan in every category on and off the court...The best you can do is come up with hypothetical scenarios about what "would or could have happened"


This isn't a sound argument on your part...

the tangible metric is that the sport has been dominated by big men since it began and only wasnt during the Isiah/Jordan runs. And during that period, he didnt face the best big men in the NBA as they were out west (minus Ewing).

And this whole conversation is based around "what could have happened."

 

[Yellow Ant]

Duncan.

Co-sign.

 

[FTBS]

Give me Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Wilt, and even Hakeem if im starting a team over Jordan. Its much easier to build a winner if you are a competent GM.

I agree about the importance of size. Big man play in basketball is the equivalent of offensive/defensive line play in football. It's not glamorous and doesn't caputre the imagination but it's the key to the game. That said I don't think Russell belongs on that list because he wasn't a scorer and a 6'9 225 guy isn't gonna be able to dominate like he did in today's league. Shaq and Wilt both had issues when challenged by another great big as well as the FT line. I'd take Dream and Kareem over Mike for sure and Duncan is debatable.

 

[god shamgod]

Prime Duncan easily

Prime kobe couldn't even get out the 1st round.Prime duncan was winning championships

 

[ManBearPig]

and Duncan won an NBA title at the age of 24. What was Mike winning?

and who knows how many rings Duncan wins if Shaq and Kobe arent also in the West or on the same team. Jordan never had to face a rival like that in the east.

Give me Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Wilt, and even Hakeem if im starting a team over Jordan. Its much easier to build a winner if you are a competent GM.

Duncan did win one at 23 but he had David Robinson.

Robinson was older but still an All Star and can increase his imput to something like 20/10 if needed.

I think he led the Spurs in PPG in that Blazers series.

 

[OG Talk]

the tangible metric is that the sport has been dominated by big men since it began and only wasnt during the Isiah/Jordan runs. And during that period, he didnt face the best big men in the NBA as they were out west (minus Ewing).

And this whole conversation is based around "what could have happened."

Big men dominated every era except for the Jordan era...This is exactly my point why you can't take any of them over him.. You're trying to stick with a pattern when there is a giant anomaly staring you right in the face..


The West had 6 chances to send their best big man to the dance to kill the dragon slayer and nothing happened... That's almost a decade.. You would think with all that greatness one woulda gotten through the cracks..While all the while he was battling past the Georgetown 3 in the East (all Hall of Famers)..How many hall of fame centers does one have to son to gain respect?

Besides Duncan is a 4 and you keep trying to compare him to 5's...As far as 4's go the alltime list is Duncan, Barkely and Malone correct??.. Jordan beat 2 out of the 3 head to head to win rings..We're not even counting him beating a prime Kemp in '96 to win another... Size was not gonna be Jordan's kryptonite...

The ridiculousness of your argument is that you have the benefit of hindsight and are still willingly taking the losing side...

 

[mastermind]

I agree about the importance of size. Big man play in basketball is the equivalent of offensive/defensive line play in football. It's not glamorous and doesn't caputre the imagination but it's the key to the game. That said I don't think Russell belongs on that list because he wasn't a scorer and a 6'9 225 guy isn't gonna be able to dominate like he did in today's league. Shaq and Wilt both had issues when challenged by another great big as well as the FT line. I'd take Dream and Kareem over Mike for sure and Duncan is debatable.

Yeah, and it it took other All Time Great big men to blunt their dominance (and in Wilt's case, it really didnt, he shytted on Russell just that Boston had a GOAT team).

 

[OG Talk]

I agree about the importance of size. Big man play in basketball is the equivalent of offensive/defensive line play in football. It's not glamorous and doesn't caputre the imagination but it's the key to the game. That said I don't think Russell belongs on that list because he wasn't a scorer and a 6'9 225 guy isn't gonna be able to dominate like he did in today's league. Shaq and Wilt both had issues when challenged by another great big as well as the FT line. I'd take Dream and Kareem over Mike for sure and Duncan is debatable.

Would you take Roy Hibbert over Derrick Rose?

Would you take Brook Lopez over Lebron?

Would you take Andrew Bynum over Durant?

Would you take Chris Kaman over Chris Paul?


If your answer is no, then it's not the "size" which is the equalizer... It's the greatness of the individual player..



Mike was a better player than Hakeem and Duncan...

Kareem would actually be a better argument over Duncan...

 

[Street Knowledge]

Bean. 9/10, When I compare elite 2 way players, I always take the Better offensive player and that's Bryant.

Plus Kobe is the reason Duncan never repeated

01',02',04',08'. Kept sonning his teams over and over again. Especially in the 4th quarters

 

[O.iatlhawksfan]

Kobe be on that prima Donna shyt. He could have more rings than Jordan if he got along with Shaq. Than again it was both of them, but Kobe didn't want to play with Shaq just as much as Shaq didn't.

Duncan is be perfect franchise player. Can lead you to a championship, and puts his ego aside for the good of the team.

 

[FTBS]

Would you take Roy Hibbert over Derrick Rose?

Would you take Brook Lopez over Lebron?

Would you take Andrew Bynum over Durant?

Would you take Chris Kaman over Chris Paul?


If your answer is no, then it's not the "size" which is the equalizer... It's the greatness of the individual player..



Mike was a better player than Hakeem and Duncan...

Kareem would actually be a better argument over Duncan...

Poor argument. Of course you take the great HOF caliber perimeter guy over the run of the mill big guy. How many of those guys you takin over Dwight though? And Dwights offensive game is . Perimeter players dominate the league not because thier has been this great sea change in what is important on the basketball court but because there is a derth of big guys that actually play like big guys. Interior play is still paramount though. You gotta rebound, score easy baskets, and prevent easy baskets to win in basketball. Even Mike couldnt' win until he got help in those regards.

 

[superunknown23]

Duncan... Very easy.
At least 90% of NBA GMs would pick him too.