The general consensus is that Duncan is better all time than Kobe right?

[bizil]

I don't disagree, I think what he meant is had Shaq/Kobe been able to work things out and played together past '04, they could have won more titles together, and '06 on Kobe would have clearly been the better player

Exactly right!! I wasn't dissing Kobe at all. But Kobe and Shaq could have been two of the top 5 GOAT with 7-8 rings under their belts. We all know rings can be a determining factor at times for GOAT status. But due to what happened in LakerLand, they didn't reach the heights that they could of.

And as a matter of fact, the way Kobe won his five rings AMIDST the turmoil in LA should be applauded! Timmy didn't have the BS to deal with that Kobe did in LA. Sure some of it was Kobe's fault. But I think he catches too much heat.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Learn how to comprehend shit!! ALL I SAID was Kobe and Shaq were capable of more rings. BOTH SAID THAT THEMSELVES!!! You are a DAMN FOOL if u think Kobe and Shaq weren't capable of more rings together. Me pointing that out isn't HATING ON KOBE!! And I NEVER SAID OR THOUGHT that Kobe couldn't win rings on his own. I KNEW HE COULD be the best player on titles teams. I mean DAMN he was the best perimeter player in the world once the Shaq-Kobe train got rolling. So it was two alpha dogs DOMINATING TOGETHER!!

Once Shaq is out of his prime in his mid 30's, then he can move on if he wants. From there, Kobe COULD CONTINUE to win more rings. Kobe with 7-8 rings INSTEAD of five rings would vault him EVEN HIGHER GOAT wise than he already is.

Your reading comprehension sucks, seriously you missed the entire point

And if you really think that Shaq was good enough to be a 2nd option on a championship team past 06 then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't play these stupid, hypothetical games of "how many rings could they have won"

reality is that they did not like each-other and it came to a point where the team had to pick between the two. It wasn't going to work out past 04, simple as that.

Their personalities did not mesh and I wouldn't want to change either of their personalities/mentalities because that is such a huge driving force between what makes a player who they are.

[TheMarkMadsen]

The narrative at the time was that Kobe couldn't win without Shaq. It was hurting his GOAT status.

Kobe then went on to win without Shaq, proving these people wrong.

Which is why it is dumb to sit here 10 years later and say "oh well what if"

because the fact that he proved people wrong and did it without Shaq, is the only reason people are interested enough now to wonder "what if" they stayed together.

[Overdrive]

Think about this, if Kobe averaged 13 ppg while his team wins 60 games and gets the first seed.. does anybody care? Does anybody count that towards beefing up Kobe's resume.. Be honest, if Kobe averaged 13 ppg for a season while his team won the west and hit 60 wins all we would hear about is how he was "carried" and how it doesn't count, etc. etc.

Depends on impact and his overall stats. 13PPG don't tell the whole story. Kobe playing good defense, scoring 13 PPG, but adding 8 APG, 3RPG, 1SPG + being the obvious vocal leader of the team would paint a different picture than shooting 25 times for 25 points. The big problem is that shooting guards can't keep defending at an high level later in their career, because defense for guards is based on quickness and dexterity whereas as a big you stay big, no matter the age.

Of course Kobe had bad luck with teams whereas Duncan had a steady stream of good to great teams.

[G0ATbe]

are we talking general consensus on ish or in the real world? In general, nba fans worldwide recognize Kobe as a top 2 GOAT at the very least. Duncan is a top 10 player but Kobe is a couple tiers above him. Not even a debate.

[bizil]

As for the topic I have no beef with anybody picking either player but I think a lot of the reasoning behind it is misguided/unfair.

I see people praising Duncan for being on a winning team for so long. But so much of that lately has been at a level that is borderline role player..

Think about this, if Kobe averaged 13 ppg while his team wins 60 games and gets the first seed.. does anybody care? Does anybody count that towards beefing up Kobe's resume.. Be honest, if Kobe averaged 13 ppg for a season while his team won the west and hit 60 wins all we would hear about is how he was "carried" and how it doesn't count, etc. etc.


That same team lost in the first round to an 8th seed.. can you imagine if that happened to Kobe? We'd never hear the end of it, I mean we constantly hear about him losing as a 7 seed to the 2 seed so I'm sure him losing as the 1 seed to the 8th seed while he's on a loaded team would really hurt his perception on ISH.

People have such high standards for how Kobe is supposed to play if he is to get any credit. People wanna discredit rings where he averaged 30/7 for the post season.. I can't imagine him being the 5th scoring option on a team with 2 all stars and the reigning DPOY while getting any credit for his teams success..

I see so much double standard in these arguments

U are missing the point!! For starters, u could go either way when it comes to Kobe and Duncan. But when u factor GOAT status, u factor these things:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Longevity being a great player
Peak and prime value
Numbers
Impact on the L (redefining a position, causing rules to change, etc.)

When u add all these things up, I go slightly Duncan. That's not to say Timmy has Kobe beat in all of these categories. But The Spurs SUSTAINED SUCCESS and him being THE MAIN REASON FOR IT is enough to swing it Timmy's way. Both have five rings. Tim did it in THE PERFECT ORGANIZATION all the way around.

In Kobe's case, he won five rings amidst a lot of turmoil. And for doing that, he's an icon. But IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, Kobe would have accumulated a resume CLEARLY better than Duncan. But since he didn't, the debate is more arguable. I've heard Kobe AND Shaq say they regret not reaching their potential. That's all Im pointing out.

[GrapeApe]

are we talking general consensus on ish or in the real world? In general, nba fans worldwide recognize Kobe as a top 2 GOAT at the very least. Duncan is a top 10 player but Kobe is a couple tiers above him. Not even a debate.

That's a completely ridiculous statement. I've never heard ANYONE call Kobe a top 2 GOAT (except maybe KennethGriffin or Stalker). Top 2 SG, yes. Saying that Kobe is a couple tiers above Duncan is equally ridiculous.

The general consensus "big 4" are Jordan, KAJ, Russell, and Wilt. That's the top tier, the Mt. Rushmore if you will, and those are the 4 players with an argument for being GOAT. Russell is greatest winner, Wilt the most statistically dominant, KAJ has the greatest overall career (HS, NCAA, Pro) and most MVP's, and Jordan has the best combination of everything.

The next tier generally consists of Magic, Bird, Duncan, and Shaq (not necessarily in that order).

The 3rd tier is generally Kobe, Hakeem, Lebron, Moses, and maybe Big-O and West. Again, not always in that order.

I'm not saying these are 100% absolute and there's always going to be subjective variability, but if you look at the majority of all-time rankings they are usually pretty consistent with those tiers.

[SouBeachTalents]

That's a completely ridiculous statement. I've never heard ANYONE call Kobe a top 2 GOAT (except maybe KennethGriffin or Stalker). Top 2 SG, yes. Saying that Kobe is a couple tiers above Duncan is equally ridiculous.

The general consensus "big 4" are Jordan, KAJ, Russell, and Wilt. That's the top tier, the Mt. Rushmore if you will, and those are the 4 players with an argument for being GOAT. Russell is greatest winner, Wilt the most statistically dominant, KAJ has the greatest overall career (HS, NCAA, Pro) and most MVP's, and Jordan has the best combination of everything.

The next tier generally consists of Magic, Bird, Duncan, and Shaq (not necessarily in that order).

The 3rd tier is generally Kobe, Hakeem, Lebron, Moses, and maybe Big-O and West. Again, not always in that order.

I'm not saying these are 100% absolute and there's always going to be subjective variability, but if you look at the majority of all-time rankings they are usually pretty consistent with those tiers.

Bro, WAY too much time and effort responding to an obvious troll

[GrapeApe]

Bro, WAY too much time and effort responding to an obvious troll

Yeah, he was more than likely trolling but I was going to post something similar in this thread anyway. The sad part is, this place has gotten so bad it IS probably a waste of time and effort regardless.