ISH vote - NBA's best player in 2007

[Deuce Bigalow]

I was hoping this thread would have more discussion. Deuce Bigalow are you going to make any argument for Kobe Bryant? Do you seem more convinced Duncan may have actually been the better player?

I'm not convinced. I mean I can't see how a player that loses FMVP to Tony Parker was better than the guy who had 10 50-point games in a season, but that's just me though. I'm not supposed to be biased here anyways since I'm counting the votes. More interested in seeing what others think tbh.

[KingBeasley08]

Duncan

[Gifted Mind]

I'm not convinced. I mean I can't see how a player that loses FMVP to Tony Parker was better than the guy who had 10 50-point games in a season, but that's just me though. I'm not supposed to be biased here anyways since I'm counting the votes. More interested in seeing what others think tbh.

A Finals MVP is decided in just 4 games. The Cavaliers had good post defenders in Varejao and Big Z and centered their defensive game plan around stopping Tim Duncan. They were successful to some degree however they still were not close to taking Duncan out of the equation as he still averaged 18/12/4 and was a big factor on defense (Cavs overall shot less than 40% from the field).

Furthermore, Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP speaks volumes to the type of player Tim Duncan is. He does not care about individual statistics or awards, he cares just about winning. So instead of making sure he had good numbers in the finals and averaged a lot of points he let Tony Parker take the glory because the Cavaliers were doing a poor job defending Parker and a better job defending him. His team was never under the threat of losing the series and therefore he was content with the way he was playing and did not try to do more than necessary. That is what Tim Duncan has been about all his career and that's one of the reasons that makes him so great of a basketball player. Remember, in their toughest opponent in the playoffs 27/14/4bpg on 57% FG through 6 games, thus he can dominate when asked to.

Ultimately, Duncan knew how to win and did whatever was necessary to win. Not winning the Finals MVP should not be a big knock against him because he was still clearly the best player on his team in 2007.

[Gifted Mind]

I'm not convinced. I mean I can't see how a player that loses FMVP to Tony Parker was better than the guy who had 10 50-point games in a season, but that's just me though. I'm not supposed to be biased here anyways since I'm counting the votes. More interested in seeing what others think tbh.

Also if you were just curious what other people thought wouldn't the thread I posted in 2007 with countless opinions be more authoritative? Considering it was done without any revisionist history and had over 20 pages of voting.

I really respect Kobe Bryant btw. Once again the comparison is really close. Extremely close. I am beginning to lean on Duncan just because of Kobe's defense in 2007 now that I have reminded myself more of it. I considered Kobe Bryant the best player in 2006 and 2008, and part of the reason is he played very good defense in those years relative to 2007. He was a better player because of that in 2006 and 2008 than he was in 2007. In fact, I'll go as far as saying I would probably rank 2006 Kobe or 2008 Kobe over 2007 Tim Duncan. But just the fall in defense in 2007 gives Tim Duncan the small edge.

[ABfor3]

Tim Duncan

[Rose'sACL]

Duncan

[T_L_P]

A Finals MVP is decided in just 4 games. The Cavaliers had good post defenders in Varejao and Big Z and centered their defensive game plan around stopping Tim Duncan. They were successful to some degree however they still were not close to taking Duncan out of the equation as he still averaged 18/12/4 and was a big factor on defense (Cavs overall shot less than 40% from the field).

Furthermore, Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP speaks volumes to the type of player Tim Duncan is. He does not care about individual statistics or awards, he cares just about winning. So instead of making sure he had good numbers in the finals and averaged a lot of points he let Tony Parker take the glory because the Cavaliers were doing a poor job defending Parker and a better job defending him. His team was never under the threat of losing the series and therefore he was content with the way he was playing and did not try to do more than necessary. That is what Tim Duncan has been about all his career and that's one of the reasons that makes him so great of a basketball player. Remember, in their toughest opponent in the playoffs 27/14/4bpg on 57% FG through 6 games, thus he can dominate when asked to.

Ultimately, Duncan knew how to win and did whatever was necessary to win. Not winning the Finals MVP should not be a big knock against him because he was still clearly the best player on his team in 2007.

Someone who gets it

[zoom17]

[ImKobe]

Kobe. His best all-around season since 03, really played well on the offensive end. The only reason his defense fell off was because of the high volume of minutes & the Lakers relying on him to score all the points down the stretch. Defense wasn't a priority.

[Dro]

A Finals MVP is decided in just 4 games. The Cavaliers had good post defenders in Varejao and Big Z and centered their defensive game plan around stopping Tim Duncan. They were successful to some degree however they still were not close to taking Duncan out of the equation as he still averaged 18/12/4 and was a big factor on defense (Cavs overall shot less than 40% from the field).

Furthermore, Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP speaks volumes to the type of player Tim Duncan is. He does not care about individual statistics or awards, he cares just about winning. So instead of making sure he had good numbers in the finals and averaged a lot of points he let Tony Parker take the glory because the Cavaliers were doing a poor job defending Parker and a better job defending him. His team was never under the threat of losing the series and therefore he was content with the way he was playing and did not try to do more than necessary. That is what Tim Duncan has been about all his career and that's one of the reasons that makes him so great of a basketball player. Remember, in their toughest opponent in the playoffs 27/14/4bpg on 57% FG through 6 games, thus he can dominate when asked to.

Ultimately, Duncan knew how to win and did whatever was necessary to win. Not winning the Finals MVP should not be a big knock against him because he was still clearly the best player on his team in 2007.

[Dro]

Kobe. His best all-around season since 03, really played well on the offensive end. The only reason his defense fell off was because of the high volume of minutes & the Lakers relying on him to score all the points down the stretch. Defense wasn't a priority.

So another reason that MJ>>>>>>>>>Kobe?

I'm really just trolling...

[BlackVVaves]

Who the **** is voting for Dirk in 07? I mean I know 6 games doesn't make a year, but he has no argument for best player after that Warriors series.

DMavs is that you bro

[BlackVVaves]

A Finals MVP is decided in just 4 games. The Cavaliers had good post defenders in Varejao and Big Z and centered their defensive game plan around stopping Tim Duncan. They were successful to some degree however they still were not close to taking Duncan out of the equation as he still averaged 18/12/4 and was a big factor on defense (Cavs overall shot less than 40% from the field).

Furthermore, Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP speaks volumes to the type of player Tim Duncan is. He does not care about individual statistics or awards, he cares just about winning. So instead of making sure he had good numbers in the finals and averaged a lot of points he let Tony Parker take the glory because the Cavaliers were doing a poor job defending Parker and a better job defending him. His team was never under the threat of losing the series and therefore he was content with the way he was playing and did not try to do more than necessary. That is what Tim Duncan has been about all his career and that's one of the reasons that makes him so great of a basketball player. Remember, in their toughest opponent in the playoffs 27/14/4bpg on 57% FG through 6 games, thus he can dominate when asked to.

Ultimately, Duncan knew how to win and did whatever was necessary to win. Not winning the Finals MVP should not be a big knock against him because he was still clearly the best player on his team in 2007.

Although it's somewhat subjective that Duncan was letting Parker get his shine out of selflessness/Kobe was gunning for FMVP out of selfishness, I agree with this post and think it shows the difference between the two. Kobe's ambition to be great was both an advancing and inhibiting tool at different points of his career, while Duncan's timid and unselfish nature has been instrumental in the Spurs sustained success since 99.

Unlike many, I don't fault Kobe for his obsession with being one of the greatest, but you can't deny it...along with his stubbornness...has seemingly gotten in the way of the team at times during his career.

[Deuce Bigalow]

A Finals MVP is decided in just 4 games. The Cavaliers had good post defenders in Varejao and Big Z and centered their defensive game plan around stopping Tim Duncan. They were successful to some degree however they still were not close to taking Duncan out of the equation as he still averaged 18/12/4 and was a big factor on defense (Cavs overall shot less than 40% from the field).

Furthermore, Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP speaks volumes to the type of player Tim Duncan is. He does not care about individual statistics or awards, he cares just about winning. So instead of making sure he had good numbers in the finals and averaged a lot of points he let Tony Parker take the glory because the Cavaliers were doing a poor job defending Parker and a better job defending him. His team was never under the threat of losing the series and therefore he was content with the way he was playing and did not try to do more than necessary. That is what Tim Duncan has been about all his career and that's one of the reasons that makes him so great of a basketball player. Remember, in their toughest opponent in the playoffs 27/14/4bpg on 57% FG through 6 games, thus he can dominate when asked to.

Ultimately, Duncan knew how to win and did whatever was necessary to win. Not winning the Finals MVP should not be a big knock against him because he was still clearly the best player on his team in 2007.

To me Duncan did play like the best player would. 18/12/4 on 48%TS. It wasn't like Duncan wasn't trying to score, he only took 9 less shots than Parker and at an inefficient clip. Not like a Wilt Chamberlain type of low volume but high effiency mark but low points on low efficiency. I mean were talking about being better than Kobe here, how did he prove that with that performance?

[Bandito]

For real? niceee heh

Deuce, put me down for LeBron/Dirk

Yeah, Kobe played great but Lebron was just a tad better. Plus in the Cavs he was really great. My opinion of him went down to the collusion in 2010 and the 2011 choke job.

My main knock on him was the post game, but he work on it a lot and it has shown.

Plus Kobe quit on the team the same year too.