2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time: #7 selection

[elmouse03]

Break it down for me, House. Why should Kobe be #7?

With their careers side by side being virtually a wash, I point to the domination of Kobe impacted teams over Duncan impacted teams in their post season head to head matchups, as well as the dynamicism one brings over the other to their respective teams offensively. Since they've both been in the league, Kobe has dominated both categories, especially H2H.

1999 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–0
2001 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–0
2002 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–1
2003 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–2
2004 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–1

Kobe hadn't come into his own as a star in the league yet in 99, so I almost astericked that season. Nevertheless, as you can see, Kobe still dominated these H2Hs vs Tim Duncan with or without Shaq.

Most of those dominated series over the Spurs were because of Shaq though, not Kobe. Shaq has a better argument for #7 than Kobe.

Well Kobe played better then Shaq did for the Lakers in the WC playoffs from 00-01 to 03-04 but that was mostly because Shaq drew most of the attention.

[Y2K]

This ranking system has officially become a joke. There's no way anybody other than Kobe Bryant should be in the #7 spot, but this is the result we get when dealing with a bunch of unobjective Kobe haters.

FAIL

Break it down for me, House. Why should Kobe be #7?

With their careers side by side being virtually a wash, I point to the domination of Kobe impacted teams over Duncan impacted teams in their post season head to head matchups, as well as the dynamicism one brings over the other to their respective teams offensively. Since they've both been in the league, Kobe has dominated both categories, especially H2H.

1999 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–0
2001 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–0
2002 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–1
2003 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–2
2004 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–1

Kobe hadn't come into his own as a star in the league yet in 99, so I almost astericked that season. Nevertheless, as you can see, Kobe still dominated these H2Hs vs Tim Duncan with or without Shaq.

Kobe is higher on my list than Duncan as well, but by one spot. My reasoning is that Kobe maintained a higher level of play over his career than Duncan. They both have very similar career accolades so it's almost a wash.

[lettherebehouse]

Break it down for me, House. Why should Kobe be #7?

With their careers side by side being virtually a wash, I point to the domination of Kobe impacted teams over Duncan impacted teams in their post season head to head matchups, as well as the dynamicism one brings over the other to their respective teams offensively. Since they've both been in the league, Kobe has dominated both categories, especially H2H.

1999 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–0
2001 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–0
2002 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–1
2003 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–2
2004 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–1

Kobe hadn't come into his own as a star in the league yet in 99, so I almost astericked that season. Nevertheless, as you can see, Kobe still dominated these H2Hs vs Tim Duncan with or without Shaq.

Most of those dominated series over the Spurs were because of Shaq though, not Kobe. Shaq has a better argument for #7 than Kobe.

Sure, that's a cute myth you kids were all taught you were supposed to believe. But the truth is far from what you've been programmed to believe.

In the three series LA dominated San Antonio while Shaq was on the team.

2001 vs SAS in a sweep

Kobe - 33/7/7
Shaq - 26/12/2


2002 vs SAS in a gentlemen's sweep

Kobe - 27/5/5
Shaq - 21/12/3


2004 vs SAS in 6 games

Kobe - 27/7/6
Shaq - 22/12/2


It's equally impressive for Kobe when you see the destruction the Lakers put on Tim Duncan led Spurs teams after Shaq was no longer with the Lakers. Duncan only bested the Lakers once during Kobe's prime, and in that series Kobe shined (33/5/4), while Duncan dropped 28/12/5 on Shaq and got the better of him all series (including fouling Shaq out of game 1).

Over the entire 2000s decade, the class of the NBA was the Lakers and Spurs (and there really wasn't even a close 3rd), the two heavyweights. In that rivalry, nobody shined brighter than Kobe Bryant, which Greg Popovic himself stated. It's the reason why Kobe Bryant was justifiably named Sporting News Player Of The Decade. You can put Shaq or Duncan at #7 if you'd like, but you'll never convince someone as unbiased and objective on all things Kobe such as myself.

[Y2K]

With their careers side by side being virtually a wash, I point to the domination of Kobe impacted teams over Duncan impacted teams in their post season head to head matchups, as well as the dynamicism one brings over the other to their respective teams offensively. Since they've both been in the league, Kobe has dominated both categories, especially H2H.

1999 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–0
2001 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–0
2002 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–1
2003 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–2
2004 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–1

Kobe hadn't come into his own as a star in the league yet in 99, so I almost astericked that season. Nevertheless, as you can see, Kobe still dominated these H2Hs vs Tim Duncan with or without Shaq.

Most of those dominated series over the Spurs were because of Shaq though, not Kobe. Shaq has a better argument for #7 than Kobe.

Well Kobe played better then Shaq did for the Lakers in the WC playoffs from 00-01 to 03-04 but that was mostly because Shaq drew most of the attention.

It wasn't because of Shaq, as crazy as that may sound. Kobe just came into his own after the first championship, and the Spurs had no one other than Bowen to guard him.

[lettherebehouse]

With their careers side by side being virtually a wash, I point to the domination of Kobe impacted teams over Duncan impacted teams in their post season head to head matchups, as well as the dynamicism one brings over the other to their respective teams offensively. Since they've both been in the league, Kobe has dominated both categories, especially H2H.

1999 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–0
2001 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–0
2002 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–1
2003 Western Conference Semifinals Spurs won, 4–2
2004 Western Conference Semifinals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 Western Conference Finals Lakers won, 4–1

Kobe hadn't come into his own as a star in the league yet in 99, so I almost astericked that season. Nevertheless, as you can see, Kobe still dominated these H2Hs vs Tim Duncan with or without Shaq.

Most of those dominated series over the Spurs were because of Shaq though, not Kobe. Shaq has a better argument for #7 than Kobe.

Well Kobe played better then Shaq did for the Lakers in the WC playoffs from 00-01 to 03-04 but that was mostly because Shaq drew most of the attention.

I'm not saying you do this, but it's funny how when I say the same thing about why Gasol was able to shine playing alongside Kobe (evidenced by his astronomical jump in FG efficiency in his first few seasons moving over to LA from Memphis), that people will point to that as Gasol carrying Kobe, or better yet, Pau being the MVP of those Laker teams as result. Imagine the reaction if people say that about the Kobe/Shaq dynamic in 2001-02, and how ridiculous it'd sound.

[elmouse03]

Most of those dominated series over the Spurs were because of Shaq though, not Kobe. Shaq has a better argument for #7 than Kobe.

Well Kobe played better then Shaq did for the Lakers in the WC playoffs from 00-01 to 03-04 but that was mostly because Shaq drew most of the attention.

I'm not saying you do this, but it's funny how when I say the same thing about why Gasol was able to shine playing alongside Kobe (evidenced by his astronomical jump in FG efficiency in his first few seasons moving over to LA from Memphis), that people will point to that as Gasol carrying Kobe, or better yet, Pau being the MVP of those Laker teams as result. Imagine the reaction if people say that about the Kobe/Shaq dynamic in 2001-02, and how ridiculous it'd sound.

Well I wasn't one of those "Pau over Kobe" guys like many were just because they couldn't stand Kobe. I knew Pau was the clear cut #2 guy behind Kobe.

I know Kobe was coming into his own in his last 3 years with Shaq but you think he still would have put up those numbers and had that success vs the Spurs if not for Shaq on that team in those times?

[elmouse03]

For the record Duncan kicked Pau's ass in the 08 WCF's 22.4 17.4 4.8apg 1.2spg 2bpg. Pau averaged 13.2ppg 9.6rpg 3.6apg 1spg 1.6bpg

That is for those who say Pau was better then Kobe after the Lakers got him.

[Y2K]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of them have a clear cut case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

[vcsgrizzfan]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of them have a clear cut case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

[LNS]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of then have a clear case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

Right. Timmy's not your favorite player or anything.

[lettherebehouse]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of them have a clear cut case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

Since neither of those apply to me, it's good to know my point stands, and should count as 10 votes to every Kobe haters 1 vote.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of then have a clear case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

Right. Timmy's not your favorite player or anything.

And Kobe is yours.

I'm pretty damn certain I'm more objective on this than you are and I'm virtually certain a very large majority of hoops fan who have no dog in the fight would choose Duncan.

[Da Stars.]

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

Right. Timmy's not your favorite player or anything.

And Kobe is yours.

I'm pretty damn certain I'm more objective on this than you are and I'm virtually certain a very large majority of hoops fan who have no dog in the fight would choose Duncan.

This site and thread no room for level headed posters Grizz.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Right. Timmy's not your favorite player or anything.

And Kobe is yours.

I'm pretty damn certain I'm more objective on this than you are and I'm virtually certain a very large majority of hoops fan who have no dog in the fight would choose Duncan.

This site and thread no room for level headed posters Grizz.

LNS is a pretty good guy. He just likes rattling peoples' chains.

My original post was really directed at Y2ktors. He always claims to be objective about Duncan and Pops but he carries big biases. It's always "I really like Duncan and all BUT" and then he proceeds to be completely biased. It's kind of funny.

[americaninfidel]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of them have a clear cut case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

All three are all-time greats, no doubt. Tim Duncan has won titles in three separate decades though, and that sort of prolonged excellence is amazingly rare. That's why he tops Kobe and Shaq, I think.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Kobe, Duncan and Shaq All are in the same category so they could go in any order and it'd be justified. None of them have a clear cut case to be ahead of the others. The only ppl so do are nothing more than:

A. agenda driven
B. A biased fan

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

All three are all-time greats, no doubt. Tim Duncan has won titles in three separate decades though, and that sort of prolonged excellence is amazingly rare. That's why he tops Kobe and Shaq, I think.

All three are top ten. I've personally moved Duncan to 6 in my ranking with Shaq 8 and Kobe 9. It's not like it is some huge chasm but Duncan's consistent greatness over damn near two decades, five rings and a few more damn close calls (last year and another good crack at a title foiled by Fisher's 0.4 shot that arguably should not have counted, among others) just separate him from those two.

[876Stephen]

Obviously the Kobe Kids have zero objectivity on this subject. Kobe had a prime Shaq who was better than anything Duncan has ever played in his career.

Can you imagine a prime Duncan and prime Shaq? That would be arguably the greatest duo in nba history.

[876Stephen]

Lets move on to number 8 now.

[876Stephen]

I disagree. I think Duncan has distanced himself from those other two and an opposite view is more likely agenda driven or biased, and I think you are a classic example.

All three are all-time greats, no doubt. Tim Duncan has won titles in three separate decades though, and that sort of prolonged excellence is amazingly rare. That's why he tops Kobe and Shaq, I think.

All three are top ten. I've personally moved Duncan to 6 in my ranking with Shaq 8 and Kobe 9. It's not like it is some huge chasm but Duncan's consistent greatness over damn near two decades, five rings and a few more damn close calls (last year and another good crack at a title foiled by Fisher's 0.4 shot that arguably should not have counted, among others) just separate him from those two.

Not to mention Duncan's 3 fmvp's(should be 4) to Kobe's 2.

[kobeunderbite]

To me, there isn't even a case to be made for Duncan > Kobe.

This thread is a classic example of Kobe-haters and their anti-Kobe agenda and butthurt.