AROUND the NBA:

[dirkfansince1998]

Obligatory Kobe tribute? Oh c'mon. Kobe was amazing and a 1-on-1 defender's nightmare. 

I think you dun forgot that magical night when Kobe outscored the whole Mavs team (including Dirk) by himself over 3 quarters.

Great player. But that's obviously not all that matters. Style and marketabilty are just as important. Add a tragic death and you have a larger than life idol.
Kobe was good. But never the best player in the league. Great volume scorer. Not the most efficient one. I think compared to his peers he is overrated.
AI is another good example. Had no business winning an MVP award over Duncan and Shaq but he was one of the most popular players of all time. Living legend because he shot 40% from midrange after a crossover. A 7ft guy shooting 50% from the same distance with a weird looking fadeaway is going to win you more games but he isn't going to sell more jerseys.

[RGP1981]

Great player. But that's obviously not all that matters. Style and marketabilty are just as important. Add a tragic death and you have a larger than life idol.
Kobe was good. But never the best player in the league. Great volume scorer. Not the most efficient one. I think compared to his peers he is overrated.
AI is another good example. Had no business winning an MVP award over Duncan and Shaq but he was one of the most popular players of all time. Living legend because he shot 40% from midrange after a crossover. A 7ft guy shooting 50% from the same distance with a weird looking fadeaway is going to win you more games but he isn't going to sell more jerseys.

Well, I honestly think Kobe could average 35-40 PPG today if he wanted to and was playing like he did between 2000-01 to 2007-08, when he was in his athletic prime, because of how different the game is compared to that time.

The rules in the early 2000s were very conducive to teams being able to play the most stifling defense, which was an environment that allowed the best 1-on-1 players to shine on their own merit (i.e., without help from rule changes or from gifted spacing). It's only because of subsequent rule changes that lesser talented players have also been able to shine as brightly.

Imagine Kobe in a team that was perfectly constructed around him, with defenders and spacing. For example:

- Billups or Kidd, Kobe, Shane Battier, Rasheed Wallace or Shawn Marion, Tyson Chandler

^ who's beating that team?

These are the kind of teams that MJ, Magic, Larry, Lebron, Duncan, Steph, etc have had.

Regarding efficiency... Kobe's career TS% (55.0%) is the same as Tim Duncan's (55.1%). Bigs are supposed to have higher TS%, being that more of their points come closer to the basket... and Kobe also took more shots to have the same TS%, higher volume should equal lower TS%. Yet you think of Duncan as efficient but not Kobe, why is that? Dirk's career TS% (57.7) is only 2.7% more than Kobe's too.

[khaled1987]

Kobe wasn't at his peak when Jrue played most of his career though. He was playing in Philly in his first 4 years which was Kobe's last really good years, at most that is 8 games he faced 31+ years old Kobe. He probably struggled but I think there is indeed a bit of tribute in the selection

[HoosierDaddyKid]

If that is Jrue's truth, who are we to dispel it? He listed the 3 players that gave him problems, that are no longer playing when he came into the league. Kobe was everyone's nightmare. I actually think he's a better defender now, gained through experience than in his 76ers, Pelican days.

[dirkfansince1998]

Well, I honestly think Kobe could average 35-40 PPG today if he wanted to and was playing like he did between 2000-01 to 2007-08, when he was in his athletic prime, because of how different the game is compared to that time.

The rules in the early 2000s were very conducive to teams being able to play the most stifling defense, which was an environment that allowed the best 1-on-1 players to shine on their own merit (i.e., without help from rule changes or from gifted spacing). It's only because of subsequent rule changes that lesser talented players have also been able to shine as brightly.

Imagine Kobe in a team that was perfectly constructed around him, with defenders and spacing. For example:

- Billups or Kidd, Kobe, Shane Battier, Rasheed Wallace or Shawn Marion, Tyson Chandler

^ who's beating that team?

These are the kind of teams that MJ, Magic, Larry, Lebron, Duncan, Steph, etc have had.

Regarding efficiency... Kobe's career TS% (55.0%) is the same as Tim Duncan's (55.1%). Bigs are supposed to have higher TS%, being that more of their points come closer to the basket. Yet you think of Duncan as efficient but not Kobe, why is that? Dirk's career TS% (57.7) is only 2.7% more than Kobe's too.

Compared to 20 or even 5-10 years ago we are watching a different sport. I agree with your point that in the late 90s and early 00s iso midrange scoring was more important than it is today. Not really sure how that translates to the modern NBA. Can we assume that Kobe would have turned into a LBJ/Luka like passer out of double teams or would have increased his 3-point volume?

I don't really need to imagine Kobe on a perfectly constructed team around him. He already had more help than most of his peers. Outside of the short stretch from 05-07 he played his entire prime with all-NBA and all-defense caliber teammates. Winning three of his rings next to one of the best centers of all time.

Bigs are supposed to have higher TS% when they are just finishers. Tyson Chandler or DAJ belong in that category because all they do is dunk. Dirk was a shot creator with comparable or higher midrange volume than Kobe. Simply a better shooter. Leading to better TS% and no decline in the playoffs. Dirk's case over any other offensive superstar in the 00s are his impact metrics. No matter who played next to him. As long as Dirk was on the floor the team had an elite offense. Kobe is one of the best offensive first options of the 00s but not on the same level as Nowitzki or Nash. Always needed a great big/pick and roll partner (Shaq/Gasol).
Duncan isn't just in the conversation because he was a solid first option on offense. His case is just as much about all time great defense. Being the anchor of some of the best defensive teams in history.

Kobe was the golden child of the NBA because he is the closest thing to Jordan we have seen. Style of play. Attitude. Marketability. You don't need to be the best player to be the face of the league.
Just need to look at this years playoffs. League is desperate for the next Jordan/Kobe. Edwards is the closest thing. Hype was unreal. ESPN talking heads ranked him as a top three player in the league. Ringer put him ahead of SGA and Doncic on their 25 and younger list. Their case...he has the "it" factor. The "it" is everything I described above.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Great player. But that's obviously not all that matters. Style and marketabilty are just as important. Add a tragic death and you have a larger than life idol.
Kobe was good. But never the best player in the league. Great volume scorer. Not the most efficient one. I think compared to his peers he is overrated.
AI is another good example. Had no business winning an MVP award over Duncan and Shaq but he was one of the most popular players of all time. Living legend because he shot 40% from midrange after a crossover. A 7ft guy shooting 50% from the same distance with a weird looking fadeaway is going to win you more games but he isn't going to sell more jerseys.

I feel Kobe's overrated legacy hit irrational exuberance when he died.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

I feel Kobe's overrated legacy hit irrational exuberance when he died.

Kobe's overrated huh?  Okayeee....

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://heavy.com/sports/nba/boston-celt...dan-walsh/


Celtics 18th championship too easy? Most execs say that's crap.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://frontofficesports.com/the-line-t...eady-long/


Barkley could command 20 M per offers.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://awfulannouncing.com/nba/dan-patr...mazon.html


Amazon is global, TNT is not..

[SleepingHero]

Chuck has some words for Adam Silver and the NBA.

[RGP1981]

Compared to 20 or even 5-10 years ago we are watching a different sport. I agree with your point that in the late 90s and early 00s iso midrange scoring was more important than it is today. Not really sure how that translates to the modern NBA. Can we assume that Kobe would have turned into a LBJ/Luka like passer out of double teams or would have increased his 3-point volume?

I don't really need to imagine Kobe on a perfectly constructed team around him. He already had more help than most of his peers. Outside of the short stretch from 05-07 he played his entire prime with all-NBA and all-defense caliber teammates. Winning three of his rings next to one of the best centers of all time.

Bigs are supposed to have higher TS% when they are just finishers. Tyson Chandler or DAJ belong in that category because all they do is dunk. Dirk was a shot creator with comparable or higher midrange volume than Kobe. Simply a better shooter. Leading to better TS% and no decline in the playoffs. Dirk's case over any other offensive superstar in the 00s are his impact metrics. No matter who played next to him. As long as Dirk was on the floor the team had an elite offense. Kobe is one of the best offensive first options of the 00s but not on the same level as Nowitzki or Nash. Always needed a great big/pick and roll partner (Shaq/Gasol).
Duncan isn't just in the conversation because he was a solid first option on offense. His case is just as much about all time great defense. Being the anchor of some of the best defensive teams in history.

Kobe was the golden child of the NBA because he is the closest thing to Jordan we have seen. Style of play. Attitude. Marketability. You don't need to be the best player to be the face of the league.
Just need to look at this years playoffs. League is desperate for the next Jordan/Kobe. Edwards is the closest thing. Hype was unreal. ESPN talking heads ranked him as a top three player in the league. Ringer put him ahead of SGA and Doncic on their 25 and younger list. Their case...he has the "it" factor. The "it" is everything I described above.

Show me on the doll where Kobe hurt you?

I think maybe you don't have an appreciation for the level of talent that was needed to separate oneself to the extent he did. You're saying things like "closest thing to Jordan", as if that's something to be taken lightly... but it's actually amazing for us fans to watch that he got so close to the greatest. And saying "Kobe always needed a great big/pick and roll partner"... as if that's some big negative for Kobe compared to Dirk... well, if that's the argument you're going to make, then the flip side is, I could say things like, "Dirk couldn't win diddly-squat unless he had a team that was perfectly balanced in every other position 1-5"... like he finally had in 2011. And if Dirk didn't need a perfectly balanced team to cover for his flaws, well, then Dirk would have had 5 titles to his name and Kobe would have had 1. But guess what? It's the opposite.

Also, check your Duncan stats fam. Duncan was one part of an overall great defense. He wasn't the "anchor", even though this has become the modern narrative. The actual anchor of that team, and you should know this if you've been watching the NBA closely since 1998, was the swarming defense by their perimeter defenders. When Bruce Bowen retired, the Spurs' DRTGs went to shite (by their previous lofty standards), and only came back up again when Kawhi became dominant. So who was the "anchor"? Was it Duncan, was it Bowen/Kawhi, was it part of a system? Yes, Duncan was a great defender, but if Duncan was as great on defense as the modern narrative has become, then why the large dip when Bowen retired? Hakeem was a much better defender than Duncan, because Hakeem was that much more athletic, and had the same if not higher BBIQ. Hakeem's teams never had so large of a dip. I've seen both play in person and young Hakeem stood out way more than Duncan, on both ends of the floor. And don't forget that Duncan had Parker and Ginobili (two of the best in their respective positions)... and yet never won a back-to-back, and more importantly, would have gone win-less from 2004-05 until forever (if not for the NBA robbing the Suns in 2006-07, and then Lebron choking in 2013-14... although, I can't really blame Lebron for "choking" that year, since the 2013-14 Spurs team was more stacked and balanced than the Heatles, to those who follow closely and know different player's abilities instead of just going by names).

While I'm on the subject of Duncan, I also want to ask this question of the "students of the game"... how is it that Kobe is inefficient, but yet he scored at a higher percentage from "post-moves" than Duncan did? Post-moves were supposed to be Duncan's forte, as a big, right? Yet, you have a little 6'5" guard who was more efficient than Duncan, a 7-footer, in the post? And yet, Duncan was efficient and Kobe was not? How is this possible? It's part of the modern narrative that boggles my lil ole mind.

Anyway, I think Kobe was a greater player than Duncan and Dirk. He was the best player in the league from 2005-2010, and joint best with Duncan and Garnett between 2001-05 (Shaq had become too big/lazy or he would've been the undisputed #1 in those years). Also, to answer your question about playing style, 2000-01 Kobe played a heck of lot more similar to Luka, i.e., he also distributed and orchestrated, but then he changed for off-court reasons (Shaq's ego and the things Shaq would say), started playing more selfish so that nobody could question his greatness. Go back and watch the film. I also think Hakeem was greater than either Duncan or Dirk. I would put Hakeem over Kobe too. This is a Mavs board though, and I'm aware of my audience, so I won't drag it out.

PS: If any part of my message comes across as confrontational, please don't take it that way. I love talking hoops and appreciate your discussion. Cheers!

[dirkfansince1998]

Show me on the doll where Kobe hurt you?

I think maybe you don't have an appreciation for the level of talent that was needed to separate oneself as a 6'5" guard in the early 2000s, who didn't have MJ's elite athleticism. You're saying things like "Kobe always needed a great big/pick and roll partner"... like as if that's some big negative for Kobe compared to Dirk. Well, if that's the argument you're going to make, then the flip side is I could say that Dirk couldn't win diddly-squat unless he had a team that was perfectly balanced in every other position 1-5. But that's something your selective memory will not allow you to see. And if Dirk didn't need a perfectly balanced team to cover for his flaws, well, then Dirk would have had 5 titles to his name and Kobe would have had 1. But guess what? It's the opposite.

Also, check your Duncan stats fam. Duncan was one part of a great defense. He wasn't the "anchor", even though this has become the modern narrative. The actual anchor of that team, and you should know this if you've been watching the NBA closely since 1998, was the swarming defense by their perimeter defenders. When Bruce Bowen retired, the Spurs' DRTGs went to shite (by their previous lofty standards), and only came back up again when Kawhi became dominant. So who was the "anchor"? Was it Duncan, was it Bowen, was it part of a system? If Duncan was so great on defense, then why the large dip when Bowen retired? Hakeem was a much better defender than Duncan, because Hakeem was that much more athletic, and had the same if not higher BBIQ. I've seen both play in person and young Hakeem stood out way more than Duncan. And don't forget that Duncan had Parker and Ginobili (two of the best in their respective positions)... and yet still would have gone win-less from 2004-05 until forever (if not for the NBA robbing the Suns in 2006-07, and then Lebron choking in 2013-14... although, it has to be said that the Spurs 2013-14 team was more stacked than the Heatles).

While I'm on the subject of Duncan, I also want to ask this question of the "students of the game"... how is it that Kobe is inefficient, but yet he scored at a higher percentage from "post-moves" than Duncan did? Post-moves were supposed to be Duncan's forte, as a big, right?! Yet, you have a little 6'5" guard who was more efficient than him in the post? And yet, Duncan was efficient and Kobe was not? How is this possible? It's the kind of stuff that boggles my lil ole mind.

Anyway, I think Kobe was a greater player than Duncan and Dirk. 2000-01 Kobe played a heck of lot more similar to Luka, i.e., he also distributed and orchestrated, then he changed for off-court reasons (Shaq). Go back and watch the film. I also think Hakeem was greater than either Duncan or Dirk. I might even put Hakeem over Kobe too. This is a Mavs board though, and I'm aware of my audience, so I won't drag it out.

Kobe hurting/touching people is a different story that should be mentioned more often but it's not really relevant for this discussion.

Dirk did more with less. I don't think that is a controversial statement. Dirk's Mavs had a record breaking when he played next to Nash. Still ranked first/second/top five in the following seasons. Kobe went through a chucking away on a bad team period after Shaq left/before Gasol joined the Lakers. Overall Kobe had a better supporting cast and when he won it all he always had at least one all-NBA + one all-defense teammate.

I am a Mavs fans. I don't really like to praise Spurs players. Even less willing to praise Rockets. Still can admit that Duncan is the GOAT PF. He absolutely was the defensive anchor of that team. The reason why the Spurs defense only was top 5-10ish in the late 00s/early10s was directly tied to his injury issues/decline. People that followed the NBA in the 00s (as you like to imply) know that his early decline (compared to Garnett, Dirk or Kobe) was caused by a meniscus injury. He basically played his entire career (post 2000) with no cartlage in his left knee. He lost mobility. Had to lose some weight/muscle mass. And had to go through Pop's load management routine (invented for that reason) to prolong his career.
Not sure why you bring up Hakeem. Haven't mentioned him at all and their careers basically didn't overlap. But if you want to hear my take. Duncan arrived in the NBA as a basketball savant. Hakeem was a way better athlet but his bball IQ needed some time to catch up. Took him almost a decade to figure out how to pass out of the post.

Have I mentioned Duncan's efficiency in any of my posts? No. I mentioned his defense and two-way impact. Duncan was one of the more resiliant playoff scorers but rarely reached the volume numbers of other superstar first options. In the few seasons where he did that he was running away with the MVP award.

I think his 02/03 season was the single best season of the 00s (maybe 09 LBJ). Probably one of the biggest carry jobs in my lifetime. Robinson was still on the roster but a shadow of his former self. Parker in his second year. Probably the second best player on the roster but not even close to his prime version. Ginobili in his rookie season. Not even a 6th man yet. Bowen and Jackson as wing defenders. By far the teams biggest strength.
Honestly think that Dirk in 2011 (another big underdog story) had a better supporting cast. Even adjusted for era that's not a championship caliber team. But Duncan made it happen. Beating the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and probably the best non championship Mavs team (Dirk's injury had a big impact on that series). Leading his team in all boxscore stats except for steals.

As far as all time rankings go. I don't have a list but I think Hakeem and Duncan belong in a different category than Kobe. They could lead a team as the first option on offense and also play DPOY level defense. Kobe was the highest volume iso scorer in the midrange iso scoring era. Score first with a relatively low assist rate (compared to players with similar volume). Not the engine of an offensive system like LBJ/Doncic/Jokic/Nash/Dirk/Curry. For me players that "are the system" have more value than KD or Kobe. Doesn't mean that I am taking all of them over Kobe because he had other qualities that contributed to his on court value but that is the reason why I don't have him in the same tier as Duncan/Hakeem and other players with legit top 5/10 all time cases. Probably in a tier below with other all time greats (including Nowitzki, Garnett, KD).

In general (not on a nerd board like this) it is really hard to argue against some of the narratives. Kobe is a larger than life figure. Just as an example. LBJ was viewed as a mediocre/bad clutch shooter based on ...? Kobe on the other brought the mamba mentality and clutch gene based on...?
Guess who is a better clutch player if we just look at the numbers? Guess how many players of the 00s and 10s have better clutch shooting numbers than Kobe? We remember the game winners. Not 15 misses in a row.

The audience doesn't matter. We cannot fix who you are. Just have to endure and hope that at some point the Jazz will be relevant enough to attract your attention again 

[RGP1981]

Dirk did more with less. I don't think that is a controversial statement. Dirk's Mavs had a record breaking when he played next to Nash. Still ranked first/second/top five in the following seasons. Kobe went through a chucking away on a bad team period after Shaq left/before Gasol joined the Lakers. Overall Kobe had a better supporting cast and when he won it all he always had at least one all-NBA + one all-defense teammate

I disagree with this. First, to say "did more", well, you might have been able to say that if Kobe only won 2 titles to Dirk's 1 title... but the guy won 5 titles or 5 times as many. Second, Dirk was also blessed with plenty of riches when it came to team-mates who were among the best in the league on offense. He had continuity with those players and no ego-drama too (like Shaq). Strangely enough, he did however lack a great big (which you only say Kobe needed, lol) to be a strong rim-protector and pick and roll partner. Still, to say that Dirk did more with less is another fallacy IMO. Look at the team-mates... Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion... and the plethora of other vets that Cuban brought to the Mavs to serve as backups (Keith van Horn, Nick van Excel, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway Sr, Travis Best, Cedric Ceballos, Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, etc, etc). Kobe went on chucking sprees because he didn't always have as much offensive talent next to him in every position. The reason people don't remember guys like Finley, Stackhouse, Josh Howard now (as good as they were then), is simply because they couldn't win rings with Dirk. That's why people remember players like Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw instead, even though they weren't good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as Finley and Stackhouse. Even Pau Gasol, was he really a better player than those two, or is that how we remember Pau now because he won titles next to Kobe?

I don't have him in the same tier as Duncan/Hakeem and other players with legit top 5/10 all time cases. Probably in a tier below with other all time greats (including Nowitzki, Garnett, KD).

Please stop saying Duncan/Hakeem, as if they are equals... Hakeem was just on a whole other level to Duncan. If Hakeem played for the Spurs, I think they would've won more than they did with Duncan, 2-3 titles more IMO. I have Hakeem in my Top 5, Kobe in my Top 10. Duncan is in the 11-15 range, with others like Garnett, Dirk, Steph, Jokic.

Duncan from 1997-98 to 2003-04, I agree, he would be a better player to build a team around than Kobe. From 2004-05 onwards though, once Kobe took off and Duncan slowed down, I think it would be much easier to build a contending team around Kobe. For Duncan to be the guy you build a team around, you would need a top-level PG AND either a top-level SG or SF. With Kobe, all I would need is a specific type of big like Tyson Chandler (who is most definitely not a top level Center of all time), and competent players that can defend and space the floor.

Here's a thought exercise, think up an SG equivalent to Tyson Chandler. As a starting point, we'll put that guy next to Duncan, and we'll put Tyson Chandler next to Kobe... and then build out the 2 teams from there, with vet-minimum (or MLE) players.

So...

Prime Kobe vs Prime Duncan
+ Tyson Chandler vs SG Equivalent of Tyson Chandler (i.e., not Manu Ginobli)
+ Vet-min PG vs Vet-min PG (i.e., not Tony Parker)
+ Vet-min SF vs Vet-min SF
+ Vet-min PF vs Vet-min PF

Who wins?

I think Kobe wins more with less... and I'm having Duncan switch on to Kobe every time, for a laugh. I'd have Dirk switch on to Kobe every time too, that would be even more fun.

The audience doesn't matter. We cannot fix who you are. Just have to endure and hope that at some point the Jazz will be relevant enough to attract your attention again 

Well, if we can get Cooper Flagg next summer, I will naturally have to set aside my man-love for Luka and return to greener pastures.

Collier, Keyonte, Cody, Coop, Hendricks/Kessler... could be the start of something special. 

Until then, you're stuck with me.

[MarkAguirreWrathofGod]

I disagree with this. First, to say "did more", well, you might have been able to say that if Kobe only won 2 titles to Dirk's 1 title... but the guy won 5 titles or 5 times as many. Second, Dirk was also blessed with plenty of riches when it came to team-mates who were among the best in the league on offense. He had continuity with those players and no ego-drama too (like Shaq). Strangely enough, he did however lack a great big (which you only say Kobe needed, lol) to be a strong rim-protector and pick and roll partner. Still, to say that Dirk did more with less is another fallacy IMO. Look at the team-mates... Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion... and the plethora of other vets that Cuban brought to the Mavs to serve as backups (Keith van Horn, Nick van Excel, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway Sr, Travis Best, Cedric Ceballos, Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, etc, etc). Kobe went on chucking sprees because he didn't always have as much offensive talent next to him in every position. The reason people don't remember guys like Finley, Stackhouse, Josh Howard now (as good as they were then), is simply because they couldn't win rings with Dirk. That's why people remember players like Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw instead, even though they weren't good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as Finley and Stackhouse. Even Pau Gasol, was he really a better player than those two, or is that how we remember Pau now because he won titles next to Kobe?


Please stop saying Duncan/Hakeem, as if they are equals... Hakeem was just on a whole other level to Duncan. If Hakeem played for the Spurs, they would've won more than they did with Duncan, at least 2-3 titles more IMO. I have Hakeem in my Top 5, Kobe in my Top 10. Duncan is in the 11-15 range, with others like Garnett, Dirk, Steph, Jokic.

Duncan from 1998-99 to 2003-04, I agree, he would be a better player to build a team around than Kobe. From 2004-05 onwards though, when Duncan slowed down, I think it would be much easier to build a contending team around Kobe. For Duncan to be the guy you build a team around, you would need a top-level PG AND either a top-level SG or SF, at a minimum, to compete with that team today. With Kobe, all I would need is a specific type of big like Tyson Chandler (who is most definitely not a top level Center of all time), and competent players that can defend and space the floor.

Here's a thought exercise, think up an SG equivalent to Tyson Chandler. As a starting point, we'll put that guy next to Duncan, and we'll put Tyson Chandler next to Kobe... and then build out the 2 teams from there, with vet-minimum (or MLE) players.

So...

Prime Kobe vs Prime Duncan
+ Tyson Chandler vs SG Equivalent of Tyson Chandler (i.e., not Manu Ginobli)
+ Vet-min PG vs Vet-min PG (i.e., not Tony Parker)
+ Vet-min SF vs Vet-min SF
+ Vet-min PF vs Vet-min PF

Who wins?

I think Kobe wins more with less... and I'm having Duncan switch on to Kobe every time, for a laugh. I'd have Dirk switch on to Kobe every time too, that would be even more fun.


Well, if we can get Cooper Flagg next summer, I will naturally have to set aside my man-love for Luka and return to greener pastures.

Collier, Keyonte, Cody, Coop, Hendricks/Kessler... could be the start of something special. 

Until then, you're stuck with me.

Happy to have you here dude. It’s good to hear other voices. Most of us are Mavs homers, but we provide plenty of criticisms of our own guys too. 

I lean to the Kobe was overrated and needed Shaq/Phil etc. or Pau, Odom, Bynum and without great teammates was not really capable of leading a team to greatness with lesser teammates. 

I think you are misremembering about Stackhouse. He was closer to the end of his career here than he was his prime. We didn’t have anything close to 30ppg bouncy prime Stack. He’s had injuries of his own by that point. Also, Matrix was also past his prime by the time he made it to us. Still fine players, nowhere near “stars” though. Josh Howard’s decline was as sudden as it was precipitous. We did have late prime Jet (though he had lost some athleticism by the time he became a Mav) but Jet wasn’t even a Jamal Murray level player in his Mavs years. Nash blossomed post Mavs. Fin was a good player but not even Odom level as far as all around game goes. Dirk had some nice teams around him but there was quite a bit of bad luck and turnover too. Looking back Donnie and Cuban did some nice things but there was a TON of mismanaging assets, especially draft related. As someone else pointed out above, Dirk’s combination of gravity and efficiency made him a true offensive hub and superstar. Even if it wasn’t as stylishly done, in a superficial sense. Both Kobe and Dirk had all time great footwork (Hakeem and Duncan too) and both worked on refining their games obsessively. And had great mutual respect for one another. They are both easily top 25 all time players.

[Dahlsim]

As far as all time rankings go. I don't have a list but I think Hakeem and Duncan belong in a different category than Kobe. 

I don't know about being in a different category.  Hakeen, Duncan, Kobe,  all in the rare air of NBA all time greats.  It just depends on how you define categories but over the course of an entire career Duncan's in the elite of elite by most any standard.  Nothing taken away from Kobe but there was that down Lakers period where Kobe's team was struggling to the point he was considering leaving the Lakers. 
I don't recall anything like that over Duncan's Spur's career.  Even late career TD was very impactful. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/far...a-history/ 

Put it all together, and it’s hard to find a modern player with a better combination of offensive and defensive résumés than Duncan. 
To measure this, I used a couple of statistics from Basketball-Reference.com: value over replacement player (VORP) and Win Shares, both of which strive to capture a player’s total on-court influence over his team’s success.1 
I converted both metrics to a figure representing wins above replacement (WAR), and broke down each into its offensive and defensive components, zeroing out seasons where a player dipped into negative-value territory. Then I summed up offensive and defensive WAR for a player’s entire career — including the playoffs, where Duncan built a good amount of his legend — and took the harmonic mean (which favors balance between the two instead of a lopsided total in one category) of a player’s offensive and defensive tallies.

By that standard, Duncan has no peers among modern NBA players:

WINS ABOVE REPLACEMENT
PLAYER MINUTES PLAYED OFFENSE DEFENSE HARMONIC MEAN
1 Tim Duncan 56,738 108.1 110.3 109.2
2 Kevin Garnett 55,701 107.3 87.2 96.2
3 Karl Malone 62,759 162.5 67.5 95.4
4 David Robinson 38,492 100.6 80.3 89.3
5 Hakeem Olajuwon 49,971 79.5 93.3 85.9
6 LeBron James 46,861 196.2 52.5 82.8
7 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 50,840 144.4 53.5 78.0
8 Larry Bird 41,329 120.3 53.6 74.2
9 Shaquille O’Neal 50,016 133.8 50.2 73.0
10 Scottie Pippen 49,174 87.4 62.3 72.7
11 Jason Kidd 56,199 94.8 55.4 70.0
12 Michael Jordan 48,485 206.5 41.6 69.2
13 Charles Barkley 44,179 154.9 41.0 64.9
14 Magic Johnson 40,783 149.1 34.6 56.2
15 Clyde Drexler 43,109 118.2 35.6 54.7
16 Shawn Marion 43,934 63.0 47.0 53.8
17 Robert Parish 51,881 70.9 41.4 52.3
18 Pau Gasol 41,572 81.4 38.5 52.2
19 Horace Grant 44,793 68.3 41.3 51.5
20 Patrick Ewing 45,801 41.2 65.3 50.5
Nobody combined offense and defense like Tim Duncan

The NBA’s best full life-cycle players
NBA WIN SHARES
PLAYER THROUGH AGE 24 | AGE 33 ONWARD | HARMONIC MEAN

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 61.5 82.6 70.5
   
2. Tim Duncan 47.8 55.0 51.1
   
3. Michael Jordan 53.6 43.6 48.1
   
4. Dirk Nowitzki 53.0 37.5 43.9
   
5. Wilt Chamberlain 35.8 49.0 41.4
   
6. Kevin Garnett 50.0 33.0 39.8
   
7. Paul Pierce 36.3 37.4 36.8
   
8. Moses Malone 40.9 33.1 36.6
   
9. Shaquille O’Neal 56.3 25.4 35.0
   
10. Hakeem Olajuwon 30.6 38.5 34.1
    

The NBA’s best full life-cycle players
Sorted by harmonic mean of NBA Win Shares through age 24 and from age 33 onward.

[dirkfansince1998]

I disagree with this. First, to say "did more", well, you might have been able to say that if Kobe only won 2 titles to Dirk's 1 title... but the guy won 5 titles or 5 times as many. Second, Dirk was also blessed with plenty of riches when it came to team-mates who were among the best in the league on offense. He had continuity with those players and no ego-drama too (like Shaq). Strangely enough, he did however lack a great big (which you only say Kobe needed, lol) to be a strong rim-protector and pick and roll partner. Still, to say that Dirk did more with less is another fallacy IMO. Look at the team-mates... Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion... and the plethora of other vets that Cuban brought to the Mavs to serve as backups (Keith van Horn, Nick van Excel, Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway Sr, Travis Best, Cedric Ceballos, Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, etc, etc). Kobe went on chucking sprees because he didn't always have as much offensive talent next to him in every position. The reason people don't remember guys like Finley, Stackhouse, Josh Howard now (as good as they were then), is simply because they couldn't win rings with Dirk. That's why people remember players like Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw instead, even though they weren't good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as Finley and Stackhouse. Even Pau Gasol, was he really a better player than those two, or is that how we remember Pau now because he won titles next to Kobe?


Please stop saying Duncan/Hakeem, as if they are equals... Hakeem was just on a whole other level to Duncan. If Hakeem played for the Spurs, I think they would've won more than they did with Duncan, 2-3 titles more IMO. I have Hakeem in my Top 5, Kobe in my Top 10. Duncan is in the 11-15 range, with others like Garnett, Dirk, Steph, Jokic.

Duncan from 1997-98 to 2003-04, I agree, he would be a better player to build a team around than Kobe. From 2004-05 onwards though, once Kobe took off and Duncan slowed down, I think it would be much easier to build a contending team around Kobe. For Duncan to be the guy you build a team around, you would need a top-level PG AND either a top-level SG or SF. With Kobe, all I would need is a specific type of big like Tyson Chandler (who is most definitely not a top level Center of all time), and competent players that can defend and space the floor.

Here's a thought exercise, think up an SG equivalent to Tyson Chandler. As a starting point, we'll put that guy next to Duncan, and we'll put Tyson Chandler next to Kobe... and then build out the 2 teams from there, with vet-minimum (or MLE) players.

So...

Prime Kobe vs Prime Duncan
+ Tyson Chandler vs SG Equivalent of Tyson Chandler (i.e., not Manu Ginobli)
+ Vet-min PG vs Vet-min PG (i.e., not Tony Parker)
+ Vet-min SF vs Vet-min SF
+ Vet-min PF vs Vet-min PF

Who wins?

I think Kobe wins more with less... and I'm having Duncan switch on to Kobe every time, for a laugh. I'd have Dirk switch on to Kobe every time too, that would be even more fun.


Well, if we can get Cooper Flagg next summer, I will naturally have to set aside my man-love for Luka and return to greener pastures.

Collier, Keyonte, Cody, Coop, Hendricks/Kessler... could be the start of something special. 

Until then, you're stuck with me.

We know how Kobe looked with a mediocre supporting cast. We know how Dirk and Duncan looked with mediocre supporting cast. It's not a think about it situation. No need to imagine things. It happened. Kobe is the only one among the mentioned guys that missed the playoffs in his prime. Only one that won less than 50 games multiple times.
I am not sure how it is controversial to say that when Kobe won it all he had great supporting cast. Better than everything Dirk ever had. Better than most Spurs teams of the 00s and 10s. If you just want to throw around names and act like past their prime players like Marion, Kidd or Stackhouse belong in the same conversation as guys that played that actually made all-NBA and all-defense teams when they played on the Lakers I don't really no how to respond. Just have to accept that we don't live in the same reality.

If you think that Finley or Stackhouse were as good as Gasol you simply have no clue. Nothing else to say. Among all the garbage you come up with this is easily top three on the worst takes list. You are going to be suprised if you look at the advanced stats of Gasol from 08-11. He is closer to Kobe than any player that ever played on the Mavs next to Dirk. Legit all-NBA big. Not a suprise because he was the franchise player and first option for the Grizzlies before he joined the Lakers.

Not to even mention Shaq. The best player on the 98-04 Lakers. The MVP and FMVP. The one that I would actually include in the conversation with Duncan and Olajuwon.

Not evens sure what the last part is all about. We saw Duncan with a mediocre supporting cast. Saw him win it all in 2003. I already gave you the details. But I guess you can act as if he played with prime Parker, Ginobili and Robinson. Not the rookie/geriatric versions.
Repeating myself. 2003 Duncan is better than any version of Kobe. Had a legit GOAT level season. Still 1st in all time playoff WS. 2nd in all time playoff VORP. Leading his team in pts/ast/reb/blk in the playoffs. Beating the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. Rightfully earning both MVP and FMVP.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/ClutchPoints/status/181729...70?ref_src=


Shaq is cold...

[RGP1981]

ESPN's Top 25 NBA players of the 21st century.

1) Lebron
2) Kobe
3) Steph
4) Duncan
5) Shaq
6) KG
7) Jokic
8) Wade
9) Durant
10) Dirk

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4061...st-century

[Mavs2021]

ESPN's Top 25 NBA players of the 21st century.

1) Lebron
2) Kobe
3) Steph
4) Duncan
5) Shaq
6) KG
7) Jokic
8) Wade
9) Durant
10) Dirk

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4061...st-century

This board desperately needs a sarcastic laughing smiley.