NBA Player of the Decade
- Thread starter Purple Reign
- Start date
I'll agree that the choice can only be between Kobe and Tim Duncan. It pained me to vote for Kobe, but the flip side of what VF21 said is that he managed to recover from the tabloid mess, he was able to somewhat replicate "The Secret" and get the &&^@^ Lakers to the championship without Shaq, and he's been pretty much just as consistent as Tim Duncan.
So, I hold my nose and click on Kobe.
So, I hold my nose and click on Kobe.
I believe the Playoffs of the 2000's and the Playoffs of the 90's were pretty similar. 90's were EASTERN CONFERENCE DOMINATED. Bulls vs Heat vs Knicks vs Pacers. In the 2000's it was WESTERN CONFERENCE DOMINATED: Lakers vs Spurs vs Suns vs Mavs. Throw in a little Blazers, Kings and Nuggets and it made for a great decade.
Of course the 80's were by far the best of the three. ONLY FIVE TEAMS IN THE 80'S PLAYED FOR TITLES
80 - Lakers vs Sixers
81 - Rockets vs Celtics
82 - Lakers vs Sixers
83 - Lakers vs Sixers
84 - Lakers vs Celtics
85 - Lakers vs Celtics
86 - Rockets vs Celtics
87 - Lakers vs Celtics
88 - Lakers vs Pistons
89 - Lakers vs Pistons
1990'S
Western Conference had Blazers, Lakers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs to play for titles
Eastern Conference had Pistons, Bulls, Knicks, Magic to represent
2000'S
Western Conference had only Lakers, Spurs and Mavs play for Championship
Eastern Conference had Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Celtics, Magic represent.
Of course the 80's were by far the best of the three. ONLY FIVE TEAMS IN THE 80'S PLAYED FOR TITLES
80 - Lakers vs Sixers
81 - Rockets vs Celtics
82 - Lakers vs Sixers
83 - Lakers vs Sixers
84 - Lakers vs Celtics
85 - Lakers vs Celtics
86 - Rockets vs Celtics
87 - Lakers vs Celtics
88 - Lakers vs Pistons
89 - Lakers vs Pistons
1990'S
Western Conference had Blazers, Lakers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs to play for titles
Eastern Conference had Pistons, Bulls, Knicks, Magic to represent
2000'S
Western Conference had only Lakers, Spurs and Mavs play for Championship
Eastern Conference had Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Celtics, Magic represent.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2886927
First, Bryant said on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York: "I would like to be traded, yeah. Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative, you know?"
"[The Lakers] obviously want to move in a different direction in terms of rebuilding," Bryant said, adding he could have opted to sign with the Los Angeles Clippers or Chicago Bulls instead. "Three years ago when I was re-signing they should have told me they wanted to rebuild."
I picked Timmy for the same reason VF21 said.
First, Bryant said on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York: "I would like to be traded, yeah. Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative, you know?"
"[The Lakers] obviously want to move in a different direction in terms of rebuilding," Bryant said, adding he could have opted to sign with the Los Angeles Clippers or Chicago Bulls instead. "Three years ago when I was re-signing they should have told me they wanted to rebuild."
I picked Timmy for the same reason VF21 said.
Last edited:
I went with Duncan, partly for the same reasons that VF21 mentioned. But, I also admired the Spurs consistency with Duncan at the helm. Kobe, on the other hand, had a big drop off when Shaq left, even failing to make the playoffs one year. It wasn't until the (should have been denied) trade for Gasol that Kobe brought his team back to relevance.
I believe the Playoffs of the 2000's and the Playoffs of the 90's were pretty similar. 90's were EASTERN CONFERENCE DOMINATED. Bulls vs Heat vs Knicks vs Pacers. In the 2000's it was WESTERN CONFERENCE DOMINATED: Lakers vs Spurs vs Suns vs Mavs. Throw in a little Blazers, Kings and Nuggets and it made for a great decade.
Of course the 80's were by far the best of the three. ONLY FIVE TEAMS IN THE 80'S PLAYED FOR TITLES
80 - Lakers vs Sixers
81 - Rockets vs Celtics
82 - Lakers vs Sixers
83 - Lakers vs Sixers
84 - Lakers vs Celtics
85 - Lakers vs Celtics
86 - Rockets vs Celtics
87 - Lakers vs Celtics
88 - Lakers vs Pistons
89 - Lakers vs Pistons
1990'S
Western Conference had Blazers, Lakers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs to play for titles
Eastern Conference had Pistons, Bulls, Knicks, Magic to represent
2000'S
Western Conference had only Lakers, Spurs and Mavs play for Championship
Eastern Conference had Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Celtics, Magic represent.
Of course the 80's were by far the best of the three. ONLY FIVE TEAMS IN THE 80'S PLAYED FOR TITLES
80 - Lakers vs Sixers
81 - Rockets vs Celtics
82 - Lakers vs Sixers
83 - Lakers vs Sixers
84 - Lakers vs Celtics
85 - Lakers vs Celtics
86 - Rockets vs Celtics
87 - Lakers vs Celtics
88 - Lakers vs Pistons
89 - Lakers vs Pistons
1990'S
Western Conference had Blazers, Lakers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs to play for titles
Eastern Conference had Pistons, Bulls, Knicks, Magic to represent
2000'S
Western Conference had only Lakers, Spurs and Mavs play for Championship
Eastern Conference had Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Celtics, Magic represent.
The 2000's held some of the most dull, uninteresting NBA finals series in the history of the NBA. The Nets getting dominated 2 years in a row. The defensive trench war between SA and DET. The all but forgotten series between the Spurs and Cavs. It also featured the most controversial playoff series in all of professional sports which has scarred the NBA's legacy and put in question the leagues legitimacy.
I think MJ is the only reason the 90s stand out. The league expanded too rapidly and was extremely watered down and small market clubs could not maintain their talent before the CBA that the 98 lockout brought. It was the influx of European talent at the end of the decade that finally allowed the league to truly support all the added teams. It was in the 2000s that scoring became fashionable again, lead by the Kings of course.
I would have gone with Timmy but technically his first championship was in 1999 so he only won three rings this decade. Therefore it is between Shaq and Kobe with 4 rings apiece. Since Shaq declined over the course of the decade, while Kobe reached and has stayed at an elite level, I am going to go with Kobe (although it pains me to do so).
I agree that the 90s talent pool was vastly overrated and was filled with more athletes that truly talented players (just look at the Knicks or Heat teams of that decade). The NBA really hit a rut in the middle of this decade though. However, the league has had a resurgence the last two years or so. This is due to several reasons: the age limit for entering the draft, the longevity of the mid/late 90s rookies (Dirk, Nash, Duncan, Kobe, Pierce, Allen, Garnett, Carter), the growth of the 2003 and 2004 draft classes into superstar status (James, Wade, Anthony, Bosh, Howard, Yao), and the emergence of a new generation of players that is both likable and very talented (Paul, Roy, Granger, Durant, Rose, D. Williams, Nelson, Evans, and Jennings to name a few).
The logical progression here is to then count rings. Kobe has the same number as Duncan.
If you have Duncan pegged as a leader and Kobe as a glorified 2nd option, then that only demonstrates that Tim lead his team to 7 playoff exits this decade. You are voting for RS consistency. In these kinds of player ratings, people generally do ring counts. Duncan seems to be the first superstar to have regular season success credited to him. No one brings up RS for Julius Erving or Bird for example...and they have fewer rings than Duncan. Also, Kobe is the first superstar to get knocked for the talent around him, as if Duncan didn't have the best team in the league while he was winning titles (he did).
I think the willingness to go with the RS & Shaq/Gasol ploys is associated with "Snake" being in the discussion -- it's difficult for non-LA fans to judge him objectively. If they do, they nearly always precede their statement with, "I hate him, but..." or "It pains me to say this, but..."
If you have Duncan pegged as a leader and Kobe as a glorified 2nd option, then that only demonstrates that Tim lead his team to 7 playoff exits this decade. You are voting for RS consistency. In these kinds of player ratings, people generally do ring counts. Duncan seems to be the first superstar to have regular season success credited to him. No one brings up RS for Julius Erving or Bird for example...and they have fewer rings than Duncan. Also, Kobe is the first superstar to get knocked for the talent around him, as if Duncan didn't have the best team in the league while he was winning titles (he did).
I think the willingness to go with the RS & Shaq/Gasol ploys is associated with "Snake" being in the discussion -- it's difficult for non-LA fans to judge him objectively. If they do, they nearly always precede their statement with, "I hate him, but..." or "It pains me to say this, but..."
A
i voted for lebron... though duncan and shaq were the guys who made this decade of basketball what it was. 2 dominate big men who combined for 8 consectutive trips to the nba finals 2000-2007, 3 mvps, 7 championship rings, 5 finals mvps and combined for only 1 missed trip to the playoffs. shaq didnt make it last year with the suns...
but lebron is the best player to play basketball this decade not named michael jordan so i voted for him.
but lebron is the best player to play basketball this decade not named michael jordan so i voted for him.
Kobe has earned a lot of the acrimony that has come his way over the years. And it's hard to view him as a good leader and teammate after the way he tried to force a trade just two years ago.
That said, it's only a two-man race, and I don't even think it's close. If the question were "who is the most consistent player of the decade," then Duncan has an argument that I might buy. But as a player, just based on what they've done on the court and the circumstances surrounding those achievements, I think it's clearly Kobe. If Shaq hadn't faded into the background after 2004, he'd be in the discussion. If Steve Nash had won a championship, he'd be in the discussion. But I think it comes down to Kobe vs. Duncan, and I have to give Kobe his propers.
And I think that on any other fan site, this poll would have completely different results.
That said, it's only a two-man race, and I don't even think it's close. If the question were "who is the most consistent player of the decade," then Duncan has an argument that I might buy. But as a player, just based on what they've done on the court and the circumstances surrounding those achievements, I think it's clearly Kobe. If Shaq hadn't faded into the background after 2004, he'd be in the discussion. If Steve Nash had won a championship, he'd be in the discussion. But I think it comes down to Kobe vs. Duncan, and I have to give Kobe his propers.
And I think that on any other fan site, this poll would have completely different results.
I don't see how that's a fair comparison. Tim Duncan has had plenty of help getting his rings. Up until 2008, the second best player on the Lakers was Lamar Odom. Duncan had Ginobili and Parker (who actually won a Finals MVP). Just because the Spurs were better than the Lakers doesn't mean that Duncan was better than Kobe.
Its really between Duncan or Shaq. We are talking about the DECADE.
Lebron was just a rookie in 03. Kobe wasn't even the best player on his own team until 2005 when Shaq left.
I go with Duncan because he's been good even all the way up to this yr. Shaq has slowed down much more obviously than TD the last few yr.s
Lebron was just a rookie in 03. Kobe wasn't even the best player on his own team until 2005 when Shaq left.
I go with Duncan because he's been good even all the way up to this yr. Shaq has slowed down much more obviously than TD the last few yr.s
Honestly, I really don't think Ginobili is any better than Lamar. Lamar is a 19 & 10 guy if he starts being the #2 or #3 guy. He is also a mismatch for many teams with his speed at this height. Parker, I still say he won't be an all star if he didn't play with TD.
You can say Kobe always had Shaq for the first half of the decade and it helped him get buckets and stats during the yrs before his prime. Its a tough debate but for me, it comes down to the fact that for half the decade, Shaq was the best player on kobe's team. The next 3 yrs after shaq, it was a no playoff season and 2 1st round exits. thats 8 yrs of the 10 while TD has been consistently in top form and has his team in championship hunt every yr. If anyone can challenge TD for this, I really only see Shaq since he was so dominate during his prime yrs.
Duncan's teammates stick around and want to be part of his team. And Duncan doesn't mind sharing the spotlight...
You're free to disagree, especially since this is just a poll to gauge how people think. For a lot of people, though, "Player of the Decade" obviously means something more than just stats.
You're free to disagree, especially since this is just a poll to gauge how people think. For a lot of people, though, "Player of the Decade" obviously means something more than just stats.