NBA Player of the Decade

[C Diddy]

I would of voted Tim Duncan if not for the Finals last year. Bryant averaged 32.4 points, 5.6 rebounds and 7.4 assists per game during the 09 Finals. As dominant as Duncan had been earlier in the decade, Kobe deserves the honor as player of the decade. It may be a case of youth and "what have you done for me lately", but looking at the last 3-4 seasons, its not close.

 

[Superman]

Then you're still mistaken; Bryant has had better players around him for at least half that time. You can't seriously expect me to believe that you think Bryant hasn't had better players from 2007-08 onward, can you?

I didn't say that he didn't, from 2007-08 onward. But the Lakers have been in the Finals the past two years. It's not like they've been a six seed or anything like that. The talent since then has translated into success.

And yo have to remember, my initial comments were really in response to posters who were saying that the Spurs' success this decade with Duncan leading the way in comparison to Kobe's Lakers necessarily means that Duncan > Kobe. The main criticism of Kobe was "he didn't win anything without Shaq/Gasol." No one wins without a good supporting cast, and in the years that the Spurs were winning championships (specifically '05 and '07), Duncan's supporting cast was better than Bryant's.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Take Kobe off of the 2000-2002 Lakers and they don't win anything either.

Shaq was the one that you can't replace. At that point in kobe's career, he was a scorer. Who is to say if you replace him with Tmac or VC at that time, the lakers wouldn't have won. I for one think they would've won it as long as they had Shaq.

Take Shaq off the team, they don't even make the playoffs and that was a fact. Take kobe off the team and replace with Odom, Butler etc along with a 31 yr old shaq, I think its safe to say they still at least make it to the western finals.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Then you're still mistaken; Bryant has had better players around him for at least half that time. You can't seriously expect me to believe that you think Bryant hasn't had better players from 2007-08 onward, can you?

Yes, and even the 2 yrs before Gasol went to the lakers, their team (talent wise) wasn't really that bad. Is Odom really any worse than Ginobili as a player? Is Butler really a bad player? Heck if people forget about the fact that he was a #1 pick, Kwame wasn't even that bad. He was a 10/10 big guy with decent post D.

The fact that kobe wasn't able to even make the playoffs with that team shows how valuable he is to his teammates. I remember when kobe got injured, the lakers used to go on winning streaks.

I'm not saying Lebron should be the winner, but as comparison.. if you put kobe on last yr's Cavs team, I think they would be 5th-8th in the east instead of finishing with the best record in the NBA.

Other than 1 title as a finals MVP, kobe hasn't really done enough other than be a good scorer through the yrs.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... The main criticism of Kobe was "he didn't win anything without Shaq/Gasol." No one wins without a good supporting cast, and in the years that the Spurs were winning championships (specifically '05 and '07), Duncan's supporting cast was better than Bryant's.

I beg to differ.

Duncan's supporting casts in 2004-05 and 2006-07 consisted of:

2004-05

Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Devin Brown
Manu Ginobili
Dion Glover*
Robert Horry
Linton Johnson*
Sean Marks*
Tony Massenburg
Nazr Mohammed
Rasho Nesterovic
Tony Parker
Glenn Robinson
Malik Rose*
Beno Udrih
Mike Wilks*

2006-07

Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Devin Brown
Manu Ginobili
Dion Glover*
Robert Horry
Linton Johnson*
Sean Marks*
Tony Massenburg
Nazr Mohammed
Rasho Nesterovic
Tony Parker
Glenn Robinson
Malik Rose*
Beno Udrih
Mike Wilks*

Bryant's Lakers, the year he won his championship consisted of:

Trevor Ariza
Shannon Brown
Andrew Bynum
Jordan Farmar
Derek Fisher
Pau Gasol
DJ Mbenga
Chris Mihm*
Adam Morrison*
Lamar Odom
Josh Powell
Vladimir Radmanovic*
Sasha Vujacic
Luke Walton
Sun Yue*

* - denotes a player which did not make the playoff roster, for whatever reason.

Now, if you can look at those three rosters, and tell me that you honestly feel as though Bryant did not have the better supporting cast, then we have nothing more to discuss on this particular subject.

 

[Superman]

Shaq was the one that you can't replace. At that point in kobe's career, he was a scorer. Who is to say if you replace him with Tmac or VC at that time, the lakers wouldn't have won. I for one think they would've won it as long as they had Shaq.

Take Shaq off the team, they don't even make the playoffs and that was a fact. Take kobe off the team and replace with Odom, Butler etc along with a 31 yr old shaq, I think its safe to say they still at least make it to the western finals.

If you think back to those critical games in the playoffs and Finals (like Game 6? against the Pacers in 2000), Kobe was playing a crucial role and even carrying the team at times. Tracy McGrady didn't become a top tier player until after that season. Vince Carter has always been dogged as a guy who doesn't excel in crucial situations. We're playing a huge what-if game here. What we know is that Kobe contributed greatly to the 2000-02 Lakers championship run -- as more than a scorer, by the way, being their best defender and a solid all around player -- and without his contributions, they don't win those titles.

The Lakers may not have made the playoffs without Shaq in those years, but they did pretty well without him when he was out hurt. He missed 45 games in his last three years with the Lakers, and they made the playoffs all three years. And again, the team was built around Shaq. The players brought in all complemented him, not Kobe.

As for the idea that if you surround a 31 year old Shaq with Caron Butler or Lamar Odom instead of Kobe and they still make the WCF is ludicrous. Kobe was the Lakers leading scorer in the regular season and in the playoffs in 2004 (when Shaq was 31 and missed 15 games with a toe injury, and they had Gary Payton and Karl Malone that season). It took high drama and a Spurs' collapse for them to even get to the WCF. Shaq practically took 2003-04 off. This was the height of the soap opera with Shaq and Kobe, with Malone even getting involved, and it was apparent to most fans that Kobe was the better player, even if the team was built around Shaq. Management certainly thought so, this wound up being Shaq's last year with the Lakers, and he went to Miami and played second fiddle to Dwayne Wade's Heat.

There is absolutely NO WAY that the Lakers are a championship contender, especially in 2004, without Kobe. Nonsense.

 

[Superman]

Yes, and even the 2 yrs before Gasol went to the lakers, their team (talent wise) wasn't really that bad. Is Odom really any worse than Ginobili as a player? Is Butler really a bad player? Heck if people forget about the fact that he was a #1 pick, Kwame wasn't even that bad. He was a 10/10 big guy with decent post D.

I guess you don't remember what Ginobili did to us in the playoffs in 2005. He was much better than Lamar Odom then, and in 2007. Caron Butler is a good player, but was not better than Ginobili. I'm laughing at the idea that Kwame Brown is an essential piece to a championship contender.

The fact that kobe wasn't able to even make the playoffs with that team shows how valuable he is to his teammates. I remember when kobe got injured, the lakers used to go on winning streaks.

Actually, when Kobe got injured in 2005, the Lakers were very much in the playoff picture. This is also the year that Rudy T. retired in the middle of the season. To say that this season proved that he wasn't very valuable to his teammates because they missed the playoffs is an example of revisionist history.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If you think back to those critical games in the playoffs and Finals (like Game 6? against the Pacers in 2000), Kobe was playing a crucial role and even carrying the team at times. Tracy McGrady didn't become a top tier player until after that season. Vince Carter has always been dogged as a guy who doesn't excel in crucial situations. We're playing a huge what-if game here. What we know is that Kobe contributed greatly to the 2000-02 Lakers championship run -- as more than a scorer, by the way, being their best defender and a solid all around player -- and without his contributions, they don't win those titles...

Message boards are built on the "what if" game...

I don't know about Carter or McGrady but, as for myself, I actually do believe that you could have put Ray Allen or Eddie Jones or Steve Smith (who was coming off a 19/4/3 year with Atlanta before taking a lesser role in Portland) or maybe even Latrell Sprewell into the spot that Kobe Bryant occupied, and that team would have still won at least two championships.

 

[Superman]

I beg to differ.

...

Now, if you can look at those three rosters, and tell me that you honestly feel as though Bryant did not have the better supporting cast, then we have nothing more to discuss on this particular subject.

You're misunderstanding me. My argument was that Duncan's Spurs in their championship years ('05 and '07) were better than Kobe's in those same years. Of course the '08 and '09 Lakers were better than the Spurs of those same years; that explains why they were in the Finals both years, and the Spurs weren't.

 

[Superman]

Message boards are built on the "what if" game...

I don't know about Carter or McGrady but, as for myself, I actually do believe that you could have put Ray Allen or Eddie Jones or Steve Smith (who was coming off a 19/4/3 year with Atlanta before taking a lesser role in Portland) or maybe even Latrell Sprewell into the spot that Kobe Bryant occupied, and that team would have still won at least two championships.

Ray Allen, yeah. Eddie Jones was a Laker, and didn't win anything with both Shaq and Kobe there. He had a pretty good year in Charlotte, but after that, was never really relevant. Steve Smith was too old and broken in 2000. His stat line was 15/4/2.5, and Kobe's was 28.5/6/5. I have to cross him off, too. Sprewell is an interesting proposition, and that was shortly after he came back, but he wasn't nearly as dynamic as Kobe in 2000, and was eight years older.

And my point about the what if's is that it's one thing to say "take this player off this team, and ..." It's entirely another to say "replace this player with this one, and ..." Now you're talking about a completely different team composition, especially when you're talking about someone as critical as Kobe Bryant. We're not talking about replacing Rick Fox or Samaki Walker. We're talking about the #2 guy on the team.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Ray Allen, yeah. Eddie Jones was a Laker, and didn't win anything with both Shaq and Kobe there. He had a pretty good year in Charlotte, but after that, was never really relevant...

I think that's overly simplistic; Jones had much more than one pretty good year after leaving Los Angeles, unless you only take ppg into account when determining whether or not a player had a good year. And, I'm subject to give everybody who played for Del Harris a mulligan.

... Steve Smith was too old and broken in 2000. His stat line was 15/4/2.5, and Kobe's was 28.5/6/5. I have to cross him off, too...

Unfair comparison; Smith's numbers were a product of the system he was playing in. He averaged fifteen points on a fifty-nine win team, where the leading scorer only averaged sixteen. I don't think it's fair to say that he couldn't have put up better numbers in a different system. And, I don't know about old and broken down, but Smith only missed five games during the three years in question.

... Sprewell is an interesting proposition, and that was shortly after he came back, but he wasn't nearly as dynamic as Kobe in 2000, and was eight years older...

I don't know what that means... Sprewell was an effective scorer during the time period in question, a clutch shooter, and a good defender. Why wouldn't he have fit in that role?

 

[est.1999]

Iverson would have won with shaq

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You're misunderstanding me. My argument was that Duncan's Spurs in their championship years ('05 and '07) were better than Kobe's in those same years. Of course the '08 and '09 Lakers were better than the Spurs of those same years; that explains why they were in the Finals both years, and the Spurs weren't.

To whatever extent this is true, how does that serve as any proof in the argument of Bryant deserving Player of the Decade over Duncan? You mean to tell me that Duncan had a better team than Bryant in the year he won the championship, and Bryant didn't make the playoffs? Noooo... Really? And Bryant had better teams than Duncan the years he won the championship? The hell you say!

I don't understand what, exactly, you're driving at, Supes: if I grok rightly, then the only years where we can legitimately argue who had the better team around them were the years where neither of them won the championship, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Are you going to tell me that Duncan had the better team around him in those years?

 

[Oprostaj]

You mean to tell me that Duncan had a better team than Bryant in the year he won the championship, and Bryant didn't make the playoffs? Noooo... Really? And Bryant had better teams than Duncan the years he won the championship? The hell you say!

Don't mean to repost... but this fixed my day.

 

[Superman]

To whatever extent this is true, how does that serve as any proof in the argument of Bryant deserving Player of the Decade over Duncan? You mean to tell me that Duncan had a better team than Bryant in the year he won the championship, and Bryant didn't make the playoffs? Noooo... Really? And Bryant had better teams than Duncan the years he won the championship? The hell you say!

Again, my initial comments were in response to people who were saying that the Spurs accomplishments necessarily prove that Duncan is better than Kobe. My point was simple: the Spurs winning more championships with Duncan as #1 than the Lakers did with Kobe does not necessarily mean that Duncan is the Player of the Decade. I'm not arguing that Duncan having a better supporting cast in his championship years means that Kobe is Player of the Decade. My comments about the supporting cast were rebuttals to other arguments.

I don't understand what, exactly, you're driving at, Supes: if I grok rightly, then the only years where we can legitimately argue who had the better team around them were the years where neither of them won the championship, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Are you going to tell me that Duncan had the better team around him in those years?

2004 was still Shaq's team. I was only counting the years that it's been Kobe's team, but yes, Kobe had a better team that year, which is why the Lakers beat the Spurs in the playoffs 4-2 and went on to the Finals.

2006, decidedly in favor of Duncan's Spurs. Parker/Ginobili/Finley/Bowen > Odom/Smush Parker/Brian Cook/Mihm, and whoever else you want to throw in there. This was Bynum's rookie year. Devean George was still a major contributor. This Laker team was not good. Meanwhile, the Spurs won 60+ games and got beat by the eventual West champs, the Mavs.

2008, Lakers, definitely. But again, they went to the Finals and Kobe won the MVP.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Precisely. So, based on that, and the previous arguments in this thread, I stand by my opinion that the claim that Bryant was better because Duncan had better teams around him doesn't hold water. Two out of the three years where neither won a championship, Bryant had better teams than Duncan did. The rest of the time should be self-evident; you've conceded as much.

So, now that we've established that Bryant wasn't better than Duncan based on the quality of the players around him, what else you got?

 

[Superman]

Precisely. So, based on that, and the previous arguments in this thread, I stand by my opinion that the claim that Bryant was better because Duncan had better teams around him doesn't hold water. Two out of the three years where neither won a championship, Bryant had better teams than Duncan did. The rest of the time should be self-evident; you've conceded as much.

So, now that we've established that Bryant wasn't better than Duncan based on the quality of the players around him, what else you got?

Again, I wasn't counting 2004. The argument was specifically about Bryant's Lakers. So it's really 1-1.

Secondly, I wasn't arguing that Duncan having a better supporting staff makes Bryant better; that's completely illogical. I was arguing that the Spurs winning championships doesn't make Duncan better.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Yes, and even the 2 yrs before Gasol went to the lakers, their team (talent wise) wasn't really that bad. Is Odom really any worse than Ginobili as a player? Is Butler really a bad player? Heck if people forget about the fact that he was a #1 pick, Kwame wasn't even that bad. He was a 10/10 big guy with decent post D.

The fact that kobe wasn't able to even make the playoffs with that team shows how valuable he is to his teammates. I remember when kobe got injured, the lakers used to go on winning streaks.

I'm not saying Lebron should be the winner, but as comparison.. if you put kobe on last yr's Cavs team, I think they would be 5th-8th in the east instead of finishing with the best record in the NBA.

Other than 1 title as a finals MVP, kobe hasn't really done enough other than be a good scorer through the yrs.

Ginobili has far more impact on a game than Odom and he's a far better fit with Duncan than Odom is with Kobe. Especially when Odom was expected to be their second scoring option, when he's never been a true scorer. He has never been a good fit with Kobe until he was expected to be a 3rd/4th option and even then it had more to do with being a good fit with Gasol.

It seems like you're grasping at straws bringing Butler's name up, they had him for one year. They didn't have a center that could stay on the floor that season, their coaching situation was a nightmare, and they had Chucky Atkins as their starting PG. Plus Butler is a matador on defense.

Kwame Brown? Really? 10 and 10?

Odom, Kwame (btw kwame wasn't even on the team when butler was), and Butler's basketball IQ's together wouldn't equal Parker's or Ginobili's.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Again, I wasn't counting 2004. The argument was specifically about Bryant's Lakers. So it's really 1-1.

Secondly, I wasn't arguing that Duncan having a better supporting staff makes Bryant better; that's completely illogical. I was arguing that the Spurs winning championships doesn't make Duncan better.

This is waaaay far afield from you saying that, in your opinion, it's not close between Duncan and Bryant. And you did, in fact, actually say that. So, why the hell ain't it close?

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

If you think back to those critical games in the playoffs and Finals (like Game 6? against the Pacers in 2000), Kobe was playing a crucial role and even carrying the team at times. Tracy McGrady didn't become a top tier player until after that season. Vince Carter has always been dogged as a guy who doesn't excel in crucial situations. We're playing a huge what-if game here. What we know is that Kobe contributed greatly to the 2000-02 Lakers championship run -- as more than a scorer, by the way, being their best defender and a solid all around player -- and without his contributions, they don't win those titles.

There is absolutely NO WAY that the Lakers are a championship contender, especially in 2004, without Kobe. Nonsense.

Actually I remember VC making quit a few game winners and clutch shots down the stretch with Toronto that even advanced them in the playoffs in his early yrs. Those turn around 3s he took, a few of them were game winners. Not sure why thats considered as fading in the clutch.

The truth is TMAC, kobe, VC were all about the same during the early 2000s. Kobe was not a clear cut above either of them. Remember, shaq was the man, Duncan was the man. Kobe was a good young player but still RAW. Kobe was scoring a lot of points, but do you think offense would be easier for a young TMAC or VC if they had Shaq drawing the D away?

Its funny how people make kobe out to be this player that was great from the start. It took him a few yrs just to really get it. A lot of his props came with being on the lakers and being one of the MJ heirs the NBA wanted.

In 2004, both shaq & kobe were immature and caused a lot of drama. But saying Shaq didn't show up in the finals while kobe was putting the team on his shoulders is a joke. Kobe had 2 of his famous 28% shooting games in the Pistons series and basically didn't show up in the elimination game.

 

[Superman]

This is waaaay far afield from you saying that, in your opinion, it's not close between Duncan and Bryant. And you did, in fact, actually say that. So, why the hell ain't it close?

I did say that it's not close. I backed off of that because I guess it's closer than I thought, but it's pretty clear in my mind that Kobe is the Player of the Decade. I honestly haven't begun that argument so far, but Kobe would definitely be my choice.

Most of what I've been saying in this thread has been against the idea that the Spurs accomplishments (and the lack of accomplishments by Kobe without Pau Gasol) make Duncan the better player, because that seemed to be the primary argument against Kobe.

 

[Gargamel]

RE: 2005, Odom and Kobe missed 16-18 gms and Rudy T stepped down when they were 24-19. They switched midseason from Rudy ball (fast paced, treys up the A) back to triangle w/ an interim coach for the benefit of Phil in his lounger at home. Triangle would be difficult for the lunkheads on that team to pick up w/ full training camp, much less in March during injuries which they couldn't afford to have.

The season collapsed around them, it wasn't Kobe.

A WORSE supporting cast (w/ Kwame in place of Butler) went to the playoffs twice thereafter.

PS: Superman -- you can't find a bigger waste of time than arguing with Gibbons about Kobe. His views are pretty extreme.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I guess you don't remember what Ginobili did to us in the playoffs in 2005. He was much better than Lamar Odom then, and in 2007. Caron Butler is a good player, but was not better than Ginobili. I'm laughing at the idea that Kwame Brown is an essential piece to a championship contender.



Actually, when Kobe got injured in 2005, the Lakers were very much in the playoff picture. This is also the year that Rudy T. retired in the middle of the season. To say that this season proved that he wasn't very valuable to his teammates because they missed the playoffs is an example of revisionist history.

I think you are looking at how good Ginobili was playing next to Duncan and Parker. I'm talking as an individual player, Odom is not any worse if not better. A lot of times a role player's potential depends on the star's play. Kobe doesn't make his teammates better, he didn't then, he still doesn't now.

I remember vividly when kobe went down, LO & Butler (especially Butler) played very very good. They went on something like a 8 game win streak at 1 point. Kobe came back, they lost 2 in a row and everyone else's production went down immediately.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

It seems like you're grasping at straws bringing Butler's name up, they had him for one year. They didn't have a center that could stay on the floor that season, their coaching situation was a nightmare, and they had Chucky Atkins as their starting PG. Plus Butler is a matador on defense.

Kwame Brown? Really? 10 and 10?

Odom, Kwame (btw kwame wasn't even on the team when butler was), and Butler's basketball IQ's together wouldn't equal Parker's or Ginobili's.

Let me clarify the Kwame situation. I meant he CAN be a 10/10 guy. If he got more than 20 some mins a game & played starter mins. He was doing about 8/6 play 20s mins. He was a big body, still defends bigs better than Bynum today.

Not going to comment much on the bball IQ thing because that probably is one of the most subjective things. I don't think Ginobili has a better IQ than LO, its more of LO not playing hard and keeping focus. But when he wants to? LO is great.

 

[Gargamel]

I remember vividly when kobe went down, LO & Butler (especially Butler) played very very good. They went on something like a 8 game win streak at 1 point. Kobe came back, they lost 2 in a row and everyone else's production went down immediately.

Their biggest win streak that season was 3 games. Eight consec wins from that team even fully healthy would've been a miracle.

Having actually been there for those 82 games, it makes my head swim to read all these accounts of how great Odom and Butler were. I think I need to lie down.

 

[Superman]

Their biggest win streak that season was 3 games. Eight consec wins from that team even fully healthy would've been a miracle.

Having actually been there for those 82 games, it makes my head swim to read all these accounts of how great Odom and Butler were. I think I need to lie down.

^^^ What he said. ^^^

The Lakers did in fact NOT go on any eight game win streak with Kobe out of the lineup. That's bull.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

PS: Superman -- you can't find a bigger waste of time than arguing with Gibbons about Kobe. His views are pretty extreme.

Its all in good fun with bball fans.

Just difference of opinion. At the same time, the "extreme views" thing goes both ways. I really find it crazy how some of you guys see him as better than Duncan when he has many obvious goofs and being overrated.

 

[Superman]

I think you are looking at how good Ginobili was playing next to Duncan and Parker. I'm talking as an individual player, Odom is not any worse if not better. A lot of times a role player's potential depends on the star's play. Kobe doesn't make his teammates better, he didn't then, he still doesn't now.

Ginobili has made his mark as a player. I don't think you'll find many people who would agree with your stance that Ginobili is not better than Odom. And regarding your comment that Kobe doesn't make his teammates better, that's completely irrelevant in Odom's case. He's played half of his career for other teams, and he's never been the type of player that you're claiming he is/can be.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Ginobili has made his mark as a player. I don't think you'll find many people who would agree with your stance that Ginobili is not better than Odom. And regarding your comment that Kobe doesn't make his teammates better, that's completely irrelevant in Odom's case. He's played half of his career for other teams, and he's never been the type of player that you're claiming he is/can be.

I think you are overrating Ginobili a bit. Other than his break out yr in 07, he's been a 15/4/4 guy through out his career. Not sure why you rate him so high. Yes he was a 3rd option, but LO's contributions (as a starter) is not any worse than Ginobili.

 

[Oprostaj]

It's kinda hard to compare those two guys.. Ginobili is a much better player than he gets credit for. He's known as the third banana that is the first scorer off the bench. I'm sure those are his averages because of the system he plays in. Look up his stats when Duncan/Parker are not around. The guy can ball. Before his body broke down from all the injuries, I remember the ball being in his hands instead of Parker's at end of games. Could put up 30 pts easy. And I mean easy. Lamar is a freaking head case. He has so much talent, but just doesn't seem to want to harness it. Long, athletic, good instincts, I don't see why he couldn't average a double double easy. But in his defense, It's Kobe, Pau then him. So numbers are a bit skewered. Ginobili did not sustain his period of dominance. Go back and look at some playoff games. Way above and beyond anything that Lamar has done.