Tim Duncan > Kobe Bryant (poll now added!) (1 Viewer)

[Abraham]

What do you mean by "shoot?" Free throws. Yes. So that would be a second thing to go with dribbling.

 

[GDogg]

What do you mean by "shoot?" Free throws. Yes. So that would be a second thing to go with dribbling.

Shoot the basketball. Kobe is a better shooter. Have them take shots from anywhere on the court and Kobe will make more of them.

Add ability to take his man off the dribble.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

 

[GDogg]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.

Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.

Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

Smush has played in 1250+ games?

 

[GDogg]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

Smush has played in 1250+ games?

Are you qualifying things now?

Explain why those stats mean Duncan is a better shooter and ball handler than Kobe rather than just throwing them out there.

Like I said, Duncan's turned it over less than Nash. He also missed fewer shots than Michel Jordan.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Duncan makes 51% of his shots, Kobe makes 46% of his shots.

How are you defining better shooter? Some kind of subjective "I like kobe, so he must shoot better than everyone else" standard?

If the goal is to get the ball into the hoop in as few as tries as possible - Duncan wins. If the goal to to play H-O-R-S-E, then Kobe has a shot. Maybe if Kobe stopped trying to play H-O-R-S-E, he might have had a better career

Best comparison here for Kobe is really Kobe v. Pippen for best side-kick, who wanted to be a superhero, player.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

Smush has played in 1250+ games?

Are you qualifying things now?

Explain why those stats mean Duncan is a better shooter and ball handler than Kobe rather than just throwing them out there.

Like I said, Duncan's turned it over less than Nash. He also missed fewer shots than Michel Jordan.

Duncan was better at rebounding, shot blocking, post play, not being rapey, defending, drawing fouls and being a person.

 

[NutterButter]

Duncan makes 51% of his shots, Kobe makes 46% of his shots.

How are you defining better shooter? Some kind of subjective "I like kobe, so he must shoot better than everyone else" standard?

If the goal is to get the ball into the hoop in as few as tries as possible - Duncan wins. If the goal to to play H-O-R-S-E, then Kobe has a shot. Maybe if Kobe stopped trying to play H-O-R-S-E, he might have had a better career

Best comparison here for Kobe is really Kobe v. Pippen for best side-kick, who wanted to be a superhero, player.

Maybe he means better perimeter shooter?

 

[GDogg]

Duncan makes 51% of his shots, Kobe makes 46% of his shots.

How are you defining better shooter? Some kind of subjective "I like kobe, so he must shoot better than everyone else" standard?

If the goal is to get the ball into the hoop in as few as tries as possible - Duncan wins. If the goal to to play H-O-R-S-E, then Kobe has a shot. Maybe if Kobe stopped trying to play H-O-R-S-E, he might have had a better career

Best comparison here for Kobe is really Kobe v. Pippen for best side-kick, who wanted to be a superhero, player.

I just told you how I define it. The guy who is better at shooting the ball all over the court. If you think Duncan would have a prayer in a shooting contest with Kobe, then I don't think you have a clue what you are looking at.Don't get riled up. Calm down.

Duncan's got a better field goal percentage than most guards, even the best shooting ones. Most big men do. That you think it's relevant in a discussion if who is the better shooter between a shooting guard and center shows a lack of understanding of the game of basketball.

Duncan has a much better shooting percentage than Steph Curry, too. If only curry could shoot it like Duncan, he might be a great one...

 

[GDogg]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

Smush has played in 1250+ games?

Are you qualifying things now? Explain why those stats mean Duncan is a better shooter and ball handler than Kobe rather than just throwing them out there.

Like I said, Duncan's turned it over less than Nash. He also missed fewer shots than Michel Jordan.

Duncan was better at rebounding, shot blocking, post play, not being rapey, defending, drawing fouls and being a person.

Is he a better person? Kobe is clearly an #######. Very unlikable. Unless you know Duncan personally, you probably shouldn't judge. You might end up disappointed.

Ray Rice was universally believed to be a good person, too. Until we found out he beats women.

 

[Kev4029]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

 

[simmonjm]

I went with Kobe. But, I didn't put a tremendous amount of thought into it.

As Ferris and I had previously discussed, though, this all comes back to my inherent bias against big men in "better player" comparisons. Kobe can do more things well on a basketball court than Duncan can. But, Duncan is better at his position than Kobe is at his.

Even if Kobe had the exact stats as Jordan, though, this poll probably wouldn't be close. People hate Kobe and for good reason. He's not a likeable dude.

Name two.

Shoot and handle the ball.

Duncan has fewer missed shots, and fewer turnovers...

And? Smush Parker has missed fewer shots and has fewer turnovers than Kobe, too.Duncan has fewer turnovers than Steve Nash, too.

Smush has played in 1250+ games?

Are you qualifying things now?

Explain why those stats mean Duncan is a better shooter and ball handler than Kobe rather than just throwing them out there.

Like I said, Duncan's turned it over less than Nash. He also missed fewer shots than Michel Jordan.

Duncan was better at rebounding, shot blocking, post play, not being rapey, defending, drawing fouls and being a person.

Kobe has more assists and steals. Checkmate

 

[GDogg]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

You must love Kobe. Why else would you post this slander?

 

[Kev4029]

On a somewhat related note, if given the choice of starting my franchise with Kobe, Garnett or Duncan in 1998 I think Garnett would be the clear choice. He's tailed off a little sooner than the other two, but if Garnett had either Kobe's or Duncan's supporting cast and coaching early in his career I think he would have gone down as the best power forward of all time. He wasted his best years in Minnesota (sorry TRE and Frosty).

 

[Kev4029]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

You must love Kobe. Why else would you post this slander?

People love to hate Kobe, more than any player in my lifetime. Sometimes that (deserved) hate gets in the way.

 

[Popinski]

On a somewhat related note, if given the choice of starting my franchise with Kobe, Garnett or Duncan in 1998 I think Garnett would be the clear choice. He's tailed off a little sooner than the other two, but if Garnett had either Kobe's or Duncan's supporting cast and coaching early in his career I think he would have gone down as the best power forward of all time. He wasted his best years in Minnesota (sorry TRE and Frosty).

I'd still take Duncan over Garnett, with Kobe being third. For their peaks, it's close and Garnett often gets criminally underrated - I'd take Duncan because of his value as an offensive anchor in the post. Duncan, who was a top 5 player the moment he stepped on the court as a rookie, was in his prime for a longer period, though, and that makes him the clear choice for me. They are two of the top handful of defensive players ever, and easily the best two at the PF position.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Best comparison here for Kobe is really Kobe v. Pippen for best side-kick, who wanted to be a superhero, player.

this is a much better comparison, Kobe's not really in the same league as Duncan.

I'd pick Kobe over Pippen but it's a really close call.

 

[Tau837]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

That's because he isn't. TS% is flawed. HTH.

 

[Tau837]

On a somewhat related note, if given the choice of starting my franchise with Kobe, Garnett or Duncan in 1998 I think Garnett would be the clear choice. He's tailed off a little sooner than the other two, but if Garnett had either Kobe's or Duncan's supporting cast and coaching early in his career I think he would have gone down as the best power forward of all time. He wasted his best years in Minnesota (sorry TRE and Frosty).

Starting a franchise in 1998: Duncan > Garnett > Kobe. Much bigger gap between Garnett and Kobe than between Duncan and Garnett.

 

[Kev4029]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

That's because he isn't. TS% is flawed. HTH.

How is TS% flawed?

 

[Abraham]

Well, for starters it indicates that Kobe Bryant is a good shooter..

 

[Kev4029]

Well, for starters it indicates that Kobe Bryant is a good shooter..

No, it says that Kobe and Duncan are a little more efficient than average shooters. Doesn't mean they're good shooters.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Well, for starters it indicates that Kobe Bryant is a good shooter..

He's a good shooter, he just takes terrible shots.

 

[Tau837]

I've always thought the weak point in the Duncan is better than Kobe narrative was his average shooting percentages for a big man. Duncan has a career .551 TS% and .506 FG%. Kobe who is one of the most notorious chuckers in the history of the NBA has a .555 TS% (and dropping) in nearly 6000 more shots.

Without looking at the stats, I don't think many people would consider Kobe the more efficient scorer.

That's because he isn't. TS% is flawed. HTH.

How is TS% flawed?

First off, its name is misleading. It is not a measure of shooting percentage but rather an attempted measure of points per possession used. Two problems with that.

First, it calculates that free throw attempts should be weighted at 0.44, based upon historical data that shows on average a free throw accounts for 44% of a possession. This supposedly factors in free throws for technical fouls, "and 1" plays, and fouls on missed three point shot attempts. But that factor remains fixed in the formula but could vary from season to season and from player to player.

For example, since the start of the 2000-01 season (regular season numbers only):

Duncan has 817 "and 1" plays, out of 6624 free throw attempts; about 12.3% of his free throw attempts. He probably hasn't been asked to shoot many technical fouls and hasn't been fouled on many three point shot attempts, so it seems he used approximately 2903 possessions for his FTAs. 2903/6624 = 0.438. Close to 0.44, but not identical.

Meanwhile, Kobe has 806 "and 1" plays out of 8245 free throw attempts; about 9.8% of his free throw attempts. I don't know how many times he has attempted free throws due to technical fouls, or how many times he has been fouled on missed three point shot attempts. To make the 0.44 multiplier correct for him, it would need to be true that 217 of his free throws were for one of those situations. IMO that seems doubtful. If he has attempted 50 free throws due to technical fouls and been fouled on 50 missed three point shot attempts, then it seems he used approximately 3669 possessions for his FTAs. 3669/8245 = 0.445. Close to 0.44, but not identical. With a bigger gap between him and Duncan.

Instead of using a static number like 0.44 in an attempt to estimate the number of possessions used by a player, the metric should actually calculate how many possessions the players used.

Second, any metric that attempts to measure scoring efficiency and includes possessions used must account for turnovers, but TS% doesn't do that. Since the start of the 2000-01 season, Kobe and Duncan have 3173 and 2505 turnovers, respectively.

So let's add it all up.

Since the start of the 2000-01 season, Duncan has attempted 15739 field goals, committed 2505 turnovers, and scored 20474 points. If we assume his FTAs used another 2903 possessions, that means he averaged 20474/21147 = 0.968 points per possession used.

Since the start of the 2000-01 season, Kobe has attempted 21288 field goals, committed 3173 turnovers, and scored 27689 points. If we assume his FTAs used another 3669 possessions, that means he averaged 27689/28130 = 0.984 points per possession used.

That shows Kobe with an advantage, which one could argue shows he is a more efficient scorer. But is it really more efficient when he misses a higher percentage of his shots (on greater volume) and commits more turnovers? Essentially, that shows that Kobe has more bad outcome possessions than Duncan.

Also, Duncan has more than three times as many offensive rebounds, meaning he gained back a lot more of the possessions he used. If that was factored in, making a points per net possession metric, Duncan would gain the advantage.

Aside from all of that, I suspect Kobe's numbers to tail off at the end of his career, similar to Jordan's Wizards numbers. He is two years younger than Duncan and chasing the scoring record on a bad team. I expect his TS% is going to get dragged down before he is finished.