The problem with the Kobe v Duncan argument is that you can't be considered a better player than the 1 who has put your team out of the playoffs CONSISTENTLY!
'99 Spurs swept the Lakers
'01 versus the Spurs
Gm 1: 45 pts 10 rebs 3 assts on 54% shooting
Gm 2: 28 pts 7 rebs 6 assts on 46% shooting
Gm 3: 36 pts 9 rebs 8 assts on 52% shooting
Gm 4: 24 pts 2 rebs 11 assts on 53% shooting
SWEEP!
'02 versus Spurs
Gm 1: 20 pts 2 rebs 4 assts on 44% shooting
Gm 2: 26 pts 4 rebs 6 assts on 48% shooting
Gm 3: 31 pts 6 rebs 6 assts on 48% shooting
Gm 4: 28 pts 7 rebs 3 assts on 37% shooting
Gm 5: 26 pts 8 rebs 5 assts on 50% shooting
Lakers win 4 - 1
The Spurs won in 6 in '03
'04 versus the Spurs
Gm 1: 31 pts 10 rebs 4 assts on 39% shooting
Gm 2: 15 pts 5 rebs 8 assts on 41% shooting
Gm 3: 22 pts 6 rebs 6 assts on 54% shooting
Gm 4: 42 pts 6 rebs 5 assts on 56% shooting
Gm 5: 22 pts 4 rebs 5 assts on 41% shooting
Gm 6: 26 pts 7 rebs 7 assts on 50% shooting
Lakers win 4 - 2, backdoor sweep
'08 versus Spurs
Gm 1: 27 pts 5 rebs 9 assts on 52% shooting
Gm 2: 22 pts 5 rebs 5 assts on 59% shooting
Gm 3: 30 pts 5 rebs 1 asst on 57% shooting
Gm 4: 28 pts 10 rebs 1 asst on 48% shooting
Gm 5: 39 pts 3 rebs 3 assts on 53% shooting
Lakers win 4 - 1
Kobe is 4 -1 against Duncan in the playoffs. And he was THE DOMINANT factor in at least 2 of those series, maybe 3. So if two players are equal in greatness, but player A has prevented player B's team from getting to a championship 4 out of the 6 times they met, how can player B possibly be better?
