In '02 TD averaged 29 and
17 boards, 5 assists and 3 blocks in that series, where the second highest scorer on the Spurs (Parker) averaged 13.9 PPG. Meanwhile Shaq averaged 22/12 on 44% shooting that series (DRob even missed 2 games defending him so TD had duty)
You can't claim 'disingenuous' then pull that shyt.
2002? Did someone seriously try to claim Kobe was the better player in 2002?
Now, remember, the claim is that Kobe was the best player on the court for the MAJORITY of the times the Spurs/Lakers faced each other. The claim is that Kobe singlehandedly bodied the Spurs MOST of the times they played each other. Let's look at reality. Top 3 players on each squad each year:
1999
Duncan 29-11-3 and 2 blocks on 51% shooting, 81% ft
Elliott 14-4-4 on 40%
D-Rob 13-7-2 on 50%
Kobe 21-7-4 and 2 steals on 45% shooting, 33% 3pt, 68% ft
Shaq 24-13-0 on 49%
Rice 18-4-1 and on 37%
No question at all here. Duncan was far more dominant on both sides of the court despite having less help and being the only focus on the Lakers' defense.
2002
Kobe 26-5-5 and 1 steal on 46% shooting, 23% 3pt, 58% ft
Shaq 21-12-3 on 45%
Fox 9-5-4 on 50%
Duncan 29-17-5 and 5 blocks on 43% shooting, 50% 3pt, 77% ft
Parker 14-2-5 on 41%
Bowen 9-3-2 on 45%
Once again all the defensive focus was on Duncan since Parker was just a rookie, D-Rob got hurt, and there was no other help, while Kobe got to run free in single coverage while the Spurs focused on Shaq. Despite that, they were a wash on offense (Duncan had more ppg, Kobe better fg%, Duncan better ft%), but Duncan was a MILE better defensively. 17 boards a game, 5 blocks a game, great defense on Shaq, and they gonna pretend Kobe was even touching him that series?
2003
Duncan 28-12-5 and 1 block on 53% shooting, 70% ft
Parker 15-3-4 on 41%
Ginobli 12-3-3 on 51%
Kobe 32-5-4 and 1 steal on 43% shooting, 44% 3pt, 79% ft
Shaq 25-14-4 on 56%
Fisher 10-3-1 on 50%
This was the series where Kobe shot the Lakers out of the championship. He took 27 shots a game to get those 32 points, playing keepaway from Shaq who only got 17 shots a game despite making a much higher percentage of his buckets. Duncan only needed 20 shots a game to get his 28 points while averaing more assists, doing a better job of team ball, and playing FAR better defense, getting the Spurs the win despite an inferior supporting cast with 2nd-year TP and rookie Ginobli.
2004
Kobe 26-6-6 and 1 steal on 46% shooting, 32% 3pt, 73% ft
Shaq 23-15-2 and 4 blocks on 64% shooting
Malone 10-8-3 on 44%
Duncan 21-12-3 and 2 blocks on 47% shooting, 67% ft
Parker 17-2-6 on 38%
Ginobli 15-6-4 on 48%
This series is basically a wash, if anything Shaq was the best player on the court. Duncan was playing hurt and definitely struggled, Kobe probably could be considered slightly better than Duncan but not much.
Kobe didn't prove he was better than Duncan in '99. He didn't prove he was better than Duncan in '02. He didn't prove he was better than Duncan in '03. And in '04 he wasn't even the most important player on his own team, Shaq was.
That's 4 out of 6 series. Kobe looked like the best player in 2001 and 2008, and was borderline in 2004. Duncan was clearly the best in 1999, 2002, and 2003 and was playing with greater degree of difficulty on top of that, the only reason Kobe was free to shoot so many shots every series 1999 to 2004 was because the Spurs loaded up the defense on Shaq and let Kobe go against single-coverage, hoping he'd shoot the Lakers out of the game. Considering the Lakers clearly had the more talented team, it was a pretty good strategy to get them wins in 2 out of 5 series.
The folk in the thread who claimed that Kobe had dominated Duncan the majority of times they faced each other were straight lying. Their perception of these players is based on nothing but narratives.
in 2008
yall cant be serious with that poll...
