More dominant: Kobe or Tim Duncan?

[WT]

I remember when Duncan entered the NBA. They used to call him and David Robinson the "Twin Towers." Great days of watching basketball.

Another 'Twin Towers' existed back in the '90s in Houston with Hakeem and Ralph Sampson. Sampson was a monster in college, not so dominant in the pros. Would be another interesting debate, but I'd side with the SA guys simply because they won more rings.

 

[Attic]

I look at this in terms of who can simply take over a game, be unstoppable, and win no matter what.

Kobe fits here more than Duncan. Both are clearly dominant.

 

[Ayrahvon]

Steals and assists too.

Duncan's rebounds and blocks fall in line with what you expect from a good big man, and Kobe's rebounds, assists and steals fall in line with what you expect from a good guard. It's the points that show a big differential. Duncan's numbers start falling off half way through his career while Kobe keeps it up. That right there ends the debate.



And does that sound like something you do with a dominant player? No, not at all. His usage went down because not only was he no longer dominant, he wasn't even the best player on his own team anymore.

That's proof enough of who has been the more dominate player.

I think you're as a whole looking at the wrong numbers. People have created methods of calculating how much a player contributes to the team, and when you look at these numbers you can clearly see that Duncan has actually been a very dominate player even in the past 8 years without the scoring totals.

Just take a look at Tim Duncan's year to year and career Win Shares and Win Shares per 48 minutes compared to Kobe.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

You can find it as the last two stats shown in the Advanced tab for either player. Duncan's win shares have gone much like his point production over the last 8 years, but even now he has a higher win share in recent seasons as well as career than Kobe.

So even one of the few statistically measurable ways you can compare players of different positions for contribution to team, Duncan is better today. Look at his playoff numbers and he's INSANE, one of the best playoff players in the history of basketball.

Now don't get me wrong, Kobe's career numbers even in advance metrics put him as one of the best to play the game, but Duncan for position seems to have an advantage over Kobe.

EDIT: I would like to note that Kobe has been the better offensive player his entire career. The reason Duncan ranks higher than Kobe in Win shares is because it is a metric that calculates the contribution both of offense and defense. Duncan's ability to prevent points over his career is what has made him the more dominant player total.

EDIT 2: I somehow missed SP33Demon's post regarding the same statistical information. Glad we both came to the same conclusion. Got to love sabermetrics.

 

[Insomniator]

Duncans 01-02 playoffs WOW

27.6 pt 14.4 rbs, 4.3 blocks, 5 ast

 

[Red Storm]

Win Shares seems to be more of a team influenced stat from what I understand. Duncan has been very fortunate to play with 2 other all star caliber players for most of his career. Someone educate me... win shares are stats derived from victories correct? So if a player loses a game that game doesn't apply to Win Shares? Trying to understand it.

In an individual head to head comparison, I don't see how Duncan holds up to Kobe. You cannot be considered a dominant big man when you're not even averaging 20 & 10. He had an amazing first half of his career, his 2nd half has been good and consistent (except the odd year where he only managed to score 13 points a game), but NOT dominant. Declining numbers and decreased usage are the opposite of dominant. I don't see how anyone can argue against that. Kobe's numbers have stayed high and consistent, and he's even played more overall minutes than Duncan.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Win Shares seems to be more of a team influenced stat from what I understand. Duncan has been very fortunate to play with 2 other all star caliber players for most of his career. Someone educate me... win shares are stats derived from victories correct? So if a player loses a game that game doesn't apply to Win Shares? Trying to understand it.

In an individual head to head comparison, I don't see how Duncan holds up to Kobe. You cannot be considered a dominant big man when you're not even averaging 20 & 10. He had an amazing first half of his career, his 2nd half has been good and consistent (except the odd year where he only managed to score 13 points a game), but NOT dominant. Declining numbers and decreased usage are the opposite of dominant. I don't see how anyone can argue against that. Kobe's numbers have stayed high and consistent, and he's even played more overall minutes than Duncan.

Different people define things differently. Your definition of dominance is based around individual offense. Other people's definition of dominance is grinding out a long career of success. Neither view is necessarily wrong, it's just a different perspective. Looking at individual performances in a team-based game is always going to be like that, not to mention when comparing different positions. Duncan and Kobe aren't expected to do the same things, so your basis for comparison is going to be skewed by what you personally feel is more important to the game.

Is Monta Ellis better than Dennis Rodman? He scores more, he gets more assists and steals, and he's clearly a better shooter. But Dennis Rodman isn't trying to be a slash and score player, so it doesn't make sense to compare him on those stats. Dennis Rodman was a tenacious defender, an area where Monta Ellis clearly lacks, and arguably the best rebounder of all time. If all you care about is offense, Rodman's not that great. But when you factor in his defense and rebounding, he's a hall-of-famer. Different playstyles, different factors associated with success. The Spurs don't need Tim Duncan to score the same way the Lakers need Kobe to score, so having fewer points doesn't equate to "helping his team less." Since they got Tim Duncan, the Spurs have won 50+ games every season (except the lockout season where they also won the championship). Kobe's Lakers have had four sub-.600 years in that same timespan. That says something.

 

[Red Storm]

Different people define things differently. Your definition of dominance is based around individual offense. Other people's definition of dominance is grinding out a long career of success. Neither view is necessarily wrong, it's just a different perspective. Looking at individual performances in a team-based game is always going to be like that, not to mention when comparing different positions. Duncan and Kobe aren't expected to do the same things, so your basis for comparison is going to be skewed by what you personally feel is more important to the game.

Is Monta Ellis better than Dennis Rodman? He scores more, he gets more assists and steals, and he's clearly a better shooter. But Dennis Rodman isn't trying to be a slash and score player, so it doesn't make sense to compare him on those stats. Dennis Rodman was a tenacious defender, an area where Monta Ellis clearly lacks, and arguably the best rebounder of all time. If all you care about is offense, Rodman's not that great. But when you factor in his defense and rebounding, he's a hall-of-famer. Different playstyles, different factors associated with success. The Spurs don't need Tim Duncan to score the same way the Lakers need Kobe to score, so having fewer points doesn't equate to "helping his team less." Since they got Tim Duncan, the Spurs have won 50+ games every season (except the lockout season where they also won the championship). Kobe's Lakers have had four sub-.600 years in that same timespan. That says something.

The offense is just an example I was looking at, I'm not using that as the sole comparison between the two. Looking at wins does not make for a good individual comparison. If the question is "Who has played on a better team for longer" then Duncan wins. He's had Manu and Parker (and Robinson before that) so he's been very fortunate. He never had to play with a starting line up of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown that Kobe still lead to the playoffs somehow. That doesn't really answer anything about which player is more dominant.

Go look at their stats. It's not just points, that's only one stat I chose to highlight. Tim Duncan's numbers - not JUST points - decline in the 2nd half of his career. He's no longer putting up DOMINANT, All NBA Team 1 numbers. His usage goes down, he's no longer the best player on his team. None of that translates to dominance. Meanwhile Kobe's numbers - again, not JUST points - keep up throughout his career, even though he's played more minutes. This past year was one of his best seasons ever, and he's still the best at his position. I don't think Tim Duncan is even top 15 in the league anymore. Kobe has been the more dominant player.

 

[digiram]

Duncan is beasting and feasting on Bosh right now. Amazing to watch, lol. Sweet Bosh is doo doo.

Apples to Oranges though. I'm not sure who's greater. Duncan in his prime was unstoppable on the inside. Kobe is the closest thing we've seen to Jordan since MJ retired.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The offense is just an example I was looking at, I'm not using that as the sole comparison between the two. Looking at wins does not make for a good individual comparison. If the question is "Who has played on a better team for longer" then Duncan wins. He's had Manu and Parker (and Robinson before that) so he's been very fortunate. He never had to play with a starting line up of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown that Kobe still lead to the playoffs somehow. That doesn't really answer anything about which player is more dominant.

Go look at their stats. It's not just points, that's only one stat I chose to highlight. Tim Duncan's numbers - not JUST points - decline in the 2nd half of his career. He's no longer putting up DOMINANT numbers. His usage goes down, he's no longer the best player on his team. None of that translates to dominance. Meanwhile Kobe's numbers - again, not JUST points - keep up throughout his career, even though he's played more minutes. He's been the more dominant player.

That's fine, and I can appreciate your reasoning. But I also responded earlier to the OP's question: "Who has had the more dominant career at their position?" When you factor in "at their position," I think it's a clear win for Duncan. Duncan is the best power forward of all time. Kobe is, at best, the second best shooting guard in NBA history (Jordan is clearly number one, and number two depends on whether you classify Oscar Robertson as a PG or SG). So the best ever at his position versus the second best ever at his position? Duncan wins.

 

[dougp]

Win Shares seems to be more of a team influenced stat from what I understand. Duncan has been very fortunate to play with 2 other all star caliber players for most of his career. Someone educate me... win shares are stats derived from victories correct? So if a player loses a game that game doesn't apply to Win Shares? Trying to understand it.

In an individual head to head comparison, I don't see how Duncan holds up to Kobe. You cannot be considered a dominant big man when you're not even averaging 20 & 10. He had an amazing first half of his career, his 2nd half has been good and consistent (except the odd year where he only managed to score 13 points a game), but NOT dominant. Declining numbers and decreased usage are the opposite of dominant. I don't see how anyone can argue against that. Kobe's numbers have stayed high and consistent, and he's even played more overall minutes than Duncan.

What does a popularity contest have to do with this? If you're going to use something, use All-NBA teams. Also, Kobe's numbers are higher BECAUSE HE PLAYS MORE MINUTES. That's the point I tried to make, is that Duncan's per-36 never changed, just his minutes went down, thus his output goes down. If you look at his playoff numbers, he always has higher production because that's when the team leans on him more.

 

[SP33Demon]

The offense is just an example I was looking at, I'm not using that as the sole comparison between the two. Looking at wins does not make for a good individual comparison. If the question is "Who has played on a better team for longer" then Duncan wins. He's had Manu and Parker (and Robinson before that) so he's been very fortunate. He never had to play with a starting line up of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown that Kobe still lead to the playoffs somehow. That doesn't really answer anything about which player is more dominant.

Go look at their stats. It's not just points, that's only one stat I chose to highlight. Tim Duncan's numbers - not JUST points - decline in the 2nd half of his career. He's no longer putting up DOMINANT, All NBA Team 1 numbers. His usage goes down, he's no longer the best player on his team. None of that translates to dominance. Meanwhile Kobe's numbers - again, not JUST points - keep up throughout his career, even though he's played more minutes. This past year was one of his best seasons ever, and he's still the best at his position. I don't think Tim Duncan is even top 15 in the league anymore. Kobe has been the more dominant player.

Hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. Duncan has been the epitome of consistency. While I'm not getting into win shares stat, you still have to explain PER and ELO which Duncan destroys Kobe in.

Hell, just read this article from May:
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013/05/21/2013-nba-playoffs-tim-duncan-san-antonio-spurs-consistency/

Throughout his San Antonio career — which he began as David Robinson‘s sidekick, then continued as star of the team and now has progressed to elder statesman with reduced minutes — Duncan has been remarkably consistent in his on-court production. Per 36 minutes, Duncan has never taken fewer than 14 shots from the field in a season or more than 17; he’s never hit fewer than seven or more than 8.5; he’s never scored more than 22.6 points per game or fewer than 17.1. His blocks per 36 minutes have ranged from a low of 1.7 to a high, this year, of 3.2. And his rebounds per 36 minutes have ranged from 10.5 to 12.2. While he’s on the court, Duncan at 36 is almost exactly the same player — or at least almost exactly as productive — as he was at 21, and at 28.

Even in the smaller sample size of the playoffs through the first two rounds, Duncan’s productivity has been remarkably consistent, aside from a muted performance in San Antonio’s first-round exit two years ago against Memphis — incidentally, also its opponent in the next round this spring. Aside from that blip, Duncan’s field-goal attempts per 36 minutes have averaged between 13.5 and 17.6 in each of his other 14 postseasons; his made field goals have ranged between 7 and 9 per 36 minutes; and his points have ranged from 17.9 to 24.5 per 36 minutes.

In every year of his 16-year career, Duncan has played at least 1,500 minutes and appeared in at least 45 games. Four players who debuted within three years of Duncan also each have at least 16 seasons with as many appearances and minutes: Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Jason Kidd and Kobe Bryant. They are, along with Duncan, the most durable and consistent players of their generation.

In some respects, Duncan has been the most consistent of the five veterans. Feel free to skip the rest of this paragraph if you don’t want the details. To calculate consistency for these veterans, I analyzed their per-36-minute production, limiting the analysis to their age-36 season and earlier, and to years in which they played at least 1,500 minutes and appeared in at least 45 games. (So Kidd, the oldest of the group, doesn’t appear less consistent for his decline in recent years.) For each player, for a range of stats, I calculated the standard deviation of that stat over those full, pre-37 seasons of his. Standard deviation — a measure of how much a quantity varies — is a good start. But standard deviation can confuse consistency with a flatline: Duncan has between 0 and 0.1 three-pointers per 36 minutes throughout his career, which isn’t a sign of consistent three-point shooting so much as it is a sign of consistent absence of three-point shooting. So I divided standard deviation by the average, to get what’s called the coefficient of variation. The lower the coefficient of variation, the less a player’s performance varied from season to season, relative to his usual, average performance.

By this measure, Duncan has been by far the steadiest of the five veterans in field goals taken, field goals made, points, blocks and rebounds. In a few other categories — field-goal percentage, free throws taken and made, and turnovers — he’s edged only by Bryant. From year to year in the postseason, Duncan also leads the group in consistency in the same five categories that he does in the regular season.

Important parts bolded. Duncan is a paragon of consistency. Do you think that just about every statistical analysis is lying? lol

 

[Ayrahvon]

Win Shares seems to be more of a team influenced stat from what I understand. Duncan has been very fortunate to play with 2 other all star caliber players for most of his career. Someone educate me... win shares are stats derived from victories correct? So if a player loses a game that game doesn't apply to Win Shares? Trying to understand it.

In an individual head to head comparison, I don't see how Duncan holds up to Kobe. You cannot be considered a dominant big man when you're not even averaging 20 & 10. He had an amazing first half of his career, his 2nd half has been good and consistent (except the odd year where he only managed to score 13 points a game), but NOT dominant. Declining numbers and decreased usage are the opposite of dominant. I don't see how anyone can argue against that. Kobe's numbers have stayed high and consistent, and he's even played more overall minutes than Duncan.

I agree some of the new metrics can be confusing at first. I've spent a lot of time looking at baseball sabermetrics and the NBA-reference page seems to be taking most of their queues from baseball.

I'll try to explain Win shares (usually called Wins above Replacement in baseball (WAR)) without actually getting into the algorithm behind it. Win shares is an individual stat, and it does not have to do with how often the team wins. Rather, Win shares attempts to calculate the total contribution of a single player towards the likelihood of a team winning.

For basketball, wins shares has a complex calculation system that appears to take a lot of offensive and defensive stats into accounts. The end result is that the higher the win share, the more a single player has contributed to their teams wins.

So in other words, the higher a players win share, the more they have contributed to a teams success individually.

Kobe easily beats out Duncan on offensive win shares, but Duncan happens to be in the top five for defensive win shares while still being a very potent offensive threat.

That's about the best I can do. If it were baseball I could explain more but I never really looked at the basketball stats like this before.

Hope that helps a little!

 

[Insomniator]

I guess he read this thread before tonights game

25 and 8 on 11-13 shooting at the freakin half.

 

[SP33Demon]

I guess he read this thread before tonights game

25 and 8 on 11-13 shooting at the freakin half.

Yup, paging Red Storm!

 

[Gibsons]

up to 30 and 12 now.

 

[rasczak]

Another 'Twin Towers' existed back in the '80s in Houston with Hakeem and Ralph Sampson. Sampson was a monster in college, not so dominant in the pros. Would be another interesting debate, but I'd side with the SA guys simply because they won more rings.

FTFY