Doberman wrote:Individually speaking, Duncan simply couldn't impose himself physically the way Bynum can. That's because Bynum is way bigger, taller, longer, etc. Duncan is actually 6'10-6'11. Bynum is a legit 7'1. Bynum also has 20-30 pounds on Duncan. Here's a comparison of some benchmark games in their careers:
First 40 point game:
Bynum - 21 years, 86 days
Duncan - 23 years, 228 days
First 20 rebound game:
Bynum - 23 years, 160 days
Duncan - 21 years, 191 days
First Playoff Triple Double:
Bynum - 24 years, 183 days
Duncan - 25 years, 360 days
Duncan has never had a 30 rebound game
Duncan has never had a 10 block game
Duncan's career high in scoring a 50-point game, but I'm confident that somewhere down the line, Drew will have a 50-point game in his career as well.
Duncan is/was a great player and has achieved alot, but he also had the rare fortune of being in a position to win immediately. Most #1 picks end up on the worst team in the league. The Spurs only got the #1 pick because David Robinson was injured for the year, and they tanked. So Robinson comes back the next season AND they added Tim Duncan. Instant contenders.
Not trying to take anything away from Duncan, but it's obvious even now, that Bynum has the physical ability to do much more damage than Duncan ever could. If we can get the right pieces on this team after Kobe, I think we can win 2-3 more rings with Bynum as our franchise player.
These "stats" you provided to prove your point are so weak and really makes little sense. You're basically saying Bynum did this or that at an earlier age than Duncan blah blah blah. So what? How does that prove he's the superior player? First of all, if you were to make that type of argument it would make more sense if you listed how many games or seasons it took them to accomplish such feat, versus their ages. Bynum came in the league at 17, Duncan came in around 21 or 22. But even then, it's weak reasoning. Why? Cause they play two different positions but more importantly their best years are too far apart. Duncans best years were in the early to mid 2000s. Bynums best year is...well now. We're talking a 7-10 year difference. A lot has change since then. And more importantly, Duncan had MUCH tougher competition. The PF position was the deepest in the league at that time. Who does Bynum really have to contend with at center these days? Umm...Dwight Howard? Let's face it, most of his competitors are garbage. Can you imagine Bynum playing in the 90s against Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and even defensive centers like Mourning and Mutombo? And you mention Bynum's 30 rebounds and 10 blocks games as further reasons why he's superior. Really? One or two game achievements makes you the better player? In that case I guess Elgin Baylor, David Thompson, David Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain, and Kobe are all better than Michael Jordan right? They all scored more than Jordan's career high (69 pts). You see how ludicrous that sounds? How bout you wait till Bynum put together at least 3-4 dominant seasons before you even make the comparison? You don't become a legend or hall of famer by having a couple great seasons. Duncan played at a high level for over 10 years. Bynum's only played ONE great season. It's way too early to tell. But IMO he will not get anywhere near Duncan's or Shaq's level. For you to even compare them at this point just shows the extent of your bias and homerism.The fact that you're getting flamed on a LAKERS forum should be enough to tell you how ridiculous your argument is.