Which players have been able to lead their team to a ship w/o a top 50 GOAT teammate?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The Lakers and the Nets. Mavs with Dirk, but obviously they didn't have him for the remainder of the series.

Lets look at those 4 victories...

Game 1: 87-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to 87.9 Offensive Rating.
-The non superstars on the Lakers shoot 8 for 28 = 28.5%.
- Spurs out FT Lakers 35 to 12
- Highest GS = Shaq

Game 2 114-95

--Spurs hold Lakers to 99.3 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 12 pts/ 13 rebounds
- The non Duncans shoot 37 for 65 = 57%
- Highest GS = Bruce Bowen 27 pts 10 for 12... 7 for 8 from 3

Game 3 Loss

Highest GS= Shaq

Game 4 Loss

Highest GS= Kobe

Game 5 96-94

-Spurs hold Lakers to 107.4 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 27 pts 14 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 48% 22 for 57
- Highest GS= Kobe Bryant 36 pts 6 assists 7 rebs

Game 6 110-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to a 95.9 Offensive Rating
-Non superstar Lakers = 14 for 40 = 35%
-Duncan 37 pts 16 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 52% 28 for 54 including 6 for 9 from 3
-Highest GS = Tim Duncan

Forgive me if I don't consider those one man victories where Tim Duncan overwhelmed the superstar talent of the Lakers considering he was only the best player statistically 1 of the 6 games.

[Doranku]

I didn't see it. I've been asked this before and I'll say the same thing.

Top 15 all time. In fact, I have a 2nd list that I rank players based on my own standards and Kobe is right around 13th all time.

I have Kobe 10th all time the way people rank players here.

I'm not saying to ignore titles all together. I'm saying that worrying about the strength of supporting casts between guys like Duncan and Kobe just shifts the focus.

Yao is trying to claim that Kobe is better than a lot of players because he won 5 titles. That is his point. He wants to be able to rank Kobe over Bird and Hakeem and Duncan and Shaq because he won more titles. He wants to ignore the impact and level of play in favor of some weird formula to get Kobe higher than he should be.

Who are the players that you have ranked over Kobe by your standards whom you wouldn't rank over him using the criteria that most people here use?

[tpols]

Makes sense. Thanks for the quick response.

Yeah, if that's the case, then this is where I think your notion that "titles are overrated" applies. This Yao character is delusional. I don't even think he knows what he's trying to "prove"; his posts are all over the place. Kobe over Duncan and possibly Hakeem? I can maybe understand, but over Bird, Shaq? Absolutely not.
Shaq? That will be tough. But Bird, Hakeem, and Duncan are all fair game. Kobe still has a solid 2 years of all star level play in the league left to add to his legacy. He'll have the longevity argument over nearly everyone, as well as the career numbers, which will definitely make the comparisons that much closer.

If Kobe recovered from his knee problems as much as reports are indicating combined with a shortened season.. we could be in for something big in the playoffs next year. His legacy isn't even completed so I wouldn't rule out all of these things as impossibilities yet.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nobody going into that year would have thought twice about the 03 Spurs doing exactly what the Timberwolves did. That was what was expected actually. And it was Duncan that was most responsible.

Not quite.


The Spurs will make a run at 60 wins, Tim Duncan is the odds-on choice to retain his MVP award, and guard Emanuel Ginobili is a favorite for Rookie of the Year. And none of that will matter if San Antonio can't find a way to beat Shaq and Kobe, who have gone 8-1 against the Spurs over the last two postseasons.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/2002/preview/spurs/


Prediction: Challenge Sacramento for the best record in the NBA

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VF1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AgQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4087,4311121&dq=san+antonio+spurs+prediction&hl=en

[97 bulls]

veteran? parker, manu, claxton, and jackson had no experience at all. what the **** are you talking about?

robinson had declined as well.

you clearly just weren't paying close attention to the nba in 03 or the spurs. veteran team? 4 of their 8 players had almost no experience whatsoever.
Actually dmavs, I think the 03 spurs were one of the better teams in 00s decade. Especially when you consider that guys like parker and ginobli came from overseas. And were pros for about 5 years a piece. Stephen jackson was a very good 3pt shooter and defender. Bowen was pprobably the best on the ball defender of the 00s. They had kerrs clutch shooting, malik roses hustle and defense. Statistically they don't look the part. But they're as good as any other hampionship team. Except for the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics, 72 lakers, 96-98 bulls, and 83 sixers. Id rank the 03 spurs right with the 01 lakers.

[catch24]

Shaq? That will be tough. But Bird, Hakeem, and Duncan are all fair game. Kobe still has a solid 2 years of all star level play in the league left to add to his legacy. He'll have the longevity argument over nearly everyone, as well as the career numbers, which will definitely make the comparisons that much closer.

At the moment, though? Kobe, right now, doesn't have a single case over Bird with the exception of more titles (with worse individual play at that).

[tpols]

At the moment, though? Kobe, right now, doesn't have a single case over Bird with the exception of more titles (with worse individual play at that).
I really dont believe that to be true.. I feel like Bird is overhyped for being the white guy in the Boston-LA, Larry-Magic rivalry, which is probably the most storied rivalry in the history of the NBA. Just my opinion.. maybe someone needs to drop some knowledge for me as to how Bird has CLEARLY had a better career and been the better player.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

At the moment, though? Kobe, right now, doesn't have a single case over Bird with the exception of more titles (with worse individual play at that).

Statistically similar at the same age on offense (http://bkref.com/tiny/5QiD7)

Crushes him defensively

9 1st defense 2 2nd team defense vs 3 2nd team defense

By the time Kobe retires Kobe will best Bird in every award outside of MVPs

[tpols]

Statistically similar at the same age on offense (http://bkref.com/tiny/5QiD7)

Crushes him defensively

9 1st defense 2 2nd team defense vs 3 2nd team defense

By the time Kobe retires Kobe will best Bird in every award outside of MVPs
Thats kind of how I see it.. Kobe is at worst an equal offensive player[ better scoring,slightly worse playmaking, maybe slightly worse in the clutch], while being better defensively by a sizeable margin.

You do, however, have to account for the fact that Bird played in a league where offense was King so this comparison is a little murky. You could use the exact same logic in a Kobe versus Magic debate but we all know Magic was the better player.. It's hard comparing players from todays age to those in the 80s because basketball was just different in the two.

[catch24]

I really dont believe that to be true.. I feel like Bird is overhyped for being the white guy in the Boston-LA,

You wouldn't feel that way if you took the time to watch some of his games. They're available (games from his prime) for public display via Youtube.

Bird was a better shooter, rebounder, playmaker and easily more clutch. One may argue he's the most skilled offensive player ever. The only real edge Kobe has is on defense, and maybe more intangibles such as footwork, slashing (finishing), etc. There's no way Kobe impacted the game more ways than Bird did, however.


Statistically similar at the same age on offense (http://bkref.com/tiny/5QiD7)

25/5/5/2/1 on 45% isn't really statistically similar to 25/10/6/2/1 on 50% shooting.


9 1st defense 2 2nd team defense vs 3 2nd team defense

Was Kobe a better all-around defender than Dwyane Wade this past season?


By the time Kobe retires Kobe will best Bird in every award outside of MVPs

That's nice. What good are speculations, though?

[rmt]

They had Tim Duncan, Greg Popovich, and David Robinson as veteran, championship-experience leaders.. and they also happened to be some of the most important pieces on the team.

Why do you always attack one part of a post without responding to the main point? Again.. how is it far fetched that the spurs were a 60 win contending team in 03 when they had been a 58 win team in the both of the two years prior?

In '03, DRob was 37 years old with a bad back and avg 7.8 pts 6.6 rebs in 23 playoff mins.

Spurs were a much different team in 02-03 than 01-02. Here are the top contributors in each year (other than TD):

01-02
1. DRob
2. Steve Smith
3. Malik
4. Antonio Daniels
5. TP
6. Charles Smith

02-03
1. TP
2. SJax
3. Rose
4. DRob
5. Manu
6. Bowen

Manu wasn't on the team, SJax started 1 game in 01-02. Steve Smith was a double-digit scorer (2nd highest) in 01-02 - only played trash time in next year's playoffs.

02-03 team characterized by mental melt-downs, giving up leads in 4th quarters. Their #2, #3 and #4 options had 10 playoff games (all TP's) experience total.


Actually dmavs, I think the 03 spurs were one of the better teams in 00s decade. Especially when you consider that guys like parker and ginobli came from overseas. And were pros for about 5 years a piece. Stephen jackson was a very good 3pt shooter and defender. Bowen was pprobably the best on the ball defender of the 00s. They had kerrs clutch shooting, malik roses hustle and defense. Statistically they don't look the part. But they're as good as any other hampionship team. Except for the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics, 72 lakers, 96-98 bulls, and 83 sixers. Id rank the 03 spurs right with the 01 lakers.

I have to disagree with this. 03 Spurs team is probably the worst of the Spurs' championship teams. Flaky is how I would describe them - built leads only to meltdown in 4th quarters - characteristic of young, inexperienced team. Not at all like typical, mentally tough Spurs teams where team work and execution reigned. Instead it was TP's inconsistency, SJax's streakiness and Manu - crazy and outta control.

[tpols]

25/5/5/2/1 on 45% isn't really statistically similar to 25/10/6/2/1 on 50% shooting.
Are you really going to act like Kobe's prime numbers aren't distorted by these career averages you're using more than Bird's? Kobe had a solid 3-4 years before he really came into his own[which signifigantly bring down his numbers] while Bird came in and made a big impact immediatly.. these numbers are out of context.

What happens when you compare some of Kobe's peak/prime number lines? And account for the massive differences in league FG% between the two? He is absolutely statistically similar and, in fact, superior by a lot of measures.

[Jacks3]

Actually dmavs, I think the 03 spurs were one of the better teams in 00s decade. Especially when you consider that guys like parker and ginobli came from overseas. And were pros for about 5 years a piece. Stephen jackson was a very good 3pt shooter and defender. Bowen was pprobably the best on the ball defender of the 00s. They had kerrs clutch shooting, malik roses hustle and defense. Statistically they don't look the part. But they're as good as any other hampionship team. Except for the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics, 72 lakers, 96-98 bulls, and 83 sixers. Id rank the 03 spurs right with the 01 lakers.
:facepalm

[catch24]

Are you really going to act like Kobe's prime numbers aren't distorted by these career averages you're using more than Bird's? Kobe had a solid 3-4 years before he really came into his own while Bird came in and made a big impact immediatly.. kobe has also played a lot more basketball.

And that is Bird's fault how exactly? At his peak, LB was hands down a better all-around player than Kobe, who while putting up historic numbers, was doing it on low shooting %'s, respective to his peers (all-time greats that is). Never mind the fact Bird was scoring on GREAT efficiency synchronously on 3-3PA+ some years.


And account for the massive differences in league FG% between the two? He is absolutely statistically similar and, in fact, superior by a lot of measures.

Meh, LeBron has mantained a 50 FG% shooting 4-3PA+ and nearly the same volume of attempts from 16-23 FT as Kobe, while the league shot 45% (and has for the last several years). It's not few and far between to assume Bird couldn't do the same. He was a better shooter, took smarter shots, and was more creative scorer all-together.

[tpols]

And that is Bird's fault how exactly? At his peak, LB was hands down a better all-around player than Kobe, who while putting up historic numbers, was doing it on low shooting %'s, respective to his peers (all-time greats that is). Never mind the fact Bird was scoring on GREAT efficiency synchronously on 3-3PA+ some years.
It's not Bird's fault.. it just skews the comparison. Kobe came straight from high school and thus needed more time to adjust to the league than a 22 year old would[he was only 17 when he was drafted]. You're using numbers that dont define who the better player in his prime was.

For prime statlines..

Kobe:
32/5/5
33/5/4
30/6/6
30/6/5
29/7/6
29/6/6
28/6/5
27/6/5
~All on an averaged 48%eFG and 54%TS

Bird:
28/11/6
26/9/6
26/9/8
27/10/7
25/9/7
24/9/9
20/13/7
22/14/6
~All on an averaged 48%eFG and 55%TS

*I used playoff numbers above[and Bird's efficiency actually drops more than Kobe's from the regular season to the playoffs]..

Bird's numbers are also gathered in an era that had more possessions which of course means more rebounds and scoring/playmaking opportunities were available. His league also shot far better than Kobe's so even his efficiency is at least slightly inflated.

Overall, Kobe and Bird are very similar in efficiency while kobe scored on higher volumes. Bird was the better playmaker on offense though so that is about evened out. They were both standout clutch/crunchtime players.. Defensively? Bird was the better rebounder but Kobe was also a very good rebounder for his position and a far better defender. I dont see how Bird is clearly better. You're acting like a case for Kobe cannot even be made.. which is preposterous.




Meh, LeBron has mantained a 50 FG% shooting 4-3PA+ and nearly the same volume of attempts from 16-23 FT as Kobe, while the league shot 45% (and has for the last several years). It's not few and far between to assume Bird couldn't do the same. He was a better shooter, took smarter shots, and was more creative scorer all-together.
And prime Lebron was the most destructive one man wrecking crew we perhaps have ever seen[09 and 10].:oldlol: That doesn't change the fact that Lebron consistently shoots ABOVE what his peers shoot while Bird shot BELOW far more often. In comparisons like these all we have is how each player played against HIS competition.

[catch24]

It's not Bird's fault.. it just skews the comparison. Kobe came straight from high school and thus needed more time to adjust to the league than a 22 year old would[he was only 17 when he was drafted]. You're using numbers that dont define who the better player in his prime was.

It skews any comparison pertaining Kobe. At some point you gotta stop using it as a crutch. Yeah, you may not be faulting Bird intentionally, but you're indirectly punishing him for being able to start off the bat, unlike Kobe who had to ride the pine because he wasn't good enough.


For prime statlines..

Kobe:
32/5/5
33/5/4
30/6/6
30/6/5
29/7/6
29/6/6
28/6/5
27/6/5
~All on an averaged 48%eFG and 54%TS

Bird:
28/11/6
26/9/6
26/9/8
27/10/7
25/9/7
24/9/9
20/13/7
22/14/6
~All on an averaged 48%eFG and 55%TS

*I used playoff numbers above[and Bird's efficiency actually drops more than Kobe's from the regular season to the playoffs]..

:confusedshrug:

Just as I said, Bird's all around numbers are better. Both during the regular and postseason.


Bird's numbers are also gathered in an era that had more possessions which of course means more rebounds and scoring/playmaking opportunities were available. His league also shot far better than Kobe's so even his efficiency is at least slightly inflated.

Kobe's scoring numbers are inflated because he had the luxury of playing on awful teams for a 3 year stretch. His TS% is also skewed because of the weak perimeter rules. Most perimeter players live at the line today anyway.

Now what?


Overall, Kobe and Bird are very similar in efficiency while kobe scored on higher volumes. Bird was the better playmaker on offense though so that is about evened out. They were both standout clutch/crunchtime players.. Defensively? Bird was the better rebounder but Kobe was also a very good rebounder for his position and a far better defender. I dont see how Bird is clearly better. You're acting like a case for Kobe cannot even be made.. which is preposterous.

Kobe is not that much of a better scorer than Bird. All he does is take more shots while Bird played within the team offense and was both an elite facilitator and scorer (the gap between them offensively is wider than you think).

I don't think there's a case because Bird, from an all-around perspective, was simply better. The numbers do NOT lie. Neither does the footage, which you're welcomed to watch (http://www.youtube.com/user/fatal9ish).



And prime Lebron was the most destructive one man wrecking crew we perhaps have ever seen[09 and 10].:oldlol:

As was Bird during the mid 80's. Dude was the clear anchor of those Celtic teams.

[tpols]

It skews any comparison pertaining Kobe. At some point you gotta stop using it as a crutch. Yeah, you may not be faulting Bird intentionally, but you're indirectly punishing him for being able to start off the bat, unlike Kobe who had to the ride the pine because he wasn't good enough.

:confusedshrug:

It's not just Kobe.:oldlol: Bird's career was very short and most of it consisted of prime play. Look at a guy like Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan for instance.. by the end of their careers they will be 20/10 guys. Should the length and context surrounding their careers be used against them in unfair, skewed comparisons?


Just as I said, Bird's all around numbers are better. Both during the regular and postseason.

What? How are they that much better? Marginally more assists while scoring considerably less points in a league where more opportunities, and thus, stats were available. If you actually look at the advanced stats like PER Kobe was better[and although PER isn't by any means the tell all stat, it just shows how absurd it is for you to declare Bird's numbers as definitively better when every measure says they are extremely close or Kobe is slightly better].




Kobe's scoring numbers are inflated because he had the luxury to play on awful teams for a 3 year stretch.



Playing on awful teams? The fact that he put up great stats while not having any teammates to take the defensive pressure off him and the fact that he was able to thrive on both good and bad teams are a testament to his greatness, not a detractor.


His TS% is also skewed because of the weak perimeter rules. Most perimeter players live at the line today anyway.

Weak perimeter rules? Are you really going to act like defense today is worse than in the mid 80s? Holy shit.:oldlol:



Kobe is not that much of a better scorer than Bird. All he does is take more shots while Bird played within the team offense and was both an elite facilitator and scorer (the gap between them offensively is wider than you think).

He takes more shots while maintaining the same efficiency[actually better when compared to competition].. the ability to sustain efficiency at higher volumes by itself makes him a better scorer. Kobe was equally as potent in crunchtime with his scoring and if we are to list all of the scoring FEATS Kobe of course comes out on top.. 30 point games, 40 points games, 50 point games, 60 point games, 80 point games.. Kobe has him beat in every single one. You have NO argument here.


I don't there's a case because Bird, from an all-around perspective, was simply better. The numbers do NOT lie. Neither does the footage, which you're welcomed to watch (http://www.youtube.com/user/fatal9ish).

All around? Maybe offensively.. which is only half of what makes a a basketball player. Kobe actually has the whole offensive and defensive package on his side. This cant even be argued. He was a great player on both ends while Bird was not. You want to bring up skills? Kobe is considered among the most skilled and dedicated ballers ever.. while possessing a ton more athleticism.




As was Bird during the mid 80's. Dude was the clear anchor of those Celtic teams.
Bird as a basketball player>Lebron.. he possesses the traits of a winner and a leader to a much further extent. But in our comparison and discussion of Lebron and Larry, we were only talking about their FG%. And Lebron is and was simply much more efficient than Bird was when you factor in how they both played against their respective peers. There's no way around it.

[DMAVS41]

Not quite.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/2002/preview/spurs/



http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VF1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AgQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4087,4311121&dq=san+antonio+spurs+prediction&hl=en

Interesting.

I remember predictions much lower than that. It was commonly thought that the Mavs would be better than the Spurs as well. Especially with the uncertainty of the Spurs roster and the declining of Robinson.

I could see that prediction making sense if Manu was as good as they thought he'd be right off the bat. Of course he wasn't though.

Regardless, SI saying they would make a run at 60 (in large part because they thought Manu would be much better) is interesting. I seriously doubt they would have picked them to make a run at 60 if they knew Manu would average less than 8 points and less than 21 minutes a game.

[DMAVS41]

In '03, DRob was 37 years old with a bad back and avg 7.8 pts 6.6 rebs in 23 playoff mins.

Spurs were a much different team in 02-03 than 01-02. Here are the top contributors in each year (other than TD):

01-02
1. DRob
2. Steve Smith
3. Malik
4. Antonio Daniels
5. TP
6. Charles Smith

02-03
1. TP
2. SJax
3. Rose
4. DRob
5. Manu
6. Bowen

Manu wasn't on the team, SJax started 1 game in 01-02. Steve Smith was a double-digit scorer (2nd highest) in 01-02 - only played trash time in next year's playoffs.

02-03 team characterized by mental melt-downs, giving up leads in 4th quarters. Their #2, #3 and #4 options had 10 playoff games (all TP's) experience total.



I have to disagree with this. 03 Spurs team is probably the worst of the Spurs' championship teams. Flaky is how I would describe them - built leads only to meltdown in 4th quarters - characteristic of young, inexperienced team. Not at all like typical, mentally tough Spurs teams where team work and execution reigned. Instead it was TP's inconsistency, SJax's streakiness and Manu - crazy and outta control.


Pretty much this.

[d.bball.guy]

BRB surfing my SLAM Top 500 mag.

[Bring-Your-Js]

Hakeem was putting up PEAK SHAQ Finals-type numbers in the 1988 playoffs and couldnt get out of the first round.

37.5 PPG, 16.8 RPG, 2.8 BPG, 2.3 SPG, 1.8 APG on 57.1% from the field... Unless somebody wants to claim Hakeem Olajuwon "didnt play defense", then I think the situation he was in is rather obvious.

Once he got servicable scraps, he ran through everybody, unfortunately it came just as he was in the final years of his absolute prime. That's what happens when you're asked to completely carry a team on both ends of the floor and do it at the highest level possible. Houston was shafted enormously in 1993 btw.

His 1994 run is absolutely mythical and then some too. I'd even say 1995 even with Drexler was the stuff of LEGEND. The only 6th seeded team to hoist the Larry, no HCA in any series, they ran through a 60-win Jazz team, 59-win Suns team (down 3-1 no less), 62-win Spurs team and a 57-win Magic team (with Scoring Champ O'Neal and All NBA 1st Teamer Hardaway).

^^^ So nobody has an issue with this? K, just checking.

:pimp:

[catch24]

It's not just Kobe.:oldlol: Bird's career was very short and most of it consisted of prime play. Look at a guy like Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan for instance.. by the end of their careers they will be 20/10 guys. Should the length and context surrounding their careers be used against them in unfair, skewed comparisons?

I go by what is; there are a number of players in league history who got the short end of the stick. Bird (or Kobe in your case) isn't evaluated any differently. Clearly we don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to ranking and comparing talent.


What? How are they that much better? Marginally more assists while scoring considerably less points in a league where more opportunities, and thus, stats were available. If you actually look at the advanced stats like PER Kobe was better[and although PER isn't by any means the tell all stat, it just shows how absurd it is for you to declare Bird's numbers as definitively better when every measure says they are extremely close or Kobe is slightly better

The numbers are better. Where did I say much better? I just said they weren't comparable statistically because Bird led Kobe, comfortably, in more major statistical categories (rebounds and assists).



Playing on awful teams? The fact that he put up great stats while not having any teammates to take the defensive pressure off him and the fact that he was able to thrive on both good and bad teams are a testament to his greatness, not a detractor.

No, the fact he had the green light to stat pad (jack up shots). Ray Allen knew it then, just like most of us know it now looking back. Kobe gunned damn near every game. Not sure how this is even debatable.


Weak perimeter rules? Are you really going to act like defense today is worse than in the mid 80s? Holy shit.:oldlol:

What? lol, It's called sarcasm. Although, you can't deny the rules today have banned handchecking and physical play all-together. Nor can you deny players from the perimeter shoot more FT's today than any ERA/decade of from the past.


He takes more shots while maintaining the same efficiency[actually better when compared to competition].. the ability to sustain efficiency at higher volumes by itself makes him a better scorer. Kobe was equally as potent in crunchtime with his scoring and if we are to list all of the scoring FEATS Kobe of course comes out on top.. 30 point games, 40 points games, 50 point games, 60 point games, 80 point games.. Kobe has him beat in every single one. You have NO argument here.

He misses more shots, his career average will likely go down, and their peak scoring, again, isn't as close as you make it seem. Funny how you use the word "skewed". Question: When has Kobe averaged 28+ ppg on 61TS%/56%eFG/51%FG during a two year span (b2b -- and that's while averaging 7 assists and 9 rebounds)

?




All around? Maybe offensively.. which is only half of what makes a a basketball player. Kobe actually has the whole offensive and defensive package on his side.

So did Bird, and was more efficient/productive doing so. Had a better peak too. Bird was no slouch on the defensive end (evident by his bpg and spg with multiple all-team defensive selections).

[creepingdeath]

As I said you are welcome to ignore PER or Game Score and just look at the box score. No matter what statistic I choose there will be just criticisms with it. There is no such thing as a perfect statistic. None of that changes the team effort that was on display when the Rockets took out the "more talented" Jazz.
I don't ignore either advanced stat, but you have to go beyond those metrics to truly acknowledge greatness or failures. You claim Kobe was more important than Dirk to his team because he was leading LA in Game Score four times compared to Dirk's three times. As a Dirk homer, of course I disagree, but even if I were to concede that Bryant was more important to his team than Nowitzki, I'd never use Game Score as evidence... at least not as the sole evidence. Oh, and let's not forget that Kobe had one more chance than Dirk to lead his team regarding Game Score.

[97 bulls]

In '03, DRob was 37 years old with a bad back and avg 7.8 pts 6.6 rebs in 23 playoff mins.

Spurs were a much different team in 02-03 than 01-02. Here are the top contributors in each year (other than TD):

01-02
1. DRob
2. Steve Smith
3. Malik
4. Antonio Daniels
5. TP
6. Charles Smith

02-03
1. TP
2. SJax
3. Rose
4. DRob
5. Manu
6. Bowen

Manu wasn't on the team, SJax started 1 game in 01-02. Steve Smith was a double-digit scorer (2nd highest) in 01-02 - only played trash time in next year's playoffs.

02-03 team characterized by mental melt-downs, giving up leads in 4th quarters. Their #2, #3 and #4 options had 10 playoff games (all TP's) experience total.



I have to disagree with this. 03 Spurs team is probably the worst of the Spurs' championship teams. Flaky is how I would describe them - built leads only to meltdown in 4th quarters - characteristic of young, inexperienced team. Not at all like typical, mentally tough Spurs teams where team work and execution reigned. Instead it was TP's inconsistency, SJax's streakiness and Manu - crazy and outta control.
How many leads did they give up? I really doubt it was much more than most other championship teams. And I. Feel that the core players were veteran.

Ginobli was 25. And was no stranger to playoff type basketball. Even to this day, he says he values the fiba championship in a higher regard than the nba. So I don't think he was overwhelmed.

I also don't see much of a difference between parker in 03, and parker in any other of the championships he's won. Except his offensive role grew and his jumpshot went from bad to suspect. He's always been a amzing slasher.

Bowen was the equalvalant of michael cooper.

Stephen jackson was and has always been a streaky shooter. But he's also always been a very good defender. 03 was no different.

Malik rose was a solid hustler and backup to duncan

Robinson was obviously a shell of his former self. But he was still solid.

Steve kerr was still one of the clutchest 3pt shooters in the league.

The fact is the spurs went about 9 guys deep. And in my oipinon 03 was their best team.

[rmt]

How many leads did they give up? I really doubt it was much more than most other championship teams. And I. Feel that the core players were veteran.

Ginobli was 25. And was no stranger to playoff type basketball. Even to this day, he says he values the fiba championship in a higher regard than the nba. So I don't think he was overwhelmed.

I also don't see much of a difference between parker in 03, and parker in any other of the championships he's won. Except his offensive role grew and his jumpshot went from bad to suspect. He's always been a amzing slasher.

Bowen was the equalvalant of michael cooper.

Stephen jackson was and has always been a streaky shooter. But he's also always been a very good defender. 03 was no different.

Malik rose was a solid hustler and backup to duncan

Robinson was obviously a shell of his former self. But he was still solid.

Steve kerr was still one of the clutchest 3pt shooters in the league.

The fact is the spurs went about 9 guys deep. And in my oipinon 03 was their best team.

These are the minutes played/ppg in the '03 playoffs.

Tony Parker 33.9 14.7 2.8 3.5
Stephen Jackson 33.8 12.8 4.1 2.7
Manu Ginobili 27.5 9.4 3.8 2.9
Malik Rose 23.3 9.3 5.8 1.0
David Robinson 23.4 7.8 6.6 0.9
Bruce Bowen 31.3 6.9 2.9 1.6

Speedy Claxton 13.6 5.2 1.9 1.9

Kevin Willis 5.1 2.6 1.7 0.1
Steve Kerr 4.6 2.2 0.3 0.6
Danny Ferry 6.3 1.3 1.4 0.4
Steve Smith 7.3 1.8 0.8 0.7

As you can see, Willis, Kerr, Ferry and Smith played < 7.4 minutes. Rose and DRob played only 23 minutes.

Other than DRob, the majority of minutes were played by rookie Manu, 2nd years Parker and Claxton, 3rd year SJax and 6th year Bowen, Rose and TD. That's an inexperienced team if your #2, #3 and #4 options have 1 year playoff experience total.

I don't know what to say if you don't see a difference between the '07 Finals MVP and '03 Parker who was benched in the 4th quarter of the Finals game 6 :confusedshrug: .

Kerr played the least number of minutes on the roster.

If you don't count Speedy Claxton (only 13.6 mins), Spurs went 7 deep and those 13.6 minutes were substituting for TP whenever he was flaky which was often since a 20 year old, 2nd option can surely play more than 33 minutes in the playoffs.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Lets look at those 4 victories...

Game 1: 87-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to 87.9 Offensive Rating.
-The non superstars on the Lakers shoot 8 for 28 = 28.5%.
- Spurs out FT Lakers 35 to 12
- Highest GS = Shaq

Game 2 114-95

--Spurs hold Lakers to 99.3 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 12 pts/ 13 rebounds
- The non Duncans shoot 37 for 65 = 57%
- Highest GS = Bruce Bowen 27 pts 10 for 12... 7 for 8 from 3

Game 3 Loss

Highest GS= Shaq

Game 4 Loss

Highest GS= Kobe

Game 5 96-94

-Spurs hold Lakers to 107.4 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 27 pts 14 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 48% 22 for 57
- Highest GS= Kobe Bryant 36 pts 6 assists 7 rebs

Game 6 110-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to a 95.9 Offensive Rating
-Non superstar Lakers = 14 for 40 = 35%
-Duncan 37 pts 16 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 52% 28 for 54 including 6 for 9 from 3
-Highest GS = Tim Duncan

Forgive me if I don't consider those one man victories where Tim Duncan overwhelmed the superstar talent of the Lakers considering he was only the best player statistically 1 of the 6 games.

bump what else do Spurs fans want from their supporting cast besides play great defense and be more efficient than their counterparts? :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

bump what else do Spurs fans want from their supporting cast besides play great defense and be more efficient than their counterparts? :confusedshrug:

Will you please just get to your point.

Which supporting cast was better? 03 Spurs or 10 Lakers. Please answer.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Will you please just get to your point.

Which supporting cast was better? 03 Spurs or 10 Lakers. Please answer.

The 03 Spurs supporting cast played better than 03 Lakers supporting cast. It doesn't matter how much talent a player has if he plays poorly or how bad a player is he plays really well. If you gave Kobe a lifetime of no name scrubs who were predetermined to outperform their opponents supporting cast on offense and dominate defensively in the playoffs I would take it over the Redeem Team 10 out of 10 times.

[tpols]

The 03 Spurs supporting cast played better than 03 Lakers supporting cast. It doesn't matter how much talent a player has if he plays poorly or how bad a player is he plays really well. If you gave Kobe a lifetime of no name scrubs who were predetermined to outperform their opponents supporting cast on offense and dominate defensively in the playoffs I would take it over the Redeem Team 10 out of 10 times.
He will never be able to comprehend this.:oldlol:

It's just like this year.. the Lakers were, on paper, better than the Mavs. But the Mavs OUTPLAYED the Lakers. The Heat, on paper, were better than the Mavs, but the Mavs OUTPLAYED the Heat. And it would be different if Dirk was going on rampages[in the Heat series] where he out played everyone and was most responsible for the victory.. but he wasn't[we actually saw marion, chandler and terry step up huge in the finals during many key moments when Dirk was shooting sub-40% from the field]. And Duncan's cast in that series played better than the cast that surrounded Shaq[or Kobe]. Thats all there is to it. It's not like Duncan's teammates were playing terribly and duncan had to carry them.. they were playing great on both ends of the court.

[catch24]

Outside of Kobe and Shaq, that 2003 Lakers supporting cast was trash. George, Horry, Fisher, Madsen, Shaw, and Samaki Walker? Definitely one of LA's weaker "all-round" teams that decade. I had mixed feelings about that series vs SA; knew Kobe and Shaq were gonna do their thing but the injuries and help they were left with wasn't gonna cut it.

[DMAVS41]

He will never be able to comprehend this.:oldlol:

It's just like this year.. the Lakers were, on paper, better than the Mavs. But the Mavs OUTPLAYED the Lakers. The Heat, on paper, were better than the Mavs, but the Mavs OUTPLAYED the Heat. And it would be different if Dirk was going on rampages[in the Heat series] where he out played everyone and was most responsible for the victory.. but he wasn't[we actually saw marion, chandler and terry step up huge in the finals during many key moments when Dirk was shooting sub-40% from the field]. And Duncan's cast in that series played better than the cast that surrounded Shaq[or Kobe]. Thats all there is to it. It's not like Duncan's teammates were playing terribly and duncan had to carry them.. they were playing great on both ends of the court.

You can't look at things in a vacuum like that. Part of the reason the Lakers struggled in 03 is directly related to Kobe jacking up 25 plus shots a game or whatever he took. I know he had 1 game close to 40 shots.

Every team has players step up and play well if they win the title. That is nothing new. There are, however, varying degrees of supporting casts.

If you want to say this, then there are no upsets. Stay consistent. If its about how players only play in a given series then the team with the players playing the best wins. Just a fact.

So then there are no upsets at all.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You can't look at things in a vacuum like that. Part of the reason the Lakers struggled in 03 is directly related to Kobe jacking up 25 plus shots a game or whatever he took. I know he had 1 game close to 40 shots.

Every team has players step up and play well if they win the title. That is nothing new. There are, however, varying degrees of supporting casts.

If you want to say this, then there are no upsets. Stay consistent. If its about how players only play in a given series than the team with the players playing the best wins. Just a fact.

So then there are no upsets at all.

Look up the word strawman argument. Now I have to say there are no upsets? :lol

Imagine you are a salesman and you are giving a presentation for a multi million dollar idea.

You present the idea once with some of the biggest morons in your office but for whatever reason that day they were crushing it. They were doing everything you could possibly want as coworkers.

You present the idea a second time with the best and brightest from your office but this time they are terrible. They are doing everything wrong.

Lets say in both cases you get the sale. Which time would you say you specifically deserved the most credit?

[tpols]

If you want to say this, then there are no upsets. Stay consistent. If its about how players only play in a given series then the team with the players playing the best wins. Just a fact.

So then there are no upsets at all.
It's not that there are no upsets.. you're not understanding what I'm saying. It all depends on whether the superstar player were talking about had to carry his teammates or not.. That's what it's about. In that Laker series in 03, Duncan did not need to 'carry' his team because they were already OUTPLAYING the supporting cast surrounding the Laker's superstar. You have to look at how they actually played and not just read off their names and career averages.:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Look up the word strawman argument. Now I have to say there are no upsets? :lol

Imagine you are a salesman and you are giving a presentation for a multi million dollar idea.

You present the idea once with some of the biggest morons in your office but for whatever reason that day they were crushing it. They were doing everything you could possibly want as coworkers.

You present the idea a second time with the best and brightest from your office but this time they are terrible. They are doing everything wrong.

Lets say in both cases you get the sale. Which time would you say you specifically deserved the most credit?


What?

If its solely about who plays the best and not the caliber of players doing the playing....then there are rarely, if ever, any upsets.

What you don't realize is that is that everything impacts everything. Using your example in 03....Maybe if Kobe didn't jack it up as much as he did his teammates play better. Just looked it up. Yep, Kobe took 38 ****ing shots in game 1 of that series. A game the Lakers lost by 5 points. Maybe if he passes the ball a little they win. I don't know. We'll never know. I would imagine him taking 18 more shots than Shaq and only having 2 assists with a usage of 42.4% as a guard had something to do with his teammates struggling.

You can't just remove players out of the equation and act like everything would stay the same.

And that is still irrelevant to my question.

Who had the better supporting cast? Duncan in 03 or Kobe in 10? Please answer. No explanations needed. Just tell me which player had the better supporting cast.

[97 bulls]

These are the minutes played/ppg in the '03 playoffs.

Tony Parker 33.9 14.7 2.8 3.5
Stephen Jackson 33.8 12.8 4.1 2.7
Manu Ginobili 27.5 9.4 3.8 2.9
Malik Rose 23.3 9.3 5.8 1.0
David Robinson 23.4 7.8 6.6 0.9
Bruce Bowen 31.3 6.9 2.9 1.6

Speedy Claxton 13.6 5.2 1.9 1.9

Kevin Willis 5.1 2.6 1.7 0.1
Steve Kerr 4.6 2.2 0.3 0.6
Danny Ferry 6.3 1.3 1.4 0.4
Steve Smith 7.3 1.8 0.8 0.7

As you can see, Willis, Kerr, Ferry and Smith played < 7.4 minutes. Rose and DRob played only 23 minutes.

Other than DRob, the majority of minutes were played by rookie Manu, 2nd years Parker and Claxton, 3rd year SJax and 6th year Bowen, Rose and TD. That's an inexperienced team if your #2, #3 and #4 options have 1 year playoff experience total.

I don't know what to say if you don't see a difference between the '07 Finals MVP and '03 Parker who was benched in the 4th quarter of the Finals game 6 :confusedshrug: .

Kerr played the least number of minutes on the roster.

If you don't count Speedy Claxton (only 13.6 mins), Spurs went 7 deep and those 13.6 minutes were substituting for TP whenever he was flaky which was often since a 20 year old, 2nd option can surely play more than 33 minutes in the playoffs.
So does everybody have to play 40+ minutes? I just don't see a difference in the players you mentioned other than their role grew as players left. I mean, I could tell from the jump that ginobli was a gamer. And he was 25. I'm sure on another team, he could avg 17 ppg if he played more minutes. Parker was solid even then. And id take 37 year old david robinson over rasho nesterovic, and any other center the spurs won wiith when robinson retired.

And I said they went 9 deep? I'm sorry 8 deep. That's. Damn good for the playoffs. I've seen teams win with barely 6 players.

I also think you need to stay away from stats. They only tell so much. The spurs won on good solid defense, no great defense. And unfortunately, defense isn't sexy enough to warrant respect. But it gets results.

[DMAVS41]

It's not that there are no upsets.. you're not understanding what I'm saying. It all depends on whether the superstar player were talking about had to carry his teammates or not.. That's what it's about. In that Laker series in 03, Duncan did not need to 'carry' his team because they were already OUTPLAYING the supporting cast surrounding the Laker's superstar. You have to look at how they actually played and not just read off their names and career averages.:oldlol:

And you can't ignore the impact of a that superstar playing well has on the other players.

Do you think the Spurs win game 1 if Duncan ends up with only 2 assists and takes 16 more shots? I doubt it.

Its all connected. You can't just absolve the superstar of his teammates playing poorly if that superstar isn't playing well or isn't playing team ball to begin with.

Conversely, you can't give all the blame or credit to the superstar either.

Which is what I have said since starting to post here.

Every single team that has won a title has had players step up in key situations. Some have it more than others.

There are, however, absolutely different degrees of help based on the name on the back of a jersey. Scottie Pippen was just simply a better basketball player than Tony Parker (even when tony parker was playing great) back in 03.

The players have a reputation and career averages for a reason. Yes, they can play above that at times, but it doesn't change what they bring to the table.

Ignoring what Duncan provided that team in 03 is silly. He anchored both ends of the floor. He created scoring opportunities left and right. He covered up defensive mistakes. Duncan made that team go. The Spurs supporting cast flourishing is directly related to Duncan's play. That is what you are missing.

Take game 1 in that series. Everything is fragile. Maybe if the Lakers win game 1 they go on to win the series. Never know.

Duncan shot 46%. The rest of his team shot 34%. Duncan was the defensive anchor most responsible for holding down the Lakers as well. Duncan has 7 assists and played unselfishly and allowed his teammates to play. Even though nobody else really did anything of note in the game for the Spurs. They were at least given chances.

Kobe shot 42% and took 38 shots. The rest of his team shot 38%. Kobe only had 2 assists even though he dominated the ball the entire game. Shaq had 24 points and 21 boards.

Maybe, just maybe that the rest of the Lakers playing poorly was directly related to Kobe jacking up 38 shots and not sharing the ball. If he was getting so much attention, why not pass? If it was just a 2 man show...find the open man. The truth is that in that game Kobe got more help from his team than Duncan did. Duncan just allowed his team to actually play. That was the difference.

[Anaximandro1]

:lol


Duncan's 2003 Playoff run

Offensive Side

PTS ORB AST
Duncan 593 96 127
Spurs 2275 291 497
Duncan's Share 26.1% 33.0% 25.5%

-Duncan averaged 24.7 pts (52.9%),4.0 orb,5.3 as
-Spurs averaged 94.8 pts (44.1%),12.1 orb,20.7 as


Defensive Side

DRB BLK
Duncan 273 79
Spurs 802 165
Duncan's Share 34.0% 47.9%

-Duncan averaged 11.4 drb,3.3 blk
-Spurs averaged 33.4 drb,6.9 blk
-Spurs allowed 89.3 pts per game (40.4%)


2003


Western Conference Semifinals / Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

Duncan averaged 28 pts (FG 52.9%)

Spurs averaged 99.5 pts (FG 47.1%)


Western Conference Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Mavs

Duncan averaged 28 pts (FG 56.9%)

Spurs averaged 101.3 pts (FG 45.5%)


Finals / Spurs 4-2 over Nets

Duncan averaged 24.2 pts (FG 49.5%)

Spurs averaged 87.8 pts (FG 43.1%)

[rmt]

Okay, I'll bite.


Lets look at those 4 victories...

Game 1: 87-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to 87.9 Offensive Rating.
-The non superstars on the Lakers shoot 8 for 28 = 28.5%.
- Spurs out FT Lakers 35 to 12
- Highest GS = Shaq

It'd be nice for Spurs' #2 and #3 options (TP, SJax) to score more than 9 points total so that TD (28 pts) wouldn't have to score over 32% of the points.


Game 2 114-95

--Spurs hold Lakers to 99.3 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 12 pts/ 13 rebounds
- The non Duncans shoot 37 for 65 = 57%
- Highest GS = Bruce Bowen 27 pts 10 for 12... 7 for 8 from 3

Like it's typical of Bowen (avg 6.9pts) to score 27 - most of them coming against Kobe :roll:


Game 3 Loss

Highest GS= Shaq

It'd be nice if anyone other than TD (28/11) and Rose would even score in double-digits.


Game 4 Loss

Highest GS= Kobe

LA out-freethrows SA 45 to 26


Game 5 96-94

-Spurs hold Lakers to 107.4 Offensive Rating.
- Duncan 27 pts 14 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 48% 22 for 57
- Highest GS= Kobe Bryant 36 pts 6 assists 7 rebs

Oh, so close. Horry's 3 rims out.


Game 6 110-82

-Spurs hold Lakers to a 95.9 Offensive Rating
-Non superstar Lakers = 14 for 40 = 35%
-Duncan 37 pts 16 rebs
- Non Duncans shoot 52% 28 for 54 including 6 for 9 from 3
-Highest GS = Tim Duncan

That's right. No one (including Shaq) could stop TD - never saw him as determined as he was that game. As Magic Johnson said, "That big man down low, Tim Duncan, has just been unbelievable. Never seen a big man with such great foot work. I think maybe Kevin McHale is the closest guy, but this guy is just unbelievable tonight."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XANfQQDV61k


Forgive me if I don't consider those one man victories where Tim Duncan overwhelmed the superstar talent of the Lakers considering he was only the best player statistically 1 of the 6 games.

Okay, he only averaged 28/12/5 while anchoring the defense in a 6-game series where LA scored once over 100 pts.

See anyone can manipulate stats to suit their own purposes/agenda. Here's a fact: only TD has won 4 rings without an-all nba team mate (that year). All these threads about all-star, all-nba team mates need to be qualified with THAT YEAR or HOF, top 50 - were they playing at that level?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Outside of Kobe and Shaq, that 2003 Lakers supporting cast was trash. George, Horry, Fisher, Madsen, Shaw, and Samaki Walker? Definitely one of LA's weaker "all-round" teams that decade. I had mixed feelings about that series vs SA; knew Kobe and Shaq were gonna do their thing but the injuries and help they were left with wasn't gonna cut it.

in fairness, that was pretty much the same cast as the year before, and Fisher played much better in 2003. But Fox was injured and Horry missed every 3 that he took.

Parker also averaged 18.3 ppg in the Spurs 4 wins that series. Tim was easily the best player in the series, but to act like he didn't have help is stupid.

Game 1
Duncan had 28/8/7/3 on 10/22 shooting and 8/14 from the line, and while Parker struggled and Jackson was held scoreless, Robinson stepped up with 14 points and 11 boards, and Ginobili came off the bench for 15/6/4. You can't ignore Bowen's contribution either in making Kobe take 38 shots to score 37 points as well as turn the ball over 5 times compared to 2 assists and the Spurs bench outscored the Lakers bench 28-4.

Game 2
Duncan had 12/13/7 on 5/10 shooting and 2/2 from the line, but he certainly had help this game.

Bowen had 27 points on 10/12 shooting and 7/8 3 point shooting to actually match Kobe's scoring and again, made Kobe work for his 27 points as he shot 9/24 and had 5 turnovers compared to 1 assist.

the Spurs had 6 players score double figures. Jackson scored 10 points, while Ginobili came off the bench and had 16. Parker had 16 points and Speedy Claxton came off the bench for 15.

That's a ton of production to get from your perimeter players and the Spurs bench easily outscored the Lakers bench 45-28.

Game 5
Duncan had 27/14/5, but that was the game that Kobe almost led that big comeback which ended when horry's potential game-winning 3 rimmed out. Shaq didn't have a great game, he had 20/12/3, but wasn't as good as the stats suggest.

The Lakers bench actually outscored the Spurs 22-18, but again, Duncan didn't do it alone. Parker had 21 points, Bowen had 12, Jackson had 12 and both Ginobili and Claxton came off the bench with 7 points each. Robinson and Rose did their jobs vs Shaq.

Game 6
Obviously Tim dominated this game with 37/16/4, but again, he didn't do it alone. Parker had 27 points, Bowen once again limited Kobe, particularly in the second half.

The Spurs bench also outscored the Lakers bench 27-16. And really, no Laker except Shaq(31/10/3/3) played well.

I'm not saying that Duncan wasn't great himself, or that he had an incredible team, but they clearly got the job done.

The Lakers were by far the most dangerous team they faced(since Dirk didn't play the last 3 games of the Dallas series), and Tim got 20 points out of a teammate in every game, Bowen's contributions were huge considering they played Kobe, and the Spurs big men did a solid job vs Shaq preventing him from really dominating and their depth proved valuable as their bench killed LA's.

[rmt]

So does everybody have to play 40+ minutes? I just don't see a difference in the players you mentioned other than their role grew as players left. I mean, I could tell from the jump that ginobli was a gamer. And he was 25. I'm sure on another team, he could avg 17 ppg if he played more minutes. Parker was solid even then. And id take 37 year old david robinson over rasho nesterovic, and any other center the spurs won wiith when robinson retired.

And I said they went 9 deep? I'm sorry 8 deep. That's. Damn good for the playoffs. I've seen teams win with barely 6 players.

I also think you need to stay away from stats. They only tell so much. The spurs won on good solid defense, no great defense. And unfortunately, defense isn't sexy enough to warrant respect. But it gets results.

No, everybody does not have to play 40+ minutes (only TD was anywhere close to 40 - next was TP at 33). Your point was that 03 team had a veteran core, and I countered that the #2, #3 and #4 options were very inexperienced. Only DRob of the 8 deep had more than 6 years experience. So, no, the 03 Spurs were not a veteran core. As far as stats goes (in this case), minutes played is minutes played.

[catch24]

in fairness, that was pretty much the same cast as the year before, and Fisher played much better in 2003. But Fox was injured and Horry missed every 3 that he took.

Parker also averaged 18.3 ppg in the Spurs 4 wins that series. Tim was easily the best player in the series, but to act like he didn't have help is stupid.

Game 1
Duncan had 28/8/7/3 on 10/22 shooting and 8/14 from the line, and while Parker struggled and Jackson was held scoreless, Robinson stepped up with 14 points and 11 boards, and Ginobili came off the bench for 15/6/4. You can't ignore Bowen's contribution either in making Kobe take 38 shots to score 37 points as well as turn the ball over 5 times compared to 2 assists and the Spurs bench outscored the Lakers bench 28-4.

Game 2
Duncan had 12/13/7 on 5/10 shooting and 2/2 from the line, but he certainly had help this game.

Bowen had 27 points on 10/12 shooting and 7/8 3 point shooting to actually match Kobe's scoring and again, made Kobe work for his 27 points as he shot 9/24 and had 5 turnovers compared to 1 assist.

the Spurs had 6 players score double figures. Jackson scored 10 points, while Ginobili came off the bench and had 16. Parker had 16 points and Speedy Claxton came off the bench for 15.

That's a ton of production to get from your perimeter players and the Spurs bench easily outscored the Lakers bench 45-28.

Game 5
Duncan had 27/14/5, but that was the game that Kobe almost led that big comeback which ended when horry's potential game-winning 3 rimmed out. Shaq didn't have a great game, he had 20/12/3, but wasn't as good as the stats suggest.

The Lakers bench actually outscored the Spurs 22-18, but again, Duncan didn't do it alone. Parker had 21 points, Bowen had 12, Jackson had 12 and both Ginobili and Claxton came off the bench with 7 points each. Robinson and Rose did their jobs vs Shaq.

Game 6
Obviously Tim dominated this game with 37/16/4, but again, he didn't do it alone. Parker had 27 points, Bowen once again limited Kobe, particularly in the second half.

The Spurs bench also outscored the Lakers bench 27-16. And really, no Laker except Shaq(31/10/3/3) played well.

I'm not saying that Duncan wasn't great himself, or that he had an incredible team, but they clearly got the job done.

The Lakers were by far the most dangerous team they faced(since Dirk didn't play the last 3 games of the Dallas series), and Tim got 20 points out of a teammate in every game, Bowen's contributions were huge considering they played Kobe, and the Spurs big men did a solid job vs Shaq preventing him from really dominating and their depth proved valuable as their bench killed LA's.

Nothing more needs to be said :applause: