# Spurs vs Lakers



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Kobe has taken traveling to a new height.
Now he is traveling,looking for someone to jump into,and managed to find Tim Duncan.

The tv guys are saying he is traveling..
outcome?
Why of course,a foul on Tim.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

on the other side of the floor bowen gets shoved by shaq in a rebound attempt. Shaq unscathed, bowen on the floor 4 feet away.. 

Foul on Bowen. IT's a game of 5 on 8 right now. David Stern better stop this mess


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Parker will dismantle old man Gary.


geesh..
maybe I should have said the whole team..


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Lakers shooting 28 %..
keep it up guys 

my bad..
22%


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

spurs team shows u only need 1 superstar and the rest role players and a tight defensive system and you will always win games


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> spurs team shows u only need 1 superstar and the rest role players and a tight defensive system and you will always win games


I think Parker is moving past "role-player" status to star status.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Parker is moving past "role-player" status to star status.


Exactly what i was gonna say. Parker is by no means a role player. He showed in the second half of the season that he was an all star caliber point guard and has really stepped it up in the playoffs. He is a true all star if he keeps this up next year.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Agreed! Parker was running the floor and directing the half-court like us Blazer fans rarely get an opportunity to see. The importance of a good floor leader can not understated.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

I find it interesting that both Al Michels and Doc Rivers said that Parker is without question a Top 5 PG in the league. That tells me that they both agree that he's ahead of at least three of these guys: Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Gary Payton, Steve Francis.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

If Parker can keep up this playoff play into next season, he'd easily be considered top five in my book.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

It's honestly sad how everyone picks on the Lakers for everything.:no:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> I find it interesting that both Al Michels and Doc Rivers said that Parker is without question a Top 5 PG in the league. That tells me that they both agree that he's ahead of at least three of these guys: Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Gary Payton, Steve Francis.


Why are Payton and Francis up there? Payton is no top 5 PG.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> It's honestly sad how everyone picks on the Lakers for everything.:no:



The reason for your discontent is all too familiar to us Blazer fans


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> I find it interesting that both Al Michels and Doc Rivers said that Parker is without question a Top 5 PG in the league. That tells me that they both agree that he's ahead of at least three of these guys: Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Gary Payton, Steve Francis.


i say its like this

1. Jason kidd
2. Baron Davis
3. Stephon Marbury
4. Steve Nash
5. Tony Parker

Tony might overtake Nash within the next year but as of now I'll give the nod to Nash. As for Bibby, Cassell, Payton and Francis. Well Francis is really a shooting guard and had a really horrible year so I believe TP is better than him. GP is well... just look at the Lakers Spurs series and the Playoffs. Cassell has had one good year but really other than this year he is no where close to Top 5 status. He has a really easy time looking good cuz he plays with KG and Spree and Wally and at times Kandi Man can look good. Then Bibby IMO was the biggest contender for the 5th Spot. He is really good but is only the third option on a team that has fallen off at the end of the year and hasnt shown he can be the go to guy, although he is very clutch in the playoffs. It realy is a toss up between Nash, Bibby and Parker for the last two spots and its your decision.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> I find it interesting that both Al Michels and Doc Rivers said that Parker is without question a Top 5 PG in the league. That tells me that they both agree that he's ahead of at least three of these guys: Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Gary Payton, Steve Francis.


I've got them like this:

1a. Jason Kidd
1b. Stephon Marbury
3. Tony Parker
4. Steve Nash
5. Baron Davis

Parker and Nash are close. Nash is the more dangerous outside shooter, they're equally dangerous penetrators, pretty similar passers and I just like Parker's poise more.

As big a Gary Payton fan as I am, Payton is looking old, beaten and nothing like a top point guard.

Sam Cassell was great this season, top-five, but it's out of step with his career. I don't anticipate him keeping it up next season.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Bibby is better than Nash. Two out of the last three years he has outplayed Nash in the playoffs.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> It's honestly sad how everyone picks on the Lakers for everything.:no:


Maybe it has something to do with the content of your signature line? The gate swings both ways, you should know it's going to come back at you.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

What a game !
Spurs just tightened their belt in the 4th and shut em down.

I do wonder why they traded away Stephen Jackson and Speedy tho..
Turkaleu is what they got ?
Anybody know for sure ??


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Gary has dropped off the scales hasn't he??
He will be lucky to find a job after this year.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> What a game !
> Spurs just tightened their belt in the 4th and shut em down.
> 
> ...


Jackson left as a FA after he turned down the Spurs offer. He thought he could get more elsewhere, and ended up getting less in Atlanta.

Claxton left as a FA as well. As I remember, they didn't pick up the 4th year on his rookie deal before the 02-03 season began because of injury concerns, so he became an UFA.

They got Turkoglu and Ron Mercer in the 3 way deal with Indiana and Sacramento. And all they had to give up was Danny Ferry.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

yea parker is a star it seems he gets better everygame


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Number One Super Guy</b>:
> Bibby is better than Nash. Two out of the last three years he has outplayed Nash in the playoffs.


That's debatable: they do completely different jobs. Bibby is the clutch shooter, Nash runs the offense. If you want a "pure" PG, Nash > Bibby. (Wasn't Vlade leading the Kings in assists for a large chunk of this season?) If you want someone to take the last shot, Bibby > Nash. Nash is a lot more fun to watch, though. And Nash's ugly hair and Bibby's ugly tattoos are about a wash (which Nash's hair certainly could do with).

In fact, Nash is about the only other "pure" PG (apart from Kidd, natch, and MAYBE Eric Snow, but only because he doesn't score) left in the league now Stockton's gone. Marbury, Baron Davis and Steve Francis are all Iverson-esque "lead guards" (as, several rungs down, is Damon). In fact, Iverson could almost certainly match their assist totals if he hadn't been taken off the ball by Brown (and kept there by successive coaches). Kidd is so far ahead of the others, it's not true. Take him off the Nets and they struggle to make the playoffs.

And Marbury is a luhOOOOOOOOzer.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think Parker is moving past "role-player" status to star status.


Which is why I thought they'd be better off standing pat and passing on Kidd. Parker is already very close to Kidd's overall level, but much more refined offensively, much younger, and quite a bit healthier.

Dan


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with the content of your signature line? The gate swings both ways, you should know it's going to come back at you.


It's been coming back at the Lakers for 3 years already. Get over it. LMAO

Shaq and the rest of the Lakers are over the Trailblazers. As much as you may want it not to be this way, they really aren't that big of a rivalry anymore. What's really sad is that you are motivated to hating the Lakers because of their smack talk with OTHER teams.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> That's debatable: they do completely different jobs. Bibby is the clutch shooter, Nash runs the offense. If you want a "pure" PG, Nash > Bibby. (Wasn't Vlade leading the Kings in assists for a large chunk of this season?) If you want someone to take the last shot, Bibby > Nash. Nash is a lot more fun to watch, though. And Nash's ugly hair and Bibby's ugly tattoos are about a wash (which Nash's hair certainly could do with).
> ...


I could see that side of it. 

Oh and thanks for editing my name. Glad to see someone else knows the cartoon.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Kidd is so far ahead of the others, it's not true. Take him off the Nets and they struggle to make the playoffs.


Take them out of the East and the Nets struggle to make the playoffs...

I like Kidd, but he requires the right mix of players around him to really shine. Reason: he's very limited offensively. In my opinion, a top tier player should excel regardless of who's on the team with him. Again, in my opinion, SA would have been a worse team with Kidd at the helm.

Dan


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Hey Damian Necronamous..
What's really funny is that all the smack that came our way
about our team with all the talent and no chemistry just came
back to roost right down there in old smoggy overcrowded
L.A.

Now that's funny..


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

stats speak for themselves:

For almost 10 minutes, a team with four future Hall of Famers -- O'Neal, Bryant, Gary Payton and Karl Malone -- managed only two points.

No gel..just smell.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> What's really sad is that you are motivated to hating the Lakers because of their smack talk with OTHER teams.


Actually aside from Kobe (who is my #1 rated jerk) I could care less. It's the knuckle dragging idiots who believe they have smack rights because they cheer for a certain team. Or that a fan of an eliminated team, should just stop enjoying the game. Or as the "other teams" comment indicates, *You* will be any more a part of what happens than a fan of any other team. *That* little sense of vicarious self-worth is what is truly sad.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> It's honestly sad how everyone picks on the Lakers for everything.:no:


Is it sadder than pretending you're enough a part of the team that picking on the Lakers has *anything* to do with you?

Bragging about the accomplishments of a group of millionaires who would be equally happy whether you existed or not...I'd say that's sadder.

If we're speaking "honestly."


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Interesting views about the PG*

I find the views about the PG and who is better then who very interesting. 

Note that these numbers are not how I rank them, but just to separate out my views on them.

1. Jason Kidd is viewed as the best it seems, but to me he is lacking a "total game", ie he is not a very good outside shooter. He does tend to be timely about when he does hit shots though. 

2. Marbury, while an exciting player, is one of those guys that leaves ya left saying "Wheres the beef?" He just does not do what is necessary to get his teams wins. 

3. Nash is a good player who can't defend. Especially in the playoffs.

4. Bibby is one of the most complete players there is. I honestly don't see why more of you don't have him rated higher. The guy shoots well fromt he inside and outside, has high assist numbers, and is a pretty fair defender. His numbers only go up in the playoffs. If there is one knock against him it is that his assist numbers are not that high over all. He plays the type of ball that gets you wins.

5. Steve Francis? This guy is a volume shooting joke. He plays out of control, out of the offense, and every once in a while makes a play that makes everybody go "ooh aaah!". Besides that, he has very little value on a team that wants to be a top level team since he seems unable to buy into any system a coach ask of him. 

6. Payton, was one of the best, and just went over the hill.

8. Parker. A young PG who is STILL improving. He gets it done inside and outside, and is one of the fastest players in the game. He also tends to play better in the playoffs, which is a quality I like. His game is a solid all around game, and it is because of this he fits better with Tim Duncan (Tim needs people who can hit from the outside, ie, not Jason Kidd). HE IS ONLY 22. Lots up upside.

So when I look at things, to me while Jason Kidd is still the #1 PG in the league, I think that Parker and Bibby definitly deserve to be in the top 5 over a lot of players you guys listed there. 
They are younger, and closer to the top of their game, and they get their club more wins. What more do you want?


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

1.Bibby
2.Parker
3.Nash

This is how I would rank them.


----------



## yangsta (May 14, 2003)

Let's remember that Lakers have made careers out of small, fast point guards. Mike Bibby, got that gigantic contract soley for his performance against the Lakers in the 2002 playoffs. They later came to realize that he ONLY plays like that against the Lakers. Then there is Troy Hudson. Last year averaged liked 28 points against LA, although that didn't result in a big contract (and he lost his job to cassell), that was easily the highlight of his nba career. Other Laker killer point guards include Van Exel, Damon.

I don't discount Parker's abilities, but I just want to point out that we may be jumping on his bandwagon a bit to eagerly considering a lot of little guards' abilities have been exaggerrated (as a result of their play against the Lakers)


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>:
> 
> Take them out of the East and the Nets struggle to make the playoffs...


That's garbage. True, they might not have homecourt, but they're *easily* better than Memphis, Houston and Denver. Don't forget, they gave San Antonio more trouble than the Lakers did last year.



> I like Kidd, but he requires the right mix of players around him to really shine. Reason: he's very limited offensively.


"Very limited"? Ben Wallace is very limited. Kidd can get a layup most times he wants. He can post up just about any PG. He can even shoot the three. And he's CLUTCH. I can't tell you how many times I've seen him hit a three when his team needs it - he's not quite Kobe Bryant in that regard, but he's better than most. Sure, he's not a pure shooter a la Mike Bibby, but he can certainly score. (He's a _shotter_.) In fact, he usually does score - when his teammates are stinking up the place. 



> In my opinion, a top tier player should excel regardless of who's on the team with him. Again, in my opinion, SA would have been a worse team with Kidd at the helm.


Comments/questions:
1) Do you mean the *player* should excel, or the *team*? If the former (which seems a lot less important), then Kidd puts up the same stats wherever he is. If the latter, well, all the teams Kidd has been on have improved the minute he arrived - the Nets spectacularly so. (Oh, if the second is what you mean, then I guess Tracy McGrady REALLY sucks.)
2) Any REASONS for that opinion that SA would've been worse? Most people would agree right now because Parker's on a tear. But we don't know. All we can say is that Gregg Popovich, who is one of the most underrated GMs in the business (who DRAFTED Parker? And Ginobili? And signed Bruce Bowen? And saw that Turkoglu wasn't washed up?) was pretty much desperate to sign Kidd.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yangsta</b>:
> Let's remember that Lakers have made careers out of small, fast point guards. Mike Bibby,...Troy Hudson... Van Exel, Damon.
> I don't discount Parker's abilities, but I just want to point out that we may be jumping on his bandwagon a bit to eagerly considering a lot of little guards' abilities have been exaggerrated (as a result of their play against the Lakers)


Fair enough point, but remember Parker also schooled Payton when Parker was a Rookie and Payton was still a Sonic. And he played very well against Memphis (although, it's not as if Jason Williams is known for his defense). He did struggle a bit against Jason Kidd last year (at least, after the first game, where he destroyed him), but Kidd is the gold standard.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> That's garbage. True, they might not have homecourt, but they're *easily* better than Memphis, Houston and Denver.


I don't think they're better than Memphis at all. Late in the season, Memphis was actually within two or three games of the *top seed* in the West, before injuries to their three best players, Gasol, Williams and Wells, caused them to stumble in the final few weeks. I don't think a completely-healthy Nets team could even dream of being in striking distance of the top seed in the West.

Even then, Memphis finished with a better record than the Nets did, despite Memphis playing the harder schedule in the West.

So, I don't see much support for the Nets being better than the Grizzlies. It's not like the Nets did better than the Grizzlies and we're trying to figure out if they'd *still* be better if they played in the West. They finished with a worse record despite the weaker schedule. That's pretty cut-and-dry.

The Nets are probably better than Houston and Denver, though.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

When was the last time a shoot first-scoring point guard won an NBA title, or even got to the finals, as opposed to a pass-first PG who could score when need called for it.

2003
Parker - pass first
Kidd - pass first

2002
Fisher - pass first
Kidd - pass first

2001
Fisher - pass first
Snow - pass first

2000
Fisher - pass first
M. Jackson - pass first

1999
A. Johnson - pass first
Charlie Ward - pass first (touchdown!)

1998
Ron Harper - pass first (at that point in his career)
John Stockton - pass first

1997
Ron Harper - pass first
John Stockton - pass first

1996
Ron Harper - pass first
Gary Payton - *shoot first* (lost in five)

1995 
Kenny Smith - pass first
Penny Hardaway - *shoot first* (got swept)

1994
Kenny Smith - pass first
Derek Harper - pass first

Okay, there's 10 years, I think I've made my point about what kind of PG gets teams to the Finals and especially wins championships. For all of you who are so high on guys like Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, and Steve Nash - while they might be entertaining players, they are not champions. It seems simple to me, if the guy who's job it is to bring the ball up the floor and start the offense is just thinking about ways that HE can score, your success as a team is going to be limited.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

not to find fault with what you were saying, the Sonics lost in 6 games I believe, not 5.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> That's garbage. True, they might not have homecourt, but they're *easily* better than Memphis, Houston and Denver. Don't forget, they gave San Antonio more trouble than the Lakers did last year.
> ...



Actually I tend to agree. Jason Kidd when in the western conference did one thing consistently. He lead teams to 8th place finishes and a 1st round exit from the playoffs. I think the same would be said of a NJ team is they were out west. They might make 7th, 6th if they were lucky, and they would still get punked in the first round. Jason Kidd is not a good outside shooter, true while he makes timely shots, a good shooter will often keep the team from having to make timely shots. 

As for Tony Parker and Mike Bibby only being Laker killers, I think you are dead wrong. Mike Bibby averaged 18 pts and 5 assist during the regular season. He did it shooting a high percentage and on a team where he was asked more of due to webers absence. He also did it in a better conference then the eastern conference. Tony Parker has got better every year he has been in the league, and puts up solid numbers all the time. He only plays better in the playoffs, and is one of the pieces of the Spur's that is counted on to do damage against the other team. He is exceptionally fast as well. Tim Duncan requires players who can shoot consistently from the outside to function well. Tony Parker does that, and with his blazing speed, he can penetrate as well. He is good on the pick and roll because of his shooting to top it all off.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That's garbage. True, they might not have homecourt, but they're *easily* better than Memphis, Houston and Denver.


Like Minstrel said, Memphis is rather debatable. So what if they're better than Houston and Denver? Those were among the teams struggling to make the playoffs down the stretch, which pretty much fits the bill of what I said about the Nets in the West...



> Don't forget, they gave San Antonio more trouble than the Lakers did last year.


Meaning? LA struggled last year. NJ matched up well with SA. Portland tooled Minnesota this year and didn't make the playoffs. So what?



> "Very limited"? Ben Wallace is very limited. Kidd can get a layup most times he wants. He can post up just about any PG. He can even shoot the three. And he's CLUTCH.


I would probably agree with the clutch part. Much more dangerous at the end of games than everything leading up to that point. Some people look at clutch as mentally strong, but I have a slightly different interpretation. When late-game clutch goes along with rest-of-game inconsistency, I see that as nothing special in the mental strength department. Is it playing up a notch when it counts or playing down a notch the rest of the time (i.e. the Rasheed complaints)? Who knows.

Kidd excels in passing, defense, and most of the intangibles. Most of his offense comes out of fast break situations, though, which largely depend on his teammates to make happen consistently. I don't see much post up presence from him, and he's in a select group of perimeter players that you would encourage to shoot from outside...



> 1) Do you mean the *player* should excel, or the *team*? If the former (which seems a lot less important), then Kidd puts up the same stats wherever he is. If the latter, well, all the teams Kidd has been on have improved the minute he arrived - the Nets spectacularly so.


The former, but both to some degree, I suppose. Dallas was a mess with Kidd there, and Phoenix was a disappointment much of the time. Kidd got solid numbers, but he always seemed twice the player in all-star play (better teammates). I don't agree that he's had impacts that live up to his reputation with all his teams.



> 2) Any REASONS for that opinion that SA would've been worse?


Yes, of course. However, I find the question rather odd. How could there _not_ be a reason behind an opinion? Would it still be an opinion? Anyway, it should be pretty obvious that Kidd relies on a hectic tempo to be at his best -- emphasis on running over shooting -- which is about as far from SA's strengths as possible. Furthermore, bringing Kidd in either eliminates or alienates the 2nd best thing (Parker) the team has going. Seems like a no brainer to me, especially when you factor in the huge cost and age difference between the two PG's.



> Most people would agree right now because Parker's on a tear. But we don't know.


Some people may be jumping on the bandwagon with regards to this issue, but not me. Go back to last summer and I was saying the same thing (about SA and Denver having very good offseasons, despite the criticisms of many).



> All we can say is that Gregg Popovich, who is one of the most underrated GMs in the business (who DRAFTED Parker? And Ginobili? And signed Bruce Bowen? And saw that Turkoglu wasn't washed up?) was pretty much desperate to sign Kidd.


Popp has done better than I'd like to give him credit for, but there's another chap down there that supposedly deserves a lot of the drafting and scouting kudos. Can't remember his name... As for Turkoglu, I said last summer that was a brilliant acquisition for them and that Hedo would almost certainly regain his form of two years ago.

Dan


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>:
> 
> Actually I tend to agree. Jason Kidd when in the western conference did one thing consistently. He lead teams to 8th place finishes and a 1st round exit from the playoffs.


Huh? I don't remember that being the case. And hey, at least he MADE the playoffs. In case you didn't notice, we didn't. Neither (I think I'm right in saying) did the Suns after they got rid of Kidd.



> I think the same would be said of a NJ team is they were out west. They might make 7th, 6th if they were lucky, and they would still get punked in the first round.


It could be SAID, but that wouldn't make it true.
Honestly, this is pure speculation on your part. So I think it will be said (by me) that you're full of it. 
Besides: NJ without Kidd was perpetual futility. With Kidd, they make the finals twice running.



> Jason Kidd is not a good outside shooter, true while he makes timely shots, a good shooter will often keep the team from having to make timely shots.


You mean like Ray Allen? Oh sorry, he's at home. Maybe you mean like Stephon Marbury? Oh yeah - swept by Kidd's Nets. I'm sure you mean SOMEONE, though. Far be it from you just to pull a claim out of your arse.



> As for Tony Parker and Mike Bibby only being Laker killers, I think you are dead wrong.


Go back and actually READ the posts and you'll see that it wasn't me saying that. (In fact, I defended Parker against that claim.)


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> not to find fault with what you were saying, the Sonics lost in 6 games I believe, not 5.


You are correct sir, good catch.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> NJ without Kidd was perpetual futility. With Kidd, they make the finals twice running.


Not really a fair comparison. NJ had good pieces in place (Martin, Van Horn, and Kittles, most notably), just always injured. They were fortunate that the health of the team shot up dramatically at the same time Kidd came on board, plus they got Richard Jefferson (who I'm proud to say I thought would be the steal of the draft) the same year. Far more changed in NJ's favor than just Kidd arriving.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> That's garbage. True, they might not have homecourt, but they're *easily* better than Memphis, Houston and Denver. Don't forget, they gave San Antonio more trouble than the Lakers did last year.


I don't think they're better than Memphis, and I doubt they're much (if at all) better than Houston, Denver, Utah or Portland.

NJ finished the year at 47-35. They went 13-15 in the Western Conference. Coming up with an "adjusted wins" (weighing the winning percentage for each team as if they'd played half of their season in each conference), we can get a rough idea of how they'd have done without the easy Eastern-based schedule. Here's what I came up with for each of the teams I list above:

Memphis: 52.14
Houston: 49.36
NJ: 44.85
Portland: 43.31
Utah: 42.94
Denver: 42.00

There are obviously a million reasons why this number isn't perfect, but as a rough indicator I think it has some value.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> 
> Okay, there's 10 years, I think I've made my point about what kind of PG gets teams to the Finals and especially wins championships.


Yes...by and large average or below average point guards. Kidd never won a championship. Neither did Stockton. It's been the Derek Fishers, the Avery Johnsons, Kenny Smiths, Ron Harpers...

So, the answer is to make sure you don't have a good point guard, if you want to play trends.

As far as "shoot first / pass first," all that that data may show is that truly good scoring point guards are rare. Isaiah Thomas was a scoring point guard and he won two championships. Oscar Robertson was a scoring point guard and he was a champion. Magic Johnson can be put in either category. He wasn't a pure pass-first guy like a Stockton, nor was he a constantly attacking scoring point. And he won five championships.

Hard to say.



> It seems simple to me, if the guy who's job it is to bring the ball up the floor and start the offense is just thinking about ways that HE can score, your success as a team is going to be limited.


I think you've oversimplified it. And while I think Francis doesn't make a good point guard (mostly because I believe he's an undersized shooting guard playing the point guard position), I think Marbury could be more like Isaiah Thomas. Think about this: Marbury is one of only two people in NBA history to have career averages of 20+ ppg and 8+ apg. The other one was Oscar Robertson.

Marbury may be scoring, but he's also play-making for his teammates.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury may be scoring, but he's also play-making for his teammates.


problem is, his teams haven't done too much so far. I'm not convinced yet. of course this could change, since he has a lot of years left.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> problem is, his teams haven't done too much so far. I'm not convinced yet. of course this could change, since he has a lot of years left.


For his teams to do much, he needs talent around him. He had some talent last season, though one major player (Amare Stoudemire) was just a rookie, and he led his team against the eventual world champion Spurs in the first round and the Suns gave the Spurs as much trouble as the Lakers and Nets did. I think that's working with talent well.

I wouldn't characterize the Nets or the Knicks as teams with a lot of talent surrounding Marbury and Minnesota had a Kevin Garnett who was light years less effective than the current Kevin Garnett and very little else.

Like Tracy McGrady, all we know is that he's an incredibly talented player. We can't judge leadership or that sort of thing until they get teams that have the *talent* to be led somewhere significant.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

My goodness the Lakers look horrid tonight..
Anybody watching??
They look helpless against the Spurs.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

The Spurs are absolutely flawless.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/news/story?id=1796168
:laugh:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I knew the Spurs were going to hand it to LA. That's why I was so happy the seeding was arranged the way it was. 

I actually think the Kings will go on to beat San Antonio. But the Kings probably wouldn't have beaten LA. Sacramento deserves to finally get a title. SA and LA have won enough.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> The Spurs are absolutely flawless.




JINX!



:upset:


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm suffering from an extreme case of PG envy. :verysad:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Caption this picture.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Caption this picture.


"This defense stinks."

Dan


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The only thing I like as much as a Blazer win is a Laker loss!!!!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I think it is hilarious they look so bad.
Why?
Because basically they have old players,poor chemistry and very
large ego's.


And it was shoved down the NBA fan's throats how good
they were going to be.
"best ever assembled" "best team ever to take the court"
Nonsense.
I never felt for a minute they were going to win.
Spurs all the way baybee.


----------



## Sha-Kobe O'Bryant (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I think it is hilarious they look so bad.
> Why?
> Because basically they have old players,poor chemistry and very
> ...



Typed a bit prematurely dont cha think? 

One would think if any fan base knew never to count out the Lakers it would Blazers fans.

The Lakers still have a long way to go. However, they just knocked out the "flawless" defending NBA Champions after being down 0-2. A tremendous accomplishment.

*GO LAKERS!*


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

whew! that was a stinkbomb from San Antonio..
I honestly thought they would win..
but these moves didn't work out :

Jackson left as a FA ... he was missed !
Claxton left as a FA ... no doubt he was missed !
They got Turkoglu...
by the way where in heck did Turkoglu's game go??


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

well shobekobewhatever...
I still say it is the uglist,most uninteresting team I have ever seen.

Big egos,big bodies,big problems..can't stand Phil..etc.

you like em,I hate em.

whatever..

You kinda waited til the end to post that didn't you


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Hey KokoTheMonkey,
I meant to say they are flawed !  

But seriously,they just are not the team of last year are they?


I still just love to see the Spurs play though.
I will still say they are the best team in the NBA and then Sac and then the Grizz !


----------

