# Garnett Best player in league/other thoughts....



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

People on bbb.net have been posting links to an amazing NBA stats site lately, and I found a very interesting article on KG. It pretty much puts to shame the myth that KG can't lead a team and disappears in the clutch. 

http://82games.com/comm1.htm

Best player in the league? The stats sure seem to think so!

Anyways, did anybody else catch the game last night? I've never seen such a good offensive performance from Garnett. In the past, KG has always been a decent outside shooter, but it's never seemed to come naturally to him. Almost like he has to will his shots in the basket. Last night, he was in a rythym, and absolutely on fire. He was shooting like Ray Allen or Tracy McGrady last night. He's not a post player taking outside shots anymore. He was a true shooter last night. Absolutely amazing. 

I don't like how Garnett has basically turned into soley into an 18-foot jumpshooter, but it is obvious that he's taken his ability to shoot to a whole new level. If he keeps this up, he will be averaging 30 a game in no time.

This team is starting to come together, and I can't wait for Wally and Troy to come back. Everybody who thought Spree was washed up and couldn't shoot anymore has to be quite surprised right now. The guy is lighting it up, now that teams can't key on him anymore. 

Let's get some discussion going!!!


----------



## Immure (Oct 11, 2003)

KG for the last 2 years been the best player in the league....but htey give the MVP to duncan or shaq....this y ear hopefully these dum as commentators see that there is no better tplayer than garnett....he passes like a PG, shoots like a SG, runs like a SF, rebounds like a PF, and blocks like C.....now u tell me any other player that does this on a consistent basis, and there isnt any, there fore KG should be MVP and cosidered top 10 players to ever play the game....hopefully t wolves win this year so he has something to show for (a ring) that he was one of the best players to ever pklay the game....he was unstopable last night, he got me mad cuz im from miami but oh well he is just too good...


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

That site was a good one

Regarding garnett taking more 18 footers, that would be really good if he's able to make it on a consistent basis - like what he's doing now. And he should take that shot without hesitation. That's the key. If he's able to just catch and shoot the 18 footer, then he'll be unstoppable on the pump fake.
As of now many times he pump fakes 3-4 times which is not very effective at all. Once he gets the 18 footer going in consistently and pump fakes & blows by the defender every now and then, the defender will automatically start playing a bit far from garnett thus giving him more room to do whatever he wants. 
That said i'm a bit concerned about the frequency at which he's getting to the line - which is not that good as of now. I would want to see him go to the hole rather than taking the turnaround fadeaway. Use that extra 20 pounds of muscle he added in the off season.
Can't wait to get troy and wally back.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> That site was a good one
> 
> Regarding garnett taking more 18 footers, that would be really good if he's able to make it on a consistent basis - like what he's doing now. And he should take that shot without hesitation. That's the key. If he's able to just catch and shoot the 18 footer, then he'll be unstoppable on the pump fake.
> ...


The fact that Troy and Wally are out could have a lot to do with why KG is playing more on the perimeter right now. Of our team's go-too guys, he is probably the best shooter. Once Wally is back, hopefully he'll return to more of a post-oriented play style. 

Interestingly enough, one of the main reasons that stats site names him the best player in the league is his +/- from a year ago. It was something like +22. Well, this year, he's barely above zero. I believe that a lot of this comes from his current role as a mid-range shooter in the offense. Let's get him the ball early in the shotclock and allow him to create. But again, it's tougher for him to draw the double-teams when he's away from the basket like he is. 

But for now, I can't say enough about his shot. He's making it more consistently, and hesitating a lot less. Like I said, he's shooting more like a 2-guard, and less like a PF who is taking the outiside shot because it's being given to him.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> Interestingly enough, one of the main reasons that stats site names him the best player in the league is his +/- from a year ago. It was something like +22. Well, this year, he's barely above zero. I believe that a lot of this comes from his current role as a mid-range shooter in the offense. Let's get him the ball early in the shotclock and allow him to create. But again, it's tougher for him to draw the double-teams when he's away from the basket like he is.


His + - is barely above 0 ? didn't know that. Offensively i think Trent is a big reason for this. Last season when KG went to the bench, the team would absolutely not have a clue of what to do on offense and on defense.. now trent comes in and is shooting a very good percentage. He's not afraid to take shots(has never been afraid) and as of now he's making them.
That said, as the season wears thru and the offense and defense are pretty set and they go thru him, KG will be more valuable. But i don't care as long as he does well and we get the W. He should have got the mvp last season. you really can't do any better than what KG did last season. When comparing him with duncan a lot of people underestimate the supporting cast that duncan has. Look at how well the spurs are fighting without their 2 best players. Take garnett out of our lineup last season and u have a team that'll struggle to get 15 wins. So if there's anything that will fetch him an MVP it's more W's and some playoff success.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

http://www.82games.com/0304MIN.HTM

This is Minnesota's 03-04 +/- team page. (I really can't come up with enough good things to say about this site!) Garnett is at + 0.1. 

Trent could be a main reason for this, but it's also Spree and Cassell. Last year, we were lost with KG on the bench. This season, that's not going to be the case. A definite plus. 

Also, it's only been 7 games. Garnett will rise to the top of the league in +/- very soon. 

A stat that bothers me more than Garnett 0.1 +/- is Cassell's -8.3 +/1. We can't have that from our starting PG. Here's what I'm thinking about Sammy - he's not going to stop shooting early in the possession. It's simply who he is. This is going to be a major source of contention all season long, for fans, for the coaching staff, and for his teammates. But at the same time, there are going to be plenty of nights (come postseason especially) where we are going to forget how those early shots sometimes disrupt the offense. 

As for the Duncan vs KG for MVP debate, I think KG is better at making a crappy team good, and Duncan is better at making a good team great. 

That being said, KG should have won the MVP last year in a landslide.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

What I find funny is Shaq isn't on any of the lists but he's still in the running for MVP. You can't deny that he is/was a major part of the Lakers success. After noticing this, the thought that this page could be bias in its research, but no biggie for me. Dirk is right behind KG, all he needs is some D.

Another thing I wonder is how do the stats of MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt etc. compare to KG's from this page's equations.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> What I find funny is Shaq isn't on any of the lists but he's still in the running for MVP. You can't deny that he is/was a major part of the Lakers success. After noticing this, the thought that this page could be bias in its research, but no biggie for me. Dirk is right behind KG, all he needs is some D.
> 
> Another thing I wonder is how do the stats of MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt etc. compare to KG's from this page's equations.


How in the world is a +/- stat going to be biased? The +/- stat does have some intrinsic innacuracies, but the fact of the matter is that Shaq's leaving the floor didn't hurt the Lakers as much as many think it would. You can't just accuse the site of bias because you don't like the conclusions it comes to. 

You can't go into everything with a pro-Mavericks slant. If you want to start a legitimate basketball discussion, I will always be game, and you'll always get decent response over here. If you're looking soley to degrade one team and prop up another, you will continually get bashed.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> How in the world is a +/- stat going to be biased? The +/- stat does have some intrinsic innacuracies, but the fact of the matter is that Shaq's leaving the floor didn't hurt the Lakers as much as many think it would. You can't just accuse the site of bias because you don't like the conclusions it comes to.


The again, Shaq´s +/- is 33.5.
What does it mean?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

It means that in 2003/2004, Shaq is having a MUCH larger effect on his team than he did last year. 

Technically, it's the sum it's how much better or worse a player's team does with him on and off the court, averaged out to a /48 minute number. In 2002-2003, LA was +6.5 with him on the court, -5.1 without him, for a total of +11.5. 

I really don't know what the Mavs fan was talking about when he said that Shaq didn't show up high on the +/- lists. He was 6th best in the league last year.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> KG for the last 2 years been the best player in the league....but htey give the MVP to duncan or shaq


Don't even get me started on this garbage...


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rohawk24</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't even get me started on this garbage...


Please...go ahead and start.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> I really don't know what the Mavs fan was talking about when he said that Shaq didn't show up high on the +/- lists. He was 6th best in the league last year.


I expected him higher than that. I don't like him but he does do quiet a bit for the Lakers theres no denying that.

Reason I figure the article is a bit bias because it only shows stats that show that KG "should of been the MVP"
Which there is a strong argument for but you can't just go by numbers when giving awards. Numbers could be very misleading. The way the Spurs finished out the year last year was very impressive and it swayed some more votes towards Timmy. If we gave awards based only on numbers we might as well make the MVP award picked by a computer like the BCS crap.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> Reason I figure the article is a bit bias because it only shows stats that show that KG "should of been the MVP"
> Which there is a strong argument for but you can't just go by numbers when giving awards. Numbers could be very misleading. The way the Spurs finished out the year last year was very impressive and it swayed some more votes towards Timmy. If we gave awards based only on numbers we might as well make the MVP award picked by a computer like the BCS crap.


It was saying that, based on the stats that the site uses, Garnett was the best player in the league last year.

It's only one way of quantifying the MVP race, and while I find argument very convincing, I don't think this article is claiming to be the authortiative source on who the MVP was.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> It was saying that, based on the stats that the site uses, Garnett was the best player in the league last year.
> ...


But that is what your using it for....


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> What I find funny is Shaq isn't on any of the lists but he's still in the running for MVP. You can't deny that he is/was a major part of the Lakers success.


Shaq was definitely a major part of La's success last year. But remember that whenever shaq was on the bench, bryant picked up the scoring. That could be one possible reason why the lakers could manage without shaq for the time he was on the bench.
Garnett had no one who could create on offense and the team was lost on defense without him. Basically they were just waiting for him to get into the game. And to have led such a team to 51 wins is remarkable and that's the reason why I feel he should have been the mvp. The site shows how valuable he was to his team using the + - stat.

For the record the MVP award is named Regular season MVP and though it's never followed the award is supposed to be based on the performance in the regular season alone.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> But that is what your using it for....


Eh...

All I did was paste a link. A link that gives some credible evidence to the argument that KG was the best player in the league last year. NOBODY ever claimed that it was the end-all of the debate. 

Why you take this as a personal attack on Dirk Nowitzki and feel the need to make unfounded claims that the site is biased, I have no idea. 

Quit coming to this board simply to pick a fight!


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> What I find funny is Shaq isn't on any of the lists but he's still in the running for MVP. You can't deny that he is/was a major part of the Lakers success. After noticing this, the thought that this page could be bias in its research, but no biggie for me. Dirk is right behind KG, all he needs is some D.
> 
> Another thing I wonder is how do the stats of MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt etc. compare to KG's from this page's equations.



Dirk needs better passing ability and a HUGE amount of D before he is on KG's level.

It's funny you mention the stats of MJ bird etc. Have you ever looked up the other guys who have played in this league who averaged 20 10 5 or more per game?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> http://www.82games.com/0304MIN.HTM
> 
> That being said, KG should have won the MVP last year in a landslide.


posted a link and said this...
antways.
You claim i came to start a fight but i'm sure any one else can see that i made a statement, you got defensive and took what i've said and completely twisted it. I simply ment that the site seems bias because there are other things than +/- stats that prove how good a player is. KG has been a fav of mine ever since i read about him in slam about 7 or 8 years ago. Hes a great player, and thats the reason I wanted to see him compared to HOF'ers. If I came here to start something you would know :devil:


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> posted a link and said this...
> antways.


I did NOT claim KG should have won MVP in the post where I gave the link. The KG should have won MVP in a landslide quote was entirely my own opnion, and wasn't taken from that site at all. Again, you are misrepresenting everything being said on this thread, just so you can save face. 



> You claim i came to start a fight but i'm sure any one else can see that i made a statement, you got defensive and took what i've said and completely twisted it. I simply ment that the site seems bias because there are other things than +/- stats that prove how good a player is. KG has been a fav of mine ever since i read about him in slam about 7 or 8 years ago. Hes a great player, and thats the reason I wanted to see him compared to HOF'ers. If I came here to start something you would know :devil:


I'm not being defensive in the least bit. You're coming to a Wolves message board and claiming that a site is biased, for the sole reason that it gives some stats that show KG was the best player in the league last year. 

"If it shows KG was MVP, it must be biased."

Get out of here!


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> I'm not being defensive in the least bit. You're coming to a Wolves message board and claiming that a site is biased, for the sole reason that it gives some stats that show KG was the best player in the league last year.
> 
> "If it shows KG was MVP, it must be biased."
> ...


If you look at just those stats on that page, yeah KG was the best. Happy? But there are other stats... there are other factors.
Those stats may show one thing but you can dig up others that will tell you someone else was better last year. Thats all I ever ment by saying the site was bias. 

I'm convinced that you must not like me and can't stand to see any of my posts. Anything I post you take it the wrong way.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> If you look at just those stats on that page, yeah KG was the best. Happy? But there are other stats... there are other factors.


Then say this. Not that the site is biased. 

Never mind the fact that the site isn't trying to make any claims about league MVP. It's only showing who was the best player for it's statistical system. 

And again, NOBODY ever said that there weren't other ways to measure who should win MVP. 

And I didn't say anything about KG for MVP in my original post. It was only brought up later in the discsusion. 



> Those stats may show one thing but you can dig up others that will tell you someone else was better last year. Thats all I ever ment by saying the site was bias.


Again, this is a very different thing to say than coming out and calling the site biased because you don't agree with it's conclusions. 



> I'm convinced that you must not like me and can't stand to see any of my posts. Anything I post you take it the wrong way.


I don't take your posts the wrong way. You're here to flame the Wolves, and try to prop up the Mavs at every turn. I am a very reasonable guy, but I don't have time for people with agendas like this. Especially not when I try to start a legitimate discussion on my own team's board. 

So until you are ready to put aside your ridiculous anti-anyone but the Mavs bias and engage in some real discussion, I'm not going to like you posting here. When you do, I'll be the first to give you an honest answer.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

I haven't been reading the thread except for the first post. I'm just here to post an opinion.










I love KG. He's just an awesome player. He's 7 feet, can handle, can shoot, and cant play the post. What more could you want in a player? He brings new meaning to the term "all-around player". KG also has plenty of years left ahead of him in this league. He's also a joy to watch in every game he plays. He's explosive, quick, exciting. This guy is just down-right awesome. I can't say enough about him.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

How can I Flame a bunch of Flamers? j/k

If I came to flame I would of said something completely different. I just put my two cents in and it about choked you. Funny you saying that all I speak of is the Mavs. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could say otherwise. I rarely see you're posts dealing with anything other than KG or the Twolves.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> How can I Flame a bunch of Flamers? j/k
> 
> If I came to flame I would of said something completely different. I just put my two cents in and it about choked you. Funny you saying that all I speak of is the Mavs. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could say otherwise. I rarely see you're posts dealing with anything other than KG or the Twolves.


Yes, I talk a lot about the Wolves. On the Wolves board. My main board posts are almost always about topics other than the Wolves. When you go on the main board and flame the Wolves is about the only time you will ever see me defending my team on that board. I also post just as much as I do here over on the college boards. 

Again. When you're ready to give a legitimate opinion about Minnesota and a legitimate opinion about Dallas, you will be welcomed here by me. Until then, you are nothing more than a flamer.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

SteveMC, can you list any other stats or credentials that kevin doesn't have that say he shouldn't have been the MVP? what stats do you go by? because if you don't go by one's listed on that website, please fill me in.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kaniffmn</b>!
> SteveMC, can you list any other stats or credentials that kevin doesn't have that say he shouldn't have been the MVP? what stats do you go by? because if you don't go by one's listed on that website, please fill me in.


If all we did is go by those stats we wouldn't have people voting. Those numbers are very impressive but they don't show how well someone actually played. Or it doesn't show how someone matched up against another MVP type player. Numbers don't always tell the whole truth. In last years MVP race KG had it by the numbers. But how the hell can you ignore how well Timmy played to finish up the season? It left a lasting impression on voters. He brought his team to the top of the west with a team of roleplayers. He also played well against Shaq in the Lakers. 4-0 against the defending champs. Theses things don't show up in efficiency ratings. These are leadership type qualities that you would expect from a MVP. If we just went by numbers, there were years in the past where a player on a team who didn't win much should of got the MVP award.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

kevin garnett has those same qualities and his role players were not as good as duncan's. at nearly every position there was someone better on the spurs than the wolves, not to mention the bench. all those matchups that you refer to involve numbers and stats, kevin has held his own against every competitor that has stood in his way. i'm just kinda dismayed because when they already talk about the mvp award this year, they are saying they won't give it to timmy because he has won two years in a row and they should let someone else win it, a la barkley and malone winning it over jordan. not that duncan is jordan or anything, in my mind kg is the best player in the league because of the things he can do at his size. at least kg won some respect when he was the star of stars at the all star game. all i know is, i watch a lot of basketball and KG never takes a night off and when the night is all said and done, he is still the best player on the court.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

For some reason I don't think its going to be Timmy or KG this year... I have a feeling they will give it to Shaq (I said give it to, I didn't say win) or someone out East. Dunno, call it a hunch or something.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> If all we did is go by those stats we wouldn't have people voting. Those numbers are very impressive but they don't show how well someone actually played. Or it doesn't show how someone matched up against another MVP type player. Numbers don't always tell the whole truth. In last years MVP race KG had it by the numbers. But how the hell can you ignore how well Timmy played to finish up the season? It left a lasting impression on voters. He brought his team to the top of the west with a team of roleplayers. He also played well against Shaq in the Lakers. 4-0 against the defending champs. Theses things don't show up in efficiency ratings. These are leadership type qualities that you would expect from a MVP. If we just went by numbers, there were years in the past where a player on a team who didn't win much should of got the MVP award.


You are telling me that the MVP should be decided outside of a boxscore, but you can already tell me where that the Wolves are doomed this year by doing the same thing. 

You're a walking contradiction...


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> You are telling me that the MVP should be decided outside of a boxscore, but you can already tell me where that the Wolves are doomed this year by doing the same thing.
> ...


I didn't say the wolves were doomed because you can read the box score and see some reasons why they are loosing.

I did say the MVP should be decided by things other than stats.

I'm not a walking contradiction, you're just trying to discredit me because I have a f'in point. You have to be the only person who can draw these two conclusions by reading everyother word I post.

Try reading my posts several times before trying to insult me to avoid posting something like this.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Don't come here and tell me about how my team sucks because you read a box score, and then chime in about how a player on my team shouldn't win MVP because of things outside a boxscore. I will say it again. You're a walking contradiction.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Don't come here and tell me about how my team sucks because you read a box score, and then chime in about how a player on my team shouldn't win MVP because of things outside a boxscore. I will say it again. You're a walking contradiction.


Such a weak comparison....

Never said your team sucks, you saying it.

I said they are playing poorly from what i can tell. And I said there are intangables that are involved in selecting a MVP. 

So what your saying is that we can choose a MVP with out watching games and just looking at stats? and box scores can't give you an idea of how well or poorly a team has played.

:whatever:

You better come harder then that.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> Such a weak comparison....
> ...


I'm saying that you need to watch Timberwolves games before coming to our board and telling us why we're losing, and how your team is so much better.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm saying that you need to watch Timberwolves games before coming to our board and telling us why we're losing, and how your team is so much better.


Being here outside austin basketball isn't that big. I watch the games I get. Which is usually spurs and Nationally televised games. Guess thats why I can argue how good timmy is so well.

I can see how someone can jump to the defensive side, I'd do the same thing about my teams if the shoe was on the other foot. 

Took several pages, but I guess we both are finally seeing what each other is saying. 
Whats next? Agreeing with one another? :uhoh:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Obviously KG was the most VALUABLE player last year. The only arguments agains that that I've ever heard are because he's not a dominant post player. Since when was it a bad thing to be the most versitile player in the league. And KG is often in the post, it's just that he can do other things so well, that people don't think he does play in the post. One other thing that I've heard is that Duncan is a better leader than KG, which you would want to be to be MVP. Their reason why was that Duncan led his team to a championship, while KG led his team to 7 straight 1st round exits. But since when does how good the team you're on determine what type of a leader you are? Anybody who watches Wolves basketball knows that KG's the best leader in the league. The only other reason for KG not being MVP was that Duncan's team was better. But my god, 4th best in the league isn't good enough for MVP? Recently in baseball, Alex Rodriguez won MVP and he had one of the worst, if not the worst, teams in the AL. The best player on the best team doesn't necessarily mean he's the MVP, it means he's the FINALS MVP, not the regular season MVP.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

The KG should of been MVP thread is somewhere on the NBA board.... There are some great posts there check it out.

But I think Timmy leading the Spurs to the top of the West after the all star break left a lasting impresson on voters.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> The KG should of been MVP thread is somewhere on the NBA board.... There are some great posts there check it out.
> 
> But I think Timmy leading the Spurs to the top of the West after the all star break left a lasting impresson on voters.


Yeah, you really can't argue with the Tim Duncan selection. Either way, one of the two is going to get slighted. Duncan's team was better, so he gets it.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really can't argue with the Tim Duncan selection. Either way, one of the two is going to get slighted. Duncan's team was better, so he gets it.


Timmy's team was better, but not by too much. IMO, Him and his teammates just complemented each other so much better than KG's teammates complement him.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> Timmy's team was better, but not by too much. IMO, Him and his teammates just complemented each other so much better than KG's teammates complement him.


My comment had nothing to do with supporting cast. It had to do with the fact that San Antonio was a 1-seed and Minnesota was a 4-seed.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> My comment had nothing to do with supporting cast. It had to do with the fact that San Antonio was a 1-seed and Minnesota was a 4-seed.


:uhoh:
Well my comment did...

:laugh:


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Then why did you quote me?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Then why did you quote me?


:whoknows:


----------

