Retro POY '00-01 (Voting Complete)

[semi-sentient]

AI wasn't bad defender.

OK, I admit I'm going overboard, but he wasn't exactly a good defender either. At best, and considering he was surrounded by very good defenders that could cover his constant gambling, you could make an argument that he was above average.

Kobe was one of the best defenders in the league though, and I can't imagine how any reasonably knowledgeable basketball fan can ignore that.

[drza]

RIght at the moment I've got it in tiers:

Tier 1: Shaq

Tier 2: The Duncan/KG/Kobe tier (not necessarily in that order)

Tier 3: Iverson, Webber, Carter, McGrady, etc.

I don't know what to do about Iverson. Real-time, I was impressed by the Answer and wasn't against him winning that MVP. His impact has really suffered over time, especially with the rise in advanced stats and increased focus on efficiency. I'm also one that really takes defense seriously and feels that the good defensive role-playing supporting casts tend to be grossly underrated (i.e. it's no coincidence that virtually all of the exceptions to the "you need multiple stars to win a title" truism all involve strong and unheralded defensive supporting casts. But I digress).

But Iverson and the Sixers were just such EXTREME cases...how can I resolve the conflict between Iverson's extreme inefficiency but his obvious role as the only offense-producer on the team (there was a great post about that a page or two ago that really made me think). On the other hand, there have been intriguing cases made that it was the defense, and not Iverson's offense, that got the Sixers to the Finals in the first place. But can I really credit that? I mean, efficiency or not those 40 and 50 point games have to count for something, right?

I'm still torn on the Answer. Right now he's battling Webber for that 5th slot, but I'm still definitely reading and weighing. I don't see him jumping above any of the four ahead of him, though, unless someone really blows me away with something.

[lorak]

AI wasn't bad defender.

OK, I admit I'm going overboard, but he wasn't exactly a good defender either. At best, and considering he was surrounded by very good defenders that could cover his constant gambling, you could make an argument that he was above average.
.

Well, do you have anything to support this conclusions? Really, I would like to know because for example people often says that he gambled a lot but nobody supports that with any evidence. Or that he was bad or average defender but again – no data to support that.

Funny thing, I just checked how 76ers were doing with and without Iverson. There’s no surprise that they overall were worse without him, but also their defense was worse without AI. Of course I’m not suggesting that he was focal point of their defense. Mutombo (and earlier Ratliff) was, but I think AI is very underrated here.

Here’s the numbers for 2001 Philadelphia
With AI: 50-21, .704%, 104 ORtg, 99 DRtg, +5 efficiency differential
Without AI: 6-5, .545%, 103 ORtg, 102 DRtg, +1 efficiency differential

So I understand that many guys simply don’t like AI, especially when we have all this advanced stats, but 2001 was special for Iverson and his impact was clearly big, bigger than for example Bryant’s impact on Lakers. Besides, how many great games Iverson had in 2001 post season? How many players in history had so many memorable games in one playoff run?

[lorak]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm solid that I'm voting

1. Shaq: obvious choice. Still, Shaq's me very angry this year. The lakers last year had the best D in the league despite a questionable defensive front-line outside of O'Neal. He could take a not ready for prime-time 00 lakers squad and led them to a great RS and carried them through an epic post-season performance. This team had no business winning 65+ yet the greatness of O'Neal pushed them over the top.

For his follow up, he decided not to care until the last two weeks of the season. The lakers in 01 had a below average defense for most of the season because Shaq refused to make defensive rotations for most of the season. The second he starts trying on defense they go to being the best in league in that department. The 01 lakers should have won 68+ instead they didn't because Shaq mailed it in on defense for most of the season.

2. Kobe: I'm really disappointed at the number of people who had him number 3 last year. He was elevated over players who were considered better in the RS, and yet he turned in a very poor PS. Being that I think 01 is a weak year for individual performances, I'll acknowledge the historic greatness of the 01 lakers.

3. AI: I'm not a huge AI fan, but his supporters have swayed me that this is a guy who gets something of a bum rap. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've said this a few times but 98-01 is really open because of the lack of great players in their prime. If you told me in 97 neither Hill, Mourning, or Penny would be considered top 5 in 01, I would have laughed in your face. Yet here we are.

[drza]

OK, I admit I'm going overboard, but he wasn't exactly a good defender either. At best, and considering he was surrounded by very good defenders that could cover his constant gambling, you could make an argument that he was above average.
.

Well, do you have anything to support this conclusions? Really, I would like to know because for example people often says that he gambled a lot but nobody supports that with any evidence. Or that he was bad or average defender but again – no data to support that.

Funny thing, I just checked how 76ers were doing with and without Iverson. There’s no surprise that they overall were worse without him, but also their defense was worse without AI. Of course I’m not suggesting that he was focal point of their defense. Mutombo (and earlier Ratliff) was, but I think AI is very underrated here.

Here’s the numbers for 2001 Philadelphia
With AI: 50-21, .704%, 104 ORtg, 99 DRtg, +5 efficiency differential
Without AI: 6-5, .545%, 103 ORtg, 102 DRtg, +1 efficiency differential

So I understand that many guys simply don’t like AI, especially when we have all this advanced stats, but 2001 was special for Iverson and his impact was clearly big, bigger than for example Bryant’s impact on Lakers. Besides, how many great games Iverson had in 2001 post season? How many players in history had so many memorable games in one playoff run?

Good info. Depending on what the rebuttal is, you may have just snuck Iverson up to my second tier on the heels of Mufasa's posts on his offense.

[sp6r=underrated]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

Great Post.

This is something I try to remind myself. There is little doubt that there were plenty of people in the 60s and 70s who thought they had all the statistical information they needed to make evaluations based on the numbers. Looking back we would laugh at not having blocks, steals, turnovers. Thirty years from now, I'm sure the information we have now will look woefully incomplete, and that is why I don't think you should just look at numbers.

[drza]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

Great Post.

This is something I try to remind myself. There is little doubt that there were plenty of people in the 60s and 70s who thought they had all the statistical information they needed to make evaluations based on the numbers. Looking back we would laugh at not having blocks, steals, turnovers. Thirty years from now, I'm sure the information we have now will look woefully incomplete, and that is why I don't think you should just look at numbers.

I agree that they're not perfect, and that they should continue to get better. That said, I do think there's information in them that can help us make more informed decisions. They shouldn't be the decision-maker, but they can definitely help support a case and make it a lot stronger than just the eyeball test.

[sp6r=underrated]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

Great Post.

This is something I try to remind myself. There is little doubt that there were plenty of people in the 60s and 70s who thought they had all the statistical information they needed to make evaluations based on the numbers. Looking back we would laugh at not having blocks, steals, turnovers. Thirty years from now, I'm sure the information we have now will look woefully incomplete, and that is why I don't think you should just look at numbers.

I agree that they're not perfect, and that they should continue to get better. That said, I do think there's information in them that can help us make more informed decisions. They shouldn't be the decision-maker, but they can definitely help support a case and make it a lot stronger than just the eyeball test.

I agree. I hope it didn't came across that I think we should just eyeball vote off games we saw a decade ago.

[Sedale Threatt]

How many players in history had so many memorable games in one playoff run?

A lot more than you'd probably realize.

This is a summation of what he did that year:

Round 1 -- Epic Game 2 (45 pts, 9 assts), combined 81 points on 78 shots in other three.

Round 2 -- Epic Games 2 and 5 (54 and 52 pts on phenomenal %), 137 points on 130 shots in the other four. Shot a combined 14 for 51 in Games 6 and 7.

ECF -- Outstanding Games 5 and 6 (46 and 44 on mediocre to good%), more shots than points in each of the other four, a combined 93 points on 120 shots.

Finals -- Epic Game 1 (48 pts), 130 points on 121 shots over the last four.

What stands out? WILD inconsistency, and the lack of efficiency he's been hammered on so many times in the past. By my count, he's got almost as many wretched games (five) as great (six), with a range of mediocre to good in the middle.

[lorak]

How many players in history had so many memorable games in one playoff run?

A lot more than you'd probably realize.

Who? Could you be more specific?

This is a summation of what he did that year:

Round 1 -- Epic Game 2 (45 pts, 9 assts), combined 81 points on 78 shots in other three.

Round 2 -- Epic Games 2 and 5 (54 and 52 pts on phenomenal %), 137 points on 130 shots in the other four. Shot a combined 14 for 51 in Games 6 and 7.

ECF -- Outstanding Games 5 and 6 (46 and 44 on mediocre to good%), more shots than points in each of the other four, a combined 93 points on 120 shots.

Finals -- Epic Game 1 (48 pts), 130 points on 121 shots over the last four.

So lets take 40 points as starting point (I know it isn’t perfect). AI had 6 40+ points (2 +50) games in 2001.
Other players who done that or were close since 1991

1995 Olajuwon – 5 games, none above 50
2000 Shaq – 5 games, none above 50
1992 Jordan – 4 games, one above 50
1993 Jordan – 6 games, two above 50
2009 LeBron – 4 games, none above 50
2009 Kobe – 4 games, none above 50

So pretty good company and pretty rare achievement.

[Sedale Threatt]

He also had eight games where he had more shot attempts than points, and another handful where the difference was virtually negligible.

Not to disparage the top-end performances, which were truly phenomenal, but basically, all he did was take 30 shots a game for a team that played a bunch en route to the Finals.

[ElGee]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

I'm worried this is going to become an exercise in box score stats the deeper the project goes. Will Alex English be littering top-5's all of a sudden?

[sp6r=underrated]

I hope people don't me listing all of these articles, but I think a large part of the fun of this project is taking us back to previous seasons and remembering or in many cases learning about prior periods in the NBA.

Here is an interesting article from USA Today in March on Kevin Garnett.

The message is to the point, unambiguous and all Kevin Garnett:

"This is my dream -- that there will be no such thing as superstars, only teams . . . that pride will be measured in games won, not shots taken . . . that the sport will be for guys in uniforms, not guys in three-piece suits . . . that there will be less player hate and more love for the game. This is my dream today."

Garnett, dressed warmly in a heavy coat and knit hat to protect him against the Minnesota cold, stares into a camera and says those words. It's just one of a number of current television spots featuring Garnett sponsored by And 1.

Sure, it's a commercial for a basketball gear company and Garnett is on its payroll, but Garnett believes in what he is saying.

His presence and his attitude are reasons the NBA has high hopes for its future despite the hits its image has taken lately. Garnett not only preaches loyalty, trustworthiness, team play
and leadership, he practices them daily. He's also having one heck of a good time doing it.

He's the Minnesota Timberwolves' leading scorer (22.5) and rebounder (11.3) and also is averaging 4.8 assists, 1.6 blocked shots and 1.4 steals.

But he doesn't like to talk stats.

"I'm like Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer," he says. "I lead the herd. Everything starts with me -- energy, making sure guys are ready, being the leader. I have the shoulders for that. "I've always been a leader in my family, in my neighborhood, whether it was kickball or pickup tackle. I always wanted to be the quarterback."

Teammate Wally Szczerbiak can't help but smile and shake his head when he talks about Garnett.

"Kevin has a lot of personality and he knows how to show that charisma to the fans who are cheering for him," Szczerbiak says. "He bridges that fan-player gap very well, and I think that's one thing a lot of guys need to learn how to do in order to help the league. When you see him on TV or in the game, you can relate with him because he's showing a lot of emotion with his facial expressions and the way he talks and moves. I think it's really good to see how much fun he's having playing the game.

"I think if more of us could do that, it would really turn out great for the league."

The Timberwolves would be just another team struggling to win more games than they lose if it weren't for Garnett, as hard times have hit them lately.

They were stunned by the tragic death of Malik Sealy in a car accident last May. Then they lost Bobby Jackson, who signed with Sacramento as a free agent, and had Joe Smith's contract voided, eventually losing him to Detroit. Owner Glen Taylor and vice president of basketball operations Kevin McHale were suspended for their part in Smith's illegal pact, and the team was stripped of four first-round draft picks.

A lot of teams would have crumbled and a lot of superstars would have looked to play elsewhere. But not the Timberwolves, and not Garnett.

Back on winning track They went into the All-Star break with an 11-game winning streak, the longest in the league by any team this season, but they lost their first five out of the break, again testing their mettle.

With Garnett leading the way, the Timberwolves righted themselves and won four in a row before back-to-back losses at Orlando and Miami last weekend. At 37-26, they have a two-game lead over Houston for the eighth playoff spot in the Western Conference. "It's just not right to jump ship when things are going badly.

If you're going to handle the good stuff, you definitely have to handle the bad stuff, too," says Garnett, at 24, the NBA's highest-paid player this season, earning $ 19.6 million in the
third year of a 6-year, $ 126 million contract. "My philosophy is like anything else in life -- when it goes sour, you stay with it. I don't think people really respect a person that's not loyal, isn't trustworthy. Why would we give up now or why would I demand to be somewhere else? We've made
so many strides to get where we are. This is just a steppingstone, a hurdle, and all hurdles can be jumped. We just have to stay together."

Says Hall of Fame coach and ESPN analyst Jack Ramsay: "Adversity has brought this team closer together. They've galvanized. They play hard and they play with emotion. It all starts with Kevin
Garnett. He's a great leader. He just goes out every night and does whatever he has to do to help his team win."

Garnett has been getting plenty of help from point guard Terrell Brandon, averaging 16.5 points and 7.5 assists and one of the most underrated players in the league; second-year man Szczerbiak, averaging 13.9 points and 5.6 rebounds and one of only seven players in the league shooting better than 50% from the field (third at 51.1%); and sixth man LaPhonso Ellis, who is averaging 9.8 points and 6.1 rebounds.

Timberwolves coach Flip Saunders, an upbeat, easygoing former college teammate of McHale's, is easy to play for and was the NBA's coach of the month for January. The Timberwolves are a well-disciplined team, yet he gives them a lot of freedom.

Garnett is listed at 6-11, but he is closer to 7-1 and can legitimately play any position well. He handles the ball like a point guard, shoots it like a shooting guard, moves like a small forward, rebounds and plays defense like a power forward and handles himself around
the basket like a center.

'He defines team player' Coaches like to talk about doing things the right way. Garnett is as do-it-the-right-way as they come. Former Georgetown coach John Thompson, an NBA analyst for Turner Broadcasting, loves Garnett and says that every coach everywhere does, too.

"He defines team player," Thompson says. "Even though he has individual, entertaining skills, when you watch Kevin play, you see, from a coach's standpoint, a guy who understands the beauty of playing as a team player. He's just very, very unselfish. The things he does, in terms of leadership and sacrifice, are unusual for somebody who came right out of high school and had never been
around some of this stuff. It's hard to get a talented person to be a team player because the more talent you have, the more you tend to define team in me. Kevin doesn't do that."

Consistency is one of the best measures of greatness. Coming into this season, Garnett increased his scoring, rebounding and assists averages in each of his first five seasons in the league, and he is maintaining last season's numbers this season.

If the NBA is indeed thinking about keeping 20-year-olds out of the league, Garnett would be an exception. After going directly from Chicago's Farragut Academy to the NBA at 19, Garnett, in five-plus seasons, established himself as arguably the best player in the league. He proved that you can go from high school to the NBA to stardom to an important voice for the league while still on the low side of 25.

In spite of the esteem from the league's elders, Garnett is unassuming. "This is an iffy league," he says. "Today you can be sunshine and tomorrow you can be rain. I just do the best I can. I don't distribute checks, so this isn't my team. I'm the product of an environment. I'm a player like anybody else.

"My goal is to bring this franchise a championship, and I can best do that by playing to have fun and by playing to win. Every night I try to make the fans and management understand that they have something special here and I'm going to give everything I have, whether I'm feeling great or have a 102-degree temperature.

"I might be limping, but as long as I can run, I'm with you. That's just the way I was brought up -- to have loyalty and respect for the game."

[semi-sentient]

Well, do you have anything to support this conclusions? Really, I would like to know because for example people often says that he gambled a lot but nobody supports that with any evidence. Or that he was bad or average defender but again – no data to support that.

Iverson didn't get all those steals because he was a ballhawk and constantly stripped his defender. He got them because he played passing lanes well, and that requires that you gamble on defense. Yes, he's alert out there and does a good job of intercepting the ball, and that's to his credit, but we shouldn't confuse that with disrupting the offense (the way that Kobe did by hounding McKey down the court) or forcing guys into bad/long shots by preventing penetration and then challenging those shots.

In AI's case, you can see this by watching some of those Finals videos which are available on YouTube (complete games). I'm not saying that he does it constantly, because he doesn't, but I don't think we should confuse him getting steals as a result of his quickness and reads as good defense. Like I said, at best, he might be considered above average, and I think that's being generous because no one considered him a good defender back then.

AI doesn't do a particularly good job of staying in front of his guy either despite being very quick. Part of that is because he's paying attention to where the ball is a little too much instead of focusing on his man, and what happens when there is a switch? He's in big trouble, which is not something you can say about Kobe because he can very effectively defend the PG, SG, and SF positions.

All of that is covered up by the fact that he was surrounded by great defenders though, so perhaps it doesn't quite matter as much, but it still matters.

Funny thing, I just checked how 76ers were doing with and without Iverson. There’s no surprise that they overall were worse without him, but also their defense was worse without AI. Of course I’m not suggesting that he was focal point of their defense. Mutombo (and earlier Ratliff) was, but I think AI is very underrated here.

Here’s the numbers for 2001 Philadelphia
With AI: 50-21, .704%, 104 ORtg, 99 DRtg, +5 efficiency differential
Without AI: 6-5, .545%, 103 ORtg, 102 DRtg, +1 efficiency differential

That's fine, but if you accept that the teams defense fell off without AI, then you'll have to accept that he had very little impact on offense seeing as how their oRtg stayed the same.

So I understand that many guys simply don’t like AI, especially when we have all this advanced stats, but 2001 was special for Iverson and his impact was clearly big, bigger than for example Bryant’s impact on Lakers. Besides, how many great games Iverson had in 2001 post season? How many players in history had so many memorable games in one playoff run?

I'm not going to lie, I really don't like AI, but there are plenty of players that I've voted for in this project that I don't like and I've given them high rankings based on how good they were on both ends and how well they played overall (RS/PS). I HATE the damn Spurs, but I've given Duncan 3 first place votes and 2 second place votes because he deserved them. I can't justify giving AI a vote over Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and KG. I'm still open on my 5th spot, and maybe my feelings will change before the voting is over, so we'll see what happens.

I also want to point out that while you're praising AI for his post-season, you're ignoring what Kobe did. He absolutely destroyed the Spurs and Kings in the West, and like I said, outside of Game 1 of the Sixers series he played extremely well in the Finals and played a pretty significant role in shutting down the Sixers offense (go watch how long it takes the Sixers to set up their "offense" because Kobe is hounding McKie/Snow), and watch how well he plays AI in Game 1 to force him into shooting poorly (first half -- Fisher and Lue played him most of the 2nd half/OT). Then pay attention to how well he is getting the ball into Shaq and toning down his own scoring so that the Lakers can exploit that huge mismatch.

Oh, and another thing that bothered me about AI in that series was how he ignored Deke. Mutombo was having his best offensive series of the post-season, and he was being ignored time and time again -- and he did, in fact, look frustrated on several occasions where he called for the ball only to watch AI dribble around and jack up a long shot.

[Doctor MJ]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

Eh, that's a stretch. It's not like the world of old school basketball said the Cavs would lose. Cavs had the best record, so most picked them. That advanced stats don't say otherwise says nothing about advanced stats except that you still can't be psychic with them.

[semi-sentient]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

I hope you're not lumping me in with the folks that rely almost exclusively on advanced stats, because I have RARELY used them in my arguments. The only one that I pay particular attention to is TS%, and that's because it gives me a better representation of scoring efficiency than FG% alone. Find one post where I'm using +/-, WP, PER, oRtg/dRtg, or WS as an argument for why Player A should be ranked higher than Player B.

BTW, I picked the Magic to win last year over the Cavs, and anyone that payed attention to the those teams in the regular season should have known there was an obvious match up advantage for the Magic. It's the same reason that I wanted the Cavs to win -- because I knew the Lakers would have destroyed their FC.

[drza]

One thing that's been brought back to me as I've looked into this year, is that this was the PEAK of the Duncan vs KG debate. In the years since then there hasn't been as much heat, especially once the Spurs started winning titles, but at that time? Oh, it was on. They were just so similar. Born a month apart. Both wore #21. Same division. Similar stats...in fact, check out their "advanced" stats from the regular season:

Duncan: 23.8 PER, 13.2 WS, 18.1 WP (.273 WP/48)

Garnett: 23.9 PER, 11.8 WS, 18.2 WP (.273 WP/48)

I really wish there was some +/- data to work from, because otherwise they are essentially the same person statistically (Duncan's WS advantage is all tied to defensive rating, which is directly influenced by your teammates)

In fact, the only discernible advantage that Duncan had over Garnett at that time was David Robinson. In the regular season we've seen how close KG and Duncan were as individuals, and Bastillion posted on page 1 of this thread that in their playoff matchup KG was the more efficient of the 2 while playing to a production standstill. But let's look further into all 4 games to really look at how things went head-to-head:

Game 1: Duncan with the advantage: 33 points on 20 shots, 15 boards, 4 assists, 4 blocks, 1 steal, 2 TOs vs KG's 25 points on 18 shots, 13 boards, 6 assists, 1 block, 3 steals, 1 TO in a close Spurs win.

Game 2: Standstill: KG had 18 points on 13 shots, 12 boards, 2 assists, 1 block, 2 TOs vs Duncan's 18 points on 18 shots, 11 boards, 4 assists, 2 steals, 1 block, 1 TO. The difference in game 2? The other 4 members of the Wolves starting 5 COMBINED for 15 points, 11 boards, 4 assists and 8 TOs (literally, I had to double-check because I couldn't believe how bad that was). Meanwhile, Robinson by himself turned in 16 points, 11 boards, 3 assists, 3 steals, and 2 blocks. Ballgame, Spurs win.

Game 3: KG busted Duncan up. KG went for 22 points on 14 shots, 8 boards, 4 assists, 1 TO vs Duncan's 15 points on 12 shots, 10 boards, 2 assists, 6 TOs. The Wolves won, but the game was still fairly close because Robinson exploded for 22 points, 17 boards and 3 blocks.

Game 4: Tight, maybe slight edge KG: 19 points on 13 shots, 15 boards, 5 assists, 1 steal, 3 blocks vs Duncan's 24 points on 23 shots, 16 boards, 4 assists, 0 steals, 2 blocks. But the Spurs win again, because once again Rasho has no answer for David Robinson (21 points on 10 shots, 14 boards, 3 assists). Game, set, match, series. Spurs win.

That series was their career's in a nutshell. Garnett plays Duncan to a standstill, maybe even slightly better...but the rest of the Wolves just could not run with the Spurs. Lol. Even after all of the KG and Duncan posts we've had so far in this project, nothing has got my blood running about that rivalry like this until I revisited this year. If I had more time today I'd try to fire up a good old-fashioned KG/Duncan debate on the main PC board...but it's not as much fun now that so many people have convinced themselves that Duncan won the war. I freakin HATE Kevin Mchale for depriving us of a decade of this rivalry on the big stage!

[ElGee]

spr keep the articles coming.

[bastillon]

this Iverson crap got way out of hand. his teams were shooting so poorly from 3s because Iverson needed this type of players around him. what's more important, Iverson directly affected their poor shooting by being himself not a threat from the outside as well as needing tall defensive PG (Snow in this case) for him in the backcourt so he could exist on defense. put Mike Bibby instead of Iverson, suddenly you're also changing Snow because you don't him anymore. you need Snow with AI however.

this is what's most annoying about Iverson. either way, you're screwed. you can be the worst backcourt in history by putting him with normal PG in the same line up (meaning AI guards SGs which is ridiculous) or you can be acceptable defensively, but at the same time you're screwed offensively because Snow isn't any threat offensively.

76ers were misconstructed on offense, but it was BECAUSE of Iverson.