Retro POY '02-03 (ends Tue morning PST)

[Doctor MJ]

In this thread we'll discuss and vote on the top 5 best player seasons of '02-03. Some pointers:

-I will tally up the votes 3 days from now. I encourage people to wait to actually cast their votes until there's been some discussion - Ideally waiting until the 3rd day. However, I know everyone's schedule is busy - I'm not going NOT count votes just because they come in relatively early.

-The voting panel is not officially closed. However, if you'd like to be a part of it, contact me - more dedicated, knowledgeable voters will always be wanted.

-This includes both regular and post-season. You should be weighing both in to some degree, and should not be ranking one star over another just because of how far each got in the playoffs.

-Vote sincerely. Do not move a player down in your voting to give another player an advantage. I would encourage every voter to give some explanations while they do their voting - but particularly if you have a top 5 that deviates strongly with the norm and you haven't expressed your thoughts on it earlier in the thread. If I'm not satisfied, I may ask you for more of an explanation - and it may come to actually booting people out of the project.

Some things to start us off:

Season Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2003.html
Playoff Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _2003.html
Award Voting http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... _2003.html

Regular Season Raw http://82games.com/teams0203.htm
Regular Season Adjusted +/- (combined w/ 03-04) http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm

Topics for '02-03:

-Duncan breaks through
-Lakers' slow, slow start & lack of finish
-TMac's big year

[sp6r=underrated]

1. Tim Duncan: RS only, I think you could make arguments for a few players over TD (KG, T-MAC, Kobe), but I think he had the best post-season. I also think the period of 2002-midway 2004 is a period when Duncan didn't have the loaded supporting cast that people claimed.
2. KG: This is I think the 4th straight year I have had TD/KG 1 2 on my list which is pretty extraordinary. While I think you could make arguments for Kobe or T-Mac, KG is the only other player with an argument that I would consider somewhat convincing.

3. Tracy McGrady: Just a slightly better season than Kobe both in the RS and PS. I think less of T-Mac's 2003 campaign than many others because the only are were he made a major leap was in shooting %, which is probably the least static number in basketball.
4. Kobe: The lakers best player in a RS, in which it is legitimate to really question the effort Shaq put in.

5. Shaq:

[DumbyTheWizard]

I wasnt really following the NBA in that time, but what do you think about Kidd in that year? His best scoring season, and the Nets did make the finals (I know the conference sucked. but still). He still was a great defender at the time, so I'm just wondering what do you think...

[Gongxi]

Kidd had a great year, but this was the anti 03-04 season. Lots of people had even better years, IMO.

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to say that throughout this thing I'm going mostly by on-court production, with games in December mattering as much as games in March, and games in the playoffs meaning only about 50% more than games in the regular season. Which is to say: if you play 20 playoff games and 82 regular season games, your regular season still accounts for roughly 2/3rds of where I'm placing you. Why? Because a 20 game sample size pales in comparison to 82 or, together, 102 games.

Also, I don't much care about how well your team did. It's basketball, not ping pong- one player can't dictate whether an entire team wins or loses.

As weak as 03-04 was at #5, this year has, I believe, three to four legit player of the year contenders. Three to four really, really quality seasons, a couple of which that could rank among some of the greater seasons in NBA history. The guy that wasn't among that group still had an amazing year, and that's Kevin Garnett. Excellent player, excellent year, but the competition was stiff.

The lower guy of the three to four legit candidates for #1 for me is Kobe. A great regular season, comparable to the other three on that level, but he fell off pretty considerably (relative to the the others) in the playoffs. 32 points a game is great; 50% TS is not. Then there's Shaq. Probably the last archetypal Shaq year: 28/11/3 on 58% TS during the regular season, 27/15/4 on 60% TS in the playoffs. Unfortunately it was also quintessential in that he missed nearly 20 games. Kobe played 82. It is for that reason that Kobe leapfrogs Shaq here to get #3 to Shaq's #4.

My top two are Duncan and McGrady. Duncan's 21 point, 20 rebound, 10 assist, 8 block clinching game in the Finals (averaged 24/17/5 in the series) still sits with me and probably effects my judgment more than it should. He played nearly every game that year, going for 23/13/4 in the regular season and then an eye-popping 25/15/5 in the playoffs, all the while providing all-world defense. That said, I have to favor McGrady a little. 32/7/6 with the same general TS% Duncan had. His AST/TO ratio isn't making John Stockton or Chris Paul blush, but very impressive for a SF/SG. And he was nearly as good in the playoffs.

I could see a real argument in which I nod my head and say “Yeah, definitely” for my 1-3, and if Shaq had played more games, I'd feel that way about 1-4. So this year for me is:

1- Tracy McGrady
2- Tim Duncan
3- Kobe Bryant
4- Shaquille O'Neal
5- Kevin Garnett

[Doctor MJ]

I wasnt really following the NBA in that time, but what do you think about Kidd in that year? His best scoring season, and the Nets did make the finals (I know the conference sucked. but still). He still was a great defender at the time, so I'm just wondering what do you think...

I think Kidd was great. Still top 5 worthy - but I don't think he'll make my top 5 because this was really a strong year.

[shawngoat23]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Tracy McGrady
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Shaquille O'Neal

[semi-sentient]

1. Tim Duncan - Led the team to the best record in the league, as well as the championship, and no one elevated their game more from regular season to playoffs than Tim Duncan, the league and NBA Finals MVP. EASILY the best/most dominant post-season performer, and should have received more consideration for DPOY for anchoring a great defensive team. One of 3 players to make both the All-NBA 1st and All-Defensive 1st teams, and played in almost every single game. No one was better overall.
   
   
2. Kobe Bryant - Finished 3rd in MVP voting, and made both the All-NBA 1st team and All-Defensive 1st team. Played great in the regular season, ESPECIALLY when Shaq was out (15G, 32.3 PTS, 8.3 REB, 5.8 AST -- although efficiency dropped to .520 TS%) and had a strong series against the Spurs despite playing through a shoulder injury. There was a crucial stretch in the season where the Lakers were struggling while Shaq was in and out of the lineup with injuries, and Kobe raised his game to a whole new level to get the team on track by having 9 consecutive 40+ point games (and 11 of 13 were 40+) and 16 consecutive 30+ point games. In the post-season, his numbers were down (efficiency/rebounding/assists), but his defense improved, as did his scoring.
   
   His numbers without Shaq were very impressive, and there's no question in my mind who the better two-way player was between he and McGrady. Factoring in that he played 12 more games, 650+ more minutes (including playoffs), and was a better defender, I'm ranking him above McGrady.
   
   
3. Tracy McGrady - Finished 4th in MVP voting, and while making the All-NBA 1st team, missed the All-Defensive team altogether. Had probably the best individual offensive season, but not so much on the defensive end. His season ended in very disappointing fashion, losing 3 straight to Detroit and performing poorly down the stretch compared to his first 3 games. Great overall season, but I see no reason to rank him higher than Kobe all things considered.
   
   
4. Kevin Garnett - Another great season for Garnett, the MVP runner-up and damn near co-runner-up for DPOY. Also made the All-NBA 1st and All-Defensive 1st teams. His lack of impact on offense is what sets him apart from the others (can't take over like the others or demand the amount of attention), and I think perhaps I initially overrated him on defense. The Wolves were a below average defensive team, whereas the Spurs (anchored by Duncan) were one of the best in the league. That says something about impact right there and it really made me change where KG gets ranked. Garnett doesn't (and never has, IMO) made the sort of impact that all of the players above him make on offense, so I think this is something I had to consider even though he has more impact defensively.
   
   
5. Shaquille O'Neal - Started the season injured with his (on company time) toe surgery, which really kick started the beginning of the end between he and Kobe. It took the team a while to really get back to championship form because of that, and I think it has to knock him down a notch or two. Overall, great steady numbers and production, but too many missed games "on company time." Had he played a full 82, then he'd be pretty easily my #2 guy.

Edit: Changed my mind on my #4 and #5, basically switching Shaq and McGrady.

Edit: Changed it back... heh. Hard to really separate Kobe and McGrady, so I have to put those two at #3 and #4, respectively. Still stand by my arguments WRT Kobe and McGrady.

Edit: ronnymac had a good post that made me look at things a little differently, so changed my list up a little. Garnett, who I initially thought was immovable from #2, moves to #4 behind both Kobe and McGrady. I think Garnett is among the best two-way players, but when I see his team constantly ranking in the lower half defensively (something I neglected to consider before), I have to wonder just how much of an impact he truly has on defense. I know he doesn't have nearly the impact on offense that McGrady/Kobe have, and now I'm beginning to wonder his true impact on defense as well. Team rankings aren't everything, but the disparity between the Spurs and Wolves, for example, is huge. Lots of good points where made and I think I really did undervalue what some of these guys brought offensively and how that allowed their teammates to focus on the other end.

[Baller 24]

I've got Duncan first, it's pretty easy what he did consisting of the cast he carried throughout the season were mighty inconsistent in the playoffs, put together a very dominant playoff campaign on both sides, pretty easy choice IMO.

1) Tim Duncan

McGrady was the best shooting guard throughout the entire season, he was better than Kobe for anyone that watched the two between all 82 games throughout the season. Although Kobe was absolutely fantastic, I think McGrady's team impact was higher towards his team in the winning sense than Kobe's, IIRC the Lakers were struggling and fighting the Rockets and Suns for the 8th seed in the playoffs during Shaq's absence. After Shaq came back, everything changed. So I'm down to either McGrady or KG, but I'm picking McGrady, he impacted his team in the same sense that KG did in terms of winning, but he just had more accolades statistically on his side, and had points throughout the season where he was absolutely very dominant (39/9/5/2/1 stretch on 54%/42% 3PM), and as for defense, any Orlando Magic fan that witnessed this season from an 82 game standpoint, he was no slouch, actually an above average defender if anything, there's nothing to "hit" at him for not being on the All-NBA Defensive Team. I just think he did more for his team than either of the guys in the sense that his cast was absolutely god-awful, and especially after you factor in that his overall production to the team INCREASED, when the team traded away the 2nd best player in Mike Miller for a rookie Drew Gooden. Also became the first wing since Jordan to lead the league in offensive win-shares, was 2nd in win-shares despite being on a sub-45 win team, and put up historical numbers in the PER department. Very strong outing all-around, especially shooting the ball 46%/39% (Top 5 in 3PM).

2) Tracy McGrady

3) Kevin Garnett

4) Kobe Bryant

5) Shaquille O'Neal


I think this was a VERY strong year in the sense that you could argue either of the first four are players of the years, I'd give Duncan the nod due to his dominance winning the title, but there's still arguments for either T-Mac, KG, or Kobe being the absolute best player in the league. The Lakers got progressively better as Shaq returned to the lineup, so I've got him 5th, again very DOMINANT years for all 5 guys, where you could argue for the top 4 for all being tied as the best player in the league.

HM: Jason Kidd, absolutely a fantastic year, led the team to the finals, and even was something like 20/8/8 in the playoffs. And Dirk, he was great, the Mavs started the season out like champions, but I think the injuries got to them in the playoffs. Again a VERY strong year overall, where you have a lot of dominant players that are top 5 worthy, but didn't make the cut.

[JordansBulls]

This is probably one of the easiest years to pick the top 5.

1. Tim Duncan (Won League and Finals MVP) - Hard to argue against someone who gets both in the same season. Also led in WS in the season and was 3rd in PER. Was #1 in WS in the playoffs and #2 in PER in the playoffs

2. Tracy Mcgrady (finished 4th in MVP voting) Was 3rd in Win Shares and 1st in PER

3. Kevin Garnett (finished 2nd in MVP voting) won 51 games and managed to get HCA in the opening round. Was 4th in Win Shares and 4th in PER

4. Kobe Bryant (Was 3rd in MVP Voting and led his team in WS this season and was 5th in PER put up a 30/7/6 season)

5. Shaquille O'neal (Was 2nd in PER this season and finished 5th in MVP voting) Led in PER in the playoffs but this was with only 10 games played.


Honorable mentions: Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd

[semi-sentient]

Surprised to see McGrady getting so much love. I can see people putting him above Kobe, but above Garnett? Back then I thought it was pretty clear that Duncan and Garnett were the best players in the league because they were great on both ends. Kobe and McGrady were the ones debated after them, and again, it came down to who the better two-way player was.

[Gongxi]

Well, in retrospect, it's pretty easy to see that while McGrady was great, this LeBron-esque season was a fluke, and that he might not be a better player than Duncan or Garnett- even in this time frame. That said, his season itself is better than theirs, if that makes sense*. So he gets the nod for me.

*What I mean by that is we can replay this season 50 times, over and over, and I wouldn't be surprised if Garnett and Duncan had better season than McGrady every single other time. Not to say McGrady sucks, but they're just better. But this one time, this one iteration, McGrady put up a better season. It's like that game back in the late 80s when Randy Breuer hung 40 on the Warriors. Was he better than the Run TMC guys? Well, he was that night.

[TMACFORMVP]

His numbers without Shaq were very impressive, and there's no question in my mind who the better two-way player was between he and McGrady. Factoring in that he played 12 more games, was a better defender, and played considerably more minutes, I'm ranking him above McGrady.

I don't have a problem with Kobe over McGrady, but despite Kobe's heroics in those games, the Lakers went 5-10 in the fifteen games Shaq missed that season. I know McGrady's record was nothing to applaud either, barely finishing over .500, but considering the supporting cast he had him around him during the time, it was an amazement in itself they were able to win 42 games. And looking at those games in which you mention without Shaq, Kobe averaged:

Code: Select all

27 / 10 / 5 and 6 turnovers on 9-29
25 / 10  / 2 and 3 turnovers on 9-18
33 / 15 / 12 and 4 turnovers on 12-18
33 / 14 / 12 and 4 turnovers on 11-19
15 / 13 / 9 and 5 turnovers on 5-13
41 / 9 / 4 and 5 turnovers on 17-47
27 / 6 / 4 and 2 turnovers on 8-21
21 / 6 / 8 and 2 turnovers on 8-22
45 / 4 / 4 and 1 turnover on 18-40
46 / 6/ 4 and 3 turnovers on 18-37
16 / 5 / 3 and 5 turnovers on 7-21
24 / 8 / 7 and 1 turnover on 8-25
40 / 4 / 5 and 3 turnovers on 14-31
52 / 8 / 7 and 5 turnovers on 19-38
40 / 6 / 1 and 3 turnovers on 15-29

485 / 124 / 87 / 52 turnovers on 178 – 408

32.3 | 8.3 rebounds | 5.8 assists | 3.5 turnovers | .400 FG%

*Note, I calculated this myself, so there's a solid probability that I may have slipped up on something. But I did double check those numbers, so it should be relatively accurate.

And looking at that, it's nearly the same exact stats as McGrady in the regular season (32.1 / 6.5 / 5.5), but obviously McGrady's efficiency was on another level. Kobe in those games took over 27.2 shot attempts per game. He was fantastic during the season, and he certainly has a case because of his defense, but I don't think his play without Shaq is much a selling point over a player that was more statistically impressive regardless if Kobe was playing with Shaq or not.

And I'm assuming the 12 game difference is accounting the playoffs as well (then it would be accurate)? Because McGrady played in 75 games that season amassing to roughly 39.5 minutes. Kobe played all 82, with 41.5 minutes per game. It's somewhat considerable, but not really a measure to determine who had the better season IMO. I'd want to reward Kobe for greater team success, but also losing in the 2nd round with Shaq, and a team that had just three-peated might hurt him more than it helps.

[bastillon]

1.KG, leading your team to 50+ when your cast consists of Troy Hudson, half season of hobbled Wally, Trent, Peeler, Gill and Rasho is one of the most impressive feats ever. great playoffs too, but you can only go so far against Kobe and Shaq.

2.Timmy
3.T-Mac
4.Kobe
5.Shaq

[bastillon]

meanwhile, Duncan was leading the most talented supporting cast out of any teams. yes, they weren't very good offensively, but they were dependable. no, they weren't bad supporting cast, actually they were best teammates defensively any leader has ever had. young Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen in his prime, old David Robinson, young Stephen Jackson... I mean there aren't many teams even comparable to these guys defensively, much less better.

let's see other teams from 2003...
-Sacramento was the consensus pick for the title. they lost to the Lakers in 7 games the year earlier and made some great moves in the offseason which would supposedly put them over the top. Chris Webber got injured in the playoffs and they lost. although it's worth noting they made it to game 7 vs healthy Mavs so even without Webber, they were still a great team.

-Blazers were a very good team. they had great talent, but I think we all remember Sheed-era in Portland. they weren't as good as for example in 2000, but still, they could be dangerous threat to the Spurs... unless healthy Mavs wouldn't have beaten them first(in 7 games).

-Dallas was the best team according to stats. throughout 2002-2003 campaign they posted efficiency differential(ORtg-DRtg) which was the best in the league. to see how great they performed in this metric, let's check out other contenders.

Code: Select all

             ED
Mavs        8.4
Kings       6.8
Spurs       5.9
Nets        5.7
Pistons     4.2
Pacers      3.8
Blazers     2.9
Jazz        2.7
76ers       2.5
Lakers      2.5
Hornets     2.3
Wolves      2.3

ED = efficiency differential

as one can see, Dallas led the league by a pretty decent margin and Spurs were 'only' 3rd. it's worth noting that ED in the east was inflated because of terrible teams back then. so if we focused on stats, they predicted Dallas to win a title that year... but Nowitzki, who is typically an iron man, got injured in western finals vs Spurs and after losing him, it wasn't the same.

one could argue that Dallas also had Nash, but their management didn't acknowledge how great player he was and Finley was the focus of their offense after Nowitzki went down. they made the same mistake in 2004 offseason when they decided not to re-sign him and playing bigger role, he went on to be almost three-time MVP and torched the Mavericks in 2005 playoffs with 30/12/6.

anyway, the point is that Nowitzki went down and Dallas decided that Finley will carry them. Spurs won 4-2. to make the situation easier for San Antonio, they beat two very good teams before Nowitzki injured himself - Portland and Kings, both capable of competing with Spurs.

-the Lakers were quite a good team, too. ED underappreciated them, because Shaq was injured and out of shape for like half of the season and once they made it to the ASG, they were rolling. 26-9 after ASG showed it was a very good team...

Kobe injured his shoulder in 2003 first round against the Wolves and although he played a great series against Minnesota(having as bad defenders as Wally and Peeler on him helped), he couldn't flat out dominate the Spurs like he did previous years. Kobe averaged 32/5/3.7 that year but he shot only 43% and commited 4.5 TOs a game. Shaq played great with 25/14, too, but the Lakers had absolutely no help from other players. Rick Fox wasn't even playing, injured himself vs Wolves IIRC, George was playing through enormous pain and couldn't contribute to the team. with both Fox and George injured, there was nobody to play SF. Horry was playing terribly in that series. shot 26% from the field and didn't make one single three. Fisher was the only bright side for LA, as he had hot hand and shot 61.5% from 3s. the point is that Lakers had no depth whatsoever and with injuries bothering couple of players, they couldn't compete with the best teams.

actually they almost lost to Wolves in the first round. KG beat them almost by himself. Wolves were leading 2-1 in the series and KG publicly stated they'll win game 4. Wolves were leading in the 3rd qrt, but LA stormed back and won the game. but... Timberwolves were a pretty bad team to contend for a title and LA had trouble beating them.

-to give you an idea how bad were the Wolves, check out their team. apart from KG there was Troy Hudson, Szczerbiak, Gill, Peeler, Rasho and some Joe Smiths and Gary Trents on the bench. so after injuries to key Lakers players, they were no longer able to contend for a title. they downgraded to 'KG with bunch of scrubs' type of team in terms of winning a title, really Wolves were close to Lakers that year... okay, maybe not that close, because LA won every time they had to, but still... it's a team where 2nd and 3rd best players were guys like Wally and Hudson. one is a solid bench player who could provide scoring with the 2nd unit(Wally) the other is just a scrub, bad PG, terrible defender, though pretty good as a shooter. they shouldn't be anywhere near starting on contender, much less playing significant roles there.

-you had also teams like Utah with 40-y-old leaders, Sacto beat them in 5, and Marbury's Suns. Phoenix shouldn't be able to compete with the team who won a title that year, but Spurs had some trouble eliminating them. I mean they made it to game 6 despite pretty much noone who could play any kind of post defense. it really shows how "powerful" Spurs were - 6 game series with a team led by Marbury(who is a TERRIBLE playoff performer).

-in the east situation was even more pathetic, I'd say way more pathetic. you had a team like Hornets who were considered as finals candidate. this team consisted of Baron Davis, Jamal Mashburn, PJ Brown, Jamaal Magloire, George Lynch and David Wesley(the guy who is known on YouTube as "the worst lay-up ever", check it out btw). couple of solid role players led by Baron and Mashburn. such a team would have a hard time making the playoffs today. they were considered as finals candidate. ended up losing in 6 to another 'finals candidate', 76ers.

-Philly was a good team. having Iverson as the guy who is supposed to lead them somewhere didn't help, that's for sure, but they were still a good team. not 2001-good, because Mutombo was gone, so was their elite defense and title aspirations, but still. besides AI, they had 35-y-old Coleman, Van Horn and those role players from their 2001 squad - Snow, McKie, Hill. similar to Hornets, trouble making the playoffs today, very unlikely to win any round if getting there. ended up losing to injured Pistons with Chucky Atkins eliminating them in some crucial game IIRC.

-Indiana was a great team... in that watered down, historically weak east. obviously they had Miller, JO, Artest and Tinsley, but in the playoffs noone was playing well outside of JO and Artest. Reggie shot 28%, Harrington 21%, Mercer 33%... Celtics upset them in the 2nd round.

-then you had the Pistons. they were a surprise that year. everyone expected them to regress after the Stackhouse trade but with Billups, Hamilton and Ben Wallace, they were a pretty solid group of players. as you can see in the chart above, Pistons were 5th in the league in ED. what this chart doesn't show is that Billups was injured in most of the playoffs and he was one of two guys capable of scoring in high volumes for this team. Billups had a sprained ankle and although he was playing after missing only couple of games, he wasn't nearly as effective as they would've liked him to be.



so without Billups, Pistons had to use Chucky Atkins for long stretches and Hamilton was their only option offensively. when they lost to Nets, Rip was playing as well as ever with 22 PPG, 47% and defense all over him all game long. Pistons just didn't have anyone outside of him. without Billups, they weren't even playoff team. lost by sweep to NJN.

-finally, there were NJN. Nets weren't a great team, but in this historically weak east, they could play pretty well. they beat Bucks 4-2 and then swept all of the rest in the east, but eventually were exposed with lack of half-court offense in the finals against the Spurs. Jason Kidd isn't the best offensive anchor you'd like to have. he's a non scorer and was forced to take a lot of shots and with his poor J, he also missed a lot of them(Iversonesque efficiency). Nets were in the finals ONLY because all other teams flat out sucked. Pistons were gone with Chauncey's ankle, Celtics were poor even when healthy, Indiana had terrible offense with Reggie and co. struggling and so on. most of these teams from 2003 east wouldn't make the playoffs today and most likely would've been a top lottery candidates. that east was so pathetic that Pistons made ECF with Atkins-Hamilton-Curry-C.Robinson(1.5 RPG in ECF as a PF)-Ben.

so, according to ED, Spurs main rivals were Dallas(injured Nowitzki), Kings(eliminated by healthy Mavs, injured Webber), Nets(40-45W team with normal competition, in the finals because of even worse teams on their way), Lakers(injured Kobe and George, Fox not playing, Horry off year, barely beat Wolves who were terrible outside of KG). some of these teams didn't stand in their way, some of them were injured by the time they played, some of them were just poor.

they beat
Suns 4-2
Lakers 4-2
Dallas 4-2
Nets 4-2

the way they were playing in those playoffs, considering all circumstances(competition, injuries and such), I'd say Phoenix was 40W team, LA 50W, Dallas 45-50W, Nets 45W in terms of real value. that's what Spurs faced on route to their titles.

the general conclusion coming from this post is that 2003 was a year of injuries(affected a bit Kobe, but Webber, Nowitzki, Billups and some other players were done). competition was poor in general but east was just pathetic. you have to remember that when judging Duncan's title or Kidd's finals from that year. I don't think most of these teams I described, would stay competitive with the best teams of today's league, much less winning some series in the playoffs...

[sp6r=underrated]

actually they were best teammates defensively any leader has ever had

A lot of moments but this was the best.

Just for people who don't know the Spurs were up by 16 points with less than 7 minutes to go in game 3 when Nowitzki went down with his injury. They only won game 1 because of joke officiating when 50+ ft.

[Silver Bullet]

1.KG, leading your team to 50+ when your cast consists of Troy Hudson, half season of hobbled Wally, Trent, Peeler, Gill and Rasho is one of the most impressive feats ever. great playoffs too, but you can only go so far against Kobe and Shaq.

Wally had been an all-star the year before, Hudson was pretty good, Peeler and Gill were defensive specialists and Rasho has always been a pretty decent center -

I don't understand how that supporting cast is any worse than the Spurs - (it's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering), honestly this project jumped the shark by making Kevin Garnett perhaps the most over rated player in history.

[bastillon]

Tim Duncan in the 2003 playoffs played at a level KG has never approached in the playoffs.

As I said, it's speculation/opinion on my part that KG could have led that Spurs team to a title. But even so, your statement isn't entirely true.

In the '03 playoffs Duncan averaged 25 points, 15 boards, 5 assists and 4 combined blocks/steals on 53% shooting from the field with 3 TOs/game over 24 games. He led his team to the title. This came after an MVP caliber regular season.

In the '03 playoffs KG averaged 27 points, 16 boards, 5 assists, and 3 combined blocks/steals on 51% shooting from the field with 3 TOs/game over 6 games against the Lakers. This came after an MVP caliber regular season where Duncan edged him in the MVP race.

It's not that Duncan played at a higher level than KG those playoffs, it's that Duncan was able to maintain the same high level for 24 games. We'll never know if KG could have done the same, that's where the speculation comes in. I believe he would have, you don't. :shrugs: Either way, even for me this discussion has gone pretty far afield from the point of this particular thread.

[ElGee]

Gongxi - Duncan's greater defensive contribution doesn't get him the nod over McGrady?

[bastillon]

1.KG, leading your team to 50+ when your cast consists of Troy Hudson, half season of hobbled Wally, Trent, Peeler, Gill and Rasho is one of the most impressive feats ever. great playoffs too, but you can only go so far against Kobe and Shaq.

Wally had been an all-star the year before, Hudson was pretty good, Peeler and Gill were defensive specialists and Rasho has always been a pretty decent center -

I don't understand how that supporting cast is any worse than the Spurs - (it's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering), honestly this project jumped the shark by making Kevin Garnett perhaps the most over rated player in history.

Wally is as much of an all-star as Magloire. Peeler and Gill were by no means defensive specialists, if anything they were huge liabilities and Hudson was nothing short of mediocre backup PG.

Rasho always pretty decent center ?

[sp6r=underrated]

While I'm a not a big fan of 2003 nets, by expected won loss percentage they were a 56 win team.