Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[Baller2014]

Since you're not doing me the courtesy of replying to my posts, I'll cherry pick one part of your latest one to reply to. Duncan matched up with Shaq in 2002. Not occasionally, like in 03 and to a lesser extent 99. In 2002 D.Rob was hurt and Duncan was the main cover for Shaq (and vice versa). The games are on youtube, and Duncan outplayed him. Duncan outplayed him more than Hakeem supposedly did in the 95 finals.

Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg, 3.2bpg on 517TS%
In contrast, Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg, 3bpg on 487TS%

I went and youtubed some of the footage:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]

[Shot Clock]

You aren't willing to accept any of the indicators it seems like; how his team did without him,

They did ok during a weak schedule one year and collapsed the next. It means almost zero.

what his public perception was, his good coaches, etc.

Huh?

It's all invalid, except volume stats and cherry picking of his career (i.e. "look at how great Hakeem was in this playoff series in 1986... but what happened in 87,88, 89, 90, 91, 92, etc, is irrelevant").

I've never mentioned volume stats. I've disputed your PACE adjustment.

Why would 97-92 be irrelevant? They got decimated in 1987, they didn't rebuild. Felt waiting on their drug suspension to lapse was a good plan. Of I cherry picked stats I'd take a series like 1988 vs Dallas where despite Hakeems 38p/17r series they were defeated 3-1. Hakeem had really strong playoff performances but he wasn't going to carry them by himself. The 80's teams needed more then one guy to carry a team.

[Baller2014]

Why did the 80's teams need more than 1 guy to carry a team? There are plenty of examples to the contrary, and it's not like there was something special about the 80's that made carrying a team more or less difficult for the top 10 players to do. Bird carried a bad team in his rookie year in 1980 for heaven's sake, and he couldn't even shoot the 3 yet.

How Hakeem's team did in 48 games without him means nothing, but what Hakeem did in a 4 game series is very important? Seems like you're cherry picking to me. You keep mentioning the one year they got hurt by drug issues, but you're ignoring many of the years posters like myself spent some time point to (like his quite good support casts in 90, 91, 92, etc, and by good I mean relative to the standard he's being measured against, the "hey, look at these garbage teams Duncan showed he could carry in 01-03").

[Shot Clock]

Since you're not doing me the courtesy of replying to my posts, I'll cherry pick one part of your latest one to reply to. Duncan matched up with Shaq in 2002. Not occasionally, like in 03 and to a lesser extent 99. In 2002 D.Rob was hurt and Duncan was the main cover for Shaq (and vice versa). The games are on youtube, and Duncan outplayed him. Duncan outplayed him more than Hakeem supposedly did in the 95 finals.

Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg, 3.2bpg on 517TS%
In contrast, Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg, 3bpg on 487TS%

I went and youtubed some of the footage:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]

That's awesome. Duncan outplayed a Shaq that was struggling with injuries. Stiches in his wrist and index finger on his shooting hand. His toe injury flared up. and he sprained his left ankle in Game 2. He was very limited and it was mentioned numerous times that series.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2002/playoffs/news/2002/05/08/shaqs_injuries_ap/

It wasn't until Sac that he started to see some improvement.

http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/05/22/spt_angry_shaq_ready_for.html
EL SEGUNDO, Calif. — Shaquille O'Neal is angry, looking healthier than he has in weeks and ready to play the next two games at home. That might not bode well for the Sacramento Kings.

After a split in Sacramento, the Lakers return to Staples Center on Friday and Sunday for Games 3 and 4 of the best-of-seven Western Conference finals.

O'Neal has been ailing with an arthritic right big toe, a cut on his right index finger that required stitches and a sprained left ankle. But now he is moving better and his shooting touch has improved.

It's not impressing me that Duncan could outplay a hobbled Shaq. I would expect that from any big being compared to Hakeem.

[Baller2014]

Shaq's injuries are overplayed. He had no problem dominating the rest of the playoffs. He struggled only in round 2 v.s Duncan. It's not a mystery why that was.

[Shot Clock]

Shaq's injuries are overplayed. He had no problem dominating the rest of the playoffs. He struggled only in round 2 v.s Duncan. It's not a mystery why that was.

He faked the stiches I'm sure....

Seriously...that's all you got? I posted a link with his teammates talking about how banged up he was. Even in the video you posted it mentions him trying to play through it.

And as an FYI, Duncan wasn't on Shaq the entire series. They threw everyone at him.

[Baller2014]

Shaq was always banged up in his prime. It was a product of him putting on weight so he could dominate even more. It didn't change how dominant he was in the games he actually played. I'm sure he was banged up a little bit, just like always, but he was still Shaq for the rest of the playoffs. The difference in round 2 was he matched up with {Duncan.

No player guards another player 100% of the time, that's the nature of the game, but Duncan was Shaq's main cover, and vice versa. To be honest, the footage I've looked at has the Lakers sending a double team to help Shaq on Duncan more than the opposite happening. You were already wrong about this, claiming that Duncan matched up on Horry this series, so you shouldn't be so brash in your newest assertions.

[microfib4thewin]

He didn't have to face Shaq. Seriously he was coddled having Robinson cover for him. When did he face Webber in the playoffs? KG? 2001 and KG had a good series.

Even if Shaq wasn't Duncan's primary assignment at least they were cross matched occasionally. Which all time great player or all time team stopped Hakeem from 1987-1989?

1987 Sonics: 0.08 SRS, led by Dale Ellis, Xavier McDaniel, and Tom Chambers
1988 Mavs: 3.59 SRS, led by Derek Harper, Rolando Blackman, and Mark Aguirre
1989 Sonics: 2.44 SRS, led by Dale Ellis and Derrick Mckey

He didn't go up against any all time great nor was the team he was facing a strong contender. At best, you could say the 1988 Mavs was a decent team that put up a fight against the Lakers in the WCF. The Sonics got swept by the Lakers after they defeated the Rockets. They lost to the Lakers in 1990 and 1991 so I give Hakeem a pass for those two seasons.

[Shot Clock]

He didn't have to face Shaq. Seriously he was coddled having Robinson cover for him. When did he face Webber in the playoffs? KG? 2001 and KG had a good series.

Even if Shaq wasn't Duncan's primary assignment at least they were cross matched occasionally. Which all time great player or all time team stopped Hakeem from 1987-1989?

1987 Sonics: 0.08 SRS, led by Dale Ellis, Xavier McDaniel, and Tom Chambers
1988 Mavs: 3.59 SRS, led by Derek Harper, Rolando Blackman, and Mark Aguirre
1989 Sonics: 2.44 SRS, led by Dale Ellis and Derrick Mckey

None of them stopped him. He played well vs all of them. Doesn't change the fact that during his career he played against a lot of strong two way big men and Duncan pretty much avoided them. High scoring PF's had superb series vs SAS. And the only time he faced strong defensive PF's he struggled. I'd love to have seen him go against a prime Hakeem just so we'd have a yardstick but we don't.

He didn't go up against any all time great nor was the team he was facing a strong contender. At best, you could say the 1988 Mavs was a decent team that put up a fight against the Lakers in the WCF. The Sonics got swept by the Lakers after they defeated the Rockets. They lost to the Lakers in 1990 and 1991 so I give Hakeem a pass for those two seasons.

Not sure why you pointed out Ellis earlier he was a monster. And SRS ratings? Spurs lost to a 374 SRS team in 2001. Can't remember the team though....oh yah the Lakers. Houston had crap for a team during that period. You can't blame him for falling to two teams with a lot more depth and good scoring.

[Sedale Threatt]

An interesting piece by Sam Smith on Olajuwon from back in the day.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 214,750332

Touches on some of the immaturity and poor leadership that might have held him back a bit earlier in his career.

Unable to cut and paste but it's worth a read.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The revisionist underrating of Duncan's teams has definitely gone overboard, imo. Duncan had bad teams from '01-'03? Duncan has never been on a truly bad team along the lines of T-Mac's Magic, Kobe's '06 Lakers, MJ's '87 Bulls, Wade's '09 Heat ect. More importantly, his '01 team wasn't even remotely bad.

The '01 team was actually really good with their one real weakness being the lack of a good wing defender with size. Having Robinson alongside Duncan gave them a huge match up advantage, and a real dominant interior defense. Robinson fell off a bit more from his '99 and '00 level, but he was still a top 5 defensive player, top 2-3 center and top 15-20 player, imo. He played just under 30 mpg, but averaged 14/9 and led the Spurs with 2.5 bpg before raising that to 17/12 with 2.4 bpg in 13 playoff games. Very few teams have a defensive anchor like Robinson, but the Spurs had two with Duncan and Robinson both dominant interior defenders, shot blockers and good post defenders with mobility. Those 2 together created such an advantage and ar ethe reason why the Spurs were the best defensive team statistically with a 98 defensive rating that was +5 over league average, even though I think Philly was the better overall defensive team. They were a fine duo offensively as well with Duncan as the first option and one of the best post players in the league, both were 7 footers who passed well, could step out and hit the 15 footer, put the ball on the floor and finish strong inside. They ran high/low plays as well as anyone, and while Shaq and Kobe were the clearly the best duo in the league, Duncan and Robinson would have to be the 2nd best duo in the league. Just like a great inside/outside duo can work together so well and take you so far, a great twin towers duo, as rare as it is, can be devastating when it works. Malik Rose didn't play as well as he did in '03, but you don't need much behind the twin towers and Rose was definitely serviceable in that role. He'd come in and provide energy crashing the offensive glass, drawing charges, getting fouled and playing physical post defense.

That team wasn't lacking perimeter offense either. Derek Anderson was an athletic 2 guard who shot 3s very well at 39.9% and was a good slasher and open court player who could create off the dribble and he was a solid playmaker for a 2 guard. He played very well for the Spurs once he got use to the Spurs system around January, which is when the team really took off. Here's a quote from Pop published in an SI article about Anderson's play that season.

"It took a while for me to get used to Derek and for him to learn our system," says Spurs coach and general manager Gregg Popovich. "But by January, when he had committed mentally to us and understood what we were doing on the court, he became our next option after Tim. Now you see him playing his butt off at both ends of the floor, and that has made us a heck of a team."

Not bad for a 3rd best player, especially playing with Duncan and Robinson. Then they had another threat in Antonio Daniels who was an athletic combo guard who also shot 3s well at 40.4%, had the ability to get to the basket and create for himself and others off the dribble. Daniels stepped up whenever he had the chance such as in 23 starts for the Spurs that year when he averaged 12.4 ppg and 5.5 apg on 47 FG%, 43.8 3P% and 56.3 TS%, and in the 8 playoff games after Derek Anderson's injury, Daniels reached double figures in all 8 games and averaged 17.3 ppg and 3.8 apg on 49 FG% and 59.1 TS%. Terry Porter was 37 and didn't play as well as he had in his first season with the Spurs in 2000, but still a nice veteran to have playing 21 mpg since he could play either guard position and also shot 3s very well at 42.4%. In fact, speaking of 3 point shooting, the Spurs led the league in 3P% at 40.7%, which is an excellent way to complement your franchise post player, much less when you have another all-star big man.

Yeah, Anderson's injury hurt, and so did the fact that they had nobody to guard Kobe who had one of the great all around series I've seen for a guard or wing, Shaq outplayed both of their big men yet wasn't even the best player on his own team that series and the Lakers just matched up well with the Spurs since they also had Horace Grant who could do a respectable job guarding Duncan, just as he had done a good job guarding Sheed and C-Webb in the previous 2 rounds, and to make matters worse, Derek Fisher simply couldn't miss in the series making 27 of his 44 shots to shoot 61.4% and 15 of his 20 threes as he averaged 17.5 ppg on 77.2 TS%. That's just a case of murphy's law for the Spurs. Anderson's injury obviously hurt, but I still doubt the Spurs would have given the Lakers a serious run for their money, maybe take a game and not get blown out so bad. This doesn't equate to the Spurs being bad, though, the 2001 Lakers were simply that good. Remember, they were the most dominant playoff team in NBA history, then the Lakers matched up well and the Spurs second leading scorer and primary perimeter threat was injured. The Spurs were still probably the 2nd best team in the NBA, just not the toughest match up for the Lakers, but definitely the 2nd best when healthy. And looking at the regular season, how many players had better support than Duncan? Maybe C-Webb? That was a pretty deep Spurs team with good support at both ends.

Granted, the 2002 team was significantly worse, and I've always considered it the worst cast Duncan has ever had, and definitely a weak team for a contender, but not a bad team in general relative to the rest of the NBA. Robinson declined farther in 2002, but he was still a very good defender and still arguably a top 5 center. Robinson still averaged over 12/8 with nearly 2 bpg and over 1 spg on 51% shooting in less than 30 mpg with an impressive BLK% of 4.3%, which was actually still equal to Duncan's BLK%. Malik Rose also stepped up his game and was a solid 3rd big man averaging 9.4 ppg and 6 rpg in just 21 mpg and was the Spurs best offensive rebounder with an ORB% of 11.9% and had a TRB% of 16.4%, which is quite impressive since he was usually on the court with either Duncan or Robinson. Rose did also have big games of 28/13 in game 4 and 18/13 in game 5 vs Seattle and did average 15/10 in 6 playoff games without Robinson The Spurs also solved their wing defender problem as they signed Bruce Bowen who was arguably the best man defender at his position, and while offensively challenged, he at least had those corner 3s and had a 38 3P%.

Their offensive talent on the perimeter was where they declined noticeably outside of Robinson's decline. They were still a solid 3 point shooting team at 36.2 3P%, which was good for 10th best, but Steve Smith replaced Derek Anderson. Smith had been an all-star with the Hawks in the late 90's and had played well on those loaded Blazer teams, particularly his first year there in 2000, but at 33, he was slowing down. He clearly wasn't the threat Anderson was off the dribble or in the open court and he was a worse defender, but Smith's game wasn't based on quickness, and he was a crafty player good at getting shots off, a very effective post player and an excellent shooter. In fact, Smith led the league in 3P% at 47.2% and averaged 11.6 ppg on 58.8 TS% in 28.7 mpg, so he had a productive offensive season in a supporting role. The Spurs still had Antonio Daniels who didn't play as well as he had in 2001 as his 3 point shot left him, but he was a threat you had to guard off the dribble, a pretty productive bench scorer at 9.2 ppg on 53.4 TS% in 26.5 mpg considering the Spurs system and he averaged 11.1 ppg on 53.7 TS% in the 13 games he started. Parker obviously had a long way to go as a 19 year old rookie. At the very least, Parker's quickness and talent off the dribble were evident, though admittedly, he wasn't a consistently productive player yet and probably one of the worst starting point guards that year. He did show some significant flashes in the playoffs, though, such as the Seattle series when he scored 21 points on 9/12 shooting in a game 1 blowout, 23 points on 10/15 shooting in a game 3 blowout as he reached double figures in all 5 games in the series and averaged 17.2 ppg on 50% shooting in the series while not even playing 30 mpg. He wasn't as consistent in the Laker series, but we saw his talent at times, particularly 24 point/5 assist game 3 on 9/17 shooting and finished the playoffs with double figures in 9 of the 10 games and playoff averages of 15.5 ppg and 4 apg on 52.3 TS%. Terry Porter was another year older, though and had dropped to 18 mpg in his last NBA season, though he was still shooting 3s at 41.5%. Though they did essentially have a nobody in their rotation in Charles Smith(not the Knicks Charles Smith from the 90's).

Not a strong contender comparable to LA, Sacramento, or in terms of talent, Dallas, but still a solid team when heathy. They had a top 2 player and dominant big man in Duncan and surrounded him with good big man support inside, good perimeter shooting, an elite wing defender and a couple of decent perimeter threats. They weren't a particularly talented team, but gave Duncan a decent cast with a good amount of solid role players, just nothing beyond that. However, with Robinson injured in the playoffs, that became a pretty weak team, especially with Steve Smith in a bad shooting slump. So if someone wants to say Duncan had a weak team in the playoffs or even that he didn't have enough help to contend period, I won't disagree with that. What I would disagree with is calling them a truly bad team when healthy in the regular season.

As for the 2003 Spurs, it's just ridiculous to call them a bad team. They had perimeter talent in Parker, Jackson and Ginobili, even if none were particularly consistent. They had arguably the best wing defender in the league in Bowen whose defense in the playoffs vs a variety of talent players at different positions was huge, particularly vs Kobe and who also led the league in 3P% at 44.1%. Then Duncan still had solid help at PF/C for someone who is a dominant big man himself since Robinson was a limited role player, but still a solid defender and rebounder, while Rose had a career year for the Spurs and played quite well for them in his bench role.

Duncan led the Spurs in scoring in just 14 of the Spurs 24 playoff games, which leaves 10 games where another Spur stepped up and led them in scoring. In those 10 games, Duncan was tied for the 2nd leading scorer in 1, the 3rd leading scorer in 2 others and even the 5th leading scorer in 2 other games. Duncan also had a teammate reach at least 20 points in 15 of those 24 playoff games, including a couple of games where he had multiple teammates reach 20. Parker had seven 20+ games in the playoffs and five 25+ games. Jackson had six 20+ games, Rose had two 25+ playoff games, Bowen had 27 in game 2 vs the Lakers and Manu had 21 in a playoff game. So that's 6 different Spurs who scored at least 20 in a game during that playoff run including Duncan. The Spurs also had at least 4 players in double figures in 19 playoff games and at least 5 in double figures in 6 playoff games.

Again, it's obvious he got support, just like every champion does. This isn't trying to say they were the most talented team, and I think they reached their ceiling, which they deserve a lot of credit for, particularly Duncan and Popovich, but they were still a good team with pretty good depth. It's just strange to me that now 10 years later, people are talking about Duncan's Spurs teams the way people talked about Lebron's Cavs teams, and that was never the case at the time. The Spurs were always considered a good team, they flew under the radar a bit compared to LA, Sacramento or Portland depending on the year, but they were regularly considered a good team. KG's Wolves were viewed much worse. The team I have the least problem referring to like this is the '02 team, but people go overboard with the '03 team, and '01 comes completely out of left field as a team to mention as bad.

[Jonny Blaze]

This has always been a close debate.

When i started this thread I leaned toward Hakeem, but the arguments made in Duncan's favor have put me in the Tim Duncan camp.

Hakeem had way too many mediocre teams, while with Duncan you are getting consistent excellence every single year.

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

Tim Duncan has done it twice (beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the current Miami Heat.)

[LarsV8]

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

LOL What the ****?

[Winsome Gerbil]

This has always been a close debate.

When i started this thread I leaned toward Hakeem, but the arguments made in Duncan's favor have put me in the Tim Duncan camp.

Hakeem had way too many mediocre teams, while with Duncan you are getting consistent excellence every single year.

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

Tim Duncan has done it twice (beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the current Miami Heat.)

Duncan beat shadows of those two teams. And really, this "Ducnan beat the Spurs bit...ha. He was a piece of a team that did it. Not even the best piece in the Finals. If Hakeem had been there instead of Duncan, they still win that series. And that Lakers team, as I have pointed out, was NOT the same team. They were a 50-win also ran when Duncan (i.e. the Sours) beat them. This Heat squad is closer, but also never were that impressive this year. Or overall really. Outside of LeBron, looking back we may view the two-peat Lakers at least as well. That by the way is normally the way it works. The baton is normally passed when one team weakens and another rises up. Peak matchups are pretty rare (one of the reasons I think the Lakers/Celts in the 80s iso legendary).

More importantly of course, the "big dog" teams of Hakeem's era were bigger. He did beat the Showtime Lakers if you recall. He never even had a shot at the Bulls. After beating the Lakers he ran into one of the greatest teams of all time, at that team's peak. Meeting the 67 win Celtics is not the same thing as beating a declining 50 win Lakers team. Those Celtics would have beat any title team that either Hakeem or Duncan was on. They were that good.

[E-Balla]

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

LOL What the ****?

Exactly he beat all of them aside from MJ, Bird, and the Sonics...

For the thread I'll take Hakeem but I do have Duncan 5th all time while Hakeem is 7th.

[Shot Clock]

Hakeem never beat the big dog teams in his era.

LOL What the ****?

Heh yah Duncan played LA 4 times during the early 2000's winning once. Against the weakest team LA fielded and one that had injuries.

Then they played them once during Kobe's run and got beat.

Played Miami twice. Won once against again the weaker version.

That's a combined 2 out of 7 series. What a monster.

Hakeem - Suns that had just been to the Finals, Jazz, Knicks, Spurs. Magic. Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Shaq, Robinson. Oh and showtime Lakers.

[E-Balla]

Also to whoever is criticizing Hakeem for his losses in 87-89 he averaged 30/13/3 with a 30 PER, 63 TS, and a 123 ORTG. Off the top of my head I can't name 10 better 3 year stretches in the playoffs.

Hakeem was too good in the playoffs for me to take Duncan in this comparison. The only players I'd take over Hakeem in a series are Shaq and Jordan.

[LarsV8]

Exactly he beat all of them aside from MJ,

Check again

http://bkref.com/tiny/OBIPG

[E-Balla]

Exactly he beat all of them aside from MJ,

Check again

http://bkref.com/tiny/OBIPG

I was assuming he meant playoffs but either way he never had the chance.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan's '02 WCSF is certainly remembered a lot more fondly on message boards a decade later than it was thought of at the time.

Listing head to head stats for the entire series implying that Shaq and Duncan matched up throughout the entire games is just wrong as well. Duncan and Shaq typically didn't even start the games guarding each other. Duncan would go against Samaki Walker and Horry quite a bit early and Shaq would go against Malik Rose and Mark Bryant quite a bit. Shaq and Duncan did defend each other quite a bit, but not even close to enough to just list the series stats as if they're head to head between the two players. Shaq defended Duncan more late in games, sometimes earlier, certainly for stretches, but fouls also dictated some of this, and both coaches clearly tried to avoid having their star big man guard the other of good amounts of the game. Anyone who watches the series will also see plenty of Duncan matched up with Horry and Walker and Shaq matched up with Rose and Mark Bryant. As for how they defended each other, both Shaq and Duncan were successful defending the other. It's ridiculous to post a stretch out of a 5 game series as if that's indicative of the entire series. Of course, Duncan limiting Shaq will be brought up while I'm sure it was just overlooked that Shaq limited Duncan and actually blocked quite a few of Duncan's shots.

As far as the series, both were good defensively, and both struggled offensively. The big difference in that regard is that the Spurs went to Duncan a ton because he had the weaker team, particularly Robinson injured and they were really limited as far as offensive options with Steve Smith shooting so poorly. But Duncan's volume stats in the series were largely a result of the Spurs going to him so much. After all, Duncan also shot just 42.5%, which is poor for his position, especially at that volume and averaged 4.6 TO per game. Look at some of those games. He has 26/21/5/4 in game 1, but on 9/30 shooting, then has 27/17/5/5 on 10/19 shooting in game 2, but with 10 turnovers, he had 28/12/3 in game 3, but on 9/26 shooting and he had to those stats a bit with a meaningless 3 late, then had a more efficient 30/11/6/4 on 9/15 shooting in game 4, but he shot 0/2 in the 4th and 3/6 from the line as the Spurs blew a 10 point lead entering the 4th and lost by 2. By that point, LA was firmly in control of the series up 3-1. He had his biggest game in game 5 with 34/25/4 on 11/23 shooting with 6 TO.

I'm not saying he played really poorly or anything, but it wasn't a dominate series or a particularly good example of why Duncan is the great player he is. There are much better examples of that. I simply view it for what it was, which was the Spurs having to ask Duncan to carry the team too much. Hence the poor shooting, high turnovers and quiet 4th quarters. Similar to why I don't read too much into Shaq's series, except in his case, it was the numerous injuries he was dealing with as opposed to lack of help.

With both struggling offensively and both playing well defensively, the big difference was Duncan's rebounding, though that advantage didn't come head to head with Shaq. A lot of that came vs Horry and Walker. In fact, you'll see in game 1 when Duncan was missing all of those shots early, primarily vs Walker and Horry, he got rebounds on his own miss a number of times. I'm not even sure Duncan outrebounded Shaq during the stretches they were matched up. Actually, game 1 is a bad example anyway because that's the one game where I'd say Shaq was the standout player on both teams. He came back and had a strong 4th quarter to lead LA to victory after getting stitches.

Funny enough, but both Duncan and Shaq really struggled in the 4th quarter in general during that series while Kobe was great down the stretch in those games.