6th highest reason? Which were the other 5 excluding Pop and Manu?
I think you're giving your first impression way too much credit on the analysis of the series. I'm sure that if I hadn't gave you the stats you would have thought that Parker averaged 20 ppg or something like that.
Spurs were way too close of winning the championship, a lot of things could have made that happen. The team making one more FT on game 6, grabbing a rebound at the end, Lebron or Allen missing one of their shots, Green maintaining his three point shooting, Splitter playing better, etc. but the three biggest aspects are Pop, Manu and Tony. Parker was the best player of the team all season long, the team went as he went, if the Spurs were pretty damn close to winning it all with him scoring 15 ppg on 41% shooting I think it's fair to say that they would have won it all if he had played more or less at the level he played all season long and for most of the playoffs.
And BTW, why does everybody seem to leave game 7 out of the equation, that was a 2 pts game with 42 seconds to go?