Reply With Quote
Doesn't work like that with a big like Pau. He's no Tim Duncan.
A poor supporting cast means he should be having even bigger numbers.
Doesn't work like that with a big like Pau. He's no Tim Duncan.
There has been two players in NBA history who has won more than on championship with the same franchise with totally different teammates.
One is Bill Russell, guess who the other is.
Oh andat listing THREE players as a group. Duncan won one championship with Parker and Manu, and two championships without Robinson.
Next question from Kobestans. How many rings did Duncan win without Popovich, Horry, Jaren Jackson, and Steve Kerr?
You're trying too hard to raise doubt in Kobe's legacy. It's not that hard to raise doubt. While I think Tim is the GOAT PF, lets ask some questions to raise doubt with him. He never had a single season without arguably the top 3 GOAT coaches in Greg Popovich, and a core of phenomenal talent.There has been two players in NBA history who has won more than on championship with the same franchise with totally different teammates.
One is Bill Russell, guess who the other is.
Oh and
Next question from Kobestans. How many rings did Duncan win without Popovich, Horry, Jaren Jackson, and Steve Kerr?
It would have been great to see Tim go a season or 3 without Popovich and Ginobli-Parker duo and see how he faired. Spurs have been a spoiled franchise in a lot of ways. Once Popovich decides to move on, and hopefully he wont come back as a GM or anything, and when Duncan retires along with Parker, its obvious Spurs will fade into oblivion like the Raptors organization.
No feast will last forever imho. There'll finally come a time when the Spurs have to start rebuilding with all their legends retired or gone, and it'll be a hard time for this franchise as well as to the fans. But I believe that a great franchise will never go all out tanking like those scrub teams do, they may tank one season (like the 96-97 spurs, or the 07-08 celtics) but they'd never do it multiple years in a row. A great team will rebuild gracefully and come back instantly like the mavs this year.
What have I done in my post to raise doubt on Kobe's legacy? Sensitive much?
To summarize, you raised doubt on Duncan's legacy by saying Duncan couldn't win a championship with 3 different players, which essentially makes no sense.
Duncan didn't play with a Ginobili-Parker duo in 1999, and had a marginally good backcourt, yet still won the championship. And as any basketball fan knows, a big man benefits greatly from having a good backcourt to open up the paint for them. While Jaren Jackson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott were great shooters, they were by no means superstar level players (sort of like what Hakeem had in 94).
Now you are raising doubt over the fact that Duncan only won with Pop, while again, ignoring the fact that Duncan won with 3 (or even 4) absolutely different systems.
1999 - All interior defense, limited perimeter game, almost no perimeter penetration. This is pretty much an all defense team with minimal offensive punch.
2003 - Again, strong interior defense, unpredictable perimeter play (young Ginobili, Parker and SJax). Duncan was asked to carry the offense during critical stretches, namely 4down.
2005 - Heavier perimeter offense, more diverse play with the offensive load shared evenly between Duncan and Ginobili/Parker (mostly Ginobili). Interior defense anchored by Duncan after the retirement of Robinson, with strong perimeter defense with Bowen. Offense is still very much 4down, with more inside out offense.
2007 - Shifting more of the offense to the perimeter, with Duncan handling all of the interior defense. Penetration with Parker was emphasized due to his improvement, mixed with some emphasis of Ginobili's play making. Duncan is now used more as a decoy to open up the perimeter, and sometimes using Duncan's outside shooting to open up the lane.
Popovich is a genius coach because of his ability to understand the team's strengths and exploit them. Not surprisingly, Duncan was the constant.
There really hasn't been too many players who can be the focal point of such diverse championship winning teams.
MVPau with the 1-10 shooting night ending the game with a cool 2 points
Inb4 Elnono posts how Gasol was the "sole reason" the Lakers won in Houston
Wins are credited to Gasol, losses are credited to Kobe.MVPau with the 1-10 shooting night ending the game with a cool 2 points
Inb4 Elnono posts how Gasol was the "sole reason" the Lakers won in Houston
Only Spurstalk.com.
MVPau with the 1-10 shooting night ending the game with a cool 2 points
Inb4 Elnono posts how Gasol was the "sole reason" the Lakers won in Houston
lol kirby
Gasol is the ALPHA MALE !!!!!!
MVPau with the 1-10 shooting night ending the game with a cool 2 points
Inb4 Elnono posts how Gasol was the "sole reason" the Lakers won in Houston
Have no idea how to mention someone tbh.
@ Bynumite
without the space = Bynumite
MVPau didn't have a good shooting night, tbh... but he was the main anchor inside... team leading 12 rebounds against Dwight Howard (), while holding Dwight to only 14 boards...
Blake Mamba gets the credit for the win, but Pau did the little things, tbh
Nobody mentioned the Kobester... stop playing the victim card, Swept
Where is that line of thought when a 6'6 shooting guard grabs 15 rebounds in a Finals game 7 against significantly taller players?MVPau didn't have a good shooting night, tbh... but he was the main anchor inside... team leading 12 rebounds against Dwight Howard (
well, this wasn't the Finals... if Pau pulls a 1-10 in the Finals, then yeah, that'd be ing terrible.
Updated OP.
Kobe at Finals 2010
Bench scored 76 points vs flop city and Gasol shot 5-18 vs Atlanta. He's far from being the "sole reason" the lakers have 2 wins this season.
He's getting the touches spurfan claims Kobe steals from him, yet he's still putting up subpar numbers. 40.9% from the floor, really? This is trash % for a guard, let alone a 7 footer.
The fact is without Kobe attracting double teams and spoon-feeding Gasol with open looks, Gasol underperforms. Spurfan likes to say Kobe only plays one side of the floor but it's Gasol who's underperforming on both ends tbh.
17 17 2010-06-03 31-284 LAL BOS W (+13) 1 38:45 10 22 .455 1 2 .500 9 10 .900 1 6 7 6 1 1 4 4 30 21.0 +8 18 18 2010-06-06 31-287 LAL BOS L (-9) 1 34:18 8 20 .400 2 7 .286 3 3 1.000 0 5 5 6 4 0 5 5 21 12.9 -9 19 19 2010-06-08 31-289 LAL @ BOS W (+7) 1 43:52 10 29 .345 1 7 .143 8 8 1.000 2 5 7 4 2 3 1 2 29 20.7 +10 20 20 2010-06-10 31-291 LAL @ BOS L (-7) 1 43:04 10 22 .455 6 11 .545 7 8 .875 0 6 6 2 2 0 7 5 33 17.4 -8 Rk G Date Age Tm Opp GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS GmSc +/- 21 21 2010-06-13 31-294 LAL @ BOS L (-6) 1 43:53 13 27 .481 4 10 .400 8 9 .889 2 3 5 4 1 1 4 5 38 24.7 -6 22 22 2010-06-15 31-296 LAL BOS W (+22) 1 39:37 9 19 .474 1 4 .250 7 7 1.000 3 8 11 3 4 0 2 2 26 24.1 +15 23 23 2010-06-17 31-298 LAL BOS W (+4) 1 44:51 6 24 .250 0 6 .000 11 15 .733 4 11 15 2 1 0 4 4 23 9.9 0
= MVP
What's wrong with the 1-10 and Lakers win?
It's not like the Lakers win a lot with Kobe scoring a lot of points or shoots a lot.
Last year, in the 78 games where Kobe played in, the breakdown of the Lakers record by the points Kobe scored is as follows:
0-4 points - 2-0 (100%)
5-9 points - 0-0 (N/A)
10-14 points - 4-0 (100%)
15-19 points - 7-2 (78%)
20-24 points - 8-5 (62%)
25-30 points - 4-11 (27%)
30-34 points - 12-8 (60%)
35-39 points - 1-6 (14%)
40-44 points - 3-4 (43%)
45-49 points - 1-0 (100%)
He scores in the high 20s on average, using 27 points as a cut off (he averaged 27.3 ppg), The Lakers were 24-11 when Kobe scored 0 to 27 points (69% winning %) vs. 18-25 when Kobe scored 28 or more points (42% winning %). In other words, the Lakers are about the level of a Nuggets or a Clippers when Kobe plays below average, and at the level of the Blazers when Kobe plays his average.
Now look at the number of FGA and the relationship with the Lakers record:
0-4 FGA - 1-0 (100%)
5-9 FGA - 1-0 (100%)
10-14 FGA - 8-2 (80%)
15-19 FGA - 14-9 (61%)
20-24 FGA - 14-14 (50%)
25-29 FGA - 3-8 (27%)
30-34 FGA - 0-3 (0%)
35-40 FGA - 0-0 (N/A)
41-45 FGA - 1-0 (100%)
In other words, the less shots Kobe took, the better the Lakers were. Using his 19.2 FGA as the cut off, the Lakers were 13-2 (87%) when Kobe shot 19 or less shots, and 29-34 (46%) when he shot more than 19 shots. The difference is between a 1996 Bulls team and last year's Blazers.
True leader
MVpau ... smh.
some niccas will go down with the anic ...rather than admit they were wrong about a theory.
MVPau certainly hasn't been playing like MVPau the last few years, and it really isn't a surprise. The system is no longer built around him, and age and injuries have caught up.
An MVPau level of WS/48 of around 0.22 to 0.23 allowed the Lakers to make the finals three consecutive year and the 2nd round one year. You pull in a coach like MDT and a system that cannot maximize his talents, and you get one of the most disappointing seasons in NBA history and a first round sweep.
It's like playing Jordan at PF and then blaming him for the Bulls sucking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
