|
|
Post by Pally on Dec 19, 2006 16:45:11 GMT -5
Did it take you a week or more to write up this post satnam? I guess you really wanted to make yourself sound good, and slick. Next time, maybe we'll see a post from you the day after the game. Start now, maybe then you can get it up here by then!! ;D ....I'm just joking. good post though. I haven't watched a single Spurs game this season, but I just might start. Inder might have something to say about your post tho  ...Pally |
|
Inder
New Member
' boogieman '
Posts: 191
|
Post by Inder on Dec 20, 2006 12:42:23 GMT -5
spurs > lakers
duncan: on a team > kobe: on a team
spurs got their ass kicked by lakers. props to them. spurs now own the best record in the nba.
west is scary good
spurs
mavs
suns
rockets
nuggets
jazz
lakers
in that order
|
|
|
|
Post by sgrewal on Dec 20, 2006 18:33:00 GMT -5
spurs > lakers
duncan: on a team > kobe: on a teamspurs got their ass kicked by lakers. props to them. spurs now own the best record in the nba. There’s no doubt that the Spurs are a great team, but the only reason they are ahead of the Lakers and most other teams in the West is because they have a deeper and more talented roster, except for maybe Phoenix and the Mavs. You can't justify a team with Duncan on it being better than a team with Kobe, if the supporting cast is equivalent. However, both players are not comparable to each other whatsoever because like most prominent big men in the league, Duncan needs a great, if not an all-star, point guard for him to play up to his potential every night. Swingmen like Kobe, Lebron, and Paul Pierce, carry their teams themselves the majority of the time and do not need another great player to play their best. However, there are no stats to prove who would be better if they had equivalent rosters, so we cannot rationally prove it. Although I'm not a huge Lakers fan, I think it is interesting how Kobe is leading his Lakers, who are much less talented than the Spurs, to a 16-9 record, only 3 games back of the Spurs. I'm sure teams like the Spurs and Mavs will get on hot streaks and pull away though, similar to what the Suns are doing now. Also, what do you guys think about the Iverson deal? |
|
Inder
New Member
' boogieman '
Posts: 191
|
Post by Inder on Dec 21, 2006 11:38:21 GMT -5
spurs have created a better roster yes. They got excellent management and got good scouts in Europe. I wouldn't say Beno Uridh, Horry, Elson, Oberto, Vaugh are deep players. They barely qualify as role players most nights. The system set in place makes it possible for them to win and do their job right. Lakers aren't to bad on the bench. Evans was a steal from the Pistons. One huge mistake lakers made was trading Butler. He putting up huge numbers in Washington.
Avery Johnson, Derek Anderson, Antonio Daniels are the all-star points your taking about? Parker has only been playing all-star level basketball for 18 months. Before that, he was being benched for Speedy Claxton regularly. The first two rings were won with okay, if not horrible point guards running the team.
These men have the ball in there hands a lot. They don't need a player to pass the ball to them in the post, they bring it up themselves, slow it down, post up, etc. They are your forward-points. What would happen if you trade Paul Pierce for Duncan? I bet Boston wins 50-55 games and make East Finals. while Paul's Spurs would struggle to be .500
They have played 16 home games already, most in the NBA. Now its time for them to go on long road trips to Texas and to the East. And another thing, I don't hate Kobe, I kinda like him, at least like his game. I think he is the most talented player in the NBA. He does it all on the court, for him to live up to his legacy, he has to take a team to the finals, if not win it all.
This has to be one of the worst trades.....ever. Can't fault Sixer's stupidity. I mean they did trade away Wilt and Barkley before, add Hall Of Fame point-guard to the list. They got Andre Miller (decent, pass first point guard) Joe Smith (his contract ends this year, which is 8 million i think) and two first round picks. These first two are going to be 22-30 range. It's not even a lottery pick. One of the draft picks belongs to the Mavs. Dallas is going to finish with either the best or second best record. They were getting way better packages from Celtics and Wolves. I understand celtics are in the division, and you never want to trade within the division. But Wovles were giving their first round pick, Randy Foye and other salary fillers who would come off the books.
They might try to pull off another trade.
|
|
Inder
New Member
' boogieman '
Posts: 191
|
Post by Inder on Dec 21, 2006 11:38:42 GMT -5
do you follow a particular team or player?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pally on Dec 21, 2006 17:01:25 GMT -5
spurs have created a better roster yes. They got excellent management and got good scouts in Europe. I wouldn't say Beno Uridh, Horry, Elson, Oberto, Vaugh are deep players. They barely qualify as role players most nights. The system set in place makes it possible for them to win and do their job right. Lakers aren't to bad on the bench. Evans was a steal from the Pistons. One huge mistake lakers made was trading Butler. He putting up huge numbers in Washington. Avery Johnson, Derek Anderson, Antonio Daniels are the all-star points your taking about? Parker has only been playing all-star level basketball for 18 months. Before that, he was being benched for Speedy Claxton regularly. The first two rings were won with okay, if not horrible point guards running the team. These men have the ball in there hands a lot. They don't need a player to pass the ball to them in the post, they bring it up themselves, slow it down, post up, etc. They are your forward-points. What would happen if you trade Paul Pierce for Duncan? I bet Boston wins 50-55 games and make East Finals. while Paul's Spurs would struggle to be .500 They have played 16 home games already, most in the NBA. Now its time for them to go on long road trips to Texas and to the East. And another thing, I don't hate Kobe, I kinda like him, at least like his game. I think he is the most talented player in the NBA. He does it all on the court, for him to live up to his legacy, he has to take a team to the finals, if not win it all. This has to be one of the worst trades..... ever. Can't fault Sixer's stupidity. I mean they did trade away Wilt and Barkley before, add Hall Of Fame point-guard to the list. They got Andre Miller (decent, pass first point guard) Joe Smith (his contract ends this year, which is 8 million i think) and two first round picks. These first two are going to be 22-30 range. It's not even a lottery pick. One of the draft picks belongs to the Mavs. Dallas is going to finish with either the best or second best record. They were getting way better packages from Celtics and Wolves. I understand celtics are in the division, and you never want to trade within the division. But Wovles were giving their first round pick, Randy Foye and other salary fillers who would come off the books. They might try to pull off another trade. Ummmm yep, agree with him 100%. He knows his Bball. Hands down has to be the most sports-knowledged person I know. ...Pally |
|
|
|
Post by sgrewal on Dec 21, 2006 18:50:14 GMT -5
spurs have created a better roster yes. They got excellent management and got good scouts in Europe. I wouldn't say Beno Uridh, Horry, Elson, Oberto, Vaugh are deep players. They barely qualify as role players most nights. The system set in place makes it possible for them to win and do their job right. Lakers aren't to bad on the bench. Evans was a steal from the Pistons. One huge mistake lakers made was trading Butler. He putting up huge numbers in Washington. I didn’t say the Spurs have a deeper bench than most teams, I said they have a deeper roster. Not many teams have the luxury to have three all-stars in Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. To add to that, they have a defensive specialist, although one that is not highly respected in Bruce Bowen. They also have a former all-star guard Michael Finley, a three point specialist in Brent Barry and Robert Horry, a player who has been clutch throughout his career. So even though their bench might be similar to that of other teams, Buford has done well to build a deep, talented team. Derek Anderson only played in San Antonio for one season, and during his time there he played shooting guard mostly. Antonio Daniels was a backup point guard at best during his four years as well, so I would not regard either of them as being prominent in San Antonio’s championship runs. Avery Johnson was underrated his entire career due to his size and the fact that he wasn’t drafted. However, he was a solid point guard who had 5 solid seasons, 1995-2000, with the Spurs and in 1999 won the championship with them. That could possibly the one year that San Antonio did not have a great point guard and managed to win it all. Regardless, I still believe that Avery Johnson, although not the most gifted athlete, made up for that with his basketball smarts, which are evident today, as he leads a great Mavericks team as their coach. He was also helped by other good swingman such as Mario Ellie and Sean Elliot, which helped Duncan and Robinson get the ball down low. The Spurs also won the championship in 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 and Tony Parker was a huge factor in those years, averaging 14.7 and 17.2 points respectively. No one knows what would happen. I don’t like to speculate, so I wouldn’t say that Boston would or would not win 50-55 games with Duncan, because there are no stats to back it up. That's a good point. They have been playing at home majority of the time. However, I'm sure most teams would be pleased with a winning percentage of that of the Lakers, even if they did open at home. They could have possibly even had a better record if Kobe didn't miss three games in the beginning of the season and if Odom wasn't injured now. |
|
|
|
Post by sgrewal on Dec 21, 2006 18:53:33 GMT -5
do you follow a particular team or player? I’m not a big fan of any particular team; I just enjoy watching and following the game. I do like to watch certain teams play though; such as the Mavs, Suns, Lakers, Cavs and Raptors, but that’s primarily because I like the way the team plays or because of certain players on those teams. |
|
Inder
New Member
' boogieman '
Posts: 191
|
Post by Inder on Dec 22, 2006 13:09:27 GMT -5
Isn't that the same thing? after the starting five, everyone else is bench. james, hughes, Z billups, rip, sheed shaq, wade, mourning nash, amare, marion teams with basically three players playing all-star level kidd, carter, jefferson dirk, howard, terry melo, iverson, camby arenas, butler, jamison yao, tmac, battier bibby, artest, miller ak47, okur, boozer Your right, not a lot but still close to 1/3 of the league. The 3 point specialists Spurs have are very good at what they do. But with all these guys, they had their best shooting percentage with the spurs. This happens when Duncan is doubled down-low on every possession and the drive-n-kicks by Parker and Manu. They still have to make these shots, but its easier when your wide open on 70% of them. So far this season (fg): Finley: 37% Horry: 31% Bonner: 40% Barry (52%) and Bowen (49%) however have been making lots of baskets from downtown.  Tony outplayed his counterpart Jason Kidd in those finals, but he was benched for the game clincher in favor of Speedy Claxton. The Spurs have a three headed monster, as we both agree. But according to stats and past games, you take Duncan out of the starting line-up, the Spurs lost more games. Every GM, head coach, media outlet would say Duncan on Celtics = Eastern Finals 8 out of 10 times. By the way Satnam, you're one of the few people who I can talk to about basketball.  ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sgrewal on Dec 22, 2006 17:21:32 GMT -5
Isn't that the same thing? after the starting five, everyone else is bench. By saying the Spurs have a deeper roster, I meant that they have the luxury to have three allstars in the lineup who can all score a significant amount of points, as well as having talented players playing the 5th - 7th role. They have a good amount of scoring depth to go along with their top players. I would agree that there are teams with three very good players in their lineup, but I don't think that is comparable to the Spurs how can actually boost about having three players that have been chosen as all-stars. Ilgauskas, Camby, Butler, Battier and Okur are all good players, but I wouldn't say that they are all-stars in the NBA. Mourning is also way past his prime, and although he is playing a few more minutes during Shaq's injury, he's not the player he once was. If you look at the talent, numbers and injuries of the top three players on each team, there would only be about four to five teams that could match up; those being the Pistons, Mavs, Suns, Nets, and perhaps the Nuggets now. I would say that the Spurs top three matches up well with the top five in the league, but is significantly better than the rest of the leagues. Thanks, it's apparent that you follow ball quite closely as well. |
|
Inder
New Member
' boogieman '
Posts: 191
|
Post by Inder on Jun 17, 2007 22:06:03 GMT -5
C H A M P S
|
|
