Lakers Thread

[kingtrobe807]

wheres Horry when you need him.....

[Matthew]

Matt, the game is much more than stats. Kobe gets alot of rebounds, as does Odom. I'm not making excuses for Kwame, but we're what, 3 weeks into the season and he's a bust?



Now onto Magius' post

if by legitimate you mean no chance in hell then i agree. he's not even the best player of his generation.... that goes to td then kg and borderline shaq (since he's a little older and his prime could be considered the prior generation). in fact, i think iverson is the best shooting guard of that generation. if eligible, kobe wouldn't even be the best player of the next generation which would go to lebron, amare, wade, among others. thoughts combining kobe and the words best ever is a surefire diagnosis of dire hallucination

If you read what I said I said "chance". Let me elaborate:
Kobe has 3 championships
Kobe has been on the All nba first team 3 times, 2nd team 3 times, and 3rd team twice. He has only been in the league for 9 seasons, and came in when he was 17. So since he was 18 he has been amongst the top 5 at his position.
Kobe has been on the all nba defensive first team 3 times as well, and second team twice.
Now for some stats, starting from 1999, when he became a regular starter:
99: 19.9 ppg
00: 22.5 ppg
01: 28.5 ppg
02: 25.2 ppg
03: 30 ppg
04: 24 ppg
05: 27.6 ppg
Thats an average of 25 ppg when he has been a starter. But, like Jordan, his game isnt based on just scoring, and thats what makes him great. Lets look at the other stats:
99: 5.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 1.4 spg
00: 6.3 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.61 spg
01: 5.9 rpg, 5 apg, 1.68 spg
02: 5.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 1.48 spg
03: 6.9rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.21 spg
04: 5.5 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.72 spg
05: 5.9 rpg, 6 apg, 1.3 spg

That means, his averages as a starter are 25 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.6 spg. I'm not saying that is better than Jordans, becuase its not really close. But when you consider he is 27, 28 years old and seems to imrpove his skills every season and has around 6 or 7 years left, he does indeed have an excellent opportunity to pass Jordan. Sure he didnt average 37 ppg for a season, or average 30, 8 and 8. But he has 3 rings to his name already, and that counts for more imo becuase winning basketball requires a level of teamwork and sharing the ball.

As much as I like Iverson and Garnett, they are looking up at Kobe in terms of what they've accomplished and I doubt they will infact catch him. That doesnt make them any less great, but they arent on his level. Kobe is the player of his generation

[Jackal]

Kobe is the player of his generation

Since Garnett was mentioned for that honour and it was decided that he doesn't deserve it given the championships, shouldn't the honour then go to Duncan? Or is he considered a generation before Bryant? Not really, right?

Regardless, Bryant is a great player & I'm glad he's on the team I root for because it'd be hell to watch the guy be on the opposing team.

[Matthew]

Duncan too has been mentioned, and he is also up there. However, when I compare duncan to kobe, i cant help but remember that series in 2001 when kobe absolutely ripped the spurs apart. Now I know that the spurs beat the lakers in 99 and 2003, but the difference between kobe and duncan in that series when both players were in their prime was so big i cant give it to duncan.
Right now Duncan has had a better career in terms of individual awards (stats kobe is better, and winning is a tie), but kobe still has alot of years ahead of him. Duncan appears to be slowing down.

Also dont forget the intangables. Kobe has a certain drive. A "at any cost" mentality. I dont see that in Duncan. If my team was down 7 points with 5 minutes to go in the fourth quarter, I'd rather kobe leading a charge than duncan.

[magius]

if you read what i said i wasnt arguing the chance part, i was arguing the legitimacy of that chance. i think it borders on 2.5%, you think otherwise. go figure.

okay you want to look at stats. here we go then.

iverson
23.5
22
26
28.4
31.1
31.4
27.6
26.4
30.7
32.5

a career average of 27.5 ppg, 6.0 apg, 4.1 rpg, 2.4 spg.

in turn, you may say kobe has had it tougher because he came out of high school. i don't disagree he conquered adversity, so i willingly ignore his early years and give you your sparkling 25 ppg average. still id say iverson has better stats. and in fact, i belive iverson has conquered more adversity than bryant. the guy is listed 6 foot, but is actually shorter. who was the last player under 6 to score 30 per? who was the last player under 6 to win the mvp? in fact, who was the last player under 6 to get drafted first overall? there in fact have been more high school superstars then mini sized players of iverson caliber, dont you agree? and bryant wasnt even the first, kg was.

iverson is debatably better statistically than bryant. garnett is for a fact better statistically than bryant, shaq is by far statistically better than bryant yet you still believe kobe is the 'player of his generation'. you are dead wrong. in fact bryant hasnt even been the best player on his team until last year let alone best player ever.

you will then obviously fall back on the fact that bryant has 3 championships. i could say that iverson + kg has 1 mvp, but thats a debatable argument that will go even more nowhere than this one is. i could say that bryant has no finals mvps, but thats pointless, considering ai has no championships. so what i will say is if you are falling back on championships, duncan has 3 championships, 3 finals mvps, and 2 mvps. duncan has always been the leader on whatever team he plays for and for good reason. duncan does what it takes to win. duncan has always been the best player on his team.

i dont think duncan and kobe, i think duncan and shaq. kobe's like the little oprhan sister.

statswise kobe is most definetely not better. i will take 22 ppg, 12 rpg, 2.5 bpg, 3 apg on +500 shooting over 33 ppg 5apg 5 rpg (which kobe doesnt average, but i will give you the benefit of the hope), 2 spg, sub 400 shooting any given day and thrice on sunday. that in a nutshell is the difference between a team that wins and a team that doesnt. there is no contest, duncan beats him every way. winning might be a tie, but even if it were duncan has been the finals mvp 3 times. you say dont forget the intangibles, i say dont forget the tangibles. and yet im not forgetting the intangibles, duncan consistently gives you greatness that you take for granted, bryant on the other hand gives you nice low percentage shots, and for that i could see why he is more attractive to a casual fan. duncan along with big ben is also the ultimate defensive anchor of his genearation, the spurs have always been good defenisvely and will always be good defensively as long as he's there, and thats saying something. you want kobe with your team 7 points down? fine. i want duncan because my team will the one 7 points up every time. i'd go to the bank with that and come out a billionare. take your drama, i'll take my w.

here is a list of players off the top of my head who have had at least 1 mvp, 1 finals mvp, and 1 championship:
bird, magic, shaq, jordan, chamberlain, duncan.

duncan is the greatest player of his generation and i would list it as such in this order:
duncan
shaq (even if he's on the border)
garnett
kobe/iverson

[J@3]

you will then obviously fall back on the fact that bryant has 3 championships. i could say that iverson + kg has 1 mvp, but thats a debatable argument that will go even more nowhere than this one is.

Championships aren't voted on by the media. It's not really that debateable.

[magius]

what is debatable is the fact that shaq was the mvp of each championship; ai and kg have been unequivocally the most valuable player on marginally succesful teams at the very least let alone the most valuable players in the league.... are you saying neither deserved it because the award was voted on by the 'media'? regardless if the media gets it right or not name me one undoubtebly undeserved mvp. and before you say it, nash got it because duncan and shaq were injured, kg didnt make the playoffs, and he had more team success than ai, its not that he played legendarily, but that the competition fucked themselves.

edit: btw, forgot to mention, duncan is not slowing down. he just doesnt need to play the minutes he used to, and they'd rather conserve him for the playoffs and long term. his per 40 minute is 24.4 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 3.2 bpg, 3.3 apg.

[air gordon]

Duncan appears to be slowing down.

Also dont forget the intangables. Kobe has a certain drive. A "at any cost" mentality. I dont see that in Duncan. If my team was down 7 points with 5 minutes to go in the fourth quarter, I'd rather kobe leading a charge than duncan.

as magius mentioned, his teammates improving have lead to td not having to produce monstrous numbers.

what other tangibles does bryant have over duncan? i think both have a certain drive to win and there isn't a significant different between them, if any.

but the difference between kobe and duncan in that series when both players were in their prime was so big i cant give it to duncan

i'm not sure what you mean here.

[brad feet]

freaking idiots........ the lakers that is....... i cant take this any longer....... freaking trade the whole team........... and yeah including kobe........

[Drex]

Yeah, but which team could take the Lakers and for who?

[maes]

I don't think entering the NBA at a young age means a person's eventual, final ceiling is raised. You don't get better every year in equal amounts, you eventually hit your A game and that's it, entering the NBA at 17 just means you'll hit your A game in your early 20s instead of late 20s. Examples: Shawn Kemp, Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett.

It's obviously the same with Kobe, he's polishing his game. He's not showing anything different in his game than what we've always seen (not to knock his game, it's one of the best). He's probably always going to be just a "good" shooter, not on the level of guys like Drazen or Bird. He's not going to develop a Magic Johnson like passing flair. His driving and creativity has always been A+, so not much room to develop there.

Even if we argue that players do improve every year, Duncan or Amare would have more upside than Kobe. Kobe's been playing ball from the womb, guided by his NBA father. Duncan didn't even pick up a basketball til he was in high school (?), his first sport was swimming. Amare didn't pick up ball til 14, when he entered the NBA the guy was incredibly playing basketball for only 5 years.

[kingtrobe807]

if im Lakers GM...I would trade brown by the all-star break if hes not showing any signs of improvment....I would also consider a trade of george since hes not that big of a part of the lakers and there are lots of team that would trade for george....someone that i think would be good on the lakers is a type of player like a brent barry or Posey..

[TheFranchiseKing]

Right off the bat...

Mitch should have traded Kobe not Shaq. If they traded Kobe for T-Mac then they would still be a contender.
But that is ancient news. Kobe has probably the most talent in the NBA but he is lacking the ability to make players around him better. That is the quality that makes the great ones great. The guy can score when ever he wants on whoever he wants but he still forces to many shots. He has taken something like 101 shots or more over the last 3 games. This is going to be a long seaon if they don't make a change soon. Kobe cannot hoist up 33+ shots a game a play 44-46 mins a night. He will burn out. Teams are realizing that they can let KObe have 40+ but will not win. I could deal Lamar soon before his stock drops anymore for either a real PG (Not Smush) or a real Big Man (Not Kwame).

[Fresh8]

The lakers need guys to step up. The reason why Kobe is shooting so much is because noone else is taking shots. You can't pin it all on Kobe. In addition to this, the Lakers are still earning the triangle offence... I would give a bit more time to the players to learn because the triangle is a very hard offence to learn. Lamar odom only took 6 shots yesterday due to foul trouble, Kwame is injured and has no idea anyway so unless those two are contributing, I wouldn't be blaming Kobe for taking so many shots.

[Eugene]

Couple of words...

Maes, you can't say that just because Duncan and Amare have played fewer years they have more potential than Kobe. It doesn't work that way. All things being equal, a player who has played longer will be better. If anything, Kobe should have the advantage "potential" wise because, as you say, he's been playing ball "from the womb," and you know that he's only going to get better.

That kind of logic, that people who haven't played as long have more potential, is the EXACT reason Kwame Brown and Darko Milicic and Eddy Curry were drafted so early.

Now, on the age-old Kobe vs. Jordan debate...

I think Kobe does have a shot at passing Jordan. An outside-shot at best, though, mostly because of the impact Jordan had from a marketing standpoint. In those terms, Lebron James, who is far more marketable that Kobe has a better shot at surpassing Jordan in "icon-status."

(And if you think "marketability" and player popularity doesn't have anything to do how successful or how "good" a player is perceived to be, than you haven't been following any basketball for the past 15 years.)

But, strictly in terms of basketball stuff, my initial reaction to your statement, Matthew, is that Kobe needs to win a ring without Shaq first, then the argument can really start. I feel Kobe played as big a role as Shaq did in the 3 championship runs (especially in the last two), and those should count, but let's face it, Shaq does change the game.

And it is precisely because of those 3 rings that I put Kobe ahead of AI and KG. (By God, if somebody argues this by using the "Steve Kerr won four rings so he's better than Tracy McGrady"-argument, I will slap you. Seriously, I will find out where you live, come to your house and slap you. You know that's not the same as comparing Kobe and AI.)

During the championship runs, Kobe has been the consummate player, getting everyone involved, playing defense on the opposing team's best player, scoring in bunches and raising his game when it matters. And everyone forgets this because of the ugly divorce, but these are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed: Kobe Bryant, from 2000-2002, was THE BEST shooting guard in the league. And since then, he's only gotten better, but the circumstances around him got worse. That doesn't change his performance. It just puts him now in the same situation as the Iversons, Pierces and Garnetts of the league.

Now, comparing Duncan and Kobe...

I agree that Duncan is the model of consistency and they both have three rings, but here's the thing...

Big men need guards to get them the ball, and given Duncan's poor free throw shooting and recent choke-job in the Finals (covered beautifully by Horry and Ginobili), I'm taking Kobe--at least in the last few minutes of a contested game.

Now, you can argue that Duncan will carry the team for the 3 and a half quarters, btu I'm not sure that if you trade Duncan and Kobe (and that's tough because they play different positions, but hypothetically speaking, the team would look like this:

C: Nazr Mohammed
PF: Robert Horry/Fabricio Oberto
SF: Kobe Bryant
SG: Manu Ginobili
PG: Tony Parker (although I'd feel better with Van Exel down the stretch)

and that would be the team)

with that team, I'm not sure that you wouldn't be up at least 7 on the opponents. And Kobe gives you more versatility down the stretch.

What does all of that mean?

In a nutshell, Kobe is the Top 1 or 2 shooting guards of his generation, and one of 3 or 4 best players of this decade.

Eugene

[maes]

Couple of words...

Maes, you can't say that just because Duncan and Amare have played fewer years they have more potential than Kobe. It doesn't work that way. All things being equal, a player who has played longer will be better.

Penny Hardaway? Glenn Robinson? Antoine Walker? Keith Van Horn (yes he was actually hyped as a draft pick)? Playing longer doesn't mean you have potential, it means the opposite. All of these guys entered the NBA about as good as they ever were, and just kept steady and declined. Because all of these guys played ball their whole lives and it's not logical to expect they'll turn into different people altogether just because they got paid millions.

I mean, it's obvious from just looking at the recent drafts.
- Dwight Howard #1, Okafor #2
- Marvin Williams #2, Sean May #13
- Bynum #10, Wayne Simien & David Lee # 29 & #30

NBAdraft.net on Ike Diogu:

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/ikediogu.asp

"Diogu possesses maybe the most refined post-up game in college basketball...Amazing footwork...Very fundamentally sound on the block..."

And from the same guy:
"...Not much "upside" left...The player you see now is basically the same player you'll see five years from now, for better or worse....Similar game to former Iowa St. star Marcus Fizer and we all know where his pro career ended up..."

Anyway, sorry for the tangent in the LAL thread.

[Amphatoast]

C: Nazr Mohammed
PF: Robert Horry/Fabricio Oberto
SF: Kobe Bryant
SG: Manu Ginobili
PG: Tony Parker (although I'd feel better with Van Exel down the stretch)

i'm sorry but I think the pistons could beat that team.
Ben > Nazr
Rasheed > Horry ( and rasheed can hit clutch 3s also)
Prince >= Kobe ( kobe, but prince D keeps kobe from dropping 50)
Rip > Manu ( rip off screen is water)
Billups > Parker (face it, billups is bigger and stronger and can handle the french guy)

the kobe and prince match up...with all the advantages at all the other positions they could handle kobe as a team. Duncan really does make a big difference even though his recent finals was not too good.

[J@3]

Penny Hardaway? Glenn Robinson? Antoine Walker? Keith Van Horn

Apart from Walker (who could still average 25 a game on the right team) those players declined because of injuries. Robinson was consistant with his numbers for years, he didn't seem to improve statistically or repress at all either... I'd almost guarantee he improved in other ways as years went on though. Mainly the kind of thing that doesn't show up on a boxscore.

Penny was steadily improving every year until he was injured, Van Horn's numbers were up from his rookie season until he was injured, you can see everytime he was injured his numbers dropped dramatically. I see your point completely, I just think those were bad examples.

[Eugene]

C: Nazr Mohammed
PF: Robert Horry/Fabricio Oberto
SF: Kobe Bryant
SG: Manu Ginobili
PG: Tony Parker (although I'd feel better with Van Exel down the stretch)

i'm sorry but I think the pistons could beat that team.
Ben > Nazr
Rasheed > Horry ( and rasheed can hit clutch 3s also)
Prince >= Kobe ( kobe, but prince D keeps kobe from dropping 50)
Rip > Manu ( rip off screen is water)
Billups > Parker (face it, billups is bigger and stronger and can handle the french guy)

the kobe and prince match up...with all the advantages at all the other positions they could handle kobe as a team. Duncan really does make a big difference even though his recent finals was not too good.

I was thinking in more general terms, but I see what you're getting at. But even then, Kobe/Manu/Parker would give the perimeter defense fits, even it were Detroit.

And to respond to you Maes,

It's also not logical to think a high-school kid with 4-years experience playing ball has more potential than a college senior with 4-years of college experience.

You don't know that Howard will be significantly better than Okafor, for example. The difference between them is that Howard is a freakish athlete, not that he's been playing ball later that Okafor did.

Although, you could make the argument that a player is better at a younger age, which suggests that he has a faster learning curve. I can buy that argument.

But that whole "Not much 'upside' left..." comment, what the hell? Upside comes in bottles now? How do you measure (quanitatively) how much upside a guy has? See, 'upside' is a term made up by lazy (or delusional) scouts to justify picks like Eddie Griffin and Leon Smith.

[air gordon]

it's really a "what have you done for me lately" crowd eh?

duncan has a bad series last year and boom goes the dynamite

duncan won with perhaps the worst championship roster in the past 2 decades in 2003. this was probably duncan's greatest accomplishment (btw on the way, they took out the lakers who still had shaq & bryant). bryant has never been the best player on a championship team

regardless who his teammates are, duncan has been all nba & all defensive team for many years now

anyway, as much you'll think you have with the versatility bryant brings on offense, you put bryant on the spurs and that team's defense becomes crap. all that cheating manu and parker do in the passing lanes, all the funneling that bowen does- you can't do that with nazr and horry "patrolling" the lane

[Eugene]

Fine, I'll concede your last point.

But that Lakers team that the Spurs took out...

They had Kobe (who was exhausted from carrying that team all season, and you cannot deny that in 2003, he was the best player on that team), and Shaq, who was injured and never bothered to get back in shape. They also had Rick Fox, limited to playing spot minutes, Devean George, still offensively challenged, Robert Horry who went like 2 for 439 from three, and Derek Fisher. Their back up centers were Samaki Walker and Mark Madsen. Yeah, they had the Kobe and Shaq and nobody else.

And the point I was making is that put Kobe on that Spurs team, and in most cases (not all), they'll be leading by seven come fourth quarter. Obviously it won't be the same because the Spurs are built around Duncan, but generally speaking.

Oh, and I hope I didn't come off sounding like I thought Duncan was a bad player or anything. I'm convinced he is one of the top 3 power forwards of all-time. And certainly, his performance in Game 6 in the 2003 Finals is a legitimate Pantheon level game. I'm just making an argument for Kobe, not necessarily against Duncan.

[magius]

in my post i had kobe as the 4th greatest player of his generation. that said, even if he is 4th, i just think that he is nowhere near duncan. would detroit take away ben wallace and plug in even a chris webber in his prime and still win as much because webber's more 'versatile'? i think not. ginoboli-parker-kobe would be nowhere near a contender.... no matter how great kobe's defense is it will never match duncans because duncan raises team defense. besides, three headed guard contenders never work, it didnt work in miluwakee, it didnt work in golden state, and in terms of total talent the three guards of said two teams are more so than a kobe parker ginoboli trio. i also believe kobe-manu-paker would get slaughtered on defense. it is no coincidence that every player duncan has ever played with has come out with a greater defensive repuation then they came in with.

I agree that Duncan is the model of consistency and they both have three rings, but here's the thing...

you forget that duncan is the undisputed reason the spurs got those three rings, as proven by his 3 final mvps. just like, i believe, shaq is the undisputed reason the lakers got theres. not to say that they didnt get help from good teammates, but that those championship teams were there teams. the championship lakers, no matter how you put it, were always shaqs team, until the day he left, and they were always going to be his team until he left.... which consequently is probably the reason he was manuevered into leaving. i would consider kobe shaq's drexler.

Big men need guards to get them the ball, and given Duncan's poor free throw shooting and recent choke-job in the Finals (covered beautifully by Horry and Ginobili), I'm taking Kobe--at least in the last few minutes of a contested game.

guards need big men to play defense, and given without a big man a teams defense will fall apart, im taking duncan -- because he'll get you there. don't bite off more than you can chew; can you be in a close game and have a chance to win it in the closing minutes? yes. can you win a game in the closing minutes if it isnt close? no.

a big man can make do with a mediocore guard (see avery johnson), but a guard cannot make do with a mediocare big man.

and by the way, it has always been the case in the nba that guards of a certain caliber are a dime a dozen in contrast to big men of that same calibre, which makes the big man thrice as valuable. how many superstar centres have there been in the nba's history that weren't drafted first overall? how many superstar guards have there been that werent. case and point, you will never see the equivalent of a michael redd or arenas come out of the 2nd round. for every 12 kobes there is 1 duncan or shaq, there is absolutely no reason to take a kobe instead of a duncan, because its just pure logic that the chances of you coming across another kobe far outweigh the chances of coming across another duncan. and regardless, even if the ratio were 1:1 i still think duncan is more valuable than kobe by at least twice.

i am willing to consent that kobe is perhaps the best shooting guard of his generation, but thats never what i was really contesting. i dont think he's anywhere near the greatest of his generation, even if he is 4th on my list if that makes sense. and i think the chances of him ever reaching jordan are as slim as the chances of rosie o'donnel weighing 90 lbs, going straight, and turning black all in the same week.

[Eugene]

I got roped into this conversation because some people thought that Kobe wasn't even the best 2-guard of his generation, which is flat-out wrong (that's right, you're wrong). It's always tough to compare big men to guards because say what you will about basketball, it's still a big man's game.

But...

The gap between Duncan and Kobe is not as large as you might think.

You cite, when you say big men can make do with a mediocre guard, obviously the first championship the Spurs won in 99. First of all, that's the asterisk season, the same season Houston and Sprewell took the Knicks to the Finals. That might have been the two weakest teams in the Finals, ever. Second of all, Tim Duncan still had David Robinson, Sean Elliot, and other quality guys who knew their roles. Not a bad team. And I never thought Avery Johnson was a mediocre guard. I'd say he's better than average.

But can you cite an example (because we shouldn't really consider the 99 season) in which a big man won a championship without an establish point guard? I have a feeling you'd have to go back pretty far. Maybe as far back as Bill Russell's Celtics. But that's out of my range.

On the other hand, you have Michael Jordan's Bulls, who have won 3 championships with Luc Longley and Bill Wennington. That was in the nineties, when the league was abound with quality big men. Now I'm not saying Kobe is like Jordan in this scenario, but you see my point: your claim that "big men can make do with a mediocre guard while a guard cannot make do with a mediocre big man" is unfounded and probably untrue.

And you say that players of Kobe's caliber are dime a dozen. Really? How many other two guards have averaged 25/5/5 and won three championships? Seriously, how many 2-guards are really on Kobe's level? You could say that there are more two guards in general because there are simply a lot more players in the 6'6" range than 7 footers. But are you seriously putting Michael Redd and Gilbert Arenas on Kobe's level? That might be enough to make the Kobe-fans burn this forum to the ground.

Yes, guards are usually more common than big men, but when you're talking about the absolute elite level of players, a player like Kobe Bryant is just as rare as Tim Duncan.

[Matt]

there's only one 2-guard that CAN play on Kobe's level, that's T-Mac.

[magius]

i don't mind being wrong, i just think that kobe as the best 2 guard of his generation is more debatable than you do. the reason i got roped into this conversation is because some people thought kobe was either the best player of his generation or could be the best player ever. the fact that i thought he may not even be the best guard of his generation just got thrown in there. if its any consolation you have changed my mind, and i do believe he's the best guard of his generation, but i think its close. i think the margin between duncans value and kobe's is still fairly monstrous though. personally i think the new wave of wing players will overshadow kobe.

mj also had horace grant and dennis rodman, are they true big men in the sense of the word? no. but they could play it, and would be considered good to very good. not to mention he also had cartwright who wasnt bad.

i would say aside from spurs, the 94 rockets, the celtics, the 83 76ers, maybe the trailblazers, the bullets, and the knicks among others that won with a mediocore to average point guard. i dont think a team has ever won a championship without a mediocore or average big man.

given that there are only two guards in the nba at the same level as kobe, i consider the second tier talent drop off not that large when compared to that of big men.

i never said the 99 spurs were a bad team, just that they were duncans team and they won with avery johnson who is a mediocore point guard or average even if you like. kobe's team never won a championship it was shaqs team.

you underistmate the value of a big man duncans calibre. look at the past statistics of whatever year you want, every top 3 defensive team in nba history has had a good big man. defense wins, big man wins.