Dr Jack no good. Spurs Good

[filmboy]

On the ESPN web site, there is always articles and writings by Dr Jack who once won an NBA tiltle etc etc etc. He told the world that zone defences won't make a difference in the NBA. He said this just after the USA basketball team nearly lost at the Olympics to zone defences. Since then the USA team has been kicked at the world champs by zone defences, and now we have a NBA champion team who used a zone defence. I can't stand when guys who have played the game think they know the everything about the game, and don't have any foward thinking. I also can't stand when guys get jobs just because of who they are not if they are any good. We have the same thing here with our rugby. Lots of ex national players get to be comintators, and we end up with comintating that doesn't make sence and is full of talk about how it was "in thier day".

The other thing that pissed me off today when I went to ESPN, is the whole talk about the Spurs not beeing a good champion.

If you listen to all the ESPN hype then you would say that Shaq is the best center, Kobe is the best two gaurd, and Kidd is the best point in the league. Time beat all those guys on the way to the title. How is that not good? And this is without all the extra suspect calls that Jordan used to get. This is without beeing able to offencive foul when ever he wants like Shaq gets. It was with pure skills.

It seems that he wont get recognition because there is no multi million dollar shoe indorcment guy involved. The other champs they were saying that wern't very good were the mid ninties Rocket teams. Once again we have a guy (Hakeem) who out played everyone but didn't sell a million shoes, or ESPN magazines.

Just because someone doesn't sell shoes doesn't mean he ain't a worthy champion. And just because someone coached in the NBA doesn't mean he knows everything about basketball.

[Steve04]

I dont see anywhere on the ESPN web site saying Duncan is not a worthy champion...he beat everyone in his way so why wouldnt he?

[Swoosh]

filmboy i understand what u are saying but u gettin lil' worked up for nothing man, u misinterpreted that article on espn that i read too.
It doesnt say the spurz are no worthy champions, it says they are one of the weakest in history, cuz in my opinion there i dont think they could win from lets say the bulls 90's team, or the piston's team couple years before, but of curz the article makes no sense what soever becuz every commentator should realize once and for all that nba these days isnt the nba it used to be(not negatively speaken or something),times changed, players way more athletic and more european players, and some ppl just cant accept that fact . They do say shaq is the best centre, trust me, at the moment he IS , kobe the best guard, well my edge goes to t-mac and the best pg IS j-kidd(though everyone seems to forget about payton ). But they also say TD IS the best pf, so nothing to worry about , and those who say he's not flashy, they are right but he is fundamentally so pure and so capable, he's just a class act on the court, lil'bit like grant hill with his elegance(ok maybe not style of play but also a gentleman ). And about that commentators, everybody has to right to have their opinion bro, but we all know the one is better than the other .

[filmboy]

Hers what one cat on ESPN is saying about the Spurs, and where they fit amoungst other champs. It doesn't make sence dudes dissing the Spurs, and saying that this championship should have an astrix next to it just like thier 99 one. If it was so easy to win it this year or 99, why didn't so called better teams win it? Because at the end of the day,those teams weren't better. Someone needs to tell that to Phil Jackson, when he whines about how the spurs championship in 99 should have an asterix next to it, cause it was a short year. If it was so easy for the spurs to win why couldn't phil do it?

The stuff in red is from espn. Charles Rosen.

Let's face it -- the level of play in the NBA is sinking as fast as Iraq's GNP.

So which post-24-second champs could the current Spurs defeat? The 1955 Syracuse Nationals. The 1956 Philadelphia Warriors. And the 1958 St. Louis Hawks.

Who would sweep them in four straight? Jordan's Bulls. Magic's Lakers. The Dipper's Warriors and Lakers. The Russellian Celtics.

Jabbar's Bucks, the Doctor's playmates and Bird's flock would beat the Spurs in five. Winners in a six-game series would be The Bad Boy Pistons, Walton and the Blazers, the Cowens-Hondo editions of the Celtics and The Old Knicks.

The only series up for grabs would be against the '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics and '94 Rockets. The 1999 asterisked-Spurs would beat the current Spurs in seven overtimes in a seventh game.

[Swoosh]

i know ive read the article (told ya before though). And idd is makes no sense, like also said, and all that stuff bout the asterisk, thats a thing for losers and unsportmanslike figures, they beat everyone so they are the best, and no crap either about marbury,c-webb and nowitzki and non fit lakers either, lakers SHOULD have been in shape and the others well, injuries occur every year so that aint no point, the spurs were best period.
But still, u are a little overreacting , they are good but they arent as good as the bulls or rockets, the writer just exagerates a lot, probably becuz hes no spurs fan , but me, i cheered for the spurs(cuz nj's scott is too damn cocky and give it away himself) .

[Steve04]

Well, if you are getting bent out of shape over a PAGE 2 article.....

[Andrew]

If it was so easy for the spurs to win why couldn't phil do it?

Phil didn't coach a team during the 98/99 season. But as Shane said in another thread, the whole asterisk thing is getting to be a sign of bad sportsmanship. Perhaps it's something to consider when ranking a championship team against great teams from the past. But in context, in the season a team wins the title, they are the team that has played the best basketball when it's all said and done. Perhaps not throughout the year, but anyone who wins enough games to qualify for the playoffs and wins 15 games (or 16 games as it is now) has played well.

I think the Spurs' reputation has a lot to do with this. Throughout the 90s, they were a team that couldn't quite get over the hump, not making the NBA Finals until 1999. Therefore, their success is tainted by the assumption that they haven't played well, but that their opponents must have played badly.

[MAKAVELI THE DON]

I just don't understand why articles and sometimes NBA analysists, do these things sometimes? I am a Lakers & Mavericks fan, and I have to give my props to the Spurs on a great season, and my hats off to David Robinson for a great career!

Some people are going to say in 1999, they only won because it was a shortened season & their was no MJ or Phil Jackson. Now was it the Spurs fault that Michael Jordan Retired and Phil Jackson stopped coaching, or was it the Spurs fault why it was a shortened season? Hell no...

Some people also said, and say that the teams in NBA are weak now, and the Spurs couldn't or can't stand tough with NBA championship teams of the past? And yet again is it the Spurs fault that teams in the NBA are weak now? No it's not their fault....

When you've run over the 3 other best teams in the league (Lakers, Kings & Mavs) for a whole season, and then beat 2 of them in the playoffs back to back? By no means are they a fluke, they are the real deal!

[Swoosh]

AMEN !

[Ceasar121]

It's easy to say some team from the past is better. All these stupid comments are because the champ is not some over hyped, commercial making HO who cares more about endorsements than accomplishments. Whose to say these Spurs couldn't outplay the early 90's Bulls? MJ would crush whoever played him, but those drives to the hole would be limited by TD and DRob. Pippen's whole game(driving to the basket) would be limited too. BJ Armstrong vs. Tony Parker? Tony would crush him. Duncan vs. Horace Grant. Can you say quadruple double? With Bowen locking Pippen down(why waste him on MJ who's gonna get his) and being overmatched in three of the starting positions (PG, PF and C), whose to say the Spurs couldn't beat them? The Portland TrailBlazers took Chicago to 6... why couldn't the Spurs (who seem to play just enough to win the series). All this talk is BS. the Lakers aren't(to me) great champs. The Spurs don't play in the 4th quarter, The Lakers ONLY play in the fourth quarter. In mu opnion, the Spurs are a good champ, who could turn into a regular contender if they keep the young nucleus, and develop that champs instinct the Lakers had in their 2nd and third title runs.

[MAKAVELI THE DON]

I don't think it's fair to compare the championship teams (Lakers & Spurs) against the past ones, it's not a fair comparison!

To alot of people, you will think this statement is idiotic? But I believe the players in the NBA today are playing on a higher and tougher level, than those of the past!

The reason I say this, is because: if you think about back in the days they never had so many rules to play under, and nearly 20 odd teams in the league use to average 100 + points every game. It was in 1992 or 91, that all 27 NBA teams averaged over 100 points per game for a whole season!

Are the players offense today, that weak, or their defense that good! Just imagine a Wilt Chamberland, or a Michael Jordan in his prime playing today? It's very hard & tight to score in the NBA! The reason I'm brought that up was to show that today's players are playing on a higher and more difficult level than in the past; and the Spurs & Lakers of today should be given some slack, and more respect; and stop critizing them to be fluky NBA championship teams! I feel that the Spurs or Lakers could hold their own against Phil's Bulls, and "some" of the past NBA championship teams!

[air gordon]

Whose to say these Spurs couldn't outplay the early 90's Bulls?

i'll speculate that these Spurs couldn't outplay the early 90's Bulls

MJ would crush whoever played him, but those drives to the hole would be limited by TD and DRob.

true but MJ was a decent pull up jumper then and he could have always dished off to open players, who were more reliable then the spurs players.

Pippen's whole game(driving to the basket) would be limited too.

sorry- Pip's whole game wasn't limited to just driving to the basket.

BJ Armstrong vs. Tony Parker? Tony would crush him.

Parker may be a better a player offensively, but the armstrong/pax combo was a much more consistent. parker possibly could outplay them a game or 2, but it is for sure he will disappear for at 2 least games.

Duncan vs. Horace Grant. Can you say quadruple double?

i think duncan would get his points, despite grant being a great defender. but i think the bulls would allow him to score, just as long as the others are contained (which wouldn't be difficult consider their perimeter players all shot under 40% in the finals)

With Bowen locking Pippen down(why waste him on MJ who's gonna get his)

Bowen's a good defender, but i'll believe it when i see him actually 'locking' pip down

and being overmatched in three of the starting positions (PG, PF and C), whose to say the Spurs couldn't beat them? The Portland TrailBlazers took Chicago to 6... why couldn't the Spurs (who seem to play just enough to win the series)

i won't even get into how the bulls 3 headed monster would take care of the aging Robinson. i think you're overrating the spurs, just a little bit. perhaps you're an agent for one their players??? you're talking about the spurs beating debateably one the best championship teams of all time. you're better off debating the '99 champion spurs would give the bulls a better run

[Andrew]

But I believe the players in the NBA today are playing on a higher and tougher level, than those of the past!

I have to disagree with that.

The reason I say this, is because: if you think about back in the days they never had so many rules to play under, and nearly 20 odd teams in the league use to average 100 + points every game. It was in 1992 or 91, that all 27 NBA teams averaged over 100 points per game for a whole season!

Teams used to run a lot more back in the day, whereas these days the half-court offense is more popular. Also consider it may not just be good defense these days - it could also be poor offense.

Are the players offense today, that weak, or their defense that good! Just imagine a Wilt Chamberland, or a Michael Jordan in his prime playing today? It's very hard & tight to score in the NBA!

In today's NBA, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady average 30 points per game. I think if MJ was in his prime playing in today's NBA, he'd have similar averages.

[Ceasar121]

Limp, it's easy to say someone is giving the Spurs too much credit. But remember the early 90's Bulls were actually underdogs in every finals except against Phoenix.

Limpdilznik said:

i think duncan would get his points, despite grant being a great defender. but i think the bulls would allow him to score...

Allow him to score? You mean withe in agony as he works off the glass, dunks on Cartwright and Grant, pulls up from 15...Ho Grant was good in his time, but there is no way he could contain Duncan. Grant could couldn't stop Karl Malone, or Charles Barkley, or even the young Derrick Coleman, non of whom is as athletic or a rounded as Duncan. You and I know there is noone on that team who could stop him in the best dream. Tony Parker disappeared against the Nets because of a bigger player being put on him. Chicago would have matched BJ against Tony, and BJ WOULD GET TORCHED. Paxson? Imagine him getting his ankle broken by Tony. The would let Paxson guard Terry Porter. TERRY FREAKING PORTER!! C'Mon Parker has outplayed the likes of Gary Payton(last year's playoffs) and Jason Kidd. BJ would have no chance... If you actually remember those early ninties games, the Bulls role players were solid, but not as deep as say even the TrailBlazers of their era. Chicago regularly went to 7 game series with the New York Knicks, a physical defensive team. The Spurs are a physical defensive team. Malik Rose or Cliff Levingston? C'Mon, Malik. Paxson vs Kerr... a wash. Stacey King or Manu? Easily Manu. Bowen contained Kobe, who is much more offensively gifted than Pip was in his prime. So to say he could guard Pip is not much of a stretch.

Limpdilznik said:

sorry- Pip's whole game wasn't limited to just driving to the basket.

Really? Check Pippen's 91-92 stat line(his best year overall):
G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
82 82 38.6 .506 .200 .760 2.30 5.40 7.70 7.0 1.89 1.13 3.09 3.0 21.0

Don't believe me? Peep NBA.com and watch his numbers go tumbling down.. down... down... from that year forward.
Notice that his 3pt percentage is 20%. 20%? Scottie is not, never has been an outside threat, merely a good slasher, passer, defender. Bowen could guard him, forcing him to take all those outside shots like he did Kobe, with far fewer hits.

Limpdilznik said:

i won't even get into how the bulls 3 headed monster would take care of the aging Robinson.

With stiff ass Bill Cartwright at center? C'Mon Robinson has had to in part defend one of the best era's of centers in basketball. His old ass could guard Cartwright and play background defense. Bill Laimbeer did, and he sucked. Jordan is not(I repeat NOT) going to run rampant in the lane against Duncan AND Robinson. Who was the best center Mike every played against in the Finals? Vlade Divac? Kevin DuckWorth? Mark West Greg Ostertag? If the Bulls could lose two games to teams like Portland, Phoenix, the Jazz, this year's Spurs could matchup. What made the Bulls one of the best championship teams was not their unBeata-Bull-ness , it was the struggle they went through to get it. People did not think they would beat the Lakers in the first Finals, people doubted they could beat the Knicks almost every year. Now the late 90's Bulls, ya, Spurs couldn't hang with them. But the early 90's Bulls versus this year's team of young players and wily veterans would be an entertaining Finals. Two teams with the best player in the league. And in the end, whose to say Duncan could not lead that inexperienced bunch of talented slackers past a smaller, team that has no inside game to match or stop Duncan. Phil decided not to double team him this year, and look what happened to his 3peat team...

[Andrew]

But remember the early 90's Bulls were actually underdogs in every finals except against Phoenix.

1991 Bulls: 61-21
1991 Lakers: 58-24

The Bulls were underdogs in the sense they didn't have the championship experience of the Lakers. But the Lakers were no longer the Showtime squad of the 80s, and the Bulls had the better record. The Bulls lost 1 game in the Eastern Conference playoff, and only dropped one to the Lakers in the Finals.

1992 Bulls: 67-15
1992 Blazers: 57-25

The Bulls defeated the Blazers in both matchups during the regular season. They were never worse than 2-2 in the NBA Finals that year. I don't think you'd call the 1992 Bulls the underdogs.

1993 Bulls: 57-25
1993 Suns: 62-20

As far as the regular season goes, the Bulls were the underdogs. They didn't have home court advantage in the Finals, but they did have experience.

Chicago regularly went to 7 game series with the New York Knicks, a physical defensive team.

The Jordan-led Bulls only faced the Knicks in a 7 game series once - 1992. And those Knick teams were much more physical than the San Antonio Spurs, and a different kind of physical. David Robinson and Tim Duncan don't play the same physical game that Patrick Ewing, Xavier McDaniel, Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason used to.

Bowen contained Kobe, who is much more offensively gifted than Pip was in his prime. So to say he could guard Pip is not much of a stretch.

Mind you, Bowen "held" Kobe to 32.3 ppg, Kobe's bad shoulder and all.

Don't believe me? Peep NBA.com and watch his numbers go tumbling down.. down... down... from that year forward.
Notice that his 3pt percentage is 20%. 20%? Scottie is not, never has been an outside threat, merely a good slasher, passer, defender. Bowen could guard him.

91/92: 20% 3PT
92/93: 23.7% 3PT
93/94: 32% 3PT
94/95: 34.5% 3PT
95/96: 37.4% 3PT
96/97: 36.8% 3PT

Pip's three point percentage didn't exactly tumble down, down down from 1991/1992 - in fact, at its height he bettered his 1992 mark by 17.4%. His three point percentage did not decrease until the 1996/1997 season, and even then it was not a great decrease.

Jordan is not(I repeat NOT) going to run rampant in the lane against Duncan AND Robinson. Who was the best center Mike every played against in the Finals? Vlade Divac? Kevin DuckWorth? Mark West Greg Ostertag?

That's not taking into account the centres and big men the Bulls played against en route to the NBA Finals.

Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O'Neal, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty - all intimidating forces in the paint when the Bulls faced them. Don't forget guys like Bill Laimbeer, Xavier McDaniel, Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason. These are all physical post players whom the Bulls faced in the Eastern Conference playoffs. Those Knicks and Pistons teams were much more physical (and dirty) than the 2002/2003 Spurs - and the Bulls got past them all at some point.

[Shep]

everything Andrew said plus

Pippen's 91-92 stat line(his best year overall

1994 was pippen's best year

[air gordon]

the fact that you say pip's (who is one my favs) game was only limited to takin the ball to the basket gives me motivation the continue this silly discussion...

starting with pip:

Notice that his 3pt percentage is 20%. 20%? Scottie is not, never has been an outside threat, merely a good slasher, passer, defender.

first off you're contradicting yourself after earlier saying:

Pippen's whole game(driving to the basket) would be limited too.

secondly, notice pip's fg% of .506- not all of those were on layups and dunks. Pip had one the most all around games- including a nice in between game. He was banking outside shots from 18ft+ when your boy duncan was going through puberty. also refer to the 2 previous posts.

You and I know there is noone on that team who could stop him in the best dream.

i already mentioned duncan would get his stats. you can continue to beat a dead horse if you want

Tony Parker disappeared against the Nets because of a bigger player being put on him.

lets not forget the countless shots he was missing when he was wide open. or the bad decisions he made that resulted in turnovers. those have to do more with parker then the defender's defense. and considering the bulls were able to withstand the likes of magic johnson, kevin johnson,mark price, isiah thomas, and terry porter(who was pretty solid in his hayday), the inconsistent tony parker would be a welcome matchup

If you actually remember those early ninties games, the Bulls role players were solid, but not as deep as say even the TrailBlazers of their era.

yes i sure remember those games. got them on vhs. trailblazers had a deeper bench then the bulls but what did that get them? the blazers have a deeper bench then my intramural team, but they don't have any more championship rings then my intramural team does. and i remember the 4th qtr in game 6 against the blazers, where pip and 4 reserves lead the bulls from one of the biggest 4th qtr deficits in nba finals history. btw-i can't take you seriously if you are comparing manu and king. a willis/king comparison makes more sense to me.

Chicago regularly went to 7 game series with the New York Knicks, a physical defensive team. The Spurs are a physical defensive team

as mentioned earlier, the statement is inaccurate. and as mentioned earlier, the bulls faced much more tougher defensive teams in the pistons and knicks

With stiff ass Bill Cartwright at center? C'Mon Robinson has had to in part defend one of the best era's of centers in basketball. His old ass could guard Cartwright and play background defense. Bill Laimbeer did, and he sucked.

first off you forgot the mention king and scot williams, the other 2 heads of the monster. secondly the bulls weren't expecting much offense from their centers, although they did try to get cartwright involved early. most of their offense came from putbacks or dishes from pip and jordan. they relied on them for defense & rebounding. and d-rob is no offensive juggernaut himself. the bulls would only throw the 2 headed monster at him, maybe only 1 if there wasn't such a long layoff before the start of the finals (like this year).

What made the Bulls one of the best championship teams was not their unBeata-Bull-ness , it was the struggle they went through to get it.

i think the reasons the bulls made that first 3peat because of jordan, the supporting cast could support jordan, and they were one of the best defensive teams at the time(jordan, grant, pip were all on the nba all defensive team).

But the early 90's Bulls versus this year's team of young players and wily veterans would be an entertaining Finals. Two teams with the best player in the league. And in the end, whose to say Duncan could not lead that inexperienced bunch of talented slackers past a smaller, team that has no inside game to match or stop Duncan.

the bulls were a far superior defensive team then the nets. in the finals, the spurs main perimeter players could only muster up a 40% from the field against the nj. i'll let that marinate for a while...
in this series, the bulls experience and defense would take over. in close games, spurs hardly stand a chance. it doesn't help the spurs cause considering they let double digits leads in the 4th qtr slip away a handful of times during the playoffs. and also that duncan/bowen are very poor FT shooters. it wouldn't surprise me that Phil jackson would employ a hack a duncan/bowen. most likely bowen would be taken out, allowing Pip take over. in contrast, the bulls had one of the best closers in the game, jordan and great clutch shooters in paxson and armstrong.

Phil decided not to double team him this year, and look what happened to his 3peat team...

considering that phil jackson had a much different cast of players in LA compared to the Bulls, your statement proves nothing.

please turn off the imaginary tv. does this really need to go on?

[Swoosh]

there's just one coclusion, stop comparing ? Its just to difficult to predict an outcome cuz u cant turn back time and stuff, and everyone is kind of judging to his own standards, beginning with what kinda player you like and second of all, what's ur opinion that a great player does so a discussion like that is endless and a little pointless i think but oh well, sometimes kinda fun .

[Ceasar121]

Everyone has made a lot of valid points. My bottom line is that noone can stop Jordan, just like noone can stop Duncan. Limp, they only shot 40% from the field. So what? With the exception of Mike, Paxson and maybe Pip, the Bulls wouldn't shoot much better. BJ, Stacey King,Ho Grant, Cliff Levingston and the rest of the Jordanaires weren't spectacular(Cept for that one 3rd quarter in LA when Cliff was kicking @$$ and taking names.)

Limpdilznik said:
Quote:
Notice that his 3pt percentage is 20%. 20%? Scottie is not, never has been an outside threat, merely a good slasher, passer, defender.
first off you're contradicting yourself after earlier saying:
Quote:
Pippen's whole game(driving to the basket) would be limited too.

No, this proves my point. If you limit Pip to perimeter shots, much like Bowen did Kob, it takes more shots for him to get his points. Yeah Kobe averaged 32 aginst Bowen, taking 32 to 38 shots a game, and getting some calls. Pip would not:
1. Take that many shots. He played an all around game, which wasn't extremely sharp from outside.
2. Be as aggressive as Kobe. He would defer to Mike if it wasn't going for him. He would actually pass the ball(unlike Kobe). So to imagine Bowen limiting Pip to 10 to 15 points a game is very likely.

Yeah, it is kinda dumb to compare Spurs defense to Knicks... My Bad. But having two athletic seven footers who will slap that ish outta here limits drives to the hole, Duncan, Robinson and Malik Rose would dominate the boards. Who on that Bulls team was athletic and aggressive as Kenyon Martin? Those Bulls would have had to take a lot of outside jumpers to beat the Spurs. Outside shots = lower FG%.Putbacks? With Timmy inhaling every rebound that comes close to him? And their perimeter defense is solid. I agree, in close games Mike could probably pull it out. But Timmy would have those... well those games where you can't lay a hand on him. If you've ever noticed, Phil's teams ALWAYS play ok the first 3 quarters, then turn it on in the fourth quarter. If the Spurs get in a good groove, they can be unstopable as well. King and Scott Williams would not be guarding DRob, they'd be a 3 headed monster trying to guard Duncan, withe King, Grant and Williams all getting in foul trouble. Putbacks? Over Duncan AND Robinson? DRob is old and washed up, but still better than Cartwright, Williams and King. I realize what Andrew is saying about the big men Chi faced, but they never faced two as talented and agile as Duncan and DRob. The best tandem to me, Would have been Ewing and Oakley. They cannot compare to Duncan and DRob. More physical, less graceful, agile, and if you consider probably strength wise no stronger.
I guess in the end, all of this is speculation, but this Spurs team is very deep and very talented, and strong on defense. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS. And when both teams have an unstoppable weapon, it might come down to who gets the last shot. And while MJ is Mr. Clutch, you can't count out a team that has captured the ultimate prize -- Over the team that owned them(the Lakers) overcome the best offensive(and worst defensive) team in the league, and the 2nd best defensive team in the league. As Rudy T. said -- "Don't underestimate the heart of a champion."

Plus I like to argue with the early 90's Bulls fans about a team that could beat them -- cause my Knicks did it too late.

[air gordon]

pure genius. you have me convinced the spurs would beat the bulls. you sold me on the 'but this Spurs team is very deep and very talented" line

[Steve04]

I think that the Spurs supporting cast is being overvalued.

Let us remember that the only reason most of them have any success is the Shaq Factor. A dominant big man who gets double teamed and subsequently passes out to wide open team mates for open shots. Just as most of the Lakers aging supporting cast is somewhat overrated, so is the Spurs. I think Tony Parker is an overrated PG who takes advantage of Tim Duncans presence to produce big numbers much like Bibby and Webber in Sacremento. Lets also remember that Parker had trouble against Kittles. Well if the Spurs played against the late 90's 3 peat team of the Bulls then Ron Harper is a big guard also and would bother Parker and limit his effectiveness. plus, If it were the mid 90's Pippen would probally guard Parker and that would cause all sorts of problems.

Let Duncan have his points but I think both Bulls teams had a better supporting cast than the Spurs do now. Plus the Spurs have almost no killer instinc and when they would find it against the Bulls it would be too late.

[Ceasar121]

Yeah, like I said, the late 90's Bulls would be too much. I guess I'll have to wait for Live 2004 to sim this one... but remember Just like the SPurs used the 'Shaq' Factor, Pip is 20 times better with Mike.... Limpdilznik's sarcasm is appreciated and well noticed...(Bastard... )

[Steve04]

The Shaq factor would not have worked with the Bulls because Phil Jackson would not have double teamed duncan when he had Horace Grant.