Also, found it interesting that Kobe "The Ballhog" Bryant attempted 21 shots, had 9 assists and 1 TO. Tim "Mr. Ball Movement/Fundamental" Duncan attempted 25 shots, had 2 assists and 4 TO's (in 3 less minutes of action).

 

FYI...

Actually, I must correct myself...they play roughly 17 minutes and 31 seconds...not the original 20 I stated.

 

Correct yourself? What are you talking about?

Correct yourself? What are you talking about?

 

I didn't feel like waiting on you...figured I'd save you the trouble.:thumb:

Also, found it interesting that Kobe "The Ballhog" Bryant attempted 21 shots, had 9 assists and 1 TO. Tim "Mr. Ball Movement/Fundamental" Duncan attempted 25 shots, had 2 assists and 4 TO's (in 3 less minutes of action).

 

FYI...

Good point, except Kobe hasn't been a ball hog this year IMO (or at least I haven't called him one). And you watched this game and you know that Tim Duncan wasn't being selfish, as well as the fact that TD doesn't get the assists for a pass out of the post and then to someone else.

 

Either way, I am not going to argue who I'd rather have on my team- I'll take the best player in the NBA.

I'll admit that I watch hardly any NBA till the playoffs and even less so this year. But from what I have seen, the Spurs play with more fundamentals than any other team in the league, by a good margin. But you all watch more than me

 

I'm not denying that the Spurs are a good fundamental team. I just don't think they're the only one...I also think the other teams still playing are very good, fundamental teams as well (Lakers, Celtics and Pistons). I also think some of the teams that got beat out are...like the Jazz and Hornets. I'm sure there are others.

 

I don't see the Spurs as being any more fundamental than those teams. How do you rank the top fundamental teams? What is the criteria? Ball movement, efficient offense, good defense, teamwork, playing smart, etc...all those teams do that...some are obviously better at different aspects. It seems to me that the criteria is boredom, and that's why the Spurs are considered the most fundamental team.

Good point, except Kobe hasn't been a ball hog this year IMO (or at least I haven't called him one). And you watched this game and you know that Tim Duncan wasn't being selfish, as well as the fact that TD doesn't get the assists for a pass out of the post and then to someone else.

 

Either way, I am not going to argue who I'd rather have on my team- I'll take the best player in the NBA.

 

Just a tidbit of information...I don't think either guy is a ballhog. I've never thought Kobe was a ballhog. Kobe didn't have the teammates to take the pressure off him in previous years, thus he had to shoot and score more to give the Lakers their best chance to win...people who didn't like him jumped at the chance to call him a ballhog.

 

IMO, teamwork isn't just passing the ball...it's 5 guys, each doing whatever gives the teams it's best chance and sometimes that involves your star player shooting a high number of shots. Tim Duncan last night is a great example...he attempted 25 shots and 10 free throws...the Lakers were using a lot of man-to-man, so the best plan of attack for San Antonio was to feed him the ball and let him attack the single coverage. He responded with a great performance, IMO. Against New Orleans, they doubled him a lot, so he passed out more. These superstar players like Kobe, TD and Lebron are great players and they're usually smart enough to know how to best attack in any given game. I'm sure Kobe isn't going to jack up 30 shots if the rest of his teammates are hot.

 

Look at Lebron...if he passes too much he gets ripped for not being aggressive and stepping up...if he shoots a lot, he's a ballhog.

I agree. Many people have called Michael Jordan the world's biggest ball hog... Then, 7 championships later I must say "or WAS he?"

I'm not denying that the Spurs are a good fundamental team. I just don't think they're the only one...I also think the other teams still playing are very good, fundamental teams as well (Lakers, Celtics and Pistons). I also think some of the teams that got beat out are...like the Jazz and Hornets. I'm sure there are others.

 

I don't see the Spurs as being any more fundamental than those teams. How do you rank the top fundamental teams? What is the criteria? Ball movement, efficient offense, good defense, teamwork, playing smart, etc...all those teams do that...some are obviously better at different aspects. It seems to me that the criteria is boredom, and that's why the Spurs are considered the most fundamental team.

My main criterion (while there are others) for fundamentals is whether or not a team is forcing up shots. IMO, the Spurs are the best at that (although Udoka wasn't helping my case). I feel like they are also the best when it comes to making the extra pass. It just seems like smarter basketball.

 

I get what you are saying, you are probably thinking this: Spurs play boring basketball. People comment on boring basketball. Certain other people, wanting to always be different, begin liking the Spurs (partially out of an inclination to like the team everyone doesn't like). New Spurs fans, with their condescending attitudes, tell the rest of the world that their team is fundamental and it is "better" basketball, to try and legitimize their decision to like the Spurs.

 

I don't feel like that is how I began to like the Spurs, but I have had my spouts of iconoclasm before so who knows. :lol:

 

Just a tidbit of information...I don't think either guy is a ballhog. I've never thought Kobe was a ballhog. Kobe didn't have the teammates to take the pressure off him in previous years, thus he had to shoot and score more to give the Lakers their best chance to win...people who didn't like him jumped at the chance to call him a ballhog.

 

IMO, teamwork isn't just passing the ball...it's 5 guys, each doing whatever gives the teams it's best chance and sometimes that involves your star player shooting a high number of shots. Tim Duncan last night is a great example...he attempted 25 shots and 10 free throws...the Lakers were using a lot of man-to-man, so the best plan of attack for San Antonio was to feed him the ball and let him attack the single coverage. He responded with a great performance, IMO. Against New Orleans, they doubled him a lot, so he passed out more. These superstar players like Kobe, TD and Lebron are great players and they're usually smart enough to know how to best attack in any given game. I'm sure Kobe isn't going to jack up 30 shots if the rest of his teammates are hot.

 

Look at Lebron...if he passes too much he gets ripped for not being aggressive and stepping up...if he shoots a lot, he's a ballhog.

 

And I agree here 100% :thumb:

I thought the officiating was pretty good last night...much better than what I saw in round 2. The only really bad call (or no-call) that I saw was the out-of-bounds on Duncan at the end...

 

The play with Kobe was a good no-call. He didn't extend his arm and shove Bowen off...there was some contact, but Bowen done some over-acting to try and draw a foul, IMO. I think it was a calculated attempt by him and a smart move. He just didn't get the call. If there isn't a blatant shove and extending of the arm, that should be a no-call.

 

I disagree, it was an obvious blatant push off. And an illegal play. Like I said, I am not going to fault that particular refereeing crew because it goes on all over the NBA. Home teams and stars have an advantage in general.

Also, found it interesting that Kobe "The Ballhog" Bryant attempted 21 shots, had 9 assists and 1 TO. Tim "Mr. Ball Movement/Fundamental" Duncan attempted 25 shots, had 2 assists and 4 TO's (in 3 less minutes of action).

 

FYI...

 

Good point. :thumb:

I disagree, it was an obvious blatant push off. And an illegal play. Like I said, I am not going to fault that particular refereeing crew because it goes on all over the NBA. Home teams and stars have an advantage in general.

 

Michael Jordan vs. Bryon Russell was a blatant push off. Kobe's was not, IMO. I'd say it was equal part pushoff (from Kobe) and acting (from Bowen). I don't think it warranted a whistle from the official.

 

But, fair enough...we'll agree to disagree. Not a problem. :thumb:

BTW there is no doubt that Kobe Bryant has changed his game and IMO has given him a legitimate argument as being the NBA's best player. I still think Lebron James is just a freak and is amazing what hes done and hes only scratched the surface. But now Bryant has become much more effecient than hes ever been in his career, which is huge for the Lakers.

Michael Jordan vs. Bryon Russell was a blatant push off. Kobe's was not, IMO. I'd say it was equal part pushoff (from Kobe) and acting (from Bowen). I don't think it warranted a whistle from the official.

 

But, fair enough...we'll agree to disagree. Not a problem. :thumb:

 

The Jordan push off was much less noticeable than the Bryant pushoff IMO. It still just supports my argument though about star treatment. I don't see how you could say that Bryant's push off was not an illegal play that should have been called an offensive foul.

Not from what I saw. He got fouled some that they didn't even call.

 

And Kobe or none of the Lakers didn't get fouled that received no whistle? Seriously it goes both ways.

 

The Lakers were not down 20 until the 3rd quarter. It wasn't in the 1st half that they were down 20.

 

So you can use the "Lakers were rusty" excuse, but I'm not allowed to use the "Spurs were tired" excuse? Why? Seems possible that the long wait on a plane, the 7 game series, and the old age might contribute to causing a team to wear down late in a game right?

 

The Lakers should have been the fresher team considering they hadn't played in a few days but that also warrants a slow start. The Spurs jumped out early because they had played less than 48 hours before so they were still in a rhythm. Lakers wore them out in the second half. Bottom line.

My main criterion (while there are others) for fundamentals is whether or not a team is forcing up shots. IMO, the Spurs are the best at that (although Udoka wasn't helping my case). I feel like they are also the best when it comes to making the extra pass. It just seems like smarter basketball.

 

I get what you are saying, you are probably thinking this: Spurs play boring basketball. People comment on boring basketball. Certain other people, wanting to always be different, begin liking the Spurs (partially out of an inclination to like the team everyone doesn't like). New Spurs fans, with their condescending attitudes, tell the rest of the world that their team is fundamental and it is "better" basketball, to try and legitimize their decision to like the Spurs.

 

I don't feel like that is how I began to like the Spurs, but I have had my spouts of iconoclasm before so who knows. :lol:

 

I really hadn't thought that deeply into it. Basically, I think the other teams in the NBA are sold short for their fundamentals, while San Antonio's is overstated. The only reason I can come up with is because the Spurs are a boring team and there is a myth that fundamental basketball is boring; therefore, the Spurs must be the most fundamental team.

 

The Spurs do a lot of clearing out to allow Parker and Ginobli to go one-on-one and create...is it fundamental when they do it, but not when it's Kobe Bryant?

 

I have no problem with anyone liking the Spurs, or why they like them and their style of basketball. I just happen to find it boring and I don't like them. But, heck, the Titans are my favorite team in the NFL and I love their style. I'd say there are more than a few people who find them a boring football team. It's nothing more than a matter of preference.:thumb:

 

Honestly, as I said before, it's kind of hard to figure why they're so boring to me, because Parker and Ginobli can be pretty explosive players.