Built Ford Tough

Honestly, I would almost rather keep Banks and just ride out the two years left on his deal rather than take on four years of Carroll. I get that Carroll makes less money towards the end of his deal, but I don't know if I would pull the trigger to be honest.

Year You Became a Fan: 1995-96, the beginning Why You Became a Fan: The NBA brought two franchises to Canada and I was just getting into basketball at the time (I was like 4 years old so I wasn't like hardcore lol). The two teams that were on TV the most for me were the Vancouver Grizzlies and the Toronto Raptors. So the two Canadian teams became my favourites (with Vancouver slightly ahead of the Raps). When the Grizzlies moved to Memphis, Toronto became my undisputed favourite team. Favorite Raptors Player, All-Time: TJ Ford Favorite Raptors Coach, All-Time: Lenny Wilkens Favorite Raptors Moment: Vince Carter and Allen Iverson trading 50 point games and that playoff series as a whole, even though the Raptors ended up losing the series. Amount of Raptors Games Attended: Zero. Not really in the mood to fly across the country to watch a basketball game and since Seattle lost the Sonics, its a bit of a drive to go anywhere else as well. One day I plan on watching them play in person though.

Why not.

Micahel Beasley. He may not be the best fit for the team as that would probably be Eric Gordon or maybe even Kevin Love, but I just wouldn't be able to pass up the potential that Beasley has if I were the Grizzlies. If they were a team that was one piece away from the playoffs then I could see picking the player that you think fits the best on the team, but considering the position that they were in last season, that isn't the case so I am going with the best player available and that player is Michael Beasley in my opinion.

The second player coming to Toronto is apperantly Sonny Weems, like The Garbage Man said. Eh, this trade is a lateral movement in my opinion. The Raptors really don't get much better with the addition of Johnson, nor do they get any worse. He is nothing more than an athlete at this point in his career and he can barley play 10 minutes without picking up 4 fouls. He has potential and Ukic was not needed with Calderon and Jack already on the team so they might as well have traded him for a player with potential at a different position. Whatever though, this trade does nothing to make a difference next season for the Raptors. They traded one end of the bench player and the rights to Delfino for two end of the bench players. Unless Johnson shows something, he won't be back next year anyways. The biggest shocker about this trade is the fact that Colangelo has just traded away two European players for two American players. I think that hell has just frozen over. On a side note, unless I am mistaken, the only players from opening day of the 2008/09 season that are still left on the roster are Bosh, Bargnani and Calderon. Talk about a complete overhaul of the team lol.

Yeah my bad on that. I thought that I went back and edited it after I originaly posted it because when I read 9'1 wingspan I thought what the hell, that can't be right lol. I guess I didn't edit it though haha. Thanks for pointing that out. As for your comments on Collins and Walker, I think that it would be a bit of reach to take both of those players in the mid lottery (unless they have superb seasons). Even if the Thunder are looking to add a point guard, I wouldn't go so far down the draft board to get one nor would I really want to spend a lottery pick in a relatively strong draft (at least a strong lottery) on a backup player that will only see about 20 minutes a game for me. This is assuming that their pick and the Suns pick are in the low teens. The big man is a definite necessity and I agree with you on that (although I think that a true, defensive minded, physical center would be ideal and not the more offensive oriented Monroe) but I would much rather see the Thunder take the best player available with their second pick (again, assuming it is lottery) rather than going way off of the board to draft a point guard. If they are set on drafting a point, they would be better off trading down a bit and possibly adding another piece. All of this draft talk is way too premature though considering how much things will change between now and next years draft. All of this speculation is basically us just grasping straws at this point. To be honest though, I would rather see them try and get an experienced point guard to backup Westbrook. Somebody like a Derek Fisher, Steve Blake or a Luke Ridnour would be ideal for me. I think that having an experienced, steady, veteran point guard to run the offense and make smart decisions with the ball would be more effective than having an inexperienced, young point guard as the backup. I like the youth that the Thunder have and will have after this upcoming season, but there is such thing as too much youth, at least in my opinion, if you know what I mean.

The writers drop down bar is working perfectly fine now, but there is still a little bit of a problem with the team forums bar (although not as bad as before). Give me a second and I'll get a screen shot of it up. http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee13/BFT11/untitled-1.jpg?t=1250482928 Here is another SS of it when you are at the board index: http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee13/BFT11/untitled-2.jpg?t=1250482876

Nope, not worth it.

I had a detailed response typed up but when Brandon took the board offline to deal with the skin problem, I lost it all so I am just going to post snippets of it: -Chris Bosh finished 7th place in MVP voting in 06/07 which is higher than Boozer ever has. Last I checked, top 7 is in fact finishing in the top 10. -The Jazz have a vastly superior supporting cast and were a playoff team last season despite not having Boozer for like 50 games. Without Bosh the Raptors are the worst team in the league bar none and would be lucky to win more than 13 games. -Before Boozer played with an elite point guard in Williams, he was a 14.9 ppg player. Since the Jazz drafted Williams, he has become a 19 ppg scorer. Coincidence? -Per 48 minutes opposing power forwards averaged 23.4 ppg/10.2 rpg/2.8 apg/2.2 topg with a PER of 22.5 on an eFG% of 57.9% against Boozer. -Per 48 minutes opposing power forwards averaged 21.3 ppg/10.5 rpg/2.1 apg/2.4 topg with a PER of 16.5 on an eFG% of 46.3%. -When Bosh was on the floor, teams had an eFG% of 51.3 and when he was off of the floor they had an eFG% of 50.3%. Per 100 possessions teams scored 110.9 when Bosh was on the floor and 109.2 when he was off of the floor. When Bosh was on the floor the Raptors scored 109.9 ppg and when he was off of the floor the Raps scored 101.9. -When Boozer was on the floor, teams had an eFG% of 52.9 and when he was off of the floor they had an eFG% of 49.4%. Per 100 possessions teams scored 111.9 when Boozer was on the floor and 106.9 when he was off of the floor. When Boozer was on the floor the Jazz scored 109.7 ppg and when he was off of the floor the Jazz scored 111.8. -You are a blatant hater.

Dr. Feelgood, it definitely does matter who starts at center. The Wizards would be absurd to not start Haywood. He is undoubtedly the best interior defender that they have on the team and he is actually a pretty vital part of the team. McGee can't defend worth [expletive] at this point and opposing bigs would absolutely go to town on McGee down low. Having Haywood in the starting lineup is an absolute necessity if you ask me. The Wizards need his size, toughness and defensive presence down there. As for who should start at shooting guard, it is Miller no questions ask. The only other option I would even consider is Stevenson due to his defense, but to be perfectly honest, I think that Stevenson is vastly overrated as a defender. He is good, but he is sure as hell not a lockdown defender and definitely not as good as I have seen some people make him out to be. Having him on the floor gives you an upgrade defensively, but it would hardly be noticable. Miller gives you a viable offensive weapon. He can shoot, slash, create for himself and others, is great without the ball in his hands and just has a very good offensive awareness. He isn't as bad defensively as some people make him out to be (he isn't a good defender by any means, but he is not a liability like people try to make him out to be) and can at least bother the opposing player that he is guarding. Miller is quite simply the best option to start at shooting guard.

The funniest thing is that it is perfectly clear that he never even watched the series either because if he did he would know that Collins was not guarding Bosh straight up. He was Bosh's primary defender but every time Bosh got good position on him the Nets would send a second, sometimes even a third defender his way. The Nets entire game plan that series was to shut Bosh down and make the rest of the team beat them. I do agree that Bosh did not play well in that series up until the last game where he put the Raptors on his back in the 4th quarter and almost carried them to victory to force a game 7, but it is pretty damn obvious that he didn't even watch the series. Another thing that I find pretty funny is how he trashes Bosh for his showing in the playoffs against the Nets saying that he has no balls because Jason Collins apperantly shut him down, yet he convinently forgets to mention that in 2007/08 against the Orlando Magic he put up 24 ppg/9 rpg/3.6 apg on 47.2 FG% and a TS% of 55.8 with Dwight Howard guarding him (and Rashard Lewis, but even when Lewis was on him, Howard was waiting in the lane playing help defense). Oh yeah, he also got to the line 42 times in 5 games. What a [expletive]. This thread is an absolute joke by the way. Bosh is the superior offensive player, defensive player, leader, team player and he is much more durable as well. Then again, you are notorious for hating Bosh, so I shouldn't expect anything less from you.

I would imagine that Brandon would be cheering for the Lakers during the 4 times that they play the Thunder. (I'm assuming they play each other 4 times) And Brandon, I agree with what you said in your last post. I wasn't implying that I believe the Thunder should tank the season or anything. I was just saying that it might prove to be better in the long run for the Thunder if they happened to miss the playoffs this season and got one of the highly regarded big men in this years draft as a result. I definitely think that they should do their best to make the playoffs though because it would give their youngsters valuable experience heading forward. In my opinion, the Thunder are in a position where they can do no wrong this season. If they make the playoffs, great. If not, they add yet another piece to the puzzle and they would basically be set at every single position with good young talent. If they aren't interested in adding a young big man to the mix, they could always package their first rounder and maybe even the Suns first rounder that they own for an experienced big man from a team that is looking to either shed some salary or rebuild. Whatever happens though, I have complete faith in Sam Presti. I absolutely love the work that he has done since taking over as GM. As a fan of the Thunder (second favourite team as well) I have complete confidence in Presti and expect him to make the right moves to take the Thunder to the next level.

I'd rather have Williams in the starting lineup and have Crawford coming off of the bench. Williams is the more rounded player and better defender than Crawford is. Having the more versatile Williams in the starting lineup would make more sense because he is the better defender, rebounder and he doesn't demand the ball much offensively. He is fine with playing off of the ball and considering the fact that Bibby and Johnson will have the ball in their hands for the most part, it makes sense to have a guy that doesn't need the rock to be effective alongside them. I think that if Crawford were to play alongside Johnson and Bibby, he wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is at his best when the ball is in his hands and he is creating something off of the bounce. If he is on the floor for the majority of his time with Bibby and Johnson, his biggest strength of creating will be somewhat negated as Johnson and Bibby would the primary creators on the floor. If you have Crawford come off of the bench it adds a prolific, albeit somewhat inefficient, scorer that can put points on the board in a hurry. When Johnson or Bibby go to the bench he can take over some of the ball handling responsibilities. I don't know though, I just think that Crawford's skillset would allow him to become one of the best sixth men in the NBA and wouldn't really gel with JJ and Bibby's skillsets. Meanwhile, I think that Williams skillset is much better suited playing alongside playmakers like JJ and Bibby. Having Williams in the starting lineup makes the most sense to me but who knows what will happen.

Why should Gordon have any impact on whether or not the Clippers should make a play for Sessions? Gordon played basically all of his minutes this past season at shooting guard. Gordon is not a point guard by any stretch of the imagination and he never will be. He is a shooting guard through and through so I really don't see why they wouldn't sign Sessions becaue of Gordon. Its simple really. Gordon plays the 2 guard, Davis plays the point and Sessions backs up Davis at the point. Clippers management is a disaster, but this signing would not be a typical disastrous Clipper move. I don't think that Sessions would be the smartest signing that they could make because they don't really need a backup point guard, but it isn't a terrible move by any stretch of the imagination, at least in my opinion.

I actually think that they would be better off not making the playoffs next season which would give them one more lottery pick. The only real hole the Thunder have in their lineup as of right now is at center (I would imagine they are going to keep Green at PF) and next years draft class has some very good big men depth. I like Kristic and all, but he is better suited to be coming off of the bench and isn't a physical center that the Thunder need. If the Thunder can manage to get somebody like Cole Aldrich or Soloman Alabi (a project, but would give them the long, shot blocking, athletic defensive center that would be absolutely perfect) they would be an absolutely scary team heading forward. Durant, Harden, Green and Westbrook would provide you with one of the most potent and versatile offensive foursome as all of them are capable of handling the ball as well as scoring it and a guy like Alabi or Aldrich would be able to just sit back and play defense without having to worry about producing on the offensive end of the floor. Obviously Alabi would have to put on some muscle as he is pretty skinny and doesn't have an NBA body as of right now, although he is 7'1 and has an absurd 9'1 wingspan, but Aldrich is like 6'11 and 250 so I don't think that he would be bullied too much in the paint. I don't know if either of these two players will enter the draft next season or what though, so this is just speculation. I would imagine that both of them will though because they most likely would be lottery picks. Oh yeah, one thing that I forgot is that the Thunder actually hold Phoenix's unprotected 1st round pick from the Kurt Thomas trade. They may even be able to address the need for a big man with that pick, depending on where it will fall. There is also the option of signing a big man via free agency in 2010 which may be the best route to go as the Thunder might be better off having an experienced big man in the lineup rather than adding another young player at center. I don't know, I think that the Thunder would benefit a great deal from another season in the lottery. If they get a top 10 pick, along with getting Phoenix's 1st rounder (mid 1st round I would assume) they could put theirselves in the postition to do some serious damage heading forward.

I'd say that the Kings reign as an elite team ended during the 04/05 season so about 5 years ago. I know that they were a 50 win team during the 04/05 season and ended up making the playoffs the next season (and pushed the Spurs to 6 games as well) but that 04/05 season marked the end in my opinion. Once they traded Webber to the Sixers it just felt like the end to that particular era of Kings basketball. Webber and Christie were both traded in 04/05 to the Sixers and Magic respectively (I think Christie was traded to the Magic at least, not 100% sure on that though), Peja was traded in 05/06 to the Pacers and all that was left from the core players of Bibby, Christie, Stojakovic, Webber and Divac was Bibby. I guess some people would consider Brad Miller as a part of the core as he replaced Divac but I never considered him to be. Don't get me wrong, he was fantastic for the Kings and a huge piece of the team, but he never really seemed to be like Bibby, Peja and Webber in terms of value to the franchise. They were actually still a fairly competitive team out West up until this past season. They were on that level just below the bottom seed playoff teams though, and that is certainly a step down from where they were during their peak years of this decade. One thing that I think is such a shame is that Arco is basically dead now. I remember when Arco used to be the most rocking home arena in the entire NBA. It is such a shame to see that terrific atmosphere that they used to have in that arena night in and night out all but gone now. I just loved watching games at Arco when they had the undisputed best fan base in the entire NBA.

I wouldn't consider myself a fan, but I do follow them on a very limited basis as the Kings of the early 00's were probably my favourite team to watch ever. I was just a huge fan of those teams and actually considered them and the Raptors 1A and 1B in terms of my favourite teams. The fact that they had Chris Webber on the team might have made me a bit biased towards them though lol. He was probably my favourite power forward to watch of all time when he was at his best, before his knees gave out on him. Now I will catch a game every now and then and follow them a little bit but they just don't spark my interest as much as they used to. I like some of the players on their roster though, especially Jason Thompson and Tyreke Evans so I will try to catch more of their games this season to see how their young players develop during the course of the season, Thompson and Evans in particular.

Dammit, you beat me to it. I was just about to post this lol. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39873000/jpg/_39873911_patterson.jpg THE Kobe Stopper, Ruben Patterson!!!!!!!!

He was one of the first lights out shooters, was a tenacious defender (not lockdown or anything, just played aggressive, in your face defense) and was widely considered to be the clutchest player of All-Time up until Larry Bird and Michael Jordan came around. He was the third player in NBA history to reach the 25,000 point plateau (Wilt and Robertson were the first two). He led the Lakers to the NBA Finals 9 times out of his 13 year career. Unfortunately for West and the Lakers though, they ran into the Celtics in the Finals 6 out of those 9 Finals appearances. He did end up winning 1 NBA Championship though and he also is the only player to ever win the Finals MVP when his team lost the Championship. He had 4 seasons of 30 ppg or better and in the playoffs he stepped his game up even more (he averaged 40.6 ppg in 11 games in the 65 playoffs). He was an All-Star in every single season of his career, made 10 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams and 4 time Defensive First Team. He has career averages of 27 ppg/5.8 rpg/6.7 apg on 47.4% (which is awesome for a guard during that era). His 27 ppg average is the 4th highest average among retired players. He scored 31.2 ppg at 31 years old which is the highest average ever by a player over 30 years old. Only Michael Jordon has a higher scoring average in the playoffs and only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scored more total points in the playoffs than West. When he retired, he was the NBA's third All-Time leading scorer. I hope that helps. I have only seen West play about 5-10 times (NBA Hardwood Classics and such) so I actually seen him play a little bit, but like you said, not nearly enough to actually have a great understanding of his game. Most of what I know is from reading up on him.

I think that the Hawks should have a lineup of: PG: Bibby SG: Johnson SF: Williams PF: Smith C: Horford 6th man: Crawford If it were up to me that is what I would do. I think that having Crawford come off of the bench and provide instant offense a la Jaon Terry and Manu Ginobili would be perfect.

At the time when I signed up at NBAD, TJ Ford was my favourite player on the Raptors and I wanted to incorperate his name into my username somehow. I saw a Ford truck commercial and their slogan of "Built Ford Tough" seemed to fit considering what TJ Ford has overcome in his career to get where he is now. Now, I am just too lazy and uncreative to think of a new username so I just keep on using this one even though I don't even like it lol. (so if anybody has some good ideas that they think would fit me, feel free to tell me them )

I think that the top 5 is basically a lock. Gervin and Drexler is debatable between who should be 4th and 5th but both of them should be in the top 5. The only other player that has a case for top 5, at least in my opinion, is Iverson, but I wouldn't consider him to be better than Gervin or Drexler. One more thing, Iverson should definitely be ahead of Miller. I liked Miller when he was playing and all, but Iverson was the more talented player and has the more impressive resume of accomplishments.

The funny thing is that Iverson has done more with less than both Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett in their careers when all three of them were the franchise guys for their respective teams. Yeah, you can use the whole weak conference arguement on Garnett's behalf, but what excuse are you going to throw out for Pierce? Pierce played in that same weak conference as Iverson did, at arguably a better supporting cast (I would consider them basically even) yet the furthest he managed to lead a team without the help of two other superstar and future HOF'ers was the Eastern Conference Finals and manged to beat a 43 win team and a 50 win team. On the other hand, Iverson led his Sixer team to a 56 win regular season and the NBA Finals, even stealing a game from the Lakers. On the way to the Finals the Sixers managed to beat a 41 win team, a 47 win team and a 52 win team. So I repeat, what has Pierce ever done as the lone franchise player? It seems to me that Iverson did more than Pierce when both of them were superstar players on average teams. Pierce has played 11 years in the NBA thus far and has career averages of: 22.9/6.3/3.9 on 44.3 FG% He has been in the playoffs 6 times in his career and has averages of: 22.2/6.8/4.4 on 43.3 FG% He is a 7X All-Star, 4X All-NBA (3 Third and 1 Second), finished top 10 in scoring 5 times and top 5 3 times, NBA Champion and Finals MVP His teams had a winning percentage of 51% (which is boosted tremendously due to Allen and Garnett's arrival in Boston) and his team has won 8 playoff series (5 since KG and Allen came to town). In Wilikins first 11 years he had averages of: 26.7/7.0/2.7 on 47.0 FG%. He led his team to the playoffs 8 times in his first 11 seasons and averaged: 25/6.3/2.5 on 42.1 FG% He was an 8X All-Star, 6X All-NBA (1 First, 4 Second and 1 Third), finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 6 times and top 3 2 times including runner up in 85/86 and finished top 10 in scoring 8 times, top 5 5 times including leading the league in scoring once and being second 3 other times. His teams had a winning percentage of 54.3% and they won 3 playoff series. So aside from the NBA Championship and Finals MVP, no, Pierce's resume was not better than Wilikin's as of right now as it is quite clear that Wilkin's accomplished more than Pierce did during the first 11 seasons of their career. The only way that you can argue that Pierce has a more impressive resume is due to the Championship and Finals MVP that he has, but come on, look at the team he played on compared to what Wilkins played on. I think that it is worth mentioning that Wilkins was playing in a much more competitive conference during his time as well while the East has been quite possibly one of the worst conferences the NBA has ever had for the majority of Pierce's career. 82/83: Hawks lost to the Celtics 83/84: Hawks lost to the Bucks (50 win team and went on to the ECF to the Celtics) 85/86: Hawks lost to the Celtics 86/87: Hawks lost to the Pistons (52 win team that lost in 7 games in the ECF to the Celtics) 87/88: Hawks lost to the Celtics in 7 games 88/89: Hawks lost to the Bucks (49 win team) 90/91: Hawks lost to the Pistons in 5 games (50 win team that went to the ECF [remember first round was only 5 games]) 92/93: Hawks lost to the Bulls (57 win team and eventual NBA Champions) So do you want to admit to talking out of your [expletive] or what? The Hawks lost to the Celtics, Bulls, Pistons and a Bucks team that managed to go onto the ECF. They lost to the Celtics more than they lost to the Bucks and they lost to the Pistons the same amount of times. So yeah, I do think that you can cut Wilkins a little slack considering that the teams that he lost to in the playoffs, for the most part, were either the 2nd best or the best team in the Eastern Conference, and in some cases, the best or second best team in the entire NBA. The funny thing is that this player who supposedly can do anything aside from lead his team to wins actually led his team to the playoffs more and had a higher winning percentage than Mr. Pierce and he managed to do it in a much harder era of the Eastern Conference. Lol, and what was Paul Pierce's career highlight before he was given two other superstar players and one of the best teams in league history? Oh yeah, leading his team to the third round in one of the weakest conferences that the NBA has ever seen. So much better. The ironic thing is that up until Pierce was given one of the best teams ever to work with, people would use those exact same arguments for Pierce when trying to defend him. It just goes to show you that the NBA is a team game. It takes an entire team to win a Championship and one person can't do it by himself, no matter how talented. Just look at what Real Deal said. He summed it up almost perfectly. Besides, even when Barkley wasn't playing with Olajuwon and Drexler, he still managed to lead the Phoenix Suns to the NBA Finals (which they won 2 games against the Bulls), 1 60 win season and 2 50 win seasons. The Suns lost to the eventual NBA Champions 3 out of his 4 seasons in the playoffs. Nobody is taking away credability from what Pierce did, but it is worth mentioning that Pierce was playing alongside 2 other superstar players. Its not like this is something that should be ignored. Lol, are you kidding me? Nobody would even mention Pierce being a top TEN/10 SF of All-Time if he didn't win an NBA Championship. So I think the fact that people aren't laughing you off of the forum and actually having an intelligent discussion with you should be a pretty clear indicator that we are not "diminishing greatness when a player wins". Personally, I don't think that as of right now Pierce is a top 10 SF of All-Time, but by the time that he retires he will most likely be in the top 10 and will be around the 7-10 range.

Yeah I have some on my biceps as well. I use some stuff called Bio-Oil that you can buy for like 20 bucks at Wall-Mart and you put it on two times a day and after a while they will start to fade away and become less noticable. Its funny though because I don't even work out too much. I also have a couple of small ones on my side as well, but those came after a bit of a growth spurt that I went through a while ago.

What are KG and Duncan the only big men in the history of the NBA or something? What about when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal were all number one options on Championship teams? What about when Wilt Chamberlain, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Webber, David Robinson, Rasheed Wallace, Brad Daugherty, Alonzo Mourning and Ralph Sampson, just to name a few, were all leading their teams to the playoffs, and in some cases, even the NBA Finals? Were none of these guys the first options on their teams or what? Get a clue please because you are talking out of your [expletive] dude (no offense intended). Besides, every Championship that the Spurs won Duncan was the undisputed 1st option on the floor and everybody knows that (well, aside from you apperantly). Just look at the damn numbers and it proves it: 2006/07: Regular Season: Tim Duncan: 20.0 ppg on 14.1 FGA (54.6 FG%) Tony Parker: 18.6 ppg on 14.2 FGA (52.0 FG%) Manu Ginobili: 16.5 ppg on 11.4 FGA (46.4 FG%) Playoffs: Tim Duncan: 22.2 ppg on 16.7 FGA (52.1 FG%) Tony Parker: 20.8 ppg on 17.5 FGA (48.0 FG%) Manu Ginobili: 16.7 ppg on 12.4 FGA (40.1 FG%) 2004/05: Regular Season: Tim Duncan: 20.3 ppg on 15.8 FGA (49.8 FG%) Tony Parker: 16.3 ppg on 14 FGA (48.2 FG%) Manu Ginobili: 16 ppg on 10 FGA (47.1 FG%) Playoffs: Tim Duncan: 23.6 ppg on 18 FGA (47.0 FG%) Manu Ginobili: 20.8 ppg on 12.5 FGA (50 FG%) Tony Parker: 17.2 ppg on 15.9 FGA (45.4 FG%) 2002/03: Regular Season: Tim Duncan: 23.3 ppg on 17.2 FGA (51.3 FG%) Tony Parker: 15.5 ppg on 12.7 FGA (46.4 FG%) Stephen Jackson: 11.8 ppg on 10.2 FGA (43.5 FG%) Playoffs: Tim Duncan: 24.7 ppg on 17.1 FGA (52.9 FG%) Tony Parker: 14.7 ppg on 14 FGA (40.3 FG%) Stephen Jackson: 12.8 ppg on 10.9 FGA (41.4 FG%) 1998/99: Regular Season Tim Duncan: 21.7 ppg on 16.9 FGA (49.5 FG%) David Robinson: 15.8 ppg on 10.8 FGA (50.9 FG%) Sean Elliot: 11.2 ppg on 10.1 FGA (41 FG%) Playoffs: Tim Duncan: 23.2 ppg on 16.6 FGA (51.1 FG%) David Robinson: 15.6 on 10.6 FGA (48.3 FG%) Avery Johnson: 12.6 ppg on 11 FGA (48.7 FG%) So what is the common denomenator in all of the Spurs Championships? Well as far as I can see, it is that Tim Duncan was the leading scorer and most efficient player during the regular season and the playoffs of each and every single one of the Spurs Championships. The only one that is even close to being questionable as to who was the number one option was the 06/07 season but even then, Duncan scored more and did it more efficiently than Parker. Honestly though, screw the numbers and just watch the Spurs play the game. Up until this past season, the Spurs ran basically everything through Duncan. They would feed him in the post and he would go to work on the other teams defense. If they played him straight up he would attack them with his vast array of post moves or step outside and hit his masterfull bank shot from the wing. If they sent a double team his way then TD would make use of his excellent court awareness, basketball IQ and passing ability to find the open man whether it was a shooter out on the perimeter or a guard cutting into the paint. Even when Duncan didn't have the ball in his hands he was still a focal point of the opposing defenses when he would go and set a screen up top for Parker or Ginobili because they were worried about him rolling to the rim or fading to the wing for his lethal bank shot. This past season is the only season that you can have any sort of legitimate argument that Tim Duncan was not the number one option for the Spurs. That is it. Every other season of his 12 year career, Tim Duncan has been the undisputed number one option for the San Antonio Spurs and he has led them to 4 Championships during those 12 seasons. Honestly, its pretty pathetic that somebody even needs to explain to you that big men should be considered number one options when you consider the fact that almost every single Championship caliber team has a dominant big man leading the way. Just because they aren't the ones taking last minute shots doesn't mean that they aren't the first option on the floor. The rules have changed over the past few years and it has made the NBA more of a guard dominant league, but that doesn't change the fact that historically, big men are the ones that lead teams to Championships.