Official LBJ thread: Clutch in Miami 1-9?

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
To bad fans don't understand and it is too bad that the analysts are that stupid. TP should be getting a great deal of love for the MVP this year plain and simple. Unfortunately the revolving door of the MVP race always changes for the "preseason favorite" each and every year. They pre-pick who they want and then change the rules accordingly. Funny how the media deminished Wade's performances and hyped Westbrooks. TP and the Spurs are also rans even though they finished ahead of Thunder and the Bulls finished ahead of the Heat.

Objectivity by the voters would have a much close race than LBJ the run away MVP like they will have. Damn shame for those of us who see past the ESPN highlight reel.

Making up stuff to support your argument doesn't give you any credibility. They didn't change any criteria or rules, most people had Durant as the MVP before the season started. But LeBron stepped up his play big time from last season and the Heat were a top team in the league. The Spurs didn't have a top record because Parker is THAT good, they did it by having top notch coaching and the deepest team in the league. It's pretty obvious from your posts that you would prefer anyone winning it over LeBron simply because you don't like him.

LOL... keep trying man. I didn't make anything up. The rules change every year. Some of you guys who just want to appear impartial try to hard. Not once did I say Lebron shouldn't win it or it would be a travesty if the guy won it. Get off Lebron's jock for a few minutes and pay attention. The MVP isn't for the best player on the best team. It is supposed to be for the player that is helping their team win above expectations, is putting up numbers that is above expectations and would be greatly missed if their team didn't have them. You can say that about Lebron, however, without him Dwade and Bosh still win. You can say that about TP because the Spurs could still win. You can not say that about Durant because without him the Thunder lose. So just by that criteria KD should be the MVP.

Coaches don't play the game. Funny how Spurs fans are always killing Pop for his coaching yet you guys are slurping all over him. I know it is blasphemy for some of you to think that Lebron isn't the greatest-bestest-most-awesomest-basketball player ever but the fact is he isn't and shouldn't be the clear cut run-a-away MVP no matter what criteria they use this year.

I wonder what excuses the medias will come up with when their uncontested MVP fail again in the Finals this season ... can't wait

I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

I don't see how anyone can give it to Parker. When was the last time a player that's not even top 3 at his position won an MVP? Parker has the same stats that he had last year and Spurs have the same winning percentage that they had last year. Why is he a candidate this year, but wasn't year?

I forgot about this...

"lakers_09tv"Every year its someone different from the Spurs that "should" be an MVP candidate. Last year it was Manu. That alone should tell you all you need to know.

If every year the Spurs are fighting for the top spot in the conference and the league then someone from their team SHOULD be considered for the MVP. You don't get that success from just random players for 82 (or 66) games.

Parker and Manu aren't MVP level players. Sorry they just aren't.

By whose criteria? MVP is Most Valuable Player. That does not mean Most Talented Player in the NBA at the moment. If the player was taken off the team how would the team fair without him? DRose lost his chances at a repeat cause the Bulls still dominated without him. Does that mean he isn't a great player still? No. Is he an MVP? Not this year. Tony Parker has put up numbers for his team that warrents consideration escpecially when his team has the top seed in the West.
Sorry but I don't see how you can just say he (or Manu) just isn't.

Spurs are good, because they have the deepest team in the league, not because Parker is some great player thats carrying them on his back.

Oh so this is your criteria? OK that makes sense. So Lebron isn't the MVP because he has another top 5 player playing next to him. Oh, and because he doesn't have to carry his team on his back in the 4th quarters because his teamate can do it. Well that takes Lebron out. Lets see KD has Westbrook who also puts up compariable stats to him and they have the 6MOY coming off the bench too. Hmm, that takes KD out of it. Can't be Kobe because we have Andrew and Pau. Hell, Im at a loss. Maybe Hollinger was right it looks like Blake Griffen is it... oh wait he has CP3. Rajon Rondo? Naw, they didn't start winning until KG moved to the 5. Ahh I got it, Paul Milsap is the MVP this season.

Look man, it is ok to give credit to the small guys for doing above and beyond things. ESPN and the Sports guys aren't always right.

Just watch, next year it will be someone else from the Spurs that should be an MVP candidate.

And if the Spurs are battling for the top spot then it should be the case no matter what ESPN tells you.

Its a joke that people are even talking about this.

You are right it is a joke but I think you are laughing at the wrong thing but thats just me.

lakers_09tv wrote:

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

I don't see how anyone can give it to Parker. When was the last time a player that's not even top 3 at his position won an MVP? Parker has the same stats that he had last year and Spurs have the same winning percentage that they had last year. Why is he a candidate this year, but wasn't year?

Actually it could be argued that he was in the top 3 this season as a PG. Who goes above him? Paul and maybe Williams and Nash, but considering their winning percentages compared to the Spurs it's hard to argue that Parker wasn't more effective. Westbook maybe, but he averaged only 5.5 assists to 3.6 turnovers; he's not a true PG for their team.

Just because he's averaging numbers similar to last season, doesn't mean anything. Each season is different and given the success that the Spurs have had, how does Parker not deserve credit? The Spurs have been fantastic all season long and that lies almost entirely on Parker's play.

puffyusaf#2 wrote:I forgot about this...

"lakers_09tv"Every year its someone different from the Spurs that "should" be an MVP candidate. Last year it was Manu. That alone should tell you all you need to know.

If every year the Spurs are fighting for the top spot in the conference and the league then someone from their team SHOULD be considered for the MVP. You don't get that success from just random players for 82 (or 66) games.

Parker and Manu aren't MVP level players. Sorry they just aren't.

By whose criteria? MVP is Most Valuable Player. That does not mean Most Talented Player in the NBA at the moment. If the player was taken off the team how would the team fair without him? DRose lost his chances at a repeat cause the Bulls still dominated without him. Does that mean he isn't a great player still? No. Is he an MVP? Not this year. Tony Parker has put up numbers for his team that warrents consideration escpecially when his team has the top seed in the West.
Sorry but I don't see how you can just say he (or Manu) just isn't.

Spurs are good, because they have the deepest team in the league, not because Parker is some great player thats carrying them on his back.

Oh so this is your criteria? OK that makes sense. So Lebron isn't the MVP because he has another top 5 player playing next to him. Oh, and because he doesn't have to carry his team on his back in the 4th quarters because his teamate can do it. Well that takes Lebron out. Lets see KD has Westbrook who also puts up compariable stats to him and they have the 6MOY coming off the bench too. Hmm, that takes KD out of it. Can't be Kobe because we have Andrew and Pau. Hell, Im at a loss. Maybe Hollinger was right it looks like Blake Griffen is it... oh wait he has CP3. Rajon Rondo? Naw, they didn't start winning until KG moved to the 5. Ahh I got it, Paul Milsap is the MVP this season.

Look man, it is ok to give credit to the small guys for doing above and beyond things. ESPN and the Sports guys aren't always right.

Just watch, next year it will be someone else from the Spurs that should be an MVP candidate.

And if the Spurs are battling for the top spot then it should be the case no matter what ESPN tells you.

Its a joke that people are even talking about this.

You are right it is a joke but I think you are laughing at the wrong thing but thats just me.

I think the MVP should be given to the best player every year. Players like Nash, Rose, Dirk, Iverson and whoever else winning MVPs are a joke to me. Tell me another sport where a player can win an MVP and isn't even top 3 in their sport?

I think this year proves that Rose wasn't as valuable as everyone thought he was last year. Bulls barely skipped a beat when he was out. How can you be the MVP when your team is just as good without you?

I disagree with the Spurs. It’s a collective team effort, that's why they have the record that they have. Not because Parker is this MVP level player. He isn't.

therealdeal wrote:

lakers_09tv wrote:

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

I don't see how anyone can give it to Parker. When was the last time a player that's not even top 3 at his position won an MVP? Parker has the same stats that he had last year and Spurs have the same winning percentage that they had last year. Why is he a candidate this year, but wasn't year?

Actually it could be argued that he was in the top 3 this season as a PG. Who goes above him? Paul and maybe Williams and Nash, but considering their winning percentages compared to the Spurs it's hard to argue that Parker wasn't more effective. Westbook maybe, but he averaged only 5.5 assists to 3.6 turnovers; he's not a true PG for their team.

Just because he's averaging numbers similar to last season, doesn't mean anything. Each season is different and given the success that the Spurs have had, how does Parker not deserve credit? The Spurs have been fantastic all season long and that lies almost entirely on Parker's play.

To piggyback this: The MVP was also for the indispensable guy on a team that exceeded expectations. No one, and I mean NO ONE, had the SPurs finishing a top the West especially over the young and uninjured Thunder. The Spurs were supposed to be in the 4-6 range in the West not the #1 team yet there they are at the top. Give credit where credit is due.

therealdeal wrote:Actually it could be argued that he was in the top 3 this season as a PG. Who goes above him? Paul and maybe Williams and Nash, but considering their winning percentages compared to the Spurs it's hard to argue that Parker wasn't more effective. Westbook maybe, but he averaged only 5.5 assists to 3.6 turnovers; he's not a true PG for their team.

Just because he's averaging numbers similar to last season, doesn't mean anything. Each season is different and given the success that the Spurs have had, how does Parker not deserve credit? The Spurs have been fantastic all season long and that lies almost entirely on Parker's play.

Chris Paul, Rondo, Westbrook, Deron, Nash and Rose.

The fact that it’s even debatable that he is a top 3 point guard or not. Should be enough reason not to give him the award. Parker's play is part of reason why they have the record they have, but it’s not the reason. It’s their incredible depth that makes them special. Parker is getting way too much credit here.

puffyusaf#2 wrote:To piggyback this: The MVP was also for the indispensable guy on a team that exceeded expectations. No one, and I mean NO ONE, had the SPurs finishing a top the West especially over the young and uninjured Thunder. The Spurs were supposed to be in the 4-6 range in the West not the #1 team yet there they are at the top. Give credit where credit is due.

And that's why the award is a joke.

thkthebest wrote:What in the world is the argument for Tony Parker? Having the best record in the NBA? Lol! That would be almost as bad as Rose winning it last season. Who's second in MVP then? Luol Deng?

The MVP award is not "predetermined" in the preseason. If it were, Durant would have won it last season or will be winning one this season. Dirk wouldn't have won one. Rose wouldn't have won one last season.

I agree. Tony Parker is having a great year but I don't see the argument there.

If you just look at numbers and compare Tony Parker to other point guards, Chris Paul has had a much better year for instance.

Here are Chris Paul's numbers for this year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... chris-paul

Russell Westbrrok's stats for this year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... -westbrook

Tony Parker's stats for this year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... ony-parker

If you're going to give the award to a point guard, it goes to Chris Paul. The Clippers are now relevant and he has had a better year compared to his peers.

Here's Lebron's numbers:
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... bron-james

27 points per game on 48% shooting, not bad, team 2nd best in the conference.

Kevin Durant
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... vin-durant

28 ppg on 49%! Team 2nd best in the conference.

Kobe Bryant
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... obe-bryant
Low fg% hurts his chances compared to Durant and Lebron but I think defenses focus on him more than those guys due to the talent around them.

Kevin Love
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... kevin-love
Spectacular year, team not making the playoffs diminishes his chances.

Dwight Howard: immature drama queen behavior takes him out of the running
Derrick Rose: Missed too many games due to injury, team won without him.

Anyway, just looking at the numbers, I really don't see the argument for Tony Parker over Lebron, Durant or Kobe. I wouldn't choose Tony Parker for mvp over Chris Paul either, Clippers would be a lottery team without Paul plus Paul had a better year.

Personally I'd give the award to Lebron over Durant and Kobe due to his efficiency and he's a much better defender than Durant and his playmaking ability. Durant would be my second choice, Kobe my 3rd choice, then Chris Paul.

lakers_09tv wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Actually it could be argued that he was in the top 3 this season as a PG. Who goes above him? Paul and maybe Williams and Nash, but considering their winning percentages compared to the Spurs it's hard to argue that Parker wasn't more effective. Westbook maybe, but he averaged only 5.5 assists to 3.6 turnovers; he's not a true PG for their team.

Just because he's averaging numbers similar to last season, doesn't mean anything. Each season is different and given the success that the Spurs have had, how does Parker not deserve credit? The Spurs have been fantastic all season long and that lies almost entirely on Parker's play.

Chris Paul, Rondo, Westbrook, Deron, Nash and Rose.

The fact that it’s even debatable that he is a top 3 point guard or not. Should be enough reason not to give him the award. Parker's play is part of reason why they have the record they have, but it’s not the reason. It’s their incredible depth that makes them special. Parker is getting way too much credit here.

Why did you just ignore my argument for Parker being better than those guys? I'd put Paul ahead of him sure, but the others weren't better than Parker this season. Nash and Williams didn't have the success that Parker did. Neither did Westbrook, who also averaged only 5 assists a game. Rose has been out far too much to be even considered.

The Spurs look deep because they have a coach that utilizes his bench players and because Parker has done a great job of distributing and making his team better.

puffyusaf#2 wrote:

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
To bad fans don't understand and it is too bad that the analysts are that stupid. TP should be getting a great deal of love for the MVP this year plain and simple. Unfortunately the revolving door of the MVP race always changes for the "preseason favorite" each and every year. They pre-pick who they want and then change the rules accordingly. Funny how the media deminished Wade's performances and hyped Westbrooks. TP and the Spurs are also rans even though they finished ahead of Thunder and the Bulls finished ahead of the Heat.

Objectivity by the voters would have a much close race than LBJ the run away MVP like they will have. Damn shame for those of us who see past the ESPN highlight reel.

Making up stuff to support your argument doesn't give you any credibility. They didn't change any criteria or rules, most people had Durant as the MVP before the season started. But LeBron stepped up his play big time from last season and the Heat were a top team in the league. The Spurs didn't have a top record because Parker is THAT good, they did it by having top notch coaching and the deepest team in the league. It's pretty obvious from your posts that you would prefer anyone winning it over LeBron simply because you don't like him.

LOL... keep trying man. I didn't make anything up. The rules change every year. Some of you guys who just want to appear impartial try to hard. Not once did I say Lebron shouldn't win it or it would be a travesty if the guy won it. Get off Lebron's jock for a few minutes and pay attention. The MVP isn't for the best player on the best team. It is supposed to be for the player that is helping their team win above expectations, is putting up numbers that is above expectations and would be greatly missed if their team didn't have them. You can say that about Lebron, however, without him Dwade and Bosh still win. You can say that about TP because the Spurs could still win. You can not say that about Durant because without him the Thunder lose. So just by that criteria KD should be the MVP.

Coaches don't play the game. Funny how Spurs fans are always killing Pop for his coaching yet you guys are slurping all over him. I know it is blasphemy for some of you to think that Lebron isn't the greatest-bestest-most-awesomest-basketball player ever but the fact is he isn't and shouldn't be the clear cut run-a-away MVP no matter what criteria they use this year.

Right, I'm trying to "appear" impartial just because I have an opinion you can't perceive as being correct

It is supposed to be for the player that is helping their team win above expectations

No it's not that's just silly. More often that not it goes to the best player on one of the best teams (usually top 3 record at least). The only exceptions I can think of are when the finds a nice story they can pitch and run with that the entire season (Nash in 06). Other than that the MVP criteria was basically the same:

11-Rose (Bulls top team)
10-LeBron (Cavs top team)
09-LeBron (Cavs top team)
08-Kobe (top seed in West)
07-Dirk (Mavs top team)
05-Nash (Suns top team)
04-Garnett (Wolves top seed in West)
...

So explain to me how the criteria is "changing every year".

You can say that about Lebron, however, without him Dwade and Bosh still win. You can say that about TP because the Spurs could still win. You can not say that about Durant because without him the Thunder lose. So just by that criteria KD should be the MVP.

How did you come up with this? It's all speculation. IIRC the Heat went 13-1 without Wade this season. And Durant didn't even miss a game this season where are you getting the idea that they can't win without him? LA went 5-2 without Kobe this season, I guess that means his team is too good so he can't be that valuable That's a horrible argument anyway you don't rip the MVP away from a deserving candidate just because he misses a few games and the team does fine without him.

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

What the hell? All you're doing here is looking at Wade and Bosh and just assuming this means LeBron must have more help than Parker. Look at the entire roster. The Spurs depth just completely obliterates Miami's. And Wade missed a bunch of games this season so even without their 2nd best player they kept a top record in the league.

There is literally not a single good reason to give the MVP to Parker over LeBron. NONE.

Parker doesn't deserve MVP consideration simply because he hasn't been the MVP. Is the team's record the only argument people can come up with? I'm pretty sure none of us gave a damn about the team's record in 05-06 when we thought Kobe deserved it. You don't get a list of 10 candidates (or even 5) and choose the one that surprised you the most. You simply get the one that has been most valuable.

The argument that the Heat do well without LeBron because they still have Wade/Bosh is also not true. Without LeBron, the Heat outscore the other teams by 0.3 points per 100 possessions, which is worse than the Spurs do without Parker. With LeBron, the Heat outscore other teams by 11.2 points per 100 possessions, which is better than the Spurs do with Parker.

If there is a PG that deserves the MVP, it should be Chris Paul, not Tony Parker.

The MVP award is inconsistent but on purpose. The criteria for it changes every season. When Kobe should have won it he wasn't the best player on the best team unfortunately. I don't know if it's about statistical seasons anymore because D-Wade was robbed as well. When Rose won it many analyst thought it's because he did more with less and that was valuable to his team. The Spurs and the Heat both aren't JV type teams without their main superstars they don't get blown out without them.

I'm watching the Knicks and Miami game right now and I just noticed something. WTH is up with Lebronz's mouth guard? It looks atrocious.

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

What the hell? All you're doing here is looking at Wade and Bosh and just assuming this means LeBron must have more help than Parker. Look at the entire roster. The Spurs depth just completely obliterates Miami's. And Wade missed a bunch of games this season so even without their 2nd best player they kept a top record in the league.

There is literally not a single good reason to give the MVP to Parker over LeBron. NONE.

None? Oh really? Being the best player on the team with the best record in the league means nothing? You're wrong.

The Spurs' depth? Compare Ginobili and Duncan to Bosh and Wade first of all. I mean c'mon, that's not even close. They've got Stephen Jackson and outside of that, I don't see any depth there that would be effective anywhere else in the league. Boris Diaw? Bonner? Gary freaking Neal? Bonner and Neal don't get minutes anywhere else in the league and Boris Diaw was cut from the f***ing Bobcats. Dejuan Blair is alright, but he's so undersized. He's basically Glen Davis with less offensive talent and a better rebounder.

Am I saying Miami is a whole lot better? Nope. I'm saying they're both comparably bad. The Spurs are a little better, but it's not head and shoulders. The Heat have better backup swingmen and the Spurs have better backup bigs, but it's not like the Heat are that much worse than the Spurs.

If it wasn't for Popovic and Parker, the Spurs roster isn't impressive to me at all.

thkthebest wrote:Parker doesn't deserve MVP consideration simply because he hasn't been the MVP. Is the team's record the only argument people can come up with? I'm pretty sure none of us gave a damn about the team's record in 05-06 when we thought Kobe deserved it. You don't get a list of 10 candidates (or even 5) and choose the one that surprised you the most. You simply get the one that has been most valuable.

The argument that the Heat do well without LeBron because they still have Wade/Bosh is also not true. Without LeBron, the Heat outscore the other teams by 0.3 points per 100 possessions, which is worse than the Spurs do without Parker. With LeBron, the Heat outscore other teams by 11.2 points per 100 possessions, which is better than the Spurs do with Parker.

If there is a PG that deserves the MVP, it should be Chris Paul, not Tony Parker.

I agree with you 100%. I'm not a stats guy but those numbers you put up are pretty telling.

thkthebest wrote:Parker doesn't deserve MVP consideration simply because he hasn't been the MVP. Is the team's record the only argument people can come up with? I'm pretty sure none of us gave a damn about the team's record in 05-06 when we thought Kobe deserved it. You don't get a list of 10 candidates (or even 5) and choose the one that surprised you the most. You simply get the one that has been most valuable.

The argument that the Heat do well without LeBron because they still have Wade/Bosh is also not true. Without LeBron, the Heat outscore the other teams by 0.3 points per 100 possessions, which is worse than the Spurs do without Parker. With LeBron, the Heat outscore other teams by 11.2 points per 100 possessions, which is better than the Spurs do with Parker.

If there is a PG that deserves the MVP, it should be Chris Paul, not Tony Parker.

Again, Paul has not enjoyed enough success to give Paul consideration. That was a reason that Kobe was written off for years and if that was true then, it should be true now.

LeBron will win MVP, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at Parker and give him some consideration. The guy had a great year and has lead his team to the record they're at now.

LeBron as much as I hate him is easily the MVP of the league this year.

therealdeal wrote:Again, Paul has not enjoyed enough success to give Paul consideration. That was a reason that Kobe was written off for years and if that was true then, it should be true now.

Well that was wrong then and it is wrong now.

You know how bad the Clippers would be without Chris Paul?

Chris Paul has pretty much changed that whole team. He has made them relevant. He closes games for them. There's nothing Tony Parker does better than Chris Paul. If you took Tony Parker off the Spurs, they're still a good team. Not contenders but they make the playoffs. You take Chris Paul off the Clippers, they're in the cellar.

The MVP should go to the best players, not the best stories. Iverson should not have won in 2001 (Shaq should've gotten it), Nash should not have won in 2006 (Kobe should've gotten it), and Derrick Rose should not have won last year (should've gone to Dwight or Lebron). Tony Parker is a great story, he's had a great year, but giving him the MVP would be wrong, just like the above scenarios were wrong.

therealdeal wrote:Again, Paul has not enjoyed enough success to give Paul consideration. That was a reason that Kobe was written off for years and if that was true then, it should be true now.

LeBron will win MVP, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at Parker and give him some consideration. The guy had a great year and has lead his team to the record they're at now.

Consideration is different from what some people here are saying, which is that TP should be the MVP. That's just wrong since LeBron is clearly the MVP.

Also, Chris Paul lead the Clippers. He should get bonus points for carrying that sad franchise.

therealdeal wrote:

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:

therealdeal wrote:I would give it to Parker honestly. I mean LeBron definitely had an MVP season, but so did Parker and his cast is much worse than LeBron's. Given both teams' success, I give the edge to Parker. I wish the voting committee would see it that way.

What the hell? All you're doing here is looking at Wade and Bosh and just assuming this means LeBron must have more help than Parker. Look at the entire roster. The Spurs depth just completely obliterates Miami's. And Wade missed a bunch of games this season so even without their 2nd best player they kept a top record in the league.

There is literally not a single good reason to give the MVP to Parker over LeBron. NONE.

None? Oh really? Being the best player on the team with the best record in the league means nothing? You're wrong.

The Spurs' depth? Compare Ginobili and Duncan to Bosh and Wade first of all. I mean c'mon, that's not even close. They've got Stephen Jackson and outside of that, I don't see any depth there that would be effective anywhere else in the league. Boris Diaw? Bonner? Gary freaking Neal? Bonner and Neal don't get minutes anywhere else in the league and Boris Diaw was cut from the f***ing Bobcats. Dejuan Blair is alright, but he's so undersized. He's basically Glen Davis with less offensive talent and a better rebounder.

Am I saying Miami is a whole lot better? Nope. I'm saying they're both comparably bad. The Spurs are a little better, but it's not head and shoulders. The Heat have better backup swingmen and the Spurs have better backup bigs, but it's not like the Heat are that much worse than the Spurs.

If it wasn't for Popovic and Parker, the Spurs roster isn't impressive to me at all.

On paper the names don't look impressive but they all play their role great, even Duncan who isn't the player he used to be still manages to be very effective because he knows what his role is. The Spurs literally had a game against the Jazz a few weeks ago where they played nothing but bench players and nearly won. And I'm sure you saw what they did to the Lakers. The Spurs bench leads the league in PPG and their offensive efficiency is just ridiculous. Patty Mills had a 34pt/12 assist game last week, I don't care what the situation is, if you have a dude that put up numbers like that in an NBA game he can play.

Hell just look at the numbers, the Spurs literally have 8 players above league average in PER (7 if you don't count Mills who has only played 16 games), but they also have guys like Gary Neal and Bonner who shoot the three ball at a high rate. The Heat? After Bosh they don't have a single player performing even close to the league average which is ridiculous, regardless of your take on the stat (I don't think it's a great stat tbh) it's still alarming that they don't.