Originally Posted by Carbine
Parker played better relative to his usual play, while Duncan just played decent overall for him. That's why he won MVP, not because he had more impact on the game.
I have the whole series on DVD. This whole "Parker driving the lane, breaking down defenses and set the whole team up" is completely false. At least to the extent you're talking about. He averaged 3.25 assists per game.
As for the bolded, Duncans defense was typical Duncan as per usual in that series. He patrolled the paint, played elite help defense, blocked shots, altered many others. It's one thing to watch a series, it's another to watch it with a discerning eye. They held the Cavs to 80 points per game. Maybe I should burn the four games off and upload them so you can refresh your memory.
The Cavaliers also sucked. And their best player was young and carrying a load and was completely ineffective. Very few people were under the impression that Duncan was better than Parker in that series. Parker's APG were low but his offensive game is where the defense broke down and that is where the Spurs offense was its most potent. Duncan had greater impact, as far as importance to the team. He's Tim Duncan and he was close enough to his prime. He was the main piece. But Parker's play was the most effective in that series. Even Ginobili was a more important offensive player. Duncan had more impact on defense than either of them, but his defense wasn't as great as it was prior to 2004. Elite defense but Bowen and his dirty play was in the same tier and often better.