Kobe was not responsible guarding Manu and I wasn’t referring to defense on just Manu. What I said was SA turned scoreless when Kobe and gangs made some serious runs on the Spurs near the end of Game 1 and 5. You can definitely argue Spurs’ offense meltdown or you could give credit to Lakers’ defense. I gave 65% credit to Lakers’ clamping down and denying every shot opportunity that the Spurs had.

BTW, Kobe is a great defender and should be able to defend against Manu as well as anyone in the Lakers squad. But you know that any good coach would not want to expend his best player’s energy on defense.

that the players decide to play. If the players are not too tired or exhausted, they can perhaps increase their level of plays on both ends if one of the team leaders or coach give a motivation line. I saw the Game 1 SA series. Lakers were down big but I didn’t sense panic or urgency throughout the 3 1/2 quarters. If I remember it correctly, Kobe also sat out the first couple minutes of 4th. Well, SA may have collapsed at the wrong time but I sure saw Lakers were very active in defense – challenging almost every shot the Spurs took or made them work a lot harder to fire a shot. In Game 1, I felt that Kobe’s offense actually ignited Lakers’ great defense. Yes, I do believe that offense can ignite defense – not just the other way.

Defense really depends on fresher legs PLUS motivation besides all the drills, strategies, matchups, etc.

The 16 point stat is intact through the playoffs. From game 1 to game 102, no team that fell to the Celtics by more than 16 was able to pull out a win. I understand 16 is not 10, which is the point differential you claimed would put them in “good position.” However, my point was made to illustrate the difficulty of coming back against the Celtics more so than to claim that there is some law of nature which prevents teams from coming back from 16 down against this team. The only way the Lakers starters will have played less than 28 minutes with around five minutes left in the fourth during an NBA Finals game is if the game is an extreme blowout. In which case the point differential is definitely larger than 10. The only other way they could have played less than 28 each is if they were all in foul trouble. Which you once again say is inapplicable to your statement. So basically, you have stated an impossible situation and then claimed that if it occurs, the Lakers will be in a good position to win.

I'm saying that if your impossible situation does somehow occur, the Lakers will in fact be in bad position to win, not good position.  In fact, after the Celtics come back down 10 in the fourth huge calls going against them at the time (4 point play), I'm shocked you would say that the Lakers would be in a good position to win if up by 10.

In my opinion, the teams are evenly matched and the only way either team will be in a “good position to win” is if it up by something like 15-20 with around six minutes left.

Plus, the Celtics should be expected to do better against a fresh-legged Kobe than the Spurs for two reasons: 1) They’re not all a kajillion years old and 2) KG is faster and more athletic than Duncan and is thus better suited for help D on a player like Kobe.

I think the 2004-2007 Lakers teams proved that Kobe dominating the offensive end is not an effective strategy to win games. It is an effective strategy for accruing massive point totals and then pointing at those who have not as the ones who messed up.