Reply With Quote
Link?
That's the only argument that could be made against Manu being a franchise player: the dutability thing, which in my mind is hugely overblown. A guy with durability problems doesn't put together 22 years playing professional basketball, no matter how managed his minutes were, but whatever, I can see why some guys could think that. But in terms of game, playing style, leadership, compe iveness, ability to make teams better, and any other thing related to being a franchise player, there shouldn't be any doubt that Manu could have been a franchise player.
Link?
61 by ESPN on the all time list. 20 spots almost behind Iverson and Allen...
If Manu played starter minutes and mostly against starters, why did he never average 20ppg in any season?
Overblown?
Where's the link that has Manu ranked 47th on his prime?
Yeah, overblown. I can show you a pic like that from pretty much everyplayer in the history of the league.Overblown?
The only season ending injury Manu has had was in 2009.
Every poster here knows Manu is the most injury prone player on the Spurs team. Dude lost a testicle this season.
Are you saying it's all a myth?
No, I'm saying is overblwon. In 22 years of career Manu had only one season ending injury. I'm not saying he's immune to injuries, just that his "injury-proness" is overblown. Guys like Grant Hill, Chandler Parsons, Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming, that's what injury prone players trully look like.
being ranked a certain number all time is very different than being ranked in the league at a specific time, even if you lend credence to those rankings
What are you saying Philo? Are you saying anything? Of course not.
my bad, i was under the impression you would understand a comment written in english. here's a recap
you: he was ranked somewhere near 47 in the league during his prime
daf: proof of this ranking?
you: an ESPN list that ranked players from an all time perspective
me: those 2 aren't comparable
you:no stance!
It's overblown, tbh... you could argue he's injury prone from the perspective of limited minutes, but he honestly only didn't play 1 series and 1 game in the playoffs due to injury, IIRC...
Plus a bunch of those 'injuries' on that chart, he played through them. The broken nose against Dallas, he played. The broken arm, he missed 1 game (referenced above), then played through it.
That's one area where DAF is right, if you had to make a chart for Kobe with his sprained ankle, flu, etc, it's two pages or more...
yup, unless you're also willing to call kirby injury prone...
So what did I say to you exactly?my bad, i was under the impression you would understand a comment written in english. here's a recap
you: he was ranked somewhere near 47 in the league during his prime
daf: proof of this ranking?
you: an ESPN list that ranked players from an all time perspective
me: those 2 aren't comparable
you:
That's a big "other than" since Kobe played over 48K minutes and Manu played 25.5K minutes.
I never commented about Manu missing games, just that his body couldn't withstand starters minutes (not SA starters where they play 34 a game, but other teams where Manu would have to be the heavy minute guy at 38-42 minutes per game, 82 games a year with no rest on back to backs).
Besides, he did play through injuries but they were still injuries. Manu's playing style, throwing his body out to get charging calls, going through screens, diving through defenses to score, running recklessly down the court through traffic.. all that takes a toll.
But what felt like a sacrifice evolved into something that worked on selfish levels. It capped Ginobili's minutes, preserving his body. San Antonio coaches politely caution that Ginobili's full-throttle style may not have been sustainable under the minutes required for traditional Hall of Fame stats. (Ginobili is a Hall of Fame lock, to be clear.)
"Manu isn't built for heavy starter minutes," said Chip Engelland, a longtime Spurs assistant. "He plays at double speed. If the NBA had a 35-game season, like college, he'd be one of the 10 greatest players ever."
And Kobe was allowed to play with nagging injuries in the regular season. If we had to list every time he played with a wrapped pinky finger, it'd be longer than the lol thread...yup, unless you're also willing to call kirby injury prone...
Now I do get the argument that if Manu had to play the way he played in his athletic prime, basically a human pinball, for extended minutes it would've been difficult for him. But I think that would've just made his career shorter, not that he didn't have the stamina to deal with it.
After all, he played almost 100+ games a year for most of his career. It's kinda crazy actually, most players take a good chunk of the summer off, but he kept playing for the NT while having long seasons with the Spurs.
See my previous post. I get that argument that if he had to play with 'reckless abandon' he would've lasted less. There's no way to prove one way or another, but I feel he did have the stamina at that age, his career would've been much shorter though.
I'm just saying the injury prone thing is overblown. If you ask anybody if they thought he would last this long considering his style of play when he was younger, there no way they would've say yes. But in hindsight, he had more freak injuries and played for a coach that had no qualms pulling people if they had a nagging thing. But he played through a lot of those things, especially in the playoffs. Heck, IIRC, Manu right now missed less playoff games due to injury than Tony Parker, and I don't recall anybody advancing that Tony is injury prone.
BTW, Kobe played about 56K mins, while Manu played about 31K, when you combine regular season + playoffs. Obviously, Kobe played 5 more seasons. Adjusting Manu's minutes for that would put him around 40K mins, a sizeable difference.
Notably, however, Manu played about the same amount of playoffs games (213 vs 220) in 5 less seasons.
that also doesn't take overseas minutes into consideration, tbh...
Again, I never mentioned missing games.
If someone here wants to forward the idea that Manu was as good as Antawn Jamison, go ahead... if you think Antawn Jamison is a franchise level player. The Spurs trainers said Manu couldn't take heavy minutes for extended periods. Why would you want a franchise to build around a guy who wasn't going to be able to go those minutes? Would Manu be just as good if he played at a lower gear, like Harden? Is he going to anchor the defense or be the guy who carries the team night after night on offense, or both like Kawhi?
Or did the Spurs staff have that take because it justified them bringing him off the bench for all those years?
I think some here are thinking Bucks/Sixers level franchise where you can put a guy there and he can thrive even if the team doesn't. So I already said you can make anyone your franchise player.
Moot point unless you think he wouldn't have played for Argentina if he was a franchise player on another team. Those minutes are the same either way otherwise, and exist on both sides of the equation so they can be eliminated.
it's not moot when limiting to the context of his durability, which if you had any sense of context, would have understood it was addressing
If I was using his minutes in a vacuum, without comparison to another player, then sure. But those overseas minutes hurt your case, they don't help it. If the Spurs staff is saying Manu cannot handle starter level minutes for years, then they are considering all aspects of why that is the case. I suppose we should factor in practice minutes as well. We don't because it's assumed that those things are a constant, on both sides of the equation, so they cancel out.
yeah i forgot about kobe's career in argentina and italy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
