Reply With Quote
I expected something like 100/105 since he made the SI "snubs" list, it's hard to believe there are 125 better players than Manu...
121-130, Manu at 125.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13...barank-121-130
Last edited by Old School 44; 10-02-2015 at 04:14 PM.
I expected something like 100/105 since he made the SI "snubs" list, it's hard to believe there are 125 better players than Manu...
It is based on both the "QUALITY and the QUAN Y of each player's contributions to his team's ability to win games."
The value of Manu's contributions are very high when he's turned on, but such contributions last season were spaced out few and far between with some mediocre games, and him being unable to crank it up at times when the team needed at least someone to do that. He wasn't particularly awful or anything, he just wasn't able to have big impacts in games to help you win. He also needs to be rested and minutes managed strictly or his play quality is diminished greatly if he's overplayed in minutes. The ratings are also a projection, so young guys viewed with upside and expected to contribute to their teams more than the previous year like a Kyle Anderson for example were ranked higher than the previous year. Whereas older players who you expect to have diminished roles are ranked down. Its not an undisputable science by any means, and they state that but at least they tried this year to be less subjective than they have been in the past, by at least having some criteria. I am ok with their rank criteria, taking it with the qualifier that even if you try to be objective, evaluations are by their nature subjective. Still a good and interesting starting point for discussion.
Edit: just noticed that Manu is still ranked ahead of Patty Mills and you could conceivably project Patty to be more impactful than Manu this year, just by the number of minutes played and hopefully the more consistent quality of his play. But then you subjectively have to project Patty to have an awesome bounce back year...
Last edited by SAGirl; 10-02-2015 at 03:47 PM.
If you mean the top Spur in these rankings, he won't. ESPN is already showing Kawhi as the top ranked Spur followed by Aldridge. They just haven't showed their specific ranking yet.Lamarcus is going to be the Spurs' .... number one guy.
Parker's rank:
300 - "Krew estimate"
275 - Too low
250 - Too low
225 - Too low
200 - Too low
175 - Too low
150 - Too low
125 - Too low
100
75
50
25
Here's 111-120.
Spurs
David West at 113
Boris Diaw at 119
Next up for the Spurs: Danny Green.
Former Spur Tiago Splitter at 118
Last edited by Old School 44; 10-05-2015 at 11:45 AM.
These rankings are always terrible, tbh, same with SI and any mainstream NBA outlets..always reputation-based for clicks..
Last year's last, for example:
Joakim Noah at 13
Tony Parker at 15
Derrick Rose at 28
Andre Drummond at 30
DeAndre Jordan at 34
Rondo at 37
Kobe at 40
Faried at 42
Chandler Parsons
Pau ranked all the way down at 44
Lance Stephenson in the top 50
They are predictions, so very speculative. Some guys you don't expect to take a dive and fall off abruptly, but Noah and Parker did just that. Pau didn't look good on the Lakers so many assumed he was close to being done and yet he had a renaissance year. Stephenson had been good in Indiana and figured to have a larger role for Charlotte, but he turned out to be awful. Bottom line, you are right its almost as accurate as us guessing here on who is going to make the roster on the Spurs or get cut early.
West over Diaw
Parker over Green
Parker in the top 4 Spurs
Yeah this list sucks as usual.
Sorry the rest of the world doesn't share you and the krew's Parker-hating agenda.West over Diaw
Parker over Green
Parker in the top 4 Spurs
Yeah this list sucks as usual.
Not even hating. It's just fact. Current Parker isn't better than Danny Green and isn't in the top 4 Spurs.
101-110. No Spurs in this grouping, but former Spur George Hill comes it at 101.
Manu went from 56 to 125, I wonder what rank he was at durning Prime Manu
Parker's Rank (Updated):
300 - "Krew estimate"
275 - Too low
250 - Too low
225 - Too low
200 - Too low
175 - Too low
150 - Too low
125 - Too low
100 - Too low
75
50
25
Footnote: The krew isn't going to be happy if Parker lands 100 spots in front of Mills. Total agenda-killer.
You're just a parker hater.
Kobe at 93 is pretty generous, but I'm not sure that he's worse than Parker, at this point, though..
...
He was in the late 40s on the Sports Illustrated list IIRC..
Parker's Rank (Updated):
300 - "Krew estimate"
275 - Too low
250 - Too low
225 - Too low
200 - Too low
175 - Too low
150 - Too low
125 - Too low
100 - Too low
75 - Too low
54 - Parker's rank
I'm loving this. At least the rest of the world still sees Parker's value (even in an off year).
Da krew - "Parker ain't even barely top 300 no more."
ESPN - Parker still basically a top-50 player.
Parker falling behind Green is a joke. And no, I'm not one of those people who thinks Parker is outside the top 200. He isn't elite at anything anymore, while Green is one of the best shooters + best perimeter defenders in the league, bar none.
Green easily > Parker
Agree. I wonder who's a better true-3-D guy than Danny.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
