ESPN's Ric Bucher on Manu vs TP

[2centsworth]

now he's being sucked into the debate. Simple truth is Spurs can't win it all without either at the top of their game.


...but I heard a debate today about how Tony Parker is better than Manu because his shooting percentage is higher. This is where comparing stats drives me nuts. Is it fair to Manu to question his FG percentage when he's asked to take more pressure shots and has defenses geared more toward him than the other guy? No knock on TP, but the idea that he's better than Manu is just bizarre. No one in the Spurs' organization or the league would try to make that claim. TP is the guy opposing teams attack at the end of games; Manu is the guy to whom the Spurs hand the ball. Trust me, SA knows what these guys are shooting and what their efficiency is. As do opposing teams. So when they do certain things, it's not out of "habit." It's because that's what gives them the best chance for success.

[InRareForm]

I think 4rth quarter we all know Manu has the ability to hit big 3's and also weave in and out of a tough packed in paint and get ft's.

Parker can hit clutch outside shots and can drive but lacks the 3 ball unless it is in that corner. He can be limited to driving in the ball if that paint is packed so this gives manu a edge to me.

To say manu is better than tp, at this point i agree but there is more to it than that. Tt isn't by a wide margin, I think the issue is just who would you rather have the ball in the 2nd half against any defense. It is Manu.

[pjjrfan]

Manu is just a special player. Tony is great at what he does best using his quickness and speed now he is more of a consistent jump shooter. But what we have in Manu is special. Although last night he kept trying to give the ball game away. In my house we have a saying "manu giveth and Manu taketh away" for when he has his bonehead moments and more often than not when he has his moments of brilliance. I still see a lot of John Havlicek in Manu's game. Without the fancy stuff, the guy is relentless even now that he seems to defer to his shooting more than his driving. But he still plays with a reckless abandon and does everything, defense, rebounds, steals, just a regular pest. I said this when he came in in 03 and I'll say now I would pay to watch this guy play in any venue, even the church league.

[mingus]

i thought Artest did a good job on him for the most part. Manu also had on off game, missing open threes and some easy lay ups. Manu doesn't need to score to play great though, as last night showed. he was creating play for everybody. he has no weakness offensively.

[lefty]

Ric Bucher has spent too much time on Spurstalk

[admiralfats]

i love tony and think he's actually slightly underrated and underappreciated. however, if we want to talk about fg%, it's not like tony has a huge advantage. if you look at straight up fg%, sure, tony has a 5 or 6 percent lead, which is huge. but when you adjust the field goal percentages, due to the fact that a 3 point make is worth more than a 2 point make, and manu takes and makes a lot more 3s than tony, you find that manu shoots about 1.5% lower than tony. So, there's a truer idea of their separation. between them in fg%.

[analyzed]

I view Coaches selection for all star reserves as a good basis for "true value". And from all indication Manu was one of the most if not the most consensus pick for all star reserves voted by the coaches. While Tony was not even considered as a top "snub" guys like Ellis and Nash were considered ahead of him, let alone the guards selected by fans and coaches for ALG. Note both fans and coaches did not differentiate between PG and SG. The general consensus of best guards in the west looks like this, in order:

Kobe
Manu
Williams
CP3
Westbrook
Ellis
Nash
then Tony..

[timaios]

Just what we needed after a great win against the Lakers : a Manu vs Tony thread... again ! :rolleyes

This forum can be so boring at times.

[jestersmash]

There's a much more fundamental issue here.

Manu Ginobili true shooting percentage = 59.1%
Tony Parker true shooting percentage = 56.9%

Manu is more efficient scoring-wise than Tony. Why? Because he takes a lot more 3 point attempts, and 3 point attempts are worth more. If you look at total FG% alone, you are foolishly penalizing a person who takes more 3 point attempts than 2 point attempts even if that person is more efficient at scoring from the field.

Consider this hypothetical scenario -

Player A shoots only 2 pointers, shoots 50% from the field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player A will go 10-20 in any given game and will score 20 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 50

Player B shoots only 3 pointers, shoots 40% fromt he field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player B will go 8-20 in any given game and will score 24 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 40

People who look at field goal percentage in isolation might amateurishly claim that Player A is more efficient because he shoots "50%" from the field. But, in reality, Player A is only scoring 20 points on 20 possessions whereas Player B is scoring 24 points on 20 possessions.

True shooting percentage corrects for these value (between 2 pointers and 3 pointers) and volume (between 2 point FGA and 3 point FGA) differences.

Tony barely takes any 3 pointers per game. Nearly 95% of his shots are 2 pointers.

Nearly half of Manu's shots are 3 pointers, and he makes them at a respectable 35% clip. Of course his overall field goal percentage will be lower because he shoots more 3 pointers.

That said, the statistics clearly show that Manu is still more efficient at scoring than Tony. His true shooting percentage is higher.

[ego]

There's a much more fundamental issue here.

Manu Ginobili true shooting percentage = 59.1%
Tony Parker true shooting percentage = 56.9%



FALSE shooting percentage

It's easier to make a three open shoot than to make a 2PT in the paint for a 6"2 player !

[jestersmash]

I don't respond seriously to no-name's with terrible arguments, sorry.

[Lady M]

the real différence between Tony and Manu is flopping
Tony don't have FT because he don't flop

[ALVAREZ6]

I don't respond seriously to no-name's with terrible arguments, sorry.

lol

that really was a terrible take i have trouble believing it was serious

[Mel_13]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.

Back in the summer of 2007, Bucher said Kobe wouldn't remain a Laker unless Jerry West was brought back as GM.

Bucher says lots of stuff, most of it completely worthless.

[jestersmash]

lol

that really was a terrible take i have trouble believing it was serious

:lol for his or her sake, I certainly hope it wasn't a serious take

[TDMVPDPOY]

the only thing in common these 2 clowns have is turnovers :D:D:D:D

[ElNono]

Who is Ric Bucher?

[DPG21920]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.

Back in the summer of 2007, Bucher said Kobe wouldn't remain a Laker unless Jerry West was brought back as GM.

Bucher says lots of stuff, most of it completely worthless.

Well, in fairness to him, with how Tim has been playing offensively, he is playing like West. He is choosing to shoot more jumpers. He isn't going inside (for various reasons). He is not even playing any where close to how good David West is offensively.

Difference is, Tim can go down low (even if he might have declined) and West cannot. So hopefully, we see that in the playoffs.

But if Ric is just speaking about how Duncan has played offensively this year, then he is correct as far as "style" of play.

He didn't mention defense however, which is an obvious difference from West.

[it's me]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.

Back in the summer of 2007, Bucher said Kobe wouldn't remain a Laker unless Jerry West was brought back as GM.

Bucher says lots of stuff, most of it completely worthless.

Didn't West contributed to the fakers cause with the BS Gasol trade?

[Mel_13]

Well, in fairness to him, with how Tim has been playing offensively, he is playing like West. He is choosing to shoot more jumpers. He isn't going inside (for various reasons). He is not even playing any where close to how good David West is offensively.

Difference is, Tim can go down low (even if he might have declined) and West cannot. So hopefully, we see that in the playoffs.

But if Ric is just speaking about how Duncan has played offensively this year, then he is correct as far as "style" of play.

He didn't mention defense however, which is an obvious difference from West.

Bucher is among the most notorious Kobe nut-huggers covering the NBA. I choose not to treat his opinions of the Spurs with anything other than disdain.

[MaNu4Tres]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.

Back in the summer of 2007, Bucher said Kobe wouldn't remain a Laker unless Jerry West was brought back as GM.

Bucher says lots of stuff, most of it completely worthless.

Does Bucher realize Tim is averaging career low in minutes and usage rate? Bucher acts like he witnesses Tim getting the ball consistently in 4 down scenarios, which simply is not the case.

Tim hardly gets the ball in scenarios where he can post up, so what makes him believe he can't do this anymore when the sample size is no where near what it used to be?

Pretty foolish if you ask me, and don't get it twisted-- I'm not implying Tim is what he used to be on the block whatsoever-- I'm just disagreeing with Bucher on the notion that Tim is just a jump shooter now. It's not his fault he has the best supporting cast he's ever had in his career and that the 90% of the play- calls are for the perimeter players.

FWIW-- Duncan's usage rate is around the same as Shannon Brown's, yet still manages to put up 13-14 ppg. That itself speaks volumes.

Duncan could still easily average 18-20 points per game if it wasn't for his wonderful supporting cast and his drop in minutes and usage rate. This is a reason why I laugh at expert- ESPN analysts who believe Tim can't be effective enough on the offensive end (for Spurs to win) come playoff time, when his minutes and usage rate will only climb along with his offensive production.

[nhan]

There's a much more fundamental issue here.

Manu Ginobili true shooting percentage = 59.1%
Tony Parker true shooting percentage = 56.9%

Manu is more efficient scoring-wise than Tony. Why? Because he takes a lot more 3 point attempts, and 3 point attempts are worth more. If you look at total FG% alone, you are foolishly penalizing a person who takes more 3 point attempts than 2 point attempts even if that person is more efficient at scoring from the field.

Consider this hypothetical scenario -

Player A shoots only 2 pointers, shoots 50% from the field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player A will go 10-20 in any given game and will score 20 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 50

Player B shoots only 3 pointers, shoots 40% fromt he field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player B will go 8-20 in any given game and will score 24 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 40

People who look at field goal percentage in isolation might amateurishly claim that Player A is more efficient because he shoots "50%" from the field. But, in reality, Player A is only scoring 20 points on 20 possessions whereas Player B is scoring 24 points on 20 possessions.

True shooting percentage corrects for these value (between 2 pointers and 3 pointers) and volume (between 2 point FGA and 3 point FGA) differences.

Tony barely takes any 3 pointers per game. Nearly 95% of his shots are 2 pointers.

Nearly half of Manu's shots are 3 pointers, and he makes them at a respectable 35% clip. Of course his overall field goal percentage will be lower because he shoots more 3 pointers.

That said, the statistics clearly show that Manu is still more efficient at scoring than Tony. His true shooting percentage is higher.

I don't think you can just look at true shooting percentage either. I think that favors spot-up 3-point shooters. Yes, it's something to look at when deciding the efficiency of two players, but its not the clear-cut deciding factor. I mean J.J. Redick has a higher true shooting percentage than both Manu and Parker. Why? Because he hits open three's all day.

[Sean Cagney]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.


^^^^^^^^^^
If he means NOW I will let this slide some, but if he meant Tim and his career being this I would personally email him a few times to call him the biggest IDIOT Of all times. Tim can still get down low though, wait playoffs and big games and you will see.

[nhan]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.


^^^^^^^^^^
If he means NOW I will let this slide some, but if he meant Tim and his career being this I would personally email him a few times to call him the biggest IDIOT Of all times. Tim can still get down low though, wait playoffs and big games and you will see.

Obviously he means now, but he is nowhere near as bad as David West...lol.

[ducks]

butcher is trying to defend his vote choosing westbrock or williams over tp at allstar break

[BlairForceDejuan]

Spurs rely on TP's scoring the most. This is fact.

[ego]

I don't respond seriously to no-name's with terrible arguments, sorry.

You are sorry ? oh no! don't let me cry now !! you know it's terrible to discover that you are a no-name
I have some difficulties to get good arguments. It's very hard to understand
the Hollinger's formulas. Who is this Hollinger ? A NBA nobel price surely, but a hollinger' fan like you with a NAME, knows perfectly the formula of TS

True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]

whoaa!! impressive. How could I have missed this formula !!
I'm sure Pop consults the list of True Shooting before any game to build his team.

Some ranks are very interesting :

3) Shaquille O'Neal .655 (Shaq always young and good!)
4) Matt Bonner .651 (I always knew that Matt was the best )
5) Ronny Turiaf (who is Turiaf ? perhaps we can trade this player : Matt and Ronny in the same team)
46) G Hill .594 (Now I know why GH has a lot of fans)
49) Manu .590 ( impressive )
59) Lebron James .583 ( Hey Manu , James is behind you, what do you think of that ?)
68) Dwyane Wade, MIA .576 ( Hey Manu , the same for Wade !!)
76) TP .572 (You need to move your ass Tony, you can't play in the french team with a bad rank)

103) Kobe Bryant, LAL .558 ( TP > Kobe ok finally you can play for the frogs)

105) Tiago Splitter, SA .557 ( hey Tiago good play! where is Scola ? )
107) Chris bosh .556 (Chris ! you need to move your ass, Tiago is before)
152 Derrick Rose, CHI .54 ( oh ! a TRUE all-star )
157) Luis Scola, HOU .537 ( Now you now why Scola don't play with SA )

204) Tim Ducan .52 (Shocking !!! the clash!! We need a trade and I need to take some rest, the nervous breakdown arrives !)

[jestersmash]

True shooting percentage is not Hollinger's formula. It's not an arbitrary formula; it's a mathematical certainty.

The word "formula" carries so much baggage on this forum. People see "formula" and assume it's somehow arbitrary and merely some "invention" by some guy. There are formulas that fit that bill. PER is an example. PER is an arbitrary invention of Hollinger and by no means does it provide an incontrovertible ranking system of NBA players.

True shooting percentage, however, isn't anything like that. It's a formula in the same way "3P% = (3PM/3PA)" is a formula. Nobody attributes 3P% = (3PM/3PA) to any person because it's so shockingly simple and self-evident that it's not necessary. True shooting percentage may not be as self-evident to many people, but it holds the same degree of mathematical certainty as "3P% = (3PM/3PA)" does.

I gave you a very simple scenario in my earlier post -


Player A shoots only 2 pointers, shoots 50% from the field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player A will go 10-20 in any given game and will score 20 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 50

Player B shoots only 3 pointers, shoots 40% fromt he field, and attempts 20 shots per game. Player B will go 8-20 in any given game and will score 24 points on 20 possessions. FG% = 40

You simply need to realize that 50 > 40 and 20 < 24 in order to understand the concept. It's not very difficult.

The rest of your post is frivolous as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to make any assumptions as to what your sarcasm might imply about what you think I tried to argue earlier in this topic. That said, just to be crystal clear, I never once suggested that true shooting percentage should be used as the only metric to assess how good NBA players are, and seeing as how you only addressed me in your response, I'd say that your sarcasm is misplaced.

[analyzed]

You are correct that true shooting is just one of the metrics in determining a players efficiency and productivity. ( no one sugested it was the only metrics) . So while JJ redrick might have a better true shooting % ( because he only takes open 3's) that dosen't make him a better player. But nevertheless it's simply correct that true shooting %, is a simple mathematical fact.



I don't think you can just look at true shooting percentage either. I think that favors spot-up 3-point shooters. Yes, it's something to look at when deciding the efficiency of two players, but its not the clear-cut deciding factor. I mean J.J. Redick has a higher true shooting percentage than both Manu and Parker. Why? Because he hits open three's all day.

[ego]

Sorry I would not be (too) sarcastic but you agree with me that any metric can determine if a player is fine or not for its team. It's only a simple mathematical fact. I understand what you want to demonstrate but all of this has no importance. The fact is SA plays the best BB of the league but the SA style is misunderstood and underestimated. A lot of metrics are useless to mesure the importance of a player in collective style. Sometimes some facts are more important, for example TP was very good tonight 11/17 with 2/2 at 3PT ( very good TS !!) but the more important fact, TP scored 12 pts in the first 8 min !!!!. The game was over and easy for the team but all the fans look only at the clutch player.

Postgames show a lot of things.
Kings Head Coach Paul Westphal :
"Well, I thought they put on a clinic in the first quarter against us. After that we just tried to play catch-up the rest of the game, and they’re too good to do that against"

Kings Forward Carl Landry :
First quarter
“They came out and were real aggressive first quarter. A lot of times teams don’t do that especially on a back-to-back. They had a game last night in L.A. and they came out the first half and threw the first punch and I think that’s what got them off to a good start and led them throughout the game.”

and the post I prefer :

“They just play right man. They play the right way. They have a good group of guys. A good team around Tim Duncan. But nothing too spectacular, no Lebron James or anything like that. They just get it done. Ginobili is a good player. So is Tony Parker, and Tim Duncan. They’re just smart, they do all the little things to win ball games and that’s why they’re the best in the league.”

TP > Manu or Manu > TP : These assertions have no meaning, I'm happy for Manu making the all-star game but I regret for TP, for RJ and the whole team because SA is perhaps the only team in the league to play very collective with very unselfish players.

[cutewizard]

Manu is just a special player. Tony is great at what he does best using his quickness and speed now he is more of a consistent jump shooter. But what we have in Manu is special. Although last night he kept trying to give the ball game away. In my house we have a saying "manu giveth and Manu taketh away" for when he has his bonehead moments and more often than not when he has his moments of brilliance. I still see a lot of John Havlicek in Manu's game. Without the fancy stuff, the guy is relentless even now that he seems to defer to his shooting more than his driving. But he still plays with a reckless abandon and does everything, defense, rebounds, steals, just a regular pest. I said this when he came in in 03 and I'll say now I would pay to watch this guy play in any venue, even the church league.




Perfect thoughts....

i coudnt have said it better

Manu rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[mathbzh]

There's a much more fundamental issue here.

Manu Ginobili true shooting percentage = 59.1%
Tony Parker true shooting percentage = 56.9%

Manu is more efficient scoring-wise than Tony. Why? Because he takes a lot more 3 point attempts, and 3 point attempts are worth more. If you look at total FG% alone, you are foolishly penalizing a person who takes more 3 point attempts than 2 point attempts even if that person is more efficient at scoring from the field.

More exactly Manu has a better TS% thanks to FT shooting.
Parker has a better effective fg% (53% vs. 51%).

[patos]

butcher is trying to defend his vote choosing westbrock or williams over tp at allstar break

i think he just knows manu is better than tp and i think all the coaches agree.

[ego]

i think he just knows manu is better than tp and i think all the coaches agree.

The only disadvantage of TP is physical. Most of the others guards are more physical ( but sometimes I have a doubt about some guys).

In direct confrontation, Westbrook is not better of Parker
18 OCT
Westbrook 35min 7/15 3PT 0/0 FT 3/4 AST 9 PF 4 TO 3
TP 26 min 9/15 3PT 0/0 FT 6/6 AST 6 PF 2 TO 0

TP is a better shooter Better finisher and better at the line

14 NOV
Westbrook 5/17 3PT 0/0 FT 9/10 Rb 2 AST 8 PF 3 ST 2 TO 2
TP 32 min 9/15 3PT 0/0 FT 6/6 RB 5 AST 3 PF 1 ST 1 TO 3

I think TP is a better shooter and for the assists is not clear because when TP makes only 3 ast , ginobili makes 4 GH makes 5. Actually it' always like this, If TP can't make assists, Manu or GH are present.

Bilan TP 2 WB 0

19 NOV
D. Williams 37 min 7-19 3PT 1-6 FT 8-11 AST 5 ST 0 TO 2
T. Parker 35 min 11/17 3PT 1-1 FT 1-2 AST 7 ST 4 TO 2

TP >> DW in this game in all categories

Deron Willams had a good game the 26/01
D. William 41 min 16/24 3PT 0/5 FT 7-8 AST 9 PF 3 BUT TO 4
T. Parker 37 min 9-15 3PT 1/3 FT 4-4 AST 6 PF 2 TO 5

A good game for Deron but SA wins the game but good game for TP

Bilan TP 1 DW 1

And at the end TP will be the MVP of the finals in PlayOffs !

[wildbill2u]

Funny that no one mentioned Manu's prowess at shooting FTs, especially pressure FTs in the closing minutes. If the opposing team fouls him, they are attacking our best FT shooter.

That's one big reason why the ball is put in his hands at the end of the game.

[ducks]

Popovich stated, it’s Tony Parker that keeps everything copacetic.

More so than in any of his previous All-Star seasons, Parker is walking that fine line between distribution and scoring to near perfection most games, as he did last night. There has not been any specific improvement in his passing or court vision, but the decision making has been honed and the options around him vastly improved.

Read more: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/san-antonio-spurs-113-sacramento-kings-100-with-help-from-splitter-parker-keeps-spurs-copacetic#ixzz1D9A80Umh

[analyzed]

Plain and simple Manu is special, there are probably only 2 shooting guard you would trade for Manu : Kobe and Wade and get the same value back for at least this season and next. Note : Kobe and Wade are MVP level candidates nothing less, that's the level Manu is.

The same cannot be said of Tony , you could easily find at least half a dozen point guards and get equal value in return if you traded him ( not suggesting the Spurs do) : Williams, CP3, Westbrook , Nash, Rando, Rose etc ( note some of them are not MVP level players like Kobe and wade)

Simply said Manu is more special. And Tony while good is more ordinary and less special

[ducks]

tp is a special point guard

tp would average 12 assist if spurs did not run the motion offense

he passes to dice for a open look he passes to a more open blair

this type of play happens alot

people may say tp is not as special because he does not post up many point guards


and the west is loaded with quality point guards
but he is special

manu is special to
he seems to thrive on the final minutes of games

I think tp can also but pop knows manu can and when tp gets the chance you people will be proven wrong

[jestersmash]

For the last 10-11 games or so, Tony Parker has clearly been the MVP of our team, and that's really the beauty of this spurs team. We have 3 guys who, on any given stretch, can assume the burden of being the "alpha dog."

I'm really impressed by Parker's improvement in 3 point shooting. You can tell his practice is paying off. He doesn't attempt that many 3 pointers per game, but he seems to consistently go 0-1, 1-1, 2-2, 1-2, 1-3, etc. which is just spectacular for him.

[LoveMySpurs]

I think the Spurs are fortunate to have BOTH of these guys and have them BOTH healthy (amazing what NOT playing for your national team does for your NBA game) I personally like Manu's play better-but both are having a great season in different ways (as has been pointed out) But don't forget the supporting cast that allow these guys to do their 'stuff'.

Let's ALL stay health and get ring # 5!!! :lobt2:

[spizzle_tronk]

u mad
u all mad

[K-State Spur]

In the same chat, Bucher also said:

Duncan is, essentially, David West, as in a jump-shooting PF/C. That's not what wins playoff games.

Bucher says lots of stuff, most of it completely worthless.

Bucher's style is just to make up points that support his conclusions and ignore the facts that do not.

(According to 82games and my own eyes) Duncan shoots far less jumpshots than KG, Dirk, or Bosh - has Rick written off those three teams as well?