Manu = 58th best playa of all time

[Play Boban]

According to espn :wow

[Dex]

Stats, limited playing time coming off the bench, perception due to playing with Timmy....probably skewed his ranking a bit.

I think Manu would say he is pretty happy with the career he had. First ballot Hall of Fame in my opinion...

[Gibbz]

Should be higher.

[DAF86]

Underrated. He's probably 20-30 places higher, tbh. I didn't see the list but probably has guys like Iverson, R.Miller and Kidd in front of him. Any such list might be a ranking of individual NBA stats, but not a real ranking of who the better player was.

[Gibbz]

Guys like Vince Carter are ahead of him on there. T-Mac who never got out of the first round. Russell fucking Westbrook and AD already. And they have this guy ahead of all of them :lol:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/bob-cousy-of-the-boston-celtics-moves-into-score-through-syracuse-men-picture-id514900094?s=612x612

[pad300]

Underrated. He's probably 20-30 places higher, tbh. I didn't see the list but probably has guys like Iverson, R.Miller and Kidd in front of him. Any such list might be a ranking of individual NBA stats, but not a real ranking of who the better player was.

Criteria : Order in which I would draft guys, all-time, as the building block of a team.

Manu is actually being overrated here. Just on the Spurs, there are 2 players ahead of him: Duncan & Kawhi, further there are 3 who compete with him : Admiral, Gervin, Parker.

[DAF86]

Criteria : Order in which I would draft guys, all-time, as the building block of a team.

Manu is actually being overrated here. Just on the Spurs, there are 2 players ahead of him: Duncan & Kawhi, further there are 3 who compete with him : Admiral, Gervin, Parker.

Robinson doesn't "compete" with Manu, the Admiral is head and shoulders above him. Robinson is one of the most underrated players of all-time because of lack of supporting cast and a couple of playoffs games vs Olajuwon. In terms of raw talent Robinson is top 20/15 of all-time, maybe even top 10.

With that said, I pretty much doubt there are 58 players better than Manu. Although I have to be honest and say that I haven't seen the list (does anyone have a link?). But, going by previous lists that had Manu ranked right about the same number, I have to guess that folks like Iverson, Kidd, Reggie Miller, etc. were ranked ahead of him and I can provide plenty of evidence explaining why Manu is clearly better than all those guys.

[tmtcsc]

Manu's easily a TOP 50 player. I don't care what players you remove to get him on that list but he ABSOLUTELY belongs there. 4 x NBA Champion & Olympic Champion. He was a ferocious but selfless competitor who provided whatever his team needed. He brought more value than stats can measure. He happened to play on a team featuring an All-Time, generational player in Tim Duncan. If not for that, his stats would be higher.

[GAustex]

Guys like Vince Carter are ahead of him on there. T-Mac who never got out of the first round. Russell fucking Westbrook and AD already. And they have this guy ahead of all of them :lol:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/bob-cousy-of-the-boston-celtics-moves-into-score-through-syracuse-men-picture-id514900094?s=612x612
How those dudes didn’t rip their ankles. Chucks may be stylish now but they suck as a BB shoe.

[paperboy77]

.

[paperboy77]

How bout ESPN grows some balls and makes an all time Winners / "Rough Riders" / Killas / Mo-fo's-you'd-roll-with-any-day-on-the-court-when-stakes-are-high" list? I'm talking heavy minutes.. Conf. Finals or up... not just WTF?-clutch plays from random guys.

Top 10 (not knowing shit pre-88' except for clips):


* MJ (1)
* Kobe
* Manu
* LeBron (F what you say)
* Timmay
* Shaq
* Reggie Miller
* Chauncey
* Nash + Stat
* Wade (10)

* Hakeem
* Dirk
* Nephew
* Logo
* Dame
* Sheed
* Dumars (defense matters)
* Bird
* Robert Horry
* Iggy
* Shane Battier
* Jason Terry
* Detlef S
* Cassel
* Microwave Johnson
* Terry Porter
* Mario Ellie
* Ray Ray

[FrostKing]

Ginobili certainly over Vince Carter. There must be some CBB bias with Vince starring at UNC.

But Manu has a bigger battle - Greatest international player?

[Brazil]

Robinson doesn't "compete" with Manu, the Admiral is head and shoulders above him. Robinson is one of the most underrated players of all-time because of lack of supporting cast and a couple of playoffs games vs Olajuwon. In terms of raw talent Robinson is top 20/15 of all-time, maybe even top 10.

With that said, I pretty much doubt there are 58 players better than Manu. Although I have to be honest and say that I haven't seen the list (does anyone have a link?). But, going by previous lists that had Manu ranked right about the same number, I have to guess that folks like Iverson, Kidd, Reggie Miller, etc. were ranked ahead of him and I can provide plenty of evidence explaining why Manu is clearly better than all those guys.

:tu

in before Lefty with the :cry but but David was soft :cry

Manu is clearly better than #58

[Brazil]

Ginobili certainly over Vince Carter. There must be some CBB bias with Vince starring at UNC.

But Manu has a bigger battle - Greatest international player?

Arguable indeed considering both nba and international careers, Manu has a better international career than hakeem and dirk but those 2 have better nba career.. depends on how much weight you consider for both international and nba. If you consider international has same weight than nba yes Manu is the greatest

[spurs10]

Stats, limited playing time coming off the bench, perception due to playing with Timmy....probably skewed his ranking a bit.

I think Manu would say he is pretty happy with the career he had. First ballot Hall of Fame in my opinion... Exactly! I wonder how many of the 57 players ahead of him are first ballot Hall of Fame players? During the majority of time he played he's bound to be in the top tier of 2 guards.

[rascal]

Manu did not have the individual stats or all star games and his success is tied with team success. Do not confuse individual performance with team performance. Iverson was way better. Spurs win more Titles with Gervin instead of Manu on the roster during the Duncan years. Manu is fortunate to play with Duncan. Top 58 is too generous for him. And those who are claiming Manu is better than Robinson and Gervin, no way even close to those guys.

[baseline bum]

I can't ever see Manu as a #1 option on a team that could have been a consistent top-4 seed in the West during the era he played. He had first ballot HOF talent but his body wouldn't have been able to handle that kind of load playing 35-40 minutes a night and being the guy you had to go to on every possession. It makes it really hard to place him on these kind of lists because he's absolutely elite if you need someone to carry you the last two minutes of a playoff game (assuming he hasn't been burnt out in the first 46 minutes) but he's not the guy to carry you the entire game or the entire season. I honestly don't know where the hell I'd rank Manu, just glad he was here because he was an incredible assassin to complent Tim who was the horse that carried the team.

[apalisoc_9]

I can't ever see Manu as a #1 option on a team that could have been a consistent top-4 seed in the West during the era he played. He had first ballot HOF talent but his body wouldn't have been able to handle that kind of load playing 35-40 minutes a night and being the guy you had to go to on every possession. It makes it really hard to place him on these kind of lists because he's absolutely elite if you need someone to carry you the last two minutes of a playoff game (assuming he hasn't been burnt out in the first 46 minutes) but he's not the guy to carry you the entire game or the entire season. I honestly don't know where the hell I'd rank Manu, just glad he was here because he was an incredible assassin to complent Tim who was the horse that carried the team.

yeah

[ElNono]

he's easily 15-20 positions ahead of Porker, tbh

[slick'81]

Sounds about right,tbh

[wildbill2u]

I understand how some people may not give players like Bob Cousy their due because they didn't have the opportunity to see them at all or in their prime. Cousy was a magician with the basketball before there was such a word as "handle". He had one move on a fast break that was revolutionary at the time and not many players can consistently pull off today. Running at top speed he would dribble/pass the ball behind his back to his left hand for a layup. It was one of those moves that boys like me would practice on any playground or driveway until it was dark and time for supper. Those were the days when a behind the back pass would get you a spot on the bench.

Did Gervin's "finger roll" pave the way for the "floater"? Probably, but how many ST members can remember Gervin or Dr. J apart from a few clips that were saved from those days. Great players leave bits and pieces of their repertoire to the following generations to use and improve upon.

[clubalien]

manu has a gold medal one of the few to beat team usa.. should definitely be on the list and first time hof ballot receiver

[SASdynasty!]

Lol a bench warmer over a FMVP. Only ST & ESPN.

[SASdynasty!]

he's easily 15-20 positions ahead of Porker, tbh
We’re not talking about turnovers in the 2013 Finals though.

[lefty]

Better than Porker tbh

[dbreiden83080]

No Def Not sorry.. I love Manu but no way... So for that to be true Manu is a better player than the following on this list..

Robert Parish
Willis Reed
Bob McAdoo

They got Bernard King at 69 and Pistol Pete at 68..

Sorry Guys Manu is not better than really any of those players..

I'd say he and Tony are both top 100 players..

[dbreiden83080]

Manu did not have the individual stats or all star games and his success is tied with team success. Do not confuse individual performance with team performance. Iverson was way better. Spurs win more Titles with Gervin instead of Manu on the roster during the Duncan years. Manu is fortunate to play with Duncan. Top 58 is too generous for him. And those who are claiming Manu is better than Robinson and Gervin, no way even close to those guys.

I agree.. People love Manu. Hell I love Manu. But playing for Pop, and with Duncan is why he is going to the HOF.. Manu had he been drafted and played for the Clippers for example would have burnt out with injuries, and heavy minutes.. The NBA career would have been pretty short.. And you have to rank guys like AI ahead of him that won regular season MVP, and carried teams on their backs to a finals run. That's just fair...

[Killakobe81]

I agree.. People love Manu. Hell I love Manu. But playing for Pop, and with Duncan is why he is going to the HOF.. Manu had he been drafted and played for the Clippers for example would have burnt out with injuries, and heavy minutes.. The NBA career would have been pretty short.. And you have to rank guys like AI ahead of him that won regular season MVP, and carried teams on their backs to a finals run. That's just fair...

To close a big game... Im taking manu over Harden, Nash, AI. I actually enjoy his game more than any of those three tbh but for a full season no way do Spurs not trade Fino for any of those guys prime vs prime. We get he is the better fit but those guys were franchise carrying stars who never had a Duncan to anchor the paint for them...

[DAF86]

No Def Not sorry.. I love Manu but no way... So for that to be true Manu is a better player than the following on this list..

Robert Parish
Willis Reed
Bob McAdoo

They got Bernard King at 69 and Pistol Pete at 68..

Sorry Guys Manu is not better than really any of those players..

I'd say he and Tony are both top 100 players..

In which things isn't he better than those guys you named? Shooting, passing, defense, clutchness, IQ, leadership? You tell me. Give me an explanation other than "he didn't average as many points".

[DAF86]

I can't ever see Manu as a #1 option on a team that could have been a consistent top-4 seed in the West during the era he played. He had first ballot HOF talent but his body wouldn't have been able to handle that kind of load playing 35-40 minutes a night and being the guy you had to go to on every possession. It makes it really hard to place him on these kind of lists because he's absolutely elite if you need someone to carry you the last two minutes of a playoff game (assuming he hasn't been burnt out in the first 46 minutes) but he's not the guy to carry you the entire game or the entire season. I honestly don't know where the hell I'd rank Manu, just glad he was here because he was an incredible assassin to complent Tim who was the horse that carried the team.

Deron Williams, Carlos Boozer, Carmelo Anthony, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol are just some of the "number one guys" to have gotten multiple top 4 finishes during the "Manu era" west, tbh.

6 foot nothing, 160 pounds on soaking wet clothes Steve Nash won B2B MVP's during that era. I don't know guys, I always thought the whole Manu "durability" issues were overblown. It's just one of those things one guy comes up with one day and for some reason everyone sticks with despite not having much proof to back it up. I don't know many athletes with durability issues that played professionally from age 18 to age 42, tbh.

Heck, besides, the whole "carrying a franchise during an entire season" thing has proven to be a bit overrated too, tbh. If not, just ask mr load management.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I agree that I'd put Manu over a lot of the guys ahead of him.

The only knock you could really put on Manu is that with how he played the game he was never able to play tons of minutes. Of course, as the game has evolved, that really doesn't matter anymore. Everybody is load-managing.

[dbreiden83080]

In which things isn't he better than those guys you named? Shooting, passing, defense, clutchness, IQ, leadership? You tell me. Give me an explanation other than "he didn't average as many points".

Parish would be close. He played with stacked talent. But Willis Reed for example was a franchise big man. Manu do you think he is a franchise player? He made the All Star team twice.. He was the 2nd maybe 3rd wheel on the Spurs. Tony gets shunned around here in the midst of the Manu love fest.. Had Manu not been on the Spurs it's a short career brother. Pop kept him healthy. And playing with a top 5 all time player helped just a little with the rings. I am not putting him above franchise level players, because he won rings with Tim Duncan.. We got some idiots saying he is better than AI.. Which is hilarious.. Lillard is 72. He's having a better career than Manu.. He just didn't play with TD.. It's easy to say "He would have averaged 25 a game" Well he didn't..

[Drom John]

1) 58th in NBA. European and International play does not count.
2) Playing time. I'm not investigating, but I predict Ginobili is #1 among all players with his minutes played or less.
3) 71st in WS, which is quality * PT stat.
4) 20th in Playoff WS, which helps recent players with the expanded playoffs.
5) ESPN's and Spurstalk has a recency bias.

[dbreiden83080]

Deron Williams, Carlos Boozer, Carmelo Anthony, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol are just some of the "number one guys" to have gotten multiple top 4 finishes during the "Manu era" west, tbh.

6 foot nothing, 160 pounds on soaking wet clothes Steve Nash won B2B MVP's during that era. I don't know guys, I always thought the whole Manu "durability" issues were overblown. It's just one of those things one guy comes up with one day and for some reason everyone sticks with despite not having much proof to back it up. I don't know many athletes with durability issues that played professionally from age 18 to age 42, tbh.

Heck, besides, the whole "carrying a franchise during an entire season" thing has proven to be a bit overrated too, tbh. If not, just ask mr load management.

Are you serious? He's 31 years old, and Pop has Manu playing 26 MPG.. That's why he lasted so long. Manu from ages 26-30 on another team playing about 40 MPG as the main option.. Driving to the rim getting hammered.. Good luck with the durability..

[dbreiden83080]

I can't ever see Manu as a #1 option on a team that could have been a consistent top-4 seed in the West during the era he played. He had first ballot HOF talent but his body wouldn't have been able to handle that kind of load playing 35-40 minutes a night and being the guy you had to go to on every possession. It makes it really hard to place him on these kind of lists because he's absolutely elite if you need someone to carry you the last two minutes of a playoff game (assuming he hasn't been burnt out in the first 46 minutes) but he's not the guy to carry you the entire game or the entire season. I honestly don't know where the hell I'd rank Manu, just glad he was here because he was an incredible assassin to complent Tim who was the horse that carried the team.

I agree.. Carrying the load is very hard. You can't just average it out per 36, and say "He would have been the man"

[Play Boban]

I agree.. People love Manu. Hell I love Manu. But playing for Pop, and with Duncan is why he is going to the HOF.. Manu had he been drafted and played for the Clippers for example would have burnt out with injuries, and heavy minutes.. The NBA career would have been pretty short.. And you have to rank guys like AI ahead of him that won regular season MVP, and carried teams on their backs to a finals run. That's just fair...
:cry HOF worthy shut take

[Play Boban]

Are you serious? He's 31 years old, and Pop has Manu playing 26 MPG.. That's why he lasted so long. Manu from ages 26-30 on another team playing about 40 MPG as the main option.. Driving to the rim getting hammered.. Good luck with the durability..
No one plays 40 mpg anymore. Quit living in the past

[dbreiden83080]

No one plays 40 mpg anymore. Quit living in the past

Is Manu playing Today? Or did he play 17 years ago?

[lefty]

:cry I don'T hate Kobe anymore after seeing this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEW5WTYUcAEaruu.jpg

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/kobe-bryant-hugs-manu-ginobili-between-spain-and-australia-after-the-picture-id1167832419

[Play Boban]

Is Manu playing Today? Or did he play 17 years ago?
:cry

Kobe barely played more than 40 mpg who cares

[dbreiden83080]

:cry

Kobe barely played more than 40 mpg who cares

As has been mentioned It's hard to carry that offensive load for 10 years or more.. Manu never had to do it.. We could have him handle the ball in the last 2 minutes of big games. Because he had something left..

[TDfan2007]

I can't ever see Manu as a #1 option on a team that could have been a consistent top-4 seed in the West during the era he played. He had first ballot HOF talent but his body wouldn't have been able to handle that kind of load playing 35-40 minutes a night and being the guy you had to go to on every possession. It makes it really hard to place him on these kind of lists because he's absolutely elite if you need someone to carry you the last two minutes of a playoff game (assuming he hasn't been burnt out in the first 46 minutes) but he's not the guy to carry you the entire game or the entire season. I honestly don't know where the hell I'd rank Manu, just glad he was here because he was an incredible assassin to complent Tim who was the horse that carried the team.

Agreed. He's very tough to rank for a variety of reasons. Manu had 4 GREAT years (2005, 2007, 2010, 2011), but his body failed him time and time again, especially in the playoffs, when his efficiency usually dipped. He was a guy who could kill you in spurts, but he wasn't on the level of a Kobe or DWade, guys who could consistently get their numbers and play at an MVPish level despite playing alongside generational talent. I'd say he's in the Reggie Miller and Ray Allen tier, but at the top of that tier.

Manu's biggest issue was that he wasn't consistently great, especially in the playoffs. He'd give you moments and great games, but not night in night out consistent production. That's why he was always referred to as our X factor. If he had a great game, we were essentially unbeatable.

One more thing that we need to remember when looking at Manu's advanced stats is that those numbers are based on playing a disproportionate number of minutes against bench players compared to other starts at his level.

[rascal]

Manu with only two all star appearances says it all. The top players have far more all star appearances because they put up the numbers. Manu did not even score 20 points a game for a season, his best was just under at 19.5 and career average of only 13.3 points per game. Weak scoring numbers when compared to the top players. 58th best is too generous of a ranking. Some spur fans put him ahead of Gervin because they have never seen Gervin play.

[TMTTRIO]

It's hard to rank where Manu would be. He's better for international play than NBA because of games and minutes restrictions . Although knowing how Pop is and if Manu didn't play all those summers of iternational ball, I wonder if he could've handled more than he did. It's hard to also rank him because he played with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker and he came off the bench almost his whole career with the Spurs. His stats aren't very impressive in the NBA (a lot of other guys average more points then he did) and overall his personal NBA accomplishments aren't impressive, but a lot of things he does to win games don't show up on the score board and the way he can impact games. Also you can't forget he was one of our top closers which we can't take for granted. it's an interesting discussion for sure. As far as his international career you've got to give him credit for helping his team be one of the first ones to beat Team USA in 2002 and then helping lead his team to a win again versus Team USA in 2004 (yes I know our team was week but still it was made up of All Stars and some of the best plaers) and then on to a gold medal. Based on his international accomplishments alone he's making the HOF. As far as the NBA it's really hard to rank where he would be or who he is better than.

[dbreiden83080]

Agreed. He's very tough to rank for a variety of reasons. Manu had 4 GREAT years (2005, 2007, 2010, 2011), but his body failed him time and time again, especially in the playoffs, when his efficiency usually dipped. He was a guy who could kill you in spurts, but he wasn't on the level of a Kobe or DWade, guys who could consistently get their numbers and play at an MVPish level despite playing alongside generational talent. I'd say he's in the Reggie Miller and Ray Allen tier, but at the top of that tier.

Manu's biggest issue was that he wasn't consistently great, especially in the playoffs. He'd give you moments and great games, but not night in night out consistent production. That's why he was always referred to as our X factor. If he had a great game, we were essentially unbeatable.

One more thing that we need to remember when looking at Manu's advanced stats is that those numbers are based on playing a disproportionate number of minutes against bench players compared to other starts at his level.

And I hate to bring up painful memories, but the 2006 game 7 foul still pisses me off to this day. We were going to the finals. It would’ve been a nasty fight with the Miami Heat, but I believe we would have won. That’s six championships. Fuck.

[daslicer]

Parish would be close. He played with stacked talent. But Willis Reed for example was a franchise big man. Manu do you think he is a franchise player? He made the All Star team twice.. He was the 2nd maybe 3rd wheel on the Spurs. Tony gets shunned around here in the midst of the Manu love fest.. Had Manu not been on the Spurs it's a short career brother. Pop kept him healthy. And playing with a top 5 all time player helped just a little with the rings. I am not putting him above franchise level players, because he won rings with Tim Duncan.. We got some idiots saying he is better than AI.. Which is hilarious.. Lillard is 72. He's having a better career than Manu.. He just didn't play with TD.. It's easy to say "He would have averaged 25 a game" Well he didn't..

There are a lot of idiots in here that believe Manu is better than Dirk which is asinine.

[TDfan2007]

There are a lot of idiots in here that believe Manu is better than Dirk which is asinine.

Those people can't be helped *shrug*

[TDfan2007]

And I hate to bring up painful memories, but the 2006 game 7 foul still pisses me off to this day. We were going to the finals. It would’ve been a nasty fight with the Miami Heat, but I believe we would have won. That’s six championships. Fuck.

Same, man. Idk why, but that loss hurt more than 0.4, and even more than 2013, mainly because of the drastic change in legacy. That was our chance for a 3-peat with the Big 3 at the height of their respective powers. What could have been...

[dbreiden83080]

Same, man. Idk why, but that loss hurt more than 0.4, and even more than 2013, mainly because of the drastic change in legacy. That was our chance for a 3-peat with the Big 3 at the height of their respective powers. What could have been...

That was without question the greatest Spurs team that never won an NBA championship. It’s not even close. Just a shitty series of circumstances cost us a championship.

[Play Boban]

As has been mentioned It's hard to carry that offensive load for 10 years or more.. Manu never had to do it.. We could have him handle the ball in the last 2 minutes of big games. Because he had something left..
he could've done it believe me u lie

[DAF86]

Parish would be close. He played with stacked talent. But Willis Reed for example was a franchise big man. Manu do you think he is a franchise player? He made the All Star team twice.. He was the 2nd maybe 3rd wheel on the Spurs. Tony gets shunned around here in the midst of the Manu love fest.. Had Manu not been on the Spurs it's a short career brother. Pop kept him healthy. And playing with a top 5 all time player helped just a little with the rings. I am not putting him above franchise level players, because he won rings with Tim Duncan.. We got some idiots saying he is better than AI.. Which is hilarious.. Lillard is 72. He's having a better career than Manu.. He just didn't play with TD.. It's easy to say "He would have averaged 25 a game" Well he didn't..

So let me get this straight: you can assume guys like Iverson and Lillard would have won rings with better supporting casts but I can't assume Manu would have averaged 25 pts per game on a bigger role? That's quite the hypocritical argument, tbh.

Manu played for several different teams on several different cultures, with barely taking a summer off during offseasons. I'm gonna go ahead and just assume he would have had a pretty healthy and lengthly career anywhere, tbh. It's easy to say "he would have gotten a career ending injury at age 26". Well, he didn't.

Manu is as complete a player as we have ever seen and he proved several times he could do it at the highest level for long periods of time. If you don't think he could have done a pretty damn good job as a franchise guy, then I question your basketball knowledge, specially for a Spurs fan that oughtta know just how good Manu really was.

Btw, I was the one that said Manu > Iverson.

Height, strength, shooting, finishing, defense, IQ, leadership, clutchness. Outside of speed, I'm having a hard time finding things in which AI is better than Manu, tbh.

If there was a fantasy draft right now, I would take Manu and the wins, you can have Iverson and the 30 pts on 30 shots, tbh.

[DAF86]

Agreed. He's very tough to rank for a variety of reasons. Manu had 4 GREAT years (2005, 2007, 2010, 2011), but his body failed him time and time again, especially in the playoffs, when his efficiency usually dipped. He was a guy who could kill you in spurts, but he wasn't on the level of a Kobe or DWade, guys who could consistently get their numbers and play at an MVPish level despite playing alongside generational talent. I'd say he's in the Reggie Miller and Ray Allen tier, but at the top of that tier.

Manu's biggest issue was that he wasn't consistently great, especially in the playoffs. He'd give you moments and great games, but not night in night out consistent production. That's why he was always referred to as our X factor. If he had a great game, we were essentially unbeatable.

What? :lol the dude made a name for himself, exactoy for coming up big in the important moments more times than not. Not only in the NBA but in international play also. I don't know where are you getting this idea that Manu's production declined during the playoffs but numbers indicate exactly the opposite. Outside of a few outliers, Manu's production always went up during the playoffs compared to the regular season. Even the late TOSB version of Manu would see his play increase during the playoffs.


One more thing that we need to remember when looking at Manu's advanced stats is that those numbers are based on playing a disproportionate number of minutes against bench players compared to other starts at his level.

Sorry, but that's just not true and a hater's argument, tbh. Manu's stats are actually better when he starts.

[Play Boban]

Manu should be ranked higher than Jim tbh

[TDfan2007]

What? :lol the dude made a name for himself, exactoy for coming up big in the important moments more times than not. Not only in the NBA but in international play also. I don't know where are you getting this idea that Manu's production declined during the playoffs but numbers indicate exactly the opposite. Outside of a few outliers, Manu's production always went up during the playoffs compared to the regular season. Even the late TOSB version of Manu would see his play increase during the playoffs.


Sorry, but that's just not true and a hater's argument, tbh. Manu's stats are actually better when he starts.

Yes, his EFFICIENCY and EFFECTIVENESS got worse, with only a few exceptions. For the sake of fairness, I'll include only prime years of 2005-2012

-2005: season PER 22.3, WS/48 0.240; playoffs PER 24.8, WS/48 0.260 (this was GOAT playoff Manu)

-2006: season PER 22.4, WS/48 0.234; playoffs PER 21.5, WS/48 0.154 (dribbled the ball off his foot to end game 3 against Dallas, fouled Dirk then missed the game-winning layup in game 7)

-2007: season PER 24.1, WS/48 0.246; playoffs PER 21.9, WS/48 0.204 (absolute beast in the RS)

-2008: season PER 24.3, WS/48 0.232; playoffs PER 17.1, WS/48 0.112 (maybe his best RS ever, but playoffs were marred by inconsistency after an ankle injury in round 1)

-2009: injured in playoffs

-2010: season PER 22.5, WS/48 0.216; playoffs PER 21.4, WS/48 0.149

-2011: season PER 21.7, WS/48 0.195; playoffs PER 22.3, WS/48 0.155 (by far our best player in an embarrassing playoff sweep, despite playing with a broken arm)

-2012: season PER 24.1, WS/48 0.257; playoffs PER 17.0, WS/48 0.120 (again, inconsistent play with flashes of brilliance; brilliant in game 2 against the Thunder, but completely disappeared in the deciding game 6)

[MultiTroll]

Stats, limited playing time coming off the bench, perception due to playing with Timmy....probably skewed his ranking a bit.

I think Manu would say he is pretty happy with the career he had. First ballot Hall of Fame in my opinion...
Agree, probably doesn't GAF about what ESPN/ABC/Disney has to say.

Manu knows the fakery business part of the NBA and knows the Spurs overcame it 5Xs, 4 with him.

[TD 21]

:lmao At people still citing counting stats and accolades without context.

The irony of it, is that no team has shown more in the past decade how irrelevant they are. Look how good this team was in the first half of the past decade often without anyone putting up "All-Star numbers". Look how mediocre-bad they've been in recent years with multiple players putting up "All-Star numbers". Sure, the former had better depth/fit, but still.

[dbreiden83080]

So let me get this straight: you can assume guys like Iverson and Lillard would have won rings with better supporting casts but I can't assume Manu would have averaged 25 pts per game on a bigger role? That's quite the hypocritical argument, tbh.

You can assume he can average 25 PPG with a bigger role.. But based on his injury history lack of durability, playing very few minutes at a young age.. Well do the math son. He wasn't going to last.. I don't know about AI winning rings, or Lillard? But if they are playing with TD, I would say the odds are better than average LOL..



Manu played for several different teams on several different cultures, with barely taking a summer off during offseasons. I'm gonna go ahead and just assume he would have had a pretty healthy and lengthly career anywhere, tbh. It's easy to say "he would have gotten a career ending injury at age 26". Well, he didn't.

No.. Pop micro managed those minutes starting at 30 years of age.. They didn't nick name Manu El Contusione for nothing..



Manu is as complete a player as we have ever seen and he proved several times he could do it at the highest level for long periods of time. If you don't think he could have done a pretty damn good job as a franchise guy, then I question your basketball knowledge, specially for a Spurs fan that oughtta know just how good Manu really was.

I think he would have been potentially a franchise guy for 3 or 4 years.. Then he would be so beat up, he is coming off the bench.. And put into context franchise guy? At what level? He is no Kobe or TD, or KG or Dirk, Wade etc.. Any of those guys.. You could play Manu 48 min a night he is not on that level..



Btw, I was the one that said Manu > Iverson.

Yeah well put the fucking pipe down.. AI was a league MVP, led the league in scoring 4 times, was an 11 time All Star, and led a team to the finals almost by himself. That Philly Team Sucked..



I would take Manu and the wins, you can have Iverson and the 30 pts on 30 shots, tbh.

You mean you would take Tim Duncan, Manu and the wins.. That is a far more accurate statement... Yes I would take Tim Duncan, Manu and the wins over AI As well.

[ElNono]

We’re not talking about turnovers in the 2013 Finals though.

I know. Exactly

[ElNono]

Better than Porker tbh

Water is wet post

[TDMVPDPOY]

looking at drob, besides rodman...does he have any team mate in top100 let alone top200 pre duncan? lol

[DAF86]

Yes, his EFFICIENCY and EFFECTIVENESS got worse, with only a few exceptions. For the sake of fairness, I'll include only prime years of 2005-2012

-2005: season PER 22.3, WS/48 0.240; playoffs PER 24.8, WS/48 0.260 (this was GOAT playoff Manu)

-2006: season PER 22.4, WS/48 0.234; playoffs PER 21.5, WS/48 0.154 (dribbled the ball off his foot to end game 3 against Dallas, fouled Dirk then missed the game-winning layup in game 7)

-2007: season PER 24.1, WS/48 0.246; playoffs PER 21.9, WS/48 0.204 (absolute beast in the RS)

-2008: season PER 24.3, WS/48 0.232; playoffs PER 17.1, WS/48 0.112 (maybe his best RS ever, but playoffs were marred by inconsistency after an ankle injury in round 1)

-2009: injured in playoffs

-2010: season PER 22.5, WS/48 0.216; playoffs PER 21.4, WS/48 0.149

-2011: season PER 21.7, WS/48 0.195; playoffs PER 22.3, WS/48 0.155 (by far our best player in an embarrassing playoff sweep, despite playing with a broken arm)

-2012: season PER 24.1, WS/48 0.257; playoffs PER 17.0, WS/48 0.120 (again, inconsistent play with flashes of brilliance; brilliant in game 2 against the Thunder, but completely disappeared in the deciding game 6)

First of all, lol using TOSB PER as a sign of efficiency or effectiveness. Also, do you realize that if there's a drop off, it's an insignificant one? You made seem like Manu drastically decreased his level during the playoffs when that wasn't the case at all. You do realize that it's the norm for "efficiency" to go down in the playoffs, right? You are playing the best teams, with the best defenses, focused on you for 7 games series.

Since you went with PER, for some reason, here's some numbers:

Manu's total regular season PER is 20.2, his playoffs PER is 19.3. a 0.9 drop off.

For comparisson's sake:

-The second greatest Spurs of all time, David Robinson: RS PER: 26.2 - PO PER: 23 - 3.2 pts dropoff.

-The second greatest SG of all time, Kobe Bryant: RS PER: 22.9 - PO PER: 22.4 - 0.5 pts dropoff.

-Larry Bird: RS PER: 23.5 - PO PER: 21.4.- 2.1 pts dropoff.

-Magic Johnson: RS PER: 24.1 - PO PER: 23 - 1.1 pts dropoff

-Wilt Chamberlain: RS PER: 26 - PO PER: 22.7 - 3.3 pts dropoff

You wouldn't accuse any of those guys for being any less great because they couldn't mantain their "efficiency" during the playoffs, right?

[DAF86]

You can assume he can average 25 PPG with a bigger role.. But based on his injury history lack of durability, playing very few minutes at a young age.. Well do the math son. He wasn't going to last.. I don't know about AI winning rings, or Lillard? But if they are playing with TD, I would say the odds are better than average LOL..

Yeah? 'cause I could easily assume that Lillard would get Duncan out of town like he did with Aldridge, or that Iverson, given his history, would rather get traded and fuck things up than taking a backseat to Duncan.



No.. Pop micro managed those minutes starting at 30 years of age.. They didn't nick name Manu El Contusione for nothing..

And? Maybe he wouldn't have played 'till 42, maybe he played 'till 35. Still, not a shabby age to retire, tbh.


I think he would have been potentially a franchise guy for 3 or 4 years.. Then he would be so beat up, he is coming off the bench.. And put into context franchise guy? At what level? He is no Kobe or TD, or KG or Dirk, Wade etc.. Any of those guys.. You could play Manu 48 min a night he is not on that level..

Why the fuck are you grouping Garnett, Dirk and Wade with Duncan, as if they were on the same level? Heck, Kobe isn't on Duncan's tier either.

And, no, obviously I don't think Manu could be anywhere close to the level of franchise player Duncan was. But I do think he would have been a solid franchise player for about 10 years with a team with winning record and maybe a shot at regular season MVP, or a trip to the finals here and there. You know, like that inferior player, Iverson, did once of each.


Yeah well put the fucking pipe down.. AI was a league MVP, led the league in scoring 4 times, was an 11 time All Star, and led a team to the finals almost by himself. That Philly Team Sucked..

Yeah, because he was put on the position to do just that. You pulling the MVP and 11 times all-star card is like me pulling the 4 rings and gold medal card. Iverson was put in a place of individual stat padding (and he kinda forced it too, or at least, didn't do anything to get out of that place), Manu was placed on a position of team success and infinite glory. I'm sure Manu wouldn't have had it any other way.


You mean you would take Tim Duncan, Manu and the wins.. That is a far more accurate statement... Yes I would take Tim Duncan, Manu and the wins over AI As well.

No, I take Manu and the wins. You are forgetting that besides being a Spurs fan, I'm Argentinian, and we are (or at least I am) discussing basketball in general, not just the NBA. And Manu got me plenty of wins as a basketball fan, tbh. With or without Duncan. I know for a fact Iverson wouldn't have gotten me even half the wins Manu got me. And, trust me, I know from experience, I was a huge Iverson fan.

[DAF86]

:lmao At people still citing counting stats and accolades without context.

The irony of it, is that no team has shown more in the past decade how irrelevant they are. Look how good this team was in the first half of the past decade often without anyone putting up "All-Star numbers". Look how mediocre-bad they've been in recent years with multiple players putting up "All-Star numbers". Sure, the former had better depth/fit, but still.

Spurs fans, of all people, should realize this fact. It's mind boggling that some of them are still so caught up with counting stats.

"But he never averaged 25 ppg and he could never lead a team in the regular season".

You know what player did both of those things? DeRozan. Do you see how flawed the reasoning of guys like dbreiden83080 is?

[dbreiden83080]

Spurs fans, of all people, should realize this fact. It's mind boggling that some of them are still so caught up with counting stats.

"But he never averaged 25 ppg and he could never lead a team in the regular season".

You know what player did both of those things? DeRozan. Do you see how flawed the reasoning of guys like dbreiden83080 is?

DeRozan is not AI, or Willis Reed, or some of the others mentioned. You are trying to move the Goal Post.. I love Manu, but we can't compare him historically to players that were the center piece of a Franchise, and advanced very far without winning it all. That were league MVP winners. Dude they got Clyde Drexler at 57.. He was the 2nd best SG in the league for years, and the best player on the 92 Blazers that lost to yep... MJ and the Bulls.. This list is pretty Fucked the more I look at it.. Alonzo Mourning at 63. He was a beast in his prime a 20/10 player and dominant on D. Led his team to 1 deep run in 97 losing to the Bulls in the ECF. And where is Dennis Johnson? His career while he is a different player, he is more Manu like in that he played with some great players, had a key role, and won rings. But was never the Main Man..

[dbreiden83080]

:lmao At people still citing counting stats and accolades without context.

The irony of it, is that no team has shown more in the past decade how irrelevant they are. Look how good this team was in the first half of the past decade often without anyone putting up "All-Star numbers". Look how mediocre-bad they've been in recent years with multiple players putting up "All-Star numbers". Sure, the former had better depth/fit, but still.

I think one of the problems is Rings get credit for too much. For me Wilt is far, and away better than Russell.. He was the best player of that era by a God Damn Mile. He had mediocre team-mates while Russell was surrounded with HOF talent, in an era with only 8 teams..

They got Pippen at 21 on this list WTF? Patrick Ewing is 37. In what fucked up alternate universe Is Pippen better than Ewing? You played with Michael Friggin Jordan dude.. Knicks beat you in the playoffs with regularity otherwise.. Or Barkley is at 23? Barkley a former league MVP led the Suns to the Finals. The list is BS. Most of it..

[lefty]

I think one of the problems is Rings get credit for too much. For me Wilt is far, and away better than Russell.. He was the best player of that era by a God Damn Mile. He had mediocre team-mates while Russell was surrounded with HOF talent, in an era with only 8 teams..

They got Pippen at 21 on this list WTF? Patrick Ewing is 37. In what fucked up alternate universe Is Pippen better than Ewing? You played with Michael Friggin Jordan dude.. Knicks beat you in the playoffs with regularity otherwise.. Or Barkley is at 23? Barkley a former league MVP led the Suns to the Finals. The list is BS. Most of it..
Less teams = less diluted league

[dbreiden83080]

Less teams = less diluted league

With 90% of the talent on 1 team.. With less basketball to be played. Less chance for injuries, or just getting worn down. 16 wins to a title these days.. Might have to play 28 games. In the 60's it was 2 rounds. Potential for 14 games.. Modern era is far more difficult..

[DAF86]

DeRozan is not AI, or Willis Reed, or some of the others mentioned. You are trying to move the Goal Post..

Moving goal posts? You were the one talking about 25 ppg and leading teams during a season. DeRozan did both those things. Heck, his Raptors won 59 games one season. Think of that, a DeMar DeRozan led team had a 60 wins season, but then folks try to sell me the idea that Manu wouldn't be able to be a franchise guy. :lmao


I love Manu, but we can't compare him historically to players that were the center piece of a Franchise, and advanced very far without winning it all. That were league MVP winners. Dude they got Clyde Drexler at 57.. He was the 2nd best SG in the league for years, and the best player on the 92 Blazers that lost to yep... MJ and the Bulls.. This list is pretty Fucked the more I look at it.. Alonzo Mourning at 63. He was a beast in his prime a 20/10 player and dominant on D. Led his team to 1 deep run in 97 losing to the Bulls in the ECF. And where is Dennis Johnson? His career while he is a different player, he is more Manu like in that he played with some great players, had a key role, and won rings. But was never the Main Man..

Why? Because they were put on a position to have all the shots and minutes they wanted? You probably would be one of those guys saying that Westbrook >>>>> Harden, just because Westbrook was a 25 ppg all-star while Harden was a 15 ppg bench guy.

[TDfan2007]

First of all, lol using TOSB PER as a sign of efficiency or effectiveness. Also, do you realize that if there's a drop off, it's an insignificant one? You made seem like Manu drastically decreased his level during the playoffs when that wasn't the case at all. You do realize that it's the norm for "efficiency" to go down in the playoffs, right? You are playing the best teams, with the best defenses, focused on you for 7 games series.

Since you went with PER, for some reason, here's some numbers:

Manu's total regular season PER is 20.2, his playoffs PER is 19.3. a 0.9 drop off.

For comparisson's sake:

-The second greatest Spurs of all time, David Robinson: RS PER: 26.2 - PO PER: 23 - 3.2 pts dropoff.

-The second greatest SG of all time, Kobe Bryant: RS PER: 22.9 - PO PER: 22.4 - 0.5 pts dropoff.

-Larry Bird: RS PER: 23.5 - PO PER: 21.4.- 2.1 pts dropoff.

-Magic Johnson: RS PER: 24.1 - PO PER: 23 - 1.1 pts dropoff

-Wilt Chamberlain: RS PER: 26 - PO PER: 22.7 - 3.3 pts dropoff

You wouldn't accuse any of those guys for being any less great because they couldn't mantain their "efficiency" during the playoffs, right?

PER is a great advanced stat to use for effectiveness in the playoffs because it accounts for pace, and the playoffs are notorious for their slower pace. I also used win shares/48 minutes, which evened things out given Manu's lower total minute count, but okay.

And to your point, yes David is ROUTINELY held against the fire for failing to elevate his game in the playoffs, as was Wilt. One of the main criticisms of Kobe is his lack of finals MVPs and his mediocre finals performances in 04, 08, and 2010. Regarding Magic and Bird, I'm a bit surprised by those numbers tbh, especially Bird. Maybe their numbers are skewed by particularly rough stretches later in their careers. That's why I made it a point to only use Manu's prime.

Anyway, your mind is made up. I gave you the facts and the context. What you do with it is up to you *shrug*

[DAF86]

PER is a great advanced stat to use for effectiveness in the playoffs because it accounts for pace, and the playoffs are notorious for their slower pace. I also used win shares/48 minutes, which evened things out given Manu's lower total minute count, but okay.

And to your point, yes David is ROUTINELY held against the fire for failing to elevate his game in the playoffs, as was Wilt. One of the main criticisms of Kobe is his lack of finals MVPs and his mediocre finals performances in 04, 08, and 2010. Regarding Magic and Bird, I'm a bit surprised by those numbers tbh, especially Bird. Maybe their numbers are skewed by particularly rough stretches later in their careers. That's why I made it a point to only use Manu's prime.

Anyway, your mind is made up. I gave you the facts and the context. What you do with it is up to you *shrug*

Didn't I just provide exactly the same thing? :lol

[dbreiden83080]

Moving goal posts? You were the one talking about 25 ppg and leading teams during a season. DeRozan did both those things. Heck, his Raptors won 59 games one season. Think of that, a DeMar DeRozan led team had a 60 wins season, but then folks try to sell me the idea that Manu wouldn't be able to be a franchise guy. :lmao

We were talking about AI.. A league MVP winner that led a team to the finals. Willis Reed a 2 time Finals MVP.. I guess things like league MVP's and 3 First team
all NBA selections mean very little for AI. Manu made a grand total of 2 All Star Teams son.. 2..

What about Drexler at 57? Care to tell me how Manu is anywhere close to a 10 time All Star that was first team all NBA in 1992? He was 2nd in the MVP voting. These are the guys you want to tell me "Manu is better than" Is he better than Drexler? Why? Because he is from Argentina, and you are biased as shit?




Why? Because they were put on a position to have all the shots and minutes they wanted? You probably would be one of those guys saying that Westbrook >>>>> Harden, just because Westbrook was a 25 ppg all-star while Harden was a 15 ppg bench guy.

You just proved my point. You want to give credit to Manu for something he never did.. Even with your DD point guess what? DD did something Manu did NOT.. It was his team, and the Raptors got pretty far. He was only traded because one of the best players in the league was available.. A top 3 player.. He wasn't traded for scraps. As Spurs fans we know DD got caught up in a very crazy situation. Guys like Leonard don't just become available in their primes.. You can yell that Manu would have done it as a Franchise guy.. But Legacies are about what you actually did do.. Now with Harden he stepped out, and became one of the best players in the NBA. An MVP Winner, and Scoring champ. He showed us he was on that all time level. Manu stayed in SA, and kept contributing to a team not built around him. I deal in what happened. You wave the Poms Poms and say "Go Manu"..

[DAF86]

We were talking about AI.. A league MVP winner that led a team to the finals. Willis Reed a 2 time Finals MVP.. I guess things like league MVP's and 3 First team
all NBA selections mean very little for AI. Manu made a grand total of 2 All Star Teams son.. 2..

The AI argument was already adressed. You gave me circumstancial accolades to say why you think Iverson was better than Manu; while I compared their respective skillsets, mentalities and profesionalism to explain why I think Manu was the better player.

So no, we were no longer talking about AI. I was adressing comments like these:


Manu do you think he is a franchise player?

It's easy to say "He would have averaged 25 a game" Well he didn't..

1) Yes, if guys like DeRozan were able to be "franchise guys" then Manu definitely could too.

2) Again, if guys like DeRozan (or Kevin Martin or many others) were able to do it, then yes, I think Manu could too. And if he didn't, would he need to? Nash won B2B MVP's averaging 16 ppg.


What about Drexler at 57? Care to tell me how Manu is anywhere close to a 10 time All Star that was first team all NBA in 1992? He was 2nd in the MVP voting. These are the guys you want to tell me "Manu is better than" Is he better than Drexler? Why? Because he is from Argentina, and you are biased as shit?

Now you are just resorting to personal attacks because you can't keep up with the arguments :lol

Regarding Drexler, I don't know, I didn't have the chance to see him much during his prime. But by looking at his stats, he seems to be well worthy of the praise he gets, tbh. Anyway, I don't why you bring him up so agressively. Wasn't he placed above Manu? :lol


You just proved my point. You want to give credit to Manu for something he never did.. Even with your DD point guess what? DD did something Manu did NOT.. It was his team, and the Raptors got pretty far. He was only traded because one of the best players in the league was available.. A top 3 player.. He wasn't traded for scraps. As Spurs fans we know DD got caught up in a very crazy situation. Guys like Leonard don't just become available in their primes.. You can yell that Manu would have done it as a Franchise guy.. But Legacies are about what you actually did do..

Ok, now tell me this: do you think DeRozan is a better player than Manu Ginobili?


Now with Harden he stepped out, and became one of the best players in the NBA. An MVP Winner, and Scoring champ. He showed us he was on that all time level. Manu stayed in SA, and kept contributing to a team not built around him. I deal in what happened. You wave the Poms Poms and say "Go Manu"..

Again with the personal attacks because you notice You can't keep the argument going. It's ok son, I forgive you. :lol

Your problem is that you are all over the place and keep contradicting yourself.

First you say "well, we can't assume things that didn't happen. Manu never led a team" and then go onto say things like "Well, if Iverson or Lillard played with better teams they would have more rings than Manu".

So, what is it son? We can or can't assume things that didn't happen?

You know what the worst part is? That Manu did lead teams during his career. On Europe, on the Olympics vs all-NBA teams, and yes, in the NBA too. Or are you just going to ignore years like 2008 and 2011?

[dbreiden83080]

The AI argument was already adressed. You gave me circumstancial accolades to say why you think Iverson was better than Manu; while I compared their respective skillsets, mentalities and profesionalism to explain why I think Manu was the better player.

No you waved your poms poms and said "Go Manu".. AI is a League MVP winner. He is one of the best players of his generation. You are too biased..




1) Yes, if guys like DeRozan were able to be "franchise guys" then Manu definitely could too.

2) Again, if guys like DeRozan (or Kevin Martin or many others) were able to do it, then yes, I think Manu could too. And if he didn't, would he need to? Nash won B2B MVP's averaging 16 ppg.

I was not really a big Nash fan. But he was also putting up 11-12 APG, and orchestrating one of the highest powered Offenses of that era.. Probably in league history. Manu played for Pop, and had very low minutes to keep him as healthy as possible. He did not play 35-38 MPG for 12 years as a franchise centerpiece.. Manu is playing 26 MPG at 31 years old.. Nash is playing 36 MPG with the ball in his hands all the time. Spurs had TD, and also Tony. They didn't have to wear Manu out..




Now you are just resorting to personal attacks because you can't keep up with the arguments :lol

Regarding Drexler, I don't know, I didn't have the chance to see him much during his prime. But by looking at his stats, he seems to be well worthy of the praise he gets, tbh. Anyway, I don't why you bring him up so agressively. Wasn't he placed above Manu? :lol

He was only 1 spot above Manu at 57. Which shows why that list is whacked.. I mentioned Dennis Johnson with the Celtics. He is nowhere.. He had a Manu like Career..




Ok, now tell me this: do you think DeRozan is a better player than Manu Ginobili?

A loaded question because he is now playing for a mediocre Spurs team.. I am not a huge fan of DD, but he has great offensive talent, and again was only traded for a top 3 player in the league.. Manu is traded for Leonard as well in a heartbeat.. I would say prime for prime they are pretty damn close.. Are you convinced he could not fit in with prime TD, and Tony to win some rings? This Spurs team is in transition and it is bad.. Manu never played for a bad Spurs team. He played for great Spurs teams. Some damn near historically great.. TD in 2003 dragged a young Manu, and Tony to a Chip.. Manu did very little in the 2003 playoffs.. People were pissed off Jackson was gone that off-season.. And you know that.. By 2005 Manu was playing at a very high level no doubt. But still had prime TD to carry the load.. 2007 who got finals MVP?? Not Manu or even Tim. Tony gets it.. Again Manu is playing on a great Spurs team. DD would have loved to get his shot with that squad..

[DAF86]

lol son, it was a "yes or no" question, tbh. No reason to go on a tangent like you did. :lol

Or maybe you won't give a straight answer because you know you argued yourself into a corner.

[apalisoc_9]

58 is slightly higher for Manu considering his limited minutes and just overall body of work compared to the guys behind him.

The big question with manu has always been durability. I think if we can confidently say he can be durable, I can easily see him average 25ppg. But that never happened.

I would probably put him in the 65-70 range..Which is not that far from his current ranking.

[TD 21]

Spurs fans, of all people, should realize this fact. It's mind boggling that some of them are still so caught up with counting stats.


"But he never averaged 25 ppg and he could never lead a team in the regular season".

You know what player did both of those things? DeRozan. Do you see how flawed the reasoning of guys like

dbreiden83080 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1137)
is?




DeRozan didn't lead anything.
Regular season wise, Lowry was underrated Ginobili style to most because of his relatively pedestrian counting stats, but he was always far and away the best player on the Raptors and they were generally at their best when he played with the 2nd unit.





I think one of the problems is Rings get credit for too much. For me Wilt is far, and away better than Russell.. He was the best player of that era by a God Damn Mile. He had mediocre team-mates while Russell was surrounded with HOF talent, in an era with only 8 teams..


They got Pippen at 21 on this list WTF? Patrick Ewing is 37. In what fucked up alternate universe Is Pippen better than Ewing? You played with Michael Friggin Jordan dude.. Knicks beat you in the playoffs with regularity otherwise.. Or Barkley is at 23? Barkley a former league MVP led the Suns to the Finals. The list is BS. Most of it..

Context is key to everything. Just spouting so and so has "(insert however many rings)" or "won an MVP(s)/Finals MVP(s)" or "averaged 25 a game" or whatever, doesn't mean a whole lot.

Take Scumbag, for example. He undeservingly wins his first Finals MVP as a role player on an all-time great team, in what was essentially a nod to James. Then his second, he intentionally destroys his value to the point of a trade occurring and team forming that never would have otherwise, then lucks into the best team in the league have 5 of their top 7 (including best player) injured in the Finals and now all of a sudden he's made out to be unassailable.



2007 who got finals MVP?? Not Manu or even Tim. Tony gets it.. Again Manu is playing on a great Spurs team.

Perfect example. Duncan was easily the best player and the real Finals was the WCSF (Suns). If the league had playoffs MVP instead of Finals MVP, like they should, Duncan wins hands down. If we're going to play the Finals MVP game though, we all know Ginobili had a case in '05. So had the arbitrary vote went his way and not Parker's, would that mean the former was "carrying the team" at a time and the latter wasn't? That's nonsense.

[dbreiden83080]

DeRozan didn't lead anything.
Regular season wise, Lowry was underrated Ginobili style to most because of his relatively pedestrian counting stats, but he was always far and away the best player on the Raptors and they were generally at their best when he played with the 2nd unit.

Lowry has taken his own hits from fans, and the media for failing to step up in the playoffs before last season. The Raps with DD were flawed, and the East was weak, but Spurs fans seem to give him unwarranted shit. He is not KL, obviously he can't replace a top 3 player in the league. But You are the high scorer on a team that is winning 59 games, you are a winning player.. He is losing to Lebron and the Cavs.. For me Winning is not just about did you get the ring? It's hard when you are such a central focus is mostly my point. People undervalue that.. There is only 1 champion each year..







Context is key to everything. Just spouting so and so has "(insert however many rings)" or "won an MVP(s)/Finals MVP(s)" or "averaged 25 a game" or whatever, doesn't mean a whole lot.


Of course, and I have tried to give that context.. Some players have been blessed with a great situation, coaches, team-mates. Others have not.. So looking at things like All NBA selections, MVP Awards, Reg season success, playoff runs etc are factored in. How much help do you have? And what are you up against? What is your role?



Take Scumbag, for example. He undeservingly wins his first Finals MVP as a role player on an all-time great team, in what was essentially a nod to James. Then his second, he intentionally destroys his value to the point of a trade occurring and team forming that never would have otherwise, then lucks into the best team in the league have 5 of their top 7 (including best player) injured in the Finals and now all of a sudden he's made out to be unassailable.




He is an asshole.. But he did deserve the finals MVP.. Played very well out in Miami in the games 3 and 4 blowouts.. I wanted Tim to get that badly, because he would have got the 2013 Finals MVP.. But I'll take the chip.. The Asshole helped..



Perfect example. Duncan was easily the best player and the real Finals was the WCSF (Suns). If the league had playoffs MVP instead of Finals MVP, like they should, Duncan wins hands down. If we're going to play the Finals MVP game though, we all know Ginobili had a case in '05. So had the arbitrary vote went his way and not Parker's, would that mean the former was "carrying the team" at a time and the latter wasn't? That's nonsense.


Agreed about Duncan, he was still the best player on the Spurs in 2007.. But shows you strength of those teams.. If you recall Duncan after a great first 2 games, struggled shooting the ball out in Cleveland. I mean Duncan shot 4/15 in the closeout game 4.. Tony was brilliant in that series. Averaging 25 PTS on 57%.. So it just shows you how well rounded those Spurs teams were.. Good for us.. We got 5 rings..

[TD 21]

Lowry has taken his own hits from fans, and the media for failing to step up in the playoffs before last season. The Raps with DD were flawed, and the East was weak, but Spurs fans seem to give him unwarranted shit. He is not KL, obviously he can't replace a top 3 player in the league. But You are the high scorer on a team that is winning 59 games, you are a winning player.. He is losing to Lebron and the Cavs.. For me Winning is not just about did you get the ring? It's hard when you are such a central focus is mostly my point. People undervalue that.. There is only 1 champion each year..

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]



Of course, and I have tried to give that context.. Some players have been blessed with a great situation, coaches, team-mates. Others have not.. So looking at things like All NBA selections, MVP Awards, Reg season success, playoff runs etc are factored in. How much help do you have? And what are you up against? What is your role?



He is an asshole.. But he did deserve the finals MVP.. Played very well out in Miami in the games 3 and 4 blowouts.. I wanted Tim to get that badly, because he would have got the 2013 Finals MVP.. But I'll take the chip.. The Asshole helped..



Agreed about Duncan, he was still the best player on the Spurs in 2007.. But shows you strength of those teams.. If you recall Duncan after a great first 2 games, struggled shooting the ball out in Cleveland. I mean Duncan shot 4/15 in the closeout game 4.. Tony was brilliant in that series. Averaging 25 PTS on 57%.. So it just shows you how well rounded those Spurs teams were.. Good for us.. We got 5 rings..

That's why I specifically said regular season. His playoff performance last season is tainted like everything having to do with that team was because of Scumbag intentionally artificially depressing his value (which, again, is the only reason that iteration existed).

They won 59 mostly on the strength of top 15 regular season player Lowry and the best 2nd unit in the league. Granted, DeRozan had his best season too. So in pristine circumstances (near elite teammate, 3 and D players galore, continuity, depth, weak conference), sure, you can win big in the regular season with him. Anything less, forget it. Playoffs? Not a chance.

The problem is the voters though. So many of them have an agenda and/or are not that knowledgeable, which is why I don't give much credence to many accolades.

No, he didn't and I said it at the time, so it's not bitterness speaking. A role player should never win Finals MVP. He didn't have a creative offensive burden and wasn't a focus of the opposing defense.

Parker took advantage of Hughes with a sprained ankle in the first 2 defending him and Duncan's unselfishness. Unlike Bryant in '10 with Gasol, he didn't nearly sabotage his own team in an attempt to steal it.

[J_Paco]

Ginobili certainly over Vince Carter. There must be some CBB bias with Vince starring at UNC.

But Manu has a bigger battle - Greatest international player?

That is a hell no and I'm a big Manu/Spurs fan. Getting past all the biases by (modern) Spur fans, Manu is nowhere near the best international player in NBA history.

Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash & Giannis Antetokounmpo were/are superior players to Manu.

Manu (and Tony) has a lot of the same issues that someone like Worthy, Pippen & McHale have playing with a top 10 all-time great. A lot of Timmy's greatness clouds how you rank and rate his "supporting" cast.

The good thing is that all these lists are subjective and all three are locks for the Hall of Fame.

[J_Paco]

he's easily 15-20 positions ahead of Porker, tbh

Parker had a much, much better NBA career. Manu was the better talent, but he's hurt by coming in much later.

Neither guy would have won shit in the NBA without Duncan being the catalyst and best Spur ever.

[hater]

58!???

:lmao

no fucking way

158th maybe

[dbreiden83080]

58!???

:lmao

no fucking way

158th maybe

Lets not go Nuts. But when I saw that Clyde Drexler is only 1 spot better at 57. Yeah something is off..

[dbreiden83080]

Parker had a much, much better NBA career. Manu was the better talent, but he's hurt by coming in much later.

Neither guy would have won shit in the NBA without Duncan being the catalyst and best Spur ever.

Parker and Manu are close. I think most Spurs fans don't want to hear that.. They just love Manu. But that is very close. Tony had more All Star Teams Selections, More All NBA teams, had slightly better numbers, played more minutes. Who was better at their peak? Like Manu of 2005 or Tony of 2007 or 2009? Again close..

[DAF86]

Lets not go Nuts. But when I saw that Clyde Drexler is only 1 spot better at 57. Yeah something is off..

Dude, he's trolling, just like rascal, apalisoc_9 and some others.

[rascal]

So let me get this straight: you can assume guys like Iverson and Lillard would have won rings with better supporting casts but I can't assume Manu would have averaged 25 pts per game on a bigger role? That's quite the hypocritical argument, tbh.

Manu played for several different teams on several different cultures, with barely taking a summer off during offseasons. I'm gonna go ahead and just assume he would have had a pretty healthy and lengthly career anywhere, tbh. It's easy to say "he would have gotten a career ending injury at age 26". Well, he didn't.

Manu is as complete a player as we have ever seen and he proved several times he could do it at the highest level for long periods of time. If you don't think he could have done a pretty damn good job as a franchise guy, then I question your basketball knowledge, specially for a Spurs fan that oughtta know just how good Manu really was.

Btw, I was the one that said Manu > Iverson.

Height, strength, shooting, finishing, defense, IQ, leadership, clutchness. Outside of speed, I'm having a hard time finding things in which AI is better than Manu, tbh.

If there was a fantasy draft right now, I would take Manu and the wins, you can have Iverson and the 30 pts on 30 shots, tbh.

Manu without Duncan won't be wins.
Wins is a result of team play and Manu was the third wheel behind Duncan and Parker while Iverson was the primary player with less team support. Iverson was just as good or better in leadership, clutchness , finishing, and Manu was only better by 2.2 % points in shooting %, on fewer shots(more shots and he has lower percentages worse shooting for him as he shot more with less fatique and better shot selection with not needing to be the primary team scorer) IQ is bullshit (Manu's foul on Dirk cost the Spurs a key playoff game and key turnovers against Miami cost them that championship series), Ask an NBA fan of any other team other than San Antonio and Philadelphia and they will say Iverson. Manu was not good enough to carry an NBA team logging big minutes night in and night out.

[rascal]

That is a hell no and I'm a big Manu/Spurs fan. Getting past all the biases by (modern) Spur fans, Manu is nowhere near the best international player in NBA history.

Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash & Giannis Antetokounmpo were/are superior players to Manu.

Manu (and Tony) has a lot of the same issues that someone like Worthy, Pippen & McHale have playing with a top 10 all-time great. A lot of Timmy's greatness clouds how you rank and rate his "supporting" cast.

The good thing is that all these lists are subjective and all three are locks for the Hall of Fame.

I don't even think Manu should go to the Hall of Fame as he didn't have strong overall stats and as in baseball the NBA should have criteria for career benchmark numbers for Hall of Fame selection(but the NBA doesn't) and Manu was not there with impressive statistics.

[rascal]

Drazen Petrovic was a better player than Manu but unfortunately his career was cut short just as it was peaking.

[dbreiden83080]

I don't even think Manu should go to the Hall of Fame as he didn't have strong overall stats and as in baseball the NBA should have criteria for career benchmark numbers for Hall of Fame selection(but the NBA doesn't) and Manu was not there with impressive statistics.

The NBA HOF does annoy me.. You look at the MLB HOF you have guys that had long careers, great careers, nearly 3,000 hits, and 500 HR's not in the Hall.. Football HOF same deal all time great players being made to wait.. But in Basketball everyone with basically a pretty good career is in. T-Mac for example was dominant for about half his career.. 2nd half was filled with injuries, moving around, and not playing/winning. He's not a HOF player to me.. If the Basketball HOF was like Baseball Manu, and Tony would be getting a long look, and likely have to wait.. I'm good with them getting in, but it's almost like you should have a separate wing in the HOF for the legends.. You put Tim in the same wing with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc.. And Manu, and Tony go in the wing with T-Mac, and Reggie Miller..

[rascal]

The NBA HOF does annoy me.. You look at the MLB HOF you have guys that had long careers, great careers, nearly 3,000 hits, and 500 HR's not in the Hall.. Football HOF same deal all time great players being made to wait.. But in Basketball everyone with basically a pretty good career is in. T-Mac for example was dominant for about half his career.. 2nd half was filled with injuries, moving around, and not playing/winning. He's not a HOF player to me.. If the Basketball HOF was like Baseball Manu, and Tony would be getting a long look, and likely have to wait.. I'm good with them getting in, but it's almost like you should have a separate wing in the HOF for the legends.. You put Tim in the same wing with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc.. And Manu, and Tony go in the wing with T-Mac, and Reggie Miller..

manu should not even get in the basketball hall of fame. Didn't have the numbers. The Baseball Hall of Fame is much more of an accomplishment than the Basketball Hall of Fame.

[apalisoc_9]

Dude, he's trolling, just like rascal, apalisoc_9 and some others.

Saying manu is more like a 65 - 70 all time great is trolling now?

That put him right beside Pau....

Who i think should be rated higher than ginobili anyway but thats around the right ranking for him

:lol

[dbreiden83080]

manu should not even get in the basketball hall of fame. Didn't have the numbers. The Baseball Hall of Fame is much more of an accomplishment than the Basketball Hall of Fame.

I think they should get in. But agree that Baseball HOF is more of an accomplishment..

[TD 21]

:lmao At these takes. Again, counting stats without context. Of course his averages were depressed; they're a product of minutes/usage. Look at his advanced metrics, especially in the playoffs. They're vastly superior to Parker's.


That said, Parker is underappreciated on this board. Sure, he wasn't the playoff performer Duncan and Ginobili were, but as they aged they needed him to be the #1 option in the regular season to 1) get a top few seed annually, 2) have enough gas in the tank for the playoffs.

If you want to argue durability/#1 option and go with Iverson, Allen, Miller, etc. over Ginobili, fair enough, but he's easily a Hall-of-Famer and the worst thing the league could do is overvalue counting stats and automatically induct people who hit certain thresholds (a joker like DeRozan might get in by this standard). Basketball is too cerebral, dynamic, nuanced and context related for that.

[DAF86]

Manu without Duncan won't be wins.

Manu with or without Duncan was wins everywhere. Heck, once was wins even vs Duncan.


Wins is a result of team play and Manu was the third wheel behind Duncan and Parker while Iverson was the primary player with less team support.

Sure, wins is a result of team play, Manu is a team player, Iverson an individual one. That's why Manu is a winner and Iverson isn't.

Also, it works the other way around. If Iverson would have landed in SA, with Pop and Duncan, he would have never won regular season MVP nor he would have been able to freely take 30 shots per game.


Iverson was just as good or better in leadership

Sure, the guy that is famous for bitching about practice is the better leader. :lol


clutchness

Tell me, what's the clutchest AI shot you remember? Now, think about Manus. Yeah, that's right.


finishing

Manu - 62% shooting at the rim

Iverson - 56% shooting at the rim


and Manu was only better by 2.2 % points in shooting %, on fewer shots(more shots and he has lower percentages worse shooting for him as he shot more with less fatique and better shot selection with not needing to be the primary team scorer)

Manu - TS% - 58 / 3pt% - 37 / FT% - 83

Iverson - TS% - 51 / 3pt% - 31 / FT% - 78

That's a wide ass margin on every shooting category, tbh.


IQ is bullshit

You would think that, tbh. :lol


Ask an NBA fan of any other team other than San Antonio and Philadelphia and they will say Iverson. Manu was not good enough to carry an NBA team logging big minutes night in and night out.

Most NBA fans are dumb, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

:lmao At these takes. Again, counting stats without context. Of course his averages were depressed; they're a product of minutes/usage. Look at his advanced metrics, especially in the playoffs. They're vastly superior to Parker's.


That said, Parker is underappreciated on this board. Sure, he wasn't the playoff performer Duncan and Ginobili were, but as they aged they needed him to be the #1 option in the regular season to 1) get a top few seed annually, 2) have enough gas in the tank for the playoffs.

If you want to argue durability/#1 option and go with Iverson, Allen, Miller, etc. over Ginobili, fair enough, but he's easily a Hall-of-Famer and the worst thing the league could do is overvalue counting stats and automatically induct people who hit certain thresholds (a joker like DeRozan might get in by this standard). Basketball is too cerebral, dynamic, nuanced and context related for that.

I think the point being made is that for say the baseball Hall of Fame, there are certain statistical benchmarks that usually need to be reached in order to get induction. This obviously limits the field quite a bit. Making the club of inductees for more exclusive. For the most part I think that’s the way that it should be. There are exceptions certainly. But you have to admit the basketball Hall of Fame is far too easy to get into. You have guys that basically had four or five good seasons that are in the basketball Hall of Fame. They don’t belong there. Players that didn’t win, and also didn’t even put up consistent numbers that really pop out. But they are in the Hall of Fame.

[DAF86]

I think the point being made is that for say the baseball Hall of Fame, there are certain statistical benchmarks that usually need to be reached in order to get induction. This obviously limits the field quite a bit. Making the club of inductees for more exclusive. For the most part I think that’s the way that it should be. There are exceptions certainly. But you have to admit the basketball Hall of Fame is far too easy to get into. You have guys that basically had four or five good seasons that are in the basketball Hall of Fame. They don’t belong there. Players that didn’t win, and also didn’t even put up consistent numbers that really pop out. But they are in the Hall of Fame.

Like whom?

[apalisoc_9]

Oh no he doesn't think Manu is a top 58 player...

He's trolling :cry

[apalisoc_9]

The overall body of work and Mileage is not there for Manu.

I do believe a healthy manu could easily be a lead guy for a mid table team, but that's irrelevant.

Again the mielage is always going to be against him

Again

65-75 would be a more appropriate range. That's where Pau is ranked.

[rascal]

Like whom?


You are from Argentina so you have a deluded homer opinion. Argentinian fan boys flooded Spurs talk after the Spurs drafted Manu and the hype for him skyrocketed.

[TMTTRIO]

People are forgetting it’s the Basketball HOF and not just the NBA HOF (which I think there needs to be one too and if that were the case Manu probably wouldn’t make it). Because of that Manu makes it because of his international career and accomplishments alone (leading his team to beat Team USA twice which was pretty impressive. He barely had to do anything in the NBA to make it.

[dbreiden83080]

Like whom?

Yao Ming for starters. But he helped to make the game global, yeah yeah he’s not a Hall of Fame basketball player. He had maybe three Hall of Fame worthy seasons. Maybe four if we are generous.. In baseball, you have guys that won a World Series hit nearly 500 homeruns still not in the Hall of Fame, probably never going to get in the Hall of Fame like Fred McGriff. The standard is much higher. And frankly it’s a standard I like much better.

[dbreiden83080]

People are forgetting it’s the Basketball HOF and not just the NBA HOF (which I think there needs to be one too and if that were the case Manu probably wouldn’t make it). Because of that Manu makes it because of his international career and accomplishments alone (leading his team to beat Team USA twice which was pretty impressive. He barely had to do anything in the NBA to make it.

And I have always had a problem with that. Because It waters everything down. If these guys are spending 95% of their careers in the NBA. That’s what really counts. At least that’s what should count.

[TD 21]

I think the point being made is that for say the baseball Hall of Fame, there are certain statistical benchmarks that usually need to be reached in order to get induction. This obviously limits the field quite a bit. Making the club of inductees for more exclusive. For the most part I think that’s the way that it should be. There are exceptions certainly. But you have to admit the basketball Hall of Fame is far too easy to get into. You have guys that basically had four or five good seasons that are in the basketball Hall of Fame. They don’t belong there. Players that didn’t win, and also didn’t even put up consistent numbers that really pop out. But they are in the Hall of Fame.

I know, but I'm saying that doesn't make sense for basketball. That's not the same as saying some of the inductees aren't questionable though and I agree it should be more exclusive, but not for that reason.

Again, counting stats without context are largely meaningless. Ginobili, for example, did put up consistent numbers in catch all metrics, which are more indicative of impact.

[dbreiden83080]

I know, but I'm saying that doesn't make sense for basketball. That's not the same as saying some of the inductees aren't questionable though and I agree it should be more exclusive, but not for that reason.

Again, counting stats without context are largely meaningless. Ginobili, for example, did put up consistent numbers in catch all metrics, which are more indicative of impact.

You can spin numbers any which you want for all sports man. Football, Baseball they all use metrics today never used, or rarely used 30 years ago.. WAR, or Wins Above Replacement is something discussed all the time now in the modern game. But it was not used or discussed until 1982. But in Baseball you still must meet a common statistical standard based on position. That's why Craig Biggio for example with 3,000 hits had to wait a few years. It's a more exclusive club. Don Mattingly was incredible the first half of his career. Far more dominant in his sport, than Manu ever was in Basketball. He won a league MVP, a Batting title, he has 9 Gold Gloves, he was regarded as the best player in Baseball in 1985. Why is he NOT in the HOF? Well because he hurt his back around 1990 and the last 5 years of his career, he was injured, and ineffective. Now I could be all fancy with the numbers, and make his case. But he does not meet the usual criteria.. Like I said it's a more exclusive club..

[TD 21]

You can spin numbers any which you want for all sports man. Football, Baseball they all use metrics today never used, or rarely used 30 years ago.. WAR, or Wins Above Replacement is something discussed all the time now in the modern game. But it was not used or discussed until 1982. But in Baseball you still must meet a common statistical standard based on position. That's why Craig Biggio for example with 3,000 hits had to wait a few years. It's a more exclusive club. Don Mattingly was incredible the first half of his career. Far more dominant in his sport, than Manu ever was in Basketball. He won a league MVP, a Batting title, he has 9 Gold Gloves, he was regarded as the best player in Baseball in 1985. Why is he NOT in the HOF? Well because he hurt his back around 1990 and the last 5 years of his career, he was injured, and ineffective. Now I could be all fancy with the numbers, and make his case. But he does not meet the usual criteria.. Like I said it's a more exclusive club..

I'm not spinning anything. Baseball lacks the dynamics that basketball does. It's strictly about numbers, so it's easier to make definitive statements based on them.

Ginobili had about a 7 year stretch where he was a top 10-15 player and for about 15 years a significant part of the most successful team in the NBA (and unlike Durant and Scumbag, they were unassailable) and the second or third most successful team internationally. He's clearly a Hall-of-Famer.

A joke player like DeRozan shouldn't merit consideration because he might eclipse arbitrary thresholds like 20,000 points and because a bunch of archaic/unknowledgeable fools gave him a bunch of undeserved accolades based on team success in a weak conference.

[dbreiden83080]

I'm not spinning anything. Baseball lacks the dynamics that basketball does. It's strictly about numbers, so it's easier to make definitive statements based on them.

Ginobili had about a 7 year stretch where he was a top 10-15 player and for about 15 years a significant part of the most successful team in the NBA (and unlike Durant and Scumbag, they were unassailable) and the second or third most successful team internationally. He's clearly a Hall-of-Famer.

A joke player like DeRozan shouldn't merit consideration because he might eclipse arbitrary thresholds like 20,000 points and because a bunch of archaic/unknowledgeable fools gave him a bunch of undeserved accolades based on team success in a weak conference.

Basketball is a game of numbers as well.. So is Football. All sports are. What is the difference between MLB, NFL, and NBA HOF? Well MLB, and the NFL have a very strict criteria where Basketball simply does not.. The NBA needs it's own HOF, so the other NON-NBA Factors are out of the equation.. Now to the DD disrespect. Unfair and unwarranted.. He's a hell of a player.. Had a heck of a run in Toronto... Was traded to SA in a crazy set of circumstances. Spurs fans shit on him, because he is not Leonard. You know that is why. They are still NOT over what happened.. That we are NOT contenders anymore.. Y'all got spoiled is the problem.. TD spoiled everyone.. You need to factor in Manu, and all the great teams he has played on man.. Put Manu on the Raptors, and what is going to happen? They are going to win more than 59 games? Is that supposed to be easy? They are going to beat Lebron in a 7 game series? If we drafted DD into the Spurs system in 2002 or 2003 he could not have been brought up, to help TD, Tony and the Spurs win? Come on now.. Something should be said for supporting the guys on your team.. You say DD is a "Joke Player" Wow.. 22/6/6 on 52% FG this year, and he's a joke.. Wonder what you would have said about Manu had the Spurs been in this same position with him at the front? Probably the same thing..

[TD 21]

Basketball is a game of numbers as well.. So is Football. All sports are. What is the difference between MLB, NFL, and NBA HOF? Well MLB, and the NFL have a very strict criteria where Basketball simply does not.. The NBA needs it's own HOF, so the other NON-NBA Factors are out of the equation.. Now to the DD disrespect. Unfair and unwarranted.. He's a hell of a player.. Had a heck of a run in Toronto... Was traded to SA in a crazy set of circumstances. Spurs fans shit on him, because he is not Leonard. You know that is why. They are still NOT over what happened.. That we are NOT contenders anymore.. Y'all got spoiled is the problem.. TD spoiled everyone.. You need to factor in Manu, and all the great teams he has played on man.. Put Manu on the Raptors, and what is going to happen? They are going to win more than 59 games? Is that supposed to be easy? They are going to beat Lebron in a 7 game series? If we drafted DD into the Spurs system in 2002 or 2003 he could not have been brought up, to help TD, Tony and the Spurs win? Come on now.. Something should be said for supporting the guys on your team.. You say DD is a "Joke Player" Wow.. 22/6/6 on 52% FG this year, and he's a joke.. Wonder what you would have said about Manu had the Spurs been in this same position with him at the front? Probably the same thing..

Basketball is cerebral, dynamic, nuanced and for 99% context related and the context for Ginobili was that minutes/usage depressed his counting stats. The eye test (if you know the game) and metrics indicate he was significantly better than tons of players with superior counting stats.

DeRozan is a talented individual player who's style doesn't translate to impact in a team setting under anything less than pristine circumstances and even then that only applies to the regular season. Again, his Raptors run was mostly thanks to Lowry (their version of Ginobili), the 2nd unit and the East. He is a joke because he's a whiner (Raptors culture), who's refused to attempt to expand his game to modern standards and it shows in his pathetic on/off splits annually.

No, Scumbag and the front office going senile is why the Spurs are where they are. Had the team been set up well for the future like they should be (like the Pelicans and Thunder), I'd be fine with the inevitable downturn and I'm guessing most would too.

Replace Ginobili with DeRozan and the Spurs are light 3 championships.

[dbreiden83080]

No, Scumbag and the front office going senile is why the Spurs are where they are. Had the team been set up well for the future like they should be (like the Pelicans and Thunder), I'd be fine with the inevitable downturn and I'm guessing most would too.

Spurs lost a top 3 player in the NBA for reasons that were not their fault.. The Snake, and his Uncle had a plan revolving around LA for years... And he is a game changing franchise player. You don't recover from that in 1 or 2 years. That may set you back 5 years or more. Imagine if Duncan had gone to the Magic? Spurs are Fucked for likely 10 years or more.. Lean years happen for even the best franchises, and this is the time for the Spurs.. How have the Pelicans done a good job exactly? They had AD for basically a decade, surrounded him with Dick, and lost.. They have Zion.. Who knows where he will be in 5 years? The way the league is going. He may be in a larger market..



Replace Ginobili with DeRozan and the Spurs are light 3 championships.
Or they could be heavy 2 Championships.. Maybe DD Listens to Pop in the Time Out, and does NOT Foul Dirk in Game 7 going to the rim..

And maybe DD could manage Better than 9 PTS, and 8 Turnovers in a close out game 6 of the NBA Finals.. You know the same game Duncan had 30 PTS and 17 Reb.. Spurs may have 7 Rings...

[DAF86]

Oh no he doesn't think Manu is a top 58 player...

He's trolling :cry

No, you are trolling. Just like rascal (a known long time Spurs hater) and hater. dbreiden83080 honestly thinks Manu isn't a top 58 player and that's why he isn't trolling.

[DAF86]

People are forgetting it’s the Basketball HOF and not just the NBA HOF (which I think there needs to be one too and if that were the case Manu probably wouldn’t make it). Because of that Manu makes it because of his international career and accomplishments alone (leading his team to beat Team USA twice which was pretty impressive. He barely had to do anything in the NBA to make it.

In which timeline an all-star level player from a dynasty with 4 rings doesn't make the Hall of fame of a league? Manu is a HoF both in basketball in general and in the NBA.

[DAF86]

Yao Ming for starters. But he helped to make the game global, yeah yeah he’s not a Hall of Fame basketball player. He had maybe three Hall of Fame worthy seasons. Maybe four if we are generous.. In baseball, you have guys that won a World Series hit nearly 500 homeruns still not in the Hall of Fame, probably never going to get in the Hall of Fame like Fred McGriff. The standard is much higher. And frankly it’s a standard I like much better.

Yeah, I could agree with Yao Ming in terms of on-court production. Although that popularity aspect can't be discounted. Outside of him, how many players are there that don't deserve to be? I can't think of many.

[DAF86]

Or they could be heavy 2 Championships.. Maybe DD Listens to Pop in the Time Out, and does NOT Foul Dirk in Game 7 going to the rim..

And maybe DD could manage Better than 9 PTS, and 8 Turnovers in a close out game 6 of the NBA Finals.. You know the same game Duncan had 30 PTS and 17 Reb.. Spurs may have 7 Rings...

And maybe DeRozan doesn't score 24 pts in the second half of that game and the go ahead 3 with seconds to go in the previous play.

Dude, your basketball reasoning is extremely flawed. Good luck trying to give Duncan the type of floor spacing he needs to maximize his greatness with a non-shooting backourt of Tony and DeRozan.

[dbreiden83080]

And maybe DeRozan doesn't score 24 pts in the second half of that game and the go ahead 3 with seconds to go in the previous play.

Dude, your basketball reasoning is extremely flawed. Good luck trying to give Duncan the type of floor spacing he needs to maximize his greatness with a non-shooting backourt of Tony and DeRozan.

But it's a nice problem to try and figure when TD is your Team-Mate. Helps just a bit..

[dbreiden83080]

No, you are trolling. Just like rascal (a known long time Spurs hater) and hater. dbreiden83080 honestly thinks Manu isn't a top 58 player and that's why he isn't trolling.

So it's all love for Manu or you are trolling huh? Yeah and I have flawed logic you say LOL.. Seems the people you think are trolls, have a level head on this issue.

[dbreiden83080]

Oh no he doesn't think Manu is a top 58 player...

He's trolling :cry

He's too emotional on this issue.. No objectivity whatsoever.

[DAF86]

So it's all love for Manu or you are trolling huh? Yeah and I have flawed logic you say LOL.. Seems the people you think are trolls, have a level head on this issue.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? :lol

I don't think everybody that says Manu isn't a top 58 player is a troll. That's why I said You weren't a troll despite saying that. The thing is, I know, from years of posting here, that apalisoc_9, rascal and hater are well known trolls. apalisoc_9, for example, used to be all Manu and dismissive of Tony, now he turned his shtick around. That's why I engage on an argument with you, but not with them.

Aren't you a long time poster? You should know these things.

[DAF86]

He's too emotional on this issue.. No objectivity whatsoever.
Dude, you are a bit slow, tbh. :lol

[DAF86]

But it's a nice problem to try and figure when TD is your Team-Mate. Helps just a bit..

You never answered who you thought was the better player, Manu or DeRozan, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

Didn't you just read what I wrote? :lol

I don't think everybody that says Manu isn't a top 58 player is a troll. That's why I said You weren't a troll despite saying that. The thing is, I know, from years of posting here, that apalisoc_9, rascal and hater are well known trolls. apalisoc_9, for example, used to be all Manu and dismissive of Tony, now he turned his shtick around. Aren't you a long time poster? You should know these things.

Nothing that's been said was trolling. By anyone in the thread really.. The point was brought up that he is not a HOF player, I disagree with that, but that is not an unreasonable take.. Different people have different criteria for the HOF. I was discussing the MLB, and NFL HOF earlier, as the standards are higher.. Manu can be top 100 and that is reasonable.. Ranked somewhere 85-100 Still Reasonable. You telling me he is better than AI. Unreasonable..

[DAF86]

He's too emotional on this issue.. No objectivity whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with emotion or objectivity, tbh. I consider Gasol, for example, to also be a clearly better player than Iverson, tbh. And maybe, even better than Manu, too.

I mention Gasol, 'cause he's another of those Manu level guys that is clearly underrated.

[dbreiden83080]

You never answered who you thought was the better player, Manu or DeRozan, tbh.

Yes I did.. Go back and look..

[DAF86]

Nothing that's been said was trolling. By anyone in the thread really.. The point was brought up that he is not a HOF player, I disagree with that, but that is not an unreasonable take.. Different people have different criteria for the HOF. I was discussing the MLB, and NFL HOF earlier, as the standards are higher.. Manu can be top 100 and that is reasonable.. Ranked somewhere 85-100 Still Reasonable. You telling me he is better than AI. Unreasonable..

Just because you agree with those takes doesn't mean they weren't troll comments. Again, if you knew the history of those posters, you would realize what I'm saying.

[dbreiden83080]

It has nothing to do with emotion or objectivity, tbh. I consider Gasol, for example, to also be a clearly better player than Iverson, tbh. And maybe, even better than Manu, too.

I mention Gasol, 'cause he's another of those Manu level guys that is clearly underrated.

You might not like it. But I think he has your number on this one..


You are from Argentina so you have a deluded homer opinion. Argentinian fan boys flooded Spurs talk after the Spurs drafted Manu and the hype for him skyrocketed.

[DAF86]

Yes I did.. Go back and look..

No, you never said "Manu" nor "DeRozan" on any of those answers.

[dbreiden83080]

Just because you agree with those takes doesn't mean they weren't troll comments. Again, if you knew the history of those posters, you would realize what I'm saying.

Saying Manu is top 100 is not a Troll Comment. Saying he may not be a HOF player is not a troll comment either.. This was all laid out.. You just don't like the answers..

[DAF86]

You might not like it. But I think he has your number on this one..

He's a Suns fan posting hate comments about the Spurs since I signed here back in 2009, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

He's a Suns fan posting hate comments about the Spurs since I signed here back in 2009, tbh.

But you are from Argentina, and a huge Manu fan right?

A little biased?

[DAF86]

Saying Manu is top 100 is not a Troll Comment. Saying he may not be a HOF player is not a troll comment either.. This was all laid out.. You just don't like the answers..

I agree. Those type of comments aren't necessarily troll comments, they can just be extremely ignorant ones. The thing is that, coming from those guys, I know those are troll comments, because they are troll posters. C'mon son, how many more times do I need to repeat the same thing? It isn't that hard to understand, tbh.

[DAF86]

But you are from Argentina, and a huge Manu fan right?

A little biased?

So? My favourite basketball player of all-time is Iverson. And you know my thoughts about him. The same thing with Michael Vick in the NFL. He was My favourite player to watch but I realize he was extremely overrated. I don't let emotions or subjectivity cloud my judgement, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

I agree. Those type of comments aren't necessarily troll comments, they can just be extremely ingorant ones. The thing is that, coming from those guys, I know they are troll comments, because they are troll pósters. C'mon son, how many more times do I need to repeat the same thing? It isn't that hard to understand, tbh.

You say they are troll comments based on your biased negative dealings in the past with those posters. But that does not mean on this issue they are troll comments. Again you are just biased.. We have discussed all of the points. It is all reasonable..

[DAF86]

No, you never said "Manu" nor "DeRozan" on any of those answers.

Still waiting, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

Still waiting, tbh.

You had my full answer about 30 posts ago. All you did was complain that I did not Answer "Yes or No"

Prime for Prime about even.. Vastly different circumstances as we know. Its all been discussed man.. Nothing new here..




A loaded question because he is now playing for a mediocre Spurs team.. I am not a huge fan of DD, but he has great offensive talent, and again was only traded for a top 3 player in the league.. Manu is traded for Leonard as well in a heartbeat.. I would say prime for prime they are pretty damn close.. Are you convinced he could not fit in with prime TD, and Tony to win some rings? This Spurs team is in transition and it is bad.. Manu never played for a bad Spurs team. He played for great Spurs teams. Some damn near historically great.. TD in 2003 dragged a young Manu, and Tony to a Chip.. Manu did very little in the 2003 playoffs.. People were pissed off Jackson was gone that off-season.. And you know that.. By 2005 Manu was playing at a very high level no doubt. But still had prime TD to carry the load.. 2007 who got finals MVP?? Not Manu or even Tim. Tony gets it.. Again Manu is playing on a great Spurs team. DD would have loved to get his shot with that squad..

[DAF86]

You had my full answer about 30 posts ago. All you did was complain that I did not Answer "Yes or No"

Prime for Prime about even.. Vastly different circumstances as we know. Its all been discussed man.. Nothing new here..

That's a chicken shit post that doesn't provide a clear answer because you know that if you say Manu, your whole argument gets dismantled; and if you say DeRozan, you would get laughed at, tbh.

Let me try a different aproach. You are starting a team from scratch and, for your first pick, you can only choose between Manu and DeRozan, who you got?

[dbreiden83080]

That's a chicken shit post that doesn't provide a clear answer because you know that if you say Manu, your whole argument gets dismantled; and if you say DeRozan, you would get laughed at, tbh.

See right there you are too biased.. You dislike DD, and love your fellow Countryman so much, you can't even digest them being in the same class as players.. You didn't even want to digest AI being better than Manu. And you say I would get laughed at about DD, and Manu comparison if I dare say DD is better. You got your answer. Read it again.. Deal with it..

AND your take on AI and Manu? Take that to any Basketball forum or social media outside Spurstalk.. See what the response is..
"Manu is better than AI"

I can hear Screaming A Smith yelling at you right now..

[DAF86]

See right there you are too biased.. You dislike DD, and love your fellow Countryman so much, you can't even digest them being in the same class as players.. You didn't even want to digest AI being better than Manu. And you say I would get laughed at about DD, and Manu comparison if I dare say DD is better. You got your answer. Read it again.. Deal with it..

AND your take on AI and Manu? Take that to any Basketball forum or social media outside Spurstalk.. See what the response is..
"Manu is better than AI"

I can hear Screaming A Smith yelling at you right now..

A. Smith, really? Is that the type of guy you are siding with? :lol

Your fear of giving a straight answer about Manu and DeRozan was duly noted, tbh. I guess scoring 25 ppg and being a "franchise guy" doesn't make you automatically a better player. Who would have thought?

[dbreiden83080]

I guess scoring 25 ppg and being a "franchise guy" doesn't make you automatically a better player. Who would have thought?

Apparently 11 AS selections, 3 First Team All NBA selections, A league MVP, 4 scoring titles, Leading the league in steals 3 times, and a finals appearance doesn't make you a better player either..

"Go MANU"!!!!!!!!!

[DAF86]

Apparently 11 AS selections, 3 First Team All NBA selections, A league MVP, 4 scoring titles, Leading the league in steals 3 times, and a finals appearance doesn't make you a better player either..

"Go MANU"!!!!!!!!!

Well, you are the one scared of saying the guy with the better counting stats and individual milestones is actually better than the other. So yeah, apparently, even for you, it doesn't. Glad you are finally seeing the light, tbh.

[TD 21]

Spurs lost a top 3 player in the NBA for reasons that were not their fault.. The Snake, and his Uncle had a plan revolving around LA for years... And he is a game changing franchise player. You don't recover from that in 1 or 2 years. That may set you back 5 years or more. Imagine if Duncan had gone to the Magic? Spurs are Fucked for likely 10 years or more.. Lean years happen for even the best franchises, and this is the time for the Spurs.. How have the Pelicans done a good job exactly? They had AD for basically a decade, surrounded him with Dick, and lost.. They have Zion.. Who knows where he will be in 5 years? The way the league is going. He may be in a larger market..


Or they could be heavy 2 Championships.. Maybe DD Listens to Pop in the Time Out, and does NOT Foul Dirk in Game 7 going to the rim..

And maybe DD could manage Better than 9 PTS, and 8 Turnovers in a close out game 6 of the NBA Finals.. You know the same game Duncan had 30 PTS and 17 Reb.. Spurs may have 7 Rings...

I didn't say anything about recovering in 1-2 years or the Pelicans doing a good job. I said, like them, the Spurs should be well positioned for the future having traded a top 5 player and had they been, the majority of the fan base would likely be fine with the inevitable downturn.

Their own stupidity has also put them in this position. Had they had a spine and insisted on Gasol instead of Green in that trade and handed away Belinelli (with a future 2nd attached) instead of Bertans, this could still be a solid team.

Are you serious? They'd have 3 less. Not only is DeRozan significantly worse, but as DAF alluded too, the structure of the team would change. DeRozan would have destroyed the spacing and hurt the defense and he wouldn't have accepted a 6th man role.

You list specific instances, but they're not even in position for those to occur with DeRozan.

[rascal]

That's a chicken shit post that doesn't provide a clear answer because you know that if you say Manu, your whole argument gets dismantled; and if you say DeRozan, you would get laughed at, tbh.

Let me try a different aproach. You are starting a team from scratch and, for your first pick, you can only choose between Manu and DeRozan, who you got?

When did this become Manu and DeRozen? I'll take Iverson over either.

[dbreiden83080]

Are you serious? They'd have 3 less. Not only is DeRozan significantly worse, but as DAF alluded too, the structure of the team would change. DeRozan would have destroyed the spacing and hurt the defense and he wouldn't have accepted a 6th man role.

You list specific instances, but they're not even in position for those to occur with DeRozan.

This is where you and I completely part ways. Because I believe that Tim Duncan is such a great player historically, a top-five player all time that When you have him for 19 seasons, You were going to win four or five championships as long as the talent pool around him isn’t completely terrible. Pop is one of the great coaches of all time. You mix and match and figure it out. It’s a nice problem to have when Tim Duncan is your centerpiece. Don’t forget Tony Parker was a 19-year-old kid who couldn’t shoot the basketball, and was hardly a prototypical point guard. We won four championships with him. Tim fucking Duncan.. 2003 is the proof. Did Tony or Manu wow you in the post season? If they did you weren’t paying attention very closely. Speedy Claxton played big minutes over Tony in the finals. Jackson made huge shots in the finals. Played big minutes. Manu played in spurts. Tim Duncan is just that fucking good. And if you put a talented player on his roster. It’s going to work. Because he’s going to make it work. Tony and Manu I love them, but why are they going to the Hall of Fame one day? Yep Tim fucking Duncan.

[dbreiden83080]

When did this become Manu and DeRozen? I'll take Iverson over either.

Because he’s from Argentina. Manu Is better than generational all time talents because reasons. None of which make any sense at all. He can’t get over his bias.

[DAF86]

This is where you and I completely part ways. Because I believe that Tim Duncan is such a great player historically, a top-five player all time that When you have him for 19 seasons, You were going to win four or five championships as long as the talent pool around him isn’t completely terrible. Pop is one of the great coaches of all time. You mix and match and figure it out. It’s a nice problem to have when Tim Duncan is your centerpiece. Don’t forget Tony Parker was a 19-year-old kid who couldn’t shoot the basketball, and was hardly a prototypical point guard. We won four championships with him. Tim fucking Duncan.. 2003 is the proof. Did Tony or Manu wow you in the post season? If they did you weren’t paying attention very closely. Speedy Claxton played big minutes over Tony in the finals. Jackson made huge shots in the finals. Played big minutes. Manu played in spurts. Tim Duncan is just that fucking good. And if you put a talented player on his roster. It’s going to work. Because he’s going to make it work. Tony and Manu I love them, but why are they going to the Hall of Fame one day? Yep Tim fucking Duncan.

Manu didn't wow you in '05? :lol

[DAF86]

When did this become Manu and DeRozen? I'll take Iverson over either.

When dbreiden83080 talked about "franchise players" and 25 ppg.

[dbreiden83080]

Manu didn't wow you in '05? :lol

2005 yes. 2003 no. Not at all. If you put talented players around him Duncan he is going to make it work.

[dbreiden83080]

When dbreiden83080 talked about "franchise players" and 25 ppg.

Something Manu Never did. And a big reason why not only is about the roster, it’s about his lack of durability. Tony once averaged 22 a game on the same team playing in the same system. Pop could have handed the majority of the touches to Manu. But he didn’t.

[DAF86]

2005 yes. 2003 no. Not at all. If you put talented players around him Duncan he is going to make it work.

Well, You asked if Tony or Manu ever wow anyone on the playoffs, clearly they did. Your question was answered. :lol

[DAF86]

Something Manu Never did. And a big reason why not only is about the roster, it’s about his lack of durability. Tony once averaged 22 a game on the same team playing in the same system. Pop could have handed the majority of the touches to Manu. But he didn’t.

Manu once averaged 20 ppg as a bench player, what's your point? :lol

You won't even say DeRozan is better than Manu, so your opinion on this matter is in invalid, tbh. :lol

[dbreiden83080]

Manu once averaged 20 ppg as a bench player, what's your point? :lol

You won't even say DeRozan is better than Manu, so your opinion on this matter is in invalid, tbh. :lol

But Manu Is better than Iverson and you are insane enough to claim that is not a laughable opinion. Manu spent large portions of his career as the third and fourth option on the fucking team. The reigns never at any point were handed over to Ginobili. It never happened. David to Tim, Tim to Tony, Tony to Leonard.. Correct? Manu Had moments. He had playoff moments, regular season moments. But never at any point was he the guy. Nobody ever viewed him as the guy.

[DAF86]

But Manu Is better than Iverson and you are insane enough to claim that is not a laughable opinion. Manu spent large portions of his career as the third and fourth option on the fucking team. The reigns never at any point were handed over to Ginobili. It never happened. David to Tim, Tim to Tony, Tony to Leonard.. Correct? Manu Had moments. He had playoff moments, regular season moments. But never at any point was he the guy. Nobody ever viewed him as the guy.

Ok, let's suppose that coming into the '08, '10 and '11 playoffs Manu wasn't the main offensive option. :lol

[dbreiden83080]

Ok, let's suppose that coming into the '08, '10 and '11 playoffs Manu wasn't the main offensive option. :lol

So you don’t have an answer. Right got it. The team never got handed over to him. This is what I told you and others tried to explain to you about his lack of durability. Putting up numbers over the course of 82 games is not easy. Maybe you can handle that for one season. But can you handle it for multiple seasons? Even when others faded away the coaching staff still didn’t give him that opportunity. TD is beyond his prime, so Ginobili you are up right? Nope. Tony Parker was next. Then Leonard is next. You told me earlier you would always take Manu’s wins. And I explained to you that came as a result of a fantastic team around him. Manu Was in the position to have some really big postseason moments. Great but did that mean he carried the team to the postseason? No. Coaching staff entrusted that responsibility to other players. Why is that?

[DAF86]

So you don’t have an answer. Right got it. The team never got handed over to him. This is what I told you and others tried to explain to you about his lack of durability. Putting up numbers over the course of 82 games is not easy. Maybe you can handle that for one season. But can you handle it for multiple seasons? Even when others faded away the coaching staff still didn’t give him that opportunity. TD is beyond his prime, so Ginobili you are up right? Nope. Tony Parker was next. Then Leonard is next. You told me earlier you would always take Manu’s wins. And I explained to you that came as a result of a fantastic team around him. Manu Was in the position to have some really big postseason moments. Great but did that mean he carried the team to the postseason? No. Coaching staff entrusted that responsibility to other players. Why is that?

Manu and Duncan were the same age dog. Where do you want to find a window for Manu to take control? :lol Even then, from 2008 to 2011 there was a time where the team clearly worked better when Manu was the main option. And, anyways, even if you want to (wrongly) assume that the team was never handed to Manu, does that fact mean that Manu could have never been able to handle a team for his own? Of course not. :lol

[TD 21]

This is where you and I completely part ways. Because I believe that Tim Duncan is such a great player historically, a top-five player all time that When you have him for 19 seasons, You were going to win four or five championships as long as the talent pool around him isn’t completely terrible. Pop is one of the great coaches of all time. You mix and match and figure it out. It’s a nice problem to have when Tim Duncan is your centerpiece. Don’t forget Tony Parker was a 19-year-old kid who couldn’t shoot the basketball, and was hardly a prototypical point guard. We won four championships with him. Tim fucking Duncan.. 2003 is the proof. Did Tony or Manu wow you in the post season? If they did you weren’t paying attention very closely. Speedy Claxton played big minutes over Tony in the finals. Jackson made huge shots in the finals. Played big minutes. Manu played in spurts. Tim Duncan is just that fucking good. And if you put a talented player on his roster. It’s going to work. Because he’s going to make it work. Tony and Manu I love them, but why are they going to the Hall of Fame one day? Yep Tim fucking Duncan.

It doesn't work that way. Even James needed a "super team" plus miracles to win 2 of his 3 championships. From '05-'14, if not Ginobili, then the Spurs would have needed one of the handful of players in the league who could fill his role at as good or greater a level, to win the championship.

[Canyonero]

Manu is easily top 20. Unbiased opinion TBH.

[rascal]

Manu once averaged 20 ppg as a bench player, what's your point? :lol

You won't even say DeRozan is better than Manu, so your opinion on this matter is in invalid, tbh. :lol

Manu never averaged 20 points a game for a season. His best was just under at 19.5. Career scoring average is weak at 13.3 points per game when compared to the true top greats.

[DAF86]

Manu never averaged 20 points a game for a season. His best was just under at 19.5. Career scoring average is weak at 13.3 points per game when compared to the true top greats.

Ok, he didn't average 20 ppg, he averaged 19.5 :lol

[rascal]

Ok, he didn't average 20 ppg, he averaged 19.5 :lol

19.5 average is still under 20 for one season and that was his high point season. He just did not have the scoring numbers or the overall stats as the other top players.

[From Downtown]

I think he could have been the main guy (and honestly in spurts he kinda was) on a team, even a playoff team
He probably doesn't get to 40 and does not play as much with the NT, but in his prime he had the playing ability and leadership to have his own team
I feel like top 60 is fair, although there's no way VC is a better player for instance, his stats are pedestrian but he's been a winner everywhere and if you think about he just had a very complete and versatile skillset, guy could do anything on offense and also played defense (a lot of the guys above him didn't tbh)
He's difficult to rank not only because his role with the Spurs but also cause he came to the league at 25, needed some time to adjust to the competition and Pop, so we kind of forget that part of his prime got a bit wasted and part of his prime was spent overseas (he was a monster from 00 to 02)
With that said though, I think the notion that any good/pretty good/star player could've given the Spurs what Manu did quite ignorant
He was a crucial part of the dynasty, and a unique one
The guy accepted coming off the bench while he was a star in his prime and playing as such, allowed TD and Tony to get all their touches and inferior SGs who needed to start to play their game to take his place while he wasn't just jacking up shots with the second unit but actually running it and trying to put role players, even shitty ones into a rhythm
He could affect an outcome and make a game winning play in so many different ways (I remember clutch layups, 3s, jumpers, offensive rebounds, steals, defensive rebounds, stolen inbounds, charges), he was willing to take over in things were going south and willing to take a backseat if he wasn't needed, he could be decisive even without scoring, not many stars, even superior players, could do all this

[Sugus]

People here really questioning whether Manu could lead a team as the go-to guy anywhere in the NBA... Guy won an Olympic Gold medal against the US Dream Team as, by far, the best player and leader of the Argentina NT. How much farther away do you think an NBA team is from that? Just because he never had the usage rate to get over 20ppg - an absolutely arbitrary mark, by the way - is somehow indication that he's not great? Please.

When you make a list of the highest scoring players of all time, you can go ahead and leave Manu out of it. Now, if you're making a "best" of all time list, you have to lookt at other considerations. How a player impacts winning, leads a team, is a figure for the team, has good locker-room attitude and winning mentality, hustle plays, DEFENSE... These are all things the "best" players cannot lack. Counting stats is a partial picture - any in depth analysis should be looking further.

[dbreiden83080]

People here really questioning whether Manu could lead a team as the go-to guy anywhere in the NBA... Guy won an Olympic Gold medal against the US Dream Team as, by far, the best player and leader of the Argentina NT. How much farther away do you think an NBA team is from that? Just because he never had the usage rate to get over 20ppg - an absolutely arbitrary mark, by the way - is somehow indication that he's not great? Please.

When you make a list of the highest scoring players of all time, you can go ahead and leave Manu out of it. Now, if you're making a "best" of all time list, you have to lookt at other considerations. How a player impacts winning, leads a team, is a figure for the team, has good locker-room attitude and winning mentality, hustle plays, DEFENSE... These are all things the "best" players cannot lack. Counting stats is a partial picture - any in depth analysis should be looking further.

But part of evaluating a winning Player is were they driving the bus, or passengers on the bus? He was a part of something very special for a long time in San Antonio. But a top five or so player of all time was mostly driving that bus. He’s kind of like Pippen in that sense. He wasn’t the main man. But he made great contributions. Some players are truly blessed to land in great situations. And some not. When I was a kid Patrick Ewing was one of my favorite players. He hardly had any help whatsoever for 10+ years in New York. He was almost playing by himself. David Robinson also. He didn’t have much help at all.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/10/sports/10NBAfinal/10NBAfinal-superJumbo.jpg

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/45/24/27/9782740/3/gallery_medium.jpg

[dbreiden83080]

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/45/24/27/9782740/3/gallery_medium.jpg
Fuck sake Manu

Why??

[DAF86]

But part of evaluating a winning Player is were they driving the bus, or passengers on the bus? He was a part of something very special for a long time in San Antonio. But a top five or so player of all time was mostly driving that bus. He’s kind of like Pippen in that sense. He wasn’t the main man. But he made great contributions. Some players are truly blessed to land in great situations. And some not. When I was a kid Patrick Ewing was one of my favorite players. He hardly had any help whatsoever for 10+ years in New York. He was almost playing by himself. David Robinson also. He didn’t have much help at all.

You are capable of thinking Iverson is a better player than Pippen, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

You are capable of thinking Iverson is a better player than Pippen, tbh.

If one can come to a line of thinking that Manu is better than Iverson..

Fucking anything is possible..

"Hey Brother that League MVP you got, and that finals run.. Not Impressed"

"Uh Huh"

[DAF86]

If one can come to a line of thinking that Manu is better than Iverson..

Fucking anything is possible..

"Hey Brother that League MVP you got, and that finals run.. Not Impressed"

"Uh Huh"

So, do you think Iverson > Pippen?

[TDfan2007]

Can anyone name more than 2 playoff series outside of 2005 (a magical year for him) in which Manu completely took over and was the team's best player? Off the top of my head, 2008 against the Hornets comes to mind and 2011 against the Grizz.

Manu was the guy who would give you his brilliance in certain games (usually game 5s for whatever reason), but he rarely displayed the consistency to take over a playoff series. It is what it is. He was the heart and X-factor of 3 of our title runs, and his 2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

[TDfan2007]

Another thing about Manu's game which is underappreciated, is the impact of his dynamic style of play on the Spurs. Prior to Manu's prime, the Spurs offense was terribly predictable and prone to long droughts, but Manu (along with Tony) changed that. He gave us an elite perimeter scorer and PnR maestro, which helped diversify our offense and settle things late in games.

[dbreiden83080]

2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

His 2013 Finals was.. Uh yeah..

[From Downtown]

Can anyone name more than 2 playoff series outside of 2005 (a magical year for him) in which Manu completely took over and was the team's best player? Off the top of my head, 2008 against the Hornets comes to mind and 2011 against the Grizz.

Manu was the guy who would give you his brilliance in certain games (usually game 5s for whatever reason), but he rarely displayed the consistency to take over a playoff series. It is what it is. He was the heart and X-factor of 3 of our title runs, and his 2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

Think he has a case for 14 vs Dallas and OKC, although I wouldn't say he "took over" (it was great team effort)
But the point is his job wasn't to be the best player throughout a series (he played with a top 10 player ever and a great PG), he had to be the one who put us over the top and honestly he did many times, I think even his 07 run happens to be somehow underrated
Could he be the main guy on a team? I think yes if given that responsibility, and it would have been fun to see him considering how that went outside of the NBA, but we'll never know and I guess he's happy with his 4 rings

[ElNono]

Can anyone name more than 2 playoff series outside of 2005 (a magical year for him) in which Manu completely took over and was the team's best player? Off the top of my head, 2008 against the Hornets comes to mind and 2011 against the Grizz.

Manu was the guy who would give you his brilliance in certain games (usually game 5s for whatever reason), but he rarely displayed the consistency to take over a playoff series. It is what it is. He was the heart and X-factor of 3 of our title runs, and his 2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

Too many, tbh... Remember series against the Jazz, the Mavs... who could forget against the Suns??? Way too many.

EDIT: Almost forgot about the block on Harden against the Rockets, sealing the series. Also used to pwn the Nuggets on the regular, when they still had Melo/AI.

[dbreiden83080]

Too many, tbh... Remember series against the Jazz, the Mavs... who could forget against the Suns??? Way too many.

Which one against the Suns? Tony always put up big numbers against the Suns... So did Tim. In fact all the big 3 basically did..

[TDMVPDPOY]

remember when the spurs go into a playoff series with a 2-0, then the opponent adjusted to enrique no jumpshot pos for that backdoor sweep or just a series loss? :( :(

[ElNono]

Which one against the Suns? Tony always put up big numbers against the Suns... So did Tim. In fact all the big 3 basically did..

2008, 2OT game at home. I remember watching that from a hotel room in San Antonio, tbh


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjPTZHuUo4Y

[ElNono]

That's the game where Manu assisted TD for a 3 pointer to send it to overtime.

[dbreiden83080]

That's the game where Manu assisted TD for a 3 pointer to send it to overtime.

Yes I remember. Looking at the stats Tony actually had 30 points a game in that series. And Tim Duncan had the monster game one. Tim was 24/14.. Manu 19PPG..

[ElNono]

Yes I remember. Looking at the stats Tony actually had 30 points a game in that series. And Tim Duncan had the monster game one. Tim was 24/14.. Manu 19PPG..

Manu closed almost all of those games, tbh... that was pretty usual around that time.

[dbreiden83080]

Manu closed almost all of those games, tbh... that was pretty usual around that time.

Yeah he was the closer in a lot of those situations. Which was good because he was pretty reliable in those spots, a good foul shooter. So it was a good role for him.

[DAF86]

Can anyone name more than 2 playoff series outside of 2005 (a magical year for him) in which Manu completely took over and was the team's best player? Off the top of my head, 2008 against the Hornets comes to mind and 2011 against the Grizz.

Manu was the guy who would give you his brilliance in certain games (usually game 5s for whatever reason), but he rarely displayed the consistency to take over a playoff series. It is what it is. He was the heart and X-factor of 3 of our title runs, and his 2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

That's a dumb argument. The reason Manu didn't regularly dominate playoffs series is the same reason why he never regularly dominate regular seasons: he played alongside Tim fucking Duncan. You know, the guy that is probably one of the 5 best players of all-time. Kobe Bryant didn't completely take over, and became the team's best player regularly on playoffs series when he played alongside Shaq, either, tbh.

Oh, and to answer your question: outside of that championship winning run in '05 (you know, no biggie. As if any NBA player has one of those), and those two series you mentioned, you have Dallas and Suns in 2010 and an argument could be made for Dallas and OKC in 2014.

[DAF86]

Can anyone name more than 2 playoff series outside of 2005 (a magical year for him) in which Manu completely took over and was the team's best player? Off the top of my head, 2008 against the Hornets comes to mind and 2011 against the Grizz.

Manu was the guy who would give you his brilliance in certain games (usually game 5s for whatever reason), but he rarely displayed the consistency to take over a playoff series. It is what it is. He was the heart and X-factor of 3 of our title runs, and his 2014 Finals performance is wildly underrated.

Not only those 2014 finals, that entire 2014 playoffs run is one of Manu's most underrated gems. He just chilled on that gimmie of a series vs the Blazers, that's why his overall numbers don't look as impressive.

That's another thing with Manu: he was the anti-stat padder. He would chill the fuck out on games that didn't require him to do anything. Other guys would take advantage of easy games to get their numbers. Not Manu, those were the games he used to rest and he didn't give a fuck if he ended with 2 pts on 2 half-assed jumpshots.

[DAF86]

Think he has a case for 14 vs Dallas and OKC, although I wouldn't say he "took over" (it was great team effort)
But the point is his job wasn't to be the best player throughout a series (he played with a top 10 player ever and a great PG), he had to be the one who put us over the top and honestly he did many times, I think even his 07 run happens to be somehow underrated
Could he be the main guy on a team? I think yes if given that responsibility, and it would have been fun to see him considering how that went outside of the NBA, but we'll never know and I guess he's happy with his 4 rings

That shouldn't even be a question. There are many successful NBA teams in history that never had a player as good as Manu. Off the top of my head:

-The mid 2000's Pistons. Swap Hamilton for Manu and Manu becomes "the man" on a championship level team.

-The pre-Kawhi Raptors. That's a 60 wins team. Swap DeRozan for Manu and they might become real contenders.

-The 2012-14 Spurs. Put prime Manu on that team and he might be seen as a top 20 player of all-time right now (put prime Duncan and he's the GOAT).

-Heck, bring the entire 2000's Argentina NT to the NBA and that's a 50 wins team that Manu could lead for over a decade.

In terms of talent, leadership, clutchness, intelligence, etc. There's no doubt Manu could have been a franchise player. The only card the haters have to play is the "durability" one, for a guy that played professional ball (with barely taking summers off) for a quarter of a century.

[TDfan2007]

Too many, tbh... Remember series against the Jazz, the Mavs... who could forget against the Suns??? Way too many.

EDIT: Almost forgot about the block on Harden against the Rockets, sealing the series. Also used to pwn the Nuggets on the regular, when they still had Melo/AI.

That's what I mean. He gave you moments and individual games (like game 5 in 2005 versus the Sonic's), but rarely put together a consistently great performance over a series.

Like I said, he was our x-factor. When he was on, we were essentially unbeatable, because a great Manu game wasn't just scoring. He would control the tempo, make big plays, and hustle his ass off.

[dbreiden83080]

That's what I mean. He gave you moments and individual games (like game 5 in 2005 versus the Sonic's), but rarely put together a consistently great performance over a series.

Like I said, he was our x-factor. When he was on, we were essentially unbeatable, because a great Manu game wasn't just scoring. He would control the tempo, make big plays, and hustle his ass off.

I 100% Agree. But HE was NOT a Superstar player. Just an All Star..

If Manu was that true Superstar level player. Man the Spurs wins 7 or 8 rings easily. Look at 2008 and that shitty loss in 5 to the Lakers. He averaged 12 PTS on 36% in 32 MPG. Tim shot the ball somewhat poorly that series as well shooting just 42%.. He put up 22/17 in the series. Tony average 19 on 47%. What we needed was the 3rd guy to really step up and put some points on the board that series to have a shot, because the Lakers had the better overall team. Manu just could not do it. Look at game 1 we lose by 4 Duncan goes for 30/18. Tony has 18 PTS on 7/17. Manu what did he do? 10 PTS from Manu in 37 Minutes.. He shot 3/13. Critical game 4 we have to tie the series.. Manu shoots 2/8 in 36 Minutes.. Spurs lose by 2.. That is not a Superstar..

[From Downtown]

I 100% Agree. But HE was NOT a Superstar player. Just an All Star..

If Manu was that true Superstar level player. Man the Spurs wins 7 or 8 rings easily. Look at 2008 and that shitty loss in 5 to the Lakers. He averaged 12 PTS on 36% in 32 MPG. Tim shot the ball somewhat poorly that series as well shooting just 42%.. He put up 22/17 in the series. Tony average 19 on 47%. What we needed was the 3rd guy to really step up and put some points on the board that series to have a shot, because the Lakers had the better overall team. Manu just could not do it. Look at game 1 we lose by 4 Duncan goes for 30/18. Tony has 18 PTS on 7/17. Manu what did he do? 10 PTS from Manu in 37 Minutes.. He shot 3/13. Critical game 4 we have to tie the series.. Manu shoots 2/8 in 36 Minutes.. Spurs lose by 2.. That is not a Superstar..

Yeah but the guy was actually injured

[dbreiden83080]

Yeah but the guy was actually injured

Durability... Not going to be that guy on heavy minutes.. Won't hold up..

[From Downtown]

That's what I mean. He gave you moments and individual games (like game 5 in 2005 versus the Sonic's), but rarely put together a consistently great performance over a series.

Like I said, he was our x-factor. When he was on, we were essentially unbeatable, because a great Manu game wasn't just scoring. He would control the tempo, make big plays, and hustle his ass off.

Yes but he wasn't asked to put up superstar numbers every game, he's always been the 3rd guy in terms of touches and many times he made the most out of it
Which is why his big performances usually didn't come in blowouts or games we controlled throughout
You mentioned his Game 5 against the Sonics, well he was consistent throughout that whole series tbh (he really was during that whole run) that was a pivotal game, Tony and Timmy were struggling and so he took over

[dbreiden83080]

Yes but he wasn't asked to put up superstar numbers every game, he's always been the 3rd guy in terms of touches and many times he made the most out of it
Which is why his big performances usually didn't come in blowouts or games we controlled throughout
You mentioned his Game 5 against the Sonics, well he was consistent throughout that whole series tbh (he really was during that whole run) that was a pivotal game, Tony and Timmy were struggling and so he took over

But at times when he was asked to do more. He did not.. And when I point one example out you say "He was injured" Well I respect the heart. But goes to the prior point made about his durability. Manu was always going to be a 6th man eventually. One way or another that was happening..

[From Downtown]

Durability... Not going to be that guy on heavy minutes.. Won't hold up..

It is not a matter of heavy minutes, he was just injured and had already played through two series with it
He's been the 3rd guy that put up numbers and came through when needed for most of his carrer, as much as we'd love it we can't really think that every year we didn't ring was a missed occasion, that's irrational
You don't think he's a superstar? Fair enough, you put other all stars in his position thay want out after 2 seasons

[From Downtown]

But at times when he was asked to do more. He did not.. And when I point one example out you say "He was injured" Well I respect the heart. But goes to the prior point made about his durability. Manu was always going to be a 6th man eventually. One way or another that was happening..

The point is that many of the times he was asked to do more he did (the whole 05 run, second part of the Suns series in 07, Jazz in 07, Hornets in 08, Mavs in 10, Grizz in 11, Mavs and OKC in 14 and there's probably more), but he didn't have to be the star, he was playing alongside and all time great

[dbreiden83080]

The point is that many of the times he was asked to do more he did (the whole 05 run, second part of the Suns series in 07, Jazz in 07, Hornets in 08, Mavs in 10, Grizz in 11, Mavs and OKC in 14 and there's probably more), but he didn't have to be the star, he was playing alongside and all time great

He did step up.. And he also did not at times.. He was not a Superstar player. He was an All Star Level player.. 2013 finals was painful to watch man.. A 38 year old Tim playing that well.. And Manu Geez it was bad..

[From Downtown]

He did step up.. And he also did not at times.. He was not a Superstar player. He was an All Star Level player.. 2013 finals was painful to watch man.. A 38 year old Tim playing that well.. And Manu Geez it was bad..

He was shit in 13, we all know it, it was probably the worst season of his career, but it was so bad I wouldn't take it as an example of anything if not that he was past his prime, injury issues took a toll on him more than in the past and he needed to adjust to survive (kinda like Wade the following year, or Timmy in 11)
But yeah, Manu did not step up at times exactly like every basketball player in the history of the game, he still stepped up more times than not and we won 4 rings with him and made the WCF 4 other times, we shouldn't really talk about it as if that was the norm
If you think he wasn't a superstar I'm okay with it, if you don't think he could've been more than a 3rd guy/fake 6th man on a team then not so much

[DAF86]

But at times when he was asked to do more. He did not.. And when I point one example out you say "He was injured" Well I respect the heart. But goes to the prior point made about his durability. Manu was always going to be a 6th man eventually. One way or another that was happening..

Key phrase being "at times". Most times than not Manu showed up when he needed, but he's only human. No player in history plays as well as needed everytime. If there were, we would have undefeated players.

[dbreiden83080]

It is not a matter of heavy minutes, he was just injured and had already played through two series with it
He's been the 3rd guy that put up numbers and came through when needed for most of his carrer, as much as we'd love it we can't really think that every year we didn't ring was a missed occasion, that's irrational
You don't think he's a superstar? Fair enough, you put other all stars in his position thay want out after 2 seasons

He’s playing hurt when he is in more of a secondary role. What I am saying is that speaks to his lack of durability if much more was put on his shoulders with another franchise. Heavy minutes and he’s carrying the load for five or more years. He was going to break down. I think that’s pretty clear.

[DAF86]

I 100% Agree. But HE was NOT a Superstar player. Just an All Star..

If Manu was that true Superstar level player. Man the Spurs wins 7 or 8 rings easily. Look at 2008 and that shitty loss in 5 to the Lakers. He averaged 12 PTS on 36% in 32 MPG. Tim shot the ball somewhat poorly that series as well shooting just 42%.. He put up 22/17 in the series. Tony average 19 on 47%. What we needed was the 3rd guy to really step up and put some points on the board that series to have a shot, because the Lakers had the better overall team. Manu just could not do it. Look at game 1 we lose by 4 Duncan goes for 30/18. Tony has 18 PTS on 7/17. Manu what did he do? 10 PTS from Manu in 37 Minutes.. He shot 3/13. Critical game 4 we have to tie the series.. Manu shoots 2/8 in 36 Minutes.. Spurs lose by 2.. That is not a Superstar..

Dude, stop jumping on that flawed argument. Manu didn't need to be consistently great. He played alongside a top 5 player of all-time. But the fact that he didn't need to be consistently great, it doesn't mean he couldn't be. In fact, for the role he had, he was pretty fucking consistent.

Do you remember Chris Bosh? He was consistently putting up 20+ pts when he was the man in Toronto. He went to Miami and became the scapegoat. It's not easy to be "consistent" having 3rd option touches.

[dbreiden83080]

Dude, stop jumping on that flawed argument. Manu didn't need to be consistently great. He played alongside a top 5 player of all-time. But the fact that he didn't need to be consistently great, it doesn't mean he couldn't be. In fact, for the role he had, he was pretty fucking consistent.

Do you remember Chris Bosh? He was consistently putting up 20+ pts when he was the man in Toronto. He went to Miami and became the scapegoat. It's not easy to be "consistent" having 3rd option touches.

OK but you take it as an insult when I say he’s not a superstar. That’s not an insult. It’s an honest evaluation of the man’s career. Bosh also not a superstar. He’s an all star. These are not insults. Pop Saw to it that Manu had a very long and productive career.

[From Downtown]

He’s playing hurt when he is in more of a secondary role. What I am saying is that speaks to his lack of durability if much more was put on his shoulders with another franchise. Heavy minutes and he’s carrying the load for five or more years. He was going to break down. I think that’s pretty clear.

You know everyone can get injured at any time right?

[dbreiden83080]

You know everyone can get injured at any time right?

Yes..

[DAF86]

OK but you take it as an insult when I say he’s not a superstar. That’s not an insult. It’s an honest evaluation of the man’s career. Bosh also not a superstar. He’s an all star. These are not insults. Pop Saw to it that Manu had a very long and productive career.

When did I do that? IMHO, "Superstars" are only the true elite players like Duncan, Lebron, etc. I never said Manu was a "Superstar", just a more than capable franchise player.

[spurs10]

I think it's meaningless semantics saying someone is a 'superstar' or a 'star.' Manu played a huge part in Argentina winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics. You think there is one citizen in Argentina that doesn't think he's a 'superstar?' How about 4 NBA championships which he played a huge role in. He is a shoe-in Hall Of Fame player. Everything else is meaningless. Viva Manu! Just call him HOFer.

[apalisoc_9]

I think it's meaningless semantics saying someone is a 'superstar' or a 'star.' Manu played a huge part in Argentina winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics. You think there is one citizen in Argentina that doesn't think he's a 'superstar?' How about 4 NBA championships which he played a huge role in. He is a shoe-in Hall Of Fame player. Everything else is meaningless. Viva Manu! Just call him HOFer.

Sure.

But not a player in the 50s range.

That’s generally reserved for players with large body of work and pr superstar

[ElNono]

That's what I mean. He gave you moments and individual games (like game 5 in 2005 versus the Sonic's), but rarely put together a consistently great performance over a series.

Like I said, he was our x-factor. When he was on, we were essentially unbeatable, because a great Manu game wasn't just scoring. He would control the tempo, make big plays, and hustle his ass off.

Limited minutes, and his unselfishness to come from the bench, tbh... but I would agree a lot of times this team went only as far as he carried it.

He was more of a leader for Team Argentina, and he obviously lifted that team to success also.

[ElNono]

That's what I mean. He gave you moments and individual games (like game 5 in 2005 versus the Sonic's), but rarely put together a consistently great performance over a series.

Like I said, he was our x-factor. When he was on, we were essentially unbeatable, because a great Manu game wasn't just scoring. He would control the tempo, make big plays, and hustle his ass off.

And BTW, this applies to TD also, in the sense that he would average 30-10-5 in a series completely pedestrian. You would have to look at the numbers after the series to see what a monster he was.

The few exceptions I would make to that with TD was the '03 series against the Lakers (Manu also played really well then), and a few others back in that time where our offense was basically 4-down almost every time.

[dbreiden83080]

I think it's meaningless semantics saying someone is a 'superstar' or a 'star.' Manu played a huge part in Argentina winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics. You think there is one citizen in Argentina that doesn't think he's a 'superstar?' How about 4 NBA championships which he played a huge role in. He is a shoe-in Hall Of Fame player. Everything else is meaningless. Viva Manu! Just call him HOFer.
It’s not meaningless at all. It’s a way to define a very good player, possibly a great player, versus someone that is an all-time great player. Personally I think he was a very good player, that had longevity thanks in large part to his head coach, and played on some all-time great teams. So not a superstar.

[ElNono]

I think it's meaningless semantics saying someone is a 'superstar' or a 'star.' Manu played a huge part in Argentina winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics. You think there is one citizen in Argentina that doesn't think he's a 'superstar?' How about 4 NBA championships which he played a huge role in. He is a shoe-in Hall Of Fame player. Everything else is meaningless. Viva Manu! Just call him HOFer.

I don't think the sentiment is that he couldn't have been a superstar, but he just didn't have that role in this team. That actually speaks to him humbleness and smarts that maybe if he took a lesser role, he would win a lot. And he did. On the NT his role was different, and while they also had success, they didn't have a TD.

[dbreiden83080]

I don't think the sentiment is that he couldn't have been a superstar, but he just didn't have that role in this team. That actually speaks to him humbleness and smarts that maybe if he took a lesser role, he would win a lot. And he did. On the NT his role was different, and while they also had success, they didn't have a TD.

He was definitely very unselfish. He fit into the system perfectly. If he wanted to leave as a free agent and seek out a bigger role he obviously could’ve done that.

[From Downtown]

Sure.

But not a player in the 50s range.

That’s generally reserved for players with large body of work and pr superstar

The thing with him is that he's actually quite hard to rank because his path in the league has been very unique
His raw stats are average and he was never the #1, but at the same time from 04 to 11 he was a top 5 SG in the league, he was way more impactful on winning than his numbers may suggest and he was so well rounded as a player he's thrived in any role he's been given
Plus he has a serious case as the greatest international player ever, counting his accomplishments on both sides of the basketball world

[DAF86]

Sure.

But not a player in the 50s range.

That’s generally reserved for players with large body of work and pr superstar

Give me your top 50 players list, troll.

[apalisoc_9]

Give me your top 50 players list, troll.

Not for you scrah. You know I like you as a poster, but you get butthurt if anyone puts manu outside of top 50. I mean playing like drexler, Pau etc have clearly achived more

[dbreiden83080]

Not for you scrah. You know I like you as a poster, but you get butthurt if anyone puts manu outside of top 50. I mean playing like drexler, Pau etc have clearly achived more

For me if you are the man on a team, and you won the league MVP, had a finals run etc. That should count for more than being a part of an all-time great team and being a major contributor. Tons of franchise players could have won championships playing with a lot of talent. It just seems logical.

[DAF86]

Not for you scrah. You know I like you as a poster, but you get butthurt if anyone puts manu outside of top 50. I mean playing like drexler, Pau etc have clearly achived more

I can live with players like Pau and Drexler being ahead of Manu. Give me 50 better though.

[DAF86]

For me if you are the man on a team, and you won the league MVP, had a finals run etc. That should count for more than being a part of an all-time great team and being a major contributor. Tons of franchise players could have won championships playing with a lot of talent. It just seems logical.

Bunch of players can win MVP given the perfect storm. Derrick Rose won NBA MVP.

[dbreiden83080]

Bunch of players can win MVP given the perfect storm. Derrick Rose won NBA MVP.

And he was a great basketball player before the injuries. That’s a terrible example.

[DAF86]

And he was a great basketball player before the injuries. That’s a terrible example.

Not even half as good as Manu though.

[dbreiden83080]

Not even half as good as Manu though.

Ok so now we are downgrading Rose.

He was a 3 time all star, Rookie of the Year, first team all NBA, and league MVP. Bulls won 62 games best record in the league, lost to Lebron/Wade in the ECF. Manu should have played for Tom Thibodeau for 4 or 5 years the way he played his starters.. leaving Manu in a playoff game that was all over. With Pop Manu would have been comfortably chilling on the bench. Rose is tearing his ACL because Thibs was a fool..

"There was also some debate about how Thibodeau handled Rose during the ill-fated 2011-12 campaign. Rose battled numerous injuries throughout the year, sporadically missing time and ultimately playing in only 39 regular-season contests.

But when Rose returned from missing games that season, a common theme was playing him big minutes right away instead of easing him back into the lineup. He suffered his first injury in a 42-minute outing against the Minnesota Timberwolves on Jan. 10. After missing a game, he played 39 minutes and 41 minutes before going on the shelf for four more games. When he returned from that absence, he played nearly 38 minutes per game over the next eight games. Shortly after that, he went on the shelf again for five more games"

https://www.blogabull.com/2014/10/14/6976097/tom-thibodeau-frustrated-minutes-restrictions-derrick-rose-joakim-noah

How many times do I need to say that Manu was lucky to play for Pop?

[rascal]

I can live with players like Pau and Drexler being ahead of Manu. Give me 50 better though.

easily 50 better. I'll start with Iverson.

[rascal]

Gervin was better. Maravich

They have Gervin ranked higher but Maravich was better and they have him ranked lower than Manu.

[dbreiden83080]

Gervin was better.

47 on the ESPN List.. Nice they did NOT forget about him..

Tim
David
Ice

Top 3 Spurs.. Then we can fight about 4 and 5..

[rascal]

Parker was better and should be 4'th on the list. I value a starting pg over a backup sg especially when the scoring averages are close.

[rascal]

Lilliard, Bernard King and Bob Lanier are ranked lower and all better. Every player below Manu all the way to 74 is better except Mutombo and Cowens.

[dbreiden83080]

easily 50 better. I'll start with Iverson.

Unseld
Miller
Walton
Gervin
Wilkins
AD
Hayes
Barry
Westbrook
Cousy at 41..

Cousy was a product of the era IMO.. 40 starts with Chris Paul and there is no argument for Manu from 39 down with players like Kidd, McHale, Ewing on there..

[TDfan2007]

Manu's ranking is just fine. As many here have noted, he's really tough to rank because of the unique circumstances around his arrival and career (late start, willingly coming off the bench for the sake of strategy).

In making these lists, I still think you have to go with guys who have the individual body of work like AI over Manu, because dealing in "well he could have" arguments is pointless. However, there's no way in hell those 2000s Spurs teams would have been as successful if you swap AI with Manu.

Manu was put in a great situation and also made personal sacrifices for team success, the same way Tony and Timmy did. Those 3 were perfect for each other, and I wouldn't have had it any other way. Let's not forget that those Spurs teams were a few bounces away from even more titles. I'm super proud to say I was about to watch all 3 together in their primes.

[DAF86]

Manu's ranking is just fine. As many here have noted, he's really tough to rank because of the unique circumstances around his arrival and career (late start, willingly coming off the bench for the sake of strategy).

In making these lists, I still think you have to go with guys who have the individual body of work like AI over Manu, because dealing in "well he could have" arguments is pointless. However, there's no way in hell those 2000s Spurs teams would have been as successful if you swap AI with Manu.

Manu was put in a great situation and also made personal sacrifices for team success, the same way Tony and Timmy did. Those 3 were perfect for each other, and I wouldn't have had it any other way. Let's not forget that those Spurs teams were a few bounces away from even more titles. I'm super proud to say I was about to watch all 3 together in their primes.

If you consider only the NBA, sure, maybe (although I could make a case that 4 championships as an all-star level player are better than a regular season MVP and one final appearance). However, if you consider basketball in general, there's no way Manu's entire career can be ranked lower than Iversons. And taking away accomplishments (which are a consequence of circumstances) and focusing only on skill and impact as a basketball player, I have Manu pretty damn ahead of Iverson too.

[dbreiden83080]

(although I could make a case that 4 championships as an all-star level player are better than a regular season MVP and one final appearance).

And you'd be wrong. Allen Iverson was driving the bus. Manu was a passenger. Lets not stop there.. Barkley, Ewing also had finals runs with no ring. Barkley a league MVP that same season. Manu better than them too?



However, if you consider basketball in general, there's no way Manu's entire career can be ranked lower than Iversons. And taking away accomplishments (which are a consequence of circumstances) and focusing only on skill and impact as a basketball player, I have Manu pretty damn ahead of Iverson too.

Iverson is regarded as one of the best players of his generation.. You are painfully undervaluing his career..

[DAF86]

And you'd be wrong. Allen Iverson was driving the bus. Manu was a passenger. Lets not stop there.. Barkley, Ewing also had finals runs with no ring. Barkley a league MVP that same season. Manu better than them too?

Manu wasn't just a passanger, he was a co-pilot, alongside Tim and Tony. Saying Manu was just a "passanger" makes it seem like he was closer to a Fabricio Oberto, when he was actually closer to a Tim Duncan.


Iverson is regarded as one of the best players of his generation.. You are painfully undervaluing his career..

Dude, I grew up watching Iverson play, he's my favourite player of all-time. If I had an NBA wish, I would wish for AI to come back out of retirement and get his ring. I'm not undervaluing his career, I know his career as well as anybody else and that's why I know he's one of the most overrated players ever. I love the guy, but it's true. He had a very flashy, very fun style of play, that's why he was so popular, but that flashy, fun style of play was very inefficient too.

In today's NBA, whith better understanding of efficient shots and styles of play, there's no way he could pull off what he pulled in the early 2000's. No coach would put up with a 6 foot nothing guy using the basketball like a yo-yo for 20 seconds only to take a tough fade away jumper from 22 feet and go 10 for 30 from the field for 30 pts. That type of shit just wouldn't cut it. In today's NBA there's no chance he wins a scoring tittle, heck he probably wouldn't even be a top option (at least not if you want to be a real contender). He would be a Westbrook minus the height, assists and rebounds.

Iverson made the best out of the era in which he played and the team that was built around him. Everybody talks about how he had no help, but what most people don't realize is that those Sixers' rosters were built so that Iverson could maximize his ball-hoggin ways. He was surrounded by an all-time great defensive team that didn't demand the ball at all, so that Iverson could put up all the shots he wanted without anybody else rising an eyebrow. Everytime he was paired alongside offensive talent, he couldn't make it work (Webber, Carmelo, US NT). It pains me to say it, but he was kind of a cancer, tbh.

[spurs10]

It’s not meaningless at all. It’s a way to define a very good player, possibly a great player, versus someone that is an all-time great player. Personally I think he was a very good player, that had longevity thanks in large part to his head coach, and played on some all-time great teams. So not a superstar. I get your point, but again he is a superstar in his home country. In San Antonio he's about as popular as you can get. I don't always agree with how players are labeled. Tim is a great example, one the greatest to have ever played, but because he didn't sell junk food to kids he might not be a 'superstar.'

[TDfan2007]

If you consider only the NBA, sure, maybe (although I could make a case that 4 championships as an all-star level player are better than a regular season MVP and one final appearance). However, if you consider basketball in general, there's no way Manu's entire career can be ranked lower than Iversons. And taking away accomplishments (which are a consequence of circumstances) and focusing only on skill and impact as a basketball player, I have Manu pretty damn ahead of Iverson too.

The list was based on NBA players and NBA play. If it was based on one's today body of basketball work, Manu would be higher for sure. But just based on NBA performance, I'd say Manu is ranked favorably

[DAF86]

The list was based on NBA players and NBA play. If it was based on one's today body of basketball work, Manu would be higher for sure. But just based on NBA performance, I'd say Manu is ranked favorably

Link? If the list is closely related to the tittle of this thread, "best playa of all-time", then there's no NBA only qulifier. I know NBA people like to claim the entirety of the basketball World, hence the motto "World Champions" when they are only US and one Canadian team champions, but still, if you are going to label your list "best players of all-time" then I'm going to use all basketball related competitions to discuss the matter.

But, for the sake of arguing, let's say that, indeed, there's an NBA only qualifier. What's the criteria to rank these NBA players? If the criteria is "most counting stats for a player" then sure, go ahead and rank Iverson over Manu. While your are at it, go ahead and rank players like DeRozan, Kevin Martin, and a bunch of others, ahead of him too. But, if it's open for interpretation and any kind of analysis or reasoning could be use to rank the players, like, for example, asking yourself the question "leaving circumstancial consequences aside, like stats and accolades, who do you think is actually the better player between these two?", then, sorry, but I would have to go with Manu, tbh.

[dbreiden83080]

I get your point, but again he is a superstar in his home country. In San Antonio he's about as popular as you can get. I don't always agree with how players are labeled. Tim is a great example, one the greatest to have ever played, but because he didn't sell junk food to kids he might not be a 'superstar.'

Side Subject.. But

Tony for whatever reason is not beloved by Spurs fans. At least the fans around here. And it's been like that since about 2005.. I don't get it, and I never did? He was as valuable and at times more valuable than Manu. He was Tim's Little brother/Robin many times over. No doubt helped the Spurs win 4. But he is kind of a laughing stock/target of Jokes. Is it the Brent Barry Wife thing? She was HOT so he should get some Brownie points on that one LOL..

[TDfan2007]

Link? If the list is closely related to the tittle of this thread, "best playa of all-time", then there's no NBA only qulifier. I know NBA people like to claim the entirety of the basketball World, hence the motto "World Champions" when they are only US and one Canadian team champions, but still, if you are going to label your list "best players of all-time" then I'm going to use all basketball related competitions to discuss the matter.

But, for the sake of arguing, let's say that, indeed, there's an NBA only qualifier. What's the criteria to rank these NBA players? If the criteria is "most counting stats for a player" then sure, go ahead and rank Iverson over Manu. While your are at it, go ahead and rank players like DeRozan, Kevin Martin, and a bunch of others, ahead of him too. But, if it's open for interpretation and any kind of analysis or reasoning could be use to rank the players, like, for example, asking yourself the question "leaving circumstancial consequences aside, like stats and accolades, who do you think is actually the better player between these two?", then, sorry, but I would have to go with Manu, tbh.

So...did you not look at the list? It's ESPN's lost of the 74 greatest NBA players of all time.

And comparing AI to Manu is nothing like comparing Kevin Martin or DeRozan to Manu. AI was a multiple time scoring champ, franchise player, and managed to lead his team to the finals in 2001 in historic fashion.

Manu was arguably the best player on the Spurs once, and that was 2010-2011. He was probably 1b in 2007-2008 to Timmy. Other that that, it was either Tim or Tony's team. Many of the reasons you've cited for his lower counting stats (bench play, limited minutes, and playing with an all time great) also played a factor in the team success that he enjoyed, and helped to extend his career.

Individual success:
2x all star (2005, 2011)
2x all-nba 3rd team (2007-2008, 2010-2011)
Sixth man of the year (2007-2008)

Team success:
2003 champion: role player
2005 champion: 2nd best player, case for finals MVP
2007 champion: 2nd best player, along with Tony
2014 champion: 2nd best player (better than Kawhi and Tony for the entirety of the playoffs)

At his best, Manu was the second best player on multiple championship teams. That's an amazing feat, and worthy of his spot on the list.

[dbreiden83080]

So...did you not look at the list? It's ESPN's lost of the 74 greatest NBA players of all time.

And comparing AI to Manu is nothing like comparing Kevin Martin or DeRozan to Manu. AI was a multiple time scoring champ, franchise player, and managed to lead his team to the finals in 2001 in historic fashion.

Manu was arguably the best player on the Spurs once, and that was 2010-2011. He was probably 1b in 2007-2008 to Timmy. Other that that, it was either Tim or Tony's team. Many of the reasons you've cited for his lower counting stats (bench play, limited minutes, and playing with an all time great) also played a factor in the team success that he enjoyed, and helped to extend his career.

Individual success:
2x all star (2005, 2011)
2x all-nba 3rd team (2007-2008, 2010-2011)
Sixth man of the year (2007-2008)

Team success:
2003 champion: role player
2005 champion: 2nd best player, case for finals MVP
2007 champion: 2nd best player, along with Tony
2014 champion: 2nd best player (better than Kawhi and Tony for the entirety of the playoffs)

At his best, Manu was the second best player on multiple championship teams. That's an amazing feat, and worthy of his spot on the list.

Spot on Analysis of his career.. Manu was the 1B or even 1C.. At no point did the Spurs ever say "Manu it is your team". Tony when Tim was still young was given the green light to put the ball in the basket more.. Pop did NOT tell Manu to "Be the man now".

IMO Pop was always concerned about the durability of Manu. Thus the low minutes, and being the 6th man..

Spurs fans try to devalue Tony to prop up Manu.. Unfairly so..

[From Downtown]

Spot on Analysis of his career.. Manu was the 1B or even 1C.. At no point did the Spurs ever say "Manu it is your team". Tony when Tim was still young was given the green light to put the ball in the basket more.. Pop did NOT tell Manu to "Be the man now".

IMO Pop was always concerned about the durability of Manu. Thus the low minutes, and being the 6th man..

Spurs fans try to devalue Tony to prop up Manu.. Unfairly so..

Why do we really have to bring Tony into this?

[dbreiden83080]

Why do we really have to bring Tony into this?

Exactly. Spurs fans just want to dismiss him. There it is..

[From Downtown]

Exactly. Spurs fans just want to dismiss him. There it is..

Tony is still very beloved by Spurs fans, and as much as I think Manu was a better player, he still was very instrumental to our success, they were the Big 3 for a reason
I think the Barry incident was a factor for him not being perceived as the most likeable of the three, but people on the internet like to be extreme with their opinions, that doesn't mean he is not loved and appreciated in SA (actually I think he's underrated amongst casual NBA fans, but that's another matter)
He may not be as beloved as Manu, but who is? That's not really a knock on Tony

[dbreiden83080]

Tony is still very beloved by Spurs fans, and as much as I think Manu was a better player, he still was very instrumental to our success, they were the Big 3 for a reason
I think the Barry incident was a factor for him not being perceived as the most likeable of the three, but people on the internet like to be extreme with their opinions, that doesn't mean he is not loved and appreciated in SA (actually I think he's underrated amongst casual NBA fans, but that's another matter)
He may not be as beloved as Manu, but who is? That's not really a knock on Tony

Manu could have banged Eva Longoria, and Spurs fans would not have changed their minds. They had the Poms Poms out a long time ago, and picked sides..

[From Downtown]

Manu could have banged Eva Longoria, and Spurs fans would not have changed their minds. They had the Poms Poms out a long time ago, and picked sides..

Nah c'mon, what Tony did was bad

[DAF86]

So...did you not look at the list? It's ESPN's lost of the 74 greatest NBA players of all time.

And comparing AI to Manu is nothing like comparing Kevin Martin or DeRozan to Manu. AI was a multiple time scoring champ, franchise player, and managed to lead his team to the finals in 2001 in historic fashion.

Manu was arguably the best player on the Spurs once, and that was 2010-2011. He was probably 1b in 2007-2008 to Timmy. Other that that, it was either Tim or Tony's team. Many of the reasons you've cited for his lower counting stats (bench play, limited minutes, and playing with an all time great) also played a factor in the team success that he enjoyed, and helped to extend his career.

Individual success:
2x all star (2005, 2011)
2x all-nba 3rd team (2007-2008, 2010-2011)
Sixth man of the year (2007-2008)

Team success:
2003 champion: role player
2005 champion: 2nd best player, case for finals MVP
2007 champion: 2nd best player, along with Tony
2014 champion: 2nd best player (better than Kawhi and Tony for the entirety of the playoffs)

At his best, Manu was the second best player on multiple championship teams. That's an amazing feat, and worthy of his spot on the list.

Well, that's exactly my point. People like dbreiden83080 like to point out that Manu without Duncan wouldn't have won as much, but then doesn't want to acknowledge that Iverson playing with Duncan would have never won MVP nor scoring titles. It works both ways, so it's dumb to bring those circumstancial accolades. The guy with the better team will tend to have more team success and the guy with the lesser team will tend to have better individual stats, it's only natural. That's why you have to try to put aside those things and focus on the skills and intangible traits of the players.

[dbreiden83080]

Nah c'mon, what Tony did was bad

She was pretty fine.. It wasn't that bad LOL..

[dbreiden83080]

Well, that's exactly my point. People like dbreiden83080 like to point out that Manu without Duncan wouldn't have won as much, but then doesn't want to acknowledge that Iverson playing with Duncan would have never won MVP nor scoring titles. It works both ways, so it's dumb to bring those circumstancial accolades. The guy with the better team will tend to have more team success and the guy with the lesser team will tend to have better individual stats, it's only natural. That's why you have to try to put aside those things and focus on the skills and intangible traits of the players.

Some people love to throw out terms like winners intangibles. Yeah well it’s not that hard to show winners intangibles on a winning team. A team that may need you to be clutch two games out of seven. Manu Could be fantastic for one or two games in a playoff series. He could also disappear suddenly in a playoff series. 2008 conference finals. He was playing great and then suddenly nothing. He was injured right? Well again we come back to the durability issue.

Players like Malone and Patrick Ewing had to be durable. It was a job requirement. That’s why we don’t throw aside things like league MVPs. They don’t give them out like pieces of candy.

[DAF86]

Some people love to throw out terms like winners intangibles. Yeah well it’s not that hard to show winners intangibles on a winning team. A team that may need you to be clutch two games out of seven. Manu Could be fantastic for one or two games in a playoff series. He could also disappear suddenly in a playoff series. 2008 conference finals. He was playing great and then suddenly nothing. He was injured right? Well again we come back to the durability issue.

Players like Malone and Patrick Ewing had to be durable. It was a job requirement. That’s why we don’t throw aside things like league MVPs. They don’t give them out like pieces of candy.

Dude, you are the king of going on tangents when you feel you are running out of arguments, tbh. :lol

That post you quoted wasn't about "intangibles" and "winners", tbh. It was about how external factors play a huge role in the career of individual players. That's why using championships isn't the best of arguments, but using scoring titles and MVP's is just as bad of an argument.

With that said, I will engage if you want. In the matter of "winners", as I already explained, I was actually arguing the opposite. I was acknowlodging the fact that if Manu didn't have the luck of having the teammates he had, he wouldn't have won as much as he won (although obviously the individual always plays a part. Like I said before: Swap AI and Manu and the Spurs probably don't win as much, and Argentina definitely doesn't win Gold in '04 if Manu and AI switch places).

And regarding the term "intangibles" I was talking about things that aren't so abstract and can be easily assumed. For example, an "intangible" aspect that Manu has over AI, and that it can be easy to assume, is professionalism.

[apalisoc_9]

Well, that's exactly my point. People like dbreiden83080 like to point out that Manu without Duncan wouldn't have won as much, but then doesn't want to acknowledge that Iverson playing with Duncan would have never won MVP nor scoring titles. It works both ways, so it's dumb to bring those circumstancial accolades. The guy with the better team will tend to have more team success and the guy with the lesser team will tend to have better individual stats, it's only natural. That's why you have to try to put aside those things and focus on the skills and intangible traits of the players.

Except that you’re the only one operating based on assumption. Iverson won an MVP. Sure it could be because of circumstances, but plenty of elite players had similiar corcumstances and never won MVP.

You on the other hand are making assumptions that Manu will surely do this and do that if he had his own team.

No one shouldbe ranked based on this assumptions.

Manu made a decision to be 2’d or 3rd guy over a 1st guy, and he will take the positives of that such as winning championship and he deserbes to be penalized for that too by having no hard evidence to suggest he can be a top guy who can lead his team to even playoff.

We’re talking about a guy that is nowhere near close durable to be a franchise guy

[dbreiden83080]

Give me your top 50 players list, troll.


Not for you scrah. You know I like you as a poster, but you get butthurt if anyone puts manu outside of top 50. I mean playing like drexler, Pau etc have clearly achived more

I hope Manu signed some cool shit for him..


Dude, you are the king of going on tangents when you feel you are running out of arguments, tbh. :lol

That post you quoted wasn't about "intangibles" and "winners", tbh. It was about how external factors play a huge role in the career of individual players. That's why using championships isn't the best of arguments, but using scoring titles and MVP's is just as bad of an argument.

With that said, I will engage if you want. In the matter of "winners", as I already explained, I was actually arguing the opposite. I was acknowlodging the fact that if Manu didn't have the luck of having the teammates he had, he wouldn't have won as much as he won (although obviously the individual always plays a part. Like I said before: Swap AI and Manu and the Spurs probably don't win as much, and Argentina definitely doesn't win Gold in '04 if Manu and AI switch places).

And regarding the term "intangibles" I was talking about things that aren't so abstract and can be easily assumed. For example, an "intangible" aspect that Manu has over AI, and that it can be easy to assume, is professionalism.

"Manu means wins" is the crux of your argument for 10 days. So me talking about "Winners intangibles" is an extension of what you have been saying all this time. There is no tangible evidence that Manu is a better player than AI. Because all ways one would measure this from stats, to individual honors, to leading his own team, Manu falls short.. He decided to be a Robin or 3rd wheel.. That disqualifies comparison with players like AI. Was he even better than Tony? Did Tony not have better stats, more individual honors, same number of rings, a coach that gave him a larger role over time? Who compares Tony to AI?

[From Downtown]

Some people love to throw out terms like winners intangibles. Yeah well it’s not that hard to show winners intangibles on a winning team. A team that may need you to be clutch two games out of seven. Manu Could be fantastic for one or two games in a playoff series. He could also disappear suddenly in a playoff series. 2008 conference finals. He was playing great and then suddenly nothing. He was injured right? Well again we come back to the durability issue.

Players like Malone and Patrick Ewing had to be durable. It was a job requirement. That’s why we don’t throw aside things like league MVPs. They don’t give them out like pieces of candy.

Yeah cos the only guy in basketball history to win a domestic league title, euroleague, Olympic Gold and NBA title (and was one vote away from winning them all as a MVP) surely just had winning intangibles because he was on winning teams and not the other way round
You're just mentioning two all team greats and a bad series out of countless good ones to make a case for I don't exactly know what

[dbreiden83080]

Except that you’re the only one operating based on assumption. Iverson won an MVP. Sure it could be because of circumstances, but plenty of elite players had similiar corcumstances and never won MVP.

Exactly.. All time great players like Ewing never won one. But still LED his team for 10 plus years and made a finals run.. Conference finals Appearances..



You on the other hand are making assumptions that Manu will surely do this and do that if he had his own team.

No evidence of this obviously. So the point needs to be dismissed.. Manu was just fine where he was..



Manu made a decision to be 2’d or 3rd guy over a 1st guy, and he will take the positives of that such as winning championship and he deserbes to be penalized for that too by having no hard evidence to suggest he can be a top guy who can lead his team to even playoff.

We’re talking about a guy that is nowhere near close durable to be a franchise guy

A player that chooses to stay in a secondary role should not be placed above players in history that achieved individual greatness as franchise players. No fair player rankings would say otherwise. That's why Pippen is hard to rank for some.. He had franchise player skills, but was the Robin to the best player ever for most of his prime. Has his own team briefly to mixed results..

[dbreiden83080]

Yeah cos the only guy in basketball history to win a domestic league title, euroleague, Olympic Gold and NBA title (and was one vote away from winning them all as a MVP) surely just had winning intangibles because he was on winning teams and not the other way round
You're just mentioning two all team greats and a bad series out of countless good ones to make a case for I don't exactly know what

Manu played in nearly 1100 NBA games.. 218 playoff games. That is a lot to digest and critique in terms of his place in history.. I have NOT been unfair to Manu at all.. He should be in the HOF.. He meant a lot to the Spurs. But was he better than franchise players like AI or Ewing or Barkley? Hell no.. IMO he was on the same level as Tony. Maybe Tony was better.. (Here comes a shit storm right)

"Fuck Tony"

[DAF86]

Except that you’re the only one operating based on assumption. Iverson won an MVP. Sure it could be because of circumstances, but plenty of elite players had similiar corcumstances and never won MVP.

You on the other hand are making assumptions that Manu will surely do this and do that if he had his own team.

Point me to where I said that. I'm just stating that winning MVP doesn't automatically make a player better than another. Chris Paul was a nunber one option just like Derrick Rose. Paul never won MVP, Rose did. Does that mean Rose is the better player?


No one shouldbe ranked based on this assumptions.

Manu made a decision to be 2’d or 3rd guy over a 1st guy, and he will take the positives of that such as winning championship and he deserbes to be penalized for that too by having no hard evidence to suggest he can be a top guy who can lead his team to even playoff.

We’re talking about a guy that is nowhere near close durable to be a franchise guy

Talk about making unprovable assumptions. :lol

[DAF86]

I hope Manu signed some cool shit for him..



"Manu means wins" is the crux of your argument for 10 days. So me talking about "Winners intangibles" is an extension of what you have been saying all this time. There is no tangible evidence that Manu is a better player than AI. Because all ways one would measure this from stats, to individual honors, to leading his own team, Manu falls short.. He decided to be a Robin or 3rd wheel.. That disqualifies comparison with players like AI. Was he even better than Tony? Did Tony not have better stats, more individual honors, same number of rings, a coach that gave him a larger role over time? Who compares Tony to AI?

No, the crux of my argument has always been that Manu shoots better, finishes better, assists better, rebounds better, blocks better, defends better, takes better decisions and does pretty much everything better than Iverson on a basketball court

[dbreiden83080]

No, the crux of my argument has always been that Manu shoots better, finishes better, assists better, rebounds better, blocks better, defends better, takes better decisions and does pretty much everything better than Iverson on a basketball court

From the eyes of a Spurs fan from Argentina.. And with Manu playing the 3rd wheel at times.. Seems fair and 100% unbiased.

[apalisoc_9]

Point me to where I said that. I'm just stating that winning MVP doesn't automatically make a player better than another. Chris Paul never won MVP, does that mean Derrick Rose is better 'cause he did?



Talk about making unprovable assumptions. :lol

Unprovable? He was injury prone with the spurs

[DAF86]

From the eyes of a Spurs fan from Argentina.. And with Manu playing the 3rd wheel at times.. Seems fair and 100% unbiased.

Ok, you don't agree with those things I said? Tell me in which of those things you think Iverson was better than Manu

[dbreiden83080]

Unprovable? He was injury prone with the spurs

https://reaction.club/r/hqg-2448.gif

[DAF86]

Unprovable? He was injury prone with the spurs

Injury prone? Only 1 season ending injury in 23 years of professional basketball. If Manu is injury prone what does that make a guy like Kawhi? :lol Is Kawhi not a franchise player because he is "injury prone"?

[From Downtown]

Manu played in nearly 1100 NBA games.. 218 playoff games. That is a lot to digest and critique in terms of his place in history.. I have NOT been unfair to Manu at all.. He should be in the HOF.. He meant a lot to the Spurs. But was he better than franchise players like AI or Ewing or Barkley? Hell no.. IMO he was on the same level as Tony. Maybe Tony was better.. (Here comes a shit storm right)

"Fuck Tony"

I never said he was better than Barkley or Ewing, I don't think he was, I think he could've been a first option and I stand by that
He chose to be a Robin, he's probably the best 3rd option of all time in terms of maximizing his production with a lesser role, the guy was a legit 19/5/4 guy on a Popovich team in the playoffs during his prime, he got rewarded with rings
On a pure basketball standpoint I'm taking him over some first options because he was skilled, extremely versatile, played on both sides on the floor, did all the little things and he could deliver in the clutch, Barkley, Ewing, Malone were all-time great first options, of course I've got them before him, but not every first option in NBA history has been *that* great
As for AI, his 76ers run was incredible, but I've got to say I'm not really a fan, he was wildly inefficient and couldn't adjust to any other way, still I'm not mad if you rank him over Manu, I just think it's closer than numbers might suggest
Tony's great, don't think he's better than Manu tho