Top 30 NBA Spurs (Updated every Sunday)

[whottt]

I didn't say he throws it for strikes all the time.



Go ahead...bond with some guy that probably wasn't even a SpursFan during our last title win...since he obviously has no recollection of Amare hanging numbers on Duncan's ass that would have made Hakeem blush. GMTA.

Why don't you, him, and TimVP just officially name your club, "we hate Tony Parker and Manu"...it's best to be honest about your agenda.

[ShoogarBear]

We hate everyone ranked above Avery in that list.

Anyway, you just reminded me. I forgot I was going to rip Bill Simmons a new one in the article where he said the best defensive players over the last 30 years were: "DJ, Payton, Pippen, Ben Wallace and Hakeem. Nobody else qualifies."

The one thing I have always said was that David Robinson was the second best defensive player of all time, behind only Russell. On the defensive end, DRob >>> Hakeem. And Jordan at his peak might have been a better defender than either Payton or DJ ever were.

[jcrod]

Too bad he had a terrible argument as to why Robinson is #1 over Duncan :rolleyes

Hakeem OWNED David Robinson throughout his career.....noone has owned Tim. :nope


WHAT! Thoughout his career???? Know your facts before you state them. He owned him on one serious. Other than that they were pretty even going head to head, as a matter of fact I think David has an edge over him.

[ArgSpursFan]

1.Duncan
2.Robinson
3.Ginobili(reason why:2 championships,and big part of the 2005 title+moral MVP of the 2005 finals)
4.Gervin
5.Elliott
6.Parker

[lebomb]

You know what? This arguing about #1 and #2 is really unnecessary we all love our Spurs and I think either Tim or D Robinson being 1 or 2 is cool with me.

Sorry about getting all of this stirred up.

GO SPURS GO!!!



PS........whottt, Ive been a Spurs fan since I was 7yrs old......thats back when they Spurs came over from the ABA. Thats a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time.

Have a good one. :toast

[ArgSpursFan]

There are only a FEW people that think this.........pretty much everyone I have run across (all my basketball buddies included) have thought Hakeem was a better center than D. Robinson was. Many of these guys ARE Spurs die hards. They are just realistic.

I love D.Robinson,but I think Hakeem has an edge over him.Reason why?His feets.Coming from a soccer background chilhood,like nash,manu,and more,these players know how to move their feets better tham a guy who´s never played soccer as a child.and that gives them a + on the floor .

[Sec24Row7]

Sean has to be #4 CURRENTLY...

6) Parker
5) Ginobili
4) Elliot
3) Gervin
2) Robinson
1) Duncan

Duncan will have his name in the rafters... So will Ginobili... Parker will if he stays... but he is still pretty young and could bail...

Duncan is a pretty clear #1 just by league hardware... He has a more impressive resume RIGHT NOW than David had after his career was over. I realise that we have some people that give David the edge because of his Athleticism etc but as far as Basketball SKILL Duncan beats him by a mile. Watch the kid play... seriously. David couldnt make a right handed shot to save his life. He had a hard time finishing at the Rim after contact. He was a better defender (athleticism) but not by much. I'm not going to argue with someone who says "Well look what David could have done if.." He didnt... Get over it.

Sean is ahead of Manu and Tony because his name is in the Rafters NOW. Do i think they are better players than Sean? Yeah... they both will move ahead of him in my book when there time here is done.

[ArgSpursFan]

Sean has to be #4 CURRENTLY...

Sean is ahead of Manu and Tony because his name is in the Rafters NOW. Do i think they are better players than Sean? Yeah... they both will move ahead of him in my book when there time here is done.

As today,maybe you´re right.but when Tony a Manu retire will problably end up 3rd and 4rd,ahead of Gervin and Elliott,with hopefully 1 or 2 more NBA titles before retiring.

[Sec24Row7]

heh... tony and Manu arent getting past gervin...

You obviously never have seen Gervin play...

[ArgSpursFan]

heh... tony and Manu arent getting past gervin...

You obviously never have seen Gervin play...

I did,not live but watched his vids and now his stats,but at the sametime,titles count,I must say.

[lebomb]

I have to go with Gervin at #3. Being in the top 5 is an awesome accomplishment anyhow.

Can you imagine if they had a top 30 for the Lakers??? That would be a wild one.

[ArgSpursFan]

I have to go with Gervin at #3. Being in the top 5 is an awesome accomplishment anyhow.

Can you imagine if they had a top 30 for the Lakers??? That would be a wild one.

1-Magic
2-Kareem
3-Wilt
4-Kobe
5-West

[lebomb]

1-Magic
2-Kareem
3-Wilt
4-Kobe
5-West


Shaq
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
James Worthy
George Mikan................????

[ArgSpursFan]

Shaq
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
James Worthy
George Mikan................????

After them.In my opinion
Cause shaq aint bigger tham magic,kareem and wilt,kobe and west for lakers fans.

[FromWayDowntown]

I did,not live but watched his vids and now his stats,but at the sametime,titles count,I must say.

You're out of your mind if you believe that either Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili will end his career with the Spurs as a better player than George Gervin. They're both very good players and each is legitimately an all-star in his own right. But there's a significant difference between being very good and being great.

George Gervin was a First Team All-NBA player for 5 consecutive seasons and a Second Team All-NBA player in the season before and the season after that run. Neither Manu Ginobili nor Tony Parker has even made the Third Team All-NBA.

George Gervin was in the top 11 in NBA MVP voting in every season from 1976-77 through 1982-83 (he finished 11th in 1977, 2nd in 1978 and 1979, 3rd in 1980, 5th in 1981, 6th in 1982, and 9th in 1983). Tony Parker finished 9th in 2006 (a very good showing) -- but he'd have to improve on that this year and remain in the top 10 for each of the next 5 seasons to have a run like the Iceman had. Manu Ginobili has never received a single vote for the league MVP award.

Mostly, though, George Gervin never got to play with a superstar player (other than himself); Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have played with 2 no brainer Hall of Fame players. Judging Gervin relatively poorly, compared to Ginobili and Parker, simply because Gervin's teams didn't win titles is ridiculous. It's like saying that Robert Horry was a better player than Karl Malone or Charles Barkley. Nobody in his right mind would make that argument.

[lebomb]

X2......I have to agree with FromWayDowntown on this one.

[ArgSpursFan]

You're out of your mind if you believe that either Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili will end his career with the Spurs as a better player than George Gervin. They're both very good players and each is legitimately an all-star in his own right. But there's a significant difference between being very good and being great.

George Gervin was a First Team All-NBA player for 5 consecutive seasons and a Second Team All-NBA player in the season before and the season after that run. Neither Manu Ginobili nor Tony Parker has even made the Third Team All-NBA.

George Gervin was in the top 11 in NBA MVP voting in every season from 1976-77 through 1982-83 (he finished 11th in 1977, 2nd in 1978 and 1979, 3rd in 1980, 5th in 1981, 6th in 1982, and 9th in 1983). Tony Parker finished 9th in 2006 (a very good showing) -- but he'd have to improve on that this year and remain in the top 10 for each of the next 5 seasons to have a run like the Iceman had. Manu Ginobili has never received a single vote for the league MVP award.

Mostly, though, George Gervin never got to play with a superstar player (other than himself); Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have played with 2 no brainer Hall of Fame players. Judging Gervin relatively poorly, compared to Ginobili and Parker, simply because Gervin's teams didn't win titles is ridiculous. It's like saying that Robert Horry was a better player than Karl Malone or Charles Barkley. Nobody in his right mind would make that argument.

All I can say is:Pop wasn´t Gervin´s coach.And that could be an edge as far as player carreer stats
Can you imagine tony and manu´s numbers if they played for the suns?sick numbers.

[FromWayDowntown]

All I can say is:Pop wasn´t Gervin´s coach.And that could be an edge as far as player carreer stats
Can you imagine tony and manu´s numbers if they played for the suns?sick numbers.

It's pointless to argue with this sort of ignorance.

My argument has nothing to do with stats -- it has everything to do with how great any of those players was compared to his contemporaries. George Gervin was one of the 10 best NBA players of the late 70's and early 80's. Neither Manu Ginobili nor Tony Parker will ever be considered one of the 10 best NBA players of this era. I don't care who they play for, who coaches them, how many championships they win -- the difference is one of quality.

Besides, to paraphrase your logic -- had George Gervin played with Tim Duncan or David Robinson, who knows how many titles the Iceman would have won.

The Iceman was substantially better than Ginobili or Parker will ever be. That's not a slight to Manu or Tony; it's a commentary on just how good George Gervin really was.

[baseline bum]

I did,not live but watched his vids and now his stats,but at the sametime,titles count,I must say.

Would you put Tony and Manu ahead of TMac, Ray Allen, Iverson, Wade, and so on...? Gervin was better than all of them.

[ShoogarBear]

LMFAO. Isn't this the second go-round in this very same thread about how great Gervin was?

Please, stop, you guys trying to discount Ice are seriously embarrassing yourselves.

[SenorSpur]

You're out of your mind if you believe that either Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili will end his career with the Spurs as a better player than George Gervin. They're both very good players and each is legitimately an all-star in his own right. But there's a significant difference between being very good and being great.

George Gervin was a First Team All-NBA player for 5 consecutive seasons and a Second Team All-NBA player in the season before and the season after that run. Neither Manu Ginobili nor Tony Parker has even made the Third Team All-NBA.

George Gervin was in the top 11 in NBA MVP voting in every season from 1976-77 through 1982-83 (he finished 11th in 1977, 2nd in 1978 and 1979, 3rd in 1980, 5th in 1981, 6th in 1982, and 9th in 1983). Tony Parker finished 9th in 2006 (a very good showing) -- but he'd have to improve on that this year and remain in the top 10 for each of the next 5 seasons to have a run like the Iceman had. Manu Ginobili has never received a single vote for the league MVP award.

Mostly, though, George Gervin never got to play with a superstar player (other than himself); Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have played with 2 no brainer Hall of Fame players. Judging Gervin relatively poorly, compared to Ginobili and Parker, simply because Gervin's teams didn't win titles is ridiculous. It's like saying that Robert Horry was a better player than Karl Malone or Charles Barkley. Nobody in his right mind would make that argument.

Amen brother!

All of which are reasons that Gervin was the 1st-ever Spur inducted into the HOF.

[ArgSpursFan]

Would you put Tony and Manu ahead of TMac, Ray Allen, Iverson, Wade, and so on...? Gervin was better than all of them.

Of course I would.let me tell you why.
I consider great players,thouse who can carry a team by them self to a Tittle in a playoff run,and that´s the diference between good and great players.
T-mac,Iverson or Allen,never went pass a second round playoff(not sure about allen though)and they could be great and spectacular in the ¨REGULAR SEASON¨,but in the playoffs is the time when great player step up and shine over the rest.+T-mac,Allen or Iverson,allways played 35 mins or + and shoot around 30 to 35 or + shots a game.
These guys(manu and tony)have to play on a slow half court Of.With Pop, and sometimes have to give up some scoring or mpg. or apg just to fit in the spurs sistem(which is very productive),while other players don´t ,and end up ¨looking better on and off the court¨,but Tony and Manu have showed that their numbers may not be impresive enough to be in a 1st.NBA team,or to lead the league in ppg,or apg,but they end up winning titles and shining when it really counts.(playoffs,conf.finals or NBA finals)

[cheguevara]

If Gervin played next to Duncan, Spurs would be going for their 5th straight title.

[baseline bum]

Kobe Bryant hasn't exactly been spectacular in leading his team anywhere without Shaq, but he's unquestionably one of the all-time greats, especially in big games in his title runs when he had a supporting cast. Might as well say Manu and TP are better than him too the last 3 years.

[ArgSpursFan]

Kobe Bryant hasn't exactly been spectacular in leading his team anywhere without Shaq, but he's unquestionably one of the all-time greats, especially in big games in his title runs when he had a supporting cast. Might as well say Manu and TP are better than him too the last 3 years.

Ok,I belive you said t-mac,Iverson and allen.
Kobe is a great player,no questions about it,and Wade is a great player too,maybe more tham kobe,but he is still young though.
But let me put it this way now,do you think Duncan was gonna be able to win in 2003 and 2005 without TP and Manu,and with Allen and Iverson?be Honest,and think about how many shots and Minutes Allen and Iverson usually take on a game,and how much dirty work they are known for doing in their teams,and alson how ¨BIG¨ they usually are on KEY playoffs moments or games.

[FromWayDowntown]

I consider great players,thouse who can carry a team by them self to a Tittle in a playoff run,and that´s the diference between good and great players.

T-mac, Iverson or Allen, never went pass a second round playoff (not sure about allen though) and they could be great and spectacular in the ¨REGULAR SEASON¨, but in the playoffs is the time when great player step up and shine over the rest. T-mac,Allen or Iverson,allways played 35 mins or + and shoot around 30 to 35 or + shots a game.

Iverson single-handedly lifted the Sixers into the 2001 NBA Finals, winning the league MVP along the way. He averaged 33 points per game during that playoff run; while he shot 39% from the floor, he also dished out more than 6 assists per game and pulled down almost 5 rebounds per night.

The notion that Manu or Tony were ever that good is beyond ridiculous.

And, by the way, Ray Allen played a fairly significant role in Milwaukee reaching the 2001 Eastern Conference Finals (in 7 ECF games that season, Allen averaged 27.1 ppg and 5.4 apg while shooting almost 47% from the floor; he averaged 25.1 ppg, 6.0 apg, and shot 48% from the floor in the Bucks' playoff run that season)

As I've said before, Manu and Tony are undoubtedly very good players; very good, but not great. The idea that either Manu or Tony would be leading teams on long playoff charges without a superstar like Tim Duncan nearby strikes me as one of the most ridiculous things I've read in this forum.

And, of course, that's another difference between those two and a superstar legend like Ice -- Gervin did, in fact, lead his teams on long playoff runs. His teams played in 3 Conference Finals series between 1979 and 1983. If Tim Duncan wasn't a Spur, I don't think it would be reasonable to think that Parker or Ginobili could have done the same.

[cheguevara]

Ok,I belive you said t-mac,Iverson and allen.
Kobe is a great player,no questions about it,and Wade is a great player too,maybe more tham kobe,but he is still young though.
But let me put it this way now,do you think Duncan was gonna be able to win in 2003 and 2005 without TP and Manu,and with Allen and Iverson?be Honest,and think about how many shots and Minutes Allen and Iverson usually take on a game,and how much dirty work they are known for doing in their teams,and alson how ¨BIG¨ they usually are on KEY playoffs moments or games.


If Gervin played next to Duncan, Spurs would be going for their 5th straight title.

[ShoogarBear]

I can't believe anyone would even consider Tony at the level of any of the all-time great guards . . . yet. He has the potential to get up there, but we will have to wait and see. (Personally, I'm starting to get concerned about him putting too many miles on too early).

As for Manu, as great as some of the stretches of play he has had, he can't even sustain a 35 MPG pace despite getting tons of help from Tony and Tim. To imagine him trying to do what Iverson or Kobe or Gervin did is ridiculous. He wouldn't last much more than half a season carrying that much of a load.

[FromWayDowntown]

For the record, I do think that Manu Ginobili will ultimately end up enshrined in Springfield (at the Basketball Hall of Fame) because he might have the most impressive resume of combined international and NBA accomplishment we've seen. He's been a Euroleague MVP and champion; an All-Tournament selection at the 2002 and 2006 World Championships and a silver medalist in 2002; an MVP of the Olympic tournament and a gold medalist; an NBA All-Star and a 2-time champion with the opportunity to do more. Given that the Hall enshrines people for accomplishments beyond the NBA, to me, Ginobili is pretty close to being a lock for that honor.

That, however, is very different than saying that he's among the great guards in the history of the NBA.

I also think, in the end, that Parker will have a better overall career in the NBA than Ginobili will have had, and not just because Parker will likely have played more seasons. But, in the crazy world that is basketball today, I don't think Tony Parker is likely to ever be a Hall-of-Fame lock the way that Manu appears to be. I don't know that Parker will ever be a guy who will be among the greatest of the great guards of his era (much less of All-Time). He's a very good player, playing on a great team, and he's experiencing a great deal of success by virtue of those two facts. But, again, I don't see that Parker is the kind of guy who can be "the guy" a team deep into the playoffs, the way that the Iceman did with the Spurs teams that he played on or the way Iverson did in 2001.

[whottt]

As for Manu, as great as some of the stretches of play he has had, he can't even sustain a 35 MPG pace despite getting tons of help from Tony and Tim. To imagine him trying to do what Iverson or Kobe or Gervin did is ridiculous. He wouldn't last much more than half a season carrying that much of a load.


You can't say that for sure....my guess is that he'd learn to adjust his play, like every other great guard has done.

Manu played basketball year round for like 4 straight years.


I think Manu is one of the better guards in the league to build a team around...they may not win 60 games every year, but they'd be hell in the playoffs.


So I just don't agree with that...every time Duncan or DRob played in the Olympics they got injured in the following NBA season....Manu played year round and held up better than most guards would.

I am not 100% thrilled with Pop's resting philosophies, I think he overrests players...like Horry.

Is it a coincidence that Horry and Kerr's best post seasons with the Spurs were the ones they logged the most minutes due to injury?

Did minutes hurt Elie?

It was almost like Pop euthanized David's NBAability at times.


If the are going to be expected to play 40 mins in the playoffs, you need to let them hit that level every once in a while.


IF you want to train for a marathon you have to run the full 26 at some point, you can't just do nothing but run for 10 miles a day and expect to be able to go 26 miles the day of the marathon, at championship level.

Manu's best seasons came when he was playing year around...Pop overrests him sometimes...ditto Parker.

[ArgSpursFan]

As for Manu, as great as some of the stretches of play he has had, he can't even sustain a 35 MPG pace despite getting tons of help from Tony and Tim. To imagine him trying to do what Iverson or Kobe or Gervin did is ridiculous. He wouldn't last much more than half a season carrying that much of a load.

How can you say that if you never saw him playing 35 mpg consistently?
not cause Pop don´t play him 35 mins means that he can´t really play consistently for 35 mins.
This is a guy who´s been playing Olympics and World Championships tournamets EVERY summer since 2001,while other guys like T-mac and Kobe or whoever were Fishing or just Sexually harassting people.Jeez.

[ShoogarBear]

:lol Pop plays Tony, Tim, and even Bruce Methuselah Bowen 30+ minutes a night. Why would he not play Manu 30 minutes a night? Is his hate for Manu so strong?

[cheguevara]

:lol Pop plays Tony, Tim, and even Bruce Methuselah Bowen 30+ minutes a night. Why would he not play Manu 30 minutes a night? Is his hate for Manu so strong?

I think Manu is in great condition as of right now(knock on wood)

Pop tries to play Barry + Finley as much as possible, that is why manu doesn't get 30mpg

same reason Pop brings Manu off the bench. Does that mean Manu can't start? Does that mean Pop hates Manu? neither.

[ArgSpursFan]

:lol Pop plays Tony, Tim, and even Bruce Methuselah Bowen 30+ minutes a night. Why would he not play Manu 30 minutes a night? Is his hate for Manu so strong?

he is too afraid that he´ll get hurt or too tired.I guess he understimate his strength+he must be too afraid his BEST playoff player don´t get to the playoffs 100 % healthy.

[cheguevara]

he is too afraid that he´ll get hurt or too tired.I guess he understimate his strength+he must be too afraid his BEST playoff player don´t get to the playoffs 100 % healthy.

hey dude howcome you haven't answered my post. Don't you think Duncan + Gervin would have more than 3 rings right now if they played together?

[ArgSpursFan]

hey dude howcome you haven't answered my post. Don't you think Duncan + Gervin would have more than 3 rings right now if they played together?

I just don´t go by the IFs che,cause IF that´s the case ,If manu and Tony would´ve played with Shaq the could´ve won 5.See?thats they would´ve could´ve that I don´t belive in.I go by the facts

[ShoogarBear]

he is too afraid that he´ll get hurt or too tired.I guess he understimate his strength+he must be too afraid his BEST playoff player don´t get to the playoffs 100 % healthy.Bingo. And with good reason: because he WILL get too tired. Manu himself has admitted his inseason bouts with fatigue.

If Pop made Manu stay out there 35+ a night the US would be at war with Argentina in about a month.

[cheguevara]

I just don´t go by the IFs che,cause IF that´s the case ,If manu and Tony would´ve played with Shaq the could´ve won 5.See?thats they would´ve could´ve that I don´t belive in.I go by the facts

yes or no. be a man.

[ArgSpursFan]

Bingo. And with good reason: because he WILL get too tired. Manu himself has admitted his inseason bouts with fatigue.

If Pop made Manu stay out there 35+ a night the US would be at war with Argentina in about a month.

no way,as a matter of fact,everybody is pissed in Arg.with Pop because of that.Everybody knows Manu is able to play 35+mpg consistently,he showed it in Italy and every summer playing for the Arg Nat.team.
So...nope,wrong again sugar.

[Kori Ellis]

no way,as a matter of fact,everybody is pissed in Arg.with Pop because of that.Everybody knows Manu is able to play 35+mpg consistently,he showed it in Italy and every summer playing for the Arg Nat.team.
So...nope,wrong again sugar.

Manu himself repeatedly says he gets fatigued when he plays too many minutes in the NBA.

[ArgSpursFan]

hey dude howcome you haven't answered my post. Don't you think Duncan + Gervin would have more than 3 rings right now if they played together?

I guess they would,I´m not taking no credit away from Ice man,But At the same time,don´t you think Manu would´ve putted more mpg and ppg and TP would´ve dished more apg playing for another Of.system like Phill Jackson´s triangle And playing with Shaq?Now you answer me .

[ShoogarBear]

Even Manu hates Manu! :madrun

[ArgSpursFan]

Manu himself repeatedly says he gets fatigued when he plays too many minutes in the NBA.

I don´t think he even had a chance to play that many mins since He got to S.A.Only on OT games or Playoffs games.And yes, I recall him saying something about getting tired after a back 2 back with OT.But not repeatedly.

[timvp]

Oh man, there is some nice comedy in this thread. Did ArgScolaFan really post that Manu has had a better Spurs career than George Gervin? And did he also just say that Manu is the best Spur in the playoffs? And that the only reason Manu can't play more than 30 minutes a game in the regular season is Pop?

:lmao

I just want to know where Scola ranks in the top ten.

[ArgSpursFan]

Oh man, there is some nice comedy in this thread. Did ArgScolaFan really post that Manu has had a better Spurs career than George Gervin? And did he also just say that Manu is the best Spur in the playoffs? And that the only reason Manu can't play more than 30 minutes a game in the regular season is Pop?

:lmao

I just want to know where Scola ranks in the top ten.

hey,At least I didn´t say Ely was traded to be the 3rd.big man in the spurs roster
Try again later :jack

[ambchang]

I just cannot believe anybody would say Parker or Manu > Gervin. Hell, at this point in their careers, Parker+Manu < Gervin. It really is sad that fans who never watched Ice play discredit him like this, and no, watching a couple of video highlights != watching Ice play.
Oh well, in another 10 years, we will be arguing that Ian Mahimni > Robinson.

[ShoogarBear]

Oh well, in another 10 years, we will be arguing that Ian Mahimni > Robinson.whottt will be on anti-hypertensives by then, so it should be safe.

[timvp]

hey,At least I didn´t say Ely was traded to be the 3rd.big man in the spurs roster
Try again later :jack
Wasn't me, either.

Keep spreading the knowledge :jack

[Kori Ellis]

I don´t think he even had a chance to play that many mins since He got to S.A.Only on OT games or Playoffs games.And yes, I recall him saying something about getting tired after a back 2 back with OT.But not repeatedly.

I'm in the locker room after every home game. I've heard him say repeatedly how fatigue he gets. Last year he was getting fatigued all the time. This year he doesn't seem to have that problem.

[ArgSpursFan]

Wasn't me, either.

Keep spreading the knowledge :jack

it wasn´t you?there must be another TIMVP in this board besides you though.

ely>Scola ......yeah right. :blah

[ArgSpursFan]

I'm in the locker room after every home game. I've heard him say repeatedly how fatigue he gets. Last year he was getting fatigued all the time. This year he doesn't seem to have that problem.

Like I said,He played every summer since 2001,that may be one reason to be fatigue.But I don´t see why he couldn´t play 35 mins like any other Pro athlet.Is not that I know the guy since He got to S.A in 2002.
they play the local tournament and Eurogue at the same time over in europe,and he was able to do that consistently playing long amounts of mins.

[Kori Ellis]

Like I said,He played every summer since 2001,that may be one reason to be fatigue.But I don´t see why he couldn´t play 35 mins like any other Pro athlet.Is not that I know the guy since He got to S.A in 2002.
they play the local tournament and Eurogue at the same time over in europe,and he was able to do that consistently playing long amounts of mins.

Because NBA basketball is harder on his body over an 82 game season and ~20 game playoff. He can't consistently play 35 minutes in the NBA.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still waiting to read the post when ArgSpursFan's argument is truly revealed to be:

Ginobili > Duncan.

[timvp]

I'm still waiting to read the post when ArgSpursFan's argument is truly revealed to be:

Ginobili > Duncan.

he is too afraid that he´ll get hurt or too tired.I guess he understimate his strength+he must be too afraid his BEST playoff player don´t get to the playoffs 100 % healthy.

That knowledge has already been shared and confirmed.

:drunk

[timvp]

Like I said,He played every summer since 2001,that may be one reason to be fatigue.But I don´t see why he couldn´t play 35 mins like any other Pro athlet.Is not that I know the guy since He got to S.A in 2002.
they play the local tournament and Eurogue at the same time over in europe,and he was able to do that consistently playing long amounts of mins.

Do you even follow Manu? In the Olympics, he averaged less than 30 minutes. In his four years playing with the top teams in Europe, he averaged less than 30 minutes. And yes I know those games are shorter, but there were plenty of players who averaged 35-37 minutes per game ... just not Manu.

He's a great player and I'm glad that he's on the Spurs, but one of his limitations is fatigue. He simply can't play more than 30 minutes per game for an entire NBA season. Even in the playoffs, you don't want him averaging more than 31 or 32 minutes per game.

Read up :reading

[whottt]

He could do it if he learned to coast at times during the game like every other G in the league does.

He must think he's a bigman or something....

[timvp]

He could do it if he learned to coast at times during the game like every other G in the league does.

He must think he's a bigman or something....
I never want Manu coasting. What makes him such a deadly player is that he plays at 100% every second he's on the floor. You take that away from Manu and you take away his identity.

In the playoffs, if he can give 31-32 minutes playing the style he does, that's plenty. As long as 10 of those minutes come in the fourth quarter, it doesn't matter that much.

It'd be even easier, though, if the Spurs had a couple swingmen who could at least fill time. As it stands, the Spurs can either go with the worst defender in the league or a chucker who doesn't hit shots anymore.

:shootme

[baseline bum]

Of course I would.let me tell you why.
I consider great players,thouse who can carry a team by them self to a Tittle in a playoff run,and that´s the diference between good and great players.
T-mac,Iverson or Allen,never went pass a second round playoff(not sure about allen though)and they could be great and spectacular in the ¨REGULAR SEASON¨,but in the playoffs is the time when great player step up and shine over the rest.+T-mac,Allen or Iverson,allways played 35 mins or + and shoot around 30 to 35 or + shots a game.
These guys(manu and tony)have to play on a slow half court Of.With Pop, and sometimes have to give up some scoring or mpg. or apg just to fit in the spurs sistem(which is very productive),while other players don´t ,and end up ¨looking better on and off the court¨,but Tony and Manu have showed that their numbers may not be impresive enough to be in a 1st.NBA team,or to lead the league in ppg,or apg,but they end up winning titles and shining when it really counts.(playoffs,conf.finals or NBA finals)

What are you talking about? Iverson and Ray Allen played each other in the 2001 ECF, and AI carried a team of nobodies to the Finals, and handed the 01 Lakers their only defeat of the postseason when he dropped 41 on them in game 1. Was Iverson not shining when he singlehandedly brought his team from 33 down in the fourth to cut the deficit to 4 with about a minute left in game 6 of 01 the ECF in Milwaukee? Tell me when Manu or TP will ever do that.

[smeagol]

Give it up guys, Manu = God in Argentina.

[Capt Bringdown]

Gervin's one of the top NBA players of all time.
Manu's not even close to earning such an honor. I'd just like to see him play a complete season or two without getting injured.

Manu certainly does have a lot of passionate followers...I remember when some people compared him to Kobe, LOL.
I'm still waiting for him to atone for "THE FOUL," myself. More than a tad over-rated IMO.

[ArgSpursFan]

What are you talking about? Iverson and Ray Allen played each other in the 2001 ECF, and AI carried a team of nobodies to the Finals, and handed the 01 Lakers their only defeat of the postseason when he dropped 41 on them in game 1. Was Iverson not shining when he singlehandedly brought his team from 33 down in the fourth to cut the deficit to 4 with about a minute left in game 6 of 01 the ECF in Milwaukee? Tell me when Manu or TP will ever do that.

I´ll tell you when Manu did it,cause Parker has time to get even greater tham Manu,and by this I´m also answering to fromwaydowntown.
manu< Duncan,we all know that,ok?
But,who do you honestly think,carry the spurs and showed up bigger tham anybody else(including TD) in the 2005 playoffs run,and the Finals?
Ginobili doesn´t have an MVP of the Finals trophy cause Duncan is probably the best PF in history of Basketball and Manu was a nobody,so they gave it to him instead.If you think I´m wrong on this one also,well just keep telling lies to your self.

[FromWayDowntown]

I´ll tell you when Manu did it,cause Parker has time to get even greater tham Manu,and by this I´m also answering to fromwaydowntown.
manu< Duncan,we all know that,ok?'

I'm not so sure that we all know that -- until yesterday, I didn't recall knowing anyone who thought there was anyway that Manu > George Gervin.

Since your viewpoint on these things seems to differ pretty significantly from the rest of the world's, I just figured that you would eventually let us all know that you think Manu is more important to the Spurs than Duncan is.

[hater]

Manu > ICEMAN ?????

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


crack must be cheap in argentina

[nkdlunch]

give it up man, Gervin is easily top 25 player in NBA HISTORY. Manu or Tony would not even make top 50. More like top 100

and Gervin was playing at his highest level in San Antonio.

[1techsan]

Roy Rogers wore spurs.

I don't think Clint Eastwood did but I could be wrong.

[ArgSpursFan]

I'm not so sure that we all know that -- until yesterday, I didn't recall knowing anyone who thought there was anyway that Manu > George Gervin.

Since your viewpoint on these things seems to differ pretty significantly from the rest of the world's, I just figured that you would eventually let us all know that you think Manu is more important to the Spurs than Duncan is.

And What About the 2005 Finals MVP award?????
you didn´t answer that one.

[ArgSpursFan]

give it up man, Gervin is easily top 25 player in NBA HISTORY. Manu or Tony would not even make top 50. More like top 100

and Gervin was playing at his highest level in San Antonio.

that´s tue.but my point was that tony and manu got 2 NBA championships for the spurs.And the this is a Spurs top 30 ranking,not a personal achivement ranking.see the diference?
I´m not saying that Gervin was not better,I´m saying that he couldn´t give spurs fans what other players did.that´s why I´d put him in number 4 and not in number 3.

[ambchang]

And What About the 2005 Finals trophy?????
you didn´t answer that one.
I am pretty sure no one in their right minds would actually say Dumars, Maxwell or Worthy are better players than Barkley, Malone, Ewing and Stockton. But guess what? Dumars, Maxwell and Worthy all won the Finals MVP, essentially "carrying" their teams to the finals according to your logic, despite them being on teams with Isiah Thomas, Bird and Magic on their respective teams.
And for all the "carrying" that Manu did in the 2005 playoffs, Duncan won the MVP by outscoring, outrebounding and outshooting Manu, while being close to him in production in assists, even as a centre.
This is bordering on insanity, arguing Manu/Parker > Gervin. If you haven't done so already, figure out how dozens of posters are saying the opposite, while you are the only person who supports it. I highly doubt that you, who have admittedly said have never watched Gervin play a real game, is qualified to argue with the rest.
BTW, Bowen had as much, if not MORE to do with the Spurs winning the 2005 championship than Manu because of his defense on Ray Allen, Shaun Marion and Chauncey Billups.

[FromWayDowntown]

And What About the 2005 Finals MVP award?????
you didn´t answer that one.

Right -- you think Manu should have won the 2005 Finals MVP award and therefore he is probably greater than David Robinson and George Gervin put together.

By the way, while I'll never dispute that Manu was magnificent during the 2005 playoffs and the 2005 Finals, I will note that during that playoff run, Tim Duncan wasn't exactly shabby -- and because he was so good, he created opportunities for Manu to shine.

Given the overall numbers in the 2005 Finals, there's certainly an argument that supports giving the award to Ginobili; but, in the end, he didn't win that award -- it went to Duncan, and legitimately so -- guys who average 20.6 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.1 apg, and 2.1 bpg for teams that win titles tend to deserve MVP awards.

[ArgSpursFan]

I am pretty sure no one in their right minds would actually say Dumars, Maxwell or Worthy are better players than Barkley, Malone, Ewing and Stockton. But guess what? Dumars, Maxwell and Worthy all won the Finals MVP, essentially "carrying" their teams to the finals according to your logic, despite them being on teams with Isiah Thomas, Bird and Magic on their respective teams.
And for all the "carrying" that Manu did in the 2005 playoffs, Duncan won the MVP by outscoring, outrebounding and outshooting Manu, while being close to him in production in assists, even as a centre.
This is bordering on insanity, arguing Manu/Parker > Gervin. If you haven't done so already, figure out how dozens of posters are saying the opposite, while you are the only person who supports it. I highly doubt that you, who have admittedly said have never watched Gervin play a real game, is qualified to argue with the rest.
BTW, Bowen had as much, if not MORE to do with the Spurs winning the 2005 championship than Manu because of his defense on Ray Allen, Shaun Marion and Chauncey Billups.

Easy,the US proud is bigger tham the TRUTH I guess

[FromWayDowntown]

Easy,the US proud is bigger tham the TRUTH I guess

So the truth that the entire United States of America won't accept is that Manu Ginobili is a greater basketball player and more important to the history of the Spurs than George Gervin -- is that it?

[101A]

I just looked it up in the Argentinian Webster's:

Owner = FWDT

[ambchang]

Easy,the US proud is bigger tham the TRUTH I guess
And the truth is Ginibili not winning Finals MVP = Ginobili "carrying" the Spurs to the championship?
You still haven't answered whether Maxwell, Dumars and Worthy > Barkley, Malone, Stockton and Ewing.
So Argentina doesn't have any senseless pride in her players, right ......
BTW, find another Argentinian on this board who would say Manu > Gervin, I doubt you can find one who is as blind.

[powerpower]

I am pretty sure no one in their right minds would actually say Dumars, Maxwell or Worthy are better players than Barkley, Malone, Ewing and Stockton. But guess what? Dumars, Maxwell and Worthy all won the Finals MVP, essentially "carrying" their teams to the finals according to your logic, despite them being on teams with Isiah Thomas, Bird and Magic on their respective teams.
And for all the "carrying" that Manu did in the 2005 playoffs, Duncan won the MVP by outscoring, outrebounding and outshooting Manu, while being close to him in production in assists, even as a centre.
This is bordering on insanity, arguing Manu/Parker > Gervin. If you haven't done so already, figure out how dozens of posters are saying the opposite, while you are the only person who supports it. I highly doubt that you, who have admittedly said have never watched Gervin play a real game, is qualified to argue with the rest.
BTW, Bowen had as much, if not MORE to do with the Spurs winning the 2005 championship than Manu because of his defense on Ray Allen, Shaun Marion and Chauncey Billups.


wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD TITLE

[FromWayDowntown]

wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD TITLE

Ginobili was a BIG reason the Spurs won a 3rd title; I'd dispute that he was the main reason, but there's no doubt that they probably don't win the title without Ginobili's 20 ppg during that playoff run and his huge games in Denver, at home against Seattle, and at home against Detroit.

Of course, the Spurs probably don't win the title that year if Robert Horry doesn't stick that 3 in Game 5, no matter what Duncan or Ginobili did.

[ShoogarBear]

wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD TITLEUh, who did Manu defend on the Pistons?

[Nikos]

Ginobili was a BIG reason the Spurs won a 3rd title; I'd dispute that he was the main reason, but there's no doubt that they probably don't win the title without Ginobili's 20 ppg during that playoff run and his huge games in Denver, at home against Seattle, and at home against Detroit.

Of course, the Spurs probably don't win the title that year if Robert Horry doesn't stick that 3 in Game 5, no matter what Duncan or Ginobili did.

You could probably say the same about the Lakers 2002 title. Horry misses that shot and they probably lose in 5 to Sacto.

For most of the 2005 playoffs Horry probably was the teams third best player, he wasn't just a key contributor because of his game 5 heroics.

As an aside I think Manu statistically was the Spurs best offensive player in the playoffs. Duncan was the anchor of the offense and the most used weapon -- but if you factor efficiency AND production it is not far fetched to say Manu was the Spurs most potent offensive Spur player in the 2005 playoffs. Of course when you factor in rebounding and defense Duncan was still clearly the superior player in the playoffs. But Manu's contributions were still HUGE on offense.

[ambchang]

wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD TITLE

Go back and read the threads when the playoffs happened, I am not the only one who believe that, I was actually rooting for Bowen for MVP, as ridiculous as that sounds.
And no, it has nothing to do with me not liking Manu, in fact, I LOVE Manu, I think he is the X-factor in every single playoff game, it's just that I have been brainwashed by the Spurs organization that defense wins championships, and Bowen did an absolutely amazing job in anyone he had to cover on defense, and Manu wasn't great defensively in that series, he was so-so. He was great offensively.
At the end, only Duncan was great both on O and D, that's why he was MVP.

[ArgSpursFan]

And the truth is Ginibili not winning Finals MVP = Ginobili "carrying" the Spurs to the championship?
You still haven't answered whether Maxwell, Dumars and Worthy > Barkley, Malone, Stockton and Ewing.
So Argentina doesn't have any senseless pride in her players, right ......
BTW, find another Argentinian on this board who would say Manu > Gervin, I doubt you can find one who is as blind.

I doubt I can find many Arg.people Who follows the NBA for so long as I do.(since ´84)
and Like I said before this ranking AINT about personal achivement,It´s a spurs(team/franshise)ranking.
So in my opinion those players who gave the team GLORY should be ahead of those who had great carreer stats and achevement,but never won a championship.

[ArgSpursFan]

Uh, who did Manu defend on the Pistons?

he defended Prince
BTW,He didn´t defend Him,He owned him. :smokin
Go look at Prince´s Numbers on the 2005 Finals.

[FromWayDowntown]

I doubt I can find many Arg.people Who follows the NBA for so long as I do.(since ´84)
and Like I said before this ranking AINT about personal achivement,It´s a spurs(team/franshise)ranking.
So in my opinion those players who gave the team GLORY should be ahead of those who had great carreer stats and achevement,but never won a championship.

Jaren Jackson > George Gervin?
Speedy Claxton > George Gervin?
Malik Rose > George Gervin?
Stephen Jackson > George Gervin?

[Russ]

Manu Ginobili is the most underrated player in the NBA. In fact, he's not a player, he's a force of nature. Like Vince Young in football.

[samikeyp]

Manu > ICEMAN ?????

Oh hell no.

I love Manu...he is my current favorite Spur and yes, a big reason why the Spurs won it all in 03 and 05 (although that Tim Duncan guy had something to do with that also) This just shows either the lack of knowledge or the lack of willingness to gain that knowledge of players prior to 1990 by a lot of fans. George Gervin did more for the Spurs franchise then put the ball in the hole. You want GLORY? For years he WAS San Antonio. Not just the Spurs...the city of San Antonio, much as David Robinson was in the 90's prior to 1997. To just assume that Manu was better than Ice just because you have seen more of him or because he is a countryman is fucking stupid.

[ArgSpursFan]

Jaren Jackson > George Gervin?
Speedy Claxton > George Gervin?
Malik Rose > George Gervin?
Stephen Jackson > George Gervin?

argspursfan>fromwaydowntown

you forgot that one .

[samikeyp]

argspursfan>fromwaydowntown

not on your best day.

[ArgSpursFan]

I like being the underdog, don´t worry,just like Manu.

[ArgSpursFan]

BTW,following my criteria:who do you think is bigger for the Lakers fans?Kareem or Wilt?
and them who was the better player between them 2?
Kareem>Wilt?
At the end of the day,It´s just about Who´s got more Glory.

[samikeyp]

So then you believe that titles are what makes one player better than the other?

[ArgSpursFan]

So then you believe that titles are what makes one player better than the other?

you´re missing the point,I´m not saying that makes them BETTER,I´m saying that titles make TEAMS/FRANCHISES better.And this is a team/Franchise ranking.
See the diference?
I never said Manu was better tham Ice -man,i said he should be ahead in the ranking,following the criteria I just posted before.

[samikeyp]

you´re missing the point,I´m not saying that makes them BETTER,I´m saying that titles make TEAMS/FRANCHISES better.And this is a team/Franchise ranking.
See the diference?
I never said Manu was better tham Ice -man,i said he should be ahead in the ranking,following the criteria I just posted before.

I understand completly. I just don't agree with your criteria. Based on your criteria....Steve Kerr=Manu

[ArgSpursFan]

I understand completly. I just don't agree with your criteria. Based on your criteria....Steve Kerr=Manu

You have to take in consideration :TITLES WON,CONF.TITLES WON,games played,game won,PLAYOFFS games played and WON,points,asts,rbs,stls,blks made, ect.
So according to my criteria:
Kerr<Manu

[ArgSpursFan]

Let me ask you all,If MJ would´ve played his roockie season with the Spurs and Them got traded to the Bulls and WIN 6 titles with the Bulls.
Would you rank him ahead of TD,Robinson,Gervin,Manu,Elliott???
At the end of the day This ranking It´s just about Spurs Glory.

[samikeyp]

I agree totally with that its all about Spurs glory which is why I would put Gervin ahead of Manu. He did so much more for this franchise than just play.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let me ask you all,If MJ would´ve played his roockie season with the Spurs and Them got traded to the Bulls and WIN 6 titles with the Bulls.
Would you rank him ahead of TD,Robinson,Gervin,Manu,Elliott???
At the end of the day This ranking It´s just about Spurs Glory.

That hypothetical is totally irrelevant to this talk. The discussion is solely about are or were the best Spurs in the history of the franchise. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You want to hold it against George Gervin that he never played with a big man like Tim Duncan or David Robinson and that, because of that, his teams didn't win titles. Obviously, that opinion puts you in a very small minority -- particularly on this board populated with some of the most rabid Spurs fans there are -- and for a very good reason. No sane person who has watched this franchise over the course of the last 30 years would argue that Manu > Iceman.

That's not to say that Manu isn't a very good player and a player who has played a vital role in some of the greatest successes in franchise history. It is to say, though, that Manu's role in those successes isn't sufficient to make him "better" from an historical perspective than the franchise's leading scorer, it's only current Hall of Famer, its first clear superstar, and the only guy other than David Robinson and Tim Duncan to ever come close to being the league's MVP (which Gervin did twice).

By your logic, Jaren Jackson would have to be considered more significant in Spurs history than George Gervin, because Jaren Jackson hit some monumental shots during the 1999 playoff run and those shots propelled the Spurs to a title. And if you won't say that, then you have to say you're drawing some arbitrary line that makes Manu one of the 3 most significant players in franchise history -- and more important than George Gervin -- while pushing Jaren Jackson somewhere down your list -- and less important than George Gervin -- despite the fact that Jackson was a huge part of the Spurs first title.

After all, if titles are more important than anything else in this analysis, wouldn't you have to argue that Avery Johnson was a "better" Spur than George Gervin. Or Stephen Jackson? Or Steve Kerr? Or Robert Horry? Or Malik Rose? If not, it seems to me that you don't have a particularly principled argument.

Ultimately, what I don't get is why you seem to take Manu being #4 or #5 in franchise history as such a slap in the face?

[ArgSpursFan]

Nope,cause I also consider the player carreer and playoffs stats,So A:J or Malik couldn´t be ahead of Gervin,Eventhough They won a championship.
This is why I´d put Manu ahead of Ice-man
2 NBA titles,2 WF titles,playoffs games played/won.
And In my opinion thats the edge that´s would put him ahead of Ice-man.
BTW´.I´m not discussing who is the best out of them 2,but who did more for the franchise,as far as titles won.

[samikeyp]

but who did more for the franchise,as far as titles won.

But there is more to doing for the franchise than just winning titles and no...I am not devaluing championships. When you talk about on-court performance that is the ultimate goal. However, value to a franchise is about on and off the court. What about what Gervin did for the franchise in the early days of the Spurs being in the NBA? He was the face of this team and in a lot of respects this city. He was the reason people watched the Spurs for years. He was the reason the Spurs got any coverage nationally. He was the single reason this team stayed in SA for a good amount of years. George Gervin's impact on the Spurs franchise goes way beyond his play on the court....he did so much for the Spurs frachise off the court as well. Manu hasn't reached that yet. He might though. I think he could be that person when its all said and done.

Also...while I agree with you on the titles...I can't agree on playoff games or games won. Manu never won those games, the Spurs did. Gervin never won the games he played, the Spurs did.

[ArgSpursFan]

But there is more to doing for the franchise than just winning titles and no...I am not devaluing championships. When you talk about on-court performance that is the ultimate goal. However, value to a franchise is about on and off the court. What about what Gervin did for the franchise in the early days of the Spurs being in the NBA? He was the face of this team and in a lot of respects this city. He was the reason people watched the Spurs for years. He was the reason the Spurs got any coverage nationally. He was the single reason this team stayed in SA for a good amount of years. George Gervin's impact on the Spurs franchise goes way beyond his play on the court....he did so much for the Spurs frachise off the court as well. Manu hasn't reached that yet. He might though. I think he could be that person when its all said and done.

Also...while I agree with you on the titles...I can't agree on playoff games or games won. Manu never won those games, the Spurs did. Gervin never won the games he played, the Spurs did.

that´s right,that´s why this is a spurs ranking,not a NBA ranking,or a personal carreer stats ranking.
At the same time I must say that Manu is still playing,so if Gervin did more for the spurs I respect it,but manu has at least another 5 years to keep on doing things for the spurs,maybe another championship or 2.Them so far I could say
Gervin>Manu(for the spurs franchise)
in 5 more years,who knows?

[SenorSpur]

I would say the Spurs have had a total of three franchise players in their 30+ year history - David Robinson, Tim Duncan and the illustrious Iceman - George Gervin. No coincidence that all 3 will ultimately end up in the Basketball HOF.

Gervin was, of course, the very first Spur in the HOF. That fact alone should indicate to those Spurs fans, who weren't fortunate enough to have watched him play, why he's considered to be basketball royalty and the franchise's first NBA superstar.

[whottt]

Seriously...the only debate worth having about Gervin is whether or not he deserves the #1 spot. And he's got a pretty strong case for it.

[ShoogarBear]

Seriously...the only debate worth having about Gervin is whether or not he deserves the #1 spot. And he's got a pretty strong case for it.Yup. Everyone else in the top six played with each other, so it's hard to separate their individual contributions from what they got from playing with great teammates.

But there have been only two franchise-savers. Robinson was one, but if it wasn't for Gervin, there wouldn't have been the San Antonio Spurs for him to save.

[ArgSpursFan]

Like I said before,Manu still have a long way to go,maybe not as great as Gervin´s carrer,but with a handfull of NBA rings.
And I guess that´s ok for him, and for the spurs fans as well.

[ShoogarBear]

Nobody arguing that. But it's ridiculous to say that Manu has been more important for the Spurs franchise than George Gervin.

[ArgSpursFan]

I would like to ask that question to 18-22 yrs old kids in S.A and all over the world Spurs fans.
Not saying Gervin wasn´t all that,but just wondering.
You can´t just not hear what youngers fans think about it.

[ShoogarBear]

If we limited the vote to 18-22 year old kids, Beno would be on the list.

[ArgSpursFan]

what I´m saying is ,while Gervin helped the franchise stay on the NBA,guys like Manu and TP,have taken the spurs to a WORLDWIDE level,the spurs is one the most admired/liked Basketball teams in the whole world right now,and not because of Gervin.
If Gervin made the spurs Big in the NBA,other guys made the spurs Bigger.

[whottt]

if it wasn't for Gervin, there wouldn't have been the San Antonio Spurs for him to save.


Yeap, before DRob, it was George Gervin, the original icon of Sports in Cen/South Tex. Before Gervin, there was nothing...and without him, that's what we'd likely have now.

Would the Spurs even have been one of the teams to make the NBA jump without Gervin? Would they have even been in position to make that jump as anything but a joke without Ice? Would the Spurs ownership have even attempted it in SA without Ice?

In addition to his groundbreaking game, he was also just about the coolest mofo to ever step foot on the court, an appeal that remains to this day an appeal that was key to the Spurs survival in San Antonio.

Ice is an all time basketball legend remembered with extreme fondness by many a hall of fame player.

It would bother me a lot less to see him ranked #1 than it would to see him outside of the top 3.

[samikeyp]

what I´m saying is ,while Gervin helped the franchise stay on the NBA,guys like Manu and TP,have taken the spurs to a WORLDWIDE level,the spurs is one the most admired/liked Basketball teams in the whole world right now,and not because of Gervin.

Without Gervin...there would be nothing to take to a WORLDWIDE level.

It´s just about Spurs Glory.

[aaronstampler]

Just wanted to put it out there that while I love Manu, some of these Argentinian fans are insane if they think he belongs above Gervin.

I'm fine with the rankings as long as Manu is no lower than 4th, but I understand there is a big gap between the top 3 and # 4. As long as he's above Elliott and Tony I'm good. Argspursfan has a point, Manu's playoff accomplishments do deserve some bonus points, which is why I would place him above Tony and Sean.

But yes, when their careers are over both Manu and Tony will be in the HOF because the Hall gives you way more consideration if you're a foreign player.

[Spurs Brazil]

The top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 6, Tony Parker

Web Posted: 03/03/2007 09:20 PM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Thirty years ago, in 1976, the Spurs played their first season in the NBA after being absorbed into the older league along with three other teams from the American Basketball Association. To commemorate the milestone, the Express-News each Sunday will recognize our selections as the 30 greatest NBA Spurs. Here is No. 6:
Tony Parker, 2001-present: When the Spurs made Parker the 28th selection in the first round of the 2001 draft, few could have predicted the impact a 19-year-old from France would have over the next six seasons. But Parker, whose father had played at Loyola of Chicago and in Europe, became a starter just five games into his Spurs career. The first European guard to be named to the All-Rookie first team, Parker showed off both his quickness and toughness that season.


advertisement



By the end of Parker's second season, he had earned his first championship ring as a starter and recorded the highest scoring average by a Spurs point guard (15.5 points per game) since James Silas averaged 17.7 in 1979-80.

Still just 24 years old, Parker has remained on a steep learning curve, his ability to penetrate and score at the rim improving each season. He shot 48.2 percent from the field in the Spurs' championship run in 2005. When his perimeter shooting began to improve in 2005-06, the result was a career-best scoring average of 18.0, a career-best shooting percentage of 54.8 and his first appearance in the All-Star Game.

This season, Parker is averaging 18.8 points and went to his second-straight All-Star Game.

In his five-plus seasons, Parker has risen to No. 3 on the Spurs' all-time assists list, passing David Robinson last week, with 2,442. He also has moved into No. 6 on the all-time scoring list, with 6,980 points as of Saturday.

Already having played 80 playoff games in his five seasons, Parker ranks fourth on the Spurs' all-time postseason list in points (1,361), third in assists (345), fourth in free throws (539), fourth in 3-pointers (53) and fifth in steals (74).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Spurs page on MySA.com for Nos. 30-7.

[FromWayDowntown]

Parker's placement is about right, given that: (1) he doesn't yet have the long-term resume of a guy like Sean Elliott; and (2) he doesn't have as great a share in a championship as Ginobili has. I still think Ginobili ends up at 5, Elliott at 4, with the Big 3 to follow.

Make this list in 5 more years and Parker might very well be in the top 4.

The list as it stands
6. Tony Parker
7. Larry Kenon
8. Avery Johnson
9. James Silas
10. Alvin Robertson
11. Mike Mitchell
12. Artis Gilmore
13. Johnny Moore
14. Bruce Bowen
15. Malik Rose
16. Terry Cummings
17. Billy Paultz
18. Dennis Rodman
19. Robert Horry
20. Mark Olberding
21. Steve Kerr
22. Vinny Del Negro
23. Mario Elie
24. Gene Banks
25. Mike Gale
26. Chuck Person
27. Coby Dietrick
28. Dave Corzine
29. Willie Anderson
30. Stephen Jackson

[wildbill2u]

I just cannot believe anybody would say Parker or Manu > Gervin. Hell, at this point in their careers, Parker+Manu < Gervin. It really is sad that fans who never watched Ice play discredit him like this, and no, watching a couple of video highlights != watching Ice play.
Oh well, in another 10 years, we will be arguing that Ian Mahimni > Robinson.
I know this is heresy to the TD and Robinson folks out there because of their part in the Sours finally winning the NBA championships--but I can make an argument that Gervin should be the number 1 Spur of all time.

Why? Because Gervin took a town that had no natural affinity for basketball-- much less for an 'inferior' league--and made San Antonio a hotbed of basketball fans. NOBODY--and I mean nobody--in this town expected the Spurs to become as wildly successful an entertainment venue as they became or our national flagship to the world. The betting at first was that the team--and the new league with the funny red, white and blue ball--wouldn't last a year.

His unbelievable shotmaking ability showed San Antonians that basketball wasn't just a sport for their kids to fool around with while waiting for football season--but a game played by the greatest athletes in the world. A fast-paced game of grace, precision, athleticism, that could get their blood racing and their emotions involved. It was fun to watch and worth every penny of your $5 or $10 dollar ticket.

He was the X-factor that built the Spurs games into the entertainment mecca of San Antonio--the place to be for rich and poor alike. Without Gervin in those early years, the basketball organization we know as the San Antonio Spurs might have gone the way of the San Diego Conquistadors or the Kentucky Colonels.

So George Gervin has a legitimate claim in my book to being Number 1 in the Top Thirty Spurs of all time.

[SenorSpur]

I know this is heresy to the TD and Robinson folks out there because of their part in the Sours finally winning the NBA championships--but I can make an argument that Gervin should be the number 1 Spur of all time.

Why? Because Gervin took a town that had no natural affinity for basketball-- much less for an 'inferior' league--and made San Antonio a hotbed of basketball fans. NOBODY--and I mean nobody--in this town expected the Spurs to become as wildly successful an entertainment venue as they became or our national flagship to the world. The betting at first was that the team--and the new league with the funny red, white and blue ball--wouldn't last a year.

His unbelievable shotmaking ability showed San Antonians that basketball wasn't just a sport for their kids to fool around with while waiting for football season--but a game played by the greatest athletes in the world. A fast-paced game of grace, precision, athleticism, that could get their blood racing and their emotions involved. It was fun to watch and worth every penny of your $5 or $10 dollar ticket.

He was the X-factor that built the Spurs games into the entertainment mecca of San Antonio--the place to be for rich and poor alike. Without Gervin in those early years, the basketball organization we know as the San Antonio Spurs might have gone the way of the San Diego Conquistadors or the Kentucky Colonels.

So George Gervin has a legitimate claim in my book to being Number 1 in the Top Thirty Spurs of all time.

Well said. :tu

[ambchang]

I doubt I can find many Arg.people Who follows the NBA for so long as I do.(since ´84)
and Like I said before this ranking AINT about personal achivement,It´s a spurs(team/franshise)ranking.
So in my opinion those players who gave the team GLORY should be ahead of those who had great carreer stats and achevement,but never won a championship.
Ranking Spurs individual players is not about individual achievements, but team rankings? I probably missed it in your earlier post, I am too lazy to dig it up, but this is the first time I heard. In that case, the ranking is easy, we now know that Kerr > Gervin too.

[ambchang]

he defended Prince
BTW,He didn´t defend Him,He owned him. :smokin
Go look at Prince´s Numbers on the 2005 Finals.
Stop wasting my time in looking up numbers. Before I did, I thought Prince fell off the face of the earth, but he actually average 11ppg, 5.7 REB, 2.6 AST, and 1.14 STL, that compared to 14.7 PPG, 5.3 REB, 3 AST and 0.7 STL in the regular season. There is a grand total of ONE bad game Prince had. This is not ownage.

[ambchang]

BTW,following my criteria:who do you think is bigger for the Lakers fans?Kareem or Wilt?
and them who was the better player between them 2?
Kareem>Wilt?
At the end of the day,It´s just about Who´s got more Glory.
Stop going around in circles and try to come up with ridiculous arguments, you still haven't answered whether:
Dumars > Barkley, Malone and Stockton
Maxwell > B, M & S
Worthy > B, M & S
Jaren Jackson > Gervin
Kerr > Gervin
Stephen Jackson > Gervin

[ambchang]

Let me ask you all,If MJ would´ve played his roockie season with the Spurs and Them got traded to the Bulls and WIN 6 titles with the Bulls.
Would you rank him ahead of TD,Robinson,Gervin,Manu,Elliott???
At the end of the day This ranking It´s just about Spurs Glory.
Could you update me on the part where Gervin had the best part of his career has a non-Spur?
BTW, Manu got most of his "glory" as a rep of Argentinian basketball team.

[ambchang]

Nope,cause I also consider the player carreer and playoffs stats,So A:J or Malik couldn´t be ahead of Gervin,Eventhough They won a championship.
This is why I´d put Manu ahead of Ice-man
2 NBA titles,2 WF titles,playoffs games played/won.
And In my opinion thats the edge that´s would put him ahead of Ice-man.
BTW´.I´m not discussing who is the best out of them 2,but who did more for the franchise,as far as titles won.

Please lay it out for me.
You evaluate a player's importance based on
Titles
WF titles
Playoff games played/won
of which Steve Kerr beat Gervin Gervin in 2 of the 3 categories.
So ..... Kerr > Gervin?
Could you please, clearly state how you measure player importance, instead of jumping from post to post? You said you take into account statistical accomplishment (individual accomplishments), but then a few post back, you said you only put into account team glory.
So which one is it?

[ambchang]

Like I said before,Manu still have a long way to go,maybe not as great as Gervin´s carrer,but with a handfull of NBA rings.
And I guess that´s ok for him, and for the spurs fans as well.
But since you came up with the Jordan scenario (where if he played one year as a Spur, then got traded, yada yada yada), and infamously stated that you are not interested in what COULD happen, but what actually did, what is the logic of future, un-accomplished feats?
I understand you are trolling, but at least be consistent in the same thread.

[cheguevara]

5. Elliott
4. Manu
3. Gervin
2. Admiral
1. Duncan

[smeagol]

ArgSpursfan, give it up.

[aaronstampler]

Like I said there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 on the list, but I think there is an argument to be made for Tony at 5 above Sean because when it's all said and done both Manu and Tony will be in the HOF and Sean won't.

[Pugglekicker_21]

They should have put in his list of accomplishments: Is also banging Eva Longoria.

[FromWayDowntown]

Like I said there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 on the list, but I think there is an argument to be made for Tony at 5 above Sean because when it's all said and done both Manu and Tony will be in the HOF and Sean won't.

Manu might make the Hall of Fame -- I've argued before that he should -- but that accomplishment likely won't be based solely on things he did with the Spurs. Manu is going in, but he's going in because he might be the most valuable non-American in international competition during the Dream Team era.

Absent some dramatic change in his career path, Tony Parker isn't likely to be a Hall of Famer at any point in time, though he might end up being the 4th best Spur ever. He might be a multi-time All-Star and he might end up with 3 or 4 titles during his career, but there are guys who were much, much better players who haven't even sniffed the Hall of Fame. Unless Tony leads France to some era of dominance internationally, I can't see him being anything more than a very good NBA player who'll be remembered as that.

[aaronstampler]

Don't be so sure. The basketball hall of fame is by far the easiest to crack and they give extra consideration to international players.

[smeagol]

The list is the 30 best Spurs, not the potential 30 best Spurs. Both Sean and Manu should above Tony. But Tony might end up being above both in 10 years.

[ArgSpursFan]

But since you came up with the Jordan scenario (where if he played one year as a Spur, then got traded, yada yada yada), and infamously stated that you are not interested in what COULD happen, but what actually did, what is the logic of future, un-accomplished feats?
I understand you are trolling, but at least be consistent in the same thread.
I aint trolling,And I stand by my coments.
I never said Manu was better tham Gervin,But I did say that (IN MY OPINION)He and Tony as well took the spurs to the international scenario,cause right now the spurs have more fans in the world tham any other Basketball team in the world,And I also know that Gervin helped the spurs become an NBA francise for good,and to stay in the NBA .

[ArgSpursFan]

Could you update me on the part where Gervin had the best part of his career has a non-Spur?
BTW, Manu got most of his "glory" as a rep of Argentinian basketball team.

Didn´t he win 2 NBA Championships with S.A?????
where were you in 2002 and 2005? :reading

[timvp]

where were you in 2002 and 2005? :reading

Antonio Daniels > George Gervin? :reading

[ambchang]

Didn´t he win 2 NBA Championships with S.A?????
where were you in 2002 and 2005? :reading
In 2002, I was watching the Lakers beat the Spurs 4-1 in the 2nd round, where were you?
And if you mean 2003, that's the year Ginobili averaged a whopping 9.4 ppg in 27.5 mpg in the playoffs.
What kind of glory is that? Oh wait! You ONLY count the number of championships won, in which case Kerr > Gervin ... sorry, my wrong AGAIN, ranking Player A above Player B does not equal mean Player A > Player B. I am confused, what does it mean exactly? That there were more accomplishments as a Spur? Or, how they would rank them based on a sample of 18-22 year olds? A potential future accomplishment ranking? but we know damn sure it's not a "what if scenario" ranking even though you used the what if Michael Jordan scenario right after you said you are not interested in guessing how many titles Gervin would have won with a dominant big man like Robinson or Duncan.
Besides, should we consider stats (see post 347 and 349)? You first said you consider stats, then said you don't rank them by stats.
While we are at it, why are we ranking players based on teams (see 341), should we not have ranked which year's Spurs were the best, rather than the players?
And this one takes the cake, post 319

I´m not saying that Gervin was not better,I´m saying that he couldn´t give spurs fans what other players did.that´s why I´d put him in number 4 and not in number 3.
And yet you acknowlegdged that without Gervin, there'd be no Spurs. I suppose keeping a franchise from going bankrupt doesn't hold a lot of water these days.
BTW, how the hell could you have followed the Spurs since 1984, and not watched any Gervin games (262)? What the hell were you following? Boxscores?

[ArgSpursFan]

In 2002, I was watching the Lakers beat the Spurs 4-1 in the 2nd round, where were you?
And if you mean 2003, that's the year Ginobili averaged a whopping 9.4 ppg in 27.5 mpg in the playoffs.
What kind of glory is that? Oh wait! You ONLY count the number of championships won, in which case Kerr > Gervin ... sorry, my wrong AGAIN
I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season? :smokin
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.

[ambchang]

I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season? :smokin
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.

I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season? :smokin
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.

Thank you for your insight into my psyche, despite the fact that I said earlier that I love Ginobili’s game. I also happen to think that he is the second most important piece to the Spurs’ success next to Tim Duncan. In fact, YOU brought up 2003 (well, 2002 when you meant 2003), the only season that Manu played great and the Spurs won a championship was 2005. So with his single year where you claim Manu was the main reason the Spurs won a championship, despite Duncan winning an MVP, Bowen putting the clamps on Billups, and Manu injured since Game 3, he is > Gervin? Is that what passes for legends nowadays?
Find me ONE quote where I said I do not like Ginobili, but even the most blinded Manu-homer cannot ever rank Gervin below Manu.
Back to the original topic, please try to nail down your criteria in ranking Spurs players, because I sure as hell can’t understand your logic. Go back to post 381, please answer at least some of the questions. I am most interested in how you were following the Spurs back in 1984.
Also, please state your stance on whether Dumars, Maxwell and Worthy > Barkley, Malone and Stockton.

[FromWayDowntown]

I ment 2003,my bad,but I haven´t seen You saying something about the 2005 season?Is there a reason why you only brought up Manu´s ROOCKIE season? :smokin
I guess you´re just another Ginobili hater,and as far as I´m concerned you can keep on hating,and them jump on his bandwaggon When he helps the spurs getting another CHAMPIONSHIP RING.

So, are you saying then that if I think George Gervin was a more signficant, better Spur than Manu Ginobili that I'm a Ginobili hater?

That's got to be the cherry atop this series of ridiculous arguments.

I think Manu Ginobili is one of the 5 most important Spurs ever, but I'm a hater because I think a guy who reached the Hall of Fame based solely on his accomplishments with the Spurs was more important to the history of the franchise.

[rascal]

Without Gervin the spurs don't have a team now. They would not have gotten into the nba if they were a bad team when the merger happened.

He is the most important spur of all time and put the spurs on the nba map.

[ShoogarBear]

So, are you saying then that if I think George Gervin was a more signficant, better Spur than Manu Ginobili that I'm a Ginobili hater? To me, that's pretty much at the core of every CoM argument.

[FromWayDowntown]

To me, that's pretty much at the core of every CoM argument.

Oh, of course it is. I'm just wondering how exactly one can be a "hater" in agreeing that a player is one of the five most significant/valuable/best players in the history of the franchise. I suppose, however, that question is rhetorical, given the usual CoM position on most things.

[ArgSpursFan]

Oh, of course it is. I'm just wondering how exactly one can be a "hater" in agreeing that a player is one of the five most significant/valuable/best players in the history of the franchise. I suppose, however, that question is rhetorical, given the usual CoM position on most things.

First of all,I wasn´t talking to you,so I don´t know where I called you a hater.I was talking to somebody else,who I called a hater,Not you,given my ¨actual coM position¨.

[FromWayDowntown]

First of all,I wasn´t talking to you,so I don´t know where I called you a hater.I was talking to somebody else,who I called a hater,Not you,given my ¨actual coM position¨.

But I hold the same position that ambchang does -- are you now going to tell me that I'm not a hater, but ambchang is? particularly after ambchang has spent a great deal of time praising Manu, just as I have?

[ArgSpursFan]

But I hold the same position that ambchang does -- are you now going to tell me that I'm not a hater, but ambchang is? particularly after ambchang has spent a great deal of time praising Manu, just as I have?

You´re putting words on my mouth,I never called you a hater,but if your buddie needs a lower,that´s fine with me.I don´t need one,even with my actual coM position.

[ArgSpursFan]

BTW, Manu got most of his "glory" as a rep of Argentinian basketball team.

if that is not ginobili hating.tell me what it is.(FWDT)

[ambchang]

if that is not ginobili hating.tell me what it is.(FWDT)
Saying Ginobili has an accomplished resume as a member of the Argentinian basketball team is hating? What kind of Argentinian are you?
Read up buddy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Ginobili#Awards
Awards as a member of the Argentinian basketball team:
2002 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship
2004 Ideal Olympics Team
2004 Summer Olympic Games Most Valuable Player
2004 Olympic Gold Medal
2006 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship

Awards as a Spur:
2005 NBA All-Star
2005 Nike Baller Of The Year (fan poll)
2003 NBA Champion
2005 NBA Champion

Both teams won, and yet Manu was obviously way more accomplished in international competition. Unless you want to say that Nike Baller of the Year > Ideal Olympics Team, or All Star > Olympics NBA. But with the way you rank Manu over Gervin, that may well be true .....

[FromWayDowntown]

if that is not ginobili hating.tell me what it is.(FWDT)

Ginobili hating would be arguing that Manu played little or no significant role in either of the championships that he's won with the Spurs (of course, that would be erroneous as well). Recognizing that Manu is probably best known worldwide for his fabulous play for the Argentinian National Team doesn't strike me as hating -- it strikes me as the acknowledgment of a fact.

Manu is going to the Hall of Fame, I think, but he's doing so mostly because of all that he did for his country; Ginobili's accomplishments with the Spurs, standing alone, wouldn't get him a sniff of the Hall of Fame.

[timvp]

Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.

Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.

Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.

[ArgSpursFan]

Saying Ginobili has an accomplished resume as a member of the Argentinian basketball team is hating? What kind of Argentinian are you?
Read up buddy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Ginobili#Awards
Awards as a member of the Argentinian basketball team:
2002 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship
2004 Ideal Olympics Team
2004 Summer Olympic Games Most Valuable Player
2004 Olympic Gold Medal
2006 All-Tournament Team, FIBA World Championship

Awards as a Spur:
2005 NBA All-Star
2005 Nike Baller Of The Year (fan poll)
2003 NBA Champion
2005 NBA Champion

Both teams won, and yet Manu was obviously way more accomplished in international competition. Unless you want to say that Nike Baller of the Year > Ideal Olympics Team, or All Star > Olympics NBA. But with the way you rank Manu over Gervin, that may well be true .....

Cause you´re down playing Ginobili,thats why I said that.
I know what he did for Argentina,but I belive we are talking Spurs here.
And my point is that He actually did more for the spurs,as far as taking the club to the international scenario,being a KEY player for the 2005 Championship,and a big contributor in 2003(BTW his roockie year)and a KEY player on this year´s spurs bounce back,after the ASG brake.
But it´s just my opinion,and I stand by what I think.
BTW,I never said I was a spurs fan since 84,I said I followed the NBA since 84,and I wasn´t able to watch the games live back them in the 80´s in Argentina.I started watching live games in 1993 when ESPN started broadcasting in Arg.,before we just were able to follow stats on the papper and some games every now and them.(not live)

[ambchang]

BTW ArgSpursFan, I am seriously doubting your earlier claim that you started to follow the Spurs since 1984, and I am thinking that instead you were born in 1984. It may not be true, but your claims doesn't add up. How in the world can you not watch any Gervin games if you were following the Spurs then? What prompted you the follow the Spurs from Argentina? Why not the Celtics, Lakers, or the 76ers? Why the Spurs?
And your claim about the 18-22 year old. Why 22? Doesn't it usually go 18-21, or 18-25? 22 seems like an odd number, other than the fact that if you were born in 1984, you'd be 22 now (well, or 23, but 2007 is only a little more than 2 months deep).
I am not calling you a liar, but you are rousing my suspicion.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.

Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.

Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.


Interesting points, but when all is said and done, I think Manu will (as of right now anyway) be remembered much more as a playoff performer as oppose to TP. I'm sure Manu did struggle in the other series besides the lakers one in 2003, but I hardly remember that.

All I remember about Manu in 2003 was him stealing the ball from Richard Jefferson just past midcourt and going for a breakaway dunk that changed the game and sparked our 4th quarter comeback in game 6 en route to our 2nd championship.

While Parker has improved every year, i think when it comes to the playoffs I remember him carving the lakers up in 2004 for the first two games and then when Jackson ordered the Lakers to pack the lane Parker was rendered useless and we blew the series.

This isn't to say parker hasn't had his playoff moments, such as destroying Payton in the Seattle series of 2002 (I think it was) as well as the early part of he most recent Lakers series, but I remember that OT game against denver in the 2005 playoffs that he was responsible for us sealing the W.

While Ginobili may have made one of the biggest playoff blunders in NBA history with his foul on dirk, I still think he's far far more clutch player than parker.

Parker is not nearly as multi dimensional as Ginobili, and if Manu's shot isn't falling he can help you in so many other ways whereas if TP can't get in the lane he tends to struggle (though he is only 24 with plenty of time for his game to expand)


So if you ask me, it's no contest Ginobili should be higher than TP. TP may be more consistent over the course of a regular season, but it's the playoffs that make you memorable not the regular season.

Ask Robert Horry.


(and probably why kerr got ranked so highly :blah )

[ArgSpursFan]

BTW ArgSpursFan, I am seriously doubting your earlier claim that you started to follow the Spurs since 1984, and I am thinking that instead you were born in 1984. It may not be true, but your claims doesn't add up. How in the world can you not watch any Gervin games if you were following the Spurs then? What prompted you the follow the Spurs from Argentina? Why not the Celtics, Lakers, or the 76ers? Why the Spurs?
And your claim about the 18-22 year old. Why 22? Doesn't it usually go 18-21, or 18-25? 22 seems like an odd number, other than the fact that if you were born in 1984, you'd be 22 now (well, or 23, but 2007 is only a little more than 2 months deep).
I am not calling you a liar, but you are rousing my suspicion.
I was borned in 1974,and I play BB since I´m 9yrs old,and yes I follow the NBA since 1984,and to be Honest I wasn´t a fan but the Magic´s lakers were my team back them.

[ambchang]

Cause you´re down playing Ginobili,thats why I said that.
I know what he did for Argentina,but I belive we are talking Spurs here.
And my point is that He actually did more for the spurs,as far as taking the club to the international scenario,being a KEY player for the 2005 Championship,and a big contributor in 2003(BTW his roockie year)and a KEY player on this year´s spurs bounce back,after the ASG brake.
But it´s just my opinion,and I stand by what I think.
BTW,I never said I was a spurs fan since 84,I said I followed the NBA since 84,and I wasn´t able to watch the games live back them in the 80´s in Argentina.I started watching live games in 1993 when ESPN started broadcasting in Arg.,before we just were able to follow stats on the papper and some games every now and them.(not live)
ic, so you were following the NBA since then with stats and boxscores every now and then.
And I was talking about the Spurs, and YOU said I am hating because I ranked Ginobili's accomplishments as an Argentinian national team member above his accomplishments as a Spur. What am I supposed to do? Somehow not mention his pre-Spurs days to refute your claims?
Why in the world would being an MVP and best player in international competition be less of an accomplishment as a key member of 2 NBA title? Especially when one was as a rookie who averaged less than 10 points and 28 minutes? He was the MVP of the 2004 Olympics, what is so shameful about that? He took basketball to Argentina because of what he did in the Olympics AND what he did as a Spur, not strictly what he did as a Spur. He was even MORE of a key player in the success of the Argentinian national team, and what is so downplaying about that?
By your logic, if I say I'd rather have 15 lbs of gold than 10 lbs of gold, I am dissing the 10 lbs of gold.
Back to the original topic.
So now your logic is that he brought basketball to the worldwide scene as a member of a Spur, therefore he is more valuable to the Spurs than Gervin? Correct me if I am wrong, but going bankrupt is much worse than not being recognized internationally, if you know what I mean.

[ambchang]

I was borned in 1974,and I play BB since I´m 9yrs old,and yes I follow the NBA since 1984,and to be Honest I wasn´t a fan but the Magic´s lakers were my team back them.
I apologize for doubting your claims, but there is no way I would ever agree with your claim of ranking Manu over Gervin, and I still don't know how your logic works.
Because your logic would exclude every US player from the top, because they didn't take the NBA to the international scene. Hell, Parker and Manu > Gervin, Duncan and Robinson.

[ambchang]

Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.

Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.

Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.
After being labelled a hater of Manu, it would be weird for me to argue for him, but I would.
Manu is not about stats, his game is about passion. He may not make the perfect play every time, but his all-out play helps his team wins.
Manu steps up at the more defining moments to make the little plays that helps his team wins. His basketball IQ is also through the roof. He makes the right plays which may not result in anything on the scoreboard. A pass here, a deflection there to disrupt the opposition's offense, a tip to his teammate, or an irritating flop that frustrates the opponent, he does it all.
His outside shot also allows the Spurs to space the floor better and he is almost as good a penetrator as Parker.
The difference is hair-thin, but if I were to pick them based on past accomplishments, or pick between to two for one single season, Manu would win out by a thin margin. If I were to pick someone to build a team right now, I would go with Parker.

[whottt]

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.


Parker yes, Elliott no...mainly because Elliott was a career Spur and went through so much that SA was a part of.

Neither Parker nor Elliott have ever been as key to a title run as Manu was in 05.

If I'm building a team right now and I can have any of them from any year of their careers I take Manu in 05. I probably take Elliott last.


Something to remember about 03 though...Bowen was huge in that title run. I'd say a case could be made for Bowen being the second or third most important player in that run...ahead of Jack.


I'd also say that a pretty good case could be made for Bruce deserving to be in the top 10.

Bruce's is one of the best defensive players in NBA history, most of that done as a Spur.

[ArgSpursFan]

. What am I supposed to do? Somehow not mention his pre-Spurs days to refute your claims?Why in the world would being an MVP and best player in international competition be less of an accomplishment as a key member of 2 NBA title? ?
By your logic, if I say I'd rather have 15 lbs of gold than 10 lbs of gold, I am dissing the 10 lbs of gold.
Back to the original topic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but going bankrupt is much worse than not being recognized internationally, if you know what I mean.


Let´s just stick to spurs accumplishment,ok?
we all know what ginobili has accumplished as International player.
As far as being a spur,of course I think he has helped the franshise become bigger and greater tham before,don´t you think fans from all over the world buy spurs merchandising and the spurs are followed by Millons around the world on TV?
And not only around the world, inside the U.S. also.
So i finally have to say:Gervin was one of the best SGs ever and Helped the spurs stay on the NBA.
And Manu is one of the most efective(not the best)SGs on NBA right now,and very popular all over the world.
The edge that gervin has againts Manu as far as Career stats,makes it even when you count NBA titles,WC titles,playoffs games played/won and reg season stats,and all the international accumplishment he has.
It is just my opinion.take it or leave it.but that´s what I think.
BTW,I say it again. I never said Manu was any better tham Gervin.

[Spurminator]

Something to remember about 03 though...Bowen was huge in that title run. I'd say a case could be made for Bowen being the second or third most important player in that run...ahead of Jack.

No doubt, and some of us were saying Bowen deserved to be in the discussion for the 2005 Finals MVP.

[whottt]

RE: Parker in the HOF.


There haven't been many guys who started in the NBA at PG at the age of 19, on the contrary, most of the PGs in NBA history have had a pretty good incubation period and really didn't get rolling until they were about 25. Parker has a huge head start and because of that he can basically put up the numbers he puts up now for another 10 years and be assured of 1st ballot HOF status IMO. This without being such an important international basketball payer. IF you got enough rings you can pretty much get into the HOF without great numbers...I expect at the end of Parker's career he'll have the numbers, the status, and the rings, to easily make the HOF. Even if his numbers hover around their current level.

[Spurminator]

I think if James Worthy and Robert Parish can make the HOF, then Parker has a shot. Needs a couple more titles under his belt, but history has been very friendly to starting players on multiple-Championship/Dynasty teams.

[whottt]

No doubt, and some of us were saying Bowen deserved to be in the discussion for the 2005 Finals MVP.

Hmmm...I'm not sure if he deserved finals MVP in 05, he had that huge block on Chauncey and made Rip work, but I'm not sure it was MVP level play in that series.

[ArgSpursFan]

Hmmm...I'm not sure if he deserved finals MVP in 05, he had that huge block on Chauncey and made Rip work, but I'm not sure it was MVP level play in that series.
talking about deserving the 2005 finals MVP for the level of play.

[whottt]

talking about deserving the 2005 finals MVP for the level of play.



And no one from the Spurs would have been winning finals MVPs if not for Horry's game 5.


Arguing anything based on finals MVP is a slippery slope because it requires you to get nasty with the concept of team play.

[Spurminator]

Those were his most memorable plays, certainly. But he also had several huge shots, and was probably the only Spur who brought it for all 7 games of that series, even the blowout losses. He averaged the second most minutes behind Duncan and all but cancelled out Hamilton for 5 of the 7 games.

In the end I would have probably given it to Manu or Tim before him, but Bruce belonged in the conversation. It's hard to pick any one person from that series though, because it seemed like every core Spur player had one or two games that series where they really shined.

[ArgSpursFan]

Those were his most memorable plays, certainly. But he also had several huge shots, and was probably the only Spur who brought it for all 7 games of that series, even the blowout losses. He averaged the second most minutes behind Duncan and all but cancelled out Hamilton for 5 of the 7 games.

In the end I would have probably given it to Manu or Tim before him, but Bruce belonged in the conversation.

the four of them played great BB.(TD;TP;MANU and BRUCE)and Horry in game 5.

[ShoogarBear]

I think if James Worthy and Robert Parish can make the HOF, then Parker has a shot. Needs a couple more titles under his belt, but history has been very friendly to starting players on multiple-Championship/Dynasty teams.Agree, if Parker gets another title and longevity, he's going to be up there.

Although, the counterpoint is that somehow Dennis Johnson isn't in the HoF.

My main concern is longeivity. Parker has put on a lot of miles at a young age and gets banged up a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if his career is shortened due to mileage and unless he learns to compensate for the eventual loss of quickness. I could see him retired as early as 32-33 (which would still be a 13-14 year career).

[baseline bum]

Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.

Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.

Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.

I think so. Manu played at an All-NBA First or Second Team level in the 2005 playoffs, and he was at his best in fourth quarters. He completely took over the fourth in game 1 of the 2005 Finals, turning a close game into a blowout. He owned game 2 even moreso. Game 7 he tore Detroit up in the fourth once again. He had the assist on the game-winners in game 6 in Seattle, and game 5 in Detroit. He took over the Denver series after the Spurs came out looking really lethargic in it.

Tony's had his moments too, such as the Memphis series in 2004, the first two LA games in 2004, the game 4 vs Dallas in 2003 when he dropped 19 on them in the third, and so on, but the only other Spurs I've ever seen consistently take games over for an extended period like Manu did in the 2005 playoffs are Tim, David, and Ice.

[ggoose25]

5. The rifle man, Chuck Person

[whottt]

My main concern is longeivity. Parker has put on a lot of miles at a young age and gets banged up a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if his career is shortened due to mileage and unless he learns to compensate for the eventual loss of quickness. I could see him retired as early as 32-33 (which would still be a 13-14 year career).


Well Pop has limited his minutes pretty effectively, but yeah it does seem like the guys that get a lot of miles on them at a young age don't have the really long careers.


When Parker starts his next playoff game he'll move into #1 on most playoff games started by a Spurs PG :fro

[ArgSpursFan]

I think so. Manu played at an All-NBA First or Second Team level in the 2005 playoffs, and he was at his best in fourth quarters. He completely took over the fourth in game 1 of the 2005 Finals, turning a close game into a blowout. He owned game 2 even moreso. Game 7 he tore Detroit up in the fourth once again. He had the assist on the game-winners in game 6 in Seattle, and game 5 in Detroit. He took over the Denver series after the Spurs came out looking really lethargic in it.

Tony's had his moments too, such as the Memphis series in 2004, the first two LA games in 2004, the game 4 vs Dallas in 2003 when he dropped 19 on them in the third, and so on, but the only other Spurs I've ever seen consistently take games over for an extended period like Manu did in the 2005 playoffs are Tim, David, and Ice.

you know what?,I can belive people here actually laughed at me when I said Manu deserved the finals MVP more tham Timmy.
I guess people just remember what/who they want to remember.

Another Point on Manu´s side

[aaronstampler]

Thinking about it, I think an argument can be made that Parker should be above Ginobili in this list. My first reaction was to put Ginobili ahead of both Parker and Elliott, but thinking about it more ... I'm not so sure.

Obviously, Ginobili's 2005 playoff run was more impressive than anything Parker has ever done. But in 2003, Ginobili played well against the Lakers, however he struggled in every other series. Parker was far and away the second leading scorer that year and was vastly more important in that season's playoffs.

Then you look at two All-Star selections to one, the fact that Parker has been with the Spurs a year longer, averages more points and more assists ... and it has to make you think.

Again, Ginobili was my initial pick for number 4, but I'm not sure now that I think about it. Was Ginobili's awesome 2005 playoff run alone enough to trump everything that Parker and Elliott (another two-time All-Star) ever did?

Discuss.

I think the main thing is you never have to worry about Manu showing up for a big game.

[YOU REALLY SUCK!]

ArgSpursFan, sup?

[ambchang]

Let´s just stick to spurs accumplishment,ok?
we all know what ginobili has accumplished as International player.
As far as being a spur,of course I think he has helped the franshise become bigger and greater tham before,don´t you think fans from all over the world buy spurs merchandising and the spurs are followed by Millons around the world on TV?
And not only around the world, inside the U.S. also.
So i finally have to say:Gervin was one of the best SGs ever and Helped the spurs stay on the NBA.
And Manu is one of the most efective(not the best)SGs on NBA right now,and very popular all over the world.
The edge that gervin has againts Manu as far as Career stats,makes it even when you count NBA titles,WC titles,playoffs games played/won and reg season stats,and all the international accumplishment he has.
It is just my opinion.take it or leave it.but that´s what I think.
BTW,I say it again. I never said Manu was any better tham Gervin.
Guy, don't make it sound like I am trying to go off on tangents, you initially brought up the Jordan argument, and you mention how Manu took basketball to the world.
As for the international argument, what is there to argue?
Then you bring out your opinion, which nobody can't argue, because it is your opinion, right? I am just here to point out how illogical it is.
And since Shane Heal brought basketball to Australia, Heal > Gervin too.

[rob5]

Let's cut to the chase. As of the date of this article:
5. Tony Parker
4. Sean Elliott
3. Manu Ginobili
2. David Robinson
1. Tim Duncan

By the time his career is done, Parker would probably rank #3. He's 24, durable, never playing less than 75 games, and is just now coming into his own. I think he has 10 years of good basketball left, and that his scoring will edge up for the next five, and then drift downward, probably averaging out at about 19 ppg. That would put him in the vicinity of 20,000 points.

Oh, and if you think I forgot him

6. George Gervin

Amazing scorer, but suffered from Barkely-Ewing-Malone syndrome...no ring. Only Sean in my top five doesn't have multiple rings.
parker higher than gervin??? what a joke

[rob5]

kerr has multipal rings. are u gonna rank him above gervin also???

[rob5]

you know what?,I can belive people here actually laughed at me when I said Manu deserved the finals MVP more tham Timmy.
I guess people just remember what/who they want to remember.

Another Point on Manu´s side

I dont think Tim would laugh. He knows that trophy should be in Manu's case.

[ArgSpursFan]

kerr has multipal rings. are u gonna rank him above gervin also???

but only one with the spurs.so NO!!+we are talking about stars,not role players

[timvp]

but only one with the spurs.so NO!!
More great knowledge.

:reading

[samikeyp]

but only one with the spurs.so NO!!

two, dumbass.


If you are going to talk shit, at least know what the fuck you are talking about.

[ArgSpursFan]

Guy, don't make it sound like I am trying to go off on tangents, you initially brought up the Jordan argument, and you mention how Manu took basketball to the world.
As for the international argument, what is there to argue?
Then you bring out your opinion, which nobody can't argue, because it is your opinion, right? I am just here to point out how illogical it is.
And since Shane Heal brought basketball to Australia, Heal > Gervin too.

And I respect what you think.I´m just standing by what I think thats all.We´r discussing not fighting,it´s all good.

[ArgSpursFan]

two, dumbass.


If you are going to talk shit, at least know what the fuck you are talking about.

You´re right my bad.It looks like you´ve got a pretty good memory.I hope it helps you remember who was the best player in the 05 finals as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/mmonroe/stories/MYSA031107.10C.BKNtopspurs.elliott.37da5ff.html)

Top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 5 - Sean Elliott
Web Posted: 03/10/2007 11:05 PM CST

Thirty seasons ago, the Spurs joined the NBA after being absorbed into the older league along with three other teams from the ABA. To commemorate the milestone, the Express-News each Sunday will recognize our selections as the 30 greatest NBA Spurs. Here is No. 5:

Sean Elliott, 1989-2001: For Spurs fans, Elliott's "Memorial Day Miracle" will forever rank near the top of the franchise's greatest plays. Tip-toeing along the sideline at the Alamodome in the waning seconds of Game 2 of the Western Conference finals against Portland, Elliott managed to stay inbounds and launch a perfect 3-point shot that gave the Spurs a dramatic, 86-85 victory.

Not long after the Spurs won their first title that season, Elliott announced he had been suffering for several years from a rare kidney disorder, focal glomerulosclerosis, that required a transplant. After receiving a kidney from his brother, Noel, in August 1999, Elliott became the first pro athlete to return to action after an organ transplant when he played for the Spurs on March 14, 2000. He played 18 more games that season and 52 in 2000-01. He retired after the 2000-01 season.

One of only five Spurs players whose number has been retired, Elliott spent 11 of his 12 seasons with the team. The third pick in the 1989 draft after a standout career at Arizona, Elliott improved his scoring average each of his first four seasons, averaging 17.2 points in 1993-94. But he was traded to the Pistons after that season for Dennis Rodman. His absence was noted immediately, and when Gregg Popovich was named general manager in 1994, he had instructions from majority owner Peter Holt: Get Elliott back. On July 19, 1994, Popovich did just that.

On the Spurs' all-time lists, Elliott ranks first in 3-point field goals made (563) and attempted (1,485); fourth in games played (669); fourth in points scored (9,659); sixth in rebounds (2,941).

[samikeyp]

My favorite dunk of all time...

Sean's first game back against the Hawks. It wasn't anything spectacular looking but all he did to get back onto the court made it special.

[timvp]

It's hard to have too much beef with Ginobili being number four. His 2005 playoff run was out of this world impressive.

However, it might be a little early to put him there. Elliott played a long time in San Antonio and went through the ups and the downs. Ginobili is the better player but as of this second, it can be argued that it's a little premature to put him over Elliott.


But he was traded to the Pistons after that season for Dennis Rodman. His absence was noted immediately, and when Gregg Popovich was named general manager in 1994, he had instructions from majority owner Peter Holt: Get Elliott back.

That was General Robert McDermott. (R.I.P)

Mike Monroe has had so many errors in these write-ups it has been embarrassing. In the 25 that he's done, there have been about 40 errors and a handful of major ones.

:td

[samikeyp]

However, it might be a little early to put him there. Elliott played a long time in San Antonio and went through the ups and the downs. Ginobili is the better player but as of this second, it can be argued that it's a little premature to put him over Elliott.

Uh oh...here comes the Argentine "you're a Manu hater" onslaught! :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

My favorite dunk of all time...

Sean's first game back against the Hawks. It wasn't anything spectacular looking but all he did to get back onto the court made it special.

I was in the Dome the night that Sean returned from his transplant and thought it was among the most special sports moments I've ever witnessed. Sean wasn't supposed to start that night, but at the last minute, he was announced as a starter -- and the Dome erupted. It was even louder when Sean dunked. He was never the same player, not surprisingly, after the transplant (though the first couple of months of 2000-01 gave hope that he might come all the way back), I think mostly to some extent that was because the kidney condition prevented effective treatment of his IT band problems. Still, he is an iconic Spur -- in some ways, he might be the most beloved Spur of all-time because he comes off as the fan friendliest of the elite players for this franchise.

I'm still surprised to find him at #5 and not at #4, but I can understand that because if there is any Spur who might be more beloved than Sean, that guy is Manu.

[CubanMustGo]

You´re right my bad.It looks like you´ve got a pretty good memory.I hope it helps you remember who was the best player in the 05 finals as well.

Your supposed "best player" totally failed to show up in the Spurs' first two losses (7 and 12 points, respectively). If not for that you would have a valid point. Get over it already.

[samikeyp]

I would agree FWD. I was surprised but I am ok with it. I think timvp was on target also about it being a little early for Manu. I think when his career is over, he will validate the selection.

[samikeyp]

You´re right my bad.It looks like you´ve got a pretty good memory.I hope it helps you remember who was the best player in the 05 finals as well.


Your supposed "best player" totally failed to show up in the Spurs' first two losses (7 and 12 points, respectively). If not for that you would have a valid point. Get over it already.

Agreed...im also still waiting for..

A. Where I said he wasn't.

B. What that had to do with comparing Ice and Manu.

[FromWayDowntown]

.

Agreed...im also still waiting for..

A. Where I said he wasn't.

B. What that had to do with comparing Ice and Manu.

Come on, mikey. Really. Was Ice the should-have-been-MVP of the 2005 Finals? I don't think so.

And because of that, Manu > Ice beyond any reasonable doubt -- not as an overall player and not in any way that ArgSpursFan is willing to define except to say that Manu played well on teams that won titles -- but better nonetheless.

[samikeyp]

Come on, mikey. Really. Was Ice the should-have-been-MVP of the 2005 Finals? I don't think so.

And because of that, Manu > Ice beyond any reasonable doubt -- not as an overall player and not in any way that ArgSpursFan is willing to define except to say that Manu played well on teams that won titles -- but better nonetheless.

:lmao

You're right! My bad....:lmao

Hey, Erica and I are coming back in june for a visit...we gotta get some margaritas!

[FromWayDowntown]

:lmao

You're right! My bad....:lmao

Hey, Erica and I are coming back in june for a visit...we gotta get some margaritas!

:tu

[FromWayDowntown]

It's far from a decisive factor in deciding who is the greatest player -- or in stratifying players on a greatest player list like this one -- but I had assumed that the Memorial Day Miracle would carry more sway in a historical ranking like this one.

To this day, I'm convinced that the MDM is the defining moment in the franchise's history. Had that team lost that game, they might very well have gone to Portland and won a game or two and ended up closing out the series in 5 or 6. But when that shot went down, it was the final nail in the Blazers' coffin. You could see it as they left the floor that afternoon/early-evening. They were done. That shot, one could argue, essentially made the Spurs champions and changed the view of the franchise.

Like timvp, I don't know that one shot is enough to overshadow the sublime performance that Manu gave during the 2005 Playoffs. I don't know that (for me, at least) the comparison is limited to those things; without "disrespecting" Manu, I think I'd be inclined to favor Elliott's 2 all-star selections, his rankings among the franchise's statistical leaders, his underrated defensive prowess, and the fact that he did a lot of his work while suffering from the kidney condition.

Added to all of those things, I think the fact that Sean is the author of the franchise's biggest shot should have been enough to make him #4, for now.

[Clutch20]

"Ninja" is still intimate, firsthand, with a player's feelings of having lost a close game or gotten stomped and beaten by a large margin and as a media communicator, expresses those lows as well as all the highs so effectively. The kind of contributions he's made to his team reinforces the high quality of character and teamwork that brings championship results on and off the court. And after having read his bio that ST people have placed here collectively, it puts these past 10 years into perspective, will we ever have another group like that that played alongside him, Robinson, Duncan, Johnson, Ellie, and subsequent 03'ers and 05'ers that picked up the baton and ran to the finish line with it?
We are so lucky as Spurs fans to have had Sean and all that he brought with him, and we're spoiled because of it, too.
So what if the lean years loom on the horizon!
We've been through those too and unfortunately, the cycle demands that others spend some time in the spotlight while we adjust to new names and faces.
But in my heart and mind, Sean Elliot remains the benchmark.

[ShoogarBear]

To this day, I'm convinced that the MDM is the defining moment (if not the defining moment) in the franchise's history. Had that team lost that game, they might very well have gone to Portland and won a game or two and ended up closing out the series in 5 or 6. But when that shot went down, it was the final nail in the Blazers' coffin. You could see it as they left the floor that afternoon/early-evening. They were done. That shot, one could argue, essentially made the Spurs champions and changed the view of the franchise.
I agree completely. No MDM = no rings ever, possibly. That's why it will always rank abover AJ's and Horry's shots for me.

However, Sean was probably the top Spurs player who least fulfilled his potential, even allowing for his health problems. Prior to his kidney disease, he was a guy who should have had a couple of All-NBA selections, but his reluctance to assert himself always held him back.

[whottt]

If I want to win a title I am takng Manu over the Ninja. Sorry Sean.

Probably Parker too. Maybe even Bowen.

[FromWayDowntown]

If I want to win a title I am takng Manu over the Ninja. Sorry Sean.

Probably Parker too. Maybe even Bowen.

Yeah, I don't dispute that idea at all. Just as the MDM is probably the pivotal on-court moment in the history of this franchise, Sean also is the guy who missed the icing free throws at the end of Game 1 of the 1995 WCF. He misses those freebies, Horry hits his only FG of the game, the Spurs don't convert on the final possession, and the Rockets are playing free and easy to take Game 2. I don't know that winning Game 1 would have changed the ultimate result of that series, but winning that game might have altered the tenor of the series in a way that might have favored the Spurs.

I don't think there's much doubt that Manu will always be more of a playoff killer than Sean Elliott ever was. And I think in the end, both Parker and Manu will have had better careers as Spurs. But at this moment in time, I still would have made Manu #5 and Elliott #4.

[whottt]

Well Elliott is one of my favorite players...I wouldn't have had a problem if he was 4th...playing so many games as a Spur...really the only career Spur other than Drob.

But just sayin'...Manu and Parker are both more dominant players than Elliott. And I might even think Bowen is as well, on the defensive side of the ball.

Elliott was an excellent player on both sides of the ball, very good, all star level on both sides, but just, not a dominant player...and not clutch either, until the MDM.

[whottt]

Ironically though...

How nice would it be to have a young Elliott right now? He's exactly what the Spurs need at SF.

[ShoogarBear]

I think Elliott had more overall ability than any player except Robinson and Duncan.

I used to say during his prime that if NBA players could submit a portfolio of their best moves, Sean's would be second only to MJ's. Offensively he had no weaknesses: post moves, slashing to the basket, three-pointers, mid-range. He was an above-average defender and solid ball handler. He just didn't have the aggressiveness or mental toughness to want to go out there every night and dominate.

[whottt]

I think Elliott had more overall ability than any player except Robinson and Duncan.

I used to say during his prime that if NBA players could submit a portfolio of their best moves, Sean's would be second only to MJ's. Offensively he had no weaknesses: post moves, slashing to the basket, three-pointers, mid-range. He was an above-average defender and solid ball handler. He just didn't have the aggressiveness or mental toughness to want to go out there every night and dominate.



Agree except for the mental toughness part...Elliott proved himself to be an uncommon human being in the mental toughness dept with his Kidney. But I agree, he just didn't have the instinct to be a dominant player.

[ShoogarBear]

Agree except for the mental toughness part...Elliott proved himself to be an uncommon human being in the mental toughness dept with his Kidney. But I agree, he just didn't have the instinct to be a dominant player.Well, I would argue that dealing with the kindey disease helped him to develop more toughness on the court.

A mentally tough player wouldn't have missed those FTs in 95.

[ArgSpursFan]

Your supposed "best player" totally failed to show up in the Spurs' first two losses (7 and 12 points, respectively). If not for that you would have a valid point. Get over it already.

OHHH,so you take in consideration the production on games that the spurs actually lost? :dizzy
That´s a good one.
I reather have a great game to take my team to a world championship,tham having a great/good game and them loose.(Manu Ginobili)

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Great players, both fan favorites, but Sean's commercials are better. Manu at 5, Elliott at 4.

[ambchang]

OHHH,so you take in consideration the production on games that the spurs actually lost? :dizzy
That´s a good one.
I reather have a great game to take my team to a world championship,tham having a great/good game and them loose.(Manu Ginobili)
So if Manu stunk up the joint and the Spurs lost, it doesn't count, but if Manu played great games and the team wins, he takes all the credit. Impeccable logic.
Player A in series scores 30 points and grabs 15 rebounds in every single game in a 7 game series, with 4 wins and 3 losses.
Player B in series scores 32 points and grabs 16 rebounds in the 4 wins, and scores 0 points and 0 rebounds in the 3 losses, averaging 18.3 ppg and 9.1 rpg, but according to your logic, Player B > Player A (which according to you, means Player B should be ranked higher than Player A in a ranking, but doesn't necessary means Player B is Better than Player A) even though Player A won the MVP .... nice.

[ArgSpursFan]

So if Manu stunk up the joint and the Spurs lost, it doesn't count, but if Manu played great games and the team wins, he takes all the credit. Impeccable logic.
Player A in series scores 30 points and grabs 15 rebounds in every single game in a 7 game series, with 4 wins and 3 losses.
Player B in series scores 32 points and grabs 16 rebounds in the 4 wins, and scores 0 points and 0 rebounds in the 3 losses, averaging 18.3 ppg and 9.1 rpg, but according to your logic, Player B > Player A (which according to you, means Player B should be ranked higher than Player A in a ranking, but doesn't necessary means Player B is Better than Player A) even though Player A won the MVP .... nice.

That´s totally unfair.cause you know player A averages more minutes tham player B.
Let´s take the production P/48 mins of player A and B on both Wins and Losses.
Then I´tell you who played better.
Just to remind you The spurs were trailed by as many as 15 pts in game 1 and player B took complete over the game and we actually won the game.

[FromWayDowntown]

That´s totally unfair.cause you know player A averages more minutes tham player B.
Let´s take the production P/48 mins of player A and B on both Wins and Losses.
Then I´tell you who played better.
Just to remind you The spurs were trailed by as many as 15 pts in game 1 and player B took complited over the game and we actually won the game.

Compelling argument -- for the 2005 Finals, Duncan averaged 24.3pts/48 min and Manu dominated him, averaging 24.9pts/48.

[ambchang]

That´s totally unfair.cause you know player A averages more minutes tham player B.
Let´s take the production P/48 mins of player A and B on both Wins and Losses.
Then I´tell you who played better.
Just to remind you The spurs were trailed by as many as 15 pts in game 1 and player B took complete over the game and we actually won the game.
What the hell are you talking about? Your original arguments take nothing about minutes in account, and my hypothetical examples didn't show squat in minutes, it's irrelevant.
All it shows is that based on your argument, player B > player A despite not showing up at all in 3 games. Let's draw up a BETTER example.
MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player A 41 17 2 0 2 24 W
Player A 37 11 1 0 4 18 W
Player A 38 10 4 3 1 14 L
Player A 39 16 2 0 3 16 L
Player A 48 19 2 0 2 26 W
Player A 40 15 1 0 1 21 L
Player A 42 11 3 0 2 25 W
Average 41 14 2 0.4 2.1 20.6

MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player B 39 9 2 1 0 26 W
Player B 32 3 7 3 0 27 W
Player B 29 4 0 0 0 7 L
Player B 32 4 3 1 1 12 L
Player B 44 6 9 1 0 15 W
Player B 41 10 3 2 0 21 L
Player B 35 5 4 1 0 23 W
Average 36 5.9 4 1.3 0.1 18.7

But according to you, Player B is better, because the losses don't count.

[Nikos]

Compelling argument -- for the 2005 Finals, Duncan averaged 24.3pts/48 min and Manu dominated him, averaging 24.9pts/48.

Well Manu was a much more efficient scorer. But it doesn't matter, while Manu probably was the teams offensive MVP, Duncan was the teams defensive MVP, and not too far off from Manu on the offenive end. Whereas Manu was not nearly as valuable on D and on the boards.

So yeah, Duncan was still the best player.

[smeagol]

It's pretty clear Manu is the most important player the Spurs franchise has ever had.

Stop arguing with us Argies, ok? :hat

[ArgSpursFan]

Well Manu was a much more efficient scorer. But it doesn't matter, while Manu probably was the teams offensive MVP, Duncan was the teams defensive MVP, and not too far off from Manu on the offenive end. Whereas Manu was not nearly as valuable on D and on the boards.

So yeah, Bowen was the best player.

FIXED :fro

[ArgSpursFan]

Just for the record.................losses don´t count on any sport.

[whottt]

The Top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 4 - Manu Ginobili

Web Posted: 03/17/2007 11:47 PM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

Thirty years ago, the Spurs played their first NBA season after being one of four teams from the American Basketball Association to join the older league. To commemorate this anniversary, on Sundays the Express-News will recognize our selections as the 30 greatest NBA Spurs. Here is No. 4:
Manu Ginobili, 2002-present: Were our ranking of all-time Spurs based on competitiveness alone, Ginobili would be a strong candidate for No. 1. Few players in NBA history have been more intensely driven than the 6-foot-6 guard from Bahia Blanca, Argentina.




Selected in the second round of the 1999 draft, Ginobili honed his skills in the Italian professional league before signing with the Spurs on July 18, 2002, twice named MVP of that league. He tweaked the ankle twice during his rookie season but still managed to earn second-team All-Rookie honors. More significantly, he appeared in all 24 playoff games as the Spurs secured their second NBA title. He averaged 27.5 minutes in that playoff run, and 9.4 points, 3.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists and a team-high 1.71 steals, all improvements from his regular-season marks. It was a hint that Ginobili would prove capable of elevating his play when the games mattered most.

Ginobili led Argentina to the 2004 Olympic gold medal, averaging 19.3 points, 4.0 rebounds and 1.39 steals in eight games. He followed with his first NBA All-Star appearance and then had a remarkable playoff run as the Spurs claimed another championship.

He was the team's top scorer in the first round, shot 57.6 percent and averaged 20.5 points in the second round, and was the team's top scorer in three of seven games against Detroit in the Finals.



http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/mmonroe/stories/MYSA031807.08C.BKNtopspurs.ginobili.3163310.html

[wildbill2u]

It's interesting how close the arguments are for the 4-5-6-7 slots. In all honesty, I think you could rearrange the players in any order and still have doubts that you've made the absolutely right decision.

That being said, I think Parkre and Manu still have great things ahead of them. They may easily separate themselves into a natural order of greatness in the future.

[Dartherus]

So if Manu stunk up the joint and the Spurs lost, it doesn't count, but if Manu played great games and the team wins, he takes all the credit. Impeccable logic.
Player A in series scores 30 points and grabs 15 rebounds in every single game in a 7 game series, with 4 wins and 3 losses.
Player B in series scores 32 points and grabs 16 rebounds in the 4 wins, and scores 0 points and 0 rebounds in the 3 losses, averaging 18.3 ppg and 9.1 rpg, but according to your logic, Player B > Player A (which according to you, means Player B should be ranked higher than Player A in a ranking, but doesn't necessary means Player B is Better than Player A) even though Player A won the MVP .... nice.
Are you forgetting that Player B got injured DURING A GAME of a Series, and had to play without being totally recovered?

How can you blame him for having 'bad games', being injuried during such 3 lost games?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It's interesting how close the arguments are for the 4-5-6-7 slots. In all honesty, I think you could rearrange the players in any order and still have doubts that you've made the absolutely right decision.

That being said, I think Parkre and Manu still have great things ahead of them. They may easily separate themselves into a natural order of greatness in the future.

Yeah, arguments can be made for all those guys.

Personally, I would've given the 2005 Finals MVP jointly to TD and Manu because Manu was phenomonal in that series! He was only poor in games 3 and 4 because he was injured, a thigh contusion if I remember correctly, that really slowed him down... and besides, our entire team was horrible in those two games while the Pistons played impeccable 'ball.

C'mon fellas, let's show each other a little more love! We're all Spurs fans, after all! :lol

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Yeah, arguments can be made for all those guys.

Personally, I would've given the 2005 Finals MVP jointly to TD and Manu because Manu was phenomonal in that series! He was only poor in games 3 and 4 because he was injured, a thigh contusion if I remember correctly, that really slowed him down... and besides, our entire team was horrible in those two games while the Pistons played impeccable 'ball.

C'mon fellas, let's show each other a little more love! We're all Spurs fans, after all! :lol
Yeah, that Thigh Contusion really took him out of it honestly. The loss in his step was noticeable. Only til' Game 7 did he go back to taking it to the rim. with two back to back dunks!

But if there's any evidence Billups had the same exact thing happen to him. Where he got hit in the knee or thigh, in a regular season game against the Lakers, and after that you could tell he was hurting. He only scored 3 points I believe.

Plus, how can you fault Manu for having two bad games? Even Jordan would have one or two subpar Finals performances, I think when he was matching up with Gary Payton. I mean, feeling teams out and adjusting to their defenses is what makes great players great. Manu showed up again in Games 5 and Games 7. So you can't really fault him on account of thinking two bad games take away from his OVERALL Finals performance.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

What the hell are you talking about? Your original arguments take nothing about minutes in account, and my hypothetical examples didn't show squat in minutes, it's irrelevant.
All it shows is that based on your argument, player B > player A despite not showing up at all in 3 games. Let's draw up a BETTER example.
MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player A 41 17 2 0 2 24 W
Player A 37 11 1 0 4 18 W
Player A 38 10 4 3 1 14 L
Player A 39 16 2 0 3 16 L
Player A 48 19 2 0 2 26 W
Player A 40 15 1 0 1 21 L
Player A 42 11 3 0 2 25 W
Average 41 14 2 0.4 2.1 20.6

MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player B 39 9 2 1 0 26 W
Player B 32 3 7 3 0 27 W
Player B 29 4 0 0 0 7 L
Player B 32 4 3 1 1 12 L
Player B 44 6 9 1 0 15 W
Player B 41 10 3 2 0 21 L
Player B 35 5 4 1 0 23 W
Average 36 5.9 4 1.3 0.1 18.7

But according to you, Player B is better, because the losses don't count.

Isn't it telling that Player A's good game still equated in a Loss, while getting a good game from Player B, indicated the team was more likely to win??

[ambchang]

Are you forgetting that Player B got injured DURING A GAME of a Series, and had to play without being totally recovered?

How can you blame him for having 'bad games', being injuried during such 3 lost games?
No I haven't, but does it matter Player B is hurt or not? He is hurt, he didn't perform as well as he could or as well as Player A, so Player A gets the award, isn't that hard to figure it out.
And we are also forgetting that Player A was faced with the best defensive frontline in recent memory, and the defense of the entire team was focused on him.

[ambchang]

Isn't it telling that Player A's good game still equated in a Loss, while getting a good game from Player B, indicated the team was more likely to win??
Yeah, that if Player B didn't play well, it causes the team to lose, so Player B should play better.
I really couldn't understand why Player A shouldn't be recognized during losses regardless of his performance, afterall, Jerry West won the Finals MVP award despite his team losing, and basketball IS a team game, can't help it that another team plays better.
Let's draw another mathematical example:
3+2+2+2+2 = 11
5+1+1+1+1 = 9
Since 11>9, you guys are saying that 3 > 5, regardless of the other components.

[FromWayDowntown]

What I don't understand about rehashing the 2005 Finals MVP voting is how on Earth does an argument that Manu should have won the MVP of that series make Manu a higher-ranked Spur than George Gervin, David Robinson, or Tim Duncan?

I don't think there's any reasonable argument for Manu to be ranked higher than any of those 3 legends, even if Manu had been named MVP of that series. After all, sometimes it's much easier to be Robin when Batman is around to take the heat off of you.

Clearly, Manu is not a superior player to Tim Duncan or David Robinson. I don't think there's a legitimate argument to place Manu above George Gervin -- in part because, as others have mentioned before, Gervin has an awfully good argument to be #1. Gervin's argument to be #1 is much, much, much better than the argument for Manu to be #3.

Given that, I have no idea why we're discussing the value of players in the 2005 Finals at all.

Manu is properly ranked extraordinarily high among the players who've ever suited up for this franchise. He's considered the best player to ever play here who isn't going to the Hall of Fame based solely on his NBA credentials. That's pretty significant praise. What more is there to say, really?

[ambchang]

It pretty much has to do with people saying that since Manu is more responsible than Duncan for the 2005 championship despite not winning the Finals MVP, Manu > Gervin because Gervin has never been able to accomplish that task.
My argument is that:
a) Duncan > Manu in 2005 playoffs, and the numbers, defensive schemes of Detroit, and defense of the Spurs clearly backed it up
b) Manu's accomplishment in the 2005 playoffs is clearly great, but he is not single-handedly responsible for that championship, he has the help of HoF and MVP Duncan (or it's the other way around), speedy All-Star Tony Parker, defensive ace Bowen, and a great game by Horry. Gervin had none of that, and comparing the final accomplishment without looking at the teammates is ignorant at best.

[FromWayDowntown]

It pretty much has to do with people saying that since Manu is more responsible than Duncan for the 2005 championship despite not winning the Finals MVP, Manu > Gervin because Gervin has never been able to accomplish that task.

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modicum of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.


My argument is that:
a) Duncan > Manu in 2005 playoffs, and the numbers, defensive schemes of Detroit, and defense of the Spurs clearly backed it up
b) Manu's accomplishment in the 2005 playoffs is clearly great, but he is not single-handedly responsible for that championship, he has the help of HoF and MVP Duncan (or it's the other way around), speedy All-Star Tony Parker, defensive ace Bowen, and a great game by Horry. Gervin had none of that, and comparing the final accomplishment without looking at the teammates is ignorant at best.

Agreed.

[ambchang]

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modicum of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.
It is, that's why I kept arguing with them. And since they can use a computer, I suppose they can't be THAT stupid. But some has been proving otherwise.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Yeah, that if Player B didn't play well, it causes the team to lose, so Player B should play better.
I really couldn't understand why Player A shouldn't be recognized during losses regardless of his performance, afterall, Jerry West won the Finals MVP award despite his team losing, and basketball IS a team game, can't help it that another team plays better.
Let's draw another mathematical example:
3+2+2+2+2 = 11
5+1+1+1+1 = 9
Since 11>9, you guys are saying that 3 > 5, regardless of the other components.
Yeah, well don't group me in with the "other guys"

I'm merely talking about the Finals MVP. Despite the statistics, and votes. A big difference is actually watching the games. I'm not arguing against Duncan winning it. I actually was thinking it could go either way at the time, since Duncan was crucial in game 7, AND he made the freethrow at least to keep the game tied in game 5. And his numbers were more consistent. But Manu got hurt in game 3,4. What if he didn't get hurt? I 'm sure he'd score more than 7.

What I'm saying is, despite Duncan being the unquestionable anchor to this team. It wouldn't have been a SLIGHT to Duncan's game if Manu had won it or they both got 5 votes each. Is that so hard to swallow? Hypothetically if Manu had won the MVP based on his stellar offensive performances. It wouldn't be a statement that Manu is a greater player than Duncan. Just that for that series, Manu's performance was recognized. Since on juggernaut teams with more than one great player. Magic didn't always win the Finals MVP, he won it for his other teammates as well. Magic winning one or two less Finals MVP doesn't mean Kareem, James Worthy got them instead. Magic still comes out the overall best player. Manu getting 4 votes is recognition in itself anyway.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modicum of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.



Agreed.
I think everyone should be happy that Manu is at number four. There is no reason why the "argentine homers" should argue or debate he should be higher.
The TOP 3 have all been Franchise players at one point. Manu hasn't , and I doubt he could be. And that's not a slight to Manu.

As for the 2005 Finals performance of Manu? Why do you guys ask silly questions? It's completely RELEVANT to this thread, and why it would be brought up?

IT's the reason Manu's number 4!

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Plus, who are these "Guys" arguing Manu is better than Gervin. It was just that ONE guy. ArgsSpursfan And that's been buried and settled I believe. So I don't know what you getting at FWDT. It is possible that the last few posts were just talking bout Finals 2005 performances, without any real implication that Manu is more important than any of the next three guys.

[FromWayDowntown]

Plus, who are these "Guys" arguing Manu is better than Gervin. It was just that ONE guy. ArgsSpursfan And that's been buried and settled I believe. So I don't know what you getting at FWDT. It is possible that the last few posts were just talking bout Finals 2005 performances, without any real implication that Manu is more important than any of the next three guys.

The context of the discussion of the 2005 Finals had everything to do with ArgSpursFan taking up a mantle that others took up long, long ago in this thread, suggesting that George Gervin should somehow be ranked behind Manu and even Tony Parker and Sean Elliott, largely because Manu played a larger role in winning titles.

ArgSpursFan argued at one point that the proof of Manu > Gervin was, in fact, the argument that Manu could have been the MVP of the 2005 Finals -- apparently concluding that since Manu could have a Finals MVP during a championship season and since Gervin's teams never played in the Finals, Manu should be considered the more important Spur.

My point in wondering why this discussion continues has a couple of dimensions. First, I don't think that taking the 2005 Finals in isolation truly depicts the relative importance of Ginobili and Gervin in the history of the Spurs franchise. Was Manu terrific in the 2005 Playoffs generally and the 2005 Finals, specifically? Absolutely. Does that make him more important to the history of this franchise than George Gervin? No way. As such, in weighing the relative importance of each player, the subargument that Manu > Tim in the 2005 Finals (which I think is wrong anyway) strikes me as wholly irrelevant to the issues being discussed here.

Moreover, a concern that Manu is appropriately respected in the history of the Spurs franchise has, likewise, already been resolved -- both "officially" in Monroe's column and unofficially in this thread. Nobody seems to doubt that Manu is rightfully in the top 4 and that at least part of the reason for his placement in that pantheon is his performance in the 2005 playoffs. Nobody disputes that Manu was fantastic during that run. Given those truths, I don't see the point in endlessly rehashing an argument that comes down almost exclusively to a matter of preference. Celebrating what Manu did in 2005 is only part of what makes him one of the greatest Spurs ever; but focusing so much energy on revisiting that argument seems to sell a lot of his other significant accomplishments short.

[Spurminator]

Is it possible that Gervin may be #2 on this list? Just to throw us off?

And would that be a huge crime?

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

The context of the discussion of the 2005 Finals had everything to do with ArgSpursFan taking up a mantle that others took up long, long ago in this thread, suggesting that George Gervin should somehow be ranked behind Manu and even Tony Parker and Sean Elliott, largely because Manu played a larger role in winning titles.

ArgSpursFan argued at one point that the proof of Manu > Gervin was, in fact, the argument that Manu could have been the MVP of the 2005 Finals -- apparently concluding that since Manu could have a Finals MVP during a championship season and since Gervin's teams never played in the Finals, Manu should be considered the more important Spur.
.....

Moreover, a concern that Manu is appropriately respected in the history of the Spurs franchise has, likewise, already been resolved -- both "officially" in Monroe's column and unofficially in this thread. Nobody seems to doubt that Manu is rightfully in the top 4 and that at least part of the reason for his placement in that pantheon is his performance in the 2005 playoffs. Nobody disputes that Manu was fantastic during that run. Given those truths, I don't see the point in endlessly rehashing an argument that comes down almost exclusively to a matter of preference. Celebrating what Manu did in 2005 is only part of what makes him one of the greatest Spurs ever; but focusing so much energy on revisiting that argument seems to sell a lot of his other significant accomplishments short.
Ok I see your point. But I was going under the assumption that couple of the posts were bumped cuz of this Sundays update. Besides all sports discussions contain a lot of rehash. It'll come up from time to time. As for his other accomplishments, hopefully we'll be having some accomplishments to discuss come postseason.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is it possible that Gervin may be #2 on this list? Just to throw us off?

And would that be a huge crime?

There's actually been some suggestion in this thread that Ice could actually be #1. I don't know that it's realistic, but I can certainly see that argument.

[FromWayDowntown]

In anticipation of the revelation of #3 tomorrow, does anyone think that either Duncan or Robinson will be #3?

Or is the consensus that the Iceman is #3 and the Twin Towers will be #1 and #2?

[whottt]

In anticipation of the revelation of #3 tomorrow, does anyone think that either Duncan or Robinson will be #3?


Duncan might be...or he might be #1.


Or is the consensus that the Iceman is #3 and the Twin Towers will be #1 and #2?


Probably.

It'll probably be:

1.Duncan
2.Robinson
3.Gervin


I won't really agree with that wholeheartedly, because I don't really think Duncan has done enough to be put ahead of DRob...but a lot of people count finals mvp's as everything, and at the same time it isn't a ridiculous sentiment to rank Duncan #1, he certainly has a legitimate case for it....as do both Gervin and Robinson.


I don't see DRob being lower than #2 in any scenario.

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree with whottt all the way around -- edit: I do think Duncan has earned #1.

But, it turns out that Ice is #3, as expected:

The Top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 3 - George Gervin

George Gervin, 1974-85: When the Spurs entered the NBA in 1976, George Gervin and guard James Silas were the team's undisputed stars, but Gervin gave the team its identity through its first 10 seasons in the league. Known throughout the basketball world, then and now, as "Ice," Gervin led the league in scoring four times, including three consecutive seasons, in 1977-78 (27.2 points per game), 1978-79 (29.6) and 1979-80 (33.1). After finishing second in 1980-81, he regained the scoring title in 1981-82 (32.1).

A unique player with a unique style, Gervin created his own shot in almost any circumstance. Rail-thin, he could run forever without losing a step. His scoring moves were creative and legendary. He was the master of the finger roll, his signature shot.

Gervin appeared in nine NBA All-Star Games and was named MVP of the 1980 game. He still holds the NBA record for points in one quarter (33), scored in the second quarter of the 1977-78 regular-season finale against the New Orleans Jazz, when his 63 points moved him past Denver's David Thompson for that season's scoring title.

Gervin was inducted in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 1996, the only Spur in the Hall. The club retired his No. 44 on March 20, 1998.

Clearly, "Ice" could do a lot more than finger roll.

[timvp]

I don't really think Duncan has done enough to be put ahead of DRob

:rolleyes X 1000

Duncan is the best ever at his position. He retires now, he goes down as a top 5, 6, 7 player of all-time.

Robinson was damn good, but even ultimate, blockhead homers have a tough time putting him in the top 10 ever.

[exstatic]

I won't really agree with that wholeheartedly, because I don't really think Duncan has done enough to be put ahead of DRob...but a lot of people count finals mvp's as everything

It's not just the Finals MVPs. His overall playoff numbers top David's: more points (600) and rebounds (198) in a handful fewer games (T118/D123). Tim is a playoff stud, and his regular season numbers are on track to pass David's as well, although he isn't there yet.

[whottt]

:rolleyes X 1000

Duncan is the best ever at his position. He retires now, he goes down as a top 5, 6, 7 player of all-time.

Robinson was damn good, but even ultimate, blockhead homers have a tough time putting him in the top 10 ever.


Center position>>>>PF position

I just have a hard time finding things Duncan actually does better than Drob did. He's got that bankshot...but he doesn't shoot usually at a great PCT, and he's a bad FT shooter.


DRob better defender...and his scoring is under-rated.


Duncan's playoff numbers are inferior to Drob's regular season numbers too...



Nah...I don't think it's a huge travesty to put Drob over Duncan. In fact I still think it's the right thing to do...even though it probably won't happem.

[Nikos]

It does seem that David Robinson was the superior regular season player. He was simply more impressive statistically in pretty much every aspect of the game. And even by the naked eye David was more athletic and a better defender. But Duncan clearly had a better back to the basket game. For whatever reason Duncan usually played well in the playoffs and Drob didn't. Maybe Drob was unlucky, and had bad teamattes -- but it does seem a little strange that he never really played up to expecations in any of the playoffs before Duncan came along.

Duncan seemed to be the superior playoff performer. But in the regular season, I would say David was the superior player in his prime years vs Tim's prime years.

[exstatic]

Duncan's playoff numbers are inferior to Drob's regular season numbers too...


THAT is what you call working the numbers. How can you even compare those? It makes no sense.

[whottt]

It makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that Drob won an IBM award every year but 2 of his prime....

His regular season numbers were the best in the league...there was no place for them to go put down.



Sorry but Drob's offense is inaccurately described as weak...

He was pretty damn good on offense...at gettiing to the line...and at making those FT's.


Duncan's FT shooting nearly cost us our last title.....it put us in a hole in 03.


His FG% isn't as good as DRob's as it is...prior to this season Duncan had a sub 50% career FG%.


Sorry but the case for putting Duncan ahead of Robinson is based entirely on intangibles and subjective opinion....statistically David was the superior player. Offensively, and defensively. He also played his entire career with the Spurs and made sacrifices Duncan woluld have never made.

Duncan would have been long gone if not for Drob...and he still might be.



Duncan's had one coach his entire career and talented and experienced supporting casts...


And when he hasn't had those...he's gotten his ass kicked worse than Drob ever did( see 2001).




How come 95 playoffs are always used against Drob but the 01 playoffs are never used against Duncan? 01 was a worse ass kicking.

[exstatic]

Duncan's playoff numbers are inferior to Drob's regular season numbers too...
RIF. Apples and oranges, or were you aware that you typed this?

As for 2001? David was there, too.

The one separator to me is this: David never won without Tim. Tim, however, won without David.

[whottt]

As you guys count your rings and pat yourselves on the back for realizing it's all about the chamionships...just remember...

If Drob had been about championships the first thing he would have done was tell this podunk small market cheap team to go fuck itself....

If he's been all about glory he wouldn't have ceded to Duncan...and Duncan likely would have been gone anyway.

[whottt]

RIF. Apples and oranges, or were you aware that you typed this?

As for 2001? David was there, too.

Oh wait...all of a sudden David counts when Duncan loses?



Be glad David was there....if he hadn't been guarding Shaq and holding him to his playoff lows that series would have been even uglier.


Be glad Duncan wasn't having to guard Shaq....because he's never been able to do it.








The one separator to me is this: David never won without Tim. Tim, however, won without David.

Duncan was shooting us out of game 5...Horry saved his ass, just like he did for Shaq and Hakeem...

[Nikos]

It makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that Drob won an IBM award every year but 2 of his prime....

His regular season numbers were the best in the league...there was no place for them to go put down.



Sorry but Drob's offense is inaccurately described as weak...

He was pretty damn good on offense...at gettiing to the line...and at making those FT's.


Duncan's FT shooting nearly cost us our last title.....it put us in a hole in 03.


His FG% isn't as good as DRob's as it is...prior to this season Duncan had a sub 50% career FG%.


Sorry but the case for putting Duncan ahead of Robinson is based entirely on intangibles and subjective opinion....statistically David was the superior player. Offensively, and defensively. He also played his entire career with the Spurs and made sacrifices Duncan woluld have never made.

Duncan would have been long gone if not for Drob...and he still might be.



Duncan's had one coach his entire career and talented and experienced supporting casts...


And when he hasn't had those...he's gotten his ass kicked worse than Drob ever did( see 2001).




How come 95 playoffs are always used against Drob but the 01 playoffs are never used against Duncan? 01 was a worse ass kicking.


Well for one thing David Robinson was actually a part of the 2001 ass receiving, yeah he showed up in one game the Spurs lost and where Duncan played bad -- but they did get swept, and Drob didn't do much himself to change that. Not having Derek Anderson didn't help either.

Keep in mind in 2002 Duncan didn't even really have David Robinson and he did pretty damn good against the champs in that series. Statistically he played like a monster despite having very little offensive help....Antonio Daniels and Malik Rose were the best offensive players he had as support. Duncan still put up numbers that were pretty much better than either Kobe or Shaq.

Duncan more love than Drob not only because he was the best player on all the championship teams but also that he repeatedly exceeded expectations from an individual basketball perspective (at least statistically) in several of his playoff runs. Many of his playoffs were as good or better than his already superstar regular season performances. Now I am not suggestion Duncan was or is perfect, he has had his share of bad performances -- but he has also had performances where he did extremely well in victories as well as defeats.

David in his prime never really exceeded his own expectations, and actually played noticably worse in the regular season than in the playoffs. Call it luck, distort his statistics, but he didn't play well in pretty much any of his playoff prime years. Maybe he did have bad teamattes, played against better competetion than Duncan, etc....But he never once seemed to play at the superstar level he set in the regular season as the unquestioned best player of his team. This is why many will give Duncan the edge.

Personally I don't know how to evaluate someone like Drob. FWDT seems to have the most knowledge of David and why he did not succeed in the playoffs. But he hasn't really mentioned who he feels is better and why -- and how to compare these two guys who had such different supporting casts, and results as leaders of their teams in their respective primes.

To me David was the superior regular season player in his absolute prime (1994-1996). And he was better on defense, and likely better on offense by a noticable margin.

But for some reason Duncan was better in the playoffs.......

[whottt]

The only thing Duncan has that DAvid didn't was Robert Horry...and Mario Elie....and Steve Kerr...


How many rings did those guys win without Duncan? Does that mean they're better?

[Nikos]

The question is why did Duncan seem to play like a beast against the Lakers in 2002 without Horry, Elie or Kerr? When did David play dominant in a series in which his team lost between 1994-96 -- his prime? His teams underachieved in the playoffs, and so did he statistically. Why couldn't he have at least one good series (by his standards) when his team lost a series? If David was good in the regular season why couldn't he perform that way in the playoffs, even when his teamattes weren't playing well or very talented (like Duncan in 2002, maybe even 2003)?

[whottt]

Well for one thing David Robinson was actually a part of the 2001 ass receiving, yeah he showed up in one game the Spurs lost and where Duncan played bad -- but they did get swept, and Drob didn't do much himself to change that. Not having Derek Anderson didn't help either.

Um...you do realize that Duncan was entirely the focal point of the offense by that point right?


David was little more than a garbage man...




Keep in mind in 2002 Duncan didn't even really have David Robinson and he did pretty damn good against the champs in that series.

Keep in mind that in 1995 David Robinson didn't hav Duncan and he did pretty good against the champs in that series.




Statistically he played like a monster despite having very little offensive help....Antonio Daniels and Malik Rose were the best offensive players he had as support. Duncan still put up numbers that were pretty much better than either Kobe or Shaq.

He also had a game with 10 turnovers....





Duncan more love than Drob not only because he was the best player on all the championship teams but also that he repeatedly exceeded expectations from an individual basketball perspective (at least statistically) in several of his playoff runs.

Helps that he has never had to guard the opponents best post player for anything other than spurts...

It's a real bitch to put up numbers when you got 5 fouls.


Duncan's also lost games at the FT line all by himself...he's also had series where he had games of scoing 5 points and still won...series where he's averaged about 15ppg for the series and still won.


DRob's teams could never have won those types of games.





David in his prime never really exceeded his own expectations, and actually played noticably worse in the regular season than in the playoffs. Call it luck, distort his statistics, but he didn't play well in pretty much any of his playoff prime years. Maybe he did have bad teamattes, played against better competetion than Duncan, etc....But he never once seemed to play at the superstar level he set in the regular season as the unquestioned best player of his team. This is why many will give Duncan the edge.

Personally I don't know how to evaluate someone like Drob. FWDT seems to have the most knowledge of David and why he did not succeed in the playoffs. But he hasn't really mentioned who he feels is better and why -- and how to compare these two guys who had such different supporting casts, and results as leaders of their teams in their respective primes.

To me David was the superior regular season player in his absolute prime (1994-1996). And he was better on defense, and likely better on offense by a noticable margin.

But for some reason Duncan was better in the playoffs.......


Um...Duncan got to pass out of the double to guys like Horry, Kerr, Elie and DRob...not to mentioned Parker and Manu.


Drob was getting to pass it to AJ and Vinny...

How'd Duncan do passing to those two? Utah and out...just like Drob.

[whottt]

I'm glad I know how you 3 feel on this subject...

It's nice to know that at least 3 people(TimVP, Exstatic and Nikos) will never bad mouth a Spurs player again....I mean after all those guys don't matter...Duncan is all that matters.

No more bitching about Rasho, or Beno, or any supporting players...because according to your system of ranking...those guys don't matter. Duncan is all that matters, therefore, we should win the title every year and it's his fault if we don't.

Last year...game 7 foul on Dirk? That was Duncan's fault.

Welcome to David Robinson's world...may you handle it as gracefully as he did.

[whottt]

Must be nice to be able to let a player avg 37 points a game against you and still win the series(Amare 05)...that's greatness personified right there.

Drob should have let Hakeem score even more in 95, like Duncan did with Amare in 05...then when might have won...like Duncan did.


And why in the fuck are we paying Manu and Parker so $$ anyway?

FO is stupid...all we need is Duncan.

What was Pop thinking when he brought Bruce in anyway?

Fucking pussy worrying about Kobe dropping 35 a game on us....doesn't he know we have Duncan and that's all we need?

[whottt]

Chauncey Billups = 1 finals MVP

David Robinson = 0

Chauncey > Drob


Come to think of it...

Chauncey > Wilt too...

[exstatic]

Get off the cross, mutherfucker. Someone else needs the wood. If we think Tim is #1 we hate David? I guess in whott-world we do....:rolleyes

Oh, and way to play the Kerr Horry Mario supporting players with rings card when we are clearly talking about lead dogs.

[Warlord23]

Whott, you're making a point that may be valid but is not really relevant to the point of this thread. Robinson was probably the more gifted player compared to Duncan. He was a rare physical specimen to start with, and has better regular season stats. However, the "greatness" of a player in the context of most player comparisons and indeed this top 30 list is not about who is more talented, but whose body of work is more impressive when all is said and done.

At this point in time, Duncan's body of work outshines Robinson's, and he isn't finished yet. He is universally recognized as a top 3 PF of all time, a top 15 player of all time, a 3-time Finals MVP, and ups his game in the playoffs every year. That counts more than Robinson's achievements.

To put this argument in perspective, compare the body of work of Dominique Wilkins and Scottie Pippen. The latter is included in the 50 greatest players of all time, and his body of work is recognized as far superior ro Nique's. Nique was clearly a way better offensive player, and his stats and talent far outstrip Pip's. Pip was a great perimeter defender, but defense is a team concept, and Pippen was fortunate to play in one of the best defensive teams of all time. Moreover, Scottie was a sidekick, whereas Nique shouldered a bigger load. Maybe Nique's teams were not good enough to give him the opportunity to showcase his ability in playoff situations. But people don't hold the fact against Pippen that he played with the GOAT. Fact is, Pippen got to play 6 NBA Finals and got the opportunity to show his stuff on the biggest stage. We'll never know what Nique would have done if he had been MJ's sidekick, but that doesn't count. You can't play "what if" games when comparing a player's body of work to another. Pippen did what he did, Nique never got the chance. Pippen > Nique.

You can't guess what Robinson would have done with Duncan's teams or vice-versa. Duncan got his chance, and showed his stuff. Robinson didn't, and that's his bad luck. But that doesn't give him any sympathy points.

[whottt]

Whott, you're making a point that may be valid but is not really relevant to the point of this thread. Robinson was probably the more gifted player compared to Duncan. He was a rare physical specimen to start with, and has better regular season stats. However, the "greatness" of a player in the context of most player comparisons and indeed this top 30 list is not about who is more talented, but whose body of work is more impressive when all is said and done.

At this point in time, Duncan's body of work outshines Robinson's, and he isn't finished yet. He is universally recognized as a top 3 PF of all time, a top 15 player of all time, a 3-time Finals MVP, and ups his game in the playoffs every year. That counts more than Robinson's achievements.

To put this argument in perspective, compare the body of work of Dominique Wilkins and Scottie Pippen. The latter is included in the 50 greatest players of all time, and his body of work is recognized as far superior ro Nique's. Nique was clearly a way better offensive player, and his stats and talent far outstrip Pip's. Pip was a great perimeter defender, but defense is a team concept, and Pippen was fortunate to play in one of the best defensive teams of all time. Moreover, Scottie was a sidekick, whereas Nique shouldered a bigger load. Maybe Nique's teams were not good enough to give him the opportunity to showcase his ability in playoff situations. But people don't hold the fact against Pippen that he played with the GOAT. Fact is, Pippen got to play 6 NBA Finals and got the opportunity to show his stuff on the biggest stage. We'll never know what Nique would have done if he had been MJ's sidekick, but that doesn't count. You can't play "what if" games when comparing a player's body of work to another. Pippen did what he did, Nique never got the chance. Pippen > Nique.

You can't guess what Robinson would have done with Duncan's teams or vice-versa. Duncan got his chance, and showed his stuff. Robinson didn't, and that's his bad luck. But that doesn't give him any sympathy points.



Whatever....but the fact is there's no objective criteria with a large sample size you can use to rank Duncan over Robinson...

And that's just talking stats, that's not taking into account the Spurs situation during Drob's career....how much he embodied the Spurs and the city of SA during his career.



Objectively...I win. 100 times out of 100 times.

Subjectively...do what you want....

I just reccomend you state it's subjective otherwis I am going to point out the double standard and contradictory arguments you use when subjectively putting Duncan over Robinson by using team achievments in an argument ovr individual accomplishment...and trying to claim you are being objective.




Or to put it another way...you'd rather have AJ and Vinny over Manu and Parker...or you think they are irrelevant.


That says more about you than it does about me....


Be my guest.

[whottt]

By the way...

TimVP
Exstatic
FWDT

Have you guys been introduced to ArgSpursFan yet?

I think ya'll are related....


Manu = 2 titles...1 near finals MVP

Gervin = 0

[v2freak]

You may be overlooking the past a bit. Gervin was unstoppable as a scorer. Put TD in his prime on Gervin's team and they would have combined to become as good as / better than Kobe-Shaq

[whottt]

Get off the cross, mutherfucker. Someone else needs the wood. If we think Tim is #1 we hate David? I guess in whott-world we do....:rolleyes


It's not that you hate David...it's just that the arguments you use are exactly why players are selfish with numbers and who gets all the credit.

The agruments you use exhibit all the insight and knowledge of the Spurs and basketball that you can get in a 5 minute blurb from Greg Simmons on ESPN.


It's a bad argument...and nothing personal, but I am going to expose the contraditory and subjective logic involved...simply because it needs to be.

And because David deserves better.




Oh, and way to play the Kerr Horry Mario supporting players with rings card when we are clearly talking about lead dogs.


Because the supporting player card has more credence than the argument you use...all those players I mentioned won more titles with other teams than they did with the Spurs...

And they they supported 3 guys consistently ranked over DRob(in Horry's case all 3)...while he never had that.


You don't think Horry was the difference in some of his teams titles?