Manu vs Stack ( at his peak )

[silk]

Is Manu a better player now than stackhouse at his peak , when he was the franchise player of the pistons ?

Manu's great but i don't know how he would compare to the young stack, penny's, and finley at his peak. Do you think , as a player , he is superior, or in the same class as them ?

Sometimes, i think it's easy to forget how good the spurs team and their big 3 are, but if you substitute them with other player of an equivalent level , it shows..

Think of Kareem abdul jabbar, spreewell,and iverson of now

P.S; excuse my english

[TheTruth]

Not.......even........close!!!!!!

[Supreme_Being]

I laughed.

[Brutalis]

Hell. No. Sir.

[Brutalis]

Errr, Or Hell yes, wait, cofluzzed

[Sec24Row7]

Rofl....

[ancestron]

Manu > Stack
and not just because of basketball skill.

[silk]

So far you're tellin me that manu is so obviously better than these guys that to ask the question is kind of foolish ?

I didn't defend any answers , that manu is better or that manu is not, it was just a question to remove my ignorance.

[Sec24Row7]

Let me break it down...

Scoring

Manu > Stack

Rebounding...

Manu > Stack

Passing?

Manu > Stack

Human Being?

Manu > Stack

Punk Ass Bitch?

Manu < Stack

[silk]

Okay , so you don't think that at his peak, stack was a more consistent scorer , or more powerful with the rebounds , i don't know he seemed a little more athletic and stronger, but i didn't watched many of his games back then...


Obviously i think Stack is a punk ass and Manu is a baketball god, just food for thought

[twincam]

Stackhouse was never known for being consistent. He had his moments, but never been near an equal to Manu, sorry.

[daslicer]

Stack in his prime was a better scorer but nothing else. Other then scoring all around he sucked in every department, passing, rebounding, defense. Essentially he was just a 1 man scoring machine on all the teams he was on.

[silk]

You don't have to be sorry , once more, i just ask questions to increase my "knowledge", I'm not defending positions

[hater]

Stackhouse used to be a bad ass on the court. More athletic, faster and stronger than Manu ever was.

BUT when it comes to basketball IQ, Manu 50000000000x better than Stack ever was.

manu can lead a team, Stackhouse can't even lead a group of cavemen. he is and always was as dumb as they come

[oski1000]

How many rings has Stack?? :oink :oink

[JamStone]

Problem with answering this question is that we haven't seen Manu have to carry his team in the NBA as the clear cut no. 1 option all the time. I would heavily lean towards Manu if I had to answer quickly. But, thinking of it deeper, could Manu carry a team for 82 regular season games and deep into the playoffs without the help of Tim and Tony and a great coach like Pop. For all his faults, Stack led the Pistons to a 50 win season (albeit in the still very weak East) in 2001-02 being really the only good offensive option on a team whose starting line-up included Ben Wallace, Chucky Atkins, Cliff Robinson, and Michael Curry.

I truly believe Manu is the better individual talent. And, everyone saw how Manu carried his Argentine team to gold. But, I'm not completely convinced that Manu could carry an NBA team by himself. If you put Manu (in his prime) on that 2001-02 Detroit Pistons team, is that Pistons team better? Does it go farther in the playoffs?

It's a tough question to answer. As an individual talent, I'd take Manu easily. As a franchise player who has to carry a team offensively for 82 games and then have even more pressure in the playoffs to score with three non-scorers in the starting line-up, I can't really say Manu would have been much more effective than Stack was.

[Sec24Row7]

I doubt Manu could have done well on the Intelligence vacuum that was that Piston's team.

When they got Billups, Hamilton, and Prince their Bball IQ went up to the top of the class.

Love Sheed as a player to death... but the man needs a head on his shoulders. If he had Timmy's Bball IQ and drive... we wouldn't be having Tim-KG arguments... we would be having Sheed-Timmy arguments... and sheed might win them.

B. Wallace... forget about it...

[hater]

Problem with answering this question is that we haven't seen Manu have to carry his team in the NBA as the clear cut no. 1 option all the time. I would heavily lean towards Manu if I had to answer quickly. But, thinking of it deeper, could Manu carry a team for 82 regular season games and deep into the playoffs without the help of Tim and Tony and a great coach like Pop. For all his faults, Stack led the Pistons to a 50 win season (albeit in the still very weak East) in 2001-02 being really the only good offensive option on a team whose starting line-up included Ben Wallace, Chucky Atkins, Cliff Robinson, and Michael Curry.

I truly believe Manu is the better individual talent. And, everyone saw how Manu carried his Argentine team to gold. But, I'm not completely convinced that Manu could carry an NBA team by himself. If you put Manu (in his prime) on that 2001-02 Detroit Pistons team, is that Pistons team better? Does it go farther in the playoffs?

It's a tough question to answer. As an individual talent, I'd take Manu easily. As a franchise player who has to carry a team offensively for 82 games and then have even more pressure in the playoffs to score with three non-scorers in the starting line-up, I can't really say Manu would have been much more effective than Stack was.

good point but I got a better question, would Spurs have won the last 2 titles if we had replaced Manu with Stackhouse? I don't think so

[JamStone]

good point but I got a better question, would Spurs have won the last 2 titles if we had replaced Manu with Stackhouse? I don't think so


Maybe one of them. Probably not in 2005. Stack would do his share of damage offensively working as a third option next to Duncan and Parker. Don't know if he would have the same or even similar impact. But, the Spurs would likely still be a very good team. But, very unlikely the best team.

Also a tough question. I don't know if either question really answers which is the better player. But, I was just giving a counter point. I would take Manu over Stack (even in his prime) 10 times out of 10. But, like with most things, really depends on a bunch of different factors, including what kind of team each is on, the teammates, coaching, the style of offense, and what would be required from a mental standpoint. Manu is mentally tougher, but could his body hold up for 82 games probably playing 35 mpg as the number 1 scoring option?

[2centsworth]

Give Manu players like Fabs, Scola, Ben Wallace, and another scorer and he gets you to the playoffs in the east.

[JamStone]

Give Manu players like Fabs, Scola, Ben Wallace, and another scorer and he gets you to the playoffs in the east.

In other words, Manu could lead a bad team to about a 35-47 record or maybe worse?

Because that record would probably be enough to get into the playoffs in the east.

[hater]

the coyote could lead a team to the playoffs in the east

[2centsworth]

In other words, Manu could lead a bad team to about a 35-47 record or maybe worse?

Because that record would probably be enough to get into the playoffs in the east.
He would get them to 40-45 wins and then be hell in the playoffs.

[MoSpur]

the coyote could lead a team to the playoffs in the east


:lmao

[Brutalis]

Let me break it down...

Scoring

Manu > Stack

Rebounding...

Manu > Stack

Passing?

Manu > Stack

Human Being?

Manu > Stack

Punk Ass Bitch?

Manu < Stack

roffle le mayo :lol

[Spurminator]

Problem with answering this question is that we haven't seen Manu have to carry his team in the NBA as the clear cut no. 1 option all the time. I would heavily lean towards Manu if I had to answer quickly. But, thinking of it deeper, could Manu carry a team for 82 regular season games and deep into the playoffs without the help of Tim and Tony and a great coach like Pop. For all his faults, Stack led the Pistons to a 50 win season (albeit in the still very weak East) in 2001-02 being really the only good offensive option on a team whose starting line-up included Ben Wallace, Chucky Atkins, Cliff Robinson, and Michael Curry.

I truly believe Manu is the better individual talent. And, everyone saw how Manu carried his Argentine team to gold. But, I'm not completely convinced that Manu could carry an NBA team by himself. If you put Manu (in his prime) on that 2001-02 Detroit Pistons team, is that Pistons team better? Does it go farther in the playoffs?

It's a tough question to answer. As an individual talent, I'd take Manu easily. As a franchise player who has to carry a team offensively for 82 games and then have even more pressure in the playoffs to score with three non-scorers in the starting line-up, I can't really say Manu would have been much more effective than Stack was.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2002.html

That team was confounding. How does a team with Stack, Ben Wallace, Cliff Robinson, Jon Barry, Corliss Williamson and Chucky Atkins win 50 games?

If you go by numbers, Stackhouse didn't exactly have a great offensive season that year. 21 ppg on 39.7% shooting? And the Pistons were middle-of-the-pack defensively, albeit with Ben Wallace in his prime.

I think Manu is pretty far and away the better player, and I think a 2005 Manu would have been an upgrade to a 2002 Stack... but it's hard to say whether that team would have been better than Manu, because there are so many other intangible factors to a team like that having such success. Those guys must have had insanely good chemistry.

[michaelwcho]

[QUOTE=JamStone]Maybe one of them. Probably not in 2005. Stack would do his share of damage offensively working as a third option next to Duncan and Parker. Don't know if he would have the same or even similar impact. But, the Spurs would likely still be a very good team. But, very unlikely the best team.

QUOTE]


Please note that according to the Wages of Wins website, a statistically-based study, Jerry Stackhouse is a below average player. His scoring is offset by other weakness such as FG%, turnovers, fouls, rebounding.

According to this analysis, this question is ridiculous, and no more relevent than who is better: Deron Williams or Beno Udrih?

[himat]

Stackhouse used to be a bad ass on the court. More athletic, faster and stronger than Manu ever was.

BUT when it comes to basketball IQ, Manu 50000000000x better than Stack ever was.

manu can lead a team, Stackhouse can't even lead a group of cavemen. he is and always was as dumb as they come


:toast I agree with your post for once.

[urunobili]

:toast I agree with your post for once.
hey hater... someone came in a good mood today or maybe the :smokin was good to keep him cool for a while

[The Franchise]

Is Manu a better player now than stackhouse at his peak , when he was the franchise player of the pistons ?

Manu's great but i don't know how he would compare to the young stack, penny's, and finley at his peak. Do you think , as a player , he is superior, or in the same class as them ?

Sometimes, i think it's easy to forget how good the spurs team and their big 3 are, but if you substitute them with other player of an equivalent level , it shows..

Think of Kareem abdul jabbar, spreewell,and iverson of now

P.S; excuse my english
Penny at his peak would piss on all three of them, but between Stack, Finley and Manu no question Manu.

[JamStone]

[QUOTE=JamStone]Maybe one of them. Probably not in 2005. Stack would do his share of damage offensively working as a third option next to Duncan and Parker. Don't know if he would have the same or even similar impact. But, the Spurs would likely still be a very good team. But, very unlikely the best team.

QUOTE]


Please note that according to the Wages of Wins website, a statistically-based study, Jerry Stackhouse is a below average player. His scoring is offset by other weakness such as FG%, turnovers, fouls, rebounding.

According to this analysis, this question is ridiculous, and no more relevent than who is better: Deron Williams or Beno Udrih?

Note taken. Now please note that statistically based studies do not completely determine individual effectiveness or determine team success based on individual stats.

I am not positing that 2001-02 Stack is better than 2004-05 Manu. I am merely adding perspective that it's not an absolute that Manu is clearly better, at least as it pertains to being a franchise player, or that he could have done something Stack did with the 2001-02 Pistons.

[K-State Spur]

Stack in his prime was a better scorer but nothing else. Other then scoring all around he sucked in every department, passing, rebounding, defense. Essentially he was just a 1 man scoring machine on all the teams he was on.

stack in his prime took WAY too many shots - and his shot selection sucked.

he was not a better scorer, he just gave himself so many opportunities that it appeared that way.

for comparison, stackhouse has only shot *over* 42.8% once in his entire career. manu has only shot *under* 43.8% once in his entire career.

[Galileo]

If I wanted to win basketball games, I'll take Manu > Stack

This is not close.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

stack has peaked? who knew

[timvp]

Stackhouse was horrible for much of his career. Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton was one of the best trades I've ever seen. Dumars deserves to go to the Hall of Fame as a GM for that trade alone. Still don't know WTF MJ and the Wizards were thinking (other than the obvious UNC ties).

But really, in terms of a real basketball player, I think Stackhouse peaked on the Mavs. He's not as much of a chucker these days and actually plays defense. I'd say the best I've ever seen Stackhouse was in 2006.

[DAF86]

what most people are forgeting is that before coming to the NBA manu has lead teams to success through all his life in leagues that lasts 11 months and that are way more physical (in argentina you have to get hit on the balls to get a foul). i know that the NBA is the best league in the world but the difference between the NBA and europe basketball is shorter than you think (most of the NBA teams wouldn't win the euroleague).
so what i'm trying to say is that to me is clear that manu is capable of leading a Nba team to success and depending on the role players even to a champoinship (imagine a team of calderon, nocioni, scola, rasheed wallace and manu or the pistons team with manu instead of rip).
manu makes teammates better he doesn't need to take 20 shots per game to lead a team.

[GrandeDavid]

Manu better. Much better.

[DAF86]

Manu better. Much better.

yep

[jacobdrj]

This is actually a good comparison... Stack was an accomplished scorer... and not just from the 3 point line... he drove to the lane every time, it seemed, and made his free-throws.

In 2002, he even sacrificed his numbers for the benefit of the team. He played defense, passed the ball more, and generally did what he was asked.

The flashing red warning light went off, however, when we saw what he did in the playoffs. He was either SO used to giving up the ball that he was too rusty to take over when we needed him against Boston, or he was just the epitome of an unclutch player. I think we now know, the guy just can't make a clutch play. Not from the free throw line, and not from the floor. His basketball IQ seems to evaporate once crunch time hits. He makes everyone around him worse in the last 2 minutes of a game. I have rarely seen anything like it.

Manu also drives to the lane, and does pretty much anything he is told. I don't think he is as skilled as Stack, but the difference is minimal. I also think he is less injury prone than Stack. However, Manu gets better as the game gets tighter. He makes good decisions.

At any point in their careers, I would take Manu over Stack.

[Nikos]

Tough to say, but Stack had a good run for his 01 and 02 seasons. That was his true prime -- his PER was solid, and he was scoring at an astounding volume, especially in 2001. He still played at a high level in 2002, but probably no better than Manu could have played for that team. But I would say Stack was the more talented scorer for those two combined seasons at least as a #1 guy. But Manu was the more well rounded player and proved he could be a #2-3 option a title team (albeit led by Duncan).

I'd take Manu as a supporting gun, but Stack was no slouch in his prime -- even though his %'s sucked and he was basically considered a ball hog on a bad team. I can't really imagine ever scoring 30ppg even on a bad team not because he is unselfish but because it would be hard for him to put up that many shots and still play an all around floor game, and defense the way he plays it.

It does count for something to be able to score at a high level, even if the percentages are bad -- but I am not sure how Stack would fit on the Spurs if he was Duncan's sidekick.

I guess Stack would get the nod as a #1 man on a mediocre team, but Manu gets the nod as a sidekick, because both have proven they can likely provide their own benefits to their respective teams.

[Supreme_Being]

No contest at all, matey.

[JamStone]

Nikos, very fair analysis. I agree with much of it. I already said I'd take Manu 10 times out of 10, but I've merely mentioned that it might be closer than some might think initially.

In fairness to Stack in terms of his shooting percentages, at least as they pertain to his Detroit years, he was put in an awfully difficult position as a scorer with many of those teams. Now, he's never really had a great shooting percentage even on other teams, so it's not only that, but on the last two Pistons teams he was on, the offense was basically him getting isolations and drives to the basket. But, also, even when doubled and he passed it out, he would often have to get the ball back from someone like Ben Wallace or Michael Curry with the shot clock winding down and shoot a bail out jump shot.

It doesn't really explain his shooting percentages on other teams, but I think in at least those two seasons, that played a role on his low shooting numbers.

[ChuckD]

Manu isn't a guy you can build an NBA team around.

Stack isn't a guy you can give the ball to late in the game for a win.

For the Spurs purposes: Manu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stack

[DAF86]

Manu isn't a guy you can build an NBA team around.

Stack isn't a guy you can give the ball to late in the game for a win.

For the Spurs purposes: Manu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stack

the teams that have built around manu didn't do so bad you know?

[kuato]

the teams that have built around manu didn't do so bad you know? ----> It is incredible how some people cant see at all how good Manu is, do he need to win another Olympic game to prove that ?
:dramaquee

[Manudona]

----> It is incredible how some people cant see at all how good Manu is, do he need to win another Olympic game to prove that ?
:dramaquee


I hope is more than an Olympic game, at least an Olympic medal would be nice :p:

[mystargtr34]

Penny >>> Finley = Manu > Stack

Talking about respective primes here.

[ChuckD]

the teams that have built around manu didn't do so bad you know?
NBA, as in 48 minute games, and 82 of them. He doesn't have the durability to play 38-39 minutes per game at his energy level, and you can't build around anything less.

[m33p0]

i've seen stackhouse in his prime. he made my eyes water when he declared that he will be next great tar heel and this was when michael jordan wasn't done winning championships. needless to say, jordan made him look like a fool in their first meeting. closest would be penny hardaway before all the foot problems. penny sure could match manu's intensity and habitual embarassing of centers. penny also had the knack of creating something out of nothing with a pretty pass.

[michaelwcho]

I remember when Stack came out, he was putting up huge numbers. He said the thing that surpised him the most about the NBA was how easy it was! I also remember his rookie season, Mutumbo blocked like 5 dunk attempts in one game, saying "Steakhouse has to realize who's in the game when he plays". I've called him Steakhouse ever since.

Now if Steakhouse has had a bad shooting % his whole career, it's not sensible to blame it on his teammates for two of those years. It just shows that his % is not even related to his teammates.

My theory is that he is a wonderful athletic specimen, especially outstanding in his incredible strength. If you are not only more athletic, but also significantly stronger than your peers, getting your shot off will not be an issue.

However, the mental consistency has never been there. That's not really a knock on him...it's a rare commodity. But a low FG% is simply unacceptable for a scorer, in my opinion, especially if it's not offset by other skills.

In conclusion, Manu is a far superior player to Stack in almost every category. But I'd bet Stack could kick his a$#.

[Manudona]

i've seen stackhouse in his prime. he made my eyes water when he declared that he will be next great tar heel and this was when michael jordan wasn't done winning championships. needless to say, jordan made him look like a fool in their first meeting. closest would be penny hardaway before all the foot problems. penny sure could match manu's intensity and habitual embarassing of centers. penny also had the knack of creating something out of nothing with a pretty pass.

gUMHZbvnMAA

[Medvedenko]

Yeah I saw that game back in the day....look at the 3 line it's a little closer and I believe this was the season they moved it closer.

[DAF86]

hey ChuckD this is my response to your last post.

what most people are forgeting is that before coming to the NBA manu has lead teams to success through all his life in leagues that lasts 11 months and that are way more physical (in argentina you have to get hit on the balls to get a foul). i know that the NBA is the best league in the world but the difference between the NBA and europe basketball is shorter than you think (most of the NBA teams wouldn't win the euroleague).
so what i'm trying to say is that to me is clear that manu is capable of leading a Nba team to success and depending on the role players even to a champoinship (imagine a team of calderon, nocioni, scola, rasheed wallace and manu or the pistons team with manu instead of rip).
manu makes teammates better he doesn't need to take 20 shots per game or play 40 minutes a game to lead a team.

[DAF86]

NBA, as in 48 minute games, and 82 of them. He doesn't have the durability to play 38-39 minutes per game at his energy level, and you can't build around anything less.

Tim Duncan's minutes per game: 34.6.

you can't say san antonio isn't build around him.

[himat]

Stack at his peak is the better player to build around if you want him to be the star.

Ginobili is the better sidekick as someone mentioned before.

I cannot see Ginobili carrying a team all the way through the regular season into the playoffs like Stackhouse did, but I cannot see Stackhouse having the success Ginobili has had with Tim Duncan.

[DAF86]

Stack at his peak is the better player to build around if you want him to be the star.

Ginobili is the better sidekick as someone mentioned before.

I cannot see Ginobili carrying a team all the way through the regular season into the playoffs like Stackhouse did, but I cannot see Stackhouse having the success Ginobili has had with Tim Duncan.

when did stackhouse carried a team in the playoffs?... manu has carried teams to championships through all his life at all levels. stop with this comparison it's an insult to manu's greatness. like it or not the guy is a winner and future hall of famer. stackhouse is a choker that has yet to average 40% from the field in a season.

[DAF86]

hey himat you have nothing more to say? i was just warming up. you're becoming one of my favorites on this forum to discuss 'bout BB. :lol

[himat]

hey himat you have nothing more to say? i was just warming up. you're becoming one of my favorites on this forum to discuss 'bout BB. :lol

Oh I am not done. I just never re-looked at this thread.
:)

I did say I could not see Stack being as successful with Tim Duncan as Manu has been...even in his prime.

Stack did carry that Pistons team to the playoffs though. Even though Manu is good for some reason I cannot see him doing that. I am too lazy to dig up the roster, but Stack carried a few teams.

[DAF86]

let me ask you this would you rather have stack at his peak or manu at his peak playing right now for the pistons instead of rip?

[himat]

let me ask you this would you rather have stack at his peak or manu at his peak playing right now for the pistons instead of rip?

Manu because the Pistons, along with the Spurs, are going after a championship. As I posted above, Manu is a better sidekick and he would mesh better with Chauncey, Tay, Sheed and co. than Stack would.

Overall Manu is better, but you can't just say he is better at everything.

[himat]

hey himat you have nothing more to say? i was just warming up. you're becoming one of my favorites on this forum to discuss 'bout BB. :lol

Where are you know?
:)

[DAF86]

Overall Manu is better, but you can't just say he is better at everything.

at everything not but at 3pt shooting, mid range jumpers, attacking the rim, BB IQ, defense, stealing, blocking, rebounding, clutch, passing, making teammates better, floping, being a leader and winning yes. :lol
joking aside i really think you can build around manu. actually a lot of teams have done this around the world and all of them have championships to prove how good of a franchise player manu can be.

[himat]

Okay, that makes sense.

As a GM though. If I had a bad team and was just hoping to make the playoffs I would rather have Stack because I actually have seen him carry a team to the playoffs.

Same thing goes for Manu except with a championship. I'd go after him instead of Stack because we've seen him do very well next to Duncan.

I understand the whole Olympic thing though.

[DAF86]

Okay, that makes sense.

As a GM though. If I had a bad team and was just hoping to make the playoffs I would rather have Stack because I actually have seen him carry a team to the playoffs.

Same thing goes for Manu except with a championship. I'd go after him instead of Stack because we've seen him do very well next to Duncan.

I understand the whole Olympic thing though.

fair enough. man it's nice to argue about basketball without having to insult anyone or be insulted :toast

[himat]

fair enough. man it's nice to argue about basketball without having to insult anyone or be insulted :toast

Right back at ya.

[jacobdrj]

let me ask you this would you rather have stack at his peak or manu at his peak playing right now for the pistons instead of rip?
Stack coming off the bench?
:lol

[sassystriker]

It was said that Manu was the one who led his team to back to back championships during his Kinder Bologna days.