Manu ranked #61 All-Time NBA by ESPN

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...-nbarank-61-70

Quote:

---

Position
Shooting guard
Teams
San Antonio Spurs (2002-present)
Honors
Two-time All-Star, two-time All-NBA selection, Sixth Man of the Year (2007-08)
Championships
4 (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
Career stats
14.2 PPG, 4.0 APG, 1.4 SPG, .450 FG%
Did you know?
Ginobili is part of the winningest trio (alongside Tim Duncan and Tony Parker) in NBA history. They passed the mark previously held by Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. -- ESPN Stats & Info

---

Ahead of T-Mac, Rodman, C-Webb, Dwight Howard, Vince Carter or Artis Gilmore...

Not sure where Parker will end up. Duncan surely top 10, I expect Jordan at #1, are they going to dare put Duncan #2?

I saw this earlier. Definitely fucking stupid. :lmao

Smdh..any list with Kevin love over shawn kemp is retarded.

Kevin love and Marc Gasol over Kawhi :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Smdh..any list with Kevin love over shawn kemp is retarded.

Kevin love and Marc Gasol over Kawhi :lmao

---

I saw that. I was expecting Kawhi somewhere around here but nope. :lmao

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

This list is the kevin love of top 100 lists. :lmao

Quote:

---

with voting based on both peak performance and career value

---

Career value. That's why gino is low. Also I'm not sure why y'all assume Parker is making the list at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

---

Parker played against elite compition almost every game, the golden era of point guards.... Manu played against second units tbh.

I got Parker over Manu, the numbers are there. Unless you pick Parker's weakness which is EFG% since he was never an elite 3pt shooter.

^ Manu played in a golden era of SGs, tbh... Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, prime Joe Johnson, etc... he was a starter for a good while and always closed games against those guys...

That position has really dropped in quality lately, with Harden basically the only stand out...

It's fine people might rank TP over Manu, tbh, it's an opinion and TP certainly had the longer NBA career... but they both have played long enough against very elite competition (and won).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

^ Manu played in a golden era of SGs, tbh... Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, prime Joe Johnson, etc... he was a starter for a good while and always closed games against those guys...

That position has really dropped in quality lately, with Harden basically the only stand out...

It's fine people might rank TP over Manu, tbh, it's an opinion and TP certainly had the longer NBA career... but they both have played long enough against very elite competition (and won).

---

You can go with either, but to call it ridiculous to rank Parker above Manu is stupid.

oh again a manu tp thread.... :rolleyes this board is never tired of the same old shit tbh


:lol I love dat SF86 (the fuck is he tbh ?) with the "I hate to start a war" but you know wht I'm gonna do it nonetheless... here no subtle "this is ridiculous" and "it's not even close"



For the rest, what ElNono said... more or less :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

---

however there's also:
2 turnovers per game in only 26 minutes per game.
fragile, I think the only times he averaged 30 minutes a game he got injured around playoff time.
and obviously his stats were inflated by coming off the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht

Parker played against elite compition almost every game, the golden era of point guards.... Manu played against second units tbh.

I got Parker over Manu, the numbers are there. Unless you pick Parker's weakness which is EFG% since he was never an elite 3pt shooter.

---

Are we supposed to act like Manu wasn't playing a lot of minutes with the starters as well + always in the game during crunch time against opposing teams' best lineups?

Parker's main argument comes from the simple fact he played much more than Manu did...but even in Manu's limited playing time, he managed to have more impact on games than Parker did.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to act like Parker isn't a great player. It really has more to do with how highly I view Manu. I don't think people realize just how amazing he's been throughout his career due to his per game numbers not being as gaudy as other guys' numbers.

Doubt we'll see many people at his position that can match his accomplishments. Winning does matter! :flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

oh again a manu tp thread.... :rolleyes this board is never tired of the same old shit tbh


:lol I love dat SF86 (the fuck is he tbh ?) with the "I hate to start a war" but you know wht I'm gonna do it nonetheless... here no subtle "this is ridiculous" and "it's not even close"



For the rest, what ElNono said... more or less :lol

---

Who gives a shit? I come onto this forum to discuss Spurs' basketball :lol If you're tired of the same discussions then that's fine but don't get so defensive when others want to discuss it.

When I say "I don't want to start a player fan war", I'm referring to the stupid troll arguments where people end up talking about irrelevant shit ("Parker is only good at fucking his teammates' wives tbh"). I'm perfectly fine with starting a reasonable debate about Parker vs. Manu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

oh again a manu tp thread.... :rolleyes this board is never tired of the same old shit tbh

---

Anyone notice how well Scola is playing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Are we supposed to act like Manu wasn't playing a lot of minutes with the starters as well + always in the game during crunch time against opposing teams' best lineups?

Parker's main argument comes from the simple fact he played much more than Manu did...but even in Manu's limited playing time, he managed to have more impact on games than Parker did.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to act like Parker isn't a great player. It really has more to do with how highly I view Manu. I don't think people realize just how amazing he's been throughout his career due to his per game numbers not being as gaudy as other guys' numbers.

---

Pop values him pretty highly also. He used him as his closer a lot in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

oh again a manu tp thread.... :rolleyes this board is never tired of the same old shit tbh


:lol I love dat SF86 (the fuck is he tbh ?) with the "I hate to start a war" but you know wht I'm gonna do it nonetheless... here no subtle "this is ridiculous" and "it's not even close"



For the rest, what ElNono said... more or less :lol

---

manu is better tho

Manu's greatest accomplishment for me was defeating Tim Duncan at the peak of his power in the Olympics.

But Parker's FMVP, fair or not, may push him above Manu on the ranking.

Would you really take either over peak TMac/Vince Carter/Dwight Howard? Probably not, but looking at their overall career, they have accomplished way more.

It is extremely extremely hard to rank players from 20-100, ESPN is doing as good a job as any IMO, and this is the highest profile top list since NBA's own top 50, so expect this to be the gold standard for a while.

To many "know nothings" think the quality of a basketball player depends heaving on their points per game. But that doesn't tell you everything and certainly someone with scoring ability doesn't ensure that his team will win. Manu is an all-time great event though he may not have gaudy point per game stats. He's a tremendous all-around player, both offense and defense and passing. It's rare to find a player with his entire skill set. Usually, you need three players to spell what he does.

I wish ESPN would compile rankings for alltime international basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

^ Manu played in a golden era of SGs, tbh... Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, prime Joe Johnson, etc... he was a starter for a good while and always closed games against those guys...

That position has really dropped in quality lately, with Harden basically the only stand out...

It's fine people might rank TP over Manu, tbh, it's an opinion and TP certainly had the longer NBA career... but they both have played long enough against very elite competition (and won).

---

Pretty much this. I prefer Manu, but respect people who choose Tony. Both great players, both winners and both in silver & black.

For any given minute on the court, I'd take Manu.

For a season or career? Much harder to say given how many more minutes Tony contributes at a high level.

Tony was a borderline MVP candidate for 2-3 years and Finals MVP, both of which are a bit above what Manu achieved in those areas. Manu is the ultimate winner at every level, and I prefer his game a bit more on the court.

No shame in picking either. I have them very close all-time.

Tim? He should be at least in the 3-6 range. I have him around 5, but we'll see what ESPN does. The only two I put him behind solidly are Kareem and MJ. Magic, Wilt, and Russell are the other candidates I think should be considered his peers, and then it comes down to preference. After that there's a drop off to the Birds, Shaqs, Kobes, Hakeems, Lebrons, and Big Os of the world.

I know I know, Olympics don't count but what he and the boys did in 2004 may never be seen again. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by houston spurs fan

I know I know, Olympics don't count but what he and the boys did in 2004 may never be seen again. Ever.

---

This. Manu became a lock for the hall of fame that Olympics. HOF's International committee was never going to forget that.

Manu should get a 5 slot bump for this image alone.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/549...x2-700x467.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

Anyone notice how well Scola is playing?

---

I was hugely disappointed when we sent him to Houston. I was disappointed that we didn't keep him, and the disappointment was compounded by the fact that we really just gave the guy away for a bag of peanuts. Every time I see him play, I just shake my head and wonder what might have been. He is the only player that passed through our hands that I really regret not keeping. I know the numbers made it extremely difficult, but he would have been a great Spur. Definitely more rings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

Anyone notice how well Scola is playing?

---

Scola thread!:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

This. Manu became a lock for the hall of fame that Olympics. HOF's International committee was never going to forget that.

---

:bobo Hell yeah!

Based on career accomplishments, Duncan is #3 all time, tied with Magic, behind Jordan and Jabbar.

The problem with all of the ESPN rankings, is they have their entire basketball department voting, so you've got all sorts of old school and/or biased fools involved and inevitably, it spits out a ton of randomness because of the difference the way they analyze and view most players. For instance, an old school type, like Adande, probably rated Ginobili far lower than a new school type, like Pelton.

^^yep..

Manu is an advanced stats monster, and he may have actually been the first NBA player that stood out when the metrics began gaining prominence, as most mainstream people weren't putting him on the same level as the Paul Pierces, Vince Carters and Ray Allens, tbh..

Rankings are fun but ultimately pointless for several reasons. First of all it is inherently impossible to compare players from different generations. The game has evolved, the rules gave changed. Plus, unless you're really old you didn't see the players from the past do you're only going on stats and reputation, both of which are flawed.

Another big problem is distinguishing "career" and "peak" value. The career value continues to grow as a player accomplishes more and more, whereas peak value is determined by the best 2-3 year stretch of a player's career. This us illustrated in the perpetual Parker/Manu debate. I should sum it up by giving Parker the advantage for career value, the total sum of his value. But at the sane time most of us would agree that Manu at his best was more dominant.

This also comes into play when evaluating Duncan. His career value continues to climb, all the way to where now he top 5 maybe even top 3. His "peak" value however remains the same based on his 2002-2003 period.

Players with higher career than peak value IMO- Karl Malone, Kareem, Duncan,
Players with higher peak than career value- Dwyane Wade, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq

Jordan is my #1 in peak and career.
The baseball writer Bill James came up with this idea and always used it in his rankings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

oh again a manu tp thread.... :rolleyes this board is never tired of the same old shit tbh


:lol I love dat SF86 (the fuck is he tbh ?) with the "I hate to start a war" but you know wht I'm gonna do it nonetheless... here no subtle "this is ridiculous" and "it's not even close"



For the rest, what ElNono said... more or less :lol

---

If you don't like the thread then stay off it! WOW! How stupid are you???

I love these lists.

At #92 is Nate Thurmond as a power forward. Nice to see him get some recognition, he deserves it.

But Nate Thurmond was NOT a power forward -- he was a center. :rolleyes

Nobody alive back then (such as me) could have made such a mistake.

The rest of the NBA world knows Parker > manu . This should not come as a shock if you follow the Spurs outside of this forum.


either way, they are both all time great Spurs and that's all that matters.

I also agree that manus peak was better than Parkers..... It was just very short. Parker was an elite player much longer.

It would've been interesting to see what Manu could've done if he wasn't stuck being a bench player behind Tim and Tony all these years. Thank goodness Manu was ok with it and not ready to walk away to be a starter elsewhere.

I think the issue has always been that he couldn't handle starter minutes. That's why they used him as a 6th man. As several have pointed out, he often closed out games with the starters. So the coming off the bench thing was to limit his minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeledl

I also agree that manus peak was better than Parkers..... It was just very short. Parker was an elite player much longer.

---

To me this ends the endless Manu/Parker debate. Parker higher in career value, Manu in peak value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

---

I like Manu far more than I like Parker, but three times as many all star appearances, twice as many all-NBA selections, 5000 more points, 2500 more assists and a finals MVP says you're wrong.

EDIT: From a ranking perspective. If I were starting a team, I'd probably put Manu on it without a second thought. Not so sure Parker's on my team.

It shouldn't be all that close.

Manu beats Tony in all meaningful categories and once silly things such as per game stats and all star appearances go out of favor like batting avg or RBIs in baseball a player like Manu will shoot up on lists such as these and rightfully take his place among the all time greats.

Whether it was more minutes or less minutes the facts remain that Manu contributed more to his team winning than Parker (and many many others who played more minutes).

He clearly has better career defensive rating, offensive rating, RAPM, defensive plus minus, offensive plus minus, VORP, Win Shares per 48, True shooting percentage and of course also wins the PER though that's less important here.

In the playoffs the picture is even clearer and across the board his impact dwarfs Tony's contributions including regular Win Shares (not just per 48 like regular season) overwhelmingly with 19.3 vs Tony's 12.7

Both are among the greatest Spurs ever but it's a little bit frustrating that much of the mainstream whether the reason is not looking closer at eye-test-level where I'll claim that if you really pay attention you can see this picture or at the best stats available, still sell Manu and his greatness way way short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouth is Bleeding

It shouldn't be all that close.

Manu beats Tony in all meaningful categories and once silly things such as per game stats and all star appearances go out of favor like batting avg or RBIs in baseball a player like Manu will shoot up on lists such as these and rightfully take his place among the all time greats.

Whether it was more minutes or less minutes the facts remain that Manu contributed more to his team winning than Parker (and many many others who played more minutes).

He clearly has better career defensive rating, offensive rating, RAPM, defensive plus minus, offensive plus minus, VORP, Win Shares per 48, True shooting percentage and of course also wins the PER though that's less important here.

In the playoffs the picture is even clearer and across the board his impact dwarfs Tony's contributions including regular Win Shares (not just per 48 like regular season) overwhelmingly with 19.3 vs Tony's 12.7

Both are among the greatest Spurs ever but it's a little bit frustrating that much mainstream still sells Manu way way short.

---

well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capster

If you don't like the thread then stay off it! WOW! How stupid are you???

---

:lol who the fuck are you ? Go back to your cave to suck the juicy dicks you like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

manu is better tho

---

Oh ok thanks philo... I'm convinced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

Oh ok thanks philo... I'm convinced

---

:bobo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Who gives a shit? I come onto this forum to discuss Spurs' basketball :lol If you're tired of the same discussions then that's fine but don't get so defensive when others want to discuss it.

When I say "I don't want to start a player fan war", I'm referring to the stupid troll arguments where people end up talking about irrelevant shit ("Parker is only good at fucking his teammates' wives tbh"). I'm perfectly fine with starting a reasonable debate about Parker vs. Manu.

---

Sure buddy a Parker vs Manu debate has never been done before... You must have some revolutionary stuff to bring on the table...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

:bobo

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouth is Bleeding

It shouldn't be all that close.

Manu beats Tony in all meaningful categories and once silly things such as per game stats and all star appearances go out of favor like batting avg or RBIs in baseball a player like Manu will shoot up on lists such as these and rightfully take his place among the all time greats.

Whether it was more minutes or less minutes the facts remain that Manu contributed more to his team winning than Parker (and many many others who played more minutes).

He clearly has better career defensive rating, offensive rating, RAPM, defensive plus minus, offensive plus minus, VORP, Win Shares per 48, True shooting percentage and of course also wins the PER though that's less important here.

In the playoffs the picture is even clearer and across the board his impact dwarfs Tony's contributions including regular Win Shares (not just per 48 like regular season) overwhelmingly with 19.3 vs Tony's 12.7

Both are among the greatest Spurs ever but it's a little bit frustrating that much of the mainstream whether the reason is not looking closer at eye-test-level where I'll claim that if you really pay attention you can see this picture or at the best stats available, still sell Manu and his greatness way way short.

---

the sad part is you don't even need stats to prove who is better. Stats just give a chance for nerds who can't play sports to talk about them. easy to eye test the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

---

Manu is clearly the better player but Tony has by far better stats and accolades in the NBA. And seeing how this is the "all-time NBA list" I think is fair to have Tony ahead of Manu.

I really don't see how people are shocked that Parker is ranked over Manu. He's a FMVP that carries the load for lots of years. Pretty much the whole world understands this except for the krew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Manu is clearly the better player but Tony has by far better stats and accolades in the NBA. And seeing how this is the "all-time NBA list" I think is fair to have Tony ahead of Manu.

---

Quote:

---

Regular season and playoffs career defensive rating, offensive rating, RAPM, defensive plus minus, offensive plus minus, VORP, Win Shares per 48, True shooting percentage and PER

---

Guess who is clearly better?

So, you could not be more wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouth is Bleeding

Guess who is clearly better?

So, you could not be more wrong.

---

I was obviously talking about raw stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Hate to start a "player fan" war, but honestly I think it's ridiculous to put Parker above Manu. Sure, the raw numbers paint a fairly even comparison, but the impact Manu has had over the years far outweighs Parker's impact. I think Manu is better than Parker and it isn't particularly close.

---

Wasn't a Spurs fan during the Prime Manu years, but looking at what ESPN listed, it seems Parkers higher spot is warranted.
Manu.............................................. .................................................. .....Tony
Position.......................................... .................................................. .... Position
Shooting guard............................................. .............................................Shoot ing guard
Teams............................................. .................................................. ....Teams
San Antonio Spurs (2002-present).......................................... .....................San Antonio Spurs (2002-present)
Honors............................................ .................................................. ....Honors

Two-time All-Star, two-time All-NBA selection,........................................ .... Six-time All-Star, four-time All-NBA selection,
Sixth Man of the Year (2007-08)............................................... ................ NBA Finals MVP (2006-07)
Championships..................................... ..............................................Championships

4 (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)............................................. ........................ 4 (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
Career stats Career stats
14.2 PPG, 4.0 APG, 1.4 SPG, .450 FG%............................................... ..... 16.7 PPG, 5.9 RPG, .495 FG%

Not trying to start a player war either I love them both but when I read your comments I was curious to compare Manu's #'s to Tony's when he finally made the list, after looking at it I understand and think Tony should be above Manu. I always thought it was a close distinction between the two, and when it is close it is merely subjective (subject to preference). As great as the team's best 6th man is for me that is always > a prime starter but that is just me. Not that every starter is better than every person on the bench but one of the top two starters is better than anyone on the bench in importance. Now I think the list in general is trash, too many modern players, prisoners of now, who haven't done as much as legends that they are put over. The only thing I really agreed with for the most part was the Center's list, except I would put Hakeem over Shaq but I can understand the argument the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Manu is clearly the better player but Tony has by far better stats and accolades in the NBA. And seeing how this is the "all-time NBA list" I think is fair to have Tony ahead of Manu.

---

Fair enough, I can understand this. Saying Parker has had a better career than Manu is reasonable and I'd probably agree.

When I rank/judge players on an all-time scale, I almost look strictly at their impact on the court (as opposed to focusing on accolades or other stuff of that nature). I think Manu is clearly the better basketball player, so that's why I have him ahead of Tony and don't find it particularly close.

Kobe has had just as good of a career, or arguably better career than Duncan. But if I'm ranking the two on an all-time scale, Duncan is clearly ahead of Kobe and it's not even close. Kobe might have just as many awards and accolades, but he wasn't as good of a basketball player as Duncan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Smdh..any list with Kevin love over shawn kemp is retarded.

Kevin love and Marc Gasol over Kawhi :lmao

---

Someone has a raging hard-on for Shawn Kemp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brazil

Sure buddy a Parker vs Manu debate has never been done before... You must have some revolutionary stuff to bring on the table...

---

You must have a reading comprehension problem :lol When did I ever say or imply that this debate hasn't been done before? Hell, I pretty clearly implied the opposite.

"If you're tired of the same discussions then that's fine" --> you read that and decided to respond with some sarcastic comment implying that I think I'm doing something new? Really? :lol

:lol dunno why this topic releases a hurricane of estrogen, tbh... it's not uncommon to see people having different opinions on all time rankings all the time...

58. Parker is 58 vs 61. That's a tie. Go home everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

You must have a reading comprehension problem :lol When did I ever say or imply that this debate hasn't been done before? Hell, I pretty clearly implied the opposite.

"If you're tired of the same discussions then that's fine" --> you read that and decided to respond with some sarcastic comment implying that I think I'm doing something new? Really? :lol

---

you bring on the table an old debate... I guessed you had something new to bring... apparently this is not the case, not that is a big surprise tho

for good measure do you have an opinion about scola ?

I'd put Manu higher. He'd be in my top 25.

Actually, he'd be in my top 10...but, I'm not sure I could handle the onslaught. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Based on career accomplishments, Duncan is #3 all time, tied with Magic, behind Jordan and Jabbar.

---

Bill Russell

Shaq

Number of bats caught with bare hand:
Manu - 1
Tony - 0

Manu > Tony

tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Manu is clearly the better player but Tony has by far better stats and accolades in the NBA. And seeing how this is the "all-time NBA list" I think is fair to have Tony ahead of Manu.

---

You put it far better than I did. I agree completely with this. Parker deserves the higher ranking, but Manu's the better player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K...

58. Parker is 58 vs 61. That's a tie. Go home everyone.

---

Do you think Tony moves up if he wins another title with Kawhi and Lemarcus as say, the #3 option?

I don't think so. He's the third option. Although if he has some good playoff series/iconic plays I could see him moving up as part of a new spurs ensemble.

Any Top-XX list in any sport is going to get hammered. If 20 people read it, there will be 20 comments about how stupid it is - for 20 different reasons.

I don't even look at them anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phxspurfan

Bill Russell

Shaq

---

I can see ranking Russell higher depending on personal preferences. No way you rank Shaq higher though.

:lol Manu is clearly a top 10 all time based on impact on the game and his appeal in the world and just his overall absurd skillset. The only player ever to be the definition of perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

Any Top-XX list in any sport is going to get hammered. If 20 people read it, there will be 20 comments about how stupid it is - for 20 different reasons.

I don't even look at them anymore.

---

Worst part is, the bad ones get the most discussion, so nobody's encouraged to do a good list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven

:lol Manu is clearly a top 10 all time based on impact on the game and his appeal in the world and just his overall absurd skillset. The only player ever to be the definition of perfection.

---

That's why instead of debating the number on the list, you put him on your "if I started a team today" list. Manu is on mine, btw backing up Jordan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbacoataco

Players with higher career than peak value IMO- Karl Malone, Kareem, Duncan,
Players with higher peak than career value- Dwyane Wade, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq

---

Admiral had a higher peak than Hakeem. Admiral's career lasted 13 seasons (minus the tank season) meanwhile Hakeem's prime lasted 13 seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

Admiral had a higher peak than Hakeem. Admiral's career lasted 13 seasons (minus the tank season) meanwhile Hakeem's prime lasted 13 seasons.

---

Peak = 1-2 years where the player is at his max power. Best season vs best season, David got destroyed by Hakeem in his only MVP season, we can talk about defensive schemes of the series, how Hakeem had more help, but very few can ever argue otherwise.

Anyway as predicted, in term of career accomplishments, Tony is without a doubt ahead of Manu. FMVP, all NBA selection, all-star appearances, MVP voting (even if neither ever won it), frankly I am surprised how close the ranks were. They already gave Manu a lot of credit (2004 Olympics was incredible) despite the gap in raw stats and accomplishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmantb

Peak = 1-2 years where the player is at his max power. Best season vs best season, David got destroyed by Hakeem in his only MVP season, we can talk about defensive schemes of the series, how Hakeem had more help, but very few can ever argue otherwise.

Anyway as predicted, in term of career accomplishments, Tony is without a doubt ahead of Manu. FMVP, all NBA selection, all-star appearances, MVP voting (even if neither ever won it), frankly I am surprised how close the ranks were. They already gave Manu a lot of credit (2004 Olympics was incredible) despite the gap in raw stats and accomplishments.

---

Are we talking about regular season peaks or just post season performance? Karl Malone shouldn't be mentioned along side Kareem/Tim if we are talking about career postseason peaks.

Admiral at his peak led the league in scoring which is something Hakeem never accomplished & scored 71 points which is the 2nd highest point total for a center in NBA history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

That's why instead of debating the number on the list, you put him on your "if I started a team today" list. Manu is on mine, btw backing up Jordan.

---

Literally stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

Are we talking about regular season peaks or just post season performance? Karl Malone shouldn't be mentioned along side Kareem/Tim if we are talking about career postseason peaks.

Admiral at his peak led the league in scoring which is something Hakeem never accomplished & scored 71 points which is the 2nd highest point total for a center in NBA history.

---

Peak value is the highest clearly established level of performance. Which is usually taken as the best 2-4 yr stretch in a player's career. I put Hakeem over Robinson based on the stretch where he won back2back championships as the only superstar on a team of over-achievers. I love D-Rob and in many ways he was equal to Olajuwon, more consistent, but Olajuwon really put it all together in those 2 playoff runs in a way that Robinson never did.

If SA would have had a better backcourt history might have gone down different.

Imagine peak Robinson with players like Ginobili and Diaw around him. ��

Manu's weird. There are a tons of guards that are more physically talented than him and can do more but somehow he just finds a way to get the win no matter what team he's been with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

You put it far better than I did. I agree completely with this. Parker deserves the higher ranking, but Manu's the better player.

---

I'm fine with that way of evaluating the situation tbh

Ice at #47

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...-nbarank-46-50

Didn't check but looks LMA is ranked outside Top 100? by which they mean Love > Aldridge ..

say what you want about LA, but at least he was key cog in few 50-win Blazers teams and led one of those to a series win..what the fuck has Love done in his career? :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeledl

Literally stupid

---

I'm sorry. Probably a combination of your parents and your education. You're not much for punctuation, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbacoataco

Imagine peak Robinson with players like Ginobili and Diaw around him. ��

---

Imagine swapping Robinson and Hakeem in that playoff series. David wins in four.

Manu can still be the best player on the floor at 38 years old (Laker Game?).

Parker and Manu are great and Duncan a notch or two above those guys. Next....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

That's why instead of debating the number on the list, you put him on your "if I started a team today" list. Manu is on mine, btw backing up Jordan.

---

Most at people post stupid shit on her to get a rise out of others.... Just trolling. But you are serious..... And that is bad .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven

:lol Manu is clearly a top 10 all time based on impact on the game and his appeal in the world and just his overall absurd skillset. The only player ever to be the definition of perfection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

That's why instead of debating the number on the list, you put him on your "if I started a team today" list. Manu is on mine, btw backing up Jordan.

---

yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeledl

Most at people post stupid shit on her to get a rise out of others.... Just trolling. But you are serious..... And that is bad .

---

Most people post opinions and discuss them. Others just quote the same post over and over again pretending to be clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Most people post opinions and discuss them. Others just quote the same post over and over again pretending to be clever.

---

It was a super bad take..... Just wanted to emphasize that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeledl

It was a super bad take..... Just wanted to emphasize that.

---

Clearly you were really offended by it, but not enough to actually put up any kind of argument that contributes to the discussion. Are the rest of your 2000 posts as useless as the last three?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Clearly you were really offended by it, but not enough to actually put up any kind of argument that contributes to the discussion. Are the rest of your 2000 posts as useless as the last three?

---

I don't spew off stupid shit seriously tbh

Pau Gasol better than Manu and TP?

:lmao

DRob at #20? Seems to this observer he should be higher...

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...-nbarank-16-20

#20 All-time is pretty good. You're getting into rarified air here and I couldn't see him that much higher. I get how in a way he's underrated because the truth is he was a beast in his prime. But the lack of success in the playoffs dogs him like several other all time greats. I think he's in about the right place and it's still a pretty good ranking.

Players above Robinson per ESPN - some pretty damn good company:

16. Mailman
17. Dirk
18. Barkley
19. Stockton
20. Robinson

Remaining 15 with guesses:
Magic
Robertson

Lebron
Bird
Dr. J

Jordan
Kobe
West

Duncan

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses



I do find it laughable to rank guys like Durant and Curry above Pippen, though they're probably making an some assumption of what they do the rest of their careers.

For me both are Top 50