Best Spurs Ever - Updated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That one season he averaged 33PPG, he actually attempted almost 25 shots a game... that's ridiculous... TD's highest FGA in a season is 18 in 2001-2002... His FGA are in line with chuckers like Iverson...

Raw stats are terrible for this kind of comparisons unless you put some context to it, tbh...

---

Nobody plays any D today, and even when you try the refs won't allow it. Ice averages 40 today..

And Russ put up 24 FGA last year. So Ice would be swimming in MVP votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

He was a chucker, tbh... he averaged almost 20 shots per game in his career... in today's NBA, he would be terrible, a career 27% 3 point shooter...

He was talented, but it was his show... which in the game of basketball rarely translates into championships...

---

Players were not tossing up 50 threes a game back then. With the emphasis on the 3 today, he would have been much better from there. Great players adapt..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daslicer

Ice also lead the Spurs to 2 straight WCFs against the Lakers in the 80's. I don't think Manu or Tony could have ever done that if they were the main guys and they are not playing with Duncan. Moses Malone was washed up when he was with the Spurs so that's a terrible example to put up there. For me when it comes to ranking all time spurs it comes down to how talented you were during your time with the spurs and winning.

---

I think manu is a better all around player. Gervin was a great scorer but he took 20 plus shots a game. Id take manu between the 2. I prefer guys who can do it all. Not sure if gervin could make his teammates better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

I think manu is a better all around player. Gervin was a great scorer but he took 20 plus shots a game. Id take manu between the 2. I prefer guys who can do it all. Not sure if gervin could make his teammates better.

---

Gervin was incredibly talented. Put him on the Spurs of Timmy and Pop in the heyday and they would clean up. Duncan never played with anyone like that in their prime. Manu is a very good player, but to me not a hall of famer and neither is Tony. Basketball is the easiest sport to get in the hall, where as Baseball seems to be the hardest. We have pitchers with 250 plus wins still waiting for their phone to ring. Posada won 4 rings with the Yankees, and he was off the ballot in year 1.. I like it to be hard to make the HOF. Players like Grant Hill should not be in the Hall. Great talent but injuries cut him short and he did not accomplish enough. Manu is a good number 2, and he played on great teams with a top 10 player all time in his prime. He won a lot. But I look at his numbers and it does not say Hall of Fame to me. He is a borderline case IMO, that will get in easily mostly because it is so easy to get in.. They also look at international things where Manu did clean up. But 99% of his career was on an NBA court..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Players like Grant Hill should not be in the Hall. Great talent but injuries cut him short and he did not accomplish enough. ..

---

Grant absolutely deserves to be in the hall. It is the basketball HOF not the NBA HOf. He had a fantastic college career that really is enough to get him in, as well as gold on the Olympics. Then add 7 years as sort of a proto-LeBron in the NBA before the injuries hit and Grant deserved his selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

Grant absolutely deserves to be in the hall. It is the basketball HOF not the NBA HOf. He had a fantastic college career that really is enough to get him in, as well as gold on the Olympics. Then add 7 years as sort of a proto-LeBron in the NBA before the injuries hit and Grant deserved his selection.

---

I think the NBA should have a separate HOF.. I don't like this idea that you won a Gold Medal or an NCAA title and in spite of a less than stellar injury riddled pro career you are in the HOF. Grant did not have a great pro career. Players that played 99% of their time in the NBA, to me that is what needs to count the most. Grant Hill gets in I suppose in part for his college success. But Webber is still out and Webber did a little more in the pro's IMO. So if Webber won 1 of those 2 title games, with Michigan is he in? It is pretty inconsistent. We have too many players with less than stellar pro careers going in. Not happening in other sports. In the NFL Eli Manning has 2 Superbowl wins and MVP's and still I hear that he is borderline HOF material, because of advanced metrics and what not, and he ranks mediocre according to them. Basketball is putting guys in with no rings, and stats that do not warrant induction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Gervin was incredibly talented. Put him on the Spurs of Timmy and Pop in the heyday and they would clean up. Duncan never played with anyone like that in their prime. Manu is a very good player, but to me not a hall of famer and neither is Tony. Basketball is the easiest sport to get in the hall, where as Baseball seems to be the hardest. We have pitchers with 250 plus wins still waiting for their phone to ring. Posada won 4 rings with the Yankees, and he was off the ballot in year 1.. I like it to be hard to make the HOF. Players like Grant Hill should not be in the Hall. Great talent but injuries cut him short and he did not accomplish enough. Manu is a good number 2, and he played on great teams with a top 10 player all time in his prime. He won a lot. But I look at his numbers and it does not say Hall of Fame to me. He is a borderline case IMO, that will get in easily mostly because it is so easy to get in.. They also look at international things where Manu did clean up. But 99% of his career was on an NBA court..

---

Gervin took 20 plus shots a game. There would be no beautiful game. And duncan would look like 2nd fiddle to the ppg crowd. But i agree, very talented scorer. There are plays that manu and tim made that never show up on box score, gervin didnt have that in other aspects of his game.

Kawhi'd is the new Munsoned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lIFItbwqVA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

Gervin took 20 plus shots a game. There would be no beautiful game. And duncan would look like 2nd fiddle to the ppg crowd. But i agree, very talented scorer. There are plays that manu and tim made that never show up on box score, gervin didnt have that in other aspects of his game.

---

You put him in the Spurs culture at that time he would adjust. I am sure he would be great.

Kawhi is a dick for being injured? u guys are sick...u really dont care for ppl's health

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan2k5

Kawhi is a dick for being injured? u guys are sick...u really dont care for ppl's health

---

Well then he has one of the most mysterious leg injuries in the history of leg injuries. And playing with pain is part of pro sports. He is going to have one short career if in his mind, "I will only play if i am 100%" Should retire now..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Well, certainly everybody is entitled to their standards. Personally, this is a game you play to win the championship, IMO. Nobody remembers #2 and down.

I didn't rank DRob #2 because he was an incredibly talented athletic freak that could drop 71 points in a game, but because he was aware of his limitations as a leader and was humble enough to realize that having Tim hold the torch was more important than himself or his numbers. And the franchise didn't just benefit from that, but built a culture around it. You can't put a number on that one... or you can: 5 championships, tbh, which IMO is all that matters.

---

Ice's resume is too good for him not to be number 3 on all-time spurs list. I'm not even factoring his ABA success just his NBA success in this argument. The spurs while ICE was in the NBA had 3 50 win plus seasons, and made 3 conference finals, got out of the first round 5 times, and made the playoffs 8 out of the 9 seasons that Ice played for the NBA. Ice had all this success as the number 1 option on the Spurs while Manu and Parker's success when it comes to winning is largely a by product of playing with Tim Duncan. Can't penalize Ice for not being as successful as those 2 simply because he didn't get to play with Duncan. I just don't see Manu and Tony having the type of success Ice had when it comes to winning if they didn't play with Duncan.

Ice individual success also trumps Manu and Tony. Ice made 9 all-star games, was all-nba first team 5 times, all-nba second team 2 times, 4 time scoring champ. I don't think Manu and Tony would have that type of individual success if they were unshackled and got to the be man on their own team.

Ice also has spurs cultural significance since he was the first superstar player the franchise ever had. In my eyes when you factor in cultural significance, winning, and individual success Ice can't be ranked lower than third.