Manu should get a 5 slot bump for this image alone.
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.
Scola thread!
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.
oh again a manu tp thread....this board is never tired of the same old tbh
I love dat SF86 (the 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
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.
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.
To me this ends the endless Manu/Parker debate. Parker higher in career value, Manu in peak value.
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.
well said
Oh ok thanks philo... I'm convinced
Sure buddy a Parker vs Manu debate has never been done before... You must have some revolutionary stuff to bring on the table...Who gives a ? I come onto this forum to discuss Spurs' basketball
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 ("Parker is only good at ing his teammates' wives tbh"). I'm perfectly fine with starting a reasonable debate about Parker vs. Manu.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
