Amateur: Spurs fans think Manu Ginobili is a top 30 all-time player

[daslicer]

Amb with some healthy perspective.
Manu has NOT accomplished more than Reggie Miller or Dominique.
But a case can be made he impacted the game and winning even more than those guys an dthe proof was his fingerprints all over many of the Spurs le runs.

However, joining a team that just won a le is different than say Reggie Miler.
who was booed on draft day and carried a franchiise that had not won since the ABA to the NBA Finals or to ECF vs MJ.
HE never rang like manu so Manu has the edge there, but Reggie was the main cog on a Finals team and carried his franchise for years.

Manu was the better all around player but miller carried his eam more than Manu was ever asked to.

To me being all around doesn't translate to being a better player. For example you could say Kevin Garnett was easily all around better than Shaq but nobody would say Garnett is better than Shaq.

[Killakobe81]

The best thing I can say about Gino he was unselfish and clutch like the best role players in NBA history: Horry, Fisher, kerr etc.
But was more of a true star than any of those guys.
to me of the modern (mine) SG's he career wise is only behind MJ, Kobe, wade, Drexler, miller and about on par with ray allen and Klay thompson.
At their peaks you know have to consider Harden and TMAc above him too but his career easily outclasses those guys cuz he played great when it mattered and Harden is still playing.

But let's not pretend Tim and to a lessor degree, POP, didn't contribute to that crazy good win% Manu has.

[Killakobe81]

To me being all around doesn't translate to being a better player. For example you could say Kevin Garnett was easily all around better than Shaq but nobody would say Garnett is better than Shaq.

great point.
But so many ways to slice these comparisons.
Reggie is clutch too ...but since Manu could beat you with the drive, pass or shot I give him the all around edge. (nevermind defense which favors Manu)
IF you asked me who would I rather see shoot with a game on the line and less than 3 seconds I take Reggie.
But if i need someone to make a play it's manu.

[DAF86]

At some point people need to reconsider if making more all-star games and all-NBA teams trully is "having more accolades" than winning 4 championships as a go to guy of a team. Because that's what Manu was: 1 of 3 go to guys for the Spurs dynasty. And the one that got the ball to decide games.

[daslicer]

great point.
But so many ways to slice these comparisons.
Reggie is clutch too ...but since Manu could beat you with the drive, pass or shot I give him the all around edge. (nevermind defense which favors Manu)
IF you asked me who would I rather see shoot with a game on the line and less than 3 seconds I take Reggie.
But if i need someone to make a play it's manu.

Reggie to me is a better simply because he was more durable and had to carry a team being the number 1 guy. Reggie is also a better scorer despite not being as good of a slasher as Manu. The best player Reggie ever played with was Rik Smits who is not even half as good as Duncan. Reggie's career FG percentage is also better than Manu at an overall 47 percent while his 3 point FG is 39 percent despite being the 1 target of defenses . It's hard for me not to believe if Miller played with Duncan that he wouldn't have won a bunch of rings.

[ambchang]

4 rings, arguably a 2005 finals MVP, Olympic gold/ Olympic upset of USA team, highest +/- stat second to Lebron and TD,intro of eurostep. Ask anyone off the street if they'd prefer Stockton or Ewing's career over Manu's

4 rings as a second best play once or twice) the other two times he was like top 4 to 5.

He wasn’t 2005 mvp.

I was strictly talking nba to be honest. If you count international then he’s probably top 30 then as his run with Argentina was unbelievable.

[daslicer]

At some point people need to reconsider if making more all-star games and all-NBA teams trully is "having more accolades" than winning 4 championships as a go to guy of a team. Because that's what Manu was: 1 of 3 go to guys for the Spurs dynasty. And the one that got the ball to decide games.

Going by your logic Scottie Pippen is clearly better than Bird.

[DAF86]

Reggie to me is a better simply because he was more durable and had to carry a team being the number 1 guy. Reggie is also a better scorer despite not being as good of a slasher as Manu. The best player Reggie ever played with was Rik Smits who is not even half as good as Duncan. Reggie's career FG percentage is also better than Manu at an overall 47 percent while his 3 point FG is 39 percent despite being the 1 target of defenses . It's hard for me not to believe if Miller played with Duncan that he wouldn't have won a bunch of rings.

More durable than a guy that played professional basketball for 23 years (with many summers of work) and that only had one season ending injury.

[DAF86]

Going by your logic Scottie Pippen is clearly better than Bird.

Sure, especially because Bird never won a Ring.

[Killakobe81]

At some point people need to reconsider if making more all-star games and all-NBA teams trully is "having more accolades" than winning 4 championships as a go to guy of a team. Because that's what Manu was: 1 of 3 go to guys for the Spurs dynasty. And the one that got the ball to decide games.

That is great. And should be considered.
Is James Worthy a greater forward than karl Malone or Barkley?
Worthy was the leading playoff and at times regular season scorer on 3 le teams and two other finals teams.
IF the lakers draft Nique or Terry mings over worthy he scores waaaay more points and gets more accolades.
Does that mean Worthy>Chuck?! He was clutch just like manu, hence the name "Big Game JAmes".

[Killakobe81]

I love Worthy wore his number in HS (college it was just intramurals In track and hoops not good enough to make UCLA teams)
He was great.
Malone despite being a choker had the better career as did Chuck.
It happens.
Pretty sure worthy (like manu) preferred winning over superstar status.

[DAF86]

That is great. And should be considered.
Is James Worthy a greater forward than karl Malone or Barkley?
Worthy was the leading playoff and at times regular season scorer on 3 le teams and two other finals teams.
IF the lakers draft Nique or Terry mings over worthy he scores waaaay more points and gets more accolades.
Does that mean Worthy>Chuck?! He was clutch just like manu, hence the name "Big Game JAmes".

To be honest, I never saw Worthy play, so I can't say. The better question is: if Barkley or Malone played for those stacked Lakers teams and Worthy had the chance to go be the number one of a team, who would have the better individual numbers and accolades (such as all-stars and all-NBAs), Worthy or Barkley/Malone?

[daslicer]

More durable than a guy that played professional basketball for 23 years (with many summers of work) and that only had one season ending injury.

Definitely more durable than Manu. Reggie played in a total of 1389 NBA games out of 1444 games while Manu played in a total of 1057 out of 1296 games. If you do the math Reggie played 96 percent of the time while Manu played 81 percent of the time. That's a huge gap between the two.

[DAF86]

Definitely more durable than Manu. Reggie played in a total of 1389 NBA games out of 1444 games while Manu played in a total of 1057 out of 1296 games. If you do the math Reggie played 96 percent of the time while Manu played 81 percent of the time. That's a huge gap between the two.

Yeah, Miller is probably one of the more durable players of all-time. Being a shooter that rarely did anything else helped that, tbh.

I was just trying to argue that Manu is a pretty ing durable guy too.

[Killakobe81]

To be honest, I never saw Worthy play, so I can't say. The better question is: if Barkley or Malone played for those stacked Lakers teams and Worthy had the chance to go be the number one of a team, who would have the better individual numbers and accolades (such as all-stars and all-NBAs), Worthy or Barkley/Malone?

Those other two guys.

Same case can be made for guys like tmac (for example) in Manu's place.
Tim almost considered joining TMac.

If TMAC had Duncan (And Grant hill) on his side doesnt he have rings to go with his accolades. So what is the po int? Would tmac not be a 4x champ playing for Pop with Timmy? what about drexler? or Wade or Ray allen?

[DAF86]

Those other two guys.

Same case can be made for guys like tmac (for example) in Manu's place.
Tim almost considered joining TMac.

If TMAC had Duncan (And Grant hill) on his side doesnt he have rings to go with his accolades. So what is the po int? Would tmac not be a 4x champ playing for Pop with Timmy? what about drexler? or Wade or Ray allen?

I doubt it, unless Worthy wasn't as great as you make it to be.

Playing alongside other Hall of famers inevitably decreases your individual numbers. Especially if you are the rookie that comes last.

Look at Harden's example. If he would have stayed in OKC behind Durant and Westbrook, he would have probably spent his entire career averaging between 16 and 18 ppg, and everybody would be thinking a guy like Westbrook was better than him.

[ambchang]

I doubt it, unless Worthy wasn't as great as you make it to be.

Playing alongside other Hall of famers inevitably decreases your individual numbers. Especially if you are the rookie that comes last.

Look at Harden's example. If he would have stayed in OKC behind Durant and Westbrook, he would have probably spent his entire career averaging between 16 and 18 ppg, and everybody would be thinking a guy like Westbrook was better than him.

And Harden isn’t better than Ewing or Stockton.

[DAF86]

And Harden isn’t better than Ewing or Stockton.

Maybe not, I would need to really get into the analysis to give you an educated answer.

I'm not saying every star of multiple championship teams are immediately better than non-championship winning stars. I'm just saying that winning 3 or 4 tles as a star (even if not the biggest) of a team could actually be considered as having better accolades than having more all-stars and all-NBA's but never winning .

And the argument about what player is better should always come down to a mixture of analysis of the skills of that player and stats that show the real impact of that player.

[ambchang]

Maybe not, I would need to really get into the analysis to give you an educated answer.

I'm not saying every star of multiple championship teams are immediately better than non-championship winning stars. I'm just saying that winning 3 or 4 tles as a star (even if not the biggest) of a team could actually be considered as having better accolades than having more all-stars and all-NBA's but never winning .

And the argument about what player is better should always come down to a mixture of analysis of the skills of that player and stats that show the real impact of that player.

Fine if that’s how you rank but I doubt most people would agree draymond green or klay Thompson would ever be considered to be greater players than Barkley or Malone. Or Jerry west would be considered one of the greats if he never won the 72 ring on that loaded team.

[TD 21]

At some point people need to reconsider if making more all-star games and all-NBA teams trully is "having more accolades" than winning 4 championships as a go to guy of a team. Because that's what Manu was: 1 of 3 go to guys for the Spurs dynasty. And the one that got the ball to decide games.

No matter how hard you try, you're not convincing any non Ginobili fan boy that he was as great as Duncan.

By the way, Duncan often "got the ball to decide games" (as if other aspects of the game and everything leading it up to doesn't matter) from '97-'04 and sometimes did from '05-'15. It's generally easier for a guard to wing to create a higher percentage shot in limited time than a big though.

[Killakobe81]

No matter how hard you try, you're not convincing any non Ginobili fan boy that he was as great as Duncan.

By the way, Duncan often "got the ball to decide games" (as if other aspects of the game and everything leading it up to doesn't matter) from '97-'04 and sometimes did from '05-'15. It's generally easier for a guard to wing to create a higher percentage shot in limited time than a big though.

Duncan?! He can't be serious?!
Great compe or and versatile my favorite Spur of this era but at times even though I prefer Manu, you could argue he was the Spurs, third best player and Parker at his best wasore deadly. I wouldn't argue that but is close enough to be a debate, in fact it has divided fans upstairs for years.
But no unbiased fan would dare compare either to Tim. At both their bests, tbh, Kawahi was closer to Tim than Manu. I prefer to watch Manu play. He just a notch below KL who is a couple below Tim.

[DAF86]

No matter how hard you try, you're not convincing any non Ginobili fan boy that he was as great as Duncan.

By the way, Duncan often "got the ball to decide games" (as if other aspects of the game and everything leading it up to doesn't matter) from '97-'04 and sometimes did from '05-'15. It's generally easier for a guard to wing to create a higher percentage shot in limited time than a big though.

And when the did I ever try to do that?

I have Duncan as a top 5 player of all-time, while I don't even dare to say Manu is top 30. How is that trying to say Manu is as great as Duncan?

Manu being the Spurs' closer for many years is a well known fact, that doesn't mean more than that. Stop with the insecurities son.

[DAF86]

Duncan?! He can't be serious?!
Great compe or and versatile my favorite Spur of this era but at times even though I prefer Manu, you could argue he was the Spurs, third best player and Parker at his best wasore deadly. I wouldn't argue that but is close enough to be a debate, in fact it has divided fans upstairs for years.
But no unbiased fan would dare compare either to Tim. At both their bests, tbh, Kawahi was closer to Tim than Manu. I prefer to watch Manu play. He just a notch below KL who is a couple below Tim.

Did you ever see me write that? Why would believe what somebody else said, instead of going to the source, which are my comments?

[DAF86]

Fine if that’s how you rank but I doubt most people would agree draymond green or klay Thompson would ever be considered to be greater players than Barkley or Malone. Or Jerry west would be considered one of the greats if he never won the 72 ring on that loaded team.

I'm not saying every star of multiple championship teams are immediately better than non-championship winning stars.

[ambchang]

You also said:

I'm just saying that winning 3 or 4 tles as a star (even if not the biggest) of a team could actually be considered as having better accolades than having more all-stars and all-NBA's but never winning .

So either you just immediately contradicted yourself or you just used criteria that means nothing to support your point.