Do people honestly think that Manu is the MVP of this team?

[duncan228]

DAF86 IS aaronstampler!

[DAF86]

After some consideration, I've finally figured it out.

DAF86 IS aaronstampler!

Who else would make such impassioned defenses of Manu where none are warranted?

i feel flatter but no. i'm not him.
and i think AAronstampler is capable of posting a fricking link

[anakha]

In any case, this season wouldn't have been complete without at least one 'CoM vs the World' thread.

[timvp]

Then you need glasses. He was on Rip and Tayshaun down the stretch of that game. And he covered Bowen's ass when he got beat off the dribble by Chauncey Billups. Damn shame when I have a better memory of that game than one of the biggest Spurs fan on this board. I still remember Hubie Brown commenting on Ginobili being up in Rip's jersey

You never specified which game you are talking about but I'm sure Manu might have defended Rip for a couple plays in the year of 2005 ... seeing as the teams played nine times. But Manu was never specifically assigned to guard Rip ... especially down the stretch of the game.

[smeagol]

This season, TD has had some really bad games (when compared to what he can produce).

One has to simply read LJ's game thoughts to figure it out . . .

[DAF86]

BENCH MANU a fox sports article 24 dec 2005

...2) Defense: the spurs bench may have a lot of playoff experience and versatility, but what it lacks is a defensive-minded wing player since the departure of devin brown. The trio of Van exel, Finley and Barry can be an intimidating offensive force, but their defensive liabilities are just as likely to lose a lead than extended one. By bringing Manu off the bench, the spurs ensure that either he, or Bowen, are on the floor at all times, giving the spurs a DEFENSIVE presence on the perimeter for 48 minutes...

[DAF86]

BENCH MANU a fox sports article 24 dec 2005

...2) Defense: the spurs bench may have a lot of playoff experience and versatility, but what it lacks is a defensive-minded wing player since the departure of devin brown. The trio of Van exel, Finley and Barry can be an intimidating offensive force, but their defensive liabilities are just as likely to lose a lead than extended one. By bringing Manu off the bench, the spurs ensure that either he, or Bowen, are on the floor at all times, giving the spurs a DEFENSIVE presence on the perimeter for 48 minutes...

[ducks]

BENCH MANU a fox sports article 24 dec 2005

...2) Defense: the spurs bench may have a lot of playoff experience and versatility, but what it lacks is a defensive-minded wing player since the departure of devin brown. The trio of Van exel, Finley and Barry can be an intimidating offensive force, but their defensive liabilities are just as likely to lose a lead than extended one. By bringing Manu off the bench, the spurs ensure that either he, or Bowen, are on the floor at all times, giving the spurs a DEFENSIVE presence on the perimeter for 48 minutes...

link?

[Deimosfobos]

a lot of specialist (john hollinger, Mark Stein, Henry Abbott among others) think that manu is a great defender do you think that they think that manu's perfect?

I know my english is poor, but are you actually reading anything we are posting? I mean REALLY reading it?

Manu IS a good defender, just not a good 1 on 1 defender...

Regarding those people you mention, I would like links, since I seriously dout they said 1 on 1 defender, but defender in general.

[timaios]

BS ... Tony and Manu were not even among the top 3 players in the Spurs' 2003 playoff run. Steven Jackson was the # 2, DRob/Bruce tied for # 3. Manu was a bench player playing less than 20 mins, Parker had several forgettable games. Duncan was the one who destroyed the Lakers, and then brought it home vs the Nets.

I'd beg to differ. The point was whether Manu/Tony were replaceable. Well Speedy did in fact "replace" Tony, so to speak, in the finals. And Speedy was one of the sorrier PGs in the L. There were a dozen or more guards who could have played TP's role that year. Same goes for 2003 Manu.

2003 NBA Finals Statistics
http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/...als_stats.html

Tim Duncan 43.8 min 24.2 pts 17.0 rbs 5.3 ast
Tony Parker 35.3 min 14.0 pts 3.2 rbs 4.2 ast
David Robinson 26.8 min 10.8 pts 7.3 rbs 0.7 ast
Stephen Jackson 35.5 min 10.3 pts 4.2 rbs 2.7 ast
Manu Ginobili 28.7 min 8.7 pts 4.5 rbs 2.0 ast
...
Speedy Claxton 12.5 min 6.2 pts 1.0 rbs 1.5 ast

[ducks]

Speedy Claxton 12.5 min 6.2 pts 1.0 rbs 1.5 ast
But speedy saved tp
LOL

[td4mvp21]

Just because Fox Sports said that doesn't make Ginobili a good perimeter defender. If you've watched him this year, you would realize that he isn't that great of one. He doesn't suck but he's not great. Kori knows a lot about the Spurs so I think you should listen to her

[mavs>spurs2]

The Spurs are all about Tim Duncan, the best basketball player in NBA history. The rest of the team are role players.

Best player in NBA history??? For someone who goes by the name Galileo, you sure are a ing dumbass.

[Warlord23]

2003 NBA Finals Statistics
http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/...als_stats.html

Tim Duncan 43.8 min 24.2 pts 17.0 rbs 5.3 ast
Tony Parker 35.3 min 14.0 pts 3.2 rbs 4.2 ast
David Robinson 26.8 min 10.8 pts 7.3 rbs 0.7 ast
Stephen Jackson 35.5 min 10.3 pts 4.2 rbs 2.7 ast
Manu Ginobili 28.7 min 8.7 pts 4.5 rbs 2.0 ast
...
Speedy Claxton 12.5 min 6.2 pts 1.0 rbs 1.5 ast

Nice to see that you were reading the box scores instead of watching the games.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Best player in NBA history??? For someone who goes by the name Galileo, you sure are a ing dumbass.

[anakha]

Nice to see that you were reading the box scores instead of watching the games.

Game 1:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030604/NJNSAS/boxscore.html

Game 2:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030606/NJNSAS/boxscore.html

Game 3:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030608/SASNJN/boxscore.html

Game 4:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030611/SASNJN/boxscore.html

Game 5:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030613/SASNJN/boxscore.html

Game 6:
http://www.nba.com/games/20030615/NJNSAS/boxscore.html

2 games out of 6? Yep, Parker was completely replaced that series.

Well Speedy did in fact "replace" Tony, so to speak, in the finals. And Speedy was one of the sorrier PGs in the L.

Nice to see that you were pulling opinions out of your ass instead of watching the games.

[Warlord23]

The point is there were about 10 PGs in 2003 who could have replaced Parker, and the Spurs would still have won. There were about 10 SGs who could have replaced Manu, and the Spurs would still have won.

Also, you want me to use stats to prove my point?

The 2002-03 squad had exactly 1 player over 15 PPG: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player over 8 RPG: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player in the all-star team: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player shooting over .500: Tim Duncan.
It had nobody over 6 APG.

That team was all Duncan. He put the team on his shoulder and carried them home. Find me another champion in NBA history with that much disbalance in carrying the load. Michael had Scottie. Shaq had Kobe, Wade had Shaq. The Pistons had 5 good starters. Duncan was a solitary star.

Also, Tony choked on the big stage and had to be bailed out. He was a replaceable piece, as was Manu.

Bottomline, the 2003 championship team was all about Tim Duncan. That's what you call MVP.

[anakha]

The point is there were about 10 PGs in 2003 who could have replaced Parker, and the Spurs would still have won. There were about 10 SGs who could have replaced Manu, and the Spurs would still have won.

Also, you want me to use stats to prove my point?

The 2002-03 squad had exactly 1 player over 15 PPG: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player over 8 RPG: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player in the all-star team: Tim Duncan.
It had only 1 player shooting over .500: Tim Duncan.
It had nobody over 6 APG.

That team was all Duncan. He put the team on his shoulder and carried them home. Find me another champion in NBA history with that much disbalance in carrying the load. Michael had Scottie. Shaq had Kobe, Wade had Shaq. The Pistons had 5 good starters. Duncan was a solitary star.

Also, Tony choked on the big stage and had to be bailed out. He was a replaceable piece, as was Manu.

Bottomline, the 2003 championship team was all about Tim Duncan. That's what you call MVP.

Nice sidestep.

I'm not contesting any of your points regarding Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili's relative value to the 2003 Spurs.

However, taking two games out of six and buying into the whole 'Claxton had to bail out Parker in the Finals' is still stupid beyond belief.

[timaios]

The point is there were about 10 PGs in 2003 who could have replaced Parker, and the Spurs would still have won.

Tony was just 21.
What did you expect from a 21 years PG ???
He was huge for his age, except game 6.

[Warlord23]

Nice sidestep.

I'm not contesting any of your points regarding Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili's relative value to the 2003 Spurs.

However, taking two games out of six and buying into the whole 'Claxton had to bail out Parker in the Finals' is still stupid beyond belief.

OK, how about the fact that over the entire six games, Tim Duncan averaged more assists than Parker? Or the fact that Tony Parker shot a horrible 38.6% from the field? The Spurs won despite Parker's terrible outings. That series shouldn't have gone 6 games, just that Parker with 38.6%, SJax with 35.7% and Manu with 34.8% shooting decided to keep things interesting.

EDIT: Speedy shot 56.0% in that series, albeit in limited minutes.

[Warlord23]

Tony was just 21.
What did you expect from a 21 years PG ???
He was huge for his age, except game 6.

I understand that, and I don't blame Tony for it.

This whole argument started with the definition of MVP, and the fact that Duncan is the only irreplaceable player in the Spurs' offensive and defensive schemes.

[anakha]

OK, how about the fact that over the entire six games, Tim Duncan averaged more assists than Parker? Or the fact that Tony Parker shot a horrible 38.6% from the field? The Spurs won despite Parker's terrible outings. That series shouldn't have gone 6 games, just that Parker with 38.6%, SJax with 35.7% and Manu with 34.8% shooting decided to keep things interesting.

EDIT: Speedy shot 56.0% in that series, albeit in limited minutes.

Again, you're missing (or sidestepping) the point.

I am NOT contesting that Duncan was an absolute monster in the 2003 Finals.

I am NOT contesting that Parker, Ginobili, and Jackson had less of an impact on the series outcome than Duncan did.

What I AM contesting, however, is the view that Claxton had more of an impact on the outcome of the series than Parker did.

[Warlord23]

I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying Claxton > Parker. My original statement was that neither Manu nor Tony were among the 3 best players during that le run. That would be Duncan, Jax, DRob in that order.

I merely used Claxton as a data point to illustrate that:
a) We could win even when Parker wasn't playing well
b) Parker could have been replaced by any of 10 starting PGs in the league and we would still have won

[anakha]

I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying Claxton > Parker. My original statement was that neither Manu nor Tony were among the 3 best players during that le run.

Your original argument I have no problem with.

That would be Duncan, Jax, DRob in that order.

This one I'll contest.

Looking at the performances from series to series in 2003, the argument can be made that Malik Rose was just as big a factor overall in the playoffs as Robinson.

The first round and conference finals stats favor Rose, while the second round and NBA Finals favor Robinson.

[BIG z]

Its Timmy's team, and if he wasn't there nothing would be possible...simple as that...its just that these media people dont realize what kind of a part Duncan plays on the floor when he's not even touching the ball, just ask the opposing team coaches, and what they tell their players, never leave an eye of Duncan.....So Manu being the MVP is nonsense, its Timmy's team and he is the MVP as long as he stays here...