Damn, Stephen Jackson just aired out Porker's dirty laundry on THTV

[J_Paco]

Where were Duncan and Pop system when he led Argentina to an historical gold medal? oh wait, they were on one of the teams he beat. When he was an Euroleague champ and MVP? Watching from TV. He always has been a leader, and made his teammates better, and he did it by being humble, not making it about himself, which is absolutely the ultimate compliment. That Argentina team will always be lauded by their teamwork, it was never "built around his strengths", another terrible cop-out. Quoting Kobe on this:"He took on a huge responsibility, and elevated everything there".

Heck, even off the bench with the Spurs, he made absolutely flawed players look good (too long a list: Oberto, RMJ, Blair, Ayres, Neal, Beli, Bonner, Tiago, Patty to an extent...) and he didn't do it going heroball, but actually getting everybody involved and making them feel important. That's the epitome of making teammates better. A lot of those guys left the Spurs and never been anywhere near the same.

He's too old now to be the kind of guy that commands the attention he used to. But he didn't used to use that attention to shower himself with stats, but to actually win, no matter who ended up putting the ball in the basket.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with Tony, who I think also made some of his teammates better. Obviously, he has played with Timmy a lot more minutes, so it's difficult to really appreciate. If anything the argument that it was Tim, not Manu/Tony that made players better, probably affects Tony way more than Manu (not because it's necessarily true, but because he shared a lot more starters minutes with Tim).

I knew a Ginobili fanboy was going to run with the national team stuff. His play for Argentina has no real bearing on his NBA career since his role, status and playing time were entirely different. And then there is the obvious fact that one is a international tournament and the other is his "club" team. Or did winning a gold medal help the Spurs win a regular season game, advance in the playoffs or (not) win the le?

It helped that a lot of those players were either good passers or good shooters, IMO. Those are the qualities that best aided them in fitting with Ginobili and the second unit. You and I have much different ideas of "making teammates better" I believe. I'm speaking in the sense of being the focal point, most dominant/best player and leader of the team while you mean it a sense of culture and intangibles.

I could see how Duncan's presence effected, changed and won games while that stuff Ginobili did was chemistry and locker room stuff, IMO. And claiming he made Ayres "better" is laughable at best when he sucked to begin with. Blair, Fabricio, Tiago, Roger Mason Jr. and Bonner saw just as much (individual) success (if not more) playing along side Duncan and Parker in the starting line up.

Like I said (once again), the team and philosophy were never fully built around the strengths of Parker or Ginobili. They were never a consistent threat like Duncan was - demanding a near constant double team - in the post and he made them and the role players better.

It would be foolish to claim that Chris Bosh, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant (early Laker years) or Klay Thompson makes anyone better, but here we are with Manu Ginobili fans making that claim for him.

Prime Ginobili (and Parker) had everything much easier with Duncan being around and the center of attention.

[ElNono]

I knew a Ginobili fanboy was going to run with the national team stuff. His play for Argentina has no real bearing on his NBA career since his role, status and playing time were entirely different. And then there is the obvious fact that one is a international tournament and the other is his "club" team. Or did winning a gold medal help the Spurs win a regular season game, advance in the playoffs or (not) win the le?

Like I said (once again), the team and philosophy were never fully built around the strengths of Parker or Ginobili. They were never a consistent threat like Duncan was - demanding a near constant double team - in the post and he made them and the role players better.

It would be foolish to claim that Chris Bosh, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant (early Laker years) or Klay Thompson makes anyone better, but here we are with Manu Ginobili fans making that claim for him.

Prime Ginobili (and Parker) had everything much easier with Duncan being around and the center of attention.

I guess, Pop, RC Bufford, multiple Spurs coaches, Duncan, Kobe, Bowen, even Tony himself, etc that has said exactly this stuff are all Manu fanboys too? I mean, that's who you're arguing against... not me. You can go look at that piece by Lowe not a week ago (a lot of which is not necessarily new), find plenty of examples of how he brought plays to make even Tony better (that "Weak fly" play that apparently nobody else can pull off, including the French NT, by Tony's own admission). The part where RC mentions Manu probably has as much to do with the Spurs family philosophy as Tim will probably sting the most to you, but it's ok, just take it all in, and hopefully we won't be reading ridiculous claims here anymore.

You're just going to gloss over and not even discuss the fact that he made a lot of those players I listed literally look like NBA players? I mean, that's convenient. By Pop, Duncan and Tony's own admission, they shifted burdens from Tim to Manu to Tony as time went on. That doesn't diminish Tim, who was rightfully at the top of the hierarchy, but that fact shouldn't also diminish the fact that RC himself said Pop, Tim, Manu and Tony, all 4 of them, basically got together and discussed every team's move, including having final say in a lot of that. Mere role players don't have that kind of power (and that goes both for Manu and Tony).

[J_Paco]

I guess, Pop, RC Bufford, multiple Spurs coaches, Duncan, Kobe, Bowen, even Tony himself, etc that has said exactly this stuff are all Manu fanboys too? I mean, that's who you're arguing against... not me. You can go look at that piece by Lowe not a week ago (a lot of which is not necessarily new), find plenty of examples of how he brought plays to make even Tony better (that "Weak fly" play that apparently nobody else can pull off, including the French NT, by Tony's own admission). The part where RC mentions Manu probably has as much to do with the Spurs family philosophy as Tim will probably sting the most to you, but it's ok, just take it all in, and hopefully we won't be reading ridiculous claims here anymore.

You're just going to gloss over and not even discuss the fact that he made a lot of those players I listed literally look like NBA players? I mean, that's convenient. By Pop, Duncan and Tony's own admission, they shifted burdens from Tim to Manu to Tony as time went on. That doesn't diminish Tim, who was rightfully at the top of the hierarchy, but that fact shouldn't also diminish the fact that RC himself said Pop, Tim, Manu and Tony, all 4 of them, basically got together and discussed every team's move, including having final say in a lot of that. Mere role players don't have that kind of power (and that goes both for Manu and Tony).

I read the piece and was quite well written, but you are really, really heaping too much praise on Parker and Ginobili if you truly believe they were as important or "made teammates better" like Timmy. Ginobili's craftiness and competive spirit are undeniable, but his NBA career (and importance/impact) has not been nearly at the level you believe. And the absolute same goes for Tony Parker as well.

A lot of those things they and you mention are the intangibles and culture of the team. Not the guy that wins
games with his offense, defense and sheer presence on the floor. You know, the stuff that Tim Duncan actually did.

I love Parker and Ginobili and there importance to the team and culture is immeasurable, but neither one made players better over Duncan and "the system," IMO.

[ElNono]

I read the piece and was quite well written, but you are really, really heaping too much praise on Parker and Ginobili if you truly believe they were as important or "made teammates better" like Timmy. Ginobili's craftiness and competive spirit are undeniable, but his NBA career (and importance/impact) has not been nearly at the level you believe. And the absolute same goes for Tony Parker as well.

A lot of those things they and you mention are the intangibles and culture of the team. Not the guy that wins
games with his offense, defense and sheer presence on the floor. You know, the stuff that Tim Duncan actually did.

I love Parker and Ginobili and there importance to the team and culture is immeasurable, but neither one made players better over Duncan and "the system," IMO.

Your claim was that he didn't make teammates better, not that "he made teammates better than Timmy". That's what I took exception with, despite the fact that he's done so in and out of the Spurs (so has Tony, BTW), and when it comes to the Spurs you can find plenty of actual quotes from within the organization and outside of it on how that claim is simply false.

You can certainly build an imaginary scale of "how much better" player X made his teammates, but that's a completely arbitrary scale and different goalpost. Even when it comes to Tim, that has varied wildly over his career, from the constant 4-down, everything flows from Tim offense to what ended up being called the beautiful game.

I'm actually one of the (few, I suppose) people that has a generally pessimistic view of the post-Tim, post-Manu era in San Antonio. I don't think people really understand what those two brought to the table in all sorts of ways, culturally, professionally, matchup-wise, smarts-wise, the whole "making teammates better" aspect, etc. HoFs don't grow on trees.

[dabom]

Your claim was that he didn't make teammates better, not that "he made teammates better than Timmy". That's what I took exception with, despite the fact that he's done so in and out of the Spurs (so has Tony, BTW), and when it comes to the Spurs you can find plenty of actual quotes from within the organization and outside of it on how that claim is simply false.

You can certainly build an imaginary scale of "how much better" player X made his teammates, but that's a completely arbitrary scale and different goalpost. Even when it comes to Tim, that has varied wildly over his career, from the constant 4-down, everything flows from Tim offense to what ended up being called the beautiful game.

I'm actually one of the (few, I suppose) people that has a generally pessimistic view of the post-Tim, post-Manu era in San Antonio. I don't think people really understand what those two brought to the table in all sorts of ways, culturally, professionally, matchup-wise, smarts-wise, the whole "making teammates better" aspect, etc. HoFs don't grow on trees.

I totally agree Manu made players great in his prime, but he is a role player now. Losing him won't be a drop off nowadays. This team goes as far as Pop plays his best players. That's not Tony either. He's dog . Another player we could lose and have little to no dropoff.

[ElNono]

I totally agree Manu made players great in his prime, but he is a role player now. Losing him won't be a drop off nowadays. This team goes as far as Pop plays his best players. That's not Tony either. He's dog . Another player we could lose and have little to no dropoff.

He's more of a mentor/spiritual leader than even a role player at this point. His $14m deal is a thank you contract, nothing more and nothing less, that doesn't tie up the Spurs financially any other season.

I'm still pessimistic past the post-Tim, post-Manu era, tbh, not that I don't like Kawhi or anything like that, I root for all my Spurs, but there's a lot to be said about chemistry, team culture, etc. The Spurs could get away with not hiring knuckleheads, etc, even if they were talented, because they could always fall back into their HoFs... when that safety-net is not there, and you're not winning, pressure will always mount.

[dabom]

He's more of a mentor/spiritual leader than even a role player at this point. His $14m deal is a thank you contract, nothing more and nothing less, that doesn't tie up the Spurs financially any other season.

I'm still pessimistic past the post-Tim, post-Manu era, tbh, not that I don't like Kawhi or anything like that, I root for all my Spurs, but there's a lot to be said about chemistry, team culture, etc. The Spurs could get away with not hiring knuckleheads, etc, even if they were talented, because they could always fall back into their HoFs... when that safety-net is not there, and you're not winning, pressure will always mount.

We didn't win the past 2 years either. Tony Parker being dog never helps. I just expect the Spurs to decrease his role/dependence. We'll actually get further. I hope Porker doesn't waste Manu's twilight year too.

[lilbthebasedgod]

Manu was left off of plenty of all-star teams he deserved to be on when he was sacrificing minutes. It's not like today where the analysis is more comprehensive. There were superficial benchmarks to be hit. Manu make players better b/c they know he'll reward the effort. Tony is an ISO player. And if you need any concrete evidence on who was more impactful, you need look no further than the 03 and 05 Finals. Manu was head and shoulders better than Parker.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I like how this post talks about how contemporary analysis shows how ginobili is better without using any analysis and also its one example of how he was more impactful is a horrible use of statistics (using single points for evidence on a career).

[dabom]

Speaking of Porker playing dog in the playoffs. What happens if he does it a turd year in a row?

I mean. Pop always 2 years late with their adjustments tbh..

[HarlemHeat37]

Parker generally seems unlikable, based on most of the we have heard about him, but in this case, the messenger is a clown, tbh..

Stephen Jackson has been extremely desperate for attention the past few years..he went from firing shots at ESPN to begging them for a job..not only is he one of the most overrated players on this forum, but he's an attention-starving liar, too..his argument, in this case, doesn't even make sense, as his "facts" don't add up..

[J_Paco]

Your claim was that he didn't make teammates better, not that "he made teammates better than Timmy". That's what I took exception with, despite the fact that he's done so in and out of the Spurs (so has Tony, BTW), and when it comes to the Spurs you can find plenty of actual quotes from within the organization and outside of it on how that claim is simply false.

You can certainly build an imaginary scale of "how much better" player X made his teammates, but that's a completely arbitrary scale and different goalpost. Even when it comes to Tim, that has varied wildly over his career, from the constant 4-down, everything flows from Tim offense to what ended up being called the beautiful game.

I'm actually one of the (few, I suppose) people that has a generally pessimistic view of the post-Tim, post-Manu era in San Antonio. I don't think people really understand what those two brought to the table in all sorts of ways, culturally, professionally, matchup-wise, smarts-wise, the whole "making teammates better" aspect, etc. HoFs don't grow on trees.

Whatever, ElNono. We'll agree to disagree but my line of thinking is more along the lines of how Charles Barkley sees that aspect of the game.

It isn't a "scale" or anything measurable but something only top tier all-time greats accomplished. The Duncans, Jordans, Birds, Johnsons of the NBA not their "sidekicks" so to speak. It isn't meant as a slight on Tony or Manu, but just how I see things.

[dabom]

Whatever, ElNono. We'll agree to disagree but my line of thinking is more along the lines of how Charles Barkley sees that aspect of the game.

It isn't a "scale" or anything measurable but something only top tier all-time greats accomplished. The Duncans, Jordans, Birds, Johnsons of the NBA not their "sidekicks" so to speak. It isn't meant as a slight on Tony or Manu, but just how I see things.

You do know you moved the pole right? You first talked about Manu not making players better then switched to " o well he doesn't do it better than Duncan". like that's when you lost. Stop dude.

[J_Paco]

You do know you moved the pole right? You first talked about Manu not making players better then switched to " o well he doesn't do it better than Duncan". like that's when you lost. Stop dude.

No, my point is that he doesn't because only the elite can. ElNoNo is arguing that his leadership and impact on the culture does help players improve. I disagree, but of course your too stupid to have noticed that.

He is arguing for the intangibles that most great players possess while I'm talking about presence on the floor and dominance.

Timmy was the dominant force control the outcome of games, Manu, David and Tony (plus the role players) succeeeded because all the attention, effort and execution he put out. Not the other way around.

[dabom]

No, my point is that he doesn't do because only the elite can. ElNoNo is arguing that his leadership and impact on the culture does help players improve. I disagree, but of course your too stupid to have noticed that....

Nah bro. 2 people can read what you ing posted just in this page. Like you're the dumbass here.

[FkLA]

So there aren't different levels when it comes to making teammates better? Either you make them better at the exact same clip as someone who's elite, like Timmy, or you don't make them better at all?

[dabom]

So there aren't different levels when it comes to making teammates better? Either you make them better at the exact same clip as someone who's elite, like Timmy, or you don't make them better at all?

It's like the guy is a total dumbass tbh. He said a statement. Then changed his POINT entirely.

[J_Paco]

So there aren't different levels when it comes to making teammates better? Either you make them better at the exact same clip as someone who's elite, like Timmy, or you don't make them better at all?

Nah bro. 2 people can read what you ing posted just in this page. Like you're the dumbass here.

You Kiwi s are dense, man. This is the same exact opinion that Charles Barkley holds and has said for the last 15+ years on television.

Of course all players have an effect on the game, but it is a turn of phrase used to assess something that elite do. The very best players not the Scottie Pippen, Manu Ginobili and James Worthy type of HOF'ers.

[dabom]

You Kiwi s are dense, man. This is the same exact opinion that Charles Barkley holds and has said for the last 15+ years on television.

Of course all players have an effect on the game, but it is a turn of phrase used to assess something that elite do. The very best players not the Scottie Pippen, Manu Ginobili and James Worthy type of HOF'ers.

Take the .


No one is taking you serious. Your only reference is ing Charles Barkley who people dislike for being a ing slob and no ing leader.

The guy who won jack- .

[SASdynasty!]

Manu was left off of plenty of all-star teams he deserved to be on when he was sacrificing minutes. It's not like today where the analysis is more comprehensive. There were superficial benchmarks to be hit. Manu make players better b/c they know he'll reward the effort. Tony is an ISO player. And if you need any concrete evidence on who was more impactful, you need look no further than the 03 and 05 Finals. Manu was head and shoulders better than Parker.

I'll give you 2005, but that's it.

2003 NBA Finals:

Parker: 14/4/3 on 39%
Ginobili: 9/5/2 on 35%

2005 NBA Finals:

Parker: 14/3/2 on 46%
Ginobili: 19/6/4 on 49%

2007 NBA Finals:

Parker: 25/5/3 on 57%
Ginobili: 17/6/3 on 37%

2013 NBA Finals:

Parker: 16/6/2 on 41%
Ginobili: 12/4/2 on 43%

2014 NBA Finals:

Parker: 18/5/0 on 48%
Ginobili: 14/4/3 on 50%

4/5 advantage Parker.

[FkLA]

You Kiwi s are dense, man. This is the same exact opinion that Charles Barkley holds and has said for the last 15+ years on television.

Of course all players have an effect on the game, but it is a turn of phrase used to assess something that elite do. The very best players not the Scottie Pippen, Manu Ginobili and James Worthy type of HOF'ers.

WTF does that have to with comparing Rique's impact to Manu's? Why even bring it up if that's what you're referring to? If you want to say neither is on the level of the great Timothy Duncan, then that's fine. That doesn't by any means make Manu's impact negligible. It also doesn't mean that Manu's impact was at the same level as Enrique's--the eyeball test and the metrics show him with a considerable edge.

[RD2191]

J Paco might actually make me vote for Trump Tbh

[DMC]

lol a 15 year nationalism battle between the Parkerstans and the Ginobilians.

my countryman

no, mine

no, mine..

Then some St Croix homey comes in ... "no... mine".

crickets....

[Spurtacular]

Tony has a higher career APG and assist percentage, so that refutes your idea that "Tony doesn't pass." Manu is a creative passer, has better timing (most times although you knew that ill adviced one was coming) and such but that doesn't mean Tony was a black hole. That is only a narrative on these boards.

Manu was 25 and 27 in comparison to Tony who was just 20 and 22. Manu was in his physical and near mental prime during the early le runs, but we'll ignore that to go with your narrative.

And I'm pretty sure that Tony outplayed Manu in the '03 Finals, but I'm too lazy to look up the statistics.

Dribble... dribble... dribble... A few bailout baskets by teammates don't make him a better passer/play maker.

[ElNono]

No, my point is that he doesn't because only the elite can. ElNoNo is arguing that his leadership and impact on the culture does help players improve. I disagree, but of course your too stupid to have noticed that.

He is arguing for the intangibles that most great players possess while I'm talking about presence on the floor and dominance.

Timmy was the dominant force control the outcome of games, Manu, David and Tony (plus the role players) succeeeded because all the attention, effort and execution he put out. Not the other way around.

FWIW, I did argue about making actual players on the court much better, gave examples too, but you completely skipped over the point with zero counter arguments to that. I have to assume you really think turning a bunch of league nobodies into the best bench in the NBA year-in and year-out it's all Pop's system or Duncan influence's gazing from the bench. You probably think the fact that Manu got old and at the same time the bench went to is probably entirely coincidental too.

But yeah, I'm fine to disagree on this, tbh

[ElNono]

And Charles Barkley is a great entertainer but knows absolutely zero about the game. He's called the Spurs done for years on end, and continually makes absolutely terrible predictions based on the fact that he even admitted he only watches the games he telecasts. Now Kenny, maybe even Magic Johnson, those guys actually do know what they're talking about.