Top 30 NBA Spurs (Updated every Sunday)

[ShoogarBear]

wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD LE

Uh, who did Manu defend on the Pistons?

[Nikos]

Ginobili was a BIG reason the Spurs won a 3rd le; I'd dispute that he was the main reason, but there's no doubt that they probably don't win the le without Ginobili's 20 ppg during that playoff run and his huge games in Denver, at home against Seattle, and at home against Detroit.

Of course, the Spurs probably don't win the le that year if Robert Horry doesn't stick that 3 in Game 5, no matter what Duncan or Ginobili did.

You could probably say the same about the Lakers 2002 le. Horry misses that shot and they probably lose in 5 to Sacto.

For most of the 2005 playoffs Horry probably was the teams third best player, he wasn't just a key contributor because of his game 5 heroics.

As an aside I think Manu statistically was the Spurs best offensive player in the playoffs. Duncan was the anchor of the offense and the most used weapon -- but if you factor efficiency AND production it is not far fetched to say Manu was the Spurs most potent offensive Spur player in the 2005 playoffs. Of course when you factor in rebounding and defense Duncan was still clearly the superior player in the playoffs. But Manu's contributions were still HUGE on offense.

[ambchang]

wow this is ridiculous!!! how can u even say that...manu was great defensively and offensively .GINOBILI WAS THE MAIN REASON SPURS WON A 3RD LE

Go back and read the threads when the playoffs happened, I am not the only one who believe that, I was actually rooting for Bowen for MVP, as ridiculous as that sounds.
And no, it has nothing to do with me not liking Manu, in fact, I LOVE Manu, I think he is the X-factor in every single playoff game, it's just that I have been brainwashed by the Spurs organization that defense wins championships, and Bowen did an absolutely amazing job in anyone he had to cover on defense, and Manu wasn't great defensively in that series, he was so-so. He was great offensively.
At the end, only Duncan was great both on O and D, that's why he was MVP.

[ArgSpursFan]

And the truth is Ginibili not winning Finals MVP = Ginobili "carrying" the Spurs to the championship?
You still haven't answered whether Maxwell, Dumars and Worthy > Barkley, Malone, Stockton and Ewing.
So Argentina doesn't have any senseless pride in her players, right ......
BTW, find another Argentinian on this board who would say Manu > Gervin, I doubt you can find one who is as blind.

I doubt I can find many Arg.people Who follows the NBA for so long as I do.(since ´84)
and Like I said before this ranking AINT about personal achivement,It´s a spurs(team/franshise)ranking.
So in my opinion those players who gave the team GLORY should be ahead of those who had great carreer stats and achevement,but never won a championship.

[ArgSpursFan]

Uh, who did Manu defend on the Pistons?

he defended Prince
BTW,He didn´t defend Him,He owned him.
Go look at Prince´s Numbers on the 2005 Finals.

[FromWayDowntown]

I doubt I can find many Arg.people Who follows the NBA for so long as I do.(since ´84)
and Like I said before this ranking AINT about personal achivement,It´s a spurs(team/franshise)ranking.
So in my opinion those players who gave the team GLORY should be ahead of those who had great carreer stats and achevement,but never won a championship.

Jaren Jackson > George Gervin?
Speedy Claxton > George Gervin?
Malik Rose > George Gervin?
Stephen Jackson > George Gervin?

[Russ]

Manu Ginobili is the most underrated player in the NBA. In fact, he's not a player, he's a force of nature. Like Vince Young in football.

[samikeyp]

Manu > ICEMAN ?????

Oh no.

I love Manu...he is my current favorite Spur and yes, a big reason why the Spurs won it all in 03 and 05 (although that Tim Duncan guy had something to do with that also) This just shows either the lack of knowledge or the lack of willingness to gain that knowledge of players prior to 1990 by a lot of fans. George Gervin did more for the Spurs franchise then put the ball in the hole. You want GLORY? For years he WAS San Antonio. Not just the Spurs...the city of San Antonio, much as David Robinson was in the 90's prior to 1997. To just assume that Manu was better than Ice just because you have seen more of him or because he is a countryman is ing stupid.

[ArgSpursFan]

Jaren Jackson > George Gervin?
Speedy Claxton > George Gervin?
Malik Rose > George Gervin?
Stephen Jackson > George Gervin?

argspursfan>fromwaydowntown

you forgot that one .

[samikeyp]

argspursfan>fromwaydowntown

not on your best day.

[ArgSpursFan]

I like being the underdog, don´t worry,just like Manu.

[ArgSpursFan]

BTW,following my criteria:who do you think is bigger for the Lakers fans?Kareem or Wilt?
and them who was the better player between them 2?
Kareem>Wilt?
At the end of the day,It´s just about Who´s got more Glory.

[samikeyp]

So then you believe that les are what makes one player better than the other?

[ArgSpursFan]

So then you believe that les are what makes one player better than the other?

you´re missing the point,I´m not saying that makes them BETTER,I´m saying that les make TEAMS/FRANCHISES better.And this is a team/Franchise ranking.
See the diference?
I never said Manu was better tham Ice -man,i said he should be ahead in the ranking,following the criteria I just posted before.

[samikeyp]

you´re missing the point,I´m not saying that makes them BETTER,I´m saying that les make TEAMS/FRANCHISES better.And this is a team/Franchise ranking.
See the diference?
I never said Manu was better tham Ice -man,i said he should be ahead in the ranking,following the criteria I just posted before.

I understand completly. I just don't agree with your criteria. Based on your criteria....Steve Kerr=Manu

[ArgSpursFan]

I understand completly. I just don't agree with your criteria. Based on your criteria....Steve Kerr=Manu

You have to take in consideration : LES WON,CONF. LES WON,games played,game won,PLAYOFFS games played and WON,points,asts,rbs,stls,blks made, ect.
So according to my criteria:
Kerr<Manu

[ArgSpursFan]

Let me ask you all,If MJ would´ve played his roockie season with the Spurs and Them got traded to the Bulls and WIN 6 les with the Bulls.
Would you rank him ahead of TD,Robinson,Gervin,Manu,Elliott???
At the end of the day This ranking It´s just about Spurs Glory.

[samikeyp]

I agree totally with that its all about Spurs glory which is why I would put Gervin ahead of Manu. He did so much more for this franchise than just play.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let me ask you all,If MJ would´ve played his roockie season with the Spurs and Them got traded to the Bulls and WIN 6 les with the Bulls.
Would you rank him ahead of TD,Robinson,Gervin,Manu,Elliott???
At the end of the day This ranking It´s just about Spurs Glory.

That hypothetical is totally irrelevant to this talk. The discussion is solely about are or were the best Spurs in the history of the franchise. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You want to hold it against George Gervin that he never played with a big man like Tim Duncan or David Robinson and that, because of that, his teams didn't win les. Obviously, that opinion puts you in a very small minority -- particularly on this board populated with some of the most rabid Spurs fans there are -- and for a very good reason. No sane person who has watched this franchise over the course of the last 30 years would argue that Manu > Iceman.

That's not to say that Manu isn't a very good player and a player who has played a vital role in some of the greatest successes in franchise history. It is to say, though, that Manu's role in those successes isn't sufficient to make him "better" from an historical perspective than the franchise's leading scorer, it's only current Hall of Famer, its first clear superstar, and the only guy other than David Robinson and Tim Duncan to ever come close to being the league's MVP (which Gervin did twice).

By your logic, Jaren Jackson would have to be considered more significant in Spurs history than George Gervin, because Jaren Jackson hit some monumental shots during the 1999 playoff run and those shots propelled the Spurs to a le. And if you won't say that, then you have to say you're drawing some arbitrary line that makes Manu one of the 3 most significant players in franchise history -- and more important than George Gervin -- while pushing Jaren Jackson somewhere down your list -- and less important than George Gervin -- despite the fact that Jackson was a huge part of the Spurs first le.

After all, if les are more important than anything else in this analysis, wouldn't you have to argue that Avery Johnson was a "better" Spur than George Gervin. Or Stephen Jackson? Or Steve Kerr? Or Robert Horry? Or Malik Rose? If not, it seems to me that you don't have a particularly principled argument.

Ultimately, what I don't get is why you seem to take Manu being #4 or #5 in franchise history as such a slap in the face?

[ArgSpursFan]

Nope,cause I also consider the player carreer and playoffs stats,So A:J or Malik couldn´t be ahead of Gervin,Eventhough They won a championship.
This is why I´d put Manu ahead of Ice-man
2 NBA les,2 WF les,playoffs games played/won.
And In my opinion thats the edge that´s would put him ahead of Ice-man.
BTW´.I´m not discussing who is the best out of them 2,but who did more for the franchise,as far as les won.

[samikeyp]

but who did more for the franchise,as far as les won.

But there is more to doing for the franchise than just winning les and no...I am not devaluing championships. When you talk about on-court performance that is the ultimate goal. However, value to a franchise is about on and off the court. What about what Gervin did for the franchise in the early days of the Spurs being in the NBA? He was the face of this team and in a lot of respects this city. He was the reason people watched the Spurs for years. He was the reason the Spurs got any coverage nationally. He was the single reason this team stayed in SA for a good amount of years. George Gervin's impact on the Spurs franchise goes way beyond his play on the court....he did so much for the Spurs frachise off the court as well. Manu hasn't reached that yet. He might though. I think he could be that person when its all said and done.

Also...while I agree with you on the les...I can't agree on playoff games or games won. Manu never won those games, the Spurs did. Gervin never won the games he played, the Spurs did.

[ArgSpursFan]

But there is more to doing for the franchise than just winning les and no...I am not devaluing championships. When you talk about on-court performance that is the ultimate goal. However, value to a franchise is about on and off the court. What about what Gervin did for the franchise in the early days of the Spurs being in the NBA? He was the face of this team and in a lot of respects this city. He was the reason people watched the Spurs for years. He was the reason the Spurs got any coverage nationally. He was the single reason this team stayed in SA for a good amount of years. George Gervin's impact on the Spurs franchise goes way beyond his play on the court....he did so much for the Spurs frachise off the court as well. Manu hasn't reached that yet. He might though. I think he could be that person when its all said and done.

Also...while I agree with you on the les...I can't agree on playoff games or games won. Manu never won those games, the Spurs did. Gervin never won the games he played, the Spurs did.

that´s right,that´s why this is a spurs ranking,not a NBA ranking,or a personal carreer stats ranking.
At the same time I must say that Manu is still playing,so if Gervin did more for the spurs I respect it,but manu has at least another 5 years to keep on doing things for the spurs,maybe another championship or 2.Them so far I could say
Gervin>Manu(for the spurs franchise)
in 5 more years,who knows?

[SenorSpur]

I would say the Spurs have had a total of three franchise players in their 30+ year history - David Robinson, Tim Duncan and the illustrious Iceman - George Gervin. No coincidence that all 3 will ultimately end up in the Basketball HOF.

Gervin was, of course, the very first Spur in the HOF. That fact alone should indicate to those Spurs fans, who weren't fortunate enough to have watched him play, why he's considered to be basketball royalty and the franchise's first NBA superstar.

[whottt]

Seriously...the only debate worth having about Gervin is whether or not he deserves the #1 spot. And he's got a pretty strong case for it.

[ShoogarBear]

Seriously...the only debate worth having about Gervin is whether or not he deserves the #1 spot. And he's got a pretty strong case for it.

Yup. Everyone else in the top six played with each other, so it's hard to separate their individual contributions from what they got from playing with great teammates.

But there have been only two franchise-savers. Robinson was one, but if it wasn't for Gervin, there wouldn't have been the San Antonio Spurs for him to save.