The only way Manu survives until the end of his contract is if the Spurs bring him off the bench and limit him to around 25-28 minutes per game in the regular season and about 32 in the playoffs. If you try to play him more than that, he's not going to last.
While giving Barry confidence by putting him in the starting lineup is part of it, another part is the Spurs need to conserve Manu's minutes. With a "forced" 12 minutes of rest (6 to start each half), it will be easier to hold him to about 30 played instead of getting desperate and playing him close to 40 and burning him out in the first round.
I'm introducing it for discussion because I want to know if Argentine fans care more about the pride of seeing a fellow countryman start for a great team than you do seeing said team win a championship.
If you don't like the question as I posed it, don't answer it. Oh wait, you didn't.
Ok want an answer, then I pick 1.
But what ing makes you think the Spurs can't win a championship with Manu as a starter?
Answer that please.
Everytime I see Manu play, I think, "This guy is the most balls out player I've ever seen." But I can't picture him playing ten years from now if his minutes are not managed.
Because he cant handle the goddamn minutes.
How many times we gotta go over this.
I would never see Manu playing 10 years from now either way.
Not many players stay in the league at 37 years old.
As long as it helps the team win it should not matter if Manu is a starter or comes off the bench. Besides he will still play the same amount of minutes as a starter or reserve.
manu=pussy
I agree.
FOR THIS SERIES, Game Two makes me think the Spurs are more effective defensively (versus Boykins) and offensively (Barry can't create his own shots; Manu kicks ass at it).
And Alvarez, no need to get pissy at me. Tranquilo. Manu is my favorite Spur. Period. I just think that in order to win championships, teams have to be flexible when matching up against the opposition. Fortunately, the Spurs to a man are the best players on earth when it comes to sacraficing individually in order to help the team win. Manu is one of them.
Listen, the Spurs would have came out and murdered the Nuggets in game 2 no matter who started, or who came off the bench. They knew what they had to do, and they did it...They needed a win, and I think they would have gotten it no matter what.
I am not one of those Manu fans that care about whether Manu starts or not, as long as he keeps his minutes and I see him play on TV, I'm fine with it.
I just don't know why we can't be the best team in the league with the traditional starters, after all, the Spurs were in 1st for the time of the season when we were healthy.
If Manu is benched at the start of next season, then I will be mad because Manu deserves more than that.
You'll be mad??
Pop is quite scared.......
They were healthy, but Manu was exhausted.
Manu needs his minutes limited, why don't you people understand that.
Can't they still be limited if he starts?
First - Let it be known that I'm not a POP fan, as coach of this team. However, I do give credit where credit is due. I support the move of Ginobily, but I'm not convinced that this should be a permanent stradegy. I like the way Brent played during the times he started, however, I feel the same results, will be obtained, as he plays more during the progress of this series.
Brent can take it to the hole, when he chose to do so. I would like to see him perform this way a little more.
Another reason why I don't have a problem with this change, is because, I feel coach Pop, made a serious error in trying to play our starters all of those minutes in game 1, and then he asked a shooter like Big Dog to go in during the 4th quarter, after having set the whole game. Bad move at this stage of his working back into game shape. There's a reason why Big Dog was a number 1 pick, give him a chance, you will not regret it Pop.
They said the same thing about Allen Iverson.
From todays ESPN Insider
Q: Great move by Gregg Popovich putting Brent Barry (4-4 in 3-pointers) in the starting lineup with Tim Duncan and having Manu Ginobili, who is more capable of creating his own shots, come off the bench . Will we see this lineup in the next game(s)? – Newlin, Toronto, Ontario
Hollinger: Newlin, I think we might. Here's the thing: Most players play worse off the bench than they do as starters. If you go through the league, probably 90-95 percent of the players are like that. But Ginobili, over his career, has played just as well as a sub, so the adjustment isn't a big deal to him.
Meanwhile, Barry's starter-sub splits are huge. This year he shot 48 percent when he starts versus 41 percent off the bench, and his per-minute rates of points, rebounds, and assists all increased substantially. So by making this move, Popovich dramatically increases Barry's effectiveness while losing nothing from Ginobili.
Additionally, the switch is particularly advantageous in this series because it throws George Karl's rotation off kilter. Denver has DerMarr Johnson starting as its defensive stopper, but he almost never faced Ginobili in Game 2. And when Karl goes to the bench, instead of playing Earl Boykins on Barry defensively, Karl is forced to put him on either Ginobili or Parker.
There is one drawback, however: Popovich's second-best player doesn't get as many minutes, because he starts each half on the bench. But considering the other advantages, it's worth it for this series, so Pop should ride it as long as Barry makes shots. But if San Antonio advances, I'd guess Manu will begin the next round in the starting lineup.
And some bonus coverage on DPY
Q: Honestly, how can Bruce Bowen be the Defensive Player of the Year? I know the guy hustles and sometimes has good defensive games against swingmen, but some of the comments I've seen justifying him being selected are ridiculous. When was the last time somebody won the award who did not even average one steal or one block per game? Might as well give it to Tayshaun Prince, or Shawn Marion if you are going to give it to somebody for hustling and stops. – Alex, East Lansing, Mich.
Hollinger: You're coming face-to-face with the reality of NBA defensive stats: They tell us almost nothing. Blocks and steals are a tiny sliver of what a good defender does, but they're the only part that's visible in the box score. Thus, despite not getting many blocks or steals, it's possible for Bowen to be an outstanding defender.
Where I disagree with the (rumored) Bowen vote, however, is that he isn't his team's best defender. That le goes to Tim Duncan. The Spurs' defense gave up 9.1 points more per 48 minutes when Duncan left the floor, versus just 1.5 for Bowen. Duncan also blocked nearly three shots a game and, unlike many shot blockers, he does it without taking himself out of position for rebounds.
Overall, had I been given a ballot, I would have had Duncan first, Ben Wallace second, and Bowen and Prince tied for third.
John Hollinger, author of "Pro Basketball Forecast 2004-05," is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. Click here to contact John.
I agree with Hollinger: Manu can come off the bench as long as Barry keeps hitting his shots, or if the Spurs advance, Manu should return to start a new series. I just don't think it would be fair to take away his starting position permanently.
Makes sense why some of us would apply the same thinkingCurious. I know that when it comes to Soccer, if a player comes off the bench. It's looked upon that that player is less capable than a starter.
But really… some of responses are getting pretty ridiculous…
I love the passion that many defend their favorites, but really if Manu is okay with it why can’t we support the decision and instead of complaining, be happy and send positive energy to both Manu and the team.
I reserve the right to be irrational if Manu is benched at the start of next seasonIf Manu is benched at the start of next season, then I will be mad because Manu deserves more than that
Pop says that Rasho is a better defender than Duncan, and Bowen draws the best player from every team, but he only guards one player, Duncan guards the paint, therefore would he not naturally have a greater impact imeditatly on points? The better way to measure their effectivness would be to see the diffrential in their assigments PPG, against the spurs and against the league.
Lifted from another board.
Manu:
Me explican por favor que estan diciendo???
Y de que hablan cuando dicen cosas como por ejemplo:
- Manu puede pagar un precio muy caro
- El danio ya esta hecho y lo agarra en el mejor momento de su carrera.
- TP juega un mal partido y que hace Pop nada...
- El banco no funciona y que pasa? sacrificamos a Manu.
y mas etc etc etc... que estamos diciendo??
En que me estoy sacrificando?? saben cual es la unica diferencia?? que no juego los primeros 6', que son los que todos estan frios y mas intracendentes, despues los primeros 5' del 2do tiempo. Donde esta todo el problema?? Que danio me estan haciendo?? el unico que esta arriesgando es el! ya que si perdemos o la pateo tanto yo de suplente como Barry de ular, lo van a matar a el. Que precio muy caro puedo pagar?? si vos lo miras egoisticamente, tengo todo por ganar...
Las razones, las compartan o no, fueron entendibles.
Tampoco vamos a decir que ganamos por 30 por el cambio, porque no es verdad, esta claro, pero si quieren, miren los nros de los minutos del anio pasado como suplente y de este como ular. 29.6 este anio, 29.4 el pasado!!! tanta diferencia??
Si ademas de hacer lo mismo, ayuda a un companiero a empezar mejor y que rinda mas, no lo harian??? a ver... quiero saber sus opiniones.
Un abrazo.
pd: El anio pasado no dije que lo entendia, que me parecia barbaro y demas... dije que no me habia gustado, pero lo acepte y trate de hacerlo bien. Esta vez se lo dije desde el primer momento en que me lo insinuo.[/B][/QUOTE]
Manu is talking about some of the things that have been said in his site. (If you think that we argentinians overreacted here, you should see what's happening over there )
Translation by poster Marhq:
What am I sacrifying? Do you know what's the difference? That I don't play the first 6 minutes, when everybody's cold and not doing much, and then the first 5 minutes of the second half. Where's the problem? What harm is being done to me? The only one risking something is Pop for if we lose or I suck as a sub or Barry as a starter, Pop is the one who's gonna get killed. What is the high price I may have to pay? If you look at it from a selfish point of view, I'm in a win-win situation.
The reasons, whether you like them or not, were understandable.
Off course, I'm not gonna say that we won by 30 because of the switch because that's not true. But if you want, go look my minutes from last year as a sub and this year's as a starter. 29.6 this year and 29.4 last year!. Is that such a big difference?
And if, in addition to doing the same, you're helping a teamate to start better and produce more, wouldn't you do it? Let's see, let me know your opinions.
PS: last year I didn't said that I understood it and that I thought it was OK with me. I said that I didn't like it but I accepted it and tried to do my best. This time I told Pop it was OK from the very first time he suggested it.
^^That's Manu's reply to a thread in his forum on his official website, in case if you didn't know.
I figured. Was the translation supplied on his board?
The reason Spurs are championship quality is because they have players with character like Manu. They interviewed Camby about changing the starting rotation in Denver with Buckner starting and he said he didn't have a problem with it if he didn't lose his spot.
lol, Well, it was previously posted on this board.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
