Top 30 NBA Spurs (Updated every Sunday)

[FromWayDowntown]

That´s totally unfair.cause you know player A averages more minutes tham player B.
Let´s take the production P/48 mins of player A and B on both Wins and Losses.
Then I´tell you who played better.
Just to remind you The spurs were trailed by as many as 15 pts in game 1 and player B took complited over the game and we actually won the game.

Compelling argument -- for the 2005 Finals, Duncan averaged 24.3pts/48 min and Manu dominated him, averaging 24.9pts/48.

[ambchang]

That´s totally unfair.cause you know player A averages more minutes tham player B.
Let´s take the production P/48 mins of player A and B on both Wins and Losses.
Then I´tell you who played better.
Just to remind you The spurs were trailed by as many as 15 pts in game 1 and player B took complete over the game and we actually won the game.

What the are you talking about? Your original arguments take nothing about minutes in account, and my hypothetical examples didn't show squat in minutes, it's irrelevant.
All it shows is that based on your argument, player B > player A despite not showing up at all in 3 games. Let's draw up a BETTER example.
MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player A 41 17 2 0 2 24 W
Player A 37 11 1 0 4 18 W
Player A 38 10 4 3 1 14 L
Player A 39 16 2 0 3 16 L
Player A 48 19 2 0 2 26 W
Player A 40 15 1 0 1 21 L
Player A 42 11 3 0 2 25 W
Average 41 14 2 0.4 2.1 20.6

MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player B 39 9 2 1 0 26 W
Player B 32 3 7 3 0 27 W
Player B 29 4 0 0 0 7 L
Player B 32 4 3 1 1 12 L
Player B 44 6 9 1 0 15 W
Player B 41 10 3 2 0 21 L
Player B 35 5 4 1 0 23 W
Average 36 5.9 4 1.3 0.1 18.7

But according to you, Player B is better, because the losses don't count.

[Nikos]

Compelling argument -- for the 2005 Finals, Duncan averaged 24.3pts/48 min and Manu dominated him, averaging 24.9pts/48.

Well Manu was a much more efficient scorer. But it doesn't matter, while Manu probably was the teams offensive MVP, Duncan was the teams defensive MVP, and not too far off from Manu on the offenive end. Whereas Manu was not nearly as valuable on D and on the boards.

So yeah, Duncan was still the best player.

[smeagol]

It's pretty clear Manu is the most important player the Spurs franchise has ever had.

Stop arguing with us Argies, ok?

[ArgSpursFan]

Well Manu was a much more efficient scorer. But it doesn't matter, while Manu probably was the teams offensive MVP, Duncan was the teams defensive MVP, and not too far off from Manu on the offenive end. Whereas Manu was not nearly as valuable on D and on the boards.

So yeah, Bowen was the best player.

FIXED

[ArgSpursFan]

Just for the record.................losses don´t count on any sport.

[whottt]

The Top 30 NBA Spurs: No. 4 - Manu Ginobili

Web Posted: 03/17/2007 11:47 PM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

Thirty years ago, the Spurs played their first NBA season after being one of four teams from the American Basketball Association to join the older league. To commemorate this anniversary, on Sundays the Express-News will recognize our selections as the 30 greatest NBA Spurs. Here is No. 4:
Manu Ginobili, 2002-present: Were our ranking of all-time Spurs based on compe iveness alone, Ginobili would be a strong candidate for No. 1. Few players in NBA history have been more intensely driven than the 6-foot-6 guard from Bahia Blanca, Argentina.




Selected in the second round of the 1999 draft, Ginobili honed his skills in the Italian professional league before signing with the Spurs on July 18, 2002, twice named MVP of that league. He tweaked the ankle twice during his rookie season but still managed to earn second-team All-Rookie honors. More significantly, he appeared in all 24 playoff games as the Spurs secured their second NBA le. He averaged 27.5 minutes in that playoff run, and 9.4 points, 3.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists and a team-high 1.71 steals, all improvements from his regular-season marks. It was a hint that Ginobili would prove capable of elevating his play when the games mattered most.

Ginobili led Argentina to the 2004 Olympic gold medal, averaging 19.3 points, 4.0 rebounds and 1.39 steals in eight games. He followed with his first NBA All-Star appearance and then had a remarkable playoff run as the Spurs claimed another championship.

He was the team's top scorer in the first round, shot 57.6 percent and averaged 20.5 points in the second round, and was the team's top scorer in three of seven games against Detroit in the Finals.



http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/c...i.3163310.html

[wildbill2u]

It's interesting how close the arguments are for the 4-5-6-7 slots. In all honesty, I think you could rearrange the players in any order and still have doubts that you've made the absolutely right decision.

That being said, I think Parkre and Manu still have great things ahead of them. They may easily separate themselves into a natural order of greatness in the future.

[Dartherus]

So if Manu stunk up the joint and the Spurs lost, it doesn't count, but if Manu played great games and the team wins, he takes all the credit. Impeccable logic.
Player A in series scores 30 points and grabs 15 rebounds in every single game in a 7 game series, with 4 wins and 3 losses.
Player B in series scores 32 points and grabs 16 rebounds in the 4 wins, and scores 0 points and 0 rebounds in the 3 losses, averaging 18.3 ppg and 9.1 rpg, but according to your logic, Player B > Player A (which according to you, means Player B should be ranked higher than Player A in a ranking, but doesn't necessary means Player B is Better than Player A) even though Player A won the MVP .... nice.

Are you forgetting that Player B got injured DURING A GAME of a Series, and had to play without being totally recovered?

How can you blame him for having 'bad games', being injuried during such 3 lost games?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It's interesting how close the arguments are for the 4-5-6-7 slots. In all honesty, I think you could rearrange the players in any order and still have doubts that you've made the absolutely right decision.

That being said, I think Parkre and Manu still have great things ahead of them. They may easily separate themselves into a natural order of greatness in the future.

Yeah, arguments can be made for all those guys.

Personally, I would've given the 2005 Finals MVP jointly to TD and Manu because Manu was phenomonal in that series! He was only poor in games 3 and 4 because he was injured, a thigh contusion if I remember correctly, that really slowed him down... and besides, our entire team was horrible in those two games while the Pistons played impeccable 'ball.

C'mon fellas, let's show each other a little more love! We're all Spurs fans, after all!

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Yeah, arguments can be made for all those guys.

Personally, I would've given the 2005 Finals MVP jointly to TD and Manu because Manu was phenomonal in that series! He was only poor in games 3 and 4 because he was injured, a thigh contusion if I remember correctly, that really slowed him down... and besides, our entire team was horrible in those two games while the Pistons played impeccable 'ball.

C'mon fellas, let's show each other a little more love! We're all Spurs fans, after all!

Yeah, that Thigh Contusion really took him out of it honestly. The loss in his step was noticeable. Only til' Game 7 did he go back to taking it to the rim. with two back to back dunks!

But if there's any evidence Billups had the same exact thing happen to him. Where he got hit in the knee or thigh, in a regular season game against the Lakers, and after that you could tell he was hurting. He only scored 3 points I believe.

Plus, how can you fault Manu for having two bad games? Even Jordan would have one or two subpar Finals performances, I think when he was matching up with Gary Payton. I mean, feeling teams out and adjusting to their defenses is what makes great players great. Manu showed up again in Games 5 and Games 7. So you can't really fault him on account of thinking two bad games take away from his OVERALL Finals performance.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

What the are you talking about? Your original arguments take nothing about minutes in account, and my hypothetical examples didn't show squat in minutes, it's irrelevant.
All it shows is that based on your argument, player B > player A despite not showing up at all in 3 games. Let's draw up a BETTER example.
MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player A 41 17 2 0 2 24 W
Player A 37 11 1 0 4 18 W
Player A 38 10 4 3 1 14 L
Player A 39 16 2 0 3 16 L
Player A 48 19 2 0 2 26 W
Player A 40 15 1 0 1 21 L
Player A 42 11 3 0 2 25 W
Average 41 14 2 0.4 2.1 20.6

MP TRB AST STL BLK PTS W/L
Player B 39 9 2 1 0 26 W
Player B 32 3 7 3 0 27 W
Player B 29 4 0 0 0 7 L
Player B 32 4 3 1 1 12 L
Player B 44 6 9 1 0 15 W
Player B 41 10 3 2 0 21 L
Player B 35 5 4 1 0 23 W
Average 36 5.9 4 1.3 0.1 18.7

But according to you, Player B is better, because the losses don't count.

Isn't it telling that Player A's good game still equated in a Loss, while getting a good game from Player B, indicated the team was more likely to win??

[ambchang]

Are you forgetting that Player B got injured DURING A GAME of a Series, and had to play without being totally recovered?

How can you blame him for having 'bad games', being injuried during such 3 lost games?

No I haven't, but does it matter Player B is hurt or not? He is hurt, he didn't perform as well as he could or as well as Player A, so Player A gets the award, isn't that hard to figure it out.
And we are also forgetting that Player A was faced with the best defensive frontline in recent memory, and the defense of the entire team was focused on him.

[ambchang]

Isn't it telling that Player A's good game still equated in a Loss, while getting a good game from Player B, indicated the team was more likely to win??

Yeah, that if Player B didn't play well, it causes the team to lose, so Player B should play better.
I really couldn't understand why Player A shouldn't be recognized during losses regardless of his performance, afterall, Jerry West won the Finals MVP award despite his team losing, and basketball IS a team game, can't help it that another team plays better.
Let's draw another mathematical example:
3+2+2+2+2 = 11
5+1+1+1+1 = 9
Since 11>9, you guys are saying that 3 > 5, regardless of the other components.

[FromWayDowntown]

What I don't understand about rehashing the 2005 Finals MVP voting is how on Earth does an argument that Manu should have won the MVP of that series make Manu a higher-ranked Spur than George Gervin, David Robinson, or Tim Duncan?

I don't think there's any reasonable argument for Manu to be ranked higher than any of those 3 legends, even if Manu had been named MVP of that series. After all, sometimes it's much easier to be Robin when Batman is around to take the heat off of you.

Clearly, Manu is not a superior player to Tim Duncan or David Robinson. I don't think there's a legitimate argument to place Manu above George Gervin -- in part because, as others have mentioned before, Gervin has an awfully good argument to be #1. Gervin's argument to be #1 is much, much, much better than the argument for Manu to be #3.

Given that, I have no idea why we're discussing the value of players in the 2005 Finals at all.

Manu is properly ranked extraordinarily high among the players who've ever suited up for this franchise. He's considered the best player to ever play here who isn't going to the Hall of Fame based solely on his NBA credentials. That's pretty significant praise. What more is there to say, really?

[ambchang]

It pretty much has to do with people saying that since Manu is more responsible than Duncan for the 2005 championship despite not winning the Finals MVP, Manu > Gervin because Gervin has never been able to accomplish that task.
My argument is that:
a) Duncan > Manu in 2005 playoffs, and the numbers, defensive schemes of Detroit, and defense of the Spurs clearly backed it up
b) Manu's accomplishment in the 2005 playoffs is clearly great, but he is not single-handedly responsible for that championship, he has the help of HoF and MVP Duncan (or it's the other way around), speedy All-Star Tony Parker, defensive ace Bowen, and a great game by Horry. Gervin had none of that, and comparing the final accomplishment without looking at the teammates is ignorant at best.

[FromWayDowntown]

It pretty much has to do with people saying that since Manu is more responsible than Duncan for the 2005 championship despite not winning the Finals MVP, Manu > Gervin because Gervin has never been able to accomplish that task.

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modi of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.

My argument is that:
a) Duncan > Manu in 2005 playoffs, and the numbers, defensive schemes of Detroit, and defense of the Spurs clearly backed it up
b) Manu's accomplishment in the 2005 playoffs is clearly great, but he is not single-handedly responsible for that championship, he has the help of HoF and MVP Duncan (or it's the other way around), speedy All-Star Tony Parker, defensive ace Bowen, and a great game by Horry. Gervin had none of that, and comparing the final accomplishment without looking at the teammates is ignorant at best.

Agreed.

[ambchang]

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modi of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.

It is, that's why I kept arguing with them. And since they can use a computer, I suppose they can't be THAT stupid. But some has been proving otherwise.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Yeah, that if Player B didn't play well, it causes the team to lose, so Player B should play better.
I really couldn't understand why Player A shouldn't be recognized during losses regardless of his performance, afterall, Jerry West won the Finals MVP award despite his team losing, and basketball IS a team game, can't help it that another team plays better.
Let's draw another mathematical example:
3+2+2+2+2 = 11
5+1+1+1+1 = 9
Since 11>9, you guys are saying that 3 > 5, regardless of the other components.

Yeah, well don't group me in with the "other guys"

I'm merely talking about the Finals MVP. Despite the statistics, and votes. A big difference is actually watching the games. I'm not arguing against Duncan winning it. I actually was thinking it could go either way at the time, since Duncan was crucial in game 7, AND he made the freethrow at least to keep the game tied in game 5. And his numbers were more consistent. But Manu got hurt in game 3,4. What if he didn't get hurt? I 'm sure he'd score more than 7.

What I'm saying is, despite Duncan being the unquestionable anchor to this team. It wouldn't have been a SLIGHT to Duncan's game if Manu had won it or they both got 5 votes each. Is that so hard to swallow? Hypothetically if Manu had won the MVP based on his stellar offensive performances. It wouldn't be a statement that Manu is a greater player than Duncan. Just that for that series, Manu's performance was recognized. Since on juggernaut teams with more than one great player. Magic didn't always win the Finals MVP, he won it for his other teammates as well. Magic winning one or two less Finals MVP doesn't mean Kareem, James Worthy got them instead. Magic still comes out the overall best player. Manu getting 4 votes is recognition in itself anyway.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

No, I understand that point was initially made. But I don't think that anyone who has even a modi of basketball i.q. and a cursory knowledge of Spurs history would ever argue that Manu > Gervin. And with that, I don't understand why this thread has devolved into an on-going debate about the 2005 Finals MVP award. Even if Manu had won, there's still no reasonable argument that Manu should be ranked higher than George Gervin among all players in Spurs history. None. Such an argument is, by its very nature, asinine.



Agreed.

I think everyone should be happy that Manu is at number four. There is no reason why the "argentine homers" should argue or debate he should be higher.
The TOP 3 have all been Franchise players at one point. Manu hasn't , and I doubt he could be. And that's not a slight to Manu.

As for the 2005 Finals performance of Manu? Why do you guys ask silly questions? It's completely RELEVANT to this thread, and why it would be brought up?

IT's the reason Manu's number 4!

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Plus, who are these "Guys" arguing Manu is better than Gervin. It was just that ONE guy. ArgsSpursfan And that's been buried and settled I believe. So I don't know what you getting at FWDT. It is possible that the last few posts were just talking bout Finals 2005 performances, without any real implication that Manu is more important than any of the next three guys.

[FromWayDowntown]

Plus, who are these "Guys" arguing Manu is better than Gervin. It was just that ONE guy. ArgsSpursfan And that's been buried and settled I believe. So I don't know what you getting at FWDT. It is possible that the last few posts were just talking bout Finals 2005 performances, without any real implication that Manu is more important than any of the next three guys.

The context of the discussion of the 2005 Finals had everything to do with ArgSpursFan taking up a mantle that others took up long, long ago in this thread, suggesting that George Gervin should somehow be ranked behind Manu and even Tony Parker and Sean Elliott, largely because Manu played a larger role in winning les.

ArgSpursFan argued at one point that the proof of Manu > Gervin was, in fact, the argument that Manu could have been the MVP of the 2005 Finals -- apparently concluding that since Manu could have a Finals MVP during a championship season and since Gervin's teams never played in the Finals, Manu should be considered the more important Spur.

My point in wondering why this discussion continues has a couple of dimensions. First, I don't think that taking the 2005 Finals in isolation truly depicts the relative importance of Ginobili and Gervin in the history of the Spurs franchise. Was Manu terrific in the 2005 Playoffs generally and the 2005 Finals, specifically? Absolutely. Does that make him more important to the history of this franchise than George Gervin? No way. As such, in weighing the relative importance of each player, the subargument that Manu > Tim in the 2005 Finals (which I think is wrong anyway) strikes me as wholly irrelevant to the issues being discussed here.

Moreover, a concern that Manu is appropriately respected in the history of the Spurs franchise has, likewise, already been resolved -- both "officially" in Monroe's column and unofficially in this thread. Nobody seems to doubt that Manu is rightfully in the top 4 and that at least part of the reason for his placement in that pantheon is his performance in the 2005 playoffs. Nobody disputes that Manu was fantastic during that run. Given those truths, I don't see the point in endlessly rehashing an argument that comes down almost exclusively to a matter of preference. Celebrating what Manu did in 2005 is only part of what makes him one of the greatest Spurs ever; but focusing so much energy on revisiting that argument seems to sell a lot of his other significant accomplishments short.

[Spurminator]

Is it possible that Gervin may be #2 on this list? Just to throw us off?

And would that be a huge crime?

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

The context of the discussion of the 2005 Finals had everything to do with ArgSpursFan taking up a mantle that others took up long, long ago in this thread, suggesting that George Gervin should somehow be ranked behind Manu and even Tony Parker and Sean Elliott, largely because Manu played a larger role in winning les.

ArgSpursFan argued at one point that the proof of Manu > Gervin was, in fact, the argument that Manu could have been the MVP of the 2005 Finals -- apparently concluding that since Manu could have a Finals MVP during a championship season and since Gervin's teams never played in the Finals, Manu should be considered the more important Spur.
.....

Moreover, a concern that Manu is appropriately respected in the history of the Spurs franchise has, likewise, already been resolved -- both "officially" in Monroe's column and unofficially in this thread. Nobody seems to doubt that Manu is rightfully in the top 4 and that at least part of the reason for his placement in that pantheon is his performance in the 2005 playoffs. Nobody disputes that Manu was fantastic during that run. Given those truths, I don't see the point in endlessly rehashing an argument that comes down almost exclusively to a matter of preference. Celebrating what Manu did in 2005 is only part of what makes him one of the greatest Spurs ever; but focusing so much energy on revisiting that argument seems to sell a lot of his other significant accomplishments short.

Ok I see your point. But I was going under the assumption that couple of the posts were bumped cuz of this Sundays update. Besides all sports discussions contain a lot of rehash. It'll come up from time to time. As for his other accomplishments, hopefully we'll be having some accomplishments to discuss come postseason.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is it possible that Gervin may be #2 on this list? Just to throw us off?

And would that be a huge crime?

There's actually been some suggestion in this thread that Ice could actually be #1. I don't know that it's realistic, but I can certainly see that argument.