Spot Number 6 - Top 50 Spurs

[timvp]

SpursTalk's Top 50 Spurs
1. Tim Duncan
2. David Robinson
3. George Gervin
4. Gregg Popovich
5. Angelo Drossos

------------------------------

To pass the time until the start of preseason, let's see how SpursTalk.com ranks the Top 50 Spurs. Those eligible for the list include all players, coaches and owners. I don't want to define "top" too narrowly, but I think the best way to do it would be to think of the list as a list of the 50 most influential people who have helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport.

For more information on what we are doing, check out this thread.

In this thread, we will vote for spot number six. Please place your vote. If you will, also explain in this thread why you voted how you did.

Thanks.



P.S.

Poll options listed in alphabetical order. If you want to vote for someone not on the list, post in the thread and I'll add the person.

Voting will end 2AM CST Friday morning, however if the voting is close, it may be extended an extra day. Please vote only once.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure how Ill vote this time. I think I can make a case for Sean Elliott or Manu, Silas or maybe even Tony Parker. I think if this were a few years down the line, Parker would win it easily, but right now it probably goes to Manu, Elliott or Silas. I refuse to put AJ above those players, but he probably has a chance too.

[Brutalis]

Between Manu and James Silas, I had to go Manu. Silas is next.

[Bruno]

It should be Parker but it will be Ginobili. Go Figure.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It should be Parker but it will be Ginobili. Go Figure.

Talk about a cop out. If it turns out to be Manu, its because most people think it should be Manu. There's a good case to be made for both. The bull implication that if Manu wins it its because of homers is kind of tiresome really.

[Bruno]

Talk about a cop out. If it turns out to be Manu, its because most people think it should be Manu. There's a good case to be made for both. The bull implication that if Manu wins it its because of homers is kind of tiresome really.

@ Spurstalk not being full of Manu's homers.
Way to ignore the reality.

I'm waiting for the good case about Manu being ahead of Tony...

[timvp]

The five that I think lead the pack are Silas, Kenon, Elliott, Ginobili and Parker.

I think Silas had the best single year out of those five players. He got named to the All-ABA first team and was just amazing that year. He was very good for another year but then injury struck and he never returned to his previous level. He certainly should be coming up soon.

Kenon might be the most underrated player in Spurs history. Check that, he is the most underrated player in Spurs history. He played for the Spurs for five years and averaged more than 20 points and more than 10 rebounds during those five years. He was also an All-Star three of those years. On stats and All-Star appearances alone, he has a case to be right here.

Elliott not only was a very good player, he also gets bonus points for hitting the biggest shot in Spurs history and for coming back from kidney transplant surgery. Two All-Star games as a player and has been a great representative of the Spurs for the last almost 20 years. I'm not sure it counts for anything but even today, he's probably the biggest Spurs fan there is.

Everyone knows Manu Ginobili's greatness. Three championships rings, an All-Star appearance, an All-NBA third team selection and a 6MOY. His 2005 playoff run was a statistical and real life masterpiece. He has also played very well in the last five regular seasons. He hasn't repeated his 2005 playoff run in the last three postseason runs but he's more often than not been very, very good. His per minute stats and the level of excitement, creativity and heart he brings to the Spurs can't be overstated.

Even though he's young and even though I may very well be wrong, I'm actually leaning toward voting Parker here. I think Parker beats out Silas due to more years playing at a high level. I think Parker beats Elliott just because Parker is the better player. I think Parker beats Kenon because Kenon didn't have the longevity or the impact on winning that Parker has had. Parker versus Ginobili is extremely close but I give the slight edge to Parker. Not only has Parker been on the Spurs a year longer, he has two years on Ginobili in terms of being a top three player on the team.

Here is my breakdown from an earlier thread. Like I said, Ginobili is probably the better player right now but once you add in everything, Parker just has the slight edge in terms of the Spurs careers to date.

To me, Ginobili versus Parker is really damn close. Even though Parker has no shot at beating Ginobili in a popularity contest amongst Spurs fans, if you just look at the numbers, accomplishments and his role each year, Parker has a really good case.

First, straight up numbers, Parker has more points and more assists in both per game averages and career totals for both the regular season and the playoffs. He also has a higher field goal percentage. Ginobili leads Parker in other categories such as rebounds, steals and three-point percentage, but those margins don't look wide enough to clearly put Ginobili ahead of Parker just based on stats.

Parker's accomplishments include two All-Star Game appearances and a Finals MVP. Ginobili has one All-Star Game appearance, a third team All-NBA selection and a Sixth Man of the Year award. While the Finals MVP has to be considered the most prestigious of all those accomplishments, I think it could be successfully argued their accomplishments are close to a wash.

Even if you consider the previous two categories tied, when you look at their respective roles on championship teams, that's when Ginobili's case becomes harder to make. In 2007, I'd assume most would agree that Parker had the better playoff run. In 2005, it was Ginobili who had the better playoff run. If 2003, Parker was the third best player during that run, while Ginobili was either the fifth or sixth best player on that championship team.

If you put a gun to my head and told me to pick which one is better today if they are both 100% healthy, I'd say Ginobili. On top of that, Ginobili is no doubt much more fun to watch, his likability factor is off the charts and his international exploits are astounding. All that said, take away the emotional aspect and it is hard to say that Ginobili deserves to make the list before Parker.

Although I'd love to see that argument.

The best argument I've seen for Ginobili over Parker is that Ginobili is the player the Spurs go to when they need a bucket in crunch time. However, while that is true and Ginobili definitely was the crunch time beast in the 2005 playoff run, since then it has been a different story. In the last three playoffs, Ginobili has shot sub-30% in crunch time while Parker has shot over 50%.

The difference between Ginobili and Parker is so thin that I may very well be swayed if someone can explain their reasoning. I also think Kenon, Elliott or Silas wouldn't be bad votes here. Really, any of those five have legitimate arguments.

[Sense]

I'm gonna go with RC....

he got us Tony and Manu

[Kori Ellis]

I'm going to vote for Stephen Jackson under all my user names












just kidding ... maybe

[baseline bum]

Just like I had to vote for Gore in 2000 when I really wanted Bradley, I'll vote Manu because he's the best choice that has a shot in of winning right now (although the gap for Silas>Manu is a lot smaller than the one for Bradley>Gore ). Manu would be my next pick after Si anyways.

[baseline bum]

BTW, where is Dennis Lindsey on the list of choices?

[Dex]

In my personal list, it's currently boiling down to Ginobili, Parker, Elliott, Bowen, or Buford. All of the reasons should either be obvious, or previously mentioned.

However, I eventually had to go with Tony Parker. timvp pretty much nailed it in his summary. The accomplishments are virtually a wash, but I'd still personally take Tony's Finals MVP and extra All-Star Appearance over Manu's 6MOY Award.

Aside from the brilliant Finals run in 2007, Tony was more instrumental to the playoff runs in both 2003 and 2007, and is arguably more instrumental the Spurs system as a whole as he is obviously running the show, night in and night out.

If Manu were to go down right now, the Spurs offense stutters. If Tony goes down, the Spurs offense as it should be does not exist. Can you imagine trying to survive a playoff series with Jacque Vaughn as your Starting One? Fuggetabou .

Furthermore, Tony has been asked to handle a great deal of responsibility with this team from nearly day one. It took all of what, five games into his rookie season before Pop handed over the starting reigns and started drilling away. Tony has taken all of Pop's yelling and criticism and coaching and turned into one of the elite point guards in this league, for this team. And when all is said and done, Parker may end becoming just to as important to San Antonio as Tim and David, especially if he is able to carry on the winning tradition into the twilight years of Duncan and beyond. If Parker finishes his career in San Antonio, he has definitely already earned a spot in the rafters.


Not to mention the bond these two share. Without Tony, there'd be no Teemy.

[MannyIsGod]

Talk about a cop out. If it turns out to be Manu, its because most people think it should be Manu. There's a good case to be made for both. The bull implication that if Manu wins it its because of homers is kind of tiresome really.

Its the damn truth though. I love Manu but to ignore the reality that he has the biggest rabid section of followers on this team is just ridiculous.

It really should be Parker. Manu has been a great player for the Spurs, but I think if you just weight their Spurs careers Parker has a slight edge here. Manu will have the edge overall due to his national team success but thats not what we're talking about here.

I think the icing on the cake is the last playoff run. Parker was clearly the better player.

[Spurs Brazil]

This one is vey very difficult.

For me it’s a tie TP and Manu but since we have to choose one.

Manu was fantastic in 05, TP was great in 07.

When Manu arrived he was already the best player in the Argentina NT, Euroleague and Italian MVP. TP arrived as a unknown. He played in France but wasn’t a star and also wasn’t in France NT.

He arrived and needed to learn a lot more than Manu. First he needed to prove Pop he could run the team, than after the Spurs tried to get Kidd he needed to prove he was the right guy for the PG spot and after his so-so 05 Finals he decided to add a reliable J to reach another level.

Manu is the player that I most like to see playing but I’ll vote for Tony.

[Leetonidas]

I can't believe I'm one of only two people who voted for Sean...

[J.T.]

If AJ doesn't win this poll, I'll relapse on coke and punch out some women.

[Kamnik]

Neck&neck poll.... i voted for Manu because i like him more. Their achivements (in Spurs uniform) are basically identical.

[smeagol]

@ Spurstalk not being full of Manu's homers.
Way to ignore the reality.

I'm waiting for the good case about Manu being ahead of Tony...

Manu is the better player.

Maybe three years down the road Parker will win it.

[smeagol]

Way to ignore the reality.

I'm waiting for the good case about Manu being ahead of Tony...

Aside from him being from the same country as you, what is your case for Tony . . . ?

[rascal]

Parker has been with the team longer and has the better stats and will finish with the better career stats.

[carina_gino20]

Voted for Manu, although the arguments for Tony were very good. I'll argue for Manu without going into Tony. Just because I say Manu is ___ doesn't imply that Tony isn't.

Manu, for me, embodies all that is classy and good about the Spurs. He has been very instrumental in the past playoff runs, even when the Spurs didn't go on to win the championship. A lot of people remember the magical Finals performance from Tony, but few remember how Manu stepped up in the previous rounds to help the Spurs move on to the next rounds.

It was also clear this past season that the magic lies in Manu. When he was healthy, he was damn near unstoppable. He was playing out of his mind. Without a healthy Manu in the playoffs, the Spurs was just a contender, not a winner.

He also shown that humility and sacrifice of a true Spur. Steve Nash said before that you could see that the guy's intention is really pure. All he wants is to win. I don't know a lot of All-Stars who will let themselves be played like a yo-yo from the starting spot to the bench without grumbling. I don't know that many All-Stars who would come off the bench without grumbling. Manu has done it all of his career, and he has never shown ill will.

He also didn't arrive into such a stellar situation other than the Spurs being a championship squad. He was a great star in Europe, and yet he had to start from virtually nil when he arrived. Just like Tony, he had to learn the NBA system, and worked hard to earn the trust of Pop and his teammates. He had to earn his spot.

As for the argument based on Tony having more All-Stars than Manu, it's pretty weak. Everyone knows Manu deserved a spot this year, especially at that point when he was playing so unbelievably out of this world.

And 2005 Pistons > 2007 Cavs. Manu almost shared the Finals MVP trophy with Timmy. No Ginobili, no 2005 championship. If Tony had played at a lower level than his amazing performance in the 2007 Finals, the Spurs still would have taken the championship, IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

You honestly can't go wrong between Manu/Parker/Elliott/Silas and even AJ wouldn't be horrible here.

[Bruno]

Manu is the better player.

Maybe three years down the road Parker will win it.

RIF.

It's not about who is the better player but who has "helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport" the most.

[smeagol]

RIF.

It's not about who is the better player but who has "helped make the Spurs one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport" the most.

So you think you can make a better case for Tony than for Manu?

At the end of the day, it is a matter of opinion. Both are great players and both have helped the franchise. I still think Manu contributed more than Tony simply because Manu appeared at key moments of the championship runs.

But I'm sure you have good reasons to vote for Tony.

At this point, I have refrained myself from voting, given that I'm a newbie as a Spurs fan. I cannot compare Manu or Tony to Silas given that I have never seen Silas play and don't know much about his contribution to the Spurs.

[Bruno]

So you think you can make a better case for Tony than for Manu?

Between 2004 and 2008, Parker and Ginobili were damn close.
However, in 2003, Parker was a way bigger piece to the championship.
So when you consider their whole contribution as a Spurs, Parker is ahead of Manu.
To me, it's as simple as that.