Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 255
  1. #76
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,782
    Spurs fans, of all people, should realize this fact. It's mind boggling that some of them are still so caught up with counting stats.

    "But he never averaged 25 ppg and he could never lead a team in the regular season".

    You know what player did both of those things? DeRozan. Do you see how flawed the reasoning of guys like


    DeRozan didn't lead anything.
    Regular season wise, Lowry was underrated Ginobili style to most because of his relatively pedestrian counting stats, but he was always far and away the best player on the Raptors and they were generally at their best when he played with the 2nd unit.


    I think one of the problems is Rings get credit for too much. For me Wilt is far, and away better than Russell.. He was the best player of that era by a God Damn Mile. He had mediocre team-mates while Russell was surrounded with HOF talent, in an era with only 8 teams..

    They got Pippen at 21 on this list WTF? Patrick Ewing is 37. In what ed up alternate universe Is Pippen better than Ewing? You played with Michael Friggin Jordan dude.. Knicks beat you in the playoffs with regularity otherwise.. Or Barkley is at 23? Barkley a former league MVP led the Suns to the Finals. The list is BS. Most of it..
    Context is key to everything. Just spouting so and so has "(insert however many rings)" or "won an MVP(s)/Finals MVP(s)" or "averaged 25 a game" or whatever, doesn't mean a whole lot.

    Take S bag, for example. He undeservingly wins his first Finals MVP as a role player on an all-time great team, in what was essentially a nod to James. Then his second, he intentionally destroys his value to the point of a trade occurring and team forming that never would have otherwise, then lucks into the best team in the league have 5 of their top 7 (including best player) injured in the Finals and now all of a sudden he's made out to be unassailable.

    2007 who got finals MVP?? Not Manu or even Tim. Tony gets it.. Again Manu is playing on a great Spurs team.


    Perfect example. Duncan was easily the best player and the real Finals was the WCSF (Suns). If the league had playoffs MVP instead of Finals MVP, like they should, Duncan wins hands down. If we're going to play the Finals MVP game though, we all know Ginobili had a case in '05. So had the arbitrary vote went his way and not Parker's, would that mean the former was "carrying the team" at a time and the latter wasn't? That's nonsense.

  2. #77
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158



    DeRozan didn't lead anything.
    Regular season wise, Lowry was underrated Ginobili style to most because of his relatively pedestrian counting stats, but he was always far and away the best player on the Raptors and they were generally at their best when he played with the 2nd unit.


    Lowry has taken his own hits from fans, and the media for failing to step up in the playoffs before last season. The Raps with DD were flawed, and the East was weak, but Spurs fans seem to give him unwarranted . He is not KL, obviously he can't replace a top 3 player in the league. But You are the high scorer on a team that is winning 59 games, you are a winning player.. He is losing to Lebron and the Cavs.. For me Winning is not just about did you get the ring? It's hard when you are such a central focus is mostly my point. People undervalue that.. There is only 1 champion each year..



    Context is key to everything. Just spouting so and so has "(insert however many rings)" or "won an MVP(s)/Finals MVP(s)" or "averaged 25 a game" or whatever, doesn't mean a whole lot.
    Of course, and I have tried to give that context.. Some players have been blessed with a great situation, coaches, team-mates. Others have not.. So looking at things like All NBA selections, MVP Awards, Reg season success, playoff runs etc are factored in. How much help do you have? And what are you up against? What is your role?

    Take S bag, for example. He undeservingly wins his first Finals MVP as a role player on an all-time great team, in what was essentially a nod to James. Then his second, he intentionally destroys his value to the point of a trade occurring and team forming that never would have otherwise, then lucks into the best team in the league have 5 of their top 7 (including best player) injured in the Finals and now all of a sudden he's made out to be unassailable.



    He is an asshole.. But he did deserve the finals MVP.. Played very well out in Miami in the games 3 and 4 blowouts.. I wanted Tim to get that badly, because he would have got the 2013 Finals MVP.. But I'll take the chip.. The Asshole helped..

    Perfect example. Duncan was easily the best player and the real Finals was the WCSF (Suns). If the league had playoffs MVP instead of Finals MVP, like they should, Duncan wins hands down. If we're going to play the Finals MVP game though, we all know Ginobili had a case in '05. So had the arbitrary vote went his way and not Parker's, would that mean the former was "carrying the team" at a time and the latter wasn't? That's nonsense.
    Agreed about Duncan, he was still the best player on the Spurs in 2007.. But shows you strength of those teams.. If you recall Duncan after a great first 2 games, struggled shooting the ball out in Cleveland. I mean Duncan shot 4/15 in the closeout game 4.. Tony was brilliant in that series. Averaging 25 PTS on 57%.. So it just shows you how well rounded those Spurs teams were.. Good for us.. We got 5 rings..

  3. #78
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,782
    Lowry has taken his own hits from fans, and the media for failing to step up in the playoffs before last season. The Raps with DD were flawed, and the East was weak, but Spurs fans seem to give him unwarranted . He is not KL, obviously he can't replace a top 3 player in the league. But You are the high scorer on a team that is winning 59 games, you are a winning player.. He is losing to Lebron and the Cavs.. For me Winning is not just about did you get the ring? It's hard when you are such a central focus is mostly my point. People undervalue that.. There is only 1 champion each year..

    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    [/FONT][/COLOR]



    Of course, and I have tried to give that context.. Some players have been blessed with a great situation, coaches, team-mates. Others have not.. So looking at things like All NBA selections, MVP Awards, Reg season success, playoff runs etc are factored in. How much help do you have? And what are you up against? What is your role?



    He is an asshole.. But he did deserve the finals MVP.. Played very well out in Miami in the games 3 and 4 blowouts.. I wanted Tim to get that badly, because he would have got the 2013 Finals MVP.. But I'll take the chip.. The Asshole helped..



    Agreed about Duncan, he was still the best player on the Spurs in 2007.. But shows you strength of those teams.. If you recall Duncan after a great first 2 games, struggled shooting the ball out in Cleveland. I mean Duncan shot 4/15 in the closeout game 4.. Tony was brilliant in that series. Averaging 25 PTS on 57%.. So it just shows you how well rounded those Spurs teams were.. Good for us.. We got 5 rings..
    That's why I specifically said regular season. His playoff performance last season is tainted like everything having to do with that team was because of S bag intentionally artificially depressing his value (which, again, is the only reason that iteration existed).

    They won 59 mostly on the strength of top 15 regular season player Lowry and the best 2nd unit in the league. Granted, DeRozan had his best season too. So in pristine cir stances (near elite teammate, 3 and D players galore, continuity, depth, weak conference), sure, you can win big in the regular season with him. Anything less, forget it. Playoffs? Not a chance.

    The problem is the voters though. So many of them have an agenda and/or are not that knowledgeable, which is why I don't give much credence to many accolades.

    No, he didn't and I said it at the time, so it's not bitterness speaking. A role player should never win Finals MVP. He didn't have a creative offensive burden and wasn't a focus of the opposing defense.

    Parker took advantage of Hughes with a sprained ankle in the first 2 defending him and Duncan's unselfishness. Unlike Bryant in '10 with Gasol, he didn't nearly sabotage his own team in an attempt to steal it.

  4. #79
    Veteran J_Paco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    2,866
    Ginobili certainly over Vince Carter. There must be some CBB bias with Vince starring at UNC.

    But Manu has a bigger battle - Greatest international player?
    That is a no and I'm a big Manu/Spurs fan. Getting past all the biases by (modern) Spur fans, Manu is nowhere near the best international player in NBA history.

    Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash & Giannis Antetokounmpo were/are superior players to Manu.

    Manu (and Tony) has a lot of the same issues that someone like Worthy, Pippen & McHale have playing with a top 10 all-time great. A lot of Timmy's greatness clouds how you rank and rate his "supporting" cast.

    The good thing is that all these lists are subjective and all three are locks for the Hall of Fame.

  5. #80
    Veteran J_Paco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    2,866
    he's easily 15-20 positions ahead of Porker, tbh
    Parker had a much, much better NBA career. Manu was the better talent, but he's hurt by coming in much later.

    Neither guy would have won in the NBA without Duncan being the catalyst and best Spur ever.

  6. #81
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,643
    58!???



    no ing way

    158th maybe

  7. #82
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    58!???



    no ing way

    158th maybe
    Lets not go Nuts. But when I saw that Clyde Drexler is only 1 spot better at 57. Yeah something is off..

  8. #83
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    Parker had a much, much better NBA career. Manu was the better talent, but he's hurt by coming in much later.

    Neither guy would have won in the NBA without Duncan being the catalyst and best Spur ever.
    Parker and Manu are close. I think most Spurs fans don't want to hear that.. They just love Manu. But that is very close. Tony had more All Star Teams Selections, More All NBA teams, had slightly better numbers, played more minutes. Who was better at their peak? Like Manu of 2005 or Tony of 2007 or 2009? Again close..

  9. #84
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,652
    Lets not go Nuts. But when I saw that Clyde Drexler is only 1 spot better at 57. Yeah something is off..
    Dude, he's trolling, just like rascal, apalisoc_9 and some others.

  10. #85
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,678
    So let me get this straight: you can assume guys like Iverson and Lillard would have won rings with better supporting casts but I can't assume Manu would have averaged 25 pts per game on a bigger role? That's quite the hypocritical argument, tbh.

    Manu played for several different teams on several different cultures, with barely taking a summer off during offseasons. I'm gonna go ahead and just assume he would have had a pretty healthy and lengthly career anywhere, tbh. It's easy to say "he would have gotten a career ending injury at age 26". Well, he didn't.

    Manu is as complete a player as we have ever seen and he proved several times he could do it at the highest level for long periods of time. If you don't think he could have done a pretty damn good job as a franchise guy, then I question your basketball knowledge, specially for a Spurs fan that oughtta know just how good Manu really was.

    Btw, I was the one that said Manu > Iverson.

    Height, strength, shooting, finishing, defense, IQ, leadership, clutchness. Outside of speed, I'm having a hard time finding things in which AI is better than Manu, tbh.

    If there was a fantasy draft right now, I would take Manu and the wins, you can have Iverson and the 30 pts on 30 shots, tbh.
    Manu without Duncan won't be wins.
    Wins is a result of team play and Manu was the third wheel behind Duncan and Parker while Iverson was the primary player with less team support. Iverson was just as good or better in leadership, clutchness , finishing, and Manu was only better by 2.2 % points in shooting %, on fewer shots(more shots and he has lower percentages worse shooting for him as he shot more with less fatique and better shot selection with not needing to be the primary team scorer) IQ is bull (Manu's foul on Dirk cost the Spurs a key playoff game and key turnovers against Miami cost them that championship series), Ask an NBA fan of any other team other than San Antonio and Philadelphia and they will say Iverson. Manu was not good enough to carry an NBA team logging big minutes night in and night out.

  11. #86
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,678
    That is a no and I'm a big Manu/Spurs fan. Getting past all the biases by (modern) Spur fans, Manu is nowhere near the best international player in NBA history.

    Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash & Giannis Antetokounmpo were/are superior players to Manu.

    Manu (and Tony) has a lot of the same issues that someone like Worthy, Pippen & McHale have playing with a top 10 all-time great. A lot of Timmy's greatness clouds how you rank and rate his "supporting" cast.

    The good thing is that all these lists are subjective and all three are locks for the Hall of Fame.
    I don't even think Manu should go to the Hall of Fame as he didn't have strong overall stats and as in baseball the NBA should have criteria for career benchmark numbers for Hall of Fame selection(but the NBA doesn't) and Manu was not there with impressive statistics.

  12. #87
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,678
    Drazen Petrovic was a better player than Manu but unfortunately his career was cut short just as it was peaking.

  13. #88
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    I don't even think Manu should go to the Hall of Fame as he didn't have strong overall stats and as in baseball the NBA should have criteria for career benchmark numbers for Hall of Fame selection(but the NBA doesn't) and Manu was not there with impressive statistics.
    The NBA HOF does annoy me.. You look at the MLB HOF you have guys that had long careers, great careers, nearly 3,000 hits, and 500 HR's not in the Hall.. Football HOF same deal all time great players being made to wait.. But in Basketball everyone with basically a pretty good career is in. T-Mac for example was dominant for about half his career.. 2nd half was filled with injuries, moving around, and not playing/winning. He's not a HOF player to me.. If the Basketball HOF was like Baseball Manu, and Tony would be getting a long look, and likely have to wait.. I'm good with them getting in, but it's almost like you should have a separate wing in the HOF for the legends.. You put Tim in the same wing with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc.. And Manu, and Tony go in the wing with T-Mac, and Reggie Miller..

  14. #89
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,678
    The NBA HOF does annoy me.. You look at the MLB HOF you have guys that had long careers, great careers, nearly 3,000 hits, and 500 HR's not in the Hall.. Football HOF same deal all time great players being made to wait.. But in Basketball everyone with basically a pretty good career is in. T-Mac for example was dominant for about half his career.. 2nd half was filled with injuries, moving around, and not playing/winning. He's not a HOF player to me.. If the Basketball HOF was like Baseball Manu, and Tony would be getting a long look, and likely have to wait.. I'm good with them getting in, but it's almost like you should have a separate wing in the HOF for the legends.. You put Tim in the same wing with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc.. And Manu, and Tony go in the wing with T-Mac, and Reggie Miller..
    manu should not even get in the basketball hall of fame. Didn't have the numbers. The Baseball Hall of Fame is much more of an accomplishment than the Basketball Hall of Fame.

  15. #90
    Klaw apalisoc_9's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    24,488
    Dude, he's trolling, just like rascal, apalisoc_9 and some others.
    Saying manu is more like a 65 - 70 all time great is trolling now?

    That put him right beside Pau....

    Who i think should be rated higher than ginobili anyway but thats around the right ranking for him


  16. #91
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    manu should not even get in the basketball hall of fame. Didn't have the numbers. The Baseball Hall of Fame is much more of an accomplishment than the Basketball Hall of Fame.
    I think they should get in. But agree that Baseball HOF is more of an accomplishment..

  17. #92
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,782
    At these takes. Again, counting stats without context. Of course his averages were depressed; they're a product of minutes/usage. Look at his advanced metrics, especially in the playoffs. They're vastly superior to Parker's.

    That said, Parker is underappreciated on this board. Sure, he wasn't the playoff performer Duncan and Ginobili were, but as they aged they needed him to be the #1 option in the regular season to 1) get a top few seed annually, 2) have enough gas in the tank for the playoffs.

    If you want to argue durability/#1 option and go with Iverson, Allen, Miller, etc. over Ginobili, fair enough, but he's easily a Hall-of-Famer and the worst thing the league could do is overvalue counting stats and automatically induct people who hit certain thresholds (a joker like DeRozan might get in by this standard). Basketball is too cerebral, dynamic, nuanced and context related for that.

  18. #93
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,652
    Manu without Duncan won't be wins.
    Manu with or without Duncan was wins everywhere. Heck, once was wins even vs Duncan.

    Wins is a result of team play and Manu was the third wheel behind Duncan and Parker while Iverson was the primary player with less team support.
    Sure, wins is a result of team play, Manu is a team player, Iverson an individual one. That's why Manu is a winner and Iverson isn't.

    Also, it works the other way around. If Iverson would have landed in SA, with Pop and Duncan, he would have never won regular season MVP nor he would have been able to freely take 30 shots per game.

    Iverson was just as good or better in leadership
    Sure, the guy that is famous for ing about practice is the better leader.

    clutchness
    Tell me, what's the clutchest AI shot you remember? Now, think about Manus. Yeah, that's right.

    finishing
    Manu - 62% shooting at the rim

    Iverson - 56% shooting at the rim

    and Manu was only better by 2.2 % points in shooting %, on fewer shots(more shots and he has lower percentages worse shooting for him as he shot more with less fatique and better shot selection with not needing to be the primary team scorer)
    Manu - TS% - 58 / 3pt% - 37 / FT% - 83

    Iverson - TS% - 51 / 3pt% - 31 / FT% - 78

    That's a wide ass margin on every shooting category, tbh.

    IQ is bull
    You would think that, tbh.

    Ask an NBA fan of any other team other than San Antonio and Philadelphia and they will say Iverson. Manu was not good enough to carry an NBA team logging big minutes night in and night out.
    Most NBA fans are dumb, tbh.

  19. #94
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    At these takes. Again, counting stats without context. Of course his averages were depressed; they're a product of minutes/usage. Look at his advanced metrics, especially in the playoffs. They're vastly superior to Parker's.

    That said, Parker is underappreciated on this board. Sure, he wasn't the playoff performer Duncan and Ginobili were, but as they aged they needed him to be the #1 option in the regular season to 1) get a top few seed annually, 2) have enough gas in the tank for the playoffs.

    If you want to argue durability/#1 option and go with Iverson, Allen, Miller, etc. over Ginobili, fair enough, but he's easily a Hall-of-Famer and the worst thing the league could do is overvalue counting stats and automatically induct people who hit certain thresholds (a joker like DeRozan might get in by this standard). Basketball is too cerebral, dynamic, nuanced and context related for that.
    I think the point being made is that for say the baseball Hall of Fame, there are certain statistical benchmarks that usually need to be reached in order to get induction. This obviously limits the field quite a bit. Making the club of inductees for more exclusive. For the most part I think that’s the way that it should be. There are exceptions certainly. But you have to admit the basketball Hall of Fame is far too easy to get into. You have guys that basically had four or five good seasons that are in the basketball Hall of Fame. They don’t belong there. Players that didn’t win, and also didn’t even put up consistent numbers that really pop out. But they are in the Hall of Fame.

  20. #95
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,652
    I think the point being made is that for say the baseball Hall of Fame, there are certain statistical benchmarks that usually need to be reached in order to get induction. This obviously limits the field quite a bit. Making the club of inductees for more exclusive. For the most part I think that’s the way that it should be. There are exceptions certainly. But you have to admit the basketball Hall of Fame is far too easy to get into. You have guys that basically had four or five good seasons that are in the basketball Hall of Fame. They don’t belong there. Players that didn’t win, and also didn’t even put up consistent numbers that really pop out. But they are in the Hall of Fame.
    Like whom?

  21. #96
    Klaw apalisoc_9's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    24,488
    Oh no he doesn't think Manu is a top 58 player...

    He's trolling

  22. #97
    Klaw apalisoc_9's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    24,488
    The overall body of work and Mileage is not there for Manu.

    I do believe a healthy manu could easily be a lead guy for a mid table team, but that's irrelevant.

    Again the mielage is always going to be against him

    Again

    65-75 would be a more appropriate range. That's where Pau is ranked.

  23. #98
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,678

    You are from Argentina so you have a deluded homer opinion. Argentinian fan boys flooded Spurs talk after the Spurs drafted Manu and the hype for him skyrocketed.

  24. #99
    Spurs Fanatic
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Post Count
    2,713
    People are forgetting it’s the Basketball HOF and not just the NBA HOF (which I think there needs to be one too and if that were the case Manu probably wouldn’t make it). Because of that Manu makes it because of his international career and accomplishments alone (leading his team to beat Team USA twice which was pretty impressive. He barely had to do anything in the NBA to make it.

  25. #100
    Go Spurs Go!! dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,158
    Yao Ming for starters. But he helped to make the game global, yeah yeah he’s not a Hall of Fame basketball player. He had maybe three Hall of Fame worthy seasons. Maybe four if we are generous.. In baseball, you have guys that won a World Series hit nearly 500 homeruns still not in the Hall of Fame, probably never going to get in the Hall of Fame like Fred McGriff. The standard is much higher. And frankly it’s a standard I like much better.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •