PDA

View Full Version : Could Manu have handled being a franchise player?



Chronz
11-10-2009, 03:58 AM
Let me make one point clear, based heavily on playing style, not many are capable of dominating like Manu just did tonight. Dominance predicated on deadly set shooting and superior passing. Hes reminding me of Larry Legend 90's Edition (the one who saved his back) only shorter and better side to side on his drives. Tonight was vintage Manu, beyond efficient in every aspect (drives, shot selection, passing), catching defenders off balance and getting to the line at will, and he did this all off the bench in limited minutes.

STORY of Manu's career, he never logs heavy minutes yet somehow struggles to stay healthy. Does this mean he would be utterly incapable of carrying a team as a "Franchise Guy"? Could he do what he did tonight consistently? And if he could stay healthy, would his play suffer from altering his playing style (if need be?).

And secondly why is Pop still bringing Manu off the bench? I understood the reasoning when TP and Duncan were around but why not start off the game with your best player? It would be like the Raps not starting Bosh on their team. PS Manus +/- was ridiculous tonight

ChiSox219
11-10-2009, 04:27 AM
Let me make one point clear, based heavily on playing style, not many are capable of dominating like Manu just did tonight. Dominance predicated on deadly set shooting and superior passing. Hes reminding me of Larry Legend 90's Edition (the one who saved his back) only shorter and better side to side on his drives. Tonight was vintage Manu, beyond efficient in every aspect (drives, shot selection, passing), catching defenders off balance and getting to the line at will, and he did this all off the bench in limited minutes.

STORY of Manu's career, he never logs heavy minutes yet somehow struggles to stay healthy. Does this mean he would be utterly incapable of carrying a team as a "Franchise Guy"? Could he do what he did tonight consistently? And if he could stay healthy, would his play suffer from altering his playing style (if need be?).

And secondly why is Pop still bringing Manu off the bench? I understood the reasoning when TP and Duncan were around but why not start off the game with your best player? It would be like the Raps not starting Bosh on their team. PS Manus +/- was ridiculous tonight

I found myself asking the same question, why not start Manu tonight?

Do I think he could have been a franchise player, meaning the #1 guy on a team? I read an article (recommended in Simmons' book) that said this:


The San Antonio Spurs’ Manu Ginóbili is a statistical freak: he has no imbalance whatsoever in his game — there is no one way to play him that is better than another. He is equally efficient both off the dribble and off the pass, going left and right and from any spot on the floor.

So I think he could at least be a 1a/b, paired with a big man like Bosh (or someone similar) The thing is, since Manu is coming off the bench a higher percentage of those minutes come against backups. I don't know how to measure this or if it really has a significant impact but it should be considered. When Ben Gordon came off the bench for the Bulls he usually played better (3 more points per 36min, shot 2.6% better from 3's, and 5.34 FTs vs 4.4 FTs per 36) and I can't help but think that was due to the opponents guarding him were a lot of undersized guards coming of the bench.


Split Value FG% 3P% FT% MP PTS TRB AST
Role Starter .454 .374 .815 30.2 15.8 4.4 4.0
Reserve .452 .375 .827 25.2 13.7 3.7 3.2

Ginobli (above) has been productive as a starter so I don't think it'd be a problem for him starting in his younger years as the go to guy. Playing 40mpg might be tough but I have no way of knowing if his body would hold up or not.

abe_froman
11-10-2009, 05:24 AM
i think he might have been a good number 2 or 3rd man(which basically how he's talked about anyways),but reluctant to say he could have been one until those questions that you posed are answered

JayW_1023
11-10-2009, 06:32 AM
He is my favorite player, and yes, I think he could be a franchise player...maybe I'm biased though. I don't think he would win as much games as he does with his current role as 6th man...but he'll put up elite numbers without a problem.

In his prime, he was probably the most complete SG not named Kobe Bryant. I have no doubt he could average 25 points, 5 boards, 6 dimes and 2 steals as the main facilitator. He is just that good...and people fail to realize how good Manu is simply because he comes off the bench.

Manu is one of those special players who can see plays before they happen. His instincts of the game are unbelievable...almost Larry Bird like. He can create plays out of the blue out of almost nothing.

Combine that with his deceptive athleticism, allround hustle and competitive spirit and passion for the game...and you have a player unlike any other. When he is healthy and focussed he is a top 5 player at his postion, which he proved again tonight.

JasonJohnHorn
11-10-2009, 06:35 AM
Manu does have big nights from time to time, and he is a great player, but in my estimation he could never have been a franchise player because he doesn't dominate on a nightly basis. His defence is stellar, he has a great work ethic, he handles the ball well, makes the extra pass, can shoot well (onviously) and works the glass very well for somebody at his position. But those things only add up to a great player, not a franchise player. If he were the guy people were double-teaming, he wouldn't last long a "the man" on a team. Its not a knock on a guy, its just franchise players are few and far between, and a franchise player to me is a guy who makes your team competative, who makes his teammates better, demands a double team and still puts up all star numbers despite the fact the he is double-teamed. Duncan, LBJ, Kobe, the young Shaq. These guys are and were franchise players. Great players, like Nash (perhaps the greatest facilitator of his generation), have never been able to push their team to the finals, so it seems like though he's great, he's not a franchise player (thogh some could debate that). He would be on the cusp for me, like Dirk and Amare, close, but not quite there. Manu though, by himself, or at least as the go-to-guy on a team, could not have performed at a level like LBJ, Duncan, Garnett or Bryant.

JayW_1023
11-10-2009, 06:41 AM
Manu has the luxury of not needing to dominate on a nightly basis with guys like Parker and Duncan playing alongside him...but when he does need to take over he hardly disappoints. In 2005, he tore through a Pistons' championship defense seemingly at will, a defense even Kobe had trouble solving. That was definately his prime.

The Spurs are not the same team without him. Last years first round loss to Dallas proved that. Without Manu, the Spurs may not even be a playoff team. I think that says alot.

Kyben36
11-10-2009, 07:46 AM
I dont think so, he is a great tallent dont get me wrong, but I feel like he is so damn stopable. I mean, every time he just goes left, come on people, cut off his left hand already. I just think he is too predictable.

jetsfan28
11-10-2009, 07:57 AM
No. He has all of the ability to do it, but I just don't think he can log 42 minutes a game and still play 80 a year. Even Iverson, one of the toughest players in the history of the league, could barely play 75 a season, Manu would run into the same problems, they're smaller players who thrive on contact with bigger players.


As to your other question, I guess he just wants to keep him in a set role.

SteveNash
11-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Let me make one point clear, based heavily on playing style, not many are capable of dominating like Manu just did tonight. Dominance predicated on deadly set shooting and superior passing. Hes reminding me of Larry Legend 90's Edition (the one who saved his back) only shorter and better side to side on his drives. Tonight was vintage Manu, beyond efficient in every aspect (drives, shot selection, passing), catching defenders off balance and getting to the line at will, and he did this all off the bench in limited minutes.

STORY of Manu's career, he never logs heavy minutes yet somehow struggles to stay healthy. Does this mean he would be utterly incapable of carrying a team as a "Franchise Guy"? Could he do what he did tonight consistently? And if he could stay healthy, would his play suffer from altering his playing style (if need be?).

And secondly why is Pop still bringing Manu off the bench? I understood the reasoning when TP and Duncan were around but why not start off the game with your best player? It would be like the Raps not starting Bosh on their team. PS Manus +/- was ridiculous tonight

Could he handle being a franchise player :laugh2: The guy can't even handle a starting role.

Why does Popovich bring him off the bench? Because Ginobili is wildly inconsistent, no sense in putting trust in a "franchise" guy who you won't be able to count on from game to game.

D-Leethal
11-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Manu is one of my fav players in the league.......He probably could be an option 1a/1b with a guy like Dirk or someone of that caliber, but I don't think that would bring them a ring.......Although he did will Argentina to a gold medal as the leader which is beyond impressive

D-Leethal
11-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Could he handle being a franchise player :laugh2: The guy can't even handle a starting role.

Why does Popovich bring him off the bench? Because Ginobili is wildly inconsistent, no sense in putting trust in a "franchise" guy who you won't be able to count on from game to game.

:facepalm:

SteveNash
11-10-2009, 09:02 AM
:facepalm:

:facepalm:

LeBron2NYK
11-10-2009, 09:48 AM
No, you're not a franchise player if you can't stay on the court.

Raph12
11-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Don't know if he could stay healthy logging 35-40mpg, but Manu is one of my favorite players for a reason. I'm sure if he could stay on the floor, he could be a great first option as long as he could continue to deter to someone down-low.

Confusion
11-10-2009, 11:41 AM
He has the talent and ability if you ask me, in a way sure.

IndyRealist
11-10-2009, 12:07 PM
To answer the question, I think a year or two ago they tried to put Manu in the starting lineup. He was uncomfortable in the role, didn't have his rhythm, and was quickly moved back to the bench. It's not that he's not starting caliber, it's that he is comfortable in the role he's playing.

Manu plays against the other team's starters, just not at the beginning of the game. His substitution pattern puts him in quite a bit with Parker and Duncan, especially in the fourth quarter.

Ginobili plays for the Argentinian (?) national team almost every summer. Plus the Spurs are always in the postseason. That's a lot of games to log without ever getting a break. I'm surprised anyone's questioning his durability when he plays something like 40 extra games a year. Some players are off from the middle of April until the end of October.

Hellcrooner
11-10-2009, 01:59 PM
Yes of course.

But lets be serious.


amost 50% of the league palyer could be "franchise" players if a coach decided to force teh rest of their teammates to award them 20+ shots a game

psdking
11-10-2009, 02:42 PM
manu is one of those players that can score pts and make plays when it matters ..but that is it..he cant run a team like duncan..so i do not not he can be a franchise guy..its kind of like saying can rondo be a franchise pg

Joshtd1
11-10-2009, 04:04 PM
If he would have landed on a team that didnt have Duncan or an emerging Parker..I definately think so. If people like Joe Johnson and Brandon Roy and Danny Granger are considered franchise players, I dont see why Manu can't.

Joshtd1
11-10-2009, 04:05 PM
I dont think so, he is a great tallent dont get me wrong, but I feel like he is so damn stopable. I mean, every time he just goes left, come on people, cut off his left hand already. I just think he is too predictable.

You don't think coaches and players know he loves going to his left? Its easier said then done to say "stop him going to his left." He doesnt just go there, he goes right plenty of times, but he is crafty and is able to get back to his left.

Spurred1
11-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Pop tended to change his role a couple of years ago as he saw fit. Manu does better playing off the bench-but it isn't like he's playing against scrubs either when he does that. He logs quite a bit of time against the opposing team's starters.
As for the franchise player question-well, I don't know. Sure, why not?
Good thread, Chronz.

Chronz
11-10-2009, 06:28 PM
I always found it ironic that his career may have been more fully appreciated if he were stuck on a team that wasnt winning titles. Imagine if he would have ended up in Denver all those years ago, would they have kept his minutes down ala JR Smith, or would he have been the perfect compliment to Melo and make the leagues best 2-3 combo.

Chronz
11-10-2009, 06:29 PM
Yes of course.

But lets be serious.


amost 50% of the league palyer could be "franchise" players if a coach decided to force teh rest of their teammates to award them 20+ shots a game
Thats simply not how the game works friend, you cannot create franchise players, you either have the stuff or you dont.

DerekRE_3
11-10-2009, 06:34 PM
Yes of course.

But lets be serious.


amost 50% of the league palyer could be "franchise" players if a coach decided to force teh rest of their teammates to award them 20+ shots a game

And if they weren't cut out for it, their efficiency would suffer a ton.

Joshtd1
11-10-2009, 07:37 PM
I always found it ironic that his career may have been more fully appreciated if he were stuck on a team that wasnt winning titles. Imagine if he would have ended up in Denver all those years ago, would they have kept his minutes down ala JR Smith, or would he have been the perfect compliment to Melo and make the leagues best 2-3 combo.

I think that would be a filthy combination. What makes Manu so good is that he doesnt neccesarily HAVE to have the ball in his hands, because he is a good spot up shooter and can make teams pay.

Chronz
11-10-2009, 08:36 PM
PS
CS219 your the sole Bulls fan that Ive come across that knows his team and their place in the league so when I speak horribly of your fan base, dont take offense. You guys are rabid and devoted to a fault.

Chronz
11-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Could he handle being a franchise player :laugh2: The guy can't even handle a starting role.

Why does Popovich bring him off the bench? Because Ginobili is wildly inconsistent, no sense in putting trust in a "franchise" guy who you won't be able to count on from game to game.
How do you explain the 2005 playoffs? **** the entire season arguably his finest season. You still holding some resentment for what he did to you guys in the Finals?

ChiSox219
11-10-2009, 08:57 PM
..

SteveNash
11-10-2009, 11:37 PM
How do you explain the 2005 playoffs? **** the entire season arguably his finest season. You still holding some resentment for what he did to you guys in the Finals?

2005 has long passed. And I'd hate to break it to you but Ginobili showed his inconsistency in the 2005 playoffs.

Ginobili has never shown any indication of being able to carry a team like a true franchise player should. Heck even Tony Parker has shown to be more of a franchise player than Ginobili.

At best he'd be a player who gets franchise money, but does nothing to prove he deserves it, like an Andrei Kirilenko.

Spurred1
11-11-2009, 12:59 AM
2005 has long passed. And I'd hate to break it to you but Ginobili showed his inconsistency in the 2005 playoffs.

Ginobili has never shown any indication of being able to carry a team like a true franchise player should. Heck even Tony Parker has shown to be more of a franchise player than Ginobili.

At best he'd be a player who gets franchise money, but does nothing to prove he deserves it, like an Andrei Kirilenko.

I've never used the facepalm before. It tends to get overused. But you have truly earned it with this post. :facepalm:

There was some controversy as to whether Timmy Duncan or Manu really deserved the Finals MVP in the 2005 playoff win. He was consistent enough to help win the championship that year.
Manu helped Argentina win a gold medal as well-he was one of the leaders of that team. Guess he can carry a team after all.

SteveNash
11-11-2009, 08:50 AM
[/B]
[/B]
I've never used the facepalm before. It tends to get overused. But you have truly earned it with this post. :facepalm:

There was some controversy as to whether Timmy Duncan or Manu really deserved the Finals MVP in the 2005 playoff win. He was consistent enough to help win the championship that year.
Manu helped Argentina win a gold medal as well-he was one of the leaders of that team. Guess he can carry a team after all.

Hell Parker (undeservedly) won the Finals MVP and he's not a franchise player. Manu didn't deserve the Finals MVP in '05 and it showed on the court.

Gianluca Basile led his team to a silver medal, is he a franchise player now?

Drewlius
11-11-2009, 11:50 AM
I dont think so, he is a great tallent dont get me wrong, but I feel like he is so damn stopable. I mean, every time he just goes left, come on people, cut off his left hand already. I just think he is too predictable.

This made me lol.

Lost Art
11-11-2009, 12:26 PM
Manu could easily be a franchise player............on a mediocre team. He's definitely capable of putting up big numbers ala Devin Harris, Danny Granger, Baron Davis, Kevin Martin, Iggy, etc. But could he carry his team to championship? I doubt it.

But certainly he could be a franchise player on a middle of the pack team..........and if he had a great bunch of blue collar defenders on his team, who knows? But I have no doubt that he could've been a perennial allstar with numbers in the range of 25/4/5.

Spurred1
11-11-2009, 04:24 PM
Hell Parker (undeservedly) won the Finals MVP and he's not a franchise player. Manu didn't deserve the Finals MVP in '05 and it showed on the court.

Gianluca Basile led his team to a silver medal, is he a franchise player now?

Guess you did not watch the Finals in 2005 or 2007. Parker most certainly deserved the Finals MVP in 2007. But I'm not interested in discussing Parker or his franchise player capabilities-he's a hell of a player but he's not the topic of the thread.
Manu is a pivotal player for the Spurs and he could have been a franchise player.

SteveNash
11-11-2009, 04:37 PM
Guess you did not watch the Finals in 2005 or 2007. Parker most certainly deserved the Finals MVP in 2007. But I'm not interested in discussing Parker or his franchise player capabilities-he's a hell of a player but he's not the topic of the thread.
Manu is a pivotal player for the Spurs and he could have been a franchise player.

I watched every game of the 2005 and 2007 finals.

Spurs plan was to shut down LeBron which is what Bowen did while having Duncan for the help. While Cleveland's plan was to stop Duncan. TP was an afterthought who only scored because of Cleveland concentrating on Duncan leaving Boobie Gibson on TP. TP is Finals MVP only if you value scoring alone which I ask why are you a Spurs fan if all you care about is scoring?

Manu sure was a pivotal player for the Spurs, but that doesn't make him a franchise player.

Spurred1
11-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Hmm...so Parker took advantage of being "an afterthought" and scored and wound up carrying the team to the championship. Don't see anything wrong with that at all. Defense is essential to winning, but last time I checked, offense is required as well. Duncan and Bowen playing defense on LeBron alone only gets the Spurs so far. Someone else has to step up and carry the offensive load. Parker did that.

Sorry, your argument fails again. And what do you know-I'm a fan of both scoring and defense.
Final note-Manu IS a pivotal player for the Spurs. Not was.

AddiX
11-11-2009, 04:55 PM
Manu is one of my favorite players in the league, especially when he was in his prime. The guy flat out plays winning basketball.

But a franchise player? No

Any team that hes the franchise guy, is a bad team.

SteveNash
11-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Hmm...so Parker took advantage of being "an afterthought" and scored and wound up carrying the team to the championship. Don't see anything wrong with that at all. Defense is essential to winning, but last time I checked, offense is required as well. Duncan and Bowen playing defense on LeBron alone only gets the Spurs so far. Someone else has to step up and carry the offensive load. Parker did that.

Sorry, your argument fails again. And what do you know-I'm a fan of both scoring and defense.
Final note-Manu IS a pivotal player for the Spurs. Not was.

You're a fan of both scoring and defense yet you want to reward Parker contributing virtually nothing on defense. Duncan could have forced the issue and put up points while still beating the Cavs, but he's a team player while TP is one dimensional leaving Duncan to lead the team in assists. Duncan freed Parker allowing him to score, had TP been the franchise player Duncan is he'd probably suck even more than he did in 03/05 getting killed by Kidd/Billups.

Duncan was clearly the more valuable, when you bring up Ginobili/Parker it's because Duncan makes them look better than they are.