PDA

View Full Version : Is Ginobili a Hall of Famer?



PowerHouse
08-27-2018, 07:41 PM
He just announced his retirement from the NBA so that begs the question..does he eventually make it in?

Thoughts.

kdspurman
08-27-2018, 07:54 PM
Easily. I didn't think it was debatable.

IndyRealist
08-27-2018, 07:55 PM
1st ballot.

PowerHouse
08-27-2018, 08:11 PM
Reggie Miller couldnt even get in 1st ballot.

Scoots
08-27-2018, 08:18 PM
Yes. Don't know that we need a separate thread for this.

beasted86
08-27-2018, 08:43 PM
Yes.

zn23
08-27-2018, 09:02 PM
Absolutely he is. One of the best, and defining players of his era.

tredigs
08-27-2018, 09:12 PM
Only interesting because BBREF has him at 20% for HOF probability. Pretty sure that is stats/accolades based though, and they don't account for his contributions to multiple championships + his international play.

Yes, a very clear Hall Of Famer.

IndyRealist
08-27-2018, 09:18 PM
Reggie Miller couldnt even get in 1st ballot.

Reggie Miller doesn't have the international resume Ginobili does.

mightybosstone
08-27-2018, 09:28 PM
He's not a first-ballot guy, but he's definitely going to get in. No question. A more interesting debate would be, if you took his international play out of the conversation, would he still be a Hall of Famer? I think he would based on his postseason performance and the four rings, but it's definitely a tougher argument. Only two All-Star and all-NBA appearances, only topped 30 MPG twice in his career and never scored 20 PPG in a season.

Scoots
08-27-2018, 09:31 PM
He's not a first-ballot guy, but he's definitely going to get in. No question. A more interesting debate would be, if you took his international play out of the conversation, would he still be a Hall of Famer? I think he would based on his postseason performance and the four rings, but it's definitely a tougher argument. Only two All-Star and all-NBA appearances, only topped 30 MPG twice in his career and never scored 20 PPG in a season.

Since international play does count how is he not a first ballot HOF?

mightybosstone
08-27-2018, 09:46 PM
Since international play does count how is he not a first ballot HOF?

In the entire history of the league, how many guys have been inducted in their first year of eligibility? 40-50 maybe? Do you see him as one of the 50 best player of all-time or a guy with one of the 50 greatest careers in NBA history? I don't.

Leftcoast_yg
08-27-2018, 09:48 PM
I don't know man he was a bench guy most of his career. 😑

Vinylman
08-28-2018, 08:21 AM
easily in HOF although he is overrated on PSD and in general

kdspurman
08-28-2018, 08:29 AM
easily in HOF although he is overrated on PSD and in general

That's interesting, I kinda think he was underrated much of his career. What makes you think he's overrated?

warfelg
08-28-2018, 08:37 AM
Absolutely will be in. It's a basketball hall of fame, not NBA. In terms of full on basketball hall of fame; he's in easily. Even with if it were NBA only he's in easily.

Heediot
08-28-2018, 08:44 AM
He's not a first-ballot guy, but he's definitely going to get in. No question. A more interesting debate would be, if you took his international play out of the conversation, would he still be a Hall of Famer? I think he would based on his postseason performance and the four rings, but it's definitely a tougher argument. Only two All-Star and all-NBA appearances, only topped 30 MPG twice in his career and never scored 20 PPG in a season.

I think it's 50/50. If he is in a weak class, he should get in first ballot.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 09:21 AM
easily. While I think at times he can be overrated by some (I seriously have read people claiming he was a top 10 player for a few years of his career), his resume speaks for itself.

Vinylman
08-28-2018, 09:34 AM
That's interesting, I kinda think he was underrated much of his career. What makes you think he's overrated?

a lot of people when SA would win would say he was top 10 in the league... he was never top 10 in the league...

top 25 at times... sure... top 10 no way

tredigs
08-28-2018, 11:36 AM
easily. While I think at times he can be overrated by some (I seriously have read people claiming he was a top 10 player for a few years of his career), his resume speaks for itself.

I wasn't one of those people but I would definitely be willing to have some fun and make the case that he was top 10 and that it would likely be common knowledge if he played on a team where he had a more featured role. Talking about a highly efficient player who was limited to 13 shots a game in the reg season at his peak (only played 30 mpg twice in the reg season ... that went up in the playoffs where 33 was his standard through his prime), so we don't see the high volume you're accustomed to, but his impact was massive and it's not lost on advanced stats.

Let's look at 07/08: 20/5/4.5 (13 attempts... 31 mpg), on 46/40/86 - 61% TS.

WS/48 .232 (6th. Top 10 all through his prime)
PER: 24.3 (7th. Top 10 multiple times, but the lack of FG attempts do hit him in PER)
BPM: 8.1 (3rd. Top 3 most seasons through his prime, top 10 7x )
VORP: 5.9 (4th. Top 10 4x through his prime)

Lastly, integral cod on a franchise that did nothing but win all through his prime, with his play being a huge reason why. He's majorly underrated due to the lack of FG attempts and subsequent All Star snubs. He's a 25/5/5 guy with ease in 90% of systems at that time. His talent + impact >>> box score numbers. He definitely has a top 10 argument in his prime.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 11:47 AM
I wasn't one of those people but I would definitely be willing to have some fun and make the case that he was top 10 and that it would likely be common knowledge if he played on a team where he had a more featured role. Talking about a highly efficient player who was limited to 13 shots a game in the reg season at his peak (only played 30 mpg twice in the reg season ... that went up in the playoffs where 33 was his standard through his prime), so we don't see the high volume you're accustomed to, but his impact was massive and it's not lost on advanced stats.

Let's look at 07/08: 20/5/4.5 (13 attempts... 31 mpg), on 46/40/86 - 61% TS.

WS/48 .232 (6th. Top 10 all through his prime)
PER: 24.3 (7th. Top 10 multiple times, but the lack of FG attempts do hit him in PER)
BPM: 8.1 (3rd. Top 3 most seasons through his prime, top 10 7x )
VORP: 5.9 (4th. Top 10 4x through his prime)

Lastly, integral cod on a franchise that did nothing but win all through his prime, with his play being a huge reason why. He's majorly underrated due to the lack of FG attempts and subsequent All Star snubs. He's a 25/5/5 guy with ease in 90% of systems at that time. His talent + impact >>> box score numbers. He definitely has a top 10 argument in his prime.

I totally get that angle, but his minutes/usage are his results unfortunately.

Thing is do we know he can carry that usage and minutes? Efficiency tends to go down with more responsibility. I think it's the opposite actually, such a huge deal has been made of his sacrifice. It's not like Kobe took a bench role. Manu was great, but he also had periods of time where his wild colt style didn't produce.

The biggest reason he was part of a winning team, is he was picked super late for his talent level, took way less money than he was owed, and took a bench role. Not many guys (in fact none) would do that, it's honorable. But his numbers are his numbers. And name a year, we can probably find 15-20 players who were better that year.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 12:07 PM
I totally get that angle, but his minutes/usage are his results unfortunately.

Thing is do we know he can carry that usage and minutes? Efficiency tends to go down with more responsibility. I think it's the opposite actually, such a huge deal has been made of his sacrifice. It's not like Kobe took a bench role. Manu was great, but he also had periods of time where his wild colt style didn't produce.

The biggest reason he was part of a winning team, is he was picked super late for his talent level, took way less money than he was owed, and took a bench role. Not many guys (in fact none) would do that, it's honorable. But his numbers are his numbers. And name a year, we can probably find 15-20 players who were better that year.

You say "his numbers are his numbers", but are choosing to ignore the litany of numbers I just produced that clearly paint him in the top 10. Numbers (especially BPM and PER) that would have actually gone up with more attempts (despite a likely dip in efficiency yes). I would have expected a very similar situation to Harden had he been given the keys to an upcoming but smart team like Houston. Likely not quite on Harden's level, but not very far off either. Without question in the 25/5/5 range that I mentioned (literally no reason I can think of as to why he could not handle the role as a #1 option. He was guarded by the opposing teams best wing defender all through their playoff runs and still had great success).

Concerning the year I think 08 is his best case (though I think he had a late season injury that he was dealing with in the playoffs). There is no world where we can name 20 better players than him at that time. That was also a season where he made All NBA (despite another All Star snub) and finished top 10 on the MVP ballot. Combined with being 7th in PER and Usage%, 6th in WS/48, 3rd in BPM and 4th in VORP, I'd say it's actually pretty open/shut that his impact was top 10 in the league.

WaDe03
08-28-2018, 12:10 PM
Am I PSDs lord and savior? There’s your answer, thanks and bless you all!

kdspurman
08-28-2018, 12:18 PM
a lot of people when SA would win would say he was top 10 in the league... he was never top 10 in the league...

top 25 at times... sure... top 10 no way

Tre made a pretty good argument for him, (though I was never one of those either to say that). I would say he was probably one of the top 10 playoff performers during some of those years though.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 12:21 PM
You say "his numbers are his numbers", but are choosing to ignore the litany of numbers I just produced that clearly paint him in the top 10. Numbers (especially BPM and PER) that would have actually gone up with more attempts (despite a likely dip in efficiency yes). I would have expected a very similar situation to Harden had he been given the keys to an upcoming but smart team like Houston. Likely not quite on Harden's level, but not very far off either. Without question in the 25/5/5 range that I mentioned (literally no reason I can think of as to why he could not handle the role as a #1 option. He was guarded by the opposing teams best wing defender all through their playoff runs and still had great success).

Concerning the year I think 08 is his best case (though I think he had a late season injury that he was dealing with in the playoffs). There is no world where we can name 20 better players than him at that time. That was also a season where he made All NBA (despite another All Star snub) and finished top 10 on the MVP ballot. Combined with being 7th in PER and Usage%, 6th in WS/48, 3rd in BPM and 4th in VORP, I'd say it's actually pretty open/shut that his impact was top 10 in the league.

well, I don't extrapolate numbers, I read them. His numbers don't suggest a top player in the game any year. the "IF" game is always fun, but it's simply an exercise.

If he was so bad ***, that suggests the reason he was always part of a winning team. He wasn't even the best player on his team, yet was top 10-ish in your opinion.

I love me some Manu, but he gets overrated. People think if you unleashed him on another team he would have been a Kobe impact player. I disagree.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 12:37 PM
well, I don't extrapolate numbers, I read them. His numbers don't suggest a top player in the game any year. the "IF" game is always fun, but it's simply an exercise.

If he was so bad ***, that suggests the reason he was always part of a winning team. He wasn't even the best player on his team, yet was top 10-ish in your opinion.

I love me some Manu, but he gets overrated. People think if you unleashed him on another team he would have been a Kobe impact player. I disagree.
He wasn't the best player on the team (well, for stretches maybe he even was at times) because he played with a top 10 player in history. I'm not sure why that would take him out of contention for having top 10 level impact in the league (or missing your point there if not)? Again, the bbref advanced numbers clearly all show that was the case. Kobe impact on his own team? Again we're talking about a top 10 level player in history, so I'm not sure that should be his bar. But again, 25/5/5 on 18-20 attempts in 36 mpg is not even debatable. That's what he would average if we're tempering expectations, and it would very likely still be on respectable efficiency. He's too talented with the ball in his hands and too talented as a shooter+finisher for it not to have worked. That said, he was busy helping them contend every season in the roles they had, so he had little reason to explore that path.

I started this argument just for the sake of seeing if it had merit, but the more I think about it he clearly seemed to be right there. Top 15 at worst through his prime.

kdspurman
08-28-2018, 12:43 PM
well, I don't extrapolate numbers, I read them. His numbers don't suggest a top player in the game any year. the "IF" game is always fun, but it's simply an exercise.

If he was so bad ***, that suggests the reason he was always part of a winning team. He wasn't even the best player on his team, yet was top 10-ish in your opinion.

I love me some Manu, but he gets overrated. People think if you unleashed him on another team he would have been a Kobe impact player. I disagree.

Kobe wasn't always considered the best player when he had Shaq, but he was still ranked in the top 10. Again, I'm not arguing Manu was, (though I still think he gets underrated more than overrated and wasn't that far from top 10) but I don't think not being the best player on your team disqualifies you or lessens your chances.

IndyRealist
08-28-2018, 12:54 PM
I totally get that angle, but his minutes/usage are his results unfortunately.

Thing is do we know he can carry that usage and minutes? Efficiency tends to go down with more responsibility. I think it's the opposite actually, such a huge deal has been made of his sacrifice. It's not like Kobe took a bench role. Manu was great, but he also had periods of time where his wild colt style didn't produce.

The biggest reason he was part of a winning team, is he was picked super late for his talent level, took way less money than he was owed, and took a bench role. Not many guys (in fact none) would do that, it's honorable. But his numbers are his numbers. And name a year, we can probably find 15-20 players who were better that year.

That is proven to be untrue. There is no correlation between usage and efficiency. Ultimately it just varies depending on the player.

No one is on every game, everybody has bad nights. Manu was wildly successful based on all available data. If it's not fair to assume he would be just as good in more minutes, it's just as unfair to assume he'd be worse. Even if you penalize him for playing less minutes, he was still at worst the 2nd or 3rd best SG in any given season throughout his prime and an integral part of multiple championships.

jaydubb
08-28-2018, 12:56 PM
Yes he's a hall of famer.

Ginooooooooobli!

I hated watching him play my team but always liked watching him play other teams. He has a lotta heart

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Vinylman
08-28-2018, 01:05 PM
its funny how the benefit of the doubt when extrapolating always assumes linear increases in numbers...

talk about a circle jerk

Manu was a great player who always played his first rotation each game against bench guys... how should one adjust for that?

valade16
08-28-2018, 01:19 PM
Does anyone have any examples besides James Harden of a bench player who played that efficiently and well on the bench who transitioned to a starter and also played very well? How many bench level players consistently put up Manu level numbers and then when given a starting opportunity, failed?

mightybosstone
08-28-2018, 01:29 PM
I see both sides of this argument, but I ultimately lean closer to Hawkeye's point of view. The guy's efficiency was elite, but you can't just ignore that he was playing 8-10 fewer minutes per game throughout his career than other stars or the fact that he was coming off the bench and often playing against second units. That context is pretty critical to analyzing his value, and (for me at least) puts him outside the top 10 guys in the league throughout his career.

It's funny, because normally I find that posters are trying to use advanced stats to disprove the value of a guy who put up gaudy scoring numbers and basic stats. But Manu is like the anti-AI. His advanced stats are off the charts, but his basic numbers are so pedestrian by themselves. You can't just ignore those basic stats, though. Peak Manu was a 17/5/4 guy. He may have been the most efficient 17/5/4 guy in NBA history, but that fact still stands.

All that being said, Manu's regular season stats aren't why he's a Hall of Famer. It's his postseason resume that stands out and makes him a Hall of Famer. You could absolutely make the case that he was a top 10 guy in the league in the postseason at his peak.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 01:50 PM
Well bear in mind Manu started more than he sat in the regular season up until 2012, and was always playing during the closing stretch, and all high leverage situations, including the playoffs. Playoffs wise he also started a bit more than he 6th manned and his minutes were up to almost 33 a game. Put up 19/5/4 (just 12.9 attempts) on a 60% TS. 22 PER and again super high VORP/BPM. That's against Western Conference (or NBA Finals) playoff D on 90 games over a 7 year stretch that included multiple titles. We can't act like this is all 2nd unit stuff (there's also the argument that less time with other elite offensive players and more time as the focal point of the defense did not help his numbers in the least).

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 01:52 PM
Kobe wasn't always considered the best player when he had Shaq, but he was still ranked in the top 10. Again, I'm not arguing Manu was, (though I still think he gets underrated more than overrated and wasn't that far from top 10) but I don't think not being the best player on your team disqualifies you or lessens your chances.

Fair point, but I am not sure Kobe was a fixture in the top 10 until well into the Shaq pairing, and his minutes/usage/defense catapulted him there.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 01:55 PM
its funny how the benefit of the doubt when extrapolating always assumes linear increases in numbers...

talk about a circle jerk

Manu was a great player who always played his first rotation each game against bench guys... how should one adjust for that?

How about just looking at the hundreds upon hundreds of games through his prime where this wasn't the case and he was at his best?

Chronz
08-28-2018, 02:01 PM
Does anyone have any examples besides James Harden of a bench player who played that efficiently and well on the bench who transitioned to a starter and also played very well? How many bench level players consistently put up Manu level numbers and then when given a starting opportunity, failed?
John hollinger had Michael redd on one of his book covers precisely because he felt he would blow up with his enhanced role and it was based entirely on how he played off the bench behind ray Allen all those years(I remember the bet I made for him winning mip cuz of that book) . I also remember a few studies being done to try to find the best way to project but no doubt manu benefited from protected minutes. I think if the spurs never matched that Denver offer that his career is shorter but he has more all nba all star nods. First ballot for sure regardless tho

tredigs
08-28-2018, 02:02 PM
Fair point, but I am not sure Kobe was a fixture in the top 10 until well into the Shaq pairing, and his minutes/usage/defense catapulted him there.
Plenty of multiple top 10 guys on one team throughout history. There's two pairs in the Western Conference right now as is.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 02:07 PM
That is proven to be untrue. There is no correlation between usage and efficiency. Ultimately it just varies depending on the player.

No one is on every game, everybody has bad nights. Manu was wildly successful based on all available data. If it's not fair to assume he would be just as good in more minutes, it's just as unfair to assume he'd be worse. Even if you penalize him for playing less minutes, he was still at worst the 2nd or 3rd best SG in any given season throughout his prime and an integral part of multiple championships.

I know it, but my view on Manu playing more minutes/more role, also has to do with his style. He plays a more taxing style, very reliant on essentially being a balloon when you let the air out. Manu put up some pretty hefty numbers against 2nd units, and while he was a great player more or less closing games, I just can't paste those numbers across the board.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 02:09 PM
Plenty of multiple top 10 guys on one team throughout history. There's two pairs in the Western Conference right now as is.

sure, my response was about Kobe/Shaq though, arguably the greatest duo ever. Kobe is one of the exceptions. Durant or Curry is another. Manu was not, to me.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 02:10 PM
sure, my response was about Kobe/Shaq though, arguably the greatest duo ever. Kobe is one of the exceptions. Durant or Curry is another. Manu was not, to me.

Fair enough

kdspurman
08-28-2018, 02:11 PM
its funny how the benefit of the doubt when extrapolating always assumes linear increases in numbers...

talk about a circle jerk

Manu was a great player who always played his first rotation each game against bench guys... how should one adjust for that?

Always? He was a starter and had great success there for several years.

You make it seem as if he was coming off the bench at the end of the first quarter when all the starters were out. He was coming in games fairly early in the 1st quarter more times than not, and obviously playing big minutes down the stretch/to end games with starters/elite defenders in there.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 02:11 PM
I see both sides of this argument, but I ultimately lean closer to Hawkeye's point of view. The guy's efficiency was elite, but you can't just ignore that he was playing 8-10 fewer minutes per game throughout his career than other stars or the fact that he was coming off the bench and often playing against second units. That context is pretty critical to analyzing his value, and (for me at least) puts him outside the top 10 guys in the league throughout his career.

It's funny, because normally I find that posters are trying to use advanced stats to disprove the value of a guy who put up gaudy scoring numbers and basic stats. But Manu is like the anti-AI. His advanced stats are off the charts, but his basic numbers are so pedestrian by themselves. You can't just ignore those basic stats, though. Peak Manu was a 17/5/4 guy. He may have been the most efficient 17/5/4 guy in NBA history, but that fact still stands.

All that being said, Manu's regular season stats aren't why he's a Hall of Famer. It's his postseason resume that stands out and makes him a Hall of Famer. You could absolutely make the case that he was a top 10 guy in the league in the postseason at his peak.

that and his international career. If Manu never played a minute internationally, while he would eventually get into the hall, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

valade16
08-28-2018, 03:05 PM
If you look at Manu's split stats for his career:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01/splits/

As a starter he put up 16.4 PPG | 4.3 APG | 4.2 RPG on .590 TS%. As a bench player his TS% is .577

If we also look at his TS% by MPG played:

40+ MPG .600 TS%
30-39 MPG .591 TS% (averaging 18.7 PPG, 4.7 APG, 4.7 RPG in 33 MPG)
20-29 MPG .580 TS%
10-19 MPG .568 TS%


Statistically, the more Manu played and the more he started, the more efficient and better he got.

mightybosstone
08-28-2018, 03:13 PM
If you look at Manu's split stats for his career:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01/splits/

As a starter he put up 16.4 PPG | 4.3 APG | 4.2 RPG on .590 TS%. As a bench player his TS% is .577

If we also look at his TS% by MPG played:

40+ MPG .600 TS%
30-39 MPG .591 TS% (averaging 18.7 PPG, 4.7 APG, 4.7 RPG in 33 MPG)
20-29 MPG .580 TS%
10-19 MPG .568 TS%

Statistically, the more Manu played and the more he started, the more efficient and better he got.

OK, while this is interesting, what's the relevance of it? I think we'd all agree he probably could have been a starter in his career, but the reality is he didn't play starter minutes (mainly during the regular season), especially compared with other Hall of Famers from his era.

We can play the hypothetical game all day, but ultimately you are still what your numbers are in a historical conversation like this. (*cough*Jerry West was not a 3-point shooter.*cough*) :D

IndyRealist
08-28-2018, 03:18 PM
If you look at Manu's split stats for his career:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01/splits/

As a starter he put up 16.4 PPG | 4.3 APG | 4.2 RPG on .590 TS%. As a bench player his TS% is .577

If we also look at his TS% by MPG played:

40+ MPG .600 TS%
30-39 MPG .591 TS% (averaging 18.7 PPG, 4.7 APG, 4.7 RPG in 33 MPG)
20-29 MPG .580 TS%
10-19 MPG .568 TS%


Statistically, the more Manu played and the more he started, the more efficient and better he got.

It's funny that we've been sitting here arguing about whether he'd be better or worse in more minutes, and no one bothered to actually look.

FlashBolt
08-28-2018, 03:27 PM
Manu being overrated is a first to me. People seem to think Manu was a sixth man because that's his peak. Manu was a sixth man because he was unselfish and did what was best for the team. Dude could legitimately lead a team and drop 24/6/6 at his prime. He's definitely underrated. Him being a HOF'er never not crossed my mind. I still remember 2005 when Manu went bananas and killed us in game 5. Absolutely carried the Spurs vs us that series.

valade16
08-28-2018, 03:35 PM
OK, while this is interesting, what's the relevance of it? I think we'd all agree he probably could have been a starter in his career, but the reality is he didn't play starter minutes (mainly during the regular season), especially compared with other Hall of Famers from his era.

We can play the hypothetical game all day, but ultimately you are still what your numbers are in a historical conversation like this. (*cough*Jerry West was not a 3-point shooter.*cough*) :D

Damn you! :D

In all seriousness, I'm just trying to actually get to a somewhat objective measure of how'd he have done as a starter. It appears given the consistency of his stats, we know what he'd have been when he was in that position.

In the regular season, playing 33 MPG he put up 18.7 PPG, 4.7 APG, 4.7 RPG on .591 TS%
In the playoffs from 05-11 playing 32.8 MPG he put up 18.8, 4.1 APG, 4.8 RPG on .596 TS%

I'm going to say, that when judging how well he'd do as a starter, he'd have probably put up 18-19 PPG, 4-5 RPG/APG on .590-.600 TS%. That's literally what he did. Of course, fit and system could have impacted the numbers, but in general that's about where he seemed to be as a starter.

tredigs
08-28-2018, 04:18 PM
Damn you! :D

In all seriousness, I'm just trying to actually get to a somewhat objective measure of how'd he have done as a starter. It appears given the consistency of his stats, we know what he'd have been when he was in that position.

In the regular season, playing 33 MPG he put up 18.7 PPG, 4.7 APG, 4.7 RPG on .591 TS%
In the playoffs from 05-11 playing 32.8 MPG he put up 18.8, 4.1 APG, 4.8 RPG on .596 TS%

I'm going to say, that when judging how well he'd do as a starter, he'd have probably put up 18-19 PPG, 4-5 RPG/APG on .590-.600 TS%. That's literally what he did. Of course, fit and system could have impacted the numbers, but in general that's about where he seemed to be as a starter.

That's taking 12.9 attempts a game mind you. As a first option on the low end he'd be taking 16 a game and up to around 20. Manu was fit as can be, even with his aggressive style I truly see no scenario where he would have had trouble playing 36 mpg and taking more shots. In which case 25 ppg becomes a conservative natural estimate of where he would have been. It's a super unique situation that a player of his caliber cared more about winning over his personal stats/rep, and it's a huge reason why they were the team that they were.

ewing
08-28-2018, 09:07 PM
OK, while this is interesting, what's the relevance of it? I think we'd all agree he probably could have been a starter in his career, but the reality is he didn't play starter minutes (mainly during the regular season), especially compared with other Hall of Famers from his era.

We can play the hypothetical game all day, but ultimately you are still what your numbers are in a historical conversation like this. (*cough*Jerry West was not a 3-point shooter.*cough*) :D

Yep he is a 16 and 4 guy that performed well in the post season. Scottie Pippen is a 16 and 6 guy that played like **** in the post season.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2018, 10:13 PM
Yep he is a 16 and 4 guy that performed well in the post season. Scottie Pippen is a 16 and 6 guy that played like **** in the post season.

I mean, Pippen was plenty good enough in the playoffs, when you factor in his elite defense. Not sure if you are trying to compare them, but I think most would take Pippen all day over Manu.

Vee-Rex
08-28-2018, 10:58 PM
Gonna miss Manu.

If you guys want a charismatic, likable guy to root for in the future check out Cedi Osman.

mightybosstone
08-28-2018, 11:22 PM
yep he is a 16 and 4 guy that performed well in the post season. Patrick ewing is a 21 and 10 guy that played like **** in the post season.

ftfy. ;)

ewing
08-28-2018, 11:35 PM
ftfy. ;)

That’s not true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kdspurman
08-29-2018, 09:33 AM
Gonna miss Manu.

If you guys want a charismatic, likable guy to root for in the future check out Cedi Osman.

But can he swat a bat out the air?

ewing
08-29-2018, 09:47 AM
I mean, Pippen was plenty good enough in the playoffs, when you factor in his elite defense. Not sure if you are trying to compare them, but I think most would take Pippen all day over Manu.

Pippen was a playoff choker. One game at prime unless I have the greatest offensive perimeter player ever on my team already I probably take Manu.

Vinylman
08-29-2018, 09:57 AM
How about just looking at the hundreds upon hundreds of games through his prime where this wasn't the case and he was at his best?

you gave a pure statistical argument for his greatness based on more minutes / usage... now you want to insert the above context while ignoring the context I provided?

like I said … enjoy your circle jerk.

Vinylman
08-29-2018, 10:00 AM
Always? He was a starter and had great success there for several years.

You make it seem as if he was coming off the bench at the end of the first quarter when all the starters were out. He was coming in games fairly early in the 1st quarter more times than not, and obviously playing big minutes down the stretch/to end games with starters/elite defenders in there.

you missed the point...

I never said anything negative about Manu... simply added context to the actual minutes in the game that he played. My position is obviously much more reasonable than using a linear extrapolation of his numbers to argue he was top 10...

but like I said... let the circle jerk continue

His numbers are what they are and they don't land him anywhere near the top 10 in the era he played in

Hawkeye15
08-29-2018, 10:01 AM
Pippen was a playoff choker. One game at prime unless I have the greatest offensive perimeter player ever on my team already I probably take Manu.

fair enough. Not worth the fight to me, both enjoyed the luxury of rarely having to be the best player on the floor, so it's taste at this point.

kdspurman
08-29-2018, 10:33 AM
you missed the point...

I never said anything negative about Manu... simply added context to the actual minutes in the game that he played. My position is obviously much more reasonable than using a linear extrapolation of his numbers to argue he was top 10...

but like I said... let the circle jerk continue

His numbers are what they are and they don't land him anywhere near the top 10 in the era he played in

Where is the circle jerk tho? Who is saying he was top 10? You seem bitter about the dude getting praise after retiring for no reason. You act like people don't overrate/underrate players at all, this isn't brand news.

Vinylman
08-29-2018, 10:48 AM
Where is the circle jerk tho? Who is saying he was top 10? You seem bitter about the dude getting praise after retiring for no reason. You act like people don't overrate/underrate players at all, this isn't brand news.

look at my original post you just responded to... it was a commentary on tredigs extrapolating numbers to argue he was top 10... its flawed and a circle jerk exercise when you don't add context...

Why not just argue he was the greatest player of his era? No need to stop at top 10

some arguments deserve derision... this is clearly one that does

kdspurman
08-29-2018, 10:51 AM
look at my original post you just responded to... it was a commentary on tredigs extrapolating numbers to argue he was top 10... its flawed and a circle jerk exercise when you don't add context...

Why not just argue he was the greatest player of his era? No need to stop at top 10

some arguments deserve derision... this is clearly one that does

The first thing you said was he was overrated when you posted here

Vinylman
08-29-2018, 10:53 AM
The first thing you said was he was overrated when you posted here

nuance... not the strong suit on PSD

easily in HOF although he is overrated on PSD and in general


and Tredigs and others have proven he is overrated by fans

Vinylman
08-29-2018, 10:56 AM
I then went on to explain that post saying he was top 25 when he played although others would argue, IGNORANTLY, that he was top 10

I haven't slighted MG once in this thread... funny how you want to pick a fight and defend him like I ****ed his sister or something

kdspurman
08-29-2018, 11:00 AM
nuance... not the strong suit on PSD

easily in HOF although he is overrated on PSD and in general


and Tredigs and others have proven he is overrated by fans

So 1 person (Tredigs= 1 person) talking about it, (and some of it was hypothetical), equals a circle jerk? Sure.. Typically a circle jerk involves a group, no?


I then went on to explain that post saying he was top 25 when he played although others would argue, IGNORANTLY, that he was top 10

I haven't slighted MG once in this thread... funny how you want to pick a fight and defend him like I ****ed his sister or something

Not picking a fight, like I said you seem bitter, talking about circle jerks and him being overrated from the jump, despite only 1 person in here making a 'fun' argument that he could have been top 10.

Ahriman
08-29-2018, 11:22 AM
easily in HOF although he is overrated on PSD and in general

Talk about an ignorant take that you want to pass as a fact... :)

PowerHouse
08-29-2018, 11:48 AM
Yes. Don't know that we need a separate thread for this.

???

Separate from that other Ginobli thread that gathered a whopping 21 replies?

Yea you're right, this thread was completely pointless.

tredigs
08-29-2018, 12:02 PM
you gave a pure statistical argument for his greatness based on more minutes / usage... now you want to insert the above context while ignoring the context I provided?

like I said … enjoy your circle jerk.

Enjoy completely falsifying what I wrote and ignoring all advanced stats that I clearly laid out?



Manu was a great player who always played his first rotation each game against bench guys... how should one adjust for that?


Bear in mind you know so little about Manu and the Spurs apparently that you did not even realize he was a starter through the bulk of his prime.

When you say things like, "he was top 25 at times" as your top endorsement concerning a player with advanced stats in his prime that all pin him in the top 10, multiple All NBA selections and multiple finishes in the top 10 of MVP voting, then those are pretty solid signs you're underrating that player. A player whose role and impact only increased as the Western Conference playoffs came along and they battled for chips year in and year out.

IndyRealist
08-29-2018, 12:10 PM
Enjoy completely falsifying what I wrote and ignoring all advanced stats that I clearly laid out? Bear in mind you know so little about Manu and the Spurs apparently that you did not even realize he was a starter through the bulk of his prime.

Good ol' eye test at it's finest.

Chronz
08-29-2018, 12:12 PM
You guys are underselling the seamless transition that manu could undergo by thriving regardless of who he was playing with, I remember most of the work looking into what you guys think actually went against the data, most players thrive as starters , granted it's usually the role players, but that's the value manu gave the spurs. his selflessness is what allowed old man Finley to reach his potential by allowing him to start.

We can legitimately wonder if OKC wins the title if they had manu instead of harden, who struggled with the starters.

valade16
08-29-2018, 04:10 PM
look at my original post you just responded to... it was a commentary on tredigs extrapolating numbers to argue he was top 10... its flawed and a circle jerk exercise when you don't add context...

Why not just argue he was the greatest player of his era? No need to stop at top 10

some arguments deserve derision... this is clearly one that does

What context do you need to add? You're saying we can't know his numbers as a starter because he came off the bench and we can't know how playing inferior competition affected the numbers... but we have 350 games of him starting in the regular season and 50 games of him starting in the playoffs. That's 5 seasons worth of data, more than enough to establish a baseline.

As a starter he averaged 16.5 PPG | 4 APG | 4 RPG. When playing 30+ MPG he averaged 18.7 PPG | 4.7 APG | 4.7 RPG. That's what he did in real life, not extrapolating.

In 2005 he started every game and averaged 16.0 PPG on .609 TS% while making the All-Star Game. In 2011 he started 79 games and averaged 17.4 PPG on .581 TS% while making the All-Star Game.

And that was both only playing 30 MPG. In fact, every time he started an entire season he made an All-Star game, I think it's safe to assume had he started every season he'd have been a perennial All-Star scoring around 16-18 PPG on great efficiency, because it's literally what he did.

Unless you're arguing that he simply couldn't physically play an extra 3-6 minutes per night as a starter or wouldn't have been in the league or effective as long as he was, sure maybe. Otherwise, I don't know what your point is, because looking at just his numbers as a starter, they are still very good.

FlashBolt
08-29-2018, 06:47 PM
You guys are underselling the seamless transition that manu could undergo by thriving regardless of who he was playing with, I remember most of the work looking into what you guys think actually went against the data, most players thrive as starters , granted it's usually the role players, but that's the value manu gave the spurs. his selflessness is what allowed old man Finley to reach his potential by allowing him to start.

We can legitimately wonder if OKC wins the title if they had manu instead of harden, who struggled with the starters.
Depends on which Harden we're getting. I'd take this Harden over Manu any day. The major difference between Harden and Manu is Manu rarely makes a bad play and shows up when needed. He's the ultimately swiss army knife.

kdspurman
08-29-2018, 06:48 PM
Depends on which Harden we're getting. I'd take this Harden over Manu any day. The major difference between Harden and Manu is Manu rarely makes a bad play and shows up when needed. He's the ultimately swiss army knife.

That and Manu was quite good on the perimeter defensively.

Scoots
08-29-2018, 10:45 PM
???

Separate from that other Ginobli thread that gathered a whopping 21 replies?

Yea you're right, this thread was completely pointless.

Yes, they could have been merged and it would have been better.

And quantity does not equal quality.

ewing
08-29-2018, 11:24 PM
Yes, they could have been merged and it would have been better.

And quantity does not equal quality.

It’s ok scoots! We all feel you are most excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WaDe03
08-30-2018, 12:10 AM
It’s ok scoots! We all feel you are most excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love the positivity from you lately ewing! This is a perfect example of a fellow poster and in this case a mod needing a “pick-me-up” and you were there to give it to him. Very proud of you for this, please keep it up!

Scoots
08-30-2018, 08:41 AM
Love the positivity from you lately ewing! This is a perfect example of a fellow poster and in this case a mod needing a “pick-me-up” and you were there to give it to him. Very proud of you for this, please keep it up!

You win :D

hidalgo
09-03-2018, 12:46 PM
yes. but i also think Kemp and Kevin Johnson were a bit better than Manu, and seems like they'll never make it. they need to get in if Manu does

Vinylman
09-04-2018, 09:59 AM
Enjoy completely falsifying what I wrote and ignoring all advanced stats that I clearly laid out?



Bear in mind you know so little about Manu and the Spurs apparently that you did not even realize he was a starter through the bulk of his prime.

When you say things like, "he was top 25 at times" as your top endorsement concerning a player with advanced stats in his prime that all pin him in the top 10, multiple All NBA selections and multiple finishes in the top 10 of MVP voting, then those are pretty solid signs you're underrating that player. A player whose role and impact only increased as the Western Conference playoffs came along and they battled for chips year in and year out.

typical clown response totally distorting the facts of the bolded.


Here are the facts... IN 16 SEASONS


All NBA 2 Times

2007-8 3RD TEAM
2010-11 3RD TEAM

MVP Voting

2007-08 9pts 10th place... perspective... 3 actual people put him on their ballot
2009-10 3pts 11th place... perspective... 1 actual people put him on their ballot
2010-11 20pts 8th place... perspective... 5 actual people put him on their ballot


All Star appearances - 2


All Defensive Team appearances 0



So keep telling us how he is a top 10 player... never was and the circle jerking of "what ifs" is for the lame.



For some perspective Deron Williams made 2 2nd Team all NBA teams which Manu never accomplished

Vinylman
09-04-2018, 10:04 AM
What context do you need to add? You're saying we can't know his numbers as a starter because he came off the bench and we can't know how playing inferior competition affected the numbers... but we have 350 games of him starting in the regular season and 50 games of him starting in the playoffs. That's 5 seasons worth of data, more than enough to establish a baseline.

As a starter he averaged 16.5 PPG | 4 APG | 4 RPG. When playing 30+ MPG he averaged 18.7 PPG | 4.7 APG | 4.7 RPG. That's what he did in real life, not extrapolating.

In 2005 he started every game and averaged 16.0 PPG on .609 TS% while making the All-Star Game. In 2011 he started 79 games and averaged 17.4 PPG on .581 TS% while making the All-Star Game.

And that was both only playing 30 MPG. In fact, every time he started an entire season he made an All-Star game, I think it's safe to assume had he started every season he'd have been a perennial All-Star scoring around 16-18 PPG on great efficiency, because it's literally what he did.

Unless you're arguing that he simply couldn't physically play an extra 3-6 minutes per night as a starter or wouldn't have been in the league or effective as long as he was, sure maybe. Otherwise, I don't know what your point is, because looking at just his numbers as a starter, they are still very good.

sigh... he started only a third of the games he ever played. If you think his stats over 16 years starting 80% of his games would have been the same you are entitled to your opinion but the fact is he didn't do it.

Like I said … top 25 some of the time when he played... never top 10

Hawkeye15
09-04-2018, 10:46 AM
yes. but i also think Kemp and Kevin Johnson were a bit better than Manu, and seems like they'll never make it. they need to get in if Manu does

even if they were, they don't have the international experience that gets Manu in easily.

valade16
09-04-2018, 11:53 AM
sigh... he started only a third of the games he ever played. If you think his stats over 16 years starting 80% of his games would have been the same you are entitled to your opinion but the fact is he didn't do it.

Like I said … top 25 some of the time when he played... never top 10

sigh...1/3 of a 16 year career... that's a lot of games. If you think his stats while starting wouldn't have been 18/5/4 you are entitled to your opinion but the fact is he did it.

Like I said, you are basically ignoring actual data.

Hawkeye15
09-04-2018, 12:13 PM
sigh...1/3 of a 16 year career... that's a lot of games. If you think his stats while starting wouldn't have been 18/5/4 you are entitled to your opinion but the fact is he did it.

Like I said, you are basically ignoring actual data.

sure but we judge on results, not what would have likely been. Manu doesn't have the current accolades to be considered a top 10 player at any point. If people want to dig into the numbers and do projections that are actually believable, cool. But he took his own legacy hit to some degree with his sacrifice. That is why it's not a popular decision to chose team over self.

valade16
09-04-2018, 12:48 PM
^ Not letting me quote, but I'm not extrapolating or doing projections. I'm literally giving you his statistics while a starter or playing over 30 minutes. I actually know how he would produce in those situations because it is what he produced in that situation.

As for whether he was Top 10 at any point, do we mean in general or for a decade? Because if we're talking specific years, he was most assuredly a Top 10 player in 2008, he was probably a Top 5 player that year.

Hawkeye15
09-04-2018, 01:54 PM
^ Not letting me quote, but I'm not extrapolating or doing projections. I'm literally giving you his statistics while a starter or playing over 30 minutes. I actually know how he would produce in those situations because it is what he produced in that situation.

As for whether he was Top 10 at any point, do we mean in general or for a decade? Because if we're talking specific years, he was most assuredly a Top 10 player in 2008, he was probably a Top 5 player that year.

and that is fair, but he wasn't a starter for most of his career, hence he didn't put those numbers up career wise. We take him for what he is through his years, not what he was for periods or what he could have been. This is different than a Grant Hill for example, meaning his what if scenario isn't the same. Manu had a HOF career, was a great player, but his play gets overrated by many I think.

Nah, I don't think he was a top 10 player in 2008. Kobe, KG, Paul, LeBron, Dwight, Nash, Duncan, Dirk, Amare, and Paul Pierce were all better I think. Stopped at 10, though I don't know if I could grab anyone else haha

Some of Manu's advanced stats will push him into top 10 that year, but I am taking more established guys churning out yet another great season over Manu's peak season.

valade16
09-04-2018, 02:04 PM
and that is fair, but he wasn't a starter for most of his career, hence he didn't put those numbers up career wise. We take him for what he is through his years, not what he was for periods or what he could have been. This is different than a Grant Hill for example, meaning his what if scenario isn't the same. Manu had a HOF career, was a great player, but his play gets overrated by many I think.

Nah, I don't think he was a top 10 player in 2008. Kobe, KG, Paul, LeBron, Dwight, Nash, Duncan, Dirk, Amare, and Paul Pierce were all better I think. Stopped at 10, though I don't know if I could grab anyone else haha

Some of Manu's advanced stats will push him into top 10 that year, but I am taking more established guys churning out yet another great season over Manu's peak season.

His advanced stats not only put him firmly in the top 10 that year, they demonstrably make him better than several of the players named. I'm not giving them credit in 2008 for their consistency for other seasons. For that season, by every statistical measure, he was top 10.

Hawkeye15
09-04-2018, 02:09 PM
His advanced stats not only put him firmly in the top 10 that year, they demonstrably make him better than several of the players named. I'm not giving them credit in 2008 for their consistency for other seasons. For that season, by every statistical measure, he was top 10.

He has the argument, but I am taking some other guys. I glanced at the all NBA teams, they line up with what I have. Though team 3 is weak dude, he is easily the best on that team from 2007-08'.

valade16
09-04-2018, 02:18 PM
He has the argument, but I am taking some other guys. I glanced at the all NBA teams, they line up with what I have. Though team 3 is weak dude, he is easily the best on that team from 2007-08'.

Yeah when I look back on the post MJ era it was actually kind of weak in terms of depth talent-wise. At least it seems that way compared to the current NBA.