Pounding The Rock: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Blogger Q&A - And The Valley Shook

Big Three Dominance

I know that Bill Simmons is not highly regarded around these parts, but in his latest NBA playoffs mailbag he included a chart which catalogues all-time player winning percentages of 14 NBA greats (credit for data compilation actually goes to Steve Hirdt and the Elias Sports Bureau). I was greatly impressed with the position of our Big Three, and I guess no other measure reveals the consistent dominance of the Spurs and particularly the Big Three over the last decade.

ALL-TIME PLAYER WINNING PERCENTAGES
PLAYER REG. SEASON PLAYOFFS
Larry Bird .736 .604
Manu Ginobili .724 .654
Sam Jones .718 .649
Bill Russell .717 .648
Tony Parker .716 .615
Tim Duncan .712 .631
Scottie Pippen .688 .654
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar .688 .650
Magic Johnson .674 .740
Shaquille O'Neal .672 .601
Robert Horry .671 .635
Michael Jordan .659 .665
Bob Cousy .655 .578
Jerry West .638 .569

 

Mr. Bill also notes that "nobody did more with less than Duncan, and his performance from 2001-03 becomes more remarkable with time; he won 203 games, two MVPs and an NBA title playing with role players, has-beens, castoffs and young guys who weren't quite ready." He also contends that Robert Horry's career will be studied decades from now, yet still be as inexplicable as ever. Incredibly, Manu ranks second all-time for the regular season (behind Bird) and tied for third all-time for the playoffs (behind Magic and Jordan).

6 recs  |  Comment 193 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I wouldn’t read too much into the numbers for Tony and Manu just yet. Let’s wait another 2-3 seasons and see where they stand. Duncan’s body of work speaks for itself, though. Good find – might get moved to the front page later.

Free James Gist!

by Tim C. on May 25, 2009 4:07 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Thats gotta be at least 5 years of data for Manu and Tony right. Considering the amount of playoff games we have played in that time, thats a sizeable nba sample I would think.

I do agree though. Compared to Bird etc, they haven’t played the same number of seasons.

by LionZion on May 25, 2009 5:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

how many seasons did Bird play? Because I dont think Tony and manu are too far away….. (especially tony, he has a lot left)

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 25, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rec'd

Nice. I like those numbers and would be happy to see them go up a bit…or at least not go down.

by Big50 on May 26, 2009 11:12 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

the only way Manu’s numbers don’t go down is if we continue to win chips every other year

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 26, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

or if the unmentionable happens (again and again)………

possibly forcing him to retire early……………

or hes traded and wins a championship for someone else…..

Its like Family Feud “Top ways for Manu to drive you to suicide watch”.

by BlaseE on May 26, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You cut me deep, Blase. You cut me real deep.

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 26, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and Horry is a hall of famer

If only for the novelty of what he accomplished in his career but mostly because he is arguably the greatest role player ever and that is worthy of the HoF. I would argue he had a bigger impact on the last 20 years in the league than 95% of all other players. Garnett comes to mind. Horry definitely has more memorable moments for me.
Ask the Rockets franchise and fans. Ask the Lakers. Ask the Kings. Ask the Spurs. Ask the Pistons…..and any other team that was good enough to have him or qualify to play against him in the playoffs. It wasn’t all luck that he went from the Dream to Shaq to the Big Fundamental.

by BlaseE on May 26, 2009 3:18 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

+1

Good points and I agree

by Big50 on May 26, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Horry had a sense, in the same way Manu does, of when a game hangs in the balance. Charlie Rosen is fond of saying that not all points count the same. Horry got this. G5 of the ’05 Finals hung in the balance and Horry seized the moment. From the last play of the 3rd quarter, through the 4th, he stepped up time and again.

That’s a greatness that can’t be quantified by lifetime points, rebs, assists.

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 26, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Nice jolly. I like the ‘sense’ explanation.

by LionZion on May 27, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Game Sense

Thanks, LZ.

As I watched the Spurs-Mavs series this year, I repeatedly lamented the lack of a ballhandler with this game-sense. How many times did we have a big possession that required points, or at least a quality shot, and we’d wind up with anything but that.

One such possession stands out in my mind. It was late in the 4th quarter of game 3 or 4, we were down, but close and I was thinking, “We get a bucket here and we can win this” and Finley took and missed deep 3 very early in the shot clock.

That, more than anything else, is what I missed about Manu being out. He virtually guaranteed that we’d get an easy bucket, or he’d get to the line, or he’d drill a 3 as part of the offense, on those occaisions when the game was being decided.

Get well, Manu. We can’t make it without you.

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 27, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe Hill has those instincts too, but he needs to learn how to finish better. A guy like Kleiza wouldn’t hurt in those situations either.

Free James Gist!

by Tim C. on May 27, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I feel like a little kid who wants a particular toy, but it’s broken and being super-glued and he can’t have it until it sets. But he’s upset and his parents are trying to comfort him with all these other toys, and it’s just not working for him.

“I want my Manu! I want my Manu! No. Don’t want Kleiza. I want Manu.

MAAAAAA aaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaannnnnnnnnnnuuuuu uuuuuuuu uuuu uuuuu!!!!"
 * sob sniffle *

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 27, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

JRW, I’m totally with you on this and I sincerely believe we were separated at birth.

Manu’s ability to change the tone of a game is what makes him the absolute X factor.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)

by bellasa on May 27, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In no way was I saying that we don’t need to have Manu. Obviously, Manu needs to be the #1 option under pressure/in the clutch – but, I think we need to at least consider having others who can contribute in those situations, since it would make Manu’s job a lot easier.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 27, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m gonna stick with this metaphor. The other toys that the kid’s parents are offering him aren’t bad ones, they’re just not what he wants. They’re not the kid’s favorite. It’s not that Hill and Kleiza aren’t fine in their own right. It’s just that they’re not Manu.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Klieza impressed in game 5 yesterday. He was super aggressive for a stretch there and his drives seemed coordinated and under control….it wasn’t klutzy and wild and I think he laid it in most of the time.
And he seems to work hard on the boards. And he shoots the three. The guy is not shy. If we can replace Bonner with him, it would be an upgrade. There might be better upgrades out there though.

by LionZion on May 28, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This might sound crazy, but the Nuggets may go for a Bonner/Kleiza trade. They could use a big man who can spread the floor.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 28, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

who is the nuggets gm again? Wallace?

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Buford wishes.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think Horry will be in the HoF.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 26, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stats wise, no, he will not be in the Hall. But…BlaseE, and jollrogerwilco, you both make a very compelling argument! Horry is the greatest winner of his time, isn’t he?

How unique of a career!

Hi, my name is Ed, and I despise the Lakers.

by dfjmed on May 26, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

This question has existed for some time, with differing opinions. As much as I am loyal to Rob for his time with us, CMoney’s right. The HoF is for the greatest of the great, the cream of the crop. Not role players who eventually end up with a stellar resume. If every great role player was in the Hall, it would serve only to devalue the Hall itself and overpopulate it. I see the HoF as a place for the Jordans, Russells, Duncans…….not the player who is a textbook example of big moments and deliveries. Should Bruce be in the Hall? What about CWebb? Grant Hill? Those in the Hall of Fame should only be players of unquestionable proven individual greatness over the span of a career, and the mere fact that Horry’s status is even a discussion answers it for me.

(Hopefully Rob doesn’t read PtR and in turn, isn’t motivated to come back to “prove himself.” I fear Pop would jump all over that.)

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here’s the thing that I think you’re missing. We’re talking about the Basketball HOF. Not the NBA HOF or the Pro-Basketball HOF (they don’t exist). They have high school coaches in there. If there’s a high school coach who should be in the HOF more than Horry then maybe you’re right. But in my opinion the HOF is already a place for the “best role player ever” if that’s what people decide he is. Also, it’s called the Hall of FAME, I think Horry’s fame is pretty well known.

by Big50 on May 27, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re dead on, but in my opinion the Hall should be reserved for the very, very, very best in the field; otherwise you dilute the overall quality and the standards become extremely subjective. The Hall shouldn’t allow players who simply compiled an average career performance speckled with memorable moments of delivery/greatness. If that is the standard, the doors are opened to many players who also won’t go down as the “best ever.” If you are in the discussion as one of the (sample number open to discussion here) best PFs ever, you’re likely to get into the Hall; not if you were just arguably one of the best clutch performers in the game. Your reward for that moniker is 7 rings, not a plaque.

High school coaches that achieve the admission likely deserve it; but not popular/famous role-players. If Rob becomes a high school coach and sets records, amasses a high number of wins/win percentage, etc. I would support his admission. And if “FAME” is a critical factor, then Jayson Williams should be a first-ballot. What about Tony Kukoc and Luc Longly? Though not in the US, they’re relatively “famous.”

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

First, the Hall is ALREADY subjective.

Second, James Worthy is in the Hall of Fame. Are you going to argue that he shouldn’t be? You’ll need to, because I’d say that Horry’s case is every bit as good as his.

You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD

by jollyrogerwilco on May 27, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would take a healthy, in-his-prime Worthy over a healthy, in-his-prime Horry 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. No way you’re making this argument.

It’s incredible how players’ legends, even soon after they retire (or in Rob’s case, just aren’t picked up), balloon so much.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

For the record, Worthy would play like crap in that 2nd game on Sunday. Eight games in seven days? Crazy talk, Sima. That’s just crazy talk.

By the way, we won’t be arguing about this. Worthy might have raised the quality of his game in the post season over the regular, but he at least showed up for the regular season. Horry’s attitude about the first 82 games has been a joke for years. Still, it’s fun to list all of the big games, and series that his teams wouldn’t have won without him. It’s quite a run.

But I agree with you, his reward is the 7 rings.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly. I’m not a fan of putting role players into the Hall. You better be a superstar in my book to enter. IMO the Hall is reserved for those players who dominated their position and elevated the game to another level. Horry did neither. He hit some CLUTCH shots when big games were on the line. I equate Horry to a field goal kicker in American football. You can hit all the clutch 3’s you want to win big games, but you better bring more to the table in my eyes to get into the Hall. Number of kickers in the Football HoF = 3 and only one of them was a true kicker. The other 2 were a QB and an O lineman.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 27, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is a league that praises clutchness above everything else. CWebb, Hill, they can’t hold a candle to Rob. The usual argument is that if he were admitted into the HOF then, as you also said, the door would be open for many other underserving candidates.

Okay, let’s name them. Seriously, let’s. I honestly never even tried to come up with a list of clutch players beyond the usual big stars, and they are already HOFers or HOFers-to-be (Jordan, Duncan, etc.). What role player can compare to Robert Horry? For whom would that door be opened?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 27, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

(somewhere, Stevie Kerr and Jeff Hornacek and Nick Van Exel and Sam Cassell and Derek Fisher and Mike Bibby are all collectively smiling)

To put a player in based on making several big shots over his career most especially opens the door up to subjective analysis of specific skills. Next, you start putting guys in because they dunk really well, or run really fast. Without a career set of numbers justifying an admission, we devolve into a carnival-like freakshow that detracts from overall basketball skill.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I say if we find another player with as many rings and with as many different teams then they can join the HOF too. How many of those are there?

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 27, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, it’s funny you mention that.
1.) A guy named Jim Loscutoff from the ‘50s and ’60s tied Rob with 7 (also all gleaned from attaching himself to stars, IE Bill Russell), and didn’t make the Hall. He was known as a shooter and a defensive player too. Couldn’t find you any video on him though. Guess Rob wins.

2.) In addition, Thomas Ernest “Satch” Sanders won 8 rings, also with the great Celts dynasty of that era. He was a role-player/forward like Rob, but no Hall for him. I hear his family’s still holding out hope though. No video here either, so….dammit.

3.) Steve only has 5, but his window’s still open. He might even win several more as a GM. ( :: stifling hysterical laughter :: ) I’m holding out hope that he fails miserably just to re-enforce my position though.

It’s exciting to know that an option to enter the Hall is: “must have at least 7 rings and have played for multiple teams in acquiring them.” When “has a belt size of 34 and shoots above 25%” eventually comes to pass, I’m a first-ballot.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those players had a good shot. Rob had a game, the most important one for the championship. It’s not even subjective – he did it, and everyone will agree. He won the highest-pressure game of the season, practically on his own. On top of that, he made a career of coming through in important moments. There are not many like Horry – if any at all.

That has to be recognized somehow.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 27, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh I recognize, and love Rob. I’d even be willing to bet that I’m one of if not the only one on PtR who’s ever proudly sported a Rob/SPURS jersey. But I’m objective and fair too, and Rob simply wasn’t a Hall-of-Fame player. He was clutch and wonderful and kind and handsome and dreamy and talented, but not one of the best ever. And that’s what the Hall is, or at least should be.

Again, the simple fact that we’re discussing this (and that it’s been nationally discussed many times) is proof enough for me.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Horry is not HoF material

For my money, Horry is always going to be the statistical bleep on the radar.

If you play enough games, across enough years with enough players, every once in a while someone is just going to be on the right team enough times to win an inordinate amount of championships.

Ron Harper won 5 titles. Steve Kerr won 5 titles. Neither guy was a franchise player, both were good player who did certain things very well on the court. Kerr hit a couple of big shots himself over the course of a very successful playoff career.

Both these guys were lucky enough to be partnered with genetic machines who were wonderful basketball players that defined their generations.

Horry is the anomaly. He is like the guy who doubles up on a coin toss and wins 7 times in a row. It shouldn’t happen but it can.

Great solid player, who took advantage of the hand he was dealt and always came through. But not HOF.

" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. "

by Bushka on May 28, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He really should be. He had an unforgettable game.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 26, 2009 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So does Chris Anderson. So did Shawn Bradley. So does Shawn Marion. Any of those, however, are welcome to sweep the Hall, but not reside in it, IMO. Hall-dwellers should only be those of mythical, almost super-human status; not those who were “really good.”

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe I should’ve capitalized “unforgettable”. Let’s compare those games (playoff games for championship-bound team, right?) to Spurs/Pistons game 5. Which ones do you mean?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 27, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait….. so it helps in determining whether you are a Hall-of-Famer if your great body of work mainly exists only within playoff games for championship teams? Is Kevin Durant pretty much screwed, then?

And we can compare all week, but one big memorable game doesn’t even come close to determining a HOFer. Odds are, some of us could have one big memorable game if given the countless opportunities Rob had. And as I’ve said, the mere presense of this discussion should answer the question. We’re not having it for players like Stockton, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, or Drexler (just to name a few).

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 27, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he should not be a HOFer because of his memorable moments… he should be in it for all the accomplishments in his resume. We cannot certainly say that any of the championship teams he belonged to would have taken the trophy with or without him. On the other hand lets consider a great star that spends his whole career with one team. During his career he is always in the playoffs but only manages one championship. During the championship year, it is clear that without said player the team would not be even in the playoffs. So our hypotetical player is probably 30% to 40% responsible for a championship. Now look back at Horry, has he been 5% responsible for any of the teams that won championships with him on board? If he has then he should be elected to the HOF in my opinion. I ramble… I apologize

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 27, 2009 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yikes…the Iceman would have been screwed, too!

by 4Him on May 28, 2009 1:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Kevin Durant is screwed so far, yes. :)

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 7:11 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bird

Larry Bird played 13 seasons for the Celtics from 1979-1992,

by CarBahia on May 26, 2009 5:56 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

horry can be placed in the HoF just based on the fact that he really wanted the ball when it counted.

that man has ice water in his veins. otherwise nothing compared to the jordans, russells, etc.

I'll snap yo neck like a twig if you sass me again. . .

by Duhoh on May 27, 2009 3:41 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Nah, I don’t buy that. And we all forget that Horry hit all these big shots as the 3rd, & 4th option on the floor. Of course he was able to make big shots. He was always the open man on the play with the 3rd best defender on him. Seriously, look who the guy’s played with and tell me that defenses were looking to shut down Horry.

Houston: 2 Rings
Olajuawn, Clyde Drexler, K Smith, V Maxwell

LA: 3 Rings
Kobe & Shaq

SA: 2 Rings
Duncan, Manu, TP

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 27, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No way RoHo is a HOFer, no way, no how. Not even close.

Look, figuring out if an NBA player is a Hall of Famer is really very simple. In a playoff game, if they suck out loud, will the announcers notice?

With the Spurs, if Tim ever goes 1-for-12 with 4 points and 6 rebounds in a playoff game, the announcers would blame him. And rightly so. Same with Manu and Tony. When they suck, it makes a difference.

Horry is remembered for all of his big shots, all his clutch plays, but nobody ever remembers the games he does nothing. I’m sure Horry had plenty of quiet playoff games in his career (and god knows the majority of his regular season career), but nobody notices or cares when they happen because nothing is expected of him. No coach has ever told him, “We need 20 and 10 from you tonight or we have no chance.”

He’s a house money guy, an icing on the cake guy. You take whatever he gives you, but you don’t expect anything. 7 points and 5 rebs is not a HOF player. I don’t care if the 7 points came in the 4th quarter of a Game 7. If it wasn’t for all the superstars that Horry played with that got him into the playoffs and into games that mattered by busting their asses EVERY SINGLE QUARTER OF EVERY SINGLE GAME, his 4th quarter heroics would never come to be. He’s the beneficiary of other people’s hard work and most of his clutch threes were wide open shots that double teamed stars got him.

Give a man a chicken and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to chicken and he'll call you crazy and question your command of the English language.

by Aaronstampler on May 27, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I agree 100%

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 27, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

we have a winner. It’s easy to be Mr. Big Shot when the team doesn’t rely on you to win.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 27, 2009 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, it’s not easy. That’s my point. As I asked above, let’s name other role players that would also enter the HOF if Rob is accepted in. Who matches Horry?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 27, 2009 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I correlate this to the Baseball Hall of Fame. If they had a Best Utility Player category, Jose Oquendo would probably get in. But they don’t. If the Basketball HOF starts a Best Role Player category, then Horry is the first one initiated. However, it only works in that context. He doesn’t compare to the Best of All Times (and please don’t bring up Worthy again – Horry couldn’t hold Worthy’s jock).

by CapHill on May 27, 2009 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Horry could too hold Worthy’s jock.

In fact, I saw him do it once. And James said, “Thanks Rob. Nice work there.” And Horry said, “Would you like for me to fold it now?” And James said, “No. That’s fine. I’ll do that myself.” And then they went their separate ways.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This wasn’t the original question; this was a question you came up with. This isn’t about swinging wide open the doors of the Hall so much as it’s about the sad fact that Rob’s just not deserving.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He was always the open man on the play with the 3rd best defender on him. Seriously, look who the guy’s played with and tell me that defenses were looking to shut down Horry.

Crazy talk. The Pistons tried their best to stop him, to no avail.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 27, 2009 9:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Wallace simply stays home on that play, Manu never passes out of the doubleteam and he has to take Prince one on one, or find somewhere else to go with the ball.

I’m not saying that Manu doesn’t make a play, but I am saying that Horry benefited from a double-team of the Sickness, by his man. Doesn’t look to me like Detroit was trying “their best” to be sure that Horry didn’t beat them on that play.

Sorry.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly. Damn that crazy talk! If the Pistons tried their best to stop Horry, then Prince would have been guarding him. Big Rob reaped the benefits of playing along side superstars. End. Of. Story.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 28, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That was a ’Sheed brainfart.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right. A brainfart by a guy who was known to have brainfarts. A guy who you wouldn’t put on the other team’s main offensive threat in a “must stop” situation.

You’re making my point for me. Detroit wasn’t trying their best to stop him. They were trying to manage the risk, while trying their best to stop Manu and Tim.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I should be sleeping, jolly. I hate your guts for making me reply… I honestly was trying to create some controversy, because it’s not fun if everyone agrees. It’s the freakin’ offseason. But in any case, I do believe in Horry’s excellence. He had some of the most amazing basketball plays I’ve seen, and I feel those memories are slighted when people belittle his accomplishments.

This game in particular was incredible. I honestly have only seen a performance like that one a few other times, not many. In the highlights, you’ll see:

  • 1st Horry 3 – Open
  • 2nd Horry 3 – Right over Ben Wallace (DPOY), I think? That’s him, right? Quality’s poor, but that sure looks like his ’fro
  • 3rd Horry 3 – Over ’Sheed, crazy shot
  • Horry offensive rebound and putback
  • Pump fakes Tayshaun, dribbles past ’Sheed, draws the foul on Hamilton and dunks the ball… …
  • The Shot, 5 seconds left

To say this was a high pressure game is to severely understate it. This game defined high pressure. The ball wouldn’t go in, and both teams were excellent defenders. An open shot in this game, with the series and the championship on the line, is not a piece of cake. “Of course he was able to make big shots”. Are you kidding me? Last month none of the scrubs could buy a 3 for their lives, and that was in a random playoff game against the dregs of this league.

Who was on the floor for the Pistons in that play? Billups, Hamilton, ‘Sheed, Wallace and Prince, I imagine. Who among those could guard a tall guy like Rob? ’Sheed and Wallace. Was Duncan playing? Yes, he was. Could ’Sheed battle with Duncan on the post? No, he couldn’t. Could Ben cover the 3-point line effectively? No, that’s not him, either. Prince might’ve done the job, but he was on Ginobili. Was ’Sheed going to cover Manu? How?

So yes, ‘Sheed was going to end up defending Rob, and he committed a stupid mistake and left him open to try and trap Manu. But to say that the Pistons didn’t think much of Horry after he had dropped 21 points on them in less than one and a half quarters in disingenuous. I can assure you they knew Rob was playing, and Brown’s plan sure as hell wasn’t “leave him open, double the studs instead”. Whatever ‘Sheed did, he wasn’t thinking of “managing the risk” when he trapped Manu in a position where he couldn’t possible make a three – he was simply gambling for a game-winning defensive play, and he lost.

Of course the presence of Manu and Tim didn’t let the Pistons triple guard him, yeah, but by that reasoning just about every star that has an actual team surrounding him benefits from its presence. And for the record, I didn’t say that the Pistons tried their best to stop him on that final play – I meant in general. He hit some incredibly big shots, and then when he drove to the basket they couldn’t stop him without fouling him. “He was always the open man on the play”. Ridiculous.

And BTW, do you really think they were paying more attention to Tony than Rob in that game, C? Really?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I should be sleeping too, but I don’t hate you LD. I just don’t.

We’re both playing a bit of the controversy game. I’m one of the biggest Horry boosters there is, and I was arguing that his HoF credentials were as good as James Worthy’s earlier on this thread before SiMA knocked some sense into me. I was even talking about G5 of the ‘05 Finals on the 26th — a day or two before you and I got into it. It’s not far to go, just toward the top of this very page.

Horry had a sense, in the same way Manu does, of when a game hangs in the balance. Charlie Rosen is fond of saying that not all points count the same. Horry got this. G5 of the ’05 Finals hung in the balance and Horry seized the moment. From the last play of the 3rd quarter, through the 4th, he stepped up time and again.

That’s a greatness that can’t be quantified by lifetime points, rebs, assists.

I can’t believe you made me quote myself on the very same page that I posted the comment on to begin with. I’m ashamed. But I still don’t hate you. The only argument I had was what you just cleared up — as far as Detroit trying their best in general vs. trying their best to stop Horry on that last 3.

Finally, I never mentioned Tony, just Manu and Tim.

You really must be short on sleep.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 2:28 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

….and Anthony Johnson had a playoff 40 point game a couple of years ago. A lot of role players have had a couple of HUGE games on important moments in the playoffs, but the difference between them and a HALL OF FAMER is that a star has HUGE games consistently.Think of Duncan, Manu and TP. How many times have they scored 25+ points (with some defense, assists and rebounds) on VERY important games in the playoofs? Please stop it, Horry is a big part of the history of the NBA, but he is not one of the best players. A triple is worth 3 points in the first, second, third and fourth quarter. Maybe we wouldnt need his heroics on game 5 against the Pistons if he decided to show up in the first 3 quarters.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Horry forever!

I guess I like tomasito’s theory of the HOF as a historical tribute to the NBA. He’s definitely not one of the best players in the history of the league, but Horry had something that I feel future generations should remember.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was replying to CMoney too. That’s why I said “C”.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hmmm. I see it now. But completely missed it last night/this morning.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And BTW, do you really think they were paying more attention to Tony than Rob in that game, C? Really?

Please show me where I said this. I’m not sure where you got this from.

In the ’05 series, Horry was the 3rd scoring option on that play behind Tim and Manu. Sheed made a stupid mistake and left Rob wide open.

In the ’07 series, anytime Rob was the floor he was the 4th scoring option behind Tim, Manu and Tony.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought you meant just 2005 since we were talking about it, y’know when you said “& 4th”.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That wasn’t supposed to be strikethrough, just a parenthetical statement.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hear ya. The evolution of Tony’s offense is what dropped Horry to 4th option on the floor in ’07.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

there was another evolution going on too

horry was transmogrifying into a lawn chair

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

We’ve been talking about Horry (on which I would say no), but here’s a slightly similar argument on Chauncey Billups. I think Chauncey obviously has more merit, but I’d be on the fence about him if I had to vote today.

by CapHill on May 27, 2009 9:00 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Brilliance. And I say that because I thought about the exact same person today during this discussion. I’ve thought about “Mr.SelfProclaimedBigShot” in this context for a couple years in fact, and my vote would at this point be no. Just because you lead 1 championship team and several near-championship teams and ESPN strokes you doesn’t mean that you’re in.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I couldnt disagree more. He has been the best player on a championship team and several contenders. To me thats enough to merit a place in the hall of fame.
Id take him over Mr “2 time MVP and sure Hall of famer” Steve Nash any day.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I too would take Chauncey over Nash any day. However, I don’t think that Nash is HOF worthy at all. Nash is a one-dimensional player that had a good run in a crazy offensive system, but he wouldn’t have done near as well on any other team (I immediately think of Houston’s old run-and-shoot offense in college football or Tech’s current system). He got his MVPs based on the fact that everyone viewed 7 seconds or less as fun basketball and that he’s Canadian/white (yes, I brought up the race card). If Chauncey plays at this level for a few more seasons, I would vote him into the HOF then, but then I think consistent production over many years should be hugely considered. I view Chauncey along the lines of Stockton with his complete body of work in all areas – he just hasn’t done it long enough yet.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How is Nash one dimensional? He is invisible on defense but he is amazing on offense. His shooting percentages are extremely good and he gets his teammates involved. He does what a PG is supposed to do and he does it extremely well.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 29, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

except the part about defending the oposing PG. Besides, whats more insulting to me is the fact that Nash as a leader tries to make his team as defense-free as possible. ANy time they fail he will imply that the offense this and the offense that, omiting defense at all costs. Not only Chauncey is a 100 times better defender, he also gets on his teammeates ear if they dont defend.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And Chauncey doesn’t seem to be consistantly looking to play the blame game whenever things don’t work out. I’m with Cap 100% on her points; give Chauncey a greater body of work and I’d vote him in.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 29, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haters. Go Nashieee.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Only playing offense makes him one-dimensional. Basketball is played both ways. Also, I think that his lack of leadership the last several of years has been a huge detriment to the Suns.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If I had to pick between Chauncey and Nash I would pick Chauncey. I just dont see how Nash is one-dimensional. He can shoot the three, jumpers, can get in the lane, get assists, shoot free throws, flop and turn the ball over. How is that one-dimensional. Basketball is not a 2D game because there are many skills required to play offense and defense.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 29, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you’re not being sarcastic, pls say so, and I or someone else will explain about how players who only exert themselves on offense, and ignore or loaf on defense are called one-dimensional. It’s bad geometry, but good b-ball analysis.

If you are being sarcastic, then pls keep it up. I heartily approve.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s possible my sarcasmometer is on the fritz. Deadlines tend to make me drain bamaged.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Geez, LE is just saying that that’s a limited point of view. (I think. Call me out if I read you wrong, LE.)

Calling him one-dimensional implies that no matter how good he is on offense (and he is spectacular) his lack of ability when it comes to defense automatically renders him useless. That’s not true. By this reasoning a player who’s average on offense and on defense would have to be considered better than Nash, and that’s just not true.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thats true. But Billups is verty good on both defense and offense, so he has my vote.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was not being sarcastic, so there is no reason to doubt your sarcasmometer. I just think its unfair to call Nash one dimensional. If Nash is one dimensional what would you call a purely shooting SG? If you can build a team and a strategic philosophy around a player, you certainly cant call him one dimensional.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 30, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LE, one dimensional is just an established term in basketball.

In baseball, you don’t hear of a guy being described as one dimensional, because there are the “Five Tools” that a well rounded player will excel in (hitting for average, hitting for power, baserunning skills and speed, throwing ability, and fielding his position). In football, virtually no one plays both offense and defense, so the evaluation of a player is much more focused on his skills in the position he’s playing.

But in basketball, since every playre has both offensive and defensive responsibilities, you’ll often hear offense described as one dimension of the game, and defense as the other dimension; total of two dimensions. No matter how good a defensive specialist is a locking down his opponent, if he can’t score at all, then the other team will be at an advantage and people will call him one dimensional. Likewise, as in Nash’s case, if you have an incredibly talented offensive player who stinks on ice when he’s asked to put up a little resistance when his team doesn’t have the ball, then there are going to be some people who call him one dimensional. It’s not a comment in any way about his worth as a assists/points machine. It’s pointed directly at the fact that, of the two halves of his game, one is present, and the other … not so much.

A complete player is expected to put up more points than he gives up, if he doesn’t, then he’s either hurting your team or merely breaking even.

To answer your question, a player who only excels at shooting, but can’t set a pick to save his life, refuses to pass to his teammates, and never gets offensive rebounds — he wouldn’t even be one dimensional. He’d be called a sharpshooter, and that’s it. In the same way, a guy who plays his butt off on defense and can’t put the ball in the bucket is called a defensive specialist — he’d be one dimensional too. But someone who doesn’t defend very well, can’t play defense and is only good at rebounding wouldn’t be good enough to be called one dimensional — he’d just be called Shawn Bradley.

Hope that helps.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 30, 2009 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for the clarification jrw. It just sounds wrong. Would you prefer to have a one-dimensional player on your team or a sharpshooter/defensive specialist. If you ask me to pick a one dimensional player or one of the latter options I would go with the latter options. The one dimensional label is extremely detrimental.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 31, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Language is weird

When looked at that way, I can’t help but think of the “prevent defense” in American football — which is supposed to surrender yards while keeping the other team from scoring, but often does nothing but “prevent the team on defense from winning.”

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 31, 2009 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

A related question-

Would either of you classify Bruce Bowen as a mostly one-dimensional player?

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 31, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

By that definition, Bruce is a freaking dot.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 31, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking the same thing. By that definition most players in the NBA are mostly one-dimensional. Seldom you find a player that excels both in offense and in defense. I would say most players in the NBA are good offensive players and average defensive ones.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 31, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

More Dimensional talk

This morning when I posted my “Language is weird” comment. I almost wrote one more clarification to this thread, but decided against it because I guessed that everyone was bored with this line of discussion. Apparently, I was wrong.

So, here goes. A clarification of the clarification.

I think the main time that one dimensionality really comes into play is with stars — or players the media is playing up as stars. If someone’s a franchise guy, or a player that’s supposed to be carrying a team, or ESPN’s star du jour — then I’d think it would be fair for somone to start a conversation like this about them, if they perceived that they were making a reputation by displaying excellence on only one side of the ball.

A great example of this is LBJ. Until this year, you’d hear talk about how LeBron would loaf or disappear on defense, but they wouldn’t have even been talking about that if they didn’t think he was capable of dominating on both sides.

Which brings us around full circle to Steve Nash. People would look at his eye-popping stats in Phoenix and see him tearing teams apart and getting EASY shots for his teammates, running an offense in a manner few had ever done before, and being named to All-Star teams on the strength of his offensive game alone; thus the discussion of him as being a one-dimensional player. Yes, his one dimension was phenomenal, but if he’d even had a halfway decent defensive game, then it’d have never come up.

So, does this clarification shed any light on SiMA’s Bruce Bowen question? At this point of his career, I’d say he’s a defensive specialist at the most. And a “freaking dot” (thanks, LD) at the worst.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 31, 2009 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Cap has it down pat.

Except, Nash is really good. But he is not good enough. He lacked the discipline to do whatever it took to take his team to the next lvl and nobody can say he didn’t have talent around him. The problem is, he was given two MVP’s of which he deserved one.

by LionZion on May 29, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re ignoring his incredible effort in those playoff runs. The Suns lost, that’s true, but not because he wasn’t “good enough”. He played at an incredible level, for Pete’s sake. He had so many clutch moments in those playoff runs that I lost count.

Am I the only one that was praying for him to go to the bench when the Suns played the Spurs? Was I the the only one that was ecstatic when Tony headbutted him? He was a nightmare for us, and you could argue that it was Amar´e and the other players that failed to come through for him.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m a big advocate of great players being good at both ends of the floor but I guess I’ll make an exception for Steve Nash. His unbelievable two seasons might be a product of D’Antoni’s offense, but you have to admit, offense WAS also their best defense at that time. Mike D’s system wouldn’t work so easily if you didn’t have a PG of Nash’s virtuoso talents (see: Knicks). Through his incredible passing and shooting, Steve made his teammates better – which I think is one big factor voters take into consideration when choosing the MVP.

And maybe – just maybe – the high-octane offense also motivated his teammates to play even a modicum of defense on the other end. Scoring can also motivate players to play harder, and for his two MVP seasons, nobody was better than Stevie Wonder in creating for his running mates.

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

My calling Nash one-dimensional does not negate his great offensive prowess – it just means that he’s one-dimensional. My not voting him into the HOF has more to do with the length/consistency of his offensive greatness. If he had been in D’Antoni’s system for 7-8 years, instead of 3-4, then for my money he would be a shoo-in. He has taken a hit in my book the last year for throwing people under the bus, but that’s not unusual in sports today.

This all started with me comparing him to Chauncey. Look at the way Chauncey has handled the knuckleheads in Denver – Nash has not handled the knuckleheads in Phoenix as adeptly. Plus, I don’t think Billups is HOF worthy yet either. If Billups with all of his success in the playoffs and his defensive presence and his ability to coach the likes of K-Mart and JR Smith (because we all know Karl hasn’t done a lick of work this year) isn’t HOF bound yet, then why should Nash be?

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And might I say that I love the intensity and depth of discussion in this thread. Who know that such a bunch of losers were so articulate? ;)

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chauncey couldn’t handle Shaq.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can anyone?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking more of Marion and A’m’a’r’e.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chauncey couldn’t handle Flip Saunders.

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chauncey could handle the Hydra. Yes, the mythological beast which had the body of a serpent and many heads, and if any of the heads were severed two would grow in its place. Also the stench from the Hydra’s breath was enough to kill man or beast.

And I’m saying that Chauncey would have taken him out — and quicker than Hercules did too!

Now what do you have to say about the depth of discussion in this thread, CapHill?

Huh? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 30, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I leave for a few days and this is what I come back to.

::shaking head::

by CapHill on Jun 1, 2009 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can see it now. In 80 years, people visiting the HOF will say: “Oh, there’s that regular season MVP. And there’s that other one! Hey, Dad, what happened in 2005 and 2006? There’s no MVP listed…”

“No one knows, Son. No one knows.”

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

“…. and dad look at that inscription from 2005 it says:”
-Finals MVP: Tim Duncan Me tony parker
-MVP: Steve Nash Ima better than nazz, im move way better zez
-NBA championship: San Antonio Spurs Tony Parker’s of Longoria
“and there are some more graffittis:”
yeah premier love lala manoz manoz euuu give me ze ball!

“THAT TONY PARKER RULEZ!!! No wonder he is the comissioner of the NBA”

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Scary future.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

HoF Odds

Hall of Fame odds on Basketball-Reference.com in case you’ve never seen it. Its pretty crazy on some people but its interesting nonetheless.

Horry is at number 203 with a 2.6% of making it by their formula. In terms of active players, Boozer is slightly more likely and Rasheed Wallace is slightly less likely.
He is in the top 83 in games played, 3 pt FGM, Steals, Blocks, and Blocks per game. He is also a great defender which doesn’t show up in the stat columns as well as offensive production.

Someone mentioned Durant and I went to UT and won’t bash him but he hasn’t done shit yet. So lets say he doesn’t do anything or becomes Tracy McGrady which that website ranks as the 10th most likely active player to be inducted. That is a joke. Robert Horry belongs more than McGrady. I think Houston fan would agree.

No 3 players are good enough to win a championship without quality support. If you are the quality support 7 championships teams needed to win a title, I think you are fairly important. Lets say he isn’t on that Houston team and Shaq wins that title with Orlando. Does he leave for LA? Or if he isn’t on those LA teams and Sacramento wins a title or two instead? Or if he isn’t on our Spurs team and Detroit beats us? My point is that he has shaped the NBA by contributing on the most elite level at the most elite times. For that he should be celebrated. Its not as easy as some of you think to hit open shots when you are the 3rd or 4th option. Ask Bonner.

by BlaseE on May 27, 2009 9:52 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Excellent points, Blase — but I think the consensus here is that, even with all of the above being granted, it’s not worth a HoF nod.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tony Parker is ahead of Manu Ginobili. This list is crap.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)

by bellasa on May 27, 2009 10:26 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

What? Can you read, girl?

by CapHill on May 27, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’ve just been having a discussion on another website as to whether Tony and Manu should be in the top 25 players of the last 30 years (I took the ‘pro’ side). I argued that after Magic and Stockton, who would you put ahead of Parker? (He will surpass both Nash and Kidd after playing a few more years.) And After Jordan, Bryant and DWade, who would you place before Ginobili? The main guy arguing the other side claimed that (besides the aforementioned three) Gervin, Iverson, Drexler, Pierce, Miller, and Dumars were all better than Manu. I argued that as much as I love the Iceman (I actually think that no one else could score in as many different ways as Ice could), his problem is that he was a terrible defender. That’s also the problem with the other guys that he listed (and Iverson was also a ball hog who turned his teammates into spectators), with the exception of Drexler and Dumars. But Manu has a better PER than either one of them, and has shot the three-pointer better than they did (they were even worse in the playoffs, with Clyde going down to a paltry 29%).

He then brought in that ESPN poll from last year where Manu only got four votes and finished 19th in the all-time SG discussion. I said that of course Manu’s not going to get many votes on such an all-time list when he had only played in the NBA for six years at the time. But notice how the guys on that list (the top ten) basically fall in line according to the PER stat. Yet Manu’s career PER of 21.5 is tied with Iverson and better than all the others of the last 30 years not named Jordan or Bryant. Why is it that the guy with the fourth all-time highest PER is somehow ranked 19th? (DWade got 23 votes and had played a couple less years than Manu, so longevity wasn’t the biggest issue. How about bias against the foreigner?) And he already has three championships. Hopefully Manu’s place on this list will look very different in a few years.

Two questions:
1. Do you think that Tony and Manu belong on the list of 25 top players of the last 30 years?
2. Where do you think Manu belongs in the discussion of all-time SG’s?

by 4Him on May 28, 2009 3:47 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

You can argue that Tony’s better in your opinion, but there’s no way he will ever surpass Nash. Nash has two consecutive MVPs. That’s a big deal.

Regarding your questions, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 7:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

At least one of Nash’s MVPs was highly questionable. And who’s to say that TP will never get one? (Granted, it might have to be a year when LeBron, Howard or Wade miss large chunks of playing time b/c of injury.) But the MVP award is not the be-all-and-end-all. Is Iverson better than DWade b/c he was an MVP?

I don’t think we can say TP was better until he’s had the longevity of Nash, which is why I was careful to say “after playing a few more years.” But Tony already has three championships to Nash’s none, and especially as a point guard that is a very big deal.

by 4Him on May 28, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nash’s second MVP seemed overkill to reward the highly popular Suns and also, I remember feeling that year that there really wasn’t anyone else popular enough and good enough that I like who I would rather see win it. (So Kobe obviously was out…I dun think his team was having a good year anyways)

by LionZion on May 28, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He also won MVPs (If I remember correctly) by the argument that while he was injured, his team sucked. This days you can only get MVPs if you are on relatively sucky teams without you.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on May 28, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Wade hadn’t won a championship and a Finals MVP award, you wouldn’t ask that. Awards matter, whether we like it or not. And we can second-guess his MVP awards all we want, but how many players in the history of the sport have gotten two MVPs? Consecutive ones, to boot? Jordan? Magic?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Seriously? There was this one guy from the Virgin Islands one time, but I think I remember Him being just really lucky.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Duncan’s were consecutive, you’re right. I thought it’d been 2002 and 2004, for some reason… Big deal, innit?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, you were pretty much right. It should have been 3 straight ending in ’04 (and the case could even be made for ’05 too), but the “Stern conspiracy/anti-SA bias/pro-little-white-PG/underappreciation for truly how brilliant Timmy is” rolled into town and regulated things.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that people felt “okay, he got his awards, now we can ignore him and no one will call us on it”. That’s NBA 101 for you.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hate that.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And just like that, we cross cultural and geographic lines to come to a complete and utter agreement.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t mention DWade b/c of any awards he won, but rather b/c I know that he’s a much better player than Iverson. How about this one – is Iverson better than the Iceman b/c he was an MVP? The point is that the MVP award can be highly subjective and the circumstances usually need to fall in place just right in order to win it. I certainly don’t believe that Nash deserves to be in the exclusive two-time MVP club.

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honestly, I haven’t watched Iceman play all that much, not beyond a couple of short clips and YouTube mixes.

Of course it’s subjective, but it’s a proof of sustained excellence and dominance over his peers (well, in the regular season at least). In Nash’s case it even translated to incredible playoffs performances, too, even though his team didn’t come through for him in the end. That counts for something. “Subjective” is true, but it’s not all that subjective, either. The Birdman won’t ever win an MVP – there’s a certain level of play you need to reach for you to even be in the discussion, but at the very least the award means that the majority of the fans/sports writers/whoever considered you one of the top 5 players of the league that year.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well said. And you still believe that TP could never surpass Nash? Tony already has a Finals MVP and three more rings than Nash.

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Finals MVP was a bit skewed. We were playing a depleted team and Tony had no opposition. Considering the Finals MVP apparently always goes to whoever had the highest scoring average, it wasn’t surprising that Tony earned it. And I still think that was Duncan’s award.

He might surpass Nash if he manages to lead a team into the Finals and wins a championship. Or two. Or if he becomes the first French to walk on Mars. Honestly, I don’t know – it could happen. But I doubt it.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your first paragraph proves the point of the subjectiveness of such awards. The Cavs were ‘depleted’ – what do you mean by that?

So even though Tony already has three rings he still needs to do something that Nash has never done – lead a team to the Finals and win yet another championship – in order to surpass him?

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly. He has 3 rings, and a Finals MVP at the ripe old age of 26 and Latin D’s doubts Tony will surpass Nash. Ok…..?!?….. I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this too D. I’m not hatin, we just have 2 distinctly different opinions on this.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, and Barkley never got a ring. I guess Horry is better than him…

Now rings are the be-all and end-all? I want the context to be taken into account, that’s all. You think Nash wouldn’t have won three championships playing along Tim? Since when do we depend on Tony’s mighty defense to win? I just don’t think Tony is better than Nash because he scored at will against Damon Jones, Boobie Gibson and Eric Snow. He was great, mind you, and I certainly cheered for him and appreciate everything he’s given to this team. But I haven’t felt "wow"ed by him.

Until this year, that is. Tony had some “wow” moments in this season. He could still have more, and replace Nash in my ladder of “wowness”. But so far I simply feel that I own Steve something for all the great basketball moments he gifted this league’s fans with.

Does that make me a bad person? …Don’t answer that.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re taking what I’m saying out of context as well. I never said rings were the end all. (Remember, I’m the same person who thinks Horry shouldn’t be in the HoF.) My point, that I obviously failed to communicate effectively, is that Tony has had some great accomplishments so far in his young career. The guy is an All Star AND he’s only 26-27 years old. He is just now hitting his prime. I don’t see how you can say…

You can argue that Tony’s better in your opinion, but there’s no way he will ever surpass Nash. Nash has two consecutive MVPs.

Tony is only going to get better before he gets worse. Once he develops a reliable 3-ball, game over.

Prepared to be “wow’ed” my friend.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I did say:

He might surpass Nash if he manages to lead a team into the Finals and wins a championship. Or two.

Because those are accomplishments no one will be able to relativize like I just did with the 3 rings and the Finals MVP. He’d be boldly going where no Nash has gone before, too.

When I said I doubted he’d ever surpass Nash I didn’t mean that he hasn’t (even though I don’t think he has), but that the opinion of the average NBA fan won’t ever sway in his favor. Whether we like it or not, people use MVPs (and regular season MVPs in particular, especially when whoever wins it doesn’t immediately get swept by an 8th seed) as a measuring stick when it comes to “who’s better” arguments. In an age of Kobes and LeBrons and Chris Pauls, I sincerely doubt Tony has even the slightest chance of winning one, let alone two. Besides, Tony plays for the Spurs, so he’ll be forever underrated. Even Tim freaking Duncan is underrated sometimes.

Unless something momentous happens, I just don’t see it. But if he wows me… then I’ll be cheering him on, as always.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just keepin it real.
there’s no way he will ever surpass Nash. Nash has two consecutive MVPs.

Your words do not represent doubt. The certainty in your words with what caught my eye. Give Tony time.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, of course, the doubt was added later when presented with hypothetical questions like “could he ever surpass Nash”? I’m a big believer in probability, and there’s always a chance for something to happen. Tony might exceed my expectations and somehow grab a hold of NBA history.

But I don’t think so, so that caveat didn’t enter my initial comment. I’ll give Tony time, though – I plan to root for him for years to come, after all.

I’m totally keeping it real, too. Yo.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That they were a one-man team, and a proper defense exposed them.

But regular season MVPs show excellence through 82 games, and the matchups change every night. That has to count for something, right? Right? *looks around, finds himself alone and surrounded by rabid dogs with murder in their beady red eyes

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remember Charley Rosen saying that the Iceman was all scoring and no defense. Yeah, reeaaal reliable source, I know, but my point is, to be a top player you need to be a two-way player. However, like LD, I haven’t watched enough Iceman to evaluate his overall game. Maybe he took a break on defense because the Spurs team back then needed his offense so much.

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Iverson hasn’t actually been a stellar defender himself, and there is no way that I would rank him ahead of the Iceman. You’re right, of course, about the importance of being a two-way player, which is why in the end Manu should be ranked ahead of Ice on the list of SG’s (but I wouldn’t trust the ESPN guys to do the same).

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nash would trade in his 2 MVP’s for Tony’s NBA Finals MVP trophy any day of the week. Give Tony time.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 28, 2009 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m leaning towards no, bu think both fall in that 25-40 range. Manu might be top 25 when he is done. Maybe Parker will to with his impressive shooting percentage for a guard and Finals MVP he stole from Duncan. I’d really have to see your list of top 25.

In no order…
1. Duncan
2. Jordan
3. Robinson
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq
6. Kobe
7. Bird
8. Magic
9. Kareem
10. Miller
11. Stockton
12. Malone….

That’s a quick list. I’m not too sure on anyone from ‘79-’89 because I’ve never really seen games of those players other than highlights. Where does Isiah Thomas rank in your list? Where does Chris Paul end up in the PG rankings when he is done? Gary Payton’s DPOY is impressive too.

by BlaseE on May 28, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The discussion started b/c someone actually claimed that Dennis Rodman was one of the top 20 players of the last 30 years, so I was basing my argument on his list, and extended it to top 25. So now that you asked for my list, I actually had to think about it and come up with one. One difficulty is that the 30-year limit cuts right into the middle of the careers of the Iceman and Dr. J, but I’ll include them anyway. So I guess my list would look something like this (min 5 years played):

Top 25:
Jordan
Magic
Bird
TD
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
DRob
Hakeem
Malone
Stockton
Barkley
Dr J
DWade
Garnett
Ewing
Nowitzki
McHale
Manu
Iceman
Iverson
Drexler
DHoward
TP
Pippen

Next 10:
Isiah
Kidd
Nash
Payton
Wilkins
BKing
Pierce
KJohnson
CAnthony
RMiller

by 4Him on May 28, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Though you face the same 30-yr hiccup as with Ice and Dr. J, I would swap Kareem for Heir Flopmeister Wolfenstein all day.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good eyes – that was the big oversight. I think that when Kareem’s name came up, I was thinking, “This guy started his pro career in 1969,” and therefore shouldn’t make the cut, but his career was so long that he actually does belong. So he goes in near the top, and I would then drop Pippen to the “next 10” and actually cut Carmelo (I was actually debating whether Chris Bosh should be in his spot anyway).

P.S. I think you meant ‘Herr’ F.W.

by 4Him on May 28, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I did mean Herr, good catch right back at you. I’m with you on Melo, he’s done nothing consistantly spectacular just like Bosh. But Pippen DEFINITELY goes in the “Next 10,” and I’d still drop Herr. It’s not so much that he’s a cube, so much as his career has been punctuated by a complete lack of defense and stepping up when it counted most. However if you made a list of “Incredible Players When it Means Nothing”, Herr would start at the 4.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Definitely? Why? Pippen owns 1/3 of 6 Bulls championships.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’ll let these links speak for me:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/pippen.htm
http://www.ringsurf.com/online/1635-scott_pippen_overated_then_and_now.html

Scottie was a great player, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t think he is one of the top 25 of the last 30 years. He was more the benefactor of playing with the best basketball player in history and partaking in said icon’s glory than he was an all-time great, IMO. And here comes the segway…….. Kind of like Robert Horry.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 28, 2009 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would actually put Scottie and Horry on about the same level, considering what happened to Scottie after Jordan retired the 2nd time.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 28, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those are totally unbiased. And considering you guys are comparing Robert Horry and Scottie Pippen, I think we’re well into Crazy Town and just pass Madness Crossroad. We might as well quit while we’re ahead.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey we agree on this. . . get the scroll out and write it down.

Robert Horry is not Scottie Pippen. Not even close in my eyes.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I seriously cannot believe Scottie is being short-changed here. He was the anchor of that Chicago defense, which one may argue could be the most suffocating defense ever with MJ, Pip and The Worm in it (the 96-98 Bulls teams, I meant).

Might be a chicken and egg problem here, in that MJ would have never won his six titles without Scottie, and vice-versa. For me the only thing that separates them both is that Michael basically “cloned” himself through Pippen (according to David Halberstam), so of course, the original/source is still the best. But a true Jordan clone isn’t so bad, ain’t it? (and this one’s sooo not Kobe)

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Finally, a voice of reason among the unwashed masses.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, lets not go knocking down Pippen’s abilities. I wouldn’t put Pippen as a role player. I trusted Pippen the most on those teams coz I knew he would come up with a defensive play and be off sprinting before anyone knew.

Soo many of those finals games, Jordan of course took the last shot, but without Pippen, there wouldn’t have been a last shot. When Jordan went off the play baseball, Pippen was the best player on the team and not a role player and they went deep into the playoffs, but they didn’t have a finisher.

But Scottie was really unique. Give me a player since then who could move and pass and finish AND defend like Scottie. Their first title against the Lakers, you could say, it was won in the fourth quarter solely because Scottie guarded Magic(one of Phil’s usual coverage change in the 4th) and after that Magic did squat.

by LionZion on May 29, 2009 7:36 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe he was there for all six titles.

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was just using fractions according to their worth to the team. Like, Jordan gets at least 1/2 of those ’chips on his own, Rodman 2/7 of the last 3, etc. etc.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good list. I think Reggie is underrated there though. I’d rather have Miller than Ewing on my team. I think LatinD is right about Nash as well. Honestly, its so hard that I think you could make a Tier 1 with 10-20 guys (Duncan and DRob) and then a Tier 2 with another 20-30 that would include Manu and Tony.

by BlaseE on May 28, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The boss ain’t gonna like this.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 28, 2009 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Where’s Mo Williams?

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 28, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cryin’ in his bankie.

by Lauri on May 28, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ooh, that was mean. I take it back, Mo.

by Lauri on May 28, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No you don’t. Stop that. It’s disingenuous

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was trying to joke that you didn’t really want to take it back. That you liked the fact that it was mean, and that you really did want to say that he’s cryin’ in his bankie. And that you were only pretending to be affected by sympathy in order to increase the humor and appear to be nice to him for show.

Disingenuous like that.

Guess it didn’t come across very clearly.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ohhhhh.

No, I’m just a wuss. A waffling wuss.

:)

by Lauri on May 29, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that’s the best kind, innit?

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Although everyone hates Isiah, including me, I’d rank him higher on that list. The guy was just incredible when he played, and I’m pretty sure he’s a better player than A.I. (not to mention a 2-time NBA champion)

by silverandblack_davis on May 28, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m with Davis

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 28, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Different eras, so of course hard to compare, but Iverson has a much higher PER than Isaiah (not that that’s everything).

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But look at what happened with the Pistons. When AI wasn’t the focus of the offense, he (to quote Lauri) cried

in his bankie

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can see that this isn’t going to get old for a while.

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 29, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Swap Garnett and Pippen for Wilkins and Miller(sorry ATS), and you got yourself my list.

Free James Gist!
Pounding the Rock - where ochlocracy happens. Eat your heart out, California.

by Tim C. on May 28, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yikes. Garnett and Pippen were much better all-around players than Wilkins and Miller.

by 4Him on May 29, 2009 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The bulls reached the conference finals without Jordan. Yes Pippen was that good. He had a Lebronesque season the year Jordan retired. He is one of the best SF in the history of civilization.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 9:27 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Maybe even the universe? All hail Pip!

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

From one of the above links:

It was the 1993-1994 season, Jordan had announced his first retirement and Pippen was left to be the main man in Chicago. He did exceed the critic’s expectation, leading Chicago to an unexpected 55-win regular season. Also deserving of the credit was Coach Phil Jackson, whom I feel was the main reason behind Chicago’s success. It was in the post-season that however showed Pippen for who he truly was. The Conference semi-final pitted the Bulls against their rivals, the New York Knicks. Down two games, Pippen had his defining moment of his career. With 1.8 seconds left, and the Bulls down, Jackson had designed a play for Toni Kukoc’s much to Pippen’s dismay. This was when Pippen refused to go back in the game.

What was that? Would a ’great’ player be so self-absorbed to feel that he is so above his team that he refuses to go back in the game, when the team desperately needed his presence as an effective decoy? I say NO, and a resounding NO at that.

And if by “Lebronesque” you mean “someone who has a tendency to fail his teams in big moments” or “someone who can’t rise to the challenge alone;” his tenure in Portland certainly helps your case.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 29, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

his tenure in Portland certainly helps your case.

Pippen was past his prime at that point. No one judges Jordan on his days as a Wizard.

Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.

by CMoney on May 29, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or Farve on his days as……….oh who gives a shit anymore.

I guess you could say that. If fact, if you pinpoint when he passed his prime, it appears to be mysteriously around 1998, when his scoring average dropped over 5 points a game.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 29, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I never thought PTR would be full of Pippen haters. The guy was an incredible player, one of the best of the best of the best.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nobody has said they hated him, and I’ll be first to say that I have nothing against the guy. He WAS a good player and had valuable skills, I just don’t believe he was one of the best of the best (in accordance with 4Him’s original Top 25 of the past 30 discussion. I think there’s at least 4 others that immediately come to mind that I’d put in that position instead of Scottie, but I don’t hate him.

"If I was the kind of guy who posted a signature line, this would be it from now on." -SiMA

by SgtinManusArmy on May 29, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I view Pippen as one of the best second bananas of all time. He was a great player, just not an all-time best/Top 25 of the last 30 years, etc.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But after Jordan, it was all Pippen across multiple teams. If His Airness wasn’t so alien, Pippen wouldn’t be second banana. Pippen at that time on any other team, I wouldn’t say he was secondary. Tony Kukoc, Luc longley, Worthy, younger athlectic pf I can’t remember name of etc where all second bananas.

Its like Stockton or Malone…who comes first and whose second banana? If His Airness had stockton instead of Pippen, would Stockton be any less. Its sort of like we say about DRob before his back injury. When has the league seen anyone like that, a center, who could lead the fast break and move around like a wing?
Since Pippen, I can’t think of anyone who had that many talents both on offense and defense. Pippen changed a lot of playoff games.

But if somebody can give us few names ahead of Pippen, it will be food for thought. Everything that anyone did since Jordan is diminished in value becoz the ceiling of excellence went where nobody can see it, forget reaching for it.

by LionZion on May 29, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t mean to imply that Pippen had no skills or that he had nothing to do with those chips. It could be argued that Jordan wouldn’t have won so many without Pippen. However, I think you hit the nail on the head with the alien argument about Jordan. I can’t think of another situation in the NBA over the last 30 years (except for maybe the Spurs in ’03) where the best player on a team was that much better than everyone else. I will agree that Pippen is a HOFer, but there was never a question as to who was the top banana on the Bulls.

by CapHill on May 29, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hell to the yeah, my countryman.

Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders

by LatinD on May 29, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah..that is the one big knock on Pippen. I never could understand it. His game was never selfish.

People man…you never know. I was disappointed to say the least.

by LionZion on May 29, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The only thing that MJ wasn’t able to teach and inculcate in Scottie’s head is the pressure that comes with being a superstar. Pip grew up playing in a small basketball program and wasn’t really exposed to the bright lights until the Bulls entered into prominence. He was an insecure guy, and at the same time he was an early bread winner and provided for his family so he was paranoid about people one-upping him.

His contract talks with the two Jerry’s were always marred with Pippen’s insecurity that he might be getting undervalued for his talents and contributions to the team. Plus, it didn’t help that Krause was so enamored with Kukoc (Krause was willing to trade Pippen for the guy), and I think at that time was being paid higher than Pip. That certainly heightened the insecurity that Scottie felt, and his contempt for the organization just exploded when Phil Jackson chose Toni to make the last shot in that game (and PJ certainly didn’t look down on Pippen with that; if I remember correctly, Scottie was having a bad shooting night, hence they went to Kukoc).

That being said, a lot of these players’ abilities and responsiveness to certain game situations are not just determined by talents alone, but other factors. Sure, Pippen was to blame for disobeying the coach and refusing to go in the court at that time, but it certainly doesn’t diminish his greatness in my book. We can’t isolate a single event to determine the player’s career. If we did, I can even nitpick MJ’s or any HOF’er NBA player then.

by silverandblack_davis on May 29, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

hear, hear

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 30, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

1. I’m glad most people here are aboard with me on the no HOF for Horry thing. Just madness. Of course I’d rather have (a healthy) McGrady than Horry. Any day of the week. Without players of McGrady’s skill level, Horry wouldn’t have any rings. The guy played with one dominant big man and at least one good guard his whole career. He was never better than a fourth option in general and a third option in the clutch.

2. I think, basically, that Manu is overrated by the average Spurs fan (and certainly by me) and tremendously underrated by American basketball fans. He will get into the HOF because of all his international accomplishments, but even I would have tremendous difficulty putting him in a list of top 25 players from the past 20 years.

Just going by franchise here…

Phoenix: Kevin Johnson, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire (3)
Los Angeles Lakers: Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant (4)
Los Angeles Clippers: Ha.
Golden State Warriors: Chris Mullin (1)
Sacramento Kings: Chris Webber (1)

Dallas Mavericks: Dirk Nowitzki (1)
Houston Rockets: Hakeem Olajuwon (1)
San Antonio Spurs: David Robinson, Tim Duncan (2)
Memphis Grizzlies: Uh.. no.
New Orleans Hornets: Chris Paul (1)

Utah Jazz: Karl Malone, John Stockton (2)
Portland Trail Blazers: Clyde Drexler (1)
Seattle Supersonics: Gary Payton, Ray Allen (2)
Denver Nuggets: Carmelo Anthony (1)
Minnesota Timberwolves: Kevin Garnett (1)

That’s 21 right there, and I’ve left off Shawn Kemp, Deron Williams, Brandon Roy, Yao Ming, Pau Gasol, Tim Hardaway, Alex English, Dikembe Mutombo, Shawn Marion, and Alonzo Mourning, another ten guys at least comparable in NBA accomplishment to Tony and Manu.

Now the East…

Boston Celtics: Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Paul Pierce (3)
New York Knicks: Patrick Ewing, Marc Jackson (2)
Philadelphia 76ers: Charles Barkley, Allen Iverson (2)
New Jersey Nets: Jason Kidd (1)
Toronto Raptors: Chris Bosh, Vince Carter (2)

Chicago Bulls: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen (2)
Detroit Pistons: Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars (2)
Cleveland Cavaliers: LeBron James, Mark Price (2)
Indiana Pacers: Reggie Miller (1)
Milwaukee Bucks: Michael Redd (1)

Miami Heat: Dwyane Wade (1)
Orlando Magic: Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard (2)
Charlotte Bobcats: Blah
Washington Wizards: Can’t think of anyone
Atlanta Hawks: Dominique Wilkins (1)

That’s another 22 guys, and I haven’t even included Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Anfernee Hardaway, Jermaine O’Neal, Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Latrell Sprewell, Robert Parish, or Brad Daugherty.

As you can see, Manu and Tony would have a difficult time even cracking the top 50 list of players from the past two decades. Although I would put Manu in the list of top 25 playoff performers of the past 20 years.

Give a man a chicken and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to chicken and he'll call you crazy and question your command of the English language.

by Aaronstampler on May 29, 2009 3:25 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Guys like Knee mac, Arenas, Ray Allen arent better than Manu. You switch situations and he would have the same numbers those guys did. Joe Johnson? Puh leeaseeee

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 29, 2009 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tony and Manu would have a difficult time even cracking the top 50? I don’t think it’s difficult at all. First, the stipulation is that they had to have played at least five years – that rules out Paul, DWilliams and BRoy. Second, guys like Mullin (who I really liked as a triple threat), MRedd, Arenas, JJohnson, MPrice, THardaway, ONeil, Parish, CWebber, Wallace, Marion and less so Mourning, Carter and YMing saw their production drop off in the playoffs (sometimes dramatically), and that is reflected in their teams’ overall lack of playoff success (with the exception of Parish and Wallace). Jackson got a boatload of assists but was otherwise quite average, as was Sprewell. I think that AHardaway, Billups, RAllen, Daugherty, CBosh, Gasol, Worthy, Kemp, English and McGrady (who hasn’t won a playoff series but whose production has actually increased in the playoffs) in the 35-45 range (in fact, I would move Kemp into the 25-35 range in place of CAnthony). Rodman and Mutombo are a bit harder to place b/c their skills were almost exclusively at the defensive end, but I would also put them in the 35-45 range.

So overall, I don’t know that these guys would significantly affect where I placed Tony and Manu. By position, would you place Billups ahead of Tony? RAllen ahead of Manu? I would maybe concede a few places (given that it’s hard to compare guys who play different positions, or in a different era), so that TP and Manu would still be in the top 30 of the last 30 years (the “30-30” club). But no lower than that. No way.

by 4Him on May 30, 2009 3:17 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just did the last 20 years. If you talk about 30 then we have way more guys to consider…

Give a man a chicken and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to chicken and he'll call you crazy and question your command of the English language.

by Aaronstampler on May 30, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and the list I made isn’t necessarily about how I view Tony and Manu but rather how they’re looked at historically by the average fan. I’d probably have them higher than some of those guys.

Eh, who am I kidding. I’d have Manu at SG over Jordan.

Give a man a chicken and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to chicken and he'll call you crazy and question your command of the English language.

by Aaronstampler on May 30, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

heck I have manu over Wilt and Kareem at center.

"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

by Chilai on May 31, 2009 4:09 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I appreciate the clarification. I didn’t understand that your initial list was from the historical perspective viewed by the average fan.

Care to do a similar list from your own point of view?

I want my Manu!

by jollyrogerwilco on May 31, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t follow you here. You already listed a whole bunch of guys who played many years beyond the 20-yr window and into the 30-yr window: Magic, Worthy, Mullin, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Drexler, English, Bird, McHale, Ewing, MJackson, Barkley, Jordan, Pippen, Isaiah, Dumars, Price, Wilkins, Rodman, Parish and Daugherty. Who else who played in the ’80’s would be worthy of consideration? MMalone, Walton, Murphy, Moncrief, ARobertson? Anyone else?

by 4Him on May 31, 2009 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the San Antonio Spurs.

Community Guidelines
Start posting about the Spurs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Spurromeo_small
Bite the Bullet?
Black_small
Ginobili vs. Dracula, Chapter 4
0910_bonner_sandwich_small
Warning: Blair Rebounding (Wallpaper)
Small
In Praise of Complementary Players
The_big_four_small
Bella's quirky musings... allas version

Recent FanPosts

Sbn-avatar_small
NBA Live 10 Gameday Poll:: Regular Season Week 5 (4 Games)
D-rob1_small
Unofficial Spurs/Mavs Recap
Sbn-avatar_small
NBA Live 10 Simulation (4):: San Antonio Spurs @ Dallas Mavericks
Bunnycookie_small
Tuesdays are for Losers
Bunnycookie_small
Rainy Days and Monday Loser Threads Always Get Me Down
Halloween_06_028_small
Proposed Lineup

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Featured Poll

Poll
Who has the best hair in the NBA?

  970 votes | Results

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

48MoH: Early Assessment of Team D

Recent FanShots

SI.com: Gregg Popovich's influence spreads wide across NBA
Grim article about Ginobili (plus Manu's reaction on FB)
Harvey: Fire Pop? That Was The Last Time...
True Hoop> Bruce Bowen on dirty play
Ginobili out; Parker doubtful
Craziness at 48MoH
Eva Longoria Earns Philanthropist Of The Year Award For 2009
nba.com> Raptors claim Mensah-Bonsu off waivers from Houston
True Hoop> Shane Battier, King of the Quad
SBN: NBA Power Rankings, Week 3

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Coach

Ats_big_small Wayne Vore (ATS)

Player

Supergino_small LatinD

Doas_small jollyrogerwilco

Bunnycookie_small Lauri

Oberto_fab_small silverandblack_davis

Roadavatar_small Tim C.

4558041c970_main200_small CapHill

Announcer

Manucrazy_small Aaronstampler

Zoe_spurs1_small BlaseE

Small CECabrera21

Profile_5_small Fred Silva