My open letter to Bill Simmons about Manu

I doubt he will read it, especially since it's so long but i had to get it off my chest and he is too smart to write something like this about Manu.  Im sure for alot of people here this isnt news but it was cool doing a little research for it

Open letter to Bill Simmons.

Hi Bill,

I needed to address something with you base on one of many times you said things about my team that I don't quit understand. In this case it was in your annual trade column last week. You state the following about my 2nd favorite player of all time and current favorite player Manu Ginobili...

Quick Manu tangent: If San Antonio wins 68-70 games and captures the title, he'd become the single toughest active player to assess from a historical standpoint. Phenomenal big-game player, one of the best international players ever, a key member of multiple title teams … yet he was never one of the league's best five guards at any point in his career. Is he a potential Hall of Famer? Does he need one more title to get there? Is it fair to compare him to unsung guards like Joe Dumars and Dennis Johnson, when their best years were much better than Manu's best years? Or do we just cop out and say he's the best Euro/South American guard ever, then be done with it? To be continued.

I read stuff like this and I am truly confused because I know you know better. How do I know you know better...because I read your book.

From the back of your book you say “i care that some one gave away 20% of his minutes or numbers because that sacrifice made his team better. I care about glowing quotes from yellowed magazines and passionate testimonials from dying teammates. I care about the things I witnessed and how they resonated with me” you talk about “the secret” and how stats cant always give you the answers on what players mattered most and what teams mattered most.

Who exudes this better then Manu. Is there anyone?

I loved your book by the way but at the time that I read it I was disappointed that other then Timmy being listed 6th all time in your pantheon of greatness the rest of the team was kind skipped over and left out. In no way would I dispute this is the Tim Duncan era in San Antonio or that he wasn't the best player or the main reason for the Sups success and I agree he is the best power forward of all time. But he also didn't do it alone. What bothers me the most is that far to many people out there would agree with you quote on your trade column or even think you are giving Ginobili too much credit.

Follow me on this Bill and I will make what seems to me a slam dunk case for Manu in the HOF with just a little advanced statistics and basically every point you made on the back of your book.

“the problem”

Manu's stats.

The problem with basic stats is they don't always tell the whole story, this is one of the basic themes/points of your book. An example you mention Dennis Rodman. Some years he grabbed a lot of Reb and played great D. Others he sacrificed his defense to grab rebounds and although his stats were just as good or better he wasn't a better player or as good for his team.. Its the same difference between Timmy getting 10 rebs and playing good to great Def and Kevin Love playing almost no def but getting 15-18 Reb. Its not that Kevin's rebs are not good but Timmy might give the same value to his team with less stats.

Having said that the case for Manu based on stats is weak, but there is some huge context here that you either have to consider or give him a pass on. First he was a 25 year old rookie. If he had been drafted 5 years later (say 2003-2004) then its an almost guarantee it would not have taken any team 4 years to bring him over. Most of the good players get into the league by the time they are 20ish but for the sake of argument lets say 21. Thats 4 more years Manu could have been in the league putting up numbers.

The second main piece of context is Manu had the passion and the drive to play for his country, and not just after a PR nightmare of being by far the best nation in the world at basketball (and failing) practically held a gun to his head and made him play. This basically meant that he was playing non stop basketball from the year he started his NBA career till about a year ago. All he did in that time was be the best player for his country and win a gold medal (first and only since the US has been sending professionals). This almost certainly cost him some games to injury and fatigue. (And possible a title here or there, the best example was 2008 when he was playing on one leg and LA beat SA 4-1, because he selflessly wanted to play for his country) I don't think you can have it both ways, either its a plus he wanted to play for Argentina and did phenomenally well as one of the best international players ever or you give him a pass for missing a few games and starting most seasons a little slow.

The third piece of context (from your book “i care that some one gave away 20% of his minutes or numbers because that sacrifice made his team better.”). In my opinion there is no player this applies more to then Manu. I cant even think of anyone, I don't even think its close. Pop says I think the team is better with you leading the 2nd unit coming off the bench and Manu says no problem...and actually means it! He doesn't sulk, he doesn't dog it, he doesn't complain, he doesn't ask for a trade or bolt for more money and playing time the first chance he gets. Its truly amazing he only won one 6th man of the year aware but I don't think anyone can argue that he was the only “star” or at least starter that willingly came off the bench because the coach asked him to to make the team better, and did this every year.

A few other things that also have to be stated. The Spurs played in one of the slowest paces in the NBA for most of Manu's career. At the same time Manu played with the greatest PF of all time (who was going to get his touches) and a ball dominating score first point guard (who started with the ball and often finished with the ball). Rather then sulk or even demand he got more touches all he did was play his heart out as best he could and did whatever it took to win and make the team better.

To go along with the theme of whats best for the team Manu also has been under paid his whole career. He may not be underpaid on the last few years of his current contract but twice (his 2 contracts he signed after his rookie deal) he could have certainly gotten more money by leaving San Antonio. This in and of itself may not make him hall worthy but it should be mentions when you talk about making sacrifices for the team.

Advanced stats for the regular season and per game stats for the playoffs (when he got more mins and had a bigger role) show Manu to be one of the best players in the game over his career.

PER is not a perfect stat but it is useful to adjust for pace and mins played. In the case of Manu I would argue that it also takes away from him a little since he has always been a quality defender if not all def team guy, but it mostly helps hims as the spurs ran one of the lower paces through out most of his career, and helps him because of him minutes. PER ranks Manu as a top 6 SG in all of the last 7 season (once 6th , 3 times 4th, once 3rd and 2 times 2nd). At the hight of his play John Hollinger”wrote "If every time Ginobili comes off the bench you think to yourself "Kobe Bryant is checking in for the Spurs," their success becomes a lot easier to understand.” I agree that Kobe for 27-32 min a game isn't the same as Kobe for 35-40min a game but isn't that still really really good?

He can compete with any 2nd banana or big 3 on a title team in the last decade (some quick examples are Kobe w/Shaq at least the first 2 titles,shaq w/wade, anyone on Detroit's title, Paul Peirce) in total win share, and is even almost tied with Duncan a few times and better then him this year (WS Total again isn't a perfect stat but it offsets part of the mins matter because total win share accounts for that and penalizes a player for low mins or misses games) Manu is one of the best and most consistent players in the league in WS per 48 (one of the only players over .200 every year) making him one of the most valuable players in the NBA when hes on the court. This also isn't the case of some back up that only plays 15min a game against the 2nd unit of the other team. Although Manu has come off the bench he has played 27-32 min and is always in in the final 5min of close games.

Same goes for True shooting % which calculates a players efficiency based on Fgs3pt and FT shooting. He is consistently better then most of the best overall players and almost never places below anyone who isn't a pure shooter (spot up shooters like Ray Allen (doesn't have to create) and overall great offensive players like Steve Nash(offensive savant). Some players beat him out a few times but almost no one is consistently as good as Manu.

His playoff numbers stack up well also. His min go up in the playoffs but not too much and hes still sharing the ball with the greatest PF of all time and a ball dominating PG. By every discernible measure it was a dead heat who was better in the 2005 playoffs, Manu or Timmy. And unlike when Tony Parker walked off with the finals MVP being slightly better then Timmy for 4 game sweep of the Cavs (but at the same time not as good as Timmy all playoffs), Manu was in a dead heat with Timmy for the whole playoffs. Factor in that he hurt his knee in game 2 of the finals and really didn't seem the same because of it in game 3-4 (both Detroit wins) you could have had a slightly better Manu without that minor knee injury and have Det out in less then 7 and Manu could have gotten the finals MVP that people still think he deserved.

“Is it fair to compare him to unsung guards like Joe Dumars and Dennis Johnson, when their best years were much better than Manu's best years?”

This one hurts a little Bill. In no way would I say that either of these players best years were “much” better. I think it can be argued they were not even better but certainly not much better. Its always hard to compare different players in different eras, but based on per (which takes into account min and pace) Manu is much better then both these guy. Based on win share total (which penalizes players for less min) he is also better, or at least had higher peaks. Neither of these guys seemed to have given up as much statistically like Manu did (stat wise with the spurs, again pace and playing with 2 players who had the ball a lot more then him) and neither seemed to have come as close as Manu did in 2005 to being the best player on his team in the playoffs in a title year. I would say Manu is better then either and both are in the HOF without Manu's international resume.

In your book Bill you break down all the hall of fame players and give stats like total years, AS appearances, quality years, best 3 years, playoff numbers and meaningful career stats and hardware. So lets take a look at Manu.

9 season (so far) 6 quality (so far) 2 All-stars* 2nd (reg season)/1st (tie with Duncan in the playoffs) best player on 1 championship (2005) 3rd best (although all 3 were all really close this year)  on 1 (2007) contributor on one (2003) and 2nd best player overall on a 5 year run (2003-2007) that a .4 shot and bad foul going the other way could have gone to 5 finals in a row (no guarantees here but they would have been the favorites against the Suns and historically did well against them and the spurs were the 1st or 2nd best team those years)

*a few notes on the AS games. 1 Popularity contest. It seems absurd that VC has 8 AS selections and Manu only has one. It was also absurd to me that before this year Manu had as many AS selections and Wally Szczerbiak!

2 As noted above Manu frequently starts slow. His best season was 2008 (not an all star) but he was much better in the 2nd half after AS voting was done. He was one of the top 5-10 players the 2nd half of 2010 (but not an all star) season but again after AS votes. (he easily could have had 2 more AS even with it being a popular vote and fans not seeing the spurs in a small market or not understanding his stats cause he was only playing 27 min a game)

Manu also passes every intangible I can think of. He is clutch and the spurs always put the ball in his hands at the end of any meaningful game the last 7 years. He takes and makes the big shots in the big moments and makes big plays in big moments (steals, blocks, taking a charge, grabbing a rebound, etc). He passes the eyeball test as far as being exciting, having a high bbiq and making the right play, the hard to tangibly explain “making his team mates better”, being an overall winner (every where hes been and on every level). Every player out there would love to have him on their team. He is as fierce a competitor as there is and will do anything to win while also not alienating his team mates or letting his ego get in the way. He brings everything to the table and takes almost nothing off (the only exception I can think of is he sometimes pushes too hard or thinks he can make any pass or play and gets some bad TO but it really isn't even that bad).

“I care about glowing quotes from yellowed magazines and passionate testimonials from dying teammates. “

Since we are talking about a player who is still playing and has had no team mate I know of die yet I do have to scale this one back a bit. Have you seen any of the national games the spurs play. The are full of renowned coaches and great basketball minds that can not say enough about how good Manu is. (to many to list them all but Bill Walton, JVG, Hubie Brown,Jack Ramsay and Doug Collins all come to mind) And who is Kobe's favorite player to watch...thats right Manu Ginobili. The TNT half time show has heard Chuck scream “GINNNNOOOOBILLLIIII” like 45,000 times in the last 9 years since he join the league and coach Pop “thinks” he can spur you in the 2nd half “because he's Manu Ginobili”

I guess my over all point is that if Manu and the spurs win 65-70 games and win the title with him as their 1-2 best player again...he is a slam dunk HOFer. As it is now even if they don't win he is one. I'm not saying top 50 all time or greatest guard or Spur, but hes in there. The biggest problem I have though Bill is you know better. If the average fan looks over some stats and says well Manu Ginobili was never a top 10 SG in the league or never had good stats or only won 3 titles because of Tim Duncan or shouldn't have been an AS or a HOF then I understand. They are idiots (or at least uninformed) who only looking at stats, probably hardly ever watch a spurs game (small market team, not as many national games, lowest rating ever in the finals in 2005) and really don't know what they are talking about.

You on the other hand wrote a 700 page book that more or less puts down on paper exactly why Manu should be a shoe in to get into the HOF and is still one of the most under rated players ever. I guess my question to you is, who's right? Bill Simmons ESPN blogger or Bill Simmons best selling author of The Book of Basketball?

Thanks for your time

Phillip Evans