Is James Harden's success in Houston proof Manu Ginobili could have been a star as the lead dog?

I don't think it's a delusional claim. Who knows? Nobody thought Harden would ever be this good, and I'm sure people would think the same for Ginobili.

I would say that it isn't likely, but possible. As you said, Harden seems like he's much stronger and more durable, and that's a big advantage for being a team's top guy given the workload you take on.

 

It's not proof but it'd been nice to see if he could have done it, Spurs might not have 5 rings.

 

Impossible to say. Ginobili played an extremely good third wheel for San Antonio.

If you put him on a mediocre team where he draws the double teams every time, it's hard to say how his game would translate.

Although, he is one of the elite masters of flopping, so there's that.

 

I think Spurs would have been the original OKC. Adjust to loss of talent by overplaying current talent, injuries, and failure to meet expectations. Pop had a great system, a lot of luck, and management made the right calls. OKC had all those factors, just a cheap ass owner.

 

Not really. Ginobli wasn't a kid when he entered the league, he was 25 with years of experience in Europe playing basketball and leading his own team (Euroleague finals MVP, Italian league MVP etc.). Ginobli also has a lot of injury issues, despite playing limited minutes (his career high in minutes was only 31). I can't imagine how many seasons he would last if he was expected to play 38 minutes a game, with all the defenses focusing on him night in and night out.

 

Ginobli did not take the 3rd wheel easy early on, he knew he was a star. For the most part, he's been their best scorer. But all knew he would be the man if he ever left them.

 

No - because Harden is insanely durable and deceptively strong which is a key part of his game whereas Ginobili is fragile, so much so that he couldn't even handle a more reduced load without chronic injury, and not nearly as powerful.

 

This.

 

During Harden's 2nd season at OKC, I posted he would be a superior version of Manu. The comment was not well-received.

At no point was Manu an 82-game MVP-caliber player. But he's a warrior who played without fear and brought his A-game to 4 Spurs championship runs. If it weren't for injuries, might have been a couple more.

 

Interesting question and some posters made great points.

I forgot Manu was already something of a finished product at 25 when he came over. So that leads me to believe he really didn't have another level to get to. As the lead dog of his own team I could have seen him putting up 22/5/7. I definitely think he would have missed a lot of time with injury carrying that burden and his efficiency would have gone way down.

I think there is some revisionist history with the way Harden left OKC. Harden would've been ok continuing off of the bench had he been offered the max. He didn't want to play the backup role AND lose out financially. Its pretty nuts that the tax hell OKC assumed it would be in keeping him never really happened as the NBA revenues have gone up significantly each of the past few years.

 

I think the key is durability and i dont think Manu could have done that. His body wouldnt hold up. What i do think is that he can be a top dog on a top team, but thats a different story. In his prime he was a 20/5/5 for the spurs, wich tells u a lot with the system they run ( and playing on championship team, not the orlando magics of the world)

 

I don't think the two are directly comparable in the strictest sense, but yes, I can see it.

Ginobili would not have been as successful as Harden will be, and he would not have won as much as he did in actuality. But yes, I think in another universe you can build around an electric, unselfish Argentinian who is an above average rebounder and defender and only really lacks for durability. Maybe not the best player on a title team (which even Harden hasn't proved), but certainly on a playoff team.

 

Manu was the best player on the 2005 championship spurs, wich also tells u alot , coz Duncan was almost prime at the moment.
I know Duncan took home finals mvp, but it was because at the moment most peopple though it was duncan team, not the big 3 team. But manu played better in that series ( although i will give it that duncan had a really hard matchup with both wallace on him).

 

Manu was NOT the best player on the team during the whole year, but he was awesome during the Finals. This is what I meant by bringing his A-game at the most crucial times. I wouldn't have had a problem with him being named Finals MVP.

But if you consider the entire regular season and playoffs, TD was the best player hands down. Not even debatable.

 

Absolutely. Harden's game is just like Manu's to a T. If he had bolted to another team When he was a FA I think he would have had great success individually but maybe not so much with his team.

 

Manu doesn't have the physical traits of harden, so no.

Just bc they're both left handed doesn't make this a valid comparo

 

ginobili was a greater player than t-mac

 

I'm going to assume OP works for ESPN.

Can anyone tell me what this stat line is:

<table><tr><td width="40">G</td><td width="40">MP</td><td width="40">FG%</td><td width="40">3FG%</td><td width="40">FT%</TD><td width="40">REB</td><td width="40">AST</td><td width="40">STL</td><td width="40">PTS</td></TR><tr><td>69</td><td>20.7</td><td>.438</td><td>.345</td><td>.737</TD><td>2.3</td><td>2.0</td><td>1.4</td><td>7.6</td></TR></table>

Spoiler

Ginobody's statline at age 25