[Dime] Who’s Better: Manu Ginobili or Tracy McGrady?

I don't see how 1 bad game tells us anything. I could just as easily point to a number of games where he played big minutes and he put up great numbers. Why don't you look at the last 20 such games Ginobili has played and tell me what his numbers were.

We're looking at this question "Who's Better?" in fundamentally different ways. I think you're looking at it as "which player has played better up to this point". I'm looking at it as "if I had to choose 1 player, and I don't know who else will be on the team yet, who'd I take?" The "Who's Better?" question becomes, for me, a matter of prediction or extrapolation based on the available evidence and what we know about the players. For you, the question has nothing to do with what might be, but rather looking at and comparing the skills, accomplishments, etc. for each player.

So, the way I look at it, health is a big part of the equation. That's why I call the pro-T-Mac arguments "hypothetical" -- in the sense that we're first assuming that both players are perfectly healthy, and then proceeding from there. Of course, I'm framing this question as a hypothetical one myself, but I'm interested in the reality of both players in predicting who's better, not idealized representations of them.

5 games tells me nothing with regard to Jason Terry. It could be him getting warmed up for the regular season, or getting used to a new coach, or just a cold streak. You're right: some players work better off the bench. I wouldn't say that's been a pattern for Terry over his career, though.

Ginobili, based on what I know about him, would excel as a starter or bench player. Pop limits him for the good of his team, and he says as much (as discussed in the Spurs-Hornets telecast tonight).

 

durvasa, let's hypothesize:

if tracy and manu were on the same team, who would you give most of the responsibilities to?

 

I did not say, at any point, that Ginobili is a better player because he has won more. I said that's what the argument for him, from the article, is centered around. It's just an observation.

I think winning matters, and how we evaluate players should ultimately correspond to how they impact winning. That doesn't mean that players who win more are automatically better.

 

If we were to put both players through the same amount of minutes with the same amount of pressure from their respective franchises in hopes of bringing home a championship I would definitely go with Tmac. If we're going to talk efficiency, let's take out the Duncan, Yao and Parker crutches. Come post season, Tmac will rock shop on Manu no doubt about it. He has him beat on the repertoire of moves to score whether he does it himself or finds the open man.

Just curious, has Manu had a triple double? If not, then it just shows the wide array of contribution each player brings to the table.

 

I would give T-Mac more ball-handling responsibilities, because he needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. I like his ability to see over the defense and make over the top passes. I would want to make full use of both their ISO capabilities.

Ginobili excels more in a team-oriented, motion offense. I'd use him more off the ball, more as a cutter. I'd want to set screens for him to free him up for jumpers (like Boston does for Ray Allen).

 

durvasa,

i just want to re-iterate, i really truly believe manu is a really really good all-star caliber player. he's a guy that i hate watching (b/c he flops so much) but would love to have on my team.

 

durvasa, you're argument is equally hypothetical. You say that it is reasonable to expect some random statline were he to play 35-40 mpg. That is hypothetical and could only be proven if he actually did that.

Playoff success is entirely irrelevant in a discussion of individual talent. The only thing holding McGrady back is in fact, injuries. When T-Mac's healthy there is no doubt who is better. The problem is that he is hurt a lot. However this could, hypothetically, work both ways.

Ginobli has missed 10 games per year throughout his career. He plays 27 minutes per game. Ginobili isn't exactly free from injuries. Plus, he plays almost 10 minutes less per game than Mac. So by saying that he'll average yadda yadda yadda stats is also assuming he won't become more injury prone with the extra play which would affect his efficiency.

The point being is that the entire idea of extrapolating Manu's numbers is entirely hypothetical. He comes in when the other guys sit and for short, streaks he is the man offensively. Rightfully so, he is an outstanding player. On the other hand T-Mac is the man offensively 35 minutes per game. If he's not shooting he's setting it up for others to shoot, outside of Yao possessions that is.

Once again. Ginobili is an outstanding player, but if T-Mac is even remotely healthy or feeling good (see: last night) he is head and shoulders above him.

Then if you talk playoffs where T-Mac goes nuts (6th highest PER ever) it's no contest. He's an assists, steals, rebounds, blocks, and scoring machine. And that was with an arthritic shoulder and knee requiring surgery.

 

wow i just looked at some of the basketball reference stats (b/c i never knew tracy was top 6 in PER all-time and #2 active)

PER - top 6 all-time & #2 active
scoring - top 4 all time & #2 active
usage rating - top 2 all time & #1 active

. but all this is for naught if he doesn't win. hopefully he can get the monkey off of his back this year.

 

I agree. Rethinking it, I should backtrack. Hypotheticals are fine. My problem is this logic: "T-Mac is better because, when he's healthy, he capable of doing much more." I think what we should do is taking all the information we have about the players, and imagine who'd be better in a particular, hypothetical situation. That's appropriate when trying to answer the "who's better?" question. But we shouldn't ignore relevant information about the players like injury history. And we shouldn't just blankly say "T-mac would obviously win more than Ginobili if he played with Tim Duncan" without any deeper insights either.

Winning matters. Winning against the best competition matters. More precisely, how players contribute to that winning is the big question we're trying to answer.

My guess was just that, a guess. I just put it out there to show what type of player I think Ginobili could be. Maybe he does worse. Maybe he does better. We don't know, but that's my guess. We all do the same thing at the beginning of each season when we try to predict how new players will fit in and what kind of stats they'll put up. No one says "STOP making predictions! We haven't seen these players play in our system yet, so it's NOT allowed!"

When Tracy's on top of his game, there are very few wing players I'd take ahead of him. Maybe Kobe, LeBron, and Wade. Possibly Paul Pierce. That's it. You're right, Ginobili has had his injury problems as well, but I think his effort is more consistent. So over the course of a season, who'd contribute more to winning? That's what I'm trying to guess, because my goal if I'm to add either to my team is to maximize my wins. T-Mac is great at his peaks; maybe over a season he'll put up some better individual numbers. But does that translate to more wins? I'm not sure about that.

 

All this really just depends.

We can't really compare the 2 in terms of "better". Manu is a role-player, a second or third option. He will NEVER be first option, plain and simple. McGrady however, is a 1st and 2nd option player, but he plays the passing role very effectively. In fact, his gifted talent for him to be able to handle the basketball so well at his height is what makes him such an effective 2nd option passer.

McGrady at this stage is a passer plain and simple. In his orlando days he would be a scorer, but the fact that his gifted passing talent as well as his height make him the perfect double team threat, allowing him to defer to his teammates better.

However, Ginobli is more of a scorer. He has the passing capabilities, but he isn't a player that can really focus on both. However, I am going to say that Ginobli feeds off Duncan, so he makes a perfect 2nd option scorer. For McGrady however, he isn't so good at being a 2nd option scorer. He needs to hold the ball to be effective, scoring wise only.

 

Team down 1 point. 10 seconds left in the game. I'd rather have the ball in the hands of Ginobili rather than TMac.

Apart from TMac's 13 ponts in 34 seconds, TMac doesn't strike me as a winner. Ginobili, on the other hand, is a winner. NBA championships, Olympic gold medals, world championships ... Ginobili is a winner through and through. TMac ... well ... he might win at a celebrity softball game, but that's about it.

 

the answer is obviously Tmac
manu can't do what Tmac can
but Tmac can do what manu can do ,but the premise is Tmac must keep healehy (at least a 80%health)

 

It really is very simple. Exchange TMac for Manu last year at the precise instant that Yao goes down for the season.

Does anyone seriously think the Rockets would have made the playoffs? Really???

Manu has never had to be THE guy for a team. He's always had Parker and Duncan, so defense can never key in solely on him. I submit if defenses were allowed to do that, Manu would be alot less impressive.

 

That's fair, and I'm not entirely sure if the Spurs would be better if you swapped them. Ginobili pretty much plays his role to perfection there. My point is the converse though. The logic that Ginobili would put up the equal numbers as T-Mac were he given the minutes is flawed to me. He has a history of injury problems and you want to give him about 8 more mpg? Not to mention even if he stays healthy and is the number one option would his numbers consistently be at that level? You've shown he's done it for one game at a time, but every night? Possibly, but there's a lot of variables in that to assume it. Just like T-Mac and his injuries.

Yeah but you're comparing the 2002 (?) to 2007 Spurs vs. 2002 to 2007 Magic and Rockets. Not a fair comparison for T-Mac's teams. Let me rephrase it. Winning matters. However when talking purely on one player v. one player comparisons there are much more important thigns to look at.

I have no problem with predictions. I'm just pointing out it's only hypothetical. Just like T-Mac staying healthy.

I think the guy who posted right above me put it the best. If you replace T-Mac for Ginobili on last year's team, do we make the playoffs? Do we end up only 2 games behind the Lakers? I won't rule it out entirely, but personally I'll take T-Mac. Would you?

 

If only T-Mac had that desire to dominate every game he would be unstoppable. If that were the case we would have had at least one title with him. The guy doesnt even have to try and he's great. Imagine if he tried with passion every game. He looks better now but can he get the job done when we are all healthy? The west is tough and I just want to make sure we make it to the playoffs first.

 

To answer the quest...Ginobli for health reasons. If T-Mac could stay healthy id say Mac.

 

Neither are desirable guys to build around.

You take Manu because he steps up when it matters.

 

You say no heart? Then what is this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PofsN2LgH0I

Tmac plays when it counts and you would know that when you watch the playoffs. The boy goes crazy but with all that effort, one man can only do so much.

 

Tmac, hands down.

 

This debate still irks me. Ginobli is awesome, yes, but he's awesome in more of the Rip Hamilton model. He's just not in the same class as a guy like McGrady. An injured McGrady is comparible, but the 90% Tmac is hands down better. I think Tmac's abilities when he's hurting are a testament to how good this guy really is. I've been saying it since the late preseason...McGrady will get healthy this year, and with the weapons we have, we're gonna see a guy that will shut up a lots of critics. Think a 25/7/7 type of guy. Tell me I'm wrong, but my gut tells me he's gonna be rolling come late January/early February.