Strange indeed. Cause they had the same argument before when JVG said Manu was the 2nd best 2 guard and someone said what about dwade? And jvg was like the heat have lost so many games in a row, wade can't be considered great letting that happen.
Last week, JVG was saying that up to that point, Manu was having the second best year of all the SG behind Kobe. And I actually agreed with that because compared to year's past, he was playing out of his mind with Duncan and Parker missing time and him making so many big plays for the Spurs. I thought similarly, T-Mac's injuries early on were hindering his performance this year and it was down compared to the T-Mac of past years. However, what T-Mac has down over the last 6 or 7 games is unbelievable! I could see why JVG would change his mind.
It shows that Ginobili doesn't depend on Duncan to put up big numbers. The argument that he's only playing off other guys and he isn't a dominant scorer in his own right is really just silly. Offensively, he's the number one option on that team. He plays and dominates in the fourth quarters, against the opposing team's best players, like any superstar would. I'm not saying he would maintain his per-minute productivity if he was playing 36 minutes a night, but there wouldn't be nearly as much drop off as lot of people think. He'd still probably be putting up better stats than T-Mac, for instance (not a knock on T-Mac, Ginobili has just been sensational this year).
His point is that if Manu averages 23.7 WITH Duncan on the court and 30.3 WITHOUT Duncan on the court, why is Manu's average of 20.7 BELOW both those numbers? Ther can be no other scenairo, Duncan is either on the court with Manu or off. Using those numbers Manu's average PPG should be between 23.7 and 30.3. EDIT: Actually, I think I see how. Manu is averaging 26+ not 20+
I thought this chart was interesting: It plots per-minute performance on a game by game basis for each player, versus minutes played (looking at games where they played at least 20 minutes). I use Hollinger's Game Score formula for summarizing statistical productivity. For those arguing that Ginobili only puts up better per-minute numbers because he doesn't play big minutes ... how do you interpret this? Per-minute, his productivity is no worse than T-Mac's for any range of MPG.
look at the suns game today. did EVERY play in the 4th go through him? NO does 90% of the plays in the 4th go through tmac even when yao is playing? YES BIG difference. and again, it would be a big dropoff through ONE SEASON. manu has NEVER shown he can play more than 31 minutes a game for ONE WHOLE SEASON, let alone one single month. do u know how long ONE SEASON is? and he's not their #1 option player. they share the responsibilities b/t the 3 stars fairly evenly. after watching the suns game, in the 4th, they would go to manu for 2 plays, then parker for 2 plays, then duncan for 2 plays. the defense cannot key in totally on one guy. avery johnson said we ALL know tmac is our #1 guy in the 4th that triggers EVERY play. u seriously cannot say manu faces the same defenses tmac face nor does he have the load that tmac does. tmac touches the ball almost every time we run a play; that cannot be said for manu. tony parker creates a lot of the plays/penetration for that team too.
? No my point was how can Manu average 20.7 if both those averages are higher, you were right. Because his season average is 20.7, unless your sample size was last month through march 4th, and not overall the whole season. So durvasa is either saying that Manu would average that many points if he played 40 minutes or I am just completely missing something.
I don't think Manu faces the same defenses T-Mac faces right now. When the Spurs have all of their "Big Three" on the floor, he doesn't have to do as much. But when that isn't the case, he steps up like an All-NBA quality player. All I'm saying is that I consider Ginobili to be in the same class as McGrady, but he's just in a situation where he doesn't have to play big minutes and he gets to play alongside two other very good offensive players. That doesn't mean he isn't capable of much, much more if he was in a different situation. I think he's capable of carrying a team, if that's what was required of him.
20.7 is per game scoring (dependent on minutes played). I was looking at his per-minute scoring (independent of minutes played).
are u saying if tmac was on the spurs he would be averaging 30 minutes a game? are u saying if tmac was on the spurs he would be coming OFF THE BENCH? all u need to know is his responsibilities are much much lighter than with tmac? he has NEVER played the entire season facing the defenses tmac faced. until he can show he can do it for ONE whole season carrying a franchise, you're assuming based on EXTRAPOLATIONS. there's a reason he has not dominated ONE SINGLE PLAYOFF series. there's a reason he hasn't avg more than 33 minutes in the playoffs (don't u play the best players in the playoffs? even tim duncan and tony parker upped their minutes to around 37-40 mpg during the playoffs. let's be real. manu knows his role on that team. he plays it well. there's no pressure for him to dominate and therefore he plays better. if he was THAT good, at least his minutes would have skyrocketed in the playoffs when the spurs play much better teams.
I think that's a bad argument. Manu has been the 2nd or 3rd option his whole career. Very rarely has he been 1st, and only due to injuries. Tmac has been #1 his whole career minus his first couple of years in Toronto. Manu can afford to not have the entire defense key in on him, esp. when TP is playing. Let's talk about his ability to keep up this hypothetical endurance once he's actually played multiple seasons at 38+ minutes a game. I don't think you can argue that Tmac's body has more mileage on it. And yes, Tmac can definitely sustain MVP-level play for more than a month.
I don't know what T-Mac would be doing if he was on the Spurs, and neither do you. And you're assuming he can not fulfill that role for a whole season because he's never had to do it before. The Spurs went 16-4 in the playoffs last year. They didn't exactly need that from him, did they? I think Popovich was saving him for when he really him. That's his own unique approach to coaching (echoed in the way he manages minutes for his players in the regular season). The only series that was really in doubt was the Phoenix series. After the first four games when the Spurs were 2-2, Ginobili played 38 and 35 minutes in the next two games, leading the team in scoring both times.
Again, Manu's per minute productivity goes up significantly when Duncan or Parker are off the floor. I don't think it makes sense to use them as an excuse for why Ginobili is so productive. The guy is just really good on his own. What's the argument that Ginobili can't handle being in T-Mac's role, other than he's never had to do it? He has all the necessary skills to pull it off, and he's shown an ability to rise to that level (and beyond) when his team needs him to. More evidence of this. At the end of close games (last 5 minutes of 4th quarter and overtimes, margin within 5 points), Ginobili scores 36.2 points and gets 9.6 assists per 40 minutes, shooting 69 eFG% from the field (in 104 minutes). For comparison, T-Mac has scored 26.4 points and gotten 6.8 assists per 40 minutes, shooting 51.8 eFG% (in 53 minutes). So, Ginobili has excelled in moments where he's playing against the stiffest competition, in efficiency, scoring, and assisting. People seriously think that defenses aren't keying on him at the end of games, when he's known to be the Spurs best clutch player?
I don't disagree with that, he's clearly a very good/great player, I just think he can't sustain it over a season. There's no question that if T-mac's back weren't an issue this wouldn't even be a debate as to which could keep up a higher level of play.
Finally we get to the point. This is where I strongly disagree with you. I never disputed the fact Ginobili can get stats on par with Tmac. Your display of per minute stats proves this. I just don't see how you can say Ginobili can carry a team when he hasn't shown he can do it. Like you said he has always had help and never had the opportunity to prove so. All those stats you put up trying to prove Ginobili being Tmac's equal don't mean much to me, since they are in completely different situations. Do you honestly believe if Ginobili and Tmac switched places last year when Yao was injured, the results would have been the same? Tmac not only kept us in the playoffs last year, but he kept us in a position to get home court advantage with a team consisting of Tmac, Deke, Shane, Rafer, Howard, Head and Chuck. I just don't see how Ginobili could be successful when he has that kind of talent around him. Forgot to add that like Tmac, Ginobili has never played a full 82 game season. He is able to achieve Tmac-like fragility with never averaging more then 31 mpg.
Has he shown he can not do it? No, he hasn't. That's just something you're assuming on your own, because he's never had to do it. I'm looking at how he's performed when his team has needed him to step up. He's proven he can rise to the occasion. To me, that suggests he can do much more, if that's what his role required.
and that's a few games in a season and u can extrapolate that to an entire season? to me, i look more to the playoff statistics (where defenses get tougher, when the best players truly shine...) -> and he hasn't shown he's a true superstar/franchise player that tracy has shown to be. even when you are on a great team, the best players will shine regardless.
Like me, your making an assumption, based on him stepping it up when he needs to. But he has never shown he is capable of playing a full 82 game season, even when averaging 27 mpg for the majority of his career and 31 mpg this year.
