I guess in Houston you take such things for granted. Spurs haven't had a perimeter player average 20 pts/game since G. Gervin. (Elliot might have under B. Hill - but all point totals (including opponents) were inflated under Hill - see Nelson, Don)
I strongly subscribe to verse's theory regarding defensive specialists at SG don't win things much. Do a quick journey through the '90s at all the 4 Conference Finals teams each year? See how many defensive specialists like Christie/Kittles types actually exist in the Final 4 versus shooter specialist like Ainge, Richmond, Majerle, Jeff Malone, Byron Scott, Hornachek, Del Negro, Reggie Miller, Ricky Pierce, Hawkins, Steve Smith. by the numbers the best defenders at the 2 in Final 4 teams are also the stars: Jordan, Dumars, Kobe, Paul Pierce. Even other "Jordan Stoppers" like Maxwell and Starks were main scorers for there team. Then you had the decent defenders with offense like Drexler and Nick Anderson.
Hard to argue with what you're saying, but the Spurs are hoping at the 2, that Manu will be a strong scorer; if not this year, after the Spurs have added another impact player in the off season. Bowen is the Spurs starting 3 - before that he was Miami's starting 3 (Riley called him the worst starting 3 in the league). He, obviously, doesn't score like the guy he replaced: Elliot (lost in this debate is the fact that Bowen also doesn't rebound like a 3 should, either). What he provides is defense. Does Kobe still get his average? Yes. But in 2000-01 Kobe went for over 40 per against the Spurs in the playoffs! That pretty much needed to be addressed if the Spurs wanted ANY chance of beating the Lakers. The next step is to try to slow Kobe down a little more (wishfull thinking possibly) is by making him work more on defense. Spot up shooters won't do this...somebody running around like they're on amphetamines (taken from earlier in this thread) might.
I still haven't seen Ron Artest mentioned anywhere in here .............................................
I don't know if Manu Ginobili will be as good as Derek Anderson soon--but if Manu develops into the player Spurs fans hope than there are a few differences as to what Manu can offer the Spurs and what DA could offer them (then again DA didn't even get the chance to play the LAKERS in 01). First off DA and Manu are both very athletic players and the one main similiarity is that they both are able to penetrate extremely well from the side of the court to the hoop. They both have good hang time of course and body control--thus the reason they are able to drive so effectively from the side and in general. DA in general is a weak mid range shooter off the dribble and nor does he have the polished skills of Manu Ginobili (atleast it seems that way right now). Manu seems to be more of a clutch player and Manu is very good at getting his own shot (especially when off the ball or when coming off a pick). All in all the reason I think Manu can be a better asset (or about the same as DA was)--is because Manu is a player who WANTS the ball in crunch time--can we say the same about STEVE SMITH? Or did Smith just HAPPEN to miss open jump shot after open jump shot? Its one or the other--and if Smith is not a prime time player or clutch shooter anymore-than yeah--Id rather see Manu playing in the playoffs and finishing games rather than Steve Smith--cause atleast Manu can create his own shot (and scoring could come easier considering he has Tim Duncan with him). I don't know if Manu will be better than DA, but if he lives up to his hype (clutch, athletic, creative, crafty player) and has the will to improve--I don't see why he won't be a better asset to this team than DA was (eventually).
Nikos, How can you make all these assumptions about Gino when in the only NBA game hes ever played in, he got schooled on both ends of the court.
I am making assumptions based on what I think Gino can become--I am making a PREDICTION. He may become a 12th man and scrub or he may be come a good player in this league--who knows? But I am not going to judge him after a pre-season game for which he played 17 min and just came back from a severly sprained ankle into a league he is not use to. I am making my predictions based on what I have seen of him against WC competetion this past summer and based on what I have seen of him in the Euroleagues. If Manu had a 40pt game against Mobley it still would not change my opinion on the guy. The bottom line I ain't going to make assumptions based on a few pre-season games and even his first few regular season games. I am making my predicitons--instead of just saying HE WILL SUCK or HE WILL NOT BE A STAR (which is pretty much all you guys are saying, except for a few who will actually give him a chance). Those are pretty general statements by saying "I don't think he will be a superstar"...just what is a superstar HP? And is everyone who is not a superstar not a fine PLAYER? Elaborate your predictions of Manu--instead of making a whole list of what he CAN'T do. It just gives me the impression your simply HATING on the guy. Tell me what you think he will become and I will respect that, but don't tell me Mobley schooled him and how he won't be able to drive on NBA Sg's and how he couldn't even get to the rim against USA back in September (cause you did say that you barely even saw him get to the rim even then). Look I can understand you all have your opinions, but at least make more specific predictions instead of bashing the guy and saying how Mobley crapped all over him.....at least wait till the guy gets into the NBA flow before you designate a whole thread as to how MOBLEY dominated ginobili.
Nikos, Are you talking to me or rockbox? I can't figure it out. "What is a superstar?" You want my definition??? Allow me to answer that by describing what is a "star" versus a "fine player." Kenny Thomas and Derek Anderson are "fine players." Barring injury, they will have a 10yr pro career and even start for some teams, and average over 20mpg for most all their years. However, they can be shut down by man defense. A star offensive player (specifically, star shooting guards, small forwards, and power forwards) generally cannot be shut down by man defense. A star will "get his" until you send help. A star cannot beat double teams, though, either via passing or whatever. A superstar commands double teams and can often beat them. A superstar is a hall of famer. It is not that hard to spot a 25yr old star or superstar. You do not need too many looks.
HP please tell me now what you think Manu will do in this league....instead of saying hes not a superstar...cause thats all I have heard from you. I just want your prediction thats all.
Nikos, move on. I've already made my prediction to CriscoKidd. I already pointed that out to you. I then defined what "star," "fine player," and "superstar" means. I said he is no "star" much less...very much less....a "superstar." He is no star. That is my prediction. What is your prediction? "bust" "fine role-player" "star" "superstar"
I think Gino will be a good player according to HP's definition. I just don't see him beating his man with his quickness or athletic ability to beat his man consistently. Then again, I don't think Peja is a star because he can't beat his man consistently either. Peja gets his shots because Webber, Divacs, and Bibby get so much attention. Peja can be contained if you stick a good defender on him.
Never said they weren't a good team. However, their superstar tend to get the case of testicallus shrinkitis during key periods of the playoffs. If Duncan had Webber's teammates, they would be able to beat the Lakers.
If quickness and athletic abiltiy define a star then what kind of player was Mullins or better yet Bird. If you apply heypartner's criteria of players who can or can't be stopped on offense as stars or superstars I guess that means Dennis Rodman was bench meat and Bill Russel was average at best. Being able to assess a player in his first game in the league, admittedly at about 80 to 85%, acknowledging he couldn't push off his ankle, admitting he was winded early because he hadn't been able to do much in 6 weeks, not having played much with his new teammates, makes HP one of the greatest evaluator's of talent of all time.
I like heypartner's definitions... if he thinks of K9 as a "fine player" (and Anderson, which I agree with), then if Ginobilli reaches that level SA should be pleased with their pick. Mobley was playing on a sore ankle, so I don't know what Ginobilli's ankle signifies. I'm surprised that Cat played as many minutes as he did.
Mm. . . nice first strike, striker, at the most storied poster (apart from Clutch, that is) on this board. Keep it up.
Heypartner I told you my prediction. I am not trying to start any trouble I just want to know what your prediction is/was.....according to you definition I say Manu will be a STAR not a SUPERSTAR like Duncan, Shaq, Mcgrady, Kobe etc.....but a very fine role player/clutch option this season and by 2004 I think he will be a borderline allstar (if he doesn't become an all star). So your saying he is a FINE ROLE PLAYER? or just A ROLE PLAYER?
oooh, boy a first time poster. What makes me think striker is a long time poster not willing to give up his identity. <blockquote><hr>Originally posted by striker If quickness and athletic abiltiy define a star then what kind of player was Mullins or better yet Bird. <hr></blockquote> Stop right there. In my definition, I never said anything about quickness and athletic ability. Bird could not be double-teamed. He was a superstar. He could beat double teams with his brilliant passing and his quick release, and his turnaround J. btw: just in case you are not following this thread or Gino's career, "quickness and athletic ability" is the way Ginobili is describe...he is no Chris Mullins or Larry Bird or Peja or Wally or Ricky Pierce or Hersey Hawkins or Drazen Petrovic. The guy cannot be described as a pure shooter. And nowhere did I ever say Peja cannot be described as a star. Rockbox said that...you first post newbie .... if that indeed is what you are. <blockquote><hr>If you apply heypartner's criteria of players who can or can't be stopped on offense as stars or superstars I guess that means Dennis Rodman was bench meat and Bill Russel was average at best.<hr></blockquote> Again, you are not reading my definition or following Gino's career. Gino is not a defensive stud, and I specifically described my definition in reference to "offensive players." dork newbie, if that is indeed what you are. I purposely left out PGs and Cs in my definition, and I am on record several times saying Rodman is a Hall-of-Famer in my book. But Rodman and Russell have nothing to do with my definition. <b>why don't you give your one-liner definition of bust, role player, career starter, star and superstar....or stop butting into other people's conversation. dork.</b> <blockquote><hr>Being able to assess a player in his first game in the league, admittedly at about 80 to 85%, acknowledging he couldn't push off his ankle, admitting he was winded early because he hadn't been able to do much in 6 weeks, not having played much with his new teammates, makes HP one of the greatest evaluator's of talent of all time. <hr></blockquote> This seals it. You are no newbie. You are just afraid to show your face. btw: as I said already, it is not that hard to assess in 3 World Championship games and one showing against Cuttino Mobley watching a 25yr old, whether or not he has star potential. Scouts do it all the time. There is a method. Apparently, you don't have any scouting ability in you, because you offered zero scouting reports on him....rather all you did was scout me... newbie. if that is what you are.
