Thinking Basketball ep.6 Manu ginobili

[Bornstellar]

Kinda overrated. Tbh. He was a really good player. But people are going overboard. Not close to a superstar or tier 1 player

Actually he was. But he did what the coach asked of him. After Duncan, he was BY FAR the Spurs most impactful player, sometimes the most impactful. You don't win 4 rings as the #2 without being a bonafide star player

[dhsilv2]

Kinda overrated. Tbh. He was a really good player. But people are going overboard. Not close to a superstar or tier 1 player

Actually he was. But he did what the coach asked of him. After Duncan, he was BY FAR the Spurs most impactful player, sometimes the most impactful. You don't win 4 rings as the #2 without being a bonafide star player

We're going to need a generation of fans who weren't listen to Chuck's stupid praise of Parker before Manu gets respected as he should have been.

[Mavrelous]

The guy accepted the 6th man role, was paid less the his backcourt mate Parker, and never uttered a peep, I hated him back in the day, his elbows out drives, his out of nowhere baskets, the energy he brought just when you though the Spurs were on the ropes, I couldn't believe it was him to do the and-1 that that brought back the Mavs after yet another Spurs rally to close a game in 06.
He might not have looked like your Wades, Kobes and the other superstar guards, but boy was he just as impactful...

[Slim Charlez]

One of those guys who always seemed to get a ridiculous amount of praise when played well and zero criticism when he was nowhere to be found.

Only time I remember him being "nowhere to be found" was probably the 2013 finals when he was 36 unless I'm missing something in my 20 plus years of watching the Spurs.

[MiamiBulls]

Ginobili was a legit perennial All Star/All NBA level player for at 5-6 years. The best Offensive player on the Spurs from 2004-2011 by far.

Can also see why the author Thinking Basketball doesn't think Tim Duncan has a GOAT case as far peak is concerned. Duncan the Offensive Player is notably overrated & overcredited for their Offense & the Offensive uptick in the mid '00s. Sub mediocre perimeter shooting, Poor Passing Vision, Sub mediocre FT shooting while also having a slight dependence on All-Time Elite Foul Drawing to boost his Efficiency.

[jazzfan1971]

Top 75 lists
---------------
Melo:
Manu:
Me:

[dbrog24]

Ginobili was a legit perennial All Star/All NBA level player for at 5-6 years. The best Offensive player on the Spurs from 2004-2011 by far.

Can also see why the author Thinking Basketball doesn't think Tim Duncan has a GOAT case as far peak is concerned. Duncan the Offensive Player is notably overrated & overcredited for their Offense & the Offensive uptick in the mid '00s. Sub mediocre perimeter shooting, Poor Passing Vision, Sub mediocre FT shooting while also having a slight dependence on All-Time Elite Foul Drawing to boost his Efficiency.

These things are just straight up false. No, in the mid 2000s the Spurs weren't running every single play through Duncan anymore because he finally got some help on his team instead of carrying barely-starter level players. He was absolutely still their anchor though and only went as far as he took them. It's like saying Iggy was the reason the Warriors won their first ring even though the entire system only works if Curry is there.

As for Ginobli specifically, he sucked in a bunch of playoff games.
Averaged single digits in 02-03 playoffs on 38% shooting.

03-04 = 13 pts while shooting abysmal from 3 and under 45% from the field.

Had an atrocious showing in 4/6 games against SAC in 05-06 playoffs.

06-07 = single digit games against poor competition.

In 07-08, in the Lakers series, goes for 30 once and under 11 pts the other 4 games. Was only good for 2/5 games against Suns. 4/7 games against Hornets shot 40% or lower.

Now yes, he always found a way to contribute in some way...that's a valuable asset but let's not act like that makes him this "hidden superstar." Reinventing history is something everyone here should be careful of.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

I'm a bit surprised given this series is about offense, that we heard so much about defense. But it's good point, Manu didn't rest on defense.

He didn't need to. He was probably only playing 25 minutes that night!

[dhsilv2]

I'm a bit surprised given this series is about offense, that we heard so much about defense. But it's good point, Manu didn't rest on defense.

He didn't need to. He was probably only playing 25 minutes that night!

If Pop though he could get 40 out of Manu, he'd have played him 40.

And what's every other player who plays 25 a night and can't defense like Manu's excuse?

[dhsilv2]

Ginobili was a legit perennial All Star/All NBA level player for at 5-6 years. The best Offensive player on the Spurs from 2004-2011 by far.

Can also see why the author Thinking Basketball doesn't think Tim Duncan has a GOAT case as far peak is concerned. Duncan the Offensive Player is notably overrated & overcredited for their Offense & the Offensive uptick in the mid '00s. Sub mediocre perimeter shooting, Poor Passing Vision, Sub mediocre FT shooting while also having a slight dependence on All-Time Elite Foul Drawing to boost his Efficiency.

These things are just straight up false. No, in the mid 2000s the Spurs weren't running every single play through Duncan anymore because he finally got some help on his team instead of carrying barely-starter level players. He was absolutely still their anchor though and only went as far as he took them. It's like saying Iggy was the reason the Warriors won their first ring even though the entire system only works if Curry is there.

As for Ginobli specifically, he sucked in a bunch of playoff games.
Averaged single digits in 02-03 playoffs on 38% shooting.

03-04 = 13 pts while shooting abysmal from 3 and under 45% from the field.

Had an atrocious showing in 4/6 games against SAC in 05-06 playoffs.

06-07 = single digit games against poor competition.

In 07-08, in the Lakers series, goes for 30 once and under 11 pts the other 4 games. Was only good for 2/5 games against Suns. 4/7 games against Hornets shot 40% or lower.

Now yes, he always found a way to contribute in some way...that's a valuable asset but let's not act like that makes him this "hidden superstar." Reinventing history is something everyone here should be careful of.

Manu didn't need to score or shoot well to have superstar impact. That's what separates Manu from so many simply allstar level guys. Manu was the guy who made the right extra pass. Could read situations and knew when it was time to force shots or ride others. He'd create turnovers. Adjust the pace to attack teams or slow it down when needed.

[dbrog24]

Manu didn't need to score or shoot well to have superstar impact. That's what separates Manu from so many simply allstar level guys. Manu was the guy who made the right extra pass. Could read situations and knew when it was time to force shots or ride others. He'd create turnovers. Adjust the pace to attack teams or slow it down when needed.

Don't get me wrong, Manu was the most fun and equally frustrating player I've probably ever watched. He was definition of feast or famine and the swells were enormous. I agree he could look like "that guy" fairly frequently...and then do nearly nothing the following game or get into foul trouble or give up a bunch of TOs. Dude was truly all over the place which is what made him so great to watch.

[og15]

Manu was utilizing the gather step to a high level before many other guys were even really thinking about it on their moves

[dhsilv2]

Manu didn't need to score or shoot well to have superstar impact. That's what separates Manu from so many simply allstar level guys. Manu was the guy who made the right extra pass. Could read situations and knew when it was time to force shots or ride others. He'd create turnovers. Adjust the pace to attack teams or slow it down when needed.

Don't get me wrong, Manu was the most fun and equally frustrating player I've probably ever watched. He was definition of feast or famine and the swells were enormous. I agree he could look like "that guy" fairly frequently...and then do nearly nothing the following game or get into foul trouble or give up a bunch of TOs. Dude was truly all over the place which is what made him so great to watch.

What made Manu great was that his worst games, weren't that bad. Now his best games were something else, but Manu was the guy who got the loose ball. He might draw a stupid foul but he'll get someone else in foul trouble on the other side. Need a pick? There's Manu. Need the ball to find it's way cross court in what is otherwise an impossible pass? Manu. The other team is slowing the game down, there's Manu to change up the tempo. Parker rushing plays again...there's Manu to walk it up and slow things down.

[dbrog24]

Manu didn't need to score or shoot well to have superstar impact. That's what separates Manu from so many simply allstar level guys. Manu was the guy who made the right extra pass. Could read situations and knew when it was time to force shots or ride others. He'd create turnovers. Adjust the pace to attack teams or slow it down when needed.

Don't get me wrong, Manu was the most fun and equally frustrating player I've probably ever watched. He was definition of feast or famine and the swells were enormous. I agree he could look like "that guy" fairly frequently...and then do nearly nothing the following game or get into foul trouble or give up a bunch of TOs. Dude was truly all over the place which is what made him so great to watch.

What made Manu great was that his worst games, weren't that bad. Now his best games were something else, but Manu was the guy who got the loose ball. He might draw a stupid foul but he'll get someone else in foul trouble on the other side. Need a pick? There's Manu. Need the ball to find it's way cross court in what is otherwise an impossible pass? Manu. The other team is slowing the game down, there's Manu to change up the tempo. Parker rushing plays again...there's Manu to walk it up and slow things down.

That's just not true at least in the spirit of what you are saying, most famously his foul on Dirk in '06. He actually didn't have an awful game that game but did have a bunch of turnovers PLUS that series changing foul. He was the catalyst to the loss is what I'm saying and it was due to his whirling dervish style. You talk about times where Manu would bring the game back to a slower pace, he had equally as many where the Spurs were playing their pace and Manu would get wild and break that consistency which let the other team back in. It's just not accurate to say he never had critically bad effects on games. It's just his good games are so good, people remember those

[liquidswords]

Eye test vs Numbers (in my mid-30s...) - Manu was an elite level role player/ borderline star but not a superstar. He gets a lot of credit for coming through in big moments and defining a style of play but he's not a superstar. please.

[dhsilv2]

Don't get me wrong, Manu was the most fun and equally frustrating player I've probably ever watched. He was definition of feast or famine and the swells were enormous. I agree he could look like "that guy" fairly frequently...and then do nearly nothing the following game or get into foul trouble or give up a bunch of TOs. Dude was truly all over the place which is what made him so great to watch.

What made Manu great was that his worst games, weren't that bad. Now his best games were something else, but Manu was the guy who got the loose ball. He might draw a stupid foul but he'll get someone else in foul trouble on the other side. Need a pick? There's Manu. Need the ball to find it's way cross court in what is otherwise an impossible pass? Manu. The other team is slowing the game down, there's Manu to change up the tempo. Parker rushing plays again...there's Manu to walk it up and slow things down.

That's just not true at least in the spirit of what you are saying, most famously his foul on Dirk in '06. He actually didn't have an awful game that game but did have a bunch of turnovers PLUS that series changing foul. He was the catalyst to the loss is what I'm saying and it was due to his whirling dervish style. You talk about times where Manu would bring the game back to a slower pace, he had equally as many where the Spurs were playing their pace and Manu would get wild and break that consistency which let the other team back in. It's just not accurate to say he never had critically bad effects on games. It's just his good games are so good, people remember those

Manu scored 19 points on 8 shots in the second half against the Mavs. He had 4 total turnovers (and he balanced that with 3 steals of his own and who knows how many deflections, along with 2 blocks). They aren't in that game without him. He was the catalyst to getting the Spurs into OT in the first place.

Every player has had a bad play. But Manu in that game was a massive net plus for the Spurs. You're doing just what I was countering. you're looking at one thing, before it was some bad shooting games, now it's a bad foul. But you're missing that the spurs aren't even in the game without Manu. That foul is meaningless if it's Brent Barry getting Manu's minutes because the game is over in a 10+ point blow out. And Barry was a very good player, this isn't replacing manu with some scrub here.

And the spurs didn't have a pace per say, especially once Tony and Manu took over the offense. They adjust their pace based on the guys on the floor and the other team. It was generally the job of Manu and Parker to push the pace when they were on the floor together, but it was often Parker who didn't understand when it was time to slow it down. It's not bad decision making if you're pushing the pace as you're supposed to do and the other team gets hot shooting. That's just basketball.

[TheGeneral99]

I would have loved to see what Gibobili could have done as the #1 option on a team.

[dhsilv2]

Eye test vs Numbers (in my mid-30s...) - Manu was an elite level role player/ borderline star but not a superstar. He gets a lot of credit for coming through in big moments and defining a style of play but he's not a superstar. please.

Eye test - maybe the best passing guard of his era, if not he was only second to Nash. One of the best game dunkers of his era. A defensive monster. Without a doubt one of the biggest stars of a generation who was over looked due to his selfless play.

States - They agree with the above.

[dbrog24]

What made Manu great was that his worst games, weren't that bad. Now his best games were something else, but Manu was the guy who got the loose ball. He might draw a stupid foul but he'll get someone else in foul trouble on the other side. Need a pick? There's Manu. Need the ball to find it's way cross court in what is otherwise an impossible pass? Manu. The other team is slowing the game down, there's Manu to change up the tempo. Parker rushing plays again...there's Manu to walk it up and slow things down.

That's just not true at least in the spirit of what you are saying, most famously his foul on Dirk in '06. He actually didn't have an awful game that game but did have a bunch of turnovers PLUS that series changing foul. He was the catalyst to the loss is what I'm saying and it was due to his whirling dervish style. You talk about times where Manu would bring the game back to a slower pace, he had equally as many where the Spurs were playing their pace and Manu would get wild and break that consistency which let the other team back in. It's just not accurate to say he never had critically bad effects on games. It's just his good games are so good, people remember those

Manu scored 19 points on 8 shots in the second half against the Mavs. He had 4 total turnovers (and he balanced that with 3 steals of his own and who knows how many deflections, along with 2 blocks). They aren't in that game without him. He was the catalyst to getting the Spurs into OT in the first place.

You're kind of proving my point. This completely describes Ginobli as a player. 4 points in the first half and not really affecting the game much, then 2nd half comes alive. Has bad turnovers, but then gets good steals. You see what I'm saying about him being exciting and hairpulling at the same time? As far as him being a reason they are even in that game, well yes...he's one of the 3 best players on the team (IMO 2nd that year) so of course if he's out of the game the Spurs wouldn't be as close...you could have said the same about Parker or especially Duncan (who dominated that series). I guess I'll just agree to disagree.

[Calvin Klein]

Nobody else ever did this. Nobody.



nice to see people appreciate him here. Absolutely unique.


Also, could have easily been the 2005 Finals MVP.