RealGM

It goes without saying that Harden is a more talented player and has had multiple peak seasons statistically better than Manu's best.

Im curious as to who, in their prime years, you would choose for a one year run on a contending team between the two. And if Hardens seemingly (or allegedly) chronic meltdowns in the postseason, coupled with the perception of Manu being a playoffs guru, would be enough to close the large boxscore gap that James has created.

Manu.

Obviously Harden can carry a larger load, but I like Manu's portability more and his intangibles are off the charts.

Ironically, I might take Ginobili over Harden for this year's Rocket team. Same for the Spurs back then. The reliability of Ginobili is appealing and with all-around talent and a functioning system around him, I feel like the gain is worth the risk of losing someone who can shoulder a higher load (assuming I am not supposed to factor in differences in the standings and consequently a tougher road in the playoffs).

Having said that, for any team that either needs a superstar to carry them offensively or for a team that, albeit talented, does have talent which works best with a clear primary option offensively - either in terms of scoring or playmaking, or both for that matter - this is Harden. So on most teams, I take him and not least because of his durability I consider his overall peak-impact to be higher.

But since this is only for a one-year playoff run, there are circumstances under which I can see myself leaning towards Ginobili.

For one year, I think Manu just fits on more teams than most guys. This isn't an insult, but Manu is kind of like a superstar glue guy. He does anything and everything the team needs. If you were building a team from scratch I'd probably go Harden, because he is your typical star player. But as far as putting one of these two players on a random team in a random year, I'd go Manu. He can fit into any role and play next to any player. His IQ on both ends of the floor is some of the best we've seen and he great at covering other players weaknesses.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The-Power wrote:Ironically, I might take Ginobili over Harden for this year's Rocket team. Same for the Spurs back then. The reliability of Ginobili is appealing and with all-around talent and a functioning system around him, I feel like the gain is worth the risk of losing someone who can shoulder a higher load (assuming I am not supposed to factor in differences in the standings and consequently a tougher road in the playoffs).

Having said that, for any team that either needs a superstar to carry them offensively or for a team that, albeit talented, does have talent which works best with a clear primary option offensively - either in terms of scoring or playmaking, or both for that matter - this is Harden. So on most teams, I take him and not least because of his durability I consider his overall peak-impact to be higher.

But since this is only for a one-year playoff run, there are circumstances under which I can see myself leaning towards Ginobili.

Is Ginobili more reliable though?

His game to game variance makes even Hardens look tame. And he obviously has stamina questions.

a guy who doesnt show up in elimination game or

the guy who can win/lose you a game/series due to last drawn play clutch moment?

they are both the same players man...

Very close. I can't forget how effective Harden was as a 6th man his last year in OKC playing on the court with two stars, and that was only his third season in the league so I would lean towards him given that production and his role as the primary shot creator/playmaker/scorer on a 55 win team in two separate seasons. He's got his flaws obviously but I'm gambling on different talent/locker room/coaching to help alleviate that.

Poll added.

For a leading role? Harden without question. Not only is he a better player, Manu simply never proved himself capable of playing heavy minutes leading a team.

Now if I need someone to be my 2nd or 3rd best player, the question becomes more interesting (though the answer is still Harden).

Harden clearly imo.

2015 Harden

It depends on the team, if they have another superstar like Duncan I prefer Manu, but Manu is not as good a fit carrying a supporting cast of role players like the Rockets as he would probably break down like Lowry by the end of the season all the time

Ginobili in his prime had the luxury of playing on arguably the deepest team in the league and only being relied on as a secondary or even tertiary creator and yet was still only good for 70 games and 2000 total minutes. I hate to say it because o love the guy, but he's made of glass and if you're expecting him to replace Harden's 81 games and 37 minutes per, you're living in dream land.

That alone means your first round matchup if you're the Rockets will be LAC, UTA, or hell even someone like SAS depending on how many games Manu misses. I think it's fairly likely HOU is a first round exit of you did this exchange straight up.

Ginobili's peak playoff run saw him play 35 MPG. That's about 5 mins less than what you can expect from a normal star. I just don't see any way you can choose Manu here. Harden playing badly is better than Harden not playing.

Harden in most situations. Much more durable and doesn't have health problems.

Manu is much more entertaining though and because of his defense I would never take Harden over him in Spurs dynasty. I'd say this - Manu is better in my opinion for his/2012 Harden role. But that's it. I don't trust Ginobili as a main, focal point. He's not durable enough and he's even less consistent than Harden.

clyde21 wrote:Manu.

Obviously Harden can carry a larger load, but I like Manu's portability more and his intangibles are off the charts.

Same... But to be fair, Manu had a bit of that wild flashy reputation that Pop had to fine tune and find that right balance in. The intangibles just comes with a little more maturity, something that we don't really have the benefit of knowing about Harden.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Ginobili in his prime had the luxury of playing on arguably the deepest team in the league and only being relied on as a secondary or even tertiary creator and yet was still only good for 70 games and 2000 total minutes. I hate to say it because o love the guy, but he's made of glass and if you're expecting him to replace Harden's 81 games and 37 minutes per, you're living in dream land.

That alone means your first round matchup if you're the Rockets will be LAC, UTA, or hell even someone like SAS depending on how many games Manu misses. I think it's fairly likely HOU is a first round exit of you did this exchange straight up.

Ginobili's peak playoff run saw him play 35 MPG. That's about 5 mins less than what you can expect from a normal star. I just don't see any way you can choose Manu here. Harden playing badly is better than Harden not playing.

Why would you need your star player to play 81 games averaging 37 minutes per? There is diminishing returns in playing a lot of minutes. The modern franchise player doesn't play that many minutes either, a lot play around 30 minutes which Manu can do.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:Ginobili in his prime had the luxury of playing on arguably the deepest team in the league and only being relied on as a secondary or even tertiary creator and yet was still only good for 70 games and 2000 total minutes. I hate to say it because o love the guy, but he's made of glass and if you're expecting him to replace Harden's 81 games and 37 minutes per, you're living in dream land.

That alone means your first round matchup if you're the Rockets will be LAC, UTA, or hell even someone like SAS depending on how many games Manu misses. I think it's fairly likely HOU is a first round exit of you did this exchange straight up.

Ginobili's peak playoff run saw him play 35 MPG. That's about 5 mins less than what you can expect from a normal star. I just don't see any way you can choose Manu here. Harden playing badly is better than Harden not playing.

Why would you need your star player to play 81 games averaging 37 minutes per? There is diminishing returns in playing a lot of minutes. The modern franchise player doesn't play that many minutes either, a lot play around 30 minutes which Manu can do.

The best player on every single playoff team played more minutes per game than Manu ever has in any year in his career. The closest was Chris Paul, who was a huge outlier at 31.5 minutes per. The second lowest MPG guys were a 3 way tie between Durant, Curry, and Leonard at 33.4. Notable high minute guys include LeBron James at 38, Kyle Lowry at 37, James Harden at 37, John Wall at 36, Jimmy Butler at 37, Paul George at 36, Damian Lillard at 36, and Russell Westbrook at 35.

What you're saying is absolutely not true.

Dr Spaceman wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:Ginobili in his prime had the luxury of playing on arguably the deepest team in the league and only being relied on as a secondary or even tertiary creator and yet was still only good for 70 games and 2000 total minutes. I hate to say it because o love the guy, but he's made of glass and if you're expecting him to replace Harden's 81 games and 37 minutes per, you're living in dream land.

That alone means your first round matchup if you're the Rockets will be LAC, UTA, or hell even someone like SAS depending on how many games Manu misses. I think it's fairly likely HOU is a first round exit of you did this exchange straight up.

Ginobili's peak playoff run saw him play 35 MPG. That's about 5 mins less than what you can expect from a normal star. I just don't see any way you can choose Manu here. Harden playing badly is better than Harden not playing.

Why would you need your star player to play 81 games averaging 37 minutes per? There is diminishing returns in playing a lot of minutes. The modern franchise player doesn't play that many minutes either, a lot play around 30 minutes which Manu can do.

The best player on every single playoff team played more minutes per game than Manu ever has in any year in his career. The closest was Chris Paul, who was a huge outlier at 31.5 minutes per. The second lowest MPG guys were a 3 way tie between Durant, Curry, and Leonard at 33.4. Notable high minute guys include LeBron James at 38, Kyle Lowry at 37, James Harden at 37, John Wall at 36, Jimmy Butler at 37, Paul George at 36, Damian Lillard at 36, and Russell Westbrook at 35.

What you're saying is absolutely not true.

Sure, there are players who still play 36 minutes, which is dumb as hell (You think James, Lowry and Harden benefit from playing that many minutes?), but there are still plenty who play 34 or below. You left out guys like Gobert, Thomas, Millsap, Conley.

If we're using James Harden as an example who is the most relevant candidate, his team would have made the playoffs even if he had played only 32 minutes a game. If anything there is speculation that him playing so many minutes might have hurt him in the playoffs.

Are we still really in this idea that minutes and games played in the regular season greatly affect your chances at winning the title? Manu isn't literally made out of glass. People talk like Manu is Bill Walton, most of the guys relevant career he has played over 70 games, a team has to be really bad for them to not be able to make the playoffs if their star player has played that many games.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Why would you need your star player to play 81 games averaging 37 minutes per? There is diminishing returns in playing a lot of minutes. The modern franchise player doesn't play that many minutes either, a lot play around 30 minutes which Manu can do.

The best player on every single playoff team played more minutes per game than Manu ever has in any year in his career. The closest was Chris Paul, who was a huge outlier at 31.5 minutes per. The second lowest MPG guys were a 3 way tie between Durant, Curry, and Leonard at 33.4. Notable high minute guys include LeBron James at 38, Kyle Lowry at 37, James Harden at 37, John Wall at 36, Jimmy Butler at 37, Paul George at 36, Damian Lillard at 36, and Russell Westbrook at 35.

What you're saying is absolutely not true.

Sure, there are players who still play 36 minutes, which is dumb as hell (You think James, Lowry and Harden benefit from playing that many minutes?), but there are still plenty who play 34 or below. You left out guys like Gobert, Thomas, Millsap, Conley.

If we're using James Harden as an example who is the most relevant candidate, his team would have made the playoffs even if he had played only 32 minutes a game. If anything there is speculation that him playing so many minutes might have hurt him in the playoffs.

Are we still really in this idea that minutes and games played in the regular season greatly affect your chances at winning the title? Manu isn't literally made out of glass. People talk like Manu is Bill Walton, most of the guys relevant career he has played over 70 games, a team has to be really bad for them to not be able to make the playoffs if their star player has played that many games.

Right so about half of those stars are clustered around 33-34 MPG, and the other half play 35-38. Manu's career high is 31.1. That's a huge difference.

Making the playoffs is not the only goal. Seeding and draws absolutely matter in terms of title odds. Sure Houston could make the playoffs and then get blown away by GSW or SAS in the first round. And Manu played low minutes even in the playoffs compared to all these stars.

Dr Spaceman wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:
The best player on every single playoff team played more minutes per game than Manu ever has in any year in his career. The closest was Chris Paul, who was a huge outlier at 31.5 minutes per. The second lowest MPG guys were a 3 way tie between Durant, Curry, and Leonard at 33.4. Notable high minute guys include LeBron James at 38, Kyle Lowry at 37, James Harden at 37, John Wall at 36, Jimmy Butler at 37, Paul George at 36, Damian Lillard at 36, and Russell Westbrook at 35.

What you're saying is absolutely not true.

Sure, there are players who still play 36 minutes, which is dumb as hell (You think James, Lowry and Harden benefit from playing that many minutes?), but there are still plenty who play 34 or below. You left out guys like Gobert, Thomas, Millsap, Conley.

If we're using James Harden as an example who is the most relevant candidate, his team would have made the playoffs even if he had played only 32 minutes a game. If anything there is speculation that him playing so many minutes might have hurt him in the playoffs.

Are we still really in this idea that minutes and games played in the regular season greatly affect your chances at winning the title? Manu isn't literally made out of glass. People talk like Manu is Bill Walton, most of the guys relevant career he has played over 70 games, a team has to be really bad for them to not be able to make the playoffs if their star player has played that many games.

Right so about half of those stars are clustered around 33-34 MPG, and the other half play 35-38. Manu's career high is 31.1. That's a huge difference.

Making the playoffs is not the only goal. Seeding and draws absolutely matter in terms of title odds. Sure Houston could make the playoffs and then get blown away by GSW or SAS in the first round. And Manu played low minutes even in the playoffs compared to all these stars.

No it doesn't. I've never seen a rational argument for causation of seeding netting you a better chance at a title, only correlations.

Just to pick on what you said. You do realize that Houston merely got blown away in the second round, as opposed to the first round. Losing in either round gives you the same odds of winning the title.

The biggest, and most significant factor in winning the title is talent. Talent matters so much more that humoring seeding or home court advantage seems trivial. Just going based on forum posts, I gather that most people give the first seed Boston Celtics the same odds against the Cavs as the 7th seed Indiana Pacers.

The Rockets were beaten by a clear margin by the Spurs, I'd imagine they would get swept by the Warriors. What difference would it have made if they had been 8th seed or 6th seed, or 4th seed if we're talking championship aspirations? You need to be able to beat Golden State if you want to win the championship, and a team like Houston isn't even good enough to beat the Spurs - so how much impact do you think Harden playing 37 minutes per game actually had in retrospect?



Since this is only a run year one, let's say Manu can match his career high which is 31.5 minutes per game - that is the same amount that CP3 played for the Clippers - CP3 played only 60 something games this season, and his team still made the playoffs (and it's not like Blake Griffin helped a lot either). Not only did the Clippers make the playoffs, but they got a relatively decent seeding as well.