Peak Harden or Manu?

[MyUniBroDavis]

That's a good way to cherrypick a few facts while ignoring that:

1. Manu didn't "lead his team". You may argue that he outplayed Duncan in that postseason run (that's fair), but Pistons didn't treat Manu like the best player on his team and they adjusted their defense to stop Duncan. Meanwhile, Lakers decided to play ridiculous scheme against Harden to double him basically everytime he got screen and take away the ball from his hands, while old Westbrook tanked their chances to do anything in these situations. I won't even mention ridiculous Jazz schemes.

2. You cherrypick Harden bad games, but you didn't mention that Harden averaged 36/8/6 on 61 TS% with only 3 tovs in the last 4 games against GSW in 2019. The Rockets lost that series because his best teammate played like a crap, not because he missed 5 FTs in the last game. You didn't mention

3. At the same time, you use series averages for Manu to make him look better than Harden, but somehow it doesn't bother you that in g2-g5 span (majority of the series), Manu averaged 14/6/4 on 49 TS% and the Spurs lost three of these four games. You act like Manu dominated Pistons defense from start to finish, but in reality he had a few big games and a few poor ones, all while not being the main focus of Detroit defense.

While I agree with ur points I wouldn’t call hard doubling and scram switching ridiculous lol

The frequency of doing it is quite unseen though, you have to admit that.

Nah, HS

That’s fair

[CP3nthusiast]

Harden is undeniably more talented but what does it say that he's never even been able to reach the Finals despite having played with Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving and Joel Embiid? And he'll more than likely flame out in LA too, demand out and get traded for Beal and not win in PHX either. So it'll be CP3, Durant (2x), Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi, PG and Booker by the time it's all said and done. Manu had plenty of reason to bitch and moan after being forced to come off the bench despite being the clear 3rd (and sometimes 2nd) best player on the team? It's a coaching decision I question to this day especially after he flamed the Suns and Pistons back to back in '05.

So it's a competition between a guy who's gotten everything he's ever wanted and delivered nothing in return vs a guy who probably had the largest talent to touches ratio in NBA history but took it on the chin and produced 4 championships.

[AEnigma]

Harden is undeniably more talented but what does it say that he's never even been able to reach the Finals

Nothing, because that is both untrue and significantly situational even if it were true.

despite having played with Chris Paul

So if the 2018 Rockets had played in the eastern conference, that would meaningfully change your assessment?

Kevin Durant

Yeah imagine if Harden made the Finals next to Durant.

Kyrie Irving

They played one series with both of them on the court together (which they won).

Also does not remotely belong here regardless.

and Joel Embiid?

The guy who has yet to make the conference finals and is in fact only the second MVP of the past 40 years to have never done so in or before his MVP season?

And he'll more than likely flame out in LA too, demand out and get traded for Beal and not win in PHX either. So it'll be CP3, Durant (2x), Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi, PG and Booker by the time it's all said and done.

Hope you bet money on such a confidently specific prediction.

Manu had plenty of reason to bitch and moan after being forced to come off the bench despite being the clear 3rd (and sometimes 2nd) best player on the team? It's a coaching decision I question to this day especially after he flamed the Suns and Pistons back to back in '05.

So it's a competition between a guy who's gotten everything he's ever wanted and delivered nothing in return vs a guy who probably had the largest talent to touches ratio in NBA history but took it on the chin and produced 4 championships.

… Yeah Harden got everything he ever wanted while poor Manu won four championships next to prime Tim Duncan — a better player than any of the names you mentioned — and then a fifth championship playing 25 minutes a game (23 in the regular season). Heart really goes out to him, just a brutal sacrifice.

[Jaivl]

You're making me hate Manu now, which I thought was impossible.

[HeartBreakKid]

Harden is undeniably more talented but what does it say that he's never even been able to reach the Finals despite having played with Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving and Joel Embiid? And he'll more than likely flame out in LA too, demand out and get traded for Beal and not win in PHX either. So it'll be CP3, Durant (2x), Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi, PG and Booker by the time it's all said and done. Manu had plenty of reason to bitch and moan after being forced to come off the bench despite being the clear 3rd (and sometimes 2nd) best player on the team? It's a coaching decision I question to this day especially after he flamed the Suns and Pistons back to back in '05.

So it's a competition between a guy who's gotten everything he's ever wanted and delivered nothing in return vs a guy who probably had the largest talent to touches ratio in NBA history but took it on the chin and produced 4 championships.

James Harden did make the finals...

[NBA4Lyfe]

I have no idea how anyone can take Manu here. I'm saying this as a huge Spurs fan who doesn't really have any attraction to Harden's game.

People act like Manu is a better choice for the playoffs, but Harden in 2018-20 stretch was better than Manu ever was in postseason. We simply have way higher standards for Harden and rightfully so - because he's a better player.

on/off erneh

ironically the same on/off stat they used for steph curry all these years, when in reality it was all because currys backup sucked.. and curry was above average

we are seeing this year with cp3 as currys backup those curry on/off numbers aint so hot anymore

[NBA4Lyfe]

So, it probably doesn't make sense for us to really belabor the point. I'm on the fringe here and expect to always be.

I will leave y'all with one more thought:

Forget about the rest of the NBA and forget about the regular season of '04-05.

If you think it's clear cut that Duncan was the Spur MVP during that 2005 playoff run, I'd suggest you reconsider.

First remember context: Duncan got hurt during the regular season, and when he came back he had issues not just with the things you'd expect, but with things like free throws. There was all sorts of criticism in those playoffs of Duncan. I recall an article talking about how Duncan should get on his knees and bow down to Robert Horry for saving his ass. I'm not saying that that was a reasonable action to suggest for Duncan to take, but this really wasn't the 2003 playoffs.

Second, if you believe there was no one making the case that Ginobili over Duncan in that time period, think again. Duncan won the Finals MVP 6-4 over Ginobili. Consider that Duncan was the established star of the team and was the leading scorer in that series, and ask yourself: Isn't it eyebrow-raising that Duncan didn't win this unanimously? Absolutely everyone watching back then fully understood everything that obvious that might make a 2020s observer dismiss the debate out of hand, so what was up with that?

Finally just look at the on/off numbers for the Spurs in that playoff run. Is there small sample size there? Sure, but keep in mind that we talk about "small sample size" really in situations where people are advocating for a conclusion on that alone. In this case, it just provides us with something objective that matches with what the critical observers of the time said.

For the record, though I say I didn't really get Ginobili back then, it was pretty clear to me in real time that Duncan wasn't himself and that Ginobili was the best I'd ever seen him, and I thought Ginobili had a very strong case as the Spurs MVP in both the finals and in the WCF against the Suns.

But honestly I was still waiting for Ginobili to become a volume scorer in subsequent seasons for "proof" of him as a superstar-level guy, and when he didn't, I stopped short of really being an advocate for him. Between the lacking volume box score, minutes limitation & health concerns, it was easy to fall back to a "Well maybe Ginobili could've but he didn't" mindset.

But of course, the impact data pretty clearly says, "But yes, he did", and while in 2005 we didn't yet have a big sample, but time moved on and the indicators were pretty consistent in what they said.

Now moving back to that POY 2004-05 question:

Would Ginobili being the playoff MVP that year mean he should rank higher than Duncan that year? Not necessarily. If you value what Duncan did in the regular season before the injury enough, it would make sense to still favor him.

Would Ginobili being the all-season MVP of the Spurs that year mean he should be considered the POY overall all other comers in the league? Not necessarily, it makes sense to favor guys who played bigger minutes and did so at their consistent best.

But I will say that if you look at the candidates that year, the guys people tend to think of as the best of that era tended to have down years. I've mentioned Duncan & Garnett already. Kobe had a disaster of a year. Shaq got a lot of MVP buzz but in retrospect a lot of this was based on people crediting him for Wade's leap forward. Dirk really doesn't have a case over Nash that year.

As a guy who cut his teeth on RealGM that year trying to open people's eyes to what Nash was doing and why it was such a big deal for the NBA, I'm not going to fight you if you put Nash atop a POY list for that year...but I think the reality is that people don't necessarily mind as much comparing Ginobili to Nash, it's just that for the most part, they didn't. They quickly concluded Duncan was the top player form the Spurs and that was that. But once you realize you might be wrong about that, you start considering other comparisons too.

so one playoff series is supposed to make manu better than peak harden and all of the offensive records he set/shattered smh.. geez

[Doctor MJ]

So, it probably doesn't make sense for us to really belabor the point. I'm on the fringe here and expect to always be.

I will leave y'all with one more thought:

Forget about the rest of the NBA and forget about the regular season of '04-05.

If you think it's clear cut that Duncan was the Spur MVP during that 2005 playoff run, I'd suggest you reconsider.

First remember context: Duncan got hurt during the regular season, and when he came back he had issues not just with the things you'd expect, but with things like free throws. There was all sorts of criticism in those playoffs of Duncan. I recall an article talking about how Duncan should get on his knees and bow down to Robert Horry for saving his ass. I'm not saying that that was a reasonable action to suggest for Duncan to take, but this really wasn't the 2003 playoffs.

Second, if you believe there was no one making the case that Ginobili over Duncan in that time period, think again. Duncan won the Finals MVP 6-4 over Ginobili. Consider that Duncan was the established star of the team and was the leading scorer in that series, and ask yourself: Isn't it eyebrow-raising that Duncan didn't win this unanimously? Absolutely everyone watching back then fully understood everything that obvious that might make a 2020s observer dismiss the debate out of hand, so what was up with that?

Finally just look at the on/off numbers for the Spurs in that playoff run. Is there small sample size there? Sure, but keep in mind that we talk about "small sample size" really in situations where people are advocating for a conclusion on that alone. In this case, it just provides us with something objective that matches with what the critical observers of the time said.

For the record, though I say I didn't really get Ginobili back then, it was pretty clear to me in real time that Duncan wasn't himself and that Ginobili was the best I'd ever seen him, and I thought Ginobili had a very strong case as the Spurs MVP in both the finals and in the WCF against the Suns.

But honestly I was still waiting for Ginobili to become a volume scorer in subsequent seasons for "proof" of him as a superstar-level guy, and when he didn't, I stopped short of really being an advocate for him. Between the lacking volume box score, minutes limitation & health concerns, it was easy to fall back to a "Well maybe Ginobili could've but he didn't" mindset.

But of course, the impact data pretty clearly says, "But yes, he did", and while in 2005 we didn't yet have a big sample, but time moved on and the indicators were pretty consistent in what they said.

Now moving back to that POY 2004-05 question:

Would Ginobili being the playoff MVP that year mean he should rank higher than Duncan that year? Not necessarily. If you value what Duncan did in the regular season before the injury enough, it would make sense to still favor him.

Would Ginobili being the all-season MVP of the Spurs that year mean he should be considered the POY overall all other comers in the league? Not necessarily, it makes sense to favor guys who played bigger minutes and did so at their consistent best.

But I will say that if you look at the candidates that year, the guys people tend to think of as the best of that era tended to have down years. I've mentioned Duncan & Garnett already. Kobe had a disaster of a year. Shaq got a lot of MVP buzz but in retrospect a lot of this was based on people crediting him for Wade's leap forward. Dirk really doesn't have a case over Nash that year.

As a guy who cut his teeth on RealGM that year trying to open people's eyes to what Nash was doing and why it was such a big deal for the NBA, I'm not going to fight you if you put Nash atop a POY list for that year...but I think the reality is that people don't necessarily mind as much comparing Ginobili to Nash, it's just that for the most part, they didn't. They quickly concluded Duncan was the top player form the Spurs and that was that. But once you realize you might be wrong about that, you start considering other comparisons too.

so one playoff series is supposed to make manu better than peak harden and all of the offensive records he set/shattered smh.. geez

I mean, I didn't even mention Harden in that post, so no, the goal of the post wasn't to communicate something about Harden.

[OhayoKD]

I have no idea how anyone can take Manu here. I'm saying this as a huge Spurs fan who doesn't really have any attraction to Harden's game.

People act like Manu is a better choice for the playoffs, but Harden in 2018-20 stretch was better than Manu ever was in postseason. We simply have way higher standards for Harden and rightfully so - because he's a better player.

on/off erneh

ironically the same on/off stat they used for steph curry all these years, when in reality it was all because currys backup sucked.. and curry was above average

we are seeing this year with cp3 as currys backup those curry on/off numbers aint so hot anymore

In general I advise skepticism when on/off or its derivatives are sigificantly contradicting Larger samples. Though in this case, even the derivatives weren't really painting the same picture on/off was.

Curry still looks like one of the most valuable rs players ever(and a less but still very valuable playoff player) at his best whether you use wowy or rapm but he stops being the gold standard alot of the analytics community was pushing him as.

People love to appeal to authority in sports discourse, but the bar is a lot lower here than it is for more "serious" equivalents(thinktanks, ect) if you're looking at it as a partially intellectual exercise as a great deal of the people on this board do. 99 percent of the stuff people cite as higher-level industry standard analysis would get roasted by interns in a monday meeting.

[tsherkin]

Curry still looks like one of the most valuable rs players ever(and a less but still very valuable playoff player) at his best whether you use wowy or rapm but he stops being the gold standard alot of the analytics community was pushing him as.

People love to appeal to authority in sports discourse, but the bar is a lot lower here than it is for more "serious" equivalents(thinktanks, ect) if you're looking at it as a partially intellectual exercise as a great deal of the people on this board do. 99 percent of the stuff people cite as higher-level industry standard analysis would get roasted by interns in a monday meeting.

I mean, what even is the argument against Curry here? That having a former multiple-time All-Star as his backup impacting his +/- data a BAD thing, even? That just means that the jump from what Chris Paul does in minutes where he's on and Steph isn't isn't as egregious a jump as Steph to his other backups. Is that construed as a criticism of Old Steph now? If so, why? And how much are we really going to chase after a 35 year-old small guard for diminishing impact?

[CP3nthusiast]

Harden is undeniably more talented but what does it say that he's never even been able to reach the Finals

Nothing, because that is both untrue and significantly situational even if it were true.

despite having played with Chris Paul

So if the 2018 Rockets had played in the eastern conference, that would meaningfully change your assessment?

Kevin Durant

Yeah imagine if Harden made the Finals next to Durant.

Kyrie Irving

They played one series with both of them on the court together (which they won).

Also does not remotely belong here regardless.

and Joel Embiid?

The guy who has yet to make the conference finals and is in fact only the second MVP of the past 40 years to have never done so in or before his MVP season?

And he'll more than likely flame out in LA too, demand out and get traded for Beal and not win in PHX either. So it'll be CP3, Durant (2x), Kyrie, Embiid, Kawhi, PG and Booker by the time it's all said and done.

Hope you bet money on such a confidently specific prediction.

Manu had plenty of reason to bitch and moan after being forced to come off the bench despite being the clear 3rd (and sometimes 2nd) best player on the team? It's a coaching decision I question to this day especially after he flamed the Suns and Pistons back to back in '05.

So it's a competition between a guy who's gotten everything he's ever wanted and delivered nothing in return vs a guy who probably had the largest talent to touches ratio in NBA history but took it on the chin and produced 4 championships.

… Yeah Harden got everything he ever wanted while poor Manu won four championships next to prime Tim Duncan — a better player than any of the names you mentioned — and then a fifth championship playing 25 minutes a game (23 in the regular season). Heart really goes out to him, just a brutal sacrifice.

Oh yeah, I forgot the one Finals run he had playing third fiddle to KD and Westbrook.

Fact remains, he's played with multiple future Hall of Famers and won zero championships. Manu played with multiple Hall of Famers and won 4.

[Doctor MJ]

So, part of me feels like I should leave this thread because it's inherently contentious, but a thread like this does tend to cause me to dig around in stats, and sometimes there's a new thing I want to share. Please don't blow up what I show as more than what it is. Harden folks you need to understand that when I write about Ginobili, I really am talking about Ginobili.

Okay, so as a starting point, Ginobili has great +/- data in general, and he looks even stronger in the playoffs recording a better career playoff RAPM than Duncan. But by raw +/-, which is a super-simple stat that naturally factors in minutes played that I like to use just as a first pass thing for perspective, Duncan's pretty awesome. If we look at the Spurs' leaderboard for the playoff, it looks like this:

Duncan +1095
Ginobili +955
Parker +583
Kawhi +460
Robinson +361

Okay now, let's considered just the Away data. What does it look like for these same guys?

Ginobili +196
Robinson +116
Kawhi +21
Duncan -6
Parker -235

They eye-opening thing here isn't that Ginobili has the lead so much as the massive gap between he Duncan & Parker. As always, doesn't mean Ginobili was better than Duncan or even Parker, but it's worth chewing on. So much of the ready-made arguments against a guy like Ginobili are based on theories of role players not showing up when the going gets tough...but wherever I've thought to dig deeper, Ginobili comes off looking pretty dang great.

[cupcakesnake]

I love Manu and think he does plenty better than Harden (mainly his more adaptable, creative decision making + huge advantage on defense). Harden is a way bigger force on offense. I think Harden could impose a good offensive possession better than any perimeter player ever (besides maybe MJ, peak Lebron, Magic Johnson, and Steve Nash... but against any of these names I think Harden has a case). His deliberate forcefulness was sometimes his downfall, because he'd do the same thing when a defense would load up against specific actions. But jeez... Harden from 2015 to 2019 would simply decide to drive and produce points, or if he wasn't feeling like driving, he'd decide to take step back 3s against any kind of defender and produce points... I remember thinking he felt like Shaq.

Manu had to be clever to create a gap to attack. Harden didn't need a gap. His pathway to points was not a road you could close. Now in the playoffs, defenses would put all the defenders on that road and Harden would still try to drive down it. This limited his efficiency against playoff defenses. Harden was so successful playing a certain way, and the math always backed him up that it was the right way for him to play, so he was a bit of a victim of his own success. Plan A (with a Plan B counter) worked so well, that an experimental Plan C was never developed.

But yeah anyways, I love to rank Manu as high as I can get away with, but I think Harden is too high.