Suppose Manu never joins the NBA

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Manu tended to rack up injuries. Later in his career sure, what's the argument that this was specifically recognized early on in Ginobili's career?

He didn't manage 80 games until 2011, played under 70 games in two of his first 4 seasons, including his rookie season, and that trend continued.

Hmm, so you're saying that players who play under 80 games per season are typically thought to be guys who need to have their minutes limited? I really don't think that's how NBA teams have ever operated.

It's a different of less than 2 games per year between Duncan & Ginobili. We really going to say that data like that is what made Pop decide Ginobili couldn't play more?

I don't think it was the deciding factor, just an element of the decision. I think early, Pops has been pretty clear that he didn't trust Manu because he was a little wild, innovative and broke out of the system quite a lot, of course.

Part of why I'm resistant to just saying "Ginobili was unusually bad with stamina" is that it's not like he wasn't getting superstar accolades in the Euroleague,

Can't really say I care about his Euroleague or Olympic career. It is a functionally different game, and that was MORE true back then, and there are very different profiles of players who succeed in that environment who do not in the NBA. Obviously, Manu's tools transcended, but still.

I don't know what the basis for arguing "He can play as many minutes as standard in Euroleague & Olympics but the NBA's just a whole different level", particularly when we know how slow the NBA was back then.

Frankly I think there are many NBA players from back then who would be gasping on the floor if they tried to play in the modern NBA without up-ing their cardio, but Ginobili isn't one of them.

I say this as someone who does think Pop is one of the greatest coaches ever based on what he's accomplished...but I also think that by far his more impressive work came in the 2010s transition,

Yep, I'm with you there. He wasn't without his mistakes and miscues, but he has adapted more than most of the great coaches I can think of, over time.

at which time he was strongly influenced by European coaches pushing him to have his team play more like how Ginobili always played, and that there's very good reason to think that the Spurs could have, say, been a back-to-back level champion had he recognized this while Ginobili was at his peak rather than half a decade later.

I don't know. I think their first real chance at back to back was 2008, and Manu was playing a shade over 31 mpg in that season. It would become his career-high. They won 56 games and lost to Kobe's Lakers in 5, with Manu blowing donkeys in 32 mpg.

They lost to the 04 Lakers in 6. He was playing pretty well there, that might have been an opportunity if they'd shifted away from Duncan-centric offense. But it was the year after he won his second-straight MVP, he was 2nd in the MVP vote and it wasn't unreasonable for them to go to him while he was actually still crushing it offensively. He just struggled against Malone in that series and Parker was a waste of skin.

They had their chances, I think, and I don't really envision Manu playing an extra 4 or 5 mpg would have really changed their opportunities to repeat that much. MAYBE in 04, but not in 08.

I mean, for me it's simple:

If the Spur offense got better after they changed their approach, it stands to reason they would have been better than they were in prior years if they'd changed their approach earlier.

And to be clear, I very much consider this to be just a general trend so encompassing that in a lot of ways it doesn't make sense to be judgy about it. Innovation happens, and when it happens, everyone gets smarter the field - be they fan or player or coach.

But to me it's not some crazy "What if?" when I talk about a team doing better if they'd embraced the innovations we now know to be true. It's just clearly true and so I'm not even looking to argue the general point so much as speak to the situation with Ginobili given what we know now, because it's a thread about Manu.

[tsherkin]

He didn't manage 80 games until 2011, played under 70 games in two of his first 4 seasons, including his rookie season, and that trend continued.

Hmm, so you're saying that players who play under 80 games per season are typically thought to be guys who need to have their minutes limited? I really don't think that's how NBA teams have ever operated. [/quote]

I feel like me noting that he played under 70 games twice in his first four seasons was the more salient point raised there.

I don't know what the basis for arguing "He can play as many minutes as standard in Euroleague & Olympics but the NBA's just a whole different level", particularly when we know how slow the NBA was back then.

He played 29.9 mpg in the Euroleague and had two seasons of 30+ mpg... 30.6 and 32.3. Fairly close to his NBA minutes.

Frankly I think there are many NBA players from back then who would be gasping on the floor if they tried to play in the modern NBA without up-ing their cardio, but Ginobili isn't one of them.

I mean, for me it's simple:

If the Spur offense got better after they changed their approach, it stands to reason they would have been better than they were in prior years if they'd changed their approach earlier.

And to be clear, I very much consider this to be just a general trend so encompassing that in a lot of ways it doesn't make sense to be judgy about it. Innovation happens, and when it happens, everyone gets smarter the field - be they fan or player or coach.

But to me it's not some crazy "What if?" when I talk about a team doing better if they'd embraced the innovations we now know to be true. It's just clearly true and so I'm not even looking to argue the general point so much as speak to the situation with Ginobili given what we know now, because it's a thread about Manu.

In the broad strokes, I agree with you that their offense would have been better had they made the switch earlier. We're on the same page there. My point was more that in those earlier years, I don't think it would have made too much of a difference in those specific series, except maybe in 08, but I think he was getting rocked by LA's D in that series and I don't think it would have mattered a lot. Early, Manu still had things to figure out himself, as is normal for someone coming to a new league and all that. 04, for example, was his second season in the NBA.

Now, if you wanna look at 06, which I totally forgot to do, they had a tight, 7-game series with Dallas. One in which Manu played 34.7 mpg and performed quite well. But Tim was also crushing it. I don't think they were going to win that series with a change in offense. Their struggle came from Dirk savaging them while Terry, Howard and Stackhouse burned them from outside. So I don't think that was a repeat opportunity either because of how little things would have changed for them in terms of offensive outcome, and how D was more of an issue in that series. They probably beat Phoenix without Amare if they get past the Mavs, but I doubt that comes up.

[Doctor MJ]

He didn't manage 80 games until 2011, played under 70 games in two of his first 4 seasons, including his rookie season, and that trend continued.

Hmm, so you're saying that players who play under 80 games per season are typically thought to be guys who need to have their minutes limited? I really don't think that's how NBA teams have ever operated.

I feel like me noting that he played under 70 games twice in his first four seasons was the more salient point raised there. [/quote]

Okay, fair enough.

I don't know what the basis for arguing "He can play as many minutes as standard in Euroleague & Olympics but the NBA's just a whole different level", particularly when we know how slow the NBA was back then.

He played 29.9 mpg in the Euroleague and had two seasons of 30+ mpg... 30.6 and 32.3. Fairly close to his NBA minutes.

But that's what Euroleague players do in their 40 MPG games. Go look at Euroleague MPG leaders and it's guys not much above 30, and clearly it's not because all the guys in Europe have poor stamina.

Frankly I think there are many NBA players from back then who would be gasping on the floor if they tried to play in the modern NBA without up-ing their cardio, but Ginobili isn't one of them.

I mean, for me it's simple:

If the Spur offense got better after they changed their approach, it stands to reason they would have been better than they were in prior years if they'd changed their approach earlier.

And to be clear, I very much consider this to be just a general trend so encompassing that in a lot of ways it doesn't make sense to be judgy about it. Innovation happens, and when it happens, everyone gets smarter the field - be they fan or player or coach.

But to me it's not some crazy "What if?" when I talk about a team doing better if they'd embraced the innovations we now know to be true. It's just clearly true and so I'm not even looking to argue the general point so much as speak to the situation with Ginobili given what we know now, because it's a thread about Manu.

In the broad strokes, I agree with you that their offense would have been better had they made the switch earlier. We're on the same page there. My point was more that in those earlier years, I don't think it would have made too much of a difference in those specific series, except maybe in 08, but I think he was getting rocked by LA's D in that series and I don't think it would have mattered a lot. Early, Manu still had things to figure out himself, as is normal for someone coming to a new league and all that. 04, for example, was his second season in the NBA.

Now, if you wanna look at 06, which I totally forgot to do, they had a tight, 7-game series with Dallas. One in which Manu played 34.7 mpg and performed quite well. But Tim was also crushing it. I don't think they were going to win that series with a change in offense. Their struggle came from Dirk savaging them while Terry, Howard and Stackhouse burned them from outside. So I don't think that was a repeat opportunity either because of how little things would have changed for them in terms of offensive outcome, and how D was more of an issue in that series. They probably beat Phoenix without Amare if they get past the Mavs, but I doubt that comes up.

Appreciate you meeting me part way saying it would make a difference.

Re: just don't think it would make "too much of a difference in those specific series". So I believe folks need to get their head around the fact that it's not just things could have been a smidge better with a different approach, but that the Duncan-led offenses were utterly incompetent compared to those that came with superior tactics, and so thinking of this as just a nudge that tips the scales in the other direction is very much understating the qualitative leap that would come from playing with those smarter tactics.

To reiterate something I said before slightly differently:

In '24-25 an NBA team with Duncan playing offense like he did back then (as a post volume scorer) would have absolutely NO chance at winning a title.

In '24-25 an NBA team with Ginobili playing offense like he did back then would be a pretty standard way to run a great offense.

If it makes that kind of difference in '24-25, when competition is much tougher, what gives us the confidence that it would make too much of a difference against teams in the '00s? Seems to me it could really only come from an assumption that Ginobili can be pegged as a lower tier player, but I don't think that assumption makes sense knowing what we know now.

[tsherkin]

But that's what Euroleague players do in their 40 MPG games. Go look at Euroleague MPG leaders and it's guys not much above 30, and clearly it's not because all the guys in Europe have poor stamina.

My point was that he wasn't showing anything in the Euroleague which indicated he should play more minutes. He was playing exactly the same kind of minutes as he did in the NBA.

Appreciate you meeting me part way saying it would make a difference.

Re: just don't think it would make "too much of a difference in those specific series". So I believe folks need to get their head around the fact that it's not just things could have been a smidge better with a different approach, but that the Duncan-led offenses were utterly incompetent compared to those that came with superior tactics, and so thinking of this as just a nudge that tips the scales in the other direction is very much understating the qualitative leap that would come from playing with those smarter tactics.

To reiterate something I said before slightly differently:

In '24-25 an NBA team with Duncan playing offense like he did back then (as a post volume scorer) would have absolutely NO chance at winning a title.

In '24-25 an NBA team with Ginobili playing offense like he did back then would be a pretty standard way to run a great offense.

If it makes that kind of difference in '24-25, when competition is much tougher, what gives us the confidence that it would make too much of a difference against teams in the '00s? Seems to me it could really only come from an assumption that Ginobili can be pegged as a lower tier player, but I don't think that assumption makes sense knowing what we know now.

Starting with a 24-25 season is a problem, though, because now we're going BEYOND the Manu/Parker-led era into the massive proliferation of 3pt shooting which we see in today's environment, so that's not really salient to what we're discussing.

Running an offense from the perimeter as the Spurs did more and more in the mid/late 2000s and early/mid 2010s is very different from what we see out of today's offense.

[Doctor MJ]

But that's what Euroleague players do in their 40 MPG games. Go look at Euroleague MPG leaders and it's guys not much above 30, and clearly it's not because all the guys in Europe have poor stamina.

My point was that he wasn't showing anything in the Euroleague which indicated he should play more minutes. He was playing exactly the same kind of minutes as he did in the NBA.

Appreciate you meeting me part way saying it would make a difference.

Re: just don't think it would make "too much of a difference in those specific series". So I believe folks need to get their head around the fact that it's not just things could have been a smidge better with a different approach, but that the Duncan-led offenses were utterly incompetent compared to those that came with superior tactics, and so thinking of this as just a nudge that tips the scales in the other direction is very much understating the qualitative leap that would come from playing with those smarter tactics.

To reiterate something I said before slightly differently:

In '24-25 an NBA team with Duncan playing offense like he did back then (as a post volume scorer) would have absolutely NO chance at winning a title.

In '24-25 an NBA team with Ginobili playing offense like he did back then would be a pretty standard way to run a great offense.

If it makes that kind of difference in '24-25, when competition is much tougher, what gives us the confidence that it would make too much of a difference against teams in the '00s? Seems to me it could really only come from an assumption that Ginobili can be pegged as a lower tier player, but I don't think that assumption makes sense knowing what we know now.

Starting with a 24-25 season is a problem, though, because now we're going BEYOND the Manu/Parker-led era into the massive proliferation of 3pt shooting which we see in today's environment, so that's not really salient to what we're discussing.

Running an offense from the perimeter as the Spurs did more and more in the mid/late 2000s and early/mid 2010s is very different from what we see out of today's offense.

So, on the Euroleague minutes thing I'll say:

I don't think those minutes are proof one way or the other. They are neither proof that the player in question could only play those minutes in a 48 minute league, nor proof that a player could continue to play that percentage of the team's minutes in a 48 minute league.

In the end we'll just never know what Ginobili might have done. All we know is that it's only under one coach he specifically played limited minutes, and that coach has specifically acknowledged that there were things in consideration there that weren't about Ginobili's limitations.

Re: '24-25 is beyond the Manu/Parker era. Sure, but it's a continuation of the same trend.

Perimeter based offenses have largely dominated the league ever since they widened the key in 1951, and this has only become more stark in the pace & space era. Given that we know all these coaches really didn't get this in the past, I think it wise to consider with each and everyone one of them how they could have played more pace & spacy, and what we'd think of their players if they'd done that.

Now, it's not like I'm looking to say that a pacy-spacy guy who had poor efficiency & impact would have been a mega-star if only his coach had handed him the reins, but it's not in question whether Ginobili could have been the more offensively impactful player compared to Duncan, because literally that's what the impact data already says.

[tsherkin]

I don't think those minutes are proof one way or the other. They are neither proof that the player in question could only play those minutes in a 48 minute league, nor proof that a player could continue to play that percentage of the team's minutes in a 48 minute league.

I am comfortable with that conclusion, yes.

Now, it's not like I'm looking to say that a pacy-spacy guy who had poor efficiency & impact would have been a mega-star if only his coach had handed him the reins, but it's not in question whether Ginobili could have been the more offensively impactful player compared to Duncan, because literally that's what the impact data already says.

It's very likely that if the offense was oriented around him from the start, their O would have been better, yes. We've already agreed on such. I was disagreeing with a specific contention you made here only because you were advanced a decade forward from Manu's actual career and it wasn't really applicable to the Duncan times.

[lessthanjake]

It’s actually pretty scary to think how good the Spurs could’ve been if they’d given prime Manu the offensive reins in a similar way that the Suns gave Nash the offensive reins. I don’t think Manu was ever quite as good an offensive player as Nash was, but those Spurs defenses were so good that the team wouldn’t have needed to be as good on offense as the Suns to be potentially a GOAT-level team.

Of course, there’s interpersonal issues potentially at play here. Maybe if Manu was given the offensive reins it would’ve made Duncan unhappy and he’d have opted to leave San Antonio. It’s possible, even with Duncan not being prone to any drama. But if we just handwave away potential second-order effects of this, I really think those Spurs would’ve been basically unbeatable.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Hypothetical. Manu Ginobili is never recruited by the Spurs and stays in the Euroleague.

How does that affect the Spurs dynasty? How many titles they get? How many finals they make?

No dynasty would then exist.

They win in ‘99 obviously

They have a chance in ‘03 and ‘14.

Interesting that you didn't include 07. Manu wasn't that impressive that year and Cleveland was not a viable opponent. You think they lose to Phoenix that year?

first he was very impressive vs Cleveland, leading all teams in +/-
second they needed help.win against Phoenix as it was, no chances they win without Manu

[iggymcfrack]

I think the Spurs lose to Phoenix WITH Ginobili in most universes. They were the worse team when the Suns had all their guys.

It's possible, the suspensions were brutal.

Re: Manu not that impressive that year. I'd just emphasize: In all 4 Spur chips with Manu, he was always the guy with the big +/- numbers, not Duncan. There's literally never a time where the 21st century Spurs win the title without Manu delivering miraculous playoff impact.

I think the +/- stuff is a little overrated, personally, especially for low-minute guys. But yes, I think his impact was broader than his basic averages, for sure.

I feel like people always bring up the suspensions, but not that Donaghy rigged one of the games for the Spurs. Game 3 was right at the peak of his betting and 3 of the Suns' starters had 5 fouls in a game they lost by 7. Amare scored 21 points on 11 shots and he only played 20 minutes because of foul trouble.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think those minutes are proof one way or the other. They are neither proof that the player in question could only play those minutes in a 48 minute league, nor proof that a player could continue to play that percentage of the team's minutes in a 48 minute league.

I am comfortable with that conclusion, yes.

Now, it's not like I'm looking to say that a pacy-spacy guy who had poor efficiency & impact would have been a mega-star if only his coach had handed him the reins, but it's not in question whether Ginobili could have been the more offensively impactful player compared to Duncan, because literally that's what the impact data already says.

It's very likely that if the offense was oriented around him from the start, their O would have been better, yes. We've already agreed on such. I was disagreeing with a specific contention you made here only because you were advanced a decade forward from Manu's actual career and it wasn't really applicable to the Duncan times.

So, just trying to voice where our respective approaches differ:

You see the lay of the land in 2025 being fundamentally about 2025, where I see it more as about what things could have been in basically any previous era that had the same major rules in place, and I'm frankly skeptical than any rules really matter that much other than the existence of the 3 in the grand scheme of things.

I think you'd say that if we didn't have the players back then to run these type of 2025 strategies effectively, then it's wrong to act as if that was actually a possibility back then, and there's truth in such an assertion.

Where I would draw a distinction though is in the difference between talking about players who embody the new strategy vs those who would benefit from primarily from the presence of other players who embody the new strategy.

A player who himself played fast, shot 3's well and willingly, and in general made brilliant improvised decisions, was going to be extremely valuable back then so long as he got the run and had the ball in his hands enough.

A player who can't shoot well, but can attack the rim and is a solid enough passer to make use of good 3-point role players, is going to be able to thrive in a completely new way when he's surrounded by pace & space type players.

For this reason, frankly, it makes sense to argue that a less spacy star in the '00s would actually benefit more from the new strategies of today, and the new players that came with them, than a player who was pacy-spacy back then, though of course the devil's in the details of course.

[SweaterBae]

Suppose Manu was 5'6 and Kyrie was 6'10, what is the barometric pressure in Tunisia?

[tsherkin]

You see the lay of the land in 2025 being fundamentally about 2025, where I see it more as about what things could have been in basically any previous era that had the same major rules in place, and I'm frankly skeptical than any rules really matter that much other than the existence of the 3 in the grand scheme of things.

My point was more that even had they deploy Manu at the helm of the offense back then, they wouldn't have been operating the same way as a 2025 offense, with comparable pace/3PAr. That wasn't a thing at the time, those innovations were accepted later on in the league. The momentum of conventional wisdom was still too prevalent, even for a coach like Pops who proved willing to adapt over time. So I don't consider the notion of a Manu-led offense running like a 2025 offense relevant to a review of what might have been 15-20 years ago with more primacy from Manu.

I think you'd say that if we didn't have the players back then to run these type of 2025 strategies effectively, then it's wrong to act as if that was actually a possibility back then, and there's truth in such an assertion.

No, I don't believe that. I think the players aren't that much different, they've just been allowed to operate a little different, for sure. We saw even in the 90s and the early 2000s PFs who could do it. Perkins, Clifford Robinson, Horry, Detlef Schrempf. Sheed. Dirk, although he had more primacy than any of them of course. And we've seen more recent players like Al Horford and Brook Lopez adapt and develop their 3ball. Serge Ibaka. Rashard Lewis. Even someone like Turkoglu, though he was more of a tall 3.

So it's not that the players couldn't have done it, I agree. The pieces were there. To me, like I said, it's more that the league wasn't quite ready to accept that much shooting. This was all still before a team who ran primarily shooters won a title. You remember what the response was to the 2005 Suns and Nash's MVPs and all that stuff, yeah?

[tsherkin]

Suppose Manu was 5'6 and Kyrie was 6'10, what is the barometric pressure in Tunisia?

Eggplant.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Manu in his 20s/early 30s was playing 202x minutes, because he had a 202x game, in terms of activity.