RealGM

2 of the best players of the previous era who can still play well even now due to their skills and savvy. Obviously Pierce started earlier so this is starting from 03. Simply state who u think the better player was each year

03-
04-
05-
06-
07-
08-
09-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-

Pierce every year.

OFWGKTA wrote:Pierce every year.

Not 2005 when Manu dominated in the playoffs.

It's a very difficult comparison to make because before the 2007-08 season, Pierce and Manu were in a totally different situation, and had different roles on their teams, plus you have to decide how much value you assign to the fact that Pierce played more MPG. On a per minute basis, Ginobili was often better (PER), but Pierce still gave you a very solid production in more minutes. We don't know if Manu would've been as efficient if he played the same number of minutes as Paul, or if Truth wouldn't have produced better per-minute if he only played about 29 MPG, like Gino did in his prime. Ginobili also looks much better in RAPM but I'm far from being non-critical of the idea to evaluate players only, or even mostly, based on this stat, far from taking it that seriously. I guess Manu playing less possessions than Pierce has something to do with it.

Okay, I'd go with:

2003 - Pierce obviously, as he was a fringe superstar who averaged 26/7/4 in 39 minutes, while rookie Manu averaged 8/2/2 in 21 minutes

2004 - it was Pierce's worst prime season, so I think I'll go with Ginobili. Obviously in terms of raw stats Paul looks much better, but Manu has a clear edge in advanced numbers, and RAPM, plus he played pretty well in the postseason.

2005 - both had great seasons, among their very best (both RS and PS) - Ginobili just had a much better team. Comparing their RS and the first round of the playoffs, they're almost even, but I think I have to go with Ginobili for his tremendous overall playoff performance (23 PS games compared to just 7 of Pierce, so Ginobili maintaining such great consistency throughout the entire Spurs playoff run - seriously, dude was insane - 21 PPG on 65% TS - incredible stuff, and he was fantastic even against a top defensive team like the Pistons, being clearly the best Spur in that series, better than prime Duncan), and knowing how Pierce could be inconsistent in the playoffs, I highly doubt if he'd be able to accomplish the same as Manu did. In hindsight, I think you have to say that it was the best season, the peak of Ginobili's career, if you take both the RS and playoffs into account.

2006 - again, great playoffs for Ginobili, just a little worse than the year before, but Pierce had the most impressive statistical season of his career, and had games when he went toe-to-toe with the best players in the league, like Kobe, LeBron or Wade (for example - had a 50/7/8 game against LeBron - James had 43/12/11 in the same game, on equal scoring efficiency, then also 39/7/4 against Kobe, who had 40/8/6, but on worse efficiency, or 38/6/3 against the Heat, when Wade had 24/5/8 - all of these games were within two or three weeks - between February 15 and March 1, 2006) - yeah, I know it looks like i'm cherry-picking games to fit my narrative, but I just want to show that he was really among the best players in the league that season, and it's really a shame that he had such horrible supporting cast (two of his best teammates - Ricky Davis and Wally Szczerbiak, played just 42 and 32 games, respectively - if they played 70-80, I think the Celtics would've made the playoffs, quite easily, probably even as the 5th seed, right there with the Wizards, who finished 42-40, instead of finishing 33-49, and just 11th in their conference).

2007 - Ginobili, no doubt, as he was healthy and played well throughout the entire regular season and playoffs, while Pierce missed a lot games due to having a stress fracture in his foot, and as a result played just 47 games (but played at almost the same level as in the previous season)

2008 - since that season, it becomes a more natural comparison, as Pierce is no longer a lone star on a team, but rather part of a very strong team, just like Manu. I think I'll call it a tie in 2008. Sure, the Celtics won the title, and Pierce the Finals MVP, but he didn't really play better than Ginobili. Manu had his highest regular season in terms of minutes played at 31.1 MPG, and his highest RS as far as scoring volume, too (basically the same as Pierce's - 13.7 to 13.3 FGA, so Pierce took slightly more, but in almost 5 more minutes, their FTA were the same too - 6.1 to 6.0, as well as scoring average - 19.6 to 19.5 - their all-around stats are almost the same, too.

2009 - similar situation as in 2007, just reversed - this time Manu played well, but missed a ton of games (just 44 games played, and couldn't play in the postseason), so Pierce takes this year.

2010 - I'd say even, maybe a slight edge to Ginobili.

2011 - Ginobili, but it's close once again.

2012 - Pierce, even with his somewhat unimpressive playoffs (shot below 40% from the field) - Manu certainly played well, but he missed too many games, and played just 23 minutes per game - it clearly works to his detriment.

2013 - Pierce played really well in the RS, but had an embarrassing playoff series against the Knicks (but he struggled with an elbow injury during that series - it's not a great excuse, but Manu played just 23 MPG again (60 games, compared to Pierce's 77 games in a little over 33 minutes, and Ginobili wasn't too impressive in the playoffs, either - many people were talking that he was "done" during the finals) - I'd give Pierce a slight edge

2014 - probably a slight edge to Manu

So, to sum up, that's what I got:

2003 - Pierce
2004 - Ginobili
2005 - Ginobili
2006 - Pierce
2007 - Ginobili
2008 - tie, perhaps a slight edge to Pierce, so let's say Pierce, not to leave anything as a tie
2009 - Pierce
2010 - Ginobili (similar situation like in 2008, so it could be a tie)
2011 - Ginobili
2012 - Pierce
2013 - Pierce
2014 - Ginobili

For the 12-year timespan, it's a 6-6 tie. Sure, many of my choices might be questionable, but it really tells you how close they've been. I've tried to assign a fair value to the level of play, RS/PS performance, minutes played etc. Obviously Pierce gets the edge career-wise based on his pre-2003 seasons (especially 2001 and 2002, when he was already a star and one of the premier wing players in the league, averaged 25-26 PPG, 6-7 RPB and 3 APG).

I admit that I might've been a bit too generous to Pierce - I tried to be as objective as possible, but Pierce is my favorite player, so I'm probably a little biased, even if subconsciously. I like Manu a lot too, though, and both are incredibly fun to watch - their virtuosity in terms of offensive arsenal, skills, footwork, basketball IQ and craftiness are amazing - that's why both are still very effective at almost 37 years old.

I wouldn't really argue too much if someone wanted to give some of the years when I thought Pierce was better to Manu, because Pierce was a star in the NBA even before Gino came to the US. I think it makes Pierce the greater NBA player, quite easily. Obviously Ginobili's international career, both in Europe and in Olympics/World Championships competition is a different story, but I'd never take that into account, because it's so difficult, almost impossible, to measure these accomplishments in relation to the NBA. I'd only compare them as NBA players...And honestly, I appreciate both guys, a ton.

Ginobili every year outside out of 03 and 09, overall and even more so on a per minute basis

RebelWithACause wrote:Ginobili every year outside out of 03 and 09, overall and even more so on a per minute basis

Per minute basis is irrelevant as you have to go by what actually happened. Manu was def not better most of those years as you claim, manu never averaed a full 20 pts a game while pierce avged 25+ 5 different times. You can argue manu was better in 2011 and this year as well but besides that its all Pierce.

I don't think per-minute is a fair thing. Pierce played more and thus contributed more to his team, simple as that.

I'd take Pierce in every year except 2005 and 2007. 2008 is kind of a wash, both were in the 7-8 range as far as POTY goes... I think Pierce could get the edge given Manu's playoff injury.

Paul Pierce every single time. (10x All star, NBA Finals MVP, 1x 2nd team ALL NBA, 3x 3rd team ALL NBA)

Manu Ginobli is a great player. (2x all Star, 2x All NBA 3rd team)

That being said, he wouldn't get half the respect that he currently gets if he did not play with a guy named Tim Duncan.

Would you all have all this respect for Ginobli (in terms of considering him better than guys that are clearly more accomplished) if he had spent his whole career playing with the Charlotte Bobcats?

I clearly remember after the 2005 playoffs when Spurs fans were trying to say that Ginobli was better than Dirk. This comparison is almost as ridiculous.

This is why 97% of stats can be manipulated. This is what some of you stat geeks don't seem to understand.

You have to set a control when trying to pull a stat and say that makes a guy a better or more accomplished player.

I don't give a damn about Ginobli's plus/minus stats or per minute stats because he has always played on a great team with at least two other hall of fame players. .

and FYI....the Spurs were a great team for a good 10-15 years (with 2 NBA titles) before Ginobli became a great player.

Ginobli was a complimentary player that people have an obsession with comparing him to superstars that had to carry teams. He didn't even start most of the time

Jonny Blaze wrote:I don't give a damn about Ginobli's plus/minus stats or per minute stats because he has always played on a great team with at least two other hall of fame players. .

That seems a little ignorant since Ginobli played with the bench players through the first 3 quarters. +/- is particularly revealing of bench players, although like you say, it be a little misleading if you're a weak starter playing your minutes with much stronger players.

Jonny Blaze wrote:Paul Pierce every single time. (10x All star, NBA Finals MVP, 1x 2nd team ALL NBA, 3x 3rd team ALL NBA)

Manu Ginobli is a great player. (2x all Star, 2x All NBA 3rd team)

That being said, he wouldn't get half the respect that he currently gets if he did not play with a guy named Tim Duncan.

Would you all have all this respect for Ginobli (in terms of considering him better than guys that are clearly more accomplished) if he had spent his whole career playing with the Charlotte Bobcats?

I clearly remember after the 2005 playoffs when Spurs fans were trying to say that Ginobli was better than Dirk. This comparison is almost as ridiculous.

This is why 97% of stats can be manipulated. This is what some of you stat geeks don't seem to understand.

You have to set a control when trying to pull a stat and say that makes a guy a better or more accomplished player.

I don't give a damn about Ginobli's plus/minus stats or per minute stats because he has always played on a great team with at least two other hall of fame players. .

and FYI....the Spurs were a great team for a good 10-15 years (with 2 NBA titles) before Ginobli became a great player.

This. "Per minute?" Come on. Volume matters.

magicmerl wrote:

Jonny Blaze wrote:I don't give a damn about Ginobli's plus/minus stats or per minute stats because he has always played on a great team with at least two other hall of fame players. .

That seems a little ignorant since Ginobli played with the bench players through the first 3 quarters. +/- is particularly revealing of bench players, although like you say, it be a little misleading if you're a weak starter playing your minutes with much stronger players.

Its not "ignorant" at all.

Ginobli fanatics love to point to these plus/minus stats to try and rank him over players that are clearly more accomplished.

I have one questions for you:

Would Ginobli be among the league leaders in Plus/Minus if he played for the Charlotte Bobcats?

2nd question:

Does playing on a great team influence someones Plus/Minus rating?

Lets say that Player X plays on a team that has won 50 games for 24 of the past 25 years.

Do you think Player X has a better chance of having better Plus/Minus stats than a superstar such as Kevin Love who plays on a crappy team with no other star players?

JordansBulls wrote:

OFWGKTA wrote:Pierce every year.

Not 2005 when Manu dominated in the playoffs.

20 PPG, 5 rebounds and 4 assists is "Dominating" the playoffs?

I would consider that real good....but that is not "dominating"

But like most things with Ginobli his backers completeley overated everything about him.

At his peak Ginobli was a 15 to 19 PPG player.

Like I mentioned in my first sentence he is a real good player.....but better than guys who were superstars every night?

C'Mon.

His per minute stats and plus/minus stats are a direct result of him always playing on good teams.

Hm? If Manu played for the Bobcats his stats would be way better, why are we acting like Manu isn't a star payer?

HeartBreakKid wrote:Hm? If Manu played for the Bobcats his stats would be way better, why are we acting like Manu isn't a star payer?

How do you know that?

and who has said he is not a star player? No one.

How good would his stats be?

Would he suddenly be an 18-20 PPG player

or would he be someone that averaged 23-27PPG

Manu only made 2 all star games his whole career and never averaged 20 points for a whole season. Idk why people treat him like he's some all time great.

Jonny Blaze wrote:Ginobli fanatics love to point to these plus/minus stats to try and rank him over players that are clearly more accomplished.

I have one questions for you:

Would Ginobli be among the league leaders in Plus/Minus if he played for the Charlotte Bobcats?

Probably. There's no indication that team quality has all that much impact on your RAPM. That's one of the reasons why it has good value as a measure

2nd question:

Does playing on a great team influence someones Plus/Minus rating?

Lets say that Player X plays on a team that has won 50 games for 24 of the past 25 years.

Do you think Player X has a better chance of having better Plus/Minus stats than a superstar such as Kevin Love who plays on a crappy team with no other star players?

Not really. Again, there's no indication team quality has much impact on RAPM

Basketballefan wrote:Manu only made 2 all star games his whole career and never averaged 20 points for a whole season. Idk why people treat him like he's some all time great.

Two reasons.

1. He has had the fortune to play for a franchise that was won 50 games for 22 of the past 25 years.

2. He has played with the greatest power forward of all time and IMO one of the top 5 or 6 NBA players ever.

Jonny Blaze wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Hm? If Manu played for the Bobcats his stats would be way better, why are we acting like Manu isn't a star payer?

How do you know that?

and who has said he is not a star player? No one.

How good would his stats be?

Would he suddenly be an 18-20 PPG player

or would he be someone that averaged 23-27PPG

He's had seasons where he's averaged more than 20 points coming off the bench for a good team. Why wouldn't he be over 20 if he played on a lotto team?

More minutes, more possessions he's given the ball, kinda makes sense his stats would go up. Manu comes off the bench by design.

The Tim Duncan thing is a really weak argument too, most great players have played with other great players. Pippen spent nearly all of his career with Jordan, and I don't see anyone having a problem putting him over Pierce.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Jonny Blaze wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Hm? If Manu played for the Bobcats his stats would be way better, why are we acting like Manu isn't a star payer?

How do you know that?

and who has said he is not a star player? No one.

How good would his stats be?

Would he suddenly be an 18-20 PPG player

or would he be someone that averaged 23-27PPG

He's had seasons where he's averaged more than 20 points coming off the bench for a good team. Why wouldn't he be over 20 if he played on a lotto team?

Oh really?

Name the seasons he's averaged over 20 ppg?