better player at their prime: chauncy billups vs Manu ginobili

[falcolombardi]

who do you think was better?

[rand]

Very close one. Both great, all-time underrated players. I think Manu was a little better but Billups more reliable.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think it's Manu by a lot.

[Dr Positivity]

Manu was better per minute but Billups could play more. Depends on the team, Billups in a role as the best player like he had on Pistons, maybe Manu beside a star like Duncan. They would both put up better stats in modern day too.

[cupcakesnake]

What, Manu.

Huge Billups fan here. He's a great all-around floor general with very few holes in his game. He was sort of the Lowry prototype. Steadier and less hyper than Lowry (not wracking up the hustle stats in the same way), but bigger, with a workable post-up game. Hhe was a guy who could be your lead ball-handler and find ways to add value with smart play, without being an explosive scorer inside the arc. He could exert a lot of control on the game and make sure the offense was doing the right things. Defensively, Billups gets too much credit for being on those mid-2000s Pistons squads, but he wasn't a bad defender either. He was strong enough to guard up a position.

But watching Manu, the minutes thing was the only thing interfering with me thinking "why isn't this guy considered a top 5 player" in his peak years. (He also stayed a massively useful player way after his prime and somehow stayed a plus defender). The more I've studied basketball since, the more statistical studies I've read, the more I think: Ok he basically was a top 5 player when my eyes were telling me he was. Except for the minutes.

[Stalwart]

Chauncey

[TheBomb81]

Manu.

[DQuinn1575]

Manu was probably a better player, but with the minutes I would take Chauncey.

[feyki]

Gino, by far.