Peak Manu rank in the 2023 NBA

[rand]

Where would you rank peak Manu Ginobili if he were in the league today? Is he a top-10 player?

[Jaivl]

Better than Doncic, so yes.

Only half kidding, but he's at least better than SGA or Lillard, so also yes.

[ManyaWarrior]

This is a no brainer, Manu was arguably top 3 in his peak (if you count the olympics). Even assuming 2023 nba is stronger than 2005 youll never convince me that players like Lillard or Ja (fringe top 10 players) are better than peak Ginobili

[dygaction]

This is a no brainer, Manu was arguably top 3 in his peak (if you count the olympics). Even assuming 2023 nba is stronger than 2005 youll never convince me that players like Lillard or Ja (fringe top 10 players) are better than peak Ginobili

not sure if he would be better than Harden or LeBron, who are not for sure top 10 this year

[JimmyFromNz]

Sorry, top 3 in his peak?! Manu's a fascinating player to see people rate, he was underrated in many regards during his playing career and his IQ/craftiness completely underappreciated. Yet in our rush to revise careers, the pendulum seems to swing in the complete opposite direction. A hall of famer, an incredible player, but to answer the question...

Top 10 players - Giannis, Luka, Jokic, Embiid, Tatum, Durant, Curry all MVP candidate level play and clearly better than peak Manu.

So we look at a pool of Lillard, Shai, Lebron, Davis, Morant - personally I think an optimistic view would be top 8-10.

[RoyceDa59]

He’d be a top 15 player, likely, during his peak season.

And someone you absolutely want for a playoff run.

[Tomtolbert]

Right around #10.

[Doctor MJ]

So I said "Yes", but I should be really clear:

I've been getting higher and higher on Ginobili with time. Let me state something up front that I need folks to know I acknowledge:

To what extent was Ginobili unable to play more MPG? I'll acknowledge that if this was indeed a major problem, then it makes total sense to be considerably less impressed with Ginobili than I am, and to vote "No" on this poll.

Okay, so in terms of Ginobili, what do I see?

1. His style of play is that of the intuitive genius. He makes improvisations in the moment that surprise everyone on the court, and it's often beautiful.

2. Players like this tend to either boom or bust analytically. A player who sees an opening that could work has some percentage chance of success. If that chance is lower than what the offense could otherwise achieve, then the player can quite easily hurt your team.

But Ginobili pops like crazy in the +/-, which means that was we're talking about here is someone with sufficient dexterity and risk assessment to harness the creativity productively.

3. For those unfamiliar with the specifics of Ginobili, know first that Ginobili is a known darling of +/- metrics. To just give one study that I think encapsulates things in the right general direction:

Calculating Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus for 25 Years of NBA Basketball

Based on this list, which serves as a career average RAPM for most of these players, this is the leaderboard they give:

1. LeBron
2. Embiid
3. Garnett
4. Paul
5. Curry
6. Duncan
7. Jokic
8. Ginobili
9. Draymond
10. Tatum

By no means does this "prove" Ginobili was the 8th best player for the time period in question - it wouldn't even if we didn't know about Ginobili's limited minutes, but we do know that that's a thing too.

But the key point is that this data makes Ginobili look quite good right from the start. I'd say everyone on that list in their peak would be expected to be a Top 10 player today - though aside from Ginobili, I'm sure there's disagreement pertaining to Draymond.

Now though, this data gives most of the weight to the regular season.

How about a pretty-close playoff-only model?

1998-2019 Playoffs RAPM

Leaders:

1. LeBron
2. Draymond
3. Ginobili
4. Robinson
5. Kawhi
6. Embiid
7. Duncan
8. Durant
9. Garnett
10. Curry

The fact that Ginobili actually passes up Duncan isn't necessarily the big deal - cuz minutes - but the fact that he's showing a clear upward trend is significant. If Ginobili was mostly about feasting on secondary lineups from weak teams, we'd expect that advantage to go down in the playoffs. Instead it's going up.

But now focusing further on the deeper playoffs I'll quote what I recently posted on another thread:

So, 70s asked about whether I was using RS, PS, or both, and I said Both.

I figure there's not a lot of curiosity about the RS, so here's some PS data.

This is for the 3 year ranges specified before (Spurs 2005-07, Warriors 2014-16).

If we go by +/- per game:

Green +6.88
Ginobili +6.11
Curry +4.76
Duncan +3.84
Thompson +3.17
Parker +3.11

And since we're talking Ginobili, if I do a per 48 minutes:

Ginobiil +9.09
Green +8.95
Curry +6.08
Duncan +4.92
Thompson +4.26
Parker +4.01

We can also do a "deep playoffs" evaluation by chopping out April. So just based on May & June:

+/- per game

Ginobili +6.40
Curry +4.06
Green +4.00
Duncan +3.67
Parker +3.11
Thompson +1.21

And per 48:

Ginobili +9.33
Curry +5.13
Green +5.09
Duncan +4.60
Parker +3.97
Thompson +1.62

Note that because the Warriors were eliminated in the first round in '13-14, you can definitely see this as cherry picking for the Warrior trio, but I'm actually looking to focus the attention on the Argentine. Ginobili's numbers are truly insane, and a reason to wonder about how strong the Spurs could have been if they had been strategically different in this era.

Key takeaway: Ginobili isn't just standing out more in the playoffs, he's specifically standing out in the deep playoffs in a way I'm not sure we have anyone can match.

Here's where I'll also note that in each of the 4 titles the Spurs won with Ginobili, he led the team in playoff +/-. Going back to '96-97, we haven't seen this from anyone else.

Oh, and there's also the matter that he led Argentina to the Gold Medal in the 2004 Olympics then came back to the NBA and was really the dominant force carrying the Spurs through that 2005 playoff gauntlet.

It's astonishing stuff.

Finally circling back to the MPG issue:

While I don't want to appear as if I'm saying that the MPG limitations could not have been based on something fundamentally real and definitive - maybe that motor wears itself out quicker than most over the course of a game - I think we have to recognize that there's good reason to think that this is one sort of situation where a guy may not ever get used to true optimality. Why?

1. He joined a team that had already won a title with their current young franchise player as the focal point of the team's offense, and wasn't looking to make a switch.

2. He played an improvisational style that at times broke the play the Spurs were trying to use. Former teammate Robert Horry recently commented something astonishing:

Let me just say this: You got yours because, if Manu Ginobili would have did the things he was supposed to do, I would have had like 10 championships.

This is the sort of statement gives us a window into how things felt within the team when Ginobili did his own thing on the court. They were frustrated by it. They saw it blowing up possessions at times, and at least one of them, thought the bad was really weighing the team down.

Horry, and anyone like him, was 100% wrong in his assessment. The reality is that Ginbili was helping and helping like crazy...

But on a team that was build around another offensive fulcrum, the frustration of letting Manu be Manu could very well have played a part in putting Ginobili with secondary units.

3. It worked really well, as it was. With Ginobili in this secondary role, the Spurs were excellent for a long time and won 3 titles in 5 years, including - perhaps importantly - Ginobili's rookie year. What all this means is that there really never was a time in that first half decade where Pop was likely to be asking himself, "What if we're going about things backwards on offense?". Even when you know it's your defense that's carrying the real load, if your offense is already good built around your star, are you really going to try something radically different?

So yeah, while I'll never be able to prove it, I actually think there's pretty good reason to think that Ginobili would be a first-class superstar in today's game if he were to land in the right place.

I feel like refraining from trying to peg him at a specific slot in today's league, beyond responding to the poll with the "Yes", but I'll say this:

In my latest assessment, I ranked Ginobili as having the most impressive '04-05 campaign out of any player. In years where the Spurs fall short Ginobili's limited MPG makes him hard to consider in such rare, but in a year where he was pretty clearly the best player on the best team through the 4 series victories, hard for me to insist that other players should rank above him when I really don't think they and their extra minutes could have achieved what Ginobili did.

[trex_8063]

Better than Doncic, so yes.

Only half kidding, but he's at least better than SGA or Lillard, so also yes.

On a per-minute basis, yeah I'd probably agree. But he's only playing about 30 mpg (vs 35-37 mpg for both of the above).
And if you don't load-manage Manu, he's likely to break down physically, maybe miss 10+ games and/or not be 100% come playoff time. That makes it's close again, imo.

[ardee]

This is a no brainer, Manu was arguably top 3 in his peak (if you count the olympics). Even assuming 2023 nba is stronger than 2005 youll never convince me that players like Lillard or Ja (fringe top 10 players) are better than peak Ginobili

He peaked in 2008... which two out of Kobe, CP3, LeBron and KG was he better than?

I guess you might be referring to '05, and yes he may have been top 3 that year but it was also a fairly weak season.

I'd take him over Ja and agree that he's likely top 10 in today's league but I think you're really underestimating Lillard here.

[ardee]

1998-2019 Playoffs RAPM

Leaders:

1. LeBron
2. Draymond
3. Ginobili
4. Robinson
5. Kawhi
6. Embiid
7. Duncan
8. Durant
9. Garnett
10. Curry

4 Spurs in the top 7 is pretty wild.

[trex_8063]

Guys I think he'd definitely not be better than:

Jokic
Embiid
Giannis
Doncic

Except for the missed games as a factor [maybe], I'd otherwise say he's got very little case against Steph Curry either.

Other guys who are at least "maybes", imo [if only due to minutes]:
Jimmy Buckets
SGA
Lillard
Tatum
LeBron
Durant

I think there's at least a little discussion to be had [even if I might favour Manu] against guys like Harden and Sabonis, too.


So for me, he's at best a fringe top 6(ish) player, though more likely only fringe top 10 [and potentially just slightly on the outside looking in].

[rand]

This is a no brainer, Manu was arguably top 3 in his peak (if you count the olympics). Even assuming 2023 nba is stronger than 2005 youll never convince me that players like Lillard or Ja (fringe top 10 players) are better than peak Ginobili

He peaked in 2008... which two out of Kobe, CP3, LeBron and KG was he better than?

I guess you might be referring to '05, and yes he may have been top 3 that year but it was also a fairly weak season.

I'd take him over Ja and agree that he's likely top 10 in today's league but I think you're really underestimating Lillard here.

Manu peaked in 2005. 2008 regular season is a little better but 2005 postseason blows 2008 away. Manu was the most valuable player in the 2005 postseason and should have been FMVP.

[Owly]

Guys I think he'd definitely not be better than:

Jokic
Embiid
Giannis
Doncic

Except for the missed games as a factor [maybe], I'd otherwise say he's got very little case against Steph Curry either.

Other guys who are at least "maybes", imo [if only due to minutes]:
Jimmy Buckets
SGA
Lillard
Tatum
LeBron
Durant

I think there's at least a little discussion to be had [even if I might favour Manu] against guys like Harden and Sabonis, too.


So for me, he's at best a fringe top 6(ish) player, though more likely only fringe top 10 [and potentially just slightly on the outside looking in].

Is Luka a lock?

His usage is up at a point where PER is clearly on Doncic's side. BPM too though that (over?)likes high usage playmakers.

But Doncic prior to this season had little RS impact signal. Even this year, where they couldn't keep their secondary creator and have spent the bulk of the season wit Dinwiddie in that role ... +5.1 on-off ... is still a way behind 05-08 Manu +10.8 (larger sample, impact from a higher baseline, on a team less built around him ...).

From before his actual arrival in the league I rated Luka (as well as enjoyed watching him) and couldn't fathom how he wasn't taken first ... I feel I'm on the skeptical side now. Not that he isn't great. But for both the production (shooting efficiency [inc but not only foul draw] and turnover cut) and impact bounce ... I'd like to see it last longer to be more fully moved that that's what he is now (versus some part of it is luck).

I get that there are good reasons to be bullish on Doncic (inc playoffs, which some will trust in more than I - though cf Doc above or just Manu's playoff on-off or I imagine any impact-y family measure). I get that the mainstream anchors would pull heavily pro-Doncic. I get minutes (though ... playoff 05-08 Manu is at 32.3mpg; Doncic 37.4 career, 36.8 last year ... it's significant but not so huge, especially if I've got a contender quality rotation). But between the gap (might be a gentle phrasing) on D, the impact gap ... personally I'm not sure I would be inclined to put Doncic in that lock bucket.

[Doctor MJ]

Is Luka a lock?

His usage is up at a point where PER is clearly on Doncic's side. BPM too though that (over?)likes high usage playmakers.

But Doncic prior to this season had little RS impact signal. Even this year, where they couldn't keep their secondary creator and have spent the bulk of the season wit Dinwiddie in that role ... +5.1 on-off ... is still a way behind 05-08 Manu +10.8 (larger sample, impact from a higher baseline, on a team less built around him ...).

From before his actual arrival in the league I rated Luka (as well as enjoyed watching him) and couldn't fathom how he wasn't taken first ... I feel I'm on the skeptical side now. Not that he isn't great. But for both the production (shooting efficiency [inc but not only foul draw] and turnover cut) and impact bounce ... I'd like to see it last longer to be more fully moved that that's what he is now (versus some part of it is luck).

I get that there are good reasons to be bullish on Doncic (inc playoffs, which some will trust in more than I - though cf Doc above or just Manu's playoff on-off or I imagine any impact-y family measure). I get that the mainstream anchors would pull heavily pro-Doncic. I get minutes (though ... playoff 05-08 Manu is at 32.3mpg; Doncic 37.4 career, 36.8 last year ... it's significant but not so huge, especially if I've got a contender quality rotation). But between the gap (might be a gentle phrasing) on D, the impact gap ... personally I'm not sure I would be inclined to put Doncic in that lock bucket.

Hmm, ya, I gotta comment on this.

So here's the thing about Luka especially, but also Jokic:

These are guys who have not yet proven that they can overcome their weaknesses to lead a team to a championship, and since in both cases "leading the team to a championship" is essentially unseparatable from "being a big minute starter on a championship team" in both cases because their weaknesses are so clear cut and targetable, for me, I think it's no given at all that either of these guys should be considered better than Ginobili - who was a strength on both sides of the ball.

I don't want to come off like I'm saying Ginobili is definitely better than them - I like everyone else will probably put Luka/Jokic ahead of Ginobili if and when they clear this gauntlet - but if they never do, then on what grounds are we really sure that they are better for building a championship team.

In the case of Jokic I'll say flat out that Jokic is clearly a better offensive player than Ginobili was, it really is the defense that's the question.

In the case of Luka, aside from defensive issues, there's the ultra-helio mentality that Luka's had to this point. People are so quick to say that Dallas is doing a bad job building around him, and while I'll certainly say they've made objective mistakes, we seem to be in a weird situation where it's not actually clear what kind of big-talent players you can expect to synergize with him and yet everyone seems to think that if Dallas hasn't figured this out, they are extremely incompetent relative to other NBA teams, and at the very least, I don't think that's fair to the team that actually traded up to get him at a place where several teams could have drafted him themselves.

I think that perhaps the real answer here is that building around Luka optimally is really hard. While the analogy to LeBron is frequently drawn for understandable reasons, I do have to emphasize two key differences:

1) LeBron was a legit elite defender who could also play the other side of the lob threat.

2) Luka's approach is more extreme than LeBron's by any sort of Usage-type stat I'm aware of, and I think there's just fundamentally a question of how much is too much for anyone.

Again, to be clear: Not saying Luka can't win a title like this. I don't know, and if Luka is able to turn the corner like this once, there's no reason to think he won't be able to do it again and again. But I think we have to acknowledge that there are reasons why NBA teams of the past largely avoided letting one player dominate the ball like Luka (or Trae for that matter), and so if it ends up being a problem, it shouldn't be something that makes us utterly shocked.

Now of course the theory of pairing him with Kyrie is that the ball will be out of his hands more. Maybe that's what will happen, and maybe that's all it will take...but I'd feel a lot better about this as a solution if Doncic were a high-motor off-ball player. As is, I'm honestly not sure what I'd want to prioritize in the slots next to Luka, so I feel some empathy for the inconsistency we seem to see from them.

[Doctor MJ]

This is a no brainer, Manu was arguably top 3 in his peak (if you count the olympics). Even assuming 2023 nba is stronger than 2005 youll never convince me that players like Lillard or Ja (fringe top 10 players) are better than peak Ginobili

He peaked in 2008... which two out of Kobe, CP3, LeBron and KG was he better than?

I guess you might be referring to '05, and yes he may have been top 3 that year but it was also a fairly weak season.

I'd take him over Ja and agree that he's likely top 10 in today's league but I think you're really underestimating Lillard here.

Manu peaked in 2005. 2008 regular season is a little better but 2005 postseason blows 2008 away. Manu was the most valuable player in the 2005 postseason and should have been FMVP.

I agree and would note that it's probably not a coincidence that this is happening after what he did in the 2004 Olympics. The thread is of course just about ranking players for NBA play, but if we take a step back and look at what Ginobili was accomplishing in that span, I don't see how any other point in his career can really compare.

Of course, this makes for a really hard truth about how Ginobili is perceived:

After the 2005 playoffs, the basketball world was ready for the proverbial leap - where Ginobili would "take the leap" to become a clear cut superstar. What this actually means, to my mind, is that a rising player gets a lot more primacy the next year, and scores a lot more points in impressive fashion. He wouldn't necessarily become a better player, he'd just be given more opportunity and with that opportunity the box score volume that would be recognized as "superstar".

But this didn't happen. To some degree this is about health, and to some degree this is about Pop choosing not to radically change the pecking order, but there's something more intriguing to me:

While Ginobili might have been proportionally more valuable with greater primacy, the thing is, Ginobili didn't actually need to take a leap to have the value of a superstar. He already had that impact beyond what his box score indicated, and while it would be great for him to improve even more, I'd argue the reality is that the basketball world felt a sense of disappointment into not becoming more, when there was literally a lot "more" happening in Ginobili's game already and it just wasn't yet part of the data diet of the broader NBA community.

That's the sort of dissonance that can make a guy get exceptionally underrated, which is something I like to look for in understanding past players.

[Bruh Man]

Guys I think he'd definitely not be better than:

Jokic
Embiid
Giannis
Doncic

Except for the missed games as a factor [maybe], I'd otherwise say he's got very little case against Steph Curry either.

Other guys who are at least "maybes", imo [if only due to minutes]:
Jimmy Buckets
SGA
Lillard
Tatum
LeBron
Durant

I think there's at least a little discussion to be had [even if I might favour Manu] against guys like Harden and Sabonis, too.


So for me, he's at best a fringe top 6(ish) player, though more likely only fringe top 10 [and potentially just slightly on the outside looking in].

You probably forget him but he's clearly not better than AD as well. He would probably be in the Morant/Booker range of players boderline top 10

[trex_8063]

You probably forget him but he's clearly not better than AD as well. He would probably be in the Morant/Booker range of players boderline top 10

I didn't forget AD, but I left him out because he's been so brittle this year: missed >40% the season so far. Any guarantees he'll hold it together until end of season??? I suppose if he's healthy and playing well the rest of the year, sure I suppose I'd take that very narrowly over peak Manu, at least if he hits playoff time healthy. But if he misses any more relevant time and/or is banged up come playoff time [assuming the Lakers even make the playoffs], then I just don't think I can take that over peak Manu.

[Clyde Frazier]

I didn't vote because I'm not sure, but he'd be all NBA level for sure with better looking numbers and hyper efficiency (~65% TS). As was always the case with Manu, how much is he going to play? I wouldn't ding him too much as long as he has a healthy season.

[Bruh Man]

You probably forget him but he's clearly not better than AD as well. He would probably be in the Morant/Booker range of players boderline top 10

I didn't forget AD, but I left him out because he's been so brittle this year: missed >40% the season so far. Any guarantees he'll hold it together until end of season??? I suppose if he's healthy and playing well the rest of the year, sure I suppose I'd take that very narrowly over peak Manu, at least if he hits playoff time healthy. But if he misses any more relevant time and/or is banged up come playoff time [assuming the Lakers even make the playoffs], then I just don't think I can take that over peak Manu.

You made a point to mention Curry who will likely miss a lot more games than AD, also it wasn't like Manu was iron man either has he played a complete 82 game season in his career? and his career minutes per game is around 25 compared to AD's 35, either way I would take AD for 60-70 games a season over 82 games with Manu even if he is healthy all year in this hypothetical. The discrepancy in talent is just way too big.