Current Anthony Edwards vs Peak Manu Ginobili

[durantbird]

Different types of players, but I'm interested to know which peak (considering current Ant) do you view as generally higher?

[Colbinii]

Manu. He was a pseudo-superstar

[mikejames23]

ANT is the better man for the Wolves, Manu is the better guy for the Spurs. However, peak Manu was really really good. I would go Manu by a little until ANT gets a little older and builds some more mileage. The poll looks like a blowout, then ANT's underrated, that guy has some of the same stuff that Top 50 all timers had.

[tsherkin]

Manu. He was a pseudo-superstar

Now the question follows; do you still use him as a 29 mpg player and try to make up the volume you lose with his general lack of MPG in the RS? Because Ant is supporting more volume than we saw at any point from Manu, and more MPG in the rotation. That's a common issue with "superstar" anything labels associated with Manu, impact notwithstanding.

[Colbinii]

Manu. He was a pseudo-superstar

Now the question follows; do you still use him as a 29 mpg player and try to make up the volume you lose with his general lack of MPG in the RS? Because Ant is supporting more volume than we saw at any point from Manu, and more MPG in the rotation. That's a common issue with "superstar" anything labels associated with Manu, impact notwithstanding.

Yeah Manu was essentially ahead of the curve in how his minutes were managed by Pop.

You do raise a good point though: is a higher per-minute impact player on less minutes better than a lower per-minute impact player on more minutes.

[tsherkin]

Yeah Manu was essentially ahead of the curve in how his minutes were managed by Pop.

You do raise a good point though: is a higher per-minute impact player on less minutes better than a lower per-minute impact player on more minutes.

Like, respect to Manu's impact, but depending on the quality in the REST of your roster, someone who can't handle the minutes load may actually be less valuable than his per-minute impact type stuff because there are still those other 19 mpg where the team tanks, you know what I mean? That's the basic premise. So his floor-raising, then, would be weaker. So depending on whether you need floor- or ceiling-raising, his utility may vacillate.

[Colbinii]

Yeah Manu was essentially ahead of the curve in how his minutes were managed by Pop.

You do raise a good point though: is a higher per-minute impact player on less minutes better than a lower per-minute impact player on more minutes.

Like, respect to Manu's impact, but depending on the quality in the REST of your roster, someone who can't handle the minutes load may actually be less valuable than his per-minute impact type stuff because there are still those other 19 mpg where the team tanks, you know what I mean? That's the basic premise.

Yeah, 100%.

So his floor-raising, then, would be weaker. So depending on whether you need floor- or ceiling-raising, his utility may vacillate.

I agree, Manu was in a near-perfect [Honestly, perfect] situation for his career. GOAT level coach, GOAT level big-man who did everything and a Lead-Ball Handler in Tony Parker [for most of his time at the Spurs].

He is the prototype for "Player who was maximized every minute he played".

Jumping back to ANT, I am hoping his improvements are exponential. His 32%+ Usage and 3.3 BPM is fantastic for a 22 year-old.

[tsherkin]

[
I agree, Manu was in a near-perfect [Honestly, perfect] situation for his career. GOAT level coach, GOAT level big-man who did everything and a Lead-Ball Handler in Tony Parker [for most of his time at the Spurs].

He is the prototype for "Player who was maximized every minute he played".

Yeah, San Antonio got exactly what they needed from him, and it worked out extremely well.

Jumping back to ANT, I am hoping his improvements are exponential. His 32%+ Usage and 3.3 BPM is fantastic for a 22 year-old.

We shall see what he does. He has been a fairly tepid RS scorer in terms of efficiency. And now that his playoff sample has advanced a little, seen some better defenses, his numbers there are starting to settle/normalize just a bit. He's shown some improvement each year, basically, even in the RS, and he does have a gently-upsloping trend to his efficiency, though he hasn't actually reached league-average efficiency over a RS yet. Still an interesting trend given his age and his likewise-increasing usage, though. Little uptick in his ability to draw fouls, somewhat lesser 3PAr, been finishing better in close, and his middle game was hotter this past season. I hope that keeps up. He needs that to be stronger and a little more frequent so he can deal with it when his 3 isn't falling.

[Owly]

Manu. He was a pseudo-superstar

Now the question follows; do you still use him as a 29 mpg player and try to make up the volume you lose with his general lack of MPG in the RS? Because Ant is supporting more volume than we saw at any point from Manu, and more MPG in the rotation. That's a common issue with "superstar" anything labels associated with Manu, impact notwithstanding.

Yeah Manu was essentially ahead of the curve in how his minutes were managed by Pop.

You do raise a good point though: is a higher per-minute impact player on less minutes better than a lower per-minute impact player on more minutes.

The obvious answer would be it depends on the specific players their impacts and minutes.

For Manu ...
Googlesites 97-14 RAPM had him 4th in that era with 2-4 looking like this

TD: 5.09
SO'N: 5.08
MG: 5.07

and their "RAPM points above average" had him 8th in that era behind Duncan, Garnett, James, Nowitzki, O'Neal, Bryant and Wade. He's between those top tier stars and the next guys.

Two angles from one version of one method of an all in one impact number. One can quibble with where you set the baseline for metrics (and this matters more in Manu's case as he's playing less ... he ranks lower on the "above replacement level" value - on the other hand this isn't giving anything like an exponential-ish curve for really high value play)... that given as a qualifier ... Manu looked hugely impactful and here pretty much so even after deducting for minutes. And noisy as it is ...so pinch of salt ... the on-off stuff looks better in the playoffs than RS for those tilting that way.

Even just boxside Manu, as a shooting guard has three seasons with a PER above 24 ... I'll just do a version of his RS prime 05-12 22.9 PER; .226 WS/48; 6.9 BPM (14914 RS minutes plus deep playoff runs).

Edwards clear cut best RS box was just south of 20 PER, 3.5 BPM and hit .130 WS/48. He's still young, his playoff numbers are much better. He has athletic tools.

Edwards raw on-off is positive, especially for such a young player.

If you're of the belief in general or specifically here that the playoff rise is "real", replicable etc then there's room for a lot more excitement than the RS shows.


Working with the Edwards that we've seen I'd take Manu and not close. Minutes is legit and we can't know if he could have handled more or not. We do know what he did. The impact signal in at least one impact cumulative measure (RAPM points above average) is big ... if you have a non-rotation worthy guard playing ... what would a normal 3rd guard get ... say 28 minutes instead of 21 does that hurt ... yeah a bit. If he's that bad he's really hurting you anyway. I guess it depends on your rotations and what you have ... maybe you get the minutes from different places ... I think if you're trying to win titles you probably have mostly non-junky rotation minutes. And while you'd like more Manu level play out there ... if you can stay afloat when he's off, what we saw was pretty amazing with him on.

[tsherkin]

If you're of the belief in general or specifically here that the playoff rise is "real", replicable etc then there's room for a lot more excitement than the RS shows.

I think his potential is quite clear. It's worth remembering that in 2023, he shot 56% inside the arc in the playoffs, which feels a bit isolated. Was a 5-game series, was WELL above his usual rates, etc, etc. He shot 57.7% from 3-10 and 50% from 10-16, which are also not sustainable percentages.

He's athletic, he's got decent size, he's got a shot, he has handles. Like, the tools are there. And he's still young, he has the opportunity, etc, etc. So he is definitely one to watch.

if you can stay afloat when he's off, what we saw was pretty amazing with him on.

And that's my concern. Most teams don't do well enough with a star playing <= 30 mpg. And then you have to consider pay scale for a guy playing those minutes, right? So like, significant impact or not, you're going to be at least somewhat ameliorated if you can't play normal-ish minutes. Now, he peaked around 32 mpg, didn't he? And that isn't far different from the 33-35 that we see from a lot of contemporary stars, in fairness. So if he could manage that consistently...

[Owly]

If you're of the belief in general or specifically here that the playoff rise is "real", replicable etc then there's room for a lot more excitement than the RS shows.

I think his potential is quite clear. It's worth remembering that in 2023, he shot 56% inside the arc in the playoffs, which feels a bit isolated. Was a 5-game series, was WELL above his usual rates, etc, etc. He shot 57.7% from 3-10 and 50% from 10-16, which are also not sustainable percentages.

He's athletic, he's got decent size, he's got a shot, he has handles. Like, the tools are there. And he's still young, he has the opportunity, etc, etc. So he is definitely one to watch.

if you can stay afloat when he's off, what we saw was pretty amazing with him on.

And that's my concern. Most teams don't do well enough with a star playing <= 30 mpg. And then you have to consider pay scale for a guy playing those minutes, right? So like, significant impact or not, you're going to be at least somewhat ameliorated if you can't play normal-ish minutes. Now, he peaked around 32 mpg, didn't he? And that isn't far different from the 33-35 that we see from a lot of contemporary stars, in fairness. So if he could manage that consistently...

I think 30 is an arbitrary threshold cutoff though. If you play Manu 2 extra mpg and he plays horribly in them all his stats still look amazing.

And if pay is a factor ...congratulations ... you just got a lower minute superstar that isn't getting paid like a superstar but like Bobby Simmons. Okay so Simmons was bagged on (and actually a decent player) ... I can see various sites but not one to easily rank salaries that seems comprehensive but in prime it seems like he's always less than half the top paid player in the league, scrapes over in '12 but often quite a bit less.

It depends on team construction. Maybe if you have exactly 6 other guys worthy of playoff rotation, they're all already at maximum load and the say 6 "extra" minutes he doesn't give you are all from scrubs ... it hurts. As I say if you're trying to be a serious contender ... you should be have someone who can keep you afloat. They don't have to be amazing. Just don't undo the big advantage Manu gave you when on. I think he's better for a good team but I don't think of that as a problem.

And even if you were bleeding with him off, and tiny samples here, colinearity, Duncan's on the team, take it with a pinch of salt ... playoff Spurs with Manu off (On - On-off)
-7 title ('03)
-7.3
-9.6 title ('05)
-14.4
1.0 title ('07)
-4.2
-5.8
-15.8
13.3 ('12 arguably end of high production prime)
7
3.6 title ('14)
3.9
5.9
0.8
-15.1

Missing '09 when ... without Manu they get dumped in the first round 1-4 with a -6.6 netrtg (by the 6th seed 1.68 SRS Mavs). In prime they don't look amazing (to put it mildly) with Manu off ... so with all the caveats ... you could be pretty good, as those Spurs were, even if you were hurting with him off.

On-off is noisy uneven competition etc I'm not saying it's good player barometer in these type samples ... it's a limited scope point ... we have a sample where his absent minutes are hurting ... and the team was still amazing because they're great with him on. And so far as I can tell off stuff like RAPM ...and maybe it's wrong ... it doesn't seem like he was just lucky with teammates.

[tsherkin]

I think 30 is an arbitrary threshold cutoff though. If you play Manu 2 extra mpg and he plays horribly in them all his stats still look amazing.

This escapes the point I made later in my post, I think. He's pretty close to MPG from a bunch of contemporary stars, which I said specifically as a mitigation of this factor to some extent.

And if pay is a factor ...congratulations ... you just got a lower minute superstar that isn't getting paid like a superstar but like Bobby Simmons.

Not what I meant. I meant, if he was getting paid like a superstar, then that would be an issue. If he ISN'T getting paid that way, then it's fantastic.

Just don't undo the big advantage Manu gave you when on. I think he's better for a good team but I don't think of that as a problem.

I think he's considerably worse for floor-raising, personally, but amazing for an already-good team. I feel that's pretty self-explanatory, though what the specific cut-off is for team quality is surely fuzzy.

[JimmyFromNz]

I love this comparison because its very stark in play style and in the other irrelevant extraneous factors (popularity, demeanour, background). I'm sure others will go into detail on this, but I voted Manu if considering purely peak.

I'd never be accused of being a Manu 'truther', I'm highly suspicious of his career outlook and ranking among many. But the blend of his game and yes 'impact' during the short lived peak is so much more meaningful than 'current' Ant, who is essentially a super talented upstart, gradually mastering his scoring game whilst having a lot of room for improvement in all other aspects. Peak Manu is pretty much better at nearly all aspects of basketball, except obviously the very impressive brute athleticism Ant possesses.

If we have this conversation in a couple of years, once Ant's game rounds out, it might look different.

[tsherkin]

On-off is noisy uneven competition etc I'm not saying it's good player barometer in these type samples ... it's a limited scope point ... we have a sample where his absent minutes are hurting ... and the team was still amazing because they're great with him on. And so far as I can tell off stuff like RAPM ...and maybe it's wrong ... it doesn't seem like he was just lucky with teammates.

I hasten to add, since we have been back and forth a bit, that it IS an interesting discussion. It probably seems like Im settled on Ant, but I am very much chewing on it. Manu's so unconventional in his MPG and his case is heavily rooted on RAPM (which I trust only so far in comparisons of guys in different contexts/roles), it isnt something I accept. But it is a fun thing to ponder.

[Doctor MJ]

Manu. He was a pseudo-superstar

Now the question follows; do you still use him as a 29 mpg player and try to make up the volume you lose with his general lack of MPG in the RS? Because Ant is supporting more volume than we saw at any point from Manu, and more MPG in the rotation. That's a common issue with "superstar" anything labels associated with Manu, impact notwithstanding.

My answer: You just treat Ginobili like a superstar and play him as such.

I think a lot of the debate about Ginobili's limited minutes comes from the same era where he was leading Argentina to a Gold Medal in a pretty traditional alpha role. I doubt we'd have ever thought Ginobili needed to play less minutes if Pop had better understood what to do with him.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah Manu was essentially ahead of the curve in how his minutes were managed by Pop.

You do raise a good point though: is a higher per-minute impact player on less minutes better than a lower per-minute impact player on more minutes.

Like, respect to Manu's impact, but depending on the quality in the REST of your roster, someone who can't handle the minutes load may actually be less valuable than his per-minute impact type stuff because there are still those other 19 mpg where the team tanks, you know what I mean? That's the basic premise.

Yeah, 100%.

So his floor-raising, then, would be weaker. So depending on whether you need floor- or ceiling-raising, his utility may vacillate.

I agree, Manu was in a near-perfect [Honestly, perfect] situation for his career. GOAT level coach...

And I'll say:

GOAT candidate coach whose most embarrassing mistake was in not understanding what to do with Ginobili.

So yeah, not the perfect situation. Still better than he'd get most other places in a time where strategy was so backward, but Ginobili didn't need to learn about basketball from the NBA, Pop needed to learn about basketball from international strategists.

If Ginobili had ended up playing for D'Antoni in that time frame he could have been a serious MVP candidate. Instead he played for Pop and was never anything like that...except literally everywhere he ever played (South America, Europe, etc) other than when he played for Pop.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, San Antonio got exactly what they needed from him, and it worked out extremely well.

I disagree. I think it's a mistake to think that winning X titles means you couldn't have done better.

If the 2000s Spurs had had a 2010s-Spurs level offense, there's every reason to think they win more than 3 titles in that time period.

And I would argue that was basically no reason the 2000s Spurs couldn't have run those offenses earlier. The only reason they didn't is because they thought running the offense through Duncan was their best option. Understandable why they thought that at the time, but they were wrong.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, San Antonio got exactly what they needed from him, and it worked out extremely well.

I disagree. I think it's a mistake to think that winning X titles means you couldn't have done better.

That... isn't what I said at all.

I said they got what they needed from him and in worked out well, not that it could not have been better.

If the 2000s Spurs had had a 2010s-Spurs level offense, there's every reason to think they win more than 3 titles in that time period.

Suuuuure, but in the 2010s, they had wildly different rosters, so I'm not sure I'm connecting with the relevance.

The 2000s Spurs had a very different, very much lower-ceiling roster for the purposes of offense. Later, they'd add a lot more shooters AROUND the core. And Parker got better. years of George Hill, significantly improved Parker, some decent years from RJ killing it from 3, a lot of Matt Bonner, some quality bench seasons from Boris Diaw, a whole lot of Danny Green, and a crap ton of Kawhi.

So yeah, I don't really see how that has anything to do with Manu and the 2000s rosters at all, to be honest. And even less with what I said.

And I would argue that was basically no reason the 2000s Spurs couldn't have run those offenses earlier. The only reason they didn't is because they thought running the offense through Duncan was their best option. Understandable why they thought that at the time, but they were wrong.

That is quite possibly the case, though again, disconnected from anything I said at all.

[tsherkin]

My answer: You just treat Ginobili like a superstar and play him as such.

I think a lot of the debate about Ginobili's limited minutes comes from the same era where he was leading Argentina to a Gold Medal in a pretty traditional alpha role. I doubt we'd have ever thought Ginobili needed to play less minutes if Pop had better understood what to do with him.

It's possible he could handle more. He did have health issues the entire time in the NBA, so it isn't an unfounded concern over his minutes limitations. But it's possible that he would have been about the same regardless, for sure. And if he could maintain that impact over those larger minutes, great. He didn't, so it will forever remain a question. And I don't know that him playing 30 mpg in FIBA is really much proof that he could play more minutes in the NBA, either. Because that's about what he played for Kinder Bologna and Argentina from 00-16.

[McBubbles]

Hot Take - Manu is somewhat overrated in these parts on account him ticking off the PC Boards strongest biases. Unselfish, elite passing, elite defending dood with a huge Per Possession non-boxscore impact profile. These are good biases to have obviously because they're biases based on things that have proven to be correlated to racking up W's BUT they also lead people to overlook Manu's flaw, which people know that he has but gloss over anyway which I feel like has been perfectly exemplified in this thread.

Let's look at Prime Manu from 2005 to 2011. Whilst playing on one of the slowest teams in the league mind you with an average pace of 89.7 and an average pace ranking of 23rd, whilst also averaging 69.7 games a season and 42.2 starts a season, Many only averaged 29.0 MPG. Other players in this timeframe;

Lebron - 40.2 minutes.
Kobe - 38.5 minutes.
Wade - 37.9.
Dirk - 37.0.
Dwight - 36.0
KG 35.
Nash 34.

Manu had comparable minutes to 2005 to 2011 Shaq, who averaged 28.7 minutes.

Manu is playing 8-10 fewer minutes per game than the calibre of players he's being compared to (and the players that he out performs statistically) which will obviously somewhat inflate how good his impact numbers look due to his lower volume of possessions.

Everything I've just said has already been acknowledged. My issue is that people will pay lip service to what I just said being an issue but then obviously not care lol. They'll say what I just said and then go "But if you take his numbers with a pinch of salt / at face value / with the benefit of the doubt / with the luck of the Irish then he's actually a superstar that could have played about 33-34 minutes per game today"

What the **** ?

So Manu routinely playing 15% to 25% fewer possessions than his superstar peers isn't a result of his very well documented durability issues, but is actually a result of Greg Popovich being an idiot. So much so that despite Manu only playing over 30MPG TWICE in his entire career, and playing nearly exactly the same amount of minutes per game internationally without Popovich as he did in the NBA with Popovich whilst also having worse teammates, he could actually now average more minutes than his career high in the pace and space era?

It is just casually implied that the most ridiculously optimistic evaluation of Manu human possible should actually the baseline evaluation for him and I see absolutely no reason why this should be the case. No other player on this board gets treated this way.