RealGM

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?

durantbird wrote: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?

Probably 3? They obviously still win in 99, likely still in 03 because Manu wasn't particularly impressive that run, and probably 2014 with Kawhi. 05 and 07 become a lot more interesting, though. The Pistons took them for a RIDE in 05, and Manu was rocking 19/6/5 on 63.6% TS in those Finals (which was +10.2% rTS for the playoffs) while Duncan sad-sacked it at 47.1% TS on 20.6 ppg. They might not have even made the Finals without him, as he was their second-leading scorer and most dynamic perimeter player. In 07, Parker had emerged offensively and Manu was kinda bleh in the playoffs, so I think they might have still been fine there.

So maybe 3 or 4? Probably 3.

2005 and 2007 are definitely off the table. Even 2003 is a question mark, that team wasn't very talented and I'm not sure they could afford to lose a key bench contributor. Given how well he played in that series, I don't think they beat the Lakers if you take him off the team.

The real question to me is how long Duncan sticks around. Say they lose in the second round or something in 2003, and the still-raw Parker is looking like their only young player worth talking about. Does he even resign in the summer?

durantbird wrote: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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doctor MJ wrote:

durantbird wrote: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?

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

durantbird wrote: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?

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

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.

Doctor MJ wrote: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 think 2005 and 2007 are definitely off the table.

In 2003, Manu was just a role player, but he did have the 5th most playoff minutes on the team and they absolutely dominated his minutes in the playoffs (+15.9 net rating in those minutes). Granted, that’s a low sample size and at that point it was largely just a product of sharing the court a lot with Duncan, but it can make a big difference to replace one quality major rotation player with a worse player. And, indeed, the Spurs absolutely dominated the Duncan/Manu playoff minutes in 2003 but did genuinely badly in the Duncan minutes without Manu. So, while Duncan was obviously the one driving that team, I think there’s a good chance that they’re unable to win the title if they don’t have Manu, just like a lot of teams might not have won the title if you took away a major role player that had serious playoff impact (consider, for instance, whether the 2023 Nuggets win without Bruce Brown or the 2022 Warriors without Otto Porter Jr., etc.). These sorts of players aren’t the reason their team is great, but they can often make a real difference in terms of why their great team beat other great teams in the playoffs.

So then we’re left with 2014. I’m going to again say they probably don’t win without Manu. In general, that team was great regardless of who was on the court and they were a deep team, so it’s definitely tempting to say that the loss of a specific player wouldn’t have made a big difference. And they did win some series very easily. But they also only beat the Mavericks in the first round in 7 games, and Manu was a key performer in that series for them, and they got killed without him on the floor. I think they almost certainly lose that series without Manu. That said, if Manu wasn’t on the team, maybe the seeding would be different and they’d never have faced the Mavericks. To me, though, the chances that in this hypothetical world they don’t face a single team that Manu makes the difference against is not very likely, though I do think it’s possible.

I guess the other thing to consider is whether they might’ve won in other years if they didn’t have him. As in, were there years they didn’t win a title where Manu hurt them and they’d have won if they didn’t have him? I tend to doubt it, but one potential option for that theory is 2013. The Spurs swept two of the series, so it seems reasonable to think they would’ve won those without Manu. Meanwhile, the series against the Warriors went to 6 games, but it’s hard to say they would’ve lost without Manu, since Manu had a pretty rough series (though they did fine with him on the court). They then barely lost the Finals, with Manu having an off series, and the team did way better with him off than they did with him on. Could they have won the title that year without Manu? It feels like a situation where it’s possible, though it’s hard to know.

So I’m left with a few years where I think it’s possible that they win without Manu but that they probably don’t. Which makes me estimate that, beyond obviously 1999, the Spurs probably would’ve nabbed one other title, but I’m not at all sure what year it would’ve happened.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote: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.

Indeed, and I've never let it go. The fact that in analogous circumstances afterward the NBA didn't suspend the players again is essentially an admission that they swung the series with a bad policy, and that series was the one that determined the champion, and led NBA insiders to further push Sarver to give up on pace & space when it should have been seen as the way forward for all teams.
Epic screw up.

tsherkin wrote:

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.

So, what I think is that:

1. Small sample size +/ needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

2. Players who play less minutes are at times having minutes cherry-picked by their coach, which means statistical impact signals will be inflated compared to how valuable the player actually is.

3. Players who simply can't play as many minutes are that much less valuable no matter how good they are when they do play.

In the year 2003 it made perfect sense to not get too excited with Ginobili leading the champion in playoff +/- based on (1) & (2)...but then he was ultra-impactful basically his entire career and whenever the Spurs actually emerged as champions, it was always on the back of stark +/- impact from Ginobili.

For this reason, I don't see (1) or (2) as legit concerns when we retrospectively evaluate Ginobili's career.

(3) remains a concern, but that's a concern that only matters when ranking Ginobili against superstars. The fact he played a bit fewer minutes doesn't change the fact that he was having epic impact when he played, and that impact was critical in the team being able to win chips.

So then, I would consider Duncan to generally be more valuable overall because a) he makes up for lesser per minute impact with minutes, and b) he makes up for inferior offense with superior defense, with the principle exception being 2005 after Duncan's injury.

Doctor MJ wrote:Indeed, and I've never let it go. The fact that in analogous circumstances afterward the NBA didn't suspend the players again is essentially an admission that they swung the series with a bad policy, and that series was the one that determined the champion, and led NBA insiders to further push Sarver to give up on pace & space when it should have been seen as the way forward for all teams.
Epic screw up.

Agreed all around.

1. Small sample size +/ needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

2. Players who play less minutes are at times having minutes cherry-picked by their coach, which means statistical impact signals will be inflated compared to how valuable the player actually is.

3. Players who simply can't play as many minutes are that much less valuable no matter how good they are when they do play.

Yep.

In the year 2003 it made perfect sense to not get too excited with Ginobili leading the champion in playoff +/- based on (1) & (2)...but then he was ultra-impactful basically his entire career and whenever the Spurs actually emerged as champions, it was always on the back of stark +/- impact from Ginobili.

For this reason, I don't see (1) or (2) as legit concerns when we retrospectively evaluate Ginobili's career.

(3) remains a concern, but that's a concern that only matters when ranking Ginobili against superstars. The fact he played a bit fewer minutes doesn't change the fact that he was having epic impact when he played, and that impact was critical in the team being able to win chips.

Yeah, I mean, it depends on how you interpret the finding. If you want to describe him as a highly-effective roleplay, then sure. That dovetails nicely with, say, late-career John Stockton. Not actually a star-level player by any stretch of the imagination, but very effective in his much-reduced and limited role.

So then, I would consider Duncan to generally be more valuable overall because a) he makes up for lesser per minute impact with minutes, and b) he makes up for inferior offense with superior defense, with the principle exception being 2005 after Duncan's injury.

Agreed. Though even there, Duncan takes a hit relative to some guys who were still getting it done with more intensive minutes at similar stages of their careers while retaining efficacy. Still, the Spurs knew how to maximize what they were getting out of their guys. In retrospect, that's even more clear than it was at the time.

Regardless, I think everyone can agree that Manu was quite effective in his role. He was efficient, he was versatile, he was a good defender and he put a lot of north-south pressure on a defense. And obviously an earlier proponent of the Eurostep, though naturally it had been in the league well before that.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Indeed, and I've never let it go. The fact that in analogous circumstances afterward the NBA didn't suspend the players again is essentially an admission that they swung the series with a bad policy, and that series was the one that determined the champion, and led NBA insiders to further push Sarver to give up on pace & space when it should have been seen as the way forward for all teams.
Epic screw up.

Agreed all around.

1. Small sample size +/ needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

2. Players who play less minutes are at times having minutes cherry-picked by their coach, which means statistical impact signals will be inflated compared to how valuable the player actually is.

3. Players who simply can't play as many minutes are that much less valuable no matter how good they are when they do play.

Yep.

In the year 2003 it made perfect sense to not get too excited with Ginobili leading the champion in playoff +/- based on (1) & (2)...but then he was ultra-impactful basically his entire career and whenever the Spurs actually emerged as champions, it was always on the back of stark +/- impact from Ginobili.

For this reason, I don't see (1) or (2) as legit concerns when we retrospectively evaluate Ginobili's career.

(3) remains a concern, but that's a concern that only matters when ranking Ginobili against superstars. The fact he played a bit fewer minutes doesn't change the fact that he was having epic impact when he played, and that impact was critical in the team being able to win chips.

Yeah, I mean, it depends on how you interpret the finding. If you want to describe him as a highly-effective roleplay, then sure. That dovetails nicely with, say, late-career John Stockton. Not actually a star-level player by any stretch of the imagination, but very effective in his much-reduced and limited role.

So then, I would consider Duncan to generally be more valuable overall because a) he makes up for lesser per minute impact with minutes, and b) he makes up for inferior offense with superior defense, with the principle exception being 2005 after Duncan's injury.

Agreed. Though even there, Duncan takes a hit relative to some guys who were still getting it done with more intensive minutes at similar stages of their careers while retaining efficacy. Still, the Spurs knew how to maximize what they were getting out of their guys. In retrospect, that's even more clear than it was at the time.

Regardless, I think everyone can agree that Manu was quite effective in his role. He was efficient, he was versatile, he was a good defender and he put a lot of north-south pressure on a defense. And obviously an earlier proponent of the Eurostep, though naturally it had been in the league well before that.

Just quoting the whole thing in recognition that we are mostly seeing things the same way.

Re: Ginobili kinda like late-career Stockton. A good comparison to bring up, but I'd draw a distinction based on how the coach was playing each guy.

pbpstats only has it back to '00-01 and that's easy query so I'll use that.

It probably goes without saying that every year Malone was the guy Stockton was playing the most with, but if we break it down by percentage:

From '00-01 to '02-03 RS, Stockton played 87% of his minutes with Malone.
From '02-03 to '13-14 RS, Ginobili played 63% of his minutes with Duncan.

(In the playoffs both numbers go up with Stockton still playing far more with Malone than Ginobili did with Duncan.)

This then to say that Sloan didn't stagger Malone & Stockton the way Pop did with Duncan & Ginobili, and so Stockton was largely able to depend on Malone being the focus of the defense all the time whereas Ginobili was specifically positioned in lineups with the knowledge that he not only didn't depend on Duncan, but that the Duncan-oriented offense often got in his way.

Incidentally this also relates to why I'm cautious about calling Stockton better or more valuable than Malone despite what the +/- stats tell us. Yes, the average lineup with Stockton in it was more effective than the average lineup with Malone in it...but that's got something to do with the fact that those Stockton lineups had Malone in them too.

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Ginobili kinda like late-career Stockton. A good comparison to bring up, but I'd draw a distinction based on how the coach was playing each guy.

pbpstats only has it back to '00-01 and that's easy query so I'll use that.

It probably goes without saying that every year Malone was the guy Stockton was playing the most with, but if we break it down by percentage:

From '00-01 to '02-03 RS, Stockton played 87% of his minutes with Malone.
From '02-03 to '13-14 RS, Ginobili played 63% of his minutes with Duncan.

(In the playoffs both numbers go up with Stockton still playing far more with Malone than Ginobili did with Duncan.)

This then to say that Sloan didn't stagger Malone & Stockton the way Pop did with Duncan & Ginobili, and so Stockton was largely able to depend on Malone being the focus of the defense all the time whereas Ginobili was specifically positioned in lineups with the knowledge that he not only didn't depend on Duncan, but that the Duncan-oriented offense often got in his way.

Incidentally this also relates to why I'm cautious about calling Stockton better or more valuable than Malone despite what the +/- stats tell us. Yes, the average lineup with Stockton in it was more effective than the average lineup with Malone in it...but that's got something to do with the fact that those Stockton lineups had Malone in them too.

Sure, it isn't a perfect comparison. I only meant that the +/- numbers are INSANE, but that doesn't really reflect a level of impact comparable to a superstar you know? It just means he did his job very well inside the context in which he was operating, and that often gets lost.

The point about staggered minutes is relevant, though, it's a good thing to note. And Manu was a dynamic guy. His sin is more that he couldn't play more. And I credit Pops for seeing that and managing that to great effect. He was quite adept at deploying his players intelligently. Manu had an excellent handle, much more quickness than I remembered until I did a tracking post from back in the 07 Finals, shot well, saw the floor and passed well. He was a complete player. He could slash, he could PnR, he could do a little of everything. Once Pops both reined him in a little and accepted some of the wildness, he became quite useful in his role.

Stockton couldn't elevate his scoring. That was his biggest sin. He flatly didn't have the juice to do it, and that cost Utah at least one title, probably more. If they'd had Chris Paul instead of him, Utah probably wins in 98 at least, but Stockton just didn't have the tools to do it. Stockton would have been more ideal as a #3 than a #2.

Still, playing 2/3s of his minutes with Duncan is still significant for Manu, independent of the Stockton comparison, especially given his overall low minutes to begin with.

Manu ranks 9th all time in career RAPM so I'd say the Spurs get a quite a bit worse https://xrapm.com/table_pages/RAPM_29y.html

No titles. Couple fewer wins in '03, drops them to the 3 seed. Dallas beats Sacramento in the conference finals and goes on to win the title.

Dallas never tries their stupid all in on offense '04 approach and Nash/Dirk lead a dynasty through about '10 (not every title, but 3-4 over the period). Duncan leaves San Antonio sometime around '06.

Pop isn't seen as a top 20 coach all-time.

Doctor MJ wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Indeed, and I've never let it go. The fact that in analogous circumstances afterward the NBA didn't suspend the players again is essentially an admission that they swung the series with a bad policy, and that series was the one that determined the champion, and led NBA insiders to further push Sarver to give up on pace & space when it should have been seen as the way forward for all teams.
Epic screw up.

Agreed all around.

1. Small sample size +/ needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

2. Players who play less minutes are at times having minutes cherry-picked by their coach, which means statistical impact signals will be inflated compared to how valuable the player actually is.

3. Players who simply can't play as many minutes are that much less valuable no matter how good they are when they do play.

Yep.

In the year 2003 it made perfect sense to not get too excited with Ginobili leading the champion in playoff +/- based on (1) & (2)...but then he was ultra-impactful basically his entire career and whenever the Spurs actually emerged as champions, it was always on the back of stark +/- impact from Ginobili.

For this reason, I don't see (1) or (2) as legit concerns when we retrospectively evaluate Ginobili's career.

(3) remains a concern, but that's a concern that only matters when ranking Ginobili against superstars. The fact he played a bit fewer minutes doesn't change the fact that he was having epic impact when he played, and that impact was critical in the team being able to win chips.

Yeah, I mean, it depends on how you interpret the finding. If you want to describe him as a highly-effective roleplay, then sure. That dovetails nicely with, say, late-career John Stockton. Not actually a star-level player by any stretch of the imagination, but very effective in his much-reduced and limited role.

So then, I would consider Duncan to generally be more valuable overall because a) he makes up for lesser per minute impact with minutes, and b) he makes up for inferior offense with superior defense, with the principle exception being 2005 after Duncan's injury.

Agreed. Though even there, Duncan takes a hit relative to some guys who were still getting it done with more intensive minutes at similar stages of their careers while retaining efficacy. Still, the Spurs knew how to maximize what they were getting out of their guys. In retrospect, that's even more clear than it was at the time.

Regardless, I think everyone can agree that Manu was quite effective in his role. He was efficient, he was versatile, he was a good defender and he put a lot of north-south pressure on a defense. And obviously an earlier proponent of the Eurostep, though naturally it had been in the league well before that.

Incidentally this also relates to why I'm cautious about calling Stockton better or more valuable than Malone despite what the +/- stats tell us. Yes, the average lineup with Stockton in it was more effective than the average lineup with Malone in it...but that's got something to do with the fact that those Stockton lineups had Malone in them too.

I mean we have RAPM data for the tailend of Stockton and Malone's career and they tend to put Stockton in a tier above Stockton. Other stuff like DPM and EPM from the end of Stockton's career also puts him above Malone

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Ginobili kinda like late-career Stockton. A good comparison to bring up, but I'd draw a distinction based on how the coach was playing each guy.

pbpstats only has it back to '00-01 and that's easy query so I'll use that.

It probably goes without saying that every year Malone was the guy Stockton was playing the most with, but if we break it down by percentage:

From '00-01 to '02-03 RS, Stockton played 87% of his minutes with Malone.
From '02-03 to '13-14 RS, Ginobili played 63% of his minutes with Duncan.

(In the playoffs both numbers go up with Stockton still playing far more with Malone than Ginobili did with Duncan.)

This then to say that Sloan didn't stagger Malone & Stockton the way Pop did with Duncan & Ginobili, and so Stockton was largely able to depend on Malone being the focus of the defense all the time whereas Ginobili was specifically positioned in lineups with the knowledge that he not only didn't depend on Duncan, but that the Duncan-oriented offense often got in his way.

Incidentally this also relates to why I'm cautious about calling Stockton better or more valuable than Malone despite what the +/- stats tell us. Yes, the average lineup with Stockton in it was more effective than the average lineup with Malone in it...but that's got something to do with the fact that those Stockton lineups had Malone in them too.

Sure, it isn't a perfect comparison. I only meant that the +/- numbers are INSANE, but that doesn't really reflect a level of impact comparable to a superstar you know? It just means he did his job very well inside the context in which he was operating, and that often gets lost.

The point about staggered minutes is relevant, though, it's a good thing to note. And Manu was a dynamic guy. His sin is more that he couldn't play more. And I credit Pops for seeing that and managing that to great effect. He was quite adept at deploying his players intelligently. Manu had an excellent handle, much more quickness than I remembered until I did a tracking post from back in the 07 Finals, shot well, saw the floor and passed well. He was a complete player. He could slash, he could PnR, he could do a little of everything. Once Pops both reined him in a little and accepted some of the wildness, he became quite useful in his role.

Stockton couldn't elevate his scoring. That was his biggest sin. He flatly didn't have the juice to do it, and that cost Utah at least one title, probably more. If they'd had Chris Paul instead of him, Utah probably wins in 98 at least, but Stockton just didn't have the tools to do it. Stockton would have been more ideal as a #3 than a #2.

Still, playing 2/3s of his minutes with Duncan is still significant for Manu, independent of the Stockton comparison, especially given his overall low minutes to begin with.

I definitely see the similarities you're pointing to and see that you're acknowledging my general point.

Re: Manu's sin was he couldn't play more, credit Pop for seeing that. To be clear, I don't see it as clear that this was something Pop concluded correctly or even concluded at all. Pop talked about a) being 180 wrong about what Ginobili was doing on the court eary on, and b) feeling bad screwing Ginobili's glory over by having him play 6th man. I think a lot of the stuff in the early years wasn't about Ginobili running out of juice so much as it was that Pop was prioritizing his primary lineup around Duncan, and looked to use Ginobili-led lineups when Duncan was resting.

Re: playing 2/3rds of his minutes with Duncan is still significant. Significant how? Of course playing on the same team as Duncan meant Ginobili was playing on better teams, but that was primarily about the team's defense. There's absolutely no reason, imho, to think that Ginobili's offensive impact was dependent on a volume scoring post threat hitting 55% TS.

But then I'm also of the opinion that the team giving up the Duncan-led offense is what allowed that offense to finally become great in the years after Duncan's prime in a way they couldn't when Duncan was a better player, and that Duncan in today's game would be taught to be a supporting offensive player because he's not good enough to alpha in a league that understands pace & space.

Ginobili, by contrast, very much represented the future of NBA offense in addition to being more offensively impactful in general.

Doctor MJ wrote: Pop talked about a) being 180 wrong about what Ginobili was doing on the court eary on,

Yep. That's why I talked about him accepting the wildness.

and b) feeling bad screwing Ginobili's glory over by having him play 6th man. I think a lot of the stuff in the early years wasn't about Ginobili running out of juice so much as it was that Pop was prioritizing his primary lineup around Duncan, and looked to use Ginobili-led lineups when Duncan was resting.

I mean, Manu also tended to rack up injuries with his play style, so it was appropriate for him to be minutes-limited.

But then I'm also of the opinion that the team giving up the Duncan-led offense is what allowed that offense to finally become great in the years after Duncan's prime in a way they couldn't when Duncan was a better player, and that Duncan in today's game would be taught to be a supporting offensive player because he's not good enough to alpha in a league that understands pace & space.

Yes, much beyond 2003, I agree with that. A more perimeter-oriented offense was much better, particularly once their overall defensive dominance began to decline pre-Kawhi.

Special_Puppy wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Incidentally this also relates to why I'm cautious about calling Stockton better or more valuable than Malone despite what the +/- stats tell us. Yes, the average lineup with Stockton in it was more effective than the average lineup with Malone in it...but that's got something to do with the fact that those Stockton lineups had Malone in them too.

I mean we have RAPM data for the tailend of Stockton and Malone's career and they tend to put Stockton in a tier above Stockton. Other stuff like DPM and EPM from the end of Stockton's career also puts him above Malone

To be clear, I'm saying that these type of stats can overrate a player who plays less in a situation where like this.
It's not just a raw +/- thing, it's a thing that cannot be definitively normalized for with regression.

Let's consider it just this way:

What if Player A & Player B are equally effective players in the abstract, and equally synergistic with each other, but Player A gets tired faster and so the coach proactively rests him more while riding Player B indefinitely even though Player B is getting tired along the way.

RAPM can't know how tired each player is when they play, and so if the guy playing more minutes is on average playing at lower energy levels, he's going to be less effective per minute of play and score lower on RAPM despite the fact the cause of this statistical lowering is him playing while the other guy rides the pine.

RAPM has no choice but to rank the well-rested player higher...but we as humans can see that there's more to the story than that.

Incidentally, the Stockton vs Malone question is one that has always made me want to see complete +/- data for the entirety of their careers, and we still don't have that, so my opinion may change if and when we do get that.

However, the numbers we've received since then from the '90s have definitely supported Malone's case relative to Stockton's in my assessment, and this also makes me take the '00s data with a larger grain of salt. We literally might be talking about a scenario where all of Stockton's apparent advantage disappears if he and Malone just play comparable minutes.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote: Pop talked about a) being 180 wrong about what Ginobili was doing on the court eary on,

Yep. That's why I talked about him accepting the wildness.

and b) feeling bad screwing Ginobili's glory over by having him play 6th man. I think a lot of the stuff in the early years wasn't about Ginobili running out of juice so much as it was that Pop was prioritizing his primary lineup around Duncan, and looked to use Ginobili-led lineups when Duncan was resting.

I mean, Manu also tended to rack up injuries with his play style, so it was appropriate for him to be minutes-limited.

But then I'm also of the opinion that the team giving up the Duncan-led offense is what allowed that offense to finally become great in the years after Duncan's prime in a way they couldn't when Duncan was a better player, and that Duncan in today's game would be taught to be a supporting offensive player because he's not good enough to alpha in a league that understands pace & space.

Yes, much beyond 2003, I agree with that. A more perimeter-oriented offense was much better, particularly once their overall defensive dominance began to decline pre-Kawhi.

Again acknowledging our agreement up front.

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?

If we start from the first year Pop played Ginobili serious RS minutes ('03-04) through his age 30 season ('07-08), the big 3 looks like this by RS games played:

Parker 381
Duncan 373
Ginobili 365

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'll grant you that there was a fear that Ginobili's extreme playing style made Spur coaches think he couldn't play more, but they also thought they understood better how to construct an offense than to just let Ginobili run things, and they were dead wrong on that.

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, nor was it the case that he had to play less minutes than others in the Olympics. While it's true that those were 40 minute games and that could possibly make the difference, we need to also recognize that the only reason we're even thinking about this is because Pop chose to play him sparingly compared to his other players when his prior coaches did not, and Pop has also acknowledged a) he was wrong to try to correct Ginobili's play, and b) he did Ginobili a disservice when he made him a 6th man.

Now I should say: I don't want to actually come across insisting that Ginobili's stamina was best-in-world. What I chafe at is a 25, 26, 27 year old Ginobili being talked about like he was analogous to old man Stockton on this front. I mean, how many 25 year olds in the NBA who don't carry a ton of weight actually have major stamina issues?

And, if any of those guys actually exist, how many of them were Euroleague & Olympic MVPs? Clearly the answer there is zero.

So given this and given that we simply know that Pop made some choices for reasons related to him being mistaken about basketball with regards to pace & space, maybe Pop holding Ginobili back really is at least as much the takeaway as anything else, in which case, we should absolutely not be praising Pop for "recognizing" that Ginobili couldn't play more, because maybe all he did is create a false narrative based on bad basketball assumptions.

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, 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.

Doctor MJ wrote: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.

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 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.