Better Player During Prime: Manu or Tony Parker

[durden_tyler]

Stylistically Manu. But damn Parker was clutch and reliable.

[picc]

Ginobili was a great player but fans overlook how fortunate his playing circumstances were.

- Never had to handle full ballhandling/distributing responsibility because of Parker
- Never had to handle full scoring responsibility because of Duncan/Parker/Leonard
- Never the focus of opposing defense because of Duncan/Parker/Leonard
- Never had to be a primary defender because of Bowen/Leonard
- Lower minutes + lower load = higher exertion potential in minutes played

He played with some unique advantages with the Spurs roster and system. Manu would still have been a star if he was a starter and playing starter minutes as the lead ballhandler, no doubt about it. Maybe even better. But over the course of a 82 game season I don't think he would have been as good as extrapolated stats would suggest. For the reasons outlined above.

Manu was the better player peak for peak and prime for prime, obviously. But Parker did more for the Spurs throughout the entirety of an average season. More consistent game to game and more minutes played. Parker running the team's offense for most of the game also allowed Manu to focus on his strengths in shorter bursts.

I think Manu would have been a star player in any system, but the Spurs system especially catered to enabling his strengths and masking any potential weakness. Parker ran the team's offense, Bowen/Kawhi guarded the best player, the offense ran through Duncan at first, then Parker/Ginobili, then Kawhi and Diaw took on large roles.

Manu was also one of the most inconsistent star players. One of the most reliably so great players i've ever seen. Parker was more steady from game to game.

I just took a random 6 game sample of Manu from 08.

vs Lakers: 12/6/4 on 18% shooting
vs Heat: 18/11/8 on 42%
vs NOH: 11/3/2 on 33%
vs Jazz: 29/4/2 on 56%
vs Sonics: 29/4/7 on 56%
vs Suns: 19/7/2 on 21%

His averages seem normal because he'll shoot an astronomically high percent one game, then vice versa the next, and it evens out. Better player than Parker, sure. More important to the Spurs success over the course of their careers? Not sold on that.

[Mirotic12]

Was he a system player in 2004 when he won a Gold Medal?

In Argentina's national team? Yes. Certainly more than he was with the Spurs.

That team had a very strong system with Manu, Scola, Montecchio, Sanchez, Nocioni, etc.

It was very system oriented and controlled, running through the point guards and pick and roll a lot, with a lot of post play for Scola. It was more structured than the Spurs offense.

[f4p]

Was he a system player in 2004 when he won a Gold Medal?

In Argentina's national team? Yes. Certainly more than he was with the Spurs.

That team had a very strong system with Manu, Scola, Montecchio, Sanchez, Nocioni, etc.

It was very system oriented and controlled, running through the point guards and pick and roll a lot, with a lot of post play for Scola. It was more structured than the Spurs offense.

Ginobili led the team in points and assists. If I count assists as 2 points, he was at 206 points created, scola was 161, and nobody else cracked 100.

It kind of feels like an "I am the system" situation.

[iggymcfrack]

They were system players that complimented each other perfectly Manu basically would prolly be Lavine in another situation.. Look at Hedo turkoglu when he went from Kings to Magic.. same could be said about a lot of players they get “overrated” because they played the perfect system and role for them but they made it work so they are technically still really good players

Klay is another example but he gets underrated and curry overrated.. they complimented each other perfectly he has a case to be pippen to curry’s Jordan.. Curry haven’t won without him and prolly wont but there’s still time I guess.. and they didn’t start winning til they started clicking and they made klay the starting SG

We saw Manu in one other situation other than his role with the Spurs. As the #1 who the whole offense revolved around on the Argentina Olympic team. All he did was succeed so dramatically that he became the only player ever to lead a team past professional American players to Olympic gold. Saying he would be LaVine in another situation is bonkers. It's like saying Pippen would be LaVine as a #1 even though we saw him succeed in that role in the 93-94 season and be an MVP candidate.

[iggymcfrack]

Ginobili was a great player but fans overlook how fortunate his playing circumstances were.

- Never had to handle full ballhandling/distributing responsibility because of Parker
- Never had to handle full scoring responsibility because of Duncan/Parker/Leonard
- Never the focus of opposing defense because of Duncan/Parker/Leonard
- Never had to be a primary defender because of Bowen/Leonard
- Lower minutes + lower load = higher exertion potential in minutes played

He played with some unique advantages with the Spurs roster and system. Manu would still have been a star if he was a starter and playing starter minutes as the lead ballhandler, no doubt about it. Maybe even better. But over the course of a 82 game season I don't think he would have been as good as extrapolated stats would suggest. For the reasons outlined above.

Manu was the better player peak for peak and prime for prime, obviously. But Parker did more for the Spurs throughout the entirety of an average season. More consistent game to game and more minutes played. Parker running the team's offense for most of the game also allowed Manu to focus on his strengths in shorter bursts.

I think Manu would have been a star player in any system, but the Spurs system especially catered to enabling his strengths and masking any potential weakness. Parker ran the team's offense, Bowen/Kawhi guarded the best player, the offense ran through Duncan at first, then Parker/Ginobili, then Kawhi and Diaw took on large roles.

Manu was also one of the most inconsistent star players. One of the most reliably so great players i've ever seen. Parker was more steady from game to game.

I just took a random 6 game sample of Manu from 08.

vs Lakers: 12/6/4 on 18% shooting
vs Heat: 18/11/8 on 42%
vs NOH: 11/3/2 on 33%
vs Jazz: 29/4/2 on 56%
vs Sonics: 29/4/7 on 56%
vs Suns: 19/7/2 on 21%

His averages seem normal because he'll shoot an astronomically high percent one game, then vice versa the next, and it evens out. Better player than Parker, sure. More important to the Spurs success over the course of their careers? Not sold on that.

This really likes to imagine there's a lot more difference in their roles than there is. From 2005-2011 in the playoffs, Manu averaged 33 MPG and Parker averaged 37 MPG. Manu scored 19 PPG on .596 TS% while Parker scored 20 PPG on .524 TS%. Would Manu suddenly go from one of the most effective scorers in the playoffs to one of the least if he had to play an extra 4 MPG and try to score an extra point? Of course not. We've seen Manu in a similar role to Parker lots of times and he's done great. Parker's never been able to been close to efficient as Manu.

[Joao Saraiva]

Spurs' offense was clearly at its best with Manu initiating it. Too bad they spent a lot of time starting by posting up Duncan, but stats clearly show that PPP sky rocket with Manu initiating, and the same doesn't happen with Tony.

People talking about the teammates wife stuff well you can say Tony is trash just like Karl Malone was trash too but that's hardly a good argument when we're evaluating how good they were at basketball.

Too bad Manu had to manage his minutes a lot, because his impact was way better than Tony's.

[dolphinatik]

Id rather have Manu on my team 10/10 however Parker had the highest ceiling in his prime. Im surprised its such a landslide even though ppl dont like Parker including his own teammates.

[cupcakesnake]

They were system players that complimented each other perfectly Manu basically would prolly be Lavine in another situation.. Look at Hedo turkoglu when he went from Kings to Magic.. same could be said about a lot of players they get “overrated” because they played the perfect system and role for them but they made it work so they are technically still really good players

I don't really get comparing him to Lavine or even Hedo, considering the functional advantages Manu has over these guys as a ball player. Ginobili was an excellent perimeter defender. Super quick feet, very good athleticism, and genius anticipation skills. Manu was also a dynamite playmaker, quite arguably the best passing shooting guard we'd ever seen.

If Lavine had that kind of passing and defense, he'd be a whole other kind of player. If Hedo could defend, he'd have made some all-NBA teams.

[Mirotic12]

Was he a system player in 2004 when he won a Gold Medal?

In Argentina's national team? Yes. Certainly more than he was with the Spurs.

That team had a very strong system with Manu, Scola, Montecchio, Sanchez, Nocioni, etc.

It was very system oriented and controlled, running through the point guards and pick and roll a lot, with a lot of post play for Scola. It was more structured than the Spurs offense.

Ginobili led the team in points and assists. If I count assists as 2 points, he was at 206 points created, scola was 161, and nobody else cracked 100.

It kind of feels like an "I am the system" situation.

Maybe if you never saw the team play. There was a lot of design to get open shots, lay ups, mismatches, etc., for the players.

It was far different than give the ball to a player and he goes one to one with hero ball.

It was never anything remotely like that. The point guards were absolutely vital in setting things up.

[benhillboy]

They were system players that complimented each other perfectly Manu basically would prolly be Lavine in another situation.. Look at Hedo turkoglu when he went from Kings to Magic.. same could be said about a lot of players they get “overrated” because they played the perfect system and role for them but they made it work so they are technically still really good players

Manu was also a dynamite playmaker, quite arguably the best passing shooting guard we'd ever seen.

.

Interesting opinion. I immediately thought of Steph, Jerry West, Jordan, and Harden. With Manu that’s a solid Top 5 I think with apologizes to T Mac, AI, Pistol Pete, and Jimmy.

[benhillboy]

As far as Parker vs Ginobili regular season on/off paints a pretty simple and accurate picture in their Spurs tenures (Manu +6.5, Tony +2.1). In the playoffs it balloons to an astounding gap at +10.2 to -0.8.

Pop was quick to yank Tony at times while usually giving Manu a long leash lol. With good reason on both fronts.

[xinxin]

Manu for sure.

It was just odd that he was 6th man for his career but that was by design and not a knock on his talents .

If Manu started his NBA career earlier in his life, his numbers would be much better for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

They were system players that complimented each other perfectly Manu basically would prolly be Lavine in another situation.. Look at Hedo turkoglu when he went from Kings to Magic.. same could be said about a lot of players they get “overrated” because they played the perfect system and role for them but they made it work so they are technically still really good players

Klay is another example but he gets underrated and curry overrated.. they complimented each other perfectly he has a case to be pippen to curry’s Jordan.. Curry haven’t won without him and prolly wont but there’s still time I guess.. and they didn’t start winning til they started clicking and they made klay the starting SG

Manu...a system...player. Please pass the crack pipe!

Bro pop lost 5 years of his life losing his mind over how off system Manu played. This is like saying Trump is a polished politician. Or Darth Vader had great lungs. Or Rodman dressed conservatively. Or rice cakes are too flavorful. Or bacon has too many carbs. Or Tiger Woods makes good decisions with women. Like come on...

Yeah, I'm just going to say:

First and foremost the "system player" criticism that first got seriously ported over from American football 20-ish years ago never made any kind of sense for basketball, and is not discredited in football too.

Specifically, "system player" implies a near-mindless athlete doing what his coach tells him to do, whereas Ginobili kept getting yanked by Pop for improvising away from what Pop told him to do until Pop realize that Ginobili's in-the-moment judgment was better than the clunky old post offense that Pop had always adhered to.

[Doctor MJ]

Was he a system player in 2004 when he won a Gold Medal?

In Argentina's national team? Yes. Certainly more than he was with the Spurs.

That team had a very strong system with Manu, Scola, Montecchio, Sanchez, Nocioni, etc.

It was very system oriented and controlled, running through the point guards and pick and roll a lot, with a lot of post play for Scola. It was more structured than the Spurs offense.

So, so you know, in American sports culture, this is not what "system player" means when people use it as a criticism of a player.

"System player" means that the player in question is putting up big traditional stats that imply he's special, but in reality he could be replaced easily by easy-to-come-by talents, because it is the coaching scheme that's the actual competitive advantage.

It got going in earnest in American football in the '90s because a prolific college football offense (U Houston) produced quarterbacks in a row drafted to become NFL stars, and both were busts, which led to the thinking that quarterbacks from innovative college offenses weren't actually NFL level talents and should be drafted much lower in the future.

So aside from the difference in sport, the key thing here is that it was about the NFL draft and a suggestion that being very successful in college didn't mean you could do it in the pros.

We should note that when this term got generalized and ported over to basketball as a major trend in 2004, it wasn't applied to college prospects but instead applied in particular to Steve Nash as a reason to dismiss his apparent MVP impact in Phoenix, so much more impressive than Dallas, was a result of D'Antoni's "system". This was actually a completely backwards definition from football not simply because it wasn't about college prospect, but because it was Nash's lack of massive box score production that made people want to dismiss Nash, whereas mega traditional box score production was the foundation of the "system quarterback" label. People were co-opting an existing term that sounded right to them to dismiss a player they didn't understand, and in order to do that they had to completely reverse the actual reasoning behind the term... but none of them understood that this is what they were doing. Literally, you find any article from 20 years ago talking about "system players" in basketball as a way to knock the player, you know you're reading someone who didn't understand what they were talking about, and the fact that that confusion is still around today is just such a shame.

Last note: By the definition of "system quarterback", Patrick Mahomes - the greatest NFL quarterback to come in the league in the past couple decades - was exactly that. He played for what at the time was the most cutting edge of the college football offenses (Texas Tech), and despite being named the best quarterback in college football, wasn't the first quarterback chosen and wasn't drafted in the first handful of picks - this in a sport where whenever there's a big time quarterback prospect, it's basically a given he'll be drafted first.

So what does it tell us when a college "system quarterback" rapidly proves to be the best new NFL quarterback in a long time? That the NFL's coaches were using sub-optimal strategy for years as the college game blazed a trail of innovation, and as a result, they were essentially turning next generation type quarterback into busts by trying to fit round pegs into square holes. The answer in the long-term was essentially for old NFL coaches to either embrace new ideas, are get fired and never hired again, but it took quite a while before the NFL figured that out.

Alright, summing up:

It's understandable to think the term "system player" means a player playing in any kind of well-thought out coaching scheme (aka "system"), but what "system" was supposed to mean here is literally something that could only work against minor league talent (like college football), and that entire premise turned out to be backwards - those college football systems were literally superior to what pro coaches were running, and would eventually supplant the old paradigms of the NFL, but so long as an NFL team had dinosaurs as coaches as a rule, the football world could convince itself that the college systems were the problem, not the NFL dinosaurs.

Bringing it back to the NBA and this specific conversation, never forget:

Pop was one of those dinosaurs until he and his staff recognize that what Ginobili did was working better than what he was telling Ginobili to do. He deserves a ton of credit for eventually recognizing a need to change when many other coaches wouldn't have, but such credit should never give the impression that these things were innovations thought up by Pop & his staff and then disseminated to Ginobili.

The innovators were the internationals, and Pop's greatest achievement involved him following them before the bulk of the NBA.

[cupcakesnake]

They were system players that complimented each other perfectly Manu basically would prolly be Lavine in another situation.. Look at Hedo turkoglu when he went from Kings to Magic.. same could be said about a lot of players they get “overrated” because they played the perfect system and role for them but they made it work so they are technically still really good players

Manu was also a dynamite playmaker, quite arguably the best passing shooting guard we'd ever seen.

.

Interesting opinion. I immediately thought of Steph, Jerry West, Jordan, and Harden. With Manu that’s a solid Top 5 I think with apologizes to T Mac, AI, Pistol Pete, and Jimmy.

I'd add Kobe to that list. Reluctant passer, but he was a strong playmaker when he decided to be. Similar to Jordan. Nate McMillan, Dennis Johnson, Andre Iguodala, Khris Middleton, Jalen Rose are other guys who come to mind.

West and Harden both started as shooting guards but spent the majority of their careers as the lead guard/primary playmaker. I like Manu's passing better than West's, but it's really hard to compare passing across eras when one player played with really strict rules on carry violations. It limits the variety of passes you're allowed to throw (hard to do one handed passes off the dribble when you cant touch the bottom of the ball). Harden is a better lob passer than Manu (I think. Manu didn't play much with lob threats), but they're both lefty passers and Manu is 1000000 times better at passing with his right hand.

Steph... I don't care if he's a PG or SG, but either way I don't think of him as being anywhere near as good a passer as Manu. Steph is totally solid, but is also pretty careless with his passes. I also don't see that elite passing creativity that Manu wowed us with.

[Mirotic12]

So, so you know, in American sports culture, this is not what "system player" means when people use it as a criticism of a player.

"System player" means that the player in question is putting up big traditional stats that imply he's special, but in reality he could be replaced easily by easy-to-come-by talents, because it is the coaching scheme that's the actual competitive advantage.

It got going in earnest in American football in the '90s because a prolific college football offense (U Houston) produced quarterbacks in a row drafted to become NFL stars, and both were busts, which led to the thinking that quarterbacks from innovative college offenses weren't actually NFL level talents and should be drafted much lower in the future.

So aside from the difference in sport, the key thing here is that it was about the NFL draft and a suggestion that being very successful in college didn't mean you could do it in the pros.

We should note that when this term got generalized and ported over to basketball as a major trend in 2004, it wasn't applied to college prospects but instead applied in particular to Steve Nash as a reason to dismiss his apparent MVP impact in Phoenix, so much more impressive than Dallas, was a result of D'Antoni's "system". This was actually a completely backwards definition from football not simply because it wasn't about college prospect, but because it was Nash's lack of massive box score production that made people want to dismiss Nash, whereas mega traditional box score production was the foundation of the "system quarterback" label. People were co-opting an existing term that sounded right to them to dismiss a player they didn't understand, and in order to do that they had to completely reverse the actual reasoning behind the term... but none of them understood that this is what they were doing. Literally, you find any article from 20 years ago talking about "system players" in basketball as a way to knock the player, you know you're reading someone who didn't understand what they were talking about, and the fact that that confusion is still around today is just such a shame.

Last note: By the definition of "system quarterback", Patrick Mahomes - the greatest NFL quarterback to come in the league in the past couple decades - was exactly that. He played for what at the time was the most cutting edge of the college football offenses (Texas Tech), and despite being named the best quarterback in college football, wasn't the first quarterback chosen and wasn't drafted in the first handful of picks - this in a sport where whenever there's a big time quarterback prospect, it's basically a given he'll be drafted first.

So what does it tell us when a college "system quarterback" rapidly proves to be the best new NFL quarterback in a long time? That the NFL's coaches were using sub-optimal strategy for years as the college game blazed a trail of innovation, and as a result, they were essentially turning next generation type quarterback into busts by trying to fit round pegs into square holes. The answer in the long-term was essentially for old NFL coaches to either embrace new ideas, are get fired and never hired again, but it took quite a while before the NFL figured that out.

Alright, summing up:

It's understandable to think the term "system player" means a player playing in any kind of well-thought out coaching scheme (aka "system"), but what "system" was supposed to mean here is literally something that could only work against minor league talent (like college football), and that entire premise turned out to be backwards - those college football systems were literally superior to what pro coaches were running, and would eventually supplant the old paradigms of the NFL, but so long as an NFL team had dinosaurs as coaches as a rule, the football world could convince itself that the college systems were the problem, not the NFL dinosaurs.

Bringing it back to the NBA and this specific conversation, never forget:

Pop was one of those dinosaurs until he and his staff recognize that what Ginobili did was working better than what he was telling Ginobili to do. He deserves a ton of credit for eventually recognizing a need to change when many other coaches wouldn't have, but such credit should never give the impression that these things were innovations thought up by Pop & his staff and then disseminated to Ginobili.

The innovators were the internationals, and Pop's greatest achievement involved him following them before the bulk of the NBA.

Yeah, you are correct. I was thinking about how in international basketball teams, "system player" usually just means that the player is a part of a very structured and organized team style scheme, which is very prominent in European basketball and was also how Argentina played in that era. It's not a derogatory or negative term in that context.

It's the opposite actually, as some players can't function well in such team systems. Iverson looked like he didn't understand what was even happening on the court, when he was subjected to that style of basketball in Europe, when he played with Besiktas. In that way, not being a "system player" is actually seen as the negative thing.

"System player" as a derogatory and negative term, as US sports media uses it, is a thing talked about also in European basketball, but it's more talked about in terms of style, mentality, era and things like that.

Like Dimitris Diamantidis and Sarunas Jasikevicius would be examples of system players in EuroLeague. But in European sports media, they wouldn't use that to downgrade the player, but it would be framed as more like "the extension of the coach on the floor". So it would be framed more in a positive spin, rather than a negative one, how US sports media frames it.

I think the "system player" as a negative critique by US sports media, in order to downgrade a player's accomplishments, really became a big popular thing when for whatever reason, there was a huge push by US sports media to claim that Brady was a pure result and product of the "Patriots system" and Belichick.

It was always pure BS and was just some weird way to discount Brady. The US sports media kept repeating it so much about Brady, that it really became a popular talking point with fans of different sports, and like you said, got used to diminish Nash then in the NBA.

In the case of Manu with Argentina, it would be a system player, as a clearly defined way of playing basketball that European teams, as well as Argentina, that used a European style of playing, were based on.

Argentina was a more team oriented offense than the Spurs or any NBA team. So maybe a term like team system oriented player would be correct. But it's pretty much how most great national teams are setup.

It's a necessity for success, because really great national teams have a lot of players that are the best in their teams, or even in their leagues.

Like in that 2000s era, Argentina was so stacked, that they had 11 to 12 men that were the best players in all of Latin America, and/or among the best players in Europe. So that kind of strong team system is just a needed thing in teams like that.

Maybe a term like team oriented system player is better. The difference is that's actually seen as a good thing, and as a positive player attribute.

In terms of Manu and Parker specifically, Parker actually struggled with playing with France for a long time with that issue. He had a problem for a long time playing in that more team structured style. France had stacked teams full of NBA players for years, and they couldn't even get a bronze at any of the three major FIBA events.

For years, those Parker French teams were seen as huge failures and as underachieving, based on not winning even a bronze, despite having one of the best rosters for years

It took Parker quite a long time to finally figure out how to play in that more team oriented style and to finally start having success with a stacked French team. So in that way, Manu was also more versatile as a team oriented system player than Parker was.

[benhillboy]

Manu was also a dynamite playmaker, quite arguably the best passing shooting guard we'd ever seen.

.

Interesting opinion. I immediately thought of Steph, Jerry West, Jordan, and Harden. With Manu that’s a solid Top 5 I think with apologizes to T Mac, AI, Pistol Pete, and Jimmy.

I'd add Kobe to that list. Reluctant passer, but he was a strong playmaker when he decided to be. Similar to Jordan. Nate McMillan, Dennis Johnson, Andre Iguodala, Khris Middleton, Jalen Rose are other guys who come to mind.

West and Harden both started as shooting guards but spent the majority of their careers as the lead guard/primary playmaker. I like Manu's passing better than West's, but it's really hard to compare passing across eras when one player played with really strict rules on carry violations. It limits the variety of passes you're allowed to throw (hard to do one handed passes off the dribble when you cant touch the bottom of the ball). Harden is a better lob passer than Manu (I think. Manu didn't play much with lob threats), but they're both lefty passers and Manu is 1000000 times better at passing with his right hand.

Steph... I don't care if he's a PG or SG, but either way I don't think of him as being anywhere near as good a passer as Manu. Steph is totally solid, but is also pretty careless with his passes. I also don't see that elite passing creativity that Manu wowed us with.

Haha I was reluctant to put Kobe for his unwillingness like you said. He was playing with Smush Parker and Devean George types post Shaq so it’s understandable . I damn sure forgot Iggy, I’d add Ray Allen at his Sonics peak. I’ll throw Joe Johnson in at his Hawks peak.

I’ll always see Harden as a 2 as I don’t value his post OKC, “point guard” career.

Steph absolutely belongs IMO. His career assist to turn at a hair above 2:1 certainly isn’t pretty for HOF combo guard territory: a trailer load of boneheaded giveaways through the years, granted. But he’s a fully ambidextrous, A+ connective passer who pretty much set the league cadence and style of how and when to get off the ball in the face of halfcourt traps.

With a considerably better off ball scorer than Randle and a far superior offensive talent than Gobert hopefully Ant could enter the conversation when he’s done. The talent and willingness is there, Just needs more experience mapping the floor and better teammates. He makes better reads than the reigning combo guard MVP.

[maradro]

Watch on YouTube

go to 1:19:45 for horry on tony then manu. gives both their flowers and pretty accurate description of both IMO

[cupcakesnake]

Interesting opinion. I immediately thought of Steph, Jerry West, Jordan, and Harden. With Manu that’s a solid Top 5 I think with apologizes to T Mac, AI, Pistol Pete, and Jimmy.

I'd add Kobe to that list. Reluctant passer, but he was a strong playmaker when he decided to be. Similar to Jordan. Nate McMillan, Dennis Johnson, Andre Iguodala, Khris Middleton, Jalen Rose are other guys who come to mind.

West and Harden both started as shooting guards but spent the majority of their careers as the lead guard/primary playmaker. I like Manu's passing better than West's, but it's really hard to compare passing across eras when one player played with really strict rules on carry violations. It limits the variety of passes you're allowed to throw (hard to do one handed passes off the dribble when you cant touch the bottom of the ball). Harden is a better lob passer than Manu (I think. Manu didn't play much with lob threats), but they're both lefty passers and Manu is 1000000 times better at passing with his right hand.

Steph... I don't care if he's a PG or SG, but either way I don't think of him as being anywhere near as good a passer as Manu. Steph is totally solid, but is also pretty careless with his passes. I also don't see that elite passing creativity that Manu wowed us with.

Haha I was reluctant to put Kobe for his unwillingness like you said. He was playing with Smush Parker and Devean George types post Shaq so it’s understandable . I damn sure forgot Iggy, I’d add Ray Allen at his Sonics peak. I’ll throw Joe Johnson in at his Hawks peak.

I’ll always see Harden as a 2 as I don’t value his post OKC, “point guard” career.

Steph absolutely belongs IMO. His career assist to turn at a hair above 2:1 certainly isn’t pretty for HOF combo guard territory: a trailer load of boneheaded giveaways through the years, granted. But he’s a fully ambidextrous, A+ connective passer who pretty much set the league cadence and style of how and when to get off the ball in the face of halfcourt traps.

With a considerably better off ball scorer than Randle and a far superior offensive talent than Gobert hopefully Ant could enter the conversation when he’s done. The talent and willingness is there, Just needs more experience mapping the floor and better teammates. He makes better reads than the reigning combo guard MVP.

I think we're starting to get awfully far away from Manu's passing level in these comps, as we try to list good shooting guard passers.
Ray Allen and Joe Johnson were good enough passers to run some offense through, but they weren't special. Steph is one of the most skilled/dextrous dudes to ever do it, but his passing bag/vision/creativity is not Manu level. Especially if we're talking about connective passing, Manu is one of the GOATs of that. Steph is a very good- not great- passer. Manu is a passing god.

Ant is definitely a below average passer, though he improves every year. He's really limited to making kick out reads off his drives. He can't throw a lob pass (or almost any kind of interior pass), which is one of the reasons the offense is awkward with him and Rudy. For a guy like Ant, who gets the ball as much as anyone, it's easier to defend the idea he's a bad passer, rather than good. Definitely not at the door step of this conversation.

Manu is one of the only non-point guards (Diaw, Jokic, Bird being others that come to mind) who would throw passes we'd feel we'd never seen before. The kind of passes you have to rewind to figure out what happened. He saw the court in ways almost no one else did, and had the skills to make plays based on what he saw.