James Harden or Manu Ginobili, for a single year run

[dhsilv2]

Which system? The spurs changed their offense multiple times through his career. Early on it everything ran to Duncan. Then the spurs opened up the game to let Manu and Parker free style in transition and push tempo. Then they moved into a motion offense.

Manu thrived in all that. I don't get this "system" talk. There was no one system and Manu would come off the bench and the Spurs would change up how they played even then...

All the ones you mentioned and a few others. All the ones where he was neither the primary offensive or defensive player on the team and got to come in and play to all his strengths in shorter bursts while often deferring or sharing significant loads to a bevy of other talented players on both sides throughout the entirety of his Spurs' tenure.

Mainly that one.

Manu did have years he lead the spurs in usage though. When Manu was on the court at times he was the primary offensive player. And harden was never the primary defender, and his best years all were under a pretty well known system himself, one that we saw spike stats for a lot of players.

But like I said, a lot of what Pop did after about 2004-2006 where it was a bit of a transition period, was built the offense around a lot of what Manu did.

And obviously, as we saw in the 2005 finals. The system Pop used early on was holding Manu back, not helping him at all.

[Doctor MJ]

That's a very low standard that doesn't mean a lot. A good team probably have enough good players earning a lot so by saying "presuming" you imply you are not willing to pay Manu as a max player.

So you're responding to someone else with this, but I'll say that I don't actually see the '00s Spurs as that impressive from anything like a super-team perspective.

Big thing here is probably that people have come to see Tony Parker as a truly exceptional player, but I don't think he was. I see him as a small guard who can't shoot from range, and I generally wouldn't want someone like that to be my starting point guard. Sure things were different back then because the other teams were also less optimized, but it's not like Parker gives us an impact footprint that's anything anywhere near Duncan & Ginobili.

On Duncan, a critical thing is that while I consider him a better overall player than Ginobili, that's because he's an all-time great defensive anchor, not because I think building an offense around Duncan's post up volume scoring was the right move in the '00s. I find oftentimes people tend to assume it must have been the right move because the team won chips, but they won because they weren't going up against '10s & '20s competition, not because they were optimized in their offense.

[dhsilv2]

All the ones you mentioned and a few others. All the ones where he was neither the primary offensive or defensive player on the team and got to come in and play to all his strengths in shorter bursts while often deferring or sharing significant loads to a bevy of other talented players on both sides throughout the entirety of his Spurs' tenure. Mainly that one.

I have to say, I think it's clear cut that the Spurs "system" just held Ginobili back. Pop was literally getting mad at Ginobili playing pace & space in the time right before the NBA was about to realize that pace & space was literally just better than what NBA thinkers thought they knew.

We should not forget that the 21st century revolution in the NBA came by taking ideas from European basketball that could have been implemented in the NBA decades earlier.

Now, you can argue that Pop made the right move in staggering Ginobili's minutes, but this had nothing to do with why, say, Ginobili ran circles around the entirety of Team USA in 2004. When USA played Argentina in the semi-finals of that tourney, there was no doubt that Ginobili was the most effective player on the floor over any of the Americans - including Duncan - and it certainly had nothing to do with conserving Ginobili's energy.

Anyway, my overarching thought for this debate:

* I think Harden vs Ginobili is quite debatable.
* I don't say that because I consider Harden to be generally overrated.
* I say it because I think Ginobili in his time was just about the most underrated player I can imagine, because of what we thought we knew, that wasn't actually true.

It deflated his stats and volume and held him back in some ways. It inflated his efficiency and game economy and helped him in others.

Doc would address my biggest points...but to this. How? If Manu had been allowed to play with more space and pace, especially earlier in his career, the Spurs might have broken the league. They could have very much looked more like the Suns, only with a much better scorer running the game in Manu. Manu pulling up from 3 in transition or driving to the hoop in simi transitions (think 3 on 3, not even advantages) would have been brutal for the league. Even as Pop accepted more transition game around 2007 with Manu and Parker, he still wasn't letting Manu fully go at it.

[dhsilv2]

That's a very low standard that doesn't mean a lot. A good team probably have enough good players earning a lot so by saying "presuming" you imply you are not willing to pay Manu as a max player.

So you're responding to someone else with this, but I'll say that I don't actually see the '00s Spurs as that impressive from anything like a super-team perspective.

Big thing here is probably that people have come to see Tony Parker as a truly exceptional player, but I don't think he was. I see him as a small guard who can't shoot from range, and I generally wouldn't want someone like that to be my starting point guard. Sure things were different back then because the other teams were also less optimized, but it's not like Parker gives us an impact footprint that's anything anywhere near Duncan & Ginobili.

On Duncan, a critical thing is that while I consider him a better overall player than Ginobili, that's because he's an all-time great defensive anchor, not because I think building an offense around Duncan's post up volume scoring was the right move in the '00s. I find oftentimes people tend to assume it must have been the right move because the team won chips, but they won because they weren't going up against '10s & '20s competition, not because they were optimized in their offense.

Parker was a really solid, perhaps low level allstar in the 2010's. During their actual playoff runs, I'm not sure I see him as more than a reliable starter and some data might lead me to question that assessment. I think people see the 2012-2014 Parker as the same guy he was in 2005-2007 and he just wasn't.

[red96]

TMac argument holds 0 weight. By what measure could TMAC > Harden?

I can think of plenty but I'd rather stick to the topic here tbh.

Harden >TMac in #'s, efficiency, durability, longevity, accolades and playoff success.

[picc]

Manu did have years he lead the spurs in usage though. When Manu was on the court at times he was the primary offensive player. And harden was never the primary defender, and his best years all were under a pretty well known system himself, one that we saw spike stats for a lot of players.

But like I said, a lot of what Pop did after about 2004-2006 where it was a bit of a transition period, was built the offense around a lot of what Manu did.

And obviously, as we saw in the 2005 finals. The system Pop used early on was holding Manu back, not helping him at all.

Lots I could reply to this. So much it would become an extended back and forth about Manu's role which isn't what I'm interested in at all ITT, so I'm going to defer and/or concede.

Doc would address my biggest points...but to this. How? If Manu had been allowed to play with more space and pace, especially earlier in his career, the Spurs might have broken the league. They could have very much looked more like the Suns, only with a much better scorer running the game in Manu. Manu pulling up from 3 in transition or driving to the hoop in simi transitions (think 3 on 3, not even advantages) would have been brutal for the league. Even as Pop accepted more transition game around 2007 with Manu and Parker, he still wasn't letting Manu fully go at it.

And like I'd say to Doc, denial that Manu's role on the Spurs and the team/system makeup had any benefit at all to his game economy strongly suggests favoritism and/or delusion (IMO), but I'd be more interested in how you see him vs. Harden WRT to thread.

[picc]

TMac argument holds 0 weight. By what measure could TMAC > Harden?

I can think of plenty but I'd rather stick to the topic here tbh.

Harden >TMac in #'s, efficiency, durability, longevity, accolades and playoff success.

I don't remember adding Tmac to the thread title so I'll leave this be.

[dhsilv2]

Manu did have years he lead the spurs in usage though. When Manu was on the court at times he was the primary offensive player. And harden was never the primary defender, and his best years all were under a pretty well known system himself, one that we saw spike stats for a lot of players.

But like I said, a lot of what Pop did after about 2004-2006 where it was a bit of a transition period, was built the offense around a lot of what Manu did.

And obviously, as we saw in the 2005 finals. The system Pop used early on was holding Manu back, not helping him at all.

Lots I could reply to this. So much it would become an extended back and forth about Manu's role which isn't what I'm interested in at all ITT, so I'm going to defer and/or concede.

Doc would address my biggest points...but to this. How? If Manu had been allowed to play with more space and pace, especially earlier in his career, the Spurs might have broken the league. They could have very much looked more like the Suns, only with a much better scorer running the game in Manu. Manu pulling up from 3 in transition or driving to the hoop in simi transitions (think 3 on 3, not even advantages) would have been brutal for the league. Even as Pop accepted more transition game around 2007 with Manu and Parker, he still wasn't letting Manu fully go at it.

And like I'd say to Doc, denial that Manu's role on the Spurs and the team/system makeup had any benefit at all to his game economy strongly suggests favoritism and/or delusion (IMO), but I'd be more interested in how you see him vs. Harden WRT to thread.

Any opinion in this topic between Harden and Manu comes down to which guy you think is a system player to some degree which is why this discussion is actually the core of this.

Was Harden's expect peak the result of Mike or not? How much was Manu held back by Pop?

[pipfan]

Harden is one of my top 10 least favorite players of all time
Manu is one of my top 5 favorite players

I have to say Harden here-but if it's for my Bulls, give me Manu

[picc]

Any opinion in this topic between Harden and Manu comes down to which guy you think is a system player to some degree which is why this discussion is actually the core of this.

Was Harden's expect peak the result of Mike or not? How much was Manu held back by Pop?

Somewhat, sure. Playing in an exclusively spread-PnR setting with 3-4 high volume 3pt shooters in a system predicated on pick switching the opposing team's weakest defender on you every play is going to ease your attack and inflate your numbers. No doubt about that.

Conversely, although Manu benefited from the Spurs' system/team dynamic, he undoubtedly sacrificed some individual prestige in the Spurs' system and would have been effective and electric given his own team to run. How effective compared to peak Harden, particularly in regards to tougher postseason play? We don't know. I don't know. That's part of why I asked.

What do you think?

[dhsilv2]

Any opinion in this topic between Harden and Manu comes down to which guy you think is a system player to some degree which is why this discussion is actually the core of this.

Was Harden's expect peak the result of Mike or not? How much was Manu held back by Pop?

Somewhat, sure. Playing in an exclusively spread-PnR setting with 3-4 high volume 3pt shooters in a system predicated on pick switching the opposing team's weakest defender on you every play is going to ease your attack and inflate your numbers. No doubt about that.

Conversely, although Manu benefited from the Spurs' system/team dynamic, he undoubtedly sacrificed some individual prestige in the Spurs' system and would have been effective and electric given his own team to run. How effective compared to peak Harden, particularly in regards to tougher postseason play? We don't know. I don't know. That's part of why I asked.

What do you think?

The difference in Manu and Harden was the passing. Harden is kinda like Stockton...sharp, direct, exacting (bit more limited) while Manu is Magic on shrooms with his just unrelenting high risk passing. The thing is over time, that high risk passing seems to show it's more valuable and impactful. So I think Manu as a primary option would hold up better because he had more ways he could beat teams.

I should add Manu's weird in that someone like Doc will say Manu was suppressed by Pop. We're talking one of the most well respected analytics guys not making money off his stuff in the public space. But the same opinion can be held by the most anti math or even nerdy basketball guys on TV.

Watch on YouTube

I fully believe had Manu gone to a coach who believed in pushing pace with Manu as the best player. Between 2003-2011 Manu would have won an MVP and a title as the clear best player, on something like 28-10-7. So I just can't disagree more about the spur's "system" benefiting him in any way.

[picc]

The difference in Manu and Harden was the passing. Harden is kinda like Stockton...sharp, direct, exacting (bit more limited) while Manu is Magic on shrooms with his just unrelenting high risk passing. The thing is over time, that high risk passing seems to show it's more valuable and impactful. So I think Manu as a primary option would hold up better because he had more ways he could beat teams.

I should add Manu's weird in that someone like Doc will say Manu was suppressed by Pop. We're talking one of the most well respected analytics guys not making money off his stuff in the public space. But the same opinion can be held by the most anti math or even nerdy basketball guys on TV.

I don't disagree Manu was suppressed. But "suppressed" is not mutually exclusive to "optimized", as evidenced by many examples even outside of Manu Ginobili.

I fully believe had Manu gone to a coach who believed in pushing pace with Manu as the best player. Between 2003-2011 Manu would have won an MVP and a title as the clear best player, on something like 28-10-7. So I just can't disagree more about the spur's "system" benefiting him in any way.

I see. You're certainly entitled to your opinion (true for all of us), and honestly thank you for sharing and participating.

[dhsilv2]

I don't disagree Manu was suppressed. But "suppressed" is not mutually exclusive to "optimized", as evidenced by many examples even outside of Manu Ginobili.

What made Manu great was his creativity and ability to basically do what nobody else did. Over the years one of the things a lot of great analysis has shown is that high risk players generate better team offense than lower risk players. Think Nash vs CP3. Nash took a lot of risks with his passing while CP3 was very conservative. Both are legends but Nash's passing was better at creating above average offense.

So Manu might have lead the league in turnovers. But I think you could see +8 ORAPM type numbers had he been on a team that ran before running was in vogue. And I don't want to argue over terms here. But a +8 ORAPM (and this to me is how you'd measure getting the best, however you define it should be measured) is just short of peak Lebron and Jokic and I don't think that's crazy hyperbole at all. Manu was that good and a fully unleashed version I think could look something like that.

And Pop would likely see the turnovers and think his use of Manu was better, lol. And who am I to argue with Pop? But I still lean towards that was an area pop was wrong on.

[ChiTownHero1992]

Manu without hesitation, he does everything better than Harden except for scoring/shooting which he can still do quite well

[Doctor MJ]

Manu did have years he lead the spurs in usage though. When Manu was on the court at times he was the primary offensive player. And harden was never the primary defender, and his best years all were under a pretty well known system himself, one that we saw spike stats for a lot of players.

But like I said, a lot of what Pop did after about 2004-2006 where it was a bit of a transition period, was built the offense around a lot of what Manu did.

And obviously, as we saw in the 2005 finals. The system Pop used early on was holding Manu back, not helping him at all.

Lots I could reply to this. So much it would become an extended back and forth about Manu's role which isn't what I'm interested in at all ITT, so I'm going to defer and/or concede.

Doc would address my biggest points...but to this. How? If Manu had been allowed to play with more space and pace, especially earlier in his career, the Spurs might have broken the league. They could have very much looked more like the Suns, only with a much better scorer running the game in Manu. Manu pulling up from 3 in transition or driving to the hoop in simi transitions (think 3 on 3, not even advantages) would have been brutal for the league. Even as Pop accepted more transition game around 2007 with Manu and Parker, he still wasn't letting Manu fully go at it.

And like I'd say to Doc, denial that Manu's role on the Spurs and the team/system makeup had any benefit at all to his game economy strongly suggests favoritism and/or delusion (IMO), but I'd be more interested in how you see him vs. Harden WRT to thread.

Maybe you've said it elsewhere, but I've yet to hear you explain exactly how you believe the team/system makeup was helping Ginobili specifically.

To be clear: I'm not in denial of the possibility of a secondary scorer having an efficiency boost by playing with a primary scorer, but a blanket assumption of X% is very much over-simplistic.

[LarsV8]

How fortunate are we to have the 2012 playoff series between prime Ginobili and pre-prime Harden, both playing 3rd option roles.

Quick, someone tell us how each performed in that series.

[Doctor MJ]

How fortunate are we to have the 2012 playoff series between prime Ginobili and pre-prime Harden, both playing 3rd option roles.

Quick, someone tell us how each performed in that series.

ftr, I ranked Harden as #5 in my POY that year, which was certainly ahead of Ginobili.

[picc]

What made Manu great was his creativity and ability to basically do what nobody else did. Over the years one of the things a lot of great analysis has shown is that high risk players generate better team offense than lower risk players. Think Nash vs CP3. Nash took a lot of risks with his passing while CP3 was very conservative. Both are legends but Nash's passing was better at creating above average offense.

So Manu might have lead the league in turnovers. But I think you could see +8 ORAPM type numbers had he been on a team that run before running was in vogue. And I don't what the argue over terms here. But a +8 ORAPM (and this to me is how you'd measure getting the best, however you define it should be measured) is just short of peak Lebron and Jokic and I don't think that's crazy hyperbole at all. Manu was that good and a fully unleashed version I think could look something like that.

And Pop would likely see the turnovers and think his use of Manu was better, lol. And who am I to argue with Pop? But I still lean toward's that was an area pop was wrong on.

Very interesting.

[picc]

Maybe you've said it elsewhere, but I've yet to hear you explain exactly how you believe the team/system makeup was helping Ginobili specifically.

To be clear: I'm not in denial of the possibility of a secondary scorer having an efficiency boost by playing with a primary scorer, but a blanket assumption of X% is very much over-simplistic.

Not going to type a long explanation here but here's a past summation if interested.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2325859&p=108669037#p108669037


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2325859&start=60#p108690805

[picc]

Big thank you to the mods for opening the poll back up!