James Harden or Manu Ginobili, for a single year run

[NO-KG-AI]

I’d rather have Ginobli. My team might completely flame out if I can’t find a better anchor for my team and let Manu be the second guy, and X factor type.

But with Harden you’re assured of a catastrophic meltdown, and you don’t get all the little things from him either. I know he can carry me to better regular season records, but that’s where it will end.

Why doesn't Harden get to play with Tim Duncan. In your little hypothetical. Your argument is basically that you'd rather hire a bad money manager if you're already rich than a good one if you're poor. Like yeah, starting rich is better

Sure, we can put him with Tim Duncan. And then when he’s going 1/7 with 8 turnovers, playing no defense, and staring off into space every time a series is tight, we can just hope everyone else steps up, and not the #2 guy.

But in real world land, Tim is going to win you plenty on his own, but if you want to sustain titles for multiple years, you’re gonna need a creator to step up and play great ball in high pressure moments, or when he’s shooting bad, still find ways to impact the game on defense or by not turning ot over 100x.

We have no indication that Harden can do any of that though.

[f4p]

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.

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.

Why weren't pace and space teams winning then? Don Nelson tried to bring it to the nba and other than punking dirk one time, he was a miserable failure. Are we sure that 130 to 125 games didn't change what worked?

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

Carlos arroyo ran even bigger circles. Team USA. especiallt in 2002 and 2004 was prone tk discombobulation.

* 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's debatable if we consider some idealized ginobili who somehow never struggled in the playoffs but somehow had worse numbers than a harden who apparently always struggled. Who somehow didn't struggle but lost lots of series as an SRS favorite. Who, after a rookie year where he wasn't a huge contributor, basically won 2 titles with his whole prime spent with this board's #5 all time and probably #2 by the time the 2032 top 100 rolls around. I mean surely someone better than a 5 time mvp candidate paired with #5 all time for their whole primes should get you more than a weak WCF exit in 2008 and a second round sweep in 2010 or 8th seed loss in 2011.

And that guy probably shouldn't throw the 2006 title in the dumpster with the dumbest foul ever or lose the 2013 title with clutch missed free throws and gads of turnovers. I mean, if you aren't bringing the big things, you can't also mess up the small things in the finals when you've got the game settings on easy mode.

[SA37]

Give me Manu all day, every day.

[benson13]

If we're assuming either guy is the team's best player, well then said team isn't winning a championship. I'd probably sit both and tank for a better pick.

No offense but I always wonder what people mean when they say incredibly ridiculous stuff like this. Like is it just ignorance or trolling, Harden was the best player on a 65 win team that was up 3-2 on a top 10 all time team until his best teammate got hurt. So obviously that team wins a title in like 75% of seasons minimum. So your argument is basically that Harden can't win if we give him the most challenging circumstances ever. Like what kind argument is that? Ignorant or trolling?

So they didn't win a championship? I'm not sure what you're disputing here.

[xinxin]

Manu for me.


The spurs picking him up merely highlighted how good the spurs are in picking out talent.

There were arguments of Manu being better than Kobe or Wade as a shooting guard.. I think what hurt his career impression wise is coming in as a 6th man rather than as a starter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Master]

It's debatable if we consider some idealized ginobili who somehow never struggled in the playoffs but somehow had worse numbers than a harden who apparently always struggled. Who somehow didn't struggle but lost lots of series as an SRS favorite. Who, after a rookie year where he wasn't a huge contributor, basically won 2 titles with his whole prime spent with this insular board's #5 all time and probably #2 by the time the 2032 top 100 rolls around. I mean surely someone better than a 5 time mvp candidate paired with #5 all time for their whole primes should get you more than a weak WCF exit in 2008 and a second round sweep in 2010 or 8th seed loss in 2011.

Yeah.

1.

Harden in the 12-20 period, was eliminated by:

- 2x LeBron (2 titles won)
- 4x Warriors (2 titles won, 2 finals trips)
- 1x Spurs (67W team)
- 1x Thunder (without HCA)
- 1x Blazers (same record in the RS)

2.

Harden in the 13-20 period averaged in the playoffs 28-6-7, 58TS%, 7.6 BPM, +10.2 ON/OFF, on sample size of 85 games, while playing in the West against one of the best teams of alltime at one point on multiple occasions. It's weird to pretend that he wasn't a superstar-level player impact-wise, while playing on a ridiculous usage and volume.

3.

On the other hand, no one criticizes Manu for getting swept by Steve Nash while having Tim Duncan and Tony Parker on his team, or for going 12-3-3 against the Lakers and getting eliminated despite having Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, or winning a title on the back of Tim Duncan, while averaging 17-6-4 on 56TS% and playing only 30 MPG, or for being upset in the 1st round by 46W Grizzlies team.

Why? Because everyone knows he wasn't this guy on those teams. It's like 'these were Tim Duncan's teams, but he was past his prime at that point and already won a lot as a 1A option'.

There's a lot to criticize James Harden for, but it's weird to go with basic JH13 talking points in comparison to Manu, who for some reason - even while playing with Tim Duncan after his prime years - wasn't put in position to be a 1A player on his team at any point of his career.

JH13 vs Manu is basically Manu '05 vs the best year of JH (I guess the one he performed the best in the playoffs). That being said, I don't think there's any other season of Manu even worthy of discussion with let's say the 2nd best year of Harden. Manu in '05 was pretty ridiculous.

[benson13]

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.

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.

The Spurs' system might have held Ginobili back, but it was never to the team's detriment. Manu played great in that semi-final. He had a lot of great games for the Spurs as well. That's basketball.

The Argentinian team ran lots of half court sets that found Ginobili open with the ball. Their defense that packed the paint, dared the Americans to shoot, and gave Timmy fits. They were most likely to run off long rebounds when the US team actually tried shooting.

This isn't to diminish what happened. The US team sucked, Ginobili had a great game, and the Americans lost, but it wasn't an issue of system. Just go watch the Spain-Argentina semi-final from 2006. It's a great game for starters, and you'll see there's no system in place that's appreciably different than the American game at the time.

[Peregrine01]

I just want to ask all the people who are saying "Manu": Are you willing to give him max contract? Because otherwise I don't think it's a fair comparison...

This is for a single year run. Multi-year isn't really a question given Harden's durability.

Taking out the minutes Harden played on a worse hamstring injury than steph sat out with this year, 2018 to 2021 Harden has better playoff numbers than manus 2005 peak. So unless the one manu year we're getting from a two decade career is specifically 2005 then its a bad answer.

And harden has a +15 on off so impact isn't the answer. Or if you're going to turn to RAPM, then you better be in the camp of Manu over Duncan and Manu over Steph.

Better? Manu in the 2005 playoffs on a per 100 possession basis put up 34/10/7 on 65% TS while having usage of 26%. This during an era when teams played 90 possessions a game and league average TS was 53%.

The best playoff run that Harden has had was probably in 2015 when he put up 34/7/10 on a per 100 basis on 62% TS with a usage rate of 30%. He scored more and amped his usage a lot more during his last few Houston years but he did it on worse efficiency while producing a worse team offense.

So even on raw production, Manu was similar to Harden peak-for-peak during the playoffs despite playing a vastly different role. Manu was also considerably more efficient as a scorer, played far better defense and was far more involved in every part of the game that didn't involve him just dribbling the ball.

Again, if the question is who raises your odds of winning a championship more if you already have a solid team, it's Manu IMO. I do think it's valid though that Manu gets dinged more for playing less minutes but since this question is about who you'd rather have for a single year.

[The Master]

Better? Manu in the 2005 playoffs on a per 100 possession basis put up 34/10/7 on 65% TS while having usage of 26%. This during an era when teams played 90 possessions a game and league average TS was 53%.

Going with per 100 possession stats in discussions about Manu doesn't make too much sense.

It's true though that Manu in 2005 has a real argument in discussions vs Harden, as it is arguable that he was the most impactful Spurs player in that year's playoffs. It's still a problem of 2nd option usage/minutes vs being the main guy, but there are several arguments to make in favor of Manu.

Harden has probably 7-8 better seasons than any other year of Manu though.

[fansse]

I don't like Harden but the hate is crazy on RealGM LMFAOOOOO

[fansse]

The one who shows up in the Playoffs.

Behind two all stars including one of the top 10 players ever

[dhsilv2]

If the #1 option, Harden. Manu simply isn't going to stay healthy playing 36+ mins a game carrying a team all year. He was so damn good but he wasn't built to carry a team for 82 games.

Manu would have been fine if he didn't play international play imo. But I know the europeans go insane when I say perhaps a guy shouldn't give their body to those silly tourney's.

[Peregrine01]

Better? Manu in the 2005 playoffs on a per 100 possession basis put up 34/10/7 on 65% TS while having usage of 26%. This during an era when teams played 90 possessions a game and league average TS was 53%.

Going with per 100 possession stats in discussions about Manu doesn't make too much sense.

It's true though that Manu in 2005 has a real argument in discussions vs Harden, as it is arguable that he was the most impactful Spurs player in that year's playoffs. It's still a problem of 2nd option usage/minutes vs being the main guy, but there are several arguments to make in favor of Manu.

Harden has probably 7-8 better seasons than any other year of Manu though.

Well, teams played 90 possessions a game then during the dead ball era and in the Finals that year the pace went to 80. The game was a far slower, grind-it-out affair compared to the game 10 years later. Per game counting stats are just gonna look far better in 2015 when that year's WCF had 20 more possessions per game.

But yeah, it's an absolute shame that we didn't see Manu play more minutes because he certainly showed that he was capable of it every summer when he played international ball. I don't think it's that Manu was too fragile (though he became more injury prone in his mid-30s) but rather, I don't think Pop understood what he had with Manu.

[Peregrine01]

I guess the 19 players ahead of Harden are (in no particular order):

LeBron, Durant, Curry, Duncan, KG, Dirk, CP3, Nash, Shaq, Jokic, Giannis, Shai, Wade, Embiid, AD, Kawhi, T-Mac, Luka (?)

That's 18. Who else? Pierce, Butler, Paul George, Gasol? Or is one of the above 18 players not on the list? It's not Kidd because he was already in the episode before this. Also not Westbrook and Iverson.

Edit:
Embarrassing, I forgot Kobe. So the 18 above plus Kobe?

I doubt that T-Mac gets placed above Harden. Embiid is a question mark too given lack of postseason success but I can see an argument because of his defense. Pierce, Butler, PG and Gasol were all in the honorable mentions category. If I had to guess, the missing player would be Dame.

Dame was in the HM category. I think it's Tmac.

Ah I see. I suspect that Lebron will be featured more than once if the timeframe of peaks is two or three consecutive years. So you have 12-14 and 16-18. You can make the case for 08-10 as well. Insane to think about.

[CIN-C-STAR]

This is a silly conversation imo. Put Manu on a team with no Duncan, Parker, Pop, and force him to carry a team as the best player, adding 6-8 mpg more than hes ever averaged, while having to beat the double team on nearly every possession, and watch his efficiency and defense drop. Manu leading an average squad would be play-in at best, but more likely to miss the playoffs.

Manu was blessed to be in one of, if not the best situation for a player of his level and talent in the last 30 years of the league.

Yeah good thing we got to see how bad Manu was as the number one option on a team with Argentina, where all he did was lead them to a gold medal in 2004, the greatest and arguably most important basketball feat of this century imo.
Certainly nothing approaching the lofty heights of “Playoff James Harden”
Harden busted his ass in 2012 though, back when he still had some dawg in him, I’ll give him that. But Manu got him back in 2017.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

"Prime" Ginobili was almost 35. Just saying.

[BruttoNostra]

Regular season only or including playoffs as well?
There are easy answers for both versions.

[aliasxn]

This poll is absurd. I’m not even a Harden fan, but Manu was never close to his level.

[Optms]

If I need a sixth man, Manu all day. If I need a corner stone to run the offense, Harden. Unfortunately.

[f4p]

I’d rather have Ginobli. My team might completely flame out if I can’t find a better anchor for my team and let Manu be the second guy, and X factor type.

But with Harden you’re assured of a catastrophic meltdown, and you don’t get all the little things from him either. I know he can carry me to better regular season records, but that’s where it will end.

Why doesn't Harden get to play with Tim Duncan. In your little hypothetical. Your argument is basically that you'd rather hire a bad money manager if you're already rich than a good one if you're poor. Like yeah, starting rich is better

Sure, we can put him with Tim Duncan. And then when he’s going 1/7 with 8 turnovers, playing no defense, and staring off into space every time a series is tight, we can just hope everyone else steps up, and not the #2 guy.

But in real world land, Tim is going to win you plenty on his own, but if you want to sustain titles for multiple years, you’re gonna need a creator to step up and play great ball in high pressure moments, or when he’s shooting bad, still find ways to impact the game on defense or by not turning ot over 100x.

We have no indication that Harden can do any of that though.

It's weird that he had all these 1/7, 8 turnover games but ended up with better box composites than Manu. I mean, what was ginobili doing then?

As for evidence, just him playing more minutes with better per minute/possession playoff numbers than ginobili and nearly leading a team to one of the best seasons ever, I guess that's all. I'm sure having someone else (or actually 2 people) to be a release valve the whole time would have really made harden struggle to run the offense. I mean he got one healthy series next to Durant and put up a 35 PER and 75 TS% in the one time in his prime he didn't have to carry it all.

Pairing harden with Duncan means you get one of the greatest defenders ever and one of the greatest offensive players ever. And you don't need Parker to score the points Manu can't because of load management so you can probably change him out for a defender and shooter with more impact.