Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

2022 NBA OFFSEASON


Brian Fowler

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Brian Fowler said:

Well that came out of nowhere. But Cleveland was so good last year until the injuries got them. I love teams that are decent making big moves.

Plus Mobley and Alan can help erase some of his defensive shortcomings.

Not sure it's enough to be a legit contender in the East (though if Garland takes another big step forward) but it certainly makes them dangerous to anybody in the playoffs.

They have two perimeter guys who can get to the rim and create for others and two interior guys who are already great rim defenders.  That is formidable, because you have to pick your poison on each level.  Mobley has a chance to become a superstar in the next few years and Mitchell is the oldest of their four best players at 25.  As a Cavs fan, I'm pretty excited about this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I somehow missed that Manu Ginobli was elected to the basketball Hall of Fame and got inducted today.  I gotta say...he's not a HOFer in my eyes.  The guy started less than a third of the games he played in the NBA.  13 pts and 3.8 assists a game while playing in 2 All-Star games?  I know, I know, they include international play, blah blah blah, but c'mon.  Manu had a wonderful career but a HOFer?  Nah.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tabe said:

I somehow missed that Manu Ginobli was elected to the basketball Hall of Fame and got inducted today.  I gotta say...he's not a HOFer in my eyes.  The guy started less than a third of the games he played in the NBA.  13 pts and 3.8 assists a game while playing in 2 All-Star games?  I know, I know, they include international play, blah blah blah, but c'mon.  Manu had a wonderful career but a HOFer?  Nah.

 

But they let EVERYBODY in the basketball HOF. . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tabe said:

I somehow missed that Manu Ginobli was elected to the basketball Hall of Fame and got inducted today.  I gotta say...he's not a HOFer in my eyes.  The guy started less than a third of the games he played in the NBA.  13 pts and 3.8 assists a game while playing in 2 All-Star games?  I know, I know, they include international play, blah blah blah, but c'mon.  Manu had a wonderful career but a HOFer?  Nah.

 

These numbers don't tell the story.  Manu was legitimately one of the best offensive and defensive players of his generation.  Tim Duncan was the best player on those teams, Manu Ginobli was the second best player pretty easily.  You know how there are those guys who have great stats on bad teams, Ginobli is the opposite.  His stats do not tell the tale of how vital he was for a team that was good to great for 15 years and won 4 championships.  If I had to choose between him and Tony Parker, I'd take Ginobli every time.  He was also the best player on an Olympic team that won a gold medal.  There have been hundreds of players who put up big stats, but don't really make your team any better.  Your team is significantly better if Ginobli is on it, even if it never shows up on the stat sheet.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, supremebve said:

These numbers don't tell the story.  Manu was legitimately one of the best offensive and defensive players of his generation.  Tim Duncan was the best player on those teams, Manu Ginobli was the second best player pretty easily.  You know how there are those guys who have great stats on bad teams, Ginobli is the opposite.  His stats do not tell the tale of how vital he was for a team that was good to great for 15 years and won 4 championships.  If I had to choose between him and Tony Parker, I'd take Ginobli every time.  He was also the best player on an Olympic team that won a gold medal.  There have been hundreds of players who put up big stats, but don't really make your team any better.  Your team is significantly better if Ginobli is on it, even if it never shows up on the stat sheet.

But...... he didn't. Even. Start. He had a fine career but he wasn't a HOFer. If the argument is "well, he does stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet", he's a piece, not a HOFer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tabe said:

But...... he didn't. Even. Start. He had a fine career but he wasn't a HOFer. If the argument is "well, he does stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet", he's a piece, not a HOFer. 

OK, I get that he didn't start, but he was their closer.  

Things I'll never understand

  1. People who have watched Matthew Stafford and still think he's a hall of famer
  2. People who have watched Manu Ginobli and don't think he's a hall of famer.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, supremebve said:

OK, I get that he didn't start, but he was their closer.  

Things I'll never understand

  1. People who have watched Matthew Stafford and still think he's a hall of famer
  2. People who have watched Manu Ginobli and don't think he's a hall of famer.

Hall of Fame is for elite. Elite guys start. Period. 

I get the "closer" argument, I just disagree. Manu was good but he wasn't HOF good. 

Edited by Tabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie
2 hours ago, supremebve said:

OK, I get that he didn't start, but he was their closer.  

Things I'll never understand

  1. People who have watched Matthew Stafford and still think he's a hall of famer
  2. People who have watched Manu Ginobli and don't think he's a hall of famer.

This is why I, as a data analyst, always encourage people to look beyond numbers because while they'll often tell you most of the story, they won't tell you all of it.

(If you need a true mark of what Manu could do, go look at his per 100 possessions numbers.)

EDIT: Actually, I'll do it for you. Manu per 100 possessions:

OlnYiPz.png

And for comparison, hmm... how about Kobe Bryant per 100 possessions?

h5dLGPf.png

They look awfully similar. Good "what if" for what Manu could've been if he hadn't gone into a specific role to benefit his team.

Edited by Stefanie Without Stefanie
Added per 100 possession comparisons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tabe said:

Hall of Fame is for elite. Elite guys start. Period. 

Listen, I understand that for 99% of players, starting means something...but for this one guy, it doesn't matter at all.  

 

4 minutes ago, Stefanie Without Stefanie said:

This is why I, as a data analyst, always encourage people to look beyond numbers because while they'll often tell you most of the story, they won't tell you all of it.

(If you need a true mark of what Manu could do, go look at his per 100 possessions numbers.)

I was just about to bring this up.  He didn't start, but if you look at his numbers per 100, per 36, and especially his on/off numbers you'll see that he's incredibly important to the Spurs success.  He was legitimately elite on both offense and defense for over a decade.  He's one of the 20-25 best players of this century.  If he was a more selfish player, he could have easily scored 25 per game, but so could Tim Duncan, but that's not how they played.  If you look at the per 100 numbers, Manu and Tim Duncan are incredible.  If you look at their per game numbers, they both look pretty ordinary.  They played on a team where no one played 35 minutes a game, so it is kind of hard to put up huge numbers.  Per 100 Duncan is 30/17/5 Ginobli is 28/7/8.  I'm trying to find the actual report, but I remember someone wrote something about the best clutch players of all time.  He is a career 83% free throw shooter, but he is the best all time late in games.  He blocked more game winning shot attempts than anyone in history.  Once again, he was the best player on a non-American gold medal Olympic team.  No one gets less respect than a US Olympic team that doesn't win the gold, because even in a bad year they are going to have 10 of the best 25 players on earth.  He won a gold medal...him and Luis Scola.  That is an incredible accomplishment.  In a league full of dudes who are ready to tell you who is not really that good,  I've never heard anyone badmouth Manu's game.  Another thing that is taken into consideration for the Basketball hall of fame is international play he was the 2001 Italian league MVP, the 2001 Euro League FInal Four MVP, the 2001 FIBA Americas Championship MVP, the 2002 Italian Cup MVP, the 2002 Italian league MVP, and was the 2004 Olympic MVP.  He's a 1st ballot, no questions, hall of famer in my eyes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie
18 minutes ago, Tabe said:

Rate stats to imply a guy is similar despite playing more than 20,000 fewer minutes? I'm not sure you've made the case you think you have. 

You quoted starts and raw PPG instead of looking at how instrumental he was to four titles, so what are we left with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, supremebve said:

.  Another thing that is taken into consideration for the Basketball hall of fame is international play he was the 2001 Italian league MVP, the 2001 Euro League FInal Four MVP, the 2001 FIBA Americas Championship MVP, the 2002 Italian Cup MVP, the 2002 Italian league MVP, and was the 2004 Olympic MVP.  He's a 1st ballot, no questions, hall of famer in my eyes. 

This is the case for Manu, not trying to prop up his NBA career. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stefanie Without Stefanie said:

You quoted starts and raw PPG instead of looking at how instrumental he was to four titles, so what are we left with?

You can't compare rate stats when the quantities are so wildly different. 

Edited by Tabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie
1 minute ago, Tabe said:

You can't compare rate stats when the quantities are so wildly different. 

Sure you can. It's not like he was a 15 minute a game bench player. He averaged 25 and a half through his career. Solid sixth man numbers.

I get that most people aren't into the idea of a sixth man being a Hall of Famer but Manu is the best sixth man of all time and his rate stats prove that.

You're basically on the same side of history as the people who say Dennis Rodman isn't a Hall of Famer because he didn't score. That wasn't his job. Much like starting wasn't Manu's job. And when you're so good at your job that you help your team win four titles, you go into the Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefanie Without Stefanie said:

You're basically on the same side of history as the people who say Dennis Rodman isn't a Hall of Famer because he didn't score. That wasn't his job. Much like starting wasn't Manu's job. And when you're so good at your job that you help your team win four titles, you go into the Hall.

Rodman has a significantly stronger case. 8x All-Defensive and 2x DPOY. Plus leading the league in rebounding 7 straight years while actually putting up elite numbers. 

Manu... won the Sixth Man award. Once. 

I know it sounds like I'm ragging on Manu here. I'm really not. Dude was really good. He just wasn't a HOF-level NBA player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tabe said:

You can't compare rate stats when the quantities are so wildly different. 

Except he played for the one team in the league that played their best players the fewest minutes.  Tim Duncan, who is one of the 10 best basketball playing humans of all time, is 87th in playoff minutes per game.  The way they handled their minutes makes comparing per game stats irrelevant.  Manu Ginobli is the second best player on 4 championship teams, I don't think that Tony Parker would even argue that.  If you look at +/-, which is a flawed stat especially with smaller samples, but it says a lot about how well a team performs with or without a player.  Duncan, Parker and Ginobli are in the top 6 all-time.  The Spurs were able to stagger their minutes so much, because as long as one of the three were on the floor they were probably going to be OK.  Honestly, he might have the most unique hall of fame case of any player in any sport, but like @Stefanie Without Stefaniesaid above, he's one of the reasons why we shouldn't just look at stats for these arguments.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say he's definitely the second best player on the 05 team (and was hands down the best player on the court in game 7)

03 and 07 he's one of a handful of guys who you can make the argument read the second best player on those teams.

14 I would have a hard time saying he was second best.

But... He's a Hall of Fame guy without question. He willingly sacrificed numbers to win games, and willingly sacrificed his starting position to make the second unit more dangerous.

And he's arguably the most influential player in basketball in-between Jordan and Steph. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie
1 hour ago, supremebve said:

Except he played for the one team in the league that played their best players the fewest minutes.  Tim Duncan, who is one of the 10 best basketball playing humans of all time, is 87th in playoff minutes per game.  The way they handled their minutes makes comparing per game stats irrelevant.  Manu Ginobli is the second best player on 4 championship teams, I don't think that Tony Parker would even argue that.  If you look at +/-, which is a flawed stat especially with smaller samples, but it says a lot about how well a team performs with or without a player.  Duncan, Parker and Ginobli are in the top 6 all-time.  The Spurs were able to stagger their minutes so much, because as long as one of the three were on the floor they were probably going to be OK.  Honestly, he might have the most unique hall of fame case of any player in any sport, but like @Stefanie Without Stefaniesaid above, he's one of the reasons why we shouldn't just look at stats for these arguments.  

In my opinion, the Spurs are probably the most fascinating franchise in sports to look at from a player management perspective, because Popovich and his staff have always been so good about how to get the most from their players while having such a small usage rate, to the point where you could make an argument that their long-term players had a couple of seasons added to their careers due to how they were managed.

It may not result in the best looking stats sheets, but it absolutely showed up in their results, especially that 15 year stretch where the Spurs as a franchise won five titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stefanie Without Stefanie said:

In my opinion, the Spurs are probably the most fascinating franchise in sports to look at from a player management perspective, because Popovich and his staff have always been so good about how to get the most from their players while having such a small usage rate, to the point where you could make an argument that their long-term players had a couple of seasons added to their careers due to how they were managed.

It may not result in the best looking stats sheets, but it absolutely showed up in their results, especially that 15 year stretch where the Spurs as a franchise won five titles.

And won 50 games (or the equivalent percent in shortened years) every single season. That's the real "God damn" part of that run. They didn't win the title every year, they had a couple ugly playoff upset losses... But they were a 50 win team for 18 consecutive years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming it's not already over there, I'll be x-posting to the Documentaries thread:

THE REEDEEM TEAM

Watch as DeWayne Wade and LeBron James collude to form the Miami Heat super team of the early 2010s.   (Oh, and win the Olympics.  USA! USA! USA!)

Streaming on Netflix October 7th

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 6:14 PM, Infinit said:

I don't get why there us so much emphasis on who "starts", in a sport where players can be subbed in and out at will. 

Not only that, but the first five minutes of a basketball game are the least consequential minutes of a game.  The 5 best (or most important) players on a team play in the last 5 minutes. 

The Redeem team doc is probably going to be fine, but the documentary should be about the 2004 team, for no other reason that we need to get to the bottom of how anyone on earth thought it was a good idea to play Stephon Marbury (26.4) more minutes than LeBron James (11.5).   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...