Ginobili or Chris Mullin?

[QUOTE=Smoke117]Mullin had no business making 1st team All NBA over Pippen in 92. Scottie was better in every way (significantly in most ways) possible except Mullin scored more points. Warriors were first in pace with a 103.4 to the Bulls 94.4 (22nd) which obviously made the buckets come easier on the Warriors at that. I like Mullin and think he's really underrated, but he was never 1st team all nba worthy.[/QUOTE]
Mullin 26/5/4 on 52% on 55 win team and Pippen 21/8/7 on 50% on 67 win team. One guy had a teammate named Michael Jordan the other had a teammate named Tim Hardaway.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Mullin 26/5/4 on 52% on 55 win team and Pippen 21/8/7 on 50% on 67 win team. One guy had a teammate named Michael Jordan the other had a teammate named Tim Hardaway.[/QUOTE]

One guy was in discussion for the best defensive player not a big man in the league...while the best you could say about the other guy was maybe:"his defense isn't that bad". I think you know who is who. Also why you talking shit on my man Tim Hardaway? He was a stud in 1992 and a better player than Mullin, so I dunno why you would even bring him up.

TimBug was a stud. Every bit as good as CP3 in his prime.

I lean slightly towards Manu because of his ability to initiate the offense but, man, both were/are superstars and HOFers.

Very close comparison.

Perceived ability to produce versus actual Hof level production, who wins :D

[QUOTE=Reggie43]Perceived ability to produce versus actual Hof level production, who wins :D[/QUOTE]
Who is the better player:

current Kevin Love at 26/13/4/1/1 on 59% TS...or

peak Pau Gasol at 21/10/3/2/1 on 59% TS?

I'm not saying one is better than the other..my point is, it's arguable despite the clear difference in stats, production as you refer to it. To the point where the numbers sure as hell don't reflect their respective abilities/circumstances.

Same situation with Mullin and Ginobili. If Ginobili was placed in a system that didn't push for extreme ball movement and unselfishness...if he was on a fast-paced system with complete freedom offensively, is there any doubt that he'd be a consistent 25/5/5 caliber player? He has brilliant BBIQ, he can handle, he has great vision, he can shoot, he has a crafty scoring arsenal, he is as complete and unique an offensive player as you'll find for his position.

It's really not perceived ability to produce...we've seen him produce at a HOF-level. The only thing is he does it within the confines of his team's system, which doesn't let him put up the gaudy numbers inferior players like James Harden put up. Monta Ellis once put up 26ppg on 45% shooting..and yet there's no way I'm taking him over peak Manu.

[QUOTE=Milbuck]Who is the better player:

current Kevin Love at 26/13/4/1/1 on 59% TS...or

peak Pau Gasol at 21/10/3/2/1 on 59% TS?

I'm not saying one is better than the other..my point is, it's arguable despite the clear difference in stats, production as you refer to it. To the point where the numbers sure as hell don't reflect their respective abilities/circumstances.

Same situation with Mullin and Ginobili. If Ginobili was placed in a system that didn't push for extreme ball movement and unselfishness...if he was on a fast-paced system with complete freedom offensively, is there any doubt that he'd be a consistent 25/5/5 caliber player? He has brilliant BBIQ, he can handle, he has great vision, he can shoot, he has a crafty scoring arsenal, he is as complete and unique an offensive player as you'll find for his position.

It's really not perceived ability to produce...we've seen him produce at a HOF-level. The only thing is he does it within the confines of his team's system, which doesn't let him put up the gaudy numbers inferior players like James Harden put up. Monta Ellis once put up 26ppg on 45% shooting..and yet there's no way I'm taking him over peak Manu.[/QUOTE]
Mullin was doin it on playoff teams though.

[QUOTE=Milbuck]Who is the better player:

current Kevin Love at 26/13/4/1/1 on 59% TS...or

peak Pau Gasol at 21/10/3/2/1 on 59% TS?

I'm not saying one is better than the other..my point is, it's arguable despite the clear difference in stats, production as you refer to it. To the point where the numbers sure as hell don't reflect their respective abilities/circumstances.

Same situation with Mullin and Ginobili. If Ginobili was placed in a system that didn't push for extreme ball movement and unselfishness...if he was on a fast-paced system with complete freedom offensively, is there any doubt that he'd be a consistent 25/5/5 caliber player? He has brilliant BBIQ, he can handle, he has great vision, he can shoot, he has a crafty scoring arsenal, he is as complete and unique an offensive player as you'll find for his position.

It's really not perceived ability to produce...we've seen him produce at a HOF-level. The only thing is he does it within the confines of his team's system, which doesn't let him put up the gaudy numbers inferior players like James Harden put up. Monta Ellis once put up 26ppg on 45% shooting..and yet there's no way I'm taking him over peak Manu.[/QUOTE]

The only way that Manu seems to be better is that most people put too much stock on him winning rings as a 3rd/2nd option. Sure there are certain skills that he has advantages over Mullin but that alone wont overcome the actual numbers that Mullin put up.

And its funny how many of you "perceive" that Manu could be a consistent 25/5/5 player when his prime numbers on a similar 6 year stretch was just around 16/4/4 on 29 mins per game

How many player in history [I]wouldn't[/I] take some kind of backseat to Tim Duncan though? As a newcomer to Duncan's Spurs, Manu had no choice (for the Spurs to remain contenders and cohesive). The fact that, statistically, current James Harden probably seems like a better comparison to Mullin says everything that's wrong about stats and player evaluations. Yet Harden is a good comparison to Manu in that he went from a 17 ppg coming off the bench in OKC to a 25+ ppg scorer almost overnight once he was given his own team to operate. Manu came into the league late (25 years old) and has had his fair share of injuries but surely he has / had that kind of All-Star talent and looked like a top-10 MVP candidate on his best days / season. Not to mention playing an integral role in a dynasty. Mullin and Manu, both excellent shooters too. Would have liked to see them ball together

[QUOTE=SCdac]How many player in history [I]wouldn't[/I] take some kind of backseat to Tim Duncan though? As a newcomer to Duncan's Spurs, Manu had no choice (for the Spurs to remain contenders and cohesive). The fact that, statistically, current James Harden probably seems like a better comparison to Mullin says everything that's wrong about stats and player evaluations. Yet Harden is a good comparison to Manu in that he went from a 17 ppg coming off the bench in OKC to a 25+ ppg scorer almost overnight once he was given his own team to operate. Manu came into the league late (25 years old) and has had his fair share of injuries but surely he has / had that kind of All-Star talent and looked like a top-10 MVP candidate on his best days / season. Not to mention playing an integral role in a dynasty. Mullin and Manu, both excellent shooters too. Would have liked to see them ball together[/QUOTE]

Quick question. Does Manu have the stamina to play close to 40 mins per game? I think he was already struggling with injuries with the amount of mins he did play for the Spurs.

Even if he did try to average 25 plus per game there would be a huge drop in his percentages which was never that good to begin with.

Mullin and Harden really seems to be a good comparison only if you disregard their effectivity and percentages with Mullin shooting .536 in his two best years to get his 25 while Harden was shooting .447 to get those numbers

Prime Manu was an absolute beast who was never 100% unleashed on the NBA.

I've always viewed Mullin as kind of the cloth of Barry and Bird at the SF. A great shooter-scorer (easily an alpha dog), great passer, and clutch as hell. Now Mullin wasn't as big as Bird or as athletic as Barry. But peak Mullin was flat out a great player and a top 3 SF in the world at one point with Nique and Pippen once Bird was on his last legs. The only thing is Mullin didn't have as many great years as he should have due to injury. But he was more durable than Manu. Manu is better all around, hell one of the top 7-8 all around SG's of all time. But keep in mind the better all around player ISN'T the better player in all cases. Peak Manu or Peak Mullin, give me peak Mullin. More stage presence and more proven being the alpha dog on playoff teams.

[QUOTE=bizil]I've always viewed Mullin as kind of the cloth of Barry and Bird at the SF. A great shooter-scorer (easily and alpha dog), great passer, and clutch as hell. Now Mullin wasn't as big as Bird or as athletic as Barry. But peak Mullin was flat out a great player and a top 3 SF in the world at one point with Nique and Pippen once Bird was on his last legs. The only thing is Mullin didn't have as many great years as he should have due to injury. But he was more durable than Manu. Manu is better all around, hell one of the top 7-8 all around SG's of all time. But keep in mind the better all around player ISN'T the better player in all cases. Peak Manu or Peak Mullin, give my peak Mullin. More stage presence and more proven being the alpha dog on playoff teams.[/QUOTE]

[B]This[/B]

People think Bird is better than Mullin.

Probably only because he is white. Bird was so overrated because of his skin tone. Stacked team, 0 defense, average everywhere else.

[QUOTE=fsvr54]Prime Manu was an absolute beast who was never 100% unleashed on the NBA.[/QUOTE]
You can say that for tons of players. Manu never had that (at least) one season where he had elite stats like McHale did with his 26/10/2 ect. I have Manu behind a guy like Bob Dandridge.

Ginobili for me.