Is Manu Ginobili the most underrated draft pick of all time?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Remind me again who was double teamed, read the double team perfectly, and threw the pass to Ginobili to make that shot? Its slipped my mind.

He needed Horry and Manu to make the big shots for him that series. Duncan had a 44% usage in game 7 and didn't do anything with it at 42% TS and -1.2 BPM.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

You don't watch basketball. You hide behind spreadsheets and numbers. You don't understand how the offense in those years ran through Duncan or what a great defender Duncan was. You just want to prop up your bias with numbers. I would put good money on you never having watched one entire game of basketball in your life. You spend your life on basketball reference.

Manu was the motor, heart and soul, lead playmaker of that team. Anybody who watched will tell you that. The advanced stats just back up the proof that all those traits made him spurs most impactful player. I said things for Manu such as clutch gene that has nothing to do with stats.

[Uncle Drew]

You don't watch basketball. You hide behind spreadsheets and numbers. You don't understand how the offense in those years ran through Duncan or what a great defender Duncan was. You just want to prop up your bias with numbers. I would put good money on you never having watched one entire game of basketball in your life. You spend your life on basketball reference.

This is the worst kept secret in this place, yes.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Manu fouled Dirk. Manu choked on the line. Cost the team two championships.

Cherry picking a play doesn't define a title. Parker played awful the entire mavs series in 06.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

This is the worst kept secret in this place, yes.

I've watched all of spurs playoff runs during the Duncan/Manu era.

The way I see it, in 2005 Manu was the Jordan and Duncan was the Pippen.

Manu/Jordan dominate closeout games, are generally more efficient and have better advanced stats.

Duncan/Pippen are the defensive anchors who vanish offensively in big games and generally have poor efficiency.

[Carbine]

That's quite a bad take.

[Whoah10115]

I'm not talking about the 2005 finals. Manu was the best Sour on offense, clearly.

But to say he was the clear cut best player of the entire 2005 playoffs? Even arguably..... Nobody argued it at the time. Duncan was the best player.

Bulls run - it's going well man. Thanks for asking. Maybe you should rewatch the Spurs 2005 and 2007 runs too, educate yourself a little bit.

Why? I did that twice and you responded with stats.

[Roundball_Rock]

Duncan/Pippen are the defensive anchors who vanish offensively in big games and generally have poor efficiency.

Let's compare Pippen's PPG relative to the other #2 options in the finals and ECF (so big series--and limit it strictly to scoring, not counting playmaking as part of "offense" for our purposes here). Let's also ignore that Chicago couldn't be a top 10 offense without Pippen* (even in 98'--the #1 juggernaut in 97' slipped to 13th sans Pippen)--but were without Jordan, with Pippen. Even the playoff angle doesn't hold up--the 94' Bulls were 5th of the 16 teams in PO offense and 2nd of the 8 teams that won a series (in contrast, the Bulls' offenses in the PO sans Pippen were subpar every single year, despite 20+ PPG second options each time; with Pippen a rookie the Bulls were dead last).

We can't assess efficiency in a vacuum--we have to compare respective volume. Numbers are PPG and TS %. In the 97' ECF Pippen played only 7 minutes in Game 5 before injury so let's compare his averages in full games with Mourning's there to have an apples to apples comp. Pippen also got injured in the 98' finals and was a decoy for Game 6 so let's look at games 1-5.

Pippen Scoring Compared to Opposing Sidekicks in Finals, ECFs

1991 ECF: Pippen 22 on 56% TS 28% usage, Dumars 13 on 45% TS 18% usage
1991 Finals: Pippen 21 on 53% 26% usage, Worthy 19 on 50% 25% usage
1992 ECF: Pippen 20 on 54% 26% usage, Daughtery 18 on 55% 20% usage (a center)
1992 Finals: Pippen 21 on 56% 25% usage, Porter 16 on 57% 17% usage
1993 Finals: Pippen 21 on 46% 28% usage, Johnson 17 on 49% 23% usage
1996 ECF: Pippen 19 on 51% 23% usage, Penny 26 on 55% 29% usage
1996 Finals: Pippen 16 on 43% 22% usage, Kemp 23 on 63% 27% usage (a PF)
1997 ECF: Pippen 21 on 52% 27% usage, Mourning 16 on 56% 25% usage (a center)
1997 Finals: Pippen 20 on 54% 26% usage, Stockton 15 on 61% 21% usage
1998 ECF: Pippen 17 on 46% 26% usage, Smits 16 on 63% 23% usage (a center)
1998 Finals: Pippen 17 on 50%** 23% usage, Stockton 10 54% 19% usage
Averages: Pippen 20 on 52%, 26% usage; Opposing #2 17 on 55%, 22% usage
Averages: Pippen 20 on 52%, 26% usage; Perimeter #2's 16 on 53%, 22% usage


Other than 96', when Pippen had foot, neck, and back injuries, what seems to be the problem? His efficiency stacks up well despite much higher volume and scoring. The opposing perimeter #2 has 1% more efficiency--but that comes on 25% less scoring and 18% less usage. I am sure the Bulls would trade the 1% for 20 PPG instead of 16 PPG. Wouldn't you?

The efficiency stuff is misleading because his efficiency would be higher if he had the low volume of second options on those other teams. 5 of these 12 opposing sidekicks were at 21% or less usage. That is 3rd or 4th option type volume...Pippen's usage went up in big series (a sign of trust from Jackson)--but it looks like that it didn't happen on the other side. Would Pippen somehow be better if he was scoring 16 PPG on 55% instead of 20 PPG on 52% for ISH, even if it hurt the team and cost them rings (how many chips would Ewing have if he got this production instead of what Starks, and McDaniel gave, for instance?)?

*If you want to throw MJ a bone, the Bulls were 9th of 23 when Pip was a rookie. That's analogous to being 12th in today's 30 team league, FWIW.
**20 PPG on 57% TS in fully healthy games (Games 1-4).

[Kblaze8855]

i didn't even know this but Larry Bird was taken after

Mychal Thompson
Phil Ford
Rick Robey
Michael Ray Richardson (gangster name)
and Purvis Short




What were these GM's smoking?

That's not a low pick but damn...

Red drafted him a year early after he already said he was going back. He got an obvious steal then the mba changed the rules so you couldn’t.

[rmt]

I've watched all of spurs playoff runs during the Duncan/Manu era.

The way I see it, in 2005 Manu was the Jordan and Duncan was the Pippen.

Manu/Jordan dominate closeout games, are generally more efficient and have better advanced stats.

Duncan/Pippen are the defensive anchors who vanish offensively in big games and generally have poor efficiency.

2005 playoffs
Duncan 23.6 pts 12.4 rebs 2.7 asst 0.3 stl 2.3 blks
Manu 20.8 pts 5.8 rebs 4.2 asst 1.2 stl 0.3 blks

I don't know if averaging almost 24 points over 23 games could be considered in any way vanishing offensively.

[SouBeachTalents]

2005 playoffs
Duncan 23.6 pts 12.4 rebs 2.7 asst 0.3 stl 2.3 blks
Manu 20.8 pts 5.8 rebs 4.2 asst 1.2 stl 0.3 blks

I don't know if averaging almost 24 points over 23 games could be considered in any way vanishing offensively.

You want to see someone vanish offensively, see Manu in the games at Detroit

[Bronbron23]

57th pick in the NBA draft.

That's nuts.

How did that happen?

Definitely up there. I honestly feel like you could put him in hardens place in his prime and hed put up similar numbers. He played in the ultimate team system his whole career. Put him in a situation where he dominates the ball and play makes and he could have very good stats. Maybe not 36 pts a game but Definitely 30/8/6 in this era.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Let's compare Pippen's PPG relative to the other #2 options in the finals and ECF (so big series--and limit it strictly to scoring, not counting playmaking as part of "offense" for our purposes here). Let's also ignore that Chicago couldn't be a top 10 offense without Pippen* (even in 98'--the #1 juggernaut in 97' slipped to 13th sans Pippen)--but were without Jordan, with Pippen. Even the playoff angle doesn't hold up--the 94' Bulls were 5th of the 16 teams in PO offense and 2nd of the 8 teams that won a series (in contrast, the Bulls' offenses in the PO sans Pippen were subpar every single year, despite 20+ PPG second options each time; with Pippen a rookie the Bulls were dead last).

We can't assess efficiency in a vacuum--we have to compare respective volume. Numbers are PPG and TS %. In the 97' ECF Pippen played only 7 minutes in Game 5 before injury so let's compare his averages in full games with Mourning's there to have an apples to apples comp. Pippen also got injured in the 98' finals and was a decoy for Game 6 so let's look at games 1-5.

Pippen Scoring Compared to Opposing Sidekicks in Finals, ECFs

1991 ECF: Pippen 22 on 56% TS 28% usage, Dumars 13 on 45% TS 18% usage
1991 Finals: Pippen 21 on 53% 26% usage, Worthy 19 on 50% 25% usage
1992 ECF: Pippen 20 on 54% 26% usage, Daughtery 18 on 55% 20% usage (a center)
1992 Finals: Pippen 21 on 56% 25% usage, Porter 16 on 57% 17% usage
1993 Finals: Pippen 21 on 46% 28% usage, Johnson 17 on 49% 23% usage
1996 ECF: Pippen 19 on 51% 23% usage, Penny 26 on 55% 29% usage
1996 Finals: Pippen 16 on 43% 22% usage, Kemp 23 on 63% 27% usage (a PF)
1997 ECF: Pippen 21 on 52% 27% usage, Mourning 16 on 56% 25% usage (a center)
1997 Finals: Pippen 20 on 54% 26% usage, Stockton 15 on 61% 21% usage
1998 ECF: Pippen 17 on 46% 26% usage, Smits 16 on 63% 23% usage (a center)
1998 Finals: Pippen 17 on 50%** 23% usage, Stockton 10 54% 19% usage
Averages: Pippen 20 on 52%, 26% usage; Opposing #2 17 on 55%, 22% usage
Averages: Pippen 20 on 52%, 26% usage; Perimeter #2's 16 on 53%, 22% usage


Other than 96', when Pippen had foot, neck, and back injuries, what seems to be the problem? His efficiency stacks up well despite much higher volume and scoring. The opposing perimeter #2 has 1% more efficiency--but that comes on 25% less scoring and 18% less usage. I am sure the Bulls would trade the 1% for 20 PPG instead of 16 PPG. Wouldn't you?

The efficiency stuff is misleading because his efficiency would be higher if he had the low volume of second options on those other teams. 5 of these 12 opposing sidekicks were at 21% or less usage. That is 3rd or 4th option type volume...Pippen's usage went up in big series (a sign of trust from Jackson)--but it looks like that it didn't happen on the other side. Would Pippen somehow be better if he was scoring 16 PPG on 55% instead of 20 PPG on 52% for ISH, even if it hurt the team and cost them rings (how many chips would Ewing have if he got this production instead of what Starks, and McDaniel gave, for instance?)?

*If you want to throw MJ a bone, the Bulls were 9th of 23 when Pip was a rookie. That's analogous to being 12th in today's 30 team league, FWIW.
**20 PPG on 57% TS in fully healthy games (Games 1-4).

His efficiency was usually worse then Jordan, just like Duncan's efficiency was usually worse then Manu. That was my point.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

2005 playoffs
Duncan 23.6 pts 12.4 rebs 2.7 asst 0.3 stl 2.3 blks
Manu 20.8 pts 5.8 rebs 4.2 asst 1.2 stl 0.3 blks

I don't know if averaging almost 24 points over 23 games could be considered in any way vanishing offensively.

You want to see someone vanish offensively, see Manu in the games at Detroit

Finals:

Game 2 Duncan only takes 10 shots on 22% usage. Didn't have to do much of anything

Game 3 Duncan has 14 points on 15 shots and and 33% FG

Game 4 Duncan had 16 points on 17 shots and 29% FG

Game 5 Duncan has a better scoring volume game but still manages just 45% TS

Game 7 Duncan has 25 points on 27 shots and 37% FG

That's 5 games when he shot like a horse's ass. What's with all these games taking more total field goal attempts then total points? Rasheed and pistons defense turned him into Westbrook pretty much.

Sounds like Duncan was having knee problems or just letting Rasheed own him. He got away with winning a finals and not really doing shit. Lets put it this way, Duncan in 2005 finals had the same GmSc as Kawhi in 2014 finals when people always give Kawhi shit for being a 'role player'.

[Roundball_Rock]

His efficiency was usually worse then Jordan, just like Duncan's efficiency was usually worse then Manu. That was my point.

Got it. The way your post was written implied shrinking in big series/games but we talked about this in the other thread in response to 3ball. His PO efficiency was consistent with his RS efficiency when he was healthy and here the data shows his usage was at its highest in the biggest series (finals and ECF). Jordan was more efficient than Pippen (MJ was the most efficient perimeter superstar of the era of course--more efficient than any perimeter superstar by far) so both could remain pretty consistent with MJ remaining ahead.

Not sure what the data says about Duncan/Manu--have not looked into that as deeply.