Danny Manning; Sean Elliott; Glen Rice

[Owl]

Elliott is clearly last. Even at his apex he was only marginally above average, for example his highest PER was 16.3, and his per game numbers were inflated by high minutes http://www.basketball-reference.com/...elliose01.html . His play in Detroit was awful for a starter which perhaps suggests he needed a superstar to draw double teams, and or a specific system to be effective.

The instinct is that Rice, the spectacular scorer, was better than Manning. But Manning was capable of being a really good all round player, albeit not best suited to being a first option on a good team, whilst Rice, especially for a forward, didn't do much else but score, so whilst he had some amazing shooting seasons (including 47% from a shortened 3 point line, whilst attempting 5.6 3s a game) he need to be shooting to contribute. So they're probably about even. A healthy Manning would have had the best career.

[Rake2204]

Originally Posted by Owl

Elliott is clearly last. Even at his apex he was only marginally above average, for example his highest PER was 16.3, and his per game numbers were inflated by high minutes http://www.basketball-reference.com/...elliose01.html . His play in Detroit was awful for a starter which perhaps suggests he needed a superstar to draw double teams, and or a specific system to be effective.

Sean Elliott is one of my favorite players of all-time and I even modeled a very significant portion of my game after him (particularly my jumpshot), but I'm in agreement with you here (in terms of his ranking amongst these three). And I don't think that's necessarily a criticism of Elliott. It's just a weird handful of players to throw together. Elliott was clearly on a different tier than the other two.

With that said, I think there were a lot of issues he had in Detroit that were unique to his situation. Detroit just wasn't a good place to be at that point. Elliott came over from a potential championship contender the year before to a squad who was in the midst of hitting the lowest of the low after their championship teams fell apart. I mean, I do believe he thrived off of not being the focus offensively, but I also still believe the Detroit situation in '94 was likely not a very kosher one.

I'd also reference Elliott's kidney ailment, though I know full well Elliott was able to return to San Antonio and play more than effectively in the years after. I'm just not sure if his condition was one that would start of poorly, then subside, or degenerate consistently over time. Elliott claimed even prior to the Pistons trade, the Spurs thought he would only be able to play for a few more seasons (due to the kidney condition):

SLAM: In ’93, your trade from Detroit to Houston was voided when you flunked the physical. Is that how you learned you had kidney disease?

SE: No. I knew way before that. Detroit knew I had a kidney condition before they got me, but they just wanted to get rid of Dennis Rodman. The Spurs didn’t know if I was going to be able to play more than another year or two, so this was a chance for them to get something in return. Midseason, we told Detroit I wanted to go somewhere out West, because things were not working out. The Pistons had told Houston I had something going on but when they tested me out, all the doctors had different opinions and everyone was in limbo. They sent me back to Detroit, which eventually sent me back to San Antonio.

Originally Posted by jl1718

Memorial Day Miracle is on of my favorite SAS moment.

Ha, I made this ridiculous interpretation just yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UBprPp5uck

[Rake2204]

Relatively random bump, but for anyone interested in sampling what Sean Elliott's game was like, here's a 3 minute clip of a 29 point performance he had against the Pistons in '95: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1PlPaqBO5g