Utah -- are they better than the Spurs?

[Skandery]

If you can honestly say that either Oberto or Bowen (other 2 starters) are ahead of Ginobili then my bet is that everyone on this board will have to re-evaluate the extent of your basketball knowledge.

Oh the re-evaluating has begun in full-force, Lurker.  

In the other thread, Randy is trying to tell me how Duncan is most effective as a mid-range shooting, slasher so as best to get out of FABRICIO OBERTO's way in the low-block.

By his analyses of Duncan and Ginobili, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude he hasn't watched the Spurs in the last couple years.  

[Lurker]

So Randy...list the top 3 options for the Spurs.

My list:
Duncan
Parker
Ginobili

If you can honestly say that either Oberto or Bowen (other 2 starters) are ahead of Ginobili then my bet is that everyone on this board will have to re-evaluate the extent of your basketball knowledge.

Lurker,

Put down the paint chips.  That's exactly what Randy is saying, there #3 option, Manuela is AWAL.

Prior to injury...13.8 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.4 asst, 1.4 stls.  If the Spurs could only find a couple other players that "haven't shown up".  BTW Josh Howard: 16.7, 4.7, 1.6, 1.0 for the same categories.  Too bad Josh hasn't shown up for the Mavs yet.  They could probably use his help.

[Randy]

So Randy...list the top 3 options for the Spurs.

My list:
Duncan
Parker
Ginobili

If you can honestly say that either Oberto or Bowen (other 2 starters) are ahead of Ginobili then my bet is that everyone on this board will have to re-evaluate the extent of your basketball knowledge.

Actually, what I said was that Manu has disappeared this season -- so rather than debate that with the facts (once again) -- you try circular logic (which obviously escapes you).  At this point, Barry is a better 3rd option for the Spurs this season, from what I have seen (of course, I obviously haven't seen anything according to Skander who would rather deflect than hurt himself thinking in this thread).  Barry is shooting the ball better from the field and the arch and making smarter decisions on the court.  The PPG is very close esp since Manu averages about 9 more minutes a game.

lol -- and why is it that you only choose to list the stats that suit you rather than ALL of the stats -- let's see what you are missing:  41% fg% and 35% 3pt%.  Wow, sounds incredible, huh?  Oh, and since you choose to neglect these stats with Manu -- Howard is shooting 46% from the field and 46% from the arch.  Bet the Mavs like the difference a lot more than the Spurs, huh?

[WayOutWest]

Bet the Mavs like the difference a lot more than the Spurs, huh?

What you fail to take into account Randy is that Manu is left handed and wears a Spurs uniform.

[Lurker]

And Manu is the better defender than Howard.  Also Howard is the Mavs second option...I used him as comparison since they both play SG.

But we can continue the comparisons...

Manu: 13.8 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.4 asst, 1.4 stls, .411 FG%, .353 3PT%, .868 FT%
Howard: 16.7, 4.7, 1.6, 1.0, .459, .458, .800    27.6 min  16.00 efficiency
AK-47: 7.9, 5.8, 3.5, .9, .397, .167, .732         30.5        14.09
Maggette: 14.9, 6.3, 1.4, .5, .411, .080, .804   25.6        13.07
Grant Hill: 15.6, 3.4, 2.6, 1.3, .535, .167, .786  31.6        15.14
Hughes: 13.8, 3.5, 3.1, .9, .440, .304, .639      36.4        11.88

I feel sorry for all these #2 or #3 players that have failed to show up for winning teams.  

[Randy]

And Manu is the better defender than Howard.  Also Howard is the Mavs second option...I used him as comparison since they both play SG.

But we can continue the comparisons...

Manu: 13.8 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.4 asst, 1.4 stls, .411 FG%, .353 3PT%, .868 FT%
Howard: 16.7, 4.7, 1.6, 1.0, .459, .458, .800    27.6 min  16.00 efficiency
AK-47: 7.9, 5.8, 3.5, .9, .397, .167, .732         30.5        14.09
Maggette: 14.9, 6.3, 1.4, .5, .411, .080, .804   25.6        13.07
Grant Hill: 15.6, 3.4, 2.6, 1.3, .535, .167, .786  31.6        15.14
Hughes: 13.8, 3.5, 3.1, .9, .440, .304, .639      36.4        11.88

I feel sorry for all these #2 or #3 players that have failed to show up for winning teams.  

Yeah, keep trying -- the Mavs are a far more balanced team than the Spurs. 

Also, how well does the efficiency rating judge poor shooting?  I think we've had this discussion before, haven't we?
In discussing the NBA Efficiency metric – which the NBA presents at its website – I argued that this measure fails to penalize inefficient shooting. The regression of wins on offensive and defensive efficiency reveals that shooting efficiency impacts outcomes in basketball. The ball does indeed have to go through the hoop for a team to be successful.

The same critique offered for NBA Efficiency also applies to Hollinger’s PERs, except the problem is even worse. Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points.

Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots

.

[Lurker]

But if everyone in the sample uses the same measurement...even if faulty...then you are comparing players on equal footing.  Did you even bother to look at the stats?  Or just posting based off your "all-knowing omnipresent" basketball knowledge of all things Spurs?

Manu is shooting better from the field than 2 of the 5 listed.  Better from the FT line than all 5 listed.  And better from the arch than 4 of the 5 listed.  But of course facts don't matter since you have already made your decision.

[Randy]

Manu: 13.8 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.4 asst, 1.4 stls, .411 FG%, .353 3PT%, .868 FT%
Howard: 16.7, 4.7, 1.6, 1.0, .459, .458, .800    27.6 min  16.00 efficiency
AK-47: 7.9, 5.8, 3.5, .9, .397, .167, .732         30.5        14.09
Maggette: 14.9, 6.3, 1.4, .5, .411, .080, .804   25.6        13.07
Grant Hill: 15.6, 3.4, 2.6, 1.3, .535, .167, .786  31.6        15.14
Hughes: 13.8, 3.5, 3.1, .9, .440, .304, .639      36.4        11.88


I would question some of your choices, though I'm sure they worked for your comparisons.

Does Utah look at AK-47 as a 3rd option?  Without AK-47, the Jazz won 5 out of 5 -- Clips, Suns, SacTown, Seattle and Toronto. 

Bottom line is that comparing from team to team doesn't really work as well as you want.  Because teams with more talent spread the basketball around more -- Clips are another good example of a team that has a lot of talent.

Of course, I'm not sure what these players have to do with Manu's poor outing -- guess if you can't reject, then deflect.

[Lurker]

Of course, I'm not sure what these players have to do with Manu's poor outing -- guess if you can't reject, then deflect.

Let's try another rating system (one that adjusts for missed shots)....

         
      Player             Team Tendex
1) wade,dwyane           Mia  32.30
2) bryant,kobe           LAL  29.83
3) martin,kevin          Sac  29.30
4) redd,michael          Mil  28.74
5) howard,josh           Dal  28.48
6) carter,vince          NJN  28.46
7) johnson,joe           Atl  28.43
allen,ray             Sea  25.21
9) ginobili,manu         San  25.19
10) mcgrady,tracy         Hou  24.93
      ** Avg for Position = 17.06.

But of course there will something wrong with this ranking also since it doesn't support your conclusion.  But hey if I inundate you with enough facts maybe your brain will admit what your heart refuses to acknowledge.  If this still isn't sufficient proof of my point....


Then let's turn it around...support your theory.  Except for your subjective judgement based on watching ONE Spurs game prove your point that Manu has gone AWOL.  And just to be clear proof should be based on facts not your observations and jaded conclusions.

[Randy]

I've already mentioned a couple of stats -- not to mention how many times we've talked about Manu's lack of basketball savvy, making stupid decisions.  But I guess Spurs fans are cool with "supposed stars" that are shooting 41% -- hey, it's cool with me -- just means that TD and Parker have that much more to do on the court (which means I probably don't have to watch them deep into the playoffs -- no complaints here).

[Lurker]

I've already mentioned a couple of stats -- not to mention how many times we've talked about Manu's lack of basketball savvy, making stupid decisions.  But I guess Spurs fans are cool with "supposed stars" that are shooting 41% -- hey, it's cool with me -- just means that TD and Parker have that much more to do on the court (which means I probably don't have to watch them deep into the playoffs -- no complaints here).

Two shooting stats do not make an argument.  Especially when 3x as many other stats prove otherwise.  Ands as far as stupid decisions...you have pointed to exactly one but tend to overlook all the smart decisions that Manu regularly makes as the Spurs player most likely to have the ball in his hands at the end of a tight game. 

Should we go into how many stupid decisions Kobe has made?

[Lurker]

Here's another similar argument for you Randy.  Kobe has gone AWOL this year because he is averaging over 3.3 turnovers per game.  Also his rebounds, steals and blocks are all down from last year.  This definately, conclusively, proves without a doubt that Kobe is not showing up for games.

[WayOutWest]

Has Manu been hurt the year like AK and Kobe?  That would explain his stats.

[Skandery]

Randy, I don't even know why I try? (have you figured it out Lurker)

I've already mentioned a couple of stats

Yeah, you said Manu is shooting 41% from the field (well below average) and 35% from three (which is actually decent).  That is, once again, a huge, ginormous observation of exactly ONE area of basketball, shooting efficiency. 

Lurker has tried, apparently in vain, showing you the importance of Manu Ginobili to the Spurs: bringing in more statistics that look at multiple different areas of basketball.  Looking at the entire picture, an objective observer realizes that not only has Manu Ginobili NOT disappeared this year, he has been one of the best players on the Spurs roster.   

Let me try, again:

Ginobili plays 49% of the Spurs total minutes this season and has a player rating of 19.6 while holding his opponent to 10.5 -- a +9.1 advantage.  When Ginobili is on the court, the Spurs are +8.8 points; when he is off the court, the Spurs are +2.8 --  a net gain of +6.0.  Taking all that into account gives Manu Ginobili a Roland Rating of +8.2.  The only Spur higher, Tim Duncan with +14.8.  Your main man, Tony Parker only has +6.7.  I would like to applaud you in your praise for Brent Barry's production, though, as he has a Roland Rating of +7.2 and Popovich has rewarded him with 43% of the Spurs minutes. 

Of the 6 winningest 5-man floor units for the Spurs, Manu Ginobili is on 3 of them.  Of the 4 losingest 5-man floor units, Ginobili is on 1 of them.  Still not enough, Randy?

The Spurs had Ginobili for 13 games, the record:  (12-3) for 80% winning percentage

The Spurs have played 3 games without Ginobili:  (1-2) for 33% winning percentage


I'm sure a lot of teams would just love their players to completely disappear (Randy's definition of course).

 

[WayOutWest]

Randy, I don't even know why I try? (have you figured it out Lurker)

I've already mentioned a couple of stats

Yeah, you said Manu is shooting 41% from the field (well below average) and 35% from three (which is actually decent).  That is, once again, a huge, ginormous observation of exactly ONE area of basketball, shooting efficiency. 

Lurker has tried, apparently in vain, showing you the importance of Manu Ginobili to the Spurs: bringing in more statistics that look at multiple different areas of basketball.  Looking at the entire picture, an objective observer realizes that not only has Manu Ginobili NOT disappeared this year, he has been one of the best players on the Spurs roster.   

Let me try, again:

Ginobili plays 49% of the Spurs total minutes this season and has a player rating of 19.6 while holding his opponent to 10.5 -- a +9.1 advantage.  When Ginobili is on the court, the Spurs are +8.8 points; when he is off the court, the Spurs are +2.8 --  a net gain of +6.0.  Taking all that into account gives Manu Ginobili a Roland Rating of +8.2.  The only Spur higher, Tim Duncan with +14.8.  Your main man, Tony Parker only has +6.7.  I would like to applaud you in your praise for Brent Barry's production, though, as he has a Roland Rating of +7.2 and Popovich has rewarded him with 43% of the Spurs minutes. 

Of the 6 winningest 5-man floor units for the Spurs, Manu Ginobili is on 3 of them.  Of the 4 losingest 5-man floor units, Ginobili is on 1 of them.  Still not enough, Randy?

The Spurs had Ginobili for 13 games, the record:  (12-3) for 80% winning percentage

The Spurs have played 3 games without Ginobili:  (1-2) for 33% winning percentage


I'm sure a lot of teams would just love their players to completely disappear (Randy's definition of course).

 

It's more interesting when we just watch the games, Skans, Joe & Ziggs have alot moe fun in DORKLAND with a USB cable running out there arse.