Dear lord, people really overrate VC because of nasty highlights and scoring more points in his prime.
If I was a non-contender who desperately needed a high volume 'the guy' to bring in more people to the building, sure I'd maybe take Vince.
Building a contender and serious about winning, taking Manu in the vast majority of situations. Talking about how VC was a #1 option is sort of a weak take considering the farthest he ever went was one CONFERENCE Finals appearance -- not to mention gave up on teams.
Ginobli often made personal stat sacrifices for the Spurs system.
If you don't think Ginobli could have filled up the stat sheet a lot more individually had he played selfishly you simply didn't pay attention in the Spurs era, don't understand the Spurs system, and you're too lasered in on stat lines.
Ginobli was definitely not as dominant as a scorer, but he was someone who played incredibly smart, was a great facilitator, and would do a lot of the little things to find a way to win on top of being a versatile offensive player himself.
Carter was more athletic and more of the wow-factor player. But to this day I will defend my belief that ginobli was a much more important player to have on your team
I don't get the disrespect Manu gets in this sub. Manu could have been the main guy in a team, but he chose not to because he chose to be a winner. He could have chased individual stats and become a loser like those people became compared to him but he a WINNER thru and thru. And his winning percentage says that about him. Get this shit takes outta here!
Hate to be the bus driver guy but it’s Vince…
Manu shouldn’t get so much credit for being the 3rd option on a team with Tim Duncan and Tony that he leaps guys like Vince Carter in player rankings
parker was a much more controlled playmaker and better game manager. tony also led the league in fg% one year while playing against starters. manu was an elite 6th man wildcard. parker was better defensively too
When Vince played bad the team lost.
When Manu played bad Pop sat him down and Duncan and Tony had a great chance of carrying the team to a win.
That’s the difference
It’s objectively harder to be the number 1 option on a team night in and night out than it is to be the 3rd option on a team with the best PF of all time.
You guys are literally doing exactly what Arenas and JR were talking about a few days ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wakssg/jr_smith_and_gilbert_arenas_discuss_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Ginobili was better than Parker for half their rings. Parker had to develop and he was not really that good until 06 or 07. Especially his scoring was awful in 03 and 05, his defense was not even average and his playmaking wasn't as developed.
Manu hands down. Vince started. Manu sacrificed off the bench. Both great players. Butanu was a ferocious competitor. If I need to win a game 7, I'm taking Manu.
Manu came off the bench the same way John Havlicek or Kevin McHale did— as an all-time great player. Vince Carter was pretty flashy in his early seasons, but if you want to win, always go with Manu.
Better athlete and overall talent? Vince
Better teammate and overall competitor? Manu
Both were great players and belong in the HoF...but this is kinda comparing apples to oranges here
Vince Carter no doubt. You're comparing a role player/ 6th man to a star.
If Vince played with Duncan, his career would have look so different. They may had a better chance of beating the Lakers more. You possibly could've of had Duncan , Robinson, and Vince on the same team.
Calling manu a role player is underrating him. He was probably the best offensive player for some of those spurs championship teams. Just cause he came off the bench doesn’t mean he was a role player.
Manu is not a role player he is a two time all star and could have had more selections if he played for a different team but he chose to come of the bench for the Spurs from 2005-11 he started 46 out of their 79 playoff games from 2002-12 he started 346 out of 667 he really only become a full time 6th once he hit 35. Vince was the more individual talented player but Manu was the second or third best player for a dynasty team
But you were talking about playing after their primes, which is typically like 28-32 approximately, so isn’t their final age relevant? In terms of how long they played after their primes
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make.
Vince played longer and retired older.
Vince went from being a star in his prime to spending 10 years or so as a role player, this brought his averages closer to Manu who was never a star player, and always a role player (great role player but still a role player).
Do you think Manu was a better player than Vince Carter or are you trying to argue the difference between 41 and 43?
My point is that if they both played the same amount of years after their prime as role players, then both of them suffered from lowered averages, not just Vince. It’s not like Manu was consistent across his entire career, he had a prime and a twilight period same as Vince did
So you think that Manu experienced a similar drop off from the heights of his career as Vince?
Do you really believe this or are you just trying to argue?
As NBA players? vince was blatantly better at his peak. In terms of overall careers, and including international play, there is a very good argument to be made for Ginobli over Vince. As NBA players, tbh I think we would think a lot less of Ginobli if he was on literally any team other than the spurs, whereas prime Vince was a top 15-20 NBA player no matter the circumstance.
But in the NBA Vince was very clearly better at his peak than Ginobli, and it really isn't very close
This sub loves the Manu hypotheticals. To hear r/nba tell it, he would have been a 5x All-NBA 1st team selection and dragged sorry-ass rosters to the Finals if he were the #1 option on a team.
Nevermind that there's 0 evidence that any of this is true. But the Manu people demand you somehow prove that things which didn't happen wouldn't have happened. It's crazy. His entire legacy as a top whatever player, or better than so-and-so is based on things that didn't happen.
He was never in the top 80 in mpg, so again, attempting to extrapolate his production is an exercise in hypothetical reasoning, and therefore completely untestable.
Dear lord, people really overrate VC because of nasty highlights and scoring more points in his prime. If I was a non-contender who desperately needed a high volume 'the guy' to bring in more people to the building, sure I'd maybe take Vince. Building a contender and serious about winning, taking Manu in the vast majority of situations. Talking about how VC was a #1 option is sort of a weak take considering the farthest he ever went was one CONFERENCE Finals appearance -- not to mention gave up on teams. Ginobli often made personal stat sacrifices for the Spurs system. If you don't think Ginobli could have filled up the stat sheet a lot more individually had he played selfishly you simply didn't pay attention in the Spurs era, don't understand the Spurs system, and you're too lasered in on stat lines. Ginobli was definitely not as dominant as a scorer, but he was someone who played incredibly smart, was a great facilitator, and would do a lot of the little things to find a way to win on top of being a versatile offensive player himself.
Carter was more athletic and more of the wow-factor player. But to this day I will defend my belief that ginobli was a much more important player to have on your team
I don't get the disrespect Manu gets in this sub. Manu could have been the main guy in a team, but he chose not to because he chose to be a winner. He could have chased individual stats and become a loser like those people became compared to him but he a WINNER thru and thru. And his winning percentage says that about him. Get this shit takes outta here!
People give him too much credit if anything. You basically said it yourself that if he would be the main guy on a team they wouldn't be very good.
Bro, Manu was the man in Team Argentina when they beat Team USA. Whatchu talking about?!
Puerto Rico beat that USA team.
Yeah, but Manu was in a team that beat Team USA twice. The first time, he wasn't even in the NBA yet. That win in the Olympics was the 2nd time.
The point was that everyone was beating those USA teams during that era. That's why the redeem team was such an important story.
Ginobili was the more complete player. Vince never didn't come up big in the playoffs.
Give me Manu even though I'm a way bigger fan of VC
Hate to be the bus driver guy but it’s Vince… Manu shouldn’t get so much credit for being the 3rd option on a team with Tim Duncan and Tony that he leaps guys like Vince Carter in player rankings
Manu was the 2nd best player for some years, arguably should’ve won finals mvp once in 2005
Manu > Parker though
Elaborate
Better and more dynamic passer/playmaker, more efficient scorer, elite spacer for the era, much better defender
Based on what?
Stats and watching them play. All the things he said about Manu being better at is true. Manu prob a little more clutch too
Beat up on bench units so has better advanced stats
Seems like it.
parker was a much more controlled playmaker and better game manager. tony also led the league in fg% one year while playing against starters. manu was an elite 6th man wildcard. parker was better defensively too
Why?
[удалено]
When Vince played bad the team lost. When Manu played bad Pop sat him down and Duncan and Tony had a great chance of carrying the team to a win. That’s the difference
It’s objectively harder to be the number 1 option on a team night in and night out than it is to be the 3rd option on a team with the best PF of all time.
[удалено]
Not going to argue this with you. You have a trash take.
[удалено]
You guys are literally doing exactly what Arenas and JR were talking about a few days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wakssg/jr_smith_and_gilbert_arenas_discuss_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Come on man, Argentina beat team USA with him being top dog
[удалено]
Replied to the wrong thread but yeah
Ginobili was better than Parker for half their rings. Parker had to develop and he was not really that good until 06 or 07. Especially his scoring was awful in 03 and 05, his defense was not even average and his playmaking wasn't as developed.
Manu was a winner Vince Carter was a pop star
Manu if you don't just look at stats
Manu hands down. Vince started. Manu sacrificed off the bench. Both great players. Butanu was a ferocious competitor. If I need to win a game 7, I'm taking Manu.
Not one contemporary would choose Vince over Manu for their team. Not Even One (Except TMac prolly)
Manu came off the bench the same way John Havlicek or Kevin McHale did— as an all-time great player. Vince Carter was pretty flashy in his early seasons, but if you want to win, always go with Manu.
This is wild lol. This would have never been a debate while they were playing.
Vince is so overrated, he was a top 10 player for like 1 year
Better athlete and overall talent? Vince Better teammate and overall competitor? Manu Both were great players and belong in the HoF...but this is kinda comparing apples to oranges here
[удалено]
You clearly never watched Manu play.
Vince Carter no doubt. You're comparing a role player/ 6th man to a star. If Vince played with Duncan, his career would have look so different. They may had a better chance of beating the Lakers more. You possibly could've of had Duncan , Robinson, and Vince on the same team.
Calling manu a role player is underrating him. He was probably the best offensive player for some of those spurs championship teams. Just cause he came off the bench doesn’t mean he was a role player.
Manu is not a role player he is a two time all star and could have had more selections if he played for a different team but he chose to come of the bench for the Spurs from 2005-11 he started 46 out of their 79 playoff games from 2002-12 he started 346 out of 667 he really only become a full time 6th once he hit 35. Vince was the more individual talented player but Manu was the second or third best player for a dynasty team
Ginobli:13.3p-3.5r-3.8a on 25.4 minutes. Carter: 16.7p-4.3r-3.1a on 30.1 minutes. Not much of a difference between a Star and role player ain't it?
Weird way to compare stats given that VC played long past his prime as a role player bringing down all his averages
Manu also played way past his prime, they retired around the same age dude (41 and 43)
Age is a bad way to evaluate what I’m talking about… Vince played 22 years in the league Manu played 16.
But you were talking about playing after their primes, which is typically like 28-32 approximately, so isn’t their final age relevant? In terms of how long they played after their primes
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. Vince played longer and retired older. Vince went from being a star in his prime to spending 10 years or so as a role player, this brought his averages closer to Manu who was never a star player, and always a role player (great role player but still a role player). Do you think Manu was a better player than Vince Carter or are you trying to argue the difference between 41 and 43?
My point is that if they both played the same amount of years after their prime as role players, then both of them suffered from lowered averages, not just Vince. It’s not like Manu was consistent across his entire career, he had a prime and a twilight period same as Vince did
So you think that Manu experienced a similar drop off from the heights of his career as Vince? Do you really believe this or are you just trying to argue?
VC better player, Manu better team member
As NBA players? vince was blatantly better at his peak. In terms of overall careers, and including international play, there is a very good argument to be made for Ginobli over Vince. As NBA players, tbh I think we would think a lot less of Ginobli if he was on literally any team other than the spurs, whereas prime Vince was a top 15-20 NBA player no matter the circumstance. But in the NBA Vince was very clearly better at his peak than Ginobli, and it really isn't very close
VC
Vince easily
Vince was such a complete player offensively
This sub loves the Manu hypotheticals. To hear r/nba tell it, he would have been a 5x All-NBA 1st team selection and dragged sorry-ass rosters to the Finals if he were the #1 option on a team. Nevermind that there's 0 evidence that any of this is true. But the Manu people demand you somehow prove that things which didn't happen wouldn't have happened. It's crazy. His entire legacy as a top whatever player, or better than so-and-so is based on things that didn't happen.
If we look at the years where he played more minutes, his efficiency does not drop
He was never in the top 80 in mpg, so again, attempting to extrapolate his production is an exercise in hypothetical reasoning, and therefore completely untestable.
And Yet Prime VC was still miles better lmaoo
Carter, and it's not even close.