How good was Manu Ginobili? Would he have been seen as a superstar if he played on another team? Why did he come off the bench and play fewer minutes? And wa...
Duncan is a defensive all-timer but people give him way too much credit for the Spurs offensive success. Their offense took off when their offense starting featuring more Ginobili and Parker, when Duncan was the lead guy their offenses were actually pretty average.
Players like David Robinson, and Garnett get so much criticism for their offensive limitations but Duncan never seems to be viewed the same way. I think his outside shooting percentages, lack of rim pressure, and limited playmaking makes him a much more flawed offensive player than people would think.
The graph at the end of this video does a good job illustrating this point, the spurs outscored teams by around 9 points per 100 with Ginobili and no Duncan, with no Ginobili, and Duncan on the court they were outscored by around 3 points per 100 from 2004-2008. Ginobili deserves way more credit for the Spurs success.
Manu played with the bench unit and closed out games. Those were Spurs strong areas. The team was designed to be like that. They were always a system-team that relied on depth and balance. Their bench unit was among the strongest which inflated this stat in manus favor.
idk why people feel the need to diminish any of the other spurs 4 of the Duncan era to make sense of their success. Pop is the GOAT, TD is the PF GOAT, Manu is the 6th man GOAT, and TP is one of the generation’s premier PGs, and probably the most underrated of the 4. They all contributed to the dynasty, all deserve tons of credit, and no one needs to say, well so and so’s success means that so and so was kinda carried
Duncan is a defensive all-timer but people give him way too much credit for the Spurs offensive success. Their offense took off when their offense starting featuring more Ginobili and Parker, when Duncan was the lead guy their offenses were actually pretty average.
Players like David Robinson, and Garnett get so much criticism for their offensive limitations but Duncan never seems to be viewed the same way. I think his outside shooting percentages, lack of rim pressure, and limited playmaking makes him a much more flawed offensive player than people would think.
The graph at the end of this video does a good job illustrating this point, the spurs outscored teams by around 9 points per 100 with Ginobili and no Duncan, with no Ginobili, and Duncan on the court they were outscored by around 3 points per 100 from 2004-2008. Ginobili deserves way more credit for the Spurs success.
Manu played with the bench unit and closed out games. Those were Spurs strong areas. The team was designed to be like that. They were always a system-team that relied on depth and balance. Their bench unit was among the strongest which inflated this stat in manus favor.
idk why people feel the need to diminish any of the other spurs 4 of the Duncan era to make sense of their success. Pop is the GOAT, TD is the PF GOAT, Manu is the 6th man GOAT, and TP is one of the generation’s premier PGs, and probably the most underrated of the 4. They all contributed to the dynasty, all deserve tons of credit, and no one needs to say, well so and so’s success means that so and so was kinda carried
Have always said this, Tim Duncan the Offensive Player is overrated.
His Offensive limitations is also why the author of Thinking Basketball doesn’t quite think that Duncan has a case as a GOAT Candidate