2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #46

[Y2K]

In these "what would Player X have done with a larger role" debates, there's no way to prove anything definitively, obviously. That said, when it comes to Manu, I'm one of the people (and I think I'm in the minority here) who actually thinks that he was in the perfect role and on the perfect team to maximize his talents (similar to Draymond Green in that regard) as opposed to being a superstar who sacrificed individual numbers for the good of the team.

As a rangy, snake-like combo-guard capable of explosive scoring outbursts (and with a knack for drawing fouls and/or flopping), I see the similarities to Dwyane Wade and James Harden. Here's the thing, though: Harden's last year in OKC-- the year he broke out, and was the 3rd best player on his team-- his efficiency was the best of his career (before and after). He shot .491 from the field and .390 from beyond the arc-- both career highs to-date. When LeBron showed up in Miami and Wade's role diminished, his overall numbers dropped but his efficiency sky-rocketed-- he shot over 50% from the field every year LeBron was there save one-- where he shot .497-- and he's never done that any other year in his career before or after.

When Harden and Wade were not the top option, their efficiency went through the roof. Manu has spent his entire NBA career as a 2nd or 3rd option, and he's never been a tremendously efficient player-- .450 / .368 for his career.

Looking at this objectively, it's hard for me to believe that his efficiency would have improved had he been forced to take more shots as a "#1 option." More likely than not, I think he probably would have been a 21-23ppg scorer shooting in the 40-43% range. If that's what a guy is giving you on offense-- and it's not like he's ever been anything more than a marginal defender-- it's hard to for me to say that he's been a self-sacrificing star.

For the record, I'm taking TMac here. For a short stretch, he was pretty much universally considered one of the best players in the game. You can't say that about any of the other guys who are left.

The thing about Manu was that he was so well-rounded offensively that I don't think that he'd have a dropoff in efficiency. He drew fouls at a very good rate as well. He's not the caliber of volume scorer as Wade, T-Mac or that type of player. He's probably a very good #2 at best. However, that isn't what many people initially think of him.

What he did bring to the table, skills wise, is more than what Parker brings. He just played his role and had a very nice career.

Off of the top of my head, TMac is the only player I can think of who didn't have a drop-off in efficiency once his role changed from 2nd/3rd option to #1 option. It pretty much happens to everyone, no matter how good they are. If you are the opposing defense's number one priority and you're going to be taking more shots and more difficult shots, it simply stands to reason that your efficiency is going to suffer.

Manu is a good, versatile player who has never been afraid of the big moment. That said, is he even a part of this conversation right now if he hadn't played his entire career with Tim Duncan? He's being mentioned right now in the same breath as guys like TMac, Allen, and Mullin, and I feel pretty comfortable saying that those guys would have likely had similar careers regardless of who drafted them.

Pretty much every star player that has played for San Antonio since Pop took over has benefitted greatly from how their system is set up from top to bottom. Naturally, Duncan is going to be less of a beneficiary of that due to how impactful his individual game is on both ends of the court. But in Manu's case, it is fair to say that he has benefitted more from his circumstances than most players on this list In terms of hardware. That's why at a certain point in the process, a player's circumstances have to be taken into account.

[Y2K]

Voting for the round closes at 5 pm CST.

[Robceltsfan]

Bottom line is....if there's anyone here that would even remotely consider preferring Manu to T-Mac as their starting SG....they need to have their head examined. In any context.

[wailuaFC]

Bottom line is....if there's anyone here that would even remotely consider preferring Manu to T-Mac as their starting SG....they need to have their head examined. In any context.

But that's not what this list has been about otherwise curry would be way above guys like Kidd and Iverson, Walton over Mchale and Ewing, and grant hill (who still isn't even a nominee) over Reggie Miller and Paul pierce.

[Y2K]

Bottom line is....if there's anyone here that would even remotely consider preferring Manu to T-Mac as their starting SG....they need to have their head examined. In any context.

But that's not what this list has been about otherwise curry would be way above guys like Kidd and Iverson, Walton over Mchale and Ewing, and grant hill (who still isn't even a nominee) over Reggie Miller and Paul pierce.

I'm glad that you said this. I am nominating Grant Hill.

[Robceltsfan]

Bottom line is....if there's anyone here that would even remotely consider preferring Manu to T-Mac as their starting SG....they need to have their head examined. In any context.

But that's not what this list has been about otherwise curry would be way above guys like Kidd and Iverson, Walton over Mchale and Ewing, and grant hill (who still isn't even a nominee) over Reggie Miller and Paul pierce.

Curry's career is in it's infancy....Kidd and Iverson's are complete. Walton HAD an abbreviated career....McHale and Ewing didn't. Grant Hill was injury plagued....Miller and Pierce weren't.


Manu and T-Mac have had complete careers and not a single person here can tell me that those Spurs teams wouldn't have been as good or better with T-Mac (at any point in his career relative to Manu) playing 26 minutes off the bench.