tj23 wrote:Ginobili has always made his teammates better. Far better player.

That's such a canard. Players don't make other players better. At the end of the day, you can create all the daylight you want for a teammate, it still doesn't mean he'll make the shot. You can't rebound for them or play defense for them either.

VCoug wrote:Manu and it's not even close. While their raw numbers might look similar take a deeper look. Manu's career FG% is 45%, Crawford shot that well for a season only twice, is a career 41% shooter, and shot under 40% four times. Manu's career 2fg% is 50%; Crawford has never shot that well from 2. Manu's career 3fg% is 37%; Crawford's is 35%. Their assist numbers are similar but Manu's a better rebounder. If you're into advanced stats Manu blows Crawford out of the water in PER, ORtg, DRtg, WS, and WS/48.

And that's just really talking about offense, defensively it's also no contest. Manu was never going to win DPOY or be named to the All-Defensive team but he can handle himself out there. Crawford is god-awful on defense; easily as bad as Harden.

markvmc wrote:You mean better at something other than basketball? Because that's the only way this could be a serious question.

Clever. Would you even say that Ginobli is better than Crawford, present-day?

NardDogNation wrote:

markvmc wrote:You mean better at something other than basketball? Because that's the only way this could be a serious question.

Clever. Would you even say that Ginobli is better than Crawford, present-day?

Yes. Without a doubt.

markvmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

markvmc wrote:You mean better at something other than basketball? Because that's the only way this could be a serious question.

Clever. Would you even say that Ginobli is better than Crawford, present-day?

Yes. Without a doubt.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Even though the Spurs trumped Miami, this guy looked horrible. You'll give me the argument that he's conforming his game to further a winning strategy, while Crawford has free reign to put up gawdy numbers. But looking at Ginobili play, he consistently bricks shots on poor form, loses the ball on unforced errors and makes really dumb passes. His skillset allows him to have a breakout game but Ginobili has gotten that JR status in my eyes. If Crawford had Popovich and co., we'd be having a different conversation about his career because he does everything Ginobili can do.

tj23 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

tj23 wrote:Ginobili has always made his teammates better. Far better player.

That's such a canard. Players don't make other players better. At the end of the day, you can create all the daylight you want for a teammate, it still doesn't mean he'll make the shot. You can't rebound for them or play defense for them either.

If you don't like the way I phrased it fine. Ginobili creates far better looks for his teammates. Crawford is simply a scorer who takes a lot more questionable shots than Manu.

Jamal Crawford was a former PG and despite having the ball far less, is still averaging 3.2apg. I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you again.

VCoug wrote:Manu and it's not even close. While their raw numbers might look similar take a deeper look. Manu's career FG% is 45%, Crawford shot that well for a season only twice, is a career 41% shooter, and shot under 40% four times. Manu's career 2fg% is 50%; Crawford has never shot that well from 2. Manu's career 3fg% is 37%; Crawford's is 35%. Their assist numbers are similar but Manu's a better rebounder. If you're into advanced stats Manu blows Crawford out of the water in PER, ORtg, DRtg, WS, and WS/48.

And that's just really talking about offense, defensively it's also no contest. Manu was never going to win DPOY or be named to the All-Defensive team but he can handle himself out there. Crawford is god-awful on defense; easily as bad as Harden.

All of that and Manu has a brain.

NardDogNation wrote:

markvmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

markvmc wrote:You mean better at something other than basketball? Because that's the only way this could be a serious question.

Clever. Would you even say that Ginobli is better than Crawford, present-day?

Yes. Without a doubt.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Even though the Spurs trumped Miami, this guy looked horrible. You'll give me the argument that he's conforming his game to further a winning strategy, while Crawford has free reign to put up gawdy numbers. But looking at Ginobili play, he consistently bricks shots on poor form, loses the ball on unforced errors and makes really dumb passes. His skillset allows him to have a breakout game but Ginobili has gotten that JR status in my eyes. If Crawford had Popovich and co., we'd be having a different conversation about his career because he does everything Ginobili can do.

I don't understand your argument. Ginobili is a better career shooter from 2 and 3 than Crawford is. Manu is a career 50% shooter from 2 vs 44% for Crawford; Manu is a career 37% shooter from 3 compared to 35% for Crawford. Their career turnover numbers are nearly identical, 2/game for Crawford vs 2.1/game for Manu, as are their assists, 3.7/game for Crawford vs 4/game for Manu.

As for looking terrible in the Finals. Manu 13ppg, 3rpg, and 4.5apg while shooting 48 fg% and 38 3fg%. That doesn't include tonight's game when he put up 19 points, 4 rebounds and assists, shooting 6-11 from the field and 3-6 from 3.

This past season, when Manu is 36 and Crawford is 33, Manu put up 12ppg, 3rpg, 4apg, 46 fg%, 55 2fg%, and 34 3fg%. Crawford put up 18ppg, 2rpg, 3apg, 41 fg%, 46 2fg%, and 36 3fg%. And Crawford played 30mpg vs 22mpg for Manu.