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.

Somehow, it always comes back to defensive output. Manu gives much more effort and therefore, blows Crawford away in that respect. If you're choosing a team, you Manu over Crawford every time.

Nalod wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:If Crawford spent his career with the Spurs under Pop then his standing would be a lot higher.

If pop would have him!!!

No real reason to believe he wouldn't. He isn't a Jr Smith type of knucklehead. He always comes off as a coach-able and likable person. Pop would have him put more effort on defense and the system would increase his FG%

newyorknewyork wrote:Crawford joined the NBA at the age of 19-20 after playing only 2 yrs of basketball ever. Ginobili joined the NBA at the age of 22-23 after years of professional ball overseas.

If Crawford played for Pop and the Spurs all these yrs then Pops style of play would be all he knows.

We really don't know. Not a knock on Crawford BTW, just don't know everything do we? Pop is brutal on his players and maybe Crawford could have stuck. He would have been asked to do more on defense and that can wear you down. Craw has bloated numbers because that is his role, come in and SHOOT!!!

Different players. But lets be real, Manu got all but one for the thumb!!! Its not on either of them to carry their respected teams but Manu is the 6th man on a championship contender about every year he played. Its not craws fault he has not been, but fact is he's not.

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 agree, crawford has played for some retarded coaches during his NBA career, and hasn't had any true superstars (before cp3)around him.

newyorknewyork wrote:Crawford joined the NBA at the age of 19-20 after playing only 2 yrs of basketball ever. Ginobili joined the NBA at the age of 22-23 after years of professional ball overseas.

If Crawford played for Pop and the Spurs all these yrs then Pops style of play would be all he knows.

+1

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VCoug wrote:

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.

There are no metrics to validate my point but by that same assertion, there are no metrics to refute it either since we can't account for the impact the Spurs culture/personnel would've had on Crawford. As a result, this is all based on an eye test.

Then there's really nothing to discuss. It's like arguing over whether blue or green is the prettier color.

So before these advanced metrics, there was no way for scouts to ascertain the degree and extent of talent? Even with metrics, it is difficult to determine that because it is far from comprehensive and does a poor job in controlling for external factors e.g. quality of teammates, quality of coaching, etc. Those just happen to be the very same factors that are at play in this discussion.

Bonn1997 wrote:Before advanced metrics, there were standard metrics, which were still better than nothing.

Then those same standard metrics could suggest that Ginobili and Crawford are not that different.

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VCoug wrote:

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.

There are no metrics to validate my point but by that same assertion, there are no metrics to refute it either since we can't account for the impact the Spurs culture/personnel would've had on Crawford. As a result, this is all based on an eye test.

Then there's really nothing to discuss. It's like arguing over whether blue or green is the prettier color.

So before these advanced metrics, there was no way for scouts to ascertain the degree and extent of talent? Even with metrics, it is difficult to determine that because it is far from comprehensive and does a poor job in controlling for external factors e.g. quality of teammates, quality of coaching, etc. Those just happen to be the very same factors that are at play in this discussion.

You can say that for any player. Who says that player x (who stinks) couldn't be as good as player y (who's great) if player x played on team x with coach k instead of playing on team y with coach j?

I believe that many players were successful or failed based completely on external factors. Dems Da breaks.