Manu vs. McGrady revisited

[elementally morale]

Several years ago (it was either 4 or 5 I can't remember but I'll go with 5) there was a then-famous thread I started. It was about Tracy McGrady and Manu Ginobili. I argued back then the following:


i) Manu Ginobili is a better basketball player. Less physically talented individually, but knows more about the game and can dominate/contribute in more ways.

ii) I'd rather have Manu on my team because he may not be as good a 1st option but he can play in different situations and an be asked to lead the team, be the go-to guy and the decision maker at the end of games and at the same time you can also ask him to come off the bench.

iii) I'd rather have Manu because he comes much cheaper while on average he contributes nearly as much. (And a lot more with McGrady's injuriy history taken into account.)

iv) Manu would have a better career and will be considered a winner, be it NBA or FIBA as opposed to McGrady who will not be considered a winner.

v) I prefer Manu because he has a fire inside him, a fire of the kind he can contain -- but a fire still.



Of course I was ridiculed back then. I can remember a poster (miles berg) agreeing with me... and I think that was that. Here I'm asking the following:


1) Who do you think was/is the better player?
2) Who had the better career?
3) Who was the greater player in your opinion on an all-time list?
4) Who would you rather have in the 2010-2011 season?
5) Who was more worth it to get the contract he got with everything (fans, income made to team, merchandise, etc.) considered?


(I'm not asking which of these players had the better peak, we all know the answer to that question.)

[Brunch@Five]

TMac was a superstar, Manu is at best a second fiddle, a poor-mans early decade Kobe. Why even compare them?
Obviously Manu is great to have on any team because he's good in every role on the court. But I don't know if any team would rather have prime Manu over prime TMac on their team.

The answer to all your question except 4) is TMac

[elementally morale]

TMac was a superstar, Manu is at best a second fiddle, a poor-mans early decade Kobe. Why even compare them?
Obviously Manu is great to have on any team because he's good in every role on the court. But I don't know if any team would rather have prime Manu over prime TMac on their team.

The answer to all your question except 4) is TMac

Prime McGrady didn't last long. And I don't agree Manu is AT BEST second fiddle. Manu at best is a big time winner as the 1st option on the team of Argentina. Manu was clearly the Spurs 2nd best player this decade and I'm not sure he isn't still.

Manu in my opinion was easily worth the contracts he got. I can't say the same about McGrady.

And I'm sure I want someone on the team who is a very good 2nd fiddle instead of a dysfunctional franchise player (being also a lot more expensive). Because if we call McGrady a franchise player... where exactly did he take those franchises?

[Brunch@Five]

Prime McGrady didn't last long. And I don't agree Manu is AT BEST second fiddle. Manu at best is a big time winner as the 1st option on the team of Argentina. Manu was clearly the Spurs 2nd best player this decade and I'm not sure he isn't still.

So we count his team Argentina career too? FIBA BBall is too different from NBA to fairly assess it in a comparison. Manu never played as well as TMac did in the NBA.

Manu in my opinion was easily worth the contracts he got. I can't say the same about McGrady.

You did include "(fans, income made to team, merchandise, etc.) ", so TMac easily tops Manu here. It isn't even close.

And I'm sure I want someone on the team who is a very good 2nd fiddle instead of a dysfunctional franchise player (being also a lot more expensive). Because if we call McGrady a franchise player... where exactly did he take those franchises?

Manu needs another great player on his team to be successful. Manu on Orlando instead of TMac, and they do not make the playoffs. Manu on Houston instead of TMac and they still do not make it out of the first round.

[elementally morale]

The answer to all your question except 4) is TMac

My answers:


1) Who do you think was/is the better player?
Manu was the better player. McGrady had more individual dominance at his peak, but basketball is a team sport. Manu is a much much better team player.

2) Who had the better career?
Manu. Easily.


3) Who was the greater player in your opinion on an all-time list?
I don't know. McGrady's peak was very high but Manu won a lot. I'd call this even.


4) Who would you rather have in the 2010-2011 season?
Depends. Is there such a thing as a healthy McGrady? What is his contract going to be like?


5) Who was more worth it to get the contract he got with everything (fans, income made to team, merchandise, etc.) considered?
I'm not sure. From a basketball only standpoint, it has to be Manu. Everything considered... probably McGrady. He sold out a few arenas and put some fans in front of TV sets.

[elementally morale]

Manu on Orlando instead of TMac, and they do not make the playoffs. Manu on Houston instead of TMac and they still do not make it out of the first round.

You don't really know that, do you? manu never was in McGrady's shoes / situation. He was not asked to lead a team in the NBA. Could he have done that at his peak? Possibly. I'm not sure... but I'm not sure he couldn't have. He WAS able to do things internationally as the leader, wasn't he?

The problem with McGrady is that he was a franchise player. Had he never been one, I'd have no problems with him. But he was said to be able to take teams to the next level and make them contenders, and he failed too many times. Sure, he didn't have the best of luck either. But he was a more talented version of Kobe Bryant and has nothing to show for it.

[Abraham Lincoln]

TMac was a superstar, Manu is at best a second fiddle, a poor-mans early decade Kobe. Why even compare them?
Obviously Manu is great to have on any team because he's good in every role on the court. But I don't know if any team would rather have prime Manu over prime TMac on their team.

The answer to all your question except 4) is TMac

Early decade '01-'03 Kobe was a superstar. No worse than any active player.

[chains5000]

I don't think it's a fair comparison considering McGrady has been injured a lot the last 5 years.
Manu has been clearly better than him during that period.

[elementally morale]

I don't think it's a fair comparison considering McGrady has been injured a lot the last 5 years.
Manu has been clearly better than him during that period.

Being able to stay healthy still counts when you consider a career or a contract. But even when healthy, McGrady didn't take the teams he was on anywhere. At first (with Orlando) I thought it was bad luck (ans his team overachieved to begin with) but as time flew by McGrady failed to deliver the goods.

Again, had he not been a franchise player it wasn't half as bad as it is now. (And I have nothing against the guy. I don't like him but I don't dislike him either. He was perhaps the most talented player this decade, but definitely top 3.)

[ronnymac]

Maybe better in the last two years. Up till the 07-08 Season McGrady was the better overall player..

[Doranku]

I don't see how it can be argued that TMac had a better career than Manu. In his prime, TMac put up stellar numbers.. but really his prime only lasted for about 3 or 4 years. In those years, he couldn't even get his team to the second round. Manu on the other hand, was a key instrument for the Spurs during the decade in their championship runs, and had numerous big playoff games.

It's unfortunate that TMac battled so many injuries throughout his career, and if he had been healthy he would easily be ahead of Manu, but that's not how things played out. TMac won't be remembered for his superb prime years, he'll be remembered as the second coming of Grant Hill, while Manu will be remembered as a winner.

As for the questions..

1.) TMac in his prime was clearly better than Manu ever was, but I'd give the nod to Manu based on his consistency and the fact that he was a winner
2.) Manu, for the reasons listed above
3.) Depends on if you factor international basketball in. Given that Manu won at every level imaginable in basketball, I'd place him above TMac. Just NBA careers, I'm really not sure. Probably still give Manu the nod based on his performance in the finals against the Pistons
4.) Both look like they're never going to get healthy again... I'd pick Manu solely based on giving him a better chance to recover from injuries than TMac
5.) It depends on what kinda weight you place on the things like fans, income, and merchandise. Assuming they're all equal to winning and basketball performance, then it's TMac by a large margin. If these are just minor things, I'd say Manu considering all the things he has done for the Spurs over the decade.

[Jakeh008]

1) Who do you think was/is the better player? Obviously Mac was the better player no question and as for who is better now.... No one has seen mac really play yet. That is a question soon to be answered.


2) Who had the better career?
Statisticly Mac has had a much better carreer but Manu has championships.
The Champion wins everytime....


3) Who was the greater player in your opinion on an all-time list? Mac has 8 season with 50+ games on an elite level.
Manu only has 4 good season on a level not even that close to Macs
McGrady is much better on an all time list


4) Who would you rather have in the 2010-2011 season?
Once again this completely depends on how Tracy comes back.....



5) Who was more worth it to get the contract he got with everything (fans, income made to team, merchandise, etc.) considered?
Manu makes less then half of Mac
Unless his stats are half as bad he wins this one
Manu is worth what he is getting but Mac is only worth about 15(If he was playing at his normal level when he comes back)



Question-
1-Mac
2-Manu
3-Mac
4-N/A
5-Manu

[chains5000]

Being able to stay healthy still counts when you consider a career or a contract. But even when healthy, McGrady didn't take the teams he was on anywhere. At first (with Orlando) I thought it was bad luck (ans his team overachieved to begin with) but as time flew by McGrady failed to deliver the goods.

Again, had he not been a franchise player it wasn't half as bad as it is now. (And I have nothing against the guy. I don't like him but I don't dislike him either. He was perhaps the most talented player this decade, but definitely top 3.)

I totally agree.

[Big#50]

Manu is a better defender, shooter, passer and is clutch. TMAC could score a lot in his prime. Give Manu the same amount of shots and he'll score 30 a game as well.

Manu>TMAC

[SayTownRy]

Manu is a better defender, shooter, passer and is clutch. TMAC could score a lot in his prime. Give Manu the same amount of shots and he'll score 30 a game as well.

Manu>TMAC

this always gets overlooked with great spurs players. the spurs have always been a low scoring team that shares the load.

there's a team outlook at play, lots of sharing the ball, not one go to guy every single night who's forced to take shots.

and to further the point that manu could score as much as mcgrady if he had the FGA, manu has the better FG% and 3pt FG%. manu on his career has averaged 10.3 FGA, where as mcgrady has averaged 18.3. mcgrady has scored 7 more ppg than manu on 8 more shots per game over the span of his career.