They raise the Manu

For the average public, there is no doubt that Manu Ginobili He is the best Argentine basketball player in history. Many will even say that he is the greatest athlete in the national golden pages above Diego Armando Maradona, Lionel Messi, Guillermo Vilas, Carlos Monzón, Luciana Aymar or Juan Manuel Fangio. But that which the street clearly marks is not so clear for the follower of the orange. Luis Scola also enters the discussion. And although Luifa does not compete with him in talent, a category in which the Bahia native dominates by a wide margin, his leadership, commitment to the Argentine National Team and always being there until his retirement at age 41 do come into the balance. That is why it was logical that the ranking of the top 75 in the NBA, with so many options, would leave disagreement.

Ginobili did not appear on the list, which was finally 76, chosen by current players, legends and specialized journalists, without specific parameters, unless they have played in the NBA. It’s okay? That’s wrong? It depends on which part of the glass you look at. Only 26 have more champion rings than Manu; Tom Heinsohn, with eight crowns with the Boston Celtics, also does not appear. And this one, that of the collective success of San antonio spurs, is the great point in favor of No. 20. Which is not little. But in a league where he likes the show and points, the guard was not spectacular even though he was at a high level during his 16 seasons.

His average of goals in the regular stage is 13.3, with no campaign of more than 20; In the playoffs his mark is 14, with two years with 20. In the other categories he did not excel beyond being a good tripler and a reliable robber. For this reason, the ranking has players who do not have a ring but have better individual records such as James Harden (25.1 on average), Damian Lillard (24.6) or Russell Westbrook (23.1).

This debate was not only opened in Argentina. Canada asked for Vince Carter, who left a legacy with the Toronto Raptors (eight-time All Star); Spain did the same with Pau Gasol (two rings in the Los Angeles Lakers and four All Star); France claimed for Tony Parker (four titles with San Antonio Spurs and MVP of the 2007 Finals), and Congo, for the oblivion of Dikembe Mutombo (four times defender of the year and retired jersey by Denver Nuggets and Atlanta Hawks).

Present or absent on the list, no one takes away the greatness and legacy that Ginobili left. Manu will always be the national flag in the best basketball in the world.

I SAY

Leo Montero (ESPN)

The Manu Ginobili thing is a huge nonsense. One of the most respected and loved players by rivals, coaches and teammates, it is incredible that he is not there. The same goes for French guard Tony Parker and Spanish pivot Pau Gasol. We are talking about three champions versus a lot of players, beyond the names, of this era and another that do not have anywhere near the history or the prestige or the dynasty or the era that these guys have marked.

It is said that the NBA looks at numbers and I wonder all the time: what numbers are we talking about? Are we talking about individual numbers? Or a title or an award from a specific year? This is a team sport and the ultimate achievement of a competition is to be a champion. It is not bad that a player is not a champion and is on the list; If it is wrong that they have so rudely ignored guys like Manu or Tony who have formed a dynasty of more than 15 years entering the playoffs and forming the most winning trio of the regular phase and playoffs together with Tim Duncan, who does have a lot of deserved his place among the 75 best players in history.

And I say this about Manu even though he was born in Finland. I think from a totally neutral place, zero silver. That these three are not there is something tremendous.

Fabián Pérez (TyC Sports)

Choosing the top 75 players leaves a lot of fabric to cut. At first there was Kyrie Irving, who, not wanting to get vaccinated, stopped appearing on the list. Regarding the issue of Manu, it seems unfair to me that he is not on the payroll. Although I don’t know if unfair is the exact word. It would be necessary to see what were the parameters that they used for the election. If the issue was about obtaining rings, then it is an injustice. Even if the choice is for personal achievements, I consider the same, because the former Spurs had many of them.

Now, I believe that one cannot speak of injustice because it was a very subjective matter as there was no clear rule. It is not understood that there were neither Tony Parker nor Robert Horry, who won seven NBA rings. Nor is it understood that Pau Gasol, who has played so well in the league, has not been there. On the side of feeling and achievement, it is not right that Ginobili has not been among the top 75/76, since there are players who have not won rings or who have not made history in a franchise, such as Damian Lillard or Melo Anthony.

He would have put Manu on it and not because he was Argentine, because he would also have put Gasol.

Leandro Fernández (NBA.com)

When you think with a little common sense it is understood that Manu is not on a list of the 75 best players in the NBA. A part of history was respected, such as keeping the 50 who had been voted in the last opportunity, back in 1996. If you think about it, from 96 to here it makes sense that there have been 25 better players than Manu.

If you go over those 25 names, almost all the players have a higher case than Manu. It must be understood that this vote was looking for the 75 best players in the history of the NBA, not those who have collaborated with the collective game of their team. That was Ginobili’s greatest virtue, being extremely important and historic in a franchise that won titles. When you see it from an individual look, which is the way voters do it, Manu’s arguments fall apart. We may not share the vision with which it was chosen, but that is a vision with which many agree.

However, there is no list that is going to change Manu’s legacy in the league. That he is not on the roster of the 75 best players in all history does not change anything at all. He is still an NBA legend.

Marcelo G. Nogueira (ESPN)

Ginobili could have been among the 76 chosen because he did enough individually and contributed for his team in four championships. I would have put him in Damian Lillard’s place, to name one case.

The unusual thing about the election is that the NBA did not determine rules (except to respect the 50 elected of the 50th Anniversary); then everything was left to the taste of the 88 members of the panel.

Alejandro Pérez (ESPN)

These elections are subject to personal tastes and opinions, so there will be as many criteria and views as people participate in that vote. I would have liked Manu Ginobili to have been there, because he made merits, but I cannot find any other of the 76 chosen who does not have consistent merits to be there. The 76 have a well-earned right in that group, as did Manu. It hurts me that he is not there.

Mauricio Codocea (Clarín)

Patriot pride hurts. And it’s okay, so be it. Manu had already appeared on other lists, so the illusion was well founded. This time it was special, also, because it was the “official”. But it was not. And it’s OK. What’s more: if we shed our patriotism, it even makes sense. Manu made an art of altruism, of team play, of us before me, but let’s put our hands on our hearts by asking ourselves: Is he one of the 75 best in the NBA? Is he really better than Carmelo Anthony, one of the top scorers? Is he better than Russell Westbrook, the man who pulverized all the statistics? That Damian Lillard, perhaps the only man on this earth capable of sitting at the same table when shooting from a distance with Stephen Curry?

In the full sense of the word player, possibly Manu is. But in the talent, in the one against one, surely, no. To understand it, you have to think about how many times and for how long Manu was among the 5 or 10 best players in the NBA. The answer to that is: none.

The league is full of cracks and Ginobili was never the best in the world. If they were the 75 most “decisive” or even “most important”, there it would be necessary to mount a protest before the White House if Manu were not present. In this case, your absence is fine.

Germán Beder (Urbana Play)

He deserved to be there for everything he achieved at the collective level, he has four rings on his CV, but I also understand that he has not been. All selection is subjective and in this, personal achievements were prioritized more than group ones, because, if not, there is no justification for Russell Westbrook to be there.

I know Manu and I know that all these mentions do not move the needle in the slightest, so I was not displeased.

Julián Mozo (CAB and Infobae)

Ginobili’s CV, in his 16 seasons and 1,275 games, says a lot, it is shocking enough, but it is not enough to reflect his real dimension, what it meant for the NBA and world basketball. Manu was much more than numbers. Even their numbers are the envy of millions of players around the world.

Unlike other stars, the Bahiense cannot be measured by only them, and the NBA did not notice it.