true or false: today's isaiah thomas> tony parker

[RsxPiimp]

whats your serious take, tbh.

[DMC]

true without a doubt, stupid question actually.

[140]

Well duh

[apalisoc_9]

False.

Tony Parker 2011-2014 enginered one of the greatest offensive systems ever. It's not even close.

We wouldn't have this conversation if The Celtics lost last night. :lmao

[lefty]

Thomas is shit

But still better than Porker tbh...

[lebomb]

Short term memory loss for Today NBA fans.

Tony was top 3 PG in his prime. Unstoppable to the rim. I would take prime TP over Isaiah all day.

[unleashbaynes]

It continues to befuddle me that nobody will just put the dude on his ass. It's literally a free lane to the hoop every time.

[DMC]

Short term memory loss for Today NBA fans.

Tony was top 3 PG in his prime. Unstoppable to the rim. I would take prime TP over Isaiah all day.

He didn't say "prime parker".

[313]

Easily, and I'm a Parker homer.

[spursistan]

False.

Tony Parker 2011-2014 enginered one of the greatest offensive systems ever. It's not even close.

We wouldn't have this conversation if The Celtics lost last night. :lmao

Not to mention, Parker was actually an underrated defender in his prime..Especially when he locks in in H2H matchups vs PGs..

[lebomb]

Then this is a dumbass question. Most all PGs are better than Tony today.

[Clipper Nation]

There's no comparison. Porker couldn't even outplay his own backups in his prime, let alone Isaiah now.

[lebomb]

There's no comparison. Porker couldn't even outplay his own backups in his prime, let alone Isaiah now.

Wrong.........finals MVP niggra.

[UZER]

I remember watching and1 videos back in the day and thinking man those moves look nice but that's a bunch of carrying and you can't do that in the NBA. Fast forward 20 years and here we are.

IT carries more than anyone I've ever seen in the NBA. Hoiburg was right, those discontinued dribbles are impossible to guard.

[Clipper Nation]

Wrong.........finals MVP niggra.
http://i.imgur.com/cVFFqfH.jpg

[RsxPiimp]

He didn't say "prime parker".

of course its prime parker. do I have to spell it out to you guys? smh.

[-21-]

of course its prime parker. do I have to spell it out to you guys? smh.

:lol DMC

Pilosopo

[8FOR!3]

Parker was a solid defender in his prime, Thomas wouldn't be able to stay on the court if he wasn't the best scorer on his team.

[RsxPiimp]

:lol DMC

Pilosopo

gago yang dmc na yan. sarap sapakin. :lmao

[lefty]

There's no comparison. Porker couldn't even outplay his own backups in his prime, let alone Isaiah now.
/thread

[StrengthAndHonor]

English please...

[RsxPiimp]

English please...

shut up cripple fan

[-21-]

gago yang dmc na yan. sarap sapakin. :lmao

:lol Anyway, I'd definitely take Parker over Thomas. What he's doing is very impressive but he is still 5'9" and a defensive liability. Parker was, at one point, the "head of the snake" of a real contender. I don't think you can really call the Celtics a contender, it's amazing how much the East sucks. If you put prime TP on that Celtics team, he'd be doing just fine tbh. Put IT on Duncan's Spurs and I'm not sure it would work out as well.

[DMC]

of course its prime parker. do I have to spell it out to you guys? smh.

You said "today's". Today there is no prime parker.

[DMC]

gago yang dmc na yan. sarap sapakin. :lmao

Are you Avante's rape trophy?

[RsxPiimp]

come on D :lol

[RsxPiimp]

:lol Anyway, I'd definitely take Parker over Thomas. What he's doing is very impressive but he is still 5'9" and a defensive liability. Parker was, at one point, the "head of the snake" of a real contender. I don't think you can really call the Celtics a contender, it's amazing how much the East sucks. If you put prime TP on that Celtics team, he'd be doing just fine tbh. Put IT on Duncan's Spurs and I'm not sure it would work out as well.
damn, thanks for the solid take brotha :hat

[DMC]

Prime Tony is a HOFer.

I'd take IT now though, could use his scoring. + he can get the ball up the floor without dribbling.

[Mnky]

I'd take Isaiah. He has a penchant for out playing everyone in the 4th, where Tony usually had to get carried by another hall of gamer, and the spurs fell apart the one year he was the closer on a true contender.

Thomas is the better shooter and passer. Tony was an amazing finisher though, ill give him that.

Isaiah is like the worse defender in the NBA period, but Parker has never been all world defense and was often who coaches game planned against so thats really a wash.

Thomas just has a better clutch gene.is a better sg too, which is what tp is. I'd take Thomas if its a one year prime thing. Career, maybe Tony.

[100%duncan]

Prime Parker.


:lmao Least :lmao

[TDMVPDPOY]

Thomas can shoot and penetrate, play team ball without the hero bullshit

[ambchang]

Pretty poorly phrased question, but appears that it has been clarified to Today's IT vs. Prime Parker.

I'd take Prime Parker, with the way the league has gone over the last few years, where the lane is opened and interior defense is pretty much barred, Parker would average even more insane numbers (in the 30ppg area with a good number of assists), especially if he is on a team that would allow him to chuck like Boston with IT.

People just don't remember how good Parker was in the early 10's. Didn't win anything, but an argument could be made that he was the Spurs best player from 11 t0 13.

[apalisoc_9]

Pretty poorly phrased question, but appears that it has been clarified to Today's IT vs. Prime Parker.

I'd take Prime Parker, with the way the league has gone over the last few years, where the lane is opened and interior defense is pretty much barred, Parker would average even more insane numbers (in the 30ppg area with a good number of assists), especially if he is on a team that would allow him to chuck like Boston with IT.

People just don't remember how good Parker was in the early 10's. Didn't win anything, but an argument could be made that he was the Spurs best player from 11 t0 13.

2012-2013

2011 was mamus year

[midnightpulp]

A prime Tony Parker with his speed would destroy today's NBA with all the spacing modern offenses create. He would be unguardable in a pick-n-roll. I don't care who you switch on him. He's taking anyone off the dribble. Parker was the most dangerous penetrator in the league during the NBA's "Grit-and-Grind" era, where teams would routinely pack the paint and gum the game up. Now imagine that Tony having space and defenders like Joe Ingels switched on him :wow

Again, I don't know why people are so impressed with all these midget guards dropping 30-40 points? BJ Armstrong Jr is a Bobby Jackson-level player in the mid-00s. Most of these modern guards need space and crossmatches to do damage. Parker didn't.

[313]

Why are we pretending like Parker's prime was in a different era? :lol

He was in one of the premier pace n space offenses of this decade, and we saw what he did as a number one option. 20 ppg, 7 apg. Not bad at all, but not exactly IT numbers. It's not a knock on Parker, more a testament to IT, but I see there's an agenda here so i'll let yall cook.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Isaiah+Thomas&player_id1_select=Isaiah+Thomas&y1=2017&player_id1=thomais02&player_id4_hint=Tony+Parker&player_id4_select=Tony+Parker&y4=2013&player_id4=parketo01

[midnightpulp]

Why are we pretending like Parker's prime was in a different era? :lol

He was in one of the premier pace n space offenses of this decade, and we saw what he did as a number one option. 20 ppg, 7 apg. Not bad at all, but not exactly IT numbers. It's not a knock on Parker, more a testament to IT, but I see there's an agenda here so i'll let yall cook.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Isaiah+Thomas&player_id1_select=Isaiah+Thomas&y1=2017&player_id1=thomais02&player_id4_hint=Tony+Parker&player_id4_select=Tony+Parker&y4=2013&player_id4=parketo01

:lol

2013 is nothing like 2017.

Average number of 3 point attempts per team in 2013: 20

Average number today: 27

And there's much more emphasis on the use of the pick-and-roll as the main offensive catalyst today than there was then, which translate into the game being more point-guard centric than ever before. Run pick-and-roll, get a crossmatch with Joe Ingels, score.

Parker was carving up defenders like Gary Payton in an era (mid-00s) when the game was much more congested.

Furthermore, I don't understand how NBA fans cannot see the 3 point line as a broken pile of shit? No other sport is going to give you 50% more points for a score that's just a bit further out than a regular scoring opportunity. Football gives you 6 points if you score from the 1 yard line or the 50. Hockey: 1 goal from in front of the net or beyond the blue line. Soccer: Ditto.

I've said before, I finally understand why the NBA first thought the 3 point line as a silly gimmick from that "circus" league the ABA.

Something that is worth 50% more points should be "hard." I think Cleveland was 14-21 from 3 at one point the other night. Ludicrous.

[apalisoc_9]

C'mon..it's TP and its not even close.

Top 10 PG of all Time.

I doubt Thomas even sniffs top 30 all time.

[midnightpulp]

C'mon..it's TP and its not even close.

Top 10 PG of all Time.

I doubt Thomas even sniffs top 30 all time.

Mid's axiom: When evaluating a player, ask yourself how they would perform without the 3 point line.

Parker broke down defenses by himself, off the dribble, during a time when Bruce Bowen was the only shooter on the court :lol

Thomas needs shooters to create space.

[DMC]

Mid's axiom: When evaluating a player, ask yourself how they would perform without the 3 point line.

Parker broke down defenses by himself, off the dribble, during a time when Bruce Bowen was the only shooter on the court :lol

Thomas needs shooters to create space.

Even in the peach basket days people could dunk the ball if they wanted to. They could lay the ball off the backboard. They could take short shots. No one was taking 25 foot shoots routinely. Having a 3pt line gets people involved in the game that otherwise would just be placeholders for the ball. Steph Curry would never be effective if he had to rely on getting to the rim on every trip. You'd need bigs for that. That clogs the lanes and makes the game nothing more than dumping to the big, ala Kareem sky hook and Shaq dunk and constant layups by bigs. Now the big is almost removed from the game other than the rim protection, but much of that is needed on the break and bigs rarely transition fast enough to be effective there.

It's still a game. There's no pure way to do it, just an entertaining way. There's a lot more skill involved now than then. It's not football. It's more like darts. Why give more points for hitting any specific spot on a dart board? People are going to just go for that triple almost every time.

[hater]

:lmao the midget

Entire washington team running a train on him in the post :lol

[lebomb]

Even in the peach basket days people could dunk the ball if they wanted to. They could lay the ball off the backboard. They could take short shots. No one was taking 25 foot shoots routinely. Having a 3pt line gets people involved in the game that otherwise would just be placeholders for the ball. Steph Curry would never be effective if he had to rely on getting to the rim on every trip. You'd need bigs for that. That clogs the lanes and makes the game nothing more than dumping to the big, ala Kareem sky hook and Shaq dunk and constant layups by bigs. Now the big is almost removed from the game other than the rim protection, but much of that is needed on the break and bigs rarely transition fast enough to be effective there.

It's still a game. There's no pure way to do it, just an entertaining way. There's a lot more skill involved now than then. It's not football. It's more like darts. Why give more points for hitting any specific spot on a dart board? People are going to just go for that triple almost every time.

3pt bricked shots = long rebounds. Even lesser reason big men are needed. Your PGs can grab the rebounds on missed shots.

Todays NBA

[SpursforSix]

C'mon..it's TP and its not even close.

Top 10 PG of all Time.

I doubt Thomas even sniffs top 30 all time.

WTF. I love prime Tony but he's not top 10.

[ambchang]

WTF. I love prime Tony but he's not top 10.

Clear troll bait. Something about yesterday's NBA players suck and Stockton is worse than patty mills because he's a white American player type of crap. Or oscar can only dribble with his right hand or kids is basically Michael carter Williams.

[Joseph Kony]

Didn't TP finish 2nd in MVP voting in 2013? I'll take the proven player over the midget who plays in the East with defense that rivals harden's tbh

[Clipper Nation]

Didn't TP finish 2nd in MVP voting in 2013?
:lol No, not even close. Even Melo and TOSB Kobe finished ahead of Porker:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2013.html

[Joseph Kony]

:lol No, not even close. Even Melo and TOSB Kobe finished ahead of Porker:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2013.html
ouch:depressed

[Mitch]

80s Isiah today > parkers prime

[313]

ouch:depressed
he was in top 3 but then missed a stretch of games due to injury which cost him iirc

[313]

:lol

2013 is nothing like 2017.

Average number of 3 point attempts per team in 2013: 20

Average number today: 27

Spurs were consistently in the top 10 in 3pta from 2011-2013. They were a premier three point shooting team will Danny green, mills, diaw, marco, Manu, kawhi, gary neal, stephen jackson, etc


And there's much more emphasis on the use of the pick-and-roll as the main offensive catalyst today than there was then, which translate into the game being more point-guard centric than ever before. Run pick-and-roll, get a crossmatch with Joe Ingels, score.

Parker was carving up defenders like Gary Payton in an era (mid-00s) when the game was much more congested.

Revisionist history. Tony used the PnR every time down the floor or was off ball running through screens. Sure he could take guys 1-on-1, but it was far from his go to.


Furthermore, I don't understand how NBA fans cannot see the 3 point line as a broken pile of shit? No other sport is going to give you 50% more points for a score that's just a bit further out than a regular scoring opportunity. Football gives you 6 points if you score from the 1 yard line or the 50. Hockey: 1 goal from in front of the net or beyond the blue line. Soccer: Ditto.

I've said before, I finally understand why the NBA first thought the 3 point line as a silly gimmick from that "circus" league the ABA.

Something that is worth 50% more points should be "hard." I think Cleveland was 14-21 from 3 at one point the other night. Ludicrous.I think we'll see the three point line get stretched out as the we get more and more shooters coming into the league. Right now, there's still a lot of teams chock full of guys who can't shoot. A lot of the good shooters are only on a handful of teams (Cavs/Dubs/Rockets).

[313]

C'mon..it's TP and its not even close.

Top 10 PG of all Time.

I doubt Thomas even sniffs top 30 all time.Easily op 10 because of career accomplishments and longevity, but his peak wasn't top 10 imo

[DMC]

3pt bricked shots = long rebounds. Even lesser reason big men are needed. Your PGs can grab the rebounds on missed shots.

Todays NBA

Midgets can play basketball so can cripples. You're not getting me down the "PG grabs rebounds" road.

[DMC]

Mid's axiom: When evaluating a player, ask yourself how they would perform without the 3 point line.

Parker broke down defenses by himself, off the dribble, during a time when Bruce Bowen was the only shooter on the court :lol

Thomas needs shooters to create space.

Then ask how they would perform without the FT line.

[Arcadian]

:lol

2013 is nothing like 2017.

Average number of 3 point attempts per team in 2013: 20

Average number today: 27

And there's much more emphasis on the use of the pick-and-roll as the main offensive catalyst today than there was then, which translate into the game being more point-guard centric than ever before. Run pick-and-roll, get a crossmatch with Joe Ingels, score.

Parker was carving up defenders like Gary Payton in an era (mid-00s) when the game was much more congested.

Furthermore, I don't understand how NBA fans cannot see the 3 point line as a broken pile of shit? No other sport is going to give you 50% more points for a score that's just a bit further out than a regular scoring opportunity. Football gives you 6 points if you score from the 1 yard line or the 50. Hockey: 1 goal from in front of the net or beyond the blue line. Soccer: Ditto.

I've said before, I finally understand why the NBA first thought the 3 point line as a silly gimmick from that "circus" league the ABA.

Something that is worth 50% more points should be "hard." I think Cleveland was 14-21 from 3 at one point the other night. Ludicrous.

I think you make an interesting argument, but to play devil's advocate...How do you quantify the difficulty of a task? Shooting a 3 might be easy for a portion of NBA players, but certainly not all of them! Even some really good scorers like Derozan find it hard in the context of a game (surely he can shoot better in a practice gym, but that doesn't matter). You might say, it's getting easier and the numbers show it. But can we quantify the exact percentage increase in difficulty to show there's an asymmetry in the points given?

I wouldn't be opposed to moving the 3 point line back (or changing its shape), but what if the league adapts to that and teams start designing offenses to take 40 foot shots? :lol It could have the opposite effect of what you want, and it could just lead to furthering the "evolution" of basketball into midgetball/faggotball.

[313]

Blame the legalization of illegal defense for offenses looking to spread the floor more. Defenses can clog the lane a lot easier than before so you need shooters, regardless of a three point line or not, but without the three point line their would be less incentive to unclog the lane. Would lead to more guys being left to shoot horribly inefficient 25 footers.

[midnightpulp]

Spurs were consistently in the top 10 in 3pta from 2011-2013. They were a premier three point shooting team will Danny green, mills, diaw, marco, Manu, kawhi, gary neal, stephen jackson, etc

But as I've said before, the Spurs created a lot their looks through an inside-out game, either through Duncan double teams or Parker/Manu penetration. Point is, they had to "work" for the look. Now you just create a switch against a slow footed big, cross him up, and get a look.

http://www.espn.com/gif/2015/0422/pelicans-003.gif


Revisionist history. Tony used the PnR every time down the floor or was off ball running through screens. Sure he could take guys 1-on-1, but it was far from his go to.

Not revisionist history at all. The Spurs ran their plodding 4-down offense for nearly all of the 00s and Parker would often work off Duncan doubles. See here.

https://media.giphy.com/media/qY1RWyTtwQhdm/giphy.gif

Look how the Lakers packed. Zero space. But Tony is able to split Fisher and George and then finish in traffic. The score was "earned" you can say. Today, guards have an ocean in comparison because defenders have to stay home on shooters and aren't as free to pack/sag.




I think we'll see the three point line get stretched out as the we get more and more shooters coming into the league. Right now, there's still a lot of teams chock full of guys who can't shoot. A lot of the good shooters are only on a handful of teams (Cavs/Dubs/Rockets).

Nah. Silver/The NBA has found its formula. The 3 point line being what it is guarantees an influx of new perimeter stars regularly. No way would Silver compromise that for game balance.

[apalisoc_9]

Damn mid where do you get all these footage?

Can you hook me up with the confrence finals in 2005?

[midnightpulp]

Blame the legalization of illegal defense for offenses looking to spread the floor more. Defenses can clog the lane a lot easier than before so you need shooters, regardless of a three point line or not, but without the three point line their would be less incentive to unclog the lane. Would lead to more guys being left to shoot horribly inefficient 25 footers.

We'd likely see the game become midrange dominant. After thinking about this, I think basketball should be midrange dominant. Think about all the other goal sports (soccer, hockey, Lacrosse, etc). Creating a good look close to the goal is hard and the majority of play in those sports is usually centered around the sport's respective "midrange," with teams angling and trying to create a high percentage shot. If the 3 point line disappeared, I think post-play would be revived and rightfully valued as basketball's most important skill and only the best dribble-drive penetrators would flourish, those that have the ball handling, speed, and athleticism to break down defenses and finish in congestion. Shooters would also have their place as players who can protect post-players from double-teams and swarms. An open 18 footer is still more efficient than a low-post player trying to finish over a double team.

I would still be in favor of having a 3 point line, but I would move it back to 40 feet. It should only exist as a "desperation" shot for a team down by 3 in the last seconds. Basketball's Hail Mary, essentially.

Never will happen obviously. People love the "modern game" and Silver is satisfied. But like I said, the end result is the extinction of post-play, mid-range shooting, and the traditional big.

[midnightpulp]

Damn mid where do you get all these footage?

Can you hook me up with the confrence finals in 2005?

Youtube. I just typed in young Tony Parker.

NBA is pretty draconian about allowing full games on there. I don't think there is a full game from the classic Duncan era on the site.

[midnightpulp]

I think you make an interesting argument, but to play devil's advocate...How do you quantify the difficulty of a task? Shooting a 3 might be easy for a portion of NBA players, but certainly not all of them! Even some really good scorers like Derozan find it hard in the context of a game (surely he can shoot better in a practice gym, but that doesn't matter). You might say, it's getting easier and the numbers show it. But can we quantify the exact percentage increase in difficulty to show there's an asymmetry in the points given?

I wouldn't be opposed to moving the 3 point line back (or changing its shape), but what if the league adapts to that and teams start designing offenses to take 40 foot shots? :lol It could have the opposite effect of what you want, and it could just lead to furthering the "evolution" of basketball into midgetball/faggotball.

The only way is through shooting percentages. In today's game, we're seeing more 3s than ever before taken off the dribble like normal jumpers rather than from spot up, like in years past, and the league wide 3 point percentage in 2017 was .358. The league wide percentage on shots from 3-10 feet (basically in the paint) was .415. :lol

I find that incredibly stupid. With the 3 point line the way it is, the game of basketball doesn't really "reward" you for creating a close shot. I don't blame teams, either. Why work for a shot in the paint that is only about 17% easier to make when you can make the 17% harder shot and get 50% more points?

[Spurtacular]

true without a doubt, stupid question actually.

Not really. Isiah Thomas is the most over-rated player in sports. His defense is total sh**; and he doesn't make his teammates better.

[DMC]

Not really. Isiah Thomas is the most over-rated player in sports. His defense is total sh**; and he doesn't make his teammates better.

It's "Isaiah Thomas" as the one you mentioned retired years ago. So let's get that straight and stop fucking it up because you sound like a retard.

Also, if today's Isaiah Thomas isn't better than today's Tony Parker, why isn't Tony Parker in the MVP discussion?

There are a hell of a lot of PGs out there better than today's Tony Parker, not even considering Tony's injury. Tony is not the prime Tony. Even then, Prime Tony was considered great because of his scoring ability. Thomas has that in spades. Thomas scored 53 in a playoff game. Tony did many things well, scoring in transition was his forte and he was simply unstoppable in those days when he got out on the break. He's spent time getting better from 3 and time getting worse from 3. His game changed from quick, slashing drives to the rim to short pull up jumpers. Tony of today gets stuffed at the rim quite often. He's always lived on that .25 second speed difference on his layups, but he's slow now so the defender just snuffs him out at the rim. Memphis allowed Tony to get right to the front of the rim time and again, and there'd be nobody there to even contest his shot.

If Tony was ever the 3pt shooter Thomas is, Spurs would have more rings today, but because Tony was also a PG with so-so court vision, he might have just relied on his own outside shooting and not gotten anyone else involved. Tony is a paint by numbers guy, he runs Pop's plays but he's also craft as fuck - it's just too bad his body doesn't play along.

We haven't seen enough of Thomas to get a solid idea of just how good he is, but the preliminary eyeball test says he's as good as sub-prime Tony. If Thomas can continue his output for as many years as Tony did, Thomas might be a HOFer as well. Tony benefits from having played with Tim though.

[TDMVPDPOY]

hero ball guy doesn't have a jumpshot, and u can always leave him open daring him to shoot knowing well he doesn't hit them efficiently

even when he shoots well, u know they are nothing more then fluke shots

never seen anyone shut down or taken a shit on steroid bjarmstrong, but Enrique is so easy to shut down whether its mental midget games, chuckin a taller player onto him or go the chalmers route by elbowing the kent to the chest and see him fall to the ground

[james evans]

it's not even close. Imagine Thomas playng with a prime Ginobli and Dunan. sheeeeeit. We would have had about 7 titles.

[Clipper Nation]

His defense is total sh**; and he doesn't make his teammates better.
But enough about Jimmer.

[Texas_Ranger]

I'd rather have a 34 year old Parker than that midget that can't play defense.

[Spurtacular]

It's "Isaiah Thomas" as the one you mentioned retired years ago. So let's get that straight and stop fucking it up because you sound like a retard.

Also, if today's Isaiah Thomas isn't better than today's Tony Parker, why isn't Tony Parker in the MVP discussion?

There are a hell of a lot of PGs out there better than today's Tony Parker, not even considering Tony's injury. Tony is not the prime Tony. Even then, Prime Tony was considered great because of his scoring ability. Thomas has that in spades. Thomas scored 53 in a playoff game. Tony did many things well, scoring in transition was his forte and he was simply unstoppable in those days when he got out on the break. He's spent time getting better from 3 and time getting worse from 3. His game changed from quick, slashing drives to the rim to short pull up jumpers. Tony of today gets stuffed at the rim quite often. He's always lived on that .25 second speed difference on his layups, but he's slow now so the defender just snuffs him out at the rim. Memphis allowed Tony to get right to the front of the rim time and again, and there'd be nobody there to even contest his shot.

If Tony was ever the 3pt shooter Thomas is, Spurs would have more rings today, but because Tony was also a PG with so-so court vision, he might have just relied on his own outside shooting and not gotten anyone else involved. Tony is a paint by numbers guy, he runs Pop's plays but he's also craft as fuck - it's just too bad his body doesn't play along.

We haven't seen enough of Thomas to get a solid idea of just how good he is, but the preliminary eyeball test says he's as good as sub-prime Tony. If Thomas can continue his output for as many years as Tony did, Thomas might be a HOFer as well. Tony benefits from having played with Tim though.

I'm not saying Tony Parker is having a better season. I'm saying the question isn't stupid. IT is not in the MVP discussion. He has zero chance. And being a "great" individual scorer doesn't mean the team is a better scoring team. IT dribbles all over, and the defenders on the perimeter stay attached to their guys, and he gets a few points extra; and he often gets blocked at the rim in the process. I'd much rather go against IT than any other "superstar".

If I were to make a case for Parker it would be based on team chemistry and the fact that old Parker, who is not at all known for defense still would be better than IT, who is easy to post-up and who is sub par in every aspect of defense.

[DMC]

I'm not saying Tony Parker is having a better season. I'm saying the question isn't stupid. IT is not in the MVP discussion. He has zero chance.

http://i.imgur.com/vL7975s.jpg

Wrong


And being a "great" individual scorer doesn't mean the team is a better scoring team. IT dribbles all over, and the defenders on the perimeter stay attached to their guys, and he gets a few points extra; and he often gets blocked at the rim in the process. I'd much rather go against IT than any other "superstar".

108ppg this season vs 105ppg last season. Do you ever actually look at numbers or just use the eyeball test? So much of what you say is wrong. So you'd rather go against IT. What does that even mean? IT was in the top 5 in PPG. Tony was 123rd.

PER:

IT - 26.59 (7th overall)
Tony - 13.10 (202nd overall)

Are you mentally retarded?


If I were to make a case for Parker it would be based on team chemistry and the fact that old Parker, who is not at all known for defense still would be better than IT, who is easy to post-up and who is sub par in every aspect of defense.
Tony fucked his teammate's wife. His value over replacement is in the negative (-0.4). IT's is >4.0.

You should stick with your Jimmer felching schick, at least no one reads that.

[lilbthebasedgod]

Both are below average point guards today.

Tony is a better defender but still not great but Isiah is a far better offensive player but the single worst defensive player.

Still say Isiah is better. Neither are great.

[Spurtacular]

http://i.imgur.com/vL7975s.jpg

Wrong

108ppg this season vs 105ppg last season. Do you ever actually look at numbers or just use the eyeball test? So much of what you say is wrong. So you'd rather go against IT. What does that even mean? IT was in the top 5 in PPG. Tony was 123rd.

PER:

IT - 26.59 (7th overall)
Tony - 13.10 (202nd overall)

Are you mentally retarded?

Tony fucked his teammate's wife. His value over replacement is in the negative (-0.4). IT's is >4.0.

You should stick with your Jimmer felching schick, at least no one reads that.

IT is hot garbage. He's not a great player, and he never will be.

[DMC]

IT is hot garbage. He's not a great player, and he never will be.

Great rebuttal. It will take me at least a week of intense research to come up with a retort.

Dude averages almost 30ppg in the RS, and his team finished 1st in the conference over the defending champs. Team is a fugazi, I am sure, but you're mentally deficient if you think today's TP is better than IT.