PDA

View Full Version : Enough about Parker, the real stud in waiting is...



CarnacTheMagnificent
07-04-2003, 09:40 PM
is Manu Ginobili.
i think saying Parker will eventually be better than Jason Kidd, while not farfetched, is wishful thinking.
Saying Parker will be the best PG in the NBA means he's going to be gobbling up Marbury, Baron Davis, Andre Miller, Steve Nash, Steve Francis, Gilbert Arenas and Mike Bibby.
While I'm not saying that Parker can't be better than some or all of those guys, I just don't see it right now.

Now....
Ginobili I don't think is getting the attention he deserves. Manu is the one guy the Spurs can't afford to lose. If you agree with me here, you are obviously paying attention. He can see things Parker wishes he could see. He can make the athletic play, the smart play and the easy play all at once.
Can you imagine that? An athletic player that knows how to play?
He and Tim Duncan should be the building blocks for this team.
With all due respect to Tony Parker.

Fizzzar
07-04-2003, 10:07 PM
I didn't want to post that cause I would have gotten dissed.

But yes, Manu is starting to show what he can give to the team, next year he'll be phisically ready...remember that this year he had to play play the WBC and started the year injured. He'll know the system and get the minutes, the touches and the shots that he deserves.

Clutch, athetic and smart players like Manu are hard to find... Parker is a very talented scorer, but he is just that, a scorer.

NCaliSpurs
07-04-2003, 10:15 PM
Given Manu's age, I think he has less upside than Parker. But I still think Parker has a little ways to go before he becomes as good as he can be.

I am just not optimistic that either Parker or Manu will live up to their potential if Kidd comes.

He takes minutes from Manu && Parker.

If Kidd comes, Parker should go so that we can give both young studs a chance at PT.

adidas11
07-04-2003, 11:26 PM
Agreed NCali.

Splitting time amongst the group of Bowen, Jax, Manu, Parker, and Kidd may prove to be difficult. Especially if the Spurs have the rumored mindset of starting both Kidd and Parker in the backcourt (not a good idea). The essentially leaves both Jax and Manu to compete for the back up shooting guard position, or to compete for a starting slot with Bruce Bowen. Moving Parker may be the best move just for slotting playing time, and keeping team chemistry intact.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-04-2003, 11:27 PM
I disagree.
Kidd will make them both better, especially Manu.
Kidd has made Jefferson better than he is, I think.

gunawanspurs
07-04-2003, 11:32 PM
My main beef in all Parker hatefest is how can all of you TP haters say that he's as good as it is now, that he couldn't develop into a better player in the future.

How can all of you dissmiss him just like that ?

I mean, obviously the kid has the talents, and most importantly, the right work ethic that burns inside of him.

If a 21 yrs old sophomore player could developed into a LEGIT second scorer of a championship team in just one year, how can you say that the guy's already in his limit, that he's suddenly suck and a LAZY BUM in just overnight.

FIZZZAR, you know that i always be a strong supporter of Manu since the beginning. Never ever doubt him even in his low moment. I always BELIEVE that the guy has the talents and the drive to make it as a Spur.

So, why you apply a DOUBLE STANDARD on Tony now ?:rolleyes

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-04-2003, 11:37 PM
guwana, this is not about hate for Tony.
I love Tony.
I think he's great.
But, if you sai that EVERY good young player was going to be the best player at his position, you're going to be right, but mostly wrong.
What I don't like about Parker, is that he doesn't seem to be a playmaker, like Tim is and like Manu is.
It's great that Tony can score and that he has the heart of a Lion, but I think there would have been a few young point guards that could have accomplished the same things.
But since Tony won a title (if Baron Davis were on the Spurs and not Tony, the Spurs still would have won a title), it's like there's this false sense of security that he must have been the catalyst.

From what I see, I think Tony is a tweener. He's not really a point guard since he's not a great playmaker. He's best when he's scoring. Like Sam Cassell.

gunawanspurs
07-04-2003, 11:51 PM
Carnac, i have no problem recognizing Kidd as a great playmaker. I'm not that dense not to do so. We can argue as much as we want about his fitness to this team, how much will he add to a young but already a championship team. Still, adding a PG in his class wouldn't hurt this team at all in the short run IMHO.

It's just people who keep saying that BOTH TP and Manu would be retainable after we sign Kidd for the long run that just continue to amaze me. And also people that saying TP is as good as it is. For me, that's an ARROGANCE and IGNORANT statement, as we all know that we're no fortune teller or possess the time machine.

Well, maybe the whole fuss is all about perception IMHO. Why ? Cause i BELIEVE that TP has "IT" to develop into a star in this league. Might not be in the level of Kidd ( especially in his playmaking and allaroundness game ), but a Starbury level isn't out of question IMHO. Carnac, the fact is, this year TP isn't that far away ( or perhaps already IN ) from the second level PGs list of the league. I certainly don't see him that far behind compared to the like of Bibby, Davis, or Arenas.

My two centz :)

timvp
07-05-2003, 12:03 AM
:lol

Bullsh!t.

Parker has a lot more potential than Manu. Parker has a chance to be the best point guard of his generation. He has two solid seasons and a Championship by 21 years of age. Look at his stats during the last three months when the Spurs caught on fire. Those are All-Star numbers.

Manu is still more of a myth than reality. He's also going to be a good player, but not to the point that Parker will be.

You can take that to the bank.

SanAntonioBard
07-05-2003, 12:22 AM
Nail, head, bang, timvp. Kid is barely 21 years old. His assists went UP over one full, per game, on a team where, as noted above, TIM is the playmaker.

I love Manu, his game, his vision, but what you see now, other than his missed injury time, is what you get. He's like 26 years old, and won't probably develop too much further.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 12:36 AM
From what I see, I think Tony is a tweener. He's not really a point guard since he's not a

C'mon. No one who knows anything has ever said, besides the man he replaced, Avery Johnson, that he is a tweener. He's not the main passer or playmaker on this team, and he's never even tried to take that mantle.

But so many Parker haters are blind to his ability to dominate some games like an MVP. Very few guys have that kind of potential. Very few guys outplay kidd for 2-3 games in the finals.


But since Tony won a title (if Baron Davis were on the Spurs and not Tony, the Spurs still would have won a title)

Tony is a lot closer to Baron Davis than most people here think. And what you say *may* be true.

But it didn't happen with Baron, it happened with Tony. Get over it.

If the Spurs DIDNT have Tony, we would have been a #4 seed and a Lakers first-round victim.

Manu is great. I love him. Tony is just a better player. Don't get me wrong. We need manu to get better, and he will. He is an integral part of what the Spurs do.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 12:46 AM
Tony has the chance to be the best PG of his generation?
Maybe. But probably not.
Manu has a better grasp of the game, and has twice as much athletisicm.
Once he figures out how to score against the bigger NBA players, the sky's the limit for him.
Manu has a lot more playmaking abilities, and he's not even the point guard.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 12:57 AM
But it didn't happen with Baron, it happened with Tony. Get over it.

Whoa, I'm not trying to slam Parker. OK? I'm just saying that everyone thinks tony parker, and ONLY tony parker, could have led the Spurs to the title.
In fact, this was all Tim Duncan. Duncan needed help, but Parker isn't the only one who could have filled that hole.
Parker has a ring at 21, and that's great, but there are a few PGs who could have filled that role.


If the Spurs DIDNT have Tony, we would have been a #4 seed and a Lakers first-round victim.

Why is that?

timvp
07-05-2003, 01:06 AM
I said he could be the best point guard of his generation.

You said maybe.

Not much of a difference.

And yeah, no kidding Parker was replaceable. Every player in the league not named Duncan or Shaq is replaceable.

What is the point of that?

spurster
07-05-2003, 01:11 AM
I agree with Carnac in sense of what their potential is. I think both have the potential to become stars, but if I had to pick the one who is most likely to be MVP some year, I would pick Manu.

Manu is a player that makes exciting and good things happen, especially when the game is on the line. Look at:

www.nba.com/features/nest..._stat.html (http://www.nba.com/features/nestle/crunch_time_stat.html)

and compare Manu and Parker in their "crunch time statistics" during the playoffs.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 01:14 AM
Carnac - Sorry if I misinterpreted. There definitely has been a lot of misplaced hate torwards Parker lately (you have a couple of bad finals games and they hang you).

But you are right. Timmy is the engine that makes this ship go.

But how many players could have been swapped with Parker for us to win the championship? Not more than 5-6 definites. The others are borderline.

Manu is the X factor on top of those two. We need him as much as we need Stephen Jackson to be reckless in crunch time, to launch those 3's like he doesn't know the game is on the line.

Still, Tony, for most games, is the second, little engine besides our powerhouse Timmy.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 01:24 AM
Well, who is les replaceable?
Who is potentially less replaceable?
Manu has shown skills. If he could get his shot off a little better, he's be a complete player.
There is not one thing Parker can do that Manu can't do better, except score. Manu can defend better, he can create plays better, and he can rebound better.

timvp
07-05-2003, 01:31 AM
:wtf

Parker is a better scorer, is faster, better ball-handler, better in-between game, better fullcourt defender, better clutch shooter, is more coachable, etc.

Must I go on.


The backup QB is always the most loved person in town.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 01:35 AM
Manu could be replaced by many many guys.

He averagd 7.5 points, 2 rebounds, and 2 steals in 20 minutes.

Decent, but not that good.



For the playoffs he averaged

9.4 pts on 39% shooting, 3.8 reb, and 2.8 assists.

Again, decent, but not that good.

Tony carries the spurs at times, while manu will simply give us little things that will help us.

There are tons of guys that would be better.

To name just a few:

D.A , Bonzi, Kobe, Finley, J. Rose, A. Houston, Penny Hardaway, T-Mac, Rip Hamilton, Vince Carter

Pretty much any starting 2-guard in the league could give us a lot of what we get with Manu. But he has streaks of greatness I must admit, that very few in those starting two guards could match.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 01:56 AM
Parker is a better scorer

Yes.


is faster

Yes. But does that make you better?


better ball-handler

Yeah, but Manu can handle the rock.


better in-between game

Yeah, just the teardrop. Manu has the inbetween game, too.


better fullcourt defender

No. How many times have you seen Parker flying out of no where to block a shot at the rim on a fast break? Manu can cover a bigger area andd wreak havoc in the open court.


better clutch shooter

Yeah, but Manu has hit several clutch shots himself. He has not had the opportunities Tony had.


is more coachable

What makes you say that? Pop only gets after Manu when he tries to do too much. Parker is always getting yelled at for the mistakes he makes. Parker takes it well, but the sheer number of times Parker gets yelled at should tell you something. What makes you say Parker is more coachable? It's a fact that there are some Spurs that don't like Parker because he doesn't pass them the ball (sometimes on Pop's orders).


Must I go on.

Yes!
Tony is good, but it should say a lot that Manu is a better playmaker than your PG.

PS:
It's so funny how I try to bring up a subject involving Parker, and if my take is not "Parker will be the best PG in two seasons", I might have well have started a "Tony" sucks thread.
We'll find a gra area one of these days. Tony is not an all-star, and he doesn't suck. But those are the only takes you hear here, and your take is usually twisted into one ofthose two categories.

SpursWoman
07-05-2003, 02:01 AM
You guys are leaving out a very important stat of Manu's....which is steals.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 02:06 AM
Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.

Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.

You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you.

Much like Parker, manu needs more consistency (much more in his case).

Parker had a terrible playoffs. Some games he was God. Other games he was a bench warmer. Parker is the second youngest point-guard to ever lead his team to a championship. Don't be fooled by an incosistent playoffs. He is that good.

Manu can also be great, but almost all other times you barely notice he is on the floor.

Nikos
07-05-2003, 02:16 AM
I dont think Manu has shown his REAL GAME yet. You all speak about his inconsistency but the guy BARELY took any shots the entire season on a hobbled ankle.

I think Ginobili attempted less shots than Mike Dunleavy and other rookies who got comparable minutes.

It's not as if Manu has played 30mpg and not produced -- the guy played 20mpg and got better from March and ON.

Parker on the other hand has WAY more opportunities and despite his two years of NBA experience-- I still say manu is smarter and a better passer.

I can't wait to see what Manu does next season -- if he gets around 30mpg+ I think his REAL game should eventually come out and he will show his true versatility.

The guy came out and hustled his ass off and made a difference -- how many games did Parker make a HUGE DIFFERENCE if he wasn't scoring 20pts? As a matter of fact Parker was flat out AWFUL when he wasn't scoring the ball on certain nights -- yes hes young and he will get better. But lets not forget Manu's bad healthy at the start of the season and lets not forget that he is a great player not just some ENERGY guy.

If thats how you guys view him, than I dont see why you think we even need him on our team? Wouldnt the Spurs be better off getting some schmuck who can hit threes and play some D?

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 02:22 AM
Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.

Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.

Was Tony Parker that consistent his first year? No.


You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you.

OK, first off, I am never blinded by anything. I take offense to that. I know hoops. I have learned from my mistakes, and I am not easily star-struck by players. Make no mistake, Manu flashes are not just uncommon occurances, that's his game. His game, like Argentina's style, is team-oriented. And he can play defense no no international player I've seen.


Much like Parker, manu needs more consistency (much more in his case).

Sure, but how consistant can you be coming off the bench?


Parker had a terrible playoffs. Some games he was God. Other games he was a bench warmer. Parker is the second youngest point-guard to ever lead his team to a championship. Don't be fooled by an incosistent playoffs. He is that good.

Parker didn't lead his team to a championship, Duncan did. That's like saying Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to six titles. Parker was an important part, but you can't credit the title to him, just like you can't credit Pippen with six titles. I agree Parker is very good. And that should tell you what I think of Manu. Someone will pay him big bucks, and he'll most likely be gone next season. I'm afraid of that.


Manu can also be great, but almost all other times you barely notice he is on the floor.

Yeah, unless you're not paying attention. His man has a very difficult time getting open. That's where Manu makes the biggest difference.

gunawanspurs
07-05-2003, 02:33 AM
These whole hollow argumentation won't exist if only the Spurs could land a BIG this summer ( may it JO ) rather than Kidd.

I always envision both TP & Manu starting for our backcourt tandem of the future.

TP is a scoring PG.

Manu is a SG with great court vision and passing capability.

Both have the talents and drive to be better

A projection of Spurs BIG three with TD, TP, and Manu isn't out of question.

That's a truly IDEAL scenario for both of them to START TOGETHER, and developed into the best starting backcourt our team ever had in the future. There's no reason to expect a 20 pts 8 assts version of TP, and a 18 pts 6 assts 5 rbs 2 stls version of Manu -factoring we don't land any superstar this summer. With JO, the numbers could still be in the neighborhood of 16 pts 7 assts for TP & 15 pts 5 assts 4 rbs 2 stls for Manu. Both would be eligible for SEMI MAX ( 65-75% of it ) kinda money from us.

Too bad, that vision would never happen with Kidd's arrival looming ahead. :rolleyes

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 02:36 AM
This is quickly turning into who has a bigger dick contest. I didn't want to do that with you Carnac.


Manu flashes are not just uncommon occurances, that's his game.

Look at his averages with 28 minutes. I posted them. That is not brilliance.


Sure, but how consistant can you be coming off the bench?

Talk about hard to be consistent off the bench, how hard is it to have the pressure of being the second-star on a team, but without the freedom to make mistakes, or to have a bad half.



That's like saying Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to six titles. Parker was an important part

Scottie was not just important, he was integral. Tony had a huge responsibility in these playoffs and the regular season. With all the pressure on him, you can't say that he was merely a replaceable cog.

Micheal had Scottie. This year Timmy had Tony (for the regular season and somewhat in the playoffs).


Someone will pay him big bucks, and he'll most likely be gone next season. I'm afraid of that.


As the Spurs proved this year, a lot can happen. I doubt anyone is gonna offer a long-term contract for more than 5 million. If we keep Parker and Kidd, then he may bolt anyway.




Yeah, unless you're not paying attention. His man has a very difficult time getting open. That's where Manu makes the biggest difference.

I give you that. Manu is very good on defense. Though I will admit that he gambles on big plays in big games. He needs some more seasoning. Touche.

I was talking about his offense.



I take offense to that. I know hoops. I have learned from my mistakes, and I am not easily star-struck by players.

Cheers, friend.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 02:42 AM
OK, NCal.
I hear ya.
I disaree with you on some points, but I'll leave it at that.




Now about that big dick contest.....

Nikos
07-05-2003, 02:48 AM
This is quickly turning into who has a bigger dick contest. I didn't want to do that with you Carnac.

Is it so hard to conceive that people actually really BELEIVE Manu has GAME? It has to be because someone is argentinian or as ghost says because Manu is "white":rolleyes .

Bottom line is Manu is a player. Manu made a hell of a lot more difference for the Spurs when he wasn't shooting the ball than Parker and SJax did in their careers combined. Is it a coincidence? No Manu is a complete player -- 28mpg in his FIRST PLAYOFFS where he still didn't take that many shot attempts and never got any respect with foul calls-- and I would say Manu did pretty well.


Talk about hard to be consistent off the bench, how hard is it to have the pressure of being the second-star on a team, but without the freedom to make mistakes, or to have a bad half.

TP was the second star but there were several playoff games where he wasn't any better than the average Spurs bench player. When it came down to the crunch time of Game 6 NBA Finals it was SPEEDY who finished the game not TONY. It wasn't the only night Tony was off in the finals or the playoffs for that matter.

Sure Tony was the second star but there were SEVERAL nights where the Spurs were a SECOND STAR by commitee. Jackson, Manu, Bowen, Claxton etc..... Comparing Tony and Scottie Pippen is ridiculous.

Look I like Tony and his potential -- but I wouldn't say he is a more versatile player than Manu right now. I think Manu has more than what he showed in the 3-4 months he was reasonably healthy.

Man in Black1
07-05-2003, 04:22 AM
:brotha

www.nba.com/features/nest..._stat.html (http://www.nba.com/features/nestle/crunch_time_stat.html)

So out of the playoffs, we know Tim Duncan was the best player on the court.

Who was #2? I'll tell you this....IT WASN'T ONE OF THE 50 MOST BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
:eyebrow

T Park Num 9
07-05-2003, 04:41 AM
man whats with all the hate on BOTH OF EM????

We can keep BOTH players.

WHY NOT SIGN EM BOTH???


WHy the who should we keep contest???


Weird. Lets agree there both great players in waiting and will be HUGE keys next year to returning to the FInals.

Man in Black1
07-05-2003, 04:58 AM
:brotha
No hate intended, just a look at how the pereption of each layers worth is in relation to an actual measure of performance. Nothing more, nothing less. :hat2

T Park Num 9
07-05-2003, 05:04 AM
bullshit.

Im tired of the Parker and Manu bashing.

Makes me sick.


Freaking Parker is the reason they won game 3 in the Finals.

Without him, they PFFFTTT out done.


Grow brains people, the Spurs need BOTH of em.

Love em both, dont try compare and contrast, jees louise.

gunawanspurs
07-05-2003, 05:17 AM
bullshit.

Im tired of the Parker and Manu bashing.

Makes me sick.


Freaking Parker is the reason they won game 3 in the Finals.

Without him, they PFFFTTT out done.


Grow brains people, the Spurs need BOTH of em.

Love em both, dont try compare and contrast, jees louise.


No hate intended, just a look at how the pereption of each layers worth is in relation to an actual measure of performance. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact is, it's not Manu who's getting a rap this offseason, compared in every complexity of his game to one of SUPERSTAR that play his spot and might take over his job soon.

Compared to Kobe, Manu would look like a humble rookie to him. But if our team has the chance of getting a superstar BIG capable of helping our team over the top, i won't discard Manu in any way in favor of Kobe.

MI21
07-05-2003, 08:27 AM
People are complaining about the Best Point Guard in the league wanting to join the Spurs, because we already have Parker.

Would anyone be complaining if Kobe Bryant the best Shooting Guard in the league wanted to join the team, because we already have Ginobili?

gunawanspurs
07-05-2003, 08:51 AM
Yes, MI21, if we can land a superstar BIG in other route also. :)

My stand on that scenario's basically the same with the one's on TP ( though i must say that the fact that Kobe is a TRUE top 3 player while Kidd is only top 10 -arguably- is somewhat temptating for me:eyebrow )

MI21
07-05-2003, 08:59 AM
You think people would complain about adding Kobe. They would be crazy.

Ok, would people be worrying about bringing in Allen Iverson, a Top 10 player, not Top 3, because we have Ginobili?

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 09:36 AM
Parker > Manu in the crunch??? WTF???

Manu has always made the important 3's in the fourth or the steals or the rebounds or what his team needed to win.

Parker takes almost the amount of shots Jax, BB and Manu added take, of course he is gonna be the second scorer. It's easy to get into rythm when you take 17-20 shots a game, but it's a lot harder when you shoot 5-8 times like Manu does. And it's worse if your PG freezes you cause he wants to play the pick and roll. In lots of possesions Parker doesn't make a single pass, he just bounces the ball in halfcourt and then asks for a pick and roll only to miss a jumper, but nobody seems to notice that.

Parker always gets praised when he scores like crazy but you know what? I'd rather have a PG who averages 8-10 assists and less points cause that assists mean that other people scored and got into rythm. I want my pg to involve everyone, not only TD. Jack and Manu are already inconsistant shooters, if our PG doesn't give them the ball they'll be even more inconsitant.

Parker is a very good player, but if his shot isn't falling he is worthless. Manu finds ways to contribute when he cannot score and that's something you don't see in the NBA too often, that's why he is so valuable.

Remember that Manu and mostly Jack were the ones nailing the important 3's in the 4º against Phoenix. Remember that Manu and BB were the ones who consistantly defended Kobe. Remember that Manu made Kobe work on D and blew by him at will while making every important basket in the series. Remember that Manu ignited most runs against NJ and DAllas. Remember that Manu closed game 6 against NJ along with Speedy.

And more importantly....

The Spurs had aprox a +170 point differential with Manu in the court in the playoffs.

I'd like to see if Parker's even close to that.

MI21
07-05-2003, 09:42 AM
The Spurs had aprox a +170 point differential with Manu in the court in the playoffs.

That is such an incomplete stat.

Perhaps Manu was on the Court with Duncan more than other players which of course means that his +\- is going to be higher. Somebody may have a lower +/- that another player, but if that player with the Lower rating was leading the team during those times, he could be deemed more valuable.

So that stat means little until all the variables that go along with it are shown.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 09:47 AM
Duncan played 42.5 mpg, EVERY SPUR play alongside TD almost the whole game. TD only gets rest when he is in foul trouble or in trash time.

Weak take.

MI21
07-05-2003, 09:54 AM
I just still think there is to many variables in a stat like that for it to be a true indication of a Players affect of the game. I'm not doubting his effectiveness, just the actual statistic itself.

Perhaps getting a Log of all the Spurs Huge Playoff Runs and seeing who was involved heavily in them would be more effective, and I have to believe that Ginobili would be heavily involved in at least half of them. But that is way to much research, and I cant be bothered doing it :)

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 10:02 AM
MI, 170 points is a big difference, some of that points are cause other players got hot but can you honestly say that Manu was so lucky that the got into the game everytime the team started a run and it was not because he was in?

There's a reason why Pop puts him in the game everytime there is a run from the opponent, Pop is very clever.

spurster
07-05-2003, 12:02 PM
I think both Parker and Manu will continue to improve. I rate Manu's potential higher because he has a more all-around game. If Kidd comes, I would rather see a Kidd and Manu backcourt than Kidd and Parker. I think Manu moves better without the ball and Kidd would be the perfect person to pass to him.

This is not hate on Parker. A Kidd/Manu/Parker guard rotation would be fantantic, but I don't see either Manu or Parker happy to be in a backup role for 6 years. One of those two will not reach full potential.

If Kidd doesn't come, this whole discussion is irrelevant. We will get to see what develops.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 01:03 PM
This isn't a "who shold we keep?" hate-thread. I'm just saying I don't think Manu is getting the attention he deserves.

myspursrule
07-05-2003, 04:36 PM
What I like about Manu's game is that he doesn't have to score a lot of points to help the team. That's why you see him in the game in the 4TH quarter at the end of games. He's like Jason Kidd a little, he goes after every rebound, steals and make great passes. When Parker's not scoring he sometimes suxs. He stops playing hard, he doesn't know how to just do the other things when he's not scoring. I think Manu can be a good scorer on the team if they needed him to do that or ran plays for him.

Whottt
07-05-2003, 04:51 PM
You know far be it from me to rock the boat but..

I keep noticing everyone loves guys that help the team without scoring..and in truth we have a lot of those guys..

Duncan often helps the team without scoring when he is being guarded by more than one person
Rose is a hustle guy
Bowen helps with his defense
Manu helps the team without scoring
Kidd isn't really a scorer but helps his team in other ways...

You know what that's gonna make us? A hard working team that can't score. Sound familiar? It does to me..

How about we get some guys in the lineup that help the team with their scoring? Cuz I have never seen a team win without outscoring another team.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 05:10 PM
Manu can score, he's been a scorer his whole career. But to score he has to shoot, and he is not a spot up shooter, he is way better with the ball in his hands. That's why I want him creating and Parker finishing. With Manu as a creator and Parker and Jax as finishers this team would become a lot better offensively IMO.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 05:25 PM
I like the tune you are singing Fizzar.

This backcourt can be damned good with some time to grow together. Kidd ain't going to let that happen though.

Whottt
07-05-2003, 05:34 PM
Fizzar you nailed it..I have no problems with Manu getting the ball more often...in fact I think it's something we must do to keep him here. And I think he and Parker will match up well that way..that's one of the reason I am against Kidd to the degree I am...Manu has a very similar game to Kidd only he can slash as well as pass..I want to see our young guys, that we have already won a title with in their first and second year in the league, develop. Not ride the bench and leave next year or the year after. And I mean it's not like we can't play the transition game with Manu and Parker..hell who is gonna catch Parker on the break? No one. Anyway I think Manu is not going to get the ball as much with Kidd here..he is going to be more of spot up shooter than he is with Parker and Duncan.

I am still crossing my fingers that Brand is going to want to play for us either this year or next.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 06:08 PM
I think this year will be very different.

Pop's plans to integrate Manu to the offense were delayed because of Manu's ankle. Also Manu didn't have the respect of the refs and he would have gotten hacked without calls lots of times.

Now that Manu showed what he can do, IMO Pop will use his abilities as a creator. When he played in Kinder he shared the PG duties with Jaric (who is also a shooting PG) and they did pretty well, in fact they won almost every competition they were in.

Parker showed that he is not ready to take over the show yet and Manu proved that he has ice in his veins. If they share the PG duties both will benefit. Manu will do what he does best, handle the rock and create offense While Parker won't have so much burden on his back and will play calmer cause he knows he has a teammate that can bail him out when he is having those ugly lapses he has.

This way, Manu will get into the flow of the game faster and TP will get a lot of open shots from Manu's penetrations.

It's a win win situation.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 06:14 PM
Lets not forget that the whole team would benefit from this, not just Parker.

Jack can become a spot up shooter, which he excels at. This way he would avoid those kamikaze penetrations.

Tim, Malik and hopefully Brand or JO would get easy baskets cause Manu loves to drive and dish. And with Parker, Jax and/or BB waiting in the 3pt line teams will have to respect them and free room in the paint.

Manu is no Kidd but he makes his teammates better too, hopefully you'll see what I mean next season. So far, almost all my predictions about Manu bece true, this one won't be the exception. :hat

Rick Von Braun
07-05-2003, 06:16 PM
NCaliSpurs said:
Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.

Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.

You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you....

MI21 said:
That is such an incomplete stat....
In the playoffs, Manu was much more helpful to the team that TP. This is a fact backed up by statistical data; not hype, not personal bias, not flashes of brilliance.

The Tendex (http://www.rmi.net/~doug/Tendex.html) metric is an integral metric that takes into account points, rebounds, steals, assists, FG%, FT%, blocks, PF, etc. It is similar to efficiency or points created, and it is an excellent metric to measure integral contributions to the team. The advantages of these type of metrics is that they take into account the entire stats sheet, not just some stats hand-picked for the purpose of wining an argument.

The following is the Tendex/48min of all the shooting guards and point guards in the playoffs. (SOURCE (http://www.rmi.net/~doug/playoffsTendex.html))



Shooting Guards

MyTendex/48min (min 23.0 min/gm)

Player Team Tend/48

1- pierce,paul Bos 30.96

2- bryant,kobe LAL 26.67

3- iverson,allen Phi 26.47

4- finley,michael Dal 22.58

5- christie,doug Sac 21.32

6- wells,bonzi Por 20.78

7- ginobili,emanuel San 20.49

8- jackson,jimmy Sac 20.31

9- hardaway,anferne Pho 18.79

10- hamilton,richard Det 18.59

11- kittles,kerry NJN 17.31

12- jackson,stephen San 16.75

13- szczerbiak,wally Min 14.62

14- peeler,anthony Min 12.14

15- miller,reggie Ind 10.36

16- giricek,gordan Orl 9.11

17- johnson,joe Pho 4.54

** Avg for Position = 16.24.



Point Guards

MyTendex/48min (min 23.0 min/gm)

Player Team Tend/48

1- stoudamire,damon Por 28.81

2- hudson,troy Min 27.75

3- kidd,jason NJN 27.55

4- jackson,bobby Sac 27.44

5- davis,baron NOr 27.34

6- nash,steve Dal 25.10

7- delk,tony Bos 24.75

8- vanexel,nick Dal 24.02

9- tinsley,jamaal Ind 22.90

10- stockton,john Uta 22.87

11- billups,chauncey Det 22.00

12- payton,gary Mil 21.27

13- bibby,mike Sac 19.84

14- snow,eric Phi 18.71

15- fisher,derek LAL 18.34

16- cassell,sam Mil 16.04

17- parker,tony San 15.63

18- armstrong,darrel Orl 14.60

19- marbury,stephon Pho 13.82

20- wesley,david NOr 11.09

** Avg for Position = 18.44.


This kind of stats are invaluable to compare performance of players playing in the same position, and also to measure the contributions that each player makes to the team.

Please note that small differences in the scores are not significant to compare performance. The game still has intangibles that can not be meausred by the the stats box. For example, the top 5 point guards in the playoffs have a Tendex difference of 1.5 points. This difference is not significant enough to argue who was the best PG in the playoffs. In other words, please spare me stupid comments, such as, the metric is flawed because Stoudamire was ranked #1.

Nevertheless, big differences (in the order of 5+ points) do indicate significant differences in the level of contribution by the players. This is one of the reasons why these type of metrics are heavily used by coaches, scouts, and professional people that evaluate talent in the league. 100% of the NBA teams make heavy use of them, so do not underestimate the perspective they offer.

It is quite clear that despite Manu being not involved in offense, he managed to make important contributions to the Spurs. Manu ranked 7th among all the SGs that played in the playoffs, and his level of contributions are similar to Finley, Christie, Wells, and J. Jackson contributions to their teams. His Tendex rank is also above average.

It is also quite clear that TP did not ranked among the top 10 PGs in the playoffs, and his contributions to the Spurs were lesser than Manu's. His Tendex rank is also below average.

It's amazing that I have posted here (several times) integral and complete statistical metrics that take into account all the facets of the game, and they have been clearly ignored just because they don't help some people's arguments. I guess this is an excercise of futility.

-R

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 06:21 PM
Nice job, Rick.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 06:27 PM
TOUCHE!

Amazing piece of information, Rick. Tnx a lot!!! :king

adidas11
07-05-2003, 06:39 PM
2- bryant,kobe LAL 26.67


:smokin2

Whottt
07-05-2003, 07:14 PM
Rick those are some nice stats, I have come up with some cutting edge stats myself..

Observe:

PPG in the playoffs:


Tim Duncan 23.8
Tony Parker 14.7

1st leading scorer Tim Duncan
2dn leading scorer Tony Parker

Now I realize it's kind of the in thing to undervalue scoring, and I realize Tony's over all shooting statistics for the playoffs are not that great, unless you compare them to just about anyone else on the team besides Tim Duncan...but let me just remind you guys once again...

What was SpurFans major complaint following two asskickings at the hands of LA in the post season?

Was it for more efficient players?
Was it for more rebounding?
Was it for more passing?

What exactly did we ask for?

Was it a secondary scorer? An athletic perimeter player and scorer capable of creating his own shot? Yes, yes I think it was.

Did Tony Parker do a magnicficent job of this for a 20 year old?

Yes I think he did.

Now in 3 of our 4 post season series...our opponents had a positional player that was an all NBA or AS caliber player...

Now which position was that?

Was it Power Forward? No, Stoudamire is good but not that good. Horry certainly isn't an AS. Nowitski is..but they kept him as far away from Duncan as possible...KMART is..in the East....and besides we know KMART, like every other player in the NBA, sucks unless he is playing with Jason Kidd.

Was it Center? No, after Shaq no no more ALL NBA caliber players.


Was it SF? No, other than Marion and Finley we did not see that many great SF's.

Was it Shooting Guard? No, in fact, most of the shooting guards we saw in the post season were not that great. Other than Kobe...

Was it Point Guard? Surprisingly yes it was..it was indeed PG..3 of the 4 teams we faced in the post season had AS or ALL NBA caliber PG's.

Following that line of thinking, which Spurs player had the toughest individual matchups for most of the post season?

Don't tell me it was the youngest player on the team and a guy still younger than most rookies..it can't be.

Now in addition to my cutting edge PPG stat I showed earlier.I would like to add another...

Spurs PPG in the playoffs:94.8
Spurs Opp: in the playoffs:89.3

Now as you can see..the Spurs clearly outscored their opponents in the post season..and it is amazing how much easier it is to win a playoff series, not to mention a title, if you outscore your opponents. It's possible to win a title without outscoring your opponents for the post season, but it is very difficult to do , not to mention stressful.

I would say that on a game to game basis, outscoring your opponent is the single most important statistic that there is.

And when you have a secondary scorer..that, while he may not shoot lights out game in and game out going up against AS's, does have big quarters or big games, usually when most needed, outscoring your opponent becomes infinitely easier.

Now that's just me, and call me silly because I haven't forgotten that as recently as a year ago we needed a secondary scorer.

Amazingly, even though Tim Duncan deserves total credit for winning this title..Amazingly enough we still needed a second scorer even with Tim Duncan, prior to Parker's emergence.

We got one..we won an NBA title.

That's how I see it..but call me simple if you like. :fro

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 07:21 PM
Now as you can see..the Spurs clearly outscored their opponents in the post season..

Stop the presses! You mean the NBA champions outscored their opponents in the pllayoffs?
I guess I don't have a leg to stand on now!


Just kidding, Whott.

But I agree Tony nutted up in becoming a sold second scorer. But scoring is often look at as the sexiest stat. Scoring is important. Walter Berry, Sean Higgins and Greg Sutton agree.

But this isn't about who is the better scorer. It's about who has better all-around talent.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 07:21 PM
Tendex Shmendex. Yes, both lists look funky to me.

That Point Guard list looked so funny it is ridiculous. Tony Delk, Damon Stoudemire, and Troy Hudson in the top 5. Hahaha. If Tony was as good as he was possibly going to get, then all of those teams would gladly trade him for those players. In a second. But maybe if they see this TENDEX....haha

Parker:
24 33.9 135-335 .403 15-56 .268 67-94 .713 .30 2.40 2.80 3.5 .92 .13 1.96 2.10 14.7

PC EFFECTIVE:14.2

Ginobilli:
Cumulative Playoff Statistics
24 0 27.5 71-184 .386 28-73 .384 56-74 .757 1.20 2.60 3.80 2.9 1.71 .38 1.50 2.60 9.4

PC EFFCTIVE: 8.2


Please.

Parker played like God half the time and a below average bench warmer the rest of the time. He was up and down.

Manu never had those kinds of nights. Sorry, he never put the team on his back.

He hits big shots and makes big plays, but he is merely the catalyst for the other heavy lifters.

You guys are crazy.

timvp
07-05-2003, 07:32 PM
No. How many times have you seen Parker flying out of no where to block a shot at the rim on a fast break? Manu can cover a bigger area andd wreak havoc in the open court.

Do you know what fullcourt defense is?


What makes you say that? Pop only gets after Manu when he tries to do too much. Parker is always getting yelled at for the mistakes he makes. Parker takes it well, but the sheer number of times Parker gets yelled at should tell you something. What makes you say Parker is more coachable?

Parker is extremely coachable. Pop yells at him, but Parker always responds. He also talks to Pop on and off the court more than any other player. For example, whenever they are on one of their charter, Parker and Pop discuss basketball for the first 45 minutes. Every flight, every time.

Manu, on the other hand, plays the bball he plays. That's a not a bad thing. Early in the season, Pop asked him what he was trying to do after Manu had a bad turnover. Manu responded that he plays how he plays and he can't change. Pop let him go with that because he doesn't want to change him.


It's a fact that there are some Spurs that don't like Parker because he doesn't pass them the ball (sometimes on Pop's orders).

BS.

Every point guard has players mad at them because EVERY player wants the ball all the time. That's how this sport goes.


It's so funny how I try to bring up a subject involving Parker, and if my take is not "Parker will be the best PG in two seasons", I might have well have started a "Tony" sucks thread.
We'll find a gra area one of these days. Tony is not an all-star, and he doesn't suck. But those are the only takes you hear here, and your take is usually twisted into one ofthose two categories.

What's funny is if people can't realize the difference between talent and flash. Parker is the real deal.

The coin is two-sided. When people don't praise Manu as the best thing since sliced bread, Spurs fans go off about how great he is and how great he will be.

If you are going to jump on a player's bandwagon, make sure you pick the right one.

Don't let the bright lights and ESPN highlights fool you.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 07:33 PM
How are we crazy?
Manu doesn't have the opportunity to carry a team on his back.
The first bench player that has the opportunity to put a team on his back and carry will be the first.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 07:47 PM
Call him a bench player, but he is getting 28 minutes a game.

Manu hasn't gotten the opportunity to do the same things that Parker has, because he hasn't earned it in Pop's eyes.

I think next year that will be a different matter. But right now we *know* Parker can carry the team for stretches. We just haven't seen that out of manu.

Like I said, Manu hits big shots. He makes big rebounds and steals.

Manu lives in the moment of games, and can play really big at big times.

But his numbers don't lie. He is still too inconsistent to be considered on Parker's level.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 07:49 PM
"Inconsistant" is the perfect word to descibe Parker.

NCaliSpurs
07-05-2003, 08:25 PM
Parker consistently played like an all-star the second half of the season (from December on).

He had troubles during the playoffs, but there was more pressure on him than anybody on that team except maybe Duncan.

If Parker had had an average Parker game over the last couple games of the finals, noone would even be discussing this.


Some people are very what have you done for me lately.

I would love to see Parker have a chance at running the show again this year, giving time for him and Manu to grow.

We'll see.

Whottt
07-05-2003, 08:31 PM
You know in the process of comparing these two players they are both undeservedly being torn down.

You really can't compare the two players, not only do they have different responsibilites but they also have different skills and athleticism.

We do them both an injustice in comparing them this way. They both played a role in us winning a title.

Parker had one primary responsibility...score to take the heat off of Duncan..he had to do it going up against the best PG's in the NBA both offensively and defensively. And he did, and he is 20 years old.


Manu is a versatile play maker, a very cerebral player and IMO a natural on the court leader. Manu's biggest contribution to our team in the post season was his defense...not expected to be his strong suit due to the fact he is an international player. Nontheless he did an outstanding job of it and contributed in many ways during key moments.

Manu is the better all around player..as he should be..Manu is a veteran and a European MVP.

Parker is a gifted player, not as good yet all around as many players in the league but he has already shown a nack for scoring that few players show at his age. Parker has already shown he can step up with tremendous amounts of pressure on him going up against top players his second year in the league.


They are both great players and it is gonna be damn shame if we end up losing either one of them while leaving a gaping hole where DROB was.

Sometimes the grass isn't always greener, stop the covetous pursuit of Kidd based on his reputation and little else..if Tony played for the Lakers or Knicks you would never stop hearing about him.

They are both great young players who have taken us from being a title contender to a champion since they have been here.

Would you want to see either of them playing for the Lakers next year?

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 08:33 PM
Parker consistently played like an all-star the second half of the season (from December on).

He had troubles during the playoffs, but there was more pressure on him than anybody on that team except maybe Duncan.


Then he didn't play consistantly like an all-star in the second half of the season.
I have a problem with point guards who aren't playmakers, and players who disappear _ not just play subpar, but disappear _ in playoffs games, then come back and drop 30.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 08:44 PM
Well pout, Whott.

Whottt
07-05-2003, 08:45 PM
Edit: Lol if I had known you were gonna be nice I wouldn't have been so bitchy in this post..disregard :smokin



Geez he's 21 andh e got the job done.

He had the toughest individual assignments series in and series out in this post season. Not Duncan.

In every series he got better as the series progressed, except for the finals where he started out strong and ran into trouble when the Nets made stopping him a priority.

Go back and watch some of those later games..there are times where Parker was drawing 3 defenders.

You want to know something else? Stopping a lot of point guards was just as important as scoring on them..Not just stopping them from scoring but from passing as well.

Go look at the passing statistics of the teams we played in the post season, we played the best passing teams in the NBA and in every series we out passed them. Parker deserves a hell of a lot of credit for that. No he doesn't have defensive technique mastered yet but he gets in front of PG's with his speed and disrupts what they want to do.

It's insane to expect Parker to be as consistent as a veteran...especially when he doesn't always get the ball...

Kidd had some low scoring games..10 points on 30% shooting..hell what's his excuse? Try something other than he doesn't play with Tim Duncan because that one is weak at best.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 08:51 PM
I'm glad you caught my typo. Obviously, I said "well put", I didn't tell you to cry by saying "well, pout!"

Whottt
07-05-2003, 08:56 PM
So does this mean you are ready to concede that you erred in advocating Kidd to SA? :makemyday

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 09:09 PM
Whott, I don't know if you know exactly what I've been arguing against.
I've never said Kidd is a perfect fit, or that the Spurs should get him.
What I don't like is that people actually think it's the end of the world if he does come.
I would not risk losing Manu for Kidd. But I would risk losing Parker for Kidd. But that's just my personal opinion.

Whottt
07-05-2003, 09:15 PM
So let me ask you a question..If the Bullets had offered us Chris Webber for Tim Duncan after the 97-98 season would you have done it?

Edit: and don't sweat it btw, I just like to argue..if there weren't people in favor of bringing Kidd to SA, posting this past year wouldn't have been near as much fun. I'd probably still be lurking like I did at the previous SR forum. Half my posts are sarcastic and the other half are failed attempts at humor, I'll let you decide which is which.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 09:18 PM
of course not, but that's a superstar for a superstar. What we're talking about here is a superstar for a potential star.
There's a big difference.

Fizzzar
07-05-2003, 09:22 PM
Plus Webber was injury prone at that time :wink

Whottt
07-05-2003, 09:25 PM
Well the truth is, that at that time Duncan was still much more of a Center than he was a true PF, Chris Webber was much more the classical PF at that stage of their careers, and arguably he still fits the mold better.

I look at Kidd VS Parker as a Superstar in the tail end of his prime VS an emerging Superstar..with about 89 million dollars difference in salary.

I am still kind of lost on what people mean when they say Superstar, to me that sounds like a designation of fame, and if that's the case Parker has already achieved that in much of the world..

Whottt
07-05-2003, 09:32 PM
Chris Webber is injury prone but he has always been injury prone. Something that should always be considered when bringing him in. I was one of the people against bringing him in for DROB. Not just because of his injuries but frankly I don't like the way he plays defense and I think he's got a mental block about playing well in big games, inspite of his talent.

Let me put it this way then...if you had Elton Brand would you trade him for Nowitski or Webber?

Think about it.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-05-2003, 10:37 PM
This difference, AGAIN, is that you're trading legit starts for legit stars.
All the players mentioned in your trades have accolades and were immediate stars.
Parker's only accolade is that he was a first-team all-rookie player. That's it.

Rick Von Braun
07-05-2003, 11:41 PM
NCaliSpurs,

It is very nice of you to provide FALSE OR ERRONEOUS information just to support your argument. I guess your level of credibility has dropped below zero in this forum.


NCaliSpurs said:
Parker:
24 33.9 135-335 .403 15-56 .268 67-94 .713 .30 2.40 2.80 3.5 .92 .13 1.96 2.10 14.7

PC EFFECTIVE:14.2

Ginobilli:
Cumulative Playoff Statistics
24 0 27.5 71-184 .386 28-73 .384 56-74 .757 1.20 2.60 3.80 2.9 1.71 .38 1.50 2.60 9.4

PC EFFCTIVE: 8.2

For those not aware of the PC metric, it is a metric created by Bob Bellotti (http://www.bellottibasketball.com/aboutpc.htm). The most important part of the metric is the Value of Ball Possession (VBP). The VBP is the league’s average points per possession. The formula is:

Points Created = (Points) + ((Rebounds + Steals + Blocks) * VBP) + (Assists * (2-VBP)) - ((Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers) * VBP) - (Personal Fouls * (VBP * .5))

Most people don't have access to the information to calculate the VBP, and they assume a value of one (1) (i.e., one (1) point per possesion). In this case, the VBP degenerates into the Efficiency metric that you can found on nba.com (except that efficiency does not considers personal fouls as negative points).

Points Created = Positive Points Created - Negative Points Created
Points Created = (Points + Rebounds + Steals + Blocks + Assists) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers + 0.5 * Personal Fouls)

The PC scores for Manu and TP are:



Manu Ginobili:

Games played: 24

Total minutes played: 660

Total Points Created: 240

Points Created/game (PC/g) = 10

Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.364



Tony Parker:

Games played: 24

Total minutes played: 814

Total Points Created: 228

Points Created/game (PC/g) = 9.5

Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.280



Please note that there is a significant statistical consistency between the Tendex and the PC metrics. The relative difference between Manu and TP using both metrics is:



Tendex/48min

(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (20.49 - 15.63) / (15.63) = 0.311



PC/min

(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (0.364 - 0.280) / (0.280) = 0.300



In other words, Manu's contributions to the team were ~30% higher than TP's independently of the statistical metric used.

The difference between what NCaliSpurs posted and reality is so gross, that I suspect that he didn't even plug the numbers in the formula and just made the PC scores up to support his argument.

-R

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 12:03 AM
Actually, I didn't make them up, look at them on the NBA website.

Don't be a dick.

I mistakenly put the regular season pc effective.

Everybody makes mistakes. Just because my opinion is different from yours, it is no reason to treat me with such disrespect.

Rick Von Braun
07-06-2003, 12:11 AM
I mistakenly put the regular season pc effective.
Ok, fair enough. We all make mistakes.

-R

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 12:15 AM
BTW

Why don't you talk about regular season PC? Parker was much better than Manu this year for the entire regular season (69 for Gino) games. Even for the stretch of games where Manu was not hurt, Parker played much better.

Parker had a very inconsistent playoffs. He was either great or he was non-existent.

But Parker's great games carried us through when we needed him, and he was indispensable.

Anyway, I have said my piece in this thread.

Admiral
07-06-2003, 12:25 AM
I liked the statistics courses I took in college, but I am almost tired of statistics after reading Rick Von Braun's posts. :sleep

Just kidding, Rick. Seriously, the stats are important to me, too, but you can't put a statistical measure on heart. Tony Parker has more heart than anyone else on our team...even more than Stephen Jackson. He may have up and down games, but he's 21! He was only able to legally buy alcohol a matter of weeks ago. And he is being criticized for being an up and down player?!? Wow, pretty harsh criticism for a guy (kid) who was the starting point guard on a championship team (and the second-youngest one at that!).

The bottom line is that Tony Parker stepped up in big games, much like Stephen Jackson did. Remember our big third quarter runs in the playoffs that sealed series wins for us? That was Tony Parker giving us the lead and extending that lead, not Duncan, not Robinson, and not Ginobili. While Manu is certainly an exciting young player who made some valuable contributions, we would've still probably won the title without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.

I love Manu's hustle, knack for a big steal or tip-in, and energy. He has a lot of upside and I look forward to watching him develop as a Spur. He does not have Parker's potential though - not even close. As T Park num 9 said, it's great that we have both of them.

Archie
07-06-2003, 12:42 AM
Dammit this is basketball it's supposed to be fun. You mofos got me wondering when I have to sit for the next Fing exam.

Betsy
07-06-2003, 12:59 AM
we would've still probably won the title without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.

Admiral, I totally agreed with what you were saying until this. This leads me to believe you think that the Spurs could not have won without him. IMHO I think TP would not be considered as good a player if he were not playing with the Spurs. Do you mean that if Kidd was on the Spurs and TP was on the Nets, the Nets would have won? Yes, he was a factor in a team effort. As was Manu, SJax, Speedy and everyone else. You are right that they probably would have won without Manu. But the same goes for Parker. There would have been someone else there.

Just my opinion. :pc

Truthsayer
07-06-2003, 12:59 AM
There are PLENTY of minutes to keep three guards happy if Kidd comes aboard.

Kidd 34 minutes
Parker 32 minutes
Manu 30 minutes

Those are a good number of minutes for a team expected to play 7 preseason games, 82 regular season games, and between 16 and 28 playoff games.

If you don't agree, remember that this past year we had a six guards with four getting substantial minutes in rotation.

The odd man out is Jack who can share minutes with Bowen or play guard if one of the other guys have a cold shooting night. Jack would be also be nice insurance in case a guard goes down with an injury. But then again, Jack may not even be back.

This Parker vs. Manu discussion is ridiculous.

spurster
07-06-2003, 01:04 AM
The Spurs needed all of their rotation to be the Champs. If they didn't have Manu, the Spurs would've had to play Steve Smith and that would not have looked very pretty, to say the least. But yes, the Spurs needed Parker, too, probably more because I agree that the bottom line is indeed scoring. I would prefer it if the tendex and similar statistics would split the scoring away from the other stuff.

Concerning the future, who really knows? Both Parker and Manu have great potential. Can we agree on that?

Rick Von Braun
07-06-2003, 01:07 AM
I liked the statistics courses I took in college, but I am almost tired of statistics after reading Rick Von Braun's posts.I brought them up only after some posters brought half-baked versions of them to favor their argument.


but you can't put a statistical measure on heart. Tony Parker has more heart than anyone else on our teamHmm... ok... now that you say so it is clear to me that TP has more heart than Tim Duncan, David Robinson, SJax, Manu, Malik... hell anyone in the Spurs :rolleyes


we would've still probably won the title without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.I strongly disagree here. Without Manu, the Spurs do not defeat the Lakers. Period. Manu was the second star in that series behind Duncan. Take that to the bank. In addition, if you need more proof, just take a look at the crunch time stats and look who is behind Duncan overall in the entire playoffs. Yes, Manu.


He does not have Parker's potential though - not even close.I disagree here too. We'll see what happens, since it is useless to argue. The only thing I am telling you is this. If Pop gives Manu more opportunites to be involved in the offense next year, allowing him to make decisions with the ball in his hands, watch out! You ain't see nothing yet.

Finally, I think noone can objectively dispute that Manu made significantly more contributions than TP during the playoffs. That's all.

-R

Admiral
07-06-2003, 01:21 AM
I was joking about your stats, Rick. I thought they were interesting and revealing.

I think that Parker has more heart than anyone else on our team - you can see it in his eyes. He has that killer instinct that I haven't seen from anyone else on our team except maybe Stephen Jackson. Tim is obviously our MVP, but in the waning moments of a game I would rather see Parker or SJax taking the final shot.

Betsy, I was not saying that we would not have won if we replaced Parker with Kidd in the lineup. I was saying that we could've removed Manu from the lineup and not replaced him, and we still would've won. If we had removed Parker and not replaced him, we would not have won. Rick Von Braun made a good point about Manu in the Laker series, though.

I do hope that Manu gets more minutes and more opportunities in 2003-2004. I would like to see a starting lineup of Parker/Manu/SJax/Duncan/Free Agent Big Man. Manu won't disappoint, I just think that Parker has more of an upside than does Manu. That is certainly no disrespect to Manu's game, I'm just not sure where he fits in yet. Will he be a jack-of-all-trades/utility player type of guy, or will he be a guy who eventually scores 18 ppg, grabs 6 rpg, and dishes out 5 apg?

We'll see.

Guru of Nothing
07-06-2003, 02:26 AM
Statistical analysis did not win the Spurs a title this year, and it won't in the years to come. While I like stats, and I'm especially fond of fantasy hoops, there comes a fork in the trail which separates the Bob Whitsitts of the world from the GMs of championship teams.

MI21
07-06-2003, 03:38 AM
Finally, I think noone can objectively dispute that Manu made significantly more contributions than TP during the playoffs. That's all.

Parker - (I know that Pts aren't everything, but they mean alot to a sometimes stagnant Spurs offense)

Game 3 @ Phoenix - 29pts - Win
Game 4 @ Phoenix - 19pts - Loss
Game 6 vs Phoenix - 17pts - Win
Game 2 vs Lakers - 16pts - Win
Game 5 vs Lakers - 21pts - Win
Game 6 @ Lakers - 27pts - Win
Game 1 vs Dallas - 18pts - Loss
Game 2 vs Dallas - 19pts - Win
Game 3 @ Dallas - 29pts - Win
Game 4 @ Dallas - 25pts - Win
Game 1 vs Nets - 16pts - Win
Game 2 vs Nets - 21pts - Loss
Game 3 @ Nets - 26pts - Win

Tony had at least 3 good games in every series, and even games that aren't statistically good, he would have a 8-10 point quarter that would set the Spurs up, so theoretically he had probably another 4/5 games on top of those I posted, that could be conmsidered solid. The Spurs were also 10-3 when Parker played well statistically, which is awesome considering the competition this year, and at times he had to carry the offensive load..

I dont even need to post other players stats, because those stats there prove that no one except the MVP had significantly more contributions in this years playoffs than Parker, and to state that Ginobili had more contributions, let alone significantly, is flat out wrong.

(Also, I am in no way trying to hate on any player of this years CHAMPIONSHIP winning squad, just trying to defend a player that is bagged on to much, and has unrealistic expectations placed on him often. For the record I have no hate of Manu, why would I, and he is my 3rd favorite Spurs to watch behind Jax and Tim :) )

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 03:51 AM
Game 5 vs Lakers - 21pts - Loss

Actually, we won this game.

;)

MI21
07-06-2003, 03:56 AM
My Bad.

It felt like a loss after that comeback!..:lol

Man in Black1
07-06-2003, 04:56 AM
:brotha

NCaliSpurs,

It is very nice of you to provide FALSE OR ERRONEOUS information just to support your argument. I guess your level of credibility has dropped below zero in this forum.

Quote:NCaliSpurs said:
Parker:
24 33.9 135-335 .403 15-56 .268 67-94 .713 .30 2.40 2.80 3.5 .92 .13 1.96 2.10 14.7

PC EFFECTIVE:14.2

Ginobilli:
Cumulative Playoff Statistics
24 0 27.5 71-184 .386 28-73 .384 56-74 .757 1.20 2.60 3.80 2.9 1.71 .38 1.50 2.60 9.4

PC EFFCTIVE: 8.2

For those not aware of the PC metric, it is a metric created by Bob Bellotti. The most important part of the metric is the Value of Ball Possession (VBP). The VBP is the league’s average points per possession. The formula is:

Points Created = (Points) + ((Rebounds + Steals + Blocks) * VBP) + (Assists * (2-VBP)) - ((Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers) * VBP) - (Personal Fouls * (VBP * .5))

Most people don't have access to the information to calculate the VBP, and they assume a value of one (1) (i.e., one (1) point per possesion). In this case, the VBP degenerates into the Efficiency metric that you can found on nba.com (except that efficiency does not considers personal fouls as negative points).

Points Created = Positive Points Created - Negative Points Created
Points Created = (Points + Rebounds + Steals + Blocks + Assists) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers + 0.5 * Personal Fouls)

The PC scores for Manu and TP are:


Manu Ginobili:
Games played: 24
Total minutes played: 660
Total Points Created: 240
Points Created/game (PC/g) = 10
Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.364

Tony Parker:
Games played: 24
Total minutes played: 814
Total Points Created: 228
Points Created/game (PC/g) = 9.5
Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.280



Please note that there is a significant statistical consistency between the Tendex and the PC metrics. The relative difference between Manu and TP using both metrics is:


Tendex/48min
(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (20.49 - 15.63) / (15.63) = 0.311

PC/min
(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (0.364 - 0.280) / (0.280) = 0.300



In other words, Manu's contributions to the team were ~30% higher than TP's independently of the statistical metric used.

The difference between what NCaliSpurs posted and reality is so gross, that I suspect that he didn't even plug the numbers in the formula and just made the PC scores up to support his argument.

I talked to Tango and the way he explained it to me was that since Manu isn't a starter, its more important to focus on just how well he played per minute . He also says that its easy enough to do a comparison to see if they stepped up or stepped down for the playffs by running PC's for both the reular and playoff seasons. If the Playoff scores were higher, then a player stepped up. Looking at TP's score, it would back up the fact that at times, the kid played kind of shitty. .280 is pretty whack considering that he played .388 ball.
A .100 drop indicates that TP lacked in some playoff games. Whether you would like to believe it or not.
DESPITE THAT, I SAY KEEP THE KID. HE WILL BE A FORCE BUT JASON KIDD IS ALREADY THERE.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 05:15 AM
Sorry I have yet to see a correlation between PC(or any efficiency formula) and winning..Probably the most accurate one is the IBM formula IMO(for superstars anyway)..since it makes team wins a part of the formula.

I see plenty of players with high PC and efficiency ratings that do not play for winning teams. Elton Brand immediately comes to mind.

The only way to see how a player impacts his team winning is to look at how much more his team wins with him than without him...Tough to do.

Webber's team seemingly never misses a beat when he is injured...

The Laker survive losing Kobe pretty well but not Shaq.

Ahem, the Spurs were a loser and a lottery team any time David was injured, prior to last season.

Conversely you would think Nowitzki is a huge impact player, and he is offensively, defensively he is a huge liability.


Anyone inclined can check the scores and stats from our series with Dallas in the playoffs, Dallas became a tougher team with Nowitski out of the lineup, They were a more efficient shooting team and a better defensive team, the games became lower scoring and the marign of victory was much closer, after the Mavs no longer had Nowitzki running away from his man on defense.

IMO the stat that shows how well a player impacts his teams ability to win games, accurately, has yet to be invented...but you pretty much just have to measure how much the team wins with him.

In 2001 we got swept and dominated by LA...in 2002 we added Tony Parker and against LA we went into the 4th quarter nearly every game with a double digit lead and actually won one game over the previous year. This year we bring back Kerr and add Manu and Jax and we became champions. Manu did play a huge role but Parker had an impact the previous year.

If you want a stat that kind of measures winning just look at the Spurs W-L record when Tony scores 20 points.

If you could combine an efficiency rating with a teams +/- in points scored VS their opponent with a certain player in the lineup you would have a pretty accurate measure of what a player is contributing.

I know the Spurs +/- with Manu in the line up was very high during the playoffs..but again you can't ignore the Spurs w-l record when Tony scores 20 points.

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 01:18 PM
I talked to Tango

You said enough for me. I don't agree at all with him philosophically.

Archie
07-06-2003, 01:28 PM
Those calcs need to be adjusted for sitting on the pine when a championship was on the line.

Fizzzar
07-06-2003, 02:15 PM
MI, It's easy to score more points when you are shooting twice (and some times three times) more than the other players.

Nikos
07-06-2003, 03:18 PM
Just curious, but what if Tony Parker had been hurt for half a season+ his rookie year? What if he had a sprained ankle throughout and had to adjust to a team that already considered itself a title contender?

What if Manu had already gone through one year and Parker was the rookie? Would Parker being getting as many shots? Would Parker have been able to RISE ABOVE it all and still be a clutch player if he wasn't scoring 15+ points?

Bottom line is Manu makes a difference in many areas of the game when NOT SCORING and that alone shows his versatility -- someone Parker does not have yet after two seasons in the NBA.

Yes he is a good scorer, that fact is obvious.

But Manu's game is not about FLASH timvp -- the guy is fundamental and a lot more so than Tony Parker. Sure he has some weird drives sometimes -- but the guy is trying to make things happen, hes USED to getting shots. You think Tony Parker could make a huge difference taking 10 shots MAX? You think Parker could focus on other areas of the game and contribute when hes shot is OFF? So far he hasn't proven he can do so.

Perhaps Parker will eventually be a top 5 PG, but right now he isn't and he NEEDS to become a better passer, I don't care how coachable and young he is. The day he becomes a good passer and shows all the intagibles somewhat consistently is the day he becomes a great PG in this league.

Give Manu some time and more shots and you will see what he is really capable of. I agree with FIZZ, I think he could become a good scorer, along with getting 5apg 5rpg 2-3spg if he was on the right team or if he was used enough.

Manu is a PLAYER. Bottom line. Hes not just some ENERGY SMHUCK off the bench who is helping us from time to time. He is a difference maker. And I am getting the impression from some posters that without him, we would have still been champs this season or we wouldn't be much worse of a team.

Personally I disagree, without Manu and also Speedy, this team would lose to the Lakers in the second round.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-06-2003, 03:25 PM
Good post, Nikos.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 03:41 PM
If Parker had been injured all year long we wouldn't have won a title. Oh and Parker is barely 21.

Nikos
07-06-2003, 03:52 PM
Im saying how would PARKER react to being injured in his ROOKIE SEASON? Would he have done any better than Manu did in his rookie season if he was injured for half a season, missed training camp etc...?

Whottt
07-06-2003, 03:58 PM
When Parker was a rookie he was 19, and basically a novice to pro ball even with his Paris experience.

When Manu was a rookie he was 25 years old and a fomer Euro League MVP with extensive post season experience from around the world.

Parker is the one that drew the "best PG in the world" in the finals.

Quite a bit of difference between them.

And I'm not hating on Manu, I love Manu and you are right we don't win a title without him this year..and IMO we beat LA if we have him last year.

But that doesn't mean we win without Parker.

I don't understand tearing one Spur down to build another up, without good reason.

They both played a role in our title and we probably don't win without either of them(and a few other Spurs as well).

I hate on Kidd but you won't see me hating on a Spur that played an important role on our champion team, unless there's a reason for it.

I just don't understand that logic.

Fizzzar
07-06-2003, 04:07 PM
I don't get why people say Parker has more upside than Manu. Just cause he is 21 doesn't mean he has more upside.

Paker has been given every chance to shine in the Spurs system while Manu is barely an spectator sometimes in the offense.

Manu has the chance to be a very special player, he has shown he can do everything our team needs to win while Parker has shown he is a great shooter, nothing more.

Bottomline is, next year when Manu gets the chance he deserves this won't be even an issue, you'll see.

picnroll
07-06-2003, 04:09 PM
Why don't you argue about which wheel on your car is most important for a while.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 04:38 PM
Fizzar, I don't about the other people arguing..but to me it's pretty obvious Manu has more skills and higher basketball IQ. I mean Manu can score, pass, block shots, rebound..


All we know about Tony is that he can score very well(and I think he can pass too he just hasn't been required too yet).
But who knows how good Tony is going to be? He's just turned 21, most players are beginng their rookie season at 21...Tony is a 2 year starter for an NBA champ at the hardest positon to learn in the NBA.

I think both of these guys haven't gotten anywhere near as good as they are going to be, we really haven't seen every thing from either of them..because of Manu's injuries and because of Parker being a baby still, so for me it's harder to compare them than it is say..DROB and Tim for example.

Fizzzar
07-06-2003, 04:45 PM
Whott, I know that, but everyone seems to believe that Parker has more upside just because he is younger and less polished and I don't agree with that. Using that logic the Spurs made a mistake when they drafted TD, a senior with little upside.

Potential is measured on many things, not just age.

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 04:47 PM
Manu homer.


:tyson

adidas11
07-06-2003, 05:00 PM
Quote: "Potential is measured on many things, not just age. "

I've seen this time and time again, at all levels of sports, where people look at someone's age and assume that there is this automatic learning curve that increases with that age.

For example, there is Michael Owen, of Liverpool. He's the starting striker on the English National team (this is soccer). He broke through into the Premier league at the age of 17, and took the league by storm, leading the league in goals that year. At 18, he was playing in the 1998 World Cup, and scored a goal against Argentina. Listening to all of the American sportscasters, they automatically assumed that since he was doing all of these great things at the age of 18, that as he would get older, he would re-write how the game of soccer was played. Well, now Owen is 23 years old, and still a stud. But he is hardly what you would consider one of the best strikers in the world, and definitely not the best striker in the English Premier league. He's had trouble with injuries, and while he has become a smarter player, by no means has he exponentially improved performance-wise.

There are a myriad of examples that I could pull from that are very similar to this. As far as I'm concerned, age has nothing to do with it, unless you severely physically mature from this point. Yes, Tony Parker will probably improve his decision making, shooting percentage, etc. But to make the assumption that because of his age, he will be vastly superior many years from now, is shaky at best.

Fizzzar
07-06-2003, 05:04 PM
At last!!!, Adidas and I agree on something!!!:elephant

The apocalypsis is coming... :wacko

adidas11
07-06-2003, 05:07 PM
Quote :"At last!!!, Adidas and I agree on something!!!"

I was going to say the same thing too, Fizzar. :)

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 08:51 PM
Parker doesn't need to develop anything but consistency, and then only in the playoffs.

You could not have asked for anything more from a second-year point guard, regardless of age.

Perhaps, the same could be said of his playoffs performance too.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-06-2003, 08:54 PM
Parker can become a better passer, playmaker, he can hit the weights more to become a better defender, he could work on his jumpshop....

That's just off the top of me head.

Archie
07-06-2003, 08:55 PM
Parker's nowhere near the distributor that Kidd is. Parker's never had to carry a team on his own.

NCaliSpurs
07-06-2003, 09:01 PM
Parker can become a better passer, playmaker, he can hit the weights more to become a better defender, he could work on his jumpshop....

That's just off the top of me head

My point was not that he is perfect. Even all-stars have weaknesses.

Tony just plays really well right now.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 09:07 PM
He doesn't need to be able to carry a team, he needs to be able to score in the playoffs when Duncan is being taken out of the game.

Archie
07-06-2003, 09:20 PM
And he has yet to prove that he is the legit second star this team needs.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 09:37 PM
That argument was much more convincing before we won a title.

Archie
07-06-2003, 09:42 PM
How is it any less convincing? He got to kick back and watch someone else run the Spurs' O when the title was on the line. The moment that the Nets focused on defending him he ceased to be a factor. Kidd faced the focus of the NBA's best defense for the entire series and led his team to 2 victories against it.

And Parker had a Tim Duncan on the court to help him out.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 09:51 PM
Oh that's horseshit, he was instrumental in the scoring surge in game 5. He pretty much took over the 3rd quarter.

They were pressing him in game 6 and coming at him from different angles...he didn't play any worse than Jax did in the first half. If he hadn't come back in game 6 he would have been there in game 7. Tony got the job done every time he had too. To say otherwise isn't accurate.

Tony has bad games just like everyone else..he never missed as many shots as Kidd did though in spite of out scoring him a few times..

You just want Kidd here...Parker could walk on water and you are still gonna diss him.

Parker's a Spur we don't win the title this year without him. That's the bottom line. I know you think those who are not crazy about Kidd are just Parker homers...but that's not true..I wouldn't mind Payton and I really think Brand is the best guy we could get, and we should do every thing in our power to get him, this year or next.

Archie
07-06-2003, 09:53 PM
I'm sorry if you hate to hear the truth. The kid is just too damn inconsistent to justify passing on a player of Kidd's caliber with no other similiar talent on his way.

Whottt
07-06-2003, 10:03 PM
Oh I can handle the truth..but the truth is also that Parker is already a more consistent scorer than Kidd is and he isn't as TO prone.

You just wait till Kidd has one of those 10 TO games.

You want consistency at the PG spot? Go get Payton, he fits better in a half court offense, he can score, and he won't require a long term deal(and **** him if he does).

**** this weak shooting PG shit man..You say you don't want to relive the 90's..me either and I saw enough of motherfucking guards who couldn't shoot back then to last me a lifetime.

Duncan gets people open...you want to win a title get some SOB's that can hit those open shots, not MF'ers that are barely 40% career shooters.

We don't have a problem getting people open...we haven't had that problem for nearly 15 years.

Archie
07-06-2003, 10:09 PM
Kidd shot 34% from beyond the arc last season on more attempts than the kid and his blistering 33.7% or whatever.

Yeah, the Spurs had a point guard with no ability to get a jumper off on his own with AJ. TP shoots a set shot as well.

Of course you fail to address Kidd's superior rebounding and steals ability. The Spurs have always given up more than their fair share of offensive boards to their opponents due to weak rebounding from the backcourt.

As well you totally ignore the Spurs cap situation and the limitations they will face going forward to add great talent to this team. This offseason we have seen that other Western contenders are not content to sit back and allow the Spurs to make lateral moves such as just bringing in another decent big to replace DRob. Over the next 5 years we will see the emergence of young teams in the west such as Phoenix and Houston.

Betsy
07-06-2003, 10:42 PM
I am going to say this again. Parker is NOT the reason the Spurs won. They were a good team. If Parker was not there then Speedy would have stepped up like he did when Parker was playing like shit. Parker is not the die all. He has played his part and helped. No doubt. But not the reason they won.

MI21
07-07-2003, 11:20 AM
^^He's a huge reason why the Spurs won^^

More so than any other player on the team, except Tim Duncan.

CarnacTheMagnificent
07-07-2003, 04:47 PM
Do you know what fullcourt defense is?

I assume you mean transition defense? If so, them read my answer again.


Parker is extremely coachable. Pop yells at him, but Parker always responds. He also talks to Pop on and off the court more than any other player. For example, whenever they are on one of their charter, Parker and Pop discuss basketball for the first 45 minutes. Every flight, every time.

If Parker is extremely coachable, why is Pop always yelling at him? Is it a different subject every time?


BS.

Every point guard has players mad at them because EVERY player wants the ball all the time. That's how this sport goes.

No, listen to me. There are two players that I know don't like Parker. That's a fact. This isn't candy land where everyone loves everyone. Parker may be liked by some, but Parker isn't liked by everyone in the lockerroom.


What's funny is if people can't realize the difference between talent and flash. Parker is the real deal.

Why? Because he can score? Parker lacks some very fundamental skills a PG must have.


The coin is two-sided. When people don't praise Manu as the best thing since sliced bread, Spurs fans go off about how great he is and how great he will be.

If you are going to jump on a player's bandwagon, make sure you pick the right one.
Don't let the bright lights and ESPN highlights fool you.

IO'm not fooled by anything. I wasn't fooled by Antonio Daniels (like many were), I wasn't foolwed by Chris Carawell (like many were), I wasn't fooled by Corey Hightower (like many were).
Parker is a good point guard. But he's not a player you build around. At least not yet. Manu has talents Parker wishes he had. I listed them out there for you. Can Parker jump into a crowd he doesn't belong in and steal a rebound? (Kidd, can, too, but that's another story.)

Parker can't lock his man down.

Parker doesn't play the passing lanes like Manu can

Parker can't make plays like your garden variety PG can and Manu can.

But Parker can beat his chest after scoring on Gary Payton, so that makes his a complete player.
Manu is a complete player. All he need to do is figure out how to score. Parker is not a complete player.

ducks
07-07-2003, 05:42 PM
how many nba players are complete players? half? 1/4? most of them?

Archie
07-07-2003, 05:45 PM
Oh so that excuse only works for Parker and no one else.

ducks
07-07-2003, 05:50 PM
no it implays to everyone EVEN KIDD AND ONEAL