Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Guess who is clearly better?Quote:
Regular season and playoffs career defensive rating, offensive rating, RAPM, defensive plus minus, offensive plus minus, VORP, Win Shares per 48, True shooting percentage and PER
So, you could not be more wrong.
I was obviously talking about raw stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouth is Bleeding
Wasn't a Spurs fan during the Prime Manu years, but looking at what ESPN listed, it seems Parkers higher spot is warranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan86
Manu.............................................. .................................................. .....Tony
Position.......................................... .................................................. .... Position
Shooting guard............................................. .............................................Shoot ing guard
Teams............................................. .................................................. ....Teams
San Antonio Spurs (2002-present).......................................... .....................San Antonio Spurs (2002-present)
Honors............................................ .................................................. ....Honors
Two-time All-Star, two-time All-NBA selection,........................................ .... Six-time All-Star, four-time All-NBA selection,
Sixth Man of the Year (2007-08)............................................... ................ NBA Finals MVP (2006-07)
Championships..................................... ..............................................Championships
4 (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)............................................. ........................ 4 (2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
Career stats Career stats
14.2 PPG, 4.0 APG, 1.4 SPG, .450 FG%............................................... ..... 16.7 PPG, 5.9 RPG, .495 FG%
Not trying to start a player war either I love them both but when I read your comments I was curious to compare Manu's #'s to Tony's when he finally made the list, after looking at it I understand and think Tony should be above Manu. I always thought it was a close distinction between the two, and when it is close it is merely subjective (subject to preference). As great as the team's best 6th man is for me that is always > a prime starter but that is just me. Not that every starter is better than every person on the bench but one of the top two starters is better than anyone on the bench in importance. Now I think the list in general is trash, too many modern players, prisoners of now, who haven't done as much as legends that they are put over. The only thing I really agreed with for the most part was the Center's list, except I would put Hakeem over Shaq but I can understand the argument the other way.
Fair enough, I can understand this. Saying Parker has had a better career than Manu is reasonable and I'd probably agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
When I rank/judge players on an all-time scale, I almost look strictly at their impact on the court (as opposed to focusing on accolades or other stuff of that nature). I think Manu is clearly the better basketball player, so that's why I have him ahead of Tony and don't find it particularly close.
Kobe has had just as good of a career, or arguably better career than Duncan. But if I'm ranking the two on an all-time scale, Duncan is clearly ahead of Kobe and it's not even close. Kobe might have just as many awards and accolades, but he wasn't as good of a basketball player as Duncan.
Someone has a raging hard-on for Shawn Kemp.Quote:
Originally Posted by apalisoc_9
You must have a reading comprehension problem :lol When did I ever say or imply that this debate hasn't been done before? Hell, I pretty clearly implied the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brazil
"If you're tired of the same discussions then that's fine" --> you read that and decided to respond with some sarcastic comment implying that I think I'm doing something new? Really? :lol
:lol dunno why this topic releases a hurricane of estrogen, tbh... it's not uncommon to see people having different opinions on all time rankings all the time...
58. Parker is 58 vs 61. That's a tie. Go home everyone.
you bring on the table an old debate... I guessed you had something new to bring... apparently this is not the case, not that is a big surprise thoQuote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan86
for good measure do you have an opinion about scola ?
I'd put Manu higher. He'd be in my top 25.
Actually, he'd be in my top 10...but, I'm not sure I could handle the onslaught. :lol
Bill RussellQuote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Shaq
Number of bats caught with bare hand:
Manu - 1
Tony - 0
Manu > Tony
tbh
You put it far better than I did. I agree completely with this. Parker deserves the higher ranking, but Manu's the better player.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Do you think Tony moves up if he wins another title with Kawhi and Lemarcus as say, the #3 option?Quote:
Originally Posted by K...
I don't think so. He's the third option. Although if he has some good playoff series/iconic plays I could see him moving up as part of a new spurs ensemble.
Any Top-XX list in any sport is going to get hammered. If 20 people read it, there will be 20 comments about how stupid it is - for 20 different reasons.
I don't even look at them anymore.
I can see ranking Russell higher depending on personal preferences. No way you rank Shaq higher though.Quote:
Originally Posted by phxspurfan
:lol Manu is clearly a top 10 all time based on impact on the game and his appeal in the world and just his overall absurd skillset. The only player ever to be the definition of perfection.
Worst part is, the bad ones get the most discussion, so nobody's encouraged to do a good list.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
That's why instead of debating the number on the list, you put him on your "if I started a team today" list. Manu is on mine, btw backing up Jordan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
Admiral had a higher peak than Hakeem. Admiral's career lasted 13 seasons (minus the tank season) meanwhile Hakeem's prime lasted 13 seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbacoataco
Peak = 1-2 years where the player is at his max power. Best season vs best season, David got destroyed by Hakeem in his only MVP season, we can talk about defensive schemes of the series, how Hakeem had more help, but very few can ever argue otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm
Anyway as predicted, in term of career accomplishments, Tony is without a doubt ahead of Manu. FMVP, all NBA selection, all-star appearances, MVP voting (even if neither ever won it), frankly I am surprised how close the ranks were. They already gave Manu a lot of credit (2004 Olympics was incredible) despite the gap in raw stats and accomplishments.
Are we talking about regular season peaks or just post season performance? Karl Malone shouldn't be mentioned along side Kareem/Tim if we are talking about career postseason peaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmantb
Admiral at his peak led the league in scoring which is something Hakeem never accomplished & scored 71 points which is the 2nd highest point total for a center in NBA history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Literally stupid
Peak value is the highest clearly established level of performance. Which is usually taken as the best 2-4 yr stretch in a player's career. I put Hakeem over Robinson based on the stretch where he won back2back championships as the only superstar on a team of over-achievers. I love D-Rob and in many ways he was equal to Olajuwon, more consistent, but Olajuwon really put it all together in those 2 playoff runs in a way that Robinson never did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm
If SA would have had a better backcourt history might have gone down different.