Reply With Quote
i couldnt even understand what you were saying.
tony and manu have won 3 championships playing together.. do you really feel that's a problem?
i couldnt even understand what you were saying.
tony and manu have won 3 championships playing together.. do you really feel that's a problem?
pretty stupid
Parker hurts the team. He dominates the ball too much on offense which in turn affects team chemistry... everybody doesn't get involved on offense. Although Hill may not be a better player than Parker, he is a better fit. Hill may not be the offensive force that parker is but he is still a very capable scorer, his defense is much better than parker's and he doesn't seem to lag the offense down by dominating the ball like parker does. Parker's game has evolved to the point where he is no longer that great of a fit on this team.
Last edited by G-Dawgg; 04-06-2010 at 11:54 PM.
@ The Parker haters holding on to small small threads of anything.
Great numbers, but, did took into them (the numbers) the overall .500+ or -.500 of the teams against they played?Heading into this season, many Spurs fans were talking about the reins being handed over from Tim Duncan to Tony Parker. However, after a slew of injuries combined with relatively poor play, a vocal minority of Spurs fans are talking quite differently: Are these Spurs better without Tony Parker?
The theory goes that since Parker is a scoring point guard, his skillset no longer meshes well with the more well-rounded roster, thus the Spurs are better with a more passive, defensive-minded player like George Hill running point guard and Manu Ginobili orchestrating the show.
I compared the numbers from the 26 games Parker has missed this season to the 50 games Parker has played in to see what the statistics have to say on this matter.
I'm honestly surprised the numbers are so close. Subjectively, the Spurs play a different brand of basketball without Parker. But statistically speaking, there really isn't much of a difference. With Parker, the Spurs have outscored the opponents by 5.49 points per 100 possessions. Without Parker, that number drops to 5.31.
Looking at those numbers, it isn't fair to say Parker has hurt the Spurs this season. It is fair, however, to say that Parker hasn't been much more of an asset this season than what San Antonio is getting from George Hill.
If you compare the Parker's advanced stats to Hill's advanced stats, the case against Parker becomes even more difficult to make.
Overall, these number reinforce a few points. First of all, Hill should be commended for the job he has done filling in for Parker. He's had big shoes to fill and has done about as well as possible. The dropoff from Parker to Hill this season has been minimal. That said, if a constantly injured s of what was supposed to be Tony Parker helped this team, I'm excited to see how much Parker can help once he's actually playing well.
Sorry but I dont buy that argument. Sure Manu wasnt playing like he is right now but Tim Duncan was playing at a pretty high level early in the season, a level that has dropped off after the all-star break coinciding with Hill being a starter. Also it will be very hard for Manu to continue playing the way he is and orchestrating the offense considering how much Tony dominates the ball, and its no coincedence that guys like RJ and Blair play so much better when they share the court with Manu. RJ didnt magically turn his season around out of the blue, our offense runs much more smoothly through Manu than through Tony mainly because he's a much better passer and actually looks for teammates consistently. Unfortunately Im fully expecting Pop to send Manu back to the bench once Hill returns.
And if we really want to get into things that "skew" these stats, like someone already said we've been playing a pretty rough schedule against alot of elite teams with Hill as a starter...yet despite that the stats show that he's still held his own and that there isnt an astronomical drop off like Tony supporters claim. Noone is saying Hill > TP, simply that Hill can hold down the point respectably and that the addition of the asset we'd get in return for TP would outweigh the drop off at PG. Honestly the only way you cannot see that is out of loyalty to Tony, which I understand to some degree.
Tony Parker is about to open a can of asswhup. It's easy to kick someone when they are down but anyone that doesn't think this guy is a huge asset to this team is a dumbass who evdentially missed the last 3 les the Spurs won.
And more to the point, he responds to challenges exceptionally well, that's why he has started in the NBA since he was 19 years old. That's why he started for an NBA champion at the age of 20 at the hardest position in the NBA to learn.
all headedness aside, i agree with you that hes a of a player, and what hes done for this org. its huge!!! but what im saying is the spurs are constantly changing their style and trying to figure out what can give us an edge right? out with the old in with the new if available right??ok signing temple lets me know parker is no longer what pop wants at the pg position, because there were better options at the pg guard position but he ends up signing a kid who resembles the out of hilll, and so far temple and hill look pretty darn good out there!! parkers making 12 million freaking dollars this year, ready to play with the french team as soon as possible and seems uninterested in the spurs now. (believe me i had no prob with parker when he was alot younger and alot less arrogant)
georgehill is making 1 million dollars this year thats it if we get rid of t.p since he doesnt look like he minds leaving anyway and save and trade while george hill is running the spurs dont you think that would help the spurs chemistry, financial,interior defense situation???? i think thats a great way to fix alot of the problems just my opinion though im not bashing the guy for the of it.
He practically carried them in the 07 finals.
Duncan was good but not GREAT Ginobili was OK until Game 4 4th quarter.
Everyone pretty much laid eggs from Finley to Barry to everyone but Parker carried them and was huge.
Unreal how 3 years later thats totally forgotten...
Can't be picky now. Spurs need all the help they can get and they really need it at PG.
Heading into this season, many Spurs fans were talking about the reins being handed over from Tim Duncan to Tony Parker. However, after a slew of injuries combined with relatively poor play, a vocal minority of Spurs fans are talking quite differently: Are these Spurs better without Tony Parker?
The theory goes that since Parker is a scoring point guard, his skillset no longer meshes well with the more well-rounded roster, thus the Spurs are better with a more passive, defensive-minded player like George Hill running point guard and Manu Ginobili orchestrating the show.
I compared the numbers from the 26 games Parker has missed this season to the 50 games Parker has played in to see what the statistics have to say on this matter.
I'm honestly surprised the numbers are so close. Subjectively, the Spurs play a different brand of basketball without Parker. But statistically speaking, there really isn't much of a difference. With Parker, the Spurs have outscored the opponents by 5.49 points per 100 possessions. Without Parker, that number drops to 5.31.
Looking at those numbers, it isn't fair to say Parker has hurt the Spurs this season. It is fair, however, to say that Parker hasn't been much more of an asset this season than what San Antonio is getting from George Hill.
If you compare the Parker's advanced stats to Hill's advanced stats, the case against Parker becomes even more difficult to make.
Overall, these number reinforce a few points. First of all, Hill should be commended for the job he has done filling in for Parker. He's had big shoes to fill and has done about as well as possible. The dropoff from Parker to Hill this season has been minimal. That said, if a constantly injured s of what was supposed to be Tony Parker helped this team, I'm excited to see how much Parker can help once he's actually playing well.
First off, I just want to get it out of the way that I still definitely want TP in the rotation and that I don't think there's a chance for us to win the le without him contributing.
However, with that said, I think your arguments aren't very logical and your stats are skewed.
Your point differential numbers don't take into account the quality of the compe ion we're playing. Yeah, maybe the scoring margin isn't improving, but 5 pt wins over the likes of LA, Orlando, and Cleveland are more impressive than wins over Memphis, New Orleans and Golden State. The Spurs have played their basketball of the season during the toughest stretch of the season, and they've done it without Parker. Those facts cannot be disputed.
Secondly, I don't see the point in making it a Tony vs. Hill thing. When Tony was playing, he still had the benefit of playing with Hill. These past 15 games or however many it's been, Hill hasn't had Tony's help.
Finally, I don't think you should've broken the stats up as the 50 games Tony has played and the 26 he didn't. I think the only data you should've used is the numbers after Tony broke his hand. That's the team we've been watching of late. The other ten games he missed are irrelevant. Everyone was playing bad back then.
but then you go into the other players on the team in the beginning of the year. playing with Tony/Manu whatever... but RJ and Dice are both totally different players then they were in the beginning of the season. They are both playing better on both ends of the floor and its not only because there playing with Manu instead of Tony... They have developed confidence and know the system.. something they didn't have/know in the beginning of the season...
The overall at ude in the beginning of the season also... There was no sense of urgency... just taking game by game with no worries.. the whole team had that at ude of "it will click sooner or later" and it did... wayyy later.
I understand that you want manu to have the ball more and that this group has developed a little chemistry together and that's fine. I'm sure pop will put that same unit out there at times and balance it out as much as possible.. but there is no way we are a "better" team without Tony playing.. that's just re ed.
and as for RJ... he led the team in scoring tonight and went for 18 points.... with tony playing.... just another example on how much of a different player he is from the beginning of the season and it doesn't have anything to do with tony or manu.
well said !!! plus the 11 million dollar, no international play difference. and lets talk about upside, and overall skill/athleticism!!! this is what does it for me the y just makes me mad
and if we go on to the WCF or Finals with Parker,Hill,Manu all in the rotation... you will still feel this way?
not forgotten AT ALL. but we're talking about this season, not 2007. and this season, the Spurs appear to be a much better team with Parker out. the offense is unpredictable and full of motion and passing. it's a thing of beauty, with ALL the options being taken advantage of.
when Parker's playing, the offense stagnates and becomes very predictable.
and defense? no question that Hill is a more dedicate and skilled defender than Parker.
so, 2007, yeah, Parker was great. but if you've watched the Spurs this season, they have seemed like two completely different teams with and without Parker. and if you ask me which team i like more, i'll just say it's the one that beat the Cavs, Celtics, Magic and Lakers in a two-week period.
Not forgotten, he was huge without a doubt. But its those same performances and loyalty that comes with that that makes some of you oblivious to the situation at hand...Hill is no Tony but he can hold his own. He's proved that each and every single time he's had to step in for Tony, he's lived up to every challenge. Im with Tony all the way for the rest of the season, but if the right deal presents itself where the team can aquire frontcourt help in the off-season Spurs need to do it. Loyalty aside, its the smart move.
You know earlier today I was doing some reading in the Spurs forum and I noticed some dip with less than 1000 posts making comments about veterans here that have been here for along time and that post count doesn't mean ... If you read these two takes, you would understand what the I am talking about. It does mean something and if you can't recognize that then kiss my ass.
As for Parker, this dude only knows one speed and that's total in domination. The dude has been hurt all in year, but by his own hand...The dude shouldn't be playing summer ball because of his style of play. He ing goes balls to the wall every play and usually ends up on his ass.. I am amazed that he has lasted this long without injury.
Tony Parker will in shred the Western Conference while Matt Bonner and Keith Bogans drive this team back into mediocrity and the will be over...
But I guarantee you that Parker won't be the reason...
#9 is back.
FO.
ill save this post for your future, " Trade parker thread"
Parker carried this team all year in 2009 also... remember his 55 pt game?
This team is better with Tony AND Manu...I agree that with Manu playing at this level(which he isn't always playing at this level,people seem to forget) Then we should try and get the ball in his hands as much as possible and pop did that tonight. Pop should balance it out to where these guys are not always on the floor together and lead seperate units at times out there... but there is absolutely no way we are a better team without Tony playing, just need to figure out a rotation that works best for both him and manu....
The question really isn't whether Hill is better than Parker, but if in the current economic environment it makes sense to entertain the idea of using Parker as a trade chip. Memphis offered Mayo and Thabeet to Golden State for Monta Ellis before the trade deadline this year... if they made the same type of offer to the Spurs in July for Parker, would it make sense for the Spurs to do it? Both players are young and locked up for a couple of years-- Parker, facing the prospect of a Duncan-less future might strongly consider going elsewhere.
if we make it to the WCF or the NBA Finals... nobody will be talking about a "trade chip" .
that discussion is for another day.
I dont think the Spurs are better with Parker sitting out, Im obviously not too fond of Parker but even I know thats a pretty ridiculous opinion to have. My whole argument is that Parker should be expendable in the offseason...that Hill is ready to take the reins, and that the frontcourt help we'd get in exchange for Tony would outweight the drop off at PG.
And we could also go all night with reasons why the team wasnt performing as well early in the season. But regardless of lack of urgency and all that the fact remains that the Spurs have played their best ball by a mile with Hill at PG and with Manu orchestrating the offense. The Spurs can live without Parker, he is expendable which is basically my argument. You guys are simply loyal to Parker, which like I said I understand, but once you get past that youd realize that Hill's emergence has made Parker expendable to fill bigger needs.
Wouldnt do Mayo+Thabeet for Tony though.
yes, i think if we make the right moves we will be a better team without him. Of course AT this moment were a better team with him playing in some rotation as long as we have him of course we need him! but what im saying is we need to weigh our option s out with him for the overall future of this team.
He was built for a different spurs team, and i think hes over pop screaming at him like he hes a 19yr old rookie, and not getting the recognition he "deserves" i mean hes a different breed than the average spurs players. i used to stick up fot the guy when my friends hated him, and now i just cant believe some of the things this guy has said as of late.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
