Reply With Quote
Those 3 les they won together must have just been a dream.
You're right, they've never been able to co-exist before.
Those 3 les they won together must have just been a dream.
well i dont know why this season tony, gino and cant coexist.
i know those championship days tony and gino plays well together. but for the better of this team. just start hill over tony. stick with the line up that kick cleveland, boston, orlando and lakers ass. and that line up is hill, gino, , dice and duncan. and for your hero tony. let tony lead the 2nd unit
why do you prefer tony who cant defend and cant shoot 3? hill is better defender and spot up 3pointer. we cant rely on parker now that he is slower and his jump shot is just so-so. defense wins championships, and hill is the defensive point guard we want to be at the starting five. tony is at best should lead the 2nd unit
This dude is like the anti ducks, just as re ed but he hates TP.
I can't wait until the first thread that blames Tony Parker for a Spurs loss. People on here are funny like that. The Spurs play different when Tony Parker isn't playing. However, I don't think its any better or worse. Just different. Winning is all that matters. The team was playing a lot better and starting to gel when Parker got hurt and Pop had to make ANOTHER lineup change.
People saw that and saw the success the team was having and thought to themselves that the reason behind that was because Parker wasn't playing. The team was already playing good before he got hurt.
All stats with and without him are almost identical….. the difference is the teams we played during this stretch and the pressure we faced, now that we would get this good with Tony playing during this stretch… unfortunately, we will never know, we just gotto be thankful the man is back, and probably what happened during this last month is a lesson for us and for him….. I expect him to play extremely well, call it pride.
Parker sucks
lefty, bro, your sig matches so bad your postsParker sucks
Some interesting points this thread brings up. Mainly that George Hill can do a more than adequate job as back up PG in the future. It also goes to show that George is almost as good as an 80% Parker, he's not in the same league as 100% TP.
Another great thing about the injuries has been Hill's ability to play with Manu. Someone else brought it up, but going back to last year and early this year Hill did not play with any aggression with Manu, although he did well with Tony. If this holds up, it'll be great going forward that we can get an aggressive Hill with either player.
I said it in another thread a few days ago, but if we can get Manu at his current level and TP close to his 09 level, this team has a deep run in them (hopefully into the month of June, deep).
Hill is out until the playoffs. Good to know you're advocating starting Temple over TP.
The TP/Manu/RJeff/Dice/TD lineup is going to likely be the 4th quarter crunch time line-up; mainly because it's their best lineup. And, that group has never really had a chance to work together when all are healthy. It is imperative that they become comfortable with each other.
Hill is remarkably overrated on defense here. He has the tools to be a great defender, but he's not there yet. And even this year, arguably at less than 80% effectiveness TP still rarely got thrashed on the defensive end; routinely outplaying opposing PGs. Hill has given up some huge games to opposing PGs.
Damn that commercial was right: Chicks do dig the long-ball. Maybe this explains why some Spurs fans hate TP.
Well . That explains the headache after reading his post. Moving on.
i don't think there is question that the spurs are better when manu handles the ball and make plays as of now....this is why tony come off the bench to lead the bench makes so much sense.
Last night should have given fans some hope that Tony could be playing like tony is capable of playing come playoff time. If that is the case and Hill comes back healthy, this team is a dangerous team.
PArker has always been a pretty good scorer, and little else, lacks court vision, D and basketball IQ in general...
He had the luck that he played in a team where Tim and Manu were mainly team players who would never hesitate in sacrifizing their stats for the sake of the team....that was seen when PArker got the finals MVP due to a mismatch...Parker was the indicated to score back then, and he did and won the MVP....
IMHO, the scoring almost one-dimensional play of PArker can be replaced by another scoring PG with no great loss for SPurs, but players like Tim or Manu, who have an extremedly high Basbektball IQ, are so compe ive and with the team as the first priority, are likely to be more difficult to replace in NBA, and their absence due to injury (wether they don't play or play at a very lower level because fo injury) is far more noticed for ANY team...
In short, you can replace Parker with any scoring PG and it won't be noticed, try to replace the best Tim or Manu by a good scoring PF or SG and imagine the outcome...
Is there a coalition of <1000 posts guys hating parker ?
I like the offense he brought from the bench when Bonner and Mason are clanging away from three. He can really make a huge difference with the bench group when he is fully back.
just haters afraid to use their main usernames?
lol, you sure know about it ......
In Fact, the problem is: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.
There are 50 Spurs with TP + GH games, and 26 Spurs - TP games
The Spurs always are better with both, than with GH alone
If you compare Spurs - TP games vs Spurs - GH, you have a point
You will be bitterly surprised if Parker were to be traded to the Lakers and he can excel in that lineup..
Where so much-fail-that-you-don't-know-where-to-begin happens.
Ok...imagining...imaaaagining. Hey look at that. The result is about the same. In all three cases the Spurs are worse.
Oh and by the way, as great as Manu and TP are, their effect on the Spurs fortunes over a season is still not comparable to what Tim Duncan does for the Spurs.
this could be a very interesting point to discuss, if it was possible to evaluate the Spurs situation and future WITHOUT all the "you hate Parker" "you love Parker" stuff.
fact is, the Spurs face some very very complex decisions this summer and it all starts with Manu and comes down to a scenario, that also involves Tony.
and it would be shortsighted to reduce the whole picture to a discussion about Tony the player, or even Tony the person.
(I assume most are Spurs fans in the first place and would accept any scenario that benefits the Spurs as a team)
question 1:
what if the limited financial scope of the Spurs force a decision between re signing Manu and trading Tony? (assuming that Tony is a highly tradeable player, any 3 times all star at 28 with only 1 contract year left is, as long as you don't ask for Chris Paul in return)
Manu firmly demonstrated how much the Spurs still are depending on his genius. of course Manu+Tony+Hill is better than Manu+Hill or Manu+Tony. but the answer will likely not be that easy. it will be (for example): Manu+Tony+Hill OR Tony+Hill+Splitter OR Manu+Hill+Splitter.
that's not all. it will likely be Manu+Tony+Hill OR Manu+Hill+Splitter+decent player Spurs get in return for Tony.
and THAT line up could be either better AND less expensive.
(and don't forget that Tony will be a FA in 2011 and there also isn't any guarantee he doesn't want to move on. maybe even to Hollywood)
just a guess scenario:
Spurs try to re sign Manu, but prefer a contract that ends 2012, like Tim's.
they will need to pay Manu bigger bucks per to get his signature as opposed to a longer term contract. let's say 2 years 25 million. Spurs will be deep in luxtax territory again. so small to no chance to get Splitter or other pieces to form a deep (contender) roster.
if they trade Tony for a package like cap relieve AND a decent player (and/or a young talent or a good pick) they might increase the overall chances of the Spurs.
(for example: Blazers. they will once more try to upgrade the point. could offer a package including Batum/Fernandez, Przybilla/Webster, picks/rights. sure, some fillers are needed to make it work, maybe a 3rd team, but it is doable, if team want that deal)
so or so, I can't see the Spurs NOT explore trade scenarios involving Tony. and it won't be because they don't like him any more, it will be because they now know that there is an alternative that obviously works.
question:
if you can chose between this two top 10 rotations, which one do you take:
Tony-Manu-Hill-RJ-Hairston-Bogans (re signed) - Tim-Dice-Blair-Bonner (re signed)
Hill-Manu-Batum-RJ-Webster-Hairston-Tim-Splitter-Dice-Blair
Let me go back to the original question as future trade discussions are getting us off track.
Are the Spurs better with or without Tony Parker? (and some stats of the Spurs with and without Parker)
My answer: obviously, yes, you want to have Tony Parker, if the choice is between having him or not having him with no other factors.
The stats really don't mean anything. What's important is that you have one more player who can create his own offense and carry a team when the need arises. That takes a big load off of the others.
The Spurs normal game plan is for Tony to run the team for 3 quarters plus, with Manu heading up the 2nd unit. Then Manu takes over at the end of the game.
Without Tony, Manu has to spend much more energy and increase his chances of being injured. This is not a winning strategy over the long run of the regular season.
It seems to me that the Spurs current hot streak is a little like fools gold. All those arguing that Parker isn't needed haven't stopped to consider the fact that Manu is carrying this team out of necessity as much as ability. If he was forced to do this for a full season he'd break down. Sure, if I had to chose one player to win or lose one game, Manu would be the choice; but that really ignores the reality of the NBA season.
Pop realized a long time ago that Manu was best used sparingly in order to preserve his health. In that situation, you need somebody to put up points on this team and Tony is the best option for that.
As timvp himself acknowledged, the numbers he provided don't tell the whole story because they are comparing a healthy Hill to a banged up Parker.
The fact that Jefferson, Blair, and Hill seem to have better chemistry with Manu (for whatever reason) does not change the fact that Manu cannot carry a team for 96 games. Hill might be a great PG in a complimentary role to Manu - but make no mistake, Hill is not doing for the team what Parker did last year. Manu is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
