Reply With Quote
Yes, that is the fact, but there rebuttal is that it was no coincidence that Manu was playing that well.
Here is tmvps write up of Manu during that stretch if you're interested.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150366
In the sample size that TJ and FkLA are referring to where TP was injured and and Hill was starting . . . If I rightfully recall, that stretch of games happened to coincide with Manu playing out of his freaking skull. Does anyone else remember that? Am I wrong?
I think that is the most likely explanation for the increase in win %.
I love Hill (and I'm no "Parker fanboy"), but he is nowhere near Tony Parker's level as a player. I'm surprised this debate is still raging, tbh.
Yes, that is the fact, but there rebuttal is that it was no coincidence that Manu was playing that well.
Here is tmvps write up of Manu during that stretch if you're interested.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150366
Who cares anymore?
Fkla and TJ are obviously terrible posters and need to get a clue already. Hill is no longer a Spur, he is a Pacer.
I find it hilarious how TJ and Fkla think the Spurs are better off with Hill opposed to Parker.
They really know how to make a greyman (like myself) look bad.
Maybe its a coincidence that Manu was playing extremely well with Hill in the starting lineup, but it defenitely was no coincidence that he was playing superb basketball the second Parker stepped out of the lineup.
All this proves is that Hill (in the starting lineup) is a better fit for Manu's game than Parker. So the question really becomes, who is more important to the team, Parker or Ginobili? Which of these two players should the team focus building around? And IMO it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Manu is the straw that stirs the spurs' drink.
And according to the research done by Michael De Leon, Hill is better fit for several players on the team, including Tim Duncan.
http://www.playmakeronline.com/2011/...arker-vs-hill/
This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill.
You can say the same about Tim Duncan, McDyess and Matt Bonner with the +/- disparities. The only wing player who seems to benefit from Tony Parker on the floor is Richard Jefferson and that is because Tony will take the offensive responsibility off his shoulders.
+1
I would just add that Manu can't play consistently over 30 mpg.
This can make the guard rotation really complicated if Hill can't be efficient without Manu.
With TP and Manu we can have at any time an elite guard on the court. If one of them goes down for a couple of games the other one can still play 40 mpg. Personally I would not be comfortable with the Spurs playing 18 mpg with neither Manu nor Tony for a full season.
Considering we have the same issue with our big men (Duncan can't play over 30 mpg)... I believe this team would be in trouble very soon.
This is what Manu was supposed to do without Paker.
In 2009 when Manu was down Parker played at a near MVP level for a couple of weeks.
All this proves is that both player have (or had?) the talent to carry the team when the other goes down.
Pippen had his best season in 93-94 (PER 22.8) and Jordan his career high in point in 86-87 (37.1 to be fair he had is best PER later). You would not
argue their game did not fit together, would you?
Someone who gets it.
The French Poodle has carried the team in year's past (when he wasn't injured or rehabbing), no question.
The difference is even when Manu's not scoring at a high clip and carrying the offense, he's always affecting a game in many different ways, including making the other guys around him better. This has alot to do with his leadership qualities which IMO is what sets him apart from Parker. He is the straw that stirs the spurs' drink.
So now that we've established who the alpha dog is, you put the guys around the alpha dog that prop up his game and bring the best fit. And one of those guys was George Hill. And since Manu is now a starter it follows that Hill should have been retained instead of Parker.
There was another option available, which was actually tried before, which was to have TP become the spurs' 6th man. I've maintained for years that Parker would be great in a 6th man role off the bench (ala Jason Terry) because he is a brilliant scorer. Only problem was his inflated ego wouldn't allow it. He eventually started ing and moaning (like the that he is) about losing his starting role when the spurs played without him for an extended period and he was rehabbing (with much success I might add). I thought he was great in that role. He could have been a candidate for 6th man award. Only he was too much of a to accept the role, even though it was clearly for the better for the team.
Which really made me dislike the little french bas from that point on. Manu never had a problem sacrificing his stats for the betterment of the team for all those years in the 6th man role, and was essentially the pioneer that first brought major attention to how valuable that role can be. And to underscore this point, look at how valuable Jason Terry was in that capacity in the finals, he was very close to being the MVP of the series. Look at guys like the hawks' jamal crawford.. guys who for some reason or another just don't play as well as starters. I believe Parker could have flourished just as these guys have (albeit a bit higher paid) if he would have shed the pride and embraced it. But of course, being the little that he is, he did not, and now Hill is a goner.
What a pathetic hater.
Thin-skinned as well.
I'm thin-skinned?
I would have sucked it up and taken the 6th man role/job to help the team win games.
I'm guessing you would have ed and moaned just like TP did.
Yes, you are thin-skinned.
Tony Parker is better than you in every way.
Better at ing and moaning for sure.
Better means he doesn't and moan as much. The proof is right here on this board.
You do nothing but and moan.
Fact is, I really don't care that my name isn't lit up in bold, or whether or not I have a snazzy all-star label. I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way. I have no sense of en lement here, unlike TP & his arrogant little band of followers/homers here on spurstalk.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?
Seriously. Why are you the only person who whines about this?
Actually, you expect everyone to agree with everything you say or else you throw tantrum after tantrum, repeating the same "argument" over and over and over again.I'm just a grey ST poster that posts his opinions and expects no accolades to be thrown my way. I have no sense of en lement here, unlike TP & his arrogant little band of followers/homers here on spurstalk.
You have had nothing new to say since draft night when your dreams of Hill at starting point guard crashed against the rocks of reality. That sent you off the deep end and your vagina has not stopped bleeding since. I expect it never will.
spursfan1000
I bring up your "award" because I know it chaps your ass when I do. You know you just have that award for being a Pop/TP homer, which gets you into all the exclusive ST cliques, not for any insightful comments you've ever made in your posting career.
And as far as having nothing new to say, I think I've talked quite extensively about many things; most recently in this thread about TP and his refusal to be a 6th man and how it led to Hill's departure from the team. You're welcome to comment on it and we can debate the topic, unless your butt is too chapped already.
TP as 6th man?
As long as he is on this team he is gonna start.....don't think anyone has ever or will ever ask him to do otherwise.
And here we have an actual volunteer showing us an example of what I was just talking about, in fact giving us a demonstration of the typical bull we have all come to expect from these arrogant assholes.TP as 6th man?
As long as he is on this team he is gonna start.....don't think anyone has ever or will ever ask him to do otherwise.
Thanks for the demonstration, Bill_Brasky.
You sound like such an angsty .
It's "bitter, unfunny ". Please get it right.
Nope. I sense teenager in you. Therefore, angst.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
