Reply With Quote
Good point.
Anyways I don't believe the Spurs would have beaten Miami in 2012. Lebron was on a mission that year to win his first le and it was the last year where Wade was still a superstar player.
Good point.
nice.cherrypicker
game 1:
Parker: 18/8/6, 6-15
Manu: 26/5/3, 9-14
Spurs win by 3
game 2:
Parker: 34/3/8, 16-21
Manu: 20/1/4, 6-11
Spurs win by 9
game 3:
Parker: 16/3/4, 6-12
Manu: 8/6/1, 1-5
OKC win by 20
game 4:
Parker: 12/2/4, 5-15
Manu: 13/0/4, 4-7
okc win by 6
game 5:
(manu brought to starting lineup after spurs lose 2-0 lead):
Parker: 20/4/4, 5-14
Manu: 34/6/7, 11-21
okc win by 5
game 6:
Parker: 29/3/12, 12-27
Manu: 10/5/1, 4-12
okc win by 8
how was a 29 year old in his prime starter outplayed by a 34 year old bench player in the most important games of any series? (games 1 and 5)
parker the point guard lead the spurs with 129 pts on 104 FGA- manu had 111 on 70, jackson 71 on 35! maybe the point guard should have done his job and fed the more efficient scorers on his team
Offense was built around Parker. Defenses are built around stopping Parker. Ginobili had the advantage of being the 2 or 3 meaning those positions are interchangeable on offense and defense and so teams don't really know how to build around stopping Ginobili. You could say he benefitted from that his whole career in a sense which would explain why his PER is great. Dude is clutch but OKC was just a beast back then. They were always bound to win late games because of their physicality and youth. Too bad we didn't have many bruisers or high flyers to match besides a really young Kawhi.
game 1:
Parker: 18/8/6, 6-15
Manu: 26/5/3, 9-14
Spurs win by 3
game 2:
Parker: 34/3/8, 16-21
Manu: 20/1/4, 6-11
Spurs win by 9
game 3:
Parker: 16/3/4, 6-12
Manu: 8/6/1, 1-5
OKC win by 20
game 4:
Parker: 12/2/4, 5-15
Manu: 13/0/4, 4-7
okc win by 6
game 5:
(manu brought to starting lineup after spurs lose 2-0 lead):
Parker: 20/4/4, 5-14
Manu: 34/6/7, 11-21
okc win by 5
game 6:
Parker: 29/3/12, 12-27
Manu: 10/5/1, 4-12
okc win by 8
how was a 29 year old in his prime starter outplayed by a 34 year old bench player in the most important games of any series? (games 1 and 5)
parker the point guard lead the spurs with 129 pts on 104 FGA- manu had 111 on 70, jackson 71 on 35! maybe the point guard should have done his job and fed the more efficient scorers on his team
Danny was exactly better than Stephen Jackson at that point.
Who was guarding Parker that series? I'm guessing OKC's best perimeter defender. That could explain his numbers. That said, there is so much more to a game than simple stat lines. Maybe Parker was too selfish. He certainly had his share of big games in the playoffs. Most great players have their playoff duds. That OKC team was tough, but I thought they were a little fragile. If Spurs could have got this to a game 7, Spurs would have won and likely would have won a le, but that's hard to say since the Heat were primed that year with an excellent team.
game 1:
Parker: 18/8/6, 6-15
Manu: 26/5/3, 9-14
Spurs win by 3
game 2:
Parker: 34/3/8, 16-21
Manu: 20/1/4, 6-11
Spurs win by 9
game 3:
Parker: 16/3/4, 6-12
Manu: 8/6/1, 1-5
OKC win by 20
game 4:
Parker: 12/2/4, 5-15
Manu: 13/0/4, 4-7
okc win by 6
game 5:
(manu brought to starting lineup after spurs lose 2-0 lead):
Parker: 20/4/4, 5-14
Manu: 34/6/7, 11-21
okc win by 5
game 6:
Parker: 29/3/12, 12-27
Manu: 10/5/1, 4-12
okc win by 8
how was a 29 year old in his prime starter outplayed by a 34 year old bench player in the most important games of any series? (games 1 and 5)
parker the point guard lead the spurs with 129 pts on 104 FGA- manu had 111 on 70, jackson 71 on 35! maybe the point guard should have done his job and fed the more efficient scorers on his team
I've always liked Manu because his game is unique, though I guess you could say the same about Parker. I think Manu had a bit more flair and you could understand Tony blowing by everyone because of his blazing speed, but sometimes you wondered how an average athlete like Manu could be so dominating in the NBA. Not sure why there are always Team Manus and Team Parkers. They both play different positions and have been asked to do different things over their careers, so I don't even think they are comparable.
don't forget how the pistons stopped tony in the finals. he outscored manu one game and that was a blowout win for the pistons.
spurs don't beat the pistons without manu... spurs do beat the cavs without tony.
It's why he was so hard to guard. Not sure why that was so humorous. We all knew it was built around Duncan and then a pick n roll game, more with Parker and Duncan while Ginobili's place in the offense seemed to flow so well despite his ability to be so unpredictable and effective at all spots.
I recall Battier who was a defensive technician who analyzed player tendencies he said Ginobili had zero weaknesses. I believe Popovich and him found a good way for Ginobili to be Ginobili while the system was pretty predictable for Parker. Just my 2 cents.. definitely not making excuses but we all know Parker wasn't quite the franchise player that can be the center like Duncan but Ginobili never was either (sans 04 olympics). He benefitted from coming into the game as a sixth man role. Which teams ever build their defense around the 6th man? You can't. It's probably the secondary focus for most teams. It's what allowed so much freedom for Ginobili.
The idea that teams focus on stopping the main offensive option of a rival and don't know how to stop others.
Also, if there's one Spurs perimeter guy that teams planned to stop the most is Manu, since in the vast majority of the time, teams would have their best perimeter defender on him rather than Tony.
I never meant to say that it applies with all teams but only to emphasize the reason Popovich brought Manu off the bench was because of his incredible basketball instincts. We all know of the stories of Popovich going crazy over Manu's decision making but ultimately understood you just have to let loose the beast. I am not trying to minimize Manu's ability as a basketball player but the fact that he benefitted from a system built mainly around "Duncan" and then "Duncan and Parker" allowing him to go in and make his own decisions on the fly while Parker's play was more predicated to running the system around offense. We all see plays that Parker ran, it seemed like a playbook on rewind while Ginobili had a few of those, he largely got to do whatever he wanted on the floor. Compliments to Ginobili and everyone else making it work too.The idea that teams focus on stopping the main offensive option of a rival and don't know how to stop others.
Also, if there's one Spurs perimeter guy that teams planned to stop the most is Manu, since in the vast majority of the time, teams would have their best perimeter defender on him rather than Tony.
If your coaching a team and have 1.5 days to game plan, you have countless tapes of Parker's plays while you have a bunch of rec center style matador "running with the bull style" plays with Ginobili. It was just how things were set up. Not making any excuses other than the fact Parker was bound to struggle more and thats why we had to rely more on Ginobili. Ginobili was our closer for a reason.
Not so. Once Parker came into his prime, teams had to guard him with a small forward that could D because Parker was too quick for any point guard or even two guard. There was a time when Parker drew the toughest perimeter defenders not on the Spurs roster. And he was still a dominant player. But that's not to bad mouth Manu. Manu has always confounded defenses, just like Parker. These two never got near their due. People talk about super teams, but the original super team was Duncan, Parker, and Manu. People gloss over that and assume it was Miami (which I guess is possible if you assume super teams are where players assemble them, not GMs).The idea that teams focus on stopping the main offensive option of a rival and don't know how to stop others.
Also, if there's one Spurs perimeter guy that teams planned to stop the most is Manu, since in the vast majority of the time, teams would have their best perimeter defender on him rather than Tony.
Again, I'll never get the Manu v. Parker debates. Both were asked to do different things at different points in their careers and both played different positions. They both have had HOF careers and they both were grossly underrated for what they brought. I guess Spurs fans need something to talk about until October (or at least until fubol americano starts).
Nicely said!
Manu and Tony had more or less the same type of play calls: some kind of variety of pick and roll actions. Manu just had a more diverse style of play, court vision and creatividad, that's why it looked like he had more freedom.
When Manu began to get more PT, it seemed like Parker was never looking for Manu and almost like he was avoiding passing to him. To me it seemed obvious... looking back, I feel like Tony just never had a pass first mentality. He thought more like a score first player. Through his career he’s been the same with other players, so I don’t feel like it was personal like probably some in here felt or still feel it was. Tony has never been creative in getting others involved. A good portion of his assists come from running set plays where he knew where to go
Another good point. Early on in his career Parker tried to create more but never looked comfortable. Popovich told him to stay aggressive on offense and then find the open man. Luckily Manu was so willing to come off the bench. Worked out for both parties.
Wont argue too much about what you said but if you really followed the Spurs you know Popovich coached each one differently.
With Parker he was all over him when he made a mistake and as he had the responsibility of running the well-oiled system. Pop always stayed on top of him. With Ginobili he always publicly stated he tried to over coach him but then mutually they agreed that he had to give Manu his freedom. No doubt he was better suited for that but Parker you could argue would've benefitted from that type of style but to the detriment of the team because he is the starting PG.
I recall maybe the 09 playoffs or around those years against the Mavs and other regular season nights he would need to score a bunch he said how good it felt to dominate the ball like he wanted. He definitely did not have Manus creativity but Parker could've lit up the score board too.
Do you really think Pop let Manu do whatever he wanted and kept Tony on a short leash? Tell me an example of a "freedom play" that was exclusively for Manu. Manu just took more chances on the flow of the game, but that was all him, nothing to do with Pop. What Pop did was just accept to be more patient and don't get at guys for taking risks. But that was with all the players, not just Manu. Manu was just the most adept guy to take those risks.
Agree he was most adept to take those risks which is why he was a good change of pace off the bench. It's not necessarily the plays being called but the progressions and options Parker has the responsibility to run. His responsibility was to attack a certain way in the play. the opposition knew what he was running but they had decisions on how to make it work. Manu had a shorter leash for sure and less responsibility to run plays. He often closed his quarters brushing people off and calling his own pick and roll. Imagine Parker doing that? Well he did beginning 2013 really.
The evidence is in the stories, articles, and interviews on the BiG 3 plus Pop over the years and gameplay. If you don't think Manu was unleashed more than Parker pre 2013. Idk what to tell you other than you didn't pay attention.
Everyone had different responsibilities. Everyone tried to do their job the best. Still trashing Parker because of stats is an amateur move when he had so much responsibility as a 6 foot 1 pg to attack and create. Stop hating and appreciate the past tbh.
Where did I do that?
Pop started to be less of a micromanaging freak when Manu got to the team and proved that a little controlled chaos was beneficial for the team. But that bit more of freedom that Pop allowed, wasn't excusively for Manu, Tony was beneficiary of that too. In fact, Pop has said it many times. Just go dust off your 2005 championship DVD and you will hear Pop saying "I learnt to give Manu and Tony more freedom, because the things they do can't be coached".Agree he was most adept to take those risks which is why he was a good change of pace off the bench. It's not necessarily the plays being called but the progressions and options Parker has the responsibility to run. His responsibility was to attack a certain way in the play. the opposition knew what he was running but they had decisions on how to make it work. Manu had a shorter leash for sure and less responsibility to run plays. He often closed his quarters brushing people off and calling his own pick and roll. Imagine Parker doing that? Well he did beginning 2013 really.
The evidence is in the stories, articles, and interviews on the BiG 3 plus Pop over the years and gameplay. If you don't think Manu was unleashed more than Parker pre 2013. Idk what to tell you other than you didn't pay attention.
Sorry. I was originally responding to a person that trashed Parker because Manu's stats were better for the last few games of the 2012 OKC series and I guess you responded to my reasoning response kn why Manu in important games seemed to be our closer and most clutch performer. Specially back then.Where did I do that?
Pop started to be less of a micromanaging freak when Manu got to the team and proved that a little controlled chaos was beneficial for the team. But that bit more of freedom that Pop allowed, wasn't excusively for Manu, Tony was beneficiary of that too. In fact, Pop has said it many times. Just go dust off your 2005 championship DVD and you will hear Pop saying "I learnt to give Manu and Tony more freedom, because the things they do can't be coached".
Ultimately Parker's responsibility as the starting pg came with more responsibilities to run the system. Manu coming off the bench to change the pace of the game was evident. In the end all had their responsibilities and yes I'm sure everyone benefitted when Pop realized they needed more freedom but Manu gets more freedom because of his skill set and the fact he was a change of pace 6th man. Parker's stats would've been better too if he came off the bench imo. Parker would've ate those bench players for breakfast.
Nah, nobody in the history of the game had better stats coming off the bench. That's a lie somebody created somewhere down the line and that some folks decided to go along with, for some reason.
Just go check Manu's numbers coming off the bench and starting. Heck, go check Tony's numbers coming off the bench and starting.
Tony never came off the bench nor had the opportunity that Manu had so those stats don't mean anything. Manu played 6th man but got starter minutes. He literally created that new role and guys like Jamal Crawford and Lou William's thrived in it too. If Parker accepted Manu's role and got used to it, I think his scoring would've been insane too but his assists would've went down while Manu had a more diverse skills set to uniquely take over and keep the team more involved. Parker was adept at beating his man and double teams off the dribble which is why in the end they had their roles and 4 championships happened.
Tony came off the bench for quite a while in 2010 and on this past season. In both cases his numbers were better as a starter than as a bench player.
This is a quibble, not really addressing your main point, but - Manu didn't create the role. He is really a latter-day John Havlicek.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
