Reply With Quote
it seems like some people are rating based on potential instead of actuality. TP is definitly top 5. Glad he is on the Spurs. He is the best pg for the spurs. 3 rings say so.
Good rank and I agree with Kori. TP is perfect for the Spus system and get along very well with Pop.
it seems like some people are rating based on potential instead of actuality. TP is definitly top 5. Glad he is on the Spurs. He is the best pg for the spurs. 3 rings say so.
Some of you people are seriously underrating Parker. After all, Parker outplayed Deron Williams in 2007 series when they were playing HEAD TO HEAD. What better comparison is there?
I really think it is because he is French and most people hate the French.
Also, Parker's defense is underrated. In 2007 he played great defense on Iverson and that was a big part of that series win. He doesn't defend all types of players well, but overall I think he is a better defender than some of these other guys (arenas, nash.)
Most fans just don't understand that Parker's speed (which is unmatched) puts a lot of pressure on opposing defenses. Without that factor the Spurs offense would be pretty weak.
they dont have rings....but they dont play with a Hall of Famer like Duncan or a really, really, really, damn good player like ManuI think its BShow can Williams or Paul be ahead of Tony?? They dont have any rings at all........Tony has 3. They also have not come close to being a finals MVP.
This is as biased as it gets.
1 CP3
2 Deron
3 TP
4 Baron
10 arenas
Parker's a fine player and obviously, he fits into the Spurs system/personnel well, but listen, he's not a true pg and I don't think he's even ever averaged more than 6 something assists per season. When a lot of these other guys are routinely getting 10+ a night (and often more) it really makes it ridiculous to talk about TP as being a better point guard.
As far as the potential thing goes. I'm not rating this based on potential. My ratings are based on ability. Many Parker proponents on the other hand aren't basing their ratings on either potential or actual ability, but rather the Spurs collective accomplishments, which is stupid.
PS. I'd take Parker over Arenas without thinking twice. Baron Davis too.
Parker is so underrated.
He was the spurs best player in the playoffs this year.
The spurs system doesn't allow to have player with 10+ assists.
Parker doesn't have the ball 80% of the time like other pg
Ranking PG's based on their assist per game is stupid. That stat is very much affected by the type of offense team runs. The Spurs don't run as many of the type of plays that generate assists for the pg. But as a team their assist totals are fine. That is not a bad thing.
Look at Nash, whose stats clearly were a result of the type of offense the Suns ran. he didn't have those numbers in Dallas, and he won't have them with the new Suns offense.
For more information, read a book by Bill James, who writes about baseball statistics. The same theories apply to basketball. Basically, a lot of statistics are the product of the environment. For example, a hitter in Colorado has better stats than other ballparks, because of the al ude. that doesn't make him a better hitter.
The proof is in head to head match ups. If one player has better stats than another, but gets outplayed when they play head to head, that is the truth. Parker has always outplayed Nash in matchups. So I don't give two flips who has more assists.
Here's come the 2008 summer version of the "where Parker ranks among NBA PGs ?" thread.
Spoiler :
- Parker's fans will rank him too high.
- Manu's fans will rank him too low.
- Some people will call him overrated and being a product of Spurs' system.
- Some random undersized posters will call him the greatest PG of the NBA.
You take Arenas off of Washington and they are a better team. As evident by last season. Arenas is a top five overrated player in the league. He's a chucker who doesn't play D and cares little of the team concepts that lead to a winning basketball culture.
Regarding Parker's ranking, I really don't care. First of all, point guard is the only position that depends largely on what situation you are in. Someone like Steve Nash gets the ball about 80% of the time his team is on offense. A player like Parker gets the ball about 25% of the time his team is on offense. You can't compare a point guard in a pick-and-roll offense to a point guard in a motion offense.
Stats and scouting says Nash is a better player than Parker. However, Parker dominated Nash in the playoffs this year so how does that factor in? It's tough to say.
Chris Paul has to be "better" than Parker no matter what criteria you use. Then again, in Game 7 when Paul, West, Duncan and Ginobili folded tent and disappeared, Parker was the lone star who stepped up to the plate.
Depending on how you want to judge point guards, I can say that it is fair to put Parker anywhere from about 10th or 11th to 2nd or 3rd. But really, player positional rankings have little to no bearing on winning championships. While Parker is far from perfect, there aren't three point guards I'd trade him for right now if my ultimate goal is to see the Spurs win the championship.
How the do you know what Parker would average if given the same amount of shots as Arenas. He could average 30 a game. You're just guessing and pulling out of your ass.
And in 2007 Parker was awesome against the Jazz in the WCF.
IMO
1. Paul
2. D-Will
3. Parker
4. Nash
5. Davis
6. Kidd
7. Billups
8. Arenas
I think it's a testament to Parker's work ethic that he's even legitimately in this discussion at this point in his career.
TP shouldn't be in the top 4.
That's BS
Thats a good list, i think the top 5 are perfect, although i would have Arenas above Kidd and Billups and switch Kidd and Billups.
6. Arenas
7. Billups
8. Kidd
And you could probably argue Arenas > Davis
All of Davis, Arenas, Kidd and Billups have pretty poor shooting percentages, but Arenas is the most explosive scorer of the bunch, and i think in todays game, thats more valuable than someone who struggles to score.
who would put Paul above nash? Nash is hands down the best pg in the game. He can shoot, score, and get 15 ast easy. He has unlimited range on his shot. Paul has trouble if he cant get into the lane, not a good shooter form outside 17ft and.
I would put Williams ahead of Paul, better all around player, not flashy but big strong fast and skilled. Great shooter.
What he said.
lmao tp finals mvp......
daniel gibson says howdy partner
Nash has about 20 more possessions per game than Chris Paul, and Tony Parker, and just about every PG in the game, thats why his stats look very pretty.
Thats also why he gets abused by TP everytime they go head to head.
Nash was the best point guard in the league for his first 2 seasons in a Suns uniform, but with the emergence of CP3, Deron and even TP... hes 4th best now.
i agree.
with is Pop's flaw, not theirs. that guy is so damn lucky, if there had never been a Tim Duncan, Pop would have be out of coaching long ago
True - he's so lucky to have had so much talent compared to all the other teams for so long. He's had 3-4 All-Stars on his squad every year and had only won 4 championships. If any coach had Duncan, he could probably just put Duncan out there by himself and win championships - jeez.
Get your head out of your ass - Pop has created an atmosphere where players understand the team concept and they are willing to sacrifice stats and even money to play for the Spurs. Not too many teams out there that can say that. You think Phil Jackson would ever want to coach for the Spurs - no. He needs at least 2-3 hall of famers to be successful.
By the way, Sloan isn't that much different than Pop in his harsh coaching style. D-Will would have probably survived Pop. Without a doubt - Paul is the best pg in the league right now; there's no comparison. Pop would've coached Paul differently than TP because Paul came into the league on the level Pop wanted TP to be at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
