Reply With Quote
^ That's what I call an Ether. Rest in piss FkLA
If you knew the difference you shouldn't have compared a 13th to a 28th as if the expectations are the same (which is what you did).
Too bad there's no fat crayon font... but again... Kobe is compared to the GOAT. Parker is compared to Chris "In Good Hands Without Rings" Paul. Rings matter when you're comparing starting PG vs starting PG especially if that PG often leads the team in scoring. If Chris had 3 and Tony had 4, I might give the nod to Chris, but Chris has the bed with better teams than Tony has rung with.
In conversations about top 100 in the league, rings don't often matter. When you're talking about top 10 all time, rings matter because a top 10 all time guy should have made a difference on a team to the point where it could be seen in the post season. There might have been guys who were really great players but something about their decision on who to play for, to resign to a team that didn't have a legit shot, to play 2nd fiddle to a guy who wasn't that good, whatever... those fall by the wayside. It's the guys who used their talents to get over the hump and get that ring. In the NFL and MLB, individual players often don't change the team from a regular season punching bag to a post season threat. Some great pitchers might have that affect, somewhat, and some great QBs might, but there has to be more to get over the hump.Please enlighten me, Mr. I understand the game of basketball. What's the cut-off point? Who makes that rule?
Once you get a few rings, they start to have diminishing returns where greatness is concerned. You start to top out and it's a long asymptotic curve. When a player does something to separate himself from the input so that the output changes, you can attribute even more the results of the team to the addition of that player (think Steve Nash being out, team sucking, Steve Nash being in, team prospering). Those types prove their effectiveness. Make that a ring difference and the player moves leaps and bounds up the list. Make that several rings and you start talking about top 5. Chris never did this. Russ never did this. Russ was out and the team did fine. KD is out and the team suffers. I'm sure Chis' absence has a negative impact on the team though, but I don't recall a season where it as made obvious, not in a meaningful way.
So it's not about "who makes that rule", if you're not a ing moron you don't need a rule. It's called common ing sense.
See aboveI'm not talking about stats, idiot. I'm talking about perception just like you were with LBJ-Kobe. CP3 was always considered the best PG in the league. The fact that he was a true #1 and didn't win anything doesn't change that. Tony wouldn't have won as a true #1 either.
Why isn't Kevin Love considered a great player with the stats he routinely gets? Is it because he's never seen the post season? Obviously success matters. Finals MVP is success. Kawhi gets it and suddenly he's the straw that stirs the drink. Tony got it and he had a lucky mismatch.Ah shut the up with that FMVP. It's not like he was the best player on the team that year. He won it bc he exploited an easy match-up. Good for him but it doesn't magically make him a better player than he really is. Manu's '05 Finals were much more impressive against stiffer compe ion and he has no FMVP trophy to show for it.
At teams had to plan for Tony. Yeah, I'm sure they did right after they planned for Timmy and Manu. CP3 has always been the primary focus of opposing teams. Russ the second. It's a little harder when you don't have as many great teammates or a nice system to help carry the load. Nah, the ring difference couldn't have anything to do with that though...it simply has to do with CP0 being born a loser and TP4 a winner!!
Cavs need to stop the Spurs’ Tony Parker
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...s-tony-parker/
Focus of Heat's defense turns to Spurs guard Tony Parker
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...erik-spoelstra
RICK CARLISLE ON MAVS’ DEFENSIVE PLAN TO STOP TONY PARKER
Posted by Jeff Garcia on Apr 19, 2014 22:01
http://www.chatsports.com/san-antoni...rker-2-9698514
Yeah what was I thinking?
So go ahead and say you were wrong again. It's going to be your calling card.
^ That's what I call an Ether. Rest in piss FkLA
DMC merkin fools.
Of course, it's fairly easy to merk people who try to talk about a sport they never actually watch.
That's a very different concept.
Disagree.
You're free to, but having both of them in the backcourt wouldn't necessarily make one the "point guard" as especially then Pop was always trying to blur the lines of set roles -- he always like the idea of multiple ballhandlers in the lineup ever since Manu joined the team.
I think at the time they thought Kidd would be the better PG, and that's why they heavily courted him. Obviously, it's all conjecture, and I'm not disgusted at all that it worked out the way it did.
Solid game today and it was not against a good enough team
And the All-Time Playoff Scoring PG...
el nono, chump, the challenge was geared more for Parker haters. I haven't really heard them make the case that Parker could have been replaced. After all, he's just a systems player so it should not have been hard to name players.
I mean I'll go right and say that if the Spurs replaced with Lebron, we'd have won several championships between 2010 and 2013 (kawhi has been good too). We replaced the centerpiece and G.hill for verde and mills. we replaced Blair with Splitter. But our two best players weren't replaced. Was that poor planning or an admission that Parker is a legit big three?
OP is one of the tiest posters on ST, tbh..constantly cliff-jumping, wanted to trade Kawhi for Harrison Barnes in the playoff series vs. the Warriors, etc..hypocrisy..
I know. I was just pointing out that the Spurs at some point apparently looked for "better than Parker", so it's not some otherworldly idea that the Spurs could've gotten somebody better, as the Spurs themselves thought that (at that point in time anyways).
As is the case with all conjectures, I'm sure some will say we would've more than 5 rings with Kidd as PG, some that will say we would have less. There's no way to prove either way, so that part of the exercise is certainly a waste of time.
Harison barnes
That's why 2003 and 2004 matter less than 2005 to 2013 which i think is more Tony's prime. Most of that time Tony has been a Top 5 pg, but now he's apparently worse than Cojo.
who is the OP btw, is it an alt?
Since Tony has been in the league, no one has won more rings than Tony. If these other guys are so great why haven't they, separately or collectively, done more? Tony has been to 5 NBA Finals in his career. That's tied with Lebron James who went to 4 in a row. No it wasn't all Tony, but of 29 other teams why is it Tony's team that did it?
You do all this rah rah team and then attribute team accomplishments to a guy that was a third option for three of those trips. He plays a different role and has carried less weight than CP3 or Westbrook do for their respective teams. They couldnt handle the additional weight sure but don't like Tony has ever had to carry that much...or like he would be able to if he ever needed to.
All subjective statements dumb ass player fans make.
I wasn't comparing them directly so their draft positions are irrelevant. The only reason I responded to it was to make fun of the fact that you're so condescending you actually think you know when people do or don't look stuff up.
You shouldn't be comparing Parker to CP3 period. They've had different responsibilities and had to carry different loads throughout their careers. Tony didn't ring by himself. He had a Top 5 player of all-time, a Top 3 coach of all-time and the best organization in all of pro sports right next to him the whole time. That has more to do with the ring difference than Tony having some magical 'it' that CP3 doesn't. If CP3 had the same caliber of player, coach and organization behind him and still had zero rings then you'd have a point.
All that long winded wall of to basically say nothing. Yeah, no rings elevate the legacy of #1's more than anyone else. Yet here you are like a Kobe fanboy spewing out '4 rings, 1 FMVP' even though Parker was a third option or a lower level second option for three of those les.In conversations about top 100 in the league, rings don't often matter. When you're talking about top 10 all time, rings matter because a top 10 all time guy should have made a difference on a team to the point where it could be seen in the post season. There might have been guys who were really great players but something about their decision on who to play for, to resign to a team that didn't have a legit shot, to play 2nd fiddle to a guy who wasn't that good, whatever... those fall by the wayside. It's the guys who used their talents to get over the hump and get that ring. In the NFL and MLB, individual players often don't change the team from a regular season punching bag to a post season threat. Some great pitchers might have that affect, somewhat, and some great QBs might, but there has to be more to get over the hump.
Once you get a few rings, they start to have diminishing returns where greatness is concerned. You start to top out and it's a long asymptotic curve. When a player does something to separate himself from the input so that the output changes, you can attribute even more the results of the team to the addition of that player (think Steve Nash being out, team sucking, Steve Nash being in, team prospering). Those types prove their effectiveness. Make that a ring difference and the player moves leaps and bounds up the list. Make that several rings and you start talking about top 5. Chris never did this. Russ never did this. Russ was out and the team did fine. KD is out and the team suffers. I'm sure Chis' absence has a negative impact on the team though, but I don't recall a season where it as made obvious, not in a meaningful way.
So it's not about "who makes that rule", if you're not a ing moron you don't need a rule. It's called common ing sense.
In the end the ring argument is bull unless you're comparing #1s. When it comes to a guy like Tony or Kobe (for his first three rings) they were simply be more fortunate than their peers in the sense that they had guys like Tim and Shaq as teammates. Although that doesn't mean they didn't play their role in the les as #2/3s.
Because Love doesn't play defense. Russ plays balls out in ever aspect of the game. CP3 is a pretty complete player. It's not hard to see the difference b/w the stats of a guy like Love and a guy like Russ. What's up with you and re ed comparisons?Why isn't Kevin Love considered a great player with the stats he routinely gets? Is it because he's never seen the post season? Obviously success matters. Finals MVP is success. Kawhi gets it and suddenly he's the straw that stirs the drink. Tony got it and he had a lucky mismatch.
Boobie was an easy match-up as were the Cavs in general. Are you really going to argue that it wasn't? Kawhi did it against stiffer compe ion. Not even sure how that is debatable.
Cavs need to stop the Spurs’ Tony ParkerAll recent after Timmy and Manu declined. Prior to three of the four rings you love to bring up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...s-tony-parker/
Focus of Heat's defense turns to Spurs guard Tony Parker
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...erik-spoelstra
RICK CARLISLE ON MAVS’ DEFENSIVE PLAN TO STOP TONY PARKER
Posted by Jeff Garcia on Apr 19, 2014 22:01
http://www.chatsports.com/san-antoni...rker-2-9698514
Yeah what was I thinking?
So go ahead and say you were wrong again. It's going to be your calling card.
The Spurs morphed into the system reliant team around the same time Tony became their best player. That's not a coincidence. Tony isn't good enough to be a traditional #1 like Timmy was during his entire prime or like Manu was for a couple of years during his. The team has done just fine when he misses time and he didn't need to do much more than, in his own words, 'trust his teammates' to dismantle the Heat. What other true #1 can do that and still ring? If CP3 does that his team loses and he's labeled a scared choker.
Last edited by FkLA; 03-08-2015 at 07:33 PM.
A Top 5 player of all-time, a Top 3 coach of all-time and the best run organization in all of pro sports.
When the other guys have than then it's a fair comparison. Until then this is just another one of your re ed comparisons.
"Stans"?He's literally playing like one of the worst players in the league, and his stans are so sensitive and melt down at the slightest criticism (much like Kirby stans).
The Enrique "hate" (or, as unbiased non-player fans call it, valid criticism) is nothing compared to how Manu was being treated upstairs post-6, yet that was all okay and the admins weren't merging everything.
Honestly- what does that mean?
Wasn't Kobe like the 14th pick?Pretty sure you were. Anyone else reading that can see it for themselves but please, continue the denial. You've been in that mode for days.I wasn't comparing them directly so their draft positions are irrelevant. The only reason I responded to it was to make fun of the fact that you're so condescending you actually think when people do or don't look stuff up.
I'm not comparing him, you were. You're the one who brought up Chris Paul.You shouldn't be comparing Parker to CP3 period. They've had different responsibilities and had to carry different loads throughout their careers. Tony didn't ring by himself. He had a Top 5 player of all-time, a Top 3 coach of all-time and the best organization in all of pro sports right next to him the whole time. That has more to do with the ring difference than Tony having some magical 'it' that CP3 doesn't. If CP3 had the same caliber of player, coach and organization behind him and still had zero rings then you'd have a point.
Your "if" means absolutely nothing. It's conjecture. You're en led to whatever uneducated opinion you can possibly have. Tony has 4 rings and a Finals MVP. Chris has not a ing thing. That isn't subjective.
No one has said Tony was the best player on the team. When Chris wins 3 rings as the best player on the team then we'll revisit Chris. He's not won . Tony could probably lead a team to not winning as well.All that long winded wall of to basically say nothing. Yeah, no rings elevate the legacy of #1's more than anyone else. Yet here you are like a Kobe fanboy spewing out '4 rings, 1 FMVP' even though Parker was a third option or a lower level second option for three of those les.
That's a lot more fortunate x 4. You have the best PG in the game, according to many including you, with zero rings in all his years, and you have Tony Parker with 4 including a Finals MVP. I'm sure Chris would trade places with Tony in a heartbeat. Wait, no he wouldn't. He wouldn't give up individual glory for team success, otherwise he would have by now.In the end the ring argument is bull you're comparing #1s. When it comes to a guy like Tony or Kobe (for his first three rings) they could simply be more fortunate then their peers in the sense that they had guys like Tim and Shaq as teammates. Although that doesn't mean they didn't play their role in the les as #2/3s.
I could see that argument if Chris had a couple rings and Tony had 4, then you'd say that Chris got bumped out a few times due to fluky plays, but you and I both know Tony could have anywhere between 5-8 rings right now if not for fluky plays. The truth is that Chris chooses to remain "up and coming". He's satisfied being the "best PG in the game" and doesn't need a championship bad enough to actually make career decisions to make it happen. Re-signing with the Clippers was all the proof anyone needed.
Nah, it's not because of defense. It's because he's never made it to the post season. His stats never equated to team success. It's not like he hasn't had good players around him, ever. He's like Russ in that their stats don't equate to team wins. It's just individual stat padding. The team ends up with 100 points one way or another. Russ's 49 points don't make it 149. Russ takes away from the team's success by killing the team's chemistry, their rhythm, even their defense. He makes the game about him instead of about his team. Remember when Kevin wouldn't allow SI to put him on the cover without putting Nenad and Thabo there as well? Do you ever see Russ bring his teammates in? No.Because Love doesn't play defense. Russ plays balls out in ever aspect of the game. CP3 is a pretty complete player. It's not hard to see the difference b/w the stats of a guy like Love and a guy like Russ. What's up with you and re ed comparisons?
I'm sure you didn't break a sweat.Boobie was an easy match-up as were the Cavs in general. Are you really going to argue that it wasn't? Kawhi did it against stiffer compe ion. Not even sure how that is debatable.
What does Kawhi have to do with whether or not Tony is a better PG than Chris Paul?
Point guards shouldn't be the 1st scoring option. That's the whole point. Tony could have been that on any team in the league except SA. He chose to stay in SA with reduced stats to win more rings. If other PGs could trust their teammates, they might win a ring. What other team has their best scoring option at PG? Are they threats to ring?
All recent after Timmy and Manu declined. Prior to three of the four rings you love to bring up.
The Spurs morphed into the system reliant team around the same time Tony became their best player. That's not a coincidence. Tony isn't good enough to be a traditional #1 like Timmy was during his entire prime or like Manu was for a couple of years during his. The team has done just fine when he misses time and didn't need to be much more than, in his own words, 'trust his teammates' to dismantle the Heat. What other true #1 can do that and still ring? If CP3 does that his team loses and he's labeled a scared choker.
You go from ing about Tony being in hero mode to Tony deferring, both to prove the same invalid point.
You seem to think Tony is a beneficiary of that instead of being partly responsible for creating it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
