2011-2012: Most Dependable Spurs Player (wings & backcourt)

[Brazil]

/thread, IMO

Elnono cherry picking

[therealtruth]

Don't agree with that wording. If you want to say he's played poorly at times on the playoffs, that's fine.



In '03 and '04, Parker owned a pair of Hall of Fame point guards so hardcore that the Nets and Lakers had to shift their entire defense to focus on Parker. To those team's credit, the changes worked. But holding that against a player who was as old as Cory Joseph is pretty unfair, if you ask me.

Parker deserves blame for whatever happened last season. I was one of the first in line to criticize him for that egg laying.

But Manu hasn't exactly been Mr. Dependable at all times. I mean, compare the overall numbers from the Nets series you brought up:

Parker vs. Nets in 2003
212 minutes
84 points
32-for-83 (38.6%) from the field
6-for-14 (42.9%) on three-pointers
25 assists
11 turnovers

Ginobili vs. Nets in 2003
172 minutes
52 points
19-for-46 (34.8%) from the field
3-for-14 (21.4%) on three-pointers
12 assists
10 turnovers

Despite those numbers, history somehow remembers Parker as a choker and Manu as a hero. No one remembers that Manu was 1-for-7 in that last game before that RJ steal and dunk.

Ginobili shot 28% against the Suns in the first round in 2003 but history remembers Parker's struggles with Marbury.

Nobody ever mentions that Ginobili has a shooting percentage of 35.8% on the road in the Finals, or that he was averaging 12.7 points on 32.7% shooting from the field and 26.3% on three-pointers through the first nine games of the 2007 playoffs. Or his defense on Peja Stojakovic in 2008 almost lost the series or that he turned Sasha Vujacic into Bill Russell in the next series.

Why does Ginobili have the rep of a playoff warrior and Parker have the rep of a liability? Well, first of all, I think Ginobili has earned his rep. He's one of the best big-game players in the history of basketball. If I'm putting together a team to win one game, Ginobili would be one of the first players I pick. I can't stress enough how much of a bad ass Ginobili is.

But Ginobili hasn't been immune to laying eggs. He was worse to start the 2007 playoffs than Parker was last season against Conley. Luckily, the Spurs had enough depth in 2007 to withstand Manu's slump. Last season, the Spurs were dead when Parker couldn't outplay Conley.

Duncan has been the foundation of the last three championships. Historically, the Spurs have needed two of the big three to play at a superstar level to get playoff wins. Out of Ginobili and Parker, I'd say they are about equal in being that second superstar player who has stepped up over the years.

Unfortunately, going forward the Spurs will probably need all three players to play at their best to win playoff series. There's much less room for error nowadays. Gone are the times the Spurs could absorb a Big 3 slump ... as the Memphis series made painfully clear.

Ginobili had an excuse in '08, being injured. The Nets in '03 were able to counter Parker by switching Kittles on him who was almost as quick and longer. In '04 Phil Jackson was able to have the team sag into the paint and force the Spurs to hit outside shots which they couldn't do. He was also able to defend Duncan without doubling because of Malone's defense.

But basically not everybody is going to perform the same in every series. Duncan is probably the only Spurs with the most consistent numbers for every series. Gino is more memorable because he tended to play better when the Spurs needed him the most. While Parker's playoff disappoints are more memorable because of the expectations ('11) or his prior play in the series ('03,'04).

[Kewni Leonard]

Not to pull a Kewni but . . .



Oops.

I will give you that one. I am very flattered you went into my post history, desperately trying to find something that I may have been wrong about. Alas, you won't see me sitting here trying to win a hopeless argument and say things like "sample size" and what have you, like you and your nut-huggers do. Obviously, I know Parker is a better player than Ford, but like I said "AT TIMES" he has played very well on both ends -- and Parker, at that time, was in the middle of a terrible stretch of games. "What ails Tony Parker?" comes to mind, tbh.

[FkLA]

Don't agree with that wording. If you want to say he's played poorly at times on the playoffs, that's fine.

Hes played poorly at times in the playoffs more than Manu and Tim tbh.

In '03 and '04, Parker owned a pair of Hall of Fame point guards so hardcore that the Nets and Lakers had to shift their entire defense to focus on Parker. To those team's credit, the changes worked. But holding that against a player who was as old as Cory Joseph is pretty unfair, if you ask me.

He did dominate at times, but like you said he was completely neutralized once adjustments were made. Which is why I feel he has been the least consistent of the Big 3. He can dominate for the first two games of a series and then disappear the next four. And its kinda hard for me to let go of that despite his age at the time because he still has the tendency to disappear at times when teams clog the lane.

Parker deserves blame for whatever happened last season. I was one of the first in line to criticize him for that egg laying.

But Manu hasn't exactly been Mr. Dependable at all times. I mean, compare the overall numbers from the Nets series you brought up:

Parker vs. Nets in 2003
212 minutes
84 points
32-for-83 (38.6%) from the field
6-for-14 (42.9%) on three-pointers
25 assists
11 turnovers

Ginobili vs. Nets in 2003
172 minutes
52 points
19-for-46 (34.8%) from the field
3-for-14 (21.4%) on three-pointers
12 assists
10 turnovers

Despite those numbers, history somehow remembers Parker as a choker and Manu as a hero. No one remembers that Manu was 1-for-7 in that last game before that RJ steal and dunk.

Ginobili shot 28% against the Suns in the first round in 2003 but history remembers Parker's struggles with Marbury.

Manu was a role player in 2003, he was an old rookie but his game was still very green and erratic. He also had those ankle problems to begin the season. Parker played a much bigger role on that le team (even though he was only a sop re himself) so I dont really see how its fair to compare them at that stage of their careers since Parker was clearly more established tbh.

Nobody ever mentions that Ginobili has a shooting percentage of 35.8% on the road in the Finals, or that he was averaging 12.7 points on 32.7% shooting from the field and 26.3% on three-pointers through the first nine games of the 2007 playoffs. Or his defense on Peja Stojakovic in 2008 almost lost the series or that he turned Sasha Vujacic into Bill Russell in the next series.

Manu has never been as dependent on scoring as Parker has been. I know its cliche and but Manus shown the ability to dominate games without putting up great scoring numbers, everything that does on either side of the ball is a winning move. Not trying to say those shooting numbers arent bad, just that hes shown a better ability to make up for them in other areas than Parker has.

Why does Ginobili have the rep of a playoff warrior and Parker have the rep of a liability? Well, first of all, I think Ginobili has earned his rep. He's one of the best big-game players in the history of basketball. If I'm putting together a team to win one game, Ginobili would be one of the first players I pick. I can't stress enough how much of a bad ass Ginobili is.

But Ginobili hasn't been immune to laying eggs. He was worse to start the 2007 playoffs than Parker was last season against Conley. Luckily, the Spurs had enough depth in 2007 to withstand Manu's slump. Last season, the Spurs were dead when Parker couldn't outplay Conley.

I dont think Parker has been anywhere close to a liability in the playoffs, obviously he played a huge role in the 3 les won this past decade. I simply feel like out of our big guns hes the least consisten. When his scoring is contained, his impact on the game takes a huge dip. Manu and especially Duncan are more versatile in that respect.

Duncan has been the foundation of the last three championships. Historically, the Spurs have needed two of the big three to play at a superstar level to get playoff wins. Out of Ginobili and Parker, I'd say they are about equal in being that second superstar player who has stepped up over the years.

Unfortunately, going forward the Spurs will probably need all three players to play at their best to win playoff series. There's much less room for error nowadays. Gone are the times the Spurs could absorb a Big 3 slump ... as the Memphis series made painfully clear.

Would give the slight edge to Ginobili tbh. Agree with the rest though although I do think the Big 3 have alot more room for error offensively than in years past.

[therealtruth]

Manu has never been as dependent on scoring as Parker has been. I know its cliche and but Manus shown the ability to dominate games without putting up great scoring numbers, everything that does on either side of the ball is a winning move. Not trying to say those shooting numbers arent bad, just that hes shown a better ability to make up for them in other areas than Parker has.


I dont think Parker has been anywhere close to a liability in the playoffs, obviously he played a huge role in the 3 les won this past decade. I simply feel like out of our big guns hes the least consisten. When his scoring is contained, his impact on the game takes a huge dip. Manu and especially Duncan are more versatile in that respect.

Agree. Both Manu and Duncan are capable of contributing in areas outside of scoring. When Parker's not scoring and assisting he's pretty much ineffective.

[FkLA]

Agree. Both Manu and Duncan are capable of contributing in areas outside of scoring. When Parker's not scoring and assisting he's pretty much ineffective.

I think it has to do with the fact that his assists and scoring kinda go hand in hand tbh. If teams clog the paint and his jumpshot isnt falling his penetration is neutralized, and most of his assists are kickouts after he penetrates. He cant really methodically break down/read defenses like some of the better passing PGs, and his court vision is also subpar for a PG.