the problem with tp with the rest of the elite pgs in the league is what they do when in possession of the ball, are they hurting their teams performance in regards to other players on the court.....
for example nash or cp3 who clearly have the ball most of the time in there hands, so what happens when they are getting theirs while the rest isnt gettin any cause over dominance with the ball or sometimes not selfish enough with the ball....no balance with the ball in terms of creating the offense for themselves or the team...
this has been discussed many times....
Not to knock entirely on your point, but, none of those guys above had Duncan in his prime opening up the lane for them. Not to mention they've been number 1 option throughout their careers, while Tony has been number 2/3 up until last season.
Meaning, you can't really compare them because defenses were set up entirely to stop those two guys you mentions above, where against the Spurs, the onus always have been how to stop Duncan then control everybody else.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your main point, but this hasn't been the case for the past couple of seasons.
Everything starts and ends with Duncan commanding attention in the paint though. You just can't slack off him. Tony has actually become a much more complete player since he developed his mid range jumper. He also improved a lot finishing at the basket since his early seasons in the league.
Over the past few years, Tony has been considered the head of the snake,and he has been the key to slowing or stopping the Spurs.
Oh and to all the fans who don't think we appreciate TP. We all love Tony here in SA. I think there are few who don't like the whole hollywood stuff he brings, but I think he does a great job of separating that from basketball. Don't worry, when I go the games many of fans cheer and clap for him!
What I was referring to was that opposing teams' coaches have stated in the past that they gameplan for Parker first, while trying single coverage on Duncan to start the game.
Of course Duncan is what makes everything go on both ends of the floor, I'm just pointing out that stopping Duncan first and foremost hasn't been most teams' priority in the recent past.
I'm sorry, how, exactly, does that make Parker less efficient of a scorer?
Ball goes in hole. That's all that matters. Parker does it better than almost any PG in terms of efficiency.
Again. If you're comparing three-point shooters, are you going to say that Antoine Walker is as good as Robert Horry or Steve Kerr, using the argument that, "Well, Kerr and Horry had Shaq and Jordan and Duncan kicking it out to them on the perimeter, so OBVIOUSLY Walker can shoot just as well as they can."?
It's lamentable that Iverson has never played alongside a player like Duncan in his career, but that's true for almost every player in the league. It does not suddenly mean his 40% shooting is worth more as a percentage. A missed shot is still a missed shot, and it hurts the team. If the shot has less of a chance to go in than the team averages from the field, it could technically be considered a "bad" shot. If Matt Bonner is left alone at the hoop 27 times during the game, guess what? I want him taking 27+ shots, regardless of his lack of athleticism.
I could also point out to you how many point guards around the league play with a talented big that the opposition has to respect and never even sniff Parker's numbers. I do believe he and Chris Paul were the only players to average over 20 and 6 last year, though I'm calling this from memory.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 11-30-2009 at 11:54 AM.
Tony's and manu's numbers have nothing to do with Tim. That's just plain bull .
The spurs having succes has a lot to do with Tim, obviously, but tony and manu can put up great numbers and have great games without Tim.
They have made that several times with Duncan injured. That's just a myth brought by Tim's fans to underestimate TP or Manu level and status.
Indeed, each of the big three would without a doubt have greater individual performances without the others. Role players, like Bonner, take advantage of the attention commanded by the stars though.
It doesn't. It does the opposite. Having Duncan opening lanes for him makes him a more efficient scorer, considering that layups are probably the highest percentage shot in basketball.
The question is, if AI had somebody to deflect a lot of attention off him, and open up lanes for him to drive, would he have been a more efficient scorer than he is? I have little doubt he would have. And this is not a knock on Tony, but you just can't pretend that Tim is not there.
But they do produce similar numbers. A high points per game number is actually nothing to be proud for a point guard unless it's WAY over what other PGs are scoring out there.
Assists, on the other hand, count as roughly 2.5 points and get teammates involved, which is kind of the function of a PG.
So a Steve Nash, who averaged 15.7PPG and 9.7APG, actually produced about the same amount of points for his team last season than Tony's 22 and 7. Deron Williams, at 19.4 and 10.7 actually produced more points than Tony last season.
A guy like Rondo, who is the third/fourth offensive option on the Celtics, produced only about 7 less PPG last season than Tony.
Now, there's no question that Tony is among the elite PGs in the league.
I think only Deron and CP3 are a small notch above, and Tony can definitely hold his own against them.
I mostly disagree. But, OK.
Tony scores a lot when Duncan is out of the game too. Obviously Duncan's presence helps, but it is not the primary catalyst for Tony destroying defenses. Being the fastest PG in the league to the rim is.
No, the question in this thread is why Spurs fans are ripping on Tony for "dominating the ball" and being a ball-hog. My point was that Tony scores extremely efficiently and thus does not deserve to be compared to AI. Regardless of who he played with, AI shot 40% for his career. Parker scores a lot at an extremely high rate, and gets a lot of assists, therefore he works wonderfully well within the Spurs offense. This counters other points in the thread that he needs to change his game.The question is, if AI had somebody to deflect a lot of attention off him, and open up lanes for him to drive, would he have been a more efficient scorer than he is? I have little doubt he would have. And this is not a knock on Tony, but you just can't pretend that Tim is not there.
This makes no sense. Scoring 30 PPG on 30% is nothing to be proud of.But they do produce similar numbers. A high points per game number is actually nothing to be proud for a point guard unless it's WAY over what other PGs are scoring out there.
Scoring 22 PPG on 50+% shooting, as Parker did last season, is an amazing accomplishment and something Parker SHOULD be proud of.
Tony was 11th in the NBA last year in assists per game.Assists, on the other hand, count as roughly 2.5 points and get teammates involved, which is kind of the function of a PG.
So let me get this straight.So a Steve Nash, who averaged 15.7PPG and 9.7APG, actually produced about the same amount of points for his team last season than Tony's 22 and 7. Deron Williams, at 19.4 and 10.7 actually produced more points than Tony last season.
Tony Parker = Steve Nash but with aciously better defense?
I'm sorry, how does this go against what I'm saying about how amazing Parker is?
This statline is not really worth a lot on it's own, sorry.A guy like Rondo, who is the third/fourth offensive option on the Celtics, produced only about 7 less PPG last season than Tony.
Yet we still have "trade Tony" threads, and people like The Truth who think Parker is nothing special. Even when he puts up 32/7, there are still detractors talking about how he should be a "pure" point-guard and until then the Spurs will not win as a team.Now, there's no question that Tony is among the elite PGs in the league.
I think only Deron and CP3 are a small notch above, and Tony can definitely hold his own against them.
Actually, that le should go to Aaron Brooks these days, but I digress. Yes, I do agree that his quickness is what makes him an elite PG above all else. He is also one of the best players in the league playing off the pick and roll (with or without TD).
I agree with you in that I don't think you can compare them because AI was the number one option on his team throughout his career. Something Tony only started to do about a season or two ago. I don't think AI also had the help of 3 HOF'ers throughout his career either. Yet, at around Tony's current age, AI was taking a Philly team to the NBA Finals as the man on that team. They have had very different roles. I don't think you can simply compare them side by side.
If Tony could score at that percentage on every possession, then we would never ever lose a game again. The difference is that on some games, the lane is not open to Tony (or Manu). So we have options. We can go with Tim, or we can hurl 3 pointers. We luckily have a system that attempts to maximize our strengths depending on what the defense gives us.
You'll have to help me remember, but I don't think AI every had anything like that in Philly. He was the head of the snake, and they gave him the ball and told him to do something with it. The fact he averaged 27 PPG in his career under those conditions is actually pretty incredible once you give it some thought.
I wouldn't say Tony is like Nash at all. They might produce the same amount of points for their teams, but they do it in a completely different way.
And I think that's exactly what some people (not the trolls) are talking about here. On any given possession, Tony is most likely to dribble up, play pick and roll and score himself. On any given possession, Nash is most likely to dribble around until he can hand an easy bucket to a teammate. They both end up counting for 2 points, as far as that particular possession goes.
Some people will argue that the latter is better than the former, since it gets other people involved and in rhythm. It's truly debatable.
Tony is undeniably an elite point guard, IMO. He has his type of game that gets it done and wins us games. He's not perfect, but neither is any of the other elite point guards (like you said, Nash is actually horrible on defense).
I think Parker is an unbelievable talent and we're obviously better WITH him. That said, the over-the-top criticism is very common around here. Trade Duncan threads have not been uncommon this past offseason.
But if you actually get defensive about them instead of letting the games speak for themselves, then you're simply feeding the trolls.
Last I wrote it seemed as if some peace had broken out and there was a semblance of agreeing to disagree and all that, but as Cry Havoc is part of the 24 hour security team that monitors this thread, constantly probing for new ways to imply that Parker is being slighted, Cry Havoc goes off on a tangent about fg% and Iverson.
The whole point of bringing up Iverson and Arenas was to show that point guards can get high assist numbers but that doesn't mean they are good passers or focus on getting other players involved. And the only reason I brought that up was because of an accusation towards me that stated Tony isn't a good passer. Cry Havoc sees Iverson's name and takes a detour into comparing scoring efficiency because that's the easiest route and has nothing to do with where the discussion is headed.
No one disputes that Tony can't score - it's about passing and having a team game. Tony did a better job this last game, though I get the sense from the Parker Security Team that Tony wasn't aggressive because he didn't score enough points.
Peace? This isn't a war. ElNono and I are/were having a very civil discussion about some relatively minor points regarding how Parker plays.
As for monitoring it, you know, being the person that started the thread, god forbid I actually reply in it.
No, the whole point of bringing up Iverson was via the idea that Tony is a ball hog. Which is completely acceptable if his ball hogging winds up with 20+ points per game on 50% shooting and 6+ assists. That means he isn't dominating the ball too much, as he doesn't need to shoot a lot of shots to make the 20 PPG when he scores so frequently.The whole point of bringing up Iverson and Arenas was to show that point guards can get high assist numbers but that doesn't mean they are good passers or focus on getting other players involved. And the only reason I brought that up was because of an accusation towards me that stated Tony isn't a good passer. Cry Havoc sees Iverson's name and takes a detour into comparing scoring efficiency because that's the easiest route and has nothing to do with where the discussion is headed.
So, do you actually want to have a discussion or just break out the histrionics because someone disagrees with you? Again, it's downright shameful that I'm replying frequently to a thread that I started.No one disputes that Tony can't score - it's about passing and having a team game. Tony did a better job this last game, though I get the sense from the Parker Security Team that Tony wasn't aggressive because he didn't score enough points.
Perhaps you should worry less about my reply button and more about providing actual facts or reasoning to back up your opinion that Parker = Iverson = Arenas. All I see here are aspersions cast on me for actually bringing stats and an opinion that differs from your own into the situation.
--------------
I think Parker is still at 75% speed right now, but when he was going strong last year, I have never seen anyone faster to the rack from the three point line than Tony. I've maybe seen a few players as fast -- but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone who's clearly faster than he is.
And you could also make the argument that had AI played on the Spurs in the early part of this century, he would have also been the #2 option on the Spurs, because no one was going to be more of a force or defensive focus than Duncan, especially on a team so predicated on slowing the pace of the game to keep defense at a premium. So just like you can't really take away anything from Iverson for struggling to score consistently at times, I don't think you can take anything away from Parker for not being the dominant scoring threat of the Spurs. He showed last year that he could do that and still score consistently, control the pace of games, destroy other team's defensive schemes, and still get other players involved.I agree with you in that I don't think you can compare them because AI was the number one option on his team throughout his career. Something Tony only started to do about a season or two ago. I don't think AI also had the help of 3 HOF'ers throughout his career either. Yet, at around Tony's current age, AI was taking a Philly team to the NBA Finals as the man on that team. They have had very different roles. I don't think you can simply compare them side by side.
I agree with this. AI was absolutely brilliant during his career in Philly. Probably more heart than any player I've ever seen on a court. I was waiting for him to break a leg so he'd be hurt all of a quarter before returning to the court to finish the game.If Tony could score at that percentage on every possession, then we would never ever lose a game again. The difference is that on some games, the lane is not open to Tony (or Manu). So we have options. We can go with Tim, or we can hurl 3 pointers. We luckily have a system that attempts to maximize our strengths depending on what the defense gives us.
You'll have to help me remember, but I don't think AI every had anything like that in Philly. He was the head of the snake, and they gave him the ball and told him to do something with it. The fact he averaged 27 PPG in his career under those conditions is actually pretty incredible once you give it some thought.
However, Parker's numbers last year are pretty incredible in their own right. There have been dozens of great point guards in the past with great interior scoring threats and yet haven't made it even close to 50% scoring for a season with 20+ PPG.
My point was that you were citing that Parker isn't necessarily as dominant as I was suggesting because he only gets 7 PPG more for his team than Rondo, but at the same time you stated that Nash -- a fantastic pure PG -- gets his team roughly the same number of points as TP. Which is a tribute to how awesome Tony is, even if Nash and Parker have different play styles. Especially when you consider that Tony is a much better defender.I wouldn't say Tony is like Nash at all. They might produce the same amount of points for their teams, but they do it in a completely different way.
And I think that's exactly what some people (not the trolls) are talking about here. On any given possession, Tony is most likely to dribble up, play pick and roll and score himself. On any given possession, Nash is most likely to dribble around until he can hand an easy bucket to a teammate. They both end up counting for 2 points, as far as that particular possession goes.
Some people will argue that the latter is better than the former, since it gets other people involved and in rhythm. It's truly debatable.
Tony is undeniably an elite point guard, IMO. He has his type of game that gets it done and wins us games. He's not perfect, but neither is any of the other elite point guards (like you said, Nash is actually horrible on defense).
This is a good point, and I really have to agree with you here. Well-put.I think Parker is an unbelievable talent and we're obviously better WITH him. That said, the over-the-top criticism is very common around here. Trade Duncan threads have not been uncommon this past offseason.
But if you actually get defensive about them instead of letting the games speak for themselves, then you're simply feeding the trolls.
However, when Tony starts to dominate again this season it's still a lot of fun to call certain posters out for their ridiculous threads.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 12-01-2009 at 12:57 AM.
Tony plays his heart out for this city and this team. He has made so many clutch shots, it is countless. I don't understand how anyone can have a real gripe with him. I think they are small minded French haters. Untimely turnovers have happened sure, but that occurs with all primary ballhandlers.
I don't think you can really make that argument. Not because there's any discussion about who is best between Duncan and Iverson, but because AI would simply not accept that role. He wouldn't accept that role right now that his career is clearly on the downside. Back then, he was still the league top's scorer and he was winning big. Just another facet of why you really can't really compare AI and TP overall. There are some similarities here and there, but the roles were/are too different.
I don't think people try to take anything away from Tony as far as scoring prowess goes. I think the criticism has more to do with what his mindset is considering the position he plays. Tony is a guy, and particularly in this he's just like AI, that when the ball is in his hands, he's looking to score first, pass second. I think that if he would be playing SG (people would then that he's undersized to play the two, but let's pretend here for a second they wouldn't) then that mindset wouldn't be an issue.
Because the PG position has traditionally been reserved for players that share the ball, not scorers. Guys like Nash, Kidd, DWill, CP3... they're pretty good scorers, but their assist numbers are what tell the tale on how good they are. For 20+ PPG on 50% scoring you need to look at guys in other positions. Actually, look at Richard Jefferson numbers career-wise, and you'll see a guy that pretty much has averaged that. Obviously, Richard always has been a scorer.
Tony was great last year, there's no discussing that. He elevated his game when the team needed it the most, and that's all you can really ask from him. Eventually, you win or lose series with your defense (IMO), and ours was not up to par.
Sure, but think about this for a second: Nash dishes out to other people and that other people get in a rhythm and a flow. Tony prefers to score himself instead. Now, when both of them sit down, whose offense suffers the most?
If there's anything you can to credit Mike D'Antoni for during his Suns years, is that he really knew how to exploit this against average defensive teams. He would kick start the offense with Nash, then bring in Barbosa, who is also more of a scorer than a PG, and everybody was already in rhythm and knocking down shots. Then, when the offense stagnated a bit, back in goes Nash. Obviously, this didn't work well against good defensive teams since that's what good defensive teams do: break your flow and your rhythm.
This has been mentioned a million times already but still some how the powers at be just cant see past the all might dollar bill... But TP has and always will be a shoot first PG. This current roster has plenty of Scorers and since this is a new look spurs team they need a guard that can create and involve there teammates, none of which TP is customed to doing.. Point taken is RJ while some is his own fault more than half the blame should lay on Tp's shoulders cause Tony doesnt even look his way when thier on the court together.. TP has to passing methods in his arsenal, which are the drive to the basket and look to either corner for a 3, and other is pick and pop by TD.. if you notice TP doesnt pass any other times or tries to create for his own teammates..
Now i am not a Tp basher though it may sound like it i am really not.. I just hink he needs to adjust his game to be more of a pass first PG or get some one that can be..
You can win a championship with an average or descent PG who can pass well. ie...(AJ)
A must too win a championship is a Big who can play "D" which we have all other parts are interchangable.
Long live the SPURS....
Why do you disagree?I mostly disagree. But, OK.
I just checked, last year Tony played 6 games without TD.
His stats for these 6 games:
29.5 pts (51 FG%) 8.5 ast
Unless you have facts proving he cant, we can assume Tony can score with efficiency with and without Duncan (It does not mean Duncan is not necessary to the team success).
i used to be a parker hater, i even wanted him (dare i say) traded.....
but now i am on the parker bus!
Agreed, the comparison is just not up to par. Though it should be mentioned that Tony clearly accepted the role of "student" until Duncan was ready to slow down a bit and become less of an offensive focus. To me, that means he was willing to put the team ahead of his own statline at the end of the game, which hints that perhaps scoring isn't everything to Tony.
Here I respectfully disagree. I think Tony is looking to score first and pass second. I think Iverson is looking to score first, score second, score third, throw up a wild shot fourth, and then maybe pass.I don't think people try to take anything away from Tony as far as scoring prowess goes. I think the criticism has more to do with what his mindset is considering the position he plays. Tony is a guy, and particularly in this he's just like AI, that when the ball is in his hands, he's looking to score first, pass second. I think that if he would be playing SG (people would then that he's undersized to play the two, but let's pretend here for a second they wouldn't) then that mindset wouldn't be an issue.
I really, really strongly feel that Parker is going to take what the defense gives him. He's going to try to find a weakness and exploit it for easy points. Does Tony force things at time? Absolutely. However, so does every Superstar who's ever played -- Duncan included.
It's still worth pointing out that we have a point guard who scores at 50%+ and that is a rare thing.Because the PG position has traditionally been reserved for players that share the ball, not scorers. Guys like Nash, Kidd, DWill, CP3... they're pretty good scorers, but their assist numbers are what tell the tale on how good they are. For 20+ PPG on 50% scoring you need to look at guys in other positions. Actually, look at Richard Jefferson numbers career-wise, and you'll see a guy that pretty much has averaged that. Obviously, Richard always has been a scorer.
Tony was great last year, there's no discussing that. He elevated his game when the team needed it the most, and that's all you can really ask from him. Eventually, you win or lose series with your defense (IMO), and ours was not up to par.
If the knock you're bringing about on Tony Parker is that Nash is a more talented offensive player, congratulations. I completely agree with you.Sure, but think about this for a second: Nash dishes out to other people and that other people get in a rhythm and a flow. Tony prefers to score himself instead. Now, when both of them sit down, whose offense suffers the most?
If there's anything you can to credit Mike D'Antoni for during his Suns years, is that he really knew how to exploit this against average defensive teams. He would kick start the offense with Nash, then bring in Barbosa, who is also more of a scorer than a PG, and everybody was already in rhythm and knocking down shots. Then, when the offense stagnated a bit, back in goes Nash. Obviously, this didn't work well against good defensive teams since that's what good defensive teams do: break your flow and your rhythm.
But how many players in NBA HISTORY have the offensive skillset of Nash? It's probably countable on one hand. And he still sucks on defense. Tony Parker will never have the offensive awareness of CP3 or Nash because almost no one in the history of the league has that ability. But ripping on Tony (not saying you are, just if you're referring to the discontent) because he isn't as good of a passer as the aforementioned is not really fair, IMO. Deron, Nash, and CP3 are three of the best prototypical point guards the NBA has seen in years or decades.
Tony still distributes. He gets assists. I just wish people could be happy with watching one of the fastest, best finishers at the rim they will ever see with their own eyes. He'd be fun to watch if he were a Maverick to me, because his ability to score inside and put just the right rotation on the ball to get around a taller, longer defender is something so incredibly rare.
Tony is a great player but Duncan made him better than he really is.Same Manu.These 2 guys were lucky to play for the San Antonio Spurs.
We could have another TP or Manu.There are more players with their talent in the league but there is only one TD
And that's always happen with teammates of the greatest players.Pippen wasn't as good as one of the top50 of the history,who was Odom or Gasol before Kobe? Hardaway after Shaq (injuries apart) ?
There are many players with the same or more talent than TP but they never could have chance to win the NBA.Of course he is pretty good but he's not the key of our success.
So the Spurs aren't better without Parker but if TP never had played for the Spurs I'm sure we would have other PG as good for the team as he is.But Of course right now there is not PG better than TP for the team
Sure. Tony also had to put up with many years of Pop-Rage(tm) and Pop-DogHouse(tm). Tony made himself into the player he is today. Unlike Iverson, or other talented guys out there, he wasn't a number 1 pick, or a lock to get drafted. He had to go through camps, etc.
Well, that easily attributable to TP having a coach that makes him accountable, and obviously quality teammates he trusts.
However, the actual onus of my point stands: TP has a scorer mentality. That's normally a SG mentality. A traditional PG mentality is to use the first 10-15 seconds of the possession trying to get your teammates an easy basket (when not running a set play), then doing the scoring on your own if nothing is there. It's a lot like a quarterback in football, and the position has indeed drawn comparisons for a reason.
Anybody at any position scoring over 50+% is great and fairly rare.
Well, if you want to call Tony an elite point guard, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that he's going to be compared with other elite PGs. That includes guys like CP3, Nash, Kidd, DWill, Stockton, Magic, Iverson, etc. I think a more fair comparison both for him and AI would be against SG. I think that's closer to their game.
Considering speed is his greatest asset, and that's one of the first things a player loses, we better be enjoying him now before it's all gone.
When it comes to Tony Parker you can sum up all you need to say with 3 words::::::::::
“PASS THE BALL”
This is the height of ignorance, and this kind of ridiculous opinion is exactly why I started this thread.
Sad.. You es will not be around when both Manu and Tim retires, and there is only Tony left. I think the idea of watching Spurs with only Tony as the mega-star will freaking cause you es sleepless nights..
Let me put it to you, if Tony were to go to Lakers to team with Kobe and Gasol, do you think Spurs will be better off?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
