Dime: Who’s Better: Chris Paul Or Tony Parker?

[Hornets1]

I see your point but we are laughing at barrea guarding TP (which is not true btw) and we forget that the whole Dallas team on D had one main point of attention and it was Parker and he did well.

Nevertheless I do agree Billups is a serious client and this Denver team is a good team maybe TP would have struggled also but don't you think that part of the problem was the fact that CP3 gave up a litle in this serie ?

It very well could be. Paul seemed to get too frustrated in the series, b/c of how well they defended him. He prolly had all of these ways to beat the Denver D, but they countered each and every time. They guarded him better than the Jazz do, which is saying a lot.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Might have something to do with the fact that Paul took 111 more 3's than Parker did, and still averaged only .8 more points. And Parker only took 8 more shots during the season, not a big difference. Parker also had a higher fg%, 54 to 50, and averaged less turnovers. For me, that argument doesn't hold any weight.

All that said though, you would have to take CP3 over Tony as he is the better all around player. And that pains me to say as I ing hate Chris Paul.

1) Parker shot 50.6% from the field last year, not 54%. Paul shot 50.3% from the field. Not really that big a difference.

2) Yes, Paul took more threes. What's your point? Do threes not count? The fact one is a better 3 point shooter than the other plays a role in determining who the better scorer is. Attempting 10 threes and making 4 is no worse than attempting 10 layups and making 6.

3) Paul averaged 3.0 turnovers, Parker averaged 2.6. If you're allowed to ignore the .8 point differential, then I get to ignore the .4 turnover differential.

I never said Paul is a better scorer than Parker, I simply said it's dumb that some people in this thread compare the two as if it's a widely accepted opinion Parker is a much better scorer than Paul.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

guys like nash and billups improved their jumper when they were near 30. I think there's still hope for him to be better.

I agree, my only point was he hasn't "maximized" his potential when his jumper is in the shape it's in.

[mardigan]

1)
I never said Paul is a better scorer than Parker, I simply said it's dumb that some people in this thread compare the two as if it's a widely accepted opinion Parker is a much better scorer than Paul.

That's how Spurstalk rolls. I'm actually surprised so many Spur fans have actually said CP3 was better.

[Brazil]

All that said though, you would have to take CP3 over Tony as he is the better all around player. And that pains me to say as I ing hate Chris Paul.

exactly my thought.

Well I'm not going to say I hate him but I don't like him but who cares he is a great great player and I respect that.

[Hornets1]

Might have something to do with the fact that Paul took 111 more 3's than Parker did, and still averaged only .8 more points. And Parker only took 8 more shots during the season, not a big difference. Parker also had a higher fg%, 54 to 50, and averaged less turnovers. For me, that argument doesn't hold any weight.

All that said though, you would have to take CP3 over Tony as he is the better all around player. And that pains me to say as I ing hate Chris Paul.

Wrong!
Real Stats from last year

Parker:
50.6% FG/ 27.8% 3pt/ 77.7% FT/ 20.9 eff/ .93 SPG/ 2.58 TO

Paul:
50.3% FG/ 36.4% 3pt/ 86.8% FT/ 29.2 eff/ 2.77SPG/ 2.96 TO

Paul averages almost a half a turnover more per game(.48), but more thatn makes up for it with his advantage of 1.84 more SPG.

The proof is in the pudding.

[baseline bum]

Till the WCF started. Apart from 2004, he's shriveled up the moment he hits the CF.

He was something else in 2004 though.

I don't know about that. Billups was a monster against the Spurs in game 5 of the 05 Finals. It was like Billups and Horry were just trading shots late in that game.

[Brazil]

#3) Tony Parker (has no D whatsoever)

yeah right Nash D >>>>> TP D

[mardigan]

Wrong!
Real Stats from last year

Parker:
50.6% FG/ 27.8% 3pt/ 77.7% FT/ 20.9 eff/ .93 SPG/ 2.58 TO

Paul:
50.3% FG/ 36.4% 3pt/ 86.8% FT/ 29.2 eff/ 2.77SPG/ 2.96 TO

Paul averages almost a half a turnover more per game(.48), but more thatn makes up for it with his advantage of 1.84 more SPG.

The proof is in the pudding.

Yea dude, DoK already showed me whats up. My fault.

[23LeBronJames23]

Wrong!
Real Stats from last year

Parker:
50.6% FG/ 27.8% 3pt/ 77.7% FT/ 20.9 eff/ .93 SPG/ 2.58 TO

Paul:
50.3% FG/ 36.4% 3pt/ 86.8% FT/ 29.2 eff/ 2.77SPG/ 2.96 TO

Paul averages almost a half a turnover more per game(.48), but more thatn makes up for it with his advantage of 1.84 more SPG.

The proof is in the pudding.

how about PPG APG and RPG cp3 owns parker in all those catagories

[whottt]

Chris Paul's stats wouldn't be as eyepopping if he played for the Spurs I do know that. What some of you guys are doing is saying neither of their stats would change if their teams changed and that's not true. Tony Parker's assist total would go up if he played on most other teams. And Paul's numbers would go down if he played with other guys capable of running an offense(like Duncan or Manu) unless he just hooged the ball, which would be a liability, not a plus.


That said, there's no doubt Chris Paul can carry a team to a playoff birth pretty much by himself and Parker hasn't proven that yet(and hopefully will never have to because the Spurs won't be winning a le if he has to do so).

I've got no problems saying Paul is better...as baseline bum said, it's a case of a perennial All Star Vs a perennial MVP. I don't think anyone can say conclusively Tony Parker could not carry a team to the playoffs(or win 50 games) though. While at one time I might have agreed with that when he was younger, I don't really agree with it anymore, Parker routinely carries the Spurs to wins now...and he was arguably the best player on the Spurs last year...and when you can say that about a player who played on the same team with Tim Duncan, he's pretty damn good.


Parker's assist totals are just as much a product of the Spurs system as they are any perceived inability to pass...it's more a case of Tony doesn't make more passes than it is a case that he can't.

A. His coach wants him to have a score first mentality.
B. He plays with Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili.
C. Poppovich is his coach, and if you don't play the way Pop likes, you don't play, if he can help it.

[mogrovejo]

Paul. Williams is better than both though. Paul dominates the ball way too much for my liking.

Parker is #3, but I agree his floor-general skills are very underrated. The Spurs offense runs like a Swizz clock and he's a very big reason why.

Williams
Paul
.
Parker
.
.
Billups, Nash, Rondo

[23LeBronJames23]

Paul. Williams is better than both though. Paul dominates the ball way too much for my liking.

Parker is #3, but I agree his floor-general skills are very underrated. The Spurs offense runs like a Swizz clock and he's a very big reason why.

Williams
Paul
.
Parker
.
.
Billups, Nash, Rondo

how is williams better than Paul

[sonic21]

yeah right Nash D >>>>> TP D

don't worry, Spurstrodamus is re ed, nobody is taking him seriously.

[BRHornet45]

sons there are so many choking vagina's in this thread that I am lost for words

[Chieflion]

I am looking for Ghazi to say something stupid first.

[TJastal]

I'd love to see the stats Parker would put up with David West and what CP3 would put up with Tim Duncan.

So would I. And I would wager the stats would be about the same for Parker but worse for Paul.

Why?

A healthy chunk of Paul's game is the P&R lob pass & dunk. Paul is going to miss having Chandler there to get those 3-4 easy gimme dunks every game. Those 6-10 surefire points every game really made those two players special together and made them appear better than they really are. It will become evident more than ever this upcoming season. Without Chandler to make Paul look great, he is going to take a step back. And without Paul to spot him many easy dunks every game, Chandler's days as a starting quality center are as good as done.

Okafor I think will be lucky to get 1 lob pass per game. Duncan would probably be lucky to even see a handful of those patented Paul lobs in a whole season.

Paul's game was perfectly matched with Chandler's, and I mean absolutely perfect. One could argue that Paul helped Chandler statistically. But on the other side of the coin, it was also Chandler that helped Paul. Now that the duo is broken up, both individuals will be < the sum of the two.

On the other side of the coin, you have Parker and Duncan, both of whom are very well suited to each other (each knows the other so well and play off of each other brilliantly), and will still be playing together unlike Paul / Chandler. In this light, I don't think Chris Paul would be better than Tony Parker in the spurs system... his style doesn't compliment Duncan at all.

So, in closing.. you are just... wrong.

[anakha]

I don't believe I've EVER seen Tony Parker take or even attempt to take a charge. Nash repeatedly takes charges.

So in your logic, no charges = no defense?

[Sotongball21]

You can't really compare the two players. It's really unfair.
One has a system based on him, Paul. And the other has a system he has to follow.
Paul's team is built around him. Paul passes to them and they just shoot.
The Spurs is not built around Parker, he wouldn't have a huge assist number.

AND

Paul cannot score a lot because the opponent's defense is to stop him first. In the Spurs, they need to double team duncan, opening parker up.

They are really different players, One is a borderline Franchise player and the other a dam good All-Star.

Its really a difficult comparison and people are going to compare them for years to come. But, i wouldn't be an idiot and do that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I don't believe I've EVER seen Tony Parker take or even attempt to take a charge. Nash repeatedly takes charges.

What drugs was your mom doing when she was pregnant?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

2) You are from like... France. Stick to the Euro League.

And you stick to the special olympics league.

[stretch]

So would I. And I would wager the stats would be about the same for Parker but worse for Paul.

Why?

A healthy chunk of Paul's game is the P&R lob pass & dunk. Paul is going to miss having Chandler there to get those 3-4 easy gimme dunks every game. Those 6-10 surefire points every game really made those two players special together and made them appear better than they really are. It will become evident more than ever this upcoming season. Without Chandler to make Paul look great, he is going to take a step back. And without Paul to spot him many easy dunks every game, Chandler's days as a starting quality center are as good as done.

Okafor I think will be lucky to get 1 lob pass per game. Duncan would probably be lucky to even see a handful of those patented Paul lobs in a whole season.

Paul's game was perfectly matched with Chandler's, and I mean absolutely perfect. One could argue that Paul helped Chandler statistically. But on the other side of the coin, it was also Chandler that helped Paul. Now that the duo is broken up, both individuals will be < the sum of the two.

On the other side of the coin, you have Parker and Duncan, both of whom are very well suited to each other (each knows the other so well and play off of each other brilliantly), and will still be playing together unlike Paul / Chandler. In this light, I don't think Chris Paul would be better than Tony Parker in the spurs system... his style doesn't compliment Duncan at all.

So, in closing.. you are just... wrong.

Typical spurfan response. Homerish as ever.

[manufan10]

don't worry, Spurstrodamus is re ed, nobody is taking him seriously.

Exactly.

What drugs was your mom doing when she was pregnant?

And you stick to the special olympics league.

[stretch]

yeah right Nash D >>>>> TP D

How did Nash enter the discussion? He wasn't even listed in the post you responded to, moron.

Paul. Williams is better than both though. Paul dominates the ball way too much for my liking.

Parker is #3, but I agree his floor-general skills are very underrated. The Spurs offense runs like a Swizz clock and he's a very big reason why.

Williams
Paul
.
Parker
.
.
Billups, Nash, Rondo

I personally think CP3 is a better player, but I can understand why someone would want Williams more. Williams seems more like a traditional PG, while CP3 seems more like a Kobe, Wade, Lebron type talent, in a PG's body. Talentwise, CP3 is absolutely amazing, but his small size doesn't allow him to take full advantage of his scoring skillset, thus he is better suited as a guy to run an offense and set others up. In a lot of ways, he reminds me of Allen Iverson (being an undersized scoring machine), only CP3 is the willing passer that Iverson never was. I think if Iverson was more willing to play like a PG through his career, he could have put up numbers much like CP3 is putting up.

Either way, I think they are hands down the two best PGs in the league, then the next tier has guys like Parker, Billups, and Nash.

[Bukefal]

parker of coursee