Let's pretend Parker gets another ring + FMVP

[SonOfMattGeiger]

So after he is named 2nd team all nba for the 2012-2013 season, and if hwe were to win FMVP this year...

Who had the greater career? Tony Parker or Allen Iverson?

discuss

[dh144498]

So after he is named 2nd team all nba for the 2012-2013 season, and if hwe were to win FMVP this year...

Who had the greater career? Tony Parker or Allen Iverson?

discuss

parker.

[taucesays]

Parker already has a better career. There's much more to basketball than putting the ball in the hoop.

[SonOfMattGeiger]

so you would have no problem with parker being ranked higher on the G.O.A.t. list? :confusedshrug:

[Crafty]

Parker. :biggums:

[SCdac]

I'd still take AI. Pretty easily IMO.

Parker has been paired with a HOF big and coach his entire career and I think on a "team of his own" he's not much more successful than a Tim Hardaway type.

Parker winning it again would be like the Pistons beating SA in 2005 and Billups earning his second Finals MVP... I guess it propels him further up, but it's so obviously about the team with DET and SA.

[taucesays]

I'd still take AI. Pretty easily IMO.

Parker has been paired with a HOF big and coach his entire career and I think on a "team of his own" he's not much more successful than a Tim Hardaway type.

Parker winning it again would be like the Pistons beating SA in 2005 and Billups earning his second Finals MVP... I guess it propels him further up, but it's so obviously about the team with DET and SA.

And AI has one of the worst approaches to the game that we've ever seen in a superstar. There's a reason he ended up in China.

[K Xerxes]

Completely different circumstances for their careers. AI is simply a better player than Parker for me, regardless of how many rings and FMVPs Parker may win. I guess I put less stock on career accolades than the next guy, and would rather to prefer to compare and contrast their actual games.

[tikay0]

Gimme Parker all day. Regardless of team makeup, and all that jazz, do you really think Iverson would've been looking out for his teammates, and passing them the ball on occasion, even with a team like the Spurs? Could you even imagine that?

The guy was looking to win scoring titles with Melo on his team, and could've easily took up more of a facilitating role.

Parker's overall approach to the game is greater than Iverson's, regardless of "skills".

[SCdac]

And AI has one of the worst approaches to the game that we've ever seen in a superstar. There's a reason he ended up in China.

While I agree about his approach and attitude, he played till his mid-30s, we're not exactly talking about somebody who flamed out at the rapid rate of a Jonny Flynn.

[DMAVS41]

I'd still take AI. Pretty easily IMO.

Parker has been paired with a HOF big and coach his entire career and I think on a "team of his own" he's not much more successful than a Tim Hardaway type.

Parker winning it again would be like the Pistons beating SA in 2005 and Billups earning his second Finals MVP... I guess it propels him further up, but it's so obviously about the team with DET and SA.

This. People now seem to try and over-rate Parker to somehow diminish Duncan...which is going on a lot lately.

I love Parker and think he's great...but it's the above.

[SCdac]

Gimme Parker all day. Regardless of team makeup, and all that jazz, do you really think Iverson would've been looking out for his teammates, and passing them the ball on occasion, even with a team like the Spurs? Could you even imagine that?

The guy was looking to win scoring titles with Melo on his team, and could've easily took up more of a facilitating role.

Parker's overall approach to the game is greater than Iverson's, regardless of "skills".

Just curious what are your thoughts on AI having a higher career average in assists and having a higher season in assists than Parker has ever had (7.9 apg)?

[fpliii]

This. People now seem to try and over-rate Parker to somehow diminish Duncan...which is going on a lot lately.

I love Parker and think he's great...but it's the above.

This x 1000.

[tikay0]

Just curious what are your thoughts on AI having a higher career average in assists and having a higher season in assists than Parker has ever had (7.9 apg)?

OK, is he still not a shot jack artist that would gladly shoot you out of a game, rather than keep you in one?

And P.S. that's .2 more than Parker's highest assist year. Parker avg'd 7.7.

Like I said before. Gimme Parker all day.

LMAO, at "a higher assist season than Parker has ever had". WOW, .2 more than Parker. :facepalm

[leMVP]

No, in the eyes of true basketball fans, AI was the greatest story that never was, He got the talent but destoryed himself by not polishing it.

[0000000]

How ironic is this, Spurs fan is th only one arguing for AI lol.

Anyway, AI is just better. Even though Parker is very underrated.

AI played in the wrong era of basketball for him, when players had to have defined positions and tweeners were bad for team success, players really had to have defined positions 10 years ago. I remember thinking at the time, no way AI or Dirk even win a championship. But basketball has changed a lot, Nowadays, it's combo guards and stretch 4's that really are most effective. And centers are smaller, too.

AI would fit much beter in today's game.

[Wally450]

Let's pretend your the son of Matt Geiger

[tpols]

The only way Spurs beat Miami is if parker offensively dominates his matchup.

And if he does win he will join a short list of all time greats to do it.

Maybe people will then appreciate SAS as a whole unit.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So after he is named 2nd team all nba for the 2012-2013 season, and if hwe were to win FMVP this year...

Who had the greater career? Tony Parker or Allen Iverson?

discuss
I'd rather have a lot of Championships than one MVP award but I just want to make the distinction that although I'd prefer Parker's career Iverson was the better player. Let Iverson play with Duncan and Ginobili his whole career and he'd have won some rings too.

[ripthekik]

AI is the better basketball player, Parker has the better career.

[Nero Tulip]

Parker is the better player, and had a better career. No disrespect but right now offensively Parker is about the same level as prime Steve Nash when he's healthy. Iverson isn't even close.

[tikay0]

Parker is the better player, and had a better career. No disrespect but right now offensively Parker is about the same level as prime Steve Nash when he's healthy. Iverson isn't even close.

And if you look at their stats from a per 36 basis, Parker has the much higher overall assist totals. You gotta remember, the Spurs are usually up big on teams lately, mainly due to Parker. If he played 40 MPG like Iverson, his stats would be inflated as well.

[jzek]

Parker in this hypothetical scenario (and I don't even know why this is a discussion)

If TP gets another ring, his 4 championships and 2 FMVPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than AI's one MVP.

[kNicKz]

No, in the eyes of true basketball fans, AI was the greatest story that never was, He got the talent but destoryed himself by not polishing it.
By not taking his talents to south beach?

AI was better than parker ever will be. If AI had shaq it would be a similar dynasty to kobe

[SCdac]

Parker in this hypothetical scenario (and I don't even know why this is a discussion)

If TP gets another ring, his 4 championships and 2 FMVPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than AI's one MVP.

Don't forget 7 All-NBA teams, 11 All Star teams, and leading the league in scoring a few times when Kobe, Carter, McGrady, etc, were at their height.

In 2 of Parker's rings he was merely a role player.

[tpols]

Don't forget 7 All-NBA teams, 11 All Star teams, and leading the league in scoring a few times when Kobe, Carter, McGrady, etc, were at their height.

In 2 of Parker's rings he was merely a role player.
22/6/4 role player lol

How pathetic do you have to be to dog a dude like that on your favorite team?

[tikay0]

Don't forget 7 All-NBA teams, 11 All Star teams, and leading the league in scoring a few times when Kobe, Carter, McGrady, etc, were at their height.

In 2 of Parker's rings he was merely a role player.

Leading the league in scoring when that's pretty much your sole purpose, while having the talent isn't the hardest feat in the NBA.

Could you imagine if every top 20 players sole purpose was to lead the league in scoring like Iverson. The PPGs average would be skyrocketing.

[tikay0]

22/6/4 role player lol

How pathetic do you have to be to dog a dude like that on your favorite team?

I don't get it either. That's like having one of the sickest scoring PGs ever on your team, and you just trash his ass, because you like Iverson better. :confusedshrug:

[SCdac]

22/6/4 role player lol

How pathetic do you have to be to dog a dude like that on your favorite team?

2003 playoffs: 15 ppg (.40 FG%) and 3.5 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

2005 playoffs: 17 ppg (.45 FG%) and 4.3 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

Does that seem like an AS to you?

[ripthekik]

come on guys.. could parker lead his own team to the finals?
AI is just a better ball player. If an AI-led team went up against Parker-led team, AI would shit all over him like tyronn lue.

[tikay0]

2003 playoffs: 15 ppg (.40 FG%) and 3.5 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

2005 playoffs: 17 ppg (.45 FG%) and 4.3 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

Does that seem like an AS to you?

LMAO @ posting his #s when he's in his 3rd and 5th year in the league. Parker's like fine wine, gets much better with time.

AI came into the league as a phenom.

In AI's 6th year he shot 39% from the field. Just marinate on that for a second. That was his Finals year.

[tikay0]

come on guys.. could parker lead his own team to the finals?
AI is just a better ball player. If an AI-led team went up against Parker-led team, AI would shit all over him like tyronn lue.

Yeah, Parkers comparable to Tyronn Lue. :facepalm

Parker: 19 pts. on 48% from the field, and taking 16 shots

AI: 31 pts. on 39% from the field and taking 28 shots!!!

[dh144498]

Yeah, Parkers comparable to Tyronn Lue. :facepalm

Parker: 19 pts. on 48% from the field, and taking 16 shots

AI: 31 pts. on 39% from the field and taking 28 shots!!!

AI's still a better player than Parker though.

[tikay0]

AI's still a better player than Parker though.

The more flashy player, yes. The player I'd rather have on my team, NO.

[DMAVS41]

22/6/4 role player lol

How pathetic do you have to be to dog a dude like that on your favorite team?

You have really just lost it with this whole notion that the Spurs are some crazy anomaly or that Parker/Manu are these all time greats that people are ignoring.

Parker is good. Really freaking good...and he's better now than he was back when the Spurs were actually winning titles.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the importance of Duncan?

Parker absolutely was a role player in 03. He was absolutely nothing special...other than the fact he's probably the worst 2nd best player on a title winning team of the modern era of the NBA.

In 05 he was better of course, but is a 17/4/3 49% TS guard that plays average defense anything special?

I mean...you and others have been intimating that Duncan has been a role player the last few years. If Duncan and his elite defense averaging roughly 17/10/3 per game is a role player...what the **** does that make an inefficient Tony Parker in 05?

[tpols]

2003 playoffs: 15 ppg (.40 FG%) and 3.5 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

2005 playoffs: 17 ppg (.45 FG%) and 4.3 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

Does that seem like an AS to you?
I wouldn't call 16 ppg average a role player.. Don't know his assist numbers but anyone putting 15+ ppg and whatever his assists were under pop is impressive.

Bruce bowen is a role player.

To the Allen Iverson Parker debate,.

Parker is a euro who is used to playing smart team basketball. He joined one of the only disciplined equal opportunity offenses in the league. His basketball intelligence and savvy is on another level.

Iverson was a thug who played street ball.. His game was all based on his physical quickness/athleticism and his heart. Too bad his heart took away from his brain.

Parker isn't more talented but he will fit better and make all of his offenses better.

[STATUTORY]

parker will never get his due cause he's foreign

real talk

[ripthekik]

The more flashy player, yes. The player I'd rather have on my team, NO.
Who you'd have isn't the same as who's the better player. Some would rather have a team player instead of a individual player that's better, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But saying Parker's a better player is just wrong. Imagine those two at their primes going head to head with similar teammates. No Duncan, no Manu. No way in hell he beats AI. Prime AI destroyed a lot of teams.. the opponents team had their game plan put entirely on this one guy for 4 quarters.

AI was at one point top3 in the NBA with the company of Shaq, Kobe, Duncan etc. He was the MVP. Tony Parker has never reached that level.

Again, career success - Parker. Better player - Iverson.

[DMAVS41]

Iverson was better, but parker...at least lately...is under-rated when the talk of best pg in the game comes up.

[tpols]

You have really just lost it with this whole notion that the Spurs are some crazy anomaly or that Parker/Manu are these all time greats that people are ignoring.

Parker is good. Really freaking good...and he's better now than he was back when the Spurs were actually winning titles.
?
Parker and Manu are HOF level players.. They sacrificed stats for team ball and winning just like Duncan even though Duncan got his stats earlier on.

Iverson did the opposite.

[tikay0]

Who you'd have isn't the same as who's the better player. Some would rather have a team player instead of a individual player that's better, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But saying Parker's a better player is just wrong. Imagine those two at their primes going head to head with similar teammates. No Duncan, no Manu. No way in hell he beats AI. Prime AI destroyed a lot of teams.. the opponents team had their game plan put entirely on this one guy for 4 quarters.

AI was at one point top3 in the NBA with the company of Shaq, Kobe, Duncan etc. He was the MVP. Tony Parker has never reached that level.

Again, career success - Parker. Better player - Iverson.

OK, let's say they both have the same teammates. I personally think Parker would be the one to make better use of his teammates, and take the better quality shots, while involving his teammates more than Iverson.

Yes, I think Iverson would post up the higher numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd win.

[LLK21]

OP is a ******

[DMAVS41]

Parker and Manu are HOF level players.. They sacrificed stats for team ball and winning just like Duncan even though Duncan got his stats earlier on.

Iverson did the opposite.

Do you not see the double standard from this comment to your other comments in the other thread?

You have called Duncan a role player or whatever the term for the last few years saying that he's playing a diminished role against him. Now you are propping up Parker for saying he sacrificed his stats...

All while arguing for a player in Kobe that has literally refused to sacrifice his stats since the 00 season. WTF are you even talking about at this point?

And no matter how you slice it...Iverson was a better player than Parker on both ends of the floor.

And I'll repost it here because of course nobody will respond to the ether that it is...

Per 36 minutes

03 Duncan - 21/12/4 56% TS

13 Duncan - 21/12/3 55% TS

He has not fallen off the way you and others keep pretending.

[tikay0]

AI was one of the first players to usher in the new "hip hop" image for the NBA. He was making the NBA huge amounts of money. Not a coach on Earth would tell him to tone it down.

Parker doesn't have the luxury to just chuck away and post up crazy numbers. He's also just looked at as a Euro that's quiet with no personality, so people are always going to be drawn towards Iverson.

[tikay0]

I have absolutely no problem with AI. I even listed him as #6 for my favorite players that I've ever watched. That doesn't mean I'd rather have him on my team than Parker.

[SCdac]

LMAO @ posting his #s when he's in his 3rd and 5th year in the league. Parker's like fine wine, gets much better with time.


That was his 2nd and 4th year.

And yes, he won 2 championships as a role player... not that there's anything wrong with that. He certainly showed flashes of stardom along the way, but there's a difference.

It wasn't till his 2005-2006 season (when he worked on his jump shot extensively with Chip Engelland) that he really became the sustained All-Star we watch now.

Personally, I think Parker is sick. One of the best finishers I've ever seen yet doesn't need to dunk, much improved in the areas of passing/decision making/being clutch over the years. He's truly an experienced veteran. But his resume speaks largely to the team he's been on his whole career. It's both made him great and taken away from his career IMO, similar to Manu. Albeit Ginobili came to the team later in life and got going quicker.

During one of Parker's championships he was getting benched in 4th quarters for Speedy Claxton, during another championship he was lighting up Daniel Gibson to win a Finals MVP. So, it's important to make the distinctions in Parker's career and opportunities and take it into context.

The Spurs have never won a championship with Parker as their best player

[tpols]

Do you not see the double standard from this comment to your other comments in the other thread?

You have called Duncan a role player or whatever the term for the last few years saying that he's playing a diminished role against him. Now you are propping up Parker for saying he sacrificed his stats...

All while arguing for a player in Kobe that has literally refused to sacrifice his stats since the 00 season. WTF are you even talking about at this point?

And no matter how you slice it...Iverson was a better player than Parker on both ends of the floor.

And I'll repost it here because of course nobody will respond to the ether that it is...

Per 36 minutes

03 Duncan - 21/12/4 56% TS

13 Duncan - 21/12/3 55% TS

He has not fallen off the way you and others keep pretending.
LOL at you using per 36 for an older player.

But as to the Duncan role player that was after you said Duncans help for his career has been and I quote 'meh'.

To which I replied Duncan basically turned into a role player from what he once was in 2011 when he put up like 13 and 8 and his team still won 60 games.

So I don't know what you're rambling about.

[DMAVS41]

I have absolutely no problem with AI. I even listed him as #6 for my favorite players that I've ever watched. That doesn't mean I'd rather have him on my team than Parker.

If you start putting them into certain roles then the comparison becomes closer.

Obviously Iverson would be the guy you want as the best player on the team...that isn't debatable.

I don't think it's much of a debate in terms of 2nd best player either.

But 3rd best player like Parker was in 05 on the Spurs. Then yea...I can see Parker playing that role better than Iverson.

But I think that gets into a really strange area when comparing players.

[BoutPractice]

If I had to choose who to play for my team, I would almost always choose Parker over Iverson.
Here's why: it's almost as difficult to win a championship with a team where Iverson is the only good player as it is with a team where Parker is the only good player... but for any decent to great team, Parker is a much better fit.

[tikay0]

The Spurs have never won a championship with Parker as their best player – but I wish it happens because it'd mean the Spurs won (I'm a fan of the team over any player). Even then, it feels like it would be Parker winning it by default of being the highest scorer on the Spurs. He's averaging 35.7 mpg which would be the third lowest ever for a Finals MVP, lower mpg than when he won it in 2007.

That's a dumb argument. Neither have the 76ers, and they surrounded AI with the exact talent needed to maximize AI's chances at success. The East was weak as hell at the time too. The Pacers weren't the Pacers anymore. The Pistons haven't arrived yet. It was basically Ray Allen and scrubs, and Vince and scrubs vs. Allen Iverson and Dikembe Mutombo, and the 6th man of the year.

Surround Parker with players that maximize his chances at success other than Duncan and Ginobili, and then we can talk. Even though Parker did win rings when surrounded with those players, it wasn't during his prime, and when he was at his best.

That's why this argument is dumb. I still take Parker 9/10x.

P.S. even with a decline to Duncan's game, and injury ravaged seasons by Manu, they're still an elite team to this day. Parker being in his prime has a lot to do with that.

[DMAVS41]

LOL at you using per 36 for an older player.

But as to the Duncan role player that was after you said Duncans help for his career has been and I quote 'meh'.

To which I replied Duncan basically turned into a role player from what he once was in 2011 when he put up like 13 and 8 and his team still won 60 games.

So I don't know what you're rambling about.

You can't pick out the only year of Duncan's career and use that as the barometer for something.

Using per 36 production is actually perfect here. I'm not arguing Duncan hasn't fallen off. He of course has and he's not the player he used to be....his drop off, however, is not nearly as big as you make it out to be.

Duncan plays less minutes because he is older. Of course. My response to that is the same as it was to Chazzy. You can't use that against Duncan and then shrug off the fact that Kobe has completely worn down the last few years. He was not good at all in the 11 playoffs and now he's not even playing. If Duncan had a coach playing him more minutes and Duncan was as selfish as Kobe with the ball etc....his numbers would be much better...but it wouldn't make him a better player and he'd likely be injured/worn down like Kobe has been these last 3 years.

What Duncan has done is gracefully sacrificed his production and minutes in an effort to help his team play the very style that you continue to applaud non stop. But what you still fail to realize is that style isn't possible without a star like Duncan. And the player in question in Kobe...isn't that type of player.

One year so far in Duncan's career has seen a big dip in level of play, impact, and production...that is it.

And now he's back to producing very well on the court on both ends...as he has now for his 16 year career.

[tpols]

Duncan plays less minutes because he is older.
r.
No shit. That's why it's bs..

And Duncan has played completely mediocre thus far in the playoffs. Parker has easily been the better player.

[DMAVS41]

No shit. That's why it's bs..

And Duncan has played completely mediocre thus far in the playoffs. Parker has easily been the better player.

Did I say Duncan had been better than Parker so far?

You keep jumping around to distract things. And you ****ing continue to ignore his defensive impact.

How the **** is 18/9/2 with elite interior defense mediocre compared to Parker at any point in his career...or Kobe in the 11 playoffs...etc.

Duncan never scored a ton of points. Never. He averaged over 25 a game in the playoffs twice.

Duncan has gotten worse with age...of course. Never argued he hasn't. Guess what though. So has Kobe...something you and Chazzy continue to ignore.

[BlackVVaves]

Parker is the better player, and had a better career. No disrespect but right now offensively Parker is about the same level as prime Steve Nash when he's healthy. Iverson isn't even close.

:biggums:

[BlackVVaves]

2006 Nash > any version of Parker thus far.

The **** is wrong with you?

[chazzy]

What am I ignoring? I said Kobe had a poor 2011 playoff. My argument from that thread is that Duncan fell off from being elite more than Kobe has over the past 5 years

[bdreason]

Career accomplishments aren't the same as player ability. Give AI Tim Duncan for a decade and see what his resume looks like.

[bdreason]

What am I ignoring? I said Kobe had a poor 2011 playoff. My argument from that thread is that Duncan fell off from being elite more than Kobe has over the past 5 years


Did you watch Duncan this season? He was arguably the best paint defender in the league, while averaging 18/8 on 50%.

[unbreakable]

LMAO Parker has been higher on the GOAT List than Iverson since 05.. I love Iverson but as a team player and NBA player he's a scrub compared to TP

[unbreakable]

Career accomplishments aren't the same as player ability. Give AI Tim Duncan for a decade and see what his resume looks like.

Duncan woulda had a kobe moment with AI "SHIP HIS ASS OUT"

:roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

What am I ignoring? I said Kobe had a poor 2011 playoff. My argument from that thread is that Duncan fell off from being elite more than Kobe has over the past 5 years

Your argument was that Kobe has had better longevity....and you've defined that by only the last 5 years I guess. And I asked for a definition because Kobe obviously was not elite in 11. I guess he was in 12...although he certainly had dropped off. And then this year when he played he was elite...but so was Duncan...and Duncan is currently playing in the playoffs and not at home injured.

It's like the point you made about Duncan playing less minutes. Yea...he does. He accepts that. If he refused to play less and checked himself into the game on his own and refused to take a lesser role...he'd have better numbers and people would probably call him a better player. But that wouldn't be the case. Not to mention Kobe continues to wear down these last 3 years. That is what is funny to me. Of the last 5 years...Kobe has had his poor 11, 12 was good (but saw him have his worst efficiency in 7 years), obviously he's out this year.

I'm not arguing Duncan hasn't declined. I'm arguing that Kobe has declined as well...especially on the defensive side of things. While Duncan's decline has been in production and on defense...but not nearly to the extent Kobe has on defense though. There has to be something said about the fact that Duncan has remained one of the best interior defenders in the league while Kobe is now a complete non factor defensively if I'm being nice...and a negative if I'm being more real.

You also said the gap is a big deal...calling Kobe elite and Duncan not. But then I am curious to know how you feel about the much larger gap between Duncan's first 4 years and Kobe's first 4 years.

Or the gap between Duncan in 05 vs Kobe in 05...stuff like that.

Like I said before. The gap between young Kobe and Duncan is far greater than any gap in favor of Kobe when Kobe was better. So I don't see that point at all.

And if we are grading the years on some curve like that...Duncan, at his worst, was probably the 20th best player in the league. Was Kobe even top 100 his first 2 years?

[bdreason]

Duncan woulda had a kobe moment with AI "SHIP HIS ASS OUT"

:roll: :roll:



This notion that AI was some one-dimensional chucker is ridiculous. We're talking about a guy who averaged 7-8 assists in both Philly and Denver, and had no problem playing with a ball-dominant wing player in Carmelo Anthony.

AI chucked a lot of shots when he played for Philly, because the 76ers wanted him to... and by the way, it worked (NBA Finals).

How many guys in NBA history have even managed to average 30 points and 8 assists per game? Honest question.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Leading the league in scoring when that's pretty much your sole purpose, while having the talent isn't the hardest feat in the NBA.
If it's so easy to score then why don't we ever see guys Iverson's size do it? Only man in him and Parker's height class I can think of to average 30 is Nate Archibald. And he only did it once. You treat AI averaging 30+ 4 times like it's nothing when no one else the size of him and Parker has done it.

[Harison]

AI is more talented individual player, Parker is much better team player with a better attitude. Everything counts, not just how good a player is by himself, its 5v5 sport, not 1v1 or in AI case 1v9 :lol

Whom I would pick depends on pieces I have, 76ers were perfect team for AI, Spurs - for Parker.

[sick_brah07]

I don't know if my phone is going nuts or not ...... But why the hell is there a photo of baron Davis at the bottom of a lot of posts

[inclinerator]

I don't know if my phone is going nuts or not ...... But why the hell is there a photo of baron Davis at the bottom of a lot of posts
:eek: u gay

[Sharmer]

Parkers under rated in American because he's not American.

[tikay0]

If it's so easy to score then why don't we ever see guys Iverson's size do it? Only man in him and Parker's height class I can think of to average 30 is Nate Archibald. And he only did it once. You treat AI averaging 30+ 4 times like it's nothing when no one else the size of him and Parker has done it.

You have to realize that he's best suited to score. Where as other small guys are best suited to be a facilitator/scorer.

He's a SG trapped in a PGs body. You can't change his stripes. He's not going to all of a sudden tone it down. That's his mentality, and that's what made him so great. He's like Nate Robinson. You'll keep trying to make him a traditional, safe PG, but sooner or later, you're gonna realize his best attribute is going off for buckets when you need em.

[bdreason]

Tony Parker has averaged 6.0 assists per game in his career.

Allen Iverson averaged 6.2 assists per game in his career.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You have to realize that he's best suited to score. Where as other small guys are best suited to be a facilitator/scorer.

He's a SG trapped in a PGs body. You can't change his stripes. He's not going to all of a sudden tone it down. That's his mentality, and that's what made him so great. He's like Nate Robinson. You'll keep trying to make him a traditional, safe PG, but sooner or later, you're gonna realize his best attribute is going off for buckets when you need em.
You're talking about a guy that averaged 8apg once. His career apg is in fact higher than Parker's, and that's factoring in his final years where he was severely declining. Iverson was never going to be Stockton but you're underrating his pg abilities. What kept him from being a full-time pg is the fact that he was too good a scorer for his coaches not to utilize that aspect of his game. In reality there is no "advantage" Parker had that doesn't have two words at it's root: "Tim Duncan." And Manu wasn't of small importance either.

[tikay0]

You're talking about a guy that averaged 8apg once. His career apg is in fact higher than Parker's, and that's factoring in his final years where he was severely declining. Iverson was never going to be Stockton but you're underrating his pg abilities. What kept him from being a full-time pg is the fact that he was too good a scorer for his coaches not to utilize that aspect of his game. In reality there is no "advantage" Parker had that doesn't have two words at it's root: "Tim Duncan." And Manu wasn't of small importance either.

If you want a true measure of their numbers, you gotta look at their PERs. AI played stayed on the court a lot longer than TP.

Their PER assist #s are,

TP: 6.6
AI: 5.4

Highest PER avg,

TP: 8.7
AI: 6.8

[longtime lurker]

Career accomplishments aren't the same as player ability. Give AI Tim Duncan for a decade and see what his resume looks like.

This is a horrible argument considering AI played with some stacked teams in Denver and they didn't do jack shit. On the other hand say Tony Parker is greater than AI is to say that Tony Parker has ever been considered one of the best players in the league.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If you want a true measure of their numbers, you gotta look at their PERs. No I don't.
AI played stayed on the court a lot longer than TP.
Iverson's ability to play huge minutes one of the things that set him apart.

[sick_brah07]

:eek: u gay


Lol seriously wtf ? My reply button is a photo of b diddy

[RichieW]

Iverson was the better talent. By a long way. It isn't even close.

When you ask who was a better player, it comes down to much more than talent. Having the right mental approach to the game and your team mates is a major facet when rating a player. That was the area Iverson was sorely lacking.

In the end Iverson was great in spite on his mentality, and Parker is great because of his mentality.

I'd rather build my team with a guy like Parker, but it's no question Iverson has more talent and skill.

[RichieW]

You're talking about a guy that averaged 8apg once. His career apg is in fact higher than Parker's, and that's factoring in his final years where he was severely declining. Iverson was never going to be Stockton but you're underrating his pg abilities. What kept him from being a full-time pg is the fact that he was too good a scorer for his coaches not to utilize that aspect of his game. In reality there is no "advantage" Parker had that doesn't have two words at it's root: "Tim Duncan." And Manu wasn't of small importance either.

Iverson played so many more minutes than Parker, the comparison of per game numbers is meaningless.

As I've said above, Parker had one big advantage that wasn't named Tim Duncan: mentality. Parker is willing to fit in to an offence and play the role the team needs, something Iverson wasn't willing to do which is why he isn't in the league anymore.

I don't think anyone would debate that Iverson was the bigger talent, but Parker has shown he's willing to do more to win.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Iverson played so many more minutes than Parker, the comparison of per game numbers is meaningless. The ability to carry a franchise as a 40+ mpg player for multiple seasons should not be disregarded.


As I've said above, Parker had one big advantage that wasn't named Tim Duncan: mentality. Parker is willing to fit in to an offence and play the role the team needs, something Iverson wasn't willing to do which is why he isn't in the league anymore. If SA doesn't have Duncan and Parker actually has to carry the Spurs all that "mentality" means nothing. The whole time he was in Philly it's a moot point because no one on that team was his equal as a scorer,


I don't think anyone would debate that Iverson was the bigger talent, but Parker has shown he's willing to do more to win.
Parker was never a franchise player. Made for a completely different career. He got to join a team that won a ring without him. We talk about whether or not AI had a good enough supporting cast while Parker was part of the supporting cast.

[GoSpursGo1984]

The ability to carry a franchise as a 40+ mpg player for multiple seasons should not be disregarded.

If SA doesn't have Duncan and Parker actually has to carry the Spurs all that "mentality" means nothing. The whole time he was in Philly it's a moot point because no one on that team was his equal as a scorer,

Who do you think would be his equal scorer when he took most of the teams shots.

Parker was never a franchise player. Made for a completely different career. He got to join a team that won a ring without him. We talk about whether or not AI had a good enough supporting cast while Parker was part of the supporting cast.

That team that won a ring in 1998-1999 three years before Parker got there it was a different team when Parker got there. That team had an aging David Robinson had a rookie Manu. How can you say AI did not have a good enough cast they built that team as a defensive team around AI so he could shoot as much as he wanted to.

[Real Men Wear Green]

That team that won a ring had an aging David Robinson had a rookie Manu. How can you say AI did not have a good enough cast they built that team as a defensive team around AI so he could shoot as much as he wanted to.
The bolded parts illustrate how great Duncan was and do nothing to advance your point, in fact, the opposite is true. If you are going to hold rings against Iverson in this case you have to point out which teammate of Iverson's was on par with Duncan. Tim Duncan is the greatest 4 of all time.

[Doctor Rivers]

So after he is named 2nd team all nba for the 2012-2013 season, and if hwe were to win FMVP this year...

Who had the greater career? Tony Parker or Allen Iverson?

discuss

Top 10 better than Kobe

[BlackVVaves]

...

Question for you, do you also think Tony Parker is better than D-Rose? If not, then why?

[Doranku]

2003 playoffs: 15 ppg (.40 FG%) and 3.5 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

2005 playoffs: 17 ppg (.45 FG%) and 4.3 apg ... (14 ppg in the Finals)

Does that seem like an AS to you?

Looks like 2011 LeBron

[GoSpursGo1984]

The bolded parts illustrate how great Duncan was and do nothing to advance your point, in fact, the opposite is true. If you are going to hold rings against Iverson in this case you have to point out which teammate of Iverson's was on par with Duncan. Tim Duncan is the greatest 4 of all time.

You really think that Duncan would continue to have success without Parker. You are right Iverson had no Duncan on his team but he had the Sixth Man of the Year on his team, NBA All Defense on his team, and All Stars. Iverson had good players around him. Besides Duncan who did Parker have? Robinson was old Manu was young and unknown.

[Brain Becker]

Looks like 2011 LeBron
Lol, you couldn't resist.

[tikay0]

Question for you, do you also think Tony Parker is better than D-Rose? If not, then why?

D-Rose is a true PG, and can mix in his scoring with facilitating. Knows when to take over, and when not to chuck. As evidenced by his 2012 campaign.

He's great at managing a game, and his sole purpose isn't to be the leading scorer on a nightly basis. He has a mix of AI and TP's persoanilites.

At this point, no, Rose isn't better than Parker or AI, but we have to see how his career pans out.

Based on accolades and accomplishments, AI and Parker > Rose. Rose hasn't even hit his peak yet, so very premature to compare them.

[BlackVVaves]

D-Rose is a true PG, and can mix in his scoring with facilitating. Knows when to take over, and when not to chuck. As evidenced by his 2012 campaign.

He's great at managing a game, and his sole purpose isn't to be the leading scorer on a nightly basis. He has a mix of AI and TP's persoanilites.

At this point, no, Rose isn't better than Parker or AI, but we have to see how his career pans out.

Based on accolades and accomplishments, AI and Parker > Rose. Rose hasn't even hit his peak yet, so very premature to compare them.

Was just wondering your opinion, since Rose has been compared to Iverson on a occasions based on style of play.

[DMAVS41]

Looks like 2011 LeBron

:applause:

[tikay0]

Was just wondering your opinion, since Rose has been compared to Iverson on a occasions based on style of play.

Because he's athletic with a great cross over? I don't see it. Those people are just trying to lump Rose into the "chucker" category. Pure ignorance.

[Orlando Magic]

Anyone want to pretend like Parker would have ever taken the Sixers to the Finals?

No?

Didn't think so.

[tikay0]

Anyone want to pretend like Parker would have ever taken the Sixers to the Finals?

No?

Didn't think so.

Anyone wanna act like the Sixers are tailor made for Tony Parker?

No?

Didn't think so.

[Orlando Magic]

Anyone wanna act like the Sixers are tailor made for Tony Parker?

No?

Didn't think so.

Anyone wanna act like Tony Parker could lead any team without Tim Duncan or another all time great big to the Finals?

No?

Didn't think so.

[tikay0]

Anyone wanna act like Tony Parker could lead any team without Tim Duncan or another all time great big to the Finals?

No?

Didn't think so.

I think he possibly could. We'll never know, because he's not afforded as many FGAs as AI, and we've yet to see him with another team.

Who knows what would've happened. TP gets called upon to take over from an early age. Hits some bumps in the roads, puts it all together, and the guy could've been averaging 23 and 8-9 on great efficiency. :confusedshrug:

[Harison]

Anyone wanna act like Tony Parker could lead any team without Tim Duncan or another all time great big to the Finals?

No?

Didn't think so.

Billups led team won championship and he got FMVP too, you never know :confusedshrug:

Parker winning FMVP over prime Duncan is THAT more impressive (even though TD deserved it more IMO, but thats another topic).

[tgan3]

OK, is he still not a shot jack artist that would gladly shoot you out of a game, rather than keep you in one?

And P.S. that's .2 more than Parker's highest assist year. Parker avg'd 7.7.

Like I said before. Gimme Parker all day.

LMAO, at "a higher assist season than Parker has ever had". WOW, .2 more than Parker. :facepalm

His team was sh1t though. His 2001 finals team had no other scorer. The 2nd best scorer Aaron Mckie I think? Scored less than 15ppg. In his later days with Melo, his shooting percentage were definitely good for a guard. He had to shot-jack in philly because there were no other capable scorer.

Imagine playing streetball with a bunch of guys who are new to the game, but compensates with hustle and defense. Of course you will want to shoot the ball everytime. This was the situation in philly back in 2001.

Parker's a great player, but the spurs team are like 20x better than the sixers.

[Perfect]

Unless we see something new and special out of parker that MAKES him get fmvp, and not just as a 'well someone on the winning team has to get it' award, no.

But the hypothetical could very well happen, if he steps his game up on the big stage, closes games out, runs the offense beautifully and maybe with flashy numbers that those will correspond to, sure.

[iamgine]

Parker is the better player, and had a better career. No disrespect but right now offensively Parker is about the same level as prime Steve Nash when he's healthy. Iverson isn't even close.
For like one game yes but overall no way not even close.

[ai9]

The guy was looking to win scoring titles with Melo on his team, and could've easily took up more of a facilitating role.


AI averaged 18 shots per game in denver's up-tempo offense, about 10 shots below his average in philly...not sure how that's "looking to win scoring titles"...

[Nero Tulip]

For like one game yes but overall no way not even close.

I understand why you think that way. The problem is that he was injured in the previous series. He wasn't running as fast and he was missing easy shots. For someone who watches almost every Spurs game, it was obvious he was bothered (so was Curry).

But hopefully, the rest of the playoffs will show that when healthy, he is at that level. He's one of the best PGs of all time.

[All Net]

Better career and better player are obviously two very different things.

[Random_Guy]

AI's still a better player than Parker though.
Fg is really inaccurate, IMHO points/shots is more accurate.
Parker is still more efficient, but not by much,

[hitmanyr2k]

I'd still take AI. Pretty easily IMO.

Parker has been paired with a HOF big and coach his entire career and I think on a "team of his own" he's not much more successful than a Tim Hardaway type.

Parker winning it again would be like the Pistons beating SA in 2005 and Billups earning his second Finals MVP... I guess it propels him further up, but it's so obviously about the team with DET and SA.

Let's not pretend Iverson didn't get paired with a great coach in Larry Brown and good big man in Mutombo. Coachability counts for a lot though. Can you imagine Popovich having to put up with this shit attitude from Tony Parker? :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM

The last line is the best :roll:

[tikay0]

Let's not pretend Iverson didn't get paired with a great coach in Larry Brown and good big man in Mutombo. Coachability counts for a lot though. Can you imagine Popovich having to put up with this shit attitude from Tony Parker? :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM

The last line is the best :roll:

Exactly! People just assume Iverson on any team with superstars is a match made in Heaven. It's not. In his prime, his ego was as big as anyone's.

[Nero Tulip]

Better career and better player are obviously two very different things.

And he's both. So I don't know why people are still arguing.

[SwayDizzle]

Iverson was better, but parker...at least lately...is under-rated when the talk of best pg in the game comes up.
Parker is undeniably the best PG in the game right now.

[305Baller]

Parker has already had a better career but I would take Iverson anytime.

[Harison]

Let's not pretend Iverson didn't get paired with a great coach in Larry Brown and good big man in Mutombo. Coachability counts for a lot though. Can you imagine Popovich having to put up with this shit attitude from Tony Parker? :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM

The last line is the best :roll:

Correct, all NBA coaches except Larry Brown couldnt even coach Iverson. Let this sink in. Its tragic and almost ironic other coaches either didnt bothered to try coaching AI or simply benched him, and thats the best they could do with the superstar :facepalm

I'm not sure Pop would have patience with AI, and the best ego-manager Phil would probably ship him out ASAP too. Even drama-queen Shaq was more coachable, and still Phil lost his patience, imagine 1/10th of Shaq's impact undersized SG throwing tantrums...

[DMAVS41]

Parker is undeniably the best PG in the game right now.

This is simply not true at all. I'd take both Paul and Westbrook over Parker right now...unless you are throwing Westbrook out because he's hurt.

[Nero Tulip]

This is simply not true at all. I'd take both Paul and Westbrook over Parker right now...unless you are throwing Westbrook out because he's hurt.

Then again you are an idiot who thought your own team had no shot at the title the year they won, so there's that.

[DMAVS41]

Then again you are an idiot who thought your own team had no shot at the title the year they won, so there's that.

What does it matter that it was my "own" team?

And are you saying only an idiot think Paul is a better player than Parker?

[tikay0]

Then again you are an idiot who thought your own team had no shot at the title the year they won, so there's that.

Yeah, just stop replying to that idiot. He's stuck in his own world.

[StocktonFan]

Then again you are an idiot who thought your own team had no shot at the title the year they won, so there's that.


Rather then arguing his points you reply in insults?

:rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

Wait. Just so I don't get confused.

Is the consensus of the morons here now that Parker is without a doubt the best pg in the game and that Paul has no case over him whatsoever? Please let me know.

[tikay0]

Rather then arguing his points you reply in insults?

:rolleyes:

Another one of DMAVS alts. Go away you chode.

[rmt]

Wait. Just so I don't get confused.

Is the consensus of the morons here now that Parker is without a doubt the best pg in the game and that Paul has no case over him whatsoever? Please let me know.

I'd take Paul over Parker, and I'm a Spurs fan. Parker is not going to age gracefully because so much of his game is predicated on speed. He's got a ton of mileage and gets worn down/tired easily (although he is durable - injury-wise). Paul is much more a "traditional" point guard and those skills aren't going anywhere even when he gets old.

Westbrooke, I'm not sure I could take his decision-making. Sometimes, he does DUMB things, but then it took Parker a long time to be as good as he is (although it remains to be seen how his injury will affect that INSANE athleticism). Some people naturally have it and some don't (but can learn). Can I say how impressed I am with Lilliard - so young yet so composed, so under control.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You really think that Duncan would continue to have success without Parker. You are right Iverson had no Duncan on his team but he had the Sixth Man of the Year on his team, NBA All Defense on his team, and All Stars. Iverson had good players around him. Besides Duncan who did Parker have? Robinson was old Manu was young and unknown.
Mutombo and Mckie do not compare to Duncan and Ginobili. The first time Parker won a ring Pop was as likely to turn to Steve Kerr in the clutch as playing Parker. Parker has developed into a very good player and has had a wonderful career but in terms of individual greatness and accomplishments he's nowhere near Iverson.

[tpols]

Let's not pretend Iverson didn't get paired with a great coach in Larry Brown and good big man in Mutombo. Coachability counts for a lot though. Can you imagine Popovich having to put up with this shit attitude from Tony Parker? :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d29VsG35DQM

The last line is the best :roll:
How the hell am I gonna make my teammates better by practicin!

Mind boggling.

[unbreakable]

r. Parker has developed into a very good player and has had a wonderful career but in terms of individual greatness and accomplishments he's nowhere near Iverson.

maybe 5 years ago.. since then Parker is a multiple all star , Finals MVP, and might win another ring or two. He has far surpassed Ivo in everything basketball related.

[Real Men Wear Green]

maybe 5 years ago.. since then Parker is a multiple all star , Finals MVP, and might win another ring or two. He has far surpassed Ivo in everything basketball related.
What part of MVP does Parker have over AI? AI has 3 times as many ASG appearances, also a huge edge in All-NBA (much of that over Parker) and a number of scoring titles. In terms of individual accolades there isn't any comparison.

[ripthekik]

maybe 5 years ago.. since then Parker is a multiple all star , Finals MVP, and might win another ring or two. He has far surpassed Ivo in everything basketball related.
Except he's never reached the individual level of basketball of Iverson. MVP, leading his own team to the finals. And it looks like he'll never.

During the summer ISH has its own vote for greatest NBA players ever.. Iverson was around 30-40. Not sure Parker was found anywhere until over 50. People do recognize Parker has a better career.. but that goes when you have Duncan your entire career. As a better individual talent, superstar, Iverson is far better.

Franchise player: You go with AI.
If you already have another superstar.. only then an argument can be made for Parker.

I think people here are just forgetting AI's level in his prime.

[Joey3000]

Im pretty sure this has already been said.

Parker had the better carear but that's due to better circumstances. AI never had the type of teammates + leadership Parker had. Imagine AI playing next to Tim Duncan and coached by Pop for his carear :rockon:

BUT!!!. Toni's mild temper and professionalism is what allowed that "system" to work for him... so maybe AI's attitude would have never aloud him to be as successful as Parker was.

[unbreakable]

Imagine AI playing next to Tim Duncan and coached by Pop for his carear :rockon:



:facepalm

As if AI had the discipline and mental toughness to play for a real organization like the Spurs.. his ass woulda been shipped out after the first year with Pop

[ripthekik]

Im pretty sure this has already been said.

Parker had the better carear but that's due to better circumstances. AI never had the type of teammates + leadership Parker had. Imagine AI playing next to Tim Duncan and coached by Pop for his carear :rockon:

BUT!!!. Toni's mild temper and professionalism is what allowed that "system" to work for him... so maybe AI's attitude would have never aloud him to be as successful as Parker was.
Pretty much.

Imagine AI and Parker in their primes for a draft. Ain't no GM gonna pick damn Tony Parker when you got prime AI :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Sharmer]

If Parker was American he would be in GOAT PG discussions.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If Parker was American he would be in GOAT PG discussions.
So now you want to put him on par with Magic? This is is getting stupid.