Would Have The Spurs Won The 2013 NBA Finals With Chris Paul Instead of Tony Parker?

[Foster5k]

What do you guys think? If Chris Paul was at the helm, instead of Tony Parker, would the Spurs have out gunned Miami and won the championship?

[NumberSix]

Dat grammar.

[Inferno]

Yeah. Parker performed badly in the finals

[Young X]

No question. Paul's better than Parker at almost every facet of basketball. Put him on the Spurs and he'd have at least 5 rings.

Look at the teams Parker has played with in the playoffs, then look at the teams Paul has played with. It's a joke.

The only real advantage Parker has over Paul is luck, put him on Paul's Hornets teams and he'd miss the playoffs every year. Real talk.

[christian1923]

A healthy Parker would have won that NbA finals.

[Victoire]

No question. Paul's better than Parker at almost every facet of basketball. Put him on the Spurs and he'd have at least 5 rings.

Look at the teams Parker has played with in the playoffs, then look at the teams Paul has played with. It's a joke.

The only real advantage Parker has over Paul is luck, put him on Paul's Hornets teams and he'd miss the playoffs every year. Real talk.

Chris Paul, is that you?

[BoutPractice]

You can't use that series as an argument for anything. If Allen misses that shot, something completely independent of Parker's play, we're all talking about how Parker was the hero in both Game 1 and Game 6 and we start seeing a lot more of him in all-time PG lists... That's what so great about the 2013 Finals. They're a living example of why the way we think of basketball is completely nonsensical upon closer examination

[Thechosen1]

yea, but parker wasnt the reason the spurs lost that series

[PizzamanIRL]

No. I think you need to go back and watch the finals.

[imdaman99]

You can't use that series as an argument for anything. If Allen misses that shot, something completely independent of Parker's play, we're all talking about how Parker was the hero in both Game 1 and Game 6 and we start seeing a lot more of him in all-time PG lists... That's what so great about the 2013 Finals. They're a living example of why the way we think of basketball is completely nonsensical upon closer examination
I know it was a broken play, but Parker was the one who was supposed to be guarding RayRay there. CP3 goes the extra mile to get that rebound or tip it away from Bosh, or mans up RayRay better and Spurs win.

[IncarceratedBob]

If you take Ginobili off the Spurs they win in 6

[Black and White]

If you take Ginobili off the Spurs they win in 6

This

[DMAVS41]

Yes.

Paul is better than Parker on both ends.

Parker is getting to be one of the more over-rated players here and in the media. Here it's some strange attempt to devalue Duncan.

21/10/5 57% TS vs 19/5/3 52% TS

Thing is...Paul is the better defender as well. Parker has never played really efficient basketball in the playoffs.

You can call sample size or whatever you want, but I can't even imagine what the Spurs do over the last 9 years with Paul over Parker. They win more than 1 title...I'll tell you that much.

[Bigsmoke]

Chris Paul maybe would have told Pop in game 6 like "hey man Duncan is having a good game and the Heat have guys that can't defend in the post for shit.... maybe we should keep feeding him the ball"

[TheReturn]

Take Ginobili off the Spurs and they don't get past the Warriors.

[KyleKong]

Put LeBron on the Spurs and they would have won.

[SCdac]

Eh, who knows.

As a Spurs fan, I'd actually prefer healthy D-Rose (not this season...) or Westbrook in place of Parker, not Paul... so Spurs still get the necessary scoring from that position and have a similarly styled player. Yet they're explosive, dynamic, and can play above the rim more than Parker.

Not a big Chris Paul fan although I think he's an excellent player. His teams tend to be too dependent on both his scoring and playmaking and IMO it tends to hurt as much as it helps. If you shut him down I think you shut the whole team down in many respects, whereas the Spurs have utilized a PG who is more of a scorer than a passer and it's worked for a decade at least.

[BoutPractice]

Yes.

Paul is better than Parker on both ends.
But that's the thing, I don't believe those two statements are related in any meaningful way.

Imagine if in 2011 after the Lakers loss against the Mavericks, the people said "would the Lakers have won the championship had they had Dwight Howard instead of Andrew Bynum?". Then you could've said, of course, Dwight Howard is better than Andrew Bynum. Well, maybe he is, but we all know how that turned out when he actually joined the Lakers a year later.

Or what if Carmelo Anthony had been drafted by the Pistons in 2003? He's definitely a better player than Tayshaun Prince, but does that mean they necessarily win the championship in 2004? Does that mean it makes their path to the championship easier?

Or do the Heat sweep the playoffs in 2013 if you replaced Birdman by Asik and Mario Chalmers by say, Jeremy Lin?

It just doesn't work like that.

[DMAVS41]

But that's the thing, I don't believe those two statements are related in any meaningful way.

Imagine if in 2011 after the Lakers loss against the Mavericks, the people said "would the Lakers have won the championship had they had Dwight Howard instead of Andrew Bynum?". Then you could've said, of course, Dwight Howard is better than Andrew Bynum. Well, maybe he is, but we all know how that turned out when he actually joined the Lakers a year later.

Or what if Carmelo Anthony had been drafted by the Pistons in 2003? He's definitely a better player than Tayshaun Prince, but does that mean they necessarily win the championship in 2004? Does that mean it makes their path to the championship easier?

Or do the Heat sweep the playoffs in 2013 if you replaced Birdman by Asik and Mario Chalmers by say, Jeremy Lin?

It just doesn't work like that.

In the role they needed Paul to play...he would be better than Parker. This isn't some prince vs melo thing.

This is a replace a starting pg with a starting pg thing...and the Spurs would love to have a player as dominant as Paul in place of Parker.

[tpols]

CP would have to tone down his dribbling, learn how to move great off the ball, and have the balls to attack defenses himself in crunchtime.. so who knows.


Manu could barely dribble in the Finals.. Green and all the shooters cant create and their shots went cold towards the end.. Duncan dissapeared in second halfs compared to firsts.. and Lebron was zoned up on Parker. He did all that was necessary to pull out wins hitting multiple clutch shots to basically close the game out in games 1 and 6.. could Paul do the same?

[BoutPractice]

DMAVS41 > I honestly don't know. Chris Paul is a tremendous player, a HOFer, all time great, whatever you want to name him. He's arguably better than Parker, but he also plays in a different way, one that makes his team more dependent on him for certain things.

In many ways the Spurs are the prototype for the ideal championship organization, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they don't rely on a point guard to do their distributing. There are some exceptions, but there seems to be a pattern of championship teams being teams where the ball moves... as opposed to a team where one specific player is tasked with moving the ball. That's why, I would argue, ball dominant passing PGs are less likely to lead their teams to championships even though they can be truly formidable players like Paul. It's not because they're the least important position... it's because championship teams, to be successful, need all of their players to share the ball. Instead of having one passing specialist and everyone else on the receiving end, they want everyone to pass the ball. Obviously I'm generalizing, and this is all hypotheticals anyway, but the pattern is definitely there.

[tpols]

In the role they needed Paul to play...he would be better than Parker. This isn't some prince vs melo thing.

This is a replace a starting pg with a starting pg thing...and the Spurs would love to have a player as dominant as Paul in place of Parker.
His Bynum-Howard example is pretty spot on though.. Dwight was always considered better than Bynum, yet when Dwight came to LA the team got significantly worse than it had been with Bynum.

Wasnt much difference in Pau, starting PG, starting SF.. Kobe was better when he played with Dwight than he was in 2011 and 2012 when he played with Bynum which you would think would make it even easier for Dwight to add more wins than Bynum.. but he didnt.

It's about fits and responsibilities.. Parker and CP dont play like each other at all. They arent even the same type of player. Parker is basically a scorer first while CP is a facilitator.

[Young X]

CP would have to tone down his dribbling, learn how to move great off the ball, and have the balls to attack defenses himself in crunchtime.. so who knows.Why would Paul have to "learn how to attack defenses in crunchtime"? He does this all the time. He takes over 4th quarters, hits big shots all the time.

Besides, the Spurs wouldn't be in those same positions with Paul's much better play in the 1st place. Parker averaged 16/6 - 47 TS% in the finals and the Spurs almost won in spite of him, do you really think Paul can't do better than that? Be real.

[Jameerthefear]

duh lol

[TheReal Kendall]

If you take Ginobili off the Spurs they win in 6

This is the reason they lost.

Manu was playing for the Heat

[Victoire]

Why would Paul have to "learn how to attack defenses in crunchtime"? He does this all the time. He takes over 4th quarters, hits big shots all the time.

Besides, the Spurs wouldn't be in those same positions with Paul's much better play in the 1st place. Parker averaged 16/6 - 47 TS% in the finals and the Spurs almost won in spite of him, do you really think Paul can't do better than that? Be real.

Could he have basically won the Memphis series by himself like did Parker? Could he have done better with Lebron on him for the entire serie, hurt like Parker was during the final? No, he probably couldn't have.

You are the most clueless poster on ISH, by far.

[AI Thornton]

Take Ginobili off the Spurs and they don't get past the Warriors.

Take Manu off the Spurs and they don't require Manu's desperate 3 pointer to beat the Warriors.

[ILLsmak]

Take Manu off the Spurs and they don't require Manu's desperate 3 pointer to beat the Warriors.

lol yea I was gonna say, maybe not but they win if Manu somehow disappears into a black hole.

MANU WE ALL KNOW U THREW TEH SERIES ON PURPOSE. Dunno why though...


-Smak

[Thechosen1]

this isnt about style of play,its about personality types..Chris Paul in that moment would have wanted to cement himself as an all time great PG...hes alot more fiesty than tony parker, and wouldnt have allowed himself to be taken out the game. Paul in his mind thinks hes the best player on the court even if its lebron on the same floor as him. That is what parker was missing in the series, he just basically acted as if he was a role player.

[joeyjoejoe]

Probably, cp is a great point guard Parker is a good point guard the difference is huge, if you don't like my opinion f##k off

[fpliii]

Yes.

Paul is better than Parker on both ends.

Parker is getting to be one of the more over-rated players here and in the media. Here it's some strange attempt to devalue Duncan.

21/10/5 57% TS vs 19/5/3 52% TS

Thing is...Paul is the better defender as well. Parker has never played really efficient basketball in the playoffs.

You can call sample size or whatever you want, but I can't even imagine what the Spurs do over the last 9 years with Paul over Parker. They win more than 1 title...I'll tell you that much.

:applause:

[rmt]

Yes. CP is a better (natural) PG than Parker - he passes and facilitates much better. Parker is a scoring PG - shut down the lane and he's not very effective. Put a long defender on him or double team him and he can't make the opponent pay because he doesn't pass well.

An injured CP would have played much better than an injured TP who relies more on quickness.

[SCdac]

this isnt about style of play,its about personality types..Chris Paul in that moment would have wanted to cement himself as an all time great PG...hes alot more fiesty than tony parker, and wouldnt have allowed himself to be taken out the game. Paul in his mind thinks hes the best player on the court even if its lebron on the same floor as him. That is what parker was missing in the series, he just basically acted as if he was a role player.

lol we talking about the same Chris Paul that lost to Carmelo's Nuggets by 58 points? or the same Paul held to 13 ppg when he wasn't 100% (like Parker) and swept out of the playoffs?

I agree that Paul is very competitive and a "better all-around PG" than Parker, but lets not discount a former Finals MVP and multiple champion in Parker (dude hit a game winner against MIA, before that averaged 25 ppg shredding the Grizz the Clipps lost to). And lets give the Heat some credit on their defense.... Chris Paul averaged what, 10 points against the Heat during the regular season?

Parker's personality type has suited the Spurs just fine and if anything his willingness to share the lead has helped him play with Tim and Manu. They nearly won the championship. It's just Spurs need his scoring to be more potent and sturdy, not necessarily for him to be 2x or 3x the playmaker or ball dominant ala Paul or Rondo.... I like that at least Westbrook is used to playing with somebody better than him (Durant), it's humbling, and I think he'd fit in great with SA under Pop, while still providing fire and excellent defense that Paul gives. Paul would be awesome on the Spurs too though no doubt. It's really all win-win between Parker, Westbrook, and Paul .

[TimmyDuncan]

Spurs are not in the 2013 NBA Finals with Paul instead of Parker
Easy to forget how Parker completely destroyed Memphis while being double or triple teamed

Parker vs Memphis in 2013 WCF : 24.5 pts, 9.5 ast, 53% FG
Paul vs Memphis in 2013 1st round : 22.8 pts, 6.3 ast, 53% FG

[L.A. Jazz]

A healthy Parker would have won that NbA finals.
right.

[scm5]

I think Curry is the perfect PG for the Spurs actually.

He plays off the ball as well as he does on the ball and he fits in perfectly with his shooting. The defense would suffer a bit maybe, but it's not like Parker is stopping anyone.

[Thechosen1]

lol we talking about the same Chris Paul that lost to Carmelo's Nuggets by 58 points? or the same Paul held to 13 ppg when he wasn't 100% (like Parker) and swept out of the playoffs?

I agree that Paul is very competitive and a "better all-around PG" than Parker, but lets not discount a former Finals MVP and multiple champion in Parker (dude hit a game winner against MIA, before that averaged 25 ppg shredding the Grizz the Clipps lost to). And lets give the Heat some credit on their defense.... Chris Paul averaged what, 10 points against the Heat during the regular season?

Parker's personality type has suited the Spurs just fine and if anything his willingness to share the lead has helped him play with Tim and Manu. They nearly won the championship. It's just Spurs need his scoring to be more potent and sturdy, not necessarily for him to be 2x or 3x the playmaker or ball dominant ala Paul or Rondo.... I like that at least Westbrook is used to playing with somebody better than him (Durant), it's humbling, and I think he'd fit in great with SA under Pop, while still providing fire and excellent defense that Paul gives. Paul would be awesome on the Spurs too though no doubt. It's really all win-win between Parker, Westbrook, and Paul .

paul was injured that series...seriously

[The-Legend-24]

They would have won, if Duncan didn't miss a point blank layup with the game on the line.

:oldlol:

[rmt]

Spurs are not in the 2013 NBA Finals with Paul instead of Parker
Easy to forget how Parker completely destroyed Memphis while being double or triple teamed

Parker vs Memphis in 2013 WCF : 24.5 pts, 9.5 ast, 53% FG
Paul vs Memphis in 2013 1st round : 22.8 pts, 6.3 ast, 53% FG

Spurs swept MEM - they were getting past them with either player. Key to defeating MEM - control Randolph/Gasol with Duncan/Splitter. MEM perimeter couldn't hit any 3s. SAS' perimeter too much firepower vs MEM perimeter regardless of Parker or Paul.

I feel that Spurs have problems guarding/defending perimeter-oriented teams (like GSW/MIA). Duncan/Splitter/Diaw is enough to handle any other teams' big men (well, maybe not IND) and then the perimeter usually has a slight advantage.

[Random_Guy]

in my opinion, no the spurs wouldnt have won had they had cp3.
Is cp3 the better player? in my opinion, yes. but parker/gino/duncan has been playing together for so many years in a system they are so familiar with that it is simply hard to put in a player, even a superior in place of either of them. they were 5 seconds and a miracle 3 away from a championship, it's hard to out debate that.