Tony Parker vs. Manu Ginobili

[dankok8]

Who do you rank higher on your all-time list?

Parker has way more NBA accolades while Manu has superior impact stats albeit in lower minutes.

[1987_Lakers]

Manu

[L.Kizzle]

Tony Parker.

[MrFonzworth]

Manu's closer to Duncan than he is to Parker

[Xiao Yao You]

Manu. Not close

[tpols]

A lot of people forget Tony Parker carried the Spurs offense after Duncan's decline and his MVP shares blow Manus out the water. Four top 10 finishes and one top 5. (believe it or not)

Manu at his peak 2004 or 2005 is better than Parker, but he fell off harder.

[1987_Lakers]

A lot of people forget Tony Parker carried the Spurs offense after Duncan's decline and his MVP shares blow Manus out the water. Four top 10 finishes and one top 5. (believe it or not)

Manu at his peak 2004 or 2005 is better than Parker, but he fell off harder.

I wouldn’t say carried. Duncan was on his way to win FMVP if the Spurs won in 2013.

[tpols]

I wouldn’t say carried. Duncan was on his way to win FMVP if the Spurs won in 2013.

It would've been a split decision. Tony was the only guy on the Spurs capable of dribble penetration versus Miamis elite swarming perimeter defense. While manu played like trash. Danny Green Parker and Duncan were the main guys who showed up there.

[Baller234]

It's hard to pick, they both had their moments. Gun to my head I would say Manu peaked higher but it's still really close.

To think that these guys are both 4x champions and were totally left off the top 75. Duncan was great but he didn't do it alone.

[L.Kizzle]

Tony Parker.

[1987_Lakers]

It would've been a split decision. Tony was the only guy on the Spurs capable of dribble penetration versus Miamis elite swarming perimeter defense. While manu played like trash. Danny Green Parker and Duncan were the main guys who showed up there.

Duncan: 19/12/1 on 55 TS%
Parker: 16/2/6 on 47 TS%

Split decision my ass. Duncan would have ran away with FMVP if they won. :lol

Parker was clamped by LeBron.

[Wally450]

I'd go Tony Park by a slim margin without looking into the numbers.

[Carbine]

Manu up until about Finals of 07. Parker was steady from there in out while Manu had the higher ceiling in games due to his takeover ability.

[HoopsNY]

I think they're split. Would have to do a year by year analysis to see who ultimately was a bigger net positive.

[SouBeachTalents]

Just accolade/resume wise, there's really no argument for Manu here. Parker has 2x the All-Star selections, 2x the top 10 MVP finishes, 3x the All-NBA, a FMVP, as weak as it may be.

Peak for peak though it's clearly Manu, I'd take him on my team over Parker 10/10 times.

[L.Kizzle]

Just accolade/resume wise, there's really no argument for Manu here. Parker has 2x the All-Star selections, 2x the top 10 MVP finishes, 3x the All-NBA, a FMVP, as weak as it may be.

Peak for peak though it's clearly Manu, I'd take him on my team over Parker 10/10 times.
If Manu was better, shouldn't the Accolades be switched on Manu favor. Why wasn't that the case?

[dankok8]

Just accolade/resume wise, there's really no argument for Manu here. Parker has 2x the All-Star selections, 2x the top 10 MVP finishes, 3x the All-NBA, a FMVP, as weak as it may be.

Peak for peak though it's clearly Manu, I'd take him on my team over Parker 10/10 times.

I agree with this. 2005 Manu is better than any version of Parker but Parker had a much more accomplished careers. Just way more consistent. With Manu, a myriad of injuries and reduced minutes ate away at his overall impact.

[Carbine]

Accolades do not show the type or player Manu was.

He was a winner. His impact on the game during his peak was a superstar level. There are advanced stats that say his impact on his teammates was higher than Duncans for a large stretch of time.

Those that watched Manu play during his prime and peak years will know. It's like a Caruso, dude just does shit that helps teams win. Except Manu could take over games offensively with a live dribble. He was excellent at playing off Duncan as well because he was a master at attacking close outs.

There a lot of players that have way better accolades and probably perceived to be better players that I would take Manu over if I am trying to win a title.

Gilbert Arenas
Lillard
Harden
Irving
Iverson
Marbury
Carmelo

I'm taking Manu over all of them and feeling great about it

[Kblaze8855]

If Manu was better, shouldn't the Accolades be switched on Manu favor. Why wasn't that the case?

For one Manu only played 30 minutes a game twice and they weren’t even his peak years. Tony was over 30 10-11 years and was a starter 16 years in a row. Bench guys just don’t get the same respect even when people gush over how great they are off the bench and acknowledge they’re better than the starters.

[Xiao Yao You]

Accolades do not show the type or player Manu was.

He was a winner. His impact on the game during his peak was a superstar level. There are advanced stats that say his impact on his teammates was higher than Duncans for a large stretch of time.

Those that watched Manu play during his prime and peak years will know. It's like a Caruso, dude just does shit that helps teams win. Except Manu could take over games offensively with a live dribble. He was excellent at playing off Duncan as well because he was a master at attacking close outs.

There a lot of players that have way better accolades and probably perceived to be better players that I would take Manu over if I am trying to win a title.

Gilbert Arenas
Lillard
Harden
Irving
Iverson
Marbury
Carmelo

I'm taking Manu over all of them and feeling great about it

Yep. One of faves

[tpols]

I dont think I'd take manu over Nuggets Melo, Blazers Dame, or Rockets Harden. Even black sleeve Philly Iverson if somebody could reign him in was on a different level of talent.

[Xiao Yao You]

I dont think I'd take manu over Nuggets Melo, Blazers Dame, or Rockets Harden. Even black sleeve Philly Iverson if somebody could reign him in was on a different level of talent.

I will take the winner over the flash all day long. Spurs probably dont win if you trade any of those guys manu

[Nowoco]

I wouldn’t say carried. Duncan was on his way to win FMVP if the Spurs won in 2013.

It would've been a split decision.

Duncan was 100% going to win the FMVP in 2013 if they won game 6. He was practically faultless in the first 3 quarters. How well Duncan was playing in that game has been lost in history.

[L.Kizzle]

Accolades do not show the type or player Manu was.

He was a winner. His impact on the game during his peak was a superstar level. There are advanced stats that say his impact on his teammates was higher than Duncans for a large stretch of time.

Those that watched Manu play during his prime and peak years will know. It's like a Caruso, dude just does shit that helps teams win. Except Manu could take over games offensively with a live dribble. He was excellent at playing off Duncan as well because he was a master at attacking close outs.

There a lot of players that have way better accolades and probably perceived to be better players that I would take Manu over if I am trying to win a title.

Gilbert Arenas
Lillard
Harden
Irving
Iverson
Marbury
Carmelo

I'm taking Manu over all of them and feeling great about it
Manu leading a team to thr Finals or 60+ wins as the man ...

[rmt]

It would've been a split decision. Tony was the only guy on the Spurs capable of dribble penetration versus Miamis elite swarming perimeter defense. While manu played like trash. Danny Green Parker and Duncan were the main guys who showed up there.

Duncan would have gotten the FMVP over Parker if Spurs won in 2013.

2013 NBA Finals
Duncan 18.9 pts 12.1 rebs 1.4 blks 49%FG
Parker 15.7 pts 6.4 asst 1 stl 41.2%FG
Kawhi 14.6 pts 11.1 rebs 2 stls 51.3%FG
Green 14 pts 4.1 rebs 1.6 blks 44.4%FG
Manu 11.6 pts 4.3 assts 43.3%FG

[Carbine]

I will take the winner over the flash all day long. Spurs probably dont win if you trade any of those guys manu

Manu was plenty flash. He just did it within the team concept of the Spurs system.

[rmt]

Parker was a workhorse - consistent night after night, year after year - rarely injured and followed Pop's instructions - was quick and had exceptional body control around the basket. I see it as Parker (and Duncan) allowed Manu to be rested enough (only 2 years averaging over 30 mins/game) to be that big game player in the playoffs. TP ran the point well, pick and roll with TD but didn't involve the other team mates as Manu (who was a master at orchestrating the second unit/bench and so unselfish) did.

Manu was almost the opposite of Parker. Fragile - took a LONG time to get back into rhythm after he was (frequently) injured. I don't think he could have been a franchise player as those mentioned above were - just didn't have the durability to last a long, grinding regular season (much less the playoffs after). But he had his spectacular, flashy moments - he could get the bench and SA crowd going like no other player. So how do you treat a player who can do basically everything on the court (but not for a long time) - you pace him exactly how Pop did. He did cost the Spurs big time - his foul on Dirk and vs the Heat, he rushed into 3-4? Heat players, picking up an offensive foul and turning over the ball instead of holding the ball and running clock - his brain turned to mush at the end of games from too many minutes.

I voted Tony Parker.

[Xiao Yao You]

Manu was plenty flash. He just did it within the team concept of the Spurs system.

Vs the other guys who were mostly flash

[Im Still Ballin]

I dont think I'd take manu over Nuggets Melo, Blazers Dame, or Rockets Harden. Even black sleeve Philly Iverson if somebody could reign him in was on a different level of talent.

Manu would be nice on a George Karl-type of team. Or Bill Fitch. '90s SuperSonics or '00s/'10s Nuggets. Deep rotation, aggressive defense, up-tempo, offense-slanted personnel, balanced distribution of offense and talent/salary (not top-heavy). Kind of like 2012-13 Denver with Igoudala, but way better on-ball as a scoring threat and off-ball because he can shoot.

I guess San Antonio had the deep rotation anyway. And the democratic approach to offense.

[Kblaze8855]

Manu was plenty flash. He just did it within the team concept of the Spurs system.

Yea Manu would go out of his way to be spectacular at times. Most of those guys weren’t particularly flashy either. Gilbert Arenas was mostly just taking pull-up jumpers. Melo was a midrange specialist. He was “flashy” like Alex English for much of his career just more athletic.

They had flashier personalities than Manu but Manu was wild at times. Pop took a while to accept he was just gonna do some bullshit now and then and he had to look the other way.

I maintain the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen(aside from Magic dribbling out the clock in a tied finals game) is trying to block Dirks layup up 3 in game 7. Just let him lay it up and go shoot free throws. But he fouls him and gives him the 3 point play and they get eliminated in OT.

For someone who felt so smart that was otherworldly dumb.

I feel like even Marbury would have gotten out of the way. More balls than brains and it may have cost them an extra ring. Bowen on Wade that finals might make a difference. The refs let Bruce get away with more than most.

[fsvr54]

Who cares about numbers?

In terms of actual ball skills and talent it's clearly Manu.

[Lebron23]

Tony Parker. More all star appearances better numbers more all nba teams selection and a former finals MVP

[bizil]

As far as the best player peak wise, EASILY Manu!! Don't have to think twice about it! It's crazy to me that a player so talented came off the bench so much. BECAUSE he was had the size, athletic ability, positional versatility, scoring, passing, and defense to STAND UP to that Golde n Era of SG's he played in. He combined ALL those elements BETTER than most SG's in that era. Other than Kobe, Wade, and T Mac, HOW MANY SG's were better than Manu in that regard in that era? I'm NOT SAYING he's better player than Vince, Ray, AI, etc. BUT in terms of pure ALL AROUND ABILITY, he was a top 5 level SG in that Golden Era of SG's.

Only possible reason he came off the bench so much was due to durability issues. He only played at least 70 games in six seasons in his career. He played 16 seasons so durabiity was an issue. And the Spurs used his UNSELFISHNESS to come off the bench. It's pretty much a one of one situation for a player of Manu's OVERALL TALENT to come off the bench so much. He made the All NBA 3rd team AND won 6th man of the year in the same season! That says it all!

The players starting ahead of Manu on the Spurs at the SG should have been coming off the damn bench! Plus Manu was hella versatile and could play and defend PG and SF! So that makes him coming off the bench so much even more baffling. And it PAID OFF in terms of rings! BUT Manu should have been a 5-7 time All Star and 5-7 All NBA player INSTEAD of a 2 time All Star and 2 time All NBA player. Between his overall toolbox and Spurs championship success, he should have gotten the more solo accolades! Him coming off the bench and to an extent durability issues ****ed that up!

When guys who could start like Crawford and Lou Will come off the bench, it makes sense. When freak athletic swiss army knife perimeter players who could start on other teams like Coop come off the bench, it makes sense. But Manu COMBINED elements of Crawford with elements of Coop!

[Axe]

Parker may be decorated. But still, it's gotta be manu for his size.


trash
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/youtube/images/b/be/CopperCabFace.jpg (https://i.ibb.co/LzPkqxg/IMG-20220801-093714.jpg)

[Full Court]

Parker may be decorated. But still, it's gotta be manu for his size.


https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/youtube/images/b/be/CopperCabFace.jpg (https://i.ibb.co/LzPkqxg/IMG-20220801-093714.jpg)







Not only does Axe

Smell like a stinky rectum

But he's also very high

On the autism spectrum




The truth sure can hurt. :lol

[dankok8]

As far as the best player peak wise, EASILY Manu!! Don't have to think twice about it! It's crazy to me that a player so talented came off the bench so much. BECAUSE he was had the size, athletic ability, positional versatility, scoring, passing, and defense to STAND UP to that Golde n Era of SG's he played in. He combined ALL those elements BETTER than most SG's in that era. Other than Kobe, Wade, and T Mac, HOW MANY SG's were better than Manu in that regard in that era? I'm NOT SAYING he's better player than Vince, Ray, AI, etc. BUT in terms of pure ALL AROUND ABILITY, he was a top 5 level SG in that Golden Era of SG's.

Only possible reason he came off the bench so much was due to durability issues. He only played at least 70 games in six seasons in his career. He played 16 seasons so durabiity was an issue. And the Spurs used his UNSELFISHNESS to come off the bench. It's pretty much a one of one situation for a player of Manu's OVERALL TALENT to come off the bench so much. He made the All NBA 3rd team AND won 6th man of the year in the same season! That says it all!

The players starting ahead of Manu on the Spurs at the SG should have been coming off the damn bench! Plus Manu was hella versatile and could play and defend PG and SF! So that makes him coming off the bench so much even more baffling. And it PAID OFF in terms of rings! BUT Manu should have been a 5-7 time All Star and 5-7 All NBA player INSTEAD of a 2 time All Star and 2 time All NBA player. Between his overall toolbox and Spurs championship success, he should have gotten the more solo accolades! Him coming off the bench and to an extent durability issues ****ed that up!

When guys who could start like Crawford and Lou Will come off the bench, it makes sense. When freak athletic swiss army knife perimeter players who could start on other teams like Coop come off the bench, it makes sense. But Manu COMBINED elements of Crawford with elements of Coop!

Agree with just about all of this. Great post!