How is Tony Parker not the best PG in the game?

[QUOTE=9512]Tony Parker's one of my favorite players but I have to admit playing with the Spurs with already established stars like Duncan made his transition to the NBA different from CP3.

CP3 was a lottery pick and already had higher expectations placed on him as a rookie.

Tony Parker did great his rookie year but any mistakes he does Duncan and other veterans pick up the slack.

Tony Parker and Rondo both were lucky to have been with great players their first 2 years in the league.[/QUOTE]
I've always said Tony Parker will never get more respect unless he went to a bottom feeder and stat-padded.

The guy has has as complete a game as any PG in the league (scoring, passing, can take over games, has a shot that is nearly unguardable in the floater, can finish at the rim as well as anyone, can hit game winners, is a good [yet underrated] defender, and now later in his career has improved his range significantly...add to that his resume of never missing the playoffs, 3 championships, being in the MVP discussion, continuing to lead his team to the best record in the league year after year, and even winning a Finals MVP in a sweep)...but like I said, it's always "diluted" because he has a great supporting cast & coach. This is why no matter how much team success he has (or even individual success for that matter), it will always be credited to his support (as some of it rightly should be).

His only chance of being regarded as the best is if he goes to a first-round exit team (or one that doesn't even make the playoffs) like Chris Paul and runs up stats at the expense of team success. I'm not saying Chris Paul should do anything different...I just don't think he's doing anything Parker couldn't do in his situation.

Tony Parker always had good stats, maybe even better than now. Just a couple years ago, people were saying he's too old. Now because the Spurs are winning even more, all of a sudden he's the best point guard? I'm not saying he's not, Im saying how good his team is dictates people's perception

[QUOTE=ninephive]
Like I always say, when Chris Paul or Steve Nash are coming to town (especially for the playoffs), it's a good thing in San Antonio, trust me.[/QUOTE]



I like Parker and always have. It's not about stats, but Paul is a better player. Parker has become an elite one tho. Like better than Billups when Billups was at his best. But Paul is a guy who could be the best player in the conference when he plays up to his own standards. It's not about stat-padding. His decision-making and control are the reasons.

[QUOTE=SacJB Shady]Tony Parker always had good stats, maybe even better than now. Just a couple years ago, people were saying he's too old. Now because the Spurs are winning even more, all of a sudden he's the best point guard? I'm not saying he's not, Im saying how good his team is dictates people's perception[/QUOTE]


If anything his time in the league and the Spurs culture dictates perception and the perception is often that he's a player in the system. I think he was the best guard in the league last year and the 3rd best player overall. I think he's playing even better this year, tho he's not the 3rd best player so far. Curry has been all-star caliber but Parker has been MVP-caliber.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]I like Parker and always have. It's not about stats, but Paul is a better player. Parker has become an elite one tho. Like better than Billups when Billups was at his best. But Paul is a guy who could be the best player in the conference when he plays up to his own standards. It's not about stat-padding. His decision-making and control are the reasons.[/QUOTE]
In your mind, what could Parker do (as a Spur) to prove he is as good as / better than Paul?

[QUOTE=bizil][B]I usually like the PG's like Paul and D Will the most. Because they are great floor general-dime droppers first BUT can will a team to victory and become alpha dogs.[/B] I put Parker more in the group with Rose and Westbrook. And that is pure alpha dog type scorers who happen to play PG. In other words Tony is more of a scoring PG or some would go so far to say a combo guard. Though I prefer to say lead guard who can really ring up the points and is a very good passer. But Tony, Rose, or Westbrook aren't that TOTAL PACKAGE PG in terms of balancing great scoring and great floor generalship-passing.

Rondo is more of the Stockton, Kidd, Mo Cheeks, Mark Jackson style of PG. But Rondo is doing the J Kidd triple double act at 6'1, which is unheard of. But in any event u have three style of PG's who can all be great players. U have the Paul-DWill model, the Rose-Parker-Westbrook model, and the Rondo model. In all three groups, u have guys who project to HOF status. On certain teams either on the three kinds of PG's can be a better fit for that particular team. Even though I think Paul and D Will (like Magic, Big O, Isiah, Payton, peak Nash, Frazier, Tiny) can adapt to any situation.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree, same here. I would put Parker and Westbrook in different categories though, Parker is a lot more finesse.

The other day someone tried to argue that Rondo was the best PG in the league, lol. Well have you ever seen him take over a game like CP3 has?

Oh yea to answer this question, same reason why Chauncey Billups isn't the best point guard in the game.

[QUOTE=bizil]I usually like the PG's like Paul and D Will the most. Because they are great floor general-dime droppers first BUT can will a team to victory and become alpha dogs. I put Parker more in the group with Rose and Westbrook. And that is pure alpha dog type scorers who happen to play PG. In other words Tony is more of a scoring PG or some would go so far to say a combo guard. Though I prefer to say lead guard who can really ring up the points and is a very good passer. But Tony, Rose, or Westbrook aren't that TOTAL PACKAGE PG in terms of balancing great scoring and great floor generalship-passing.

Rondo is more of the Stockton, Kidd, Mo Cheeks, Mark Jackson style of PG. But Rondo is doing the J Kidd triple double act at 6'1, which is unheard of. But in any event u have three style of PG's who can all be great players. U have the Paul-DWill model, the Rose-Parker-Westbrook model, and the Rondo model. In all three groups, u have guys who project to HOF status. On certain teams either on the three kinds of PG's can be a better fit for that particular team. Even though I think [B]Paul and D Will [/B](like Magic, Big O, Isiah, Payton, peak Nash, Frazier, Tiny) [B]can adapt to any situation[/B].[/QUOTE]
Adapt and lose, yes.
Adapt and win, no.

[QUOTE=Eat Like A Bosh]Oh yea to answer this question, same reason why Chauncey Billups isn't the best point guard in the game.[/QUOTE]
Which is why?

[QUOTE=Eat Like A Bosh]The other day someone tried to argue that Rondo was the best PG in the league, lol. Well have you ever seen him take over a game like CP3 has?[/QUOTE]
At the end of the season there's a couple extra games. They call them "the playoff's". Rondo suggest you watch them this season. This year so far give me rondo over chris.:no:

[QUOTE=jdm_dc_fan]At the end of the season there's a couple extra games. They call them "the playoff's". Rondo suggest you watch them this season. This year so far give me rondo over chris.:no:[/QUOTE]
Why watch them when the "best point guard in the league" is getting swept out of the playoffs? (that is if he makes it of course)

[QUOTE=ninephive]In your mind, what could Parker do (as a Spur) to prove he is as good as / better than Paul?[/QUOTE]



Be a better player than Paul. I don't think the system does or ever has held him back. I don't know if his stats are especially contained in this system. Chris Paul is just a better player, is how I see it. Chris Paul is comparable to Steve Nash and Jason Kidd and Tony Parker has never been as good as those guys were at their best. He's playing about as well as he can play. I'd have Nash and Paul and Rondo as the best, even with Nash being out and not doing anything yet. I have Parker ahead of Deron and both Rose and Westbrook, as Rose has only so long a resume and is injured, and Westbrook hasn't outplayed Parker yet. And Deron is just not looking great.

[QUOTE=Eat Like A Bosh]Totally agree, same here. I would put Parker and Westbrook in different categories though, Parker is a lot more finesse.

The other day someone tried to argue that Rondo was the best PG in the league, lol. Well have you ever seen him take over a game like CP3 has?[/QUOTE]

In terms of mentality Rose, Westbrook,and Tony are very similar. Even though I think Tony and Rose have more of an understanding running PG than Russ. But Rose and Westbrook are freakish athletes who finish with power, speed, and finesse. While Tony is speed and finesse. Great point!

Ever heard of Rajon Rondo? After him there is a open discussion for that #2 spot since D-Will has fallen off a cliff this season.. Westbrook, CP3, Parker take your pick but Kyrie is coming though watch out.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115][B]Be a better player than Paul[/B]. I don't think the system does or ever has held him back. I don't know if his stats are especially contained in this system. Chris Paul is just a better player, is how I see it. Chris Paul is comparable to Steve Nash and Jason Kidd and Tony Parker has never been as good as those guys were at their best. He's playing about as well as he can play. I'd have Nash and Paul and Rondo as the best, even with Nash being out and not doing anything yet. I have Parker ahead of Deron and both Rose and Westbrook, as Rose has only so long a resume and is injured, and Westbrook hasn't outplayed Parker yet. And Deron is just not looking great.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I mean. "Be better." What do you mean by that? Have better stats? Win more? Get more Championhips? More Finals MVPs? Hit more game-winners? Play more minutes? Shoot a higher percentage? Pass more/less? Play better defense?

For those of us who were PRAYING that we didn't trade away Parker for Kidd, we take a different approach. Parker has as many FMVPs as those 3 "better players" have combined rings. Great players, yes. But good enough to be the best player on a Championship team? Not yet.

[QUOTE=ninephive]Adapt and lose, yes.
Adapt and win, no.[/QUOTE]

I'm not knocking Tony P at all. Dude is headed to the HOF and when his career is over, I think he will be a Top 15 GOAT kind of PG. I just think Tony isn't on the level of Paul or D Will in terms of the most premium asset at PG. And that's running a team and making guys better through the dimes. And also knowing when to take over and when to lay back. Paul and D Will can score just as good as Parker. But Parker CAN'T run the show as well as Paul and D Will.

The major reason Nash won MVP two years in a row (even though I disagree with one of them) is because he could alter the game passing AND taking over a game scoring. Tony is usually more slanted to a scoring PG-combo guard kind of thinking who ALSO happens to be very good at floor general and dropping dimes. Paul and DWill are GREAT at both facets. And it's a lot easier to win rings when u have the GOAT PF in Duncan and a future HOFer in Ginobli your entire career.

[QUOTE=ninephive]This is exactly what I mean. "Be better." What do you mean by that? Have better stats? Win more? Get more Championhips? More Finals MVPs? Hit more game-winners? Play more minutes? Shoot a higher percentage? Pass more/less? Play better defense?

For those of us who were PRAYING that we didn't trade away Parker for Kidd, we take a different approach. Parker has as many FMVPs as those 3 "better players" have combined rings. Great players, yes. But good enough to be the best player on a Championship team? Not yet.[/QUOTE]



I mean, I don't know what you want me to say. There isn't a box to check off that makes him better. But watching them play, Paul looks to be clearly better. He's not more showy either, so it isn't that. I'm looking beyond the stats. If I wasn't, then Parker wouldn't have been ahead of Paul last year and he really wouldn't be ahead of him this year. I just see Paul able to (and has) doing more for his team. He hasn't been as successful in the playoffs, but that has little to do with which one is better and more to do with which teams have been better. Paul is a better rebounder and defender and he controls the game better.

[QUOTE=bizil]I'm not knocking Tony P at all. Dude is headed to the HOF and when his career is over, I think he will be a Top 15 GOAT kind of PG. I just think Tony isn't on the level of Paul or D Will in terms of the most premium asset at PG. And that's running a team and making guys better through the dimes. And also knowing when to take over and when to lay back. Paul and D Will can score just as good as Parker. But Parker CAN'T run the show as well as Paul and D Will.

The major reason Nash won MVP two years in a row (even though I disagree with one of them) is because he could alter the game passing AND taking over a game scoring. Tony is usually more slanted to a scoring PG-combo guard kind of thinking who ALSO happens to be very good at floor general and dropping dimes. Paul and DWill are GREAT at both facets. [B]And it's a lot easier to win rings when u have the GOAT PF in Duncan and a future HOFer in Ginobli your entire career.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's Tony's downfall...playing with those guys. Also doesn't help to be on one of the best passing teams in history...that means spreading out the assists so now you don't look like you're "running the show" like these other guys who operate in more stagnent offenses. If you're saying that Parker can't run a "show" that can't make it to the Finals as well, I would have to concede that. To put it this way, I don't think the Spurs get better if you replace Parker with Paul or Williams.

[QUOTE=ninephive]That's Tony's downfall...playing with those guys. Also doesn't help to be on one of the best passing teams in history...that means spreading out the assists so now you don't look like you're "running the show" like these other guys who operate in more stagnent offenses. If you're saying that Parker can't run a "show" that can't make it to the Finals as well, I would have to concede that. To put it this way, I don't think the Spurs get better if you replace Parker with Paul or Williams.[/QUOTE]



Maybe not, but I know for sure the Clippers aren't as good if you replace Paul with Parker.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115][B]I mean, I don't know what you want me to say.[/B] There isn't a box to check off that makes him better. But watching them play, Paul looks to be clearly better. He's not more showy either, so it isn't that. I'm looking beyond the stats. If I wasn't, then Parker wouldn't have been ahead of Paul last year and he really wouldn't be ahead of him this year. I just see Paul able to (and has) doing more for his team. He hasn't been as successful in the playoffs, but that has little to do with which one is better and more to do with which teams have been better. Paul is a better rebounder and defender and he controls the game better.[/QUOTE]
Anything with substance besides just "he looks to be better." I think that mentaility is the same mentality responsible for All-Star voting. I'm arguing that I think this is why he's regarded by most as the best point guard in the league...because his demeanor seems to exude "winner" without actually having to win.

I am on the other side of this argument being a Cowboys fan. Most "fans" want Romo traded, yet I argue he is a very good quarterback. I can use the fact that coming into this season he had the 2nd highest QBR of all-time. But he hasn't been able to lead his team deep into the playoffs, which means I would NEVER argue he is the best in the league if he can't. I think some of his potential is held back by the fact that 1 out of every 10 shotgun snaps goes over his head or hits the ground before it gets to him. I could argue that his O-Line is terrible, he's never had a quality RB who could stay healthy and so he has to pass 62 times a game, and that his "best" receivers often lead the league in dropped passes. All of that sucks and could be reasons why Romo could have the most potential of any QB in the league and never be the "best." But I won't argue he is unless it comes together for him.

But for some reason in basketball, where individuals are even MORE important to team succes, a guy could be in the league for this long and never make a deep playoff run, yet still be considered the best year after year after year? (I know you're not arguing he's the best PG every year, but most do).

[QUOTE=ninephive]Anything with substance besides just "he looks to be better." I think that mentaility is the same mentality responsible for All-Star voting. I'm arguing that I think this is why he's regarded by most as the best point guard in the league...because his demeanor seems to exude "winner" without actually having to win.

I am on the other side of this argument being a Cowboys fan. Most "fans" want Romo traded, yet I argue he is a very good quarterback. I can use the fact that coming into this season he had the 2nd highest QBR of all-time. But he hasn't been able to lead his team deep into the playoffs, which means I would NEVER argue he is the best in the league if he can't. I think some of his potential is held back by the fact that 1 out of every 10 shotgun snaps goes over his head or hits the ground before it gets to him. I could argue that his O-Line is terrible, he's never had a quality RB who could stay healthy and so he has to pass 62 times a game, and that his "best" receivers often lead the league in dropped passes. All of that sucks and could be reasons why Romo could have the most potential of any QB in the league and never be the "best." But I won't argue he is unless it comes together for him.

But for some reason in basketball, where individuals are even MORE important to team succes, a guy could be in the league for this long and never make a deep playoff run, yet still be considered the best year after year after year? (I know you're not arguing he's the best PG every year, but most do).[/QUOTE]



Wow, you're really twisting words. I've already said Parker has been clearly better this year and that I even think he was better last year. If you think him being the PG on a winning team makes him the best then like what you like and accuse me of whatever mentality you want. You want substance? You're not giving any. Chris Paul does more to help his team win. Not more things, more in actual impact. Tony Parker isn't in the same stratosphere as far as passing. Both do a great job of controlling the game but I take Paul there. He's the better defender. He makes more plays. I've said all this. And you're telling me about substance. All you're saying is that Tony Parker is a great player on a great team that has had more playoff success than Paul's teams.


If you think Parker is better, that's fine.

[QUOTE=ninephive]That's Tony's downfall...playing with those guys. Also doesn't help to be on one of the best passing teams in history...that means spreading out the assists so now you don't look like you're "running the show" like these other guys who operate in more stagnent offenses. If you're saying that Parker can't run a "show" that can't make it to the Finals as well, I would have to concede that. To put it this way, I don't think the Spurs get better if you replace Parker with Paul or Williams.[/QUOTE]

I've said Parker is a very good passer while being a GREAT scorer. I've said depending on the team Parker could be a better fit than Paul or D-Will. Parker is that great. But I still feel that Paul and Williams are more well balanced and great at the technical skills of PG AND alpha dog scoring.

Tony Parker isn't even really a PG. He's always been a SG that just guards the one, and gets labeled a PG. He's never even been used like a PG the whole time he's been with the Spurs.

[QUOTE=Euroleague]Tony Parker isn't even really a PG. He's always been a SG that just guards the one, and gets labeled a PG. He's never even been used like a PG the whole time he's been with the Spurs.[/QUOTE]

Good point! People need to realize that many very talented players under 6'3 are really SG's skillset and mentality wise. Many of them are very capable of playing PG, but ultimately their skills or mentality are that of a SG. It's why Larry Brown moved AI to SG and played him with a bigger more physical PG who could guard SG's in Snow. SG's like MJ, Kobe, T Mac, and Wade are SG's but also have the skills to be PG's as well. It's the same thing for guys like Rose, Parker, and Russell. They just happen to be the size of most PG's and it can be more difficult to define smaller guards than bigger guards. I really think that if u have a bigger PG 6'4 and up who can free up guys like Westbrook, Parker, AI, Francis, etc. that it might be better to play them off the ball more often.

[QUOTE=Euroleague]Tony Parker isn't even really a PG. He's always been a SG that just guards the one, and gets labeled a PG. He's never even been used like a PG the whole time he's been with the Spurs.[/QUOTE]



Don't agree with this at all. Just because he's a scorer doesn't mean he's not a PG. He's a PG.