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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

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.

[QUOTE=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, [B]and wouldnt have allowed himself to be taken out the game[/B]. 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.[/QUOTE]

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 .

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

[QUOTE=christian1923]A healthy Parker would have won that NbA finals.[/QUOTE]
right.

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.

[QUOTE=SCdac]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 .[/QUOTE]

paul was injured that series...seriously

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

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=TimmyDuncan][B]Spurs are not in the 2013 NBA Finals[/B] 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[/QUOTE]

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.

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.