Originally Posted by ILLsmak
"All star level" doesn't matter. It's what you can do in the spaces you have.
Parker and Manu were/are amazing players. Top players at what I just said... after a certain point, they weren't losing games because of how those guys played often.
If a guy can get you 20 along side a superstar does it really matter if he can't get you 30 by himself?
Often and consistently are two different things. Winning ways are based on consistency in good play. You most often get that from very good players - in this case, its the regular season. All stars are usually among the best of players. No Duncan, no wins.
Manu was never a steady and consistent contributor in the regular season. Rarely ever averaged above 30 minutes per game. The vast majority of his career he averaged less than half of game played. Whether he missed 45 games or the usual 10 it never affected win totals during the year. He played 44 games in '09 they still win the division. In '06 he misses 18 games they have the best record in the league. In the playoffs he means a bit more but not in this conversation. In the regular season he was always a part-timer that could not be counted on.
Parker is a good player and a steady player but his strengths can't be counted on. He will rarely ever get 10 assist. He's not going to steal the ball much. He's going to be blown by. He might get you 18 points tonight but he's much more likely to get 15. With Parker you expect a below average point guard output. He's not multidimensional, he doesn't make his teammates better. Prime Duncan was a better set up player. When Gin would go down it was rare for Parker to take up the slack. Parker had one year that stood out in 13. To say he's effectively similar to an all star just isn't correct. He is rarely similar to an allstar and has one strength that can't be counted on - his tear drop.
My bad he's a good penetrator as well but it doesn't merit he should be talked about as a valid number two guy for the winning est ever.