Tony Parker - Future HOF PG

Anyone think Tony Parker can go down as a future HOF point guard? He's one two championships and on his way to another and he's been a pretty big part of both title runs.

His numbers aren't really Hall of Fame worthy. His assist numbers are fairly decent and he's got good scoring numbers but not HOF-esque. One thing that makes a player really shine though is when they raise their game to another level in the playoffs, I think Parker does that pretty frequently but it still isn't enough to put him in the Hall of Fame.

He's an all-star at best.

Well, it has to be taken into consideration, that he is so hard to stop by any team. His quickness allows him to drive any time he wants. I think if he can develop to using his gifts even better, he could actually have a shot to leave a big mark in the league, esspecially when Duncan retires.

Bring back the 'old' rules, maybe even the early 2000's. Let see if frenchy can drive to the basket with ease. Then we can discuss him being in the HOF.

His numbers aren't really Hall of Fame worthy. His assist numbers are fairly decent and he's got good scoring numbers but not HOF-esque. One thing that makes a player really shine though is when they raise their game to another level in the playoffs, I think Parker does that pretty frequently but it still isn't enough to put him in the Hall of Fame.

He's an all-star at best.

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Yes. That's why Rodman and Horry will probably never get into the HOF, despite how critical they were to so many championships across multiple teams.

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Yes. That's why Rodman and Horry will probably never get into the HOF, despite how critical they were to so many championships across multiple teams.

I would say Rodmans numbers are pretty damn impressive - sure, he didn't score much, but 13.10 rpg over his career and +18 rpg for two straight seasons, is crazy for a skinny 6-7½ guy.

What'll keep him out of the HOF is his hair colours and this picture:

http://www.obliquity65.com/wp-content/dennisrodman.jpg

Tony Parker isn't a HOF point guard.

What is he really good at besides dribble penetration?

He doesn't step up anymore than the Spurs do as a whole. Let's see him be half as efficient without Tim Duncan creating wide open lanes to the basket. Tony Parker never has to face the double teams because Duncan takes all of the pressure off him and Ginobili.

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Yes. That's why Rodman and Horry will probably never get into the HOF, despite how critical they were to so many championships across multiple teams.

rodman deserves the hall i think, or atleast he is just on the edge, horry in no way deserves to make it. just cause he has hit the clutch shots does not make him a hall of famer

Tony Parker is fastest player in NBA, and ugh last season (05-06) led league in inside scoring I believe. Will he be a Hall of Famer? Hmmm.....Every part of his game, besides 3 point shooting (and dunking haha).....is up their with the current nba greats, PPG RPG are the two most easies stats to get tripped on looking back, Spurs one of the best rebounding team in the NBA...and after last nights game in which I though the Cavs were the best overall rebounding team, I found out differently. Tony Parker isnt the first option in that offense, I'd say 5th option. His assists are misleading also because everyone on the team gets alot of assists, its a ball movement team.

I dont know honestly, but by time hes done hell yeah....hes going to get his 3rd ring this year at age 25....hes the Tom Brady of the NBA....

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Yes. That's why Rodman and Horry will probably never get into the HOF, despite how critical they were to so many championships across multiple teams.

rodman deserves the hall i think, or atleast he is just on the edge, horry in no way deserves to make it. just cause he has hit the clutch shots does not make him a hall of famer

/agree 100% - I was just thinking about editing my previous post with a simular point

Bring back the 'old' rules, maybe even the early 2000's. Let see if frenchy can drive to the basket with ease. Then we can discuss him being in the HOF.

I agree. plus, I think it's also because of a lack of good PGs in the league. all of the great pgs from the 90's are getting old or are retired like payton, nash, kidd, stockton, etc. too many guys are stuck there as scoring pgs and there really isn't many true point guards in the NBA. off the top of my head: nash, kidd, cp3, parker, deron williams.

Parker could potentially be in the HOF, but since he's only around my age, this question isn't worth asking again for another 10 years....it depends on a few factors, they are:

1) How many more rings the Spurs win whilst he is their PG? (I'm figuring 2 including this one)

2) Whether he becomes the team's No. 1 player? (Which I think he will in say 3 years once Duncan's game slowly starts to decline. Note I say slowly)

3) A Finals MVP would be nice for him (he could potentially get one this year, but I feel Duncan will get another one)

4) An All-Star every year for next half a decade at least (not out of the question)

5) Statistically, you'd think he would have to average 20ppg over next half a decade (which is achievable)


All in all, I think his career is going to be reminiscent of Kevin Johnson's, although he's got the rings to back it up, so it's possible that he could end up in the HOF....although if he does, he owes it to Tim Duncan....

don't bother flaming me over this, I don't think he is HOF material like a Kidd or Stockton or Nash (if he continues his current level of play for next couple of years), but I think it's plausible that he could be a potential, future HOF-er....

I'd say 5th option.

You think he is behind Oberto and Bowen?

Parker could probably be a HOF, considering his age. He is what, 24? and has plenty of time to better him game for the years to come.

Its too early to ask this question though.

He doesn't step up anymore than the Spurs do as a whole. Let's see him be half as efficient without Tim Duncan creating wide open lanes to the basket. Tony Parker never has to face the double teams because Duncan takes all of the pressure off him and Ginobili.

I know Tony Parker isn't exactly a HOF standout like Nash and Kidd but he does go unnoticed and has credentials that support that he is good to make it. Isn't the Parker-Duncan relationship not similar to the Malone-Stockton relationship yet Parker Duncan have more rings but Malone and Stockton are considered HOF. Parker may not have stats to back his case up like Stockton does but he has two (three if they win this year) rings already at just 25 and he has played a huge part in those championship runs. I'm sure Stockton would rather be winning rings than getting personal stats.

Also Kobe will be considered a HOF player and he has won 3 championships just like Parker (probably) yet Kobe didn't win the Finals MVPs of those championships because he was playing with Shaq like Parker is playing with Duncan. Same goes for Scottie Pippen, he won 6 rings with the Bulls and wasn't Finals MVP but he is considered HOF.

The thing is that both Stockton and Kobe are considerably better players than Parker.
You can compare Duncan and Malone talentwise, but not Parker and Stockton.

I'm not saying Parker isn't a great talent, and he might even get to the HOF if he wins a ring or two more with Tim Duncan.

i think people tend to get too hung up on numbers when they compare players. parker could go an average 25 a game and still would not be the talent that stockton was.

do not get mad but I do not see any of the spurs' players going to be a HOF player.
Duncan is good but he is not robinson
Parker is good and run very fast but he is not the genius Stockton was (and I am French)
Ginobili : He could be, it depend on how he will play with Argentina.

What makes the spurs very good are:
1- team chemistry
2- great defensive players (bowen & finkey)
3- clutch players (ginobili & horry)

do not get mad but I do not see any of the spurs' players going to be a HOF player.
Duncan is good but he is not robinson
Parker is good and run very fast but he is not the genius Stockton was (and I am French)
Ginobili : He could be, it depend on how he will play with Argentina.

What makes the spurs very good are:
1- team chemistry
2- great defensive players (bowen & finkey)
3- clutch players (ginobili & horry)

Duncan is good. You are right. HOF good, in fact. Ginobili will never be a HOF player, he is simply not good enough. Duncan on the other hand, has consistently put up awesome numbers throughout his career, and is one of the best defenders in the game.
Not to mention he has carried his team to some ridiculous post-season winning % of .65 or something, as well as 3 (soon 4) championships.

And you compare him to Robinson, yet he has extremely similar career numbers to Robinson, but has been more consistent and better in some categories.

What is your reasoning for him not being in the HOF, aside from not being Robinson?

quite frankly, i don't see think he will be HOF
especially at this stage of his career, his numbers don't back it up
but he got rings and prolly more to come
still i don't see him going down as hof
unless he go crazy next few years and put up amazing numbers
but it'll be tough if he stays with spurs cuz he's likely to get less touches

most ppl don't appreciate duncan and say he boring. but he plays exactly the way basketball should be played. he shouda won mvp every year since he came into the league. hez that good...

Duncan is good but he is not robinson

Does he really need that good numbers to be considered HOF. The Spurs are a 'team' they don't care about numbers.

Can a whole team get in the HOF list? No they can't.. Numbers pretty much sums up the list of HOFs..

Why are people getting so bothered about his numbers. The guy has been a big part of 3 championship teams and is still only 25. If he goes on to win, lets say 2 more after that, will he still not be considered just because his numbers aren't great. Nobody from the Florida Gators had great numbers yet they won back-to-back championships. I know John Stockton may ave been a better individual player than Parker but Parker has won 3 more rings than him assuming they beat Cleveland.

like i said, people are too concerned about numbers. alot of todays so called fans go by points per game and thats it. of course by that logic there are alot of better players than larry bird was. numbers are good to a point but there is so much more to basketball than just numbers. for instance, a player like mutombo may average 4 blocks a game(prime) but what you dont see if that he altered 5 other shots during that game. most guards will never even sniff 4 blocks per game but alot of guards can alter shots, which is just as good if your team gets the board, infact it might be better.

also look at a player like walton. the second he got a board he would start a break with a quick outlet to a player who would usually dish the ball to the scorer. walton gets no credit for the score what so ever but it was because he started it that they scored.

also what about the players int he elague that are only there to set up another player. like a guy who just wont miss if left alone or a big man who will send endless amounts of picks towards a player. these are all things that people never look at. they just go "oh he only gets 19ppg he is not that good". then the same people will say "wow iverson got 43 last night" but wont bother to mention that the guy who averages 19ppg does it on 54% shooting while iverson shot 27% to get his 43.

so really numbers can back up a point but they can also lie

Why are people getting so bothered about his numbers. The guy has been a big part of 3 championship teams and is still only 25. If he goes on to win, lets say 2 more after that, will he still not be considered just because his numbers aren't great. Nobody from the Florida Gators had great numbers yet they won back-to-back championships. I know John Stockton may ave been a better individual player than Parker but Parker has won 3 more rings than him assuming they beat Cleveland.

You make it sound like Parker was the one who was the finals MVP during the Spurs' championships. He was a quality player, but that doesn't mean that he's automatically in the HOF because he was a key role in the Spurs' championships... Then we could say Stephen Jackson, Robert Horry, Manu Ginobili and other players that have played a big part in the Spurs' runs should be Hall of Fame worthy as well.

He's good and he's got a long ways to go in his career, but you never know what can happen.

But the guys you mentioned, maybe except Ginobili, have been role players just like Bruce Bowen. He does a lot for the Spurs but his job is to guard the best player on the opposite team like he's doing with LeBron. Robert Horry comes off the bench to score in the clutch. Brent Barry is the team's sharpshooter. But Tony Parker, like Tim Duncan,does a lot more for the team than these guys do and are the main parts of winning the championship throughout the playoffs.