Tony Parker - Future HOF PG

Tony Parker is one of the best right now in the nba. Go Spurs Go! sweep lebron james!

If they came up against each other in their prime I think Olajuwon's ball handling and athleticism would be very hard for Duncan to contain.

A good possibility, considering that David Robinson in his prime is more athletic than Duncan, and Hakeem made Robinson a bitch during both of their prime.

david robinson is a very different player from td. no doubt though, i don't think anyone could've contained hakeem, i don't think he would demolish td though.

again, i would still pick td, because, to me, their is no big man in the history of the nba easier to build around on both ends of the court; past precedent has shown that he can win championships with a rotatating cast and no true hall of famer in their prime. imo, he is the perfect team superstar.

but do you consider duncan a better post player than hakeem?

but do you consider duncan a better post player than hakeem?

Their offensive games are quite different, I dunno if it's relevant to even compare them and see who's the best post player. I think they both master(ed) some specific moves that are part of being a post player anyway.

i only ask cause SAballer brought it up, which is really how we got on the topic of duncan anyway.

short answer, no.

i wouldn't say that td is a better post player than hakeem or kareem or shaq, etc., for the simple fact that he is not a truly dominant post SCORER. he's dominant, don't get me wrong, but not to the extent of past post players. probably because he does not have that single unstoppable trademark move, i.e. the dream shake or kareem's skyhook. his most trademarked move is probably the banker, in which he usually only gets 4 points off per game on average. another reason is he is not as agressive a post player as said players, and at times seems to prefer to take what the defense gives him. This is not a bad thing mind you, in fact it is this very trait that makes him one of the greatest, if not the greatest team oriented superstars in the history of the nba - on both ends of the court.

that said, if given the choice to build behind any player in nba history duncan would be among my top choices, if not my top choice. if only because I know, given past precedent, that I don't neccessarily need another top superstar to pair with him. I'm hard pressed to think of another player easier to build around offensively AND defensively.

At the early stage of their respective careers, Tim has the edge but Hakeem got better ever year by adding to his game ever summer. Hakeem was always an excellent rim defender and rebounder and also went to the Finals twice during the 80's. Building a team around either would be great but Tim is closer to 7 ft than Hakeem who actually was about 6'10(irrelevant info but thrown in for added trivia)

LOL.....I respect everyones game...but hey everyone got a fav player and they can talk all they want....u kno wut im sayin

I understand that but if you're looking to compare players objectively then favouritism shouldn't come into play. At any rate, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if we didn't challenge each other's opinions.

Where does Shaq rank? He didn't have the best post skills ever, but he didn't actually need them. In his prime, he was more dominant than Tim Duncan.

Does that make him a better post player?

I'd say he's the more dominant post player but if we are to consider a post game that utilises a more diverse range of skills and moves "better", then you'd have to say that Duncan possess the better post game. Of course, Shaq has employed his style of post play quite successfully in his career so as far as the results are concerned it probably wouldn't be fair to describe one as being better than the other; each player has enjoyed success playing their brand basketball. You could say that Duncan's is the better style to teach since it's based on solid fundamentals; young players may not be able to master it the way Duncan has but it's an approach that can be taught, unlike Shaq's size and brute strength.

Anyway back to the point of this thread. Tony Parker took the game to the Cavs last night and is probably on his way to his first Finals MVP. Looking down the list of past Finals MVP's there's only one player who is hit or miss for HOF and that is Chauncey Billups but he only has won one championship compared to Parker's 3 and he's still only 25. Like his numbers or not, he gets it done in the playoffs.

I admit I haven't watched much of the finals but is TP really the frontrunner for Finals MVP right now?

Tony is putting up 24.7ppg 4.3rpg and 4.0apg with a steal and 53% shooting in the finals.

Tim Duncan on the other hand is putting up 20.3ppg 10.3rpg 4.0apg 2.3bpg and a steal on 50% shooting and 79% FT.

Duncan is my pick, I don't know if TP has been killing Cleveland more than the stats show but Tim looked great and made clutch plays in game 3, which I did watch the 2nd half of.

I admit I haven't watched much of the finals but is TP really the frontrunner for Finals MVP right now?

Tony is putting up 24.7ppg 4.3rpg and 4.0apg with a steal and 53% shooting in the finals.

Tim Duncan on the other hand is putting up 20.3ppg 10.3rpg 4.0apg 2.3bpg and a steal on 50% shooting and 79% FT.

Duncan is my pick, I don't know if TP has been killing Cleveland more than the stats show but Tim looked great and made clutch plays in game 3, which I did watch the 2nd half of.

Duncan has been phenomenal as usual (at least in game 1 and 2), but yeah, TP has made some big plays when the Cavs were catching up, whether it was a good pass to Bowen in the corner or driving to the hoop and getting the call.
I guess we'll see what happens in game 4, but if SA wins it looks like TP would be the MVP.

If Parker makes another crucial shot like that 3-pointer he did in the 4th last game, then he's a lock for the Finals MVP.
Dang it.

tony parker is not the frontrunner for finals mvp, that is just the media finding something to write about. pretty much every analyst and gm watching the nba will tell you that he is playing great, but this team starts and ends with duncan. what i really don't realize is how one can completely disregard the defensive end of the game. and if we're talking about offense here, imo td is far more important than tp in regards to sa's system; its a no brainer, who is the one creating double, triple teams? heres a clue, its not parker. the only thing parker has over duncan is eva longaria.

If Parker makes another crucial shot like that 3-pointer he did in the 4th last game, then he's a lock for the Finals MVP.
Dang it.

TBH he looks like he already has it locked up...

Unless Cavs can hold him to some ridiculously low score in game 4, along with a high amount of turnovers, he is a lock to win it.
No one else has dominated like he has this series.

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

Number cannot lie. People can misuse and frame the meaning of numbers, but numbers in and of themselves cannot lie.

Robinson was always a bit of a softy....Robinson had a supporting cast of Rodman (pre-coloured hair, in prime, he's a future HOF-er or should be), Sean Elliott (all-star in prime pre-kidney issues), & other role players....he couldn't get it done until he had Duncan

This is laughable. Robinson is arguably one of the three most athletic players to ever play in the NBA. The guy was a freak, the athletic abilities of a wing-player in a seven foot body.

I will tout Duncan more than anyone, he's the best defensive player since Russell, maybe ever, and it's a travesty he has not won at least four or five DPOY's.

But let's be completely honest, he wouldn't have won anymore titles than Robinson if they swapped places. Yeah, Sean Elliott made the all-star team twice, but he was never an all-star calibur player. I know people dislike PER, and it's clearly not perfect, but I'm using it to illustrate a point without having to write as much. It sums up a players contribution well enough for quick things.

Players on Spurs (other than Robinson) with PER's of:
1989-90: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17.5: 1.5, 12.5-15: 3 (50-32, Robinson PER: 26.3)
1990-91: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 3, 12.5-15: 3 (53-29, Robinson PER: 27.4)
1991-92: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17.5: 1, 12.5-15: 3 (50-32, Robinson PER: 27.5)
1992-93: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 4, 12.5-15: 4 (48-34, Robinson PER: 24.2)
1993-94: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 1, 12.5-15: 7 (56-26, Robinson PER: 30.7)
1994-95: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 3, 12.5-15: 3 (57-25, Robinson PER: 29.1)
1995-96: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 3, 12.5-15: 3 (58-24, Robinson PER: 29.4)
1996-97: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17.5: 3, 12.5-15: 3 (19-63, Robinson PER: 31.0)
1997-98: 20-25: 1, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 0, 12.5-15: 2 (53-29, Robinson PER: 27.8, Duncan PER: 22.6)
1999: 20-25: 1, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17.5: 1, 12.5-15: 5 (39-11, Robinson PER: 24.9, Duncan PER: 23.2)
1999-2000: 20-25: 1, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17.5: 2, 12.5-15: 3 (58-24, Robinson PER: 24.6, Duncan PER: 24.8)
2000-01: 20-25: 1, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17: 3, 12.5-15: 4 (63-19, Robinson PER: 23.7, Duncan PER: 23.8)
2001-02: 25+: 1, 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17: 1, 12.5-15: 4 (59-23, Robinson PER: 20.3, Duncan PER: 27.0)
2002-03: 25+: 1, 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17: 2, 12.5-15: 4 (60-22, Robinson PER: 17.8, Duncan PER: 26.9)

Since then, players other than Duncan:
2003-04: 20-25: 0, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17: 3, 12.5-15: 5 (62-20, Duncan PER: 27.1)
2004-05: 20-25: 1, 17.5-20: 1, 15-17: 0, 12.5-15: 6 (63-19, Duncan PER: 27.0)
2005-06: 20-25: 2, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17: 2, 12.5-15: 4 (61-21, Duncan PER: 23.1)
2006-07: 20-25: 2, 17.5-20: 0, 15-17: 2, 12.5-15: 1 (64-18, Duncan PER: 26.1)

Total number of players 1989-1996 other than Robinson with PER's greater than 17.5: 2.5 (I'd argue Rodman's value was close to that.) (Players with PER greater than 20: 0)
Total number of players 2003-07 other than Duncan with PER's greater than 17.5: 7 (Players with PER greater than 20: 5)

Duncan is amazing, especially on the defensive end (where the Spurs have finished 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd since he arrived) but it's ignoring reality to claim he's better than Robinson because Robinson never won. You can debate who is better obviously, but it's a joke to say Robinson was surrounded with good players. He barely had above average players around him most years. Duncan's had Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili next to him the last four years, with a smattering of solid guys like Nazr, Rose and Horry. The best players Robinson ever played with, prior to Duncan, were Terry Cummings in his last good years and Dennis Rodman. And Rodman abandoned the team in 94-95, killing any chances they had.

As for the main topic, I personally can't see Tony Parker in the Hall of Fame. But considering how big of joke and irrelevant the Hall is...

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

Number cannot lie. People can misuse and frame the meaning of numbers, but numbers in and of themselves cannot lie.

i disagree, numbers can totally mislead you, which is really a lie. people misuse number all the time to prove the worth of a player and these people fail to take into account a host of things that the numbers dont say. so maybe instead of saying lie i should have said mislead, either way people who base thier point only on numbers usually dont know what they are talking about which is why they have to use numbers as such a crutch.

Sean Elliott not an All Star caliber player, ask Scottie Pippen. You may have expected more from him but when he made the all star teams he was surely an all star. Not a franchise player which is a big difference.

wheres the respect for Vinny Del Negro i ask!!!!!

Sean Elliott not an All Star caliber player, ask Scottie Pippen. You may have expected more from him but when he made the all star teams he was surely an all star. Not a franchise player which is a big difference.

Was he an all-star player because he made the all-star team? Yes. Did he deserve to be on the all-star team? Definately not.

i disagree, numbers can totally mislead you, which is really a lie. people misuse number all the time to prove the worth of a player and these people fail to take into account a host of things that the numbers dont say.

That is not the numbers misleading you. That is the person. Numbers do not have motives, they are inanimate objects, they cannot mislead you.

either way people who base thier point only on numbers usually dont know what they are talking about which is why they have to use numbers as such a crutch.

I've never seen a person who base any points on just numbers. Everyone constructs their arguments through logic, some people apply logic to third-hand opinions and their perceptions, other people apply it to objective data.

People who reject data for their perceptions know even less what they're talking about than someone who places all faith in numbers.

Duncan is amazing, especially on the defensive end (where the Spurs have finished 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd since he arrived) but it's ignoring reality to claim he's better than Robinson because Robinson never won.

the Admiral is one of my favorite players of all time, and i won't say Timmy is better than David but a guy like Timmy is required to win the championship. The Admiral was a walking stat machine because he was hyper athletic and long, but he was also unpredictable. In his entire playing career he never patented a go to move while Timmy & Olajuwon had a closet full of them. Putbacks, opportunistic dunks, nice feeds, and raw athleticism is how David scored.

That's why the Spurs pre-Duncan had a hard time closing the deal, Robinson would get the ball in a tight situation and do some move nobody had ever seen before, and it wouldn't go in.

This is ultimately why Robinson declined so quickly while Timmy seems completely unchanged from his rookie year other than his hair. Robinson's athleticism eventually waned, Duncan still has his skills & basketball IQ. When Robinson had back problems it destroyed his game, when Timmy had a year of plantar fascitis, it was hard to tell he was playing injured at all last year.

I won't say anything bad about the Admiral, but for my money Timmy is a little better because he's skill based, instead of athleticism based, which is always fleeting. The same reason why i'll love the older mature Jordan a little more than the high flying dunking Jordan.

the Admiral is one of my favorite players of all time, and i won't say Timmy is better than David but a guy like Timmy is required to win the championship. The Admiral was a walking stat machine because he was hyper athletic and long, but he was also unpredictable. In his entire playing career he never patented a go to move while Timmy & Olajuwon had a closet full of them. Putbacks, opportunistic dunks, nice feeds, and raw athleticism is how David scored.

That's why the Spurs pre-Duncan had a hard time closing the deal, Robinson would get the ball in a tight situation and do some move nobody had ever seen before, and it wouldn't go in.

This is ultimately why Robinson declined so quickly while Timmy seems completely unchanged from his rookie year other than his hair. Robinson's athleticism eventually waned, Duncan still has his skills & basketball IQ. When Robinson had back problems it destroyed his game, when Timmy had a year of plantar fascitis, it was hard to tell he was playing injured at all last year.

I won't say anything bad about the Admiral, but for my money Timmy is a little better because he's skill based, instead of athleticism based, which is always fleeting. The same reason why i'll love the older mature Jordan a little more than the high flying dunking Jordan.

That post just made me pull out my old NBA tapes from the mid 90's. I'm gona watch them as soon as I can set my damn VCR up.

I have two very vivid memories of David Robinson - That amazing block he had where he went coast to coast faster than the guard, like that Tayshaun Prince block or Reggie, only better. I can't remember who it was against but it was amazing.

The other one is during the Rockets/Spurs series where he looked like a fool going head-to-head with Hakeem, who wouldn't though? The play that stands out in my mind from that matchup isn't the fake-fake-up and under move he pulled on Robinson that is shown on prety much every Hakeem related video or highlight I've watched, but the move where he was face up with David, pump faked, took one dribble to the right, spun back left and knocked down the jumper. David was touching Hakeem during the fake but by the time he spun, Robinson was like 7 feet away. That's a move we see Kobe Bryant do today, and Hakeem was pulling moves like that against arguably the most athletic center of all time. Amazing.

That moved reminded me of the spin Kobe pulled on Aldridge and Roy deep in his own corner for a clutch fadeaway three.

Imagine what Hakeem would be doing to the league today.

Sean Elliott not an All Star caliber player, ask Scottie Pippen. You may have expected more from him but when he made the all star teams he was surely an all star. Not a franchise player which is a big difference.

Was he an all-star player because he made the all-star team? Yes. Did he deserve to be on the all-star team? Definately not.

i disagree, numbers can totally mislead you, which is really a lie. people misuse number all the time to prove the worth of a player and these people fail to take into account a host of things that the numbers dont say.

That is not the numbers misleading you. That is the person. Numbers do not have motives, they are inanimate objects, they cannot mislead you.

either way people who base thier point only on numbers usually dont know what they are talking about which is why they have to use numbers as such a crutch.

I've never seen a person who base any points on just numbers. Everyone constructs their arguments through logic, some people apply logic to third-hand opinions and their perceptions, other people apply it to objective data.

People who reject data for their perceptions know even less what they're talking about than someone who places all faith in numbers.

but isn't it true both ways - that everything concrete requires something abstract to substantiate it? While numbers themselves may be, to a point, objective, in order to apply them in an argument, inevitably they are not only subject, but at mercy to subjectivity. For instance, when calculating PER, who are these purely objective beings who decide what percentage of which stat should be implemented into the final product? Push it further, how do we know that a 50% fg is better than 33? Who tells us this? Numbers? No, that is the perception equating one better than another. A number is never simply just a number, at least not to the self concious being.

whether numbers, like a rock, or a tree, or a path, cannot mislead is of no relevance. Because a number would not be a number if not for the subject, the subject precedes the object as much as the object precedes the subject. If you were simply throwing random numbers out there, you would be right, you would be completely objective. But when one drives numbers for a purpose, objectivity is thrown out the window to bend the truth, whether right or not, in a certain direction.

that said, I know from your post that you are in fact saying some of this, I just felt like putting in my two cents because it interested me.

either way people who base thier point only on numbers usually dont know what they are talking about which is why they have to use numbers as such a crutch.

I've never seen a person who base any points on just numbers. Everyone constructs their arguments through logic, some people apply logic to third-hand opinions and their perceptions, other people apply it to objective data.

People who reject data for their perceptions know even less what they're talking about than someone who places all faith in numbers.

first of all alot of people base thier arguement on the numbers alone, if you have never seen that before then you clearly dont talk basketball to many people.

secondly i agree that you cant ignore numbers. in no way have i ever said that you have to completly ignore numbers are they mean nothing at all. like i said numbers are great at backing up a point and have to be taken into consideration but its foolish when people use these numbers as a crutch

true.

only alcohol can be used as a crutch.