Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[Reality]

With last years playoff injury derailing growth spurt Tonys superb 2006 reg season and Round 1, does 2007s MVP performance vault Tony to top 3 NBA pt guard status?

Fine, who is better?
Chauncey Billups took a huge step backwords with his bonehead plays at the end to help eliminate Detroit.  Otherwise he would have remained #1 in my book.  Jason Kidd is no doubt an all around whiz and showed these modern surgeries are wayy better then years past.  But does Kidds smarts outdo Tonys athletecism?  Well granted, Tony needs to add Kidds smarts to definitively surpass him.

Oh yeah that Nash guy.  He puts up some purty stats.

Deron Williams?  He brokeout for sure but a lot of his stats vs Spurs came in blowout time.  Tony a prime factor in building those 20 pt leads.

Baron Davis?

Al Iverson if he switched to ptgd fulltime?  Not from what i saw in the head to head playoffs matchup.

I've got Parker in the top 3.

[Joe Vancil]

I don't think anyone would argue that Parker is better than Nash...or anyone with sense, at least.

I still have Jason Kidd as #2.  Kidd doesn't score as much as Parker, but other than that....

There's Chauncey Billups out there, and he's better than Parker.  (He's not as good as most people think, though.)

There's Gilbert Arenas out there, and he's definitely better than Parker.

I'll take Kurt Hinrich over Parker.

I'll take Baron Davis over Parker.

I'll take Chris Paul over Parker.

I'll take Deron Williams over Parker.

If you call Joe Johnson a point guard (and I don't), he's better than Parker.  Ditto on Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson.

I'm not completely convinced that Parker is better than Mo Williams or T.J. Ford.

I'd take Andre Miller and Ray Felton over Parker.

If you were to offer me Parker for Jarret Jack, Randy Foye, Luke Ridnour, Mike Bibby, or Leandro Barbosa, I'd turn you down.

Parker is simply NOT THAT GOOD.  When you get right down to it, I think Ginobilli or Brent Barry would make a better point guard.  Take Tim Duncan away from him, and he turns back into a pumpkin by midnight.  Parker is FAST, and that's about it.  We're talking Devin Harris or Leandro Barbosa here.

I'm pretty particular about point guards, and the only things that Parker seems to have that are noteworthy are his speed, his ability to score in the lane, and not too big of an ego.  Outside of that, the rest of his game is mediocre at best.

[WayOutWest]

I don't think anyone would argue that Parker is better than Nash...or anyone with sense, at least.

Really?  I guess I have no sense then cause other than defense, I can't think of a thing the Parker does better than Nash.  Nash has the BEST court vision in the game today.  He's a very good penetrator, his outside shot is deadly, especially in crunch time and he's the definition of a true point guard.  The guy can win a game without ever scoring. 

I agree that without TD we would see Parker's actual ability, which isn't much, and I agree with most of your picks ahead of Parker but not all.  The flip side is the same thing probably applies to Nash, so maybe that's your point, in that he would like like a 2nd stringer if he was on the wrong team.  I think there are only about 3 or 4 teams that Nash would do well on, the rest he'd probably be ridding the bench while the other guys on your list would do well pretty much anywhere under any offensive system.

[Joe Vancil]

WayOut,

You misunderstand me.

I don't think that anyone would say that they think Parker is better than Nash.  In other words, I think Nash is so much better than Parker than everyone would agree, and not argue.

[Skandery]

You had me through the first nine lines then things started getting wacky.  Felton?  Foye?  Jack? Ridnour? Parker isn't that bad. 

Tony Parker is definitely overrated and while a-lot of people like lumping the Big 3 of San An as Duncan and then Parker/Ginobili or sometime even, Duncan then Parker then Ginobili.  I'll take what Ginobili does for San An way more than Parker. 

All that being said there is something to be said for the few things he is good at, speed as you mentioned, but also the willingness to drive, initiate the contact, maintain the presence to score, fall down, and then do it again and again if need be.  He never just settles for a jump shot and that's good because he doesn't really have one--but throughout the playoffs he was deadly from 18 feet. 

I guess we'll see if we're wrong when Duncan retires.     

[Reality]

You guys downplay his speed, willingness to drive and low ego as if these are small side factors.
They're huge.  When you play 5-5 fullcourt hoop yourselves, do you not see what driving the lane, -now Parker finishing more often then not- does to the opponents D?  That he has added a consistent jumper to it, well another piece of 2007 Spurs puzzle.  Duncan was a non factor plenty of small stretches this playoffs, including his goofy holding the ball for 8 seconds and getting stripped repeatedly.  Parkers O was huge. 

Nash over Parker of course.  You may have read my "Nash puts up purty stats" as if that's all he has done with Mavs and Phx.  Too bad his teamates fell for the Horrybait or this could have been settled on the floor.  Nonetheless Nash on the Spurs i don't think even Popavich could stop.  Ditto Kidd.  For all the ramblings about Jouana Kidd choosing NJ over SA, if Kidd or Nash did come here i think they do 3-4 straight Championships.

Billips ego most certainly got in the way this playoffs thus i dunno.  Otherwise yes, i had him above Parker.  Now I'll wait and see how next season plays out.
Hingrich talk to me when he has a successful playoffs.  Tony has had 3.
Baron Davis yes, or could he share the ball with GNob and the rest of the Spurs?  I'd have to see how Davis could function as not being the #1 option.
Derron Williams good so far, I'm not giving him > Parker after two seasons.
Joe Johnson leaves the Suns to be the man on the Hawks.  Ya no ego there.  Parker all the way.

[westkoast]

They are important reality in the sense of the Spurs.  I've said before that I don't think another point guard, like say Jason Kidd, fits as well as Tony does in the teams system.  He fits into the puzzle perfectly.  While others have more talents then him that doesn't mean it fits well with the Spurs game plan.  I don't think that Nash fits in this offense at all.  The Spurs strength is in the half court with Tim Duncan creating space and oppurtunitys for the rest of the squad.  When PHX is forced into a half court game Nash is not nearly as effective.  Plus his lack of defense is sure to get Tim Duncan and others in foul trouble.  Great team defense has to start on the perimeter.  They would not be the same   Jason Kidd might be a better fit but he to is an open court player.  His defense would make him a much better fit although I still feel like Parker's speed in the half court set plays into the Spurs game plan much better.

However, based on strickly comparing two PGs he is not the best in the game or top 3 at his position.  He doesn't have the court vision Nash does nor can he dominate a game in the same fashion (the PG spot is suppose to be a passing position).  He doesn't have the all around game Jason Kidd does as far as his ability to rebound and create plays in the open court.  He can't score nor does he have the range Arenas. does  Ditto for Baron Davis and toss in his low post game which Parker also does not have.

I do not agree that Deron Williams is better then Parker yet either.  He hasn't done anything that Parker has not done consistantly in the playoffs for years now.  Although his passing ability looks to be superior even at this point in his career...after thinking about that I am on the fence.

Joe Johnson, heck no.  The guy can shoot, that's it.  TJ Ford and Kirk Heinrich I don't agree with either.

[Lurker]

Trying to put a PG in the top 3 is tough...mainly because Kidd & Nash hoild down #1 & 2 in some order.

So that means after those two who is the top PG in the league.  I aggree with Reality that many of you are downplaying Parker's ability to finish in the lane.  You don't shoot 50+% two years in a row just because of good teammates.  It goes back to an old argument...did Stockton make Malone or the other way around?

Also I think Parker's defense is being overlooked because he is on such a solid defensive team.  Parker usually picks up the opposing PG between 3/4 and full court.  That alone shows additional stamina.

Most of those listed by Joe have solid arguments for the #3 spot.  All have weaknesses that can be pointed out also.  Davis can't play more than 60-65 games a year.  Hinrich doesn't have the scoring ability.  D-Williams and Paul have proved they have great potential and some skills but will they work to improve like Parker has?  Also Parker for his 6 years experience is still just 25.  Picking Mo Williams, TJ Ford, Andre Miller and Ray Felton over Parker show more disrespect for Parker's game than anything else (except for maybe a lack of basketball knowledge and I would NEVER accuse Joe of that).  Billups has experience but IMO his game is slipping and I would take the much younger player.

Side note:  Parker was leading France to a potential top finish in the world's last year until he injured his hand.  That puts him on par with Dirl leading Germany, Gasol leading Spain, Manu leading Argentina. 

I won't say Parker is the clear cut #3.  But I also wouldn't say any of the others are either.  Parker clearly belongs in any discussion about who is #3.

[rickortreat]

No, he doesn't even belong in the conversation about top 3.

Wade is better, Iverson is better, Nash is better, Kidd is better and Billups is better.  That's 5 guards who are clearly superior to Parker.

Parker is a top ten guard in the NBA.  He is more than a role player, but he isn't a top guard in the NBA.

He does, however, have a few pieces of jewelry that Iverson and Kidd and Nash covet greatly.

Good for him that he gets to play with TD and the others.

[Lurker]

No, he doesn't even belong in the conversation about top 3.

Reading comprehension, Rick.  He belongs in the discussion for the #3 slot.  Nash & Kidd are 1 & 2.

Wade is better,

Wade is a SG...so let's compare apples with apples not oranges.

Iverson is better,

Same as Wade...a SG.

Nash is better, Kidd is better

Duh!

and Billups is better. 

That is debatable...and that is why Parker should be included in the discussion for the 3rd spot.

That's 5 guards who are clearly superior to Parker.

The discussion is titled top 3 POINT GUARDS.  2 of your 5 "better" are SG.  You might as well include Kobe, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, etc.  But narrow your analysis yo just PG and come up with more than Nash/Kidd as clearly better.

Parker is a top ten guard in the NBA.  He is more than a role player, but he isn't a top guard in the NBA.

He does, however, have a few pieces of jewelry that Iverson and Kidd and Nash covet greatly.

Good for him that he gets to play with TD and the others.

I sure hope the coaches that keep voting him to the all-star team don't find out that he is just a "role player". 

[Laker Fan]

It’s just plain silly to argue with Rick, Lurker, sound debate would require he know something about the subject.

Quite frankly Joe, your post was the least objective, most biased driven thing I’ve ever read from you, very surprising, and totally out of character.

Does Parker belong in the discussion? Absolutely! Parker has rings not because he is a role player, or because he rode Duncan’s talents to the promised land, or because Ginobili is their X factor; it is because he is an integral and talented part of a very sound squad. Not diminishing Duncan in any way, he is clearly the most talented man on this squad if not the entire NBA, but Popovich’s offense, much like Winter’s triangle, is not a PG driven one and consequently Parker has more opportunities to be creative on his own. His passing is good, not great, his floor vision is good, not great, but he is a slasher that it totally fearless in the paint, coupled with his speed and ability to penetrate almost at will ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, MUST be accounted for from any opponents defense. This, in turn, opens the Spurs outside game where their deadly shooters like Horry, Finley, Bowen, and Barry can kill you, and THAT is the measure of what he brings to the Spurs. I doubt you could plug any other PG into that slot except maybe Nash and have the same effectiveness.

If we are talking top 3, we are talking Parker, Davis, Williams and to a lesser degree, Billups. Billups is showing his age, albeit slightly, but enough that it must be acknowledged. Davis you can make an excellent argument for however he is injury prone and methinks requires the offense to focus on him, almost taking him out of the argument for PG, because the top 2, Nash first Kidd, second make their team mates look like geniuses. Williams is too young and too new to be properly evaluated but he has mad skills and to me will become top 3 very quickly if his development continues at this level, and is probably the most direct comparison in terms of style to Parker but he is bigger and stronger and almost as quick.

So, in summation, you would have to be a fool (Rick), biased (Joe), or simply unwilling to stretch your neck out with a concrete opinion (Skander), to not recognize what Parker has accomplished, and this Finals was IMO his breakout moment and hence the argument as to where he rates. Finals MVP, top scorer for SA in 3 of 4 Finals games and brilliant in every aspect that mattered throughout the Finals. He may have been overrated before this postseason Skander, but I do not believe that applies any longer.

[rickortreat]

How do you determine who is a one and who is a two among the guards?  Iverson is not a shooting guard, he is a point who shoots.  Same thing with Wade.  Kobe is a two, but often dishes out assists like a point.  Bottom line- the line between the point and a two is so blurred that you may as well group them all together!

And simply because he's voted to the all star game doesn't mean he's really worthy.  He wins out because he's on a winning team and therefore gets more recognition, plus lots of votes from France and San Antonio.

The point is, he's not even close to being a top 5 guard in the NBA, and even if you focus strictly on a point guard and what a point guard is supposed to do for his team, Andre Miller is much more sound as a point, but not nearly the penetrator that Tony Parker is. 

He is in the top ten, which is good enough.  If every player on your squad is a top ten player, chances are you can contend for a title, particularly is one of them is a top 3 player at his position like TD.

So stop eating those mushrooms and look at the regular season stats for point guards, and realize that Tony is above average, but not even close to the best.

[Lurker]

How do you determine who is a one and who is a two among the guards?  Iverson is not a shooting guard, he is a point who shoots.  Same thing with Wade.  Kobe is a two, but often dishes out assists like a point.  Bottom line- the line between the point and a two is so blurred that you may as well group them all together!

Maybe if you look at who lines up with them.  Iverson played with Snow (PG) and now Blake (PG) so that means Iverson is a SG.  Wade lines up with J-Will (PG) and Payton (PG).  So he is a SG.

And simply because he's voted to the all star game doesn't mean he's really worthy.  He wins out because he's on a winning team and therefore gets more recognition, plus lots of votes from France and San Antonio.

I didn't know that the coaches in France voted for the all-star reserves in the NBA.  Thanks for that tidbit Rick.

Now back to reality...Parker has been voted to the last 2 all-star teams BY THE NBA COACHES.  And I am sorry Rick but I don't believe that those guys are swayed by media recognition...which by the way according to most media outlets is something that playing for the Spurs doesn't generate.  So I'm not sure how Parker gets to the all-star game from playing for the Spurs.

The point is, he's not even close to being a top 5 guard in the NBA, and even if you focus strictly on a point guard and what a point guard is supposed to do for his team, Andre Miller is much more sound as a point, but not nearly the penetrator that Tony Parker is. 

So stop eating those mushrooms and look at the regular season stats for point guards, and realize that Tony is above average, but not even close to the best.

And what does those regular season stats tell you...that you overvalue assists?  That the Spurs play an offensive scheme that spreads assists around to various players instead of one player dominating the ball?  And no one is arguing he is the best.  The argument is whether he is the best PG...and the key is PG...after Kidd & Nash.

And if you really want to compare with Miller then let's do.  How about scoring?  Parker 18.6 vs Miller 13.4 and Miller plays more minutes per game.  52% vs 46% shooting?  3 pts shooting...one of Parker's weaknesses 39.5% vs 14.3%?  Miller wins assists 7.8 to 5.5 but then I would bet Miller's assists would drop on the Spurs because of the offense that is run.  So the stats seem to support that Parker is right there in the discussion with Miller...

and Paul and Williams and Davis and Billups.  In other words these are all top 10 PGs and it can be argued for any one to be the best of tier 2.  Additional disclosure:  Tier one PGs = Nash & Kidd.

[rickortreat]

Maybe if you look at who lines up with them.  Iverson played with Snow (PG) and now Blake (PG) so that means Iverson is a SG.  Wade lines up with J-Will (PG) and Payton (PG).  So he is a SG.

OK, that's fair.

Now back to reality...Parker has been voted to the last 2 all-star teams BY THE NBA COACHES.  And I am sorry Rick but I don't believe that those guys are swayed by media recognition...which by the way according to most media outlets is something that playing for the Spurs doesn't generate.  So I'm not sure how Parker gets to the all-star game from playing for the Spurs.

Yes, by the coaches, who are all moved by the media and who tend to not vote for their own players.  Parker is well-known and gets a tremendous amount of coverage because the Spurs are always in the mix at the end.  He is also on a winning team and that attracts votes.

And what does those regular season stats tell you...that you overvalue assists?  That the Spurs play an offensive scheme that spreads assists around to various players instead of one player dominating the ball?  And no one is arguing he is the best.  The argument is whether he is the best PG...and the key is PG...after Kidd & Nash.

Maybe I do overvalue assists- but my definition of a point is that their primary duty is to run the offense.  Now, you say the Spurs run an offense that doesn't depend on a single point guard- it works for them, but is that because they're all decent passers or do they run that system since Tony couldn't be that kind of distributor!

And if you really want to compare with Miller then let's do.  How about scoring?  Parker 18.6 vs Miller 13.4 and Miller plays more minutes per game.  52% vs 46% shooting?  3 pts shooting...one of Parker's weaknesses 39.5% vs 14.3%?  Miller wins assists 7.8 to 5.5 but then I would bet Miller's assists would drop on the Spurs because of the offense that is run.  So the stats seem to support that Parker is right there in the discussion with Miller...

Ok, lets do! I'll concede that Tony is a better scorer and penetrator than Andre.  However, Andre is a better passer and also a better defender!  This is really the key- Tony is not much of a defensive player - in fact, if I was playing against the Spurs, he'd be the player I'd choose to go at!  For the life of me, I don't understand why NBA coaches don't isolate their guard on TP and post him up.  I was waiting for Cleveland to do that, but unfortunately Hughes was hurt, and Snow was too old and slow to handle TP.   And Andre isn't a top 3 point guard, so if we're comparing them, and TP is better, that still doesn't put him into the top 3.

In truth Pop's defense works to protect Tony and keep from getting embarrassed.  When the Spurs play a guard who's a tough matchup for Tony, the whole team guards against him.  Nash, Iverson, whoever- the Spurs try to impede ball movement with 5 players. 

So for me to consider Tony to be a top 5 point guard, I'd like to see better defense and more assists.  Maybe the assists are unrealistic given the Spurs tendencies, but defensively, Tony doesn't scare anyone. 

Besides, why is it so important for people to think of him as a top 3 point in the NBA?  However, you rank him, he's good enough to win more than one title.  So was Norm Nixon and Byron Scott but no-one talked about those guys as being top 3 in their positions, either.

I am very impressed with the Spurs and their ability to win.  They are a great team and it follows that their players are on the whole more talented than the teams they face.  But the truth is, there are a number of players that could play that position for the Spurs and they'd still win, although Andre Miller would not be among the ones I'd look for to replace him!  I'd bet you that Derron Williams could do the same thing for the Spurs every bit as well as TP.

[Lurker]

Now back to reality...Parker has been voted to the last 2 all-star teams BY THE NBA COACHES.  And I am sorry Rick but I don't believe that those guys are swayed by media recognition...which by the way according to most media outlets is something that playing for the Spurs doesn't generate.  So I'm not sure how Parker gets to the all-star game from playing for the Spurs.

Yes, by the coaches, who are all moved by the media and who tend to not vote for their own players.  Parker is well-known and gets a tremendous amount of coverage because the Spurs are always in the mix at the end.  He is also on a winning team and that attracts votes.

Re-read this Rick.  Do you even realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that the NBA coaches are influenced by the media? 

And as far as that tremendous amount of coverage...explain why 6-8 NBA cities DID NOT EVEN SEND REPORTERS TO COVER THE FINALS!

As far aas not voting for their own players:  THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR THEIR OWN PLAYERS!