PDA

View Full Version : Who's the best player on the Spurs, Duncan or Parker?



Longhornfan1234
12-02-2012, 12:12 AM
It's a very tough one for me.


Thoughts?

b@llhog24
12-02-2012, 12:21 AM
It really isn't, it's Timmy D.

Longhornfan1234
12-02-2012, 12:23 AM
It really isn't, it's Timmy D.

Parker is the closer. I've heard Pop say it's Parker's team.

seikou8
12-02-2012, 12:23 AM
its duncan

kdspurman
12-02-2012, 12:24 AM
The Spurs can win more games with Parker out than with Tim out. He means too much on both ends of the floor.

Mr.Nate30
12-02-2012, 12:25 AM
The Spurs can win more games with Parker out than with Tim out. He means too much on both ends of the floor.
this

NYSPORTSALLDAY
12-02-2012, 12:28 AM
Duncan.

Gibby
12-02-2012, 12:39 AM
over a whole season parker is more valuable.

b@llhog24
12-02-2012, 12:40 AM
over a whole season parker is more valuable.

Possibly.

MetroMan
12-02-2012, 12:44 AM
Duncan

b@llhog24
12-02-2012, 12:45 AM
If Manu was playing like how he usually does, then I'd rather him over Parker.

Mr.Nate30
12-02-2012, 12:47 AM
before looter gets here ill post it for everyone.

Who cares their both boring players who play on a lame boring team that nobody wants to watch tbh.

DreamShaker
12-02-2012, 12:50 AM
Parker is closer to his prime, and is more durable. Duncan still has enough left in the tank, though, to be the better player most nights.

Mr.Nate30
12-02-2012, 12:51 AM
But imo its duncan

RealLiveBear
12-02-2012, 01:00 AM
Duncan

b@llhog24
12-02-2012, 01:04 AM
Honestly what are we missing here again?


Rk Player Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Tim Duncan 36 16 16 30.7 7.4 13.9 .529 0.1 0.2 .667 3.6 4.7 .760 1.7 8.1 9.8 2.6 0.9 2.5 1.4 1.9 18.4
2 Tony Parker 30 15 15 31.7 7.3 15.2 .482 0.4 1.1 .353 2.2 3.0 .733 0.3 2.7 3.1 7.2 0.7 0.1 2.0 1.7 17.3



Rk Player Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
1 Tim Duncan 36 16 491 27.3 .576 .534 6.7 28.7 18.3 14.8 1.5 5.8 7.9 25.9 116 94 1.5 1.1 2.6 .256
2 Tony Parker 30 15 476 20.1 .523 .496 1.3 9.4 5.6 39.5 1.1 0.1 10.8 26.7 110 106 1.1 0.4 1.5 .152

UnWantedTheory
12-02-2012, 01:13 AM
The most important player on the team is easily Duncan as he effects the game on both sides. But at this stage TP is the obvious offensive #1 despite their averages being similar. This could end up like an MVP debate though. Better player vs. most valuable....

xxplayerxx23
12-02-2012, 01:33 AM
Duncan.

Matter.
12-02-2012, 01:57 AM
Duncan Donuts

Chronz
12-02-2012, 01:22 PM
The Spurs can win more games with Parker out than with Tim out. He means too much on both ends of the floor.

Maybe this year but what about the last few years?

Giraffes Rule
12-02-2012, 01:56 PM
Maybe this year but what about the last few years?

Duncan's defense sets him above Parker. Parker is no doubt the main focus of the offense, but Duncan can be on any given night as well and consistently plays great defense.

Chronz
12-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Duncan's defense sets him above Parker. Parker is no doubt the main focus of the offense, but Duncan can be on any given night as well and consistently plays great defense.

Yea but Parker was an MVP candidate and the team did fairly well with Duncan not getting much run

kdspurman
12-02-2012, 02:39 PM
Yea but Parker was an MVP candidate and the team did fairly well with Duncan not getting much run

Numbers show how much the defense relies on Duncan. Even last year, with TP as an MVP candidate, that's simply cause his numbers were better than Duncan.

But in terms of importance to the team, it has to be Duncan. That's not taking anything away from Parker, he's been great, hitting clutch shots and getting his teammates open, but if you take out Duncan, this team will get lit up on a nightly basis.

RLundi
12-02-2012, 02:49 PM
I still think Duncan is the best player on the Spurs.

JasonJohnHorn
12-02-2012, 02:51 PM
Duncan easily. The thing is, people need to keep a couple things in mind. Has Pop said it' "Parker's team"? Maybe. And he wouldn't be wrong. Parker has, over the last couple seasons, played more minutes than Duncan, and he is the floor general. Duncan and Pop both put a lot of responcibility in Parker's hands. But that doesn't mean that Parker is the best player.

Duncan is, and has been the best player on the team since the 98-99 season (I put he and Robinson as equals in Duncan's first season). Duncan's minutes have decreased over the last few seasons, but his productivety has not really fallen off. If you look at his per36 minute stats he is performing very near the level he was when he was in his prime.

Pop isn't 'Antoni... he doesn't play his best players for 42 minutes a game. He knows that you need to develop a strong bench in order to win titles, and in turn, during the regulars season, he plays his starters fewer minutes than he does in the post-season to give the bench time on the floor to develop their game and become a better suport group.

Duncan, when he is on the court, is the best player the Spurs have. Parker and Manu are equals in my eyes, even if Parker has more time with the ball. It's hard to evaluate these players by their stats because they all give up their personal stats for the benefit of the team. Manu could be a diva and demand a starting job and he coudl very well have been a legit first option during his prime. But he knows the team is good and that Parker and Duncan have as much to contribute as he does, and that the bench ahd role players need to be invlved if the team is going to do well.

They take fewer minutes, have lower averages and as a result, win more games.

But the bottom line is, head-to-head, each of these guys (Duncan, Parker, and Manu) can outplay anybody at their position (which is not to say they always do, but that they can and often do). Duncan though is still the ebst player on the team.

JasonJohnHorn
12-02-2012, 03:13 PM
Yea but Parker was an MVP candidate and the team did fairly well with Duncan not getting much run

Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.

And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.


That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.

jblonde2012
12-02-2012, 03:15 PM
Easy. 5 years ago Dunan , now Parker.

TheSource
12-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Easy. 5 years ago Dunan , now Parker.

It's funny because 5 years ago the Spurs won a championship (2007), and Parker was the finals MVP.

Chronz
12-02-2012, 03:44 PM
Numbers show how much the defense relies on Duncan. Even last year, with TP as an MVP candidate, that's simply cause his numbers were better than Duncan.
Maybe this year but I dont think thats true for last year. Individually, I do think Duncan was the better player (only slightly during the regular season but exponentially so come playoffs), but for that regular season in terms of VALUE. I think the voters got it right.

Last year when Duncan sat the team was able to bring in a very productive Tiago. Tiago has regressed and Duncan has improved so the 2-way difference has been more influential in this years numbers. But last year the Spurs efficiency fell off more without TP. You can look at the numbers with or without TP and Duncan, lineups with only Duncan vs only Parker, the results are the same. TP had a greater pull. His backup eventually became Neal, but hes not a PG by any means so the difference in the attack was compounded.


But in terms of importance to the team, it has to be Duncan. That's not taking anything away from Parker, he's been great, hitting clutch shots and getting his teammates open, but if you take out Duncan, this team will get lit up on a nightly basis.

I agree overall, Duncan is more important when the games are more important, but for these regular season grinds, I see no reason to go with the guy whos closer to his prime, putting up comparable individual production and superior +/- influence. Duncan has changed the game with his recent season tho.

kdspurman
12-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.

And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.


That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.

Last year? I don't think we would've 50 with no Parker. Hill wasn't there either, backups were Mills/Neal, plus Manu was out a bunch of games with a broken hand.

But like I mentioned before, they will win more games if Parker goes out than Duncan, because someone like Mills can get it going offensively, and Manu can step it up in terms of attacking the basket.

Good comparisons btw..

Chronz
12-02-2012, 03:50 PM
Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.
But George Hill isnt on the team. Why not look at the players they have on their team to figure out whos most VALUABLE when discussing the MVP?

If you meant to say Neal then I will have to disagree with you. I think the voters got the value part right by ranking TP above TD.


And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.
Yea but Nash was so valuable for that team that him being the best player was easily defensible. He wasn't too shabby by individual metrics either.


That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.
Stockton and Malone is a good comparison. Malone was playing more minutes like TP too.

naps
12-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Duncan easily. How is that a question specially this year? He blows Parker from pretty much every advanced statistical standpoint and intangibles. Duncan's defense has been off the charts this year. He's probably been playing his best ball in 5 years.

JasonJohnHorn
12-02-2012, 04:45 PM
But George Hill isnt on the team. Why not look at the players they have on their team to figure out whos most VALUABLE when discussing the MVP?


When I mentioned George Hill I had a couple of season ago in mind. Parker has been an MVP candidate for a couple seasons now, and when they had George Hill as a back-up, I thought that the team was capable of playing just as well with Hill in the line-up as Parker. I say 'capable' of playing as well, I do not mean the will always play as well. Hill obviously has been traded to the Pacers since in a deal I imagine Bufford regrets, but c'est la vie. He is playing very well in Indy.

With the current roster, they simply don't have a back-up who could cover for Parker as well as Hill, so Parker's value has increased since Hil's departure. Manu is essentially the next best play-maker after Parker, and then Diaw perhaps. They'd have a harder time replacing Parker now, which may give him a case as the Spurs' MVP, but that said, I don't think there is anybody in the front court who could come close to covering for Duncan's absence. Splitter? Blair is too small. Bonner? I mean, they just don't have anybody to provide the kind of rebounding and defence that Duncan can provide.

Parker is almost as valuable to the team now. But Manu and Diaw could share ball handling duties if called upon. Nobody on hte roster can replace Duncan's rebounding and defence.


And the MVP discussion aside, Duncan is still the best player on the roster, even if Parker is the MVP of the team, and the question is, after all, who is the best player on the Spurs.

But i wouldn't disagree with youl.

Ebbs
12-02-2012, 04:47 PM
This year Timmy

Chronz
12-02-2012, 04:55 PM
When I mentioned George Hill I had a couple of season ago in mind. Parker has been an MVP candidate for a couple seasons now, and when they had George Hill as a back-up, I thought that the team was capable of playing just as well with Hill in the line-up as Parker. I say 'capable' of playing as well, I do not mean the will always play as well. Hill obviously has been traded to the Pacers since in a deal I imagine Bufford regrets, but c'est la vie. He is playing very well in Indy.
LOL they traded him for Leonard in a move that everyone recognizes as a steal for San Antonio. Why would Buford regret getting the more promising player on a cheaper contract who happens to fill a need. I mean seriously what are you thinking here? Its such a nonsensical conclusion.


With the current roster, they simply don't have a back-up who could cover for Parker as well as Hill, so Parker's value has increased since Hil's departure.
I was only talking about last year.


Manu is essentially the next best play-maker after Parker, and then Diaw perhaps. They'd have a harder time replacing Parker now, which may give him a case as the Spurs' MVP, but that said, I don't think there is anybody in the front court who could come close to covering for Duncan's absence. Splitter? Blair is too small. Bonner? I mean, they just don't have anybody to provide the kind of rebounding and defence that Duncan can provide.
They did just fine a year ago but Splitter has regressed abit and Duncan has improved so hes more valuable now.


Parker is almost as valuable to the team now. But Manu and Diaw could share ball handling duties if called upon. Nobody on hte roster can replace Duncan's rebounding and defence.

Hes actually less valuable because of Duncans resurgence.


And the MVP discussion aside, Duncan is still the best player on the roster, even if Parker is the MVP of the team, and the question is, after all, who is the best player on the Spurs.
Yea I know, its just something he had going in his favor last year. Replacement value is still a part of a players worth to a team and on this team, TP had an argument last year.

dee279
12-02-2012, 04:57 PM
Coach Pop

Sly Guy
12-02-2012, 07:31 PM
I think it's pop's team. And it always has been.