How Good Would Prime Tony Parker Be Today?

[Dutchball97]

It's clear you're just someone who looks at accolades and doesn't question them at all. He didn't deserve the 2007 FMVP at all, that's a legendary snub. He was basically a non-factor on defense and had less assists than his center, he just had hot shooting. Have you also looked at what his competition was when he got those All-NBA 2nd team selections? I know you didn't so here they are:

Goran Dragic, Rajon Rondo, post-prime Wade (2x), pre-prime Harden and pre-prime Lillard (both of them in their first year as All-Stars, well below the level they'd reach at their heights in the late 2010s).

So uhh,

You're underestimating Tony. He could also have had better stats on a different team as a higher option, though of course at the expense of winning.

Some of those players you listed aren't PG's though.

The Spurs obviously had solid teams and Pop didn't overplay his guys. In his prime he averaged 19/3/6 and shot 51/32 (obviously barely taking three's) over 9 seasons, (per 36: 21/3/7). In the playoffs those seasons 21/4/6 (36.7 mpg) on 48/32 shooting.

His production rate was very good. The nice thing about now is that almost every team can find enough shooting to surround primary initiators and main scorers with, so no issue with his lack of 3PT shooting unless you pair him up with someone else that he has to space for.

Parker now in his prime on an average team would give you on a yearly basis 22-25 ppg and 8-9 apg while probably having the highest FG% among guards. His touch was impeccable, that's the other real killer thing about him. He would peak even higher in scoring if the situation permits, I mean he played with Duncan and Manu his whole career, so there was rarely need for him to take on a heavier scoring load.

I'm not sure why I'm really taking a guy like Young over him. Yes he can out shoot Parker from range, but Parker will defend better, is a higher IQ player overall.

What has Garland done to be considered better? Haliburton I really like, but what has he done to be better? Parker we know produced in the regular season AND playoffs, some of these guys we haven't seen them in the post season and having to adjust to defenses. Parker we also know would have much higher counting stats now, especially in assists just because the average system would be much different than what he had with the Spurs most years, and of course pace and space helps him too.

Thread asked for guards though so I included SGs. Also when we're talking about today I assumed we actually meant today and not a couple months from now in the play-offs. So take out Haliburton, Young and Garland for a lack of play-offs success and shift through who you think should be PG or SG (some guys like Harden, Kyrie, Luka and SGA aren't entirely clear) but point is I see Parker as a fringe All-NBA guy even at his best. His killer touch or high iq are nice but it has to be reflected in actual impact, something Parker didn't have a lot of compared to his reputation.

[WillyJakkz]

Why would you think his game would suddenly drastically change?

Thread title acts as if Parker played for the ABA Spurs.

[og15]

It's clear you're just someone who looks at accolades and doesn't question them at all. He didn't deserve the 2007 FMVP at all, that's a legendary snub. He was basically a non-factor on defense and had less assists than his center, he just had hot shooting. Have you also looked at what his competition was when he got those All-NBA 2nd team selections? I know you didn't so here they are:

Goran Dragic, Rajon Rondo, post-prime Wade (2x), pre-prime Harden and pre-prime Lillard (both of them in their first year as All-Stars, well below the level they'd reach at their heights in the late 2010s).

So uhh,

You're underestimating Tony. He could also have had better stats on a different team as a higher option, though of course at the expense of winning.

Some of those players you listed aren't PG's though.

The Spurs obviously had solid teams and Pop didn't overplay his guys. In his prime he averaged 19/3/6 and shot 51/32 (obviously barely taking three's) over 9 seasons, (per 36: 21/3/7). In the playoffs those seasons 21/4/6 (36.7 mpg) on 48/32 shooting.

His production rate was very good. The nice thing about now is that almost every team can find enough shooting to surround primary initiators and main scorers with, so no issue with his lack of 3PT shooting unless you pair him up with someone else that he has to space for.

Parker now in his prime on an average team would give you on a yearly basis 22-25 ppg and 8-9 apg while probably having the highest FG% among guards. His touch was impeccable, that's the other real killer thing about him. He would peak even higher in scoring if the situation permits, I mean he played with Duncan and Manu his whole career, so there was rarely need for him to take on a heavier scoring load.

I'm not sure why I'm really taking a guy like Young over him. Yes he can out shoot Parker from range, but Parker will defend better, is a higher IQ player overall.

What has Garland done to be considered better? Haliburton I really like, but what has he done to be better? Parker we know produced in the regular season AND playoffs, some of these guys we haven't seen them in the post season and having to adjust to defenses. Parker we also know would have much higher counting stats now, especially in assists just because the average system would be much different than what he had with the Spurs most years, and of course pace and space helps him too.

Thread asked for guards though so I included SGs. Also when we're talking about today I assumed we actually meant today and not a couple months from now in the play-offs. So take out Haliburton, Young and Garland for a lack of play-offs success and shift through who you think should be PG or SG (some guys like Harden, Kyrie, Luka and SGA aren't entirely clear) but point is I see Parker as a fringe All-NBA guy even at his best. His killer touch or high iq are nice but it has to be reflected in actual impact, something Parker didn't have a lot of compared to his reputation.

When people say today, don't they mean "in the current league". I'm not taking them out because of lack of playoff success, but I'm saying they haven't even done enough in the regular season for us to say they are definitely better than Parker
AND we haven't even seen if they can produce similarly in the post-season yet, so that gives us even less data to say they are definitely better.

Why do you believe his impact was low, what are you specifically basing that on?

[Ckay]

Still better than Stephen Jackson.

[Zombiesonics]

He was unstoppable in 2013, he is probably one of the most explosive offensive guards in the postseason I can recall over the past decade (edit: in my lifetime). Incredible first step and finishing, almost alien like with the finishing tbh.

[Lockdown504090]

About as good as Brunson,

[Dutchball97]

You're underestimating Tony. He could also have had better stats on a different team as a higher option, though of course at the expense of winning.

Some of those players you listed aren't PG's though.

The Spurs obviously had solid teams and Pop didn't overplay his guys. In his prime he averaged 19/3/6 and shot 51/32 (obviously barely taking three's) over 9 seasons, (per 36: 21/3/7). In the playoffs those seasons 21/4/6 (36.7 mpg) on 48/32 shooting.

His production rate was very good. The nice thing about now is that almost every team can find enough shooting to surround primary initiators and main scorers with, so no issue with his lack of 3PT shooting unless you pair him up with someone else that he has to space for.

Parker now in his prime on an average team would give you on a yearly basis 22-25 ppg and 8-9 apg while probably having the highest FG% among guards. His touch was impeccable, that's the other real killer thing about him. He would peak even higher in scoring if the situation permits, I mean he played with Duncan and Manu his whole career, so there was rarely need for him to take on a heavier scoring load.

I'm not sure why I'm really taking a guy like Young over him. Yes he can out shoot Parker from range, but Parker will defend better, is a higher IQ player overall.

What has Garland done to be considered better? Haliburton I really like, but what has he done to be better? Parker we know produced in the regular season AND playoffs, some of these guys we haven't seen them in the post season and having to adjust to defenses. Parker we also know would have much higher counting stats now, especially in assists just because the average system would be much different than what he had with the Spurs most years, and of course pace and space helps him too.

Thread asked for guards though so I included SGs. Also when we're talking about today I assumed we actually meant today and not a couple months from now in the play-offs. So take out Haliburton, Young and Garland for a lack of play-offs success and shift through who you think should be PG or SG (some guys like Harden, Kyrie, Luka and SGA aren't entirely clear) but point is I see Parker as a fringe All-NBA guy even at his best. His killer touch or high iq are nice but it has to be reflected in actual impact, something Parker didn't have a lot of compared to his reputation.

When people say today, don't they mean "in the current league". I'm not taking them out because of lack of playoff success, but I'm saying they haven't even done enough in the regular season for us to say they are definitely better than Parker
AND we haven't even seen if they can produce similarly in the post-season yet, so that gives us even less data to say they are definitely better.

Why do you believe his impact was low, what are you specifically basing that on?

I probably worded it a bit harshly. Parker didn't have low impact, like I said his prime years are definite All-Star, fringe All-NBA level. I just think most guys I listed are already above that level. For what it's worth I'd only take the first 8 clearly over Parker with the next 5 being more of a toss-up to me.

[Pelly24]

Top 5 PG behind Steph, Ja and SGA. Tony had a great game and would fare even better with space around him to work into the midrange and hunt mismatches, push in transition. He was undersized and not athletic, conventionally but had great shiftiness and a lethal first step which he would use to obliterate defences.

Wasn't there a whole thing about Parker's end to end speed? Seems like you basically mean he didn't have a high vertical because he was very fast, the you are saying he was quick, has great change of direction, great acceleration, that's a lot of conventional athleticism except for jumping high

"it also helps to be faster than everybody"

Watch on YouTube

There is the conventional belief that athleticism equates to vertical ability/explosion as illustrated by Ja, Westbrook, Rose. I think Demar is an opposite case where he had major hops early on but was never quick like Russ or Tony Parker. Tony had a negligible vertical by NBA standards but he had phenomenal balance, change of direction and the ability to stop on a dime and get a clean look, all things which are vital for elite offense but are not equated with conventional athleticism.

Basketball is such an interesting sport in terms of how people view athletic ability. I'll see a player outrun and outmaneuver folks full court with crazy change of direction and speed and people will be like, "he wasn't physically gifted." Then you'll see a jacked guy who can't get by or stay in front of anyone and he'll do a windmill on a fast break and people are like, "wow, freak athlete" lol.

Literally, the ability to blow by anyone any time you want is probably the most important part of athleticism, along with strength and balance and body control. Tony was a great athlete, and probably had decent bounce too.

[picc]

'23 Ja Morant: 33% 3pt
'23 De'Aaron Fox: 32% 3pt

But Tony Parker can't flourish in today's spaced out NBA because he wasn't a sharpshooter.

Dude would eviscerate the rim today. He had a billion points in the paint with the Spurs spacing. In a five out offense with his finishing ability and speed?

[Pelly24]

'23 Ja Morant: 33% 3pt
'23 De'Aaron Fox: 32% 3pt

But Tony Parker can't flourish in today's spaced out NBA because he wasn't a sharpshooter.

Dude would eviscerate the rim today. He had a billion points in the paint with the Spurs spacing. In a five out offense with his finishing ability and speed?

I saw some stat that indicated that Tony had 575 at-rim attempts in like 85 games (including playoffs) in 2012. That's such a huge amount it dwarfs any guard today. He was maybe the fastest guard of his era. With today's spacing? look out

[Dmagic]

he would be what he is. an elite pg on a championship level team. but prob average 25-5-5 depending on his team structure. top pg arguably the best bc of his teams winning but he needs paired with high level teammates

[Chinook]

Top 5 PG behind Steph, Ja and SGA. Tony had a great game and would fare even better with space around him to work into the midrange and hunt mismatches, push in transition. He was undersized and not athletic, conventionally but had great shiftiness and a lethal first step which he would use to obliterate defences.

Wasn't there a whole thing about Parker's end to end speed? Seems like you basically mean he didn't have a high vertical because he was very fast, then you are saying he was quick, has great change of direction, great acceleration, that's a lot of conventional athleticism except for jumping high


"it also helps to be faster than everybody"

Watch on YouTube

It's not just that he was fast. It's that he could run all day. Dude was in tremendous shape, and he wore opposing defenders out by sprinting all around the court basically every second he was in the game. Obviously NBA players are still in shape compared to their older counterparts, but the way Tony moved around the court is something modern defenses don't have to take into account when guarding off-ball movement.

Also, Tony was so good at getting into and scoring in the paint that he rivaled big men in his prime. He was so good at creating layups, that I think he would've been accepted into the D'Antoni Rockets despite his lack of three-point shooting.

[NZB2323]

He’d still be good enough to be the 3rd best player on a championship team.

[Yoshun]

It's hard to say because he was not a good 3 point shooter. The game has changed so much in the last 10 years. He was a quick, talented player, so he'd have a place for sure. It's just hard to say what that is.

So? Don't pair him next to LeBron who is an on ball guy and needs spacers next to him.

If Parker is the initiator and you have shooters, a big finisher, a secondary playmaker, why would he need to shoot three's?

I keep saying it and have been for some years, we have to seperate the reality that 3PT shooting has become critical for success in the league with the understanding of how and why. It's not the primary initiators and main scorers who you really need three point shooting from. Does it help? Of course because it makes it easier to pair them with more players and for roster building, but it won't limit their productivity in the right team setting.

I didn't say he couldn't be successful, I said I wasn't sure how he'd fit in. There are obviously other guards in the league right now who don't shoot 3s. I've seen Morant, Fox, and Shai as examples in this thread, all excellent players, but also different from Parker. They're all essentially first options on their teams and their offenses run right through them, that was never really Parker's game. It remains to be seen if even those guys will be able to head championship caliber teams in today's NBA. They're good players, but building around them is a challenge in today's league. It means your pg is going to be spending a lot of time inside, moving wings and bigs outside. That has it's pros and cons.

For a guy like LeBron, you don't mind building around flaws because he's a top 2 -3 player all time, an elite of the elite level talent. The further you get down the totem pole of talent, so to speak, the harder it is to justify building to shield a player's flaws, and also the more likely they are to be flawed.

I think Parker would probably be a very good player, but I'm not sure he would be the starting PG of a dynasty.

[Yoshun]

It's hard to say because he was not a good 3 point shooter. The game has changed so much in the last 10 years. He was a quick, talented player, so he'd have a place for sure. It's just hard to say what that is.

The idea that you need to be a major three point threat is silly. It helps, of course, but look at a guy like Shai this year. He's making less than 1 three per game.

Parker was phenomenally quick and one of the best finishing PGs ever. He'd feast in the modern NBA.

I didn't say "major 3 point threat." Being able to shoot 3s doesn't mean "major threat." I'm not sure I'd call it "silly." It's much easier to fit a guy who can shoot into a team.

[og15]

It's hard to say because he was not a good 3 point shooter. The game has changed so much in the last 10 years. He was a quick, talented player, so he'd have a place for sure. It's just hard to say what that is.

So? Don't pair him next to LeBron who is an on ball guy and needs spacers next to him.

If Parker is the initiator and you have shooters, a big finisher, a secondary playmaker, why would he need to shoot three's?

I keep saying it and have been for some years, we have to seperate the reality that 3PT shooting has become critical for success in the league with the understanding of how and why. It's not the primary initiators and main scorers who you really need three point shooting from. Does it help? Of course because it makes it easier to pair them with more players and for roster building, but it won't limit their productivity in the right team setting.

I didn't say he couldn't be successful, I said I wasn't sure how he'd fit in. There are obviously other guards in the league right now who don't shoot 3s. I've seen Morant, Fox, and Shai as examples in this thread, all excellent players, but also different from Parker. They're all essentially first options on their teams and their offenses run right through them, that was never really Parker's game. It remains to be seen if even those guys will be able to head championship caliber teams in today's NBA. They're good players, but building around them is a challenge in today's league. It means your pg is going to be spending a lot of time inside, moving wings and bigs outside. That has it's pros and cons.

For a guy like LeBron, you don't mind building around flaws because he's a top 2 -3 player all time, an elite of the elite level talent. The further you get down the totem pole of talent, so to speak, the harder it is to justify building to shield a player's flaws, and also the more likely they are to be flawed.

I think Parker would probably be a very good player, but I'm not sure he would be the starting PG of a dynasty.

I think it's pretty easy to see what his place would be, and that is as a starting All-Star level guard on any team.

Now, being a starting PG on a dynasty, well, of course that we can't predict since there are so many factors that would go into that. You have to be on the right team. Parker is not the only PG from his time who could have been in a dynasty with Duncan, Manu, Pop and a little bit of Robinson.

Parker isn't going to be the best player in that situation, but I mean if for example he got to play next to Jokic and I don't know who would be the Manu equivalent, let's just choose someone more randomly, not trying to actually equate playing style and stuff, Jaylen Brown.

Sure, Parker/Brown/Jokic, a 3/D wing and a 3/D PF, maybe one that can also protect the rim, just to be general and not get too deep into this hypothetical, that could be a dynasty. Parker is also a great cutter and very good moving of the ball.

The offense started running more through Parker and less through the post when Duncan started getting older, he was quite effective. There wouldn't be any problem running your offense through him, and he doesn't need to be a first option. If you space like everyone does now and the first option isn't a guy who can't shoot themselves or is best with spacers around them, you're perfectly fine. For example Parker and Durant paired together.

Success wise, of course Parker doesn't reach that same level if he isn't paired with a great organization and coaching, at least top 20 All-Time teammate (he had a top 10 guy) and another guy who is basically an All-star level performer.

[picc]

Actually, the Spurs offense did run through Parker during his prime.He was their primary ballhandler and distributor in the early ‘10s for most of the game, with Manu taking over in the clutch.

Feel like parkers gotten really underated since he played. For a while he had the most offensive responsibilty on the Spurs with Manu coming off the bench and Duncan taking a backseat.

[Wallace_Wallace]

A better finishing Chris Paul, with less leadership and passing.

[RipHamilton]

I'd rather have Luka, Curry, Lillard, SGA, Morant, Harden, Kyrie, Mitchell, Haliburton, Jrue, Booker, Garland and Trae than peak Parker.

No way mate. Are you smoking something? Or you simply can't think properly? You must be one of those kids who think NBA nowadays is better than any other era, just because players now are stronger and faster (and have more tatoos), but the majority of players nowadays have low basketball IQ, and can't do anything more than run and shot.

Parker is history of the NBA. He has proven to be key to winning championships. He is a winner. He was fast, clever, full of quality, great mid-range shot, great finisher. Prime Parker would be a pain in the ass in today's nba.

Any great offensive player in the past, would be a better player nowadays. As simple as that. Today's NBA is easier to score, easier to be an offensive player.

Haliburton? Garland? They have a lot to prove to look Parker in the eye. They are kids, nothing proven yet. Even SGA and Morant? Still they have to prove they can be winners. They are stronger and better physically, but quite far in quality and IQ. They have accomplished ****.

Jrue? Not the quality of Parker, great player, though.

Curry and Luka are clearly ahead of Parker. Booker is not a PG so I don't consider this comparison.

[Dutchball97]

I'd rather have Luka, Curry, Lillard, SGA, Morant, Harden, Kyrie, Mitchell, Haliburton, Jrue, Booker, Garland and Trae than peak Parker.

No way mate. Are you smoking something? Or you simply can't think properly? You must be one of those kids who think NBA nowadays is better than any other era, just because players now are stronger and faster (and have more tatoos), but the majority of players nowadays have low basketball IQ, and can't do anything more than run and shot.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.