How Good Would Prime Tony Parker Be Today?

[Pelly24]

Where would prime Tony Parker rank among today's guards? Maybe the fastest and best finishing PG of his era.

[art_tatum]

Couldn't really shoot threes until post prime.

[Phreak50]

Just as good as he was. It hasn't been that long.

4 time champion, 3 all NBA second teams, finals MVP.

The guy was lightning quick and knew how to use his strengths and get to his spots.

Given how more common screen and rolls and lob threat big men are now, Parker would be even more deadly in fact.

[BloodNinja]

Perfect environment for him to score more points. I think he'd average 25+ and be 3rd best PG behind Curry & Lillard.

[JN61]

Perfect environment for him to score more points. I think he'd average 25+ and be 3rd best PG behind Curry & Lillard.

Better than Morant? Frankly Morant > Lillard.

[Dutchball97]

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

[Chinook]

In a game where bigs all shoot threes, he'd feast in the paint. It would limit some teammates he could have, but it's not like he was a bad passer or bad off-ball player. Pop implemented an entire offense around Tony moving without the ball.

[Phreak50]

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

[Ben-N1ce]

He'd be Quigley with his floater...

[Dutchball97]

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

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,

[PaulKellerman]

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.

[og15]

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

[Mavrelous]

Closest comparison is Fox.

[PaulKellerman]

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.

[Lalouie]

he would do great

but he would be forced to shoot more 3s, probably at the cost of his brilliant midrange

[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.

[Blame Rasho]

He led the league in points in the paint in a much more physical league, mind you in an era that had post players like Shaq, Duncan, and swing players like Kobe, Lebron and Wade.

He would be ok in a league that is much less physical and much more open due to spacing.

[og15]

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

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.

[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.

[Ayt]

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.