All-time ranking: how far apart do you have Ginobili and Parker?

[SS_Carpathia]

Title.

[Gooner]

They are about equal to me.

[70sFan]

I'd have to think about it. Manu was clearly a better player per possession, but Parker played a lot and had less injuries.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

[70sFan]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Parker's international career should put him inside top 130 easily to me.

[Jaivl]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Parker's international career should put him inside top 130 easily to me.

Parker's 2013 run alone is easily top 100 if you count international career (he's a clear top 100 for me anyway).

[Gooner]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Not quite true because Ginobili was a sixth man. Parker was much more efficient than Manu also.

[Owly]

Gut is Manu and pretty wild to be going in any other direction.

How could one get to Parker above.... have a system that values way below average minutes positively and thus overrates pedestrian or even bad level of play longevity (and thus puts a lot of value in 02-04, 15-19 where he's at best not substantially above average), ignore playoffs, ignore impact.

RS Win Shares does that. RS total win shares has Manu 106.4, TP 111.3. This win is by virtue of longevity amassing a 11420 RS minute advantage. But how valuable are those fringe minutes. Well 02-04, 15-19 he adds 34.3 WS off 15212 minutes. We could shave a season or two off to get it about the same but it's clear the apparent advantage is volume of production above a very low threshold.


But even on this crude measure Manu leaps him in the playoffs 20.8 to 13.6 to create a combined (rs+p) lead (127.2, 124.9). A bit is that proportionally Parker doesn't have as large an advantage in minutes in the playoffs. Another is that Parker drops significantly more in rate production from a lower baseline (Manu: .190 to .164 down .026; Parker .140 to .084 down .056).

Impact family too seems to tell the same story. Manu much better rate-wise (and by on-off at least this gap clearly increases in the playoffs where Manu's number jumps from 6.5 to 10.2; Parker's down from 2.1 to -0.8, though smaller samples different opponent samples etc make this noisy). [on-off used for consistency, accuracy, availability of the data (i.e. I can get it from Reference and it's correct) - the RAPM sources I look at also fits a clear advantage to Manu - other data whatever picture it shows is of course welcome]

Same conventional wisdom had them close as Duncan's sidekicks and Parker had the celebrity wife and higher ppg (maybe younger, picked higher, more photogenic help?). I believe this was wrong. I Manu was vastly superior rate player (with the something like exponential growth of higher end play factoring in here) and thus a much better prime. I think you'd then be required to have pre- and post-prime Parker with circa average RS rate of production and on-off and lower for both in the playoffs as a substantial value add, and whilst it's not nothing and role player seasons can be undervalued, things like WS with a notional 0 win baseline vastly overstate the value of such seasons, especially in a high end all time comparison. Were I not quite far along the low end playoff weighters on here I'd find the gap wider. To be clear, the In prime Parker mpg advantage isn't nothing (and value depends on the quality of backups) but I don't think it surmounts (or comes close to doing so) the evidence that Manu was much better.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Parker's international career should put him inside top 130 easily to me.

Parker's 2013 run alone is easily top 100 if you count international career (he's a clear top 100 for me anyway).

I have guys like Alex English, Elvin Hayes, Adrian Dantley in the 90s. Do you think Tony is better than those guys for example?

[Owly]

Parker's international career should put him inside top 130 easily to me.

Parker's 2013 run alone is easily top 100 if you count international career (he's a clear top 100 for me anyway).

I have guys like Alex English, Elvin Hayes, Adrian Dantley in the 90s. Do you think Tony is better than those guys for example?

Answer could still be interesting but might not tell you much in terms of "where should he be" as others rankings may differ significantly from your own (fwiw the last three 100 projects here had Hayes 58, 61, 59; Dantley 51, 59, 55; English 54, 64, 68 ... not saying who's right but given the differences here they could put him circa 70 and behind all 3, whilst being within the mainstream of what the collective voting pool decided).

[HeartBreakKid]

Parker's 2013 run alone is easily top 100 if you count international career (he's a clear top 100 for me anyway).

I have guys like Alex English, Elvin Hayes, Adrian Dantley in the 90s. Do you think Tony is better than those guys for example?

Answer could still be interesting but might not tell you much in terms of "where should he be" as others rankings may differ significantly from your own (fwiw the last three 100 projects here had Hayes 58, 61, 59; Dantley 51, 59, 55; English 54, 64, 68 ... not saying who's right but given the differences here they could put him circa 70 and behind all 3, whilst being within the mainstream of what the collective voting pool decided).

I'm aware.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Not quite true because Ginobili was a sixth man. Parker was much more efficient than Manu also.

in what world?

[Owly]

I have guys like Alex English, Elvin Hayes, Adrian Dantley in the 90s. Do you think Tony is better than those guys for example?

Answer could still be interesting but might not tell you much in terms of "where should he be" as others rankings may differ significantly from your own (fwiw the last three 100 projects here had Hayes 58, 61, 59; Dantley 51, 59, 55; English 54, 64, 68 ... not saying who's right but given the differences here they could put him circa 70 and behind all 3, whilst being within the mainstream of what the collective voting pool decided).

I'm aware.

Fair enough.

It just felt like the direction of the conversation was going toward getting to clarity on exactly Tony is for them and where the difference is and per the above, versus 3 particular players (and as it happens ones you differ in one consistent direction, with the voting [not necessarily board] prevailing opinion) won't really tell you about that.

But as I say it doesn't stop it being of interest.

Fwiw (as one might guess from my first post), from an NBA only perspective I think I'm closer to you than any others on the twos merits so far.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

Not quite true because Ginobili was a sixth man. Parker was much more efficient than Manu also.

in what world?

A world where field goal percentage is the only thing that matters.

[Gooner]

Not quite true because Ginobili was a sixth man. Parker was much more efficient than Manu also.

in what world?

A world where field goal percentage is the only thing that matters.

What makes Manu more efficient than Parker?

[HeartBreakKid]

in what world?

A world where field goal percentage is the only thing that matters.

What makes Manu more efficient than Parker?

He makes more free throws and substantially more 3 pointers. Tony makes only .3 three pointers per game at 30% throughout his prime which is very bad for a guard.


Manu's efficency doesn't drop off in the playoffs either, while Parker's does by a lot (56% TS to 52%).

Used season averages from 05-11 and 07-13 for Manu and Tony respectively.

[70sFan]

I think calling Manu top 40 player and having Parker outside of 130 is a stretch. I do agree that Manu was clearly a better player at their bests, but this gap in career evaluations doesn't look fair to me.

[No-more-rings]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

I’m not gonna say for certain if having Parker outside the top 130 is reasonable or not, but going by our last 2 top 100 projects Parker went in the 70s. So that would definitely be an unpopular opinion to have him that low.

When it comes down to it we’re still talking about a guy who was a 6 time all star, a fmvp and an integral piece of a 4 time champion and annual 50+ win team. You know I mean he wasn’t just a guy that was along for the ride either he had a lot of great moments.

So to come up with 130 players with better careers I think would take a lot of work. Not saying it’s impossible, but it seems on the surface you’re selling him short quite a bit.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think calling Manu top 40 player and having Parker outside of 130 is a stretch. I do agree that Manu was clearly a better player at their bests, but this gap in career evaluations doesn't look fair to me.

It's not a stretch for a #2 to be within the top 50 and a #3 to not be within the top 100, I think.

I don't think they're all that close as players. He was a more natural passer. Manu was a better scorer by a good amount (post season emphasis). Better shooter by a large amount. Better defender by a large amount.

The only major thing Tony rates better at is that he plays more. If that isn't an important part of your criteria, I fail to see what makes Tony so deeply entrenched within the top 100.

I'm looking at my list and looking at relatively uncelebrated players like Rudy Gobert, Connie Hawkins, Bobby Jones, Larry Nance who are on the back end of my top 100. The players that people can look at and whether fairly or not go "bleh".

I don't think Tony was as good as them, or even really close to them, his main advantage again, would be games played. Give me Gus Williams or Terry Porter any day, without hesitation.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think Manu is a top 40 player all time. I take into account non-NBA play as well.

Tony is not in my top 100, possibly not in my top 130 as well.

So I think there is a large difference between them. Manu is a premium #2 guy, while Tony is more of an ideal #3 guy.

Feels a bit like Pippen vs his #3's, albeit Tony did have a nice albeit short peak in his own right.

I’m not gonna say for certain if having Parker outside the top 130 is reasonable or not, but going by our last 2 top 100 projects Parker went in the 70s. So that would definitely be an unpopular opinion to have him that low.

When it comes down to it we’re still talking about a guy who was a 6 time all star, a fmvp and an integral piece of a 4 time champion and annual 50+ win team. You know I mean he wasn’t just a guy that was along for the ride either he had a lot of great moments.

So to come up with 130 players with better careers I think would take a lot of work. Not saying it’s impossible, but it seems on the surface you’re selling him short quite a bit.

Every player in the top 100 had moments and wasn't just a guy. Saying someone was a 6 time all-star isn't really all that sexy. I think 6 time all-star is quite common in the top 100. The success of the Spurs make him look very regal.

Did he help the Spurs? Of course, he is an all-star. But it's not like if you replaced Tony Parker with Mark Price they'd lose less.



Also citing the top 100 in the later ranks is pointless. The top 100 is a project consisting of many different posters. It isn't a consensus oriented list, someone has to win that spot. Literally, every poster has a significantly different top 100 than the realgm top 100.