Better Player During Prime: Manu or Tony Parker

[Uncle Mxy]

Manu was a better player.
Tony was a better playa.

[nate33]

Manu and it's not remotely close.

Let's call prime Manu 2004-2011 and prime Parker 2005-2013 and look at their stats in that range. One can fiddle with the range but it wouldn't matter.

Regular Season BPM
Manu: +6.6
Parker: +2.5

Regular Season VORP
Manu: 35.6
Parker: 23.7

Regular Season On/Off
Manu: +9.6
Parker: +4.3

Playoff BPM
Manu: +6.3
Parker: +1.0

Playoff VORP
Manu: 6.6
Parker: 3.6

Playoff On/Off
Manu: +13.0
Parker: +1.4

The On/Off edge is even more impressive for Manu since he played more minutes with the second unit. Every RAPM set I've ever seen has Manu totally crushing Parker.

Prime Manu on a per-minute basis was a top-5 all-time SG. Prime Parker probably isn't in the top-20 of all-time PG primes.

Manu was obviously a much better player in the minutes he was on the court. On a per-minute basis, Manu was indeed a top 10 SG of all time and flirting with top 5. His advanced stats are superb.

The issue with Manu always boils down to availability/durability. Detractors place more emphasis on total work load, not per-minute production. While that's fair, I think too many people conclude that Manu was incapable of handling more minutes when I don't believe that was the case.

Manu was asked to come off the bench because that's what the team needed most from him. They needed a guy to carry the squad while Duncan and Parker rested. And when you come off the bench, it's just not possible to play as many minutes. For Manu to miss the first 6 minutes of each half and still play 36 minutes a night, he would have to play 18 uninterrupted minutes each half. That's just not possible. So by accepting a bench role, he was accepting that he wouldn't play more than 28-30 minutes a game. I really believe he could have played 33 minutes a game if Popovich didn't ask him to come off the bench. He played roughly as many minutes as Parker in the years that he was asked to be a starter.

The other issue with Manu when comparing him to other starting shooting guards is that Popovich was an innovator in load management. All his players played less regular season minutes than their peers.

[rand]

Manu and it's not remotely close.

Let's call prime Manu 2004-2011 and prime Parker 2005-2013 and look at their stats in that range. One can fiddle with the range but it wouldn't matter.

Regular Season BPM
Manu: +6.6
Parker: +2.5

Regular Season VORP
Manu: 35.6
Parker: 23.7

Regular Season On/Off
Manu: +9.6
Parker: +4.3

Playoff BPM
Manu: +6.3
Parker: +1.0

Playoff VORP
Manu: 6.6
Parker: 3.6

Playoff On/Off
Manu: +13.0
Parker: +1.4

The On/Off edge is even more impressive for Manu since he played more minutes with the second unit. Every RAPM set I've ever seen has Manu totally crushing Parker.

Prime Manu on a per-minute basis was a top-5 all-time SG. Prime Parker probably isn't in the top-20 of all-time PG primes.

Manu was obviously a much better player in the minutes he was on the court. On a per-minute basis, Manu was indeed a top 10 SG of all time and flirting with top 5. His advanced stats are superb.

The issue with Manu always boils down to availability/durability. Detractors place more emphasis on total work load, not per-minute production. While that's fair, I think too many people conclude that Manu was incapable of handling more minutes when I don't believe that was the case.

Manu was asked to come off the bench because that's what the team needed most from him. They needed a guy to carry the squad while Duncan and Parker rested. And when you come off the bench, it's just not possible to play as many minutes. For Manu to miss the first 6 minutes of each half and still play 36 minutes a night, he would have to play 18 uninterrupted minutes each half. That's just not possible. So by accepting a bench role, he was accepting that he wouldn't play more than 28-30 minutes a game. I really believe he could have played 33 minutes a game if Popovich didn't ask him to come off the bench. He played roughly as many minutes as Parker in the years that he was asked to be a starter.

The other issue with Manu when comparing him to other starting shooting guards is that Popovich was an innovator in load management. All his players played less regular season minutes than their peers.

I agree that aggregate value is where Parker's supporters make their case but I think their measurement even just in that area is mistaken. 29 minutes of 1st team All-NBA level play is better than 33 minutes of borderline 3rd team All-NBA play. That's reflected in their prime VORP. 8 regular seasons of prime Manu still produced 50% more aggregated value than 9 regular seasons of prime Parker. 7 postseasons of prime Manu are worth almost double the VORP of 9 postseasons of prime Parker.

[Knightro]

Manu's apex was higher than Parker's apex certainly.

I would say Manu was a better player in his prime than Parker was, but Parker had a longer and fuller career.

Parker was a heavy-minute starter for basically 16 consecutive years with the Spurs. That's not nothing. Longevity does mean something.

Including playoffs, Parker played a shade over 46,000 career minutes. Manu played a shade under 33,000. That's a pretty wide gap.

[Bornstellar]

Parker is my guy and I always defend him on here but this is pretty easily Manu and it's not particularly close, imo

[Mirotic12]

Manu was a better shooter, had more range, was a better passer, and a more versatile defender.

So, Manu.

[Mirotic12]

This board imo slightly overrates Manu.

He's a borderline top 10 SG of all time but nowhere near Top 5.

Tony Parker is also a Lock top 15 PG of all time, borderline top 10.

Lock for top 15? Borderline top 10?

1. Magic
2. Curry
3. Oscar
4. CP3
5. Harden
6. Walt Frazier
7. Kidd
8. Nash
9. Stockton
10. SGA
11. Gary Payton
12. Bob Cousy
13. Luka
14. Billups
15. Dame
16. Westbrook

I don’t think that TP has an argument over any of these guys.

Parker was better than Billups, Lillard, and Westbrook.

[dhsilv2]

Manu and it's not remotely close.

Let's call prime Manu 2004-2011 and prime Parker 2005-2013 and look at their stats in that range. One can fiddle with the range but it wouldn't matter.

Regular Season BPM
Manu: +6.6
Parker: +2.5

Regular Season VORP
Manu: 35.6
Parker: 23.7

Regular Season On/Off
Manu: +9.6
Parker: +4.3

Playoff BPM
Manu: +6.3
Parker: +1.0

Playoff VORP
Manu: 6.6
Parker: 3.6

Playoff On/Off
Manu: +13.0
Parker: +1.4

The On/Off edge is even more impressive for Manu since he played more minutes with the second unit. Every RAPM set I've ever seen has Manu totally crushing Parker.

Prime Manu on a per-minute basis was a top-5 all-time SG. Prime Parker probably isn't in the top-20 of all-time PG primes.

Manu was obviously a much better player in the minutes he was on the court. On a per-minute basis, Manu was indeed a top 10 SG of all time and flirting with top 5. His advanced stats are superb.

The issue with Manu always boils down to availability/durability. Detractors place more emphasis on total work load, not per-minute production. While that's fair, I think too many people conclude that Manu was incapable of handling more minutes when I don't believe that was the case.

Manu was asked to come off the bench because that's what the team needed most from him. They needed a guy to carry the squad while Duncan and Parker rested. And when you come off the bench, it's just not possible to play as many minutes. For Manu to miss the first 6 minutes of each half and still play 36 minutes a night, he would have to play 18 uninterrupted minutes each half. That's just not possible. So by accepting a bench role, he was accepting that he wouldn't play more than 28-30 minutes a game. I really believe he could have played 33 minutes a game if Popovich didn't ask him to come off the bench. He played roughly as many minutes as Parker in the years that he was asked to be a starter.

The other issue with Manu when comparing him to other starting shooting guards is that Popovich was an innovator in load management. All his players played less regular season minutes than their peers.

During his prime he came in right at 32.8 minutes per game in the playoffs. Parker was around 37. That's a meaningful difference. But it's hardly the difference many here want to make it sound like it was.

[mdonnelly1989]

This board imo slightly overrates Manu.

He's a borderline top 10 SG of all time but nowhere near Top 5.

Tony Parker is also a Lock top 15 PG of all time, borderline top 10.

Lock for top 15? Borderline top 10?

1. Magic
2. Curry
3. Oscar
4. CP3
5. Harden
6. Walt Frazier
7. Kidd
8. Nash
9. Stockton
10. SGA
11. Gary Payton
12. Bob Cousy
13. Luka
14. Billups
15. Dame
16. Westbrook

I don’t think that TP has an argument over any of these guys.

Westbrook at 16 is blasphemous.

I’m talking strictly on legacy

4 rings as a vital part of all 4.

[dhsilv2]

Manu's apex was higher than Parker's apex certainly.

I would say Manu was a better player in his prime than Parker was, but Parker had a longer and fuller career.

Parker was a heavy-minute starter for basically [u]16 consecutive years with the Spurs.[/u] That's not nothing. Longevity does mean something.

Including playoffs, Parker played a shade over 46,000 career minutes. Manu played a shade under 33,000. That's a pretty wide gap.

What do you mean by heavy minutes? Parker never had a season where he even played 35 minutes a game, only 3 where he was over 34. Only 11 were over 30 for that matter.

[Mirotic12]

When it comes to their careers, Manu won an Olympic gold medal as the number 1 option, while Parker never achieved that.

That's debatable. Scola was Argentina's main option in the half court.

[Knightro]

What do you mean by heavy minutes? Parker never had a season where he even played 35 minutes a game, only 3 where he was over 34. Only 11 were over 30 for that matter.

Anything over 30 is heavy minutes looking at it broadly. I didn't mean heavy minutes like Iverson playing 40 MPG. I just meant in the respect of where San Antonio was as a team.

The Spurs basically only had 3 players in their rotation crack 30 MPG for more than a decade. Parker was one of them.

[Bankai]

Tony Parker was the better Player then Manu on and off the Court... if you know what I mean.

[JRoy]

Manu ten times out of ten over the little weasel sexting his teammates wife’s LOL

Brent? Is that you?

[TheGeneral99]

I remember Tony being a lethal mid-range player that could also finish, but Manu was the one the guy that scared the **** out of opposing teams.

I think that if Tony didn't have Duncan and Manu he'd be a very good player, but wouldn't be an all-star.

I think that if Manu didn't have Duncan and Tony, he'd be a perennial all-star averaging 25+ a game.

[tsherkin]

I remember Tony being a lethal mid-range player that could also finish, but Manu was the one the guy that scared the **** out of opposing teams.

I think that if Tony didn't have Duncan and Manu he'd be a very good player, but wouldn't be an all-star.

I think that if Manu didn't have Duncan and Tony, he'd be a perennial all-star averaging 25+ a game.

Parker had a really, really nice floater and he was insanely fast end to end. He was a solid player. To me, there's no question that Manu was much better, though. There's no statistical evidence to float a pro-Tony argument other than MPG, which is an interesting concern which resides at the core of Manu criticism, no doubt. But from the perspective of actual ability, impact, breadth of game and all that? Manu was clearly a MUCH better player.

[Knightro]

I guess the question is, would tacking on an additional 13,000 minutes (the gap between Parker and Manu's career regular season + playoffs minutes totals) have significantly negatively impacted Manu's efficiency?

I want to say it wouldn't have, but it's something we'll just never really know for sure.

[og15]

Lock for top 15? Borderline top 10?

1. Magic
2. Curry
3. Oscar
4. CP3
5. Harden
6. Walt Frazier
7. Kidd
8. Nash
9. Stockton
10. SGA
11. Gary Payton
12. Bob Cousy
13. Luka
14. Billups
15. Dame
16. Westbrook

I don’t think that TP has an argument over any of these guys.

Westbrook at 16 is blasphemous.

I’m talking strictly on legacy

4 rings as a vital part of all 4.

What exactly would that mean though? Is legacy just about rings? We know it is not, rings play a part, but it's about rings, production, impact, highest level of play, all these things factor in. Parker gets into the top 10 based on that? I don't see how he's getting into top 10 even if you add that, because he's competing with MVP / MVP level guys, which he never showed himself to be, that's tough. I get the logic of, okay, whether we want to or not, winning bias plays into things, but I'm not sure you're going to have winning bias boosting him that much when you ask people.

[nate33]

This board imo slightly overrates Manu.

He's a borderline top 10 SG of all time but nowhere near Top 5.

Tony Parker is also a Lock top 15 PG of all time, borderline top 10.

Lock for top 15? Borderline top 10?

1. Magic
2. Curry
3. Oscar
4. CP3
5. Harden
6. Walt Frazier
7. Kidd
8. Nash
9. Stockton
10. SGA
11. Gary Payton
12. Bob Cousy
13. Luka
14. Billups
15. Dame
16. Westbrook

I don’t think that TP has an argument over any of these guys.

Parker was better than Billups, Lillard, and Westbrook.

That's preposterous. Go look at the statistical difference between Lillard and Parker. Lillard scored 8 extra points per 100 possessions on 4.4% better TS% with way higher PER, WS/48 and BPM, a bunch more All-Star awards and All-NBA awards. All Parker has over Lillard is Championships, and that's because Parker was the third best player on his own team.

https://stathead.com/tiny/wEHSR

[cupcakesnake]

Manu's apex was higher than Parker's apex certainly.

I would say Manu was a better player in his prime than Parker was, but Parker had a longer and fuller career.

Parker was a heavy-minute starter for basically 16 consecutive years with the Spurs. That's not nothing. Longevity does mean something.

Including playoffs, Parker played a shade over 46,000 career minutes. Manu played a shade under 33,000. That's a pretty wide gap.

This is kind of like saying Antawn Jamison>Jimmy Butler.
Minutes matter for longevity, but how much do you want to weigh that when talking about players of vastly different impact.

The statistical footprint says Manu was in a whole different world than Tony. Even accumulative stats (something like VORP) which gives a big advantage to players who play more minutes, has Manu (47.6) over Parker (30.3).

Parker indeed played more minutes, but there's not much evidence that he impacted winning more overall despite the minute advantage.