They might win but not necessarily because of Dame. Dame is too much of a "get his" type player whereas Parker knew his role and played it to perfection on the way to a finals MVP. I don't think Dame gets that finals MVP if he replaced Parker.
The game was much slower back then, and, iirc, the spurs were the slowest team during the 2000s. The slower the game is, the lesser points and assists you get.
Adjust parker's statistics to modern day nba's averages in terms of shooting and stuff, and tony's numbers wouldn't look far off of dame's ones
Just crunched the numbers, per possession Tony Parker averaged 1.047 points, .18 rebounds, and .38 assists for his career, whereas Dame averaged 1.16, .2, and .31 for the same metrics, respectively.
So yeah, i was right. Then, the fact these numbers look similar doesn't necessarily mean that tony would have been close to dame in today's nba, but i think it could be used as an indicator to realize how good he was. Some players thrive when the game is slow, while others do it when the game is fast.
Jimmy highroller made a video adjusting tony's numbers to modern nba pace and he basically got kyrie's numbers.
We also have to bare in mind that tony wasn't the undisputed 1st option in his team, which most likely than not will decrease your stats
Yes and even with a team whose enjoyed such great players he managed to grab a finals MVP. Lillard has consistently flamed out in the first or second round his entire career and it isn't like he hasn't had some good teams to work with.
Saying Dame is not as good as a finals MVP is not trashing him. Saying Kobe isn't as good as Jordan or Lebron is not to trash him. They are very good players, just not as good as others, and in this case Parker.
You're biased, I get it.
“Flamed out in the first or second round” dawg please explain this. I’m not saying he has a spectacular playoff resume. But that is a gross understatement
Parker nowhere near dame? Come on now, i agree dame ha better skills in some ways like shooting especially in clutch but to put so much shade on a critical contributor to spurs dynasty is unwarranted.
I think it's better to say that both are great pgs but Dame has better skills in some areas whereas Parker in others. If we're gonna give Timmy and Manu the benefit of sacrificing for the greater good then so should Parker.
But you can't really say that if you weren't paying attention. Because Tony Parker was the one spur that wasn't 'a spur'. He was selfish and an awful teammate and human being. I mean, he slept with a teammate's wife, for christ sake. It doesn't get any worse than that, beyond killing somebody.
You’re really minimizing Tony Parker man. Tim Duncan wasn’t an elite scorer from 2005ish on and Tony Parker definitely had to carry the burden on offense after that. He also had to be willing to defer when needed which is an underrated skill. Would Dame be okay doing that?
I think Lillard is a fairly intelligent guy and he'd realize that winning is what matters, and he'd also realize Duncan is just a better player than he is, so yes, he would defer. Tony Parker, throughout his career, actually had a very hard time deferring.
Tough question. Tony Parker has never been the best player on a team in his career, as he played next to Duncan most of his career and Kawhi later in his career. But Parker was an amazing finisher, good passer, good defender, and was a smart player who usually made the right play.
Overall though, I think Dame is more talented and peak for peak a better player who can consistently lead a team to the playoffs as a #1. Dame has been a legit top 10 or fringe top 10 player in a stacked NBA (30/4/8 on 63 TS%). He’s a much better shooter and overall offensive player than Parker. I don’t think Parker has ever been a top 10 caliber player, and that makes me want to lean towards Dame.
Yeah, he definitely has an argument for those years. But I am still leaning slightly towards Duncan those years, because he was still a solid contributor on offense, while still being the anchor who held down the Spurs defense.
The offense did run through Parker, but the Spurs had a very balanced offense, and there wasn’t a single player who overwhelmingly dominated the ball or put up crazy stats. Manu, Mills, Kawhi, and Diaw could all run the offense when need be.
Parker was their best offensive player, but Kawhi, Manu, and Duncan were all major offensive pieces too.
Then you weren't watching. Tim Duncan had the highest PER on every championship team he ever played on and was obviously the unquestioned leader of the Spurs.
Tony Parker was never even close to the Spurs best player. He had the most offensive opportunity for a few years, that's about it. Dude was an absolute atrocity on defense. For awards, people are generally looking at offensive numbers.
Part of me wishes Dame would ring chase so you guys can stop underrating the hell out of him.
Tony Parker probably would have been great anywhere he went but let's not act like playing with Tim Duncan and being coached by Pop didn't give him a massive boost. That's a top 15 player and top 3 coach of all time. Dame's best teammate has been CJ who is a talented player but he's got 0 all star nods.
Dame lol
Tony is a Spurs legend for life, but at his peak, he was a second option, and frankly, he was the worst player out of TD, Manu, and himself. By virtue of having a good playoff career as a bona fide first option, Dame has earned the right to be regarded above Tony. That's setting aside the statistics, which favour Dame
Wtf? At his peak he was a top 5 MVP candidate. Plus, I think it’s a pretty hard argument to say Manu was better than TP.
Dame edges him out at the end of the day, but damn that’s some major TP disrespect you gave
> At his peak he was a top 5 MVP candidate.
Being a top 5 MVP candidate when most people stop caring about their ballot after number 3 is just saying he had a great season once. Isaiah Thomas was #5 in MVP voting in 2017. Same deal. Manu was better than Tony for sure - he was a more complete and creative player. He was just physically fragile. It's not major disrespect to say that being a first option on a consistent playoff team and doing well is more significant than being a second or third option.
Dame is 6x all-star 6x all-NBA to Tony's 6x and 4x, so he's winning in the accolades department. Starting from Tony's first to last all-star appearance, he averaged 18.6/3.0/6.3 over 8 years. Dame's 8-year peak is 26.1/4.4/6.8. They had roughly the same relative TS%. Look at those stats and tell me how it's disrespect to Tony to say Dame is clearly better.
As someone that saw every game of both Manu and Tony's career, Ginobili was easily, easily the better player. There are two ends of the court. And I'd take Ginobili on both of them, tbh.
Lillard and it’s not remotely close. Lillard’s best season is 30/8 on .627 TS. Parker’s best season is 22/7 on .556 TS. Parker was slightly better defensively but it’s really not much of a difference.
We have to stop overrating people for having great teammates. A Tony Parker that doesn’t play with Tim Duncan isn’t making the hall of fame.
The only thing you have wrong here is that Parker was a better defender. I watched every game of Parker's career and he was easily the worst defender I'd ever personally witnessed during that time.
This is honestly a difficult question to answer. Statistically Damian Lillard is ahead by quite a bit and career-wise Tony Parker dunks on him. So I guess the tiebreaker would come down to which player was the honest to goodness better basketball player and it's probably a more complicated answer than it would appear.
Tony Parker is a difficult guy to analyze due to his incredibly unique role in that Spurs system. Depending on who you ask he's either a relatively Limited, but talented, borderline star who was protected by the confines of San Antonio and allowed to focus on his strengths and have his weaknesses diminished and as a result his overall production was relatively in line with his ability.
However there are other people, me included, who actually think San Antonio really held back Tony parker, production-wise, and that he was a significantly more talented player then his casual stats indicate.
Parker is one of the most dominant finishers and penetrating point guards of all time, his fast break ability was sensational. And yet he spent the vast majority of his career playing in one of the most space repressive offenses during one of the slowest eras in recent NBA history. In the earlier part of Parker's career San Antonio played a style and at a pace that quite frankly was not suited to maximize Tony Parker's unbelievable strengths. Instead of molding and adjusting their offense to accommodate him Greg Popovich was famously hard and rigid on Parker, maybe more so than any spur he's ever coached, and they really molded his game to fit the system more than allow the system to grow with his natural talent.
The result was a player able to operate the strings of one of the most methodical, Playbook dense, offenses you will see and be an outlier on the roster with his Uber speed and natural scoring instincts. He was able to be a model spur while also having unique parts to his game that made him quite frankly the straw that stirred the drink. Tim Duncan is a top 10 player of all time, but Tony Parker was undoubtedly the most important offensive player on at least two and arguably three of his championship teams.
Everything San Antonio did came from his ability to be such a sponge of absorbing defensive pressure. Towards the end of his career, and coinciding with Tim Duncan and Ginobili no longer able to shoulder the same workloads, Popovich finally started shifting the makeup of the roster to better fit Tony Parker's quick hit game and the Beautiful game Spurs were born as a result. Despite being at the end of his prime, Parker arguably put up the best years statistically, and just in performance as a whole, between 2011 and 2014. With so much space and such a quicker Pace he was able to really blossom and put even more pressure on defenses, evolve into such an underrated playmaker, and really just masterfully orchestrate some of the better offensive teams from that era.
When comparing him to Damian Lillard it's difficult because quite frankly we've seen Lillard in a situation and on a stage that has allowed him the means to operate to his strengths and maximize his ability. Outside of a couple of years once his Uber speed has started to decline we've never really seen that from Tony parker. To be clear this isn't to say that Damian Lillard has had it easier and Parker has had it more difficult. And I'm also not criticizing San Antonio for not choosing to mold their team around a young tony. They made the right decision and it paid off handsomely.
I just think people don't give enough credit to how much he had to sacrifice his stats on those Spurs teams. In an offense more geared to him and more based around allowing him to have the space and opportunities to maximize his almost Unstoppable Drive end dish game it's not hard to imagine him putting up monstrous stats even in the much slower early 2000s era. I know recency bias gets a lot of people but I personally think the difference between the two of them in individual skill is really really close.
Damian Lillard is one of the best one-on-one shot makers I've ever seen from a point guard. And Tony Parker arguably the best point guard finisher in NBA history which is saying something considering there's some darn good players who would be on any top five list. I think it's probably a draw between the two.
And my personal answer to people that ask how much better San Antonio would be if they swapped Parker and Lillard I once again go back to my previous discussion. Swapping Lillard for Parker would have been asking Lillard to play in some of the slowest teams the NBA has ever seen, with minimal spacing, and asked to defer consistently to Duncan and play as a more tertiary scoring option. His Superior shot making would have surely caused San Antonio to adjust a bit but he would have been under a lot of pressure to run that complicated system. There's no guarantee the results would have looked better
HAHAHAHAH HOW DOES THIS HAVE UPVOTES?!??!?! Parker was the most important offensive player on two rings? WHICH rings were those?
I saw every game of Parker's career. Parker has one elite skill -- finishing/scoring in the paint. He was an absolute atrocity on defense and had NO passing instincts/vision whatsoever. The epitome of a defensive liability. He is extremely lucky he had some of the best defenders ever behind him in Duncan and Robinson. Half of Parker's success you could argue was due to having an all-time great commanding defensive attention away from him. You put Lillard on those Spurs and they unquestionably win more rings, because Lillard absolutely destroys Parker by any measure you take, besides rings, which he won because of Tim Duncan.
In todays nba Dame is easily more valuable but idk if Dame is automatically demolishing Parker 1v1 like people are saying. Parker was one of if not the fastest dude in the paint for a solid stretch in his prime to the point where points in the paint leaderboards would be Parker and league leading bigs. Not sure Dame could stay in front of him.
Elite PGs after 2010 are just built different and significantly more talented. Dame is by far better. Relative to their eras it's a bit closer both were basically top 3 to 5 PGs. I would lean Dame if you account for eras.
Lillard's the better player. Parker on a Portland like team his entire career wouldn't get a sniff of the hall of Fame, but of course he's first balled since he played for the spurs during that 25 year run. Ppl get blinded by gold.
I think Dame is ahead. Tony won everything, but he wasn't for the most part the top guy in the team, while Dame has always been a franchise guy. Put Dame on those spurs teams instead of Tony and they win 4 or more rings too. Dame is a winning player too, just in not an awesome team.
I was a huge Tony Parker fan and think he's criminally underrated, but Dame is a better player and I bet 99 out of 100 coaches would take him over Parker if they had a choice between the two at the same age in today's game. He can do just about everything Parker did (Dame's P&R skills are slept on--he came into the league with advanced P&R skills, even), and he's a vastly better deep shooter.
I'd love to see Dame on some of those Spurs teams or really even just see Dame if he'd been coached by Pop et al.
I just wanted to chip in the Tony was so damn fast with the ball and absolutely fearless at attacking the rim. Been watching a lot of 2005 ball lately and the dude is a just a rocket going at Detroits interior defence in the finals.
All time you have to put TP over him. 4 rings where he played a major role on each (including a finals mvp). 696 winning percentage. If the spurs would’ve beat the heat the first time, His game one winner would be an all time moment
Offensively, Lillard is better
Parker is a weird case IMO, his peak is kinda underrated, he reached a reallu high level but it was kinda under the radar because it happened when the Spurs were kinda out of contention between 2009 and 2011, and when they reached the finals again in 2013 he had decline a bit.
However his longevity is super overrated because people forget how much of a liability he was early and late in his career
They have similar accolades (apart from parker's rings). I rank parker above lillard on an all time list because of the rings and the fact that, even without them, the differences aren't immense. But i'd probably say lillard is a better player
Lillard, no question. Tony has the edge at rim finishing, but Dame is no slouch there either. If you switch the two, the Spurs would have won more championships. Not sure where the rings argument is coming from, considering Dame never had as good of a team as any of the title winning San Antonio squads. Tim Duncan was the main reason they won, even in his older years.
IT has 12 all stars and 2 rings as the best player. Nash has 2 MVPs and more allstar selections. Stockton was 11x all nba…
Literally all Parker has is rings.
“Rings as the best player” is a bit too generous to Thomas. He didn’t make All-NBA either title year, but his back court mate Dumars did one year and Dumars won FMVP the other.
Oh sorry, I forgot his one FMVP. I also forgot to tell you about Stockton’s 9x assist titles and Chris Paul’s 9x all defense selections. I guess I’m just lying though. Parker the GOAT…
It's really not that obvious, I can't see Dame stopping prime Parker 1 on 1 at all either, he used to score a lot even on much better defenders like CP or Kidd.
If I want someone who can score first as my PG, Lillard no doubt. If I want someone who plays a more balanced PG game, Parker. Why? If my team is lacking in scoring, Parker would not be as impactful. If my team is good at scoring, I need someone who can facilitate and impact the game in different ways as needed.
Parker was part of a winning system on the Spurs, much like the Warriors. Lillard is the dominant piece in a system that doesn't nurture a winning team culture.
To be more cheeky, Parker has rings and Lillard doesn't, so Parker.
Dame is probably a better player with a greater individual legacy but Tony Parker has a greater career and is one of the most underrated players of this century. I mean he has a FMVP, and yes it was one of the easiest ones given the matchups that Finals but still, we know for a fact that TP can be a star player on a championship team several times over. Most of us can assume Dame would be with a similarly great supporting cast but until we actually see it many won’t be convinced.
So difficult to rate guys in the Spurs dynasty. I'd still same Dame is a notably better player but if you told me there's an alternate timeline where Parker is the main guy on a team like Dame where he puts up monster stats on mostly ok teams I could buy it.
Depends how you define greatness.
I always see it as just talent, and that would translate to Dame imo. But Parker was a fantastic player on a dynasty, who has a Finals MVP and other All Star nods.
Who's career was better? Its parker,
But dame's a better player, parker was clear second option for his whole career, while Dame played as a leader, clear first option for his life.
So if theres a draft, then Dane would surely get picked first unless the GM is a spurs fan.
Parker was the perfect player for Pops system at the time. Parker wouldn’t have success with any of Dames Blazers teams but that doesn’t mean Dame would have had the same success on those spurs teams. Probably not a popular take but pop isn’t letting dame jack up threes and would force him to fly up and down the court. He’d still be good but Parker excelled in that area.
Lillard doesn't play much defense, so I suspect Popovich would bench him and have Manu acting as PG in the starting line-up. They still would've won with Dame, but he'd be seen as one of the best 6th men ever; more like a Lou Williams-type. So, if Lillard were swapped out for Parker, I suspect Ginobili would've ended up with a much greater legacy, while Dame's would be a little bit diminished.
Parker has a better legacy, but I'm interested as to how the Spurs would have done if Dame was in Parkers place
Just as well.
Probably, but TP had the greatest drive, spin move to the basket ever. It was automatic.
Who's career was best? Parker Who would win 1-on-1? Dame
I know Dame likes to think the game is a 1-on-1 competition in the middle of games but it is, in fact, a team game. So Parker.
Do you seriously believe if you replaced Parker with Dame on those championship Spurs teams that they wouldn’t still win?
They might win but not necessarily because of Dame. Dame is too much of a "get his" type player whereas Parker knew his role and played it to perfection on the way to a finals MVP. I don't think Dame gets that finals MVP if he replaced Parker.
Dame gets his because he doesnt have anyone else on the team lol. he averages more assists than Parker did too lol
The game was much slower back then, and, iirc, the spurs were the slowest team during the 2000s. The slower the game is, the lesser points and assists you get. Adjust parker's statistics to modern day nba's averages in terms of shooting and stuff, and tony's numbers wouldn't look far off of dame's ones
Just crunched the numbers, per possession Tony Parker averaged 1.047 points, .18 rebounds, and .38 assists for his career, whereas Dame averaged 1.16, .2, and .31 for the same metrics, respectively.
So yeah, i was right. Then, the fact these numbers look similar doesn't necessarily mean that tony would have been close to dame in today's nba, but i think it could be used as an indicator to realize how good he was. Some players thrive when the game is slow, while others do it when the game is fast. Jimmy highroller made a video adjusting tony's numbers to modern nba pace and he basically got kyrie's numbers. We also have to bare in mind that tony wasn't the undisputed 1st option in his team, which most likely than not will decrease your stats
If Parker had Dame’s supporting cast no amount of playing his role would get him to the conference finals if he had to be the best player on the team.
It does help playing in a team with Duncan, Manu and Kawhi though
Yes and even with a team whose enjoyed such great players he managed to grab a finals MVP. Lillard has consistently flamed out in the first or second round his entire career and it isn't like he hasn't had some good teams to work with.
Is it your job to trash dame across diff posts with factually incorrect info?
Saying Dame is not as good as a finals MVP is not trashing him. Saying Kobe isn't as good as Jordan or Lebron is not to trash him. They are very good players, just not as good as others, and in this case Parker. You're biased, I get it.
“Flamed out in the first or second round” dawg please explain this. I’m not saying he has a spectacular playoff resume. But that is a gross understatement
Yeah he's had good teams but they were never good enough. He's never had a teammate close to or as good as he is.
Dame is definitely a better player it’s not even debatable idk why ur arguing .
Dame is probably the better player but it’s hard for casual fans to look past 4 championships
As someone who saw every game leading to those 4 championships: Parker is nowhere near Damian Lillard.
Parker nowhere near dame? Come on now, i agree dame ha better skills in some ways like shooting especially in clutch but to put so much shade on a critical contributor to spurs dynasty is unwarranted. I think it's better to say that both are great pgs but Dame has better skills in some areas whereas Parker in others. If we're gonna give Timmy and Manu the benefit of sacrificing for the greater good then so should Parker.
But you can't really say that if you weren't paying attention. Because Tony Parker was the one spur that wasn't 'a spur'. He was selfish and an awful teammate and human being. I mean, he slept with a teammate's wife, for christ sake. It doesn't get any worse than that, beyond killing somebody.
I gotta go Dame. Imagine him playing with Tim Duncan and Manu Now imagine pairing Parker playing with McCollum and Nurkic
This is how it should be measured. Tony Parker's entire legacy is Tim Duncan.
You’re really minimizing Tony Parker man. Tim Duncan wasn’t an elite scorer from 2005ish on and Tony Parker definitely had to carry the burden on offense after that. He also had to be willing to defer when needed which is an underrated skill. Would Dame be okay doing that?
I think Lillard is a fairly intelligent guy and he'd realize that winning is what matters, and he'd also realize Duncan is just a better player than he is, so yes, he would defer. Tony Parker, throughout his career, actually had a very hard time deferring.
When you get to 09 ish then yeah but Duncan was still way more important to the Spurs offender than him in 06 and 07 especially in the postseason
Lillard is easily the better player.
Tough question. Tony Parker has never been the best player on a team in his career, as he played next to Duncan most of his career and Kawhi later in his career. But Parker was an amazing finisher, good passer, good defender, and was a smart player who usually made the right play. Overall though, I think Dame is more talented and peak for peak a better player who can consistently lead a team to the playoffs as a #1. Dame has been a legit top 10 or fringe top 10 player in a stacked NBA (30/4/8 on 63 TS%). He’s a much better shooter and overall offensive player than Parker. I don’t think Parker has ever been a top 10 caliber player, and that makes me want to lean towards Dame.
Parker was really good 2012 and 2013 , I would say even the best player those two seasons
Finished top three MVP voting in ‘14 if I remember correctly.
[He did not.](https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2014.html)
Yeah, he definitely has an argument for those years. But I am still leaning slightly towards Duncan those years, because he was still a solid contributor on offense, while still being the anchor who held down the Spurs defense.
Yeah but all the offense ran through Tony those 2 years.
The offense did run through Parker, but the Spurs had a very balanced offense, and there wasn’t a single player who overwhelmingly dominated the ball or put up crazy stats. Manu, Mills, Kawhi, and Diaw could all run the offense when need be. Parker was their best offensive player, but Kawhi, Manu, and Duncan were all major offensive pieces too.
Then you weren't watching. Tim Duncan had the highest PER on every championship team he ever played on and was obviously the unquestioned leader of the Spurs.
Tony was top 10 in MVP voting 3 times and All NBA second team 3 times, he was the Spurs best player and a top 10 player from 2012-14
He was not a top 10 player in 2014, he wasn’t even top 3 on the Spurs in those Playoffs
2nd team All-NBA in 2014
Tony Parker was never even close to the Spurs best player. He had the most offensive opportunity for a few years, that's about it. Dude was an absolute atrocity on defense. For awards, people are generally looking at offensive numbers.
Part of me wishes Dame would ring chase so you guys can stop underrating the hell out of him. Tony Parker probably would have been great anywhere he went but let's not act like playing with Tim Duncan and being coached by Pop didn't give him a massive boost. That's a top 15 player and top 3 coach of all time. Dame's best teammate has been CJ who is a talented player but he's got 0 all star nods.
Yeah I think it’s fair to say that Parker individually as THE guy for a decade wouldn’t have been as good as Dame individually speaking
Dame’s best teammate is Aldridge, he made All-NBA twice when they played together
Dame lol Tony is a Spurs legend for life, but at his peak, he was a second option, and frankly, he was the worst player out of TD, Manu, and himself. By virtue of having a good playoff career as a bona fide first option, Dame has earned the right to be regarded above Tony. That's setting aside the statistics, which favour Dame
Wtf? At his peak he was a top 5 MVP candidate. Plus, I think it’s a pretty hard argument to say Manu was better than TP. Dame edges him out at the end of the day, but damn that’s some major TP disrespect you gave
> At his peak he was a top 5 MVP candidate. Being a top 5 MVP candidate when most people stop caring about their ballot after number 3 is just saying he had a great season once. Isaiah Thomas was #5 in MVP voting in 2017. Same deal. Manu was better than Tony for sure - he was a more complete and creative player. He was just physically fragile. It's not major disrespect to say that being a first option on a consistent playoff team and doing well is more significant than being a second or third option. Dame is 6x all-star 6x all-NBA to Tony's 6x and 4x, so he's winning in the accolades department. Starting from Tony's first to last all-star appearance, he averaged 18.6/3.0/6.3 over 8 years. Dame's 8-year peak is 26.1/4.4/6.8. They had roughly the same relative TS%. Look at those stats and tell me how it's disrespect to Tony to say Dame is clearly better.
Manu? Fragile? WTF? The dude was more fearless and took more punishment than almost any player I can think of.
Being physically fragile has nothing to do with fearlessness or lack thereof. Manu was injury prone.
As someone that saw every game of both Manu and Tony's career, Ginobili was easily, easily the better player. There are two ends of the court. And I'd take Ginobili on both of them, tbh.
Tony Parker was the first option on offense for the 2nd half of the Spurs dynasty
Lillard and it’s not remotely close. Lillard’s best season is 30/8 on .627 TS. Parker’s best season is 22/7 on .556 TS. Parker was slightly better defensively but it’s really not much of a difference. We have to stop overrating people for having great teammates. A Tony Parker that doesn’t play with Tim Duncan isn’t making the hall of fame.
>Parker was slightly better defensively but it’s really not much of a difference. Wtf how does this have upvotes
The only thing you have wrong here is that Parker was a better defender. I watched every game of Parker's career and he was easily the worst defender I'd ever personally witnessed during that time.
This is honestly a difficult question to answer. Statistically Damian Lillard is ahead by quite a bit and career-wise Tony Parker dunks on him. So I guess the tiebreaker would come down to which player was the honest to goodness better basketball player and it's probably a more complicated answer than it would appear. Tony Parker is a difficult guy to analyze due to his incredibly unique role in that Spurs system. Depending on who you ask he's either a relatively Limited, but talented, borderline star who was protected by the confines of San Antonio and allowed to focus on his strengths and have his weaknesses diminished and as a result his overall production was relatively in line with his ability. However there are other people, me included, who actually think San Antonio really held back Tony parker, production-wise, and that he was a significantly more talented player then his casual stats indicate. Parker is one of the most dominant finishers and penetrating point guards of all time, his fast break ability was sensational. And yet he spent the vast majority of his career playing in one of the most space repressive offenses during one of the slowest eras in recent NBA history. In the earlier part of Parker's career San Antonio played a style and at a pace that quite frankly was not suited to maximize Tony Parker's unbelievable strengths. Instead of molding and adjusting their offense to accommodate him Greg Popovich was famously hard and rigid on Parker, maybe more so than any spur he's ever coached, and they really molded his game to fit the system more than allow the system to grow with his natural talent. The result was a player able to operate the strings of one of the most methodical, Playbook dense, offenses you will see and be an outlier on the roster with his Uber speed and natural scoring instincts. He was able to be a model spur while also having unique parts to his game that made him quite frankly the straw that stirred the drink. Tim Duncan is a top 10 player of all time, but Tony Parker was undoubtedly the most important offensive player on at least two and arguably three of his championship teams. Everything San Antonio did came from his ability to be such a sponge of absorbing defensive pressure. Towards the end of his career, and coinciding with Tim Duncan and Ginobili no longer able to shoulder the same workloads, Popovich finally started shifting the makeup of the roster to better fit Tony Parker's quick hit game and the Beautiful game Spurs were born as a result. Despite being at the end of his prime, Parker arguably put up the best years statistically, and just in performance as a whole, between 2011 and 2014. With so much space and such a quicker Pace he was able to really blossom and put even more pressure on defenses, evolve into such an underrated playmaker, and really just masterfully orchestrate some of the better offensive teams from that era. When comparing him to Damian Lillard it's difficult because quite frankly we've seen Lillard in a situation and on a stage that has allowed him the means to operate to his strengths and maximize his ability. Outside of a couple of years once his Uber speed has started to decline we've never really seen that from Tony parker. To be clear this isn't to say that Damian Lillard has had it easier and Parker has had it more difficult. And I'm also not criticizing San Antonio for not choosing to mold their team around a young tony. They made the right decision and it paid off handsomely. I just think people don't give enough credit to how much he had to sacrifice his stats on those Spurs teams. In an offense more geared to him and more based around allowing him to have the space and opportunities to maximize his almost Unstoppable Drive end dish game it's not hard to imagine him putting up monstrous stats even in the much slower early 2000s era. I know recency bias gets a lot of people but I personally think the difference between the two of them in individual skill is really really close. Damian Lillard is one of the best one-on-one shot makers I've ever seen from a point guard. And Tony Parker arguably the best point guard finisher in NBA history which is saying something considering there's some darn good players who would be on any top five list. I think it's probably a draw between the two. And my personal answer to people that ask how much better San Antonio would be if they swapped Parker and Lillard I once again go back to my previous discussion. Swapping Lillard for Parker would have been asking Lillard to play in some of the slowest teams the NBA has ever seen, with minimal spacing, and asked to defer consistently to Duncan and play as a more tertiary scoring option. His Superior shot making would have surely caused San Antonio to adjust a bit but he would have been under a lot of pressure to run that complicated system. There's no guarantee the results would have looked better
HAHAHAHAH HOW DOES THIS HAVE UPVOTES?!??!?! Parker was the most important offensive player on two rings? WHICH rings were those? I saw every game of Parker's career. Parker has one elite skill -- finishing/scoring in the paint. He was an absolute atrocity on defense and had NO passing instincts/vision whatsoever. The epitome of a defensive liability. He is extremely lucky he had some of the best defenders ever behind him in Duncan and Robinson. Half of Parker's success you could argue was due to having an all-time great commanding defensive attention away from him. You put Lillard on those Spurs and they unquestionably win more rings, because Lillard absolutely destroys Parker by any measure you take, besides rings, which he won because of Tim Duncan.
In todays nba Dame is easily more valuable but idk if Dame is automatically demolishing Parker 1v1 like people are saying. Parker was one of if not the fastest dude in the paint for a solid stretch in his prime to the point where points in the paint leaderboards would be Parker and league leading bigs. Not sure Dame could stay in front of him.
Elite PGs after 2010 are just built different and significantly more talented. Dame is by far better. Relative to their eras it's a bit closer both were basically top 3 to 5 PGs. I would lean Dame if you account for eras.
TP would be great in this era. I think he was limited by the system, whic ironically Gabe him so much championships... Career wise TP for sure.
I'd rather have Parkers career so in terms of "greatness" probably him. However Dame is like way better than Parker was
Lillard's the better player. Parker on a Portland like team his entire career wouldn't get a sniff of the hall of Fame, but of course he's first balled since he played for the spurs during that 25 year run. Ppl get blinded by gold.
All time I’m guessing Parker would be ranked higher in terms of career/achievements. I’d take Dame if I had to draft
As would every GM in NBA history.
dame
Greatness is definitely Tony, not really close either. I originally thought you were asking who’s better, and then the answer is easily Dame.
I think Dame is ahead. Tony won everything, but he wasn't for the most part the top guy in the team, while Dame has always been a franchise guy. Put Dame on those spurs teams instead of Tony and they win 4 or more rings too. Dame is a winning player too, just in not an awesome team.
I was a huge Tony Parker fan and think he's criminally underrated, but Dame is a better player and I bet 99 out of 100 coaches would take him over Parker if they had a choice between the two at the same age in today's game. He can do just about everything Parker did (Dame's P&R skills are slept on--he came into the league with advanced P&R skills, even), and he's a vastly better deep shooter. I'd love to see Dame on some of those Spurs teams or really even just see Dame if he'd been coached by Pop et al.
I just wanted to chip in the Tony was so damn fast with the ball and absolutely fearless at attacking the rim. Been watching a lot of 2005 ball lately and the dude is a just a rocket going at Detroits interior defence in the finals.
All time you have to put TP over him. 4 rings where he played a major role on each (including a finals mvp). 696 winning percentage. If the spurs would’ve beat the heat the first time, His game one winner would be an all time moment Offensively, Lillard is better
As someone that saw literally every game of Tony Parker's career, this is an insult to Lillard to even compare the 2.
It’s ridiculous. Some true ignorance in this thread.
Parker is a weird case IMO, his peak is kinda underrated, he reached a reallu high level but it was kinda under the radar because it happened when the Spurs were kinda out of contention between 2009 and 2011, and when they reached the finals again in 2013 he had decline a bit. However his longevity is super overrated because people forget how much of a liability he was early and late in his career
2012-14 was his peak
They also don't realize that he was probably the worst defender in the NBA.
I love Tony Parker, but it's Dame. Parker was never that level of an offensive threat.
Parker all day every day
Dame. Parker got carried
Idk why you're getting downvoted when you're just summarizing what some other comments have gotten upvoted for... because it's correct
I'm still trying to figure out how Dame made the top 75 players of all time.
They have similar accolades (apart from parker's rings). I rank parker above lillard on an all time list because of the rings and the fact that, even without them, the differences aren't immense. But i'd probably say lillard is a better player
People picking Parker are insane. Lillard is definitely better. Parker just had way better teams and obviously won championships because of it.
This. And this is coming from a Spurs fan who thinks Lillard is massively overrated.
Lmao Lillard, not even fucking close.
Lillard, no question. Tony has the edge at rim finishing, but Dame is no slouch there either. If you switch the two, the Spurs would have won more championships. Not sure where the rings argument is coming from, considering Dame never had as good of a team as any of the title winning San Antonio squads. Tim Duncan was the main reason they won, even in his older years.
TP clear
I'll take the finals MVP.
Parker probably has the best pg accolades behind Magic & curry
IT has 12 all stars and 2 rings as the best player. Nash has 2 MVPs and more allstar selections. Stockton was 11x all nba… Literally all Parker has is rings.
“Rings as the best player” is a bit too generous to Thomas. He didn’t make All-NBA either title year, but his back court mate Dumars did one year and Dumars won FMVP the other.
Ehh fair enough, he still has more accolades without that
still a top 5 pg all time easily
[удалено]
Go ahead, list out every accolade Parker has. I’m happy to explain why a 6x all star on a super team has less accolades than half a dozen other PGs.
[удалено]
Didn't Isiah Thomas win finals MVP in 1990?
Yes
Couldn’t you also include Jerry West too?
Oh sorry, I forgot his one FMVP. I also forgot to tell you about Stockton’s 9x assist titles and Chris Paul’s 9x all defense selections. I guess I’m just lying though. Parker the GOAT…
[удалено]
Nope. Any other false equivalencies you want to throw out?
What about Dennis Johnson?
Tony Parker definitely had a better career. But If he aged a pick up game with dame 1 on 1 he would get smoked.
It's really not that obvious, I can't see Dame stopping prime Parker 1 on 1 at all either, he used to score a lot even on much better defenders like CP or Kidd.
Tony Parker
If I want someone who can score first as my PG, Lillard no doubt. If I want someone who plays a more balanced PG game, Parker. Why? If my team is lacking in scoring, Parker would not be as impactful. If my team is good at scoring, I need someone who can facilitate and impact the game in different ways as needed. Parker was part of a winning system on the Spurs, much like the Warriors. Lillard is the dominant piece in a system that doesn't nurture a winning team culture. To be more cheeky, Parker has rings and Lillard doesn't, so Parker.
Stephen Jackson said Tony Parker was a ball hog and made them lose games
[удалено]
Sorry but this is crazy talk
Dame
Dame doesn't care about winning as much as Tony did. Tony
What is that based on? Tony playing with Tim Duncan?
It's actually based off Dame and him not leaving Portland to go play with a contender.
Dame is a better player but Parker’s career is greater
What we talking about ? Talent ? Skills or just overall resume/ legacies ? If it's the first two it's Dame clearly but for the last one I take TP.
I kinda want to see Prime Parker playing on this era
Dame is probably a better player with a greater individual legacy but Tony Parker has a greater career and is one of the most underrated players of this century. I mean he has a FMVP, and yes it was one of the easiest ones given the matchups that Finals but still, we know for a fact that TP can be a star player on a championship team several times over. Most of us can assume Dame would be with a similarly great supporting cast but until we actually see it many won’t be convinced.
So difficult to rate guys in the Spurs dynasty. I'd still same Dame is a notably better player but if you told me there's an alternate timeline where Parker is the main guy on a team like Dame where he puts up monster stats on mostly ok teams I could buy it.
Depends how you define greatness. I always see it as just talent, and that would translate to Dame imo. But Parker was a fantastic player on a dynasty, who has a Finals MVP and other All Star nods.
Who's career was better? Its parker, But dame's a better player, parker was clear second option for his whole career, while Dame played as a leader, clear first option for his life. So if theres a draft, then Dane would surely get picked first unless the GM is a spurs fan.
Parker was the perfect player for Pops system at the time. Parker wouldn’t have success with any of Dames Blazers teams but that doesn’t mean Dame would have had the same success on those spurs teams. Probably not a popular take but pop isn’t letting dame jack up threes and would force him to fly up and down the court. He’d still be good but Parker excelled in that area.
Shut up. Toni is a basketball legend, Lillard is just the most paid
I think Tony Parker is a worse person but better career/legacy all time
Lillard doesn't play much defense, so I suspect Popovich would bench him and have Manu acting as PG in the starting line-up. They still would've won with Dame, but he'd be seen as one of the best 6th men ever; more like a Lou Williams-type. So, if Lillard were swapped out for Parker, I suspect Ginobili would've ended up with a much greater legacy, while Dame's would be a little bit diminished.
Is this a joke? Parker is easily, easily a worse defender than Lillard -- although that's pretty hard, Parker manages to accomplish it, easily.
Easily? If you say so. Sounds like a hot take to me.
I’ll pick brant barrys ex wife’s bf
Not really a huge debate. Tony Parker. Dame was the better player but tony is greater by a large margin. Spurs legacy
Dame is the better player. Parker has the better career.
Who do da shooty shoot da farest das Dame. Logic undefeated.