are the three winningest active players in the NBA. Pretty damn impressive. Duncan is unquestionably one, but knowing this, are Parker/Ginobili Hall of Famers, in your opinion?


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/565001-ranking-the-top-10-nba-players-in-winning-percentage

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 1/15/2011 6:16p).]

I should clarify that they have the highest winning percentage among players with 500+ games played.

Remember, it's a the basketball HOF, not the NBA HOF.

Ginobli's probably already in because he lead Argentina to the 2002 World Championship and then got them the gold at the 2004 Olympics.

Ginobili yes
Parker not yet

Manu is a lock. The guy has been a superstar on 3 Continents and won titles in Euroleague, World Championship, Olympics, and NBA to go with MVP awards in several of those efforts. People forget that his NBA resume is only about half of his story.

Parker has work to do. If he can win 2 more rings and get some more AS and All NBA teams he can get there. He will score some points as a part of the Big 3 though and the other 2 are locks, especially if the Spurs win the title this year and make their era extend.

If Kevin Johnson, Jamaal Wilkes, and Dennis Johnson are not in the HOF....no way is tony parker getting in.

parker is NOT a HOFer

quote:

---

If Kevin Johnson, Jamaal Wilkes, and Dennis Johnson are not in the HOF....no way is tony parker getting in.

parker is NOT a HOFer

---

Dennis Johnson is in the HOF.
Kevin Johnson has 0 championships. Tony Parker was a Finals MVP. I do think KJ should be in, though.
Jamaal Wilkes was a SF. Not sure why Parker is being compared to him. Only once in his career did he break the vaunted 3.0 assist barrier.

oh right, i forgot DJ got in posthumously last year.

[This message has been edited by Simplebay (edited 1/15/2011 5:37p).]

Manu should be a lock given what he has accomplished outside of the NBA...


His time and success with the Spurs only enhances his HOF resume...

Duncan--yes
Parker--no
Ginobli--no

Parker might not be there yet, but 2 more seasons of 20 PPG and 5-7 APG and he'll be there. That Finals MVP is huge for his legacy.

DJ is a good comp for Parker

Finals MVP
2xAll NBA
3 championships
Never considered the best on his team or a 1st tier superstar

Duncan and Ginobili, for sure.

Wilkes was a very good player but he was doesn't have the accomplishments of Parker. He was only a part of the early part of Showtime and even then he was never the 3rd Best player in any one season. When you think the "Big 3" of Showtime it was Magic, Kareem, and Worthy. It was when the Lakers added Worthy in '82 that they became really "Showtime". Wilkes also had a ROY and a Title with Golden State to his credit but he still was only an AS 3 times and an All Pro twice. I wouldn't have a problem with Wilkes making the HoF but he certainly doesn't have a resume that towers over Parker.

In the end, if the Spurs win the Title this year and Parker is an AS and All NBA his resume is getting awfully impressive. The HoF rewards champions and rightly so. Parker is not a first ballot guy but if he keeps it up he can certainly get in, remember the guy is only 28 years old and has 3 Titles, 3 AS Games, 1 All NBA, and 1 Finals MVP. He can probably play at a high level for at least 5 more years. It helps when you start your NBA career at 19 and win a Title as a rookie. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Parker doesn't hang around the league until he is pushing 40 and is on good teams if for no other reason than good teams like to have PG's that have massive playoff experience. Parker already has played in 132 playoff games. In the end if Parker retired after this year he would be a serious longshot to make the HoF but he has a lot of career left.

If anyone thinks Manu isn't a lock they don't know anything about the HoF. There are a huge amount of International voters for the HoF and Manu is seen as a God to many of these people. He is the guy that led the Argentina team that dominated international play for years. He is the guy that showed how a star from the Euroleague can come to the NBA and be great while still winning in international competition. He is the greatest player EVER from South America. That doesn't even touch his very impressive NBA resume that may be enough on its own in the end.

Parker will have a tough time getting in because he's playing in probably the greatest point guard era of all time. He'll need a couple more championships with finals MVP trophies in order to achieve that.

Parker shouldn't be an all-star or all-nba this season, and he may never be again. Nothing against Parker, but in the past year we've seen the sudden emergence of a crop of younger PGs that are better than him - Westbrook, Rose, DWilliams, Rondo. Chris Paul may have his stardom cut short by knee injuries, but not the others. **** even Nash is having the best PER season of his career and will be in the mix this year.

And if 40 year old Tony Parker is too slow to attack the basket, what does he add to my team? Seems like the older guards are usually 3 point specialists.

quote:

---

And if 40 year old Tony Parker is too slow to attack the basket, what does he add to my team? Seems like the older guards are usually 3 point specialists.

---

A lot of players add the three ball as their career goes on. Kidd is a good example. He hovered around 32% for years, but the past few years, he was actually someone you had to keep a man on on the perimeter. Obviously, this year, that has fallen off.

Yeah Kidd may not make it to 40

Kidd has also had microfracture on both knees. Parker hasn't really had major injuries, though last year he had a lot of nagging ones.

quote:

---

Nothing against Parker, but in the past year we've seen the sudden emergence of a crop of younger PGs that are better than him - Westbrook, Rose, DWilliams, Rondo. Chris Paul may have his stardom cut short by knee injuries, but not the others.

---

This is a short-sided view in viewing players future legacy IMO. Sure, those guys are considered badass now, but outside of Rondo what have those guys accomplished in the postseason? That's what gets remembered the most 5-10 seasons and beyond when a player leaves the game. Ever wonder why you never hear much about guys like Domnique Wilkins anymore when player's legacies are discussed?

I would be very surprised if Parker isn't an AS this season. He is still the second best player on the best team and the coaches pick the reserves. Also, it is quite foolish to act as though Parker is done in terms of accomplishments. He is only 28 and has never had a major injury. He plays a very smart game and he puts up very consistent numbers. His outside shot has continued to improve as his career has gone on and he has always made excellent decisions with the basketball. The only thing he has working against him is he plays on a team that doesn't focus on individual stats and has other good players. He will never be able to be the focal point as a Spur in all likelihood. Still, titles far outweigh individual accolades when it comes to who makes the HoF. People remember the guys that did it in the postseason and brought home the hardware.

I think the best 2 comps for Parker are probably Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars. Both won multiple titles and a Finals MVP but neither was "The" star on their team and at no time in their careers were people saying they were the best at their position in the league. If Parker gets the 4th ring it really puts him in a good position because he is clearly part of a core that stayed in the elite of the NBA for a decade. If you look at the dynasties in NBA history inevitably all of their core players are HoFers with only a few exceptions. Over time voters look more and more fondly at the guys with large ring collections who you immediately identify with dynasties and Parker fits into that category.

I'm not sure how it affects HOF worthiness, but the point guard proliferation has been a direct (and intended) result of a series of rule changes since the early 2000's.

As the game of basketball is in competition with other sports leagues, as well as other forms of entertainment in general, the league office felt it needed to be sped up to be more exciting.

The idea was that offense should no longer consist, largely, of simply dumping it into the post and having four guys stand around doing nothing.

Thus rule changes involving use of hands in perimeter defense(easier penetration), defensive three seconds (less lane clogging), and a five second count for players posting up were implemented.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html The 2004-05 rule changes sum-up this concept nicely.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I would be suprised if Parker DID make the AS team this year. Too many talented point guards ahead of him including Paul, D-Will and Russell Westbrook.

And because of this, he's not HOF material. I'll give him credit for that one Finals performance that he had, but its not enough. No one remembers that when the Pistons won the championship a few years back, Billups won the Finals MVP.

The Big Fundamental will get in the HOF with no problems and Ginobili will probably get the nod more so for his international influence while Parker will get years of grief for screwing up with Eva Longoria.

How convenient was it that Parker/Eva broke up just as he signed his new deal with SA instead of going to NY?

Tony and Eva are trying to work things out, from what I hear.

Baller,

We'll have to see on the AS game. Remember the reserves are picked by the coaches so they may tend to overlook the minor stat differences and look more at winning. Parker is also a far more efficient player than Westbrook especially. The Spurs offense just doesn't set up for a PG to average over 20 points and have 8 or 9 assists a game.

I actually think Billups will be remembered well, though he won't make the HoF. Of course, he is near the end of his career and only won the 1 Title as opposed to Parker's 3. He has 5 AS game appearances but he also has some rocky history of bouncing around teams and really was only great for a few years in Detroit. Had the Pistons beat the Spurs in '05 and Billups picked up a 2nd Finals MVP it may have been enough.

Everything on Parker is predicated on winning one or especially two more titles. If you win 4 or 5 rings as a key player on any team you are in serious HoF consideration alone. He's not there yet but to say at 28 he can't still significantly add to his resume is just foolish. He is really just hitting his prime and could play in the league for 10 more years possibly, at least 3 or 4 without dropping off significantly from a physical perspective. I also think there is a solid argument that Parker chose to stay in SA and win vs go to a lesser team and rack up stats. I don't think there is much doubt that if you put Parker in a number of clubs in the NBA he could rack up the same or better stats than the guys you listed above and the rest of the league knows it. History will judge this Spurs dynasty very well because they not only closed the deal 3 times so far but they were right in the mix for a decade and the common factor is the Big 3.

BTW, I think his divorce has actually helped his game. He seems more focused than ever.
Don't count out the Frenchie, he's a tough SOB.

The big thing about winning one more title soon is how it will extend the Spurs dynasty another 4 years. Actually if they just beat the Lakers and compete well in the Finals then I would consider the dynasty extended. 20 years from now when we reflect on the Duncan Spurs will we consider the dynasty ending in 2007 or later?

For example the 80s Celtics dynasty is regarded as ending in 1988. They peaked in 1986 with their 3rd title, almost won a classic Finals in 1987, then lost in the conference finals to the upstart Pistons in another classic series. Then injuries killed them for 2 seasons as the Pistons held. 3 year reign in the East. However, in 1991 the Celtics had a big comeback regular season where they won 56 games and were a solid 2 seed. Reggie Lewis was now the best player, and Bird had adapted his game to accommodate his bad back. But they were destroyed by the Pistons in the 2nd round, who were then swept by the Bulls. Thus the dynasty wasn't extended to 1991 despite the great regular season.

So if the Spurs lose to the Lakers again in the playoffs then it will be tough to consider this part of the dynasty in 20 years when we see the Lakers winning the West 4 years in a row. I think if they beat the Lakers after a 60+ winning season and at least compete well with Boston or Miami (which is a given) then the dynasty is safely intact historically

I'm not sure you call it an extension of their dynasty unless they win the title. Losing in the Finals doesn't do much for me.

^
l
l

Spoken like a true Spurs fan.

Guys, it's an odd year. Therefore, Spurs will win it all. 2009 does not count because of Manu's injury.

Assuming the Spurs do win it this year, who will be remembered as the better dynasty down the road, Spurs or Lakers? Let's compare.

Spurs - 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011
Lakers - 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

The Lakers had two clearly distinct eras of dominance, whereas the Spurs have been dominant for over a decade, with a few slightly down years.

What do you think is more impressive, having a championship team, losing key players, and rebuilding to a contending team within one or two seasons, or what the Spurs have done?

If you take the names away, people would pick the Spurs because they were always good over this span, whereas the Lakers had a couple years of atrocious basketball in the middle.

Add the names and the Lakers will get the accolades in 10 years. Talking heads and casual fans can't resist Kobe, Shaq, and the historical cachet of the Lakers.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 1/21/2011 6:56p).]

You're right about that, unfortunately. Spurs are taken for granted by pretty much everyone. They win so consistently that people don't even notice them anymore.

Like they just said on ESPN, if the Heat were 36-6 right now people would be talking them up as the best team ever.