Because it was suggested to have this as a separate topic, I thought I'd start this up. I think that Parker, even if he retired today, is a second ballot HOFer. He is an elite finisher at the rim for a pg, has won 3 titles while going to 4. Has one finals MVP. He has over 16k points and 5500 assists, or about 1.2k points and 500 assists per regular season (ish). All this while being a second/third offensive option for half of his career. What does everyone else say?

Without a doubt. He still has a lot of basketball left.

I think he deserves it. Has been great for the league

Yes.

1st ballot

There are currently 4 HOFs on the Spurs. Parker is definitely one of them.

Something something stupid ass comparison to Chauncey Billups something something

quote:

---

There are currently 4 HOFs on the Spurs. Parker is definitely one of them.

---

I'm confused...

edit: nevermind. pop....duh.

[This message has been edited by nkc1981 (edited 5/7/2014 11:50a).]

quote:

---

There are currently 4 HOFs on the Spurs. Parker is definitely one of them.

---

I don't know if you can count Pop as being ON the Spurs, but in the Spurs organization, yes.

I meant Kawhi.


Just kidding I meant Pop. I suppose the word "on" was confusing.

I think up until a couple years ago you could debate Parker and to a lesser extent Manu (no sane person doubted Duncan after 2003 when he got MVP #2). At this point there is just too much winning for too long a period to deny them. The Big 3 for SA have as impressive of a record together as just about any combination that has played, especially in the context of how competitive the NBA is now compared to the past.

As for Parker specifically, you can find some weaknesses if you look hard enough but overall the case is awfully strong. I also think if Parker had played on another team where he was the focus he could have put up some crazy numbers. It is just crazy that in the last decade he has shot no less than 48% in any season, a PG simply should not be able to do that. He has also steadily improved his shot as he has aged. He used to be a sub 70% FT shooter and now he is 80%. His 3 PT shot is also very solid even though he only takes a few per game. He causes so many problems for a team to defend.

It took George Gervin years to get into the HOF. They have relaxed the standards a great deal. Today, Ice would be a first ballot guy.

Parker will make it, but if they held the same standard they did in the 80s, he would be borderline.

It's the basketball Hall of Fame, not the NBA Hall of Fame. That said. Manu is an absolute lock, considering what he's done in international competition.

Tony's a little trickier. But when you take into account his whole body of work, including what he's done for professional basketball in France and internationally for Les Bleus, there's a VERY strong case.

Gervin played overseas until 1990 and you have to be fully retired 5 years to be eligible.

According to Basketball Reference Parker has an 89% chance of the HOF and is currently the 12th most likely active player. Their model does not count for international play at all either (Manu is currently only a 12% chance by their formula and 24th amongst active players). There are no players with a higher probability of making the HOF that are eligible that are not in the HOF historically (he is 63rd overall).

BTW, since you mentioned him on the other thread Chauncey Billups has a 20% chance of making the HOF according to their calculator.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html?redir

quote:

---

Parker will make it, but if they held the same standard they did in the 80s, he would be borderline.

---

So if you think he's going to make it anyway, why do you care? Why even start the debate?

I hadn't paid attention to the people that have gotten into the HOF the last few years. It used to be pretty exclusive for NBA players. Now they are letting in the Chris Mullins, Mitch Richmonds, Bernard Kings and Ralph Sampsons of the world.

If Ralph Sampson is in, I don't know how you don't let in Chauncey.

As far as the HOF probability stat, Reggie Miller is 0.0644 and Chris Mullin is 0.1318. Both are already in. DWade is higher than Hakeem. Chris Bosh is higher than Jason Kidd, John Stockton or George Gervin.

quote:

---

Manu is an absolute lock, considering what he's done in international competition.

---

Not this crap again. Ginosebleed is great, no doubt. But international competition should have no weight in deciding HOF status.

IMO, the HOF should be reserved only for players, who at least for some stretch of their career, you could argue were the best on their team.

To put it another way: How good would a Manu-led team be? 8th seed, at best.

Parker, as much as despise the flopping frenchy, is on his way to the HOF.

The fact that you call him Ginosbleed makes me question your opinion.

Manu is in.

quote:

---

Not this crap again. Ginosebleed is great, no doubt. But international competition should have no weight in deciding HOF status.

---

It is the basketball HOF, not the NBA HOF. NCAA and International play all matters as it should.

It all depends on how you think he's contributed to the titles. Credit for championships is not an infinite resource. You CAN divide it up, but three different people can't get complete, 100% credit for winning a ring.

Win shares and win share/48min show that Parker is clearly and by some distance third of the big 3 in his contributions. He was a below average starter in the first two championship runs during the season and during the playoffs. He's overrated and Manu is significantly underrated.

The winshare tables: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/

DCC,

Manu led teams won the Euroleague, the World Championships, and Olympic Gold. I think at his peak he would have led a team to a lot better than and 8 seed. Manu is the best player EVER from South America and had he stayed in Europe his entire career he would likely still have made the HoF. His overall career is amazing.

Your standard of "had to be the best player on their team" also is ridiculous and would eliminate a lot of HoF players. Basketball is a team sport and the player who sacrifices individual stats for winning as a team is far superior.

BTW, Manu easily could have been named the MVP of the 2005 Finals and many thought he was robbed.

manu and parker are no doubt hall of fame players

quote:

---

IMO, the HOF should be reserved only for players, who at least for some stretch of their career, you could argue were the best on their team.

---

One of the dumbest things I've ever read.

So no Pippen?

Pippen was unquestionably the best on the 1994 Bulls that won 55 games and took the Eastern Conference Champion Knicks to seven games.

He averaged 22p/9r/6a/2.9s that year.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/7/2014 4:47p).]

lol

Still terrible logic. If two superstars play their whole career together, you can't discount one. They should be taken individually.

And yes, Parker is without a doubt going to be in the HOF. No sense in arguing it.

The Spurs aren't the Spurs without ginobili. I present exhibit A, the 2011 playoffs.

I know this is kinda ot, but if Durant were to lose to the clips then suffer some sort if career ending injury, would he be a HOFer?

So I guess they need to make sure only 1 of Stockton / Malone can be in the Hall since they played for the same team.

Ruhtard.

quote:

---

So I guess they need to make sure only 1 of Stockton / Malone can be in the Hall since they played for the same team.

---

Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. A team w/ Stockton and not Malone (or visa versa) would still be a really good team that regularly made the playoffs. You could have built a team around either, and they'd be great. Same w/Pippen.

No GM would last long if they tried to build around Manu.

Again, I don't give a crap about Euro or South American success. That would be like a Euro soccer fan saying "look how awesome that guy was in the MLS!"

Yes, I understand it's the "Basketball Hall of Fame." I'm just saying the standards should be higher. Maybe he and Jason Terry can share the "6th Man" display at the HOF.

You're ignoring how bad the Spurs got dominated in 2011 after losing Manu to a broken elbow, after having him all year and finishing as the 1 seed.

They absolutely had NO CHANCE without him healthy.

And as others have brought up, you're also ignoring a lot of the years the Spurs didn't win a championship, and even one (2005) when they did. Manu averaged about 20 ppg from 04-11 in the postseason, and in 11 he was playing with a broken elbow.

[This message has been edited by aggie_2001_2005 (edited 5/7/2014 5:18p).]

[This message has been edited by aggie_2001_2005 (edited 5/7/2014 5:20p).]

Manu had the highest PER of any SG in the NBA in 08. That year he was a 20/5/5 shooting .460/.401/.860 in just 31mpg.

You could have easily built a team around him that was good.

Which of these is a HOF NBA career:

Career averages:

minutes: 27.1
pts: 14.7
fg %: .452
3 pt %: .370
ft %: .833
ast: 4.0
rb: 3.8
stl: 1.4
consistent starter 2.5 seasons

OR

minutes: 32.5
pts: 15.4
fg %: .446
3 pt %: .379
ft %: .846
ast: 4.4
rb: 2.6
stl: 1.2
consistent starter 6.5 seasons

[This message has been edited by DCC99 (edited 5/7/2014 5:28p).]

[This message has been edited by DCC99 (edited 5/7/2014 5:29p).]

How about:
ppg: 12
rpg: 7.6
apg: 2.1
spg: .8
bpg: 1.1
Starter for 5 seasons
.500/.328/.786

This is a person you have seen play and a person already in the HOF.

DCC99 has a very confusing message. You think Parker is HoF worthy while Manu is not. But Manu is much better than Parker by every measure.

I guess you could make some infallible argument about the "eye test". But other than that, why is Parker in and Manu out?

Nevermind, I see you place heavy weight on minutes played. I guess Pop's minutes management hurts Manu there.

[This message has been edited by PascalsWager (edited 5/7/2014 5:37p).]