How Far Can San Antonio Spurs Go Without a Healthy Tony Parker?

The San Antonio Spurs notched a huge Game 2 win over the Los Angeles Clippers without getting anything from Tony Parker, and the most surprising thing about that result may be that it shouldn't have been surprising at all.

Quietly, and despite narratives cropping up to the contrary, the Spurs have decreased their reliance on Parker in recent seasons—to the point that their postseason ceiling might be just as high with their star point guard as without.

We may soon see that theory tested, as the right Achilles injury that sidelined Parker down the stretch in Game 2 may linger, per Dan McCarney of the San Antonio Express-News:

A couple of things about the way Game 2 played out should give the Spurs qualified confidence going forward. Tim Duncan was brilliant (28 points, 11 rebounds), and San Antonio's system still generated loads of quality looks without Parker on the floor.

Kawhi Leonard also continued to show he was ready for an alpha role in the offense, and Patty Mills tossed in 18 points that included a handful of critical shots in the fourth quarter and overtime.

Perhaps San Antonio has reached a point where it doesn't need Parker to penetrate, score for himself or draw the defense to keep the offense humming. The numbers from this season indicate that might be the case. The Spurs were better on offense by 2.3 points per 100 possessions with Parker on the pine during the regular season, per NBA.com.

	Minutes	ORtg	DRtg	Net Rating
On Court	1,953	107.4	102.0	+5.4
Off Court	2,038	105.1	97.2	+7.9

Of course, if you splice the data to cover only the time period when Parker was at his healthiest and San Antonio's offense finally clicked (after March 1), his impact was immensely positive. At the same time, the Spurs were still darn good without Parker during that admittedly brief sample of games.

You might look at those post-March 1 stats and conclude San Antonio can be good without a healthy Parker but probably not great.

It's interesting to note, though, that during last year's much-celebrated title run—during which San Antonio came as close to achieving offensive basketball Nirvana as any team ever has—Parker wasn't crucially important.

In 719 minutes with Parker on the court during the 2014 postseason, the Spurs outscored opponents by 9.3 points per 100 possessions, according to NBA.com. Without him, they crushed all comers by a margin of plus-15.7 points per 100 possessions over a sample of 390 minutes—with the biggest gains coming on defense.

	Minutes	ORtg	DRtg	Net Rating
On	719	112.1	102.7	+9.3
Off	390	113.7	98.0	+15.7

There's certainly a good stats-based argument to be had over Parker's recent on-court impact.

A hobbled or totally unavailable Parker changes the depth-chart hierarchy, pitting guys like Mills and Cory Joseph against opposing first units. It's possible that a larger number of minutes against tougher matchups would reveal the Spurs reserves to be statistically inferior to Parker.

Shaun Powell of NBA.com wrote, "Mills is ideal as a backup and is mostly unproven as an emergency starter or a 30-minutes-a-night guy. Throwing a combination of Mills and Cory Joseph at Paul, who's hell-bent on reaching the Western finals for the first time in his career, might be asking too much for the Spurs."

Logic like that is exactly why it's dangerous to view on- and off-court splits in a vacuum.

Nonetheless, a large portion of recent data says San Antonio doesn't need Parker to be its best...or to reach its ultimate goal.

Perhaps the biggest problem with relying on that data is the fact that it cuts directly against what Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich believes.

Eric Gay/Associated Press

Back in February, when Parker was dealing with left hamstring and calf issues, Popovich laid out his point guard's importance plainly, per Jeff McDonald of the San Antonio Express-News: "If he’s not the Tony Parker of past years, we’re not going anywhere.”

Numbers are great and all, but it's difficult to discount the opinion of someone who's won five championships and coached Parker for his entire career. If anybody knows what a particular player means to the Spurs, it's Pop.

The fact that San Antonio got past the Clippers, a legitimate contender, in Game 2 shows an absent or ineffective Parker isn't a death knell for its title hopes. And the assembled data proves that result wasn't exactly a fluke.

Ridiculous as it may sound to disagree with Popovich, it seems possible that the Spurs—who entered this postseason on the short list of potential title-winners—can maintain that high ceiling without a healthy Parker.

And really, wouldn't that be the ultimate endorsement of everything the Spurs stand for?

Sure, Parker is a Finals MVP recipient. But the Spurs have two more of those in Duncan and Leonard. And they have a system that seems to thrive no matter which players are running it.

Making a championship push without a seemingly indispensable individual would be a fitting end to the most team-driven dynasty we're ever likely to see.