PhillyArena Forums
PhillyArena Community => NBA Discussion => Topic started by: Reality on October 03, 2007, 05:00:09 PM
-
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA100307.BKNparkernote.en.13540d060.html
Tony Parker, hoping to get his 1st repeat and help fellow guard Manu GNob to a Celtlike 4 of 6 titles in his 1st 6 years, is resting his ankle but at the same time hitting the weights hard.
He will not play on the Frenchie national team for the next two years. :)
-
Tony is taking this seriously. A very good sign. He may not be the most talented guard, but hustle and working hard are just as important as talent. Tony does a good job of running their offense, and staying under control. Amazing player for a dude from France!
-
Tony is taking this seriously. A very good sign. He may not be the most talented guard, but hustle and working hard are just as important as talent. Tony does a good job of running their offense, and staying under control. Amazing player for a dude from France!
He doesn't need to be. He fits the role he is asked to play on the team and has steadily improved with each year in different areas. It's always good to hear about players really wanting to step it up a notch for the next season. Especially when it is a player who is just coming off a championship.
-
Tony is taking this seriously. A very good sign. He may not be the most talented guard, but hustle and working hard are just as important as talent. Tony does a good job of running their offense, and staying under control. Amazing player for a dude from France!
I wonder which of the others on this list you believe have little talent...
Five players who have averaged 18+ points AND 50+% from the floor for last 2 years:
Yao Ming
Elton Brand
Pau Gasol
Steve Nash
Tony Parker
Hustle alone doesn't explain Parker's ability to get into the lane and finish at a high rate. Also if you watch the Spurs regularly you would see that Parker does an excellant job of picking up the opposing PG at 3/4 court and making them work to get into their offense.
San Antonio again led the league in fewest 3-point attempts per field goal attempt by its opponents, and although the Spurs weren't quite as dominant here as in their awesome 2005-06 performance, it still gave them a major advantage. San Antonio also ranked second in 3-point percentage allowed, with the result being that the Spurs gave up fewer triples than any other team.
I guess Parker should get some credit for the Spurs strong perimeter defense also. It can't be the fact that the Spurs have a weak interior defense that keeps teams from firing up threes. So it must mean that the perimeter defenders on the Spurs rotate quickly and play outstanding team defense...including Parker. If he was weak at d then how does he stay on the court (especially in Pop's system)?
-
I don't think he said "Parker has little talent." He said he's not the "most talented." And I would agree. Tony Parker is not the most talented guard in the league. But good for him for looking to improve.
-
I don't think he said "Parker has little talent." He said he's not the "most talented." And I would agree. Tony Parker is not the most talented guard in the league. But good for him for looking to improve.
And how many other guards have the talent to blow by their defender, get a shot up over the big men and convert 50+% of the time?
IMO you are seriously underestimating the talent he has.
-
Lurker, nobody is underestimating his talent or saying he has little talent, they're saying he's not the most talented and its not unreasonable to say so.
Jason Kidd
Gilbert Arenas
Steve Nash
Baron Davis
Chris Paul
Mike Bibby
Chauncey Billups
There is 7 guys right there who have more talent than Tony Parker.
Stephon Marbuy
Jason Williams
Mo Williams
Deron Williams
Kirk Hinrich
There is 5 more less obvious guys who probably have more talent than Tony Parker
All Tony Parker really does well is either blow by a defender for a layup and he has great talent in converting the bank-shot layup at various angles, or pick and roll where he goes in for a layup. His perimeter shot is now serviceable after years of work put in by a coach they hired whose SOLE purpose was making Tony's shot serviceable, his three pointer is egregiously bad but he's stopped attempting it so much (thanks again to the coach), his FT percentage is plain bad for a guard. His defense is adequate which isn't that impressive knowing he's spent an entire career on a team and with a coach whose entire philosophy begins with defense.
Does Tony Parker have talent? Yes
Does he have the most talent or is he one of the most talented? No
Is it good for Tony Parker that basketball is about way more than just talent? Absolutely
That's all anyone is trying to say, I think.
-
His perimeter shot is now serviceable after years of work put in by a coach they hired whose SOLE purpose was making Tony's shot serviceable, his three pointer is egregiously bad but he's stopped attempting it so much (thanks again to the coach), his FT percentage is plain bad for a guard.
Summer 2006 he was going to work on his three pointers. Broken finger nixed that.
Summer 2007 he plays for the Frenchies and now his ankle is twisted. No time for practicing treys.
I wonder if the improving on treys is now moved back to summer 2008?
I wish he would improve it because i think it would one of the difference makers in a 2008 Spurs title.
-
I have to agree with everyone else Lurker. I don't think anyone is knocking Tony Parker but he is not the best PG in the league as far as raw talents are concerned. He is still an awesome PG and an important part of all the championship success the Spurs have had over the last couple of seasons. Arenas, Davis, Nash, Kidd are all better then Tony if you were to compare them one on one.
And shouldn't Tony Parker get props for actually listening to his coach and not thinking he knows everything like some of the more talented guards in the league Skand?! He has traits that don't show up on paper that really add to his worth IMO. One of those being very coachable and another being a great teammate.
-
And shouldn't Tony Parker get props for actually listening to his coach and not thinking he knows everything like some of the more talented guards in the league Skand?!
Absolutely westkoast! I give Parker all the props for that stuff.
By no means does more talent equal a better teammate or EVEN better basketball player. Plenty of guys I mentioned: Marbury, J. Williams, Davis (at his worst), Bibby, etc, I consider worst basketball players than Parker because they're bad at being team players or undermine the coach's authority or are plain undisciplined on the court. What Parker lacks in talent he makes up more in these other ways and that's why he's been able to find success.
-
What Tony Parker has is luck. If he had ended up on any number of other teams, we may not have seen him develop nearly so well as he has. He has exceptional quickness, but his court vision was never going to get him much playing time. He needed a patient coach and that is what he got, on a team with enough addtional firepower where his flaws were not tantamount to team failure.
As for working out in the off-season, Sacramento center, Brad Miller, of all people, has developed a physique. I know, you wish you had been sitting down before reading that, but it is true. He has taken to personal training to the point where his personal trainer goes everywhere with him so he won't miss a session. He has lost 25 pounds from last season and is down to about 245 pounds now, and has muscle definition.
Says something about the Kings' management drafting a 7 foot offensive center in this year's draft to motivate the current center, I have to say.
-
If all those guys are so much more talented then how come it doesn't reflect in their play?
How come coaches believe Parker is an all-star over several of those players?
And I still say that you are all underestimating his level of talent. I am not claiming he is the most talented but I also wouldn't list him as the 15th in talent among point guards (J-Will? Mo Will? -- you have got to be kidding Skander). His speed and quickness are talents. Shooting 50% from the floor is a talent. Running the point on a championship level squad is a talent.
Skander claims Parker has a terrible FT% but he shoots a higher % than Baron or Kidd. Her also shoots a better % from the floor than anyone on that list but Nash. And from the 3pt line...Parker is better than than anyone on your list. Just because he is smart enough to realize that he shouldn't take a 40% shot when he can get a 50% shot shouldn't penalize him. Hell, Baron shot 30.4%...that shows talent.
-
I don't know how you can argue your stance Lurker, it's pretty obvious what everyone else is saying. Except for Nash having more talent than Parker, anybody who thinks that is on crack.
You are confusing talent and skill.
Speed, jumping and court vision are talents.
Shooting, driving and dishing are skills.
Smush Parker has more talent than Tony Parker but Smush is not even 1/5 as good a player as Tony.
-
Lurker -
The true test of a player is to put him on a team he is not familiar with and see how he performs. Several of those other PG's named have been given that opportunity and that is a good way to judge how they perform. Parker has a superstar teammate who allows Parker much more freedom then he might have on a less talented squad.
-
Lurker -
The true test of a player is to put him on a team he is not familiar with and see how he performs. Several of those other PG's named have been given that opportunity and that is a good way to judge how they perform. Parker has a superstar teammate who allows Parker much more freedom then he might have on a less talented squad.
And what other teams has Arenas, Paul, Bibby, Billups, J-Will, Deron Williams, Mo Williams, Kirk Hinrich been on and produced? Where exactly have they proved these superior skills?
Nash and Kidd - I agree. But the others?
-
I don't know how you can argue your stance Lurker, it's pretty obvious what everyone else is saying. Except for Nash having more talent than Parker, anybody who thinks that is on crack.
You are confusing talent and skill.
Speed, jumping and court vision are talents.
Shooting, driving and dishing are skills.
Smush Parker has more talent than Tony Parker but Smush is not even 1/5 as good a player as Tony.
Speed? I would say Parker beats everyone on that list.
Jumping? I haven't seen the likes of Nash, Kidd, Billups, Williams (All 3) show better jumping abilities. Arenas, Davis - yes better jumpers but does it translate into better skills?
Court vision? Not sure how to measure this. But if you have a method I would be happy to see the results.
-
Apparently, Lurker, with Parker and Avery Johnson as two of the players you routinely talk up, you (and apparently your hometown team, as well) just have some sort of fetish for mediocre point guards!
-
Apparently, Lurker, with Parker and Avery Johnson as two of the players you routinely talk up, you (and apparently your hometown team, as well) just have some sort of fetish for mediocre point guards!
But those "mediocre" PGs have more rings than the so-called more talented ones. And played significant roles in earning them.
And besides general opinion (i.e. subjective) I have yet to see any facts to support the lengthy list of "more talented" point guards. I have tried to address the items that are brought up and the only responses I get is "you are wrong".
Just to add fuel...that mediocre PG named Avery Johnson ranks 29th on the all time assists leaders in the NBA. And is one of only 2 players under 6 foot to play over 1,000 NBA games.
-
By the same argument style, Lurker, I can argue that Parker is far superior to what John Stockton ever was.
And Byron Scott was a much greater 2-guard than Joe Dumars.
And let's not forget wonderful power forwards like Otis Thorpe as compared to those mediocre types like Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowtizki, Charles Barkley, and Karl Malone.
Simply put, contracts equal, if San An gets an offer of Chris Paul for Tony Parker, they accept, whereas the Hornets refuse. Ditto with the Jazz and Deron Williams, ditto with the Wizards and Gilbert Arenas, ditto with the Pistons and Chauncey Billups, or the Suns and Nash. Numbers and records aside, there's a difference in the overall level of talent.
Accept it as a given before I start pointing out things like Luc Longley has more rings than David Robinson.
-
Simply put, contracts equal, if San An gets an offer of Chris Paul for Tony Parker, they accept, whereas the Hornets refuse. Ditto with the Jazz and Deron Williams, ditto with the Wizards and Gilbert Arenas, ditto with the Pistons and Chauncey Billups, or the Suns and Nash. Numbers and records aside, there's a difference in the overall level of talent.
They consider it. I don't think they accept it.
Parker is only 25 and is getting better every year.
3 rings and 2nd fastest to 300 wins behind only Magic Johnson, that's not all coatail riding no way.
Court vision is not the equal of Nash or Kidd, but then whose is? Those two are in a league of their own. Tonys shooting is vastly improved, while stats don't tell everything they also can't be called meaningless and his 50% + for the last two years is great. If he can add a trey he'll be a triple threat.
Took Isiah Thomas a while to improve his trey also. Once he did he was nails in the title series.
As to his "lucking" out, contraire. Pops slow down offense whereupon Tony is oftentimes, especially early in his career supposed to do nothing more then dump it to Tim and cut thru in a 78-76 game keeps his assists down. And if you didn't see his shooting in the 2007 Finals, well you just missed it. Some think as the #1 option on a crappy but running team he may well ave 27 28 29 maybe even 30 a game. I've seen plenty of nifty assists by Tony the past two years, many created by his speed.
-
Simply put, contracts equal, if San An gets an offer of Chris Paul for Tony Parker, they accept, whereas the Hornets refuse. Ditto with the Jazz and Deron Williams, ditto with the Wizards and Gilbert Arenas, ditto with the Pistons and Chauncey Billups, or the Suns and Nash. Numbers and records aside, there's a difference in the overall level of talent.
Except for Nash...IMO the Spurs would not trade Parker for any of those listed. Paul, Arenas and D-Williams have not proved that they are better players than Parker...that is just opinion. Again this is just another subjective argument...your opinion that those trades would be accepted by the Spurs and declined by the others.
The ring argument was tongue in cheek. But I will still contend that mediocre point guards don't finish 29th on the list of all-time assists leaders (BTW #28 on the list is some Canadian who just moved up this year).
-
Court vision? Not sure how to measure this. But if you have a method I would be happy to see the results.
Number of insane, how did he see that player and get the ball to him type highlight passes. Like Steve Nash' off handed bounce pass from half court to a streaking Barbosa. Or Jason Kidd's behind the back passes in traffic.
-
Court vision? Not sure how to measure this. But if you have a method I would be happy to see the results.
Number of insane, how did he see that player and get the ball to him type highlight passes. Like Steve Nash' off handed bounce pass from half court to a streaking Barbosa. Or Jason Kidd's behind the back passes in traffic.
From what little I've seen, LeBron seems to have court vision on their level. For what it's worth, Parker has more talent than Stockton but he's not on his level, same goes for Nash. IMO court vision is knowing where everyone on the court is at all times, not neccessary seeing where everyone is at but knowing. IMO that's the difference between court vision and sight. Making passes that are dead on in the right situation when nothing is really there is the result of great court vision because it's not obvioius to anyone, including team mates, where or when you are looking. Not something I see in Parker. J-Will is another guy who had great court vision but unfortunately he also had horrid decision making skills.
I don't understand why Lurker cannot see the difference between talent and skill, now he's trying to bring production into the mix.
-
Court vision? Not sure how to measure this. But if you have a method I would be happy to see the results.
Number of insane, how did he see that player and get the ball to him type highlight passes. Like Steve Nash' off handed bounce pass from half court to a streaking Barbosa. Or Jason Kidd's behind the back passes in traffic.
OK. I'll agree that Kidd & Nash have better court vision. But what about the other 8-10 names used in this thread?
-
Court vision? Not sure how to measure this. But if you have a method I would be happy to see the results.
Number of insane, how did he see that player and get the ball to him type highlight passes. Like Steve Nash' off handed bounce pass from half court to a streaking Barbosa. Or Jason Kidd's behind the back passes in traffic.
From what little I've seen, LeBron seems to have court vision on their level. For what it's worth, Parker has more talent than Stockton but he's not on his level, same goes for Nash. IMO court vision is knowing where everyone on the court is at all times, not neccessary seeing where everyone is at but knowing. IMO that's the difference between court vision and sight. Making passes that are dead on in the right situation when nothing is really there is the result of great court vision because it's not obvioius to anyone, including team mates, where or when you are looking. Not something I see in Parker. J-Will is another guy who had great court vision but unfortunately he also had horrid decision making skills.
I don't understand why Lurker cannot see the difference between talent and skill, now he's trying to bring production into the mix.
Actually I believe that others brought shooting skills into the discussion (see Skander's comment on horrible FT shooting).
But if you want to focus on talent...speed, jumping, court vision...then I maintain that Parker has more talent than Nash and Kidd. I am not claiming that Parker is a better player...Nash & Kidd have much better skills as well as experience. But speed wise Parker is faster & quicker than Nash or Kidd. Jumping skill...I would bet on the 24 year old to have livelier legs than the 36 year olds. However, without ever seeing the 3 in a jumping contest that is difficult to judge. Court vision - Nash/Kidd have the edge. So overall I would say that Parker wins on talent but Kidd/Nash win on experience and knowing how to use thier skills that they developed. Give Parker another 10-12 years and who knows.
Should we look at another? How about Arenas...speed; again, Parker has the edge. Jumping - this goes to Gilbert. Court vision - IMO Parker has better vision than Arenas based on seeing passes that make you go "whoa, did you see that?" But then I see Parker play 75-80 games a year and only see Arenas play 6-7 times.
This entire discussion goes back to the one at the end of the playoffs...is Parker a top 3 PG. In that thread...as well as this one...I won't deny that Nash/Kidd are the undisputed top 2 PGs in the league. But are they the top 2 based on talent? Or production/skills/experience? Let me know what we are defining as talent and I'll continue the discussion.
-
This entire discussion goes back to the one at the end of the playoffs...is Parker a top 3 PG. In that thread...as well as this one...I won't deny that Nash/Kidd are the undisputed top 2 PGs in the league. But are they the top 2 based on talent? Or production/skills/experience? Let me know what we are defining as talent and I'll continue the discussion.
I don't know if you are bing serious or just arguing for arguments sake. I don't agree that Parker has more talent than Kidd, Kidd is bigger and stronger than Parker. I guess talent maybe the wrong term to use because you seem to get hung up on it. We ranked the PG based on the players, which includes EVERYTHING they bring to their teams. Talent, skills, leadership, production, experience, ect... Parker is not top 3, I don't think he cracks the top 5.
Talent is something you are born with, skills you have to learn. You maybe born with "hops" and not know how to jump correctly while someone with less "hops" learns to use it correctly and gets the same results as you. On the flip, if all things are equal (training, equipment, effort, etc...) the person with natural "hops" will get better results. To Parkers credit, he's accomplished more through work than players with more talent have accomplished.
-
This entire discussion goes back to the one at the end of the playoffs...is Parker a top 3 PG. In that thread...as well as this one...I won't deny that Nash/Kidd are the undisputed top 2 PGs in the league. But are they the top 2 based on talent? Or production/skills/experience? Let me know what we are defining as talent and I'll continue the discussion.
I don't know if you are bing serious or just arguing for arguments sake. I don't agree that Parker has more talent than Kidd, Kidd is bigger and stronger than Parker. I guess talent maybe the wrong term to use because you seem to get hung up on it. We ranked the PG based on the players, which includes EVERYTHING they bring to their teams. Talent, skills, leadership, production, experience, ect... Parker is not top 3, I don't think he cracks the top 5.
Talent is something you are born with, skills you have to learn. You maybe born with "hops" and not know how to jump correctly while someone with less "hops" learns to use it correctly and gets the same results as you. On the flip, if all things are equal (training, equipment, effort, etc...) the person with natural "hops" will get better results. To Parkers credit, he's accomplished more through work than players with more talent have accomplished.
Talent/skills...IMO Parker is above average; in your opinion he's not.
IMO talent got him drafted into the NBA as a 19 year old. Skills is what he has worked on and improved. His decision making, his shooting form, his ball handling...these are skills that have improved. But underlying those skills is a decent amount of talent or athletic ability. Quickness, speed, the ability to contort his body...these are talents that he was born with and use to great advantage on the court.
Kidd is bigger and stronger than Parker
So being bigger and stronger is talent. Thus Kevin Duckworth was more talented than Tim Duncan. And I noticed you focused on Kidd...what about the other 10-12 names?
Also I find it amusing that the discussion has again come around to comparing Parker to just Kidd & Nash. What about the other 10-12 players that are supposedly more talented than Parker? Where is the discussion outlining how you have determined that Parker is average/mediocre? Something besides "because I say so".
-
Parker does not have more talent then Kidd. Not now, not when Kidd was in his prime. Kidd has Tony beat in every department except for speed/ability to get to the rim. Jason Kidd's defense is better then Tony's. It has to be because he has never had the anchor of Tim Duncan on his squad. The way he runs the fast break and his raw passing ability is much better. Kidd is also the leader of the squads he is on, Parker really got his first taste of that in the playoffs this year where one of his teammates straight said they rode his back to win a series.
I tend to agree with Lurker that the Spurs are not going to give up Tony Parker for a lot of guys on that list. Gilbert Arenas has more talent then Tony Parker but he would not be able to do what Tony does and is still doing for this squad. The same goes for Baron Davis and Chris Paul. All 4 guys have much more athletic ability and can score/pass the day lights out...doesn't mean that is what the Spurs need or want. They had a chance to replace Parker with Jason Kidd when he was coming off some impressive seasons and did not pull the trigger so that should tell you how much he is worth to the Spurs franchise.
Btw Reality...you are riding for Tony Parker pretty hard here but I have to call you out for being upset that they did not replace him for Jason Kidd a handful of summers ago. That has to be brought up because you don't like him that much lol
-
Btw Reality...you are riding for Tony Parker pretty hard here but I have to call you out for being upset that they did not replace him for Jason Kidd a handful of summers ago. That has to be brought up because you don't like him that much lol
I was for the signing of Jason Kidd in summer 2002, absolutely. The Spurs planned on keeping Parker for at least 2003 also. Yes i was for starting Kidd and having Parker be either backup or at times both of them on the floor.
-
Talent/skills...IMO Parker is above average; in your opinion he's not.
Right--above average, not great, not awesome, not all-NBA, not Top 3, not Top 5.
But underlying those skills is a decent amount of talent or athletic ability.
Right--a decent amount of talent, not great amount, large amount, huge amount, all-world amount, just decent.
Lurker you're making our argument for us!
=================================
What about the other 10-12 players that are supposedly more talented than Parker?
Fine, Lurker, since I was the guy to bring out the names, I'll go ahead and make the case, playing by your rules, of course. We seem to be in agreement that Parker doesn't sniff Nash or Kidd's jock, let's take those two names out.
Baron Davis -- Over the last 4 years, Davis has nearly doubled Parker's career assist total. Career steals double Parker's, he outrebounds Parker, and has converted six times the 3 pointers made in 25 less games played on average. To say nothing of the fact that he led a rag-tag, undisciplined, bottom-feeding 8th seed and masterfully unfolded one of the greatest playoff upsets OF ALL TIME!
Chris Paul -- Once again, more assists, more steals, more rebounds, has a long range game (you know what, I'm going to consider that Parker does NOT have a long range game--I mean when he hasn't attemted more than 40 in either of the last two years and still has converted at a 35% clip--it just doesn't exist and as a guard, I'm going to hold it against him--like I do for Devin Harris, Avery Johnson, Brevin Knight, Andre Miller, or any other guard that does not have this most basic of skills, since comparing Parkers's stats with these guys will be silly, I'll just state they have a long range game under each). Back to Paul, oh yeah, better FT shooter, he has a greater PER and comparable TS% for all you rave about Parker's 50% from layup. And he's three years younger for all you rave about Parker's youth.
Chauncey Billups -- Billups had 8 seasons of sub-par assist numbers to drag his career average down and STILL has the same career average as Parker. Has less TOs per game even though he's primary ball handler on his team, Parker defers to Ginobili as ball handler quite often. Is about 72 million times the free throw shooter Parker is. Once again (and you'll be hearing this a lot) has a long range game. Billups has had 2 All-Defense selections, Parker zero. Billups has 2 All-NBA selections, Parker zero.
Stephon Marbury -- Let's throw in the last two extremely Mediocre years by Mr. "Starbury" ::) For his career, he still scores more, passes more, steals more, shoots a better free throw, has a long range game, AND (and this shocked me truthfully) has a higher PER. Both are two-time All-Stars but Marbury was 2-time All-NBA Third Team.
Mike Bibby -- Okay, he passes more, steals more, shoots better free throws, has long ra--this is getting repetitive and boring. EVERBODY on my list does these same basic point guard things better than Tony Parker. I'll mention when a player doesn't, how's that.
Deron Williams -- Review how much better Chris Paul is, statistically, than Tony Parker and know that many respected basketball communities consider this guy better than Paul. Posting 9.3 apg (almost double TP) at the tender age of 23 is pretty good.
Mo Williams -- You laugh at me that I would even dare to have the AUDACITY of stating this guy "probably" has more talent that Tony Parker. Would it interest you to know that the ONLY thing this guy didn't do better than Tony Parker last year was score, hmmmmm?
Kirk Hinrich -- ISN'T EVEN A FULL FREAKIN' POINT GUARD and has averaged more assists every single year than Tony Parker's best season! Defensively he's superior to Tony Parker (as is everyone on this list with the exception of Marbury, Mo Williams, and Mike Bibby) and has an All-Defensive selection to prove it.
and lastly but most ridiculously . . .
Gilbert Arenas-- Let's forget about the fact that Arenas averages more points, more rebounds, more assists, more steals, more ft attempts, better FT percentage, more 3 pointers made, better 3 point percentage, and sports a higher PER. Let's forget about ALL that. Next time Parker drops 60 points in one game, you be sure to let know--case closed.
There . . . Nash, Kidd, Davis, Paul, Billups, Marbury, Bibby, D Williams, M Williams, Hinrich, Arenas. 11 guys statiscally proven to be better than Tony Parker in almost all facets of PG play, except FG%. And excuuuuuse me if I aesthetically prefer most of these guys 45% ability to shoot from ANYWHERE rather than Parker's ability to shoot 50% from layup.
-
Talent/skills...IMO Parker is above average; in your opinion he's not.
I agree that he is above average, he's just not as talented as the other guys people have brought up.
So being bigger and stronger is talent. Thus Kevin Duckworth was more talented than Tim Duncan. And I noticed you focused on Kidd...what about the other 10-12 names?
Bigger and strong is part of the equation but I also mentioned a bunch of other "talents" that would make TD superior, most noteably TD's coordination. I really hate when people make comments like you made about Duckworth and TD knowing full well it was a line of BS when they typed it. I mentioned other talents Kidd posses but you still go and write that BS line. FYI, tall is also a talent so Shaw Bradley was a G.O.A.T. candidate I guess.
Also I find it amusing that the discussion has again come around to comparing Parker to just Kidd & Nash. What about the other 10-12 players that are supposedly more talented than Parker? Where is the discussion outlining how you have determined that Parker is average/mediocre? Something besides "because I say so".
The only reason I brought Nash into the mix is because IMO Tony has more talent than Nash but as a PG Nash is far superior because of all the other factors. The reason Nash and Kidd are the focus is because they are the rare examples of near-perfect court vision, the most critical component of a PG value, moreso than decision making because you can't make a decision if you can't see the variables, and you asked about how you measure "court vision".
-
Talent/skills...IMO Parker is above average; in your opinion he's not.
Right--above average, not great, not awesome, not all-NBA, not Top 3, not Top 5.
But underlying those skills is a decent amount of talent or athletic ability.
Right--a decent amount of talent, not great amount, large amount, huge amount, all-world amount, just decent.
Lurker you're making our argument for us!
=================================
No your argument is that he is mediocre and middle of the pack. Mine is that he is upper tier among point guards.
-
There . . . Nash, Kidd, Davis, Paul, Billups, Marbury, Bibby, D Williams, M Williams, Hinrich, Arenas. 11 guys statiscally proven to be better than Tony Parker in almost all facets of PG play, except FG%. And excuuuuuse me if I aesthetically prefer most of these guys 45% ability to shoot from ANYWHERE rather than Parker's ability to shoot 50% from layup.
Last season:
Tony Parker 44.2% on jumpers
http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS1A.HTM
40% on treys.
-
Oooooh...stats can be such fun.
Here is one measurement based on scoring, rebounds, assists, steals, misses, turnovers, etc (just about every statistic you can get from a box score). Parker ranks as a top 10 PG.
Point Guards
MyTendex (min 49 games) MyTendex/48min (min 20.0 min/gm)
Player Team MyTend Player Team Tend/48
1) nash,steve Pho 27.01 1) nash,steve Pho 36.72
2) arenas,gilbert Was 25.78 2) kidd,jason NJN 31.92
3) kidd,jason NJN 24.41 3) davis,baron GSW 31.36
4) davis,baron GSW 23.05 4) arenas,gilbert Was 31.13
5) iverson,allen den 23.03 5) paul,chris NOr 29.75
6) paul,chris NOr 22.83 6) billups,chauncey Det 27.94
7) billups,chauncey Det 21.09 7) parker,tony San 27.73
8) williams,deron Uta 19.83 8) calderon,jose Tor 27.31
9) parker,tony San 18.78 9) ford,t.j. Tor 26.80
10) miller,andre phi 18.33 10) iverson,allen den 26.01
** Avg for Position = 11.26. ** Avg for Position = 20.26.
Another measurement is PER...
Hinrich 18.6
Billups 23.1
Davis 22.8
Mo Williams 17.8
Kidd 21.3
Paul 23.8
Nash 25.6
Bibby 17.6
Parker 23.4
D Williams 18.6
Arenas 26.1
In this one Parker is only beat by Arenas, Nash & Paul.
-
Why isn't Parker considered an elite point guard? Consider what a point guard is paid to do.
He ranked 14th in assists last season, but 9th in turnovers amongst point guards. This alone puts him is the middle of the pack, but there is more.
He shot 52% from the field last year. Amongst point guards, only Nash shot better. Lurker must have mentioned Tony's shooting "proficiency" in every one of his posts here in discussing Parker's skill level.
But there is a little caveat to consider about that mark. Point guards - the really good ones - can shoot the ball from anywhere on the court, and the best ones are excellent three point shooters, because one of the skills they must bring to the court is a confidence in their long range shots to keep the opposition from collapsing in the middle.
Nash AVERAGED nine times the number of three pointers a game then Parker did last year, as did Baron Davis and Chauncey Billips. Mo Williams shot 7 times Parker's threes per game; Chris Paul a modest 4.5; Mike Bibby nearly 12 times as many. Oh, and let's not leave Gilbert Arenas out. All he did was shoot 16 TIMES the number of three pointers a game then Parker did. So, Lurker, any guesses on how a point guard can maintain such a high shooting percentage compared to his contemporaries? One way would be to NOT shoot too many three pointers so as to keep up that fifty percent average.
In fact, Parker's modest number of three pointers attempted per game of 0.5 puts him in the select company of these other point guards who played at least 28 minutes a game: TJ Ford, Brevin Knight, Andre Miller, and Shaun Livingston. But Ford at least averaged 7.9 assists per game: Knight 6.6: and Miller 7.8. Parker? Not so many - just 5.5 per game.
At least Parker's assists and turnovers were better then Shaun Livingston's. There, feel better, Lurker?
Well, at least he can count on getting to the line often because he drives to the basket so much. In fact, there he is ranked seventh in the League in free throw attempts amongst point guards. And as we know, ALL good point guards shoot the lights out once they get to the line. Yep, there is Nash, and Billips, and Arenas, and Williams, and Fisher - all shooting over 85% from the line, Any number of good to excellent point guards are shooting about 80%.
Except for Parker. There he is, ranked 23rd amongst point guards, with his 78.3% FT shooting. With his 5.5 assists, though, you would think that some of the other poor shooting point guards down there with him would also fail to deliver the ball to teammates as irregularly as Tony does. Like poor FT shooting Baron Davis (74.5). Oops! He gets 8.1 assists per game to make up for it a bit, while shooting a lousy 43.9 Pct from the field. If only he would lay off three pointers. He shoots 4.4 per game and only connects on 30%. Think his overall shooting percentage might suffer as a result. Should I mention how lousy Jason Kidd is from the line? Just as bad as Parker, but those other point guard duties seem to bail HIM out, same as Davis. He got 9.2 assists per game and put up 4.5 three pointers, causing his shooting percentage to once again suffer.
But at least these guys were doing what point guards are needed to do. Distribute the ball and put up long shots. Maybe on the Spurs, others are given those chores to do, especially the long ball shooting. And defending the perimeter must be a bit easier with both Duncan and Bowen to back you up.
Did I say once before that what Tony Parker has in abundance is luck? He landed in the best place he could have for what skills he brings to the court, and for that you should appreciate him.
But do not try to convince us he is a "elite" point guard in the NBA. Not yet, anyway. We know what a good point guard should be doing on a basketball court and Parker leaves too much of those jobs for others to do.
-
2007 Playoff Jumpers money time:
64.3% in the last five minutes of games in that neither team were up by more than 5 points.
MVP Tony Parker.
-
Love the double post JoMal...if you can't convince with logic then overwhelm with quantity. ;)
BTW JoMal what happened to your other line of thinking regarding leading multiple teams? I didn't see where you supported that one.
Looking at raw stats is one thing but then how do you explain that comprehensive rating systems rank Parker so much higher? Maybe he doesn't excel at any one thing but is above average in several categories. Maybe coaches don't have a clue either as they have voted him to the all star team 2 years in a row. And sports analysts who rank him as one of the top point guards...obviously they must have the goods on their editors because they couldn't be right either.
Also now the stats are flying whereas at first that wasn't the way to evaluate talent. But to discuss physical attributes and intangibles such as leadership or court vision are difficult to measure.
So here is another measurement...defensive PER
Parker 13.7
Hinrich 14.7
Billups 15.7
Paul 15.9
Davis 16.1
Nash 16.2
Kidd 16.3
D Williams 16.5
Bibby 18.0
Mo Williams 18.6
Arenas 19.3
CBS Sportsline...
1. S. Nash
2. J. Kidd
3. T. Parker
4. B. Davis
5. G. Arenas
6. C. Billups
7. D. Williams
8. A. Iverson
9. C. Paul
10. K. Hinrich
Hollinger at ESPN...And of course, Finals MVP Tony Parker continued his progression into one of the game's elite point guards.
Additional ESPN analysis:
Parker has always been a layup machine; the difference is that now he's a layup machine who also can hit outside shots, making him virtually impossible to guard.
The progression can be seen by looking at both Parker's shot makeup and his percentage from each distance. Parker always has been able to get to the basket, and in fact he took and converted fewer last year than he has in other seasons. He's ridiculously good at them, as only three guards with more than 150 attempts converted a higher percentage of their shots at the rim (those three were Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade and Jose Calderon). In contrast, 16 of the league's point guards made fewer than half of these shots, including some pretty good ones (Mo Williams, Mike Bibby and T.J. Ford, for instance).
Scouting report: Parker is one of the quickest players in the league, especially going to his right, and is a deadly finisher in the basket area from either side. When he can't get all the way to the rim, he has a soft touch on floaters that he puts just out of the reach of rotating big men. He also uses a floater shot-fake -- making him perhaps the only player in the league with this club in his bag -- that he uses often and to great effect.
Going to his right, Parker has added a change of pace move to complement his straight-line speed. And when he goes left on a pick-and-roll, he'll often dribble right into the big man and then quickly spin to his right, sealing the big guy while Parker cruises in for a lay-up. Add in his improved 2-point jumper and he's one of the best scoring point guards in basketball.
Defensively, Parker is underrated. He's bigger than people think at 6-2, and with his quickness he does a good job of keeping opposing dribblers in front of him
-
40% on treys.
A whole FIFTEEN makes on 38 attempts. Truly the guy was on Fire, Reality!!
Here is one measurement based on scoring, rebounds, assists, steals, misses, turnovers, etc (just about every statistic you can get from a box score). Parker ranks as a top 10 PG.
Even by a measurement index that you handpicked, plenty of the names I mentioned as having more talent than Parker are above him. He barely grazes the Top 10 on the regular list and (on per 48 min) is #7 on the same list that Jose Calderon is #8. Are you going to argue that Calderon is an upper tier point guard, too?
PER, I see you went by Parker's career high last year number (not career average), convenient but we'll go with it. It should look impressive since it calculates efficiency and he's asked to do so little for his team--easy to be efficient when you don't so much on your plate. I noticed Jason Kidd is a full 2 points less in PER last year--are you turning around and now saying Kidd isn't as good as Parker? You can cherry pick various metric lists and statistical algorithms all you want--the truth is that Parker doesn't have upper tier talent. With decent, above-average talent, has Parker done well to find a productive niche on a well-oiled machine of a team -- Yes; and good for him. It doesn't make you any less of a fan to just accept that.
-
Lurker,
What kind of performance is it going to take out of Tony Parker to help the Spurs title in 2008?
#1 issue is health thruout playoffs.
#2 I think if he can do just as he did last year its all good.
#3 If he can add a quantity of 40% treys to his arsenal, we'll be partying from Paris to Sacramento.
-
40% on treys.
A whole FIFTEEN makes on 38 attempts. Truly the guy was on Fire, Reality!!
Here is one measurement based on scoring, rebounds, assists, steals, misses, turnovers, etc (just about every statistic you can get from a box score). Parker ranks as a top 10 PG.
What can i day, i turned down the Offensive Coordinator position with the Spurs.
-
Also now the stats are flying whereas at first that wasn't the way to evaluate talent. But to discuss physical attributes and intangibles such as leadership or court vision are difficult to measure.
Let's not be coy, here. People tried to explain to you what natural talent was (a sweet perimeter stroke for one), you didn't get that. Then they talked leadership (you know the quality that Parker lets Duncan and Ginobili handle), you didn't get that either. Then they talked court vision, and even though there's a mountain of statistics that says Parker doesn't have it, you didn't get it. You accused people of shying away from the ~10 names that I listed in the beginning and accused people of saying their argument is "I'm right, you're wrong" with nothing to back it up. So now that I did a statistical comparison with the players I mentioned, now you're saying we've had to change the argument. I knew Homerism is a strong affliction, but didn't figure it would incapacitate you to this degree.
-
Then they talked leadership (you know the quality that Parker lets Duncan and Ginobili handle), you didn't get that either.
Because that is exactly what he is supposed to do within the framework of the team. And last year with SuperManu and Duncan having off games Parker certainly did display leadership to the tune of Finals MVP.
Billips instead forced up pigheaded crap shots at the end of Detroits elimination.
Kidd let the ball go to long known choker Vince Carter for elimination.
Nash couldn't keep his impetuous center on the bench while Tony had the Spurs choirboys adhereing to league rules to the T. cough Game 6 eliminatory Tony goes off for 30 pts while helping squelch Nash to 18.
Tony came of age last season.
-
CBS Sportsline...
1. S. Nash
2. J. Kidd
3. T. Parker
4. B. Davis
5. G. Arenas
6. C. Billups
7. D. Williams
8. A. Iverson
9. C. Paul
10. K. Hinrich
Looks to me like a subjective list (with no real evidence to back anything up), I figured with quotes you made like this one:
Again this is just another subjective argument...your opinion that those trades would be accepted by the Spurs and declined by the others.
You'd dig up something better for your argument.
Parker 13.7
Hinrich 14.7
Billups 15.7
Paul 15.9
Davis 16.1
Nash 16.2
Kidd 16.3
D Williams 16.5
Bibby 18.0
Mo Williams 18.6
Arenas 19.3
Spurs
Bulls
Pistons
Hornets
Warriors
Suns
Nets
Jazz
Kings
Bucks
Wizards
Weird how those teams seem to get worst defensively as you go down the list. . . coincidence . . .hmmm?
Parker has a higher defensive PER than Billups, yet the coaches selected Billups to the All-Defensive Team, now you're the one calling the coaches idiots. Well, you did post:
Maybe coaches don't have a clue either as they have voted him to the all star team 2 years in a row.
. . . here I thought you were being sarcastic. Didn't give you enough credit. 8)
-
Here is one measurement based on scoring, rebounds, assists, steals, misses, turnovers, etc (just about every statistic you can get from a box score). Parker ranks as a top 10 PG.
Even by a measurement index that you handpicked, plenty of the names I mentioned as having more talent than Parker are above him. He barely grazes the Top 10 on the regular list and (on per 48 min) is #7 on the same list that Jose Calderon is #8. Are you going to argue that Calderon is an upper tier point guard, too?
PER, I see you went by Parker's career high last year number (not career average), convenient but we'll go with it. It should look impressive since it calculates efficiency and he's asked to do so little for his team--easy to be efficient when you don't so much on your plate. I noticed Jason Kidd is a full 2 points less in PER last year--are you turning around and now saying Kidd isn't as good as Parker? You can cherry pick various metric lists and statistical algorithms all you want--the truth is that Parker doesn't have upper tier talent. With decent, above-average talent, has Parker done well to find a productive niche on a well-oiled machine of a team -- Yes; and good for him. It doesn't make you any less of a fan to just accept that.
For PER I used everyone's figures for last year. You don't want to hold Deron Williams lack of history against him. But for Parker you do?
We can also go back and look at each of these players at age 24 if you like. Even Kidd's numbers are much less impressive at 24 than for the past few seasons. Nash is regularly labeled a late bloomer so what was he doing at age 24. So we should penalize Parker because he has been improving each year but reward D-Williams because he improved in his second year?
So Parker being in the top 8 proves your point that he has no talent and there are 15 guys with more talent than him? If he has no talent and little skills then it is just the team that makes him better. But isn't it the Detroit team that makes Billups look better? Chauncy bounced around and proved nothing until in the system in Detroit. But he is a better talent...why?
And to say Parker does little for his team is pure BS. He does as much for his team or more as D-Williams, Hinrich, Bibby, Paul, etc. The second leading scorer, the top assists man, 2nd in steals, and floor general. He controls the tempo of that well oiled machine.
-
Parker 13.7
Hinrich 14.7
Billups 15.7
Paul 15.9
Davis 16.1
Nash 16.2
Kidd 16.3
D Williams 16.5
Bibby 18.0
Mo Williams 18.6
Arenas 19.3
Spurs
Bulls
Pistons
Hornets
Warriors
Suns
Nets
Jazz
Kings
Bucks
Wizards
Weird how those teams seem to get worst defensively as you go down the list. . . coincidence . . .hmmm?
Maybe just a coinidence, maybe not. I just posted a statistical analysis for defense. You can interpret for what it is worth.
Parker has a higher defensive PER than Billups, yet the coaches selected Billups to the All-Defensive Team, now you're the one calling the coaches idiots.
Attached are the results for the 2006-07 NBA All-Defensive Teams:
2006-07 NBA ALL-DEFENSIVE FIRST TEAM: Position Player, Team 1st 2nd Points
Forward Bruce Bowen, San Antonionio 19 4 42
Forward Tim Duncan, San Antonio 16 4 36
Center Marcus Camby, Denver 11 12 34
Guard Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 14 4 32
Guard Raja Bell, Phoenix 7 11 25
2006-07 NBA ALL-DEFENSIVE SECOND TEAM Position Player, Team 1st 2nd Points
Center Ben Wallace, Chicago 12 9 33
Guard Jason Kidd, New Jersey 8 7 23
Forward Tayshaun Prince, Detroit 7 7 21
Forward Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 8 4 20
Guard Kirk Hinrich, Chicago 7 4 18
I can't find Billups name. Maybe he used an alias....
-
You don't want to hold Deron Williams lack of history against him. But for Parker you do?
No, just noticed that it was convenient to use just last year's number. Not holding anything against Parker . . . and I did go with it, didn't I?
So we should penalize Parker because he has been improving each year but reward D-Williams because he improved in his second year?
Yes his scoring, FG%, and PER have improved, all probably attributed to the fact of his maturity and the coaches work making his perimeter shot serviceable. Other than that though, I don't see stark improvement.
So Parker being in the top 8 proves your point that he has no talent and there are 15 guys with more talent than him?
Refresh my memory if you will, can you post exactly where I said Parker has no talent and that 15 guys have more talent than him. Thanks.
And to say Parker does little for his team is pure BS. He does as much for his team or more as D-Williams, Hinrich, Bibby, Paul, etc. The second leading scorer, the top assists man, 2nd in steals, and floor general. He controls the tempo of that well oiled machine.
Yes, of course, he does soo much for his team that come 4th quarter winning time, his coach takes the ball out of his hands.
Maybe just a coinidence, maybe not. I just posted a statistical analysis for defense. You can interpret for what it is worth.
Thanks, I think I will interpret it for what its worth. I'm going to say that the individual performance and Player Rating of PGs guarded by Parker are squelched due to the wonderful Team Defense of San Antonio (anchored by their two 1st Team Defenders) moreso than Parker's defensive prowess.
I can't find Billups name. Maybe he used an alias....
2005-06 NBA
1st Team
Ron Artest
Bruce Bowen
Kobe Bryant
Jason Kidd
Andrei Kirilenko
Ben Wallace
2nd Team
Chauncey Billups
Marcus Camby
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Tayshaun Prince
2004-05 NBA
1st Team
Bruce Bowen
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Larry Hughes
Ben Wallace
2nd Team
Chauncey Billups
Marcus Camby
Jason Kidd
Andrei Kirilenko
Tayshaun Prince
Dwyane Wade
I bolded his name just in case you missed it. ;)
-
Love the double post JoMal...if you can't convince with logic then overwhelm with quantity. ;)
yeah....had some trouble with an edit. Computer is doing things on its own today and not just here.
BTW JoMal what happened to your other line of thinking regarding leading multiple teams? I didn't see where you supported that one.
Do I have to?
Guys like Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Steve Nash, and Chaucey Billips have changed teams and not only provided that spark of improvement on their new teams, but have often excelled beyond expectations. This is just an interesting caveat to consider regarding point guards, don't you think? When they change teams, do they make a difference? All of the above not only made a difference, but were credited with the difference due to their leadership and perserverance.
This isn't even any kind of knock on Parker. But let's face it, he has played in one system since he entered the NBA, and Popovich has maneuvered his talents to cover up his weak areas, like outside shooting. What other systems would he excel at if he changed teams? Not too many other coaches will be able to accommodate him if he needs outside scoring, true point guard leadership, and an assist-minded player. Other point guards might be more attractive on those fronts.
Looking at raw stats is one thing but then how do you explain that comprehensive rating systems rank Parker so much higher? Maybe he doesn't excel at any one thing but is above average in several categories. Maybe coaches don't have a clue either as they have voted him to the all star team 2 years in a row. And sports analysts who rank him as one of the top point guards...obviously they must have the goods on their editors because they couldn't be right either.
Also now the stats are flying whereas at first that wasn't the way to evaluate talent. But to discuss physical attributes and intangibles such as leadership or court vision are difficult to measure.
Stats go a long way in evaluating talent, but in Parker's case, it is what is missing that needs to be "seen". Like outside scoring, assists with less turnovers, overt on-court leadership, and a higher free throw percentage. His defense is hard to judge because his teammates are so good they can veil Tony's abilities in that regard, plus I believe that Popovich makes team defense the priority and keeps Tony out of harm's way so Bowen can do his thing and Duncan is always back their to cover up anything that comes his way.
Hollinger at ESPN...And of course, Finals MVP Tony Parker continued his progression into one of the game's elite point guards.
Additional ESPN analysis:
Parker has always been a layup machine; the difference is that now he's a layup machine who also can hit outside shots, making him virtually impossible to guard.
The progression can be seen by looking at both Parker's shot makeup and his percentage from each distance. Parker always has been able to get to the basket, and in fact he took and converted fewer last year than he has in other seasons. He's ridiculously good at them, as only three guards with more than 150 attempts converted a higher percentage of their shots at the rim (those three were Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade and Jose Calderon). In contrast, 16 of the league's point guards made fewer than half of these shots, including some pretty good ones (Mo Williams, Mike Bibby and T.J. Ford, for instance).
The lay-ups I have seen. Tony certainly can drive the lane, no question. Not so much the outside shots. A few, but in comparison to other PG's, Tony could be a bit more assertive in his three pointers, for instance. Like other riflemen, though, his overall shooting percentage won't be around 50% if he ever does.
Scouting report: Parker is one of the quickest players in the league, especially going to his right, and is a deadly finisher in the basket area from either side. When he can't get all the way to the rim, he has a soft touch on floaters that he puts just out of the reach of rotating big men. He also uses a floater shot-fake -- making him perhaps the only player in the league with this club in his bag -- that he uses often and to great effect.
Going to his right, Parker has added a change of pace move to complement his straight-line speed. And when he goes left on a pick-and-roll, he'll often dribble right into the big man and then quickly spin to his right, sealing the big guy while Parker cruises in for a lay-up. Add in his improved 2-point jumper and he's one of the best scoring point guards in basketball.
Defensively, Parker is underrated. He's bigger than people think at 6-2, and with his quickness he does a good job of keeping opposing dribblers in front of him
[/quote]
They seem to like to point out his ablilities going to the right. What happens when he is forced to got to his left, then?
And as I said, his defense would be hard to measure because he is surrounded with such good ones, he can gamble a bit.
-
So Parker being in the top 8 proves your point that he has no talent and there are 15 guys with more talent than him? If he has no talent and little skills then it is just the team that makes him better.
So Parker being in the top 8 proves your point that he has no talent....
....your point that he has no talent....
If he has no talent and little skills then it is just the team that makes him better.
If he has no talent and little skills...
This is EXACTLY why I can NOT debate with you.
-
Skandery you believe Pop takes the ball out of Tony's hands in the 4th because he doesn't trust him?!
I never really took it that way. Always felt like that was one of Pop's very rare light bulb above his head offensive adjustments that really switch things up for the Spurs and give them a different way to attack . The defense has to adjust very quickly in the final period. It did start off as an experiment that happened to work well in their favor most of the time.
-
Skandery you believe Pop takes the ball out of Tony's hands in the 4th because he doesn't trust him?!
I never really took it that way. Always felt like that was one of Pop's very rare light bulb above his head offensive adjustments that really switch things up for the Spurs and give them a different way to attack . The defense to have to adjust very quickly in the final period. It did start off as an experiment that happened to work well in their favor most of the time.
I agree, for better or worse Manu is unpredictable, and the predictable Spurs offense was just to easy to defend in crunch time, i.e. TD in the low post. Same thing for the Lakers except Phil knew that before everyone else and put the ball in Kobe's hands rather than wait for opposing coaches to adjust durring the Shaq era.
-
HASWIMAOTSRSGBT rankings.
1 Parker
2 Arenas
3 Bibby
4 Paul
5 Davis
6 Nash
7 Kidd
8 D Williams
9 Billups
10 Mo Williams
11 Hinrich
Hits A Shot When It Matters As Opposed To Some Regular Season Game Blowout Time.
-
HASWIMAOTSRSGBT rankings.
1 Parker
2 Arenas
3 Bibby
4 Paul
5 Davis
6 Nash
7 Kidd
8 D Williams
9 Billups
10 Mo Williams
11 Hinrich
Hits A Shot When It Matters As Opposed To Some Regular Season Game Blowout Time.
LOL!
From 82games.com:
Leading "Game Winning Shot" Players
Player Fgm Fga Fg% Ftm Fta Ast T/O
League Wide 438 1500 .292 303 420 191 139
01) Carmelo Anthony 11 17 .647 6 8 0 1
02) Ray Allen 8 18 .444 2 2 0 2
03) Michael Redd 8 19 .421 6 7 0 1
04) Steve Francis 8 20 .400 3 3 2 1
05) Allen Iverson 8 20 .400 5 7 1 2
06) Joe Johnson 8 23 .348 0 0 1 2
07) Tracy McGrady 8 23 .348 8 8 0 1
08) Vince Carter 8 31 .258 5 6 3 2
09) Ben Gordon 7 13 .538 0 0 1 1
10) Dirk Nowitzki 7 19 .368 6 10 0 2
11) Paul Pierce 7 20 .350 8 10 5 3
12) Kobe Bryant 7 32 .219 8 9 0 1
13) Jalen Rose 6 10 .600 4 5 0 4
14) Derek Fisher 6 12 .500 2 2 1 0
15) Pau Gasol 6 12 .500 3 4 1 1
16) Damon Stoudamire 6 12 .500 0 0 4 1
17) Tim Duncan 6 13 .462 3 4 0 1
18) Ricky Davis 6 16 .375 5 5 1 0
19) Dwyane Wade 6 17 .353 3 5 2 1
20) Jamal Crawford 6 19 .316 2 3 0 0
21) Damon Jones 5 8 .625 1 1 1 0
22) Zach Randolph 5 8 .625 4 5 0 0
23) Richard Hamilton 5 10 .500 2 2 2 2
24) Antawn Jamison 5 10 .500 0 2 0 0
25) Jason Terry 5 13 .385 1 2 0 0
26) Gilbert Arenas 5 16 .313 7 7 0 3
27) Mike Bibby 5 16 .313 1 1 3 1
28) Chris Webber 5 17 .294 0 0 1 1
29) Kevin Garnett 5 21 .238 3 3 0 0
30) Chauncey Billups 5 26 .192 11 12 2 1
31) P.J. Brown 4 7 .571 0 0 0 0
32) Yao Ming 4 8 .500 4 5 0 1
33) Tony Parker 4 9 .444 0 0 3 0
34) Richard Jefferson 4 10 .400 1 1 0 1
35) Shawn Marion 4 10 .400 0 0 0 0
36) Baron Davis 4 13 .308 2 2 2 1
37) Mike James 4 13 .308 2 4 2 0
38) Rasheed Wallace 4 18 .222 2 2 0 1
39) LeBron James 4 19 .211 5 9 4 2
04) Steve Francis 8 20 .400 3 3 2 1
05) Allen Iverson 8 20 .400 5 7 1 2
09) Ben Gordon 7 13 .538 0 0 1 1
14) Derek Fisher 6 12 .500 2 2 1 0
16) Damon Stoudamire 6 12 .500 0 0 4 1
19) Dwyane Wade 6 17 .353 3 5 2 1
20) Jamal Crawford 6 19 .316 2 3 0 0
21) Damon Jones 5 8 .625 1 1 1 0
25) Jason Terry 5 13 .385 1 2 0 0
26) Gilbert Arenas 5 16 .313 7 7 0 3
27) Mike Bibby 5 16 .313 1 1 3 1
30) Chauncey Billups 5 26 .192 11 12 2 1
33) Tony Parker 4 9 .444 0 0 3 0
36) Baron Davis 4 13 .308 2 2 2 1
37) Mike James 4 13 .308 2 4 2 0
-
repost. Also from 82games.com
2007 Playoff Jumpers money time:
64.3% in the last five minutes of games in that neither team were up by more than 5 points.
MVP Tony Parker.
-
repost. Also from 82games.com
2007 Playoff Jumpers money time:
64.3% in the last five minutes of games in that neither team were up by more than 5 points.
MVP Tony Parker.
So you are giving up your bogus "Hits A Shot When It Matters As Opposed To Some Regular Season Game Blowout Time." MADE UP rankings and going with his FG%. Mmmmmmkay.........