Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[rickortreat]

Moron - those are all guards as far as the NBA is concerned.  There's no shotgun, the stats are what they are: the most objective means to evaluate a player's performance.

So what if it lumps shooting guards in there?  It only validates my point about 1's not being primary scorers.   

You could go to the site yourself and see how the guards stack up as far as scoring.  You'll find that the pg's are more towards the bottom of the list.  And then you'd look at the assists and see that both 1's and 2's outperform Parker.

No reasonable person could look at those stats and think that Tony was a top 3 point guard.  They'd see he shoots at a higher percentage and scores at the same average as the best point, Steve Nash. Then they'd look at the assists- again the list doesn't distinguish between 1's and 2's, and see that Tony doesn't  get nearly as many assists as the top points. 
 
And once you get someone like Lurker pointing out his deficiencies as a defender, you see that Tony doesn't belong in the discussion. 

[Lurker]

A three page thread with opposing views PROVES more than any stat that he does belong in the discussion.  If he didn't then there would be only a few posts and the topic would die quickly.

[WayOutWest]

A three page thread with opposing views PROVES more than any stat that he does belong in the discussion.  If he didn't then there would be only a few posts and the topic would die quickly.

I have no idea how someone could put Tony above Chauncy, Tony is younger but so what we're not talking about the future, the discussion is he a top 3 and the answer is clearly no.  Top 5 would be a better discussion but how can people down play Chauncy.

[rickortreat]

A three page thread with opposing views PROVES more than any stat that he does belong in the discussion.  If he didn't then there would be only a few posts and the topic would die quickly.

That assumes that there are intelligent people on this board who can come to a conclusion quickly.  When two people disagree, one of them is wrong.  If the one with the wrong opinion is obstinate, and passionate, the argument continues.  That in itself doesn't mean the false viewpoint has any merit!

People come to conclusions about things independent of logic - they are more driven by emotion and desire that most would care to admit.  Someone may live vicariously through the successes of others, such as the fans of a basketball team (not all fans, but the fringe) who want to think of their favorite players as being the best or worthy of greater mention and accolades.

It's understandable for someone to want to thing of Tony Parker as a top 3 point guard.  But it isn't a rational viewpoint based on empirical evidence.  Everybody has an opinion, not every opinion is correct!

[Lurker]

A three page thread with opposing views PROVES more than any stat that he does belong in the discussion.  If he didn't then there would be only a few posts and the topic would die quickly.

That assumes that there are intelligent people on this board who can come to a conclusion quickly.  When two people disagree, one of them is wrong.  If the one with the wrong opinion is obstinate, and passionate, the argument continues.  That in itself doesn't mean the false viewpoint has any merit!

People come to conclusions about things independent of logic - they are more driven by emotion and desire that most would care to admit.  Someone may live vicariously through the successes of others, such as the fans of a basketball team (not all fans, but the fringe) who want to think of their favorite players as being the best or worthy of greater mention and accolades.

It's understandable for someone to want to thing of Tony Parker as a top 3 point guard.  But it isn't a rational viewpoint based on empirical evidence.  Everybody has an opinion, not every opinion is correct!

This argument is based on the fact that you feel your "evidence" is stronger than someone else's.  Again the fact that there is even a discussion supports the view that he BELONGS in the discussion. 

I have no idea how someone could put Tony above Chauncy, Tony is younger but so what we're not talking about the future, the discussion is he a top 3 and the answer is clearly no.  Top 5 would be a better discussion but how can people down play Chauncy.

Chauncey Billups
Detroit Pistons
Position:  G
Height:  6-3 Weight:  202
 
2006-07 Statistics
PPG 17.0
RPG 3.4 
APG 7.2
SPG 1.20
BPG .24
FG% .427
FT% .883
3P% .345
MPG 36.2

Tony Parker
San Antonio Spurs
Position:  G
Height:  6-2 Weight:  180
 
2006-07 Statistics
PPG 18.6
RPG 3.2 
APG 5.5
SPG 1.06
BPG .08
FG% .520
FT% .783
3P% .395
MPG 32.5

Maybe because statistically they are very, very close.  Oh wait, Rick is the one who wants to use stats to support the argument.  And the key stat is missing:  Billups 31; Parker 25

Maybe because in the playoffs Billups didn't step up and Parker did?

[WayOutWest]

Maybe because statistically they are very, very close.  Oh wait, Rick is the one who wants to use stats to support the argument.  And the key stat is missing:  Billups 31; Parker 25

One other stat that is missing is that Billups if the leader of the team and the Pistons don't have a TD that other teams focus on allowing Parker some freedom.

Maybe because in the playoffs Billups didn't step up and Parker did?

Parker stepped up for ONCE, Billups has been doing it for years both in the regular season and playoffs.  Next year could be the year the Parker moves into the upper echelon of PG because of his performance this year capped off with the finals MVP and because the older "guard" could start taking some steps back.  Parker is a very good player in the perfect system for his skill set but I don't know how many other teams I'd feel comfortable handing over the reigns too.

[Lurker]

Maybe because statistically they are very, very close.  Oh wait, Rick is the one who wants to use stats to support the argument.  And the key stat is missing:  Billups 31; Parker 25

One other stat that is missing is that Billups if the leader of the team and the Pistons don't have a TD that other teams focus on allowing Parker some freedom.

That is true but then the teams also have different styles...so if they were to switch teams who knows if one would fare better than the other.

Maybe because in the playoffs Billups didn't step up and Parker did?

Parker stepped up for ONCE, Billups has been doing it for years both in the regular season and playoffs.  Next year could be the year the Parker moves into the upper echelon of PG because of his performance this year capped off with the finals MVP and because the older "guard" could start taking some steps back.  Parker is a very good player in the perfect system for his skill set but I don't know how many other teams I'd feel comfortable handing over the reigns too.

That is a problem...without putting a player in different situations you don't know how they will perform.  Billups bounnced around until he landed in Detroit...maybe he wasn't in the right offense until then.  Maybe it took him until he was 28 to mature.

Would Deron Williams look as good playing in Sacramento as he does in Sloan's system in Utah?  If Boozer was injured again or didn't raise his game would Williams look as good?

If Baron Davis got paired up with a dominating big man would his scoring drop?  If he played for Jeff Van Gundy instead of Don Nelson would his numbers look as good?

There is always that problem when comparing players...does the system make them look better?  Is it a teammate that makes them look better?  Or are they just growing into a better player thru hard work and dedication?









P.S.  If I had the #3 pick for JUST POINT GUARDS and had to choose the one I wanted to run my team next year; I would pick Arenas.  IMO Billups, Parker, Paul & Williams are right after that...in no particular order.  If the same question is posed next June the list could change.

[JoMal]

I love arguements that have no right answers to them.

If you were building a team and needed to start with a point guard, how quickly might you reach down to a Tony Parker? Because of the leadership differential, you might go with Nash, Arenas, Wade, certainly Kidd, and most definitely Billips before you reach for a Parker.

And it is not because of any perceived lack of talent. You just want your point guard to have that little extra thing called experience and a proven track record where he has shown he can lead his team when others are falling beside him. Because of Duncan and to a certain degree Ginobili, Parker has yet to prove his leadership directly leads his team to solid victories over time. Not his fault, of course, but we can't place him in with the top point guards until he does. 

[Lurker]

I love arguements that have no right answers to them.

If you were building a team and needed to start with a point guard, how quickly might you reach down to a Tony Parker? Because of the leadership differential, you might go with Nash, Arenas, Wade, certainly Kidd, and most definitely Billips before you reach for a Parker.

And it is not because of any perceived lack of talent. You just want your point guard to have that little extra thing called experience and a proven track record where he has shown he can lead his team when others are falling beside him. Because of Duncan and to a certain degree Ginobili, Parker has yet to prove his leadership directly leads his team to solid victories over time. Not his fault, of course, but we can't place him in with the top point guards until he does. 

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Where has Arenas led his team?

Nash, Kidd & Billups - I can agree your argument has merit.  And I would be hesitant to include the 2006/07 version of Billups in that argument.  Basically you could say Billups had one GREAT postseason that cemented his "legacy".

[Reality]

Both I and I assume Lurker are neither one throwing dirt on Billups playing grave.
However, I don't think most of you watched the Pistons-Cavs series.  And I'm not dissing you for that per say.  Billips definitely had uncharacteristic ego play at the end of Gm 4.  He had a completely unforced turn trying to be Mr razzle dazzle with under 2 minutes, his 5th of the game.  Followed up by a three bomb attempt when all the Pistons really needed was a 2 with a ton of time left -44 seconds.  Det had the numbers on a break and he pulled up and bombed the brick.  Afterwords he just kind of smirked and continued to do so in the post interview, very non chalantly saying "That's my shot."  2-2 instead of 3-1 Pistons.

Gm 6 elimination game tied after 3 qtrs.  Cavs rookie pg Gibson works Billups and Det for 19 4th qtr points (was it also 16 straight points?) with many a possession Billups assigned to guard him.  It's a definite step back both for leadership and physical D skills.  Now, can Billups come in next year and have a better year?  Absolutely.  But this years playoffs was a step back.  *One scribe suggesting Billups bail to Milwaukee.  Pretty good choice looking at the next 2-3 years.

Jomal on the "Parker proved his leadership skills?" front, while i hear you, has Nash led his playoff teams to victory?  Phx is 2-7 at home vs the Spurs in 2 elimination series.  Oh okay then we could go back to when he was on Dallas vs San Antonio.  Or not.  And that Dallas team had not only Dirk but Michael Finley.  Lurker can tell you that amount of talent Nash was surrounded by.

[JoMal]

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Not clear here, Lurker, with your arguement. Are you saying that without Duncan, where has Parker led his team as well? Which just makes my point, doesn't it?

Where has Arenas led his team?

What the point here is, how have these guys faired in the leadership department? Sure, they do not have a Duncan watching their backs, so as to make it a bit easier to drive the lane and look great because Duncan has pealed off some of the defense.

What you want to see is how they have functioned WITHOUT that other superstar beside them. Wade did pretty well, as I recall, and Arenas IS the Washington offense, where other defenses focus on him and he still keeps his team competitive, even though he has no Duncan to ease the burden.

So the question would be, on those occasions when Duncan could not play, how has Parker done? Compare THAT to Arenas or Wade and come on back.

Nash, Kidd & Billups - I can agree your argument has merit.  And I would be hesitant to include the 2006/07 version of Billups in that argument.  Basically you could say Billups had one GREAT postseason that cemented his "legacy".

Overall, Billips has proven he can lead his team, but his talent base has tended to be more diverse as well.

And when you say that Billups had one GREAT postseason that cemented his "legacy", as you put it, it goes to reason that one poor one won't destroy it either.

[JoMal]

Both I and I assume Lurker are neither one throwing dirt on Billups playing grave.

Speaking of epitaths, I propose the above statement by Reality be his.

Jomal on the "Parker proved his leadership skills?" front, while i hear you, has Nash led his playoff teams to victory?  Phx is 2-7 at home vs the Spurs in 2 elimination series.  Oh okay then we could go back to when he was on Dallas vs San Antonio.  Or not.  And that Dallas team had not only Dirk but Michael Finley.  Lurker can tell you that amount of talent Nash was surrounded by.

I see what you are saying but I just can't get my mind to ignore those two MVP's he has won. Maybe the voters are overrating his leadership qualities and overlooking his postseason failures, but to have won two of them seems to put him in that elite class that so far excludes fellow PG's such as Parker.

Maybe if Parker were to lose Duncan, as Nash lost Dirk, his leadership qualities and overall talent would stand by itself and we all can truly see if Tony deserves placement within the ring of three top PG's in the League.

[WayOutWest]

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Wade made a name for himself before Shaq's arrival.  Shaq got nowhere without Wade TWICE.  Only when Wade was on the team did they win a title, Wade pretty much carried his team to a championship, some would say he carried some refs as well but that's another story.

[WayOutWest]

Maybe if Parker were to lose Duncan, as Nash lost Dirk, his leadership qualities and overall talent would stand by itself and we all can truly see if Tony deserves placement within the ring of three top PG's in the League.

Not too mention losing Amare for an entire year, Nash is pretty amazing and should have won a 3rd strait MVP.

[Lurker]

And without Shaq where has Wade led his team?

Not clear here, Lurker, with your arguement. Are you saying that without Duncan, where has Parker led his team as well? Which just makes my point, doesn't it?

Where has Arenas led his team?

What the point here is, how have these guys faired in the leadership department? Sure, they do not have a Duncan watching their backs, so as to make it a bit easier to drive the lane and look great because Duncan has pealed off some of the defense.

What you want to see is how they have functioned WITHOUT that other superstar beside them. Wade did pretty well, as I recall, and Arenas IS the Washington offense, where other defenses focus on him and he still keeps his team competitive, even though he has no Duncan to ease the burden.

So the question would be, on those occasions when Duncan could not play, how has Wade done? Compare THAT to Arenas or Wade and come on back.

My point is that you said you would pick Wade (not a PG as discussed earlier) and Arenas based on their leadership.  My question is what proves to you that they have better leadership skills?  Arenas being the Washington offense (despite two all star forwards? ) doesn't prove leadership.  All it proved was he could get them to the playoffs in a weak East.

 

Nash, Kidd & Billups - I can agree your argument has merit.  And I would be hesitant to include the 2006/07 version of Billups in that argument.  Basically you could say Billups had one GREAT postseason that cemented his "legacy".

Overall, Billips has proven he can lead his team, but his talent base has tended to be more diverse as well.

And when you say that Billups had one GREAT postseason that cemented his "legacy", as you put it, it goes to reason that one poor one won't destroy it either.

Then why downgrade Parker for poor playoffs in his younger years?  Billups "down" year came THIS YEAR when he is being touted as a top PG.  In a CONTRACT year where he proved that maybe the 2004 championship year was his peak?  Whereas Parker possibly..key word - possibly...just proved that he is still getting better?