Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[Lurker]

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.

In that both have led their teams when few other options availed themselves and did so commendably. As you also stated, all star forwards in the weak East are not exactly stellar commendments of their talent either.

Funny that Parker's teammates are held against him but Jamison & Butler are downplayed to support Arenas.  If you want to use the weak east argument against the quality of Arenas' support then you have to also use the argument to say that Washington's record under Arenas' leadership is inflated.

So maybe Arenas isn't as good of a leader as you would like to believe.
 

How does Arenas' "inflated" record NOT indicate he has leadership qualities?

But then, we still have not heard from you how we should be rating the leadership qualities of the one person this thread has focused on - Tony Parker.

At least we can judge and compare the leadership qualities in Arenas, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Bibby (not so good, BTW) and other point guards - even Wades and Iverson, for that matter, though they are combo guards and not true PG's and as such you can compare what they do with Parker, because both have been used as point guards by their teams.

You see, their coaches must think they have this thing called "leadership" quality that transcends just being a shooting guard all the time. They apparently can handle the point as well, and do quite well doing it.

Because they have this thing called a proven "leadership" quality..... 

But you have proven anything about Arenas' leadership either.

You say that leadership is your team winning (at least that is the best I can gather from your examples).

It is all one big circle, JoMal.  Arenas must be a leader because his teams make it to the playoffs.

Parker hasn't proved leadership because his teams have other stars.

Arenas has other all-stars.

Those all-stars don't count because they are from the weak east.

Arenas' teams are in the playoff because of the weak east.

That doesn't matter because Parker has never led a team in the weak east with two all-stars to a .500 record and the playoffs.

So in your mind unless Parker is traded for Arenas we will never know if Parker is as great a leader as Arenas.

[Lurker]

I will say though, after reading some awesome posting from our members around here, 

I agree there has been some great points debated in this thread.  One of the better ones in quite a while.

[JoMal]

But you have proven anything about Arenas' leadership either.

You say that leadership is your team winning (at least that is the best I can gather from your examples).

It is all one big circle, JoMal.  Arenas must be a leader because his teams make it to the playoffs.

Parker hasn't proved leadership because his teams have other stars.

Arenas has other all-stars.

Those all-stars don't count because they are from the weak east.

Arenas' teams are in the playoff because of the weak east.

That doesn't matter because Parker has never led a team in the weak east with two all-stars to a .500 record and the playoffs.

So in your mind unless Parker is traded for Arenas we will never know if Parker is as great a leader as Arenas.

You are getting closer, Lurker.

What I am saying, clearly I thought, was that guys like Arenas, Wade, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Kidd, etc have had the opportunity to show off leadership abilities that Parker, because of his situation with Duncan, has not been able to show off.

Arenas' two "all-star" teammates would not be all stars in the more talented West, so yeah, their abilities along side Arenas have to be taken with a grain of salt. So you do "get" what I was saying about them, and yes it is a factor in how Parker's own leadership might be weighted in comparison. Their situations are just not the same and a straight up trade of Parker for Arenas certainly would clarify both players regarding how they might be used by their new teams.

But essentially the points you indicate I am making is the entire arguement against Tony Parker, regardless of how you want to view it. His team and his teammates mask his leadership abilities and to be a great point guard, he needs to exhibit leadership on a team where HIS leadership would be the difference-maker whether the team succeeds or not.

Not necessarily winning a championship, but winning games in general. If Kidd were the Spurs point guard, for instance, I would be hesitant to even watch the NBA anymore for the lack of competition that would cause. 

[Lurker]

But you have proven anything about Arenas' leadership either.

You say that leadership is your team winning (at least that is the best I can gather from your examples).

It is all one big circle, JoMal.  Arenas must be a leader because his teams make it to the playoffs.

Parker hasn't proved leadership because his teams have other stars.

Arenas has other all-stars.

Those all-stars don't count because they are from the weak east.

Arenas' teams are in the playoff because of the weak east.

That doesn't matter because Parker has never led a team in the weak east with two all-stars to a .500 record and the playoffs.

So in your mind unless Parker is traded for Arenas we will never know if Parker is as great a leader as Arenas.

You are getting closer, Lurker.

What I am saying, clearly I thought, was that guys like Arenas, Wade, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Kidd, etc have had the opportunity to show off leadership abilities that Parker, because of his situation with Duncan, has not been able to show off.

Arenas' two "all-star" teammates would not be all stars in the more talented West, so yeah, their abilities along side Arenas have to be taken with a grain of salt. So you do "get" what I was saying about them, and yes it is a factor in how Parker's own leadership might be weighted in comparison. Their situations are just not the same and a straight up trade of Parker for Arenas certainly would clarify both players regarding how they might be used by their new teams.

But essentially the points you indicate I am making is the entire arguement against Tony Parker, regardless of how you want to view it. His team and his teammates mask his leadership abilities and to be a great point guard, he needs to exhibit leadership on a team where HIS leadership would be the difference-maker whether the team succeeds or not.

Not necessarily winning a championship, but winning games in general. If Kidd were the Spurs point guard, for instance, I would be hesitant to even watch the NBA anymore for the lack of competition that would cause. 

And I understand this argument for Wade, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Kidd, (although I'm not sure who the second Kidd is) but I don't understand it for Arenas.  I don't see how Arenas has led the Wizards to more wins than Parker has led the Spurs.  Arenas has led the Wizards...in that extremely deep & talented east...to 45, 42 and 41 wins in the last 3 years.  How does that show leadership?

And that terrible Jamison guy has only averaged 19.6, 20.5 and 19.8 those 3 seasons.  So it isn't like Arenas is playing with a bunch of scrubs.

[Laker Fan]

I seem to recall that I placed him more realistically at 4th or 5th, maybe 6th, but based on numbers, experience, AND accomplishments, he at least belongs in the discussion. Whether ANY PG would flourish in any system is a debate for another thread, far too many intricacies and nuances there that just clutter up the question originally posed.

It is idiots like Rick who continue to throw forwards and shooting guards in the mix and refuse to acknowledge we are just talking about PEOPLE ASSIGNED THE POSITION OF POINT GUARD!

It is likewise idiots like Rick whom, when upon realization that when it comes to debate, are intellectually unarmed, begin to quickly look up and throw out stats to support their argument rather than add into the debate points based on real life observation, intangibles, and past accomplishments, begin to accuse people on the board of lacking intelligence, really quite humorous when you consider the source. I mean this is the same Rick that has had so many of his other posts so shot full of holes you could drive a truck through them.

To accuse me, a Laker fan, of being tied to this discussion based on emotion, passion, or any thing other than observation and objective opinion demonstrates a total disconnect with reality, how appropriate that lack of touch with "reality" defines your weak "let's look at the stats shall we?" posts. In all honesty, I am a little flabbergasted that no one has noticed here that I, Laker Fan Dan, actually agree with the originator of this post, that Parker at least belongs in the discussion if not actual position, of #PG.

Again Rick, I suggest you come back and talk with the grown ups when you can come up with more than just raw numbers that have included every position but center as your argument why Parker doesn't belong in the discussion.

So far the best points for and against in this thread have been postulated by Skander (wrong), Lurker (right) and JoMal (thought-provoking), and of course, yours truly; and while Skander has likewise thrown in a fair amount of stats, as is his wont, he at least brings opinion based on knowledge and observation to the table.

This has been a terrific debate, and unlike the mindlessly vapid global warmingesque,  pathetically weak statement by Rick that no reasonable person would agree that he belongs in the discussion, I think there have been good argument for and against, and, like Lurker, to me that proves he belongs in the discussion, and I have no love for anything San Antonio.

[rickortreat]

Dan go screw yourself!  I said that there were no forwards in that list, and as far as the NBA is concerned that is correct, no matter what your opinion may be.  So before you accuse me of anything get your facts straight!  Or don't bother since the facts will only confuse you.
 
There are only guards on both lists, and reveal that Parker isn't a great point guard, but is in fact a poor shooting guard!

This is abundantly clear from the assists page. There are a number of 2's who do a better job of distributing the ball than Parker, yet everyone wants to leave them conveniently out of the discussion! 

Of course Parker is a little short to be a 2, but then again so is AI. 

No-one even seems to know how to distinguish a 2 from a 1 around here.  Tony Parker plays like a 2.  He shoots like one, scores like one and brings up the ball like one. Compared with the 1's he doesn't pass enough. Compared with the 2's he doesn't score enough.

The stats say that Tony Parker is a 2 guard!  Or is that too hard for you to see.

[Laker Fan]

This is so stupid, we're talking point guards right?  Point Guards are known and defined by their assists first and foremost over everything.  They're not known as scorers. Even their back court mates are referred to as Shooting guards, implying that points don't or aren't supposed to shoot. 
Name Games Mpg. Assists   Assists/Game TO TOPG  AP48M Asst/TO

17    
LeBron James , CLE
   78    40.9    470    6.0    250    3.2    7.1    1.88

So tell me Rick, was it you, or the stupid NBA that decided Lebron is a point guard, hmmmm? And wasn't it you who threw Byron Scott into the mix as well?

And your insult just proves you are simply not up to the task of debate, insults such as that little gem are the last resort of small minds.

[Lurker]

This is so stupid, we're talking point guards right?  Point Guards are known and defined by their assists first and foremost over everything.  They're not known as scorers. Even their back court mates are referred to as Shooting guards, implying that points don't or aren't supposed to shoot. 
Name Games Mpg. Assists   Assists/Game TO TOPG  AP48M Asst/TO

17    
LeBron James , CLE
   78    40.9    470    6.0    250    3.2    7.1    1.88

So tell me Rick, was it you, or the stupid NBA that decided Lebron is a point guard, hmmmm?

Another name on that list is Iggy...but I haven't heard any Sixer fan claim he was their point guard.  Or even shooting guard.

[Lurker]

The stats say that Tony Parker is a 2 guard!  Or is that too hard for you to see.

Here are some more stats for you Rick...all guards from NBA.com

PLAYER     EFF48M EFF 1 Dwyane Wade      34.25  27.06  2 Steve Nash          33.32  24.50  3 Kobe Bryant         32.55  27.65  4 Gilbert Arenas       29.19  24.18  5 Baron Davis          29.13  21.40  6 Jason Kidd            29.11  22.24  7 Vince Carter         28.62  22.73  8 Chris Paul             27.70  21.22  9 Tony Parker          26.78  18.10  10 Jose Calderon      26.15  11.42  11 Chauncey Billups  26.01  19.61

If you eliminate the SGs (Wade, Kobe, Vince)...then Parker is #6.  But that is based on 48 minute standardization.  So maybe we should look at just regular effeciency ratings (I've numbered just the PGs to the right).

PLAYER        EFF 1 Kobe Bryant        27.65  2 Dwyane Wade     27.06  3 Steve Nash         24.50    1 4 Gilbert Arenas      24.18    2 5 Vince Carter         22.73  6 Jason Kidd           22.24    3 7 Ray Allen             21.64    8 Baron Davis          21.40   4 9 Allen Iverson        21.25  10 Chris Paul           21.22   5 11 Michael Redd       20.13  12 Joe Johnson        19.77  13 Chauncey Billups  19.61   6 14 Ron Artest          19.44  15 Deron Williams     18.70   7 16 Kevin Martin        18.20  17 Tony Parker        18.10   8

[Laker Fan]

OK then based on pure numbers, Arenas is waaaaaay better than Kidd, becasue as Rick has pointed out, number are the final arbiter of who is the best. How did any of us miss that?

[JoMal]

And I understand this argument for Wade, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Kidd, (although I'm not sure who the second Kidd is) but I don't understand it for Arenas.  I don't see how Arenas has led the Wizards to more wins than Parker has led the Spurs.  Arenas has led the Wizards...in that extremely deep & talented east...to 45, 42 and 41 wins in the last 3 years.  How does that show leadership?

And that terrible Jamison guy has only averaged 19.6, 20.5 and 19.8 those 3 seasons.  So it isn't like Arenas is playing with a bunch of scrubs.

Doesn't Kidd have a Kidd? Bet he will be a good PG some day too.

As for Arenas, his situation dictates his playing style with the Wizards, just like the way Pop uses Parker. And even by Eastern standards, I do not think you could argue that Arenas' team is as deep as the Spurs, so maybe his team getting even as many as 40 wins is a true reflection on how good Gilbert plays and how he should be rated in these comparisons.

Jamison certainly is a good player. As far as power forwards go (and I do not think any of us wants to turn this thread into which PF is in the top three in the League), I would have to say Duncan rates out better overall then Jamison. And here is the key - Parker does not need to be his team's leader, while Arenas does.

[Lurker]

And I understand this argument for Wade, Kidd, Billups, Nash, Kidd, (although I'm not sure who the second Kidd is) but I don't understand it for Arenas.  I don't see how Arenas has led the Wizards to more wins than Parker has led the Spurs.  Arenas has led the Wizards...in that extremely deep & talented east...to 45, 42 and 41 wins in the last 3 years.  How does that show leadership?

And that terrible Jamison guy has only averaged 19.6, 20.5 and 19.8 those 3 seasons.  So it isn't like Arenas is playing with a bunch of scrubs.

Doesn't Kidd have a Kidd? Bet he will be a good PG some day too.

As for Arenas, his situation dictates his playing style with the Wizards, just like the way Pop uses Parker. And even by Eastern standards, I do not think you could argue that Arenas' team is as deep as the Spurs, so maybe his team getting even as many as 40 wins is a true reflection on how good Gilbert plays and how he should be rated in these comparisons.

Jamison certainly is a good player. As far as power forwards go (and I do not think any of us wants to turn this thread into which PF is in the top three in the League), I would have to say Duncan rates out better overall then Jamison. And here is the key - Parker does not need to be his team's leader, while Arenas does.

I guess that is the difference.  I don't see leading your team to 40 wins in the East as a major accomplishment or true show of leadership.  As you keep saying about Parker...plug ______ into the same Wizards team and IMO they will still win 40 games.

Is it that Arenas has to be the leader or that he is dominates the ball and is the de facto leader?

[JoMal]

I guess that is the difference.  I don't see leading your team to 40 wins in the East as a major accomplishment or true show of leadership.  As you keep saying about Parker...plug ______ into the same Wizards team and IMO they will still win 40 games.

Is it that Arenas has to be the leader or that he is dominates the ball and is the de facto leader?

Arenas is a very good player and his stats (though we should avoid those, it would appear) indicate a guy who clearly has worked on his game, considering where he was originally drafted. As has Parker, who has received excellent coaching in San Antonio. But I disagree that Arenas is the de facto leader of his team - he has shown to be way too confident in his abilities and work ethic to be called anything but the straight-on leader.

His dominance of the ball, as you call it also just supports the fact that the guy is working as a true point guard on his team, leads by example as well as vocally, and has his teammate's respect. Parker is highly respected both on the Spurs and around the League as well, but not as a leader of his team. He can break down a defence, but his leadership should be more apparent, especially when Duncan is out - and other teams have been known to work him over without his support behind him. Arenas can't be worked over in the same way, and his teammates are confident about that.

They are also pretty inept to do much to help him out, beside Jamison, as well.

We have to see Parker enter that realm before we can annoint him a top guard, however. And please do not assume I do not think he is capable. He may very well be some day, but so far has not done it day in and day out.

The best point guards in the NBA are also the clear leaders on their teams. Teammates defer to them, and you can hear the tones in their voices as they talk about these players. Parker is held in high esteem, certainly, but the Kidd/Nash/Arenas leadership level has so far eluded him.

[westkoast]

JoMaL, I've heard plenty of players talk about Parker the way people have talked about Arenas.  The difference is that everyone knows that Duncan is the start of everything so when they speak of the Spurs he is always mentioned first.  Arenas is by far the best player on his squad and that is why it seems like he gets more love.  However, Michael Finley expressed exactly what you are talking about when speaking of Parker when they won the championship.

I feel as if debating leadership qualities is very tough to do as none of us know exactly what is said in the locker room, in practice, on the court, or off the court.  On top of that what 'weight' do you assign to that?  Does it hold the same weight as playoff experience?  There have been PGs like Avery Johnson who were not even in the top 15 in the league and still was one of the best leaders in every aspect, even with guys like David Robinson being there.

If we are doing lists based strickly of PGs this past year  and their talent's my T-Mobile Fav Five  would be...

1. Steve Nash
2. Jason Kidd
3. Deron Williams
4. Tony Parker
5. Chauncey Billups

[WayOutWest]

There have been PGs like Avery Johnson who were not even in the top 15 in the league and still was one of the best leaders in every aspect, even with guys like David Robinson being there.

You dirty rat bastard!  I was going to use Avery as the "leadership" example of a guy who was far from the best player yet still the leader of his team.  Skillwise Avery sucked but as a "floor general" he ranked up with the best of his era.  Parker is not a floor general, that is a major criteria in my book for a top tier point guard.  There have been guys like Avery in the past who were very limited talentwise but they were clearly the floor general of their team (Mark Jackson, Greg Anthony etc..)  Rarely do you get a mix of talent to go along with brains, floor general, guys like Kidd rarely come into the league ready to go.  Nash and Billups took a while develop but they got there.