Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[Lurker]

JoMal...great post.  I see what you are defining as leadership now.  And I agree that Parker does not show that on a consistant basis.  I'm not sure that Arenas does either but I can agree to disagree with you on that part.  The others in your list I definitely agree.  However I would also factor in age and my coaching staff when choosing after the top 2.

koast...solid post as well.  And leads in a way to where I wanted to go.  IMO there are two distinct leaders on a team...but they can both be the same player.  There is the floor leader...the best player who leads the team in key stats.  Then there is the lockerroom leader...the guy who drives the team...the glue...the one the rest look to for leadership.

And you brought up a good example (seconded by WOW) of AJ.  He was the clear lockerroom leader of that 99 team.  DRob/Duncan were the floor leaders.

Right now for the Spurs Duncan is clearly both of those leaders.  But just as AJ/DRob groomed Duncan IMO Duncan is grooming Parker.  And Pop has a big influence in all this also.

Nash, Kidd, Billups...have all proved to be this player consistantly for their teams.  IMHO no other PG has demonstrated this leadership in both categories over the past 2-3 years.  The others have all shown potential and flashes but not the consistancy yet. 

[JoMal]

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.

Agreed. A lack of talent but unquestionable leadership on the court is probably more coveted then the reverse when talking point guards. The combo of the two in one guy is obviously the most preferred player you can get for your team, and also the hardest to find.  

[JoMal]

JoMal...great post.  I see what you are defining as leadership now.  And I agree that Parker does not show that on a consistant basis.  I'm not sure that Arenas does either but I can agree to disagree with you on that part.  The others in your list I definitely agree.  However I would also factor in age and my coaching staff when choosing after the top 2.

Thanks, Lurker. I never intended to imply Parker is not getting into that top tier PG spot, but you have to compare him to the best who have played that spot and who is doing it now and see how he measures up. So far, not enough empirical evidence about his leadership qualities has come out, and I actually agree with you about Arenas and his leadership qualities. He just is in a situation where that leadership role has essentially been thrust on him and I have found little to fault him on the job he has done with it.

A lack of talent surrounding Arenas should not diminish his leadership qualities, however. And that would hold for Parker as well in the reverse, to some degree, except it just happens that leadership sort of defines the PG role too much to not judge him by it.

[WayOutWest]

And you brought up a good example (seconded by WOW) of AJ.  He was the clear lockerroom leader of that 99 team.  DRob/Duncan were the floor leaders.

Uhmmmmm...NO.  Are you a new Spurs fan?  J/K  Avery was the leader ON and OFF the court.  He was the floor general, TD and DRob were by far the better players, they were the leaders in stats and outcome of the game BUT Avery ran the show on the court.

[westkoast]

A lack of talent surrounding Arenas should not diminish his leadership qualities, however. And that would hold for Parker as well in the reverse, to some degree, except it just happens that leadership sort of defines the PG role too much to not judge him by it.

Agree 100%.  Just because a team only wins 40 games in one season doesn't mean he is a bad leader.  You can be an awesome leader and your team still get their butts kicked.  Especially when you consider that Arenas did have injuries.    Nash cannot get any team he has been on into the finals but I wouldn't say his leadership is the cause of that.  Of course Leadership can  factor in winning/losing but with this league having so much talent and by nature it being a team sport, it is hard to say one way or another.  Or another good example is Allen Iverson on the Sixers post-finals apperance.  I don't think people would question his leadership on the court even when his squad wasn't making the playoffs or losing in the first round to Detroit.

Another issue that you cannot hold against Parker is that he cannot fully step into a leader role like Arenas because of Tim Duncan.  Avery Johnson did it with David Robinson because he has a special personality that let him do that.  You see that personality come out in Dallas huddles.  He is a in your face type of person.  However that is not the only way to be a leader.  If you command respect you can be a leader.  Whether that is by your play, by your actions, or like AJ by telling people how it is.  It is pretty impossible to say Parker doesn't get respect from his teammates after hearing Michael Finley making those statements when they won.

The fact that we've all debated this so much and I think everyone has brought up good points for and against Tony Parker...that says he CAN be considered.  Whether he is for a fact is hard to say as some of the qualities being more important than other falls on the specific poster.  I might say playoff experience is more important then passing ability when it comes to winning championships, Joe and Skander might disagree.

Either way I would just like to say this thread is exactly why I am hooked on this basketball message board like crack!

[Laker Fan]

The last few posts have been absolutely outstanding! I agree with whomever said it, this is one of the best threads in some time.

While we all seem to concede that leadership can and must be one of the criteria whereby PG's are rated, indulge me in one point, if this thread had come up in the regular season, I would have said no, Parker doesn't belong in the discussion, primarily because while he is an integral part of the Spurs offense, he was NOT the floor general you would expect a PG to be, but as the season wound down, and positioning became important, I watched him have more of an inmpact in terms of output in crunch time, no small feat given the presence of Duncan and Ginobili, in the Finals he was a monster contributor, if not in actual assists, certainly in scoring, leading all Spurs scorers 3 of 4 games. Additionally, as has been noted, Finley comments tell me his impact off the court is indisputable evidence that he has elevated his role. I have said twice on this thread I think the playoffs may ver ywell have been his breakout period, only next season will tell.

If we were to put Deron Williams in the mix, as we have, he is clearly not the "floor general" of the Jazz, I daresday in terms of leadership there Boozer supplants him and a PG that has NEVER been top 10, Derek Fisher, has more of an impact at this point than Williams, although I see Williams if he continues at his current pace becoming a serious contender for top 2, he has it all, defense, scoring, court vision, GREAT hands, passing, a dominant type personality, but as with anyone so young,  time will tell, Parker has tremendous experience and seems to be heading in the direction of becoming a floor general, and he is only 25, I do not believe Nash was at this level at that age, and although he is clearly the premier PG in the league, when we talk sytems and players performing within a certain system, if Kidd were in SA and Nash stayed in Phoenix, Kidd would IMO be the premier PG and Nash would be #2, reverse it and Kidd would still be #1, becasue Nash would struggle in Popovich's ball and tempo control defense oriented scheme, Kidd would thrive in either system. Does Parker have the ability to adjust?  I say yes, he is infinately coachable and as such a very valuable commodity in today's spoiled punk laden NBA. These are the intangables that can't be discounted whe discussing Tony Parker.

[Lurker]

And you brought up a good example (seconded by WOW) of AJ.  He was the clear lockerroom leader of that 99 team.  DRob/Duncan were the floor leaders.

Uhmmmmm...NO.  Are you a new Spurs fan?  J/K  Avery was the leader ON and OFF the court.  He was the floor general, TD and DRob were by far the better players, they were the leaders in stats and outcome of the game BUT Avery ran the show on the court.

Maybe a better way of saying it is that Avery was the emotional leader of those teams.  He was the heart & soul.  But those teams only went as far as DRob...and IMO starting in 99 Duncan...took them.  I think you could say the same about the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams...Stockton was the heart & soul but the team only went as far as Malone (and his fade away jumper) took them.

Case in point is 2000 when the Spurs weren't able to defend their title due to Duncan's injury.  IMO if the Spurs had been healthy they would have given the Lakers a run for that title.  2001 was definately the Lakers year and they eliminated the Spurs embarrassingly easy (the Milk Money series).  That triggered the rebuilding process from the AJ/DRob/Elliott team to the Bowen/Manu/Parker one.  In 2002 the Lakers still prevailed against the (now) younger Spurs.  The Spurs took it in 2003 and 2004 was the infamous 0.4 game 5.  That season's loss in the finals signalled then end of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.  And it was the 2001 series that IMO changed Duncan into becoming the team leader starting with 2002.  And I think that the same transition is starting to occur with Parker.

I also agree with Dan's observations about the Jazz.  Although at this point I would say the leader is Sloan.  Boozer & Williams both have the potential to become the leaders but neither has assumed that mantle yet. 

And of course no thread would be complete without a Kobe reference...it is the the lockerroom/heart leadership role that he has never fully grasped IMO.  On the court he is the undisputed leader of that team but his "backroom" skills are lacking.  And his latest month long outburst shows how far he needs to go still.

BTW I have to cement my place as a Laker cousin and agree with my esteemed Californians that this thread developed into one of the best.

[WayOutWest]

Maybe a better way of saying it is that Avery was the emotional leader of those teams.  He was the heart & soul.  But those teams only went as far as DRob...and IMO starting in 99 Duncan...took them.  I think you could say the same about the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams...Stockton was the heart & soul but the team only went as far as Malone (and his fade away jumper) took them.

No, Avery was the "floor general" of the Spurs team, he was the leader.  I already stated that the team went as far as TD and DRob would take them but Avery was the leader, the floor general, one of the most important aspects of the PG position.  That aspect of the game is something I've never seen from Parker, nor do I think he is capable of taking on that role.  IMO Manu is the closest thing the Spurs have to a floor general, if anyone were to assume that role it would be him since TD also tends to just let his game do the talking, TD's quiet and humble demeanor isn't suited to be a floor general.

As far as Kobe is concerned, he IS the leader and floor general of the Lakers but he is a bad one.  He's like General Custard, an egomaniac leading his men to certain death.

[Lurker]

As far as Kobe is concerned, he IS the leader and floor general of the Lakers but he is a bad one.  He's like General Custard, an egomaniac leading his men to certain death.

 

[rickortreat]

This really has turned into a great thread- particularly this last part about leadership and how important that is.

In all fairness to Tony Parker, he's only 25, and shouldn't really be expected to be the teams leader.  In the Spurs case, the whole team is so well disciplined and each knows their role so well, that they really don't need a floor general, or a well-defined point guard. 

Most teams rely on a point to get the ball to a scorer.  The Spurs play an inside-outside game where a lot of the passes are from Duncan back out to an open shooter for a 3.  Or, they swing the ball around on the outside to the open man. When you have a team like that, a bona-fide point guard isn't essential.

If something were to happen to Tony, would the Spurs limit themselves to only point guards we've been talking about, or would they think that a Wade or an Iverson could fill the role just as well?  Tony is relied on as more of a scorer than most points, and less of a passer.  For the way the Spurs play the game, who ever is in that spot has to be able to run the floor well, penetrate into the lane to score and prevent the other team from starting a fast break. 

Parker does do all of those things very well.  The team that wins the championship doesn't necessarily have the best player at each position.  But they do have the best team, which means that the total is greater than the sum of the parts.  A lot of that has to do with Pop, and his mentor Larry Brown. IMO, coaches like those prefer a guard like Tony to an outstanding talent like an AI because they are more coach-able or control-able.

You could argue that AI is more of a leader- but he's not the type to arrange other players.  He leads more by his effort. On a team like the Spurs no-one needs that kind of leadership- they all bust hump all the time.

I would argue the stats show he's not the equal of the top points in the league, but he's certainly competitive with them and good enough.  There are a lot of guards out there who wish they were Tony Parker, regardless of how we rank him.

Tony isn't someone I'd want to build a team around, but if I had him, I'd know that he could get the job done with the right players around him, and that he'd be good enough to get to the finals. Some players stats fall of in the post season and some of the points with better numbers did not come up quite as big in the post season.  If Hinrich and Gordon helped Chicago take the east, we'd be talking about them, but they were clearly outclassed in the playoffs.

[WayOutWest]

Tony isn't someone I'd want to build a team around, but if I had him, I'd know that he could get the job done with the right players around him, and that he'd be good enough to get to the finals.

I think that Skadery addressed that point as well, Tony would not be in my top 5 but he could crack my top 10.  There was a time when discussing the top PG's in the league would end at Payton and Kidd, Nash was not even a consideration and look how that's changed.  Maybe Parker could follow in Nash's footsteps but right now Parker is not someone I would build a team around either, I would actually pick a combo guard to play PG rather then settle for Parker.

[Skandery]

Wow...brand new issues to address in this thread.   

Arenas Leadership

Gilbert Arenas is NOT the leader of the Washington Wizards.  He may be their best player, but he is not their leader and no one on that roster will claim he is.  Antawn Jamison is the leader on the court, in the locker room, in the huddle, and has been designated the team captain for good reason.  Arenas is a young, brash, confidant, loose cannon.  He could just as easily drop 50 points and single-handedly carry you to victory as he could go 4 for 23 and single-handedly take you out of the game.  Eddie Jordan has pleaded with Gilbert to embrace a larger facilitating role within the Princeton offense he is fond of running and so far, has only won half the battle.  I am in no way demeaning Arenas' contribution to the Wizards and you'll be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of Gilbert Arenas on this forum or any other than myself.  But I think its my responsibility to kind of set the record straight a bit having followed his career very closely for the last 4 seasons.  Its easy to mistake him as the leader since he is their most talented player and the most visible.  Its easy for the media to highlight him because he is flashy, quirky, interesting, and let's face it, is prone to awe-inspiring performances.  Ironically, I think of Gilbert Arenas as a much more talented, ego-maniacal Tony Parker.  Much as Parker defers to Popovich, Duncan, and to some extent Manu Ginobili; Gilbert Arenas defers to Jordan, Jamison, and to some extent Caron Butler.  They are both Point Guards who impact the game by scoring, penetrating the lane, collapsing the defense, and drawing fouls.  They both have yet to assume full responsiblity of the leadership role, Parker because there isn't the need, and Arenas because of his maturity level.

Heart and Soul/Floor General

To me a "floor general" is a whimsical, euphemistic term for Point Guard.  Muggsy Bogues was the "floor general" of those early 90s Hornets.  Spudd Webb with those bad Sacramento teams.  Bimbo Coles in Miami in the pre-Pat Riley era.  None of these players were the team's best player and none of them were the unquestioned leaders of the team.  They simply handled the ball, directed traffic, and started the offense.  Avery Johnson was the "floor general" of those San Antonio teams

Heart and Soul to me, is that one player that for whatever reason (usually unexplainable) rallies the team around his efforts.  There have been great players that have assumed this role:  Larry Bird, John Stockton, and Reggie Miller come to mind.  Though many times its been a bench player or role player:  Bo Outlaw with those Magic teams, Jerome Williams with those Detroit teams, and for my Sonics teams it was Nate McMillan.  Avery Johnson was also the "heart and soul" of San Antonio.  When Avery Johnson was cutting the lane hard to that big, sweeping, left-handed hook; when he was hitting that 16 foot shot from the baseline; when he was sinking his free throws, San Antonio rallied around him and played better.

Leadership responsibilities both on and off the court fell to both Avery Johnson AND David Robinson and was later taken by Duncan.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this Spurs fans, but David Robinson was the captain of that team, not Avery Johnson, correct?

To steer this somewhat back on topic, Tony Parker hasn't shouldered much of a leadership role but once again, its hard to judge when you have Duncan there.  If Duncan wasn't there would Tony Parker be the leader?  I don't really know.  Why does Popovich trust Manu Ginobili who basically transforms into San Antonio's PG in pressure 4th quarter situations.  Does Tony's quality of leadership give Popovich pause?  I don't know but my feeling says that Parker does lack a little in the leadership department.       

[Lurker]

Leadership responsibilities both on and off the court fell to both Avery Johnson AND David Robinson and was later taken by Duncan.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this Spurs fans, but David Robinson was the captain of that team, not Avery Johnson, correct?

Maybe it is something you "see" more when you follow a team closely.  But DRob was every much a leader of that team as Johnson.  Actually I believe they were co-captains.

But often Pop would defer to the Admiral as the team leader.  One time he issued a challenge to Robinson that if he could walk on his hands across the court they would skip sprints at the end of practice.  He got up on his hands and walked across the court and halfway back.  You make that challenge to your leader.

To steer this somewhat back on topic, Tony Parker hasn't shouldered much of a leadership role but once again, its hard to judge when you have Duncan there.  If Duncan wasn't there would Tony Parker be the leader?  I don't really know.  Why does Popovich trust Manu Ginobili who basically transforms into San Antonio's PG in pressure 4th quarter situations.  Does Tony's quality of leadership give Popovich pause?  I don't know but my feeling says that Parker does lack a little in the leadership department.       

The fact that Manu is the catalyst for much of the 4th quarter offense has more to do with his offensive skills than leadership.  He can step back and nail the 3.  He will split defnders on the pick & roll.  He will just drive (and being left handed helps) across the key and into the lane.  He is very unpredictable and difficult to guard.  Add his "herky-jerky" motion and he is able to get off shots and/or draw fouls.  Duncan doesn't have the ability to create his own shot as easily and Parker doesn't have the shooting range.  But this has nothing to do with leadership qualities.

[rickortreat]

Skandery,

I don't think you can fault Parker for not showing more leadership on that team.  They don't need it, it's not in his personality - his being French/Belgian might have something to do with that, and the team is the best in the NBA.  They're all vets with lots of experience and they know their roles.  They don't need anyone to get in their face.

On a different team, Tony might be perceived differently.  But for the Spurs he's the perfect compliment to everyone else.  He stays within his role, and never hogs the ball.  He's not the kind of player with the ability to take over the game on both ends.

The point is that you don't really know how much of a leader he could be.  Some of the guards that came into the league were leaders by their nature.  Magic Johnson made the Lakers what they were and he was the leader, even though he was far younger and less experienced than his teammates.  Isiah was a leader right away too.  But lots of great points grew into that role, like Mo Cheeks and Steve Nash.

25 years old and on the best team in the league, whatever he is, it's good enough to win the Championship.  The stats show him to be a better shooter than most, and I respect anyone who shoots over 50% from the floor- which is exceptional.

He's not a top 3 point, but he's definitely in the top 10 based on what he's accomplished. And, as he is, he is the perfect compliment to the rest of the Spurs.  What else could anyone ask for, or expect from him at this point?

Kobe wants to be a leader, but seems to lack the quality of humility.  He stands above his teamates, because he thinks his exceptional talent gives him the right.  That's not the way it works.  If you look down on the other players, they won't trust you or follow you.  It's probably for the best if he leaves the Lakers- but until he learns that lesson, it's a problem that will follow him wherever he goes. 

[WayOutWest]

Kobe wants to be a leader, but seems to lack the quality of humility.

rick, try humanity.  Kobe acts like so many other "stars" in many different aspects of life (sports, movie, music, etc...).  He feels entilted to not act like a basic human being.  Humility is but one quality of humanity that he lacks.  It's amazing how far he's fallen since the Colorado incident.