Tony Parker, top 3 point guard?

[Skandery]

25 years old and on the best team in the league, whatever he is, it's good enough to win the Championship.

There's a slight problem with this "..whatever he is, its good enough to win the chamionship" philosophy because, as you say, the sum of the whole is greater than the individual.  Jacques Vaughn did a tremendous job in the role of backup PG for the Spurs during the playoff run.  Can you just say, "well all you need for a backup PG is Jacques Vaughn and you'll win the championship."  Vaughn is a complimentary individual piece that is part of greater whole that makes him better than he is.    

When you open a discussion and start ranking the top PGs in the NBA, you move away from the grand scheme (or team concept) and into the realm of individuality.  You must try to separate the concept of Tony Parker, a cog in the great Spurs machine, with just Tony Parker--NBA point guard.  Good players on historic teams appear better than when evaluated solely on their individual merits.  I touched on this before when discussing Robert Horry.          

[westkoast]

25 years old and on the best team in the league, whatever he is, it's good enough to win the Championship.

There's a slight problem with this "..whatever he is, its good enough to win the chamionship" philosophy because, as you say, the sum of the whole is greater than the individual.  Jacques Vaughn did a tremendous job in the role of backup PG for the Spurs during the playoff run.  Can you just say, "well all you need for a backup PG is Jacques Vaughn and you'll win the championship."  Vaughn is a complimentary individual piece that is part of greater whole that makes him better than he is.   

When you open a discussion and start ranking the top PGs in the NBA, you move away from the grand scheme (or team concept) and into the realm of individuality.  You must try to separate the concept of Tony Parker, a cog in the great Spurs machine, with just Tony Parker--NBA point guard.  Good players on historic teams appear better than when evaluated solely on their individual merits.  I touched on this before when discussing Robert Horry.         

Skander you're being a little tough here.  Obviously Tony Parker's role on this team as a starter is more important then a back up anything.  Also, the Spurs have won multiple titles with Tony Parker as a point guard.  That does have to account for a lot.  The reason the team is consistant is because the core players are consistant and the franchise does an excellent job of adding the right players (Horry, Finley, Vaughn, And yes even Flabs) to the system.  You have to take a player's role into consideration when ranking them.  It is impossible to do so because stats don't always show both sides fairly.  How could you fully take into how good they are if you don't go by more then just raw numbers?  You have to include championships he won because he was apart of them.  Yet you have to take into consideration who was on that team for the same reason you stated about Vaughn.  The fact that Tony is a core player makes it easier and makes more sense to speak about him like that...as oppose to Horry who was a role player on 3 Laker teams and 2 Spurs teams.  Magic Johnson is known for both his individual stats and what he accomplished as a core Showtime Laker player.

I think anytime you isolate a position you leave the team concept and into the realm of individuality.  Of course the PG position, by its nature, can be broken down as an individual position quite a bit.  I would also have to say the same could be said of the center position.  Your play as a post up player in this league is extremely important.  Being the last line of defense, the main rebounder, and the player with the highest % of making a basket one could argue it.

[Lurker]

I would also add that if the PG is running the offense correctly (his main job not generating assists or scoring) then the contribution may not be reflected in any boxscore.

Example:

Rebound is outletted to PG who quickly crosses halfcourt and looks to make a quick basket in transition.  Decides to back it out and call a play as defense gets back.  PF sets up on the low block and PG maneuvers to that side of the court and feeds the post.  The PG then cuts thru the lane looking for the give & go which is covered so he rotates back to the top of the arc.  PG's defender doubles down on PF who finds the open PG with a pass.  Defense rotates so PG swings the ball to SG who is standing on the wing.  SG then swings the ball to SF in the corner as defense continues to rotate.  SF hits big 3 pointer.

Question:  Did the PG run the team correctly?  No points (SF scored), no assist (went to SG).  So if this is done regularly...maybe with a score in transition or on the give & go occasionally...do you downgrade the PG because he didn't get the stat?

[westkoast]

I would also add that if the PG is running the offense correctly (his main job not generating assists or scoring) then the contribution may not be reflected in any boxscore.

Example:

Rebound is outletted to PG who quickly crosses halfcourt and looks to make a quick basket in transition.  Decides to back it out and call a play as defense gets back.  PF sets up on the low block and PG maneuvers to that side of the court and feeds the post.  The PG then cuts thru the lane looking for the give & go which is covered so he rotates back to the top of the arc.  PG's defender doubles down on PF who finds the open PG with a pass.  Defense rotates so PG swings the ball to SG who is standing on the wing.  SG then swings the ball to SF in the corner as defense continues to rotate.  SF hits big 3 pointer.

Question:  Did the PG run the team correctly?  No points (SF scored), no assist (went to SG).  So if this is done regularly...maybe with a score in transition or on the give & go occasionally...do you downgrade the PG because he didn't get the stat?

And in the Spurs offense this is reflected by getting the ball down the court, calling out a play (which Tony does), making the pass into Duncan (more times then not), and then moving.  Sometimes he has to create good looks by getting to the rim but most of the time he has to make the pass into Duncan to start it or move it to the wing to go into Duncan.  That will never show up on the stat sheet but it does in offensive efficiency because they are operating their offense how it is designed by the coaching staff.  You can say that Duncan can blow those numbers up but as a core player and PG Tony contributes to it.

On top of that Parker does not get a lot of assists a game because they like to play inside out or let Tony penetrate.  Most of the time Parker passes to Duncan, he dribbles 3 times, shoots, and scores....but it does not count as an assist.  Guys like Nash and Baron have to create more because that is how it is done by design.  Can't knock Tony for sticking to a game plan that takes away from him but makes things better in the long run.  In the Spurs case 3 titles in 5 years and counting.

[Joe Vancil]

It figures you guys would have the great point guard debate while I'm snowed under at work.

I wanna get in on this, dammit!  

Quick summary:  the biggest question in deciding how good a point guard is is in his ability to eliminate question marks;  coaches hate uncertainty, and top point guards eliminate uncertainty.

And that's really the knock on evaluating Tony Parker as a point guard vs. Tony Parker as the point guard for the Spurs.  The guy leaves a lot of question marks - partly because he has not been in a situation where he's had to answer those questions.  A lot of the answers FOR THE SPURS are provided by Duncan, Ginobilli, and even Horry and Finley.  Most simply assume that Parker would be fine when faced with bigger challenges, whereas I DON'T make that assumption.

If there's 7 seconds on the clock with his team down by one, and Parker's teammates are WayOut, JoMal, Skander, and me, how comfortable do you feel in your chances, versus how comfortable you'd feel with Chris Paul in the same situation?  How comfortable would you be with the game depending on Parker or Paul's chances of generating a shot for WayOut, and then getting the pass to him?  How comfortable would you be if he was forced to choose between JoMal and Skander...how would you feel about his decision-making?  How comfortable would you be if he were at the line, down by 1, with two free throws and no time on the clock?

Popovich obviously values Ginobilli higher in these situations...as well he should.  

You see, there's just a lot of questions still out there about how good Parker is.  Many of the other point guards in the league have answered those questions - folks like Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and even Jason Williams - some in the affirmative and some in the negative.  My tendency is to rate Parker HIGHER than those who have answered in the negative, but BELOW those who have answered in the affirmative.

Jason Kidd is an awful shooter.  Jason Terry is a good one.  But which would you rather have with the ball at the end of a game, when you're down?  Kidd has eliminated more of the doubt - you better know what you will get with Kidd than you do with Terry.  Those question marks that you have about Terry make him less valuable than Kidd - even though there's little doubt that Terry would be more likely to hit the shot.

That's why I was big on Nash when he was still in Dallas...it's why I'm still big on Baron Davis...it's why I'm big on young players like Deron Williams, Ray Felton, and even Jarret Jack.  WHAT DO THEY DO when it comes crunch time...and would I rather have them doing it than Tony Parker, and am I more sure about them than I am about Tony Parker?

So much for a quick summary.  But I do have a lot more to add...point guards are a topic near and dear to my heart.

[Skandery]

Question:  Did the PG run the team correctly?  No points (SF scored), no assist (went to SG).  So if this is done regularly...maybe with a score in transition or on the give & go occasionally...do you downgrade the PG because he didn't get the stat?

Of course you don't!  It's why I've stated and repeated the fact that statistics don't tell the whole story, and I believe I've gone beyond mere statistics to outline my reservations concerning Tony Parker. 

[westkoast]

It figures you guys would have the great point guard debate while I'm snowed under at work.

I wanna get in on this, dammit! 

Quick summary:  the biggest question in deciding how good a point guard is is in his ability to eliminate question marks;  coaches hate uncertainty, and top point guards eliminate uncertainty.

And that's really the knock on evaluating Tony Parker as a point guard vs. Tony Parker as the point guard for the Spurs.  The guy leaves a lot of question marks - partly because he has not been in a situation where he's had to answer those questions.  A lot of the answers FOR THE SPURS are provided by Duncan, Ginobilli, and even Horry and Finley.  Most simply assume that Parker would be fine when faced with bigger challenges, whereas I DON'T make that assumption.

If there's 7 seconds on the clock with his team down by one, and Parker's teammates are WayOut, JoMal, Skander, and me, how comfortable do you feel in your chances, versus how comfortable you'd feel with Chris Paul in the same situation?  How comfortable would you be with the game depending on Parker or Paul's chances of generating a shot for WayOut, and then getting the pass to him?  How comfortable would you be if he was forced to choose between JoMal and Skander...how would you feel about his decision-making?  How comfortable would you be if he were at the line, down by 1, with two free throws and no time on the clock?

Popovich obviously values Ginobilli higher in these situations...as well he should. 

You see, there's just a lot of questions still out there about how good Parker is.  Many of the other point guards in the league have answered those questions - folks like Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and even Jason Williams - some in the affirmative and some in the negative.  My tendency is to rate Parker HIGHER than those who have answered in the negative, but BELOW those who have answered in the affirmative.

Jason Kidd is an awful shooter.  Jason Terry is a good one.  But which would you rather have with the ball at the end of a game, when you're down?  Kidd has eliminated more of the doubt - you better know what you will get with Kidd than you do with Terry.  Those question marks that you have about Terry make him less valuable than Kidd - even though there's little doubt that Terry would be more likely to hit the shot.

That's why I was big on Nash when he was still in Dallas...it's why I'm still big on Baron Davis...it's why I'm big on young players like Deron Williams, Ray Felton, and even Jarret Jack.  WHAT DO THEY DO when it comes crunch time...and would I rather have them doing it than Tony Parker, and am I more sure about them than I am about Tony Parker?

So much for a quick summary.  But I do have a lot more to add...point guards are a topic near and dear to my heart.

Bravo..hell of a post.  The decision making should have more weight then no ego, bringing championships, playoff experience, or most other things mentioned IMO.  That in essence is what makes a great point guard great.  In all great point guards you had someone who made the right decisions for their squad.

Now  he has to hit clutch shots again next year in the playoffs to have his decision/clutch factor go up.  The knock before is he couldn't hit jumpers in the clutch or when Duncan was doubled.  This year, in multiple games in the playoffs, I watched him hit some very big shots or pass to wide open shooters...I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say 'Tony turned a corner' but only time will tell.  He was pretty clutch against both PHX and Utah.  Both Deron and Tony Parker have one playoff apperance where they were clutch.  However Deron was not only clutch but in a dominating fashion.  That one game against SA he didn't just make one or two big plays, he made ALL the big plays.

[Lurker]

Question:  Did the PG run the team correctly?  No points (SF scored), no assist (went to SG).  So if this is done regularly...maybe with a score in transition or on the give & go occasionally...do you downgrade the PG because he didn't get the stat?

Of course you don't!  It's why I've stated and repeated the fact that statistics don't tell the whole story, and I believe I've gone beyond mere statistics to outline my reservations concerning Tony Parker. 

That wasn't directed at anyone in particular but was an easy example because of familiarity (from the Spurs - basically Reality's Pop-a-Cement offense: 4 down).  It was easier than trying to draw something up from scratch.   

[Lurker]

Edited for to  shorten thread...great post Joe.  Was waiting for your input.

Bravo..hell of a post.  The decision making should have more weight then no ego, bringing championships, playoff experience, or most other things mentioned IMO.  That in essence is what makes a great point guard great.  In all great point guards you had someone who made the right decisions for their squad.

Maybe because I saw the Spurs play 90+ games...I missed a few...I saw Parker perform like this throughout the season (in essence the basis for homer effect-another thread).  He seems to have really grown this season.  I agree he needs to prove he can do it another year.  IMO so does Williams and Paul.  In my example there were several decisions...

to drive to the rim or pull out

which play to call for the players on the floor

once the ball gets back whether to pass, shoot or drive

once shot is up to find his defensive assignment

Not all decisions are last second shots.  Sometimes leading your team to 20 point 3rd & 4th quarter leads in the playoffs shows some solid decision making IMO.  How many of Williams points & assists come when most thought the games where out of hand?

[westkoast]

Edited for to  shorten thread...great post Joe.  Was waiting for your input.

Bravo..hell of a post.  The decision making should have more weight then no ego, bringing championships, playoff experience, or most other things mentioned IMO.  That in essence is what makes a great point guard great.  In all great point guards you had someone who made the right decisions for their squad.

Maybe because I saw the Spurs play 90+ games...I missed a few...I saw Parker perform like this throughout the season (in essence the basis for homer effect-another thread).  He seems to have really grown this season.  I agree he needs to prove he can do it another year.  IMO so does Williams and Paul.  In my example there were several decisions...

to drive to the rim or pull out

which play to call for the players on the floor

once the ball gets back whether to pass, shoot or drive

once shot is up to find his defensive assignment

Not all decisions are last second shots.  Sometimes leading your team to 20 point 3rd & 4th quarter leads in the playoffs shows some solid decision making IMO.  How many of Williams points & assists come when most thought the games where out of hand?

You did see Parker a lot more then most of us.  That is why I've been somewhat sticking to the playoffs where I saw just about every Spurs game.  During the regular season I caught a decent amount but certainly no more then 10-15.

I'd say that a few of Deron's big games against the Spurs came when people thought the games were over.  There were two games in particular where he was VERY impressive in willing his team back to striking distance.  Granted they fell short once the Spurs turned it up but what I saw did not make me question if he is a leader.  It did the exact opposite.

[Lurker]

I'd say that a few of Deron's big games against the Spurs came when people thought the games were over.  There were two games in particular where he was VERY impressive in willing his team back to striking distance.  Granted they fell short once the Spurs turned it up but what I saw did not make me question if he is a leader.  It did the exact opposite.

I didn't mean it as questioning his leadership but to help distinguish between evaluating on stats and using observations as well.  But then you could also ask the following question...did he "lead" his other teammates into that comeback or did he just continue to play hard and not give up? 

And this isn't a slap at Williams...I think he is a great young prospect.  I ask this question about PGs in general - I am enjoying this discussion and want to continue to get input.  I also think Joe is putting too much emphasis on end of game situations.  If you lead (in the sense that MOST point guards lead - Lakers & Cavs being 2 exceptions off the top of my head) your team to a big enough lead that end of game heroics aren't necessary then that should count as much as hitting a last second shot because you couldn't distance yourself during the game.

[Reality]

And this isn't a slap at Williams...I think he is a great young prospect.  I ask this question about PGs in general - I am enjoying this discussion and want to continue to get input.  I also think Joe is putting too much emphasis on end of game situations.  If you lead (in the sense that MOST point guards lead - Lakers & Cavs being 2 exceptions off the top of my head) your team to a big enough lead that end of game heroics aren't necessary then that should count as much as hitting a last second shot because you couldn't distance yourself during the game. 

  and 

Not all decisions are last second shots.  Sometimes leading your team to 20 point 3rd & 4th quarter leads in the playoffs shows some solid decision making IMO.  How many of Williams points & assists come when most thought the games where out of hand?

  Agree.  Tonys stats were most definitely hurt in the Finals by 4 Dumb*.  Gms 1-2 Parker had 27 and 30 and drove at will. Start of game 3 and continuing until 18 minutes went by it was obvious Pop ordered Tony to pull up and dump to Duncan or Finley.  Last 6 minutes of half Tony went back to drivin and finishin and had 10 relatively quick points.

*4 Down lurker while i agree 100 how you explained it, my objections are when 4 Dumb (not 4 Down) is run, that being after its dumped into Tim either no ball movement occurs or Tony runs thru then is ordered to stand around while all 4 other Spurs stand while Tim does his zombie moves and either gets stripped or bricks and the other team easily position rebounds and is off and running.  Tim now raises his hands like signaling a good three point attempt was made and makes cow eyes at the ref while jogging back on D.  Does nothing but help the opponents floor position.  Definitely affects Parkers stats and the opponent pg stats, remphasizing that stats do not tell the whole story.

[Lurker]

*4 Down lurker while i agree 100 how you explained it, my objections are when 4 Dumb (not 4 Down) is run, that being after its dumped into Tim either no ball movement occurs or Tony runs thru then is ordered to stand around while all 4 other Spurs stand while Tim does his zombie moves and either gets stripped or bricks and the other team easily position rebounds and is off and running.  Definitely affects Parkers stats and the opponent pg stats, remphasizing that stats do not tell the whole story.

Maybe it is because if guys keep cutting into the lane drawing their defenders with them then there is no room for Duncan to operate.  It is easier to attack one defender instead of a lane full of them.  It would be nice to see Duncan convert on 100% of his shots - but occasionally the defense does win.

[Reality]

Maybe it is because if guys keep cutting into the lane drawing their defenders with them then there is no room for Duncan to operate.  It is easier to attack one defender instead of a lane full of them.  It would be nice to see Duncan convert on 100% of his shots - but occasionally the defense does win.

  As it stands there are three, sometimes 4 defenders near the box.  It puts far too much emphasis on Duncan hitting 100% and leaves NO chance for the O rebound.  In the threads context, it leaves opponents pg with much better floor position after the rebound and costs Tony stats.  Cleveland did not adjust after Gm 2, that was Pop obliging them with his overcoaching.  Tony could have easily gone for 30 again or had 10+ assists. 
The game before (Gm 2) Duncan had 8 or 9 assists and a near triple double in ball movement O while Parker had 30 pts.  If even one guy cuts towoards the rack, especially as Duncan is posturing, Duncan still has plenty of room plus that one guy is in a position to O rebound or get the pass from Tim and lay it in ala Fabs.

[Lurker]

Maybe it is because if guys keep cutting into the lane drawing their defenders with them then there is no room for Duncan to operate.  It is easier to attack one defender instead of a lane full of them.  It would be nice to see Duncan convert on 100% of his shots - but occasionally the defense does win.

  As it stands there are three, sometimes 4 defenders near the box.  It puts far too much emphasis on Duncan hitting 100% and leaves NO chance for the O rebound.  In the threads context, it leaves opponents pg with much better floor position after the rebound and costs Tony stats. 

What contradictory bullcrap.  If there are four defenders in the lane collapsing on Duncan this OPENS up offensive rebounding.  i.e. see Cleveland and their penchant for offensive rebounds.  Also if the PG is one of the four collapsing in the lane then how does this leave him in better floor position?  Thirdly Duncan does convert around 50% of the time so EVEN IF your conclusions are sound that means half the time the right decision was made.

Cleveland did not adjust after Gm 2, that was Pop obliging them with his overcoaching.  Tony could have easily gone for 30 again or had 10+ assists. 
The game before (Gm 2) Duncan had 8 or 9 assists and a near triple double in ball movement O while Parker had 30 pts.  If even one guy cuts towoards the rack, especially as Duncan is posturing, Duncan still has plenty of room plus that one guy is in a position to O rebound or get the pass from Tim and lay it in ala Fabs.

So how do you think Fabs got his backdoor cuts?  Or that Parker got a couple layins off the give & go?  Or Fabs can get all those offense tap outs?  But it won't happen EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!  And as far as Cavs not making adjustments were you privy to their coaching staff meetings?




It is very simple Reality.  There are TWO teams on the court as well as 3 refs.  Both teams make adjustments and the games are called differently.  Just because something works well for 1 game...even 2 in a playoff situation it will not continue to work indefinately.

Now if you can't grasp such an elementary thing as the fact you cannot run the same play 5,000,000,000 times and expect the EXACT same result every time then you should go back to BBall 101 and let the rest of us continue the adult conversation.