Tony Parker hitting weight room hard

[WayOutWest]

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".

[Lurker]

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.

[Reality]

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.

[Lurker]

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
  williams,deron        Uta   19.83      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.

[JoMal]

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.
 

[Reality]

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.

[Lurker]

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

[Skandery]

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.

[Reality]

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.

[Reality]

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.

[Skandery]

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.    

[Reality]

 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.

[Skandery]

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.  

[Lurker]

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.

[Lurker]

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....