Does Tony need to be 10+AST or 20+PTS? look inside #s II

[Creation88]

saw the other thread and listened to STSA talking about whether Tony should be a pass first PG or a scoring PG. here are the stats from every game Tony's had 10+ AST and 20+ PTS.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/964/tonyparkerstats1.jpg

here's what I gather. Tony IS NOT a pass first PG, that can be seen in the frequency difference between 10+AST games and 20+PTS games. however when he DOES have 10+AST the Spurs have a better winning %. but i'd take the 20+PTS games based soley off frequency.

[lefty]

He needs to be at 0 minutes

[Creation88]

up

[poop]

with Manu as the primary ballhandler good things happen more frequently and we win more games, period.

[Parker2112]

The silence here is deafening. No fanboys dare to even discuss? No rebuttal AT ALL?

Solid post, backed it up with stats, and nothing. You should have come off more like a Parker hater...this thread would be at 5 pages by now.

[Mel_13]

The silence here is deafening. No fanboys dare to even discuss? No rebuttal AT ALL?

Solid post, backed it up with stats, and nothing. You should have come off more like a Parker hater...this thread would be at 5 pages by now.

Rebut what?

He said Parker is not a pass first PG. He's not.

What did he say that is supposed to generate discussion. Tony Parker, Sr. wouldn't call Tony a pass first PG.

[ohmwrecker]

You guys are just so lost in all these stats and ill-conceived ideas about what a point guard is supposed to be doing. Since Pop took over coaching duties the Spurs have never needed a "pure" PG in the double digit assists sense.
It's pretty simple really. Tony Parker is most effective in a motion oriented offense. If guys are moving, making cuts, setting picks and screens, spotting up, etc. Parker is all you need from that position. If guys are just standing around watching, it's easier for defenses to key in on and control.
It's basketball, not rocket science.

[Parker2112]

The numbers produced by the OP say Parker the facilitator is better for the Spurs' win % than Tony the scorer. That directly contradicts every fanboy/girl who claims that Parker needs to score, score, and score some more if we are to win.

[Parker2112]

You guys are just so lost in all these stats and ill-conceived ideas about what a point guard is supposed to be doing. Since Pop took over coaching duties the Spurs have never needed a "pure" PG in the double digit assists sense.
It's pretty simple really. Tony Parker is most effective in a motion oriented offense. If guys are moving, making cuts, setting picks and screens, spotting up, etc. Parker is all you need from that position. If guys are just standing around watching, it's easier for defenses to key in on and control.
It's basketball, not rocket science.

It sure seems like our guys have been doing more of that standing thing over the last couple of seasons...

[Mel_13]

The numbers produced by the OP say Parker the facilitator is better for the Spurs' win % than Tony the scorer.

That's a very simplistic analysis of the data presented.

You've already proven that you're smarter than that.

[Parker2112]

I do agree that Parker doesnt need Steve Nash assist totals to run our squad though. I just think if he facilitates, the points will come (not necessarily assists for tony though).

[ohmwrecker]

The Spurs are unbeatable when Parker is penetrating at will and the offense is swinging the ball around looking for the best possible shot. I love watching opposing defenses scrambling around trying to defend that.

[Parker2112]

That's a very simplistic analysis of the data presented.

You've already proven that you're smarter than that.

I'm not contending that really, but he is. I am just suprised no one is discussing it further. He does have stats, and some folks seem to love stats.

And thanks for the compliment sir :toast

[Parker2112]

The Spurs are unbeatable when Parker is penetrating at will and the offense is swinging the ball around looking for the best possible shot. I love watching opposing defenses scrambling around trying to defend that.

I think when this is happening we are unbeatable...I hope we get a healthy Parker who can be all things to all people (yeah, its a little unfair) before our season is over.

[Mel_13]

I'm not contending that really, but he is. I am just suprised no one is discussing it further. He does have stats, and some folks seem to love stats.

And thanks for the compliment sir :toast

I still don't see anything debate-provoking in the OP.

If someone had asked me, in advance, to guess whether the team's winning percentage would be higher in 10+ assists games or 20+ points games, the answer is obvious.

I wouldn't conclude that increased assist totals for Tony in a set of games proves that he was more of a distributor in those games. I would work from the assumption that Tony's style of play is, relatively speaking, a constant. I would assume other factors account for the greatest portion of the variation.

[SpurCharger]

with Manu as the primary ballhandler good things happen more frequently and we win more games, period.
Agreed 100%

[mookie2001]

Rofl Tony isn't a pass first point?

Thanks dr Naismith

[wildbill2u]

In our championship years, the plays and ball went through Duncan. He is an amazing big in that he can see the court through a coach's eyes and almost direct the movement and plays from the post with his passing.

Once Pop quit calling plays and 'gave the reins' to Tony, his natural inclination as an excellent one on one player and scorer led to the ball mostly in Parker's hands, looking for a one on one or pick and roll so he could use his undeniable scoring ability.

Ever notice that with Parker, the pick and roll simply becomes the pick and drive? I'm not saying he isn't an effective scorer that way, but he really doesn't look for his teammate rolling to the basker either.

He became our leading scorer--but in the crunch at the end of the games, Pop always wanted the ball in Manu's hands and not Tony's. Why? Clearly our leading scorer isn't quite what is wanted when more options are needed. Unlike Kobe, he isn't our 'go to' guy.

I look at Tony and see the ghost of Steve Francis--known in Houston as Stevie Franchise until his MO became a liability--another player with undeniable scoring skills whose point guard play was similar--a scorer and not a floor general. He'd also Dribble around looking for scoring opportunities on one-on-one situations or pick and rolls. If all else fails, at the last few seconds on the clock kick the ball out to a half-asleep wing and expect him to hit a spot-up 3. It actually works when the 3s are going down.

I don't hate Tony Parker. I love him. But that doesn't mean I can't see the way our team play gets skewed when he's running the show with the reins in his hands. I think we'd become a much better and more balanced team with Pop directing the plays.

With the ability to involve more players and become better balanced, we'd also become much more difficult to defend. On the nights when teams take away the lane so Parker can't drive, we stagnate because the ball is in his hands while he still tries to do what he does best.

Manu in the same backcourt can ease a lot of these problems, because he is a better passer and frankly has a better eye for the defensive situation on the court than Parker. Tony won't ignore him and will give up the ball to Manu. He won't do that with anyone else on a regular basis IMO.

So here are two solutions to making the Spurs team play better. Both hinge on Pop.
1. Start Manu with Tony.
2. Pop takes the reins back and calls the plays.

That's the way back to championship play on offense.

[Spurs7794]

The numbers produced by the OP say Parker the facilitator is better for the Spurs' win % than Tony the scorer. That directly contradicts every fanboy/girl who claims that Parker needs to score, score, and score some more if we are to win.

Of course our win % is higher when TOny's assists are higher. When he penetrates and kicks, he only gets an assist if the player knocks down the shot. More outside shots knocked down generally means more likely to win the game. Also, players are more likely to knock down shots against lesser opponents, again meaning its more likely the Spurs will win. ALSO, better teams cut off passing lanes better meaning Parker will have a tougher time finding open players against the best teams, meaning his assists will be lower, and since its a tougher team, their win % will go down.


WAYYYYY too many variables to claim that Parker has to be a pass first pg. The TP of 2006-2009 is what we need.

[stéphane]

In our championship years, the plays and ball went through Duncan. He is an amazing big in that he can see the court through a coach's eyes and almost direct the movement and plays from the post with his passing.

Once Pop quit calling plays and 'gave the reins' to Tony, his natural inclination as an excellent one on one player and scorer led to the ball mostly in Parker's hands, looking for a one on one or pick and roll so he could use his undeniable scoring ability.

Ever notice that with Parker, the pick and roll simply becomes the pick and drive? I'm not saying he isn't an effective scorer that way, but he really doesn't look for his teammate rolling to the basker either.

He became our leading scorer--but in the crunch at the end of the games, Pop always wanted the ball in Manu's hands and not Tony's. Why? Clearly our leading scorer isn't quite what is wanted when more options are needed. Unlike Kobe, he isn't our 'go to' guy.

I look at Tony and see the ghost of Steve Francis--known in Houston as Stevie Franchise until his MO became a liability--another player with undeniable scoring skills whose point guard play was similar--a scorer and not a floor general. He'd also Dribble around looking for scoring opportunities on one-on-one situations or pick and rolls. If all else fails, at the last few seconds on the clock kick the ball out to a half-asleep wing and expect him to hit a spot-up 3. It actually works when the 3s are going down.

I don't hate Tony Parker. I love him. But that doesn't mean I can't see the way our team play gets skewed when he's running the show with the reins in his hands. I think we'd become a much better and more balanced team with Pop directing the plays.

With the ability to involve more players and become better balanced, we'd also become much more difficult to defend. On the nights when teams take away the lane so Parker can't drive, we stagnate because the ball is in his hands while he still tries to do what he does best.

Manu in the same backcourt can ease a lot of these problems, because he is a better passer and frankly has a better eye for the defensive situation on the court than Parker. Tony won't ignore him and will give up the ball to Manu. He won't do that with anyone else on a regular basis IMO.

So here are two solutions to making the Spurs team play better. Both hinge on Pop.
1. Start Manu with Tony.
2. Pop takes the reins back and calls the plays.

That's the way back to championship play on offense.

Your post is really solid but I terribly doubt about the validity of your last sentence.
Our major problems towards winning another championship were :
1) a healthy big three
2) an ineffective team defense (see perimeter stopper (lack off))
3) role players who couldn't it a shot if 1) was true

[stéphane]

I'm more and more amazed at people who keep talking about our offense. Our offense is way better than most of our championship years. Our weakness these days is that we do not have Bruce Bowen anymore and that our team rotations are weaker every year. If we're not able to pull stops when we want we ain't going nowhere in the playoffs.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Spurs win 3 championships w/ Tony Parker playing well..../thread

Jesus, why all the Parker hate, he was 2007 Finals MVP...hello?

Manu and Tony are both great players, we are fortunate to have them both.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm more and more amazed at people who keep talking about our offense. Our offense is way better than most of our championship years.

People are talking about the offense on this thread because that is the subject of the OP. I talk about defense a lot and yes, it is a glaring issue this year. I am a firm believer in the good defense leads to easy offense philosophy.

[stéphane]

People are talking about the offense on this thread because that is the subject of the OP. I talk about defense a lot and yes, it is a glaring issue this year. I am a firm believer in the good defense leads to easy offense philosophy.

Yeah, I wasn't bashing the OP at all. Just stating the fact that most of the talk is about offense when we should seriously look at the other side of the court. During the last lakers win, what struck me was our physicality and the way we competed on D more than anything else.

[ohmwrecker]

The Spurs played great D in those wins against Boston, Cleveland, Orlando and LA. Unfortunately, it still a little too inconsistent and not "championship" level yet. Here's hoping they pull it all together right on time.

[InK]

As Mel said this are pretty irrelevant stats. Could have just as easily concluded that Tony should score more, since we have a better winning percantage when he scores +40 then we have when he scores -10 points.

[JR3]

with Manu as the primary ballhandler good things happen more frequently and we win more games, period.

This is fact.

[kace]

He needs to be at 0 minutes

i can't remember when your constant intervention on tony's related threads became so lame. was it forever ?

oh, what about your great algerian soccer team ? after being ashamed in the CAN, are you ready for the same thing in the world cup or what ?

[kace]

The numbers produced by the OP say Parker the facilitator is better for the Spurs' win % than Tony the scorer. That directly contradicts every fanboy/girl who claims that Parker needs to score, score, and score some more if we are to win.

:lol

you're just stupid but you probably don't realize that yet.

1. ask spurs W % when manu has + 10 ass games. and now, tell me who will score on this team if any time a player makes his team win at a high % when he has more than ten assists, you conclude that he needs to score less.

2. look at TP average scoring in those +10 ass games. yep. ok. got it. yes, TP was also scoring a lot in those games.

the only thing that i see in those (meaningless) stats, is that when TP is good (scoring, assisting or both), the spurs are winning. and some how, some peole could magically turn this in a bashing way for TP.

[Cry Havoc]

10 assist games are far less frequent in the NBA than 20 point games, which happen probably around 98% of the time.

Also, 10 assists translates to at LEAST 20 points, so the stats are not even equal. 10 assists will invariably involve at least one trey, so it's worth more at face value than 20 points anyway.

For a player like TP to get 10+ assists, it means two things:

His teammates were hitting shots.

He was getting ample penetration inside the key by doing the very thing that people who attacking him for. But an assist count that high is extremely difficult to achieve, especially in the pass happy Spurs offense. Parker doesn't drive and kick for a shot. He drives and kicks to the player on the wing, who rotates the ball around the 3 point line to the player at the other side of the court.

Even if that shot goes down, Parker doesn't get an assist for it, even though it was his dribble-drive penetration and subsequent forced rotation of the defense that caused it.

This is why arguing stats-only against Tony Parker is naive, and shows a fundamental comprehension problem with understanding basketball, especially the way the Spurs play.

But 10 assists = 20 points at minimum, so this discussion is completely moot.

10 assists vs. 30 points is much more fair of a comparison.

[wildbill2u]

Your post is really solid but I terribly doubt about the validity of your last sentence.
Our major problems towards winning another championship were :
1) a healthy big three
2) an ineffective team defense (see perimeter stopper (lack off))
3) role players who couldn't it a shot if 1) was true

Well, this IS a thread that essentially about offense, not defense which I didn't address because it isn't the topic as I understand it.

However, I'd like to throw this out. The way you play offense, either having one guy star--or a more balanced attack CAN afftect the defense IMO.

If everyone but Parker is basically standing around, waiting for him to finish doing his thing, then I can argue that leads to sloth, lethargy, laziness and loss of focus and intensity by the other players who aren't very involved.

And that lack of involvement and resulting poor focus can lead to defensive lack of intensity, sloth, laziness, focus etc on the defensive end. Gus who are standing around at one end may well stand around on the other end.

Playing basketball at this level means you need the adrenalin flowing in every player, especiall to get them "up" on the undramatic, and un-popular hard work of defense. You don't get your best 'adrenalin high' from standing around watching someone else work.

In proof of this, I offer the way teams sometimes play against teams with superstars who tend to take away the game from other players. You let the superstar fire away, get his humongous point total, but stop the other players from participating in any meaningful way.

Kobe and Lebron used to get that treatment from smart coaches. And they found out they couldn't carry the load alone, no matter how much better they were than their teammates. I think both Kobe and Lebron have become more effective since they tried harder at getting their teammates into the game. They will still be looked to in crunch time, but the outcomes have been better when they give assists and involve their teammates, or don't you agree? Right now they are the best two teams in the league.

[sa_butta]

I would love for Tony to be a 10+ assist guy, but with the team we have now...I dont think there is enough good shooters to be passing so often. When guys like Bonner and Mason keep throwing up bricks from the 3 point line, it kind of gives Parker the green light for a shoot first guard. If we had better shooters from the outside I would love to have Parker pass first.

[OldSilentHill]

with Manu as the primary ballhandler good things happen more frequently and we win more games, period.

Because he has more time to bring the INTANGIBLES to the table and INFECT his TEAM-MATES.

Plain and simple. There aren´t specific stats for that, just "side stats".

:wakeup

[SpurmzKilla]

saw the other thread and listened to STSA talking about whether Tony should be a pass first PG or a scoring PG. here are the stats from every game Tony's had 10+ AST and 20+ PTS.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/964/tonyparkerstats1.jpg

here's what I gather. Tony IS NOT a pass first PG, that can be seen in the frequency difference between 10+AST games and 20+PTS games. however when he DOES have 10+AST the Spurs have a better winning %. but i'd take the 20+PTS games based soley off frequency.


dam wattafuk happen in Spurmzlandvill????? geeziz h christ so many fukkin stats yo!

wattafuk happen to fans watchin games? wattafuk i mean? i mean how da fuk u call yo self a fan if you ain't watch yo team games? i know you ain't watchin games cus you had to read all those crazy fukkin stats just to say, "Parker ain't no pass first guard". I couldda fukkin' told yo that from just watching the Lake Show play them Spurmz twice a year.

Sick of you all high whorse muthafukkas calll Laker fans fags and stupid. You Spurms fans is fukkin stupid and pathetic. You ain't no shit bout no basketball. When you team sux and you ain't got nothin to say you all waste some crazy ass time with stupid fukkin stats and end up either sayin some tripped out shit like, "yo if duncan plays less than 48 minutes per game but more than 0 the spurs have a better record" or some stupid fukkin ass shit like, "If Ginobili plays, he'll have a risk of gettin injury but if he doesn't play, he won't have a chance of getting injury. I checked the stats yo! "

1.103i3jje
jv20939494
494959404490
49495494
2-2-2-2034
29405032jud
ffff967
28344

SEE YO! Ginobili is our MVP and I spent 60 days looking through film to figure it out!

Laker Nation

[tp2021]

If anything, Tony seems to be looking for Blair more on screen and rolls. Thats probably more of a trust issue with a new young player, but I'd say he realized from watching Manu and Blair that Blair is an asset to him as the ballhandling guard. That's all the improvement I need as a fan. I hated seeing him never pass to Blair before he went out with injury.

[Parker2112]

:lol.:lol


you're just stupid but you probably don't realize that yet..:jack


1. ask spurs W % when manu has + 10 ass games. and now, tell me who will score on this team if any time a player makes his team win at a high % when he has more than ten assists, you conclude that he needs to score less..Who said he needed to score less? Your putting words in my mouth. I just think he needs to get his points in the flow of the offense, and most important create flow in the offense for other guys to capitalize on as well.

When we had a team of offensive liabilities like Bowen, Horry etc. Parker could afford to keep scoring. Now we have guys with skills, and if we develop a balanced attack, we will be harder to stop.

FYI, this is not my thread, I dont need to make the OPs point for him, I am simply saying the OP put forth effort going out and getting stats to back up his contention, it was worth discussing. Discussion doesnt have to be bashing, and you have some good points here in opposition (as do others). And that is what its about...exchange of ideas and opinions.


2. look at TP average scoring in those +10 ass games. yep. ok. got it. yes, TP was also scoring a lot in those games.. Not my point, I dont hav time to make other peoples points here. I barely have time to make my own.


the only thing that i see in those (meaningless) stats, is that when TP is good (scoring, assisting or both), the spurs are winning. and some how, some peole could magically turn this in a bashing way for TP. Take part in the discussion. Dont try to crush it by crying out "TP basher!" Productive conversation is good.

now :jack me.

[Baseline]

It's very simple - Manu doesn't have a weakness offensively, and people have to respect his three-ball.

TP doesn't have a three-ball, and he can't shoot mid-range jumpers either. So he has a glaring weakness that everybody knows about. He's still good, it's just that he's easier to contain.

With Manu, teams have no idea how to deal with him. Manu is a nightmare for opponents.

[Spurs7794]

It's very simple - Manu doesn't have a weakness offensively, and people have to respect his three-ball.

TP doesn't have a three-ball, and he can't shoot mid-range jumpers either. So he has a glaring weakness that everybody knows about. He's still good, it's just that he's easier to contain.

With Manu, teams have no idea how to deal with him. Manu is a nightmare for opponents.

Last year, TP statistically was one of the BEST mid range jump shooters in the league. I HATE when people see a flaw in a player years ago and keep bringing it up in the present when that player has fixed that problem.

Same reason I hate when people claim MAnu is a flopper...he doesn't flop NEARLY as bad as he did since 2005 playoffs.

[mathbzh]

The numbers produced by the OP say Parker the facilitator is better for the Spurs' win % than Tony the scorer. That directly contradicts every fanboy/girl who claims that Parker needs to score, score, and score some more if we are to win.



The fact than in his 10+ games Parker also average 20.7 ppg (according to OP numbers) may also indicate it is not that easy to separate the play maker from the scorer.

When Parker has a great game the Spurs win... that is all I read in these numbers
Edit:
One more thing... when Parker score at will, he is more likely to have a 10+ game... but this is not really a surprise

[stéphane]

Well, this IS a thread that essentially about offense, not defense which I didn't address because it isn't the topic as I understand it.

Fair enough.


However, I'd like to throw this out. The way you play offense, either having one guy star--or a more balanced attack CAN afftect the defense IMO.

If everyone but Parker is basically standing around, waiting for him to finish doing his thing, then I can argue that leads to sloth, lethargy, laziness and loss of focus and intensity by the other players who aren't very involved.

And that lack of involvement and resulting poor focus can lead to defensive lack of intensity, sloth, laziness, focus etc on the defensive end. Gus who are standing around at one end may well stand around on the other end.

I understand what you are trying to say but I can't agree. It's directly linked to the mental level of a player to be able to focus on his defensive tasks despite having few touches on offense. That's what role players are about. Bruce was the perfect example of this principle. on offense he was just sitting all the time in the corner for the sake of spacing the floor. Can't say he was lazy on D right?

I ain't trying to defend Tony at all cost but if you are right about the players unable to focus on D if not involved on O.
1) We seriously fucked up with our pick ups.
2) Pop should revise all his plays involving static spacing of the floor
And Bill, honestly, 2) won't happen.

[portnoy1]

10 assist games are far less frequent in the NBA than 20 point games, which happen probably around 98% of the time.

Also, 10 assists translates to at LEAST 20 points, so the stats are not even equal. 10 assists will invariably involve at least one trey, so it's worth more at face value than 20 points anyway.

For a player like TP to get 10+ assists, it means two things:

His teammates were hitting shots.

He was getting ample penetration inside the key by doing the very thing that people who attacking him for. But an assist count that high is extremely difficult to achieve, .

FAIL - Its relatively easy to get assist. Look at the teams who average alot of assist 2010 (1 - Utah (Williams 10.5ast) (2 - Boston (Rondo 9.8ast) (3 - Phoenix (Nash 11ast). To get an assist, the person you pass to has to ofcourse score and at the most take only one dribble. What that means is that you have to find people in the spots they are effective; spots where they dont have to work hard to get points. Look at the teams above and their Pg's.

1 -In Utah the top scorer is Boozer. Deron Williams works that pick n roll to death and gets Boozer dunks galore and easy 15ft jumpers.

2 - In Boston you have 2 out of 3 guys that create their own shot in Pierce/Garnett. Allen is the second leading scorer on that team and isnt great off the dribble. Rondo makes sure to look for him moving without the ball and especially in transition for the pull up 3 if the fast break is well covered.

3 - In Phoenix the top scorer is Stoudemire. Um........yeah? this one is pretty obvious. Steve Nash Pick n roll all day for easy dunks and the occasional 17ft jumper, not to mention he hooks up the worker bees on the team that run.

Making the argument that ball movement is to blame for Parkers low assist is nonsense. The teams mentioned above are the league leaders in team assist and have great passing point guards on their teams. Coincidence?

Look at the Spurs personnel, Scoring leader is Timmy. He will get the open 15ft jumper off of Parkers drives but rarely gets open layups/dunks from Parker that Manu provides. RJ will get the spot up 3pt shot off of Parkers drives but wont get easy dunks from Parker when he leaks out or get the ball when he has good position in the post, Manu takes care of that. How about the Worker Bees? GHill gets alley-oops from Manu/ Dejaun Blair gets layups from Manu / Even Bogans gets layups off transition from Manu, bogans cant jump and can barely run IMO / Dice, Bonner and Mason get the same looks from Manu as Parker does. If the Spurs were to get a pass first pg they would be in great shape because it encourages ball movement and team motion and makes scoring a whole lot easier for everyone.

[wildbill2u]

Fair enough.



I understand what you are trying to say but I can't agree. It's directly linked to the mental level of a player to be able to focus on his defensive tasks despite having few touches on offense. That's what role players are about. Bruce was the perfect example of this principle. on offense he was just sitting all the time in the corner for the sake of spacing the floor. Can't say he was lazy on D right?

I ain't trying to defend Tony at all cost but if you are right about the players unable to focus on D if not involved on O.
1) We seriously fucked up with our pick ups.
2) Pop should revise all his plays involving static spacing of the floor
And Bill, honestly, 2) won't happen.

Defensive specialists like Bowen are rare as hen's teeth. We've been looking to replace his skills without success so far.

So we'll probably get a player who still longs for the cheers for scoring and is willing to do some defense as well.:lol

I'd say Bowen is the exception that proves my rule.

[spursbird]

20+10 is good.

[Cry Havoc]

FAIL - Its relatively easy to get assist. Look at the teams who average alot of assist 2010 (1 - Utah (Williams 10.5ast) (2 - Boston (Rondo 9.8ast) (3 - Phoenix (Nash 11ast).

Wait.... so you're saying it's easy to be the LEAGUE LEADER in the entire NBA in assists?

Man, it's SO easy to get to 10 assists that exactly ONE player has averaged that for the season.

Awesome logic.