ESPN: Ranking the NBA's Point Guards

[ElNono]

Our Tony at #8...

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12563832/nba-espn-nba-forecast-ranks-nba-starting-point-guards-no-1-chris-paul-no-30-dante-exum

[spursparker9]

:lol Rondo at 19th

Choke "best leadership" Paul at 1 :lol

[Horse]

And I don't get why he's such a great defender I know he gets some steals but I've never watched with concern that he would shut Tony or anyone down.

[FkLA]

Rique>Kyrie? Kyrie scored like 45 of his 57 on Rique's atrocious defense tbh. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxt8hJbelo

[cd021]

And I don't get why he's such a great defender I know he gets some steals but I've never watched with concern that he would shut Tony or anyone down.

According the ESPNs Real +/- Rondon is 6th among PGs in DRPM.

[FkLA]

According the ESPNs Real +/- Rondon is 6th among PGs in DRPM.

What place is Rique?

[cd021]

Rique>Kyrie? Kyrie scored like 45 of his 57 on Rique's atrocious defense tbh. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxt8hJbelo

Spurs contested 30 of his 32 shots. He scorched Green, Leonard, Parker and Diaw. It happens. Parker did score 32 in that game and we would have won if it wasn't for bricking FTs

[cd021]

What place is Rique?

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/1

12th-Mills
17th-Cojo




80th-Parker

(Just PG ranking of DRPM)

[FkLA]

Spurs contested 30 of his 32 shots. He scorched Green, Leonard, Parker and Diaw. It happens. Parker did score 32 in that game and we would have won if it wasn't for bricking FTs

A contest is a weak ass stat. Pretty sure Bonner/Enrique weakly putting their hands in the air is considered a contest. Statistically it's equivalent to a Kawhi/Danny contest, even though the latter is much more effective.



http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/1

12th-Mills
17th-Cojo




80th-Parker

(Just PG ranking of DRPM)

:vomit:

[will_spurs]

ESPN has always ranked scrubs like Paul or D-Will over Parker, even when he was torching the league and ranked high in MVP voting. Right now there are only 3 point guards with legit championship hopes: Curry, Irving and Parker. All the others are mostly irrelevant.

[SASdynasty!]

ESPN has always ranked scrubs like Paul or D-Will over Parker, even when he was torching the league and ranked high in MVP voting. Right now there are only 3 point guards with legit championship hopes: Curry, Irving and Parker. All the others are mostly irrelevant.
Truth bombs tbh

[FkLA]

ESPN has always ranked scrubs like Paul or D-Will over Parker, even when he was torching the league and ranked high in MVP voting. Right now there are only 3 point guards with legit championship hopes: Curry, Irving and Parker. All the others are mostly irrelevant.

So since it's all about team success is it fair to say that Kerr>Enrique? How about Horry>Barkley and Malone put together?

[Raven]

:lol choke getting high ranks for leadership :lol

[SpursFan86]

ESPN has always ranked scrubs like Paul or D-Will over Parker, even when he was torching the league and ranked high in MVP voting. Right now there are only 3 point guards with legit championship hopes: Curry, Irving and Parker. All the others are mostly irrelevant.

That's pretty terrible logic :lol You honestly think if you replace Parker with guys like CP3 or Lillard that the Spurs wouldn't still be competing for a title?

Let's be real: #8 is generous considering how poorly Parker has played this year and in last year's postseason. Acting like he should still be considered a top 3 PG is pretty absurd. Fans need to learn to stop focusing so much on team success when judging individual players. Your argument seems to boil down to "The Spurs are one of the best teams in the league, so their starting PG must be one of the best in the league as well".

And sorry, but CP3 has been leaps and bounds better than Parker for the majority of their careers. For all the talk about choking, Parker has had just as many terrible postseason moments as CP3. CP3 just hasn't been fortunate enough to play alongside guys like Duncan and Manu who can bail him out. CP3 has always been the #1 guy on every team and if he doesn't play well, the team will lose. Parker wasn't playing well last postseason and the Spurs did even better and blew out opponents consistently :lol

[cantthinkofanything]

That's pretty terrible logic :lol You honestly think if you replace Parker with guys like CP3 or Lillard that the Spurs wouldn't still be competing for a title?

Let's be real: #8 is generous considering how poorly Parker has played this year and in last year's postseason. Acting like he should still be considered a top 3 PG is pretty absurd. Fans need to learn to stop focusing so much on team success when judging individual players. Your argument seems to boil down to "The Spurs are one of the best teams in the league, so their starting PG must be one of the best in the league as well".

And sorry, but CP3 has been leaps and bounds better than Parker for the majority of their careers. For all the talk about choking, Parker has had just as many terrible postseason moments as CP3. CP3 just hasn't been fortunate enough to play alongside guys like Duncan and Manu who can bail him out. CP3 has always been the #1 guy on every team and if he doesn't play well, the team will lose. Parker wasn't playing well last postseason and the Spurs did even better and blew out opponents consistently :lol

You almost make it sound like Parker is expendable. Or easily replaced.

[SpursFan86]

You almost make it sound like Parker is expendable. Or easily replaced.

He sort of is at this point. Conley, Dragic, Lillard, CP3, Lowry, Curry, Teague, Hill, Lawson...I think all of those guys could replace him and the Spurs would either get better or remain the same. I mean look at how Parker has played since 2014. He hasn't been anything special. In 2013, he was absolutely a top 3 PG. But he hasn't played nearly as well since then.

It's not meant to be a "omg Parker sucks, bench his ass" thing. There are just a lot of great PGs in the league right now. It's not like any of those guys I named are scrubs. I just completely disagree with the notion of "Spurs are one of the few teams with legitimate title chances, so Parker must be one of the best PGs in the league still". Parker hasn't consistently played like a top 5 PG since 2013. If you want to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt because of injuries or the Spurs having success, then go for it...but don't try to act like ESPN is being unfair for not being as generous.

[will_spurs]

I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Agreed.

[SpursFan86]

And it's just something that basketball fans have trouble with in general. People are SO focused on team success when it comes to talking about individual talent. I get that basketball is about winning, and that's the priority, but you have to use context. Some players are in situations that are more conducive to having success.

Put CP3 on the Spurs all these years instead of Parker, and put Parker on teams like the Hornets/Clippers. Suddenly CP3 is the guy with several titles, and Parker is the ringless player who can't go all the way. They'd be the exact same players, but the narrative changes completely. And that's what people do: they focus on BS narratives instead of looking at player's impacts on the court.

What does Parker do better than CP3?

ball-handling: CP3
passing: CP3
shooting: CP3
defending: CP3

Parker is a better finisher in the paint. That's it. CP3 is miles ahead of him in most other areas. So why would someone take Parker over CP3? Don't give me that "CP3 is a choker in the playoffs!" bullshit. For every bad game you could show me of CP3 in the playoffs, I could point out 2 more games of Parker shitting the bed in the playoffs.

[SpursFan86]

I can't discuss things like a normal adult and have to dodge your arguments rather than refute.

I see. That's a shame.

[barbacoataco]

Without Parker the Spurs offense stagnates. Same story now as in the past. Parker's ability to drive and break down the defense is the key to the Spurs ball movement. And if you play off of him to keep him from driving, he has a consistent mid- range jump shot. While he has struggled for much of this season, that has nothing to do with his greatness and HOF career. It is no coincedence that he has played better on March and the Spurs are 12-3.

[Perry Mason]

He sort of is at this point. Conley, Dragic, Lillard, CP3, Lowry, Curry, Teague, Hill, Lawson...I think all of those guys could replace him and the Spurs would either get better or remain the same. I mean look at how Parker has played since 2014. He hasn't been anything special. In 2013, he was absolutely a top 3 PG. But he hasn't played nearly as well since then.

It's not meant to be a "omg Parker sucks, bench his ass" thing. There are just a lot of great PGs in the league right now. It's not like any of those guys I named are scrubs. I just completely disagree with the notion of "Spurs are one of the few teams with legitimate title chances, so Parker must be one of the best PGs in the league still". Parker hasn't consistently played like a top 5 PG since 2013. If you want to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt because of injuries or the Spurs having success, then go for it...but don't try to act like ESPN is being unfair for not being as generous.

This is actually fairly unknowable. The Spurs system requires a heady player who plays unselfishly. I have trouble seeing a Lillard type flourishing in it. You guys would quickly tire of his tendency to chuck when he gets frustrated, and his poor floater (a huge asset for TP in the paint that is opened up by the Spurs' system and his speed). 2014 Parker was still a top-50 player by most advanced metrics, notwithstanding that I find tons of fault in them. Take out the 1.5 months in which he was clearly hobbled, and he was probably top-35.

And those pecking order rankings have little meaning in the scheme of things. I don't know a single point guard who could have been plugged in during the 2014 playoffs and done what Tony did for the Spurs in Game 5 or Game 7 Dallas, or the 3 game raping in Games 1-3 Portland, or similarly games 1, 2 and 5 OKC.

Veterans are always harder to measure as they age because they cannot bring it consistently every night, but they are liable to go off on any one night. Plus, they have an added craftiness for playmaking that does not always show up in the stats.

[cantthinkofanything]

He sort of is at this point. Conley, Dragic, Lillard, CP3, Lowry, Curry, Teague, Hill, Lawson...I think all of those guys could replace him and the Spurs would either get better or remain the same. I mean look at how Parker has played since 2014. He hasn't been anything special. In 2013, he was absolutely a top 3 PG. But he hasn't played nearly as well since then.

It's not meant to be a "omg Parker sucks, bench his ass" thing. There are just a lot of great PGs in the league right now. It's not like any of those guys I named are scrubs. I just completely disagree with the notion of "Spurs are one of the few teams with legitimate title chances, so Parker must be one of the best PGs in the league still". Parker hasn't consistently played like a top 5 PG since 2013. If you want to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt because of injuries or the Spurs having success, then go for it...but don't try to act like ESPN is being unfair for not being as generous.

I agree. TP's only real advantage over other PG's was his quickness. Which is now gone. His defense is not good. He's not a great distributor. And he really can't make you pay from the three point line. So any PG that can do one of those things well and the rest average would be an upgrade.

My preference would be a good defensive PG that can just play within the system.

[Perry Mason]

And it's just something that basketball fans have trouble with in general. People are SO focused on team success when it comes to talking about individual talent. I get that basketball is about winning, and that's the priority, but you have to use context. Some players are in situations that are more conducive to having success.

Put CP3 on the Spurs all these years instead of Parker, and put Parker on teams like the Hornets/Clippers. Suddenly CP3 is the guy with several titles, and Parker is the ringless player who can't go all the way. They'd be the exact same players, but the narrative changes completely. And that's what people do: they focus on BS narratives instead of looking at player's impacts on the court.

What does Parker do better than CP3?

ball-handling: CP3
passing: CP3
shooting: CP3
defending: CP3

Parker is a better finisher in the paint. That's it. CP3 is miles ahead of him in most other areas. So why would someone take Parker over CP3? Don't give me that "CP3 is a choker in the playoffs!" bullshit. For every bad game you could show me of CP3 in the playoffs, I could point out 2 more games of Parker shitting the bed in the playoffs.

2012 Semifinals. Thank you. Parker's "impact" on the court was obvious in all measurements. And "impact" stats rely on impossible assumptions (the elusive "average player" you can somehow just drop into a system and they instantly know what to do).

CP3, an amazing player, is ball-dominant and it affects his teams in the playoffs. Players are more than an agglomeration of abilities. And as to ball-handling, see the game winning shot in Game 1 2013 Finals.

[SpursFan86]

This is actually fairly unknowable. The Spurs system requires a heady player who plays unselfishly. I have trouble seeing a Lillard type flourishing in it. You guys would quickly tire of his tendency to chuck when he gets frustrated, and his poor floater (a huge asset for TP in the paint that is opened up by the Spurs' system and his speed). 2014 Parker was still a top-50 player by most advanced metrics, notwithstanding that I find tons of fault in them. Take out the 1.5 months in which he was clearly hobbled, and he was probably top-35.

And those pecking order rankings have little meaning in the scheme of things. I don't know a single point guard who could have been plugged in during the 2014 playoffs and done what Tony did for the Spurs in Game 5 or Game 7 Dallas, or the 3 game raping in Games 1-3 Portland, or similarly games 1, 2 and 5 OKC.

Veterans are always harder to measure as they age because they cannot bring it consistently every night, but they are liable to go off on any one night. Plus, they have an added craftiness for playmaking that does not always show up in the stats.

Lillard isn't that selfish (he's shown no problems with letting LMA be the #1 guy who gets the most touches). It's not like Parker doesn't have moments where he gets frustrated and barrels into the paint wrecklessly, usually resulting in a TO or poor shot.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe other PGs couldn't have great games as well. Lillard had some monster games in the playoffs. Look at what CP3 did in Game 1 against OKC. These other PGs I've named aren't bad players. They're great and are just as capable of taking over games as Parker.

I just really don't see how anyone could still argue Parker is a top 3 or 5 PG in the league at this point. Again, I'm not saying he sucks or that the team is better off without him like some of the anti-Parker trolls here. I just don't see any argument for him being ahead of guys like CP3, Lillard, Conley, etc. aside from the tired, cliche arguments like "Parker is a proven winner :cry "

[cantthinkofanything]

Lillard isn't that selfish (he's shown no problems with letting LMA be the #1 guy who gets the most touches). It's not like Parker doesn't have moments where he gets frustrated and barrels into the paint wrecklessly, usually resulting in a TO or poor shot.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe other PGs couldn't have great games as well. Lillard had some monster games in the playoffs. Look at what CP3 did in Game 1 against OKC. These other PGs I've named aren't bad players. They're great and are just as capable of taking over games as Parker.

I just really don't see how anyone could still argue Parker is a top 3 or 5 PG in the league at this point. Again, I'm not saying he sucks or that the team is better off without him like some of the anti-Parker trolls here. I just don't see any argument for him being ahead of guys like CP3, Lillard, Conley, etc. aside from the tired, cliche arguments like "Parker is a proven winner :cry "

No one giving credit to the Spurs system for making Parker what he is (or was). If he'd ended up somewhere else, he'd be called upon to chuck as well. Whether it's driving constantly or trying to learn to shoot the 3. Put Lillard on the Spurs and I think he gets blended into the system and does fine.

[SpursFan86]

2012 Semifinals. Thank you. Parker's "impact" on the court was obvious in all measurements. And "impact" stats rely on impossible assumptions (the elusive "average player" you can somehow just drop into a system and they instantly know what to do).

CP3, an amazing player, is ball-dominant and it affects his teams in the playoffs. Players are more than an agglomeration of abilities. And as to ball-handling, see the game winning shot in Game 1 2013 Finals.

Yes, CP3 was terrible (although he was playing through injuries IIRC) in the 2012 semifinals. Are we going to act like Parker has never had a bad series?

Parker in the 2014 WCF: 13.2 ppg (51.9 TS%), 2.2 rpg, 4.8 apg,

CP3's teams fall apart when he goes to the bench in the playoffs. Call him ball-dominant or whatever else you want - his teams play FAR better when he's on the court, something that can't be said for Parker.

Clippers in the 2014 playoffs with CP3 on the court: Net RTG = +7.1
without CP3 on the court: Net RTG = -15.7

So while he was on the court, they outscored their opponents by a noticeable margin. When he went to the bench, the entire team fell apart. And before you say "well that's because he spent most of his minutes playing with Griffin and Jordan!" - no, that's not it. CP3 is the only person that exhibits those sort of numbers. Clippers still did just fine with Griffin or DJ on the bench.

Did you really just bring up a single instance to argue Parker is as good of a ball-handler as CP3? :lol Come on now. Parker is a great ball-handler. CP3 is arguably the best ball-handler in the league, right up there with Curry and Kyrie.

[scanry]

Trolling aside, the Spurs need Rique's selfish/dribble dribble ass playing at a high level to contend. If he drives and finishes in the paint, the Spurs are a lock for the repeat.

[Mikeanaro]

Ricky Rubio at #12 this ranking is pure trolling dude is not even #126.

[Perry Mason]

Lillard isn't that selfish (he's shown no problems with letting LMA be the #1 guy who gets the most touches). It's not like Parker doesn't have moments where he gets frustrated and barrels into the paint wrecklessly, usually resulting in a TO or poor shot.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe other PGs couldn't have great games as well. Lillard had some monster games in the playoffs. Look at what CP3 did in Game 1 against OKC. These other PGs I've named aren't bad players. They're great and are just as capable of taking over games as Parker.

I just really don't see how anyone could still argue Parker is a top 3 or 5 PG in the league at this point. Again, I'm not saying he sucks or that the team is better off without him like some of the anti-Parker trolls here. I just don't see any argument for him being ahead of guys like CP3, Lillard, Conley, etc. aside from the tired, cliche arguments like "Parker is a proven winner :cry "

I do hear you. I don't in any way argue Tony is top-anything in terms of PG's this year. He's frankly too difficult to assess as he struggles through this year.

But the argument requires more than just saying "other PG's have great games." Sure they do, but that isn't my argument nor does it counter it. My argument is that TP did things for the Spurs in the 2014 Playoffs, and leading up to them, that I don't know any other PG could have done as well. Even if you grant some other PG 1-2 years in the Spurs' system. He had multiple great games and key performances that frankly saved the Spurs' ass. TP grew up in the Spurs system. He has advantages no other PG in this league would have. And he is an all-time finisher for a PG, historically. And one of the all-time fastest PG's in terms of minutes/distance traveled.

I understand your objections over the misuse of narratives, but narratives are unavoidable. It is not all BS to say "Parker is a proven winner". It is vague and qualitative, but it can be meaningful. There is absolutely a phenomenon where some players have a knack for good decision making on the court that helps lead to wins. This is a human sport in which there are 1,000,000 variables at any given time. Stats can only ever approximate an element of what is going on, and when they are used together as they always are, you are making thousands of unspoken qualitative assumptions.

The mental approach a player takes to the game is huge. Just use some introspection. Do you "bring it" 100% to your job every day? Do you ever shirk away from a difficult challenge and rationalize why? It's human nature to settle sometimes and collect a check, or just settle for less. TP is less of a settler and we have Pop to thank for creating a culture that has a neurotic attachment to winning, and which probably really started with TD and his stoic excellence.

[SpursFan86]

I do hear you. I don't in any way argue Tony is top-anything in terms of PG's this year.

Well this is the main thing here. This article is about ranking PGs, and some people seemed disgruntled about Parker "only" being #8. That's what I was arguing against. I think 8 is a generous ranking considering how Parker has played over the past 2 years or so.

I still think that there are several other PGs who could replace Parker and still have success, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It's sort of a pointless argument because we'll never know.

Again, I'd just like to see more actual arguments based on how players actually play and what they do well on the court. If you think Parker is better than CP3, explain WHY. "Parker is a winner and the Spurs > Clippers" is a terrible argument, and the type of shit you hear regurgitated by guys on ESPN or TNT. Are we going to start saying Horry is better than Barkley? Is Fisher better than CP3 too? What does Parker do on the court that makes you want him instead of CP3? Even if you say something I disagree with, at least you're saying something of substance, and not spewing bullshit narratives that lack context.

[Clipper Nation]

Why does the media insist on sucking point guards' dicks all the time? PG-led teams don't win anything.

[RD2191]

Why does the media insist on sucking point guards' dicks all the time? PG-led teams don't win anything.

[cd021]

A contest is a weak ass stat. Pretty sure Bonner/Enrique weakly putting their hands in the air is considered a contest. Statistically it's equivalent to a Kawhi/Danny contest, even though the latter is much more effective.




:vomit:

Never said Parker was a good defender. To put all of Irvings 57 on Parker isn't true. Kyrie was making them over Green and Leonard as well and they are both elite defenders.

[TampaDude]

Never said Parker was a good defender. To put all of Irvings 57 on Parker isn't true. Kyrie was making them over Green and Leonard as well and they are both elite defenders.

Kyrie's 57-point game was a fluke. Not afraid of the Cavs at all, should we meet in the Finals.

[cd021]

Kyrie's 57-point game was a fluke. Not afraid of the Cavs at all, should we meet in the Finals.

Called evenly, I'd take the Spurs in 5 or 6. They do have 4 players that can go for 30 on any given night their defense is still average and they go iso late in games.

[cantthinkofanything]

Called evenly, I'd take the Spurs in 5 or 6. They do have 4 players that can go for 30 on any given night their defense is still average and they go iso late in games.

Go for 30 what? 30 minutes? 30 combined turnovers? What's the punchline? Has to be one. Either that or you don't understand what "on any given night" means.

[BillMc]

Kyrie's 57-point game was a fluke. Not afraid of the Cavs at all, should we meet in the Finals.

This. If they need a performance like that to win, we'll take the series 4-1.

[SASdynasty!]

He sort of is at this point. Conley, Dragic, Lillard, CP3, Lowry, Curry, Teague, Hill, Lawson...I think all of those guys could replace him and the Spurs would either get better or remain the same. I mean look at how Parker has played since 2014. He hasn't been anything special. In 2013, he was absolutely a top 3 PG. But he hasn't played nearly as well since then.

It's not meant to be a "omg Parker sucks, bench his ass" thing. There are just a lot of great PGs in the league right now. It's not like any of those guys I named are scrubs. I just completely disagree with the notion of "Spurs are one of the few teams with legitimate title chances, so Parker must be one of the best PGs in the league still". Parker hasn't consistently played like a top 5 PG since 2013. If you want to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt because of injuries or the Spurs having success, then go for it...but don't try to act like ESPN is being unfair for not being as generous.
Hahahahahahaha it's April 2nd now bro. Ty Lawson, GOAT trolling.

[SASdynasty!]

Why does the media insist on sucking point guards' dicks all the time? PG-led teams don't win anything.
2014 Spurs:

All-Stars (as voted by NBA coaches) - Tony Parker (PG)
All-NBA Players - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Scorer (Regular Season) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Assists (Regular Season) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Scorer (Playoffs) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Assists (Playoffs) - Tony Parker (PG)
Called the MVP of the Spurs by Pop, Duncan, and almost all professional analysts - Tony Parker (PG)

[Leetonidas]

2014 Spurs:

All-Stars (as voted by NBA coaches) - Tony Parker (PG)
All-NBA Players - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Scorer (Regular Season) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Assists (Regular Season) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Scorer (Playoffs) - Tony Parker (PG)
Leading Assists (Playoffs) - Tony Parker (PG)
Called the MVP of the Spurs by Pop, Duncan, and almost all professional analysts - Tony Parker (PG)

:cry but his RPM sucks :cry


:lol sorry, had to