Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
Um.. Manu has a +/- that's 87 points better than Tony despite Parker having logged over 500 more minutes on the floor with Duncan. :rolleyes
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
Um.. Manu has a +/- that's 87 points better than Tony despite Parker having logged over 500 more minutes on the floor with Duncan. :rolleyes
Notice that you totally avoided what I said.
Defenses would fear us if only we had Jamaal Tinsley.
Tony's good, he's fine. But I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't trade him in two seconds for Chris Paul. And I bet Pop would too.
Gee, and you think he wouldn't trade Manu in two seconds for Dwyane Wade?
Quit betting what Pop would say. You haven't backed up one thing you claim he thinks.
I'm still waiting on your quote from him saying he's unhappy with Tony's passing.
You'd trade him for Jamaal Tinsley. Admit it.
Wow you think Paul is that much better than Tony? That's quite a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, Paul is pretty much the only young point guard I'd rather have. Though Deron Williams is tempting. I think Calderon's going to be a pretty special player in a couple of years too, but he's already older than Tony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
There was a Ludden article a couple months back to that effect and Tony even said after a game that Pop wanted him to pass more. CIA Pop denied it afterward. And you haven't backed up anything you've said with any credible stats.
What are you talking about? Chris Paul, taking into account his potential, is a top 3-5 point guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
Are you actually admitting that any player could be that much better than St. Manu?
Just admit you hate Tony Parker, and we can all move on.
11-0.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
Kori already posted the stats relevant to the "much worse than last year" argument.
Do you need them repeated to you like a three year old?
So what's the problem? The Spurs have the second best young point guard according to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
Not all five players on the court can be named Manu.
Back when you said Tony was playing his best? Make up your mind.Quote:
There was a Ludden article a couple months back to that effect and Tony even said after a game that Pop wanted him to pass more.
I don't hate any Spur. It's sad that this debate has devolved into this petty name-calling bitchfest. Everyone gets all defensive because I said Tony was a bit better last season than this. If you disagree it's your burden. The numbers are on my side. I'm done with it.
Let's see if there's even the remotest chance we can get this thread back on topic...
So, how bout that Jacque Vaughn, huh? :spin
Quote:
I don't hate any Spur. It's sad that this debate has devolved into this petty name-calling bitchfest. Everyone gets all defensive because I said Tony was a bit better last season than this. If you disagree it's your burden. The numbers are on my side. I'm done with it.
Summarized as,
"I lost the arguement so Ill accuse others of namecalling, you meanies win"
I didn't lose anything. I know I'm right. If y'all can't read statistics or refuse to then I can't make you.
:lol
You totally got owned by Shoogar and Chump just admit you were wrong and move on.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b...S.20e932c.html
January 21, vs. Sixers. Not December, but still "a couple months ago" as I said. Can it.
Yes, and because you can list statistics, you automatically feel that you have a superior argument which is infallible to the statements or opinions of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
You're bitching about our PG play while we're on a 12 game winning streak and he's nursing an injury.
You're upset about one player's assist total on a team that has never, for one second, in the course of the past decade, been concerned about a single stat of a single player. This might be due to the fact that the Spurs are a team that transcends individual statistics in favor of team greatness, but who knows.
You're criticizing an all-star point guard putting together one of his finest seasons with an evolving jumpshot.
Most of all, anyone who responds to your criticisms without statistics are summarily dismissed by you as worthless and beneath a person of your intellect to offer rebuttal against beyond more stats.
And you wonder why this thread degenerated? Gee, it beats me too.
The whole thread started with me making a joke about Vaughn's mentoring skills because I wrote that Tony and Beno were both a bit better last season. But everyone took it serious and ran with it. I don't understand why people here operate in such extremes. If I wish Tony passed more it means I "HATE" Tony. If I say he was a bit better last year it means I think he "sucks" this year. Everything is black/white on this board. It's ridiculous how you people are being.
Apparently Tony is supposed to just get better and better every year until he retires.
I think aaronstampler is correct, strictly in a factual sense. You can demonstrate that Parker's production this year is inferior compared with his production last year. And I believe statistics are very useful - but I would like to make two points about statistics as they relate to the topic...uh, I mean, as they relate to Tony Parker. (Poor Jacque, a thread about him has nothing at all to do with him - the life of a journeyman)
My points:
1) Reading statistics is useful and beneficial, and so is observing on-court events. However, there are illusions and omissions in the statistical record, and also are there illusions and omissions in the observation of on-court events.
Statistical illusions relative to the "assist" exist when a team plays for fewer possessions; they exist when a team attempts to exploit matchups rather than run a set offense; they exist when a team elects to run an offense through a post player; they exist when the official scorer is generous or stingy when interpreting what an assist is; they exist when a teammate fails to convert a wonderful pass, and they exist when a player delivers a pass to teammate and that teammate makes a very difficult shot. There are other "assist" illusions that I don't care to take the time to list, and there are still other "assist" illusions that I'm not even aware of - but to be sure, a player's ability to produce the assist is subjected to many factors beyond his ability to pass the ball. I would even say that, because it is a statistic more reliant on interpretation than any other basic statistic (points, rebounds, steals, blocks), the assist is the most suspect statistic of the basic five.
But as I said before, observing on-court events has its own set of illusions and omissions. If for instance, I watch the Spurs play the Pistons twice in November (the only two regular season meetings of the year), how will that be useful in assessing the Spurs-Pistons Finals matchup in June? Months have passed. Players are banged up. More than likely, the two teams involved look very different in June than they did in May. Rotations are shorter and more stable. No doubt it would be more useful to compare the two teams' performances over the length of the season and the playoffs, but we're only observing on-court events, not the record. Again, continuing with my hypothetical scenario, we may recall how the Spurs played against the Mavericks compared with how the Pistons played against the Bulls in each team's conference final, but what does that tell us? The Pistons breezed through the Bulls and the Spurs struggled with the Mavericks, OK - but how does that provide any insight into the upcoming Finals? Detroit will be playing a tougher team than the Bulls, while the Spurs will be playing an easier opponent than the Mavericks, based upon records. Of course, we're only observing game action and not referencing the record, so in that scenario we don't know that Dallas had a better season than Detroit.
The point is, game and series prediction and player evaluation isn't easy - but it's a lot harder when unable or refusing to make use of one set of tools. Season ticket holders may not care a whit about stats and bloggers may not get to see more than a handful of games per year. In that case, stat-blind season ticket holders and bloggers without cable are at a disadvantage while trying to figure out how a season will play out - or if their team's second-round draft pick is a promising player.
2) A decline in performance is not particularly noteworthy if it's an insignificant decline.
aaronstampler pointed out, correctly, that Parker has shown decline in several categories this season. In 2006, Parker averaged 18.9 points on 54.8% from the field and 70.7% from the line. He also averaged 5.8 assists against 3.1 turnovers.
This season, he is down across the board save free throws: 18.4 points on 51.8% with 5.4 assists. Decline in stats, sure - but what has this decline cost the Spurs? How many losses does .5 points, .3 assists, and .03 percent in shooting account for? (Considering how many factors are involved with the outcome of a ball game, my own guess is much less than one loss) If these meager declines contribute significantly to Spurs losses, does his improvement free throw percentage (78%) and turnover average (2.6) not offset at least some of that?
Now if Parker is averaging 14 points on 44% with 4 assists to 2 turnovers, maybe then we have something to discuss. But for me, Parker has been his usual self plus a few more bumps and bruises. In fact, his virtually identical performance compared with last year is notable considering the fact he has taken a few more lumps.
Watch the games? Absolutely. Examine the record? Absolutely. But always remember not to put too much faith into either one - the records and the naked eye can both tell lies.
All you need to do is a search on posts by aaronstampler with the word Parker. They speak for themselves.
Of course...aaronstampler will list stats and stuff and ignore the bigger picture...I posted stats compring to another Spurs' great and he ignored it totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
I posted a statistical comparison to Parker and James Silas (who was revered by many Spurs fans. Parker compared quite favorably to him with better asisst numbers and Parker's career has really just begun....and this was over Silas' total career. On top of that Silas played in an area of the Spurs' run and gun where many NBA teams averaged over 100 points and just a few.
Another reason TP's assists are lower is because of the offense the Spurs run which alot Tim....if the Hornets had a player like Timmy and to some extent Manu...I bet Paul's assists would be lower as well.
Actually...other than assists....if some of the other Spurs were more consistent this year....TP's assist total would be higher too. Parker is in the same class as Chris Paul.
Here are stats from this year.
Chris Paul:
PPG 17.1
RPG 4.1
APG 8.8
SPG 1.89
BPG .02
FG% .431
FT% .808
3P% .314
MPG 36.7
To's 2.59
Tony Parker:
PPG 18.4
RPG 3.3
APG 5.5
SPG 1.07
BPG .07
FG% .519
FT% .779
3P% .438
MPG 32.7
TO's 2.60
Parker's FG% is loads better that Paul's...and most of this is playing 4 min fewer than Paul per game.
You want stats aaronstampler....here's one that IMO is more important than individual stats. This is a team sport so I will post the team's averages.
Spurs 22.3 asst/gm
Hornets 18.2 asst/gm
Would I be disappointed if the Spurs had Paul instead of Parker? Not really.
Would I trade Parker for Paul? No way.