Westbrook is a goner

[Venti Quattro]

what? Regular season stats do count. Duncan outscored Parker in both the regular season AND playoffs in 2007.

[jag]

When you have a PG constantly trying to force the tempo, constantly making re ed passes, and constantly chucking re ed shots that lead to long rebounds, it's impossible to be a good defensive team. PG oriented teams and bad defense are intertwined.

So we're no longer talking about quality PGs? Are we now talking about why having Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis as a starting PG is a bad idea?

[Kyle Orton]

So we're no longer talking about quality PGs? Are we now talking about why having Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis as a starting PG is a bad idea?

"Quality PGs" do everything I just mentioned. It's by far the most selfish position in the NBA. John Stockton was the king of forcing re ed passes.

[jag]

Having a star player at the PG position is a bad thing?

Yes

You can only be a star PG is you're the #1 option? I need to know your rules before we get into this...

what? Regular season stats do count. Duncan outscored Parker in both the regular season AND playoffs in 2007.

This argument was never about having a PG as the #1 option. You said having a star player at PG is a bad thing. You asked how many star PGs have won championships in the past 10 years so I showed you multiple teams that have won championships and made it to the finals with star PGs.



I'm not sure how you continue to think that having a star player at

[Kyle Orton]

This argument was never about having a PG as the #1 option.

The post about Duncan and Parker was pointing out how moronic it was to say Parker was the 2007 Spurs #1 offensive player. Do you now admit Duncan was?

[hater]

Westbrook is a gunner

[jag]

When you have a PG constantly trying to force the tempo, constantly making re ed passes, and constantly chucking re ed shots that lead to long rebounds, it's impossible to be a good defensive team. PG oriented teams and bad defense are intertwined.

"Quality PGs" do everything I just mentioned. It's by far the most selfish position in the NBA. John Stockton was the king of forcing re ed passes.

This argument could just as easily be made about the PG, SG and SF position for any star player.

[Kyle Orton]

When I think "star" I think a team's star player. You apparently think role player who averages 10 points and 5 assists while getting benched in favor of Eddie House at key moments. Difference of opinions I guess.

[jag]

The post about Duncan and Parker was pointing out how moronic it was to say Parker was the 2007 Spurs #1 offensive player.

Was parker not a star player?

[Kyle Orton]

Was parker not a star player?

I'll answer that after you admit Duncan was the 2007 Spurs #1 offensive player.

[jag]

When I think "star" I think a team's star player. You apparently think role player who averages 10 points and 5 assists while getting benched in favor of Eddie House at key moments. Difference of opinions I guess.

Jason Kidd and Chauncey Billups don't count now?

You can only be a star PG is you're the #1 option? I need to know your rules before we get into this...

I asked you to define "star" player because i knew this argument would turn to . Half of the teams that have made it to the Finals in the past 10 years have done it with star PGs. I fail to see how having a star PG is a detriment to a team.

[Kyle Orton]

Jason Kidd and Chauncey Billups don't count now?

No, the Billups who averaged 16.9 PPG on 39.4% shooting and 5.7 assists doesn't count. Billups wasn't a "star" in 2004. Once he became a "star PG", Detroit stopped going to the finals.

[jag]

I'll answer that after you admit Duncan was the 2007 Spurs #1 offensive player.

I'll do that as soon as you admit Tony Parker and Billups were star players.

[Kyle Orton]

I'll do that as soon as you admit Tony Parker and Billups were star players.

2007 Parker was a "star" player. 2003 Parker, 2004 Billups and 2005 Parker weren't star players.

[jag]

No, the Billups who averaged 16.9 PPG on 39.4% shooting and 5.7 assists doesn't count. Billups wasn't a "star" in 2004. Once he became a "star PG", Detroit stopped going to the finals.

Like the very next year?

[jag]

2007 Parker was a "star" player. 2003 Parker, 2004 Billups and 2005 Parker weren't star players.

So you think Parker was a detriment to the team?

[Kyle Orton]

Like the very next year?

Billups didn't become a "star" till 2006. Look at his numbers if you think I'm making this up.

[Kyle Orton]

So you think Parker was a detriment to the team?

No, cause he's a scoring PG. I think assist first (not pass first) PGs are detrimental moreso than anything else. A PG dribbling around being an assist like Nash, Paul, Westbrook, DWill, Stockton etc. are hurts the team.

[jag]

Billups didn't become a "star" till 2006. Look at his numbers if you think I'm making this up.

Would you like to go by playoff numbers or regular season numbers?

[Kyle Orton]

So you think Parker was a detriment to the team?

Btw, you can go ahead and admit Duncan > Parker offensively in 2007 now.

[Kyle Orton]

Would you like to go by playoff numbers or regular season numbers?

Regular season since it's a bigger sample size.

[jag]

No, cause he's a scoring PG. I think assist first (not pass first) PGs are detrimental moreso than anything else. A PG dribbling around being an assist like Nash, Paul, Westbrook, DWill, Stockton etc. are hurts the team.

So having a star PG on your team isn't a bad thing?

Having a star player at the PG position is a bad thing?

Yes

[jag]

Regular season since it's a bigger sample size.

So sample size lead you to determine the regular season is more significant than the playoffs?

[Kyle Orton]

So having a star PG on your team isn't a bad thing?

Parker is a SG in a PG's body. He's an exception. There are always exceptions. He's a complimentary star player, not the true "star" of a team.

[Kyle Orton]

So sample size lead you to determine the regular season is more significant than the playoffs?

No, but fluky stats can be put up over a 20 game period.