George Hill is a PG

[will_spurs]

Spurs would have had a revamped starting lineup, depending on what PF/C they could have landed for Parker. No doubt they could have landed PF Jason Thompson, who is/was being shopped around the league by the kings, and fits the mold of a quality young athletic player who could have been plugged in next to Tim Duncan in the starting lineup.

So what you're saying is that the Spurs would have lost Parker for Thompson + Hill (since Hill wouldn't have been traded). Sounds like such a great trade!

It's pretty obvious you either hate Parker or have no basketball knowledge, or likely boh.

[TJastal]

So what you're saying is that the Spurs would have lost Parker for Thompson + Hill (since Hill wouldn't have been traded). Sounds like such a great trade!

It's pretty obvious you either hate Parker or have no basketball knowledge, or likely boh.

Essentially, yes. Two starters. Throw in a sizeable trade exception that I forgot to mention in there as well.

Sure they could have ed around for part or even most of the year and see if they can possibly land something better than that for TP (if there is a even a season) but they would have missed out on the draft pick, which is key because that is what nets them their Shawn Marion clone, Chris Singleton. For this reason, the spurs' FO should have just grew a pair and got it done.

And I know being a Parker homer has its perks around here (like feeling you're part of the "cool" crowd and all) but the team was fine with Hill taking the reigns last season & would have been fine heading into the future without the french poodle. Like I said before, using #29 on Joseph and signing a vet backup would have been more than adequate as Hill's backups. And they have both Manu & Neal who can handle the ball for short stretches. Honestly, the spurs would have been just fine.

[ChumpDumper]

lol cool crowd

You're a dip .

[FkLA]

I'm not interested enough to check your numbers, I'll assume that they're true.

Even in that case, you're dealing with very small sample sizes and not controlling for any other factors. A few obvious factors that would affect the numbers:

1. Opponents quality.

2. Opponents injuries.

3. For the 2009-10 season, the portion of the season is critical. RJ, Dice, Blair, and Bogans were new to the team. Manu was coming off a long layoff and took about half the season to round into form. Then he was super-Manu for about 25 games. Are you really going to attribute the team's success to the fact that George happened to start a good number of those games?

To just look at the Tony/George winning percentages without controlling for numerous other factors really doesn't tell you very much. See above for the team's success with Mason and Bogans.

You can argue that there wouldn't be much of a fall-off with George, but you can't establish that the team was better as a verifiable fact.

Then nothing would be a verifiable fact, because those same things could apply for anyone that says the team was better with Parker starting. But I guess we can leave it as...the team had a higher win pct with a Hill-Manu backcourt than with a Parker-Manu backcourt.

As far as the Mason and Bogans comparisons go, they are extremely flawed...Bogans averaged like 20 mpg even while starting and was a very limited player. Mason never put up the numbers Hill did and brought very little else other than shooting to the table. Hill is a far better player than either of them, theres a dropoff from Parker to Hill in terms of talent but nothing astronomical imho.

Also Manu turning into Super Manu and being arguably the best player in the league those last 2-3 months while playing alongside Hill wasnt coincedence. Even this past season, Manu's numbers had a significant e while being on the floor with Hill instead of Parker. Hill compliments Manu better, thats fairly obvious.

[Mel_13]

Then nothing would be a verifiable fact

Which was my point. Your dealing with small sample sizes and only looking at two of the ten players on the court. Amusing that you dismiss any connection between Bogans/Mason and team success, but are so ready to accept a smaller sample as proof of Hill's impact.

Hill compliments Manu better, thats fairly obvious.

Perhaps to you.

[Mel_13]

the team had a higher win pct with a Hill-Manu backcourt than with a Parker-Manu backcourt.

Actually the numbers you cited didn't say that. It was only after you selectively removed some of the 31 games (out of 55 total Hill starts) that you arrived at that.

So you found some number of games (less than 31, which was already selected from his 55 career starts) where the Spurs had a higher winning percentage than some other group of games (which you also selected).

You have established exactly nothing as a verifiable fact. At best, you have shown some correlation, but have done nothing to prove any causation.

[FkLA]

Which was my point. Your dealing with small sample sizes and only looking at two of the ten players on the court. Amusing that you dismiss any connection between Bogans/Mason and team success, but are so ready to accept a smaller sample as proof of Hill's impact.

Its easy to dismiss the comparison when you consider the quality of players, the minutes they played and the role they played in the team. George Hill didnt just happen to be there like Bogans or to a lesser extent Mason...he was playing big minutes and was the 2nd-3rd best player on the team during that stretch. He put up 16 ppg and 4.5 apg, not far off from Parker's averages.

Perhaps to you.

Its obvious to anyone without a Parker-bias. Again, even this past season Manu's number had a significant e when sharing the court with Hill. Hill doesnt need the ball in his hands at all times like Parker to be effective, that gives Manu more opportunities to handle the ball. Its not a coincidence.

[FkLA]

Actually the numbers you cited didn't say that. It was only after you selectively removed some of the 31 games (out of 55 total Hill starts) that you arrived at that.

So you found some number of games (less than 31, which was already selected from his 55 career starts) where the Spurs had a higher winning percentage than some other group of games (which you also selected).

You have established exactly nothing as a verifiable fact. At best, you have shown some correlation, but have done nothing to prove any causation.

I only cited 31 games, because 12 other games that season were a Tony-Hill backcourt. Those 12 games are irrelevant when discussing if the Spurs are better with Hill starting in place of Tony.

The other 12 games he started in his 1st and 3rd seasons combined I didnt include, which I mentioned. And to be honest the 7 he started his rookie season arent even that relevant, he made big strides his 2nd season and maintained that level this past season. He's a significantly better player than he was as a rookie. As far as this past season goes, if I remember correctly theres like 2 games were he started in place of Manu so it was a Tony-Hill backcourt. Then theres the tanked Lakers game thats another one of his starts. That leaves like 2 games that arent being taken into account, the numbers shouldnt change much.

[Mel_13]

Its obvious to anyone without a Parker-bias.

This is where you really fail. You have nothing left and resort to "well you're biased in favor of Parker". I've dealt with nothing but facts and haven't said a word about the Hill's worth as a player in a vacuum or compared to Parker

Again, even this past season Manu's number had a significant e when sharing the court with Hill. Hill doesnt need the ball in his hands at all times like Parker to be effective, that gives Manu more opportunities to handle the ball. Its not a coincidence.

Here is a perfect example of what I tried to explain to you above. First off, I'm not aware of a source to get Manu's stats when paired with Hill as opposed to when he's paired with Parker, but that's really irrelevant.

Let's assume that Manu's individual stats are better with Hill than with Parker. You have concluded that Hill makes Manu better. An equally plausible conclusion, and one well supported by watching the games, is that Manu dominates the offense more with Hill and thus increases his personal stats.

Once again, correlation is not causation. Do you even understand that basic concept?

[Mel_13]

I only cited 31 games, because 12 other games that season were a Tony-Hill backcourt. Those 12 games are irrelevant when discussing if the Spurs are better with Hill starting in place of Tony.

The other 12 games he started in his 1st and 3rd seasons combined I didnt include, which I mentioned. And to be honest the 7 he started his rookie season arent even that relevant, he made big strides his 2nd season and maintained that level this past season. He's a significantly better player than he was as a rookie.

Exactly, thus leaving you with an incredibly small sample. Then you adjusted that small sample even more by eliminating some games where the team wasn't fully healthy.

You're left with something less than 31 games and you've done nothing to control for any number of other factors that influence whether the team wins or loses a game.

My point, one more time, is that you can draw no meaningful conclusions from such a small, uncontrolled, sample.

[FkLA]

This is where you really fail. You have nothing left and resort to "well you're biased in favor of Parker". I've dealt with nothing but facts and haven't said a word about the Hill's worth as a player in a vacuum or compared to Parker

tbh I was going to be a smartass and write "Perhaps just not to you." after the Parker bias sentence, because I would agree that you havent come off as a Parker fanboy. I forgot to write it though apparently.

Here is a perfect example of what I tried to explain to you above. First off, I'm not aware of a source to get Manu's stats when paired with Hill as opposed to when he's paired with Parker, but that's really irrelevant.

Let's assume that Manu's individual stats are better with Hill than with Parker. You have concluded that Hill makes Manu better. An equally plausible conclusion, and one well supported by watching the games, is that Manu dominates the offense more with Hill and thus increases his personal stats.

Once again, correlation is not causation. Do you even understand that basic concept?

It was in another thread, dont really feel like looking for it but that stat is legit tbh. TJastal probably has the link and quotes saved though, post them when you log on .

Never said Hill made Manu better btw. I said he compliments Manu better, as in his game compliments Manu's game better. Which is obvious from watching the games and is supported by the numbers as well.

[DesignatedT]

You're right. Manu's #s are better when Hill was on the court compared to Tony, and that's what you keep going back to. What about this upcoming season when Manu's #s are higher with, lets say Neal on the court compared to with Tony. Does that mean the Spurs are a better team with Neal in the SL then Tony? By all means No.

Forget stats for a second... Do you honestly think that Manu. who has already been hurt 4 straight seasons can stay healthy and maintain playing at a high level when taking on significantly more responsibilities offensively? It's a simple answer really... No, he can't. and Hill is not a good enough player to carry this Spurs squad if Manu is having an "off" night, is on the bench, or is missing the game completely due to injury or rest.

I agree that Hill complimented Manu's game better and I'm sure you will see a jump in Manus stats when he is on the court with Neal or Anderson or whoever not named Parker. So why don't we bring Manu off the bench again.... Lets him handle the ball more and play with guys who compliment him better then Tony and it also lets Tony do his thing in the Starting Lineup. That would be my preference and something not possible if only Hill was here. He isn't good enough to carry a team on his own without Manu on the court with him. You're putting all your eggs in 1 basket with Ginobili under that scenario, and at 33 years old isn't really a wise move.

[FkLA]

Exactly, thus leaving you with an incredibly small sample. Then you adjusted that small sample even more by eliminating some games where the team wasn't fully healthy.

You're left with something less than 31 games and you've done nothing to control for any number of other factors that influence whether the team wins or loses a game.

My point, one more time, is that you can draw no meaningful conclusions from such a small, uncontrolled, sample.

He showed he compliments Manu's game better the past two seasons. He showed that the Spurs dont miss a beat when hes inserted into the starting line-up in place of Tony. On top of that the individual numbers hes put up when inserted have not been far from what Tony has. If you should be scoffing anyone and asking them to verify their comments, its the Parker fanboys that claim the Spurs wouldve been a disaster if Hill had been handed the reins. There is absolutely nothing that supports that.

[Mel_13]

tbh I was going to be a smartass and write "Perhaps just not to you." after the Parker bias sentence, because I would agree that you havent come off as a Parker fanboy. I forgot to write it though apparently.

Fair enough

It was in another thread, dont really feel like looking for it but that stat is legit tbh. TJastal probably has the link and quotes saved though, post them when you log on .

Never said Hill made Manu better btw. I said he compliments Manu better, as in his game compliments Manu's game better. Which is obvious from watching the games and is supported by the numbers as well.

You could just as easily say that playing next to Hill places greater demands on Manu than playing next to Parker.

I see that DesignatedT basically said everything I was going to say. No need to duplicate.

[Mel_13]

He showed he compliments Manu's game better the past two seasons.

No, he hasn't.

[FkLA]

You're right. Manu's #s are better when Hill was on the court compared to Tony, and that's what you keep going back to. What about this upcoming season when Manu's #s are higher with, lets say Neal on the court compared to with Tony. Does that mean the Spurs are a better team with Neal in the SL then Tony? By all means No.

Forget stats for a second... Do you honestly think that Manu. who has already been hurt 4 straight seasons can stay healthy and maintain playing at a high level when taking on significantly more responsibilities offensively? It's a simple answer really... No, he can't. and Hill is not a good enough player to carry this Spurs squad if Manu is having an "off" night, is on the bench, or is missing the game completely due to injury or rest.

I agree that Hill complimented Manu's game better and I'm sure you will see a jump in Manus stats when he is on the court with Neal or Anderson or whoever not named Parker. So why don't we bring Manu off the bench again.... Lets him handle the ball more and play with guys who compliment him better then Tony and it also lets Tony do his thing in the Starting Lineup. That would be my preference and something not possible if only Hill was here. He isn't good enough to carry a team on his own without Manu on the court with him. You're putting all your eggs in 1 basket with Ginobili under that scenario, and at 33 years old isn't really a wise move.

Parker wasnt going to be traded for a bag of chips, ideally a solid frontline player wouldve comeback to help Manu, Tim, and George with the offensive load. So yes honestly I wouldve rather put my eggs in that basket instead of the one the Spurs chose. And we have one year left to make a last stand, preserving Manu isnt really as important as it was in the past. He did just fine this past season playing career high minutes btw, best player for the Spurs in the playoffs despite the freak injury (which had nothing to do with fatigue). Breaking your nose also has nothing to do with fatigue or your body breaking down.

[DesignatedT]

Would love to hear who the solid front line player would be that you keep taking about.....? All reports I saw had no mention of a "solid" front court player. If there was a trade that brought back a 18ppg 10rpg bigman then I'm sure the Spurs might have pulled the trigger on a deal like that. So what bigman are you talking about?

Sure it was a kind of freak accident, but he still got hurt and fatigue definitely takes a factor in recovery time of the injury and how fast it heals.

[FkLA]

You could just as easily say that playing next to Hill places greater demands on Manu than playing next to Parker.

I see that DesignatedT basically said everything I was going to say. No need to duplicate.

No, not when Hill is putting up individual production thats not far off from Parker's. He just happens to be able to get his offense in ways Parker cant, Parker needs the ball in his hands at all times or he becomes useless. Hill's game gives Manu more touches and allows him to turn into Super Manu as you labeled him...and since when is that a bad thing?

Would love to hear who the solid front line player would be that you keep taking about.....? All reports I saw had no mention of a "solid" front court player. If there was a trade that brought back a 18ppg 10rpg bigman then I'm sure the Spurs might have pulled the trigger on a deal like that. So what bigman are you talking about?

Sure it was a kind of freak accident, but he still got hurt and fatigue definitely takes a factor in recovery time of the injury and how fast it heals.

Someone that couldve had a more significant impact than a 19 yr old rookie will probably have, as we prepare for a last stand. Thats for sure. Those were not the only deals that were going to be offered btw, it wasnt a necessity to trade Parker before the draft. I wouldve been ok with waiting for the right trade.

And no, fatigue had nothing to do with the healing. He fractured his hand, it doesnt matter if its the first or last game your going to miss some time with that injury. A broken nose has nothing to do with fatigue either.

[Mel_13]

FkLA,

Two different discussions are getting mixed together here.

1. Your position (as best I can summarize) that the Spurs would have been just fine with Hill at PG and the assets they would have received from trading Parker. I've got no issue with that. It's all speculation and opinion and you're en led to yours.

2. TJastals claim that it was a verifiable fact that the Spurs played better with Hill than with Parker. This is where I joined the discussion. You can point to trends and correlations all you like, but it is absolutely NOT a verifiable fact. There's not nearly enough data and the data that does exist is subject to various interpretations.

Enjoy debating point #1 with anyone interested enough to discuss that issue.

[DesignatedT]

No, not when Hill is putting up individual production thats not far off from Parker's. He just happens to be able to get his offense in ways Parker cant, Parker needs the ball in his hands at all times or he becomes useless. Hill's game gives Manu more touches and allows him to turn into Super Manu as you labeled him...and since when is that a bad thing?

Manu has been "Super-Manu" before with Tony on the court as well. It's not like that stretch of games when Hill was in the starting lineup was the only time Manu was extremely effective.

[DesignatedT]

FkLA is fine. Seems like he knows what he is talking about and has his opinion. TJastal is a dip who doesn't merit a response.

[Mel_13]

No, not when Hill is putting up individual production thats not far off from Parker's. He just happens to be able to get his offense in ways Parker cant, Parker needs the ball in his hands at all times or he becomes useless. Hill's game gives Manu more touches and allows him to turn into Super Manu as you labeled him...and since when is that a bad thing?

It's not, it's just not sustainable for 82 games and a postseason. What I saw this year, with Manu starting next to Tony, is that Manu was able to "rest" during the game (Tim's been doing that for years). He was never able to do that coming off the bench and he can't really do that next to George. Manu/George on a regular basis will cause more wear and tear on Manu than Manu/Tony on a regular basis.

Anyway, I have no interest in the George/Tony debate. I like both players and the point is really moot now anyway.

[Mel_13]

fkla is fine. Seems like he knows what he is talking about and has his opinion.

+1

[FkLA]

Manu has been "Super-Manu" before with Tony on the court as well. It's not like that stretch of games when Hill was in the starting lineup was the only time Manu was extremely effective.

Manu's game has evolved imo, he doesnt have the same athleticism or quickness that he had in 05'. He's become the best distributing SG in the league. Him being effective is more dependent on having the ball in his hands alot more now.

It's not, it's just not sustainable for 82 games and a postseason. What I saw this year, with Manu starting next to Tony, is that Manu was able to "rest" during the game (Tim's been doing that for years). He was never able to do that coming off the bench and he can't really do that next to George. Manu/George on a regular basis will cause more wear and tear on Manu than Manu/Tony on a regular basis.

Anyway, I have no interest in the George/Tony debate. I like both players and the point is really moot now anyway.

He's been fine the past two seasons tbh. Placing the blame on fatigue for a broken nose and a broken arm during a freak play is stretching it imo. And its only for one more season, let Manu go all out for a last stand. Theres no reason to preserve him.

[FkLA]

Yall s are allright too btw, definitely not Parker fanboys. Its been a good discussion.