ESPN: Ranking the NBA's Point Guards

[ElNono]

Our Tony at #8...

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12...-30-dante-exum

[spursparker9]

Rondo at 19th

Choke "best leadership" Paul at 1

[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.

[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.

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/rp...RPM/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/rp...RPM/position/1

12th-Mills
17th-Cojo




80th-Parker

(Just PG ranking of DRPM)

[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]

choke getting high ranks for leadership

[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 You honestly think if you replace Parker with guys like CP3 or Lillard that the Spurs wouldn't still be competing for a le?

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

[cantthinkofanything]

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

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

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 le 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 les, 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!" bull . For every bad game you could show me of CP3 in the playoffs, I could point out 2 more games of Parker ting 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 le 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 le 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 les, 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!" bull . For every bad game you could show me of CP3 in the playoffs, I could point out 2 more games of Parker ting 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 "

[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 "

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.