A good analysis (and I appreciate your taking the time to do it). One thing I try to keep in mind (when talking about TP) is the fact that he plays with TD. Assists, given the offense that SA runs, should come in bunches for a quality PG paired with TD. In this respect, I would expect to see TP's APG improving as he learns to see the floor better. Damn--I don't expect the point to score every night, but I do expect him to dish effectively even when shooting poorly. If his APG is staying roughly the same (and it appears to be pretty stable) I would hope to see a decline in turnovers (i.e., a better APG/TO ratio). The best example of improvement in this area I can think of lately is Jason Williams (check his ratios for the past few years).I would put Nash as much better, Marbury and Kidd as slightly better, and Snow as about the same player from age 22 to 28. I will do a better study to see how much the rest of the pg's changed, and give overall stats on this.
Bottom line, if TP doesn't improve much on his 5.5/2.39, I don't see him being worth max PG dollars. Should Manu improve as advertised, we just don't need to depend as much on TP to score.
More assists, less turnovers por favor--dude ranked 38th on the ratio last year.
Last edited by Iron Giant; 10-10-2004 at 01:09 PM.
We would so suck without Parker.
You can about clutch play, but we wouldn't even be in those close situations without Tony.
Anyone wanting to let him go must let us know whom they would want to replace him and his impact and how much they would cost.
Who said I wanted to let him go? If he'll take 60, sign him now. At that price he's a steal given what he does for the team currently.
My point is in illuminating the area I feel he most has to improve: a 2.30 ratio doesn't make for a max PG contract. If a PG gets that for a team, it's because he has to carry the scoring load (aka Starbury). That just isn't the case here...
Unfortunately the market determines contract levels, not ratios.
Either give Tony close to the max now or match a max offer next summer.
Or let him go....
The reason you do the extension now is to avoid a larger contract later. There will be likely be some team next offseason that wants/needs a young, established, improving PG like TP. To avoid a Spurs match, they will make a front-loaded max or near-max offer.
Or if you don't want a big payroll, you let TP walk. I don't think Spurs fans are going to like that move very much.
That's only true in a contract year. What the Spurs offer right now, stupidly or not, is entirely up to them to choose. If Tony walks, it'll be hugely unpopular.Unfortunately the market determines contract levels, not ratios.
To me, as much as everyone likes Parker, it's not inconceivable that Pop doesn't view him as the Spurs PG of the future. That a low offer may be deliberate knowing that Parker and his agent won't accept. Pop has always wanted a playmaking PG, a guard in the Stockton, Kidd mold. Parker is a scoring PG, potentially a gifted scoring PG but it's very doubtful he'll be a very gifted playmaking PG. Pop may view a potentially great scoring PG with average playmaking skills a good fit for what he wants his team to be. Then again maybe not.
Pop has a system and he likes his players to fit his system. He's refered to Udrih as having Stockton-like abilities. It could be that Pop wants to see how he develops this year and to decide whether Udrih for the next 4 years at $1 million or so might be better than Parker at $10 million, using the limited shekels Holt gives him in other areas.
If Parker leaves the lemmings will be diving over the cliff. At least those lemmings that are still left and didn't dive when Derek Anderson or Steve Jackson left. I trust Pop knows what he's doing. If Parker stays great. If he doesn't the Spurs will still be a contender for the le.
If Pop didn't have any reservations, and the numbers being tossed about are as reasonable-appearing as everyone believes, I think he'd be signed already. This means either they're either a) leveraging him a bit to save a few pesos or b) the scenario you presented is true (they'd rather have a PG in the historical sense of the word). I think a combination of the two is likely true--they'd prefer someone in a pure PG mold, but for the right money he'll most certainly do.
Regardless, failure to establish an effective plan for Tony's replacement (if that's the intention here) is going to bite them. If they don't sign him now, and the other options don't pan out, they'll be punished for it when he goes restricted next year. Even if he doesn't improve, more than a few teams will drop max sheets on him. That being the case, I hope the dopey buggers sign him up now. Gambling at the PG position, these days, is a really stupid thing to do.
Afew other pg's improvement:
Bdavis went from a 13ppg player to 22ppg at 25 today, with about the same mpg and the same fg%. Rebounds have been about 4 throught his short career so far. Assists have been up and down, between 6 and 9 from year to year.
Conclusion: Scoring at the same percentage, but went from being a role player scorer to a go-to scorer, significant improvement. Takes too many shots, though.
Cassell: Was the same scorer his whole career in terms of fg%, but went from 15 ppg to about 19 with added minutes. Productivity increased more markedly with assists, able to go from role player minutes to starter minutes and doubled assists averages. Shoots a crazy good fg%.
Conclusion: With added minutes was able to produce proportionally more, came closer to allstar caliber.
Francis: The same player from age 23 to today (27). PPg, rebounds, assists all the same, and fg% actually went DOWN.
conclusion: Stayed the same.
A. Miller
Started playing at age 24!? With increased minutes, after his rookie year his scoring went from 11ppg to 15, but dipped slightly from year to year FG% has been about .45 the whole time, as has his rebounds. Assists DECREASED after peaking at age 26.
Conclusion; Slight improvement in some areas, slipped in others, about the same.
Stoudamire: His best scoring years were from age 23-25, then decreased! This is explained by fewer minutes after those years. Inconsistent trend in fg%. Assists went down with fewer minutes as well.
Conclusion: Stoudamire regressed generally from his early production!
Mcinnis: Went from betwen 5-7ppg to about 12 with added minutes. fg% stayed about the same with added shots.
Conclusion: slight improvement.
Damon Jones: from age 23 to 28, about the same player down the line.
Conlcusion: stayed the same.
Billups: Scored about 12 ppg until he was 26, then went to 16ppg with slightly more minutes. fg% rose slightly on average from his early years to late years. Assists usually slightly above 3 most years, between 4-5 the last 2. Rebounds went up slightly with minutes.
Conclusion: Improvement with minutes, slight improvement overall.
Bibbly: Scoring went up a point or 2 each year from age 21 (13ppg) to 28 (18ppg). FG% stayed about the same, and assists peaked early at 23 (8apg) then went down to 5 every year after! Everything else about the same, with the same minutes every year.
Conclusion: Became a better scorer, but his assists have suffered for it. Counter to the popular perception, probably about the same to slightly better.
Jason Terry: Same player after his rookie year, from age 24 to 27 19ppg. Increased minutes from his rookie year.
Conclusion: Other than rookie year, about the same.
Payton: From 24 to 28 had his best fg%, and from age 25 and up handled big minutes, and increased production from that. His fg% went down with increased minutes after age 28.
Conclusion: With added age, was able to handle greater minutes and thus more productivity.
Fischer: With increased minutes went up from 5 to 11 ppg. FG sucked badly mostly early, and improved slightly with age.
Conclusion: slight improvement.
L. Hunter: Increased minutes, increased points, peaked about 28 like the others.
Now, Tony's stats the last 3 years:
Went from 9ppg to about 15 the last 2 years. Assists went up from 4 his first year to 5 this year. Fg% went up from .41 to about .46, then back to .44. Rebounding slightly better last year than the 2 years before. Slightly more minutes this year.
Here some general conclusions I can make from reviewing the little data I collected here.
1) Player's increased productivity correlates with increased age up 28 or so years old, but also just as much on greater playing time; the scoring pg's with around 16-22ppg usually play 33-38, and up to 41 mpg. (tony averaged 33 and 34 the last 2 years).
2) Players around Tony's current age, from age 22-28, tend to increase their scoring, some slightly and some greatly, with just a few staying the same. There is a slight increase usually in assists as well.
3) Though not stated in the above data, from reviewing these pg's, the best scoring pg's either :1) Shoot 3's very well (bibby, Nash), 2) Shoot well in general(Marbury, Cassell, Nash), or 3) Just take alot of shots(Arneas, B Davis, Francis). Unless tony is one of the first 2, we don't need him just throwing up a bunch to get numbers.
4)Obvious perhaps, but this data verifies the conclusion that as players get more experienced, they are able to produce for longer stretches of a game, and with added age from 22 to around 30, many are able to be durable enough to play added minutes and not break down.
Conclusion regarding Tony's improvement:?
If Tony goes from 33-34 minutes to 38 or 40 and can be durable, he will likely increase his ppg from 15 to 19 IMO, with a similar increase in apg. If not, with the same minutes he is likely to get about the same shots per game, and thus the same productivity.
However, as stated before, productivity is correlated with increased playing time except for just 1 or 2 players (Nash, for instance), and that had to do with a change in team offensive philosophy IMO.
I doubt Tony with change his scoring more than 1-2 points a game unless he can handle more minutes. Can his body and playing style handle those minutes? That is the key to his further development as a scorer and passer.
The data I looked at shows that players increase their productivity with age, but when they do so, it is often going from 20-something minutes to 30-something, and Tony already has those minutes for the most part; he needs more shot attempts to get more points now. If he gets another 3 shots a game, which would only be justified if he shoots better than whomever he is taking shots from, he will add maybe 2 points (generous considering his fg%.
If Tony is actually able to become a better fg% shooter (like Cassell and Nash), or is able to handle getting to the line more (like Francis and AI), then he could become a better scorer. Something to remember, though; scorers like B Davis gets WAY MORE SHOTS than tony is ever going to get (Baron shoots more for his team than Timmy!).
Also as an asside, I thought I would put Tony's fg, 3pt fg, and adjusted fg% next to the pg's that most would consider the top 15:
Tony: .44 .32 .48%
Kidd .38 .32 .43
marbury .43 .32 .46
nash .47 .40 .53!
francis .40 .29 .43
arneas .39 .37 .46
bdavis .39 .32 .46
billups .39 .38 .45
cassell .48! .39 .51!
bjackson .44 .37 .51!
A. Miller .45 .18? .46
J. Williams .40 .33 .49
j. Terry .41 .34 .47
bibby .45 .39 .51!
We can't assume these guys all get equal attention from defenses, or that playing style doesn't come into account here. But in general, Tony has a great fg%, adjusted; he is 5th!, 6hth in regular fg%. PPg, he is in the top 50 in the league, with only some of these top 10 pg's also in the top 50.
With Manu also shooting more next year (likely), unless Tony shooting improved dramatically, he doesn't really have a chance to score 19-20ppg IMO, which considering his skill set, is the only way he is deserving a max contract (he's not going to double his assists next year).
I'm happy with what he's scoring now--bump up the APG and drop the TOs a bit, and he's max-worthy to me.With Manu also shooting more next year (likely), unless Tony shooting improved dramatically, he doesn't really have a chance to score 19-20ppg IMO, which considering his skill set, is the only way he is deserving a max contract (he's not going to double his assists next year).
The question here, I think, is what kind of PG Tony is going to be and, more importantly, what kind of PG the Spurs want on the team.
Tony is not going to turn into an assist machine. He might slightly improve, but it will probably not be dramatic.
His assist to turnover ratio sounds bad, but between 3/1 and 2/1 is the average. He is on the lower end of that, but when you consider how small the difference is between that, really, its not that big of a deal.
Antonio Daniels leads the league in Assist to Turnover Ratio; how important can it really be!
top 10 assist to turnover ratio:
ad
Damon Jones
reggie miller
j. Will (the first potenitally even top 15 pg)
j. Mcinnis
Nash (top 5)
eric snow
gary payton
earl boykins
rafer alston
Assist to turnover ratio, unless out of control, is too sensitive of an indicator to take very seriously; we are talking a .6 atr difference between #10 and #38.
I wish people would post under their previous screen names that they originally had or at least introduce themselves to everyone and the change they made.
Who the are you?
Straight up. Pop doesn't know how to recruit a point guard. He wacked off to the thought of having Jason Kidd and he failed.
He then thought he made some stellar deals last year and came up empty.
He again is taking a stupid risk by signing Beno.
The Spurs should lock up Parker. Players win games not the damn Coach.
How do you think he got Parker in the first place? Moron.
I think he's trying to say that Parker was drafted, not recruited as a free agent.How do you think he got Parker in the first place?
pop did not want him
rc convinced him to look at him more
and then they picked him
Duff,
The short bus has been waiting outside for 10 minutes. Please exit immediately and go home.
It WILL be true if they don't get a deal done now, which is the situation you seem to be advocating.That's only true in a contract year. What the Spurs offer right now, stupidly or not, is entirely up to them to choose.
Bottom line, I think Bibby/Nash money is the floor for Parker. And these guys have no rings and don't happen to be the fastest point guard in the league at 23.
I still haven't heard any names of folks who are going to get us 18 pts and 7 assists in the playoffs for less.
Waiting.
The short bus? Are you the driver?
You know, teams have won championships without getting 18 and 7 from their point guards in the playoffs. Maybe a player of Tony's caliber isn't available, but that doesn't mean that Tony should be maxed out simply because he happens to be better than what's available.
The Spurs probably aren't going to find a better perimeter defender out there than Bowen. But that doesn't mean that he should get paid whatever he wants, and it doesn't mean that the Spurs can't win without him.
And come to think of it, Rasho was the best available center last summer. I didn't hear you saying that the Spurs should pay Rasho whatever it takes to pry him away from Minny. You don't overpay a player simply because a better player doesn't happen to be available at any given time.
The Spurs would contend without Tony. It's better if he stays, but the Spurs will do fine if he goes. They'll likely have a little bit of financial flexibility and would be able to add a couple of decent parts over the next couple of seasons. One of those parts could be a point guard. And we don't know what Beno is going to do. He could be a bust...but then again, he could tear it up.
I will be thrilled if the Spurs and Tony come to an agreement this week. But if they don't, it won't mean that the Spurs won't contend in three years. It could allow them to be even better. It's possible. We simply don't know what could happen.
I hope that each side is willing to discuss a fair offer this week. It would be great to have Parker around, but I still believe that fiscal sanity is the best policy.
Ok, ANYONE else who would replace the 18 and 7.You know, teams have won championships without getting 18 and 7 from their point guards in the playoffs.
Waiting.
Brodels is reaching now.
Dude, they need to resign Parker. Straight up. Its a proven fact that top free agents don't want to come here.
Probably nobody could. But you act like "18 and 7" is the magical number that will bring a championship. Maybe the Spurs can win without that kind of production. It could even turn out that the Spurs end up better off with a couple of other support players instead. Say, for instance, that Manu blows up this season. A solid distributing point guard and another quality swing player or decent big could certainly put the Spurs over the top.
The fact remains that the Spurs might not necessarily win with what they've got. And what if the Spurs got "17 and 6" production from their point guard. Is that simply not good enough?
I really want Tony to stay, but the Spurs would be better off without him if he gets a max dollar deal next summer and he doesn't improve a good bit this season.
Why am I reaching? Prove that its impossible for the Spurs to win a le without Parker.
Of course they can win a le without him. But... You have to replace him first and just like Chump Dumper asked you...........
Name a replacement that is going to get you 18 and 7?
No, that's enough to get eliminated in the second round. You propose going backwards from there.I guarantee you they couldn't.Maybe the Spurs can win without that kind of production.And how do you propose to pay these solid and quality players?It could even turn out that the Spurs end up better off with a couple of other support players instead. Say, for instance, that Manu blows up this season. A solid distributing point guard and another quality swing player or decent big could certainly put the Spurs over the top.And they might not win with your cheap plan either. So what?The fact remains that the Spurs might not necessarily win with what they've got.Which one? For how much?And what if the Spurs got "17 and 6" production from their point guard.Better off in that they won't have a starting point guard or a guy who can score 18 and 7 in the playoffs. Sorry man, point guards are hard to find in this league. I can't believe anyone with knowledge of the Spurs between Strickland and AJ can discount this so easily.I really want Tony to stay, but the Spurs would be better off without him if he gets a max dollar deal next summer and he doesn't improve a good bit this season.
Go back to Vinny Del Negro and Greg Sutton if you like. I refuse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
