Tony Parker and his Ceiling

[Brodels]

The bold parts, read em again. This is exactly why you shouldn't use them in an argument. I was just pointing out your flawed reasoning.

You can never prove anything when predicting how a player is going to play in the future. You can't prove that Duncan won't average five points and five rebounds next season just like I can't prove that Rasho won't put up forty and twenty. You make an argument and support it. Just because an argument can't be proven doesn't make it a bad argument.

You must not have read my argument correctly. I wasn't saying anything about any other season other than THIS season. Tony struggled mightily with his shot early in the season. Somehow, he came out of it to raise his fg% to a career high (and top 5 in all point guards if I recall correctly). He did this by reducing the number of jumpshots he took as a percentage of his total shot attempts. That's all I was saying or implying.

If he gave up on his jump shot this season, I'm even more concerned. Whatever your argument was, and perhaps I misunderstood it, I think we can both agree that Tony hasn't improved his perimeter shooting over the course of his NBA career. In my mind, that's a good indication that he's unlikely to improve his perimeter game by leaps and bounds in the future.

I said that you said:
"It's clear that he is never going to be a better playmaker."

You actually said:


Which is why I didn't quote you directly, and I just paraphrased you. I thought you implied his playmaking wasn't going to get better (thus mentioning it as an argument in a topic with a le of "Has Parker hit is ceiling?").

Saying that a player's playmaking skills won't improve a little bit and saying that a player won't be among the game's great playmakers are two different arguments.

So then why has he hit his ceiling?

I'm not saying that he won't improve at all. I just think that most of his significant growth could be done. I think it's possible that he's reached his ceiling or he's close to it. I don't think it's a certainty. And I certainly don't think that small, incremental patterns of growth mean that he's exceeding the ceiling that's been suggested.

Nash never was in the top 5 for MVP voting until this year. What, 9 years in the league?

Answer me this: Is Nash really that much better of a player now than he was last season or two season ago? I say no. Nash found himself in a situation that allowed him to take maximum advantage of his skills. You don't really believe that Nash would have been the league MVP if he would have stayed in Dallas, do you?

Before you assume what the stats are, you go look for them. You post them. I know what you'll find. Tony is doign quite well in all areas except assists. But I would argue this is situational, being dependant on Tony's team. You will disagree because it wouldn't support your argument. What's the point?

Just for farts and giggles:
Whose YEAR 4 numbers are these

YEAR TEAM G GS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OFF DEF TOT AST STL BLK TO PF PTS 
99-00  DAL    56 27 27.4 .477 .403 .882 .60 1.60 2.20 4.9 .66 .05 1.82 2.20 8.6

That would be the 31 year old mvp Nash.

Those are interesting stats, but they don't show that Nash wasn't a good playmaker at age 31 and then became a good playmaker all of sudden. For one thing, Nash didn't have the ball in his hands as much then. He didn't play as many minutes. And he didn't have the freedom at that point to do what he does now. Does that mean that he would have been the Nash we know now with more playing time? Not necessarily, but those stats don't show that Nash was any worse as a playmaker than he was two seasons later.

Nash has always had pretty good playmaking ability. Even in those days, he found open guys that many other point guards wouldn't have found.

Tony being a top notch point guard doesn't mean he has be in that group.

No, but if he wants to be a great playmaker he does.

I don't this is the type of thing that can really be predicted.

Sure it is. Anyone can make a prediction about anything, and people will be correct a certain percentage of the time.

It's a legit argument. The argument that Tony is going to be the best point guard in the league is a legit argument. Nothing can be proven.

I belive the Spurs front office disagrees with you. Tony has a contract to prove it.

What the front office thinks really doesn't have much to do with the argument, because the front office could be wrong. They certainly expected more out of Malik Rose when they gave him a long term deal. I think it's possible they expected more out of Rasho when they gave him a long term contract. They expected more out of Barry this season when they gave him a four year deal. They expected more out of Jaren Jackson when they gave him that contract after they won a championship.

And it's possible that the front office doesn't expect a whole lot more out of Tony. The going rate for a very good point guard in the NBA is within the range that Tony was given. Tony was already a very good point guard going into the summer, and you really don't know that the front office gave him a contract expecting him to improve a whole lot.

And it's possible that they do expect that. It might even be probable. But that doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Look at the examples above.

But it is his biggest weakness (along with FT%). We'll see if he can improve.

I hope he does. I'm not very confident that he will.

[stéphane]

Isn't Tony improving every year since he's been drafted?
What is the exact point that would just stop that right now?
PG is one of the position where you can improve your playmaking every day if you're not too proud and if you're smart.

[NCaliSpurs]

You can never prove anything when predicting how a player is going to play in the future. You can't prove that Duncan won't average five points and five rebounds next season just like I can't prove that Rasho won't put up forty and twenty. You make an argument and support it. Just because an argument can't be proven doesn't make it a bad argument.

But with something like "Parker is never going to utilize his speed better", it is an argument which has no grounding in anything other than opinion, on both sides. Your original argument was, "Tony is utilizing his speed to the fullest potential, he isn't getting faster, so he must not be getting better since his game is predicated on speed. Correct me if I am wrong.

My hunch is that he can still learn to change of pace a little better, and can learn to get into the lane without having to necessarily give up his dribble.

But like I said, the argument is shaky at best on both sides. There isn't anything empirical to back this up.

I think we can both agree that Tony hasn't improved his perimeter shooting over the course of his NBA career.

We can agree that his shooting isn't better, though Timvp has pointed out an improvment in his form.

I will say that he has improved significantly in SCORING, which is something our team needs as much as a good shooter.

And I certainly don't think that small, incremental patterns of growth mean that he's exceeding the ceiling that's been suggested.

I think improvement by definition means that he has passed a ceiling. A ceiling is fixed. If Tony Parker has small incremental improvements in his playmaking, every year for the next 5 years, he will be the best point guard in the game.

Those are interesting stats, but they don't show that Nash wasn't a good playmaker at age 31 and then became a good playmaker all of sudden.

But they do show that Parker is better than Nash was at the exact same point in their careers. If Parker doesn't get better then I'll be extremely surprised, because he can stand to improve a lot.

[SouthernFried]

I think BRODELS and BOUTONS first 2 posts were some of the most insightful I've seen. Great points on both of them.

As far as TP hitting his "ceiling...I think it's entirely up to him.

A lotta people stagnate after a certain point because they stop trying to improve. They are either happy with their game, or just get tired. Some are unwiling to make the effort to change aspects of their game.

But, some aint.

TP may not get quicker, but, if he works at his game...he may not have to.

I know guys can improve in their 20's, and even in their 30's...cuz I've seen it happen.

TP may not get quicker...but, he can get stronger. He CAN improve his shot, if he really wants to. He CAN become an even better ball handler and assist man. He's not gonna get any taller...but, he can become even more effective.

If TP is smart, he is learning all the time from this game...and will use that "veteran" knowledge to improve court awareness and game dynamics. I would almost always take a wily, knowledgeable veteran...over an inexperienced, athletic youngster.

However, I think TP's speed is gonna be around for quite a while, barring injuries. So, he has plenty of time to work on other aspects of his game.

He can become better, and doesn't have to settle for his current abilities as his "ceiling."

"IF"...he's focused enough, smart enough, and dedicated enough to do it.

[spur219]

Relax. Tony is not even in his prime yet. Most players in the NBA start peaking at age 28 and he is only 23. He will get better the fact is that he is still learning the game in it's entirety. So relax just wait till he gets over the age of 25 and start seeing the real Tony.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Can you imagine is TP improves dramatically within the next 2 or 3 years! we could end up with 3 bonified superstars that actually have team chemistry for a period of about 3 to 4 years!