NCaliSpurs,
It is very nice of you to provide FALSE OR ERRONEOUS information just to support your argument. I guess your level of credibility has dropped below zero in this forum.
For those not aware of the PC metric, it is a metric created by Bob Bellotti. The most important part of the metric is the Value of Ball Possession (VBP). The VBP is the league’s average points per possession. The formula is:NCaliSpurs said:
Parker:
24 33.9 135-335 .403 15-56 .268 67-94 .713 .30 2.40 2.80 3.5 .92 .13 1.96 2.10 14.7
PC EFFECTIVE:14.2
Ginobilli:
ulative Playoff Statistics
24 0 27.5 71-184 .386 28-73 .384 56-74 .757 1.20 2.60 3.80 2.9 1.71 .38 1.50 2.60 9.4
PC EFFCTIVE: 8.2
Points Created = (Points) + ((Rebounds + Steals + Blocks) * VBP) + (Assists * (2-VBP)) - ((Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers) * VBP) - (Personal Fouls * (VBP * .5))
Most people don't have access to the information to calculate the VBP, and they assume a value of one (1) (i.e., one (1) point per possesion). In this case, the VBP degenerates into the Efficiency metric that you can found on nba.com (except that efficiency does not considers personal fouls as negative points).
Points Created = Positive Points Created - Negative Points Created
Points Created = (Points + Rebounds + Steals + Blocks + Assists) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers + 0.5 * Personal Fouls)
The PC scores for Manu and TP are:
Please note that there is a significant statistical consistency between the Tendex and the PC metrics. The relative difference between Manu and TP using both metrics is:Code:Manu Ginobili: Games played: 24 Total minutes played: 660 Total Points Created: 240 Points Created/game (PC/g) = 10 Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.364 Tony Parker: Games played: 24 Total minutes played: 814 Total Points Created: 228 Points Created/game (PC/g) = 9.5 Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.280
In other words, Manu's contributions to the team were ~30% higher than TP's independently of the statistical metric used.Code:Tendex/48min (|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (20.49 - 15.63) / (15.63) = 0.311 PC/min (|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (0.364 - 0.280) / (0.280) = 0.300
The difference between what NCaliSpurs posted and reality is so gross, that I suspect that he didn't even plug the numbers in the formula and just made the PC scores up to support his argument.
-R
Actually, I didn't make them up, look at them on the NBA website.
Don't be a .
I mistakenly put the regular season pc effective.
Everybody makes mistakes. Just because my opinion is different from yours, it is no reason to treat me with such disrespect.
Ok, fair enough. We all make mistakes.I mistakenly put the regular season pc effective.
-R
BTW
Why don't you talk about regular season PC? Parker was much better than Manu this year for the entire regular season (69 for Gino) games. Even for the stretch of games where Manu was not hurt, Parker played much better.
Parker had a very inconsistent playoffs. He was either great or he was non-existent.
But Parker's great games carried us through when we needed him, and he was indispensable.
Anyway, I have said my piece in this thread.
I liked the statistics courses I took in college, but I am almost tired of statistics after reading Rick Von Braun's posts.
Just kidding, Rick. Seriously, the stats are important to me, too, but you can't put a statistical measure on heart. Tony Parker has more heart than anyone else on our team...even more than Stephen Jackson. He may have up and down games, but he's 21! He was only able to legally buy alcohol a matter of weeks ago. And he is being criticized for being an up and down player?!? Wow, pretty harsh criticism for a guy (kid) who was the starting point guard on a championship team (and the second-youngest one at that!).
The bottom line is that Tony Parker stepped up in big games, much like Stephen Jackson did. Remember our big third quarter runs in the playoffs that sealed series wins for us? That was Tony Parker giving us the lead and extending that lead, not Duncan, not Robinson, and not Ginobili. While Manu is certainly an exciting young player who made some valuable contributions, we would've still probably won the le without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.
I love Manu's hustle, knack for a big steal or tip-in, and energy. He has a lot of upside and I look forward to watching him develop as a Spur. He does not have Parker's potential though - not even close. As T Park num 9 said, it's great that we have both of them.
Dammit this is basketball it's supposed to be fun. You mofos got me wondering when I have to sit for the next Fing exam.
Admiral, I totally agreed with what you were saying until this. This leads me to believe you think that the Spurs could not have won without him. IMHO I think TP would not be considered as good a player if he were not playing with the Spurs. Do you mean that if Kidd was on the Spurs and TP was on the Nets, the Nets would have won? Yes, he was a factor in a team effort. As was Manu, SJax, Speedy and everyone else. You are right that they probably would have won without Manu. But the same goes for Parker. There would have been someone else there.we would've still probably won the le without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.
Just my opinion. :pc
There are PLENTY of minutes to keep three guards happy if Kidd comes aboard.
Kidd 34 minutes
Parker 32 minutes
Manu 30 minutes
Those are a good number of minutes for a team expected to play 7 preseason games, 82 regular season games, and between 16 and 28 playoff games.
If you don't agree, remember that this past year we had a six guards with four getting substantial minutes in rotation.
The odd man out is Jack who can share minutes with Bowen or play guard if one of the other guys have a cold shooting night. Jack would be also be nice insurance in case a guard goes down with an injury. But then again, Jack may not even be back.
This Parker vs. Manu discussion is ridiculous.
The Spurs needed all of their rotation to be the Champs. If they didn't have Manu, the Spurs would've had to play Steve Smith and that would not have looked very pretty, to say the least. But yes, the Spurs needed Parker, too, probably more because I agree that the bottom line is indeed scoring. I would prefer it if the tendex and similar statistics would split the scoring away from the other stuff.
Concerning the future, who really knows? Both Parker and Manu have great potential. Can we agree on that?
I brought them up only after some posters brought half-baked versions of them to favor their argument.I liked the statistics courses I took in college, but I am almost tired of statistics after reading Rick Von Braun's posts.
Hmm... ok... now that you say so it is clear to me that TP has more heart than Tim Duncan, David Robinson, SJax, Manu, Malik... anyone in the Spursbut you can't put a statistical measure on heart. Tony Parker has more heart than anyone else on our team
I strongly disagree here. Without Manu, the Spurs do not defeat the Lakers. Period. Manu was the second star in that series behind Duncan. Take that to the bank. In addition, if you need more proof, just take a look at the crunch time stats and look who is behind Duncan overall in the entire playoffs. Yes, Manu.we would've still probably won the le without Manu this year. We would not have won without Parker.
I disagree here too. We'll see what happens, since it is useless to argue. The only thing I am telling you is this. If Pop gives Manu more opportunites to be involved in the offense next year, allowing him to make decisions with the ball in his hands, watch out! You ain't see nothing yet.He does not have Parker's potential though - not even close.
Finally, I think noone can objectively dispute that Manu made significantly more contributions than TP during the playoffs. That's all.
-R
I was joking about your stats, Rick. I thought they were interesting and revealing.
I think that Parker has more heart than anyone else on our team - you can see it in his eyes. He has that killer instinct that I haven't seen from anyone else on our team except maybe Stephen Jackson. Tim is obviously our MVP, but in the waning moments of a game I would rather see Parker or SJax taking the final shot.
Betsy, I was not saying that we would not have won if we replaced Parker with Kidd in the lineup. I was saying that we could've removed Manu from the lineup and not replaced him, and we still would've won. If we had removed Parker and not replaced him, we would not have won. Rick Von Braun made a good point about Manu in the Laker series, though.
I do hope that Manu gets more minutes and more opportunities in 2003-2004. I would like to see a starting lineup of Parker/Manu/SJax/Duncan/Free Agent Big Man. Manu won't disappoint, I just think that Parker has more of an upside than does Manu. That is certainly no disrespect to Manu's game, I'm just not sure where he fits in yet. Will he be a jack-of-all-trades/utility player type of guy, or will he be a guy who eventually scores 18 ppg, grabs 6 rpg, and dishes out 5 apg?
We'll see.
Statistical analysis did not win the Spurs a le this year, and it won't in the years to come. While I like stats, and I'm especially fond of fantasy hoops, there comes a fork in the trail which separates the Bob Whitsitts of the world from the GMs of championship teams.
Parker - (I know that Pts aren't everything, but they mean alot to a sometimes stagnant Spurs offense)Finally, I think noone can objectively dispute that Manu made significantly more contributions than TP during the playoffs. That's all.
Game 3 @ Phoenix - 29pts - Win
Game 4 @ Phoenix - 19pts - Loss
Game 6 vs Phoenix - 17pts - Win
Game 2 vs Lakers - 16pts - Win
Game 5 vs Lakers - 21pts - Win
Game 6 @ Lakers - 27pts - Win
Game 1 vs Dallas - 18pts - Loss
Game 2 vs Dallas - 19pts - Win
Game 3 @ Dallas - 29pts - Win
Game 4 @ Dallas - 25pts - Win
Game 1 vs Nets - 16pts - Win
Game 2 vs Nets - 21pts - Loss
Game 3 @ Nets - 26pts - Win
Tony had at least 3 good games in every series, and even games that aren't statistically good, he would have a 8-10 point quarter that would set the Spurs up, so theoretically he had probably another 4/5 games on top of those I posted, that could be conmsidered solid. The Spurs were also 10-3 when Parker played well statistically, which is awesome considering the compe ion this year, and at times he had to carry the offensive load..
I dont even need to post other players stats, because those stats there prove that no one except the MVP had significantly more contributions in this years playoffs than Parker, and to state that Ginobili had more contributions, let alone significantly, is flat out wrong.
(Also, I am in no way trying to hate on any player of this years CHAMPIONSHIP winning squad, just trying to defend a player that is bagged on to much, and has unrealistic expectations placed on him often. For the record I have no hate of Manu, why would I, and he is my 3rd favorite Spurs to watch behind Jax and Tim)
Actually, we won this game.Game 5 vs Lakers - 21pts - Loss
My Bad.
It felt like a loss after that comeback!..
:brotha
I talked to Tango and the way he explained it to me was that since Manu isn't a starter, its more important to focus on just how well he played per minute . He also says that its easy enough to do a comparison to see if they stepped up or stepped down for the playffs by running PC's for both the reular and playoff seasons. If the Playoff scores were higher, then a player stepped up. Looking at TP's score, it would back up the fact that at times, the kid played kind of ty. .280 is pretty whack considering that he played .388 ball.NCaliSpurs,
It is very nice of you to provide FALSE OR ERRONEOUS information just to support your argument. I guess your level of credibility has dropped below zero in this forum.
Quote:NCaliSpurs said:
Parker:
24 33.9 135-335 .403 15-56 .268 67-94 .713 .30 2.40 2.80 3.5 .92 .13 1.96 2.10 14.7
PC EFFECTIVE:14.2
Ginobilli:
ulative Playoff Statistics
24 0 27.5 71-184 .386 28-73 .384 56-74 .757 1.20 2.60 3.80 2.9 1.71 .38 1.50 2.60 9.4
PC EFFCTIVE: 8.2
For those not aware of the PC metric, it is a metric created by Bob Bellotti. The most important part of the metric is the Value of Ball Possession (VBP). The VBP is the league’s average points per possession. The formula is:
Points Created = (Points) + ((Rebounds + Steals + Blocks) * VBP) + (Assists * (2-VBP)) - ((Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers) * VBP) - (Personal Fouls * (VBP * .5))
Most people don't have access to the information to calculate the VBP, and they assume a value of one (1) (i.e., one (1) point per possesion). In this case, the VBP degenerates into the Efficiency metric that you can found on nba.com (except that efficiency does not considers personal fouls as negative points).
Points Created = Positive Points Created - Negative Points Created
Points Created = (Points + Rebounds + Steals + Blocks + Assists) - (Missed Field Goals + Missed Free-Throws + Turnovers + 0.5 * Personal Fouls)
The PC scores for Manu and TP are:
Manu Ginobili:
Games played: 24
Total minutes played: 660
Total Points Created: 240
Points Created/game (PC/g) = 10
Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.364
Tony Parker:
Games played: 24
Total minutes played: 814
Total Points Created: 228
Points Created/game (PC/g) = 9.5
Points Created/minute (PC/m) = 0.280
Please note that there is a significant statistical consistency between the Tendex and the PC metrics. The relative difference between Manu and TP using both metrics is:
Tendex/48min
(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (20.49 - 15.63) / (15.63) = 0.311
PC/min
(|Manu score - TP score|) / (TP score) = (0.364 - 0.280) / (0.280) = 0.300
In other words, Manu's contributions to the team were ~30% higher than TP's independently of the statistical metric used.
The difference between what NCaliSpurs posted and reality is so gross, that I suspect that he didn't even plug the numbers in the formula and just made the PC scores up to support his argument.
A .100 drop indicates that TP lacked in some playoff games. Whether you would like to believe it or not.
DESPITE THAT, I SAY KEEP THE KID. HE WILL BE A FORCE BUT JASON KIDD IS ALREADY THERE.
Sorry I have yet to see a correlation between PC(or any efficiency formula) and winning..Probably the most accurate one is the IBM formula IMO(for superstars anyway)..since it makes team wins a part of the formula.
I see plenty of players with high PC and efficiency ratings that do not play for winning teams. Elton Brand immediately comes to mind.
The only way to see how a player impacts his team winning is to look at how much more his team wins with him than without him...Tough to do.
Webber's team seemingly never misses a beat when he is injured...
The Laker survive losing Kobe pretty well but not Shaq.
Ahem, the Spurs were a loser and a lottery team any time David was injured, prior to last season.
Conversely you would think Nowitzki is a huge impact player, and he is offensively, defensively he is a huge liability.
Anyone inclined can check the scores and stats from our series with Dallas in the playoffs, Dallas became a tougher team with Nowitski out of the lineup, They were a more efficient shooting team and a better defensive team, the games became lower scoring and the marign of victory was much closer, after the Mavs no longer had Nowitzki running away from his man on defense.
IMO the stat that shows how well a player impacts his teams ability to win games, accurately, has yet to be invented...but you pretty much just have to measure how much the team wins with him.
In 2001 we got swept and dominated by LA...in 2002 we added Tony Parker and against LA we went into the 4th quarter nearly every game with a double digit lead and actually won one game over the previous year. This year we bring back Kerr and add Manu and Jax and we became champions. Manu did play a huge role but Parker had an impact the previous year.
If you want a stat that kind of measures winning just look at the Spurs W-L record when Tony scores 20 points.
If you could combine an efficiency rating with a teams +/- in points scored VS their opponent with a certain player in the lineup you would have a pretty accurate measure of what a player is contributing.
I know the Spurs +/- with Manu in the line up was very high during the playoffs..but again you can't ignore the Spurs w-l record when Tony scores 20 points.
You said enough for me. I don't agree at all with him philosophically.I talked to Tango
Those calcs need to be adjusted for sitting on the pine when a championship was on the line.
MI, It's easy to score more points when you are shooting twice (and some times three times) more than the other players.
Just curious, but what if Tony Parker had been hurt for half a season+ his rookie year? What if he had a sprained ankle throughout and had to adjust to a team that already considered itself a le contender?
What if Manu had already gone through one year and Parker was the rookie? Would Parker being getting as many shots? Would Parker have been able to RISE ABOVE it all and still be a clutch player if he wasn't scoring 15+ points?
Bottom line is Manu makes a difference in many areas of the game when NOT SCORING and that alone shows his versatility -- someone Parker does not have yet after two seasons in the NBA.
Yes he is a good scorer, that fact is obvious.
But Manu's game is not about FLASH timvp -- the guy is fundamental and a lot more so than Tony Parker. Sure he has some weird drives sometimes -- but the guy is trying to make things happen, hes USED to getting shots. You think Tony Parker could make a huge difference taking 10 shots MAX? You think Parker could focus on other areas of the game and contribute when hes shot is OFF? So far he hasn't proven he can do so.
Perhaps Parker will eventually be a top 5 PG, but right now he isn't and he NEEDS to become a better passer, I don't care how coachable and young he is. The day he becomes a good passer and shows all the intagibles somewhat consistently is the day he becomes a great PG in this league.
Give Manu some time and more shots and you will see what he is really capable of. I agree with FIZZ, I think he could become a good scorer, along with getting 5apg 5rpg 2-3spg if he was on the right team or if he was used enough.
Manu is a PLAYER. Bottom line. Hes not just some ENERGY SMHUCK off the bench who is helping us from time to time. He is a difference maker. And I am getting the impression from some posters that without him, we would have still been champs this season or we wouldn't be much worse of a team.
Personally I disagree, without Manu and also Speedy, this team would lose to the Lakers in the second round.
Good post, Nikos.
If Parker had been injured all year long we wouldn't have won a le. Oh and Parker is barely 21.
Im saying how would PARKER react to being injured in his ROOKIE SEASON? Would he have done any better than Manu did in his rookie season if he was injured for half a season, missed training camp etc...?
When Parker was a rookie he was 19, and basically a novice to pro ball even with his Paris experience.
When Manu was a rookie he was 25 years old and a fomer Euro League MVP with extensive post season experience from around the world.
Parker is the one that drew the "best PG in the world" in the finals.
Quite a bit of difference between them.
And I'm not hating on Manu, I love Manu and you are right we don't win a le without him this year..and IMO we beat LA if we have him last year.
But that doesn't mean we win without Parker.
I don't understand tearing one Spur down to build another up, without good reason.
They both played a role in our le and we probably don't win without either of them(and a few other Spurs as well).
I hate on Kidd but you won't see me hating on a Spur that played an important role on our champion team, unless there's a reason for it.
I just don't understand that logic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote