Reply With Quote
Westbrook over Parker is laughable. Rose over Parker, for this year, is also laughable. Rose shouldn't be considered for anything after missing so many games and the Bulls record in those games.
Hollinger wrote an article detailing his All-NBA and awards votes. For Spurs fans, the most interesting part of the article is how he scoffs other media members who are voting for Parker. (Personally, I think his main target for criticism is David Aldridge, who is giving a Parker an All-NBA First Team vote.)
Here's what Hollinger says about giving the nod to Chris Paul on the All-NBA First Team:Here's Hollinger's explanation about going with Russell Westbrook on the Second Team:Point guard is more interesting. There's been a surge of interest in Tony Parker, largely because the basketball media just can't handle the idea of an ensemble cast winning a ton of games. San Antonio has three stars and a bunch of good players around them; I'm not sure why it shocks people that they could win this way. But somehow everybody thinks it could only happen if Parker became a superduperstar. Alas, San Antonio's success doesn't make Parker better than Chris Paul, who has both galvanized the Clippers under his leadership and ranks second in the NBA in PER (player efficiency rating, my rating of a player's per-minute effectiveness).And, finally, Hollinger on giving Parker a Third Team vote:Again, the sympathies for Tony Parker and Steve Nash are mostly "story" votes; Westbrook outranks both in PER and has been a total ironman, playing every game and for nearly 36 minutes a contest. Derrick Rose is the other contender here, and would be an easy call if he'd been healthy all season. Alas, he simply hasn't played enough games -- his 8.2 EWA, for instance, only ranks 37th in the league even though he has a top-10 PER.And now we get to Parker at the point. While he falls short of Westbrook and CP, he's pretty easily been the league's third-best point guard this season -- again, once we account for Rose missing half the season. He was one of only three point guards to have a double-digit EWA (I suppose you can guess the other two), and the Spurs' record obviously speaks well for his contributions. Additionally, Parker had strong plus-minus numbers despite his team having a very strong bench.
First of all, I don't really care about awards. Secondly, I think that Chris Paul is the best PG in basketball, so honoring him over Parker isn't that big of a deal.
That said, I think Hollinger's logic is pretty flawed. Currently, the Spurs are a true ensemble cast but that wasn't the case for the entire season. After Ginobili went down, the Spurs basically had Parker, a creaky Tim Duncan and a bunch of unproven and/or underwhelming parts. There was a stretch of games where Parker was as valuable to the Spurs as CP3 is to the Clippers and certainly as valuable as Westbrook is to the Thunder.
For the six-week stretch of games that ended at the All-Star break and included the Rodeo Road Trip, the Spurs were 17-5 with Parker doing as much heavy lifting as any player in the league. For the last two months, it's somewhat fair to say Parker has just been a part of an ensemble cast but to be condescending about his entire season is just wrong, IMO.
And Westbrook over Parker partly because he "outranks him in PER" is a weak argument considering that Westbrook's PER is less than one point higher (22.6 to 22.1). Does Hollinger really thing PER is so perfect that it is accurate down to the decimal point?
On top of that, Parker annihilated Westbrook in one-on-one matchups. Westbrook's assists dropped from 8.2 per game last year to 5.4 this season ... yet he remained one of the most turnover prone players in basketball. He scores more than Parker but he also uses a ton more possessions. Westbrook is a really good player but, especially after you factor in the Spurs passing the Thunder in the standings, I don't see how you give him the nod over Parker since it's not like Westbrook doesn't have a lot of talent around him as well.
IMO, if you are going to give Parker the Third Team, it has to be CP3 and Derrick Rose ahead of him. I just don't see the case for Westbrook over him. Tbh, I see more of a case for Steve Nash than Westbrook.
Westbrook over Parker is laughable. Rose over Parker, for this year, is also laughable. Rose shouldn't be considered for anything after missing so many games and the Bulls record in those games.
hollinger
All he talks now is that how "natural" that the Spurs with big 3 and young good players would win.
If I get a chance to meet him, I would only ask one question to shut him up: How many games do so-called experts and his formulas think the Spurs would win?
If you project Spurs to barely make playoff or even miss it, you sort of trash the Spurs then. That's perfectly fine, since it's all one's opinion. BUT you have to give out the credit at the end of season like now.
Instead, what he (and other experts) do is trash the Spurs then because the Spurs is not good anymore (in their opinions), and still trash the players like Parker now since the Spurs is always good.
It's all BS. You can't just get two ways.
It's one thing to personally glorify a player and give your reasons why to vote for him, it's another thing to try and convince other people (media?) to not vote for a specific player. It didn't even remotely look like he was justifying it. That's just straight up pathetic. And that's not even considering his bull reasoning.
I'm just pissed that I didn't bet at 30-1
I agree with the general notion that an MVP vote for Parker is a story vote. But the All-NBA team selection rationale is nonsense. You have to put CP3 and Nash ahead of Parker (I think Rose is overrated), but Westbrook is clearly a lesser player. PER rewards inefficient volume shooting, so it's hardly surprising that Westbrook's is higher.
Speaking of Hollinger and Tony Parker:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188820
Thats just ty analysis meets hubris. "My model doesn't explain these variants so I am going to just blame the variant instead of review the model."
Chris Paul. biggest in basketball.
Can't stand watching him "play" basketball. All he does is go out there and constantly play the refs looking for calls. It could b all tied up in game 7 of the playoffs and cp3 is still falling up and down the court looking for ing foul calls. Just play the game.
Good memory. How could Hollinger look at Parker's career and think last year was the fluke season?
And did Hollinger predict Manu would come crashing down to earth again or did he stop doing that a few years ago?
I would usually agree with you straigt-up about CP being the best PG in the league. But I have to wonder how even he would have handled that stretch, especially with all those road games. They're two different players, with two different styles. And I think it may be a little easy to give a slight discount towards Tony's vs CP's - even for us. Maybe I'd still give Paul the edge, but it's a much closer thing in my mind than it might have been in years past.
If you look closely, Hollinger says that Tony might be the "glaring exception" to the rule. In other words, he admits that Parker could have another exceptional year (which he has), while all the others wouldn't.
parker deserves MVP. without him this year the spurs wouldn't even be in the playoffs. instead, we're #1 in the west, and we could potentially become #1 in the entire league.
if that isn't worthy of MVP, i don't know what is. if you're just gonna give it to the guy who has the best stats, then it shouldn't be called the MVP award.
parker first.
second on my list would be CP3.
The truth is, any MVP vote that isn't for LeBron is a story vote. Either because you like the other player's story better, or because you have so much distaste for Lebron's story. (And to be fair, he hasn't really tried to win people over, narratively speaking.) But statistically, there is really only one choice this season.
That said, I think his analysis is fairly spot on for CP3. He is the best PG in the league, and he's won the Clippers a lot of games. When you look at that roster and take into account how underwhelming their veteran additions (Butler, Billups (even though he was good before he got hurt)) have been, he's really taken over and led that team somewhere. On top of that his stats are better than TP.
Westbrook is pretty overrated IMO. Incredible talent, but easily baited into personal grudge matches against the opposing point guard and his shooting really declines against good teams.
Westbrook FG% vs. lottery teams: .505 (Parker for comparison: .484)
Westbrook FG% vs. playoff teams: .411 (Parker: .476)
I hope this article is taped on Parker's locker.
not a big deal IMO
If westbrook was a spur we'd all be happy with Hollinger's decision.
lol oh goody
IMHO there is a major problem looking at Parker average PER.
It has been obvious this season that Parker takeover when the team needs it and that he is happy to take a back seat when he can.
Moreover, considering the Spurs have the best offense in the league, I am not sure where who Parker should take the missing PER points from.
Obviously, the Spurs offense can't get much better.
Would it be good for the team if Parker started dominating all games as he did with Manu out? I don't think so. So what the point looking if he has a 22 or 25 PER? Any extra basket he would score is an open 3 not made.
Last edited by mathbzh; 04-25-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Hollinger is way too obsessed with stats to judge a player's true value to a team imo
I can understand CP3 over Parker, but putting Westbrook above him is a slap in the face. First of all he is not a point guard. Regardless of how his coach lists him in the lineup, he simply is not. We might as well throw Lebron into the discussion as he is a much better facilitator than Westbrook. Second of all, Parker annihilated him in their head to head match ups.
To me Parker and CP3 should be the top two MVP candidates in the league, and I would probably give the nod to CP3 at this point. He took a non-playoff team and led them to a 4 seed this year. He transformed that team similar to how Nash did when he arrived in Phoenix in the middle of the past decade. You can not say he was not extremely valuable to that franchise. Take Lebron off the Heat or Durant off the Thunder and those teams still might make the playoffs. Take away Tony Parker or CP3 from their teams this year and they are both in the lottery.
I'm looking forward to Parker vs Westbrook in the playoffs. I thought Tony outplays the guy in head to head matchups. It's been cool to watch those two guys compete against each other.
There are a lot of reasons Westbrook shouldn't be listed above Parker but "he's not a point guard" ain't one of them. That's the kind of thing people said about Parker not too long ago. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
