Reply With QuoteNice job, Rick.
NCaliSpurs said:
Tony is not an all-star, but he is a top ten point guard. Even the very sparing Pop says so.
Manu is not anywhere consistently near that.
You are blinded by Manu's flashes of brilliance, though I don't blame you....In the playoffs, Manu was much more helpful to the team that TP. This is a fact backed up by statistical data; not hype, not personal bias, not flashes of brilliance.MI21 said:
That is such an incomplete stat....
The Tendex metric is an integral metric that takes into account points, rebounds, steals, assists, FG%, FT%, blocks, PF, etc. It is similar to efficiency or points created, and it is an excellent metric to measure integral contributions to the team. The advantages of these type of metrics is that they take into account the entire stats sheet, not just some stats hand-picked for the purpose of wining an argument.
The following is the Tendex/48min of all the shooting guards and point guards in the playoffs. (SOURCE)
This kind of stats are invaluable to compare performance of players playing in the same position, and also to measure the contributions that each player makes to the team.Code:Shooting Guards MyTendex/48min (min 23.0 min/gm) Player Team Tend/48 1- pierce,paul Bos 30.96 2- bryant,kobe LAL 26.67 3- iverson,allen Phi 26.47 4- finley,michael Dal 22.58 5- christie,doug Sac 21.32 6- wells,bonzi Por 20.78 7- ginobili,emanuel San 20.49 8- jackson,jimmy Sac 20.31 9- hardaway,anferne Pho 18.79 10- hamilton,richard Det 18.59 11- kittles,kerry NJN 17.31 12- jackson,stephen San 16.75 13- szczerbiak,wally Min 14.62 14- peeler,anthony Min 12.14 15- miller,reggie Ind 10.36 16- giricek,gordan Orl 9.11 17- johnson,joe Pho 4.54 ** Avg for Position = 16.24. Point Guards MyTendex/48min (min 23.0 min/gm) Player Team Tend/48 1- stoudamire,damon Por 28.81 2- hudson,troy Min 27.75 3- kidd,jason NJN 27.55 4- jackson,bobby Sac 27.44 5- davis,baron NOr 27.34 6- nash,steve Dal 25.10 7- delk,tony Bos 24.75 8- vanexel,nick Dal 24.02 9- tinsley,jamaal Ind 22.90 10- stockton,john Uta 22.87 11- billups,chauncey Det 22.00 12- payton,gary Mil 21.27 13- bibby,mike Sac 19.84 14- snow,eric Phi 18.71 15- fisher,derek LAL 18.34 16- cassell,sam Mil 16.04 17- parker,tony San 15.63 18- armstrong,darrel Orl 14.60 19- marbury,stephon Pho 13.82 20- wesley,david NOr 11.09 ** Avg for Position = 18.44.
Please note that small differences in the scores are not significant to compare performance. The game still has intangibles that can not be meausred by the the stats box. For example, the top 5 point guards in the playoffs have a Tendex difference of 1.5 points. This difference is not significant enough to argue who was the best PG in the playoffs. In other words, please spare me stupid comments, such as, the metric is flawed because Stoudamire was ranked #1.
Nevertheless, big differences (in the order of 5+ points) do indicate significant differences in the level of contribution by the players. This is one of the reasons why these type of metrics are heavily used by coaches, scouts, and professional people that evaluate talent in the league. 100% of the NBA teams make heavy use of them, so do not underestimate the perspective they offer.
It is quite clear that despite Manu being not involved in offense, he managed to make important contributions to the Spurs. Manu ranked 7th among all the SGs that played in the playoffs, and his level of contributions are similar to Finley, Christie, Wells, and J. Jackson contributions to their teams. His Tendex rank is also above average.
It is also quite clear that TP did not ranked among the top 10 PGs in the playoffs, and his contributions to the Spurs were lesser than Manu's. His Tendex rank is also below average.
It's amazing that I have posted here (several times) integral and complete statistical metrics that take into account all the facets of the game, and they have been clearly ignored just because they don't help some people's arguments. I guess this is an excercise of futility.
-R
Nice job, Rick.
TOUCHE!
Amazing piece of information, Rick. Tnx a lot!!!
2- bryant,kobe LAL 26.67
2
Rick those are some nice stats, I have come up with some cutting edge stats myself..
Observe:
PPG in the playoffs:
Tim Duncan 23.8
Tony Parker 14.7
1st leading scorer Tim Duncan
2dn leading scorer Tony Parker
Now I realize it's kind of the in thing to undervalue scoring, and I realize Tony's over all shooting statistics for the playoffs are not that great, unless you compare them to just about anyone else on the team besides Tim Duncan...but let me just remind you guys once again...
What was SpurFans major complaint following two asskickings at the hands of LA in the post season?
Was it for more efficient players?
Was it for more rebounding?
Was it for more passing?
What exactly did we ask for?
Was it a secondary scorer? An athletic perimeter player and scorer capable of creating his own shot? Yes, yes I think it was.
Did Tony Parker do a magnicficent job of this for a 20 year old?
Yes I think he did.
Now in 3 of our 4 post season series...our opponents had a positional player that was an all NBA or AS caliber player...
Now which position was that?
Was it Power Forward? No, Stoudamire is good but not that good. Horry certainly isn't an AS. Nowitski is..but they kept him as far away from Duncan as possible...KMART is..in the East....and besides we know KMART, like every other player in the NBA, sucks unless he is playing with Jason Kidd.
Was it Center? No, after Shaq no no more ALL NBA caliber players.
Was it SF? No, other than Marion and Finley we did not see that many great SF's.
Was it Shooting Guard? No, in fact, most of the shooting guards we saw in the post season were not that great. Other than Kobe...
Was it Point Guard? Surprisingly yes it was..it was indeed PG..3 of the 4 teams we faced in the post season had AS or ALL NBA caliber PG's.
Following that line of thinking, which Spurs player had the toughest individual matchups for most of the post season?
Don't tell me it was the youngest player on the team and a guy still younger than most rookies..it can't be.
Now in addition to my cutting edge PPG stat I showed earlier.I would like to add another...
Spurs PPG in the playoffs:94.8
Spurs Opp: in the playoffs:89.3
Now as you can see..the Spurs clearly outscored their opponents in the post season..and it is amazing how much easier it is to win a playoff series, not to mention a le, if you outscore your opponents. It's possible to win a le without outscoring your opponents for the post season, but it is very difficult to do , not to mention stressful.
I would say that on a game to game basis, outscoring your opponent is the single most important statistic that there is.
And when you have a secondary scorer..that, while he may not shoot lights out game in and game out going up against AS's, does have big quarters or big games, usually when most needed, outscoring your opponent becomes infinitely easier.
Now that's just me, and call me silly because I haven't forgotten that as recently as a year ago we needed a secondary scorer.
Amazingly, even though Tim Duncan deserves total credit for winning this le..Amazingly enough we still needed a second scorer even with Tim Duncan, prior to Parker's emergence.
We got one..we won an NBA le.
That's how I see it..but call me simple if you like.
Stop the presses! You mean the NBA champions outscored their opponents in the pllayoffs?Now as you can see..the Spurs clearly outscored their opponents in the post season..
I guess I don't have a leg to stand on now!
Just kidding, Whott.
But I agree Tony nutted up in becoming a sold second scorer. But scoring is often look at as the sexiest stat. Scoring is important. Walter Berry, Sean Higgins and Greg Sutton agree.
But this isn't about who is the better scorer. It's about who has better all-around talent.
Tendex Shmendex. Yes, both lists look funky to me.
That Point Guard list looked so funny it is ridiculous. Tony Delk, Damon Stoudemire, and Troy Hudson in the top 5. Hahaha. If Tony was as good as he was possibly going to get, then all of those teams would gladly trade him for those players. In a second. But maybe if they see this TENDEX....haha
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
Please.
Parker played like God half the time and a below average bench warmer the rest of the time. He was up and down.
Manu never had those kinds of nights. Sorry, he never put the team on his back.
He hits big shots and makes big plays, but he is merely the catalyst for the other heavy lifters.
You guys are crazy.
Do you know what fullcourt defense is?No. How many times have you seen Parker flying out of no where to block a shot at the rim on a fast break? Manu can cover a bigger area andd wreak havoc in the open court.
Parker is extremely coachable. Pop yells at him, but Parker always responds. He also talks to Pop on and off the court more than any other player. For example, whenever they are on one of their charter, Parker and Pop discuss basketball for the first 45 minutes. Every flight, every time.What makes you say that? Pop only gets after Manu when he tries to do too much. Parker is always getting yelled at for the mistakes he makes. Parker takes it well, but the sheer number of times Parker gets yelled at should tell you something. What makes you say Parker is more coachable?
Manu, on the other hand, plays the bball he plays. That's a not a bad thing. Early in the season, Pop asked him what he was trying to do after Manu had a bad turnover. Manu responded that he plays how he plays and he can't change. Pop let him go with that because he doesn't want to change him.
BS.It's a fact that there are some Spurs that don't like Parker because he doesn't pass them the ball (sometimes on Pop's orders).
Every point guard has players mad at them because EVERY player wants the ball all the time. That's how this sport goes.
What's funny is if people can't realize the difference between talent and flash. Parker is the real deal.It's so funny how I try to bring up a subject involving Parker, and if my take is not "Parker will be the best PG in two seasons", I might have well have started a "Tony" sucks thread.
We'll find a gra area one of these days. Tony is not an all-star, and he doesn't suck. But those are the only takes you hear here, and your take is usually twisted into one ofthose two categories.
The coin is two-sided. When people don't praise Manu as the best thing since sliced bread, Spurs fans go off about how great he is and how great he will be.
If you are going to jump on a player's bandwagon, make sure you pick the right one.
Don't let the bright lights and ESPN highlights fool you.
How are we crazy?
Manu doesn't have the opportunity to carry a team on his back.
The first bench player that has the opportunity to put a team on his back and carry will be the first.
Call him a bench player, but he is getting 28 minutes a game.
Manu hasn't gotten the opportunity to do the same things that Parker has, because he hasn't earned it in Pop's eyes.
I think next year that will be a different matter. But right now we *know* Parker can carry the team for stretches. We just haven't seen that out of manu.
Like I said, Manu hits big shots. He makes big rebounds and steals.
Manu lives in the moment of games, and can play really big at big times.
But his numbers don't lie. He is still too inconsistent to be considered on Parker's level.
"Inconsistant" is the perfect word to descibe Parker.
Parker consistently played like an all-star the second half of the season (from December on).
He had troubles during the playoffs, but there was more pressure on him than anybody on that team except maybe Duncan.
If Parker had had an average Parker game over the last couple games of the finals, noone would even be discussing this.
Some people are very what have you done for me lately.
I would love to see Parker have a chance at running the show again this year, giving time for him and Manu to grow.
We'll see.
You know in the process of comparing these two players they are both undeservedly being torn down.
You really can't compare the two players, not only do they have different responsibilites but they also have different skills and athleticism.
We do them both an injustice in comparing them this way. They both played a role in us winning a le.
Parker had one primary responsibility...score to take the heat off of Duncan..he had to do it going up against the best PG's in the NBA both offensively and defensively. And he did, and he is 20 years old.
Manu is a versatile play maker, a very cerebral player and IMO a natural on the court leader. Manu's biggest contribution to our team in the post season was his defense...not expected to be his strong suit due to the fact he is an international player. Nontheless he did an outstanding job of it and contributed in many ways during key moments.
Manu is the better all around player..as he should be..Manu is a veteran and a European MVP.
Parker is a gifted player, not as good yet all around as many players in the league but he has already shown a nack for scoring that few players show at his age. Parker has already shown he can step up with tremendous amounts of pressure on him going up against top players his second year in the league.
They are both great players and it is gonna be damn shame if we end up losing either one of them while leaving a gaping hole where DROB was.
Sometimes the grass isn't always greener, stop the covetous pursuit of Kidd based on his reputation and little else..if Tony played for the Lakers or Knicks you would never stop hearing about him.
They are both great young players who have taken us from being a le contender to a champion since they have been here.
Would you want to see either of them playing for the Lakers next year?
Then he didn't play consistantly like an all-star in the second half of the season.Parker consistently played like an all-star the second half of the season (from December on).
He had troubles during the playoffs, but there was more pressure on him than anybody on that team except maybe Duncan.
I have a problem with point guards who aren't playmakers, and players who disappear _ not just play subpar, but disappear _ in playoffs games, then come back and drop 30.
Well pout, Whott.
Edit: Lol if I had known you were gonna be nice I wouldn't have been so y in this post..disregard
Geez he's 21 andh e got the job done.
He had the toughest individual assignments series in and series out in this post season. Not Duncan.
In every series he got better as the series progressed, except for the finals where he started out strong and ran into trouble when the Nets made stopping him a priority.
Go back and watch some of those later games..there are times where Parker was drawing 3 defenders.
You want to know something else? Stopping a lot of point guards was just as important as scoring on them..Not just stopping them from scoring but from passing as well.
Go look at the passing statistics of the teams we played in the post season, we played the best passing teams in the NBA and in every series we out passed them. Parker deserves a of a lot of credit for that. No he doesn't have defensive technique mastered yet but he gets in front of PG's with his speed and disrupts what they want to do.
It's insane to expect Parker to be as consistent as a veteran...especially when he doesn't always get the ball...
Kidd had some low scoring games..10 points on 30% shooting.. what's his excuse? Try something other than he doesn't play with Tim Duncan because that one is weak at best.
I'm glad you caught my typo. Obviously, I said "well put", I didn't tell you to cry by saying "well, pout!"
So does this mean you are ready to concede that you erred in advocating Kidd to SA?
Whott, I don't know if you know exactly what I've been arguing against.
I've never said Kidd is a perfect fit, or that the Spurs should get him.
What I don't like is that people actually think it's the end of the world if he does come.
I would not risk losing Manu for Kidd. But I would risk losing Parker for Kidd. But that's just my personal opinion.
So let me ask you a question..If the Bullets had offered us Chris Webber for Tim Duncan after the 97-98 season would you have done it?
Edit: and don't sweat it btw, I just like to argue..if there weren't people in favor of bringing Kidd to SA, posting this past year wouldn't have been near as much fun. I'd probably still be lurking like I did at the previous SR forum. Half my posts are sarcastic and the other half are failed attempts at humor, I'll let you decide which is which.
of course not, but that's a superstar for a superstar. What we're talking about here is a superstar for a potential star.
There's a big difference.
Plus Webber was injury prone at that time :wink
Well the truth is, that at that time Duncan was still much more of a Center than he was a true PF, Chris Webber was much more the classical PF at that stage of their careers, and arguably he still fits the mold better.
I look at Kidd VS Parker as a Superstar in the tail end of his prime VS an emerging Superstar..with about 89 million dollars difference in salary.
I am still kind of lost on what people mean when they say Superstar, to me that sounds like a designation of fame, and if that's the case Parker has already achieved that in much of the world..
Chris Webber is injury prone but he has always been injury prone. Something that should always be considered when bringing him in. I was one of the people against bringing him in for DROB. Not just because of his injuries but frankly I don't like the way he plays defense and I think he's got a mental block about playing well in big games, inspite of his talent.
Let me put it this way then...if you had Elton Brand would you trade him for Nowitski or Webber?
Think about it.
This difference, AGAIN, is that you're trading legit starts for legit stars.
All the players mentioned in your trades have accolades and were immediate stars.
Parker's only accolade is that he was a first-team all-rookie player. That's it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions