jon abbey:
bump, because I spent time writing this.

Well since you were responding to my post, I figure I owe you a “good post”. I agree with you about how unquantifiable basketball is, at least according to the stats we outsiders have.

2FOR18: That’s cool.I think you feel that Parker has “it”, that quality that can’t be defined or quantified.

all basketball players have qualities that can’t be especially well defined or quantified. to this point, it seems to be a largely unquantifiable game (at least publicly).

something that I think Parker is better at than Paul is setting the tone from minute 1 game in and game out. Paul is a fantastic closer, but Parker is going out there with career-long scrubs like Diaw and Green and Neal and making them look like All-Stars from the first quarter on usually, and he doesn’t have Ginobili’s help for the first eight minutes or so. if you’re up by 15 or more late, you don’t need a closer, and I feel like Paul should put his team in a position like this more often than he does as a top 5 guy.

someone like Frank or ruru should talk about the possibility of guys being “too efficient”, as hard a concept as that might be for THCJ and his tiny cranium to wrap his mind around. Chandler, Harden, Gallinari, Paul, all guys whose offensive contribution levels we’ve debated this year (or at least I have), all guys who someone could make an argument might be more offensively valuable if they took and missed two or three extra shots per game (assuming they were the right shots). taking shots draws defensive attention, drawing defensive attention on one possession opens up teammates on future possessions, to at least some degree. if it’s a big enough cumulative degree, it helps the team overall, in direct contradiction of the box score.

jon abbey: admittedly this is hard. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Paul run it down the teeth of the opposing team time and again like Parker did last night, especially not a team as young and athletic and desperate as OKC.

but it’s not a question of fundamental skills, Paul clearly has all of those in abundance. it’s more that I think there’s something very slightly lacking in terms of his knowledge of how to best maximize those talents to win games, or pacing himself over the course of the season to be at his best in May and June, or something. Parker is obviously lucky to have Popovich and Duncan and Ginobili, and it’s always hard to totally disentangle a player from his situation.

not a great answer, but short of Paul and Parker switching teams for next season, that’s the best I can do.

That’s cool. I think you feel that Parker has “it”, that quality that can’t be defined or quantified.

2FOR18: Can you list one basketball skill that Parker is better at than Paul?I appreciate how you’re not a slave to the stats, so forget stats, but give me something tangible here.

admittedly this is hard. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Paul run it down the teeth of the opposing team time and again like Parker did last night, especially not a team as young and athletic and desperate as OKC.

but it’s not a question of fundamental skills, Paul clearly has all of those in abundance. it’s more that I think there’s something very slightly lacking in terms of his knowledge of how to best maximize those talents to win games, or pacing himself over the course of the season to be at his best in May and June, or something. Parker is obviously lucky to have Popovich and Duncan and Ginobili, and it’s always hard to totally disentangle a player from his situation.

not a great answer, but short of Paul and Parker switching teams for next season, that’s the best I can do.

jon abbey: actually I’m saying we shouldn’t ever use box scores to determine virtually anything, as there’s so much noise in there that the numbers become largely meaningless.

Can you list one basketball skill that Parker is better at than Paul? I appreciate how you’re not a slave to the stats, so forget stats, but give me something tangible here.

ephus: Not so easy, because of the following two factors:

1.Foul shots generated.Getting fouled on a contested 3 is one of the most productive things on offense.For a while two years ago, Gallinari had a knack for getting fouled on the close-out.When a player steps into the long 2 to avoid the close out, he virtually guarantees he will not be going to the line.

2.Offensive rebounds generated.The offensive rebounding rates on 3 pt shots are consistently higher than on long 2s.

For a ball park estimate, I am comfortable with saying that the player needs to shoot 50% better from 2 than from 3 in order to make it sensible to step in from behind the arc.But I have feeling that the real number is even higher.

good points. I’m pretty sure Popovich, Carlisle, McHale (Morey), SVG, Spoelstra, Doc Rivers, and the other enlightened coaches in the NBA know these numbers. Hopefully Woodson is one of these guys too.

Wait- no way – Gallinari had a knack for showing contact? LOL.
I serioulsy wonder how Gallo will do in a new anti-flopping NBA. If the commish sees flopping as a problem (and he does), I am sure it will be addressed in the offseason with the refs.

Frank: by the way, the math answer to my question above is easy – since the reward for making a 3 is 50% greater than making a 2, the player needs to shoot 50% better from long (open) 2 than he does from (contested) 3 point range – ie. > 60% from long open 2 vs. <40% from contested 3.

Not so easy, because of the following two factors:

1. Foul shots generated. Getting fouled on a contested 3 is one of the most productive things on offense. For a while two years ago, Gallinari had a knack for getting fouled on the close-out. When a player steps into the long 2 to avoid the close out, he virtually guarantees he will not be going to the line.

2. Offensive rebounds generated. The offensive rebounding rates on 3 pt shots are consistently higher than on long 2s.

For a ball park estimate, I am comfortable with saying that the player needs to shoot 50% better from 2 than from 3 in order to make it sensible to step in from behind the arc. But I have feeling that the real number is even higher.

jon abbey: actually I’m saying we shouldn’t ever use box scores to determine virtually anything, as there’s so much noise in there that the numbers become largely meaningless.

I disagree, but I see your point. To the examples you and Frank have stated, the benefit in certain situations shouldn’t be credited to Tony necessarily. Like, it’s awesome that Tony can afford to miss a shot because Pop’s system puts Duncan in great position to clean up the glass but it speaks more to Timmy and Pop than Parker. Same with Joakim Noah and Rose.

Parker is put in a situation where his talents shine, but that doesn’t make him a better player than Chris Paul or more valuable.