Once again we see why CP3 cannot be considered best PG

[Mike G]

I actually can't remember when a point guard was as clearly better than all others, as Chris Paul was this season.

Code: Select all

PG 2012        WS   WS/48   PER
Chris Paul   12.7   .278   27.0
Tony Parker   7.1   .177   22.0
Ty Lawson     6.9   .157   19.4
Steve Nash    5.9   .144   20.3

That's 79% more Win Shares, .101 better WS/48, and 5.0 better PER.
http://bkref.com/tiny/i7BNR
Sort by Season, to get it chronologically.

In the mid-90s, Stockton's main competition had fallen off -- KJ, Price, etc -- and the new wave -- Payton, Kidd -- hadn't yet arrived. He may have had half this much separation from the pack.
And before that it may have been Magic, after Isiah tailed off and before Stockton.
But it would be challenging to find such a difference between 1st and 2nd in any of the above stats, much less in all 3 of them.

[Crow]

Not at clear cut by RAPM:

PG 2012 prior informed RAPM non-prior informed
Chris Paul +6.0 +3.1
Tony Parker +3.2 +3.6
Ty Lawson +1.3 +0.8
Steve Nash +5.0 +1.7

[Kathoro]

What about now?

[dtjmcauliffe]

I don't think you can look at Chris Paul this series and conclude he's not the best PG, nor can you look at Tony Parker and call him the best PG. Paul seems injured, and the Spurs are far ahead in coaching/ schemes to make players look good/opponents look bad. I don't think you can just ignore the advantages Parker has in organizational setup/familiarity/health and just conclude that Parker is better.

If Paul is better in every advanced statistic, and is outplayed in 1 series, the more reasonable assumption seems to be that he's having a bad series, rather than assuming he's worse in general. Parker has been better in the series, but over a season, Paul is a far better option, and that's a far better way to think of a best PG debate.

[Kathoro]

DT my whole argument is on based on durability. Obviously Paul is better when healthy.

[dtjmcauliffe]

But is the durability only due to Parker, or is part of that due to the Spurs organisation/Pop resting players to have them be ready to play in the playoffs.

Blogger data, so other equivalent might be better but
http://www.brewhoop.com/2011/7/21/21800 ... th-of-data
Alternatively: http://basketballprospectus.com/article ... cleid=2225

[quote=brewhoop]The Spurs have been the most injury-free team of the decade with an average of 40 games lost due to injuries...[/quote]

If the Spurs are one of the best teams in limiting injuries(Games missed isn't the best indicator of managing injury, as there's a lot of luck involved in particular injuries occurring) part of Parker's durability might be down to the Spurs being better as a team in managing player health.

Meanwhile, the Clippers seem less likely to be effectively managing player health.
[quote=brewhoop]The Wizards have the honor of being the most injury-riddled team of the decade with an average of 125 games lost per year. Then come the Warriors and Clippers, each with an average of 117.[/quote]

It seems to me that a major factor in Parker appearing to be more durable is due to the Spurs more deliberately managing player health to ensure that players are healthy for the playoffs. We don't know how healthy they would've been with the situations reversed, but playing 33 minutes a game for a team that is prepared to sacrifice games to ensure health seems more likely to lead to a player being healthy than playing 37 minutes a game for the Clippers.

[Kathoro]

All excellent points. This point was brought up earlier in the thread but in much less detail.