APBRmetrics

Durability

Tony Parker is best due to recent streak of durability in combination with play.

OK, well Parker has averaged 33 minutes for 4 games, while Paul has avg'd 40 in 5 games.
Paul has played more minutes and games than Parker for the last 5 seasons.
http://bkref.com/tiny/N2tQi

But Paul just got injured in Game 5. He'll be much less effective for the rest of the season. Parker was healthy for the last three playoffs wasn't he?

Well, today I could probably outplay Derrick Rose. Certainly could outplay Baron Davis. That doesn't prove I'm the better PG.

Kathoro wrote:But Paul just got injured in Game 5. He'll be much less effective for the rest of the season. Parker was healthy for the last three playoffs wasn't he?

Is this really your criterion for picking the better player?

Definitely not the only one. But durability must be heavily weighed. I don't care if a player is three times better than Michael Jordan when on the court if he can't play more than 10 games per year; that hypothetical player is not even a top 500 player of all time. Chris Paul is once again injured, and this time in the playoffs. If he is largely ineffective for the rest of the season and Tony Parker stays healthy, I think Paul dips below Parker for durability reasons. This would now be two years in the last three in which Paul has not been able to finish the season, which is obviously worse than not being able to play a similar portion of games in the regular season, provided it doesn't cost the team a chance at making the playoffs. So Parker, barring injury, will have been able to finish the season several more years in a row than Paul has recently.

Tony Parker has never gone as many as 34 mpg in the season and never totaled 2800 minutes.
Chris Paul has never averaged less than 36 mpg for a season and 4 times has gone over 2800. This year he was short only because of the short season.

I like Parker as a player, and I'm glad Popovich keeps his guys fresh for the playoffs. But durability can obviously be defined different ways, and a player's current health is hardly the definition of his ability.

Anyway, Paul says he's playing tonight, so we'll see if he's "less effective" than normal.

Current health is not a measure of ability, but durability is one of many measures of greatness. And I agree that durability can be defined in many different ways. But to me, being able to FINISH a season healthy at the end is absolutely vital. It's much more costly to break down at the end of the year than to break down early, rest and get healthy again. And with Paul not being able to finish 2 out of the last 3 now possibly, I would rather take the guy who is clearly a cut below in ability and likely leadership but can finish year after year at the end. Of course, as you have said, coaching also plays into players staying healthy and I didn't think about that aspect initially.

Don't put Paul in the grave just yet.

What about now?

Kathoro wrote:What about now?

What is this a Verizon commercial? Come on. The dude played. He'll play in game 7 too.

Lol that was funny not gonna lie

How about now?

You just wait until he comes up lame again lol. Though the joy of seeing him play healthy would easily outweigh the joy of looking good in this topic lol.

Too late for that option. "...cannot be considered best PG" is just indefensible in light of the facts.
http://bkref.com/tiny/J7Akz

"once again..."
http://bkref.com/tiny/upGfL

and for playoffs:
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZG4hg