ESPN Insider ranks the PG in the NBA, and with the discussion on here of the play of Jason Kidd, George Hill, and Tony Parker, I think it would be easier just to discuss the SW division.

For starters,but could easily be convinced that is B.S.

1. Chris Paul
2. Aaron Brooks
3. Tony Parker
4. Jason Kidd
5. Darren Collison
6. Mike Conley
7. George Hill
8. Kyle Lowry
9. JJ/Beaubois

That's a pretty good list tbh. In my mind you could switch TP and Brooks, but right now with AB on the rise and TP on the decline I don't disagree totally. You could probably also swap Conley and Collison, but again that's almost a tossup.

TP had a bad season by his standards, but I don't really think you can say he is on the decline.

Don't take it as me disrespecting him. I just mean AB is young and becoming a stud while TP is older, he's got a lot of mileage and his skills have already peaked. Kinda like what you'd say about TD, they're both still elite players.

I'm not sure we have seen his peak.
Unlike AB, TP has never been asked to be the main go-to player.

Last year, when Parker was quite a bit healthier than this year, he put up 22/7 on 51% shooting. This was Brooks best year at 19.6/5.3 on 43% shooting.

Brooks is showing a lot of promise, but if you had to win a game, we both know you pick the 28 year old with a Finals MVP to his name.

Which is why in my first post I said TP and AB should swap spots on the list.

My list..

1. Chris Paul
2. Tony Parker
3. Aaron Brooks
4. Jason Kidd
5. Darren Collison
6. Mike Conley
7. Kyle Lowry
8. George Hill
9. JJ/Beaubois

Only a true Rockets homer would put Lowery over George Hill. Hill put up similar number to Conley and Collion, but I think he will have a better career than each.

quote:

---

That's a pretty good list tbh. In my mind you could switch TP and Brooks

---

Huge AB fan here but this is a true statement. TP has been too consistent, AB needs another solid effort next year.

if the Hornets would like to swap Collison for Kidd I'd be down for that

Lowry is probably the best defensive PG in the division, and he can get to the hole very well. With more minutes, he would EASILY have more production.

Call me what you want, but I find it a tossup with Lowry having more upside.

quote:

---

Call me what you want, but I find it a tossup with Lowry having more upside.

---

That you actually believe this is why you are a homer.

Hill (2 seasons) is younger than Lowry (5 seasons) and already has better numbers. What are you basing this upside thing on?

Speaking of homerism:

quote:

---

Aaron Brooks is good but he isn't even in the same ballpark as Parker.

---

TP has the edge right now, he's the more polished player. But to say AB is not in the same ballpark is wrong.

At the end of the season they might have been pretty close due to Parker's injury/recovery. Parker is improving every game though... if he were asked to do as much as Brooks he would probably put up 30 and 8.

I'm not really sure how you can make that statement based on the players around them. Also when it comes to individual scoring capacity, Brooks can stretch the floor easier seeing as he's a much better 3 point shooter. TP is better at what he does, but it's not like Brooks can't do those things to a certain capacity.

I'm not saying Brooks is better, but TP isn't light years ahead.

Just crunching some numbers... I adjusted TP's stats up by the ratio between TP/Brooks shot attempts/game this season. That puts Parker at 22 and 7.

If I adjust again for Parker's reduced minutes/game and fg% this year due to injury, Parker is up around 28/29 and 9.


Parker isn't the flashiest player in the world but he is very, very efficient.

To be fair though, I think I could play with the numbers a different, equally justifiable way and come up with around 25 and 7 projected, too.

Actually, I'm not really sure what other measurements I would use.

Still, seat of the pants calculations definitely show significantly better numbers for Parker going by the metric of shot attempts.

Adjusted stats are fine and can be applicable in certain situations, but that's a pretty lofty projection.

TP's career bests are 22 and 7, not even in the same year, so for him to go 29 9 would be quite the accomplishment. Sure you could make an argument for increased shot attempts, but even at your modest projection of 25 7 (his career best APG is 6.9) he'd be setting career bests for both categories.

In Brook's third year he was 20 and 5.6. I'm not sure how that constitutes "not in the same ballpark", which is the point I'm trying to make.

edit: for the record, Parker is insanely efficient from the field.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 5/4/2010 9:41p).]

As I said, Parker has never been asked to do what Brooks does... he has never averaged as many shot attempts as Brooks does, and when he got closest Parker averaged 22 and 7.

Brooks' three point shooting helps equalize somewhat, but over the past five years Parker shoots around 8% better from the field and has a higher A/T ratio.

If you put Brooks on a team with Duncan and Ginobili and Parker on a team with whoever the Rockets have this year, how would their stats change?


EDIT: I should add that Brooks is a good player and I would love for the Spurs to have a guy like that to provide instant offense.

[This message has been edited by aero ag 2010 (edited 5/4/2010 9:46p).]

Am I not saying it right? I feel like we're arguing the same side of the argument.

22 7 or even 25 7 doesn't put Parker light years ahead of Brooks at 20 6, especially considering this is Brooks first complete year as the full-time starter.

Parker is the better player right now. This hasn't changed from when I said it in my first post.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 5/4/2010 9:54p).]

What I'm saying is that when I adjust as best I can on the spurs of the moment for all variables, Parker's worst-case is around 25-7.

Theoretical statistics are fine I guess, but I'll stick with the actual numbers that exist in reality. I could argue that Parker is so efficient from the field because he is more selective with his shots, so to inflate his statistics based on attempts per game could be erroneous. I could also argue that having the greatest PF of all time anchoring the defense away from you could space the floor and soften the coverage.

But again, that's just speculation. It's all speculation. Just like adjusted statistics.

Also you have a guy playing without a clear cut star on the court on a average to below average team. The Shareef Abdur-Rahim rule states that those numbers are a bit less impressive than someone not being the goto player on a really good team.

All those accolades are great, but they don't apply to right now. He's obviously more decorated, but they don't mean anything in this analysis of their current skill.

I don't know how you can say Brooks is the clear-cut go to guy when Martin was added halfway. He's a much more proven scorer.

You can speculate and guesstimate all you want about how you think they'd be in certain situations, but the facts don't substantiate Parker being light years ahead.

Or adding him to a team where the main players have been together forever and trying to find a niche among guys who have won multiple champions together in clearly defined roles leads to decreased productivity. See how that kind of logic is full of holes?

Trying to argue that Tony Parker is much better then Brooks just on the merit that he could, maybe score more if he took more shots and he produces on a better team is a situational argument as well as mere speculation.

I'm a Dallas fan, I have absolutely no dog in the fight, and based on FACT as well as personal unbiased observation, Parker and Brooks are in the same ballpark.

I'm not going to change your deep rooted opinion as a huge Spurs homer, but it's how I see it, and I actually give less credit to Brooks compared to the article which gave him the nod OVER Parker.

edited for terrible grammar.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 5/4/2010 10:49p).]

Aaron Brooks better than Finals MVP Tony Parker? I just don't see it. I can maybe understand an argument that Brooks will one day be as good as Parker.

quote:

---

Aaron Brooks better than Finals MVP Tony Parker?

---

I assume you're talking about the article now, because I never once made this argument.

Yes. I did notice you say that Parker is better, although you only gave him an edge whereas I would say Parker is significantly better.

Roddy B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony Parker >>>Aaron Brooks > J.J. Barea>>>>>>>>> J-Kidd

Roddy B is already in the hall of fame, isn't he? He should be.