Owly wrote:Not that Isiah doesn't have an advantage in the playoffs (on offense, though WS/48 is substantially over generous in crediting him with Detroit's D because he gambled to accumulate steals, whilst no stats defenders like Dumars especially but also Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn are under-credited and Isiah took the majority of his win shares on defense), but it should be noted that Isiah's worst years (rookie, and final two years) are conveniently the ones in which he didn't play in the playoffs, his longest playoff runs in his mid to late 20s, typically a player's prime. Meanwhile Parker is punished heavily for a long (but poor) playoff run as a 20 year old.
Thomas' DWS may very well be inflated due to playing in a strong defensive team. But I think his offensive impact is understated by OWS. Here is some with-without data I found quite significant. I used prime seasons where the players missed 5 or more games.
Isiah:
'86: With 45-32 (58%). Without 1-4 (20%).
'91: With 31-17 (65%). Without 19-15 (56%).
Parker:
'08: With 48-21 (70%). Without 8-5 (62%).
'09: With 47-25 (65%). Without 7-3 (70%).
'10: With 34-22 (61%). Without 16-10 (62%).
'12: With 47-13 (78%). Without 3-3 (50%).
'14: With 51-17 (75%). Without 11-3 (79%).
It's a shame we don't have play-by-play data from before '97, but that w/o numbers are quite bad and suggest a quite strong impact even with mediocre boxscore numbers, à la Ricky Rubio/Jrue Holiday. I could argue too that Parker's offensive numbers are inflated due to playing next to the GOAT coach and the GOAT PF, the Spurs don't seem to lose much production without him. And even without his first 2 years, Parker's WS/48 are below average (0.095). It changes nothing.
Owly wrote:If playoff performance is what is important how do Amare Stoudemire, Baron Davis, Shawn Kemp, Gus Williams, Derrick Coleman and Johnny Moore fare in the all time rankings? How about Frank Ramsey, Cliff Hagan and Bobby Wanzer?
Regular season matters a lot, of course. But if you have a massive dropoff from the regular season to the playoffs, becoming an average player, something happens. And you have to be penalized. You also should bear in mind that the sample size for Thomas's playoff play is clearly significant, whilst Derrick Coleman's, for example, is a lot shorter (and Johnny Moore... are you serious?). And the playing levels aren't the same either. PD: Stat (who didn't improve in the postseason) and Kemp are in the same level as Parker in my ATL. Williams is slightly higher (HE is really underrated).
Owly wrote:Isiah as the number one option on O wheras Parker is 2/3 is at very least misleading. Isiah scored less than Dantley per game in '89 and than others both years on a per minute basis. He wasn't scoring 20 points per 36 minutes even in the '90 playoffs (clearly his best run in the title years). Detroit's offense shared the load quite a bit, whilst Parker has had to carry a larger load as a shot creator because of the likes of absolute non-scorers like Bowen. If you're going to criticize (playoff) Parker for something (and win shares, with it's focus on shooting efficiency does) it can't be for insufficient willingness to carry the load.
Dantley scored more per-game because Dantley is Dantley and does Dantley things with Dantley efficiency. Isiah shot more, and by all accounts was the #1 offensive hub (easily leading the team in assists and turnovers). If not always, he was most of the time (And the Pistons were better after trading Dantley and giving Isiah the reins once again).
Parker did lead the team in shot attempts at times, but until two or three years ago he had no real ballhandling duties, he was just a penetrator.
Usage% since Parker joined the Spurs:
Duncan 27.5%
Parker 25.8%
Ginóbili 25.0%
Considering Duncan is flat-out better and Ginóbili is just more efficient with nearly the same usage (59 TS%, 114 ORtg and 14.4 TOV% against 55 TS%, 109 ORtg and 13.9 TOV%), I can't see Parker as more than a 2/3 option.