Doctor MJ wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:
I think we've talked a little bit about Parker before. If it's pure scoring primacy, Taurasi is obviously superior in this regard. The Sparks struggled with offense for most of the Parker era, until Nneka joined the team and gave them a more resilient scoring option.
I look at Parker's defense, all-around play, and longevity. Those are the things that have me starting with the assumption Parker>Taurasi. (Keep in mind, it's not like I've gone hard on WNBA historical analysis, so I don't have ironclad opinions on player rankings at this point in time). Parker averaged 2.3 blocks and 1.5 steals and won MVP in her rookie season. Injuries sapped her rare vertical ability (and took away some of her young prime seasons), but she remained one of the WNBA's most versatile defenders, and that ability aged like a fine wine. Parker really won me over after her prime though, as she continued to crank out season after season of strong playmaking and elite defense. I like late-career Parker so much better than late-career Taurasi.
I was always meh on her scoring game, so after she stopped being a #1 option, I thought it really popped that that was never the important part of her game.
First off I'll say it's good that you and I have some starting disagreements. We're going to need folks to get in cordial debates in order to propel our collective understanding forward.
I want to emphasize right now something where I agree with you on: Parker's collection of abilities allowed her to transition later in her career to something of an over-powered role player. It was glorious, and certainly far more valuable than a post-prime Taurasi.
My skepticism toward Parker is more about her never being able to live up in peak impact to what her collection of abilities implied that she could.
Something of a tangent here, ESPN is going through their top athletes of the 21st century so far. Now, we should never take these lists too seriously when they involve comparisons between different sports, but within a sport, the ordering is a great starting point for meaningful debate.
So far they've unveiled 26-100. Here are the women's basketball players they've listed:
34. Tamika Catchings
36. Maya Moore
60. Candace Parker
74. Lisa Leslie
81. Sheryl Swoopes
84. Lauren Jackson
90. A'ja Wilson
I expect Taurasi will be in that Top 25. It will be interesting to see if any other woman is - Breanna Stewart? Sue Bird? Neither seem like they should be Top 25 to me, but frankly it would be weird if neither made Top 100.
Now, there is something of a tricky thing when talking about Parker relative to Leslie & Swoopes, because Leslie & Swoopes became Olympic stars in 1996, and played 3 years of WNBA ball before the 21st century. Perhaps that's what's holding them back over Parker...
but what about Jackson? Jackson was just plain better than Parker as a star, and while people might thing "Parker has longevity thought!", Jackson still has more WNBA Win Shares than Parker (or anyone else the above list except Catchings).
To me this is the sort of thing that shows that lists like this - which I always enjoy, just to be clear - tend to operate in a first sorting by something other than in-sport greatness. Parker's ahead of Jackson because Parker feels more prominent to the cross-sport cohort that's making these choices, not because a detailed analysis of her success makes her look more impressive than Jackson.
I'll also note that in my recollection, when Parker entered the WNBA Draft she was seen as the best prospect of the WNBA era, but I really don't see any argument that she lived up to that even leaving Taurasi aside, because of the 2001 draft duo of Jackson & Catchings.
