Tough call.
For San Antonio, Parker no question; they need his scoring ability and while Calderon's a better shooter, Parker's a better penetrator and he's also a better defender... a better defender by FAR, actually.
I'd take Calderon in Toronto and in a number of other situations where playmaking is a lot more important than scoring... Jose is a lot better as a primary distributor but the Spurs don't need to worry about traditional point guard duties for Parker, at least in terms of total reliance, because they've got a nice spread and they like to work the offense through Duncan a lot.
Very tough call; this isn't altogether different from the Calderon/Harris comparison, since the deciding factor here is whether or not you need playmaking or defense.
Not that Parker is Harris-caliber on D, of course.
Jemini80 wrote:Calderon
Parker will be exposed as a shoot first pg when Duncan retires.
the best shoot first PG in the league though, so don't think i am disrespecting him. It is just I'd rather have a passer because i hate shoot-first PGs. Parker has greet driving ability though.
I don't think that's really fair to Parker...
Remember that he's not asked to be John Stockton on the Spurs; he fills his role, he's exceptionally coachable, he's been a keystone on a bunch of title teams... he's actually really not much of a shoot-first PG so much as an undersized scoring guard who passes very well.
The Spurs don't necessarily use a traditional point, especially when they have Parker and Barry on the floor at the same time.
Anyway, I don't think he shoots enough to really qualify as a shoot-first guard. If you look at shot attempts against assists, he's at about 2.6:1 this year and 2.4:1 on his career.
Pick a proper point guard, right? I mean, characterizing a pure point becomes difficult because the only real examples of those left in the league are role players for the most part, save for guys like Steve Nash and Deron Williams... but even Deron is scoring more than a guy like John Stockton ever did. And of course, no PG discussion is complete without Chris Paul, who's throwing out nearly 21 ppg this season in what's essentially Marbury-esque statistically but is clearly much different in terms of his approach. He's still taking 16.5 shots a game but he's also posting just shy of 11 apg... so what do you call that?
It's a significant debate.
Anyway, looking at all these guys and their FGA/AST, USG and AST ratios (this season):
Calderon*: 1.0, 17.3, 45.1
Parker: 2.5, 28.1, 33.1
Nash: 1.0, 22.8, 50.0
Deron: 1.4, 23.3, 41.3
Paul: 1.5, 25.9, 49.6
So yeah, statistically speaking, there's a clear separation between Parker and even a guy like Deron or Chris who shoot a lot. But the advantage of ALL four guys have over Parker is that they are playing in systems that play up the importance of their role as distributors.
Each of those guys has a pivotal, CENTRAL role in on-ball control over the offense, which is not as true of Parker's role in San Antonio.
It's a really tough call, though and as much of a sissy move as it is, I'm obligated to say that it's situational. Straight-up, there isn't too much that can separate these guys besides stylistic preference because they each have valuable qualities and skills.
If I had to choose to BE one, on the other hand, well...
Eva Longoria is sexy... [/debate]
