9 replies to this topic

[Mason Khamvilay]

Kindergarden analysts tend to use flawed sciences such as rings to define greatness, or blocks to measure defensive impact, and another flawed science is one I just came across earlier today: box score stats define whether or not someone is a role player. The 16.6 points and 4 assists Parsons averaged last season do not disqualify him as a role player, they just make him a very good one (offensively). I won't bother to bring up the fact Parsons put up 5 points and 0 assists in 34 minutes (oh wait I just did hehe) in his debut as a Dallas Maverick just hours after the conversation which spurred me towards this write-up, it's just one game which is obviously a ridiculously small sample size. If the Mavericks do intend to use Parsons as one of the primary pick-and-roll operators on the team, Parsons's TS% (a measure of scoring efficiency indicative of shot selection) will likely plummet well below where it was last season. 

 

The definition of role player seems to vary among different people, but essentially role players are replaceable, and the offense doesn't run through them. Role players are often asked to perform a number of tasks, and Parsons excels in several areas which make him one of the better offensive role players in the league: spot-up shooting, pump-fake drives, attacking the rotating/recovering defender, getting up the floor in transition, making timely cuts, and he's also a very good passer for his position. Parsons does not have the makings of a player transcending from role player to focal point for one simple fact (according to www.mysynergysports.com): he is not good at creating his own shot, he never was (he played the same exact role in college) and age 26 it is now highly unlikely he ever will be. Perimeter players at this age who make drastic leaps of improvement are so rare, you would be foolish to hold your breath thinking Parsons will be an exception.

 

Don't get me wrong, role players are essential to success in the NBA, because you can't have 5 ball-dominant guys on the floor and expect much synergy. You need good spot-up shooters, cutters, guys who know how to attack the weak side and punish defenses for paying too much attention to the 1st option. You also need good defenders because it's half the game. Sometimes role players are so good at their role they can even lead the league in plus-minus (ie. Iguodala). With that being said, Chandler Parsons is not even one of the best role players out there once you factor in his defense--it's average. The 1st option and 2nd options are handling most the offense, so if you could only choose one attribute wehre you want your role players to excel, I would say it's a toss up between 3pt shooting and defense. Preferably both. 

 

The role players who tend to rank very high on measures of impact like RPM are usually the kind who perform these two tasks well--defend and shoot--Danny Green, Iguodala, and Kawhi Leonard are a few names high up on that list. Chandler Parsons on the other hand is a lot further down that list, indicating that he is actually one of the more replaceable role players. 

 

Metrics such as RPM and Synergy (synergy numbers tell you how efficient a player is at things like creating his own shot, operating the pick and roll ect.) are useful tools, hence the fact scouting reports at draftexpress use synergy numbers, and many analytic minds have been regarding RAPM as the best single measure of offense and/or defensive impact for years. Nothing beats watching the game, but if the fact all 30 NBA teams now employ the use of analytics is any indication, the more information you have the better. When the visuals and useful metrics point towards one direction, I think it's pretty safe to draw a conclusion. 

 

[Sir Thursday]

I think I would disagree with your opinion on what makes a 'role player'. To me, a role player is someone with a well-defined job/specialisation on the team who is asked not to exceed the boundaries of what they're good at. So Kyle Korver is a role player because they don't really want him to do anything apart from shoot threes and play defence. DeAndre Jordan is a role player on the Clippers because all they want him to do is protect the rim at one end and catch lobs on the other. The Hawks do not want Kyle Korver to be attempting ambitious drives to the basket, and the Clippers do not want DeAndre Jordan shooting 15 foot jumpers. This sort of player is confined to very narrow, well-defined roles (hence 'role player').

 

This is different the archetype you have identified above, which seems to correspond more to what has come to be known as the 'glue guy'. That is, someone who performs all the little tasks that are critical to the team doing well and is asked to perform a wide variety of different functions for the team. That role normally falls to players in Parsons' position - you list Iguodala and Leonard as prototypical examples of this sort of player, both also small forwards. The skill set required of these players is much more diverse than that of a mere role player, and you do a good job of listing the responsibilities required of him (I would add that I saw Parsons acting as the ball-handler in the pick-and-roll a few times last night, which is another job you might assign a secondary/tertiary ball-handler and not something you ask a 1-dimensional player to do).

 

Certainly I would agree that Parsons is not a primary offensive option. However, I don't think he has to be for his combination of skills to be considered above the level of 'role player', nor would I agree with your thesis that he is easily replaceable. The Rockets have actually found a good replacement in Ariza, but that doesn't mean that there are dozens of players capable of performing the same function.

 

ST

[thejohnnygold]

 

 

Metrics such as RPM and Synergy (synergy numbers tell you how efficient a player is at things like creating his own shot, operating the pick and roll ect.) are useful tools, hence the fact scouting reports at draftexpress use synergy numbers, and many analytic minds have been regarding RAPM as the best single measure of offense and/or defensive impact for years. Nothing beats watching the game, but if the fact all 30 NBA teams now employ the use of analytics is any indication, the more information you have the better. When the visuals and useful metrics point towards one direction, I think it's pretty safe to draw a conclusion.

 

It seems Synergy is no longer "giving away the milk for free".  If they are, can you post a link?  If not, can you take screen caps so the rest of us can benefit as well?

 

Please, you don't have to try and "sell" us RAPM everytime--once was enough--just use it and move on.  Not to nitpick, but isn't RAPM one of the only comprehensive advanced stats around (inherently making it the best)?  It's just the evolution of +/- that has gone through about 4 modifications.  PER is not a cumulative stat, really, and 82games.com's "Simple Rating" is denounced by the very people who created it as "barely useful" and a novelty.  Basically, to say that RAPM is the best cumulative metric is like saying Mt. Rushmore is the best presidential monument carved into the side of a mountain.  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were on commission with these guys.

 

Again, don't take this the wrong way--your post is good and I hope it fuels excellent conversation regarding Parsons.  However, as long as you continue pimping RAPM I will continue to remind people that it's just a number and that "many analytic minds" also recognize it is hugely flawed and incredibly difficult to work with--especially for one person.  Check out what Kirk Goldsberry has to say on the matter:

 

 

On the quest for the perfect analytical device, the first discovery should always be the inescapable fact that there is no perfect analytical device. There is no singular metric that explains basketball any more than there is a singular metric that explains life. It’s hard not to improperly elevate the role of “big data” in contemporary sports analyses, but romanticizing them is dangerous. Data are necessarily simplified intermediaries that unite performances and analyses, and the world of sports analytics is built upon one gigantic codec that itself is built upon the defective assumption that digits can represent athletics.

 

Still, the reality in 2014 is that Adam Silver’s NBA has cameras in the arenas measuring every player’s every move. These stationary drones in the rafters are beaming gigabytes of potentially vital intelligence back to video rooms and practice facilities across the league. Whereas just a few years back acquiring good data was the hard part, the burden now largely falls upon an analytical community that may not be equipped to translate robust surveillance into reliable intelligence. The new bottleneck is less about data and more about human resources, as overworked analysts often lack the hardware, the software, the training, and most of all the time to perform these emerging tasks.

 

Despite all that, in the hands of talented, well-equipped statisticians, SportVU data is indeed awesome in terms of its potentially massive contribution to understanding the league we all cherish. In Kopp’s words, “We are just scratching the surface, and it takes a lot of work just to get to the point to begin advanced analyses.” The NBA’s big-data possession is just getting started, and everyone is rooting for a slam dunk that benefits teams, athletes, media, and most of all, fans. But that’s not guaranteed, and in the words of Parker, we just have to make sure we “make the right play in the end.”  LINK

 

I like his take here.  He acknowledges that the Sportvu video tracking is collecting mountains of data that analysts are still sorting and compiling trying to figure out how to read these modern runes.  He also cautions against the use of the "singular metric".  I get it.  Apply advanced metric, combine with eye test, and feel good about your conclusion.  Which is all we need to see--the sales pitch isn't necessary, please.  We all want a fan base and forum membership that is as educated as possible, right?  Well then, let's be as educated as possible--on all fronts.  

 

I found this SITE written by one of the "analytically minded" guys (he has his own metric he developed).  He does a great job of describing what each metric is (from the most basic to the most advanced), their strengths and their weaknesses--definitely worth the read for anyone interested in advanced stats.

 

EDIT: commas

[Mason Khamvilay]

"To me, a role player is someone with a well-defined job/specialisation on the team who is asked not to exceed the boundaries of what they're good at."

I see eye to eye with you on everything you said, including what I quoted above. Parsons didn't exceed the boundaries of what he's good at, for his shot attempt in isolations and as a pick-and-roll operator were minimal in Houston. Granted, his efficiency in those situations deemed him capable of performing those tasks, but only if you would consider a 40%fg "capable".

Like you said, his role in Dallas seemed to involve operating the pick and roll, and the results speak for themselves. Sure, small sample sizes exaggerate results, but I think they key word there is "exaggerates". What we saw last night was an exaggerated version of the truth: Parsons is inefficient at creating his own shot, and is best utilized as a role player.

[Sir Thursday]

"To me, a role player is someone with a well-defined job/specialisation on the team who is asked not to exceed the boundaries of what they're good at."

I see eye to eye with you on everything you said, including what I quoted above. Parsons didn't exceed the boundaries of what he's good at, for his shot attempt in isolations and as a pick-and-roll operator were minimal in Houston. Granted, his efficiency in those situations deemed him capable of performing those tasks, but only if you would consider a 40%fg "capable".

Like you said, his role in Dallas seemed to involve operating the pick and roll, and the results speak for themselves. Sure, small sample sizes exaggerate results, but I think they key word there is "exaggerates". What we saw last night was an exaggerated version of the truth: Parsons is inefficient at creating his own shot, and is best utilized as a role player.

 

The results can't speak for themselves just yet - it's only been one game! And, I might add, it was a game in which he did this out of the pick-and-roll at one point:

 

 

Sure looks like a guy capable of operating out of the pick-and-roll from time to time to me...

 

ST

[Mason Khamvilay]

From time to time, sure. There are more efficient alternatives, but who cares about efficiency when you can have time to time..

[thejohnnygold]

Parsons can definitely make plays.  We all know it having watched him for the last 3 seasons.  Check out the spacing in that pick n roll ST posted.

 

 

That is awesome and a coach probably couldn't draw it up better.  If he can continue to get opportunities like this then he will do great.  That's the thing--he was being guarded by Belinelli.  Most teams only have so many good defenders and if you have enough "play-makers" you can find a mis-match.  Parsons does afford them this possibility.  He made a great fake, a great read, and finished the play.  Now, could he do this 15-20 times a game with opponents game-planning against him?  Not likely.

 

Let's be frank, this play works as much because of Parsons as it does the 3 guys standing on the right side of the floor.  Nobody wanted to leave their man.  Duncan was left on an island.  That's 5 guys collectively generating one result and, while Parsons gets the box score love, it was all 5 guys that made that happen.

 

EDIT: wording

[timetodienow1234567]

It seems to me that too much time is spent on Parsons. Why don't we listen to what Howard had to say about Kobe yesterday and focus on our respective teams.

[thejohnnygold]

It seems to me that too much time is spent on Parsons. Why don't we listen to what Howard had to say about Kobe yesterday and focus on our respective teams.

 

Your opinion has been noted; however, this is the General NBA Forum and the title of this thread is, "Is Chandler Parsons a Role Player?".  We are all fans of the Rockets, and most of us are fans of the NBA overall.  In short, deal with it.  

 

I was thinking about Parsons' situation and I think a more interesting comparison and measuring stick for him is going to be Gordon Hayward.  Given their similar positions, skill sets, age, and contracts I think those two are going to be linked for the next couple of years at least.  It's something to keep an eye on.

[Steven]

Can we add waste of space to the poll?