Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  thenit : (28 April 2016 - 06:27 PM) Harden is the best offensive player but the best overall was Klay last night
@  majik19 : (28 April 2016 - 04:25 AM) klay thompson is the best player on the floor. hard to win when Harden isn't the best.
@  majik19 : (28 April 2016 - 04:19 AM) GS is better at hitting bad/covered shots than anyone on our team is at hitting open shots.
@  majik19 : (28 April 2016 - 04:16 AM) that was embarassing. 4 offensive rebounds. 2 missed 3s by Ariza and 2 missed 3s by Beverley.
@  Cooper : (28 April 2016 - 03:24 AM) this team is depressing
@  majik19 : (28 April 2016 - 03:01 AM) Ariza is a complete negative on the floor. he can't hit a shot or fight through/around a screen to save his life
@  majik19 : (28 April 2016 - 02:54 AM) everyone but james harden is terrible right now
@  thejohnnygold : (27 April 2016 - 08:49 PM) I think Walton is going to be a solid hire for somebody. I wouldn't mind if it were for us.
@  slick shoes : (27 April 2016 - 06:15 PM) I'd like to see them take it full circle and hire Walton. I don't know if he's the right buy for their young core currently, but maybe 2-3 years from now.
@  thejohnnygold : (27 April 2016 - 05:24 PM) Knowing LA, they will do something that leaves us all scratching our heads.
@  slick shoes : (27 April 2016 - 04:56 PM) While I do favor JVG, I hope that we also kick the tires on a few other guys as well.
@  thejohnnygold : (27 April 2016 - 01:34 PM) If you mean JVG--no, I'm not worried. :)
@  slick shoes : (27 April 2016 - 12:32 PM) Is it just me or is the Lakers firing Scott a bit worrisome for our coaching search?
@  DenverRocket : (27 April 2016 - 12:02 AM) Seems like Parsons is already trying to recruit Dwight to the Mavs ;-)
@  DenverRocket : (26 April 2016 - 05:51 AM) I love KD even more after his post-match response to that Cuban comment: "He's a idiot!" :)
@  slick shoes : (26 April 2016 - 03:01 AM) Why give Westbrook bulletin board material in a closeout game?
@  Mario Peña : (26 April 2016 - 02:28 AM) That insult Cuban hurled at Westbrook was classic big mouth Cuban. It gave Wedtbrook some fuel no doubt.
@  Mario Peña : (25 April 2016 - 02:40 AM) I can't stand the Warriors but I hate to see great players fall prey to injuries. Seems like Steph could be done till next season which is unfortunate since he does play on one team I root for, Team USA.
@  majik19 : (24 April 2016 - 10:02 PM) down by 23 points and we have McDaniels AND Brewer in. WTF?
@  majik19 : (24 April 2016 - 09:48 PM) the difference in this gme has been Brewer is in and Beverley is out

Photo

What is Chandler Parsons' value?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Red94

Red94

    Senior Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,517 posts

    Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:13 PM

    New post: What is Chandler Parsons' value?
    By: rahat huq

    First, the basics: Parsons averaged 15.5 points per game last season to go along with 5.3 rebounds and 3.5 assists.  Coupled with improved shooting (49% overall, 39% on 3's) and the belief that there is no reason he can't/shouldn't improve upon his 73% from the free-throw line, one might even go so far as to posit that the third-year forward is a budding All-Star.  But let's keep going.

    Parsons' PER last season stood at 15.3 which basically meant that by that metric, he was an average NBA player.  (The league average for PER is set at 15.00).  The value in PER is that it is per-minute and pace-adjusted.  As we know, the Rockets' played at one of the highest pace's in the league last season, adding a bit more clarity to the per-game statline cited above.  On the flip side, the downside to PER is that it does not account for defensive contributions.  As some may remember, Kevin McHale had mentioned in Parsons' rookie season that one of the reasons he was so quickly inserted into the starting lineup was for his acumen in pick&roll coverage (i.e. his ability to switch coverage quickly.)  These contributions are not ascertainable through box-score data.

    Let's move on to 'win shares' where Chandler Parsons was second on the team, contributing 7 wins.  (James Harden was first with 12.8.)  Here is how win shares are calculated.  Like PER,'win shares' are based on box-score statistics; however, 'win shares' is also inclusive of defensive rating, problematic because of the team influence inherent within that metric.  (Having said that, this does not negate the value for intra-team comparisons.)

    RAPM is where things get interesting in that you find him sharing roughly the same air as the likes of a 33-year-old Luis Scola, Trevor Ariza, and Zaza Pachulia, and lower than five other Rockets.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    To try to put it simply, RAPM attempts to account for some of the problems with APM by controlling for backup, bad team, and teammate effects.  What is APM?  In the words of Houston Rockets Vice President of Basketball Operations Eli Witus:

    Quote:

    For each player, it starts with the team’s average point differential for each possession when they are on the court (sometimes referred to as the player’s on-court plus/minus). This gives a number showing how effective the player’s team was when they were in the game...Adjusted plus/minus uses regression analysis to control for these biases by controlling for the quality of the teammates a player played with and the opponents he played against.

    RAPM is an improvement upon this in addressing the previously aforementioned problems.  (Though it should be noted that sample size is a documented concern.)

    So what to make of all of this?  By primitive per-game stats, the 24-year-old looks like a possible future star.  By PER standards, he's around average; by win shares, he was the second most positive contributor on the team; and by RAPM, he's very replaceable.  How to put it all together?  Let's go to the eye test.

    Parsons is a streaky shooter whose worked tirelessly to improve upon that aspect of his game - there isn't any reason to think that won't hold consistent.  While 6'10, he lacks the strength to ever expect any type of low post ability.  Parsons is an adequate to above average ball-handler, but while he has enough 'hops' for a few tip dunks every few weeks, he lacks the lateral quickness to create for himself and attack the rim off the dribble.  (Much of his damage in that department against the Thunder came against the much larger Kendrick Perkins and Serge Ibaka.)  Because of this limited quickness, one can be fairly certain Parsons will never be able to create off the dribble, an almost requisite trait for 'star' wings in the modern NBA.  It should be noted, however, that his smarts in handling off the pick&roll have proved valuable in this offense.

    Defensively, Parsons took a nosedive last season, possibly due to a greater focus upon the other end.  He is still, though, seen as a quality team defender, capable of making smart, quick rotations.

    So greatly has Parsons' repute risen in the public eye that I'd posit, and have done so, that he's become the most overrated Houston Rocket.  Shortly after the signing of Dwight Howard, it was interesting to note the surplus of mentions from national publications citing Parsons as part of a new 'Big 3' (including Howard and Harden.)  Preposterous, of course: Parsons isn't a 'star' and most likely never will be.

    It's important to clarify here upon the distinction between actual and relative value.  Parsons' value lies in his contract.  To wit, he is--bar none--the single best value contract in the entire league.  But if that salary were regularized across all players with an inspection upon solely on-court merits, then of course, much of that value diminishes.  I have almost no doubt that if, when Parsons' contract is up, the team were in the same position that they found themselves in last summer--headed nowhere--and faced with a similar decision as they did with Goran Dragic, they would choose to let Parsons walk--as they did Dragic--rather than shell out market value.  Because they will not be in that similar situation, things get more interesting.

    A reasonable estimate for Parsons' market rate might be $9mill-$10mill, an amount I explained almost certainly would be unpalatable in a vacuum.  But for a team that will likely be in the midst of contention, I think Daryl Morey will pay up.  He will cringe doing it, I think, but he'll put away the slide rules and the spreadsheets and he'll turn from the math to the economics and management portions of his MBA coursework.  He'll weigh the risk in the loss of goodwill in jettisoning a player instrumental in putting this thing together (in recruiting Dwight.)  He'll weigh the synergistic value of continuity where one 'whole' in team sports is greater than evaluation of the parts; he'll look at the risk of losing a locker-room leader and the longest tenured player on the team.  He'll start considering the things critics said he ignores, simply because, for the first time, his team is in position for those things to be granted consideration.

    While I'm not anywhere near certain, I think Morey will pay up to keep Parsons, when that time comes.  If the team wasn't in the position it is in today, that wouldn't be the case.


    • 0

    #2 Buckko

    Buckko

      Senior Member

    • Members
    • PipPipPipPipPip
    • 1,636 posts

      Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:38 PM

      <br /><br /><p>I think we could get parsons cheaper on 7 or 8 million unless he greatly increases his market value because the third or fourth seasons tend to be the ones players greatly improve. People are also saying he put on a fair amount of muscle.</p>
      • 0

      #3 NorEastern

      NorEastern

        Junior Member

      • Members
      • PipPipPip
      • 378 posts

        Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:57 PM



        The next year or two will make the difference. It is interesting that if he continues his freshman to sophomore improvement he actually could make an all-star game or two. Defense is another key. Can he get back to where he was as a rookie? If he does both he might become unaffordable for the Rockets.


        • 0

        #4 Mason Khamvilay

        Mason Khamvilay

          Veteran

        • Members
        • PipPipPipPipPipPip
        • 3,216 posts
        • LocationVirginia, USA.

        Posted 01 September 2013 - 08:52 PM

        Great read, one of my favorites so far from Rahut.


        • 0

        #5 Buckko

        Buckko

          Senior Member

        • Members
        • PipPipPipPipPip
        • 1,636 posts

          Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:00 PM

          Another thing I might add is I definitely think we will resign Parsons to much less than market value, simply because I think we can all agree he loves houston and wants to be on a contender with other young guys where they are all great friends. They always talk about how they do everything together. Not to mention I think he's Mchale's favorite player.


          • 0

          #6 Jeby

          Jeby

            Junior Member

          • Members
          • PipPipPip
          • 209 posts

            Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:59 PM

            <br /><br /><p>Re: the only publicly available stats.<br />
            I have been ruminating on a Chandler Parsons Theory (I think I'll flesh it out a little in tomorrow's daily) as to why he--out of dozens of other low draft picks--has been able to become a starter. Seems like most late first/second round guys who break out have a single-separating skill. Asik/defense, Brooks/shooting, Carl Landry/post scoring. But Parsons seems to be good-not-great in every category for a wing. Buckko touched on it a bit by saying he's McHale's favorite, but it goes beyond that...</p>
            • 0

            #7 j_wehr

            j_wehr

              Rookie

            • Members
            • PipPip
            • 73 posts

              Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:42 PM

              Rahat, that was an enjoyable and provoking read. Some scattered reactions:

               

              1.) You say that Parson's defense took a nosedive this season. Is that based on eyeball or stats or both? And in what ways specifically did his defense get worse? (I only started watching the Rockets this past season so I'm just curious.)

               

              2.) Could this be a Shane Battier stats-don't-tell-his-full-value type of story? The one thing stats whiff on most badly is defense and it seems that Parsons has the length, anticipation, and intelligence to be a very good wing defender, both in isolations but especially team D and pick & roll D. (I'm not thinking Pippen level or even Kawhi level, but again more like a rich man's Battier.)

               

              3.) In my judgment, in terms of overall value, Parsons is the distant fourth best Rocket behind Asik (with Lin being a distant fifth to Parsons). But I do think Parsons is a solid NBA starter and has an outside chance at becoming all-star level (at least a better chance than, say, Patrick Patterson, whom I also consider a solid NBA starter). And if we compare him to starters on the rosters of title contenders, I'd say he brings slightly more value than your Chalmers, Splitters, or Sefoloshas.


              • 0

              #8 Buckko

              Buckko

                Senior Member

              • Members
              • PipPipPipPipPip
              • 1,636 posts

                Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

                Rahat, that was an enjoyable and provoking read. Some scattered reactions:

                 

                1.) You say that Parson's defense took a nosedive this season. Is that based on eyeball or stats or both? And in what ways specifically did his defense get worse? (I only started watching the Rockets this past season so I'm just curious.)

                 

                2.) Could this be a Shane Battier stats-don't-tell-his-full-value type of story? The one thing stats whiff on most badly is defense and it seems that Parsons has the length, anticipation, and intelligence to be a very good wing defender, both in isolations but especially team D and pick & roll D. (I'm not thinking Pippen level or even Kawhi level, but again more like a rich man's Battier.)

                 

                3.) In my judgment, in terms of overall value, Parsons is the distant fourth best Rocket behind Asik (with Lin being a distant fifth to Parsons). But I do think Parsons is a solid NBA starter and has an outside chance at becoming all-star level (at least a better chance than, say, Patrick Patterson, whom I also consider a solid NBA starter). And if we compare him to starters on the rosters of title contenders, I'd say he brings slightly more value than your Chalmers, Splitters, or Sefoloshas.

                I just want to say don't be fooled by Sefolosha or splitter, Both are great players, Sef is D and 3 while Splitter is a great defender(just didn't match up well with the heat) but not so much for chalmers.


                • 0

                #9 Losthief

                Losthief

                  Junior Member

                • Members
                • PipPipPip
                • 478 posts
                • LocationHouston

                Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:52 AM

                yeah and splitter is legit 7 foot, so that adds like 3 mil to his value baseline.

                 

                As to your defensive question jeby, I'd posit that his help defense role increased greatly this year (due to defensively weaker teammates), leading to his 'man' he is guarding to have more success than last year. My theory with that has to do with him having to help out aggressively with the Beard's guy and the PF's guy, also teams had more tape on his weakness/where to attack.

                 

                For the help defense, think Lebron, his defensive rapm is lower than you'd imagine, but it has also been said that Lebron is the only one that even comes remotely close to the 'shadow guys' on the new tracking system in the stadiums. The 'shadow guys' being what the analytically best position for defense being (it's almost always more help defense than players actually committ to). Because he helps so aggressively he sometimes gets burned personally, but the good for the team outweighs the costs.

                 

                I haven't looked very much at the stats for this, but that analysis for parsons is based on the eye test from watching both years. He seems to be more team-oriented defensively rather than last year. The evidence in a quick look (this ins't at all conclusive, mearly supportive in a small way) is that opponents Offensive Rating decreased when he was on the floor versus off it even more than last year. (1.2 in 2011-12, versus 1.6 in 2012-13). Now that difference could also be who he played with/sat the bench with, and who came in to replace him, delfino wasn't the best defender in the world. So again...nothing conclusive, just really my eye test and some small statisitcal correlation.


                • 0

                LoSTHieF

                I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Skilled


                #10 RollingWave

                RollingWave

                  Advanced Member

                • Members
                • PipPipPipPip
                • 506 posts

                  Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:36 AM

                  The next year or two will make the difference. It is interesting that if he continues his freshman to sophomore improvement he actually could make an all-star game or two. Defense is another key. Can he get back to where he was as a rookie? If he does both he might become unaffordable for the Rockets.

                  Well no, the Rockets have his bird rights so they can match anything or offer him anything,  and frankly, when your in contention, going deep into the cap or over the luxury tax shouldn't be a concern to a profitable organization committed to winning as long as your sure this is the group your going down with. if we let Parsons go, we're looking at a massive reshuffle that will almost surely see Lin and Asik go as well (because otherwise you won't have the cap room to get anyone anyway.)  which would be another transition year heading towards the end of Howard's contract, that seems to be less than idea to say the least.

                   

                  Another thing I might add is I definitely think we will resign Parsons to much less than market value, simply because I think we can all agree he loves houston and wants to be on a contender with other young guys where they are all great friends. They always talk about how they do everything together. Not to mention I think he's Mchale's favorite player.

                   

                  I doubt it, he's being represented by Fegan, who's not exactly Scott Boras (baseball agent well known to getting the biggest contracts) but certainly in the same mold, Parson may very well be highly valued by other teams especially those that is more old school in their approach (granted, those teams are getting fewer.) If he keeps up his current level and improve a little more in the next couple years he's probably getting Ibaka money.

                   

                   

                   

                  3.) In my judgment, in terms of overall value, Parsons is the distant fourth best Rocket behind Asik (with Lin being a distant fifth to Parsons). But I do think Parsons is a solid NBA starter and has an outside chance at becoming all-star level (at least a better chance than, say, Patrick Patterson, whom I also consider a solid NBA starter). And if we compare him to starters on the rosters of title contenders, I'd say he brings slightly more value than your Chalmers, Splitters, or Sefoloshas.

                   

                  These are 3 rather different types of players and shouldn't be lumped into one, Sefolosha is probably the most adept comp for Parsons, something between him and Ibaka. Sefolosha's actually underrated to an extend. a significant part of the reason why Harden was moved was because Thabo simply fits better with a ball dominant guard like Westbrook (sounds familiar, hmmmmm )

                   

                  Splitter is interesting and my view on him is the most mixed. he played extremely well in that flow but on the other hand you can't help to think that he doesn't actually do anything that well . he rebounds poorly for a center, he has good hands and put things back well enough but lacks any variance to his offensive game. at best that makes him a Greg Smith who can't rebound but has a solid idea where his defense is going. but sometimes "knowing where to go" is a terribly underrated skill and makes all the difference in the world.

                   

                  Chalmer is more or less just a guy, he's decent enough in what he do that he doesn't cost the Heat wins at least, the same can not be said for Norris Cole.

                   

                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   

                  As for my thoughts on Parsons, it's an interesting debate, I'm leaning that he 's actually really good in what he does, and what he does is perhaps underrated overall,  in the sense that, if he's your #1 option star, your screwed, your MUCH better off with Lin as your #1 scoring option than Parsons due to the shot creation issue, though watching him more I feel he actually can create a bit more than we give him credit for, but he realize that's not the role the team needs him the most at.

                   

                  But as I've noted with Splitter to an extend, being at the right place at the right time is actually the single most important NBA skill, and Parsons has that,  if you watch the Rockets fast break last year it's amazing how well Parsons position himself in those situations as well as off ball cuts. it's HARD to score a lot like that, but he manage to score quite a bit.

                   

                  As i've generally brought up before, if you put 3 #1 options together, 1 of them is still going to have to play the #3 option, at which point his value greatly diminish, but Parsons played that role last year and he probably did about as well or even better than if he was the #1 option , which is a rare skill to an extend.

                   

                  My conclusion is that you can't build a good team around Parsons, BUT you can definitely win a championship with him as your starter. your not going to get a team with 5 "can build championship around" guy because those guys are rare (and once you go past two there's a huge diminishing return effect anyway.) .  so the key is to have guys like Parsons around them.


                  • 1

                  #11 Buckko

                  Buckko

                    Senior Member

                  • Members
                  • PipPipPipPipPip
                  • 1,636 posts

                    Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:41 AM

                    He's not getting Ibaka money.
                    • 0

                    #12 RollingWave

                    RollingWave

                      Advanced Member

                    • Members
                    • PipPipPipPip
                    • 506 posts

                      Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:00 AM

                      age is an issue for him,  as Ibaka is actually younger than Parsons,  Ibaka's extension likely factor in that he's getting better during this stage, while Parsons when he extend is likely at his best and would be lucky if he can maintain that by the end of the contract.

                       

                      but you can look at something like this site, which quantify the worth of a player's season production.

                       

                      http://godismyjudgeo...vorp/2013-aspm/

                       

                      (it's a similar concept to RAPM but adjusted a bit differently have and interesting different result, it ends up being very high on Parsons, seeing him as a equal to Ibaka, while not so much on Asik, and it also sees Lin are being quite good despite his struggles early last year.)


                      • 0

                      #13 It's Dee Way Ferrell

                      It's Dee Way Ferrell

                        Newbie

                      • Members
                      • Pip
                      • 20 posts
                      • LocationHouston

                      Posted 02 September 2013 - 08:44 AM

                      It'$ yo boy D.ferrell, the realest Rockets fan rocking.
                      I had to speak up. First off thi$ team wa$ built off Chandler Parsons & Patterson. With the acquisition of Harden, P54 became a trade asset. More only by the eye test parsons proved to be valuable. Because by the eye test, & looks can be deceiving, you get the while concept of his abilities. No he's not going to cross you over by a long shot, he hadn't perfected the triple threat, nor had he developed a plethora of low post finishes. Yet you've seen him attack baskets finishing & immobilizes defenders because of his pernicious court awareness & vision making passes. If we where to know if Parsons was better take a look back at the usa try outs. He didn't represent to me. So possibly lets say he is at max potential. He gets no better, but he can be a Robert Horry until we get a Clyde. Oh wait?! We got that. & the top center of thever last nine years. Paired also with a phenomenon of some sort & an awesomeness that makers you want to try harder to be beyer than the best. I don't blame Asik for wanting to bail at the inclination of his presence. Although you have to admit Linomenom is a phenom, it'$ just we reverse phenomenon. Say for instance he's actually the 2nd be$t player on the team, & basically forced to become a better shooter, which he did, immensely after the all star break. Say what you will I'll take him over any other point right now, think versatility, stability
                      and His we aligned to relinquish his own touches. He's an upgraded Chalmers. Putting these talents on one team reminds me of the 80's Celtics, or any team from that ers basically. Lineups featuring five all star talents. Only other team boating that witj official all star caliber playets is Brooklyn. So when you look ay reach of our individual statistics, you're becoming a mold of a Daryl Morey Jr. yet you forget he does often trend to use statistic to build thi$ team but his analytics are figured into what benefits the team. Prime example all the playets signed post dwight signing may seem puzzling. Here'$ what you missing. What seems to be a lack of a blanch o's actually, diverse with skill sets & talents. Mchale pa$$ probably sees tjones as the 6th man, MIP. Kid can relieve the superstars with his talents, & would be starting everywhere else in the league. Aside from Beverley & Garcia, probably Brooks & Camby, it'$ a fight to eat at the Rockets table. Ots not a cake walk for the got aforementioned, but they have the
                      inside track. Between casspi & Reggie is Ivey & Brewer. The rookies, Canaan, Covington & Young will want to push D-mo & greg to make a spot. If you see the value of offense vs. defense for the bench. Having all these talents with multiple skill sets, makes gift am interesting camp. Ferrell its going to be like watching Texans preseason.
                      • 1
                      I'm so Ferrell!

                      #14 Buckko

                      Buckko

                        Senior Member

                      • Members
                      • PipPipPipPipPip
                      • 1,636 posts

                        Posted 02 September 2013 - 08:53 AM

                        I somewhat got Ferrell's message, but I wish it was a bit more coherent.


                        • 0

                        #15 thejohnnygold

                        thejohnnygold

                          Veteran

                        • Moderators
                        • 4,442 posts
                        • LocationAustin, TX

                        Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:09 PM

                        I believe he said, "Go Rockets!"


                        • 0

                        #16 Red94

                        Red94

                          Senior Member

                        • Administrators
                        • 1,517 posts

                          Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:11 PM

                          New post: The Rockets Daily - September 2, 2013
                          By: John Eby

                          R-E-S-P-E-C-T - For as much as Tracy McGrady's career has been characterized by what he lacked--playoff success, good teammates--his retirement has revealed that T-Mac as one thing in spades: respect from his peers. Bill Simmons nails it in his Grantland piece on the subject:

                          Quote:

                          Tracy McGrady? He's the guy who never made it to the second round. And yet, just two weeks ago, Kobe Bryant told Jimmy Kimmel in front of 5,000 people that McGrady was his toughest opponent ever. Not LeBron, not Wade, not Pierce, not Durant. T-Mac. Was that a passive-aggressive dig at LeBron? Did Kobe really mean it? After McGrady retired this week, I couldn't resist texting Kobe to ask him. Was it true? Was T-Mac really the most talented player Kobe ever played against?

                          His response: "No question."

                          The cherry on top was Dwayne Wade's response to the article on Twitter:

                          A Unified Theory of Chandler Parsons - Yesterday, Rahat tackled the subject of The Hair's market value, but today I'm looking at a different question: why did Chandler Parsons succeed at all? As Rahat points out, advanced metrics on Parsons are a mixed bag. His PER is average, his Win Shares are good, but his Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus (which basically tracks how much better the team is with him on the court) is low. As you may recall, plus-minus was the Rosetta Stone to understanding why Shane Battier was valuable. But the real conundrum goes back to how Parsons not only managed to crack the rotation as a second round pick, but how he was managed to become a captain of the team.

                          The tricky thing about Parsons is that he is good-not-great at just about everything. This doesn't sound strange until you look at the history of other Rockets (and NBA players in history) who have succeeded after being picked late or going undrafted. Almost all of those guys could hang their hat on one elite skill. Aaron Brooks: shooting, Chuck Hayes: post defense, Carl Landry and Luis Scola: post scoring, Greg Smith: finishing on the pick and roll. Parsons doesn't blow you away either in the eye test in any of the skill areas associated with his position: ballhandling, three-point shooting, passing or finishing at the rim.

                          However, he ranks 10th at his position in both True Shooting and Assist Ratio. Now we're getting somewhere. Lets dig a little deeper into his shooting. Follow me over to 82games.com, and look at Parsons' eFG% on jump shots (.519) and his eFG% inside (.655). I compared those numbers for him against LeBron, Durant, Iguodala, Deng, Jimmy Butler, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Wade, Paul George,  James Harden and Kawhi Leonard. Only two guys were better than Parsons in both areas: LeBron and Durant. Kawhi Leonard was the only other guy who came close, and really the comparison between him and Parsons is virtually equal by this measure. In other words, only two guys are better at exploiting the basic defensive conundrum of guarding the drive or guarding the shot, and they're the two best players in the world.

                          But that conclusion is not the theory.  It doesn't explain how Kevin McHale recognized a talent that dozens of scouts overlooked. It doesn't explain how Parsons puts up those numbers without textbook shooting form or deceptive handles.

                          The Unified Theory of Chandler Parsons is: Chandler Parsons makes the right decision.

                          He shoots at the best time to shoot, he drives at the best time to drive, and he cuts at the best time to cut. That sounds too simple. It's not. And I think I know how Houston's front office measures it. Check out this Grantland article from last March, in which Zach Lowe gets an inside look at how the Toronto Raptors use their SportVU video tracking system. Teams can use that technology to build a computer model--based on advanced metrics--of what players should do on any given play. It's similar to what a coach is doing mentally all the time, evaluating how well his players are responding to what is going on on the court.

                          My theory is that Parsons does naturally what the computer would say is the most efficient decision in the vast majority of situations. He does naturally what McHale sees as the correct play, thereby earning his trust. He makes up for his lack of a single distinguishing, efficient skill by making the best choice again and again. His decision-making is his skill.

                          The impact of that skill may not have shown up in his plus-minus yet, but it's something that his coaches and the front office can track play-by-play, seeing the process that they know results in success.

                          So there's the Unified Theory of Chandler Parsons. The only way to truly test it is to break down every one of his plays in SportVU, and the only people with the time, money, and brains to do that are NBA front offices. The most negative ramification of the theory is that unlike, say, JaVale McGee, Parsons is already making the most of his talent and has therefore hit his ceiling. The most positive ramification is that he is exactly the guy you want playing next to two superstars, because he will always be making the best basketball decision.

                          Got any sweet links or suggestions? Email them to [email protected] or message @EbyNews on Twitter.

                           


                          • 2

                          #17 Rahat Huq

                          Rahat Huq

                            Administrator

                          • Administrators
                          • 1,563 posts

                            Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:16 PM



                            I agree with this.


                            • 0

                            #18 RollingWave

                            RollingWave

                              Advanced Member

                            • Members
                            • PipPipPipPip
                            • 506 posts

                              Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:33 PM

                              yeah, though I think one thing we may debate is that, is it really correct to assume Parsons can't improve?

                               

                              because if you look at it, he is essentially a guy who maximize his current talent due to instinct, current talent is essentially raw physical ability (tools) and skill,  so what's harder? improving your current talent (tools or skills) or improving your instinct ?

                               

                              I actually think the hardest to improve is tools (nearly impossible to improve significantly.) >> Instincts (hard to improve but not impossible.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skills (fairly reasonable to improve in most cases.)

                               

                              If you look at Parsons coming out of college, the most striking thing is how poor his skill was for a 4 year college guy without huge physical upside .  most notably, he's a wing that shot poorly from the free throw line, that almost never works out.  and yet somehow it did, he got much better at the line and on the floor in general shooting in his first 2 year.

                               

                              Some guys are terrible defensively due to physical ability (read: Steve Nash) , some are terrible due to instincts (see: Al Jefferson) . Jefferson is an example of guys never really improving on that end too meaningfully in his career, it's a shame too because offensively he's something of a one man offense, you can run a decent offense with just him and little else, but the problem is that he'd also have to be one of your key defensive player just based on the merit of him being a 4/5 and that gets ugly.

                               

                              In short, I do wonder if Parsons is a case of a guy who had great instincts, so that once his skill improve a bit the results became so overwhelming apparent that he went from a 30 + pick to essentially the 3rd or 4th best player in that draft. and if that's the case, then what's to say he can't improve his skill some more? what's to say he can't improve his dribbling for example?

                               

                              We'll see, but I do like him most in that he's clearly a guy that plays within his ability. something that's easier said than done even at the NBA level.


                              • 0

                              #19 ale11

                              ale11

                                Advanced Member

                              • Members
                              • PipPipPipPip
                              • 747 posts
                              • LocationMontevideo, Uruguay

                              Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:44 PM

                              Great point. It explains a lot....


                              • 0

                              #20 Rahat Huq

                              Rahat Huq

                                Administrator

                              • Administrators
                              • 1,563 posts

                                Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:19 PM

                                 Yet you've seen him attack baskets finishing & immobilizes defenders because of his pernicious court awareness

                                This was incredible.  


                                • 0




                                0 user(s) are reading this topic

                                0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users