Is Tony Parker the Best PG in the League?

[CelticConcourse]

Then we'll compare actual Playoffs stats.

Parker's playoffs this year are just ignored, huh?

23 points, 7 assists, and a 12-2 record seems relevant.

And I'm gonna compare that to....?

(Also note that Parker is 31 years old whereas Rondo is 27.)

[Roy H.]

Then we'll compare actual Playoffs stats.

Parker's playoffs this year are just ignored, huh?

23 points, 7 assists, and a 12-2 record seems relevant.

And I'm gonna compare that to....?

(Also note that Parker is 31 years old whereas Rondo is 27.)

Compare it to whatever you want.  To ignore it is nonsensical.

[CelticConcourse]

Then we'll compare actual Playoffs stats.

Parker's playoffs this year are just ignored, huh?

23 points, 7 assists, and a 12-2 record seems relevant.

And I'm gonna compare that to....?

(Also note that Parker is 31 years old whereas Rondo is 27.)

Compare it to whatever you want.  To ignore it is nonsensical.

2012-13
Tony Parker: 23/7/4/1 (14 games)
Rajon Rondo: 0/0/0/0 (0 games)
Tony Parker is the better overall player

Points created
Parker: 37
Rondo: 0
Parker creates more points for his team.

Assists
Parker: 7
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more assists than Rondo

Rebounds
Parker: 4
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more rebounds, even in a larger sample size

Steals
Parker: 1
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more steals, even in a larger sample size

Defensive Rating
Parker: 101
Rondo: ∞/0
Parker is a better defender than Rondo

Assist%, Turnover%
Parker: 35.8/11.3
Rondo: 0/0
(this is useless, we actually have to find the quotient)
Parker: 3.17
Rondo: Indeterminate
Parker takes care of the ball and distributes the ball better than Rondo

eFG%
Parker: 49.2
Rondo: 0.0
Parker is a better shooter than Rondo

Win Shares
Parker: 2.1
Rondo: 0.0
Parker wins more games than Rondo.
 
I mean, come on, there's nothing to compare to!!

[anthony83]

TP is the best point guard ib the league, absolutely.

[#1P4P]

Scoring, especially scoring in half court sets, is what gets you through rounds in the playoffs.

Parker is a PG, who's an elite scorer; scorers are featured prominently in the playoffs because of the lack of transition and the usually strong defense of the teams that remain. His scoring ability in the half court is at a point where he has more than one option in the P&R alone and he uses each option to full effect.

Chris Paul is more of a distributor than Parker, but in the playoffs, he becomes as aggressive of a scorer as Parker is and as a result an even better scorer. Why doesn't he advance in the playoffs then? Coaching and personnel (how do you think teams win double-triple teaming Paul?... the gameplans have been to get and keep the ball out of his hands). CP3 is still the best PG in the league...

Rondo can become that, but he has to continue to improve. When he starts to average 18-22 PPG, he'll be that. Until then, he's not as built for the playoffs as the other 2.

[BballTim]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

[LarBrd33]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

I was waiting to see when you'd join the discussion and find some wonky way of arguing "Rondo is the best!"...  You didn't disappoint  

Since statistically, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Chris Paul.  And since in terms of success, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Tony Parker.   

I admire your creativity here.  Tommypoint!

[The Rondo Show]

Then we'll compare actual Playoffs stats.

Parker's playoffs this year are just ignored, huh?

23 points, 7 assists, and a 12-2 record seems relevant.

And I'm gonna compare that to....?

(Also note that Parker is 31 years old whereas Rondo is 27.)

Compare it to whatever you want.  To ignore it is nonsensical.

2012-13
Tony Parker: 23/7/4/1 (14 games)
Rajon Rondo: 0/0/0/0 (0 games)
Tony Parker is the better overall player

Points created
Parker: 37
Rondo: 0
Parker creates more points for his team.

Assists
Parker: 7
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more assists than Rondo

Rebounds
Parker: 4
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more rebounds, even in a larger sample size

Steals
Parker: 1
Rondo: 0
Parker gets more steals, even in a larger sample size

Defensive Rating
Parker: 101
Rondo: ∞/0
Parker is a better defender than Rondo

Assist%, Turnover%
Parker: 35.8/11.3
Rondo: 0/0
(this is useless, we actually have to find the quotient)
Parker: 3.17
Rondo: Indeterminate
Parker takes care of the ball and distributes the ball better than Rondo

eFG%
Parker: 49.2
Rondo: 0.0
Parker is a better shooter than Rondo

Win Shares
Parker: 2.1
Rondo: 0.0
Parker wins more games than Rondo.
 
I mean, come on, there's nothing to compare to!!

This is asinine

[Celtics18]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

I was waiting to see when you'd join the discussion and find some wonky way of arguing "Rondo is the best!"...  You didn't disappoint  

Since statistically, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Chris Paul.  And since in terms of success, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Tony Parker.   

I admire your creativity here.  Tommypoint!

Wait a second.

This is pretty funny stuff.  Statistically, it's clear that Rondo has been the Celtics best player in the playoffs (and the regular season, for that matter) since 2009.  Yet, you've been the guy who consistently argues that he's been our third most important player by a wide margin over that stretch. 

Interestingly, the argument that I've generally seen from you to back up your position is based on +/- numbers.

Now you laugh off BBallTim's attempts to use the +/- argument to show that Rondo has had a more positive impact on his team during the playoffs over that stretch than Paul and Parker have had for their respective teams. 

You've got to admit to your own hypocrisy on this one.   

[LarBrd33]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

I was waiting to see when you'd join the discussion and find some wonky way of arguing "Rondo is the best!"...  You didn't disappoint  

Since statistically, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Chris Paul.  And since in terms of success, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Tony Parker.   

I admire your creativity here.  Tommypoint!

Wait a second.

This is pretty funny stuff.  Statistically, it's clear that Rondo has been the Celtics best player in the playoffs (and the regular season, for that matter) since 2009.  Yet, you've been the guy who consistently argues that he's been our third most important player by a wide margin over that stretch. 

Interestingly, the argument that I've generally seen from you to back up your position is based on +/- numbers.

Now you laugh off BBallTim's attempts to use the +/- argument to show that Rondo has had a more positive impact on his team during the playoffs over that stretch than Paul and Parker have had for their respective teams. 

You've got to admit to your own hypocrisy on this one.   

That's pretty much not true.   I know it's not true, because I tried finding out if BBallTim's +/- numbers were even accurate and I couldn't even find a site that shows them.   I might have shown some stats in literally one post yesterday about "win shares per 48 minutes", but I don't "generally" use +/- numbers in arguments about Rondo.  I'll give you that I did link to ESPN's analysis on how Boston's defense falls apart without kevin Garnett on the floor, though... and that probably used some variation of +/-.   Generally I think +/- is a waste of time, but it's obvious that Boston's defense is inferior without the epicenter of their defense on the floor... and in that context, it seems like it might be a useful thing to look at.

I agree with you that this discussion is hilarious, though.  I guess if you want to bring up a small sampling of playoff games you could probably argue that you and Tim's binky is the best in the world... but otherwise, it's hard to argue with stats that Rondo is on Chris Paul's level.  And it's hard to argue that Tony Parker isn't the most successful point guard in the league.  I do admire the attempt, though.

[BballTim]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

I was waiting to see when you'd join the discussion and find some wonky way of arguing "Rondo is the best!"...  You didn't disappoint  

Since statistically, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Chris Paul.  And since in terms of success, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Tony Parker.   

I admire your creativity here.  Tommypoint!

Wait a second.

This is pretty funny stuff.  Statistically, it's clear that Rondo has been the Celtics best player in the playoffs (and the regular season, for that matter) since 2009.  Yet, you've been the guy who consistently argues that he's been our third most important player by a wide margin over that stretch. 

Interestingly, the argument that I've generally seen from you to back up your position is based on +/- numbers.

Now you laugh off BBallTim's attempts to use the +/- argument to show that Rondo has had a more positive impact on his team during the playoffs over that stretch than Paul and Parker have had for their respective teams. 

You've got to admit to your own hypocrisy on this one.   

That's pretty much not true.   I know it's not true, because I tried finding out if BBallTim's +/- numbers were even accurate and I couldn't even find a site that shows them.   I might have shown some stats in literally one post yesterday about "win shares per 48 minutes", but I have never used +/- numbers in any argument about Rondo.  I'll give you that I did link to ESPN's analysis on how Boston's defense falls apart without kevin Garnett on the floor, though... and that probably used some variation of +/-.

  No, he's right, every time you talk about how the defense is better when KG plays or when you mention that the team (or the offense) was better during the season without Rondo this year you're using the same type of analysis that I did in my post. It only sounds wonky in my post because I have a good enough grasp of the numbers to discuss them like that.

I agree with you that this discussion is hilarious, though.  I guess if you want to bring up a small sampling of playoff games you could probably argue that you and Tim's binky is the best in the world... but otherwise, it's hard to argue with stats that Rondo is on Chris Paul's level.  And it's hard to argue that Tony Parker isn't the most successful point guard in the league.  I do admire the attempt, though.

  It's only a small sample size when other people use them, right? Because when you started talking about how the team was playing better without Rondo or when you were talking about KG's effect on the defense early in the season you were using much smaller sample sizes than the number of games I'm discussing. FWIW there's only about 30 players in the league right now with more career playoff minutes than Rondo played from 09-12, so I would guess as far as you're concerned playoff performances are never worth discussing because they're all based on small sample sizes.

[Celtics18]

Not sure there's a PG I'd rather have in the playoffs than Parker.

Skillset-wise, he's top 5 (not even sure top 3) but the kid really seems to step it up come playoff time.

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

Yeah, Parker, like Rondo, is a beast of a PG in the playoffs. They both really raise their games under the microscope of the playoffs whereas players like CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Williams pretty much play at the level they always play at or play slightly worse come playoff time.

To me, I think its because both are such great half court floor generals which is the style of offense played for the most part in the playoffs. As guys who run offenses in the half court I think they are the best. Then CP3 and Williams. Then the next level is the guys that are outstanding PGs but their half court offenses revolve around them scoring like Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, etc.

Yes this both guys will put up whatever stat the TEAM needs, Chris Paul and Williams just don't seem to have in terms of leading a group.   Knock rondo all you can but his playoff numbers are all time great levels.   I feel rondo Parker and rose can raise any part of their game to affect the team in a payoff win situation

Chris Paul has better career playoff numbers than Rajon Rondo in virtually every single statistic (Rondo only beats Paul in rebounds at 6 to 5, turnovers 2.8 to 3, and fouls 2.5 to 2.7).

  Since 2009 Paul's averaged 20/5/9, Parker's averaged 21/4/6, Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. I'd say that the numbers for the players are pretty comparable.

  If you look at their on/off numbers over that time period, they aren't comparable at all though. My math might be slightly off, but it looks like since the 2009 playoffs Paul's teams are -226 when he plays and -12 when he's on the bench. The Spurs are a +175 when Parker's in the game, -43 when he's on the bench. The Celts (not counting this year) are a +257 when Rondo's in the game and -159 when he's on the bench.

  So for the playoffs Paul's teams (who were generally poor) did better when he was out of the game than when he played, but I don't think that's a reflection on Paul. On a per48 minute basis the Spurs were 5 points better than their opponents when Parker played and 4 points worse than their opponents when he sat. For the Celts, they're 5 points better than their opponents when Rondo plays and 15 points worse than their opponents when he sits.

I was waiting to see when you'd join the discussion and find some wonky way of arguing "Rondo is the best!"...  You didn't disappoint  

Since statistically, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Chris Paul.  And since in terms of success, it's hard to argue anyone is better than Tony Parker.   

I admire your creativity here.  Tommypoint!

Wait a second.

This is pretty funny stuff.  Statistically, it's clear that Rondo has been the Celtics best player in the playoffs (and the regular season, for that matter) since 2009.  Yet, you've been the guy who consistently argues that he's been our third most important player by a wide margin over that stretch. 

Interestingly, the argument that I've generally seen from you to back up your position is based on +/- numbers.

Now you laugh off BBallTim's attempts to use the +/- argument to show that Rondo has had a more positive impact on his team during the playoffs over that stretch than Paul and Parker have had for their respective teams. 

You've got to admit to your own hypocrisy on this one.   

That's pretty much not true.   I know it's not true, because I tried finding out if BBallTim's +/- numbers were even accurate and I couldn't even find a site that shows them.   I might have shown some stats in literally one post yesterday about "win shares per 48 minutes", but I don't "generally" use +/- numbers in arguments about Rondo.  I'll give you that I did link to ESPN's analysis on how Boston's defense falls apart without kevin Garnett on the floor, though... and that probably used some variation of +/-.   Generally I think +/- is a waste of time, but it's obvious that Boston's defense is inferior without the epicenter of their defense on the floor... and in that context, it seems like it might be a useful thing to look at.

I agree with you that this discussion is hilarious, though.  I guess if you want to bring up a small sampling of playoff games you could probably argue that you and Tim's binky is the best in the world... but otherwise, it's hard to argue with stats that Rondo is on Chris Paul's level.  And it's hard to argue that Tony Parker isn't the most successful point guard in the league.  I do admire the attempt, though.

BasketballReference has started keeping on court/off court numbers on all players in the league.  I don't see them as definitive proof of a player's worth, but they can be kind of interesting.

I get what you're saying, though.  There are certain numbers that you only like when they confirm your own opinion.  Heck, we're probably all like that to an extent. 

[BballTim]

He's certainly the most successful.  If I had to pick any point guard to lead my team in a playoff series, it would be Parker.

I don't get that.

What's not to get?  How many other PGs are there playing who have three rings, four Finals appearances, and a Finals MVP?

  It's true he's had the most success, it's also true that almost all of that success came before 07-08 and before he was 25. The Spurs could win the title and Parker will still have had less success over the past 6 playoffs than Rondo, in fact if the Spurs lose the finals TP will have had less success since the 2009 playoffs than Rondo despite Rondo missing one playoffs with an injury and having a major injury another year.

[thirstyboots18]

I don't think stats are the benchmark for a good point guard...I think it is seeing the floor and the plays develop before they do...having the intelligence to direct your team to their fullest capabilities.  If that means points, the point should get points; if that means pass, the point guard should pass.  It does mean recognizing the where your teammates are most successful and trying to set them up to get the ball there, while catching the other team off guard and out of position to defend.  It means knowing all the players tendencies, strengths and weaknesses while trying to run the coaches plays.  Parker is great with the Spurs.  I feel that Rondo is great with the Celtics.  IMO gathering that team knowledge and incorporating and imparting it to a changing cast takes a long time, and that is why it takes so long for a great point to mature into a Great point guard. 

[thirstyboots18]

Tony Parker is the best point guard still playing, unless you consider LeBron to be a point guard...