Intangibles Over Statistical Stardom: Houston Rockets' Chandler Parsons Over the Toronto Raptor

Chandler Parsons has Tangibles in addition to Intangibles. I am very glad he is a Houston Rocket.

 

I think probably a number of people will not enjoy this article.

 

I wonder how much Parsons's agent is behind all this publicity so he can get a big contract.

Don't really agree with some parts of the article, but overall yes Parsons does bring a lot to the table. Hope he can stay a Rocket forever.

 

If Parsons really is THAT good, this would mean the Rockets have a top 7 player at three positions. Scary.

 

chandler is very underrated on these boards

if harden didnt join us, i think Chandler would have had the huge spike up in stats as in 20 pts, 7 rebs, 4 assists

 

It's a decent article, and I pretty much agree.
Though I could sum it down ever further.

To me, there's group one of Lebron and KD. There's group two which is just Melo and Paul George.

Then there's group 3, which includes Iguodala, Parsons, Leonard, etc.

I think within those groups, you could trade one player for the other and not really see much movement in terms of team performance. Trade Lebron and KD and KD has the rings. Trade out Parsons for Iguodala, or Leonard and I don't think much changes.

Maybe there's be meaningful change with the Melo/George swap... but honestly I couldn't even tell you who would be better and who would be worse. I can't figure out how Melo impacts a team, and I really like George, but think he might be a tad overrated.

 

Yahoo Contributor Network is garbage

 

M. De Moor strikes again.

 

Nonsense, Rudy Gay is better than Durant

 

He's regularly mentioned with these guys, e.g..

http://dimemag.com/2013/05/the-4-ti...f-the-nbas-top-10-small-forwards-this-season/

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...warp-2013-14&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13821192826227

 

Rudy Gay can create his own shot and Parson cannot. Neither Gay or Parson should ever be the first or second option on offense of a contending team. Parsons is light years better than Gay off the ball so I would rather have Parsons on my team.

 

"Parsons is a better player than Gay" you can argue this. "Parsons is more valuable to his team than Gay" you can't argue. I enjoyed the read. Thanks.

 

He going to take his game to another level this year no doubt!

 

He makes a thin case, but it could be valid. IMHO Parsons greatest "intangible" is his "broness". I am completely confident that the Rockets will be a happy and loose team with him on board. I mean, who in the NBA would you rather hang for a night with over Parsons? He somehow has become "chief recruiter".

 

The thing that always makes me upset is when people say Kawhi is better. Parsons to me is the perfect complimentary "3rd Star" because he doesn't need the ball in his hands and has the ability to play elite-level defense (if he's not carrying too much load on offense).

 

Parsons is about to show the world he's on Otter from Animal House's level.

 

I would take Parsons over Rudy Gay any day

 

There is no such thing as intangibles. If Shane Battier gave a pep talk in the locker room before a big game and it improved his team's performance, that can be tracked with statistics. It Chandler Parsons has some magical BO that makes his defender a half step slow, it can be tracked with statistics. The only intangibles are the small things that affect a game that aren't picked up on. If somebody picks up on them, they're no longer 'intangible'.

 

That is almost by definition something that can't be tracked by stats, as even if you know team performance changed you have no way of tracking it back to a locker room speech. It could have been that they watched dog welcoming a soldier home on youtube and got inspired.

You have a good chance of getting stats on things that happen on the court. You have a reasonable chance of getting stats on changes that affect an entire season (e.g. new training staff). You have almost no chance of getting stats on a one-off event.

The thing about tracking stats is you require a big enough sample size for them to have meaning.