Calling Chandler Parsons 'mediocre' is not the same as disrespecting your mother or close kin, as some apparently are taking it. I guess the slightest hint of negativity towards Parsons really hits a nerve for the teenybopper demographic. No need to have an aneurysm over such a, well, mediocre player.
What? I haven't read the Parsons/Hayward thread, just to be clear (it's impossible to read every damn thing), but do you seriously believe that? And this comment comes after Chandler scores 24, grabs 12 boards, has 6 assists, and a block? After his 20 points in the 1st half? Man, what world are you living in? I'm seriously at a loss here. I genuinely don't understand the basis for a comment like that. Keeping us even remotely "close" during the first half is what I would call clutch, not mediocre. He could have dialed it in and shrugged off the loss, like most of the guys did before the half. That Parsons stepped up after an awful first two games shooting is why we're talking about being 3-0, CXbby. I don't get it. Is it his hair? And no, I'm not "worked up," I simply don't understand your reasoning at all.
You know what's just as bad? Sometimes I spell there when I mean their. Big deal, this is a basketball discussion not an English class. But if that's your thing then ok.
That is just further proof that my comment has absolutely nothing to do with 1 game. Because if we were evaluating players off of 1 game, Chandler would've been cut after his first 2 clunkers. It is generally unwise to base opinions off tiny sample sizes such as that. We've seen Parsons for 2 years now and know exactly what he can and cannot do. Calling him 'mediocre' is no disrespect. Tons of NBA players would love to be mediocre.
I'm basing my opinion on watching Chandler since he put on a Rockets uniform. Your dismissive attitude towards contrary opinions does not serve you well. Now you'll have to excuse me while I go take care of lunch. Will check back later.
Every single word in the post that I responded to was pertaining to the very last game that he played. I can only reply to what I can read, which isn't your mind.
Not disrespected just not accurate. You have become so emotionally invested in your Hayward / Parsons debate that you have lost all objectivity towards Chandler and you are making wild ass claims that you can not begin to prove and have no data that supports your opinion.
I agree with you here. It is too bad that Marcus Morris has hurt your credibility, although Morris is still young enough to potentially have a long NBA career. I said in a another thread that Parsons has a significant way to go to even reach Robert Horry's level, which most people do not consider all-star level (though I considered him just as valuable to a team as many lower-tier all-stars). Average is about the level of Parson's game, although when he is playing smart (NOT overdribbling or stopping the ball), he is above-average. Since he is young, there is still hope/upside, but I do think that his appearance, personality, and home-grown background has him rated higher here than he would be otherwise. I also agree that Hayward is better (as much as it pains me to say it cause I absolutely hate the Jazz, everything about the Jazz, and anyone who represents anything about the Jazz, other than perhaps Sloan's work ethic).
great article. I was talking to an Israeli yesterday, he really knew a lot about basketball, the Rockets, and was talking all about the Rockets/Mavs matchup from the night before with Casspi and Mekel. that rivalry is a cool NBA storyline that wasn't possible before the Mavs rookie joined the league and I look forward to future matchups...
I'm just happy that Mekel isn't some scrub like Yi. Dude has promise at the PG spot. If we hold onto Casspi, this rivalry could have staying power
Plenty of roll players throughout the history of the NBA. Charles Barkley Oliver Miller Thomas "2 Sammiches" Hamilton
Parsons reminds me more of Thaddeus Young but with better passing. Don't really get the Casspi comparison.
I guess the crux of this argument is your definition of "mediocre". Webster defines "mediocre" as: of only ordinary quality; neither good or bad; barely adequate. Maybe it's just me, but that just doesn't describe CP25. If that indeed is your definition of Parsons, then you've probably spent too much time in Austin where they've had 30" of rain the last month.
My definition of mediocre is average, ordinary. "Barely adequate" is going too far, I wouldn't say that. All this indignation over a 15 and 5 guy who is about to average 12 ppg this year. If he is considered 'good', or even 'great' as some make him out to be, then half the NBA is good to great. And this isn't even a case of the guy being better than his numbers, quite the opposite. Both the Rocket's pace and playing off of 2 penetrators actually inflate his numbers. Parsons is the same level as guys like Wilson Chandler, Mike Dunleavy jr, Thabo Sefolosha, Jared Dudley, Danny Green, Carlos Delfino, Trevor Ariza, Corey Brewer, OJ Mayo, list goes on. All different players, but on the same 'good bad' scale.
