Fact: Parsons hits on everyone, especially celebrities. Figures: Asian figure (J Lin), Bearded figure (James Harden), Diva figure (Dwight Howard) Is Selena Gomez an almost star? By fame? Sure. By singing/acting skill? Not that close.
He's not a star. According to Synergy Sports he gets most his points in transition, cuts, and spot-ups, which is why he efficiently scores 15 points per game. When he creates his own shot he's no where near as efficient, and he's not an elite defender, so how can he be a star?
He might never make an allstar team in his career...but he is and will be one of the best (if not the best) #3 option player on a team. If Parsons is your #3..you have a pretty damn good team. r
no-system is McHale's system. run and gun, freelance style. In that system, Landry Fields looked like a star too.
The "go-to" topic of conversation to spark an argument on the GARM is always "What defines a "Star" or "Super-Star."" It's all subjective. Its a played out topic, but let me endulge you. IMO- -A star player IMO is a very good all-star calliber level player you can build your team around or have be a major piece to a contending team. -A super star is that of a star player, but on a much higher level in on-the-court play (ability to truly dominate a game), and must have household name recognition. Lebron, Kobe, Jordan, etc. ............. I personally think Parsons can be somewhere in between. I do think he's a player that is going to get plenty of all-star votes throughout his career. He might never make the team if the competition is too high, but he's going to be in the conversation for multiple years, and he's going to command a high dollar amount when he hits free agency in a couple of years. Parsons's also has the ability to really branch out publicly outside the NBA world as a household name because of his exceptional personality, and marketable good looks (I know, I know). So is he going to be a super-star on the level of Kobe/Lebron, etc. .... no almost certainly not. Is he going to be all-star calliber player for years and year with marketable star appeal off the cour.... Yes.
My opinion: A star can lead your team to the playoffs. A Superstar can lead your team to a championship.
I think parsons is a very good player and much better than Landry Fields. With that said Its gonna be very hard for parsons to make the Allstar team unless the rockets are the way team in the league and winning chips with him getting atleast 17 7 and 4. What this team needs is for him to repeat what he did last yr coupled with his rookie year defense. If he can do that the rockets are in good shape and so is parsons for his next contract. To me parsons is one of those players who's very good but not a star, yet he can play with almost anyone and still get his with out taking away from the big name guys. This is a very unique and special trait for any championship team to have. Parsons fits very well with harden and Howard and because of that the rockets must keep him unless a superstar drops in ur lap for him. Personally I wish parsons would really study Paul pierce offensive game. I think both players are similar in terms of athletic ability and shooting. We're pierce separates is on the ability to get his own shot. He is able to do this without having great handles of elite speed. Very similar to parsons he most learn how to get open separation from the triple threat position and the post like pierce. If he can do that then no doubt parsons will be a Allstar in this league.
Shouldn't an "all-star calliber player your team can build around" be the type of player that can get your team to the playoffs anyways? The point is, this "what defines a STAR or SUPERSTAR" BS is incredibly subjective, strickly opinion, and frankly played out. The only metric you have to clearly define is all-star appearances, all-NBA appearances, and the amount of endorsements you command. Everything else is opinion.
"star" is obviously subjective, but I see these numbers as a good thing. Teams are primarily going to try and cut off Harden and Howard and take the ball out of their hands, so you need a good secondary type player who can take advantage. Parsons is so valuable because he does this in a myriad of ways. He can spot up on the perimeter, cut to the basket, leak out on transition, make a decent pass, and although he's not an elite perimeter stopper he is good enough to take the pressure off of Harden. Role players usually have big gaps in their game (e.g. they'll take shoot 3s but don't ask them to drive) or play outside themselves and take inefficient shots now and then. Parsons is a jack of all trades super-role player that does everything you'd want a secondary star to do.
Averages over 15ppg and plays above average defense. He's on the cusp of stardom, needs to get better at going to the basket and finishing.
Depends what you think a star is. He's not a primary scorer. He'll never be that. But guess what...there's only so many shots to go around anyways, throwing five primary scorers out there at once is useless. Parsons brings a unique blend of secondary scoring and versatility that few others do. For example, here is the list of players who have equaled or bettered Parsons' points per game, rebounds per game, and three point percentage (arguably his three best attributes given his slight relapse on defense last year): Lebron James Kevin Durant Dirk Nowitzki Chandler Parsons and that's it. Obviously there are a million guys who trade a small decrease in one of those stats for a large increase in another (e.g., Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony, James Harden, Paul George) but if you're looking for a 15 point scorer who can board and knock down open threes, that stat basically says Chandler Parsons is the best guy in that role in the entire league, given the other players who achieve those stats are primary scorers.
You said it? Heart. Heart, hustle, defense, and just enough skill to make it happen. And he wants to take the big shots.
Hmmm not really, Bird was the best rebounding sf in nba history. So its not just shooting. Also, Bird's internals were made of steel. Top 5 sh** talker in NBA history, psychology is part of the game.
Also, if we are going to make comparisons of former players. I think he is a Scottie Pippen light. Emphasis on the light (double meaning). Similiar numbers at the same point of his career.
If you go to bball reference and use Chandlers season averages as the baseline stat search for last season, he is in some damn good company. Our pace plays into it, but not many players put up the kind of all around numbers he did last season and the ones who did are all stars. That's not to say that I think Parsons IS an allstar, but he could be in the conversation in the future.
He is definitely not a star right now; his ball handling and first step is not good enough. While I wouldn't say he is not athletic, he does not have the athleticism other star wings have or the ball handling and first step acceleration needed to easily get by his opponents. That said, he is a great long range bomber who is fast enough on cuts to keep his opponents' eyes on him at all times and athletic enough to take it hard to the rim or dunk in a put back. He is also incredibly efficient, guards the opposing team's best wing, can play positions 2-4 if needed, and is a good passer to boot.
I doubt he will become a star, not on this team anyway. Last year's Rox team was perfect for him. He was the 2nd banana only to Harden. This year going forward he will be 3rd option at best. He'd be really lucky to crack the 15ppg again. With that # it's hard to become a star, unless you excel in other parts of the game. To me the only chance for him is to play stellar defense.
