Chandler Parsons--the over-glorified role player.

Kindergarden analysts tend to use flawed sciences such as rings to define greatness, or blocks to measure defensive impact, and another flawed science is one I just came across earlier today: box score stats define whether or not someone is a role player. The 16.6 points and 4 assists Parsons averaged last season do not disqualify him as a role player, they just make him a very good one (offensively). I won't bother to bring up the fact Parsons put up 5 points and 0 assists in 34 minutes (oh wait I just did hehe) in his debut as a Dallas Maverick just hours after the conversation which spurred me towards this write-up, it's just one game which is obviously a ridiculously small sample size. If the Mavericks do intend to use Parsons as one of the primary pick-and-roll operators on the team, Parsons's TS% (a measure of scoring efficiency indicative of shot selection) will likely plummet well below where it was last season.

The definition of role player seems to vary among different people, but essentially role players are replaceable, and the offense doesn't run through them. Role players are often asked to perform a number of tasks, and Parsons excels in several areas which make him one of the better offensive role players in the league: spot-up shooting, pump-fake drives, attacking the rotating/recovering defender, getting up the floor in transition, making timely cuts, and he's also a very good passer for his position. Parsons does not have the makings of a player transcending from role player to focal point for one simple fact (according to www.mysynergysports.com): he is not good at creating his own shot, he never was (he played the same exact role in college) and age 26 it is now highly unlikely he ever will be. Perimeter players at this age who make drastic leaps of improvement are so rare, you would be foolish to hold your breath thinking Parsons will be an exception.

Don't get me wrong, role players are essential to success in the NBA, because you can't have 5 ball-dominant guys on the floor and expect much synergy. You need good spot-up shooters, cutters, guys who know how to attack the weak side and punish defenses for paying too much attention to the 1st option. You also need good defenders because it's half the game. Sometimes role players are so good at their role they can even lead the league in plus-minus (ie. Iguodala). With that being said, Chandler Parsons is not even one of the best role players out there once you factor in his defense--it's average. The 1st option and 2nd options are handling most the offense, so if you could only choose one attribute wehre you want your role players to excel, I would say it's a toss up between 3pt shooting and defense. Preferably both.

The role players who tend to rank very high on measures of impact like RPM are usually the kind who perform these two tasks well--defend and shoot--Danny Green, Iguodala, and Kawhi Leonard are a few names high up on that list. Chandler Parsons on the other hand is a lot further down that list, indicating that he is actually one of the more replaceable role players.

Metrics such as RPM and Synergy (synergy numbers tell you how efficient a player is at things like creating his own shot, operating the pick and roll ect.) are useful tools, hence the fact scouting reports at draftexpress use synergy numbers, and many analytic minds have been regarding RAPM as the best single measure of offense and/or defensive impact for years. Nothing beats watching the game, but if the fact all 30 NBA teams now employ the use of analytics is any indication, the more information you have the better. When the visuals and useful metrics point towards one direction, I think it's pretty safe to draw a conclusion.