I don't need to look up the stats, because I watched the games. But let's have a look anyway.
Thanks for that Dan McCarney.
Aside, from the 136-point burst from Portland, 7 out of the 8 games that Parker missed during that stretch - teams averaged 93.5 PPG against the Spurs, a better mark than the Spurs regular season points against 96.6. That Portland game Parker wasn't doing shyt to stop that offensive-juggernaut peformance:
12 from 18 = Aldridge
9 from 15 = Hickson
12 from 20 = Lillard
8 from 11 = Maynor
That 136 point performance drastically affects the overall average. They also defeated the Thunder when Parker was out and held them to under 100 points too. You saying their defense suffered so much when he was gone, isn't factually right, as I said: aside from one game they held teams to under a
THREE POINT AVERAGE (93.5) over that stretch, compared to the rest of the season (96.6).
Parker isn't drastically changing any teams 3-point scoring. Parker hardly ever guards the best perimeter/shooter.
I never alluded to he hasn't improved his defense, but he's still an average perimeter defender. No team's defense is gonna suffer due to the absence of Parker. He simply doesn't have that impact. If you wanna argue that offensive struggles (from no Parker) has an impact on the defensive end, then that's fine. But at face value, the Spurs defense didn't
'suffer so much' when he was out.
Westbrook has a 100.4 defensive rating
Paul has a 103.0 defensive rating
Williams has a 104.7 defensive rating
Bledsoe has a 100.7 defensive rating
Need I say more on why defensive ratings aren't a true reflection of a player's defensive abilities?
Manu the so-called "a great coach one day", doesn't think Parker was that much of a loss defensively (not to the degree that you think he was) during that period.