ISH Selects Top 10 Current Players Peaks (2016 edition): #8 Peak

[Out_In_Utah]

Rules:

24 hours to vote.
1 vote per poster.
Make it clear who you are casting your vote for.
Peak = 1 season + corresponding playoff (i.e., player A's peak lasting 2 years longer than player B's is irrelevant)
You do not need to specify which year (e.g., you can just say who the player is you are voting for)
I will post a new thread for each of the top 10.
Obvious votes attempting to derail poll with unworthy players will be disregarded
Votes with obvious misunderstanding of poll will be disregarded

#7 best peak out of current players according to ISH:

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/New+Orleans+Hornets+v+Phoenix+Suns+72ko6x9NuSwl.jp g

CHRIS PAUL

-----------------------------------------------------------

1. LeBron James
2. Steph Curry
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Dwyane Wade
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki
7. Chris Paul


-----------------------------------------------------------

You have 24 hours to vote for the 8th best peak out of the current players.

My vote: Dwight Howard

[NBAGOAT]

same dwight howard. Next 2 spots are going be really tough to decide however.

[I know you are]

Dwight

[Steven Kerry]

Howard

[Young X]

I agree with the selection but it's a contradiction to rank Chris that high over:

Howard
Harden
Westbrook
Gasol
Pierce
Rondo
Parker

But this is why most rankings are stupid, there's no consistency.

[I know you are]

I agree with the selection but it's a contradiction to rank Chris that high over:

Howard
Harden
Westbrook
Gasol
Pierce
Rondo
Parker

But this is why most rankings are stupid, there's no consistency.
There is a case for some of those, but Paul has just as much of a case over them.

[Young X]

There is a case for some of those, but Paul has just as much of a case over them.If Chris' lack of playoff success is such a big deal then he has no case over any of them. They all either won rings, went to the finals or conference finals. But he's still ranked over them. Doesn't make sense. People are just stupid.

[tpols]

If Chris' lack of playoff success is such a big deal then he has no case over any of them. They all either won rings, went to the finals or conference finals. But he's still ranked over them. Doesn't make sense. People are just stupid.

what ? the OP says to pick the best year from anybody active, regular season + playoffs.. you dont have to win a ring to be ranked. Wade and Dirk are already on the board and they arguably peaked in years they didnt win everything considered. Nobody's going to say that freakin tony parker or pau gasol or rondo were better just because they won.. it's accepted that their impact and role on the team was at a decidedly lower level than true superstars like paul.

[I know you are]

If Chris' lack of playoff success is such a big deal then he has no case over any of them. They all either won rings, went to the finals or conference finals. But he's still ranked over them. Doesn't make sense. People are just stupid.
I'm thinking it has something to do with him being the closest of the bunch to winning MVP. Dude averaged 21/4/12(led league) with 2.7 steals (led league).

Yes, people give him crap for not advancing to the WCF, but in 2008 the Hornets had no business being as good as they were if not for Paul and they took the Spurs to 7 games in the 2nd round, while Paul averaged 24/5/11 with 2.3stls in the playoffs.

A lot of the guys you listed may have been in the Finals, but either were 2nd fiddle (Pau/Harden/Westbrook) or were part of an ensemble (e.g., Rondo/Pierce/Parker), those years may not have been the peak year for some of those guys. Again, some of those guys have a legit case, but it can't be summed up as "Well CP3 never made it to the Finals, so he is out."

[I know you are]

Put another way, 2008 Kobe would easily get selected over those guys listed, and many think CP3 should have been MVP over Kobe that year.

[DingDengDong]

Westbrook

[Young X]

Nobody's going to say that freakin tony parker or pau gasol or rondo were better just because they won.. it's accepted that their impact and role on the team was at a decidedly lower level than true superstars like paul.What makes Paul a true superstar and those guys not?

They're all all-stars and played important roles on championship teams or finals teams. Parker was the MVP of an NBA Finals.

In Rondo peak season, he and the Celtics were within 1 game of the finals against the champs. He went further than Chris ever did. So why he shouldn't he be ranked higher?


I'm thinking it has something to do with him being the closest of the bunch to winning MVP. Dude averaged 21/4/12(led league) with 2.7 steals (led league).

Yes, people give him crap for not advancing to the WCF, but in 2008 the Hornets had no business being as good as they were if not for Paul and they took the Spurs to 7 games in the 2nd round, while Paul averaged 24/5/11 with 2.3stls in the playoffs.

A lot of the guys you listed may have been in the Finals, but either were 2nd fiddle (Pau/Harden/Westbrook) or were part of an ensemble (e.g., Rondo/Pierce/Parker), those years may not have been the peak year for some of those guys. Again, some of those guys have a legit case, but it can't be summed up as "Well CP3 never made it to the Finals, so he is out."But see this is what I'm saying, why give him crap for not advancing to a WCF than rank him OVER players that did that and more? Makes no sense.

[SouBeachTalents]

I agree with the selection but it's a contradiction to rank Chris that high over:

Howard
Harden
Westbrook
Gasol
Pierce
Rondo
Parker

But this is why most rankings are stupid, there's no consistency.

C'mon, what the fucc is this? Even the first 3 I'd disagree with, but hell, at least they'd have some semblance of an argument. When were the bolded EVER close to winning MVP or being considered top 5 players in the league?


But see this is what I'm saying, why give him crap for not advancing to a WCF than rank him OVER players that did that and more? Makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. They were all on better teams and when they won they weren't even their teams best player

[ClipperRevival]

I'm thinking it has something to do with him being the closest of the bunch to winning MVP. Dude averaged 21/4/12(led league) with 2.7 steals (led league).

Yes, people give him crap for not advancing to the WCF, but in 2008 the Hornets had no business being as good as they were if not for Paul and they took the Spurs to 7 games in the 2nd round, while Paul averaged 24/5/11 with 2.3stls in the playoffs.

A lot of the guys you listed may have been in the Finals, but either were 2nd fiddle (Pau/Harden/Westbrook) or were part of an ensemble (e.g., Rondo/Pierce/Parker), those years may not have been the peak year for some of those guys. Again, some of those guys have a legit case, but it can't be summed up as "Well CP3 never made it to the Finals, so he is out."

Yeah, 2007-08 CP3 was masterful. His team had no business competing for the #1 seed in the WC with the powerful Lakers. Consider his stat in 2007-08 and 2008-09 (2 seasons).

21.9 PPG, 29.1 PER, .495% FG, 11.3 APG, 2.7 SPG

[I know you are]

What makes Paul a true superstar and those guys not?

They're all all-stars and played important roles on championship teams or finals teams. Parker was the MVP of an NBA Finals.

In Rondo peak season, he and the Celtics were within 1 game of the finals against the champs. He went further than Chris ever did. So why he shouldn't he be ranked higher?

But see this is what I'm saying, why give him crap for not advancing to a WCF than rank him OVER players that did that and more? Makes no sense.
Parker winning the FMVP is irrelevant unless you believe that was his peak year. I don't believe it was.

As for your Rondo argument, you seem to think that distance in playoffs is ALL that matters. 2012 Rondo (which you seem to be talking about), has no case over Paul with the exception of being further in the playoffs (btw, he went through weaker competition to get that far). Outside of distance they went in the playoffs, CP3 beats in points (badly), steals, fg% and overall efficiency, and assists were essentially even but assists to turnovers is better in favor of Paul.

[raprap]

08 Paul is hella underrated here lol

My next pick is 11 Dwight

[Young X]

C'mon, what the fucc is this? Even the first 3 I'd disagree with, but hell, at least they'd have some semblance of an argument. When were the bolded EVER close to winning MVP or being considered top 5 players in the league?



Of course it makes sense. They were all on better teams and when they won they weren't even their teams best playerYou're missing what I'm saying. Chris shouldn't be ranked this high or considered a top 5 player if his lack of playoff success is such a big deal.

The Hornets lost in the 2nd and 1st round in 2008 and 2009. There were multiple players in those seasons alone that were the best player on teams that did better in the playoffs.

[ArbitraryWater]

I agree with the selection but it's a contradiction to rank Chris that high over:

Howard
Harden
Westbrook
Gasol
Pierce
Rondo
Parker

But this is why most rankings are stupid, there's no consistency.

:biggums:

youre just trying to find something now lol

[tpols]

What makes Paul a true superstar and those guys not?

They're all all-stars and played important roles on championship teams or finals teams.

thats the point.. they're just all stars / top 10 players at absolute best. Chris Paul was top 3 at worst in his peak season, and was a much better player than any of them ever were. This isnt a GOAT list ranking.. it's just peaks

[Young X]

Parker winning the FMVP is irrelevant unless you believe that was his peak year. I don't believe it was.

As for your Rondo argument, you seem to think that distance in playoffs is ALL that matters. 2012 Rondo (which you seem to be talking about), has no case over Paul with the exception of being further in the playoffs (btw, he went through weaker competition to get that far). Outside of distance they went in the playoffs, CP3 beats in points (badly), steals, fg% and overall efficiency, and assists were essentially even but assists to turnovers is better in favor of Paul.My posts only apply to people that think distance in the playoffs IS all that matters. It's stupid and it's a contradiction to put Paul this high if that's the case.


thats the point.. they're just all stars / top 10 players at absolute best. Chris Paul was top 3 at worst in his peak season, and was a much better player than any of them ever were. This isnt a GOAT list ranking.. it's just peaksExplain to me what made Paul top 3 in his peak seasons. The Hornets lost in the 1st and 2nd round.

[SouBeachTalents]

My posts only apply to people that think distance in the playoffs IS all that matters. It's stupid and it's a contradiction to put Paul this high if that's the case.

Explain to me what made Paul top 3 in his peak seasons. The Hornets lost in the 1st and 2nd round.

So was Kobe not top 3 in '06 & '07? Wade not top 3 in '09?

[tpols]

Explain to me what made Paul top 3 in his peak seasons. The Hornets lost in the 1st and 2nd round.

he had greater impact on the game..

20+/11+, 3 steals a game, 50+% shooting in the rs + playoffs.
1st team All NBA
2nd team All Defense
2nd in MVP voting

Now you tell me a season from parker, pau, pierce, or rondo that even begins to compare to that.

[Young X]

So was Kobe not top 3 in '06 & '07? Wade not top 3 in '09?It's different, those guys already won championships. Wade already lead a team to a championship.

Paul has not won a championship and the the argument against him is he's not good enough to get a team to the conference finals.

So then my question is what made him so good? Why is he ranked this high when there have been multiple players that have done that.


he had greater impact on the game..

20+/11+, 3 steals a game, 50+% shooting in the rs + playoffs.
1st team All NBA
2nd team All Defense
2nd in MVP voting

Now you tell me a season from parker, pau, pierce, or rondo that even begins to compare to that.But why did the Hornets lose in the 2nd round if his impact was so great? He had a good team around him.

[NBAGOAT]

It's different, those guys already won championships. Wade already lead a team to a championship.

Paul has not won a championship and the the argument against him is he's not good enough to get a team to the conference finals.

So then my question is what made him so good? Why is he ranked this high when there have been multiple players that have done that.

the he's done it before thing can play in people's minds way too much. I get what you're getting at. Why is his peak so highly valued but he's usually put behind a whole bunch of pg's with worse peaks all time and I agree with you. Paul's in a weird situation where along with never making the conference finals, he's had good teams mostly with the Clippers. Still his playoff play is pretty good so I don't put blame on him. He's absolutely good enough to lead a team to the conference finals. Sometimes his team isn't good enough or sometimes they are but they underperform and/or the other team overperforms.

[tpols]

But why did the Hornets lose in the 2nd round if his impact was so great? He had a good team around him.

.. because he was facing the Spurs who still had prime versions manu, parker, and duncan? christ dude.. you just seem scorned that people used to make fun of chris paul for choking in the playoffs the past couple years .. and yea it sort of counts against him when comparing to similar talents like garnett, dirk, bron etc but it doesnt mean he's below a bunch of second tier players.

[Naero]

Assuming Anthony Davis falls under the purview of a player's peak despite how the 23-year-old's is still several years away from being realized, I'll vote for him.

The most formidable part about the 2012 number-one draftee is that he still has yet to fully ripen; that doesn't bode well for the rest of the league, but he's already made enough noise that his so-far-best season should still be invited to the discussion of the zeniths of even some of the superstar veterans in this league.

His breakout 2014-15 season was enough to knock on the door of the BITW discussion in the wake of it

[Young X]

the he's done it before thing can play in people's minds way too much. I get what you're getting at. Why is his peak so highly valued but he's usually put behind a whole bunch of pg's with worse peaks all time and I agree with you. Paul's in a weird situation where along with never making the conference finals, he's had good teams mostly with the Clippers. Still his playoff play is pretty good so I don't put blame on him. He's absolutely good enough to lead a team to the conference finals. Sometimes his team isn't good enough or sometimes they are but they underperform and/or the other team overperforms.Right.

"Chris Paul isn't good enough to get a team to the conference finals".

Okay, so then what the f*ck makes him so good then?

He LOST in the 2nd round and 1st round at his peak.

Even someone like Kyle Lowry just led his team to the conference finals.

People are just f*cking idiots.

[NBAGOAT]

Right.

"Chris Paul isn't good enough to get a team to the conference finals".

Okay, so then what the f*ck makes him so good then?

He LOST in the 2nd round and 1st round at his peak.

Even someone like Kyle Lowry just led his team to the conference finals.

People are just f*cking idiots.

yep it's not just Paul, people say this type of thing about guys who haven't won way too much. "This guy's not good enough to lead his team to a championship" or even "This guy's not good enough to lead his team to the playoffs". Objectively, a top 10-15 player can lead his team to the conference finals if the situation and circumstances are good enough. Paul's been easily top 10 every year since 08 and even the biggest critic cant deny that.

[kkb_12]

Vince Carter 2000-2001