Chris Paul is a great two-way player and extremely skilled, so why does he not win?

[72-10]

:confusedshrug:

All of the other great two-way players in NBA history have won a championship, even Gary Payton and David Robinson.

[ScalsFan21]

Few reasons.

One, there are enough high-leverage moments in the playoffs where he has failed (and not enough where he has succeeded) to where he can justifiably be labeled a choker. He's also not the leader he's made out to be, and feuds with every notable teammate he has.

Two, he lacks the short-burst takeover gene. I've seen the late-career joke version of Deron Williams have spurts that put anything CP3 was ever able to do to shame.

Three, his peak was spent surrounded by trash (and getting robbed of a rightful MVP by the Brick Mamba in '08, Kobe's sole win), and the "star" teammates he played with were not stars in terms of impact, other than fellow choker James Harden. He's run up against superteams, then the injury last year.

I agree Paul is an incredible player, but part of the reason he hasn't won shit has been self-inflicted.

[Sportal]

The best combination of players he has had to compete for a title was Blake Griffin, and DeAndre Jordan.

[Boogaboog]

Bad luck, arrogance, and overrated squads. Let's not forget he almost beat the Warriors.

[FKAri]

Luck, he's small, and GP's ring is worthless.

[Smoke117]

Because this a team game and not tennis? Also, he's fragile. He was clearly the best player on the Rockets in that series vs the Warriors. Again, though, he hasn't had that much help throughout his career. His teams get overrated because he's so good and his impact is so big that it makes them seem better than they are. People always bring up that 2015 Rocket series when he was basically studding it out there on one leg. As I've posted, previously, they lost that series because Reddick, Crawford, Rivers, and Barnes were literal dog shit in the last 3 games. Chris can only pass them the ball...he can't make the shots for them. He, meanwhile, averaged like 24 and 10 in those last 3 games on great efficiency.

[Smoke117]

Few reasons.

One, there are enough high-leverage moments in the playoffs where he has failed (and not enough where he has succeeded) to where he can justifiably be labeled a choker. He's also not the leader he's made out to be, and feuds with every notable teammate he has.

Two, he lacks the short-burst takeover gene. I've seen the late-career joke version of Deron Williams have spurts that put anything CP3 was ever able to do to shame.

.

True, it's not like he took over the game on one leg and led the Clippers over the defending championship Spurs or anything. :rolleyes: Not to mention he was making all the big plays and shots that got the Rockets their 3-2 lead over the Warriors in 2018. He's a choker, though. :rolleyes:

[72-10]

the brother can stop on a dime and shoot off one leg... mmm, that's some Ray Allen skill there.

[ScalsFan21]

True, it's not like he took over the game on one leg and led the Clippers over the defending championship Spurs or anything. :rolleyes: Not to mention he was making all the big plays and shots that got the Rockets their 3-2 lead over the Warriors in 2018. He's a choker, though. :rolleyes:

Lol but dude every all-time great player has moments where they've done well. Look at the quintessential headcase A-Rod in 2009. Turns out it would be his only decent playoff performance through his entire Yankees tenure. Chris Paul has had total meltdowns, literal 8-second violation level shit in pivotal spots many times.

My point is, in the playoffs the bad (quite obviously) has outweighed the good with CP3. And that's only the choking aspect.

[Smoke117]

Lol but dude every all-time great player has moments where they've done well. Look at the quintessential headcase A-Rod in 2009. Turns out it would be his only decent playoff performance through his entire Yankees tenure. Chris Paul has had total meltdowns, literal 8-second violation level shit in pivotal spots many times.

My point is, in the playoffs the bad (quite obviously) has outweighed the good with CP3. And that's only the choking aspect.

And they all have moments where they've done poorly. No player is infallible or great all the time. That's just nonsense. In general, Paul's numbers are BETTER in the playoffs than they are in the regular season. He pretty much has always showed up. His teammates are the one's that don't as I've brought up countless times in relation to that Rocket series in 2015.

[NBAGOAT]

Paul’s main teammate has literally not shown up. He himself is injury prone which is his own problem but Blake is one of the few guys more injury prone than he is. Wasted a fantastic carryjob by Paul in 17 even if end result is losing to gs. Even if Paul was healthy in 16, threw away any chance to go deep in the playoffs with his injury. Was a reason they lost to Memphis in 13 when they were slightly favored and that was a wcf chance with Westbrook’s injury.

There was really one team choke in 15 that wasn’t mostly his fault and one end of game choke in 14 where he still played well overall and it wasn’t really a disappointment to lose to okc. Both are kind of moot points, the clippers weren’t beating sa or the warriors. 16 was actually their real chance with curry missing games in the 2nd round and ofc both get injured the same game lol.

The hornets stuff was inconsistent for sure with that record loss to Denver but for the most part first round losses as underdogs besides 08 so kind of not relevant big picture wise and small sample sizes each year

[Smoke117]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Paul

[NBAGOAT]

Even when Blake was healthy he was completely worthless in 4th quarters. His ppg and efficiency dropped substantially in 4th quarters. He was putting up those 20+ points in the first quarters.

I remember that too in 15 and 16. Doc was a pretty bad gm so the clips bench was awful. Speights and Felton were godsends in 17 somehow

[And1AllDay]

He needs his Pippen so give him all nba defensive and all nba team player and he will be fine

[3ball]

:rolleyes:
.

[bigkingsfan]

They ran into GS, simple as that.

[3ball]

Aside from the goat pg/goat center combo of magic/kareem, high apg players don't win championships

Period

Since the 3-point line began 30 years ago, only Magic won a ring averaging 10 apg, and only 4 other guys won rings averaging over 8 apg

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable), not 1 guy pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)

[Jay-B]

Competition, he hasn

[ArbitraryWater]

because better players have led better teams?


OP is really really bad at this basketball thing

[StrongLurk]

Chris Paul has never been on the best team in the league.

[Young X]

Aside from the goat pg/goat center combo of magic/kareem, high apg players don't win championships

Period

Since the 3-point line began 30 years ago, only Magic won a ring averaging 10 apg, and only 4 other guys won rings averaging over 8 apg

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable), not 1 guy pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)Kyle Lowry just won a championship averaging ~9 APG.

[tpols]

Aside from the goat pg/goat center combo of magic/kareem, high apg players don't win championships

Period

Since the 3-point line began 30 years ago, only Magic won a ring averaging 10 apg, and only 4 other guys won rings averaging over 8 apg

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable), not 1 guy pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)


paul was a low key ball dominator, iso mismatch spammer.

He did almost everything right, but is best suited as a number 2... the guys like 5'10 though pretty much maxed out what he could do. He couldnt be a superstar playing like kobe or jordan... that wouldve made him brandon jennings.

[tpols]

Kyle Lowry just won a championship averaging ~9 APG.


he averaged 6.5 apg in the playoffs.

[DMAVS41]

because better players have led better teams?




This...pretty simple.

Paul was great, but he's not a championship first option.

Not really a knock...hardly anyone in history truly is.

[Young X]

Isiah Thomas averaged over 8 APG in the 1989 and 1990 playoffs.

Rondo averaged over 9 APG in the 2010 playoffs (no they didn't win game 7 but they were one possession away).

[tpols]

This...pretty simple.

Paul was great, but he's not a championship first option.

Not really a knock...hardly anyone in history truly is.


and probably like one in a billion at his height and wingspan.

[RRR3]

This...pretty simple.

Paul was great, but he's not a championship first option.

Not really a knock...hardly anyone in history truly is.
You

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=RRR3]You

[Young X]

I don't consider Rip or Billups as a championship first option because they weren't. Neither was the clear cut best player on a title winning team.

And, no, I don't think Paul deserves to be considered that when he never did it...and broke down in deep runs and or he and his teams fell apart in the biggest moments.

Not sure what is "crazy" when we just watched it all happen.Just because he never did it doesn't mean he wasn't good enough.

At his peak in 2008 and 2009 he was good enough to do it.

[DMAVS41]

Just because he never did it doesn't mean he wasn't good enough.

At his epak in 2008 and 2009 he was good enough to do it.

I agree that doesn't mean he wasn't good enough...nothing is certain.

But I'm not giving him credit for something he didn't do...and when he did have his chances...he either broke down or he and his teams completely shit the bed.

Is what it is...

[Young X]

I agree that doesn't mean he wasn't good enough...nothing is certain.

But I'm not giving him credit for something he didn't do...and when he did have his chances...he either broke down or he and his teams completely shit the bed.

Is what it is...It is what it is but it's a flawed way of looking at players' careers. To use a results only analysis.

[RRR3]

I guess Dirk wasn’t a championship level first option before 2011 then DMavs.

Even so he only won because LeBron choked.

[tpols]

chris paul could win as first option by simple proof that many have before him that were clearly inferior.

If you were to field a hypothetical team of 4 bench reserve all stars, with one all NBA guy, that one all NBA guy could and would be the first option on a championship team.

And you could have a situation where a guy gets a million breaks... clutch shots by role players on his team, injuries to opponents, etc.

the world is full of a million different ways things can go...

i think all we can do is evaluate chris paul's talent in a vacuum and in that regard he is very elite.

[NBAGOAT]

Cp3 was top 5 lvl for a good portion of his clippers run. That should be good enough to win with a very good cast. If you

[RRR3]

chris paul could win as first option by simple proof that many have before him that were clearly inferior.

If you were to field a hypothetical team of 4 bench reserve all stars, with one all NBA guy, that one all NBA guy could and would be the first option on a championship team.

And you could have a situation where a guy gets a million brakes... clutch shots by role players on his team, injuries to opponents, etc.

the world is full of a million different ways things can go...

i think all we can do is evaluate chris paul's talent in a vacuum and in that regard he is very elite.
:applause:

[RRR3]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Cp3 was top 5 lvl for a good portion of his clippers run. That should be good enough to win with a very good cast. If you

[NBAGOAT]

Top 10 player when healthy every year from 08-18.

Agreed. It

[3ball]

chris paul could win as first option by simple proof that many have before him that were clearly inferior.

If you were to field a hypothetical team of 4 bench reserve all stars, with one all NBA guy, that one all NBA guy could and would be the first option on a championship team.

And you could have a situation where a guy gets a million breaks... clutch shots by role players on his team, injuries to opponents, etc.

the world is full of a million different ways things can go...

i think all we can do is evaluate chris paul's talent in a vacuum and in that regard he is very elite.
This is true, but high apg players need boatloads of talent to win

So yes cp3 can win rings, but the only by teaming up like Bron did... Or landing alongside the goat center like Magic

[NBAGOAT]

This is true, but high apg players need boatloads of talent to win

So yes cp3 can win rings, but the only by teaming up like Bron did... Or landing alongside the goat center like Magic

They need scoring talent but that

[RRR3]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]They need scoring talent but that

[3ball]

Kyle Lowry just won a championship averaging ~9 APG. in regular season


Right.. in the last 30 years (since 91'), lowry is one of 5 guys that won rings averaging 8+ apg in either the regular season, playoffs, or Finals..

so only 5 guys won rings averaging 8+ apg in any of those times (RS, PO, or Finals)... Lowry was one of them

Aside from the Isiah and Magic (who had special circumstances), high apg players don't win championships.... Period

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but doing so in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable) > 1 guy hogging the assists/pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)

[RRR3]

Shut the **** up 3braincells you’re supposed to be retired.

[3ball]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Shut the **** up 3braincells you

[RRR3]

This is my 92' all-star weekend.. I'll be going back to retirement tomorrow.. :lol
No you won’t. You’re a pathological liar. You’re addicted to spamming your agenda on here. You can’t stop.

[NBAGOAT]

Right.. in the last 30 years (since 91'), lowry is one of 5 guys that won rings averaging 8+ apg in EITHER the regular season, playoffs, or Finals..

so only 5 guys won rings averaging 8+ apg in any of those times (RS, PO, or Finals)... Lowry was one of them

Aside from the goat point guard/center combo of magic/kareem, high apg players don't win championships.... Period

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but doing so in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable) > 1 guy hogging the assists/pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)

We know Nash was one hip check away from maybe winning a title and he wasn

[RRR3]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]We know Nash was one hip check away from maybe winning a title and he wasn

[3ball]

No you won’t. You’re a pathological liar. You’re addicted to spamming your agenda on here. You can’t stop.
Maybe, except the liar and spam part... :confusedshrug:

But like you guys say... It's not that serious.. :applause: .. :basketball
.

[NBAGOAT]

When was Blake ever top 10? 2014?

He had outside argument for top 5 in 14. Maybe top 10 in 12 and 13. He got worse once he started becoming too much of a pnpop midrange guy but he kind of had to playing with dj. He

[jayfan]

Few reasons.

One, there are enough high-leverage moments in the playoffs where he has failed (and not enough where he has succeeded) to where he can justifiably be labeled a choker. He's also not the leader he's made out to be, and feuds with every notable teammate he has.

Two, he lacks the short-burst takeover gene. I've seen the late-career joke version of Deron Williams have spurts that put anything CP3 was ever able to do to shame.

Three, his peak was spent surrounded by trash (and getting robbed of a rightful MVP by the Brick Mamba in '08, Kobe's sole win), and the "star" teammates he played with were not stars in terms of impact, other than fellow choker James Harden. He's run up against superteams, then the injury last year.

I agree Paul is an incredible player, but part of the reason he hasn't won shit has been self-inflicted.

Well said.


.

[DMAVS41]

It is what it is but it's a flawed way of looking at players' careers. To use a results only analysis.

But I'm not using results only at all.

I'm using everything about his career...and ranking him accordingly.

You are asking me to put him in the group of players that have proven they can lead a team to a championship as the clear cut best player...

And Paul doesn't deserve that...he doesn't deserve that based on the results and based on how good at basketball he actually was.

You seemingly just can't see it.

[DMAVS41]

I guess Dirk wasn’t a championship level first option before 2011 then DMavs.

Even so he only won because LeBron choked.

That isn't what I'm saying at all, but I know you clowns can't follow an argument.

Also, Dirk played a level higher than Paul and had proven he could carry a team to the Finals and be on the brink well before the 11 Finals...

But, again...I wouldn't be arguing Dirk as high as I would currently if he didn't prove it.

I'm in the corner of context and nuance on all this shit...but you still have to actually do stuff.

Sorry, when I watch Paul and see him breakdown in the playoffs, meltdown in the playoffs, have his teams meltdown in the playoffs...sorry, I'm not putting him with the elite of the elite all time.

I will put him on the short list of greatest point ever and probably one of the 30 or so best players ever.

[DMAVS41]

Also, please list all the "many clearly inferior" players that won titles as the clear cut best player on their teams...

[Young X]

But I'm not using results only at all.

I'm using everything about his career...and ranking him accordingly.

You are asking me to put him in the group of players that have proven they can lead a team to a championship as the clear cut best player...

And Paul doesn't deserve that...he doesn't deserve that based on the results and based on how good at basketball he actually was.

You seemingly just can't see it.No, you're basing it on how good his teams are. Not him.

Teams that were at the bottom of the league that he turned into elite teams.

[red1]

he's a midget it's harder for midgets to have an impact on the game

kawhi
lebron
kd


the best players in the league are 6'7+ hyperathletic small-forwards. it's not a coincidence in this perimeter league.

[DMAVS41]

No, you're basing it on how good his teams are. Not him.

Teams that were at the bottom of the league that he turned into elite teams.

No, I'm not.

We might just disagree about how good he actually was...ever think of that? I've always felt Paul was over-rated as a player for a variety of reasons.

Then, I watch the most important games and his health is a problem and his play in some of the most crucial spots in deep playoff runs was a problem.

And, yes, it didn't help that his teams also had massive meltdowns without ever in making the finals.

Sorry if you don't like it, but you don't enter the elite of the elite all-time without doing stuff...him doing stuff would be the counter to my thought of his game...not the other way around.

You think I'm saying..."he didn't do X...therefore I don't rank him here"

When in reality..."I dont think he was that good....and the results and his play in the most important games reinforce my opinion"

:confusedshrug:

[tpols]

isiah thomas 2x, pierce or old garnett, chauncey billups or ben wallace, old dirk, elvin hayes, gus williams, rick barry, havlichek and many many more that were a hair away from winning.

old Tony parker was one shot away from being a championship first option. Chris Paul couldve done it.

[DMAVS41]

isiah thomas 2x, pierce or old garnett, chauncey billups or ben wallace, old dirk, elvin hayes, gus williams, rick barry, havlichek and many many more that were a hair away from winning.

old Tony parker was one shot away from being a championship first option. Chris Paul couldve done it.

What part of clear cut best player on a team do you not understand?

And LOL @ any version of Paul winning a title with a team similar in talent to the 11 Mavs.

[NBAGOAT]

Also, please list all the "many clearly inferior" players that won titles as the clear cut best player on their teams...

Whoever lead 04 pistons or 14 spurs, isiah thomas which is a little blasphemous but I truly believe that. Might be better than 08 kg and 99 Duncan but I won

[jayfan]

isiah thomas 2x, pierce or old garnett, chauncey billups or ben wallace, old dirk, elvin hayes, gus williams, rick barry, havlichek and many many more that were a hair away from winning.

old Tony parker was one shot away from being a championship first option. Chris Paul couldve done it.

Could have. But didn't come close.


.

[Young X]

No, I'm not.

We might just disagree about how good he actually was...ever think of that? I've always felt Paul was over-rated as a player for a variety of reasons.

Then, I watch the most important games and his health is a problem and his play in some of the most crucial spots in deep playoff runs was a problem.

And, yes, it didn't help that his teams also had massive meltdowns without ever in making the finals.

Sorry if you don't like it, but you don't enter the elite of the elite all-time without doing stuff...him doing stuff would be the counter to my thought of his game...not the other way around.

You think I'm saying..."he didn't do X...therefore I don't rank him here"

When in reality..."I dont think he was that good....and the results and his play in the most important games reinforce my opinion"

:confusedshrug:His health is definitely a problem.

Other than that? He is a near flawless basketball player. Skill-wise, impact-wise and numbers-wise. Individually, there is no way he could be overrated.

The reason he's "overrated" is because of his teams.

The logic is...Chris Paul's team loses > automatically blame him because he's the best player.

[RRR3]

That isn't what I'm saying at all, but I know you clowns can't follow an argument.

Also, Dirk played a level higher than Paul and had proven he could carry a team to the Finals and be on the brink well before the 11 Finals...

But, again...I wouldn't be arguing Dirk as high as I would currently if he didn't prove it.

I'm in the corner of context and nuance on all this shit...but you still have to actually do stuff.

Sorry, when I watch Paul and see him breakdown in the playoffs, meltdown in the playoffs, have his teams meltdown in the playoffs...sorry, I'm not putting him with the elite of the elite all time.

I will put him on the short list of greatest point ever and probably one of the 30 or so best players ever.
Pure fiction.

[RRR3]

His health is definitely a problem.

Other than that? He is a near flawless basketball player. Skill-wise, impact-wise and numbers-wise. Individually, there is no way he could be overrated.

The reason he's "overrated" is because of his teams.

The logic is...Chris Paul's team loses > automatically blame him because he's the best player.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[NBAGOAT]

It

[DMAVS41]

Pure fiction.

Could not disagree more.

I'll take the guy that went head to head with prime Duncan with a worse team and won....and proved he could lead a team to the finals over Paul flopping his ass all over the court melting down.

[DMAVS41]

His health is definitely a problem.

Other than that? He is a near flawless basketball player. Skill-wise, impact-wise and numbers-wise. Individually, there is no way he could be overrated.

The reason he's "overrated" is because of his teams.

The logic is...Chris Paul's team loses > automatically blame him because he's the best player.

That isn't my logic...as has been explained to you time and time again.

LOL @ the bold...we live in different realities.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Whoever lead 04 pistons or 14 spurs, isiah thomas which is a little blasphemous but I truly believe that. Might be better than 08 kg and 99 Duncan but I won

[RRR3]

Could not disagree more.

I'll take the guy that went head to head with prime Duncan with a worse team and won....and proved he could lead a team to the finals over Paul flopping his ass all over the court melting down.
You just don’t like Paul and are insanely biased towards Dirk. You’re incapable of being objective here.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=RRR3]You just don

[RRR3]

I actually really like Paul...he's just not as good as Dirk.

Also, that isn't an argument and I could reverse to say the same thing to you.

But, really, you actually believe we should give Paul credit for being able to do what Dirk did in 2011? You really believe that?

I don't, for a second, think you actually do...
Dirk is somehow a better player than Chris Paul because LeBron choked. Lmao. And no Dirk isn’t better. Yeah I said it.

[NBAGOAT]

Could not disagree more.

I'll take the guy that went head to head with prime Duncan with a worse team and won....and proved he could lead a team to the finals over Paul flopping his ass all over the court melting down.

Way too much recency bias here. That was also the year he lost to an essentially one man show in wade with a better cast.

Ofc people remember Paul losing to a meh rockets team lead by harden in 15 but the round before he beat a sa team with a very similar core to their historically good 14 team with no bench as easily the best player on the court. 4/6 top spurs guys played 70 or less games. For example they went 46-18 in games kawhi played so 55-27 was underselling them

[Young X]

Could not disagree more.

I'll take the guy that went head to head with prime Duncan with a worse team and won....and proved he could lead a team to the finals over Paul flopping his ass all over the court melting down.Paul's flopping ass went head to head with prime Dirk in the playoffs and completely outplayed him and eliminated him.

2008 and 2009 Paul was a different animal I keep trying to tell people. It was a toss up on who deserved the MVP between him and Kobe, that's how good he was. Only he, Lebron and Wade were arguably better.

That guy could've definitely won a championship on a better team.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Dirk is somehow a better player than Chris Paul because LeBron choked. Lmao. And no Dirk isn

[RRR3]

Paul's flopping ass went head to head with prime Dirk in the playoffs and completely outplayed him and eliminated him.

2008 and 2009 Paul was a different animal I keep trying to tell people. It was a toss up on who deserved the MVP between him and Kobe, that's how good he was. Only he, Lebron and Wade were better.

That guy could've definitely won a championship on a better team.
:eek: The real reason DMavs hates CP3.

[NBAGOAT]

Those teams didn't have a clear cut best player.

Meh I think it

[RRR3]

Okay, so we live in different realities.

Doesn't mean I'm right, but when I hear that Paul is "flawless as a basketball player" and is "as good or better than Dirk"...

There is just nothing more to say...we are watching different realities play out.
Tons of statistical evidence to back up my claim.

I would imagine most impact stats like RPM have Paul as better.

[DMAVS41]

Paul's flopping ass went head to head with prime Dirk in the playoffs and completely outplayed him and eliminated him.

2008 and 2009 Paul was a different animal I keep trying to tell people. It was a toss up on who deserved the MVP between him and Kobe, that's how good he was. Only he, Lebron and Wade were better.

That guy could've definitely won a championship on a better team.

Again, you live in a different reality..."completely outplayed him"...playing different positions while Dirk did 27/12/4 59% TS....LOL

I agree Paul was amazing back then...I just don't think he's leading a team to a title as the clear cut best player...and what do you know...he didn't...

[Kblaze8855]

Could not disagree more.

I'll take the guy that went head to head with prime Duncan with a worse team and won....and proved he could lead a team to the finals over Paul flopping his ass all over the court melting down.


Reading that does lend some credibility to their argument that you aren’t actually talking about how good a player he is and instead just go with results.

Granted my posts per page is on 50 and I didn’t read the first page of this so maybe not. Just saying....What you said is exactly what somebody not interested in arguing about individual basketball playing ability would say.

[DMAVS41]

Tons of statistical evidence to back up my claim.

I would imagine most impact stats like RPM have Paul as better.

There isn't "tons of stats" to back that up...

I think back-picks had Dirk over Paul...and that was all stats

And, I don't use all stats...I care about the health/longevity of players...and actually proving things as well.

And, again, I've always thought Paul was a bit over-rated...and the results of his career have not made me second guess myself one bit.

:confusedshrug:

[RRR3]

There isn't "tons of stats" to back that up...

I think back-picks had Dirk over Paul...and that was all stats

And, I don't use all stats...I care about the health/longevity of players...and actually proving things as well.

And, again, I've always thought Paul was a bit over-rated...and the results of his career have not made me second guess myself one bit.

:confusedshrug:
If you think backpicks was “all stats” you didn’t read it very well. And he also heavily weighed longevity. And even so iirc Dirk was like 4-5 spots ahead of Paul. Hardly the massive difference you’re acting like exists between them.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Reading that does lend some credibility to their argument that you aren

[DMAVS41]

If you think backpicks was “all stats” you didn’t read it very well. And he also heavily weighed longevity. And even so iirc Dirk was like 4-5 spots ahead of Paul. Hardly the massive difference you’re acting like exists between them.

Massive difference?

I'm ranking Paul in the high 20's or so all time and Dirk in the high teens...

A far more reasonable take than just granting Paul top 20 of all time status like you are.

And, yes...health/longevity are high on my list for all-time rankings...not sure why they wouldn't be as winning a title takes staying healthy for 4 series as the best player.

[RRR3]

Yea, you are coming in late.

But, my point here is that we can't just completely ignore results. So even if I granted that Paul was the same level of player...by default I'd have to go with the guy that actually proved things.

As for the basketball comparison...what a player like Dirk brings to the table is more valuable in my opinion than what Paul does. And if we all really want to get into what those things are we can, but that isn't what this is about.
Okay, I’m sure you rank Kobe over LeBron then, yes?
More “results”.

[RRR3]

Massive difference?

I'm ranking Paul in the high 20's or so all time and Dirk in the high teens...

A far more reasonable take than just granting Paul top 20 of all time status like you are.

And, yes...health/longevity are high on my list for all-time rankings...not sure why they wouldn't be as winning a title takes staying healthy for 4 series as the best player.
Let me get this straight.

Me ranking CP3 slightly higher than you rank him is less reasonable than you ranking Dirk in the high teens? :roll:

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=RRR3]Okay, I

[Kblaze8855]

Yea, you are coming in late.

But, my point here is that we can't just completely ignore results. So even if I granted that Paul was the same level of player...by default I'd have to go with the guy that actually proved things.

As for the basketball comparison...what a player like Dirk brings to the table is more valuable in my opinion than what Paul does. And if we all really want to get into what those things are we can, but that isn't what this is about.




I’d say that’s exactly what this is about which is why these arguments exist in the first place. There is no concrete answer to such questions unless again you were going to stop talking about the issue of basketball and simply refer to which team won the game. Which obviously a great great many people are willing to do. Probably because it’s the low hanging fruit and easy way out.

I would certainly not accuse you of looking for the easy way out since your argument stamina is unlimited I’m just speaking generally. More often than not....the results argument is based on not knowing enough to form a real one.

Not always. Just most of the time.

[DMAVS41]

Let me get this straight.

Me ranking CP3 slightly higher than you rank him is less reasonable than you ranking Dirk in the high teens? :roll:

What?

You ranking CP3 higher than Dirk is far more unreasonable than me ranking Paul 10 or so spots from Dirk.

Follow along please.

[RRR3]

You are arguing with a ghost on this one.

I'm all for context...been that way ever since I joined the forum.

But that doesn't mean results don't matter at all.
Moving goalposts. At least be consistent.

[NBAGOAT]

Tons of statistical evidence to back up my claim.

I would imagine most impact stats like RPM have Paul as better.

Naw not quite. dirks offensive impact is usually one of the best in the league along with ok defense. He

[Vino24]

Proves MJ wouldnt cut it in this league

[stalkerforlife]

Wait...

People are arguing Paul being in the same class as Dirk?

Looooool.

Anyway, Paul had enough help and with the way some people talk about him, he definitely was a failure.

If people didn't overrate him, it wouldn't be a problem.

He's just not a first option on a title team.

Not even a first option on a conference finals team.

[DMAVS41]

I’d say that’s exactly what this is about which is why these arguments exist in the first place. There is no concrete answer to such questions unless again you were going to stop talking about the issue of basketball and simply refer to which team won the game. Which obviously a great great many people are willing to do. Probably because it’s the low hanging fruit and easy way out.

I would certainly not accuse you of looking for the easy way out since your argument stamina is unlimited I’m just speaking generally. More often than not....the results argument is based on not knowing enough to form a real one.

Not always. Just most of the time.

Well, as you know, I've given my take on Paul 100 times before...and I'd be happy to write it again, but I actually don't think that is what this is about.

This is about whether or not results matter...and while I tend to think they matter less than most on here...maybe not in this thread...but usually I'm on that side...

But, results actually do matter.

It actually does matter what the results of the "basketball skills" actually are.

Now, if I was saying Paul "sucks"...and not agreeing that he's maybe the 3rd best point ever or something...ok...

But putting him in the top 30 all-time isn't noteworthy.

Quick Paul take;

Small, a little too ball dominant, at the very least below average teammate that is hardheaded, couldn't take over games as consistently at the guys he's going to be compared to in terms overwhelming the opposition...played in comfort zone a bit too often and didn't extend his game when his teams really needed it....pattern of not staying healthy deep in playoffs...he/team had all-time meltdowns (this isn't results...this is play)...

Great? Of course...on par with the top 20 players ever imo? Just no...I need to see more.

[DMAVS41]

Moving goalposts. At least be consistent.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

When I give you my take on Paul you just say "I'm a hater"

And find nothing wrong with people in this thread calling him "nearly a flawless basketball player"

His ****ing height and lack of playoff durability alone are clear flaws.

As was his hard-headedness...as was lack of taking over consistently...as was his ball-dominance (which in fairness he did a better job of at certain parts of his career)...

****ing flawless? That is the standard and you think I'm out of line?

[NBAGOAT]

Wait...

People are arguing Paul being in the same class as Dirk?

Looooool.

Anyway, Paul had enough help and with the way some people talk about him, he definitely was a failure.

If people didn't overrate him, it wouldn't be a problem.

He's just not a first option on a title team.

Not even a first option on a conference finals team.

It

[RRR3]

I honestly don't know what you mean.

When I give you my take on Paul you just say "I'm a hater"

And find nothing wrong with people in this thread calling him "nearly a flawless basketball player"

His ****ing height and lack of playoff durability alone are clear flaws.

As was his hard-headedness...as was lack of taking over consistently...as was his ball-dominance (which in fairness he did a better job of at certain parts of his career)...

****ing flawless? That is the standard and you think I'm out of line?
You could use the same arguments you’re using against Paul to rank Kobe over LeBron. Why don’t you? :confusedshrug:

[stalkerforlife]

I honestly don't know what you mean.

When I give you my take on Paul you just say "I'm a hater"

And find nothing wrong with people in this thread calling him "nearly a flawless basketball player"

His ****ing height and lack of playoff durability alone are clear flaws.

As was his hard-headedness...as was lack of taking over consistently...as was his ball-dominance (which in fairness he did a better job of at certain parts of his career)...

****ing flawless? That is the standard and you think I'm out of line?

KG and Paul.

There's a certain group of people too caught up in their feelings to see the glaring flaws.

They'll never think straight.

And I have no clue why it's those two players.

[jayfan]

I’d say that’s exactly what this is about which is why these arguments exist in the first place. There is no concrete answer to such questions unless again you were going to stop talking about the issue of basketball and simply refer to which team won the game. Which obviously a great great many people are willing to do. Probably because it’s the low hanging fruit and easy way out.

I would certainly not accuse you of looking for the easy way out since your argument stamina is unlimited I’m just speaking generally. More often than not....the results argument is based on not knowing enough to form a real one.

Not always. Just most of the time.

One could argue that statistics are the low-hanging fruit.

Look 'em up, write 'em down, draw conclusion.

[RRR3]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]It

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=RRR3]You could use the same arguments you

[Kblaze8855]

One could argue that statistics are the low-hanging fruit.

Look 'em up, write 'em down, draw conclusion.


Casual fans don

[Young X]

I honestly don't know what you mean.

When I give you my take on Paul you just say "I'm a hater"

And find nothing wrong with people in this thread calling him "nearly a flawless basketball player"

His ****ing height and lack of playoff durability alone are clear flaws.

As was his hard-headedness...as was lack of taking over consistently...as was his ball-dominance (which in fairness he did a better job of at certain parts of his career)...

****ing flawless? That is the standard and you think I'm out of line?I said outside of his injuries he was a "near" flawless player and I stand by it.

He's one of the best passers ever, he scores well and can shoot from anywhere, he's a great defender, he doesn't turn the ball over, he has a high basketball IQ. He's might not be a volume scorer, but he's still really good and can take over games, that's not a real weakness.

His weakness is...his teams didn't win enough so there must be something wrong with him.

[NBAGOAT]

Tbf I think the idea of being flawless can get overrated. Pgs with more flaws can be better players than Paul. Curry is just on another lvl shooting wise and Nash is a better shooter too with more aggressive passing which leads to better offenses imo.

I think defense might be enough to make up for Nash’s offensive edge but even so pretty sure a lot of people arguing here would also argue Nash can’t lead a team to a title either

[Kblaze8855]

Well, as you know, I've given my take on Paul 100 times before...and I'd be happy to write it again, but I actually don't think that is what this is about.

This is about whether or not results matter...and while I tend to think they matter less than most on here...maybe not in this thread...but usually I'm on that side...

But, results actually do matter.

It actually does matter what the results of the "basketball skills" actually are.

Now, if I was saying Paul "sucks"...and not agreeing that he's maybe the 3rd best point ever or something...ok...

But putting him in the top 30 all-time isn't noteworthy.

Quick Paul take;

Small, a little too ball dominant, at the very least below average teammate that is hardheaded, couldn't take over games as consistently at the guys he's going to be compared to in terms overwhelming the opposition...played in comfort zone a bit too often and didn't extend his game when his teams really needed it....pattern of not staying healthy deep in playoffs...he/team had all-time meltdowns (this isn't results...this is play)...

Great? Of course...on par with the top 20 players ever imo? Just no...I need to see more.



I remember most of this from when he knocked the defending champion spurs out in game seven with the game-winner and you thought I was gonna come in bragging about him coming through and I did no such thing. I told you he was too established for the outcome of any game to change how good I felt he was.

There comes a point you

[3ball]

cp3, westbrook, kidd, harden, nash, and lebron all play the same "I hold the ball and decide who gets it" style, which loses to the ball movement style of curry, duncan, dirk, kobe, and mj

they're excessive ball-dominators/high APG players, and thereby flawed - this style reduces teammates' role to spot-up shooter/play-finisher, and therefore needs extra offensive help to offset the reduction.

and that's the problem with high apg players like magic, Lebron, Nash, cp3, etc - their weaker brand of ball requires more more talent/help than lower apg scorers like kobe, mj, kawhi or dirk

[tpols]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Casual fans don

[DMAVS41]

But...in case we need this for reference.

The issue with a guy like Paul is that he's missing some of the more important things I think are necessary to accomplish what others that you guys want him to compare favorably to did.

Gravity - He doesn't impact the opposition in the same way that other elite offensive forces do. In part that is by design as the role he's playing, but it clips the high-end potential of a team. For example...a guy like Curry has "more flaws" as a basketball player, but because his "gavity" disrupts opposing teams so much...what he brings to the table is more valuable.

Force - What Dwayne Wade was able to do, again...takes the impact to another level in my opinion...it wasn't just setting guys up and playing within a comfort zone in terms of shot selections and efficiency...it was taking a ****ing wrecking ball to defenses and saying "see you at the rim bitch"

Ball-Dominance - Paul needs the ball in his hands to make an optimal impact. Nothing technically wrong here, but I don't think this is the best way to play basketball unless you are essentially Lebron and have the kind of force referenced above

Hidden Value - I think most stats, even advanced stats, pick up basically every value Paul provides. They don't do that with some other players in my opinion. Like Dirk...how many times does Jason Terry get to dribble into a wide open jump shot or see a wide open lane to the basket because Dirk is getting too much attention 22 feet from the basket without the ball.

Defense - While Paul's defense for his position was fantastic for his position...his position simply can't make the same impact other players of bigger size could. Not a "flaw" so to speak, but his two-way impact for example just can't touch what a Duncan or KG or Leonard can provide because their size.

Teammate - I think Paul rates poorly as a teammate...although I think sometimes he gets too much blame for stuff. At the very least...he was likely a below average teammate.

Health - His health has been an issue in his long runs in the playoffs at times.

Meltdowns/Flopping - Fair or unfair, I honestly don't know, but the truth is that Paul's basketball play...yes, his basketball play...in some crucial spots in the playoffs was historically bad both individually and from his team. Now, he's had great moments as well of course, but without the sustained run or succcess to even reach a finals...those bad basketball plays really stand out.

I could think of more, but this is the best I could do in 5 minutes.

And none of it is to say he wasn't great, he was...I personally just don't think he was on par with the top 20 players of all time.

[DMAVS41]

I remember most of this from when he knocked the defending champion spurs out in game seven with the game-winner and you thought I was gonna come in bragging about him coming through and I did no such thing. I told you he was too established for the outcome of any game to change how good I felt he was.

There comes a point you’re as good as you’re gonna be and the rest is so altered by circumstance I barely even care anymore.

And this is where we disagree in part.

Making or missing that shot mattered...having the skill or ability to do something...is not equal to actually doing it...because part of that "basketball ability" is actually getting it done

Federer winning or losing today mattered. Not career-defining by any stretch, but it mattered...

[DMAVS41]

I said outside of his injuries he was a "near" flawless player and I stand by it.

He's one of the best passers ever, he scores well and can shoot from anywhere, he's a great defender, he doesn't turn the ball over, he has a high basketball IQ. He's might not be a volume scorer, but he's still really good and can take over games, that's not a real weakness.

His weakness is...his teams didn't win enough so there must be something wrong with him.

I disagree.

I think you are grading him on the curve of "small point guard"...and I'm grading him against all the best players ever.

"near flawless" just isn't coherent if you are comparing him to the best players of all-time

I wrote a quick-take post on how I consider him as a basketball player / teammate.

[tpols]

cp3, westbrook, kidd, harden, nash, and lebron all play the same "I hold the ball and decide who gets it" style, which loses to the ball movement style of curry, duncan, dirk, kobe, and mj

they're excessive ball-dominators/high APG players, and thereby flawed - this style reduces teammates' role to spot-up shooter/play-finisher, and therefore needs extra offensive help to offset the reduction.

and that's the problem with high apg players like magic, Lebron, Nash, cp3, etc - their weaker brand of ball requires more more talent/help than lower apg scorers like kobe, mj, kawhi or dirk



dead wrong on Kidd.

Led elite top tier assist teams on his b2b nets team. (3rd & 7th w/ poor 2nd option)

part of elite high assist team in '11 title. (assist leader)

kidd's brand of ball was top tier.

[NBAGOAT]

But...in case we need this for reference.

The issue with a guy like Paul is that he's missing some of the more important things I think are necessary to accomplish what others that you guys want him to compare favorably to did.

Gravity - He doesn't impact the opposition in the same way that other elite offensive forces do. In part that is by design as the role he's playing, but it clips the high-end potential of a team. For example...a guy like Curry has "more flaws" as a basketball player, but because his "gavity" disrupts opposing teams so much...what he brings to the table is more valuable.

Force - What Dwayne Wade was able to do, again...takes the impact to another level in my opinion...it wasn't just setting guys up and playing within a comfort zone in terms of shot selections and efficiency...it was taking a ****ing wrecking ball to defenses and saying "see you at the rim bitch"

Ball-Dominance - Paul needs the ball in his hands to make an optimal impact. Nothing technically wrong here, but I don't think this is the best way to play basketball unless you are essentially Lebron and have the kind of force referenced above

Hidden Value - I think most stats, even advanced stats, pick up basically every value Paul provides. They don't do that with some other players in my opinion. Like Dirk...how many times does Jason Terry get to dribble into a wide open jump shot or see a wide open lane to the basket because Dirk is getting too much attention 22 feet from the basket without the ball.

Defense - While Paul's defense for his position was fantastic for his position...his position simply can't make the same impact other players of bigger size could. Not a "flaw" so to speak, but his two-way impact for example just can't touch what a Duncan or KG or Leonard can provide because their size.

Teammate - I think Paul rates poorly as a teammate...although I think sometimes he gets too much blame for stuff. At the very least...he was likely a below average teammate.

Health - His health has been an issue in his long runs in the playoffs at times.

Meltdowns/Flopping - Fair or unfair, I honestly don't know, but the truth is that Paul's basketball play...yes, his basketball play...in some crucial spots in the playoffs was historically bad both individually and from his team. Now, he's had great moments as well of course, but without the sustained run or succcess to even reach a finals...those bad basketball plays really stand out.

I could think of more, but this is the best I could do in 5 minutes.

And none of it is to say he wasn't great, he was...I personally just don't think he was on par with the top 20 players of all time.

I actually agree with most of this besides hidden value. your example falls under gravity and I think tht comes out in rapm/rpm etc. I

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]I actually agree with most of this besides hidden value. your example falls under gravity and I think tht comes out in rapm/rpm etc. I

[FireDavidKahn]

Jerry West

[3ball]

dead wrong on Kidd.

Led elite top tier assist teams on his b2b nets team. (3rd & 7th w/ poor 2nd option)

part of elite high assist team in '11 title. (assist leader)

kidd's brand of ball was top tier.
kidd was a typo because he wasn't a ball-dominator.. but the rest stands

high apg players are flawed.. high apg doesn't win
.

[3ball]

curry, kawhi, dirk and duncan own most of the rings this decade by NOT using ball-dominant pnr as the basis of the team's offense.

Otoh, guys like cp3, westbrook, nash, and harden all failed repeatedly trying to use pnr setups as the basis for their team's offense.

Lebron also failed repeatedly until he teamed up with the extra talent this style needs to have a chance to win.

So that's why cp3 never won - it's the same reason nash, westbrook and harden never won - they play an inferior way to curry, kawhi, dirk and duncan.

however, cp3 would be superior than curry in a prior era with a setup like isiah had - i.e. bring the ball up and pass immediately after crossing half court, and only get the ball back if the offense breaks down to reset - that's how previous era PG's played, and it resulted in superior teamwork and basketball than the redundant, non-championship pnr setups of today's game..

Again, even Lebron failed repeatedly with this format until he stacked his team with the extra talent this style needs to win.. cp3 and any player would win if they stacked their team with enough talent.. at some point, you're going to win
.

[NBAGOAT]

Well, yea...and I'm not arguing Barkley or Dr. J are "nearly flawless" basketball players...

I see your point about hidden value, but I was writing that post without stats...and I do think Paul played the game in a way in which the stats...especially "advanced stats" would over-rate a little.

But I'd rather not get into that.

I see what you

[3ball]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]I see what you

[Young X]

I disagree.

I think you are grading him on the curve of "small point guard"...and I'm grading him against all the best players ever.

"near flawless" just isn't coherent if you are comparing him to the best players of all-time

I wrote a quick-take post on how I consider him as a basketball player / teammate.Those are not flaws, those are things you specifically don't like about him.

You mentioned ball dominance, he's a playmaker, of course he's gonna be ball dominant. Magic Johnson, Lebron, Wade, Stockton, Nash were all ball dominant. When you have that level of court vision/IQ and offensive ability that's not a negative.

You mentioned hidden value. Is his level of smarts not a hidden value? Him calling out the other teams plays on defense? Him knowing exactly what position his teammates should be in on offense so he can get the ball to them? That's not a negative.

You say his lack of gravity puts a ceiling on his teams offense. His teams are amazing on offense when he's playing. Multiple times they had the #1 offensive rating in the league.

You say his basketball play in some crucial spots in the playoffs was historically bad. That's apart of being a great player. They all do that shit. Chris doesn't play historically bad any more than other great players.

All this is because he has no rings...If he was the exact same player, but had a championship, things like his ball dominance would be looked at in a positive light, nobody would talk about his bad moments, they would focus on his great series and his clutch moments (yes he does have clutch moments).

[DMAVS41]

I see what you’re getting at, I have him below his rpm/rapm ranks. He’s on par with prime steph during his clips years, there’s a disconnect there. I think the others arguing for him have adjusted for that too however.

I do see people point to the intangibles and little things guys like Lowry and Conley do and may point to impact metrics for support. Thing is some overlook Paul has a lot of them too just because he’s more ball dominant and kind of an asshole.

At least last year in hou, a lot of people did not expect hou to be that good with the fit issues and giving up wat is now great depth in Lou, Harrell, Beverly and Paul’s a reason it worked so well. Tbf heavy staggering helped too.

Yep...and I was a huge proponent of that Rockets team and Paul. I think they were championship level or perhaps even slightly better than average championship level team in 18.

Yes, as to the point about the "hidden value" being part of "gravity"...I understand that connection, but I wanted to list a different category because it actually might not be picked up...or at least not to its full extent.

And example could be that a player gets doubled 22 feet from the basket and the guard gets to walk into a mid-range jumper or lane to the basket...and the player walking into that jumper isn't actually a good shooter, struggles to finish, and isn't a great passer...

In that case...there is tremendous value in the player getting so much attention 22 feet from the basket, but it really isn't being picked up by stats if the end result is a miss or turnover...

I'm not saying that was the case for anything in particular, but I sometimes think we go a little too heavy into the stats...even the best ones...rather than discussing a concept with value bult into it....like that.

[DMAVS41]

Those are not flaws, those are things you specifically don't like about him.

You mentioned ball dominance, he's a playmaker, of course he's gonna be ball dominant. Magic Johnson, Lebron, Wade, Stockton, Nash were all ball dominant. When you have that level of court vision/IQ and offensive ability that's not a negative.

You mentioned hidden value. Is his level of smarts not a hidden value? Him calling out the other teams plays on defense? Him knowing exactly what position his teammates should be in on offense so he can get the ball to them? That's not a negative.

You say his lack of gravity puts a ceiling on his teams offense. His teams are amazing on offense when he's playing. Multiple times they had the #1 offensive rating in the league.

You say his basketball play in some crucial spots in the playoffs was historically bad. That's apart of being a great player. They all do that shit. Chris doesn't play historically bad any more than other great players.

All this is because he has no rings...If he was the exact same player, but had a championship, things like his ball dominance would be looked at in a positive light, nobody would talk about his bad moments, they would focus on his great series and his clutch moments (yes he does have clutch moments).

This is semantics....flaws / weaknesses / lackings...

You can call it whatever you want and it has nothing to do with me not liking Paul. I mean...the flopping antics does...but nothing else does.

Not having an ability that is supremely valuable that other players have...is a flaw in my view.

You can keep repeating the "no rings" stuff...and that just isn't it. It is my take on him as a basketball player combined with the lack of success...as has been explained to you, with my basketball take, many times now...

Again, I could just say the same things to you;

you only say he's "near-flawless" because you really like him...

And I think a reasonable person can think Paul is better than I do. Totally fine with it...but things like "better than Dirk" and "near flawless"...those aren't reasonable imo...and I think get back to the fact that I've always felt Paul was graded on a different curve as I said earlier...I really think that is what is going on here.

[NBAGOAT]

Yep...and I has a huge proponent of that Rockets team and Paul. I think they were championship level or perhaps even slightly better than average championship level team in 18.

Yes, as to the point about the "hidden value" being part of "gravity"...I understand that connection, but I wanted to list a different category because it actually might not be picked up...or at least not to its full extent.

And example could be that a player gets doubled 22 feet from the basket and the guard gets to walk into a mid-range jumper or lane to the basket...and the player walking into that jumper isn't actually a good shooter, struggles to finish, and isn't a great passer...

In that case...there is tremendous value in the player getting so much attention 22 feet from the basket, but it really isn't being picked up by stats if the end result is a miss or turnover...

I'm not saying that was the case for anything in particular, but I sometimes think we go a little too heavy into the stats...even the best ones...rather than discussing a concept with value bult into it....like that.

I see wat you’re saying again, I like Paul’s gravity however. Too many times I’ve seen teams double him 18 feet from the basket leaving guys like Blake, Jeff green, or luc completely open for jumpers that aren’t valuable. His midrange is just extremely valuable and defense altering. The spurs specifically had a lot of trouble with him during rs and one playoff series

There are little things too like never forgetting to get dj an easy bucket once in awhile to keep him com-tent even if the midrange is there. I like Westbrook’s passing a lot but that’s a problem he had with Adams this year.

[DMAVS41]

I see wat you’re saying again, I like Paul’s gravity however. Too many times I’ve seen teams double him 18 feet from the basket leaving guys like Blake, Jeff green, or luc completely open for jumpers that aren’t valuable. His midrange is just extremely valuable and defense altering. The spurs specifically had a lot of trouble with him during rs and one playoff series

There are little things too like never forgetting to get dj an easy bucket once in awhile to keep him com-tent even if the midrange is there. I like Westbrook’s passing a lot but that’s a problem he had with Adams this year.

No, I completely agree.

Again, I'm comparing Paul to the best players of all-time...I really think this is the issue for a lot of this.

Paul looks great if we compare him to Nash or Stockton...but when we compare his impact to Curry? Well, he still is great, but he comes away from that comparison looking worse.

And when the comparisons are going to be some of the 20 best players ever...he's doesn't compare favorably.

Again, I think Paul might be the 3rd best point ever. He probably would be like the 28th best player ever for me or something...I don't know...I'd have to think about it.

So of course he has many amazing abilities...he's one of the best players ever.

[3ball]

All this is because he has no rings...If he had a championship, things like his ball dominance would be looked at in a positive light, nobody would talk about his bad moments..


This is true, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Lebron's ball-dominance failed just like everyone else's until he teamed up with the extra talent that style needs to win a ring.. cp3 simply didn't get to team up with caliber of multiple stars that Lebron did - but his NEED to team up and acquire extra talent reflects his weaker ball-dominant style

The historical record shows that ball-dominance simply doesn't win nearly as much as ball movement - infact, ball-dominance is rarely the optimal action on a basketball court, which is why ball-dominators like cp3, harden, nash, Lebron, and westbrook have poor records against the best teams...

otoh, non-ball-dominators like dirk, kawhi, kobe, mj, KD, Bird, etc. have good records against the best teams because they play a better way





You say his lack of gravity puts a ceiling on his teams offense. His teams are amazing on offense when he's playing. Multiple times they had the #1 offensive rating in the league.


that's normally great, but the historical record shows that his ball-dominance puts a ceiling on his team's overall capability in the playoffs

specifically, his predictable offenses are easy to defend and don't win the attrition war - they don't put pressure on the opponent/wear them down to prevent the opponent from getting comfortable or hot offensively.. the opponent defends Paul's offense easily, and then is fresh and ready to apply their own pressure offensively and wear Paul's team down.

[Real14]

Because he's a bitch.

[Young X]

This is semantics....flaws / weaknesses / lackings...

You can call it whatever you want and it has nothing to do with me not liking Paul. I mean...the flopping antics does...but nothing else does.

Not having an ability that is supremely valuable that other players have...is a flaw in my view.

You can keep repeating the "no rings" stuff...and that just isn't it. It is my take on him as a basketball player combined with the lack of success...as has been explained to you, with my basketball take, many times now...

Again, I could just say the same things to you;

you only say he's "near-flawless" because you really like him...

And I think a reasonable person can think Paul is better than I do. Totally fine with it...but things like "better than Dirk" and "near flawless"...those aren't reasonable imo...and I think get back to the fact that I've always felt Paul was graded on a different curve as I said earlier...I really think that is what is going on here.He's just an extremely weird player to rank/evaluate because of the way his career went down. There will always be major issues when ranking him because there is no place to put him.

Normally you factor in team success heavily when looking at players, but when you do that with Chris it looks like he's trash.

But we all know he's not. But how do you prove that without making a bunch of excuses? You can't.

He is unrankable.

[DMAVS41]

He's just an extremely weird player to rank/evaluate because of the way his career went down. There will always be major issues when ranking him because there is no place to put him.

Normally you factor in team success heavily when looking at players, but when you do that with Chris it looks like he's trash.

But we all know he's not. But how do you prove that without making a bunch of excuses? You can't.

He is unrankable.

Well, I'd never only look at team success and anything that labels Paul as "trash" is just idiotic.

[iamgine]

Why would being a "great two way player and extremely skilled" automatically guarantee a title? :confusedshrug:

It doesn't work that way.

[Young X]

Well, I'd never only look at team success and anything that labels Paul as "trash" is just idiotic.That's a hyperbole but he's nothing special if you factor in team success.

His greatness is almost 100% based on his individual greatness. You can't rank a player based on that. So where are you supposed put him historically?

[DMAVS41]

That's a hyperbole but he's nothing special if you factor in team success.

His greatness is almost 100% based on his individual greatness. You can't rank a player based on that. So where are you supposed put him historically?

I disagree...I think you can. I agree that it is harder to rank some players over others based on circumstances, but come on now...lets not pretend like Paul was in some uniquely awful circumstances his entire career.

You think we can rank KG?

I think he's harder to rank than Paul as he played with far less help pretty much his entire career...certainly his best years.

I think it is always about ranges for most of this stuff anyway.

I personally think Paul should be somewhere around a little higher than 30 when I reflect.

There are guys that I think were clearly better...and I don't see circumstances every really changing that.

Players I'd rank over Paul (as always a few are tough because I didn't see everyone the list);

Dwyane Wade
Kevin Durant
Charles Barkley
Stephen Curry
Dirk Nowitzki
Jerry West
Julius Erving
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Kobe Bryant
Bob Pettit
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Wilt Chamberlain
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O’Neal
Bill Russell
Michael Jordan
LeBron James
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Then go from there....it is hard for a lot of players in their ranges...not just Paul.

Now, if you are so high on Paul that you're arguing that he's Tim Duncan as a basketball player in terms of impact and it was just bad luck that he didn't win as much.

Ok, I'd agree then...he's too hard to place if we are allowing for that possibility.

But, as I've said, I don't think that is reality. I think Paul is in the Stockton/Nash/Thomas/Barry range that usually falls outside the top 20....and, in my opinion, rightfully so.

[Young X]

I disagree...I think you can. I agree that it is harder to rank some players over others based on circumstances, but come on now...lets not pretend like Paul was in some uniquely awful circumstances his entire career.Maybe not uniquely awful, but if he wasn't in unfortunate situations for alot of his career then there is no way you could rank him even close to that high. There were players even in his own era that were winning championships, Finals MVP's that you are ranking behind him.

[DMAVS41]

Maybe not uniquely awful, but if he wasn't in unfortunate situations for alot of his career then there is no way you could rank him even close to that high. There were players even in his own era that were winning championships, Finals MVP's that you are ranking behind him.

I did that list very quickly...I'm sure I missed a few guys, but I really don't think you are being genuine in your response....and if you really think that...I'm not sure why you ever argue about this if you think there is no rationale to place Paul anywhere.

Again though...I just disagree.

You rank players based on how good they were and what the results were with context of their situation.

It isn't a science...you seem to think there is actually some order that is the exact order...and that isn't the case.

You argue circumstances, then say you can't account for circumstances.

I personally would take Paul over Nash, for example...and I don't see how that is contradictory just because Nash won 2 MVP's...and certainly think Paul was better than Parker...even though he won titles and a finals MVP.

But, I really don't get your point...you absolutely can rank Paul just like any other player. It seems that you just don't like where he ranks...which is odd...because he usually ranks as one of the best players ever...just not in the class of guys that were better and did more.

I forgot Leonard on my list...his career is still going on, but yea...what he did this year is something I don't think Paul could do...and I think Leonard is a better player. So, unless he just falls off completely...I'll put Leonard over Paul as well.

[Young X]

I did that list very quickly...I'm sure I missed a few guys, but I really don't think you are being genuine in your response....and if you really think that...I'm not sure why you ever argue about this if you think there is no rationale to place Paul anywhere.

Again though...I just disagree.

You rank players based on how good they were and what the results were with context of their situation.

It isn't a science...you seem to think there is actually some order that is the exact order...and that isn't the case.

You argue circumstances, then say you can't account for circumstances.

I personally would take Paul over Nash, for example...and I don't see how that is contradictory just because Nash won 2 MVP's...and certainly think Paul was better than Parker...even though he won titles and a finals MVP.

But, I really don't get your point...you absolutely can rank Paul just like any other player. It seems that you just don't like where he ranks...which is odd...because he usually ranks as one of the best players ever...just not in the class of guys that were better and did more.

I forgot Leonard on my list...his career is still going on, but yea...what he did this year is something I don't think Paul could do...and I think Leonard is a better player. So, unless he just falls off completely...I'll put Leonard over Paul as well.But what is your bases for his ranking? What puts him ahead of Nash or Parker?

Parker played in the same era, won multiple championships, won a Finals MVP and eliminated CP in the playoffs multiple times. Why is he not ahead when he achieved all the success CP didn't?

[3ball]

The only high apg player in the top 10 is Magic, and he only won due to Kareem

High apg players don't win rings as much as low apg players

[NBAGOAT]

The only high apg player in the top 10 is Magic, and he only won due to Kareem

High apg players don't win rings as much as low apg players

Lol at thinking magic won because of Kareem in 88 or even 87. You can

[RealSkipBayless]

The only high apg player in the top 10 is Magic, and he only won due to Kareem

High apg players don't win rings as much as low apg players
I thought you had Magic ranked higher than Kareem?

[SouBeachTalents]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]Lol at thinking magic won because of Kareem in 88 or even 87. You can

[3ball]

I thought you had Magic ranked higher than Kareem?
I do

They're the only two consensus top 5'ish guys that played together in the 3-pointer era..

I'd like to bump both down a couple spots just because their rings are inflated, super-duper-team rings... We saw what happened in 91 when the casts were even - magic got demolished

[Doranku]

Chris Paul doesn't win because he doesn't know how to manage games. Time after time after time he goes completely passive for long droughts during important games when his team needs him to be aggressive/looking to score.

He's a playmaker to a fault.

[DMAVS41]

But what is your bases for his ranking? What puts him ahead of Nash or Parker?

Parker played in the same era, won multiple championships, won a Finals MVP and eliminated CP in the playoffs multiple times. Why is he not ahead when he achieved all the success CP didn't?

Because I think Paul was better at basketball and would have won more in Parker's place likely.

This is what I'm getting at...you aren't genuinely discussing this because you know damn well that you think Paul was better than Parker.

And, as I've said a million times now, I'm not going off of results only...I'm going off of how good at basketball they were combined with the results they produced in the specific circumstances they were in.

Nobody, not even the most results based person ever, thinks Van-Fleet is now a better player than Paul because he won a title.

So...you aren't even arguing against a real position with this stuff.

[jayfan]

Lol at thinking magic won because of Kareem in 88 or even 87. You can’t possibly be trying to argue magic played suboptimal basketball just to tear down other players

You're right - obviously Kareem was a shell of himself by then.

Ironically, though, Kareem is why the Lakers won in '88. He got a phantom call at the end of Game 6 that no one else would have gotten. But for that call, and free throws made, Pistons win the title.


.

[houston]

He just steve nash who plays better defense.

[MellowYellow]

He is not a true scorer, and relies upon assists. For this to work you need all time great teams like what magic johnson had in order to win.

[Young X]

Because I think Paul was better at basketball and would have won more in Parker's place likely.

This is what I'm getting at...you aren't genuinely discussing this because you know damn well that you think Paul was better than Parker.

And, as I've said a million times now, I'm not going off of results only...I'm going off of how good at basketball they were combined with the results they produced in the specific circumstances they were in.

Nobody, not even the most results based person ever, thinks Van-Fleet is now a better player than Paul because he won a title.

So...you aren't even arguing against a real position with this stuff.You're not actually answering me though. What makes him better.

You're saying Paul could've won in Parker's place likely but you literally said earlier that Paul wasn't a championship 1st option.

[DMAVS41]

You're not actually answering me though. What makes him better.

You're saying Paul could've won in Parker's place likely but you literally said earlier that Paul wasn't a championship 1st option.

I'm not going to take the time, yet again...to write up a post about what makes Paul better when you know...and I know...we all agree Paul was better.

Parker wasn't the clear cut best player on a title winning team...again, I don't believe that you think that...

Hence you not making any genuine points.

I'll leave it alone after this, but I'll say it one more time...

I think the best method to rank players is an analysis of how good they were at playing basketball combined with an analysis of what results they produced given context.

So you responding to me like I've got no response to someone winning titles playing with perhaps a top 5 player ever...I just don't think you are taking the time to read anything or are just playing stupid.

Paul can be ranked just like any other player...every player has certain circumstances that impact it. Everyone knows this...KG had far worse circumstances than Paul did...and he's got a much stronger argument than Paul for that impacting his ranking.

[Lebron23]

:confusedshrug:

All of the other great two-way players in NBA history have won a championship, even Gary Payton and David Robinson.

Now he lead his team in the conference finals. CP3 is a Point God.

[Lebron23]

:confusedshrug:

All of the other great two-way players in NBA history have won a championship, even Gary Payton and David Robinson.

And Chris Paul is going to win an NBA Championship while being the no.1 scoring option. Both Payton and DR were role players when they won the championship.

[Mulder]

Tonight CP3 had a great game.

To answer the question. CP3 doesn't make his teammates better.
Remember, there's no I in team.

[Gohan]

And Chris Paul is going to win an NBA Championship while being the no.1 scoring option. Both Payton and DR were role players when they won the championship.

bucks got this series, bud sucks at game 1's

[ELITEpower23]

Aside from the goat pg/goat center combo of magic/kareem, high apg players don't win championships

Period

Since the 3-point line began 30 years ago, only Magic won a ring averaging 10 apg, and only 4 other guys won rings averaging over 8 apg

People have this idea that someone getting 10 apg is such a great thing, but it usually means the ball-handler held the ball most of the possession and then found someone open to finish the play - their ball-dominance replaced ball movement and it's hard to win that way

Otoh, the way nearly all championships are won is by having a timely scorer that gets 4-7 apg (11' Dirk, 06' Wade, Kobe, MJ, KD, Kawhi, Duncan, etc) - being able to find teammates is important, but in the flow of the game and with ball movement (unpredictable), not 1 guy pounding the rock and then finding someone (predictable)

Aren't all of MJ's rings against these types of players? 8.0 apg or more?

1991 Magic
1993 Johnson
1996 Payton
1997 Stockton
1998 Stockton

So MJ played against inferior styles. Great job ethering yourself again.

[3ba11]

he dominates the ball, that's why

ball-dominators don't win unless they demand to play with kareem or form super-teams.

isiah and parker actually didn't dominate the ball, while guys like nash, cp3, harden, lebron, wall, lillard - they're all a bunch of unsophisticated ball-handlers that only play 2-man basketball (PNR) - they don't know how to play 5-man basketball, so they get beat by teams that do

[ELITEpower23]

he dominates the ball, that's why

ball-dominators don't win unless they demand to play with kareem or form super-teams.

isiah and parker actually didn't dominate the ball, while guys like nash, cp3, harden, lebron, wall, lillard - they're all a bunch of unsophisticated ball-handlers that only play 2-man basketball (PNR) - they don't know how to play 5-man basketball, so they get beat by teams that do

Aren't all of MJ's rings against these types of players? 8.0 apg or more?

1991 Magic
1993 Johnson
1996 Payton
1997 Stockton
1998 Stockton

So MJ played against inferior styles. Great job ethering yourself again.

[3ba11]

Aren't all of MJ's rings against these types of players? 8.0 apg or more?

1991 Magic
1993 Johnson
1996 Payton
1997 Stockton
1998 Stockton

So MJ played against inferior styles. Great job ethering yourself again.


so he would destroy lebron and today's ball-dominator league the same way then - and he'd destroy today's league more because it's more of a ball-dominator league than ever before

he'd be 6/6 again.. 2 three-peats.. except in today's game he wouldn't retire, so 8 or 9 rings in a row. GOAT

[basketballcat]

Karma. Dude is a bitch in the way he flops, tries to provoke other players, and just borderline dirty.

[ELITEpower23]

so he would destroy lebron and today's ball-dominator league the same way then - and he'd destroy today's league more because it's more of a ball-dominator league than ever before

he'd be 6/6 again.. 2 three-peats.. except in today's game he wouldn't retire, so 8 or 9 rings in a row. GOAT

Aren't all of MJ's rings against these types of weak 8.0 apg or more players? So he has weak rings?

1991 Magic
1993 Johnson
1996 Payton
1997 Stockton
1998 Stockton

MJ played against inferior styles, great job ethering yourself again.

[DMAVS41]

Amazing to look back at this thread.

Calling him the 28th best player ever and likely not a clear championship first option...combined with questioning him being a "near flawless" basketball player deemed me a hater.

Pretty interesting. If that was the sentiment a couple years ago, maybe losing this Finals will hurt his legacy a bit...because if they do lose...very few are ranking him above a guy like Thomas.

[DMAVS41]

Quick Paul take;

Small, a little too ball dominant, at the very least below average teammate that is hardheaded, couldn't take over games as consistently at the guys he's going to be compared to in terms overwhelming the opposition...played in comfort zone a bit too often and didn't extend his game when his teams really needed it....pattern of not staying healthy deep in playoffs...he/team had all-time meltdowns (this isn't results...this is play)...

Great? Of course...on par with the top 20 players ever imo? Just no...I need to see more.

Feel pretty much the same way I always did....although it has been nice to see Booker and Ayton respond so well to his leadership this year.

[DMAVS41]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6jKJfEWEAE79zq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

This picture illustrates what I was talking about earlier in terms of his size alone makes it impossible for him to be "near flawless"...he's having to go up against monsters that are far bigger, faster, and stronger...and those are huge advantages in basketball.

The fact that CP3 has been as good as he has in his career...and still this good at his age...is unbelievably impressive. However, we don't grade on a curve when evaluating players and comparing them.

I still hope the Suns come back and win and he gets his ring, but I worry Giannis is on his way to cementing himself in an elite group all-time in a few days now.

[RogueBorg]

:confusedshrug:

All of the other great two-way players in NBA history have won a championship, even Gary Payton and David Robinson.

Because he's not a closer. Like his Banana Boat buddy he can get stats for 45 minutes, but he needs someone like Ray Allen or Kyrie Irving to close the deal for him in the last 3 minutes.

[Kblaze8855]

That is such a weird take on someone who is a pull-up specialist. Not having won a title and not having the skills of a closer aren’t even close to the same thing.

[Kblaze8855]

And Ray isn’t exactly a closer either. He’s an unbelievably clutch shooter but that isn’t really the same thing. Kyrie has what I’d call a closing skill set. You wouldn’t give the ball to Ray to seal a game with his own scoring and decision making any more than most stars. He can do it but his skill set isn’t just built for it. Those are usually the midrange pull-up guys who can protect the ball and make shots you can’t depend on being “good”. Kyrie is exactly that type. Chris Paul is as well but he’s also a pass first guy which makes it hard to pin down label wise.

Paul has a classic “Well….there’s nothing you can do about that” skill set with a playmakers instincts.