Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Chris Paul
I really think people need to think about Paul vs Dwight Howard here. People seem to have this huge longevity issue with Paul, but I don't see Howard doesn't have that same issue. Hell Paul was a superstar before Howard, and I don't see how Howard gets a glaring edge on peak. So what's the deal.
Honestly, I think people are just comparing Paul to other point guards in a way that Howard never faced. Because after Gilmore then next batch of big men have such clear issues, Howard got cut more slack than Paul.
If you really believe Howard deserved to get in where he did, I don't see any rational way to say against Paul at this point.
Well I have to disagree with this line of reasoning for a few reasons
1. I shy away from "well, X player just got in, so Y player HAS to get in a spot soon". I think it's better to just judge by who's on the board. Also, there's other players on the board like Miller vs Allen and Nique vs English that I consider the former to only have a slight edge, that might be seperated by 10 spots or more - that slight edge is enough to create the gaps now. On my personal list I've grouped tiers, the number of players in each tier respectively has gone 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 14, 11, 1 (and counting). The last two tiers have had massive clogging. On the tier that just ended, I don't feel confident that 35-36 (Gilmore and Gervin) deserve to be above 42-44 (KJ, Zo, McHale) even at all.
2. I personally do see a gap between Dwight and Paul. I've used this exercise before, but try cancelling out equal value seasons
- Rook/Soph seasons can be cancelled out: Both are pretty valuable, but under prime stats + the fact that rooks and sophs appear to have emptier stats than 3rd year+ with most careers. Paul looks like the better player but also plays 64 Gs his 2nd year. Overall, can't give much of an edge to either player here
- Depending on how you feel about Paul's 2011, whether you side with the superstar PER or what a lot of eye test gaugers said about him being roughly 3rd team All-NBA caliber - cancel out Dwight's 07 or 08. For me it's the 07 season. 2011 NOH and 2007 Orl were about as good, they received exactly the same accolades, they were both a dropoff from their prime years about the same.
So what's left after that for each player, is 08, 09, 10 for Paul vs 09, 10, 11 and whichever is left of 07 and 08 for Dwight. I just don't see how that's not a significant gap. Dwight has 3 MVP caliber seasons and either another top 5 MVP year or a 3rd team All-NBA caliber year. Paul has 2 MVP caliber seasons and a season where he plays 38 Gs and 7 more as one of the worst statistical players in the league (and presumably, that's what he would've been in the playoffs). Those 4 Dwight seasons cannot be just eyeballed as close enough to Paul's 2.5. You get 4 kicks at the can instead of 2 to win a title, essentially. Yes Dwight isn't *miles* ahead, but we're at a stage where Miller can get voted in before Allen gets nominated because he's slightly better in the playoffs, I think it's perfectly reasonable it's enough to put them quite a few spots apart
But as I said before, using the same exercise I personally find it impossible to argue Paul over Zo. If Paul's 08 and 09 is better than Zo's 99 and 00 (where he finished 3rd and 2nd in MVP and 4th and 2nd in the RPOY votes, both above Paul's rankings) and the rooks/sophs cancel out again, the rest of their careers match up as 95, 96, 97, 98 + valuable 02, 06, 07 secondary Zo years vs Paul's 10 and 11. I just don't see any way to argue that Paul's best 2 years are so much more valuable than Zo's best 2 that it covers Zo having 4 more beast years where he's able to anchor 50-60 W teams and 3 more awesome supporting player years vs like 1.5 years of 3rd team All-NBA Paul
