Primes: T-Mac or Chris Paul

Shock Defeat · Post #1 » by **Shock Defeat** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:59 pm

Who is better? and who would you rather have leading your team?

RSCD3_ · Post #2 » by **RSCD3_** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:19 am

Derailing

Dr Spaceman · Post #3 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:23 am

Chris Paul. Chris Paul.

Really, Chris Paul has about 5 years better than T-Mac's peak. He's just smarter, more efficient, better playmaker, and just all around superior. McGrady's one huge advantage was scoring, and yet he didn't actually do that all that well considering his efficiency (although he was a really low turnover player for such a high-usage ball handler, which is a big plus). McGrady peaked at 116 ORTG, Chris Paul has 8 years better than 120.

Chris Paul has led better offenses, better teams, is the more prolific individual player, and doesn't lose huge swaths of time to debilitating injury smack dab in the middle of his prime. This is pretty easy.

Basketballefan · Post #4 » by **Basketballefan** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:25 am

Well they are about even in peaks to me, maybe a slight edge to Tmac if anything. As for all around primes i would take Cp3 slightly.

Joseph17 · Post #5 » by **Joseph17** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:30 am

T-Mac

Basketballefan · Post #6 » by **Basketballefan** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:35 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:Chris Paul. Chris Paul.

Really, Chris Paul has about 5 years better than T-Mac's peak. He's just smarter, more efficient, better playmaker, and just all around superior. McGrady's one huge advantage was scoring, and yet he didn't actually do that all that well considering his efficiency (although he was a really low turnover player for such a high-usage ball handler, which is a big plus). McGrady peaked at 116 ORTG, Chris Paul has 8 years better than 120.

Chris Paul has led better offenses, better teams, is the more prolific individual player, and doesn't lose huge swaths of time to debilitating injury smack dab in the middle of his prime. This is pretty easy.

Saying Paul has 5 seasons better than Tmac's peaks is getting a little carried away. Peak Tmac was 32 6.5 5.5 on .564 ts% and 30.3 PER with decent defense...08 & 09 are the only versions of Paul that have any case if your to be honest here.

Dr Spaceman · Post #7 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:54 am

Basketballefan wrote:Saying Paul has 5 seasons better than Tmac's peaks is getting a little carried away. Peak Tmac was 32 6.5 5.5 on .564 ts% and 30.3 PER with decent defense...08 & 09 are the only versions of Paul that have any case if your to be honest here.

Yeah.

I don't doubt T-Mac's ability to put up numbers. And he's a great player, for sure. Chris Paul does so much more for a team, and in a lot of ways this isn't really quantifiable in the way that T-Mac's is. T-Mac scored a lot and got a lot of assists, but he also ate up a gigantic chunk of his team's offense to get there, and wasn't particularly efficient when he did. I also don't like the way his teams generally aren't good offensively, and a guy with a 35% USG% and a 116 ORTG on a mediocre offensive team isn't generally a good sign. And frankly McGrady's TS% that year would probably be a lot closer to his norm if he wasn't getting to the line about 2+ times more a game that year.

RAPM definitely backs me up here, Paul's numbers beat McGrady's best pretty much every year after his 3rd. For the record, I think Paul's 13 and 14 are the best years of his career. I know it's a cliche, but this guy is having a ton of impact in ways that aren't entirely quantifiable or obvious. Clearly a lot of the advanced metrics love him, but even then they fail to capture things like his superior decision making, his absurd court vision, and his intelligence. And these are all areas where I feel McGrady is lacking desperately in comparison.

Post #8 » by **tsherkin** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:07 am

Paul.

Peak would be more interesting; Paul has been better for longer, 03 aside.

JordansBulls · Post #9 » by **JordansBulls** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:21 am

Tmac for me believe you can trust him more in the playoffs as CP3 doesn't do enough for his teams. He would shoot like 10 shots in a game which does not help.

picc · Post #10 » by **picc** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:11 am

Paul for longevity and durability sake. One season to lead my team i'll pick 03 Tmac. Don't really need to mention I like that Tracy is 8 inches taller and it influences my decision, but I will anyway.

dontcalltimeout · Post #11 » by **dontcalltimeout** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:18 am

I think injury concerns (his own, but also his best teammates) disadvantage T-Mac in a comparison of primes. And i'm not sure how fair that is, especially when talking about Grant Hill & Yao.

His 02-03 peak is one of the greatest among wing players, but he never comes close to replicating it, while Paul has played at an elite level since 07. CP3 might never surpass 02-03, but he gets up there in ATG offensive impact in 08, 09, 12,13, & 14 while also being a positive in defense. It isn't that fair a comparison.