Does CP3 have any argument as being better than Durant all time?

[og15]

Absolutely zero chance whatsoever. He's one of the best playmakers ever but his style of play is also detrimental to the game. He sucks the air out of the game by wanting to control everything.

I don't rate KD as much as other on here (latter end of top 20), but CP3 isn't even a top 25 player.

This makes no sense.

He made everyone better.

All the players he played with had their best years because of him.

His teams were completely irrelevant before and after him. He made them competitive.

All PGs make everyone better, that means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. And through most of his career, his teams were completely irrelevant with him in the team as well. Did the right, safe thing all the time and wasn't able to take over games in pivotal moments.

CP3 is the basketball pseudo intellectual's dream. People get off on the idea that they're so smart to see his value, which is why he's so popular on here.

This is not necessarily true though.

If Paul did the right and safe thing all the time, he wouldn't have had the OKC game 5 blunder, the right and safe thing would have been to stand and get fouled.

Paul actually gets overstated as being too safe and gets underrated in his ability to take over with scoring. Part of this is just the results based analysis that we do, which is understandable.

While I'm going to counter some of the arguments made, I still maintain that I'd take Durant over him, and to me health is also a bigger factor than many are acknowledging. I simply have far more faith that Durant can make it through multiple playoff runs.

Score and Get Stops
As a Clipper the biggest problem they had late in games is that they could not get late game stops as a team, and looking at the team build it's clear why they couldn't consistently do that (lack of wings with size and defense, lack of solid backup bigs, so no rim protection if DJ was off the court and, not enough POA defenders).

When we analyze we look at the individual or team scoring, but many times ignore the points against. For example, even vs OKC, in game 6, Paul had 14 in the 4th, but they were beat 32-26. Griffin had 4 fouls in the 4th alone and fouled out which hurt the team.

In the 3rd Paul only had 4 pts, but had nothing to do with playing safe, he tied with Blake for most FGA in that quarter at 7 each, but the shots didn't fall, even KD and Russ only took 5 and 6, but KD went 5/5 in that quarter, that was the difference.

Go back to the GS series in 04, in the finishing game 7 he had 15/8 in the second half.

Rest on Defense Helps
One of the other problems the Clippers teams with Paul ran into is that they were built in a way that made him have to work more than his counterparts. The Clippers 2/3 (Redick, Crawford, Barnes) could not guard the 1. The opposing teams would use guys like Tony Allen, Danny Green, Kawhi, Klay, Sefolosha, etc on Paul, either for whole games, long stretches, or to give their guy a break.

On the other hand, Paul was the one chasing Curry around screens all game, chasing Westbrook around, guarding Lillard, etc. If your main guy is having to take a tough matchup most of the game just due to roster construction, while his counterpart gets rest and many times is not guarding him down the stretch (and gets someone like Barnes) while he has to still guard that guy, it can impact performance just enough to determine who comes out.

In 2018 vs Utah, he closed out that series for the Rockets as Harden struggled in game 4 and 5. They could have unnecessarily extended that series to 6 or 7 games if he doesn't step up (34/10/8 in game 4/5).

A younger Paul could have definitely had more ability to push Milwaukee further. At 36 he was still very good, but Jrue is a tough defender, his performance at that age against Jrue was still very good. The Suns took advantage of the recovering Giannis in the first two games, but as soon as he was back in form, they really had nothing to contain him.

Paul's biggest issue is actually still that he simply does not stay healthy enough and that's just a big hurdle to overcome because not being on the floor is only worse than being significantly injured and not productive / hurting the team (eg: Lakers series in 2020 for example).

CP3 > Booker.

CP3 led that team to the finals.

CP3 was the missing piece that guided the Suns to the Finals but he wasn't the Suns best player that season, or at least not outright like Durant was on the 2012 Thunder.

Season stats:
Booker - 25.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 4.3 apg on 58.7% TS
CP3 - 16.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 8.9 apg on 59.9% TS

Playoff stats:
Booker - 27.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.5 apg on 55.8% TS
CP3 - 19.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 8.6 apg on 58.4% TS

CP3 was clearly the better playmaker and Booker the better scorer. I think at best you can make the argument that they were 1A and 1B, but if you're going to definitively state that CP3 > Booker then you're going to have to bring some actual facts to the table.

We have stats the put everything together so we don't have to type out a lot of numbers.

CP3 vs Booker

VORP 1.2 vs 0.4
BPM 5.0 vs -0.4
WS 2.5 vs 1.2
WS/48 .178 vs .066
PER 20.7 vs 16.1

If we're just talking box score stats the gap between the two was massive.

I actually also think we should add that the slashes undeerrate his performance when he was healthy enough that playoffs. No one is 100% healthy, but there's healthy enough (vs Bucks hand injury) and then there's significantly impacted by injury (vs Lakers non functional arm). The Lakers series, we clearly know the guy was off, he was using one hand the whole series, it didn't even make sense.

If you look at Denver series and on, he averaged 23.5 / 3.5 / 8.9 and shot 52/49/91 (61.8 TS), but in typical fashion he has to have something go wrong, the Lakers injury AND a COVID haitus.

[celtxman]

I'm not a big lover of Durant but there is no real argument of CP3 being better. Durant is easily in the Top 20 and more likely top 15. CP3 is probably in the Top 30 but certainly not near Top 20.

[dhsilv2]

CP3 was the missing piece that guided the Suns to the Finals but he wasn't the Suns best player that season, or at least not outright like Durant was on the 2012 Thunder.

Season stats:
Booker - 25.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 4.3 apg on 58.7% TS
CP3 - 16.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 8.9 apg on 59.9% TS

Playoff stats:
Booker - 27.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.5 apg on 55.8% TS
CP3 - 19.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 8.6 apg on 58.4% TS

CP3 was clearly the better playmaker and Booker the better scorer. I think at best you can make the argument that they were 1A and 1B, but if you're going to definitively state that CP3 > Booker then you're going to have to bring some actual facts to the table.

We have stats the put everything together so we don't have to type out a lot of numbers.

CP3 vs Booker

VORP 1.2 vs 0.4
BPM 5.0 vs -0.4
WS 2.5 vs 1.2
WS/48 .178 vs .066
PER 20.7 vs 16.1

If we're just talking box score stats the gap between the two was massive.

I actually also think we should add that the slashes undeerrate his performance when he was healthy enough that playoffs. No one is 100% healthy, but there's healthy enough (vs Bucks hand injury) and then there's significantly impacted by injury (vs Lakers non functional arm). The Lakers series, we clearly know the guy was off, he was using one hand the whole series, it didn't even make sense.

If you look at Denver series and on, he averaged 23.5 / 3.5 / 8.9 and shot 52/49/91 (61.8 TS), but in typical fashion he has to have something go wrong, the Lakers injury AND a COVID haitus.

From a stats perspective I think they more show Booker wasn't better than Paul vs Paul was better than Booker if that makes any sense. Or in short...the suns made the finals because they were a good team and both those guys were contributors but neither carried the team there. Ayton was a huge factor. And their young guys in Bridges, Crowder and Payne were good too.

[og15]

We have stats the put everything together so we don't have to type out a lot of numbers.

CP3 vs Booker

VORP 1.2 vs 0.4
BPM 5.0 vs -0.4
WS 2.5 vs 1.2
WS/48 .178 vs .066
PER 20.7 vs 16.1

If we're just talking box score stats the gap between the two was massive.

I actually also think we should add that the slashes undeerrate his performance when he was healthy enough that playoffs. No one is 100% healthy, but there's healthy enough (vs Bucks hand injury) and then there's significantly impacted by injury (vs Lakers non functional arm). The Lakers series, we clearly know the guy was off, he was using one hand the whole series, it didn't even make sense.

If you look at Denver series and on, he averaged 23.5 / 3.5 / 8.9 and shot 52/49/91 (61.8 TS), but in typical fashion he has to have something go wrong, the Lakers injury AND a COVID haitus.

From a stats perspective I think they more show Booker wasn't better than Paul vs Paul was better than Booker if that makes any sense. Or in short...the suns made the finals because they were a good team and both those guys were contributors but neither carried the team there. Ayton was a huge factor. And their young guys in Bridges, Crowder and Payne were good too.

I don't think they had a "better" either. The team needed good playmaking and scoring. Booker is a better primary scorer and inferior playmaker. Paul was a much better primary playmaker but inferior scorer. They complemented each other. They were also a well built team, if they had Paul at a younger age, their 20-21 season would likely have ended better also, but that's basketball.

[tsherkin]

Playoff Rondo Is a thing case closed.

Playoff Rondo sucked, though... He was one of the most embarrassing oxygen-thieves in league history as a scorer in the playoffs, and is the king of the eponymous Rondo Assist. He was one of the most overrated players in the league from like 08-18.

[shi-woo]

This is low key disrespectful to KD. He is better than Paul both as a player and in terms of career accomplishments. Both are ATGs and i'll admit that i'm lower on Paul than most people, but I think KD is much higher AT than Paul.

It's hard for a lot of people to look at KD's career objectively because of his move to GSW. But at the end of the day, KD was already one of the most consistent stars in the game, and his team made it to 4 WCF, KD going on to play in 7 WCF before his season ending injury. Pre injury KD did as much as you could possibly want and his teams were consistently in the Final 4. He's brought 2 other team to the 2nd round post injury. So people saying Paul is the better floor raiser, has to explain to me what KD is given he dominated the much beloved WC for most of a decade. Poorly timed injuries and mismanagement is the only thing that stopped KD in OKC.

GS is obviously something else,but what he did there can't be ignored. 3 trips to the finals in 3 years, going back to back and getting FMVP both years. He looked like the absolute best player in the NBA doing it too. Team should have won 3 in a row.

As a player, I think being a 6'11 fluid wing that can score/create at all 3 levels, rebound, and protect the rim is more valuable in every iteration of the NBA over a 6' pg that is an elite playmaker, poa defender, and midrange speacialist. KD's peak was much higher than Paul's, and I think people didn't truly appreciate his game until much later when analytics and key or 3 philosophy became more prevalent. We also saw in 16 and 17 the role he could play on defense as a weakside defender and 3-5 defender, another concept that is everywhere in todays NBA as shown by Giannis and Tatum this year.

KD is also one of, if not the best, scorer is the game. He's essentially Dirk in TMacs body.

It's razy to me how guys like Harden and Tatum get a bad rep, but Paul under acheived every year. He also had as much talent as KD did throughout his career, but didn't do much with it. The West/Chandler/Peja team only made it as far as the 2nd round. Same with Blake/Jordon/JJ Clippers, and we all know about the downfall of the Rockets and finals lose with the Suns. He never had any success as the main guy on a team unfortunately, so it's hard to compare him to guys who were. Paul's career is very Vince Carter to me is that regard.

Give me KD with the better peak, team success with 7 WCF and 3 finals, 2x rings, 2x finals MVP, multiple Gold medals and considered one of the greatest int. players, and 1x NBA MVP.

Paul has literally none of the things that make KD's resume stand out...

I have KD right ahead of Dirk on my AT rankings in the 15-20 range with a slight chance of moving up to the 10-15 range with another run. Paul as it stand would be in the Pierce/Allen range to me, 30's-40's and who have him below both players for what it's worth. Both had more success.

Yall over rating Paul something serious imo

[ghillphx]

I mean, he doesn't to these eyes, but I have KD as borderline top 10 if not in the top 10. CP3 is more like 15ish; above guys like Kobe and Barkley, but maybe not quite the same impact as KD.

cp3 over kobe is ignorance

I'd argue it's the reverse. Kobe is the casual fans pick, as you'd expect because he's more famous and marketed. CP3 is the more informed choice.

5 titles over 0. And I'm quite the opposite of a casual fan. Not even close. CP3 is great, I don't just look at trophies, but I'd never put him ahead of Kobe. Most people wouldn't. Calling yourself the one who makes the "informed choice" makes it sound like it's not even an opinion, just you know more, which is hilarious.

[NYPiston]

Why is that an issue? We're not asking who'd fit better on a random team. But who's added more value in their career.

The question is, who had the better career? I just find it to be an apples and oranges comparison.
I mean, how do you compare Jordan and Kareem for instance? Of course, all time rankings including players of all positions but I think one on one comparisons of players that play way different roles are difficult to decide.
If it's a "who would you choose to start a franchise" debate then I could see that being more valid.

In the spirit of the thread, I guess I'll say KD because he peaked higher in his role but, and this is what makes it a difficult comparison, CP3 played the floor general role getting others involved first and foremost so he might have had a bigger impact on making others better.
On an all time greats list I think KD would go a little higher on most of them.

[HMFFL]

No chance Chris Paul is even in the same conversation with Kevin Durant.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[UglyBugBall]

At the moment on RealGM TOP100 2023

20th Paul
22th Durant

so there are planty of arguments Paul>Durant

Curious to hear a couple of these arguments since there are plenty to choose from.


I’m one of KDs biggest critics, but really I can’t think of any reason why CP3 could be ahead of KD.

Kd has one mvp, cp3 none, neither have a championship so you have to look at their impact when judging them. Cp3 gas a major edge as a leader, KD obviously a better individual performer. I think cp3 is better as a team player. Sure neither ultimately ever got it done at the highest level, but cp3 has anchored multiple top teams. He elevates his teammates better than kd.

[dhsilv2]

This is low key disrespectful to KD.

...

Paul as it stand would be in the Pierce/Allen range to me, 30's-40's and who have him below both players for what it's worth. Both had more success.

Yall over rating Paul something serious imo

I think we see the issue. You're just massively underrating CP3.

[og15]

cp3 over kobe is ignorance

I'd argue it's the reverse. Kobe is the casual fans pick, as you'd expect because he's more famous and marketed. CP3 is the more informed choice.

5 titles over 0. And I'm quite the opposite of a casual fan. Not even close. CP3 is great, I don't just look at trophies, but I'd never put him ahead of Kobe. Most people wouldn't. Calling yourself the one who makes the "informed choice" makes it sound like it's not even an opinion, just you know more, which is hilarious.

One and Done is a Kobe fanatic but in the wrong way, you have to understand that commentary related to Kobe is going to be as far from objective as one can get lol

At the moment on RealGM TOP100 2023

20th Paul
22th Durant

so there are planty of arguments Paul>Durant

Curious to hear a couple of these arguments since there are plenty to choose from.


I’m one of KDs biggest critics, but really I can’t think of any reason why CP3 could be ahead of KD.

Kd has one mvp, cp3 none, neither have a championship so you have to look at their impact when judging them. Cp3 gas a major edge as a leader, KD obviously a better individual performer. I think cp3 is better as a team player. Sure neither ultimately ever got it done at the highest level, but cp3 has anchored multiple top teams. He elevates his teammates better than kd.

I know he jumped on GS and all, but are we just erasing KD's Warriors championships?

[dhsilv2]

Why is that an issue? We're not asking who'd fit better on a random team. But who's added more value in their career.

The question is, who had the better career? I just find it to be an apples and oranges comparison.
I mean, how do you compare Jordan and Kareem for instance? Of course, all time rankings including players of all positions but I think one on one comparisons of players that play way different roles are difficult to decide.
If it's a "who would you choose to start a franchise" debate then I could see that being more valid.

In the spirit of the thread, I guess I'll say KD because he peaked higher in his role but, and this is what makes it a difficult comparison, CP3 played the floor general role getting others involved first and foremost so he might have had a bigger impact on making others better.
On an all time greats list I think KD would go a little higher on most of them.

They both ultimately had the role of "best offensive player" on their respective teams. They were both called on to score in the clutch and raise the team's offense. CP3 did this more so through play making and his insane low turnover rates. While KD did this more from shot making. But ultimately, to argue they had massively different roles is a bit misleading. Sure KD never had to be the primary ball handler and that saved him a lot of energy, but once in the half court they both had the ball plenty and both were primary scorers and play makers within most sets.

Defensively is where it gets harder. KD and CP3 had vastly different roles. KD often just being a zone guy, playing off ball with a primary assignment normally on weak offensive players. Meanwhile CP3 was primarily the POA defender on team's best guards...but sometimes he'd even be asked to guard guys as big as well KD himself.

Oddly we could argue very similar things in an MJ vs Kareem discussion. They are even more similar despite differences in their games on offense. And similarly have defensive values that match KD and CP3.

Of all the discussions we get on players, CP3 vs KD is actually a good one because there's a lot TO discuss. Trying work through Paul's vastly better play making while looking at KD's vastly better shot making. Then trying to figure out how to deal with CP3's injuries int he playoffs...but KD's missed full seasons and had some injuries like 2019 too. Then we of course get to discuss teammates and the winning bias the plagues this and most basketball boards/discussions.

Oh and lets throw in on lists...the two actually are generally ranked closely.

BTW - the other thing is...nobody agrees on what this question means.

Best career in terms of achievements?
Best career in terms of team success?
Best career in terms of play?
Best career in terms of stats?
Best career in terms of who I could build a team better around given all the above?

There of course in lies why some people can't accept other's opinions. They don't even start with the same understanding of the question.

[peZt]

At the moment on RealGM TOP100 2023

20th Paul
22th Durant

so there are planty of arguments Paul>Durant

This says a lot about Realgm user base lmao.

There are 0 arguments for Paul over Durant. UNless you strictly judge them based on some random analytics stats

Yeah...those random stats that lead to NBA teams hiring people...

Imagine dismissing tools that lead to 7 figure jobs in the NBA...

I dont dismiss analytics. But I know how to use them. Cause the only argument CP3 has over KD are advanced stats. But if you rate CP3 over KD simply because the stats say so, you are using analytics wrong. Analytics is not the determing factor, its supposed to be used alongside conventional evaluational tools.
I dont dismiss analytics, I dismiss the ranking by the Realgm users cause there is no real argument for CP3 over KD in all time rankings unless you say "well CP3 has better VORP so he is better", which is nonsense. And yeah if a forum ranks CP3 2 spots ahead of KD in all time rankings than I really have to question the userbase that was involved in that ranking, no matter how fancy they act with their knowledge of analytics

I mean, he doesn't to these eyes, but I have KD as borderline top 10 if not in the top 10. CP3 is more like 15ish; above guys like Kobe and Barkley, but maybe not quite the same impact as KD.

cp3 over kobe is ignorance

I'd argue it's the reverse. Kobe is the casual fans pick, as you'd expect because he's more famous and marketed. CP3 is the more informed choice.

And thats exactly what I mean. If users like this played a part in that ranking, no wonder CP3 is above KD. Forum users have their heads so far up their asses thinking they are so much more informed and knowledgeable than the casual fan cause they know what advanced stats are

[NZB2323]

The 2010 Lakers were better than the 2010 Celtics because Kobe was better than KG that year. I’ll take Rondo, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Tony Allen over Pau, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Metta World Peace, and Derek Fischer.

Same thing for the Spurs. The 2010 Lakers were better than the 2010 Spurs because Kobe was better than Duncan. I’ll take Ginobili, Parker, George Hill, and Richard Jefferson over Kobe’s supporting cast.

If you want to argue that LeBron or Wade has worst supporting casts than Kobe in 2010, that’s perfectly reasonable, but the 2010 Lakers weren’t some incredibly stacked team. Kobe was the only top 75 player on that team.

Yeh I fundamentally disagree, especially RE: the Spurs and Pau. That was literally their worst year in the 19 year Duncan era (least wins, worst D other than 2011, 3rd worst SRS, etc).

Even moreso I disagree that Pau wasn't top 75, not that 'were you top 75?' is the measure of a support cast. By that logic it wouldn't be as good if they had 4 guys who were 77, 78, 79 and 80?

Pau not being top 75 is an absolutely wild take.

I mean, there’s like 8 guys on the top 75 list that I would put Pau ahead of, but Pau didn’t make the list, he’s 6-20 in playoff games without Kobe, and if I was making a top 75 list today I would have Dwight, Tmac, Jokic, Luka, Butler, Brown, Tatum, and Embiid ahead of him. And there’s an argument for guys like Draymond Green, Ginobili, and Devin Booker over Pau.

And if we include ABA accomplishments then I’d have Artis Gilmore ranked ahead of him as well.

I like Gasol, and he was good in the 2010 playoffs, but Odom wasn’t. 10, 9, and 2, 51.4 TS%, 15.4 PER. Odom and Bynum aren’t close to being top 75 guys.

In any case, the 2010 Lakers weren’t an incredibly stacked team. They weren’t the 2017 Warriors, 2012 Heat, 2008 Celtics, 2001 Lakers, 1996 Bulls, 1986 Celtics, 1983 76ers, or 1972 Lakers. Winning a championship is hard. More stacked teams than the 2010 Lakers have failed, like the 1969 Lakers, 1984 Lakers, 1997 Rockets, 2004 Lakers, 2011 Heat, ect.

The Lakers were destroyed the next year in the playoffs in the 2nd round.

And if you’re going to write off Kobe’s championships because he was on good teams I guess we can do the same for Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, and Wilt.

[dhsilv2]

This says a lot about Realgm user base lmao.

There are 0 arguments for Paul over Durant. UNless you strictly judge them based on some random analytics stats

Yeah...those random stats that lead to NBA teams hiring people...

Imagine dismissing tools that lead to 7 figure jobs in the NBA...

I dont dismiss analytics. But I know how to use them. Cause the only argument CP3 has over KD are advanced stats. But if you rate CP3 over KD simply because the stats say so, you are using analytics wrong. Analytics is not the determing factor, its supposed to be used alongside conventional evaluational tools.
I dont dismiss analytics, I dismiss the ranking by the Realgm users cause there is no real argument for CP3 over KD in all time rankings unless you say "well CP3 has better VORP so he is better", which is nonsense. And yeah if a forum ranks CP3 2 spots ahead of KD in all time rankings than I really have to question the userbase that was involved in that ranking, no matter how fancy they act with their knowledge of analytics

cp3 over kobe is ignorance

I'd argue it's the reverse. Kobe is the casual fans pick, as you'd expect because he's more famous and marketed. CP3 is the more informed choice.

And thats exactly what I mean. If users like this played a part in that ranking, no wonder CP3 is above KD. Forum users have their heads so far up their asses thinking they are so much more informed and knowledgeable than the casual fan cause they know what advanced stats are

Ah, so the stats paint a picture that there's a perfectly valid reason to compare the two...but they're wrong because...what?

We can go watch these two guys and we'll see a lot of differences that are hard to compare. CP3's low turnovers while being a ball handler. His exceptional play making. His elite POA defense. While KD's ability to create shots is far better and he can score at higher volume. His off ball defense in the right systems is very good but not elite due to his length and height.

You can take either guy here pretty easily, but there's nothing wrong from starting out and looking at their stats and saying...yeah they're reasonably close. Lets dig deeper.

[dhsilv2]

Yeh I fundamentally disagree, especially RE: the Spurs and Pau. That was literally their worst year in the 19 year Duncan era (least wins, worst D other than 2011, 3rd worst SRS, etc).

Even moreso I disagree that Pau wasn't top 75, not that 'were you top 75?' is the measure of a support cast. By that logic it wouldn't be as good if they had 4 guys who were 77, 78, 79 and 80?

Pau not being top 75 is an absolutely wild take.

I mean, there’s like 8 guys on the top 75 list that I would put Pau ahead of, but Pau didn’t make the list, he’s 6-20 in playoff games without Kobe, and if I was making a top 75 list today I would have Dwight, Tmac, Jokic, Luka, Butler, Brown, Tatum, and Embiid ahead of him. And there’s an argument for guys like Draymond Green, Ginobili, and Devin Booker over Pau.

And if we include ABA accomplishments then I’d have Artis Gilmore ranked ahead of him as well.

I like Gasol, and he was good in the 2010 playoffs, but Odom wasn’t. 10, 9, and 2, 51.4 TS%, 15.4 PER. Odom and Bynum aren’t close to being top 75 guys.

In any case, the 2010 Lakers weren’t an incredibly stacked team. They weren’t the 2017 Warriors, 2012 Heat, 2008 Celtics, 2001 Lakers, 1996 Bulls, 1986 Celtics, 1983 76ers, or 1972 Lakers. Winning a championship is hard. More stacked teams than the 2010 Lakers have failed, like the 1969 Lakers, 1984 Lakers, 1997 Rockets, 2004 Lakers, 2011 Heat, ect.

The Lakers were destroyed the next year in the playoffs in the 2nd round.

And if you’re going to write off Kobe’s championships because he was on good teams I guess we can do the same for Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, and Wilt.

I think there a good number more than 6 guys in the 75 list that are terrible selections. But yeah, Odom isn't a top 75 guy. That said I think Odom is a massively underrated guy. His length and athletic ability made him massively impactful on defense. No he was DPOY but he likely was robbed of an all defensive selection a few times with 2010 being a year he absolutely was up there. He was 16th in RAPM that year almost entirely on his defensive value. Obviously he was a plus offensive guy but not by much (as your PER reference would indicate).

If you see that laker's team has having 2 all defensive guys in Artest and Odom with Bynum being a good match-up guy due to size and length (he obviously wasn't very good). I don't see any reason why one wouldn't conclude that laker's team was very very good.

I don't want to get into some Kobe argument. But I think you're under selling that Laker's roster. Even with Kobe being 2010 Kobe, he was still an effective defender when needed. Odom, Artest, Kobe, and Bynum is the foundation of one hell of a defense (4th that year). And Pau wasn't a bad defender either, specially in the context of that team.

And that was a big reason they won. It sure wasn't their offense. They held boston to a 101.7 offensive rating in the finals. Now I'll admit that didn't really apply to the suns...but the suns were such an outlier. And going big wasn't really the way to slow them down either.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh I fundamentally disagree, especially RE: the Spurs and Pau. That was literally their worst year in the 19 year Duncan era (least wins, worst D other than 2011, 3rd worst SRS, etc).

Even moreso I disagree that Pau wasn't top 75, not that 'were you top 75?' is the measure of a support cast. By that logic it wouldn't be as good if they had 4 guys who were 77, 78, 79 and 80?

Pau not being top 75 is an absolutely wild take.

I mean, there’s like 8 guys on the top 75 list that I would put Pau ahead of, but Pau didn’t make the list, he’s 6-20 in playoff games without Kobe, and if I was making a top 75 list today I would have Dwight, Tmac, Jokic, Luka, Butler, Brown, Tatum, and Embiid ahead of him. And there’s an argument for guys like Draymond Green, Ginobili, and Devin Booker over Pau.

And if we include ABA accomplishments then I’d have Artis Gilmore ranked ahead of him as well.

I like Gasol, and he was good in the 2010 playoffs, but Odom wasn’t. 10, 9, and 2, 51.4 TS%, 15.4 PER. Odom and Bynum aren’t close to being top 75 guys.

In any case, the 2010 Lakers weren’t an incredibly stacked team. They weren’t the 2017 Warriors, 2012 Heat, 2008 Celtics, 2001 Lakers, 1996 Bulls, 1986 Celtics, 1983 76ers, or 1972 Lakers. Winning a championship is hard. More stacked teams than the 2010 Lakers have failed, like the 1969 Lakers, 1984 Lakers, 1997 Rockets, 2004 Lakers, 2011 Heat, ect.

The Lakers were destroyed the next year in the playoffs in the 2nd round.

And if you’re going to write off Kobe’s championships because he was on good teams I guess we can do the same for Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, and Wilt.

It's about context. Magic and Bird are good examples; yes, they had stacked teams, but the teams they were beating were just as stacked if not moreso. Not all those teams were stacked either. We can see the floor raise from Bird in 1980 for eg, or from Magic in the late 80s. We can see that from certain KD and CP3 seasons too (e.g. KD in 2014 when Westbrook was hurt, or on the Nets/Suns during various various support cast ailments, and CP3 has a tonne of examples). Kobe is 135-137 from 00-07 in games Shaq missed, which was about the only time he didn't have a great team around him.

It's true that the 2010 Lakers weren't as stacked as say the 2017 Warriors, bit that's irrelevant because you judge how stacked a team is in the context it played. In 2009 or 2010 the Lakers had the best support cast in the league. Similarly nobody is citing 2017 as one of the years that proves KD can carry a mediocre support cast. Kobe was on the title favourites at least 10 times (00-04, 08-11, and 13). We could quibble about a few of those, but arguably they should have been favourites in 99 too in hindsight. The Lakers had more talent than the Spurs.

[One_and_Done]

I think people look at Kobe's numbers and say 'wow, 28ppg, he must have been better offensively than CP3'. But here's another simplistic way of showing why that's not true. So let's say Paul has 21ppg and 12apg, and Kobe has 28ppg and 5apg. Then let's be charitable to Kobe and assume each assist only led to a 2 point bucket. That would suggest Paul was producing 45 points for his team compared to 38 points for Kobe.

Of course, that's just a simplistic assessment, because it's actually so much worse for Kobe. CP3 is also more efficient, and he's turning it over less, and the other guys on his team are more efficient because he's setting them up so well, and this doesn't include all the hockey assists Paul creates by managing the offense so well, and on and on. But even this simplistic approach shows us Paul is better on O, and he's better on D too. Wait, what is Kobe's argument again?

[Johnny Bball]

Never.