More skilled at their peaks: Chris Paul or Kyrie Irving?

[God Squad]

Probably Kyrie. But I'm taking young CP3 over most PG's from this era. IMO he was as complete a point guard as you can get.

But I understand the criticism he receives.

How could YOUNG CP3 be more skilled then he currently is?

I don't think he's as quick as he was or even as good defensively. But I argue his IQ is far greater now than then.

[og15]

1 guy was instrumental in getting cleveland their 1 and only ring, hitting one of the biggest shots in nba history. when kyrie started to play well in the 2nd half of the 2016 finals the series turned around. the 73 win warriors and their D could not stop a 23/24 yr old kyrie. when curry and lebron were both busy brick shots in the closing minutes of game 7, he came through.

people may crap on him for his attitude or lack of winning in the POs as a number 1 option
but paul as never gotten far as a number 1 option either.
people say cp3 contributes to winning more bc of how he manages the game, but imo most his teams have under performed in the playoffs. especially the clipper days in his prime. his teammates said it was no fun basketball and in practice, so maybe his style of play limited the actual teams potential bc its a bit more rigid.
both great players. close call. i will say age 23/24 cp3 (Hornets) and kyrie (2017 cavs) were top notch.

Basically Kyrie was in the right place at the right time, playing with prime LeBron,

Which Clippers team actually underperformed relative to what players were on the floor? People constantly say this, but when they actually look at who was playing (that is, how often they were injured), and who they lost to, it doesn't hold up.

They underperformed in a general "oh this team had talent and could have won more", though many people ignored their lack of wing size and defensive talent and just focused on offensive or ppg talent (eg: people looking at Jamal Crawford as a winning player). But in terms of specifics, the only underperformance was losing to the Rockets, but they were expected to lose to SA by many before that in the first place.

13-14, OKC was the favored team and also had two stars, both flawed teams in different ways. Clippers underperforming is that they could have gone up 3-2 and the series could have gone to game 7 in OKC where they maybe win or maybe not, but they didn't underperform in the sense of losing to an inferior opponent or someone they were supposed to beat.

The two other seasons after that, either Paul and or Griffin suffered a season ending playoff injury. The two seasons before that they weren't a contender and performed to their expectation level. 11-12, second round, 12-13, first round losing to a team with the same record with Griffin being hampered by a significant injury after the series was 2-2.

The Clippers underperformance is more of a feeling and perception than something that can actually be pinpointed.

[skones]

Peak Kyrie = top 5-7 in the NBA kind of impact

Peak CP3 = top 15 in the NBA kind of impact


CP3 has better intangibles, but Kyrie is more “skilled”.

Oof, no. This isn't even close to being accurate. Chris Paul is 6th all time in BPM. Kyrie doesn't crack the top 30.

[og15]

What do you mean by skilled?

If you mean overall skilled in every aspect of basketball play, then it is Paul. He's a more skilled defensive player, more skilled passer, they are both elite shooters and ball handlers that making distinction there doesn't change anything, but Kyrie is a more skilled scorer, though the better size and athleticism also gives an advantage there.

Peak Kyrie = top 5-7 in the NBA kind of impact

Peak CP3 = top 15 in the NBA kind of impact


CP3 has better intangibles, but Kyrie is more “skilled”.

This would actually be the opposite. Peak Paul is giving you top 5-7 impact, he doesn't just score, he facilitates, he impacts defense both with his individual effort and communication, he'll even go battle on the glass better than Kyrie does.

and at this point the discussion is more of "who would you rather have based on your team"

If you need the lead guard, facilitator you'd rather have Paul. If you have that guy and you need a dynamic scorer you'd rather have Kyrie

Yes, Kyrie is a great #2 guy next to someone like LeBron (we'll see how he does with Luka, theoretically it should work if they can defend), where he can mainly score and doesn't have to do game management or be the primary playmaker.

Chris Paul is a great pairing next to an elite scoring force like a Durant who you don't want to task as the PG role and primary playmaker, or a Kawhi, though we never saw prime or late prime Paul with anyone like that, closest being Booker later (could argue Harden, but he was also a PG type).

Of course Harden and Paul also played so well together that we can argue that Paul can work and win a lot for you in either role of next to a primarily scoring type of another scorer/playmaker type.

[God Squad]

This thread proved one thing to me. Kyrie Irving is teetering on being very overrated if people really think he's close to CP3 in terms of peaks or impact. Yes, I'm aware he won a ring thanks to Lebron.

[dhsilv2]

This is all just semantics. You could argue any top tier skills when you're at the highest level are innate in the sense you are using it.

That would suggest that you can't get better at something like body control over time, which we know is not true. A skill is something you can refine and improve over time. Which is basically everything except size

I don't believe anyone is better at balance at 35 than 25. Most of what people call skill in basketball isn't and that's why so many of these debates about athleticism are wrong.

Maybe you're not better at 35 than 25 just because you're right athleticism is a big component of that... but what about from 19 to 25? Just learning game situations & practicing.

My whole point was that people's definition of skill is all over the place and entirely subjective. I consider skill to be everything that's not size/measurements and you don't but neither of us is more right or wrong than the other.

So speed, strength, jumping is all skill?

[dhsilv2]

What do you mean by skilled?

If you mean overall skilled in every aspect of basketball play, then it is Paul. He's a more skilled defensive player, more skilled passer, they are both elite shooters and ball handlers that making distinction there doesn't change anything, but Kyrie is a more skilled scorer, though the better size and athleticism also gives an advantage there.

Peak Kyrie = top 5-7 in the NBA kind of impact

Peak CP3 = top 15 in the NBA kind of impact


CP3 has better intangibles, but Kyrie is more “skilled”.

This would actually be the opposite. Peak Paul is giving you top 5-7 impact, he doesn't just score, he facilitates, he impacts defense both with his individual effort and communication, he'll even go battle on the glass better than Kyrie does.

and at this point the discussion is more of "who would you rather have based on your team"

If you need the lead guard, facilitator you'd rather have Paul. If you have that guy and you need a dynamic scorer you'd rather have Kyrie

There is no scenario I'd take Irving. At the end of the day I don't trust him to make good decisions on the court or off.

[dhsilv2]

Probably Kyrie. But I'm taking young CP3 over most PG's from this era. IMO he was as complete a point guard as you can get.

But I understand the criticism he receives.

How could YOUNG CP3 be more skilled then he currently is?

I don't think he's as quick as he was or even as good defensively. But I argue his IQ is far greater now than then.

IQ shouldn't change. What changes is experience, decision making, and his over all SKILLS that aren't driven by athletic ability. Paul can still get shots off with less vertical game. He's learned how to keep defenders off him differently. That's skill! And really kinda my point. Young CP3 was a beast! But now he's got that old man game that takes a decade to learn at the NBA level.

[Ito]

They are different but kyrie is a way better player

[theforumblue]

kyrie is better at getting his shot, which cp3 isnt too shabby at when he actually gets aggressive about it. kyrie even isnt close in typical PG skills to cp3.

[hauntedcomputer]

I'll take the one that shows up and wants to win.

[jasonxxx102]

I don't believe anyone is better at balance at 35 than 25. Most of what people call skill in basketball isn't and that's why so many of these debates about athleticism are wrong.

Maybe you're not better at 35 than 25 just because you're right athleticism is a big component of that... but what about from 19 to 25? Just learning game situations & practicing.

My whole point was that people's definition of skill is all over the place and entirely subjective. I consider skill to be everything that's not size/measurements and you don't but neither of us is more right or wrong than the other.

So speed, strength, jumping is all skill?

I agree that these wouldn't really be considered skills. I don't find them particularly relevant to the Kyrie/Paul convo tho.

[jasonxxx102]

What do you mean by skilled?

If you mean overall skilled in every aspect of basketball play, then it is Paul. He's a more skilled defensive player, more skilled passer, they are both elite shooters and ball handlers that making distinction there doesn't change anything, but Kyrie is a more skilled scorer, though the better size and athleticism also gives an advantage there.


This would actually be the opposite. Peak Paul is giving you top 5-7 impact, he doesn't just score, he facilitates, he impacts defense both with his individual effort and communication, he'll even go battle on the glass better than Kyrie does.

and at this point the discussion is more of "who would you rather have based on your team"

If you need the lead guard, facilitator you'd rather have Paul. If you have that guy and you need a dynamic scorer you'd rather have Kyrie

There is no scenario I'd take Irving. At the end of the day I don't trust him to make good decisions on the court or off.

Which is fine but seems like your reasons for not doing so are mostly not basketball related.

I'm talking about the players in a vacuum from a basketball perspective

[cpower]

Kyrie is considered one of the most skilled offensive players ever ? since when? he would not have cracked top 50 best offensive player of all time.

[skones]

Which is fine but seems like your reasons for not doing so are mostly not basketball related.

I'm talking about the players in a vacuum from a basketball perspective

How are they not basketball related? Chris Paul has been far more impactful on both ends of the court throughout his career than Kyrie Irving. Kyrie is a better scorer, but that's where it starts and ends. Paul is better defensively, a better facilitator, is no slouch as a scorer in his own right when he has to be, and an actual floor general. His knowledge of spacing and ability to manipulate a defense is among the best of all time. He's a top 5 pg in the history of the game.

This overrating Kyrie because of the aesthetic of his game just needs to stop. There is just more to the game than PPGZ, and Paul has been a master of manipulating that game for 18 years now.

[jasonxxx102]

Which is fine but seems like your reasons for not doing so are mostly not basketball related.

I'm talking about the players in a vacuum from a basketball perspective

How are they not basketball created? Chris Paul has been far more impactful on both ends of the court throughout his career than Kyrie Irving. Kyrie is a better scorer, but that's where it starts and ends. Paul is better defensively, a better facilitator, is no slouch as a scorer in his own right when he has to be, and an actual floor general. His knowledge of spacing and ability to manipulate a defense is among the best of all time. He's a top 5 pg in the history of the game.

This overrating Kyrie because of the aesthetic of his game just needs to stop. There is just more to the game than PPGZ, and Paul has been a master of manipulating that game for 18 years now.

Did you even read the post I quoted or nah?

[skones]

Which is fine but seems like your reasons for not doing so are mostly not basketball related.

I'm talking about the players in a vacuum from a basketball perspective

How are they not basketball created? Chris Paul has been far more impactful on both ends of the court throughout his career than Kyrie Irving. Kyrie is a better scorer, but that's where it starts and ends. Paul is better defensively, a better facilitator, is no slouch as a scorer in his own right when he has to be, and an actual floor general. His knowledge of spacing and ability to manipulate a defense is among the best of all time. He's a top 5 pg in the history of the game.

This overrating Kyrie because of the aesthetic of his game just needs to stop. There is just more to the game than PPGZ, and Paul has been a master of manipulating that game for 18 years now.

Did you even read the post I quoted or nah?

I have. Have you?

These are listed skills. Scoring and ball handling are not the only skills in basketball. Reading the game, playing smart defense, passing, manipulating angles, anticipating the play, these are ALL skills:

He's a more skilled defensive player, more skilled passer, they are both elite shooters and ball handlers that making distinction there doesn't change anything, but Kyrie is a more skilled scorer, though the better size and athleticism also gives an advantage there.

[BobbyPortisEyes]

Kyrie is flashier but CP3 is much better at basketball (and contributes a lot more to team success) while having much fewer physical gifts, so I'll go with him.

CP3 was way more athletic and quicker in his prime than Kyrie, on top of also being stronger, so I'm not really buying the physical gifts part.

[BlzMwt]

Kyrie is flashier but CP3 is much better at basketball (and contributes a lot more to team success) while having much fewer physical gifts, so I'll go with him.

CP3 was way more athletic and quicker in his prime than Kyrie, on top of also being stronger, so I'm not really buying the physical gifts part.

Chris Paul's athleticism peaked near the end of his tenure in New Orleans and basically ever since he played a much slower and methodical game. He began to rely on his outside shot (midrange master and drastically better from 3), lack of turnovers and passing ability.

From Clippers days onward, Paul isn't beating anyone down the floor or outjumping anyone. Pretty decent lateral quickness which assisted on defense but his strength for his size was more of a factor IMO. He's not been explosive for a decade.

Kyrie is much more explosive and quick. Specific highlight comes to mind where he had the putbank dunk as a Net. Paul's not doing that lol

[Bankai]

Chris Paul. Paul was a consensus #3 in the NBA behind LeBron and Durant at his peak. Has Irving ever been Top 10? Top 5?