Chris Paul vs Patrick Ewing

[Colbinii]

It's Paul easily, in fact I don't see any arguments for Pat in this debate - prime, peak, stats, achievements, longevity it all goes for CP.

What "stats" are you using here.

one was taking Jordan/Hakeem to the brink, while the other was getting bent over by westbrook

Or are you talking about the Game 5?

CP3 was +11 in that game, DeANdre Jordan fouled out in 19 minutes with 0-1 shooting and a 0/4/0 statline with 2 turnovers.

[Owly]

That just means CP3 was better by the box-score on a per-minute number.

Total +/- in 2021 post-season:
Crowder +115
Booker +112
Ayton +82
CP3 +62
Bridges +62

Total Minutes in 2021 post-season:
Booker 888
Ayton 800
Crowder 729
Bridges 707
CP3 683

CP3 played 563 of 683 minutes with Booker. Booker played over 300 minutes [nearly half of CP3 TOTAL PS MINUTES] without CP3.

No wonder CP3 looks better by the box-score rate statistic.

Wouldn't playing a higher proportion of time without another superstar tend to mean a greater opportunity to show more productivity. Not super invested in '21 Suns ranking (and first glance those plus/minus numbers suggest a different angle though they can be very noisy) but it seems like arguing "of course Booker will have a [very large] rate production gap when he doesn't get to spend as much of it with Chris Paul as vice-versa" ... isn't a great blow against Paul.

And fwiw the non-rate version (VORP) has Paul 1.2, Booker 0.5.

This would lead to the next point. CP3 in 2021 was a lower-usage PG who was highly-effective in his role [High Pick and Roll] while Booker was shouldering much of the scoring load.

My overarching point would be that CP3 looks similar to Stockton, where BPM loves him but it doesn't exactly mean he was better.

Well we're getting off topic here but I'm not aware that BPM is wrongly bullish on Stockton specifically or some aspect of a Stockton archetype. My understanding was that
1) Paul and Stockton show strong in impact-y stats so if the angle were that their box-stats were better than their impact ... I'd need to be persuaded.
2) I had a bit of a sense that maybe it was higher on playmakers than other composites, but probably more so in concert with higher usage like a Westbrook or Harden? I don't know?

Obviously Stockton comes out higher than some other models but PER was probably too low on him as a non-volume scorer. Career WS/48 he's 19th. BPM he's 8th. Looking closer at the WS/48 list: take out guys who are pre-BPM or missing significant chunks of their best productivity (Jabbar) and he's 14th. Grant that WS has a blind spot for offensively limited big men finisher only big men and it's 13th (taking out Gobert though one could argue this blindspot is overrating Davis a touch and pushing him ahead by this metric). And some of the others he overtakes are only marginal (Durant and Leonard especially are only slightly behind on BPM and not that far ahead by WS/48). The difference isn't so huge.

Fwiw, I think circa 2010, last time I saw a leaderboard Stockton was "all-time" [i.e. in the WARP-era, which checking back started in 79-80] WARP leader for Pelton's metric (this is the cumulative version obviously). So it's not like it's just BPM that rates him.

[Franco]

It's Paul easily, in fact I don't see any arguments for Pat in this debate - prime, peak, stats, achievements, longevity it all goes for CP.

What "stats" are you using here.

one was taking Jordan/Hakeem to the brink, while the other was getting bent over by westbrook

So you're going to say CP3 was getting bent over by Westbrook, but also state that Ewing was "taking Hakeem to the brink" when he got absolutely eviscerated in that series?

1994 Finals -

Hakeem: 26.9pts / 9.1rbs / 3.6ast / 1.6stls / 3.9blks / 3.7TO - 55.6TS%

Ewing: - 18.9pts / 12.4rbs / 1.7ast / 1.3stls / 4.3blks / 3.1TO - 39.0TS%