What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20?

Moderators: Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Quotatious

iggymcfrack
Head Coach
Posts: 6,524
And1: 4,762
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#101 » by iggymcfrack » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:30 am

70sFan wrote:What is Paul's case over

Russell
Wilt

These are 9 players and then yous have a lot of guys with excellent cases over Paul. I enjoy CP3 in top 20, but top 10? It's too much for me...


Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.
Pg81
Veteran
Posts: 2,823
And1: 1,298
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#102 » by Pg81 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:40 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:What is Paul's case over

Russell
Wilt

These are 9 players and then yous have a lot of guys with excellent cases over Paul. I enjoy CP3 in top 20, but top 10? It's too much for me...


Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.


:crazy:
If you're asking me who the Mavs best player is, I'd say Luka. A guy like Delon Wright probably rivals his impact though at this stage in his career. KP may as well if he gets his **** together.
GeorgeMarcus, 17/11/2019
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,293
And1: 6,557
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#103 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:40 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:What is Paul's case over

Russell
Wilt

These are 9 players and then yous have a lot of guys with excellent cases over Paul. I enjoy CP3 in top 20, but top 10? It's too much for me...


Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.

Russell's defense is much more impactful than Paul's two way impact though. Besides Russell didn't struggle in playoffs offensively outside of one playoffs (1964 when he played against one of the best defenses ever in the finals).

Wilt was a playoff choker who played 75% of his game against GOAT level defensive teams and he played exteemely well against them. Why did he choke? Because he didn't average 50 ppg in playoffs? That wouldn't make him better.
User avatar
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 13,055
And1: 4,067
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#104 » by ardee » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:41 am

Prokorov wrote:
uberhikari wrote:For me, CP3 was basically a top 5 player for 11 years straight. Bird can't say that and most others Point Guards sans Magic/Oscar can claim that as well.



the top 20 all time is reserved for guys who were "top 1" in the league. not top 5. not always a bridesmaid. not always short of being good enough to carry a team to a title.

CP is a top 50 player for sure. and yeah stats and advanced stuff measuring impact matter. but you also need to have won a title or have been the leagues best player once you start talking about top 10 or top 20 ever.
Karl Malone was never top 1 in the league. Charles Barkley was never top 1 in the league. David Robinson was never top 1 in the league. They are all top 20 players without a doubt.

Being a top 5 player for that long is no mean feat. It's arguable less than a dozen players have done it. It adds up to a total career value that is very rare and definitely gives him a top 20 case.

There is also a very good case that Paul was the best player in the league in 2015.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 13,055
And1: 4,067
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#105 » by ardee » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:45 am

70sFan wrote:What is Paul's case over

Kareem
James
Russell
Jordan
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Shaq
KG?

These are 9 players and then yous have a lot of guys with excellent cases over Paul. I enjoy CP3 in top 20, but top 10? It's too much for me...
Yeah there is absolutely no top 10 case. If he was more healthy I think he'd have a top 15 case as I could see a Dirk-like career, possibly a 2011 like run in 2015 if he plays those 2 games against the Rockets and they win.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app
iggymcfrack
Head Coach
Posts: 6,524
And1: 4,762
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#106 » by iggymcfrack » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:03 am

70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:What is Paul's case over

Russell
Wilt

These are 9 players and then yous have a lot of guys with excellent cases over Paul. I enjoy CP3 in top 20, but top 10? It's too much for me...


Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.

Russell's defense is much more impactful than Paul's two way impact though. Besides Russell didn't struggle in playoffs offensively outside of one playoffs (1964 when he played against one of the best defenses ever in the finals).

Wilt was a playoff choker who played 75% of his game against GOAT level defensive teams and he played exteemely well against them. Why did he choke? Because he didn't average 50 ppg in playoffs? That wouldn't make him better.


1957: 13.9 PPG on .398 TS%
1958: 15.1 PPG on .420 TS%
1959: 15.5 PPG on .454 TS%
1961: 19.1 PPG on .457 TS%
1967: 10.6 PPG on .436 TS%
1968: 14.4 PPG on .458 TS%
1969: 10.8 PPG on .448 TS%

Every one of those seasons he was playing big minutes at a very high pace and those raw scoring averages are equivalent to about 2/3 of the same average today. If that’s not struggling, I don’t know what is. You might as well say Dwight Howard was always an elite offensive player in the playoffs until he turned 30.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,293
And1: 6,557
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#107 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:08 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.

Russell's defense is much more impactful than Paul's two way impact though. Besides Russell didn't struggle in playoffs offensively outside of one playoffs (1964 when he played against one of the best defenses ever in the finals).

Wilt was a playoff choker who played 75% of his game against GOAT level defensive teams and he played exteemely well against them. Why did he choke? Because he didn't average 50 ppg in playoffs? That wouldn't make him better.


1957: 13.9 PPG on .398 TS%
1958: 15.1 PPG on .420 TS%
1959: 15.5 PPG on .454 TS%
1961: 19.1 PPG on .457 TS%
1967: 10.6 PPG on .436 TS%
1968: 14.4 PPG on .458 TS%
1969: 10.8 PPG on .448 TS%

Every one of those seasons he was playing big minutes at a very high pace and those raw scoring averages are equivalent to about 2/3 of the same average today. If that’s not struggling, I don’t know what is. You might as well say Dwight Howard was always an elite offensive player in the playoffs until he turned 30.

As you can see, you only have one season from his best offensive period 1960-66 and it's not like he was terrible in 1961, he scored 19 ppg on average efficiency. Also, scoring is not the end of offense. You didn't mention passing, transition game, offensive rebounding..
GhosDini
Ballboy
Posts: 25
And1: 19
Joined: Jan 12, 2020

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#108 » by GhosDini » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:18 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
Elite on both sides of the ball in a tough era compared to Russell who was a one-way player who struggled offensively against lesser competition. Wilt was a playoff choker who failed to impact winning in any of his elite box score seasons.

They’re obviously super close though. I have Paul 9, Russell 11, and Wilt 12.

Russell's defense is much more impactful than Paul's two way impact though. Besides Russell didn't struggle in playoffs offensively outside of one playoffs (1964 when he played against one of the best defenses ever in the finals).

Wilt was a playoff choker who played 75% of his game against GOAT level defensive teams and he played exteemely well against them. Why did he choke? Because he didn't average 50 ppg in playoffs? That wouldn't make him better.


1957: 13.9 PPG on .398 TS%
1958: 15.1 PPG on .420 TS%
1959: 15.5 PPG on .454 TS%
1961: 19.1 PPG on .457 TS%
1967: 10.6 PPG on .436 TS%
1968: 14.4 PPG on .458 TS%
1969: 10.8 PPG on .448 TS%

Every one of those seasons he was playing big minutes at a very high pace and those raw scoring averages are equivalent to about 2/3 of the same average today. If that’s not struggling, I don’t know what is. You might as well say Dwight Howard was always an elite offensive player in the playoffs until he turned 30.


Those are all right in line with league avg at the time
GhosDini
Ballboy
Posts: 25
And1: 19
Joined: Jan 12, 2020

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#109 » by GhosDini » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:27 am

Chris Paul over Bill Russell and Wilt Chamerlain? What in the actual hell?
iggymcfrack
Head Coach
Posts: 6,524
And1: 4,762
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#110 » by iggymcfrack » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:03 am

GhosDini wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
70sFan wrote:Russell's defense is much more impactful than Paul's two way impact though. Besides Russell didn't struggle in playoffs offensively outside of one playoffs (1964 when he played against one of the best defenses ever in the finals).

Wilt was a playoff choker who played 75% of his game against GOAT level defensive teams and he played exteemely well against them. Why did he choke? Because he didn't average 50 ppg in playoffs? That wouldn't make him better.


1957: 13.9 PPG on .398 TS%
1958: 15.1 PPG on .420 TS%
1959: 15.5 PPG on .454 TS%
1961: 19.1 PPG on .457 TS%
1967: 10.6 PPG on .436 TS%
1968: 14.4 PPG on .458 TS%
1969: 10.8 PPG on .448 TS%

Every one of those seasons he was playing big minutes at a very high pace and those raw scoring averages are equivalent to about 2/3 of the same average today. If that’s not struggling, I don’t know what is. You might as well say Dwight Howard was always an elite offensive player in the playoffs until he turned 30.


Those are all right in line with league avg at the time


League average TS% varied from .449 to .499 over that time period. He was underneath league average in each of those seasons. And league average volume with his minutes would be over 20 PPG.
freethedevil
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,982
And1: 2,406
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#111 » by freethedevil » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:21 am

Pg81 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
dygaction wrote:
Man, you are not even a Kobe hater but let the CP3 discussion dominated your judgement. KG was **** all over by Dirk, Duncan, and Shaq in the West.

Duncan and Shaq? I thought we were talking kobe? You realize those are two very different calibres of players right?

With consistently good supporting casts

Shaq had 3, +7 stretches and 2 +5 stretches
Duncan had 3 +7 stretches and 2 +4 stretches
KG improved his team by 7 points, in the playoffs, at his best three year stretch, had two +5 po stretches at the back end of his prime, while dealing with terrible casts for most of his career.

These are players who could do everything for contenders, were still the most impactful players in the league on title teams, had near uninamous mvp's, and whose impact and box based playoff or regular season stats remained consistent regardless of how terrible or good their team did(indicating that their supporting casts were the main variable). These are best in the league level players.


Here's the second tier:

Kobe never exceeded +4 playoff impact despite having several shots at the apple with good-great supporitng casts for the vast majority of his prime.
Dirk managed a +4 playoff run once. He played with good to great casts for the majority of his prime.
CP3 also managed a +4 playoff run.

No matter the cast, no matter the situation, no matter how good or how bad there were teammates were, they NEVER crossed into the next tier. Whether you use metrics that predict that come directly from winning or you simple arbitrary box compositiones that specficially overrate one-way, one dimensional offensive studs, they never had an especially strong case for MVP, and they never approached the level of the first tier of player.

Kobe was never the best player in the league, because when he peaked, the first tier of players(lebron, kg) and even members of the second tier of players(nash, cp3) blocked or contested him. It's bad luck for sure, but it can happen when you're a second tier star.

:crazy:
Apart from the early years with Nash, .

Let's see he had good casts from 05-07 and 10-11. he had mediocre casts from 08-09.

Maybe my math is off, but isn't 5>2? Unless we have different definitions of "majority" i don't see an issue with what I said.

Also, Nash led goat level offenses in dallas and then had goatier level offenses with the suns. Don't just handwave that away as if dirk didn't play with a arguable offensive GOAT while KG's teams played 20 win basketball without him.
freethedevil
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,982
And1: 2,406
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#112 » by freethedevil » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:23 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
GhosDini wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
1957: 13.9 PPG on .398 TS%
1958: 15.1 PPG on .420 TS%
1959: 15.5 PPG on .454 TS%
1961: 19.1 PPG on .457 TS%
1967: 10.6 PPG on .436 TS%
1968: 14.4 PPG on .458 TS%
1969: 10.8 PPG on .448 TS%

Every one of those seasons he was playing big minutes at a very high pace and those raw scoring averages are equivalent to about 2/3 of the same average today. If that’s not struggling, I don’t know what is. You might as well say Dwight Howard was always an elite offensive player in the playoffs until he turned 30.


Those are all right in line with league avg at the time


League average TS% varied from .449 to .499 over that time period. He was underneath league average in each of those seasons. And league average volume with his minutes would be over 20 PPG.

Given that the celtics offense never won them ****, I don't see the relevancy of russell not scoring much,
iggymcfrack
Head Coach
Posts: 6,524
And1: 4,762
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#113 » by iggymcfrack » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:26 am

freethedevil wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
GhosDini wrote:
Those are all right in line with league avg at the time


League average TS% varied from .449 to .499 over that time period. He was underneath league average in each of those seasons. And league average volume with his minutes would be over 20 PPG.

Given that the celtics offense never won them ****, I don't see the relevancy of russell not scoring much,


He’s certainly an all-time great, but if you’re asking what the argument is for someone who’s a top 5 all-time passer, a top 5 all-time defender at their position, and an elite, elite scorer to be ahead of them, I think Russell’s offensive weaknesses would qualify.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,293
And1: 6,557
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#114 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:29 am

Paul's defense doesn't matter in comparison to Russell (or Wilt). Him being top 5 PG defender ever doesn't mean anything here...
freethedevil
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,982
And1: 2,406
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#115 » by freethedevil » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:33 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
League average TS% varied from .449 to .499 over that time period. He was underneath league average in each of those seasons. And league average volume with his minutes would be over 20 PPG.

Given that the celtics offense never won them ****, I don't see the relevancy of russell not scoring much,


He’s certainly an all-time great, but if you’re asking what the argument is for someone who’s a top 5 all-time passer, a top 5 all-time defender at their position, and an elite, elite scorer to be ahead of them, I think Russell’s offensive weaknesses would qualify.

If offense mattered to his team winning, then maybe. But it didn't', and we know russell's defense alone improved the celtics a **** ton more than paul's everything improved any of his team's.


So unless you believe in time machine arguments, russell is>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>discount Curry
freethedevil
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,982
And1: 2,406
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#116 » by freethedevil » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:48 am

Dr Positivity wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
dygaction wrote:
Man, you are not even a Kobe hater but let the CP3 discussion dominated your judgement. KG was **** all over by Dirk, Duncan, and Shaq in the West.

Duncan and Shaq? I thought we were talking kobe? You realize those are two very different calibres of players right?

With consistently good supporting casts

Shaq had 3, +7 stretches and 2 +5 stretches
Duncan had 3 +7 stretches and 2 +4 stretches
KG improved his team by 7 points, in the playoffs, at his best three year stretch, had two +5 po stretches at the back end of his prime, while dealing with terrible casts for most of his career.

These are players who could do everything for contenders, were still the most impactful players in the league on title teams, had near uninamous mvp's, and whose impact and box based playoff or regular season stats remained consistent regardless of how terrible or good their team did(indicating that their supporting casts were the main variable). These are best in the league level players.


Here's the second tier:

Kobe never exceeded +4 playoff impact despite having several shots at the apple with good-great supporitng casts for the vast majority of his prime.
Dirk managed a +4 playoff run once. He played with good to great casts for the majority of his prime.
CP3 also managed a +4 playoff run.

No matter the cast, no matter the situation, no matter how good or how bad there were teammates were, they NEVER crossed into the next tier. Whether you use metrics that predict that come directly from winning or you simple arbitrary box compositiones that specficially overrate one-way, one dimensional offensive studs, they never had an especially strong case for MVP, and they never approached the level of the first tier of player.

Kobe was never the best player in the league, because when he peaked, the first tier of players(lebron, kg) and even members of the second tier of players(nash, cp3) blocked or contested him. It's bad luck for sure, but it can happen when you're a second tier star.


What are these numbers based off? The Lakers were +9 with Kobe on the court in 08 for example, and the Mavs were +17 with Dirk in 2011.

Augmented APM Three Year peaks.

You can also use srs +?-, playoff pipm(when subsituted for winshares dates back to 1974), Corp.

Heck, go ahead and use playoff ws/48, or BPM.

You can even just use the abritraly weighted per. Use what you want, there's always been a clear ass gulf between those sets of players at their best, prompting people to baselessly argue that "first options" are somehow more valuable for winning than "math nerds" think it is(setting aside that the most imapctful players in history by all of these metrics, lebron and jordan, happen to also be the best playoff scorers ever).

Everyone here has an eyetest, but some of us can support ours with granular and qualitative data. Others can't, so they go by "eyetest" to avoid scrutiny, basing their conclusions on truisms which they never bother to support and which they dont' expect to be questioned.
Being skeptical is all well and good, but asking questions is not the same as making a point, something which requires some level of knowledge regarding whatever you're skeptical about, and having an informed practical understanding of the game.

/rant.


As for raw on/off...

Adjust...for...lineups.
Not adjusting the lineups is literally just the plus minus equivalent of replacing slash lines with w-l record. It's utterly useless.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 31,176
And1: 19,354
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#117 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:57 am

LA Bird wrote:2018 Paul was injured 1 game into the season and the Rockets still ended up with 65 wins. The 71 Bucks had a comfortable 15 game lead over the #2 seed, and were around +8 SRS in 72/73 when Oscar was out. They are not missing the playoffs and there is no team that year that can stop a Kareem/Paul duo in the postseason.

You don't need to stop a Kareem/Paul duo because Chris Paul wouldn't be healthy enough to play. :lol:

Sure if he was he'd make them unbeatable but half of his issue is that he's always hurt when it matter most.

Paul being traded has as much to do with his declined on-court play as any off-court chemistry issues with Harden. There was underlying tension between the two in 2018 already but the Rockets still resigned him to a 4 year max deal. Harden may not like him but Paul is not getting traded anywhere if he had played at his 2018 level and they were winning ~65 games.

Regarding the Clippers' under-performance because they were already +6 over 40 games without Paul, I dug up ElGee's old WOWY spreadsheet and the SRS figures without Paul are:

2012: -0.6 SRS. 1 game. Billups Out, 25+ In + PS (42)
2012: +3.0 SRS. 2 game. 25+ In + PS (16)
2013: +3.9 SRS. 10 game. Griffin, Butler In (76)
2014: +6.0 SRS. 13 game. 25+ In + PS (36)
2014: +1.1 SRS. 5 game. Redick Out, 25+ IN + PS (26)

The Clippers seem to be around +4 over the 2012~14 period without Paul, not +6. Additionally, ElGee's WOWY spreadsheet doesn't include anything after 2015 where by my calculation, Clippers' MOV with Griffin in but Paul out was -4.6 in 2016 (5 games) and -4.0 in 2017 (11 games). Not sure how much the figures change depending on the sample controls but I assume the overall Clippers SRS with Paul out during his time there would be around +1 to +2. At +6 with Paul in, that's around a +4 or +5 player, which seems reasonable to me for a top 20 player of all time. (It's around where ElGee rated Paul in his seasonal valuations as well.)

Looks like I had the calculation for 2014 alone mixed up with the whole 2012-15 period from that so good job getting the accurate numbers. Still a +4 level is very good and more than great enough for someone that's top 20 to lead them to a ring.

2016 and 2017 are much different because the Clippers weren't contenders either year and Blake Griffin was washed up by then. They were low 50 win teams and first round outs those years.

I just don't see how someone surrounded by that type of talent can lose and still be seen as being over 20 other players all time, including Oscar who did nothing but perform at all opportunities.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 31,176
And1: 19,354
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#118 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:59 am

freethedevil wrote:As someone whose used singular seasons to lower other seasons curry's had, surely you realize that an over the hill cp3 being on an amazing team makes better versions of him being incapable of that extremely unlikely.

Better versions of him? There's a version of Chris Paul that stays healthy in the postseason?
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
freethedevil
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,982
And1: 2,406
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#119 » by freethedevil » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:06 pm

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:As someone whose used singular seasons to lower other seasons curry's had, surely you realize that an over the hill cp3 being on an amazing team makes better versions of him being incapable of that extremely unlikely.

Better versions of him? There's a version of Chris Paul that stays healthy in the postseason?

Was there some postseason injury i missed in 13, 14, or 17?
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 31,176
And1: 19,354
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20? 

Post#120 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:17 pm

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:As someone whose used singular seasons to lower other seasons curry's had, surely you realize that an over the hill cp3 being on an amazing team makes better versions of him being incapable of that extremely unlikely.

Better versions of him? There's a version of Chris Paul that stays healthy in the postseason?

Was there some postseason injury i missed in 13, 14, or 17?

He didn't even make the second round in 13 or 17 so basically you're giving me 2014. A one year window where if everything on the team around him went perfect Chris Paul might've been able to lead a team to a ring. Meanwhile Oscar can lead a team to a ring basically every year of his career with a good enough supporting cast.

Plus 2014 was the year where the team played at a +6 level without him and Blake was the best player on the team. He couldn't even get it done with an MVP level guy on his squad.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King

Return to Player Comparisons