84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul

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

Better overall player?

84-88 Bird
37
86%
13-17 Cp3
6
14%
 
Total votes: 43

Owly
Veteran
Posts: 2,677
And1: 1,249
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#21 » by Owly » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:40 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:3 MVPs in a row and a player who has an argument to be playing at a top 10 all time level, vs a player who was consistently around 3rd best player in the league. Also a massive gap in intangibles. Not close.

Color me confused by the CP hype, it’s not even like he’s lapping the field in +/-. His ranks from 14-17 in RPM are 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 2nd. He was 7th in 2013 RAPM. He isn’t blowing the field away in multiple seasons like 2000s KG when stat guys and traditionalists argued about him. Unlike KG he had a talented team and 2nd banana in Blake and good coach around him and his team was a consistent mid 50 Ws pretender. His carry job is not that amazing in my opinion.

14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).


I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 46,900
And1: 10,939
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#22 » by Dr Positivity » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:17 pm

Owly wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:3 MVPs in a row and a player who has an argument to be playing at a top 10 all time level, vs a player who was consistently around 3rd best player in the league. Also a massive gap in intangibles. Not close.

Color me confused by the CP hype, it’s not even like he’s lapping the field in +/-. His ranks from 14-17 in RPM are 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 2nd. He was 7th in 2013 RAPM. He isn’t blowing the field away in multiple seasons like 2000s KG when stat guys and traditionalists argued about him. Unlike KG he had a talented team and 2nd banana in Blake and good coach around him and his team was a consistent mid 50 Ws pretender. His carry job is not that amazing in my opinion.

14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).


I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


Comparing Curry and Paul in RPM:

2014 is not Curry's prime yet, but he ranks 6th with 6.24 vs 2nd for Paul with 7.98
2015 Curry is ahead and is 1st in the league which Paul has never done with 9.34 to Paul's 6.92
2016 is pretty much a tie with Paul at 8.59 and Curry at 8.51
2017 is also pretty close with Paul at 7.91 to Curry's 7.41
2018 is also close with Paul at 6.99 to Curry's 6.65

I'd take Curry's 2015-2018 over Paul's when considering the lead he has in 2015 and he other years being a pretty negligible difference. That's strictly based on RPM, when looking at the bigger picture it's pretty easy to support Curry over Paul in 2016 for example, it's not like +/- doesn't support his unanimous MVP status, he has a +23 on/off.

Durant regular season +/- is typically not as good, however his skillset appears to work well in the playoffs because he is good at scoring difficult shots. Therefore I would argue he has a very good argument over Paul in 2014, 2017 and 2018 for various reasons.

This isn't mentioning Harden who I have problems with his game and am fine with arguments putting Paul over him, but it's not like he doesn't have a case

My argument was that Paul's +/- does not paint a wildly different picture than how most of us view him during his time with the Clippers was around the 3rd or 4th best player in the league most years, but never in the conversation for 1st. The KG argument was different because RAPM was saying he was Shaq and Duncan level if not better, and at the time the media ranked him far below them due to lack of team success, like ranking him a non top 20 player all time vs top 10 for those two. His track record is also better than Paul's, he finishes 1st in the league in RAPM on 3 occasions in 03, 04 and 08 and with some huge margins. In 04 the gap between him and 2nd is the same as between 2nd and 23rd. In 08 the gap is the same as between 2nd and 10th. Finally it completely passed the logic test that KG would be as good as Duncan, they were rated close as defenders by most and KG had as good offensive stats and skills if not better, so why wouldn't he be as good? And KG had amazing intangibles by being the most intense player and hardest worker in the league, which is one of my biggest problems with Paul as it appears him and Blake's chemistry was missing something despite how their games should've made perfect sense together, and the Clippers at time seemed to not have it emotionally. This is the real reason I'm taking 2015-2018 Curry over Paul all day. It's obvious to me that Curry has better leadership and is more beloved by his teammates than Paul is. Considering the statistical argument for Paul over Curry is already dubious, it seems like an easy call.

And I could care less about in/out data that was made by someone going through and subjectively choosing which injuries count and don't count towards their +/- according to how many of their teammates were playing. Bird also missed 17 games in 5 seasons from 84-88.
asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com

Recent article: Are Andrew Wiggins and Brandon Ingram's starts for real?
Shanghai Kid
General Manager
Posts: 8,868
And1: 1,016
Joined: Jun 26, 2003

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#23 » by Shanghai Kid » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:04 pm

I've said it before, if we go by the numbers...Chris Paul is the 3rd best player in basketball history!

These threads come up simply from someone looked at CP's advanced stats and say "Well geez, CP3 is as good as Larry Bird."

Are there people here think that CP3 was the #1 player on the Rockets and not Harden?
dygaction
Junior
Posts: 406
And1: 142
Joined: Sep 20, 2015
 

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#24 » by dygaction » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:03 am

Owly wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:3 MVPs in a row and a player who has an argument to be playing at a top 10 all time level, vs a player who was consistently around 3rd best player in the league. Also a massive gap in intangibles. Not close.

Color me confused by the CP hype, it’s not even like he’s lapping the field in +/-. His ranks from 14-17 in RPM are 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 2nd. He was 7th in 2013 RAPM. He isn’t blowing the field away in multiple seasons like 2000s KG when stat guys and traditionalists argued about him. Unlike KG he had a talented team and 2nd banana in Blake and good coach around him and his team was a consistent mid 50 Ws pretender. His carry job is not that amazing in my opinion.

14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).

I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


RPM is just one of the advanced stats and people should not use it ALONE to rank players. It does not even distinguish superstar and role players well. In 2014, Iguodala was # 3 ahead of MVP Durant/Curry/Harden; In 2015, Green was ahead of MVP Curry/Paul/Harden;

CP3's MVP ranking (13-17) was 4/7/6/6/x from 13-17. That roughly suggests Paul was a top 5 player for this 5 year span, during which LeBron, Curry (MVP ranking: x/6/1/1/6), and Durant (2/1/x/5/9) were clearly better, from individual stats, availability to the team, regular season success to playoff success.
Lost92Bricks
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,797
And1: 1,696
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#25 » by Lost92Bricks » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:28 am

Dr Positivity wrote:which is one of my biggest problems with Paul as it appears him and Blake's chemistry was missing something despite how their games should've made perfect sense together, and the Clippers at time seemed to not have it emotionally. This is the real reason I'm taking 2015-2018 Curry over Paul all day. It's obvious to me that Curry has better leadership and is more beloved by his teammates than Paul is. Considering the statistical argument for Paul over Curry is already dubious, it seems like an easy call.

That's not Chris' fault. Blake is an awkward player in general and especially to play with another point guard. He wasn't a good shooter (unlike Amare or Dirk or Karl Malone and guys like that) and he wasn't a good defender/rebounder. He's also a point forward type of player who wants to bring the ball up and run plays despite obviously not being as good at it as a regular PG.

When they both played together, they won at a 56 win pace. I think they did a good job considering how much their games didn't naturally fit with eachother.
Owly
Veteran
Posts: 2,677
And1: 1,249
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#26 » by Owly » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:42 am

Dr Positivity wrote:
Owly wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:3 MVPs in a row and a player who has an argument to be playing at a top 10 all time level, vs a player who was consistently around 3rd best player in the league. Also a massive gap in intangibles. Not close.

Color me confused by the CP hype, it’s not even like he’s lapping the field in +/-. His ranks from 14-17 in RPM are 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 2nd. He was 7th in 2013 RAPM. He isn’t blowing the field away in multiple seasons like 2000s KG when stat guys and traditionalists argued about him. Unlike KG he had a talented team and 2nd banana in Blake and good coach around him and his team was a consistent mid 50 Ws pretender. His carry job is not that amazing in my opinion.

14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).


I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


Comparing Curry and Paul in RPM:

2014 is not Curry's prime yet, but he ranks 6th with 6.24 vs 2nd for Paul with 7.98
2015 Curry is ahead and is 1st in the league which Paul has never done with 9.34 to Paul's 6.92
2016 is pretty much a tie with Paul at 8.59 and Curry at 8.51
2017 is also pretty close with Paul at 7.91 to Curry's 7.41
2018 is also close with Paul at 6.99 to Curry's 6.65

I'd take Curry's 2015-2018 over Paul's when considering the lead he has in 2015 and he other years being a pretty negligible difference. That's strictly based on RPM, when looking at the bigger picture it's pretty easy to support Curry over Paul in 2016 for example, it's not like +/- doesn't support his unanimous MVP status, he has a +23 on/off.

Durant regular season +/- is typically not as good, however his skillset appears to work well in the playoffs because he is good at scoring difficult shots. Therefore I would argue he has a very good argument over Paul in 2014, 2017 and 2018 for various reasons.

This isn't mentioning Harden who I have problems with his game and am fine with arguments putting Paul over him, but it's not like he doesn't have a case

My argument was that Paul's +/- does not paint a wildly different picture than how most of us view him during his time with the Clippers was around the 3rd or 4th best player in the league most years, but never in the conversation for 1st. The KG argument was different because RAPM was saying he was Shaq and Duncan level if not better, and at the time the media ranked him far below them due to lack of team success, like ranking him a non top 20 player all time vs top 10 for those two. His track record is also better than Paul's, he finishes 1st in the league in RAPM on 3 occasions in 03, 04 and 08 and with some huge margins. In 04 the gap between him and 2nd is the same as between 2nd and 23rd. In 08 the gap is the same as between 2nd and 10th. Finally it completely passed the logic test that KG would be as good as Duncan, they were rated close as defenders by most and KG had as good offensive stats and skills if not better, so why wouldn't he be as good? And KG had amazing intangibles by being the most intense player and hardest worker in the league, which is one of my biggest problems with Paul as it appears him and Blake's chemistry was missing something despite how their games should've made perfect sense together, and the Clippers at time seemed to not have it emotionally. This is the real reason I'm taking 2015-2018 Curry over Paul all day. It's obvious to me that Curry has better leadership and is more beloved by his teammates than Paul is. Considering the statistical argument for Paul over Curry is already dubious, it seems like an easy call.

And I could care less about in/out data that was made by someone going through and subjectively choosing which injuries count and don't count towards their +/- according to how many of their teammates were playing. Bird also missed 17 games in 5 seasons from 84-88.

Not sure why you'd cut out 14, but yes, IF you do that Curry is ahead. But that is part of the 5 years in the thread and the 4 your mentioned before for RPM. And again peak Curry (especially RS as noted here) is an incredible bar.

Whether someone ranked first in a metric ... I'm not so bothered about especially in this context of, again, second to LeBron more than once.

If you buy impact stuff on Garnett then yeah he's a monster too. But then, if you buy that then Garnett too is top 10 maybe top 5 all time with a monster peak and a strong probability of being ahead of Bird. And so Paul doesn't have to be better than him, and per prior posts has some on-off stuff at least comparable (one of v.few players to post +20 on-off that I'm aware of). So again the casual dismissal of Paul here (by many) doesn't make sense.

And KG had amazing intangibles by being the most intense player and hardest worker in the league, which is one of my biggest problems with Paul

I cannot understand this. At all. Garnett was intense, kinda of ****, and would fight with teammates (and fwiw, "hardest worker in the league" is a made-up label that we can have literally no actual claim on unless you've had a spy network stalking literally every NBA player and done so for decades). You know what Chris Paul is ...

The Blake stuff isn't evidence.

Paul, with more post peak, post prime years has a better playoff on-off than Durant so hard to buy that as overcoming and substantial RS edge for Paul if you value impact metrics.

The "not in contention for first ..." again LeBron James.

Fwiw, Bird missed 19 RS games (410-391) in the span cited (plus one playoff game in '85).

And you can dismiss WoWY (though you by no means have to take it at face value to see Paul versus Bird as debateble, non-trollish) but then you're judging Bird on? The boxscore composites? Which aren't necessarily in his favor and where he falls off quite badly in the playoffs (tough conference but then also a 16 of 23 team playoff combined with typical 1 seed and otoh not as tough as competition as Paul). Your eye test? And then that Bird got some MVPs (over pre-prime (and low-boxscore) Magic (2nd in '85), Bernard King (2nd '84) and Nique (2nd '86) is fine to use as evidence, though? That's tough to swallow.

And per the above I don't know who was better. I just don't get the dismissal of Paul or the comp.
Owly
Veteran
Posts: 2,677
And1: 1,249
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#27 » by Owly » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:43 am

dygaction wrote:
Owly wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:3 MVPs in a row and a player who has an argument to be playing at a top 10 all time level, vs a player who was consistently around 3rd best player in the league. Also a massive gap in intangibles. Not close.

Color me confused by the CP hype, it’s not even like he’s lapping the field in +/-. His ranks from 14-17 in RPM are 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 2nd. He was 7th in 2013 RAPM. He isn’t blowing the field away in multiple seasons like 2000s KG when stat guys and traditionalists argued about him. Unlike KG he had a talented team and 2nd banana in Blake and good coach around him and his team was a consistent mid 50 Ws pretender. His carry job is not that amazing in my opinion.

14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).

I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


RPM is just one of the advanced stats and people should not use it ALONE to rank players. It does not even distinguish superstar and role players well. In 2014, Iguodala was # 3 ahead of MVP Durant/Curry/Harden; In 2015, Green was ahead of MVP Curry/Paul/Harden;

CP3's MVP ranking (13-17) was 4/7/6/6/x from 13-17. That roughly suggests Paul was a top 5 player for this 5 year span, during which LeBron, Curry (MVP ranking: x/6/1/1/6), and Durant (2/1/x/5/9) were clearly better, from individual stats, availability to the team, regular season success to playoff success.

Not sure of the pertinence of any of this to anything but ...

I engaged with someone using impact stats and where Paul is on them to discuss how Paul's impact stats are really quite impressive. MVP ranking (I mean MVP shares is a bad tool but why not lose lots of the fine grain voting data and chuck it into a rank) is a terrible means of ranking any player. Like much of this conversation I'm also unclear on how it relates to Paul's comparison with Bird.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 46,900
And1: 10,939
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#28 » by Dr Positivity » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:25 am

Lost92Bricks wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:which is one of my biggest problems with Paul as it appears him and Blake's chemistry was missing something despite how their games should've made perfect sense together, and the Clippers at time seemed to not have it emotionally. This is the real reason I'm taking 2015-2018 Curry over Paul all day. It's obvious to me that Curry has better leadership and is more beloved by his teammates than Paul is. Considering the statistical argument for Paul over Curry is already dubious, it seems like an easy call.

That's not Chris' fault. Blake is an awkward player in general and especially to play with another point guard. He wasn't a good shooter (unlike Amare or Dirk or Karl Malone and guys like that) and he wasn't a good defender/rebounder. He's also a point forward type of player who wants to bring the ball up and run plays despite obviously not being as good at it as a regular PG.

When they both played together, they won at a 56 win pace. I think they did a good job considering how much their games didn't naturally fit with eachother.


I disagree, I think Paul was arguably closest thing to Nash in the league and Blake was arguably closest thing to Amare. If Paul couldn't fit with a PF famous for dunking lob passes and was one of the athletic bigs in the league rolling to the rim I'm not sure who he's supposed to fit with. I'm not really a fan of Blake cause he's a mediocre defender and spacer, but he was one of the best scoring bigs in the league, and I didn't think playing with Paul really took his game to another level and there is a ton of smoke suggesting they didn't like each other. Same goes for Harden and Paul and their lack of chemistry (they just took turns in my opinion).
asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com

Recent article: Are Andrew Wiggins and Brandon Ingram's starts for real?
ShotCreator
Starter
Posts: 2,391
And1: 1,664
Joined: May 18, 2014
Location: CF
     

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#29 » by ShotCreator » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:38 am

Not one good argument for Bird in here.

And there probably isn’t one in general if not health. And Bird wasn’t Ironman in any sense.

Bird probably has Paul offensively I think.

Defensively it’s a wash from the mid-80’s possibly.

Other than 2014-15, there are some absolutely monster defensive seasons from CP3 in here. 2015-16, and 2016-17 were mastery at navigating screens and anticipating modern offense, and with a high motor no less. Just playing this possessed, angry, focused defense that he really doesn’t play with anymore due to physical and I think mental changes at this point in his career.


Honestly if there was a basketball god I would love to know who’s truly better at playing in a pure sense because neither would really surprise me.

but assuming birds help defense was as disruptive as i tend to believe in the mid-80’s then possibly him.
Swinging for the fences.
Lost92Bricks
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,797
And1: 1,696
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#30 » by Lost92Bricks » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:42 am

Dr Positivity wrote:I disagree, I think Paul was arguably closest thing to Nash in the league and Blake was arguably closest thing to Amare. If Paul couldn't fit with a PF famous for dunking lob passes and was one of the athletic bigs in the league rolling to the rim I'm not sure who he's supposed to fit with. I'm not really a fan of Blake cause he's a mediocre defender and spacer, but he was one of the best scoring bigs in the league, and I didn't think playing with Paul really took his game to another level and there is a ton of smoke suggesting they didn't like each other. Same goes for Harden and Paul and their lack of chemistry (they just took turns in my opinion).

But he did fit though. It's just that they weren't the best fit on paper. CP3 and Blake were the best duo in the league in terms of assists-points, nobody in the league connected more than those two players. They were called Lob City for a reason.

The Clippers were the best offensive team in the league.
dygaction
Junior
Posts: 406
And1: 142
Joined: Sep 20, 2015
 

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#31 » by dygaction » Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:01 am

Owly wrote:
dygaction wrote:
Owly wrote:14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).

I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


RPM is just one of the advanced stats and people should not use it ALONE to rank players. It does not even distinguish superstar and role players well. In 2014, Iguodala was # 3 ahead of MVP Durant/Curry/Harden; In 2015, Green was ahead of MVP Curry/Paul/Harden;

CP3's MVP ranking (13-17) was 4/7/6/6/x from 13-17. That roughly suggests Paul was a top 5 player for this 5 year span, during which LeBron, Curry (MVP ranking: x/6/1/1/6), and Durant (2/1/x/5/9) were clearly better, from individual stats, availability to the team, regular season success to playoff success.

Not sure of the pertinence of any of this to anything but ...

I engaged with someone using impact stats and where Paul is on them to discuss how Paul's impact stats are really quite impressive. MVP ranking (I mean MVP shares is a bad tool but why not lose lots of the fine grain voting data and chuck it into a rank) is a terrible means of ranking any player. Like much of this conversation I'm also unclear on how it relates to Paul's comparison with Bird.


Bird is arguably a top 5 players in the history of the game, and best player during that 5 years. If the other player is barely a top 5 player of his specific 5 years, no, he should not be compared to Bird.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 46,900
And1: 10,939
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#32 » by Dr Positivity » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:24 am

Owly wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
Owly wrote:14: 2nd (to LeBron James, huge lead on 3rd)
15: 7 (to Curry, James, Harden, Davis, Leonard, Westbrook)
16: 3rd (to James, Green)
17: 2nd (to James)

So in an impact metric (which in single year samples tend to be noisy) and he's only consistently behind James, I would think on average only behind James, ahead of peak Curry and consistently above peak adjacent Curry). I mean if you want to hold it against a guy that he's behind LeBron James sure.

Unlike KG he had a talented team ... and unlike KG he was consistently leading a team to contender-ish level (Garnett's second best Timberwolves SRS is 3.58, worse than every Clippers team in this span). I'm struggling to see the point.

Though "talented" versus the T-Wolves is a low bar. It's a team that, at best went 4 deep (Paul, Griffin, Redick, Jordan - 3 deep in the playoffs with Redick - and Jordan was what he was, which whilst good was limited and perhaps overrated).

And fwiw, Paul's +16.6 on off for the 4 year span you mention seems to be better than that of Garnett for any four year span. A noisy tool of course but not nothing. So I think that was a pretty amazing job.

And Bird's impact profile is mixed. Huge impact on arrival, but worse prime and career WoWYR than Paul (per https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/).


I don't know which way I go on this, I'd have to look at it closer. But I don't get the casual dismissals of Paul and suggestions this is silly or trolling.


Comparing Curry and Paul in RPM:

2014 is not Curry's prime yet, but he ranks 6th with 6.24 vs 2nd for Paul with 7.98
2015 Curry is ahead and is 1st in the league which Paul has never done with 9.34 to Paul's 6.92
2016 is pretty much a tie with Paul at 8.59 and Curry at 8.51
2017 is also pretty close with Paul at 7.91 to Curry's 7.41
2018 is also close with Paul at 6.99 to Curry's 6.65

I'd take Curry's 2015-2018 over Paul's when considering the lead he has in 2015 and he other years being a pretty negligible difference. That's strictly based on RPM, when looking at the bigger picture it's pretty easy to support Curry over Paul in 2016 for example, it's not like +/- doesn't support his unanimous MVP status, he has a +23 on/off.

Durant regular season +/- is typically not as good, however his skillset appears to work well in the playoffs because he is good at scoring difficult shots. Therefore I would argue he has a very good argument over Paul in 2014, 2017 and 2018 for various reasons.

This isn't mentioning Harden who I have problems with his game and am fine with arguments putting Paul over him, but it's not like he doesn't have a case

My argument was that Paul's +/- does not paint a wildly different picture than how most of us view him during his time with the Clippers was around the 3rd or 4th best player in the league most years, but never in the conversation for 1st. The KG argument was different because RAPM was saying he was Shaq and Duncan level if not better, and at the time the media ranked him far below them due to lack of team success, like ranking him a non top 20 player all time vs top 10 for those two. His track record is also better than Paul's, he finishes 1st in the league in RAPM on 3 occasions in 03, 04 and 08 and with some huge margins. In 04 the gap between him and 2nd is the same as between 2nd and 23rd. In 08 the gap is the same as between 2nd and 10th. Finally it completely passed the logic test that KG would be as good as Duncan, they were rated close as defenders by most and KG had as good offensive stats and skills if not better, so why wouldn't he be as good? And KG had amazing intangibles by being the most intense player and hardest worker in the league, which is one of my biggest problems with Paul as it appears him and Blake's chemistry was missing something despite how their games should've made perfect sense together, and the Clippers at time seemed to not have it emotionally. This is the real reason I'm taking 2015-2018 Curry over Paul all day. It's obvious to me that Curry has better leadership and is more beloved by his teammates than Paul is. Considering the statistical argument for Paul over Curry is already dubious, it seems like an easy call.

And I could care less about in/out data that was made by someone going through and subjectively choosing which injuries count and don't count towards their +/- according to how many of their teammates were playing. Bird also missed 17 games in 5 seasons from 84-88.

Not sure why you'd cut out 14, but yes, IF you do that Curry is ahead. But that is part of the 5 years in the thread and the 4 your mentioned before for RPM. And again peak Curry (especially RS as noted here) is an incredible bar.

Whether someone ranked first in a metric ... I'm not so bothered about especially in this context of, again, second to LeBron more than once.

If you buy impact stuff on Garnett then yeah he's a monster too. But then, if you buy that then Garnett too is top 10 maybe top 5 all time with a monster peak and a strong probability of being ahead of Bird. And so Paul doesn't have to be better than him, and per prior posts has some on-off stuff at least comparable (one of v.few players to post +20 on-off that I'm aware of). So again the casual dismissal of Paul here (by many) doesn't make sense.

And KG had amazing intangibles by being the most intense player and hardest worker in the league, which is one of my biggest problems with Paul

I cannot understand this. At all. Garnett was intense, kinda of ****, and would fight with teammates (and fwiw, "hardest worker in the league" is a made-up label that we can have literally no actual claim on unless you've had a spy network stalking literally every NBA player and done so for decades). You know what Chris Paul is ...

The Blake stuff isn't evidence.

Paul, with more post peak, post prime years has a better playoff on-off than Durant so hard to buy that as overcoming and substantial RS edge for Paul if you value impact metrics.

The "not in contention for first ..." again LeBron James.

Fwiw, Bird missed 19 RS games (410-391) in the span cited (plus one playoff game in '85).

And you can dismiss WoWY (though you by no means have to take it at face value to see Paul versus Bird as debateble, non-trollish) but then you're judging Bird on? The boxscore composites? Which aren't necessarily in his favor and where he falls off quite badly in the playoffs (tough conference but then also a 16 of 23 team playoff combined with typical 1 seed and otoh not as tough as competition as Paul). Your eye test? And then that Bird got some MVPs (over pre-prime (and low-boxscore) Magic (2nd in '85), Bernard King (2nd '84) and Nique (2nd '86) is fine to use as evidence, though? That's tough to swallow.

And per the above I don't know who was better. I just don't get the dismissal of Paul or the comp.


My bigger argument is wondering why CP has become such a lightning rod. He is now on the 1st team All Player Comparison arguments with players like Hakeem and KG. With KG for example it makes perfect sense why he divided people so much since he's basically the perfect guy to argue stats vs count the ringzzz. Paul though? His +/- stats aren't that dramatically different than general opinion of having him as a top 3-5 player at the time. Does it have more to do with his skillset that people are impressed? Two way player and all time playmaker? Like almost Magic + elite D?

As for WOWYR, yes I would care more about boxscore, MVP votes, and general opinion of the time, all of which I value in some varying form or another, over the WOWYR stat you linked, which I literally do not value at all, nor do I put value into any stat that poster has created. It was made by someone with literally the worst radar for small sample size problems I've ever seen on RealGM which already is a complete deal breaker for me when it comes to stat guys, and also someone with a habit of making stats that are at the mercy of confirmation bias. His WOWYR list combines both as it both uses small stretches of how a team played when they are injured, with personally hand picking which stretches don't count cause too many of their teammates were injured. When his spreadsheet was public it was obvious to me there was no consistent method used to the samples he was removing, I could instantly spot comparisons where two players with seemingly equal amounts of injuries on their team would be treated differently with one counting and the other not. It made a stat that was already flawed for small sample size problems into being completely useless in my opinion. His other big thing has been measuring players by hand tracking, which is a concept that totally falls apart if the person has confirmation bias, much like hand picking which injuries count and don't.

That may seem like a lot, but I've been holding my tongue while this guy gets lauded every second day by people who understand stats better than him and are demeaning themselves linking his work that has holes all over it. In my opinion he is a fantastic video editor and good speaker, I couldn't be impressed more by the production quality of his youtube videos, but I could not rate his actual stats work any lower.
asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com

Recent article: Are Andrew Wiggins and Brandon Ingram's starts for real?
User avatar
Bad Gatorade
Senior
Posts: 509
And1: 1,243
Joined: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Australia
   

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#33 » by Bad Gatorade » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:40 pm

Hey, it's a CP3 thread! Let me in! :P

Dr Positivity wrote:My bigger argument is wondering why CP has become such a lightning rod. He is now on the 1st team All Player Comparison arguments with players like Hakeem and KG. With KG for example it makes perfect sense why he divided people so much since he's basically the perfect guy to argue stats vs count the ringzzz. Paul though? His +/- stats aren't that dramatically different than general opinion of having him as a top 3-5 player at the time. Does it have more to do with his skillset that people are impressed? Two way player and all time playmaker? Like almost Magic + elite D?


His +/- stats are rather excellent.

From 2013-2017, the 5 year RAPM we have available on nbashotcharts.com places him first in the league at 11.73. LeBron is second with 10.84, Curry 9.73, Durant 8.08 and then Green, Rubio, Leonard, Iggy, Korver and Ginobili following. So, out of all "primary shot creators" that played large minutes, there's a clear top 4 in that span, and CP3 actually comes first.

In the smaller, 3-year RAPM samples, CP3 is second to LeBron from 2013-15, first from 2014-2016 and 3rd to Curry/LeBron in 2013-2017 (and aside from Kawhi coming in at 4th, nobody is even remotely close to the top 3 there).

In that 5 year span, the RAPM data would paint him as the second best player in the league (although Curry also partially overtakes him, which one could also argue Jordan, perhaps Magic did to Bird in 1987/1988).

We don't have the same information about Bird, and I'd imagine that Bird is a top 2 player with Magic in that timeframe too, so I would give Bird the hypothetical advantage, but I don't think it's a ridiculously large gap that's worth scoffing at.

Some of the larger RAPM samples out there also place CP3 in a similar tier to Duncan/Nowitzki, and above the other great guards of his era:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-R9RXLp6eYuRcptQIQVTBIkLrxvrTCfLh_WB2P-DBwE/edit#gid=0

One of those is age adjusted, and the other isn't. These don't necessarily reflect my personal rankings, but CP3 is almost like a mini-KG here. Not quite as crazy on the impact stats as KG is, but nobody is arguing CP3 to be as good of a player as KG, including myself. CP3 has put up fantastic impact stats over a long period of time - impact stats that imply that he should probably rank somewhere near Dirk, clearly above all other guards since 2001 (once you factor in his longevity over Curry, of course), clearly above Durant (the guy that was often seen as second to LeBron until Curry came along) and this is far from what the consensus is. Heck, I'm probably the most vocal champion of CP3 on this board, and I don't put him above all these guys. But, CP3 is often placed outside of peoples' top 30 and beneath players that his box score composites, impact metrics and longevity imply are clearly beneath him.

FWIW, even though I do side with Bird's 5 year sample in this comparison without too much thought, there's reason to at least consider CP3's worth here. Not only because I believe he was the second best player in the league across 2013-2017, but because even though Paul's crappy health record stopped him from playing games, his playoff sample (when you look at the games he actually played, lol) was statistically better than his regular season sample, and quite comfortably so. And even the most controversial series (e.g. the Thunder in 2014, Rockets in 2015) actually wound up with the Clippers outscoring their opponents when CP3 was on the court, but being outscored when he wasn't (IIRC, in the Thunder series, it was something like +9 per 100 with CP3 on, -38 per 100 with CP3 off). The box score composites for him improve - 26.1 PER and 7.8 BPM to 26.5 PER and 9.3 BPM (WS/48 is utterly useless in the playoffs).

Thanks to a bar fight and injuries, Bird's composites actually drop - 26.1 PER and 8.7 BPM to 22.7 PER and 7.6 BPM.

I don't think the box score accurately reflects Bird, or at least, I don't know if happens to do so by pure chance or not. He has some really impressive box score stats, but the fact that he is an off ball master, the fact that his numbers may have been somewhat suppressed by playing on an incredibly strong Celtics team (with 2 other +10 per game rebounders, for example) and the fact that the guy was an incredible floor spacer in an era where nobody cared about 3s (i.e. it's not properly recorded in the box score) all point to the possibility of latent value that may not be captured in the box score. And I'd believe it, because Bird was that damn good. However, if we do value changes between the regular season and the playoffs, these changes are a data point to consider.

I don't think Paul has a very good case above Bird in these respective samples, but I also don't think it's a huge gap. Injuries make it fairly clear cut for me that Bird had the better stretch. I'd probably take Bird even if CP3 didn't miss games either, but the fact that CP3, surprisingly, has less imprint of a playoff dropoff than Bird (with the obviously limited records that we have) and the fact that he was, IMO, the second best player in the league in this stretch probably places his raw level of play not too distant from Bird.

You also alluded to his skillset, and that's a big thing for me too - the guy is absolutely an underappreciated elite shooter (his shooting splits, from what I've seen, are roughly Durant/Irving level!), elite passer, arguably the best defensive PG of his generation (although Rubio/Holiday give strong competition), has elite handles... his skillset corroborates very well with his high level production and impact data.

As for WOWYR, yes I would care more about boxscore, MVP votes, and general opinion of the time, all of which I value in some varying form or another, over the WOWYR stat you linked, which I literally do not value at all, nor do I put value into any stat that poster has created. It was made by someone with literally the worst radar for small sample size problems I've ever seen on RealGM which already is a complete deal breaker for me when it comes to stat guys, and also someone with a habit of making stats that are at the mercy of confirmation bias. His WOWYR list combines both as it both uses small stretches of how a team played when they are injured, with personally hand picking which stretches don't count cause too many of their teammates were injured. When his spreadsheet was public it was obvious to me there was no consistent method used to the samples he was removing, I could instantly spot comparisons where two players with seemingly equal amounts of injuries on their team would be treated differently with one counting and the other not. It made a stat that was already flawed for small sample size problems into being completely useless in my opinion. His other big thing has been measuring players by hand tracking, which is a concept that totally falls apart if the person has confirmation bias, much like hand picking which injuries count and don't.

That may seem like a lot, but I've been holding my tongue while this guy gets lauded every second day by people who understand stats better than him and are demeaning themselves linking his work that has holes all over it. In my opinion he is a fantastic video editor and good speaker, I couldn't be impressed more by the production quality of his youtube videos, but I could not rate his actual stats work any lower.


I don't blame you on this one, because the more I've looked at them, the more I question how much value these WOWY stats actually add.

In particular, some players had absurd changes when looking at prime vs career WOWYs, even though their games played barely changed. For example, Reggie Lewis played 413 prime games, 418 career games in his sample, and yet the prime vs career WOWY dropped from 7.1 to 4.0 in the career sample. DeAndre had 479 and 518 games respectively, and his prime/career WOWY results were 6.5 and 1.6. That's just waaaay too much variance for the stat when there really shouldn't be.

I mean, a lot of the right names pop up in the places I think that they would, but the results are more like, "oh! that player's WOWY is suspiciously high/low, so I might look further into some of the more basic data like team success/changes, ORTG and what not" rather than anything definitive from me.

I do enjoy the tracking stuff of his a lot more - confirmation bias is an issue, but the tracking data is at least informative of tendencies that we might not actually notice without doing tracking ourselves, and then we are prone to confirmation bias ourselves. Way better than the WOWY data, IMO. And to be fair, he has also provided many YouTube examples that show these tendencies (e.g. "weak rotations" and what not) so we at least get a gauge for what his barometer is for each player.

Sometimes, we don't have to agree with the statistic themselves, but the statistic can provide food for thought, allowing us to look deeper and make our own conclusions.
bledredwine
RealGM
Posts: 11,105
And1: 3,046
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
   

Re: 84-88 Larry Bird vs 13-17 Chris Paul 

Post#34 » by bledredwine » Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:01 pm

I had a good chuckle at this.

Larry Bird, injuries included.

Return to Player Comparisons