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

[iggymcfrack]

Paul had a better regular season career than Barkley, Moses, Durant but those guys all had moments where they dominated in the playoffs due to their physical tools to say nothing of health. So if you want to go all in on reg season impact as a more reliable sample size than PS then you can put him in the top 20, but some of us consider playoffs a different game than regular season which has hurt some players like Curry, Harden, Karl, Robinson and helped some like Durant and Kawhi

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

[dygaction]

Paul had a better regular season career than Barkley, Moses, Durant but those guys all had moments where they dominated in the playoffs due to their physical tools to say nothing of health. So if you want to go all in on reg season impact as a more reliable sample size than PS then you can put him in the top 20, but some of us consider playoffs a different game than regular season which has hurt some players like Curry, Harden, Karl, Robinson and helped some like Durant and Kawhi

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

The PER for CP3 was gathered mostly from the first round, some from the second, and only one from conference finals. While the "lesser players" as you call, like Curry, Bird, and Kobe are finals frequent who faced much more fierce competitions. People are arguing whether CP3 has a case over top 20, why trying to promote more haters by insulting other top 10 players. Sounds more like you are comparing state champions with national champions, or national champions with international champions.

[E-Balla]

It appears you are much higher on the supporting cast of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan than I am for this to really benefit either of us.

Where do you rank Blake and DeAndre vs Amare and umm... J. Rich or Grant Hill? Because Nash took that to the WCF. CP3 couldn't take Blake, DeAndre, and JJ to the WCF.

I would have Marion in 2005 on a similar level as Griffin, probably bit worse but a much better fit next to both CP3 and Nash.

Amare would be right in that same tier as well. Scales better into the post-season due to a better midrange game than Griffin but his defense is also a big concern.

The 2010 Suns were good but played against the worst Spurs team in the Duncan Era so I'm not sure if beating an average Blazers team and the Spurs is more impressive than some of Paul's playoff defeats.

I think Steve Nash is also better in the post-season by a hair; same tier in that regard but Nash was more dynamic [and health isn't close].

FWIW I don't consider the 2010 Suns cast a good supporting cast for a title contender.

Yeah you're right I think we are too far on this if you think Amare is on the same level as Blake.

[Odinn21]

Paul had a better regular season career than Barkley, Moses, Durant but those guys all had moments where they dominated in the playoffs due to their physical tools to say nothing of health. So if you want to go all in on reg season impact as a more reliable sample size than PS then you can put him in the top 20, but some of us consider playoffs a different game than regular season which has hurt some players like Curry, Harden, Karl, Robinson and helped some like Durant and Kawhi

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

In the games CP3 played in, his team was outscored by 54 in those 102 games. His team outscored their opponents by 57.
So, that's 111 points difference, and that would make +1.09 per game. Where did you get that number?..

PER is a bad example BTW.

PER has a tendency to overrate players with less playoff games. And you're trying to defend Kawhi and the stat itself with still using it.

Penny played in 5 games in 1997 playoffs, 29.9 PER. MJ played in 19 games, 27.1 PER.
Shaq played in 13 games in 1998 playoffs, 31.0 PER. MJ played in 23 games, 28.1 PER.
G. Hill played in 5 games in 1999 playoffs, 29.3 PER. Duncan played in 17 games, 25.1 PER.
Duncan played in 9 games in 2002 playoffs, 31.8 PER. Shaq played in 19 games, 28.3 PER.
Shaq played in 12 games in 2003 playoffs, 30.6 PER. Duncan played in 24 games, 28.4 PER.
Nowitzki played in 5 games in 2004 playoffs, 27.5 PER. Garnett played in 18 games, 25.0 PER.
Yao played in 7 games in 2005 playoffs, 29.0 PER. Duncan played in 23 games, 24.9 PER.
Duncan played in 13 games in 2006 playoffs, 30.4 PER. Nowitzki and Wade played in 23 games, 26.9 - 26.8 PER.
Amar'e played in 10 games in 2007 playoffs, 29.6 PER. Duncan played in 20 games, 27.4 PER.

Even 2019 playoffs is an example of this;
Jokic played in 14 games, 29.6 PER. Kawhi played in 24 games, 27.9 PER.

In fact, the players those actually best of that playoffs / made it to the NBA Finals at least with the highest PER are in the minority.

PER adjust the league average 15.0 via iterations. But in the playoffs, you'd have to use the bigger sample size (players with more games played), to achieve that 15.0 because the lesser numbers will fail due to not being enough for iterations.

No wonder CP3's PER is so high considering how he got those high PER values.

[iggymcfrack]

Paul had a better regular season career than Barkley, Moses, Durant but those guys all had moments where they dominated in the playoffs due to their physical tools to say nothing of health. So if you want to go all in on reg season impact as a more reliable sample size than PS then you can put him in the top 20, but some of us consider playoffs a different game than regular season which has hurt some players like Curry, Harden, Karl, Robinson and helped some like Durant and Kawhi

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

The PER for CP3 was gathered mostly from the first round, some from the second, and only one from conference finals. While the "lesser players" as you call, like Curry, Bird, and Kobe are finals frequent who faced much more fierce competitions. People are arguing whether CP3 has a case over top 20, why trying to promote more haters by insulting other top 10 players. Sounds more like you are comparing state champions with national champions, or national champions with international champions.

Chris Paul played in the Western conference his whole career in an era of massive conference imbalance and often faced high seeded teams in the early rounds. I don’t feel like going through the average SRS of all his opponents, but I bet it compares favorably with the vast majority of all-time greats.

[E-Balla]

He's been injured more often than not in the postseason, especially past the first round so I think it's crazy anyone is confident he can contribute to a championship team. Like I still remember telling Spaceman Houston will lose because even if they do play Golden State well and get lucky CP3 wouldn't hold up and that's exactly how it went.

Lies lies lies lies lies! In the first 6 postseasons of his career, Paul played in 53 of a possible 53 postseason games and he did it at an all-time level, leading the league in PER 3 times, in WS/48 twice, and in BPM twice.

Paul played through an injury in the 2012 playoffs and they lost because of it (he averaged 13.5 ppg on 45.6 TS% after his injury).

Since then, Paul’s played in “only” 49/55 games. Overall, Paul had 9 postseasons where he played every single game for his team and 3 postseasons where he missed 2 games each. For comparison’s sake, Stephen Curry twice missed as many playoff games as CP3 missed his entire career in seasons he’d go on to win a championship!

Since then he got hurt in 2015, 2016, and 2018.

So let me be more accurate in my statement. Chris Paul, since leaving New Orleans, has been injured in the playoffs half the time (4 out of 8 years) and has been injured 3 of his 5 series that have gone past the first round.

[Colbinii]

Where do you rank Blake and DeAndre vs Amare and umm... J. Rich or Grant Hill? Because Nash took that to the WCF. CP3 couldn't take Blake, DeAndre, and JJ to the WCF.

I would have Marion in 2005 on a similar level as Griffin, probably bit worse but a much better fit next to both CP3 and Nash.

Amare would be right in that same tier as well. Scales better into the post-season due to a better midrange game than Griffin but his defense is also a big concern.

The 2010 Suns were good but played against the worst Spurs team in the Duncan Era so I'm not sure if beating an average Blazers team and the Spurs is more impressive than some of Paul's playoff defeats.

I think Steve Nash is also better in the post-season by a hair; same tier in that regard but Nash was more dynamic [and health isn't close].

FWIW I don't consider the 2010 Suns cast a good supporting cast for a title contender.

Yeah you're right I think we are too far on this if you think Amare is on the same level as Blake.

You don't think 2005-2007 Amare is close to Griffins level?

I've never seen one so high on Griffin.

[iggymcfrack]

Paul had a better regular season career than Barkley, Moses, Durant but those guys all had moments where they dominated in the playoffs due to their physical tools to say nothing of health. So if you want to go all in on reg season impact as a more reliable sample size than PS then you can put him in the top 20, but some of us consider playoffs a different game than regular season which has hurt some players like Curry, Harden, Karl, Robinson and helped some like Durant and Kawhi

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

In the games CP3 played in, his team was outscored by 54 in those 102 games. His team outscored their opponents by 57.
So, that's 111 points difference, and that would make +1.09 per game. Where did you get that number?..

I got it directly from his basketball-reference page. I have no idea what you’re even trying to say or what info you’re trying to use but it’s certainly not comparing his minutes on and off the court.

PER is a bad example BTW.

PER has a tendency to overrate players with less playoff games. And you're trying to defend Kawhi and the stat itself with still using it.

Penny played in 5 games in 1997 playoffs, 29.9 PER. MJ played in 19 games, 27.1 PER.
Shaq played in 13 games in 1998 playoffs, 31.0 PER. MJ played in 23 games, 28.1 PER.
G. Hill played in 5 games in 1999 playoffs, 29.3 PER. Duncan played in 17 games, 25.1 PER.
Duncan played in 9 games in 2002 playoffs, 31.8 PER. Shaq played in 19 games, 28.3 PER.
Shaq played in 12 games in 2003 playoffs, 30.6 PER. Duncan played in 24 games, 28.4 PER.
Nowitzki played in 5 games in 2004 playoffs, 27.5 PER. Garnett played in 18 games, 25.0 PER.
Yao played in 7 games in 2005 playoffs, 29.0 PER. Duncan played in 23 games, 24.9 PER.
Duncan played in 13 games in 2006 playoffs, 30.4 PER. Nowitzki and Wade played in 23 games, 26.9 - 26.8 PER.
Amar'e played in 10 games in 2007 playoffs, 29.6 PER. Duncan played in 20 games, 27.4 PER.

Even 2019 playoffs is an example of this;
Jokic played in 14 games, 29.6 PER. Kawhi played in 24 games, 27.9 PER.

In fact, the players those actually best of that playoffs / made it to the NBA Finals at least with the highest PER are in the minority.

PER adjust the league average 15.0 via iterations. But in the playoffs, you'd have to use the bigger sample size (players with more games played), to achieve that 15.0 because the lesser numbers will fail due to not being enough for iterations.

No wonder CP3's PER is so high considering how he got those high PER values.

No no no!!!! You used this terrible argument already and I already showed how wrong you are. PER’s the same as every statistic. There will be more extremes in a small sample. If I look at who scored the most points in 1 game, it’s Wilt with 100. If I look at who scored the most points in a season, it’s half that. The record for blocks in 1 game is 17. Over an 82-game season, the record is only 5.56.

But just because there will be some fluke performances over a few games doesn’t mean that playing less games per season actually gives a cumulative advantage to that player. And it certainly doesn’t mean that PER in particular has some special bias toward players with less games.

[No-more-rings]

This thread shows exactly why i try not to get too involved in any direct Cp3 comparisons or legacy threads anymore. The bias is just too much.

CP3 fans always cry and whine about how his supporting casts have sucked or something and he didn't have enough help. Then the excuse of not having stacked teams to win like Magic, Bird etc.

Newsflash, not everyone that has won championships have had stacked casts.

Dirk did not have what would be considered a typical stacked cast when he won a title, he had a really good deep team but not stacked.

Wade did not have a stacked cast, he had past prime Shaq and a bunch of washed up has beens.

Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan did not have stacked casts in their 94, and 03 runs, in fact they had some of the weakest ones for a superstar ever, and yet these are guys some are calling Cp3 on the level of.

We're not asking for multiple championships, we're asking for at least one or 2 WCF appearances where he's your clear best player.

Blake Griffin in 2 straight playoff runs averaged 25/10/5 with a 23.4 PER and 5.6 BPM. Those are almost mvp candidate type of numbers. They had one of the best frontcourts in the game during those years. Did they have their flaws? Sure they did, were they crap outside of Cp3? No they were not, far from it in fact.

Kobe Bryant got similar or worse production from Pau than Paul did from Blake, and he goes to 3 straight finals. You can call his cast better, but not to the point where the results should be so much different.

But his fans continue to just repeat his stats and refuse to look at anything else. Why even watch the games when you have basketballreference?

[dygaction]

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

The PER for CP3 was gathered mostly from the first round, some from the second, and only one from conference finals. While the "lesser players" as you call, like Curry, Bird, and Kobe are finals frequent who faced much more fierce competitions. People are arguing whether CP3 has a case over top 20, why trying to promote more haters by insulting other top 10 players. Sounds more like you are comparing state champions with national champions, or national champions with international champions.

Chris Paul played in the Western conference his whole career in an era of massive conference imbalance and often faced high seeded teams in the early rounds. I don’t feel like going through the average SRS of all his opponents, but I bet it compares favorably with the vast majority of all-time greats.

So was Nash playing in the west. Nash turned a 29 win Suns to a 62 win team the season he joined to take the home court advantage. He reached conference finals 4 times: 2003, 2005, and 2010 lost to the final championship teams Spurs and Lakers, and 2006 to the Mavs. That you can say it is due to playing in the west. CP3 lost to several times with home court advantage or to lesser teams such as Denver, Portland, and Utah.

[Odinn21]

No no no!!!! You used this terrible argument already and I already showed how wrong you are. PER’s the same as every statistic. There will be more extremes in a small sample. If I look at who scored the most points in 1 game, it’s Wilt with 100. If I look at who scored the most points in a season, it’s half that. The record for blocks in 1 game is 17. Over an 82-game season, the record is only 5.56.

But just because there will be some fluke performances over a few games doesn’t mean that playing less games per season actually gives a cumulative advantage to that player. And it certainly doesn’t mean that PER in particular has some special bias toward players with less games.

Do we need to explore all the data? You're just saying things without proof. Let's show me the PER distribution then.

I also explained why PER gets skewed in favour of a player with less GP number. You're yet to address that. In a full regular season where majority of the players play 90% within each other, regression value is consistent and somewhat reliable. In the playoffs, that's not the case. There's a statistical explanation to that. Why do you avoid that part?

[iggymcfrack]

He's been injured more often than not in the postseason, especially past the first round so I think it's crazy anyone is confident he can contribute to a championship team. Like I still remember telling Spaceman Houston will lose because even if they do play Golden State well and get lucky CP3 wouldn't hold up and that's exactly how it went.

Lies lies lies lies lies! In the first 6 postseasons of his career, Paul played in 53 of a possible 53 postseason games and he did it at an all-time level, leading the league in PER 3 times, in WS/48 twice, and in BPM twice.

Paul played through an injury in the 2012 playoffs and they lost because of it (he averaged 13.5 ppg on 45.6 TS% after his injury).

Since then, Paul’s played in “only” 49/55 games. Overall, Paul had 9 postseasons where he played every single game for his team and 3 postseasons where he missed 2 games each. For comparison’s sake, Stephen Curry twice missed as many playoff games as CP3 missed his entire career in seasons he’d go on to win a championship!

Since then he got hurt in 2015, 2016, and 2018.

So let me be more accurate in my statement. Chris Paul, since leaving New Orleans, has been injured in the playoffs half the time (4 out of 8 years) and has been injured 3 of his 5 series that have gone past the first round.

He played 35 minutes in the game he got hurt and he played 35 minutes in the next game 2 days later. I’m not buying that it was some big serious injury. Maybe the Spurs were just a bad matchup for him to deal with that year. So the most damning thing you could say is that Paul missed a couple games in 2/5 postseasons that went past the first round.

[GSP]

I would have Marion in 2005 on a similar level as Griffin, probably bit worse but a much better fit next to both CP3 and Nash.

Amare would be right in that same tier as well. Scales better into the post-season due to a better midrange game than Griffin but his defense is also a big concern.

The 2010 Suns were good but played against the worst Spurs team in the Duncan Era so I'm not sure if beating an average Blazers team and the Spurs is more impressive than some of Paul's playoff defeats.

I think Steve Nash is also better in the post-season by a hair; same tier in that regard but Nash was more dynamic [and health isn't close].

FWIW I don't consider the 2010 Suns cast a good supporting cast for a title contender.

Yeah you're right I think we are too far on this if you think Amare is on the same level as Blake.

You don't think 2005-2007 Amare is close to Griffins level?

I've never seen one so high on Griffin.

Its not that crazy. Amare is one of the worst defensive bigs ever. Blake wasnt a strong defender himself but he was decent and could at least guard in space and do stuff in the pickandroll. Amare is also one of the worst playmaking bigs ever too. He was a turnover factory when he had to create for others with Nash on the bench. Blake was only rivaled by maybe Draymond as a playmaking big during his peak years and he was a much better ballhandler

[Colbinii]

Yeah you're right I think we are too far on this if you think Amare is on the same level as Blake.

You don't think 2005-2007 Amare is close to Griffins level?

I've never seen one so high on Griffin.

Its not that crazy. Amare is one of the worst defensive bigs ever. Blake wasnt a strong defender himself but he was decent and could at least guard in space and do stuff in the pickandroll. Amare is also one of the worst playmaking bigs ever too. He was a turnover factory when he had to create for others with Nash on the bench. Blake was only rivaled by maybe Draymond as a playmaking big during his peak years and he was a much better ballhandler

There is no doubt Blake Griffin has a tremendously diverse skill-set but next to a player next to CP3/Nash I prefer a player in the mold of Amare over a player like Griffin.

[dygaction]

Chris Paul’s 9th all-time in playoff PER, 4th all-time in playoff WS/48, 3rd all-time in playoff BPM, and has a career playoff on/off of +7.1. His ability to maintain his level in the postseason and even elevate his game is part of what separates him from lesser players like Curry, Bird, and Kobe who didn’t have the same ability. He just didn’t have the good fortune to play on the same kind of stacked teams they did so doesn’t get the same credit.

Also, Paul’s played in 102 of a possible 108 playoff games. He’s been much more durable than several guys you’ve mentioned including Durant, Kawhi, and Curry. His timing was unfortunate in that he suffered one injury at the most crucial possible time with a 3-2 lead in the conference finals, but overall he’s actually been healthier than average in the postseason.

In the games CP3 played in, his team was outscored by 54 in those 102 games. His team outscored their opponents by 57.
So, that's 111 points difference, and that would make +1.09 per game. Where did you get that number?..

I got it directly from his basketball-reference page. I have no idea what you’re even trying to say or what info you’re trying to use but it’s certainly not comparing his minutes on and off the court.

PER is a bad example BTW.

PER has a tendency to overrate players with less playoff games. And you're trying to defend Kawhi and the stat itself with still using it.

Penny played in 5 games in 1997 playoffs, 29.9 PER. MJ played in 19 games, 27.1 PER.
Shaq played in 13 games in 1998 playoffs, 31.0 PER. MJ played in 23 games, 28.1 PER.
G. Hill played in 5 games in 1999 playoffs, 29.3 PER. Duncan played in 17 games, 25.1 PER.
Duncan played in 9 games in 2002 playoffs, 31.8 PER. Shaq played in 19 games, 28.3 PER.
Shaq played in 12 games in 2003 playoffs, 30.6 PER. Duncan played in 24 games, 28.4 PER.
Nowitzki played in 5 games in 2004 playoffs, 27.5 PER. Garnett played in 18 games, 25.0 PER.
Yao played in 7 games in 2005 playoffs, 29.0 PER. Duncan played in 23 games, 24.9 PER.
Duncan played in 13 games in 2006 playoffs, 30.4 PER. Nowitzki and Wade played in 23 games, 26.9 - 26.8 PER.
Amar'e played in 10 games in 2007 playoffs, 29.6 PER. Duncan played in 20 games, 27.4 PER.

Even 2019 playoffs is an example of this;
Jokic played in 14 games, 29.6 PER. Kawhi played in 24 games, 27.9 PER.

In fact, the players those actually best of that playoffs / made it to the NBA Finals at least with the highest PER are in the minority.

PER adjust the league average 15.0 via iterations. But in the playoffs, you'd have to use the bigger sample size (players with more games played), to achieve that 15.0 because the lesser numbers will fail due to not being enough for iterations.

No wonder CP3's PER is so high considering how he got those high PER values.

No no no!!!! You used this terrible argument already and I already showed how wrong you are. PER’s the same as every statistic. There will be more extremes in a small sample. If I look at who scored the most points in 1 game, it’s Wilt with 100. If I look at who scored the most points in a season, it’s half that. The record for blocks in 1 game is 17. Over an 82-game season, the record is only 5.56.

But just because there will be some fluke performances over a few games doesn’t mean that playing less games per season actually gives a cumulative advantage to that player. And it certainly doesn’t mean that PER in particular has some special bias toward players with less games.

In addition to sometimes just being empty stats, PER is certainly affected by sample size and type of games. The first round of playoffs all players have several days of rest thus fresh legs. Every round the better teams (more talents, better coaching) survive and thus more competition and more fatigue on players. To compare with Paul, you need to take most of the all time greats' first round and some second round samples to remove the unfairness. His 100 games are not the same with others' 100.

[iggymcfrack]

This thread shows exactly why i try not to get too involved in any direct Cp3 comparisons or legacy threads anymore. The bias is just too much.

CP3 fans always cry and whine about how his supporting casts have sucked or something and he didn't have enough help. Then the excuse of not having stacked teams to win like Magic, Bird etc.

Newsflash, not everyone that has won championships have had stacked casts.

Dirk did not have what would be considered a typical stacked cast when he won a title, he had a really good deep team but not stacked.

Wade did not have a stacked cast, he had past prime Shaq and a bunch of washed up has beens.

Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan did not have stacked casts in their 94, and 03 runs, in fact they had some of the weakest ones for a superstar ever, and yet these are guys some are calling Cp3 on the level of.

We're not asking for multiple championships, we're asking for at least one or 2 WCF appearances where he's your clear best player.

Blake Griffin in 2 straight playoff runs averaged 25/10/5 with a 23.4 PER and 5.6 BPM. Those are almost mvp candidate type of numbers. They had one of the best frontcourts in the game during those years. Did they have their flaws? Sure they did, were they crap outside of Cp3? No they were not, far from it in fact.

Kobe Bryant got similar or worse production from Pau than Paul did from Blake, and he goes to 3 straight finals. You can call his cast better, but not to the point where the results should be so much different.

But his fans continue to just repeat his stats and refuse to look at anything else. Why even watch the games when you have basketballreference?

Chris Paul had an on/off of +15.1 in those two seasons you’re referring to where Blake played about as good as Pau Gasol. When CP3 was on the floor, they did play at a championship level and could have won a title with a decent bench. Whenever he sat though, they completely collapsed. If Kobe or Dirk or D-Wade’s teams would have had a PD of -10 in their bench minutes, none of those teams would have won titles.

And of course I watch the games. When I watch Chris Paul, I see an incredible scorer, passer, and defender who comes through in the clutch more than almost anyone in the league. The numbers just reinforce that.

[70sFan]

Clippers playing at over +4 without Paul isn't a proof of weak supporting casts. People often compare Paul to Oscar and Royals without Big O collapsed. There is a clear difference between teammates they played with.

Paul is definitely worthy of top 20 talks, he's an incredible player and I don't buy idea that he's not good enough to lead his team to a title, but let's not go too far - he has his limitations and ranking him in top 10 ever is a bit too much. I'd definitely take him over someone like Durant, but he's not on KG level (both contemporaries).

[Owly]

No no no!!!! You used this terrible argument already and I already showed how wrong you are. PER’s the same as every statistic. There will be more extremes in a small sample. If I look at who scored the most points in 1 game, it’s Wilt with 100. If I look at who scored the most points in a season, it’s half that. The record for blocks in 1 game is 17. Over an 82-game season, the record is only 5.56.

But just because there will be some fluke performances over a few games doesn’t mean that playing less games per season actually gives a cumulative advantage to that player. And it certainly doesn’t mean that PER in particular has some special bias toward players with less games.

Do we need to explore all the data? You're just saying things without proof. Let's show me the PER distribution then.

I also explained why PER gets skewed in favour of a player with less GP number. You're yet to address that. In a full regular season where majority of the players play 90% within each other, regression value is consistent and somewhat reliable. In the playoffs, that's not the case. There's a statistical explanation to that. Why do you avoid that part?

Haven't checked earlier exchanges but my sense is you've cited individual small playoff runs as higher, and iggy is saying they are more liable to fluctuate ... in either direction ... but that doesn't mean the total sample is likely to fluctuate in a positive direction (or if sufficient total minutes, likely to fluctuate at all). Just on these last few posts.

[E-Balla]

You don't think 2005-2007 Amare is close to Griffins level?

I've never seen one so high on Griffin.

Its not that crazy. Amare is one of the worst defensive bigs ever. Blake wasnt a strong defender himself but he was decent and could at least guard in space and do stuff in the pickandroll. Amare is also one of the worst playmaking bigs ever too. He was a turnover factory when he had to create for others with Nash on the bench. Blake was only rivaled by maybe Draymond as a playmaking big during his peak years and he was a much better ballhandler

There is no doubt Blake Griffin has a tremendously diverse skill-set but next to a player next to CP3/Nash I prefer a player in the mold of Amare over a player like Griffin.

I don't think you can say CP3/Nash as if they're similar. Boris Diaw showed perfectly that Blake wouldn't have his game stunted next to Nash. If anyone here has the abnormal opinion on Blake it's you. Blake was arguably the best PF in the league for years (most fans would say he was pretty easily). Amare was never that, or even close.

[Pg81]

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.

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.

Complete and utter nonsense.