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

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

User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
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#161 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:54 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
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.

Given you didn't remember his injury I'll assume you don't remember this series and are guessing that he wasn't seriously injured. I'm not. I remember watching those games. Tony Parker wasn't locking him down, he was hobbled. He played like it and the numbers show it. Also he played the last 2 games against Memphis hurt and averaged 15 ppg, 5.5 apg, 4.5 topg all on 50.8 TS% with a 92 ORTG. Before the injury he was averaging 22.6 ppg, 7.8 apg, 3.4 topg all on 58.9 TS% with a 117 ORTG.

It's cool to admit you were wrong.

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.

No the most damning thing I can say is that he missed games and his teams lost because of them and that when he tried to play through an injury once he also buried his team.
jdzimme3
Pro Prospect
Posts: 869
And1: 341
Joined: Oct 29, 2003

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

Post#162 » by jdzimme3 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:55 pm

Lack of team success, lack of durability, no mvps, not a go to guy down the stretch, but most importantly there are too many better players:

1 Jordan
2 Jabbar
3 Russell
4 Lebron
5 Duncan
6 Wilt
7 Hakeem
8 Magic
9 Bird
10 Shaq
11 Kobe
12 Oscar
13 West
14 Moses
15 D Robinson
16 Garnett
17 Dr J
18 Dirk
19 Wade
20 K Malone
21 Curry
22 Durant
23 Pettit
24 Baylor
25 Barkley
limbo
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
And1: 2,680
Joined: Jun 30, 2019

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

Post#163 » by limbo » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:55 pm

celtics543 wrote:So now I ask both of you to ask who from my list you're taking off to put on Chris Paul? You can say he's a top 20 player of all time but I feel like very often on this site guys throw out "top 20 player of all time" without any real thought and all of a sudden there's 50 guys that are "top 20 of all time".


Well, i didn't specifically say i'd put CP3 in my Top 20. I was just addressing how i disagree with your point about how 'if he's one of the best players ever, then he should have won a title/MVP to prove it. MVP's are wildly affected by things like high raw stats, win record (which means guys with bad/mediocre supporting casts are at a disadvantage), narratives and relative competition. For example, Derrick Rose's 2011 season was worse than multiple seasons from Paul, yet, Rose managed to walk away with an MVP because of the things i mentioned above. He had an elite defensive cast that boosted his team record above 60W, he had relatively weak competition that year and he benefited from the anti-LeBron villain agenda...

Same with titles to a certain extent. Did you think Paul wanted to get hurt during the Playoffs intentionally throughout his career? No. I realize he's injury prone, but sometimes the difference was literally holding on for a couple of more weeks... I don't want to dance around hypothetical here, but if fate permitted, and Paul's body could hold on for another two weeks in 2018, he could have been viewed as a champion who defeated arguably the best team of all-time. If you want to criticize his ability to stay healthy, fine, but criticizing his ability to play high level basketball on various teams, with various players and casts would just be wrong at this point. Too much evidence vouching for him.

Also, Chauncey Billups wasn't the best player on the Pistons. He may have have been their best offensive player but Ben Wallace was the best player on that team. Defensive player of the year and was most responsible for slowing down Shaq in the Finals. You could even argue Sheed as most important player on that team. Regardless that Pistons team was an aberration.


Technicalities... The point was that we've witnessed lesser players to Paul being capable of being the best players on championship teams. Yes, it's obviously NOT common... because most of the time, the guys winning championships are the caliber of Jordan, LeBron, Duncan, Shaq, Magic, Bird etc., but even then they need great casts and health to compete... You can switch Billups with Gus Johnson if you want... You think Gus Johnson who won a title in 1979 was a better player than Paul? How about whoever the best player on the 2014 Spurs was... was he better than Paul? Was Isiah Thomas better than Paul? Based on what? Having a better team?

As for not overlapping perfectly with Nash. I guess what I'm saying is that they both played in the modern era and Nash walked away with 2 mvp's while CP3 is walking away without any. I could argue he should've won one in 2008 over Kobe and KG but to say 2005 and 2008 are so far apart that it's ludicrous to compare Nash and Paul is a little hard to understand.
[/quote][/quote]

You are making it seem like Nash was some bum. ''IF NASH COULD WIN 2 MVP's THEN ANYONE CAN.'' First, Nash is one of the greatest offensive players of all-time, secondly he had a supporting cast good enough to win 55 or more games in multiple seasons, while Paul didn't. When Paul played in New Orleans, he had the stats/impact to rival any player in the league but didn't come close to winning the MVP outside of 2008 because his team was ass. Paul had a better season in 2009 than in 2008, but he was 5th in 2009 because his team had a worse record and the competition was tougher (arguably the best seasons from LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dwight) all competing for the MVP...

Check the competition level when Nash was winning MVPs mid 2000's (lots of guys ala KG and Kobe were on weak teams, Shaq was on the decline), and then go look at what Paul had to compete against for the award. Basically his whole career overlapped with LeBron. Then you had peak Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Durant, Russ, Harden, Steph, Kawhi... It doesn't help that CP3's game isn't flashy nor does he put up high volume numbers to get the job done. The fact that Melo got more MVP votes than Paul in 2013 is a disgrace to the league. Not even on the same stratosphere as players, and don't let the team record fool you, the Clippers were a much better team that year, they just played in a harder conference, that's why they only won 2 more games...
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,858
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

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

Post#164 » by Colbinii » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:55 pm

E-Balla wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
GSP wrote:
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.


I have never heard most people share the opinion he was the best PF for years.

2014: Love/Davis but I think Griffin may have finished top 5 this year in PoY voting on RealGM
2015: Davis
2016: 35 Games
2017: Griffin, though Durant played more minutes at PF than SF this season
2018: Anthony Davis
2019: Giannis played most of his minutes at PF, otherwise Griffin

Amare was also best as a Center, not a power forward.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
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#165 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:09 pm

Colbinii wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
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.


I have never heard most people share the opinion he was the best PF for years.

2014: Love/Davis but I think Griffin may have finished top 5 this year in PoY voting on RealGM
2015: Davis
2016: 35 Games
2017: Griffin, though Durant played more minutes at PF than SF this season
2018: Anthony Davis
2019: Giannis played most of his minutes at PF, otherwise Griffin

Amare was also best as a Center, not a power forward.

In 2014 I'm easily taking Griffin over both of those guys and in 2015 I'm easily taking Griffin over Davis. He averaged 24/13/7 against San Antonio including 24/13/10 in a 2 point game 7 win, then he put up 27/13/5 against Houston while scoring 30 ppg on 60 TS% in their 4 losses.

I'm taking him over CP3 both years also. Part of recognizing the issue with Paul is realizing how much better Blake's production was without CP3 next to him. If he was a 26/10/6 guy no one would say he wasn't the best PF in the league but Paul was holding him back from that.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,700
And1: 3,180
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

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

Post#166 » by Owly » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:10 pm

dygaction wrote: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.

TBH it's hard to fairly compare playoffs given differences in competition, specific matchups, differences in roles, degree of gameplanning faced, quality of gameplanning faced etc).

However whilst I support the intent here, I'm not sure that this works. If it doesn't tank the sample size you'd look to see equivalent competition, but the level of competition faced in rounds 1 and 2 are likely to be especially uneven. If you're a 1 seed in a weak conference (think Lakers in the 80s) you will face competition not always better than average RS teams. Especially in a league where a high proportion of teams make the playoffs (e.g 16 of 23 in '84-'88). This would be very different competition to that of a player on a typically lower seed in a tougher conference (not sure but maybe Garnett's Minnesota would roughly fit).

That's before acknowledging that the playoffs duration has varied, so (depending on league size and the ratio thereof - as alluded to previously) the "first round" is a different proposition throughout NBA history (and indeed not all teams always played in the first round).

As such I think this would not be the best way to attempt to neutralize the effects of differing competition.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,858
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

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

Post#167 » by Colbinii » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:16 pm

E-Balla wrote:In 2014 I'm easily taking Griffin over both of those guys


Easily? That's absurd. No reasonable way to easily to Griffin over Love/Davis, especially when your following argument for Griffin involves "Points/Rebounds/Assists".

and in 2015 I'm easily taking Griffin over Davis. He averaged 24/13/7 against San Antonio including 24/13/10 in a 2 point game 7 win, then he put up 27/13/5 against Houston while scoring 30 ppg on 60 TS% in their 4 losses.


Davis put up 32/11 on 61 TS% against the #1 defense in the NBA and 2015.
Lost92Bricks
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 2,487
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

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

Post#168 » by Lost92Bricks » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:23 pm

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

Blake is not really a high impact player. He's not a great scorer and is a below average defender/rebounder. Then on top of that, he is extremely injury prone. He's very talented, but very flawed.
Lost92Bricks
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 2,487
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

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

Post#169 » by Lost92Bricks » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:38 pm

Blake Griffin averaged 21.0 PPG on 54.3 TS% in the playoffs with the Clippers. This with no defense. And he missed 3 of their postseasons with injury.

People are making it seem like he's this great player, no, he showed flashes of it but never sustained it.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
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#170 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:54 pm

Colbinii wrote:
E-Balla wrote:In 2014 I'm easily taking Griffin over both of those guys


Easily? That's absurd. No reasonable way to easily to Griffin over Love/Davis, especially when your following argument for Griffin involves "Points/Rebounds/Assists".

At the time I took Love over Griffin. Thinking back on it they're about even as scorers with Love having more range (I know Love averaged 27 on 59 TS% while Blake averaged 24 on 58 TS% but Blake without Paul that year averaged 28 ppg on 61 TS%) and Griffin having the more consistent scoring game. As passers Love was a great outlet passer and good at passing out of doubles but Blake could run point at times and is clearly superior there. As rebounders Love wins but then we get into defense where Blake wins by a distance. Back then I thought Love could keep up defensively but seeing a way quicker version of Love struggle often in Cleveland I don't believe that anymore.

As far as Davis goes IDK what his argument would even be at this point. He was barely a 20/10 guy and a bad defender. Offensively he was effective, but no team could ever rely on him as a first option.

A thread from 2019 about the 10 best players that year put Blake as the consensus 4th best player after LeBron, KD, and CP3. I understand Westbrook became GOATbrook that postseason for the first time but they should've won in the playoffs if CP3 is THAT guy.

Davis put up 32/11 on 61 TS% against the #1 defense in the NBA and 2015.

The #1 defense has a weakness to bigs since Draymond was guarding him most times. Blake was better offensively by far and Davis was still a bad defender back then.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
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#171 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:56 pm

Lost92Bricks wrote:Blake Griffin averaged 21.0 PPG on 54.3 TS% in the playoffs with the Clippers. This with no defense. And he missed 3 of their postseasons with injury.

People are making it seem like he's this great player, no, he showed flashes of it but never sustained it.

He played better without CP3 which is why his numbers look so bad and by 2016 he honestly wasn't even the same player. That's the main reason I'm focusing on 12-15.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

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

Post#172 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:58 pm

Owly wrote: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.

That's just nature of how it works though. This is about distributions and they are highly irregular in postseason. Sure it has been always like this but there's not any other method that does to create a constant average by iterations. PER does that. This is the issue with PER. You need samples to adjust coeffecients, and players with more games/minutes become the baseline for adjustments.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Lost92Bricks
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 2,487
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

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

Post#173 » by Lost92Bricks » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:00 pm

Blake Griffin's record without Chris Paul: 135-149 (39 win pace)

Blake Griffin' record with Chris Paul: 232-106 (56 win pace)

Blake has been completely irrelevant without Chris aside from jumping over Kia's.
Lost92Bricks
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 2,487
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

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

Post#174 » by Lost92Bricks » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 pm

    E-Balla wrote:He played better without CP3 which is why his numbers look so bad and by 2016 he honestly wasn't even the same player. That's the main reason I'm focusing on 12-15.

    And Westbrook put up better numbers without Durant. Who cares?

    Blake needed Chris to win games. He absolutely should've sacrificed his numbers to a better, more impactful player. Put prime CP3 on the Pistons with Blake the past couple of years and I bet they would win 50+ games and be one of the best teams in the east. I'm sure Blake would take his numbers dipping a little in exchange for winning alot more.
    Colbinii
    RealGM
    Posts: 34,243
    And1: 21,858
    Joined: Feb 13, 2013

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

    Post#175 » by Colbinii » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 pm

    E-Balla wrote:At the time I took Love over Griffin. Thinking back on it they're about even as scorers with Love having more range (I know Love averaged 27 on 59 TS% while Blake averaged 24 on 58 TS% but Blake without Paul that year averaged 28 ppg on 61 TS%) and Griffin having the more consistent scoring game. As passers Love was a great outlet passer and good at passing out of doubles but Blake could run point at times and is clearly superior there. As rebounders Love wins but then we get into defense where Blake wins by a distance. Back then I thought Love could keep up defensively but seeing a way quicker version of Love struggle often in Cleveland I don't believe that anymore.


    Is rebounding not part of basketball anymore?

    Is defensive rebounding no longer part of defense?

    Of course Griffin was superior at running point but i'm not so sure that is more valuable than being a great passer out of the low and high blocks and outlet passes [which result in uncontested layups, the highest percentage shot in the NBA].

    Remember, this was before Griffin cementer himself as a true offensive playmaking hub [while he showed flashes he was inconsistent].

    Again, Love absolutely obliterates Griffin with regards to box-score. 26.9 PER, 14.3 WS, 8.4 BPM to 23.9 PER, 12.2 WS, 4.8 BPM.

    ESPN's RPM has Love ranked 12th and Griffin 15th, with Love's offense being a large gap than the defensive.

    A thread from 2019 about the 10 best players that year put Blake as the consensus 4th best player after LeBron, KD, and CP3.


    Glad to see you agree with this when it pertains to Love but not to Paul.

    I understand Westbrook became GOATbrook that postseason for the first time but they should've won in the playoffs if CP3 is THAT guy.


    Well CP3 was the best player in the series. I'm not really sure what else he was supposed to do.

    Since you like Small Sample sizes, Griffin was -6 in the last 2 games with 20/11.5/5.5 on about 50 TS% while Paul was at +7 with 21/4/12.5 on around 55 TS%.

    The #1 defense has a weakness to bigs since Draymond was guarding him most times. Blake was better offensively by far and Davis was still a bad defender back then.


    Yes the #1 defense had weaknesses but it doesn't take away how great Davis was. He was exploiting one of the best defenders of this generation.

    Davis was not a bad defender by any metric in 2015.
    User avatar
    E-Balla
    RealGM
    Posts: 35,822
    And1: 25,116
    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#176 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:28 pm

    Lost92Bricks wrote:
      E-Balla wrote:He played better without CP3 which is why his numbers look so bad and by 2016 he honestly wasn't even the same player. That's the main reason I'm focusing on 12-15.

      And Westbrook put up better numbers without Durant. Who cares?

      Cool, and I'd say KD isn't top 20 either. :lol:

      Blake needed Chris to win games. He absolutely should've sacrificed his numbers to a better, more impactful player. Put prime CP3 on the Pistons with Blake the past couple of years and I bet they would win 50+ games and be one of the best teams in the east. I'm sure Blake would take his numbers dipping a little in exchange for winning alot more.

      So we're pretending Blake now is the same player as Blake in 2014?
      Lost92Bricks
      Veteran
      Posts: 2,551
      And1: 2,487
      Joined: Jul 16, 2013

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

      Post#177 » by Lost92Bricks » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:36 pm

      E-Balla wrote:Cool, and I'd say KD isn't top 20 either. :lol:

      So we're pretending Blake now is the same player as Blake in 2014?

      He's at a similar level of play. He's a much better shooter now than he was in 2014.
      User avatar
      E-Balla
      RealGM
      Posts: 35,822
      And1: 25,116
      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#178 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:53 pm

      Colbinii wrote:Is rebounding not part of basketball anymore?

      Is defensive rebounding no longer part of defense?

      Of course Griffin was superior at running point but i'm not so sure that is more valuable than being a great passer out of the low and high blocks and outlet passes [which result in uncontested layups, the highest percentage shot in the NBA].

      Remember, this was before Griffin cementer himself as a true offensive playmaking hub [while he showed flashes he was inconsistent].

      It wasn't though. He cemented himself as a passing hub when he was averaging 4.5 apg the second half of his rookie season. He was getting Karl Malone comps out of college.

      And rebounding is a part of basketball and a part of defense but even with his rebounding Blake was way better defensively (let's not forget Blake is a good rebounder himself) and defense is just a bigger part of the game.

      Again, Love absolutely obliterates Griffin with regards to box-score. 26.9 PER, 14.3 WS, 8.4 BPM to 23.9 PER, 12.2 WS, 4.8 BPM.

      ESPN's RPM has Love ranked 12th and Griffin 15th, with Love's offense being a large gap than the defensive.

      As far as the boxscore what about those numbers when CP3 was out? I mean he upped his scoring to 28 a night and his efficiency to a 61 TS%.

      And for RPM I'm not a fan (as you know) and in NPI RAPM Blake was 14th (4.05) while Love was 20th (3.63).

      Glad to see you agree with this when it pertains to Love but not to Paul.

      The argument isn't whether I'm lower on Paul than the consensus, it's whether or not I'm high on Blake. We all know I'm lower on Paul than most, that's the whole reason we started this convo.

      Well CP3 was the best player in the series. I'm not really sure what else he was supposed to do.

      Since you like Small Sample sizes, Griffin was -6 in the last 2 games with 20/11.5/5.5 on about 50 TS% while Paul was at +7 with 21/4/12.5 on around 55 TS%.

      Yeah Blake didn't play too well next to Paul. They had obvious chemistry issues. I remember thinking Doc should've gave Blake the chance to initiate more.

      Yes the #1 defense had weaknesses but it doesn't take away how great Davis was. He was exploiting one of the best defenders of this generation.

      It does when we're discussing who's the better player. Blake could've performed like that against anyone. Davis caught a favorable matchup.

      Davis was not a bad defender by any metric in 2015.[/quote]
      I'll give you that Davis wasn't bad in 2015 (I was thinking more about 2014 when I said that) but I still take Blake by a mile offensively and the defensive gap isn't large at all.
      User avatar
      E-Balla
      RealGM
      Posts: 35,822
      And1: 25,116
      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#179 » by E-Balla » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:56 pm

      Lost92Bricks wrote:
      E-Balla wrote:Cool, and I'd say KD isn't top 20 either. :lol:

      So we're pretending Blake now is the same player as Blake in 2014?

      He's at a similar level of play. He's a much better shooter now than he was in 2014.

      Yeah I'm dropping out here since I don't see any way we'll bridge a gap here if you think Blake past 2016 is the same player as before 2016.
      O_6
      Rookie
      Posts: 1,178
      And1: 1,586
      Joined: Aug 25, 2010

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

      Post#180 » by O_6 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:01 am

      Health is obviously the big thing. I also wonder how valuable his defense truly is. But I want to focus on his offensive play style here.

      He’s been overly conservative in his career. He is a mid range maestro, the dribble dribble dribble FT line jumper of his is a signature play from this era. Just turns bigs into dust on switches and drills the heaviest swishes from 15ft. But he never attacked the rim to a great degree and his assists weren’t in as high leverage areas as some other great primary ball handlers.

      He reminds me of an NFL QB who throws for 28 TD and 6 INTs. Awesome efficiency but if he tried for more high leverage plays, a 36 TD and 10 INT season would arguably/probably imo make him into a scarier player who the defenses have to worry about more.

      Awesome player and in my Top 30 somewhere, but I do think he’s a hair overrated on here although I understand why.

      Return to Player Comparisons