RealGM Top 100 List #43

[ElGee]

Paul v. KJ

Mufasa, everytime I see you break this down I see your appeal to raw stats. To which, as you know, I say "so?" Steph Marbury was a 22-8 58% TS player. It doesn't mean much at the PG to me, especially when comparing guys who are more quarterbacks.

KJ, without a doubt, was more a scorer. I'm not calling him a scoring PG, per se, but he was an excellent finisher. Paul, when healthy (think 08, 09, this year) really probes with the basketball more than anyone outside of Nash or even someone like Isiah (who doesn't make the same decisions Paul does IMO). He's having a greater overall effect on offense because of that IMO, and to boot he's a slightly better defender. I actually see some pretty good ground between these players at their peak - Paul is in the stratosphere of being able to take over a playoff SERIES...and I never got that from Kevin Johnson.

Note that I like KJ, but to answer your question, I think Paul's peak seasons are a full rung up on the ladder next to KJ's peak season. You also keep ignoring 2011 for Paul's longevity...and in 2010 I've seen you say many times he shouldn't have played, but I don't see how you can justify that. I watched 2 of those games and he was practicing basically. Given that he just snapped off the knee brace at the end of this year and turned awesome, I don't see how we can assume he wouldn't be at least GOOD in the PS if NOH qualified in 2010. We've seen that behavior countless times from stars over the years...

[therealbig3]

I just don't see the argument for Paul or Cousy over Kevin Johnson, the guy we just nominated.

Cousy - Is there a single thing KJ isn't better at? Cousy is to KJ as Bob Pettit is to Dirk. Yes - there's some room for 'how good they were for their time'. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to say KJ for his time actually had as much impact as Cousy in his looking at the subaverage shooting %s, bad Celtics ORTGs compared to elite DRTGs, and impact when he left. Just as Dirk in his time's impact matched Pettit in his. What's left then is the fact that KJ and Dirk are CLEARLY the better basketball players than their counterparts. If you look at what they can do on a court, it's not even a question because they're doing a lot of the same things, but are better at it.

Paul - Paul's argument rests on 08 and 09's value where he's the 21-22ppg, 11-12apg .60 TS% player. Just how much better is Paul's 08 and 09 than KJ's 90 and 91? KJ put up 22ppg, 10-11apg, .59-.60 TS% and led both a better offense and better overall team than Paul's. Both were really good in the PS the first year and sucked in a short run in the second. Forget PER because if you believe in Paul's superiority there on it alone based on pace adjustment, you might also believe Paul is better than Magic and prime Billups is better than Nash and Stockton. Paul is the better player in those seasons - He turned it over slightly less, rebounded a bit more, and had big steal numbers. But if you think they're even remotely close those seasons, then you can't take Paul over KJ on the ATL. Because the rest of KJ's career blows Paul's out of the water. You get 3 more 20/10 years (89, 92, 94) and then has injury plagued RS years but is all-star caliber in the PS in 93, 95, 96 (he was horrible in the 97 PS). Paul has two pre prime years and the 2011 season. Non 90/91 KJ vs non 08/09 Paul is a blowout. You have to really think Paul's 22/11 was *that* much better than KJ's to take Paul here. I just think they're too close in regular stats and KJ's ORTG and team results look so good that I can't say Paul is anything but a little better than KJ those years. Preferring the massive PER/WS gap is relying on pace factor in PER, which we know has a really shoddy history with PGs because fast paced PGs should not have their value lowered for it but do (ie Magic, Nash, Stockton vs Billups, Paul)

To be honest, I've been flip flopping with KJ and Paul for a while now. As of right now, I have Paul at 43 and KJ at 44, but I could easily switch them.

ElGee made some great posts about Paul's peak and just how good it was though, which has temporarily convinced me to rank Paul over KJ.

And penbeast0, yeah, I've been looking over English, and I don't really see what the problem is, and why he hasn't been mentioned by more people.

What exactly holds English back at this point?

[therealbig3]

Paul v. KJ

Mufasa, everytime I see you break this down I see your appeal to raw stats. To which, as you know, I say "so?" Steph Marbury was a 22-8 58% TS player. It doesn't mean much at the PG to me, especially when comparing guys who are more quarterbacks.

KJ, without a doubt, was more a scorer. I'm not calling him a scoring PG, per se, but he was an excellent finisher. Paul, when healthy (think 08, 09, this year) really probes with the basketball more than anyone outside of Nash or even someone like Isiah (who doesn't make the same decisions Paul does IMO). He's having a greater overall effect on offense because of that IMO, and to boot he's a slightly better defender. I actually see some pretty good ground between these players at their peak - Paul is in the stratosphere of being able to take over a playoff SERIES...and I never got that from Kevin Johnson.

Note that I like KJ, but to answer your question, I think Paul's peak seasons are a full rung up on the ladder next to KJ's peak season. You also keep ignoring 2011 for Paul's longevity...and in 2010 I've seen you say many times he shouldn't have played, but I don't see how you can justify that. I watched 2 of those games and he was practicing basically. Given that he just snapped off the knee brace at the end of this year and turned awesome, I don't see how we can assume he wouldn't be at least GOOD in the PS if NOH qualified in 2010. We've seen that behavior countless times from stars over the years...

But outside of 08, the Hornets haven't been close to a top 5 offense, and have actually had some poor finishes. You've said before that Paul is like Magic, Oscar, and Nash in the sense that he can lift a mediocre offense into a good one pretty much by himself. But that hasn't really happened with the Hornets.

KJ consistently led top 5-7 offenses year after year.

And saying Paul can take over a series, while KJ couldn't...that's a little subjective imo.

[ElGee]

Paul v. KJ

Mufasa, everytime I see you break this down I see your appeal to raw stats. To which, as you know, I say "so?" Steph Marbury was a 22-8 58% TS player. It doesn't mean much at the PG to me, especially when comparing guys who are more quarterbacks.

KJ, without a doubt, was more a scorer. I'm not calling him a scoring PG, per se, but he was an excellent finisher. Paul, when healthy (think 08, 09, this year) really probes with the basketball more than anyone outside of Nash or even someone like Isiah (who doesn't make the same decisions Paul does IMO). He's having a greater overall effect on offense because of that IMO, and to boot he's a slightly better defender. I actually see some pretty good ground between these players at their peak - Paul is in the stratosphere of being able to take over a playoff SERIES...and I never got that from Kevin Johnson.

Note that I like KJ, but to answer your question, I think Paul's peak seasons are a full rung up on the ladder next to KJ's peak season. You also keep ignoring 2011 for Paul's longevity...and in 2010 I've seen you say many times he shouldn't have played, but I don't see how you can justify that. I watched 2 of those games and he was practicing basically. Given that he just snapped off the knee brace at the end of this year and turned awesome, I don't see how we can assume he wouldn't be at least GOOD in the PS if NOH qualified in 2010. We've seen that behavior countless times from stars over the years...

But outside of 08, the Hornets haven't been close to a top 5 offense, and have actually had some poor finishes. You've said before that Paul is like Magic, Oscar, and Nash in the sense that he can lift a mediocre offense into a good one pretty much by himself. But that hasn't really happened with the Hornets.

KJ consistently led top 5-7 offenses year after year.

And saying Paul can take over a series, while KJ couldn't...that's a little subjective imo.

Um, it's a broad stroke, no doubt. We could get into that...

Here's the thing about "top-5" offenses -- we know KJ had nice offensive players around him. It doesn't have to be all or nothing with offensive lift. Nash played on the best offenses ever, and I give him BIG credit for that...but it's not Nash "making" the offense what it is. It's a combination of Nash and team. Same with Paul and KJ. Consider:

We like to look at ORtg when we see a ball-dominant, QB-style offensive force...When Paul joined the Hornets they had the worst offense in the league. After some slight improvements, they jumped to 5th (111.5, +4.0) in 2008.

We can look at his team's offense with him on the court at 82games:
2007 109.7 +8.7
2008 116.0 +15.4
2009 113.6 +16.4
2010 110.7 +4.1
2011 110.4 +11.6

Even though it's 08 and 09 people associate with, Paul, including his injury-laden 2010 season, has the 4th-highest APM (Dirk, James, Durant) over the last 2 years using the Rosenbaum model. He's 8th in the Engelmann 6-year run.

Henry Abbot likes to point to Paul's teams as a beacon of success in the clutch. If we're buying that, I'm assuming that's a reflection of Paul's consistency/skill that is fairly indefensible regardless of the scenario or opponent. So his PS numbers shouldn't dip.

In the 08 playoffs, New Orleans had a 113.5 ORtg with Paul (+16.7).
In the 11 playoffs, New Orleans had a 106.7 ORtg with Paul (+22.9).

Sure enough, his ORtg, WS/48 and scoring all increase in those postseasons.

[therealbig3]

Good post ElGee.

Although doesn't that bring up the point about how it's easier to lift bad teams than it is to lift good teams?

Like, the Hornets without Paul are a bad offense, and he lifts them a tremendous amount. But if he was put in place of KJ on those late 80's-90's Suns teams, would he have that same monstrous offensive impact, or would it be a lot less dramatic?

[Laimbeer]

But I think it's perfectly reasonable to say KJ for his time actually had as much impact as Cousy in his looking at the subaverage shooting %s, bad Celtics ORTGs compared to elite DRTGs, and impact when he left. Just as Dirk in his time's impact matched Pettit in his.

And KJ's longevity doesn't approach Cousy's, so it seems pretty clearly Cousy.

[ElGee]

re: English. I've liked some of Beast's points about English and am looking much closer at him. Don't think I gave him a fair shake since he didn't hit my radar much during the RPOY so I'll think aloud here for a moment...

He looks relevant from 81-89. Solid longevity at this point in the project for a non-great peak.

He won 2 POMs in 1983...I like that. Another in 1984.

He was 6th in MVP in 83 and 8th in 86.

Complete pace-adjusted stats (per 75) from that stretch:

Code: Select all

Pts   Reb   Ast   Rel TS%
20.5   6.9   3.1   1.5%
22.6   6.1   4.7   5.8%
25.1   6.4   4.2   3.0%
24.6   5.3   4.7   2.7%
25.9   5.3   3.9   1.8%
27.0   4.5   3.6   2.1%
25.8   3.8   4.6   1.1%
24.2   4.6   4.6   -0.3%
24.3   3.7   4.3   -0.6%


And the playoffs from 82 to 89:

Code: Select all

Pts   Reb   Ast   Rel TS%
16.7   6.7   4.9   -3.9%
22.0   5.4   5.1   -0.9%
24.2   6.7   4.7   9.1%
26.1   5.7   3.9   5.8%
24.3   3.1   4.6   -1.6%
24.5   6.2   4.3   0.0%
22.2   4.9   4.0   -5.1%
24.2   4.0   3.4   2.8%


OK, So how to treat these seasons? Where's the peak?

Statistically, 84 and 85 look like candidates. 86 is his RS statistical peak but he falls off a little in the PS. Note, English is not a monster efficiency player but he is low TOV% (good). So I'm definitely looking at 83-86 more closely.

Denver's offenses were 3rd, 2nd, 5th and 12th in that 4-year stretch. He played on good shooting teams but English looks to me, both on paper and by limited eye-test, to be the best player there by a good amount. Going to investigate this more as we've seen good solid impact over the course of history from good scoring, good shooting players like this.

[ElGee]

Good post ElGee.

Although doesn't that bring up the point about how it's easier to lift bad teams than it is to lift good teams?

Like, the Hornets without Paul are a bad offense, and he lifts them a tremendous amount. But if he was put in place of KJ on those late 80's-90's Suns teams, would he have that same monstrous offensive impact, or would it be a lot less dramatic?

Yeah, I mentioned that the first time I posted the numbers actually. But we should note the absolute number Paul is getting those offenses to. 111 is solid...114 is good...116 is getting into pretty elite territory. So when I see it consistently and in different settings and I can see how the guy is doing it with my eyes on the court and it all adds up...I'm giving him big credit. (But no, I don't think the +22.9 short sample from 2011 PS means he is some sort of +23 player.)

[therealbig3]

But I think it's perfectly reasonable to say KJ for his time actually had as much impact as Cousy in his looking at the subaverage shooting %s, bad Celtics ORTGs compared to elite DRTGs, and impact when he left. Just as Dirk in his time's impact matched Pettit in his.

And KJ's longevity doesn't approach Cousy's, so it seems pretty clearly Cousy.

When one guy is pretty clearly the better player when both of them are in their prime, longevity doesn't really matter. Unless you're Bill Walton, and only had like 1.5 prime seasons. But KJ gives you 6 relatively healthy seasons, and never missed a playoff run.

[therealbig3]

I'm not really seeing much of a problem with English actually. His numbers remind me of Paul Pierce, although he scores a little more, rebounds a little worse, and is not quite as efficient. He's got good longevity and great durability. Looks like he had a big impact.

I'm switching my nomination to Alex English.

[ElGee]

I'm confused about something with Bob Cousy. I thought the rules of the project were start in the shot clock season (1955). That gives Cousy 9 seasons in this project, yet I keep people citing his accolades from outside the scope of the project (when they shouldn't really be citing accolades at all this point). For me, I see 3 good years of Bob Cousy in this project and then an all-star level PG for a few more years...not close to him yet.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm confused about something with Bob Cousy. I thought the rules of the project were start in the shot clock season (1955). That gives Cousy 9 seasons in this project, yet I keep people citing his accolades from outside the scope of the project (when they shouldn't really be citing accolades at all this point). For me, I see 3 good years of Bob Cousy in this project and then an all-star level PG for a few more years...not close to him yet.

You misunderstood.

The rules are that we include only guys who proved they were good players in the shot clock era. That's not the same as saying we should disregard their earlier accomplishments.

The examples so far are Pettit in, Mikan out.

[ronnymac2]

As soon as McAdoo gets nominated, I'll throw some support English's way. I controversially voted English over rookie Jordan in the 1985 RPOY thread because I was so impressed by his individual playoff performance. So he's got a legit peak while having outstanding longevity of prime, which allowed him to be the leading scorer of the 1980s.

I'm an English fan, but McAdoo is the priority. It's becoming desperation time for Mac in my opinion.

[ronnymac2]

Although I'm remaining in the CP3 camp, I learned a lot about KJ during this project. He brought it in the playoffs and was better for a longer period of time than I had thought previously.

I've got him over Price and Hardaway, although looking over Tim-Bug's stats last night, I was in wonder at the number of dominant stat lines he had from 1991 to 1997. He was feared in the playoffs as well. After Paul and KJ, the next point guards on my list will likely be Chauncey Bilups and Tim Hardaway.

Another name to consider is Michael Ray Richardson if you're looking for peak.

EDIT: And Nate Archibald!!!

[Dr Positivity]

Well it's pretty easy to show KJ taking over in the playoffs. ie. 37pts with 14 in the 4th quarter to close out the Lakers on the road in G5 in 1990. A week after hitting the game winning shot to close out Utah in SLC, after helping engineer the 4th quarter comeback with his penetrations. Of the PS games BR has, he has games like this

92 -
G2 vs Port - 35pts (9/19) 5 asts
G4 vs Port - 35pts (11/24) 14 asts

94 -

G2 vs GSW - 38pts (15/31), 9 asts

G3 vs Hou - 38pts (12/25) 12 asts
G4 vs Hou - 38 pts (15/31) 12 asts

95:

G4 vs Hou - 43pts (18/24), 9 assists
G7 vs Hou - - 46pts(12/26, 21/22 FTs), 10 assists

(27 PER in 10 Gs in 95 overall)

And those are just the really really big statistical games, he has tons of other really good games where he's dropping 22/9+ on good %s - But I think the above show he's every bit as capable of going off in the playoffs as Paul, and that doesn't include his clearly 3 best seasons (89-91) where he was probably even more likely to have big games

The guy's peak just looks underrated to me, 22/11 with efficiency is an extremely rare zone for players or PGs, he leads 6-7 SRS 55 Ws teams as the best guy which is usually in the superstars only pantheon lounge, the Suns had a lot of talent, but no other true superstars. We know a player who can penetrate relentlessly and create out of it is valuable, he fits well with another high volume scorer on multiple occasions, he has fastbreak value, and he does it in a much less friendly PG ruleset than now.

He doesn't get top 5 MVP votes but the competition in those years is absolutely insane. Here's the MVP rankings those years:

89: Magic, Jordan, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley
90: Magic, Barkley, Jordan, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Hakeem
91: Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Barkley, Malone (bigger dropoff after that than the other years, KJ gets some votes and finishes 7th)
92: Jordan, Drexler, Robinson, Malone, Ewing - Weakest year, but also weakest of the 4 KJ years

In MVP votes you're either in the top 5-6 or you're chewing on scraps. It's basically impossible to make the top 5 these years for either KJ, Stockton or Isiah, and neither of them really show up as perhaps they would've 15 years later. So I think you've got a situation where the league is booming with superstars and at PG Magic, Stockton and Isiah are superstar names - Meanwhile here's KJ putting up big numbers, but having a 25ppg scorer in Chambers there helping, on a franchise that'd been irrelevant for the entire 80s, in a time period where the media caught the big markets far more than anyone else. I don't think it's necessarily true to hold it against him that he never got that 08 Paul, 01 Iverson, 02 Kidd, 11 Rose year where everyone got behind him as the great story of the year and MVP caliber guy. Just wasn't in the cards with the top 5-7 players in the league at that time and maybe more importantly 3 completley legendary PGs in Magic/Isiah/Stockton - then he fell off.

Just looking objectively at the role of PG and what I consider valuable, I put peak KJ ahead of Kidd, Rose, or Iverson, and for that reason I don't put much into the fact that the media gave them 'their year' as superstars and not KJ. I feel like Rose eventually ends up the best of those 4, but in 2011 he had inconsistency the second half of the season and overall efficiency question marks due to lack of FTs that makes me concerned. Kidd I just have way lower on this list than everyone else, I'm still not convinced he's even a net positive offensively in the halfcourt. Iverson is like the wild hot chick version of KJ, he can have his moments where he looks better, but overall I take KJ's skillset closer to a PG, less defensive issues and better intangibles over Ai.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Willis Reed

Nomination: Tentative vote for Bob McAdoo

Definitely feel Lanier and English should get in soon, but McAdoo first

[drza]

Same as last time.

Vote: Willis Reed
Nominate: Dennis Rodman

[TMACFORMVP]

I buy the fact that Paul's two best seasons are greater than anything KJ has ever produced; but I'm seriously not impressed by his other years when compared to a guy like KJ. Paul's rookie season isn't apart of his prime, neither was his second year (missed 18 games, wasn't particularly efficient, team wasn't even that worse w/out him, 8-10). In 2010, he was good, but he missed nearly half the season, and judging from the theme of these rankings; that's counted as a large negative. And in '09, he was arguably outplayed by Chauncey Billups.

Paul: 16.6 / 4.4 / 10.4 on .505 TS%
Billups: 22.6 / 4.0 / 7.4 on .736 TS%

And last season, he was better than his raw stats would indicate, but it's worth noting he struggled for 2-3 months, and there were times during last season where Hornets were slumping, and I was thinking "damn, Paul needs to be more assertive in looking for his offense." They potentially could have got better positioning in the post-season had that happened (though Paul was brilliant in the playoffs, and was playing w/out David West).

So, we're looking at a four year peak, one of them where he missed nearly half a season, the other where he severely underperformed in the playoffs, and another where he wasn't on the same level he was in '08 and '09. I take the point about winshares, but I'm not too sold on that argument to sway me.

Re: KJ's ability to dominate a playoff series, I'd agree with therealbig3 in that it's more a subjective opinion. He's had nearly five seasons worth of post-season play where he's done 20/10 on very good efficiency. Raw stats are not, that's pretty impressive especially considering the Suns weren't usually a team that lost in the first round.

In '90, KJ was ridden with the flu (intestinal virus, bothered him the entire series). He didn't play in G1 (only played 9 minutes); the Suns got blown out. In G2, KJ dropped 22/7 (Stockton had 12/8). He had a 29/12 game in G3, and Stockton was nearly taken out of the game due to being in foul trouble. In the deciding G5 (series, best of 5), the Suns were down double digits with 10 minutes left in the game, went on a big run, and a Malone jumper tied the game with 12 seconds left. The Suns run down the clock, and KJ drills a jumper to win the series (104-103), and advance to the second round -- finishing with 26 points.

...In that second round, in the UPSET beating the Lakers (who had the best record in the NBA that season), KJ finished that series with:

G4: 30 points, 16 assists (11 points in the final 10 minutes)
G5: 37 points, 8 assists on 14/23

Against the Spurs in '92; he did 22.3 PPG and 15.6 APG on 59% TS. Heck, in '93, which wouldn't be considered part of his ultimate peak, he was the x-factor, averaging 21/9 on 53% for the series (leading the Suns to a G1 win, where Barkley went 5-21, and DRob had a 32/10 game with 7 blocks).

The guy has had a 46/10 game on 65% TS in a G7 in the playoffs (and in the same series having a 43/6/9 game on near 80% TS). If Barkley doesn't have a below average offensive game (by his standards), and seven turnovers in that G7, then all of sudden we could be looking at the Suns winning that series, and KJ being recognized as putting up a ridiculous performance to lead the Suns to the WCF (27.8 PPG, 9.4 APG on 66% TS).

This is almost the same story in '94 against the Rockets as well (another series where Barkley played below his normal standards): 26.5 PPG and 9.7 APG, and even rebounded the ball well.

I definitely think he had some dominant playoff runs/series, so I'm not sure how much an argument it would be to me to use that as a large argument in the favor of Paul.

Note: I don't mind Paul going here, but I don't know if playoff dominance or similar longevity are arguments that I'd really use. If one believes his 2-4 peak was THAT much greater, then that should be the argument. But I think KJ has a 5 year peak, with also 2-3 more seasons of solid play (though it's debatable).

BTW, I think it's very interesting however how we go from Miller for his extreme longevity, but inferior peak (to many, many players left to be nominated IMO) to focusing on Paul's peak over some others with greater longevity (not necessarily talking about KJ even, but what about Ray Allen?)

[TMACFORMVP]

Arghh, Mufasa beat me to it.

But anyways, I'm still not sure which big I like the most, but I'll go with:

Vote: Willis Reed
Nominate: Bob McAdoo

Could easily switch both of them (Reed to one of the other big men maybe?) or McAdoo to whichever of English or Allen that has more traction.

[lukekarts]

It's still a crime Willis Reed isn't in there yet; and a guy like Reggie Miller is. Yeah Reggie had a great long career; but I can't fathom why anyone would want a good player who can't lead a team to titles for 15 years, over a great player who despite only being great for a handful of seasons, was capable of winning titles.

Vote: Willis Reed

Nominate: Dennis Rodman, for being arguably the greatest complimentary player of all time.

Is it a crime about 30 players have been voted over Bill Walton even thought they couldn't lead a team to a title as well as him at their peak?

Titles are team accomplishments -- no one single player is responsible and it's dependent on team, so obviously you can help a team win a title less than peak Walton and still win...It's probability -- in a 10 year period, having a guy help you win a title slightly gives you a better overall chance to win a title than one great season. I think you intuitively believe that or else this post would be about Walton, not Reed.

Walton could/should be in the running at this point too; I was using Reed as an example as he's currently nominated. Yeah it's a team game but with only 5 vs 5 a single player can have a huge impact, and that should be recognised. People at the time acknowledged guys like Walton, Reed etc were All 1st Team players. Similar level to Dwight today. For all we know, Dwight might snap a cruciate ligament tomorrow and he'd be done. But we had no qualms including him to this point despite no better career accolades.

Miller never achieved as much as any of these guys but gets in mainly due to longevity. If his career was shorter he wouldn't even get a sniff at this point and that's not right. It's not as if we're talking about one season wonders; we're talking about MVP and Finals MVP level players.

Anyway that's just my 2 cents. I think longevity is being overrated here, and older players getting slightly overlooked. I'm not for one minute suggesting an equally talented guy like Sampson be included tho, as individual achievements have to take precedent.