RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #22

[LA Bird]

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

[euroleague]

Very disappointed that Isiah Thomas, Pippen, Elgin Baylor, Durant and many other stars didn't make it in ahead of Stockton. It seems many voters in this panel value longevity very highly.

My votes aren't changing, as the players are still the same:

#22 Elgin Baylor
Alt: Kevin Durant

Baylor - The first great SF in NBA history, he defined - even through today - the role of a great SF. Nobody has broken from the mold he made, as an elite wing scorer with solid rebounding capability. Centers have changed, PGs have changed, PFs have changed, but not Baylor's mold of SF. In his prime he averaged.... 35/17/5 with a 27 PER (his FG% and TS% numbers weren't as high, due to both extremely high pace and loose/no-calling beliefs from refs on fouls near the basket. A big reason why he wasn't MVP in 1962, and his team ended up not doing so well, is he was called into active military service in the middle of the season. Serving in the army takes it's toll physically and mentally, and not a single player since him has come close to matching this type of commitment to the USA while playing in the NBA Finals the same year.

Durant had a 30 PER, 19 WS year in 2014. 28 PER 19 WS year in 2013. He is a team player, on top of those numbers, with ridiculous shooting efficiency and offensive versatility. KD with role-players, during Westbrooks injury, still put up a great record and was a clear leader in the Western conference. The other players on this list can't carry a team like Durant, in every facet - from playmaking, to scoring, to defense.

I won't repeat arguments I've made already, but it seems crazy to me to put players such as Chris Paul or Dwayne Wade (both of whom had good regular seasons) over Elgin Baylor. Baylor's best season may have been cut short by military service, but he set a long-standing Finals record of 63 points, and set scoring records for the NBA throughout his peak. He was the star player who revived the Lakers, and is getting seriously under-rated here.

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

Seems like Nash really crushes this list.

[penbeast0]

...

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

Seems like Nash really crushes this list.

Really? You prefer Nash's extra 4.5 assists over Paul's extra 10 points or Curry's extra 14 points?

[therealbig3]

Really not buying Durant over Ewing, Nash, Paul, Curry, or Wade tbh. I think they all peaked higher with similar longevity, and in Ewing's case, better longevity.

[Dr Spaceman]

g

At this moment I'm leaning toward Paul highest if these 4. I don't really buy that his teams have regularly underachieved. His teams have been excellent but have faced incredibly tough competition and in LA literally everyone around him has been a freaking knucklehead. I do think Paul is a prick that people don't enjoy playing around, and that hurts him some, but the question is how much. Oscar is already in and he was basically the exact same type of prick.

While I think Paul has a definite case here, is his health not a concern? Since 2008, he has averaged 13 missed games per season, and his injuries often derail an otherwise promising playoff run (2013- bruises thumb against Grizzlies, although Griffin´s injury ended up being more substantial, 2015-pulls hamstring causing him to sit games and ultimately lose to Houston, 2016- breaks hand agains Portland). I mean it's almost Russian Roulette for him.

[oldschooled]

Guard wars. Wade, Steph, CP3, Nash.

I'm gonna go with the transcendent Curry. 2016 was just EPIC. Never seen a player both entertaining and dominant since Jordan and Shaq. Steph's meteoric rise just revolutionized the game and i don't know if its bad or good. Bad because teams don't have the caliber of Steph and Klay and they still follow the Warriors blueprint. Steph's career value even with just 8 yrs is valuable than most of the guys mentioned imo. Only guy with multiple MVPs and championships left (I don't want to get into Mikan discussion cause i really have no idea re him). Unanimous MVP. Highest OBPM all time. Steph anchors the offense like no other.

This feels like just yesterday. And this is where the NBA was just like "fck it give him the unanimous MVP"

Watch on YouTube

Vote: Stephen Curry
Alt: Wade, Pettit, Nash

[janmagn]

Vote: George Mikan
2nd vote: Dwyane Wade


George Mikan was a player who showed what it was like to be a real superstar. Without him, there is no Kareem or Hakeem or Ewing.


Now, at first look, he looks like he was a very inefficent post player, having a career peak of .428FG% and .509TS%. However, league average for FG% was .357% and for TS% .428%. His TS% was almost 10% higher than league average! He was ultimately efficent scorer for his era.

Mikan led the league in scoring three times and in rebounding twice. His career FT% .782% made him an elite foul shooter. He led the league in PER and WS three times, OWS twice and DWS five times, suggesting that he was a good to great defensive player.

In the playoffs, he stepped up his game. Not necesseraly scoring more, but scoring more efficently. His Playoff peak TS% of .543% is decent even for todays stantards. In his era, it was out of this world.

He really was one of the ultimate champions. In the NBL, in his two seasons he won two championships. And in the BAA/NBA, he played in six full seasons, winning five times.

Mikan suffered from many injuries, but also from rule changes. The lane was widened because of his dominance. Goaltending was an added violation, because of his dominance. The shot clock, that he can't see our game played without nowadays, was created because of his dominance.

[euroleague]

...

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

Seems like Nash really crushes this list.

Really? You prefer Nash's extra 4.5 assists over Paul's extra 10 points or Curry's extra 14 points?

Yes. There's no one else over 6 assists. In terms of points created, 4.5 assists is between 9-13.5 points. Considering he is shooting at a 63% TS rate, and doesn't typically pass to players with a less efficient shot oppurtunity, that would mean he's seemingly creating more points on a higher efficiency than any other player on this list despite having no athleticism to speak of.

[eminence]

...




Seems like Nash really crushes this list.

Really? You prefer Nash's extra 4.5 assists over Paul's extra 10 points or Curry's extra 14 points?

Yes. There's no one else over 6 assists. In terms of points created, 4.5 assists is between 9-13.5 points. Considering he is shooting at a 63% TS rate, and doesn't typically pass to players with a less efficient shot oppurtunity, that would mean he's seemingly creating more points on a higher efficiency than any other player on this list despite having no athleticism to speak of.

That's not really an accurate way to judge assists. Nash certainly looks solid by those measurements, but I wouldn't say he crushes the list by any means.

[JoeMalburg]

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

How then do you explain the constant losing series in which his team had the lead and his complete absence of a big time fourth quarter in any of their most important games?

[drza]

I was surprised to see Stockton go in last thread, but I didn't get to participate in that one so I wasn't part of the conversation. I'm trying to work my way back in, now. As a transition, here's a post I made for the previous project that fits well, here (although I may have to go through and erase Stockton, as he was in the post...actually, I won't delete him. For posterity sake, since I wasn't in the last thread, I think it's worth it to have some of my thoughts/numbers on him in this project):

Alright. Time to do my basic building-block background for comparing the next wave of players. I can't say that this list is exhaustive or that I'll definitely be voting for all of these players before anyone else, but at least these are a bunch of the names that I'm thinking about and have started seeing others mention. As before, this is a box-score only basic category comp in per-100 possessions (where available) to do some basic pace adjustments. For the early players (Mikan, Pettit, Baylor, Hondo and Frazier) it's their actual stats so if their pace was faster than 100 poss/game then they may still have an advantage. Then, a few thoughts afterwards.

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions (Isiah and after)
George Mikan 1949 - 1954: 24.3 pts (48.4% TS), 14.1 reb, 3.0 ast (TO not kept)
Bob Pettit 1956 - 1965: 27 pts (51.3% TS), 16.5 reb, 3.0 ast (TO not kept)
Elgin Baylor 1959 - 1968: 28.1 pts (49.1% TS), 14.2 reb, 4.2 ast (TO not kept)
John Havlicek 1966 - 1975: 22.9 pts (49.8% TS), 7.1 reb, 5.6 ast (TO not kept)
Walt Frazier 1969 - 1978: 20.1 pts (54.5% TS), 6.1 reb, 6.4 ast (2.2 TO, partial)
Isiah Thomas 1983 - 1992: 26.1 pts (52.3% TS), 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast (4.9 TO)
Pat Ewing 1988 - 1997: 33 pts (56.3% TS), 14.6 reb, 3.0 ast (4.5 TO)
John Stockton 1988 - 1997: 21.8 pts (61.9% TS), 4.1 reb, 17.9 ast (4.7 TO)
Scottie Pippen 1990 - 1999: 26.2 pts (54.4% TS), 9.8 reb, 8.0 ast (4.1 TO)
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (50.8% TS), 9.6 reb, 12.9 ast (4.4 TO)
Steve Nash 2002 - 2011: 24.9 pts (61.3% TS), 4.9 reb, 14.9 ast (4.8 TO)
Dwyane Wade 2005 - 2014: 36.1 pts (57.1% TS), 7.4 reb, 8.8 ast (5.0 TO)

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions (Isiah and after)
George Mikan 1949 - 1954: 24.5 pts (49.4% TS), 14.2 reb, 2.2 ast (TO not kept)
Bob Pettit 1956 - 1965: 25.5 pts (50.1% TS), 14.8 reb, 2.7 ast (TO not kept)
Elgin Baylor 1959 - 1968: 30.7 pts (50.3% TS), 14.1 reb, 3.9 ast (TO not kept)
John Havlicek 1966 - 1975: 25.3 pts (51.7% TS), 7.8 reb, 5.5 ast (TO not kept)
Walt Frazier 1969 - 1975: 21.2 pts ( 55.9% TS), 7.2 reb, 6.4 ast (TO not kept)
Isiah Thomas 1984 - 1992: 27.6 pts (52% TS), 6.4 reb, 12.1 ast (4.5 TO)
Pat Ewing 1988 - 1997: 30.6 pts (52.8% TS), 14.8 reb, 3.3 ast (3.8 TO)
John Stockton 1988 - 1997: 21.4 pts (57.4% TS), 4.8 reb, 16.2 ast (4.5 TO)
Scottie Pippen 1990 - 1999: 25.9 pts (52.3% TS), 10.7 reb, 7.4 ast (4.1 TO)
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO)
Steve Nash 2002 - 2010: 25.5 pts (58.9% TS), 5.1 reb, 13.3 ast (4.7 TO)
Dwyane Wade 2005 - 2014: 32.8 pts (55.6% TS), 7.5 reb, 7.0 ast (4.8 TO)

Quick observations

*One, these notes will be primarily from box score evaluation. Thus, they will be more superficial than actual voting-level analysis. This is still just getting some initial thoughts together

*This is one DIVERSE, eclectic group of players and it's crazy to try to rank them all against each other. But that's the project we set out to do, so...so be it.

*There are some obvious places to split to group for comparison sake. Everyone that played in the 50s is one group; there's a bunch of point guards; then there's three great wings, then one lone modern center that kind of stands alone here

*50s players. All three of Mikan, Pettit and Baylor have similar statistical envelopes. All three were scoring/rebounding machines with low efficiency by today's standards. In the regular season Baylor had slightly the highest scoring volume while Pettit had the slightly highest scoring efficiency and rebound totals.

Mikan...I don't know what to do with him. He's the only player I couldn't come close to 10 years of NBA prime, so he's only got 5 years here. And while his box score stats are the least impressive, he was the best defender with respect to his time and his team enjoyed by far the most success as the first dynasty so...yeah. No idea what to do with him.

The interesting thing to note for me is what happens in the playoffs with Pettit vs Baylor. In the regular season Pettit's numbers looked better, but in the playoffs Pettit's scoring volume, rebounding and scoring efficiency all dropped while Baylor's scoring volume and efficiency went up. The end result is that in the playoffs, Baylor looks like the significantly better player according to the boxes...clearly higher scoring volume on equivalent efficiency with equivalent rebounding (but from the SF slot instead of PF, so possible position advantage) and even an extra assist. So if I'm just looking at the boxes, I might give Pettit the regular season nod but Baylor looks better overall due to his stronger postseasons.

*The point guards. This is by-far the richest area of comparison to me in this group of players. Clyde, Zeke, Stockton, Kidd and Nash are five of the best point guards in history, span almost 50 years, and play the game entirely different ways. Clyde's numbers look more like the wings under consideration than the other 4 PGs, with FAR fewer assists and actually the lowest scoring rate (obvious caveat to the per-100 estimates for the modern players), but of course he's known as one of the best defensive guards in NBA history.

Zeke is the biggest scorer among the point guards, but he still has huge assist totals marking him as the highest usage player. His scoring efficiency wasn't that great, but he does increase his scoring volume on similar efficiency in the playoffs, and his assist/TO ratio is also higher in the postseason which jives with his rep as a playoffs warrior.

Kidd is probably the closest to Clyde on the defensive front, and his rebounding rate is pretty astounding as his per-100 numbers would round to a triple-double over a decade in both the regular and postseason. His scoring efficiency is trash, but his volume isn't that high so when we get into him that'll obviously play a big part in how he ranks out here.

Stockton and Nash seem to be tied together, as stylistically they are by far the most similar. They're 1-2 in both assists and scoring efficiency among the point guards. Stockton a bit higher assist volume, Nash the higher scoring volume. And Nash both increases his scoring volume and maintains his scoring efficiency a bit better than Stockton in the postseason. But of course Stockton was a much better defender.

*The wings: It's hard to compare Hondo with Pippen and Wade because of the era difference. All three had a well-rounded approach mixing scoring, rebounding and distributing. But frankly, Pippen's and Wade's per-100 numbers are significantly higher than Hondo's raw numbers. Again the pacing caveat, but I was pretty surprised to see Pippen's scoring rate look so much higher. And Hondo isn't helped as his scoring efficiency, like many other older-school players, is very low (of course, by now Oscar and West had shown that perimeter players could post much higher efficiencies and his peer Frazier had better scoring efficiency as well so that doesn't work in Hondo's favor). But Hondo was a strong defender by reputation, so that works for him.

Pippen looks exactly like the jack-of-all-trades that he was, coming closes to Kidd as far as near-triple-doubles go over his decade. His scoring efficiency was nothing to write home about, but of course he had big offensive presence with his point-forward skills. And also, Pippen has the rep as arguably the best defensive small forward in history that will be a huge part of his discussion.

Wade's scoring level is basically unfair compared to everyone discussed so far. His volume is about 10 pts/100 possession higher than everyone we've mentioned, and his scoring efficiency is good as well. While his assist-to-TO ratio is nothing to write home about for a point guard, for a wing it shows that he was creating quite a bit of offense for his team. And he was a plus defender for a guard as well. The big knock on Wade in this company, obviously, is his durability and how that affects his longevity.

*The only modern center. I suppose I could have tried to compare Ewing with Mikan as the only centers here, but again, every time I try to do something with Mikan my head starts hurting so I figured it was easier to group him with his (almost) peers. Which leaves Ewing alone. The biggest thing with him will be trying to figure out what his offensive impact really is. His scoring volume is very high, with only Wade above his. His regular season scoring efficiency was good, but his postseason efficiency makes it more questionable just how much help his high volume scoring really was. And his assist-to-TO ratio, especially in the regular season, is almost Moses Malonian which doesn't speak well to his ability to scale into an offensive anchor in a good offense. On the flip side, Ewing is an all history defensive player which is where he'll ultimately end up making his mark/ranking here.

[trex_8063]

...




Seems like Nash really crushes this list.

Really? You prefer Nash's extra 4.5 assists over Paul's extra 10 points or Curry's extra 14 points?

Yes. There's no one else over 6 assists. In terms of points created, 4.5 assists is between 9-13.5 points. Considering he is shooting at a 63% TS rate, and doesn't typically pass to players with a less efficient shot oppurtunity, that would mean he's seemingly creating more points on a higher efficiency than any other player on this list despite having no athleticism to speak of.

To be precise he's +4.6 ast, so that's 9.2-13.8; but realistically (playing the averages on Nash-led teams), it's probably going to be worth about 10.2 extra points (~22% being 3pters); might be marginally more of a gap vs Paul because Paul's teams haven't tended to be quite as prolific from behind the 3pt arch. So let's say maybe more like +10.5 or so.
But Paul was scoring +10.3 pts (on +0.1% TS, too), so he's pretty much eliminated that gap. Paul too has more of a pass-first mentality, so presumably it's relatively high% opportunities he's passing off on. And he's +1.4 reb.
And where turnovers are concerned it's possible he's got a small edge; Nash's career rs modified TOV% (TO / [TO + TSA + (2 * Ast) + (0.04 * Reb)]) is 8.99%, his career in the playoffs is 8.91%.
Paul's career rs mod TOV% is 6.30%, 6.82% in the playoffs.

We're talking about smaller samples sizes here, though, and JoeMalburg did present some stuff that indicates Paul's turnover rate might be higher in this sample. But still; if we assume they're basically even, I would say Paul has the tiny statistical edge based on the above.
And that's before we consider defense (which, obviously: Paul >> Nash).

I would tend to agree with penbeast0 and LABird, in that Paul appears to be the brightest stand-out based on individual performance.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Chris Paul is a great basketball player, appearing to be whatever the basketball equivalent of a "5 tool player" is.

And yet. the thing is...I simply do not believe in my heart that Chris Paul is a greater and more important basketball player than Dwayne Wade. I don't believe he was a greater and more important basketball player than Patrick Ewing. Especially when you take into account big games, winning, epic moments, I don't in my heart think he was > Scottie Pippen. I can't see him ever having an iconic moment. Is he going to be fondly tagged and remembered 50 years later like a Petit (kind of recently rediscovered actually) or Baylor or Havlicek? Be a name handed down? I'm not the biggest Nash belieber, never have been, but for the second half of his career Nash was IMPORTANT. To numbnuts without any NBA history to them, he practically defined the PG position. Has CP3 ever really been important?

There's just a greatness disconnect there for me. That's even before we get to the modern guys like Durant and Curry who again spiked much higher. But, the argument will go -- including my own argument for him btw -- look at the numbers! And I have. And hence the 5 tool comment. Was a big fan in his youth, but its like he got too smart for his own good. Always seemed so talented and yet...so empty. All the impact numbers in the world, and yet something is missing. And if I tried to get a hold of the reasons why I truly do think that CP3 might just be a guy gaming the system in some ways.

I am rather notorious for not tremendously valuing "efficiency" in and of itself. It depends on how it was accumulated. LeBron is wildly all-time efficient for me. It's all legit, all worth respecting. He forces himself on the opposition and is still efficient doing it. When Barkley roamed the land, his hyper-efficiency was absolutely in your face, come stop thi sif you can. It was awesome, and that kind of efficiency I completely respect. Shaq too obviously, held back by only his FT shooting. Even with in between cases like Curry, who puts up tremendous efficiency numbers but essentially to me his shooting approach looks like that of a crappy chucker. He plays a version of basketball that you should instantly bench a young player for playing. But the fact is he HITS those lousy shot selection shots, and it makes him forceful. Makes him scary. And so I shake my head at his efficiency because he does it all wrong, but nonetheless, its forceful. He attacks in his own way. I can see why he matters. You can feel his impact.

But CP3 to me feels kind of like a guy like A.D. does. He feels to me like a guy taking the easy way out. Who has looked at the formulas, does all the efficient things, but doesn't force his will on the game. A word I might use for the missing x-factor is "impose". Efficiency without imposition...it feels like guys are protecting their efficiency by doing less than they could. And so they don't feel as scary as less efficient guys who grunt and sweat and attack and dominate, even if it means having some lousy shooting nights along the way. There's an art to only taking the easy shots, to never making the risky pass. It should in most ways be a laudable thing. But with some guys, CP3 being a major example, it leaves the numbers feeling like they lack substance. Like the guy will take all the easy and efficient stuff, but he won't take you further. Won't take the risk. Won't impose his will the way he could. And CP3, great talent, great looking advanced stats...and yet it feels like we're talking about a guy as a Top 25 player of all time who basically has just settled for being 18-10 year after year after year, maybe winning one playoff series, and then going home. That doesn't feel like a path to truth greatness or legendary status.

[Joao Saraiva]

After taking a look at Mikan's career and including him on my formula I still have 4 players I'm going to vote ahead of him.

CP3, Scottie Pippen, Kevin Durant and D. Wade.

From all those Kevin Durant has the lead but I'm going to vote for Wade.

1st vote - D. Wade

Great slasher, very good scorer in many years and great peak and prime. Wade also has one of the most impressive playoff runs ever in 2006, when he had arguably the best finals series ever.

Dude was definitely a great 1st option, and even if he never won the MVP award I can't blame him for it. In the years he was a big candidate his prime colides with some of LeBron's, Kobe's and Dirk's best years. Dwight also deserves a mention here.

Wade proved himself in the almost every possible scenario:
#1 option on a very good team;
#1 option with a bad cast... and yes he delivered;
#2 for LeBron with the Heat and he came up big yet again.

His longevity isn't superb but it is decent enough to earn this spot. Feel confident with Wade here.
His longevity puts him ahead of Mikan. The gap is absolutely brutal.
His playoff success is maybe the key to overcome CP3 (even tough they're really close)
The way he lead his teams as a #1 option for is more impressive than the way Kevin Durant did it.

I think Wade will take a fall if we do this again in 3 years, since I expect Kevin Durant and CP3 to pass him by then. But not yet.

2nd vote - Kevin Durant (ready to surpass Wade in the next year or two, but I can only count what he did so far).

[Lou Fan]

I voted for Wade last time so I'm going to keep my reasoning short. His peak was awesome in 06 and 09. He's a GOAT level slasher who was great on defense in his prime (3 all nba defense). He's also an underated passer imo with a really solid high 30s assist percentage in his prime. His longevity is underrated even though it is pretty poor compared to other guys here. His 2015-16 campaign made him an all star and he carried the heat to a place where they were only 1 game away from the conference finals. His ATG peak is what puts him over the top of the main contenders here. He's also proven to be an awesome playoff performer including one of the GOAT Finals performances 2006.
1st Vote: Dwayne Wade
Alt: Steph Curry (By far most dominant and transcendent player left)

[Joao Saraiva]

Chris Paul is a great basketball player, appearing to be whatever the basketball equivalent of a "5 tool player" is.

And yet. the thing is...I simply do not believe in my heart that Chris Paul is a greater and more important basketball player than Dwayne Wade. I don't believe he was a greater and more important basketball player than Patrick Ewing. Especially when you take into account big games, winning, epic moments, I don't in my heart think he was > Scottie Pippen. I can't see him ever having an iconic moment. Is he going to be fondly tagged and remembered 50 years later like a Petit (kind of recently rediscovered actually) or Baylor or Havlicek? Be a name handed down? I'm not the biggest Nash belieber, never have been, but for the second half of his career Nash was IMPORTANT. To numbnuts without any NBA history to them, he practically defined the PG position. Has CP3 ever really been important?

There's just a greatness disconnect there for me. That's even before we get to the modern guys like Durant and Curry who again spiked much higher. But, the argument will go -- including my own argument for him btw -- look at the numbers! And I have. And hence the 5 tool comment. Was a big fan in his youth, but its like he got too smart for his own good. Always seemed so talented and yet...so empty. All the impact numbers in the world, and yet something is missing. And if I tried to get a hold of the reasons why I truly do think that CP3 might just be a guy gaming the system in some ways.

I am rather notorious for not tremendously valuing "efficiency" in and of itself. It depends on how it was accumulated. LeBron is wildly all-time efficient for me. It's all legit, all worth respecting. He forces himself on the opposition and is still efficient doing it. When Barkley roamed the land, his hyper-efficiency was absolutely in your face, come stop thi sif you can. It was awesome, and that kind of efficiency I completely respect. Shaq too obviously, held back by only his FT shooting. Even with in between cases like Curry, who puts up tremendous efficiency numbers but essentially to me his shooting approach looks like that of a crappy chucker. He plays a version of basketball that you should instantly bench a young player for playing. But the fact is he HITS those lousy shot selection shots, and it makes him forceful. Makes him scary. And so I shake my head at his efficiency because he does it all wrong, but nonetheless, its forceful. He attacks in his own way. I can see why he matters. You can feel his impact.

But CP3 to me feels kind of like a guy like A.D. does. He feels to me like a guy taking the easy way out. Who has looked at the formulas, does all the efficient things, but doesn't force his will on the game. A word I might use for the missing x-factor is "impose". Efficiency without imposition...it feels like guys are protecting their efficiency by doing less than they could. And so they don't feel as scary as less efficient guys who grunt and sweat and attack and dominate, even if it means having some lousy shooting nights along the way. There's an art to only taking the easy shots, to never making the risky pass. It should in most ways be a laudable thing. But with some guys, CP3 being a major example, it leaves the numbers feeling like they lack substance. Like the guy will take all the easy and efficient stuff, but he won't take you further. Won't take the risk. Won't impose his will the way he could. And CP3, great talent, great looking advanced stats...and yet it feels like we're talking about a guy as a Top 25 player of all time who basically has just settled for being 18-10 year after year after year, maybe winning one playoff series, and then going home. That doesn't feel like a path to truth greatness or legendary status.

While I think your post has some truth in it how about...

CP3's game 7 vs Spurs in 2015? 27 points on 91.5ts% along with coming up big at the most important times of the series?

How about CP3's 08 win vs Dallas? He played really well in those series. And even against SAS he played really well.

How about his games against the Lakers in 11 for example?

I think you get the point.

I don't think CP3 actually has failed a lot in the playoffs (sure some bad series, but all guys have it in here). I actually see him as a good playoff performer, and he definitely has imposed his will even against stronger teams... sometimes it didn't result in winning the series, but that doesn't mean he didn't what you said exacly. Maybe he lacks some more moments like that because he never passed the 2nd round, so he hasn't had as many series as an all time great should have to prove himself. Thinking about that ratio might be important too.

Sometimes he played bad, sometimes his team just got injuries or he got injured. I don't think he has been that "lucky" after all... even tough luck is a difficult element to evaluate.

[JoeMalburg]

To try and give a more consistent sampling of data, I totaled up every fourth quarter in a close-out or elimination game during Paul's playoff career.

Some findings

In total there were 19 games
Paul's teams have a 6-13 in these games
He averaged 5.6 points, 1.8 assists and 1.1 turnover per quarter
He shot .458 from the field (38-83)
He shot .333 from three (8-24)
He shot .885 from the line (23-26)
Twice he scored 10 or more points, 14 was his highest total in a loss to OKC in G6 of the 2014 WCSF
Once he totaled more than 3 assists, 7 vs. Houston in G7 of the 2015 WCSF, a Clipper loss
6 times he scored 3 or fewer points, his team is 1-5 in those games
8 times he had as many or more turnovers than assists, his team is 2-6 in those games
He never made multiple three-pointers in any of the 19 fourth quarters
Paul's teams have a .500 record (3-3) in game sevens, but are 2-7 in game six.

The biggest thing is the complete lack of dominant quarters. In his best two performances, his team lost. In their biggest wins he was mostly average:

2 pts 0 ast 2 to in game seven win vs Memphis 2012
7 pts 3 ast 1 to in game seven win vs GS 2014
9 pts 0 ast 0 to in game seven win vs. SA


Not exactly what you'd expect from the best PG ever by the numbers.

Really curious what folks posting Paul's impressive overall playoff numbers make of this.

[dhsilv2]

I simply don't value longevity that much, especially their longevity does nothing to add legacy to that player.

97 and 98 were stockton's only two trips to the finals. 22.7 and 20.0 PERs along wtih .201 and .179 WS/48 were his advanced numbers in the playoffs both years. Both years he had similar regular season numbers, 98 being the only year in his career he was actually out of any extended time, but otherwise he was on pace for another 13+ WS season like 17. That was year 34 and 35 for his career. I'd say those two finals trips were a huge part of his legacy, i know people downplay losing in the finals, but I think he and Malone would have very different legacies if they never made the finals together. Making it back to back is all the better for their legacies.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Stephen Curry
Alt: Wade, Pettit, Nash

Try to settle on one alternate in the next 24 hours (and give me a heads up if/when you decide). I have a feeling it's going to matter.

[pandrade83]

To try and give a more consistent sampling of data, I totaled up every fourth quarter in a close-out or elimination game during Paul's playoff career.

Some findings

In total there were 19 games
Paul's teams have a 6-13 in these games
He averaged 5.6 points, 1.8 assists and 1.1 turnover per quarter
He shot .458 from the field (38-83)
He shot .333 from three (8-24)
He shot .885 from the line (23-26)
Twice he scored 10 or more points, 14 was his highest total in a loss to OKC in G6 of the 2014 WCSF
Once he totaled more than 3 assists, 7 vs. Houston in G7 of the 2015 WCSF, a Clipper loss
6 times he scored 3 or fewer points, his team is 1-5 in those games
8 times he had as many or more turnovers than assists, his team is 2-6 in those games
He never made multiple three-pointers in any of the 19 fourth quarters
Paul's teams have a .500 record (3-3) in game sevens, but are 2-7 in game six.

The biggest thing is the complete lack of dominant quarters. In his best two performances, his team lost. In their biggest wins he was mostly average:

2 pts 0 ast 2 to in game seven win vs Memphis 2012
7 pts 3 ast 1 to in game seven win vs GS 2014
9 pts 0 ast 0 to in game seven win vs. SA


Not exactly what you'd expect from the best PG ever by the numbers.

Really curious what folks posting Paul's impressive overall playoff numbers make of this.

So extrapolating the results to a full game, that's:

22.4 PPG, 7.2 apg, 4.4 TO pg; 56.3% TS

For closeout/eliminations those aren't too far off from his grand totals:
20.5/9.4/2.6; 55.9% TS

The one thing I will say about Paul when it comes to playoff performances:

He was generally efficient. I've documented this in a couple places, so I won't re-hash it. But, he had a low ceiling.

In preparation for the PG wars to come, I've started tracking other players' performance in closeouts. Using a barometer of:

(PTS * TS) + Reb + Ast + Stl + Blk - TO

Paul's best was 2015 - Game 6 vs. Houston.

-Stockton had 2 games better than Paul's best (88 Game 7 vs. La, 89 Game 3 vs. the Dubs)
-Isiah had a game better than Paul's best, (88 Game 7 vs. LA)
-Nash had 2 games better than Paul's best ('05 Game 6 vs. Dallas, '06 Game 6 vs. LAL)
-GP had 3 games better than Paul's best ('97 Game 4 vs. Phx, '00 Game 4 vs. Jazz, '02 Game 4 vs. Spurs) - he's also highly underrated in my opinion - more on that to come.

I'm also going to be looking @ Kidd & Frazier

On the flip-side, I have Paul's worst games as a tie between '17 Gm 7 vs. Jazz & 2014 Game 6 vs. the Dubs. All the guys I mentioned have at least 1 game worse than that - Stockton has 2 & Nash has 7

Paul's not going to morph into super-man in these situations. That's just now who he is. He's also not going to take a dump in the bed - and some of Nash's closeout games are downright putrid.

He's going to give you 21/9 on solid shooting and give you solid D. Over and over and over. If that bothers you, that's your choice & I can respect that.

In short - Paul's closeout/elimination game performances are very solid overall - they have less variance than other great PG's - and that's for better AND worse.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation with you!