Better player in 2015: Chris Paul vs Harden

[liamliam1234]

And Paul scored upwards of 20 points per game playing with Blake Griffin. It is really not a consideration, regardless of pace. Stockton flirted with being a weak second option early in his career, and that was about it. He never evidenced any ability or willingness to score at volume, and his profile was pretty consistently one of a third or fourth scoring option. It is one of his most meaningful flaws as a player, and equating that to Chris Paul’s status as a reliable second scorer / less than ideal primary scorer requires a gross mis-assessment of both their talents.

[og15]

Total nonsense to compare Chris Paul to Stockton as a scorer. Paul’s worst scoring years are equivalent to Stockton’s absolute best, and their scoring disparity was even larger in the playoffs (with Paul literally scoring fifty percent more per game).

Pace, better defensive era, playing with Karl Malone is something you need to consider here.

Those things don't make up the difference though, not at all really, they aren't even accurate for some. Playing with Karl Malone didn't limit his scoring, there were even seasons where the Jazz needed more secondary scoring and he didn't score more. The Clippers had Blake Griffin, and Paul was still scoring much more in fewer minutes next to Harden despite Paul being on his downward trend.

Stockton's highest scoring seasons were in the late 80's / early 90's, pace was not slow, this wasn't late 90's / early 2000's, definitely wasn't the defensive era.

90-91 he averaged 17.2 ppg in 37.8 mpg. Jazz were 20th in pace at 95.3, league average Drtg was 107.9. Paul's highest scoring season, 08-09 he averaged 22.8 ppg in 38.5 mpg, the Hornets were 28th in pace at 87.8, league average Drtg was 108.3.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Total nonsense to compare Chris Paul to Stockton as a scorer. Paul’s worst scoring years are equivalent to Stockton’s absolute best, and their scoring disparity was even larger in the playoffs (with Paul literally scoring fifty percent more per game).

Pace, better defensive era, playing with Karl Malone is something you need to consider here.

Those things don't make up the difference though, not at all really, they aren't even accurate for some. Playing with Karl Malone didn't limit his scoring, there were even seasons where the Jazz needed more secondary scoring and he didn't score more. The Clippers had Blake Griffin, and Paul was still scoring much more in fewer minutes next to Harden despite Paul being on his downward trend.

Stockton's highest scoring seasons were in the late 80's / early 90's, pace was not slow, this wasn't late 90's / early 2000's, definitely wasn't the defensive era.

90-91 he averaged 17.2 ppg in 37.8 mpg. Jazz were 20th in pace at 95.3, league average Drtg was 107.9. Paul's highest scoring season, 08-09 he averaged 22.8 ppg in 38.5 mpg, the Hornets were 28th in pace at 87.8, league average Drtg was 108.3.

Paul is the same as Stockton as a scorer in the same way they were both never 1st options. It was always Malone or West/Griffin/Harden. You don't win playoff series when Chris Paul is your best scorer. Paul has only won 1 playoff series in his career when he was leading his team in field goal attempts.

[liamliam1234]

And Stockton never came close to leading for even one series win. The fact Paul happened to spend most of his career next to better scorers is not itself proof of his inability to function as a first option. How many series did Pippen win as a first option? Whoops, guess Pippen cannot lead teams at all! The difference is that Stockton never indicated he possibly could, whereas Paul did. Again, this comparison is asinine and ahistorical.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

And Stockton never came close to leading for even one series win. The fact Paul happened to spend most of his career next to better scorers is not itself proof of his inability to function as a first option. How many series did Pippen win as a first option? Whoops, guess Pippen cannot lead teams at all! The difference is that Stockton never indicated he possibly could, whereas Paul did. Again, this comparison is asinine and ahistorical.

Nobody ever claimed Pippen is a great scorer, he's just a far more impactful overall player than Chris Paul. Pippen is closer to Kevin Garnett than he is Chris Paul.

Paul is not a 1st option scorer and never has been. He wasn't even the clear cut 1st option scorer on David West's team and West isn't a 1st either. When you're not the clear cut 1st option scorer on a team with David West, odds are you're pretty much not the clear cut scorer on just about any playoff team.

[liamliam1234]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a 20ppg scorer versus a 14ppg scorer, or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

And there is no impact metric supporting Pippen over Paul (let alone putting anywhere near Garnett), but may as well peddle as much bull as you can, right?

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a 20ppg scorer versus a 14ppg scorer, or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

And there is no impact metric supporting Pippen over Paul (let alone putting anywhere near Garnett), but may as well peddle as much bull as you can, right?

Paul is slightly better but they are both clearly guys you don't want as a your first option scorer, just like Pippen and just like KG.

As far as Pippen\Paul, Paul has had better supporting casts and still has never taken any team further than Pippen did. Pippen is also a much better Robin than Paul ever was to Harden (he didn't get injured). The Pippen\Paul thread was already created by that no rings guy. The only thing Paul does better than Pippen is get injured in the playoffs.

Pippen in 1994\1995 > Paul in 2008 or 2015
Pippen in 2000 > Paul in 2018

Pippen is always superior over that crybaby midget.

[liamliam1234]

[HBK_Kliq_33]

:roll:

Pippen can anchor elite defensive teams by himself (1995) or run elite offensive teams (2000). Chris Paul could only dream of being that type of two way player. You're delusional, you are either overrating his stats or you relate to 5"8 guys and want to stick up for him haha. Regardless, he was never no Pippen!

[og15]

Pace, better defensive era, playing with Karl Malone is something you need to consider here.

Those things don't make up the difference though, not at all really, they aren't even accurate for some. Playing with Karl Malone didn't limit his scoring, there were even seasons where the Jazz needed more secondary scoring and he didn't score more. The Clippers had Blake Griffin, and Paul was still scoring much more in fewer minutes next to Harden despite Paul being on his downward trend.

Stockton's highest scoring seasons were in the late 80's / early 90's, pace was not slow, this wasn't late 90's / early 2000's, definitely wasn't the defensive era.

90-91 he averaged 17.2 ppg in 37.8 mpg. Jazz were 20th in pace at 95.3, league average Drtg was 107.9. Paul's highest scoring season, 08-09 he averaged 22.8 ppg in 38.5 mpg, the Hornets were 28th in pace at 87.8, league average Drtg was 108.3.

Paul is the same as Stockton as a scorer in the same way they were both never 1st options. It was always Malone or West/Griffin/Harden. You don't win playoff series when Chris Paul is your best scorer. Paul has only won 1 playoff series in his career when he was leading his team in field goal attempts.

That's a pretty selective way to look at it so it fits the criteria, especially choosing FGA and not even ppg. He could take fewer FGA yet have more scoring attempts due to FTA for example, which was the case in New Orleans vs Dallas between him and West. West took 3 more FGA, but Paul took 14 more FTA, and unless those were all and 1's, he had more scoring attempts.

Next, it neglects the actual on court action, for example, even with Griffin, many times, the "go to guy" down the stretch was Paul not Griffin, which in the case of guys who were generally between 1-2 ppg of each other, while one did more of the playmaking, that can indicate who is truly higher in the hierarchy of options. Similar thing with West, no one watching games was confused as to who the first option was, regardless or how many shots this or that guy had taken over the game.

It also whether deliberately or not suggests that the reason that for example, the Clippers lost series' where Griffin was playing with a severe injury or out for the series was because Paul was now the first option, irrespective of his performance in that role and not because a primarily two man team lost one of their two guys. Or that the series lost with him leading were lost due to that an not secondary things like team defense or disparity in team talent. It's an intellectually dishonest argument don't you think?

Let's just say this, Paul has has series with this sort of scoring and efficiency:

VS Dallas: 24.6 ppg / 57.9 TS%
VS SAS: 23.7 ppg / 55.5 TS%
VS LAL: 22.0 ppg / 67.0 TS%
VS MEM: 20.4 ppg / 57.0 TS%
VS MEM: 22.8 ppg / 63.3 TS%
VS OKC: 22.5 ppg / 61.1 TS%
VS SAS: 22.7 ppg / 63.2 TS%
VS HOU: 21.2 ppg / 61.9 TS%
VS POR: 23.8 ppg / 57.5 TS%
VS UTA: 25.3 ppg / 59.2 TS%
VS UTA: 24.6 ppg / 59.5 TS%

Depending on the remaining makeup of the team and their strength on defense and on the glass, that's very good scoring to win many series (he or Griffin did get injured in a good amount of those). Stockton didn't do that and it wasn't because he just never needed to, it's that his scoring skillset was not as good. Paul is not ideally a first option due to size and durability, but he can be one successfully on the right team, he's definitely a guy who can be a co first option, and he's an excellent second option. Stockton was best as a 3rd or 4th option, he couldn't fill in as a first option, and he was not an ideal guy as a second option, there's a clear difference there.

[Dr Spaceman]

Better player I think is Paul. Reasonably close on offense but Paul has a significant edge on defense.

That said Harden had the better season given that Paul’s injury ended his team’s chances while Harden was healthy throughout. As the poll says “better player” though I’d vote for Paul.

Paul's injury did not end his team's chance. They went up 3-1 on the Rockets. They just choked.

His injury led to way more work delegated to the other stars which caused extreme fatigue and then collapsed. Blake was the leader in total playoff minutes until the Finals when LeBron passed him.

[Lost92Bricks]

His injury led to way more work delegated to the other stars which caused extreme fatigue and then collapsed. Blake was the leader in total playoff minutes until the Finals when LeBron passed him.

Blake was leading the playoffs in minutes because the Clippers had probably the worst bench in the league, it had nothing to do with Chris' injury. In the Spurs series right before, Blake averaged 41 MPG and Chris played in all 7 of those games.

That was that team's real flaw that season and the biggest reason they collapsed. I'm pretty sure there has never been a bigger difference in a team's starting lineup and bench than that team.

Actually, Chris' injury can be blamed on it too. He was forced to play 44 minutes in that game 6. I remember watching that game and yelling at my TV for them to leave him in the game knowing he might get injured. That's how bad their bench was. They lost so many games that year because they would sit Chris and all hell would break loose.

[Dr Spaceman]

His injury led to way more work delegated to the other stars which caused extreme fatigue and then collapsed. Blake was the leader in total playoff minutes until the Finals when LeBron passed him.

Blake was leading the playoffs in minutes because the Clippers had probably the worst bench in the league, it had nothing to do with Chris' injury. In the Spurs series right before, Blake averaged 41 MPG and Chris played in all 7 of those games.

That was that team's real flaw that season and the biggest reason they collapsed. I'm pretty sure there has never been a bigger difference in a team's starting lineup and bench than that team.

Actually, Chris' injury can be blamed on it too. He was forced to play 44 minutes in that game 6. I remember watching that game and yelling at my TV for them to leave him in the game knowing he might get injured. That's how bad their bench was. They lost so many games that year because they would sit Chris and all hell would break loose.

I agree with you and to be honest I even said during that season that the Clippers “core 4” stacks up with anyone that year, even Golden State. Probably the worst bench ever for a serious title contender.

The fatigue was cumulative and that Spurs series of course took a lot out of them. But in the 2 games Paul missed (and half of games 3 and 4 as well when he played limited minutes) Blake basically ran point for the team. He brought the ball ip the floor and initiated the offense and then was still expected to be the team’s lead scorer. That’s just a lot of unnecessary responsibility to put on a bulky forward who had missed time to injury.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player lore visibly gasse than Blake was in that G7 against Houston. He’d stand with his hands on his knees on offense and had to basically beg to be taken out. I remember possessions where Paul and Blake stood in opposite corners while JC danced at the top of the key because the 2 stars were jsut too worn out to do anything with the ball.

I don’t mean to put the blame all on Paul’s injury. It probably wasn’t even as big a factor as the Spurs series. But still, they were blowing Houston out in some of those games and it was just unnecessary for DJ and JJ and especially Blake to take on the creation load they did.

[Peregrine01]

2015 Paul, in my opinion. Paul led the best offense that year and had a big defensive edge over Harden. Doesn't help that the Clips choked away a 3-1 lead to the Rockets but still felt that Paul was the better player that year.

[Franco]

I can't stand either of these guys but Harden's a better player than Paul's ever been. In 2015, it's still Harden.

He's also had more success as batman than Paul ever has. Paul's teams were never a threat. No one in their right mind thought "Oh man, but Chris Paul's team might beat them all"

As mentioned before, Paul was only the 1st option (scorer) on his team for two years.

You are just flat wrong about this.

In 2014-15, 5 of 28 ESPN writers polled picked the Clippers to win the Western Conference.

http://www.espn.com/nba/notebook/_/page/west1415/2014-15-western-conference-champion-predictions

1 of 28 picked them to win the NBA title.

http://www.espn.com/nba/notebook/_/page/nba1415/2014-15-nba-champion-predictions?ex_cid=espnapi_public

So you’re justification is that 1/6 of ESPN writers picked the Clippers to win the title? 1/6?

Once again, no one in their right mind.

So how did that pan out for them?

And I know that you’ll deny it, but Blake Griffin was considered the best player on that team anyway. At the very worst, they were equals. Harden is far away the best player in his team. He doesn’t need another Harden to compete.

And we’ve already been down the rabbit hole of chokes. There’s no reason to revisit that. And I literally called choked for both players years ago. In that regard, I’ve been right about both players and many have guessed wrong.

Nobody thought the Clippers were ever a threat? Tell that to the reigning champions that they knocked out in the first round.

[bledredwine]

You are just flat wrong about this.

In 2014-15, 5 of 28 ESPN writers polled picked the Clippers to win the Western Conference.

http://www.espn.com/nba/notebook/_/page/west1415/2014-15-western-conference-champion-predictions

1 of 28 picked them to win the NBA title.

http://www.espn.com/nba/notebook/_/page/nba1415/2014-15-nba-champion-predictions?ex_cid=espnapi_public

So you’re justification is that 1/6 of ESPN writers picked the Clippers to win the title? 1/6?

Once again, no one in their right mind.

So how did that pan out for them?

And I know that you’ll deny it, but Blake Griffin was considered the best player on that team anyway. At the very worst, they were equals. Harden is far away the best player in his team. He doesn’t need another Harden to compete.

And we’ve already been down the rabbit hole of chokes. There’s no reason to revisit that. And I literally called choked for both players years ago. In that regard, I’ve been right about both players and many have guessed wrong.

Nobody thought the Clippers were ever a threat? Tell that to the reigning champions that they knocked out in the first round.

I will give Paul credit for playing really well in that series, and Blake even better.

That said, they were the 3rd best team that playoffs behind the Rockets and Golden State. If that’s the best Paul has done, and that’s even with him as second option or equal to Blake? That’s nothing to write home about against Harden, who defeated them as THE guy. Harden’s more of a dynamic on-court threat than Paul has ever been. We should know that by now. I’d take Harden then, because Paulhas had a few too many collapses in important games. Harden isn’t without these either, but Paul has more.

[Peregrine01]

So you’re justification is that 1/6 of ESPN writers picked the Clippers to win the title? 1/6?

Once again, no one in their right mind.

So how did that pan out for them?

And I know that you’ll deny it, but Blake Griffin was considered the best player on that team anyway. At the very worst, they were equals. Harden is far away the best player in his team. He doesn’t need another Harden to compete.

And we’ve already been down the rabbit hole of chokes. There’s no reason to revisit that. And I literally called choked for both players years ago. In that regard, I’ve been right about both players and many have guessed wrong.

Nobody thought the Clippers were ever a threat? Tell that to the reigning champions that they knocked out in the first round.

I will give Paul credit for playing really well in that series, and Blake even better.

That said, they were the 3rd best team that playoffs behind the Rockets and Golden State. If that’s the best Paul has done, and that’s even with him as second option or equal to Blake? That’s nothing to write home about against Harden, who defeated them as THE guy. Harden’s more of a dynamic on-court threat than Paul has ever been. We should know that by now. I’d take Harden then, because Paulhas had a few too many collapses in important games. Harden isn’t without these either, but Paul has more.

FYI, that season’s seeding was really weird and the Spurs and Clippers were really unlucky to face each other in the first rather than the second round. It took a lot out of them to beat the Spurs in 7 games. Then they played the Rockets and looked completely dominant against them until they choked in game 6...which happened to be the game that Josh Smith miraculously went off from 3 and Harden wasn’t even playing during the key comeback.

[og15]

His injury led to way more work delegated to the other stars which caused extreme fatigue and then collapsed. Blake was the leader in total playoff minutes until the Finals when LeBron passed him.

Blake was leading the playoffs in minutes because the Clippers had probably the worst bench in the league, it had nothing to do with Chris' injury. In the Spurs series right before, Blake averaged 41 MPG and Chris played in all 7 of those games.

That was that team's real flaw that season and the biggest reason they collapsed. I'm pretty sure there has never been a bigger difference in a team's starting lineup and bench than that team.

Actually, Chris' injury can be blamed on it too. He was forced to play 44 minutes in that game 6. I remember watching that game and yelling at my TV for them to leave him in the game knowing he might get injured. That's how bad their bench was. They lost so many games that year because they would sit Chris and all hell would break loose.

I agree with you and to be honest I even said during that season that the Clippers “core 4” stacks up with anyone that year, even Golden State. Probably the worst bench ever for a serious title contender.

The fatigue was cumulative and that Spurs series of course took a lot out of them. But in the 2 games Paul missed (and half of games 3 and 4 as well when he played limited minutes) Blake basically ran point for the team. He brought the ball ip the floor and initiated the offense and then was still expected to be the team’s lead scorer. That’s just a lot of unnecessary responsibility to put on a bulky forward who had missed time to injury.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player lore visibly gasse than Blake was in that G7 against Houston. He’d stand with his hands on his knees on offense and had to basically beg to be taken out. I remember possessions where Paul and Blake stood in opposite corners while JC danced at the top of the key because the 2 stars were jsut too worn out to do anything with the ball.

I don’t mean to put the blame all on Paul’s injury. It probably wasn’t even as big a factor as the Spurs series. But still, they were blowing Houston out in some of those games and it was just unnecessary for DJ and JJ and especially Blake to take on the creation load they did.

I don't think I would conclude that the fatigue was due to the extra creation load they took in games 1 and 2, and certainly not game 3 and 4 which were blowouts. The players themselves said that the fatigue was due to how physically and mentally grueling the first round series with SA was, and with the Clippers lacking any quality depth on the wing and at the 4/5, the team also collapsed whenever the starters were out.

Also, it was actually the complimentary guys, Redick, Barnes, Crawford and Rivers who went stone cold in games 5-7 and that is what cemented the Clippers along with their porous defense in those later games. Fatigue or not, in games 5-7, Paul (26/5/10/63% TS) and Griffin (28/12/3/59%TS) produced enough offense individually to win the series, but basketball is won on two sides. Clippers just gave up too many points on defense, 124 pts / 128.4 Ortg, 119 pts / 115.2 Ortg, 113 pts / 109.6 Ortg. Houston was a 107 Ortg team during the regular season.

Blake had the most noticeable decline on defense in that series, he just couldn't make second and third efforts, his man (Smith, Jones, etc) consistently killed him in those last few games because as you mentioned, he was just gassed, and the alternative options to get him rest were out of rotation Spencer Hawes or Glen Davis who supposedly had also suffered an injury in that playoffs that he played through I believe.

[og15]

So you’re justification is that 1/6 of ESPN writers picked the Clippers to win the title? 1/6?

Once again, no one in their right mind.

So how did that pan out for them?

And I know that you’ll deny it, but Blake Griffin was considered the best player on that team anyway. At the very worst, they were equals. Harden is far away the best player in his team. He doesn’t need another Harden to compete.

And we’ve already been down the rabbit hole of chokes. There’s no reason to revisit that. And I literally called choked for both players years ago. In that regard, I’ve been right about both players and many have guessed wrong.

Nobody thought the Clippers were ever a threat? Tell that to the reigning champions that they knocked out in the first round.

I will give Paul credit for playing really well in that series, and Blake even better.

That said, they were the 3rd best team that playoffs behind the Rockets and Golden State. If that’s the best Paul has done, and that’s even with him as second option or equal to Blake? That’s nothing to write home about against Harden, who defeated them as THE guy. Harden’s more of a dynamic on-court threat than Paul has ever been. We should know that by now. I’d take Harden then, because Paulhas had a few too many collapses in important games. Harden isn’t without these either, but Paul has more.

Clippers were ranked 3rd in seeding. They got third due to the division winner tie breaker, both the Clippers and Houston had the same record. The Rockets, Clippers and Spurs were very close matchup wise. It is very likely that the Clippers beat the Rockets if they faced them in Round 1. It is likely thst the Clippers would have made the WCF if GS wasn't in their division and they didn't lose the division winner tie breaker and get placed as the 3rd seed instead of 2nd. It is likely that due to matchup, the Rockets would have lost to SA had they faced them in Round 1. It would have been interesting to see how a 2nd round matchup of LAC vs SAS might have looked if the seeding was different.

The Clippers biggest issue after constant injuries to one of their stars was that they were consistently one of the smallest and weakest teams in the WC on the wing. This showed itself as a problem for them defensively and on the glass. The Clippers through that time with someone like Andre Iguodala on the wing who wouldn't give any more than 10-12 ppg and is no special shooter, but his defensive versatility, playmaking and just overall glue guy, ultimate role player abilities would have taken them to a higher contender status.

[Threetimes10]

The playmaking difference isn't rooted so much in ability but rather Harden's proclivity to turn the ball over at a historically rate, while Paul is at the completely opposite end of this spectrum. Makes a notable difference in games.

We can argue about how effective Paul is defensively, but i think we can both agree that you can count on him giving about as close as maximum effort on that end as he's capable of. He competes hard and punches above his weight/size class, while Harden is more prone to half or even full arse-ing possessions so he can save up energy for offense.

Idk, i think prime for prime, both can be put in the same tier, which is up there with the best players of all-time. Both probably should've had a ring by now if not for injuries and playing with some questionable talent, also competing against some insanely good teams along the way.

How much is Harden's turnovers off the big scoring load he's carrying and how much are off his playmaking? Chris Paul has never even been a 1st option scorer on his team.

Did you forget 2008 and 2009?

Kawhi wasn't in the league yet