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

[dygaction]

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.

So we agree that he's not in the Top 20, which means at this point we're arguing semantics. Did Paul never play with elite casts? The Blake/Deandre Clippers were a pretty good cast where he could rack up assists and was still seen as the leader and best player on the team. The fact is that those teams underachieved basically every year in the playoffs. And you're really building my argument. How can a guy be in the top 20 of all time if he was NEVER seen as being the top guy in the league for even one season. I already said 2008 was a year where he could have (and probably should have) won the MVP but was he ever really a strong candidate again?

We can play the game of "if he never got injured..." but then you have to play the same game with Bill Walton who was on track to be a top 5 player all time after his first couple years.

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?

I agree but how many times has that happened? It's really just those Pistons teams and they won because of elite team defense. And it's not even about winning a championship, CP3 has only been to the conference championship once in his entire career and it was as the 2nd best guy on his team. I'm not saying he couldn't be the best offensive player on a championship team but I think he would need a similar team to what Chauncey had or what Isiah had. And CP3 had six years with Blake and Deandre, you would think he would sneak into at least the WCF one of those times. He's sort of like Tracy McGrady, puts up great numbers in the playoffs but it just doesn't equate to wins.

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...

Sorry if I mistyped but I'm a big Nash fan, I rank him above CP3 all time. I was saying that Nash played point in the same basic era and walked away with 2 MVP' awards. Most people here have CP3 above Nash, which begs the question of how come Nash has two MVP awards and Chris Paul was only a real contender for the award once or twice? You can argue that CP3's competition was greater but that leads me to believe even more that he cant' be top 20 all time. If you say that Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Durant, Russ, Harden, Steph, Kawhi, and Lebron all overlapped with him and kept him from winning the MVP award then those guys have to be ranked higher or on the same tier all time as Chris Paul.

Shaq was on the decline in 2005 and 2006 when Nash won? He won a championship in 2006 and probably would've won in 2005 if injuries didn't get in the way. The league was pretty loaded in that era, Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, AI, Duncan, Wade, Lebron, not a bad group of guys.

I'll give you that CP3's team's were awful in New Orleans after 2008 but those Clippers teams were great. He was with the Clippers for six years and they lost in the first round 3 times as the higher seed each time. It's not like he was losing to the Warriors each time or running into buzz saws, none of the teams they lost to went on to make the finals.

Blake Griffin was in his prime and healthy in only 2 post seasons with CP3. That's pretty important.

Without Blake Griffin the Clippers are a really weak team in the West. CP3 carrying his team against Lillard's Blazers and Hayward's Jazz kinda shows the gap between CP3 and "normal" all-star caliber players, their teams were way more talented but still were hyper competitive against a shallow clipppers that has DeAndre Jordan as the second best player.

If you were top 20 atg, you were supposed to beat a freaking Haywood's Jazz team. Their critical game 7, DeAndre Jordan put up 24p/18r (6 OReb) on 9/12 shooting, Crawford 20p (8/16 shooting), but CP3 put up 13p/4r/9a with 6/19 and 1/7 3p. That was supposed to be his moment but it was a melt down.

[iggymcfrack]

So we agree that he's not in the Top 20, which means at this point we're arguing semantics. Did Paul never play with elite casts? The Blake/Deandre Clippers were a pretty good cast where he could rack up assists and was still seen as the leader and best player on the team. The fact is that those teams underachieved basically every year in the playoffs. And you're really building my argument. How can a guy be in the top 20 of all time if he was NEVER seen as being the top guy in the league for even one season. I already said 2008 was a year where he could have (and probably should have) won the MVP but was he ever really a strong candidate again?

We can play the game of "if he never got injured..." but then you have to play the same game with Bill Walton who was on track to be a top 5 player all time after his first couple years.





I agree but how many times has that happened? It's really just those Pistons teams and they won because of elite team defense. And it's not even about winning a championship, CP3 has only been to the conference championship once in his entire career and it was as the 2nd best guy on his team. I'm not saying he couldn't be the best offensive player on a championship team but I think he would need a similar team to what Chauncey had or what Isiah had. And CP3 had six years with Blake and Deandre, you would think he would sneak into at least the WCF one of those times. He's sort of like Tracy McGrady, puts up great numbers in the playoffs but it just doesn't equate to wins.

Sorry if I mistyped but I'm a big Nash fan, I rank him above CP3 all time. I was saying that Nash played point in the same basic era and walked away with 2 MVP' awards. Most people here have CP3 above Nash, which begs the question of how come Nash has two MVP awards and Chris Paul was only a real contender for the award once or twice? You can argue that CP3's competition was greater but that leads me to believe even more that he cant' be top 20 all time. If you say that Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Durant, Russ, Harden, Steph, Kawhi, and Lebron all overlapped with him and kept him from winning the MVP award then those guys have to be ranked higher or on the same tier all time as Chris Paul.

Shaq was on the decline in 2005 and 2006 when Nash won? He won a championship in 2006 and probably would've won in 2005 if injuries didn't get in the way. The league was pretty loaded in that era, Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, AI, Duncan, Wade, Lebron, not a bad group of guys.

I'll give you that CP3's team's were awful in New Orleans after 2008 but those Clippers teams were great. He was with the Clippers for six years and they lost in the first round 3 times as the higher seed each time. It's not like he was losing to the Warriors each time or running into buzz saws, none of the teams they lost to went on to make the finals.

Blake Griffin was in his prime and healthy in only 2 post seasons with CP3. That's pretty important.

Without Blake Griffin the Clippers are a really weak team in the West. CP3 carrying his team against Lillard's Blazers and Hayward's Jazz kinda shows the gap between CP3 and "normal" all-star caliber players, their teams were way more talented but still were hyper competitive against a shallow clipppers that has DeAndre Jordan as the second best player.

If you were top 20 atg, you were supposed to beat a freaking Haywood's Jazz team. Their critical game 7, DeAndre Jordan put up 24p/18r (6 OReb) on 9/12 shooting, Crawford 20p (8/16 shooting), but CP3 put up 13p/4r/9a with 6/19 and 1/7 3p. That was supposed to be his moment but it was a melt down.

Ok, so he had one bad game in a first round series. You could say that about pretty much anyone. Kobe’s repeatedly been terrible in Game 7 situations with much worse performances than that.

Paul certainly didn’t have a bad series against the Jazz. Averaged 25/5/10 on .592 TS% for a 27.8 PER and a 12.2 BPM. Utah had a +4.0 SRS that year, that was 5th best in the entire NBA. They were good. They’re definitely not a team you’re just supposed to walk through with no help. Here are the Clipper players by BPM in that Utah series:

Chris Paul 12.2 BPM
Luc Mbah a Moute 2.4 BPM
Raymond Felton 1.5 BPM
Marreese Speights 0.4 BPM
Blake Griffin -0.1 BPM
Paul Pierce -0.2 BPM
DeAndre Jordan -0.8 BPM
Wesley Johnson -1.0 BPM
Brandon Bass -2.0 BPM
JJ Redick -3.5 BPM
Jamal Crawford -3.7 BPM
Austin Rivers -5.2 BPM

[KTM_2813]

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

It's a team sport...

Enough with the logic.

[therealbig3]

Nash was better and he’s borderline top 20 for me. I think with Paul’s injuries his longevity isn’t really that much better. So that would be my case against him.

I can’t really see a case for Paul over LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, Duncan, Robinson, Dr. J, K. Malone. That’s 18, still not counting Nash, Wade, Barkley, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton...idk, he doesn’t make top 20 for me.

[dygaction]

Nash was better and he’s borderline top 20 for me. I think with Paul’s injuries his longevity isn’t really that much better. So that would be my case against him.

I can’t really see a case for Paul over LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, Duncan, Robinson, Dr. J, K. Malone. That’s 18, still not counting Nash, Wade, Barkley, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton...idk, he doesn’t make top 20 for me.

Current players like Harden, KD, Curry, maybe Kwahi, and likely soon Giannas need to be in the later list as well.

[limbo]

Guys... it's very simple.

The argument for Paul in the top 20 is that there weren't 20 players in NBA history who had a better/longer peak & prime than him, both in terms of level of play and the consistency of which he performed. In the regular season and postseason alike.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of titles and narrative driven awards but it doesn't matter.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of names based on above criteria, but most evidence outside of team accomplishment and narratives will favor CP3 at the end of the day.

LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, Duncan, Robinson, Dr. J, K. Malone. That’s 18, still not counting Nash, Wade, Barkley, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton...

Paul has a much higher peak than Stockton. Not only that, but you could take 9 seasons of CP3 above the best season of Stockton. Now, if you care about the fact that Paul missed about 20 games in like 4 of those seasons + he had untimely injuries sometimes in crucial moments of the playoffs... that's fine. You could argue Stockton is better based on his durability, but let's not pretend they are in the same realm as players... Nothing suggests that. Same goes for Pippen and Ewing. CP3 has a demonstrably higher peak and multiple seasons above these guys best. The difference in offensive impact is staggering to say the least.

Then we have Wade, who you could argue was a better player than Paul at his peak, but the gap in peak would need to be significant (and it's not) to offset Paul simply having more prime seasons. Wade was even more injury prone than Paul. Not only that, but Wade fell off significantly from 2011 to 2012, and then even more from 2012 to 2014, and then he was merely an average player until he retired at 37 years of age. Paul is 34 now and still playing like an all-star.

Nash only argument is RAPM. If you strongly factor in that above all else, then fine, but otherwise there's a lot of reason out there to think Paul was a better player than Nash in their primes. Considering the humongous difference in defensive level between the two, i just don't buy that it's possible Nash was literally tiers above Paul as an offensive player... How would that even be possible? Paul is actually comparable to Nash in terms of AST%, and he comes ahead in TO and scoring... WHERE IS NASH getting all this impact? They played a similar role even... It's not like Nash was playing like Curry. To me, it has to be some weird mix of Phoenix just being ahead of their time. The mid 00's was an era of slow-paced defensive basketball and the Suns just happened to have the perfect player and cast to run up the offensive numbers in a time where the league had no idea what they were doing.

Karl Malone has a huge advantage over Paul in longevity, and he was one of the best players in the league for very very long during his career. But if we take a look at strictly their level as player, Paul is simply the better player at their peaks, and he proved that multiple times, including translating his impact into the postseason while Malone is notorious for struggling in multiple runs during his career.

The NBA version of Dr.J definitely wasn't better than Paul. Paul got multiple years better than what Erving displayed in the early 80's...Not to mention Dr.J was struggling in the postseason in those years too. How does he not get killed for disappointing in the Plaoyyfs, but when Paul is the best player in a series that his team loses he gets all the blame. Funny how that works. Purely agenda driven, can't be anything else. You'd need to be really high on those 3 ABA seasons for Dr.J to claim he's a better player than Paul... Paul has a comparable amount of Win Shares but played 10k less career minutes.

Who else is there? Oscar? CP3 comes above in numerous stats in both RS and PS... Hard to say who was better since Oscar played 60 years ago and there's limited footage and stats. All we know is he didn't win squat without joining one of the greatest teams of all-time with peak Kareem. Big deal. That's like if Paul teamed up with LeBron in 2011...

Same goes for Jerry West. What did he win in his prime? Nothing. He's got no MVP's... He won 1 Finals MVP in a series he lost. LMAO. That says it all. They wouldn't do that today if you averaged 50/10/10 in the Finals. Ironically he got one title a couple of seasons before his retirement probably playing some of the worst playoff basketball in his career.

So this puts Paul firmly in the Top 20 debate... And there's still players we can argue with. I don't see anything telling me Kobe was better than CP3. Paul smokes him in advance stats. +/- is comparable for their primes... Kobe only has titles on him (which is a result of playing with more talent, health and luck) and an MVP he stole from him as an life-time achievement award. Big deal. ''THE END GOAL IS TO WIN TITLES DOE'' Ok. Robert Horry > MJ

Why is Magic better than Paul? Because he played for the most stacked franchise in the 80's where the West where he faced pathetic 48-win (1.78 SRS) teams in the WCF? Had a red carpet walk to the Finals each year but nobody talks about it. Paul was facing tougher teams in the 1st round of the playoffs and defeating them...

Bird doesn't have a pristine playoff record either. What's up with '82? You think CP3 could afford to average 18/7 on 45%TS and still almost go to the NBA Finals? No. CP3 averages 25/10 on 59%TS and gets blamed for losing to the Jazz...

[Shanghai Kid]

Guys... it's very simple.

The argument for Paul in the top 20 is that there weren't 20 players in NBA history who had a better/longer peak & prime than him, both in terms of level of play and the consistency of which he performed. In the regular season and postseason alike.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of titles and narrative driven awards but it doesn't matter.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of names based on above criteria, but most evidence outside of team accomplishment and narratives will favor CP3 at the end of the day.

LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, Duncan, Robinson, Dr. J, K. Malone. That’s 18, still not counting Nash, Wade, Barkley, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton...

Paul has a much higher peak than Stockton. Not only that, but you could take 9 seasons of CP3 above the best season of Stockton. Now, if you care about the fact that Paul missed about 20 games in like 4 of those seasons + he had untimely injuries sometimes in crucial moments of the playoffs... that's fine. You could argue Stockton is better based on his durability, but let's not pretend they are in the same realm as players... Nothing suggests that. Same goes for Pippen and Ewing. CP3 has a demonstrably higher peak and multiple seasons above these guys best. The difference in offensive impact is staggering to say the least.

Then we have Wade, who you could argue was a better player than Paul at his peak, but the gap in peak would need to be significant (and it's not) to offset Paul simply having more prime seasons. Wade was even more injury prone than Paul. Not only that, but Wade fell off significantly from 2011 to 2012, and then even more from 2012 to 2014, and then he was merely an average player until he retired at 37 years of age. Paul is 34 now and still playing like an all-star.

Nash only argument is RAPM. If you strongly factor in that above all else, then fine, but otherwise there's a lot of reason out there to think Paul was a better player than Nash in their primes. Considering the humongous difference in defensive level between the two, i just don't buy that it's possible Nash was literally tiers above Paul as an offensive player... How would that even be possible? Paul is actually comparable to Nash in terms of AST%, and he comes ahead in TO and scoring... WHERE IS NASH getting all this impact? They played a similar role even... It's not like Nash was playing like Curry. To me, it has to be some weird mix of Phoenix just being ahead of their time. The mid 00's was an era of slow-paced defensive basketball and the Suns just happened to have the perfect player and cast to run up the offensive numbers in a time where the league had no idea what they were doing.

Karl Malone has a huge advantage over Paul in longevity, and he was one of the best players in the league for very very long during his career. But if we take a look at strictly their level as player, Paul is simply the better player at their peaks, and he proved that multiple times, including translating his impact into the postseason while Malone is notorious for struggling in multiple runs during his career.

The NBA version of Dr.J definitely wasn't better than Paul. Paul got multiple years better than what Erving displayed in the early 80's...Not to mention Dr.J was struggling in the postseason in those years too. How does he not get killed for disappointing in the Plaoyyfs, but when Paul is the best player in a series that his team loses he gets all the blame. Funny how that works. Purely agenda driven, can't be anything else. You'd need to be really high on those 3 ABA seasons for Dr.J to claim he's a better player than Paul... Paul has a comparable amount of Win Shares but played 10k less career minutes.

Who else is there? Oscar? CP3 comes above in numerous stats in both RS and PS... Hard to say who was better since Oscar played 60 years ago and there's limited footage and stats. All we know is he didn't win squat without joining one of the greatest teams of all-time with peak Kareem. Big deal. That's like if Paul teamed up with LeBron in 2011...

Same goes for Jerry West. What did he win in his prime? Nothing. He's got no MVP's... He won 1 Finals MVP in a series he lost. LMAO. That says it all. They wouldn't do that today if you averaged 50/10/10 in the Finals. Ironically he got one title a couple of seasons before his retirement probably playing some of the worst playoff basketball in his career.

So this puts Paul firmly in the Top 20 debate... And there's still players we can argue with. I don't see anything telling me Kobe was better than CP3. Paul smokes him in advance stats. +/- is comparable for their primes... Kobe only has titles on him (which is a result of playing with more talent, health and luck) and an MVP he stole from him as an life-time achievement award. Big deal. ''THE END GOAL IS TO WIN TITLES DOE'' Ok. Robert Horry > MJ

Why is Magic better than Paul? Because he played for the most stacked franchise in the 80's where the West where he faced pathetic 48-win (1.78 SRS) teams in the WCF? Had a red carpet walk to the Finals each year but nobody talks about it. Paul was facing tougher teams in the 1st round of the playoffs and defeating them...

Bird doesn't have a pristine playoff record either. What's up with '82? You think CP3 could afford to average 18/7 on 45%TS and still almost go to the NBA Finals? No. CP3 averages 25/10 on 59%TS and gets blamed for losing to the Jazz...

Let's be honest. Chris Paul is TOP 5 ALL TIME! I think Lebron and MJ are better, slightly, I mean not a big gap, but just a little bit better by my understanding of the numbers, but going by the advanced stats, Chris Paul has more value than everybody else in league history! Narratives and accomplishments be damned, Chris Paul is by all advanced metrics the third or fourth best player ever! I can't believe everyone hasn't noticed or talked about it, but it's right there in the numbers!

[dygaction]

Guys... it's very simple.

The argument for Paul in the top 20 is that there weren't 20 players in NBA history who had a better/longer peak & prime than him, both in terms of level of play and the consistency of which he performed. In the regular season and postseason alike.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of titles and narrative driven awards but it doesn't matter.

Y'all can keep listing a bunch of names based on above criteria, but most evidence outside of team accomplishment and narratives will favor CP3 at the end of the day.

LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, Duncan, Robinson, Dr. J, K. Malone. That’s 18, still not counting Nash, Wade, Barkley, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton...

Paul has a much higher peak than Stockton. Not only that, but you could take 9 seasons of CP3 above the best season of Stockton. Now, if you care about the fact that Paul missed about 20 games in like 4 of those seasons + he had untimely injuries sometimes in crucial moments of the playoffs... that's fine. You could argue Stockton is better based on his durability, but let's not pretend they are in the same realm as players... Nothing suggests that. Same goes for Pippen and Ewing. CP3 has a demonstrably higher peak and multiple seasons above these guys best. The difference in offensive impact is staggering to say the least.

Then we have Wade, who you could argue was a better player than Paul at his peak, but the gap in peak would need to be significant (and it's not) to offset Paul simply having more prime seasons. Wade was even more injury prone than Paul. Not only that, but Wade fell off significantly from 2011 to 2012, and then even more from 2012 to 2014, and then he was merely an average player until he retired at 37 years of age. Paul is 34 now and still playing like an all-star.

Nash only argument is RAPM. If you strongly factor in that above all else, then fine, but otherwise there's a lot of reason out there to think Paul was a better player than Nash in their primes. Considering the humongous difference in defensive level between the two, i just don't buy that it's possible Nash was literally tiers above Paul as an offensive player... How would that even be possible? Paul is actually comparable to Nash in terms of AST%, and he comes ahead in TO and scoring... WHERE IS NASH getting all this impact? They played a similar role even... It's not like Nash was playing like Curry. To me, it has to be some weird mix of Phoenix just being ahead of their time. The mid 00's was an era of slow-paced defensive basketball and the Suns just happened to have the perfect player and cast to run up the offensive numbers in a time where the league had no idea what they were doing.

Karl Malone has a huge advantage over Paul in longevity, and he was one of the best players in the league for very very long during his career. But if we take a look at strictly their level as player, Paul is simply the better player at their peaks, and he proved that multiple times, including translating his impact into the postseason while Malone is notorious for struggling in multiple runs during his career.

The NBA version of Dr.J definitely wasn't better than Paul. Paul got multiple years better than what Erving displayed in the early 80's...Not to mention Dr.J was struggling in the postseason in those years too. How does he not get killed for disappointing in the Plaoyyfs, but when Paul is the best player in a series that his team loses he gets all the blame. Funny how that works. Purely agenda driven, can't be anything else. You'd need to be really high on those 3 ABA seasons for Dr.J to claim he's a better player than Paul... Paul has a comparable amount of Win Shares but played 10k less career minutes.

Who else is there? Oscar? CP3 comes above in numerous stats in both RS and PS... Hard to say who was better since Oscar played 60 years ago and there's limited footage and stats. All we know is he didn't win squat without joining one of the greatest teams of all-time with peak Kareem. Big deal. That's like if Paul teamed up with LeBron in 2011...

Same goes for Jerry West. What did he win in his prime? Nothing. He's got no MVP's... He won 1 Finals MVP in a series he lost. LMAO. That says it all. They wouldn't do that today if you averaged 50/10/10 in the Finals. Ironically he got one title a couple of seasons before his retirement probably playing some of the worst playoff basketball in his career.

So this puts Paul firmly in the Top 20 debate... And there's still players we can argue with. I don't see anything telling me Kobe was better than CP3. Paul smokes him in advance stats. +/- is comparable for their primes... Kobe only has titles on him (which is a result of playing with more talent, health and luck) and an MVP he stole from him as an life-time achievement award. Big deal. ''THE END GOAL IS TO WIN TITLES DOE'' Ok. Robert Horry > MJ

Why is Magic better than Paul? Because he played for the most stacked franchise in the 80's where the West where he faced pathetic 48-win (1.78 SRS) teams in the WCF? Had a red carpet walk to the Finals each year but nobody talks about it. Paul was facing tougher teams in the 1st round of the playoffs and defeating them...

Bird doesn't have a pristine playoff record either. What's up with '82? You think CP3 could afford to average 18/7 on 45%TS and still almost go to the NBA Finals? No. CP3 averages 25/10 on 59%TS and gets blamed for losing to the Jazz...

Let's be honest. Chris Paul is TOP 5 ALL TIME! I think Lebron and MJ are better, slightly, I mean not a big gap, but just a little bit better by my understanding of the numbers, but going by the advanced stats, Chris Paul has more value than everybody else in league history! Narratives and accomplishments be damned, Chris Paul is by all advanced metrics the third or fourth best player ever! I can't believe everyone hasn't noticed or talked about it, but it's right there in the numbers!

This is the problem, I cannot tell you meant to put in green font or being serious..

[limbo]

Let's be honest. Chris Paul is TOP 5 ALL TIME! I think Lebron and MJ are better, slightly, I mean not a big gap, but just a little bit better by my understanding of the numbers, but going by the advanced stats, Chris Paul has more value than everybody else in league history! Narratives and accomplishments be damned, Chris Paul is by all advanced metrics the third or fourth best player ever! I can't believe everyone hasn't noticed or talked about it, but it's right there in the numbers!

The funniest thing about the 'glitz & glamour' crowd that likes to count awards totally devoid of context is not that they have the most primitive, simpleton, flawed criteria for ranking players. Neither that they are incapable of addressing any of the arguments made outside that microcosm. But the fact that most of the time, they don't even follow through on their own 'logic'...

Honest question, if counting rings is all you wanna do, then why are you even wasting your time on basketball forums?

Bill Russell is the GOAT by far in that case. Isiah Thomas > Oscar too.

[mysticOscar]

Let's be honest. Chris Paul is TOP 5 ALL TIME! I think Lebron and MJ are better, slightly, I mean not a big gap, but just a little bit better by my understanding of the numbers, but going by the advanced stats, Chris Paul has more value than everybody else in league history! Narratives and accomplishments be damned, Chris Paul is by all advanced metrics the third or fourth best player ever! I can't believe everyone hasn't noticed or talked about it, but it's right there in the numbers!

The funniest thing about the 'glitz & glamour' crowd that likes to count awards totally devoid of context is not that they have the most primitive, simpleton, flawed criteria for ranking players. Neither that they are incapable of addressing any of the arguments made outside that microcosm. But the fact that most of the time, they don't even follow through on their own 'logic'...

Honest question, if counting rings is all you wanna do, then why are you even wasting your time on basketball forums?

Bill Russell is the GOAT by far in that case. Isiah Thomas > Oscar too.

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Stats have as much variables to consider as counting rings especially among the top 5 atg.

Also what is the one end goal for these great players? Is it stats?

[Owly]

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

[Shanghai Kid]

[quote="limbo"]

The funniest thing about the 'glitz & glamour' crowd that likes to count awards totally devoid of context is not that they have the most primitive, simpleton, flawed criteria for ranking players. Neither that they are incapable of addressing any of the arguments made outside that microcosm. But the fact that most of the time, they don't even follow through on their own 'logic'...

Honest question, if counting rings is all you wanna do, then why are you even wasting your time on basketball forums?

Bill Russell is the GOAT by far in that case. Isiah Thomas > Oscar too.[/quote]

I was a bit over the top. But I thought your post was highly reasonable until you went into the territory of comparing Chris Paul in the same category or apparently even arguing in favor of CP3 over Bird and Magic.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of CP3 and advanced metrics, why not commit fully and put him in the top 5?

On the other hand it doesn't have to be someone going over the top with a "rings" argument. There is a logical inbetween that suggests legacies are built on some combination of impact, rings, stats, accomplishments.

CP3 with no rings, MVPs, or finals appearences, on a legacy scale would come up short in certain categories, but not in basketball mathmatic formulas that crown him the prince of advanced metrics. And thats just fine. And its alright if we have different formulas for the greatest players.

[dygaction]

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

People do not understand that winners display their floors - min required to seal the win. Duncan with his effort and stats was able to deliver 5 championships to SA. If more effort was needed for those wins, his stats could have been better.
On the other hand, as harsh as it sounds, losers display their ceilings - As great as Melo/CP3/Harden/TMac were, their best efforts in their best years with multiple tries were not enough to carry their respective teams even to the finals.
Those who want to completely ignore/marginalize team success in evaluating basketball players should watch tennis (singles) or golf.

[mysticOscar]

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

That's short post doesn't indicate to me he just means ring counting. He does make a point that in sports u play to win. His last sentence might be a bit of hyperbole to hammer home his point (but obviously I can't speak for him)...that what are good about stats if u don't win?

So no I don't think u have found this imaginary poster yet

[Owly]

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

That's short post doesn't indicate to me he just means ring counting. He does make a point that in sports u play to win. His last sentence might be a bit of hyperbole to hammer home his point (but obviously I can't speak for him)...that what are good about stats if u don't win?

So no I don't think u have found this imaginary poster yet

I mean ... yes I did. Full post. No caveats given. No context given. That was the full position and contribution to the debate. If you don't have a ring the thing that you are measuring is what type of loser you are. That's ring counting. Or I guess technically he could be talking RS wins and using win% overall to evaluate players. But certainly nothing beyond purely team level statistics (i.e. not impact stuff).

And the former "you play to win" isn't the point [or a point since we all know it] :it's the context to say "I am confusing cause and effect and stating that in evaluating player goodness team results without parsing for impact, without context, without any further qualification are what I care about". As though winning the game was in a single player's control. Why else would you post it in an individual player comparison on a player comparison board?

Hyperbole in a purely written , multi-person medium ... seems like an excuse to say, "this is wrong/untrue but I don't care".

[mysticOscar]

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

That's short post doesn't indicate to me he just means ring counting. He does make a point that in sports u play to win. His last sentence might be a bit of hyperbole to hammer home his point (but obviously I can't speak for him)...that what are good about stats if u don't win?

So no I don't think u have found this imaginary poster yet

I mean ... yes I did. Full post. No caveats given. No context given. That was the full position and contribution to the debate. If you don't have a ring the thing that you are measuring is what type of loser you are. That's ring counting. Or I guess technically he could be talking RS wins and using win% overall to evaluate players. But certainly nothing beyond purely team level statistics (i.e. not impact stuff).

And the former "you play to win" isn't the point [or a point since we all know it] :it's the context to say "I am confusing cause and effect and stating that in evaluating player goodness team results without parsing for impact, without context, without any further qualification are what I care about". As though winning the game was in a single player's control. Why else would you post it in an individual player comparison on a player comparison board?

Hyperbole in a purely written , multi-person medium ... seems like an excuse to say, "this is wrong/untrue but I don't care".

Where does he say he ranks players based on just rings? Your putting ur own spin on it to draw ur own narrative / agenda. Reasonable reader would just translate that post that he takes winning as being important in evaluating a player. Which to me is a reasonable stance in a competitive sport.

Stats is just as impacted by different variables...and the end goal for the great players is winning.

[Owly]

Please tell me who are these imaginery posters who just count ringz without any context?

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

"You play to win the game."

If you dont win then stats are just a measure of how good of a loser you are.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

People do not understand that winners display their floors - min required to seal the win. Duncan with his effort and stats was able to deliver 5 championships to SA. If more effort was needed for those wins, his stats could have been better.
On the other hand, as harsh as it sounds, losers display their ceilings - As great as Melo/CP3/Harden/TMac were, their best efforts in their best years with multiple tries were not enough to carry their respective teams even to the finals.
Those who want to completely ignore/marginalize team success in evaluating basketball players should watch tennis (singles) or golf.

People don't want to marginalize team success in evaluating basketball players, they just want to measure impact upon team success and realize that there are 10 players on the court at once. It is reasonable to disagree on how to do this (the most favored presently tend to be the impact family of stats looking at on and off court team points differential and usually attempting to mitigate for context). it is unreasonable to argue that team (and even more so, binary title vs non-title) is a good measure of player performance. To do so consistently you must favor the former team to the latter

Team titles (with more than one team (so it isn't just playing with MJ or whoever - not that such context is required by a ring counting method)
Charles Johnson ('75, '78 champ)
Steve Kerr ('96, '97, '98, '99, '03)
Robert Horry ('94, '95, '00, '01, '02, '05, '07)
John Salley ('89, '90, '96, '00)
James Edwards ('89, '90, '96)

bench
Will Perdue ('91, '92, '93, '99)
Slater Martin ('50, '52, '53, '54, '58)
Pep Saul ('51, '52, '53, '54)
Gerald Henderson ('81, '84, '90)
Ron Harper ('96, '97, '98, '00, '01)
James Jones ('12, '13, '16)
Lindsey Hunter (’02, ’04)
Wally Walker (Trail Blazers ’77, Supersonics ’79)
Jack Coleman (Rochester ’51, St Louis ’58)
Walt Davis (Philadelphia ’56, St Louis ’58)
Earl Cureton (Philadelphia ’83, Houston ’94)

(we could, if desired, thicken out this squad by allowing ABA champs
Bill Melchionni (once NBA '67 76ers, '74 and '76 Nets)
Jim Eakins ('69 Oaks, '76 Nets)
Ted McClain ('75 Colonels, '76 Nets))

Team "Numbers"/no titles (I'll limit myself to non-active players, including leaving Paul off the board)
John Stockton
Reggie Miller
Elgin Baylor*
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing

bench
Charles Barkley
George Gervin
Bob Lanier
Tracy McGrady
Steve Nash
Dominique Wilkins

* = (going with what seems to be basketball history canon here, technically he did get a ring for '72 - could sub in Barkley and bring, say, Alex English onto the bench if necessary).

Also the implication that Duncan was half-assing it during his title runs (presumably retro-actively having known he would win and therefore time-travelling back and telling his past self to save effort) and doing the very least (his floor) that he needed to do is hysterical. Some people often call specific player rankings "an insult" or "disrespectful" to the player on here, too often for my taste, but I'll put it this way I wouldn't want to tell him to his face that he wasn't giving his best effort.

[Owly]

That's short post doesn't indicate to me he just means ring counting. He does make a point that in sports u play to win. His last sentence might be a bit of hyperbole to hammer home his point (but obviously I can't speak for him)...that what are good about stats if u don't win?

So no I don't think u have found this imaginary poster yet

I mean ... yes I did. Full post. No caveats given. No context given. That was the full position and contribution to the debate. If you don't have a ring the thing that you are measuring is what type of loser you are. That's ring counting. Or I guess technically he could be talking RS wins and using win% overall to evaluate players. But certainly nothing beyond purely team level statistics (i.e. not impact stuff).

And the former "you play to win" isn't the point [or a point since we all know it] :it's the context to say "I am confusing cause and effect and stating that in evaluating player goodness team results without parsing for impact, without context, without any further qualification are what I care about". As though winning the game was in a single player's control. Why else would you post it in an individual player comparison on a player comparison board?

Hyperbole in a purely written , multi-person medium ... seems like an excuse to say, "this is wrong/untrue but I don't care".

Where does he say he ranks players based on just rings? Your putting ur own spin on it to draw ur own narrative / agenda. Reasonable reader would just translate that post that he takes winning as being important in evaluating a player. Which to me is a reasonable stance in a competitive sport.

Stats is just as impacted by different variables...and the end goal for the great players is winning.

How is RAPM "just as impacted by different variables" as "winning", however you choose to define that.

And whilst we're both assuming a subtext in the prior post - saying "statistics" (in general, which in a case against Paul is necessarily including impact metrics) measure what type of loser you are if don't "win" (by whatever meaning you take it to have) isn't a reasonable stance and could certainly plausibly read as a version of ring counting.

[dygaction]

Previous page of this thread ... entire unclipped post.

Don't know how imaginary they are ...

People do not understand that winners display their floors - min required to seal the win. Duncan with his effort and stats was able to deliver 5 championships to SA. If more effort was needed for those wins, his stats could have been better.
On the other hand, as harsh as it sounds, losers display their ceilings - As great as Melo/CP3/Harden/TMac were, their best efforts in their best years with multiple tries were not enough to carry their respective teams even to the finals.
Those who want to completely ignore/marginalize team success in evaluating basketball players should watch tennis (singles) or golf.

People don't want to marginalize team success in evaluating basketball players, they just want to measure impact upon team success and realize that there are 10 players on the court at once. It is reasonable to disagree on how to do this (the most favored presently tend to be the impact family of stats looking at on and off court team points differential and usually attempting to mitigate for context). it is unreasonable to argue that team (and even more so, binary title vs non-title) is a good measure of player performance. To do so consistently you must favor the former team to the latter

Team titles (with more than one team (so it isn't just playing with MJ or whoever - not that such context is required by a ring counting method)
Charles Johnson ('75, '78 champ)
Steve Kerr ('96, '97, '98, '99, '03)
Robert Horry ('94, '95, '00, '01, '02, '05, '07)
John Salley ('89, '90, '96, '00)
James Edwards ('89, '90, '96)

bench
Will Perdue ('91, '92, '93, '99)
Slater Martin ('50, '52, '53, '54, '58)
Pep Saul ('51, '52, '53, '54)
Gerald Henderson ('81, '84, '90)
Ron Harper ('96, '97, '98, '00, '01)
James Jones ('12, '13, '16)
Lindsey Hunter (’02, ’04)
Wally Walker (Trail Blazers ’77, Supersonics ’79)
Jack Coleman (Rochester ’51, St Louis ’58)
Walt Davis (Philadelphia ’56, St Louis ’58)
Earl Cureton (Philadelphia ’83, Houston ’94)

(we could, if desired, thicken out this squad by allowing ABA champs
Bill Melchionni (once NBA '67 76ers, '74 and '76 Nets)
Jim Eakins ('69 Oaks, '76 Nets)
Ted McClain ('75 Colonels, '76 Nets))

Team "Numbers"/no titles (I'll limit myself to non-active players, including leaving Paul off the board)
John Stockton
Reggie Miller
Elgin Baylor*
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing

bench
Charles Barkley
George Gervin
Bob Lanier
Tracy McGrady
Steve Nash
Dominique Wilkins

* = (going with what seems to be basketball history canon here, technically he did get a ring for '72 - could sub in Barkley and bring, say, Alex English onto the bench if necessary).

Also the implication that Duncan was half-assing it during his title runs (presumably retro-actively having known he would win and therefore time-travelling back and telling his past self to save effort) and doing the very least (his floor) that he needed to do is hysterical. Some people often call specific player rankings "an insult" or "disrespectful" to the player on here, too often for my taste, but I'll put it this way I wouldn't want to tell him to his face that he wasn't giving his best effort.

Dont get your point. This is to argue whether CP3 can be in top 20 atg, not he better than Ron Harper or not. In order to compare with atg, you are looking at folks that delivered actual wins in addition to stellar "numbers", such as Duncan, Dream, Bird, Dirk, and Kobe.

[mysticOscar]

I mean ... yes I did. Full post. No caveats given. No context given. That was the full position and contribution to the debate. If you don't have a ring the thing that you are measuring is what type of loser you are. That's ring counting. Or I guess technically he could be talking RS wins and using win% overall to evaluate players. But certainly nothing beyond purely team level statistics (i.e. not impact stuff).

And the former "you play to win" isn't the point [or a point since we all know it] :it's the context to say "I am confusing cause and effect and stating that in evaluating player goodness team results without parsing for impact, without context, without any further qualification are what I care about". As though winning the game was in a single player's control. Why else would you post it in an individual player comparison on a player comparison board?

Hyperbole in a purely written , multi-person medium ... seems like an excuse to say, "this is wrong/untrue but I don't care".

Where does he say he ranks players based on just rings? Your putting ur own spin on it to draw ur own narrative / agenda. Reasonable reader would just translate that post that he takes winning as being important in evaluating a player. Which to me is a reasonable stance in a competitive sport.

Stats is just as impacted by different variables...and the end goal for the great players is winning.

How is RAPM "just as impacted by different variables" as "winning", however you choose to define that.

And whilst we're both assuming a subtext in the prior post - saying "statistics" (in general, which in a case against Paul is necessarily including impact metrics) measure what type of loser you are if don't "win" (by whatever meaning you take it to have) isn't a reasonable stance and could certainly plausibly read as a version of ring counting.

So PLEASE provide rapm for all players going back to Russell and Wilt if that is what how u define it ranking?