RealGM Top 100 List #30

[ElGee]

I fundamentally reject that Chris Paul's career is too short. You might not like Chris Paul, or you might not like peak play, but we're at a point for me where a few awesome years are better than a bunch of not-so-important ones.

Case in point might be that Dwight Howard was nominated 3 threads ago...and obviously his rookie season out of HS is negligible, which gives him about the same number of years as Paul.

Now, does Paul's knee injury change things? Maybe. I mean, he missed a lot of time and wasn't the same player IMO, but would have played in the PS. We just saw him have a pretty underrated, awesome 2011 RS then kick it up for the PS. Well, basically when he shed the knee brace he kicked it up.

But even if the knee does count against him, Chris Paul is right here, in this group of players, already. To put him at the top is not an issue of "body of work" or "longevity," it's valuing Chris Paul. There's no reason why players with a couple amazing years aren't better choices now than all that remain. Maybe I just value peak play more than others? I feel like the better you are, the more you exponentially increase a team's chances to win...which is why 8 borderline AS seasons aren't helping me as much as 2 iconic ones.

[drza]

I fundamentally reject that Chris Paul's career is too short. You might not like Chris Paul, or you might not like peak play, but we're at a point for me where a few awesome years are better than a bunch of not-so-important ones.

Case in point might be that Dwight Howard was nominated 3 threads ago...and obviously his rookie season out of HS is negligible, which gives him about the same number of years as Paul.

Now, does Paul's knee injury change things? Maybe. I mean, he missed a lot of time and wasn't the same player IMO, but would have played in the PS. We just saw him have a pretty underrated, awesome 2011 RS then kick it up for the PS. Well, basically when he shed the knee brace he kicked it up.

But even if the knee does count against him, Chris Paul is right here, in this group of players, already. To put him at the top is not an issue of "body of work" or "longevity," it's valuing Chris Paul. There's no reason why players with a couple amazing years aren't better choices now than all that remain. Maybe I just value peak play more than others? I feel like the better you are, the more you exponentially increase a team's chances to win...which is why 8 borderline AS seasons aren't helping me as much as 2 iconic ones.

With the way this project was styled in the OP, I'm not sure I disagree with you. There was heavy emphasis placed on this NOT being a career accomplishments vote...we were to judge on quote, "To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball." I don't see any inherent need for longevity to fit that criterion. What longevity does, to me, is a) provide more opportunities to prove how great a player is and b) to show that said greatness isn't a fluke. One could even use longevity to support the idea of durability in a player, which could be considered an inherent part of how great they are, and I respect that. But outside of that? There's a reason I've been giving Walton heavy consideration for awhile now, and that I don't find myself giving a longevity boost to the Malones and Kareems and Stocktons of the project. Longevity is cool, but if I'm judging on how great someone is at playing basketball, I'm much more interested in their peaks than on how long they did it.

[colts18]

I fundamentally reject that Chris Paul's career is too short. You might not like Chris Paul, or you might not like peak play, but we're at a point for me where a few awesome years are better than a bunch of not-so-important ones.

Case in point might be that Dwight Howard was nominated 3 threads ago...and obviously his rookie season out of HS is negligible, which gives him about the same number of years as Paul.

Now, does Paul's knee injury change things? Maybe. I mean, he missed a lot of time and wasn't the same player IMO, but would have played in the PS. We just saw him have a pretty underrated, awesome 2011 RS then kick it up for the PS. Well, basically when he shed the knee brace he kicked it up.

But even if the knee does count against him, Chris Paul is right here, in this group of players, already. To put him at the top is not an issue of "body of work" or "longevity," it's valuing Chris Paul. There's no reason why players with a couple amazing years aren't better choices now than all that remain. Maybe I just value peak play more than others? I feel like the better you are, the more you exponentially increase a team's chances to win...which is why 8 borderline AS seasons aren't helping me as much as 2 iconic ones.

With the way this project was styled in the OP, I'm not sure I disagree with you. There was heavy emphasis placed on this NOT being a career accomplishments vote...we were to judge on quote, "To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball." I don't see any inherent need for longevity to fit that criterion. What longevity does, to me, is a) provide more opportunities to prove how great a player is and b) to show that said greatness isn't a fluke. One could even use longevity to support the idea of durability in a player, which could be considered an inherent part of how great they are, and I respect that. But outside of that? There's a reason I've been giving Walton heavy consideration for awhile now, and that I don't find myself giving a longevity boost to the Malones and Kareems and Stocktons of the project. Longevity is cool, but if I'm judging on how great someone is at playing basketball, I'm much more interested in their peaks than on how long they did it.

I look at as who would you take if you started a franchise. With Walton you get 1.5 all time years, 1 good 6th man year. That isn't enough IMO.

[Fencer reregistered]

With the way this project was styled in the OP, I'm not sure I disagree with you. There was heavy emphasis placed on this NOT being a career accomplishments vote...we were to judge on quote, "To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball." I don't see any inherent need for longevity to fit that criterion. What longevity does, to me, is a) provide more opportunities to prove how great a player is and b) to show that said greatness isn't a fluke. One could even use longevity to support the idea of durability in a player, which could be considered an inherent part of how great they are, and I respect that. But outside of that? There's a reason I've been giving Walton heavy consideration for awhile now, and that I don't find myself giving a longevity boost to the Malones and Kareems and Stocktons of the project. Longevity is cool, but if I'm judging on how great someone is at playing basketball, I'm much more interested in their peaks than on how long they did it.

I don't see that. I see it more as a matter of "accumulated greatness" over the course of their career. If they NEVER were great, then who cares how long they didn't show greatness?

That said, "legitimate all-star" is greatness to me. It goes up from there.

[pancakes3]

personally i'm not quite ready to let in Chris Paul. letting in paul will necessitate conversation for a host of "really good" guards and that's opening a pandora's box of tiny archibald's, kevin johnson's, and deron williams's which i just don't think it's quite their time yet considering monsters like hayes, unseld, rodman, and COUSY being un-nominated.

now (probably directed at ElGee), I don't reject that Paul's peak isn't good enough to compete but really the difference in talent between players is difficult enough and in splitting hairs, we're probably getting too precise in our assessment to be accurate - the error bars be wide.

using longevity as a tiebreaker is useful both because it's easily quantifiable and a longer career makes the stats more confident.

Vote: Barry
Nominate: Unseld

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Rick Barry

I'm fine with Barry slipping well into the 20s. i think he often shot too much. However, what he did leading those teams in the 70s really shows his impact goes beyond the raw numbers. This was a playmaker and high intelligence leader, and he will take over if needed. I look at that and have more confidence in him than I do in someone like Elgin Baylor, as well as John Stockton.

Nomination: Kevin McHale

This appears to be between McHale and Nique, I'll side with McHale. I do think he got underrated while Nique got overrated, and despite the fact that McHale's got the longevity issues, if you look at career WS, Nique doesn't really have a lead.

Guy most on my mind for next time is Reggie Miller.

[Doctor MJ]

Also btw, I don't get how there's a significant gap between Howard & Paul. I feel like it's too early for both of them, but I think I'd only just have Howard barely ahead of Paul.

[penbeast0]

VOTING

(4)John Stockton – mysticbb, FJS, Fencer, Laimbeer, penbeast0

(10)Rick Barry – TMACFORMVP, therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2, fatal9, ElGee, Snakebites, DavidStern, Doctor MJ, pancakes3

Clyde Drexler -- JordansBulls

NOMINATE

Reggie Miller – mysticbb

(4)Dominique Wilkins – TMACFORMVP, JordansBulls, Dr Mufasa, Snakebites

(6)Kevin McHale – Fencer, therealbig3, fatal9, Laimbeer, DavidStern, Doctor MJ

Elvin Hayes – FJS

Bob McAdoo – ronnymac2

Alex English -- penbeast0

Chris Paul – ElGee

Wes Unseld – pancakes3

[Dr Positivity]

Case in point might be that Dwight Howard was nominated 3 threads ago...and obviously his rookie season out of HS is negligible, which gives him about the same number of years as Paul.

It's not "about the same". Let's say their first 2 years are a draw, Paul is the better rookie but plays 64 Gs in his sophmore season to Dwight's 82, neither were priming it yet. We can say Paul's 2011 and Dwight's 3rd season (2007) where he still hadn't hit his statistical prime are close to the same in value, both seasons are all-star, 3rd team All-NBA, non top 10 MVP seasons. What's remaining after that is 2 epic seasons for Paul and 4 for Dwight. Paul's 2010 is worthless, he plays 45 Gs, with 7 of them as a shell at the end of the season, he averages 8.2 Game Score in those games which is trash. So you basically get 38 Gs of great Chris Paul. That's not getting you to the playoffs unless you have another superstar on your team and if you do, he's a shell and worse than 2007 Wade

The difference between 2 MVP caliber seasons and 4 is absolutely huge for me when judging a player's candidcy this high and certainly not, about the same. If Paul was perfectly healthy from 08 to 11, I'd have nominated him by now

[Doctor MJ]

It's not "about the same". Let's say their first 2 years are a draw, Paul is the better rookie but plays 64 Gs in his sophmore season to Dwight's 82, neither were priming it yet. We can say Paul's 2011 and Dwight's 3rd season (2007) where he still hadn't hit his statistical prime are close to the same in value, both seasons are all-star, 3rd team All-NBA, non top 10 MVP seasons. What's remaining after that is 2 epic seasons for Paul and 4 for Dwight. Paul's 2010 is worthless, he plays 45 Gs, with 7 of them as a shell at the end of the season, he averages 8.2 Game Score in those games which is trash. So you basically get 38 Gs of great Chris Paul. That's not getting you to the playoffs unless you have another superstar on your team and if you do, he's a shell and worse than 2007 Wade

The difference between 2 MVP caliber seasons and 4 is absolutely huge for me when judging a player's candidcy this high and certainly not, about the same. If Paul was perfectly healthy from 08 to 11, I'd have nominated him by now

Similar peak and I've got them both with 2 Top 5 seasons which I think is generous to Howard the way the Magic basically swept their way through the first round of the 2010 playoffs with Howard putting up a single/single and spending half the time on the bench. I've got with the edge in Top 10 seasons 4 to 3. In career WS totals, Howard has the edge 80 to 76.

It's clear to me that I rank Howard over Paul, but it's really hard for me to think of anyone that Howard has the clear edge over that also has a clear edge over Paul.