RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #22

[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.

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!

I want to start with a concession. I concede entirely that CP3 is a superior version of Isiah over the course of the average 48 minute game. I concede that CP3 is among the greatest ever in terms of efficiency and consistency of play. I concede that the numbers do not lie in this regard.

That said...

A major objection here. You cite Chris Paul's best game as game six vs. Houston in 2015 which ended with the Clippers being outscored 40-15 and set the stage for an epic collapse from up 3-1.

That's the problem with using the numbers by themselves. What Chris Paul and Clipper fans would tell you is one of the worst days of their basketball lives, you're arguing as a positive.

Can you see how that's difficult for someone with a different approach than you to understand?


If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

[Senior]

Although I would rather build an offense around CP3 vs Wade, I think I would rather have Wade in the playoffs. I really just can't ignore CP3's relative lack of aggression in a comparison to Wade. All that stuff about Crawford sucking, the elite competition, and absurd efficiency just doesn't matter when CP3 refuses to use his obscene scoring skills to kill opponents whereas Wade does. CP3 wouldn't have pulled off a run like 06 Wade, fluky or not (I don't think it was a fluke, Dallas had trouble with big guards all through the Dirk years, the Heat were on a 58 win pace with Shaq in the RS, and they just demolished 64-18 Detroit in the round before) because he wasn't wired that way. Wade absolutely buried two 60 win teams and stole the Finals. Wade's track record of offenses doesn't compare to CP3's (like...at all), but he's the one with the results, not CP3. 05-06 Shaq was comparable to 14-15 Blake, but CP3's offensive cast blows the rest of the 05-06 Heat away. Regardless of how fluky you think that 06 Heat run was, we can't take away from the fact that it actually happened.

I do think CP3 had bad luck with his injuries, and he really is an amazing player when he's healthy. He's a better player than Isiah. His teammates have let him down over and over. And yet I wonder...why is CP3 deferring to clearly inferior teammates? Why is he giving up the ball to Jamal Crawford in critical situations when he's better at literally everything basketball-related? If Wade was in CP3's situation he's telling Crawford to back the hell off because I'm Dwyane **** Wade and I'm better than you.

The Wade-Shaq teams had probably 3 chances to win the title. Wade got hurt in 2 of them...but he cashed in on the other one, with one of the best title runs in history. CP3 had 5 (13-17), lost 3 to injury and blew 2 in excruciating, frustrating ways. Again, the Clippers had clear issues with their construction which CP3 was covering up, and OKC/HOU were even probably better teams...but they were in a position to win in spite of all that. Should it not be on a superstar to make the big plays to take the 50-50 or dis-favored series? Durant and Westbrook did in Games 5/6, and even Harden did in Game 7. The Clippers blew huge leads at critical points in both series, and I believe that a star should take responsibility to control the flow of the game. CP3 put up 31/7/11 in that Game 6, and yet it makes no sense to call that his best game as Joe said. His best game was Game 7 vs SA because he did what he needed to do to close out the defending champions.

In the end, it comes to this...who is more likely to do what it takes to get my team through the next round? And my gut says Wade, numbers be damned. I don't care that Wade's not as good a floor general or as good a shooter as CP3. I care that he's more willing to take the game into his own hands and crush his opponents, regardless of what the "right" play is. The right plays are the ones that results in the win, and if it means making the dumb or selfish plays, then so be it.

[mikejames23]

Although I would rather build an offense around CP3 vs Wade, I think I would rather have Wade in the playoffs. I really just can't ignore CP3's relative lack of aggression in a comparison to Wade. All that stuff about Crawford sucking, the elite competition, and absurd efficiency just doesn't matter when CP3 refuses to use his obscene scoring skills to kill opponents whereas Wade does. CP3 wouldn't have pulled off a run like 06 Wade, fluky or not (I don't think it was a fluke, Dallas had trouble with big guards all through the Dirk years, the Heat were on a 58 win pace with Shaq in the RS, and they just demolished 64-18 Detroit in the round before) because he wasn't wired that way. Wade absolutely buried two 60 win teams and stole the Finals. Wade's track record of offenses doesn't compare to CP3's (like...at all), but he's the one with the results, not CP3. 05-06 Shaq was comparable to 14-15 Blake, but CP3's offensive cast blows the rest of the 05-06 Heat away. Regardless of how fluky you think that 06 Heat run was, we can't take away from the fact that it actually happened.

I do think CP3 had bad luck with his injuries, and he really is an amazing player when he's healthy. He's a better player than Isiah. His teammates have let him down over and over. And yet I wonder...why is CP3 deferring to clearly inferior teammates? Why is he giving up the ball to Jamal Crawford in critical situations when he's better at literally everything basketball-related? If Wade was in CP3's situation he's telling Crawford to back the hell off because I'm Dwyane **** Wade and I'm better than you.

The Wade-Shaq teams had probably 3 chances to win the title. Wade got hurt in 2 of them...but he cashed in on the other one, with one of the best title runs in history. CP3 had 5 (13-17), lost 3 to injury and blew 2 in excruciating, frustrating ways. Again, the Clippers had clear issues with their construction which CP3 was covering up, and OKC/HOU were even probably better teams...but they were in a position to win in spite of all that. Should it not be on a superstar to make the big plays to take the 50-50 or dis-favored series? Durant and Westbrook did in Games 5/6, and even Harden did in Game 7. The Clippers blew huge leads at critical points in both series, and I believe that a star should take responsibility to control the flow of the game. CP3 put up 31/7/11 in that Game 6, and yet it makes no sense to call that his best game as Joe said. His best game was Game 7 vs SA because he did what he needed to do to close out the defending champions.

In the end, it comes to this...who is more likely to do what it takes to get my team through the next round? And my gut says Wade, numbers be damned. I don't care that Wade's not as good a floor general or as good a shooter as CP3. I care that he's more willing to take the game into his own hands and crush his opponents, regardless of what the "right" play is. The right plays are the ones that results in the win, and if it means making the dumb or selfish plays, then so be it.

I agree w/Wade over Paul in terms of playoff runs, but couple things I wanted to point out -

Paul has generally proven scoring capabilities in the playoffs. Where is he not imposing himself? It certainly doesn't appear to be a trend.

As far Paul's window is concerned, he literally only had 3 seasons - 13 - 15. Watching Nash miss his window from 05-07 I don't feel it's unacceptable to miss the title if that's all the time you get with having contending teams. He was not going to get past the 73 win warriors or the 17 Warriors either way.

My largest issue with Wade rests at his prime being cut short the way it was. 51 games in 07 and 08. It basically gives you 06 and 09-11, during which he delivers in the 11 playoff run but the Heat can't capitalize for a title. Paul too has big durability concerns, but we might have a different perception of him if he pulls it off in a non injury season like 2008. Won't ever know.

[Senior]

Paul has generally proven scoring capabilities in the playoffs. Where is he not imposing himself? It certainly doesn't appear to be a trend.

It's not that I believe CP3 to be an incapable scorer - heck, he's a more versatile scorer than Wade is. CP3 kills Wade in shooting. My problem with CP3 is that he didn't leverage his superior scoring skills to do what he needed to do to close teams out as often as he could've. Chances were definitely there, and he didn't take them.

As far Paul's window is concerned, he literally only had 3 seasons - 13 - 15. Watching Nash miss his window from 05-07 I don't feel it's unacceptable to miss the title if that's all the time you get with having contending teams. He was not going to get past the 73 win warriors or the 17 Warriors either way.

I don't think that LAC would've beaten the 15-17 Warriors. I don't think they wouldn't have beaten the 14 Spurs either. But you never know until you play the series, right? Maybe CP3 digs deep and blasts the Spurs or Warriors. He would've been the best player in a 2014 Spurs series, and he already kind of was (him or Blake) in their series in 2015.

It hurts him in a comparison to Wade because Wade only had 3 chances himself (as the main guy). He got hurt late in the 05 ECF vs Detroit, missed Game 6 and sucked in Game 7. He got hurt late in 2007, came back for the playoffs, and wasn't nearly the same player. But he cashed in on 2006. Had the Heat lost to Detroit or Dallas we'd be looking at their RS metrics and concluding that was totally reasonable for Miami to lose against either team. Wade (and Shaq) didn't let that happen.

It's easy to look back and say "well they'd have lost anyway". But every team has a chance to win the series, and it's up to the players to decide the outcome.

My largest issue with Wade rests at his prime being cut short the way it was. 51 games in 07 and 08. It basically gives you 06 and 09-11, during which he delivers in the 11 playoff run but the Heat can't capitalize for a title. Paul too has big durability concerns, but we might have a different perception of him if he pulls it off in a non injury season like 2008. Won't ever know.

I'm not giving CP3 credit over Wade for a hypothetical when Wade actually did do it and especially when CP3 has health issues himself. CP3 got hurt in 2009, 2010 and 2016. That's three playoff runs down the drain.

Wade lost two playoff runs to injury from 05-07, but the one year he was healthy, he dominated en route to the title. No one can ever take that away from him. The window to contend for a title is always, always, always shorter than teams think it is, and stars just have to capitalize on the few chances they get because there's no telling how soon it can all slip away.

[mischievous]

If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

I don't really have a dog in the Paul vs Thomas fight, but I don't totally get this. If Paul is playing better through say 3 quarters, then he's already putting his team in a better position to win than Thomas. Thomas' clutchness won't do any good if he's not in reach of victory to begin with, which is likely the case if he's in place of Paul on many of his teams.

[JoeMalburg]

If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

I don't really have a dog in the Paul vs Thomas fight, but I don't totally get this. If Paul is playing better through say 3 quarters, then he's already putting his team in a better position to win than Thomas. Thomas' clutchness won't do any good if he's not in reach of victory to begin with, which is likely the case if he's in place of Paul on many of his teams.

In theory that'd make sense, but in reality, as you've no doubt observed, a disproportanitley high percentage of games come down to the fourth quarter. Despite how well anyone plays in the first three.

[penbeast0]

For those saying, "dominance at other times be damned," are you looking at Cliff Hagan, James Worthy, and Chauncey Billups? All not quite as great players who stood tall in playoff crunch time. Or, Walt Frazier, whose prime was arguably Wade level and who was the best player on his team for the NY Knicks only two championships in their history? Or is this a narrative only for these particular players . . . pro Isiah, pro Wade, or anti Paul?

Sorry if this comes off as calling anyone out but comments like (in it's most extreme form) "I don't care who the best player is for anything other than the final minutes of games in the NBA finals" brings us an entirely different cast of characters and people start bringing up Robert Horry.

[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!

I want to start with a concession. I concede entirely that CP3 is a superior version of Isiah over the course of the average 48 minute game. I concede that CP3 is among the greatest ever in terms of efficiency and consistency of play. I concede that the numbers do not lie in this regard.

That said...

A major objection here. You cite Chris Paul's best game as game six vs. Houston in 2015 which ended with the Clippers being outscored 40-15 and set the stage for an epic collapse from up 3-1.

That's the problem with using the numbers by themselves. What Chris Paul and Clipper fans would tell you is one of the worst days of their basketball lives, you're arguing as a positive.

Can you see how that's difficult for someone with a different approach than you to understand?


If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

1st - the Houston game itself - if you're going to dis-credit that, you discredit Isiah's Game 6 in LA where he scored 25 in a quarter, you dis-credit his game 6 in '85 against Boston where he dropped 37-12-9 in a loss and you discredit a triple double against Atlanta in '86 - also a loss - and his final playoff game where he torched the Knicks in '92 - right as they were in the process of becoming one of the greatest defenses ever - in a loss. In that Houston game, he put up 31-11-7 and got those points really efficiently. What should he have done differently?

People can put up incredible performances in losses - it happens. It's an awful day for the Clippers but Paul played exceptional. You can't just brush aside someone's crappy performance because the team won - or dismiss an exceptional performance in a loss.

Now . . .

If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

Paul. Easy. You give me Isiah on Paul's teams and I might not even be in the game with 4:00 to go - flip it, and the game is wrapped up most of the time.

'87 - he was good against Boston in Games 6/7. Only 1 Turnover combined - 25 & 21 points - 9 assists in each game. I'd like it more if his TS% wasn't 45 in those games - but fine - I'm not going to crap on these games - but they're not better than a typical Paul result either.
'88 - He sucked against Boston in Game 6. 3/11 - 9 points. This is the 4 time defending Conference Champ and your offensive anchor does that? You' should be toast. Good thing Dantley dropped 22. Good thing Vinnie & Edwards combined for 39 off the bench. Good thing Ainge & Parish were held to 2 points each & Bird went 4-17.
Lakers - Was a monster in Game 6. Already addressed. Played poorly in Game 7 - I know he was injured, but that's part of the game. That's one of the reasons Paul has gone home early as infrequently as he has and why Walton isn't a Top 25 player.
'89 - Good against the Bulls in the closeout. 33 points and grabbed 3 steals in the process. Didn't shoot that great (51% TS) but it's fine. 5 rebounds and 4 assists - needed 28 shots to get his points but it's a good performance. Had an atypical Isiah performance against the Lakers in the closeout - they were trailing entering the 4th. He got 14 points total and only 3 reb & 5 assists. So the involvement was questionable. Dumars won Finals MVP and other players did the heavy lifting here in the 4th. Again - he's carried by his teammates in the closeout.
'90 - Not great vs. Chicago in Game 6. 15 & 10 - but his shooting was awful needing 17 shots to get it. Maybe if he had played better there wouldn't be a Game 7 - but to his credit he was excellent in Game 7. His closeout performance against Portland is strong as well (29 points on 68% TS) to go with 5 assists and 2 steals. 7 Turnovers is a lot but overall, it's a good performance.
'91 - OK against Boston - definitely below the typical Paul performance for sure - 17 & 6. Not bad - but well below Paul's standards. Then there's the Bulls walk off.


More often than not I'll get a better performance from Paul. Isiah has the capacity to deliver a better game - but typically I'll get a better performance from Paul - and ultimately isn't that what you want to bet on?

[Senior]

For those saying, "dominance at other times be damned," are you looking at Cliff Hagan, James Worthy, and Chauncey Billups? All not quite as great players who stood tall in playoff crunch time. Or, Walt Frazier, whose prime was arguably Wade level and who was the best player on his team for the NY Knicks only two championships in their history? Or is this a narrative only for these particular players . . . pro Isiah, pro Wade, or anti Paul?

Sorry if this comes off as calling anyone out but comments like (in it's most extreme form) "I don't care who the best player is for anything other than the final minutes of games in the NBA finals" brings us an entirely different cast of characters and people start bringing up Robert Horry.

I see it like this: I believe that Wade and CP3 are similar caliber players, but I have more faith in Wade's aggressive mentality to win the close games and series in the crucial moments. With Isiah vs CP3, although I feel Isiah's mentality is more suited to win those close games, I also feel that CP3 is clearly a better player. I like that Isiah has that mentality, but it's not as if he was on Wade or CP3's level to begin with. Gun to my head I have Wade, CP3, then Isiah, and I believe Isiah was a smidge underrated. The Pistons around Isiah were also far more resilient and suited to win a title than the Clippers around CP3.

Guys like Hagan, Worthy, Manu, Billups, even Frazier aren't really on that plane, so I don't consider them in this comparison. Their superior teammates allowed their more subtle gifts to shine through in crunch time. They were never the best players on their teams whereas Isiah/CP3/Wade all were (maybe Frazier was, not sure about him vs Willis)

It's as mischievous said - a clearly better player would make crunch time less relevant because their team would consistently be in a better position to win before crunch time. But in a comparison between similar level players? I'm taking the guy who's consistently more aggressive every time.

[Lou Fan]

05-06 Shaq was comparable to 14-15 Blake, but CP3's offensive cast blows the rest of the 05-06 Heat away. Regardless of how fluky you think that 06 Heat run was, we can't take away from the fact that it actually happened.

Loved the rest of your post but cmon now. Shaq is not comparable to Blake Griffin. Period. On a per-minute basis Shaq was still a top-10 player in the league in 06 and he was a far more efficient player than Blake. Shaq required way more defensive attention, game-planning, and double teams and still put up better numbers despite not playing with an elite passer like CP3. Shaq had an All-NBA season at the end of his career when he was way past his prime just because he got to play with Steve Nash. Having a great PG like Paul has boosted Blake's numbers/efficiency.

[mischievous]

05-06 Shaq was comparable to 14-15 Blake, but CP3's offensive cast blows the rest of the 05-06 Heat away. Regardless of how fluky you think that 06 Heat run was, we can't take away from the fact that it actually happened.

Loved the rest of your post but cmon now. Shaq is not comparable to Blake Griffin. Period. On a per-minute basis Shaq was still a top-10 player in the league in 06 and he was a far more efficient player than Blake. Shaq required way more defensive attention, game-planning, and double teams and still put up better numbers despite not playing with an elite passer like CP3. Shaq had an All-NBA season at the end of his career when he was way past his prime just because he got to play with Steve Nash. Having a great PG like Paul has boosted Blake's numbers/efficiency.

Griffin was also a top 10 player that year and was a beast in the playoffs. He garnered a lot of defensive attention as well and was a significantly better ball handler and playmaker than Shaq. Scoring and rebounding are both close, with Shaq getting an edge in defense but he wasn't elite and Blake was solid. Definitely comparable players overall imo.

[Senior]

Loved the rest of your post but cmon now. Shaq is not comparable to Blake Griffin. Period. On a per-minute basis Shaq was still a top-10 player in the league in 06 and he was a far more efficient player than Blake. Shaq required way more defensive attention, game-planning, and double teams and still put up better numbers despite not playing with an elite passer like CP3. Shaq had an All-NBA season at the end of his career when he was way past his prime just because he got to play with Steve Nash. Having a great PG like Paul has boosted Blake's numbers/efficiency.

Per minute...sure. But Shaq was already starting to break down. Missed 23 games in 06, missed playoff games in 05, and only played about 33 MPG in the RS/PS both years. Put up about 20 PPG both years. His defense had started to fall off badly too. Still the best C and post player in the league, and I agree that teams were probably more scared of Shaq vs Blake. The Mavs overreacted to Shaq vs Detroit and paid for it.

14/15 Blake was doing about 35 MPG in the RS then 38 MPG in the playoffs (40 MPG in 15). Putting up 23/9/5 in the RS and 25/10/5 over both playoffs. 26/13/6 in 15. Huge improvement as a playmaker from a FC position and in his jumper. Efficiency advantage for Shaq is only like 3% TS because his FT shooting was falling apart at that point. From the field it's obviously Shaq in a landslide, but I'm not gonna reward a guy for not converting at the line.

Regardless of which way you lean, it's pretty clear that one guy isn't obliterating the other. When you consider the minutes advantage for Blake, it gets even closer.

[penbeast0]

...
Guys like Hagan, Worthy, Manu, Billups, even Frazier aren't really on that plane, so I don't consider them in this comparison. Their superior teammates allowed their more subtle gifts to shine through in crunch time. They were never the best players on their teams whereas Isiah/CP3/Wade all were (maybe Frazier was, not sure about him vs Willis)

It's as mischievous said - a clearly better player would make crunch time less relevant because their team would consistently be in a better position to win before crunch time. But in a comparison between similar level players? I'm taking the guy who's consistently more aggressive every time.

Frazier was the best player on his team for the second championship without a doubt. Reed was hobbled that season and split time with Jerry Lucas at center though Reed was certainly inspirational. The first championship it was close. Reed was the established star, Frazier the relative newbie and that may be the reason Reed got the MVP. Or, one of our former great posters TrueLAFan hypothesized that Reed was the "good black man" who dressed neatly and was soft spoken while Clyde dressed like Superfly. This was the early 70s so that theory probably has validity with some voters too.

Of course Wade wasn't the man on the Superfriends championship teams, only 1A to Shaq's 1B but he, like Frazier, is the one who elevated his game in the finals. I think Wade v Frazier is a close call though I do lean to Wade because he played in the stronger era, the 70s were a time when expansion was weakening the game and making it easier for stars to dominate against weaker opponents.

[trex_8063]

Stockton getting in at #21 early is brutal thing so far but let keep going. Since many value longevity this high, then be consistent with it.

Not sure what was meant by this statement. Almost seems like it's prefacing intention to play the "Gotcha!" game (wherein you try to catch poster in being inconsistent or whatever). But if one ranks Stockton as high as #21, that doesn't mean he's being inconsistent if not immediately championing the next relative "longevity-giant" (though speaking for myself, I'm sure I will be championing guys like Robert Parish before most).

There's no inconsistency in having, for example, John Stockton (near GOAT-level longevity) and Dwyane Wade (very mediocre longevity) adjacent on a list [like I do] if one simply feels [like I do] that during their respective average prime year that Wade was a much better player.

We might say that Wade had about 8-9 prime-ish [that is: prime or at least near-prime] seasons ('05-'13 or '14, minus '08 which was well below usual standards), 3-4 in which he missed a somewhat significant number of games.
By the same loose definition of "prime-ish", we'd have to conclude that John Stockton had 15 (or even 16??) prime or near-prime seasons (basically '88-'02, +/- '03??), only ONE in which he missed relevant games.

In essence, what I am saying [by having them adjacent on my ATL] is that I rate those 8-9 Wade seasons just barely shy in total cumulative value as those 15 Stockton seasons.
That's not cherry-picking when longevity matters to me and when it doesn't. That's the rough conclusion I've come to after careful measurement. Wade doesn't have as many seasons in general, and certainly falls well short in the number of truly high-quality seasons. But the weight of each of his prime seasons is generally more than any one season of Stockton's.


At this point, I suppose I'll just put my tentative picks out there.....

Wade, imo, had a prime-level play that was comparable in quality to guys like Dirk, Kobe, and Durant, and carries an impressive playoff resume.

The feature character of this thread so far, Chris Paul, has had a phenomenal statistical career (in both rs and playoffs), and despite two fewer seasons, has longevity which can already be compared to Wade's, or even seen as marginally better (because all 12 of his seasons have been "prime-ish").
I still have a few question marks regarding missed opportunities, but it's not enough to remove him from consideration here (far from it). For now, I'll register my picks as....

1st vote: Dwyane Wade
2nd vote: Chris Paul

I could potentially be swayed (particularly off of my 2ndary pick) with a coup-de-grace post in support of Patrick Ewing or Kevin Durant; or perhaps any one of Nash, Pippen, Pettit, or Havlicek.

[Senior]

Frazier was the best player on his team for the second championship without a doubt. Reed was hobbled that season and split time with Jerry Lucas at center though Reed was certainly inspirational. The first championship it was close. Reed was the established star, Frazier the relative newbie and that may be the reason Reed got the MVP. Or, one of our former great posters TrueLAFan hypothesized that Reed was the "good black man" who dressed neatly and was soft spoken while Clyde dressed like Superfly. This was the early 70s so that theory probably has validity with some voters too.

Of course Wade wasn't the man on the Superfriends championship teams, only 1A to Shaq's 1B but he, like Frazier, is the one who elevated his game in the finals. I think Wade v Frazier is a close call though I do lean to Wade because he played in the stronger era, the 70s were a time when expansion was weakening the game and making it easier for stars to dominate against weaker opponents.

Point taken. Pistons around Isiah were probably just as good as the Knicks around Frazier, so Isiah vs Frazier isn't too crazy either way although Reed just never seemed healthy after 1970. Out for 72, shoulder in 71, this thing in 73, then he retired. I do think that the Pistons faced better competition given the expansion like you mentioned.

[CodeBreaker]

1st vote: Dwyane Wade
2nd vote: Kevin Durant

It's just matter of time before KD climbs this ladder. I choose Dwyane Wade because you can never overlook his peak. That peak he had was top 10 ever. Adding to his resume is carrying that Heat squad in 06 to its first title. What was he, 3 years into the league? Tbh, I think Wade should be higher on this list. He is my top 3 SG all time over Jerry West. Although I didn't have the chance to watch West, but D.Wade impact and accolades IMO puts him up there.

[oldschooled]

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.

Alt: Bob Pettit

[RCM88x]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

In my opinion the GOAT perimeter defender, and one of the best passing Forwards of all time. Pippen posted an impressive prime run of 9 seasons from '90 to '98, averaging a BPM of 6.1 and a WS/48 of .173. He ranks an impressive 13th all time in career playoff WS, 18th in career average playoff BPM, and an insane 5th all time in playoff VORP.

In my opinion, probably the idea 2nd option. Doesn't need the ball to have an impact and when he does, is a 3 way threat to drive, pass or shoot.

2nd Vote: George Mikan

[oldschooled]

For all the guys voting Chris Paul this early. What's his argument against Curry, Nash, Pettit, Wade, Pippen? This guy seems to get all the credit when they win. And still get praised even if they lose lmao. Guy was given the right players and in a good position to succeed and still wont make it past 2nd round. Why do i feel Paul always underachieve while those guys mentioned overachieve most of the time. Lookin at all those guys. Those guys are MVP and Finals MVP with the exception of Pip. Does Paul's impact and whatever your case really more valuable than those guys?

[andrewww]

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Dwyane Wade

Among these five candidates (Durant/Curry/Wade/Nash/Paul), I believe KD has the most seasons of top level play along with Paul, but in terms of peak I look at it as Curry/Durant/Wade being in the discussion. In retrospect, Wade's career value does ever so slightly surpass that of Curry's thus far and my alternate pick goes to him.