RealGM Top 100 List #32

[colts18]

I don't see how you can have CP3 over Grant Hill. Hill played over twice the games of Chris Paul. His first 6 years compare well to CP3. In Hill's first 6 years, he averaged 22-8-6-2, 48 FG% with 5 All-NBA teams. Then from 01-11, Hill gives 14-5-3 in 513 games. Just looking at WS, in that decade Grant Hill gives you about the same amount of WS as Caron Butler, Kevin Durant, LaMarcus Aldridge, Chris Webber. So you get 6 All-NBA caliber seasons which are comparable to CP3's, plus you get Caron Butler's career.

[therealbig3]

I honestly think that people overrate Hill's first 6 years...like a lot. He was awesome, don't get me wrong, but people say that if he didn't get injured, he would have been top 20 all time easily...these are his numbers through his first 6 years, compared to Paul's career:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2000

For Hill, those are very Scottie Pippen-type numbers...and without the defense (Hill was great defensively, but not on Pippen's level).

I'd take Paul's 08 and 09 over Hill's 00 quite easily too.

And Hill only played 10 more games than Paul during that stretch.

Basically, for me, Paul is the clearly better player through his first 6 years than Hill through his first 6 years, which is Hill's prime.

[Dr Positivity]

Alright I'll change my nomination to Elvin Hayes, as dirty as it makes me feel. Hard to get over 3x as many minutes as Paul and it's not like he didn't have success - Best player on a title team and 3 Finals overall

[colts18]

I honestly think that people overrate Hill's first 6 years...like a lot. He was awesome, don't get me wrong, but people say that if he didn't get injured, he would have been top 20 all time easily...these are his numbers through his first 6 years, compared to Paul's career:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2000

For Hill, those are very Scottie Pippen-type numbers...and without the defense (Hill was great defensively, but not on Pippen's level).

I'd take Paul's 08 and 09 over Hill's 00 quite easily too.

And Hill only played 10 more games than Paul during that stretch.

Basically, for me, Paul is the clearly better player through his first 6 years than Hill through his first 6 years, which is Hill's prime.

Grant Hill had 60 WS in that 6 season span. Here are some players +/- 5 win shares of hill over the last 6 seasons (06-11):

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Steve Nash
Paul Pierce
Chris Bosh
Manu Ginobili

Of those players, Pierce or Ginobili might be the best comparisons. You get Pierce's 4 Big 3 years, plus 2 good 06-07 years. The question basically becomes do you take Chris Paul or do you take Paul Pierce of the last 6 years, then 10 years of Caron Butler. I think I take the latter.

[Laimbeer]

Ugh. Too high for Payton or Drexler, who are on a tier with Kidd and belong at least a half dozen slots lower. McHale and Gervin both rate higher. Drexler by the thinnest of margins. The guy did make a couple of finals as the guy in a competitive era. I don't think any of his teammates were close.

Nomination, Hayes is solid here but Cousy is by far our most underrated player yet.

Vote: Drexler
Nominate: Cousy

[Dr Positivity]

I find PER/WS for PGs doesn't grade out as well as other positions. Magic and Nash's numbers are way off, Paul grades like 40-60% higher than Deron when we really know he's 10% better at best. 06 Billups has a higher PER than 06 Nash, 96 Brandon has a higher PER than 96 Stockton. Just some issues I think are related to pace

My gut says it's more likely Paul is a 15-16 WS and 25 PER caliber player. Which is awesome, best in the league type material. Just not... prime Lebron, Shaq, Jordan level. And 2011 Paul was old man Paul, he fell off as much as 08-10 Tim Duncan or 2011 Kobe, both of whom kept up their stats but we know better... Paul wasn't putting pressure on the defense at all last year, he was getting a lot of Jose Calderon assists IMO. And it showed in the Hornets crappy ORTG despite West and shooters and a high ORB C, which should thereotically compliment Paul beautifully

[drza]

I like Paul a lot, and when the time comes I could even see myself voting him ahead of some already on the list if I'm convinced on the longevity issue. But it's been bugging me that we don't have more old-school cats on the list, so I'll change my nomination from Mourning to Elvin Hayes

Nominate: Elvin Hayes

[drza]

I honestly think that people overrate Hill's first 6 years...like a lot. He was awesome, don't get me wrong, but people say that if he didn't get injured, he would have been top 20 all time easily...these are his numbers through his first 6 years, compared to Paul's career:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2000

For Hill, those are very Scottie Pippen-type numbers...and without the defense (Hill was great defensively, but not on Pippen's level).

I'd take Paul's 08 and 09 over Hill's 00 quite easily too.

And Hill only played 10 more games than Paul during that stretch.

Basically, for me, Paul is the clearly better player through his first 6 years than Hill through his first 6 years, which is Hill's prime.

Grant Hill had 60 WS in that 6 season span. Here are some players +/- 5 win shares of hill over the last 6 seasons (06-11):

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Steve Nash
Paul Pierce
Chris Bosh
Manu Ginobili

Of those players, Pierce or Ginobili might be the best comparisons. You get Pierce's 4 Big 3 years, plus 2 good 06-07 years. The question basically becomes do you take Chris Paul or do you take Paul Pierce of the last 6 years, then 10 years of Caron Butler. I think I take the latter.

When put that way, for this project, I'd take Chris Paul. Everyone has to decide on their own where the line between longevity and peak is, but I tend to fall back on the "how great were they at playing the game of basketball" criterion from the OP which means that the 10 years of Caron Butler aren't really much of a difference maker when at their best Paul was just clearly better.

[penbeast0]

Final Vote :

Artis Gilmore - penbeast0, mysticbb, drza

(5)Clyde Drexler – JordansBulls, fatal9, FJS, SDChargers#1, Laimbeer

(6)Gary Payton – DavidStern, therealbig3, Fencer, ronnymac2, ELGee, Doctor MJ

Paul Pierce – Dr Mufasa




Nominate:

Sidney Moncrief – penbeast0

(3)Bob Cousy – JordansBulls, Fencer, Laimbeer

(3)Chris Paul – DavidStern, ElGee, Doctor MJ

Kevin Johnson – therealbig3

Reggie Miller – mysticbb

Bob McAdoo –ronnymac2

Alonzo Mourning – fatal9

(5)Elvin Hayes – FJS. SD Cjargers#1, Dr Mufasa. drza

[drza]

Ha! I knew it! 276 as of my last physical 2 months ago, baby! And all of it pure, home-grown out of shape man! You got me on the shoes by 1 size (US size 14), though once in high school my Uncle Wally gave me some hand-me-down 15.5s and I wore them for most of my senior year. That has to round up!

Funny story about hand me downs.

So obviously I'm huge now, but I had a very late growth spurt. I'm a foot taller than I was in 9th grade. I was a solid point guard at the time, but and that I'd grow some more, but I was quite sure I'd never be able to play college ball so I really just focused on other things. Now part of my draw to basketball is a "what might have been thing".

But the smack-hand-to-forehead thing is that I didn't realize I'd grow to be quite tall, because I have a much older brother who is 6'3", and by the time I was in 7th grade I had bigger feet than he did. There were really several clear signs that I might end up being quite large, but I just didn't think about them that much. I just never really took seriously the notion that sports was something I could go places with because I was athletic but not whiz-bang athletic (and I had asthma).

Had I known that I'd end up the tallest kid in my high school, and then grow 3 more inches after that in college and grow into a sturdy frame, I'd have taken basketball a little more seriously. I remember when I realized I had become more like a PF in build than a swingman. Broke my heart a bit. (Whoa, maybe I wouldn't have been too slow...)

Didn't want to de-rail the thread anymore at the time, but since this one is over now...

I was, essentially, the EXACT opposite of you in mentality. My dad was 6-3, and my whole life I was dead-set certain that I was going to be 6-6 or 6-7. My first favorite player (Doctor J) was that height, my second favorite player (Ron Harper) was that height...that's how tall I was going to be. The only problem was, I was always one of the two or three shortest kids in the class. That didn't bother me, though, since my hands and feet were huge and I figured I'd eventually grow into them (even my teachers used to make fun of me for it...Mr. Simon once called me a letter 'L' to my embarrasment and the delight of my classmates). Thus, basketball was always my main focus among sports. I was good at other sports, but I was sure basketball was where my future was.

When I got to high school I was only 5-3, but I wore a size 12 shoe. I then started growing 3 inches and 1 shoe size per year...5-6 and size 13 for sophomore, 5-9 and size 14 for junior, and 6-0 and size 15 for senior with more to come. The only thing was, at some point I realized my feet had stopped growing and the 15s were really a bit too big...and that the 6-0 I had was all I was going to get. The good thing, though, was that by that time it was evident that I wasn't going to the NBA like I had thought, so instead I put more energy into running track and ended up getting to do that at 2 different colleges so I can say I'm one of the few folks that has competed in both an ACC and a Big Ten championship competition. The 6-6 NBA superstar dream would have been nice, but the short guy fall-back wasn't so terrible.

[ElGee]

Wade has 4 08, 09 Paul caliber seasons (06, 09, 10, 11) to Paul's 2 and 5 superstar seasons overall, and I think Wade is better than prime Paul anyways - and he has an MJ caliber playoff performance in 06 to beat 2 superior teams. That's a fairly significant difference to me

Well 2 things:

1) "significant difference"? I don't disagree with that. There's zero debate about who should be higher, and at this point we're expecting Wade to be 20 spots above Paul.

2) Just some perspective though. By career Win Shares:

LeBron 119
Wade 83
Howard 80
Paul 76

I know I keep bringing up WS. Believe me it's not my holy grail, but it gives us a rapid ability to tally up career impact for a rough estimate, and the issue here isn't that Wade sucks at WS. He's just missed so much time that his longevity really looks more like Howard & Paul than LeBron. And if that longevity for Wade doesn't bother me a ridiculous amount, on what grounds do I hold it severely against Howard & Paul?

(Also, in all honesty, seeing it from this perspective, does indeed make me wonder if I have Wade a tad too high on my list)

The problem with the WS snapshot is it totally betrays the fact that the season ends after 82 games and a PS (and losing a PS series sends a team home). A guy with a million WS who misses the PS every year has little value. And a guy who amasses WS slowly can also have basically no value...I'm taking just about every 10 WS history over 10 3-win share seasons, know what I'm sayin?