RealGM

Jerry West '66 has been enshrined.

Alright, fresh start perhaps.

Some of the guys talked about on my mind:

Chris Paul - if Nash is in, Paul is certainly worth talking about

Karl Malone - kind of amazed Nash got in before Malone without a real debate

Charles Barkley - to me at his best he was just more of an unstoppable beast than Malone, but was his defense really THAT bad?

Moses Malone - may very well get in next. As I've said, nothing against the guy, I just think there's a reason why Barkley usurped him in Philly so quickly, and it's absolutely related to Barkley's far more efficient scoring, and independent scoring & playmaking in general.

I'll mention McGrady & Durant together - both great scorers with some all around question marks, neither blowing us away by any +/- study.

Bernard King - the biggest question mark in history other than Walton?

Vote 2008 Paul

A perfect true PG. Relentless penetration, a perfect feel for the game and court, scoring ability, smart D, etc. Barkley is the best offensive player on the board IMO but takes some D off the table compared to a guy like Paul. Tmac has to fit in somewhere but I've decided I slightly trust Paul's offensive game more, while Tmac is better defensively it's not by enough of a margin

Something I will say: It's pretty astounding to me that Kobe '08 got in 7 spots ago given that I felt Kobe vs Paul that year was a virtual tossup.

That said: I don't think Paul should run away with this thing until we first at least deal with Malone & Barkley.

fatal9 wrote:Just to start up a discussion on CP3. He was inseparable from Kobe (voted at #15) and better imo than LeBron (just a year away from his peak) that season. Had an unreal playoff run individually too (25/6/12 on 58 TS% on Kidd). Hopefully people don't forget he was a much much more dynamic player before his injury who was making 30/10 games look effortless. He ended the discussions about who the best PG in the league was, in a league with a prime Steve Nash. Skills and mentality wise he gave you exactly what you want from a PG, nothing you can point to and say "but he couldn't...". He has the skills to play at any speed, with any kind of talent and can adjust his game to whatever the team needs.

Look at how much quicker/aggressive he was (unguardable with his ability to change pace and find seams) and how much better his shot making ability was compared to now:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtprNCcGNU[/youtube]


Only thing is, I really don't know what to make of is his defense that season. Hornets were a good defensive team and he played the most minutes, so naturally you would think he wasn't a liability but rapm says he was bad. His activity/energy, quick hands and ability to play passing lanes are obviously great, he's naturally intelligent on both ends, but his man defense is the main concern here. He actually did a good job on Kidd when the Mavs posted him up to exploit what they felt was a weakness. Parker had a couple of good games (one dominant one) but overall didn't really play above his normal level or anything. Billups handed it to him in '09 but he was just video game hot at times (but Paul also is really bad at contesting shots so it was a perfect storm).

My assessment on purely watching him play never pinned him as a defensively liability that year (susceptible to some things but overall had a positive impact) so is there a reason he looks bad defensively? He has a solid positive rating defensively in '09. Did he really improve that much more in '09 (when he had to carry the team even more offensively due to injuries) that in one season he goes from being bad to great, or is his '08 rating not representative of his defense?

therealbig3 wrote:Paul is typically a positive impact defender, because his hands are so damn quick and he plays the passing lanes and pick pockets opposing players so well...but I think because he does play the passing lanes so much, he has the tendency to get burned at times, and I don't think his man defense was ever all that great, especially when you consider his size. I think it may have been him getting burned more than usual in 08, or maybe because he had to carry the offense so much (similar to what was said about Kobe, Wade, T-Mac, etc.), his defense suffered. Who knows?

But Paul is a good mention. I personally take Nash, however. It's very close.

C-izMe wrote:Great post on Paul Fatal9. I honestly forgot how good he was/I thought he was. I'm ranking him over Nash but back then I saw him clearly as the second best PG peak ever. It was like 4th quarter 12 Paul all game.
My favorite Paul game:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWqdhAumXI[/youtube]

This is the last game where he looked like old CP3. Even in his big games now it's different because until the end of the game he's not aggressive. He also showed off his skillset; perfect passes, 13 boards, a few rips, a few threes, double digit 4th quarter, double digit (assist) first quarter, great crossovers.

He might take this vote from Dirk.

therealbig3 wrote:I'd probably go with 09 or 12 Paul as his peak to be honest. 08 Paul has the stats, and the playoff performance, but his RAPM was unimpressive, relatively speaking, and since you're talking about similar levels of play, I'd go with the years where he seems to be more impressive all-around and relative to the league.

For example, his overall RAPM in 08 was tied for 25th, and his offensive RAPM was 10th. He was 6th overall and 6th offensively in 09. He was 3rd overall and 2nd offensively in 12 (2nd overall and 1st offensively compared to similar minute players...Ginobili was 2nd, but he only played half the season, and played 23 mpg).

I know people in general don't think 12 Paul is as good as 08/09 Paul, because he's not physically the same...but I think the difference is exaggerated, and I do think 12 Paul is smarter than 08/09 Paul. As Dr Positivity said, he's better at pacing himself now (he ended up injuring himself as a result of carrying the Hornets in 09, and that's why he ended up playing crappy in the playoffs). He's also cut down his TOs, and he's a better shooter now imo. And its natural that with more experience, you learn more things and get a better feel for the game, which is where I think he's at now.

The only area where I see 08 Paul over 12 Paul is the box score stats, and if we adjust to per 75 possessions:

08 Paul: 22.5 ppg, 12.4 apg, 4.3 rpg, 2.7 TOpg, 57.6% TS, 125 ORating

09 Paul: 24.3 ppg, 11.7 apg, 5.9 rpg, 3.2 TOpg, 59.9% TS, 124 ORating

12 Paul: 22.0 ppg, 10.1 apg, 4.0 rpg, 2.3 TOpg, 58.1% TS, 126 ORating

Very comparable, and I think Paul is more matured now, so I'm probably leaning towards 12 Paul as his peak probably.

But it is cool to watch when he was in his athletic prime and going off, definitely one of the best PGs ever.

MisterWestside wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:I'd probably go with 09 or 12 Paul as his peak to be honest. 08 Paul has the stats, and the playoff performance, but his RAPM was unimpressive, relatively speaking, and since you're talking about similar levels of play, I'd go with the years where he seems to be more impressive all-around and relative to the league.

The guy burst onto the scene in 2008, and, as was discussed over on the APBRmetrics board, his use in the Hornets lineups threw a monkey wrench in some of his +/- data. I'm all for +/- data, but does anyone honestly Paul was just a top 30 player in 08, or that Tyson Chandler was the best player on the Hornets that season? For everyone who watched the Hornets take the league by storm that season, NO and NO. (Btw, I'm a fan of Chandler and think he often gets underrated for his play.)

When you also include his great playoff run, I put Paul's 08 up there with any other in recent memory. But his 09 and 12 seasons were great, as well.

fatal9 wrote:People have forgotten how easily he used to get in the lane and break down defenses. It's a shame if he is remembered for his post-injury years than '08 and '09 when he was on another level physically.

Look at how many more times he attacked the defense over the course of a game (and if you doubt this or have forgotten, there are many games of his '08 and '09 seasons on youtube) and snaked through the lane (this isn't just any scrubby team, this is the second best defense in the league that year):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xV9SW1OrM[/youtube]

His speed used to really stand out, now? Not so much. His change of pace isn't as deadly anymore, and his shot making ability was so much better when he got into the lane.

Playmaking wise, ’08 Paul gave you everything you want from a PG. He was great at running the pick and roll with West, great at breaking down the defense and getting his shooters looks (Peja had the best 3PT% of his career), great at getting centers easy baskets (lobs)…he offers a lot of variety in the way he created for others and made everyone on his team from West to Peja to Chandler as effective offensively as their talent would allow.

This combined with...

Paul’s freakishly good TOV%...12.1% in ’08. That’s just not supposed to happen when you are leading the league in assists, have a high usage and are also a 20+ ppg scorer. Looking at other PGs. Nash in his prime was 19-20%, same with Magic, Isiah around 17-18%, Kidd around 20%, Stockton 20-22%, Paul absolutely kills everyone else in this category. This also adds to his value to his defense (not as many runouts from steals).

Regarding, RAPM, doesn't it generally underrate "breakout" seasons because it relies a lot on the previous year? Paul in '08 and '09 was basically the same player, he had to do a little bit more in '09 though because of injuries to the team.

bastillon wrote:

nikomCH wrote:

The Infamous1 wrote:2008 Paul perfected the PG position, he was great at everything. I always say he's a more efficient, better shooting, less turnover prone version of Isiah Thomas

2009 Paul is superior to 2008 Paul in almost every way. People are penalizing him way too much for those playoff games against the Nuggets.

If 2009 Wade just got in then there is no reason for why 2009 Paul shouldn't.

obviously Wade shouldn't have been voted in then. his back injury was a no-no for any team with Wade 09, be it Miami Heat 09, or some hypothetical scenario. just because posters made a wrong choice going with a guy who wasn't 100% in the postseason doesn't mean that they have to make the same mistake again. Paul had a groin/hamstring injury in 2009 playoffs and he was pretty much destroyed by Dahntay Jones and Billups. I don't think he was 60% of himself at the time. there is absolutely no case for 09 CP as a guy who will help you win a championship. if you're severely injured come playoff time, you can't be a legit candidate because you won't be able to help your team win a lot.

vote: Chris Paul 08
truly inseperable from Kobe until the playoffs (though CP was still rocking), established himself as the best PG in the game, undervalued by RAPM because of his prior, I don't like his defense though, too much of a gambler and terrible at contesting shots. I could be swayed for Karl Malone instead.

Doctor MJ wrote:Something I will say: It's pretty astounding to me that Kobe '08 got in 7 spots ago given that I felt Kobe vs Paul that year was a virtual tossup.

It shouldn't be, really. The Kobe contingent was going to make sure he got in.

Vote: TMac 03. I will drop it for Paul if he gets no votes and Paul needs some.

vote: Paul '08

Vote: 08 Paul

I think I'd actually vote for 12 Paul if he didn't injury himself in the postseason. I'm not that impressed with 08 Paul as his stats/highlights indicate.

first of all there's his defense - I think younger Paul was more suspeptible to getting burned because of gambling. Paul is still not a good defender but I could totally see him being a liability in 08. gambling superstar guard is hardly a great defender for me.

also I see Paul as a guy who can't make much impact off ball. he doesn't really do all those little things, intangible stats, that others like LeBron or KG do so well. contesting, boxing out, setting screens, closing out etc. due to Paul's length I don't like his defensive impact as I said earlier, but I also think his off ball impact on offense is negligible.

due to those factors I don't like Paul's impact translating to a good team. Hornets/Clippers are perfectly built for him because he doesn't have to play off ball or play 2nd fiddle next to anyone. but what if he was paired with superstar wing or a big who you need to run plays through. I really hate Paul's off ball offense.

those vids, while all great, show exactly those problems. in the first video fatal9 posted Tony Parker put up 31/11 @ 56% TS. Paul's every highlight was with him handling the ball. ball dominance is acceptable for a PG but younger Paul was almost never getting rid of the ball. people were calling out Oscar for being too ball dominant but I've never got that impression watching his highlights/games. I remember Paul being more dominant than SSOL Steve Nash.

with that being said, you want Paul with the ball in his hands most of the time because he's just such a gifted offensive player. but that's a major issue if you pair him up with another ball dominant player like Wade or LeBron. I could see Nash still doing serious damage when asked to play less on ball. can't say the same about Paul. ceiling becomes an issue as well, there aren't great many star players who play well without the ball and I just don't see them playing up to their potential with CP.

what I like about Paul though is his leadership. I completely disagree with MJ's assessment of Paul-follower. I think Paul is one of the greatest leaders of all-time. he's extremely charismatic, doesn't shy away from big moments, sets a great example and plays with intensity you rarely see superstars play with.

bastillon wrote:but what if he was paired with superstar wing or a big who you need to run plays through. I really hate Paul's off ball offense.

Just to sneak in here for a second, and pardon the intrusion from a non-contributor, but what does this matter? You build around a player's strengths and weaknesses... that's precisely what you're always supposed to do. What if Shaq didn't have a strong scoring wing and stretch 4? What if he had a toolbag coach instead of Phil Jackson? What if Kobe hadn't enjoyed a staggeringly efficient and dominant rebounding frontcourt in 09 and 10? You know what I mean? You're right to point out the weakness, but every player has one. The comment about how much/long he hangs onto the ball, now that I think is something more representative of a real problem, whereas noting that he's on-ball, but what if he was playing with another on-ball wing, that just seems irrelevant.

that's a major issue if you pair him up with another ball dominant player like Wade or LeBron.

And having said that, haven't both Lebron and Wade shown exactly that they, who everyone thought would have problems, could co-exist even though both were heavily on-ball players prior to their joining in Miami? That would seem the worst example you could have used, no?

bastillon wrote:what I like about Paul though is his leadership. I completely disagree with MJ's assessment of Paul-follower. I think Paul is one of the greatest leaders of all-time. he's extremely charismatic, doesn't shy away from big moments, sets a great example and plays with intensity you rarely see superstars play with.

Yeah I just don't see how you're an all-time greatest level leader when you're the one who gives up on the team the moment they hit strife. Find to talk about his intangible impact when he's on because of his huge BBIQ, but when his team needed leadership most, he was the reason why they needed leadership most

I will say he was young at the time, and that he could still prove to be exceptionally impressive on that front, but when the one struggle of your career is defined by you demanding a trade 1 year into a max deal, it's fair to say you should not be in a GOAT leader discussion.

tsherkin wrote:Just to sneak in here for a second, and pardon the intrusion from a non-contributor

Just so it's clear, we always welcome outsider discussion. It's just the actual voter panel that's nominally closed (but even there, new people do get added).

So yeah, welcome your thoughts t.

tsherkin wrote:whereas noting that he's on-ball, but what if he was playing with another on-ball wing, that just seems irrelevant.

It's not though, because a big part of the project has been a player's portability, and how well a player scales to good teams. LeBron and Wade got knocked for it a bit, because even though they both still play well, they haven't shown the super-dominant type offense that they SHOULD lead due to their talent, and that's because neither one of them is all that great without the ball in their hands. So it's been something to think about with these players, how well they can fit with great talent around them, and for the most part, that's meant how well they can play without the ball in their hands as much.

Now, Paul is such a good on-ball player, that it does seem a little silly to knock him for it, because yes, PGs tend to be ball-dominant, and a PG as good as Paul deserves to be very ball-dominant...but he's not as good as Nash or Magic or Oscar, and I think if you're not at that elite of a level, and you can't really fit all that well around other talented players unless you have the ball in your hands (which would reduce their effectiveness), then at #22, it becomes something to think about, at least IMO.

tsherkin wrote:And having said that, haven't both Lebron and Wade shown exactly that they, who everyone thought would have problems, could co-exist even though both were heavily on-ball players prior to their joining in Miami? That would seem the worst example you could have used, no?

Like I said, they've actually gotten criticized for it, because in the 2 seasons they've been together, they have yet to lead an offense that's historically good, which is what you would expect when you put two all-time great offensive wings together. But because of both of them not being nearly as effective without the ball in their hands, they've led "merely" very good offenses, not all-time great ones. And for that reason, they were criticized for it earlier in the project.

Doctor MJ wrote:Alright, fresh start perhaps.

Some of the guys talked about on my mind:

Chris Paul - if Nash is in, Paul is certainly worth talking about

Karl Malone - kind of amazed Nash got in before Malone without a real debate

Charles Barkley - to me at his best he was just more of an unstoppable beast than Malone, but was his defense really THAT bad?

Moses Malone - may very well get in next. As I've said, nothing against the guy, I just think there's a reason why Barkley usurped him in Philly so quickly, and it's absolutely related to Barkley's far more efficient scoring, and independent scoring & playmaking in general.

I'll mention McGrady & Durant together - both great scorers with some all around question marks, neither blowing us away by any +/- study.

Bernard King - the biggest question mark in history other than Walton?

His defense was bad (his teams played much better without him defensively due to how much of the paint he clogged and around 2.5 pts better iirc). I see no reason to think he was a better defender in his peak year than Durant last year. I might take Barkleys peak over him because of his rebounding impact but Barkleys in/out and SRS impact with teammates like DJ isnt really impressive either. Actually pretty similar with the Durant Harden Westbrook dynamic. Both really efficient and high volume but their impacts dont seem big.

On offense Barkley has his efficient scoring and playmaking while not stellar is above current Durant. Orbs are factored into that so I dont think a separate evaluation of that is needed. Both were the best rebounders on their teams and Barkleys team ranked better in the rebounding percentages while relative to the league they were equal in terms of average rebounding. Durants turnovers also cost his team defensively more and his team was 23rd in TOV% in 2012. It cuts a bit off his overall value due to more limited possessions to score.

The Thunder are always fantastic and have been defensively with Durant and Collison or Durant and Thabo both on the court (their best defensive lineups have them). They were 9th in the league for Durants 2010 (frontcourt Krstic Green) but with more minutes Harden has played over the last couple years the worse their defense has been. Harden is really bad on defense even tho his offense impact is big. Then Westbrook is also mediocre while Ibaka does his job well but is overrated. Durant improved his offball defense and in isolation/post up etc situations has ranked among the elite of wings. His offball offensive game and portability are alltime great.

Barkleys peak RS is better than Durants but I wouldnt take any of Barkleys playoff years over Durants last year...looking at his first 3 years of Phoenix. Durant is the better scorer and defender, while Barkley is better at rebounding and playmaking. Overall theyre pretty much equal in offense with Durant having the defense. In 93, Barkley led his team in DWS but thats an outlier for him throughout his entire career and his team has a big drop in defense the following year and that drop stays consistent for the rest of his Suns career. Maybe someone can shed more light on that? I dont buy Barkley being a much better defender than year....

So the totality of it.....I think peak Barkley is better. Durant has to improve his playmaking, limit his TOs and improve his rebounding bit more. But hes closer to Barkley than most think......

Doctor MJ wrote:

bastillon wrote:what I like about Paul though is his leadership. I completely disagree with MJ's assessment of Paul-follower. I think Paul is one of the greatest leaders of all-time. he's extremely charismatic, doesn't shy away from big moments, sets a great example and plays with intensity you rarely see superstars play with.

Yeah I just don't see how you're an all-time greatest level leader when you're the one who gives up on the team the moment they hit strife. Find to talk about his intangible impact when he's on because of his huge BBIQ, but when his team needed leadership most, he was the reason why they needed leadership most

I will say he was young at the time, and that he could still prove to be exceptionally impressive on that front, but when the one struggle of your career is defined by you demanding a trade 1 year into a max deal, it's fair to say you should not be in a GOAT leader discussion.

wait, are you talking about Paul leaving NOH ?

tsherkin wrote:And having said that, haven't both Lebron and Wade shown exactly that they, who everyone thought would have problems, could co-exist even though both were heavily on-ball players prior to their joining in Miami? That would seem the worst example you could have used, no?

Actually, it has been shown that both could not sustain their level of production and impact. The major improvement for both comes rather from better defensive play and then getting out in transition. The Heat are not a good halfcourt team, while they can be without James or Wade on the court.

A couple of thoughts: I think Chris Paul should have been in before Kobe Bryant. I think people tend to choose a year for a player in which they were more impressed by either more team success or because they didn't expect him to be that good. For me every measure shows Chris Paul as being better in 2009 than in 2008, and yet the consensus seems to be that Paul was better in 2008? Why?
Regarding the Malones and Barkley: I would pick 1997 Karl Malone over 1993 Barkley over 1983 Moses Malone. I think there is not much seperation and Patrick Ewing would I toss into that group as well.

And a major note regarding the voting process. Instant run-off would have been a much more suitable choice here. People could have selected a Top3 or Top5 for a specific spot and not make such jumps. Ewing would have probably been on some Top5's before and wouldn't have seen as such suprise. I also think that this would give a better view of the real average opinion of the voting panel than the current list.

mysticbb wrote:For me every measure shows Chris Paul as being better in 2009 than in 2008, and yet the consensus seems to be that Paul was better in 2008? Why?

I'm not saying this is actually my opinion regarding Paul (it's between 08, 09, and 12 for me), but I would think it's because 09 Paul played poorly in the playoffs, while 08 Paul was very good in the playoffs.

mysticbb wrote:

tsherkin wrote:And having said that, haven't both Lebron and Wade shown exactly that they, who everyone thought would have problems, could co-exist even though both were heavily on-ball players prior to their joining in Miami? That would seem the worst example you could have used, no?

Actually, it has been shown that both could not sustain their level of production and impact. The major improvement for both comes rather from better defensive play and then getting out in transition. The Heat are not a good halfcourt team, while they can be without James or Wade on the court.

A couple of thoughts: I think Chris Paul should have been in before Kobe Bryant. I think people tend to choose a year for a player in which they were more impressed by either more team success or because they didn't expect him to be that good. For me every measure shows Chris Paul as being better in 2009 than in 2008, and yet the consensus seems to be that Paul was better in 2008? Why?
Regarding the Malones and Barkley: I would pick 1997 Karl Malone over 1993 Barkley over 1983 Moses Malone. I think there is not much seperation and Patrick Ewing would I toss into that group as well.

And a major note regarding the voting process. Instant run-off would have been a much more suitable choice here. People could have selected a Top3 or Top5 for a specific spot and not make such jumps. Ewing would have probably been on some Top5's before and wouldn't have seen as such suprise. I also think that this would give a better view of the real average opinion of the voting panel than the current list.

Why 97 Malone over 98? What about Robinson? Do you think hes better than those guys here?

For me every measure shows Chris Paul as being better in 2009 than in 2008, and yet the consensus seems to be that Paul was better in 2008? Why?

we've talked about this before. Paul 09 had injured groin in the playoffs and was playing at 60% tops.

Regarding the Malones and Barkley: I would pick 1997 Karl Malone over 1993 Barkley over 1983 Moses Malone. I think there is not much seperation and Patrick Ewing would I toss into that group as well.

Ewing 90 with these players ? why ?

I think Chris Paul should have been in before Kobe Bryant. I think people tend to choose a year for a player in which they were more impressed by either more team success or because they didn't expect him to be that good.

I guess statistically Chris Paul does seem better than Kobe but I think Kobe's portability (off ball offense) and play after Gasol's trade really seems more impressive. I mean Lakers were like +11 team after Gasol's trade and before the finals ? I also remember there was a game at the end of RS between Hornets and Lakers, this game was decisive in terms of seeding. it had a huge impact on MVP race. Paul and Kobe were neck and neck in that race and Lakers clinched #1 seed in impressive manner while Bryant completely outplayed Paul. while Hornets record was similar to Lakers, I don't think would've stood a chance in that matchup, they just weren't a serious playoff contender. Bryant led Lakers offense to much higher levels after Gasol's trade, proving himself as the guy with very high ceiling and portability (it's not the first time Bryant played a key role in anchoring historically good offense, he was doing that beforehand with Shaq as well).

I don't think Kobe seperated himself from peak Nash/Paul but these are definitely the factors I'd look at when comparing the 3.