Ignoring rings, why is CP3 not considered a unanimous top 10, fringe top 5 player on this board?

[rebirthoftheM]

CP3 finished 23rd in the list threads.

But, as someone noted on the general nba board, his resume in terms of stats/composite stuff/impact stuff is loaded:


RS All-time (NBA)

#6 in PER
#1 in Offensive Rating
#2 in WS/48 (right behind MJ)
#3 in BPM
#2 in assist %
#9 in steal rate


PS All-time (NBA)

#5 in PER
#8 in Offensive Rating
#5 in WS/48 (right behind MJ)
#3 in BPM
#2 in assist %
#5 in steal rate

Top 5-6 in multi-year RAPM since 2011 with several top 3 finishes.

RS career averages: 18.7/4.4/9.9/2.3 on 58% TS
PS: career averages: 21.4/4.7/9.4/2.2 on 58.5% T

8 X All Nba Teamer (4 #1s)
9 X All Nba Defensive Teamer (7 #1s)

What's the argument against CP3 ignoring his lack of conference/finals appearances? Longevity? Injuries? Are they strong reasons to pin him down, when he has achieved statistical things a number of players above him never reached?

[BdeRegt]

A big thing for me is that Paul has never been the best player in the league or really been a sustained top 3 player in the league. That just isn't good enough to be top 5-10 all-time.

Who do you have him above? These aren't in a specific order by the way. Just running through a list of players that I think are clearly a step above CP3 without a doubt in my mind.

MJ?
LeBron?
KAJ?
Wilt?
Shaq?
Bird?
Magic?
Russell?
Duncan?
Hakeem?
Kobe?
Oscar?
West?

There are a lot more guys but think that proves why he isn't top 5-10.

[Statlanta]

As I said on the GB
I believe the general public isn't fully up to date on advanced stats and don't care about longevity that much(at least in comparison to peak/prime). Curry's and Westbrook's single season peaks match or top Paul's. Damian Lillard, Mike Conley, Kyle Lowry, James Harden, Isaiah Thomas have enjoyed just as much team success as Chris Paul.

Circa 2008-2012 he received the benefit of the doubt by being called the best statistical PG in a league of PGs like Deron Williams, Derek Fisher, Jason Kidd, Mario Chalmers, Jameer Nelson, Rajon Rondo, Andre Miller, Jose Calderon. He doesn't get that anymore now that is prime is mostly over.

I say this as a guy who owns more Chris Paul jerseys than of any other player in the league.

[euroleague]

4 first team all nbas isn't that great....assist % and "steal rate" aren't also very relevant....

"Top 5-6 in multi-year RAPM since 2011 with several top 3 finishes."

If he's the top 5-6 since 2011, why should he be the top 10 ever?

I suggest you alter your argument to reflect the desired result of a top 10 player all time. His career PER and ws/48 is high because he doesn't have longevity and has mostly played in his prime. It's more helpful to compare "prime" PER/WS than career.

[Volcano]

Most of the stats you listed are useless. Take out PER, assist rate, steal rate, WS and anything heavily boxscore based. All-NBA awards are handed out based on votes by flawed people.

Nonetheless, ranked 23 is still pretty high up there.

[oldschooled]

Oh boy CP3 for sure will the be next KG here in RealGM. Make another Top100 project in the next 5 years and pretty sure CP3 (as per RealGM) will be Top 5 all time. And it would be nauseating.

[70sFan]

Most people doesn't have better version of CP3 in their top 10. Guess who he is

[Fundamentals21]

Well, I will take you seriously because I have read enough crazy opinions in this forum. They were all backed by evidence, however.

I don't know how being Top 5ish in your own era would be fringe Top 5 all time.

The injuries are a serious issue. I believe it was Dr. Spaceman - he posted a 7 year run where 5 of them ended with injuries. How is it possible to call a player this consistently unreliable a legend of this level? Do I need to save him like I would save Manu Ginobilli? Maybe not to that extent, but serious consideration.

There is no shortage of players who were on great regular season + first round type teams, you have other players for top 5 all time. Karl Malone? David Robinson? etc.

So, I don't know. I ask why Chris Paul? In his own era, you could post the same for, I don't know.

Wade
Dirk
Nash
LeBron
Kobe
Durant
Curry (okay, incomplete career, but make a case for on his way there?)

Is he clearly better than Westbrook? Harden? Both are only barely trailing him in MVP award shares. It's a combination of various factors that comes together in a puzzle to make your Top 5 all time player, and Chris Paul is missing many, many pieces.

[Dr Positivity]

He is 24th in total WS (NBA/ABA) and 17th for VORP for players after 1974, so even if you went all in on his advanced stats, his case is hardly overwhelming.

[Fundamentals21]

He is 24th in total WS (NBA/ABA) and 17th for VORP for players after 1974, so even if you went all in on his advanced stats, his case is hardly overwhelming.

To be fair, the total W/S won't last all that long, even if he declines he figures to be on easy pace to Top 15. He's the kind of guy to stock some 10 W/S in his rookie year. The same goes for VORP where he can easily put up ~5 per season and make his way to Top 10.

[Dr Positivity]

He is 24th in total WS (NBA/ABA) and 17th for VORP for players after 1974, so even if you went all in on his advanced stats, his case is hardly overwhelming.

To be fair, the total W/S won't last all that long, even if he declines he figures to be on easy pace to Top 15. He's the kind of guy to stock some 10 W/S in his rookie year. The same goes for VORP where he can easily put up ~5 per season and make his way to Top 10.

One day yes, but OP is asking why Paul isn't already unanimous top 10

You can be top 10 with Paul's current boxscore totals but he would need to have another argument on his side. Bird and Magic career totals in stats like WS aren't on a different level than Paul's but they have lots of MVP/best player in the league recognition at the time and playoff success/rings. Since Paul's BEST argument is stats like WS and VORP and they still have him quite a bit below top 10, it's hard to make the case for him

[mihail_petkov]

CP3 vs Kobe is a very good discussion how advanced stats have context and sometimes are overrated.

Looking at the advanced metrics, CP3 looks like top 5 of all time. In fact maybe he is not in top 50. His playing style doesn't translate in wins when it matters. He can't take over a game when it matters in the playoffs. He is a ball dominant player who doesn't turnover the ball often. That's great, really great, boosts your box score and advanced stats but you can't win if you can't take over the game. Also being ball dominant don't make your teammates better. Having 10 assists while having the ball 90% of the time is not good, same as Westbrook last year. He was amazing but he didn't make his teammates better.

Looking at Kobe's advanced stats, he looks like top 50 all time. In fact Kobe could take over the games when it mattered in the playoffs. Sometimes even if you are not super efficient you can take over games. Yes, Kobe was also ball dominant sometimes but look how much better his teammates were with him than without him - Smush Parker, Fisher, Walton, Odom, Gasol, Bynum and etc. All of them played their best basketball with Kobe. Is it a coincidence? If basketball was just a math and stats, we wouldn't have watched the games.

[AdagioPace]

simply because reducing everything to an accumulation (over time) of stats is talibanistic way to see things.
Basketball is not "long jump" or "olympic shooting"

In order to reach the legendary status you have to achieve success,fame, you have to show to be capable of herculean efforts when it matters most.
Fulfilling a series of numerical values might put you in an objective exclusive club (no one is denying CP3 is part of the all time elite) but how much that objectivity is worth is still matter of debate. Top 10 players all time are remembered for peculiar feats.
I don't think randomness is the only thing separating cp3 from the Olympus. A top 10 player is a top 10 player for a reason. they are anomalies.
"they don't come easy"
Cp3 is simply not a "once in a 10-15 years player". He's closer to Durant than to TD/KG.
Curry might have a better chance to be included in the top 10 than CP3 does


cp3 should firstly be compared to DRob and K.Malone. That is his company. Then go to the upper block of players if (a BIG if) he goes past those two who are pretty similar players to him

[rebirthoftheM]

He is 24th in total WS (NBA/ABA) and 17th for VORP for players after 1974, so even if you went all in on his advanced stats, his case is hardly overwhelming.

To be fair, the total W/S won't last all that long, even if he declines he figures to be on easy pace to Top 15. He's the kind of guy to stock some 10 W/S in his rookie year. The same goes for VORP where he can easily put up ~5 per season and make his way to Top 10.

One day yes, but OP is asking why Paul isn't already unanimous top 10

You can be top 10 with Paul's current boxscore totals but he would need to have another argument on his side. Bird and Magic career totals in stats like WS aren't on a different level than Paul's but they have lots of MVP/best player in the league recognition at the time and playoff success/rings. Since Paul's BEST argument is stats like WS and VORP and they still have him quite a bit below top 10, it's hard to make the case for him

At what point do cumulative totals get outweighed by prime play?

And to those speaking about multi-year NPI RAPM... this is who he was behind (superstars/stars of-course so Conley in 13 e.g or bench players like Ginobli)

2011: Lebron/Dirk/Nash/Howard/Garnett
2012: Lebron/Dirk/Garnett/Wade
2013: Dirk/Lebron/Garnett
2014: Lebron
2015: Lebron/Curry

Single Year NPI RAPM

2011: Dirk/Ginobli/Garnett/Howard/Pierce/Bosh
2012: Lebron/TP/Garnett/Harden/Duncan/Wade
2013: Lebron/Westbrook/Durant/Duncan
2014: NA (Ginobli #1, but role player/bench player)
2015: Draymond/Lebron/Kawhi/Davis/Harden
2016: Draymond/Lebron/Curry/Durant
2017: Curry/Lebron/Green/Kawhi

It is basically him and Lebron as the consistent features from 11-17. Curry will perhaps pass him all- time. But during this period he outdoes Durant. And some of the other dudes who finished higher than him...CP3's box score stuff/production were better.

I get the injury/longevity issue, but if over a 7 year prime window, you're the only dude who year in/year out rates out highly, with Lebron the only guy consistently featuring, then I think we can conclude your prime impact (as judged by RAPM) is top 10 level. I doubt some of the other all-times in the top 10 had a 7 year window like that.

How many years does CP3 have to keep up the composite box score stuff+ impact stuff, before he is deemed to have sufficient longetivity?

On a note here: I am playing devil's advocate here. A lot of these stats are things that don't interest me much. But, I know there is a disconnect between how Paul is perceived v his a whole of bunch of stats he has accumulated (even on this board, which likes these stats far more than the GB), and so I'm interested in the arguments/counter-arguments on this. CP3 is a perfect test case to explore a whole bunch of things.

My suspicion is that CP3 is a victim of the rings/winning argument, and with each years failures in the PS, his stats and metrics tend to get overlooked.

[rebirthoftheM]

simply because reducing everything to an accumulation (over time) of stats is talibanistic way to see things.
Basketball is not "long jump" or "olympic shooting"

In order to reach the legendary status you have to achieve success,fame, you have to show to be capable of herculean efforts when it matters most.
Fulfilling a series of numerical values might put you in an objective exclusive club (no one is denying CP3 is part of the all time elite) but how much that objectivity is worth is still matter of debate. Top 10 players all time are remembered for peculiar feats.
I don't think randomness is the only thing separating cp3 from the Olympus. A top 10 player is a top 10 player for a reason. they are anomalies.
"they don't come easy"
Cp3 is simply not a "once in a 10-15 years player". He's closer to Durant than to TD/KG.
Curry might have a better chance to be included in the top 10 than CP3 does


cp3 should firstly be compared to DRob and K.Malone. That is his company. Then go to the upper block of players if (a BIG if) he goes past those two who are pretty similar players to him

What is a herculean effort to you? Something like KG Game 7 v the Kings in 04? Because honestly, a lot of the criticisms (outside of the longevity/injury stuff) against CP3 are the same stuff thrown at KG.

[AdagioPace]

simply because reducing everything to an accumulation (over time) of stats is talibanistic way to see things.
Basketball is not "long jump" or "olympic shooting"

In order to reach the legendary status you have to achieve success,fame, you have to show to be capable of herculean efforts when it matters most.
Fulfilling a series of numerical values might put you in an objective exclusive club (no one is denying CP3 is part of the all time elite) but how much that objectivity is worth is still matter of debate. Top 10 players all time are remembered for peculiar feats.
I don't think randomness is the only thing separating cp3 from the Olympus. A top 10 player is a top 10 player for a reason. they are anomalies.
"they don't come easy"
Cp3 is simply not a "once in a 10-15 years player". He's closer to Durant than to TD/KG.
Curry might have a better chance to be included in the top 10 than CP3 does


cp3 should firstly be compared to DRob and K.Malone. That is his company. Then go to the upper block of players if (a BIG if) he goes past those two who are pretty similar players to him

What is a herculean effort to you? Something like KG Game 7 v the Kings in 04? Because honestly, a lot of the criticisms (outside of the longevity/injury stuff) against CP3 are the same stuff thrown at KG.

"herculean effort"
not only a specific event in time like a game 6 or 7

KG was a flat out better player than CP3 at his best,even only considering "the great flatness" of being a great regular season player (and very FEW people are better than RS cp3 !)
Even excluding longevity

KG was like a better version of CP3.
CP3 basically lacked that part of career that Curry is living right now or KG in 04. When you are the best player on the planet (or top 2).
A dynamic peak version of yourself. A period of domination. Every player in the top 10-12 (inlcuding kobe and KG) is recognizable by a 2 years peak (an MVP,a great playoff run, a finals mvp, a carry job etc..)

I'm not creating parameters ex novo. I'm just stating what usuallly makes a top 10 player special

[feyki]

Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Lebron, Russell, Duncan and Shaq are the only players in history as arguably top 5 all time.

Paul would have a case for being top 15, when he will have the longevity.

[Scizzup]

simply because reducing everything to an accumulation (over time) of stats is talibanistic way to see things.
Basketball is not "long jump" or "olympic shooting"

In order to reach the legendary status you have to achieve success,fame, you have to show to be capable of herculean efforts when it matters most.
Fulfilling a series of numerical values might put you in an objective exclusive club (no one is denying CP3 is part of the all time elite) but how much that objectivity is worth is still matter of debate. Top 10 players all time are remembered for peculiar feats.
I don't think randomness is the only thing separating cp3 from the Olympus. A top 10 player is a top 10 player for a reason. they are anomalies.
"they don't come easy"
Cp3 is simply not a "once in a 10-15 years player". He's closer to Durant than to TD/KG.
Curry might have a better chance to be included in the top 10 than CP3 does


cp3 should firstly be compared to DRob and K.Malone. That is his company. Then go to the upper block of players if (a BIG if) he goes past those two who are pretty similar players to him

What is a herculean effort to you? Something like KG Game 7 v the Kings in 04? Because honestly, a lot of the criticisms (outside of the longevity/injury stuff) against CP3 are the same stuff thrown at KG.

"herculean effort"
not only a specific event in time like a game 6 or 7

KG was a flat out better player than CP3 at his best,even only considering "the great flatness" of being a great regular season player (and very FEW people are better than RS cp3 !)
Even excluding longevity

KG was like a better version of CP3.
CP3 basically lacked that part of career that Curry is living right now or KG in 04. When you are the best player on the planet (or top 2).
A dynamic peak version of yourself. A period of domination. Every player in the top 10-12 (inlcuding kobe and KG) is recognizable by a 2 years peak (an MVP,a great playoff run, a finals mvp, a carry job etc..)

I'm not creating parameters ex novo. I'm just stating what usuallly makes a top 10 player special

lol these same arguments would have been used against KG if he never went to Boston. Even though I agree KG was better player. Cp3 stats are very convincing even though some of the way these are calculated favors the way he plays. You seem to only use "impact" stats when it's convenient. what if Cp3 won the MVP in 08?

08/09 Cp3 is as good as any KG Regular season outside 04.

[Jaivl]

Oh, of course this was a KG thread after all. Didn't expect less.

[O_6]

Long story short... he's not a "Game Breaker", he's a "Game Manager". His lack of playoff success also allows a lot of people to view his downright historic efficiency as overrated.

But just think about the following sentence...

Arguably the most efficient PG ever on offense + tenacious defender who has spent stretches guarding a prime Durant (a 7 foot scoring monster)

I mean just read that sentence. Chris Paul's diversity of skills is truly mind blowing. Curry/Magic/Nash are probably the only 3 PGs who have been better than CP3 offensively in the 3pt era, yet all of them struggled guarding PGs... forget about being able to guard someone like Durant.

But there's just a feeling of "Even if he's ON, the other team can still overcome it" with him. That can't be said for Magic/Curry, and imo Peak Nash had a scarier aura to him because it always felt like he could drop 40 when he wanted to.

Offensively, there's a "dink and dunk NFL QB" vibe to him... someone who doesn't throw a lot of INTs and makes extremely accurate simple passes, but whose lack of risk-taking hurts his team at times and limits their ceiling.

I'm hoping he's able to explore more of a "Game Breaker" role in Houston next to Harden.