Post#591 » by Bad Gatorade » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:55 am
As resident CP3 fan, I'll offer my thoughts -
Most of the CP3 write up is quite good, IMO. ElGee does a good job of listing his general strengths/weaknesses, including some that can go under the radar in general analysis (eg holding the ball too long, leading to no "backup option" shots).
My main points of contention with the write up occur in 3 areas -
"He threw “bad” pass turnovers at half the rate of someone like Steve Nash, which, counterintuitively, might have held him back."
I do agree with the idea that assists to layups/dunks are "better" assists, and that the top tier guys (e.g. Nash/Magic) had better passing vision than Paul. So, in a sense, he might be somewhat held back offensively but I think ElGee glosses over the defensive benefit of this type of play - passing out for jump shots and reducing turnovers may actually have defensive benefits, especially with regard to fast break points (which are a highly efficient play, so good defensive teams are good at reducing fast breaks).
Check out these numbers -
09 Hornets - 7th best
10 Hornets - 20th best (Paul's injury)
11 Hornets - 4th best
12 Hornets - 16th best
11 Clippers - 21st best
12 Clippers - 8th best
Those numbers are for fast break points conceded, and I don't think it's a coincidence at all that they seem to be linked to Paul.
Furthermore, I've checked out tracking data (1997-2017) on passes to assists/dunks vs layups and even though he takes less "risky" passes than the top end guys in this category (e.g. Nash, Harden, Curry), he's still the clear post-1996 GOAT of "expected turnovers vs actual turnovers" based on passing. His dominance here is unreal. So, I concede that it might limit his offence, but I feel like this impact is glossed over on defence, and helps explain how he's been able to accrue such ridiculously high DRAPM numbers in recent years.
I think ElGee was a bit harsh looking at 2009-10 Paul too. I do recall the event he's talking about, but it's also interesting to note that for the season, 37 games of "good" Paul and 8 games of "abysmal, still injured Paul" still had a team On/Off of +5.7, and an On of +0.3. Collison had -4.2 and -4.9 respectively. So I can understand that the difference in role might influence these numbers, but Paul's right at the top of the team here (quite comfortably - even guys like West/Okafor were "net negatives" here).
He mentions the team getting worse in 09 compared to 08, but the scoring margin with Paul (+8.1 in 2008, +6.5 in 2009) only gets slightly worse but his On/Off ballooned from +9.0 to +19.6). Not that he's incorrect about the team getting worse, but the change in most impact/scoring margin measures clearly seems to prefer 09 Paul.
I would also have liked to have seen a bit more detail on Paul's injuries and how they impact playoff odds.
Overall though, solid write up. I think I have Paul around the same as ElGee, although I'd hazard a guess that I view him as a higher impact player, but dock him slightly more from injuries (I'm very high on healthy Paul, for those that don't know).
I use a lot of parentheses when I post (it's a bad habit)
).