HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:BPM is a good stat for star players but not for role players.
But ok, let's throw out BPM since it's decisively against you and look at other stats. To stack the process even more in your favor, we will only use Gordon's best season for both regular season and playoffs (most of Gordon's seasons are much worse than his best while Smith has several regular seasons that were better than 2000).
00 Smith regular: 14.9 PPG (.584 TS), 3.8 RPG, 2.5 APG, 0.9 SPG, 0.4 BPG, 1.4 TO, 10.4 WS, .186 WS/48, Net Rtg +16
11 Gordon regular: 22.3 PPG (.566 TS), 2.9 RPG, 4.4 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 2.7 TO, 5.3 WS, .120 WS/48, Net Rtg +0
00 Smith playoffs: 17.1 PPG (.636 TS), 2.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1.2 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 1.7 TO, 2.5 WS, .195 WS/48, Net Rtg +17
19 Gordon playoffs: 17.8 PPG (.604 TS), 2.5 RPG, 1.3 APG, 0.6 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 2.5 TO, 0.6 WS, .072 WS/48, Net Rtg -4
HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:Both Steve Smith and Eric Gordon's role are to shoot and score, there's not a significant difference between them. It certainly doesn't make up the gap between Harden and Rasheed.
Eric Gordon's role on good teams is to shoot. On bad teams it's to score because he's bad at it so no team will ever be good with Ego as their top scorer. At the same time, he's a poor defender.
Steve Smith was a scorer, a good one and actually one time all-star too (1998). Smith was the lead scorer and best offensive player on several playoff teams. He actually led the 2000 Blazers in playoff PPG! Gordon led 0 teams to the playoffs and led 0 teams during the playoffs in scoring or anything else. You are just refusing to apply any objectivity here. Meanwhile there's a mountain of stats to say "Smith >> Gordon" not to mention Smith was an all-star and actually led teams while Gordon was just a shooter on any good team.
HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:The significant difference is the teams best scorers in Rasheed and James Harden, which you conveniently keep ignoring. James Harden won MVP that regular season and you're trying to make some case about how great Paul made them better in 58 games he played? Pippen wasn't playing with an MVP, he was playing with Rasheed who clearly isn't a 1st option scorer. Pippen still ran the offense in regular season and had them at a top 3 offense. Paul wasn't running the offense in regular season, harden was. Paul didn't even play 60 games.
Playoffs? Like I said both teams the previous year won zero west finals games and both teams ended with 3 wins the next. The difference is Pippen actually played in games 6 and 7 which gives him the edge.
I didn't just "try to make" that case, I made it beyond reasonable doubt. I'll make it again.
1999 Blazers won 57 games* and lost 0-4 in the WCF to the champ Spurs. They lost no one and added Pippen and Steve Smith. Then 2000 Blazers won 59 games and lost 3-4 in the WCF to the champ Lakers. A difference of two regular season wins from adding Pippen AND Smith? Their additions don't even get them out of the round they lost in the year before?
2017 Rockets won 55 games and lost 2-4 in the 2nd rd to a Spurs team that got crushed in the WCF. They added CP3 and Tucker but lost 3 of their top 6 players in Bev, Lou and Harrell. 2018 Rockets won 65 games. That's what 58 games of Chris Paul got you, +10 wins. 2018 Rockets were up 3-2 on the again champ Warriors before CP3 was injured. That's the impact of the addition of Chris Paul.
There is no significance in comparing Sheed and Harden. For what I hope is the last time, the Pistons were an ensemble. Damon-Smith-Pippen-Sheed-Sabonis. The 2018 Rockets were a duo. It was Harden and CP3 and a bunch of role players.
Honestly, this is one of the most lopsided arguments I've ever participated in on this board. Believing Pip ranks higher all-time than CP3 is fine, plenty of room for reasonable disagreement. Claiming that Pippen was more important to the 2000 Blazers than Paul was to the 2018 Rockets is near the line of absurdity. Claiming that Gordon is better than or even equal to Smith is way over the line of absurdity. You've offered nothing to contest the stats cited, which very clearly show who was the better player in both pairs. I can only conclude you are either delusional or you're one of those people like America's Dear Leader who simply can't admit they're wrong and won't give up the topic.