RealGM

7 years, two great point guards, who was better?

Paul was better but Nash had the better stretch. Even if you throw out the MVP’s he ended up winning 7-8 playoff series.

In a vacuum I would say CP3 but he had his fair share of injuries at inopportune times.

I think Nash gives better Championship odds over this period compared to CP3.

No-more-rings wrote:7 years, two great point guards, who was better?

So, in this time span:

Nash played on one franchise where he became the face, beloved for forever by fans and thought warmly of by teammates, while his ownership again and again traded away his supporting cast until there was nothing left.

Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

Doctor MJ wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:7 years, two great point guards, who was better?

So, in this time span:

Nash played on one franchise where he became the face, beloved for forever by fans and thought warmly of by teammates, while his ownership again and again traded away his supporting cast until there was nothing left.

Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

i am unsure if that is relevant for a "who was better comparision" (the loyalty vs 3 franchises thingh) specially when chris paul was traded for rebuilding (or cause harden lol) same as nash from mavs or suns

chris didnt force those trades or anythingh, he was trades by hornets as a damaged goods player from his injuries (kind of like nash by dallas with his back issues) and from clippers when they decided to blow up the project (kinda like nash to lakers)

nash didnt really have more playoffs success by any significant metric, neither of them got past the conference finals and mostly lost in semifinal rounds

2005-2011 and 2011-2017 were roughly the same offensive ratings, in fact chris paul years had lower offensive ratings thsn nash years

2005 106.1
2006 106.2
2007 106.5
2008 107.5
2009 108.3
2010 107.6

2011 107.4

2012 104.6
2013 105.8
2014 106.6
2015 105.6
2016 106.4
2017 108.4

chris paul stretch actually has lower offensive rstings on average

soured in his image? you mean having their best results in history up to that point (hornets, clippers amd regular season wise rockets too)

nash team offensive numbers were better than anyone ever, curry, jordan, lebron, magic included so no shame there, yet almost nobody would say he is as good as them

regardless the fact that paul team offense numbers are somewhat close while being clearly a better defender suggest they are comparble players wouldnt it?

look at their best rapm 5 year stretches

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

chris paul hits two different 5.6 five season stretches in the 2010's, nash best 5 yeat stretch is a point below at 4.6

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

and his playoffs rapm is also better than nash too

a plus/minus argument for nash is not unassailable when chris paul actuslly beats him in RAPM

Doctor MJ wrote:Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

Paul: +9.9 net rating, +14.4 on/off

Nash: +8.5 net rating, +10.9 on/off

Defense is clearly the difference in the two players as much as people want to ignore it.

Doctor MJ wrote:Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

That's not telling the full story.

CP3 had to leave the Clippers and join Harden to combat Durant and the Warriors' dominance.

falcolombardi wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:7 years, two great point guards, who was better?

So, in this time span:

Nash played on one franchise where he became the face, beloved for forever by fans and thought warmly of by teammates, while his ownership again and again traded away his supporting cast until there was nothing left.

Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

i am unsure if that is relevant for a "who was better comparision" (the loyalty vs 3 franchises thingh) specially when chris paul was traded for rebuilding (or cause harden lol) same as nash from mavs or suns

chris didnt force those trades or anythingh, he was trades by hornets as a damaged goods player from his injuries (kind of like nash by dallas with his back issues) and from clippers when they decided to blow up the project (kinda like nash to lakers)

My goodness are you mistaken here. To a degree you should just read up on the time in New Orleans. He absolutely pushed his way out of New Orleans, and nothing else would even remotely make sense. This is New Orleans we're talking about, stars leave them, not the other way around.

Do remember that David Stern BLOCKED the trade of Paul to the Lakers. He did that because Paul was considered a young superstar would be a key part of a contender and he didn't want that gifted to the Lakers. The Clippers proceeded to trade him for the same reason.

And in terms of Paul's exit from LA, no. Paul instigated this, and specifically got himself to Houston, where he thought he had a better chance at a championship. It's certainly true that by this point the Clippers felt like they were at a crossroads where they were going to choose between Paul and Griffin, but they never got to choose because Paul acted first.

falcolombardi wrote:nash didnt really have more playoffs success by any significant metric, neither of them got past the conference finals and mostly lost in semifinal rounds

Nash won 7 series, Paul won 3. The gap between Nash and Paul here is thus bigger than the gap between Paul and you.

falcolombardi wrote:2005-2011 and 2011-2017 were roughly the same offensive ratings, in fact chris paul years had lower offensive ratings thsn nash years

2005 106.1
2006 106.2
2007 106.5
2008 107.5
2009 108.3
2010 107.6

2011 107.4

2012 104.6
2013 105.8
2014 106.6
2015 105.6
2016 106.4
2017 108.4

chris paul stretch actually has lower offensive rstings on average

Interesting. Point taken.

falcolombardi wrote:soured in his image? you mean having their best results in history up to that point (hornets, clippers amd regular season wise rockets too)

Ah, let me be clear what I mean when I said "cultures who had soured in his image".

I mean:
a) the cultures had soured relative to where they were early in Paul's run.
b) that Paul was a dominant contributor to the souring

Paul showed a clear knack for grating on his teammates in each of his first 3 teams. This is a pretty well established thing in both LA and Houston. The NO time is less reported upon and may have been a bit different...but it was also the place where he most dramatically forced a franchise to do something they did not want to do because he gave up on the franchise. You can say he was smart to do so, but sweet? Nope. Sour, bitter, <insert unpleasant flavor here>.

falcolombardi wrote:nash team offensive numbers were better than anyone ever, curry, jordan, lebron, magic included so no shame there, yet almost nobody would say he is as good as them

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to use the fact that Nash's team had better numbers than Curry/Jordan/LeBron/Magic as a reason dismiss the fact that he also had an advantage over Paul in a thread about Nash & Paul.

falcolombardi wrote:regardless the fact that paul team offense numbers are somewhat close while being clearly a better defender suggest they are comparble players wouldnt it?

As I've said, Nash had superior overall success too.

falcolombardi wrote:look at their best rapm 5 year stretches

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

chris paul hits two different 5.6 five season stretches in the 2010's, nash best 5 yeat stretch is a point below at 4.6

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

and his playoffs rapm is also better than nash too

a plus/minus argument for nash is not unassailable when chris paul actuslly beats him in RAPM

I think Paul looks great by +/- and you can certainly make arguments on his behalf on that front.

I would point out that there's a clear cut issue with using a 5 year stretch to analyze Nash:

The franchise didn't keep trying to so their thing for 5 straight years.

The fact that we don't even see '04-05 among his best 5 year run sets off huge red flags about both how foolish the Suns were and how badly this approach underrates his effect.

Re: Paul better playoff RAPM. I definitely think it's important to look in more detail at Paul's playoff career rather than just taking an overall number.

If you look at his Play-by-Play playoff table on bkref, what you see is a clear split between the first 8 years of his career and what's happened since, and that in those first 8 years, he played a lot less in the playoffs, which means it isn't counting as heavily against his career totals.

Now, I'm not meaning to pretend that injuries are not a thing. They are, and Paul had just tons of issues along these lines early in his career. It's certainly one significant factor in what happened. Nevertheless, Paul literally had a poor disappointing as an individual in the playoffs for many years before he turned a corner, and this is counting less against him in this metric due to the diminished time he ended up playing the playoffs as a result.

After that point, Paul seemed to get to a point where he personally seemed to fare well in the playoffs when you step further back...but his teams disappointed, and not just in a "fell apart when he went to the bench" way. When the Clippers were blowing series that they seemed poised to win in 2014, 2015 & 2017, Paul was out there when it slipped away.

In general, I'd say Paul, like many smart stars, has found ways to become more bulletproof in the playoffs over time, but there's a general spottiness that runs through his resume.

Of course as I say this, many will likely think "But so does Nash!", but as I've said, however you think of Nash's Phoenix years, he won a lot more in the playoffs than Paul did and did not have the same trend of losing series that his team seemed to have gained the edge on - with the exception being the 2007 series against the Spurs where the NBA made a ruling they've since sided the other way on every single time.

Lost92Bricks wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

That's not telling the full story.

CP3 had to leave the Clippers and join Harden to combat Durant and the Warriors' dominance.

You mean Utah Jazz dominance?

Lost92Bricks wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

Paul: +9.9 net rating, +14.4 on/off

Nash: +8.5 net rating, +10.9 on/off

Defense is clearly the difference in the two players as much as people want to ignore it.

First, it's not clear to me what specific data you're listing here - where you got it, so please clarify.

Second, please don't pretend I only mentioned offensive stats when you quote a post from me which clearly doesn't do this.

Doctor MJ wrote:You mean Utah Jazz dominance?

No, I mean the Warriors dominating the league in 2017 directly caused teams to try and load up. The Rockets being one of them.

Was he supposed to stay on a team that had no chance or try to go at the Warriors?

Doctor MJ wrote:First, it's not clear to me what specific data you're listing here - where you got it, so please clarify.

Second, please don't pretend I only mentioned offensive stats when you quote a post from me which clearly doesn't do this.

www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html#pbp

www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html#pbp

Paul had seasons with +14.3, +12.8 net ratings, higher than any of Nash's.

Lost92Bricks wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:You mean Utah Jazz dominance?

No, I mean the Warriors dominating the league in 2017 directly caused teams to try and load up. The Rockets being one of them.

Was he supposed to stay on a team that had no chance or try to go at the Warriors?

His Clippers lost to the Jazz in 2017, the Blazers in 2016, the Rockets in 2015, the Thunder in 2014, the Grizzlies in 2013, and the Spurs in 2012.

Literally, in Paul's entire Clipper run, his team never once even got far enough to play against the team that would be champion, and you're talking as if he were leading teams that would be winning chips if only they didn't have to play the same superteam every year.

Lost92Bricks wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:First, it's not clear to me what specific data you're listing here - where you got it, so please clarify.

Second, please don't pretend I only mentioned offensive stats when you quote a post from me which clearly doesn't do this.

www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html#pbp

www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html#pbp

I don't see the numbers you previously listed in the Play-by-Play table. Please be more specific.

Lost92Bricks wrote:www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html#pbp

www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html#pbp

Paul had seasons with +14.3, +12.8 net ratings, higher than any of Nash's.

I'll fully concede I'm not a hardcore plus/minus type so I may be incorrect but almost every time I've seen any plus/minus studies they seem to consistently show Paul as in the running for best player among players not in the Robinson/Lebron/KG tier.

IF Paul had Nash's durability, I'd go with him. He was a better player year in year out. I know the OP gave the year range of 11-17 but I think you have to look at the surrounding years to help interpret the data sample. As example, Bill Walton famously turned in a great campaign in 77. But I wouldn't take the 77 Walton at all starting a franchise because I have no confidence if you re-ran that season a 100 times his body wouldn't give out in most of em.

Paul's durability issues are quite large. Even in this stretch of relative his body gave out for one of the playoffs and caused him to miss time in others. In the RS it was an issue.

This isn't a player who suffered a fluke broken leg going into one playoff and a broken wrist in another, rather his body was chronically giving out on him. I don't have confidence in him relative to peer level players. For that reason I have to take Nash over him despite the fact I firmly believe that tabeling health Paul was consistently a better player.

Doctor MJ wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
So, in this time span:

Nash played on one franchise where he became the face, beloved for forever by fans and thought warmly of by teammates, while his ownership again and again traded away his supporting cast until there was nothing left.

Paul played on 3 franchises. Twice leaving franchises whose cultures who had soured in his image for greener pastures, where he would soon piss off the star he chose to join so badly he got traded away.

Along the way, Nash would have more on-court success in general (raw +/-), would lead his team to considerably more playoff success, and would revolutionize NBA offense leading the league in On-Court ORtg in all 7 seasons - a feat quite possibly never accomplished before in NBA history - putting up numbers that surpassed Paul's elite years Clipper numbers (when Paul was best in league) repeatedly, and hitting a peak that to this day Paul has never matched despite Paul playing in an offensively super-charged era.

At this point, I'm inclined to give Paul the nod for the most accomplished cumulative career, but prime vs prime, I'll still go with Nash.

i am unsure if that is relevant for a "who was better comparision" (the loyalty vs 3 franchises thingh) specially when chris paul was traded for rebuilding (or cause harden lol) same as nash from mavs or suns

chris didnt force those trades or anythingh, he was trades by hornets as a damaged goods player from his injuries (kind of like nash by dallas with his back issues) and from clippers when they decided to blow up the project (kinda like nash to lakers)

My goodness are you mistaken here. To a degree you should just read up on the time in New Orleans. He absolutely pushed his way out of New Orleans, and nothing else would even remotely make sense. This is New Orleans we're talking about, stars leave them, not the other way around.

Do remember that David Stern BLOCKED the trade of Paul to the Lakers. He did that because Paul was considered a young superstar would be a key part of a contender and he didn't want that gifted to the Lakers. The Clippers proceeded to trade him for the same reason.

And in terms of Paul's exit from LA, no. Paul instigated this, and specifically got himself to Houston, where he thought he had a better chance at a championship. It's certainly true that by this point the Clippers felt like they were at a crossroads where they were going to choose between Paul and Griffin, but they never got to choose because Paul acted first.

falcolombardi wrote:nash didnt really have more playoffs success by any significant metric, neither of them got past the conference finals and mostly lost in semifinal rounds

Nash won 7 series, Paul won 3. The gap between Nash and Paul here is thus bigger than the gap between Paul and you.

falcolombardi wrote:2005-2011 and 2011-2017 were roughly the same offensive ratings, in fact chris paul years had lower offensive ratings thsn nash years

2005 106.1
2006 106.2
2007 106.5
2008 107.5
2009 108.3
2010 107.6

2011 107.4

2012 104.6
2013 105.8
2014 106.6
2015 105.6
2016 106.4
2017 108.4

chris paul stretch actually has lower offensive rstings on average

Interesting. Point taken.

falcolombardi wrote:soured in his image? you mean having their best results in history up to that point (hornets, clippers amd regular season wise rockets too)

Ah, let me be clear what I mean when I said "cultures who had soured in his image".

I mean:
a) the cultures had soured relative to where they were early in Paul's run.
b) that Paul was a dominant contributor to the souring

Paul showed a clear knack for grating on his teammates in each of his first 3 teams. This is a pretty well established thing in both LA and Houston. The NO time is less reported upon and may have been a bit different...but it was also the place where he most dramatically forced a franchise to do something they did not want to do because he gave up on the franchise. You can say he was smart to do so, but sweet? Nope. Sour, bitter, <insert unpleasant flavor here>.

falcolombardi wrote:nash team offensive numbers were better than anyone ever, curry, jordan, lebron, magic included so no shame there, yet almost nobody would say he is as good as them

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to use the fact that Nash's team had better numbers than Curry/Jordan/LeBron/Magic as a reason dismiss the fact that he also had an advantage over Paul in a thread about Nash & Paul.

falcolombardi wrote:regardless the fact that paul team offense numbers are somewhat close while being clearly a better defender suggest they are comparble players wouldnt it?

As I've said, Nash had superior overall success too.

falcolombardi wrote:look at their best rapm 5 year stretches

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

chris paul hits two different 5.6 five season stretches in the 2010's, nash best 5 yeat stretch is a point below at 4.6

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

and his playoffs rapm is also better than nash too

a plus/minus argument for nash is not unassailable when chris paul actuslly beats him in RAPM

I think Paul looks great by +/- and you can certainly make arguments on his behalf on that front.

I would point out that there's a clear cut issue with using a 5 year stretch to analyze Nash:

The franchise didn't keep trying to so their thing for 5 straight years.

The fact that we don't even see '04-05 among his best 5 year run sets off huge red flags about both how foolish the Suns were and how badly this approach underrates his effect.

Re: Paul better playoff RAPM. I definitely think it's important to look in more detail at Paul's playoff career rather than just taking an overall number.

If you look at his Play-by-Play playoff table on bkref, what you see is a clear split between the first 8 years of his career and what's happened since, and that in those first 8 years, he played a lot less in the playoffs, which means it isn't counting as heavily against his career totals.

Now, I'm not meaning to pretend that injuries are not a thing. They are, and Paul had just tons of issues along these lines early in his career. It's certainly one significant factor in what happened. Nevertheless, Paul literally had a poor disappointing as an individual in the playoffs for many years before he turned a corner, and this is counting less against him in this metric due to the diminished time he ended up playing the playoffs as a result.

After that point, Paul seemed to get to a point where he personally seemed to fare well in the playoffs when you step further back...but his teams disappointed, and not just in a "fell apart when he went to the bench" way. When the Clippers were blowing series that they seemed poised to win in 2014, 2015 & 2017, Paul was out there when it slipped away.

In general, I'd say Paul, like many smart stars, has found ways to become more bulletproof in the playoffs over time, but there's a general spottiness that runs through his resume.

Of course as I say this, many will likely think "But so does Nash!", but as I've said, however you think of Nash's Phoenix years, he won a lot more in the playoffs than Paul did and did not have the same trend of losing series that his team seemed to have gained the edge on - with the exception being the 2007 series against the Spurs where the NBA made a ruling they've since sided the other way on every single time.

ok, i didnt know chris paul had demanded a trade out of new orleans, i was under the impression hornets decided to trade him before free agency as he was so often struggling with injuries and seemed to not be the same anymore after 2009 injury and try get some value back from him. point taken here

some thinghs to clarify tho

the playoffs rapm i mentioned was not 5 year playoffs samples (i couldnt find those actually)but full career ones, it includes nash and chris paul whole playoffs careers

when i mentioned jordan, curry and co my point was that they dont necesarrily mean nash is automatically better than chris paul although they prove he reached higher heights offensively with his teams

same way the rapm numbers dont automatically mean chris paul was better than him, although they are suggestive data points to be sure

Doctor MJ wrote:His Clippers lost to the Jazz in 2017, the Blazers in 2016, the Rockets in 2015, the Thunder in 2014, the Grizzlies in 2013, and the Spurs in 2012.

Literally, in Paul's entire Clipper run, his team never once even got far enough to play against the team that would be champion, and you're talking as if he were leading teams that would be winning chips if only they didn't have to play the same superteam every year.

No, I'm saying Durant going to the Warriors and them destroying the west ended any hopes for the remaining teams in the west, they had to either load up or wait it out. The Rockets decided to try and take them down, which is why Paul went there.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Lost92Bricks wrote:www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html#pbp

www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html#pbp

Paul had seasons with +14.3, +12.8 net ratings, higher than any of Nash's.

I'll fully concede I'm not a hardcore plus/minus type so I may be incorrect but almost every time I've seen any plus/minus studies they seem to consistently show Paul as in the running for best player among players not in the Robinson/Lebron/KG tier.

generally they do, yeah

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

falcolombardi wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Lost92Bricks wrote:www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html#pbp

www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html#pbp

Paul had seasons with +14.3, +12.8 net ratings, higher than any of Nash's.

I'll fully concede I'm not a hardcore plus/minus type so I may be incorrect but almost every time I've seen any plus/minus studies they seem to consistently show Paul as in the running for best player among players not in the Robinson/Lebron/KG tier.

generally they do, yeah

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

And like I said I don't think you should rank players solely on plus/minus but if you're making that a centerpiece of your argument, and your argument involves Chris Paul, it is really unusual to see how the answer isn't Chris Paul save a handful of names.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:
I'll fully concede I'm not a hardcore plus/minus type so I may be incorrect but almost every time I've seen any plus/minus studies they seem to consistently show Paul as in the running for best player among players not in the Robinson/Lebron/KG tier.

generally they do, yeah

https://public.tableau.com/views/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021/PostseasonRAPM1997-2021?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#2

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

And like I said I don't think you should rank players solely on plus/minus but if you're making that a centerpiece of your argument, and your argument involves Chris Paul, it is really unusual to see how the answer isn't Chris Paul save a handful of names.

well injuries for one, particularly playoffs injuries that hurt the most

also his playoffs plus/minus metrics, while elite, are a level below his regular season numbers, few players match his regular season impact metrics, more do his playoffs ones

then someone can make more hollistic criticisms about intsngibles or portability and all that kind of thingh