RealGM

He is seriously racking up some insane longevity. He has led the league in assists 14 seasons apart, and has effectively been a top 3 PG for 15 straight years (only really blips are '10 and '19, both primarily due to injury).

I haven't really thought about all-time lists in a couple of years, but I think he really should be somewhere in the 18-20 range at this point, title or not.

His record of poor performances in the Playoffs are very overblown as we know. Some people hold a season like 2017 against him, when his team lost to the Jazz in the first round, but he averaged 25/5/10 on 59% TS. Time and time again he has been let down by his teammates while performing to the best of his own ability, just like Dirk prior to 2011.

Is it likely we'll see people shift their perception and give him the credit he deserves?

So '22 Paul isn't to the Suns as '11 Dirk was to the Mavs, let's get that out of the way. From that, should it affect perceptions in the same way ... no.

Except perceptions aren't directly about the player.

So to radically oversimplify (and scenarios likely won't be that clear cut, and movement here refers to player conceptualization not just ranking ... it's complex is the point)
... Paul's greatest upside is in those presently low on him
... I think those low most frequently are so because of perceived lack of team playoff success
... if Paul won clearly as the man (not a given, depending on playoff play, even if they win) that would distinguish those who were low on him on the principle of the playoff thing (who would probably have to see a significant boost by that criteria as I understand it) and those low on Paul inherently and invested in that position (who would move to a different angle).

Should a ring halo dramatically change perceptions overall of his career ... "should" I say no, for me it should be all about how one played. Does it ... harder to say but I guess in the longer term there could be big narrative upside.

He's already one of the best floor generals to ever play this game, a ring won't change that. His legacy is solidified.

People asked the same thing last year, and the answer is still no. Dirk’s run was one of the greatest of all time. Also we can’t keep putting all the blame on his teammates when he’s had more than his fair share of blunders.

CP is 36 and past his prime where as Dirk was 32 and still in his. It's not a real comparison.

Dirk was the best player in the world while Paul is not top 20.

Reading that Paul/Nash thread its pretty clear the only real argument anyone has against Paul at this point is an exaggerated narrative that ignores the personalities he clashed with.

I don't think the right player from the 2011 Mavs to reference is Dirk though. I think its Kidd. Another guy nearing the end of a great career, but that faced a lot of criticism because he didn't play the so-called right way, despite like Paul, winning everywhere he went and being the smartest player in the league.

I think this would be a great capper for Paul, just as it was for Kidd. But for those who've decided to judge him based on their view from 1,000 miles away of him as a teammate, nothing will change that mind. They've already slotted him,

It's just painfully obvious the two situations aren't remotely similar. Dirk won that title as not only the clear cut best player on his team, but as one of the 4 or 5 best players in the entire league. CP3's not even close to being in the best player in the league discussion, and he's on a team that's done remarkably well without him this year.

feyki wrote:Dirk was the best player in the world while Paul is not top 20.

Paul is tied for 28th in the league in PER (the "all-in-one" rate metric that is LEAST correlated to impact, fwiw). But otherwise.....

Paul is 11th in the league in WS/48, 9th in total WS.
He's tied for 11th in the league in BPM, tied for 12th in VORP.
He's 10th in the league in the LEBRON impact measure, and 10th in wins added. He's 6th in Box LEBRON.

By amalgamation of all these metrics, he appears the overall best player on the best team in the league.
His on/off is a close 3rd-best on this best team, behind two guys who are basically 3&D role players [though I do think Mikal Bridges is exceptional in his role]; he's ahead of both the other "All-Star(ish)" players on the team.
The team was 53-12 [.815] in the 65 games he played, and 11-6 [.647] in the 17 games he missed despite 10 of those 17 being played against teams with losing records (and only THREE of them being against a top-10 team).


But sure.....he's not a top 20 player.

yeah Paul is definitely still an all-NBA level player this season. If he was 29 nobody would be questioning this either. Ignore the age, look at the impact.

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote:Dirk was the best player in the world while Paul is not top 20.

Paul is tied for 28th in the league in PER (the "all-in-one" rate metric that is LEAST correlated to impact, fwiw). But otherwise.....

Paul is 11th in the league in WS/48, 9th in total WS.
He's tied for 11th in the league in BPM, tied for 12th in VORP.
He's 10th in the league in the LEBRON impact measure, and 10th in wins added. He's 6th in Box LEBRON.

By amalgamation of all these metrics, he appears the overall best player on the best team in the league.
His on/off is a close 3rd-best on this best team, behind two guys who are basically 3&D role players [though I do think Mikal Bridges is exceptional in his role]; he's ahead of both the other "All-Star(ish)" players on the team.
The team was 53-12 [.815] in the 65 games he played, and 11-6 [.647] in the 17 games he missed despite 10 of those 17 being played against teams with losing records (and only THREE of them being against a top-10 team).


But sure.....he's not a top 20 player.

Paul is 13th in offensive win shares and 25th in offensive BPM(which is not much a rational stat) and Paul is also 13th in defensive win shares and 7th in DBPM, which are totally nonsenses. The reason behind of these nonseses, Suns are strong defensive team with or without Paul for WS and stupidity all around obssesion of the BPM(Westbrook was DPOY for a reminder).

I could say he might be top 20 offensive player in the league due to his playmaking, but even at his peak he was not more than big positive on the defensive end, right now he's just average. And combined them putting Paul out of top 20, sure.

W/Booker and without Paul Suns are 8-3, 59 wins on pace and w/Paul and without Booker Suns are 5-3, 51 wins on pace. You may overlooked the things.

Sure, he's not a top 20 player, unless you think he's above average defender.

feyki wrote: W/Booker and without Paul Suns are 8-3, 59 wins on pace and w/Paul and without Booker Suns are 5-3, 51 wins on pace. You may overlooked the things.

With Paul and without Booker the Suns were indeed 5-3. However for three of those eight games, DeAndre Ayton was also absent (and TWO of those three games were against winning teams [one a top-10 team]).
Paul managed 1-2 record without EITHER of his two co-stars and while playing mostly winning teams.

Without Booker, but still having Ayton, Paul and the Suns managed 4-1 [.800] (that one loss came to a full strength [before Dray's injury] Warriors team).

With Booker but without Paul the Suns were indeed 8-3. But Ayton was around for all 11 of those; Booker never had to see how they could fair while playing without EITHER of his two co-stars....he always had at least one of them around.
And fwiw, 6 of those 11 games were against teams with losing records; only two of 11 were against top-10 teams (Utah and Miami [though Miami was without Jimmy Butler at the time]).

Paul without Ayton: Suns were 18-4. But again, three of those games were without Booker either (and against mostly winning teams) where they went 1-2.
Paul + Booker, but without Ayton: the Suns went 17-2.

Ayton without EITHER co-star: Suns went 3-1 (beating three losing teams, and losing to one elite team [Milwaukee]).

fwiw, overall....
Suns with all three "stars": 31-7 [.816].
Suns missing one of the three: 29-6 [.829]
Suns missing two of the three: 4-3 [.571]
Suns missing all three: 0-2

feyki wrote: Sure, he's not a top 20 player, unless you think he's above average defender.

He most certainly is an above average defender; one has an uphill battle in substantiating the contrary.
He's likely still top 5 for his position.

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote: W/Booker and without Paul Suns are 8-3, 59 wins on pace and w/Paul and without Booker Suns are 5-3, 51 wins on pace. You may overlooked the things.

With Paul and without Booker the Suns were indeed 5-3. However for three of those eight games, DeAndre Ayton was also absent (and TWO of those three games were against winning teams [one a top-10 team]).
Paul managed 1-2 record without EITHER of his two co-stars and while playing mostly winning teams.

Without Booker, but still having Ayton, Paul and the Suns managed 4-1 [.800] (that one loss came to a full strength [before Dray's injury] Warriors team).

With Booker but without Paul the Suns were indeed 8-3. But Ayton was around for all 11 of those; Booker never had to see how they could fair while playing without EITHER of his two co-stars....he always had at least one of them around.
And fwiw, 6 of those 11 games were against teams with losing records; only two of 11 were against top-10 teams (Utah and Miami [though Miami was without Jimmy Butler at the time]).

Paul without Ayton: Suns were 18-4. But again, three of those games were without Booker either (and against mostly winning teams) where they went 1-2.
Paul + Booker, but without Ayton: the Suns went 17-2.

Ayton without EITHER co-star: Suns went 3-1 (beating three losing teams, and losing to one elite team [Milwaukee]).

fwiw, overall....
Suns with all three "stars": 31-7 [.816].
Suns missing one of the three: 29-6 [.829]
Suns missing two of the three: 4-3 [.571]
Suns missing all three: 0-2

feyki wrote: Sure, he's not a top 20 player, unless you think he's above average defender.

He most certainly is an above average defender; one has an uphill battle in substantiating the contrary.
He's likely still top 5 for his position.

Sample size already was small and afterward descreased to couple of games .

Paul is the worst shot defender of his team and well below average, but still elite ball defender; let's look at it.

22 Paul - 9,8 DFGA, %47,6 DFG, %2,7 Steal Percentage
22 Brunson - 10,0 DFGA, %46,1 DFG, %1,3 Steal Percentage
22 Conley - 10,0 DFGA, %44,1 DFG, %2,3 Steal Percentage
22 Smart - 10,6 DFGA, %45,0 DFG, %2,6 Steal Percentage
22 Jru - 14,3 DFGA, %44,3 DFG, %2,4 Steal Percentage
22 Lamelo - 10,8 DFGA, %46,6 DFG, %2,4 Steal Percentage
22 Trae - 11,3 DFGA, %47,9 DFG, %1,3 Steal Percentage
22 Garland - 11,3 DFGA, %48,3 DFG, %1,8 Steal Percentage

. Closer to Brunson,Lamelo,Garland group than Smart,Jru and maybe Conley group. Probably can be counted as high as 10-15 better defensive PG than Paul this season. Have to credit to him because of his elite ball defence. But always he was not a good shot defender and now he's worst of his team and tiers below than NBA average.

feyki wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote: W/Booker and without Paul Suns are 8-3, 59 wins on pace and w/Paul and without Booker Suns are 5-3, 51 wins on pace. You may overlooked the things.

With Paul and without Booker the Suns were indeed 5-3. However for three of those eight games, DeAndre Ayton was also absent (and TWO of those three games were against winning teams [one a top-10 team]).
Paul managed 1-2 record without EITHER of his two co-stars and while playing mostly winning teams.

Without Booker, but still having Ayton, Paul and the Suns managed 4-1 [.800] (that one loss came to a full strength [before Dray's injury] Warriors team).

With Booker but without Paul the Suns were indeed 8-3. But Ayton was around for all 11 of those; Booker never had to see how they could fair while playing without EITHER of his two co-stars....he always had at least one of them around.
And fwiw, 6 of those 11 games were against teams with losing records; only two of 11 were against top-10 teams (Utah and Miami [though Miami was without Jimmy Butler at the time]).

Paul without Ayton: Suns were 18-4. But again, three of those games were without Booker either (and against mostly winning teams) where they went 1-2.
Paul + Booker, but without Ayton: the Suns went 17-2.

Ayton without EITHER co-star: Suns went 3-1 (beating three losing teams, and losing to one elite team [Milwaukee]).

fwiw, overall....
Suns with all three "stars": 31-7 [.816].
Suns missing one of the three: 29-6 [.829]
Suns missing two of the three: 4-3 [.571]
Suns missing all three: 0-2

feyki wrote: Sure, he's not a top 20 player, unless you think he's above average defender.

He most certainly is an above average defender; one has an uphill battle in substantiating the contrary.
He's likely still top 5 for his position.

Sample size already was small and afterward descreased to couple of games .

Seriously reluctant to engage but ... you respond to someone posting multiple different metrics including on-off and other stats that use impact data (LEBRON) ... with a W-l record "without X" ... without any controls or noting contextual factors where simultaneous absences distort that data ... and your complaint when that data is parsed is that now the sample is too small.

The better impact measures had a ton of data that you needlessly chucked out.

I don't know where Paul ranks now ... I'd have to make the list to get a proper range ... but I can't understand this line of argument.

If Paul wins a ring this year as the best player that would make me consider moving him into the top 30 all time. Right now he'd be somewhere around the top 50.

He's the third wheel on Booker and Ayton's team, and the West is the weakest it's been in a long time, so it shouldn't. But knowing how overrated he's already been throughout his career, the media will probably start calling him the GOAT if he wins one.

Stalwart wrote:If Paul wins a ring this year as the best player that would make me consider moving him into the top 30 all time. Right now he'd be somewhere around the top 50.

That's harsh.

Chris s Paul does not need a ring any more than Charles Barkley needed a ring.

Charles Barkley was better than Dirk.

I don’t think Chris Paul is getting a ring this year.
Warriors, Grizzlies or whatever team comes out of the East will probably stop Chris Paul from getting a ring.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Chris s Paul does not need a ring any more than Charles Barkley needed a ring.

Charles Barkley was better than Dirk.

I don’t think Chris Paul is getting a ring this year.
Warriors, Grizzlies or whatever team comes out of the East will probably stop Chris Paul from getting a ring.

i an unsure about barkley>dirk

could easily see the opposite being true actually

Short answer - No.

But undoubtably a big positive. His time with the Suns already has been a big positive imo, and as long as it doesn't end in flames due to personality it will be regardless of the team winning or not.