Your inability to engage people with a modicum of civility is honestly impressive at this point, but whatever, I guess the mods can decide how they feel about that.
No-more-rings wrote:OhayoKD wrote:even if we just go by the box-score, posting a 50+ ast% on around a 10% tov percentage(actually 9% vs the spurs) is a playmaking outcome we rarely see, never mind it came against a great defense, or that he also managed a 55 ast%:12% tov against a good mavs defense.
Well given your history of calling the box score useless, I don't know why you want to bring it up all of a sudden. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me, but so is a lot of what you post anyhow.
I guess you missed the
even if? I'm not a big-fan of the box-score, but you seem to be higher on it than me, so I made a point of engaging you on your terms. This seems to have prompted a "hissy fit"(your words not mine) for some reason
OhayoKD wrote:Pair that with efficient scoring and even if we just box-stat this that looks like a pretty "historic" run. Not to mention good defense from a position where defensive impact is scarce.
Do you have evidence that Paul had significant impact on defense? His d on/off was +6.2 which is pretty damn bad, and DRAPM has him at -0.8.
I mean, I generally weigh bigger samples/replication more when assessing players, but fine, if you want to argue he was nuetral or negative defensively this specific year, I'm ears. Chris Paul generally has good defensive impact signals(atg on guard standards) and stuff like d-pipm has his defense has goated on the standards of guards for some reason(maybe its a intangible effect like defensive play-calling?)
But we can put paul's defense at nuetral or slight negative for this instance if you want.
Could you link me where you're gettign on/off, using bball ref i could only find o-rating whch has him at +9 in the rs and +11 with the team getting better across the board whether its block rate or ast% or whatever when hes on the court.
With such a small sample a more stable metric might be useful here. As DPIPM does the most to tie its defensive component to drapm I feel it will it may be the best option here(and it is the most predictive of rapm derivatives iirc). For the playoffs Chris Paul looks extremely good scoring +4 in the d component and +5 in the o component. Not saying thats definitive(though oddly enough chris paul is like the one guard i've seen who racks up multiple >+2 dpipm runs in the playoffs), and there may well be missattribution between o and d impact, but it tracks with what im seeing on bball ref on/off, and you do have a very rare combination of hyper-effecient/high volume playmaking(at least taking a box-approach). Feel free to push back, especially on defense where i dont have a strong opinion on early cp.
OhayoKD wrote:Well this is a wierd comment. Setting aside that you just compared him to 3 seasons many people have pushed in GOAT peak conversations, just how much help do you think Chris Paul had here?
It's a weird that you bring up help, when I didn't say anything about how good good or bad his cast was.
But you did bring up help for the three players you compared him to, so a comp there is implied. As it is, you do actually have to assess help to some degree when comparing players beyond a "erneh rings" framework.
3 people that are pushed for goat yes, when people say "historic" I tend to think of guys at that level or close to it at least. Paul is not.
I doubt that is the bar lostbricks is using(or what most people would use), so you may as well be clear about that before you call someone silly for not holding players to goated standards.
OhayoKD wrote:I suppose crushing a 51 win team and then taking a 56 win team to 7 isn't as good as taking the pistons to 7, but I'm skeptical CP3 had as much help as MJ considering the team saw their srs skyrocket just on the implementation of the triangle on top of various ultimately useful additions on top of a 27 win base.
Ah I see what this is about now. If Jordan wasn't mentioned I sort of doubt you'd even have responded to this. It irks you so much you have to jump down someone's throat anytime someone has high praise for Jordan. One of your normal objectives is to drag him through the mud as much as possible no matter how foolish and hypocritical you make yourself look in the process.
Buddy, this is the 3rd thread in the last month(03 shaq vs duncan, jokic in the 90's) where you brought up Jordan without any sort of prompt and then tried to pin Jordan's inclusion on me. You brought up 1990 MJ and the level of help he had. You can't blame me when I address the examples you choose. I suppose I am dragging Lebron and Kareem in the mud when I argue losing in 6 and getting swept isn't automatically more impressive than what CP3 did?
Do you think the "gold standard of realgm debating" is just you throwing mud at people when they try to engage you civilly and then pretending the people you throw mud at are the problem?
Back to Cp3, the Pistons relative to era, were much better than the 08 Spurs yes. Aside from the Bulls, they beat every other team in convincing fashion, including a 5 game win over a 59 win 6.5 SRS Blazers team.
The 08 Spurs took a step back from the previous season, that's why the Lakers made fairly quick work of them.
Well the spurs smoked a 51 win team before they faced the hornets but sure, they weren't as good as the pistons, the 90 bulls were better, what I don't understand is the "they didn't have the help to win" as if that wasn't true for cp3 as well. CP3 joined an 18 win team, not a 27 win one, and unless i'm missing something, there wasn't an equivalent to the triangle skyrocketing the bulls srs or a big advantage in terms of post-draft additions. Seems like he did less with less help, and since, for whatever reason, you decided 90 MJ, 09 Lebron and 77 Kareem were the targets cp3 had to hit to have a historic run, and then your justification for cp3 not coming close enough to this bar is "played great, didn't have enough help", estimating the gap in help/performance is good practice.
OhayoKD wrote:I don't really get how you're determining CP3's run "wasn't historic" just because if theoretically doesn't stack up against two of the greatest carry jobs ever in lebron and kareem, and a season you've argued deserves goat consideration in 1990 mj.
Well that's why I asked Luka how it was historic since he made the claim.
We can debate how great Cp3 was or wasn't, but that frankly seems like a waste of time for 12 games that ended in the 2nd round.
This is semantics. You can point to certain stats and say they were "historical" but that doesn't mean the run itself was. Even for a guy like 09 Lebron, it wasn't just his playoff run, his regular season was off the charts in regards to success and impact.
[/quote]
You are aware 77 Kareem also exited in the second round? Neither Kareem nor MJ won substantially more in the RS, so, under the argument you've decided to make "didn't have help to win", i dont know what you're basing the "too big of a gap to be historic" off(you also haven't defined what closeness one must have to great regular seasons for consideration here). I suppose you could push 2009 being a much better regular season, but you've specifically argued all those extra wins and the seeming incompetence of the cast in his absence doesn't really warrant placing it clearly above less successful regular seasons because the box-numbers(basically offense) looks similar.
Maybe it is semantics, but when you call people "silly" for saying a player is "historic", I think you have responsibility to define/explain the sematic label you're applying. But again, being aggressive and hostile and then projecting when someone tries to be civil is seemingly common practice for you. I may well be wasting my time here.
