RealGM

Who do you got higher on your ranking all time?

It's Paul easily, in fact I don't see any arguments for Pat in this debate - prime, peak, stats, achievements, longevity it all goes for CP.

Paul for sure. Ewing is in my mid-lower 20s all-time - whereas Paul is in the low teens - high 20s imo.

I think Ewing is under-appreciated here, and I think there is a decent argument for him over Paul by era-relative postseason success… but probably is Paul by now, yeah.

I always found it funny that from 2008-17 the team that beat Paul would never make the Finals and (aside from the 2009 Nuggets) would not even manage to win another round. Contrast that with Ewing, who from 1990-96 lost to the eventual champion every year except 1995 (Pacers), and one comes across as a much more significant blot on the résumé. Ewing also gets points from me for routinely outplaying or otherwise matching a younger and ostensibly better (by virtue of being younger) rival in the postseason. Has not quite been the same story for Paul when pitted against opposing star guards.

Again, probably take Paul. But Ewing was the fourth or fifth most successful postseason leader of the 1990s, and I think that is too often disregarded.

Chris Paul, neither is in my top 20 though.

Johnny Tomala wrote:Chris Paul, neither is in my top 20 though.

What’s your top 25

ceoofkobefans wrote:

Johnny Tomala wrote:Chris Paul, neither is in my top 20 though.

What’s your top 25

My top 20:
1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Russell
4. LBJ
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Shaq
11. KG
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Kobe
14. K. Malone
15. Dirk
16. West
17. M. Malone
18. Mikan
19. Erving
20. D. Robinson

Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

The bolded is both dubious and “consistently inconsistent”: You give Ewing credit for defence with no positional adjustment, then make the positional adjustment on offence as means of drawing the comparison closer. Which will it be? Are we using adjustments or not?

Because “considering position”, Paul was arguably better defensively than Ewing.

And the latter half of the statement is questionable besides: how many centers have we seen who are better than Ewing offensively? Quite a few. How many have we seen who are A LOT better offensively? At least a few.

How many PG’s have we seen who are better than Chris Paul offensively? Only a few, hardly any A LOT better (and certainly NONE who are better by the degree that Jokic is better than Ewing).


For that matter the “much more success” statement is also, at best, extreme hyperbole. It is at worst flatly false…..

Paul has been to 1 Finals, Ewing to 2; neither has won.
Paul’s teams have played 161 playoff games in 18 seasons, Ewing’s teams 157 in 17 seasons (Paul missed 12 of his team’s, though Ewing missed 18).

Paul ps win%: .503
Ewing ps win%: .516

Paul rs win%: .625
Ewing rs win%: .555


Where is the supposed “much” more success?

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

I don't think you can find more than 5 PGs better offensively than Paul.

I think you can find 10 centers better offensively than Ewing without any troubles.

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

What if you consider position for defense?

Or do you just make up whatever you want in order to fit into your belief?

trex_8063 wrote:

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

The bolded is both dubious and “consistently inconsistent”: You give Ewing credit for defence with no positional adjustment, then make the positional adjustment on offence as means of drawing the comparison closer. Which will it be? Are we using adjustments or not?

Because “considering position”, Paul was arguably better defensively than Ewing.

And the latter half of the statement is questionable besides: how many centers have we seen who are better than Ewing offensively? Quite a few. How many have we seen who are A LOT better offensively? At least a few.

How many PG’s have we seen who are better than Chris Paul offensively? Only a few, hardly any A LOT better (and certainly NONE who are better by the degree that Jokic is better than Ewing).


For that matter the “much more success” statement is also, at best, extreme hyperbole. It is at worst flatly false…..

Paul has been to 1 Finals, Ewing to 2; neither has won.
Paul’s teams have played 161 playoff games in 18 seasons, Ewing’s teams 157 in 17 seasons (Paul missed 12 of his team’s, though Ewing missed 18).

Paul ps win%: .503
Ewing ps win%: .516

Paul rs win%: .625
Ewing rs win%: .555


Where is the supposed “much” more success?

Good point. What I meant is that creation for others, particularly assists, counts much for offense and so can be an advantage for a PG.

On context, Ewing had better success, particularly playoffs, when he was the number one player for his team. CP only got by the second round with Harden and Phoenix, as is well known.

There are many more alltime great Centers than PGs, particularly in the top 20. No knock on Ewing.

migya wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

The bolded is both dubious and “consistently inconsistent”: You give Ewing credit for defence with no positional adjustment, then make the positional adjustment on offence as means of drawing the comparison closer. Which will it be? Are we using adjustments or not?

Because “considering position”, Paul was arguably better defensively than Ewing.

And the latter half of the statement is questionable besides: how many centers have we seen who are better than Ewing offensively? Quite a few. How many have we seen who are A LOT better offensively? At least a few.

How many PG’s have we seen who are better than Chris Paul offensively? Only a few, hardly any A LOT better (and certainly NONE who are better by the degree that Jokic is better than Ewing).


For that matter the “much more success” statement is also, at best, extreme hyperbole. It is at worst flatly false…..

Paul has been to 1 Finals, Ewing to 2; neither has won.
Paul’s teams have played 161 playoff games in 18 seasons, Ewing’s teams 157 in 17 seasons (Paul missed 12 of his team’s, though Ewing missed 18).

Paul ps win%: .503
Ewing ps win%: .516

Paul rs win%: .625
Ewing rs win%: .555


Where is the supposed “much” more success?

Good point. What I meant is that creation for others, particularly assists, counts much for offense and so can be an advantage for a PG.

On context, Ewing had better success, particularly playoffs, when he was the number one player for his team. CP only got by the second round with Harden and Phoenix, as is well known.

There are many more alltime great Centers than PGs, particularly in the top 20. No knock on Ewing.

CP3 was clearly the best player on the Suns team that made the Finals, especially in the playoffs. He had a team leading postseason BPM of 5.0 compared to -0.4 for Booker.

iggymcfrack wrote:

migya wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:
The bolded is both dubious and “consistently inconsistent”: You give Ewing credit for defence with no positional adjustment, then make the positional adjustment on offence as means of drawing the comparison closer. Which will it be? Are we using adjustments or not?

Because “considering position”, Paul was arguably better defensively than Ewing.

And the latter half of the statement is questionable besides: how many centers have we seen who are better than Ewing offensively? Quite a few. How many have we seen who are A LOT better offensively? At least a few.

How many PG’s have we seen who are better than Chris Paul offensively? Only a few, hardly any A LOT better (and certainly NONE who are better by the degree that Jokic is better than Ewing).


For that matter the “much more success” statement is also, at best, extreme hyperbole. It is at worst flatly false…..

Paul has been to 1 Finals, Ewing to 2; neither has won.
Paul’s teams have played 161 playoff games in 18 seasons, Ewing’s teams 157 in 17 seasons (Paul missed 12 of his team’s, though Ewing missed 18).

Paul ps win%: .503
Ewing ps win%: .516

Paul rs win%: .625
Ewing rs win%: .555


Where is the supposed “much” more success?

Good point. What I meant is that creation for others, particularly assists, counts much for offense and so can be an advantage for a PG.

On context, Ewing had better success, particularly playoffs, when he was the number one player for his team. CP only got by the second round with Harden and Phoenix, as is well known.

There are many more alltime great Centers than PGs, particularly in the top 20. No knock on Ewing.

CP3 was clearly the best player on the Suns team that made the Finals, especially in the playoffs. He had a team leading postseason BPM of 5.0 compared to -0.4 for Booker.

That just means CP3 was better by the box-score on a per-minute number.

Total +/- in 2021 post-season:
Crowder +115
Booker +112
Ayton +82
CP3 +62
Bridges +62

Total Minutes in 2021 post-season:
Booker 888
Ayton 800
Crowder 729
Bridges 707
CP3 683

CP3 played 563 of 683 minutes with Booker. Booker played over 300 minutes [nearly half of CP3 TOTAL PS MINUTES] without CP3.

No wonder CP3 looks better by the box-score rate statistic.

Colbinii wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:

migya wrote:

Good point. What I meant is that creation for others, particularly assists, counts much for offense and so can be an advantage for a PG.

On context, Ewing had better success, particularly playoffs, when he was the number one player for his team. CP only got by the second round with Harden and Phoenix, as is well known.

There are many more alltime great Centers than PGs, particularly in the top 20. No knock on Ewing.

CP3 was clearly the best player on the Suns team that made the Finals, especially in the playoffs. He had a team leading postseason BPM of 5.0 compared to -0.4 for Booker.

That just means CP3 was better by the box-score on a per-minute number.

Total +/- in 2021 post-season:
Crowder +115
Booker +112
Ayton +82
CP3 +62
Bridges +62

Total Minutes in 2021 post-season:
Booker 888
Ayton 800
Crowder 729
Bridges 707
CP3 683

CP3 played 563 of 683 minutes with Booker. Booker played over 300 minutes [nearly half of CP3 TOTAL PS MINUTES] without CP3.

No wonder CP3 looks better by the box-score rate statistic.

Wouldn't playing a higher proportion of time without another superstar tend to mean a greater opportunity to show more productivity. Not super invested in '21 Suns ranking (and first glance those plus/minus numbers suggest a different angle though they can be very noisy) but it seems like arguing "of course Booker will have a [very large] rate production gap when he doesn't get to spend as much of it with Chris Paul as vice-versa" ... isn't a great blow against Paul.

And fwiw the non-rate version (VORP) has Paul 1.2, Booker 0.5.

Owly wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:
CP3 was clearly the best player on the Suns team that made the Finals, especially in the playoffs. He had a team leading postseason BPM of 5.0 compared to -0.4 for Booker.

That just means CP3 was better by the box-score on a per-minute number.

Total +/- in 2021 post-season:
Crowder +115
Booker +112
Ayton +82
CP3 +62
Bridges +62

Total Minutes in 2021 post-season:
Booker 888
Ayton 800
Crowder 729
Bridges 707
CP3 683

CP3 played 563 of 683 minutes with Booker. Booker played over 300 minutes [nearly half of CP3 TOTAL PS MINUTES] without CP3.

No wonder CP3 looks better by the box-score rate statistic.

Wouldn't playing a higher proportion of time without another superstar tend to mean a greater opportunity to show more productivity. Not super invested in '21 Suns ranking (and first glance those plus/minus numbers suggest a different angle though they can be very noisy) but it seems like arguing "of course Booker will have a [very large] rate production gap when he doesn't get to spend as much of it with Chris Paul as vice-versa" ... isn't a great blow against Paul.

And fwiw the non-rate version (VORP) has Paul 1.2, Booker 0.5.

This would lead to the next point. CP3 in 2021 was a lower-usage PG who was highly-effective in his role [High Pick and Roll] while Booker was shouldering much of the scoring load.

My overarching point would be that CP3 looks similar to Stockton, where BPM loves him but it doesn't exactly mean he was better.

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

I don't think you can find more than 5 PGs better offensively than Paul.

I think you can find 10 centers better offensively than Ewing without any troubles.

you can do this with defense too. Relative to position is not the knife you bring out against a guard

Amares wrote:It's Paul easily, in fact I don't see any arguments for Pat in this debate - prime, peak, stats, achievements, longevity it all goes for CP.

What "stats" are you using here.

one was taking Jordan/Hakeem to the brink, while the other was getting bent over by westbrook

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:Looking at the whole picture, Ewing had less talent on his teams and much more success. He was a better defender and considering position, arguably as good offensively.

I don't think you can find more than 5 PGs better offensively than Paul.

I think you can find 10 centers better offensively than Ewing without any troubles.

you can do this with defense too. Relative to position is not the knife you bring out against a guard

I don't find "relative to position" discussion that useful to be honest, it's migya who started it.

OhayoKD wrote:

Amares wrote:It's Paul easily, in fact I don't see any arguments for Pat in this debate - prime, peak, stats, achievements, longevity it all goes for CP.

What "stats" are you using here.

one was, taking Jordan/Hakeem to the brink, while the other was getting bent over by westbrook

Hahaha bent over backwards by Westbrook. Let's not take this to Skip Bayless levels.

Westbrook: 28/6/9, 4.2 TO/G, 49/35/88 shooting splits, 62 TS%, 23.2 Gamescore/G
CP3: 23/4/12, 2.3 TO/G, 51/46/75 shooting splits, 61 TS%, 22.3 Gamescore/G

Maybe the difference was Durant and Griffin?

Griffin: 24/9/4 on 54 TS%
Durant: 33/10/5 on 61 TS%

Oh yeah, that was the difference.

Also:

Crawford: 14 Points on 46 TS%
Ibaka: 11 Points on 67 TS%

But yeah, bent over by Westbrook