Higher on All-Time list: Kobe Bryant vs Larry Bird

[70sFan]

I would disagree with this. Yes Russell dominated wilt from a *team perspective* but Russell also had a lot more help than wilt. By the time wilt gets to Philly Russell isn’t dominating his teams. Wilt lead a better team than most of the 60s Celtics teams in 1967 and 1968 and he beat Russell in the ECF in 67 to win a ring eventually. I think there’s certainly a debate between wilt vs Russell

To be fair, Celtics didn't really have a better roster in 1965 and especially in 1966, yet Russell still finished on the winning side. Doesn't mean that he's better, but it shows that Russell didn't really need better teams to beat Wilt teams.

[70sFan]

Wilt and Russell are a difficult combo as Russell clearly dominated Wilt from a team perspective throughout his career with not much difference in teammate quality. And yet, Russell was clearly a very flawed player as he had a career TS% of .471 at low volume adjusted for pace. It’s very hard for me to believe that a player deriving almost all of his value from defense could be better than other all-time defensive greats (like KG, Hakeem, and Robinson) who were also all-time defenders but were elite offensively as well. So Russell has to be below the great 2-way bigs, but he also has to be above Wilt as well. Considering the weaknesses of the era, the most likely source of this contradiction seems to be generally weak competition. Giannis with a top 5 statistical 5 year peak while also playing DPOY-level defense and having one of the greatest Finals of all-time qualifies as a great 2-way big that beats out a flawed player.

So you decided that Russell just can't be that good because he was unique at how he impacted the game, therefore you concluded that his era must be weak and Wilt has to be worse than other two-way bigs, despite him being dominant two-way big himself...

I'm not going to argue your conclusions here, but I think you should look at the path you followed for these conclusions again, because it's a cricular logic effect at his best.

Much like the situation where Wilt gets pulled down because he has to be below Russell, there’s a similar factor at work with CP3 and Magic. Magic was a force with what he did for an offense, but at the same time, CP3 had better numbers, better longevity, faced better competition, and was a giant leap better on defense. Magic’s only real edge was being an even more elite passer than one of the greatest passers in the history of the game. Much like I can’t believe the difference between the greatest defender of all-time and one of the greatest defenders of all-time is bigger than the difference between Robinson and Russell on offense, I can’t believe the difference in passing only for anyone over Chris Paul is greater than the difference between an elite defender and a poor defender even before you account for Paul’s better scoring.

Who said you that Magic was a poor defender?

I think there are many advantages that Magic had on Paul you didn't include. Firstly, his size allowed him to attack defenses in a way Paul simply couldn't. Magic was also a better scorer than Paul actually - yes, he didn't shoot more and was focused on playmaking but his scoring was definitely harder to stop than Paul's. Magic was also much better transition player, most of the best offensive players ever are elite in transition. Lastly, Magic had more value as an off-ball player due to his size, cutting, post play and quick decision making. That's not even mentioning durability advantage...

I fail to see how you can be so high on Shaq if you think that Russell's defense or Magic's passing couldn't give them advantage over the others. Shaq's main strength is his inside game and although it's plasuable to call him the best inside finisher ever, it's not a given and he's not better post scorer than Hakeem or Kareem, he's not better passer than Wilt or Kareem, better rebounder than Moses or Wilt and he's worse defender than all of them (except Moses). What puts Shaq so high on your list?

[ceoofkobefans]

I would disagree with this. Yes Russell dominated wilt from a *team perspective* but Russell also had a lot more help than wilt. By the time wilt gets to Philly Russell isn’t dominating his teams. Wilt lead a better team than most of the 60s Celtics teams in 1967 and 1968 and he beat Russell in the ECF in 67 to win a ring eventually. I think there’s certainly a debate between wilt vs Russell

To be fair, Celtics didn't really have a better roster in 1965 and especially in 1966, yet Russell still finished on the winning side. Doesn't mean that he's better, but it shows that Russell didn't really need better teams to beat Wilt teams.

I’d say he has the better cast in 65 fs not completely sure on 66 atm

[70sFan]

I would disagree with this. Yes Russell dominated wilt from a *team perspective* but Russell also had a lot more help than wilt. By the time wilt gets to Philly Russell isn’t dominating his teams. Wilt lead a better team than most of the 60s Celtics teams in 1967 and 1968 and he beat Russell in the ECF in 67 to win a ring eventually. I think there’s certainly a debate between wilt vs Russell

To be fair, Celtics didn't really have a better roster in 1965 and especially in 1966, yet Russell still finished on the winning side. Doesn't mean that he's better, but it shows that Russell didn't really need better teams to beat Wilt teams.

I’d say he has the better cast in 65 fs not completely sure on 66 atm

That's the point though - Russell had better teams, but only in the first half of the period both were in the league together.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Wilt and Russell are a difficult combo as Russell clearly dominated Wilt from a team perspective throughout his career with not much difference in teammate quality. And yet, Russell was clearly a very flawed player as he had a career TS% of .471 at low volume adjusted for pace. It’s very hard for me to believe that a player deriving almost all of his value from defense could be better than other all-time defensive greats (like KG, Hakeem, and Robinson) who were also all-time defenders but were elite offensively as well. So Russell has to be below the great 2-way bigs, but he also has to be above Wilt as well. Considering the weaknesses of the era, the most likely source of this contradiction seems to be generally weak competition. Giannis with a top 5 statistical 5 year peak while also playing DPOY-level defense and having one of the greatest Finals of all-time qualifies as a great 2-way big that beats out a flawed player.

So you decided that Russell just can't be that good because he was unique at how he impacted the game, therefore you concluded that his era must be weak and Wilt has to be worse than other two-way bigs, despite him being dominant two-way big himself...

I'm not going to argue your conclusions here, but I think you should look at the path you followed for these conclusions again, because it's a cricular logic effect at his best.

Much like the situation where Wilt gets pulled down because he has to be below Russell, there’s a similar factor at work with CP3 and Magic. Magic was a force with what he did for an offense, but at the same time, CP3 had better numbers, better longevity, faced better competition, and was a giant leap better on defense. Magic’s only real edge was being an even more elite passer than one of the greatest passers in the history of the game. Much like I can’t believe the difference between the greatest defender of all-time and one of the greatest defenders of all-time is bigger than the difference between Robinson and Russell on offense, I can’t believe the difference in passing only for anyone over Chris Paul is greater than the difference between an elite defender and a poor defender even before you account for Paul’s better scoring.

Who said you that Magic was a poor defender?

I think there are many advantages that Magic had on Paul you didn't include. Firstly, his size allowed him to attack defenses in a way Paul simply couldn't. Magic was also a better scorer than Paul actually - yes, he didn't shoot more and was focused on playmaking but his scoring was definitely harder to stop than Paul's. Magic was also much better transition player, most of the best offensive players ever are elite in transition. Lastly, Magic had more value as an off-ball player due to his size, cutting, post play and quick decision making. That's not even mentioning durability advantage...

I fail to see how you can be so high on Shaq if you think that Russell's defense or Magic's passing couldn't give them advantage over the others. Shaq's main strength is his inside game and although it's plasuable to call him the best inside finisher ever, it's not a given and he's not better post scorer than Hakeem or Kareem, he's not better passer than Wilt or Kareem, better rebounder than Moses or Wilt and he's worse defender than all of them (except Moses). What puts Shaq so high on your list?

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

[capfan33]

Wilt and Russell are a difficult combo as Russell clearly dominated Wilt from a team perspective throughout his career with not much difference in teammate quality. And yet, Russell was clearly a very flawed player as he had a career TS% of .471 at low volume adjusted for pace. It’s very hard for me to believe that a player deriving almost all of his value from defense could be better than other all-time defensive greats (like KG, Hakeem, and Robinson) who were also all-time defenders but were elite offensively as well. So Russell has to be below the great 2-way bigs, but he also has to be above Wilt as well. Considering the weaknesses of the era, the most likely source of this contradiction seems to be generally weak competition. Giannis with a top 5 statistical 5 year peak while also playing DPOY-level defense and having one of the greatest Finals of all-time qualifies as a great 2-way big that beats out a flawed player.

So you decided that Russell just can't be that good because he was unique at how he impacted the game, therefore you concluded that his era must be weak and Wilt has to be worse than other two-way bigs, despite him being dominant two-way big himself...

I'm not going to argue your conclusions here, but I think you should look at the path you followed for these conclusions again, because it's a cricular logic effect at his best.

Much like the situation where Wilt gets pulled down because he has to be below Russell, there’s a similar factor at work with CP3 and Magic. Magic was a force with what he did for an offense, but at the same time, CP3 had better numbers, better longevity, faced better competition, and was a giant leap better on defense. Magic’s only real edge was being an even more elite passer than one of the greatest passers in the history of the game. Much like I can’t believe the difference between the greatest defender of all-time and one of the greatest defenders of all-time is bigger than the difference between Robinson and Russell on offense, I can’t believe the difference in passing only for anyone over Chris Paul is greater than the difference between an elite defender and a poor defender even before you account for Paul’s better scoring.

Who said you that Magic was a poor defender?

I think there are many advantages that Magic had on Paul you didn't include. Firstly, his size allowed him to attack defenses in a way Paul simply couldn't. Magic was also a better scorer than Paul actually - yes, he didn't shoot more and was focused on playmaking but his scoring was definitely harder to stop than Paul's. Magic was also much better transition player, most of the best offensive players ever are elite in transition. Lastly, Magic had more value as an off-ball player due to his size, cutting, post play and quick decision making. That's not even mentioning durability advantage...

I fail to see how you can be so high on Shaq if you think that Russell's defense or Magic's passing couldn't give them advantage over the others. Shaq's main strength is his inside game and although it's plasuable to call him the best inside finisher ever, it's not a given and he's not better post scorer than Hakeem or Kareem, he's not better passer than Wilt or Kareem, better rebounder than Moses or Wilt and he's worse defender than all of them (except Moses). What puts Shaq so high on your list?

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

I think you may be overthinking this, I can't claim to be a CP3 expert but Magic's enormous size advantage outweighs most of this except for 2. I think younger Magic was 90% as quick as Paul while being 6'7, and I'm not sure Paul had better handles honestly. Moreover, if we're comparing prime to prime it's not a contest, Magic's half-court post-game was lethal and resilient in a way that CP3 never approached, and he was still an excellent, albeit somewhat limited shooter.

[AEnigma]

This has become quite a tangent!

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers

Perhaps. I do not think a player is nothing more than their numbers, but that said…

1986-91 Postseason Magic: 20.1 points per 75 on 60.2% efficiency; sample size of 98 games at 39.7 minutes per game
2013-17 Postseason Paul: 23.25 points per 75 on 60.3% efficiency; sample size of 42 games at 36.3 minutes per game

^This of course does not really offer much in the way of adjustment.

1980-91 Magic Johnson against -2 rDrtg teams (40.64% of playoffs games): 40.9 mpg, 8.0 rpg, 11.2 apg, 4.0 tov, 18.8 ppg on 50.1% FG, 27.0% 3FG, 84.8% FT and 60.1% TS (+6.49% rTS)

1980-91 Magic Johnson against -4 rDrtg teams (15.51% of playoffs games): 40.3 mpg, 8.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 3.9 tov, 19.7 ppg on 51.9% FG, 19.2% 3FG, 83.3% FT and 59.5% TS (+5.96% rTS)

Although there are still valid questions to be made about the “relative” efficiency here and the timeframe used, I am mildly skeptical that Paul shows quite the same level of resilience. And that is in part because…

plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker

A lot of players are quicker, but that does not mean they or Paul specifically get better shots, because Magic is quick himself in addition to having a major size advantage.

2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic

But is that a more valuable shot.

3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

Turnover control helps him in this comparison, but again I think the question needs to be whether that actually produced better scoring looks.

Clippers Paul was a more willing scorer than Magic ever was, and in that frame you could probably call him a more productive scorer, but I would not conflate production for ability or potential or being “better” in this analysis of whom you trust to generate points.

n.b. For fun, 2005-10 Nash is at 20.4 points per 75 on 60.4% efficiency, with a sample size of 68 games at 38 minutes per game. Lack of adjustment hurts him the most by virtue of repeatedly playing the Spurs (20 games of that sample) and clearly playing in a less efficient league than the other two — and of course, like Magic, his priority was always finding the best pass rather than looking to get off a shot attempt himself.

[70sFan]

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

I said he was tougher to stop doing his things, not that he was "definite" better scorer. When we look at PS numbers, they look quite similar:

1986-91 Magic: 20.6 pp75 on +7.1 rTS% in 39.7 mpg

2008-13 Paul: 23.1 pp75 on +5.3 rTS% in 39.6 mpg
2012-17 Paul: 23.9 pp75 on +6.2 rTS% in 36.8 mpg

Paul has volume advantage, while Magic has the edge in efficiency. The thing is that Magic didn't look to score most of the time, he could have upped his scoring easily when necessary. Remember that Paul's career high playoff scoring series is 25.5 ppg and it was actually a 4 games sweep in 2021 against the Nuggets. Magic had 4 series with higher averages than that. Paul definitely looked more to score (that's his style), but I don't think he came up with better results all things concerned.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

Sure, I never said Paul didn't have any advantages over Magic. Remember that I replied to someone who said that it's actually Paul who is definitely a better scorer than Magic and that the only thing Magic does better than Paul is passing. I'm quite sure you agree with me here.

[Cavsfansince84]

I would disagree with this. Yes Russell dominated wilt from a *team perspective* but Russell also had a lot more help than wilt. By the time wilt gets to Philly Russell isn’t dominating his teams. Wilt lead a better team than most of the 60s Celtics teams in 1967 and 1968 and he beat Russell in the ECF in 67 to win a ring eventually. I think there’s certainly a debate between wilt vs Russell

To be fair, Celtics didn't really have a better roster in 1965 and especially in 1966, yet Russell still finished on the winning side. Doesn't mean that he's better, but it shows that Russell didn't really need better teams to beat Wilt teams.

I’d say he has the better cast in 65 fs not completely sure on 66 atm

Well, I think what he had that year was a Sam Jones who went bonkers in the playoffs which was probably the difference in them winning it all or losing. Same as Hondo did in the 68&69 playoffs. Russell was probably still their most impactful player but he had teammates who stepped up when it mattered. Jones' playoff numbers from 63-67 are incredible.

[LukaTheGOAT]

So you decided that Russell just can't be that good because he was unique at how he impacted the game, therefore you concluded that his era must be weak and Wilt has to be worse than other two-way bigs, despite him being dominant two-way big himself...

I'm not going to argue your conclusions here, but I think you should look at the path you followed for these conclusions again, because it's a cricular logic effect at his best.


Who said you that Magic was a poor defender?

I think there are many advantages that Magic had on Paul you didn't include. Firstly, his size allowed him to attack defenses in a way Paul simply couldn't. Magic was also a better scorer than Paul actually - yes, he didn't shoot more and was focused on playmaking but his scoring was definitely harder to stop than Paul's. Magic was also much better transition player, most of the best offensive players ever are elite in transition. Lastly, Magic had more value as an off-ball player due to his size, cutting, post play and quick decision making. That's not even mentioning durability advantage...

I fail to see how you can be so high on Shaq if you think that Russell's defense or Magic's passing couldn't give them advantage over the others. Shaq's main strength is his inside game and although it's plasuable to call him the best inside finisher ever, it's not a given and he's not better post scorer than Hakeem or Kareem, he's not better passer than Wilt or Kareem, better rebounder than Moses or Wilt and he's worse defender than all of them (except Moses). What puts Shaq so high on your list?

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

I think you may be overthinking this, I can't claim to be a CP3 expert but Magic's enormous size advantage outweighs most of this except for 2. I think younger Magic was 90% as quick as Paul while being 6'7, and I'm not sure Paul had better handles honestly. Moreover, if we're comparing prime to prime it's not a contest, Magic's half-court post-game was lethal and resilient in a way that CP3 never approached, and he was still an excellent, albeit somewhat limited shooter.

Not really...

If you want to look at them during arguable 3-year peaks

Inflation Adjusted Points Per 75 Possessions

Chris Paul (15-17)-IA 25.9 pts, rTS% of 7.9%

Magic Johnson (87-89)- IA 20.2 pts, rTS% of 7.4%


Chris Paul with the higher average defense faced too during the 12-17 span as well then Magic typically faced in teh PS. The qualities I mentioned are a part of this.

Finally, CP3's 12-17 stretch was generally impressive.

Chris Paul (12-14): 22.8 IA pts/75 (rTS% of 4.8%)

Chris Paul (13-15): 23.5 IA Pts/75 (+8.70 rTS)%

Chris Paul (14-16): 23.4 IA Pts/75 (rTS% of 7.5%)

Chris Paul (15-17)-25.9 IA pts/75 (rTS% of 7.9%)

Kevin Durant has an enormous size advantage over Michael Jordan, but few would take Durant over MJ in a PS setting. I feel pretty good about the qualities I mentioned, and I do think CP3 has a notable margin in them.

[70sFan]

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

I think you may be overthinking this, I can't claim to be a CP3 expert but Magic's enormous size advantage outweighs most of this except for 2. I think younger Magic was 90% as quick as Paul while being 6'7, and I'm not sure Paul had better handles honestly. Moreover, if we're comparing prime to prime it's not a contest, Magic's half-court post-game was lethal and resilient in a way that CP3 never approached, and he was still an excellent, albeit somewhat limited shooter.

Not really...

If you want to look at them during arguable 3-year peaks

Inflation Adjusted Points Per 75 Possessions

Chris Paul (15-17)-IA 25.9 pts, rTS% of 7.9%

Magic Johnson (87-89)- IA 20.2 pts, rTS% of 7.4%


Chris Paul with the higher average defense faced too during the 12-17 span as well then Magic typically faced in teh PS. The qualities I mentioned are a part of this.

Finally, CP3's 12-17 stretch was generally impressive.

Chris Paul (12-14): 22.8 IA pts/75 (rTS% of 4.8%)

Chris Paul (13-15): 23.5 IA Pts/75 (+8.70 rTS)%

Chris Paul (14-16): 23.4 IA Pts/75 (rTS% of 7.5%)

Chris Paul (15-17)-25.9 IA pts/75 (rTS% of 7.9%)

Kevin Durant has an enormous size advantage over Michael Jordan, but few would take Durant over MJ in a PS setting. I feel pretty good about the qualities I mentioned, and I do think CP3 has a notable margin in them.

Why focusing so much in three years peaks? I already calculated averages from 2012-17:

1986-91 Magic: 20.6 pp75 on +7.1 rTS% in 39.7 mpg

2008-13 Paul: 23.1 pp75 on +5.3 rTS% in 39.6 mpg
2012-17 Paul: 23.9 pp75 on +6.2 rTS% in 36.8 mpg

[70sFan]

To be fair, Celtics didn't really have a better roster in 1965 and especially in 1966, yet Russell still finished on the winning side. Doesn't mean that he's better, but it shows that Russell didn't really need better teams to beat Wilt teams.

I’d say he has the better cast in 65 fs not completely sure on 66 atm

Well, I think what he had that year was a Sam Jones who went bonkers in the playoffs which was probably the difference in them winning it all or losing. Same as Hondo did in the 68&69 playoffs. Russell was probably still their most impactful player but he had teammates who stepped up when it mattered. Jones' playoff numbers from 63-67 are incredible.

True, Jones was incredible playoff performer.

[LukaTheGOAT]

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

I said he was tougher to stop doing his things, not that he was "definite" better scorer. When we look at PS numbers, they look quite similar:

1986-91 Magic: 20.6 pp75 on +7.1 rTS% in 39.7 mpg

2008-13 Paul: 23.1 pp75 on +5.3 rTS% in 39.6 mpg
2012-17 Paul: 23.9 pp75 on +6.2 rTS% in 36.8 mpg

Paul has volume advantage, while Magic has the edge in efficiency. The thing is that Magic didn't look to score most of the time, he could have upped his scoring easily when necessary. Remember that Paul's career high playoff scoring series is 25.5 ppg and it was actually a 4 games sweep in 2021 against the Nuggets. Magic had 4 series with higher averages than that. Paul definitely looked more to score (that's his style), but I don't think he came up with better results all things concerned.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

Sure, I never said Paul didn't have any advantages over Magic. Remember that I replied to someone who said that it's actually Paul who is definitely a better scorer than Magic and that the only thing Magic does better than Paul is passing. I'm quite sure you agree with me here.

That isn't how I read it. He wrote "Magic’s only real edge was being an even more elite passer than one of the greatest passers in the history of the game."

To me that reads like he believes that maybe it could go either, but the only definitive advantage is that Magic is a better passer. But I get your point.

[70sFan]

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers, plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

I said he was tougher to stop doing his things, not that he was "definite" better scorer. When we look at PS numbers, they look quite similar:

1986-91 Magic: 20.6 pp75 on +7.1 rTS% in 39.7 mpg

2008-13 Paul: 23.1 pp75 on +5.3 rTS% in 39.6 mpg
2012-17 Paul: 23.9 pp75 on +6.2 rTS% in 36.8 mpg

Paul has volume advantage, while Magic has the edge in efficiency. The thing is that Magic didn't look to score most of the time, he could have upped his scoring easily when necessary. Remember that Paul's career high playoff scoring series is 25.5 ppg and it was actually a 4 games sweep in 2021 against the Nuggets. Magic had 4 series with higher averages than that. Paul definitely looked more to score (that's his style), but I don't think he came up with better results all things concerned.

CP3 is

1)quicker
2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic
3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

Sure, I never said Paul didn't have any advantages over Magic. Remember that I replied to someone who said that it's actually Paul who is definitely a better scorer than Magic and that the only thing Magic does better than Paul is passing. I'm quite sure you agree with me here.

That isn't how I read it. He wrote "Magic’s only real edge was being an even more elite passer than one of the greatest passers in the history of the game."

To me that reads like he believes that maybe it could go either, but the only definitive advantage is that Magic is a better passer. But I get your point.

He also said in the last sentence "I can’t believe the difference in passing only for anyone over Chris Paul is greater than the difference between an elite defender and a poor defender even before you account for Paul’s better scoring." so I think it's clear he thinks that Paul has considerable advantage in scoring.

[LukaTheGOAT]

This has become quite a tangent!

How was Magic a "definite," better scorer than CP3 in a PS setting. I don't think this shows up necessarily when eyeing the numbers

Perhaps. I do not think a player is nothing more than their numbers, but that said…

1986-91 Postseason Magic: 20.1 points per 75 on 60.2% efficiency; sample size of 98 games at 39.7 minutes per game
2013-17 Postseason Paul: 23.25 points per 75 on 60.3% efficiency; sample size of 42 games at 36.3 minutes per game

^This of course does not really offer much in the way of adjustment.

1980-91 Magic Johnson against -2 rDrtg teams (40.64% of playoffs games): 40.9 mpg, 8.0 rpg, 11.2 apg, 4.0 tov, 18.8 ppg on 50.1% FG, 27.0% 3FG, 84.8% FT and 60.1% TS (+6.49% rTS)

1980-91 Magic Johnson against -4 rDrtg teams (15.51% of playoffs games): 40.3 mpg, 8.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 3.9 tov, 19.7 ppg on 51.9% FG, 19.2% 3FG, 83.3% FT and 59.5% TS (+5.96% rTS)

Although there are still valid questions to be made about the “relative” efficiency here and the timeframe used, I am mildly skeptical that Paul shows quite the same level of resilience. And that is in part because…

plus there are plenty of qualitative arguments for CP3.

CP3 is

1)quicker

A lot of players are quicker, but that does not mean they or Paul specifically get better shots, because Magic is quick himself in addition to having a major size advantage.

2) very likelh has a stronger pull-up jumper that he DEFINITELY took more than Magic

But is that a more valuable shot.

3) has a better handle
4) is smaller which actually allows him to navigate through tight spaces better.

Turnover control helps him in this comparison, but again I think the question needs to be whether that actually produced better scoring looks.

Clippers Paul was a more willing scorer than Magic ever was, and in that frame you could probably call him a more productive scorer, but I would not conflate production for ability or potential or being “better” in this analysis of whom you trust to generate points.

n.b. For fun, 2005-10 Nash is at 20.4 points per 75 on 60.4% efficiency, with a sample size of 68 games at 38 minutes per game. Lack of adjustment hurts him the most by virtue of repeatedly playing the Spurs (20 games of that sample) and clearly playing in a less efficient league than the other two — and of course, like Magic, his priority was always finding the best pass rather than looking to get off a shot attempt himself.

From 2012-2016, Chris Paul faced defenses that had an average rDRTG of -2.68...

During that span he averaged an Inflation Adjusted 23 pts per 75 possessions on a rTS% of 6%. He had a PS ScoreVal of 1.1.

From 1984-1988, Magic went up against defenses in the PS that were had a rDRTG of 1.98 (1.98 points WORSE than league aveage).

During that span he averaged an Inflation Adjusted 18.9 pts per 75 possessions on a rTS% of 6.5%. He had a PS ScoreVal of 0.8.


The average quality of defenses faced is per this article: https://diamondhoop5.wordpress.com/2021/07/12/playoff-defenses-faced-update/

The 'but I would not conflate production for ability or potential or being “better” in this analysis of whom you trust to generate points' is true, but then you cross over into overall offensive impact. With this reasoning you could end up saying Magic>Shaq as a scorer, because Magic generated more points through his decision-making, he just opted to pass more and therefore things were more optimized.

Yes, yes scoring and playmaking are naturally intertwined, but I don't see Magic having more capacity to score based on the numbers, and my eye. I just think CP3 scoring skill-set can be argued over Magic.