Paxson vs Kerr vs Armstrong vs Harper

[durantbird]

What's your rank for these four Bulls PGs of MJ era, for today's game? John Paxson, Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong, Ron Harper

[jdzimme3]

Harper - Armstrong - paxson - kerr

[DQuinn1575]

Harper shot 29% from 3 in over 1,800 attempts, and was only a 72% FT shooter. The Bulls version of him would have a hard time finding his way on the court today. Pre Bulls he was a good enough slasher and quick enough that he would still play more than the other 3.
The other 3 could all shoot and get some playing time. Due to his size, Kerr would have a better chance to stay on the court over B.J.& Paxson.

I'd go
1. Kerr
2. Paxson
3. Armstrong
4. Harper

[Ol Roy]

Harper shot 29% from 3 in over 1,800 attempts, and was only a 72% FT shooter. The Bulls version of him would have a hard time finding his way on the court today. Pre Bulls he was a good enough slasher and quick enough that he would still play more than the other 3.
The other 3 could all shoot and get some playing time. Due to his size, Kerr would have a better chance to stay on the court over B.J.& Paxson.

I'd go
1. Kerr
2. Paxson
3. Armstrong
4. Harper

In terms of defense, they would be listed in reverse order from your rankings.

From what I've seen, Kerr looked pretty helpless on that side of the floor.

[DQuinn1575]

Harper shot 29% from 3 in over 1,800 attempts, and was only a 72% FT shooter. The Bulls version of him would have a hard time finding his way on the court today. Pre Bulls he was a good enough slasher and quick enough that he would still play more than the other 3.
The other 3 could all shoot and get some playing time. Due to his size, Kerr would have a better chance to stay on the court over B.J.& Paxson.

I'd go
1. Kerr
2. Paxson
3. Armstrong
4. Harper

In terms of defense, they would be listed in reverse order from your rankings.

From what I've seen, Kerr looked pretty helpless on that side of the floor.

Probably correct in terms of defense; only Harper has any real value as a defender. But in today's game you have virtually no defense only guards who can't shoot.

[trex_8063]

Hmmm, this is actually a pretty interesting question; which is to say potentially close, and difficult to speculate on (I'm not surprised we're seeing a wide variance in opinions already).

I'm going to start by breaking down a quick comparison of Paxson vs Armstrong. I know many would probably side with Armstrong (he came to more acclaim with his one dubious All-Star selection), but peak-to-peak [or prime-to-prime], I actually think Paxson would fair slightly better in today's game.
BJ looks like the better 3pt shooter, though part of that is Paxson coming more from a bygone era where the mid-range was more utilized and the 3pt line seen more as gimmicky. Paxson was regularly taking 2pt shots from as far as 21-22+' (sometimes so close to the 3pt line it's almost frustrating to watch retrospectively [because you're thinking "just back up 12 inches and get an extra point!"]). And hitting those looks at a pretty good rate, btw. Note Pax was a career 52.7% shooter from 2pt range, and a HUGE portion of his diet was in the 17-22' range.
I've no doubt he could extend his range a little if reared in a different era (note also in his final fours seasons collectively he was 40.4% from 3pt on 2.0 att/100 poss).

The other thing I note regarding these two as shooters is that Paxson had a quicker release (which is more relevant in today's game). BJ had a relatively long wind-up to shoot. NOTE: By the same token by which I say Paxson may be a better 3pt shooter today, perhaps Armstrong would develop a quicker release, too.

Defensively, I like Paxson better. Not that he was a any kind of stopper, but this is more a function of BJ just being kinda [or exceptionally?] poor/weak defensively. His [BJ's] lateral footspeed was quite slow for a PG, and he could not fight through screens, nor was he any bigger/stronger than Paxson.

Both had excellent all-around turnover economies, but Paxson's was slightly better on fairly similar roles (Armstrong only had a marginally higher rate of offensive output, though my mTOV% accounts for that [Paxson's is still slightly better]).

So I'd go with Paxson by a narrow margin over Armstrong in today's game.


What about Kerr [vs Paxson/Armstrong]?
Again, I think Paxson holds a small edge defensively, with Kerr being more or less on the same level as Armstrong.

BOTH of Armstrong and Paxson seemed a little more capable of creating for others, though Kerr matches Paxson in terms of astoundingly good turnover economy in their roles.

Man, could Kerr shoot, though. Even removing '95-'97 (shortened 3pt line), he was still 42.4% from 3pt for his career (on ~5 attempts/100 possessions). His final six seasons (AFTER the line was taken back to 23.75', and ALL in his post-prime) he was 40.6% on 6.1 3PA/100. Best FT-shooter of the three, too. Quicker release than Armstrong (not sure about Paxson, though).

His being so far ahead of the curve in 3pt shooting made him a fantastically efficient low-volume scorer (in the years with the shortened line, he was absurdly efficient, like '21 Joe Ingles). Combined with his ultra-elite turnover economy, he was a solid 6MOY candidate.

Overall, I'd give him the narrow edge on Armstrong. I'm unsure about Paxson, though I'm leaning slightly toward Kerr (not at all confident).


Harper is harder to gauge in comparison, as he's really a completely different type of player:
- He's NOT a good outside shooter (or FT shooter).
- He does NOT have a good turnover economy overall (though it was decent specifically in his Chicago years).

- otoh, he's on a completely other level as a defender, and is the only one of the four that is even a little relevant as a rebounder.
- And depending on whether or not we're talking about pre-injury [prime] Harper, or only post-injury [Bulls] Harper, he's on a completely other level as a slasher/finisher and versatile scorer.


Whereas the first three are all 6'2"-6'3" and relatively "limited" physically/athletically, Harper is a long and athletic guard. I could easily see him as a sort of Nickeil Alexander-Walker type of player (though lesser 3pt shooter) in today's league.
Admittedly, the lack of shooting does put a cap on his usefulness to today's league, but the defensive acumen is still there. Still.....how much playing time would NAW get if he wasn't a 38+% 3pt shooter?

Thus, if we were talking pre-injury Harper, he might be the best of the four in today's league, imo.
But if we're only talking about post-injury [Bulls] Harper, he might end up being the least of the four.

All four [even post-injury Harper] could probably find a place in today's league, imo.