Effigy wrote:The High Cyde wrote:Been a good one, Point God
What a weird ass nickame. Is he even definitely a top FIVE point guard? And he calls himself that?!
Magic
Steph
Isiah
Oscar
are all clearly better than him, and I think I take Stockton and Kidd over him too.
The nickname Chris Paul "gave himself" is CP3, and it is because his last name is Paul and he was the third Paul in the family with the initials CP and then of course wore the jersey #3.
The "point god" nickname is not self proclaimed, it was given by fans/social media, lol
Effigy wrote:Bloodbather wrote:Effigy wrote:
What a weird ass nickame. Is he even definitely a top FIVE point guard? And he calls himself that?!
Magic
Steph
Isiah
Oscar
are all clearly better than him, and I think I take Stockton and Kidd over him too.
Isiah most definitely is not better than him.
Stockton and Kidd have arguments, but I'd take CP3 over them because he peaked considerably higher.
Isiah won 2 titles as the main guy. In the Bird, Magic and Jordan era. He's absolutely better.
Stockton is the all time leader in steals and assists
and was a better shooter than Paul, so I don't see how Paul has an argument over him, really.
Was he though? Stockton had lower volume from everywhere, and the one place not affected by volume and defense, FT's, Paul wins in career 87% to 83% and has 5 seasons with 90%+, another 2 at 89.2% and 89.6%. Stockton's career high is 86.3%, Paul beat that 10/20 seasons.
Despite the higher volume (significant, 15.3 FGA to 9.9 FGA), and no short 3PT line seasons, Paul also out shot Stockton from all locations in the post season:
52.8% 2PT, 37.3% 3PT, 85.4% FT
///vs///
50.7 2PT, 32.6% 3PT, 81.0% FT.
Is Stockton actually a better shooter? It's definitely not a numbers (in context) argument, so what exactly is it here? That in no way contradicts that he was a very good shooter, money from mid-range (though so is Paul), but was he actually better?
Also Paul has the better scorer argument, it's really not close, and I can look at the teams Paul was on, and not one time can I say, "man, if they had Stockton instead they would have done better". People were even saying Paul should be shooting more, and that was a critique of Stockton, and his volume was far less. If Stockton could have created the same amount of volume at Paul and keeping the same efficiency, most would argue that the Jazz would have benefitted from that, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone arguing that any of the teams Paul played on needed less scoring and more passing from the PG. Now health, that's the place Stockton wins hands down.