Will Chris Paul make the All NBA First Team this season?

[GreenWithEnvy]

-= original quote snipped =-



Do you not understand that Kobe has yet to practice--PRACTICE--or play one game--ONE GAME--with Pau and Bynum?

you just proved urself wrong with the Pippen thing. Jordan could barely win a playoff series without Pippen! uh Kobe much? then Pippen came on and Jordan started winning championships. why you hittin yourself?

and how do you discount my logic on the Hornets players? West was like 3 and 1.5 averages before Paul. Pau was an allstar before! and hes been 20 and 10 for like 5 years! Plus don't compare Bynum and Chandler. it took Tyson 5 years to be relevant and it took Bynum 3. Primarly because the Lakers invested in a big man coach. Arguably the best big man in NBA history. its not Kobe making his teammates better its his teammates already being good OR other people (KAJ) making them better.

your just confusing yourself here man. The general rule of thumb with the MVP is "take him off and how would that team be". Now look how the Lakers have played without Kobe (basically .500 ball) and look at the Hornets. The Hornets are a lottery team without Chris Paul.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



you just proved urself wrong with the Pippen thing. Jordan could barely win a playoff series without Pippen! uh Kobe much? then Pippen came on and Jordan started winning championships. why you hittin yourself?

and how do you discount my logic on the Hornets players? West was like 3 and 1.5 averages before Paul. Pau was an allstar before! and hes been 20 and 10 for like 5 years! Plus don't compare Bynum and Chandler. it took Tyson 5 years to be relevant and it took Bynum 3. Primarly because the Lakers invested in a big man coach. Arguably the best big man in NBA history. its not Kobe making his teammates better its his teammates already being good OR other people (KAJ) making them better.

your just confusing yourself here man. The general rule of thumb with the MVP is "take him off and how would that team be". Now look how the Lakers have played without Kobe (basically .500 ball) and look at the Hornets. The Hornets are a lottery team without Chris Paul.

1. No, you're the one who didn't get the Pippen comparison. MJ was the Bulls' #1 before Pippen, and he stayed the #1 even once Pippen joined him. Just like Kobe was the Lakers' #1 both before and after Pau joined him. Your whole thing about how Pau is the reason the Lakers are winning is obviously wrong. You're the one hitting yourself here.

2. CP fans love hanging their hats on the fact that the Lakers roster is better than the Hornets roster. Which is true, except for one crucial fact: At no point during this season has the entire Lakers roster been on the floor, healthy. What's the separation in team record if Kobe, Bynum, and Gasol had been playing the entire season together from the start? Answer that one, CP fans.

3. That's actually not the rule of thumb. That's a small factor. The Bulls sans MJ accumulated a top record and went deep into the playoffs. They didn't drown without MJ. But that never prevented MJ from getting MVP's, and it certainly shouldn't prevent guys like Kobe from doing the same.

[carrottop12]

-= original quote snipped =-

Yes, when you have a great shot blocker like David West behind you, you are free to gamble on steals all day. Jazz fans- Sigh
Anyways not being a ASG starter and being MVP isn't that rare of a thing as if I recall T-mac and Kobe started over Nash and I don't think Dirk started

David West is averaging almost a block and a half per game. Tied for 12th in the league. If you don't think that factors into Paul's steals you know very little about the game.

And still, Paul averages 2.7 steals per game, that's a great feat, however it doesn't at all mean he is a good defensive player because he isn't. He's the Amare Stoudamire of PG's on the defensive end.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



1. Why isn't the better player the tiebreaker? Better players are more valuable. Period.

2. Dirk still got his with a great supporting cast. There's no refuting that. Nash won those MVP's mainly on his ushering in a new style of play in the NBA. All 'objective' arguments stacked on top of that underlying sentiment.

1. 'Valuable' is a function of the lift you've given your team. From there is basic math. If two players teams are equally successful, the more valuable player is the whose team would do worst without him. Now you can make good arguments that it's actually a bit more complicated than that, but on the whole it's pretty solid.

On the idea of 'valuable' vs 'better'. The latter is far more subjective, and hence judging the former by it is akin to assuming the conclusion. Again, a bit more complicated than that, but not a lot.

2. I know Dirk got his with a good supporting cast. I was explaining to you how you win the MVP with one: Have an incredible record, which neither Kobe nor Paul have.

Nash's MVP really wasn't about the different style of play. The team started what, 31-4?, after winning less than 30 games the whole previous year. When that happens people take notice, and try to figure out who is responsible for lifting the team, aka whose contributing such huge value. Initially there were actually some voters listing Amare Stoudemire as the NBA MVP, but it soon became clear that Nash was the keystone of the team and everyone treated him as such in their MVP voting. This of course didn't make him a lock to win the MVP, but it made him a strong competitor, and weak competition did the rest (you think Nash would have had a shot against '99-00 Shaq just because he's fun to watch? C'mon now.)

[gavran]

Of course he will, there's only one guard better then him this year, and it's Kobe. He's only competition is Nash, Deron, and he's having a better season then them.

[Nebroc]

-= original quote snipped =-



David West is averaging almost a block and a half per game. Tied for 12th in the league. If you don't think that factors into Paul's steals you know very little about the game.

And still, Paul averages 2.7 steals per game, that's a great feat, however it doesn't at all mean he is a good defensive player because he isn't. He's the Amare Stoudamire of PG's on the defensive end.

1.5 is nothing to write home about and if Paul is the amare Stoudamire of PG's on the defensive end then Deron Williams is the Mark Blount.

[TheHartBreakKid]

Kobe shouldnt get MVP...its THIS simple. The Lakers weren't dominant until Pau came aboard...so shouldn't you give it to Pau? because without him they are streaky and inconsistent.

The Hornets are a D-League team with Paul. He keeps them competitive every game and he makes EVERYONE better.


basically the Lakers would be a 40 win team without Kobe
the Hornets would be a 20 win team without Paul. Simple as that. Without Paul the Hornets look like the Wolves.

lmao kobe shouldnt get the mvp because we werent dominant with gasol?
CP3 shouldnt get the mvp because their not dominant. period.
Go ask the Utah/portland/boston/etc fans and ask them who they chanted mvp for.
oh and btw we just beat dallas in dallas and beat utah after 19 other teams before us tried in utah.

Holla at kevin durant and he'll tell which player he rather play againts after last night.

and BRINGTHEPAIN or w/e your name is
your right the lakeshow fanbase is worried about kobe getting mvp...well i am thats for sure. but im not worried about cp3 getting it..im worried about this 6 8 sf whose averaging the most points and is also doing everything else and dragging a **** team to homecourt advantage in cleveland.
Look him up you have heard of him.

That being said i think kobe deserves mvp, but if anyone else should get it its lebron not cp3.
but hey he owned rafor alston in a war of words...thats right
RAFOR ALSTON. the mans intimidating..


Back to the topic of thread. Hell yes paul is the best point gaurd in the league and he will be in the all nba first team.

Paul
kobe
lebron
kg
dwight
and if the first team goes in any way thats crazy IMO.


i like paul, im not a hater of any kind but kobe/lebron have the whole league at their nuts right now and its not even comparable. If i was to start a franchise right now paul would be second/third tied with dwight after lebron. And yes, a 29 year old kobe would be fourth.

[Sroek]

Kobe is the best player in the league, and has been screwed over 2 times before. Then you have Chris Paul, who's team wouldn't be 1st place without this guy looking at the roster, and looking at rest of the other 8 western conference contenders. Now the downside for both these guys or more for Kobe, winning MVP is the Lakers clearly has the best roster in the NBA. just hurts him alot. Then for Paul it's just the fact that Kobe has gotten screwed over and it's Kobe's for the taking.

1) Gasol came into the roster mid-season.

2) Gasol and Bynum has yet to play together.

3) Bynum wasn't a starter until later in the season.

The Lakers record would be drastically different had Gasol, Bynum, Kobe and the rest of the squad had played together since the beginning of the season.

[Sroek]

Kobe is the best player in the league, and has been screwed over 2 times before. Then you have Chris Paul, who's team wouldn't be 1st place without this guy looking at the roster, and looking at rest of the other 8 western conference contenders. Now the downside for both these guys or more for Kobe, winning MVP is the Lakers clearly has the best roster in the NBA. just hurts him alot. Then for Paul it's just the fact that Kobe has gotten screwed over and it's Kobe's for the taking.

1) Gasol came into the roster mid-season.

2) Gasol and Bynum has yet to play together.

3) Bynum wasn't a starter until later in the season.

The Lakers record would be drastically different had Gasol, Bynum, Kobe and the rest of the squad had played together since the beginning of the season.

[eatyourchildren]

1. 'Valuable' is a function of the lift you've given your team. From there is basic math. If two players teams are equally successful, the more valuable player is the whose team would do worst without him. Now you can make good arguments that it's actually a bit more complicated than that, but on the whole it's pretty solid.

On the idea of 'valuable' vs 'better'. The latter is far more subjective, and hence judging the former by it is akin to assuming the conclusion. Again, a bit more complicated than that, but not a lot.

I have to disagree with you on this one. It's not basic math, and I get the feeling you're intelligent enough to understand why this is. It's basic math if we were to have an experimental season where half of the games, Kobe played with the Hornets, and the other half CP played with the Hornets. That would tell you who is the more valuable (in the strict sense of the word) player is.

A team that drowns or swims based on the absence or inclusion of its star says a very limited number of things about that star's value to the team. But even applying that model, the difference you see between Kobe and CP is actually speaking to them as a function of their teams. With Kobe, the Lakers are talked about as a title contender. With CP, the Hornets are talked about as a dangerous seed. But those are vastly different, qualitative, assessments.

2. I know Dirk got his with a good supporting cast. I was explaining to you how you win the MVP with one: Have an incredible record, which neither Kobe nor Paul have.

Nash's MVP really wasn't about the different style of play. The team started what, 31-4?, after winning less than 30 games the whole previous year. When that happens people take notice, and try to figure out who is responsible for lifting the team, aka whose contributing such huge value. Initially there were actually some voters listing Amare Stoudemire as the NBA MVP, but it soon became clear that Nash was the keystone of the team and everyone treated him as such in their MVP voting. This of course didn't make him a lock to win the MVP, but it made him a strong competitor, and weak competition did the rest (you think Nash would have had a shot against '99-00 Shaq just because he's fun to watch? C'mon now.)

Kobe and Paul's records are nor remarkable in terms of absolute wins, but they are remarkable relative to density of the competition. I think that's something quite clear this season.

Nash's MVP's, I think to a large extent, are aberrations to the norm of MVP voting. Traditionally, MVP's are giving to one of the best players in the league, someone who is taking his team over the top. If you read the rhetoric from the first MVP he won, people readily admitted that he wasn't a top player in the league, but he transcended that limitation precisely because of infection style he brought to the league.

[Htown_Koopa]

uhm what makes paul better than deron? IMO deron>paul

[JordansBulls]

uhm what makes paul better than deron? IMO deron>paul

Maybe because he is 2nd in the league in PER as a PG.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Maybe because he is 2nd in the league in PER as a PG.

What separates Paul from Deron is not something PER can tell you. It's Paul's timing, his tenacity, his game management, his team management (not just his offense management), and ability to seize big moments.

[carrottop12]

-= original quote snipped =-

1.5 is nothing to write home about and if Paul is the amare Stoudamire of PG's on the defensive end then Deron Williams is the Mark Blount.

What does Deron Williams have to do with anything? This thread is about Chris Paul.

And btw, how many teams would kill to have their power forward averaging over a block per game?

[Nebroc]

Deron Williams is a PG. He is a horrible defender. One of the worst in the league if not the worst. But he is a one of the best PGs and therefore competition for All NBA First team so I think the fact that his two best competitors are two of the worst point guards in the league on defence and far worse at it then Paul not matter if you think Paul is all NBA defence or not is very relevent to this thread.

[Doctor MJ]

I have to disagree with you on this one. It's not basic math, and I get the feeling you're intelligent enough to understand why this is. It's basic math if we were to have an experimental season where half of the games, Kobe played with the Hornets, and the other half CP played with the Hornets. That would tell you who is the more valuable (in the strict sense of the word) player is.

A team that drowns or swims based on the absence or inclusion of its star says a very limited number of things about that star's value to the team. But even applying that model, the difference you see between Kobe and CP is actually speaking to them as a function of their teams. With Kobe, the Lakers are talked about as a title contender. With CP, the Hornets are talked about as a dangerous seed. But those are vastly different, qualitative, assessments.

A player's value to his team is need completely dependent on his value to his team. Not seeing the problem here when trying to measure for the most "valuable" player. You can go a bit further when trying to estimate who is "better", but of course that goes back into what we discussed before. "better" is far, far more subjective.

The assessments of post-season viability here are pretty close to irrelevant.

-= original quote snipped =-



Kobe and Paul's records are nor remarkable in terms of absolute wins, but they are remarkable relative to density of the competition. I think that's something quite clear this season.

Nash's MVP's, I think to a large extent, are aberrations to the norm of MVP voting. Traditionally, MVP's are giving to one of the best players in the league, someone who is taking his team over the top. If you read the rhetoric from the first MVP he won, people readily admitted that he wasn't a top player in the league, but he transcended that limitation precisely because of infection style he brought to the league.

The whole point was that Dirk's team had a far better record than its competition. If player X's team has the same record as player Y's team and they've played similar competition, it's certainly ridiculous to dismiss the supporting cast argument in a comparison between them.

Well personally I think Nash is a top player in the league. I mean jeeze, if I told you a guy led his team to victory in a playoff series against a 58 win team with numbers of 30/12/6 shooting at 55%, you'd think he wasn't elite? Honestly, is there anyone in history whose had a series like that who isn't considered to have been a superstar?

Regardless, you seem like one of the many people who are sure that this isn't how it's supposed to be, but don't seem to want to remember that Russell won the MVP more than Wilt 40 years ago. The precedence is very much set that what matters is your effect on the team, and on that front, I think Nash deserves to be in the discussion with anybody playing today.

[JDawg]

Guys,

Let me ask you a question.

Forget Bynum and Pau.

Does anyone think a CP3 led team beats a Kobe led team in the playoffs.

I dont give A CRAP if their whole team is healthy. There is NO WAY a CP3 led team beats a Kobe team, I dotn care how healthy they are.

Their system is not as torturous as the Suns system was to us. The Suns were a scoring machine and our D wasn't good enoguh to stop them. The Hornets O, while Good is NOT nearly as good as the Suns O. And the Suns had TWO players to match up with Kobe that didnt fare very well either....Bell and Marion.

If Kobe got into a series with the Hornets, you'd see Paul to amazing things.

Then you'd see Kobe literally AVERAGE 50ppg. That whole TEAM would have to make its efforts to stop Kobe. YOu getting that. THE WHOLE TEAM would be needed to stop Kobe from putting you guys out of your misery.

Trust me, Kobe with EVEN A SEMI-HEALTHY cast beats the Hornets.

Forget Pau, Forget Bynum....we dont need them to beat the Hornets.

Kobe is simply that much better than Paul and its that simple....you can think about your PER stats from here to kingdom come, I've already addressed them in the MVP thread, for those of you who dont hate.

PER is Hollinger's stat. What's that gonna matter when Kobe is DETERMINED TO NOT be stopped from getting to the hoop and so he drives in relentlessly BRIGING IN 3 to 4 guys with him to stop him at hte hoop.

You think Paul can get players open shots....LOL....when Kobe makes it his mission to get his guys open shots, there isn't a DAMN THING a defense can do to stop it, except hope the refs allow the big men to get awya with fouling him.

If Kobe wanted to get his guys open shots, he'd get them open shots that Paul could ONLY DREAM about getting Peja and Mo Pete.

AND he woulndt need a pick to do it....he'd just put his head down and go in and bring 3 guys with him. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO.

Thats what you people dont understand.

Guys liek Kobe and Leborn, they play above hte rim...if they wnat to get to the hoop, you MUSt have 2 and 3 guys to deny them at the rim.

When you do that, what happens? Open shots.

If Kobe wanted to, he could drive the lane and draw three guys EVERY FREAKING POSSESSION like a PG and coudl do so WITHOUT THE NEED of a pick to do so either.

So quit talking about Paul as some kind of hero who gets his guys open shots.

The difference is the system. The ball isn't placed in Kobe's hands to get guys open shots. He does so, but often times, he plays the FT line, he's off the ball, he's used as a scorer and the triangle is designed so that MULTIPLE people get to make passes to open shooters.

You see MANY more hockey assists in the triangle than in a traditional pick and pop offense where one guy penetrates and kicks back out, etc.

But, trying to explain that to haters is like smacking your head against the wall.

[tracey_nice]

[quote="Doctor MJ"][/quote]
Nash isn't in the discussion because Chris Paul trumps him in almost every catergory. Since Nash and Paul are both point guards and play a similar offensive game, it is relatively easy to compare them. Which makes comparing them much more objective than comparing 2 completely different players.

[Doctor MJ]

Guys,

Let me ask you a question.

Forget Bynum and Pau.

Does anyone think a CP3 led team beats a Kobe led team in the playoffs.

I dont give A CRAP if their whole team is healthy. There is NO WAY a CP3 led team beats a Kobe team, I dotn care how healthy they are.

Their system is not as torturous as the Suns system was to us. The Suns were a scoring machine and our D wasn't good enoguh to stop them. The Hornets O, while Good is NOT nearly as good as the Suns O. And the Suns had TWO players to match up with Kobe that didnt fare very well either....Bell and Marion.

Stopped reading here.

The Lakers, when they almost beat the Suns, matched up incredibly well with the Suns, specifically because of big men, which you are now saying to "forget" about.

Kobe is amazing, he's currently my choice for MVP, but if you think he's some superman like figure who can only lose if the other team has the perfect strategy, you are way off. Take away Bynum and Gasol, the Lakers are not a real contender to win the Western Conference. Simple as that. That's not meant as a knock on Kobe, it's just the reality that he can't do it without good teammates, and in particular good teammates in positions which have responsibilities Kobe has no shot in hell at replacing since he is not a big man.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-


Nash isn't in the discussion because Chris Paul trumps him in almost every catergory. Since Nash and Paul are both point guards and play a similar offensive game, it is relatively easy to compare them. Which makes comparing them much more objective than comparing 2 completely different players.

Your quote of mine didn't come through so I'm not sure what you're addressing specifically. I've got Paul ahead of Nash on my MVP list, so I'm really not arguing that.

As far as comparing them being "easy" though, only if the box score stats told the whole story. Nash slaughters Paul in team net +/- for example.