How good is Paul George?

[NYKMELO7]

I like Paul George, he is a good player in the NBA and will only get better.

But is he overrated on the boards? I don't think he will ever average more than 20 a game. He is a good rebounder and gets assists. I understand he is a great defensive player and is very versatile.

I don't get to watch him much, but in your opinion, is he as good as advertised or is he overrated?

[DeenNY31]

i dont think hes overrated. He's a very good defensive player and is a solid scorer who will get better

[DirtyDez]

#3 SF behind The Gift & Iceburg Slim.

[tsherkin]

i dont think hes overrated. He's a very good defensive player and is a solid scorer who will get better

He's a good defender and rebounder, plus he's an underrated passer.

He is, however, a poor scorer. He's got a 3pt shot and when he does get to the rim (which is not that often), he finishes there at an average rate. He's totally useless in the key, has a bad mid-range jumper and a below-average perimeter 2 beyond 15 feet, plus he doesn't draw fouls well. He's been horrendously inconsistent because of the volume of 3s he shoots, and he's trending upwards in 3pt shooting volume, which is not a good thing.

George is not a good scorer and thus he's best featured more as a secondary or tertiary player. He's sort of like a sane Artest with superior physical tools... as a first option, well, it's not a surprise Indy sucks on O. He's not alone in developing that problem, I mean obviously Hibbert and others factor in prominently, but yeah, George is not a good first option.

[[RCG]]

On a scale from 0 to Paul George I'd say he's Paul George.

[orangeparka]

i dont think hes overrated. He's a very good defensive player and is a solid scorer who will get better

He's a good defender and rebounder, plus he's an underrated passer.

He is, however, a poor scorer. He's got a 3pt shot and when he does get to the rim (which is not that often), he finishes there at an average rate. He's totally useless in the key, has a bad mid-range jumper and a below-average perimeter 2 beyond 15 feet, plus he doesn't draw fouls well. He's been horrendously inconsistent because of the volume of 3s he shoots, and he's trending upwards in 3pt shooting volume, which is not a good thing.

George is not a good scorer and thus he's best featured more as a secondary or tertiary player. He's sort of like a sane Artest with superior physical tools... as a first option, well, it's not a surprise Indy sucks on O. He's not alone in developing that problem, I mean obviously Hibbert and others factor in prominently, but yeah, George is not a good first option.

This EXACTLY. I've always agreed with this dude regarding George.

[kidleader]

hes still young and will average 20ppg next season

[Ayt]

i dont think hes overrated. He's a very good defensive player and is a solid scorer who will get better

He's a good defender and rebounder, plus he's an underrated passer.

He is, however, a poor scorer. He's got a 3pt shot and when he does get to the rim (which is not that often), he finishes there at an average rate. He's totally useless in the key, has a bad mid-range jumper and a below-average perimeter 2 beyond 15 feet, plus he doesn't draw fouls well. He's been horrendously inconsistent because of the volume of 3s he shoots, and he's trending upwards in 3pt shooting volume, which is not a good thing.

George is not a good scorer and thus he's best featured more as a secondary or tertiary player. He's sort of like a sane Artest with superior physical tools... as a first option, well, it's not a surprise Indy sucks on O. He's not alone in developing that problem, I mean obviously Hibbert and others factor in prominently, but yeah, George is not a good first option.

I don't see how that can be justified without caveats.

[tsherkin]

As negative as I am about George in the role of primary scorer, I think the guy has the defensive chops and 3pt shooting ability to be a borderline AS player and a really good second or third star on a contending team. Right now, he's a lot like Danny Granger without the foul drawing ability, totally useless between the rim and the arc, but he's younger, bigger and didn't give up defense when he started shooting in volume.

I would like Paul George if they had a legit number one running the show, it's just as is so often the case, he's featured in a role for which he is not well-suited.

[Ettorefm]

It amazes me how people love raw stats. Why is it so important for him to be a 20 ppg scorer? Ammount of points is not what matters in a player.
.
"Can he be a scorer?". Every player can be a scorer. It's just about the number of touches. He can be a 30 ppg dude, for all I care. That doesn't mean he's helping the team
.
His FG% went from 46% to 45% to 42% THIS SEASON. 42%, dude. He should be shooting less, not more, even though he went from 12 ppg to 17 ppg. It's just usage, it doesn't mean anything.
.
His eFG% is almost 50%. That's not good enough for him to get more touches, yet, he gets it. That's not good for the team.
.
Unless he becomes a better scorer at the rim (because he's already a great 3point shooter) and draw more fouls, he shouldn't average the FGA he has now, let alone more. 13 shots a game is good enough for him. Being a 20+ ppg scorer or getting 3, 4 extra shots than he already gets will get the Pacers down in the playoff seeding

[Ayt]

It amazes me how people love raw stats. Why is it so important for him to be a 20 ppg scorer? Ammount of points is not what matters in a player.
.
"Can he be a scorer?". Every player can be a scorer. It's just about the number of touches. He can be a 30 ppg dude, for all I care. That doesn't mean he's helping the team
.
His FG% went from 46% to 45% to 42% THIS SEASON. 42%, dude. He should be shooting less, not more, even though he went from 12 ppg to 17 ppg. It's just usage, it doesn't mean anything.
.
His eFG% is almost 50%. That's not good enough for him to get more touches, yet, he gets it. That's not good for the team.

Considering that his team's eFG% is only .478 (and that includes George's stats), I'd say that is more than good enough for him to be getting more touches.

[Ayt]

As negative as I am about George in the role of primary scorer, I think the guy has the defensive chops and 3pt shooting ability to be a borderline AS player and a really good second or third star on a contending team. Right now, he's a lot like Danny Granger without the foul drawing ability, totally useless between the rim and the arc, but he's younger, bigger and didn't give up defense when he started shooting in volume.

I would like Paul George if they had a legit number one running the show, it's just as is so often the case, he's featured in a role for which he is not well-suited.

I think he still has plenty of time to develop his overall offensive game to the point that he can be a go to scorer. He doesn't turn 23 for another 40+ days.

I also disagree that he'll be a borderline AS player. I think he's going to be a near lock every year for quite awhile given his overall game and his defense.

[tsherkin]

I don't see how that can be justified without caveats.

He isn't elite at GETTING to the rim. He isn't elite at FINISHING at the rim. He isn't even average at drawing fouls, he's outright bad at it. He has continued to show the trend of total inability between the rim and the arc that has defined his offensive ability since he hit the league and he's increasing his 3pt shooting volume, which is serving mainly to lower his consistency.

Even if you add the old "watch tape, not stats" argument, there is literally NOTHING to support the idea that he's a good scoring option. His efficiency is consistently below average, his skill set isn't reflective of slump-suppressed dominance, I mean every angle of analysis comes back "bad idea, bad idea, bad idea," just like Indy's overall offensive indicators.

There's a reason they suck on D; he's not the only part of it, but centering your offense around a bad scorer will certainly not help. He's also a big part of the reason they dominate defensively, so featuring him as a big-minutes player makes sense, but I fall back on my earlier Artest example: great defender, but a really stupid idea as your offensive anchor.

You don't need caveats. NBA history supports what the stats continue to show; players don't typically make some magical transformation and become good scorers, there's usually a foundation and some earlier indicators that suggest a player could produce more than he is doing in a given role. George has shown that he gets worse with greater offensive responsibility, not better. Youth and athletic ability mean only so much when you don't have skills to fall back on, the type of skills that aren't frequently developed while trying to turn a player into a first option-caliber scoring threat.

Considering that his team's eFG% is only .478 (and that includes George's stats), I'd say that is more than good enough for him to be getting more touches.

As to this, yes, on Indiana, it makes sense that he takes more shots than some of his peers. The Pacers don't really have a compelling alternative... which is why they are barf-worthy on offense and rely upon their defense to win.

[tsherkin]

I think he still has plenty of time to develop his overall offensive game to the point that he can be a go to scorer. He doesn't turn 23 for another 40+ days.

Given the way that scorers have typically developed, that doesn't seem likely. If you mean that you believe he can put up a high-teens to maybe even low-twenties raw scoring average, sure, but that's entirely without meaning or substance, so that's not really relevant. That's from raw opportunity to chuck shots, especially if you mostly just bomb threes.

Again, his age isn't super-important compared to his poor indicators and comparatively weak skill set offensively. He's not going to magically develop good handles and a sense of how to use them. He hasn't showed any serious development in his jumper, nor in his ability to get to the rim in the half-court. He hasn't shown anything, really, except an increased opportunity to bomb threes, at which he is actually pretty good. That's about the only skill he's got besides finishing in transition, speaking from a scoring perspective. He doesn't do anything else at a noteworthy rate.

I also disagree that he'll be a borderline AS player. I think he's going to be a near lock every year for quite awhile given his overall game and his defense.

I meant more in terms of merit than reality. It really depends on what the forward crop looks like over the next 5 years in the East. He won't stand out to a lot of fans because his scoring isn't there and without significant changes, the Pacers won't be a high-profile team either. I can certainly see him making a few teams, but a perennial lock is definitely not going to happen, he's not that kind of player.

[Ayt]

He's a poor scorer compared to your typical NBA player, or he's a poor scorer as 1st or 2nd option? That is what I meant. Stating he's a poor scorer outright doesn't make any sense.

[Ettorefm]

He's a poor scorer compared to your typical NBA player, or he's a poor scorer as 1st or 2nd option? That is what I meant. Stating he's a poor scorer outright doesn't make any sense.

.
He's a poor scorer for a 1st option or a high volume 2nd option. He should NEVER shoot over 13 shots a game. Never. Ever.
.
He should focus on getting his efficiency up, not his ppg or usage. His FGA are enough for him to help the team, just work on shooting better.
.
If he starts shooting more, he'll hurt the team

[tsherkin]

He's a poor scorer compared to your typical NBA player, or he's a poor scorer as 1st or 2nd option? That is what I meant. Stating he's a poor scorer outright doesn't make any sense.

He's a poor scorer in general, but he's an AWFUL first option scorer.

He has basically one noteworthy scoring skill, the 3pt shot. That makes him a supplementary scorer, not a focal scorer. He's at or below average in most respects as a scorer. I listed several major traits and areas of focus earlier to highlight this point.

On a team as bad offensively as the Pacers, there is utility to having SOMEONE who is willing to hoist shots, right, so it's not like he's hurting Indiana as they are presently composed too much. They could try a few different things, but ultimately, they lack any kind of serious focal offensive talent. Obviously, my discussion here (and in other threads pertaining to George) centers around the idea that he's a first option scorer.

Debate otherwise is mostly irrelevant; if he was reduced to a guy who spotted up from 3, moved around screens for 3pt shots, cut to the hoop and otherwise attacked in transition, he'd look a lot better. That's a complementary scorer, though, not a guy who should be asked to shoulder a significant volume, nor to generate unassisted shots with any frequency.

[Ayt]

So Paul George is a poor scorer in general compared to your typical NBA player. That is a fascinating position. The value he provides with his high volume, high percentage three point shooting is easily enough to put him above the poor category.

It has also been a tale of two seasons for George as he adapted as a young player to playing as a primary option rather than as a secondary player with Granger out. His season took a gigantic turn for the better after the game on Dec. 1st.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... :pgl_basic

[tsherkin]

So Paul George is a poor scorer in general compared to your typical NBA player. That is a fascinating position.

You're cheapening this discussion with comments like this.

Obviously, if you're to compare him to some 15 mpg player or some end-of-bench guy, then yes, he's got superior scoring talent. But that's immaterial to this discussion and is a red herring designed to move the conversation in a direction that favors Paul George, even if it is in a meaningless light.

Compared to starting caliber perimeter scorers, he's not an impressive talent. His handles are really unimpressive, his post game isn't impressive and outside of transition, his utility is remarkably mediocre. Literally the only compelling elements of his offensive game are his passing ability and his 3pt shooting, the former of which is off-set by his turnover problems which, like his efficiency dip, have increased as his offensive load has grown.

"Good scorer" is never meant to mean "better than your average specialist," it's always meant to describe a player compared to his peers in similar roles.

Meantime, you're talking about a player who produces a 96 ORTG on +0.1% TS over league average and really bad consistency, which makes him a terrible option as a primary scoring threat and given his usage, not a terribly good option to begin with, regardless of whether he's first or second in line. As I said earlier, if his usage patterns were changed to those of a specialist three-point shooter who could run out in transition, his efficiency and his utility would dramatically increase. Obviously, Indy doesn't really have that luxury, but that's the case here, the talent doesn't match the role. He doesn't have the tools to make of himself a credible isolation threat, nor any meaningful utility when shouldering a significant scoring load.

[tsherkin]

It has also been a tale of two seasons for George as he adapted as a young player to playing as a primary option rather than as a secondary player with Granger out. His season took a gigantic turn for the better after the game on Dec. 1st.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... :pgl_basic

You think so?

Look at his splits:

Nov: 50.3% TS, .166 FTA/FGA, 5.7 3PA/g
Dec: 56.7% TS, .240 FTA/FGA, 5.3 3PA/g
Jan: 52.1% TS, .160 FTA/FGA, 6.5 3PA/g
Feb: 56.3% TS, .305 FTA/FGA, 6.8 3PA/g
Mar: 51.7% TS (before tonight's game), .195 FTA/FGA, 7.0 3PA/g

That doesn't look very "tale of two seasons" to me.

Instead, that looks like a bipolar player who relies way too heavily upon his three-point shot to generate his utility and who has no real consistency.