How good is Paul George?

[Ayt]

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

Don't be obtuse, it cheapens the discussion.

Normally I would let this go, but you are being ridiculous. I'm the one being obtuse and cheapening the discussing? I questioned a statement you made and gave you the chance to elaborate so that I could better understand your position.

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.

Okay, so I clarify my question to allow you to better state your position.

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.

And now you want to call me obtuse for not realizing that what you really meant was (

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.

I'm about as obtuse as you are brief and concise.

[tsherkin]

For the sake of disclosure, George logged 25 minutes in a blowout win tonight over the terrible Cavs, going 5/9 FG, 0/2 3P and 4/5 FT. Good game against an awful team, but still a good game.

In any case, Pacers fans have been trying to advance the idea that George is getting a lot better as the season progresses, and it just doesn't stick. dachrysta has been a particularly fervent proselytizer on George's behalf, cherry-picking stretches of a few games here and there to highlight a point but again and again, we come back to the same issues and we see him relying more and more on that 3pt shot. Granger was the same way, and even though he was a decent 3pt shooter who drew fouls reasonably well, he was also a pretty poor primary option because he wasn't an elite 3pt shooter and he relied on its use far too often for a healthy approach to driving the offense. Indy was 19th, 18th and 26th in the league during Granger's three best seasons (tailing off more so as he got injured), and he was a better scoring threat than George. The Pacers are currently 21st, right in that same zone. The peripheral talent has improved a bit, the primary scorer less effective, and the result basically the same, if a tad worse relative to league average. In the absolute sense, they're on par with the 2010 Pacers, when Granger missed like 20 games. When Danny was at his peak, they were a good 3 or 4 points of ORTG better than the current Pacers.

I suppose I understand the need to believe in your player; as a Craptors fan, I constantly want to believe in the parade of crap that Bryan Colangelo puts out in front of our eyes, or in the super-roleplayers that he sometimes acquires or inherits. But then objectivity strikes with all the merciless abandon of a hurricane and reality sets in. The same is true here of George; the guy is a lesser version of Danny Granger, at least on offense. We know how that road ends.

Is it possible that he gets better? Yeah, it's not impossible, but looking at the way the really good scorers have developed, I mean even T-Mac was showing more earlier on in his career... and he's overrated to begin with.

Normally I would let this go, but you are being ridiculous. I'm the one being obtuse and cheapening the discussing? I questioned a statement you made and gave you the chance to elaborate so that I could better understand your position.

You're right, the original comment was no fair and that's why I edited it. My apologies.

Nevertheless, it was disingenuous to make the comment you did because my position was very clear. I'd been talking about his skill sets and his utility in his given role... and had even given a specific example of how he could be better utilized, where his skills would shine.

[Ayt]

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.

His ORTG on the year is 104. His DRTG is 96 (3rd best in the NBA).

As I mentioned in a different post, it has been a tale of two seasons. Through Dec. 1st, his ORTG and DRTG were 93 and 99 respectively. Since that time, they have been 106 and 96.

[Ayt]

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.

His ORTG on the year is 104. His DRTG is 96 (3rd best in the NBA).

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.

Through Dec. 1st, his ORTG and DRTG were 93 and 99 respectively. Abysmal. Since that time, they have been 106 and 96.

[SweetTouch]

More athletic battier who is shooting too much

[Marvin Martian]

Paul George is a good shooter but he is not a good scorer. His synergy stats basically confirms this. He is below average in any area that forces him to create his own shot. In isos, PnR, and post ups he ranks 102nd,104th, and 99th respectively.

Most of George's offensive production comes from transition. I really don't see any argument here: George is an awful scorer.

[8305]

I say right off I'm a biased Pacer fan. But has anyone commenting in this thread actually watched him play on a consistent basis over his pro career. I say that because several points are comically off base.

Paul George hasn't developed since coming into the league because his shooting percentage has gone down? Actually, he has improved radically as a shooter. As a rookie his shot had no rotation, looked like knuckle ball moving toward the basket. Two years later and he's pretty goodl outside shooter. I'd call that a noteworthy improvement. While his handle still needs to improve before he can consistently create his own shot consistent observation would tell you this part of his game has improved meaningfully too.

Night in night out you can see he is still trying to figure out what he can and can't do. For a guy of lesser talent limitations would be quicker and easier to define. Right now he's a better all around offensive player than Danny Granger ever was. Granger has never developed an ability to create for others and this season that capability can be seen in George.

As someone who watches him regularly, I see no evidence supporting the notion he won't continue to improve.

[tsherkin]

His ORTG on the year is 104. His DRTG is 96 (3rd best in the NBA).

Eh, chalk that one up to late night dyslexia. I should have known better, since I knew, and even referenced, his TS%, which wasn't bad enough to merit a sub-100 ORTG.

Bleh.

In any case, 104 is below league average even still. League average ORTG is 105.7, which still leaves him nearly 2 points below average.

Through Dec. 1st, his ORTG and DRTG were 93 and 99 respectively. Abysmal. Since that time, they have been 106 and 96.

Yep, so we're getting to around league average ORTG, a hair above. That still sucks in the role that he's providing. This still doesn't change anything, it actually reinforces the point if anything. By your own admission, he's improved to basically league-average offensive output over the last three and a half months and he's still not worth it in his current role. Average productivity in a feature role is a negative, not a positive. In 2013, he's spamming 6.7 3PA/g and we aren't seeing any major differences in his offensive output in terms of his scoring game. Piss-poor raw FG%, high-volume 3pt shooting at solid percentages, a fairly similar TOV% but a notably increased passing output coupled with an increase in offensive rebounding.

There, we're seeing the problem with ORTG in the context of this discussion anyway, since it doesn't really describe his scoring utility so much as his overall offensive ability. Relevant, of course, but easily misused. George's passing is a positive element of his game, but he's still an unremarkable, low-skill scorer who would be better served in a much less prominent role offensively because of his weak skills and poor scoring efficacy.

Meantime, since I can cherry-pick dates as well, it bears mention that in 2013 (so in games from January 2nd forward), his ORTG is 104. His TS% is 53.4%, his ORB% is 3.8 (over a seasonal 3.5%), his AST% is 19.9% (+0.5% over seasonal avg), and his TOV% is down 0.1% to 15.0%.

So basically, over the last 34 games, he's produced the same values that we're getting when we look at his seasonal values. I see the narrative you're speaking of, of course, but not so much the point, because what he's been doing for nearly the last half a season is accurately described by his seasonal values, since it represents over 52% of his current games-played.

Basically, what you're highlighting with the particular set of dates that you noted is that he had a hot December. During games in that month, George managed an ORTG of 107, getting his TS% up to 56.7% (as I'd noted earlier), rocking a 20.7% AST, a 3.6% ORB with 15.0% TOV.

So you've shown a hot month that skewed the sample, but it's been followed by more of the same mediocrity we'd seen earlier. In January, he posted a 52.1% TS and a 104 ORTG, a fairly large drop-off compared to the hot month. In February, he was back to a 107 ORTG and a 56.3% TS.

You'll notice that what we've done is just a more complicated version of what I did earlier when I posted his TS% and FTA/FGA in that little table in one of my previous posts. There isn't anything consistent except his upward-trending volume of three-point shots, he's still fluctuating wildly month to month.

[tsherkin]

Two years later and he's pretty goodl outside shooter.

Let's speak reality, though: he's a pretty good 3pt shooter. He still horrible from mid-range and a mediocre shooter past 15 feet but under the arc, and obviously he's useless in the key in general unless he gets all the way to the rim.

Right now he's a better all around offensive player than Danny Granger ever was. Granger has never developed an ability to create for others and this season that capability can be seen in George.

Yeah, I don't know if I agree with the first statement. I agree that George is a better passer, but it is very clear both that Granger was a better scorer and that the team offense was noticeably superior when he was running the show. His defense while producing that offense was nothing like what George is managing, of course, but it would be mistaken to suggest that even though George is cosmetically superior in this regard that the vast gulf in scoring ability is less meaningful than George's passing, because that is objectively untrue.

As someone who watches him regularly, I see no evidence supporting the notion he won't continue to improve.

I question this statement, too. Where do you see this improvement coming from. How long do you see it lasting? What do you think his developmental curve will permit him to turn into, and what gives you the confidence that he'll defy historical trends in order to do so, especially given indicators like his 3pt shooting volume and the current level of his skill development compared to what other dominant scorers were like at the same age?

[jman2585]

Tsherkin has it right in this case. The man is an all-star, but no franchise player. He's been pretty ridiculously overrated by Pacers fans (as have some of their other players). He's a guy pretty much every team would love to have, but on a contender is the 3rd best player (or 2nd best player at best, on a weaker than normal title team).

[8305]

Yeah, the mid range needs to improve but I occasionally see him posting up this season. That would be a nice addition and make him better.

I think the Pacers played at a faster pace when Granger was running up big stats and while Dunleavy, Murphy and Nesterovich aren't the building blocks of a good team, the ball moved pretty good when they were here.

I wish I knew how much better George will get but I don't think there is anyone in Indiana unhappy with the trajectory of his improvement so far. I will concede that I can't identify a comparable player that I think his trend line follows. But, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[orangeparka]

I watched every MIA/IND game the past two seasons and the entire playoff series last season, and George didn't really strike me as having improved that much offensively. Really, the only areas he scores well are transition buckets (usually off steals he gets very well) and three-pointers or open shots. He's not quick at all with his first step, nor can get to the basket or draw fouls well.

He sometimes tries to create in the half-court, but isn't consistent at all. He DOES get hot with his midrange jumper somtimes though (like that last game, I believe), but it's not a reliable midrange game or anything like that IMO.

He's a great defender for sure, and I do think he's a fringe All-Star type player who'll make a game or two ala Crash/Iggy/Deng, but I don't see much more than that.

He hasn't improved dramatically in any area that he really needs to be a true #1/#2 option (getting to the rim, midrange game, or drawing fouls), and he's in his third year and almost 23.

He gets a lot of hype as a franchise player and everything like that, but it's mostly due to the Pacers' record (and no one to really attribute it to) and his increased usage IMO.

[-Kees-]

I think he's a poor scorer in terms of 1st and 2nd options as well. I don't think he'll improve a ton, but he can still finish better around the rim (at 62% now, could push into the high 60s). Even though he hasn't shown much of an improvement in his first few years, it's been done with others where their finishing ability has increased to help them become a better scorer.

However, that still doesn't take away the fact that he'll never be a true #1 on O, but rather a great complimentary player / #2. His skill set would fit perfect with almost any other star #1.

Not to mention that outside of scoring and things that come with it (elite playmaking, shot creating, ect) he does basically everything else at a good to elite level. I like the Artest comparison as well, although I think he is a bit better passer and is a bit quicker as well.

[tsherkin]

Tsherkin has it right in this case. The man is an all-star, but no franchise player. He's been pretty ridiculously overrated by Pacers fans (as have some of their other players). He's a guy pretty much every team would love to have, but on a contender is the 3rd best player (or 2nd best player at best, on a weaker than normal title team).

I'd love to have Paul George as a third player on a franchise. He's got good floor spacing ability and if he had a good point guard and a PnR big running the show offensively, George would fit in great. Plus he would do hufe things for any team's defense.

[orangeparka]

Yep, he'd make a great third guy on a championship team, next to a stud guard and big.

[8305]

I think its pretty safe to say just about any NBA fan would love have Paul George as their number three guy.

But take a look at the drafts since 2007. Paul George is probably in the ten from the last 6 drafts. How much consolidation are you factoring into the formation of teams?

[tsherkin]

I think its pretty safe to say just about any NBA fan would love have Paul George as their number three guy.

But take a look at the drafts since 2007. Paul George is probably in the ten from the last 6 drafts. How much consolidation are you factoring into the formation of teams?

Does it matter? Look at the league from 2000 forward: Paul George as number one is not getting it done any time then, or before, really. Great complementary player, just not a primary offensive player.

[8305]

I'll agree that Pual George is not a legitimate number one scoring option right now but I'm not quite ready to concede he never will be. Also the notion he's going to someone's number three guy any time soon is laughable.

[daschysta]

I watched every MIA/IND game the past two seasons and the entire playoff series last season, and George didn't really strike me as having improved that much offensively. Really, the only areas he scores well are transition buckets (usually off steals he gets very well) and three-pointers or open shots. He's not quick at all with his first step, nor can get to the basket or draw fouls well.

He sometimes tries to create in the half-court, but isn't consistent at all. He DOES get hot with his midrange jumper somtimes though (like that last game, I believe), but it's not a reliable midrange game or anything like that IMO.

He's a great defender for sure, and I do think he's a fringe All-Star type player who'll make a game or two ala Crash/Iggy/Deng, but I don't see much more than that.

He hasn't improved dramatically in any area that he really needs to be a true #1/#2 option (getting to the rim, midrange game, or drawing fouls), and he's in his third year and almost 23.

He gets a lot of hype as a franchise player and everything like that, but it's mostly due to the Pacers' record (and no one to really attribute it to) and his increased usage IMO.

He's 22 years old and already has made the all-star team, he's going to be much more than a 1 or 2 time all-star. His first step isn't slow either, he can't beat LeBron James off of the dribble but he gets to the basket pretty easily, and that's part of the reason he averages a very good 4.1 assists per game as a small forward despite not having a good offensive team around him. He's arguably the best defensive wing in the NBA, and leads the NBA in defensive win shares as well as #3 in DRTG in the entire league. Since December he's averaged about 19 ppg on around 55% TS%. If you want to argue he's not an elite first option scorer fine, but it's ridiculous to pretend he's some below average offensive player. It's his first year as a #1 option and he's posting almost 18 ppg on about league average TS%, this is facing double teams and being game planned for as well for the first time, and better than that since the first month or so of the season when he was thrust into a role he wasn't expecting to be playing. 22 year old players improve, and honestly he's already a solid all-star caliber player, he doesn't need to improve that much at all to be at an elite level. You don't have to score like Carmelo Anthony to be that level of player if you're elite for your position at every other aspect of basketball. He's an elite rebounder and passer for a small forward and he's an elite defender in the NBA period, and should all be all defensive first team. You also keep bring up "usage" but he's up signficantly per 36 in every single aspect this season, scoring, passing, rebounding, everything. It isn't just "usage". Please actually make data based arguments if you are going to stick your neck out with criticism. How me a player scoring slightly more than George, and i'll point to every single metric that shows George embarrassing them in a defensive comparison. George's defense is a larger gap ahead of most guys scoring slightly more than their offense is above his.

[jman2585]

he's going to be much more than a 1 or 2 time all-star.

I bet Pacer fans were saying the same thing about Hibbert and Granger. How did that pan out?