8305 wrote: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.
Generally speaking, by 23, we've seen if a player has the right stuff to be the kind of offensive force necessary to pin down a team's offense, most especially with straight-from-HS players, or at least the rough indicators that the ability is there. Looking at what Kobe and McGrady managed at that age kind of makes Paul George's indicators look really terrible as far as #1 offensive option potential... which is in-line with what objectively examining those same indicators suggests. He just doesn't show enough skill as an offensive player to be a worthwhile offensive focus. He does show EVERYTHING you'd want in a complementary player, though.
daschysta wrote:Since December he's averaged about 19 ppg on around 55% TS%.
Hmmm. Since December, these are George's numbers:
18.6 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.7 bpg, 3.1 tpg, 3.0 pf, 43.0% FG on 15.5 FGA/g, 38.3% 3P on 6.2 3PA/g, 3.5 FTA/g at 81.8%
54.5% TS, 50.7% eFG, 3.7% ORB, 20.5% DRB, 12.3% TRB, 20.2% AST, 2.7% STL, 1.3% BLK, 15.3% TOV, 24.2% USG, 105 ORTG, 97 DRTG
So what we're seeing is basically +1.2% TS offense, which is OK but not great at that volume, certainly not worth spending lots of possessions on. He's posting a slightly below-average ORTG (-0.7) because he's got turnover problems and his TS% isn't great ext to his usage and is otherwise a fantastic rebounder and defender.
We're still having a hangover year offensively; that TS% would be between league average and +0.5% over league average from 2007-2011 and separating from league average by the small margin he's managing right now does not correlate well with status as a good offensive anchor. League average isn't something you want in your lead offensive player, I think that goes basically without saying, and that's with him taking advantage of transition on a fairly large proportion of his possessions. He's not a good half-court offensive player, I think this much should be fairly evident at this point. There's basically nothing but aesthetics to point to when discussing George and offense. He does shoot the 3 well, and he does hit the offensive boards well and he does play well in transition. That's the skill profile of someone who should be used more like Shawn Marion than anyone else, not someone who should be a focal scorer.
he's posting almost 18 ppg on about league average TS%,
And? That's not actually a remarkable feat. It's fairly underwhelming. It makes for nice narrative, but it doesn't actually translate to winning games, nor does it tend to jive with historical skill arcs developing into significant offensive threats going forward.
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.
There are two errant assumptions here:
1) Carmelo Anthony belongs in the elite tier of NBA scorers
and
2) You can shoulder a significant usage rate on your team and be mediocre while still expecting good offense.
Melo is a tier 2 scoring threat and he's considerably better than George in many areas. Paul George is effectively useless on offense if his three isn't falling, he's the definition of inconsistent and he's worse at offense than was Danny Granger. His passing game is superior, but it doesn't translate into meaningful team results, because Indy is a worse offensive team with him leading the way, as I showed earlier. All this feel-good stuff is crap, it doesn't actually mean anything salient to winning games. He's a good player, he's a valuable resource and his defensive utility is off of the charts compared to his peers, but he won't ever lead you to good team offense as the primary option, that much is clear.
You also keep bring up "usage" but he's up signfica... ntly per 36 in every single aspect this season, scoring, passing, rebounding, everything. It isn't just "usage".
Actually, yes it is. When you figure he's having raw stat increases on the basis of increased volume, that's precisely the idea behind usage, though I should point out I've complimented his rebounding every time I've spoken of it because it's one of his best traits. Largely irrelevant to function as an offensive anchor, though, which is the focal point of this discussion.
Please actually make data based arguments
What a ridiculous comment; that's all I've done.
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.
Not relevant. George's defense isn't under the microscope, and Indy's poor enough on offense as a result of that (among other things, obviously, the ubiquitous caveat) that the Pacers have a very clear ceiling until they put real offensive threats on the floor and make George a secondary offensive player.
Raw volume stats are not meaningful; you're treating them as such, but they are not important evaluation tools when discussing the quality of a scorer. Paul George is an excellent piece to have, a rare impact perimeter defender, but his offense can be described as categorically mediocre. He really doesn't stand out against his peers, at all, and there's a book's worth of data floating around in this thread that makes that point in rather overt fashion.
Narrative is pleasing, and deluding ourselves is a part of being a fan, but that's team-board kind of stuff. This board is, in principle, more about dealing in the objective reality of a player's value and George's offensive profile looks about as distant from a star offensive anchor as is Earth from the Sun. He's a volume shooter who produces mediocre efficiency and has no middle game whatsoever. You're relying on a 30-game sample of mediocrity to prove that he's a worthwhile offensive anchor when 2/3s of a season and the previous seasons in his career, coupled with a wealth of examples in previous NBA players, disagrees vehemently with the idea that he'll blossom into a star NBA scorer.
But since you're so determined to ignore what quantitative data, let's take a different tactic and show some other numbers, focus on some other players.
Look at the major and legitimate perimeter offensive anchors in the league, including a few who are past their primes. Here we aren't even constraining ourselves to title-level offensive players, just guys who can push weak teams to a competent level, like Rose did in 2011 and 2012 for the Bulls (notably being injured in 2012, and then focusing on their considerable drop-off on the offensive end this season). James Harden, Kobe, Lebron, Wade, there are lots of examples. We'll ignore Nash and Paul for now. From that group, let's look at Wade before 2011, Kobe and Harden, as well as the aforementioned Rose.
In 2011, Rose was a sort of marginal-ish scorer; high volume, much higher than is George currently managing, but his 55% TS was only +0.8%. That on its own is comparatively unimpressive, like Old Kobe prior to this season. But he was a very good playermaker, and as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous studies indicating that even inefficient chuckery helps bad offenses out quite a bit, though there are diminishing returns as you approach competence and get into above-average levels. Anyway, Rose had a fairly profound impact on the Chicago offense that is documented elsewhere in depth but the point is that during those two seasons, they were a 108.3 and 107.4 ORTG team and are now 103.1. The impact he had on those offenses was obviously a lot greater than what George can manage because he's not the same caliber of penetrator or playmaker and doesn't produce volume offense. He's also less consistent because more than a third of his raw field goal atttempts are 38% three-point shots, which is bad for a variety of reasons, particularly since he takes a lot of them in transition.
MVP Rose was a 113 ORTG playerat 13.1% TOV against 38.7% AST and 32,2% USG. He was obviously involved in a larger proportion of the team's offense, and deservedly so, because there was a yawning chasm between their offensive productivity. The year after, in his injury-shortened year, the Bulls were 32-7 with him playing (.821, pace for 67 wins in a pro-rated 82-game season) and 18-9 without him (.667, pace for 55 wins). Now, obviously their ability to win specific numbers of games is rooted in their team defense and rebounding, but the general impact there that you see in team is large. His individual offensive numbers are obviously also outstanding, and considerably superior to George's. That' what a good offensive anchor looks like.
Now, let's look at Kobe in the 2009 title season. They were a 112.8 ORTG team and yep, they had lots of help. But anchoring that offense was Kobe Bryant, rocking 26.8 ppg and 4.9 apg on 56.1% TS. On first pass, that's only +1.6% compared to league average, right in that same range as George, right? But again, volume and his ability to score without using the three were big AND he was a better slasher/penetrator who didn't use the three as much (especially relative to his total FGA/g), drew fouls more effectively and was a 115 ORTG player, so CONSIDERABLY more productive on a per-possession basis. That means that his usage of 32.2% was very well-spent for the Lakers, whereas the Pacers are not doing themselves any favors by running the ball through a below-average offensive player as their focal point (even on roughly 8% lower usage). They have a very clear need for a volume scorer who can make plays for others and George can't even score all that efficiently in a down year on lower usage. Kobe is, of course, a superstar player (as will be Wade when I mention him shortly) but the point is, there's a massive gulf between George and the type of player you really want running your offense.
James Harden this season is another good example. The Rockets cannot be mistaken for a team riddled with offensive talent. They have some guys who are contributing well, but they don't have All-Stars on that team besides Harden, so it's not like he's riding some kind of talent-rich squad to what he's doing. Meantime, the Rockets are running at 110.1 ORTG, good for fourth in the league and better by far than anything the Pacers have managed with Granger or George. Harden's managing 26.3 ppg and 5.8 apg, scoring at 61.1% TS while posting 14.7% TOV against 25.9% AST and a 118 ORTG. Again, we're seeing per-possession productivity that OBLITERATES what George is managing, and Harden is also in his first year as a primary scorer. He's not in as talent-poor an environment as George, but then, we've seen the dominant scorers doing their thing regardless of the guys around them (see Kobe, 05-08 before Gasol).
Now, 09 Wade. The Heat that year were only 20th in the league offensively, but what Wade did with them was lead those guys to a 107.8 ORTG, "those guys" being Michael Beasley, 27 games of JO, 42 games of Shawn Marion, Udonis Haslem, MArio Chalmers, Daequan Cook, 26 games of Jamario Moon, 66 games of Chris Quinn and so forth. That was a talent-poor team that made the Pacers this year look fantastic; George Hill would immediately be the second-best player on that team, let alone the kind of offensive rebounding Hibbert brings (regardless of whether he finishes like 4-foot child with stone hands this season). So their seasonal ranking was poor, but their objective team per-possession productivity was still better than what the Pacers manage with George (104.0, also 20th in the league). Wade himself was a 30.2 ppg, 7.5 apg player on 57.4% TS (+2.9%), managing 40.3% AST against 11.6% TOV and 36.2% USG for a 115 ORTG, again, WAY more productive on a per-possession basis than George.
For giggles, let's get back to Carmelo Anthony, whom you brought up. Let's look at him in the context of the 2010 Nuggets, the last time we saw him for over 55 games. 111.8 team ORTG, and he was a 28.2 ppg, 3.2 apg player on 54.8% TS (+0.5%), managing 15.9% AST against 10.6% TOV and 33.4% USG for a 110 ORTG. Even he is considerably more productive than George, who remains several tiers below the level required to be a legitimate offensive anchor. There are PLENTY of other examples.
2010 Chris Bosh? Focal point of a 111.3 ORTG offense in Toronto, 5th-best in the league. 24.0 g for 70 games on 59.2% TS, 11.5% AST against 10.7% TOV, 9.9% ORB, 28.7% uSG, 117 ORTG. Big man who contributed with elite finishing around the rim, high DrawF, excellent shooting, solid offensive rebounding and ultimately made himself highly productive with each possession. He had his flaws, and he wasn't a great first option because he didn't have take-over scoring ability for the end of games (his offense at a TON of shot clock, very much like a poor-man's Adrian Dantley) but he was a very good RS anchor against anything but really good defensive teams (or exceptional matchups). Good player, fantastic #2 or #3 option and a lot better as a #1 than Paul George.
What I'm saying here is elementary stuff; you've got a player who doesn't really exhibit elite skills, nor any particular advancement in those skills. You see a guy who's building his efficiency on the back of a half-dozen threes per game and doesn't show the ability to do a lot else when those aren't falling, relying heavily on transition. He's a poor-man's Danny Granger offensively, regardless of his passing ability. Nearly 100% of his (significant) value to a team comes from his defense and rebounding, and building around him as a focal scorer is a GIANT mistake, a fairly evident one at that. Pretty much every angle of analysis that isn't infected with homerism shows this. There is no objective way to look at this player and say he's worth it as an offensive anchor, even projecting forward some kind of development.
