Peak Ron Artest vs. Current Paul George

[TheChosen618]

As overall players, who do you think was better? I'm also curious what Pacers fans think about this comparison.

[GSP]

I put 03 for Artests peak and IMO he was a bit better
Georges playmaking is overrated he turns the ball over alot. George is better rebounder, Artest was better at picking his shots and they both were fair equal usages. Artest drew more fouls and took less shots from the field. George put 16.7pts per 36 w/ .531ts(-.005) and Artest put 16.6pts per 36 w/ .529ts(+.010). Ron was better offensively
Defense for m2m and post is Artest
Help D is George. Overall George the better defense. I think offense gap is bigger

[Talent Chaser]

George is not a better defender than peak Artest, are you kidding me?

[Durins Baynes]

Artest... until he goes crazy.

[EArl]

As of right Artest is better. Way better defender and offensively they're not too far from each other.

I do think that George will surpass Artest in the next couple of years.

[emotional]

Before Malace in the Palace, Artest was being talked up as an MVP canidate

[HeartBreakKid]

I think George is probably better because of mentality.

Aside from Ron Artest being crazy, I think he thought he was a legit good offensive player. He shoots way too much, maybe his teams needed him to do it but he's done it on every team except the Lakers, where he couldn't even be a good 3 and D guy.

Paul George's stats are overrated when people think he's a legit volume shooter of any kind. But I'm pretty convinced the only reason why he had to playmake make and score that much was because of the absents of Danny Granger, I don't think he will have any problems lowering his production back to % numbers.\

Defensively this is easily Ron Artest, though Artest played with handchecking which was a bonus since he was such a physical player.

[penbeast0]

I'd take last year's Paul George over any season by Artest. Offensively, while the numbers are close, George gets his in the flow of the offense where Artest had a tendency to play hero ball and seemed more inconsistent (though 3 point shooters logically should be more inconsistent than players who rely on shorter shots and foul draw). Defensively, Artest was more feared (rightfully) though George is a very good defender; but he again made more mistakes and had nights where he was off as well as those where he was great. In terms of intangibles, Artest was always more than a bit on the over-the-top side where George seems to be a nice fit with his team and his game seems more portable. So, while Artest was more of a star, George is the guy I'd want on my team.

[john248]

Neither are really dynamic offensive players though I do think PG is the better playmaker. This last season was good for his development (especially the playoff experience and going at it for a series against Lebron). We did see PG's efficiency go down when he had to be the man on offense with Granger out. Really, he just fell to Ron's level in that regard, but PG has better shot selection while Ron seemed to force his offense at time. PG is a bit better 3 point shooter though Ron got to the line more often. Really, I'd take PG's better playmaking and shot selection than I would Artest to keep things in the flow of the game, but it is really close.

Defensively, it's hard to go against Artest. He did have an intangible where other wing players knew he would be physical on them. He could also do some spot defending on a PF due to his body type and mindset. It also helps that he has some quick hands at stripping the ball and being a general nuisance. PG is the better defensive rebounder and help defender. Artest has something like a 7'2" wingspan while PG has 7'0" though I might be recalling this with a bit of a foggy memory.

As of now, I'd pick Artest because of his defensive edge. Long run, it'll be PG. He'll continue to improve his playmaking and hopefully his foul draw rate.

[EArl]

I'd take last year's Paul George over any season by Artest. Offensively, while the numbers are close, George gets his in the flow of the offense where Artest had a tendency to play hero ball and seemed more inconsistent (though 3 point shooters logically should be more inconsistent than players who rely on shorter shots and foul draw). Defensively, Artest was more feared (rightfully) though George is a very good defender; but he again made more mistakes and had nights where he was off as well as those where he was great. In terms of intangibles, Artest was always more than a bit on the over-the-top side where George seems to be a nice fit with his team and his game seems more portable. So, while Artest was more of a star, George is the guy I'd want on my team.

You're talking about current Artest.

Artest in the Pacers had a good post up game that knew how to use his strength on the offensive and defensive end.
Paul Georeg will probably surpass Artest, but it hasnt happened yet.
Artest biggest problem was his off the court shenanigans.

[penbeast0]

No, I'm not. As he has aged, he's forcing the scoring a lot less. In his prime, he often played like he thought he was Kobe offensively, demanding the ball or going 1 on 3 offensively at times. He has always had the physical skills to post up much slimmer opponents with his strength. I just like George's ability to hit the 3 and willingness to fit into a team scheme more and may be more bothered by Artest's being an idiot than most.

[EArl]

Trust me when I say he's forcing the scoring more now.

All he does now is jack up 3's or attempts to be Lebron and dribble the ball up the floor and gets the ball stolen.

[pacers33granger]

I'd agree with Penbeast on this one. Artest was simply not reliable when he was with the Pacers. There were way too many mental lapses in his game on both sides of the ball and many of those came late in games.

If Artest had just settled down for one season of his prime and focused on being an incredible lock down defender, the Pacers would have won a title. Those teams didn't really need him to be a high volume player on offense, but he needed to get his, which was usually inefficient.

[emotional]

lol Artest had nothing to do with the Pacers underachieving. The Pistons were just flat out better. Tinsley was just not of caliber, Reggie was old and guys like Harrington and Bender were obtuse. Really think the Pistons Brawl really changed his trajectory cause he was looking unstoppable, his jumpshot had turned elite and everything.

[aol4532]

Neither are really dynamic offensive players though I do think PG is the better playmaker. This last season was good for his development (especially the playoff experience and going at it for a series against Lebron). We did see PG's efficiency go down when he had to be the man on offense with Granger out. Really, he just fell to Ron's level in that regard, but PG has better shot selection while Ron seemed to force his offense at time. PG is a bit better 3 point shooter though Ron got to the line more often. Really, I'd take PG's better playmaking and shot selection than I would Artest to keep things in the flow of the game, but it is really close.

Defensively, it's hard to go against Artest. He did have an intangible where other wing players knew he would be physical on them. He could also do some spot defending on a PF due to his body type and mindset. It also helps that he has some quick hands at stripping the ball and being a general nuisance. PG is the better defensive rebounder and help defender. Artest has something like a 7'2" wingspan while PG has 7'0" though I might be recalling this with a bit of a foggy memory.

As of now, I'd pick Artest because of his defensive edge. Long run, it'll be PG. He'll continue to improve his playmaking and hopefully his foul draw rate.

Artest's wingspan is misleading since he had thick shoulders. Standing reach, I think is more accurate in showing how long these guys are. Artest was a better defender because he had better lateral movement, quicker hands, and more strength.