Basketballefan wrote:Idk about that. I think guys like Dwight and KD say otherwise. I'm sure there are others who are debatable as well if i really looked into it, but as for canidates, i don't think CP3's peak was all that much higher than Baylor or Barry.
At his peak, CP3 averaged 24-11-5, .565 TS%, 31 PER, 126 O rating, 6.1 AST-TO ratio
Your numbers are a little off, but i get your point nonetheless. But i still would take Dwight and KD slightly over him in Peaks, we know how KD just had one of the best scoring seasons in nba history, and Peak Dwight was a 23 14 on 62 ts% with all time great defense, then 27 16 on 68 ts% in the playoffs, i think he was just a tad more impactful than CP3 was in 08 or 09.
Owly wrote:... - Whilst I generally acknowledge the strong crop of NBA 70s centers (indeed this is suggested in the previous post) - the center listing you give are perhaps more about star name power than performance. Walt Bellamy - in mini renaissance -
is productive by the boxscore, though he has traditionally been considered (perhaps substantially) less than sum of his boxscore contributions.
Unseld is in what appears to be a down year. Hayes is Hayes, shooting (and missing) a lot, between his boxscore and his intangiables I'm not impressed. Lanier seems quite good by the boxscore, some have concerns about his D over his career and, whilst I'm unsure of how conclusive team level stuff isfor his career in general, when it chimes with negative reviews of his early career D, this suggests PER might overstate his impact (though WS probably understates it).
All these guys were way better than Zelmo Beaty. ...
With all due respect, Beaty when healthy was better than either Bellamy or Lanier and his stats were certainly better than even a healthy Unseld (Wes is one of the kings of non-boxscore value as arguably the GOAT pick setter and outlet passer in NBA history).
Z, in the 60s which was a stronger era than the 70s, was a consistent 20/11 on .475 center with excellent range to draw opposing bigs away and a Vlade Divac rep as a master of "dirty/cheat/flop" defense. Bellamy averaged 16/13/.500 in his 70s prime but was slow, overweight, and his defense suffered because of it. Lanier has better numbers/appreciably worse team defense (which to me is especially important to a center in this ear). Unseld in the early 70s averages 10/15/,490 though his passing is far superior to the others. Z's knees were falling apart; he was actually greatly helped by sitting out a year to change leagues.
Beaty was clearly better in the ABA (about the same numbers but shooting up to .550 which is major improvement) for his 2 healthy years but was generally considered behind Mel Daniels -- in Z's best ABA year, Mel won the MVP; in Z's 2nd best year, a rookie Artis won it. Not a major point for you, but Zelmo was a very good player, just in an era where there was always Wilt and Russell throughout his prime.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Idk about that. I think guys like Dwight and KD say otherwise. I'm sure there are others who are debatable as well if i really looked into it, but as for canidates, i don't think CP3's peak was all that much higher than Baylor or Barry.
I agree Durant's is better I forgot to mention him but his first three years don't add enough longevity to put him over Durant.
I'm also not sure about peak D12 over peak CP3 because my concerns about the effectiveness of Dwight on offense. I mentioned about Ewing's offensive impact being lower because he was not a guy you could run your offense through ( especially in the 4th ) because of his poor FT shooting, lack of counter moves and Mediocre passing from the post . This can be harmful as he is a bit turnover prone as was proven in the 2011 series where he averaged 5.5 turnovers and .5 assists per game
So to your points
Durant's peak > Paul
Dwight's peak about even with Paul but I lean to Paul because I think his great offensive contributions + great help and man defense from a point > slightly above average offense + very good help defense from a C ( although I'll note I ascribe to the view centers have more value on defense )
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
I can't see Paul going this high. I know there's a lot of advanced stats that paint him as a franchise player, but I just don't see him as a championship anchor in the vein of a Howard or other level players.
Sounds like several of the Barry voters aren't voting for Barry so much as saying Chris Paul isn't ready yet. That's fine, but to me, Barry isn't even close yet, he's marginal at 50; Paul at least has an argument.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:Sounds like several of the Barry voters aren't voting for Barry so much as saying Chris Paul isn't ready yet. That's fine, but to me, Barry isn't even close yet, he's marginal at 50; Paul at least has an argument.
I'll freely admit that its voting for the better of two evils here. I'm not sure either guy belongs within 15 spots of here tbh but I feel Barry should be ranked higher than Paul so what else can I do? And I can't see any argument for Paul this high unless you base it solely on peak which seems like the wrong idea for this particular project.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
I realized, were heading towards the 30th spot and Drexler hasn't gotten any traction, not a vote or even single mention. I honestly thought he was a better player than Pippen and Frazier.
Basketballefan wrote:I realized, were heading towards the 30th spot and Drexler hasn't gotten any traction, not a vote or even single mention. I honestly thought he was a better player than Pippen and Frazier.
Yeah, I wanted to say the same, actually even wanted to post some stuff about Drexler.
I think that prime Frazier was better than prime Drexler, and Pippen vs Drexler is very close (in the past, I had Drexler a little ahead, now I give Pippen a slight edge), but Clyde was certainly an impressive all-around player with excellent longevity. I'm not sure if Baylor or Barry are really better than him. Better era-relative? Yes, because of weaker competition, but I'm not sure if they helped your team win games more than Glide did.
I'm still not convinced about Barry/Baylor > Hondo, too. They were more talented offensively, but there's a possibility that Havlicek's defense makes up for it, and his overall impact may be even a little higher, because of that.
Barry just isn't a top 30 guy to me. He led a team to a championship in a weak era, and his game was a lot of shooting on low efficiency.
I'm a really big fan of Paul's game; he's an efficient scorer with an absolute top-class court vision and passing ability. He's pretty much good-to-great at everything, with the weakest part of his game being 3 point shooting (which he's a career ~36% from outside).
Paul's obvious issue is longevity, but he's had multiple MVP level seasons to me so I don't feel badly about saying he's already developed a more impressive career than the flawed Barry.
DQuinn1575 wrote:Connie Hawkins, Spencer Haywood, and Jim McDaniels were all centers in the ABA and were all all-stars. The ABA was full of power forwards playing center. These guys dominated the ABA, and couldnt do so in the ABA
Hawkins wasn't a center in the ABA. He played power forward. HIs position move to the NBA was to small forward, but that's really not that meaningful because he was always a player who moved well and he was still a top rebounder for his team. He could, and did at times, play "power forward" in the NBA.
Haywood didn't play center in the ABA either, at least according to b-r. He played PF, and there were two guys taller, listed at center, and getting major minutes. Haywood clearly went down from looking like a GOAT in that early ABA to something great but only mortal in the NBA, but he remained labeled as a 4.
McDaniels we've talked about before. He was a center in both leagues whose calling card was as a scorer/star type. He came to the NBA, to Haywood's team, and had to learn to adjust to playing less of a primary role, and he never did. He got petulant, and didn't put in the work he needed to.
Owly wrote: - I'm not sure where you're going discussing PFs who played in the ABA before Gilmore (Connie Hawkins, Spencer Haywood) though in any case the use of WS alone is dubious here as for instance Hawkins goes from his ABA recents champs to the worst team in the NBA (whose bad team level numbers artificially deflate his WS). McDaniels is worth acknowledging however the use in this context is a little unusual (as implicitly acknowledged he isn't in the same tier as other players being discussed). As noted before many ABA centers had productive years in the NBA. Particularly when (I think this is the point being put across) the ABA's early weakness
Connie Hawkins, Spencer Haywood, and Jim McDaniels were all centers in the ABA and were all all-stars. The ABA was full of power forwards playing center. These guys dominated the ABA, and couldnt do so in the ABA
Owly wrote:- Whilst I generally acknowledge the strong crop of NBA 70s centers (indeed this is suggested in the previous post) - the center listing you give are perhaps more about star name power than performance. Walt Bellamy - in mini renaissance -
is productive by the boxscore, though he has traditionally been considered (perhaps substantially) less than sum of his boxscore contributions.
Unseld is in what appears to be a down year. Hayes is Hayes, shooting (and missing) a lot, between his boxscore and his intangiables I'm not impressed. Lanier seems quite good by the boxscore, some have concerns about his D over his career and, whilst I'm unsure of how conclusive team level stuff isfor his career in general, when it chimes with negative reviews of his early career D, this suggests PER might overstate his impact (though WS probably understates it).
All these guys were way better than Zelmo Beaty.
Owly wrote: Then too it's worth noting the emphasis on top level talent, which was my main bugbear from the original post (see opening line)
Particularly as the NBA, as the larger league would be expected to have a better list of top talent even if it were spread evenly throughout the teams in both leagues (which is not my contention).
The top talent was not even, and the big difference was the center position
Artis played with decent, not overwhelming talent in Chicago - 1st Van Lier, Scott May, Mickey Johnson, later Theus, Kenon, RIcky Sobers, and David Greenwood.
His best was 45 wins with the second group.
Not super teams, but Lanier took a team with similar talent- an older Dave Bing, plus Curtis Rowe, Don Adams, and Chris Ford to 52 wins.
Barry's title team - similar talent
The Bottom Line is:
Guys like Havlicek, Barry, Baylor, Durant could carry a team to a long playoff run - Artis couldn't carry a team to a playoff series win.
Connie Hawkins, Spencer Haywood, and Jim McDaniels were all centers in the ABA and were all all-stars. The ABA was full of power forwards playing center. These guys dominated the ABA, and couldnt do so in the ABA
1) The guys I was arguing weren't centers, weren't centers. '68 Pipers: Harge and Dill play a little over 3000 minutes. Hawkins is a pf. '69: Pipers: 2674 minutes from the main three clear cut centers. When both on court Washington versus Hawkins is dubious as to who is C. I've seen it listed either way. Washington seems to be the banger, the better rebounder etc, Hawkins could play a (mostly) high post pivot on O.
'70: Rockets: Beck and Keye play 4095 there isn't the time available for Haywood to play C.
2) You've repeatedly missed the point that I don't think the ABA was the NBA's equal, it's that I think it started as essentially a second tier league, but foor the second half of its near decade long existence it was clearly much improved and in the same ballpark as the NBA. Showing that people who dominated the early ABA weren’t as dominant 3) Your assertion that Jim McDaniels was dominant in the ABA is dubious. You’ve already pointed out With and without McDaniels suggests he was if anything a negative. He played 58 games, and first played in the NBA on the 20th of February. Through 58 games they are 22-36; thereafter they go 13 and 13. At most he could have played in one more game (a win) though this seems unlikely. After the game of the 13th of February ...
http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/52283937/ wrote:the Carolina Cougars still report no sign of Jim McDaniels
which suggests McDaniels had already been missing for a prior game and thus had played all the first. But perhaps they were an improvement on the previous year? Still no, they had won 40.4762% of their games the previous year, just 0.37931 with McDaniels. McDaniels was certainly better in the ABA (though not so much when he returned in ’76) but dominant, hardly. He was a soft jump shooter who couldn’t defend.
All these guys were way better than Zelmo Beaty.
Whilst I’m struggling to read my own post after your reformatting, I’d suggest they’re not. It’s hard to be precise in attempting to convert from different leagues, but ’72 Beaty was surely not worse than ’73 Reed (role-player), I’d suggest nor was he better than ’72 Hayes (gunner and non-passer who was hurting his team’s O by shooting so often, so poorly and passing rarely) between that and negative intangibles I’d suggest it would be very difficult to build a winner around that model of Hayes. Then too, as penbeast has pointed out he wasn’t worse than Bellamy. He had been better than Bellamy on the metrics in the last year they had both played in the NBA (Bellamy being slightly overrated on DWS for his spell in NY that year) and Beaty was the better defender. It’s difficult to compare fairly with Unseld because Unseld does stuff well beyond the boxscore. The assertion that these players are “way better” is pretty dubious. All of which is besides the point that you were invoking the name of these centers without looking at how productive they are at that time (Bellamy quite some time beyond his peak, Reed and Unseld a bit of time and injuries away from their peak, Hayes in role where he’s not helping on O).
The top talent was not even, and the big difference was the center position
Where on earth was it claimed that it was? It was specifically stated that I was not claiming this. On this new line of argument that the difference was the centers ... ABA centers that . Given there’s twice as many guards there should be twice as many productive ABA to NBA guards yet ... we have Gervin (who actually did better in the NBA, perhaps suggesting strong ABA rim protection), I’ll give James Silas the benefit of the doubt though injuries ruined his NBA career, Billy Knight, Don Buse, David Thompson, Dave Twardzick, Brian Taylor meets the one good NBA year criteria though his NBA career is generally disappointing ... and these are mostly late ABA arrivals (so earlier the ABA had very few NBA calibre guards). Dampier didn’t translate, nor did Simpson, Ron Boone, Chuck Williams, Freddie Lewis or Mack Calvin. I’d argue in the period being discussed (Gilmore era ABA) guards, not centers were the ABA’s weak point.
Artis played with decent, not overwhelming talent in Chicago - 1st Van Lier, Scott May, Mickey Johnson, later Theus, Kenon, RIcky Sobers, and David Greenwood.
This is not a decent supporting cast. Van Lier is an excellent defensive guard, who unfortunately tended to shoot sub 40%. He had one semi-good year left in him with Artis. Mickey Johnson was a 6’7, 190 “power” forward, who was fairly productive by the boxscore in two of his three years with Gilmore, but woefully undersized on D. May had one year as a somewhat promising rookie (though below league average on metrics) and then became an absolute non-factor with injuries. Later we have .... Theus ... turnover prone, wasn’t helpful on good teams, turned it over too often. Frequently criticised for not playing under control for instance
1980 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[Bulls Section] Playmaking: Even with a bad knee and two years away from playing, Jerry Sloan could probably do the guard work better than anyone he went into the season with, barring a late trade.
1981 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote: [Bulls Section] Playmaking: Theus is one of the league’s best ballhandlers, but Sloan would like to turn the playmaking chores over to Lester [Theus section] Has all the tools, but sometimes uses the wrong ones ... Was second in the league in turnovers behind Michael Ray Richardson, who also plays out of control much of the time
1982 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote: [Bulls Section] Playmaking: Oh, if only Reggie would only take an interest. Theus could be one of the league’s best playmakers if he would play under control and concentrate on getting the ball inside.
Never doubts about skills but substantial doubts about decision making, maturity, BB-IQ, also not a good defender. Larry Kenon: Not a productive player by the time he joined the Bulls (1 okay year). Like Johnson too slender to play PF, but his waning shooting stroke meant he was ineffective on the outside. Feuded with Sloan. David Greenwood: Adequate player for 3 years. Not particularly good for a starter, but not bad. Fell off after Gilmore left. Ricky Sobers: Another headcase. Got released after his first year with the Bulls. One okay year out of 3 with the Bulls. Again feuded with Sloan.
Here’s a taster of how great these teammates are on D
1982 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote: [Bulls Section] Defense: [The Bulls used to be good on D, but that was when Sloan was playing] instead of pulling his hair out whilst Theus gambles for steals, Sobers calls “Switch” and Kenon starts breaking for the other end after 15 seconds. Gilmore’s shot-blocking (2.41 per game) should anchor a strong defense, but he needs help.
Not super teams, but Lanier took a team with similar talent- an older Dave Bing, plus Curtis Rowe, Don Adams, and Chris Ford to 52 wins.
’74 Pistons are primarily good because of this
Def Rtg: 93.8 (3rd of 17)
And they were strongest on D at this
Tov% 17.9 (2nd)
Unless you believe the deficit in Gilmore’s game was not causing enough turnovers the reasoning offered here is nonsense.
Barry's title team - similar talent
Okay once again given we’re talking about the title we’re talking playoffs. And they won that title on D. Do you think these Bulls (awful) defenders were the equal of the Golden State playoff D?
Guys like Havlicek, Barry, Baylor, Durant could carry a team to a long playoff run - Artis couldn't carry a team to a playoff series win.
Durant fair enough (though he never had to), Baylor (maybe, though he never had to go through particularly good teams to get to the finals, whilst he was his team’s best player, except ’59 and then he also carried them to a lousy RS record, which ordinarily wouldn’t make the playoffs), though neither have his longevity. But I can see those. Havlicek? That’s an odd argument. You’ve said you had Gilmore behind Cowens year by year. So the only year Havlicek could be carrying a team is ’70. Barry failed to carry teams to a title in the ABA (where apparently it’s so easy it doesn’t count, and in an earlier, weaker ABA, though his team did win without him once), they rarely went deep. This is an odd double standard. As noted before his title was (a) a fluke and (b) primarily based on D, where he wasn’t an impact player.
You keep redirecting the convo but Gilmore wasn’t the only C in the ABA, he wasn’t barely top 10 in the NBA at any time, and playoff series won is a terrible measure of individual contributions.
penbeast0 wrote:Sounds like several of the Barry voters aren't voting for Barry so much as saying Chris Paul isn't ready yet. That's fine, but to me, Barry isn't even close yet, he's marginal at 50; Paul at least has an argument.
I'll freely admit that its voting for the better of two evils here. I'm not sure either guy belongs within 15 spots of here tbh but I feel Barry should be ranked higher than Paul so what else can I do? And I can't see any argument for Paul this high unless you base it solely on peak which seems like the wrong idea for this particular project.
Ouch.
Honestly, doesn't surprise me at all that Paul's ending up in a position like this. Frankly the exact same thing happened in 2011 around 10-15 spots further into the project.
As I always say, I'm basically fine to chalk up differences in opinion to different ways of seeing peak vs longevity, as long as people are consistent. I don't pay enough attention to remember what individuals did before, but for example, consider how Dwyane Wade is seen.
Wade was voted in in the early 20s, and while some brought it up (including me), it didn't seem like longevity really bothered people with him, despite the fact he doesn't have much of a longevity edge on Paul.
What's more interesting is that Wade's basically always gotten that benefit of the doubt on these projects. Wade was in the early 20s in the 2011 list too back when he literally didn't have any longevity edge on where Paul is now. And Wade in 2006, only 3 years into his career, got ranked 50th while in more recent projects no one with that short of a career has even got consideration for Top 100.
Additionally of note to me is that last time in the discussion of the '40s, where Paul was getting close but passed up repeatedly with longevity being the biggest issue, Walton ended up getting in over him.
To me this goes back to something I pointed out with Wade before: When a guy leads a team to a title, there's a tendency I think to fundamentally shift how you judge his career. It seems to remove all serious doubts about his limitations and make weak longevity seen in more of a romantic light.
I've also been emphasizing that I think this nostalgia seems to work in general for older players rather than current players who are expected to be able to have a "shot" later when they patch that particular hole. It's possible these two trends are essentially one in the same, regardless I think it's a real thing.
So yeah, I'm now in that MIkan-esque situation we've all talked about before. Paul's a guy I might have considered not voting for until later just because I didn't think people were ready for him and it's not pleasant to vote for the same guy half a dozen times. Not going to leave other folks hanging though when there's enough he's clearly a candidate.
Wade vs CP3 is an interesting comparison. Wade only played 2 years longer than CP3 at this point and only has a ~100 game advantage in career games played.
I don't think Wade should be on the list either at this point. I certainly spoke against him and brought up longevity. basketballefan then proceeded to chide me about 10 times accusing me of anti-Wade bias. I'm not perfect in terms of consistency(none of us are) but I feel like I've been fairly consistent that it takes something special in terms of dominance for me to overlook what I perceive to be serious longevity issues.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Barry just isn't a top 30 guy to me. He led a team to a championship in a weak era, and his game was a lot of shooting on low efficiency.
I'm a really big fan of Paul's game; he's an efficient scorer with an absolute top-class court vision and passing ability. He's pretty much good-to-great at everything, with the weakest part of his game being 3 point shooting (which he's a career ~36% from outside).
Paul's obvious issue is longevity, but he's had multiple MVP level seasons to me so I don't feel badly about saying he's already developed a more impressive career than the flawed Barry.
Paul puts up good numbers sure but if his impact is as good as people claim why has he not carried his team deep into the playoffs after 9 seasons? And sorry not every series loss has been entirely on his team like people claim.
penbeast0 wrote:Sounds like several of the Barry voters aren't voting for Barry so much as saying Chris Paul isn't ready yet. That's fine, but to me, Barry isn't even close yet, he's marginal at 50; Paul at least has an argument.
I'll freely admit that its voting for the better of two evils here. I'm not sure either guy belongs within 15 spots of here tbh but I feel Barry should be ranked higher than Paul so what else can I do? And I can't see any argument for Paul this high unless you base it solely on peak which seems like the wrong idea for this particular project.
Ouch.
Honestly, doesn't surprise me at all that Paul's ending up in a position like this. Frankly the exact same thing happened in 2011 around 10-15 spots further into the project.
As I always say, I'm basically fine to chalk up differences in opinion to different ways of seeing peak vs longevity, as long as people are consistent.....
I'd not be surprised to see something similar happen with Durant very soon. I think there's always going to be this discrepancy for young-ish current players. If your criteria happens to be heavy on peak (with small or minimal consideration toward longevity), Paul's got an excellent top 30 case; if your criteria is heavy on longevity, though.....it might be difficult to place him top 40.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't pay enough attention to remember what individuals did before, but for example, consider how Dwyane Wade is seen.
Wade was voted in in the early 20s, and while some brought it up (including me), it didn't seem like longevity really bothered people with him, despite the fact he doesn't have much of a longevity edge on Paul.
What's more interesting is that Wade's basically always gotten that benefit of the doubt on these projects. Wade was in the early 20s in the 2011 list too back when he literally didn't have any longevity edge on where Paul is now. And Wade in 2006, only 3 years into his career, got ranked 50th while in more recent projects no one with that short of a career has even got consideration for Top 100.
To be fair, I think most people rate Wade's peak a little above Paul's. But that aside, Wade's placement on past projects were something of an anomaly. Someone asked the question previously "How could Wade play three more seasons (at least two of them at legit All-Star level), win TWO more titles (on THREE more finals appearances) as the clear 2nd-best player on the team......and fall BACK one place on an all-time list?" To me, the answer was pretty obvious: Wade was overrated on previous projects. Period.
Doctor MJ wrote:Additionally of note to me is that last time in the discussion of the '40s, where Paul was getting close but passed up repeatedly with longevity being the biggest issue, Walton ended up getting in over him.
Walton's always struck me as something of a "sacred cow" in these circles. I hope that statement doesn't go over as too inflammatory, but he does appear to get a partial pass on longevity from many people, imo.
Doctor MJ wrote:To me this goes back to something I pointed out with Wade before: When a guy leads a team to a title, there's a tendency I think to fundamentally shift how you judge his career. It seems to remove all serious doubts about his limitations and make weak longevity seen in more of a romantic light.
Agree.
Doctor MJ wrote:I've also been emphasizing that I think this nostalgia seems to work in general for older players rather than current players who are expected to be able to have a "shot" later when they patch that particular hole. It's possible these two trends are essentially one in the same, regardless I think it's a real thing.
So yeah, I'm now in that MIkan-esque situation we've all talked about before. Paul's a guy I might have considered not voting for until later just because I didn't think people were ready for him and it's not pleasant to vote for the same guy half a dozen times. Not going to leave other folks hanging though when there's enough he's clearly a candidate.
I don’t know if I agree that nostalgia associated with how a guy led a team to a title favors older players (I think it’s part of how Wade has been historically ranked so high). I do agree that nostalgia in general, as well as the common human tendency to resist change both favor older players: it’s sometimes hard to admit (even to yourself) that a current player has surpassed the career of some favorite of yesteryear.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Barry just isn't a top 30 guy to me. He led a team to a championship in a weak era, and his game was a lot of shooting on low efficiency.
I'm a really big fan of Paul's game; he's an efficient scorer with an absolute top-class court vision and passing ability. He's pretty much good-to-great at everything, with the weakest part of his game being 3 point shooting (which he's a career ~36% from outside).
Paul's obvious issue is longevity, but he's had multiple MVP level seasons to me so I don't feel badly about saying he's already developed a more impressive career than the flawed Barry.
Paul puts up good numbers sure but if his impact is as good as people claim why has he not carried his team deep into the playoffs after 9 seasons? And sorry not every series loss has been entirely on his team like people claim.
Thought number 1: "It's a trap!" (would post image but this isn't another basketball board) Seriously though, "Why hasn't Paul got past the second round (and you can't say teammates)?" Really?
Thought number 2: If Paul has blow you away numbers by every conceivable metric, isn't the onus on you to explain why he isn't good rather than others to tell you why he is?
Thought number 3: If depth of playoff runs is such a great measure pick a team
Team Multiple Rings on Multiple Teams Kerr Ron Harper Horry Salley James Edwards
vs
Team Never Made the Conference finals Paul Bing McGrady Brand Ming
(I'm sure there are other variants, Dominique perhaps? Bernard King?)
Was tempted to give myself more leeway, not count ABA, make it not have 2 series wins, not have done so as "the guy", not done so without "superteam" etc to open up more options (Robertson doesn't have 2 series wins as the man; Stockton seemingly wasn't ever the man, ditto Parish, McHale, Pierce, Allen perhaps Pippen, Payton etc; McAdoo didn't make the conference finals except as a bench player, ditto Lanier, Richmond etc; Vince as a role player in Orlando, ABA rules out Gilmore if Boston doesn't count (though by traditional McGrady rules injured or non-rotation midseason pickup seasons don't count). And be sure, Paul has always been "the guy".
Thought number 4: No one has said "every series loss has been entirely on his team", but again you might wish to explain why he'd be expected to go through say '08 Spurs. Or in other words, frequently it has been his team, or more accurately his team (in large part due to his teammates) hasn't been as good as the opposing team; which brings me to ...
Thought number 5: He's played some really good teams. I don't know if you've noticed but the Western Conference has been quite competitive lately (though this also brings me back to this is a terrible methodology for comparing players).
Barry just isn't a top 30 guy to me. He led a team to a championship in a weak era, and his game was a lot of shooting on low efficiency.
I'm a really big fan of Paul's game; he's an efficient scorer with an absolute top-class court vision and passing ability. He's pretty much good-to-great at everything, with the weakest part of his game being 3 point shooting (which he's a career ~36% from outside).
Paul's obvious issue is longevity, but he's had multiple MVP level seasons to me so I don't feel badly about saying he's already developed a more impressive career than the flawed Barry.
Paul puts up good numbers sure but if his impact is as good as people claim why has he not carried his team deep into the playoffs after 9 seasons? And sorry not every series loss has been entirely on his team like people claim.
Thought number 1: "It's a trap!" (would post image but this isn't another basketball board) Seriously though, "Why hasn't Paul got past the second round (and you can't say teammates)?" Really?
Thought number 2: If Paul has blow you away numbers by every conceivable metric, isn't the onus on you to explain why he isn't good rather than others to tell you why he is?
Thought number 3: If depth of playoff runs is such a great measure pick a team
Team Multiple Rings on Multiple Teams Kerr Ron Harper Horry Salley James Edwards
vs
Team Never Made the Conference finals Paul Bing McGrady Brand Ming
(I'm sure there are other variants, Dominique perhaps? Bernard King?)
Was tempted to give myself more leeway, not count ABA, make it not have 2 series wins, not have done so as "the guy", not done so without "superteam" etc to open up more options (Robertson doesn't have 2 series wins as the man; Stockton seemingly wasn't ever the man, ditto Parish, McHale, Pierce, Allen perhaps Pippen, Payton etc; McAdoo didn't make the conference finals except as a bench player, ditto Lanier, Richmond etc; Vince as a role player in Orlando, ABA rules out Gilmore if Boston doesn't count (though by traditional McGrady rules injured or non-rotation midseason pickup seasons don't count). And be sure, Paul has always been "the guy".
Thought number 4: No one has said "every series loss has been entirely on his team", but again you might wish to explain why he'd be expected to go through say '08 Spurs. Or in other words, frequently it has been his team, or more accurately his team (in large part due to his teammates) hasn't been as good as the opposing team; which brings me to ...
Thought number 5: He's played some really good teams. I don't know if you've noticed but the Western Conference has been quite competitive lately (though this also brings me back to this is a terrible methodology for comparing players).
