RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #22

[euroleague]

Really? You prefer Nash's extra 4.5 assists over Paul's extra 10 points or Curry's extra 14 points?

Yes. There's no one else over 6 assists. In terms of points created, 4.5 assists is between 9-13.5 points. Considering he is shooting at a 63% TS rate, and doesn't typically pass to players with a less efficient shot oppurtunity, that would mean he's seemingly creating more points on a higher efficiency than any other player on this list despite having no athleticism to speak of.

To be precise he's +4.6 ast, so that's 9.2-13.8; but realistically (playing the averages on Nash-led teams), it's probably going to be worth about 10.2 extra points (~22% being 3pters); might be marginally more of a gap vs Paul because Paul's teams haven't tended to be quite as prolific from behind the 3pt arch. So let's say maybe more like +10.5 or so.
But Paul was scoring +10.3 pts (on +0.1% TS, too), so he's pretty much eliminated that gap. Paul too has more of a pass-first mentality, so presumably it's relatively high% opportunities he's passing off on. And he's +1.4 reb.

The point regarding assists is that, on assisted shots (especially from Nash/Paul) players eFG% tends to be higher than 60%. That's why players such as Gobert/Deandre Jordan have ridiculous percentages, along with almost all pick+pop and assisted shooters. They get wide open shots and easy baskets.

Who would you rather have as your PG - a guy shooting 30ppg with 4.5 apg, or a guy with 20ppg and 9apg? Most players would choose the higher apg, considering they score at similar TS%.

Because Nash stands out head and shoulders above every other player on the list in assists, and creates team offense instead of ISO in end-game situations - regardless of percentage, I would argue he is clearly the man to give the ball in this situation (especially if there are other effective players on the team).

[euroleague]

While clutch does take up an important 2 minute period of every game, I would say efficiency throughout the game trumps these two minutes anyways as long as you aren't throwing away games.


Jerry West may have been Mr. Clutch, but that shouldn't put him ahead of a famous "choker" like Wilt.

Elgin Baylor came in clutch for the USA, and went on active duty in the middle of the season - then came back from putting his life at risk to crush the remainder of the season. I don't think anyone else was "clutch" in that type of way anyways.

#22 Elgin Baylor

[SpreeS]

1st pick Curry

This guy changed NBA. How many players had so big impact to this game? Not so many and they are all in TOP10. Lets look at these numbers for NBA and Curry 3PA avg

08 18.1 0
09 18.1 0
10 18.1 4.8
11 18.0 4.6
12 18.4 4.7
13 20.0 7.7
14 21.5 7.9
15 22.4 8.1
16 24.1 11.2
17 27.0 10.0

As we see Curry tooked 3pt shooting to the next level and NBA changed. Last season league had the best EFG% and TS% per 10 years. Bigs without shooting or perimeter defence lost value. Maybe LJB and KD ar the best players, bet Curry is an ICON of 3pt shooting league. He changed opp defences too with his shooting range. His team won 2 champ, has the best record with 67,73,67 wins per 3 years period, the best PO, the best RS and he is heart and soul of this team. No one was so impacfull from Stockton, Paul, Nash, Thomas like Curry, no one!

[Doctor MJ]

Just going to riff a little here based on things I've been thinking:

Pettit vs Mikan. I just feel like Pettits a lot more proven against competition we'd still take seriously today. You can argue it's just bad luck that Mikan fell apart at a young age right when competition was getting a lot tougher...but even that doesn't seem like a great argument to me. I don't want to imply Pettits the only guy I have above Mikan, but I think everyone should compare the two specifically.

Also I totally get the impulse to side with Mikan based on his abilities as a defensive anchor. It's not quite enough for me here but I feel that pull myself.

The point guards: Nash, Wade, Paul, Curry. It really is tough to sort these guys out.

My opinions on Nash are known I think so I'll try to focus on others guys.

I respect what Wade accomplished but I think he's going to come out last of these 4 for me. The reality is that if not for the '06 finals upset I doubt he's seen the same way at all. And the more I get distance from the event the more fluky it seems. I absolutely love the way Wade can at time kick his motor up to a crazy level but I'm not in love with building around a point guard who isn't amazing at either shooing or passing.

At this moment I'm leaning toward Paul highest if these 4. I don't really buy that his teams have regularly underachieved. His teams have been excellent but have faced incredibly tough competition and in LA literally everyone around him has been a freaking knucklehead. I do think Paul is a prick that people don't enjoy playing around, and that hurts him some, but the question is how much. Oscar is already in and he was basically the exact same type of prick.

I will say this though: I think the lack of joy in Paul's teams makes them less resilient. And again, that hurts him, but I'm not sure how to quantify how much.

Curry is so hard to place compared to the other 3. His peak is transcendent but he still is so young. At the moment I'm debating a lot between he and Nash and I'm feeling like giving the tiebreak to Nash.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I hear ya. I still think the refs played a part - and I have no dog in the fight. But the reality is it happened - and if it doesn't, Wade isn't even in consideration right now. Do you discount the series because of the fluky nature of it, or are you hesitant to put him in for the other reasons you described?

The Heat were an extraordinarily weak team who largely won with defense. Part of that was that they could run a very simple offense through Wade, but it wasn't an offense you would ever count on to let you become a champion.

And this is my concern in general. I tend to think that if you're an elite 1 you need to be an elite shooter and/or passer in order to lead a team to a great offensive ceiling, and the reality is that Wade's time as alpha doesn't really imply he was the exception to that rule.

Now, people can point out that that was what Jordan was, and clearly I'm a believer in Jordan. I'm not saying it's impossible to do this, but I tend to be a bit skeptical, and given that Wade's time as a true superstar didn't last into old age like other point guards we're discussing, it dings him a bit.

[Doctor MJ]

I respect what Wade accomplished but I think he's going to come out last of these 4 for me. The reality is that if not for the '06 finals upset I doubt he's seen the same way at all. And the more I get distance from the event the more fluky it seems.

Well you could go there, but at the same time, we can sit back and say if not for Lebron's fluky 2011 finals performance, Wade has 2 FMVPs, and likely 4 rings altogether.

Even so, i always hear from many posters on the board how level of play matters much more than win/loss in a series, so why would it be drastically different for him?

If LeBron wasn't there, Wade isn't in the finals.
If LeBron was normal in the finals, Wade isn't the Finals MVP.
Regardless I don't put that much stock in Finals MVP.

That said, I've talked about how much Wade's aggressive motor at times has impressed me, and I don't mean to dismiss that.

[Doctor MJ]

g

At this moment I'm leaning toward Paul highest if these 4. I don't really buy that his teams have regularly underachieved. His teams have been excellent but have faced incredibly tough competition and in LA literally everyone around him has been a freaking knucklehead. I do think Paul is a prick that people don't enjoy playing around, and that hurts him some, but the question is how much. Oscar is already in and he was basically the exact same type of prick.

While I think Paul has a definite case here, is his health not a concern? Since 2008, he has averaged 13 missed games per season, and his injuries often derail an otherwise promising playoff run (2013- bruises thumb against Grizzlies, although Griffin´s injury ended up being more substantial, 2015-pulls hamstring causing him to sit games and ultimately lose to Houston, 2016- breaks hand agains Portland). I mean it's almost Russian Roulette for him.

Maybe people could lay that out in more detail for me.

To me Paul has been a consistent superstar when he plays for quite a while now, so adding up injuries doesn't really make much of a dent, but an argument that can convince me that his body naturally breaks down late in the season might.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Pettit
Alt: Paul

I already gave my reasons on the first page and I'm in a hurry here, so please bear with me.

I will say that I look forward to people possibly swaying me about my ordering of point guards. In particular with regard to Paul I've mentioned 2 possible openings:

1) Paul's grumpy, control-freak leadership having a tangible negative effect lowering his team's ceiling and resilience.

2) Paul's injuries potentially being something that is simply a part of his body come April, and thus dinging him compared to other players (and in particular, other guys his size).

[Senior]

CP3's 2015 playoff run is very interesting to me. The Clippers carried out their best series win (by far) vs SA when CP3 ceded some playmaking control to Blake and ramped up his own scoring. CP3's box score went from 19/10 in the RS to 23/8 vs SA, and Blake went to 24/7 vs SA from 22/5 in the RS. SA really could not handle Blake on their end since he was a mismatch for all their FC players - too quick for Tim/Splitter, too big for Diaw and Kawhi. CP3 had his second-least assist total in Game 7 (6, only Game 3 had less which was a blowout), and Blake dropped a triple double of 24/13/10 to close out SA. LAC's ORTG was doing fine against the 2nd ranked defense, and they even went +0.7 rORTG.

Then CP3 misses 2 games, but the Clippers split on the road vs Houston with Blake having great games. CP3 returns, still a bit hobbled, but the Clippers blow out Houston twice anyway. CP3 has okay games in limited minutes.

Now...a lot has been made of the 3-1 comeback and CP3's averages of 26/10 in those last three games. It seems like CP3 was doing all he could to stem the tide. But we just saw the Clippers perform above expectations for 11 games when CP3 gave up some of his control - either through Blake or injury. I've always believed that the degree that LAC relied on CP3 was not suited for a title run - it usually meant that there wasn't any other decent playmaking talent on the team and high-end defenses could load up on that playmaker. Unless that playmaker was extremely resilient (such as Magic, even Nash) that amount of reliance was doomed to fail, and we kind of saw this with Westbrook this year. Until 2015, I thought LAC relied on CP3 out of necessity, so I didn't think it was a big deal.

But now, Blake was showing himself to be that secondary playmaker LAC always needed and they went away from him in Games 5-7. He had 2, 2, and 6 assists for an average of 3.3. LAC's ORTG sunk from 112.2 in the RS to 102.2 in the final three games. That mark would've been 27th down from 1st. Even worse, LAC's ORTG was at 115.7 in the first 4 games with CP3 not playing at his RS level.

So what happened? You could argue that LAC played wayyyy over their heads in Games 3/4 (Austin Rivers with the game of his life in Game 3, Rockets doing Hack-a-DJ at a moronic time in Game 4), but they were still at around 107 ORTG in the first 2 games WITHOUT CP3. Did Houston make adjustments to take Blake's playmaking away? Or does that control freak idea hold some water? If so, couldn't that mean that his desire to control everything limits his playoff ceilings, despite every analytic in his favor?

It's strange - I just praised Wade for being more willing to take control of a game, but here I feel the opposite about CP3. Still, I go with what works, and Wade's more dominant physical presence + aggressive mentality led his team to the title. The Clippers were winning when CP3 took a small step back, and then started to lose when he regained the control he had in the RS. To be honest, this probably wouldn't even be an issue if LAC just held onto their lead in Game 6...but it didn't happen. I guess it comes down to doing what is needed to be done in a game-by-game situation.

[scrabbarista]

21. Bob Pettit

22. John Havlicek

I. In my "Stats" category, which adds up the number of times a player was Top 5 in 18 or 19 differently weighted categories, Pettit is 3rd among remaining players. The players ahead of him - Gilmore and Stockton, clearly don't have his pedigree as dominant players. See:

II. Pettit is 1st among remaining players in my MVP Voting metric, whereas Stockton is a nonentity, and Gilmore is a blip with 1/8 the score of Pettit.

III. Havlicek has 1.5 "Best on Champs," putting him in elite company among remaining players, as only four other remaining players can match this total. Amongst those players (Mikan, Isiah Thomas, Dave Cowens, Steph Curry), Havlicek's career totals in both the regular season and the playoffs are the best by a huge margin.

[mischievous]

I respect what Wade accomplished but I think he's going to come out last of these 4 for me. The reality is that if not for the '06 finals upset I doubt he's seen the same way at all. And the more I get distance from the event the more fluky it seems.

Well you could go there, but at the same time, we can sit back and say if not for Lebron's fluky 2011 finals performance, Wade has 2 FMVPs, and likely 4 rings altogether.

Even so, i always hear from many posters on the board how level of play matters much more than win/loss in a series, so why would it be drastically different for him?

If LeBron wasn't there, Wade isn't in the finals.
If LeBron was normal in the finals, Wade isn't the Finals MVP.
Regardless I don't put that much stock in Finals MVP.

That said, I've talked about how much Wade's aggressive motor at times has impressed me, and I don't mean to dismiss that.

You seem to be missing the point though. Its not about accolades per say, the point is Wade's performance was not at all flukey since he has proved on other occasions he can play at high levels over a playoff run. If the Heat winning was flukey, that can't be against Wade since he pretty much performed as well as he possibly could. I don't get your angle here.

And to your other point, not necessarily. Wade showed he could outplay Lebron in a series, so there's no guarantee one or the other wins fmvp, that's why i said if Lebron plays 75% of himself which he did not.

[trex_8063]

For all the guys voting Chris Paul this early. What's his argument against......

Super-short answer version......

Curry

Longevity......like, A LOT of longevity.

Nash

Defense.

Pettit

Era.

Wade

n/a for me, as I have Wade ahead. I suppose it might in part actually be a marginal longevity case (ironically, given two fewer seasons and his own injury concerns; but he's got more prime-level seasons to his credit than Wade does).

Pippen

Mostly a pure statistical case (also generally a pinch better by available impact metrics/measures).



I frankly wouldn't disagree in any large way with any of these guys getting in ahead of Paul, with the exception of Curry (again: it's a LOT of longevity).

[AdagioPace]

always fascinated by "the CP3 contradiction"
I agree with those who say that he lacked that aggressivness that's typical of a player capable of winning the game alone (a bit like he did vs SA).I agree with this perspective

"the ability to go off and put direct pressure on defenses" is underrated in the playoffs and often seen with irony ("ah that chucker!) this is what made Kobe,Hakeem,Duncan,Curry,even Wade successfull in the post season as pure scorers first of all.
while in RS providing a basal level of offensive stablity is more valuable and its results emerge in the long run.

we have a recent example: Curry. The anti-CP3. Both have tremendous weight on how their teams function,almost at the same level (as showed by CP3's RPM).so what' the difference?
Only one can take the game "by the throat"


The fact that CP3 maintains the same offensive impact doesnt' mean he cannot be held accountable. It merely means that his teammates are as dependable in the PS from him as they are in RS. But in the PS, resiliency (which as I intend it,is the ability to perform at the same level against all kinds of defenses) is not that important as the ability to "raise the ceiling". Or better put, the player that provides both of them is succesfull (without the floor there's no ceiling,after all)
CP3 needed to be surrounded by a great scorer. A player like Amare (without bothering K.Malone) would have definitely done a better job than Griffin and helped CP3 a bit.

One provides the floor
the other provides the ceiling

RS monsters like CP3,KG,Drob are "great floor raisers" but not exceptional "ceiling raisers". All lack that famous "high gear" which is obligatory for a "go-to-guy" in deciding the fate of a close game. I don't want to be mistaken. I'm aware that raising the floor also means raising the ceiling. But that's a stable ceiling. What I mean is that those players often were lacking that ability to "go nuts". Variability! This is one of the contexts where being "dynamical" in your performances is not a bad property.
Absurdly, a player that "performs below his standards in the games he loses" but "raises his game when he wins" is more valuable. The opposite of being flat basically. CP3 is flat


Call it as you want: passiveness seem too harsh. I would call it: "Indirectness"
While their ability to influence the game on a basal level stays the same, the opponent's level is higher,so the efficacy of having great basal impact often is not enough to get your team over the bigger hurdle. Same reason why Jokic has more impact than Kat and AD but one might be reclutant to pick the first over KAt and AD in a playoff game
The PS requires an adjustment in "how to approach the game" in terms of "first person involvement". When the output of your impact (namely other people taking shots) doesn't work even if you put them in a good situation, you have to step up personally.
CP3 did it against the Spurs, less vs other teams.

PS: To be fair,Curry is one of the few "playmakers" that broke the "limits of the role",simply because he's a great shooting guard. CP3 should be compared to Nash and Stockton. They would have probably failed as CP3 if not surrounded by capable scorers.... Actually they did

[penbeast0]

always fascinated by "the CP3 contradiction"
I agree with those who say that he lacked that aggressivness that's typical of a player capable of winning the game alone (a bit like he did vs SA).I agree with this perspective

"the ability to go off and put direct pressure on defenses" is underrated in the playoffs and often seen with irony ("ah that chucker!) this is what made Kobe,Hakeem,Duncan,Curry,even Wade successfull in the post season as pure scorers first of all.
while in RS providing a basal level of offensive stablity is more valuable and its results emerge in the long run.

we have a recent example: Curry. The anti-CP3. Both have tremendous weight on how their teams function,almost at the same level (as showed by CP3's RPM).so what' the difference?
Only one can take the game "by the throat"


The fact that CP3 maintains the same offensive impact doesnt' mean he cannot be held accountable. It merely means that his teammates are as dependable in the PS from him as they are in RS. But in the PS, resiliency (which as I intend it,is the ability to perform at the same level against all kinds of defenses) is not that important as the ability to "raise the ceiling". Or better put, the player that provides both of them is succesfull (without the floor there's no ceiling,after all)
CP3 needed to be surrounded by a great scorer. A player like Amare (without bothering K.Malone) would have definitely done a better job than Griffin and helped CP3 a bit.

One provides the floor
the other provides the ceiling

RS monsters like CP3,KG,Drob are "great floor raisers" but not exceptional "ceiling raisers". All lack that famous "high gear" which is obligatory for a "go-to-guy" in deciding the fate of a close game. I don't want to be mistaken. I'm aware that raising the floor also means raising the ceiling. But that's a stable ceiling. What I mean is that those players often were lacking that ability to "go nuts". Variability! This is one of the contexts where being "dynamical" in your performances is not a bad property.
Absurdly, a player that "performs below his standards in the games he loses" but "raises his game when he wins" is more valuable. The opposite of being flat basically. CP3 is flat


Call it as you want: passiveness seem too harsh. I would call it: "Indirectness"
While their ability to influence the game on a basal level stays the same, the opponent's level is higher,so the efficacy of having great basal impact often is not enough to get your team over the bigger hurdle. Same reason why Jokic has more impact than Kat and AD but one might be reclutant to pick the first over KAt and AD in a playoff game
The PS requires an adjustment in "how to approach the game" in terms of "first person involvement". When the output of your impact (namely other people taking shots) doesn't work even if you put them in a good situation, you have to step up personally.
CP3 did it against the Spurs, less vs other teams.

PS: To be fair,Curry is one of the few "playmakers" that broke the "limits of the role",simply because he's a great shooting guard. CP3 should be compared to Nash and Stockton. They would have probably failed as CP3 if not surrounded by capable scorers.... Actually they did

I hear this a lot and would like to see some degree of analysis about it. Euroleague, this is what I hear far more than arguments favoring assists in the playoffs or the clutch, how do you answer it?

[AdagioPace]

I hear this a lot and would like to see some degree of analysis about it. Euroleague, this is what I hear far more than arguments favoring assists in the playoffs or the clutch, how do you answer it?

yeah, that's only a reasoning based on logic and experience
I don't know if it can be proved with numbers (i don't even know if it's possible to quantify)

We have a kind of proof that a "certain type of player" (like those I cited) are particularly useful in the playoffs judged by the succes that those players have had,but those players also had "impact" like CP3.Infact what I said is that both are requirements.
This,for me,already constitutes a sort of bland evidence. It can at least motivate people to go in depth....

let's say that this kind of "I do it by myself" kind of player reaches is maximal utility when there's already a solid base (that cp3 provides)

[penbeast0]

I hear this a lot and would like to see some degree of analysis about it. Euroleague, this is what I hear far more than arguments favoring assists in the playoffs or the clutch, how do you answer it?

yeah, that's only a reasoning based on logic and experience
I don't know if it can be proved with numbers (i don't even know if it's possible to quantify)

We have a kind of proof that a "certain type of player" (like those I cited) are particularly useful in the playoffs judged by the succes that those players have had,but those players also had "impact" like CP3.Infact what I said is that both are requirements.
This,for me,already constitues a sort of bland evidence. It can at least motivate people to go in depth....

let's say that this kind of "I do it by myself" kind of player reaches is maximal utility whene there's already a solid base (that cp3 provides)

I am far from sure that your kind of proof isn't just a perception issue. Volume scorers are always overrated in terms of how much they count toward team success (personal opinion). We remember big shots and forget many of the counterexamples (look at the analysis of Kobe "the mentality of a killer" in the last minutes of close games done by 82games.com and see what I mean) and for every player who successfully ups their shot volume in the final 2 minutes of a game (James Silas!), there are counterexamples of John Paxson or Robert Horry hitting key shots or a Cornbread Maxwell or James Worthy getting finals MVP. That's why I want to see (but am too lazy to do) an analysis that looks at this question statistically and asks whether it is true or just seeing what fans want to see.

[AdagioPace]

I hear this a lot and would like to see some degree of analysis about it. Euroleague, this is what I hear far more than arguments favoring assists in the playoffs or the clutch, how do you answer it?

yeah, that's only a reasoning based on logic and experience
I don't know if it can be proved with numbers (i don't even know if it's possible to quantify)

We have a kind of proof that a "certain type of player" (like those I cited) are particularly useful in the playoffs judged by the succes that those players have had,but those players also had "impact" like CP3.Infact what I said is that both are requirements.
This,for me,already constitues a sort of bland evidence. It can at least motivate people to go in depth....

let's say that this kind of "I do it by myself" kind of player reaches is maximal utility whene there's already a solid base (that cp3 provides)

I am far from sure that your kind of proof isn't just a perception issue. Volume scorers are always overrated in terms of how much they count toward team success (personal opinion). We remember big shots and forget many of the counterexamples (look at the analysis of Kobe "the mentality of a killer" in the last minutes of close games done by 82games.com and see what I mean) and for every player who successfully ups their shot volume in the final 2 minutes of a game (James Silas!), there are counterexamples of John Paxson or Robert Horry hitting key shots or a Cornbread Maxwell or James Worthy getting finals MVP. That's why I want to see (but am too lazy to do) an analysis that looks at this question statistically and asks whether it is true or just seeing what fans want to see.

of course,I forgot to say
all my point revolves around great scorers like those I mentioned or players capable of getting a lot of free throws,attacking the basket etc...
more than "volume" alone players I was referring to players "going on efficient runs".

that's it
I'm only comparing CP3 to players in the top 30 .
I don't want to bring the Iversons in the discussion. So I was not trying to come up with a general principle that aggressive players are more suited for the PS than impactful players. I was basically comparing aggressive players with impact VS players with impact

[penbeast0]

of course,I forgot to say
all my point revolves around great scorers like those I mentioned or players capable of getting a lot of free throws,attacking the basket etc...
more than "volume" alone players I was referring to players "going on efficient runs".

that's it
I'm only comparing CP3 to players in the top 30 .
I don't want to bring the Iversons in the discussion. So I was not trying to come up with a general principle that aggressive players are more suited for the PS than impactful players. I was basically comparing aggressive players with impact VS players with impact

OK, even limiting it to ATG type players (might want to make it top 50 or top 100 or otherwise you might miss players like Isiah who might or might not make top 30), the point is that people remember scorers taking the final shot when it works. That's why Kobe has this myth of being super clutch when analysis shows he actually hurts his team playing hero ball over the long run. Is a player who forces bad shots in the clutch ACTUALLY more likely to produce a win than a player who passes out of the double/triple team to an open Horry/Paxson type shooter for a good shot? I find it hard to believe and have never bought into the argument you are making. That's why I want to see some analysis before accepting that hero ball is a good thing.

Dan Issel quote for you (paraphrased), "I always wanted to take the last shot; (heck), I always wanted to take ALL the shots."

Looking at the great dyastic teams in NBA history:

Mikan Lakers . . . (don't know)
Russell Celtics . . . didn't play hero ball
Jordan Bulls . . . yes hero ball
Showtime Lakers . . . didn't play hero ball
Duncan Spurs . . . didn't play hero ball

Those are the most ring happy teams in NBA history and the only one that was known for hero ball was the Bulls and remember they only started winning rings when Phil Jackson convinced Jordan that the triangle and trusting his teammates was the way to win (though certainly MJ did play hero ball after that!)

[JoeMalburg]

So extrapolating the results to a full game, that's:

22.4 PPG, 7.2 apg, 4.4 TO pg; 56.3% TS

For closeout/eliminations those aren't too far off from his grand totals:
20.5/9.4/2.6; 55.9% TS

The one thing I will say about Paul when it comes to playoff performances:

He was generally efficient. I've documented this in a couple places, so I won't re-hash it. But, he had a low ceiling.

In preparation for the PG wars to come, I've started tracking other players' performance in closeouts. Using a barometer of:

(PTS * TS) + Reb + Ast + Stl + Blk - TO

Paul's best was 2015 - Game 6 vs. Houston.

-Stockton had 2 games better than Paul's best (88 Game 7 vs. La, 89 Game 3 vs. the Dubs)
-Isiah had a game better than Paul's best, (88 Game 7 vs. LA)
-Nash had 2 games better than Paul's best ('05 Game 6 vs. Dallas, '06 Game 6 vs. LAL)
-GP had 3 games better than Paul's best ('97 Game 4 vs. Phx, '00 Game 4 vs. Jazz, '02 Game 4 vs. Spurs) - he's also highly underrated in my opinion - more on that to come.

I'm also going to be looking @ Kidd & Frazier

On the flip-side, I have Paul's worst games as a tie between '17 Gm 7 vs. Jazz & 2014 Game 6 vs. the Dubs. All the guys I mentioned have at least 1 game worse than that - Stockton has 2 & Nash has 7

Paul's not going to morph into super-man in these situations. That's just now who he is. He's also not going to take a dump in the bed - and some of Nash's closeout games are downright putrid.

He's going to give you 21/9 on solid shooting and give you solid D. Over and over and over. If that bothers you, that's your choice & I can respect that.

In short - Paul's closeout/elimination game performances are very solid overall - they have less variance than other great PG's - and that's for better AND worse.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation with you!

I want to start with a concession. I concede entirely that CP3 is a superior version of Isiah over the course of the average 48 minute game. I concede that CP3 is among the greatest ever in terms of efficiency and consistency of play. I concede that the numbers do not lie in this regard.

That said...

A major objection here. You cite Chris Paul's best game as game six vs. Houston in 2015 which ended with the Clippers being outscored 40-15 and set the stage for an epic collapse from up 3-1.

That's the problem with using the numbers by themselves. What Chris Paul and Clipper fans would tell you is one of the worst days of their basketball lives, you're arguing as a positive.

Can you see how that's difficult for someone with a different approach than you to understand?


If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

1st - the Houston game itself - if you're going to dis-credit that, you discredit Isiah's Game 6 in LA where he scored 25 in a quarter, you dis-credit his game 6 in '85 against Boston where he dropped 37-12-9 in a loss and you discredit a triple double against Atlanta in '86 - also a loss - and his final playoff game where he torched the Knicks in '92 - right as they were in the process of becoming one of the greatest defenses ever - in a loss. In that Houston game, he put up 31-11-7 and got those points really efficiently. What should he have done differently?

People can put up incredible performances in losses - it happens. It's an awful day for the Clippers but Paul played exceptional. You can't just brush aside someone's crappy performance because the team won - or dismiss an exceptional performance in a loss.

Now . . .

If you were a coach, fan or teammate, would you rather have Paul's great overall game stats and the results in close games late in competitive series that accompany them, or Isiahs pedestrian numbers for the first half and being the best player on the court in cruchtuke in over half of his teams elimination or closeout games in the final two rounds? ( Not rhetorical, please answer)

Paul. Easy. You give me Isiah on Paul's teams and I might not even be in the game with 4:00 to go - flip it, and the game is wrapped up most of the time.

'87 - he was good against Boston in Games 6/7. Only 1 Turnover combined - 25 & 21 points - 9 assists in each game. I'd like it more if his TS% wasn't 45 in those games - but fine - I'm not going to crap on these games - but they're not better than a typical Paul result either.
'88 - He sucked against Boston in Game 6. 3/11 - 9 points. This is the 4 time defending Conference Champ and your offensive anchor does that? You' should be toast. Good thing Dantley dropped 22. Good thing Vinnie & Edwards combined for 39 off the bench. Good thing Ainge & Parish were held to 2 points each & Bird went 4-17.
Lakers - Was a monster in Game 6. Already addressed. Played poorly in Game 7 - I know he was injured, but that's part of the game. That's one of the reasons Paul has gone home early as infrequently as he has and why Walton isn't a Top 25 player.
'89 - Good against the Bulls in the closeout. 33 points and grabbed 3 steals in the process. Didn't shoot that great (51% TS) but it's fine. 5 rebounds and 4 assists - needed 28 shots to get his points but it's a good performance. Had an atypical Isiah performance against the Lakers in the closeout - they were trailing entering the 4th. He got 14 points total and only 3 reb & 5 assists. So the involvement was questionable. Dumars won Finals MVP and other players did the heavy lifting here in the 4th. Again - he's carried by his teammates in the closeout.
'90 - Not great vs. Chicago in Game 6. 15 & 10 - but his shooting was awful needing 17 shots to get it. Maybe if he had played better there wouldn't be a Game 7 - but to his credit he was excellent in Game 7. His closeout performance against Portland is strong as well (29 points on 68% TS) to go with 5 assists and 2 steals. 7 Turnovers is a lot but overall, it's a good performance.
'91 - OK against Boston - definitely below the typical Paul performance for sure - 17 & 6. Not bad - but well below Paul's standards. Then there's the Bulls walk off.


More often than not I'll get a better performance from Paul. Isiah has the capacity to deliver a better game - but typically I'll get a better performance from Paul - and ultimately isn't that what you want to bet on?

We are so far apart in how we view the game.

I don't believe you actually think that it's reasonable to say that game six of the 2015 WCSF can be viewed as a positive for Paul. I think you're just frustrated because you can't counter my argument and you don't see the value in it I do, so your impulse is to be dismissive.

I also don't believe you think that using that game as a positive is comparable to game six of the '88 Finals. Clearly someone as smart as you understands the nuance involved with evaluating games and aren't going to oversimplify it to a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

And finally I am going to assume that you were also desperate and reaching when you cited two games I never used to argue as positives for Isiah in the '86 Hawks game and '92 Knicks loss, and not trying to create a straw man to put in place of my argument.

As to your question, what could Paul have done different?

Shown up in the fourth quarter. The important one, steadied his team, shot better than 1/6 while the Game was in doubt. A lot of things. But he didn't. And his team lost another series they were up in.

That matters to me, clearly a lot more than to you, and that's okay. Like I said, we see the game a lot differently.

[JoeMalburg]

George Mikan (C), Whig party

Dig up some of George's big games to try and put a few more voters in his camp.

1948 World Pro Basketball Tournament final: 40 points, Lakers best Harlrm arena 75-71

1948 NBL finals, game four: 27 points in closeout victory

1949 NBA Finals game six: 29 points in closeout victory

1950 NBA Finals Game six: 40 points in closeout victory

March 4th to 21st 1951: Mikan has string of six 40 point plus games in ten game stretch, also scored 38 and 36 in that time.

1952: career high and NBA record 61 points vs. Rochester, the defending champion.

1952 NBA Finals game 7: game highs 22 points and 19 rebounds in series clinching win.

Alternate: Bob Pettit

[wojoaderge]

Not much more to say about George Mikan other than he's my first vote once again. To repeat, no one left on the board was as dominating in his particular time or served as the go-to guy on as championship teams as he did.

1-George Mikan
2-Bob Pettit

Chris Paul is not this good