chris paul is better than steph curry

[mischievous]

You cannot compare their teams at all. I would take Klay Thompson alone over anybody Paul has played with, especially in a playoff series.
.

Blake Griffin those 2015 playoffs played better than Klay ever did and I don’t see how it’s even debatable. Not saying that he had the better cast, but i think you are trying to hard with that comment.

[Lost92Bricks]

Blake Griffin those 2015 playoffs played better than Klay ever did and I don’t see how it’s even debatable. Not saying that he had the better cast, but i think you are trying to hard with that comment.

Give me what Klay did in he 2016 playoffs against the Rockets and Blazers. 27 PPG on 64 TS%

[mischievous]

Blake Griffin those 2015 playoffs played better than Klay ever did and I don’t see how it’s even debatable. Not saying that he had the better cast, but i think you are trying to hard with that comment.

I guess you didn't see Klay in he 2016 playoffs against the Rockets and Balzers. 27 on 64 TS%.

He’s a nonexistent playmaker while Griffin is one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever from that position..

[Lost92Bricks]

He’s a nonexistent playmaker while Griffin is one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever from that position..

Griffin is a nonexistent defender while Thompson is one of the top 3-4 defenders at his position..

[mischievous]

He’s a nonexistent playmaker while Griffin is one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever from that position..

Griffin is a nonexistent defender while Thompson is one of the top 3-4 defenders at his position..

Klay’s defense is overrated. Griffin likely has more impact there even if Klay is better at position. You’re really reaching with this one and i’m not sure why. But hey it’s all about points and ts% i guess..

[clyde21]

Shooting --

3 pt: Curry
Midrange: CP3
Close range: tie
At rim: Curry

Passing --
CP3

Rebounding --
Curry

Turnovers --
CP3 (gets less)

Steals --
Tie

Clutch --
Debatable. arguably CP3

Defense --
CP3

Curry has had more to work with on his teams hence the added accolades/success.

Your analysis doesn't really go deep enough on multiple levels.

1. Shooting

Shooting doesn't quite cover it. Scoring in general Curry is better than Paul. A better four-level scorer and more efficient overall. I don't think this one's close.

2. Passing

This is Paul, but historically Paul's had a much more on-ball role than Curry, so naturally he's going to accumulate more assists. I'll give the edge to Paul here, but I don't think it's a huge discrepancy.

3. Rebounding

This is Steph.

4. Turnovers

Paul is definitely more careful with the ball and generally makes better decisions, but in some cases that's not necessarily a good thing. Paul loves to sit and dribble on the ball for 15 seconds before he makes his decision, while the ball is usually flying out of Steph's hands rather quickly, so generally he's going to commit more turnovers, but that also pushes the pace of games and his offense in ways that Paul just can't do.

5. Steals:

I'd actually give the edge to Paul right here, but both are really good at getting steals and deflections because of their quick hands and BBIQ.

6. Clutch

What are you basing this on? How is a player who's never made it to the WCF before his 13th season supposed to be more clutch than a player who's lead one of the best offenses we've ever seen to the tune of 2 championships by the time he's 30?

7. Defense

Definitely Paul, though Steph continues to get criminally underrated here, especially from a team defense standpoint.

You're also missing one HUGE factor:

8. Off-ball prowess

Curry might be the best off-ball player we've ever seen, and that's a HUGE part of today's NBA. Paul, while has been a better off-ball player with Houston, doesn't touch Steph in this category.

You rationalized/justified Curry in multiple categories while not giving the same benefit for CP3.

I did. You actually had them tied in terms of steals, I gave that edge to Paul, despite the fact that Curry has led the league in steals twice.

For example, you say Paul is only a slightly better passer because he is more on-ball even though there is a big discrepancy and you cannot just chalk it up to system because at the same time, Curry has has a superteam and therefore better passing options available to him.

Okay, number 1) can you stop acting like Curry has always played on a "superteam"? NBA history exits outside the last two or three years and 2) Curry is a huge part of why this team is a 'superteam'. You can't discount that. Look at all of the efficiency, scoring and On/Off metrics across the board when Curry isn't in the game. I'll give you a hint: they don't resemble a 'superteam' at all.

Paul has widely been analyzed as being the greatest passer of this generation, meanwhile, Curry has never been lauded for exceptional passing and only has a few groundbreaking passes per season.

I said I agreed that Paul is overall a better passer and decision maker. All I said was that I don't think the discrepancy is that huge, considering Curry is a great passer in his own right, even if goes through stretches of sub-par decision making at times.

And I don't think you can discount their roles here. Paul, his entire career, has had the benefit of being able to sit on the ball for 15-20 seconds a possession before making his pass or decision. Curry for the last few years has been in an offense that stresses MUCH faster decision making and overall player/ball movement. This matters.

FWIW...in 13-14 and then in 14-15 Curry averaged 8.5 assists both seasons. It's not a coincidence that when he played more on-ball his assists per game at an elite level.

For the "HUGE" scoring advantage Curry supposedly has, Paul has a "HUGE" playmaking one. See, I could do the same thing and argue that because of Paul's role, he does not have the opportunity to score as prolifically as Curry does.

Maybe it's not a huge scoring advantage, but it's a clear one.

And I'm not sure Paul hasn't had opportunities to score. He's literally ran his own teams where he made the majority of the decisions the entirety of the time.

Now for clutchness, again you resort to a logical fallacy that team success directly = individual prowess. I know this is such a subjective topic which is why i said its debatable, but the reason i personally lean toward cp3 is because in the biggest moments that come to mind Curry has underperformed, whereas Paul has generally maintained his level of play

I actually do think Paul is quite clutch, but I don't see what makes him more clutch than Steph, and it's hard for me to give him the edge when he has consistently failed to reached the highest levels with his teams (and don't give me the supporting cast crap, Paul played with GREAT teams).

[clyde21]

Blake Griffin those 2015 playoffs played better than Klay ever did and I don’t see how it’s even debatable. Not saying that he had the better cast, but i think you are trying to hard with that comment.

Give me what Klay did in he 2016 playoffs against the Rockets and Blazers. 27 PPG on 64 TS%

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

[Lost92Bricks]

Klay’s defense is overrated. Griffin likely has more impact there even if Klay is better at position. You’re really reaching with this one and i’m not sure why. But hey it’s all about points and ts% i guess..

No way he has more impact.

He's a big that can't protect the rim, can't guard on the perimeter and doesn't rebound. Basically useless on defense in today's league.

They are similar caliber players but give me the better scorer and defender. I think most people would agree with me.

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

?

He shot 64 TS% when Curry was out with injury in the playoffs.

He and Draymond were winning playoff series without Curry meanwhile Blake Griffin can't even make the playoffs without Chris Paul.

[GSP]

Blake Griffin those 2015 playoffs played better than Klay ever did and I don’t see how it’s even debatable. Not saying that he had the better cast, but i think you are trying to hard with that comment.

Give me what Klay did in he 2016 playoffs against the Rockets and Blazers. 27 PPG on 64 TS%

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

He averaged 28.6/3.6/3.1 on .627ts in the games Steph missed with injury in the 16 playoffs

he had a .935 ts / .964 efg in one of those games........

[clyde21]

Klay’s defense is overrated. Griffin likely has more impact there even if Klay is better at position. You’re really reaching with this one and i’m not sure why. But hey it’s all about points and ts% i guess..

No way he has more impact.

He's a big that can't protect the rim, can't guard on the perimeter and doesn't rebound. Basically useless on defense in today's league.

They are similar caliber players but give me the better scorer and defender. I think most people would agree with me.

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

?

He shot 64 TS% when Curry was out with injury in the playoffs. He and Draymond were winning playoff series without Curry meanwhile Blake Griffin can't even make the playoffs without Chris Paul.

Where are you getting that # from? He had a 58 TS% without Curry in the 15-16 POs.

[clyde21]

Give me what Klay did in he 2016 playoffs against the Rockets and Blazers. 27 PPG on 64 TS%

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

He averaged 28.6/3.6/3.1 on .627ts in the games Steph missed with injury in the 16 playoffs

he had a .935 ts / .964 efg in one of those games........

I remember how well he played in those POs, especially against the Thunder. You don't need to remind me.

I'm just wondering where the numbers are coming from, and how a sample size can reconcile back to taking Thompson over a 24/10/5 freak like Blake Griffin.

[GSP]

That 64 TS% for Klay dropped to 56% when Curry wasn't on the court with him.

What say you?

He averaged 28.6/3.6/3.1 on .627ts in the games Steph missed with injury in the 16 playoffs

he had a .935 ts / .964 efg in one of those games........

I remember how well he played in those POs, especially against the Thunder. You don't need to remind me.

I'm just wondering where the numbers are coming from, and how a sample size can reconcile back to taking Thompson over a 24/10/5 freak like Blake Griffin.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01/gamelog/2016#42-48-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs

[GSP]

He averaged 28.6/3.6/3.1 on .627ts in the games Steph missed with injury in the 16 playoffs

he had a .935 ts / .964 efg in one of those games........

I remember how well he played in those POs, especially against the Thunder. You don't need to remind me.

I'm just wondering where the numbers are coming from, and how a sample size can reconcile back to taking Thompson over a 24/10/5 freak like Blake Griffin.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01/gamelog/2016#42-48-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs

Steph was out with injury after the 1st game and came back in game 4 VS Portland

[clyde21]

He averaged 28.6/3.6/3.1 on .627ts in the games Steph missed with injury in the 16 playoffs

he had a .935 ts / .964 efg in one of those games........

I remember how well he played in those POs, especially against the Thunder. You don't need to remind me.

I'm just wondering where the numbers are coming from, and how a sample size can reconcile back to taking Thompson over a 24/10/5 freak like Blake Griffin.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01/gamelog/2016#42-48-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs

I told you, I remember those games. I thought we were talking about the playoffs as a whole, not a small sample size against two terrible defensive back courts at the time.

Anyways, you didn't answer me. How does this sample size reconcile back to Thompson > Griffin?

[GSP]

I remember how well he played in those POs, especially against the Thunder. You don't need to remind me.

I'm just wondering where the numbers are coming from, and how a sample size can reconcile back to taking Thompson over a 24/10/5 freak like Blake Griffin.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01/gamelog/2016#42-48-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs

I told you, I remember those games. I thought we were talking about the playoffs as a whole, sample sizes against two terrible defensive back courts at the time.

Anyways, you didn't answer me. How does this sample size reconcile back to Thompson > Griffin?

I would take 14 and 15 Blake over anything weve seen for Klay. Just wasnt sure the relevance of the efficiency numbers u posted when Klay showed he had no problem scoring when they actually ran the offense/plays for him and Draymond with Steph not there

[clyde21]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01/gamelog/2016#42-48-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs

I told you, I remember those games. I thought we were talking about the playoffs as a whole, sample sizes against two terrible defensive back courts at the time.

Anyways, you didn't answer me. How does this sample size reconcile back to Thompson > Griffin?

I would take 14 and 15 Blake over anything weve seen for Klay. Just wasnt sure the relevance of the efficiency numbers u posted when Klay showed he had no problem scoring when they actually ran the offense/plays for him and Draymond with Steph not there

Again, a seven game sample size against two terrible defensive teams at the time, so we have to take these metrics with that in mind.

Thompson played really well during that stretch, but that's not nearly enough to conclude he's a better player than Griffin, who's a consistent 20+/10+/4+ guy in the NBA.

Conversations like this are why I think Thompson is overrated.

[Lost92Bricks]

I told you, I remember those games. I thought we were talking about the playoffs as a whole, not a small sample size against two terrible defensive back courts at the time.

Anyways, you didn't answer me. How does this sample size reconcile back to Thompson > Griffin?

Two playoff series is not that small of a sample size.

That team was good enough to potentially win two playoff series without Curry.

If Paul misses extended time his teams would have no chance at all.

[clyde21]

I told you, I remember those games. I thought we were talking about the playoffs as a whole, not a small sample size against two terrible defensive back courts at the time.

Anyways, you didn't answer me. How does this sample size reconcile back to Thompson > Griffin?

Two playoff series is not that small of a sample size.

That team was good enough to potentially win two playoff series without Curry.

If Paul misses extended time his teams would have no chance at all.

It wasn't even two series, it was a total of 7 games against defenders like Harden and McCollum.

Again, he was impressive, but if you're going to use that as the crux of why you're taking Thompson over Griffin, it's ridiculous.

In 14-15 POs, a 14-game span, Blake Griffin averaged a monstrous 26/13/6 on 25 PER and 56 TS%. These are Anthony Davis numbers.

What makes Thompson's more impressive than Griffin's?

[Lost92Bricks]

It wasn't even two series, it was a total of 7 games against defenders like Harden and McCollum.

Again, he was impressive, but if you're going to use that as the crux of why you're taking Thompson over Griffin, it's ridiculous.

In 14-15 POs, a 14-game span, Blake Griffin averaged a monstrous 26/13/6 on 25 PER and 56 TS%. These are Anthony Davis numbers.

What makes Thompson's more impressive than Griffin's?

Better scoring and defense. Anthony Davis is actually a really good defender, don't compare him to Blake.

And I didn't use that as the crux for taking Thompson over Griffin. I just think Thompson is better in general.

[clyde21]

It wasn't even two series, it was a total of 7 games against defenders like Harden and McCollum.

Again, he was impressive, but if you're going to use that as the crux of why you're taking Thompson over Griffin, it's ridiculous.

In 14-15 POs, a 14-game span, Blake Griffin averaged a monstrous 26/13/6 on 25 PER and 56 TS%. These are Anthony Davis numbers.

What makes Thompson's more impressive than Griffin's?

Better scoring and defense. Anthony Davis is actually a really good defender, don't compare him to Blake.

And I didn't use that as a crux for taking Thompson over Griffin. I just think Thompson is better in general.

What is Thompson better than Griffin at other than shooting? Defensively it's a push, but Griffin is a better and more consistent overall scorer, infinitely better on the boards and around the rim, and a better creator/playmaker.

Really, the only definitive skill that Thompson has over Griffin is the three point shot, but other than that, I'm not picking up what you're putting down. I think you're massively underrating Griffin here due to some recency bias.

Anyways, those Clippers teams the Paul lead were absolutely stacked. Especially from 13-15.