What is the argument against Chris Paul in the top 20?

[E-Balla]

The Clippers were a +5.8 team from 2012-2015 when Chris Paul didn't play over a 40 game sample. They should've been better with CP3 there but he butted heads with Blake and damn near all his teammates (Big Baby saying Rondo is the best PG he's ever played with made more sense after he wore Harden down in 1 season).

Have you got a source for that number? Is it points dif per game, SRS, points dif per 100 possessions?

Not saying it's wrong just curious (and quite a way off what his on-off numbers paint - even acknowledging '13 and '14 were down years for him in this regard).

That's SRS and I got it from Elgee's WOWY spreadsheet before he unceremoniously removed public access to it.

[Owly]

The Clippers were a +5.8 team from 2012-2015 when Chris Paul didn't play over a 40 game sample. They should've been better with CP3 there but he butted heads with Blake and damn near all his teammates (Big Baby saying Rondo is the best PG he's ever played with made more sense after he wore Harden down in 1 season).

Have you got a source for that number? Is it points dif per game, SRS, points dif per 100 possessions?

Not saying it's wrong just curious (and quite a way off what his on-off numbers paint - even acknowledging '13 and '14 were down years for him in this regard).

That's SRS and I got it from Elgee's WOWY spreadsheet before he unceremoniously removed public access to it.

"WOWY Data NBA History", that the file?

[Colbinii]

Well this ignores the elephant in the room Blake Griffin, who was 3rd place in MVP voting without CP3 limiting him.

The Clippers had JJ Redick for 13/19 games where Paul missed but Redick only played 34 total games on the season. But yes, Griffin was phenomenal this season. The Clippers with Griffin and No Paul played at a +4.2/100 level when Griffin played [According to NBA.com, 108.2 Ortg/104.1 Drtg] but were +11.9 with both of them sharing the court [113.9 Ortg/102.0 Drtg]. Paul on the other hand, without Griffin, was at +8.2 [104.2/96.0] in a very small sample [about 4 Mpg].

But yes, Griffin did finish 3rd in MVP voting, even though he finished 9th in PER, 7th in WS, 12th in BPM, and 6th in PPG.

Now, just because Griffin was a "fringe" MVP candidate does not mean he is anywhere close to what Kareem was; that's laughable [I know you aren't saying that but saying Griffin was an "MVP" candidate implies he is in the same tier as Kareem here].

The Clippers beat a very good Warriors team [5.15 SRS] and lost to a great Thunder team [6.66 SRS] while CP3 went head-to-head [and imo] outplayed Westbrook here.

Oscar on the other hand had nothing to work with. I'm not one for comparing players with totally different levels of supporting casts and **** on one for having bad teammates.

Sure.

CP3 faced the Warriors in 2018 or would very likely have a ring of his own.

CP3 got hurt in the playoffs (again) in 2018 or would very likely have a ring of his own.

Perhaps, but even if Paul was hurt in place of Oscar for the 1971 Bucks they still win the title.

3) Again, Oscar never faced a team remotely close to

Wait so the:
63 Celtics
64 Celtics
66 Celtics
67 Sixers
72 Lakers
74 Celtics

The context here is the title run [2018 for Paul since he doesn't have a title ].
The other season's don't matter as CP3 has played just as many great teams in the post-season.

Were mince meat, or we only making excuses for CP3 when he loses to NBA champions and 65+ win teams? Like come on how can we say a guy that played 2 teams seen as consensus top 10 all time never played a team remotely close to the Warriors in talent level or level of play?

The context is the title season.

he Clippers were a +5.8 team from 2012-2015 when Chris Paul didn't play over a 40 game sample. They should've been better with CP3 there but he butted heads with Blake and damn near all his teammates (Big Baby saying Rondo is the best PG he's ever played with made more sense after he wore Harden down in 1 season).

I don't think the whole Big Baby thing needs to be addressed.

How should they have been better? What realistically were they supposed to be in the regular season for you to say "Wow, this guy is like Magic!"

I think the Clippers were 21-16 in the regular season without Paul from 2012-2015. Some huge blowouts make the point differential not line up with the actual record, believe what you will but a few blowouts in the sample size will sway the point differential in a small sample size.

Being +6 in that context is much less impressive. There's no reason that if CP3 was actually top 20 level (of course in totality, because on the floor he is, but if he makes his teammates worse than doesn't matter as much) they wouldn't have been a +9ish team since they were +6 without him.

Again, how does he make his teammates worse?

JJ Redick goes from +13.1 to +5.1 with/without Paul in 2014, +14.5 to -6.1 in 2015, +12.5 to -4.6 in 2016, +14.9 to -1.3 in 2017.
DeAndre Jordan has the same pattern [basically neutral to negative without CP3, +10-ish with Paul].

I see no evidence that Paul makes players worse. I see evidence that the ball should be in Paul's hands more than Griffin since he is a much better player.

You're seriously telling me you think they had less talent than the 08-10 Lakers? Or that Blake wasn't better than Wade each year past 2012?

Blake is on anothe level from Pau pretty easily (Blake averaged 28/8/4 on 61 TS% with a 122 ORTG without CP3 and 21/10/3 on 56 TS% with a 111 ORTG with CP3 in 2014),

Again, I don't get this small sample size thing. I understand clinging to the notion Paul held Griffin back but at the same standards maybe Griffin is the player who isn't great with others? We have evidence that Paul can co-exist and create an all-time great team with another star [Harden, far more ball dominant that Paul]. Maybe you are wrong here and Griffin is, as you say, the elephant in the room?

Deandre is way better than Bynum just for the fact that he was healthy and able to play (Bynum played 0 mpg in the 08 playoffs, 17 in 09, and 24 in 10),

And Odom is better than DeAndre.

and JJ/Barnes/Bledsoe/Crawford/Butler/Collison/Big Baby is better than Odom/Fisher/Girl Name/Farmar/Walton/Ariza/Artest/Vlad. Those Lakers aren't a +6 team without Kobe.

No idea what they are without Kobe but the sample size is even smaller than 40 games, that is for sure.

How about staying healthy in the playoffs?

[/quote]

That isn't what your original comment said. You said the Rockets should have been much better with Paul on the court yet they were 44-4.

[E-Balla]

Have you got a source for that number? Is it points dif per game, SRS, points dif per 100 possessions?

Not saying it's wrong just curious (and quite a way off what his on-off numbers paint - even acknowledging '13 and '14 were down years for him in this regard).

That's SRS and I got it from Elgee's WOWY spreadsheet before he unceremoniously removed public access to it.

"WOWY Data NBA History", that the file?

I think? In this specific usage I got it from an old post I had referring to the spreadsheet so I can't say exactly what it's titled. I just know it's gone now unfortunately.

[LA Bird]

Oscar Robertson made the playoffs 10 times not 6 and he won 8 series not 2
If you wanna talk same age CP3 is 34, and Oscar already got a ring by 34.

How much of that playoff success came "before teaming up with the league MVP", as stated in my post you quoted? Am I supposed to be impressed with 74 Oscar winning two playoff series averaging 15 points on the back of Kareem as though there aren't plenty of seasons of prime Oscar/Paul that would have done better in his place despite having less playoffs success? And yes, Oscar has a ring. So does Kidd. And Payton. The ring doesn't fundamentally change how I evaluate any of those players relative to Paul (which means I have Oscar above Paul for career with or without that ring).

plus he played in an era where there were only 3 series to be played max (not 4).

Oscar also played in an era where his team was guaranteed to make the playoffs as long as they weren't the last seed (ie Knicks), and had a higher probability of winning round 1 because the #1 seed received a bye.

It's not Oscar's fault that when he played with a league MVP (who wasn't an MVP prior to Oscar, so that's already a misframing of events) like Paul did he was actually able to win and be a good enough teammate to not be shipped away for an undeniably worse player.

MVP thing was misphrased but you get the point - Harden won MVP when Paul arrived and Kareem won MVP when Oscar arrived. It's not Paul's fault that Kareem >>> Harden even though both were MVPs and that Houston didn't have the luxury of only needing to beat three sub 50 win teams to win the title. 2018 Paul in place of 1971 Oscar also wins the Bucks a title fairly easily so the fact that Oscar won a ring and Paul didn't is merely circumstantial.

As more time passes I get lower and lower on CP3. He's the biggest example of how off the court chemistry can effect the team because the Clippers and Rockets should've been much better.

The same could be said about Oscar's personality considering he only led a single 50 win team in his entire prime before Kareem. And regarding your claim that the Rockets should've been much better if not for off-court chemistry issues: were you expecting 75 wins from them or something? Even with all the missed games from Harden/Paul, Houston won 65 games, only one less than the Kareem/Oscar Bucks. And that is with Kareem being a much better player than Harden and Kareem also being a better fit for a point guard than one of the most ball dominant guards in history. There is no way you can look back at that 2018 season and conclude Chris Paul was somehow holding the Rockets back due to personality and off-court stuff.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Outside of +/- lineup stats, where is CP3's impact??? He's had plenty of good rosters, and never did anything special with them...ever. He's the Phillip Rivers of the NBA

[E-Balla]

The Clippers had JJ Redick for 13/19 games where Paul missed but Redick only played 34 total games on the season. But yes, Griffin was phenomenal this season. The Clippers with Griffin and No Paul played at a +4.2/100 level when Griffin played [According to NBA.com, 108.2 Ortg/104.1 Drtg] but were +11.9 with both of them sharing the court [113.9 Ortg/102.0 Drtg]. Paul on the other hand, without Griffin, was at +8.2 [104.2/96.0] in a very small sample [about 4 Mpg].

But yes, Griffin did finish 3rd in MVP voting, even though he finished 9th in PER, 7th in WS, 12th in BPM, and 6th in PPG.

Now, just because Griffin was a "fringe" MVP candidate does not mean he is anywhere close to what Kareem was; that's laughable [I know you aren't saying that but saying Griffin was an "MVP" candidate implies he is in the same tier as Kareem here].

No one said he was on Kareem's level and I didn't imply that I don't think. He's not Jerry Lucas level though so I don't get why we're pretending Oscar played with anything similar to the talent CP3 played with prior to Milwaukee.

Perhaps, but even if Paul was hurt in place of Oscar for the 1971 Bucks they still win the title.

They missed the playoffs without Oscar in 75 (and Kareem getting hurt for 17 games) so I wouldn't be too sure about that. And beyond that the Lakers were a +3 team with Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain that with the addition of a good coach won 69 games in 1972.

The context here is the title run [2018 for Paul since he doesn't have a title ].
The other season's don't matter as CP3 has played just as many great teams in the post-season.

I don't like looking at one year. He's played a whole career and never won, so every year he didn't win with a championship level supporting cast is fair game. Especially when the reason a few of those teams lost was because he got hurt. I can't put someone top 20 when they're injured more often than not come playoff time.

JJ Redick goes from +13.1 to +5.1 with/without Paul in 2014, +14.5 to -6.1 in 2015, +12.5 to -4.6 in 2016, +14.9 to -1.3 in 2017.
DeAndre Jordan has the same pattern [basically neutral to negative without CP3, +10-ish with Paul].

I see no evidence that Paul makes players worse. I see evidence that the ball should be in Paul's hands more than Griffin since he is a much better player.

I think 2014 and the 2015 series vs Houston speak for themselves honestly. CP3 on teams that talented, if he really is the Point God, should have a ring pretty easily.

Again, I don't get this small sample size thing. I understand clinging to the notion Paul held Griffin back but at the same standards maybe Griffin is the player who isn't great with others?

I'd believe this if everyone on the team hated Blake and not CP3.

We have evidence that Paul can co-exist and create an all-time great team with another star [Harden, far more ball dominant that Paul]. Maybe you are wrong here and Griffin is, as you say, the elephant in the room?

The other star that kicked his ass out of Houston? That one? I wouldn't call that co-existing.

And Odom is better than DeAndre.

and JJ/Barnes/Bledsoe/Crawford/Butler/Collison/Big Baby is better than Odom/Fisher/Girl Name/Farmar/Walton/Ariza/Artest/Vlad. Those Lakers aren't a +6 team without Kobe.

No idea what they are without Kobe but the sample size is even smaller than 40 games, that is for sure.

I mean they were barely +6 with Kobe...

That isn't what your original comment said. You said the Rockets should have been much better with Paul on the court yet they were 44-4.

I didn't say with Paul on the court, I said in general. There's no reason someone that's played with all the talent CP3 has played with should have 0 rings. There's clear issues he has with other players that limited the success he's seen in his career IMO. Before he got kicked out of Houston I didn't feel this way but there's something to be said when he's worn out his welcome in 2 different locker rooms that fast.

[E-Balla]

Oscar Robertson made the playoffs 10 times not 6 and he won 8 series not 2
If you wanna talk same age CP3 is 34, and Oscar already got a ring by 34.

How much of that playoff success came "before teaming up with the league MVP", as stated in my post you quoted? Am I supposed to be impressed with 74 Oscar winning two playoff series averaging 15 points on the back of Kareem as though there aren't plenty of seasons of prime Oscar/Paul that would have done better in his place despite having less playoffs success? And yes, Oscar has a ring. So does Kidd. And Payton. The ring doesn't fundamentally change how I evaluate any of those players relative to Paul (which means I have Oscar above Paul for career with or without that ring).

plus he played in an era where there were only 3 series to be played max (not 4).

Oscar also played in an era where his team was guaranteed to make the playoffs as long as they weren't the last seed (ie Knicks), and had a higher probability of winning round 1 because the #1 seed received a bye.

It's not Oscar's fault that when he played with a league MVP (who wasn't an MVP prior to Oscar, so that's already a misframing of events) like Paul did he was actually able to win and be a good enough teammate to not be shipped away for an undeniably worse player.

MVP thing was misphrased but you get the point - Harden won MVP when Paul arrived and Kareem won MVP when Oscar arrived. It's not Paul's fault that Kareem >>> Harden even though both were MVPs and that Houston didn't have the luxury of only needing to beat three sub 50 win teams to win the title. 2018 Paul in place of 1971 Oscar also wins the Bucks a title fairly easily so the fact that Oscar won a ring and Paul didn't is merely circumstantial.

As more time passes I get lower and lower on CP3. He's the biggest example of how off the court chemistry can effect the team because the Clippers and Rockets should've been much better.

The same could be said about Oscar's personality considering he only led a single 50 win team in his entire prime before Kareem. And regarding your claim that the Rockets should've been much better if not for off-court chemistry issues: were you expecting 75 wins from them or something? Even with all the missed games from Harden/Paul, Houston won 65 games, only one less than the Kareem/Oscar Bucks. And that is with Kareem being a much better player than Harden and Kareem also being a better fit for a point guard than one of the most ball dominant guards in history. There is no way you can look back at that 2018 season and conclude Chris Paul was somehow holding the Rockets back due to personality and off-court stuff.

2018 Paul in place of 1971 Oscar is injured 20 games into the season. No way he holds up for 3,714 minutes in a season.

And I do think the chemistry issues came into play plenty of times in his career. If they didn't he'd still be in Houston playing on a contender right now and the Clippers wouldn't have underachieved so much.

[agetro23]

Despite the "rangz" argument, Paul's right there with Isiah imo.

So what is that, Top-20ish?

CP is a MIDRANGE monster. Takes care of the ball and is the ultimate floor raiser. His ATG impact, non box-score, is also backed by data (~Top 3 among PG's every year in his prime). If not for injuries he'd probably have a couple of rings. Well, at least one in 2018.

Overall, the only PG's I would take over Paul are Magic and Isiah.

And maybe Oscar Robertson, but I feel he gets overrated by the X/Y/Z crowd. That and I've seen limited footage of his.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Despite the "rangz" argument, Paul's right there with Isiah imo.

So what is that, Top-20ish?

CP is a MIDRANGE monster. Takes care of the ball and is the ultimate floor raiser. His ATG impact, non box-score, is also backed by data (~Top 3 among PG's every year in his prime). If not for injuries he'd probably have a couple of rings. Well, at least one in 2018.

Overall, the only PG's I would take over Paul are Magic and Isiah.

And maybe Oscar Robertson, but I feel he gets overrated by the X/Y/Z crowd. That and I've seen limited footage of his.

Isiah hasn't been Top 20 for like 30 years. And what floor is CP3 raising? He went from a squad that had West, Tyson, Peja to one with Blake, DJ to the Rockets with Harden. None of them achieved much in the end.

[70sFan]

Despite the "rangz" argument, Paul's right there with Isiah imo.

So what is that, Top-20ish?

CP is a MIDRANGE monster. Takes care of the ball and is the ultimate floor raiser. His ATG impact, non box-score, is also backed by data (~Top 3 among PG's every year in his prime). If not for injuries he'd probably have a couple of rings. Well, at least one in 2018.

Overall, the only PG's I would take over Paul are Magic and Isiah.

And maybe Oscar Robertson, but I feel he gets overrated by the X/Y/Z crowd. That and I've seen limited footage of his.

Oscar was much, much better basketball player than Thomas. Same with West but I guess you have him as a SG.

[Odinn21]

Oscar was much, much better basketball player than Thomas. Same with West but I guess you have him as a SG.

People are too caught up on accolades.
I'm taking Frazier over any PG not named Magic Johnson, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson (and Jerry West but I consider him as SG).

I feel like Magic-Curry-Big O being the top 3 PG ever should be as established as Kareem, Bill, Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem being top 5 C ever.

[agetro23]

I also forgot Curry. So there's that...

Isiah hasn't been Top 20 for like 30 years.

To who? SLAM and SI both recently had him in the Top 20.

And what floor is CP3 raising? He went from a squad that had West, Tyson, Peja to one with Blake, DJ to the Rockets with Harden. None of them achieved much in the end.

His teammates? His team's consistency and elite level of play? The fact he's one of the highest impact playersof his era? I don't know. Maybe "the floor" upheld by most objective measures? Paul has achieved as much as other players in that tier/range.

[70sFan]

Oscar was much, much better basketball player than Thomas. Same with West but I guess you have him as a SG.

People are too caught up on accolades.
I'm taking Frazier over any PG not named Magic Johnson, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson (and Jerry West but I consider him as SG).

I feel like Magic-Curry-Big O being the top 3 PG ever should be as established as Kareem, Bill, Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem being top 5 C ever.

I'm taking him over all of them just because I love watching him play

BTW, I got quite a few rare 1960s and 1970s Knicks games, so I'll upload more Clyde

[Prokorov]

I'm not sure if I have him in top 20 or not, but my concerns are:

- lack of durability and that's huge especially in postseason,
- great defensive player but his defense isn't good enough alone to anchor your team,
- his conservative style sometimes can limit offensive celling, although I'm not sure I'd agree here,
- his longevity is very good, but not elite ans he's already past his prime.

This, plus not enough 1st team all-NBA (for top 20) combined with no rings/finals mvps

I see 0 case for paul above:

Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Duncan, Kobe Shaq, Bird. Oscar, Lebron

I see almost no case for paul above:

Hakeem, Robinson, Dirk, Garnett, West, Erving, Wade, Moses

I see very little if any case against

Durant, Barkley, Malone

I see a poor case against

Curry, pippen, havlicek, stockton

I think the better question is "what IS the case for" paul as a top 20 player

tough to crack the top 20 with no mvps and no rings

[Prokorov]

off the top of my head, everyone in the top 20 or arguably in the top 20 had playoff success (at least one finals appearance) as great as cp3 career has been, he hasn't proven himself to be top 20 all-time when it matters most, in the postseason.

I will say, a lot of that has to do with back luck i.e. durability, but at the end of the day, there are other players who have proven it more than he has while having better or comparable career regular seasons.

Everyone in my top 20 has either a Ring, a regular season MVP, or both.

in most cases they have multiple rings and/or multiple MVPs

im big on CP, but top 20 is for the titans of the game

[CumberlandPosey]

his height and his health in may cloud the judgement of many.basketball is game for mutants and freaks so an average looking person cant be considered that good.i feel thats what many think.i always show the kids i train videos of cp3.for me the most fundamentally skilled player i have seen live.pound for pound just incredible...

[GhosDini]

You got those that focus on tangible results while takimg into account a players stats and you have those that focus on numbers, theories, and formulas while completely disregarding the results. I dont get it.

Most of the best posters here focus on tangible results with regards to what a player actually does ON the court and how a player affects his teammates and the game.

Sometimes a player can do just as much as another player, if not more, but still lose due to the thousands of variables at play within a basketball game. Some of us are able to parse through the end results [as it often isn't because of one player...in fact winning is never the result of one player] and try to attribute success/value/worth to a player based on what the player did, regardless of how his team does.

Take the 2013 NBA Finals for example. Seven years later and we all remember LeBron winning the NBA Finals MVP and his stellar game 6 and 7. But if Ray Allen doesn't make that shot then LeBron and the Heat lose that Finals, LeBron is not seen in the same light as he is now either. Is Lebron James all of a sudden a better player because Ray Allen makes the shot?

Hypothetically Kyrie doesn't get hurt in 2015 and let's say the Cavaliers win in 2015 in 6 games but lose in 2016. The Cavaliers then beat the Warriors in 2017 as Durant doesn't join them. James now has an extra Championship. Is LeBron James all of a sudden a better player because of this?

Kobe Bryant ends up makes more of his shots in game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals. However, Pau Gasol gets injured in the first quarter and the Lakers lose a game handedly to the Celtics. Is Kevin Garnett all of a sudden a better player with 2 rings? Is Kobe a worse player by going 1/3 without Shaq?

It's true that context matters and often times players benefit of plain good luck or suffer from plain bad luck. Often times a players legacy benefits or suffers depending on things that are actually out of their control on the court. Sometimes, most times, raw titles and accolades fail to tell the whole story and need to be put into context to be properly understood. But context can only make up for so much. Context can make up for a title or two, an mvp or two, a fmvp, some stats. But when you have none of those, haven't even been to the finals, and never won any major individual awards there isn't enough context in the world to make up for that gap.

It's my belief that "greatness" refers first and foremost to ones accomplishments in the game/sport and his impact on the game/sport. Stats, longevity, eye tests...all that stuff gets factored in secondary if you're talking about greatness and all time ranking. That doesn't mean a player has to have more accomplishments to be considered better or to be ranked higher than the next but he at least has to be in the ballpark. Going by that criteria it's hard ranking him higher than the top 50 let alone top 20.

[Colbinii]

It's my belief that "greatness" refers first and foremost to ones accomplishments in the game/sport and his impact on the game/sport. Stats, longevity, eye tests...all that stuff gets factored in secondary if you're talking about greatness and all time ranking. That doesn't mean a player has to have more accomplishments to be considered better or to be ranked higher than the next but he at least has to be in the ballpark. Going by that criteria it's hard ranking him higher than the top 50 let alone top 20.

So you don't understand how people can't have different criteria than you?

Do you live in a box?

[GhosDini]

It's my belief that "greatness" refers first and foremost to ones accomplishments in the game/sport and his impact on the game/sport. Stats, longevity, eye tests...all that stuff gets factored in secondary if you're talking about greatness and all time ranking. That doesn't mean a player has to have more accomplishments to be considered better or to be ranked higher than the next but he at least has to be in the ballpark. Going by that criteria it's hard ranking him higher than the top 50 let alone top 20.

So you don't understand how people can't have different criteria than you?

Do you live in a box?

Of course. I was explaining the reasoning behind mine and the lack of reason behind yours.