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

[ardee]

None of Stockton, Wade or Nash made the top 20 of the last RealGM top 100, and that’s a top 20 without Durant or Curry, so I’m not going to go into huge detail over it. For Stockton the argument would be longevity + not being *that* much worse than Clippers Paul (some of the same weaknesses, in my opinion), Wade it would be valuing higher peak if you think he’s quite a bit better duet o the playoff performances, and Nash is a far more empowering leader



What makes you so confident Paul was simply the better player at his peak? Malone is the one with the MVPs, and his boxscore stats are equally eye popping to peak Hornets Paul, and probably moreso than Clippers version. We don’t have that great of +/- information on Malone.



Again, why can’t the NBA version of Dr J be as good as Paul or better? In 1980 for example he put up a pretty impressive 27, 7 and 5 and 2 steals. He led the league in BPM in 1980 and 1981 and WS/48 in 1981 and 1982. He won an MVP. He was a legit superstar in the NBA, to say nothing of his ABA seasons.



I am one of the few to have Oscar out of my top 20 so I’m not going to argue with you there. The argument for him would be that he is a higher end scoring talent than Paul due to his size/shot creating.



West is one of the best playoff performers of all time and his best regular seasons are as good boxscore wise as Paul’s. So I would need more arguing to believe Paul should be above him

For Malone, Dr. J and West all of them are better teammates/leaders than Paul in my opinion

Don't really think you're making the case for Malone or Doc over Paul... stats aside Paul's combination of versatile scoring skillset/playmaking/GOAT level PG defense cannot be underestimated. I mean peak Amare Stoudemire has similar box score stats to Malone but you wouldn't put him in the same galaxy as Paul would you?

Btw why is Oscar out of your top 20?

You don't think that Julius has a case over Paul?

NBA Doc? I mean he has a case I guess but it doesn't look that great for him. Paul comes out on top statistically (assuming a comparison with 1980 being his peak), which is certainly not everything, but then the skillsets back it up. Erving was lacking in terms of handles and did not have a jumper. I just don't see how he can stack up offensively to a guy like Paul who might be one of the most complete offensive players of all time. Ludicrous handles, shot 67% at the rim in 2015 (which I consider his peak), 40% from 3, one of the best playmakers ever... what couldn't he do?

NBA Doc just never impressed me too much with the eye test. I think there are 80s players who would be even better today, but he'd be worse.

[ardee]

Ehh Wade averaged 3 less game played in their career (which was mainly due to his meniscus decision pre-NBA) and a freak shoulder injury that sidelined him for essentially a whole season. Either way hardly a substantial difference. You then consider Paul routinely missed crucial games in the playoffs when his team needed him most. Also, regular season success hardly trumps lack of deep postseason success unless it's ridiculous consistency like Malone (who could also boast of multiple deep playoff runs).So although Paul sustained a longer spread out prime than Wade, he still wasn't some iron man nor was it his strength. His durability was also what stopped him from ever making the finals. On the other hand, Wade had his playoff injury woes but was just more resilient and despite being banged up still fought to make himself available for playoff games. Paul just never proved he had what it takes to FULLY deliver his team to a title (like the rest of the top 20ers who all at least made the finals). Thus, career-wise I can't see the case for Paul over Wade.

So, you're going to completely disregard the fact that Wade has a significantly shorter prime and several seasons worse than Paul worst season?

CP3's worst season in his career was '19 with HOU

Wade has at least 8 seasons worse than that... '04, '08, '14, '15, '16, '17, '18, '19... And then there's '13 which is up for debate. I think Wade was slightly better and played more during the RS in '13, but compared to Paul in '19, CP3 proved more valuable in the postseason. It would be one thing if all the best Wade seasons were firmly ahead of Paul's... but they weren't, under any medium of measurement. Except the ''WELL HE WON DA RANG, SO THAT SEETLES IT.'' I know most people can't believe it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was a better player than Paul at his peak.

If i had to rank their seasons together, the outcome would be something like this:

'05 Wade
'12 Wade
'07 Wade
'10 Paul
'06 Paul
'07 Paul
'13 Wade
'19 Paul
'14 Wade
'16 Wade
'04 Wade
'08 Wade (injury setback year)
'15 Wade
'17 Wade
'19 Wade
'18 Wade

THEN, THE TOP 14 CONSISTS OF:

10 CP3 SEASONS

'08 Paul
'09 Paul
'11 Paul
'12 Paul
'13 Paul
'14 Paul
'15 Paul
'16 Paul
'17 Paul
'18 Paul

4 WADE SEASONS
'06 Wade
'09 Wade
'10 Wade
'11 Wade


Now, from here out. You can make an argument '09 to '11 Wade was better than any season of Paul. But you'd be going against mountains of data saying otherwise. So good luck. In any case, we're looking at like 10 seasons of Paul's prime vs. 4 seasons of Wade's prime... Yeah, you guessed it. The longevity and quality of prime is not even close. If you want to hang your hat on Wade having better teams, less completion and didn't get injured at the worst possible time, or had his teammates injured at the worst possible time (which was down to luck more than anything else) that's why Wade deserves to be ranked ahead of Paul, then congrats, i guess, but to me, it's clear as water who had a better career and played at a higher level for MUCH longer. And that's CP3.

Bottom line is Wade has arguably 8 seasons worse than CP3's worst season. And Paul occupies 10 out of the best 15 seasons from each dude. That closes the case in my book.

Excellent post, sums up my opinion on Paul vs Wade.

Peakwise I'd still take Wade by a bit but Paul isn't that far behind, and he wins for careers.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app

[ardee]

Why people compare 1960s PER to 2010s PER? These are two different stats...

It's not people, it's just one person, who has already admitted he doesn't watch games and just makes judgments off BBR.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app

[70sFan]

Don't really think you're making the case for Malone or Doc over Paul... stats aside Paul's combination of versatile scoring skillset/playmaking/GOAT level PG defense cannot be underestimated. I mean peak Amare Stoudemire has similar box score stats to Malone but you wouldn't put him in the same galaxy as Paul would you?

Btw why is Oscar out of your top 20?

You don't think that Julius has a case over Paul?

NBA Doc? I mean he has a case I guess but it doesn't look that great for him. Paul comes out on top statistically (assuming a comparison with 1980 being his peak), which is certainly not everything, but then the skillsets back it up. Erving was lacking in terms of handles and did not have a jumper. I just don't see how he can stack up offensively to a guy like Paul who might be one of the most complete offensive players of all time. Ludicrous handles, shot 67% at the rim in 2015 (which I consider his peak), 40% from 3, one of the best playmakers ever... what couldn't he do?

NBA Doc just never impressed me too much with the eye test. I think there are 80s players who would be even better today, but he'd be worse.

Erving didn't have a jumper? That's huge hyperbole, he wasn't great shooter but he had midrange game and was around Wade's level as a shooter. His handles were also fine, not close to Paul (who's guard and GOAT-level) but his handles aren't any worse than Durant's or Bird's or Melo's. A lot of that is due to the era he played in, today he would definitely play more dribbling the ball and playing P&Rs.

I also don't think why he would be worse today. He already showed in ABA that he could be decent three point shooter (he shot around 1 per game with 34% in 1974-76 period). With more volume I can see him being 34-35% on 3-5 attempts guy. Not remarkable, but far better than someone without a jumper". Not to mention that the league is built for slashers and Julius might be the best ever in that aspect. His weaknesses as a defender (man defense mainly) would be also reduced because he would be a monster in zones and helping out. Julius would be a huge star today and his offense would look even better with more spacing and freedom.

Saying that Paul is more complete player than Julius is not an argument for him being better either. Paul is one of the most complete players ever, but that doesn't make him better than more flawed players like Shaq, Hakeem, Dirk or Kobe.

[mysticOscar]

I jumped on it because the convo was highly relevant to our other conversation. Your post just shows your lack of understanding from posters (or perhaps chose to ignore and instead defaulted to strawmanning) the point that winning and championships are important when assessing atg rankings.

Rapm is good data point, but what's the point in highly relying on it when it's only relevant to players in the past 20 years? Also rapm has it's limitations such as, doesn't take into account the role of players, the systems they run, the different combinations that has not been played, how a player performed in crucial moments in crucial games etc...

Usually the available stats we have is just an indicator of how probable a player is at winning championships.....I'm gonna rank a player higher who shows to have good stats backed up by championships rather than a player who have the stats but have nothing to show for it.

Again not taking championships into consideration misses the end game of the atg players in the league...And that is to win championships

Using championships confuses cause and effect.

Not to drag you [Owly] back in (as I see you've [probably wisely] opted to disengage from this conversation), but I want to comment that the confusing of cause and effect (or what I've elsewhere referred to as "results-oriented thinking") is a major problem in many analytical disciplines (slightly lengthy semi-derail follows, though I promise it loops back to basketball analysis ).

Instances of this can sporadically be seen in scientific research and/or reporting of same. Though I can also speak from my own experiences in another hobby/pastime I used to spend a lot of time in: poker, and poker strategy.

On a poker forum I was quite active on years ago, I recall [more than once] a new poster relating how one time he’d had pocket aces (or kings, or similar) which he [appropriately, btw] played aggressively at the start of the hand, but ultimately lost a large pot (to which he’d contributed a significant amount) after being drawn out on by some weak(ish) speculative hand (e.g. J9-offsuit, or similar). He then hypothesized [based on this result] that one should never play these monster starter hands aggressively at the start [because they can be drawn out on later], and instead declared they should be played tentatively until you see the flop [and maybe the turn] and see if anyone else is betting aggressively.

I recall another time we were analyzing a *hand history presented by another new poster…….

*proper hand-histories should never reveal [or even imply] the opponent’s hand, btw, so as not to bias the opinions of those doing the evaluating; we should only be given the information the opponent had [including info gathered in prior hands played against the opponent, table dynamics, etc] at the time of the decision-point in question.

…..and got down to the river [final] decision where he was facing a single bet (in fixed-limit Hold 'Em) against a single opponent, while holding a somewhat weak made hand. He was getting I think >12:1 pot odds to call (e.g. the pot was something like $2.50, and it was going to cost him just $0.20 to call).
Based on the information we’d gleaned from the poster about his opponent and the way the hand had played out to this point, we established a likely **range for the opponent (**much of poker strat involves continually establishing and revising the range of possible hands your opponents could hold; a range which you then gauge your decisions against), and determined that our hero would have the best hand about a third of the time, and would lose about two-thirds of the time.

He says “this is a standard fold, right?” We all tell him God no! Don’t fold, you’re getting better than 12:1 from the pot. He says, “but I’m going to lose more often than I win. How is that not a fold?” We explain the amount he’s winning the times he’s best is SOOOO much more than the amount lost when he loses (like 12+ times more). But he wasn’t easily convinced.

I tried a simple hypothetical I sometimes use to illustrate the flaw in his thinking: suppose I have a standard 6-sided dice, and if you pay me $1, I’ll let you take a single roll of the dice. If you roll 1-5, you win nothing; game over. But if you roll a 6, I’ll give you $1,000,000. Is this a bad bet? After all, you’re going to lose more often than you win.

Now most [but surprisingly not all] people can understand the hypothetical dice game scenario; I guess because the “pot-size” vs odds of winning is so grotesquely exaggerated that it can hardly be missed. But the EXACT same principle applies to his river decision.

He nonetheless had trouble seeing it. And, of course, colouring his thinking was the fact [which he later revealed] that he did call the bet, and his opponent had one of the hands [which was in our constructed range] that beat our hero. If he’d won, he never would have posted this hand for discussion. Only the result (losing the pot) made him question whether he’d done the right thing (even after it was made clear he had).


We see this exact flaw in basketball analysis. Not just in player comparisons, but even in assessments of single plays. I recall instances on this forum where posters were scouting game footage and they classified the defense of an individual player on an individual play [which was exemplary, btw] as “poor” because the guy he was guarding scored. The actual defense on the play [which again: was exemplary] was not the take-away for them…..it was the result of the play (that the offensive player scored) that decided everything. No doubt if the player had missed the shot, the defensive play would have been graded excellent.

Likewise I’ve seen (just as one example) a Kobe highlight reel showing Kobe blowing by his defender (got him beat by about ¾ of step, and slightly off-balance to boot), giving himself a perfectly open pull-up from about 15 feet (which the defender has no chance of realistically recovering to block or even contest well, and no help until he gets to the restricted area).....or the option of attacking the help in the restricted area hoping to draw a foul.

Kobe does neither.
He picks up the dribble, pauses a split-second to allow his defender to fully recover him, does a head/shoulder fake, does another (the defender bites on neither, and is now chested right up on him), pivots around backwards (as though a spin-move is a legit threat, given he’s already picked up the dribble), pivots back to his original position, head/shoulder fakes one more time, then does a heavily contested two-footed pull-up from a dead-stop [Odom (I think it was) was half-open on the opposite baseline, still at least a few seconds on the shotclock]. The shot goes in, so it’s on a highlight reel and touted as a great play by the mainstream.
It was a horrid shot that even Kobe would miss at least two times out of three, and clearly displays an instance of terrible decision-making. But the play is defined by the outcome, so…...yay, great play.

And in similar fashion, we see individual player performance graded based on the team result. It’s a gigantic hurdle in really any field of analytic thought.


Now all of this is not to say one cannot question Paul’s ability to lead a contender (or, for that matter, to be seriously skeptical about whether or not he belongs in the top 20).
However, I think the first few responders hit upon the main crux of valid CP3 criticism: durability. There has been more than one season where one of the biggest obstacles in front of him as far as leading a contender was durability issues come playoff time. Although to be fair to him, sometimes it wasn’t his own durability [or at least ONLY his own] that was the issue [see: Griffin in ‘13, ‘16]. He shouldn’t be judged based upon Griffin’s durability, but to some degree he will be by some.

Your analogy is not exactly relevant because unlike poker or the simple roll of the dice....the odds are precise and the probability for each hand and the roll of each dice is readily available.

On a side note, how you want to play those probabilities is irrelevant in a long term game since the probability will eventuate....but using these simple probabilities BY itself on short term and not taking other data inputs (i.e. reading your opponents, how much $$ your willing to lose, how much to time u have b4 leaving the table etc) is NOT a good poker strategy since it's simplistic and most can work out the probabilities of a poker hand or a roll of a dice.

However in basketball on the other hand, WE don't have all the information, and all the data we have is just are just some information of what has actually already happened in certain scenarios and we just can't just plug in some model that puts a player in all the different scenarios that the another player were comparing them to in some super computer which then spits out player A is > player B...like we would in your roll of dice scenario where 6 is a $1M prize...which of course rolling the dice > than not rolling the dice.

Stats are just pieces of the puzzle, to claim that some advance stat we have can conclusively say player A is > player B (when player B shows to be also comparable or even better in some other stats and have shown to be part of a successful campaign) is kidding themselves and pretends that somehow we have all of the data points recorded and formulated.

There is nothing wrong for ppl start to evaluate there rankings (especially in top 10-20 tier) in seeing who were the players who were a big part of successful campaigns first and doing there analysis down from that point. In fact that's how most rankings happen in any fields......

From your greatest generals, inventors, scientists etc... we first evaluate the greatest of these fields from there successes first.....

To pretend there success should have no part of the evaluation is kidding themselves

[MyUniBroDavis]

I feel peak wade would have feasted with modern spacing lol

[No-more-rings]

Google sites has '08 Paul at 27th, behind his teammate Peja Stojakovic... Yeah, you guessed it, there weren't 27 players better than Paul that year... and Peja wasn't the best player for the New Orleans Hornets.

It's prior informed data and Paul suffers from it because he doesn't have a lot of mileage to reinforce his impact up to this point, as he only played two seasons which, while he was very good in '06, '07, were clearly well below his the jump he made in 2008.

As you pointed out. We can observe Paul making a significant leap the very next year and is only 0.6 behind Wade at this point.
.

Which is fine for 08, Wade was hurt that year anyway so there's really nothing to compare.

in '11, he's ahead of Wade
.

And i already addressed this which you ignored. A lot of factors outside of how good Wade actually was that year hurt him in RAPM a lot. He was roughly 98% of his previous year self where he was 2nd with a large lead over anyone.

No one actually had Paul ahead of Wade that year as a player. Wade went 4th in the POY voting and Paul 7th. You can go an take Paul because of RAPM but you're really just engaging in some serious revisionist history.

If i'm indeed hanging my hat, i'm doing so on multiple racks... You're hanging it on specifically two years... '09, where Wade was a measly 0.6 points ahead of Paul. And '10 which is one of the worst years of Paul's prime (and he was injured half the season) vs. arguably the best year of Wade... And both of these are prior informed...
.

I'm hanging it on 2 years because outside of 06 those 2 were his best years in RAPM by far. Again, response to your "mountains of data showing Paul better than those years"

This was just to illustrate Paul was a better playoff performer than Wade. We are, in fact, comparing who deserves to be ranked ahead of the other in an all-time ranking, aren't we? I don't know if you are one of them, but a lot of people are siding with Wade do to him 'dominating' the Playoffs en route to winning multiple championships, while Paul is labeled as a Playoff choker.
.

Results are results. We can look at context and try to compare them, but they play 2 completely different styles, Paul's is much more conservative so it's more protective of his stats. I hope that you can at least understand and grasp this as a possibility.

This data clearly dispels this myth. If you wanna argue '06 Wade was a greater Playoff run than anything we've seen from Paul. Fine. I'll allow it. But it's a minuscule difference in any case. I guess you can't stop people from taking one/two series worth of samples sizes where an elite player goes supernova (like Wade last two series in '06) and wins the title... and those two series immortalize him over arguably better but definitely more consistent players with longer primes and better impact over larger samples of size... There's nothing i can do here.
.

There's nothing you an do because Paul doesn't have anything like that on his Resume. His playoff resume is littered with some good-great series along with a lot of ones where he was hurt and missed time or just hurt and played bad. It is what it is.

"The data" doesn't catch all and everything you need to know.

You are putting Wade alongside the greatest, most versatile player of all-time and saying it's natural to expect his impact to suffer. I see this as at least a yellow flag..

Lebron's also seen a really large dip in impact, so yeah redundancy does that.

Granted, i don't expect his on/off to be insane, because those teams were more talented than what he had prior in Miami for obvious reasons. But here's the catch. Chris Paul underwent a similar transition in '18, where he was arguably put in an even tougher position playing with the most ball-dominant guard in NBA history and his impact translated far better than Wade alongside LeBron. In fact, Paul finished #1 in RPM that year, which is insane, in a significantly different role that what he was used to during most of his career..

You kind of keep misusing RPM, RAPM and such though. Paul had a great year, but no one had him as a top 5 player that year, because people look at what his capability/ability was at that point in time and considered the situation. Paul at that stage in his career couldn't be relied on for heavy lifting. He only played 32 mpg and missed 24 games. It says a ton about how bad his durability was.

Wade was at a similar level in 2012, and missed some games but i believe was like 3rd or 4th in PER that year.

This simply tells me Paul's skill and basketball ability is more portable, less volatile and more adaptable, thus putting another father in his cap when compared to Wade.
.

Maybe, but you're underrating Wade in these things considering how good off ball he became in 2012 an 2013 which led to some really dominant results for the Heat including a 27 game win streak.

Ok? In 2007, the Heat went 17-14 without Wade in the RS... Then Lol Deng and Ben Gordon swept them in the 1st round of the Playoffs. Of course the excuse here will be that Wade was coming off an injury, so it doesn't count. But when Chris Paul is playing on one leg no one cares..

His series was comparably bad to Paul's 09, so i guess those 2 wash away?

Also i don't know why you're bringing up 07 compared to Paul's Clippers, i never denied that Wade had a good cast from 05-07, just that Paul's wasn't garbage just because his +/- was great.

In 2013, the Heat were 11-2 without Wade in the RS... Then he proceeded to get carried to a title... You think CP3 could put up 16/4.5/5 on 50%TS over 22 games and win a ring? No..

No, but when Wade was actually needed in 2012 i question if Paul could hold up. There's good reason to question that when he's got hurt time and time again.

You can keep tooting Blake's horn but you know every team CP3 has ever been on has been in trouble as soon as he wasn't playing like one of the best players in the league..

Yeah they were real in trouble when Blake was throwing up 10 assist games and nearly taking a 2-0 lead on the Rockets

Let's see prime Wade's teams do that(not 2013 and on Wade).

LeBron basically resurrected a couple more passable years out of Wade and gave him 2 rings. For all the talk about CP3's body not holding up, Wade would collapse into oblivion if LeBron wasn't there to take on all the responsibilities he did and gave Wade plenty of time to rest between games and taking games off during the RS. .

Ironic considering Paul played 32 mpg and 58 games in 2018 his best chance to win

Only one metric, prior-informed. I've given you several. Again we go into hanging hats. You need more hats or racks to put them on. Also, i don't consider late 00's Paul to be his peak. He was very good, make no mistake, but there's plenty out there suggesting he was even better in '15-'17. And you can put '18 in there, if you value completely dominating to a historical degree as a 2nd fiddle. .

You're missing the main point by that. The only healthy years where Wade and Paul's real primes overlapped was 09(Wade ahead), and 2011(Paul ahead even thought Wade was clearly better anyway).

You can't compare Paul's RAPM from like 2015-2017 to Wade's. The years are too far apart.

So Odom is the GOAT. I guess this settles it because Google RAPM says so.

Ironic considering your whole argument is based on RAPM, +/- etc.

You can read stats, but can you actually analyze a player's game, and their strengths, weaknesses etc?

So you won't acknowledge this as relevant at all? A stat that has a proven track record of relatively accurately parsing out the most dominant individual seasons and players in NBA history, at least in terms of production... Are advanced stats only good when they tell us MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Kareem etc. are some of the best players of all-time... but when it comes to Paul, NOPE, there must be an aberration in the stat. Scratch that. It's one thing if Paul had an abnormally good outlier season, or if he finessed some of the stats like Enes Kanter. But dude has MULTIPLE seasons of some of the best advanced stats in NBA history as the clear-cut best player on his team... This dude isn't even Westbrook stat-padding rebounds and playing torpedo basketball with unprecedented usage. He's out there averaging 16 points and 8 assists per game... But i guess since Paul has many 1st and 2nd round exists, that disqualifies that metric as having relevancy. .

Stats are harder to hold up over an entire playoff run than in smaller samples year by year. Paul's longest playoff run in 2018 when he had to go against 3 different opponents and defenses, put up this.

21.1/5.9/5.8 22.8 PER 56.5 ts% 6.6 BPM

Why do you think that is? Part of it is because he didn't get to ball hog and pound the hell out of the rock and simultaneously protect his efficiency. The slowed things down with the Warriors, and had to play an iso taking turns type offense.

Context sometimes makes numbers.

I took advanced stats, RAPM from multiple sources, ESPN RPM, BBall ref +/- etc..

You know those all attempt to measure slightly different versions of the same thing right?

They all attempt to measure your value in your specific role. It's not a holy grail to measure who's better at basketball.

06 - Supernova for 2 series, Dallas chokes the Finals. .

He also cooked the 4th ranked Nets defense. He played 3 of the top 7 defenses and 4 of the top 11 and none were able to stop him and for the large majority not even slow him down.

Does Paul have this on his resume? No. You can come up with a million excuses as to why but it doesn't change the facts.

11 - Let's be honest. Man got saved by LeBron and Bosh against the Bulls. Absolutely atrocious performance that CP3 would be burried alive if he performed like that.


Like i said multiple times in this thread. Paul simply couldn't afford to have these types of series. His teams were absolutely demolished if he did. Wade could afford to go 19 ppg on 50%TS with twice as many turnovers as assists and still advanced against an elite team. Under normal circumstances, that is, not playing with the GOAT, he would've been eliminated right here and wouldn't have the opportunity to do what he did vs. Dallas and this would've been seen as a flop season for Wade. But since LeBron was there, the tables and narrative completely turns from one series to another. This is why i don't like small sample sizes from the Playoffs. If a few bounces go differently, Wade is seen as a flop in 2011 and LeBron as the best player. But now the narrative is LeBron choked in the Finals while Wade was brilliant.

Weird to ignore that..

a) He roasted a -7 defense in the Celtics in the prior round to help get to that point

b)The Bulls played like a -8.5 defense in the Heat series

c) Wade was a big part of their D that played like a -7.6 defense in the Bulls series

It wasn't a good offensive series from Wade, but hey at least he played, Paul would've probably pulled a hamstring and missed the series in game 2

12 - Hurt in the Playoffs. CP3 would've been eliminated in his shoes. But LeBron + Bosh + weaker conference = ring

Bosh missed a lot of the playoffs. Were you watching or were you too worried about what Paul was doing?

Without Bosh they were undersized against Indiana and the Celtics. Wade also received a ton of defensive attention agaisnt Boston which helped free Lebron up.

CP3 > Wade

I rest my case.

I can rest my case too, it doesn't mean either of us are right

[SerialChiller]

Was he good enough to be there? Yes...but career and success whise no. His heath wouldnt allow it and he never broke through and proved he could win.

[SerialChiller]

And how was Wade brought into this...anyone who thinks Paul was on that level is a fool. Wade is what Paul would be if he actually found success and managed to win...only even better. Different tier of player there. He had worse health issues but still got it done.

[Jaqua92]

[Edit

[Jaqua92]

Don't think you should fault the second one. That was really a humiliating poll to start with. Really, you think CP3's those years and MJ's peak years should be compared?

The thread was created because the OP didn't understand how people view CP3 as a top-20 level talent.

It's one thing to disagree with someone but when the best, most constructive posts in a thread about CP3 are in support of him and how he "could" be viewed as a top 20 player, making a thread like that is just childish.

But hey, I get it. Some of us have our heads so far up our own asses that anything that goes against our own belief system is inherently wrong and stupid. Instead of taking in what someone like Bad Gatorade says our pre-puberty selves take over and we make a thread comparing Paul to Jordan.

Moderator Trex_8063..

This is okay? Passive aggressively insulting me, and stating I have my head up my ass because of a post? Childish. I may drop off some opinionated posts, but I hardly ever engage in any back and forths with responses to them, and I NEVER insult people like this.

Edit, I see you did warn him for that. Thanks. Reported.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[iggymcfrack]

And how was Wade brought into this...anyone who thinks Paul was on that level is a fool. Wade is what Paul would be if he actually found success and managed to win...only even better. Different tier of player there. He had worse health issues but still got it done.

Paul’s a much better passer, a much better defender, and not that far behind as a scorer. His skill puts him ahead of Wade even if Wade (who was less durable overall) had one magic run in 2006 here everything clicked into place.

[70sFan]

And how was Wade brought into this...anyone who thinks Paul was on that level is a fool. Wade is what Paul would be if he actually found success and managed to win...only even better. Different tier of player there. He had worse health issues but still got it done.

Paul’s a much better passer, a much better defender, and not that far behind as a scorer. His skill puts him ahead of Wade even if Wade (who was less durable overall) had one magic run in 2006 here everything clicked into place.

Much better defender? Come on, based on what?

[iggymcfrack]

And how was Wade brought into this...anyone who thinks Paul was on that level is a fool. Wade is what Paul would be if he actually found success and managed to win...only even better. Different tier of player there. He had worse health issues but still got it done.

Paul’s a much better passer, a much better defender, and not that far behind as a scorer. His skill puts him ahead of Wade even if Wade (who was less durable overall) had one magic run in 2006 here everything clicked into place.

Much better defender? Come on, based on what?

DRAPM and DRPM. Paul grades out as a major impact defender in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Wade only really looks like an impact defender in 2006.

Wade probably had a little more ability to step his game up when it really mattered and he certainly was a very good defender. But Paul’s probably a top 3 all-time defensive point guard. Just a clear level above IMO.

[70sFan]

Paul’s a much better passer, a much better defender, and not that far behind as a scorer. His skill puts him ahead of Wade even if Wade (who was less durable overall) had one magic run in 2006 here everything clicked into place.

Much better defender? Come on, based on what?

DRAPM and DRPM. Paul grades out as a major impact defender in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Wade only really looks like an impact defender in 2006.

Wade probably had a little more ability to step his game up when it really mattered and he certainly was a very good defender. But Paul’s probably a top 3 all-time defensive point guard. Just a clear level above IMO.

DRAPM is just a one stat that is highly dependable on a team you play in. You can't just compare this stat and conlcude that one player is clearly better than the other one.

It's debatable whether Paul is top 3 PG defender ever and even if he is, that doesn't make him better than elite defenders from other positions.

[Colbinii]

Don't think you should fault the second one. That was really a humiliating poll to start with. Really, you think CP3's those years and MJ's peak years should be compared?

The thread was created because the OP didn't understand how people view CP3 as a top-20 level talent.

It's one thing to disagree with someone but when the best, most constructive posts in a thread about CP3 are in support of him and how he "could" be viewed as a top 20 player, making a thread like that is just childish.

But hey, I get it. Some of us have our heads so far up our own asses that anything that goes against our own belief system is inherently wrong and stupid. Instead of taking in what someone like Bad Gatorade says our pre-puberty selves take over and we make a thread comparing Paul to Jordan.

Moderator Trex_8063..

This is okay? Passive aggressively insulting me, and stating I have my head up my ass because of a post? Childish. I may drop off some opinionated posts, but I hardly ever engage in any back and forths with responses to them, and I NEVER insult people like this.

Edit, I see you did warn him for that. Thanks. Reported.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'm sorry you grouped yourself into the group I was talking about. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, rather the idea that one engages in discussion with another and acts as if they care about others opinions while instead only caring about other people supporting and agreeing with their inherently flawed ideas.

Perhaps you should apply to be a moderator yourself if you insist on publicly moderating this forum.

[JordansBulls]

I guess it would depend on who you put him ahead. Is it in front of Kevin Garnett, Dirk, Barkley, Malone, Payton, Stockton, Isiah, Mchale, Pippen, Wade, etc.

[iggymcfrack]

I guess it would depend on who you put him ahead. Is it in front of Kevin Garnett, Dirk, Barkley, Malone, Payton, Stockton, Isiah, Mchale, Pippen, Wade, etc.

KG > CP3
CP3 > Dirk
CP3 > Wade
CP3 > Barkley
CP3 > Malone
CP3 > Stockton
CP3 >> Pippen
CP3 >>>> Payton
CP3 >>>> McHale
CP3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isiah

[TheGOATRises007]

I don't see CP3's argument over Wade.

It's hard to ignore CP3's failures/injuries in the playoffs.

[Jaqua92]

The thread was created because the OP didn't understand how people view CP3 as a top-20 level talent.

It's one thing to disagree with someone but when the best, most constructive posts in a thread about CP3 are in support of him and how he "could" be viewed as a top 20 player, making a thread like that is just childish.

But hey, I get it. Some of us have our heads so far up our own asses that anything that goes against our own belief system is inherently wrong and stupid. Instead of taking in what someone like Bad Gatorade says our pre-puberty selves take over and we make a thread comparing Paul to Jordan.

Moderator Trex_8063..

This is okay? Passive aggressively insulting me, and stating I have my head up my ass because of a post? Childish. I may drop off some opinionated posts, but I hardly ever engage in any back and forths with responses to them, and I NEVER insult people like this.

Edit, I see you did warn him for that. Thanks. Reported.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'm sorry you grouped yourself into the group I was talking about. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, rather the idea that one engages in discussion with another and acts as if they care about others opinions while instead only caring about other people supporting and agreeing with their inherently flawed ideas.

Perhaps you should apply to be a moderator yourself if you insist on publicly moderating this forum.

Right. I understand that 1, You claim I missunderstood your post. That's fair. But don't believe you, and think you are back tracking. 2. Asking a moderator to follow through on a discussion he was engaged with is not attempting to moderating the forum, it's asking a moderator to do so. If you choose to believe it is me moderating the forum, that's fine.

Nonetheless, I still reported you and I am blocking you too. Take care Colbinii, I won't miss this nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk