If CP3 upsets Houston in the 1st round, he would redeem his playoff legacy

[STATUTORY]

not a CP3 fan at all, but to upset the team that exiled him to no man's land in the playoffs? would finally make up for the denver playoff loss years ago imo

[DMAVS41]

He's already one of the 30 or so best players ever. I don't see how he moves up much winning a first round series he was probably 40% to win given the circumstances.

[RRR3]

He's already one of the 30 or so best players ever. I don't see how he moves up much winning a first round series he was probably 40% to win given the circumstances.
He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.

[aj1987]

He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.

Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.

[RRR3]

Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.
:roll:

Meme worthy. I’m aware of how good Kawhi is before you freak out but people like he, Harden and Giannis are lower due to longevity.

[aj1987]

:roll:

Meme worthy. I’m aware of how good Kawhi is before you freak out but people like he, Harden and Giannis are lower due to longevity.

Isiah - 2x Champ and 1x FMVP. He's universally considered to be a greater player than CP3.

As for the arguably list:

Kawhi - 2x Champ, 2x FMVP, and 2x DPOY. Dude just flat out shits on CP3 as a player. He's on course to winning his 3rd ring and 3rd FMVP.

Harden - I really don't understand why you're laughing about this, but Harden is an MVP and as for his PO chokes, CP3 is an equally big choker.

The rest are self explanatory. We're talking about greater careers. Not who the better player is.

CP3 made it to the conference finals ONE time in his career. Once. Let that sink in. Pretty much all the other top 25 GOAT's have had ridiculously good postseason runs. Most of them have an MVP or an FMVP as well. CP3 has neither.

Yeah, CP3 is not top 20. Not even close. Him being top 20 is meme worthy.

[DMAVS41]

He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.

I don't care to debate this. I personally think he's around 30. Which is not a knock at all.

He's under-rated by those that say he's garbage because he never had any playoff success as the best player on his teams...and he's over-rated by those that say he has no weaknesses and is for sure top 20 ever. Again, just my opinion though.

Either way...his legacy isn't changing winning a round 1 series in which his team is a slight dog.

[Gohan]

Isiah - 2x Champ and 1x FMVP. He's universally considered to be a greater player than CP3.

As for the arguably list:

Kawhi - 2x Champ, 2x FMVP, and 2x DPOY. Dude just flat out shits on CP3 as a player. He's on course to winning his 3rd ring and 3rd FMVP.

Harden - I really don't understand why you're laughing about this, but Harden is an MVP and as for his PO chokes, CP3 is an equally big choker.

The rest are self explanatory. We're talking about greater careers. Not who the better player is.

CP3 made it to the conference finals ONE time in his career. Once. Let that sink in. Pretty much all the other top 25 GOAT's have had ridiculously good postseason runs. Most of them have an MVP or an FMVP as well. CP3 has neither.

Yeah, CP3 is not top 20. Not even close. Him being top 20 is meme worthy.

Lmao at taking cp3 over drob or iverson. Just lol

[Whoah10115]

RRR3 isn't merely confident but finds the Isiah thing hysterical, which he himself can't really answer for with any real understanding. Hell, I could agree with his pick by the end of it, but laughing at it makes no sense.

Obviously Kawhi and especially Giannis have no business in the discussion. Nothing to see there.

Patrick Ewing and David Robinson tho? Shit, I'd take Robinson ahead of every center of last 35 years apart from Hakeem. And I just don't care.

[RRR3]

Isiah - 2x Champ and 1x FMVP. He's universally considered to be a greater player than CP3.

As for the arguably list:

Kawhi - 2x Champ, 2x FMVP, and 2x DPOY. Dude just flat out shits on CP3 as a player. He's on course to winning his 3rd ring and 3rd FMVP.

Harden - I really don't understand why you're laughing about this, but Harden is an MVP and as for his PO chokes, CP3 is an equally big choker.

The rest are self explanatory. We're talking about greater careers. Not who the better player is.

CP3 made it to the conference finals ONE time in his career. Once. Let that sink in. Pretty much all the other top 25 GOAT's have had ridiculously good postseason runs. Most of them have an MVP or an FMVP as well. CP3 has neither.

Yeah, CP3 is not top 20. Not even close. Him being top 20 is meme worthy.
Regular season

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 27.5/6.7/14.1/3.3/0.2, 122 ORTG, 58.2 TS%, 7.6 BPM

Zeke: 25.7/4.7/12.4/2.5/0.3, 106 ORTG, 5.16 TS%, 2.6 BPM


Playoffs

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 29.1/7.2/11.4/3.0/0.3, 118 ORTG, 58.0 TS%, 7.4 BPM

Zeke: 27.6/6.4/12.1/2.9/0.5, 110 ORTG, 52.0 TS%, 6.0 BPM



All defensive teams: CP3 9, Zeke 0

All-NBA teams: CP3 8 (will be 9 after the teams come out this year), Zeke 5

Top 5 MVP finishes: CP3 4 (including 2nd to peak Kobe in 08), Zeke 1 (and he was 5th)

CP3 was literally about to beat the most stacked team of all time and win a ring in 2018 I can’t believe people still doubt him after that. The only reason he doesn’t have a ring is because he got hurt.

[STATUTORY]

He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.

:biggums::biggums:

RRR3 shock posting for attention :facepalm

[RRR3]

RRR3 isn't merely confident but finds the Isiah thing hysterical, which he himself can't really answer for with any real understanding. Hell, I could agree with his pick by the end of it, but laughing at it makes no sense.

Obviously Kawhi and especially Giannis have no business in the discussion. Nothing to see there.

Patrick Ewing and David Robinson tho? Shit, I'd take Robinson ahead of every center of last 35 years apart from Hakeem. And I just don't care.
Everyone sane finds the Isiah thing hysterical. I do rank David Robinson over CP3, so weird stance. Maybe Ewing would have a case over CP3 if he didn’t shoot like Dion Waiters in the playoffs, but he did so...

[Kblaze8855]

Everyone sane finds the Isiah thing hysterical.


Not any of the people with an opinion worth asking about(as in...people who remember him well).

Any opinion held exclusively by people without much information isn’t to be taken serious. Even if they found Paul better nobody worth asking would find the comparison hilarious.

[Kblaze8855]

And a 4/5 matchup between teams with the same record in a no home court setting is a legacy saving upset?

[DMAVS41]

And a 4/5 matchup between teams with the same record in a no home court setting is a legacy saving upset?

Yep.

With that small detail of Russ missing 4 of the games and clearly not fully back as well. This is not a legacy building/saving series at all for anyone ever.

[DMAVS41]

Not any of the people with an opinion worth asking about(as in...people who remember him well).

Any opinion held exclusively by people without much information isn’t to be taken serious. Even if they found Paul better nobody worth asking would find the comparison hilarious.

:applause:

[LAL]

Always had highest regard for CP3, he has no weaknesses as a pg, SO good. Only blake and deandre's egos were complaining about ball hogging, they were wrong. Rockets bad fit but did very well.

[SouBeachTalents]

He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.
It's all subjective, but I bet most people wouldn't have CP3 top 20. Even Wade is usually left out of the top 20

[RRR3]

Regular season

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 27.5/6.7/14.1/3.3/0.2, 122 ORTG, 58.2 TS%, 7.6 BPM

Zeke: 25.7/4.7/12.4/2.5/0.3, 106 ORTG, 5.16 TS%, 2.6 BPM


Playoffs

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 29.1/7.2/11.4/3.0/0.3, 118 ORTG, 58.0 TS%, 7.4 BPM

Zeke: 27.6/6.4/12.1/2.9/0.5, 110 ORTG, 52.0 TS%, 6.0 BPM



All defensive teams: CP3 9, Zeke 0

All-NBA teams: CP3 8 (will be 9 after the teams come out this year), Zeke 5

Top 5 MVP finishes: CP3 4 (including 2nd to peak Kobe in 08), Zeke 1 (and he was 5th)

CP3 was literally about to beat the most stacked team of all time and win a ring in 2018 I can’t believe people still doubt him after that. The only reason he doesn’t have a ring is because he got hurt.
:roll:

[Penetrator]

I don't think winning a first round series washes 15 years of failures and chokes. Yeah some were from injury and some weren't his fault, end of the day his resume isn't close to the other guys in the top50. I have him hovering around the 50 mark.

Anyone who has cp0 over Isaiah Thomas is a legit moron or just trolling for attention. The guy is a 2 time champion and Paul has never even made the finals..

[RRR3]

Cashew displaying his famous 55 IQ

[Penetrator]

Cashew displaying his famous 55 IQ

^ The sloth just craving attention..

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I rank players with the best combination of resume and impact. Not one or the other.

Paul doesn't have the championships, but I think he's in that Zeke caliber/tier. CP had his playoff chokes too although his overall playoff numbers speak for themself. As does his longevity.

Don't know where I would put him exactly, but anywhere in the 20's is fair. Not Top 20, but in that 21-29 range.

[tpols]

Yea it is a joke to compare Isaiah Thomas playoff numbers to Chris Paul's when CP3 has only gone deep in the playoffs one time in his whole career when IT has led championship teams. With that context its not an apples to apples comparison. Add in Paul will sit out of elimination games with a bitch injury while Thomas would hop around on one leg if he had to.

[RRR3]

Yea it is a joke to compare Isaiah Thomas playoff numbers to Chris Paul's when CP3 has only gone deep in the playoffs one time in his whole career when IT has led championship teams. With that context its not an apples to apples comparison. Add in Paul will sit out of elimination games with a bitch injury while Thomas would hop around on one leg if he had to.
Suddenly ORTG doesn’t matter. No consistency :roll:

[StrongLurk]

So the fact that Westbrook missed the first 5 games of this series doesn't matter? Come on man...

Chris Paul does have a weird playoff career with a lot of injuries to himself or key teammates (Blake Griffin seemingly every other year). I have CP in my top 50 regardless.

[tpols]

Suddenly ORTG doesn’t matter. No consistency :roll:

it matters but you also have to account for volume, and the context that Chris Paul didn't get his numbers in deep runs. Even a guy like Reggie Miller used to consistently go way deeper than CP3. To assert that a comparison between him and thomas is laughable is a joke which is why everybody is clowning you here. Chris Paul has nowhere near a top 20 resume., and I like the guy's game.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.

Cp3 > Pippen, Hondo, and Isiah

[RRR3]

it matters but you also have to account for volume, and the context that Chris Paul didn't get his numbers in deep runs. Even a guy like Reggie Miller used to consistently go way deeper than CP3. To assert that a comparison between him and thomas is laughable is a joke which is why everybody is clowning you here. Chris Paul has nowhere near a top 20 resume., and I like the guy's game.
Isiah isn’t going any deeper in the same situation. What was he better than Paul at? Seriously. Paul does everything better outside of maybe passing.

[RRR3]

Cp3 > Pippen, Hondo, and Isiah
And certainly over the likes of Iverson, Mikan and Cousy. Good god.

[dankok8]

CP3 is not a top 30 player all time but is definitely top 50.

[hold this L]

No it wouldn't. But it would certainly improve his image in the playoffs of always being a loser. Keep in mind he needed to join Harden to make the WCF, and he definitely isn't doing that again (Lakers would sweep OKC).

He’s top 20. You can’t name 30 greater players without a few names starting to get meme worthy.

Absolutely one of the most idiotic things ever said on ISH. I would understand if Hammy said because he's a huge stan of the player, but this is just objectively stupid.

CP3 is not a top 30 player all time but is definitely top 50.
A much more accurate ranking of him.

[NBAGOAT]

Cp3 is top 30. Actually go through the all time greats and you realize the names aren’t that strong in that range. For one yes I’m taking Paul over pippen.

[RRR3]

Cp3 is top 30. Actually go through the all time greats and you realize the names aren’t that strong in that range. For one yes I’m taking Paul over pippen.
Most underrated player of all time and this thread is just further proof.

[NBAGOAT]

Most underrated player of all time and this thread is just further proof.

i think backpicks overrates him a bit but he's 21 on his list(all statistical backing). Also didnt give him a lot of credit for 2016 because he missed the last 2 playoff games. I can agree with docking him a bit but he had it as a sub all star season when he was all-nba lvl during the rs

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Most underrated player of all time and this thread is just further proof.

Yeah the 'not top 30, but top 50' stuff is funny. Like no shit Chris Paul is Top 50.

I think ranking him with or over Zeke is cool, and overall the 21-29 range is fair. What about you?

[rawimpact]

How the hell can CP3 be a top 30 player of all time when hes never been to the finals let alone win one?

Most of the players in the top30 have either MVPs, Rings, top 10 in points, assists, rebounds, steals or a combination of any or some of the above.

[STATUTORY]

How the hell can CP3 be a top 30 player of all time when hes never been to the finals let alone win one?

Most of the players in the top30 have either MVPs, Rings, top 10 in points, assists, rebounds, steals or a combination of any or some of the above.

modern basketball fans worship and fetishize stats

they don't actually like the game, they just enjoy looking at numbers

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Not really. His legacy is not advancing past 2nd round and also not staying healthy. I don't think a 1st round matchup would really change that. It is a nice F you to Harden/Rockets for trading him though.

[NBAGOAT]

How the hell can CP3 be a top 30 player of all time when hes never been to the finals let alone win one?

Most of the players in the top30 have either MVPs, Rings, top 10 in points, assists, rebounds, steals or a combination of any or some of the above.

there are guys in the top 15 who havent won rings. and he can easily be top 5 in assists and top 10 in steals by the end of his career

[DMAVS41]

How the hell can CP3 be a top 30 player of all time when hes never been to the finals let alone win one?

Most of the players in the top30 have either MVPs, Rings, top 10 in points, assists, rebounds, steals or a combination of any or some of the above.

I think that is fair, kind of...

However, are we really going to pretend that KG wasn't an all-time great player while he was wasting his career in Minnesota?

I mean...team success of course matters, but the context and circumstances matter as well. And, of course, just making the finals on a loaded team doesn't make you better. Durant team hopping to the Warriors and winning does not make him a better player.

You can't just completely write off a player because they haven't done "X" without at least looking at the context. With Paul, I do think it is fair to note his playoff history and injuries...but then again...he's really ****ing good at basketball and just because some guys played with Jordan or something...doesn't for sure make them better.

[RRR3]

Yeah the 'not top 30, but top 50' stuff is funny. Like no shit Chris Paul is Top 50.

I think ranking him with or over Zeke is cool, and overall the 21-29 range is fair. What about you?
I have him around 20. I think only the following players are definitively over him

MJ
LeBron
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Duncan
Bird
Russell
Kobe
Curry
Oscar
Jerry West
Durant
David Robinson
KG



So I could rank him as high as 18th (not saying he is though). But then guys like Barkley, both Malones, Dr. J, Dirk, Wade, Pippen, Steve Nash, and Havlicek could all be ranked over him as well so he could be as low as 27th I guess. Fully expect to be attacked for this but that’s mostly because people don’t realize how long CP3 has been elite for. I also give him a lot of credit for 2018. He was about to win a ring IMO

[DMAVS41]

I have him around 20. I think only the following players are definitively over him

MJ
LeBron
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Duncan
Bird
Russell
Kobe
Curry
Oscar
Jerry West
Durant
David Robinson
KG



So I could rank him as high as 18th (not saying he is though). But then guys like Barkley, both Malones, Dr. J, Dirk, Wade, Pippen, Steve Nash, and Havlicek could all be ranked over him as well so he could be as low as 27th I guess. Fully expect to be attacked for this but that’s mostly because people don’t realize how long CP3 has been elite for. I also give him a lot of credit for 2018. He was about to win a ring IMO

I don't think it is the dumbest thing ever, but I do think ranking him that high discounts how great some of those other guys were at their best, the kind of poor teammate Paul was at times (perhaps often), his playoff meltdowns, his injuries, and then just what the ceiling of the team is with Paul as the clear cut best player.

I agree they were close in 18, but he was the 2nd best player on that team and sadly his inability to stay healthy cost his team again.

I think the 30 range makes more sense than 20 given all that, but I certainly don't think it is the craziest thing ever...I just disagree.

[SouBeachTalents]

I don't think it is the dumbest thing ever, but I do think ranking him that high discounts how great some of those other guys were at their best, the kind of poor teammate Paul was at times (perhaps often), his playoff meltdowns, his injuries, and then just what the ceiling of the team is with Paul as the clear cut best player.

I agree they were close in 18, but he was the 2nd best player on that team and sadly his inability to stay healthy cost his team again.

I think the 30 range makes more sense than 20 given all that, but I certainly don't think it is the craziest thing ever...I just disagree.
I have CP3 top 30, but top 20 is a really big stretch imo. Would anyone really pick CP3 at his peak over KG, Dirk, Barkley, Robinson, Durant, Curry, Wade etc., or even definitively say he had the beter career? As I said before Wade is typically left outside the top 20, and I would rank him over CP3 even with the shorter longevity

[DMAVS41]

I have CP3 top 30, but top 20 is a really big stretch imo. Would anyone really pick CP3 at his peak over KG, Dirk, Barkley, Robinson, Durant, Curry, Wade etc., or even definitively say he had the beter career? As I said before Wade is typically left outside the top 20, and I would rank him over CP3 even with the shorter longevity

No, I don't think they would.

I like to do my all-time rankings answering the question of; Knowing how good a player was combined with how they performed in the circumstances they had...where would I draft them if we held a draft of all players ever.

I can't imagine someone watched Paul's career and thinks he's going to get your franchise more titles than guys like Dirk/Curry/Wade, for example.

But everyone has different approaches to rankings.

[NBAGOAT]

I have CP3 top 30, but top 20 is a really big stretch imo. Would anyone really pick CP3 at his peak over KG, Dirk, Barkley, Robinson, Durant, Curry, Wade etc., or even definitively say he had the beter career? As I said before Wade is typically left outside the top 20, and I would rank him over CP3 even with the shorter longevity

yea i think top 20 is a bit of a stretch to and the guys you listed besides wade are typically top 20. wouldnt pick his peak over any of the guys you listed but dont think his peak is as far off from dirk, durant, wade as others. not as high as 08 paul as others but that version for most was competing with peak kobe and prime dirk/nash. he was right behind prime durant from like 12-14 in most rankings.

[Doranku]

Can anyone explain to me why Oscar Robertson ranks so high without mentioning he averaged a triple double?

[tpols]

There's never been a top 20 player of all time that got a "legacy boost" for getting out of the first round, much less with a 5 seed in a coin flip series.

[NBAGOAT]

Can anyone explain to me while Oscar Robertson ranks so high without mentioning he averaged a triple double?

top 5 player for over a decade. the most efficient scorer in the league after wilt. meaningful 2nd option for one of the goat teams relative to era(70 bucks)

[Doranku]

top 5 player for over a decade. the most efficient scorer in the league after wilt. meaningful 2nd option for one of the goat teams relative to era(70 bucks)

That is the resume of a top ~12 player of all-time?

[NBAGOAT]

That is the resume of a top ~12 player of all-time?

i mean after the top 11 the resumes arent that impressive. you're going put west or the pf group after duncan or drob over him clearly?

[Doranku]

i mean after the top 11 the resumes arent that impressive. you're going put west or the pf group after duncan or drob over him clearly?

I would probably put all the PFs (Chuck, Karl, Dirk, KG), DRob, Dr. J and eventually Steph and KD ahead of him.

[NBAGOAT]

I would probably put all the PFs (Chuck, Karl, Dirk, KG), DRob, Dr. J and eventually Steph and KD ahead of him.

steph and kd for sure eventually. the pfs have combined 2 rings and the first 3 dont have remarkable peaks. I'm only thinking kg is clear choice over oscar since his peak is so good.

[SouBeachTalents]

I would probably put all the PFs (Chuck, Karl, Dirk, KG), DRob, Dr. J and eventually Steph and KD ahead of him.
This is probably the best write up & analysis you're gonna find about Oscar

https://backpicks.com/2017/12/21/backpicks-goat-12-oscar-robertson/

[RRR3]

There's never been a top 20 player of all time that got a "legacy boost" for getting out of the first round, much less with a 5 seed in a coin flip series.
Nothing will convince you idiots to boost CP3’s legacy anyways.

[Doranku]

This is probably the best write up & analysis you're gonna find about Oscar

https://backpicks.com/2017/12/21/backpicks-goat-12-oscar-robertson/

That was actually a really good read, thanks for the link. It's hard to rank guys from that era with such limited game footage out there. Lots of context provided in that article though which helps a lot.

[RRR3]

That was actually a really good read, thanks for the link. It's hard to rank guys from that era with such limited game footage out there. Lots of context provided in that article though which helps a lot.
Yeah it’s a fun site. I don’t agree with his rankings at all but I love his write ups. What I find crazy about Oscar is that he was able to have modern efficiency for a perimeter star despite playing without a 3pt line and in a highly inefficient league. He had a TS of 58.8% in 1963, which was unprecedented for a perimeter scorer back then.

[Proctor]

There's never been a top 20 player of all time that got a "legacy boost" for getting out of the first round, much less with a 5 seed in a coin flip series.
Exactly.

Sure, he plays great in big games (when he's healthy enough to play in them), sure he's a great leader, but let's stop with the hyperbole about his all time ranking.

Not to mention that garbage about him "almost" winning a ring in 2018. So what? By that logic, Kawhi almost won a ring before he got taken out by Zaza...so he gets credit for 2 Spurs rings and a Raptors ring?

[RRR3]

Exactly.

Sure, he plays great in big games (when he's healthy enough to play in them), sure he's a great leader, but let's stop with the hyperbole about his all time ranking.

Not to mention that garbage about him "almost" winning a ring in 2018. So what? By that logic, Kawhi almost won a ring before he got taken out by Zaza...so he gets credit for 2 Spurs rings and a Raptors ring?
There’s a big difference between being up for a few quarters in game 1 versus being up 3-2. Spurs weren’t winning that series no matter what you tell yourself.

[Proctor]

There’s a big difference between being up for a few quarters in game 1 versus being up 3-2. Spurs weren’t winning that series no matter what you tell yourself.
Being up by 25(?) something like that, and losing big in the end. That Kawhi impact. Time to give him a legacy boost.

There is no conceivable way to have CP3 knocking on the door of the Top 20 let alone in it. To claim that would be dishonest about what Paul has done and to be revisionist about who you're putting him over.

[tpols]

Exactly.

Sure, he plays great in big games (when he's healthy enough to play in them), sure he's a great leader, but let's stop with the hyperbole about his all time ranking.

Not to mention that garbage about him "almost" winning a ring in 2018. So what? By that logic, Kawhi almost won a ring before he got taken out by Zaza...so he gets credit for 2 Spurs rings and a Raptors ring?

Yup...

And to make matters worse, Isiah Thomas played with worse inury than CP3 has ever had.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzgNoqHib78

This guy gets a minor hammy injury and sits out championship elimination games.

Meanwhile, IT was literally hopping around on one leg breaking quarter scoring records.

You can't quanitfy heart in numbers. Context needs to be applied.

[aj1987]

Regular season

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 27.5/6.7/14.1/3.3/0.2, 122 ORTG, 58.2 TS%, 7.6 BPM

Zeke: 25.7/4.7/12.4/2.5/0.3, 106 ORTG, 5.16 TS%, 2.6 BPM


Playoffs

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 29.1/7.2/11.4/3.0/0.3, 118 ORTG, 58.0 TS%, 7.4 BPM

Zeke: 27.6/6.4/12.1/2.9/0.5, 110 ORTG, 52.0 TS%, 6.0 BPM



All defensive teams: CP3 9, Zeke 0

All-NBA teams: CP3 8 (will be 9 after the teams come out this year), Zeke 5

Top 5 MVP finishes: CP3 4 (including 2nd to peak Kobe in 08), Zeke 1 (and he was 5th)

CP3 was literally about to beat the most stacked team of all time and win a ring in 2018 I can’t believe people still doubt him after that. The only reason he doesn’t have a ring is because he got hurt.

How many FMVP's does CP3 have?

Sure, CP3 has a CHANCE to beat the GOAT team, but guess who Isiah used to murk in the postseason? The GOAT.

[Smoke117]

How many FMVP's does CP3 have?

Sure, CP3 has a CHANCE to beat the GOAT team, but guess who Isiah used to murk in the postseason? The GOAT.

lol Pistons are one of the deepest NBA championship teams in NBA history. Pistons beating a Bulls team with Jordan and nobody else till 90 means absolutely nothing.

[dankok8]

There's no way I can put CP3 over Isiah Thomas. Paul had very good casts with the Clippers and couldn't lead them past the 2nd round ever. And all the times he got injured should be held against him. If a player is always injured he ends up in tier below that if he was more reliable. Is Paul at his absolute best one of the 30 best players ever? I mean yea maybe but he didn't do enough to justify that ranking on the all-time list where accomplishments matter. At the end of the day he made it past Round 2 once in his career and as a 2nd option on his team.

I think better than a general all-time list is an all-time list by position. At the PG position, I would definitely take Magic, Oscar, Curry, and Isiah over Paul plus there is a whole bunch of guys who are arguable including Cousy, Nash, Kidd, Iverson, Tiny etc. He could be #5 PG or as low as #10. I think top 10 PG ever and top 50 player ever is a safe ranking. Higher than that is iffy.

[light]

It would be cool but I dont think it will happen.

Ultimately you have to believe that the top end talent imbalance is going to tip the scales in Houston's favor.

[ImKobe]

not a CP3 fan at all, but to upset the team that exiled him to no man's land in the playoffs? would finally make up for the denver playoff loss years ago imo

Nah. Beating the Rockets with WB out in the first 4/playing hurt the last 3 games isn't some great feat. His best 1st round series is the 2015 one against the defending champion Spurs, where he scores on Duncan at the end of Game 7, that's probably his most iconic moment.

If he wants to redeem his Playoff legacy, he has to beat the Lakers in the WCSF. He doesn't have a huge upset to his name, he's known for losing/choking as the favorite. I don't think the Rockets were some huge favorites going into this series with Russ out, most of us had it going 7 games tbh.

[yobore]

Nah. Beating the Rockets with WB out in the first 4/playing hurt the last 3 games isn't some great feat. His best 1st round series is the 2015 one against the defending champion Spurs, where he scores on Duncan at the end of Game 7, that's probably his most iconic moment.

If he wants to redeem his Playoff legacy, he has to beat the Lakers in the WCSF. He doesn't have a huge upset to his name, he's known for losing/choking as the favorite. I don't think the Rockets were some huge favorites going into this series with Russ out, most of us had it going 7 games tbh.

No way, that might be his most iconic moment, Paul's best series was unquestionably his first one. He was completely unguardable in that Mavs series and at the time it looked like that was what his career was going to be like but then he was gimpy the next postseason from carrying an awful team and then the knee injury/surgery in his 5th season forced him to play like a wily old man the rest of his career.

[hold this L]

Regular season

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 27.5/6.7/14.1/3.3/0.2, 122 ORTG, 58.2 TS%, 7.6 BPM

Zeke: 25.7/4.7/12.4/2.5/0.3, 106 ORTG, 5.16 TS%, 2.6 BPM


Playoffs

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 29.1/7.2/11.4/3.0/0.3, 118 ORTG, 58.0 TS%, 7.4 BPM

Zeke: 27.6/6.4/12.1/2.9/0.5, 110 ORTG, 52.0 TS%, 6.0 BPM



All defensive teams: CP3 9, Zeke 0

All-NBA teams: CP3 8 (will be 9 after the teams come out this year), Zeke 5

Top 5 MVP finishes: CP3 4 (including 2nd to peak Kobe in 08), Zeke 1 (and he was 5th)

CP3 was literally about to beat the most stacked team of all time and win a ring in 2018 I can’t believe people still doubt him after that. The only reason he doesn’t have a ring is because he got hurt.

He was about to LOL. Who gives a **** about almost beating them, that means nothing. KD went out, making the Warriors weaker and that ****ing fraud along with Harden still couldn't beat them. The guy is a perennial loser, no matter how much ass kissing he gets by the stat nerds.


Imagine using an argument of "a player almost beat this team" trying to big them. How absolutely idiotic and demeaning it sounds. It's absolutely insulting to Zeke to be compared to chokeP3.

[hold this L]

There's never been a top 20 player of all time that got a "legacy boost" for getting out of the first round, much less with a 5 seed in a coin flip series.

Because CP3 is a love letter to all the people who only look at stats instead of other aspects in games that matter. It's especially funny them putting out points and scoring % when we know what a pathetic stat padding loser this little Hobbit, several times trying hard to score once a series is over or not shooting a tough shot to keep his %. This is why arguments for him are beating a team in the first round, one that a) isn't a Championship leading team, b) missing their 2nd best player due to injury. Or almost beating a great team.

[NBAGOAT]

Because CP3 is a love letter to all the people who only look at stats instead of other aspects in games that matter. It's especially funny them putting out points and scoring % when we know what a pathetic stat padding loser this little Hobbit, several times trying hard to score once a series is over or not shooting a tough shot to keep his %. This is why arguments for him are beating a team in the first round, one that a) isn't a Championship leading team, b) missing their 2nd best player due to injury. Or almost beating a great team.

you dont really have a point when he obviously has a huge positive impact on winning games... curry is clearly better but no reason to denigrate cp3. i will gladly take him over zeke who played on some of the best defensive teams of all time with 4 other current or former all stars and won rings when the celtics and showtime fell off.

[DMAVS41]

I earlier said this wasn't a legacy game for anyone, but if the Rockets lose and Harden gets outplayed by Lugentz Dort...well, lets just say it isn't helping his legacy...:oldlol:

[ninephive]

Haha if winning a first round playoff series can redeem your legacy, you don’t have one lol

[Whoah10115]

Yup...

And to make matters worse, Isiah Thomas played with worse inury than CP3 has ever had.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzgNoqHib78

This guy gets a minor hammy injury and sits out championship elimination games.

Meanwhile, IT was literally hopping around on one leg breaking quarter scoring records.

You can't quanitfy heart in numbers. Context needs to be applied.

Lol minor hammy injury.

You stay winning. Don't know shit, but talk shit. Nothing but shit.

[imdaman99]

CP3 was great in the clutch this year. Got respect for him :cheers:

[Manny98]

Nothing to redeem

CP3 took a bunch of garbage cans to the 4th seed in the West & took a loaded Rockets team to 7 games at the age of 35

Greatest point guard ever behind Curry

[NBAGOAT]

meh disappointing end but wasnt a blatant chokejob so wasnt really legacy defining. Winning this series wouldnt have been legacy defining either, only like making the finals would be. Just a pretty damn good year for a star his age and adds a bit to his resume.

[Penetrator]

meh disappointing end but wasnt a blatant chokejob so wasnt really legacy defining. Winning this series wouldnt have been legacy defining either, only like making the finals would be. Just a pretty damn good year for a star his age and adds a bit to his resume.

Adds another L:oldlol:

[Axe]

Cp3 deserves some respect even if his team lost.

Btw, the thunder have been losing in the first round four times in a row already.

[STATUTORY]

damn, still a playoff loser

[tpols]

Everyone sane finds the Isiah > CP3 hysterical..

:roll:

This needs a bump.

RRRetard3 needs to explain himself after last night.

He went ghost in the wake of the choke.

[Shooter]

Regular season

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 27.5/6.7/14.1/3.3/0.2, 122 ORTG, 58.2 TS%, 7.6 BPM

Zeke: 25.7/4.7/12.4/2.5/0.3, 106 ORTG, 5.16 TS%, 2.6 BPM


Playoffs

Per 100 possessions

CP3: 29.1/7.2/11.4/3.0/0.3, 118 ORTG, 58.0 TS%, 7.4 BPM

Zeke: 27.6/6.4/12.1/2.9/0.5, 110 ORTG, 52.0 TS%, 6.0 BPM



All defensive teams: CP3 9, Zeke 0

All-NBA teams: CP3 8 (will be 9 after the teams come out this year), Zeke 5

Top 5 MVP finishes: CP3 4 (including 2nd to peak Kobe in 08), Zeke 1 (and he was 5th)

CP3 was literally about to beat the most stacked team of all time and win a ring in 2018 I can’t believe people still doubt him after that. The only reason he doesn’t have a ring is because he got hurt.

Bang! Bang! -Mike Breen

[jayfan]

He played a good Game 6 (2nd half).

Other than that, he earned his playoff reputation. Particularly in the 2nd half of game 7.


.

[dankok8]

I love Chris Paul but there is no case for him over Isiah Thomas. None whatsoever...

[SouBeachTalents]

I love Chris Paul but there is no case for him over Isiah Thomas. None whatsoever...
Complete hyperbole. You act like we're comparing him to Dragic or something lol

[RRR3]

:roll:

This needs a bump.

RRRetard3 needs to explain himself after last night.

He went ghost in the wake of the choke.
Isiah Thomas was retired at CP3’s age :oldlol:

Nice to see ORTG is just a gimmick and you don’t actually care about it. I figured.

[tontoz]

I would take CP3 over IT easily. It is amazing how much team success elevated Isiah. The backbone of that team was defense and IT had nothing to do with that. They had first team All-NBA defense Dumars to guard Jordan and DPOY Rodman to guard Bird. They also had Mahorn/Laimbeer to rough people up inside. Salley was a good defender too.

Mark Aguirre had back to back 25 ppg seasons in Dallas. Detroit had him coming off the bench. That team was loaded.

Isiah made his last All-NBA team at age 25.

[RRR3]

I would take CP3 over IT easily. It is amazing how much team success elevated Isiah. The backbone of that team was defense and IT had nothing to do with that. They had first team All-NBA defense Dumars to guard Jordan and DPOY Rodman to guard Bird. They also had Mahorn/Laimbeer to rough people up inside. Salley was a good defender too.

Mark Aguirre had back to back 25 ppg seasons in Dallas. Detroit had him coming off the bench. That team was loaded.

Isiah made his last All-NBA team at age 25.
:applause:

[ThatCoolKid]

I watched CP3 be the best player on the floor 4th quarter after 4th quarter against the prime KD/Curry Warriors in the playoffs. If he doesn't injure his hamstring, the Warriors were dead in the water. Prime KD/Curry/Harden/Klay/Draymond all on the floor, but the one who took the game over and dominated for the win was CP3 each game. Once he went down I knew the series was over. CP3 was willing Houston to victory. That's all I need to know about CP3. He is an all time great who got screwed over by injuries in the playoffs. Possibly the highest impact point guard of all time up there with Magic and Curry. Winning a championship requires the stars to align in more ways than one, it's sad it never happened for CP3. One of the greats.

[Gohan]

I watched CP3 be the best player on the floor 4th quarter after 4th quarter against the prime KD/Curry Warriors in the playoffs. If he doesn't injure his hamstring, the Warriors were dead in the water. Prime KD/Curry/Harden/Klay/Draymond all on the floor, but the one who took the game over and dominated for the win was CP3 each game. Once he went down I knew the series was over. CP3 was willing Houston to victory. That's all I need to know about CP3. He is an all time great who got screwed over by injuries in the playoffs. Possibly the highest impact point guard of all time up there with Magic and Curry. Winning a championship requires the stars to align in more ways than one, it's sad it never happened for CP3. One of the greats.

If ivy wouldn’t have went down it wouldn’t have mattered. He was just as important to warriors as cp3 that series. I know it sounds crazy but it is the truth. Role players have big impact too

[pandiani17]

[QUOTE=aj1987;14098275]Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.[/QUOTE

Good list. I would also clearly rank Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, etc., the ones you wrote below your list, ahead of CP3. Crazy how overrated he is, he has never won an MVP or been to the finals, yet people say he is Top 20 or Top 30? LOL, I doubt he's even Top 50.

[Gohan]

[QUOTE=aj1987;14098275]Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.[/QUOTE

Good list. I would also clearly rank Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, etc., the ones you wrote below your list, ahead of CP3. Crazy how overrated he is, he has never won an MVP or been to the finals, yet people say he is Top 20 or Top 30? LOL, I doubt he's even Top 50.


The people that you put that have an argument>> cp3 are for the most part better besides cousy

[hold this L]

you dont really have a point when he obviously has a huge positive impact on winning games... curry is clearly better but no reason to denigrate cp3. i will gladly take him over zeke who played on some of the best defensive teams of all time with 4 other current or former all stars and won rings when the celtics and showtime fell off.
If he did have that much impact, it would have shown in the playoffs throughout his career though. But it hasn't because he's not that impactful, sure as **** not as much as Zeke. I'm not denigrating him, but he consistently gets brought up and there's always excuses for why he doesn't do well when his stats look good after the game. Game 7 stats also looked good. He also played pretty well, but he didn't play like an ATG in the last 5 minutes when needed. Which is fine if it happens a few times, that happens to every ATG including Jordan. But CP3 rarely ever goes out fully swinging like other greats, he just fizzles out. No reason for him not to take the game after his 3 for example and run rampant, but again he didn't. He tried to make things happen and missed a sitter near the rim. That won't show up in his pretty stats later on.

And lets stop giving excuses on great teams, he's been on great teams. It's only recently he's on a terrible team. People love to put him up to the greats while tripping over themselves making excuses for him.

[dankok8]

I watched CP3 be the best player on the floor 4th quarter after 4th quarter against the prime KD/Curry Warriors in the playoffs. If he doesn't injure his hamstring, the Warriors were dead in the water. Prime KD/Curry/Harden/Klay/Draymond all on the floor, but the one who took the game over and dominated for the win was CP3 each game. Once he went down I knew the series was over. CP3 was willing Houston to victory. That's all I need to know about CP3. He is an all time great who got screwed over by injuries in the playoffs. Possibly the highest impact point guard of all time up there with Magic and Curry. Winning a championship requires the stars to align in more ways than one, it's sad it never happened for CP3. One of the greats.

Excuses... A player who gets injured doesn't get credit for what he may have done if he wasn't. I agree that if CP3 was healthy for those 3-4 playoff runs that he wasn't, his career might have looked different. But he wasn't. If we'll rank players by talent/peak ability we may as well put Bill Walton as top 15 ever and pretend he wasn't made of glass because at his peak he's one of the greatest players ever.

When it comes down to it, the furthest CP3 got in the playoffs (on some good teams mind you) is 2nd round as the best player and Conference Finals only once as the second best player on his team. That's not a career of a top 30 all time player. At every point in his career there were at least 5-6 guys in the league better than him and considering the NBA's been around for 65 years he isn't top 30 all time by that logic either.

[hold this L]

Excuses... A player who gets injured doesn't get credit for what he may have done if he wasn't. I agree that if CP3 was healthy for those 3-4 playoff runs that he wasn't, his career might have looked different. But he wasn't. If we'll rank players by talent/peak ability we may as well put Bill Walton as top 15 ever and pretend he wasn't made of glass because at his peak he's one of the greatest players ever.

When it comes down to it, the furthest CP3 got in the playoffs (on some good teams mind you) is 2nd round as the best player and Conference Finals only once as the second best player on his team. That's not a career of a top 30 all time player. At every point in his career there were at least 5-6 guys in the league better than him and considering the NBA's been around for 65 years he isn't top 30 all time by that logic either.
Exactly. In football if Neymar wasn't so injury prone, he might have had real potential to battle it out with Messi and Ronaldo. but he doesn't. Look at Lebron for example. The guy has played 15 seasons, is 35 years old, never gets any long term injuries and can play 42 minutes while having unmatched fitness. Those are all massive positives and massive reasons why he's one of the best of all time. CP3's injuries are part of the reason that hold him for being as good as other ATG.

[NBAGOAT]

If he did have that much impact, it would have shown in the playoffs throughout his career though. But it hasn't because he's not that impactful, sure as **** not as much as Zeke. I'm not denigrating him, but he consistently gets brought up and there's always excuses for why he doesn't do well when his stats look good after the game. Game 7 stats also looked good. He also played pretty well, but he didn't play like an ATG in the last 5 minutes when needed. Which is fine if it happens a few times, that happens to every ATG including Jordan. But CP3 rarely ever goes out fully swinging like other greats, he just fizzles out. No reason for him not to take the game after his 3 for example and run rampant, but again he didn't. He tried to make things happen and missed a sitter near the rim. That won't show up in his pretty stats later on.

And lets stop giving excuses on great teams, he's been on great teams. It's only recently he's on a terrible team. People love to put him up to the greats while tripping over themselves making excuses for him.

Well I watched those clips teams, think you’re overrating them calling them great after 14,15. The great teams are 08, 14, 15, 18 and maybe 13 and 19 up for debate. 18 is the only one that stands out all time. Admittedly cp3 has also rarely been on a bad team like say Kobe or wade. This years okc team was solid to good.

For the clips, Blake wasn’t even all-nba level after 2015 even when healthy and the bench was trash. It’s not just box score stats that show Paul as great, anything in the +/- family too. And missing scoring opportunities shows up in +/-.

I don’t have a big problem with putting some greats like an Ewing or some other pgs in the top 10 over Paul but I just think Isiah is a bit overrated because he’s the only pg past 1980 besides magic and curry to win a ring as “the guy” when Stockton Nash Kidd Payton didn’t etc.

People who watched him knew his peak was the mid 80s and the stats say so too. Every 90s fan talks about the bad boys as stacked with hofers and depth so yea even though he played really well in the 90 playoffs don’t think he should get a bunch of credit for those teams. You argue he has intangibles and I agree but it’s still not enough to make him even a top ten player those years(all nba voters thought he wasn’t from 1988 on)

[brooks_thompson]

He did not redeem. Went down arguing to refs

[DMAVS41]

Paul would have the argument for where the people claiming he's top 20 or 25...if he actually made a special playoff run at some point. The fact that his teams have never done that combined with epic collapses against the Thunder in 14 and Rockets in 15...it really just removes him.

I get that winning is a team accomplishment...I understand that and agree...but often winning, at least with the best players ever, is a product of doing special things in the playoffs.

Simply put, as others have pointed out, if Paul really was one of the 20 best players ever...you'd expect his teams to have done more than they did. Doesn't matter how skilled or great someone looks on paper...if it doesn't translate to actually winning the most important games, again...just at some point...I think it would be silly to ignore that.

If Paul, for example, had made a title run 14...maybe even just losing in the finals...I'd feel like it would be warranted to have these arguments. But he didn't...in fact, he melted down in like one of the worst sequences imaginable in the crucial game 5.

I think he's rightly ranked in the 30-35 range...much higher and you start discounting special things other players have done.

[tpols]

Paul would have the argument for where the people claiming he's top 20 or 25...if he actually made a special playoff run at some point. The fact that his teams have never done that combined with epic collapses against the Thunder in 14 and Rockets in 15...it really just removes him.

I get that winning is a team accomplishment...I understand that and agree...but often winning, at least with the best players ever, is a product of doing special things in the playoffs.

Simply put, as others have pointed out, if Paul really was one of the 20 best players ever...you'd expect his teams to have done more than they did. Doesn't matter how skilled or great someone looks on paper...if it doesn't translate to actually winning the most important games, again...just at some point...I think it would be silly to ignore that.

If Paul, for example, had made a title run 14...maybe even just losing in the finals...I'd feel like it would be warranted to have these arguments. But he didn't...in fact, he melted down in like one of the worst sequences imaginable in the crucial game 5.

I think he's rightly ranked in the 30-35 range...much higher and you start discounting special things other players have done.

It would be one thing if he had mitch richmond teams... but Chris Paul has played with great help. He's played with an absolute ton of all star talent and has had a ridiculous amount of shots at success in the playoffs. Never really made much of a splash outside one year. And *shocker* he got hurt and sat out. Didn't break his leg in half or anything, just a slight muscle pull, sat out. CP3 has truly elite ability but he doesn't have toughness. He's a ho. A flopper. A campaigner. Like game 7 two days ago how he was bitching to the refs non stop in the last 30 seconds of the game and refused to take the last shot. He isn't a true gamer on that top 20 all time level...

[Axe]

[QUOTE=aj1987;14098275]Lol, wut? :oldlol:

Not in order:

MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Shaq
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Bird
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe
Oscar
West
K. Malone
M. Malone
Dr. J
Dirk
Wade
Barkley
Pippen
KD
Curry
Hondo
Isiah
KG

That's 25 players right there. Then you have others who definitely have an argument over CP3 all time like Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, Elgin, Mikan,Ewing, Barry, Cousy, AI, etc..

Also, Giannis is about be a 2x MVP and a 1x DPOY. I don't see how anyone can argue CP3 over him all-time, if he has another couple of elite season.[/QUOTE

Good list. I would also clearly rank Kawhi, Harden, D-Rob, etc., the ones you wrote below your list, ahead of CP3. Crazy how overrated he is, he has never won an MVP or been to the finals, yet people say he is Top 20 or Top 30? LOL, I doubt he's even Top 50.
Curry is amongst the top 25 of all-time?

Gosh, I didn't know that.

[DMAVS41]

It would be one thing if he had mitch richmond teams... but Chris Paul has played with great help. He's played with an absolute ton of all star talent and has had a ridiculous amount of shots at success in the playoffs. Never really made much of a splash outside one year. And *shocker* he got hurt and sat out. Didn't break his leg in half or anything, just a slight muscle pull, sat out. CP3 has truly elite ability but he doesn't have toughness. He's a ho. Like game 7 two days ago how he was bitching to the refs non stop in the last 30 seconds of the game and refused to take the last shot. He isn't a true gamer on that top 20 all time level...

I wouldn't call it great help, but he certainly played on good enough teams to make the finals once. You'd expect that and more, given his help, if he really was one of the 20 to 25 best players ever.

The basketball reasons for this is what is hard for people I think. He was a short and ball dominant player...that didn't take over a high volume of games scoring and doesn't have elite off ball impact...and of course was prone to wearing down late in years.

I think Paul likely came close to maximizing his ability, but the harsh reality is that being tall and athletic are huge advantages in the NBA...

[STATUTORY]

https://i.gifer.com/4UuJ.gif

just another L for Cliff Paul's brother

[Young X]

I wouldn't call it great help, but he certainly played on good enough teams to make the finals once. You'd expect that and more, given his help, if he really was one of the 20 to 25 best players ever.

The basketball reasons for this is what is hard for people I think. He was a short and ball dominant player...that didn't take over a high volume of games scoring and doesn't have elite off ball impact...and of course was prone to wearing down late in years.

I think Paul likely came close to maximizing his ability, but the harsh reality is that being tall and athletic are huge advantages in the NBA...
No, he is good enough. His teammates were not.

When he was in his prime, David West was his best teammate. He averaged 21 PPG on 51 TS% in the playoffs. And missed the entire 2011 postseason.

When he went to LA, his best teammate was Blake Griffin. He averaged 21 PPG on 54 TS% in the playoffs. And basically had a season-ending injury in 3 different postseasons.

CP3 was in a bad position his entire career playing in a stacked western conference without a reliable teammate or a well-built team (for the majority of his career).

And another thing is people make it seem like it's just a playoff issue with his teams as if they're 60 win contenders that end up getting upset. No, he's on 50+ win teams that would struggle to even make the playoffs without him who eventually lose to better, more talented or healthier teams.

The only tangible thing that is different with him compared to other great players is his injury history/health.

[SouBeachTalents]

[QUOTE=pandiani17;14102854]
Curry is amongst the top 25 of all-time?

Gosh, I didn't know that.
Are you retarded?

[DMAVS41]

No, he is good enough. His teammates were not.

When he was in his prime, David West was his best teammate. He averaged 21 PPG on 51 TS% in the playoffs. And missed the entire 2011 postseason.

When he went to LA, his best teammate was Blake Griffin. He averaged 21 PPG on 54 TS% in the playoffs. And basically had a season-ending injury in 3 different postseasons.

CP3 was in a bad position his entire career playing in a stacked western conference without a reliable teammate or a well-built team (for the majority of his career).

And another thing is people make it seem like it's just a playoff issue with his teams as if they're 60 win contenders that end up getting upset. No, he's on 50+ win teams that would struggle to even make the playoffs without him who eventually lose to better, more talented or healthier teams.

The only tangible thing that is different with him compared to other great players is his injury history/health.

I disagree.

Hard to blame the teammates when you are finding ways to lose games in 14 and 15 you should win...with what I agree should be considered good but not elite help.

Paul was an amazing basketball player and one of the best ever. He's just not in the class of players people claiming he's top 20 were. I think the evidence is overwhelming on that front, but just my opinion.

[Young X]

I disagree.

Hard to blame the teammates when you are finding ways to lose games in 14 and 15 you should win...with what I agree should be considered good but not elite help.

Paul was an amazing basketball player and one of the best ever. He's just not in the class of players people claiming he's top 20 were. I think the evidence is overwhelming on that front, but just my opinion.
Well it depends on what the expectations are. "Good" help still does not get you a championship or a finals going through the western conference. You need more than that.

[NBAGOAT]

Well it depends on what the expectations are. "Good" help still does not get you a championship or a finals going through the western conference. You need more than that.

welcome back man. i dont have to be the main cp3 guy anymore haha

[DMAVS41]

Well it depends on what the expectations are. "Good" help does not get you a championship or a finals going through the western conference. You need more than that.

It doesn't if you are the caliber of Paul...others can pull it off....or at least get to the conference finals as the best player. That is the exact point.

At some point all that skill and no weaknesses have to translate to actually doing shit.

I also think the 14 team, for example, is better than you are admitting. You call it a 50 win team, but they won 57...should have gone up 3-2 on the Thunder if not for Paul's meltdown. Was it elite help? No, it wasn't...and I wouldn't really blame Paul for not winning that series.

I just think a player as good as you guys are saying would do something special at some point with a sustained playoff run given the help Paul had.

I'm all for saying titles are a bit over-rated and winning is a team deal, but too many other guys in history did real shit...and never making even the conference finals as the best player on his team absolutely should hurt his all-time ranking if people actually think he's near top 20.

[NBAGOAT]

It doesn't if you are the caliber of Paul...others can pull it off....or at least get to the conference finals as the best player. That is the exact point.

At some point all that skill and no weaknesses have to translate to actually doing shit.

I also think the 14 team, for example, is better than you are admitting. You call it a 50 win team, but they won 57...should have gone up 3-2 on the Thunder if not for Paul's meltdown. Was it elite help? No, it wasn't...and I wouldn't really blame Paul for not winning that series.

I just think a player as good as you guys are saying would do something special at some point with a sustained playoff run given the help Paul had.

I'm all for saying titles are a bit over-rated and winning is a team deal, but too many other guys in history did real shit...and never making even the conference finals as the best player on his team absolutely should hurt his all-time ranking if people actually think he's near top 20.

i think you're still maybe putting too much on ephasis on the "special" run. Yes you see one for most guys in the top 25 but not all. Can you name a special run for oscar who was likely never the best player in the league but is better than cp3. dont think malone has a special run either. Barkley you can argue 93 but idk. and making the conference finals still comes down to help and if we're being honest just an extra conference finals appearance or two from 08, 14-15 does not and should not move him much tangibly at all in an all time list. Only a finals run would and any of the 3 would require a pretty special run

[DMAVS41]

i think you're still maybe putting too much on ephasis on the "special" run. Yes you see one for most guys in the top 25 but not all. Can you name a special run for oscar who was likely never the best player in the league but is better than cp3. dont think malone has a special run either. Barkley you can argue 93 but idk. and making the conference finals still comes down to help and if we're being honest just an extra conference finals appearance or two from 08, 14-15 does not and should move him much tangibly at all. Only a finals run would and all 3 would require a pretty special run

I'm talking for me. I'd feel far more comfortable ranking him as high as you do if he had just shown me, one time, he could make a sustained playoff run as the best player on a team. I'm actually quite open to ranking some guys super high without a lot of accolades or titles. In the case of Paul...I just can't get with it though.

If he did though...then you can extrapolate off that and determine where he should be drafted if every NBA player was in a draft...and taking him like 20th...just doesn't compute for me given the evidence of what his career most likely will be based on what we just saw happen for the last 15 years.

I think Barkley and Malone were better players than Paul. So I don't really need them to prove something to me as I tend to agree with where they are ranked historically and got to watch them play a lot. I also think they proved more than Paul, but honestly that doesn't matter here that much because I just think they were better players.

I don't know enough about Oscar as that was before my time.

[Young X]

It doesn't if you are the caliber of Paul...others can pull it off....or at least get to the conference finals as the best player. That is the exact point.

At some point all that skill and no weaknesses have to translate to actually doing shit.

I also think the 14 team, for example, is better than you are admitting. You call it a 50 win team, but they won 57...should have gone up 3-2 on the Thunder if not for Paul's meltdown. Was it elite help? No, it wasn't...and I wouldn't really blame Paul for not winning that series.

I just think a player as good as you guys are saying would do something special at some point with a sustained playoff run given the help Paul had.

I'm all for saying titles are a bit over-rated and winning is a team deal, but too many other guys in history did real shit...and never making even the conference finals as the best player on his team absolutely should hurt his all-time ranking if people actually think he's near top 20.
His help is playing 90% of his career without a hall of famer.

Give him someone who can actually score well in the playoffs and you will see something special. Or even a good defensive supporting cast.

[DMAVS41]

His help is playing 90% of his career without a hall of famer.

Give him someone who can actually score well in the playoffs and you will see something special. Or even a good defensive supporting cast.

Are you arguing he didn't have someone who could score well in the playoffs when he was on the Rockets?

He, once again, wore down in the playoffs one year...then lost the next year...even after KD got hurt. Each instance is defensible and it isn't like he was ever bad...he just didn't have the ceiling to take a team on his back and carry them deep in the playoffs.

[NBAGOAT]

I'm talking for me. I'd feel far more comfortable ranking him as high as you do if he had just shown me, one time, he could make a sustained playoff run as the best player on a team. I'm actually quite open to ranking some guys super high without a lot of accolades or titles. In the case of Paul...I just can't get with it though.

If he did though...then you can extrapolate off that and determine where he should be drafted if every NBA player was in a draft...and taking him like 20th...just doesn't compute for me given the evidence of what his career most likely will be based on what we just saw happen for the last 15 years.

I think Barkley and Malone were better players than Paul. So I don't really need them to prove something to me as I tend to agree with where they are ranked historically and got to watch them play a lot. I also think they proved more than Paul, but honestly that doesn't matter here that much because I just think they were better players.

I don't know enough about Oscar as that was before my time.

yea that's just a bit of a double standard imo though reasonable. I would argue though barkley and malone are better players they also get ranked higher getting debated for top 15-20. we're debating paul in the top 20-25. you said you have even doubts about him being top 30. barkley and malone get debated vs guys as good as kg drob. paul's getting debated with guys like pippen/ewing the other top 10pgs like stockton etc so i think they have just as much to prove.

I'll get right into exact guys even though I kind of dont want to. https://backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/. taylor has paul at 21(a bit high even for me). once you get to the 25-30 ranges which of those guys do you think has a strong case over paul. small thing in paul's favor is a good amount of people have no problem picking him over nash

[DMAVS41]

yea that's just a bit of a double standard imo though reasonable. I would argue though barkley and malone are better players they also get ranked higher getting debated for top 15-20. we're debating paul in the top 20-25. you said you have even doubts about him being top 30. barkley and malone get debated vs guys as good as kg drob. paul's getting debated with guys like pippen/ewing the other top 10pgs like stockton etc so i think they have just as much to prove.

I'll get right into exact guys even though I kind of dont want to. https://backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/. taylor has paul at 21(a bit high even for me). once you get to the 25-30 ranges which of those guys do you think has a strong case over paul. small thing in paul's favor is a good amount of people have no problem picking him over nash

I don't think it is a double standard.

I'm simply saying I have a hard time giving the "tie break" to the player that has accomplished the least when ranking players in the 20 to 25 range.

As for where I'd rank him...last time I did my rankings I had him like 34th iirc...I'm absolutely open to moving him up...in fact, I probably would given how good he is this late in his career.

Yea, I love backpicks, but I disagree with quite a few things on the list, but I love the analysis. KG ranked over Magic and Bird, for example, is just never something I could get with after watching them all play. There is no universe, again...imo, in which KG is giving my franchise a better change to win the most than Magic or Bird.

[NBAGOAT]

I don't think it is a double standard.

I'm simply saying I have a hard time giving the "tie break" to the player that has accomplished the least when ranking players in the 20 to 25 range.

As for where I'd rank him...last time I did my rankings I had him like 34th iirc...I'm absolutely open to moving him up...in fact, I probably would given how good he is this late in his career.

Yea, I love backpicks, but I disagree with quite a few things on the list, but I love the analysis. KG ranked over Magic and Bird, for example, is just never something I could get with after watching them all play. There is no universe, again...imo, in which KG is giving my franchise a better change to win the most than Magic or Bird.

yea i think he agree with you about kg but he just values longevity more than almost anyone else. does have solid statistical basis for it however

[Young X]

Are you arguing he didn't have someone who could score well in the playoffs when he was on the Rockets?

He, once again, wore down in the playoffs one year...then lost the next year...even after KD got hurt. Each instance is defensible and it isn't like he was ever bad...he just didn't have the ceiling to take a team on his back and carry them deep in the playoffs.
He was basically past his prime on the Rockets.

I'm talking about the Hornets and Clippers. Two lottery teams turned around by him.

Give him another reliable scorer on the 2008 Hornets (already a good team) and that team could definitely win a championship.

[DMAVS41]

He was basically past his prime on the Rockets.

I'm talking about the Hornets and Clippers. Two lottery teams turned around by him.

Give him someone like Paul George at his peak on the 2008 Hornets (already a good team) and that team could definitely win championship.

For sure agree that a team like that could win a title with Paul as the best player. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe he'd fail to get it done. I don't know...it is hard to credit people for doing things that didn't do them. And even that isn't my position...I just want a little more evidence that he would be capable of doing that...I don't even need players to do it.

After 04...I never doubted KG could win a title as the best player on a team. Granted, that was a historically good season so it was easy, but hopefully that at least explains my thought process as little.

I think KG earned that given his play...and again, I'm open to being wrong, I just don't have that same type of opinion on Paul.

[Young X]

I get penalizing someone if you look at rankings more in an accolade sense. There are obviously tons of players who have been more successful than Chris Paul.

He is not a "proven winner".

But I'm more talent-focused. Chris Paul is easily a top 25 player ever from a basketball standpoint. Maybe higher than that.

There are very few players who surpass what he does on the court. On both ends.

Just saying "his team didn't..." isn't enough. I've seen players nowhere near as good him win championships just by basically being luckier.

Nobody is really wrong, it's just two different types of fans/mentalities. And no player shows that more than CP3 with how much of an anomaly his career has been.

[DMAVS41]

I get penalizing someone if you look at rankings more in an accolade sense. There are obviously tons of players who have been more successful than Chris Paul.

He is not a "proven winner".

But I'm more talent-focused. Chris Paul is easily a top 25 player ever from a basketball standpoint. Maybe higher than that.

There are very few players who surpass what he does on the court. On both ends.

Just saying "his team didn't..." isn't enough. I've seen players nowhere near as good him win championships just by basically being luckier.

Nobody is really wrong, it's just two different types of fans/mentalities. And no player shows that more than CP3 with how much of an anomaly his career has been.

Yea, this is where I just disagree. I don't think players as talented and as good as you claim would end up with the career Paul had given his circumstances.

And, again...I'm open to it being an anomaly. I really disagree, but it very well could be just a super unlucky career and he's producing far more winning in most other situations.

[Young X]

It is an anomaly. Nobody has had a similar career.

Who has ever had a trade vetoed before?

What players have played their primes on two franchises who were at the bottom of the league?

What hall of fame player had their peak at 23 because of a career-altering injury? Or dealt with the amount of injuries he has?

Who has played in a conference where you win 56 games and your opponent is a 56 win team in the first round?

Who has ever had a team as good as the Warriors down 3-2 and couldn't finish the series because of injury.

If Chris Paul's career wasn't an anomaly then there's no way you could even justify him being a great player. Forget being a "top 40" player.

[DMAVS41]

I honestly don't know what you mean by that, but being injury prone hurts you and your teams. You can't just start assuming health.

I'm done with this though as you continue to act like I'm ranking Paul solely off accolades and we all know that just isn't true. Maybe other people do that...and don't have him top 50...but that isn't how I rank players.

I just also think that greatness at the level you and others are claiming translates into on court winning...and it just didn't for Paul. That is that part I'm open to saying is anomaly...but it is hard to know...so I think it is fair give other great players a bit of the tiebreak here.

[Young X]

I honestly don't know what you mean by that, but being injury prone hurts you and your teams. You can't just start assuming health.

I'm done with this though as you continue to act like I'm ranking Paul solely off accolades and we all know that just isn't true. Maybe other people do that...and don't have him top 50...but that isn't how I rank players.

I just also think that greatness at the level you and others are claiming translates into on court winning...and it just didn't for Paul. That is that part I'm open to saying is anomaly...but it is hard to know...so I think it is fair give other great players a bit of the tiebreak here.
Well you're ranking him in a reverse way that everybody does where you're looking at his teams lack of success and going "he can't be that good if...". And then you point toward his 2014 game 5 finish against OKC as your evidence.

There has been no mention of any real basketball skills or abilities. No kind of statistics or individual accolades. Because obviously he's amazing in those categorizes.

[DMAVS41]

Well you're ranking him in a reverse way that everybody does where you're looking at his teams lack of success and going "he can't be that good if...". And then you point toward his 2014 game 5 finish against OKC as your evidence.

There has been no mention of any real basketball skills or abilities. No kind of statistics or individual accolades.

I've written pages about his basketball playing. He's great.

He's also short, ball dominant, prone to going ghost at times, has limited off ball impact, is injury prone, and doesn't have an extra gear to carry a scoring load consistently...all of that limits his ultimate ceiling in terms of impact as a player.

And the success part only comes in for me because I'd have to rethink my position if Paul was just carrying teams left and right to finals and titles. But, unfortunately he did the exact opposite and so I don't really see why I'd need to change my take on him. The evidence lines up nicely with my opinion.

And my evidence is not one year. My evidence is how I evaluate him as a player combined with the success he's had given his circumstances. Again...he's never been past the 2nd round as the best player on his team. Again, I'm open to that being a true statement for the best player ever. However, Paul's had the circumstances do to better if he's really as good as you say...and he didn't.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Also, I just think you guys ignore other players. Take Anthony Davis...all of the same arguments you make for Paul can be made for him outside of longevity at this point. Davis makes a much bigger impact defensively as well. He's averaging some insane number for his career...and I think he's at something crazy like 30/12/3 60% TS for his career in the playoffs. Where are the basketball weaknesses for Davis?

Could it be that these guys don't play in a computer simulation and it is a bit more complicated?

If he does that a few more years...is he better than Paul?

It won't matter if he fails to go deep in the playoffs playing with Lebron at some point?

You don't think less of him if he produces numbers, but loses this series against the Rockets?

We could just view this stuff differently, but I think there is a lot of discounting of guys by Paul fans.

[Young X]

I've written pages about his basketball playing. He's great.

He's also short, ball dominant, prone to going ghost at times, has limited off ball impact, is injury prone, and doesn't have an extra gear to carry a scoring load consistently...all of that limits his ultimate ceiling in terms of impact as a player.

And the success part only comes in for me because I'd have to rethink my position if Paul was just carrying teams left and right to finals and titles. But, unfortunately he did the exact opposite and so I don't really see why I'd need to change my take on him. The evidence lines up nicely with my opinion.

And my evidence is not one year. My evidence is how I evaluate him as a player combined with the success he's had given his circumstances. Again...he's never been past the 2nd round as the best player on his team. Again, I'm open to that being a true statement for the best player ever. However, Paul's had the circumstances do to better if he's really as good as you say...and he didn't.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

This is a contradiction. On one hand you're saying he's great then on the other hand, you're saying he had the right circumstances.

They both can't be true. Great players in the right circumstances would do better than you feel he has done.

Out of all the hall of fame players in his era, he has been the least successful as far as contending for championships.

He logically would be a regular all-star player like Lamarcus Aldridge level or something, not a great player.

[Doranku]

Friendly reminder that CP3 missed an open 7 footer that would've put OKC ahead with 45 seconds left, then stumbled around like a drunken idiot and almost turned the ball over on their final possession.

[DMAVS41]

This is a contradiction. On one hand you're saying he's great then on the other hand, you're saying he had the right circumstances.

They both can't be true. Great players in the right circumstances would do better than you feel he has done.

Out of all the hall of fame players in his era, he has been the least successful as far as contending for championships.

No, I'm actually not saying that all.

I said he had good enough circumstances to accomplish more given his help if he's as good as you claim. Meaning...I'd expect the 20th best player of all-time to produce better results on the teams Paul has played on in his career. Not sure what is confusing you here.

I also brought up Anthony Davis. All things considered, he has a better basketball game than Paul. Much bigger impact defensively and on the boards...and about as complete of a modern game for a big you can have on offense. Although in fairness he's not a great passer, but you get the point. He's got a nice handle, can post, can work in the mid-range, pretty decent from long 2's, can space the floor and drill 3's, can rim run off pick and roll, can pop of the pick and pop...etc.

Are you actually arguing that it doesn't matter the results of the games he plays? Lets say he loses on the Lakers with Lebron the next 4 years and then fails to ever make even the conference finals. That really won't impact your opinion of him at all as a player? We should just rank him top 20 all time?

I'm not saying the results mean everything, but again, you already know that. But it seems like you want them to mean absolutely nothing.

[jayfan]

Friendly reminder that CP3 missed an open 7 footer that would've put OKC ahead with 45 seconds left, then stumbled around like a drunken idiot and almost turned the ball over on their final possession.


But... have you seen his stats?


.

[NBAGOAT]

But... have you seen his stats?


.

i thought we were beyond using a few minutes of play to define someone's whole career. if thats true you can denigrate anyone.

[Young X]

No, I'm actually not saying that all.

I said he had good enough circumstances to accomplish more given his help if he's as good as you claim. Meaning...I'd expect the 20th best player of all-time to produce better results on the teams Paul has played on in his career. Not sure what is confusing you here.

I also brought up Anthony Davis. All things considered, he has a better basketball game than Paul. Much bigger impact defensively and on the boards...and about as complete of a modern game for a big you can have on offense. Although in fairness he's not a great passer, but you get the point. He's got a nice handle, can post, can work in the mid-range, pretty decent from long 2's, can space the floor and drill 3's, can rim run off pick and roll, can pop of the pick and pop...etc.

Are you actually arguing that it doesn't matter the results of the games he plays? Lets say he loses on the Lakers with Lebron the next 4 years and then fails to ever make even the conference finals. That really won't impact your opinion of him at all as a player? We should just rank him top 20 all time?

I'm not saying the results mean everything, but again, you already know that. But it seems like you want them to mean absolutely nothing.
Anthony Davis offensively is not close. He cannot carry an offense or create his own shot to the same degree or get other players involved with his passing.

And defensively, CP3 was also an elite defender. Man to man defense, help defense, getting steals, creating turnovers.

You can look at look at impact in any objective way and Chris comes out ahead.

I don't think you fully realize what Chris was doing in his prime. When he was on the court, he instantly raised their level of play significantly and they would completely drop off when he was injured or went to the bench.

No player in the league statistically made a bigger impact on his team than CP3. Not even Lebron. He was that valuable. He was bringing lottery teams to the playoffs.

[jayfan]

i thought we were beyond using a few minutes of play to define someone's whole career. if thats true you can denigrate anyone.
I've been defining Paul's career this way for the last 10 years. You may have just looked up from the stat sheets and started watching him play this week. I haven't.

[NBAGOAT]

I've been defining Paul's career this way for the last 10 years. You may have just looked up from the stat sheets and started watching him play this week. I haven't.

i've watched him as long as you. his clutch play is good for the most part.

[Young X]

CP3 in 2008 was as good as any player in the league. Brought the Hornets/Pelicans to the 2nd seed and one win away from the 1st seed with 56 wins. Should've won the MVP for that alone.

With the way he was playing in the playoffs, you definitely could've won a championship with him if you just give him another reliable scorer. Nobody could handle him.

[jayfan]

CP3 in 2008 was as good as any player in the league. Brought the Hornets/Pelicans to the 2nd seed and one win away from the 1st seed with 56 wins. Should've won the MVP for that alone.

With the way he was playing in the playoffs, you definitely could've won a championship with him if you just give him another reliable scorer. Nobody could handle him.

And only 12 years have passed since then.


?

[DMAVS41]

Anthony Davis offensively is not close. He cannot carry an offense or create his own shot to the same degree or get other players involved with his passing.

And defensively, CP3 was also an elite defender. Man to man defense, help defense, getting steals, creating turnovers.

You can look at look at impact in any objective way and Chris comes out ahead.

I don't think you fully realize what Chris was doing in his prime. When he was on the court, he instantly raised their level of play significantly and they would completely drop off when he was injured or went to the bench.

No player in the league statistically made a bigger impact on his team than CP3. Not even Lebron. He was that valuable. He was bringing lottery teams to the playoffs.

Well, I just disagree.

And what I don't think you realize is that really small ball dominant players don't have as big of an impact as you think. Also, Paul was great on defense for his position...but his size/position don't come close to making the impact Davis does on defense.

No weaknesses for Davis at his position. Monster on defense and a monster on offense. Doesn't dominate the ball either...allows his teammates to flourish. 30/12/3 61% TS for his career in the playoffs. Great production in the regular season as well. 119 ortg and 103 drtg in the playoffs for him.

He's unreal good.

Yet, Paul is easily better and more valuable, but you wouldn't expect better results. Do you not see how confusing of a position that is?

Also, your definition of being good at basketball is too narrow. Things like...being a good teammate, not wearing down in the playoffs, coming through in the biggest moments for your team, getting the most out of your teammates...all of those things matter as well. It isn't just bouncing a ball up and down on a court. The game is much more complicated...which is why the results of a career based on their circumstances need to matter.

You think Paul is better than Dirk. You think he's better than Curry. You think he's better than Leonard. You think he's better than Harden. You think he's better than Wade (not sure on this one)...

And, what is confusing, is that you don't think winning the most important games of your career are at all a product of your individual basketball ability. Like, I understand the view to an extent, but it is quite odd.

[BigShotBob]

Well, I just disagree.

And what I don't think you realize is that really small ball dominant players don't have as big of an impact as you think. Also, Paul was great on defense for his position...but his size/position don't come close to making the impact Davis does on defense.

No weaknesses for Davis at his position. Monster on defense and a monster on offense. Doesn't dominate the ball either...allows his teammates to flourish. 30/12/3 61% TS for his career in the playoffs. Great production in the regular season as well. 119 ortg and 103 drtg in the playoffs for him.

He's unreal good.

Yet, Paul is easily better and more valuable, but you wouldn't expect better results. Do you not see how confusing of a position that is?

Also, your definition of being good at basketball is too narrow. Things like...being a good teammate, not wearing down in the playoffs, coming through in the biggest moments for your team, getting the most out of your teammates...all of those things matter as well. It isn't just bouncing a ball up and down on a court. The game is much more complicated...which is why the results of a career based on their circumstances need to matter.

You think Paul is better than Dirk. You think he's better than Curry. You think he's better than Leonard. You think he's better than Harden. You think he's better than Wade (not sure on this one)...

And, what is confusing, is that you don't think winning the most important games of your career are at all a product of your individual basketball ability. Like, I understand the view to an extent, but it is quite odd.

I think we can all agree that if prime AD was on the same team as prime CP3 that AD would be the better and more impactful player. In fact the team would only go as far as AD would take them. Period.

Only delusional CP3 stans (if these even exist) would think otherwise.

[DMAVS41]

I think we can all agree that if prime AD was on the same team as prime CP3 that AD would be the better and more impactful player. In fact the team would only go as far as AD would take them. Period.

Only delusional CP3 stans (if these even exist) would think otherwise.

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm just trying to make the point that actually doing stuff should matter a little.

Otherwise, why not just say Davis is a top 25 player of all-time right now...if the results don't matter....and it is all just ability and talent...shit, he's better than almost everyone ever. He's sure as shit better than guys like Dirk and Barkley if we are grading him the same way Paul is being graded.

[Young X]

Yeah that "small guard impact" doesn't apply to CP3. He was a monster at his peak.

Every year he objectively was at the top of the league as far as making a difference on the court. In his prime from '08-'18, he had a +13.4 on/off. No player in the league, not even Lebron made that big of a difference on the court.

It is a crime he doesn't have an MVP. They would take him out the game and the team would get killed. When he got injured, his team would get embarrassed.

I remember there were times where he was the best scorer, shooter, passer, ballhandler, and defender on the team. That's how dependent his teams were on him. It would look like he was playing 1 on 5.

But I am admittedly too analytical for this site so obviously I am higher on someone like Chris Paul than most people.

[Carbine]

I'd take the best of Barkley and Dirk over anything I've seen from AD.

[DMAVS41]

I'd take the best of Barkley and Dirk over anything I've seen from AD.

So would I.

[BigShotBob]

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm just trying to make the point that actually doing stuff should matter a little.

Otherwise, why not just say Davis is a top 25 player of all-time right now...if the results don't matter....and it is all just ability and talent...shit, he's better than almost everyone ever. He's sure as shit better than guys like Dirk and Barkley if we are grading him the same way Paul is being graded.

It's a team game, but you have to be a great individual player and a great team player and in addition a great closer.

MJ was a great player and a great closer, then he became a great team player and never looked back.

Shaq was a dominant player but if you listen to him talk, he said that he didn't start winning until he started becoming a great team player.

Magic and Bird were great players and team players so they never looked back once they entered the league.

Then down the line we have players like CP3, who are great individual players and great for a team.....

But he can't close nor impose his will.

He entered a flop fest in game 7, missed a bunny that would have gave OKC the lead, and started making bizarre plays down the stretch instead of just taking over.

When the pressure was at its highest, he folded.

Again.

Too often that's the story for him.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah that "small guard impact" doesn't apply to CP3. He was a monster at his peak.

Every year he objectively was at the top of the league as far as making a difference on the court. In his prime from '08-'18, he had a +13.4 on/off. No player in the league, not even Lebron made that big of a difference on the court.

It is a crime he doesn't have an MVP. They would take him out the game and the team would get killed. When he got injured, his team would get embarrassed.

I remember there were times where he was the best scorer, shooter, passer, ballhandler, and defender on the team. That's how dependent his teams were on him. It would look like he was playing 1 on 5.

But I am admittedly too analytical for this site so obviously I am higher on someone like Chris Paul than most people.

No, it wouldn't look like he was playing 1 on 5.

While he was losing in the 2nd round...guys like Dirk were taking similar teams to the finals and winning a title. And he was doing it because he was better at basketball. His skillset produces better results than Paul's...

And that is true for quite a few players you dismiss so easily.

That is is what you are missing.

[DMAVS41]

The 2014 Clippers went 13-7 without Paul. You call them a 50 win team...yet they won 57.

They outscored teams by 2 points per 100 possessions on the year without Paul.


The 2011 Mavs went 2-7 without Dirk.

They got outscored by 5.4 points per 100 possessions on the year without Dirk.



But, yes, tell me more how one guy is better than the other while he melts down and the other wins a title.

[NBAGOAT]

I think we can all agree that if prime AD was on the same team as prime CP3 that AD would be the better and more impactful player. In fact the team would only go as far as AD would take them. Period.

Only delusional CP3 stans (if these even exist) would think otherwise.

Bigs who don’t pass well just don’t have big impacts on offense now so yea I disagree with you that’s it’s delusional for me to argue otherwise. Scoring isn’t everything, Blake scored more than cp3 and didn’t come close to cp3s impact. Ofc ads a lot better than Blake and a lot more impactful on defense than prime cp3 but that wasn’t enough most years.

Ik they’re stars but everyone’s talking about impact generally when stats like pipm and rpm measure impact decently well. Clips cp3 dominated those stats even higher than I would rate him.

From a wins standpoint clips cp3 was leading the clips to a 50+ win pace even without Blake so deandre, jj and spare parts(Jamal was shit) yet the team played like a 30 win team without him. Anyone who watched those teams knew they were helpless with out him.

Part of that is due to his ball dominance but he did the same thing in hou. Past prime cp3 added 10 wins to a 55 win hou team even though he missed 20 games and was traded for 2-3 good players in bev,Lou, and Harrell. That type of ceiling raising is really hard to do.

[NBAGOAT]

The 2014 Clippers went 13-7 without Paul. You call them a 50 win team...yet they won 57.

They outscored teams by 2 points per 100 possessions on the year without Paul.


The 2011 Mavs went 2-7 without Dirk.

They got outscored by 5.4 points per 100 possessions on the year without Dirk.



But, yes, tell me more how one guy is better than the other while he melts down and the other wins a title.

Look up those stats from 15-17, I’m almost sure they’re not pretty

[DMAVS41]

Bigs who don’t pass well just don’t have big impacts on offense now so yea I disagree with you that’s it’s delusional for me to argue otherwise. Scoring isn’t everything, Blake scored more than cp3 and didn’t come close to cp3s impact. Ofc ads a lot better than Blake and a lot more impactful on defense than prime cp3 but that wasn’t enough most years.

Ik they’re stars but everyone’s talking about impact generally when stats like pipm and rpm measure impact decently well. Clips cp3 dominated those stats even higher than I would rate him.

From a wins standpoint clips cp3 was leading the clips to a 50+ win pace even without Blake so deandre, jj and spare parts(Jamal was shit) yet the team played like a 30 win team without him. Anyone who watched those teams knew they were helpless with out him.

Part of that is due to his ball dominance but he did the same thing in hou. Past prime cp3 added 10 wins to a 55 win hou team even though he missed 20 games and was traded for 2-3 good players in bev,Lou, and Harrell. That type of ceiling raising is really hard to do.

They were not helpless without him every year. The 14 Clippers went 13-7 without Paul and had a positive net rating without him on the court. If we are going to start calling that "helpless"...I don't even know what you are going to call some of the supporting casts other stars have had often.

[DMAVS41]

Look up those stats from 15-17, I’m almost sure they’re not pretty

What do those other years have to do with that year?

2018 Rockets were +4.8 points per 100 without Paul on the court. Of course he made them even better...he's ****ing awesome at basketball.

[NBAGOAT]

What do those other years have to do with that year?

One year is less relevant than a multi year prime when we’re talking impact stats. you’ll especially have issues with sample size. using raw +/- which is why rapm rpm pipm are better. For example we agree dirk never had particularly great casts during the mid 00s yet the mavs had a net neutral rating in 06 and 07 without him.

Also you’ll get issues with multicollinearity. For the clippers specifically they did well without Paul in 2014 a lot because Jamal was a very good backup guard so that undersold his impact but he was awful from 15 on so that likely oversold his impact(his on/ off was like 20 those 3 years peak lebron levels). From 15-17, Paul being on the court correlated with better basketball but so did Jamal not being on the court.

[DMAVS41]

One year is less relevant than a multi year prime when we’re talking impact stats. you’ll especially have issues with sample size. using raw +/- which is why rapm rpm pipm are better. For example we agree dirk never had particularly great casts during the mid 00s yet the mavs had a net neutral rating in 06 and 07.

Also you’ll get issues with multicollinearity. For the clippers specifically they did well without Paul in 2014 a lot because Jamal was a very good backup guard so that undersold his impact but he was awful from 15 on so that likely oversold his impact(his on/ off was like 20 those 3 years peak lebron levels). From 15-17, Paul being on the court correlated with better basketball but so did Jamal not being on the court.

You are missing my point.

It becomes difficult to argue certain things like "helpless without him" and "teammates just weren't good enough"...when other guys did more in similar situations and I'm being told Paul is better.

You are right about the 06 Mavs. They are the only peak/prime team Dirk played on in which his teammates had a positive differential without him. They were an amazing +.2 points per 100 without him. He happened to take that team to the NBA finals after being the only player to lead a team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs for 3 years between 05-07.

Would I actually blame Paul for not beating the Thunder in 14? Of course not...but when the claim is "he's better than basically anyone not named Lebron of this era"...it kind of matters that other guys were taking similar help and making finals and winning titles.

[NBAGOAT]

What do those other years have to do with that year?

2018 Rockets were +4.8 points per 100 without Paul on the court. Of course he made them even better...he's ****ing awesome at basketball.

And the point about the rockets is it’s especially hard to add points when you’re already a good team, this is the flaw with ball dominant guys yet cp3 did that. Add on adding points to a better team adds less wins. Adding 4pts to .500 team takes a 41 win team to like a 52 win team. adding 4pts to a 6 srs team takes like a 57 win team to a 65 win team. So what cp3 did in hou was very impressive. Kd didn’t have any ball dominance problems and didn’t even increase gs mov by 2

[hold this L]

And the point about the rockets is it’s especially hard to add points when you’re already a good team, this is the flaw with ball dominant guys yet cp3 did that. Add on adding points to a better team adds less wins. Adding 4pts to .500 team takes a 41 win team to like a 52 win team. adding 4pts to a 6 srs team takes like a 57 win team to a 65 win team. So what cp3 did in hou was very impressive. Kd didn’t have any ball dominance problems and didn’t even increase gs mov by 2
Why are you comparing those two teams? The Rockets have never come remotely close to hitting 67, 73 wins before CP3 joined them unlike KD. But I get it, you need to defend your man.

[DMAVS41]

And the point about the rockets is it’s especially hard to add points when you’re already a good team, this is the flaw with ball dominant guys yet cp3 did that. Add on adding points to a better team adds less wins. Adding 4pts to .500 team takes a 41 win team to like a 52 win team. adding 4pts to a 6 srs team takes like a 57 win team to a 65 win team. So what cp3 did in hou was very impressive. Kd didn’t have any ball dominance problems and didn’t even increase gs mov by 2

I agree. Paul was great for the Rockets.

The problem is that in the most important games of the year...he wasn't there. He wore down again in the playoffs.

Then, the following year...his team couldn't win a home game after KD got hurt....after losing the pivotal game 5 with Paul having a dreadful game iirc.

Do you really deny how fragile some of this stuff is? What if Paul was great in game 5 in 19...and then they close the series at home. They might win the title. But it is just ignored when it comes to Paul...the expectations are lower than a lot of the guys he's supposedly better than. Just looked up his game 5. Rockets lost by 5...tied going into the 4th...KD is hurt...Paul goes 3/14 with a 79 ortg and 33%TS for the game. That matters.

Again, all of the individual instances are defensible and not that bad...and even the best players have these games/moments...the problem for Paul is that he doesn't have much of the other side of things. You and others seem to want to put most, if not all, of that on his help....and I just disagree when we are comparing him to the best players of all time.

[NBAGOAT]

You are missing my point.

It becomes difficult to argue certain things like "helpless without him" and "teammates just weren't good enough"...when other guys did more in similar situations and I'm being told Paul is better.

You are right about the 06 Mavs. They are the only peak/prime team Dirk played on in which his teammates had a positive differential without him. They were an amazing +.2 points per 100 without him. He happened to take that team to the NBA finals after being the only player to lead a team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs for 3 years between 05-07.

Would I actually blame Paul for not beating the Thunder in 14? Of course not...but when the claim is "he's better than basically anyone not named Lebron of this era"...it kind of matters that other guys were taking similar help and making finals and winning titles.

well you brought 2014 as a counter example and I wouldnt disagree as it's a good one and as you said losing to the thunder isnt that bad as a whole. I would say they were a bit helpless from 15-17 without him and will add the perception of those teams was they're talented. still my main point was raw +/- isnt that reliable even for a whole season as better stats can used. the mavs had a net neutral net rtg without dirk but the perception of those teams and likely the reality was there werent a very good team without dirk, really not close to .500 like the net rtg suggests.

And young x might but I wont argue paul as best after lebron of this era though maybe i should've responded to him too. curry is easily better. I'll pretty comfortably take durant though he has a few impact concerns. Some others have a good case or in the mix

[DMAVS41]

well you brought 2014 as a counter example and I wouldnt disagree as it's a good one and as you said losing to the thunder isnt that bad as a whole. I would say they were a bit helpless from 15-17 without him and will add the perception of those teams was they're talented. still my main point was raw +/- isnt that reliable even for a whole season as better stats can used. the mavs had a net neutral net rtg without dirk but the perception of those teams and likely the reality was there werent a very good team without dirk, really not close to .500 like the net rtg suggests.

And young x might but I wont argue paul as best after lebron of this era though maybe i should've responded to him too. curry is easily better. I'll pretty comfortably take durant though he has a few impact concerns. Some others have a good case or in the mix

Again, the 06 and 07 Mavs were the best help Dirk had, on that metric, and it was a trip to the finals and then 67 wins....and a first round loss. That was my point. I'm not arguing Paul's help was elite. I've said that time and time again. I don't think he had great help.

I simply think he had good enough help to, at some point, make a deep playoff run to the finals and if we are talking the Rockets...win a title.

[NBAGOAT]

I agree. Paul was great for the Rockets.

The problem is that in the most important games of the year...he wasn't there. He wore down again in the playoffs.

Then, the following year...his team couldn't win a home game after KD got hurt....after losing the pivotal game 5 with Paul having a dreadful game iirc.

Do you really deny how fragile some of this stuff is? What if Paul was great in game 5 in 19...and then they close the series at home. They might win the title. But it is just ignored when it comes to Paul...the expectations are lower than a lot of the guys he's supposedly better than. Just looked up his game 5. Rockets lost by 5...tied going into the 4th...KD is hurt...Paul goes 3/14 with a 79 ortg and 33%TS for the game. That matters.

Again, all of the individual instances are defensible and not that bad...and even the best players have these games/moments...the problem for Paul is that he doesn't have much of the other side of things. You and others seem to want to put most, if not all, of that on his help....and I just disagree when we are comparing him to the best players of all time.

well the fragility is the strongest thing against him. I just dont think thats enough to move him below the lower top 30 guys like pippen, stockton, ewing(basing off backpicks top 30). 2019 was a bad series though the lot of guys he's supposedly better than doesnt mean as much because he wasnt very good that year which also leads to lower expectations. not even an all-nba guy that year. it's not quite this lvl but i dont care that much that pippen didnt play well vs the lakers in 2000 for example.

No i wont put it as much as some other stans on his help but i dont think he has more bad moments than some guys in his range of all time guys or is just straight up better than guys who dont like you say for malone vs paul(i agree). his help is still a bit overrated because of name value. I also argue he has quite a few good playoff moments that just get tossed aside because it was the 1st round or again lost because help. the 15 win against sa was impressive, only a minority would've considered it a black mark to lose to spurs with a similar core to their title team. 17 vs utah was some of the best play i've ever seen from paul denigrated because game 7 was bad. the clips could've easily lost in 5 or 6 after blake went down because in this case the help was very bad. had a great series vs the lakers in 2011 on a legitimately terrible team without west etc.

Edit: well we disagree on the validity of the metric then. I think we may squabble a bit on how good the help was a few years. i think you can argue it wasnt good enough from 15-17 even with blake healthy. It was good enough to get past the rockets in 2015 for sure tbf but beating the warriors was very difficult, beating the spurs was hard enough. Rockets sure but i'll default to a lazy argument but one I think you'll agree with, basically no one should be faulted for losing to those warriors teams unless they individually played like shit.

[Young X]

Narrative-wise he's terrible. He loses every year, most of his career he was on non-contending teams. He's overrated, not a proven winner, doesn't get it done when it matters. All the cliches fit him.

He's not great if you don't really analyze the game beyond the end result. His impact only shows when you look deeper into what he's really doing to make his teams look better.

It's easy to just dismiss his 2018 season. Another year he got injured and ended up losing. But what he was doing before that to even have the Rockets as the best team in the league and dominating at the same time as the Warriors with KD is amazing. Nobody thought any team had a chance against them.

His 2008 season. He lost in game 7. At home. But how did he even get the Hornets of all teams looking like a possible championship team. He had one of the best seasons ever for a point guard. For a guard period.

Even the OKC series he gets killed for. He f*cked up at the end of game 5, but the only reason that series was even competitive was because of how brilliant of a series he had outside of that one moment. It's not like his teammates put him in position and he failed them. He put the team in that position and almost beat MVP Durant/Westbrook-led OKC team.

For 90% of his career he was by far the best player on his team in the playoffs and the only threat. His teammates for the most part were nothing special and the team was completely dependent on him. He had to have almost perfect series to get past the better teams.

[DMAVS41]

well the fragility is the strongest thing against him. I just dont think thats enough to move him below the lower top 30 guys like pippen, stockton, ewing(basing off backpicks top 30). 2019 was a bad series though the lot of guys he's supposedly better than doesnt mean as much because he wasnt very good that year which also leads to lower expectations. not even an all-nba guy that year. it's not quite this lvl but i dont care that much that pippen didnt play well vs the lakers in 2000 for example.

No i wont put it as much as some other stans on his help but i dont think he has more bad moments than some guys in his range of all time guys or is just straight up better than guys who dont like you say for malone vs paul(i agree). his help is still a bit overrated because of name value. I also argue he has quite a few good playoff moments that just get tossed aside because it was the 1st round or again lost because help. the 15 win against sa was impressive, only a minority would've considered it a black mark to lose to spurs with a similar core to their title team. 17 vs utah was some of the best play i've ever seen from paul denigrated because game 7 was bad. the clips could've easily lost in 5 or 6 after blake went down because in this case the help was very bad. had a great series vs the lakers in 2011 on a legitimately terrible team without west etc.

Edit: well we disagree on the validity of the metric then. I think we may squabble a bit on how good the help was a few years. i think you can argue it wasnt good enough from 15-17 even with blake healthy. It was good enough to get past the rockets in 2015 for sure tbf but beating the warriors was very difficult, beating the spurs was hard enough. Rockets sure but i'll default to a lazy argument but one I think you'll agree with, basically no one should be faulted for losing to those warriors teams unless they individually played like shit.

I definitely agree about the good playoff moments. The Spurs series winning shot is not overlooked by me at all...that matters to me. But, then again, one series or one game of Paul has never been my concern...it is the sustained playoff run that gives me pause.

I doubt we disagree much on the metric...I don't think 16 and 17 should be considered anything of note help wise and wouldn't expect him to win with any of those casts. Yes, obviously...beat the Rockets and don't let Josh Smith end your run, but they weren't going to beat the Warriors...I agree.

I also think people have become a bit unrealistic in terms of help. Yes, there has always been superteams, but plenty of great players have wasted away playing on teams with even less of a chance to make noise than Paul's teams had.

It always comes down to EV or just expected titles won if I have said players a my franchise guy. Like I said...I'm definitely not picking more than like 30 or so players ahead of Paul...that alone is rare company...perhaps I'd take him even higher, but like I think I said to you earlier...just on his era alone I think there are quite a few guys I'd take over him with the goal of winning the most games and titles.

And to your point about longevity...I completely agree longevity should be a big factor, but I think part of grading the impact of great longevity is truly evaluating how likely it is that said player is producing a title given similar help to others.

[DMAVS41]

Narrative-wise he's terrible. He loses every year, most of his career he was on non-contending teams. He's overrated, not a proven winner, doesn't get it done when it matters. All the cliches fit him.

He's not great if you don't really analyze the game beyond the end result. His impact only shows when you look deeper into what he's really doing to make his teams look better.

It's easy to just dismiss his 2018 season. Another year he got injured and ended up losing. But what he was doing before that to even have the Rockets as the best team in the league and dominating at the same time as the Warriors with KD is amazing. Nobody thought any team had a chance against them.

His 2008 season. He lost in game 7. At home. But how did he even get the Hornets of all teams looking like a possible championship team. He had one of the best seasons ever for a point guard. For a guard period.

Even the OKC series he gets killed for. He f*cked up at the end of game 5, but the only reason that series was even competitive was because of how brilliant of a series he had outside of that one moment. It's not like his teammates put him in position and he failed them. He put the team in that position and almost beat MVP Durant/Westbrook-led OKC team.

For 90% of his career he was by far the best player on his team in the playoffs and the only threat. His teammates for the most part were nothing special and the team was completely dependent on him. He had to have almost perfect series to get past the better teams.

I don't know who this is pointed towards, but you have people on this forum arguing he's top 20 all-time...I certainly don't rank him off the narrative either. I think you just fail to understand that I don't think Paul is as good as you do. In evaluating his play, I don't think his impact in terms of actually winning titles approaches Leonard, for example...now, one could argue all-time rankings in different ways, but I'd never draft Paul over Leonard if my goal is winning titles.

Also, so many great players were the best players on their team for 90% of their careers and have to play great to have a chance. Not everyone is KD and Lebron.

[NBAGOAT]

I definitely agree about the good playoff moments. The Spurs series winning shot is not overlooked by me at all...that matters to me. But, then again, one series or one game of Paul has never been my concern...it is the sustained playoff run that gives me pause.

I doubt we disagree much on the metric...I don't think 16 and 17 should be considered anything of note help wise and wouldn't expect him to win with any of those casts. Yes, obviously...beat the Rockets and don't let Josh Smith end your run, but they weren't going to beat the Warriors...I agree.

I also think people have become a bit unrealistic in terms of help. Yes, there has always been superteams, but plenty of great players have wasted away playing on teams with even less of a chance to make noise than Paul's teams had.

It always comes down to EV or just expected titles won if I have said players a my franchise guy. Like I said...I'm definitely not picking more than like 30 or so players ahead of Paul...that alone is rare company...perhaps I'd take him even higher, but like I think I said to you earlier...just on his era alone I think there are quite a few guys I'd take over him with the goal of winning the most games and titles.

And to your point about longevity...I completely agree longevity should be a big factor, but I think part of grading the impact of great longevity is truly evaluating how likely it is that said player is producing a title given similar help to others.

Alright ev of expected titles is interesting. Always love that concept being a bit into poker lol. I say yea for his situations Paul’s below ev title wise but that’s different from comparing his ev to other stars in random situations. Kind of impossible to pinpoint so we might argue for years about it.

There are definitely multiple guys better from this era but as much people like to shit on this era for easy offensive conditions, it’s a very talented era with guys who have long primes.

I still only threw in durant and curry when listing clearly better guys which seems outrageous leaving out kawhi and harden. I’ll just say it’s not unreasonable to say both are on the level or worse than peak Kobe and cp3 was at Kobe’s lvl in 08 for some people though it’s not a good argument and I disagree with it a bit. Still no shame in being behind those guys.

[dankok8]

I absolutely agree with DMAVS41 here. And I believe the only way to make all-time ranking is in terms of "In which order would I draft these players if my goal is winning titles?" Winning titles is the bottom line and the only thing that matters.

[NBAGOAT]

Should say for longevity you have a good point. This year Paul put up meaningful longevity for sure with an all-nba caliber season. I say in an all time list at least all star caliber seasons are still pretty meaningful though they don’t contribute a huge amount to a winning a title.

[Young X]

welcome back man. i dont have to be the main cp3 guy anymore haha
Good to see you too bro. :pimp:


I don't know who this is pointed towards, but you have people on this forum arguing he's top 20 all-time...I certainly don't rank him off the narrative either. I think you just fail to understand that I don't think Paul is as good as you do. In evaluating his play, I don't think his impact in terms of actually winning titles approaches Leonard, for example...now, one could argue all-time rankings in different ways, but I'd never draft Paul over Leonard if my goal is winning titles.

Also, so many great players were the best players on their team for 90% of their careers and have to play great to have a chance. Not everyone is KD and Lebron.
Nothing wrong with taking Leonard. But his chances to win championships were not the same as CP3's during his prime.

He got drafted to the Spurs who already had 3 hall of famers and a hall of fame coach. And the Spurs consistently had winning records even in games he didn't play in.

And then joined the Raptors who already won 60 games before he went there and they were in the eastern conference. When Paul joined the Hornets and Clippers they were in the lottery.

This is the part I don't think you consider enough. You just dismiss the regular season and dismiss seeding. Kawhi literally sat out games in the regular season to preserve himself for the playoffs and got away with it because the foundation of his team was still an elite east team without him.

CP3 wouldn't be able to sit out games and preserve for the playoffs, his team would be struggling to stay in the playoff hunt.

You won't admit it but I think your opinions are largely results-based. I think if Paul had played on better teams you would think differently.

[Young X]

Would I actually blame Paul for not beating the Thunder in 14? Of course not...but when the claim is "he's better than basically anyone not named Lebron of this era"...it kind of matters that other guys were taking similar help and making finals and winning titles.
I didn't say this. I said he statistically made a bigger difference to his teams than any other player in his era when you were downplaying his impact because of his lack of size.

Over an 10 year period, his teams were over 13 points per possession better with him on the court.

Aside from injuries, there is nothing that diminishes his impact compared to other stars. He makes even more of an impact then most of them.

[DMAVS41]

I think you guys make some great points about Paul and I want to be clear that in no way am I claiming he had the kind of help that should have yielded multiple titles or something. He didn't have that. And yes, he had an amazing impact on his teams virtually every year of his career.

And since I last did my rankings, the more I think about it, the more I think I should move him up to better than number 30. I don't really want to take the time to really rank everyone again, but I think it is fair to say I'd move him up...he's still awesome and perhaps I've been a bit too hard on him.

I just keep coming up against where I'd honestly draft him in NBA history with the singular goal of winning...and given all the things I've mentioned...I just can't put him in certain classes. But, again, I could be wrong...I just don't think the evidence is there.

[DMAVS41]

You won't admit it but I think your opinions are largely results-based. I think if Paul had played on better teams you would think differently.

No, you can think that, but it isn't true. It is results based...based on circumstances. If he played better at key times in his career...yes, I'd think of him differently. That isn't results based...it is based on his actual play. I don't rank like that, I'm not moving KD up my rankings because he won a couple titles on the Warriors. But, i will move him up if he proves stuff leading the Nets. I think that is fair. With Paul, you are acting like he played with KG level help most of his career. And that just isn't true...and framing him like he just had to carry bums year in year out is also just not accurate. Blake Griffin was once around a top 10 player in this league.

It is like the size thing. You think that is downplaying him. I don't think it is. It is a disadvantage to be a short player that doesn't have elite athleticism. That is just a fact. Paul can't do certain things on the court that are quite valuable given his imitations on his size/athleticism. To deny that is just denying NBA history.

If I'm trying to win titles...I'm taking the dominant wing over the short point guard in this range of player pretty much every time. Take Harden, I'd still rank Paul higher, but it is getting close...what Harden does can elevate a team, at times, higher than what Paul can do imo. And if Harden makes another deep run this and plays great...and beats the Lakers, for example, it starts to get hard to say Paul gives you better chances at a title than him over their careers given what we've seen.

Being big and athletic are key advantages in basketball. I can't believe that point wouldn't just be immediately agreed upon.

And lastly, injuries can't just be shrugged off...part of a players value is actually being on the court for crucial games. If you are going to talk about longevity...you damn well sure have to talk about durability. So the phrase "aside from injuries"...doesn't make sense when talking about an all-time ranking. How good a player is when not 100% is actually a key component to their overall impact as a player in the most important games because it is a tough game that wears everyone down a bit. To just throw that out like it doesn't matter is a mistake.

[Gohan]

Damn y’all treating this thread like a college essay.

[jayfan]

I think we can all agree that if prime AD was on the same team as prime CP3 that AD would be the better and more impactful player. In fact the team would only go as far as AD would take them. Period.

Only delusional CP3 stans (if these even exist) would think otherwise.

If they exist? That was sarcasm...right?

[dankok8]

Basically there are four PG's all time that are easily ahead of CP3...

Magic
Oscar
Curry
Isiah

No argument whatsoever vs. these guys. They were all more dominant AND led their teams further.

Then there is a large group of PG's that are debatable:

Nash
Kidd
Westbrook
Payton
Tiny
Cousy

So CP3 could be as high as #5 PG ever or as low as #11. Let's kind of put him middle of the pack and say he's #8. If we try to represent all positions equally that would place him around #40 all time... Any rank for CP3 in the 30's and 40's is fine. Inside the top 30 is too high and outside of top 50 too low IMO.

One other thing I want to add is that people forget that CP3 was never a unanimous best PG in the league either. Even before Curry, plenty of people would rather have Deron Williams, Rondo, or even Parker when it came to the playoffs. I myself preferred Paul but it was debatable. CP3 just wasn't as good as some people imply. Injuries are also a major minus for him.

[DMAVS41]

Basically there are four PG's all time that are easily ahead of CP3...

Magic
Oscar
Curry
Isiah

No argument whatsoever vs. these guys. They were all more dominant AND led their teams further.

Then there is a large group of PG's that are debatable:

Nash
Kidd
Westbrook
Payton
Tiny
Cousy

So CP3 could be as high as #5 PG ever or as low as #11. Let's kind of put him middle of the pack and say he's #8. If we try to represent all positions equally that would place him around #40 all time... Any rank for CP3 in the 30's and 40's is fine. Inside the top 30 is too high and outside of top 50 too low IMO.

One other thing I want to add is that people forget that CP3 was never a unanimous best PG in the league either. Even before Curry, plenty of people would rather have Deron Williams, Rondo, or even Parker when it came to the playoffs. I myself preferred Paul but it was debatable. CP3 just wasn't as good as some people imply. Injuries are also a major minus for him.

You forgot Stockton, although I'd have Paul pretty high here and higher than Stockton...a lot of people wouldn't...and while I would disagree, it would be reasonable.

Also, there is no reason to try and represent all positions equally. Short point guards do not have the same impact on winning as bigger players. Curry is really the exception there...and even then he's bigger than Paul.

[NBAGOAT]

You forgot Stockton, although I'd have Paul pretty high here and higher than Stockton...a lot of people wouldn't...and while I would disagree, it would be reasonable.

Also, there is no reason to try and represent all positions equally. Short point guards do not have the same impact on winning as bigger players. Curry is really the exception there...and even then he's bigger than Paul.

point guards the worst position all time for sure. However danko8's evaluations I think are quite off. deron's case was weak most years from 08 on and rondo and parker just werent better. Only year it's true for is the year cp3 played 45 games. He's right cp3 wasnt unanimous but it wasnt that debatable either. I would say paul having no argument vs isiah is ridiculous. If you want to argue someone has no argument it goes more the other way. Nash kidd and stockton have cases imo so cp3's more in the 4-7 range.

[k0kakw0rld]

Basically there are four PG's all time that are easily ahead of CP3...

Magic
Oscar
Curry
Isiah

No argument whatsoever vs. these guys. They were all more dominant AND led their teams further.

Then there is a large group of PG's that are debatable:

Nash
Kidd
Westbrook
Payton
Tiny
Cousy

So CP3 could be as high as #5 PG ever or as low as #11. Let's kind of put him middle of the pack and say he's #8. If we try to represent all positions equally that would place him around #40 all time... Any rank for CP3 in the 30's and 40's is fine. Inside the top 30 is too high and outside of top 50 too low IMO.

One other thing I want to add is that people forget that CP3 was never a unanimous best PG in the league either. Even before Curry, plenty of people would rather have Deron Williams, Rondo, or even Parker when it came to the playoffs. I myself preferred Paul but it was debatable. CP3 just wasn't as good as some people imply. Injuries are also a major minus for him.
Kidd was better than Nash and Curry.

[DMAVS41]

point guards the worst position all time for sure. However danko8's evaluations I think are quite off. deron's case was weak most years from 08 on and rondo and parker just werent better. Only year it's true for is the year cp3 played 45 games. He's right cp3 wasnt unanimous but it wasnt that debatable either. I would say paul having no argument vs isiah is ridiculous. If you want to argue someone has no argument it goes more the other way. Nash kidd and stockton have cases imo so cp3's more in the 4-7 range.

You'll get nothing but agreement here from me. Like I said before I didn't see Oscar, but he seems historically deserving of being ranked higher than Paul. Granting that...the only 3 points I'd for sure take above Paul are Magic/Curry/Oscar...Paul is going to have a good argument over anyone else in my opinion.

[dankok8]

@DMAVS41

Yes I did forget Stockton. He's in the debatable category as well.

I don't see Oscar as debatable at all. He was just a force on the basketball court. Read and listen to the testimonies of his contemporaries. He was just a much better basketball player than CP3. Maintained his numbers in the playoffs and literally had no weaknesses in his game which you can't say about CP3. Oscar won an MVP over prime Wilt and Russell. He then won a ring as the 2nd best player but definite superstar on one of the greatest teams ever.

Generally players from different eras are tough to rank objectively and I tend to refrain from it these days or if I do I understand it's just in good fun. But Paul over Oscar would seriously make me cringe. They just don't feel like the same stature of player.

I think we can all agree that CP3 is the 2nd best PG of the past decade after Steph Curry. :cheers:

[dankok8]

point guards the worst position all time for sure. However danko8's evaluations I think are quite off. deron's case was weak most years from 08 on and rondo and parker just werent better. Only year it's true for is the year cp3 played 45 games. He's right cp3 wasnt unanimous but it wasnt that debatable either. I would say paul having no argument vs isiah is ridiculous. If you want to argue someone has no argument it goes more the other way. Nash kidd and stockton have cases imo so cp3's more in the 4-7 range.


Check this very forum and ESPN from 10-12 years ago. A lot of people were considering Deron Williams and Rajon Rondo as the best PG in the world. Like I said, I always said Paul was better but it was debatable.

[NBAGOAT]

Check this very forum and ESPN from 10-12 years ago. A lot of people were considering Deron Williams and Rajon Rondo as the best PG in the world. Like I said, I always said Paul was better but it was debatable.

well some weird things get debated every year. People were saying luka was better than kawhi after game 4, that was just an overreaction. some people debated westbrook as top 10 this year, I think that was a bit ridiculous. dont think it should've been debated much at all in 09 and maybe 11 and it wasnt a debate in 08.

[dankok8]

well some weird things get debated every year. People were saying luka was better than kawhi after game 4, that was just an overreaction. some people debated westbrook as top 10 this year, I think that was a bit ridiculous. dont think it should've been debated much at all in 09 and maybe 11 and it wasnt a debate in 08.

It was a widespread debate. People from ESPN were writing columns about Rondo and D Will making cases for them not just a bunch of loonies on ISH.

[NBAGOAT]

It was a widespread debate. People from ESPN were writing columns about Rondo and D Will making cases for them not just a bunch of loonies on ISH.

well espn has put about stuff about westbrook being top 10 this year too haha. Their stuff isnt always great

[Young X]

No, you can think that, but it isn't true. It is results based...based on circumstances. If he played better at key times in his career...yes, I'd think of him differently. That isn't results based...it is based on his actual play. I don't rank like that, I'm not moving KD up my rankings because he won a couple titles on the Warriors. But, i will move him up if he proves stuff leading the Nets. I think that is fair. With Paul, you are acting like he played with KG level help most of his career. And that just isn't true...and framing him like he just had to carry bums year in year out is also just not accurate. Blake Griffin was once around a top 10 player in this league.
We're talking about the playoffs. Blake was for the most part a mediocre playoff scorer and weak defender. And he was non-existent in 3 postseasons because of a season-ending injury. He basically played in only 3 postseasons with CP3.

David West was a weak scorer in the playoffs and he wasn't a defender. In the 2008 WCSF, he had 3 different games where he scored 10 points.

CP3 in his prime was playing in the western conference at it's peak and that was the best he had. 3 full years with Blake and 2 with West. Against teams like OKC, Spurs, Lakers, Nuggets, Grizzlies, Rockets.

His teammates are the one's you should be questioning, instead of putting the entire focus on him as if he's playing 1 on 5.

[DMAVS41]

We're talking about the playoffs. Blake was for the most part a mediocre playoff scorer and weak defender. And he was non-existent in 3 postseasons because of a season-ending injury. He basically played in only 3 postseasons with CP3.

David West was a weak scorer in the playoffs and he wasn't a defender. In the 2008 WCSF, he had 3 different games where he scored 10 points.

CP3 in his prime was playing in the western conference at it's peak and that was the best he had. 3 full years with Blake and 2 with West. Against teams like OKC, Spurs, Lakers, Nuggets, Grizzlies, Rockets.

His teammates are the one's you should be questioning, instead of putting the entire focus on him as if he's playing 1 on 5.

Well, if you one were making claims about his teammates being better than I think they were...you'd have a point I guess.

[Young X]

Well, if you one were making claims about his teammates being better than I think they were...you'd have a point I guess.
How do you genrally feel about those guys in the playoffs though.

[tpols]

Kidd was better than Nash and Curry.

No he wasn't. And I'm a huge Kidd fan. Him and Nash are tied, with Curry above both.

Chef is one of the only point guards that could "get hot". Paul, Kidd, and Nash all tried to meticulously control things and make good decisions, but they couldn't avalanche you with scoring. Chris Paul made only 5 shots in a game 7 while putting up a triple double. They needed him to score... not pad his stats.

[DMAVS41]

How do you honestly feel about those guys though in the playoffs.

Overall I bet we are pretty close though. Good, but not great. Certainly nothing special.

I bet I think Griffin was better than you do. I think he was actually really good in 14 and 15.

[Young X]

Overall I bet we are pretty close though. Good, but not great. Certainly nothing special.

I bet I think Griffin was better than you do. I think he was actually really good in 14 and 15.
He was very good in those years.

What about all the other years. 2008, 2009, 2011-2013, 2016 and 2017.

[DMAVS41]

He was very good in those years.

What about all the other years. 2008, 2009, 2011-2013, 2016 and 2017.

Like I said. Good, but not great for his career up until the Rockets...which was great help imo.

I really liked his 08 team, but nothing truly championship caliber imo...until the Rockets....although I think 14 was just on the verge of that.

[NBAGOAT]

No he wasn't. And I'm a huge Kidd fan. Him and Nash are tied, with Curry above both.

Chef is one of the only point guards that could "get hot". Paul, Kidd, and Nash all tried to meticulously control things and make good decisions, but they couldn't avalanche you with scoring. Chris Paul made only 5 shots in a game 7 while putting up a triple double. They needed him to score... not pad his stats.

i think you're underrating nash here. he's not westbrook but very aggressive especially with his passing. you cant be meticulous and play ssol at the same time

[Young X]

In 2008, David West averaged 20.1 PPG on 50.3 TS% against the Spurs.

In 2009, averaged 18 PPG on 48.5 TS%.

In 2011, missed the Lakers series with an ACL injury.


In 2012, Blake averaged 21 on 50.2 TS% against the Spurs.

In 2013, averaged 13.2 on 52.4 TS%. Broke his ankle.

In 2016 and 2017 had a season ending injury.

That is weak help.

[DMAVS41]

In 2008, David West averaged 20.1 PPG on 50.3 TS% against the Spurs.

In 2009, averaged 18 PPG on 48.5 TS%.

In 2011, missed the Lakers series with an ACL injury.


In 2012, Blake averaged 21 on 50.2 TS% against the Spurs.

In 2013, averaged 13.2 on 52.4 TS%. Broke his ankle.

In 2016 and 2017 had a season ending injury.

That is weak help.

It is definitely weak if that was his career, but the above isn't his career. He had other quality teams with him as the best player...and even better teams as the 2nd best player.

A lot of players go many years with little to no chance to do much in the playoffs and it isn't like I'm grading Paul on expectations like he was as lucky as Shaq or Kobe or Wade or Lebron or Durant to play with loaded rosters throughout his career.

Which is why I'd never need a guy like Paul to win 5 titles or more to think he's better than Kobe or something. You keep talking as if you think I'm grading Paul on some championship or nothing standard.

I'm not...I simply said I'd like to see and expect to see more playoff success at some point if he was as good as you claim. Honestly man, I think that is really reasonable. You make it sound like I'm some "Paul hater" because I don't put him top 20 all-time.

I simply don't think he was as good as you did.

[Young X]

It is definitely weak if that was his career, but the above isn't his career. He had other quality teams with him as the best player...and even better teams as the 2nd best player.

A lot of players go many years with little to no chance to do much in the playoffs and it isn't like I'm grading Paul on expectations like he was as lucky as Shaq or Kobe or Wade or Lebron or Durant to play with loaded rosters throughout his career.

Which is why I'd never need a guy like Paul to win 5 titles or more to think he's better than Kobe or something. You keep talking as if you think I'm grading Paul on some championship or nothing standard.

I'm not...I simply said I'd like to see and expect to see more playoff success at some point if he was as good as you claim. Honestly man, I think that is really reasonable. You make it sound like I'm some "Paul hater" because I don't put him top 20 all-time.

I simply don't think he was as good as you did.
It is his career basically. There's still this year, in 2010 he missed half the season and missed the playoffs, than his 1st 2 years where he missed the playoffs on bad teams.

So that's 11 years playing on either bad teams or without any legitimate playoff scorer.

[DMAVS41]

It is his career basically. There's still this year, in 2010 he missed half the season and missed the playoffs, than his 1st 2 years where he missed the playoffs on bad teams.

So that's 11 years playing on either bad teams or without any legitimate playoff scorer.

No, it's not his career.

Being injured can't be ignored and you also can't just ignore his best teams and best chances in an effort to pretend he never played on good teams.

Like I said...he certainly wasn't blessed with teams like the best players of his era, but he also wasn't completely cursed like KG either...and nobody with a brain is judging him on championship or bust standards that a lot of all-timers have to deal with...often unfairly.

The mere fact that so many people have Paul as high as they do shows you that built into all these rankings is a standard of fairness and context.

I get it. You think he was basically as good as any star outside a couple. I just disagree. Paul could have won a title in 18 and 19...and unless he improved his level of play...I'd still rank him about where I do now...maybe slightly higher because it would be nice to see him prove he could stay healthy on a sustained run, but nothing huge in terms of changing because I just don't think his level of play warrants that.

[dankok8]

List of teams Paul lost to in the playoffs when he was the best player on the team:

2008 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to LA in 5 in the next round; Paul played well
2009 - Nuggets in Round 1 who ended up losing to LA in 6 two rounds later; Paul played poorly (injured)
2010 - Missed Playoffs (injured)
2011 - Lakers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Mavs in 4 in the next round; Paul played well
2012 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to Thunder in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly (injured)
2013 - Memphis in Round 1 who ended up losing to Spurs in 4 two rounds later; Paul played well
2014 - Thunder in Round 2 who ended up losing to Spurs in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly in key moments
2015 - Rockets in Round 2 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2016 - Blazers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2017 - Jazz in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 4 in the next round: Paul played well

Paul almost invariably lost to teams who lost the very next round and played either well or poorly about half the time. He never once really raised his game where you could say he was amazing. And he was injured 5 times in 10 postseasons which is abysmal and he cannot get a pass for that from me.

[jayfan]

List of teams Paul lost to in the playoffs when he was the best player on the team:

2008 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to LA in 5 in the next round; Paul played well
2009 - Nuggets in Round 1 who ended up losing to LA in 6 two rounds later; Paul played poorly (injured)
2010 - Missed Playoffs (injured)
2011 - Lakers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Mavs in 4 in the next round; Paul played well
2012 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to Thunder in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly (injured)
2013 - Memphis in Round 1 who ended up losing to Spurs in 4 two rounds later; Paul played well
2014 - Thunder in Round 2 who ended up losing to Spurs in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly in key moments
2015 - Rockets in Round 2 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2016 - Blazers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2017 - Jazz in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 4 in the next round: Paul played well

Paul almost invariably lost to teams who lost the very next round and played either well or poorly about half the time. He never once really raised his game where you could say he was amazing. And he was injured 5 times in 10 postseasons which is abysmal and he cannot get a pass for that from me.

Inb4 CP stans run in with, "What about the shot to beat the Spurs?!", the single clutch moment in CP's playoff career.

[DMAVS41]

List of teams Paul lost to in the playoffs when he was the best player on the team:

2008 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to LA in 5 in the next round; Paul played well
2009 - Nuggets in Round 1 who ended up losing to LA in 6 two rounds later; Paul played poorly (injured)
2010 - Missed Playoffs (injured)
2011 - Lakers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Mavs in 4 in the next round; Paul played well
2012 - Spurs in Round 2 who ended up losing to Thunder in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly (injured)
2013 - Memphis in Round 1 who ended up losing to Spurs in 4 two rounds later; Paul played well
2014 - Thunder in Round 2 who ended up losing to Spurs in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly in key moments
2015 - Rockets in Round 2 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2016 - Blazers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2017 - Jazz in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 4 in the next round: Paul played well

Paul almost invariably lost to teams who lost the very next round and played either well or poorly about half the time. He never once really raised his game where you could say he was amazing. And he was injured 5 times in 10 postseasons which is abysmal and he cannot get a pass for that from me.

I think it is fair to quibble about his level of play, but being injured that often simply makes you less valuable as a basketball player.

I know you were only doing "best player", but the next two years were trouble as well. His injury in 18 probably cost the Rockets the title...and then the next year...the Rockets lost both game 5 and game 6 to the Warriors with KD essentially out.

Like I've said from the jump...I just don't see what is so confusing about the position of expecting more than this from the 20th best player or whatever ranking people want to give him now.

[Young X]

2014 - Thunder in Round 2 who ended up losing to Spurs in 6 in the next round; Paul played poorly in key moments
2015 - Rockets in Round 2 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)
2016 - Blazers in Round 1 who ended up losing to Warriors in 5 in the next round: Paul played poorly (injured)

Paul almost invariably lost to teams who lost the very next round and played either well or poorly about half the time. He never once really raised his game where you could say he was amazing. And he was injured 5 times in 10 postseasons which is abysmal and he cannot get a pass for that from me.In all 3 of those series played well.

In the OKC series he played poorly in one moment. He averaged 22.5 PPG, 11.8 APG, 2.5 SPG, 2.3 turnovers on 51% from the field, 45.5 from 3. He was the only reason that series was close.

Against the Rockets he averaged 26/10 on 63 TS% in the 3 losses.

Against the Blazers he was dominating the series before he and Blake had season ending injuries in the same game.

His level of play is actually higher than most star players. He didn't even have any bad games in those series, he had a couple bad quarters and an injury. It's just magnified because his margin for error is so low with those teams.

In the OKC series, had he not had that turnover in game 5, he would have had a perfect series. That's the level he had to play at to advance.

We're on page 13 and there is still no evaluation of his teammates. I've never seen a player that holds more responsibility for their entire teams than CP3, it's like he's playing 1 on 5 in these series.

[DMAVS41]

Evaluate his teammates? I already did...I said he had some bad teams, good teams, a great team...nothing for sure championship caliber until the Rockets.

You act like he played with no help. You act like he was KG on Minny...saying he was playing 1 on 5. That just isn't true.

Also, what you call "perfect"...I don't. Inherent in Paul's "perfect" games is being a short ball dominant player that picks his spots a bit too much at times for my liking...and lacking that size and consistent scoring force...has a lower ceiling than some of the best players of all-time.

You say size doesn't matter. Okay, that is your opinion...that is fine, but that isn't a counter argument. I think being bigger and more athletic in the NBA is a real advantage. Historically short guards that dominate the ball don't make as big of an impact.

And, again and hopefully for the last time, being injured often is not an excuse...it makes you less valuable as a player.

[Young X]

Evaluate his teammates? I already did...I said he had some bad teams, good teams, a great team...nothing for sure championship caliber until the Rockets.

You act like he played with no help. You act like he was KG on Minny...saying he was playing 1 on 5. That just isn't true.

Also, what you call "perfect"...I don't. Inherent in Paul's "perfect" games is being a short ball dominant player that picks his spots a bit too much at times for my liking...and lacking that size and consistent scoring force...has a lower ceiling than some of the best players of all-time.

You say size doesn't matter. Okay, that is your opinion...that is fine, but that isn't a counter argument. I think being bigger and more athletic in the NBA is a real advantage. Historically short guards that dominate the ball don't make as big of an impact.

And, again and hopefully for the last time, being injured often is not an excuse...it makes you less valuable as a player.
No, I mean evaluate their actual performance.

That's what I mean by 1 on 5. I'm saying he looked at as if he's the only player on the team in terms of responsibility.

How good was Blake Griffin in the playoffs? How much impact did he make in terms of winning in his career?

There is a possibility that you're questioning the wrong player. Maybe Chris really is that good and he hasn't played with the right players for the majority of his career. Nobody actually explores this.

[DMAVS41]

Blake Griffin at times was very poor in the playoffs for a player of his caliber/role...and at times played like a borderline top 10 player in the world.

Definitely good enough of a level, at his best, to get out of the 2nd round at some point in my opinion.

Harden is likely going to go down as one of the 30 or so best players ever. Paul played with him likely at close to his peak...and with good supporting role players as well. Again, definitely good enough to make the finals.

[Young X]

Blake Griffin at times was very poor in the playoffs for a player of his caliber/role...and at times played like a borderline top 10 player in the world.

Definitely good enough of a level, at his best, to get out of the 2nd round at some point in my opinion.

Harden is likely going to go down as one of the 30 or so best players ever. Paul played with him likely at close to his peak...and with good supporting role players as well. Again, definitely good enough to make the finals.
At times, meaning one postseason and nothing special outside of that. Blake has not been an impactful player to have in the playoffs up to this point. And outside of his years with Chris, has done nothing but play losing basketball.

When Paul played with Harden he was past his prime and old. I'm talking during his prime.

[DMAVS41]

At times, meaning one postseason and nothing special outside of that. Blake has not been an impactful player to have in the playoffs up to this point. And outside of his years with Chris, has done nothing but play losing basketball.

When Paul played with Harden he was past his prime and old. I'm talking during his prime.

Compared to what? Blake was a borderline top 10 player for parts of his career. If that isn't good enough for Paul in his prime to make the conference finals...maybe you need to rethink your ranking of him.

Meh...Paul was 32 and had less mileage than Dirk did at the same age. Dirk had played about 100 more regular season games and 30 more playoff games at the same age. Dirk carried his team to a title. Not sure the old excuse works...unless you are willing to never make any longevity arguments.

[Young X]

Blake was not a top 10 player if you include the playoffs. 21 PPG on 54 TS% and bad defense is nowhere near top 10 level.

It's not about using age as an excuse, it's that I'm focusing on the years where he was more in his prime.

[DMAVS41]

Blake was not a top 10 player if you include the playoffs. 21 PPG on 54 TS% and bad defense is nowhere near top 10 level.

It's not about using age as an excuse, it's that I'm focusing on the years where he was more in his prime.

I'm talking about the years the Clippers had their best chances. Using Blake's career playoffs like it somehow makes him worse in certain years doesn't make sense. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think Blake was close to 25/10/5 in 14 and 15 in the playoffs...I'd say that is good enough out of the running mate.

Ok. I'm talking about his entire career compared to the very best players ever. The guys he's supposedly better than.

[Young X]

I'm talking about the years the Clippers had their best chances. Using Blake's career playoffs like it somehow makes him worse in certain years doesn't make sense. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think Blake was close to 25/10/5 in 14 and 15 in the playoffs...I'd say that is good enough out of the running mate.

Ok. I'm talking about his entire career compared to the very best players ever. The guys he's supposedly better than.
Blake averaged 24/9/4 on 54 TS% in 2014 against OKC. He was good, but the Clippers were going against peak Durant and Westbrook, two superstars.


Also, what you call "perfect"...I don't. Inherent in Paul's "perfect" games is being a short ball dominant player that picks his spots a bit too much at times for my liking...and lacking that size and consistent scoring force...has a lower ceiling than some of the best players of all-time.

He picks his spots in terms of scoring. But he's always aggressive with his defense and his playmaking. You don't have to be a scoring force to win if you're a great all-around player.

[NBAGOAT]

I'm talking about the years the Clippers had their best chances. Using Blake's career playoffs like it somehow makes him worse in certain years doesn't make sense. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think Blake was close to 25/10/5 in 14 and 15 in the playoffs...I'd say that is good enough out of the running mate.

Ok. I'm talking about his entire career compared to the very best players ever. The guys he's supposedly better than.

blake's good those years but a neutral to poor defender and not that efficient(around 55ts% those playoffs). Top 10 is still fair for sure those years. Thing that's overlooked is how bad the clips are after their top 4(which is pretty good) for one of those years in 15. Jamal after 2014 is one of the worst lead ball handlers i've ever seen. Deandre wasnt quite in his prime yet in 14.

it was doc's fault as coaches dont make good GM's. he signed former celtics guys, guys who did well vs the clippers and resigned his son. most of those small moves were terrible along with never finding a sf. I mean speights and felton were two of the better bench pieces he picked up Lol.

[DMAVS41]

Blake averaged 24/9/4 on 54 TS% in 2014 against OKC. He was good, but the Clippers were going against peak Durant and Westbrook, two superstars.



He picks his spots in terms of scoring. But he's always aggressive with his defense and his playmaking. You don't have to be a scoring force to win if you're a great all-around player.

Yea...and it would have been a great win for the Clippers. Had a real shot, unfortunately they came up short and weren't able to do something special. You know, my exact argument about having to actually do special shit to be considered as good as where you place Paul.

Yea, agreed...it's just that scoring is more important out of star players broadly speaking...and that all around game for really small players that dominate the ball just doesn't have the same peak impact overall imo.

[Young X]

Typically, but we've never seen a small player that is also a great defender while also being a great offensive player like he is. He is not a usual small player.

There has to be more arguments than just "if he was this good then his team would've...".

There should be something that statistically suggests Chris Paul isn't as good as people say.

[DMAVS41]

Typically, but we've never seen a small player that is also a great defender while also being a great offensive player like he is. He is not a usual small player.

There has to be more arguments than just "if he was this good than his team would've...".

There should be something that statistically suggests Chris Paul isn't as good as people say.

I've already given you those arguments. You've rejected them...which is fine.

And, honestly, I don't think there has to be....results and durability actually matter...they just aren't the end all be all that many here pretend they are.

What people? Most people would be way closer to me than you.

[Young X]

I've already given you those arguments. You've rejected them...which is fine.

And, honestly, I don't think there has to be....results and durability actually matter...they just aren't the end all be all that many here pretend they are.

What people? Most people would be way closer to me than you.
You have given me nothing but subjective arguments and your own opinions on why you think his team doesn't win. Nothing objective. No statistics. No individual accolades.

No player is ever judged like that where it's 100% opinionated and where team success is the entire debate. That's why he is an anomaly. You say team success isn't the end all be all, but it's literally all we've talked about in this thread. This never happens with any other player.

[DMAVS41]

You have given me nothing but subjective arguments and your own opinions on why you think his team doesn't win. Nothing objective. No statistics. No individual accolades.

No player is ever judged like that where it's 100% opinionated and where team success is the entire debate. That's why he is an anomaly. You say team success isn't the end all be all, but it's literally all we've talked about in this thread. This never happened with any other player.

You've got it backwards, which has been explained to you many times.

I'll try again.

All his stats, his impact, his accolades...all of that...his basketball skills...is why I think he's probably around the 30th best player ever. If you want to talk all day about his incredible floor raising of his teams, his individual toughness, his mid-range excellence, his handle, his on ball defense, his ability to just absorb the ball when it gets around him on defense...his clutch ability individually and team orchestration in clutch moments...I'll talk all day singing his praises. He's one of the best players ever.

I can think all of that...and also think he wasn't better than guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk/KG/Duncan/Durant/Curry/Leonard/Lebron...etc.

And I think that based on my evaluation of him as a basketball player. I don't think he's as good at basketball as them. And if I were going to change my opinion on that...I'd need something more than Paul's stats...I'd need tangible results of him actually doing shit that some of those guys couldn't or haven't done...or at least doing something more than melting down or missing the biggest games of his career.

I'm already starting from the foundation that he's probably the 4th best point guard of all-time and a top 30 player. Putting him higher requires him doing actual stuff. Sorry, but being injured a lot isn't a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I rank on expected titles won with said player on my franchise. It is my "opinion" that Paul gives me less expected titles than the players I rank over him. You might have a different methodology, but I would question it because the entire goal of the NBA is to try to win the most. So, like I said...you can draft Paul over the likes of KG, Dirk, Wade, Leonard...etc...and I'll take them...and I bet I win a lot more.

What is so hard to understand?

[DMAVS41]

CP3 is considered one of the best players of his era but there's no way you could argue that by ranking players the way we have in this thread.

It's overly simplistic to me, but the idea is that Chris Paul can't win on good teams. Basically insinuating that he is the problem or one of the problems.

If it's that simple, there have been tons of players even his own era who have done that. There has to be more to it than that.

If he "didn't play well" in the 2014 OKC series than what is so good about him in the first place? That was one of his better series.

Yes you can.

You always say this, but of course you can. Shit, just looking at Paul's career stats and his impact numbers place him very high.

I honestly have no idea what you are even trying to say at this point...and I don't think you really do either.

Also, I never said he didn't play well. I said that in that huge moment...biggest moment of the year...he crumbled. He still was very good in that series just to get his team that competitive. The problem is, the guys you are saying he's better than...also have insane impact and great stats...and have come through in moments like that and done special shit. Ignoring that is just silly.

[Young X]

I rank on expected titles won with said player on my franchise. It is my "opinion" that Paul gives me less expected titles than the players I rank over him. You might have a different methodology, but I would question it because the entire goal of the NBA is to try to win the most. So, like I said...you can draft Paul over the likes of KG, Dirk, Wade, Leonard...etc...and I'll take them...and I bet I win a lot more.

What is so hard to understand?
It's not about specifically where you rank him, it's the reasoning behind it. I don't even put him above those guys. I think he's close to them or on a similar level. But he did not have the opportunities those guys did for you to say "but I bet I win alot more". Guys like Wade or Leonard were rarely on the inferior team talent-wise, they had nowhere the amount of pressure. They both in their careers have had fortunate things happen for them.

The 2014 Clippers were arguably the 2nd best team CP3 has been on and they were still inferior to their opponent.

The 2018 Rockets were his best team and they had to play the KD-Warriors.


I honestly have no idea what you are even trying to say at this point...and I don't think you really do either.
I wasn't necessarily talking to you with that post. Just general rambling. I deleted it before you quoted me.

[DMAVS41]

It's not about specifically where you rank him, it's the reasoning behind it. I don't even put him above those guys. I think he's close to them or on a similar level. But he did not have the opportunities those guys did for you to say "but I bet I win alot more". Guys like Wade or Leonard were rarely on the inferior team talent-wise, they had nowhere the amount of pressure. They both in their career have had fortunate things happen for them.

The 2014 Clippers were arguably his 2nd best team CP3 has been on and they were still inferior to their opponent.


I wasn't necessarily talking to you with that post. Just general rambling. I deleted it before you quoted me.

Ok, but that is more making my point and in no way, like I've said on repeat, would grade or expect Paul to have the kind of team success as Leonard or Wade or Kobe or Lebron or Duncan or Shaq...etc...or even Dirk...even if I thought he was as good as them...because they all played in superior circumstances.

What am I saying...is that if Paul was at a certain level of value as a player...I'd expect him to have one special type run at least. The 06 Mavs were inferior to their 2nd round opponent...they made the finals. The 11 Mavs were inferior to at least two of the teams they played...they won the title. But I'm not going to repeat this stuff over and over again...I already have.

I think Paul is great. One of the best ever. All of your objective measures I'll agree with...some of that is exactly why I rank him so high. I also think his ceiling of impact is a bit lower than bigger and more athletic all-time greats, I do not think he was the best teammate, and unfortunately he really struggled with durability issues in his career.

And those things matter the way I do my rankings.

[dankok8]

In all 3 of those series played well.

In the OKC series he played poorly in one moment. He averaged 22.5 PPG, 11.8 APG, 2.5 SPG, 2.3 turnovers on 51% from the field, 45.5 from 3. He was the only reason that series was close.

Against the Rockets he averaged 26/10 on 63 TS% in the 3 losses.

Against the Blazers he was dominating the series before he and Blake had season ending injuries in the same game.

His level of play is actually higher than most star players. He didn't even have any bad games in those series, he had a couple bad quarters and an injury. It's just magnified because his margin for error is so low with those teams.

In the OKC series, had he not had that turnover in game 5, he would have had a perfect series. That's the level he had to play at to advance.

We're on page 13 and there is still no evaluation of his teammates. I've never seen a player that holds more responsibility for their entire teams than CP3, it's like he's playing 1 on 5 in these series.

His "one moment" in that OKC series was very decisive and so disastrously bad that it still sticks out in my mind this many years later.

In the Rockets series, he missed two entire games.. You mentioned his numbers in the three losses. In the other four games, he had a combined total of 27 points and 19 assists. That series was literally the epitome of anti-impact. Played well in losses and poorly in wins. That isn't exactly something to brag about.

Against Blazers, he got injured. THAT'S BAD!! When you get injured, that hurts your team so that's arguably even worse than playing poorly.

[NBAGOAT]

His "one moment" in that OKC series was very decisive and so disastrously bad that it still sticks out in my mind this many years later.

In the Rockets series, he missed two entire games.. You mentioned his numbers in the three losses. In the other four games, he had a combined total of 27 points and 19 assists. That series was literally the epitome of anti-impact. Played well in losses and poorly in wins. That isn't exactly something to brag about.

Against Blazers, he got injured. THAT'S BAD!! When you get injured, that hurts your team so that's arguably even worse than playing poorly.

injuries are bad but he's far from the only one. curry has missed playoff games multiple years too and is better but was fortunate enough that his teams could win playoff series without him. westbrook has also missed games multiple years. again a bit fortunate harden can beat playoff teams without him and cost okc a decent opportunity in 2013. I would say chris paul's longevity makes up for the injuries and then some vs most other pgs at least. He still had a good impact this year so that's a 10-11 year prime with a few more significant seasons.

[dankok8]

injuries are bad but he's far from the only one. curry has missed playoff games multiple years too and is better but was fortunate enough that his teams could win playoff series without him. westbrook has also missed games multiple years. again a bit fortunate harden can beat playoff teams without him and cost okc a decent opportunity in 2013. I would say chris paul's longevity makes up for the injuries and then some vs most other pgs at least. He still had a good impact this year so that's a 10-11 year prime with a few more significant seasons.

I don't necessarily have Westbrook over Paul all time. It's kind of close and I'd probably lean towards Paul because Westbrook makes really poor decisions with the ball which hurts your team a lot. I wouldn't want Westbrook on my team much of the time even though he's a bigger individual force.

Longevity makes up for injuries and then some? vs which PG's? A ton of PG's had better longevity than Paul. J Kidd, Payton, Nash all had about 10 prime seasons. Stockton had insane longevity. None of these guys got injured in their primes. Paul really gave you 5-6 healthy prime seasons. I think durability is one of Paul's greatest weaknesses. Technically it can be considered different from longevity but Paul actually gave you less healthy prime seasons than many other PG's. That's the bottom line.

[NBAGOAT]

I don't necessarily have Westbrook over Paul all time. It's kind of close and I'd probably lean towards Paul because Westbrook makes really poor decisions with the ball which hurts your team a lot. I wouldn't want Westbrook on my team much of the time even though he's a bigger individual force.

Longevity makes up for injuries and then some? vs which PG's? A ton of PG's had better longevity than Paul. J Kidd, Payton, Nash all had about 10 prime seasons. Stockton had insane longevity. None of these guys got injured in their primes. Paul really gave you 5-6 healthy prime seasons. I think durability is one of Paul's greatest weaknesses. Technically it can be considered different from longevity but Paul actually gave you less healthy prime seasons than many other PG's. That's the bottom line.

yea durability is but for me 60 games is definitely enough for me to be significant and 3/4 of paul was still usually enough to be easily top ten in the league based on impact metrics. I think he has better longevity than payton and nash even if you consider that. If you consider them as having ten prime seasons, then paul this year had a prime level season and is in that 10-11 range.

Think he just peaked better than payton, how many years was payton ever in the top 3-5? Have trouble even naming a year. Nash is pretty debatable, I think he was better offensively but paul better defensively. Kidd's the opposite though I lean paul's peak over his. stockton's longevity edge isnt up for a debate. dont have a problem taking him over paul but like payton I ask how many years was he a top 5 guy, it isnt a lot.

[dankok8]

yea durability is but for me 60 games is definitely enough for me to be significant and 3/4 of paul was still usually enough to be easily top ten in the league based on impact metrics. I think he has better longevity than payton and nash even if you consider that. If you consider them as having ten prime seasons, then paul this year had a prime level season and is in that 10-11 range.

Think he just peaked better than payton, how many years was payton ever in the top 3-5? Have trouble even naming a year. Nash is pretty debatable, I think he was better offensively but paul better defensively. Kidd's the opposite though I lean paul's peak over his. stockton's longevity edge isnt up for a debate. dont have a problem taking him over paul but like payton I ask how many years was he a top 5 guy, it isnt a lot.

We are arguing semantics now but I don't think longevity can be an argument in favor of Paul vs. any top PG's when you consider his injury history.

[NBAGOAT]

We are arguing semantics now but I don't think longevity can be an argument in favor of Paul vs. any top PG's when you consider his injury history.

pure amount of games played sure. when i say longevity, i mean valuable seasons. post prime ones like paul this year nash from 11-12, and kidd's mavs years can add value too

[DMAVS41]

Here is perhaps a better way to explain my thoughts using a different player.

Lets say someone on here is arguing that Giannis is better than Dirk ever was. Forget the longevity stuff. Just as basketball players...someone is arguing that last year and this year Giannis is better than the best we saw of Dirk.

Yes, we could have a debate about what is more valuable...Dirk's individual offense and ability to generate great shots for the team both on/off ball...etc...vs Giannis being basically a perimeter Shaq and an all-time great defender...etc. We could have those arguments. They could say that Giannis being so much better than Dirk on defense while also being a very good offensive player as well...makes him the better and more impactful player.

My point back would be. Okay, you are making these claims...if he really was better and more impactful...wouldn't that show up in winning the most important games given his circumstances? Giannis is playing with better help than Dirk had in 06 imo...at worst equal. Middleton is a bigger and better version of Terry and the Bucks are deeper as well.

Dirk was leading that team to the finals...beating the Spurs...in fact, the only team to beat the Spurs from 05-07 in the playoffs. A Spurs team clearly better than this Heat team. A Spurs team that likely beats the Raptors last year. Giannis isn't even getting close to beating the Raptors last year and he's extremely lucky to still be alive this year after his team won without him...again, the only win of the series...and then we don't even have to talk about 11.

Do you guys honestly not think that players should have to prove things in the most important games of their careers? Obviously Giannis still has a ton of time left, but right now...I don't care how many MVP's he wins or what stats/accolades he gets...I'm not ranking him over guys that did more with similar help to him against better competition...especially when I already think the player in the comparison provides more value to begin with. But, how you and your team, given circumstances, actually matter for proving how good at basketball you are...how valuable you are as a player.

I'm absolutely with the idea that the best player ever could never even make the finals in certain circumstances. Lebron in his first 7 years on the Cavs, for example...that is an example of truly shit help that no player ever is winning with. Another obvious example is KG on Minny. In the case of Giannis in this example...that is clearly not his circumstances. I'm lower than most on this Bucks team, but if he wants to be known as a certain level of player...he needs to play better and have more success with teams like this before I'm ranking him up there with guys that actually did historically noteworthy shit.

Hopefully that illuminates some things when it isn't about Paul.

[tpols]

I'm not ranking him over guys that did more with similar help to him against better competition

That's exactly how I rank players.

Now.. I would like to see you apply this argument to Dirk and Lebron. Do you think prime Dirk couldn't win more with the Heat? '11-'13 is an easy 2 rings anyway you slice it, maybe 3. And 2014 Dirk took the 2014 Spurs to 7 with Monta Ellis as his best help. You don't think he could beat them with Wade & Bosh given how close he was to beating them with inferior help? Is a notoriously loyal Dirk just going to bounce on his team like Bron did? Is the fit and ceiling going to be as low as it was with them? These aren't tough questions to answer imo.

The competition Dirk beat given the help he had should put him in top 10 GOATs... right up there with Kobe and Duncan and others. But he was a low key guy... a loyal guy who just made due with what he had, and didn't go around teaming up with other superstars.

[DMAVS41]

That's exactly how I rank players.

Now.. I would like to see you apply this argument to Dirk and Lebron. Do you think prime Dirk couldn't win more with the Heat? '11-'13 is an easy 2 rings anyway you slice it, maybe 3. And 2014 Dirk took the 2014 Spurs to 7 with Monta Ellis as his best help. You don't think he could beat them with Wade & Bosh given how close he was to beating them with inferior help? Is a notoriously loyal Dirk just going to bounce on his team like Bron did? Is the fit and ceiling going to be as low as it was with them? These aren't tough questions to answer imo.

The competition Dirk beat given the help he had should put him in top 10 GOATs... right up there with Kobe and Duncan and others. But he was a low key guy... a loyal guy who just made due with what he had, and didn't go around teaming up with other superstars.

I think Lebron is just better at basketball...has a higher peak, better prime, and better longevity.

And while Lebron does have his black marks...for me to move Dirk up to that class of players, he would have had to play better and win the title in 06, not had 07 happen, and maybe stay healthy in the 03 conference finals in which I actually think remains the best Mavs team he ever had around him.

I think Dirk's expected titles won come in lower than guys like Lebron and Duncan...don't think there is much to debate, but I understand your point. Part of ranking is really hard because there are circumstances in which things change. Dirk could have answered yes to Kobe when he asked him to join the Lakers as a free agent...which I think would have been after the 05 season. I don't know...they win probably 3 or 4 titles together...I don't know, maybe something even crazier given LA always getting other players as well...and how good they both were and how good Dirk was in the later years of his prime.

Yea, Dirk would be way higher on most lists, but he wouldn't actually be any better. I think Dirk right around the 15 to 20 spot, perhaps a little higher given what you say...makes sense. But again, I do my rankings differently than most.