NBA: Will Chris Paul end being an underrated legend?

[ambchang]

its an advanced metric. Winshares is too.
Jordan is #1 lebron is top 3 Duncan hakeem shaq etc are top 10 ...

PER really is a weighted average of traditional metrics. WS, at least since the late 70s, is based on offensive and defensive ratings, totally different concepts.

[ambchang]

The whole "they didn't face the Mavs" card to dismiss D-Will's WCF appearance is played out, tbh. The Mavs back then were huge playoff chokers - that's why they lost to the Warriors in the first place. Even if they had avoided that chokejob, it's not like they were somehow incapable of losing to a Jazz team that had won the season series against them that year.

Put CP0 on that Jazz team instead of D-Will and it's questionable that they even get past the Rockets, let alone make it to the WCF.

The Mavs actually did very well in 06, up until the last few games in the Finals when DWade couldn't be touched. That is one of the biggest robbery in NBA history. Warriors was a bad matchup for the Mavs, you can't really have one or two instances define an entire team, you have to have a consistent history of chokery like Karl Malone has before you can get that label.

The Jazz making the WCF that year was a joke, the Spurs essentially destroyed them. My recollection is that none of the games were particularly close.

[Killakobe81]

PER really is a weighted average of traditional metrics. WS, at least since the late 70s, is based on offensive and defensive ratings, totally different concepts.

translation: "I like my advanced metrics more than yours ...because it fits my agenda/natrative".

[ambchang]

translation: "I like my advanced metrics more than yours ...because it fits my agenda/natrative".

That isn't the case, I didn't develop those advanced stats, it just shows the general ignorance you have what those stats really mean.

You can create an advanced stat called KKRULZ and it is scoring * 2, but it ultimately just favour scorers. PER is the same way, where it's just an weighted average of traditional stats, or how TS% favours perimeter players.

But that's a moot point, because we are not talking about just WS, we are talking about D-Rating, O-Rating, WS, VORP, BPM, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and guess what? MVPau led a larger number of those stats on those Laker championship teams.

[Killakobe81]

That isn't the case, I didn't develop those advanced stats, it just shows the general ignorance you have what those stats really mean.

You can create an advanced stat called KKRULZ and it is scoring * 2, but it ultimately just favour scorers. PER is the same way, where it's just an weighted average of traditional stats, or how TS% favours perimeter players.

But that's a moot point, because we are not talking about just WS, we are talking about D-Rating, O-Rating, WS, VORP, BPM, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and guess what? MVPau led a larger number of those stats on those Laker championship teams.

He was a key member of those teams ...a high level #2 who you think is a #1 ... because some stats tell you so. Got it. Can we move on?
None of that has anything to do with Chris Paul ...who still has not led a team to the WCF ...and you are making excuses for him ...got that too. Doesnt take a Gasol caliber #2 to make the WCF other lessor players than CP3 have done so ...with less.
Apparently he cannot ...

[Killakobe81]

That isn't the case, I didn't develop those advanced stats, it just shows the general ignorance you have what those stats really mean.

You can create an advanced stat called KKRULZ and it is scoring * 2, but it ultimately just favour scorers. PER is the same way, where it's just an weighted average of traditional stats, or how TS% favours perimeter players.

But that's a moot point, because we are not talking about just WS, we are talking about D-Rating, O-Rating, WS, VORP, BPM, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and guess what? MVPau led a larger number of those stats on those Laker championship teams.

why cant you have an adult conversation without name calling? we were having a good debate but you had to use a loser's move ...shame.

[ambchang]

He was a key member of those teams ...a high level #2 who you think is a #1 ... because some stats tell you so. Got it. Can we move on?
None of that has anything to do with Chris Paul ...who still has not led a team to the WCF ...and you are making excuses for him ...got that too. Doesnt take a Gasol caliber #2 to make the WCF other lessor players than CP3 have done so ...with less.
Apparently he cannot ...

I actually do not think he is the #1, I think Kobe is the #1 in the traditional sense as the face of the franchise, but from a productivity perspective, MVPau was #1. It's just rare for a face of the franchise of a championship winning team not to lead the team in most, if not all, advanced metrics, comical even. MVPau is too laid back and doesn't sought the limelight to be the #1 in LA land, the place all about self-promotion and ego stroking, he can carry a franchise as the statistical leader and as the main catalyst, and he has proven it.

As for CP3, yeah, he didn't make the WCF, and I have said it multiple times, he has to own up to it because he dominates the ball and that makes it easy to stop in the playoffs by good teams with defensive plan. Sure it doesn't take MVPau level player to make the WCF, but like you said, lessor player has done so with less, so you just stated that WCF is no gauge of a player's greatness, because lesser players have done it. So thank you for making my point.

why cant you have an adult conversation without name calling? we were having a good debate but you had to use a loser's move ...shame.

Where is the name calling? Since when did you turn so emo? Need some foundation and dark eye-shadow?

[Killakobe81]

I actually do not think he is the #1, I think Kobe is the #1 in the traditional sense as the face of the franchise, but from a productivity perspective, MVPau was #1. It's just rare for a face of the franchise of a championship winning team not to lead the team in most, if not all, advanced metrics, comical even. MVPau is too laid back and doesn't sought the limelight to be the #1 in LA land, the place all about self-promotion and ego stroking, he can carry a franchise as the statistical leader and as the main catalyst, and he has proven it.

As for CP3, yeah, he didn't make the WCF, and I have said it multiple times, he has to own up to it because he dominates the ball and that makes it easy to stop in the playoffs by good teams with defensive plan. Sure it doesn't take MVPau level player to make the WCF, but like you said, lessor player has done so with less, so you just stated that WCF is no gauge of a player's greatness, because lesser players have done it. So thank you for making my point.




Where is the name calling? Since when did you turn so emo? Need some foundation and dark eye-shadow?

No Im not making your case you making mine ...
I never said it was a standard of greatness ...just saying that for a player of his caliber ...who many consider..the best PG of thisceta some even said he was the best closer since Jordan ti not to do so... as the best or 2nd best player on his team is shameful for a guy that is loved by adanced metrics and not just PER elehich you detest.

Wont address your overating of Pau after this i said ...my piece ...and I dont want to attack a player i actually like.Pau is great. I just dont see the huge gap between he and Blake that you do. Pau is better had the better career but numbers show they are comparable ..but like Cp3 . .he had an even better teammate and he has to own part of the blame for their 2nd round playoff flops.

Calling somone ignorant who disagrees with you is immature and i thought with our history we were past that. I didnt cry i didnt put you on ignore like i have done with a few posters here who bring no redeeming value to a debate name call and deflect but that should be beneath you at least when debating with me. Not upset just disappointed...its a common tactic of posters on the losing side You are not a loser just pulled a im losing this argument move...just saying.

[ambchang]

No Im not making your case you making mine ...
I never said it was a standard of greatness ...just saying that for a player of his caliber ...who many consider..the best PG of thisceta some even said he was the best closer since Jordan ti not to do so... as the best or 2nd best player on his team is shameful for a guy that is loved by adanced metrics and not just PER elehich you detest.

If it is that important, why would there ever be a player you view to be lesser than Paul who would make the WCF with lesser teammates? By default, that lesser player would be greater than CP3 by you, which would not be labelled a lesser player in the first place.

I have always expressed my disdain for PER, it is a lazy weighted average stat. It's like saying a person who likes traditional stats not putting equal weights on FG% and REB when evaluating a player is self-contradictory.

Wont address your overating of Pau after this i said ...my piece ...and I dont want to attack a player i actually like.Pau is great. I just dont see the huge gap between he and Blake that you do. Pau is better had the better career but numbers show they are comparable ..but like Cp3 . .he had an even better teammate and he has to own part of the blame for their 2nd round playoff flops.

You mean Blake has to own the 2nd round flops?

Calling somone ignorant who disagrees with you is immature and i thought with our history we were past that. I didnt cry i didnt put you on ignore like i have done with a few posters here who bring no redeeming value to a debate name call and deflect but that should be beneath you at least when debating with me. Not upset just disappointed...its a common tactic of posters on the losing side You are not a loser just pulled a im losing this argument move...just saying.

Saying you are ignorant on advanced metrics is not saying you are ignorant. And you have shown your ignorance on the subject on advanced metrics by drawing equivalency on different advanced stats with different levels of complexity just because they are lumped together as advanced stats. It's like giving equal say to a guy who votes based on meticulous research vs. another guy who just liked the name of a candidate. Oh wait, that's what democracy is all about.

[Killakobe81]

If it is that important, why would there ever be a player you view to be lesser than Paul who would make the WCF with lesser teammates? By default, that lesser player would be greater than CP3 by you, which would not be labelled a lesser player in the first place.

I have always expressed my disdain for PER, it is a lazy weighted average stat. It's like saying a person who likes traditional stats not putting equal weights on FG% and REB when evaluating a player is self-contradictory.



You mean Blake has to own the 2nd round flops?



Saying you are ignorant on advanced metrics is not saying you are ignorant. And you have shown your ignorance on the subject on advanced metrics by drawing equivalency on different advanced stats with different levels of complexity just because they are lumped together as advanced stats. It's like giving equal say to a guy who votes based on meticulous research vs. another guy who just liked the name of a candidate. Oh wait, that's what democracy is all about.

what a bad analogy. Wait, because you dont like PER its the equivalent of an uninformed vote? I dont have to be ignorant of stats to to compare them. Are you ignorant of PER because you dismiss its value? Hollinger the chimp and creator of that formula may disagree with your dismissal.You can spin it however you want win shares, VoRP and PER are all advanced metrics.

ignoring the rest of this but of course Blake has to share some blame in the playoff losses for the Clips ...iirc his win share and PER are both down for Blake in the playoffs. But paul is the best player and has enough of a cast to at least make the WCF.

For CP3 making WCF isnt the standard but a minimun expectation ...fir a player of his stature.

[AlexJones]

Literally the 3rd best PG to ever play

[Killakobe81]

Since you want to talk win shares vs PER
Karl Malone is 4th all time in WS ahead of Duncan, LeBron and Jordan ...
in what ing world is Karl Malone ahead of those guys?!
You are right PER has its faults .. i have no clue who Neil Johnston but he has a top 10 PER ..but despite its laziness it has
1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Shaq
Malone he is 15th behind Duncan & Magic


Truth is both these metrics are flawed in sone ways. my point is you keep pulling out winshares for a stupid argument (Kobe) that no one cares about anymore ... and is off topic.And when career winshares implies malone is better than magic Duncan and Jordan in the first 5 career rankings you lose me.
win shares and PER too for that matter . by themselves hardly any better than espn rank.

[Killakobe81]

Literally the 3rd best PG to ever play

Bull .
magic kidd stockton steph and GP all have cases over Paul ...he is in a top 5 not sure he makes top 3

[Killakobe81]

isiah too should be mentioned.

For the record Paul has had the better career than GP and kidd for example
but no way I would choose Paul over Kidd in both their primes.

[ambchang]

what a bad analogy. Wait, because you dont like PER its the equivalent of an uninformed vote? I dont have to be ignorant of stats to to compare them. Are you ignorant of PER because you dismiss its value? Hollinger the chimp and creator of that formula may disagree with your dismissal.You can spin it however you want win shares, VoRP and PER are all advanced metrics.

Not entirely sure if you understand what ignorance of a subject means. I am dismissing something because I understood it and drew conclusions that it is bad. If person A says Drake sucks because the next person said so, he is ignorant on the subject or rappers and just decide to chime in. If person B went through the lyrics, studied the beats, went through the history of rap, understood Drake's influences, and drew the conclusion that Drake sucks, he is not ignorant of the subject, but just shows that he doesn't like Drake, he is educated on his conclusion. The proclamation of whether Drake sucks has absolutely no bearing on whether the person making that proclamation is ignorant on the subject or not. In fact, person A can have absolutely no opinion no the subject, but because of his general lack of knowledge on rap, be ignorant on the subject.

PER has the highest number of exceptions, is clearly a weighted average of traditional stats (and the rationale of why those weights were used were iffy at best), so I dismiss the importance of it.

ignoring the rest of this but of course Blake has to share some blame in the playoff losses for the Clips ...iirc his win share and PER are both down for Blake in the playoffs. But paul is the best player and has enough of a cast to at least make the WCF.

For CP3 making WCF isnt the standard but a minimun expectation ...fir a player of his stature.

I agree Blake shares some blame as well. But I put CP3 in TMac and Vince's class. TMac couldn't even make it out of the 1st round, and Vince didn't make ECF in Toronto either (or did he made it once in 2001 in the historically bad East). Garnett made it once with a pretty loaded team (though in the brutal west with the Lakers, Spurs and Kings, not to mention the Mavs). Point is, this is not a binary thing where if someone made the WCF, no matter how many times, regardless of cir stances, he is viewed in better light.

[ambchang]

Since you want to talk win shares vs PER
Karl Malone is 4th all time in WS ahead of Duncan, LeBron and Jordan ...
in what ing world is Karl Malone ahead of those guys?!
You are right PER has its faults .. i have no clue who Neil Johnston but he has a top 10 PER ..but despite its laziness it has
1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Shaq
Malone he is 15th behind Duncan & Magic


Truth is both these metrics are flawed in sone ways. my point is you keep pulling out winshares for a stupid argument (Kobe) that no one cares about anymore ... and is off topic.And when career winshares implies malone is better than magic Duncan and Jordan in the first 5 career rankings you lose me.
win shares and PER too for that matter . by themselves hardly any better than espn rank.

Maybe it would help if you figure out that WS is a ulative stat, like scoring total.

David Robinson is #4, CP3 #6, Pe #7, Durant #8, Neil Jonston #9, Barkley #10. Jabbar is only #11, Wade is ranked higher than Duncan, Westbrook over Hakeem, Yao Ming is #22 for Pete's sake over Kobe and Dirk, Blake is over Garnett, inconsistencies are all over the place.

If you want to compare careers through WS, you actually look at the top WS seasons of a player as WS is used to compare individual seasons, and even then, you have to take things into perspective, and has to generally ignore pre-1978 numbers because the calculations are totally different in the old days (similar to PER back then).

Using the top WS seasons, we have (ignoring the old timers):
Jordan, Lebron, Robinson, Durant, Shaq, Garnett, CP3, Robinson, Curry, Duncan, etc ....

While there are exceptions, and WS calculations are starting to heavily favour players who play on teams in eras of high disparity (like the GSW now), you have to look at the overall top seasons as well.

Then there are things like BPM (favours lone stars on bad teams) and VORP (favours players with extremely high usage rates), which again are directionally correct, and you form a good view of a player's effectiveness.

The sad thing is, players have learned to game the system, and we are seeing that Westbrook, Harden, and Durant are doing their bestest to get artificially high numbers in those areas.

[ambchang]

Bull .
magic kidd stockton steph and GP all have cases over Paul ...he is in a top 5 not sure he makes top 3

My list:
1. Magic
2. Stockton
3. Zeke
4. Oscar
5. West (unless he's a shooting guard)
6. Kidd
7. Payton
8. Curry
9. CP3
10. Clyde
11. Nash

5-11 are very close, you can pretty much switch them any way you want.

[Killakobe81]

My list:
1. Magic
2. Stockton
3. Zeke
4. Oscar
5. West (unless he's a shooting guard)
6. Kidd
7. Payton
8. Curry
9. CP3
10. Clyde
11. Nash

5-11 are very close, you can pretty much switch them any way you want.

good list never saw Clyde West or Oscar

[lefty]

at Stockton ahead of Zeke

[Killakobe81]

at Stockton ahead of Zeke

i also prefer Zeke but csnt fault him for one spot ...

[ambchang]

at Stockton ahead of Zeke

I always think Zeke is a little overrated due to the b2bs. Daly, Laimbeer and dumars didn't get enough credit. You team zeke with that choker Malone and he wouldn't have won squat either.

[lefty]

I always think Zeke is a little overrated due to the b2bs. Daly, Laimbeer and dumars didn't get enough credit. You team zeke with that choker Malone and he wouldn't have won squat either.

I agree, Zeke did have a better team, there is no debating that.

And Stockton was great, but Isiah was better, no question

[Killakobe81]

I agree, Zeke did have a better team, there is no debating that.

And Stockton was great, but Isiah was better, no question

i think he is too but some of that was he destroyed Stock when they played so much so The hot ass mailman cheapshotted him and busted his forehead ...not just the back2back and though he had the better team and rang you can argue that none of Zeke's teammates were as good as Malone and he also had a HOF coach in Sloan.

[Killakobe81]

Maybe it would help if you figure out that WS is a ulative stat, like scoring total.

David Robinson is #4, CP3 #6, Pe #7, Durant #8, Neil Jonston #9, Barkley #10. Jabbar is only #11, Wade is ranked higher than Duncan, Westbrook over Hakeem, Yao Ming is #22 for Pete's sake over Kobe and Dirk, Blake is over Garnett, inconsistencies are all over the place.

If you want to compare careers through WS, you actually look at the top WS seasons of a player as WS is used to compare individual seasons, and even then, you have to take things into perspective, and has to generally ignore pre-1978 numbers because the calculations are totally different in the old days (similar to PER back then).

Using the top WS seasons, we have (ignoring the old timers):
Jordan, Lebron, Robinson, Durant, Shaq, Garnett, CP3, Robinson, Curry, Duncan, etc ....

While there are exceptions, and WS calculations are starting to heavily favour players who play on teams in eras of high disparity (like the GSW now), you have to look at the overall top seasons as well.

Then there are things like BPM (favours lone stars on bad teams) and VORP (favours players with extremely high usage rates), which again are directionally correct, and you form a good view of a player's effectiveness.

The sad thing is, players have learned to game the system, and we are seeing that Westbrook, Harden, and Durant are doing their bestest to get artificially high numbers in those areas.

1. I already realized win shares is ulative ... when you are discussing someone's career should you not consider ulative stats? I posted the list of career win shares vs PER because the original post in this thread was discussing Chris Paul's career. (hence the le will Chris Paul go down as an underrated legend?)

2. My point lost in the weeds with your Pau unabashed love is that Chris paul had enough help if he is truly as great as PER, hype, win shares etc. to at LEAST make the Conference finals. Is that the end all be all? No. But I do think at the very least its reasonable minimal bar to expect a player with 3 all star team-mates and a highly decorated (also overrated) coach from Pop's tree with the a multiple 6moty winner should be able to accomplish. They beat the Spurs a few years back and had a 3-1 lead on Rox (iirc) and still could not make conference finals. That doesn't concern you a little?

3. Why should I look at peak win share seasons only? When did the discussion switch to peaks? I repeatedly and consistently have been talking careers. You lauded win shares over PER but when I point out how flawed it was career wise 0 now you are changing the focal point of the discussion. I only brought up peaks to point out that Blake had a year considered by some to be top 3-4 MVP worthy. Pau has never had that. Yes the MVP is bull and has been for years but you have mentioned Duncan's MVP's in plenty of other threads including a recent one about undeserving MVPs ...you don't get to pick and choose when MVP votes are meaningful or how i should decipher win shares. Stats are not subjective they are numbers. why should I trust an advanced metric that only is good for peak seasons? Why should I trust WS when it cannot even produce a good top 3 list career wise and vastly overrates Karl Malone?

4. Last I agree one of the major problems with metrics now is that the best players are manipulating them. Durant, lebron and Paul should be lauded for trying to be more efficient players but are also chickenshot too for the times (some of this admittedly) it impacts their game. they wont take those end of clock buzzer beaters, stat whoring assists, seeking triple doubles to protect /boost their metrics.

[Killakobe81]

All of the above and I did not call you ignorant