Is chris paul the 2nd best pg of all time?

[Ghazi]

Legit debate

[Arnold Toht]

LOL

[Koolaid_Man]

He's not even in the top 5

Magic
Isaish
Stockton
Nash (prime)
Tony Parker
CP3

[ElNono]

:lol Clippers
:lol loaded
:lol still irrelevant
:lol wannabes
:lol sterling
:lol jim buss keeping them relevant
:lol cpflop
:lol griffin more interested in commercials than basketball
:lol clipperfan
:lol get in here and :downspin: this shit

[whitemamba]

LOL

[TXstbobcat]

No way. He isn't even top 5 all time.

[AchillesHeel]

Oscar Robertson
Tony Parker
Stockton
Isiah

He's not better than any of the above when it comes to legacy, 0 rings, 0 MVPs, hasn't been past the 2nd round, Stockton has the most assists all-time and went to 2 Finals, was one shot away from pushing MJ to his first game 7, if CP3 doesn't ring he's not better in any way. The big O won a ring with Kareem and averaged triple doubles, Isiah Thomas won multiple rings and defeated MJ and Magic in the playoffs.(I know, I know, Magic had an injury but who cares, really?)

Parker all-time ranks higher than CP3, 3 rings, Finals MVP, 4 Finals appearances, plays shit defense but at least he won shit. CP3 has no chance with OKC and Spurs being in the way in the West and Heat's superteam being in the Finals every year. CP3 is also past his prime now and has a bum knee, it's safe to say he will not win a ring as a 1st option/Finals MVP, he might win later on in his career like Payton did with the Heat, tbh.

CP3 is not even top 5 all-time right now. I actually kinda liked him in his Hornets days but he turned into a horrible flopper and a playoffs choker.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Nash
Kidd

[mudyez]

I agree that he isn't even in the top5 (Magic, Stockton, Oscar, Isiah, Nash, Kidd, Parker...), but the sad part is, that even while he is still playing, he might not improve this standing a lot over the next few years (he has a shot at jumping in front of Parker and Kidd if he wins like 2 ships and becomes Finals MVP both times...its in play...LOL). While CP3 got so much hype he probably already peaked because of his legs.

A very Kevin Johnson like career with more hype and the fact, that CP3 didn't become a second banana yet (like KJ did with Barkley). He will rank better than KJ when it is all said and done, but it's not like people will think of him in 30 years when they are talking about the best PG ever.

But thats not saying he isn't a great player.

[D-Wade]

Hell no... Isn't even the undisputed best PG of the current era.. When D-Will was in Mormon land and not pigging out on twinkies he was better. TP was better this year.

[Calispursfan11]

You must be joking. Maybe top 20.

[ambchang]

Clearly better:
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Payton
Kidd
Iverson

Just as good:
Tiny
Frazier
Cousy(historical context)
Kobe Johnson

Likely to be better in the future:
Rose

Not as good:
Parker
Deron Williams (used to be at least comparable)
Dennis Johnson

[AchillesHeel]

Parker is not as good by skill, but he's been to 4 Finals and won a FMVP, fans will remember TP by beating Lebron in the 2007 Finals and winning the MVP while no one will really remember Chris Paul getting swept in the 1st/2nd round.

[Leon Black]

:lol Clippers
:lol loaded
:lol still irrelevant
:lol wannabes
:lol sterling
:lol jim buss keeping them relevant
:lol cpflop
:lol griffin more interested in commercials than basketball
:lol clipperfan
:lol get in here and :downspin: this shit



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE4z_Du7dQ4

[Arnold Toht]

^ never gets old.

[Calispursfan11]

Clearly better:
Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Payton
Kidd
Iverson

Just as good:
Tiny
Frazier
Cousy(historical context)
Kobe Johnson

Likely to be better in the future:
Rose

Not as good:
Parker
Deron Williams (used to be at least comparable)
Dennis Johnson

Parker is at least comparable if not better tbh

[RsxPiimp]

Dat nigga chris is a class A flopper

[Rogue]

The likes of Kidd and Stockton are better than Chris imho, not to say the other MJ. CP might be considered the 2nd best PG of his time, but not of all time.

[HarlemHeat37]

He's one of the most overrated players of the metrics era, tbh, but he's definitely in the top 4 of all-time from a peak perspective(amongst PGs), and could be as high as 2nd..

Career-wise, he's obviously nowhere near the discussion, but ranking by career is overrated anyways, tbh..

Based strictly on peak performance, Magic is the only PG that is clearly ahead of him, tbh..Oscar Robertson is probably ahead, and peak Nash is a toss-up, tbh..outside of that, Paul is probably superior to any other PG..he's better than Isiah, easily better than Stockton, Jason Kidd isn't even in the discussion, Gary Payton wouldn't thrive in today's league, etc..

The problem with Paul is that his playoff resume is incomplete, but that should change in the next few years..if the Clippers don't come close to a title, it'll be a hit on Paul's legacy, obviously..

[Spur|n|Austin]

:lol just plain :lol

[The Franchise]

Yes, yes he is. :shootme

[Kawhi fan]

Legit debate

If you need to write "Legit Debate" then clearly you don't even think it is the case! :lol

[Bulaien999]

The answer is no.

Legit answer

[mercos]

CP3 is the second best PG in the league right now, but certainly not second best of all time.

[Calispursfan11]

Is James Harden the second best SG of all time? Legit question.

[Clipper Nation]

Second-best all time? Hell no, but he could be top 5 by the time he retires, tbh....

[Kidd K]

Let's not forget that Paul has no rings, no Finals appearances, nothing. He probably should have an MVP (the one Kobe was gifted), but for the record he doesn't.

Isiah has two rings.

Parker has three rings and a Finals MVP.

Magic has 5 rings and some MVPs.

Stockton at least got to the Finals multiple times and was a contender several other times. Not to mention holds several records.

Big O has a ring, an MVP, and gaudy statlines.

Paul is at best #6, and you're still putting him above Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, Steve Nash, and a few other really great PGs who are arguably above Paul.



Oscar Robertson
Tony Parker
Stockton
Isiah

He's not better than any of the above when it comes to legacy, 0 rings, 0 MVPs, hasn't been past the 2nd round, Stockton has the most assists all-time and went to 2 Finals, was one shot away from pushing MJ to his first game 7, if CP3 doesn't ring he's not better in any way. The big O won a ring with Kareem and averaged triple doubles, Isiah Thomas won multiple rings and defeated MJ and Magic in the playoffs.(I know, I know, Magic had an injury but who cares, really?)

Parker all-time ranks higher than CP3, 3 rings, Finals MVP, 4 Finals appearances, plays shit defense but at least he won shit. CP3 has no chance with OKC and Spurs being in the way in the West and Heat's superteam being in the Finals every year. CP3 is also past his prime now and has a bum knee, it's safe to say he will not win a ring as a 1st option/Finals MVP, he might win later on in his career like Payton did with the Heat, tbh.

CP3 is not even top 5 all-time right now. I actually kinda liked him in his Hornets days but he turned into a horrible flopper and a playoffs choker.

Same list I was going to post, though I would've added in Magic on top. Good list bro.

Btw Stockton also has the most steals all time too. He has like 600 more than #2 all time.

[Clipper Nation]

Btw, Tony Flopper isn't top 5 all-time either, Spurfan overrates him to an insane degree :lol

[ambchang]

Parker is at least comparable if not better tbh

I don't think he is, the only argument people can make is "3 rings", but that is a team accomplishment. Chris Paul, at no point in his career, had a teammate like Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, or David Robinson, not to mention a coach close to the caliber of Pop.

If the Spurs were to trade Parker for Paul, the Spurs would have won the same number of, if not more rings.

Paul is the better facilitator, better scorer, better shooter. The only toss up is Parker maybe better defensively, that's it.

Don't get me wrong, Parker is a fantastic PG, and he fits very well within the Spurs system, but he is no Chris Paul.

[ambchang]

He's one of the most overrated players of the metrics era, tbh, but he's definitely in the top 4 of all-time from a peak perspective(amongst PGs), and could be as high as 2nd..

Career-wise, he's obviously nowhere near the discussion, but ranking by career is overrated anyways, tbh..

Based strictly on peak performance, Magic is the only PG that is clearly ahead of him, tbh..Oscar Robertson is probably ahead, and peak Nash is a toss-up, tbh..outside of that, Paul is probably superior to any other PG..he's better than Isiah, easily better than Stockton, Jason Kidd isn't even in the discussion, Gary Payton wouldn't thrive in today's league, etc..

The problem with Paul is that his playoff resume is incomplete, but that should change in the next few years..if the Clippers don't come close to a title, it'll be a hit on Paul's legacy, obviously..

Peak-wise, Magic craps all over Paul, there really isn't any comparison.

Oscar was clearly better (averaging a triple double for the first three seasons in the league even in the stats inflated era? Are you kidding me?), Stockton was the better passer, facilitator, shooter, Thomas was unstoppable in his prime, Payton ran the Sonics as well as Paul ran any team, and Payton is about 10x the defender, Kidd was the better defender and facilitator, though Paul was much better scoring. Nash is all offense and no defense, not to mention he was clearly a beneficiary of MDT's system, so I never really take his accomplishments seriously.

[Bill_Brasky]

Spurfan bringing up accolades when it's convenient per par

[AchillesHeel]

I don't think he is, the only argument people can make is "3 rings", but that is a team accomplishment. Chris Paul, at no point in his career, had a teammate like Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, or David Robinson, not to mention a coach close to the caliber of Pop.

If the Spurs were to trade Parker for Paul, the Spurs would have won the same number of, if not more rings.

Paul is the better facilitator, better scorer, better shooter. The only toss up is Parker maybe better defensively, that's it.

Don't get me wrong, Parker is a fantastic PG, and he fits very well within the Spurs system, but he is no Chris Paul.
,
You can't prove it, Parker 3, Paul 0, Parker EARNED those rings, especially in the 2007 Finals, being as efficient as he was. He has a Finals MVP against Lebron, CP3 doesn't. And Parker was an MVP candidate before his injury, he led the Spurs to a #1 record most of the season, when he went down, Spurs lost many games and dropped to 2nd seed. Let's not forget that.

[ambchang]

,
You can't prove it, Parker 3, Paul 0, Parker EARNED those rings, especially in the 2007 Finals, being as efficient as he was. He has a Finals MVP against Lebron, CP3 doesn't. And Parker was an MVP candidate before his injury, he led the Spurs to a #1 record most of the season, when he went down, Spurs lost many games and dropped to 2nd seed. Let's not forget that.

Park 3, Paul 0 is not a proof of Parker > Paul either, otherwise, Russell will unquestionably be the GOAT, and Kobe > Duncan ... wait scratch that, 2nd banana rings don't count.

But back to the subject, Paul had a career high WS of almost 19, that is insane! Parker has NEVER EVER had a double digit WS season (though he came close a couple of times). If you want to talk about effects of a player on a team, look at the Pelicans without Paul, and Clippers before and after Paul. Gigantic difference.

[djohn2oo8]

Second-best all time? Hell no, but he could be top 5 by the time he retires, tbh....
:lol

[Clipper Nation]

:lol

As I said, I USED to blindly defend Choke Paul (like you do with Harden), but it's crystal clear now that he's a loser :lol

Philo is right, you are sensitive about the Rockets :lol

[Ghazi]

Still best pg of last 15 years

[m>s]

Still best pg of last 15 years
Why u delete fb scro?

[Sean Cagney]

Still best pg of last 15 years

:lol

[Ghazi]

Why u delete fb scro?
Dont use it much anyway. May as well keep a lower profile

[100%duncan]

Parker>Paul.

[Captivus]

http://www.troll.me/images/conspiracy-keanu/is-this-thread-real-life-thumb.jpg

[TDMVPDPOY]

,
You can't prove it, Parker 3, Paul 0, Parker EARNED those rings, especially in the 2007 Finals, being as efficient as he was. He has a Finals MVP against Lebron, CP3 doesn't. And Parker was an MVP candidate before his injury, he led the Spurs to a #1 record most of the season, when he went down, Spurs lost many games and dropped to 2nd seed. Let's not forget that.

u tellin me cp3 wont be able to exploit boobie gibson?

[dbreiden83080]

LOL Not even close..

[Ghazi]

Parker > Paul is an amateur take.

[Pelicans78]

Hornets would have been a lottery team if Parker was their PG.

[Clipper Nation]

Parker > Paul is an amateur take.
Both of them are equally overrated, Enrique has just had better coattails to ride....

[Ghazi]

Paul never had help in NOLA. They overachieved the year they took the Spurs to 7, and that was mostly thanks to Paul elevating peja/chandler/west that year. Hes had better squads for the Clippers but were they ever even on the top 3 of title contenders? probably not.

[spurraider21]

Parker > Paul is an amateur take.
i think in 2012 and 2013 in a vacuum Parker was the better player, but its unfair since those were Parker at his peak and Paul's peak was years earlier. big picture, i think paul > parker is clear as day though

[Clipper Nation]

Paul never had help in NOLA. They overachieved the year they took the Spurs to 7, and that was mostly thanks to Paul elevating peja/chandler/west that year. Hes had better squads for the Clippers but were they ever even on the top 3 of title contenders? probably not.
Peja, Chandler and West were more than enough help, Choke just vanished as usual in the playoffs....

[Arcadian]

Currently have him at 9th all time.

Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Cousy
Nash
Kidd
Frazier
Paul
Payton

[Cry Havoc]

Currently have him at 9th all time.

Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Cousy
Nash
Kidd
Frazier
Paul
Payton

Wtf. Seriously undervaluing The Glove.

[Arcadian]

Wtf. Seriously undervaluing The Glove.

It's because he only made the all-NBA first team two times in 17 years, and Paul has already done it four times in 9 years.

[Killakobe81]

Park 3, Paul 0 is not a proof of Parker > Paul either, otherwise, Russell will unquestionably be the GOAT, and Kobe > Duncan ... wait scratch that, 2nd banana rings don't count.

But back to the subject, Paul had a career high WS of almost 19, that is insane! Parker has NEVER EVER had a double digit WS season (though he came close a couple of times). If you want to talk about effects of a player on a team, look at the Pelicans without Paul, and Clippers before and after Paul. Gigantic difference.
No Tony is not better than Paul but to say a 3-0 advantage doesn't give Parker supporters a strong case ...
Lol 2nd banana doesn't count?
So Shaq's 4th Wades last two and Duncan's 5th don't count?! That is some dumb ass shit. Damn Amb wtf happened to you? Also why you tearing down a Spurs players legacy you acting like a common Lakers fan ...SMH
Rings matter more than pure point rating or PER.
Parker at the very least deserves consideration for best pg of last 7 years. I wouldn't say best but a strong case can be made.

[Killakobe81]

He's one of the most overrated players of the metrics era, tbh, but he's definitely in the top 4 of all-time from a peak perspective(amongst PGs), and could be as high as 2nd..

Career-wise, he's obviously nowhere near the discussion, but ranking by career is overrated anyways, tbh..

Based strictly on peak performance, Magic is the only PG that is clearly ahead of him, tbh..Oscar Robertson is probably ahead, and peak Nash is a toss-up, tbh..outside of that, Paul is probably superior to any other PG..he's better than Isiah, easily better than Stockton, Jason Kidd isn't even in the discussion, Gary Payton wouldn't thrive in today's league, etc..

The problem with Paul is that his playoff resume is incomplete, but that should change in the next few years..if the Clippers don't come close to a title, it'll be a hit on Paul's legacy, obviously..

Agree with some of this but no fucking way he is better than Isiah. Thomas was everything Paul is but better tbh Paul is like Dwight compared d to Shaq a lessor modern version. Though Paul is closer to Isiah than Dwight is to O'Neal

[spurraider21]

:lol cousy

[Buddy Mignon]

Currently have him at 9th all time.

Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Cousy
Nash
Kidd
Frazier
Paul
Payton

You are a clown. I can name fifty PG's better than Oscar.

[Arcadian]

You are a clown. I can name fifty PG's better than Oscar.

Either way, you're just guessing. You don't know shit. Neither do I. But whether you choose to include him or exclude him, you're merely assuming he would or would not be better than PGs you've actually seen play. This is not, indeed cannot be, an empirical matter. Such is the nature of player comparisons across time.

[LkrFan]

:downspin:
I'm with you son! :downspin: that shiiiiiiiiiiit! :lol

[ambchang]

No Tony is not better than Paul but to say a 3-0 advantage doesn't give Parker supporters a strong case ...
Lol 2nd banana doesn't count?
So Shaq's 4th Wades last two and Duncan's 5th don't count?! That is some dumb ass shit. Damn Amb wtf happened to you? Also why you tearing down a Spurs players legacy you acting like a common Lakers fan ...SMH
Rings matter more than pure point rating or PER.
Parker at the very least deserves consideration for best pg of last 7 years. I wouldn't say best but a strong case can be made.

2014 championship doesn't add or subtract to Duncan's legacy. We knew who he was before the championship, and he was exactly what we expected him to be.

Same with Shaq. His 4th didn't add to or subtract from his legacy.

And saying Parker < Paul isn't ripping at his legacy, just as saying Ayres < Hakeem isn't ripping Ayres legacy. Blindly propping up a player on your favourite team is called homerism, blindly ripping a player from another team is called being a hater, blinding ripping a legend on your favourite team to prop up your favourite player on your favourite team is called Kobism.

And no, Rings do not matter more in evaluating an individual player. Adam Morrison isn't better than another scrub who never won a championship. They are both scrubs from an NBA sense.

Billups isn't better than Stockton.
Jo Jo White isn't better than Clyde.
Cedric Maxwell isn't better than Chris Mullin
etc ....

Parker, to me, was the perfect player for the Spurs in the last few years. Paul, being the ball dominant player he is, likely won't thrive in the Spurs system. But Parker wasn't the best PG in the league in the last 7 years. That belongs to Paul.

[illusioNtEk]

Paul with no rings, yet top 5? lol

[Ghazi]

Amb the 2014 title does help Duncans legacy IMO. It woulda been a minor vlow to come up short. As the 2010-2014 Spurs needed a ring to top off their excellence

[spurraider21]

As the 2010-2014 Spurs needed a ring to top off their excellence
this.

[Ghazi]

If Spurs win a title this year it would add even more to Duncans legacy.. They cant hurt their legacy at this point, only add to it (the big 3, pop, spurs)z

[Malik Hairston]

My earlier post in this thread was from last year, so a year later:

- Magic was obviously better, no discussion

- I undervalued Stockton, his advanced metrics are outstanding and his legacy will age well in the metrics era..his game would thrive in the shooting + ball movement style of today's league

- Nash and Paul is close, Nash has become underrated by the casual fan, tbh, but I'd take Paul

- Paul is a slightly better player than Isiah Thomas IMO..I don't know if Paul has the aggressive mentality to replace Isiah's style on those Pistons teams, but I highly doubt Paul's teams would be any better if you replaced him with Thomas

- Oscar Robertson played in the 60s, he would be a scrub in today's league, realistically-speaking

- Tony Parker is nowhere near this discussion, that's just silly, tbh(the Spurs just won a title with Parker having a net negative on/off during the playoffs:lol )

- Gary Payton and Jason Kidd aren't in the discussion, 2 of the most overrated players of my lifetime

[Galileo]

Bob Cousy:

10 times 1st team all-NBA
6 rings
1 MVP

[Killakobe81]

2014 championship doesn't add or subtract to Duncan's legacy. We knew who he was before the championship, and he was exactly what we expected him to be.

Same with Shaq. His 4th didn't add to or subtract from his legacy.

And saying Parker < Paul isn't ripping at his legacy, just as saying Ayres < Hakeem isn't ripping Ayres legacy. Blindly propping up a player on your favourite team is called homerism, blindly ripping a player from another team is called being a hater, blinding ripping a legend on your favourite team to prop up your favourite player on your favourite team is called Kobism.

And no, Rings do not matter more in evaluating an individual player. Adam Morrison isn't better than another scrub who never won a championship. They are both scrubs from an NBA sense.

Billups isn't better than Stockton.
Jo Jo White isn't better than Clyde.
Cedric Maxwell isn't better than Chris Mullin
etc ....

Parker, to me, was the perfect player for the Spurs in the last few years. Paul, being the ball dominant player he is, likely won't thrive in the Spurs system. But Parker wasn't the best PG in the league in the last 7 years. That belongs to Paul.

Always Kobe why do I even bother?

[ambchang]

Always Kobe why do I even bother?

Just can't think of another fan base who would repeatedly rip their legends just to prop up a player. If you can think of another one, I can update the name.

[ambchang]

Amb the 2014 title does help Duncans legacy IMO. It woulda been a minor vlow to come up short. As the 2010-2014 Spurs needed a ring to top off their excellence

2014 adds to the legacy of pop more than Duncan. Duncan gets credit for willing to take a backseat.

Don't get me wrong, Duncan was instrumental in that 2014 championship, but this wasn't even one of his best 12 seasons. Just because the team won a ring doesn't make him better. If Jordan won his 7th ring as the second best player or one of the best players on his team, that wouldn't make him any greater.

[spurraider21]

2014 adds to the legacy of pop more than Duncan. Duncan gets credit for willing to take a backseat.

Don't get me wrong, Duncan was instrumental in that 2014 championship, but this wasn't even one of his best 12 seasons. Just because the team won a ring doesn't make him better. If Jordan won his 7th ring as the second best player or one of the best players on his team, that wouldn't make him any greater.
this x100

[Killakobe81]

Just can't think of another fan base who would repeatedly rip their legends just to prop up a player. If you can think of another one, I can update the name.

We were not discussing that (fanbase trashing legacy that was another thread) Amb, question was Paul's place among PG's. And my point was that rings matter. Here you go again with the wayyyy in left field analogies and comparisons. Who would argue Billups over Stockton? Is that a hot topic of debate at the water cooler, the local open gym or the barbershop where you live? :lol That is just as stupid as Horry vs. Jordan. Duncan's 5 definitely matters when compared to Shaq's 4, Hakeem's 2 etc.. I woudl give Duncan the edge over those guys before 5 but damn, being a HUGE contributor even as a 2nd or even 3rd bannana ABSOFUCKENLUTELY counts and adds to Tim's legacy quite a bit even if it is only to validate his greatness. And it would be silly to ignore when discussing Tim's place among the all-time greats. We dont compare Duncan to John Salley for exampl,e who has a smilar number of rings. Why must you be so dense, here?

Back to Paul of course it will matter if he never rings. Stockton is great so was Nash but NOT winning a title keeps you out of GOAT convos imho. ESPECIALLY in the NBA. I cannot think of ONE guy in the NBA team sport or No ...that I consider to be in the GOAT convo that has NOT rang at least once and most have at least twice:

PG's: Magic 5, Isiah 5
SG: MJ 5 Kobe 5
SF: Lebron 2 Bird 3
PF: Duncan 5 (a case can be made for Chuck and Malone at#2 but since Duncan is the clear-cut winner here my point stands)
C: KAreem 6, Shaq: 4 Hakeem:2

YOu can give me all the team sport excuses etc. If you are a GOAT candidate you should ring ...PERIOD. And yes, they do matter. A LOT.

[Raven]

We were not discussing that (fanbase trashing legacy that was another thread) Amb, question was Paul's place among PG's. And my point was that rings matter. Here you go again with the wayyyy in left field analogies and comparisons. Who would argue Billups over Stockton? Is that a hot topic of debate at the water cooler, the local open gym or the barbershop where you live? :lol That is just as stupid as Horry vs. Jordan. Duncan's 5 definitely matters when compared to Shaq's 4, Hakeem's 2 etc.. I woudl give Duncan the edge over those guys before 5 but damn, being a HUGE contributor even as a 2nd or even 3rd bannana ABSOFUCKENLUTELY counts and adds to Tim's legacy quite a bit even if it is only to validate his greatness. And it would be silly to ignore when discussing Tim's place among the all-time greats. We dont compare Duncan to John Salley for exampl,e who has a smilar number of rings. Why must you be so dense, here?

Back to Paul of course it will matter if he never rings. Stockton is great so was Nash but NOT winning a title keeps you out of GOAT convos imho. ESPECIALLY in the NBA. I cannot think of ONE guy in the NBA team sport or No ...that I consider to be in the GOAT convo that has NOT rang at least once and most have at least twice:

PG's: Magic 5, Isiah 5
SG: MJ 5 Kobe 5
SF: Lebron 2 Bird 3
PF: Duncan 5 (a case can be made for Chuck and Malone at#2 but since Duncan is the clear-cut winner here my point stands)
C: KAreem 6, Shaq: 4 Hakeem:2

YOu can give me all the team sport excuses etc. If you are a GOAT candidate you should ring ...PERIOD. And yes, they do matter. A LOT.

where's wilt?

[ambchang]

We were not discussing that (fanbase trashing legacy that was another thread) Amb, question was Paul's place among PG's. And my point was that rings matter. Here you go again with the wayyyy in left field analogies and comparisons. Who would argue Billups over Stockton? Is that a hot topic of debate at the water cooler, the local open gym or the barbershop where you live? :lol That is just as stupid as Horry vs. Jordan. Duncan's 5 definitely matters when compared to Shaq's 4, Hakeem's 2 etc.. I woudl give Duncan the edge over those guys before 5 but damn, being a HUGE contributor even as a 2nd or even 3rd bannana ABSOFUCKENLUTELY counts and adds to Tim's legacy quite a bit even if it is only to validate his greatness. And it would be silly to ignore when discussing Tim's place among the all-time greats. We dont compare Duncan to John Salley for exampl,e who has a smilar number of rings. Why must you be so dense, here?

Billups was the lead banana for that excellent Pistons team that won a championship, Stockton was arguably the 2nd best player (though I would put him as the best) player on a team that never won a championship. This is not a case of Horry vs. Jordan or Salley vs. Duncan, Billups and Stockton were the respective top dogs on their teams, and one won a championship and the other didn't.

The thing is, put Stockton on the Pistons, and I am sure they win at least one championship, put Billups on the Jazz, they wouldn't likely make the finals. Which illustrates rings are functions of teammates, coaching, competition and individual talent, while personal accomplishments are more the function of individual talent than anything else. Logically speaking, it is contradictory to put team accomplishments ahead of personal accolades when evaluating individual legacies.

Duncan winning 5 does nothing to his legacy because we already know that Duncan can lead a team to championships being the clear top dog with a bunch of cast offs (03). The single 03 championship cemented his legacy, and put him on the strata of Hakeem (due to 94 championship). Shaq's absolute dominance in 01, and his ability to lead a team to a championship in 00 puts him in that same strata.


Back to Paul of course it will matter if he never rings. Stockton is great so was Nash but NOT winning a title keeps you out of GOAT convos imho. ESPECIALLY in the NBA. I cannot think of ONE guy in the NBA team sport or No ...that I consider to be in the GOAT convo that has NOT rang at least once and most have at least twice:

PG's: Magic 5, Isiah 5
SG: MJ 5 Kobe 5
SF: Lebron 2 Bird 3
PF: Duncan 5 (a case can be made for Chuck and Malone at#2 but since Duncan is the clear-cut winner here my point stands)
C: KAreem 6, Shaq: 4 Hakeem:2

YOu can give me all the team sport excuses etc. If you are a GOAT candidate you should ring ...PERIOD. And yes, they do matter. A LOT.

Stockton and Nash would not be GOATs even with multiple championships.

As for winning once or twice, I see that as definitely relevant, because it proves that a player is strong enough to have a winning team built around him, but whether the number is 1, 2 , 3, 4 or 5 is not important, it is important HOW those championships are won.

Also, Dirk and Garnett won a championship, and Dirk was clearly the man in the 11 run, why doesn't he make it over Chuck and Malone? Or are you going to try and argue comparing Dirk and Garnett to Chuck and Malone is like comparing Salley to Duncan?

[Killakobe81]

where's wilt?

In case you missed my stance on the subject. I dont rate players I never saw play. It's not fair to them or me. I am not a numbers guy. SO i would never just use that. As much as I value rings, rings alone or no good either. SO no Russell, Cousy, Oscar West or Elgin in my lists. yes, I have seen some "tape" on NBA's greatest games and I do have some of the Laker greats old games on DVD. But that is them at their best. I saw Magic, Kobe, Bird and even MJ WIN AND FAIL. Watched them in their primes so I can speak on those guys extensively. On what basis could I rank guys that retired before I was born? Kareem tbh barely makes the cut for me because I missed his true prime but saw enough of him to rank him first at center.

[dunkman]

It's hard to say Cousy didn't have much better career then Paul, but on the other hand his skills may not have translate to the modern NBA.

Oscar has won 'ships and was a 6'5" athletic freak PG with fantastic passing and scoring, saying he would be a scrub today is . . . no comments. It isn't hard to imagine why he was better then Paul.

Frazier led the Knicks to two 'ships and was a great defensive player, probably was better then Paul too.

DJ led the Sonics to a finals and a 'ship and was an integral part of another 2 'ship teams plus has made it to the finals another two times with the Celtics. He was a great defensive player. Has to be consdiered better then Paul.

Magic played little defense and wasn't a good option to defend PG's, but the way he impacted the game with his cluch passes, shots and ft's he's better then Paul hands down, made it 9 times to the finals with 5 'ships. I seriously doubt MJ would have 6 'ships or 5 MVP's shouldn't Magic retired so prematurely. The best ever PG.

Isaiah led the Pistons to 2 'ships and one finals, was better then Stock and clearly better then Paul too.

Stock made it to the finals two times, has played 20 seasons at very high level and was a good defensive player in his prime, Paul can't compare favorably.

Payton made it to the finals leading the Sonics and has contributed to win a 'ship past his prime with the Heat, was once a DPOY, many all-nba and all-defensive selection - has to be considered better too.

Kidd made it to the finals twice as the best player of the lowly Nets, has won a 'ship with the Mavs already past his prime, was also a great defensive player and very skilled running the point, was better then Paul.

Nash has two MVP's, one of those with Amare injured so it's a no-brainer who was the best player of the team, made it twice to the WCF's leading the Suns, fantastic shooter and great playmaker, his defense was bad but overall could be considered better then Paul.

Parker is a 4 times champion plus a finals, with multiple all-nba selections. His defense is above average. Paul may not have played with anyone as good as Duncan in his prime, but Parker is very consistent too. Put all in and has to be considered better then Paul.

However, Paul's career isn't over yet by any means, he could advance on the list.

[Killakobe81]

Billups was the lead banana for that excellent Pistons team that won a championship, Stockton was arguably the 2nd best player (though I would put him as the best) player on a team that never won a championship. This is not a case of Horry vs. Jordan or Salley vs. Duncan, Billups and Stockton were the respective top dogs on their teams, and one won a championship and the other didn't.

The thing is, put Stockton on the Pistons, and I am sure they win at least one championship, put Billups on the Jazz, they wouldn't likely make the finals. Which illustrates rings are functions of teammates, coaching, competition and individual talent, while personal accomplishments are more the function of individual talent than anything else. Logically speaking, it is contradictory to put team accomplishments ahead of personal accolades when evaluating individual legacies.

Duncan winning 5 does nothing to his legacy because we already know that Duncan can lead a team to championships being the clear top dog with a bunch of cast offs (03). The single 03 championship cemented his legacy, and put him on the strata of Hakeem (due to 94 championship). Shaq's absolute dominance in 01, and his ability to lead a team to a championship in 00 puts him in that same strata.



Stockton and Nash would not be GOATs even with multiple championships.

As for winning once or twice, I see that as definitely relevant, because it proves that a player is strong enough to have a winning team built around him, but whether the number is 1, 2 , 3, 4 or 5 is not important, it is important HOW those championships are won.

Also, Dirk and Garnett won a championship, and Dirk was clearly the man in the 11 run, why doesn't he make it over Chuck and Malone? Or are you going to try and argue comparing Dirk and Garnett to Chuck and Malone is like comparing Salley to Duncan?

1. agree how they won is very important but for themost part EVERY TRULY great player was a key contributor to their # of titles I cannot think of anyone that is in GOAT discussion for their position, that is not. Even Kareem at the end, duncan last year all were key contributors even if they were not the #2.

2. Ok you we can play the switch teams argument? Why do we need to do that when Isiah who played against Stockton head to head murdered him (so much so that Malone took a cheap shot to stop him) led his team to titles ...and beat the teams and players that people use as an excuse as to why Stockton did not ring? Isiah led teams that beat Magic, Bird and Jordan. Not only that but as good as Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman were he never had ANY team-mate as good on both ends as Karl Malone. Mj took a two year sabbatical so the MJ excuse doesnt work for me. Dream won. with Kenny freaking Smith as his PG and Otis thorpe as his #2. Not only did stockton have one of the best scorers at his disposal he also had a HOF coach and later on also one of the best pure shooters (hornacek) I have ever seen in person. So no, I dont excuse him for not ringing. You compete vs the guys you face. Despite having the #2 GOAT PF, a top 5 PG and a HOF coach they failed to win the ultimate prize. Isiah had great coaching and a great team a team that is vastly underrated, no doubt.But he also not only faced Jordan, but King, Bird and Magic. He won. Stockton is great absolutely and I agree in some ways even greater than Malone (more clutch definitely) but not greater than Isiah. Both imho are greater than Paul. Dont care what winshares per 48/pur point rating times PER says ...

3. Again duncan winning 5 does NOTHING to his legacy? Really?! Based on who or what? 5 (or more) is a very special club. Even if you take away your obsession only Magic, Kareem and MJ (GOATS) are in that club since 1980.Yes he proved he could win yes he proved he can play more of a David Robinson type role all of that PLUS rinnging adds to his legacy. who gives a shit if he accepts a lessor role but they lose?

4. Malone and Chuck are special cases. Like i said a case can be made for either as the #2 GOAT PF. But as great as KG or Dirk are (yes they rang) but as it stands today if they were both reired no neither are as great as Malone or Chuck. No, it's not like Billups vs. Stockton but I do believe there is a wide enough gap that the rings wont matter in the end. (im saying general consensus) If Dirk continues to put up numbers and have a significant impact on his team ESPECIALLY if rings again even as a #2 I could see an argument for Dirk as #2 . But for me, rings are really important.

[ambchang]

1. agree how they won is very important but for themost part EVERY TRULY great player was a key contributor to their # of titles I cannot think of anyone that is in GOAT discussion for their position, that is not. Even Kareem at the end, duncan last year all were key contributors even if they were not the #2.

Not entirely true, Kareem is actually a great example in 87 and 88. He was definitely a good player then, even all star level good, and he most definitely contributed to the championships. You can even argue that the Lakers wouldn't have won without him, but he didn't add much, if anything to his legacy with those two championships. His legacy was cemented a long time before then.

Same with Jordan, he was the best player in the league in 98, but his legacy would have been the same without that championship.

Duncan, same deal, his legacy has been cemented for years, whether he won in 14 or not is not consequential to his legacy.

If Hakeem won another two rings at the tail end of his career, he would have been the same player.

Shaq's Heat ring didn't add anything to his legacy of absolute dominance in the three peat.


2. Ok you we can play the switch teams argument? Why do we need to do that when Isiah who played against Stockton head to head murdered him (so much so that Malone took a cheap shot to stop him) led his team to titles ...and beat the teams and players that people use as an excuse as to why Stockton did not ring? Isiah led teams that beat Magic, Bird and Jordan. Not only that but as good as Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman were he never had ANY team-mate as good on both ends as Karl Malone. Mj took a two year sabbatical so the MJ excuse doesnt work for me. Dream won. with Kenny freaking Smith as his PG and Otis thorpe as his #2. Not only did stockton have one of the best scorers at his disposal he also had a HOF coach and later on also one of the best pure shooters (hornacek) I have ever seen in person. So no, I dont excuse him for not ringing. You compete vs the guys you face. Despite having the #2 GOAT PF, a top 5 PG and a HOF coach they failed to win the ultimate prize. Isiah had great coaching and a great team a team that is vastly underrated, no doubt.But he also not only faced Jordan, but King, Bird and Magic. He won. Stockton is great absolutely and I agree in some ways even greater than Malone (more clutch definitely) but not greater than Isiah. Both imho are greater than Paul. Dont care what winshares per 48/pur point rating times PER says ...

I flip flop on this, but I would agree that in most measures Isiah > Stockton. Not sure why your brought this in because I was talking about Stockton and Billups.

As for his teammates, Malone was an overrated choker. There are very few chokers in NBA history (I felt that term is being thrown around needlessly and unfairly by people who only look at boxscores and not the actual games), but Malone most definitely was a choker. I'd say Nick Anderson was the other one. If Stockton had Robinson or Barkley on his team instead of that pedophile, I am quite certain he would have rung, against Jordan or not.


3. Again duncan winning 5 does NOTHING to his legacy? Really?! Based on who or what? 5 (or more) is a very special club. Even if you take away your obsession only Magic, Kareem and MJ (GOATS) are in that club since 1980.Yes he proved he could win yes he proved he can play more of a David Robinson type role all of that PLUS rinnging adds to his legacy. who gives a shit if he accepts a lessor role but they lose?

Not really, no. If Duncan won 5 the way Jordan won 6, then he'd be in GOAT discussions, but he didn't.

Magic won 5, but he wasn't the absolute top dog in 80 and 82. 85 was a co-lead situation, and that was why even with 3 rings, Bird was widely viewed as greater than Magic even when he had 2 rings vs. Magic's 3. it wasn't until Magic rang in 87 and 88 as the absolute top dog and injuries to Bird that it became Magic > Bird. Again, it wasn't about the number of rings, and it was about how those rings were won.

And Duncan playing a Robinson role somehow adds to his legacy? Robinson will never be in the GOAT conversation because he never led his team to a title as the top dog. It's unfair to him because I'd like to see how the other GOAT big men would have done with Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro as their starting backcourt, with legendary coaches like Tark the Shark, John Lucas and Bob Hill leading the charge.


4. Malone and Chuck are special cases. Like i said a case can be made for either as the #2 GOAT PF. But as great as KG or Dirk are (yes they rang) but as it stands today if they were both reired no neither are as great as Malone or Chuck. No, it's not like Billups vs. Stockton but I do believe there is a wide enough gap that the rings wont matter in the end. (im saying general consensus) If Dirk continues to put up numbers and have a significant impact on his team ESPECIALLY if rings again even as a #2 I could see an argument for Dirk as #2 . But for me, rings are really important.

Why not? Dirk has one, Chuck has none. 1>0. Both were legendary PF that changed the way the position is perceived. Why is Barkley > Dirk, especially when rings are really important to you?

Same with Billups and Stockton.

[Raven]

In case you missed my stance on the subject. I dont rate players I never saw play. It's not fair to them or me. I am not a numbers guy. SO i would never just use that. As much as I value rings, rings alone or no good either. SO no Russell, Cousy, Oscar West or Elgin in my lists. yes, I have seen some "tape" on NBA's greatest games and I do have some of the Laker greats old games on DVD. But that is them at their best. I saw Magic, Kobe, Bird and even MJ WIN AND FAIL. Watched them in their primes so I can speak on those guys extensively. On what basis could I rank guys that retired before I was born? Kareem tbh barely makes the cut for me because I missed his true prime but saw enough of him to rank him first at center.

on what ground can you make lists of goats then anyway?

[lefty]

:lol OP

[Franklin]

Paul ain't even the 2nd best PG of his time imho.

[Arcadian]

I will argue that Duncan winning a 5th ring does help his legacy. The fact that one player was able to anchor a franchise for 17 years, and the fact that Pop and RC were able to consistently build title contenders around him for that long, is a feather in Tim's cap. He wasn't the best player on the 2014 team, but he was still the centerpiece. What other player was a centerpiece for 17 years?

Now, on the other hand, I would not say that he needed to win a 5th ring to be ranked as high as he is. I've had him ranked in the top 5 of all time since 2003 when he was at peak performance. I value peak more than longevity. Just making the Finals the last two years would have been enough to cement that legacy. But still, having the concrete accomplishment of actually winning it even further cements it. It adds something.

[Killakobe81]

on what ground can you make lists of goats then anyway?

1. Titles leading a team to multiple titles
2. Peak performance dominance over peers
3. Consistent greatness Hakeem had a great peak but Tim is great.
4. Stats/metrics important but need context
5. Eye test a non expert could watch a game and tell LeBron MJ are great

[CitizenDwayne]

Paul ain't even the 2nd best PG of his time imho.

CP3 is overrated as hell, but you're reaching a bit with that one.